Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"However, as my client has already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," the letter from Howard Walsh, Keyser's attorney, said. It continued that Keyser "does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/christine-blasey-ford-friend-leland-keyser-clarifies-statement-about-alleged-assault-by-brett-kavanaugh/


Cliffs of insanity party of millions...

Not a single Ford supporter will explain this.

It’s been explained so many times but I’ll do it again: that gathering was a non-event for Keyser so nobody expects her to remember. They went to the pool almost every day, it sounds like small gatherings after being at the pool were a regular occurrence, and Ford didn’t tell her about the assault. Can you recall every gathering big or small that you went to as a freshman in college and who was there? I certainly cannot, I pretty much just remember events, etc. with personal significance, even then I can’t remember much detail. Even though she doesn’t remember anything she trusts her friend and believes her.

You can explain to infinity but it's still just a supposition.

Leland was essentially patting her friend on the head, i.e. I believe you if you say it's true. I have a friend who is like Ms. Ford. What Leland WON'T do, is say she was somewhere she wasn't and that she knows a man she doesn't know. Because she's essentially under oath.

So the above is just a supposition, too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:John Nolte's take:

By any standard of truth, fairness, classical liberalism, evidence, and facts, Dr. Ford is not only not credible, she is nothing close to credible.

Let me count the ways…

She has aligned herself with the far-left.
She straight-up lied about being afraid to fly.
She said she wanted anonymity but continually reached out to the far-left Washington Post.
Her polygraph is a farce.
Her story has been carefully weaved into a Kafka-esque nightmare no man (even with detailed calendars) can ever escape from.
Every single one of her witnesses refutes her story — has no memory of the gathering in question or says it doesn’t happen, and this includes a lifelong friend.
Her team was so desperate to have The Woman Who Wants Anonymity to testify publicly, they turned down the opportunity to have her questioned in private at her home in California — and then lied about it.
Ford’s therapist’s notes from 2012 also refute here tale, even as the media and Democrats try to gaslight us into believing the opposite. Ford originally claimed four boys tried to rape her when she was in her late teens in the mid-eighties. Now she says it was one rapist and one bystander when she was 15 in the early eighties.
Ford refused to give her therapist’s notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In the statement she wrote out in her farce of a polygraph test, Ford crossed out “early 80’s” so it would only read “80’s.”
Ford told the Committee the “primary impact” of the event occurred during the “four years after” it happened. She goes on to say, “I struggled academically. I struggled very much in Chapel Hill and in College. When I was 17 I went off to college, I had a very hard time.” Note how she skips over two whole years, her junior and senior years in high school; the two school years directly after the attack (unless it did indeed happen in her late teens).
To later confirm the event did in fact happen in 1982, Ford told the Committee she was able to pin it down to 1982 because she remembered she did not yet have her drivers’ license. But… she also says she doesn’t remember how she got to or from the house party, so how does she know she didn’t drive herself?
Ford also used Mark Judge’s Safeway job to confirm the 1982 timeline. She testified she saw him working there 6-8 weeks after the attack. She could not yet drive, so her mother drove her there, but for some bizarre reason Ford and her mother entered the Safeway using different doors. (And now mom can’t confirm this happened!)
Five times during her testimony she mentioned Safeway to verify the date. How could she know such a thing unless it really happened? Well, in his memoir (which began circulating online among Kavanaugh critics in the week before Ford’s testimony) Judge helpfully reveals he was working at the “local supermarket” during the “summer before senior year.”
In summation: On top of all four of her own witnesses refuting her allegations against Kavanaugh, so too do the notes taken by her own therapist. (Margot Cleveland’s tweet thread was indispensable for much of this — you will want to read it all.)
Dr. Ford’s allegations are not only not credible — they are ludicrous, a joke…

Even what she does remember is so full of holes you could bounce Brian Stelter through it:

She didn’t hear two very drunk and belligerent boys sneak up on her?
Why was music already on in a room no one was using?
Wouldn’t blasting music ensure someone came upstairs to see what was going on, especially whoever’s house it was? This is completely counter-intuitive to criminal behavior.
After she locked herself in the bathroom, her rapists didn’t try to get at her? Didn’t jiggle the doorknob? Didn’t try to claim they were kidding? All tuned up for a rape, they just gave up and went downstairs laughing like nothing happened?
She remember how many beers she had (only one), but has been wildly inconsistent on the number of people who attended this small gathering, the number of people who were in the room where the assault allegedly happened, and by extension the number of boys who tried to rape her.
She left without telling her best friend?
She left without WARNING her best friend there were two rapists in the house?
No one asked why she was leaving or found it strange enough to ask her the following day why she just vanished from the party?
She can remember how many beers she had (one) but not whose house she was in, how she got home, the date, the place, how many people were there (sometimes it’s 4, or 5 or 6), or anything solid?
She will show the Washington Post her therapist’s note but not the Senate, which represents We the People?

I see you John Nolte's opinion and raise you Rachel Maddow's episode:

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/hearing-exposes-kavanaugh-temperament-credibility-issues-1331311171639?v=railb&

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting Ted talk on memory by a memory researcher who found that some people were going into therapy with one problem (depression, eating disorders, etc) and coming out of therapy false memories of abuse or horrific events that never actually happened to them due to 'repressed memory' psychotherapy.

Go to 8:43 at https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory#t-523210 and watch from there. It's really interesting.

Powerful quote from the end of the talk: "If I've learned anything from these decades of working on these problems it's this: just because somebody tells you something and they say it with confidence, just because they say it with lots of detail, just because they express emotion when they say it, it doesn't mean that it really happened."

+ 1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can everyone supporting Kavanaugh tell us why you are overlooking his obvious lies under oath? Putting all the allegations aside and just looking at the yearbook definitions he gave and is clearly lying about - how do you rationalize that? I really want to hear from someone.

This has been done over and over again. Go back and look through the thread.

Where? Where has this been adequately explained? It's been glossed over. But no, haven't seen anyone rationalize it.

Short answer... because what YOU are calling lies, are not lies. At all. It’s wishful thinking on your part because we know that you see your efforts falling apart and so you are diverting your efforts to come up with something you think will derail this nominee.

He lied about even watching Ford's testimony. I mean, as plain on the nose on your face, he lied.

Prove he did.

Scroll back a few hundred pages. There are Contemporaneous reports of him watching.

Sure. Post the pic.

It's a picture of him watching something that can't be seen. Did he watch the whole thing or was he indeed working on his own stuff and occasionally looked up?

You, or someone above, said they had proof he was watching the hearing. Prove it.

[Anonymous]

The judge went the typical lawyer/pol route: giving evasive answers, turning oppositional, and getting as close to lying if not lying on many issues. Standard practice. Except in certain situations. Certainly one of those situations is when you’re interviewing for a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE position. On national TV under oath. That is where you would not do this. Would never work.

Except it might.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting Ted talk on memory by a memory researcher who found that some people were going into therapy with one problem (depression, eating disorders, etc) and coming out of therapy false memories of abuse or horrific events that never actually happened to them due to 'repressed memory' psychotherapy.

Go to 8:43 at https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory#t-523210 and watch from there. It's really interesting.

Powerful quote from the end of the talk: "If I've learned anything from these decades of working on these problems it's this: just because somebody tells you something and they say it with confidence, just because they say it with lots of detail, just because they express emotion when they say it, it doesn't mean that it really happened."

+ 1,000

BINGO.
And, once again - the 4 people SHE gave as people who could corroborate her story were unable to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting Ted talk on memory by a memory researcher who found that some people were going into therapy with one problem (depression, eating disorders, etc) and coming out of therapy false memories of abuse or horrific events that never actually happened to them due to 'repressed memory' psychotherapy.

Go to 8:43 at https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory#t-523210 and watch from there. It's really interesting.

Powerful quote from the end of the talk: "If I've learned anything from these decades of working on these problems it's this: just because somebody tells you something and they say it with confidence, just because they say it with lots of detail, just because they express emotion when they say it, it doesn't mean that it really happened."

+ 1,000

BINGO.
And, once again - the 4 people SHE gave as people who could corroborate her story were unable to do that.

We get it. You think he is a lovely sweet man. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judge went the typical lawyer/pol route: giving evasive answers, turning oppositional, and getting as close to lying if not lying on many issues. Standard practice. Except in certain situations. Certainly one of those situations is when you’re interviewing for a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE position. On national TV under oath. That is where you would not do this. Would never work.

Except it might.

Kavanaugh showed himself to be a grade A d-bag on national television, no matter what he did in high school and college.
And he's probably going to be on the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dem Playbook:

Throw out unsubstantiated allegations of gang rape, attempted rape, and attempted murder

Make sure every media source repeats those allegations as fact

Make sure that any he said/she said is in front of the public

Attack the character of the accused when he dares himself

Make fun of the accused when he gets emotional when speaking of his wife and kids

Use the media to make fun of the accused

Continued.......

Ensure your witness has appropriate representation by referring her to an activist attorney

Call, repeatedly, and loudly, for an FBI investigation

Convince a Republican Senator that an FBI investigation is needed

Once the FBI investigation is ongoing, call it a “sham"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting Ted talk on memory by a memory researcher who found that some people were going into therapy with one problem (depression, eating disorders, etc) and coming out of therapy false memories of abuse or horrific events that never actually happened to them due to 'repressed memory' psychotherapy.

Go to 8:43 at https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory#t-523210 and watch from there. It's really interesting.

Fod has not had "repressed memory" therapy. PLus, her memory of the event was not repressed -- she just didn't tell anyone for a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting Ted talk on memory by a memory researcher who found that some people were going into therapy with one problem (depression, eating disorders, etc) and coming out of therapy false memories of abuse or horrific events that never actually happened to them due to 'repressed memory' psychotherapy.

Go to 8:43 at https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory#t-523210 and watch from there. It's really interesting.

Powerful quote from the end of the talk: "If I've learned anything from these decades of working on these problems it's this: just because somebody tells you something and they say it with confidence, just because they say it with lots of detail, just because they express emotion when they say it, it doesn't mean that it really happened."

+ 1,000

BINGO.
And, once again - the 4 people SHE gave as people who could corroborate her story were unable to do that.

We get it. You think he is a lovely sweet man. Got it.

One does not need to be pro-Kavanaugh to be appalled by the use of totally uncorroborated allegations against a nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting Ted talk on memory by a memory researcher who found that some people were going into therapy with one problem (depression, eating disorders, etc) and coming out of therapy false memories of abuse or horrific events that never actually happened to them due to 'repressed memory' psychotherapy.

Go to 8:43 at https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory#t-523210 and watch from there. It's really interesting.

Fod has not had "repressed memory" therapy. PLus, her memory of the event was not repressed -- she just didn't tell anyone for a long time.

How do you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dem Playbook:

Throw out unsubstantiated allegations of gang rape, attempted rape, and attempted murder

Make sure every media source repeats those allegations as fact

Make sure that any he said/she said is in front of the public

Attack the character of the accused when he dares himself

Make fun of the accused when he gets emotional when speaking of his wife and kids

Use the media to make fun of the accused

If the Dem playbook is so well known, how come Kav was stupid enough to fall for it, hook, line and sinker?? Not the brightest bulb on the porch, is he? Seems like we would want someone smarter for the job. It’s not like POTUS, which any orange idiot can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another witness from Yale - Chad Ludington



https://twitter.com/davidenrich/status/1046513030924828672

That's just a he said - he said situation. One guy says he was drinking and belligerent, the other guy will deny it. No proof right?

[Anonymous]

Prof. Ludington confirms serious lie. Kancel Kavanaugh