Kavanaugh vote postponed. Judiciary Committee hearing on Sexual Assault complain Monday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you read Patti Davis' (Ronals Reagan and Nancy Reagan's daughter) opinion article in Washington Post on Friday? I don't subscribe to the Post. I read only an excerpt of the article elsewhere and so I don't want to cite from it.

It was powerful and sad. Too bad the GOP members who worship Reagan won’t consider the words of his daughter who experienced the same victimization as Christina Blasey Ford.

How would we know that? Seriously, why should we believe Ford? Why believe Kavanaugh? Apart from your political team, why?

This has been stated many times but here it is again since you obviously haven't been paying attention:

1) there is no reason to think Ford is clairevoyant and was able in 2012 to predict Kavanaugh was going to be nominated and thus started making up stories about him to her therapist and then her husband. If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? This is what you who don't believe her are suggesting happened. Sorry, but Occam's razor applies here. The simplest reason she told those stories back starting back in 2012 is that they're true.

2) Kavanaugh by all accounts (his own yearbook, the circles, fraternity, and organizations he associated with) was part of a circle of males who partied hard. Many of us know exactly the type of male that is and how they relate to women. He may have been an altarboy but he sure didn't act like one outside of church.

3) Kavanaugh spent the 90s as a political, partisan hack working for Ken Starr. There have been many articles about this. Read the one from his colleague David Brock. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391

4) Kavanaugh outright lied during his hearings, so he has proven himself capable of lying when the stakes are big.

5) Who has the most to gain / the most to lose? Kavanaugh. He has more incentive to lie that Ford does.

6) Perhaps he isn't "lying" in the sense that he drank so much he doesn't remember what he did. I grant that is a possibility especially given his past. Again, "100 kegs club." Not a great track record there. Drunk boys do stupid, horrible things. And many of us women have been the recipients of their stupid behavior and know exactly what Ford is talking about because we experienced similar situations.

7) The incidents of men assaulting/harassing/terrorizing women and getting away with it vastly outnumber the incidents of women falsely accusing men of assaulting/harassing/terrorizing them. That is truth and women know it. Thus just by the law of chance, if you were to present 2 scenarios with no other corroborating evidence -- a man assaulted a woman and says he didn't do it, or a woman falsely accuses a man of assault -- it is far more likely (again based on actual cases) that the 1st one is the true scenario. You cannot say anything that will change that law of chance.

1) "If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? “
Back in 2012, Romney had a decent chance of winning the presidency. At the time, Kavanaugh’s name was been floated in the event of a Romney win. See CNN article linked. Kavanaugh was not an unknown.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/court-romney-list/index.html

2) You are convicting him based on accounts of others. If you are going to do that, you have to consider the accounts of many people who have said they have never seen him out-of-control drunk.

3) David Brock? Seriously? And, what does this statement have to do with the charges leveled against him by Dr. Ford?

4) No, he didn’t. Many legal experts have disputed your version.

5) Dr. Ford is not necessarily lying. Many of us have posited that something traumatic did happen to her - she just is recalling the details (that she remembers) incorrectly, particularly when it comes to the WHO of her version.

6) Maybe she was inebriated and is not remembering events. Just because he was a “member” of some fictitious club does not mean he, himself was a heavy drinker.

7) You are basing his guilty/innocence on mere statistics. Not on facts. The fact of THIS case are what need to be considered - not statistics on other assaults. And, the FACTS of this case are murky - some FACTS are unknown by the accuser and other FACTS, as she states them, are proving to be inconsistent with other evidence.

1) Occam's razor is your friend, my friend.

2) No, I am convicting him on what he chose to include in his yearbook page, the fraternity he chose to join in college, and the association he chose to join in college. T&C -- "No means yes. Yes means anal." Look it up. What kind of choir boy chooses to associate with a club with that motto?

3) Ah, just because someone changes their political affiliation, that means they are always lying? Nice try. David Brock was there in the room with BK during the Ken Starr days. He knows what he's talking about.

4) Yes he did and many eyewitness accounts to the days being referred to have stated he did. I trust them.

5) Like how you're saying she is misremembering and then in the next one you say

6) those others are remembering correctly. Well, maybe those others at the party were inebriated and are not remembering events. And please. No one believes your laughable suggestion that because he was a member of various clubs (that he added to his yearbook page) including one called C & T (look that up) that he didn't also partake in the heavy drinking atmosphere. No one.

7) Again, Occam's razor. Above someone asked given no other evidence why do you believe one over the other. Well, statistics, that's why.

I sure hope you're not a lawyer. Statistics don't count when there is a crime in question. Evidence does, and what you can prove.

The majority of the country does not find her credible.

Citation for your assertion? The only people who seem to doubt her credibility are die-hard partisan hacks.

And the 4 people she named to back her up....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you read Patti Davis' (Ronals Reagan and Nancy Reagan's daughter) opinion article in Washington Post on Friday? I don't subscribe to the Post. I read only an excerpt of the article elsewhere and so I don't want to cite from it.

It was powerful and sad. Too bad the GOP members who worship Reagan won’t consider the words of his daughter who experienced the same victimization as Christina Blasey Ford.

How would we know that? Seriously, why should we believe Ford? Why believe Kavanaugh? Apart from your political team, why?

This has been stated many times but here it is again since you obviously haven't been paying attention:

1) there is no reason to think Ford is clairevoyant and was able in 2012 to predict Kavanaugh was going to be nominated and thus started making up stories about him to her therapist and then her husband. If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? This is what you who don't believe her are suggesting happened. Sorry, but Occam's razor applies here. The simplest reason she told those stories back starting back in 2012 is that they're true.

2) Kavanaugh by all accounts (his own yearbook, the circles, fraternity, and organizations he associated with) was part of a circle of males who partied hard. Many of us know exactly the type of male that is and how they relate to women. He may have been an altarboy but he sure didn't act like one outside of church.

3) Kavanaugh spent the 90s as a political, partisan hack working for Ken Starr. There have been many articles about this. Read the one from his colleague David Brock. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391

4) Kavanaugh outright lied during his hearings, so he has proven himself capable of lying when the stakes are big.

5) Who has the most to gain / the most to lose? Kavanaugh. He has more incentive to lie that Ford does.

6) Perhaps he isn't "lying" in the sense that he drank so much he doesn't remember what he did. I grant that is a possibility especially given his past. Again, "100 kegs club." Not a great track record there. Drunk boys do stupid, horrible things. And many of us women have been the recipients of their stupid behavior and know exactly what Ford is talking about because we experienced similar situations.

7) The incidents of men assaulting/harassing/terrorizing women and getting away with it vastly outnumber the incidents of women falsely accusing men of assaulting/harassing/terrorizing them. That is truth and women know it. Thus just by the law of chance, if you were to present 2 scenarios with no other corroborating evidence -- a man assaulted a woman and says he didn't do it, or a woman falsely accuses a man of assault -- it is far more likely (again based on actual cases) that the 1st one is the true scenario. You cannot say anything that will change that law of chance.

1) "If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? “
Back in 2012, Romney had a decent chance of winning the presidency. At the time, Kavanaugh’s name was been floated in the event of a Romney win. See CNN article linked. Kavanaugh was not an unknown.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/court-romney-list/index.html

2) You are convicting him based on accounts of others. If you are going to do that, you have to consider the accounts of many people who have said they have never seen him out-of-control drunk.

3) David Brock? Seriously? And, what does this statement have to do with the charges leveled against him by Dr. Ford?

4) No, he didn’t. Many legal experts have disputed your version.

5) Dr. Ford is not necessarily lying. Many of us have posited that something traumatic did happen to her - she just is recalling the details (that she remembers) incorrectly, particularly when it comes to the WHO of her version.

6) Maybe she was inebriated and is not remembering events. Just because he was a “member” of some fictitious club does not mean he, himself was a heavy drinker.

7) You are basing his guilty/innocence on mere statistics. Not on facts. The fact of THIS case are what need to be considered - not statistics on other assaults. And, the FACTS of this case are murky - some FACTS are unknown by the accuser and other FACTS, as she states them, are proving to be inconsistent with other evidence.

1) Occam's razor is your friend, my friend.

2) No, I am convicting him on what he chose to include in his yearbook page, the fraternity he chose to join in college, and the association he chose to join in college. T&C -- "No means yes. Yes means anal." Look it up. What kind of choir boy chooses to associate with a club with that motto?

3) Ah, just because someone changes their political affiliation, that means they are always lying? Nice try. David Brock was there in the room with BK during the Ken Starr days. He knows what he's talking about.

4) Yes he did and many eyewitness accounts to the days being referred to have stated he did. I trust them.

5) Like how you're saying she is misremembering and then in the next one you say

6) those others are remembering correctly. Well, maybe those others at the party were inebriated and are not remembering events. And please. No one believes your laughable suggestion that because he was a member of various clubs (that he added to his yearbook page) including one called C & T (look that up) that he didn't also partake in the heavy drinking atmosphere. No one.

7) Again, Occam's razor. Above someone asked given no other evidence why do you believe one over the other. Well, statistics, that's why.

I sure hope you're not a lawyer. Statistics don't count when there is a crime in question. Evidence does, and what you can prove.

The majority of the country does not find her credible.

Citation for your assertion? The only people who seem to doubt her credibility are die-hard partisan hacks.

It was a poll in the Huffington Post. Only 28% of men and even fewer women (25%) find her credible. If you don't believe me, I'll find it and post the link.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction: Ford will not testify.

Letters sent to the senate judiciary committee by lawyers have the same legal consequences as testimony under oath.

Justice K stated he was not there.

Mark Judge stated he was not there.

PJ Smyth stated he was not there.

Ford’s long time girlfriend stated she was not there and doesn’t know Justice K.

From Holton’s 1984 yearbook, those girls in their senior year were preying younger boys for their freshness. Those white rich girls drank and partied just as hard.

She will not testify if she is still sane.

Well that’s the issue now, isn’t it. Apparently she’s not, and the people who know these facts and still support her are not.

1. Dr. Ford's mental state is at the center of it. She has been seeing therapy several times over the years. Do we know what the counseling was for?

2. Her college roommate at UNC, best friend and bridesmaid, Piwowarski told Ford that she never told her this story ever.

3. Her best friend from Holton, Leland Keyser, told congress she doesn't know Kavanaugh, and never attended such a party even though Ford named her being at the party.

Are you really this dense and unknoweagable or are you posting here to purposely muddle the facts?

1. She was in couples therapy -- lots of people do that, doesn't imply mental illness and even if it did, it does not imply that the person is unreliable.

2. college roommate stated in a WaPo article that she didn't know about the event until Ford recently asked her about it. People often don't tell anyone for years about sexual assaults.

3.Keyser said she doesn't recall.... which is different from stating she never attended.... Please get your facts straight.

All of my facts are correct. we differ what those facts mean in determining Dr. Ford's mental state.

1. She also did individual counseling before the reported couples therapy in 2012. None of us know definitely whether she has/had mental illness or not. We do know she had extensive therapy over the years for what we don't know. I think it's important to know that fact.

2. You are engaging circular reasoning here just as the senator from New York did. We don't know there was an event or not. It's only your opinion people don't tell their best friend/bridesmaid about past trauma. All we know for a fact she didn't tell her best friend/bridesmaid about this event ever.

3. SHE told Washington Post that Keyser, her longtime friend, attended the party. Keyser contradicted her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of my facts are correct. we differ what those facts mean in determining Dr. Ford's mental state.

1. She [...] her.

Does anyone else get the idea that Mrs. Kavanaugh and her friends are some busy bees on these threads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you read Patti Davis' (Ronals Reagan and Nancy Reagan's daughter) opinion article in Washington Post on Friday? I don't subscribe to the Post. I read only an excerpt of the article elsewhere and so I don't want to cite from it.

It was powerful and sad. Too bad the GOP members who worship Reagan won’t consider the words of his daughter who experienced the same victimization as Christina Blasey Ford.

How would we know that? Seriously, why should we believe Ford? Why believe Kavanaugh? Apart from your political team, why?

This has been stated many times but here it is again since you obviously haven't been paying attention:

1) there is no reason to think Ford is clairevoyant and was able in 2012 to predict Kavanaugh was going to be nominated and thus started making up stories about him to her therapist and then her husband. If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? This is what you who don't believe her are suggesting happened. Sorry, but Occam's razor applies here. The simplest reason she told those stories back starting back in 2012 is that they're true.

2) Kavanaugh by all accounts (his own yearbook, the circles, fraternity, and organizations he associated with) was part of a circle of males who partied hard. Many of us know exactly the type of male that is and how they relate to women. He may have been an altarboy but he sure didn't act like one outside of church.

3) Kavanaugh spent the 90s as a political, partisan hack working for Ken Starr. There have been many articles about this. Read the one from his colleague David Brock. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391

4) Kavanaugh outright lied during his hearings, so he has proven himself capable of lying when the stakes are big.

5) Who has the most to gain / the most to lose? Kavanaugh. He has more incentive to lie that Ford does.

6) Perhaps he isn't "lying" in the sense that he drank so much he doesn't remember what he did. I grant that is a possibility especially given his past. Again, "100 kegs club." Not a great track record there. Drunk boys do stupid, horrible things. And many of us women have been the recipients of their stupid behavior and know exactly what Ford is talking about because we experienced similar situations.

7) The incidents of men assaulting/harassing/terrorizing women and getting away with it vastly outnumber the incidents of women falsely accusing men of assaulting/harassing/terrorizing them. That is truth and women know it. Thus just by the law of chance, if you were to present 2 scenarios with no other corroborating evidence -- a man assaulted a woman and says he didn't do it, or a woman falsely accuses a man of assault -- it is far more likely (again based on actual cases) that the 1st one is the true scenario. You cannot say anything that will change that law of chance.

1) "If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? “
Back in 2012, Romney had a decent chance of winning the presidency. At the time, Kavanaugh’s name was been floated in the event of a Romney win. See CNN article linked. Kavanaugh was not an unknown.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/court-romney-list/index.html

2) You are convicting him based on accounts of others. If you are going to do that, you have to consider the accounts of many people who have said they have never seen him out-of-control drunk.

3) David Brock? Seriously? And, what does this statement have to do with the charges leveled against him by Dr. Ford?

4) No, he didn’t. Many legal experts have disputed your version.

5) Dr. Ford is not necessarily lying. Many of us have posited that something traumatic did happen to her - she just is recalling the details (that she remembers) incorrectly, particularly when it comes to the WHO of her version.

6) Maybe she was inebriated and is not remembering events. Just because he was a “member” of some fictitious club does not mean he, himself was a heavy drinker.

7) You are basing his guilty/innocence on mere statistics. Not on facts. The fact of THIS case are what need to be considered - not statistics on other assaults. And, the FACTS of this case are murky - some FACTS are unknown by the accuser and other FACTS, as she states them, are proving to be inconsistent with other evidence.

1) Occam's razor is your friend, my friend.

2) No, I am convicting him on what he chose to include in his yearbook page, the fraternity he chose to join in college, and the association he chose to join in college. T&C -- "No means yes. Yes means anal." Look it up. What kind of choir boy chooses to associate with a club with that motto?

3) Ah, just because someone changes their political affiliation, that means they are always lying? Nice try. David Brock was there in the room with BK during the Ken Starr days. He knows what he's talking about.

4) Yes he did and many eyewitness accounts to the days being referred to have stated he did. I trust them.

5) Like how you're saying she is misremembering and then in the next one you say

6) those others are remembering correctly. Well, maybe those others at the party were inebriated and are not remembering events. And please. No one believes your laughable suggestion that because he was a member of various clubs (that he added to his yearbook page) including one called C & T (look that up) that he didn't also partake in the heavy drinking atmosphere. No one.

7) Again, Occam's razor. Above someone asked given no other evidence why do you believe one over the other. Well, statistics, that's why.

I sure hope you're not a lawyer. Statistics don't count when there is a crime in question. Evidence does, and what you can prove.

The majority of the country does not find her credible.

Citation for your assertion? The only people who seem to doubt her credibility are die-hard partisan hacks.

And the 4 people she named to back her up....

Two of whom are accused of assaulting her.

And one of the other two doesn't remember the specific night, but does not doubt her credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of my facts are correct. we differ what those facts mean in determining Dr. Ford's mental state.

1. She [...] her.

Does anyone else get the idea that Mrs. Kavanaugh and her friends are some busy bees on these threads?

Because we bring evidence to contradict assertions people are making here?

Has it occurred to you that some people here want to safeguard the seriousness with which women's assault allegations are taken and feel that is undermined by high profile allegations as flimsy as Ford's?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My prediction: Ford will not testify.

Letters sent to the senate judiciary committee by lawyers have the same legal consequences as testimony under oath.

Justice K stated he was not there.

Mark Judge stated he was not there.

PJ Smyth stated he was not there.

Ford’s long time girlfriend stated she was not there and doesn’t know Justice K.

From Holton’s 1984 yearbook, those girls in their senior year were preying younger boys for their freshness. Those white rich girls drank and partied just as hard.

She will not testify if she is still sane.

Well that’s the issue now, isn’t it. Apparently she’s not, and the people who know these facts and still support her are not.

Dr. Ford's mental state is at the center of it. She has been seeing therapy several times over the years. Do we know what the counseling was for?

Her college roommate at UNC, best friend and ridesmaid, Piwowarski told Ford that she never told her this story ever.

Her best friend from Horton, Leland Keyser, told congress she doesn't know Kavanaugh, and never attended such a party even though Ford named her being at the party.

There is a passage in the original WaPo story that revealed Ford's name that appears to have gone unnoticed. Right below the paragraph that says the incident came out in a couples' therapy session in 2012 there is this:

"Notes from an individual therapy session the following year, when she was being treated for what she says have been long-term effects of the incident, show Ford described a “rape attempt” in her late teens."

Age 15 would not be described as "late teens." This could be another transcription error on top of the it was two boys, not four, but still this remains curious.

Could Ford have had a troubling incident in her late teens--say, when she was college age--and this is what has led to her reported ongoing trauma? That is, the two exit doors to her bedroom, the reluctance to fly, etc?

Her memory in 2012 was probably better than hers today. She can't defy the laws of aging.

Her house was about 10 miles from the swim club. She had to drive home or was given a ride. If it happened in her late teens, it would at least make sense that she drove home or her friends could have driven her home. She did not want her family to know about the party and didn't tell them. So only teens were involved in this event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of my facts are correct. we differ what those facts mean in determining Dr. Ford's mental state.

1. She [...] her.

Does anyone else get the idea that Mrs. Kavanaugh and her friends are some busy bees on these threads?

Because we bring evidence to contradict assertions people are making here?

Has it occurred to you that some people here want to safeguard the seriousness with which women's assault allegations are taken and feel that is undermined by high profile allegations as flimsy as Ford's?

Agree. I am appalled by these liberals who say we should believe her, regardless of any evidence, because women should be believed....because....well....

I bet these same women would sing a different tune if their husbands were accused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you read Patti Davis' (Ronals Reagan and Nancy Reagan's daughter) opinion article in Washington Post on Friday? I don't subscribe to the Post. I read only an excerpt of the article elsewhere and so I don't want to cite from it.

It was powerful and sad. Too bad the GOP members who worship Reagan won’t consider the words of his daughter who experienced the same victimization as Christina Blasey Ford.

How would we know that? Seriously, why should we believe Ford? Why believe Kavanaugh? Apart from your political team, why?

This has been stated many times but here it is again since you obviously haven't been paying attention:

1) there is no reason to think Ford is clairevoyant and was able in 2012 to predict Kavanaugh was going to be nominated and thus started making up stories about him to her therapist and then her husband. If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? This is what you who don't believe her are suggesting happened. Sorry, but Occam's razor applies here. The simplest reason she told those stories back starting back in 2012 is that they're true.

2) Kavanaugh by all accounts (his own yearbook, the circles, fraternity, and organizations he associated with) was part of a circle of males who partied hard. Many of us know exactly the type of male that is and how they relate to women. He may have been an altarboy but he sure didn't act like one outside of church.

3) Kavanaugh spent the 90s as a political, partisan hack working for Ken Starr. There have been many articles about this. Read the one from his colleague David Brock. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391

4) Kavanaugh outright lied during his hearings, so he has proven himself capable of lying when the stakes are big.

5) Who has the most to gain / the most to lose? Kavanaugh. He has more incentive to lie that Ford does.

6) Perhaps he isn't "lying" in the sense that he drank so much he doesn't remember what he did. I grant that is a possibility especially given his past. Again, "100 kegs club." Not a great track record there. Drunk boys do stupid, horrible things. And many of us women have been the recipients of their stupid behavior and know exactly what Ford is talking about because we experienced similar situations.

7) The incidents of men assaulting/harassing/terrorizing women and getting away with it vastly outnumber the incidents of women falsely accusing men of assaulting/harassing/terrorizing them. That is truth and women know it. Thus just by the law of chance, if you were to present 2 scenarios with no other corroborating evidence -- a man assaulted a woman and says he didn't do it, or a woman falsely accuses a man of assault -- it is far more likely (again based on actual cases) that the 1st one is the true scenario. You cannot say anything that will change that law of chance.

1) "If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? “
Back in 2012, Romney had a decent chance of winning the presidency. At the time, Kavanaugh’s name was been floated in the event of a Romney win. See CNN article linked. Kavanaugh was not an unknown.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/court-romney-list/index.html

2) You are convicting him based on accounts of others. If you are going to do that, you have to consider the accounts of many people who have said they have never seen him out-of-control drunk.

3) David Brock? Seriously? And, what does this statement have to do with the charges leveled against him by Dr. Ford?

4) No, he didn’t. Many legal experts have disputed your version.

5) Dr. Ford is not necessarily lying. Many of us have posited that something traumatic did happen to her - she just is recalling the details (that she remembers) incorrectly, particularly when it comes to the WHO of her version.

6) Maybe she was inebriated and is not remembering events. Just because he was a “member” of some fictitious club does not mean he, himself was a heavy drinker.

7) You are basing his guilty/innocence on mere statistics. Not on facts. The fact of THIS case are what need to be considered - not statistics on other assaults. And, the FACTS of this case are murky - some FACTS are unknown by the accuser and other FACTS, as she states them, are proving to be inconsistent with other evidence.

1) Occam's razor is your friend, my friend.

2) No, I am convicting him on what he chose to include in his yearbook page, the fraternity he chose to join in college, and the association he chose to join in college. T&C -- "No means yes. Yes means anal." Look it up. What kind of choir boy chooses to associate with a club with that motto?

3) Ah, just because someone changes their political affiliation, that means they are always lying? Nice try. David Brock was there in the room with BK during the Ken Starr days. He knows what he's talking about.

4) Yes he did and many eyewitness accounts to the days being referred to have stated he did. I trust them.

5) Like how you're saying she is misremembering and then in the next one you say

6) those others are remembering correctly. Well, maybe those others at the party were inebriated and are not remembering events. And please. No one believes your laughable suggestion that because he was a member of various clubs (that he added to his yearbook page) including one called C & T (look that up) that he didn't also partake in the heavy drinking atmosphere. No one.

7) Again, Occam's razor. Above someone asked given no other evidence why do you believe one over the other. Well, statistics, that's why.

I sure hope you're not a lawyer. Statistics don't count when there is a crime in question. Evidence does, and what you can prove.

The majority of the country does not find her credible.

Citation for your assertion? The only people who seem to doubt her credibility are die-hard partisan hacks.

And the 4 people she named to back her up....

Two of whom are accused of assaulting her.

And one of the other two doesn't remember the specific night, but does not doubt her credibility.

Even though she doesn't know Kavanuagh at all.

The WaPo didn't give a direct quote from Keyser on this. Just:

"In a brief interview at her home in Silver Spring, Keyser said that she did not recall the party, but that she was close friends with Ford and that she believes Ford’s allegation."

Allegation what--that sometime, somewhere something bad happened to her? Also doesn't appear that she doesn't live in Silver Spring...

[Anonymous]

^^It appears that she doesn't live in Silver Spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you read Patti Davis' (Ronals Reagan and Nancy Reagan's daughter) opinion article in Washington Post on Friday? I don't subscribe to the Post. I read only an excerpt of the article elsewhere and so I don't want to cite from it.

It was powerful and sad. Too bad the GOP members who worship Reagan won’t consider the words of his daughter who experienced the same victimization as Christina Blasey Ford.

How would we know that? Seriously, why should we believe Ford? Why believe Kavanaugh? Apart from your political team, why?

This has been stated many times but here it is again since you obviously haven't been paying attention:

1) there is no reason to think Ford is clairevoyant and was able in 2012 to predict Kavanaugh was going to be nominated and thus started making up stories about him to her therapist and then her husband. If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? This is what you who don't believe her are suggesting happened. Sorry, but Occam's razor applies here. The simplest reason she told those stories back starting back in 2012 is that they're true.

2) Kavanaugh by all accounts (his own yearbook, the circles, fraternity, and organizations he associated with) was part of a circle of males who partied hard. Many of us know exactly the type of male that is and how they relate to women. He may have been an altarboy but he sure didn't act like one outside of church.

3) Kavanaugh spent the 90s as a political, partisan hack working for Ken Starr. There have been many articles about this. Read the one from his colleague David Brock. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391

4) Kavanaugh outright lied during his hearings, so he has proven himself capable of lying when the stakes are big.

5) Who has the most to gain / the most to lose? Kavanaugh. He has more incentive to lie that Ford does.

6) Perhaps he isn't "lying" in the sense that he drank so much he doesn't remember what he did. I grant that is a possibility especially given his past. Again, "100 kegs club." Not a great track record there. Drunk boys do stupid, horrible things. And many of us women have been the recipients of their stupid behavior and know exactly what Ford is talking about because we experienced similar situations.

7) The incidents of men assaulting/harassing/terrorizing women and getting away with it vastly outnumber the incidents of women falsely accusing men of assaulting/harassing/terrorizing them. That is truth and women know it. Thus just by the law of chance, if you were to present 2 scenarios with no other corroborating evidence -- a man assaulted a woman and says he didn't do it, or a woman falsely accuses a man of assault -- it is far more likely (again based on actual cases) that the 1st one is the true scenario. You cannot say anything that will change that law of chance.

1) "If her accusation is simply a political calculation, please explain to me why she would make up a story of being attacked back when no one else had even heard of Kavanaugh. Why did she pick him out in particular. What Democratic operatives back in 2012 said, okay let's find a classmate or acquaintance of BK and have her start telling stories to her therapist and husband, just in case he gets nominated for something big? “
Back in 2012, Romney had a decent chance of winning the presidency. At the time, Kavanaugh’s name was been floated in the event of a Romney win. See CNN article linked. Kavanaugh was not an unknown.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/court-romney-list/index.html

2) You are convicting him based on accounts of others. If you are going to do that, you have to consider the accounts of many people who have said they have never seen him out-of-control drunk.

3) David Brock? Seriously? And, what does this statement have to do with the charges leveled against him by Dr. Ford?

4) No, he didn’t. Many legal experts have disputed your version.

5) Dr. Ford is not necessarily lying. Many of us have posited that something traumatic did happen to her - she just is recalling the details (that she remembers) incorrectly, particularly when it comes to the WHO of her version.

6) Maybe she was inebriated and is not remembering events. Just because he was a “member” of some fictitious club does not mean he, himself was a heavy drinker.

7) You are basing his guilty/innocence on mere statistics. Not on facts. The fact of THIS case are what need to be considered - not statistics on other assaults. And, the FACTS of this case are murky - some FACTS are unknown by the accuser and other FACTS, as she states them, are proving to be inconsistent with other evidence.

1) Occam's razor is your friend, my friend.

2) No, I am convicting him on what he chose to include in his yearbook page, the fraternity he chose to join in college, and the association he chose to join in college. T&C -- "No means yes. Yes means anal." Look it up. What kind of choir boy chooses to associate with a club with that motto?

3) Ah, just because someone changes their political affiliation, that means they are always lying? Nice try. David Brock was there in the room with BK during the Ken Starr days. He knows what he's talking about.

4) Yes he did and many eyewitness accounts to the days being referred to have stated he did. I trust them.

5) Like how you're saying she is misremembering and then in the next one you say

6) those others are remembering correctly. Well, maybe those others at the party were inebriated and are not remembering events. And please. No one believes your laughable suggestion that because he was a member of various clubs (that he added to his yearbook page) including one called C & T (look that up) that he didn't also partake in the heavy drinking atmosphere. No one.

7) Again, Occam's razor. Above someone asked given no other evidence why do you believe one over the other. Well, statistics, that's why.

I sure hope you're not a lawyer. Statistics don't count when there is a crime in question. Evidence does, and what you can prove.

The majority of the country does not find her credible.

Citation for your assertion? The only people who seem to doubt her credibility are die-hard partisan hacks.

It was a poll in the Huffington Post. Only 28% of men and even fewer women (25%) find her credible. If you don't believe me, I'll find it and post the link.

Here's the poll.

https://www.updateamerica.com/huffington_post_poll_asks_people_if_kavanaugh_accuser_sounds_credible_the_results_are_stunning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of my facts are correct. we differ what those facts mean in determining Dr. Ford's mental state.

1. She [...] her.

Does anyone else get the idea that Mrs. Kavanaugh and her friends are some busy bees on these threads?

Because we bring evidence to contradict assertions people are making here?

Has it occurred to you that some people here want to safeguard the seriousness with which women's assault allegations are taken and feel that is undermined by high profile allegations as flimsy as Ford's?

Yes, those of us who wanted to safeguard the seriousness of this investigation and the stakes for the nation wanted an FBI investigation done. The Kavanaugh Kheerleading Society had words about that.

And the Kavanaugh Kheerleading Society keeps citing “facts” and “evidence” that are neither. No one trusts you because you guys have been peddling so many horse apples that I kind of suspect, what with Bretty being a local good ol boy and all, that many of these nutty defenders of his - who, again, keep pulling their “facts” from their horse apple machine - maybe have a personally vested interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of my facts are correct. we differ what those facts mean in determining Dr. Ford's mental state.

1. She [...] her.

Does anyone else get the idea that Mrs. Kavanaugh and her friends are some busy bees on these threads?

Because we bring evidence to contradict assertions people are making here?

Has it occurred to you that some people here want to safeguard the seriousness with which women's assault allegations are taken and feel that is undermined by high profile allegations as flimsy as Ford's?

+100
And, as much as some people here hate men, there is this thing called “presumption of innocence.”
Lobbing false or inaccurate allegations at a man who has an exemplary record in treating women with respect and dignity is just wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of my facts are correct. we differ what those facts mean in determining Dr. Ford's mental state.

1. She [...] her.

Does anyone else get the idea that Mrs. Kavanaugh and her friends are some busy bees on these threads?

Repulsive thing to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of my facts are correct. we differ what those facts mean in determining Dr. Ford's mental state.

1. She [...] her.

Does anyone else get the idea that Mrs. Kavanaugh and her friends are some busy bees on these threads?

PP you are stooping to a new low here and that’s saying something.