Come on, guys. He didn’t put on his calendar that he sexually assaulted someone, so there’s no way it could have happened.*
Kavanaugh Vote Now in Jeopardy
- Thread starter DaShuckster
- Start date
- Status
She was asked how certain she was that it was him. She said 100%.
If you claim that she is lying or misremembering, that is your bias speaking.
If you claim that she is lying or misremembering, that is your bias speaking.
Kavanaugh didn't provide his calendar to counter Ms. Ford. He provided it to back those sworn statements from others Ms. Ford named who said they couldn't remember any parties. This caused Ford to say it might have not been 1982 as well.
Ms. Ford cannot provide any timeframe when this happened. I can understand that. It's completely understandable in a latent memory. Her friend from the time can only state she didn't even know Kavanaugh, not even after seeing all of his pictures, until years later ... and never saw him at any party. This was the same friend Ms. Ford said would collaborate there was a party, and Kavanaugh was there.
This is the problem with latent memories. I wish I could convey to you guys how many years it takes to piece things together, and how much you can get wrong, until you verify with multiple parties. Feinstein really screwed Ms. Ford on this too.
No, it's called me factoring in her own friend from the time period -- who Ms. Ford herself named as a collaborating witness -- saying they didn't know one another and weren't at any parties together. That means one of them is not remembering correctly, so I have to point out that fact.
The added issue is that Ms. Ford's memory is latent, by 30 years. So now that becomes a possible theory. And if you knew anything about latent memories, you'd know that they are not the same as actual, recalled memories. So that means the non-collaboration is now just as important as the memory.
That's objectivity 101. You want to discredit some facts, I feel the need to explain all facts.
Anita Hill ran into this same issue when someone she confided in completely countered her statements, and said they didn't know one another until later. Of course only C-Span was running the cameras then, the mainstream media news had discontinued filming and other coverage.
It was the total bombshell, and even Biden was taken back by it. It never made the news, and it was my first exposure to what happens when people undermine statements made by others. No one talked about that man Anita Hill allegedly confided in after that, it was nixed from her evidence, utterly.
Although in the case of Anita Hill, it wasn't a latent memory. It was a recalled memory. So any explanation of Anita Hill's memory must either be truth, or a lie. Then we have to look at his professional relationship of Hill's, as well as personal relationships, including those from his long-term secretary (among the others who worked in the same office), as well as comments Hill made about Thomas' wife.
It painted a very unflattering picture of Ms. Hill, whether true or not. People call this a character attack. But the problem is, the entire situation was a character attack in the first place. That's the problem.
The accusations on Kavanaugh are a character attack, whether people want to admit that or not. So we have to look at his character, and not ignore various aspects. He was an elitist with a known associate of poor character. That factors in. But it also factors in that people said he wasn't like that associate, many people.
Where does it end? Don't know. But we're not talking about a systematic rapist ... unless we factor in the 3rd accuser. And that is actually much easier to prove or disprove, but that 3rd accuser is not moving forward.
Last edited:
You should do a little research on polygraphs.
You should do a little research on memories and the reliability of witness testimony and even repressed memories before you make a statement like this.
Anyone been through a SSBI with a TS/SCI + Poly?
Also, anyone know why we don't require them, much more we limited their power, in a courtroom? How about what the federal government can get from them?
The polygraph is not a 'lie detector,' that's a misnomer. It's actually an interesting study of someone's response. That's why the federal government uses it. Some people cannot take them, because they cannot be read, and will always be limited in federal work as well, as a result.
BTW ... how about stress-voice? E.g., I personally cannot pass a stress-voice with regularity. It's a family trait (both my brother and I have it). That limits some individual like myself in some non-federal roles. It's considered unreliable by the feds for this reason too.
Last edited:
If only there were someone qualified to speak about matters of the brain....oh yeah... Dr. Ford!
I’m pretty neutral on the whole thing. As I said before, I don’t even think the incident was THAT big of a deal and I don’t like to see men’s careers get ruined due to allegations. Sure, it’s possible that Dr. Ford is lying or completely “misremembering”. However, she says she is 100% certain of what happened and who assaulted her. That’s pretty damn strong. And yes, sometimes women do lie, but history has shown us that the vast majority of women tell the truth when it comes to things like this.
Did you miss the whole aspect of why we, objectively, don't let people represent themselves? But let's entertain your point ...
You claim we must believe Dr. Ford, and ignore everything else, because she says so, ignoring latent memories from 35 years ago, that were only extracted in the last 5+ years. The key here is that we must ignore everything else, and she is her own expert on everything.
We refuse to believe anything else, no matter who comes forward, even if someone counters the accuser who the accuser named.
To question otherwise is to say she is lying, and enable rapists, like Mr. Kavanaugh. Which means ... it's always true, every accuser, no matter how far ago, no matter how many decades the memory was lost, and no matter what other evidence exists.
All I offered was all the evidence. You're free to ignore it all. And you're free to call me a Conservative that supports Kavanaugh as "my guy," ignoring my own political alignments and all of my objectivity. You can even blame me for enabling rapists, just like the Republicans too.
He never claimed such a thing and anyone with an IQ over 80 wouldn’t believe what you just typed. Incredibly disingenuous.
I don't think she's lying or misremembering either.
The fact is, she has no memory. She admits this. She had to piece it together in 2012+, using professionals. And she didn't even name Kavanaugh ... until 2016 or 2017 ... to her collaborating witnesses of 2013-2017.
I'm 100% certain of what happened to me too.
I said the same thing in the first 10 years of my latent memory. It was only after I recognized I had wrongly remembered someone, thanx to a friend, that I was no longer sure.
She's not lying. People with latent memories don't lie. They just try to 'piece together' their memory, which they cannot recall. The problem is that we piece things from other memories.
It's why I was so certain it was Colin for years 3-10. Until a friend I met up with last decade told me that I didn't even know him until 2 years later, after I had moved. Then I realized he couldn't have been in that house with me.
I was utterly off by 2 years, and a whole different person. I finally realized there was no certainty, only familiarity. I don't know his name, and I will never remember it. I don't know his face, only similarities.
The only thing I'm pretty certain of is his teenage voice, that would have changed greatly.
Yes, they do, over-whelmingly so in 93-98% of cases ... when it's a 'recalled' memory of a recent attack or rape claim. But only 20-33% of women report a rape (depending on how one defines it) short after when it happens.
That's where the statistics really break down.
Oh, BTW, we're also collecting DNA samples these days -- even though we cannot federally, but local/state can -- to allegedly 'improve rape convictions.' Tell me then ... how many rape cases go without a conviction, due to DNA evidence?
And how strong does DNA tie someone to evidence?
That's a tricky question ... because DNA is far less accurate than fingerprints.
I.e., it's usually a 1 in hundreds metric, which means you can match millions of Americans with a degree of certainty.
That's the problem ... people honestly don't understand what they are talking about.
Rapes are under-prosecuted and have very low conviction rapes.
We all want to solve it, but chalking it up to 'lying' is not the problem.
I think we all can believe this incident happened to Ms. Ford.
Heck, I even believe the 3rd accuser on the rape drugs and gang rapes.
The problem is ... she didn't remember Kavanaugh until 2016 or 2017.
Then what did he say?
He's saying we must believe Ms. Ford because women don't lie or misremember in cases of attacks/rape.
I'm merely pointing out this isn't a case of a recalled memory in a recent attack/rape.
And we have non-collaborating facts from people Ms. Ford originally said were witnesses.
Had that never happened, there would be few facts to counter Ms. Ford.
^^^ This is what a 1-liner with media looks like.
The advertising-driven US media would be proud, just don't try that at NPR or PBS.
Yep, because the ABA gave him their highest 'well qualified' rating, and it was unanimous.
The ABA has always come under scrutiny. It's usually been from the right** in recent times, but now that ABA is feeling the heat from the left.
It must be pretty intense, because the ABA usually doesn't weigh in on things like this. Politics at its finest, end justifies the means.
**Examples of right wing scrutiny of the ABA's ratings:
https://afj.org/press-room/press-releases/update-aba-rating-should-be-viewed-skeptically
I am and it’s not bias but I think she is. Tell me this, why did her attorneys scrub her online identities before her name was released?
This guy Trel is just another leftie going to the bottom rung of gutter partisan politics
John Coryn nailed it yesterday. The Senate Democrats are making a mockery of the Senate and have gone to a new low in how they’ve handled this entire smear campaign. Aided by extremists like many of the people in this thread.
You talked in your interview with Martha MacCallum the other night about a fair process. Some of my colleagues across the aisle say, “Well, the burden is not on the accuser because the is is a job interview. The burden is on you.” But you said you weren’t there and it didn’t happen. It’s impossible for you to prove a negative.
So I would just suggest that you have been accused of a crime and that a fair process under the United States Constitution and our notion of fair play means that the people who make an accusation against you have to come forward with some evidence. Isn’t that part of a fair process? …
And part of that means that if you’re going to make an allegation, there needs to be corroboration. In other words, you’re not guilty because somebody makes an accusation against you in this country. We’re not a police state. We don’t give the government that kind of power. We insist that those charges be proven by competent evidence.
And I know we’re not in a court; I’ve told my colleagues that, if we were in court, half of them would be in contempt of court. But you have been accused of a crime, and I believe fundamental notions of fair play and justice in our constitutional system require that if someone’s going to make that accusation against you, then they need to come forward with some corroboration, not just allegations.
You talked in your interview with Martha MacCallum the other night about a fair process. Some of my colleagues across the aisle say, “Well, the burden is not on the accuser because the is is a job interview. The burden is on you.” But you said you weren’t there and it didn’t happen. It’s impossible for you to prove a negative.
So I would just suggest that you have been accused of a crime and that a fair process under the United States Constitution and our notion of fair play means that the people who make an accusation against you have to come forward with some evidence. Isn’t that part of a fair process? …
And part of that means that if you’re going to make an allegation, there needs to be corroboration. In other words, you’re not guilty because somebody makes an accusation against you in this country. We’re not a police state. We don’t give the government that kind of power. We insist that those charges be proven by competent evidence.
And I know we’re not in a court; I’ve told my colleagues that, if we were in court, half of them would be in contempt of court. But you have been accused of a crime, and I believe fundamental notions of fair play and justice in our constitutional system require that if someone’s going to make that accusation against you, then they need to come forward with some corroboration, not just allegations.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/79873...ghs-tells-cnn-lied-senate-judiciary-committee
This is what I'm talking about. His definitive statement about never passing out and no memory loss is a lie under oath plain and simple. We have no evidence of Dr. Ford being dishonest republicans only say she was mistaken who attacked her. Only Kavanaugh, the potential supreme court justice, lied yesterday.
This is what I'm talking about. His definitive statement about never passing out and no memory loss is a lie under oath plain and simple. We have no evidence of Dr. Ford being dishonest republicans only say she was mistaken who attacked her. Only Kavanaugh, the potential supreme court justice, lied yesterday.
As qualified as Kavanaugh is and as good a justice as I think he would be, after hearing his testimony, I don't think he should be confirmed. When the senators started asking him about his drinking, it was obvious he was being misleading and that isn't right.
I don't think it was fair of them to attempt to demonize him for his drinking in high school and college because it doesn't matter. I don't think it was fair of them to demonize him for the things that were written in his yearbook - it was fvcking high school for goodness sake. I don't think it's fair to judge someone for their actions in their high school and college years.
I'm 51 years old and not even close to the same person I was in high school and college. I was immature back then as everyone is/was.
The Senate confirmation hearings are a political joke and a fvcking circus. It truly saddens me. All politicians are sh!t and I despise what they do.
One other thing...people suck.
Kavanaugh should have said what you just typed. But he didn't, he doubled down and lied. He should have admitted to making poor choices in his youth. People can forgive that because people relate to that. Instead he tried to convince us that devil's triangle is a drinking game with 3 glasses and quarters.
I have to ask why this was scrubbed?
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=2403544
It seems all her on line profiles were scrubbed. Why?
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=2403544
It seems all her on line profiles were scrubbed. Why?
My guess is that the site was being used to attack a sexual assault victim for coming forward. The company who runs that site is in control of that decision.
His responses were in lieu of what would have been an objection by an attorney in a court case. Leading the witness, relevancy, etc.
It was obvious what the senators were trying to accomplish here, just to delay the vote and get him to endorse the idea.
I'm to the point where I say screw it. The hearings are just a big a joke because of the senators. We put our faith in these hypocritical bastards to do the right thing as if they have been perfect throughout their lives and are worthy of judging. They are the biggest scumbags of all. No one is perfect and Kavanaugh has proven himself to have matured into a good person since the mistakes he made in high school and college. So confirm him and be done. It's all bullsh!t.
Maybe but doubtful considering it was scrubbed before her name was released. Also, where is her family, she has two brothers and parents and none of them where at the meetings yesterday or have released any statements. If she were my daughter, first I get her the help she needs, but I would be out front defending her.
He lied to the Senate yesterday...
You can't be a supreme court justice and be so willing to sacrifice your basic ethics when confronted with a difficult situation. I'd say the same thing about a dem. If you are willing to lie under oath you cannot make these decisions.
Agree. Vote on him and let the accusers file reports in MD. They’ll get their investigations and, if he’s found guilty, they can have a big public hearing where they consider whether to impeach him or not. Dems could have a field day with the sound bites. GOP’ers would pretty much have to vote for impeachment. They’d get what they want and it’d happen right before the 2020 election.
Of course, I can’t see how there could be any chance of proving any of this beyond a reasonable doubt.
A subpoena to the social media providers would retrieve those posts. Assuming the companies would comply with a federal or state subpoena.
One thing I find curious: the other guys name is Mark Judge. I'm not making this claim at all, but I could see how spending time talking with a therapist and trying to rebuild memories, she could have created the association with Judge Kavanaugh in her mind due to the similarity and familiarity.
Also, largely missing in this whole thing is that 2 men came forward and stated that they were actually the ones in the room with her.
Also, largely missing in this whole thing is that 2 men came forward and stated that they were actually the ones in the room with her.
It is insane that you're trying to make up unlikely scenarios that could clear Kavanaughs name but you're not willing to believe a likely scenario given his history of dishonesty to the Senate and alcohol abuse and sexual perversion.
I said I am not claiming it at all, but I know how things like this work with therapists and presented it as a possibility.
Btw, if senate dems are so certain that this event did happen, why didnt they ask him a single question about it yesterday?
Which is clearly an attempt to muddy the waters. You actually believe those claims? Because people are so forthcoming about sexually abusing others...that doesn't strike you as the least bit odd?
- Status
Similar threads
