Kavanaugh is on fire

[Tom B]

Even before it was announced publicly. Well, aren't you special.

You're not. It is very likely Ford had knowledge of his nomination as well. From Wikipedia:

President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 25, 2003,[53] but his nomination stalled in the Senate for nearly three years. Democratic senators accused him of being too partisan, with Senator Dick Durbin calling him the "Forrest Gump of Republican politics".[54] In 2003, the American Bar Association rated Kavanaugh as "well qualified", but, after opposition from Senate Democrats, rated him in 2006 as only "qualified".[31] His nomination was opposed by People for the American Way.[55] The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended he be confirmed on a 10–8 party-line vote on May 11, 2006,[56] he was confirmed by the Sentate on May 26 by a vote of 57–36,[57][58] was sworn in June 1.[59] He was the fourth judge nominated to the D.C. Circuit by Bush and confirmed. Kavanaugh began hearing cases on September 11 and had his formal investiture on September 27.[60]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

According to Ford's "logic" she would not have been able to speak out against Kavanaugh's appointment to the DC bench because Kav was appointed in 2006 but she did not recall being attacked by Kav at the party until her therapy session in 2012.

You have to enter into her mind for all of this to make sense, and that is not necessarily a tidy place. Not to worry though. Everything could change at any time. It's all good. Unless you are the accused.

 

[Optionpro007]

Nolte: Christine Blasey Ford Brought No Evidence but Plenty of Contradictions

• 
  

Saul Loeb-Pool/Getty
JOHN NOLTE 28 Sep 2018


Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to sexually assault her in 1982 when they were both teenagers, sounded credible to a lot of people. Even those who want to see Kavanaugh confirmed are writing and talking about how credible she sounded, how real and raw.

At the risk of sounding callous — So what?

Now that we live in this Orwellian world where if you do not express the CorrectThink, your humanity is suspect, maybe people are saying this because that is what we are supposed to say. Well, all I know is that I did not find her at all credible — and I am not going to say anything different.

I certainly sympathized with Dr. Ford, and she did change my mind about one thing. I no longer believe she was part of a grand plan to destroy Kavanaugh. Rather, I do believe she wanted to remain anonymous, I do believe she is a victim of the Senate Democrats who re-victimized a woman who has already been damaged in some terrible way.

But was she a credible witness, believable…?


Not even close.

Even what Dr. Ford remembers doesn’t add up.

According to Dr. Ford: She attended a house party miles from her home. She had one beer. There were four or five other people at the party, including her best friend, Leland Ingham Keyser. Brett (Kavanaugh) and Mark (Judge) were already drunk and belligerent. She went upstairs to use the bathroom. Suddenly she was attacked from behind and shoved into a bedroom. Brett and Mark turned the music up so no one would hear her scream as they attempted to rape her. She got away. Locked herself in a bathroom. She waited until it was safe; until she heard Brett and Mark “ping pong” off the walls down the stairs. After it was safe, she ran down the stairs and left the house. She cannot remember who drove her to the party or how she got home.

• In a suburban home in Maryland there was no downstairs bathroom?
• She didn’t hear two very drunk and belligerent boys try to sneak up on her?
• Why was music already on in a room no one was using?
• Wouldn’t blasting the music ensure someone came upstairs to see what was going on, especially whoever’s house it was? This is completely counterintuitive to criminal behavior.
• After she locked herself in the bathroom, Brett and Mark 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 like nothing happened?
• She left without telling her best friend?
• She left without WARNING her 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?

The only way her story adds up is if you are trying to weave the stuff of Kafka, where the accused cannot grab hold of something to clear himself, not even with an alibi because there is no where or when. In this respect, it is all a tad too neat.


As harrowing as her story is, upon close examination, nothing about it makes any sense.

Then we come to the most damaging elements, the facts and contradictions that actually do undermine Dr. Ford’s credibility:

• From A to Z she has aligned herself with the far-left. Look at the politicians and newspaper (Washington Post) she approached, the highly partisan lawyers she hired, and the talking points she parrots to stall Kavanaugh’s confirmation (afraid to fly, demanding an FBI investigation).
• She lied about her fear of flying. There is no question about this. In order to stall the Committee, her attorneys claimed the 1982 event had so damaged Dr. Ford she cannot be in confined spaces, most especially an airplane; so the hearing would have to wait a week. But now we know she flies all the time. Without being sarcastic, you can call her a world traveler. She travels the world for pleasure. Travel is her passion.
• There is no clean way to lay out exactly what happened, but there is no doubt Dr. Ford’s activist lawyers received the Committee’s offer to fly out to California to meet with Ford in private, and that Team Ford turned down this offer for mercenary reasons: to slow down the confirmation process (the number one goal of Democrats) and to avoid an in-depth interview of Dr. Ford by a skilled professional.
• Every single witness — Every. Single. One. — named by Ford refutes her testimony. Every person she named as being at that house party either says they remember no such thing or that it did not happen. One of those witnesses is her lifelong friend, Leland Ingham Keyser, which bring me to something that must be said…
• Again, I know I am not supposed to say this, but I thought Dr. Ford’s mask slipped more than a little when, during her Thursday testimony, she dropped her lifelong friend in the grease and did so in front of the whole world. Ford basically called Keyser a liar who was too sickly and ill to bother to tell the truth.
• This may be a small thing, but a college professor with a PhD doesn’t know what “exculpatory” means?
• Dr. Ford’s polygraph is a joke. She was only asked two very broad questions about a “statement” — Is any part of your statement false? Did you make up any part of your statement? — Because she will not supply video or audio of the polygraph session, how can we know what statement she was asked about? There were no specific questions about the actual event, Kavanaugh, or an attempted sexual assault. Polygraphs are sketchy enough, this one is a farce.
• Ford refuses to give the Committee her therapist’s notes, even after she showed them (or part of them) to the Washington Post. When your credibility is on the line, you hold nothing back.

And so…

How Christine Blasey Ford can sound credible to anyone interested in facts, consistency, corroboration, witness testimony, fairness, due process, the Constitution, or evidence is beyond my comprehension.

 

[Max E.]

So then Ford's testimony describes "nothing" as far as you're concerned, even if true as alleged?

Her testimony is nothing due to the fact that every single person who was there has no recollection. Accusations 36 years out without any kind of corroborating evidence, are indeed, meaningless in my eyes.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

You're not. It is very likely Ford had knowledge of his nomination as well. From Wikipedia:

President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 25, 2003,[53] but his nomination stalled in the Senate for nearly three years. Democratic senators accused him of being too partisan, with Senator Dick Durbin calling him the "Forrest Gump of Republican politics".[54] In 2003, the American Bar Association rated Kavanaugh as "well qualified", but, after opposition from Senate Democrats, rated him in 2006 as only "qualified".[31] His nomination was opposed by People for the American Way.[55] The Senate Judiciary Committee recommended he be confirmed on a 10–8 party-line vote on May 11, 2006,[56] he was confirmed by the Sentate on May 26 by a vote of 57–36,[57][58] was sworn in June 1.[59] He was the fourth judge nominated to the D.C. Circuit by Bush and confirmed. Kavanaugh began hearing cases on September 11 and had his formal investiture on September 27.[60]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh

I'm guessing the senate hearing for his earlier nomination was not televised or even widely reported. So when and where did you hear about it?

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Her testimony is nothing due to the fact that every single person who was there has no recollection. Accusations 36 years out without any kind of corroborating evidence, are indeed, meaningless in my eyes.

Then accuse her of lying rather than claiming that the nature of the accusations are "nothing." There's a difference.

 

[Max E.]

Then say she's lying rather than that the nature of the accusations are "nothing." There's a difference.

Like i said earlier i dont necessarily believe she is maliciously making the story up memory over time is bad, notoriously bad, so its quite likely that she created this story in her head and it built and built and built over time......

The way the dems played it seems to imply its a hatchet job.... if they thought it was credible they wouldnt have waited till the last hour to present it if this woman had been terribly wronged.

They didnt even believe enough in this to throw it out as a legitimate argument, it was a last minute hail mary that the media ate hook line and sinker.

 

[Tom B]

I'm guessing the senate hearing for his earlier nomination was not televised or even widely reported. So when and where did you hear about it?

Stop guessing. Try to focus on the topic of the thread. I am not going to waste my time with you, a 60+ year-old Canadian incel, who wants to divert the discussion when you are losing the argument.

 

[Max E.]

Then accuse her of lying rather than claiming that the nature of the accusations are "nothing." There's a difference.

Deborah Ramirez only remembered that Kavanaugh stuck his dick in her face after a week of consulting her lawyer...... who also happens to be a democratic operative..... Shocking....

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Stop guessing. Try to focus on the topic of the thread.

Stop evading the question and answer it.