He Said She Said...

1. 85

   Sharlee01posted 5 years ago

   
   What happened to the "Scales Of Justice"?  Innocent until proven guilty...  If one were to take a breather and look at evidence or lack of evidence in the case the Dems have brought against Judge Brett Kavanaugh they might just realize Christine Blasey Fords allegations need further investigation. Yes, we have had six investigations on the judge, and a seventh currently underway. However, we know literally nothing about Ford, her childhood, her teen years, her pathway to adulthood. We do know all her social media has been scrubbed. We do know no friend, neighbors, family or coworkers have stepped up to support her character.  And yes, there have been many organizations have gathered signatures on petitions to offer support, none of which actually can actually say they know her personally.     We also know the people  Ford claimed were at the party where the alleges sexual attack took place one of which was a close friend, have given statements that they have no memory of such an event. We also know their statements hold a penalty of a felony for lying.   
   
   At the opposite end of the scales, we have the "Judge". He has led an exemplary life in the public eye. He has a long list of accomplishments and more than 65 women that have worked with him have stepped up to support his character. In 36 years  he has had no one accuse him of any form of abuse.  He has had not one scandal. He has not altered or scrubbed his social media. and has been investigated  6 times by the FBI. He has had a multitude of people step up and support his good character. People that are well acquainted with him.  He has a good record of supporting women in the workplace.  Many longtime friends as well of previous  " girlfriends" from his high school years have given interviews to give us an inside look at his high school years, and his behavior. None of which would make one conclude he would commit sexual abuse.
   
   After considering what facts we have on both sides, the scales tilt in favor of the judge.  What has become of innocent until proven guilty?  We have a preponderance of the evidence that supports Judge Kavanaugh's character,  while we have zero evidence to support  Dr. Ford's character. Her past is a mystery, it seems she has no one willing to step up and support her character, not even her husband? It all seems so very odd.  Hopefully, the FBI investigation will help bring clarification, and or answers.
   
   My question -  Which way do you think the scales are tipping?  And would you be personally comfortable in finding Kavanaugh guilty of sexual abuse with what we know so far?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No evidence has been offered to support the allegation. But, isn't that about 50% of the #metoo movement? They are raping and pillaging truth and justice.

      replyreport
   2. 82

      Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Looks like he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee while under oath. Doesn't matter what kind of life he's lead. That's a disqualifier for a Supreme Court judgeship.
      
      And while he's entitled to feel whatever emotion he feels, if he doesn't have the self-control necessary to rein that in during the interview for the job, that suggests he wouldn't be able to do so on the job itself.
      
      Having said that, I still think there's a chance he can be confirmed, because, yes, the current GOP is truly that awful.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Would lying also be a disqualifier for belief in the committee hearing?  Thinking of the fear of flying and didn't understand the committee offer to come to Ford.
         
         Or perhaps the anger shown is needed in today's climate of innuendo, talking around the topic, and faked outrage while posturing.  It was honest, it was real and came across much, much better than stupid questions like "Why won't you help us subvert the committee desires and ruin your life?".

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            If Ford were applying to be a judge on the Supreme Court, and it was cleared she lied under oath, then yes it would be a disqualifier.
            
            Self-control is an important quality for a Supreme Court judge. His outburst indicates he doesn't have that quality.

            replyreport
            1. 85

               Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Once again what did he lie about?

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Kavanaugh said: "Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a longtime friend of hers".
                  
                  That's untrue. Patrick J. Smyth said he had "no knowledge of" the allegation of improper conduct. He did not refute Ford's allegation.
                  
                  Leland Ingham Keyser (Ford's friend) said she had "no recollection" of the incident, but did not refute Ford's allegation. She said she "believes" Ford.
                  
                  Kavanaugh is a federal judge. He knows the difference between refuted and uncorroborated. He lied when he said Ford's allegation had been refuted.
                  
                  And there is a long list of other things Kavanaugh was untruthful about, including the fact he claimed not to know about the Ramirez allegation until it appeared in the New Yorker. But text messages indicate he was in contact with his friends about the allegation before it was made public.
                  
                  As for the meaning of "devil's triangle" and "boofing". I'll leave you to look those up.

                  replyreport
                  1. 85

                     Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Don,
                     
                     
                     
                     
                     Smyth refutes Ford's allegation,   Full statement - " Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."
                     https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics … index.html
                     
                     A statement presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Saturday, Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate of Ford's at the Holton-Arms all-girls school in Maryland, said she doesn’t know Kavanaugh or remember being at the party with him.    "Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” lawyer Howard J. Walsh III of Bethesda, Md."
                     Devil's Triangle has been around a very long time. It's a drinking game.
                     
                     A triangle of filled Dixie cups (Any number which forms an equilateral triangle) is set up on one end of a ping pong table with the shooter at the other end trying to bounce a ping pong ball into a cup. You bounce the ball into the cup and you get to choose which of the player's drinks. Boofing is passing gas at least it was when I was in college. My God, do you see what you are doing? Your more or less accusing someone of without any kind of proof.  This is all so ridiculous, and sad to see so many want to condemn a man that pretty much led a good honest life. Many of us have done things in high school that we may not be proud of.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Not recalling is not the same as refuting.
                        
                        Kavanaugh said all four people refuted Ford's allegation. They did not. He said something he knew to be untrue. That is, by definition, lying. He did it multiple times, to a Senate Committee, under oath. That should disqualify someone for elevation to the Supreme Court.
                        
                        But I'm not arguing with you on this, nor on what those terms mean. You have previously made incorrect statements and insisted they are accurate when they are demonstrably not (remember the statements you made about the statutes of limitations in Maryland?) Did you ever accept those comments were factually incorrect? If not, that indicates you are unable to admit when you are wrong, which makes for a futile discussion.

                        replyreport
                        1. 85

                           Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Hopefully, you have learned of Ford lying under oath? Fords boyfriend provided a sworn under oath letter which he said Ford coached another woman how to beat a lie detector test.  Your argument is on a poor choice of words? It is certainly not a  lie but could be looked at the as poor choice of a word...  Ford's credibility is in question she openly lied three times on the subject of coaching someone in how to beat a lie detector test. She lied about flying, and the door she had built into her home. The door was put in to give privacy to a renter.

                           replyreport
                           1. 95

                              wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              "Ford's credibility is in question she openly lied three times on the subject of coaching someone in how to beat a lie detector test."
                              
                              News to me.  Additional information and link, please?

                              replyreport
                           2. 82

                              Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              I hadn't heard that, but the same standard applies. If Kavanaugh said something he knew to be untrue (multiple times), then he lied under oath. Same applies to Ford. 
                              
                              Only difference is that Kavanaugh is applying for a job as a Supreme Court judge. Lying under oath should disqualify someone from that job.
                              
                              It likely won't, but it should.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 Sure, Kavanaugh said the witnesses "refuted" Ford's testimony rather that "failed to recall".  Any of the Senators listening to Kavanaugh knew what words the witnesses used, and if they thought Kavanaugh was trying to lie his way out of dealing with the testimony of the witnesses, they could have called him on it - I don't recall any of them doing that. 
                                 
                                 At any rate, if I were in his shoes testifying, and someone pointed out that I said "refute" in stead of "failed to recall", I would have corrected my wording, but noting that in failing to recall, the witnesses couldn't verify Ford's claims, in essence neutering Ford's claims, and for MY purposes, refuting them.  Really, THAT kind of word game won't gain any traction, even with the evil Democratic Senators.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 82

                                    Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    I refer you to the comment I made previously:
                                    
                                    https://hubpages.com/forum/post/4034477

                                    replyreport
                        2. 85

                           Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           I fully gave resources to substantiate my statement in regards to Maryland SOL that would have applied to Fords Allegation  In fact, over the weekend the police department where her alleged attack took place said they would look into her allegation if asked, but due to SOL that was in place when the crime occurred. they could not prosecute even if a crime had occurred. here is a good article that might clarify the SOL laws that would apply to Fords claim. I, as a rule, back up my comments with good resources.  It's not fair for you to make such a statement in regards to my comments not being accurate. I rely on facts.
                           
                           https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pu … dce63e11cd
                           
                           I have added a youtube that shows  Ford lying to Congress in regards to lie detector test.  Her boyfriend has given a statement to Congress under penalty of a felony that Ford he witnessed Ford coaching a friend how to beat a lie detector test. She lied... Fact. Not a miss used word, not a statement that appeared given under stress. She answered four questions with great calm and lied... Ford should be investigated, as I said we know nothing about her... Nothing. She has no one hat actually is acquainted with her coming out to defend her or support her... Her very demeanor at the hearing was not normal.
                           
                           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OFBBDuB7Q8

                           replyreport
            2. 95

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               "If Ford were applying to be a judge on the Supreme Court, and it was cleared she lied under oath, then yes it would be a disqualifier."
               
               Didn't ask that, did I?  I asked if belief in her statement should be denied as a result of lying (what was the Latin term about lying in a testimony so don't believe any of it?)
               
               "His outburst indicates he doesn't have that quality."
               
               You saw an "outburst" because you can then say he isn't qualified to serve because he was angry with what had been done.  I saw a great speech, the kind our legislators need to be the recipient of.  Honest, truthful and revealing to the world the disgusting and reprehensible actions being taken.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  If you can demonstrate that Ford lied, of course the same standard applies.
                  
                  But flying does not contradict a fear of flying, so that's a non-starter.
                  
                  Likewise do you have proof that Ford perfectly understood whatever arrangements for the hearing were offered to her (or was even aware of all the options available to her)? She stated in her testimony that she would have "gladly hosted" Senate staff, which suggests she didn't/ wasn't. If you don't have any proof of that, then you have no reasonable cause to doubt her statements about it
                  
                  If it's wrong to assume Kavanaugh did what he is accused of, without being able to prove it, then it's wrong to assume Ford is lying without being able to prove it.
                  
                  Likewise, if it's okay to assume Ford is lying, without being able to prove it, then it's okay to assume Kavanaugh did what he is accused of, without being able to prove it.
                  
                  But you can't have it both ways.
                  
                  GOP will likely have it both ways though, and confirm Kavanaugh, such is the nature of the party it has become.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     "But flying does not contradict a fear of flying, so that's a non-starter."
                     
                     It does when you fly the number of times she does, and for no more reason than entertainment.  It absolutely contradicts it: she lied, plain and simple.  Consider that even if she is a little nervous of flying (fearful) it can't be that bad or she would jet around the world on vacation...yet can't make the same trip she already has made multiple times to continue the "civic duty" she started.  No, there was no real fear of flying.
                     
                     No, I have no proof of her not understanding, for I am not a mind reader.  Just a person listening to a PhD in psychology saying they didn't understand a very simple concept.  I will grant you that perhaps she didn't understand...because her attorneys did not tell her.  Which is just as bad, IMO.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        No wilderness, flying (even a lot) does not contradict someone having a fear of flying.
                        
                        If you can categorically prove Ford does not experience fear and anxiety before/ during each flight, go ahead. If not, then you cannot reasonably claim she is lying.
                        
                        In contrast, Kavanaugh said multiple times the four people Ford named refuted her allegation. That is demonstrably untrue. He knew it to be untrue, and said it anyway.

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           "No wilderness, flying (even a lot) does not contradict someone having a fear of flying. "
                           
                           We will have to agree to disagree here.  One can be afraid of flying and still fly, but that fear cannot be great enough to cancel out on continuing ones civic duty when the flying that IS done is for vacations etc.  If the fear is great enough to cancel a Senate investigation then it is enough to cancel a vacation.
                           
                           Yes, I know you wish to take a small exaggeration and blow it into a mountain.  It's being done every day with Trump; seems reasonable to continue it with Trump's nominee.  Personally I find the difference between "refute" and "deny knowledge of" to be minor enough not to hang a person for saying it.  Simply making note that it IS an exaggeration (or error, not sure) and not technically true is sufficient.

                           replyreport
                           1. 82

                              Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              "One can be afraid of flying and still fly, but that fear cannot be great enough to cancel out on continuing ones civic duty".
                              
                              And that fear wasn't great enough to stop Ford doing her civic duty because she did in fact get on a plane, and did in fact testify. And she testified that it took the help of friends and family to give her the "gumption" to do that. So your real criticism is that she just didn't do it when you wanted her to.
                              
                              And I don't accept Kavanaugh's statement is a "small exaggeration". Suggesting an allegation of sexual assault has been refuted, when it hasn't, is a lie that has very serious consequences.
                              
                              If a defense lawyer in Kavanaugh's court claimed all the witnesses refuted the allegations against their client, when clearly they hadn't, would Kavanaugh accept that? I hope not. It could be the difference between a rapist walking free, or being found guilty.
                              
                              At the time of his testimony, Kavanaugh knew that claiming the allegation had been refuted would cast him in a better light, which could make a difference in him being confirmed as a Supreme Court judge.
                              
                              And this is only one aspect of his testimony. I believe this, combined with the other issues with his testimony, and his lack of judicial temperament, should disqualify him from being a judge on the Supreme Court.
                              
                              Sadly I doubt it will, but I believe it should.

                              replyreport
                              1. 95

                                 wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 "And that fear wasn't great enough to stop Ford doing her civic duty because she did in fact get on a plane, and did in fact testify."
                                 
                                 You're right!  Kind of puts the lie into her statement she couldn't come from that very fear, doesn't it?
                                 
                                 I understand that some liked BK's speech and some didn't.  I understand that some accept his "character" and some decry how awful it is.  I get that, I accept that...but it doesn't change that Ford lied under oath just as you claim BK did.  How about you accept that as well?  The difference, after all wasn't the subtle difference between "I didn't see anything" and "I saw that nothing happened - it was the difference between "I couldn't" and "I didn't want to".

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 82

                                    Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    You have spelled out in your own words why there is no inconsistency.
                                    
                                    "One can be afraid of flying and still fly".
                                    
                                    Agreed.
                                    
                                    ". . . that fear cannot be great enough to cancel out on continuing ones civic duty when the flying that IS done is for vacations etc"
                                    
                                    Yes, and the fact Ford flew to give her testimony in the end, shows her fear did not overcome her desire to do her civic duty, it merely delayed when it happened (apparently in combination with some misunderstanding/ miscommunication as to available options for her testimony). That is consistent with the fact that her fear also does not overcome her desire to go on vacation.
                                    
                                    If you want to criticize her for the delay, knock yourself out, but unless you have categorical evidence the delay was not caused by a combination of fear/ misunderstanding/ miscommunication etc, then you can't reasonably claim she was lying about it.
                                    
                                    And again, if it's okay to conclude Ford lied without proof, then it's okay to conclude Kavanaugh lied when he said he is not responsible for what he has been accused of.
                                    
                                    You can't have it both ways.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 95

                                       wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       Personally, I find it more believable that Ford's handlers (notably Feinstein, but could have been others or even her lawyers) instructed her in what to say when it comes to creating delay.
                                       
                                       But be that as it may, the irrefutable fact remains that Ford lied just as much as Kavanaugh did.  His may have been a misstatement (I'd love to see his notes on the subject - the ones he used at the hearing), it may have been carelessness.  Hers was neither, but there ARE alternatives to an outright lie.  Maybe that PhD didn't include reading comprehension, maybe her lawyers didn't tell her for instance.  That "fear" is a little more difficult, but maybe she was (mostly) honest.  A fear of flying, but nowhere to the point that she wouldn't do it - an exaggeration in other words, leading to an insinuation and hopefully a listener conclusion that was false to fact without actually lying (although IMO intentionally giving a false impression IS a lie).
                                       
                                       As you say, though, you can't have it both ways.  If you're going to search one for possible lies, then search both statements and grab whatever you find.

                                       report
                                       1. 82

                                          Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          What you find believable and what you can prove are two different things.
                                          
                                          I find Ford's allegation believable. I won't say Kavanaugh did it though, because I can't prove it.
                                          
                                          " . . . the irrefutable fact remains that Ford lied just as much as Kavanaugh did"
                                          
                                          That's not an "irrefutable fact" at all. If you disagree, then I look forward to your irrefutable evidence that Ford did not delay her testimony because of a combination of anxiety about flying, and a misunderstanding or lack of awareness of all the options available to her.
                                          
                                          In contrast, no one can reasonably claim what Kavanaugh said about those four witnesses is true. What he said is, as a matter of fact, untrue.
                                          
                                          If he had said it once, I'd be inclined to accept it as a simple misstatement. But he said it multiple times, and in multiple ways:
                                          
                                          "Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a longtime friend of hers. Refuted."
                                          
                                          "All four witnesses who were alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser"
                                          
                                          "And you know, yeah, and it’s been investigated and all four witnesses say it didn’t happen."
                                          
                                          " . . . as we sit here today, some 36 years after the alleged event occurred when there is no corroboration and indeed it is refuted by the people allegedly there"
                                          
                                          "But if the mere allegation — the mere assertion of an allegation — a refuted allegation from 36 years ago . . ."
                                          
                                          It is unreasonable to suggest all these statements are "misstatement[s]". Kavanaugh deliberately attempted told untruths, under oath, for his own personal gain.
                                          
                                          And this is only one aspect of his testimony.
                                          
                                          He deserves to be disqualified from the selection process. I doubt he will be, but he deserves to be.

                                          report
                              2. 0

                                 Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 If Kavanaugh thought it would help him to use the word "refuted" instead of stating that the witnesses were "unaware" of such an event, so what?? heard him when he said that, and had no trouble with it even though I understood they hadn't literally said it didn't happen.  It seems that most, including the Democratic Senators in that room with him, understood his words to mean "couldn't corroborate" Ford's testimony.  This isn't a difficult thing.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 82

                                    Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    If the standard you are suggesting were true, no one could ever be retrospectively found guilty of perjury, unless the false statement they made was challenged at the time it was made.
                                    
                                    That is obviously not how the law works.
                                    
                                    Indeed, a statement is often not known to be false until after the fact.
                                    
                                    So whether Kavanaugh's untruth/lie/falsehood was challenged or not at the time is irrelevant to the fact that he stated an untruth/lie/falsehood while under oath.
                                    
                                    And if he had said it once, I would accept it was a misstatement.
                                    
                                    If what he said was of no serious consequences, I would accept he was simply inaccurate. 
                                    
                                    But he stated the same untruth/lie/falsehood multiple times.
                                    He stated it in several different ways.
                                    What he said has very significant consequences (the difference between saying witnesses "refute" an allegation of sexual assault and "can't remember" is very serious)
                                    He said it because he likely felt it helped his case.
                                    And he said it while he was under oath.
                                    
                                    That should be disqualifying for someone who wants to be a Supreme Court judge.
                                    
                                    I don't think it makes a difference to the GOP, but it should.
                                    
                                    Whatever the politics are, someone who is willing to tell untruths while under oath is not fit to be a Supreme Court judge.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       You guys have  a whole slew of problems understanding the hearing ,  It's nothing for liberals to take anything , everything at times out of context but to  pull as an example a question , or multiple questions from multiple questioners on the panel and say , "Kavanaugh  lied ", especially about an question requiring instant and total recall of an incident 30 plus years ago , is just plain misleading .
                                       
                                       You're all intelligent enough to know that yet As I listen to hours of these talk shows ,  interviews , news articles ,  I am certain of only one thing and one thing only , America is totally yet clearly ideologically divided and the "truth " of Kavanaugh's history is divided on these exact  same lines .
                                       
                                       Bottom line , the presumption of guilt that democrats embrace and the presumption of innocence that conservatives embrace , SOooo  show us real and substantial  evidence of something ......in fact of anything .

                                       report
                                       1. 82

                                          Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          Kavanaugh referenced statements that were made only in the last few months.
                                          
                                          I don't think it's reasonable to believe he forgot that at least two of the people named by Ford did not refute the allegation of sexual assault against him, and one of them in fact said she believes the accuser. That's implausible to the point of being unreasonable.

                                          report
                                    2. 0

                                       Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       Well, I'm thinking that the Democratic Senators, at the very least, would have already jumped on what Kavanaugh said if it was a big deal - they clearly don't think it is or they would absolutely have said so by now.  There's no way they'd let this get by. 
                                       
                                       But again, to Kavanaugh's thinking, the witnesses "refuted" Ford's testimony because they said they had no memory of such an event or of them being at such an event; he KNOWS he didn't do what she said he did, and that HE wasn't at that party with her.  For him, the failure of the witnesses to positively say Yes,is a refuting of that lie.
                                       
                                       Truth is, I'm willing to bet that each witness wanted to say "There was no such party of which I was in attendance", but they couldn't, because it was 35 years ago, and they risked someone coming forward to offer their own twisted version of events that could somehow place them at the scene, and pull them headlong into these perverted hearings.

                                       report
                                       1. 82

                                          Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                          I can't speak to what members of the Judiciary Committee think.
                                          
                                          My principles and opinions are not dependent on their thoughts. They are dependent on what I believe is right, and what I have discerned from the facts that are available to me.
                                          
                                          Those facts are:
                                          
                                          - At least two of the four people Ford named, did not refute her allegations of sexual assault.
                                          
                                          - One of the people Ford named explicitly stated she believes Ford's account (once before the hearing and once after).
                                          
                                          - In testimony, given under oath, Kavanaugh stated that all four people named by Ford, refuted Ford's allegation.
                                          
                                          - He said the same thing multiple times, and in several different ways
                                          
                                          - Those statements are, as a matter of fact, false statements.
                                          
                                          - If Kavanaugh does not know the difference between "refute" and "can't remember" (unlikely) then he does not deserve to be a Supreme Court judge on that basis alone.
                                          
                                          - If he does know the difference (likely) then he knew those statements were false.
                                          
                                          - Therefore it is likely that Kavanaugh knowingly made false statements to a Senate Committee, while under oath.
                                          
                                          So for me the politics is irrelevant. It comes down to: if it is likely Kavanaugh knowingly made false statements under oath, that should disqualify him from being a Supreme Court judge. It is likely he did that. Therefore he should be disqualified from the selection process. 
                                          
                                          It is likely he won't be disqualified, but I believe he should be.

                                          report
      2. 0

         Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Don, the Democratic Senators weren't interviewing him, it was clear to anyone watching.  Kavanaugh was responding to something beyond legitimate questioning - many have stated, and I agree, that his anger was just.  For him NOT to get angry at what they were doing would have been almost inhuman.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            You're absolutely right - the Democrats weren't there to interview him.  They weren't there to search for truth of the allegation.
            
            They were there to posture and put on a pretty show of offering comfort and sympathy to Ford and to subject Kavanaugh to a mob hanging.

            replyreport
         2. 82

            Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Christine Ford's anger would have been just too. No one would have blamed her for getting angry after what she's been through and is still going through. Yet she did not raise her voice in anger, or show hostility to anyone, nor engage in partisan criticism of one Party or another.
            
            She answered every question put to her, calmly and respectfully, even those that were intended to cast doubt on the veracity of her experiences.
            
            If an ordinary member of the public is capable of that, then a nominee for the Supreme Court should be even more so. I expect a judicial temperament from a Supreme Court judge, i.e. maturity, self-control, wisdom and a calm temperament. Kavanaugh demonstrated he does not have those qualities.
            
            That's why 500 law professors have signed a statement to the President saying: "Judge Kavanaugh did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land"(1).
            
            I agree with them.
            
            (1) https://www.scribd.com/document/3899861 … from_embed

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Please.  Dr. Ford wasn't being crucified in front of the country.  Yes, it was hard for her to step forward, and she did so only after her letter was leaked.  But the treatment she received was, overall, kind and considerate, as it should have been. On the other hand, Democratic Senators have been nothing short of cruel to Kavanaugh - as wilderness pointed out above.

               replyreport
            2. 85

               Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

               This letter from 500 law professors was passed via social media. I could have sighed it... LOL  Plus these are strangers. As I pointed out very odd no one, not a parent, not a husband, not a friend, not a coworker, not a neighbor...No one has come forward to support this woman.  So, you agree with a bunch of people that have no real insight into Ford. People that just sign a letter? Really? JK has had hundreds of people that he has worked with, friends that he has made throughout his life step up and give glowing references in regards to his character. He has had no one beside Ford make a claim of any form of sexual abuse or misconduct. Maybe time to take a breather and really look at the facts.

               replyreport
2. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   Sharlee ,  There are way too many holes in Prof. Fords testimony alone , Have you ever sat on a grand jury ?    Anyone that has ,has a very clear idea  about any one who has had  to answer too many times , " I do not remember " , Prof. Ford did that  over and over again .
   
   A very vague testimony about an extremely  serious charge , but I also felt that with  her  answers being so vague -- She then has absolute deniability in her testimony ----therefore not allowing any room for any repercussions if she  were lying in her overall statement .
   
   A Grand jury would determine  , "Your Honor , We need a lot more information , facts , dates ,  witness' , statements and time schedules to proceed" .    What so far has been presented is a redacted one page statement  and an extremely vague  and shady ,testimony before the very political senate committee .
   
   I have put this up before ;
   
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If she is proven to be lying, I hope she serves jail time. She's doing well, though. She's already made half a million. What a payday,

      replyreport
   2. 85

      Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Guilty by an accusation. Does this growing concept shock you or make you uneasy? Does it make you wonder how some have clearly lost the ability to use innate common sense?  It's very evident as of today there is no clear evidence that Judge Kavanaugh did any of the things he is being accused of.  I think this is one of the evilest political stunts I have seen in my lifetime.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         An accusation of "Commie!  He's a commie!" used to be very effective in destroying lives.  Is it coming back, this time in the form of "Sexual abuser!  He's a sexual abuser!" this time around?

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, and tomorrow he will be a racist... The circle goes around and around. You would think Dems would become tired of their everyday diet... LOL

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Hadn't though of that one, but you're right.  He will now be portrayed as a racist, drug dealing child abuser running a ring of young sex slaves.  Without evidence.

               replyreport
               1. 91

                  IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  child abuser running a ring of young sex slaves.  Without evidence.
                  
                  Sounds familiar...
                  
                  Who was accused of that? Who made the accusation? Uhm. Can't remember.

                  replyreport
                  1. 85

                     Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     I find your correlation odd, and the incident you mentioned in regards to "pizzagate" was in no respect an allegation anyone with any common sense took seriously.  First, the persons that are making unfounded allegation are not a talk show rightwing jock...  They are our United States Senators, Congressmen, and Congresswomen. Many of them are contributing to smearing this JK by making unfounded statements to the media, and the media further reporting their unfounded statements. Each night for the past two weeks network news finds it fit to interview anyone with a story, none backed up with any form of facts.
                     
                     To address your ridiculous pizzagate smear. That story was not picked and talked about up by our government representatives or media, other than reporting how ridiculous the allegation was... Your correlation does not hold any weight in regards to what Dems are doing to JK. This man is being convicted in the public eye without any proof what so ever.
                     
                     Pizzagate -  Alex Jones, the Info-Wars rightwing host, was the one reporting that Hillary Clinton was sexually abusing children in satanic rituals a few hundred miles north, in the basement of a Washington, D.C., pizza restaurant. No one with any common sense believed that ridiculous account.

                     replyreport
                  2. 95

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     LOL  I had to read Sharlee's post and then google "pizzagate" to get a clue of what you were talking about - I had never heard of that.  No - I was just making stuff up and grabbing ridiculous accusations.  Nothing from history.

                     replyreport
                     1. 91

                        IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Really? That's strange. It was a quite popular accusation, even here in the forums. Not the only one, btw.

                        replyreport
3. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 years ago

   Kavanaugh's mother was a judge. Did she really have so little influence over her son?
   There is no specific day or place. How can they go forward if these pertinent pieces of vital information are non-existent.
      
   
   Very Good Points:
   
   "However, we know literally nothing about Ford:
   HER childhood
   HER teen years
   HER pathway to adulthood
   HER friends, neighbors, family members and coworkers
   HER friend's Memories of the (so-called) party." S
   
   
   (what... five people is a party?
   
   no.
   
   More like a gathering ... and a small one at that.)

   replyreport
4. 85

   Sharlee01posted 5 years ago

   You have pointed something out that has been plaguing me for days. In a rape case, the accuser's background is under as much scrutiny as the accused. We know nothing about Ford.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      RJ Schwartzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      But this isn't a rape case and I think they played it just like that.  If she made the more serious accusation of rape, then we'd expect to see much more activity around it, but thus simple groping accusation can be ginned up by the media to imply rape, but not really state it.  All they want to do was create a false narrative that could be a springboard for their stories.  Also it limits anyone on the Senate Committee from attacking her credibility outright (Why are you fighting against something so small Brett - what are you hiding, approach) 
      
      The one thing they didn't count on throughout this was the tenacity of Conservative News sites such as the Gateway Pundit, really digging into her life and bringing much of her past into the light.  The simple fact that her on-line presence has been scrubbed, updated, and sanitized for several months in advance of this event demonstrates a coordinated plan of attack.

      replyreport
5. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   Democrats and the news media by intimate association don't want you to hold these women's lives up to any real scrutiny ,  nor did Dr. Ford for that matter .    If these accusations had to hold water , we would all be soaking wet ?

   replyreport
6. 60

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   Then there's this.
   
   https://www.foxnews.com/politics/domest … awyer-says
   
   Similar scenario. He said, she said (but definitely more credible. For a Democrat, the woman is not believed, by democrats.
   
   What a bunch of immoral, see through hypocrites.

   replyreport
7. 85

   Sharlee01posted 5 years ago

   Just wondering what JK lied about under oath? Maybe missed something? In regards to his self-control. The FBI has done 6 background checks, he has been on the bench for 12 years, and if he in any respect he had a personal problem with self-control it would be evident.  So, not sure why you would be of the opinion that he could not control his emotions or have a problem with self-control?  I certainly feel he was appropriate at the hearing. He has the right to be heard, and his raw feelings deserve airing... I can't imagine how it would feel if I were wrongly accused of such a vile crime. I would think him odd if he did not become angry and emotional. This man has led an exemplary life and has every right to be angry.
   
   "Awful?" What the dems pulled with this candidate is downright evil.  Nothing surprises me in regards to how low they will stoop or that their followers will lap up. It's discouraging to watch, but not unexpected. I mean just look at what Dems can ignore because told to. Ted Kennedy leaving a woman to die at the bottom of a river...  Need I mention old Billy boy... LOL

   replyreport
8. 85

   Sharlee01posted 5 years ago

   Yes, it was very much talked about on social media.  But not even CNN or MSNBC bought into that smear.  They covered it for what it was a ridiculous story that was being spread by social media and far rightwing bloggers.

   replyreport
   1. 91

      IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Not only on social media. You forgot the ridiculous story led a man to opened fire in the pizzeria (he was sentenced to 4 years).

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

         No, I did not forget about this man...  This man took it upon himself to commit a crime most likely due to reading this derogatory accusation online. Just goes to prove, sometimes these accusations that we hear online and from the media can trigger violence.  Accusations have consequences, sometimes. they destroy lives in their wake. I think one is innocent until proven guilty.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            "Accusations have consequences, sometimes. they destroy lives in their wake."  Yep, and so we're seeing with Kavanaugh, in part because Fine Fiend Held onto that letter for six weeks.  Geez, what a winner she is.

            replyreport
9. 91

   IslandBitesposted 5 years ago

   Let's see. You stated as a fact, what a person alleges because he has given a sworn statement.
   
   How come Ford testimony is not a fact for you? It was under oath, you know.
   
   Or Ramirez sworn statement. What about Swetnick, also sworn allegations? Or the, at least three ex Yale classmates statements?
   
   And what would you state as a fact now that Christine Ford's friend denies being helped on any polygraph test?
   
   You also said no one has supported Ford. Maybe you didn't know about four, guess what? sworn affidavits who say she told them before Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination that she had been sexually assaulted when she was younger, to some she mentioned his name, to other that it was a federal judge.They were released a day before the hearring.
   
   https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … on-hearing
   
   
   Where's GA?

   replyreport
   1. 82

      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      He's hiding, but following. I had my say, and what has followed is just a bunch of stuff.
      
      Like an insistent alarm, every time I reach for the keyboard, my favorite Twain quote keeps popping to mind, and nudging me to just read and move on.
      
      You are on your own here.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 91

         IslandBitesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I wasn't asking for reinforcement. I just remembered your (CNN) quote, calling bias and so. 

         replyreport
         1. 82

            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Well damn! And I was just about to 'suit' up too.
            
            But this does give me a chance to clarify something. When I said. "... what has followed is just a bunch of stuff. ," it sounded as if I was saying my word was the last word. What I intended it to mean was that what followed was mostly just more 'whataboutism' arguments.
            
            One more question would be; "What does if matter if something Blasey/Ford said could be thought of as a lie - what bearing does that have on whether Kavanaugh lied?
            
            GA

            replyreport
10. 0

    Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

    
    
    It's all such a joke to question the morality issue .

    replyreport