Quantcast
'I was angry and I sent it': Another Justice Brett Kavanaugh accuser referred to FBI after recanting

Forums - Politics Discussion - 'I was angry and I sent it': Another Justice Brett Kavanaugh accuser referred to FBI after recanting

Another MeToo  case. The media is jumping on board defending another damsel in distress trying to destroy another man's careers. In a court of law you need evidence/proof that a crime has taken place not he said, she said. Court systems will be full of frivolous cases over petty incidents that occurred many years ago. 



Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
OhNoYouDont said:

1. Err, no? They testified that they do not recall such an event. This is wholly distinct from claiming no such event occurred.

That's exactly what I said.

My mistake, your wording was contrived.

2. Source please

Here's the first one found on Google.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/20/christine-blasey-ford-got-doxed-can-anyone-ever-really-disappear-online/

This makes sense. Your implication seems unfounded - that she was "erasing evidence". If I'm going public, I'm closing all social media too.

3. Indeed. Nobody in the government was responding to her so she went to the press instead.

False.  Feinstein's office not only contacted her, but went so far as to recommend her lawyer (this comes directly from Ford's testimony).

Contacted yet did nothing. Here get a lawyer is not helping when time is short. This information needed to come to light prior to Kavanaugh making it to the SCOTUS.

4. Source

Here's a source of her team demanding security.  It happened each time while they were stalling her testimony.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-letter-fbi-investigation.html?gtm=top>m=bottom

Seems reasonable to make security demands, given the death threats. Where is your evidence that this was done "deliberately" and to "stall"?

5. And germaphobes still participate in sex. Your point?

My point is that it was a BS excuse and was no reason for a delay in the hearings as her lawyers stated.

To state a fact cannot be said to be an excuse. Your evidence that this was done to delay the hearing?

6. Without knowing how this was conveyed, it could be simple miscommunication.

Again, I was made aware of the offer.  I remember being shocked when she claimed that she didn't know.  And even if she went into a deep hole, her lawyers should have certainly given her the option.  After all, they were so afraid for her security and well-being in the various letters they sent to Grassley's office when demanding the hearing be delayed.

But that would have moved the hearing out of the public's ears.  And the point was to drag Kavanaugh's name through the mud.

Your evidence that she was made aware of this?

7. Lol, please provide your credentials.

My BA was in Psychology as it happens.  Not that it takes a degree to know this.  Faulty memories in traumatic events are routinely within the curriculum of general psych classes.  Ford's description of the mechanism for memory encryption had the veneer of science to it, but completely misstates the surety one can have in such a memory.

Oh a BA in psychology. Great, you're only about 4-6 years from actually being able to offer something remotely considered expert testimony. Pipe down.

8. Who cares?

It's a rather important question.  She was far enough from home that someone had to have given her a ride.

Thank you captain obvious. Why is this materially relevant? It's a post-event circumstance.

9. That's correct. She extracted herself, the only person in danger, from the situation.

And these two drunk boys wouldn't have gone after her friend next, why?

Have you been sexually assaulted before? It's human nature to extract oneself from seemingly harmful situations. Not to sit there and consider other's potential peril. I'm shocked that someone with an undergraduate degree in psychology isn't aware of this.

10.  Did she ever attend another event with Kavanaugh? 

Your response does not match what I said in #10.

I think it does.

11. So?

So, she testified that she did have difficulty in enclosed spaces.  A person who lived with her saying she never displayed such behavior is important to note.

Why?

12. So?

If we knew the name of this person, we'd know where the event would have taken place.  This dovetails with #13's point that she didn't recall anything that can be fact-checked.

I think she was just as interested in this person as you are.

13. As any memory from decades ago would be...

This is incorrect.  As a matter of fact, she remembers quite a lot of things that cannot be factually disproven.  For example she specifically remembers that she had a single beer.  That's an odd thing to remember, except as a means for telling the audience that she was sober at the time and her testimony can be trusted more.  But details that can be checked?  Nope.

I can remember every single shot I took prior to blacking out one halloween party nearly a decade ago. It doesn't seem odd at all to me. I couldn't tell you where I slept that night either.

14. Facepalm

Facepalm if you like, but it's completely true that she will benefit financially, professionally, and socially from these accusations.

Yes, she's benefiting greatly with death threats and public shame. Sounds amazing, sign me up!

15. Facepalm 

Facepalm if you like, but is there a logical reason why she would wish for the FBI to challenge her story?  The only purpose is, again, delay.

Perhaps she remembered something new? Or wanted to offer potential leads on witnesses?

16. She testified that she remembers the laughter of Kavanaugh and his bro, not the people downstairs. Again, facepalm.

I said nothing about her hearing the people downstairs.  I question why her hearing worked so well she clearly recalls the sound of their laughter as well as hearing and comprehending what Judge was saying from the sidelines as she says she was struggling while in an environment noisy enough to drown out her cries for help.  It's a direct contradiction.

It's clear you are not familiar with how soundwaves work. Loud music downstairs has to travel through walls, which diminishes the noise in the room upstairs. The people upstairs in the room with you are perfectly audible, especially with a closed door.

17. I wouldn't turn over my medical history to the senate either. The FBI though, sure.

The FBI would have just turned it right over to the Senate.  The difference is merely a middleman.  The offer to turn it into the FBI was merely the last attempt they made at delay for delay's sake.

Source for suggesting medical history granted for FBI viewing would necessarily be handed over to the senate?

Your belief is predicated upon Ford lying about everything, which not only isn't the most parsimonious explanation but strains on pure lunacy.

Do you know what parsimonious means?  The conclusion that she simply lied for political reasons is easily the simplest conclusion and would leave us with zero questions or loose ends.

What takes a stretch is believing that Kavanaugh did this despite it being completely against his character, Kavanaugh's whereabouts being largely accounted for even during the deliberately vague timeline, and no evidence being presented beyond Ford's testimony and some therapist notes that indicate this happened to her at a later time, with more people involved, and which was only seen by a reporter for the Washington Post.

But please tell me.  How is it lunacy simply to reject her story outright?  Do people just not lie about important things in your world?

I'm beginning to think you don't know what it means. Your version of events is akin to the stork theory of where babies come from. It ignores all of the testimony in favor of some bizarre narrative where a drunk has never behaved inappropriately toward anybody in his entire life. Oh and has never had any lapses in memory despite "I like beer" being the guy's motto.

Nobody in their right mind goes to publicly testify under threat of perjury that somebody attempted to rape them. Either she's clinically insane, or you're wrong. I'll take the latter.



 

 

This makes sense. Your implication seems unfounded - that she was "erasing evidence". If I'm going public, I'm closing all social media too. 

I'm pretty sure the main reason they were erased was so that anti-Republican messages wouldn't go public.  It wasn't to protect her birthday pictures and status updates.

Contacted yet did nothing. Here get a lawyer is not helping when time is short. This information needed to come to light prior to Kavanaugh making it to the SCOTUS.

You've fallen off the script.  If she wanted to remain anonymous, then the information couldn't come to light.

Seems reasonable to make security demands, given the death threats. Where is your evidence that this was done "deliberately" and to "stall"?

Again, she was testifying before the United States Senate.  The Senate is already a highly-secure environment on any given day, much less a day with a high profile hearing.

The fact that security is not an issue is evidence enough that this was deliberate and a part of a stall.  There's no argument against it.

To state a fact cannot be said to be an excuse. Your evidence that this was done to delay the hearing?

The fact that her lawyers said the hearing had to be delayed because she was afraid to fly on planes.  And then flew on a plane to the hearing.

Your evidence that she was made aware of this?

Again, it was widely broadcast.  And her lawyers, who were complaining about her security and how nervous she was, would have to have been completely negligent, like professional misconduct negligent, to not tell her that she could testify in private without cameras anytime she wanted if she so desired.

Oh a BA in psychology. Great, you're only about 4-6 years from actually being able to offer something remotely considered expert testimony. Pipe down.

Never claimed to be able to offer expert testimony.  I didn't use my credentials to provide credibility, you asked for them.

I said she misstated basic principles of psychology and that you don't need a psych degree to realize it.

Thank you captain obvious. Why is this materially relevant? It's a post-event circumstance.

It's a particularly strange gap that, again, would have provided room to fact-check.  It cuts against her credibility.

Have you been sexually assaulted before? It's human nature to extract oneself from seemingly harmful situations. Not to sit there and consider other's potential peril. I'm shocked that someone with an undergraduate degree in psychology isn't aware of this.

 While it's true that all people react differently, it is odd that she abandoned her friend.  Again, cutting against her credibility.

I think it does.

Then by all means explain why.  It's not like sexual assault victims only exhibit changes in behavior when around the person.

Why?

It cuts against her credibility that people close to her have not observed the behavior she claims.

I think she was just as interested in this person as you are.

But, again, she couldn't provide information that could be fact-checked.

I can remember every single shot I took prior to blacking out one halloween party nearly a decade ago. It doesn't seem odd at all to me. I couldn't tell you where I slept that night either.

She didn't black out.  She said "one beer" to establish her sobriety.

Yes, she's benefiting greatly with death threats and public shame. Sounds amazing, sign me up!

Public shame?  Where?  If anything, her testimony went without scrutiny and everyone tiptoed around her while others held her up as a heroine.

Perhaps she remembered something new? Or wanted to offer potential leads on witnesses?

Her legal team was in full contact with the Senate the whole time.  If she wanted to add anything to her testimony, or add additional witness or evidence she could have done so at any time.

It's clear you are not familiar with how soundwaves work. Loud music downstairs has to travel through walls, which diminishes the noise in the room upstairs. The people upstairs in the room with you are perfectly audible, especially with a closed door.

The music was supposed to be coming from inside the room, not from downstairs.

To quote Ford's letter to Feinstein:

"They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help."

Source for suggesting medical history granted for FBI viewing would necessarily be handed over to the senate?

What else would the FBI do with it?  You are aware that all they were doing was compiling information to hand over to the Senate, right?  What purpose would it serve for the FBI to collect information just to sit on it?  Are you under the impression the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation?  Because they weren't.  There literally wasn't a federal crime to be investigated in the first place.  All they did was conduct a few interviews and forward everything to the Senate.

Anyway, here's Sen. Grassley's incredulity at the attempt to use the therapy notes as a token for extending the FBI investigation:

"It's not even clear to me what purpose turning these materials over to the FBI would accomplish.  The FBI would simply turn over that evidence to the Senate." 

I'm beginning to think you don't know what it means. Your version of events is akin to the stork theory of where babies come from.

Entertaining the possibility that someone lied is the same as believing in a magical stork?

Gotcha.

It ignores all of the testimony in favor of some bizarre narrative where a drunk has never behaved inappropriately toward anybody in his entire life. Oh and has never had any lapses in memory despite "I like beer" being the guy's motto.

I shouldn't have to point out that, not all men who drink commit sexual assault.  Furthermore, enjoying a beer is most definitely NOT prima facie evidence proving that an accusation must be true.

What's bizarre (and dangerous) is painting a direct line where:  Likes to drink -> Must be guilty of sexual assault.

Nobody in their right mind goes to publicly testify under threat of perjury that somebody attempted to rape them. Either she's clinically insane, or you're wrong. I'll take the latter.

The topic of this thread is about someone who is facing perjury charges because of a false claim.  There were at least two other accusations we know definitively were false and who also face perjury charges.

Not only does it happen, it happened to Kavanaugh several times within the span of a week.

Last edited by NightlyPoe - on 17 November 2018

NightlyPoe said:

 

 

This makes sense. Your implication seems unfounded - that she was "erasing evidence". If I'm going public, I'm closing all social media too. 

I'm pretty sure the main reason they were erased was so that anti-Republican messages wouldn't go public.  It wasn't to protect her birthday pictures and status updates.

Your surety is a result of a presupposition about her motivations for testifying. Suppose she had anti-progressive messages instead; are you saying you'd have more reason to believe her?

Contacted yet did nothing. Here get a lawyer is not helping when time is short. This information needed to come to light prior to Kavanaugh making it to the SCOTUS.

You've fallen off the script.  If she wanted to remain anonymous, then the information couldn't come to light.

This is a false dichotomy fallacy. The choice isn't public or anonymous. The choice was public or private. You don't need to be anonymous in private.

Seems reasonable to make security demands, given the death threats. Where is your evidence that this was done "deliberately" and to "stall"?

Again, she was testifying before the United States Senate.  The Senate is already a highly-secure environment on any given day, much less a day with a high profile hearing.

The fact that security is not an issue is evidence enough that this was deliberate and a part of a stall.  There's no argument against it.

Nobody was suggesting the building itself wasn't secure. It's her travelling where she would be susceptible.

To state a fact cannot be said to be an excuse. Your evidence that this was done to delay the hearing?

The fact that her lawyers said the hearing had to be delayed because she was afraid to fly on planes.  And then flew on a plane to the hearing.

The consequence of her fear of flying was delay. This is not the same as deliberately delaying.

Your evidence that she was made aware of this?

Again, it was widely broadcast.  And her lawyers, who were complaining about her security and how nervous she was, would have to have been completely negligent, like professional misconduct negligent, to not tell her that she could testify in private without cameras anytime she wanted if she so desired.

This isn't evidence. 

Oh a BA in psychology. Great, you're only about 4-6 years from actually being able to offer something remotely considered expert testimony. Pipe down.

Never claimed to be able to offer expert testimony.  I didn't use my credentials to provide credibility, you asked for them.

I said she misstated basic principles of psychology and that you don't need a psych degree to realize it.

Oh I see you were offering useless testimony then. Got it.

Thank you captain obvious. Why is this materially relevant? It's a post-event circumstance.

It's a particularly strange gap that, again, would have provided room to fact-check.  It cuts against her credibility.

Doesn't seem strange at all to any of the experts who analyzed her testimony that I've seen.

Have you been sexually assaulted before? It's human nature to extract oneself from seemingly harmful situations. Not to sit there and consider other's potential peril. I'm shocked that someone with an undergraduate degree in psychology isn't aware of this.

 While it's true that all people react differently, it is odd that she abandoned her friend.  Again, cutting against her credibility.

You are welcome to your opinions of course.

I think it does.

Then by all means explain why.  It's not like sexual assault victims only exhibit changes in behavior when around the person.

I think avoiding a particular person after having unwanted advances from them shows a change in action.

Why?

It cuts against her credibility that people close to her have not observed the behavior she claims.

Were they in scenarios wherein this behavior should be apparent?

I think she was just as interested in this person as you are.

But, again, she couldn't provide information that could be fact-checked.

Okay?

I can remember every single shot I took prior to blacking out one halloween party nearly a decade ago. It doesn't seem odd at all to me. I couldn't tell you where I slept that night either.

She didn't black out.  She said "one beer" to establish her sobriety.

All I'm saying is that memory is funny and we cannot control what gets banked.

Yes, she's benefiting greatly with death threats and public shame. Sounds amazing, sign me up!

Public shame?  Where?  If anything, her testimony went without scrutiny and everyone tiptoed around her while others held her up as a heroine.

Well I know there's a certain group claiming Dr. Ford made up the entire event. Oh wait, you're in that group yourself.

Perhaps she remembered something new? Or wanted to offer potential leads on witnesses?

Her legal team was in full contact with the Senate the whole time.  If she wanted to add anything to her testimony, or add additional witness or evidence she could have done so at any time.

I'm too lazy too look back but I'm pretty sure this chain was about the FBI not the senate so I don't understand your response.

It's clear you are not familiar with how soundwaves work. Loud music downstairs has to travel through walls, which diminishes the noise in the room upstairs. The people upstairs in the room with you are perfectly audible, especially with a closed door.

The music was supposed to be coming from inside the room, not from downstairs.

To quote Ford's letter to Feinstein:

"They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help."

This is my mistake, I do apologize. Proximity and volume is important in this then. She did classify it as uproarious laughter so the expectation would be loud laughter.

Source for suggesting medical history granted for FBI viewing would necessarily be handed over to the senate?

What else would the FBI do with it?  You are aware that all they were doing was compiling information to hand over to the Senate, right?  What purpose would it serve for the FBI to collect information just to sit on it?  Are you under the impression the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation?  Because they weren't.  There literally wasn't a federal crime to be investigated in the first place.  All they did was conduct a few interviews and forward everything to the Senate.

Anyway, here's Sen. Grassley's incredulity at the attempt to use the therapy notes as a token for extending the FBI investigation:

"It's not even clear to me what purpose turning these materials over to the FBI would accomplish.  The FBI would simply turn over that evidence to the Senate."

Right, but this is about only the materially relevant medical history. The senate would receive redacted records with only relevant facts exposed for their viewing, rather than Dr. Ford's entire medical history.

I'm beginning to think you don't know what it means. Your version of events is akin to the stork theory of where babies come from.

Entertaining the possibility that someone lied is the same as believing in a magical stork?

Gotcha.

Ah so you are of the position that Dr. Ford was lying? She doesn't believe what she said, despite a polygraph showing otherwise? 

It ignores all of the testimony in favor of some bizarre narrative where a drunk has never behaved inappropriately toward anybody in his entire life. Oh and has never had any lapses in memory despite "I like beer" being the guy's motto.

I shouldn't have to point out that, not all men who drink commit sexual assault.  Furthermore, enjoying a beer is most definitely NOT prima facie evidence proving that an accusation must be true.

What's bizarre (and dangerous) is painting a direct line where:  Likes to drink -> Must be guilty of sexual assault.

Nobody is doing this. You can behave inappropriately without committing sexual assault. Kavanaugh wants us to believe he was perfectly behaved throughout his life while drinking copiously in his youth (most do), which is quite humorous indeed.

Nobody in their right mind goes to publicly testify under threat of perjury that somebody attempted to rape them. Either she's clinically insane, or you're wrong. I'll take the latter.

The topic of this thread is about someone who is facing perjury charges because of a false claim.  There were at least two other accusations we know definitively were false and who also face perjury charges.

Not only does it happen, it happened to Kavanaugh several times within the span of a week.

None of those individuals meet the burden of "in their right mind" due to being emotionally comprised. Ford appeared composed and objective when giving testimony. 



Your surety is a result of a presupposition about her motivations for testifying. Suppose she had anti-progressive messages instead; are you saying you'd have more reason to believe her?

 1.  I gave a 17-point list detailing why I was sure of which the scrubbing of the history is only the first.

 2.  Of course if she were a federalist society credentialed lawyer she would have more credibility than a professor from a California university.  Then she truly wouldn’t have a motivation for coming forward.

And before you complain, “motivation” and the supposed lack thereof was constantly tossed around during the hearings.  And since a political motivation would be the most likely cause for a false claim, it is relevant.

Also, I didn’t put it on my original list despite certainly thinking it.

This is a false dichotomy fallacy. The choice isn't public or anonymous. The choice was public or private. You don't need to be anonymous in private.

In order to make the accusation, she would need to do so publicly.  There is a dichotomy there.

Nobody was suggesting the building itself wasn't secure. It's her travelling where she would be susceptible.

That’s a novel complaint and does not show up anywhere in the complaints about security.  Can't imagine it's all that likely that a would-be assassin would just so happen to be among the few dozen people on the flight or that flying incognito would present any difficulty.  By all means, present your own source on that for once.

The consequence of her fear of flying was delay. This is not the same as deliberately delaying.

But she flew nonetheless.  What is different about flying out between Sunday and Wednesday that would cause a delay in the hearings?

This isn't evidence.  

The ubiquity of the knowledge is evidence.  The unlikelihood of her lawyers would betray their client by withholding such knowledge even if she had gone dark and endanger their professional credentials is also evidence.  In fact, put together, it comes to strong and damning evidence.  It is incredibly unlikely that both these circumstances occurred.

 She got caught in a lie here.

 Oh I see you were offering useless testimony then. Got it.

No, I am not offering testimony at all.  I am stating basic psychology principles that even a layman might be familiar with.  I see you’re trying to make it about me, but this is about the obviously false nature of her testimony.

The fact is that it’s well known within psychology that memories of traumatic events are very much subject to reinterpretation after the fact.  You don’t need to be an expert witness to know this.  That a psychology professor would make such a basic error in order to support her testimony again cuts against her credibility.

Doesn't seem strange at all to any of the experts who analyzed her testimony that I've seen.

On its own, I would concede.  But as I am making clear, it was a part of a pattern.

You are welcome to your opinions of course.

Once again, the oddness of the action cuts against her credibility.

I think avoiding a particular person after having unwanted advances from them shows a change in action.

Sure, if the two had frequently interacted in the past and then she suddenly stopped.

But there’s no evidence that Kavanaugh and Ford were ever in the same room together in the first place or had met in any meaningful sense of the word.  So there is no pattern of behavior to be disrupted.

Were they in scenarios wherein this behavior should be apparent?

Are you saying that you think it’s normal for people to only behave strangely around their attackers after a sexual assault?  It tends to be a bit more generalized than that.

Okay?

Again, this is a part of the pattern that I’m laying out.  You’re poo-pooing it all away because it’s not definitive in and of itself, but Ford’s memory being limited to things that cannot be proven or disproven speaks to a pattern of deception with a mindfulness of not saying anything that could put her in danger of perjury.

All I'm saying is that memory is funny and we cannot control what gets banked.

And I am saying that the things she remembers and things she doesn’t are awfully convenient.

Well I know there's a certain group claiming Dr. Ford made up the entire event. Oh wait, you're in that group yourself.

Yes, but the official party line was to state that Ford was merely mistaken about Kavanaugh’s identity.  This is what public officials, talking heads, and even Kavanaugh himself stated.  In fact, they went out of their way to praise her.

They were afraid to directly challenge her specifically or the notion that she didn’t really want to stay anonymous or testify in private for political reasons where they could be accused of attacking a victim.  Republicans were so afraid of ads being used against them in future campaigns that they hired an outsider to ask questions  I didn’t mention it before, but her lawyers also demanded that the senators themselves question her.  What reason she would have to demand that politicians question her is unknown other than to ensure such ads get made. 

If this were an actual trial though, any lawyer worth their salt would be all over her for the reasons I listed above and many more.  They would have shredded her testimony so easily.

I'm too lazy too look back but I'm pretty sure this chain was about the FBI not the senate so I don't understand your response.

You don’t understand that there was no need to use the FBI as a middleman for conveying new information and evidence to the Senate?

This is my mistake, I do apologize. Proximity and volume is important in this then. She did classify it as uproarious laughter so the expectation would be loud laughter.

So loud as to be heard clearly enough that it’d be the thing she’d remember most?  Was Judge’s commentary from the sidelines yelled so loud that it could be heard not only over music blaring to the point of drowning out cries for help, but comprehensible to a woman in the middle of fighting off an assault and scared that she would be suffocated to death?

This seems reasonable to you?

Right, but this is about only the materially relevant medical history. The senate would receive redacted records with only relevant facts exposed for their viewing, rather than Dr. Ford's entire medical history.

Why would the FBI redact anything?  They’re not in charge of deciding what’s relevant and keeping information from the Senate.

And if they didn't want irrelevant material included, is there something wrong with the sharpies in Ford’s lawyers' office?

Ah so you are of the position that Dr. Ford was lying?

Hmm, yeah.  We established that a week ago and it’s been repeated in each post since.

But let’s get back to your belief that believing Ford is lying is akin to believing in a magical stork and certainly not a parsimonious explanation.

What about this story has to be true?  What part couldn’t be explained by Ford just being a partisan who made a false accusation in order to stop a man she disliked from joining the Supreme Court?

She doesn't believe what she said, despite a polygraph showing otherwise? 

Polygraphs are pseudoscience.  There’s a reason why they’re not admissible in court.

Nobody is doing this. You can behave inappropriately without committing sexual assault. Kavanaugh wants us to believe he was perfectly behaved throughout his life while drinking copiously in his youth (most do), which is quite humorous indeed.

1.  You very much are doing this.  Because you’ve declared it magical thinking to believe that Ford wouldn’t be telling the truth based on Kavanaugh having drank beers in his youth.

2.  The claim that Kavanaugh testified he’d behaved perfectly is pure political talking point and ignores the parts of Kavanaugh’s testimony where he stated that he was, indeed, not perfect as a young adult but never engaged in the type of behavior that he was accused of.

None of those individuals meet the burden of "in their right mind" due to being emotionally comprised. Ford appeared composed and objective when giving testimony. 

Why would a false accuser be emotionally compromised and a real one objective?  That makes no sense.

Again, Ford’s testimony and the actions of her and her team of lawyers before and during the testimony paint a damning picture of her credibility.

Last edited by NightlyPoe - on 18 November 2018

Around the Network

if i ever needed to see validity of this npc meme that was knocking about recently i think this kavanaugh thing is a great example

CNN, MSNBC -

"ford looked credible because she was calm and collected" (even though that is not an indicator of being credible in this context)

"kavanaugh indicated guilt because he was not calm and collected" (even though its kind of obvious that being in a position like that would be upsetting for anyone)

"believe women" (most of kavanaughs accusers have now found to be lying)

"women have nothing to gain from false accusations" (ford now is at least $700 000 and increasing, richer and is seen as a hero by most of the country)
etc etc etc

NPCs -

"ford looked credible because she was calm and collected" 

"kavanaugh indicated guilt because he was not calm and collected" 

"believe women" 

"women have nothing to gain from false accusations" etc etc etc



SecondWar said:
LivingMetal said:

I wonder how you'd react if your life was about to be ruined and your family's lives were threatened by political agenda and false and unproven allegation.  Let's not cherry pick the high emotional responses brought upon under ill circumstances over the years of impeccable service.

There is a difference between false and unproven.

Similarly, I wonder how you'd feel if someone who had committed a serious crime against you was about to gain a significant position of power/success. You spoke out against them, and they dragged you through the mud, branded you a liar and got off scot free.

Well, I know I'd wait 30+ years to come out, just before the 'bad people party' is about to confirm him to the SC. What an insane coincidence, I know



NightlyPoe said:
Hiku said:

The Senate are not trained to interrogate. There are also names of people who may have information that can come from their questioning that would not be relevant to bring up during the senate hearing. She also wanted help to find out Mike Judge's work schedule at the time, etc. They should have also interviewed Kavanaugh. Especially after he was adamant about avoiding an FBI investigation whenever he was asked.

And several of Kavanaugh's classmates have also said that Devil's Triangle WAS about sex, and that they're shocked he lied about it, etc. Including his former roommate.

“I was shocked when I heard that. Those words were commonly used, and they were references to sexual activities,” Roche said. “If you think about the context in which you might hear those words, the way that he described them and the way that they are defined, they are not interchangeable. I heard them talk about it regularly.”

And a New York Times editor wrote: 

Based on extensive interviews by me and @katekelly with Kavanaugh's former Georgetown Prep classmates, what he just said about the meanings of "boofed" and "Devil's Triangle" is not true.

If Devil's Triangle was commonly known as a sexual reference, as we know it is, then according to Kavanaugh he just threw out a common sexual reference in his yearbook, without any context, under a list of his accomplishments, but was actually referring to a drinking game. You buy that?
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't just write "69" in my yearbook as an accomplishment with no further context, unless I wanted people to think I was referring to the sexual position.

Boys at prep schools partied with girls on the weekends, so they can make sexual references all they want. And Boofing is not flatulence. And Renate Alumni is not referring to "something nice" about her. Anyone reading that sentence without any additional context would obviously assume it meant they hooked up. Which is exactly what she did when she found out about it. And there's no way Kavanaugh didn't realize that when he wrote it. Complete BS.
He definitely lied under oath. 

The senate wanted to know Kavanaugh's involvement with Pickering's nomination. Aside from claiming Pickering wasn't one of the nominees he was handling, when asked to identify which nominees he had worked on “in any capacity”, he named six appeals court nominees, “among others,” he had aided in the confirmation process, such as by “reviewing nomination paperwork and preparing for hearings,” and did not include Judge Pickering.

However, when a room was being reserved for a Pickering event, it was Judge Kavanaugh who was consulted. When the White House press office needed materials about Judge Pickering, it was Judge Kavanaugh who asked the Justice Department for the files and relayed them. When a senator’s chief of staff was coming to the White House to discuss Judge Pickering and another nominee, it was Judge Kavanaugh who planned to meet with her.

It certainly looks like he was quite involved, but mislead the senate with his answers.

And in May 2003, another White House official told Judge Kavanaugh that she had “asked for the Pickering package they are distributing” and was “sending it your way to review.” When he asked whom “they” referred to, she replied: “The Pickering team. Chip, Chip’s COS and whoever else they are using. You should know them” — adding “hehe.” (Judge Pickering’s son, Charles Pickering, known as Chip, was a Republican congressman at the time, and COS means “chief of staff.”)

Anyway, I'm not a judge. My point was that this was under process of investigation in the D.C. circuit. But the GOP did not care about the conclusion of an investigation pertaining to potential perjury for a supreme court nominee.
They should just have picked someone else when these things surfaced. Niel Gorsich was not under investigation for perjury, sexual assault, and sexual misconduct.

Simplifying response because the coding of this forum is atrocious and keeps crashing.

1.  Regardless of whether the Senate is good at interrogating or not, if Ford had anything to add to her testimony, she didn't need the FBI to do it.

2.  Kavanaugh was not adamant about avoiding an FBI investigation.

3.  As far as I know, everyone who had the Devil's Triangle, boof, and Renate references in the yearbook back Kavanaugh.

4.  The roommate didn't go to Georgetown Prep.  Unless Kavanaugh taught him the game, he wouldn't know about it.

5.  I'm hardly convinced that Devil's Triangle was all that common as a sexual reference, much less boof which seems rather obscure by any measure.

6.  Your premise is still based on a bunch of teenage boys in the early-80s shouting to the world that they get off on being naked with other men.  To say the least, the early-80s were hardly a time where even mildly homosexual behavior was often crowed about.

7.  You cleared Kavanaugh yourself on the Pickering thing.  Even though I'm not familiar with that specific quote, his statement of "among others" is vague and could well encompass Pickering.  So what the heck is the complaint?  The whole perjury complaint is a rather blatant smear that is easily deflected as a matter of the facts, but the charge is vicious enough that 

8.  I'm not aware of the court investigating anything.  I'm also not aware of the federal investigation you had originally alluded to.

1. There's no "regardless". Interrogations involves questions. Questions designed to prompt responses they otherwise may not give, or think of. The Senate are not trained to interrogate. Both Ford and Kavanaugh should have been questioned by the FBI after the hearing. And like I told you, she needed some help from investigators in at least one instance. Possibly more.

2. Let's not resort to arguing semantics now. You know exactly what I meant, but ignore the entire point and purely focusing on the semantics.
He constantly/consistently opposed an FBI investigation by deferring to "whatever the committee wants". Which everyone knew was 'no'. He also didn't want to take a lie detector test. What innocent person, who previously explained the importance of polygraphs for both screening of law enforcement and accuracy of witnesses, would suddenly not want to take one when their accuser did?
Especially in a case that would come down to credibility, an innocent person would beg for an FBI investigation and a polygraph, to appear innocent. He did the opposite.

3. Except Renate herself you mean? Who found it hurtful and shocking, and prays their daughters "won't be treated this way". As anyone would. Tell me if you believe "Renate allumni" was meant as a nice comment, and that he didn't obviously assume that people who would read it would think it referred to a sexual conquest?

4. He didn't have to go to Georgetown Prep to know that Devil's Triangle was a widely known sexual reference, and hearing Kavanaugh and his friends use it as a sexual reference regularly. And he's far from the only one making that claim.
Someone saying that it was a drinking game, even if true is not an indication of it not being a sexual reference. At best it only means they weren't aware of it's original meaning.
I had people in my class who had never heard the term 'thong' before. Doesn't mean it wasn't a very commonly used term. And it was.

5. If extensive interviews conducted by New York Times with Kavanaugh's former Georgetown Prep classmates does not convince you, then I'm sure nothing will.

6. Two men having intercourse with a woman is not homosexuality. And yes, it is something straight guys commonly brag about. It's not about seeing another guy naked, which you often do in the showers after gym class anyway, but about being with a girl who is into freaky shit.

7. When in that same hearing he was asked to name cases he was handling, he omitted Pickering. The accusation is that he tried to conceal the fact that he knew he had received information stolen from Senate Democrats. And that he tried to mislead the Senate into thinking he wasn't particularly involved with handling Pickering. While evidence suggests that he was heavily involved, and in some cases appeared to be the authority on the matter.

8. Due to how you structure your replies, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. But I assume you're asking for this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6229253/Brett-Kavanaugh-faces-official-ethics-complaints-Merrick-Garland-decide-them.html

Last edited by Hiku - on 18 November 2018

Hiku said:
NightlyPoe said:

Simplifying response because the coding of this forum is atrocious and keeps crashing.

1.  Regardless of whether the Senate is good at interrogating or not, if Ford had anything to add to her testimony, she didn't need the FBI to do it.

2.  Kavanaugh was not adamant about avoiding an FBI investigation.

3.  As far as I know, everyone who had the Devil's Triangle, boof, and Renate references in the yearbook back Kavanaugh.

4.  The roommate didn't go to Georgetown Prep.  Unless Kavanaugh taught him the game, he wouldn't know about it.

5.  I'm hardly convinced that Devil's Triangle was all that common as a sexual reference, much less boof which seems rather obscure by any measure.

6.  Your premise is still based on a bunch of teenage boys in the early-80s shouting to the world that they get off on being naked with other men.  To say the least, the early-80s were hardly a time where even mildly homosexual behavior was often crowed about.

7.  You cleared Kavanaugh yourself on the Pickering thing.  Even though I'm not familiar with that specific quote, his statement of "among others" is vague and could well encompass Pickering.  So what the heck is the complaint?  The whole perjury complaint is a rather blatant smear that is easily deflected as a matter of the facts, but the charge is vicious enough that 

8.  I'm not aware of the court investigating anything.  I'm also not aware of the federal investigation you had originally alluded to.

1. There's no "regardless". Interrogations involves questions. Questions designed to prompt responses they otherwise may not give, or think of. The Senate are not trained to interrogate. Both Ford and Kavanaugh should have been questioned by the FBI after the hearing. And like I told you, she needed some help from investigators in at least one instance. Possibly more.

2. Let's not resort to arguing semantics now. You know exactly what I meant, but ignore the entire point and purely focusing on the semantics.
He constantly/consistently opposed an FBI investigation by deferring to "whatever the committee wants". Which everyone knew was 'no'. He also didn't want to take a lie detector test. What innocent person, who previously explained the importance of polygraphs for both screening of law enforcement and accuracy of witnesses, would suddenly not want to take one when their accuser did?

3. Except Renate herself you mean? Who found it hurtful and shocking, and prays their daughters "won't be treated this way". As anyone would. Tell me if you believe "Renate allumni" was meant as a nice comment, and that he didn't obviously assume that people who would read it would think it referred to a sexual conquest?

4. He didn't have to go to Georgetown Prep to know that Devil's Triangle was a widely known sexual reference, and hearing Kavanaugh and his friends use it as a sexual reference regularly. And he's far from the only one making that claim.
Someone saying that it was a drinking game, even if true is not an indication of it not being a sexual reference. At best it only means they weren't aware of it's original meaning.
I had people in my class who had never heard the term 'thong' before. Doesn't mean it wasn't a very commonly used term. And it was.

5. If extensive interviews conducted by New York Times with Kavanaugh's former Georgetown Prep classmates does not convince you, then I'mure nothing will.

6. No, I already told you that prep school boys partied with girls on the weekend. And Renate, which was right there in his yearbook as well, is not a boys name last time I checked. 

7. When in that same hearing he was asked to name cases he was involved in, he omitted Pickering. The accusation is that he tried to conceal the fact that he knew he had received information stolen from Senate Democrats. And that he tried to mislead the Senate into thinking he wasn't particularly involved with handling Pickering. While evidence suggests that he was heavily involved, and in some cases appeared to be the authority on the matter.

8. Due to how you structure your replies, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. But I assume you're asking for this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6229253/Brett-Kavanaugh-faces-official-ethics-complaints-Merrick-Garland-decide-them.html

the fact that you appear to be treating high school boys bragging about having sex as something relevant is bizarre to me

as i've asked you before i don't know what type of peer group you were in at school but do you mean t tell me that you find this behavior unusual? i mean are you being serious? lol

 

"prays their daughters "won't be treated this way"."

treated what way? what does renate allumni mean? how did kavanuagh treat this woman? did he hit her? did she experience an attempted rape?

 

"e didn't have to go to Georgetown Prep to know that Devil's Triangle was a widely known sexual reference"

and lets say that it was a reference to having a gangbang as i assume is the implication... so what?

what is wrong with people consenting to having gangbangs?

is the sole basis of your argument that if kavanuagh had sex in high school then he's a bad person and must have raped ford?



o_O.Q said:
Hiku said:

1. There's no "regardless". Interrogations involves questions. Questions designed to prompt responses they otherwise may not give, or think of. The Senate are not trained to interrogate. Both Ford and Kavanaugh should have been questioned by the FBI after the hearing. And like I told you, she needed some help from investigators in at least one instance. Possibly more.

2. Let's not resort to arguing semantics now. You know exactly what I meant, but ignore the entire point and purely focusing on the semantics.
He constantly/consistently opposed an FBI investigation by deferring to "whatever the committee wants". Which everyone knew was 'no'. He also didn't want to take a lie detector test. What innocent person, who previously explained the importance of polygraphs for both screening of law enforcement and accuracy of witnesses, would suddenly not want to take one when their accuser did?

3. Except Renate herself you mean? Who found it hurtful and shocking, and prays their daughters "won't be treated this way". As anyone would. Tell me if you believe "Renate allumni" was meant as a nice comment, and that he didn't obviously assume that people who would read it would think it referred to a sexual conquest?

4. He didn't have to go to Georgetown Prep to know that Devil's Triangle was a widely known sexual reference, and hearing Kavanaugh and his friends use it as a sexual reference regularly. And he's far from the only one making that claim.
Someone saying that it was a drinking game, even if true is not an indication of it not being a sexual reference. At best it only means they weren't aware of it's original meaning.
I had people in my class who had never heard the term 'thong' before. Doesn't mean it wasn't a very commonly used term. And it was.

5. If extensive interviews conducted by New York Times with Kavanaugh's former Georgetown Prep classmates does not convince you, then I'mure nothing will.

6. No, I already told you that prep school boys partied with girls on the weekend. And Renate, which was right there in his yearbook as well, is not a boys name last time I checked. 

7. When in that same hearing he was asked to name cases he was involved in, he omitted Pickering. The accusation is that he tried to conceal the fact that he knew he had received information stolen from Senate Democrats. And that he tried to mislead the Senate into thinking he wasn't particularly involved with handling Pickering. While evidence suggests that he was heavily involved, and in some cases appeared to be the authority on the matter.

8. Due to how you structure your replies, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. But I assume you're asking for this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6229253/Brett-Kavanaugh-faces-official-ethics-complaints-Merrick-Garland-decide-them.html

1. the fact that you appear to be treating high school boys bragging about having sex as something relevant is bizarre to me

as i've asked you before i don't know what type of peer group you were in at school but do you mean t tell me that you find this behavior unusual? i mean are you being serious? lol

 

2. "prays their daughters "won't be treated this way"."

treated what way? what does renate allumni mean? how did kavanuagh treat this woman? did he hit her? did she experience an attempted rape?

 

3. "e didn't have to go to Georgetown Prep to know that Devil's Triangle was a widely known sexual reference"

and lets say that it was a reference to having a gangbang as i assume is the implication... so what?

what is wrong with people consenting to having gangbangs?

is the sole basis of your argument that if kavanuagh had sex in high school then he's a bad person and must have raped ford?

1. Not at all. I've said before that I don't fault him for stupid teenage behavior. If you asked me before, and I didn't reply it's possible it happened when I had some computer issues. If so I may get back to you on it soon.

No the problem isn't his behavior back then. The problem is a supreme court Justice who believes it is ok to lie under oath.

2. Renate alumni. A graduate of the school of Renate. Without further context, anyone reading that sentence would assume he meant they hooked up.
The two of them were supposedly friends. She did not know, or expect that he would write this about her in his yearbook behind her back.

3. Again, nothing is wrong about that sort of conduct back then. The issue is if a judge lies about that sort of thing, or anything, under oath.
Presumably the reason he would lie about it is because he was accused of attempted rape along with another boy, which would be two men and one woman. And to just in general try to not look as if he was as obsessed with sex as he was.
My reasoning for why I believe Ford has nothing to do with him lying under oath about those things. Because I can understand the motivation for that. It's just concerning when a judge does it. But that's a different area of complaint. Pertaining to his qualification as Supreme Court Justice.
Regarding why I believe Ford, it's a combination of her testimony and his. How he didn't want and FBI investigation or a polygraph, when she did, etc.
I can't say whether I believe any of the other accusations against him though. Anonymous accusations do not hold much weight.

Last edited by Hiku - on 18 November 2018