NightlyPoe said:
That's exactly what I said. My mistake, your wording was contrived.
Here's the first one found on Google. This makes sense. Your implication seems unfounded - that she was "erasing evidence". If I'm going public, I'm closing all social media too.
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.
Here's a source of her team demanding security. It happened each time while they were stalling her testimony. Seems reasonable to make security demands, given the death threats. Where is your evidence that this was done "deliberately" and to "stall"?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Your response does not match what I said in #10. I think it does.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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?
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. |
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
