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

[OhNoYouDont]

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.