Kavanaugh Hearing

Rebecca White said she described her assailant as a federal judge. We all know her description to her therapist. We all know she named Kavanaugh to her husband (at least that's what he says). There's no credible argument that she started out describing somebody that wasn't Kavanaugh and shifted to him for political reasons.

 

One way to discern just how heavy a drinker Ford was at 15 is do a thorough investigation. It's possible that Ford wasn't much of a drinker in high school, but after the assault, became more of a drinker as a coping mechanism. Not saying this is true, but it's one possibility. So why not investigate Ford, Kavanaugh, and Judge, and talk to people within their circles and others such as teachers who are still with us to try and assess credibility?

 

That's not true...

I know what a public forum is... I just doubt it applies to US Senate offices, otherwise...

we'd have a real security problem of US Senators on our hands...
Think of all of the people who want harm politicians like Cruz, Clinton, and Pelosi...

You know how dangerous it would be if people can simply barge into their offices while being protected under the 1st amendment in such fashion?

 

In other words, you just gave us the evidence that suggests she mentioned Kavanaugh in 2012. And lending credence to that evidence is the account of her friend and the notes from the therapist.

 

You could be right, but it feels like a slimy political trick to me. Designed to delay the hearings.

 

So … does this apply to use of the "crotch grabber in chief" and similar terms?

 

And your hypothesis is that she can’t be lying or mistaken, which is just as big a leap. She was going to couples therapy because she and her husband were having problems. No one goes to therapy without underlying issues. Your are saying there is no way she could be lying or mistaken in what she brought up in therapy sessions meant to save her marriage? That is just as big a leap.

 

I did no such thing

 

You might want to familiarize yourself with what evidence is. Her husband saying that she named Kavanaugh in 2012 is evidence. Her saying that she named Kavanaugh in 2012 is also evidence.

 

@gator_lawyer

If verbal testimony were evidence then my satirical claim that I saw Kamala Harris eating babies on one occasion, and AgingGator agreeing with me that he saw her eating babies... is a claim backed by evidence...

Okay, dude...

 

Do you think verbal testimony isn't evidence? Feel free to testify to Kamala Harris eating babies.

 

I would thank the therapist has a tape recording of what was said

 

I mean according to you that's evidence... our collective testimony is evidence... so people have to believe us...

If not? Why shouldn't they? Hmm?

 

I don't think the therapists notes go into detail about what happened or named who was there. Dr. Ford says the therapist notes were in error about what she told the therapist. So we now have a written record of what was said six years ago versus what someone believes they said at that time.

 

Just FYI ……. this discussion goes much better with:

 

Verbal testimony can indeed be evidence.

 

Then again,

My satirical claim that Kamala Harris eats babies is backed by evidence...

You agree?

 

According to White, she was told the name only last year. During that time, Kennedy was rumored to be considering retirement and Kavanaugh's name was on the short list of possible replacements.

 

And teachers would know about her party habits? The people that were at the alleged party were questioned, and they have said it didn’t happen. So what else can be investigated about the incident, especially when she is light on specifics.

So why is her testimony considered valid and accurate while theirs is not? The two men who alleged assaulted her have filed statements saying they didn’t do it. Others at the party say it didn’t happen. So we should continue investigating vague allegations in the hope to find something? The fact that she told others in the 6 years since she “recovered” the memory in therapy means NOTHING about the accuracy of her allegation, only that she believes that she was assaulted.

Like I have said before. Alien abductees believe that aliens have abducted them and experimented on them. They believe it strongly enough to pass lie detector tests and risk ridicule to go public with their assertions. But just because they sincerely believe it happened and have told others, doesn’t mean it actually happened.

 

Please quote where I said that. That was never my argument.

So if verbal testimony isn't evidence... why do people testify in court cases?