Kavanaugh Hearing

Ehh, even if it is meant to shape things, if it is accurate, I don't think it should be called out as anything terribly awful. You were right to point out that she hasn't accused anybody of rape. But I think she has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault and attempted rape.

 

BTW, this guy was working for the same PR firm that Whelan was associating with when he came out with his blame the classmate thread. He was the one to claim that nobody on the committee or staff knew about it, but that does seem awfully coincidental. So Whelan knew about Ford before her name was public, communications staff for a major Republican member of the committee knew something was coming from Whelan, and now it turns out that the guy who was in charge of the communications strategy for the committee is not only somebody with issues of sexual harassment in his past but was working for the PR firm behind all of this. A lot of coincidences piling up here.

 

Claiming 1 =1000 doesn't make it so.

I am heavily discounting that this story is just contrived as you claim. And it has nothing to do with Kavanaugh in the big picture.

Statistically, there is only a one in fifty chance she made this up. When you factor in that this was first reported years ago in counseling, with none of this USSC stuff on the table, the odds become far, far lower that this is contrived.

The accuracy of her memories I do question. And I've said that repeatedly throughout this thread.

Both parties in this event are going to be scarred by it regardless of the objective truth of what happened. Not just Kavanaugh - who is clearly the only party you have interest in, for whatever reasons.

 

How does she remember she only had one beer ? Seems odd she remembers that fact.
In any event I think Judge K is toast.

 

The expert posting on traumatic events was posting as to vivid point in time recollections of the attack itself. If the victim knew the location well, then sure, you'd expect her to remember it.

Otherwise, it is just tangential background stuff that her brain would not be focused on at the time of the attack. Much like using a telephoto lens to take a portrait shot, where the face(s) being captured would be crystal clear but the background is out of focus and blurred.

Beyond the attack, she would have been more focused on recovering, hiding the guilt, blame and shame which our culture puts on rape victims, and just trying to get past it without becoming the subject of every conversation behind her back in school.

 

It doesn't matter where it came from, the contention of the article was that this guy was in legal doo doo after the tweets. But it starts by trashing the theory and saying it's a "Hardy Boys" scenario, but then says it's defamatory. If it is defamatory, it requires a reasonable person to believe the account, not that it's speculation or an alternative theory. So which is it?

 

Pubs have no way to win this war. They could agree to all their demands ands she finally gets her interview, which is what we expect, a he said-she said thing. Pubs are doomed whether or not he is still confirmed.

 

Pretty much why DiFi held onto the letter. She put maximum pressure on the committee by limiting the time they had to deal with this. She isn't interested in helping this lady get justice, only winning an election.

 

She would know where this happened as she knew the people and she who lived at the house.

If you got in a fight at a bar you'd not previously patronized ….. I expect you'd remember the place. And if you were just 15 ...… I expect you'd have a vivid recollection of which bar it was. At least science claims you would.

 

I would also point out that she has acted very much like a trauma victim. Trouble in school that developed after the incident (despite clearly being very bright). Not liking to be in the same area where it happened and feeling isolated from her family. Needing an escape route in every room of her house and not liking planes because they don't have escape routes. Taking up research on trauma and recovery. Individually, none of them means trauma. When taken together, these are the types of things that would all indicate trauma. It is tough to fake trauma over the long-term.

Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford moved 3,000 miles to reinvent her life. It wasn’t far enough.

 

I went to a number of house parties in high school that I would have zero chance of ever finding again. But I could tell you who some of the people were at the party. Got arrested outside of one of the parties, and still couldn't tell you about the location, although I could give you specifics on what led up to the arrest.

After another party I ended up taking one of the guys from the football team to the emergency room because he decided he wanted to play football in the street, tried to tackle me, I sidestepped him and literally "broke his ankles" as the kids like to say... one of them anyway. I remember that whole incident where he broke his ankle and the people we were with, but I couldn't even begin to tell you where we were.

I could tell you other stories where I can place the location exactly, because I knew it before the party.

You are assuming people retain memories of things that just aren't consequential to them.

 

In how many of the events below were you soundly beaten or sexually assaulted?

I'm assuming nothing; see the science re recollection of traumatic events. It says you would recall, clearly. We can't have science that states Ford would have a clear, specific memory of this event …. but then say she doesn't but it still, definitely, happened. Seemingly, the lack of recollection on her part …. indicates she didn't suffer a traumatic event … if anything at a party that may or may not have ever occurred.

Realize to that they fewer number of entities involved @ this alleged event would substantially increase the likelihood someone would recall how many people were @ the alleged party. It's much easier to remember if it was 2 or 4 …. versus 35 or 60.

 

Because powerful liberals withheld information on the incident until the very last minute. it could have been thoroughly investigated. Now they are ready to vote and have been pretty accomodating to her, although they have not agreed to a drawn out FBI investigation. The menu of options they have offered her is atypical for what someone testifying in front of congress would receive. I also said earlier in this thread that the way congress investigates matters is by testimony in front of a committee. The FBI works for Trump so it's up to him to initiate it, not congress. The FBI is also probably looking into it anyway on their own to update their background check as they would with other cases. Finally, it's not certain that they are going to confirm him and will be largely based on public opinion at the time of the vote (i.e. after she testifies or refuses to do so). Right now it's polling at about 50/50, so if she gets up there and garners sympathy, it's likely the nomination will be pulled. I don't know how a rational person can say this lady is getting steamrolled.

 

Care to post a link supporting that was what he said I can not find where it says “but” I wouldn’t swear to it

 

……………. and powerful leftists taking every possible step to derail same ….. even via the likely contrivance of a sexual assault. Can't honestly defeat the guy? Just ruin his life with falsehoods.

 

And we will have this when both the accuser and accused get the chance to testify next week.

 

I agree and still do not understand why the FBI did not start investigating this matter when Diane Feinstein gave them the letter approximately 7 weeks ago …. when she received it at the end of July, beginning of August.

If read several posts on this board where such an investigation would only take a few days so ……. where is the report. Ya think the FBI did investigate the allegation in the letter, last month, and found no basis for it?

That seems to be what happened. Feinstein gave the letter to the FBI, they investigated and found nothing.