Kavanaugh Hearing

So the other 3 witnesses besides Kavanaugh who was named by Ford said that they no memory/recollection or knowledge. How else should a person take it? I'll make it clear of my opinion, I think she a liar.
Ford friend says she doesn't recall party where alleged assault occurred
Leland Keyser, who characterized herself as a friend of Ford's, said through a lawyer that she "does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”
Report: Another Person Who Allegedly Has Knowledge Of Kavanaugh Accuser’s Assault Has ‘No Recollection’ Of Being At Party
Both Judge and Smyth have also denied having any memory or knowledge surrounding the incident

 

No, they were the independent investigators then and they are the independent investigators now.

Each Senator must decide for his or her self which facts to believe.

 

Wanting to have Kavanaugh testisfy first says it all. It's comical what some people think they can get away with. All part of the academia bubble.

 

Leland Keyser also said that she believes DR. BLASEY. How do you take their lack of memory? It's a non-answer. Otherwise, Keyser's belief in Dr. Blasey would directly contradict with her lack of memory. "I don't remember" is not "It didn't happen."

It's easy to take statements out of context. First of all, Biden never criticized the investigation. Second of all, his words were in reference to using the FBI's report to come to a conclusion. Before his comments on the FBI report, he was talking about how they would hear the evidence and how he was not going to make his mind up until he heard all of the evidence.

I actually believe that Avenatti got trolled. We'll see. But I think I said the other day on here that I trust Farrow and Mayer because they vet their articles. I don't trust Avenatti to vet claims. He's the one guy who could blow everything up by publicizing a false accusation, which would then be used to discredit the others.

 

If Kavanaugh testifies under oath saying he didn't do it... would that make you believe Kavanaugh?

 

Nope. Kavanaugh has an incentive to lie. However, it seems the point went over your head. You can't make a big deal about Blasey testifying under oath if you're going to immediately shake it off when she does so. It makes you look dishonest.

 

I agree that you can't immediately dismiss her testimony if she makes it...

That doesn't mean that just because it's sworn testimony, we have to believe it, either...

EDIT: She also has an incentive to lie if she made it up... She'd be rightfully destroyed by the mainstream if she were to backtrack now, and say, maybe her allegations weren't true.

 

For those who actually care about what led to the FBI report comment.

 

You certainly don't have to believe it. I'm simply making the point that for the people who make a big deal out of testifying under oath, it's going to look hypocritical if they immediately dismiss it if she does so.

For example:
*Today*
Random Guy: "This is all a political ploy. Ford won't even show up Thursday. There's no way she'll testify under oath and risk perjury."
*Thursday Night*
Same Random Guy: "I don't believe Ford. She testified? So what. It's an unprovable allegation. There's no risk to her."

I have a feeling we're going to see some of that (especially from people on Twitter). I'm preemptively calling that out as hypocritical.

 

I suspect he’s being trolled too. What he has leaked of his story seems too idiotic and bizarre to be true.

I just highly doubt the person trolling him was actually some 4chan shitposter who had his stripper girlfriend call Avenatti and then referred Avenatti to the same 4chan poster to back up the story as twitter claimed today.

 

First, she'd have no incentive to come forward if she made it up. Second, she wouldn't have an incentive to testify if she made it up. Why would you risky perjury for something that isn't significant (the Republicans getting Kavanaugh instead of a different conservative justice)?

 

Yeah. The only thing that strikes me as difficult to be made up is the whole work history bit. Unless Avenatti is literally taking this person at their word with no verification, it would be difficult to fake a work history with the federal government and a security clearance.

 

For those who are curious about how the FBI could investigate:
I Used to Vet Judicial Nominees. Here’s Why Kavanaugh Needs the FBI.

 

As I'm sure we'll see some people claim that the Republicans bullied her into fear of showing up on Thursday if she doesn't show up...

Welcome to Twitter... filled with millions of idiots with all sorts of political views...

 

I think Republicans will say that it is hard to believe an allegation without any corroborating evidence or the ability to confirm Kavanaugh was there at the time.

 

If nobody questioned her beliefs, or she remained anonymous, or the committee refused to hear her out due to the timeline... (assuming she lied) then it's basically an unchecked bluff that keeps someone that she doesn't want off of the Supreme Court... or radically increases the cost of putting him on...

Hypothetically speaking, the bluff has been called (again in the case that she's lying). Now she has no choice but to double down... even if she was lying...

 

Also, mind you, if Kavanaugh were guilty... wouldn't it be a much better defense to just say he was at the party, but he didn't hook up with her... or he hooked up with her but it was consensual... Much harder to disprove that...

Whereas saying... you weren't even at the party... all it takes is one picture at the party... or even a handful of witnesses who saw you there... to weaken your case, significantly...

 

I suspect he doesn’t know how to verify those aspects of the story.

And to backtrack slightly from my not 4chan assertion, I guess you can’t completely rule it out because you don’t want to underestimate the powers of dedicated weaponized trolls. They are, after all, the folks who managed to convince a huge segment of twitter (and as a result a number of media outlets) that the “ok” sign was actually a secret white power hand signal.

 

Actually, she has a very clear choice. It's what started this whole discussion. Claim that the process is unfair and refuse to testify. If she testifies, she's doing so under oath. It undermines any claim that this is a political ploy and made up.

No, definitely not. You don't volunteer that you were at the scene of an alleged crime.