Kavanaugh Hearing

Kavanaugh actually said in his testimony that he was aware that Ramirez was calling around and talking to classmates about something:


Questioner: Well, actually, are you aware that the New York Times passed up on this story before the New Yorker ran the story?

Kavanaugh: They couldn't -- the New York Times couldn't corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least -- and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that. And you know, that just strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people, is that what's going on? What's going on with that?

Page 20
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.25.18 BMK Interview Transcript (Redacted)..pdf

 

Hmmm.. it would seem Mr. Trump's description of Mr. Avenetti is spot on.

 

Let's add to this to the rightwingnut conspiracy theories. Ford hypnotized herself into believing that Kavanaugh attacked her. And it's apparently quite a huge development.

Pro-Kavanaugh conspiracy theory suggests Christine Ford hypnotized herself into creating false memory

 

Of course, it did. Mitchell destroys Ford with this memo. As I have said all along.. GOP played and is playing this like a violin. By hiring Mitchell, they have an expert who can tell Congress she's full of shit, so they have less to worry about if they confirm him and they aren't the bad guys for pointing out that she's full of shit.

 

Rachel Mitchell is excellent:

"It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving." Wow.

 

Aliens--or maybe the DNC--came down and implanted a chip in her brain set to activate periodically until full download set to go off in 2018 went off in...well...2018.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

Without an investigation, Mitchell declares there's no evidence. Yeah, really good work there.
What's the point of having her involved? We can always count on some Too Hot posters to make declarations like that.

 

Ehh, no. She didn't just simply declare there's no evidence. She pointed out dozens of things Ford did and said that make absolute zero sense and self-mutilate her credibility. Have you read the 9-page memo? It is quite thorough and well done. And I don't know how many posters here on Too Hot are 25-year veteran sex crimes prosecutors, but I'm happy to hear their take on it if there exists such posters here.

It also gives the GOP some re-assurance that moving forward with Kavanaugh won't come back to haunt them. It was a wise move.

 

That's irrelevant. Here's two separate instances of clear testimony under oath:



What he said in your quote is true. He did hear that she was doing that. As you can see from the testimony I linked, he claimed that he heard that from the NEW YORK TIMES.

 

Your argument doesn't make sense. If he didn't know what the allegation was, how could he try to line up witnesses BEFORE IT CAME OUT to refute the allegation? His testimony under oath is clear. He perjured himself if NBC's story is accurate.

 

Interview today with the "credible" one.

 

You would have to assume all of Mitchell's bullet point observations are unassailable fact, without considering some of the contextual issues.

For instance, saying Ford was inconsistent on her timeline--referring to various accounts she gave not under oath but about her own acknowledged lack of remembering the exact date. Mitchell wrote: "Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened."

We already knew this. Not remembering exactly and speaking to others about it will often lead to differing accounts, which Mitchell herself acknowledges in the first set of bullet points.

Mitchell goes on to write that "While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year"

But here is the Q & A from the testimony in which Mitchell questions Dr. Ford about the timeline, and then follows up with another question:

Notice what Mitchell didn't do?

Follow up at all on Ford's answer.

IOW, she is trying to claim as an *observation* that Ford failed to provide how she "suddenly" narrowed down her timeframe, despite Ford providing an answer to her question. If Mitchell thought that wasn't specific enough, why didn't she follow up by probing her more first rather than turning to questions about her therapy? Or another way to think of it, out of the gate, Mithcell's first *major observation* falls on its face pretty badly.

 

Sorry I’ll go with the veteran prosecutor’s methods over an internet message board political partisan’s methods to flesh out what’s real and what’s fake. Thank you, though.

 

Cop out.

 

I’m not going to take a random message board poster’s word over an experienced, veteran sex crimes prosecutor and you can’t make me.

 

Again, it's a cop out.

Not to mention a fallacious appeal to authority.

 

Feel free to explain to me why you feel more qualified to do the questioning than Rachel Mitchell.

 

And should we go with this prosecutor's opinion of Mitchell's memo over yours?

Rachel Mitchell's former colleague says her Kavanaugh memo is "absolutely disingenuous"

 

Rut roh.

Kavanaugh questioned by police in 1985 over Yale bar fight | Daily Mail Online

 

And that prosecutor wasn't employed by the GOP, unlike Mitchell. She played her part in the charade.