Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Cow Poke]

You have evidence she wasn't sexually assaulted?

Wow - I hadn't heard THAT nutter question before.

[oxmixmudd]

Wow - I hadn't heard THAT nutter question before.

You have evidence she wasn't sexually assaulted?

On balance of probability, given Dr Ford's credible testimony (even acknowledged as such by Trump at the time), combined with Kavanaugh's substantive reputation among contemporary's as an aggressive, belligerent drunk, very likely prone to the memory blackouts commonplace among such people, then is is a reasonable assumption that Kavanaugh is guilty as charged. Unfortunately, the additional corroborative evidence required to reinforce this probability was deliberately curtained by the WH's limitations placed upon the FBI investigation. The WH and Senate were determined to get their man appointed come what may.

Overall, a good summary of why many believe the most likely scenario is Ford was assaulted by Kavanaugh with the possibility Kavanaugh doesn't remembEr the event. While I understand why he would not want to admit the possibility it happened but he doesn't remember it, physiologically it just isn't likely, given how his activities and drunken demeaner have been described by multiple eyewitnesses, that there are not nights out where he acted out poorly yet has no recollection of what went down.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Overall, a good summary of why many believe the most likely scenario is Ford was assaulted by Kavanaugh with the possibility Kavanaugh doesn't remembEr the event.

Of course it doesn't at all explain why Ford's own recollection is all over the map, or why her own named witnesses refuted her accusations.

[One Bad Pig]

source

[JimL]

source

And we should care what this two bit libertarian writer for a conservative rag thinks, why?

[One Bad Pig]

And we should care what this two bit libertarian writer for a conservative rag thinks, why?

Try reading that again, Jim, this time for understanding. I suggest focusing on the second paragraph.

[JimL]

Try reading that again, Jim, this time for understanding. I suggest focusing on the second paragraph.

Read her Bio, she's a Liberterian and she's writing for a British conservative Magazine. Besides, I don't care if she's a democrat or not, why should we care what she thinks about Dr Fords emotional state. Lionel, (she gave herself a mans name) because she thought a mans name suited her better than her given womans name, is not a therapist, and all women aren't the same, people deal with traumatic situations differently. Some are effected some are not, some need therapy, some don't. But whether it was as traumatic an event for Dr. Ford as she testified, or not, is not the point, the point is that it is more likely than not that the event took place and that Kavanaugh, even if there were not enough evidence for that, lied under oath to Congress about himself, about his activities during his stint in the Bush administration and about the meaning of the year book entries which also support Dr. Fords testimony concerning Kavanaughs character in his high school and college days. But the main thing is that he, a supreme court nominee, showed himself to be a partisan, a man of uncontrolled temper, and most of all, was willing to lie under oath to Congress. That, his lying under oath, is what there is evidence for, and that is what's disqualifying for a seat on the highest court in the land!

[One Bad Pig]

Read her Bio, she's a Liberterian and she's writing for a British conservative Magazine.

Why does that mean her view can be summarily dismissed?

Besides, I don't care if she's a democrat or not, why should we care what she thinks about Dr Fords emotional state.

I thought women abused women had an inherent right, as survivors, to be listened to, Jim. Is that not true?

Lionel, (she gave herself a mans name) because she thought a mans name suited her better than her given womans name,

How is this relevant?

is not a therapist,

Or this? Do only survivors who are therapists have a right to be heard?

and all women aren't the same, people deal with traumatic situations differently. Some are effected some are not, some need therapy, some don't.

I agree.

But whether it was as traumatic an event for Dr. Ford as she testified, or not, is not the point,

That is pretty much the point of the article, Jim.

the point is that it is more likely than not that the event took place

Based on what evidence, Jim?

and that Kavanaugh, even if there were not enough evidence for that, lied under oath to Congress about himself, about his activities during his stint in the Bush administration and about the meaning of the year book entries which also support Dr. Fords testimony concerning Kavanaughs character in his high school and college days. But the main thing is that he, a supreme court nominee, showed himself to be a partisan, a man of uncontrolled temper, and most of all, was willing to lie under oath to Congress. That, his lying under oath, is what there is evidence for, and that is what's disqualifying for a seat on the highest court in the land!

The "evidence" for Kavanaugh lying is even thinner than Ford's allegations, Jim. You think he should be automatically disqualified if he's partisan? That sword cuts both ways, Jim. And if you think that was uncontrolled temper, you've never seen the real thing.

[oxmixmudd]

Of course it doesn't at all explain why Ford's own recollection is all over the map, or why her own named witnesses refuted her accusations.

Explanations for those facts consistent with her testimony have been given multiple times. It didn't need to be repeated. However, I can repeat them for you with no extra charge:

Before that, your own inaccurate testimony should be noted: other witnesses did not refute (offer contrary testimony) her, they simply could not corroborate her testimony.

The difference between refutation and corroboration is significant MM and the two should not be confused.

1) memory loss that is associated with trauma tends to lose detail regarding ancillary elements of the event and tends to be crystal clear on the critical elements of the event
2) The event was only significant and traumatic for her. For other attendees is was just another in an apparently long string of party events with Kavanaugh et al. That others would not remember helpful details, given she was trapped in a room and then snuck out, it consistent with the events as described.
3) other witnesses with pertinent information were ignored due to white house constraints on the FBI investigation.



Jim

[Cow Poke]

Try reading that again, Jim, this time for understanding. I suggest focusing on the second paragraph.

Horse and water.

[RumTumTugger]

Why does that mean her view can be summarily dismissed?

I thought women abused women had an inherent right, as survivors, to be listened to, Jim. Is that not true?

How is this relevant?

Or this? Do only survivors who are therapists have a right to be heard?

I agree.

That is pretty much the point of the article, Jim.

Based on what evidence, Jim?

The "evidence" for Kavanaugh lying is even thinner than Ford's allegations, Jim. You think he should be automatically disqualified if he's partisan? That sword cuts both ways, Jim. And if you think that was uncontrolled temper, you've never seen the real thing.

Forget it OBP JimL like the rest of his ilk has his fingers stuck in his ears he doesn't want the Truth he want The false narrative the left has tried to foist on America.

[Mountain Man]

1) memory loss that is associated with trauma tends to lose detail regarding ancillary elements of the event and tends to be crystal clear on the critical elements of the event

Like her crystal clear recall of only having a single beer while forgetting critical details like exactly how old she was, exactly when the party took place, exactly where it took place, or exactly how she got home? As far as I know, she never even explained why she happened to be wearing a bathing suit under her clothes. Did the house have a pool? Had they been swimming? Were they planning to swim? It's a curious unexplained detail, isn't it?

And then there's the fact that she told her therapist that there were 7 attendees including herself, and that she was assaulted by 4 guys, but later reduced the number of attendees and attackers to 5 and 2 respectively. How could she have possibly gotten the number of attackers confused when she claimed in her sworn testimony that she will never forget the details? Seems her memory of critical elements is not so "crystal clear" after all. And, yes, I'm aware of the excuse that her therapist's notes are unreliable on this point, but then that forces us to presume they're unreliable on every point and not just on the points that refute Ford's specious accusation (which would be the fallacy of special pleading).

Add to that all the other inconsistencies in her narrative (when and why a second door was installed in her home; her suspiciously selective fear of flying; and so on), and it all adds up to an accuser without credibility.

2) The event was only significant and traumatic for her. For other attendees is was just another in an apparently long string of party events with Kavanaugh et al. That others would not remember helpful details, given she was trapped in a room and then snuck out, it consistent with the events as described.

Yep, we've heard that excuse, too, but surely Leland Keyser, Ford's lifelong friend, would have remembered attending a party where a panicked Ford ran past her and out the front door, never to return (she didn't "sneak out" like you falsely claim, and based on Ford's various statements, it would have been impossible for her to leave the house without everybody else seeing her), yet Keyser doesn't remember attending any such party or even meeting Kavanaugh. Remember, this was a witness named by Ford herself! Of course that didn't stop Sketchy Ford from throwing her best friend under the bus with the cruel suggestion that Keyser was too focused on her own health problems to corroborate Ford's story.

3) other witnesses with pertinent information were ignored due to white house constraints on the FBI investigation.

Who could be more pertinent than contemporary witnesses named by Ford herself and who unanimously refuted her accusation?

Based on the facts, I think it's safe to say that Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh is innocent, and Ford is a bald-faced liar.

And that's the last I have to say on the subject.

[One Bad Pig]

Forget it OBP JimL like the rest of his ilk has his fingers stuck in his ears he doesn't want the Truth he want The false narrative the left has tried to foist on America.

Jim isn't the only one reading.

[oxmixmudd]

Like her crystal clear recall of only having a single beer while forgetting critical details like exactly how old she was, exactly when the party took place, exactly where it took place, or exactly how she got home? As far as I know, she never even explained why she happened to be wearing a bathing suit under her clothes. Did the house have a pool? Had they been swimming? Were they planning to swim? It's a curious unexplained detail, isn't it?

And then there's the fact that she told her therapist that there were 7 attendees including herself, and that she was assaulted by 4 guys, but later reduced the number of attendees and attackers to 5 and 2 respectively. How could she have possibly gotten the number of attackers confused when she claimed in her sworn testimony that she will never forget the details? Seems her memory of critical elements is not so "crystal clear" after all. And, yes, I'm aware of the excuse that her therapist's notes are unreliable on this point, but then that forces us to presume they're unreliable on every point and not just on the points that refute Ford's specious accusation (which would be the fallacy of special pleading).

Add to that all the other inconsistencies in her narrative (when and why a second door was installed in her home; her suspiciously selective fear of flying; and so on), and it all adds up to an accuser without credibility.


Yep, we've heard that excuse, too, but surely Leland Keyser, Ford's lifelong friend, would have remembered attending a party where a panicked Ford ran past her and out the front door, never to return (she didn't "sneak out" like you falsely claim, and based on Ford's various statements, it would have been impossible for her to leave the house without everybody else seeing her), yet Keyser doesn't remember attending any such party or even meeting Kavanaugh. Remember, this was a witness named by Ford herself! Of course that didn't stop Sketchy Ford from throwing her best friend under the bus with the cruel suggestion that Keyser was too focused on her own health problems to corroborate Ford's story.


Who could be more pertinent than contemporary witnesses named by Ford herself and who unanimously refuted her accusation?

Based on the facts, I think it's safe to say that Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh is innocent, and Ford is a bald-faced liar.

And that's the last I have to say on the subject.

More of the same. As far as I have been able to glean, at least a simple majority of the 'facts' you post above are selectively screened and interpreted by various pundits to smear Ford. I've posted criticisms of some of them, but there is no willingness to hear any other view of the data used by them in any other way, so you just ignore my posts on those issues.

To be clear, this is not to pretend there are not ALSO various pundits whose only point is to smear Kavanaugh. There is plenty of that going on as well, you just don't use any of that data so I don't have any need to post corrections of it.

So it is good you are done, because you have reached a fixed point in your information processing where the data doesn't matter and the conclusions are unchangeable, and so discussion of the facts only serves as a venue for you to echo the same misinformation ad nauseum.

On to the next topic.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Forget it OBP JimL like the rest of his ilk has his fingers stuck in his ears he doesn't want the Truth he want The false narrative the left has tried to foist on America.

It is my opinion that 'fingers in the ears' is fairly common in Civics 101, and that most of the time when the accusations is levied, the one making the accusation is about as guilty as the one being accused.

Jim