Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[carpedm9587]

He's probably referring to this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ms/1429270002/

But it's nothing. They're all people who were supposedly told about the assault decades after the fact, so not "corrobarating [sic] witnesses" as Jimmy falsely claims, and Ford never mentioned Kavanaugh's name to them.

Funny how her attorneys aren't using actual eyewitnesses and other people who can speak directly to the facts to prosecute their case. I wonder why?

I don't think anyone claimed they were witnesses. What they are claiming is that ford told them about the encounter, and even named the judge involved, before the nomination of this judge by Trump. If this is true, it rather undermines the argument that this is a smear campaign. The problem, of course, is the "of this is true" part. I would be more inclined to take a stand if the counselor's notes were made available and supported the claims.

I have to admit to being concerned that there are now two such claims, yet I am also very familiar with the poor decision making young men engage in. It doesn't forgive the actions, but I find myself wondering how much a man in his fifties has to pay for stupid choices made when his brain wasn't fully formed. Should he acknowledge the actions? Yes. Should he own and apologize for them? Yes. Should he make some degree of restitution? Probably. Should his entire career and reputation be destroyed? I don't think so.

And all of that only if the allegations are actually true. For now, I still have to stay with "I don't know."

[seer]

I don't think anyone claimed they were witnesses. What they are claiming is that ford told them about the encounter, and even named the judge involved, before the nomination of this judge by Trump. If this is true, it rather undermines the argument that this is a smear campaign. The problem, of course, is the "of this is true" part. I would be more inclined to take a stand if the counselor's notes were made available and supported the claims.

No actually that is not quite right, she only started to name Kavanaugh in 2012 after Mitt Romney publicly suggested he might pick Kavanaugh for the high court.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/polit...ist/index.html

[Mountain Man]

I don't think anyone claimed they were witnesses.

Jimmy called them "corroborating witnesses", and her attorney (or at least the media) implied that they substantiated Ford's accusations, which they absolutely do not. Not even close. It's inadmissible hearsay at best.

What they are claiming is that ford told them about the encounter, and even named the judge involved, before the nomination of this judge by Trump.

None of them say she gave them a name. The claim is that she only identified him as "a federal judge", and this three-decades after the fact. She seems to have suddenly "remembered" Kavanaugh's name only after he was in line to be the next Supreme Court justice.

I have to admit to being concerned that there are now two such claims...

And does it also concern you that in both cases, their stories are full of holes, and every single witness named by the accusers has emphatically denied the accusations?

[Mountain Man]

No actually that is not quite right, she only started to name Kavanaugh in 2012 after Mitt Romney publicly suggested he might pick Kavanaugh for the high court.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/polit...ist/index.html

And we don't even know if that's true. Her husband claims she mentioned Kavanaugh's name to their therapist, but everything I've read says that the therapist's notes never identify Ford's attacker.

[Cow Poke]

Why would she keep going to those parties if this was happening?

And she's older than them, so why doesn't she protect these girls - call the police, stop this from happening. She's complicit!

[Mountain Man]

Source: California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.26002baadadf

© Copyright Original Source

There are a several discrepancies worth noting here:

1. According to the therapist's notes, Ford never mentioned Kavanaugh's name.
2. Ford told her therapist that four boys attacked her but later changed her to story to it only being two.
3. Ford says that it happened "in her late teens", but in her letter to Feinstein, she says she was 15 at the time.
4. She says that the boys who attacked her were "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington" -- members, plural -- but by all accounts, Mark Judge is a nobody, an aspiring writer and filmmaker of no notable success.

There's a reason Ford has been so reluctant to testify. Any competent defense attorney would tear her accusation to shreds.

[Cow Poke]

Source: California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.26002baadadf

© Copyright Original Source

There are a several discrepancies worth noting here:

1. According to the therapist's notes, Ford never mentioned Kavanaugh's name.
2. Ford told her therapist that four boys attacked her but later changed her to story to it only being two.
3. Ford says that it happened "in her late teens", but in her letter to Feinstein, she says she was 15 at the time.
4. She says that the boys who attacked her were "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington" -- members, plural -- but by all accounts, Mark Judge is a nobody, an aspiring writer and filmmaker of no notable success.

There's a reason Ford has been so reluctant to testify. Any competent defense attorney would tear her accusation to shreds.

And a prosecutor coudn't make bad hay with her statements.

[Cow Poke]

And a prosecutor coudn't make bad hay with her statements.

Hey, we outta get Comey to come in and play his "no reasonable prosecutor...." bit!

[One Bad Pig]

Even The New York Times is reporting it:

""

Also, lots of holes are appearing in Ford's accusations. In a polygraph test, she said that she attended the party with "4 boys and a couple of girls". In her letter to Feinstein, she said it was "me and four others." These statements are impossible to reconcile. Also, she claims she didn't want to testify in Washington DC because she's afraid of flying, but she flew 3000 miles in August to attend a polygraph test.

Rolling updates can be found here:

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...on-into-chaos/

Upon examination, the holes only get bigger, and proliferate. At what point, Carpe, do you admit to the weakness of these allegations and quit throwing up your hands as if there's some sort of conundrum here?

[carpedm9587]

Jimmy called them "corroborating witnesses", and her attorney (or at least the media) implied that they substantiated Ford's accusations, which they absolutely do not. Not even close. It's inadmissible hearsay at best.

The affidavits are intended to attest to when Ford originally reported her claims. The purpose is not to say "it happened," but rather to attest to the timing of her making the claims. As such, while it may be hearsay about the events reported, it is direct witness testimony about when she made her claims.

None of them say she gave them a name. The claim is that she only identified him as "a federal judge", and this three-decades after the fact. She seems to have suddenly "remembered" Kavanaugh's name only after he was in line to be the next Supreme Court justice.https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...ey-ford-sayAnd does it also concern you that in both cases, their stories are full of holes, and every single witness named by the accusers has emphatically denied the accusations?

If you read the reports, apparently her husband testifies that she named him in his affidavit. At least, that's how I read the reports. I cannot find the actual affidavit.

[carpedm9587]

Upon examination, the holes only get bigger, and proliferate. At what point, Carpe, do you admit to the weakness of these allegations and quit throwing up your hands as if there's some sort of conundrum here?

When there is adequate evidence to confirm or refute the allegations. I try not to come to a conclusion just because it aligns with my political position.

[DesertBerean]

The true life stories of two college kids falsely accused of rape where the accuser was sentenced for ruining their lives and of course the Brian Banks story where the accuser was ordered to repay the million dollar award she got for her lies, in light of this latest disgusting stunt ton discredit someone with absolutely no sound proof, hasn't made any real impact. I believe the Cosby case has simply whipped everyone into a feeding frenzy.

I'm ashamed of Feinstein.

[Starlight]

The true life stories of two college kids falsely accused of rape where the accuser was sentenced for ruining their lives and of course the Brian Banks story where the accuser was ordered to repay the million dollar award she got for her lies, in light of this latest disgusting stunt ton discredit someone with absolutely no sound proof, hasn't made any real impact.

It's worth noting that numerous studies on the frequency of false accusations of rape have found that about 2% of the time the accusation is provably false and about a further ~8% of the time the police are reasonably sure it's false but can't prove it to be so. What that tells us is that false accusations of rape are relatively rare and that ~90% of such accusations are credible.

Personally after reviewing all the public information in Kavanaugh's case, it is my view that all three women's claims are credible and consistent with known background information about Kavanaugh's general conduct in high school. I believe all 3 of the women. Kavanaugh also seems to have a tendency towards regular lying and seems to have come close to perjury in multiple instances as a result, and his own claims about his conduct in high school are openly contradicted by many other sources including friends of his, so I do not find him in any way to be a credible witness.

[NorrinRadd]

... Kavanaugh was nominated on July 9th, 2018. That was almost 4 months ahead of the Senate election. That was the start of the process. Merrick Garland was nominated in March 16, 2016. That was almost 8 months ahead of the presidential election. Those were the dates of the beginning of the "process." The Garland process ended with that nomination. It never even got a hearing - and the argument was "election coming - need to hear the will of the people." The Kavanaugh process began on that day as well, and that "will of the people" argument magically disappeared. ...

More precisely, in the Garland case the argument was, "PRESIDENTIAL election coming." The Republicans were essentially • Edited by a Moderator • the Democrats with Creepy Uncle Joe's own demands from years earlier.

Moderated By: QuantaFille

Please watch your language.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[NorrinRadd]

I wonder why?

Kavanaugh lawyer says accuser's therapist notes, lie detector test not turned over

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/othe...ver/vp-AAAF9yP

Plus there's the fact that there is literally no such thing as a "lie detector."