Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Tassman]

*in fact, in my next post, I show, in her own words from her testimony before the Senate committee, that the Kavenaugh issue was peripheral to the main reason for the counseling - it wasn't because of the alleged Kavanaugh incident. She was there for couples counseling.

The need for "couples counselling may well have been triggered by the traumatic events of her attempted rape by Kavanaugh. In fact it is very probable. This is common component of chronic post traumatic stress syndrome.

[Cow Poke]

The need for "couples counselling may well have been triggered by the traumatic events of her attempted rape by Kavanaugh. In fact it is very probable. This is common component of chronic post traumatic stress syndrome.

You will say ANYTHING to support your preconceived notion. I've been reading more on this, and the "couples counseling" seems to have been going on for longer than this, with ZERO mention of the Kavanaugh situation.

In fact, this is a bit odd....

In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all-boys school in Bethesda, Maryland. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh.

She doesn't claim that SHE remembered it was Kavanaugh - she claims it was her husband who mentioned Kavanaugh, and his statement didn't come up til 25 September, 2018. There appears to be no corroboration of any kind that this was discussed in 2011 or 2012.

[Tassman]

We've finally backed down to "for the most part"?

No "back-down"...you really are desperate aren't you. Ford's allegations were totally credible, we still haven't heard testimony re the others.

He knows that the FBI would NOT "clear his name"

Or he knows he could be guilty. He is no doubt sufficiently self-aware to realise that an an attempted rape could have occurred whilst in a blackout resulting from one of his many alcoholic binges. Several have testified he becomes belligerent and aggressive when drunk. He still looks like an alcoholic with his sweaty face and rheumy eyes.

they don't provide conclusions

They provide 'facts', which are lacking at this stage.

[Starlight]

The FBI investigation is an opportunity to collaborate the accusations or prove them unfounded. What's the problem?

Unfortunately media reports today are saying the White House is tying the FBI's hands on this one. It's not "you have 7 days to investigate these claims FBI, go do it." It's a "we, the White House, will be the arbiters of exactly who you, the FBI, are allowed to talk to, you are not allowed to go seeking any corroborating evidence, you may interview ONLY the people we list and you can just write down what they tell you."

We've finally backed down to "for the most part"?

I would rate the allegations IMO:
Professor Ford: True beyond reasonable doubt. I would convict if I were a jurist in a criminal case.
Deborah Ramirez: True on a balance of probability standard. I would award the case to her if it were a civil suite.
Julie Swetnick: Credible but needs investigation and clarification before a judgement could be made.

There have been a couple of other bizarre and non-credible allegations reported such as beating up Kavanaugh on a boat after a rape etc that have either been retracted or just widely ignored as silly.

[oxmixmudd]

Also, from the hearing, she had said...

Over the years, I told very, very few friends that I had this traumatic experience. I told my husband before we were married that I had experienced a sexual assault. I had never told the details to anyone — the specific details — until May 2012, during a couples counseling session.

The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand.

In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all-boys school in Bethesda, Maryland. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh.

According to TheGatewayPundit, the door she describes had actually been installed at least by 2011 - prior to this "couples counseling" session where she was insisting that a second front door be installed.

Shrug your shoulders some more. This is really lame stuff. Like some other guy my wife found trying the claim the glasses she wore were fakes - as if it would matter if they were (which they obviously aren't, they're (perhaps prescription) readers*, which a women her age would very likely need to read from a script). There is no actual timeline in her statement. She is not claiming the door was installed in 2012. She is describing the discussion in the counseling session itself and how it progressed. That is, she is claiming that the discussion of why she felt she needed the second front door during the counseling session led to a detailed discussion of the assault during the counseling session.

Jim

*it is clear they are magnifiers, they enlarge the eyes and sockets behind them. Though if they are prescription and only needed for reading, it is possible only the lower half of the lens magnifies and the top half could be clear.

[Cow Poke]

No "back-down"...you really are desperate aren't you.

Nope, not even a little.

Ford's allegations were totally credible, we still haven't heard testimony re the others.

No, Tass. They weren't. Numerous holes in her story.

Or he knows he could be guilty. He is no doubt sufficiently self-aware to realise that an an attempted rape could have occurred whilst in a blackout resulting from one of his many alcoholic binges. Several have testified he becomes belligerent and aggressive when drunk.

Tass, I don't drink, but I've been around PLENTY of people who are in "blackout" from alcohol. They're usually lying on the floor in their own vomit or urine or both (or worse).

He still looks like an alcoholic with his sweaty face and rheumy eyes.

You're looking in the mirror again, Tass.

They provide 'facts', which are lacking at this stage.

You are proving how completely ignorant you are of what the FBI reports will be. They provide witness statements - "he said / she said" statements - FD-302s.

Here's that bastion of conservative extremism, NPR.... I bolded a part just for you.

Why would the FBI make a difference?

It's a crime to lie to Congress, but lying to the FBI is a whole other matter. And there is a practical difference between people in the Kavanaugh case issuing written statements — as Judge and others have done — and actually sitting down with human special agents.

Investigators might glean details from people involved that aren't yet in the public eye. They might discover there are more people, including witnesses or others, than have been a part of the public accounting so far.

But the FBI will not give its own determination about the truthfulness of what witnesses say — one reason Grassley and Kavanaugh both earlier said they opposed activating the bureau. Investigators probably only will conduct interviews and then pass them to the Senate, they said.

Even if the bureau serves only as a gold-plated transcription service in this case, the completeness of those transcripts might exceed the body of evidence that now exists — and it would be evidence obtained from witnesses who could be prosecuted if they lied to the feds.

There will be no "he's innocent" or "he's guilty" -- there will be a pile of FD-302s over which the partisan bickering will begin anew, and will probably last for days, if not weeks or months.

[Cow Poke]

Unfortunately media reports today are saying the White House is tying the FBI's hands on this one. It's not "you have 7 days to investigate these claims FBI, go do it." It's a "we, the White House, will be the arbiters of exactly who you, the FBI, are allowed to talk to, you are not allowed to go seeking any corroborating evidence, you may interview ONLY the people we list and you can just write down what they tell you."

Source?

[Cow Poke]

Shrug your shoulders some more. This is idiot stuff.

Thank you, sir, for that thoughtful and respectful response.

Any reason you neglected to answer these questions?

Not being combative, but asking some questions...

A) Can you please provide the source that shows that she sought help for THIS event 5 years ago? All other sources seem to indicate it was "relationship counseling"*.
2) We don't know that she told her husband - we just know that he said that after the fact.

[oxmixmudd]

Thank you, sir, for that thoughtful and respectful response.

Any reason you neglected to answer these questions?

I meant YOU no disrespect. I did mean to disrespect whoever is writing the drivel you quoted.

The counselor's NOTES from the session 5 years prior describe the discussion of the assault.

Which to maintain the delusion this is all some lying plot to create the present day circus, one now has to claim the counselor was in cahoots with Ford and created fake notes.

It gets absurd really fast to try to take the facts as they are and map them into 'she's lying'.


Jim

[Cow Poke]

I meant YOU no disrespect. I did mean to disrespect whoever is writing the drivel you quoted.

The counselor's NOTES from the session 5 years prior describe the discussion of the assault.

Are you going to now claim the counselor was in cahoots with Ford and created fake notes?


Jim

I think I'm going to give up trying to reason with you, Jim. I'm being very respectful to you, and you're.... I think you have totally abandoned reason and gone completely with emotion. You have already come to your conclusion, and you will see everything in that light.

It is not pleasant to watch.

[Cow Poke]

Which to maintain the delusion this is all some lying plot to create the present day circus, one now has to claim the counselor was in cahoots with Ford and created fake notes.

Wow - never claimed that, don't believe that....

just, wow

It gets absurd really fast to try to take the facts as they are and map them into 'she's lying'.

Jim

I think I asked you a reasonable question, and it seems to have done nothing but trigger this outburst of emotion.

Like I said... I think I give up trying to talk to you.

(you appear to have added some after I had already replied, so I thought I'd respond, but I'm sure it's just a waste of my time and yours)

[oxmixmudd]

I think I'm going to give up trying to reason with you, Jim. I'm being very respectful to you, and you're.... I think you have totally abandoned reason and gone completely with emotion. You have already come to your conclusion, and you will see everything in that light.

It is not pleasant to watch.

I have no idea why you think that.

You asked why we should believe that is what was said in the counselors session. I answered.

The conversation was recorded by the counselor and those notes have been made public, I assume to show that the counseling session was real and to allow people that doubt her testimony to have absolutely clear and irrefutable evidence she did in fact discuss the event 5 years prior in a counseling session. This is not something she made up recently.

Can you explain what is irrational about seeing irrefutable evidence she sought help dealing with the trauma of the event as substantive proof this was a real event in this woman's life and not something she made up when she learned Kavanaugh had been nominated to the SC?


Jim

[Cow Poke]

I have no idea why you think that.

You asked why we should believe that is what was said in the counselors session. I answered.

No, sir. That is not what I asked. But it no longer matters.

[oxmixmudd]

Wow - never claimed that, don't believe that....

just, wow



I think I asked you a reasonable question, and it seems to have done nothing but trigger this outburst of emotion.

Like I said... I think I give up trying to talk to you.

I am surprised at your inability to follow simple logic, and your tendency to take things I say as personal attacks on you. That is the only emotion present in my response.

The scenario I describe is a logical consequence of believing the counseling session was not real CP. I didn't say you said that. I'm pointing out why it is absurd to think the counseling session was fake. And the reason I'm pointing that out is that if the counseling session is not fake, then it is irrefutable proof the memory of the event itself was something real and that had been with her and troubling her for a long time.

The only possible question is did she get the identity of the attacker correct. But it is also clear from the husband's testimony she has believed the attacker was Kavanaugh for quite some time and that it is also quite real that her motivation to bring this up now is that she believes this is what Kavanaugh did to her and that if he did that, the people voting to approve him need to know about it.

(you appear to have added some after I had already replied, so I thought I'd respond, but I'm sure it's just a waste of my time and yours)

As best I can tell CP you are not understanding what I'm writing. You are taking rebuttal of certain conclusions as personal attacks when they are not. You are not understanding that some of what is in my posts are the logical implications of what you've said, not quotes of what you have said.

I don't know why that is happening, but one common cause would be you've taken personal offense at something I've said and that is clouding your attempts to read my replies to you and causing you to see hostility to you personally when there is none.

And another cause could be I'm still just not expressing myself clearly. I'll see what I can do about that but at this point clearly there are no guarantees.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

No, sir. That is not what I asked. But it no longer matters.

It is the implication of what you asked CP.

You said:

Can you please provide the source that shows that she sought help for THIS event 5 years ago? All other sources seem to indicate it was "relationship counseling"*.

I summarized what you said as:

You asked why we should believe that is what was said in the counselors session.

The very clear implication is that you are asking for evidence this topic was discussed in that session. And the bolded part of the quote of your question is casting doubt on whether it was actually discussed in that session (or sessions), which goes directly to why we should believe this is what was said in that session.

And the answer to your question and my summary of its logical implications is the same. The counselors notes. I very much did answer the question you asked, as you asked it, and all the implications of it as you asked it.


Jim