(06-23-2019 10:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 06:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I believe her because I watched her testimony. Did you?

Yes I watched her. I was not favorably impressed by her bearing or voice. Sounded evasive to me.

Quote:She didn't strike me as a political operative. She very carefully explained the timing of her coming out with the story and how difficult it was to watch her assaulter progressively rise to power. She told friends, her husband, and her therapist about the assault years before the Kavanaugh hearings. She didn't have a reason to put herself through that grinder other than it was so important to her that the truth come out.

It was important to her because he was a conservative judge, about to take a seat on the Supreme Court, and she was a flaming liberal. I heard nothing from her that couldn't have been fabricated, and probably was.

Quote:I don't believe him because I watched his testimony. Did you? I did not find him credible. He was obviously lying about little details which made me question his entire story.

So was she.

Quote:There were multiple similar instances during his testimony where I didn't find him believable.
That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible and I felt that he was lying.

Frankly, I didn't find either one of them particularly credible. I thought he really fumbled the earlier questioning from Kamala Harris about talking to someone from a particular law firm. I would have just said something like, "If I were a lawyer, I would object to the question as vague, and if I were a trial judge I would sustain the objection. I had conversations with various people about various things, but they don't wear jerseys saying XYZ Law Firm, and people change law firms all the time, so I'm not necessarily aware of what firm they represent. If you can provide a roster of lawyers from that firm, I can tell you if I recall speaking with any of them about anything. Or if you can give me a specific name, I can respond. But asking the question in such an indirect and, frankly underhanded, manner, I am unable to answer with certainty."

My conclusion is that whatever happened, if in fact anything happened, was so long ago and of so little consequence at the time that neither one remembers it fully and completely. I did a lot of things when I was that age, some of them probably regrettable, that I would certainly not recall the details today. I suspect most of us did the same. I also suspect that Kavanaugh had prepped for a lot of questioning but got caught off guard a couple of times.

My best guess as to what happened is that she said to friends something like, I knew him in high school and I wish I could stop the nomination, and somebody said, why don't we come up with a sexual assault story, and voila. And the whole fear of flying delay was to buy time to put the finishing touches on the story.

Yep, the flying delay story was a crock of ****. They deliberately tried to shield any testimony from or outside interview of her by the authorities until the absolute last second. Kind of a real-world obstruction of justice scenario.

The fact that they moved her from Cali and housed her incommunicado for two weeks within hours of DC without bothering to tell any Senate investigatory personnel *or* the FBI kind of buttresses the 'ambush and nothing but ambush' scenario to a great extent. If I pulled that **** with a witness, even a pre-filing deposition, I'd get my ass sanctioned by the judge and probably face a raft of disciplinary actions by the state bar.

When you put that together with the leak that came out of some Senator's office to force this into the limelight -- that doesnt help her case either. There was nothing at all on the up and up on how she was handled.

But I am sure that overlooking that will certainly be good for the acolytes to hang onto and render faith to.

I don't think she was lying. I think that Democrats took advantage of a crazy woman for political purposes.

(06-23-2019 10:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 09:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 07:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 06:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 07:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I thought she was lying, so I felt like Tanq does.

My question for you is, why on earth do you think she was telling the truth?

Sketchy story, not supported by anything but her account, and lots of quirky holes.

I believe her because I watched her testimony. Did you?

She didn't strike me as a political operative. She very carefully explained the timing of her coming out with the story and how difficult it was to watch her assaulter progressively rise to power. She told friends, her husband, and her therapist about the assault years before the Kavanaugh hearings. She didn't have a reason to put herself through that grinder other than it was so important to her that the truth come out.

I don't believe him because I watched his testimony. Did you? I did not find him credible. He was obviously lying about little details which made me question his entire story.

The Ronatae (sp?) story. In the yearbook, he and his friends were clearly calling her a slut and intimating that they had all been with her. That is crystal clear. When asked about it he said something to the effect of "The Ronate Club was because she was such a good friend to us. And we respected her so much.". It was total BS, IMO.

He and running mate in the yearbook... "Have you boofed yet?". In his testimony he said that "boof" meant fart. Why would you ask each other if you have farted yet? Weird. Many people called him out on this saying that "boof" didn't mean "fart".

I like to keep it anonymous on this board, so I will just say that I had occasion to spend A LOT of time in the 80's with the suburban DC elite private school crowd. Played sports with those guys for multiple summers back then. I did not spend the school years there. This was a few years after Kavanaugh. I don't keep in touch with any of those people but I'm sure some of their siblings went to school with him. I attended parties with the sister school crowd in the 80's. I never attended Beach Week but friends and family of mine did. The term "boof" was thrown around a lot and it meant anal sex. Not in any sense did it mean fart.

This seems like a small thing but he was clearly lying. And maybe it's embarrassing to talk about with his family in the audience however as a prospective supreme court judge he knew how important it was to tell the truth in that setting.

There were multiple similar instances during his testimony where I didn't find him believable.

That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible and I felt that he was lying.

I sincerely hope you are never, ever on a jury.

How would you suggest that a juror respond to a witness that they feel is clearly lying on the stand?

Without any corroborating evidence, I would hope that they dont jump immediately to a position.

If there is corroborating evidence *and* a 'feel' that a witness lying, I could see your point of view.

But that issue of corroborating evidence seems wholly lacking in your judgement process.

That is why I really hope to god you never serve on a jury.

That is, unless I was a plaintiff's counsel and really just wanted jurors to think completely and entirely on an emotional knee jerk basis. But, I dont do plaintiff work.

I see your point and I agree... if I were a juror in a criminal trial I do not have enough evidence to say that he was guilty of assaulting her beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't think the standard for a criminal trial is the same as the standard for saying that Kavanaugh doesn't deserve to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Am I wrong in that belief?

It is clear to me (my opinion) that he was lying during his testimony. That's all I needed to see to form an opinion that he is not worthy of being named a Supreme Court justice.

(06-23-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 06:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I believe her because I watched her testimony. Did you?

Yes I watched her. I was not favorably impressed by her bearing or voice. Sounded evasive to me.

Quote:She didn't strike me as a political operative. She very carefully explained the timing of her coming out with the story and how difficult it was to watch her assaulter progressively rise to power. She told friends, her husband, and her therapist about the assault years before the Kavanaugh hearings. She didn't have a reason to put herself through that grinder other than it was so important to her that the truth come out.

It was important to her because he was a conservative judge, about to take a seat on the Supreme Court, and she was a flaming liberal. I heard nothing from her that couldn't have been fabricated, and probably was.

Quote:I don't believe him because I watched his testimony. Did you? I did not find him credible. He was obviously lying about little details which made me question his entire story.

So was she.

Quote:There were multiple similar instances during his testimony where I didn't find him believable.
That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible and I felt that he was lying.

Frankly, I didn't find either one of them particularly credible. I thought he really fumbled the earlier questioning from Kamala Harris about talking to someone from a particular law firm. I would have just said something like, "If I were a lawyer, I would object to the question as vague, and if I were a trial judge I would sustain the objection. I had conversations with various people about various things, but they don't wear jerseys saying XYZ Law Firm, and people change law firms all the time, so I'm not necessarily aware of what firm they represent. If you can provide a roster of lawyers from that firm, I can tell you if I recall speaking with any of them about anything. Or if you can give me a specific name, I can respond. But asking the question in such an indirect and, frankly underhanded, manner, I am unable to answer with certainty."

My conclusion is that whatever happened, if in fact anything happened, was so long ago and of so little consequence at the time that neither one remembers it fully and completely. I did a lot of things when I was that age, some of them probably regrettable, that I would certainly not recall the details today. I suspect most of us did the same. I also suspect that Kavanaugh had prepped for a lot of questioning but got caught off guard a couple of times.

My best guess as to what happened is that she said to friends something like, I knew him in high school and I wish I could stop the nomination, and somebody said, why don't we come up with a sexual assault story, and voila. And the whole fear of flying delay was to buy time to put the finishing touches on the story.

Yep, the flying delay story was a crock of ****. They deliberately tried to shield any testimony from or outside interview of her by the authorities until the absolute last second. Kind of a real-world obstruction of justice scenario.

The fact that they moved her from Cali and housed her incommunicado for two weeks within hours of DC without bothering to tell any Senate investigatory personnel *or* the FBI kind of buttresses the 'ambush and nothing but ambush' scenario to a great extent. If I pulled that **** with a witness, even a pre-filing deposition, I'd get my ass sanctioned by the judge and probably face a raft of disciplinary actions by the state bar.

When you put that together with the leak that came out of some Senator's office to force this into the limelight -- that doesnt help her case either. There was nothing at all on the up and up on how she was handled.

But I am sure that overlooking that will certainly be good for the acolytes to hang onto and render faith to.

I don't think she was lying. I think that Democrats took advantage of a crazy woman for political purposes.

You've definitely hit the Alex Jones jackpot with your "crazy woman" comment. Congratulations. I mean, most of the far right Talking Heads had the decorum to say that they believed that something happened to her, but that Kavanaugh was not involved and her memory was likely fuzzy. You went straight “she’s crazy”. Does anybody still wonder why women don’t come forward more frequently and earlier?.

(06-23-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 06:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 06:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I believe(d) kavanaugh for multiple reasons, but the basic one is is I have personal experience with the way recollections can morph into memories of something that never happened.

I saw an old classmate, and our reminiscing wandered into a scrape he and I got into. As he remembers it, it was my idea. I remember it just the opposite.

I once ran into a former girl friend that I had broken up with 10 years earlier. As we talked, it became apparent she remembered the sequence of events that led to our break up way differently than I did. And that was a 10 year lapse, not 30, And Blasey Ford was drinking at the time. I can also attest that sometimes drinking leads to fuzzy memories and mistaken understandings.

No court in the US would convict on that, except the Court of Democratic Politicians acting to preserve a SCOTUS seat. So we get the scene of righteously angry people, feeling justified in doing anything they fell the need to do.

You do know that victims of sexual assault often take years to find the courage to come out with their story, right? These victims often blame themselves initially, fear ramifications from their accusers, etc.?

I get that memories can fade over time. Perhaps something as traumatic as a sexual assault would lead to a more solid memory than a break-up with a girlfriend? Perhaps a victim of a sexual assault would pore over the details of the sexual assault over the years more than you pored over the details of a scrape that you got into with your buddy?

What is your cutoff for victims of sexual assault in terms of timing? Write off their credibility after nine years? Five years? Six months?

I don't doubt her sincerity. I doubt her memory and her mind.

My sister went to the DA and called the cops 100's of times to report that she (and her dog) had been raped by a man who lived in her walls. She decided that this man was a member of the grounds crew at her condos. So she had a real memory of a real man. I was afraid that this man would be arrested on her word, and although it would soon become clear she had mental problems, he might get deported back to Mexico. I did not want that to happen.

She believed it, and Blasey Ford believed it. My sister remembered it, and Blasey Ford remembered it. Both were fuzzy on details. Both worked in mental health,(my sister was a therapist in private practice), a field which seems to attract those with mental problems. I once had a nurse in a private mental hospital tell me the doctors were the craziest ones there. One of my college roomies became a psychiatrist, and the shoe fits.

Since we are giving credit to 30 years for her memory lapse, let's remember it was 30 years for Kavanaugh and his high school buddies also.

Her lack of support from her friends/witnesses and his lack of similar experiences/accusations in the 30 years since were big.

People write **** in yearbooks all the time. One wrote in mine about our "first time in a whorehouse". I wonder how you would interpret that if I was nominated? It was about a car wreck we had in a city 150 miles away after which we spent the night in a disreputable old hotel the other driver owned and offered for free until my parents could get there. But I am sure it would be presented differently if I were a conservative nominee for SCOTUS. I was 17. Luckily, I never had to present my yearbook to get a job.

Yeah... my yearbook entries were stupid as well. It's not the fact that he had ridiculous, embarrassing, teenage stuff in his yearbook. Lots of us do. It's the fact that he blatantly lied about it during his testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Commmittee!

(06-23-2019 11:50 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 06:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I believe her because I watched her testimony. Did you?

Yes I watched her. I was not favorably impressed by her bearing or voice. Sounded evasive to me.

Quote:She didn't strike me as a political operative. She very carefully explained the timing of her coming out with the story and how difficult it was to watch her assaulter progressively rise to power. She told friends, her husband, and her therapist about the assault years before the Kavanaugh hearings. She didn't have a reason to put herself through that grinder other than it was so important to her that the truth come out.

It was important to her because he was a conservative judge, about to take a seat on the Supreme Court, and she was a flaming liberal. I heard nothing from her that couldn't have been fabricated, and probably was.

Quote:I don't believe him because I watched his testimony. Did you? I did not find him credible. He was obviously lying about little details which made me question his entire story.

So was she.

Quote:There were multiple similar instances during his testimony where I didn't find him believable.
That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible and I felt that he was lying.

Frankly, I didn't find either one of them particularly credible. I thought he really fumbled the earlier questioning from Kamala Harris about talking to someone from a particular law firm. I would have just said something like, "If I were a lawyer, I would object to the question as vague, and if I were a trial judge I would sustain the objection. I had conversations with various people about various things, but they don't wear jerseys saying XYZ Law Firm, and people change law firms all the time, so I'm not necessarily aware of what firm they represent. If you can provide a roster of lawyers from that firm, I can tell you if I recall speaking with any of them about anything. Or if you can give me a specific name, I can respond. But asking the question in such an indirect and, frankly underhanded, manner, I am unable to answer with certainty."

My conclusion is that whatever happened, if in fact anything happened, was so long ago and of so little consequence at the time that neither one remembers it fully and completely. I did a lot of things when I was that age, some of them probably regrettable, that I would certainly not recall the details today. I suspect most of us did the same. I also suspect that Kavanaugh had prepped for a lot of questioning but got caught off guard a couple of times.

My best guess as to what happened is that she said to friends something like, I knew him in high school and I wish I could stop the nomination, and somebody said, why don't we come up with a sexual assault story, and voila. And the whole fear of flying delay was to buy time to put the finishing touches on the story.

Yep, the flying delay story was a crock of ****. They deliberately tried to shield any testimony from or outside interview of her by the authorities until the absolute last second. Kind of a real-world obstruction of justice scenario.

The fact that they moved her from Cali and housed her incommunicado for two weeks within hours of DC without bothering to tell any Senate investigatory personnel *or* the FBI kind of buttresses the 'ambush and nothing but ambush' scenario to a great extent. If I pulled that **** with a witness, even a pre-filing deposition, I'd get my ass sanctioned by the judge and probably face a raft of disciplinary actions by the state bar.

When you put that together with the leak that came out of some Senator's office to force this into the limelight -- that doesnt help her case either. There was nothing at all on the up and up on how she was handled.

But I am sure that overlooking that will certainly be good for the acolytes to hang onto and render faith to.

I don't think she was lying. I think that Democrats took advantage of a crazy woman for political purposes.

You've definitely hit the Alex Jones jackpot with your "crazy woman" comment. Congratulations. I mean, most of the far right Talking Heads had the decorum to say that they believed that something happened to her, but that Kavanaugh was not involved and her memory was likely fuzzy. You went straight “she’s crazy”. Does anybody still wonder why women don’t come forward more frequently and earlier?.

Based on her similarities to my sister and the similarity of their stories, being deluded is a real possibility.

Even if she is not deluded, false memories are are a real thing. And even if her memories are not false, they could be altered by time, drink, and distance.

It takes a lot of faith to believe her story is absolutely, 100% true, a fiath I believe is born of political affiliation in most of her supporters.

I guess it is PC to say that one must believe the woman because so many were disbelieved in the past. At first, when my sister would call me to say "the man" was on her balcony breaking in, I would tell her to call the police and I would drive the 30 miles to help. She had no doubt in her mind that her stalker was fixated on her. NO DOUBT. After experiencing that a few hundred times, yes, I stopped believing her.

What is your background that enables you to discern that Ford is truthful and competent?

Sometimes it is hard to say what actions/beliefs/statements are competent and which are not. Locking the door is generally a good thing. Locking the door because you believe there is a horde of thieves waiting to break in...not so much.

Her story had too much haze and reversal in it to impress me as factual. It reminded me of my sister explaining that the thieves had put back her dishes when she told them I was coming.

I guess crazy is not the PC term. I will use self-deluded in its place. I cannot be sure that in fact anything did happen to her, but I am sure she believes now that it did.

I see you have no comment on the ethics and motivations of those who leaked her letter. So take your Alex Jones and....

(06-23-2019 12:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 11:50 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes I watched her. I was not favorably impressed by her bearing or voice. Sounded evasive to me.


It was important to her because he was a conservative judge, about to take a seat on the Supreme Court, and she was a flaming liberal. I heard nothing from her that couldn't have been fabricated, and probably was.


So was she.


Frankly, I didn't find either one of them particularly credible. I thought he really fumbled the earlier questioning from Kamala Harris about talking to someone from a particular law firm. I would have just said something like, "If I were a lawyer, I would object to the question as vague, and if I were a trial judge I would sustain the objection. I had conversations with various people about various things, but they don't wear jerseys saying XYZ Law Firm, and people change law firms all the time, so I'm not necessarily aware of what firm they represent. If you can provide a roster of lawyers from that firm, I can tell you if I recall speaking with any of them about anything. Or if you can give me a specific name, I can respond. But asking the question in such an indirect and, frankly underhanded, manner, I am unable to answer with certainty."

My conclusion is that whatever happened, if in fact anything happened, was so long ago and of so little consequence at the time that neither one remembers it fully and completely. I did a lot of things when I was that age, some of them probably regrettable, that I would certainly not recall the details today. I suspect most of us did the same. I also suspect that Kavanaugh had prepped for a lot of questioning but got caught off guard a couple of times.

My best guess as to what happened is that she said to friends something like, I knew him in high school and I wish I could stop the nomination, and somebody said, why don't we come up with a sexual assault story, and voila. And the whole fear of flying delay was to buy time to put the finishing touches on the story.

Yep, the flying delay story was a crock of ****. They deliberately tried to shield any testimony from or outside interview of her by the authorities until the absolute last second. Kind of a real-world obstruction of justice scenario.

The fact that they moved her from Cali and housed her incommunicado for two weeks within hours of DC without bothering to tell any Senate investigatory personnel *or* the FBI kind of buttresses the 'ambush and nothing but ambush' scenario to a great extent. If I pulled that **** with a witness, even a pre-filing deposition, I'd get my ass sanctioned by the judge and probably face a raft of disciplinary actions by the state bar.

When you put that together with the leak that came out of some Senator's office to force this into the limelight -- that doesnt help her case either. There was nothing at all on the up and up on how she was handled.

But I am sure that overlooking that will certainly be good for the acolytes to hang onto and render faith to.

I don't think she was lying. I think that Democrats took advantage of a crazy woman for political purposes.

You've definitely hit the Alex Jones jackpot with your "crazy woman" comment. Congratulations. I mean, most of the far right Talking Heads had the decorum to say that they believed that something happened to her, but that Kavanaugh was not involved and her memory was likely fuzzy. You went straight “she’s crazy”. Does anybody still wonder why women don’t come forward more frequently and earlier?.

Based on her similarities to my sister and the similarity of their stories, being deluded is a real possibility.

Even if she is not deluded, false memories are are a real thing. And even if her memories are not false, they could be altered by time, drink, and distance.

It takes a lot of faith to believe her story is absolutely, 100% true, a fiath I believe is born of political affiliation in most of her supporters.

I guess it is PC to say that one must believe the woman because so many were disbelieved in the past. At first, when my sister would call me to say "the man" was on her balcony breaking in, I would tell her to call the police and I would drive the 30 miles to help. She had no doubt in her mind that her stalker was fixated on her. NO DOUBT. After experiencing that a few hundred times, yes, I stopped believing her.

What is your background that enables you to discern that Ford is truthful and competent?

Sometimes it is hard to say what actions/beliefs/statements are competent and which are not. Locking the door is generally a good thing. Locking the door because you believe there is a horde of thieves waiting to break in...not so much.

Her story had too much haze and reversal in it to impress me as factual. It reminded me of my sister explaining that the thieves had put back her dishes when she told them I was coming.

I guess crazy is not the PC term. I will use self-deluded in its place. I cannot be sure that in fact anything did happen to her, but I am sure she believes now that it did.

I see you have no comment on the ethics and motivations of those who leaked her letter. So take your Alex Jones and....

I don't know if she is truthful and competent. I don't know what happened 30ish years ago in the Maryland suburbs. I'm not saying that I firmly believe that her side of the story is 100% accurate. It's would be nearly impossible for any of us to say that.

What I do firmly believe is that Kavanaugh lied during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And that's a big deal, is it not?

Sorry... busy morning so I apologize if I can't respond to every single query in these lengthy posts going back and forth. Not sure how my lack of response is somehow equivalent to you calling Blasey Ford a "crazy woman"...

(06-23-2019 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I don't know if she is truthful and competent. I don't know what happened 30ish years ago in the Maryland suburbs. I'm not saying that I firmly believe that her side of the story is 100% accurate.

Funny that doesnt jive with your previous comments:

Quote:I believe his accuser

Quote:I believe her because I watched her testimony.

Quote:That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible

Which is it? Does this make you a Brett Kavanaugh style liar?

Quote:What I do firmly believe is that Kavanaugh lied during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And that's a big deal, is it not?

I could really hammer home how *your* story has changed in less that 24 hours on this. But that I think would be just more of making rubble bounce.

It seems that you are okay with an ambush style of attack, and anything that falls out of it is grounds for removal. No matter what its importance.

And, making a statement about what the word 'boof' meant in the early '80s to one small sub-segment of the population doesnt seem to me an issue to go to war over.

As stated earlier, the abject lies about 'if you like your health plan you can keep it' seem to have a much stronger impact to me. How about you?

(06-23-2019 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I don't know if she is truthful and competent. I don't know what happened 30ish years ago in the Maryland suburbs. I'm not saying that I firmly believe that her side of the story is 100% accurate.

Funny that doesnt jive with your previous comments:

Quote:I believe his accuser

Quote:I believe her because I watched her testimony.

Quote:That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible

Which is it? Does this make you a Brett Kavanaugh style liar?

Quote:What I do firmly believe is that Kavanaugh lied during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And that's a big deal, is it not?

I could really hammer home how *your* story has changed in less that 24 hours on this. But that I think would be just more of making rubble bounce.

It seems that you are okay with an ambush style of attack, and anything that falls out of it is grounds for removal. No matter what its importance.

And, making a statement about what the word 'boof' meant in the early '80s to one small sub-segment of the population doesnt seem to me an issue to go to war over.

As stated earlier, the abject lies about 'if you like your health plan you can keep it' seem to have a much stronger impact to me. How about you?

Ok... I’ll respond although this is a tiresome exercise in that I believe that you understood my intentions. I do believe her. Is there a part of me that could accept your version that this was all a Democratic hit job? Yes. So I can’t say that I am 100% sure that she was not lying.

I 100% believe that he lied to the committee.

So for your records you can put my best guess as to “% confidence that they lied to the Judiciary committee” at:

Kavanaugh: 100%
Blasey Ford: 5-10%

Did you find his response to the Ronatae club believable?

(06-23-2019 06:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  She didn't strike me as a political operative. She very carefully explained the timing of her coming out with the story and how difficult it was to watch her assaulter progressively rise to power. She told friends, her husband, and her therapist about the assault years before the Kavanaugh hearings. She didn't have a reason to put herself through that grinder other than it was so important to her that the truth come out.

This comes across to me as exactly what the DNC would prepare her for. This is why you won't be believed, so we have to get this part straight. That was straight, but the story itself wasn't. Seems a little odd to me.

Quote:I don't believe him because I watched his testimony. Did you? I did not find him credible. He was obviously lying about little details which made me question his entire story.

This seems like a small thing but he was clearly lying. And maybe it's embarrassing to talk about with his family in the audience however as a prospective supreme court judge he knew how important it was to tell the truth in that setting.

There were multiple similar instances during his testimony where I didn't find him believable.

That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible and I felt that he was lying.

I disagree... edited the above to focus on the meaningful. You say it's a small thing and this isn't a court of law investigating those allegations. The statute has clearly run etc etc etc. So why is it so important to have him support something written in a high school yearbook 30 years ago? This is political theater trying to get a potential supreme court justice to either say 'she was a slut' or that 'we boofed her' in public.

These weren't her allegations/accusations... This was the political witch hunt and why he got so angry/indignant.

PERHAPS though you've hot on something. You 'knew' these sorts of guys so you are sensitive to the allegations and suspicious of the defenses. Maybe he WAS one of those people 30 years ago. I know I'm a very different person than I was...

What does any of this have to do with whether or not he can defend the Constitution and render judgement fairly 30 years later? Even if you believe her, did she REMOTELY come close to proving her allegations?

If not, why is he fit to sit on the court of appeals, but not the supreme court?

(06-23-2019 09:17 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  How would you suggest that a juror respond to a witness that they feel is clearly lying on the stand?

still follow the evidence. I've had employees I've been 100% convinced were lying, but they were telling the truth. I know because I found corroboration and evidence. If they're lying, then the prosecutor should be able to prove it.

(06-23-2019 11:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I don't think the standard for a criminal trial is the same as the standard for saying that Kavanaugh doesn't deserve to be appointed to the Supreme Court. Am I wrong in that belief?

The purpose of a confirmation hearing is not to decide if someone deserves to be appointed. That's a completely subjective. A republican congress could easily decide that anyone who believes abortion is a right does not deserve to be appointed to the court... etc etc etc. I understand that recent decisions have not been made that way dating back to around Robert Bork, but that is their purpose. They're supposed to look at the candidates judicial record to see if there is evidence of unfairness or questions about their judicial acumen etc etc etc.

(06-23-2019 01:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I don't know if she is truthful and competent. I don't know what happened 30ish years ago in the Maryland suburbs. I'm not saying that I firmly believe that her side of the story is 100% accurate.

Funny that doesnt jive with your previous comments:

Quote:I believe his accuser

Quote:I believe her because I watched her testimony.

Quote:That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible

Which is it? Does this make you a Brett Kavanaugh style liar?

Quote:What I do firmly believe is that Kavanaugh lied during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And that's a big deal, is it not?

I could really hammer home how *your* story has changed in less that 24 hours on this. But that I think would be just more of making rubble bounce.

It seems that you are okay with an ambush style of attack, and anything that falls out of it is grounds for removal. No matter what its importance.

And, making a statement about what the word 'boof' meant in the early '80s to one small sub-segment of the population doesnt seem to me an issue to go to war over.

As stated earlier, the abject lies about 'if you like your health plan you can keep it' seem to have a much stronger impact to me. How about you?

Ok... I’ll respond although this is a tiresome exercise in that I believe that you understood my intentions. I do believe her. Is there a part of me that could accept your version that this was all a Democratic hit job? Yes. So I can’t say that I am 100% sure that she was not lying.

I 100% believe that he lied to the committee.

So for your records you can put my best guess as to “% confidence that they lied to the Judiciary committee” at:

Kavanaugh: 100%
Blasey Ford: 5-10%

Did you find his response to the Ronatae club believable?

I dont have an assumption either way on that. I dont have enough evidence to make that judgement. You apparently do. Good for you.

Had there been *any* corroboration of anything that Dr Ford stated re: Kavanaugh at the party, I would be the first to jump on the 'ditch Kavanaugh' club.

If there was any corroboration of perjury, I would probably do the same thing.

Yet none of that lil' ol' messy thing called 'corroboration' on any fing point was ever proffered, in the slightest. Was it?

And that is the biggest difference (i.e. the importance of corroboration before attributing something as a lie or not) between you and myself, probably. Not even to the level of 'wow this is a criminal standard', I am talking *any* proffer of corroboration. As in zero. Zilch. Nada.

But that is apparently good enough for you. Color me shocked. (just to be clear, /sarcasm off for the last sentence)

As I previously stated, I really hope you never, ever serve on a jury.

(06-23-2019 03:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 01:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I don't know if she is truthful and competent. I don't know what happened 30ish years ago in the Maryland suburbs. I'm not saying that I firmly believe that her side of the story is 100% accurate.

Funny that doesnt jive with your previous comments:

Quote:I believe his accuser

Quote:I believe her because I watched her testimony.

Quote:That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible

Which is it? Does this make you a Brett Kavanaugh style liar?

Quote:What I do firmly believe is that Kavanaugh lied during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And that's a big deal, is it not?

I could really hammer home how *your* story has changed in less that 24 hours on this. But that I think would be just more of making rubble bounce.

It seems that you are okay with an ambush style of attack, and anything that falls out of it is grounds for removal. No matter what its importance.

And, making a statement about what the word 'boof' meant in the early '80s to one small sub-segment of the population doesnt seem to me an issue to go to war over.

As stated earlier, the abject lies about 'if you like your health plan you can keep it' seem to have a much stronger impact to me. How about you?

Ok... I’ll respond although this is a tiresome exercise in that I believe that you understood my intentions. I do believe her. Is there a part of me that could accept your version that this was all a Democratic hit job? Yes. So I can’t say that I am 100% sure that she was not lying.

I 100% believe that he lied to the committee.

So for your records you can put my best guess as to “% confidence that they lied to the Judiciary committee” at:

Kavanaugh: 100%
Blasey Ford: 5-10%

Did you find his response to the Ronatae club believable?

I dont have an assumption either way on that. I dont have enough evidence to make that judgement. You apparently do. Good for you.

You can't make an assessment as to whether you find a witness believable when it comes to their response to a question in front of a committee? In light of the yearbook evidence that is also available? Isn't that something that would be expected of an attorney? I didn't ask you, "Can you say with 100% accuracy whether Kavanaugh was lying about this?".

Quote:


Had there been *any* corroboration of anything that Dr Ford stated re: Kavanaugh at the party, I would be the first to jump on the 'ditch Kavanaugh' club.

If there was any corroboration of perjury, I would probably do the same thing.

Yet none of that lil' ol' messy thing called 'corroboration' on any fing point was ever proffered, in the slightest. Was it?

And that is the biggest difference (i.e. the importance of corroboration before attributing something as a lie or not) between you and myself, probably. Not even to the level of 'wow this is a criminal standard', I am talking *any* proffer of corroboration. As in zero. Zilch. Nada.

But that is apparently good enough for you. Color me shocked. (just to be clear, /sarcasm off for the last sentence)

As I previously stated, I really hope you never, ever serve on a jury.

I feel very certain that Kavanaugh lied about more than one thing in front of the Judiciary committee. In my opinion that makes him unfit to serve on any level of court, Supreme or otherwise.

(06-23-2019 04:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 03:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 01:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 01:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I don't know if she is truthful and competent. I don't know what happened 30ish years ago in the Maryland suburbs. I'm not saying that I firmly believe that her side of the story is 100% accurate.

Funny that doesnt jive with your previous comments:

Quote:I believe his accuser

Quote:I believe her because I watched her testimony.

Quote:That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible

Which is it? Does this make you a Brett Kavanaugh style liar?

Quote:What I do firmly believe is that Kavanaugh lied during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And that's a big deal, is it not?

I could really hammer home how *your* story has changed in less that 24 hours on this. But that I think would be just more of making rubble bounce.

It seems that you are okay with an ambush style of attack, and anything that falls out of it is grounds for removal. No matter what its importance.

And, making a statement about what the word 'boof' meant in the early '80s to one small sub-segment of the population doesnt seem to me an issue to go to war over.

As stated earlier, the abject lies about 'if you like your health plan you can keep it' seem to have a much stronger impact to me. How about you?

Ok... I’ll respond although this is a tiresome exercise in that I believe that you understood my intentions. I do believe her. Is there a part of me that could accept your version that this was all a Democratic hit job? Yes. So I can’t say that I am 100% sure that she was not lying.

I 100% believe that he lied to the committee.

So for your records you can put my best guess as to “% confidence that they lied to the Judiciary committee” at:

Kavanaugh: 100%
Blasey Ford: 5-10%

Did you find his response to the Ronatae club believable?

I dont have an assumption either way on that. I dont have enough evidence to make that judgement. You apparently do. Good for you.

You can't make an assessment as to whether you find a witness believable when it comes to their response to a question in front of a committee? In light of the yearbook evidence that is also available? Isn't that something that would be expected of an attorney? I didn't ask you, "Can you say with 100% accuracy whether Kavanaugh was lying about this?".

Perhaps another way to say it is that I probably dont knee-jerk my way into a belief.

Yep yearbook is there. Glad you automatically assume the absolute worst. But then again, color me shocked.

As noted, you seemingly make a leap of faith based on something other than the facts presented. My *guess* is that is based upon a political bias.

So when you look at the *facts*, had Kavanaugh lied about that statement, there are realistically at least 8 people or so that can point out that lie, probably even more.

Of the 4 people pictured in the book

Quote:Four of the players who were pictured with Judge Kavanaugh in the photo captioned "Renate Alumni" told the Times it was simply a reference to "innocent dates" or going to dances with Dolphin. DeLancey Davis, Tom Kane, Tim Gaudette and Don Urgo Jr. said in a statement to the Times that they had "never bragged about" sexual contact or anything like that with Dolphin.

Ooops, the actual people pictured dont share your views about such a 'lie'.

Second, being a Federal judge, Kavanaugh is absolutely in touch with the fing Federal charges that a lie to Congress would put him in close personal study of. Not just to Congress, but surprise, surprise this encompasses the statements to the Senate investigators -- a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. So he would be facing not just a contempt citation, but a perjury to Congress, *and* two or three charges based on his comments to the grill party.

In your mind, Kavanaugh risked not just impeachment, not just disbarment, but about 15 years possible in Club Fed. To be blunt, that makes no fing sense whatsoever '93.

And, all it takes is *one* of those 10 people to say 'yeah Kavanaugh lied'. Funny, not one of the ten has done so.

Thirdly the handlers who ostensibly helped him craft such a lie *also* put themselves at risk in your view of reality. Each handler who 'coached' the judge to craft a lie (to each of the Congress *and* every Federal agent) put themselves in the path of not just a conspiracy to commit a violation of 1005, but a dead on straight no holds barred simple obstruction of justice charge.

And Kavanaugh would tack on a conspiracy charge for every one of his violations, and every one of the handler's violations.

But in your world all of that makes perfect sense.

But, my common sense breakdown of this is *not* corroborative in any way, shape, or form. So on the *evidence* I cannot say. And I still cannot say on the the evidence.

On a simple SWAG based on common sense principles, the thesis that he lied about something like that makes zero sense. But that is what it is '93 -- a SWAG but based on the facts of the actual arena.

If you want to think he risked 30 or so years in the pokey to make a comment on a gd high school yearbook photo -- go ahead.

No skin off my back.

But those are the hard facts of the issue, and they are not founded on some youth vacation I took to an area that was sort of kinda like the Kavanaugh crowd that you base you faith in.

But I seriously doubt that that real world calculus ever *once* crossed your mind on this matter. But even if it did, I am sure your 'faith' would ensure that it would be discounted en toto.

Quote:

Quote:


Had there been *any* corroboration of anything that Dr Ford stated re: Kavanaugh at the party, I would be the first to jump on the 'ditch Kavanaugh' club.

If there was any corroboration of perjury, I would probably do the same thing.

Yet none of that lil' ol' messy thing called 'corroboration' on any fing point was ever proffered, in the slightest. Was it?

And that is the biggest difference (i.e. the importance of corroboration before attributing something as a lie or not) between you and myself, probably. Not even to the level of 'wow this is a criminal standard', I am talking *any* proffer of corroboration. As in zero. Zilch. Nada.

But that is apparently good enough for you. Color me shocked. (just to be clear, /sarcasm off for the last sentence)

As I previously stated, I really hope you never, ever serve on a jury.

I feel very certain that Kavanaugh lied about more than one thing in front of the Judiciary committee. In my opinion that makes him unfit to serve on any level of court, Supreme or otherwise.

Good for you. Not much else I would expect from you tbh.

(06-23-2019 12:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Yeah... my yearbook entries were stupid as well. It's not the fact that he had ridiculous, embarrassing, teenage stuff in his yearbook. Lots of us do. It's the fact that he blatantly lied about it during his testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Commmittee!

Blatantly lied means that two things must be true:
1) Something other than what he said is true, and
2) He knew it was true and misstated things intentionally.

I don't see any conclusive proof of either of those. I see that it is your opinion that he lied. It is the opinion of others that he didn't. I am fairly certain you decided that you were going to decide that he was lying before he actually said a word.

(06-23-2019 11:50 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 06:42 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  I believe her because I watched her testimony. Did you?

Yes I watched her. I was not favorably impressed by her bearing or voice. Sounded evasive to me.

Quote:She didn't strike me as a political operative. She very carefully explained the timing of her coming out with the story and how difficult it was to watch her assaulter progressively rise to power. She told friends, her husband, and her therapist about the assault years before the Kavanaugh hearings. She didn't have a reason to put herself through that grinder other than it was so important to her that the truth come out.

It was important to her because he was a conservative judge, about to take a seat on the Supreme Court, and she was a flaming liberal. I heard nothing from her that couldn't have been fabricated, and probably was.

Quote:I don't believe him because I watched his testimony. Did you? I did not find him credible. He was obviously lying about little details which made me question his entire story.

So was she.

Quote:There were multiple similar instances during his testimony where I didn't find him believable.
That's why I believe her. It basically came down to "he said/she said" and I found her credible and I felt that he was lying.

Frankly, I didn't find either one of them particularly credible. I thought he really fumbled the earlier questioning from Kamala Harris about talking to someone from a particular law firm. I would have just said something like, "If I were a lawyer, I would object to the question as vague, and if I were a trial judge I would sustain the objection. I had conversations with various people about various things, but they don't wear jerseys saying XYZ Law Firm, and people change law firms all the time, so I'm not necessarily aware of what firm they represent. If you can provide a roster of lawyers from that firm, I can tell you if I recall speaking with any of them about anything. Or if you can give me a specific name, I can respond. But asking the question in such an indirect and, frankly underhanded, manner, I am unable to answer with certainty."

My conclusion is that whatever happened, if in fact anything happened, was so long ago and of so little consequence at the time that neither one remembers it fully and completely. I did a lot of things when I was that age, some of them probably regrettable, that I would certainly not recall the details today. I suspect most of us did the same. I also suspect that Kavanaugh had prepped for a lot of questioning but got caught off guard a couple of times.

My best guess as to what happened is that she said to friends something like, I knew him in high school and I wish I could stop the nomination, and somebody said, why don't we come up with a sexual assault story, and voila. And the whole fear of flying delay was to buy time to put the finishing touches on the story.

Yep, the flying delay story was a crock of ****. They deliberately tried to shield any testimony from or outside interview of her by the authorities until the absolute last second. Kind of a real-world obstruction of justice scenario.

The fact that they moved her from Cali and housed her incommunicado for two weeks within hours of DC without bothering to tell any Senate investigatory personnel *or* the FBI kind of buttresses the 'ambush and nothing but ambush' scenario to a great extent. If I pulled that **** with a witness, even a pre-filing deposition, I'd get my ass sanctioned by the judge and probably face a raft of disciplinary actions by the state bar.

When you put that together with the leak that came out of some Senator's office to force this into the limelight -- that doesnt help her case either. There was nothing at all on the up and up on how she was handled.

But I am sure that overlooking that will certainly be good for the acolytes to hang onto and render faith to.

I don't think she was lying. I think that Democrats took advantage of a crazy woman for political purposes.

You've definitely hit the Alex Jones jackpot with your "crazy woman" comment. Congratulations. I mean, most of the far right Talking Heads had the decorum to say that they believed that something happened to her, but that Kavanaugh was not involved and her memory was likely fuzzy. You went straight “she’s crazy”. Does anybody still wonder why women don’t come forward more frequently and earlier?.

It sounds as if in your righteous anger at my word usage, you feel justified to slur me with an Alex Jones reference.

(06-23-2019 12:06 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 06:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 06:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I believe(d) kavanaugh for multiple reasons, but the basic one is is I have personal experience with the way recollections can morph into memories of something that never happened.

I saw an old classmate, and our reminiscing wandered into a scrape he and I got into. As he remembers it, it was my idea. I remember it just the opposite.

I once ran into a former girl friend that I had broken up with 10 years earlier. As we talked, it became apparent she remembered the sequence of events that led to our break up way differently than I did. And that was a 10 year lapse, not 30, And Blasey Ford was drinking at the time. I can also attest that sometimes drinking leads to fuzzy memories and mistaken understandings.

No court in the US would convict on that, except the Court of Democratic Politicians acting to preserve a SCOTUS seat. So we get the scene of righteously angry people, feeling justified in doing anything they fell the need to do.

You do know that victims of sexual assault often take years to find the courage to come out with their story, right? These victims often blame themselves initially, fear ramifications from their accusers, etc.?

I get that memories can fade over time. Perhaps something as traumatic as a sexual assault would lead to a more solid memory than a break-up with a girlfriend? Perhaps a victim of a sexual assault would pore over the details of the sexual assault over the years more than you pored over the details of a scrape that you got into with your buddy?

What is your cutoff for victims of sexual assault in terms of timing? Write off their credibility after nine years? Five years? Six months?

I don't doubt her sincerity. I doubt her memory and her mind.

My sister went to the DA and called the cops 100's of times to report that she (and her dog) had been raped by a man who lived in her walls. She decided that this man was a member of the grounds crew at her condos. So she had a real memory of a real man. I was afraid that this man would be arrested on her word, and although it would soon become clear she had mental problems, he might get deported back to Mexico. I did not want that to happen.

She believed it, and Blasey Ford believed it. My sister remembered it, and Blasey Ford remembered it. Both were fuzzy on details. Both worked in mental health,(my sister was a therapist in private practice), a field which seems to attract those with mental problems. I once had a nurse in a private mental hospital tell me the doctors were the craziest ones there. One of my college roomies became a psychiatrist, and the shoe fits.

Since we are giving credit to 30 years for her memory lapse, let's remember it was 30 years for Kavanaugh and his high school buddies also.

Her lack of support from her friends/witnesses and his lack of similar experiences/accusations in the 30 years since were big.

People write **** in yearbooks all the time. One wrote in mine about our "first time in a whorehouse". I wonder how you would interpret that if I was nominated? It was about a car wreck we had in a city 150 miles away after which we spent the night in a disreputable old hotel the other driver owned and offered for free until my parents could get there. But I am sure it would be presented differently if I were a conservative nominee for SCOTUS. I was 17. Luckily, I never had to present my yearbook to get a job.

Yeah... my yearbook entries were stupid as well. It's not the fact that he had ridiculous, embarrassing, teenage stuff in his yearbook. Lots of us do. It's the fact that he blatantly lied about it during his testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Commmittee!

\Well, if I testified that that entry had nothing to do with visiting a brothel, you might conclude I was blatantly lying as well.

(06-23-2019 12:19 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 12:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 11:50 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yep, the flying delay story was a crock of ****. They deliberately tried to shield any testimony from or outside interview of her by the authorities until the absolute last second. Kind of a real-world obstruction of justice scenario.

The fact that they moved her from Cali and housed her incommunicado for two weeks within hours of DC without bothering to tell any Senate investigatory personnel *or* the FBI kind of buttresses the 'ambush and nothing but ambush' scenario to a great extent. If I pulled that **** with a witness, even a pre-filing deposition, I'd get my ass sanctioned by the judge and probably face a raft of disciplinary actions by the state bar.

When you put that together with the leak that came out of some Senator's office to force this into the limelight -- that doesnt help her case either. There was nothing at all on the up and up on how she was handled.

But I am sure that overlooking that will certainly be good for the acolytes to hang onto and render faith to.

I don't think she was lying. I think that Democrats took advantage of a crazy woman for political purposes.

You've definitely hit the Alex Jones jackpot with your "crazy woman" comment. Congratulations. I mean, most of the far right Talking Heads had the decorum to say that they believed that something happened to her, but that Kavanaugh was not involved and her memory was likely fuzzy. You went straight “she’s crazy”. Does anybody still wonder why women don’t come forward more frequently and earlier?.

Based on her similarities to my sister and the similarity of their stories, being deluded is a real possibility.

Even if she is not deluded, false memories are are a real thing. And even if her memories are not false, they could be altered by time, drink, and distance.

It takes a lot of faith to believe her story is absolutely, 100% true, a fiath I believe is born of political affiliation in most of her supporters.

I guess it is PC to say that one must believe the woman because so many were disbelieved in the past. At first, when my sister would call me to say "the man" was on her balcony breaking in, I would tell her to call the police and I would drive the 30 miles to help. She had no doubt in her mind that her stalker was fixated on her. NO DOUBT. After experiencing that a few hundred times, yes, I stopped believing her.

What is your background that enables you to discern that Ford is truthful and competent?

Sometimes it is hard to say what actions/beliefs/statements are competent and which are not. Locking the door is generally a good thing. Locking the door because you believe there is a horde of thieves waiting to break in...not so much.

Her story had too much haze and reversal in it to impress me as factual. It reminded me of my sister explaining that the thieves had put back her dishes when she told them I was coming.

I guess crazy is not the PC term. I will use self-deluded in its place. I cannot be sure that in fact anything did happen to her, but I am sure she believes now that it did.

I see you have no comment on the ethics and motivations of those who leaked her letter. So take your Alex Jones and....

I don't know if she is truthful and competent. I don't know what happened 30ish years ago in the Maryland suburbs. I'm not saying that I firmly believe that her side of the story is 100% accurate. It's would be nearly impossible for any of us to say that.

What I do firmly believe is that Kavanaugh lied during his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And that's a big deal, is it not?

Sorry... busy morning so I apologize if I can't respond to every single query in these lengthy posts going back and forth. Not sure how my lack of response is somehow equivalent to you calling Blasey Ford a "crazy woman"...

I am curious, 93...what responses were "blatantly lying" and how do you know they were lies?

(06-23-2019 06:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 11:50 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Yes I watched her. I was not favorably impressed by her bearing or voice. Sounded evasive to me.


It was important to her because he was a conservative judge, about to take a seat on the Supreme Court, and she was a flaming liberal. I heard nothing from her that couldn't have been fabricated, and probably was.


So was she.


Frankly, I didn't find either one of them particularly credible. I thought he really fumbled the earlier questioning from Kamala Harris about talking to someone from a particular law firm. I would have just said something like, "If I were a lawyer, I would object to the question as vague, and if I were a trial judge I would sustain the objection. I had conversations with various people about various things, but they don't wear jerseys saying XYZ Law Firm, and people change law firms all the time, so I'm not necessarily aware of what firm they represent. If you can provide a roster of lawyers from that firm, I can tell you if I recall speaking with any of them about anything. Or if you can give me a specific name, I can respond. But asking the question in such an indirect and, frankly underhanded, manner, I am unable to answer with certainty."

My conclusion is that whatever happened, if in fact anything happened, was so long ago and of so little consequence at the time that neither one remembers it fully and completely. I did a lot of things when I was that age, some of them probably regrettable, that I would certainly not recall the details today. I suspect most of us did the same. I also suspect that Kavanaugh had prepped for a lot of questioning but got caught off guard a couple of times.

My best guess as to what happened is that she said to friends something like, I knew him in high school and I wish I could stop the nomination, and somebody said, why don't we come up with a sexual assault story, and voila. And the whole fear of flying delay was to buy time to put the finishing touches on the story.

Yep, the flying delay story was a crock of ****. They deliberately tried to shield any testimony from or outside interview of her by the authorities until the absolute last second. Kind of a real-world obstruction of justice scenario.

The fact that they moved her from Cali and housed her incommunicado for two weeks within hours of DC without bothering to tell any Senate investigatory personnel *or* the FBI kind of buttresses the 'ambush and nothing but ambush' scenario to a great extent. If I pulled that **** with a witness, even a pre-filing deposition, I'd get my ass sanctioned by the judge and probably face a raft of disciplinary actions by the state bar.

When you put that together with the leak that came out of some Senator's office to force this into the limelight -- that doesnt help her case either. There was nothing at all on the up and up on how she was handled.

But I am sure that overlooking that will certainly be good for the acolytes to hang onto and render faith to.

I don't think she was lying. I think that Democrats took advantage of a crazy woman for political purposes.

You've definitely hit the Alex Jones jackpot with your "crazy woman" comment. Congratulations. I mean, most of the far right Talking Heads had the decorum to say that they believed that something happened to her, but that Kavanaugh was not involved and her memory was likely fuzzy. You went straight “she’s crazy”. Does anybody still wonder why women don’t come forward more frequently and earlier?.

It sounds as if in your righteous anger at my word usage, you feel justified to slur me with an Alex Jones reference.

There was no anger, righteous or otherwise. Just mostly surprised that you would slur her in that manner.

(06-23-2019 07:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 06:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 11:50 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yep, the flying delay story was a crock of ****. They deliberately tried to shield any testimony from or outside interview of her by the authorities until the absolute last second. Kind of a real-world obstruction of justice scenario.

The fact that they moved her from Cali and housed her incommunicado for two weeks within hours of DC without bothering to tell any Senate investigatory personnel *or* the FBI kind of buttresses the 'ambush and nothing but ambush' scenario to a great extent. If I pulled that **** with a witness, even a pre-filing deposition, I'd get my ass sanctioned by the judge and probably face a raft of disciplinary actions by the state bar.

When you put that together with the leak that came out of some Senator's office to force this into the limelight -- that doesnt help her case either. There was nothing at all on the up and up on how she was handled.

But I am sure that overlooking that will certainly be good for the acolytes to hang onto and render faith to.

I don't think she was lying. I think that Democrats took advantage of a crazy woman for political purposes.

You've definitely hit the Alex Jones jackpot with your "crazy woman" comment. Congratulations. I mean, most of the far right Talking Heads had the decorum to say that they believed that something happened to her, but that Kavanaugh was not involved and her memory was likely fuzzy. You went straight “she’s crazy”. Does anybody still wonder why women don’t come forward more frequently and earlier?.

It sounds as if in your righteous anger at my word usage, you feel justified to slur me with an Alex Jones reference.

There was no anger, righteous or otherwise. Just mostly surprised that you would slur her in that manner.

I find it odd you would yelp at a characterization of someone as 'crazy' as a 'slur', and kind of go off on it --- yet feel no compunction whatsoever about *your* characterization of someone else as a 'blatant li[ar]'. And I am not even mentioning your labeling someone as 'having hit the Alex Jones jackpot'.

Do you see the rank hypocrisy in those actions?

Kind of a real-time 'dynamic standard' thing we have going here it appears.

(06-23-2019 07:01 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 06:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 11:50 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Yep, the flying delay story was a crock of ****. They deliberately tried to shield any testimony from or outside interview of her by the authorities until the absolute last second. Kind of a real-world obstruction of justice scenario.

The fact that they moved her from Cali and housed her incommunicado for two weeks within hours of DC without bothering to tell any Senate investigatory personnel *or* the FBI kind of buttresses the 'ambush and nothing but ambush' scenario to a great extent. If I pulled that **** with a witness, even a pre-filing deposition, I'd get my ass sanctioned by the judge and probably face a raft of disciplinary actions by the state bar.

When you put that together with the leak that came out of some Senator's office to force this into the limelight -- that doesnt help her case either. There was nothing at all on the up and up on how she was handled.

But I am sure that overlooking that will certainly be good for the acolytes to hang onto and render faith to.

I don't think she was lying. I think that Democrats took advantage of a crazy woman for political purposes.

You've definitely hit the Alex Jones jackpot with your "crazy woman" comment. Congratulations. I mean, most of the far right Talking Heads had the decorum to say that they believed that something happened to her, but that Kavanaugh was not involved and her memory was likely fuzzy. You went straight “she’s crazy”. Does anybody still wonder why women don’t come forward more frequently and earlier?.

It sounds as if in your righteous anger at my word usage, you feel justified to slur me with an Alex Jones reference.

There was no anger, righteous or otherwise. Just mostly surprised that you would slur her in that manner.

You have your opinion that he was blatantly lying. I am surprised you would slur him that way.

I have my opinion, based on several points, that she is not 100% mentally fit. I think her delusion, if such it is, is confined to this one thing and she otherwise can live a functional and normal life, as my sister did for several years. My sister is crazy. It is not a slur. It is a description. That is one way to describe people who see people who aren't there and accuse them of doing things that weren't done. We would have been OK with letting my sister talk to this imaginary guy until she attached her delusion to a real person, as Ford may have done with Kavanaugh, and starting calling the police on him, as Ford did with her letter. See any similarities yet? Talk to my sister about anything other than this, and you will conclude she is a well educated and well rounded, knowledgeable sane person. Talk to Ford about anything other than Kavanaugh, and you probably get the same impression. Can the poor sap on the grounds crew prove he didn't rape my sister? I doubt it. Ask Kavanaugh about the difficulty of proving you didn't do something. But the poor sap on the grounds crew will never have to prove his innocence in front of national TV and a hostile committee, including many who feel justified in doing anything unethical or illegal to prove him guilty, justified by their righteous anger.

righteous anger

(06-23-2019 04:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You can't make an assessment as to whether you find a witness believable when it comes to their response to a question in front of a committee? In light of the yearbook evidence that is also available? Isn't that something that would be expected of an attorney? I didn't ask you, "Can you say with 100% accuracy whether Kavanaugh was lying about this?".

I have said that I was not 100% satisfied with Kavanaugh's testimony. Part of that is that I was watching a telecast from afar, and I know from extensive experience--as virtually any attorney knows--that it's harder to come up with brilliant responses when you are under the gun. My dissatisfaction was more that he was not more belligerent about some clearly kangaroo court questioning, and not that I thought anything was lying.

I think you decided before the earring that Kavanaugh was a despicable person, and therefore he obviously raped women left an right through high school and university, and therefore anything he said that was different from that was obviously a lie. My guess is that he was something of a party animal in his youth. I know several people from my own growing up who would fit that description. I won't mention names, but today they include head of surgery at major university hospital and retired CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

Quote:I feel very certain that Kavanaugh lied about more than one thing in front of the Judiciary committee. In my opinion that makes him unfit to serve on any level of court, Supreme or otherwise.

No, you have an opinion that he was lying, unsupported by facts in evidence, undoubtedly influenced by your admitted political leanings. I am quite certain that before he or she uttered a word in testimony about this incident, you had already determined that you were going to believe that whatever she said was the truth because she was pure as the driven snow, and whatever he said was lying because terrible Brett Kavanaugh was saying it.

Tell you what, do a little thought experiment with me. Tell me what he could have said that would have led you to the conclusion that he was telling the truth, and what could she have said that would have led you to conclude that she was lying.