joedirt wrote:
she's a saint, she couldn't possibly be lying. She's a pillar of strength and honesty. All of her tales are well corroborated and make logical sense.
joedirt wrote:
she's a saint, she couldn't possibly be lying. She's a pillar of strength and honesty. All of her tales are well corroborated and make logical sense.
I don't come on here all day and there are 15 pages I haven't read. Oh well. Maybe in the morning. Since it's clear to me that most people are unable to look at this objectively, my goal is to get people to do that. If you don't think there are serious questions about BOTH their testimonies, then you aren't being logical. So I urge you to challenge yourself and read something against your point of view. If you are a Kavanaugh fan, read this:https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/571936/ If you are Ford fan, read this:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm In the first article, a guy who says he's always admired Kavanaugh says he couldn't vote for him now irregardless of whether or not the charges are true:
Some guy at the Atlantic wrote:
There’s one more reason I could not vote to confirm Kavanaugh: His apparent lack of candor on the culture of drinking at Georgetown Prep and later is a problem of its own, quite apart from what it may indicate about the truth of Ford’s story. People throw around words like perjury too blithely. I won’t do so here. I will say that I do not believe he showed the sort of candor that warrants the Senate’s—or the public’s—confidence...
My bottom line is the opposite of the one Flake expressed in his statement: Faced with credible allegations of serious misconduct against him, Kavanaugh behaved in a fashion unacceptable in a justice, it seems preponderantly likely he was not candid with the Senate Judiciary Committee on important matters, and the risk of Ford’s allegations being closer to the truth than his denial of them is simply too high to place him on the Supreme Court.
We are in a political environment in which there are no rules, no norms anymore to violate. There is only power, and the individual judgments of individual senators—facing whatever political pressures they face, calculating political gain however they do it, and consulting their consciences to the extent they have them.
As much as I admire Kavanaugh, my conscience would not permit me to vote for him.
The 2nd article points out major flaws in Ford's testimony like how the # of people at the party has changed repeatedly in recent weeks, how parts of the polygraph were crossed out, how Ford can't remember whether she gave the notes to the Post or not and how Ford refuses to hand over the notes from 2012 to prove she actually talked to her therapist about it then.
Additionally, the article notes that an ex-boyfriend has come forward saying Ford had no problem living in a 500 sf apartment, flying on prop planes and says that Ford once coached her best friend on how to prepare for a lie detector test - when she told Congress she had never done such a thing. He also alleges Ford used his credit card after they broke up and lied about it until he said he was going to the authorities.
https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1047293294567456770Just on those two links you posted, one's opinion, one's fact (assuming it is, and I'm guessing it is, after all it's been submitted to the FBI).
Opinion and fact can be two different things.
Fox "News"? Really, rojo? Please find a legitimate news source to make your points.
Kav has lied repeatedly under oath. Don't take one person's word for it.
https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/all-of-kavanaughs-classmates-who-have-called-him-a-liar.html
clayjohnson3 wrote:
Fox "News"? Really, rojo? Please find a legitimate news source to make your points.
Pretty amazing you cannot find the Dr. Ford boyfriend letter on the first page of the CNN website. More biased than I suspected.
Harambe wrote:
Has anybody else's check from Soros foundation come in late this month?
The lease on my BMW needs paying
You could always switch to Koch brothers - they have much deeper pockets.
celery wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Here is Grassley’s letter to Dr. Ford’s attorneys. Boy is this getting fun.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarmI'm rooting for Kavanaugh 100%, but I'm skeptical of this letter until the ex-boyfriend reveals his identity and we have corroborating evidence that they were in a relationship for the time described. I would also need a second person who knew Ford well to corroborate these general accusations, (that she had zero fear of flying and/or helped someone with a polygraph).
See how that works liberals. You don't believe something just because it would be convenient to your narrative for it to be true. You wait for corroborating evidence.
Even if this guy really was in a relationship with Dr. Ford, he admits to being a jilted lover. He would have a revenge motive.
There are lots of possible explanations for the polygraph thing:
1) The alleged ex-boyfriend is lying.
2) The alleged ex-boyfriend is mistaken.
3) Dr. Ford did give someone advice on how to relax when facing an examination, but didn't know it was for a polygraph.
4) Dr. Ford forgot that she had ever given such advice.
All four of those are far more likely than Dr. Ford misleading the committee. She had nothing to gain by lying. She could have said, "I once gave someone advice on how to relax before taking a polygraph. But when it came time for me to take one I was still nervous." Again, there was no reason to lie. The whole thing was immaterial.
You people are really going to the far reaches of possibility to make her out to be a liar and you come up empty every time.
Turnin in to another classic. wrote:
joedirt wrote:
darling little Manchurian Accuser, Chrissy Blasey Ford, who spins a plausible yarn to draw sympathy from the #movementoftheyear
Don't forget the sweet innocent little girl voice, she's proving to be anything but the sweet innocent.
"made up a fear of flying' - And a fear of confined spaces with single door.
This thread reminds of the classic LR cheater threads that slowly unravel as the sleuths and truth seekers slowly find more incriminating information.
Again, you are really reaching.
People who have a fear of flying still fly. Plus, you can't point to a single quote from Dr. Ford where she even describes a fear of flying at all. During her testimony, she does seem to indicate that she doesn't like to fly.
Dr. Ford's testimony indicates that she has suffered from the affects of her attack. But it's not debilitating. Like most people who have irrational fears, she deals with it.
This guy Avenatti is a fruit loop. My favorite part is this new witness has known both Ford and Swetnick for DECADES. Well that certainly would be interesting, wouldn’t it, as Ford and Swetnick have never claimed to know one another. But then again, maybe they do, as Atty Katz has represented both.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CovfefeAnalyst/status/1047472868970418179/photo/1
rojo wrote:
I don't come on here all day and there are 15 pages I haven't read. Oh well. Maybe in the morning.
Since it's clear to me that most people are unable to look at this objectively, my goal is to get people to do that. If you don't think there are serious questions about BOTH their testimonies, then you aren't being logical.
So I urge you to challenge yourself and read something against your point of view.
If you are a Kavanaugh fan, read this:
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/571936/If you are Ford fan, read this:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarmIn the first article, a guy who says he's always admired Kavanaugh says he couldn't vote for him now irregardless of whether or not the charges are true:
Some guy at the Atlantic wrote:
There’s one more reason I could not vote to confirm Kavanaugh: His apparent lack of candor on the culture of drinking at Georgetown Prep and later is a problem of its own, quite apart from what it may indicate about the truth of Ford’s story. People throw around words like perjury too blithely. I won’t do so here. I will say that I do not believe he showed the sort of candor that warrants the Senate’s—or the public’s—confidence...
My bottom line is the opposite of the one Flake expressed in his statement: Faced with credible allegations of serious misconduct against him, Kavanaugh behaved in a fashion unacceptable in a justice, it seems preponderantly likely he was not candid with the Senate Judiciary Committee on important matters, and the risk of Ford’s allegations being closer to the truth than his denial of them is simply too high to place him on the Supreme Court.
We are in a political environment in which there are no rules, no norms anymore to violate. There is only power, and the individual judgments of individual senators—facing whatever political pressures they face, calculating political gain however they do it, and consulting their consciences to the extent they have them.
As much as I admire Kavanaugh, my conscience would not permit me to vote for him.
The 2nd article points out major flaws in Ford's testimony like how the # of people at the party has changed repeatedly in recent weeks, how parts of the polygraph were crossed out, how Ford can't remember whether she gave the notes to the Post or not and how Ford refuses to hand over the notes from 2012 to prove she actually talked to her therapist about it then.
Additionally, the article notes that an ex-boyfriend has come forward saying Ford had no problem living in a 500 sf apartment, flying on prop planes and says that Ford once coached her best friend on how to prepare for a lie detector test - when she told Congress she had never done such a thing. He also alleges Ford used his credit card after they broke up and lied about it until he said he was going to the authorities.
https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1047293294567456770
Not going to comment on ALL of the allegations, especially of Dr. Ford, but just a general comment to you Rojo, and that is that once again, I am pleased that you are able to see this from a logical view.
You are absolutely correct that there are problems with the testimony of both Ford and Kavanaugh as well as other witnesses who have come forward (Chad Ludington for example said Kavanaugh threw beer in the man's face at the bar when it turns out it was ice).
It is a rare court case or a case of opposing testimonies where one side has no holes. It is especially true when the alleged activities occurred more than 30 years ago when there was drinking involved.
I don't think this needs to end up being a "who do you believe", but rather an overall look to determine, not guilt of Brett Kavanaugh but certainty of suitability to sit on the Supreme Court.
It is demonstrably so that Kavanaugh lied several times during his testimony.
Kavanaugh asked that we "talk to people who know me". Ok, We have, and several have come forward to say he misrepresented himself during the hearing, and several have said he was a "sloppy drunk" or a "mean drunk".
Over 500 lawyers have come forward to say that Kavanaugh's behavior during his testimony is disqualifying.
We should judge both Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh harshly for any lying they did during their testimony. Perjury would be the charge for both. A NO vote SHOULD be the result for Kavanaugh, understanding that a NO vote doesn't mean that person believes Kavanaugh sexually assaulted anyone. Just means that they recognize he lied like a rug during his hearing, and he should not be rewarded for that.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Surfer Psychologist just wiped out on the Bonzai Pipeline, North Shore in December.
Hilarious. Everyone knows surfing ruins your professional reputation.
The Surfing Astronaut
https://esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Astronauts/Andreas_MogensenThe Surfing Surgeon
https://www.beckersspine.com/spine-leaders/item/40165-spine-surgeon-leader-to-know-dr-drew-brown-iv-of-focos-orthopedic-hospital.htmlThe Surfing COO
https://www.uber.com/newsroom/leadership/barney-harford/Let’s ridicule them all for being surfers.
Fat hurts wrote:
Turnin in to another classic. wrote:
Don't forget the sweet innocent little girl voice, she's proving to be anything but the sweet innocent.
"made up a fear of flying' - And a fear of confined spaces with single door.
This thread reminds of the classic LR cheater threads that slowly unravel as the sleuths and truth seekers slowly find more incriminating information.
Again, you are really reaching.
People who have a fear of flying still fly. Plus, you can't point to a single quote from Dr. Ford where she even describes a fear of flying at all. During her testimony, she does seem to indicate that she doesn't like to fly.
Dr. Ford's testimony indicates that she has suffered from the affects of her attack. But it's not debilitating. Like most people who have irrational fears, she deals with it.
I am fairly certain the fear of flying reason for not coming to DC was purely from the lawyers (Ford probably said she didn;t like to fly and the lawyers ran with it it). The lawyers (who are undeniably partisan) definitely were trying to delay this thing as long as they could and deflected (and didn't even tell their client about the offer to come to California). Unfortunately for Dr. Ford, that led to the most effective cross-examination of her during the hearing.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Surfer Psychologist just wiped out on the Bonzai Pipeline, North Shore in December.
Hilarious. Everyone knows surfing ruins your professional reputation.
The Surfing Astronaut
https://esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Astronauts/Andreas_MogensenThe Surfing Surgeon
https://www.beckersspine.com/spine-leaders/item/40165-spine-surgeon-leader-to-know-dr-drew-brown-iv-of-focos-orthopedic-hospital.htmlThe Surfing COO
https://www.uber.com/newsroom/leadership/barney-harford/Let’s ridicule them all for being surfers.
Hilarious is I bet none of the above would have had to ask their “beach friends” how to contact their Senator. Of course the was a phony answer from the Surfer Psychologist.
All that really matters is the opinion of Flake, Collins, and Murkowski. Joe Manchin will probably vote with them.
Of the three, Murkowski is the most likely to vote "no". There are several specific reasons she could be leaning that way because of local politics.
Flake and Collins just said that they strongly disapprove of Trump's mockery of Dr. Ford. At the very least, this indicates that they find her testimony believable.
I don't think it will take much to push two of the three senators to a "no" vote.
thoughts on that wrote:
[quote]Fat hurts wrote:
I am fairly certain the fear of flying reason for not coming to DC was purely from the lawyers (Ford probably said she didn;t like to fly and the lawyers ran with it it). The lawyers (who are undeniably partisan) definitely were trying to delay this thing as long as they could and deflected (and didn't even tell their client about the offer to come to California). Unfortunately for Dr. Ford, that led to the most effective cross-examination of her during the hearing.
Her lawyers don’t care if she is ultimately disproved, skewered, excoriated, whatever. The goal is simply to delay no matter if ford is ruined in the process. Remember, they don’t work for her; someone else is paying them
Fat hurts wrote:
All that really matters is the opinion of Flake, Collins, and Murkowski. Joe Manchin will probably vote with them.
Of the three, Murkowski is the most likely to vote "no". There are several specific reasons she could be leaning that way because of local politics.
Flake and Collins just said that they strongly disapprove of Trump's mockery of Dr. Ford. At the very least, this indicates that they find her testimony believable.
I don't think it will take much to push two of the three senators to a "no" vote.
Trump is giving them cover. Trump takes on the bad guy role (he doesn’t care) and gives them a chance to pay lip service to the other side. Having scored their points that way, they can turn around and say the evidence points the other way. Have cake, eat it too
Fat hurts wrote:
All that really matters is the opinion of Flake, Collins, and Murkowski. Joe Manchin will probably vote with them.
Of the three, Murkowski is the most likely to vote "no". There are several specific reasons she could be leaning that way because of local politics.
Flake and Collins just said that they strongly disapprove of Trump's mockery of Dr. Ford. At the very least, this indicates that they find her testimony believable.
I don't think it will take much to push two of the three senators to a "no" vote.
Really? You can drag Trump into this but that is a non-issue on the vote. If anything the Dr. Ford boyfriend letter just assured confirmation.
rojo wrote:
it's clear to me that most people are unable to look at this objectively, my goal is to get people to do that. If you don't think there are serious questions about BOTH their testimonies, then you aren't being logical. So I urge you to challenge yourself and read something against your point of view.
Rojo, I agree with looking at both points of views, which I actually think most people have done, although many people are still not being objective. In particular, the fox news article you posted is not objective at all. In fact I almost never watch the news, but do check videos on youtube - and the fox news videos are almost never objective at all. In fact they look like they were written and created by the Republican supporters of Kavanaugh.
With this being said, they things they posted about Blasey Ford are not credible. Based on those false allegations alone, a reasonable person would see that she is credible, and that the Kavanaugh supporters are not. The bottom line though is that anyone watching the final days of the hearing should be able to clearly see that Kavanaugh is nowhere fit enough for being a judge. He has many serious problems and issues.
Fat hurts wrote:
All that really matters is the opinion of Flake, Collins, and Murkowski. Joe Manchin will probably vote with them.
Of the three, Murkowski is the most likely to vote "no". There are several specific reasons she could be leaning that way because of local politics.
Flake and Collins just said that they strongly disapprove of Trump's mockery of Dr. Ford. At the very least, this indicates that they find her testimony believable.
I don't think it will take much to push two of the three senators to a "no" vote.
Boom! The Kavanaugh confirmation story has been a disaster for the Dems, as they sink in the polls (which oversample Democrats to begin with): Kevin Cramer in ND is 10 point ahead of sitting Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Mike Braun is up 2 on sitting Senator Donnelly in IN, Cruz now up 9 in TX, and Blackburn up 3 in TN.
Don't forget that Donnelly says he's a no on Kavanaugh, and now polls show him down. It's very possible he feels the need to change to a yes.
My prediction of a 54-46 vote for Kavanaugh is good or even 55-45 is not out of the question.