I'm also seeing this Trump tweet:
Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him. His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting. Democrats’ search and destroy strategy is disgraceful and this process has been a total sham and effort to delay, obstruct, and resist. The Senate must vote!Here's Alan Dershowitz:
The Senate Judiciary Committee needs to slow down and postpone its vote on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court until the FBI can investigate accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against him by three women....
Maybe we can get closer to the truth, although that is not certain. But right now there are too many unanswered question to bring the confirmation of Kavanaugh – currently a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia – to a vote of the Judiciary Committee as scheduled on Friday, much less to a vote of the full Senate.
Posts
257 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 257 of 257"Ann Althouse said...
I know there's theoretically a 4th idea, that CBF is the one who is lying, but I just think she would not have been able to lie that well."
Think was not part of that equation.
"BK is a plausible liar because he's seeking something and got blindsided and is genuinely outraged, angered, and terrified. Those emotions came through in the testimony, and he needed only to do flat denials, whereas she was an unknown who suddenly appeared and had a specific story to tell. I don't see how she could have pulled that off if she knew it was false."
Some people can't see because they are blind. Others just fail to open their eyes.
Lots of people can lie. Sometimes they can even conspire to do it. Or be told to do it and coached on how to lie.
There's a scene in the movie Z where witnesses all use the line "lithe and fierce, like a tiger." Not words that the class of people the witnesses were would normally use. Made the investigator suspicious.
I was accused of sexual harassment twice in a short period. Once at my full time job, followed by an accusation at my part time job. The full time job had multiple witnesses to my aberrant behavior. 4 of my male coworkers testified, in writing, that I talked all the time at lunch about sex with exotic women in foreign ports. Thing is- I never talk about my sex life, at all, didn't ever eat lunch with them, and I've never had sex with women in a foreign port. But I am an ex-sailor, and sailors are known for having sex in foreign ports, and to numb nuts like the idiots I worked with, the women would be exotic- except they wouldn't use the word unless coached. The female investigator realized decided at the end of it all that there was nothing actionable I had done, and everything was dropped. That as soon as she asked me about my talking I asked her if the people who said that I had done so had signed the same form I had that they were under oath and could be prosecuted for perjury if they were lying. I'd have loved to cross examine them...
Next time it was unwanted touching. 3 witnesses! And very specific as to both location and time. Very specific. When the investigator got to me I simply said there are cameras all over the place. Go to the recordings, it didn't happen. A week later the investigator told me cameras didn't cover the purported location, but that nothing was going to happen. A few weeks later I heard unofficially that cameras did show the "victim" and the 3 witnesses all taking a smoke break outside the building at the exact time they testified the unwanted touching was taking place. (Gee, I wonder why Ford's accusations weren't specific as to date, time, and place?)
Even more interesting- a few weeks later someone I saw once in a while at my full time job (big place) walked up to me in my part time job and told me I should check the second accusers facebook page, referring to her by name, and left. I never told anyone at my full time job about it. Hey- the two were facebook friends! Surprise, surprise.
So I have real doubts about any harassment complaint, especially one years and years ago. Because women lie. As do men. Oh- the first accuser did get the first full time job opening in the facility after she accused me, just like she was promised. Nothing provable, but everyone knows that's what it was.
Oh, one of the male co-worker witnesses shortly after retiring blew his brains out. Literally. With a handgun. No great loss to the world. I didn't mourn. What else did he lie about? About his service in Viet Nam. His time as a POW. The medals he won. He never spent a day in any service. Why would someone lie about that? BTW- he never told me any of those stories. I'd have spotted him as a phony in a heartbeat. He did lie to me about his ex-wife. He was never married.
Ann, if you've never run into people who would and did and do lie about such things- you've led a very sheltered life.
Yeah, you think that they REALLY want an investigation? And you think the Dems really want that kind of investigation? Absolutely no friggin' way.
That's a good point. It almost makes me want the GOP to call their bluff and call for a thorough investigation, except I'm so sick of this farce that I just want it to be over. The Dems probably count on most people feeling this way.
But you can bet that they will use this as a talking point forever with their lunatic base, but who cares. More and more people just tune out their non-stop whining.
(eaglebeak)
I know there's theoretically a 4th idea, that CBF is the one who is lying, but I just think she would not have been able to lie that well.
She didn't lie that well.
So I think that disposes of that objection.
She seemed to do "well" because she seemed vulnerable, fragile, and frightened--and maybe she was. I'd be frightened too if I were in front of the U.S. Senate trying to convince Senators that (a) it all really happened and Brett is a fiend and (b) I don't actually remember a damned thing, but take my word for it because I'm a frightened, helpless woman.
A certain ruthlessness appeared (unfortunately for CBF) when she dismissed oldest, dearest friend Leland Keyser as having "health issues" because Keyser wouldn't back her up.
I don't know what's up with Keyser, but CBF seems to have some serious memory issues. She should see a doctor.
Here is an interesting article you might find useful, Ms. Althouse.
It is 'how can intelligent people be gullible'?
Many different ways.
As Justin Franco answered, cognitive bias can lead to being gullible.
General naiveté or innocence can result in gullibility, even with great intelligence. Highly intelligent children may still believe their parents when they say Santa Clause is real, because their parents told them, and all their friends “know” about him too, so why should they question it?
Trusting personality. Some people have a tendency to trust others, and it doesn’t occur to them people will try to trick them. They don’t look for the lies, so they don’t see them.
Narrow focus. Some highly intelligent people are extremely capable in their area of strength, but they are very weak outside of that subject. It is also common for highly intelligent people to expect to understand things—which leads to them not questioning their own conclusions.
High or low self concept. A person, even a brilliant one, who thinks too highly of themselves, might assume others have such high regard for them, they would not try to trick them. A person with an awkward, low sense of self esteem may assume they are not good enough to question what others tell them.
It really depends on the person. For myself, I rarely get caught up when someone lies to me, but if they are joking with me, with a straight face, and they are my friend, I often take them seriously. Then they tell me I’m so gullible.
My mother-in-law was convinced in the last years of her life, that her boyfriend was going to help her become a movie producer. He managed to con her out of a lot of money. She believed him, because he treated her well, he played on her ego, he told her what she wanted to hear, and he told her how much money he was going to help her make. She was brilliant, but she was not mentally stable, and not equipped to recognize a long con.
Who is gullible, and under what circumstances, often does depend on raw intelligence, but more often, it depends on personality. (Or, ahem, ideology. Oh yes, that cognitive bias thing)
Some people are so unwilling to trust anyone, they won’t even believe the truth. Even extremely intelligent people can be mislead into believing in impossible conspiracy theories, because they do not trust. People don’t believe in the scientific proof of global climate change, because they do not trust, and it is easier for them to believe in a global conspiracy of climate change.
Some people trust themselves very deeply, and will side with anyone who agrees with them, even if they are wrong, and even if they are very intelligent.
Being good at spotting when someone is trying to trick you into believing something, requires a certain amount of lack of faith in humanity. Some people don’t like to feel like that.
Most intelligent people would be pretty good at spotting someone else’s gullibility, if all the pieces of the puzzle were laid out for them, but the exact same situation will not be recognized if they are the target of the fraud.
And some people, who are not especially intelligent, have a talent for seeing through someone trying to mislead them. Like a dog who barks at the new neighbor every time it sees him, while all the neighbors trust him—and then one day you find out he went to prison. How did the dog know? Intelligence isn’t always what it takes. Sometimes it is a talent.
Some intelligent people just don’t have that talent.
Achilles, one specific addition to your list, Dr Fraud flat out lied about not flying (one of the reasons no doubt why her social media was scrubbed). She needed the extra time not to travel to Washington by car, but to perfect her weepy, Meryl Streep-wannabe demeanour.
Dershowitz's first mis-step. If he thinks there should be an investigation, fine. But he knows the FBI is not the right outfit. They've ben bandied about a lot in much the same way that the word "credible" has--makes it all seem much more serious without actually adding anything. If there is to be an investigation, Ford Needs to do what she should have done back when she first determined to seek justice--call the police and file a report.
When Feinstein brought out the accusation, Kavanaugh immediately denied he had been to such a party, never happen. How could he categorically say that, if it was not true. He had no way of knowing that others would come forward and back him up, including Fords best friend ( didn't know K., never been to a party with him, alone or whith Ford).
I know there's theoretically a 4th idea, that CBF is the one who is lying, but I just think she would not have been able to lie that well.
CBF did lie, though. Here are two:
"I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme court and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all boys school in Bethesda, Maryland."
Elitist is a tool to amplify the hatred of the person for reasons other than the bad behavior she is exposing. Perhaps the lie was told in the original telling, and she is recounting it. That she chose to recount that part indicates to me she wanted to maximize the damage.
She used her fear of flying as an excuse, but it's clear she has no deep seated fear of flying. She used this to gain sympathy, perhaps even from herself.
Perhaps she convinced herself of facts with similar little lies. Or, perhaps it is as she said, and what she said conveniently aligns with her political ideology, and the political ideology of her beach friends she discussed this with.
One thing is certain, Republicans are going to pay for this regardless of what the vote is.
My original view was pass on Kavanaugh, to try to curry favor with the middle. Is there ever a bottom to the take-no-prisoners approach of the feminist left? Having watched the Kavanaugh hearing, my assessment is this kind of one sided investigation, where you can ask the defendant anything, but you can't ask the accuser anything, will tilt one way always.
An FBI investigation would be more of the same. It's a no win situation, and Republicans have to decide which penalty they would prefer to take, for nominating a conservative man. If it were a fair process, an FBI investigation would make sense. It's not a fair process.
That leaves me in the uncomfortable position of having no idea what the truth is.
I’m way more cynical about this than most There’s deep state investigators ready and waiting at FBI. She’s a calculating political operative with a well vetted and leftie lawyer tested story. MeToo exists for this moment. Hillary is president and Harvey is still raping in between White House visits.
The most obvious and immediate lie was about the fear of flying. She's a liar. The most appropriate authorities to investigate the claims are the police of the state where it supposedly happened. If they find it happened they can charge the guy and he can be impeached if found guilty.
Guys have more experience with crazy women than women do, because women with a guy start out with a grudge and a desire. That brings out crazy if it's there.
Maybe some variant of erotomania.
Since she said comes back home every year to visit her family, has anyone thought to drive to the Country Club and drive her around the neighborhood to see if any of the homes she see will jog her repressed memory?
It is my most fervent wish that Feinstein, Blumenthal,Durbin,et al never live to see another SC candidate nominated by a democrat president. That goes for Althouse, the Whore of Amazon, too.
Hooray. Our long national nightmare will be over one way or the other.
I still want to know what it was that Sheila Jackson Lee handed to Fords attorney in that envelope. Sneaky, sneaky sneaky!! Payment from George Soros maybe??
In case you didn't see the video....
https://www.facebook.com/ProjectRepublicToday/videos/1932960970333390/
"BK is a plausible liar because he's seeking something and got blindsided and is genuinely outraged, angered, and terrified. "
I know people keep quoting this line from Althouse, but beyond Althouse, does it make sense to anyone? Let's take out some words in that sentence:
"BK is a liar" with the initial qualifier removed. Why is he is a liar? Well "because":
"He's seeking something" like when you can't find your car keys therefore you are a liar.
"[He] got blindsided" because all blindsided victims, they're liars!
"[He] is genuine" Wait? What? Let's look up the definition of that word!
Genuine: "truly what something is said to be" or synonyms: "sincere", "truthful", "honest"
So the notion from Althouse (filler nonsense removed): "BK is a liar because he is genuine"
If that was Althouse closing arguments, the defense at trial would just remind the jury that the prosecutor just admitted the defendant is telling the truth.
There will be investigations. If the story of any one of them proves out, he will be forced to resign and maybe go to prison. The stakes are too high to leave this be.
A simple explanation for CBF sounding convincing and BK telling the truth: Dissociative disorders (via the Mayo Clinic):
Signs and symptoms depend on the type of dissociative disorders you have, but may include:
Memory loss (amnesia) of certain time periods, events, people and personal information
A sense of being detached from yourself and your emotions
A perception of the people and things around you as distorted and unreal
A blurred sense of identity
Significant stress or problems in your relationships, work or other important areas of your life
Inability to cope well with emotional or professional stress
Mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors
There's much more, which hint at why the family is not mentioned and likely remained silent. I think this woman was abused and suffered trauma, but no one has provided me any reason to believe the person that harmed her was Brett Kavanaugh or Mark Judge.
Cory Spartacus Booker accidently put his finger on it: Ford was telling "her" truth. She's not a liar. She believes that the event happened. But it didn't. It's a delusion. She presumably suffered an emotional trauma, perhaps an assualt like the one she described or perhaps something entirely different. Within the last decade, probably triggered by her therapy, she developed her Kavanaugh delusion as a way of coping emotionally with her trauma. That's why her story has a dreamlike quality -- it is a dream. It happened in no identifiable place and at an only vaguely identified time. That's why Kavanaugh didn't become part of her story until fairly recently, when he started to become well known. Her subconscious might have picked a movie star or a tall dark stranger for her dream, but it picked Kavanaugh.
Pathetic musings from the hostess.
The overnight session is much more informative. But what is missing in the comments are logical, reasoned, rebuttal to the innocence of Kavanaugh. There are at least 2 sides to every disagreement, and this debate lacks a logical rebuttal.
An investigation is demanded on the back of one accusation, (the others are so bad, no one on the left takes them serious) The time for an investigation is when Feinstein received the letter. Investigate that. Motive has to be assigned. The investigation that would clear this all up is to investigate the Democrat Party. The leadership, and the entire Democrat Judiciary committee. Grill the principles that handled the Ford letter, dump all the communications, and all the finances of Dem Donors, Ford, and all of her family and friends. The Democrat Party is what needs the investigation.
Fords accusations from 36 years ago is going no where. Kavanaugh has his calendar. If the simple fact of date could be testified to by Ford the odds are, exculpatory evidence exists.
Look for what is missing in all the debate, there in you will find answers
"It's not over until we win." sayeth the Democrats.
tim in vermont said...
There will be investigations. If the story of any one of them proves out, he will be forced to resign and maybe go to prison. The stakes are too high to leave this be.
Sorry to tell you this, tim, but there will not be any investigations. So far, everyone who made any accusations against Kavanagh recanted.
If Althouse was my lawyer on a completely unrelated matter, and I read what she's written here, I'd drop her in a flash. I'm not letting anyone with that level of thinking represent me regarding anything crucial to my well being.
Does Professor Alrhouse really believe a person would not lie for attention? She’s the darling of the left. Is Althouse suggesting there are not people who would lie to achieve that designation? There are such people. Given her activist historic, Dr. Ford is plausibly such a person.
Is "her truth" the bccvane as kellyann Conway's "alternate facts"?
Not the "alternate facts" that she actually presented. The "alternate facts" the media invented and shoved in her mouth.
I call bullshit on Senator Spartacus.
And a hearty FUCK YOU to him and his colleagues.
John Henry
"And now, according to the NY Post, other men have come forward to say they groped Dr. Ford."
A month ago I saw an interview with beach bartenders from Ford's days in high school who now own the bars those same bars. They remembered her, she had a reputation if you get my drift.
Kamala Harris is Maduro.
The corruptocrat party IS a pubic hair on coke.
johnhenry100 said...
I doubt it will happen but I would love to see President Trump come out in favor of ChiSpy's opponent, Kevin Leon. Maybe even a rally.
Tell Californians and the rest of the us that ChiSoy needs to be punished for her despicable behavior. Get repos out to vote for Leon.
Yes, I know he is a world class loon. But as a newbie senator he would be a powerless loon. As opposed to a powerful loon.
I tried to donate to him but his office tells me that he only accepts donations via Act Blue. This is a demmie slush fund and little or none of the money gets to him.
John Henry
Kavanaugh Hearing: Soulless, Democrat Douche Contest
Well, now we KNOW that CBF was flat out lying... The city remodeling project that she claims caused her and her husband to go to counseling in 2012 where her "memories" of BK first came up... Except that the building permits were issued in 2008, not 2012... Everything that comes out of this woman's mouth is a lie...
oh... but she's a convincing 11th hour liar.
After Kavanaugh testified about his Yale years some of his classmates are speaking out about how he lied and created a false picture of his drinking during those years. I am with the Bar and call for further. FBI investigations.
I know there's theoretically a 4th idea, that CBF is the one who is lying, but I just think she would not have been able to lie that well.
This is why it’s clear that Mitchell failed.
The decision to have her do the questioning was probably the least worst political decision the GOP could make, but someone needed to ask Ford some more difficult questions. Here is my list which I posted at the end of that other very long thread:
1. After you snuck out the front door, how could you have arranged for a ride home if all of the other party attendees were still inside the house? (Even allowing for her memory lapse of who drove her home, shouldn’t there be some logical explanation of how it was even possible for a second person to be outside the house when she hadn’t stopped to tell anyone what had happened or that she was leaving?)
2. Do you remember why you went upstairs in the house to use the bathroom? Were there no bathrooms on the main floor?
3. Assuming there is some logical explanation for #2, how is it possible that the two boys were waiting to ambush her at the top of the stairs? For one thing, this sounds premeditated so how did they know she would come upstairs at that time? And second, with only five (or six?) party attendees, wouldn’t the absence of those two have been notable?
4. I’m also curious about the circumstances of how she knew who Brett Kavanaugh was, whether she had ever met him before or after the night she alleges the party occurred, but maybe some of that was covered?
If we’re going to assume maybe she’s telling the truth as she remembers it, and we have to ascertain whether it’s more likely that it really was the truth or if she misremembered, isn’t it necessary to focus on some of these details which really don’t make sense?
3. Assuming there is some logical explanation for #2, how is it possible that the two boys were waiting to ambush her at the top of the stairs? For one thing, this sounds premeditated so how did they know she would come upstairs at that time? And second, with only five (or six?) party attendees, wouldn’t the absence of those two have been notable?
To further this line of questioning....
She reports I think that she could tell that Ford and Kavanaugh had been drinking a lot.
So here she is at 15 years old, at a party with some kids she knows and these two older guys who she does not know well, who are drunk. Even allowing for poor judgement of 15 year old girls, does it make sense that after those two disappeared from the small group gathering, that she would then go wandering through a strange house alone?
How can something be more real than Santa Clause?
By any measure, Santa is more real than Althouse or you.
Or me for that matter.
Ha, ha. I Luv it when famous Law professors lie about 'the truth'.
DERSHOWITZ: "Maybe we can get closer to the truth"
Althouse: If you were at a party with your best friend and two boys/males tried to rape you, would you flee the party without telling your best friend what happened?
Wouldn't you try to find her to tell her you and her had to leave? Would you leave your best friend behind in those circumstances?
And, if you couldn't find her, wouldn't you tell you best friend later not to go back to parties with those boys? They're dangerous?
Sure, we don't know what a traumatized or scared person would do. But Ford's failure to tell her best friend what happened is completely suspect.
There is nothing to investigate. The only credible accuser can't say when, where. The "who"s she suggests all say it never happened. What is the FBI supposed to do. Interview everyone who lived in the tony part of Maryland for three years this might have happened? The other two are worthless? The first was asking other people if she remembered it. The second appears to be a psychopath, the only explanation for what she said she did.
We know this has been investigated out the ying yang by the Democrats. It's in a part of the world dominated by Democrats and they couldn't find anybody. If they had forwarded this to the investigators when it came up it would have been a nothing burger. This was orchestrated.
I guess it was time to play the Jeffrey Epstein's paedo-island tapes against Dershowitz.
Ford's "beach friends" and Palo Alto friends seem to be quite politically motivated and wealthy. It seems to me she was quite well supported in getting her story out.
1. The front door/google intern thing is quite weird, right? She wanted two front doors so she can escape, but the Google interns use it?
2. Her contention/her lawyers' contention she is afraid to fly, when she has flown to French Polynesia which is about the furthest you can fly
3. Her contention that she was unaware the Senate was willing to come to her, even though it was widely reported
4. Her kind of slam on her friend who didn't back up her memory
5. Her protection of the one guy whom she dated and who lived in a location that actually fits the location of the event
6 The changing number of people involved in the rape - was at one time 4 people and got changed to 2
7. Her playing dumb about who was paying her lawyers
8 Her evasiveness about who found her lawyers
9 Her changing story- even in the last few weeks about how it happened/how many people
10 Her insistence -despite all the things she can't remember - that she had just one beer
11 Her odd, quick response that "NO" she hadn't told her parents she was talking to her Congresswoman and the WaPo about this
12 Apparently when she was in town she didn't do anything to refresh her memory- like drive around and see if she recognized the house
13 Her inability to remember how she got home
14 Her substantiating claim- that she ran into Mark Judge at the Safeway- is available in his book. He worked at the grocery store is publicly available information
There is something not right about her story. For people who say she couldn't have lied so well-- how well did she lie, really?
I can easily see this being a story for her beach friends that got out of hand.
The Dems insisting on an FBI investigation is clearly a stunt and stall tactic.
But ordinary people might fall for it (especially those who don’t follow political news closely, who do not realize how politicized the FBI is.)
One think I can imagine such a person wanting from an FBI investigation would be to hear from Mark Judge. I th8nk that Kavanaughs friendship with him has cast a cloud over this whole episode. The problem is that if Judge’s escapades are really laid bare, it isn’t going to reflect well on BK even if he is completely innocent (which I think is the case.) So I do think, to some extent the GOP has tried to quickly close the book on Mark Judge, and unfortunately that itself arouses suspicions for some people. I even wonder, does Kavanaugh know or suspect that Judge really did something like what Ford describes?
We know for certain that Ford lied, and more than once, so this idea of her being credible is self-imposed delusion that I have to think is based in the sexism that Alhouse cannot shake, and that I think she does not want to abandon.
I think some of it is sexism, and some of it is Ford's little girl act that seems so wounded and makes people feel sorry for her.
I'm not a Constitutional scholar. I read the words and they seem pretty straightforward to me; the meanings of some of the words have been changed, but the drift is well documented and it is still straightforward to understand the meaning as written.
I want to see an investigation regarding a Senators inability or refusal to carry out her Constitutional duties with respect to 'advise and consent.' She had evidence that a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court had behavior that either (1) was negative with regard to the nominee and therefore should have been reported to either the President or the Chairman of the committee for consideration as credible, or (2) was not credible and therefore should be reported to the Chairman as an unbelievable accusation. If it turns out she considered the information as credible and did not report it to the Chairman anyway, I would like to see as a minimum censure, stripping her of all appointments and responsibilies of consequence, and consideration of impeachment (if that's possible).
Kavanaugh's strength remains that these accusations are from his youth. The point isn't that this would somehow excuses them, but that the lack of accusations about his adult life remain non-existent.
Whereas the pattern with actual abusers has been that their abuse grew more flagrant and severe as they grew older and acquired power.
I have seen this often that *PhD in psychology, for which training includes undergoing therapy*
Is it the claim that such therapy is curative and guarantor of sanity post facto?
In culture rife with credentialism and postmodernism to which this field is huge facilitator!!??
MayBee surmises: I think some of it is sexism, and some of it is Ford's little girl act that seems so wounded and makes people feel sorry for her.
She's 51 years old. Just how believable is the little girl act? I didn't see the hearings. Did they ask her why her social media sites were scrubbed? Why could they not have been subpoenaed? If they delve into Kavanaugh's school yearbooks, Ford's FB account should be fair game.
Blasey Ford has received over $450,000 pledged to her GoFundMe account.
Is that also no reason to lie?
Money?
GTFOOH.
I think the "event" happened at her house when her parents were away. That's why she didn't need to have anyone drive her there or "home". I also think it was her boyfriend who tried to take things a little further than she was ready for. Kavanaugh and Judge may have been present, but since nothing actually happened don't remember it. Judge may even the one who pulled the boyfriend off her.
At that point she, or her brothers, threw everyone out, and of course, never told her parents. So it was a bust of a party, nothing memorable happened for anyone except Ford.
I know there's theoretically a 4th idea, that CBF is the one who is lying, but I just think she would not have been able to lie that well.
According to a body language expert, CBF's lies were frequent and not told very skillfully yesterday. According to this expert, she specifically lies about knowing how to interview victims, who was in the room in the "attempted rape," who recommended the polygraph and who she told about the event and when. The expert also called out the fake "little girl voice" and the other "wounded victim" voice she affected during certain parts, then shed immediately when questions turned. I found the analysis fascinating, and it reinforced my suspicions about Ford. She is very well-coached liar telling the story the Ranking Member wanted her to tell.
Reading these comments, I have to wonder how many readers understand that Althouse plays with language to explore ideas. Not every assertion she makes reflects her actual beliefs.
I hope the FBI can take a look at Ford's therapist notes to help find some "clues" as to how to track down people 35 years ago. At what point did the notes say Kavanaugh was involved? Does anyone know yet? Exactly at what point did Ford decide it was Kavanaugh? In order to "investigate" we have to know Who, Why, Where, When. Please by all means lets have a limited investigation that centers on the central elements of this very serious charge.
I've been beating on Ford's lie about not remembering if she showed her therapist's notes to a Washington Post reporter.
The point of this is that the notes do not back her current story. And those notes are the closest CBF has to actual support.
In particular, the WaPo published that she was a late teen when this happened. When the Guardian did their "there's a letter about Kavanaugh and a girl", the article stated that both were 17.
15 years old isn't "late teen". (I didn't put it in quotes before because the WaPo article doesn't put quotes around "late teen" when they're referencing the therapist's notes, which they did do for some actual quotes. Which indicates there's an actually age there, and it doesn't fit with Ford's story.) 17 IS a "late teen", but by the time Ford was 17, Kavanaugh was in college.
Ford took the event in 2012, and retrofitted it to attack Kavanaugh. To whatever extent she looked like she was telling the truth, it's to the extent that what she reported in 2012, while it had nothing to do with Kavanaugh, was in fact real.
Ford will never release the therapist's notes, despite the fact that they're the only supporting evidence she could still have, because they do not support her current story.
She's a liar. She's a monster. She's a political advocate willing to destroy a 10 year old girl's life, in order to push her political agenda.
There is no other reasonable explanation for the facts as given.
Post a Comment