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.
पोस्ट्स
२५६ टिप्पण्या:
256 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Just In? They announced that earlier this week.
The FBI? Investigate what?
A victim needs to have a time and place before bringing charges. The Senate is not doing America any favors otherwise.
I did not watch the hearing or read any news stories, but I did not hear that she came up with a date or a place.
Onward...
P.S. To Judge Kavanaugh, I would advise him to not take it personally. It's just business.
There is a long agenda for tomorrow's meeting, including a District Court nominee I know and like a lot. Too bad the committee can't take up all those other matters. I suspect as it it Kavanaugh will consume the morning.
P.S. To Judge Kavanaugh, I would advise him to not take it personally. It's just business.
He's still human, though. Leftists may live to regret this clown show.
All due respect Alan, we know the truth and it redounds to Judge Kavanaugh.
-sw
Althouse believes that Kavanaugh was a black out drunk who surprisingly was an excellent scholar in HS, college and Yale Law School. We don't need to get into the fact that he is also a pre-eminent legal scholar for his generation. His athletic accomplishments? Not relevant.
She has no evidence, but her intuition. She knows better because she taught law in one the most leftist schools in the country.
I feel sorry for her students and ecstatic that she never became a judge.
The F.B.I. has already refused to investigate these claims.
There is not a damn thing for the FBI to investigate.
There's an event back then (alleged sexual assault) and there's an event right now (confirmation hearings). It seems logical to connect these two events. A certain understanding about the erstwhile event demands a certain outcome to the present event. That makes sense.
Except that it doesn't anymore. The evident lack of good faith on the part of Democrats argues for proceeding pitilessly with confirmation. Had there been clear proof the link could have held. As it stands, passing judgment on their misanthropic behavior is more urgent. What they are attempting to do is so vile (whether you believe her or him) the need to punish it is more important than any other consideration. They must be made to suffer for it OR we will all suffer for it.
Leland said...
Just In? They announced that earlier this week.
Confirmed tonight after closed door GOP session. Committee vote goes forward as planned.
Althouse believes that Kavanaugh was a black out drunk
Even if true, that doesn't mean he was a rapist.
She has no evidence, but her intuition.
She doesn't need evidence, she has feelz.
Leland said...
Just In? They announced that earlier this week.
Confirmed tonight after closed door GOP session. Committee vote goes forward as planned.
Hate to say it, but looks like Professor D. is hoping to get invited to those Hampton shindigs next summer.
He's actually correct - it would be better if we had the time - but we don't, and this isn't a trial anyway. Dems don't give a F**k about Ford - they are fundraising on this and will use whatever they can in political ads w/the hope of flipping Senate. I think they lost the Senate today - they certainly didn't win anything.
Dershowitz is about the only Democrat I trust to be reasonable right now, but he's wrong. I'd agree with him if there was any evidence corroborating the claims, but there isn't. All the evidence is exculpatory. There is a huge difference between a credible charge and an uncredible one. Evidence is the difference, and this was an uncredible charge.
Are we really going to let the government just be hijacked at any time by a crazy partisan allegation without any proof. How can that possibly work? There is obviously no shortage of nutty claims available. How many times are you required to step on the burning bag of shit before you answer it with a bucket of water instead? There should be rules about objections being entered too late, or do we just not fill the seat until Democrats are ready to? Today exposed all there is to know about this thing, and it all showed it to be bullshit.
Yeah, this could be a strategy that backfires on Senate Republicans, especially if they don't have Collins onside already.
Really, what's the harm of giving the FBI the opportunity to question Judge, PJ & Leland? It's not going to change anything. They're still going to say that they can't corroborate Ford's account. Give it a couple weeks, let the FBI come back with an inconclusive report, then vote.
If there's more crazy allegations like Avanetti's client in the meantime, then the left looks all the more foolish.
They must be made to suffer for it OR we will all suffer for it.
How? The media is on their side, the Republicans are spineless and their voters agree with what they are doing.
Give it a couple weeks, let the FBI come back with an inconclusive report, then vote.
Push it off until mid November...right?
You can be charged with a federal rape crime if there is evidence you:
1. Crossed state lines in commission of the offense
2. Committed the offense in the District of Columbia
3. Committed the crime on federal property, including within a national park, government office building, or federal prison
4. Committed the crime in international waters
5. Were investigated and arrested by a federal agency
6. Committed the crime against a federal official, ambassador, consul, or other foreign officials under the protection of the U.S. government
How shall we proceed Senator?
"All due respect Alan, we know the truth and it redounds to Judge Kavanaugh."
-sw
How do you know the truth redounds to Kavanaugh? How do you know "we know the truth"? Who is "we?"
You're making assertions of belief, not of knowledge.
What does Dershowitz propose the FBI investigate? A party happened sometime during a three year period in some unknown house, and there are witnesses, but they claim nothing like what was alleged actually happened. And when they’re through investigating, and assuming they report back that there’s no evidence to support the claims of Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick, will not the Democrats find yet another wild and ever more improbable claim by some ever less believable woman that must also be investigated?
Vote now. And make Manchin and Baldwin and Donnelly and Nelson and Heitkamp vote, too.
The memory loss is the easiest way to say that they are both telling the truth as they know it, and both seemed convincing.
If you look at #20 in my long post about the hearing, you'll see that's only 1 of three theories. The second one has her with a memory problem:
I wrote:
"But when I think about how BK and CBF could be so far apart, I have 3 explanations: 1. BK has some alcohol blackout holes in his memory, and what CBF remembers is in one of them, 2. CBF has a false memory and really believes it (caused by some genuine trauma), 3. BK has no route but forward, and he knows he did it, but feels entitled to what he's worked all his life to attain. Since there's no way back to his old life, he must force his way through this obstacle. And he's barreling ahead to save his life and save his family. Cornered, he had to fight like hell, and that includes lying."
"'Althouse believes that Kavanaugh was a black out drunk'
"Even if true, that doesn't mean he was a rapist.
'She has no evidence, but her intuition.'
"She doesn't need evidence, she has feelz."
That goes for everyone.
This came up in July. DiFi kept it stashed hoping he'd crash in the hearings. She knew it was a desperation play and yet we are supposed give it full legitimacy.
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.
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.
I know Democrats clap their flippers and balance beach balls on their noses every time Trump tweets but he's actually been very restrained throughout this whole thing. Almost as if he understood the Democrats were making him look...presidential, by contrast. I also don't think Trump feels personally invested in Kavanaugh. He's quite willing to sit back and satisfy his curiosity about Kavanaugh's mettle. If it isn't there there'll be plenty of time to push someone else through.
"DiFi kept it stashed hoping he'd crash in the hearings."
There was no chance of that happening.
She held it back because it was a device to delay the process.
"I know Democrats clap their flippers and balance beach balls on their noses..."
But can they smack you with an octopus.
She can't say where the assault took place.
Even after Mitchell showed her a map!
She can't remember what Month, and only "estimated" the year based on when she got her drivers license.
Everyone she's named, says there was no party as she describes.
What is there to investigate? Ms. Ford's charges make Anita Hill look like a fountain of truth.
look forward to fake rape charges when the Dems nominate someone.
Or maybe we can say they cheated on their taxes.
Just win, baby. Just win.
Just walk away folks. You can't reason with hardcore ideological looniness.
One of them is lying, but the Senate is not the place, and confirmation hearings are not the time to determine the truth involving two minor children three decades ago.
There is not a damn thing for the FBI to investigate.
I think they have a lot to look in to - there's DiFi's Chi spy, some Democrat(s) on the Hill doxxing Republican Senators, death threats against a federal judge stemming from Democrat slander....
the left threw Dersh under the bus a while ago. Now what?
Just as a matter of curiosity, what degree of proof do you need before you destroy a man's career, life, and reputation: beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence, shrewd hunch?
an FBI investigation for something that didn't happen in 198_.
Obviously Flake is now a "yes" vote, and Corker just announced "yes" to Kavanaugh as well.
Really, just Collins and/or Murkowski to go....
As high functioning alcoholics go, Kavanaugh sets some kind of record.
I though Alan Dershowitz finally understood who his political allies are. I was wrong. Like I battered wife he keeps going back to the Democrats with the hope that this time they will stop attacking Jews.
There is not a damn thing for the FBI to investigate.
And, one would suspect, deliberately so. The less detail she provides, the less likely she gets charged with perjury.
As many have noted. If Kavanaugh does make it through he'll have a lifelong, bone-deep, deadly loathing of Dems and progs. You can't just find that laying around at a Federalist Society cocktail party.
We already know ms. Ford lied about being "too scared" to fly.
Not to mention constantly changing the number of people at "the party".
And she was so "traumatized" by Mark Judge helping Kavanaugh try to rape her, she said Hello to Judge at Safeway a couple weeks later, and wondered why Mark didn't have a friendly chat with her.
I though Alan Dershowitz finally understood who his political allies are. I was wrong. Like I battered wife he keeps going back to the Democrats with the hope that this time they will stop attacking Jews.
He's tired of not getting invited to parties in his neighborhood.
There is always impeachment, if they can come up with something more than possible, shown to be unlikely on three counts, and approaching probable.
One of the bad things about the 80's, was that Rock and Roll died, Country and Western was on the ropes, and Disco was all the rage.
I blame Disco.
"...move it in, move it out, Disco lady..."
I don't see how she could have pulled that off if she knew it was false.
So now women not only don't lie, they can't lie? Well now we know for sure that Althouse has never been a lesbian.
Basta. Take the vote. Dershowitz has a point but all that would do is give Democrats another week to dig up another ridiculous allegation for no reason since the FBI does not conclude anything, as Biden colorfully described (hard to top accusing Kavanaugh of organizing a ring of drugging and gang raping women every weekend for three years form ages 14-17, but they are creative if nothing else).
Basta.
Why conservatives ALWAYS so stupid.
Dershowitz didn't stop being a liberal democrat. He just defended Trump against some of the Left's outrageous charges.
Plus, he likes Trump's Pro-Israel stance.
But he says one word in favor of Trump, and the Dumb conservatives think he's WF Buckley!
"One of them is lying...."
Not necessarily. They could both have their own memories of events and each believe completely in what they have testified to. We each live in our own interpretation of the world all the time. Even within families, there sometimes will be disagreements about memories of events.
Althouse, you are a partisan feminist, and you are hopefully going to convince a generation of young people of the manifest evil if feminism. You, and the feminazis you represent, can go straight to hell.
This is the full employment act for blackmailers. Can you prove that your awkward fumbles on the second date were not rape?.......I think it's an extraordinarily malicious act of revenge to pull this on him at this time and at this place. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Dr Ford is a vindictive woman.
"One of the bad things about the 80's, was that Rock and Roll died, Country and Western was on the ropes, and Disco was all the rage."
No. Disco was dead by the 80s. Disco was 70s, baby!
Alan trying to get back on the Democratic cocktail party circuit! Hasn't he been listening for the last few days? The FBI has nothing to add to this mess. Grassley has done a good job and he is absolutely correct to schedule a vote. There is nothing more to debate.
A must read for Dersh
Come on smart guy, don't you see what is happening?
As a lawyer, you should have a better appreciation for the capacity to deceive. Especially when one is reading from a prepared script in response to friendly questioning. D.GOOCH
"You're making assertions of belief, not of knowledge."
Just so. Do we hook the accused up to Old Sparky or set him free? What did founders of your idealized America suggest, Bob?
Yes, Crack. Assuming he's White. Of course.
"She held it back because it was a device to delay the process"{
Of course he didn't crash but they would have preferred a self destruct. They just didn't have those artists like Kennedy and Biden working.
Ann, you forget a 5th: they both lied. It was two teens goofing around after drinking and it went too far. She lied, by exaggerating the offense, and he lied by denying everything, because that’s the only hook on which to survive this charade.
For the record, as a woman, I do not find Ford credible.
First, the accusation is attempted rape. After F fled the party, she made no effort - over nearly 40 years - to see that other women who might be at risk in K’s vicinity were aware, warned, protected from this threat. I do not find that either credible or honorable. In addition:
1. NO contemporaneous witness or statements, by her or others. This is big, but not despositive.
2. No credible accusations of similar behavior by K.
3. ALL named witnesses, friendly or not, deny her story. This is huge.
There is a reason the law recognizes an end to legal pursuit, a statue of limitations. It must be that the accused can defend himself.
Lastly, women do lie.
Columbia “Mattress Girl”.
Duke Lacrosse
UVA “A rape on campus”
@Robert Cook
An accusation was made, the accused refutes it, the accuser fails to provide details to prove it, the accusation is unproven. Kavanaugh's refutation thus stands as the truth. FBI, or any other, investigation is useless and pointless.
-sw
I think concluding based on an absolute is not the right way to go about it. One can decide that Ford is more believable based on the testimony given (although she had other lies like about flying, which are telling...). But, even if you reach that conclusion, the risk of a false accusation is very high. The memory is 35 years old, and there is no other corroborating evidence. In fact the witness that we would expect to lie for Dr Ford, her best friend, also denies the event. The lack of evidence and the oldness of the memory create a great risk that the story you might believe is false, no matter how persuasive Dr Ford seemed. As such the accusation should be disregarded since kavanaugh has had a steller reputation aince the supposed incident.
If you only base your conclusion on how you feel about the testimony or because you identify more with a professional middle aged white woman or white man then you are a fool. You need evidence if an accusation is stale, otherwise its not fair or just.
"Obviously Flake is now a "yes" vote"
Never trust a Flake.
Dersh is speaking as a lawyer, not a politician.
But this isn't a legal process, it's a giant circus to prod 4 or 5 Senators.
Robert Cook said...No. Disco was dead by the 80s. Disco was 70s, baby!
WAIT! Are you saying people have BAD memories! :-)
When you think about Flake. Just remember this.
In the old days, they'd give bought Pols barrels of cash.
Today, they give them cushy jobs on K:street or wall street or with Google.
Bezos could send the world to Flake: Hey, vote with us, and you'll give a $10 million/year job at Amazon.
1) Dr. Ford lied or allowed a lie about her airline travel and made no effort to explain it.
2) Dr. Ford pretends she didn't grasp that testimony could happen in private in CA.
3) Dr. Ford the psychologist surely knows about lie detectors but pretends it's a weird toaster.
4) Dr. Ford knows her testimony is manipulated for political ends and doesn't even speak to this obvious fact.
Althouse has never been a lesbian
Or knows a sociopath well.
According to court filings in the criminal case against Sen. Robert Menendez, the FBI corroborated allegations that Menendez had sex in the Dominican Republic with underage females as young as 13 who were the victims of sex trafficking.
Menendez denies the accusation. But it came after a full FBI investigation. So start asking the Senate Dems why they haven't kicked out Menendez from the Senate. Ask Spartacus why he testified on behalf of Menendez.
The FBI Investigation. The Dems don't believe in them. If they did, Menendez would have been kicked out of the Senate 3 year ago.
Whoever frames the issues wins an argument. Everyone is talking about how powerful and persuasive Kavanaugh's testimony was; Ford's testimony is an afterthought of "she came across as credible" and few are talking about it. No one is talking about what she alleges.
Therefore Kavanaugh won.
Damn, everybody must be burnt out after today.
This post has been up for about an hour and we're only at 67 comments.
My favorite piece of Trumps platform was his bringing up term limits. He would go down as the #1 Prez of all time if he could flush the toilet and rid us of these parasites.
Ann You need some self-examination about your biases toward the woman is always right. It's shocking for me to see a law professor so out of touch with their own mind. In your scenario you left out the very real possibility that Kavanaugh is completely innocent and that what Ford remembers has nothing to do with him. So far she certainly has presented no proof regarding Kavanaugh and, if you recall, she did not initially name him when she was "recovering her memory" You posit the alternatives that Kavanaugh is a blind, or driven by ambition and finally that he is a good liar. CBF could only be charged with a false memory that she is right in believing. I have to cry bullshit! C'mon man!
Ford would never submit to an FBI background check. She's the accuser here.
Her parents and her brothers didn't support her testimony.
Her lifelong friend didn't back up her story. Her therapist's notes say four guys attacked her "in her late teens."
What is the FBI supposed to do with that? It's different than her story now. Even in the last two months, her story about the number of people at the "small gathering" has changed. And she can't even name "The Fourth Boy."
Her friend doesn't back up her story. Her parents and brothers don't back it up.
Ford is nuts. Does she really want to submit to all that. The FBI would have to dig into her life. They've already interviewed scores of Kavanaugh's Known Associates.
It would be Ford who the FBI looked into.
My hot take is that it appears that Dr. Ford's attorneys should be disbarred.
Dr. Ford testified that she knew nothing about the offer from the Republicans on the committee to take her testimony via a private hearing in California. It was in the news repeatedly that the Republicans had made that offer.
If true about the offer, then attorney Debra Katz (recommended by Feinstein) did not relay the offer to her client. This offer matched the stated preferences of the client - but was the opposite of what the Democrat party wanted.
IMHO, if my attorney clearly acted contrary to my stated wishes I would seek to have them disbarred.
The dude is clearly an R politician (the impartiality mask slips easily re him) who lies (even on easy stuff, e.g. the idea that DJT is the greatest sleuth re picking Justices eva), and he's got a smarmy personality.
So, the mystery is over. He's perfect for the SCOTUS.
Vote will come soon. After all, it's important to get him on the court before the voters get a chance to go to the polls. That's a common GOP theme.
Carry on.
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 is a leftist activist out to save the word from literally Hitler and certain death. She certainly has motivation to lie. At the minimum she would be the left's hero for life if she succeeded in blocking Kavanaugh.
How long before someone starts calling Kavanagh a splooge stooge?
Thats how big of a bust this was for the democrats today. Moving straight to the vote without any hesitation or hand waving by the usual suspects. I can't imagine any republican defections and see Manchin, Tester and McCaskill shitting their pants tonight.
Ford needs to be investigated regardless of the vote. America deserves to know who she is.
And of course there's the possibility that CBF is a sociopath This is a short hand description of such:" But they also like dominating others just for the feeling of it—the feeling of power and control. Sociopaths lack a conscience, so they will do anything to get what they want." There is at least a possibility that CBF falls into this category. Certainly as much possibility that BK has alcoholic blackouts.
As Lindsey Graham said it isn't she said, he said. Its she said and they said. Ford is liar, a nasty piece of work.
Her operative lawyers made her sound like she was terrified of flying, as well as apparently not telling her what was going on with the hearing process.
Her lawyers worked for the Dems on the committee just as Mitchell worked for the GOP.
But her lawyers coached her pretty well. "It was Brett." I don't remember where or when, don't know how I got there or got home. But "it was Brett."
My friend says she doesn't remember any "small gathering" and never met Kavanaugh. But "it was Brett."
We're going to find out more about Ford after the Kavanaugh vote. Her friends growing up. Her family. Her college friends. Her students.
She's not going to come off as well.
Blumenthal made me sick taking the rumored meaning of "alumnus" in the yearbook and keeping mentioning poor Renate in association with that meaning. He kept maligning her by associating the debunked meaning with her name. Judge Kavanaugh had, in his opening statement and several times after, unequivocally stated that that term was not made in that context in association with that woman. Blumenthal didn't seem to care. Didn't seem to care about Renate. Not one bit.
"Indelible" was a tell. Manufactured. Rehearsed.
Blumenthal is a moron. These douchbag senators have staff and he never bothers to learn how to pronounce "Renate."
Human beings can rationalize anything. What begins as a lie often enough becomes something the teller believes.
Is that what has happened in this case? Who knows? It's totally unknowable. Which is why it was stupid to have a hearing about it.
When asked whether she gave her therapist's notes to the Washington Post just a few weeks earlier, she couldn't remember. Sorry, but that's BS. (1) If she can't remember something significant like that from a few weeks ago then there is no goddamn way I am going to accept her memories of 35 years ago. (2) If she can remember then she is lying and I am not going to accept any of the rest of her testimony. She came off as a nice but not very intelligent flake. Her testimony was not convincing enough to destroy someone's life. Ann, if you're inclined to believe her (I can't tell from your post) please justify her inability to honestly answer this simple question (assuming you think she is an honest person with a sharp mind and good memory). That Q&A pretty much sealed it for me.
Althouse is a bit naive to think Ford has nothing to gain. On the contrary, the fame, the book deals and speaking fees..... she has a lot to gain.
"Human beings can rationalize anything. What begins as a lie often enough becomes something the teller believes.
Is that what has happened in this case? Who knows? It's totally unknowable. Which is why it was stupid to have a hearing about it."
Human beings can rationalize anything = it is stupid to have a hearing about accusations re a lifetime appointment going to a sexual attacker (when a teen) and major liar (today).
Not logical.
But, humans can rationalize anything.
And a lot to lose, and does she really want the fame and fortune you hold out. I doubt it.
@kh: "You need some self-examination about your biases toward the woman is always right. It's shocking for me to see a law professor so out of touch with their own mind. In your scenario you left out the very real possibility that Kavanaugh is completely innocent and that what Ford remembers has nothing to do with him."
Sure. And obviously Ford didn't remember material facts, had no contemporaneous evidence, was refuted by witnesses, had partisan motives, and lied about inconsequential peripheral issues (the polygraph, the flying, not knowing the offer the GOP made to her), whereas K was supported by witnesses, had his diary, and of course an unblemished record with strong female support from women who actually knew him well. Not to mention that the way the charge was presented cast doubt on it: Ford did not report a supposed crime to law enforcement or the FBI or Chairman Grassley, apparently intended to take K down anonymously, and engaged extreme partisan Dem lawyers, while scrubbing her social media tracks.
Anyway, that stuff is all obvious. But from Althouse we get obfuscation and rationalization. The bad faith runs deep. She's the most reasonable liberal woman around and still she can't bring herself to call BS. Hence the national disgrace and ethical charade, not that they matter to the Althouses, since it's just the body politic that gets destroyed, you know, not women's bodies, will continue, even after K gets on the court.
Fuck it. Approve Kavanaugh and overturn Roe V Wade. Give the Progressives something to cry about.
What is there to investigate?? What could the FBI find?
30+ year old cold case with zero forensics.
The plaintiff does not remember where it happened, when it happened (what year, month, or even day), how she got there, how she left, etc...
The people she named as being there all say they had zero knowledge of any party like that.
So what is left for the fabulous FBI to look at? Do they even have 30+ year old telephone records?
So you see, all it would be is... a delaying tactic. Just as the Republicans said.
Confirm him and move on.
The memory loss is the easiest way to say that they are both telling the truth as they know it, and both seemed convincing.
Althouse,
I forgive your ignorance about memory. It is not your field and you seem to have as much knowledge as the average TV watching couch potato. Her memory loss is not consistent with trauma and more conveniently consistently with drama.
What bothers me is that you entertain the notion that Kavanaugh is somehow at fault and CBF is somehow credible.
Her tells were obvious to the trained eye. She is confabulating to take him down WITHOUT A FUCKING SHRED of evidence. And you are an expert in evidence. What a joke!
Your intuition is bullshit. You dishonor thinking professionals by letting your biases and personal experience overrule your training and rational mind. I am sorry you were treated badly by men in your life. That does not mean that Brett Kavanaugh or I or any specific man has ever been abusive to women.
I am disgusted with your supposedly reformed leftist crap.I hope you can work it out some day.
"One of the bad things about the 80's, was that Rock and Roll died, Country and Western was on the ropes, and Disco was all the rage."
No. Disco was dead by the 80s. Disco was 70s, baby!
Yep. Disco pretty much was over by '79. There was still plenty of dance music in the 80s, but it was more synth-pop with the proper BPMs.
Ok fine; scratch Dershowitz from the guest list for the kegger at BK’s house after he’s sworn in.
This is the full employment act for blackmailers. Can you prove that your awkward fumbles on the second date were not rape?.......I think it's an extraordinarily malicious act of revenge to pull this on him at this time and at this place. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Dr Ford is a vindictive woman.
People adjust to circumstances. If that becomes common it will also become common for men to hire other men with no necks to convince the blackmailers it's an unhealthy line of work. What also becomes common, then, is women who are actually raped have to face those same guys.
Japan has some of the most generous rights for renters in the world, and yet landlords generally have no trouble getting problem tenants to leave. They just hire guys... well, in Japan I suspect they all have necks, but they also have lots of tattoos... to make a convincing case for relocation.
Yep. Disco pretty much was over by '79. There was still plenty of dance music in the 80s, but it was more synth-pop with the proper BPMs.
That sounds about right. I remember trying to follow the trends as a kid, and just when I got comfortable with disco it became radioactive.
Tell us your truth Ann.
That seems to be the new postmodernist phrase. It is not the truth, but your truth or her truth or their truth.
You may ask what is the difference. We always struggle to know the truth and usually never know. Deal with the ambiguity instead of surrendering.
The difference has to do with the rules of the game. There is a difference between seeking objective truth as an ideal and seeking subjective truth as a moral and intellectual dodge.
Your mind seems to be polluted with postmodernist bullshit. You have abandoned the ideal of objectivity for the Neo-Marxist idea of subject truth. That makes you a perfect fit in our postmodernist academia.
Another gullible boomer fool identifies.
"As a dog returneth to its vomit," I see Dershowitz is crawling back to kiss the feet of his leftist betters despite a flirtation with telling the truth.
Ford and all the other accusers had THIRTY-FIVE YEARS in which to present their accusations to a body with the actual authority and skills to investigate them (i.e., the POLICE) and they did not do it. Ford's story changes hourly, and has holes you could fly a 747 through. She has no evidence, witnesses (and the witnesses she claimed UNANIMOUSLY deny her story). And the other accusers' stories are even worse.
This was a blatant smear against Kavanaugh. She had her 15 minutes of fame. Time to confirm him and put (another) justice on the court who has first-hand experience with the level of ruthless hatemongering and sociopathic power-seeking the left displays daily.
Abortion more of a false idol than I imagined. That much is clear after today.
I heard she already has over $400k in her Gofuckme page.
And I totally want Thomas and Kav to burn the whole place down after this.
An investigation will leave us exactly where we are today:
(1) Ford has provide zero evidence or testimony that can be corroborated. All four named people there have said they don't remember any such party. Her memory is incomplete and she cannot/will not name time or place.
(2) The Yale woman has admitted she cannot remember who it was. "thinking about it" for six days then deciding you do remember is nonsense. No one there at the 'event' has fingered Kav in the 'trou dropping'.
(3) Julie whats-her-name is a loon and if her claim had any merit whatsoever, a reputable lawyer would have taken her case, and even Ronan Farrow would have been happy to report on it = nobody who wants their reputation to survive is having anything to do with this chick. Her charges are laughable.
So, did you want the FBI to investigate whether High School and College kids drink? Maybe you want them to investigate what FFFF or Boof (or whatever) means?
This is lunacy!
CBF has a false memory and really believes it (caused by some genuine trauma)
Some of her details are very specific and very likely happened to her.
1) Wearing a bathing suit under her clothes.
2) Hand over mouth.
3) One boy on top of her, and another boy jumping on top of them.
4) Boys laughing.
Other details seemed to me to be lies.
1) I just had one beer.
2) I am afraid to fly.
3) This event ruined my life.
and the big one
4) Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape me.
also it was super-weird that she dated a boy who looked just like Kavanaugh
and she kept calling him "Brett" like they were buddies
also weird that her family did not support her, like maybe they've been down this road before
but the clincher is that this rape only became worthy of our time because of a Supreme Court nomination. I mean, if an appellate judge tries to rape you, who cares? We'll let that slide. But a Supreme Court Justice? I just had to come forward. It was like a non-rape until he got too high up the power chart, and so now we'll cry rape. Or, to put it another way, if he wasn't the nominee, none of this would have happened. It was the nomination that caused the accusation.
Dershowitz is a national treasure - but he's wrong here. No need for another FBI investigation. Time to vote.
Alrhouse is a national treasure. - but she's wrong here. 36-year old memories of teenage summertime dry-humping aren't reliable.
Professor,
There is no crime embedded in Ford's charges (except possibly the drinking by minors).
She is one weak "she said" with no backup. Kavanaugh is a strong "he said" with at least 4 strong backups (which he could not have counted on when he first denied the charge - good point).
There is no case.
Cubanbob
Althouse isn’t naive. She knows there is an incentive to lie. She is just emotionally incapable of believing that Ford could be lying. Now I do not think Ford is lying. I think she is misremembering. But I do not fool myself, as Althouse fools herself, into believing I am perfect at telling lies from truths, so I accept Ford might be lying, just as I accept Kavanaugh might be lying.
But the evidence, such as it is, which is naturally spotty after all these years, suggests Ford is , either way, mistaken.
So I just caught the tail end of the episode where the Doctor and River Song meet for the last time.
Yeah, I never bought that they were so in love either -- or even moderately in love. They kept trying to sell it for years, but it was always empty.
BAG
I often agree with you, as you know. But Althouse isn’t just wrong here. She is, to coin a phrase, Hardin wrong. She is wrong in just the way Hardin always claims. Hardin wrong is despicable in a way just wrong never is.
@Althouse "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."
Perhaps she could if she was recalling a real event - one that did not involve Kavanaugh.
And now, after that asinine episode which revealed that the Moon is actually an egg, they intend to destroy the whole thing with turning the Doctor into a chick. Trans-Doctor starts in ten days, and they will finally kill off the series with it.
It's all politics and ideology. And trying to force their delusions on reality.
Blogger Birches said...
And I totally want Thomas and Kav to burn the whole place down after this.
Have you seen this ?
@AandGShow @yesnicksearcy Kavanaugh's 1st day at USSC:
Walks into Clarence Thomas' chambers.
Thomas shakes his hand and nods. Hands Kav a glass.
Kav takes a sip of his rye
Kav: "Let's burn this motherfucker to the ground."
Thomas grins.
Bingo !
When do we get to see her therapist's notes so we can spot all of the holes and logical inconsistencies? Do we have to wait for a slander trial initiated by Kavanaugh? Or is there another mechanism that can smoke those out and make them public records?
Something happened, memory fades, BK rose to prominence, she associates both BK and whatever happened with the same milieu, she hates conservatives, she hates whoever did it, it blends together.
"Give it a couple weeks, let the FBI come back with an inconclusive report, then vote."
And put Peter Strzok in charge of the investigation?
Looks like a job for P Strzok...
We have much faith in the FBI!
"unknown who suddenly appeared"
Suddenly in July. Or 2012? Hmmm.
Jinx 320, buy me a Coke.
Dersh is speaking as a lawyer, not a politician.
But this isn't a legal process, it's a giant circus to prod 4 or 5 Senators.
Thank you. Exactly.
Give AA a break. Crazy people 101 is an elective and not everyone took the class.
Dersch is consistent as a civil libertarian promoting "process".
He takes flack from left and right.
Ford looked like a total phony when she answered Durbin "100%". The peek over the glasses, the vocal fry. All bullshit.
As for the hearing -- I watched with five women. One of the women has extensive experience in handling underage sex abuse claims.
Of those five women, five of them believed BK over Ford.
The vote is already two weeks overdue. Get on with it, please.
BTW, what about the two guys who came forward to admit that they were the ones who were at parties with Ford? No need for their stories?
"Therefore Kavanaugh won."
Never go first.
Jim Gust,
Those guys probably had false memories.
Democrats have no need of them.
/sarc
The effort to figure out who is lying and who is not is pointless. There was a time when Americans understood the sanity of phrases like "let sleeping dogs lie." I found Kavanaugh thoroughly convincing in every particular. However, I also recognize that there is NO WAY AT ALL to come to a conclusion about what are unprovable charges for which so far no corroborative evidence exists. Which is why Kavanaugh is right to be outraged no matter what the actual facts might be. Our society used to know when to recognize the limits of human reason and nature, and back off. It is beyond me what all the "could have, would have, might have been" speculating hopes to accomplish. People will decide who they believe on the basis of their political biases mainly. There was a day when we knew with much more equanimity when it made no sense to cross over into that swamp.
When do we get to see her therapist's notes so we can spot all of the holes and logical inconsistencies? Do we have to wait for a slander trial initiated by Kavanaugh? Or is there another mechanism that can smoke those out and make them public records?
The only mechanism is if the notes specifically relate to the commission of a crime, such as child abuse. It has to be a heinous crime for a judge to order the therapist to release notes. Many conscientious therapists would get a lawyer to fight such an order.
We will never see her therapists notes, even if there is a slander suit.
I do not have a problem with that
In a way Dershowitz is right. I want to more about her therapy. I favor the false memory idea, and the therapy is pertinent. I want to know more about theses guys who confessed. I want everyone to know about the fear of flying thing, the only demonstrable lie made by any of the participants.
But I explained why not the FBI, and the FBI already declined. And there cannot be an investigation without specifics. Like say the year. And we cannot have a system where deliberately withheld charges are allowed to stop or delay the process — the key thereis “deliberately withheld “.
So I disagree with Dershowitz, who unlike Althouse, retains my respect.
Instead of the Hearings, I watched this video...
manger des chats
"BTW, what about the two guys who came forward to admit that they were the ones who were at parties with Ford? No need for their stories?"
Well, Lindsay Graham said one guy was crazy as a loon, so...nope.
Crazy people on both sides. Best to stick with (corroborated) facts.
Most people I heard today who trying so hard to be reasonable said that one or both of them were "credible". All that means is that they were able to be believed, as in their story was possible and they were not obviously delusional or lying. That means virtually nothing other than you should now look to the evidence. Look at what evidence there is and you see that one is no longer credible.
Women I talked to tonight were outright hostile to Ford and the Dem Senators. I rarely see them so angry. I'm usually the one outraged by the left, but today changed some people way to the left of me. Thanks Dems.
We know nothing about Ford really from 1983 - 2012 other than softball bio from the liberal preas. Ford could have been a frequent visitor to mental institutions during that time or a crack user, we don’t know. Because her bio hasnt been touted by her attroneys we should probably assume its not pretty. But We dont know because #MeToo prohibits us from inquiring into her past. Accusers of sex crimes get a pass.
Also she never showed the washington post her therapists notes. No one has seen them... she relies on them but we are supposed to take her word for it.
Althouse, To believe her you need to believe that all the other witnesses, some disinterested and some even her close friends are all lying. And that Kavanaugh's lifelong friends and associates in the dozens are all wrong about him. Plus believing that a man who would behave that way (blackout drinking and sexually assaulting would suddenly stop and never do it again. Imagine that she accused Meade instead. What better defense would he have?
The FBI isn’t going to interview the 10,000 people who graduated high school in Montgomery County, Maryland between 1980
and 1985.
They aren’t going to interview the 10,000 people who graduated from Yale between 1984 and 1990.
They aren’t going to interview the 1,200 people who graduated from Yale Law School between 1988 and 1992.
This isn’t The Kennedy Assassination,
Plenty of people from high school, college, law school, and his neighborhood have come forward in favor of Kavanaugh. A handful of people have come forward against him.
Let’s here from Ford’s high school, college, and graduate school peers. Let’s hear from her students.
We’ll get a better sense of Ford’s credibility. Her drinking. Her memory.
@Michael K
Haha
HahaI hadn't but it's an obvious thought after a day like today.
Ralph L said...
I heard she already has over $400k in her Gofuckme page.
Isn't that fraud? We all know (now) that the lawyers are working pro bono. Add that to the expanding list of things Ford was clueless about.
Anyway soliciting for donations on false pretense is a crime, no?
I said it on a thread too long to be read - but here is a solution:
How about this. Confirm Kavanaugh and continue the investigation. Interview her witnesses and the two other accusers. Investigate the hell out of it. If we find proof that he did it, he resigns. If you can provide it, I'm sure he will resign. If his crime is he drank some beer in high school, he gets a pass.
But fair is fair - also investigate Ford, her lawyers, the new accusers, and the democrats. Find out who leaked it. Find out if she was paid. Let's grill the polygraph expert. Let's see the therapist's notes. Let's catalog her false statements (afraid to fly, different participants, different versions of the story). Let's see her social media that was scrubbed. Let's see her published papers. Let's get some testimony about her high school and college behaviors. Let's she her yearbook, we saw his. Let's see how hard core left wing TDS she is. If this turns out to be a set up smear, the every one involved is disbarred, resigns from congress, fired from congressional staff, and pays Kavanaugh 10% of their net worth for defamation of character.
I call this a fair bargain, no delays - but if he lied (like Althouse wants to believe) he's gone and his reputation is ruined like all the left wants, and when the democrats take the senate they can obstruct as much as they want. If he's right, the people who smeared him are punished and punished hard as a warning not to try this again.
Bagoh
Yup. I already made the point that by AA's criterion Meade must admit he cannot be 100% sure he did not forget that he attacked Ford. I think that shows how silly her criterion is. It's the worst sort of special pleading.
Hardin vindicated.
Not me. I want to make these last minute kamikaze attacks as painful and expensive to these birds as much a possible. If we don't, this is the new norm. But who am I kidding, this is the new norm. Scorched earth it is everyone!
I didn't watch heaerings or Graham, but I thought crazy guy was the one in Rhode Island?
Lost in the shuffle are the gang rape charges. Let's althouse this together. I see several possibilities
1. He did it
2. He dit but forgot.
3. He did it but it was even worse
4. He so did it
5. He didn’t do it
That’s 4/5. So, 80% he's guilty.
I spoke with my brother tonight regarding the hearings. I'm interested about his opinion because he's uniquely qualified to give it -- he's been involved with rape trials to the extent he's sat through hundreds of hours of accuser/victim testimony over the past dozen years or so.
I was actually more interested in what he thought of Ford. He said that to an unversed person just watching something like this for the first time, she would seem credible, but the holes in her story and complete lack of corroboration would never move a jury to convict. That's pretty much what Mitchell said to the GOP senators after the fact.
But then he said there were signs he picked up on that really troubled him. Aside from the fact that she had clearly been coached (that doesn't mean she's not credible), he thought she was flippant and casual at the very beginning of the testimony, the crap about needing caffeine. He said he's seen real nerves and that's not what that was.
He said most of the truly credible victims apply more gravity to the situation. Many of them also take into account that they are destroying a man's life with their prosecution and feel some remorse or responsibility. This is only amplified when the man has a wife and kids.
The other troubling thing was her selectivity with details. Somehow she has crystal clear memory that she only had one beer. As mentioned before, she was heavily coached, and he could tell. In particular, he noticed she used some technical jargon that would have been pressed on her by her attorneys.
Take this for what it's worth. My brother is not actually a prosecuting or defense attorney, but someone who is tasked with analysing mental states of both the accuser and accused in connection with sexual assault cases.
"I didn't watch heaerings or Graham, but I thought crazy guy was the one in Rhode Island?"
Sheldon Whitehouse is from there, but apparently there is another.
It marked me as unknown above but I'm kimsch. I haven't commented in a while.
I have a couple of other points to remark on.
One: her lawyers were stopping her from speaking on some things and citing attorney/client privilege. But that constrains the attorney, not the client. She could have said anything she wanted.
Two: I heard many of the Dem senators brush aside the sworn statements from her witnesses that refuted her story that were given under penalty of felony perjury and give great weight to newspaper interviews of hearsay from fellow students at Yale that had no such consequences.
Three: As I noted above, they maligned an innocent woman based on Porn Lawyer&TM;'s questionable definitions of words in a yearbook, and they're supposed to be on the side of women.
Old man rick;
There is nothing wrong with your solution. Except the Dems are not operating in good faith. The Dems held the accusation for 7 weeks. You can speculate on why, but it is plain, that finding the truth is not one of the options. You have got to re-calibrate your response, to the demonstrably fact the the Dems goal is the total annihilation of political opposition, and they will do anything, including assassination. Character, and physical, assassination.
Ford sounded exactly like one of my sons' mother-in-law. Same irritating voice, same girly demeanor. Batshit crazy. But since I don't know if Ford is also a loon, I will have to rely on the judgment of those who do. Not one of whom has come forward to vouch for her veracity. Meanwhile, hundreds of people vouched for Kavanaugh.
Not even the Dems believe her or they would have turned this over to investigators months ago.
I believe that they found some poor crazy lady with a story they could use and to hell with the truth.
How do you determine if someone is lying?
1) Look at the evidence.
2) Let go of your prejudice.
3) Accept what you know, over what you feel.
Even after that, I'd still vote to confirm this man even if the charge was true. He's one of the few men I would say is better than me in every way, even if he's lying here, as the unhinged nature of our current culture and politics is unnavigable, and beyond that, he is otherwise eminently qualified to do the job.
Take the damned vote and move on. The world is still turning out there.
DiFi was shocked someone would suggest that she or her staff would leak the letter to the media.
Perhaps it was "accidentally" leaked, like that dem hack POS Glenn Simpson/FusionGPS "confidential" testimony.
For Chrissake Anne, this woman has a PhD in psychology, for which training includes undergoing therapy—that is, confronting and being aware of one’s unconscious psychological issues. Yet she repressed memory of a relatively minor trauma from late adolescence until her 40s? Either her story is fraudulent her whole career is.
Edde: "Either her story is fraudulent her whole career is."
Embrace the power of "and".
IMHO, if my attorney clearly acted contrary to my stated wishes I would seek to have them disbarred.
Do you think the attorneys that are advising her are really working for her or have her best interests in mind?
Who here can remember how many drinks they had at a party that they don't remember where or when it happened. How many drinks you had is the last of those facts you would remember. I'm not even sure how many I've had tonight. That part of her testimony strikes me as a flat out lie.
How do we know it's not Ford who was the blackout drunk?
Yep. Disco pretty much was over by '79. There was still plenty of dance music in the 80s, but it was more synth-pop with the proper BPMs.
Everybody Wang Chung tonight.
That part of her testimony strikes me as a flat out lie.
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."
Maybe Dersh is just too accustomed to criminal investigations and proceedings that are geared toward resolution of guilt or innocence (or at least success or failure in proving guilt). This is not that. Decisions have to get made and life goes on.
Let's consider Ford's credibility
1: She claimed she "could not recall" if she had shared her psychologist's notes with the Washington Post reporter.
A: "I can't recall" is what lawyers teach their clients to say when the actual answer would be bad for them.
B: The Washington Post article stated that she'd shared the notes with them
C: If her memory is really so bad she can't remember whether she shared her psychologist's notes with a reporter in the last two months, there's no possibly way we can believe that she honestly and correctly remembers anything about what happened 36 years ago
D: If the psychologist's notes corroborated her story, she'd be willing to share them with Congress. Since she isn't, we must believe they contradict her story
2: She claimed that she did not know that the Senate had offered to fly investigators out to her to speak with her privately. Either:
A: She's lying
B: "Her" lawyers are not her lawyers
If B, then she is a willing tool of the Democrats, not a victim seeking justice
3: She claimed she had a fear of lying, that kept her from coming any earlier. But it didn't keep her from flying to MD in August to undergo her "polygraph" test.
4: Her polygraph test was a joke. Apparently the person who administered it has a practice focused on interviewing "sexual assault victims", who he always believes.
A: He went over the questions with her before hand, so she'd know her answer, not have to think about it, and not have a chance to get any "liar's remorse"
B: A real polygraph would have gone over each point individually, and pressed her on details
It was worthless
5: She could not "remember" a single detail that could be checked, and came out in her favor. The only checkable detail she could "remember" were the names of 4 people, and every single one of them said there was no such party
6: Her story changed in the week between when she wrote a letter to DiFi, and when she took her polygraph. She went from three boys and one other girl, all named, to four boys and "a couple" girls, but no more names
There is no possible world in which her actions and claims have even a shred of credibility. I haven't even gotten in to how Kavanaugh's diary makes it essentially impossible for the party to have occurred at any time during the summer of '82. No reasonable person can look at the many shortcomings in her story, and believe it.
She's a willing liar, deliberately carrying out character assassination against Brett Kavanaugh, for the purpose of advancing her personal left wing political agenda
iowan2:
There is nothing wrong with your solution. Except the Dems are not operating in good faith.
That's the beauty of my solution. It's put or shut up for the democrats. You want investigations - fine you'll get them. But you don't get the delay tactics. If you believe an investigation will prove him guilty, take the risk it won't be found. If you know you've been acting in bad faith and there's evidence of that which will be uncovered, you don't take the risk that you will be burned. It brings a certain amount of clarity to the situation.
For Chrissake Anne, this woman has a PhD in psychology,
And she didn't know what "exculpatory" meant. I am not being flippant....that really bothered me.
Had Ford come forward with any corroboration, for example, just Keyser testifying that the party took place and Kavanaugh and Judge were present, then I would feel differently- Ford's allegation would have some meat behind it, and more time to examine witnesses in detail would probably be rational- indeed, I think if Ford had such support (or any of the other allegations did), then I think there would be no investigation needed since Kavanaugh would probably have copped to the behavior if guilty, or probably been voted down with less than 45 yes votes in his favor.
This is the point I made relentlessly now for almost 2 weeks- an unsupported accusatin of an event that took place 36 years ago is the same as no accusation at all- talk is cheap. If Kavanaugh gets voted down on this sort of accusation, you may as well expect it every fucking time because there are no penalties for lying in such situations- the accused can't prove his innocence, and the assuser can't be proven to be a liar- that is why you have the principle that the accusation must come with some evidence like another eye witness/es. I would have supported an investigation if all of Ford's claimed attendees hadn't already denied knowing anything about her accusation- they even submitted written statements to the committee saying such. There was no one else to interview in regards to Ford's specific claim. Sure, Grassley could have subpoenaed all of them and got them on the cameras saying the same thing they did in their statements, but you have to be incredibly naive to think the Democrats wouldn't have just requested more hearing for more witnesses ad infinitum.
As for the other allegations against Kavanaugh, they are no better than Ford's- no one has supported any of the accusers- in the case of Ramirez, the event she claimed had to have been witnessed by at least a half dozen people, some of whom she named, and none of them remember it, and the journalists she has worked with have admitted they interviewed dozens of people and none of them witnessed it either. And don't even get me started on the Swetnick claims- she wouldn't even name anyone who might be charged with anything, and she didn't actually even accuse Kavanaugh of anything she herself witnessed, unless you call standing in a hallway a crime. In any case, hundreds of Kavanaugh's fellow students from the area have been interviewed by this point, and no one claims any knowledge of a gang rape ring. And the 1998 allegation? No one will put their name to it, and if they did, I can bet you that it would be the same unsupported bullshit with no specific place, and certainly no date other than "sometime in 1998, or maybe 97 or 99".
I am sure these committees get crackpot allegations all the time, but until now they are mostly quickly dismissed because the the accusers or other informants are clearly nuts or simply were never in a position to have such knowledge. Hell, even today, the Republican's dismissed at "lunacy" two claims from men that they were the people Ford remembers. I don't know the details, but it is likely that they were dismissed because they weren't in Maryland in 1982, or they displayed clearly nutty behavior. The Democrats, however, have let down their standards on accepting such nonsense. Not confirming Kavanaugh will only cause further erosion in a pretty fucking important principle concerning standards of evidence.
Ann Althouse at 8:19 PM
The memory loss is the easiest way to say that they are both telling the truth as they know it, and both seemed convincing.
I suggest that you read David Brock's book The Real Anita Hill: The Untold Story.
Anita Hill was lying.
The book explains convincingly how she found herself in a position where she decided to lie convincingly.
Years earlier, Hill had told a friend, Susan Hoerchner, that she was being sexually harassed by a male supervisor who was not Thomas. Then, when Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, Hoerchner remembered incorrectly that the abusive supervisor was Thomas.
Hoerchner began to tell people, mistakenly, that Thomas had harassed Hill.
Even though Hill recognized Hoerchner's mistake, Hill went along with the false accusation as long as her own identity remained secret. Hill expected that the anonymous accusation might cause Thomas to withdraw from the nomination.
After Hill's identity was leaked by Senator Paul Simon (D), Hill found herself in a predicament and decided to go forward by lying convincingly.
Brock's book is superbly written and documented.
Sometimes when two people are telling contradictory stories convincingly, the true explanation is that one of them is lying convincingly.
Ann, this right here is why I think you blindered so badly:
"But when I think about how BK and CBF could be so far apart, I have 3 explanations: 1. BK has some alcohol blackout holes in his memory, and what CBF remembers is in one of them, 2. CBF has a false memory and really believes it (caused by some genuine trauma), 3. BK has no route but forward, and he knows he did it, but feels entitled to what he's worked all his life to attain."
There is a fourth explanation, and it literally stuns me you either didn't see it, or deliberately omitted it- Ford is lying.
Ok, I see you get it later in the thread with this, but this still shows you blindered:
"but I just think she would not have been able to lie that well."
Did Kavanaugh lie that well? Do you think she isn't as capable at lying that well as is Kavanaugh?
Ann Althouse at 8:19 PM
The memory loss is the easiest way to say that they are both telling the truth as they know it, and both seemed convincing.
I write a blog about the killing of Michael Brown in August 2014 in Ferguson, Missouri. My blog is called People Who Did Not See Michael Brown Being Killed.
Three Black young people claimed that they saw Michael Brown at noon, standing in the middle of a street, holding his hands up and trying to surrender when he was shot to death by police officer Darren Wilson.
In fact, none of the three saw that happen.
The three of them knew each other, and they collaborated to tell the mass media their lie about the event.
Because the three were such convincing liars, they caused riots in Ferguson and racial dissension throughout the entire USA.
Fortunately, many other Blacks in the neighborhood actually did see the event and told a grand jury what really did happen. That is why the grand jury refused to indict Wilson.
I suspect Dershowitz's plea is an honest one and not one attributed to any sort of partisan desire. He probably knows that the FBI won't return anything other than inconclusive, or no substantial evidence supporting the allegation was found, but Dershowitz probably wants some sort of adherence to normalish procedure. Though speaking of which, isn't it abnormal for the FBI to announce an investigation, let alone announce a no-go on the investigation? I seem to remember that coming when Comey read his bill of particulars then decided no prosecution was warranted.
I shot too soon- the rest of that comment is even worse than the first part:
"I don't see how she could have pulled that off if she knew it was false."
I hope you never sit on a jury- your own blind faith in your ability to detect lying is a source of great potential injustice. In any case, if Kavanaugh were lying, he had the harder task- try to prove a negative- all Ford had to do, and didn't actually accomplish, was to stick to her story from her first letter to Feinstein. In my opinion, she got caught in at least two serious lies regarding her communications with the judiciary committee- I guarantee you that was the biggest part of the discussion inside the Republican caucus. In addition to that, there was also the matter of when Ford started her discussions with the WaPo reporters- we were led to believe they camped out and forced her into public view after someone on the committee leaked the letter redacted to the press, but it turns out that Ford had been talking to WaPo since July. Someone is lying here about the timeline of events, and it could well be Feinstein herself.
2. CBF has a false memory and really believes it (caused by some genuine trauma)
She lost that claim when she testified, under oath, that she couldn't recall whether she'd shown her psychiatrist's notes to the WaPo reporter
Because that was a flat out lie
Blumenthal quoted a jury instruction in Latin, that basically says "once you catch a witness in one lie, you are free to disbelieve everything they said".
That's Ford's "one lie."
Ford shit on her friend Leland. (“Glad she’s getting the help she needs.”). Kavanaugh stood up for his friend Judge.
Ford is a nut. And a bad friend. Why none of them coming forward to support her.
Ann Althouse at 8:22 PM
BK is a plausible liar because he's seeking something and got blindsided and is genuinely outraged, angered, and terrified
Ford is a plausible liar because she thinks that Trump stole the 2016 election by colluding with a Russian dictator and thinks that Trump will turn the USA into a fascist dictatorship where women and People of Color will be oppressed.
Tom said : ... Take this for what it's worth. My brother is not actually a prosecuting or defense attorney, but someone who is tasked with analysing mental states of both the accuser and accused in connection with sexual assault cases."
Your brother sounds perceptive. He picked up some cues that I did not. The voice act and selective memory really stood out to me, but it appears that there was more. Nice job.
An aside: Inappropriate affect is one of the most powerful clues that someone is telling you a false story. That clinched for me with the heavily medicated Anita Hill. CBF was inappropriate in a number of ways as Tom's brother pointed out.
What’s to investigate? Ford gave a list of witnesses all of whom contradict her to varying degrees. The FBI can’t canvass the neighborhood because she can’t remember where it supposedly happened. They can’t ask new witnesses what they recall because there aren’t any others and she doesn’t know when it happened. There is no one who heard her story within two decades of the event. Unless someone wants to believe her there is no evidence to suggest she should be believed. ALL the evidence supports Kavanaugh’s denial. And now, according to the NY Post, other men have come forward to say they groped Dr. Ford.
It is incredible that the Committee and the mediaswine behave as though there are no other witnesses.
Dershowitz is just trying to regain his cred with the libs at Kavanaugh’s expense. He knows better.
Ms. Althouse,
You have been as chary on this as an Amish Bride on her wedding night, but just like that girl, at some point, the dress has to come off!
So here are some questions you need to answer as a legal professional:
1) Does the FBI have jurisdiction on this case?
2) Has there been spoliation of evidence by the accuser and the Senate Democrats? If so, what does that suggest to YOU, Madam Legal Professional?
3) Is there any evidence that exists at this late date besides witnesses that have already denied her version of events? (Yes, their denials are REAL evidence)
4) How many denials and character referrals does Kavanaugh need from women for you to actually believe THEM?
5) Does the fact that Kavanaugh snapped some girl's bra 35 years ago really make him untrained and unable to make laws which might benefit women?
6) Which, if any of the new allegations do you really believe?
7) Does the fact that all the people testi-lyin...I meant testifying are quickly and effortlessly being supported Democratic operatives indicative of ANYTHING to you, as a legal professional being 'cruelly neutral'?
8) Is there ANY testimony that Kavanaugh can offer which would let you support him besides "I swear on the lives of my children to support abortion rights"?
9) If you are cruelly neutral, do you believe a woman can lie about sex and rape?
Throwing Deshowitz is kind of cheap of you, a last ditch effort to try to peel off a few hypothetical centrist readers and move that needle toward your side.
Because however much he has SERIOUS devotion to the Rule of Law*, he's a squish Liberal who loves abortion and has a hard on for authority. So of COURSE he is in favor of delay.
Yancey,
Good points. It’s enough that Ford is lying about recent events. Can’t keep her story straight from this summer.
BK is a plausible liar because he's seeking something and got blindsided and is genuinely outraged, angered, and terrified
It sounds like you are saying he could be guilty even though there is no evidence - none whatsoever.
Meade could be a serial killer. It's plausible, isn't it?
Have you taken measures to protect yourself?
Look, Dershowitz is in the same boat with Althouse- neither of them want to see Kavanaugh take Kennedy's spot, and anything that might prevent that is going to be what they hang their hats on. And here is the thing- if Feinstein had given this letter to the entire committee in July, you likely would have had dozens of interviews on the record by the time of the original hearings, and, as it turns out, even with the dirty trick, the key witnesses were interviewed anyway by the Senate investigators, and all of them refused to support Ford's story- all of them. What do you want the FBI to do- threaten them with something else to change their story? How would you then determine which story was true?
Dershowitz: 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.
But there is no reasonable expectation that these "unanswered questions" will be answered, ever. I wish Dershowitz would say hat these unanswered questions are.
It's not as though we are waiting on crime lab test results or for a witness to regain consciousness.
but I just think she would not have been able to lie that well.
I think any woman could pull it off. It's toxic femininity in action the way so many of us use histrionics or feigned innocence or coquettishness to manipulate men. (And a little girl voice on an educated, professional, grown woman is a pet peeve of mine.)
I have no idea if she is lying or not, but I have no doubt that she could be.
Disco was all the rage (in the 80s)
No, Etienne, Disco's high water mark was late 1977 to the end of the Summer of 1979. The last big Disco album was Donna Summers' Bad Girls in the Summer of 1979. The last song to hit number 1 that could arguably be called Disco was Celebration by Kool and the Gang in late 1980 to early 1981, but disco really was dead at that time.
rcocean at 8:34 PM
We already know ms. Ford lied about being "too scared" to fly.
Excellent point!
She was able and willing to lie about that to Congress and to the entire public.
Feinstein is experienced and practical. She didn’t get where she did by being a fool.
Feinstein never believed Ford. None of them do. This was the only move they had. They got her Dem operative Lawyers and hand picked reporters.
But no one else was playing along. Not Ford’s friends or her family — the one she grew up with.
What exactly is the FBI supposed to do: interview everyone who was age 14-21 who were in the state of Maryland and check out every house within an hour of her high school?
And ask what? Check for what?
I think Dershowitz would rather not have this taint following Kavanaugh to the supreme court-- (and neither do I). But as was said, he's thinking like a lawyer and not like a politician. In the political sphere, it would make no difference to the hysterical left if the FBI somehow cleared Kavanaugh's name or, or as is more likely, says they don't have enough evidence to investigate the allegations. Like Clarence Thomas before him, Kavanaugh is forever tainted to leftists. But they would've hated him anyway so what difference does it make? Life will go on if they vote tomorrow.
Why would anyone trust the FBI right now. The Senate advise and consent role is all that is in the Constitution. It was good enough before anyone even conceived of an FBI (which the Founders likely would have been horrified by) and it's still good enough now. If the Democrat Senators think the lack of a "full-blown" FBI "investigation" - whatever that means - is good enough to stop the nomination, they're free to make that casel
The fact that Althouse does not believe this woman can lie well just shreds her own credibility to flinders.
I have met many women and their ability to lie has been astounding.
But this isn't about ability to lie, it is belief trying to support an unpalatable truth: that in a legal case, a 'maybe' always goes to the defendant. Always. 'Reasonable doubt' has not been made.
But Althouse can't use her lawyer brain here because lawyer brain doesn't give her what she wants: A Democrat appointed SC justice.
Get closer to the truth?
Can't get much closer than the following summation: All the allegations against Kavanaugh are completely and 100% phony.
Ann, this isn't a law class debate. At the start of the day, two people's reputations were at stake. If, by the end of the day, you can't tell which one was credible, it's a good thing you didn't actually practice law. But, those that can... etc.
From what I understand, Jackie was a first class liar, to hear Erdely speak NOW.
But like all cons, it isn't the ability of the person LYING, it is in the desire of the other person wanting to believe.
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.
Mentally ill people can be very convincing. Sometimes they even believe their own bullshit.
The funny thing is this- any FBI investigation at this point would spend at least 90% of the its resources making sure Ford isn't a lunatic- pretty much everyone Kavanaugh has ever known has been interviewed in the past with specific questions as to their knowledge of his character and past actions- the man has had 6 different investigations done of him as he has moved up the government ladder in the executive and judicial branches. Which ones of them do you think will suddenly claim Kavanaugh is a sexual predator?
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.
Are you serious?
1. She was treated with kid gloves.
2. She never provided a single provable detail. No dates. No Times.
3. She flat out lied about the other people at the party/witnesses. Every single one of them contradicted her.
4. She didn't travel to the party.
5. She didn't travel from the party.
The only things she didn't lie about were all of the things she was vague about to avoid committing perjury under oath. This includes everything but the witnesses she named who all called her a liar.
If the left were in any way principled and persuadable I'd agree with Dershowitz about taking maybe a week to look into all the allegations. But the D Senators have already stated their opposition to Kavanaugh no matter what and are not going to change their vote, and the Dem base will still be crazy with hatred, and a delay will just bring out more hysterical accusers to the witch trial, so forget it Dersh. We'll never get to "the truth". There's no point dragging out this ugly spectacle any longer.
McCullough@9:05 notes that we know next to nothing about Doctor Fraud, but after this is over we will learn the truth about this phony, and it won't be a good look. But no matter what kind of corruption and what depth of depravity is revealed, this Democrat party liar is set for life, or at least as long as there is a democrat party.
It's easy to lie when you're allowed to say, I don't remember anything except Brett raping me.
The FBI? Investigate what?
Indeed. So you ask Kavanaugh and he says "absolutely not" and then what? Well, the FBI HAS already investigated Kavanaugh several times with background checks, security checks etc. And he's been vetted by committees and administrations for 20 years. And don't forget the thousands and thousands of documents that the Dems demanded. So we know a lot about him.
What's there left to investigate other than the accusers? So any FBI investigation is going to dig into their backgrounds, their associations, their financial history, AND their medical history. They'll be under oath and their stories are going to be scrutinized with a fine tooth comb with the possibility of severe penalties for any false or misleading statements.
Yeah, you think that they REALLY want an investigation? And you think the Dems really want that kind of investigation? Absolutely no friggin' way.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा