Brett Kavanaugh

[tinselwolverine]

I don't like it either and I think it's a stretch to call the allegation evidence. The point is, he's drawing conclusions about a person based on an unsupported and uncorroborated allegation - regardless of how loosely one defines "evidence".

Okay.

To me, a proposition is part of the body of its own corroboration - I'm not talking about the Kavanaugh event, just being pedantic at this point.

 

[tomdalton22]

I watched some of the hearings...Brett Kavanaugh and a lot of those senators looked like fools.

 

[Spartanmack]

So apparently Christine Ford shared her therapists notes from 2012 with WaPo (but not the Senate Judiciary Committee) and WaPo saying, there is no mention of Kavanaugh by name in the notes - contradicting the major corroborating evidence that she claims to have identified him as her attacker to her therapist in 2012.

 

[Michchamp]

So apparently Christine Ford shared her therapists notes from 2012 with WaPo (but not the Senate Judiciary Committee) and WaPo saying, there is no mention of Kavanaugh by name in the notes - contradicting the major corroborating evidence that she claims to have identified him as her attacker to her therapist in 2012.

sounds like FAKE NEWS to me, TURD.

 

[Spartanmack]

sounds like FAKE NEWS to me, TURD.

mc taking the easy way out. shocker.

 

[Gulo Blue]

So apparently Christine Ford shared her therapists notes from 2012 with WaPo (but not the Senate Judiciary Committee) and WaPo saying, there is no mention of Kavanaugh by name in the notes - contradicting the major corroborating evidence that she claims to have identified him as her attacker to her therapist in 2012.

Where did you see that, the claim about telling her therapist his identity? I looked and couldn't find it. I found a couple articles that said she described the incident in therapy in 2012 and 2013, but not that she revealed his identity to her therapist.

 

[Thumb]

Where did you see that, the claim about telling her therapist his identity? I looked and couldn't find it. I found a couple articles that said she described the incident in therapy in 2012 and 2013, but not that she revealed his identity to her therapist.

You need to read it again wearing your partisan glasses.

 

[Gulo Blue]

You need to read it again wearing your partisan glasses.

Read what? I'm asking what to read?

 

[sggatecl]

Some witnesses say they called FBI in vain as end of Kavanaugh probe looms

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Several people with information related to allegations of sexual misconduct against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh say they have tried in vain to speak with the FBI, which is expected to wrap up its investigation this week.

Richard Oh, a classmate of Ramirez and Kavanaugh at Yale, told Reuters he contacted the FBI’s Denver field office twice at the weekend hoping to provide information he believed would support Ramirez’s account.

Oh said it was unclear if the person he spoke with at the FBI passed on his statement to agents working on the case.

“I didn’t get the sense that this person even knew what the Kavanaugh case was about,” said Oh, an emergency room doctor in California. “I was hoping to hear back from them for follow-up questions. I still haven’t heard from them.”

 

[tinselwolverine]

Where did you see that, the claim about telling her therapist his identity? I looked and couldn't find it. I found a couple articles that said she described the incident in therapy in 2012 and 2013, but not that she revealed his identity to her therapist.

I am so tired of this that I don?t feel like going back and looking it up, but I think she?s been making that claim all along.

I think she made that claim in the letter to Diane Feinstein, I think she made that claim to the Washington post and I?m pretty sure I heard her made that claim to the Senate Judiciary committee.

 

[Spartanmack]

Where did you see that, the claim about telling her therapist his identity? I looked and couldn't find it. I found a couple articles that said she described the incident in therapy in 2012 and 2013, but not that she revealed his identity to her therapist.

You need to read it again wearing your partisan glasses.

Is this a serious question? It's a significant focus of the case and is considered to by the Dems to be one of the biggest pieces of supporting evidence. Ford herself made the claim - it's a major part of the timeline detailing the progress of how she regained what little memory she has of actual details, most of which are still missing like the where and when it allegedly happened. Even a leftist viewing this through their partisan glasses should be able to see how this weakens her case that relies fairly significantly on this point.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rs-need-to-see-christine-ford-therapy-records

But even then, in 2012, when Ford said she shared her secret, it was under circumstances that are not at all clear today. In statements to the press and in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford has said that in 2012 and 2013 she told therapists about the alleged attack. She said she has reviewed the therapists' notes from those sessions. But by all accounts those notes do not mention Kavanaugh by name. Instead, Ford has explained that her husband, who was present at some of the therapy sessions, remembered that she identified Kavanaugh by name as the person who allegedly attacked her.

Here it is in Huffpost:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...anaugh-affidavits_us_5bab76a1e4b0f101d3845738

 

[tomdalton22]

Is this a serious question? It's a significant focus of the case and is considered to by the Dems to be one of the biggest pieces of supporting evidence. Ford herself made the claim - it's a major part of the timeline detailing the progress of how she regained what little memory she has of actual details, most of which are still missing like the where and when it allegedly happened. Even a leftist viewing this through their partisan glasses should be able to see how this weakens her case that relies fairly significantly on this point.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rs-need-to-see-christine-ford-therapy-records

Here it is in Huffpost:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...anaugh-affidavits_us_5bab76a1e4b0f101d3845738

Those articles are pretty clear...regardless of what kind of glasses you may be wearing.

As far as him being specifically named in the therapy sessions. I have never been in therapy...do they take extensive notes or just summarize what was said? I would almost think that they would record the sessions so the therapist could listen to it later if necessary.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Is this a serious question? It's a significant focus of the case and is considered to by the Dems to be one of the biggest pieces of supporting evidence. Ford herself made the claim - it's a major part of the timeline detailing the progress of how she regained what little memory she has of actual details, most of which are still missing like the where and when it allegedly happened. Even a leftist viewing this through their partisan glasses should be able to see how this weakens her case that relies fairly significantly on this point.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...rs-need-to-see-christine-ford-therapy-records

Here it is in Huffpost:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...anaugh-affidavits_us_5bab76a1e4b0f101d3845738

OK. That's in line with what I saw. The husband says she mentioned it and it's not in the notes, but nobody claimed it was in the notes.

"She said she has reviewed the therapists' notes from those sessions. But by all accounts those notes do not mention Kavanaugh by name."
When you said it contradicted major corroborating evidence, I thought she had actually claimed he was named in the notes. This is a lack of corroborating evidence, not contradicting evidence. There's an expectation that it would be there since the husband said it was mentioned in session, but Ford didn't actually say it was in there.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I am so tired of this that I don?t feel like going back and looking it up, but I think she?s been making that claim all along.

I think she made that claim in the letter to Diane Feinstein, I think she made that claim to the Washington post and I?m pretty sure I heard her made that claim to the Senate Judiciary committee.

I did dig up the letter to Fienstein. It's not in there.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-letter-feinstein/index.html
But I see a bunch of headlines about investigating Fienstein for leaking the letter.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Those articles are pretty clear...regardless of what kind of glasses you may be wearing.

As far as him being specifically named in the therapy sessions. I have never been in therapy...do they take extensive notes or just summarize what was said? I would almost think that they would record the sessions so the therapist could listen to it later if necessary.

I see where the husband said what he said. But where I was hung up was on the word contradicting. Do I thinks she's proven her case in a way that would hold up in court? No. All I'm saying is this isn't contradicting evidence.

 

[tomdalton22]

I see where the husband said what he said. But where I was hung up was on the word contradicting. Do I thinks she's proven her case in a way that would hold up in court? No. All I'm saying is this isn't contradicting evidence.

I see your POV. I would say that if his name isn't in the notes, isn't evidence at all.

 

[Spartanmack]

OK. That's in line with what I saw. The husband says she mentioned it and it's not in the notes, but nobody claimed it was in the notes.

"She said she has reviewed the therapists' notes from those sessions. But by all accounts those notes do not mention Kavanaugh by name."
When you said it contradicted major corroborating evidence, I thought she had actually claimed he was named in the notes. This is a lack of corroborating evidence, not contradicting evidence. There's an expectation that it would be there since the husband said it was mentioned in session, but Ford didn't actually say it was in there.

she claims that she mentioned him by name in those sessions - something no competent therapist would leave out of his/her notes - and uses her husband's statement to back up that claim. The point isn't about whether she lied about the notes, it's about whether she lied about when she first remembered and named Kavanaugh. Her husband's testimony is hearsay - there's no proof the pussy hat wearing, open boarders, anti-trump activist ever mentioned Bret Kavanaugh by name until 2018.

 

[Michchamp]

I see your POV. I would say that if his name isn't in the notes, isn't evidence at all.

her testimony is still evidence though. not sure why this idea that 1st person testimony isn't evidence is floating around.

 

[Gulo Blue]

she claims that she mentioned him by name in those sessions - something no competent therapist would leave out of his/her notes - and uses her husband's statement to back up that claim. The point isn't about whether she lied about the notes, it's about whether she lied about when she first remembered and named Kavanaugh. Her husband's testimony is hearsay - there's no proof the pussy hat wearing, open boarders, anti-trump activist ever mentioned Bret Kavanaugh by name until 2018.

But it's a lack of evidence. Not evidence that she lied. I still don't see where she's the one saying she told the therapist Kavanaugh's name. That came from the husband. So...hearsay, as you point out.

I expect she said it somewhere, but it's strange that it's so difficult to find. Without it, you're pointing to a lack of evidence that would, if it existed, support hearsay and saying that contradicts evidence.

 

[Spartanmack]

her testimony is still evidence though. not sure why this idea that 1st person testimony isn't evidence is floating around.

it's not floating around - try to keep up. The closest anyone has come to what you're saying is when I said allegations are not evidence and they're not. 1st person testimony about those allegations may be evidence but it's hearsay and doesn't get any closer to the truth, particularly in this case where so much of the detail and the circumstances surrounding how the witness recalled certain evidence are questionable.

Now, I'm still waiting for the evidence behind your claim that Kavanaugh acted inappropriately toward any of his law clerks or his tendency toward sleazy behavior with women? Got any or did you just make that up to impugn his character?