Brett Kavanaugh

[Spartanmack]

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.

Well, if she's not claiming that she identified Kavanaugh to her therapist in 2012 or prior, then there's no indication she ever identified him as her accuser until 2018, other than hearsay evidence from her husband.

It's a lack of evidence but given the near zero probability that a competent therapist would exclude such a significant detail about a traumatic encounter their patient was seeking therapy for, it's significant. It's not a big stretch to say she's most likely lying or relying on something she has to reasonably believe is most likely a lie to bolster her accusations.

 

[Mitchrapp]

These are hard cases, some women who get attacked wait years - understandable. And some women just lie. I've seen where a man spends 15 years in prison and the lady comes out and said she lied.

 

[Thumb]

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

Here it is in Huffpost:

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

It's not a question at all. How you can tell is it ends with a period (.) and not a question mark (?)

In reality, I just don't care that much about this topic. That's the sad truth about anything involving this administration. People on the left point out things that happen big or small (big by far outnumbers small by the way) and people on the right just defend everything. Nobody just looks at things as right/wrong or black/white. Everything depends on which side of the fence you're on, hence the partisan glasses comment. So while I'll admit I don't know if she's telling the absolute truth, I also won't accuse her of straight up lying as you have. Either way, some of the outrage about this guy and if he'll end up on the bench is moot anyways (I'm referring to the dead horse posts about 40 years of too far right court etc.) because even if he does not get confirmed, the GOP will just put up another pick who thinks the same way. There is no real victory to be had over this.

 

[Spartanmack]

It's not a question at all. How you can tell is it ends with a period (.) and not a question mark (?)

In reality, I just don't care that much about this topic. That's the sad truth about anything involving this administration. People on the left point out things that happen big or small (big by far outnumbers small by the way) and people on the right just defend everything. Nobody just looks at things as right/wrong or black/white. Everything depends on which side of the fence you're on, hence the partisan glasses comment. So while I'll admit I don't know if she's telling the absolute truth, I also won't accuse her of straight up lying as you have. Either way, some of the outrage about this guy and if he'll end up on the bench is moot anyways (I'm referring to the dead horse posts about 40 years of too far right court etc.) because even if he does not get confirmed, the GOP will just put up another pick who thinks the same way. There is no real victory to be had over this.

Gulo's post was also quoted in that post by me. In that post he asked a question. You can tell because not only is it worded like a question, but there's a piece of punctuation called a question mark at the end of the first sentence. It looks like this: ?

I definitely have my biases but to say I defend everything Trump does is simply not true. But that's a trademark of the left, either you suffer their same severe TDS and lose your shit over virtually everything he does, or you're a die hard Trump supporter. There is no in between.

 

[sggatecl]

It's a lack of evidence but given the near zero probability that a competent therapist would exclude such a significant detail about a traumatic encounter their patient was seeking therapy for, it's significant. It's not a big stretch to say she's most likely lying or relying on something she has to reasonably believe is most likely a lie to bolster her accusations.

Quoting you simply because you started talking about the probability of her lying and I just read a lengthy comment on Reddit that I found interesting concerning that same thing. This isn't directed at you specifically.

The odds that Ford was able to guess that Kavanaugh, Judge, PJ Smyth, and Chris Garrett were all at the same party one night in 1982 are extremely low [update3: Garrett was NOT initially named, but he was the one who hung out with Kavanaugh the most, so he would be the first named if she was guessing based on his behavior. There are no other days where Judge, PJ, and Kavanaugh were together. Also, Ford went out with him so his presence in the entry is necessary to her case]. Other than July 1, there are zero other entries where the four of them were at the same party. There are only a handful of entries where even three of them were together.

In other words, even someone who knew Kavanaugh very well, who knew him so well that they could see every other entry in his calendar other than July 1, would not have been able to easily guess that they were together.

Ford didn't even know them that well. Her friend Keyser doesn't remember them, and Kavanaugh himself claims they ran in different circles. The odds of her being able to put those four people together are infinitesimally small.

How did she know?

Whats more, it would have had to be on a date between 6 and 11 weeks prior to football camp (Aug. 22), since she said she saw Mark Judge at Safeway 6 to 8 weeks later, and he wrote in his book that he worked at a grocery store for "a few weeks" to raise money for football camp. July 1 is 7 weeks before the start of football camp.

How did she know?

Whats more, Ford testified that Kavanaugh was aggressive when drunk, but how would she have known this? Only 23% of people are aggressive drunks. Yet Kavanaugh's college classmates say he was aggressive and beligerent when drunk. He was arrested [update2: his friend was arrested, but he was accused of throwing ice on someone, which he didn't deny] after attacking someone while drunk in 1985. This is after the time Ford knew Kavanaugh, as they were going to different universities in different states.

So how did she know?

Then there is an investigation (which the FBI refused [update: was not allowed] to do) of Tim Gaudette's neighborhood. Insider Edition visited it and went next door to a house with the same floor plan. From the living room, a narrow set of stairs lead up to the bathroom, which is right across the hallway from the bedroom, just as she said. The house is about 15 minutes from the Country Club, but still closer to the Country Club than her house, just as she said. Yes, a lot of houses have that particular design, but most do not.

Again, how did she know?

We are not talking credibility. We are talking probability. The probability that Dr. Ford could have just guessed all these facts and been right by chance is virtually nil. Furthermore, she would have to be a suicidal liar to come up with these non-obvious facts and name all these people, taking the chance of being proven wrong - unless she was actually at the party and saw him belligerent when drunk.

 

[Michchamp]

in addition to being denied a position on the supreme court, and being impeached from his current judgeship for perjury, sounds like Kavanaugh is long overdue for an asskicking in a bar fight.

 

[Spartanmack]

Quoting you simply because you started talking about the probability of her lying and I just read a lengthy comment on Reddit that I found interesting concerning that same thing. This isn't directed at you specifically.

First - the guy threw ice on someone in a bar fight and so clearly he's an aggressive drunk. that's absurd.


Now, let me clear - I'm not saying she's lying about being assaulted and that it never happened. I'm saying she's possibly, perhaps even likely lying about when she recalled who her attacker was. I'm also not saying this attack happened the night in question.

beyond that, I don't know enough about what's in Kavanaugh's calendar to know if this makes any sense other than to say it clearly hinges on the calendar being complete and authoritative. What I do know is Ford isn't even sure it happened in 1982 and no witnesses, regardless of how unlikely it is she would guess they were there, have any memory of the events let alone the events as she tells them. And they've all stated that. Also the fact that the house is actually 15 minutes away from the country club isn't a small discrepancy. Finally, yesterday I watched a CNN interview where a close friend of Kavanaugh's said the house of the host identified by Ford was a town house, not a single family home and doesn't match up with her testimony. it was on youtube so I don't know when it was aired but they talked about the hearing so it's at least since last Thursday.


Edit: I also don't think she's been truthful about other things, like her supposed fear of flying or her experience with polygraphs and the reason her house has 2 front or back doors or whichever it is. Nobody seems to be too concerned with that yet for days we hear how discrepancies in how Kavanaugh characterizes his drinking in his youth being different from how 2 out of 30+ character witnesses describe it proves he's a serial liar, unfit for the bench.

 

[tomdalton22]

the only thing that I got out of the hearings is that he likes beer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0SwwyqhJMs

 

[tomdalton22]

SNL has a good sketch about the hearings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJecfRxbr8

 

[sggatecl]

and the reason her house has 2 front or back doors or whichever it is. Nobody seems to be too concerned with that yet for days we hear how discrepancies in how Kavanaugh characterizes his drinking in his youth being different from how 2 out of 30+ character witnesses describe it proves he's a serial liar, unfit for the bench.

Some how I missed this, did that come up in the hearing? Is it supposed to be an escape route?

 

[Gulo Blue]

I know it's way too much to ask for a nonpartisan judge, but Kavanaugh was deep in the middle of the Clinton impeachment. Just about as highly partisan a resume line item as any judge could possibly have.

I'm still right where I started. Even if he's 100% innocent of the accusations, I don't want him on the SC. He doges questions more like a politician than a judge. He's a terrible candidate.

 

[Mitchrapp]

That Damon sketch was awesome.. I saw it on the weekend. I'm surprised he didn't break character.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm still right where I started. Even if he's 100% innocent of the accusations, I don't want him on the SC. He doges questions more like a politician than a judge. He's a terrible candidate.

if you've got time on your hands, try reading some of his judicial opinions.

as if being (some of) the brains behind the Clinton impeachment hearings and Bush torture memos was bad enough...

 

[tigermud]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/go...interned-for-feinstein-jackson-lee-other-dems

 

[tinselwolverine]

1st person testimony about those allegations may be evidence but it's hearsay...

I could be wrong, but I thought hearsay was testimony that isn't first person...Pete on the stand: "Joe told me he saw Tom do this" or "Joe told me he saw Tom do that..."

If someone said this to investigators, they would go and talk to Joe about what he saw Tom do, and subpoena Joe to testify about he saw Tom do, according to Pete.

Typically a prosecutor wouldn't put Pete on the stand about what he heard.

Again - I know this isn't a normal legal proceeding and there's nothing typical about it at all...

 

[Michchamp]

I could be wrong, but I thought hearsay was testimony that isn't first person...Pete on the stand: "Joe told me he saw Tom do this" or "Joe told me he saw Tom do that..."

If someone said this to investigators, they would go and talk to Joe about what he saw Tom do, and subpoena Joe to testify about he saw Tom do, according to Pete.

Typically a prosecutor wouldn't put Pete on the stand about what he heard.

Again - I know this isn't a normal legal proceeding and there's nothing typical about it at all...

He googled it though, and got his JD from Internet Law School, so he's probably right.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I could be wrong, but I thought hearsay was testimony that isn't first person...Pete on the stand: "Joe told me he saw Tom do this" or "Joe told me he saw Tom do that..."

If someone said this to investigators, they would go and talk to Joe about what he saw Tom do, and subpoena Joe to testify about he saw Tom do, according to Pete.

Typically a prosecutor wouldn't put Pete on the stand about what he heard.

Again - I know this isn't a normal legal proceeding and there's nothing typical about it at all...

If it wasn't clear, that's what I meant with the bit about Kavanaugh being ID in therapy. I don't see that it came from Ford's letter. Ford's husband said that Ford said it 6 years ago. Unless they confirm with Ford, it's hearsay.

 

[Spartanmack]

in addition to being denied a position on the supreme court, and being impeached from his current judgeship for perjury, sounds like Kavanaugh is long overdue for an asskicking in a bar fight.

probably the only chance of you having anything in common with him.

 

[Spartanmack]

Some how I missed this, did that come up in the hearing? Is it supposed to be an escape route?

im not sure - my guess is yes, or an added layer of security. apparebtly she made a claim about why the double layer of doors but whatever it was was somehow debunked.

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm still right where I started. Even if he's 100% innocent of the accusations, I don't want him on the SC. He doges questions more like a politician than a judge. He's a terrible candidate.

real question, have you ever watched a confirmation hearing before? they NEVER give straight answers, even when quizzed about their judicial philosophies. if thats the standard, the whole panel is unfit.