Kavanaugh's SC Confirmation Hearings

Don't know if this will show the thread, but read Terpin's full thread. Basically, she's continuing to change her story in terms of how she viewed Kavenaugh leading up to the Scalia and Kennedy SCOTUS nomination processes. Kinda reads like someone who's making this up as she goes along. Just saying...

 
The first man at least has met with the committee and submitted a written account,
The second phoned it in. He seems more like the 10 parties of gang rapes accuser


I just noticed the polygraph took place at a BMI hotel. Afraid of flying so she drove across country to a hotel at the BMI airport?
 
Last edited:
2a8458c3c83d03191058b5677340ef4ebfe77ccc3a4904bbd7972b34d2005c27.jpg
 
Have y'all seen the polygraph questions? There were 2, each concerning the letter she wrote.
It was, "was your letter truthful?"
No question that was truly pertinent, maybe, like, "did Kavanaugh push you down on a bed and try to sexually assault you?"

I'm not an attorney, nor a lie detector expert, but from what I understand about lie detector tests, you ask questions that are related to the actual event, not flotsam and jetsam swirling around in letters. It was a total joke.
 
He is qualified for the job and the president nominated him. The only public complaint about him is that he misbehaved as a teenager. So did I but I grew out of it and so did he, if he actually did any of those things

This is not about teenage indiscretions but about abortion. The pros are terrified he will help curtail it and they are probably right. The antis believe he will help curtail it and they are probably right.

The pros got Roe as a result of who got appointed to the SC over a period of years and not because there is anything in the constitution that says states can't limit abortions or forbid it. After decades of squawking and many elections the antis are on the cusp of getting a numerical edge on the SC. That is what all this is about.

So the pros are leaping to believe a bunch of suspicious accusations so they can torpedo this guy and wait for Trump's next pick and the antis want to push him through before the November elections maybe, but not probably, upset their Senate majority.

It is all squalid as can be. He is more conservative than I would like but he is qualified and seems like a sterling character. He has a nice wife and a couple of daughters he seems to cherish. I am a liberal democrat and I would vote for him.
 
So having heard her story now, it just seems a bit excessive to be traumatized for decades based on a potential "almost rape". There was no penetration of any kind. She essentially describes being aggressively groped by some drunk guy. It's unacceptable behavior for sure but does it really justify this level of trauma?
I guess I am still traumatized about almost being killed by that boogie monster who I guarantee was hiding under my bed when I was 7.
 
UTChE96 said:
So having heard her story now, it just seems a bit excessive to be traumatized for decades based on a potential "almost rape". There was no penetration of any kind. I guess I am still traumatized about almost being killed by that boogie monster who I guarantee was hiding under my bed when I was 7.
Click to expand...
OMG!!! I repressed that memory for decades. Curse you!
 
UTChE96 said:
So having heard her story now, it just seems a bit excessive to be traumatized for decades based on a potential "almost rape". There was no penetration of any kind. I guess I am still traumatized about almost being killed by that boogie monster who I guarantee was hiding under my bed when I was 7.
Click to expand...
How did she know it was attempted rape vs aggressive horseplay with drunk 17 year olds? How about the other 17 year old boys who are punched, tackled, etc. by the same group? They traumatized too?
 
At this point, my money is one of two possibilities:
1.) She is a true believer liberal who feels the ends justify the means in winning the SCOTUS. Willing to say anything, make up any story to delay the nomination process.
and / or
2.) She is deeply unstable and does not remember this incident accurately and really believes that Kavanaugh did these things.
 
Last edited:
UTChE96 said:
At this point, my money is one of two possibilities:
1.) She is a true believe liberal who feels the ends justify the means in winning the SCOTUS. Willing to say anything, make up any story to delay the nomination process.
or
2.) She is a deeply unstable and does not remember this incident accurately and really believes that Kavanaugh did these things.
Click to expand...
Or? How about “and”?
 
I dont care for the procedure/process
The disjointed nature of the questioning is not the best way or even a good way to present evidence and get to the facts
 
The part about the 2nd front door for Google interns was confusing
As best I can tell, she says this came up during a marriage counseling session with her husband. And, again, as best I can tell, she willingly gave the therapist's notes of that session to the WAPO but refused to give the same to the Senate.
 
It also appears she said she doesn’t remember who drove her home?

What Ford remembers:
-The stairwell
-The laughter
-Brett Kavanaugh

What she doesn't remember:
-When it happened
-Where it happened
-How she got there
-How she got home
-Who was there
-Conversations she had even as recently as 3 months ago

My sense is that this material, presented in the way it is being presented, will not change anyone's mind. People will continue to see it the same way they did before today.

I do feel confident concluding this much -- there is no chance any prosecutor could get a conviction off this testimony. None would even take it to trial.

In fact, I will go so far as to say that, with these facts, she could not win a civil trial even with its significantly lower burden of proof. As an example, let's say Ford sued Kavanaugh in small claims court for $100, alleging he borrowed that amount from her 38 years ago in front of 4 other people. And today, all 4 of those eyewitnesses deny it. Combine this with Ford's additional self-contradictions and she would have no chance of winning a judgement in a civil trial.
 
Last edited:
She flies regularly
She uses a second door for renters and guests, not due to claustrophobia or due to effect of attack
Won’t share notes from therapist
Her memory is god-awful
Yet she knows that Kavanaugh was there.
 
This Rachel Mitchell is asking some dumb questions. The Dems are asking more poignant questions to Dr. Ford than the Repubs representative.
 
militaryhorn said:
This Rachel Mitchell is asking some dumb questions. The Dems are asking more poignant questions to Dr. Ford than the Repubs representative.
Click to expand...

The point of the questioning on things such as the fear of flying claim was to get her to admit that, in reality, Ford flies all over the world for her hobbies. These questions establish a foundation for her credibility/truthfulness.

Here is what Politco previously wrote about this --
DoHRy4BU0AAnrxw.jpg:large
 
Why didn't Mitchell follow up with why would you fear or be scared to take a polygraph test if what you say is true?
 
As usual, the Republicans are more interested in keeping their gravy train jobs than getting to the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top