Christine Blasey-Ford Did She Lie To Congress?
Did she lie to Congress about multiple things? Looks like a good possibility. This still needs to be verified, but it certainly raises an eyebrow to our poor little "victim".
Potentially Lied About:
- Never having coached someone for a polygraph.
- Having a geniuine fear of flying
This woman is not credible at all. It's time to vote. This nonsense has to stop.
Also, why do her attorneys refuse to turn over therapists notes?
Can't wait to hear what @Bill_Coley and @C_M_ have to say about this breaking development.
Comments
-
Liberals have venerated Trumping the False Ford Fiasco up so loudly that when it inevitably implodes it will leave an aching void in their souls. We need to be ready to comfort and rescue the wounded regardless of whether or not it was self-inflicted.
-
@reformed said:
Can't wait to hear what @Bill_Coley and @C_M_ have to say about this breaking development.
Fake news.
-
Sad. So Sad that she would stoop to that, even if it was a broken Party the shoved her into it.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Can't wait to hear what @Bill_Coley and @C_M_ have to say about this breaking development.
Fake news.
Is it? That's more credible than other witnesses that have come out against Kavanaugh.
-
Ray Comfort has just pushed out a video with a very balanced and very reasonable view on the issue, and a call to be careful about what we share online.
-
@Jan said:
Ray Comfort has just pushed out a video with a very balanced and very reasonable view on the issue, and a call to be careful about what we share online.I can't watch youtube.
-
It is a great post. Thanks.
-
Deborah Ramirez and Christine Ford are liars. This is now known. The FBI found that the witnesses say this did not happen.
-
@reformed said:
Deborah Ramirez and Christine Ford are liars. This is now known. The FBI found that the witnesses say this did not happen.Who are these "witnesses," and how does each of them know that an event NO ONE says they witnessed "did not happen"?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Deborah Ramirez and Christine Ford are liars. This is now known. The FBI found that the witnesses say this did not happen.Who are these "witnesses," and how does each of them know that an event NO ONE says they witnessed "did not happen"?
For Ford at least they intereviewed the witnesses she identified.
-
@reformed said:
For Ford at least they intereviewed the witnesses she identified.
To my knowledge, the FBI report reflects interviews with nine people. According to Dr Ford's attorneys, they provided to the Bureau a list of eight persons who could provide relevant evidence in the matter, NONE of whose names appears on the list of six people known to have been interviewed by the FBI. I don't know how it's then possible that the FBI could have "interviewed the (eight) witnesses she identified" when only three of the nine interviewees are not known.
Further, your response doesn't at all respond to the second part of the question I asked: How do the "witnesses" to which your post refers - people NO ONE claims witnessed the assault - know "this did not happen"?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
For Ford at least they intereviewed the witnesses she identified.
To my knowledge, the FBI report reflects interviews with nine people. According to Dr Ford's attorneys, they provided to the Bureau a list of eight persons who could provide relevant evidence in the matter, NONE of whose names appears on the list of six people known to have been interviewed by the FBI. I don't know how it's then possible that the FBI could have "interviewed the (eight) witnesses she identified" when only three of the nine interviewees are not known.
They interviewed the alleged witnesses. Who else should be interviewed?
Further, your response doesn't at all respond to the second part of the question I asked: How do the "witnesses" to which your post refers - people NO ONE claims witnessed the assault - know "this did not happen"?
I don't understand what you are talking about. What do you mean?
-
@reformed said:
I can't watch youtube.
Upgrade...CM
-
@reformed said:
They interviewed the alleged witnesses. Who else should be interviewed?
Her attorneys identified to the FBI eight witnesses. Simple math demonstrates that they didn't interview them all.
Further, your response doesn't at all respond to the second part of the question I asked: How do the "witnesses" to which your post refers - people NO ONE claims witnessed the assault - know "this did not happen"?
I don't understand what you are talking about. What do you mean?
Your earlier post claimed that...
"The FBI found that the witnesses say this did not happen."
I simply want to know who those witnesses are, and how they know "this did not happen" when NO ONE claims any of them, of than Mark Judge, witnessed the assault?
You might also tell us how you know that witnesses told the FBI "this did not happen." I don't think any one other than US senators have seen the report. So far, I've heard "nothing new," and "nothing that we didn't already know," but I've not heard "this did not happen." How do you know witnesses told that to the FBI?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
They interviewed the alleged witnesses. Who else should be interviewed?
Her attorneys identified to the FBI eight witnesses. Simple math demonstrates that they didn't interview them all.
Now all of a sudden there are 8 witnesses? Then Ford lied to Congress. Lock her up.
Further, your response doesn't at all respond to the second part of the question I asked: How do the "witnesses" to which your post refers - people NO ONE claims witnessed the assault - know "this did not happen"?
I don't understand what you are talking about. What do you mean?
Your earlier post claimed that...
"The FBI found that the witnesses say this did not happen."
I simply want to know who those witnesses are, and how they know "this did not happen" when NO ONE claims any of them, of than Mark Judge, witnessed the assault?
Mark Judge supposedly witnessed the assault, Leland Keyser was supposedly at the event. PJ also. All three were interviewed all three denied Ford's account of the events.
You might also tell us how you know that witnesses told the FBI "this did not happen." I don't think any one other than US senators have seen the report. So far, I've heard "nothing new," and "nothing that we didn't already know," but I've not heard "this did not happen." How do you know witnesses told that to the FBI?
All Senators I have heard today say that there is nothing to corroborate the allegation in the report, including the fact that the witnesses deny the allegations.
That's saying it did not happen Bill.
-
@reformed said:
Now all of a sudden there are 8 witnesses? Then Ford lied to Congress. Lock her up.
Calm down, reformed.
In a letter to the FBI director Wray, Dr Ford's attorneys recommended eight witnesses who they believe would add information to the FBI's investigation. The eight witnesses cited in their letter are NOT the witnesses Dr Ford asserts were in the house on the night of her assault. The attorneys' letter cites a DIFFERENT set of witnesses, who serve a DIFFERENT purpose than the witnesses Dr Ford believes were in the house.
Mark Judge supposedly witnessed the assault, Leland Keyser was supposedly at the event. PJ also. All three were interviewed all three denied Ford's account of the events.
To my knowledge, neither Judge nor Keyser has said "this did not happen."
In a statement, Judge said he has "no memory" of the alleged incident, and that he does "not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter." He did also assert that he "never saw (Kavanaugh) act in the manner Dr. Ford describes," but interpreting that claim is a curious task given the previous claim, only that he has "no memory" of the incident. If he never saw Kavanaugh act in the way Dr Ford describes, why does he tell us that he has "no memory" of the event? OF COURSE he wouldn't have any memory of it if he never saw Kavanaugh act that way!
Then there's the matter of the effect on memory of both large-scale alcohol consumption and the thought of basically confessing to being an accessory to a sexual assault. Who among us EXPECTS Mark Judge to confirm Dr Ford's story, even IF it happened the way she described it? He KNOWS Kavanaugh is going to deny it. He KNOWS no one else was in the room. He KNOWS there's no physical evidence. Why would we expect him to confess to an assault when he can get away with it?
My point is that Mark Judge's "denial" of the assault is basically meaningless.
Leyland Keyser issued a statement in which she said she doesn't know Brett Kavanaugh and has "no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present," with or without Christine Ford. That's NOT saying the assault "did not happen." In fact, Keyser made clear that though she has no recollection of such a party, she believes Dr. Ford's allegations.
Patrick Smyth issued the clearest denial of the event, saying he had no "knowledge" of the party or the conduct alleged, and that he has never "witnessed" Kavanaugh act improperly toward women. Even that's not "this didn't happen." Dr Ford does not say Smyth "witnessed" her assault. She says he was on the lower level of the house when it happened. For the people on the lower level of the house, Ford testified, it was likely a run of the mill party (not one of their "notorious" parties, she said)
The most interesting aspect of Smyth's statement was that it made clear he did not want to testify under oath: "To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have." Translation: Don't ask me any questions!
All Senators I have heard today say that there is nothing to corroborate the allegation in the report, including the fact that the witnesses deny the allegations.
We have to wonder whether there would have been anything to corroborate the allegation had the FBI been allowed the "free rein" in its investigation that President Trump promised:
- Had it interviewed more than nine persons
- Had it not been told not to interview the accuser or the accused
- Had it not been ordered to stay away other areas
We may never know.
This is a sad, disgusting day for our nation. Kavanaugh's confirmation will add a stain to the Court that won't be easily removed. Victims of sexual assault around the country have been told, if you're alone with your assailant when you are assaulted, you'd better get hair, blood, skin cells, or other body fluids, because if you don't - if it's your word against your assailant's - we're going to believe your assailant. In fact, reformed is going call you a liar.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Now all of a sudden there are 8 witnesses? Then Ford lied to Congress. Lock her up.
Calm down, reformed.
In a letter to the FBI director Wray, Dr Ford's attorneys recommended eight witnesses who they believe would add information to the FBI's investigation. The eight witnesses cited in their letter are NOT the witnesses Dr Ford asserts were in the house on the night of her assault. The attorneys' letter cites a DIFFERENT set of witnesses, who serve a DIFFERENT purpose than the witnesses Dr Ford believes were in the house.
Obviously the FBI didn't find those relevant enough to interview.
Mark Judge supposedly witnessed the assault, Leland Keyser was supposedly at the event. PJ also. All three were interviewed all three denied Ford's account of the events.
To my knowledge, neither Judge nor Keyser has said "this did not happen."
They denied the entire event. That's the same thing. You are arguing semantics which is ridiculous. So you are saying unless they use the exact phrase "this did not happen" they haven't denied the actual event?
In a statement, Judge said he has "no memory" of the alleged incident, and that he does "not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter." He did also assert that he "never saw (Kavanaugh) act in the manner Dr. Ford describes," but interpreting that claim is a curious task given the previous claim, only that he has "no memory" of the incident. If he never saw Kavanaugh act in the way Dr Ford describes, why does he tell us that he has "no memory" of the event? OF COURSE he wouldn't have any memory of it if he never saw Kavanaugh act that way!
But remember, he was supposedly a participant in the event.
Then there's the matter of the effect on memory of both large-scale alcohol consumption and the thought of basically confessing to being an accessory to a sexual assault. Who among us EXPECTS Mark Judge to confirm Dr Ford's story, even IF it happened the way she described it? He KNOWS Kavanaugh is going to deny it. He KNOWS no one else was in the room. He KNOWS there's no physical evidence. Why would we expect him to confess to an assault when he can get away with it?
My point is that Mark Judge's "denial" of the assault is basically meaningless.
Then so is Ford's claim that it did.
Leyland Keyser issued a statement in which she said she doesn't know Brett Kavanaugh and has "no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present," with or without Christine Ford. That's NOT saying the assault "did not happen." In fact, Keyser made clear that though she has no recollection of such a party, she believes Dr. Ford's allegations.
It IS SAYING that it if something happened it was not as Ford alleged which calls her credibility into question.
Patrick Smyth issued the clearest denial of the event, saying he had no "knowledge" of the party or the conduct alleged, and that he has never "witnessed" Kavanaugh act improperly toward women. Even that's not "this didn't happen." Dr Ford does not say Smyth "witnessed" her assault. She says he was on the lower level of the house when it happened. For the people on the lower level of the house, Ford testified, it was likely a run of the mill party (not one of their "notorious" parties, she said)
But he also was not at this alleged event. The event did not happen.
The most interesting aspect of Smyth's statement was that it made clear he did not want to testify under oath: "To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have." Translation: Don't ask me any questions!
I wouldn't want to be drug into the Democrat smear machine either.
All Senators I have heard today say that there is nothing to corroborate the allegation in the report, including the fact that the witnesses deny the allegations.
We have to wonder whether there would have been anything to corroborate the allegation had the FBI been allowed the "free rein" in its investigation that President Trump promised:
- Had it interviewed more than nine persons
- Had it not been told not to interview the accuser or the accused
- Had it not been ordered to stay away other areas
We may never know.
So you don't trust the FBI to do their jobs?
This is a sad, disgusting day for our nation. Kavanaugh's confirmation will add a stain to the Court that won't be easily removed. Victims of sexual assault around the country have been told, if you're alone with your assailant when you are assaulted, you'd better get hair, blood, skin cells, or other body fluids, because if you don't - if it's your word against your assailant's - we're going to believe your assailant. In fact, reformed is going call you a liar.
This is a great day for justice. Kavanaugh's confirmation will show truth wins out and that the despicable acts of the Democrats did not stop justice. Victims have been told you better not make fake accusations with no evidence and you shouldn't wait 30+ years. We believe in innocent until PROVEN guilty. This is a good day for justice.
-
@reformed said:
Obviously the FBI didn't find those relevant enough to interview.No. The FBI wasn't permitted to interview them.
They denied the entire event. That's the same thing. You are arguing semantics which is ridiculous. So you are saying unless they use the exact phrase "this did not happen" they haven't denied the actual event?
They have "no memory" of the event. Do you remember every event that happened in your high school years? So that were a friend to say you were at a place for an event, and you didn't remember the event, your friend must be lying?
But remember, he was supposedly a participant in the event.
Exactly! You expect a participant in an assault to confess when he knows the other guy in the room won't?
Then so is Ford's claim that it did.
No true at all. The claims of women who claim to have been sexually assaulted ALWAYS have meaning. The claims of a self-confessed raging alcoholic (at the time of the assault) who has no reason to tell the truth - and may not even remember the truth - have FAR less meaning/consequence than those of the victim.
It IS SAYING that it if something happened it was not as Ford alleged which calls her credibility into question.
Having no memory or recollection of an event is NOT the same as saying that event never happened.
But he also was not at this alleged event. The event did not happen.
That Smyth has no "knowledge" of the event is pretty much akin to his having no memory of it. It does NOT mean the event didn't happen or that he wasn't there.
I wouldn't want to be drug into the Democrat smear machine either.
Or, he didn't want to face questions under oath that might compel him to tell uncomfortable truth. But that didn't matter. The GOP wasn't about to let anyone else testify.
So you don't trust the FBI to do their jobs?
I don't trust President Trump when he said the FBI had "free rein" to run the investigation. CLEARLY he lied about that. CLEARLY the Bureau was walled off from certain witnesses and areas of inquiry. You think they would have CHOSEN not to interview the accuser and the accused if they had run the investigation their way? Of course not. Professional investigators START with the victim and the alleged assailant, even if a bunch of senators and a prosecutor had asked questions in five minute segments.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Obviously the FBI didn't find those relevant enough to interview.No. The FBI wasn't permitted to interview them.
Based on? None of the evidence verifies that. There is nothing to suggest that the FBI wasn't permitted to do so other than Democrats screaming that.
They denied the entire event. That's the same thing. You are arguing semantics which is ridiculous. So you are saying unless they use the exact phrase "this did not happen" they haven't denied the actual event?
They have "no memory" of the event. Do you remember every event that happened in your high school years? So that were a friend to say you were at a place for an event, and you didn't remember the event, your friend must be lying?
I would remember something like that. And quite honestly, I do remember a good bit from HS.
But remember, he was supposedly a participant in the event.
Exactly! You expect a participant in an assault to confess when he knows the other guy in the room won't?
Oh brother. No winning you on this one.
Then so is Ford's claim that it did.
No true at all. The claims of women who claim to have been sexually assaulted ALWAYS have meaning. The claims of a self-confessed raging alcoholic (at the time of the assault) who has no reason to tell the truth - and may not even remember the truth - have FAR less meaning/consequence than those of the victim.
No they do not always have meaning. That's absurd. That means anyone can just make a claim and it is valid? Please.
It IS SAYING that it if something happened it was not as Ford alleged which calls her credibility into question.
Having no memory or recollection of an event is NOT the same as saying that event never happened.
Semantics Bill
But he also was not at this alleged event. The event did not happen.
That Smyth has no "knowledge" of the event is pretty much akin to his having no memory of it. It does NOT mean the event didn't happen or that he wasn't there.
We disagree.
I wouldn't want to be drug into the Democrat smear machine either.
Or, he didn't want to face questions under oath that might compel him to tell uncomfortable truth. But that didn't matter. The GOP wasn't about to let anyone else testify.
No proof of that Bill.
So you don't trust the FBI to do their jobs?
I don't trust President Trump when he said the FBI had "free rein" to run the investigation. CLEARLY he lied about that. CLEARLY the Bureau was walled off from certain witnesses and areas of inquiry. You think they would have CHOSEN not to interview the accuser and the accused if they had run the investigation their way? Of course not. Professional investigators START with the victim and the alleged assailant, even if a bunch of senators and a prosecutor had asked questions in five minute segments.
Clearly he lied about that? Based on what? What do you base these accusations on? The victim had already been interviewed under oath. They didn't need to talk to her again.
-
@reformed said:
No. The FBI wasn't permitted to interview them.
Based on? None of the evidence verifies that. There is nothing to suggest that the FBI wasn't permitted to do so other than Democrats screaming that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/us/politics/kavanaugh-fbi-inquiry.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/30/politics/fbi-brett-kavanaugh-investigation/index.html
I would remember something like that. And quite honestly, I do remember a good bit from HS.
You would remember an event that happened upstairs, behind a closed door, where loud music played, while you were downstairs?
Exactly! You expect a participant in an assault to confess when he knows the other guy in the room won't?
Oh brother. No winning you on this one.
Or you might try answering the question I asked.
No true at all. The claims of women who claim to have been sexually assaulted ALWAYS have meaning. The claims of a self-confessed raging alcoholic (at the time of the assault) who has no reason to tell the truth - and may not even remember the truth - have FAR less meaning/consequence than those of the victim.
No they do not always have meaning. That's absurd. That means anyone can just make a claim and it is valid? Please.
No. To say a claim of assault has "meaning" is NOT the same as saying the claim is "true" (I assume by "valid" you mean true; if not, please tell). Again I encourage you to read more deeply and broadly on the subject of sexual assault than you have to-date.
Having no memory or recollection of an event is NOT the same as saying that event never happened.
Semantics Bill
No. Linguistic fact. There are countless events from my life in 1967 of which today I have no memory. But that does NOT mean those events did not happen.
We disagree.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with me. Linguistically it's correct that a lack of knowledge of an event does not necessarily mean the event didn't happen. If Smyth wanted to say the event never happened, he could have said "That event never happened." He didn't say that, because he couldn't say that.... truthfully.
I wouldn't want to be drug into the Democrat smear machine either.
Or, he didn't want to face questions under oath that might compel him to tell uncomfortable truth. But that didn't matter. The GOP wasn't about to let anyone else testify.
No proof of that Bill.
And your "proof" that he didn't "want to be drug into the Democrat smear machine"?
Clearly he lied about that? Based on what? What do you base these accusations on? The victim had already been interviewed under oath. They didn't need to talk to her again.
See the links above. A "free rein" investigation would not have been limited by the White House in concert with GOP senators.
An FBI inquiry of Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford would have been MUCH different from their senate appearances because trained professional and non-partisan FBI investigators ask FAR more and far better questions than do senators and a paid political prosecutor in five minute televised hearing segments.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
No. The FBI wasn't permitted to interview them.
Based on? None of the evidence verifies that. There is nothing to suggest that the FBI wasn't permitted to do so other than Democrats screaming that.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/us/politics/kavanaugh-fbi-inquiry.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/30/politics/fbi-brett-kavanaugh-investigation/index.html
Again, what proof do they have? Anonymous sources?
I would remember something like that. And quite honestly, I do remember a good bit from HS.
You would remember an event that happened upstairs, behind a closed door, where loud music played, while you were downstairs?
I remember get together events, yes. I would remember being at an event with all of the people invovled.
Exactly! You expect a participant in an assault to confess when he knows the other guy in the room won't?
Oh brother. No winning you on this one.
Or you might try answering the question I asked.
I'm not him, I can't answer that.
No true at all. The claims of women who claim to have been sexually assaulted ALWAYS have meaning. The claims of a self-confessed raging alcoholic (at the time of the assault) who has no reason to tell the truth - and may not even remember the truth - have FAR less meaning/consequence than those of the victim.
No they do not always have meaning. That's absurd. That means anyone can just make a claim and it is valid? Please.
No. To say a claim of assault has "meaning" is NOT the same as saying the claim is "true" (I assume by "valid" you mean true; if not, please tell). Again I encourage you to read more deeply and broadly on the subject of sexual assault than you have to-date.
Go back and read the context of what I responded to. You said Mark Judge's words are meaningless basically. Why does Ford get a pass?
Having no memory or recollection of an event is NOT the same as saying that event never happened.
Semantics Bill
No. Linguistic fact. There are countless events from my life in 1967 of which today I have no memory. But that does NOT mean those events did not happen.
I bet none of them were this big. Not equivalent and YES it is semantics.
We disagree.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with me. Linguistically it's correct that a lack of knowledge of an event does not necessarily mean the event didn't happen. If Smyth wanted to say the event never happened, he could have said "That event never happened." He didn't say that, because he couldn't say that.... truthfully.
How about changing your story? Can't keep the narrative straight? That's Dr. Ford.
I wouldn't want to be drug into the Democrat smear machine either.
Or, he didn't want to face questions under oath that might compel him to tell uncomfortable truth. But that didn't matter. The GOP wasn't about to let anyone else testify.
No proof of that Bill.
And your "proof" that he didn't "want to be drug into the Democrat smear machine"?
I said I wouldn't want to be. That is speaking for me. We don't know why he said that. But we do know that there is zero proof that the GOP wouldn't let anyone else testify. If anything, we have evidence to the contrary.
Clearly he lied about that? Based on what? What do you base these accusations on? The victim had already been interviewed under oath. They didn't need to talk to her again.
See the links above. A "free rein" investigation would not have been limited by the White House in concert with GOP senators.
And it wasn't. You have yet to provide proof other than Fake News Anonymous Sources.
An FBI inquiry of Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford would have been MUCH different from their senate appearances because trained professional and non-partisan FBI investigators ask FAR more and far better questions than do senators and a paid political prosecutor in five minute televised hearing segments.
Which was Ford's stipulation if you recall. That wasn't the GOP idea. They wanted a private interview with her with counsel in California.
-
Here's the bottom line @Bill_Coley. You think he is guilty despite there being zero evidence. Nothing will change your mind of that, despite there being no evidence.
-
Evidence or no evidence Kavanaugh is not fit for the Court. He lacks temperament. CM
-
I suggest we nominate Hilly Clinton for Supreme Court, so we can finally start an investigation.
@C_M_ said:
Evidence or no evidence Kavanaugh is not fit for the Court. He lacks temperament. CMMany, probably most Americans highly respect his temperament which reflects core integrity, justice, fairness and honesty.
-
@C_M_ said:
Evidence or no evidence Kavanaugh is not fit for the Court. He lacks temperament. CMHe has not shown a lack of temperament from the bench so you can get off that bandwagon.
-
@reformed said:
Again, what proof do they have? Anonymous sources?
With all due respect, reformed, it's American Life and Culture 101 to understand that unnamed sources are fundamental to professional journalism. People in positions to know important information do not always have the freedom to comment on the record. As you know from reading professional journalists' stories, the reasons for sources' anonymity are almost always identified in the articles.
I have neither the time nor the patience to educate you further on the critical and widely-accepted role of anonymous sources in journalism. As with the subject of sexual assault, I encourage you to read more broadly and deeply than you have to-date on the subject of sources.
I remember get together events, yes. I would remember being at an event with all of the people invovled.
Well, let's find out: When, where, what, and how many people attended the second "get together" event you attended after January 1 during your junior year in high school?
Go back and read the context of what I responded to. You said Mark Judge's words are meaningless basically. Why does Ford get a pass?
She obviously hasn't gotten a pass. Nobody says she gets or deserves a pass. That her words have "meaning" does NOT mean she gets a pass. Nothing I've posted said anything about her getting a pass.
I bet none of them were this big. Not equivalent and YES it is semantics.
This "big"? Remember the testimony: You're downstairs at a run of the mill party - not one of your group's "notorious" parties - while UPSTAIRS, behind a closed door, in a room where loud music is playing, an assault occurs. After the assault, two of your friends stumble down the stairs drunk and laughing, in a way you've probably seen them MANY times before. Later, Ford comes down, sheepishly, not talking to anyone. You don't later hear about the assault because Ford tells no one.
What would cause you to remember THAT scene - the scene she described in her sworn testimony - as a "big" event?
How about changing your story? Can't keep the narrative straight? That's Dr. Ford.
Minor discrepancies. Not at all unexpected. Usually, it's people with concocted stories who tell precisely the same story every time... and it is they who do NOT say, as does Dr. Ford, there are details I don't remember, and gaps in my story I can't fill.
I said I wouldn't want to be. That is speaking for me. We don't know why he said that. But we do know that there is zero proof that the GOP wouldn't let anyone else testify. If anything, we have evidence to the contrary.
Yes, there's evidence. You swat it away because you reject unnamed sources, but there IS evidence.
My goodness, even FoxNews relies on unnamed sources, the LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"The announcement comes as senior congressional sources tell Fox News that the Senate Judiciary Committee has not received the FBI's report on Kavanaugh. Senators will be able to view the report Thursday in a secure area off the Senate subway."
The most recent reporting is that the White House says the Senate asked for a limited investigation, while the Senate says the FBI limited the investigation. There is NO WAY the FBI decided that it did not need to interview Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh. Professional investigators BEGIN with the victim and alleged assailant in assault situations.
And it wasn't. You have yet to provide proof other than Fake News Anonymous Sources.
The "fake news" label is a false and sophomoric distraction from real issues and the real truth of those stories. It's amazing how "fake news" is always news you folks on the right don't like. I encourage you to read more deeply and broadly than you have to-date on the role of sources in professional journalism.
An FBI inquiry of Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford would have been MUCH different from their senate appearances because trained professional and non-partisan FBI investigators ask FAR more and far better questions than do senators and a paid political prosecutor in five minute televised hearing segments.
Which was Ford's stipulation if you recall. That wasn't the GOP idea. They wanted a private interview with her with counsel in California.
Actually, Dr Ford willingly appeared before the Judiciary Committee, but she also asked for and wanted to appear before an FBI investigation. She got an investigation. The White House and/or the Senate decided that she would not be allowed to appear before it.
-
Would you like me to write a letter of recommendation for you based on my experience with you in these forums? CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Again, what proof do they have? Anonymous sources?
With all due respect, reformed, it's American Life and Culture 101 to understand that unnamed sources are fundamental to professional journalism. People in positions to know important information do not always have the freedom to comment on the record. As you know from reading professional journalists' stories, the reasons for sources' anonymity are almost always identified in the articles.
Unfortunately the sources you use have abused the anonymous source ability and have lost credibility. The fact is we have named sources that contradict anonymous sources.
I have neither the time nor the patience to educate you further on the critical and widely-accepted role of anonymous sources in journalism. As with the subject of sexual assault, I encourage you to read more broadly and deeply than you have to-date on the subject of sources.
But that is all those organizations ever have. They lose credibility.
I remember get together events, yes. I would remember being at an event with all of the people invovled.
Well, let's find out: When, where, what, and how many people attended the second "get together" event you attended after January 1 during your junior year in high school?
Haha, actually there were 13 people there as it was a basketball team get together. We were at our coach's house and we had hamburgers and hotdogs. We watched Shrek. Out assistant coach yelled at those of us who wore ballcaps in the house.
Go back and read the context of what I responded to. You said Mark Judge's words are meaningless basically. Why does Ford get a pass?
She obviously hasn't gotten a pass. Nobody says she gets or deserves a pass. That her words have "meaning" does NOT mean she gets a pass. Nothing I've posted said anything about her getting a pass.
Exactly, but Democrats are trying to give her a pass on the fact that her story conflicts with itself, no named witnesses corroborate her and no evidence.
How about changing your story? Can't keep the narrative straight? That's Dr. Ford.
Minor discrepancies. Not at all unexpected. Usually, it's people with concocted stories who tell precisely the same story every time... and it is they who do NOT say, as does Dr. Ford, there are details I don't remember, and gaps in my story I can't fill.
They are not minor.
I said I wouldn't want to be. That is speaking for me. We don't know why he said that. But we do know that there is zero proof that the GOP wouldn't let anyone else testify. If anything, we have evidence to the contrary.
Yes, there's evidence. You swat it away because you reject unnamed sources, but there IS evidence.
Not corroborated evidence. Not proof. There is evidence with more solidity on the opposite side.
My goodness, even FoxNews relies on unnamed sources, the LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I never said there should never be an anonymous source. See above.
"The announcement comes as senior congressional sources tell Fox News that the Senate Judiciary Committee has not received the FBI's report on Kavanaugh. Senators will be able to view the report Thursday in a secure area off the Senate subway."
The most recent reporting is that the White House says the Senate asked for a limited investigation, while the Senate says the FBI limited the investigation. There is NO WAY the FBI decided that it did not need to interview Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh. Professional investigators BEGIN with the victim and alleged assailant in assault situations.
Why did they need to meet with her? She had already been intereviewd under oath.
And it wasn't. You have yet to provide proof other than Fake News Anonymous Sources.
The "fake news" label is a false and sophomoric distraction from real issues and the real truth of those stories. It's amazing how "fake news" is always news you folks on the right don't like. I encourage you to read more deeply and broadly than you have to-date on the role of sources in professional journalism.
That's not true actually. There is news we don't like that isn't fake.
An FBI inquiry of Kavanaugh and Blasey Ford would have been MUCH different from their senate appearances because trained professional and non-partisan FBI investigators ask FAR more and far better questions than do senators and a paid political prosecutor in five minute televised hearing segments.
Which was Ford's stipulation if you recall. That wasn't the GOP idea. They wanted a private interview with her with counsel in California.
Actually, Dr Ford willingly appeared before the Judiciary Committee, but she also asked for and wanted to appear before an FBI investigation. She got an investigation. The White House and/or the Senate decided that she would not be allowed to appear before it.
You don't know that.
-
Fascinating is not so much what people believe, but why they believe it. This is an enlightening study.
-
@GaoLu said:
Fascinating is not so much what people believe, but why they believe it. This is an enlightening study.I go with the evidence. No evidence, why should I believe it? Because she is a "survivor"? We don't even know that is actually true.
