YET ANOTHER confirmation that Dr Ford's allegations PRECEDED the Kavanaugh nomination
Last night, Dr Ford's attorneys released a statement and signed declaration by an attorney friend of Dr Ford and her husband's that declared Dr Ford first told him about her assault at the hands of an unnamed "federal judge in Washington DC" in the "early summer of 2016."
The friend also declares in his statement that he next heard from Dr Ford about her assault via an email exchange on June 29 of this year, two days after Justice Kennedy's retirement announcement, but BEFORE Kavanaugh's nomination. In her initiating email, she described her assailant as the president's "favorite for SCOTUS." When her friend's reply email asked for the name of her assailant, she replied with Kavanaugh's name.
The friend says the existence his information, including the email exchange, was known by the FBI, but the Bureau did not interview him.
I offer the facts above for one and only one purpose: To add to the existing mountain of evidence that Dr Ford's allegations against Judge Kavanaugh pre-date his nomination to the high court. Conspiracy theorists on the right have suggested that she was part of some grand scheme to derail the nomination. Whatever the partisan intentions of the politicos involved in the process, it is patently clear that she told people about her assault at the hands of a man named Brett Kavanaugh, who is now a federal judge, YEARS before his nomination to the Supreme Court. Any and all all accusations from critics that allege otherwise are false.
Reformed, Gao Lu, Wolfgang, and any others who may believe Dr Ford is lying, please exhibit enough loyalty to the truth to accuse her of lying for years, not just weeks or months.
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Last night, Dr Ford's attorneys released a statement and signed declaration by an attorney friend of Dr Ford and her husband's that declared Dr Ford first told him about her assault at the hands of an unnamed "federal judge in Washington DC" in the "early summer of 2016."The friend also declares in his statement that he next heard from Dr Ford about her assault via an email exchange on June 29 of this year, two days after Justice Kennedy's retirement announcement, but BEFORE Kavanaugh's nomination. In her initiating email, she described her assailant as the president's "favorite for SCOTUS." When her friend's reply email asked for the name of her assailant, she replied with Kavanaugh's name.
The friend says the existence his information, including the email exchange, was known by the FBI, but the Bureau did not interview him.
I offer the facts above for one and only one purpose: To add to the existing mountain of evidence that Dr Ford's allegations against Judge Kavanaugh pre-date his nomination to the high court. Conspiracy theorists on the right have suggested that she was part of some grand scheme to derail the nomination. Whatever the partisan intentions of the politicos involved in the process, it is patently clear that she told people about her assault at the hands of a man named Brett Kavanaugh, who is now a federal judge, YEARS before his nomination to the Supreme Court. Any and all all accusations from critics that allege otherwise are false.
Reformed, Gao Lu, Wolfgang, and any others who may believe Dr Ford is lying, please exhibit enough loyalty to the truth to accuse her of lying for years, not just weeks or months.
Woop de do. So 30 years after an event she claims that something happened with no corroboration and no witnesses that will back her up even though she says some were there. She still can't keep her story straight and still can't remember key details.
-
@reformed said:
Woop de do. So 30 years after an event she claims that something happened with no corroboration and no witnesses that will back her up even though she says some were there. She still can't keep her story straight and still can't remember key details.
My ONLY request, reformed, is that as you "woop de do" Dr Ford, you do so acknowledging that her claims of assault at the hands of Brett Kavanaugh are YEARS, not months, old.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Woop de do. So 30 years after an event she claims that something happened with no corroboration and no witnesses that will back her up even though she says some were there. She still can't keep her story straight and still can't remember key details.
My ONLY request, reformed, is that as you "woop de do" Dr Ford, you do so acknowledging that her claims of assault at the hands of Brett Kavanaugh are YEARS, not months, old.
No. I don't acknowledge that. All we know is she said a federal judge. She never identified him.
That being said, for all we know this is some fantasy of a mentally ill person. We don't know that she is telling what actually happened. Evidence would suggest she isn't.
-
@reformed said:
No. I don't acknowledge that. All we know is she said a federal judge. She never identified him.
Your claim that she never identified Kavanaugh is false. Her husband submitted a sworn affidavit to the Judiciary Committee in which he said....
"4. Christine shared the details of the sexual assault during a couple's therapy session in 2012. She said that in high school she had been trapped in a room and physically restrained by one boy who was molesting her while another boy watched. She said she was eventually able to escape before she was raped, but that the experience was very traumatic because she felt like she had no control and was physically dominated.
"5. I remember her saying that the attacker's name was Brett Kavanaugh, that he was a successful lawyer who had grown up in Christine's home town, and that he was well-known in the Washington, DC. community.
"6. In the years following the therapy session, we spoke a number of times about how the assault affected her.
"7. The next time she mentioned that Mr. Kavanaugh was the person who sexually assaulted her was when President Trump was in the process of selecting his first nominee for the Supreme Court. Before the President had announced that Judge Neil Gorsuch was the nominee, I remember Christine saying she was afraid the President might nominate Mr. Kavanaugh."
Clearly, according to her husband's sworn statement, she identified her assailant as Brett Kavanaugh, and did so YEARS before his nomination to the Supreme Court.
That being said, for all we know this is some fantasy of a mentally ill person. We don't know that she is telling what actually happened. Evidence would suggest she isn't.
Your insinuation about Dr Ford's mental health is disgusting, predictable, and not worthy of further comment... other than this: With rhetorical garbage such as your insinuation awaiting them, is it any wonder that more than 60% of sexual assault victims don't report to the police? [BTW, the same info sheet reports that the false report rate when it comes to sexual assault is between two and ten percent. So statistically, you have a 90-98% of being wrong about Dr. Ford, and I have a 90-98% chance of being right. I like my chances.]
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
No. I don't acknowledge that. All we know is she said a federal judge. She never identified him.
Your claim that she never identified Kavanaugh is false. Her husband submitted a sworn affidavit to the Judiciary Committee in which he said....
"4. Christine shared the details of the sexual assault during a couple's therapy session in 2012. She said that in high school she had been trapped in a room and physically restrained by one boy who was molesting her while another boy watched. She said she was eventually able to escape before she was raped, but that the experience was very traumatic because she felt like she had no control and was physically dominated.
"5. I remember her saying that the attacker's name was Brett Kavanaugh, that he was a successful lawyer who had grown up in Christine's home town, and that he was well-known in the Washington, DC. community.
"6. In the years following the therapy session, we spoke a number of times about how the assault affected her.
"7. The next time she mentioned that Mr. Kavanaugh was the person who sexually assaulted her was when President Trump was in the process of selecting his first nominee for the Supreme Court. Before the President had announced that Judge Neil Gorsuch was the nominee, I remember Christine saying she was afraid the President might nominate Mr. Kavanaugh."
Clearly, according to her husband's sworn statement, she identified her assailant as Brett Kavanaugh, and did so YEARS before his nomination to the Supreme Court.
That being said, for all we know this is some fantasy of a mentally ill person. We don't know that she is telling what actually happened. Evidence would suggest she isn't.
Your insinuation about Dr Ford's mental health is disgusting, predictable, and not worthy of further comment... other than this: With rhetorical garbage such as your insinuation awaiting them, is it any wonder that more than 60% of sexual assault victims don't report to the police? [BTW, the same info sheet reports that the false report rate when it comes to sexual assault is between two and ten percent. So statistically, you have a 90-98% of being wrong about Dr. Ford, and I have a 90-98% chance of being right. I like my chances.]
Even still her husband's statement is good for nothing but hearsay. And I noticed you can't actually refute the theory that she might be mentally ill and none of this is real.
-
@reformed said:
Even still her husband's statement is good for nothing but hearsay. And I noticed you can't actually refute the theory that she might be mentally ill and none of this is real.
Your claim was that she had never identified Kavanaugh. How ELSE can it be shown that she did in fact identify Kavanaugh than by citing/quoting someone to whom she identified Kavanaugh, a person whose subsequent attestation will, by necessity, be hearsay (...in a court proceeding, which a nomination process is NOT)?! And if I'm going to cite/quote someone who claims she identified Kavanaugh to him or her, don't you prefer that said person make the claim in a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury?
And your mental illness claim gets more absurd and grotesque. I can't prove that YOU'RE not mentally ill!!! How in the world is it MY responsibility to disprove YOUR baseless tin foil hat claim that "for all we know" she might be mentally ill?
In the Senate's confirmation process, countless times you and other Kavanaugh supporters shouted "Innocent until proven guilty!" to fend off almost every charge leveled against the nominee via sworn statement. Now YOU want to knock Dr. Ford's credibility on the basis of a crude and baseless insinuation that begins with the phrase "For all we know"?! You demand a presumption of innocence for the accused, but you won't grant a presumption of mental wellness for the accuser?!
I don't share much of the vocabulary of rejection or negation with you, reformed, but on the matter of your despicable claim about Dr Ford's mental health, I do: Your claim is shameful.
-
Bill, face it. You lost. Your cause lost. Kavanaugh is going to sit on the Supreme Court. TheFBI and Senate found no fault in Kavanaugh.
Yet you, not knowing diddly squat except "facts" you can find on the internet, continue in bitterness at you terrible, dreadful loss of unsuccessfully tearing down a godly, morally upright family man, a true American of integrity.
In your own words describing others above, "despicable."
Shame.
Now, get over it, take off your "tinfoil hat" that you claim everyone else wears and discover peace and happiness.
Post edited by GaoLu on -
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Even still her husband's statement is good for nothing but hearsay. And I noticed you can't actually refute the theory that she might be mentally ill and none of this is real.
Your claim was that she had never identified Kavanaugh. How ELSE can it be shown that she did in fact identify Kavanaugh than by citing/quoting someone to whom she identified Kavanaugh, a person whose subsequent attestation will, by necessity, be hearsay (...in a court proceeding, which a nomination process is NOT)?! And if I'm going to cite/quote someone who claims she identified Kavanaugh to him or her, don't you prefer that said person make the claim in a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury?
And your mental illness claim gets more absurd and grotesque. I can't prove that YOU'RE not mentally ill!!! How in the world is it MY responsibility to disprove YOUR baseless tin foil hat claim that "for all we know" she might be mentally ill?
In the Senate's confirmation process, countless times you and other Kavanaugh supporters shouted "Innocent until proven guilty!" to fend off almost every charge leveled against the nominee via sworn statement. Now YOU want to knock Dr. Ford's credibility on the basis of a crude and baseless insinuation that begins with the phrase "For all we know"?! You demand a presumption of innocence for the accused, but you won't grant a presumption of mental wellness for the accuser?!
I don't share much of the vocabulary of rejection or negation with you, reformed, but on the matter of your despicable claim about Dr Ford's mental health, I do: Your claim is shameful.
It is perfectly within the realm of possibility Bill. That being said, it was still 30+ years after the fact. She can't remember key details. There is no evidence, no witnesses that will corroborate the story. Face it, it did not happen. I am not saying she didn't tell her husband that, but there is also no way to prove that she did or didn't. It's just his word. She didn't tell the therapist, and that should be noted.
Her credibility is knocked by her own story. It doesn't hold water.
-
The vitrol is much like self-cutting. Sickening. Hate does that.
Since becoming excessively toxic toward Americans, "CNN’s ratings last week plummeted 41% in daytime and 36% in prime time compared with the same week last year."
Fox News was +14% in total viewers, +3% in the prime time demo, +3% in total day viewers.
That is just one prominent example. What goes on deep in the heart of the individual must be far far worse as is all too evident even on these forums.
My appeal is that, to find, peace and happiness and to offer God praise, that we all think according to Php 4:8.
-
@reformed said:
It is perfectly within the realm of possibility Bill.Your standards for allegations against Judge Kavanaugh included "innocent until proven guilty" and, according to our current exchange, hearsay evidence doesn't prove much of anything. Your standards for allegations against Dr Ford include "within the realm of possibility."
- So information gathered from the sworn statements of people who witnessed Kavanaugh as a stumbling, belligerant drunk, the kind of drunk Dr Ford asserts he was when he assaulted her? Not relevant.
- Information gathered from sworn statements of people Dr Ford told of her assault years before the Kavanaugh nomination? Just hearsay.
- But a completely baseless allegation that "for all we know" Dr Ford might be mentally ill, an accusation for which you can't present even a hint of a hint of a hint of substantiation? It's within the realm of possibility!!
Sometimes there just aren't words. The search for a sufficient denunciation of your latest and unfathomably ridiculous argument is one of them.
That being said, it was still 30+ years after the fact. She can't remember key details. There is no evidence, no witnesses that will corroborate the story. Face it, it did not happen. I am not saying she didn't tell her husband that, but there is also no way to prove that she did or didn't. It's just his word. She didn't tell the therapist, and that should be noted.
Her credibility is knocked by her own story. It doesn't hold water.
The point of my OP in this thread was not to revisit the credibility argument to which you return in your post. The point was to add to the documentation of the clear fact that Dr Ford named Kavanaugh as her accuser BEFORE the president nominated him to the Supreme Court, and to encourage you and other Kavanaugh supporters to build that fact into your criticisms of her allegations.
As I said it in the OP:
"I offer the facts above for one and only one purpose: To add to the existing mountain of evidence that Dr Ford's allegations against Judge Kavanaugh pre-date his nomination to the high court."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
It is perfectly within the realm of possibility Bill.Your standards for allegations against Judge Kavanaugh included "innocent until proven guilty" and, according to our current exchange, hearsay evidence doesn't prove much of anything. Your standards for allegations against Dr Ford include "within the realm of possibility."
- So information gathered from the sworn statements of people who witnessed Kavanaugh as a stumbling, belligerant drunk, the kind of drunk Dr Ford asserts he was when he assaulted her? Not relevant.
Actually I don't think I claimed that.
- Information gathered from sworn statements of people Dr Ford told of her assault years before the Kavanaugh nomination? Just hearsay.
Yes, legally that is hearsay. Surely you must know this. If not, lookup the definition of hearsay.
- But a completely baseless allegation that "for all we know" Dr Ford might be mentally ill, an accusation for which you can't present even a hint of a hint of a hint of substantiation? It's within the realm of possibility!!
That wasn't an accusation first of all. What I said was that is always a possibility. We don't know why she thinks this happened to her. Indeed something may have happened to her and it wasn't Justice Kavanaugh. We don't know. I never said that she was mentally ill. Go back and read what I wrote. At least be honest. I never accused her of being mentally ill.
Sometimes there just aren't words. The search for a sufficient denunciation of your latest and unfathomably ridiculous argument is one of them.
What argument was that? You are the one saying I made a claim that I did not make.
That being said, it was still 30+ years after the fact. She can't remember key details. There is no evidence, no witnesses that will corroborate the story. Face it, it did not happen. I am not saying she didn't tell her husband that, but there is also no way to prove that she did or didn't. It's just his word. She didn't tell the therapist, and that should be noted.
Her credibility is knocked by her own story. It doesn't hold water.
The point of my OP in this thread was not to revisit the credibility argument to which you return in your post. The point was to add to the documentation of the clear fact that Dr Ford named Kavanaugh as her accuser BEFORE the president nominated him to the Supreme Court, and to encourage you and other Kavanaugh supporters to build that fact into your criticisms of her allegations.
And what does that have to do with anything? Nothing. It was still three decades after the fact and there is no evidence and the witnesses she identified do not corroborate her story. She doesn't even remember key details such as location or time.
As I said it in the OP:
"I offer the facts above for one and only one purpose: To add to the existing mountain of evidence that Dr Ford's allegations against Judge Kavanaugh pre-date his nomination to the high court."
What does it matter if her accusation pre-dates the nomination? I mean really? And the only person who said she said Kavanaugh is her husband. How do we know he is telling the truth? Why didn't he say something to authorities? It's just hearsay. It legally means nothing.
-
@GaoLu said:
Since becoming excessively toxic toward Americans, "CNN’s ratings last week plummeted 41% in daytime and 36% in prime time compared with the same week last year."Fox News was +14% in total viewers, +3% in the prime time demo, +3% in total day viewers.
Because facts matter:
- CNN's 41% and 36% ratings declines that you cite are not from "last week." They are from the week of September 3, about a month ago.
- In the same week that CNN was down 41% and 36%, Fox News was NOT +3% in daytime viewership. Fox was -15% year-to-year in daytime viewership (in prime time viewership, -3%).
- In the same week that CNN's daytime viewership dropped 41% year-to-year, and Fox's daytime viewership dropped 15% year-to-year, MSNBC's daytime viewership was +4% year-to-year (and +4% in total viewers).
- "Last week," CNN was +23% over last year in prime time viewership, and +31% in daytime viewers, year-over-year. [Fox's daytime and primetime viewerships "last week" were up 50% and 41%, respectively; MSNBC's year-to-year numbers "last week" were up 39% and 26% respectively.]
-
@reformed said:
- So information gathered from the sworn statements of people who witnessed Kavanaugh as a stumbling, belligerant drunk, the kind of drunk Dr Ford asserts he was when he assaulted her? Not relevant.
Actually I don't think I claimed that.
I don't think you claimed that either, so I'll retract the specific claim. However, my intention in all three sample arguments was to note, aided by a bit of hyperbole, the fact you seem to give as much if not more weight to baseless "for all we know" arguments ("for all we know, she could be mentally ill!") as you do to arguments that have actual factual bases (in sworn statements, college friends say he lied under oath about the effects of his drinking).
- Information gathered from sworn statements of people Dr Ford told of her assault years before the Kavanaugh nomination? Just hearsay.
Yes, legally that is hearsay. Surely you must know this. If not, lookup the definition of hearsay.
A husband who declares in a sworn statement that his wife told him the name of her assailant six years ago is FAR MORE relevant and dispositive than is the "For all we know, she might be mentally ill, and I notice you can't actually refute it, Bill!" argument you made.
That wasn't an accusation first of all. What I said was that is always a possibility. We don't know why she thinks this happened to her. Indeed something may have happened to her and it wasn't Justice Kavanaugh. We don't know. I never said that she was mentally ill. Go back and read what I wrote. At least be honest. I never accused her of being mentally ill.
The problem is you gave mental illness as much likelihood of being the correct explanation for her claims of assault as any other. That's the plain English language meaning of "For all we know, this is some fantasy of a mentally ill person." Begin any explanation with the phrase "For all we know," and what comes after that phrase is as likely as any other collection of words that come after that phrase: "For all we know, she's a heroin addict!" "For all we know, she's a prostitute!"
But there is no evidence - none - to support such a wild assertion. It was outrageous and irresponsible for you to demean Dr Ford with it.
Sometimes there just aren't words. The search for a sufficient denunciation of your latest and unfathomably ridiculous argument is one of them.
What argument was that? You are the one saying I made a claim that I did not make.
That "for all we know," mental illness explains Dr Ford's allegations, when NOTHING we know suggests that's true. It was wrong and disrespectful for you to use that argument.
And what does that have to do with anything? Nothing. It was still three decades after the fact and there is no evidence and the witnesses she identified do not corroborate her story. She doesn't even remember key details such as location or time.
As I said it in the OP:
"I offer the facts above for one and only one purpose: To add to the existing mountain of evidence that Dr Ford's allegations against Judge Kavanaugh pre-date his nomination to the high court."What does it matter if her accusation pre-dates the nomination? I mean really? And the only person who said she said Kavanaugh is her husband. How do we know he is telling the truth? Why didn't he say something to authorities? It's just hearsay. It legally means nothing.
It matters because it was the point I made in the OP in this thread. You may not think that point matters. Your call. But I created this thread with its OP because I DO think it matters.
What the husband's sworn statement that Dr Ford named Kavanaugh to her six years ago means "legally" is irrelevant because - it seems like I've said this more than once before - Supreme Court nomination processes are NOT criminal or civil legal proceedings.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
- So information gathered from the sworn statements of people who witnessed Kavanaugh as a stumbling, belligerant drunk, the kind of drunk Dr Ford asserts he was when he assaulted her? Not relevant.
Actually I don't think I claimed that.
I don't think you claimed that either, so I'll retract the specific claim. However, my intention in all three sample arguments was to note, aided by a bit of hyperbole, the fact you seem to give as much if not more weight to baseless "for all we know" arguments ("for all we know, she could be mentally ill!") as you do to arguments that have actual factual bases (in sworn statements, college friends say he lied under oath about the effects of his drinking).
- Information gathered from sworn statements of people Dr Ford told of her assault years before the Kavanaugh nomination? Just hearsay.
Yes, legally that is hearsay. Surely you must know this. If not, lookup the definition of hearsay.
A husband who declares in a sworn statement that his wife told him the name of her assailant six years ago is FAR MORE relevant and dispositive than is the "For all we know, she might be mentally ill, and I notice you can't actually refute it, Bill!" argument you made.
That wasn't an accusation first of all. What I said was that is always a possibility. We don't know why she thinks this happened to her. Indeed something may have happened to her and it wasn't Justice Kavanaugh. We don't know. I never said that she was mentally ill. Go back and read what I wrote. At least be honest. I never accused her of being mentally ill.
The problem is you gave mental illness as much likelihood of being the correct explanation for her claims of assault as any other. That's the plain English language meaning of "For all we know, this is some fantasy of a mentally ill person." Begin any explanation with the phrase "For all we know," and what comes after that phrase is as likely as any other collection of words that come after that phrase: "For all we know, she's a heroin addict!" "For all we know, she's a prostitute!"
But there is no evidence - none - to support such a wild assertion. It was outrageous and irresponsible for you to demean Dr Ford with it.
Sometimes there just aren't words. The search for a sufficient denunciation of your latest and unfathomably ridiculous argument is one of them.
What argument was that? You are the one saying I made a claim that I did not make.
That "for all we know," mental illness explains Dr Ford's allegations, when NOTHING we know suggests that's true. It was wrong and disrespectful for you to use that argument.
And what does that have to do with anything? Nothing. It was still three decades after the fact and there is no evidence and the witnesses she identified do not corroborate her story. She doesn't even remember key details such as location or time.
As I said it in the OP:
"I offer the facts above for one and only one purpose: To add to the existing mountain of evidence that Dr Ford's allegations against Judge Kavanaugh pre-date his nomination to the high court."What does it matter if her accusation pre-dates the nomination? I mean really? And the only person who said she said Kavanaugh is her husband. How do we know he is telling the truth? Why didn't he say something to authorities? It's just hearsay. It legally means nothing.
It matters because it was the point I made in the OP in this thread. You may not think that point matters. Your call. But I created this thread with its OP because I DO think it matters.
What the husband's sworn statement that Dr Ford named Kavanaugh to her six years ago means "legally" is irrelevant because - it seems like I've said this more than once before - Supreme Court nomination processes are NOT criminal or civil legal proceedings.
Then it really is pointless because he is now a Justice. Move on.
-
@reformed said:
Then it really is pointless because he is now a Justice. Move on.
Finding the right words to criticize your reckless and baseless insinuation that "for all we know" Dr Ford might be mentally ill will never "pointless." Nor will be the fight against misogyny and disregard for victims of sexual assault, whether that disregard emanates from online forums, the Oval Office, the halls of Congress, or the chambers newly sworn-in Supreme Court justices.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Then it really is pointless because he is now a Justice. Move on.
Finding the right words to criticize your reckless and baseless insinuation that "for all we know" Dr Ford might be mentally ill will never "pointless." Nor will be the fight against misogyny and disregard for victims of sexual assault, whether that disregard emanates from online forums, the Oval Office, the halls of Congress, or the chambers newly sworn-in Supreme Court justices.
We don't know that she was a victim first of all. If something did happen to her it is unlikely it was Kavanaugh.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Then it really is pointless because he is now a Justice. Move on.
Finding the right words to criticize your reckless and baseless insinuation that "for all we know" Dr Ford might be mentally ill will never "pointless." Nor will be the fight against misogyny and disregard for victims of sexual assault, whether that disregard emanates from online forums, the Oval Office, the halls of Congress, or the chambers newly sworn-in Supreme Court justices.
Ford does not in way come across as mentally healthy, not in appearance, speech, behaviour or history. We don't know of course, but what we do know doesn't seem favorable. I don't blame her, but find those who abused her in her condition and who keep using her as a political pawn, to be despicable beasts.
