honorentheos wrote:Her not coming forward would be a major issue with the claims being credible.
That's an incredibly low bar for credibility especially given she didn't want to meet with Senate staffers to give a statement.
Her inserting information into her story that was speculative or evidence of filling in details to backfill her memory would undermine her credibility.
About that (other than what she did provide didn't make any sense).
Ford said the polygraph was done in Maryland because of her grandmother’s funeral and she was asked if it was done on the same day as her grandmother’s funeral. Ford did not know the answer to that question.
Mitchell also asked if she paid for the polygraph, which would normally be quite expensive, and again, Ford said she doesn’t know.
If Ford doesn’t have a clear memory of big events that happened to her LAST MONTH, how can anyone be sure her memory of what happened 36 years ago is correct?
She said the music was so loud no one could hear her scream, or something to that effect, yet she could hear people talking at normal volumes downstairs.
What makes her a credible accuser: Coming forward, being fairly consistent and open regarding what she remembers, what she sees as facts, not attempting to hide the gaps in her recollection or paper over the holes with speculative details, offering up new information that is then tangentially supported such as the names of people Kavanaugh ran with or that Judge worked at specific supermarket in the area in a timeframe that matches his actual work history...while there aren't corroborating testimonies every detail she's been able to recall has checked the right boxes rather than being contradicted - these all point to her being sincere and having knowledge of real events.
We'll have to agree to disagree on what you posted above. Her testimony, from my POV is porous, incomplete, contradictory, and has all the earmarks of being fabricated.
- Doc
I guess we will. I think there is a meaningful difference between Mitchell asking if Ford knew WHO paid for the polygraph, for example, than if she herself paid for it but I guess that's my take having listened to the hearing as it was happening. She is clearly naïve as to who was paying for what and why, and that came through very clearly in the hearing. But she also is consistent and coherent in her timeline, content of her claims, and the known facts. But I'm also one of those people who judges people who act with certitude as being more likely to be lying than someone who qualifies their comments, limits their claims, and talks in probabilities.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Water Dog wrote:Also, just out of curiosity? What is the relevance if Mark Judge's employment records? Why is that a thing to you guys?
It serves as a way of placing the event in a timeline. He apparently only worked there for a few weeks to make money before their football camp. Kavanaugh's calendar shows camp starting on August 22nd. Ford estimates she saw him around 6 weeks after the event she claims occurred. It's the sort of information an investigator would value. You know, logic and crap.
To me that was one of the most bizarre aspects to her testimony. She made a big deal out of this and spent a lot of time on it. It was inconsistent and didn't fit with the tone of the discussion. This guy was one of her rapists and she went up to say hello to him? Really? And her mother was at the store and she made a point of saying she snuck through a different door to avoid being seen by her? WTF?
If you are following along, you'd know that Judge was dating her friend who was the nexus of Ford interfacing with Kavanaugh's friendship circle. Ford had mentioned she and Judge had been friendly towards one another before the event. She thought he would stop Kavanaugh and she described him as alternating between encouraging Kavanaugh and saying he should stop. She seems to have known him beyond the single event. She described him as collecting shopping carts so she said hello to him as she walked past where he was working. She didn't "go up to him". In his book, he described his job as basically waiting at the front of the store, people would leave their carts with groceries with him while they got their cars, and he would load their groceries in their cars for them and return the cart. His job involved standing around the front of the supermarket.
I didn't know it at the time, while watching the hearing, but since then it has been pointed out online what was going on here. See this Twitter thread which walks through it. Basic gist, her numerous accounts have been extremely inconsistent re the timing of events. How it appears is that this Safeway incident never happened. She read Mark Judge's book where he talks about working at Safeway. She co-opted material from his own book and wove it into her story. In order to come up with a more specific timeframe that all her previous accounts lacked.
And that being the case, Judge's employment history is irrelevant. Even if she's right about when he worked at Safeway, it doesn't corroborate her account, because he made that information publicly available in a book she readily had access to. It wouldn't corroborate her account either way. But in this case, it draws even more suspicion to her account. The only stuff she manages to remember just happens to be stuff Judge put in his own book.
For the sake of discussion, here is the transcript around the polygraph question:
MITCHELL: OK. Why did you decide to take a polygraph? FORD: I — I didn’t see any reason not to do it. MITCHELL: Were you advised to do that? Bromwich objects again on the basis of privileged communications. Grassley instructs Ford to answer to the extent which would not violate privilege. FORD: Based on the advice of the counsel, I was happy to undergo the polygraph test, although I found it extremely stressful, much longer than I anticipated. I told my whole life story, I felt like, but I endured it. It was fine. MITCHELL: I understand they can be that way. Have you ever taken any other polygraphs in your life? FORD: Never. MITCHELL: OK. You went to see a gentleman by the name of Jeremiah Hanafin to serve as the polygrapher. Did anyone advise you on that choice? FORD: Yes, I believe his name was Jerry. MITCHELL: Jerry Hanafin. FORD: Yeah. MITCHELL: OK. Did anyone advise you on that choice? FORD: I don’t understand the — the — yeah, I didn’t choose him myself. He was the person that came to do the polygraph test. MITCHELL: OK. He actually conducted the polygraph, not in his office in Virginia, but actually, at the hotel next to Baltimore Washington Airport. Is that right? FORD: Correct. MITCHELL: Why was that location chosen for the polygraph? FORD: I had left my grandmother’s funeral at Fort Lincoln Cemetery that day, and was on tight schedule to get a plane to Manchester, New Hampshire, so he was willing to come to me, which was appreciated. MITCHELL: So he administered a polygraph on the day that you attended your grandmother’s funeral. FORD: Yeah, correct. MITCHELL: OK. FORD: Or it might have been the next day. I spent the night in a hotel, so (inaudible) the exact day. MITCHELL: Have you ever had discussions with anyone, besides your attorneys, on how to take a polygraph? FORD: Never. MITCHELL: And I don’t just mean countermeasures, but I mean just any sort of tips or anything like that. FORD: No. I was scared of the test itself but was comfortable that I could tell the information, and the test would reveal whatever it was going to reveal. I didn’t expect it to be as long as it was going to be, so it was a little bit stressful. MITCHELL: Have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test? FORD: Never. MITCHELL: OK. Did you pay for the polygraph yourself? FORD: I don’t…I don’t… I don’t think so. MITCHELL: OK. Do you know who did pay for the polygraph? FORD: Not yet, so. MITCHELL: Did…you…you have the hand-written statement that you wrote out. Did anyone assist you in writing that statement? FORD: No, but you can tell how anxious I was by the terrible handwriting. MITCHELL: Did you – we touched on it earlier – did you know that the committee has requested the…not only the charts from the polygraph test, but also any audio or video recording of the polygraph test? FORD: No. MITCHELL: Were you audio- and video-recorded when you were taking that test? FORD: OK, so I remember being hooked up to a machine, like, be… being placed onto my body, and being asked a lot of questions, and crying a lot. That’s my primary memory of that test. I don’t know. I know he took laborious detail into explaining what he was going to be doing, but I was just focused on kind of what I was going to say and my fear about that. I wasn’t listening to every detail about the… what… whether it was audio- or video-recorded. MITCHELL: Well, you were in a hotel room, right? FORD: Correct. MITCHELL: A regular hotel room with a bed and bathroom? FORD: No, no, no. It was a conference room. MITCHELL: OK. FORD: So I was sitting on a chair, and he was behind me. MITCHELL: Did you note any cameras in the room? FORD: Well, he had a computer set up, so I guess I assumed that he was somehow taping and recording me. MITCHELL: OK. So you assumed you were being video and audio recorded? FORD: Correct. MITCHELL: But you don’t know for sure? FORD: I don’t know for sure. MITCHELL: OK, thank you. ... MITCHELL: Good afternoon. FORD: Hi. MITCHELL: When we left off, we were still talking about the polygraph, and I believe you said it hasn’t been paid for yet. Is that correct? (UNKNOWN SPEAKER/ Possibly Bromwich): Let me put an end to this misery. Her lawyers have paid for her polygraph. As is routine. MITCHELL: Dr. Ford, do you expect the price of that polygraph to be passed on to you? FORD: I’m not sure yet. I haven’t taken a look at all of the costs involved in this. We’ve relocated now twice, so I haven’t kept track of all of that paperwork, but I’m sure I have a lot of work to do to catch up on all of that later. MITCHELL: I… I get you have a lot going on, and you’ve had that for several months, but is it your understanding that someone else is going to assist you with some of these fees, including the cost for your polygraph? FORD: I’m aware that there’s been several GoFundMe sites that I haven’t had a chance to figure out how to manage those because I’ve never had one done for me. MITCHELL: And I’m sorry, several what? FORD: GoFund… (UNKNOWN Speaker repeats for Ford): GoFundMe. FORD: GoFundMe sites that have raised money, primarily for our security detail. So I’m not even quite sure how to collect that money or…and how to distribute it yet. I haven’t been able to focus on that.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Any word on when the FBI is going to administer a polygraph to Dr. Ford? You know. Since they're the arbiters of truth, or legitimate information gathering?
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
canpakes wrote:The Ford allegation continues to be credible.
It was never credible...it has the same credibility a southern plantation daughter's story had as the rope fell over the branch above Kunta Kinte's neck. for what it's worth, "credible" is not the term people use when a story has no witnesses; no evidence; no corroborating details; conflicting details; and all the trappings of another failed Democratic Party strategy....does any of that sound familiar to something else you must surely believe in?
canpakes wrote: It’s just that now we get to also talk about the crazy, whiny, conspiratorial rant issued by Kavanaugh in the wake of a credible allegation by Ford.
Funny how, like in the wake of Nov 2016, you guys have this ever "evolving" hair fire that jumps from one failed accusation to another, like an ember being farted from one scraggly dry bush to another.
See, you're just like Feinstein, you could not care less about Ford noe that she has no purpose anymore...now the new shiny object is how terrible Kavanaugh must be disqualified because he dared to FINALLY get upset over the incredible, elaborate, and immature behavior by the incredulous Dr Ford.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
canpakes wrote: It’s just that now we get to also talk about the crazy, whiny, conspiratorial rant issued by Kavanaugh in the wake of a credible allegation by Ford.
Funny how, like in the wake of Nov 2016, you guys have this ever "evolving" hair fire that jumps from one failed accusation to another, like an ember being farted from one scraggly dry bush to another.
Lol. Says the guy who has to bring up Hillary Clinton to defend the guy who just ranted to the Nation about how ‘revenge for the Clintons’ is ‘destroying his life’.
From my vantage point all this has awoken a sleeping giant. Similar to 2016, there is now a new energy to vote. That energy didn't exist a week ago. People are livid. I see many people who were #NeverTrump are now firmly in the red. I'm seeing very blue democrats even say they are voting Republican. Because they have sons and husbands and fathers, and they aren't going to stand for this.
I will not be. I am a former Republican now Independent who will be voting Democrat for Congress and Democrat Kyrsten Sinema for Senate. She is slightly up in the polls in Arizona here. I am completely against Trump's harmful tariffs, and I don't want to see deep cuts to Medicaid and Social Security.
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
Just as I predicted a Trump victory long in advance, I will now go on record to predict the GOP maintains both chambers of Congress.
The Republicans will probably maintain the Senate, but they will likely lose the House. FiveThirtyEight now has the Democrats with about an 80% chance of taking back the House. And Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick is up comfortably in the polls to take back Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District. Link
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
