Kavanaugh and Perjury

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ford's accusation has not been shown to lack credibility

Out of curiosity, what would've made Ford's accusation lack credibility?

- Doc

[_honorentheos]

Hey man from another dimension where facts don't exist, Ford's accusation has not been shown to lack credibility. It's been shown to be credible enough to deserve reopening Kavanaugh's background investigation. It may not be substantiated by that process with confirming evidence, but that isn't the same thing as you claim.

There is zero credibility and the her allegation is not necessarily the focus of FBI. You mistake hysterical screaming woman at elevator as being equal to "credibility". Her unsupported, unwitnessed, and unfounded allegation remains as such.

Pretty sure her accusation is the main focus of the FBI. The fact they are interviewing Judge and Leland Keyser is indicative their main focus is on Ford's narrative of what happened. You mistake conservative echo chamber talking points for facts.

[_honorentheos]

Ford's accusation has not been shown to lack credibility

Out of curiosity, what would've made Ford's accusation lack credibility?

- Doc

Her not coming forward would be a major issue with the claims being credible. Her inserting information into her story that was speculative or evidence of filling in details to backfill her memory would undermine her credibility.

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.

ETA: This plays into why I'm not concerned about the FBI excluding Avenatti's client, Julie Swetnick, from the investigation. Her claims are of the "cast a wide net" variety where the evidence refers to context in which the Ford claims might be understood but really on their face could not support or refute the allegation against Kavanaugh himself. Other than an indictment of male jock rapeyness in the area at that time it's not credibly telling us much about Kavanaugh's individual fitness to serve as a Supreme Court justice.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Out of curiosity, what would've made Ford's accusation lack credibility?

- Doc

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

[_Water Dog]

The reporting states that the FBI cannot ask the supermarket that employed Judge for records verifying when he was employed there. If that's true, it could not be more obvious that the fix is in.

How many times has it been repeated, from Joe Biden in 1991, to dozens of times during Circus Hearing, to countless pundits on tv and online, and by myself on this forum (Kavanaugh = Joseph Smith thread), that the FBI cannot conduct a criminal investigation, but can only provide a supplemental background check. Democrats didn't care, you didn't care, demanded an FBI investigation anyway. Now the media, and by extension its lemmings like you, are shocked that the FBI isn't conducting a criminal investigation.

Who could have predicted? Democrats would never suggest an FBI investigation in bad faith, would they? Would they? Inconceivable.

What will it take for people like you to "get it" and understand the basic mechanics of the situation?

I've got an idea, how about Ms. Ford go through the proper legal channels if justice is what she's honestly after...

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ma ... complaint/

And by the way, just FTR, I think this is a likely additional backup play. In the event of FBI reporting, "found nothing," the Democrats will say, "Maryland PD has opened an investigation, and the confirmation cannot proceed until that investigation has completed. We cannot confirm a nominee who is actively under criminal investigation in Maryland."

Delay, delay, delay.

This isn't about Kavanaugh's fitness as a justice any longer. It's a referendum on due process now, and the consequences are grave. If Democrats aren't evil in a cold, calculating sense, they are evil in the sense of gross negligence and short-sighted incompetence. They want power, so, what the hell, let's have a constitutional crisis. I don't believe they thought it through. They're just really dumb and selfish and don't care. They didn't think through the chess moves, the potential ramifications of publicly convicting an innocent man for the fun of it. How those ramifications will cascade like dominos and permeate all aspects of our society.

And then you've got Jeff Flake, who's both dumb and cowardly. This man is such an idiot he doesn't even realize his peers in the Senate are playing a game. Accosted by an activist in an elevator and melts down like Corporal Upham from Saving Private Ryan. If Kavanaugh isn't confirmed, Flake will go down as the guy who destroyed due process. And why is he acting this way? Well, we all here know exactly why he's acting this way. If there is any relevant comparison to bring Mormonism into this discussion, it's this. Because his Mormon Heart just feels so deeply. He's got little voices up in his head whispering things about White Horses and Constitutions hanging from threads. He's all about emasculating men and pampering women, serving them and reassuring them, infantilizing them, taking care of them. It's all about their divine purpose, which he exists to support. This self righteous buffoon then has a testimony bearing moment and just has to act. The spirit has spoken. He's gonna be the one to bring us all together. Flake embodies everything I have said around here about the emasculation of men and the feminization of Mormon culture and doctrine in the modern church.

That being said, this girly Mormon man problem doesn't seem to apply to Mike Lee or Orrin Hatch or Mike Crapo, though. So there's hope. We could get into that. Culturally, I think we can see the difference and attribute it to the respective Mormon subcultures they were raised in.

Anyway.

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. They are smart enough to realize that if this attitude becomes the new norm in our culture, the fallout will affect them directly. They don't want their husband to be fired and have his career permanently destroyed because of fake allegations with zero evidence. They don't want their son to grow up in a world where it's somehow illegal to be a male, or a "white man," as if that's something to be ashamed of and apologize for.

The vast majority of people agree with the presumption of innocence. Not just in terms of the letter of the law in a criminal court, but in the spirit of the law and how we conduct ourselves in all aspects of society. Instead of "it's better that ten guilty men escape than one innocent man suffer," democrats want to change it to, "it's better that a hundred innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape." Again, just like in 16, you geniuses went too far.

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.

[Guest]

Also, just out of curiosity? What is the relevance if Mark Judge's employment records? Why is that a thing to you guys?

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?

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.

https://Twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/sta ... 7285070848

https://Twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/sta ... 9918218240

[_Water Dog]

Ford defenders, what's your answer to the fear of flying? This is a big deal. Her attorneys argued that she couldn't come to testify because she was afraid of flying. And why was she afraid of flying, because of Brett Kavanaugh. Because the attack she experienced at his hands left her afraid of confined spaces. Something she has carried with her the rest of her life.

These are facts, boys and girls. Facts. This is the sworn testimony and argument put out by her, and her legal team, which is what caused the hearing to be delayed from Monday to Thursday.

And then right there in the hearing she reiterated the truth of her fear of flying. Even said she needed the support of her friends to give her courage to get on the plane. She said this!

Then, seconds later, admits, oh yeah, she's a world traveler, literally, and flies all over the damn place. Regularly. Very regularly. Having flown many times just in the past couple weeks and months.

Hahaha. I want to see someone here defend this. With a straight face. I want to hear the woo woo argument. "Oh, well you see, she has been though thousands of hours of therapy which has allowed her to overcome this fear, but she was triggered and it all resurfaced and she's been having flashbacks and just couldn't fly to DC to testify you see. If shy's flying to an island paradise on vacation the fear goes away, but if she's flying to testify against her rapist, they have to knock her out to get her on the plane."

[_Chap]

See the exchange below.

https://qz.com/1405027/kavanaugh-hearin ... ng-probed/

Basically, the core statement is:

I was hoping that they would come to me. But then realized that was an unrealistic request.

It seems she is willing to fly to do stuff she enjoys - swallow the nasty medicine and there will be a candy afterwards. But (how weird!) she was not keen on having to fly to go through the kind of ordeal she knew awaited her in Washington, if she could avoid it. But then she realised this was unreasonable (which it was, I feel). And she flew.

Of course that proves she is a serial liar and fantasist.

“May I ask, Dr. Ford, how did you get to Washington?” sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell inquired, shortly before the hearing broke for lunch.

“In an airplane,” Ford said, smiling. The questioning continued:

Mitchell: I ask that because it’s been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying. Is that true?

Ford: Well, I was willing—I was hoping that they would come to me. But then realized that was an unrealistic request.

Mitchell: It would have been a quicker trip for me.

[Both laugh.]

Ford: Yes. So, that was certainly what I was hoping, was to avoid having to get on an airplane. But I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends, and get on the plane.

Mitchell pressed. Ford had to fly “fairly frequently” for hobbies and work, was that right? Yes, unfortunately, Ford said. The interests listed on Ford’s CV include “surf travel” in Hawaii, Costa Rica, South Pacific islands, and French Polynesia. Had she been to all those places? By airplane? Her listed interests also included oceanography and Hawaiian and Tahitian culture. Did she travel by air for those interests? Ford said yes to all of it.

Fear of flying, or clinical aviophobia, reportedly affects 2% to 3% of people in developed countries. The share of people in the US who report some anxiety about flight is much higher. In a 2010 survey conducted by Boeing, 17% of Americans said they were afraid to fly. Another estimate puts it at up to 25%. Of course, that doesn’t mean that none of these people get on planes, especially in the US, where the number of people traveling by air is at record highs.

What point was Mitchell trying to make as she pressed Ford about her air travel? That Ford fabricated or embellished her fear of flying to derail a committee inquiry? That someone truly afraid of flight would not get on an airplane for any reason? That they would allow that fear to dictate their interests, career, and life? That Ford was inconsistent in her actions? That she is just another anxious, unreliable woman, in a world of anxious, unreliable women?

In January 2014, survivors of US Airways Flight 1549 gathered in New York to celebrate the so-called Miracle on the Hudson. Among the attendees was Clay Presley, a businessman who “decided to conquer that fear by getting a pilot’s license,” the New York Post wrote. Presley was celebrated for facing his fear and getting out of his comfort zone. Ford, pushing past hers, was essentially asked why she didn’t stay home.

[_canpakes]

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. They are smart enough to realize that if this attitude becomes the new norm in our culture, the fallout will affect them directly. They don't want their husband to be fired and have his career permanently destroyed because of fake allegations with zero evidence. They don't want their son to grow up in a world where it's somehow illegal to be a male, or a "white man," as if that's something to be ashamed of and apologize for.

This belief being a bit loony and unhinged notwithstanding, how does a vote for Trump save us from that fate?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

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. They are smart enough to realize that if this attitude becomes the new norm in our culture, the fallout will affect them directly. They don't want their husband to be fired and have his career permanently destroyed because of fake allegations with zero evidence. They don't want their son to grow up in a world where it's somehow illegal to be a male, or a "white man," as if that's something to be ashamed of and apologize for.

This belief being a bit loony and unhinged notwithstanding, how does a vote for Trump save us from that fate?

By appointing a rage-a-holic justice to the Supreme Court who'll never forget his confirmation process? Lol... ;) <- That wink was totally inappropriate, please don't accuse me of harassment.

- Doc