Why I found Christine Blaisey Ford to be not credible
Some of you know that I have been through cancer and aggressive chemotherapy from 2002 to 2003, along with having a pulmonary embolism (blood clots in the lungs) and a drop in heart function of 50% of its normal function. Now, you may be asking yourselves, "What does this have to do with Christine Blaisey Ford and her credibility?" Well, it has to do with memories. Chemotherapy attacks everything and has a long term affect on memory. It has been 15 years since I stopped getting chemotherapy and had my left leg amputated above the knee as a result of complications with the knee replacement surgery that I had in 2002. I am the first to admit that my memory is not the greatest anymore and that I lost quite a few memories from my childhood up through the first time I went through college.''
However, I remember quite a few things quite clearly from before my chemotherapy. I remember going to my first Rock concert in January of 2001 to see Styx, REO Speedwagon, and Survivor for $30 at the Bryce Jordan Center on Penn State's main campus. Facing the stage, I was in the first balcony to the right and closest section to the stage. I was 3 or 4 rows away from the edge of the balcony as well. And, there were speakers quite close to the area. The order in the concert was Survivor was the opening act, followed by REO Speedwagon, with Styx finishing. I was quite disappointed that Styx only played fragments of Mr. Roboto, with a focus on Tommy Shaw's songs like Too Much Time On My Hands, Crystal Ball, and Fooling Yourself (The Angry Young Man) to name a few. I was also disappointed that Dennis DeYoung wasn't there touring with the group.
I can also remember going to GenCon in 1999 in Milwaukee Wisconsin. I remember the night some friends of mine and I went to a Murder Mystery and a Dinner. I was supposed to play an Elvis impersonator; but I hated public speaking and flubbed it quite badly. One of my friends said that I should have just said "Thank you very much" like Elvis would have and everything would have been fine. However, I played in a 3 round Dungeons & Dragons tournament, where in each round you could not play the character you played in the previous round. I ended up making it to the second round. I played a Star Wars RPG round as well. I met and talked with Claudia Christian, as well as getting a signed picture of her. I talked to some people from FASA Corporation about BattleTech. The first of my main memories from GenCon 1999 was that it happened 1 week after my mom's dad had died and my brother, my sister, and myself were told we were not going to the funeral even though I had offered to cancel my trip to Milwaukee to go to Stanberry Missouri for my grandfather's funeral. The second was "The Killer Breakfast", which was run by Tracy Hickman of Dragonlance fame. I talked to some people whom had gone to previous Killer Breakfasts at both GenCon and DragonCon. One story they told me is how Silly String was now banned at The Killer Breakfast, because the players had killed the DM (Tracy Hickman) with it in one of the games. This particular edition of "The Killer Breakfast" was a spoof on Star Wars: Episode 1 The Phantom Menance, and my character was I Got Gin. We had gotten to the podrace when Tracy Hickman got to me, I was 3 or 4 rows back from his table, which we didn't use very much of. He asked me "How did you get here?" and I replied "I pressed the little red button that I wasn't supposed to press.". He told me to follow him and he took me to the area in front of section I had been seated in and had me face another player then told us to wait as he went to other players. Hickman came back and told the player I was facing that he saw a podracer come out of hyperspace in front of him and asked him what he was going to do. He said "Dodge." and Hickman asked me what I was going to do, and I remember getting a Cheshire grin and saying "Dodge." Hickman spoke to the rest of the room, "I sense great death in the stands. The front row you all die and you two are dead as well." One of the people in the front row stood and exclaimed "We died again! Yay!"
I can relate more things that I can remember, despite having had the chemo. But, I figured details of some things that happened not long before my cancer fight would be the best examples of why I think that Ford's testimony of not knowing exactly what happened at the party, when the party was (day, year, and time), and how she got there (I flew into Milwaukee and rented a car for my time there and drove to the Bryce Jordan Center) are all reasons not to believe she is credible. If I can go through something like chemotherapy which is known to mess with people's memories for long, long periods of time and she cannot remember anything about her traumatic event; her story cannot be believed.
The photo is of me from August 2008 or 2009 from a family reunion. Oh, and the shirt I am wearing is the same shirt I wore when I met Joe and Sue Paterno coming out of, while my wife and I were going into, the Centre Medical Building next to the Mount Nittany Medical Center, which is near Beaver Stadium and was formerly known as Centre Community Hospital.
Tags
Who is online
390 visitors
There you have why I think she is not credible.
It's unfortunate what you've been through but it has nothing to do with Dr. Ford.
Rachel Mitchell's assessment is a crock of shit.
Just a short recap for those with short term memory:
“I don’t know who’s house it happened at or even what year it happened. I don’t know if I got there before everyone else or after. I don’t know how I got there or how I got home over 8 miles away (at the age of 15).
My life time friend doesn’t remember any of this (and the other 3 people I said were there testified under oath they don’t know anything about this).
I have a fear of flying, but have no problem jet-setting all over the world while on vacation. I’ve been on airplanes more in the past two months than most people in a year, but my fear is completely legit.
I don’t know who paid for my hotel and polygraph test (the afternoon of my grandmother’s funeral, or maybe it was the next day, who knows). And guess what? I flew there. Oh, and that polygraph, it was only two questions, neither of which were about Kavanaugh. But hey, I passed so that’s all that matters. And my PhD in psychology definitely, in no way, helped me with it or my testimony today.
My friends on the beach encouraged me to continue contacting the media with my story (because we were running out of time). I can’t name them, so we’ll just call them beach friends. Yet while giving such great advice, none were willing to be character witnesses. Meanwhile, Judge Kavenaugh had hundreds of character witnesses step up in a matter of days.
My lawyers, out of the kindness of their hearts, are helping me for FREE yet I have a “needed” gofundme page that currently is sitting at $473,622. I’m so desperately in need of help there’s even a second gofundme with $209,987. I promise though I’m not getting anything out of my testimony, that money is just going to cover my expenses.
I’m super smart. I have a PhD and I teach graduate students. I know lots of big words, but it should be totally believable that I don’t understand basic questions.
I was the only person in the United States that didn’t know Congress agreed to come to me instead of me going to DC. They really do care about my flying phobia after all.”
'My lawyers, out of the kindness of their hearts, are helping me for FREE yet I have a “needed” gofundme page that currently is sitting at $473,622. I’m so desperately in need of help there’s even a second gofundme with $209,987. I promise though I’m not getting anything out of my testimony, that money is just going to cover my expenses.'
Because of the death threats from Rump supporters - she and her family have had to leave their home and hire security.
Proof or all your nonsense doesn't mean dick.
First of all, WTF does Rachel Mitchell's assessment have to do with the seeders?
Secondly, Rachel Mitchell's assessment has one huge predicate. It's based on 'what the Judiciary Committee knows', which is OBVIOUSLY limited to what the Majority WANTS it to know...
First I note that you failed to answer my question.
The FBI doesn't MAKE determinations...
I'm here right NOW to say that it looks like the investigation will be limited to who the FBI is ALLOWED to talk to.
Your link comes back here.
Now, WHO decides WHOSE allegations are 'credible'? Since Trump JUST released a statement instructing the FBI to include Avenatti's client, Julie Swetnick, in their investigation, it would seem that it's the WH.
You weren't going to believe anybody picked by Republicans. We get it.
Where did you quote this from?
So WTF does that have to do with MY comments being 'hard to staple' down? You found an article in which the AUTHOR states that the FBI will 'determine' something? That's ALL you've got.
WTF are you talking about.
"If I can go through something like chemotherapy which is known to mess with people's memories for long, long periods of time and she cannot remember anything about her traumatic event; her story cannot be believed."
So your anecdotal personal experience, a single perspective, should be taken as the general "rule" of human memory ability?
That's like saying, "Hey, I went to a Vegas show and got splattered with watermelon juice once in the late 1970's. I've never been to any other show because that's what happens, ya get splattered with watermelon juice."
No, just don't go see Gallagher again or don't sit in the front row. While we can all have sympathy for your health issues and never wish it on anyone, its not relevant. Every person I have ever spoken to about things they remember have differing levels of memory, we're all different especially on what each individual brain is experiencing at any given moment. I have crystal clear recall on many things going back to about age 3 but I've shown up at work and realized I can't remember the drive, my brain just going on autopilot.
Now he's even picking out recent things he can remember. What desperation.
Did you find Rachel Mitchell credible?
Because if you did, you should listen to her last round of questioning of Dr. Ford in which she talked about the neurobiological effects of trauma and about the FACT that the hearing format was NOT the PROPER best practices for interviewing victims of trauma, by TRAINED interviewers.
BTFW, of her 55 minutes + of questioning, Mitchell asked Ford about the ACTUAL event for LESS THAN 15 minutes...
As for a MEDICAL reason for Ford's memory issue, you may want to review this:
Child abuse. Rape. Sexual assault. Brutal physical attack. Being in a war and witnessing violence, bloodshed, and death from close quarters. Near death experiences. These are extremely traumatic events, and some victims bear the scars for life.
Effect of trauma on the hippocampus
The most significant neurological impact of trauma is seen in the hippocampus. PTSD patients show a considerable reduction in the volume of the hippocampus. This region of the brain is responsible for memory functions. It helps an individual to record new memories and retrieve them later in response to specific and relevant environmental stimuli. The hippocampus also helps us distinguish between past and present memories.
Your experience literally has nothing to do with the type of violent trauma which Ford experienced, something which often results in PTSD.
Also your statement that you don't find her credible is at odds with what both the judiciary committee and Kavanaugh himself have said.
Christine Ford is a charlatan. Her testimony was so fake that only the most gullible would believe her or partisan hacks.
So she is a college professor that gives speeches in a 13 year old girl voice and has to have numerous simple yes or no questions explained to her so she didn't go off script?
[deleted]
Wow, you really, really must hate women--even if you are one--to say such a despicable thing. To believe that ranting, slobbering, blubbering--mostly incoherent when not outright lies--performance from Kavanaugh is to throw out all judgment and rationality and replace it with base ideology.
Here's why I'm not sure, but I wouldn't bet my life she isn't being truthful either.
I suppose we could add in that Ms Ford was a Bernie Sanders democrat and anti-Trump activist and thus her memory would work in Unique ways. Isn't there a mental condition that has the afflicted imagining things of those they dislike? (usually family members)
E.A Forget all the how . why , where, the most important is Has a Criminal complaint being filed in the appropriate Police Station, if not all else it ZILCH value, and with what she said on national television " " 100 % Sure it was … " Might just open her up for criminal charges!
So we should give a pass to all of the Priest Rapists. Got ya...
You mean where there is evidence of crimes? They should be prosecuted. But where there is no evidence of a crime? Really.
I mean that the VAST majority of Priest rape cases are based exclusively on the allegations of the victim, were NEVER reported to the police, happened decades ago and are UNSUPPORTED by ANY forensic evidence or eye witness corroboration.
E.A Please show where any Priest and OR Paedophile has been Charged without a Police Crime report!
If You Fail, would You apologise for hours and hours of misinformation!!!
From what I have seen, just from Pennsylvania alone, the majority of allegations against Catholic Priests were supported by documents obtained from the Catholic Church, which is actual forensic proof.
Please show ME where I stated that any Priests were 'charged' without a police report.
What 'misinformation' are you referring to? Please be specific.
Oh and BTFW, review this list, created by the Archdioceses of Baltimore and note that many victims reported their abuse to the CHURCH but NOT to the police. Note that some of the victims STILL REMAIN anonymous...
Right so documents created by the Church are 'forensic proof' but signed and witnessed affidavits and polygraph tests aren't.
BTFW, I note that you failed to address the FACT that in MOST cases, the abuse wasn't reported until decades later and that the Grand Jury report addresses the fact that the 'gaps in memory' from the accuser weren't deemed relevant to their credibility.
Much of which consisted of letters written by VICTIM to the Church reporting the abuse.
Oh the irony!
When did she say that?
RATING: FALSE
ORIGIN: Internet trolls
She didn't, it's just more 'Alternative facts' that they spew in desperation...
I usually don't even read the rump supporters comments very thoroughly, usually just go right past them, but when I saw that - I knew it was bullshit!
E.A Fear Not an " Investigation " is underway!
See Matthew 7 first 3 verses and then 18 to end! But read the Whole chapter and take Nothing out of Context!!
Rotten Trees can only Bear ??
I wonder why so many Trump supporters are both quite gullible and extremely hostile to the victims of sexual assault? Seriously, they must be incredibly dumb if they believe the bogus memes manufactured by right wing trolls. They don't even make a pretense at fact checking those memes, they simply believe them from the first moment they hear them or see them. No wonder they're so easily controlled by a known con artist.
Rump is a big fat con job - just like he called the investigation into Kavanaugh.
WTF does that have to do with your fallacious accusation that I posted 'misinformation'?
Do NOT proselytize to me.
[Removed]
It's fascinating that you chose a part of a gospel that is a self-indictment. Sanctimony like that is always very much appreciated.
When are you people going to light on either "this is not a criminal matter" and "why is Kavanaugh being treated like a criminal...wahhhhhhhhh?"
Never. They're just heaping lie upon lie, fast and furious. Funny for people who are so "dedicated" to the truth----for everyone else.
When I first read that I thought it was "corn job" and it also actually worked.
Haven't you heard? It's a really scarrrrrrrry time for these turdflakes. Apparently that's because they've got reason to fear, wouldn't you say? To listen to their high pitched squealing one would think every single stinking one of them violated a woman at least once in their grubby lives---maybe some of them are still doing it.
And don't even get me started on the alleged "women" among them who're running interference for them. It is often the case when one of these serial sexual predators is found out, there's a wife or a mother who's either known and stayed silent or sometimes aided and abetted these dirtbags.
Why not? You keep making all sorts of unfounded claims like that and never back any of them up and, unfortunately, there's no way to hold you accountable here for all that.
In 1979, 39 years ago, I was at a friends house when I got a call from a family member telling me my brother Bill had drowned in a swimming pool at his bosses' house. His wife and he were at his bosses house for a lunch visit and afterwards my brother went out and got in the in ground pool for a swim. 20 minutes or so later the others also went outside and found him at the bottom of the deep end of the pool.
I remember everything about that phone call and the aftermath of that call, but if you asked me who was at a party I attended two weeks before that, or where it was, or if there was one , I could not remember a thing about it unless prompted.
Some people remember things that have a strong impact on them much more than they remember passing daily occurrences from 35 years ago. Some people have much better memories than others do. It is not uncommon, for me , at all, to remember parts and fragments of instances and incidents from 35 years ago and not remember other fragments from the same time period.
While I am sure you feel you have "proven" something here with this article, there just isn't anything to it. In fact, I would suggest that Ford's type of memory is more common than what you are describing.
Sorry to learn of your brother John.
You have endured a lot and I hope things are better for you. But as a rape survivor myself, you are comparing apples and oranges when it comes to memory.
Utterly meaningless.
It is true that they may never be able to "prove" she is telling the truth. But there is nothing about her story that is inherently unbelievable. Nothing. For example, the right makes a big deal out of the other people at the "party" not being able to remember it.
It's not a "big deal" at all. This group of friends regularly met somewhere to "hang out" and drink , or even just hang out and do nothing. I doubt if there is a single person on this forum , and damn few in this country, who could remember a specific day of "hanging out" with their high school friends 35 years ago, unless something memorable happened. For the other people there besides Ford, Kavanaugh and Judge, nothing happened that night. And it's possible that Kavnaugh and Judge were too drunk at the time to remember it.
Ford's allegation in isolation is one thing. But her allegation in combination with other 'testimony' , from those who observed Kavanaugh drunk and belligerent, and incoherent and not remembering sometimes, is a different animal. Kavanaugh did drink, and another girl from the same basic time period, also says Kavanaugh behaved sexually inappropriately with her. That information bolsters Ford, not un-bolsters her.
Combined with his totally inappropriate behavior as a witness in front of the Judiciary Committee, in which he revealed just how politically partisan he actually is, it is more than enough to require a no vote from the Senate. There are other conservative judges that dont have the incredible baggage Kavanaugh has.
Sorry, I deleted the post and was going to repost the entire memo on a separate thread, but I've lost the link.
Anyway, read the summaries, the 5 page memo is even more damning.
Incredibly vague as it is, she hasn't been able to keep almost any aspect of her story straight since July. Nice appearance aside, she's a terrible, terrible witness. Politics aside, no rational person could her constantly changing allegation much weight.
Everything else you point to supports the uncontested allegation that he may have drank too much on a occasion as a teenager. That's not relevant to whether he was a rapist.
Sean, Kavanaugh was "often" a teenage drunk. I put often in quotes because it is not clear exactly what the word often means in relation to his drinking, but since it is referenced in the yearbooks of himself and his friends, we can use the word "often" with some confidence. There are also sexual references on Kavanaugh's year book "Devil's Triangle" and "boofing". While these terms are not proof of anything since Kavanaugh may have been "empty bragging" , they do add at least something that COULD correspond to Ford's claims.
There is more than enough reason to deny Kavanaugh the seat. In fact, his behavior in front of the Senators is more than enough in itself.
Burden of proof is on the accuser. So far all the left has is hearsay, and a ton of unsubstantiated claims.
Also, so what if Kavanaugh was drunk on occasion as a teenager? That doesn't disqualify him from serving; no more than Obama or Clinton doing drugs when they were younger disqualified them from being president.
Could, may, and might is not proof/evidence. The Dems, left, and media need to come back when they have more than baseless claims.
I could have supported the Dems if they had fought against the nomination based on his involvement on the legal work around for enhanced interrogation techniques; even if they failed. But all they are doing is setting a fight over the next SC nominee when a Democrat is in office. The Republicans will drag every detail from the past- no matter how obscure, and how little proof they have. In fact the lest evidence/proof the better. It is much harder to prove something didn't occur with no details on the event.
Multiple people who KNOW him have come forward to confirm that he was a belligerent drunk into his College years in Yale. A couple have said it was incredulous for him to claim to remember everything he did while blasted.
Kavanaugh denies it unequivocally.
The FBI will find out...
Who is Brad O' Kavanaugh in Judge's book?
The FBI will find out...
The FBI will ask Kavanaugh if he remembers puking in the car and passing out...
Ya, it's amazing that a Federal Judge LYING on FOX and then UNDER OATH will get people to come forward to refute his BS.
Ever hear of the phrase 'A bridge too far'?
Here's the latest from a buddy of Kavanaugh's who will be testifying to the FBI that Kavanaugh was a violent and belligerent drunk:
That, of course, is utter BS as the record of all of her comments documents.
The "goal post" was always to reveal that he's a liar and perjurer and thanks for pointing out that particular example of both. GOAAALLLLLLLLLL!!!!!
In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That this woman waited all these years, even though he has held several high level positions throughout his adult life without a whisper of allegations, to suddenly remember and feel the need to go public at this time is not credible and is being used to destroy the reputation of someone nominated by a president on the opposite side of her stance in the political spectrum.
This is as disgusting as it is obvious why its being done.
This is not a criminal court of law, this is more of a job interview where the interviewer may have caught the applicant lying to him and have a history that could adversely effect the job he is being interviewed for.
Ahh, back to blaming the victim.
Reporting Sexual Assault: Why Survivors Often Don’t
It should take as long as it takes to be thorough. Do you disagree that it should be a thorough investigation?
Why are you afraid to answer my question???
If that does happen, the Dems will merely be following the same partisan practices of the GOP used to 'investigate' Benghazi for over and over and over again.
You need to add 5 more "over's" to your sentence.
I should have just said ad nauseam. My bad...
That's possible. It's also true that the Republicans refuse to accept the outcome of other investigations.
It sure would be nice to have some moderation on this life time appointment. This is too important and currently Kavanaugh has made so many errors by lying about his past. He made that judgement call, and it calls into question his decision making. He did not need to lie, he could have just admitted that he was a typical teen and college student that drank to much. He could have chosen to defend himself truthfully and carefully. He chose angry weeping lies.
Again, not a criminal trial as even your side often keeps telling us when it wants to bitch about how Dems were asking their should-be-easy-to-answer questions. It was job interview and as any hirer would tell you, that embarrassing display Kavanaugh put on Sep. 27 would have lost him any job he was applying for, even as a <del>burger flipper</del> garbage boy at McDonalds. In fact, the interview would have been terminated in a couple of minutes as security would have been called to remove this deranged man from the building.
Riiiiight. Because most job interviews include a 36 year old sexual assault allegation on national television. *eyeroll*
It barely covered 3 days.
Kavanaugh was "often" a teenage drunk.
So what? Do you think Obama's drug use as a teenager disqualified from the Presidency? I'm sure there are actual, unsolved, reported crimes from Hawaii in 70s. Round up Obama, his drug use "could" make him more likely to be guilty.
n fact, his behavior in front of the Senators is more than enough in itself.
A man falsely accused of running a rape gang as a teenager got upset? Do tell. How strange. And if he'd been clinically detached, you'd, of course, be claiming his lack of emotion betrayed guilt. The old heads I win, tails you lose game.
Did Obama deny smoking pot as a teenager? Kavanaugh has denied being a belligerent drunk, and denied it under oath. Ok, he was in a tough spot. He didnt handle it well, and more than exposed his very large political bias.
I wrote an article last week about what I think happened but it didnt get many comments at all and disappeared right away. I don't think Kavanaugh, and Judge, ever intended to rape Christine Blasey. They just wanted to have "fun" messing with her and scaring her , and maybe even to see how willing she would be to go along with having her clothes removed. They were laughing hysterically, she says, which tends to indicate they didnt think the episode was "serious".
Now 36 years later Kavanaugh is shocked to think that anybody believes this little incident would be enough to keep him off the Court appointment that he never tires of telling us he is so eminently qualified for. How dare this woman bring up something so insignificant (to Kavanaugh) from so long ago? Let's let the past stay in the past, he believes.
It is likely, but unprovable, that he tried to take her clothes off, probably more for laughs than as an urge to rape. Kavanaugh is thinking like WTF?, this wasnt even a big deal and it was 36 years ago. They want to ruin my life for this?
I agree with you on most things, but not this. I think it's ludicrous.
Did Kavanaugh deny drinking, or even being drunk? He said he never blacked out. I read this weekend that small blackouts (we went to taco bell before going home?) don't start until the BAC is over .20, which is over twice the limit. Real blackouts where significant time is lost occur closer to .30. Someone is visibly drunk at .08. All Kavanaugh said he is never blacked out. People who claim he "lied" because they saw him slurring his words or whatever don't know what they are talking about.
wrote an article last week about what I think happened but it didnt get many comments at all and disappeared right away. I don't think Kavanaugh, and Judge, ever intended to rape Christine Blasey. They just wanted to have "fun" messing with her and scaring he
That's possible. But wouldn't that explain why he has no recollection of it ever happening? Who can remember every joke they were involved in from the summer between junior and senior year?
He doesnt remember because he was drunk, not because it was a joke. I think you'd remember trying to tear a girls clothes off.
Or maybe he does remember and he is lying because he doesnt think this incident merits having his carer ruined.
Or because the incident would tank his career and open him up for civil action, and possibly even criminal action (I don't know what statute of limitations is for this).
That's possible but it doesn't change the fact that it was a sexual assault and it terrified her.
First, you can &%(@!!!! !@#&*@!! yourself. And then, you can @)#$)_! %&^??/?##&$(, followed by %&$^#!!)?/+=*&@!!.
Awww
Settle down now sis, settle down....
I still love ya.....
NWM
Yeah, but you never call; you never write...
I've missed you!
Yes, but how do you really feel? Sister, you have been nasty to me lately. Not the good nasty, the bad nasty.
If either answer is no, then she was sexually assaulted.
"Sorry your honor, I didn't mean to rape her, I just accidentally fell down and penetrated her, it was not on purpose." Is no defense for any rape, let alone what they may have been trying to do. Neither is, "we were just pretending to rape her"!
and more than likely an almost equally large majority of fair minded Americans citizens will not be happy with the republicans when Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed after this.
IMO: NO ONE wins. we all lose.
That's what I had a problem with and Sister Mary Agnes Amplebottom. Attempted rapesplaining.
I do not understand how anyone can believe that as a legitimate excuse.
That was my reaction too although I'm sure that's not what John was trying to do. I saw it as an exercise to understand how both experiences can be true, ie maybe not an attempted rape from the perp's perspective but a clearly violent attempted rape from the victim's perspective.
No reason not to give John the benefit of the doubt.
I didnt say she wasn't. It just sounds to me more like they meant to scare her or mess with her for laughs than actually rape her. Bill Maher implied something similar on his show Friday when he said he thought the Democrats went too far in accusing Kavanaugh of attempted rape.
He tried , viiolently, to take the girl's clothes off. That is sexual assault. He put his hand over her mouth and that is felony physical assault.
What I think is that in Kavanaugh's mind he is thinking "nothing happened. why are they making a big deal out of it when nothing happened. " That is how he is rationalizing his lying about it.
Let's take that scenario as if it were reality.
It illustrates a complete lack of empathy on Kavanaugh's part, IN THE PRESENT. It also illustrates a disgusting level of misogyny and male privilege, IN THE PRESENT.
Both IMHO disqualifies Kavanaugh for promotion to the SCOTUS and should question his viability as a Federal Judge.
Very true but did you expect anything else from a conservative? Those are defining traits for the vast majority of conservatives. It's rare to find one who doesn't exhibit them.
And you may have been right, despite other claims that indicate this not a one time occurrence. The issue is that it does not matter, if Ford's recollection is correct, he was drunk, he forced her onto a bed, he tried to remove her clothes, and under that level of inebriation there is nothing to say he wouldn't have completed the violation if she hadn't escaped.
To attempt to read something else into it is a disservice and even insult to the victim. If the accusation is correct, he took every step necessary to rape her, the entire experience to her is that he was trying to rape her. To say that after everything he did, it was just a joke, diminishes every accusation from every rape victim.
Well why didn't they just say so in the first place!?! That way, she could have just skipped all the fear and terror she felt about being shoved into a room by 2 straight-up pieces of shit, pinned to a bed, having her mouth covered so tightly that she thought her attacker was going to accidentally asphyxiate her, and then just laid back, relaxed, and enjoyed it.
John, when you begin your post with a comment that you already know will bother some of your NT community members, it really doesn't matter what else you convey a few sentences later. To be honest, I'm having slight difficulties thinking of you fondly at the moment.
I have to agree with you there. It certainly wasn't a joke by any means
JR--that comment indicates your earlier hit the tenderloin of rightwing attempts to deny, deny, deny and smear, smear, smear.
I agree, Tessy. And I think Judge's weird behavior of one minute laughing at what "Bart-boy" was doing, the next sort of joining in and jumping on top of them both and finally breaking it all up may attest to his sense that "Bart-boy" was going to far. I'm not suggesting that Judge deserves any medals for this but that even he had a limit to what he could allow to happen---again, maybe. Kavanaugh was clearly the "big dog" of this group of scumbags so to challenge him directly would have, at the least, meant expulsion from this clique and possibly a fairly significant beat down. So Judge could have resorted to subtler ways to keep "Bart-boy" from doing his worst.
That was my take with how the attack got broken up by Judge jumping on top of both of them. Through his drunken stupor, Judge realized that Kavvy was about to do something terrible, so he jumped on them acting like he was just rough housing and kibitzing around while his intention was to let the girl escape.
While yours require the entire salt lick.
I am so sorry for what you have had to endure. I am also a cancer survivor and still suffer memory loss/chemo brain from my chemo treatments 7 years later and doubt it will improve. Since treatment, I will do something and have absolutely no memory of it. Like you, my memory prior to chemo treatments was not effected.
Although I feel for her, I can't imagine at 15 not remembering such a horrible day prior to the attack. Or anyone who was with her at the time can't remember it. I think that she is a strong woman, it must take one to face the world with her accusations, but I don't think that she is being entirely truthful about the days events.
Here is something I remember fairly vividly from when I was about 6 years old. We lived in Old Bridge, NJ and I was attending Kindergarten when an earthquake struck. Looking up the records, it stuck around 11:00am on Jan 30th, just 2 days before my birthday. For decades, my mom has told me that she had thought the water heater had exploded in our house. And, I know I had at least on dream regarding her running out of the house without me being present there at the time of the earthquake, and I usually do not remember my dreams at all. The year was 1979.
Hey, tom. Thanks for describing how a traumatic, or at least dramatic, experience like that can be seared into long term memory even from a very young age.
And, she can't remember details, like where the assault happened. I can remember exactly where I was at the time of that earthquake.
Doesn't make any difference Tom - just because you can remember. Just because YOU SAY YOU REMEMBER.
Good point!
Problem is Dr Ford has to deal with the same point....
Thank you for making the issue clear....
If we cannot accept what he says just because he remembers, we cannot accept what she says just because she remembers.....
EXCELLENT POINT!!!
That's not uncommon for sexual assault victims. What you went through is nothing remotely like the violent trauma of a sexual assault.
You want the proof? I can provide the proof that an earthquake hit Old Bridge on Jan 30, 1979:
An article the week after from The New York Times:
And a PDF of earthquakes in the USA from January through March of 1979, if you notice there were 4 earthquakes in New Jersey during that time period.
That means nothing, absolutely nothing Tom.
You completely missed my point.
Of course it's not the same. They're always comparing apples and dumptrucks
No I don't think I did.
I just applied it in reverse removing all bias....
Something happened to Dr Ford, but without corroboration of her claims, there is no way to establish validity of said claims.
And in the current state of her story, it doesn't pass....
Unless your point was to establish your own bias which was unnecessary, most of us already know which side of the fence you stand on...
Yes you did.
Like anyone else here, I only know what you provide....
And thank you for what you do provide....
Wow, tom. You actually were able to remember a place that was already familiar to you! That's just aMAZing. If only Dr. Ford had had that advantage we'd have disposed of Lying Kavanaugh long agol
On the other hand there were multiple examples of Kavanaugh's dishonesty during the both of his confirmation hearings (short list):
1. Lying by denying that he worked on judicial nominees as a WH stooge under Bush, Jr.
2. Lying in denying of receiving stolen emails from Dem senator's office during the hearings on those nominees' hearings.
3. Lying about what "boof" means
4. Lying about what "devil's triangle" means
5. Lying about what "Renate Alumnius[sic]" means
We could try to test your memory by asking you about relatively trivial events just after the quake, e.g. What were you wearing? What did you have for breakfast that morning. How did you get home? What was the last thing the teacher said just before the quake?
Only problem is we could never know whether you were telling the truth since it would be so easy to make up answers to those questions. That's why Dr. Ford's candor at not being able to recall details especially right after her attack speaks to her honesty.
And I need to point out that while you describe traumatic events, none of the ones you experienced really rise to the level of being singled out for a violent attack by two assailants that could have resulted in rape or even worse. Having one's mouth covered to prevent screaming gave the young Christine Blasey good reason to believe that she might die even if murder wasn't the original intent.
Oh it’s coming. They’ll find someone, to fabricate something.
Nah.
This was never about Kavanaugh. This was about #metoo, and painting Republicans as misogynists in advance of the midterm elections.
No worries, you can hold your breath until it happens. Doubtful you’ll suffocate.
They did that to themselves, very effectively, and with no help whatever from Dems. And I must compliment you on the job you and your buddies here are doing on that score as well.
You are sitting in judgment of a sexual assault victim based on how well you are able to recall games you've played and dinners you've eaten?
I've been blessed with an over-abundance of smart-ass. But even I don't have enough sass to tell you what I think about your reasoning. And that's one former cancer patient to another.
Wait.....you're saying that mansplaining and equating completely different experiences isn't proof that a sexual assault victim is lying?
When you have nothing throw out mansplaining.
And the snowflakes were crying when the Republicans used a female to question the lying bitch Christine Ford but if they would have done it themselves I'm sure mansplaining and pale male and stale would have been spewing out of all there mouths.
She isn't the one who lied during the hearing. Kavanaugh did.
Because when she didn't recall parts of here experience clearly she said so instead of making crap up like Kavanaugh did repeatedly (to whit: "boof" = fart; "devil's triangle" = drinking game; "Renate alumnius[sic]": term of respect and endearment; hearing was revenge of the Clintons--THE most pathetic and desperate and snivelling part of the entire pukefest (er, I mean ralphfest) of his remarks).
so instead of making crap up like Kavanaugh did repeatedly
You mean like Atheist does repeatedly
You know all your little imagined lies have been debunked right? Of course not, Dailykos makes Alex Jones looks reliable.
Once the lies are injected into the liberal bubble, they live forever. It's the "hands up, don't shoot" of 2018.
You obviously believed Kavanaugh's outrageous performance. How do you know he wasn't lying (other than the fact that he most certainly and demonstrably did in his answers to several question--see "boof," "devil's triangle" and "Renate alumnius" explanations for details).
Personally I dont. I highly doubt she did however, first because as I see it she personally had nothing to gain by doing so , second she was definitely exposing herself to possibly civil or criminal law suite if she did lie.
IF she did she was taking one hell of a risk, this was a highly volatile time in a very important place to pull a stunt like this is IF she was lying.
I consider what she had to lose by lying and what she had to gain.
I do the same with Kavanagh.
I'll go one step further I used to drink heavily myself, many times later I did not remember where, what or who I had been with the evening before. I also didn't really remember WTF I'd done much either.
In addition: IF I knew someone and someday I found that person on top of me trying to take off my clothes and running their hands over my body , I'd sure as hell remember who that was.
Agreed !
Sad IF it happened that it did at all to Dr Ford, sad that if it happened it came out the way and when it did, sad that it was so long ago it was never going to be proved to the standard it possibly could have been at the time, Sad that IF NOT true any of us had had to go thru this at all including Judge Kavanagh and the country.
I'm mainly Sad because this is another issue now dividing our nation.
I do not blame Dr Ford for doing this however,I would as Hell not wanted to be in her shoes....either time. (allegedly)
PS: I also do tend to believe tend her story, the Judge I think may just not remember. Just my opinion !
That you think that is the highlight of my day. Hilarious that you think frothing at the mouth and mountains of false accusations and outright lies about Ford constitute "debunking."
Did you fall out of a blue Dodge pickup truck when you were 10 years old, breaking your right wrist, getting all scratched up from falling onto gravel; when one of your family's employees on the farm popped the clutch? I did, and it ended what could have been a good soccer career; because the next year the soccer league folded and soccer was never offered in my school district until AFTER I graduated high school. We moved to the farm in central Pennsylvania in the summer of 1979, before my dad had fully left the US Marines and was still working out of Monmouth, NJ. You see I didn't have just one traumatic experience, I had quite a few of them. Once, my sister pushed me into a piece of sharp metal just outside the barn in the pasture which cut into my right knee. I still have the scar from that, and I am lucky that I didn't get tetanus from it since it was rusty and in an area where cattle grazed at the time.
I remember the date, place, time of day (January 16, 2002 around midnight in the first freestall barn we build on the farm), how I broke my left leg (had a cow with a stuck head and we had to tear the stall apart to get her free and I moved up beside her to turn her and she turned when I was just past her left rear leg and her left hip bumped my right hip and my left leg snapped), and how the break felt (I had been having pain in my left knee for about a year and I thought it was a condition called Milker's Knee from kneeling to milk cattle, when the break occurred the pain disappeared and there was a rush of fluid from the knee into my foot); which started my battle with cancer. I can remember what the doctor who discovered the type of tumor said to me a week after the biopsy, which took place in early May of 2002: "First we thought it was a Sarcoma, then we looked under the microscope and thought it was a Lymphoma, then all the tests came back and it turned out to be Ewing's Sarcoma."
It's nice I guess, that you the memory that you have. What does it have to do with Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Ford?
It is an example of having memory of trauma seared into your brain. I would love to forget falling off the back of the pickup truck and flailing my arms trying to keep myself from falling off. I would love to forget being shoved into the piece of metal, and I really would love to forget everything dealing with my cancer. Not to mention all of the various vehicle accidents that I was a part of: Travelling through Eastern PA in my aunt's car from Clinton Corners, NY (after visiting another aunt, uncle, and cousins) to my family's farm and getting rear-ended at a stop light where the driver from New York claimed that the issue was one of the cars in front of us who stopped when he should have kept going when the light turned yellow; hitting a parked car on Bishop Street in downtown Bellefonte, PA on my way home from college due to fiddling with the radio that just died and drifting over to the right, rear-ending a car just north of the US220 project outside of Bellefonte, PA on PA150 because I had been trying to see what the plane circling Beaver Stadium had on its banner in my brother's Ford Ranger since my Pontiac Grand Am had been totaled by my sister a few weeks before and after I had bought a 2000 Dodge Stratus that I couldn't use due to the dealer installing the 5 CD disc changer, wrecking a Budget moving van rental in Utah due to falling asleep at the wheel 3 miles away from a Rest Area that I was looking for due to knowing I was getting tired and waking up to find myself in the median knocking down reflectors and overcorrecting causing the van to slide across to the other side of the 2 lanes on its side and causing my father-in-law to have a hole in his right arm from it, and getting rear-ended earlier this year at a construction zone on OR38 about 20 miles from the Oregon Coast due to the light at the end of the 1 lane bridge turning yellow and the guy behind me following too closely. These are all traumatic events that I would love to forget as Ford did with most of the details for the alleged assault.
Sexual assault is very different from breaking your wrist. You might want to learn something about it.
Skrekk, trauma is still trauma. There are different severities to it, but the various things I have gone through have stuck with me. I cannot see how she could forget where and when it happened. Heck, Joy Villa still remembers BOTH times she was sexually assaulted and where it happened both times (once when she was 5 and another after she reached adulthood). So, again, I find Ford to be non-credible.
Sorry but it's not. Having an accident is nothing like being the victim of a violent and very personal crime, and it's especially nothing like learning that you've got cancer and thus can expect some very unpleasant medical treatment. In regards to the PTSD and memory aspects what happens to rape victims is far more like what is happening to the surviving victims of the Las Vegas shooter. Neither breaking your wrist or cancer are anything remotely like that and most folks would find the comparison both ludicrous and offensive.
There's tons of lit available on how rape victims process their assault and why they tend to remember the assault in great detail but sometimes very few of the details before or after, and tons more written about why they rarely report the crime. And quite a few women have written op-eds detailing their own experience in both regards......including Reagan's daughter Patti. Maybe you should read it before you make more truly offensive and uninformed comments?
For any of the folks here who are discounting Ford's experience but who do want to learn about what actually happens to the victims of sexual assault, this is a good program. The neurological aspects of memory processing are discussed about 20 minutes in.
I really like it that every time tom comes up with one of these memories of his he's actually backing up Dr. Ford's testimony.
Oh, please.
I am sure all of our liberal friends can remember not so long ago a statement like "I don't think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case".............
You remember that Comey guy right?
From Rachel Mitchell.............
“For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the [Senate Judiciary] Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”
What's Comey got to do with Rachel Mitchell?
Try rereading what he said or just look it up.
Excuse me but where the fuck did you get the idea that I had anything authority within the FBI?
Oh and BTFW, the Clinton investigation was conducted by dozens of FBI agents over multiple months with dozens of SWORN statements and FBI interview and hundreds of thousands of documents. It isn't even on the same planet as a one week FBI limited background check Kavanaugh.
Yeah, and Comey was instrumental in getting Clinton elected, right? That 11th hour 59th minute bombshell-that-was-a-dud really came in handy for her. And, for the record, in the previous July presser, Comey did what no FBI director ever did after he announced that the investigation could find no evidence of criminal activity or security breach. He went on to insinuate without a shred of evidence that there were still emails "out there" and spent a good deal of time on her being careless, which was gratuitous slamming of her. Scumbag and other republicans feasted on that very inappropriate and extraneous expression of Comey's OPINIONS about Clinton rather than any evidence. We know it's essential to maintaining the rightwing opposite world to keep these fantasies and lies alive forever. But also just for the record, they're still lies no matter how often or for how long they keep being repeated.
So glad to oblige and have the opportunity to enlighten you. First in his introductory remarks, he let's us know how unusual what he's about to say is:
No shit, there, for sure.
So, time and again, Comey takes every opportunity to impugn or imply wrongdoing to Clinton and/or the State Department and finally even suggesting that there could be something to prosecute here but we'll leave that to others. Republicans feasted on all the extraordinary and unprecedented sermonizing from Comey and then, of course, his October 28 surprise by going public with this against every DoJ and FBI norm and practice not to present something like this so close to an election (something he scrupulously adhered to with their investigation into the Scumbag campaign and Russia). So, now Scumbag & Co. is on the receiving end of Father Comey's scruples and whining like stuck piglets. What goes around comes around, isn't that what Kavaboof said?
Wow. Nice post.
Thanks for informing me of something that has nothing to do with anything.
You will have to ask Tessy if you answered her question. I doubt it.
Sure, I remember that. I also remember that didn't matter to trump, congressional republicans and fox pundits.
Many of them still call her crooked Hillary. This isn't a criminal investigation. It's a background check.
Depends on what the whine of the minute calls for. If it requires whining about how unfair it was to "cross-examine" Kavaraaalph it's criminal. When they need to trivialize the accusations, then it's just a meaningless hearing that was a real mean thing to do to poor Kavadrunk because he was entitled to his lifelong seat on the top court.
'A Scary Time for Young Men.' President Trump Decries Sexual Assault Allegations
President Donald Trump prepares to board Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on October 1. The president told reporters on Tuesday that it is a "scary and difficult time" for young men in the United States.
Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images
For attempted rapists and sexual predators maybe.
Decent people, NOPE.
Young men, afraid to walk the street alone at night, afraid to go on blind dates for fear of being attacked by an accuser, oh the horror! Men no longer feeling comfortable making crude sex jokes to women working in their office half their age, living under the constant fear of one of those vixens leaving their phone on, recording them in the break room as they pretend ejaculate with a cup of yogurt and make other disgusting perverted comments to them. Even powerful men like Donald Trump, billionaires realizing that you can't just go around grabbing women by the genitals anymore without one or two, or nineteen of them being upset by it and trying to make a federal case out of it. Will conservatives get their new horror movie "#MeeeeToooo out in time for Halloween? Will the haunting of their misogynistic party ever end? Tune in Next time to Bizzaro World Adventures!
'Scary time for young men': Trump
ABC News
Donald Trump says it's troubling that people accused of sexual assault are found 'automatically guilty'.
Yeah, the #metoo movement is realllllyyy scary for men.
* actually the only truthful self description that Scumbag has ever made.
Kind of off topic but see how he treats women reporters?
And tonight as rally fodder for his dimwitted base Trump was ridiculing a sexual assault victim.
I know Shrekk. I saw that on my local news this morning. What a scumlappingshitbag he is.
Trump gave an accurate description and summary of her testimony. How is that mocking?
Ummm, no he didn't, what he did was try to mock her and, what he accomplished was making himself look like the misogynist he is. He claimed she didn't remember if it was upstairs or, down stairs, she said that it was up stairs because she had gone upstairs to use the bathroom and, that is when she was pushed into the bedroom by two men, Mark Judge and, Bret Kavanaugh.
That comment proves to me that you either didn't actually watch her testimony or that you are in denial.
If that shit was posted in this forum it would have been removed as a CoC violation.
This isn't a political hatchet job?
Good luck with that........
Take the log out of your own eye before trying to take the splinter out of your neighbors......
If the nominee was a Liberal democrat and this came forward, you would be running about destroying the women....
I love how this old stuff keeps coming up as if any conservatives believed the Clinton accusers any more than they believe Trump and Kavanaughs.
Trump used them as political pawns during the election. Trump has many accusers and Kavanaugh has 3. At some point I would think that it's pretty clear that pulling out Clinton in defense of Kavanaugh or Trump is a non starter. Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress. Kavanaugh also lied to Congress. Time to pick another jurist and start over.
Thank you for the response.
Clearly, my posting has nothing to do with T-rump. So, all I can characterize it as either missing my point or trying to obfuscate it.
And both fail.
The point of my post is this.
Everything about the liberal "WE MUST BELIEVE" mantra being posted on this and many other boards is purely motivated by the political leanings of those making the accusation and the person being accused.
IF any real factual evidence comes out, those who know me will tell you I would be the first to string him up. And I would do a lot worse than any of you could imagine.
So bring forth the evidence I say, but until you do, and it is the accusers responsibility to bring such forth in our system, this is a huge pile of political claptrap designed to effect a political aim....
And that is the long and the short of it.
And pointing out that hypocrisy is part of what this forum is meant for......
I'm responding to your prior post that uses Hillary and again brings up Bill's dalliances. She is not responsible for them nor is she required to believe them over her spouse. Her reaction to them is not pertinent to the GOP's reaction to Kavanaugh.
That doesn't have anything to do with Blaisey Ford's story or credibility. I stand by my comment.
I made no prior post....
And no it has nothing to do Dr. Ford.
But it has everything to do with those defending her, the manner and language they use to defend her, and the exact opposite position, language and manner in which they trashed those prior women.
The difference?
The political affiliation of the accused.
The hypocrisy is of those who blindly do this for political gains or out of blind political loyalty, they have no conscience or ethics.
And they own it... all to themselves....
Yes you did make a prior post, unless some one else posted comment 18 which also has nothing to do with Ford.
Seeing that you have trouble following a conversation, I'll bid you adieu.
But but but Hillary. Jesus Fing Christ what does she or Bill have to do with this?
They don't have anything to do with it except at this point be a very large example of the raging hipocrisy of those blindly defending the "good" doctor without a single shred of evidence.
Like I said to Fireyone above, those people doing such have no conscience or ethics. They own it... all to themselves....
You do realize that that list proves that all of those women were heard. Didn't seem to be any muzzling of them at the time. Those who wanted to had plenty of help getting their stories out from anti-Clinton lawyers and republican political operatives. A couple of them even took their shot at him in court. Paula Jones actually did get some money (although less than originally offered) to settle. But the most interesting thing about this "argument" is that the Kavanaugh Kover-up Klique has used the very same mode of attack on Ford and Ramirez as Clinton defenders did with his accusers back then. How is this supposed to make Kavanaugh and you look better?
Actually the side that disbelieves Dr Ford have been BEGGING for facts and evidence.
The disbelief is directly related to her (and her lawyers) REFUSAL to provide the evidence they claim they have after multiple demands to release it.... those demands came from both the committee and the FBI.....
The response was that she didn't trust the Committee but that she would turn it over to the FBI, except after multiple requests of the FBI they still didn't turn it over....
If she had produced the claimed evidence, it was investigated and found to be real, they would have strung him up as requested.
He wouldn't have been approved.
Slick Willy's accusers provided ALL the evidence they could and it was investigated and found by many to be real and credible.
So credible it was proven that he lied to investigators over it.
They gave her every chance to be like those that accused billy boy.
She chose not to be.....
Her story isn't credible, her witnesses reject her story completely and consistently and any claimed documentary evidence her attorney's refused to release.
She discredited herself.
So no, this wasn't handled in the same way as the democrats handled the Clinton accusers, in fact it was handled in the exact opposite way.
No, it's directly related to refusing to believe the evidence, albeit incomplete, she did present and then the lack of any effort on the FBI's part to interview any of the roughly two dozen people Ford indicated might have some recollection of parties attended that Summer and who was there. Her memory of who was at the house where the party and her attack occurred actually did jibe with Kavanaugh's party calendar for that Summer. But the biggest thing going for Ford is she had no record of lying while Scumbag Kavanaugh lied multiple times under oath in both of his Senate hearings.
Really? Just for starters she lied about being afraid and unable to fly. She lied about not knowing the committee offered to come to her .She lied when she said she did not assist and counsel anyone about taking a polygraph test.
Lots of people fly despite being afraid of or hating it. Of course, she NEVER said that she was "unable" to do it along with the other two lies in your comment after that to add to the Mt. Everest of them against her. The fact that so many lies have been made about Dr. Ford indicates how big a POS Kavanaugh was. It was that necessary to marshall the the entire rightwing puke-o-sphere of lying to come to his aid.
I guess that's why she claimed she we could be unable to make the earlier time for the hearing because it would have taken her to long to drive across the country.
Where do you get this shit? Nevermind. We know: Rightwing pukefunnel
Of course she neither said nor even implied anything of the kind. At one point she had hoped that her testimony could be given in California so she wouldn't have to fly but admitted that that was "unrealistic."
When lies have to be in such constant use it sure makes your "case" look bad but then again.....
While Dr. Ford has no history whatsoever of lying either under oath or not including everything she's said to this day, Scumbag Kavanaugh has quite string of the practice going back at least 15 years whether he's been under oath or not:
All Of Brett Kavanaugh's Lies
He isn't just unfit to be any kind of judge at any level, he's the very epitome of un fitness for any position of trust. He's on the SC for one purpose only: to protect his Scumbag patron, the POS-POTUS.
Yup that's the only reason they rammed through this drunken raping over-privileged partisan piece of shit.
Wow, Tess. Your dialectic is in top form today.
Fortunately the rest of the country ignores the smear campaign of the radical left and is proud to have this outstanding American Jurist as the newest member of the Supreme Court.
You stay right in that bubble, hermetically sealed off from all reality.
Seems some have no problems with the amoral pussy grabber groper sexual assaulter amoral serial adulterer porn star banger in chief along with his get out of jail free card Bart Boozy Rapist O'Kavanaugh. Such as the evangelicals and 'pastors'