Brett Kavanaugh saga unfolding

[vooke]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-01/rachel-mitchell-memo-highlights-weaknesses-ford-testimony

If Scribd troubles you just grab it here;
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1F-48wkMLgxvnqTeppVD8ziZooei-TtRX

She said he said is guaranteed, because they won't make relevant witnesses(both corroborating and exonerating) show up and be questioned.  They literally don't want to know the truth.  It's bad political optics.  As for Rachel Mitchell, it's not surprising that she would exonerate Kavanaugh.  That is her job.  She is not neutral.  I don't think any sensible person was waiting for her to tell them what did or did not happen. 

They wouldn't have brought her on if they thought she was neutral and interested in finding out anything other than their version of the truth.  She was their proxy, to prevent old white men from looking bad questioning a victim.  This report, is consistent with that contract.  It might as well have been written and signed by Chuck Grassley.  She is a prop.

This particular case has nothing approaching a smoking gun.  Everybody agrees with that.  I have heard that, contrary to popular belief, most such cases don't.  Sex assault is one of the more private crimes.  You are left to rely on peripheral things like who is credible and who tells lies at every potentially adverse mention and indirect corroboration, who has the most to gain/lose etc.

Of course she is biased but we would be naive to pretend that Ford has no agenda of her own. Her act was highly polished like she was determined to be believed and not just confront her abuser. If we can look beyond her motives and focus on facts such as her account matching Brett's calendar, then we should give Mitchell the same benefit of doubt

I read Mitchell's memo and what came out was Ford's moving testimony is not exactly watertight as I had thought. I was not keen piecing up all the trinklets she dropped along her way to the hearing so I'm getting them first from Mitchell.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Of course she is biased but we would be naive to pretend that Ford has no agenda of her own. Her act was highly polished like she was determined to be believed and not just confront her abuser. If we can look beyond her motives and focus on facts such as her account matching Brett's calendar, then we should give Mitchell the same benefit of doubt

I read Mitchell's memo and what came out was Ford's moving testimony is not exactly watertight as I had thought. I was not keen piecing up all the trinklets she dropped along her way to the hearing so I'm getting them first from Mitchell.

It seems the worst Mitchell has is the fact that Ford's narrative has been told in bits and drabs.  Kind of like a poor story teller.  That some detail is in it now that was not in before.  To me, that just makes her story that more authentic.  You can add.  But you cannot change.  That is how truthful people generally converse.  Making corrections(that do not break the narrative) on the fly.  Like someone recalling an actual event.  She is not averse to digging deeper into her own recollections even under interrogation on national TV. 

It's pretty rich but also par for the course for Mitchell to claim Kavanaugh is exonerated.  She is not just biased.  She was paid to make that conclusion.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Apparently Kavanaugh knew about the Debra Ramirez dick-slapping allegations before they were made public.  Not just that but he also exchanged messages with potential witnesses on how to counter them.  Then he lied to Congress under oath that he only learned about them when they were reported in the New Yorker.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566

[KenyanPlato]

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-10-01/kavanaugh-college-visit-to-bar-erupted-in-fight-classmate-says-jmqwga1s?__twitter_impression=true

[gout]

Seems guys hated this Kavanaugh in college thus more mates will emerge with all sort of stories to get back at him - quite he was/is white. They will smear him. Science has shown that witnesses recollections even hours later are largely useless bullshit and when over-relied they send clueless innocent guys into jail. But in times of moral panic times believe the victim and memory reigns supreme nonsense will destroy you in court of public opinion.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36493/5-signs-youre-midst-moral-panic-ashe-schow

These cases being filed after decades will definitely work against the victims of rape as powerful conservative men start fighting back.

[Georgesoros]

Seems guys hated this Kavanaugh in college thus more mates will emerge with all sort of stories to get back at him - quite he was/is white. They will smear him. Science has shown that witnesses recollections even hours later are largely useless bullshit and when over-relied they send clueless innocent guys into jail. But in times of moral panic times believe the victim and memory reigns supreme nonsense will destroy you in court of public opinion.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36493/5-signs-youre-midst-moral-panic-ashe-schow

These cases being filed after decades will definitely work against the victims of rape as powerful conservative men start fighting back.

Record keeping in USA is impecable. A report filed in 1965 is still in police records.
So your argument is that all this is false? Will you say the same about catholic priests?

[Dear Mami]

Apparently Kavanaugh knew about the Debra Ramirez dick-slapping allegations before they were made public.  Not just that but he also exchanged messages with potential witnesses on how to counter them.  Then he lied to Congress under oath that he only learned about them when they were reported in the New Yorker.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566

Yeah this caught my attention. Would change the story for me. But I understand he already said on September 25th that he had heard from classmates that Ramirez was going round classmates asking them to remember the event and that he thought it was trying to implant false memories in an ochestrated hit. So, a discrepancy sure. But when I first heard it I thought of a more damning scenario than that. I thought it was Kavanaugh's own messages. But it's messages between two of his classmates who were friends with both him and Ramirez. One of them says to the other that Bret has asked her to publicly defend him. Another mentions that she's in contact with Bret's guys. That gives a slightly different picture than you first get when you hear of exchanged text messages and talking to witnesses. I've heard of one where he was looking for a photo from a decade before showing him and Ramirez and one of the ladies says to him she remember Ramirez being scared of him. I'm not sure if that part includes Kavanaugh's own text messages. The NBC has the texts, though, I hope they publish them. Would be very interesting. http://uk.businessinsider.com/did-brett-kavanaugh-commit-perjury-testimony-new-yorker-article-deborah-ramirez-2018-10?r=US&IR=T

[Dear Mami]

Seems guys hated this Kavanaugh in college thus more mates will emerge with all sort of stories to get back at him - quite he was/is white. They will smear him. Science has shown that witnesses recollections even hours later are largely useless bullshit and when over-relied they send clueless innocent guys into jail. But in times of moral panic times believe the victim and memory reigns supreme nonsense will destroy you in court of public opinion.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36493/5-signs-youre-midst-moral-panic-ashe-schow

These cases being filed after decades will definitely work against the victims of rape as powerful conservative men start fighting back.

Record keeping in USA is impecable. A report filed in 1965 is still in police records.
So your argument is that all this is false? Will you say the same about catholic priests?

The thing is, though, it's not exactly the same. In those decades old clergy abuse cases, you find the victim complained to someone at or near the time it happened and was suppressed or not believed. The difficulty with Dr. Ford's case is that the very first time someone else heard about it was 2012. That happens a lot because of the shame. But in those cases it's harder to prove, especially if it is a lone incident.

[vooke]

Of course she is biased but we would be naive to pretend that Ford has no agenda of her own. Her act was highly polished like she was determined to be believed and not just confront her abuser. If we can look beyond her motives and focus on facts such as her account matching Brett's calendar, then we should give Mitchell the same benefit of doubt

I read Mitchell's memo and what came out was Ford's moving testimony is not exactly watertight as I had thought. I was not keen piecing up all the trinklets she dropped along her way to the hearing so I'm getting them first from Mitchell.

It seems the worst Mitchell has is the fact that Ford's narrative has been told in bits and drabs.  Kind of like a poor story teller.  That some detail is in it now that was not in before.  To me, that just makes her story that more authentic.  You can add.  But you cannot change.  That is how truthful people generally converse.  Making corrections(that do not break the narrative) on the fly.  Like someone recalling an actual event.  She is not averse to digging deeper into her own recollections even under interrogation on national TV. 

It's pretty rich but also par for the course for Mitchell to claim Kavanaugh is exonerated.  She is not just biased.  She was paid to make that conclusion.

She did a good job...Mitchell that is

[vooke]

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-10-01/kavanaugh-college-visit-to-bar-erupted-in-fight-classmate-says-jmqwga1s?__twitter_impression=true

If the most dirt on Kavanaugh is 36 year old teenage indiscretions, maybe he deserves it

[Kichwa]

Yeah! she did a good job for the rethuglicans and her political career is now much brighter.  Its not going to be long before we see her running for a national or state office on the rethuglican ticket. This is how political careers are built.

Of course she is biased but we would be naive to pretend that Ford has no agenda of her own. Her act was highly polished like she was determined to be believed and not just confront her abuser. If we can look beyond her motives and focus on facts such as her account matching Brett's calendar, then we should give Mitchell the same benefit of doubt

I read Mitchell's memo and what came out was Ford's moving testimony is not exactly watertight as I had thought. I was not keen piecing up all the trinklets she dropped along her way to the hearing so I'm getting them first from Mitchell.

It seems the worst Mitchell has is the fact that Ford's narrative has been told in bits and drabs.  Kind of like a poor story teller.  That some detail is in it now that was not in before.  To me, that just makes her story that more authentic.  You can add.  But you cannot change.  That is how truthful people generally converse.  Making corrections(that do not break the narrative) on the fly.  Like someone recalling an actual event.  She is not averse to digging deeper into her own recollections even under interrogation on national TV. 

It's pretty rich but also par for the course for Mitchell to claim Kavanaugh is exonerated.  She is not just biased.  She was paid to make that conclusion.

She did a good job...Mitchell that is

[vooke]

Yeah! she did a good job for the rethuglicans and her political career is now much brighter.  Its not going to be long before we see her running for a national or state office on the rethuglican ticket. This is how political careers are built.

Of course she is biased but we would be naive to pretend that Ford has no agenda of her own. Her act was highly polished like she was determined to be believed and not just confront her abuser. If we can look beyond her motives and focus on facts such as her account matching Brett's calendar, then we should give Mitchell the same benefit of doubt

I read Mitchell's memo and what came out was Ford's moving testimony is not exactly watertight as I had thought. I was not keen piecing up all the trinklets she dropped along her way to the hearing so I'm getting them first from Mitchell.

It seems the worst Mitchell has is the fact that Ford's narrative has been told in bits and drabs.  Kind of like a poor story teller.  That some detail is in it now that was not in before.  To me, that just makes her story that more authentic.  You can add.  But you cannot change.  That is how truthful people generally converse.  Making corrections(that do not break the narrative) on the fly.  Like someone recalling an actual event.  She is not averse to digging deeper into her own recollections even under interrogation on national TV. 

It's pretty rich but also par for the course for Mitchell to claim Kavanaugh is exonerated.  She is not just biased.  She was paid to make that conclusion.

She did a good job...Mitchell that is

[Kichwa]

The rethuglicans want to have it both ways.  They say they believe Ms. Ford and yet they still want to confirm Kavanagh.  This is a job interview and not prosecution. If I am hiring a babysitter and someone credibly tells me that the candidate molested children 30 years ago, there is no way in hell I would hire such a person. Nobody in their right mind would.

Yeah! she did a good job for the rethuglicans and her political career is now much brighter.  Its not going to be long before we see her running for a national or state office on the rethuglican ticket. This is how political careers are built.

Of course she is biased but we would be naive to pretend that Ford has no agenda of her own. Her act was highly polished like she was determined to be believed and not just confront her abuser. If we can look beyond her motives and focus on facts such as her account matching Brett's calendar, then we should give Mitchell the same benefit of doubt

I read Mitchell's memo and what came out was Ford's moving testimony is not exactly watertight as I had thought. I was not keen piecing up all the trinklets she dropped along her way to the hearing so I'm getting them first from Mitchell.

It seems the worst Mitchell has is the fact that Ford's narrative has been told in bits and drabs.  Kind of like a poor story teller.  That some detail is in it now that was not in before.  To me, that just makes her story that more authentic.  You can add.  But you cannot change.  That is how truthful people generally converse.  Making corrections(that do not break the narrative) on the fly.  Like someone recalling an actual event.  She is not averse to digging deeper into her own recollections even under interrogation on national TV. 

It's pretty rich but also par for the course for Mitchell to claim Kavanaugh is exonerated.  She is not just biased.  She was paid to make that conclusion.

She did a good job...Mitchell that is

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

The rethuglicans want to have it both ways.  They say they believe Ms. Ford and yet they still want to confirm Kavanagh.  This is a job interview and not prosecution. If I am hiring a babysitter and someone credibly tells me that the candidate molested children 30 years ago, there is no way in hell I would hire such a person. Nobody in their right mind would.

Rachel did not get that memo apparently.  Prosecutors routinely shelve cases whose facts they know to be true, but the available evidence cannot meet the standards required for conviction.  The notion that a prosecutor can definitively clear Kavanaugh works well with the intended audience - the Trump supporter.

[Dear Mami]

I think people believe both of them because of their heartbreaking testimonies. It's hard to imagine Dr. Ford is a stone cold liar even if you think her case hasn't been proven. There's nothing in her demeanor to suggest it. If she was lying she'd have to be a sociopath without much of a conscience. A good portion of sexual assaults to minors are never reported because something about this crime, unlike others, induces shame in the victim. They don't all react with outrage and report it. Some turn it inwards and it becomes shame and never spoken about. I'm sure most victims go to their graves with it. Some outright block it out of their memory, especially if it happened near infancy, like 3 to 4 years old. While it is a job interview, for Kavanaugh its more than that. Guy is ruined. If its a case of mistaken identity and he's not confirmed, ole wake.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I think people believe both of them because of their heartbreaking testimonies. It's hard to imagine Dr. Ford is a stone cold liar even if you think her case hasn't been proven. There's nothing in her demeanor to suggest it. If she was lying she'd have to be a sociopath without much of a conscience. A good portion of sexual assaults to minors are never reported because something about this crime, unlike others, induces shame in the victim. They don't all react with outrage and report it. Some turn it inwards and it becomes shame and never spoken about. I'm sure most victims go to their graves with it. Some outright block it out of their memory, especially if it happened near infancy, like 3 to 4 years old. While it is a job interview, for Kavanaugh its more than that. Guy is ruined. If its a case of mistaken identity and he's not confirmed, ole wake.

The Kavanaugh we see today is middle aged, soft around the belly, a product of years behind a desk and plenty of beers obviously.  The Kavanaugh in the narrative is a varsity sport jock, lifting weights, playing cornerback.  If the narrative is true, he can easily pin the woman down like a toddler.  Now imagine his whole weight and drunken efforts at abuse.  That perspective makes it harder to for me sympathize with the person of Kavanaugh.  His children, that is a different story.

[Kichwa]

Even if one were to  find both of them credible (oxymoronic) then it should boil down to which one of two has more incentives to lie. The winner here is clearly Kavanaugh by a mile. Not only does he has more incentives to lie his, belligerent, combative-take no prisoners attitude is very consistent with a bad actor caught lying through his teeth. The contrast between Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford is so stark, its like truth and lie. His refusal to ask for the FBI investigation to clear his name was dispositive for me. There is a luo saying that loosely translates that "s/he who farted is ready to fight". Kavanough came ready to fight to the bitter end even if it meant splitting the baby into half,  while  Dr. Ford was literally ready to give up the baby from the time she entered the fray so long as the truth emerges by asking for more FBI investigations right away clearly not worried that the outcome.  I am not therefore going to sit on the fence on this one. I give this baby to Dr. Ford.

I think people believe both of them because of their heartbreaking testimonies. It's hard to imagine Dr. Ford is a stone cold liar even if you think her case hasn't been proven. There's nothing in her demeanor to suggest it. If she was lying she'd have to be a sociopath without much of a conscience. A good portion of sexual assaults to minors are never reported because something about this crime, unlike others, induces shame in the victim. They don't all react with outrage and report it. Some turn it inwards and it becomes shame and never spoken about. I'm sure most victims go to their graves with it. Some outright block it out of their memory, especially if it happened near infancy, like 3 to 4 years old. While it is a job interview, for Kavanaugh its more than that. Guy is ruined. If its a case of mistaken identity and he's not confirmed, ole wake.

[vooke]

Even if one were to  find both of them credible (oxymoronic) then it should boil down to which one of two has more incentives to lie. The winner here is clearly Kavanaugh by a mile. Not only does he has more incentives to lie his, belligerent, combative-take no prisoners attitude is very consistent with a bad actor caught lying through his teeth. The contrast between Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford is so stark, its like truth and lie. His refusal to ask for the FBI investigation to clear his name was dispositive for me. There is a luo saying that loosely translates that "s/he who farted is ready to fight". Kavanough came ready to fight to the bitter end even if it meant splitting the baby into half,  while  Dr. Ford was literally ready to give up the baby from the time she entered the fray so long as the truth emerges by asking for more FBI investigations right away clearly not worried that the outcome.  I am not therefore going to sit on the fence on this one. I give this baby to Dr. Ford.

I think people believe both of them because of their heartbreaking testimonies. It's hard to imagine Dr. Ford is a stone cold liar even if you think her case hasn't been proven. There's nothing in her demeanor to suggest it. If she was lying she'd have to be a sociopath without much of a conscience. A good portion of sexual assaults to minors are never reported because something about this crime, unlike others, induces shame in the victim. They don't all react with outrage and report it. Some turn it inwards and it becomes shame and never spoken about. I'm sure most victims go to their graves with it. Some outright block it out of their memory, especially if it happened near infancy, like 3 to 4 years old. While it is a job interview, for Kavanaugh its more than that. Guy is ruined. If its a case of mistaken identity and he's not confirmed, ole wake.

Who has more incentive to lie depends on what you believe about them

If you believe Ford is just another victim traumatized who suddenly gathered courage to confront her attacker,then she has every reason to be honest several times over Kavanaugh whom you believe to be a monster.

[GeeMail]

If indeed the felon referred to in Ford's testimony was actually the sporty, weight-lifting Kavanaugh 36 years ago, isn't it strange that in an atmosphere of rape and beer and young men generally giving approval she somehow managed to escape the assault without actual rape? Was she also sporty then? This is a missing detail that even if both sides are believable the FBI needs to look into. It's increasingly becoming clear that this is either a case of mistaken identity (Ford somehow admits being scarred by the event, so it is plausible the scars affected her memory of the persons involved). Kavanaugh just happens to be the right person at the wrong time because he has a calendar entry matching her event and he's been nominated to SCOTUS. Ford needs to collect herself and see if she can remember more. What she has produced so far is not convincing enough to nail Kavanaugh.

Let the man proceed to SCOTUS so the Catholic-domination and global agenda proceeds. Soon enough, the US of A will be singing the kinds of songs Wanjiku is singing of Jubilee. Unga prices up, inflation high, taxes up...

[Kichwa]

The motive for Kavanaugh to lie is more obvious.  All the motives so far ascribed to Dr. Ford for lying are bizarre, far fetched and people who believe in them also believe in UFO's.  She has been investigated to death by "rethuglican opposition research brigades" and believe me, if they had anything credible on her it would be out. The rethuglicans are ten times as ruthless in their opposition research as the baddest opposition research liberal. They are mean and they take no prisoners-just look back at what the "birthers" and how they were able to convice so many of their folks that Obama was not born in the USA.

Even if one were to  find both of them credible (oxymoronic) then it should boil down to which one of two has more incentives to lie. The winner here is clearly Kavanaugh by a mile. Not only does he has more incentives to lie his, belligerent, combative-take no prisoners attitude is very consistent with a bad actor caught lying through his teeth. The contrast between Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford is so stark, its like truth and lie. His refusal to ask for the FBI investigation to clear his name was dispositive for me. There is a luo saying that loosely translates that "s/he who farted is ready to fight". Kavanough came ready to fight to the bitter end even if it meant splitting the baby into half,  while  Dr. Ford was literally ready to give up the baby from the time she entered the fray so long as the truth emerges by asking for more FBI investigations right away clearly not worried that the outcome.  I am not therefore going to sit on the fence on this one. I give this baby to Dr. Ford.

I think people believe both of them because of their heartbreaking testimonies. It's hard to imagine Dr. Ford is a stone cold liar even if you think her case hasn't been proven. There's nothing in her demeanor to suggest it. If she was lying she'd have to be a sociopath without much of a conscience. A good portion of sexual assaults to minors are never reported because something about this crime, unlike others, induces shame in the victim. They don't all react with outrage and report it. Some turn it inwards and it becomes shame and never spoken about. I'm sure most victims go to their graves with it. Some outright block it out of their memory, especially if it happened near infancy, like 3 to 4 years old. While it is a job interview, for Kavanaugh its more than that. Guy is ruined. If its a case of mistaken identity and he's not confirmed, ole wake.

Who has more incentive to lie depends on what you believe about them

If you believe Ford is just another victim traumatized who suddenly gathered courage to confront her attacker,then she has every reason to be honest several times over Kavanaugh whom you believe to be a monster.