Christine Ford - The facts and their weight

[jc456]

Mark Judge and PJ should be subpoenaed and testify that it never happened. Totally destroy her on the stand.

didn't they already do that?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

It's very telling how desperately the cult are trying to make excuses, using all the same old mysogynistic arguments.

She was drunk.
She's a slut.
She wanted it.
She's too stupid to know what was happening.
It's not sexual assault it's just boys being boys.

 

[jc456]

You should probably read her yearbook and she should have gotten her story straight...more holes than swiss cheese

Oh yes, the bitch got drunk at times, so she deserved to be sexually assaulted eventually.

If she was drunk at the time, it doesn't excuse his behavior but it also might cloud her memory of what may have happened. I believe she believes this happened, I am not sure if her memory is correct.

dude if she was drunk, then she has no credible story. and you should change your statement to 'it doesn't excuse behavior by anyone" he hasn't been found guilty of anything, you presented him as such. you're in error.

 

[iceberg]

It's very telling how desperately the cult are trying to make excuses, using all the same old mysogynistic arguments.

She was drunk.
She's a slut.
She wanted it.
She's too stupid to know what was happening.
It's not sexual assault it's just boys being boys.

if the left wants to start a smear campaign, put your righteous indignation away when it comes back at you.

 

[Pop23]

Remember that this guy is been nominated for a lifetime position that will give him immense power over female Americans, whose rights are in jeopardy. It's not as if he is nominated for dog catcher. This is a serious matter.

Given what is known about this good buddy of his, Mark Judge, including writing a book in which, among other things, he advocated hitting women and bossing them around, it brings to mind that phrase "the company you keep," He seems to be quite a shady character.

Kavanaugh classmate Mark Judge details parties in writings - CNNPolitics

There is no need to rush this matter. I hope that Dr. Ford testifies. I also hope that Mark Judge is called to testify under oath.

so? what did he do?

He was mentioned as being present. He also was Kavanaugh's buddy. "The company you keep." All I said was that he should appear as a witness, not be arrested.

He was mentioned and denied it. Next line on the report would be where it happened. And “I don’t know” is not acceptable in filing a report

 

[jc456]

It's very telling how desperately the cult are trying to make excuses, using all the same old mysogynistic arguments.

She was drunk.
She's a slut.
She wanted it.
She's too stupid to know what was happening.
It's not sexual assault it's just boys being boys.

well let's look at her facts we know,

She's a slut.
she admits being in a house with four boys as the only girl. hmmmm telling.

She was drunk.
she says there was liquor there. hmmmm telling

She wanted it.
she never reported any mischief from the day she was there, hmmmmm telling

She's too stupid to know what was happening.
She can't remember anything about the day, hmmmmm telling.

Yep, I'd say she told us all we needed to know. nice list.

 

[Lysistrata]

I believe Ford. The facts are pretty convincing and support her credibility. I am listing the facts, and scoring them for their probative value on a 1 - 5 scale.


Revealed the attack in 2012 - 5
There would be no reason for her to make up this story in 2012. She stated then that the two individuals involved had become prominent members of Washington society, and that is true for Kavanaugh and Judge.

Revealed Kavanaugh's name in 2012 - 2
That she revealed the name only to her husband drastically reduces the impact of this piece of information. We can't ignore the possibility that her husband is willing to lie to support her. But we also cannot discount his statements simply because he is her husband. If there were potential for some kind of tangible benefit for this couple to gain, I would score this a "1", but any possible benefit to be gained would be several steps removed, at best.

Anonymous July letter - 3
Anyone can submit an anonymous letter and say anything. In and of itself it doesn't mean much, and by itself it wouldn't doing much with. But what is significant here is that Ford is not, in any way, trying to launch a last minute torpedo to delay Kavanaugh's confirmation. She submitted an "FYI" letter to inform her Senator, but she didn't want to be in the spotlight. Feinstein's office probably handled this in a very partisan way, playing political games. But that is no reflection on Ford's credibility. Ford only came forward after the letter was leaked and made public.

Going into hiding - 3
In conjunction with the previous point, it is pretty clear that Ford is looking for 15 minutes of fame. To the contrary, she would rather stay out of the spotlight. She didn't have to step forward and reveal herself, and she doesn't like being in the spotlight, but she's done it anyway. What we're seeing is much more consistent with a sexual assault victim who is struggling for the strength to speak out, than a partisan who is making salacious lies. This doesn't speak directly to the veracity of her claims. But her reluctance to testify is consistent with the fact that she hadn't wanted to come forward in the first place, which supports her credibility.

Request for FBI, other investigations - 4
While not wanting to testify in front of the entire nation, she has said that she would want the FBI to investigate. This would be consistent with a sexual assault victim who longs for privacy. But perhaps more importantly, it would open her up to legal liability. And that fully neutralizes the suggestions by some that her reluctance to testify her way of trying to avoid perjury.

Classmate claims to have known about incident - 1
Contemporary knowledge of the incident would be a powerfully convincing fact. If what this classmate is saying is true, it's devastating and puts seals the deal. However, much more is needed before it can be afforded significant weight. As it stands now, this classmate could easily be lying and just trying to tip the scales for partisan reasons. This classmate suggests that the incident became general knowledge among much of the student body. So we should be able to expect there to be other classmates who would also remember hearing about the incident. If others come forward, this point could become strong enough to eliminate all doubt. Until then, it is a very weak piece of evidence. Especially because every indication from Ford thus far is that she kept the incident secret out of embarrassment.

As far as number 4 goes, you people conveniently ignore the fact that the statute of limitations has long since expired therefore as far as the legal system is concerned there is no victim and no crime to investigate

This is a congressional hearing on a judicial nomination, not a criminal proceeding in a court of law. What is at issue is the character of the nominee, which includes whether he would have a bias on the bench.

 

[2aguy]

well I've always heard someone drunk doesn't have full recognition of their thoughts. so how can she remember if she was drunk?

Who said that she was drunk when this happened?

she didn't know how she got to the party
she didn't know who's house it was
she doesn't recall what year it happened
she doesn't know how she got home

give me a better reason for why all this is true.

You don't know any of those things. Made up garbage simply because not every detail was in the letter.

And they had to scrub the Year Book from the Girl's Prep School...because of the references to the girls going to drunken parties...

Fast times at Holton-Arms High when Christine Blasey Ford was a student there

The blog Cult of the First Amendment says:

On Monday Sept. 17th, Christine Blasey Ford's high school yearbooks suddenly disappeared from the web. I read them days before, knew they would be scrubbed, and saved them. Why did I know they would be scrubbed? Because if roles were reversed, and Christine Blasey Ford had been nominated for the Supreme Court by President Trump, the headline by the resistance would be this:

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AND THE DRUNKEN WHITE PRIVILEGED RACIST PLAYGIRLS OF HOLTON-ARMS.

And it would be an accurate headline. That's why the yearbooks have been scrubbed. They are a testament to the incredible power these girls had over their teachers, parents and the boys of Georgetown Prep, Landon and other schools in the area. In the pages below, you will see multiple photos and references to binge drinking and the accompanying joy of not being able to remember any of it
----------

These yearbooks are, therefore, relevant to the national investigation now being conducted in the media, in homes, and in the halls of Congress. And they should not have been scrubbed. If Brett Kavanaugh's yearbooks are fair game, so are these.

And you will wonder while reading them, why the hell did the faculty approve of these yearbooks? Why did the parents take out paid ads in these yearbooks? Animal House had nothing on the infamous "Holton party scene".

The resistance media has been singularly focused on Brett Kavanaugh's high school yearbooks, which imply that he got drunk and threw up. There's no need to imply anything from the Holton-Arms yearbooks. It's all there in focus, and the written word too. All of the sordid details as approved for publication by a "look the other way" faculty. And now it's available for historical/evidentiary review.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I believe Ford. The facts are pretty convincing and support her credibility. I am listing the facts, and scoring them for their probative value on a 1 - 5 scale.


Revealed the attack in 2012 - 5
There would be no reason for her to make up this story in 2012. She stated then that the two individuals involved had become prominent members of Washington society, and that is true for Kavanaugh and Judge.

Revealed Kavanaugh's name in 2012 - 2
That she revealed the name only to her husband drastically reduces the impact of this piece of information. We can't ignore the possibility that her husband is willing to lie to support her. But we also cannot discount his statements simply because he is her husband. If there were potential for some kind of tangible benefit for this couple to gain, I would score this a "1", but any possible benefit to be gained would be several steps removed, at best.

Anonymous July letter - 3
Anyone can submit an anonymous letter and say anything. In and of itself it doesn't mean much, and by itself it wouldn't doing much with. But what is significant here is that Ford is not, in any way, trying to launch a last minute torpedo to delay Kavanaugh's confirmation. She submitted an "FYI" letter to inform her Senator, but she didn't want to be in the spotlight. Feinstein's office probably handled this in a very partisan way, playing political games. But that is no reflection on Ford's credibility. Ford only came forward after the letter was leaked and made public.

Going into hiding - 3
In conjunction with the previous point, it is pretty clear that Ford is looking for 15 minutes of fame. To the contrary, she would rather stay out of the spotlight. She didn't have to step forward and reveal herself, and she doesn't like being in the spotlight, but she's done it anyway. What we're seeing is much more consistent with a sexual assault victim who is struggling for the strength to speak out, than a partisan who is making salacious lies. This doesn't speak directly to the veracity of her claims. But her reluctance to testify is consistent with the fact that she hadn't wanted to come forward in the first place, which supports her credibility.

Request for FBI, other investigations - 4
While not wanting to testify in front of the entire nation, she has said that she would want the FBI to investigate. This would be consistent with a sexual assault victim who longs for privacy. But perhaps more importantly, it would open her up to legal liability. And that fully neutralizes the suggestions by some that her reluctance to testify her way of trying to avoid perjury.

Classmate claims to have known about incident - 1
Contemporary knowledge of the incident would be a powerfully convincing fact. If what this classmate is saying is true, it's devastating and puts seals the deal. However, much more is needed before it can be afforded significant weight. As it stands now, this classmate could easily be lying and just trying to tip the scales for partisan reasons. This classmate suggests that the incident became general knowledge among much of the student body. So we should be able to expect there to be other classmates who would also remember hearing about the incident. If others come forward, this point could become strong enough to eliminate all doubt. Until then, it is a very weak piece of evidence. Especially because every indication from Ford thus far is that she kept the incident secret out of embarrassment.

As far as number 4 goes, you people conveniently ignore the fact that the statute of limitations has long since expired therefore as far as the legal system is concerned there is no victim and no crime to investigate

This is a congressional hearing on a judicial nomination, not a criminal proceeding in a court of law. What is at issue is the character of the nominee, which includes whether he would have a bias on the bench.

Really?

If this guy was a predator I would think there would be more incidents to point at than one from 40 Years ago where a high school girl who admitted drinking at the time said she was groped

 

[2aguy]

I believe Ford. The facts are pretty convincing and support her credibility. I am listing the facts, and scoring them for their probative value on a 1 - 5 scale.


Revealed the attack in 2012 - 5
There would be no reason for her to make up this story in 2012. She stated then that the two individuals involved had become prominent members of Washington society, and that is true for Kavanaugh and Judge.

Revealed Kavanaugh's name in 2012 - 2
That she revealed the name only to her husband drastically reduces the impact of this piece of information. We can't ignore the possibility that her husband is willing to lie to support her. But we also cannot discount his statements simply because he is her husband. If there were potential for some kind of tangible benefit for this couple to gain, I would score this a "1", but any possible benefit to be gained would be several steps removed, at best.

Anonymous July letter - 3
Anyone can submit an anonymous letter and say anything. In and of itself it doesn't mean much, and by itself it wouldn't doing much with. But what is significant here is that Ford is not, in any way, trying to launch a last minute torpedo to delay Kavanaugh's confirmation. She submitted an "FYI" letter to inform her Senator, but she didn't want to be in the spotlight. Feinstein's office probably handled this in a very partisan way, playing political games. But that is no reflection on Ford's credibility. Ford only came forward after the letter was leaked and made public.

Going into hiding - 3
In conjunction with the previous point, it is pretty clear that Ford is looking for 15 minutes of fame. To the contrary, she would rather stay out of the spotlight. She didn't have to step forward and reveal herself, and she doesn't like being in the spotlight, but she's done it anyway. What we're seeing is much more consistent with a sexual assault victim who is struggling for the strength to speak out, than a partisan who is making salacious lies. This doesn't speak directly to the veracity of her claims. But her reluctance to testify is consistent with the fact that she hadn't wanted to come forward in the first place, which supports her credibility.

Request for FBI, other investigations - 4
While not wanting to testify in front of the entire nation, she has said that she would want the FBI to investigate. This would be consistent with a sexual assault victim who longs for privacy. But perhaps more importantly, it would open her up to legal liability. And that fully neutralizes the suggestions by some that her reluctance to testify her way of trying to avoid perjury.

Classmate claims to have known about incident - 1
Contemporary knowledge of the incident would be a powerfully convincing fact. If what this classmate is saying is true, it's devastating and puts seals the deal. However, much more is needed before it can be afforded significant weight. As it stands now, this classmate could easily be lying and just trying to tip the scales for partisan reasons. This classmate suggests that the incident became general knowledge among much of the student body. So we should be able to expect there to be other classmates who would also remember hearing about the incident. If others come forward, this point could become strong enough to eliminate all doubt. Until then, it is a very weak piece of evidence. Especially because every indication from Ford thus far is that she kept the incident secret out of embarrassment.

As far as number 4 goes, you people conveniently ignore the fact that the statute of limitations has long since expired therefore as far as the legal system is concerned there is no victim and no crime to investigate

This is a congressional hearing on a judicial nomination, not a criminal proceeding in a court of law. What is at issue is the character of the nominee, which includes whether he would have a bias on the bench.

And yet there is nothing to her allegations that she can prove.......

 

[Pop23]

Remember that this guy is been nominated for a lifetime position that will give him immense power over female Americans, whose rights are in jeopardy. It's not as if he is nominated for dog catcher. This is a serious matter.

Given what is known about this good buddy of his, Mark Judge, including writing a book in which, among other things, he advocated hitting women and bossing them around, it brings to mind that phrase "the company you keep," He seems to be quite a shady character.

Kavanaugh classmate Mark Judge details parties in writings - CNNPolitics

There is no need to rush this matter. I hope that Dr. Ford testifies. I also hope that Mark Judge is called to testify under oath.

Are you under the mistaken impression that, because Mark’s last name is Judge, he is being confirmed?

It appears that way, and it also appears you’re a complete idiot.

WTF??? It appears that you have a reading-comprehension problem.

No, I read fine. Using one of Kav’s classmates (IN HIGH SCHOOL) to impinge his steller reputation is repulsive.

I heard a rumor that a friend of yours in high school ate baby puppies live. So that makes you a horrible person!

See how that works?

I take great pride in being better than that. Too bad you don’t.

 

[Pop23]

I believe Ford. The facts are pretty convincing and support her credibility. I am listing the facts, and scoring them for their probative value on a 1 - 5 scale.


Revealed the attack in 2012 - 5
There would be no reason for her to make up this story in 2012. She stated then that the two individuals involved had become prominent members of Washington society, and that is true for Kavanaugh and Judge.

Revealed Kavanaugh's name in 2012 - 2
That she revealed the name only to her husband drastically reduces the impact of this piece of information. We can't ignore the possibility that her husband is willing to lie to support her. But we also cannot discount his statements simply because he is her husband. If there were potential for some kind of tangible benefit for this couple to gain, I would score this a "1", but any possible benefit to be gained would be several steps removed, at best.

Anonymous July letter - 3
Anyone can submit an anonymous letter and say anything. In and of itself it doesn't mean much, and by itself it wouldn't doing much with. But what is significant here is that Ford is not, in any way, trying to launch a last minute torpedo to delay Kavanaugh's confirmation. She submitted an "FYI" letter to inform her Senator, but she didn't want to be in the spotlight. Feinstein's office probably handled this in a very partisan way, playing political games. But that is no reflection on Ford's credibility. Ford only came forward after the letter was leaked and made public.

Going into hiding - 3
In conjunction with the previous point, it is pretty clear that Ford is looking for 15 minutes of fame. To the contrary, she would rather stay out of the spotlight. She didn't have to step forward and reveal herself, and she doesn't like being in the spotlight, but she's done it anyway. What we're seeing is much more consistent with a sexual assault victim who is struggling for the strength to speak out, than a partisan who is making salacious lies. This doesn't speak directly to the veracity of her claims. But her reluctance to testify is consistent with the fact that she hadn't wanted to come forward in the first place, which supports her credibility.

Request for FBI, other investigations - 4
While not wanting to testify in front of the entire nation, she has said that she would want the FBI to investigate. This would be consistent with a sexual assault victim who longs for privacy. But perhaps more importantly, it would open her up to legal liability. And that fully neutralizes the suggestions by some that her reluctance to testify her way of trying to avoid perjury.

Classmate claims to have known about incident - 1
Contemporary knowledge of the incident would be a powerfully convincing fact. If what this classmate is saying is true, it's devastating and puts seals the deal. However, much more is needed before it can be afforded significant weight. As it stands now, this classmate could easily be lying and just trying to tip the scales for partisan reasons. This classmate suggests that the incident became general knowledge among much of the student body. So we should be able to expect there to be other classmates who would also remember hearing about the incident. If others come forward, this point could become strong enough to eliminate all doubt. Until then, it is a very weak piece of evidence. Especially because every indication from Ford thus far is that she kept the incident secret out of embarrassment.

As far as number 4 goes, you people conveniently ignore the fact that the statute of limitations has long since expired therefore as far as the legal system is concerned there is no victim and no crime to investigate

This is a congressional hearing on a judicial nomination, not a criminal proceeding in a court of law. What is at issue is the character of the nominee, which includes whether he would have a bias on the bench.

Really?

If this guy was a predator I would think there would be more incidents to point at than one from 40 Years ago where a high school girl who admitted drinking at the time said she was groped

BINGO

 

[jc456]

I believe Ford. The facts are pretty convincing and support her credibility. I am listing the facts, and scoring them for their probative value on a 1 - 5 scale.


Revealed the attack in 2012 - 5
There would be no reason for her to make up this story in 2012. She stated then that the two individuals involved had become prominent members of Washington society, and that is true for Kavanaugh and Judge.

Revealed Kavanaugh's name in 2012 - 2
That she revealed the name only to her husband drastically reduces the impact of this piece of information. We can't ignore the possibility that her husband is willing to lie to support her. But we also cannot discount his statements simply because he is her husband. If there were potential for some kind of tangible benefit for this couple to gain, I would score this a "1", but any possible benefit to be gained would be several steps removed, at best.

Anonymous July letter - 3
Anyone can submit an anonymous letter and say anything. In and of itself it doesn't mean much, and by itself it wouldn't doing much with. But what is significant here is that Ford is not, in any way, trying to launch a last minute torpedo to delay Kavanaugh's confirmation. She submitted an "FYI" letter to inform her Senator, but she didn't want to be in the spotlight. Feinstein's office probably handled this in a very partisan way, playing political games. But that is no reflection on Ford's credibility. Ford only came forward after the letter was leaked and made public.

Going into hiding - 3
In conjunction with the previous point, it is pretty clear that Ford is looking for 15 minutes of fame. To the contrary, she would rather stay out of the spotlight. She didn't have to step forward and reveal herself, and she doesn't like being in the spotlight, but she's done it anyway. What we're seeing is much more consistent with a sexual assault victim who is struggling for the strength to speak out, than a partisan who is making salacious lies. This doesn't speak directly to the veracity of her claims. But her reluctance to testify is consistent with the fact that she hadn't wanted to come forward in the first place, which supports her credibility.

Request for FBI, other investigations - 4
While not wanting to testify in front of the entire nation, she has said that she would want the FBI to investigate. This would be consistent with a sexual assault victim who longs for privacy. But perhaps more importantly, it would open her up to legal liability. And that fully neutralizes the suggestions by some that her reluctance to testify her way of trying to avoid perjury.

Classmate claims to have known about incident - 1
Contemporary knowledge of the incident would be a powerfully convincing fact. If what this classmate is saying is true, it's devastating and puts seals the deal. However, much more is needed before it can be afforded significant weight. As it stands now, this classmate could easily be lying and just trying to tip the scales for partisan reasons. This classmate suggests that the incident became general knowledge among much of the student body. So we should be able to expect there to be other classmates who would also remember hearing about the incident. If others come forward, this point could become strong enough to eliminate all doubt. Until then, it is a very weak piece of evidence. Especially because every indication from Ford thus far is that she kept the incident secret out of embarrassment.

As far as number 4 goes, you people conveniently ignore the fact that the statute of limitations has long since expired therefore as far as the legal system is concerned there is no victim and no crime to investigate

This is a congressional hearing on a judicial nomination, not a criminal proceeding in a court of law. What is at issue is the character of the nominee, which includes whether he would have a bias on the bench.

And yet there is nothing to her allegations that she can prove.......

proof, they don't need no stink'n proof, if they said so it fking happened and gd damn if you don't believe them then you are old white guys and should shut up!!!

 

[Papageorgio]

You should probably read her yearbook and she should have gotten her story straight...more holes than swiss cheese

Oh yes, the bitch got drunk at times, so she deserved to be sexually assaulted eventually.

If she was drunk at the time, it doesn't excuse his behavior but it also might cloud her memory of what may have happened. I believe she believes this happened, I am not sure if her memory is correct.

dude if she was drunk, then she has no credible story. and you should change your statement to 'it doesn't excuse behavior by anyone" he hasn't been found guilty of anything, you presented him as such. you're in error.

I have said all along innocent until proven guilty, so I stand by what I said, sorry you misinterpret it.

 

[jc456]

You should probably read her yearbook and she should have gotten her story straight...more holes than swiss cheese

Oh yes, the bitch got drunk at times, so she deserved to be sexually assaulted eventually.

If she was drunk at the time, it doesn't excuse his behavior but it also might cloud her memory of what may have happened. I believe she believes this happened, I am not sure if her memory is correct.

dude if she was drunk, then she has no credible story. and you should change your statement to 'it doesn't excuse behavior by anyone" he hasn't been found guilty of anything, you presented him as such. you're in error.

I have said all along innocent until proven guilty, so I stand by what I said, sorry you misinterpret it.

but your statement states he did it.

 

[Lysistrata]

There is no time limit here. Why the rush?

Unfortunately, there is no precedent for a Supreme Court justice to be removed from the bench for bias. For example, Scalia was blatantly biased and decided cases based on his personal religious views and got away with it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Request for FBI, other investigations - 4
While not wanting to testify in front of the entire nation, she has said that she would want the FBI to investigate. This would be consistent with a sexual assault victim who longs for privacy. But perhaps more importantly, it would open her up to legal liability. And that fully neutralizes the suggestions by some that her reluctance to testify her way of trying to avoid perjury.

Purely a delay tactic, which is the overall objective. They believe they can get the Senate back from the GOP, and they want to force a commie onto the Court, because that is their last communist hope.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Mark Judge and PJ should be subpoenaed and testify that it never happened. Totally destroy her on the stand.

didn't they already do that?

No. They were interviewed but not questioned under oath and in public.

 

[jc456]

Mark Judge and PJ should be subpoenaed and testify that it never happened. Totally destroy her on the stand.

didn't they already do that?

No. They were interviewed but not questioned under oath and in public.

nor should they until she goes under oath first. If she doesn't, there is no further need for any effort on this. It gets thrown out. And i want a note in his record that he was a victim of a character assassination and the suspect was Ford.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Ford won't allow herself to be questioned. She cannot articulate a single fact.