Text of Ford Opening Statement

[Weatherman2020]

If she was so "haunted" by something she alleges to have happened, why did she do such a great dis-service to women everywhere by not mentioning it until now?

Her motivation here is so apparent that even blind Stevie Wonder could see right through her BS.

On this board alone she's been called a slut, a liar, a whore, and accused of making the story up. Members of our board have insisted she should be charged with crimes and imprisoned. Every accusor who has joined her has received the same treatment.

You're literally demonstrating why most sexual assaults go unreported.

So why did she scrub her social media before coming out?

Who says she did?

And Democrats won’t release her letter of accusations.

The letter is are already public.

Read Christine Blasey Ford's letter detailing the alleged assault by Brett Kavanaugh

Again, who said she scrubbed her social media?

Link to her Facebook or Twitter account.

Question meet Answer.

 

[WEATHER53]

It will not be pleasing to watch this woman be turned into Stormy 2.0 but she brought it upon herself

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not only that, but emotionally-disturbed people can pass those tests, since they really believe what they're saying.

Truthful people also pass. Will Kavanaugh also take a polygraph?

So what good is a polygraph if liars and honest people can both pass the same test?

Ask the FBI, which frequently uses polygraphs in its security clearance process. What do they know about the utility of polygraph tests that you don't?

And if kavanaugh is telling the truth, he should easily pass. Yet all I hear are excuses why Kavanaugh shouldn't take a polygraph......after Ford already passed one.

Oh please, she demanded not to be asked any questions by lawyers. If she's so truthful, why was that one of her first requests?

And I bet she'd be running for the hill if she was asked to take a new polygraph test from an unbiased source with their questions.

Who has a prosecutor at a public Senate hearing?

Can you recall that before?

Who ever put an accused through a polygraph before at a Senate hearing?

You're so damn certain he is guilty and she is so innocent, but now support her not answering questions from lawyers.

 

[Skylar]

Seared into her memory but can’t remember basic details.

View attachment 218718

Twitter

"One evening that summer"

(stifles a laugh)

Geez, let's just write a grade-school style essay instead of a bona fide statement of facts.

And yet she passed a polygraph test given by a 20 year veteran of the FBI.

Polygraphs are not admissible as evidence. If polygraphs are not admissible evidence in trial court, then they shouldn't be here either. Polygraphs can be tricked. You can polygraph a psychopath who has no problem lying and is used to lying, the polygraph can't detect brain waves, it can only detect the bodily responses of the subject being questioned.

For the record, it doesn't matter if the test was administered by a chimpanzee.

Skylar, you're smarter than that. You are in such a rush to believe her and condemn him. Nobody backing the accuser(s) have wanted to be any more specific than, "he did this to me at a party in the 1980's". What an absolute crock.

In a court of law. Which this hearing is not. The FBI uses them frequently as part of their security clearance process, demonstrating that polygraph tests have real world utility.

And lets apply the numbers: Most women who are sexually assaulted don't report their assaults. False rape accusations are very rare.....the highest estimates being less than 5%. With most putting it at around 1 to 2%.

Its *probable* that she wouldn't have reported it. And *improbable* (by odds of at least 20 to 1) that she is lying. Why then wouldn't I believe her?

It's not a matter of odds, Skylar.

If we're applying reason and rational thinking, the odds are quite important. Yet you ignore the odds.

Why? Its very unlikely she's lying. She passed a polygraph test. Why wouldn't I believe her?

You want to believe her, you DON'T want to believe him. He is automatically guilty in your eyes.

There's too much emotion in your argument.

Says you, pretending you're me. I've cited the odds. You've ignored the odds, citing emotion.

That's irrational. You know that false accusations of rape are rare. You know that most victims of sexual assault never report. Yet you ignore what you know.

Why?

By the way, if I recall correctly, the 6 FBI background investigations Kavanaugh went through would also include polygraphs, correct? Clearly he "passed" them or he wouldn't have been allowed near any part of our federal judiciary system.

He was asked questions about Ford's claims? If so, show me the evidence.

And again, you're undermining your own argument, insisting that polygraphs are useless. Then admitting that the FBI used them in their background check of Kavanaugh.

If they are useless.....why is the FBI using them? Your contradicting yourself and ignoring what is probable. That's irrational. Nor can you give me any reasonable explanation for why I should ignore her or her polygraph test.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So excuses why Kavanaugh shouldn't take a polygraph. After Ford already did and passed.

Any liar can pass, especially when you cherry pick your tester.

Not only that, but emotionally-disturbed people can pass those tests, since they really believe what they're saying.

Truthful people also pass. Will Kavanaugh also take a polygraph?

So what good is a polygraph if liars and honest people can both pass the same test?

Ask the FBI, which frequently uses polygraphs in its security clearance process. What do they know about the utility of polygraph tests that you don't?

And if kavanaugh is telling the truth, he should easily pass. Yet all I hear are excuses why Kavanaugh shouldn't take a polygraph......after Ford already passed one.

Sigh, you're missing the point altogether. Like I said before, if they use polygraphs in their background investigations, like the six he went through, if he had failed any one of them, he would have never been allowed to be nominated for the Supreme Court, much less be appointed as a circuit court judge.

I'm not falling for this.

 

[Skylar]

Truthful people also pass. Will Kavanaugh also take a polygraph?

So what good is a polygraph if liars and honest people can both pass the same test?

Ask the FBI, which frequently uses polygraphs in its security clearance process. What do they know about the utility of polygraph tests that you don't?

And if kavanaugh is telling the truth, he should easily pass. Yet all I hear are excuses why Kavanaugh shouldn't take a polygraph......after Ford already passed one.

Oh please, she demanded not to be asked any questions by lawyers. If she's so truthful, why was that one of her first requests?

And I bet she'd be running for the hill if she was asked to take a new polygraph test from an unbiased source with their questions.

Who has a prosecutor at a public Senate hearing?

Can you recall that before?

Who ever put an accused through a polygraph before at a Senate hearing?

I'm not suggesting that Kavanaugh be given a polygraph at the hearing. Merely before his confirmatin vote. With the results made public.

Just like Ford did.

 

[Weatherman2020]

"One evening that summer"

(stifles a laugh)

Geez, let's just write a grade-school style essay instead of a bona fide statement of facts.

And yet she passed a polygraph test given by a 20 year veteran of the FBI.

Polygraphs are not admissible as evidence. If polygraphs are not admissible evidence in trial court, then they shouldn't be here either. Polygraphs can be tricked. You can polygraph a psychopath who has no problem lying and is used to lying, the polygraph can't detect brain waves, it can only detect the bodily responses of the subject being questioned.

For the record, it doesn't matter if the test was administered by a chimpanzee.

Skylar, you're smarter than that. You are in such a rush to believe her and condemn him. Nobody backing the accuser(s) have wanted to be any more specific than, "he did this to me at a party in the 1980's". What an absolute crock.

In a court of law. Which this hearing is not. The FBI uses them frequently as part of their security clearance process, demonstrating that polygraph tests have real world utility.

And lets apply the numbers: Most women who are sexually assaulted don't report their assaults. False rape accusations are very rare.....the highest estimates being less than 5%. With most putting it at around 1 to 2%.

Its *probable* that she wouldn't have reported it. And *improbable* (by odds of at least 20 to 1) that she is lying. Why then wouldn't I believe her?

It's not a matter of odds, Skylar.

If we're applying reason and rational thinking, the odds are quite important. Yet you ignore the odds.

Why? Its very unlikely she's lying. She passed a polygraph test. Why wouldn't I believe her?

You want to believe her, you DON'T want to believe him. He is automatically guilty in your eyes.

There's too much emotion in your argument.

Says you, pretending you're me. I've cited the odds. You've ignored the odds, citing emotion.

That's irrational. You know that false accusations of rape are rare. You know that most victims of sexual assault never report. Yet you ignore what you know.

Why?

By the way, if I recall correctly, the 6 FBI background investigations Kavanaugh went through would also include polygraphs, correct? Clearly he "passed" them or he wouldn't have been allowed near any part of our federal judiciary system.

He was asked questions about Ford's claims? If so, show me the evidence.

And again, you're undermining your own argument, insisting that polygraphs are useless. Then admitting that the FBI used them in their background check of Kavanaugh.

If they are useless.....why is the FBI using them? Your contradicting yourself and ignoring what is probable. That's irrational. Nor can you give me any reasonable explanation for why I should ignore her or her polygraph test.

6 background checks by the FBI versus your what?

 

[TemplarKormac]

He was asked questions about Ford's claims? If so, show me the evidence.

Not that I'm aware of, but given how much faith you place in the FBI, you should know how thorough they are. How could this have NOT come up during his background checks? Hmm?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If she was so "haunted" by something she alleges to have happened, why did she do such a great dis-service to women everywhere by not mentioning it until now?

Her motivation here is so apparent that even blind Stevie Wonder could see right through her BS.

On this board alone she's been called a slut, a liar, a whore, and accused of making the story up. Members of our board have insisted she should be charged with crimes and imprisoned. Every accusor who has joined her has received the same treatment.

You're literally demonstrating why most sexual assaults go unreported.

So why did she scrub her social media before coming out?

Who says she did?

And Democrats won’t release her letter of accusations.

The letter is are already public.

Read Christine Blasey Ford's letter detailing the alleged assault by Brett Kavanaugh

Again, who said she scrubbed her social media?

Just about everybody.

Ford scrubbed her social media accounts

 

[Weatherman2020]

It will not be pleasing to watch this woman be turned into Stormy 2.0 but she brought it upon herself

I hope she cries and I’m giving 40/60 odds she takes a cyanide tablet during cross examination.

 

[Skylar]

Any liar can pass, especially when you cherry pick your tester.

Not only that, but emotionally-disturbed people can pass those tests, since they really believe what they're saying.

Truthful people also pass. Will Kavanaugh also take a polygraph?

So what good is a polygraph if liars and honest people can both pass the same test?

Ask the FBI, which frequently uses polygraphs in its security clearance process. What do they know about the utility of polygraph tests that you don't?

And if kavanaugh is telling the truth, he should easily pass. Yet all I hear are excuses why Kavanaugh shouldn't take a polygraph......after Ford already passed one.

Sigh, you're missing the point altogether.

No, you're missing the point. The odds are she's telling the truth. Most sexual assaults go unreported. And false rape accusations are very rare.

Yet in yet another fit of emotion and irrationality, you ignore the odds. A rational person wouldn't.

Based on the odds alone, why wouldn't I believe her?

Like I said before, if they use polygraphs in their background investigations, like the six he went through, if he had failed any one of them, he would have never been allowed to be nominated for the Supreme Court, much less be appointed as a circuit court judge.

And like I asked, was Kavanaugh asked about Ford's claims? If so, show us the evidence.

And like I said before, if polygraph tests are useless, why is the FBI using them?

I've asked this question 3 times. And you have no answer.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what good is a polygraph if liars and honest people can both pass the same test?

Ask the FBI, which frequently uses polygraphs in its security clearance process. What do they know about the utility of polygraph tests that you don't?

And if kavanaugh is telling the truth, he should easily pass. Yet all I hear are excuses why Kavanaugh shouldn't take a polygraph......after Ford already passed one.

Oh please, she demanded not to be asked any questions by lawyers. If she's so truthful, why was that one of her first requests?

And I bet she'd be running for the hill if she was asked to take a new polygraph test from an unbiased source with their questions.

Who has a prosecutor at a public Senate hearing?

Can you recall that before?

Who ever put an accused through a polygraph before at a Senate hearing?

I'm not suggesting that Kavanaugh be given a polygraph at the hearing. Merely before his confirmatin vote. With the results made public.

Just like Ford did.

Okay, then he can do it the way Ford did it. Have his hired lawyer create and ask the questions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why? Its very unlikely she's lying. She passed a polygraph test. Why wouldn't I believe her?

Huh? Are you assuming she's telling the truth? Sounds like an assumption to me.

 

[OKTexas]

Seared into her memory but can’t remember basic details.

View attachment 218718

Twitter

Translation, I'm a regressive, I've had a really shitty life, therefore I must be a victim and I think I want to point the finger at a political enemy. He may not have had a thing to do with it, but he's a privileged white male republican, so you can't question me.

.

 

[Skylar]

And yet she passed a polygraph test given by a 20 year veteran of the FBI.

Polygraphs are not admissible as evidence. If polygraphs are not admissible evidence in trial court, then they shouldn't be here either. Polygraphs can be tricked. You can polygraph a psychopath who has no problem lying and is used to lying, the polygraph can't detect brain waves, it can only detect the bodily responses of the subject being questioned.

For the record, it doesn't matter if the test was administered by a chimpanzee.

Skylar, you're smarter than that. You are in such a rush to believe her and condemn him. Nobody backing the accuser(s) have wanted to be any more specific than, "he did this to me at a party in the 1980's". What an absolute crock.

In a court of law. Which this hearing is not. The FBI uses them frequently as part of their security clearance process, demonstrating that polygraph tests have real world utility.

And lets apply the numbers: Most women who are sexually assaulted don't report their assaults. False rape accusations are very rare.....the highest estimates being less than 5%. With most putting it at around 1 to 2%.

Its *probable* that she wouldn't have reported it. And *improbable* (by odds of at least 20 to 1) that she is lying. Why then wouldn't I believe her?

It's not a matter of odds, Skylar.

If we're applying reason and rational thinking, the odds are quite important. Yet you ignore the odds.

Why? Its very unlikely she's lying. She passed a polygraph test. Why wouldn't I believe her?

You want to believe her, you DON'T want to believe him. He is automatically guilty in your eyes.

There's too much emotion in your argument.

Says you, pretending you're me. I've cited the odds. You've ignored the odds, citing emotion.

That's irrational. You know that false accusations of rape are rare. You know that most victims of sexual assault never report. Yet you ignore what you know.

Why?

By the way, if I recall correctly, the 6 FBI background investigations Kavanaugh went through would also include polygraphs, correct? Clearly he "passed" them or he wouldn't have been allowed near any part of our federal judiciary system.

He was asked questions about Ford's claims? If so, show me the evidence.

And again, you're undermining your own argument, insisting that polygraphs are useless. Then admitting that the FBI used them in their background check of Kavanaugh.

If they are useless.....why is the FBI using them? Your contradicting yourself and ignoring what is probable. That's irrational. Nor can you give me any reasonable explanation for why I should ignore her or her polygraph test.

6 background checks by the FBI versus your what?

And in any of those background checks, was Kavanaugh asked about Ford's accusations?

Its a simple question.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Why? Its very unlikely she's lying. She passed a polygraph test. Why wouldn't I believe her?

Huh? Are you assuming she's telling the truth? Sounds like an assumption to me.

Guilty until proven beyond a reasonable doubt innocent!

 

[Skylar]

Why? Its very unlikely she's lying. She passed a polygraph test. Why wouldn't I believe her?

Huh? Are you assuming she's telling the truth? Sounds like an assumption to me.

And you've fled from my question for a fourth time.

Again, most victims of sexual assault don't report. False accusations are exceedingly rare, with the highest estimates putting it at less than 5%.

Thus, its likely she wouldn't have reported. And unlikely that she's lying. She's also passed a polygraph that you've admitted the FBI uses to determine truthfulness.

Why wouldn't I believe her?

Give us a rational reason why not. As the odds are clearly behind Ford's honesty. As is the polygraph test results. And you reply with babble about 'emotion'.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Polygraphs are not admissible as evidence. If polygraphs are not admissible evidence in trial court, then they shouldn't be here either. Polygraphs can be tricked. You can polygraph a psychopath who has no problem lying and is used to lying, the polygraph can't detect brain waves, it can only detect the bodily responses of the subject being questioned.

For the record, it doesn't matter if the test was administered by a chimpanzee.

Skylar, you're smarter than that. You are in such a rush to believe her and condemn him. Nobody backing the accuser(s) have wanted to be any more specific than, "he did this to me at a party in the 1980's". What an absolute crock.

In a court of law. Which this hearing is not. The FBI uses them frequently as part of their security clearance process, demonstrating that polygraph tests have real world utility.

And lets apply the numbers: Most women who are sexually assaulted don't report their assaults. False rape accusations are very rare.....the highest estimates being less than 5%. With most putting it at around 1 to 2%.

Its *probable* that she wouldn't have reported it. And *improbable* (by odds of at least 20 to 1) that she is lying. Why then wouldn't I believe her?

It's not a matter of odds, Skylar.

If we're applying reason and rational thinking, the odds are quite important. Yet you ignore the odds.

Why? Its very unlikely she's lying. She passed a polygraph test. Why wouldn't I believe her?

You want to believe her, you DON'T want to believe him. He is automatically guilty in your eyes.

There's too much emotion in your argument.

Says you, pretending you're me. I've cited the odds. You've ignored the odds, citing emotion.

That's irrational. You know that false accusations of rape are rare. You know that most victims of sexual assault never report. Yet you ignore what you know.

Why?

By the way, if I recall correctly, the 6 FBI background investigations Kavanaugh went through would also include polygraphs, correct? Clearly he "passed" them or he wouldn't have been allowed near any part of our federal judiciary system.

He was asked questions about Ford's claims? If so, show me the evidence.

And again, you're undermining your own argument, insisting that polygraphs are useless. Then admitting that the FBI used them in their background check of Kavanaugh.

If they are useless.....why is the FBI using them? Your contradicting yourself and ignoring what is probable. That's irrational. Nor can you give me any reasonable explanation for why I should ignore her or her polygraph test.

6 background checks by the FBI versus your what?

And in any of those background checks, was Kavanaugh asked about Ford's accusations?

Its a simple question.

No, just all the accusations of grand theft.

So now you think the FBI is inept, what a quick 180.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, you're missing the point. The odds are she's telling the truth. Most sexual assaults go unreported. And false rape accusations are very rare.

Yet in yet another fit of emotion and irrationality, you ignore the odds. A rational person wouldn't.

Odds are she is not telling the truth.

First of all, her original claim was that she didn't know anybody at the so-called party. Then she remembers a guy named Mark Judge who said she was FOS. Then she remembered another guy who said the same thing. Then she claimed her friend was there who (as described) was a lifelong friend of hers who also said the same thing.

Feinstein's claim was that Ford had no intention of coming forward and only sent the letter as advisement. If that's so, WTF did she take a polygraph test and lawyer up a month before her name came out?

She claims she never told anybody about the attack--not even her husband until 2012, but found some woman to make claim she heard the rumors in school about the attack.

So the odds are she is telling the truth? She hasn't told the truth from day one.

 

[WEATHER53]

Why? Its very unlikely she's lying. She passed a polygraph test. Why wouldn't I believe her?

Huh? Are you assuming she's telling the truth? Sounds like an assumption to me.

Guilty until proven beyond a reasonable doubt innocent!

Pretty much the same with Russians, Mueller and the rest of the upchuck libbies have been hurling