alexey Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, HoustonSkin said: ... But hey, we all have our opinions I guess. While I do find Dr. Ford to be credible, I hear you on all the memory things and I accept a possibility that she should be mistaken in several different ways. Having said that, BK’s behavior during the hearing, in my view, provided sufficient evidence to disqualify him from being on the Supreme Court. That alone is enough even without all the drunk rapey stuff. He acted in a surprisingly immature way and he showed little respect for people, institutions, and processes that make this country work. Even if this whole thing was a clever ploy by the Democrats to expose BK, expose him they did. Having this kind of person on the Supreme Court would be a damn shame. Edited October 4, 2018 by alexey 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) Edited October 4, 2018 by visionary 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 Not surprised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) Edited October 4, 2018 by visionary 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 So did Avenatti help or hurt the process? To me Swetnick's claims seemed to be the ones people on the right liked to point to as outlandish the most, and they are the ones that had the least corroboration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 9 hours ago, Nerm said: I disengaged from this discussion a few days back, but I was reading some of the issues regarding memory research, and I thought I would add my 2 cents again, as my training in clinical psychology (like Dr. Ford's) may be of interest to others. With the issue of repressed memories, there is a high likelihood that any memory was forgotten/repressed for a significant length of time is going to be completely inaccurate. I have not seen any reports suggesting that Dr. Ford's memories were repressed or forgotten. From what I can tell, she states that she did not discuss them with others, not that she had forgotten them. This is a big difference when it comes to deciding if such memories are likely to relate to something that actually occurred. there are a few things related to this that may be important. i'd be interested to know when she first identified BK as they guy- at the moment, all we know is that she says it was 2012. its possible she felt he did it but never mentioned him by name to anyone. but if she wasnt aware of it until later in her life as in, it was a recovered memory that was brought out as a result of the hypnosis therapy- a practice that she wrote positively about (which is surprising to me, given what we know about it),- that would be a concern. that explanation would check off a few boxes in terms of questions i have about her and BK, which is why i'd love to know more about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, grego said: there are a few things related to this that may be important. i'd be interested to know when she first identified BK as they guy- at the moment, all we know is that she says it was 2012. its possible she felt he did it but never mentioned him by name to anyone. but if she wasnt aware of it until later in her life as in, it was a recovered memory that was brought out as a result of the hypnosis therapy- a practice that she wrote positively about (which is surprising to me, given what we know about it),- that would be a concern. that explanation would check off a few boxes in terms of questions i have about her and BK, which is why i'd love to know more about it. I believe she told her husband around 2002. There is more corroboration than just her therapist. here is link, she told husband about assault but not details. others post data therapy https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1429270002 Edited October 4, 2018 by RedskinsFan44 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 We have the one week delay and there is nothing to indicate the country/Senate won't be torn apart.... It is a shame we don't have 4 or 5 Senators who are truly independent and not party backed.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, RedskinsFan44 said: So did Avenatti help or hurt the process? To me Swetnick's claims seemed to be the ones people on the right liked to point to as outlandish the most, and they are the ones that had the least corroboration. Not sure, but of the many conservatives I know (in person) who support Kav, I've not heard one of them point out Swetnick, believe it or not. I've heard many bring up "inconsistencies in Ford's testimony". When I asked for that, they retreat with little details. My mother did actually say to me "if the boys locked the door, how'd she escape?" I am just like "Hello, its an inside door, she obviously just unlocked it since she was in the room." Edited October 4, 2018 by Zguy28 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 23 minutes ago, Fergasun said: We have the one week delay and there is nothing to indicate the country/Senate won't be torn apart.... It is a shame we don't have 4 or 5 Senators who are truly independent and not party backed.... I don’t even view that as the problem. The issue is we have one party which has totally abandoned even the pretense of caring about morals/ethics when it comes to what is supported. It wouldn’t be difficult to nominate and get confirmed another conservative jurist but it’s more important to shove it to Dems than to acknowledge this guy lied to Congress. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 I also wanted to add that I think the similarities between this and the Hill/Thomas case and how little things appear to have changed is also driving some of the attention this is getting. There is good evidence that Thomas lied during the process at least about things related to his history and knowledge of pornography, but the limits put in place for the Senate and FBI didn't result in that information becoming part of the official record during the process. And so Hill's story was cast aside. We are essentially seeing a repeat of the process again, and I think that angers a lot of people (especially women) in the context of despite (supposed) progress in these situations, the result is pretty much going to be the same. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 If the FBI didn't interview Ford or Kavanaugh the investigation was a sham. No way to justify that. Whoever loses probably does better on election day than they would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) Was there any doubt that short of 80's VHS tapes surfacing of the sexual assault (allegedly) happening, Trump was going to get the guy he wanted? That's what he does. He's a slimeball who make slimeball moves, surrounds himself with the finest slimeballs, and now he has the power to make sure those moves are executed. Oh I'm sorry, he calls it "winning" And the b***** of it all is he does so many disgusting things that a couple weeks from now Kavanaugh will be sitting on the court, getting a good laugh out of all of this while the world has moved on to the next horrendous thing Trump decides to do. Edited October 4, 2018 by NoCalMike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 14 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said: If the FBI didn't interview Ford or Kavanaugh the investigation was a sham. No way to justify that. Whoever loses probably does better on election day than they would have. The political affect of this is fascinating. MJoe this morning showed a bunch of polls all trending hard towards the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 8 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: The political affect of this is fascinating. MJoe this morning showed a bunch of polls all trending hard towards the GOP. I find it strange that shoving what is at the very least a male chauvinist into the SC has positive results for republicans. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 22 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said: If the FBI didn't interview Ford or Kavanaugh the investigation was a sham. No way to justify that. Whoever loses probably does better on election day than they would have. Unless you feel Dr Ford is withholding information there is no need other than to discredit her.(which is what their questioning inconsistencies would be painted as) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 1 minute ago, twa said: Unless you feel Dr Ford is withholding information there is no need other than to discredit her.(which is what their questioning inconsistencies would be painted as) Right. I think people mistakenly thought an FBI investigation was going to come to a conclusion about which one of them was telling the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, Springfield said: I find it strange that shoving what is at the very least a male chauvinist into the SC has positive results for republicans. What makes him a male chauvinist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 11 minutes ago, twa said: Unless you feel Dr Ford is withholding information there is no need other than to discredit her.(which is what their questioning inconsistencies would be painted as) That's not necessarily true. Any investigation would compare witness statements, go back and ask more questions and so forth. Especially, where as here, the witness has memory gaps, approaching the alleged facts from multiple angles could tend to corroborate or impeach. What does Judge have to say about his summer job at Safeway? Does anyone remember the house where the party was had on July 1st? Does it fit the description of Dr. Ford? With the detail and the layout of the house, FBI may be able to ask questions to Dr. Ford in a way that tends to confirm or deny her allegations. Certainly, Kavanaugh needs to be interviewed again without a 5 minute time limit so he can't bluster and deflect his way through the testimony. And FBI does need to question her regarding the ex-boyfriend statement and the second exit story too. The investigation should try to gather as much facts as possible and present everyone's statements and positions to the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 They already investigated the house description, she changed it/had a different recollection after problems were pointed out. even pointing this out will be called attacking the victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 4 minutes ago, twa said: They already investigated the house description, she changed it/had a different recollection after problems were pointed out. even pointing this out will be called attacking the victim. I got this from an OP ED in USA today https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/03/christine-blasey-ford-changing-memories-not-credible-kavanaugh-column/1497661002/ Quote Finally, Ford altered her description of the interior layout of the home and the details of the party and her escape. A “short” stairwell turned into a “narrow” one. The gathering moved from a small family room where the kids drank beer (and which Ford distinguished from the living room through which she fled the house) when she spoke to the Washington Post, to a home described in her actual testimony as having a "small living room/family room-type area.” And in an obvious tell to the change, Ford suggested that she could draw a floor plan of the house. Short vs narrow stairwell doesn't seem contradictory to me (a stairwell could be both short and narrow). And the "small family room" vs "small living room/family room-type area" doesn't seem like a change either. But in any event, FBI going more in-depth and eliciting more detail from Dr. Ford in an attempt to corroborate or impeach her testimony should not be considered attacking the victim. That's obviously fair part of the investigative process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 40 minutes ago, Springfield said: I find it strange that shoving what is at the very least a male chauvinist into the SC has positive results for republicans. Do you really find that strange? It's the Trump base. Also, more polls probably are not factoring in the shrinking size of the GOP overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now