They both failed to be honest but only one is trying to be a judge.
“Ask yourself who has more motivation for lying: the professor who’s had her whole life turned upside down, or the judge who stands to land a lifetime job at a quarter-mill a year, plus bennies the ordinary Joe can only dream about?”
-Stephen King, regarding the testimony on Thursday.
3 Likes
I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but I think he lets Ford off the hook too much on potential motive. Is she an ardent pro-choicer? Does she, like many liberal Democrats, think this a “Flight 93” nomination that mortally endangers Roe v. Wade if Kavanaugh gets appointed? Is she someone who elected to do her part to “charge the cockpit or die” to save reproductive rights? And do the never-higher stakes justify her taking an event in her teenage life and manufacturing it into an allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh?
In a search for truth, exploring all these motives are fair game.
But I don’t disagree that Kavanaugh has his share of motives to lie as well - which we know he did, trying to convince Senators he was someone he wasn’t.
++Her demeanor/comportment while telling her story.
++The specifics of her story, including the fact that she doesn’t claim to have been raped (a liar would have been sorely tempted to do so), and most importantly, that she puts a third individual in the room. (Pointlessly fabricating a hostile eyewitness? No liar would do that.)
++The fact that she divulged the event (to her husband and therapist) years ago.
++The fact that she sent the letter before Kavanaugh was nominated.
++The fact that she came forward at all.
Finally, I find that what we know about Kavanaugh is consistent with someone who was capable of such behavior when intoxicated.
If you mean it suggests a bias on her part against the man who sexually assaulted her, I agree. Otherwise, nah.
BEFORE. HE. WAS. NOMINATED. Please address this fact vis a vis how it fits in with your theory of the case.
That she didn’t know precisely who footed the bill seems inconsequential to me. It certainly isn’t enough to cast doubt on her memory of the assault itself (which she recalled in considerable detail), or her veracity.
And as I said alluded above, if your threshold for calling someone a liar is this low, surely Kavanaugh is of the ‘Pants on Fire’ variety in your book.
She didn’t come across as someone attempting to be tactical like you suppose. If she were stalling, it might well have been in an attempt to gin up the courage to appear.
Again, your theory of the case falls apart when one considers that she came forward before Kavanaugh was nominated. If her goal was to commit the nomination equivalent of an October Surprise, she would have remained on the sideline until the last minute. She didn’t.
I feel certain her social media has been scoured for evidence of attitudes such as these. The silence in that regard is telling.
Thanks for answering the question in a straightforward manner.
1 Like
BUT WHEN HIS NOMINATION WAS IMMINENT, AS SHE HERSELF STATES. She said so, in her opening statement:
On July 6, 2018, I had a sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the President as soon as possible before a nominee was selected.
It isn’t a low threshold - she may have good reasons to not disclose who handled that because it would be explored (and probably attacked) to demonstrate possible bias.
No, it doesn’t - she clearly wanted to get this information into the hands of someone who could do something about it as soon as she thought Kavanaugh was close to the prize. At no other point in his public career did she speak up. Kavanaugh’s a really short-lister, she shows up with the story.
There’s no question Democrats stage managed the timing, and no doubt the timing was done in part to limit the amount of discovery that could be conducted into Ford’s claims. But it’s not like Ford had some letter into someone a few years ago that lay dormant until the nomination.
No idea if that has happened or not, but the silence if so is not particularly telling - people may be gun shy about going all on on bias at this point.
She felt his past actions should preclude him ascending to the SCOTUS. Given this, exactly when would you have had her send the letter, if not when his nomination was imminent?
Further, this still doesn’t jibe with your October Surprise theory of Ford’s timing. Put another way: If her goal was (as you imply) to prevent the Rs from filling Kennedy’s seat, she would have delayed her letter until very recently. But if her goal was simply to keep him off the SCOTUS, she would have done exactly what she did.
Indeed. And if you are charging her with endeavoring to keep the man who sexually assaulted her off the SCOTUS, I will happily issue a summary judgment of Guilty. But that’s not what you said above, wherein you accused her of conspiring with the Dems to queer the Rs’ ability to fill the seat at all.
So?
I will not dispute this. What I am disputing is your contention that Dem stage-managing somehow impacts her credibility. It doesn’t. On the other hand…
…I have to push back against this one. You are arguing facts not in evidence.
Again–so?
Okay, let’s consider this. This would require the following scenario:
Ford recognizes Kavanaugh’s name from HS. She is ardently opposed to his election to the supreme court. She fabricates a story about him and his friend, included a couple other HS kids to make it seem more likely as a party. She starts the wheels in motion very early, just in case we get to where we are now, by letting it known prior to his official nomination.
She portrays him as a heavy drinking partier, who was very drunk at the time of the incident. She would have no way of knowing:
i) This is true and supported by HS friends, his yearbook, and college friends. They speak out to him being a belligerent, aggressive, and sloppy drunk.
ii) He would completely downplay (lie?) about his drinking and behavior at this time. Thus creating multiple people to come out and reiterate the point above, helping her cause.
We would also have to believe she’d be willing to:
- Lie under oath.
- Put her family through the ringer.
- Potentially throw her career out the door .
- Openly seek an FBI investigation so she can lie to them, too.
All because she’s pro-choice? Even though Trump could easily drop Kavanaugh and put another nominee (who’s also pro-choice) up instead?
Or… , another option, she believes someone nominated for the supreme court assaulted her.
I’ll let Occam’s Razor guide me on this one.
4 Likes
I don’t think that’s so, but it isnt material in any event. Point is, the raises concerns - Kavanaugh has been impacting people through public service for years, and it’s a fair question why she hadn’t raised it before.
You seem to suggest that her sending her letter early extinguishes any and all doubt that she had an agenda other than to report wrongdoing. It doesn’t. OTOH, that doesn’t mean she’s a proven liar - my only point is reasonable people can disagree on the veracity of her claims based on all this.
I don’t accuse her, I said it’s a credible theory.
You wait 35 years to raise it as a disqualifying fact for his service on the bench, but you weren’t moved to mention it during his ascension to DC appeals court, arguably the second most important court in the nation? Kavaugh’s nomination was stalled for years, and at no point Ford never felt inclined to let anyone know of this disqualifying fact?
Those are fair questions to ask.
Pace Inigo Montoya, you keep using those words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean. I’m guessing what the strategy was on the quite obvious truth that Democrats were intentionally trying to introduce this information late.
See above.
Have you heaed how liberal Democrats are describing Kennedy’s replacement? As in, my Flight 93 nomination above? A large portion of socially liberal Democrats think a reversal of Roe v. Wade might as well mark the end of civilization as we know it. Yes, if someone believed that was true with the appointment of Kavanaugh (or another right wing judge), Hell yes, they’d bend the truth before the FBI and everyone else in service to defeat that nomination.
Is Ford in that camp? I don’t know. My point is to only point out that there is a much larger battle taking place in which this accusation is only a part - and if the stakes are as high as we’ve been told they are, this is a time to deploy the Noble Lie.
He could, but understand Democrats aren’t concerned with that - the goal is to get the nomination of anyone pushed out past the mid-terms and hope for a Blue Wave, and then “Merrick Garland” the GOP, saying “when the people have spoken, GOP, per your own words, you can’t confirm anyone until the new (Democratic) Senate comes in.”
So, tactic numero uno? Push the confirmation past the election, and use every means possible to make that happen. Whatever we need to do, it’s justified.
What do Democrats have on Kavanaugh to snarl up his appointment? Not much - they took a few shots during the hearing, but left no mark. So they unveiled the Hail Mary. The alternative of doing nothing was not an option.
Indeed the DEMS did, @thunderbolt23 .
I think I heard say once that “Those Sombitches (DEMS) are DAMN good Politicians”! (and that wasn’t a compliment…)
One thing I was thinking about Kavanaugh…if he was going to be “impartial” in his rulings before these hearings…you can bet 100 Keg’s of whatever Prep Boy’s drink that he won’t be so much now. Maybe he’s a better human than most of us; but I think that if some “Left Leaning” issue is before the Court; he will shoot it down faster than you can say “Feinstein”.
(P.S. What kind of Beer DO Preppy People prefer? Just curious…)
This is exactly what I’ve been thinking once it got nasty. If Kavanaugh somehow makes it through the process, he will become the DEMS’ Supreme Court version of Trump. Be careful what you wish for…
I have nothing to add on the veracity of said claims, but I will say the orchestration aspect is so blatant it’s ridiculous.
Notice that when all the “HIGH SCHOOL Hijinks, are you fcuking kidding me???” thoughts came out, the Yale stories (college now, see the progression?) start (plus accusation, again from an “accomplished” person).
Someone mentioned Occam’s Razor? Well, color me naive, but if the accusers believe they have truth on their side, orchestration is not necessary.
By the way, is this a bad time to point out that one of the worst enablers of covering up sexual misconduct in the name of procuring political power won the popular vote in 2016?
I say this as someone who now thinks Kavanaugh isn’t the man to replace Kennedy - but it’s worth saying out loud.
1 Like
Nope…and on top of it all…“she” threatened many of the accusers…
The “woman” would shoot her own mother if she got in the way of “her” political ambitions.
Yep, trial by fire changes a person, and Kavanaugh is no longer the same man he used to be.
BTW, how, exactly, does the FBI go about “investigating” high school hijinks from decades ago???
I think the reason why she didn’t speak up sooner is more than obvious.
No, what I am suggesting is the early letter precludes attributing an agenda to her of depriving the Rs of the SCOTUS seat.
Wait–I thought it was your contention the Ds introduced the info late in order to prevent the Rs from getting the SCOTUS seat. Now you’re trying to have a twofer?
You know that wouldn’t work, right? You really think Mitch McConnell wouldn’t jam someone through in December/Jan?
I think that, too - again, it isn’t a binary choice, either/or. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
Probably not, but what’s the alternative - do absolutely nothing and piss off your base? The Democrats at least want to make the argument and try. Best case scenario, it works. Worst case, they make an issue out of blatant GOP hypocrisy in 2020.
Not trying at all? When the deciding vote against Roe v. Wade is at stake? Inaction is not an option.
I don’t think the Ds are nearly clever enough to come up with a plan that diabolical. I guess we’ll have to wait for the tell-all book 10 years hence to find out.
Untrue. When all “I was a church-going virgin” narrative started from Kavanaugh himself, then all the college roommates/drinking buddies came out. Wouldn’t you? If one of my old college housemates was ever in a situation that required them, under oath, to paint themselves as socially mature, modest drinkers in their college years, I’d be calling CNN too.
Then I have a bridge to sell you.
But in truth, it’s not diabolical - it’s just revenge for McConnell’s shameless stunt with Merrick Garland and a way to motivate left of center voters this November.