Good to see conservatives fight back (Ford v Kavanaugh)

and using the same tactics as the left!!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...kavanaugh.html

Two men come out and claim it may have been them that "attacked" Ford. Do I believe them? As much as I believe all the women who have come out and claimed BK molested, attacked, gangraped, etc.... them. But prove them wrong, prove them liars..... #menbelieve.

Should be an interesting day. I like what the GOP did by getting a prosecutor who happens to be female. Accomplishes several things. Removes the optics of congressmen beating up on this poor hapless madien. Plus removes the grandstanding which is a congressman craves and is the equivalent to what blood is to Dracula. Although Im not sure a prosecutor is the right move. Perhaps a sex crime defense lawyer would be better however the optics there are not good.

Personally I believe something may have happened to Ford because being groped at a high school party is common, unless your an ugly feminist. Do I think it was BK? No but prove me wrong. Presumption of innocence is a legal definition confined to the courts, but lets be serious here. This is a court and he is on trial. One concocted by the left to derail his nomination. It's Clarence Thomas all over again. Same tactic, different names. Didnt work then and hope it does not work now because of the precedent it sets.

This is quickly proving to be a sham. I haven't had time to list all the ways in which her original story has fallen apart, much less the even more weak secondary claims, but it's becoming clear this is a politically motivated hit job, timed and staged for political purposes.

I did find time to read up on the polygraph she took. it was a complete joke. the woman and her lawyer met and crafted a statement, and then the polygraphist comes in the room and asks just TWO relevant questions, basically whether she believed she was telling the truth in the statement. That's a sham. Polygraphs are not "lie detectors" and the only way they can be effectively used is by a skilled interrogator asking questions in different ways for a longer period of time, trying to break the person's concentration and frankly use the device and setting as much to intimidate as to measure anything. Asking two simple pre-arranged questions over a pre-arranged statement with no details being asked whatsoever is just her lawyer getting a way to say "she passed a polygraph" to the media.

it's as big a sham as Pitino's lie detector test, completely.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems with this whole scenario.

And yes, the GOP needs to grow a pair and confirm this guy b/c we can't allow this kind of circus sideshow politics to prevail and be encouraged.

And yes it will be fascinating with these men stepping forward claiming it was them and not Kavanaugh. Like you I think that's politics, but I think it's also fire fighting fire, and if they do make a sworn statement to that effect it's tough to dispute it b/c they just admitted to a possible crime, albeit one for which I presume the statute of limitations has long expired.

and btw, it's unclear there was ever any crime here. If you read her various versions of events carefully all that happened was she was drunk and got groped at a high school party. Now that's not acceptable, but it's a far cry from rape or even attempted rape, which is how this has been characterized.

Call me biased...but this has been a disaster for the Republicans. An absolute disaster. She seems credible, vulnerable and shaken. And she seems about as far from a party sham as one could imagine.

And btw...I am watching it on Fox News. And their entire panel just said the same thing.

I"m sure it is, and honestly that's what I expected. This was always about a no win scenario unless you are ready to shred this woman, and the GOP leadership wont' do that. IN part b/c it's high high risk, in part b/c they just don't have that kind of balls. Like how Hillary did with Clinton's accusers when he first announced for President, just rip them in the media. that and the media won't do it in this case.

So I figured this was a losing proposition as soon as they agreed to put her on TV. They should have agreed to closed door hearings only, and then by proxy go out and attack her so it's not a direct assault. That's crass, but IMO was the better strategy.


But iirc, Anita Hill was very credible and did a great job as well. Thomas still got on the bench. the other mistake the GOP is making is not calling all these other people who ALL have said they don't recall this incident, to undermine her credibility with otherwise neutral voices. That's how they got through the Anita Hill thing, by having a panel of other women on their vouching for Thomas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

But iirc, Anita Hill was very credible and did a great job as well. Thomas still got on the bench. the other mistake the GOP is making is not calling all these other people who ALL have said they don't recall this incident, to undermine her credibility with otherwise neutral voices. That's how they got through the Anita Hill thing, by having a panel of other women on their vouching for Thomas.

---

Just from my point of view...Anita Hill was very stoic, measured and strong. The problem with that is that it came across well-coached (whether it was or not).
Dr. Ford is believable, scared, emotional, etc. She comes across terribly credible.

Clarence Thomas was black. That made a difference.

But, the biggest difference is/was that the time we live in is completely different. During this #MeToo day and age this will play entirely different on tv. The way we receive it is entirely different.
I would be pretty shocked if he gets confirmed now. And before today, I thought it was at least 50/50 he would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

I"m sure it is, and honestly that's what I expected. This was always about a no win scenario unless you are ready to shred this woman, and the GOP leadership wont' do that. IN part b/c it's high high risk, in part b/c they just don't have that kind of balls. Like how Hillary did with Clinton's accusers when he first announced for President, just rip them in the media. that and the media won't do it in this case.

So I figured this was a losing proposition as soon as they agreed to put her on TV. They should have agreed to closed door hearings only, and then by proxy go out and attack her so it's not a direct assault. That's crass, but IMO was the better strategy.


But iirc, Anita Hill was very credible and did a great job as well. Thomas still got on the bench. the other mistake the GOP is making is not calling all these other people who ALL have said they don't recall this incident, to undermine her credibility with otherwise neutral voices. That's how they got through the Anita Hill thing, by having a panel of other women on their vouching for Thomas.

---

One of the few things I respect the GOP for. Liberals would have no issue smearing somebody. Hell, the first thing they do to anybody who disagrees with them is call them a racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

One of the few things I respect the GOP for. Liberals would have no issue smearing somebody. Hell, the first thing they do to anybody who disagrees with them is call them a racist.

---

Oh come on. The GOP does do that all the time. They shredded Anita Hill. The only reason they aren't doing it now is for political gain. IT would kill them in the mid-terms if they went after her. That is why they brought in this nice, female prosecutor who served absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
Both sides are playing politics here just like they always do.

Btw, just a quick prediction.

I think Kavanaugh is going to come out and try to pull a Clarence Thomas. I doubt he will be nearly as effective. But I am expecting that is what he will do.
The statement he released is very benign. But I have a feeling he is being told he needs to come out far more aggressive and angry.

Guess we will see if he will and if it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Oh come on. The GOP does do that all the time. They shredded Anita Hill. The only reason they aren't doing it now is for political gain. IT would kill them in the mid-terms if they went after her. That is why they brought in this nice, female prosecutor who served absolutely no purpose whatsoever.
Both sides are playing politics here just like they always do.

---

Oh come on. They treated her with kid gloves. You had a democrat senator sit on this in order to make it a difficult as poss, then do a bogus polygraph, one Im sure Feinstein arranged.

They brought in a nice female prosecutor for political reasons, sure. But the left will stoop to no low to reach their means. They have gone from disrupting the hearings with numbskull protestors, to calling for conservatives to be harrassed, to outright lying and then be proud of it (see Harry Reid reference to Mitt Romney's taxes where he flat out lied), to the IRS scandal to using Russian created dossier to get FISA warrants. The list goes on and on. These type of tactics are classic leftist. Does the right do unpalateble things? Sure but nothing like liberals where the ends justify the means

This is exactly why the country is so divided imo.
You cite “liberals” as one whole group and say they will stoop to anything.
Sure, some do. Some don’t.
But what I will say about “liberals” is I find them to be far more honest about the fact that BOTH sides are equally guilty.
Conservatives would point out many of the same things you are saying right now. And a lot more.
Liberals could list pages of things they deem just as low. Character assassinations all the same. A long long list. And yet, they would be justified because conservatives actually believe it. They wouldn’t call it character assassination because they would say it’s just telling the truth.
If you watch Sean Hannity right now...every single episode is on how liberals spend all of their time “assassinating character”. Slime balls. Mudslinging. Etc.
Thats what he says with a Republican President and a majority in Congress.
But what were all of his shows about the previous 4 years? Doing that EXACT same thing.
He had show after show after show about Hillary and called her every name in the book.
He killed Susan Rice, Chuck Hagel, etc etc. on a nightly basis.

I could go on and on but there really isn’t a point. Both sides do it. And just as bad. Who you think does it the worst is going to reflect your own personal political leanings.
Liberals cried foul when Obama was being obliterated. Same with Clinton. And now that they are the minority they are doing it right back.
As soon as we have another blue wave...conservatives will start up just the same. It’s the cycle. On and on we go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Btw, just a quick prediction.

I think Kavanaugh is going to come out and try to pull a Clarence Thomas. I doubt he will be nearly as effective. But I am expecting that is what he will do.
The statement he released is very benign. But I have a feeling he is being told he needs to come out far more aggressive and angry.

Guess we will see if he will and if it works.

---

Btw, I was right on this one. He changed his prepared remarks. And as an outsider, I would say he’s been very effective as well. I’m back to 50/50 (and yes, I’m allowed to be like Jerry Meyer).

Looks like they picked the wrong guy to accuse. Guy has DOCUMENTATION in his calendars that show what he was doing every day. Nothing that I dont know when or where.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

This is exactly why the country is so divided imo.
You cite “liberals” as one whole group and say they will stoop to anything.
Sure, some do. Some don’t.
But what I will say about “liberals” is I find them to be far more honest about the fact that BOTH sides are equally guilty.
Conservatives would point out many of the same things you are saying right now. And a lot more.
Liberals could list pages of things they deem just as low. Character assassinations all the same. A long long list. And yet, they would be justified because conservatives actually believe it. They wouldn’t call it character assassination because they would say it’s just telling the truth.
If you watch Sean Hannity right now...every single episode is on how liberals spend all of their time “assassinating character”. Slime balls. Mudslinging. Etc.
Thats what he says with a Republican President and a majority in Congress.
But what were all of his shows about the previous 4 years? Doing that EXACT same thing.
He had show after show after show about Hillary and called her every name in the book.
He killed Susan Rice, Chuck Hagel, etc etc. on a nightly basis.

I could go on and on but there really isn’t a point. Both sides do it. And just as bad. Who you think does it the worst is going to reflect your own personal political leanings.
Liberals cried foul when Obama was being obliterated. Same with Clinton. And now that they are the minority they are doing it right back.
As soon as we have another blue wave...conservatives will start up just the same. It’s the cycle. On and on we go.

---

I don't like what the GOP does. In fact I was very outspoken about their behavior concerning Obama, etc. I found many of their actions embarrassing. But fortunately the democrats under Trump have totally obliterated any embarrassment. Between this stunt and the "Russian probe", its gone from foolish to downright moronic

Thumbs up to Lindey Grahmn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Thumbs up to Lindey Grahmn

---

His speech was fantastic. And politically, he hit a home run to the Republican base especially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Looks like they picked the wrong guy to accuse. Guy has DOCUMENTATION in his calendars that show what he was doing every day. Nothing that I dont know when or where.....

---

He was really strong. He made one mistake Imo (and I totally understand why he made it and I am not sure what I would have advised he do). But he might have really messed up when he said he has never "Drank and not remembered something the next day".

I know it was loaded. They would have tried to say he may have done that on this night. But now there will be a slew of stories (and maybe pictures or videos) about him doing just that.

Heck, anyone that has drank at all has "passed out" and most likely forgotten some things from the night before. That's common. Especially when we were young.
It was a loaded question that he had no way of answering correctly. But it may come back and bite him.

The bottom line is. One is a liar.

And the biggest question is who actually cares, win or lose?

This wasn't a debate although some would make it out to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

The bottom line is. One is a liar.

---

I am actually not convinced of that. I think it is very possible that one of three options could be true:

1. This happened to her but she is wrong about Kavanaugh doing it - I think this is unlikely since she knew him previously but I suppose it is plausible.

2. He did this but was so drunk he doesn't remember - I think this is very possible.

3. He did this when he was drunk, but never saw it as a sexual assault - I actually think this is most plausible. I cannot tell you how many people I know where drinking was involved got into this gray area. I realize in today's #metoo environment everything is more black and white. I think we are all more sensitive of this today. But, 30 years ago...things were just different.

Either way, all 3 of those are possible. And of course one of them lying is possible.

And just for the record...I 100% believe Feinstein USED Ford for political purposes. That is absolutely true. Which is sad and disgusting. Both sides have done the same type of thing...but she did it in this case.
It doesn't disprove Ford in any way, but its ugly politics.

4) she was drunk and thought it was him.....but it wasn't. That is every bit as plausable as him blacking out, or more plausable since she being a female typically don't hold liquor as well as men (due to size) and she was younger and not as familiar with alcohol.

Personally I believe something happened to her, and I believe it wasn't him.

She says she is 100% sure it was him and she drank only one beer. I believe her.

Oth, I believe he is lying, and knows he should have taken another path towards contrition. Self righteous indignation is a sign of low self esteem and regret.
A common response to guilt.

Next?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

The bottom line is. One is a liar.

And the biggest question is who actually cares, win or lose?

This wasn't a debate although some would make it out to be.

---

Neither is lying. One of them is accurate in their memory, and one is not.

And yes, I'm quite convinced at this point of which is which.

Unfortunately I have some real up close personal experience with people who absolutely in their soul believe things and events that simply are not real or never happened. They are stunningly good at convincing themselves of slights or insults or entire events that simply didn't happen.

I have no doubt she's convinced herself of the veracity of her statements, but look at them very closely against what few shreds of facts we do have in this case. Notice how she was convinced she was going to be raped, but not that she was raped. It was her perception she was going to be. Notice how not even her self-described friend doesn't remember her version of events, nor does anyone else.


She's not lying, b/c that implies she is sitting there knowing that the event didnt' happen. She's completely convinced it happened, but that doesn't mean it did.

The research on this btw is massive. Studies on witness accounts are replete with these examples, and that doesn't even get into these evoked "memories" from therapies and such.

She's not lying, but she is wrong, and there is zero doubt it is being used for pure political purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

She says she is 100% sure it was him and she drank only one beer. I believe her.

Oth, I believe he is lying, and knows he should have taken another path towards contrition. Self righteous indignation is a sign of low self esteem and regret.
A common response to guilt.

Next?

---

Except she wasn't always so sure. That's a tell in these situations. In fact her behavior is classic witness mis-identification, which is why in a real court this would be destroyed. Not just b/c of the decades old date, but b/c of everything surrounding it, including her actions over these decades.

Everyone sees what they want to see, but I find it interesting that indignation is a sign of regret. Maybe it's just a sign that some people have worked hard their whole lives and been careful and planned and they dont' care to have their character questioned when they have built up a lot of character over the years.

Or maybe when I get a client doing that to me I just feel regret for something, and should go see a therapist. :)

Based on the little evidence we have, I cannot say who is wrong.
I would lean toward him being wrong or lying but I genuinely don’t know.
Both sides are playing politics with this. I still have no idea what WILL happen now. 50/50 imo.
I could see him getting through. I could also see the Dems getting two votes on their side.

Having said that, the biggest travesty of the day is how little Flake and Sasse spoke. They are by far the two most reasonable on the entire council and I would have rather have heard from either of them than anyone else.
This was a political spectacle that is riveting as it was....didn’t move the needle one way or the other politically speaking.

I will close with this...if he is put through, it will help the Dems in the mid-terms. I do believe that.
If he does not, it will help Republicans. So in a small way I think republicans win either way. They have to measure what is more important to them. I think him on the Supreme Court would be more important. But we will see.

If I were a Republican strategist (and they will be having this meeting tonight)...
I would recommend that they allow a CONFIDENTIAL FBI investigation. And that ONE WEEK from today, they will make their recommendation to the Senate, no matter if any new allegations come forward etc.
I think it gives them more credibility and diffuses what will surely be a rallying cry for Democrats in November.

I’m not sure they will do that. But I would if I were them. They do that and they will get Collins and Murkowski vote as well.

He’s dead in the water. Whether she’s remembering events correctly or not makes little difference at this point as he’s being tried in the court of public opinion. When she went off script while responding to Leahy it sure looked like she was speaking from memory while Kavanaugh spent most of his time trying to paint himself as the victim, and it wasn’t a good look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Except she wasn't always so sure :)

---

Just a quick correction: that is a false report. She has always been sure it was Kavanaugh and Judge.
I’ve seen or heard nothing (except for a narrative on Fox News repeating it) from her that she has ever been unsure.
She has named him all along (since she started talking about it).
She has some holes as far as how many people were in the house, etc. But she has always been sure on Kavanaugh.

And I think one of the most compelling pieces of evidence is that she knew 3 of these people by name. She clearly knew them. That makes it far less likely she was mistaken about who did it (unless Doc’s theory is true which is she was drunk. Which is also possible).

Can I ask a very strange, controversial and non-partisan question?

Removing all political ties, is this an automatic disqualifier?

If this were a Democratic appointee, would it be disqualifying?

On the surface, I know the easy answer is yes.
But a drunk guy fooling around in High school...I’m just not so sure.
I KNOW it would have been traumatizing for her. And it is sexual assault.
But if he did this drunkenly 36 years ago...and has done nothing since...is it disqualifying (forgetting the political implications of the confirmation)?

Citizens comment that both could be telling the truth and it is a memory issue for one of them is plausible.

Memory and perspective and poor communication (alcohol and not knowing the person well) all can contribute.

I think she is credible. Talking about this with a therapist strengthens her case. Saying Mark Judge was in the room also shows her sincerity. A scorned lying woman wouldn’t make up that a witness to what she experienced as an assault would be the friend of the boy she accused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

She says she is 100% sure it was him and she drank only one beer. I believe her.

Oth, I believe he is lying, and knows he should have taken another path towards contrition. Self righteous indignation is a sign of low self esteem and regret.
A common response to guilt.

Next?

---

I see. She claims she had one beer and is 100% sure it was him.

He can account for where he was every weekend of the alleged summer and is 100% sure he sexually assaulted nobody. He has evidence to that. She has none.

Must be he that's lying.


As I stated, I actually believe both. I believe she was assaulted but not by him. She was MORE abused by the democrats who used as a pawn in a political game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

Unfortunately I have some real up close personal experience with people who absolutely in their soul believe things and events that simply are not real or never happened. They are stunningly good at convincing themselves of slights or insults or entire events that simply didn't happen.
.

---

So, you know my brother?