Try to keep up Matt. There is zero evidence because the story is completely made up. Even her friend denies that it ever happened.
She passed the polygraph, and has essentially destroyed her life by coming forward, so it's clear she believes it happened.
You keep circling around a single friend saying they didn't remember, but that's not sufficient evidence to "prove" it didn't happen.
I know people afraid of flying. They DON'T. That's how you can tell. Being nervous about it isn't the same.
A sociopath can always pass a polygraph. They believe their own stories.
I call bogus on the lie detector test.
If she passed the first one, why was she so adamantly against taking a second one?
mattzine: "Mainelyin, which is it: a “lack of evidence,” or an “obviously concocted story”?"
So you see the two as mutually exclusive?
She passed the polygraph, and has essentially destroyed her life by coming forward, so it's clear she believes it happened.
Passed a polygraph?!?! She coached someone on how to pass a polygraph, so I guess she could lie her way through one as well. Or don't you believe the person who actually came forward with that gem. Seems like you disbelieve everyone EXCEPT Christine.
"Destoryed her life"?!?! She is a hero to every left wing hack in the country. Gofundme pages raised over $700,000 for her. How is that destroying her life? Besides, I'm sure when she started this she had visions of being hailed as the pussy hat wearing hero that destroyed the evil Trump.
As far as proving he's innocent. How do you "prove something didn't happen" when there are no details given. Just a claim that it did happen. Even you must be able to see through the Trump hate to understand that.
You. Can't. Make. This. Stuff. Up.
I think it's quite likely that Christine Ford sincerely believes in the reality of her memory, but that doesn't mean that her memory isn't false. False memories aren't uncommon. I'll bet everyone reading this has some recollection or other that's sincerely believed and simply incorrect.
Arguing for her credibilty is her insistence that her attacker was Brett Kavanaugh.
Arguing against her credibilty is *everything else*. No corroboration from named witnesses, insufficient detail to establish a plausible time and location, and absolutely no evidence, after thorough vetting through several confirmations, that Judge Kavanaugh's personality and comportment bear any resemblance to the punk portrayed in Ford's account.
Confirmation was a bitter choice. To confirm was to discount Ford's apparently sincere testimony. To deny confirmation was to establish a "show trial" precedent for every subsequent confirmation.
I think you give her far too much credit.
I get your point, Ugenetoo. It's possible that she's a partisan fake. But it's also possible that her recollection is accurate.
My post was about preponderance of evidence.
It's evident that a cynical conspiracy to stop Kavanaugh with a show trial was engineered by the senate Democrats but I think it's more likely that Ford was their pawn and not a witting participant. If she'd been part of the conspiracy she (or they) would have concocted a more plausible story, perhaps with more pliable witnesses and a plausible setting. Her story, with its puzzling absence of details, was all they had to work with. That they chose to run with it shows the depth of their desperation.
Does anyone know what a "murder board" is?
And then there's that "little baby girl voice...."
She seemed to be suffering from some sort of psychological problems that manifested themselves in very obvious ways.
Did you see the questions from the polygraph?
Were the questions available to the public?
Most detail I heard was that there were two questions, one of which was something like "are you telling the truth in this examination?"
In considering the evidence regarding Christine Blasey Ford's allegations, I omitted a few items in my previous posts. I'm reconsidering.
First, she failed to mention a single detail that could have been checked independently. Nothing whatsoever. I think the game was: allow no possibility of fact-checking to refute her accusation while avoiding risk of perjury. Her (Feinstein's) lawyers would have been incompetent if they hadn't coached her through this. (Thanks to Mel for introducing me to "murder board.") I understand that one can't recall all details of a long-ago trauma, but the absence of any checkable detail strikes me as wildly improbable.
Two, her choice to bring her allegation to a public hearing in Washington despite the committee's offer to hear her privately in California. She wanted a bullhorn.
Finally, Kavanaugh's early and categorical denial. Unless he was certain that no factual corroboration would be unearthed, his preferred tactic was a limited admission and apology. With his denial, he knew he was washed up unless he knew the accusation was false.
I think the preponderance suggests she's a fake.
From where I sit, the half life of her newsworthiness seems to already be well passed.
Please. If Ford had only been interviewed privately, the pro-Kavanaugh crowd would have cried foul. And Ford herself doubled down by saying there were witnesses. You think she would knowingly set herself up like that? Judge would either corroborate, because it happened, or he would lie and say it didn’t (or, rather, that he “couldn’t recall” such events—LOL). He did the latter, and hung Ford out to dry. Of course, Judge stayed away from the proceedings himself because he’s too fragile and shuns the spotlight, though he’s available for speaking engagements!
Kavanaugh couldn’t have admitted to anything and still been confirmed. So he denied it—in a completely unbelievable way. His tantrums made him seem entitled. Angry. Like he couldn’t believe he was being put through all of this because of shit he did when he was a teen. And he was evasive. He didn’t want an extensive investigation. Why not? If there were witnesses to an event that supposedly didn’t happen, wouldn’t you DEMAND that the committee bring them in to testify under oath? Instead, Kavanaugh sidestepped questions, changed subjects, asked rhetorical questions himself. And told fibs about stuff on his calendar, because he was embarrassed, and because it all spoke to his drunkard excesses and poor prep school character. In short, everything about his comportment and his lack of candor suggested he wasn’t telling the truth.
And yet AMGers insist that it’s Ford who is not only the liar, but a sociopath who beats polygraphs. Her “little girl voice” testimony was a charade, orchestrated by the dems.
No, her "little baby girl voice" was her showing herself. She did not come across as someone who should be teaching psychology, let alone making the case she tried to make.
It's entirely feasible that most of the other acts/scenes were carefully orchestrated by Feinstein and the rest.
On the plus side, she kept her makeup more understated than you do.
Please. If Ford had only been interviewed privately, the pro-Kavanaugh crowd would have cried foul.
Matt - You are misinformed on the facts. The "pro-Kavanaugh crowd" (Republican judiciary committee) invited Ford to speak privately in California. She chose to fly to Washington and to testify in public.
Also note that you are imputing tactical savvy to the same Ford you regard as a sincere victim, who ostensibly wanted to be heard anonymously. Why should she anticipate or care if the pro-Kavanaugh cried foul? (She's accusing the guy of attempted rape. No matter what, they're going to cry foul.) Was she seeking maximum impact? You decide.
And Ford herself doubled down by saying there were witnesses. You think she would knowingly set herself up like that?
If we're considering the possibility that Ford was lying for political (or perhaps other) purposes, it's unavoidable that she "would knowingly set herself up" in some regard. The question becomes a matter of tactics: what's the most plausible mix of evidence for her to present? With checkable evidence, there's the risk that her evidence will falsify her accusation.
Suppose, for example, that she had recalled that there was a brick church, or a cemetery, or a Sunoco station across the street from the house where she claimed to have been assaulted. Such a detail could have been checked and would have led to numerous other details that would have supported her story, or not. Checkable details, if false, could have resulted in a perjury charge for Ford and would have been obvious proof of a set-up character asassination on the part of Democrats who were coaching her. Why the puzzling absence of any - none whatsoever - checkable details? If her story is true, forgetting some details makes sense. Forgetting all details is suspiciously improbable. Only if her story is false does forgetting every checkable detail make sense.
With no supporting evidence, she's seen as a lone crank so, as a display of sincereity, naming a few potential witnesses is a logical tactic. Even if they "can't recall" the accusation can't be positively falsified. "Can't recall" will become evidence of a cover-up.
Judge would either corroborate, because it happened, or he would lie and say it didn’t (or, rather, that he “couldn’t recall” such events—LOL).
See what I mean about cover-up? Of course, if Ford were the liar, Judge couldn't possibly corroborate, could he?
Kavanaugh couldn’t have admitted to anything and still been confirmed.
Agreed. And if he didn't do anything, should he have admitted to something?
So he denied it—in a completely unbelievable way.
Unbelievable? Kavanaugh realized he'd been set up by Feinstein et al. with an unprecedented and totally false smear that threatened his career and reputation. So he's blamed for being angry?
If there were witnesses to an event that supposedly didn’t happen, wouldn’t you DEMAND that the committee bring them in to testify under oath?
Did I just read that? He should have DEMANDED "witnesses to an event that supposedly didn't happen." In any case, the Democrats got their investigation. Seriously, can anyone believe that there are more witnesses out there?
No such factual misinformation. By pro-Kavanaugh crowd, i was referring to his supporters, not the committee. If the accuser didn’t show up before the committee, they would have ripped her to shreds. Not that they didn’t anyway.
And the witnesses I was referring to were the people who Ford said were at the party during the assault. And judge was supposedly in the room. But Kavanaugh didn’t demand that Judge testify. Why not, if he knew that he couldn’t corroborate? Because he wasn’t sure what he’d say.
Not only do you think that Ford is not a victim, you think that she is a sociopath at the center of a conspiracy, having been coached to lie by Feinstein and whoever else, and perjured herself before the nation, rather than thinking Kavanaugh simply lied about an assault he committed while a (documented) drunken teen. Sure.
By pro-Kavanaugh crowd, i was referring to his supporters, not the committee. If the accuser didn’t show up before the committee, they would have ripped her to shreds. Not that they didn’t anyway.
As you say, they cried foul anyway. So what's your point about her decision to testify before the committee in Washington? You think Kavanaugh supporters were less upset with Ford in Washington than if she'd testified privately in California? The kindest response to this assertion is that it's implausible.
And the witnesses I was referring to were the people who Ford said were at the party during the assault.
Understood. And all three, under oath, didn't corroborate. Her good friend hadn't even met Kavanaugh. Ford brushed that off as she has "health problems."
Judge had already testified. For reasons unrelated to his innocence, Kavanaugh would have been crazy to bring Judge before a hostile committee for a fishing expedition. That Kavanaugh "wasn't sure what he'd say" is certainly true, because who knows what smears might have loaded into the questions Judge might have been asked by, for example, Cory Booker.
Not only do you think that Ford is not a victim, you think that she is a sociopath....
No. Undoubtedly she was coached by her lawyers, including the lawyers chosen by Feinstein. They would have been derelict if they hadn't coached her, especially to omit any details that would have allowed investigators to check (and cast doubt on) her accusation. I don't think she's a sociopath. I think the simplest explanation to account for her accusation, after sifting the evidence, is that she lied because she convinced herself she was doing a good deed by helping the team for which felt affiliation. You and I can disgree on the plausibility of a conclusion that she lied from the outset, but repeating "she wouldn't knowingly set herself up" isn't sufficient to falsify it.
Hoping they give Booker's victim of sexual assault the same opportunity for a hearing in front of the whole country, Booker should demand it....#Ibelievehim!!