"Let her say what she has to say. And let's see how it all comes out. But they've delayed it a week, and they have to get on with it" is what the predisent said in response to prompting from Sean Hannity. "You've been very accommodating" the ass-kissing toady said, agreeing with the Orange-skinned misogynist.
What Hannity and tRump were talking about was the accusations of attempted rape against SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. That this nominee be rushed though the process is what the Right is stressing. Also the fact that Dr. Ford can't remember specific details. That is the tact Lisa of the trumper blog Who's Your Daddy employs. By posting comments she attributes to "Ken Sisco", whoever that is (I did a Google search on "selective memory has it's advantages" and "Ken Sisco" and got nothing).
SELECTIVE MEMORY HAS ITS ADVANTAGES.
If Dr. Ford could remember a specific date or year, Judge Kavanaugh might be able to show that he was nowhere near the incident described. When the fraudulent accusations were made in the Duke Lacrosse debacle, one of the three men accused, proved by a video that when the incident occurred, he was at an ATM machine a mile away. Same is true of location. (posted by Lisa to WYD on 9/20/2018 at 6:40am under the title "Same Story, Different Names"). |
First, to address the "selective memory" bit. The author is clearly implying he believes Dr. Ford is lying. However, that details of traumatic events like sexual assault can't remembered extraneous details is actually very common.
Jodi J. De Luca PhD, explains [that] "When a person is faced with a dangerous or threatening situation, their attention becomes narrowly focused on the danger at hand". ... So when survivors can't remember every aspect of the trauma later, that isn't the result of negligence or absent-mindedness—instead, certain aspects of the trauma simply weren't encoded into the survivor's memory because they were experiencing real and present danger.
"This can help explain why a survivor may recall vividly certain details of the trauma while being unable to recall other details of the event"... (Trauma Survivors Often Forget Important Details of Their Assaults. Here's Why. 1/17/2018 Greatist article by Alexis Dent). |
As for what happened in the Duke Lacrosse case, Dr. Ford's accusations are not comparable. Crystal Gail Mangum, the accuser in that case, lied. Her story fell apart and those she accused were cleared of any wrongdoing. Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth. The different name that could be subbed into this story is Anita Hill. Professor Anita Hill's story has never been disproven.
Another corollary between Ford and Hill is the coordinated Right-wing character assassination. Anita Hill was painted as "a little bit slutty, a little bit nutty". In regards to Ford, The Republican senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch, says she is "mixed up". Also "if that were true [the accusations], I think it would be hard for Senators not to consider who he is today". Nice. She's making it up. Although, if she isn't, it doesn't matter.
Clearly the plan is to steamroll Dr. Ford if she shows up. They want to keep this a "he said, she said" so it's Kavanaugh's word versus Dr. Ford's word. She's lying or mixed up. It doesn't matter anyway because it was so long ago. Also, they don't want the FBI to investigate because it would be pointless.
Liberal Hunter: Okay, so let's have an FBI investigation to satisfy The Accuser...
Where did this take place? I don't know. What day was this? I don't know. What month did this take place? I don't know. What year did this take place? I don't know. Okay genius, now tell me WTF are the FBI supposed to investigate? (9/20/2018 at 11:29am). Excerpted from a WYD comment. |
Obviously this moron "Liberal Hunter" thinks the FBI would start the investigation, find that Dr. Ford couldn't remember certain details, then determine there was nothing for them to go on and therefore they couldn't proceed. Except they could find other people who had been there (by looking at student enrollment records) and question them. And likely find (via exhaustive legwork) at least a few other people who had been at the party and could remember those details.
Just because "Liberal Hunter" is too stupid to figure out how the FBI would proceed doesn't mean the FBI wouldn't be able to find other people to corroborate Dr. Ford's story. Or to not corroborate if (in the highly unlikely event) Kavanaugh is innocent and Dr. Ford is "mixed up" or lying.
They don't want the FBI to investigate for a reason. By "they" I mean the Orange Turd and all the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee. As well as the subservient ass-kissing state media (Fox, etc) and (taking their cues from these sources) the brainwashed zombie Orange Turd cultists. People like the trumpers who comment on WYD.
The reason they don't want an investigation is because "only 2-8% of rapes are falsely reported, the same percentage as for other felonies". Their intention is to push through Brett Kavanaugh and get him on the Supreme Court, facts be damned! Brett needs to get to work ASAP protecting the wealthy and corporations. As well as taking away rights from minorities and women. Because imposing the will of a minority is more important than one woman getting sexually assaulted (that minority being pseudo Christian evilvangelicals and Ayn Rand types who believe the US should be ruled by an aristocracy).
"Ruth Bader Ginsburg came out that she was groped by Abraham Lincoln" Rep Ralph Norman (SC 5th district) joked recently. It's funny because RBG is an ugly old hag who should hurry up and die. That women are a threat to legitimate male power (as per FrancoThinke) is a "fact" that even Right-wing women (such as Lisa) agree with. The problem is feminazis and absolutely not toxic masculinity.
If Hillary Clinton had won the election and been inaugurated (she won but was not inaugurated) and President HRC nominated a man for the Supreme Court who was accused of sexual assault? You KNOW Republican hypocrites would absolutely believe the accuser and DEMAND an FBI investigation and hearings that were more than political theater.
Scratch that. The actual suggested course of action of Republicans prior to the election was that, if Hillary Clinton should win, they would deline to hold hearings to replace Antonin Scalia for HRC's ENTIRE 4 year term!
The scientific method requires that a theory be disprovable. In the Kavanaugh confirmation, it will be impossible to "prove" guilt or innocence. It is the very definition of a "he said, she said". And as such, deserves no part in the confirmation process.
ReplyDeletebtw - No sense in delays to gather more evidence, either. Everyone in the nation is aware of these charges. And those who have knowledge will have come forward voluntarily and have been questioned by now had the accuser cooperated with the committee in a timely manner. That's ALL "Her bad"
DeleteThe SCOTUS nominee confirmation process is subject to the scientific process? Who knew?
DeleteAs for people coming forward... to who? Has a toll free tip line been set up for people to call? People who remember what happened have already called the FBI to report what they know? And you know this HOW? Sure, we should substitute Red Herring guesses as to how people behave for an actual investigation. That makes sense. By which it makes no sense at all.
I bet the police could save a lot of money if they simply stopped investigating crimes. Make sure whatever crime you want solved makes the news... then assume everyone knows about it and people who can finger the bad guy will come forward.
People can't call their Senators with info for the Committee like Ford did? Who knew?
DeleteThe Senate IS conducting an investigation. It's the one Ford "ducked" for two months until a leaker (probably @ the WaPo) "outted" her.
DeleteLeaks are how Democrats believe the press MUST operate. It it isn't Leaked, IT'S JUST "NOT WORTH KNOWING".
Not much in either of your comments worth responding to. So I won't.
DeleteKavanaugh, IF he is innocent of the sexual assault charges should request the president to direct the FBI to investigate. He should make it known he welcomes the most intense scrutiny. Both the president and Kavanaugh should support a delay in the confirmation process. For as long as it takes.
ReplyDeleteInnocent people have no fear of being found to have done something they didn't do.
The Orange Turd and the repubs are playing politics. Racing to confirm before the mid term elections. They apparently have little concern with the integrity of the court going forward..
Yes, and Kavanaugh should have to file all criminal complaints against himself. After all, THAT is how the 5th Amendement WORKS!
DeleteIdiot.
Innocent people shouldn't HAVE to worry about corrupt, self-serving, FBI and DOJ officials. That's why they should declassify and publically disclose unredacted copies of the Carter Page FISA warrant applications, right RN?
Delete1. No.
Delete2. The "deep state" is trumper bullshit. When you refer to "corrupt self-serving FBI and DOJ officials" this conspiracy theory is what you refer to. It's nonsense you think allows you to attack law enforcement. That the predisent started this BS is yet another reason he is unfit to serve. 25th amendment.
I don't know if Carter Page is going to be one of the people who end up being hung for treason or not... but the FBI did have good reason to surveil him. That much is obvious. NO to the unredacted copies of the FISA warrant. Traitors like Joe want the Russians to know our sources and methods, patriots do not.
What are the charges against Carter Page, again? lol!
DeleteThe charges against Page are forthcoming.
DeleteYou're going to charge a US Spy with espionage? lol! He's a USNA grad.
Deleteo/t - since Lisa closed the thread, here's my last response...
The Reality of a Background investigation... from the perspective of a member of the American Federal Contract Investigators Association...
ps - Keep telling yourself that "The Deep State" (aka Lawfare Group, et al) is a fantasy...
Delete...so are the Brooking Institute (Lawfare's sponsor) and the Hoover (the Republican's equal).
DeleteI'm not telling myself the "deep state" conspiracy is a fantasy. The facts are. Lawfare the blog and the Lawfare Institute are NON state entities. As opposed to being deeply imbedded in the state. Benjamin Wittes, the individual who started the Lawfare blog, is not or has ever been a government employee.
DeleteYou're spinning legitimate concern over the tRump campaign's MANY Russian contacts as a conspiracy to bring down tRump. Nobody in the "deep state" forced tRump campaign operatives to meet with Russian contacts 87+ times. Our intelligence agencies have an OBLIGATION to investigate such suspicious behavior. Presidential campaigns are prohibited from negotiation with foreign governments. There is only one president/administration at a time.
As for the Democrats using private investigative contractors to look into the Kavanaugh allegations (they could have but chose not to). I'd like to see anything written by someone with knowledge of the process. As opposed to your speculation. There was no time, in any case. Feinstein did not reveal the letter because confidentiality was requested. If she bungled it and could have shared that info with the rest of the committee in confidence, that hardly excuses the republicans plowing ahead. Nor does it equal a Democratic conspiracy to leak the allegation at the last moment to delay Gang Bang Brett's confirmation.
BTW, the link you give above "The Reality of a Background investigation" pops up a Washington Post article that appears to be critical of the use of outside contractors to do background checks. I couldn't read it because another window came up saying I had to pay to continue reading. I did not pay.
In any case, apparently you agree with the criticism (I am guessing) the article makes, which is that our secrets are in too many hands (a criticism I agree with). Yet you slam Democrats for not using these private investigative contractors to investigate Kavanaugh? Not that I know one way or another if that was an option available to them.
BTW, presidential campaigns are supposed to sell their candidate to the American people. Apparently the tRump campaign thought they were supposed to additionally sell themselves to the Russian government. i.e. "We're going to do something about those sanctions the Obama administration put on you and a HRC administration will keep on you. We can work together to defeat HRC (with the dirt you've promised)". This isn't legal!
DeleteThe Lawfare blog is intended for and used by members of the Defense and Intelligence Communities to communicate, as the Brooking Institute (it's sponsor) supplies most of the "politically appointed" Civil Service Members for newly elected presidential Democratic administrations (The Hoover Institute at Stanford supplies Republican appointees). It provides a means for these politically appointed "employees" in DC to stay in touch with their home bases.
Delete...and Wittes represents The Coalition of All Democratic Forces... aka Democrats of the Deep State.
DeleteThey see their "resistance" battleground as "The Courts", and they will not cede a "Generalship" on that battleground (A SCOTUS nominee).... even one specifically selected by his predecessor (Anthony Kennedy)
DeleteIf your not familiar with Brookings and Hoover, you should be. It's where the US government goes to get their politically appointed "experts".
DeleteBen Wittes' pre-Trump call-out to all Democrats of the Deep State
DeleteThe "coalition" he broadly speaks of is with the Never-Trumpers from the Hoover Institute.
DeleteCurrent SCOTUS justices don't select their replacements. That's not how it works. tRump made a dirty deal to install Gang Bang Brett in order to fix the system in his favor. tRump wants Gang Bang Brett on the court in time to hear a case that could increase his pardon power dramatically. tRump is trying his hardest to fix the system in order that he may get away with his crimes. If he does, we'll likely end up a democracy in name only. What you want, apparently.
DeleteReaaly? How does it work?
DeleteWhat makes you think Kennedy had no say?
DeleteYes, tRump got Kennedy to step down by promising him the replacement he wanted. That is the dirty deal I referenced. But it isn't supposed to work that way. When Brett said "No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination" he was lying. Just like he did during the hearings (while under oath) about his yearbook... among other things. But those yearbook lies were the most obvious.
DeleteSo why did tRump insist Brett lie if "even one specifically selected by his predecessor" makes the the nomination even more valid (as you seem to think)? And you know that line came from tRump. It sounds just like that letter he got his weird doctor to write about how incredibly fit he is. tRump the con artist always talks in ridiculous hyperbole. It is absurd, yet so many dupes bought his phony act. You like being lied to, Minus?
DeleteYou really think the enfuriatingly 'moderate' former Associate Justice (Kennedy) would have retired without some assurance from Trump on the succession? I don't. He would have clung to the job just like Ginsberg is doing.
Deletebtw - Did you notice how Ford referred to Kavanaugh as "Brett" throughout her testimony? She knew him far more intimately that she's letting on...
Delete...but you have to wonder. "Brett" is such an intimate 'first' name. "Judge Kavanaugh" if a more distancing off-puttting 'last' name. If someone attempted to rape you, why would you maintain the former AFTER the attempt?
Reason. The assault never happened. If ANYONE ever took advantage of Ford, it was Squi. I don't know about you, but the girlfriends of my friends have always been off-limits for hitting on, let alone sexually assaulting. Ford's story is PURE BS.
BULLSHIT. She knew him by his first name then. The memory of being sexually assaulted by "Brett" is seared into her memory. And why the hell should she use a title denoting respect for a scumbag who traumatized her for life? Get real. Both your and Gang Bang Brett the partisan hack's stories are pure BS.
Deletelol! :)
DeleteToo many YouTubes. Say what you want to say. I'm not looking at it. As I've mentioned previously, I have an internet data cap and I have to watch my usage.
Delete"Deep state"... LOL!
Delete;p
DeleteMore fodder for the BI challenged.
ReplyDeleteId refer you to Page 5 for info on FBI use of Contractors.
DeleteI don't know what "BI challenged" means. Page 5 is the table of contents. I see nothing about the FBI's use of contractors on page 5.
DeletePage 5 of the Memo (10 of the .pdf). Tables of content don't count as pages.
DeleteOn page 10 it says "However, ATF does sometimes use OPM to conduct lower-level background investigations that do not require field work" and that "JMD and OPM uses contractors to conduct investigations".
DeleteSo, what you're saying is that a SCOTUS background check is "lower level"? I think they're going to have to get out into the field on this one. Even if it is limited in scope. Whatever that means. Hopefully not "we intend on clearing him - as opposed to digging for the truth". Although I suspect that is probably what's going to happen. We'll see.
FBI uses agents AND contractors to do FBI BIs.
DeleteAnd if you wanted the truth, you'd have Ford file charges. But she won't, cause she's a #LyingWhore.
Maryland is a Blue state and our AG is Bluer than Blue, with an "independence" license from the State Legislature and Governor to sue Trump for anything. Montgomery County is also Democratic stronghold, so their law enforcement command officers are mostly Democrats. Ford couldn't have a "friendlier" or "more sympathetic" investigator.
DeleteBut she won't file charges, and THAT speaks VOLUMES.
Ford definitely knew Kavanaugh (she dated his friend, 'Squi'). But the incident she describes NEVER happened. She's been planning on killing Kavanaugh's career ever since 2012, when he made Romney's "short list".
Delete...and when all her lies about "2nd doors" (from a 2008 building permit) and "Named assaulters" started to hazily appear in her addled Democratic brain.
DeleteFord's plot to save Roe and become a #MeToo superstar have been in work for six years. Too bad she won't get away with it.
DeleteHer hesitation at bringing forth charges until the very 11:59th hour were all her attempt to prevent exposure of her lies. Unfortunately for her, her exposure is now almost certain. Everyone in the country is aware of her story and so anyone with any even minor info is now going to call the FBI. And his confirmation next week will certify just "who" was lying, as none of that info will corroborate a word she has said.
DeleteFile charges for something that happened over 30 years ago? District Attorneys, whether Democratic or Republicans, want slam dunk cases. Wins and losses reflect on their reputations. And why would the police department want to expend resources for a background check that the FBI should be doing? This is about his fitness for the SCOTUS seat, not convicting him for a 30+ year old attempted rape. In any case, who's to say charges won't be filed? I'm sure her lawyers are advising her on possible next steps. But I'd be surprised.
DeleteI already cited for you the conviction rates (out of people who report). And, no, they aren't low because (as per your misogynist BULLSHIT) 99 percent of women reporting sexual assault are liars. It is because such cases are hard to prove to the standard it takes to send someone to prison. Remember that OJ Simpson got off in criminal court and was found guilty in regards to the civil lawsuit. Because the standards differed.
The standard of proof is surely a step down from any court of law when we're talking about a job interview. We can be sure enough that Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth to deny him this promotion. Especially given his many lies during the hearing.
The Montgomery County police have said they'll open an investigation IF a victim come forward. Bwock-Bwock!
DeleteAnd if a criminal standard is inapprpriate, sue him. But you Still need a "preponderance" of EVIDENCE, not "accusation". So far, Ford still score ZERO in the EVIDENCE category.
DeleteNo charges against Matt Lauer. Nobody is suing him. Yet he lost his extremely high paying job. Nobody is saying Gang Gang Brett should lose his current job (although I think he should), just not get a prestigious promotion.
DeleteThere's a lesson in this for women. Report sexual assaults when they happen. Coming forward 35 years later earns you scorn, derision and ridicule, precisely what you DESERVE!
DeleteThe probability is high that NO MATTER WHEN the reporting occurs, the victim will "earn" scorn, derision and ridicule. And NO, that is NOT "precisely what they deserve". That is the misogynist view of what they deserve. Which is what you are. A HARD CORE misogynist.
DeleteAs per Rape Crisis Midwest...
DeleteFACT: Rapists are men of all ages and from all walks of life. A US study of 646 convicted rapists found that they were no more psychologically disturbed than those who had committed robberies or assaults...
IMPACT: Survivors are often not believed because the rapist does not fit the stereotype, as they seem to be such a "normal" or "decent" person.
FACT: Reporting rape or sexual assault involves complex, invasive and sometimes traumatic procedures. Women who have been subjected to rape or sexual assault are often treated with suspicion and disbelief. This makes it unlikely that a woman would make and stick with a false accusation of rape.
IMPACT: Family, friends and acquaintances, without considering the above, do not believe the survivors, especially if they know the rapist. They suspect the survivor wants revenge or regrets what he/she did. As a result, survivors do not report or proceed with prosecution. This reinforces others in the belief that the survivors lied in the first place.
AN assault leaves EVIDENCE. If there is no assault, there is no evidence. People who make claims without evidence are #LyingWhores.
DeleteShe should have gone to the police and asked for a rape kit? Even though it was an attempted rape? What was her physical evidence? An undone button? Would the cops have dusted her body for fingerprints? I guess you think that, only if women would truthfully report, the conviction rate would be 100%. It is only because women lie so damn much that it is actually quite low, I take it?
DeleteIn your world, Matt Lauer should have sued for wrongful termination because all his accusers "consented". Additionally, Bill Cosby should be a free man and Harvey Weinstein shouldn't be on trial. We already know you believe the whole #metoo movement is a fraud, given that you've been referring to it as "pound me too". But that all is because you are a hard core misogynist, not because of "lying whores".
There would have been no trace evidence in the bedroom she got shoved into? No disheveled bedding? No clothing fibers or hairs, hers or the boys? No wallpaint residue on the boy's clothing from the hallway they "bounced" down? No bruises on her body? No breathalyzer test for Kavanuagh? No fingerprints on the volume knob? No witnesses to question?
DeleteWow! A guy can get away with ANYTHING!
Gee, even HER fingerprints would have been "wiped clean"!
DeleteYou make a convincing case that Brett did it. If only a full CSI analysis had been done Brett would have gone to prison for sure! How did those fibers get on your clothing? Obviously the only possible answer is attempted rape. BTW, as per your arguments, Juanita Broaddrick is a lying whore.
DeleteIt sure beats not being able to tie yourself to the defendent at all... there would have been a record of dates, locations, witness statements, charges filed, investigations conducted by the Montgomery Co. police.... all the things "credible" charges are made of.
DeleteA traumatized 15 year old, who likely did not want her parents to know that she was drinking beer and hanging out with older boys, didn't go directly to the police? Inconceivable! Surely that means she should never speak of it. She gave "consent" via her silence, after all.
DeleteI brought up young boys molested by priests previously, but I don't recall if you ever specifically respond to that point (I'm pretty sure you didn't). Are they lying whores as well? Or is it only females who don't report, but (for whatever reason) talk later?