Ford - Kavanaugh Hearings 9-27-18

Guy on Fox called her an appealing witness.

I've tried to keep an open mind on this situation regarding the credibility of Dr Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. Its pretty clear how the Democrats are using this woman and how the Republicans are falling all over themselves to fight back; but that's a political angle that would always be true no matter if Dr Ford or Kavanaugh are the ones telling the truth. So the circus of all of this doesn't prove anything ether way. Yes the timing is suspect, but that's not Fords doing thats Finstine's. Yes the kangaroo court today is unsightly but thats Grasly's fault not Kavanaugh's.

So that leaves only the testimony given today that can be used to decide if I think Kavanaugh should be bard from sitting on the Supreme Court. Some people will say that the perception of wrong doing is enough to bar him; it's an important position and so we must error on the side of caution... This this is not a criminal producing so burdine of proof is not the bar that must be met; that dought is enough. I reject that argument because it simply is not logical; if such where allowed to happen individual people could bring our government to a halt just by casting doubt at any time.

So forming my opinion based on this very flawed system; at this time I'd have to concluded there is not enough information to sumerialy bar Kavanaugh from sitting on the court and the Senate should proceed to full vote and he should be made a Justice if he gets the majority vote.

So far Ford's testimony has not been enough to convince me that Kavanaugh's character is flawed enough to bar him from a vote.

1) Ford has not provided enough evidence or even details of the situation to make me believe the story. I fully understand that this can happen to an abuse victim over 30 years; but at the same time I can not dam a person based on such flimsy evidence and details. That's a rotten reality for abused individuals, that the system is stacked against them, but that doesn't mean we should abandon our belief that an individual is innocent until proven guilty. In the absence of evidence and detail than guilty can not be assumed no matter how serious the allegations are.

2) I am not happy with the testimony that Ford is giving about the events of the last few months. She can credibly blame PTSD for her lack of recollection of events 30 years ago; but that does not explain why she is having difficulty answering questions about her actions and interactions of the last few months. Right now these events are likely the most important thing happening to her, she shouldn't be having difficulty recollecting and relying on papers to answer the questions.

3) She has repeatedly psychologicaly analyzed herself during her testimony. She tries to overly explain why she did or does act a certain way. It is as if she is trying to premeditivily anticipate peoples doubt and giving a clinical reason for why that doubt is wrong. If she was there to tell the truth about what happened to her she should not need to provide that kind of testimony; all she has to do is tell the truth as she sees it, not interpret it for others.

2 and 3 could be due to over couching by her lawyers or Democrat operatives... but if so they did her a disservice.

originally posted by: Bicent
1st of all this is a political stunt. 2nd of all I don't know who Kavanagh is who this woman is and why they're on television talking to the legislative branch in regards to a criminal accusation. It's a political stunt. I agree This woman sounds convincing she has a master's degree in psychology. Also her political alignment is Democrat. It's a political stunt. Why didn't she goto the cops within the last 36 years? I mean just think for a minute. Now all of a sudden she decides to be a hero? All those other chances the past 36 years we wait til now to tell the world this guy raped you or whatever it is he did 36 years ago. By the way does she want him to goto jail lol. Craziness.... ROME IS IN FLAMES FOLKS.

Fifty stars. Right on.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: deckdel

While I may not agree with all of your points, I do agree that she has not been fully forthcoming in her testimony. The interruptions by her attorney do not help instill confidence in me either. We are getting a part of the full story, tailored to push an agenda.

And I remind everyone who wishes to take umbrage with this preliminary conclusion that I have been, I think, more than sympathetic to her story throughout. I simply will not abide deceit when a man's life is on the line.

TheRedneck

Wish I'd of said that. but yes it is important, a mans life IS on the line

a reply to: UKTruth

he very idea that an accusation with no corroborating evidence can initiate an FBI investigation against another individual is abhorrent.

They got away with it on Trump and Russia nonsense. So obviously it's a winning tactic.

a reply to: neo96

Lady live on the phone at CSPAN is saying Ford is not credible at all and the host looks taken aback.

a reply to: Konduit

I was wondering why he was so important for the Dems to run this circus show.

What else can he do against the criminal party of America when he gets confirmed?

Watched the whole thing live up until break.

I've been very open minded and couldn't wait for this hearing. I think Dr. Ford sounds mostly credible(putting aside the blatant interrupts by her counsel). There are a few discrepancies like her apparent fear of flying but yet her joy for travel....as well as her handling of the question asked by Mitchell in regards to the Senate Judiciary Committee's attempt at meeting her where she was for an interview. She said she "didn't understand" what they were offering....

Overall, I'd say it is still much too soon to say anything for certain though.

A2D

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: shooterbrody

are the 6 fbi background checks not enough?

Here's a whataboutism for you.

Were the 13 investigations into hillary enough?

Her investigations turned up wrongdoing. So yes.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Woodcarver

Is there something im missing?

Yes... the fact that not one single accuser has even made a statement to any law enforcement.

Maryland has even stated they will investigate... but they need a charge to investigate first.

TheRedneck

Yea, I didn’t think there had been any formal charges. So what is the purpose of this commission? Why would they let her testify about this claim in this setting? To these senators?

originally posted by: Ameilia
a reply to: neo96

Lady live on the phone at CSPAN is saying Ford is not credible at all and the host looks taken aback.

She'd been more credible if she'd gone to the police instead of snip hat congressman,and media outlets.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Woodcarver

Is there something im missing?

Yes... the fact that not one single accuser has even made a statement to any law enforcement.

Maryland has even stated they will investigate... but they need a charge to investigate first.

TheRedneck

if they actually made a statement to LE that was knowingly false, they could face charges....that might be a reason this hasnt happened

originally posted by: RickinVa
Two things that stand out:


1. She claims to be afraid of flying, but has a history of many flights.

2. She took a polygraph, but doesn't know who paid for it.





Not very convincing.

I got the impression that the way Rachel was questioning her, I think the committee already knows who took her home. Just a feeling, but if they do, not sure why they would be setting on it....or they know that person is the key to the truth.

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: Konduit

I was wondering why he was so important for the Dems to run this circus show.

What else can he do against the criminal party of America when he gets confirmed?

Save Millions of unborn Lives......

a reply to: cosmickat

I have a very close friend who had an extremely traumatic experience that landed her in the hospital and she does not remember anything leading up to or after the event.

At this stage, it would not surprise me in the least if Kavanaugh, shortly after his testimony begins, withdraws his candidacy for SCOTUS, citing his belief that it would be in the “best interests of the Court and the country”.

He will not admit, or be required or expected to admit, to any wrongdoing, but will withdraw based on his “deep respect and devotion to a Justice system above any question of reproach”.

Or something to that effect.

The “feeling” is shifting in sympathy to Dr. Ford, and the tactic the Republicans have employed, using the judge as their surrogate, has left them appearing as ineffectual.

I don’t think Trump will be pleased with many of his party’s representatives on this panel.

originally posted by: amazing


I'm not seeing it. The questions seem too random and trivial. You may be right, but I don't see any gotcha at the end of this line of questioning. Just a dull...okay next. Unless the whole line of questioning is just to make it seem like her memory is faulty.

She is scary...She comes off so nice and easy going questioning with nice thank you(s) and smiles while cooking her like one would do with a lobster by slow turning up the heat to not feel it.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Curious what about her story sounds credible to you.

Well, with her being under oath now, Kav could technically file a suit against her for defamation which would cause an investigation.

a reply to: Woodcarver

The sole purpose appears to be to stall Kavanaugh's nomination until after the midterm elections, at which time the Democrats hope to have a majority to deny him the position. Why? Because he, a constitutionalist, will be replacing Kennedy, a slightly liberal moderate.

TheRedneck