Why did Dr. Ford wait?

a reply to: JAGStorm

For me, her timing was never an issue. It was the timing of the democrats on the committee that was the issue. THEY chose to sit on it, PRECISELY because THEY didn't want Ford's accusations to be fully vetted under the normal process or timeline. Rather, THEY saw it as a political opportunity to delay the vote at the very least, and at worst, hoped the unfounded accusation would be enough to scuttle the nomination. THEY re-victimized this accuser. And THEY attempted to utterly destroy a man's life and reputation for no greater reason than politics.

Whatever the truth between these two people, one thing is clear. The democrats had no interest in learning what the truth was.

I hope Kavabaugh gets the votes...and I hope Ford gets her investigation. If it later turns out he was indeed guilty of these claims, the Constitution and due process provides for his ultimate removal. But what the Democrats have attempted to do is unacceptable and should not be rewarded in any way. Period.

a reply to: djz3ro

And she sat on it for 6 more years before making it public why exactly?

a reply to: loam

I hope Kavabaugh gets the votes...and I hope Ford gets her investigation. If it later turns out he was indeed guilty of these claims, the Constitution and due process provides for his ultimate removal.

I 100% agree

Why did Dr. Ford wait?

The better question is why Ford didn't have a CRIMINAL COMPLAINT filed instead of that snip show yesterday.

And brought it up in 2003 when Kavanugh began his federal career.(Actually confirmed 2006).

a reply to: vinifalou

It is that simple.

You may think so, but your conclusion fails under Occam's Razor. Because no intelligent person would bring so much stress on themselves and their family merely for political ideological purposes. There are fanatics in this world that might do so, but Dr. Ford is not that kind of ideologue, and she approached the whole process with trepidation. Using Occam's Razor, then, the simplest conclusion is that she IS telling the truth.

a reply to: neo96
The reason why criminal complaints are never forthcoming is that in ALL these cases there is NO PHYSICAL evidence. It is all hearsay, ones words against another's words. Could this survive a spotlight of open court. Without other witnesses, NO.
THAT'S why it's got to be trial by media. He did this, he said this, this was how he acted. Just ones words.
Also the public feeling on these crimes has shifted from the times long ago. If she had made these allegations just after it happened it would have been "put up or shut up" and if she had a case the police would have taken it forward. At that time many, many actions took place that was shrugged off (notwithstanding they could have been illegal acts) that today are seen as sexual assault and the onus on proving these happened are very, very, near impossible ,to prove.
Now let me upset a few of you. If you have a memory of alien abduction from a year ago the pundits scream out "recovered memory is not reliable, it can be totally fake, made up". Not considering the abduction could really have happened.
So why don't they hold Fords memories to the same criteria.
If this happened to her I sincerely wish she gets justice and completion to move on with her life.

I watched all of the testimony of Dr. Ford yesterday. Her mannerisms reminded me of a relative who passed away about 29 years ago and was mentally ill. She would sit all day long chain smoking cigarettes and drinking pots of coffee. She functioned but not consistently with her daily duties and personal relationships. She imagined things happening and would fight to prove that it was all real. She resisted medical treatment for in her mind nothing was wrong. I see this in Dr. Ford.


Dr. Ford would appear to have had one of these episodes to me. There was an imaginary event and as it would happen she tries to fill in the blank spaces backwards. As it starts, there was an event in 1982. To give more credibility to her story, she says it was a person from her hometown with some importance. She first saw in 2012 that person from her hometown had become a judge in nearby Washington...Kavanaugh. Now create the event with unspeakable crimes...attempted rape and kidnapping at 15 years old. At this point, she hadn't formulated the time or the place or any other elements of her story. This story has brought her sympathy by her husband and friends since the time she first spoke of it. She told her story to any one who would listen. Therapists and even strangers on the beach...anybody who would listen. However her story was still developing backwards. She now craved attention. She had the need to tell her story to a bigger more important audiences. She wrote her congressman and when that didn't pan out she started to contact the press. She suddenly became a pawn in a political mud slinging. Now she was trapped with her a half formulated story. She had no answers for the missing elements of her story. Where? When? How did you get there? Who invited you? How did you get home. Some essential elements of the story not made up yet.

Dr. Ford spoke as if she was the 15 year old girl that had been molested in 1982. She acted confused at times grasping for answers. But, when asked which detail she remembered the most she constructed a very details account of how memories are formed in the brain. "When Kavanaugh was on top of me", she replied. She wanted everyone present to see her pain showing tears to the committee. "I am so afraid", she said often. Afraid to fly though she travelled by air on frequent vacation. She wanted two front doors when remodeling her home because she was afraid that she couldn't escape. I would have to list these comments as story fillers AKA BS.


For those of us who experienced this kind of behavior before, Ford's story is a cry in the darkness for attention or friendship or something unknown. However, it should not be used as condemning Kavanaugh.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Its much easier to establish reasoning and commonality between the allegations against Mr Kavanaugh, and the wider picture of sexual assault as a topic in general, when you accept that even now, in this more supposedly enlightened and more equal age in which we are living, over sixty percent of sexual assault goes unreported in the United States. That is, even rapes and sexual assaults besides, that occur in the States this week, will only be reported thirty some percent of the time.

It is one of the most under reported crimes in your country today.

The same holds true this side of the pond, where EIGHTY percent of sexual assault and rape goes unreported. It is an indictment of the backward nature of law, the tendency of authority figures to be less than willing to go after those who commit these offences, that the figures should be so low. I want to live in a world where those who have been victimised, have a voice and feel free to use it, knowing that those they speak the truth to will hear it, and then act upon it.

Another way to look at this is as follows.

So a terrible thing happens one night, in a persons youth. The victim and perpetrator go their entirely separate ways for the rest of their lives, the victim having come to the conclusion that given the parlous state of conviction rates for the crime in question, the best the victim can hope to do, is get past the damage somehow, and make a life for themselves in spite of it. The victim is if not content with that, then at least grudgingly accepts that this is their life now, and whatever comes of it comes of it. They settle into getting their education, they set up a life and a career for themselves, decades pass.

All of a sudden, they hear a name they have not heard for decades, in the same sentence as the words "supreme court nominee". They hear the name of the person who wronged them, being named as a potential occupier of a lifetime seat, on the highest court in their land, the name of a person whose qualification for the position is null and void because of the suffering they caused the victim. Naturally, the victim will relive the event in their head, as they may well have on many prior occasions, but this time the reliving is all the more like knives in the guts, because they know that this person may well become one of the most powerful people in the country.

And so, despite having buried their victimhood for decades, despite having only spoken of it infrequently, and never having mentioned it to an authority, the importance of their coming forward becomes all the greater, precisely because the individual who wronged them is about to become powerful, about to occupy a seat on the supreme court, making them responsible for interpreting law. Think of it, a person who has committed a sexual assault, permitted to rule on matters of law, to exercise power much greater than they have ever had before, despite the fact that the victim knows that the individual about to take their seat, has already proven that they will misuse the power they have, whether great or small.

And so, they come forward, to prevent a toxic individual from sullying a seat on the greatest court in the land...

And all most people seem to be able to do, is label her, attack her, and call her out for not coming forward sooner, despite the fact that people know better than to make THAT the issue.

Quite a few people around here need to take themselves in hand, and think about the following:

What if that was your mother, your sister, or your wife making that statement? Would you be as ready to victim blame? Would you be as willing to demonize your own kin, your loved ones in the same circumstances?

Lets assume for a moment, that Dr Ford is telling the truth. Why did she wait? Well, that is the wrong question, because the answer to that is likely to be the same as the reason sixty plus percent of rape and sexual assault is never reported. The question is why did she come forward now, and the reason I suspect, is that if she had remained silent any longer, Kavanaugh would have wound up on the supreme court, with no protest at all, despite being a criminal creep, and being a criminal creep ought to disqualify a person from that level of office.

Now, the right thing here, is for an investigative body to look into this matter, with the confirmation on hold, until such time as an investigation of these allegations has been completed. Its been done before, in other such circumstances in the past (which means for the mouth breathers at the back, that YES it IS the FBI's job to investigate these allegations) and there is no reason why they should not be expected to do so now.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Fortunately, we live in a country where we don't believe in guilt by statistics.



And if it was my mother, my sister, or my wife, I'd be incensed that the people claiming to help her would use the claim in a political manner that would ultimately rob her of a fair opportunity to have her claim investigated.

The democrats didn't care about seeking the truth. They only cared about the public spectacle and the opportunity it my provide to scuttle the nomination.

a reply to: loam

Ok, first of all, well done for ignoring the key elements of my post entirely, which is the only way you could have arrived at the erroneous belief that your response was relevant to my post in the slightest. Congratulations.

Second, I will repeat, that the investigation into these allegations must be carried out. This means that guilt has not been assumed in the slightest. It merely means that you would have thought that an appointee to the highest court in the land, would have to have any allegations against them investigated thoroughly, before taking their seat. And why you may ask? Well, I suppose that depends on how much respect, understanding or knowledge you have of the position involved. Again, you cannot have one of the highest officials in law, in a country, suspected of sexual assault. If the man is innocent, then an investigation of his actions will turn up nothing untoward, and his confirmation can proceed.

If he had the slightest gumption about him, he would WANT to be investigated, and if he respected the role he was being nominated for, he would insist upon being investigated, prior to his confirmation.

a reply to: loam

THEY chose to sit on it, PRECISELY because THEY didn't want Ford's accusations to be fully vetted under the normal process or timeline. Rather, THEY saw it as a political opportunity to delay the vote at the very least, and at worst, hoped the unfounded accusation would be enough to scuttle the nomination. 

No. And you know it. As the very first report at The Intercept "THEY" didn't sit on it... Diane Feinstein sat on it. Until it was leaked. DiFi didn't want this out. "THEY" forced Feinstein's hand after she kept it even from her fellow Dems. Why?

More to the point, why are so many people willfully and deliberately lying about that? Hmmmm???

There is something here that neither side wants the public to know.

a reply to: Boadicea

Actually, I didn't know that. So thanks for the link.

As well-read as I am, there are obviously only so many hours in a day.

Maybe you should reassess who you accuse of "willfully and deliberately lying". Hmmm. There's a theme.

I do note with interest from the article:

Update: September 13, 2018

Feinstein has released a statement Thursday afternoon acknowledging the existence of the letter. “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,” she said.

Of course, this assumes any of what Feinstein says can be fully believed.

As an example, yesterday:

Then yesterday, June (sic) Swetnick came forward to say that she had experiences of being at house parties with Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. She recounted seeing Kavanaugh engage, and I quote, “in abusive and physically aggressive behavior toward girls,” end quote, including attempts to, quote, “remove or shift girls clothing,” end quote. Not taking, quote, “no for an answer,” grabbing girls, quote “without their consent,” end quote, and targeting, quote, “particular girls so that they could be taken advantage of,” end quote.

Link

Did that strike you as an accurate characterization of Swetnick 's claim?

Where was the actual assertion of the 10-party-chain-gang-rape-queues?

She wasn't honest about that because even she knew it cut against all credibility.

So if she could publicly mischaracterize such a thing, why should anything else she says not be viewed with great suspicion?

What the hell do all you people want. An investigation, BS, BS, BS.
The only thing and I mean the only thing that can be investigated is the search for other witnesses to the alleged offence. There can be NO physical evidence. It's her word against his, end of.
If there are no other witnesses it comes down to who you believe and for such an important decision, especially with the political side ( she being in the opposing political party as him) they HAS to be extraordinary evidence to show guilt not just hearsay. Even if she is correct.
All of this smacks of a witch hunt, trial by media. And in being so should be deliberated in a court of law not by a committee. But they know that because they have NO concrete evidence and in a court of law it would be threw out.

a reply to: loam

Actually, I didn't know that. So thanks for the link. 

As well-read as I am, there are obviously only so many hours in a day. 

My apologies for presuming too much... I have posted the same info several times the last few days. I assumed too much. You'll have my gratitude if you join me in questioning this media narrative going forward....

Maybe you should reassess who you accuse of "willfully and deliberately lying". Hmmm. There's a theme. 

My apologies again. I was actually referring to the media who are pushing this narrative. Which started almost immediately after the report was made public. And I have no doubt there's a purpose, I just don't know what. But it did look like I was just blaming you, and that's all on me. So I will be more careful and qualify my words going forward.

And for what it's worth, I'm not giving DiFi a free pass... I'm sure she had/has her own nefarious purposes as well.

a reply to: Boadicea

Fair enough.

originally posted by: vinifalou
a reply to: djz3ro

And she sat on it for 6 more years before making it public why exactly?

Couldn't tell you, I was answering a question based on tbe information available to me. Let me answer that with another question, is there anyway she could have known, in 2012 that Kavanaugh would be nominated for this post?

a reply to: JAGStorm

I don't care how long she waited. What really gets me is why she went to the legislative branch instead of the judicial branch.

If you want to report a crime, you go to the police or a criminal court.... it's really not rocket science.

A2D

The better question is why Ford didn't have a CRIMINAL COMPLAINT filed instead of that snip show yesterday.

And brought it up in 2003 when Kavanugh began his federal career.(Actually confirmed 2006).

Because Feinstein hadn't yet convinced her to be a pawn in this whole scheme yet, of course.

As for criminal complaint, both were minors, and the statute of limitations for an alleged grope anyhow, has long expired.

She would have been laughed out of the station.....

It's equally absurd its gone this far.