Ya think? Let me make the prediction that Kav isn’t going to be bringing a lot of lawsuits. If you’ve been following the news, the guy is slinking around trying to keep the lowest possible profile and hoping VERY hard that this all fades away into the forgotten recesses of the public’s notoriously short memory. The last thing this conservative hero wants is renewed interest in investigating his juvenile debauchery.
since there’s literally no evidence a party took place your belief that it happened is completely without merit.
Where did he state his belief in the post you quoted?
Hypothetically, if you were remodeling your house so part of it could be used for a commercial purpose, and you had a fear of being trapped in your house without a means of escape, wouldn’t it be internally consistent to want that commercial area to have a separate entrance/exit from your personal living space? Not remotely contradictory.
I don’t even see the logic of the she wanted more doors therefore she wasn’t claustrophobic argument. e.g. She said she wanted more doors because she was afraid of being trapped, but it looks like she really wanted more doors because she was afraid of strangers having access to her living space. Contradiction!
That doesn’t make a lick of sense.
To get back to the OP question - she doesn’t.
This is not about proving beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case that such-and-such happened.
This is about warning people who had to make a critical decision about giving someone a very prominent role in the governance of the country, that they did not know all the facts about someone’s personality. The sad part is that it raises some questions about Kavanaugh that from my viewing of the testimony seem to indicate he has serious personality issues. I find it difficult to believe that this is fabricated - a fabricated story would have a lot more evidence to back it up. (At the very least, they would have used a pair of women, one willing to back up the other) But, as we saw with Roy Moore previously, partisanship ended up being more important than truth or rectitude.
Seriously - of all the complaints about Gorsuch, nobody suggested anything near such a character flaw. Similarly, of all the candidates for senator in 2016, only Roy Moore seems to have earned such an accusation. Logical conclusion? They earned their accusations.
You don’t know if there were claims against Gorsuch.
Kavanaugh had a flawless reputation until an anonymous accusation was made public. Then a flood of deranged women like Swetnick came forward with baseless claims.
There are probably hundreds if not thousands accusations against politicians. Most are baseless. Responsible people in the media usually don’t report them even if they’re against a Republican. Swetnick got so much publicity because she was represented by Avenatti. Otherwise, even the New York Times would not have published her accusation.
I had a friend who worked as an assistant to a small town mayor who told me about numerous frivolous claims that the mayor worked for the mafia and was targeting individual citizens for some personal reason. It’s all part of being a public figure.
The door story makes no sense. Either it’s entry into private space or it’s for her claustrophobia. It’s a lie reinforced by her fear of flying story which has no basis of truth.
The door story makes perfect sense. When they were remodeling their house to add a separate rental space she insisted on another door because her fear of being trapped. It is 100% consistent with her statements and the known facts.
Your door story makes no sense. Like not even a little.
The fact that none of the details she does allege can be corroborated does cast suspicion on her case. All the vague stuff we have only her word for. All the specifics - nobody backs it up.
Because she showed no sign of being in a tailspin, nobody else noticed that she was in a tailspin, and she never mentioned that she was in a tailspin.
Save it.
You know who else doesn’t tell people they are in a tailspin, and show no signs of being in a tailspin, and nobody notices that they are in a tailspin? People who haven’t been sexually assaulted.
Regards,
Shodan
And people trying to recall an event that didn’t happen often have trouble recalling details.
And people not in a tailspin often don’t tell others they’re in a tailspin. (As Shodan notes.)
That’s actually not true. As I noted over here, Ford’s testimony and her recollections and gaps fit the classic pattern of truthfulness in recalling a distant traumatic event. Being able to recall a lot of details – especially the wrong kinds of detail – is a tip-off to likely fabrication, according to sex crime experts, including I believe Rachel Mitchell.
Conversely, Kavanaugh’s “Deny, Attack, and Reverse” belligerence is the classic defensive posture of a guilty perp.
To all of which we can add the circumstantial evidence that the young Kavanaugh was a drunken lout, the fact that Ford took and passed a lie detector test, and to the judicial complaints filed against him based on his Senate testimony. We can also add the fact that Mitchell, who seemed to do a competent job in questioning Ford, was abruptly pulled out by the Republican committee when it came to Kavanaugh and hardly allowed to ask any questions.
Despite all this, I’m on record as saying that I don’t know what happened or what the truth is or who is lying, except that both parties have made such definitive statements that clearly one of them is lying, and the classic profiles suggest that the liar may well be Kavanaugh. It just amazes me that some on this board – and all Congressional Republicans – apparently know exactly what happened and are willing to endorse a lifetime appointment to one of the most important positions in the nation on the strength of their amazing psychic insight.
Lie detector tests are voodoo. The fact that you put any credence into them at all suggests that your views on the other evidence, or lack thereof, are equally invalid.
What does it tell us when none of the details she does give can be corroborated, and some are contradicted?
Regards,
Shodan
Many of the details she gave us have been corroborated.
Which details, specifically, have been corroborated? If you’ve got something of interest, this seems like it would be a really good time to share it with the rest of the class.
Here are some details from right near the beginning of her letter to Feinstein…
Corroborated or uncorroborated?
“Real Clear Investigations has also written about the controversy about the door. Their report points out that **the Fords own a second home in Santa Cruz, not far from the beach. That home has no second door. ** Real Clear Investigations questioned why Ford was willing to have a single exit to her Santa Cruz home, since she claimed to need a second exit to her bedroom in Palo Alto. The Santa Cruz home has been renovated in order to add decks and a porch, but there has been no second front door added.” My bolding.
Sounds like Christine Ford’s claustrophobia only happens when it helps her story.
Hahaha. No, it doesn’t sound like that.
you didn’t really just post public information and call it corroboration did you? She doesn’t know the house or the time it happened by Og she’s got his age correct.
I posted a detail of her story and asked if it was corroborated or uncorroborated.
It’s a straightforward question. Think of it as a level one intellectual honesty test.
Yes, that’s exactly how it looks, an intellectual honesty test.
You forgot to mention she said Brett was a male. She got that right too.