Pretty cowardly form of victim blaming.
Won’t say who you are, or give any details, just that you have claim to have information that if she were sexually assaulted, then she deserved it.
(Leaving aside for the moment that Dr. Ford’s history of drinking and partying, like her sexual history, has exactly fuck-all to do with whether or not she was sexually assaulted or the claims put forward against Kavanaugh…)
Hmm, I wonder why someone would be afraid of coming forward. Maybe because another woman who came forward had to leave her home and seek out professional bodyguards in the wake of unending credible death threats.
This evidence that Dr. Ford liked to drink and party back in high school corroborates Dr. Ford’s claim that she was drinking and partying on the day in question.
It’s fairly weak corroboration, but corroboration nonetheless. Thanks for posting that and welcome to the corroboration bandwagon.
I’ve pretty much given up on this discussion since neither side is going to budge, but I stand by my earlier statements about Christine Ford acting in a manner consistent with truthfulness and Kavanaugh acting in the manner of someone pulling the DARVO defense – “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender”. Anyway I just wanted to drop in for a moment and say that as long as we’re quoting corroborations from the Senate report, let’s mention that there are many others than just the one that LAZombie likes to cite from an anonymous source that doesn’t even want his name publicized and refuses to give details. For instance, 79 statements and allegations made by Paul Rendon, included as Exhibit 20 and made under penalty of perjury. It’s fascinating reading and paints Kavanaugh as a drunk and a major asshole. Let’s just cite numbers 74, 75, and 76:
No it doesn’t. There is no evidence to back up her claim there was ever a party in the first place. At best, it indicates she’s not a prohibitionist.
You sir, as far as I’m concerned, are on a corroboration conversation timeout until you can explain this.
It’s self explanatory. Ford’s statement that she had a beer at a party is not corroborated by anyone saying she’s capable of drinking.
How you don’t understand this I don’t know.
That doesn’t explain the following post at all.
As far as I can tell, the post above shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of the word corroborated. I might be wrong. I’m willing to listen.
I’m not going to discuss other posts with you until you make a reasonable attempt to make some sense out of your, “corroboration of the internet,” post.
The big difference is that Ford supporters can speak freely without retribution. Kavanaugh, not so much. Thank you for pointing that out.
LOL. Disagreement and criticism is “retribution” now? I’m very sorry if being criticized is so hard for you. It’s okay, criticism and disagreement isn’t going to hurt you.
Yes, you’re wrong. I’ve posted the definition of the word multiple times and you continue to misuse it.
Ford’s story is that Kavenaugh assaulted her at a party 30+ years ago. That is what has to be proved. Nothing she brought up in the hearings corroborated her story. She can’t even establish that they were ever at a party together.
Don’t tell me I’m wrong. Show me I’m wrong by explaining this post. I don’t see how someone who understands the concept of corroboration could post this. Can you show me?
If Ford said it was a sunny day that’s not a corroboration that the Sun exists.
Is that supposed to explain this?
I don’t see the connection.
(post shortened, underline and bold added)
You’re statement that “it doesn’t prove that such a gathering occurred” is correct. You’re statement of “but it does tend to support it” is incorrect. There is no actual evidence that such a gathering occurred, and that is only one of the items of Ford’s claim that has not been corroborated. Actual evidence does NOT support Ford’s assertion that she attended such a gathering, or that such a gathering even took place.
*corroboration
noun [ U ] uk /kəˌrɒb.əˈreɪ.ʃən/ us /kəˌrɑː.bəˈreɪ.ʃən/
the act of proving an account, statement, idea, etc. with new information:
Without corroboration from forensic tests, it will be difficult to prove that the suspect is guilty.
They could find no independent corroboration that he was telling the truth.*
Neither you, or anyone else, has been able to corroborate (according to the common definition of the word) Ford’s claims that she was molested, or that she was molested by Kavanaugh, or that anyone witnessed this alleged molestation, or that Ford was even at such a party/place when this alleged molestation took place, or that such a home even exists.
If Ford hasn’t filed police reports, then these death threats haven’t happened as far as I’m concerned.
I’ve seen this movie before. In 2016, a woman represented by Lisa Bloom daughter of Gloria Allred claimed Trump had raped her when she was 13. Moments before the alleged victim was to speak to the press she backed out claiming death threats. Bloom and the alleged victim never filed police reports. We’ve never seen this woman’s face and her identity is still a mystery. Some people in the press questioned whether woman existed or not, and many news outlets refused to carry the story due to its lack of credibility.
This is false.
It’s not just true, it’s 100 percent true. Not one piece of evidence backs up her claim.
Then perhaps you could provide the corroborating evidence, as that’s where the burden of proof lies.