We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Sunday, September 30. 2018
It doesn't take much to destroy your life. Truth doesn't matter much. All it takes is one person with destructive intent.
I've seen it done in the workplace. Everybody makes dumb mistakes, but if somebody gets an angry, resentful, paranoid, or envious issue with you, you can be brought down without those mistakes.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The is basically what happened on a widespread scale in the Cultural Revolution in China.
"I've seen it done in the workplace. Everybody makes dumb mistakes, but if somebody gets an angry, resentful, paranoid, or envious issue with you, you can be brought down without those mistakes."
It's bad at work, of course, but at least it's not on national TV in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
I've heard a lot of Demonrats say that after Kavanaugh defended himself angrily, that that showed he didn't have the judicial temperament to be a Supreme Court Justice. When is someone going to say that if you believe someone is guilty before hearing any evidence that you don't have the judicial aptitude to be on the Judiciary Committee in the first place and evaluate someone's "judicial temperament."
A perfect illustration of the fact that the socialist Left, which now controls the Democrat Party, hates every Normal, conservative, religious patriotic American and they want us all either dead or enslaved.
A real live Civil war abrewing! America has been transformed, thanks to BHO and his evil ilk!
Judge K. had his two young daughters, wife, mother and father with him during a session that should have been a momentous occasion in his career, then they all faced hordes of demonstrators yelling demeaning and unproven accusations. The security personnel took their own sweet time clearing them away, then allowed another group, then another group to act out.
All of this was followed by outrageous accusations that should have been investigated privately, but were presented without allowing the accused to face his accuser. The entire stage play made a sham of our constitutional republic.
There is some indication that Grassley is inclined to refer false accusers for criminal prosecution, if that is what is found by the FBI. They are already going after False Accuser #5, who had the most absurd story.
If this hypothesis holds up, Christine Blasey is a sociopath who is attempting,with malice, to frame someone who did her no harm. This hypothesis is consistent with the trial consultant's analysis. You should be wondering why all the subterfuge and game playing with these allegations.
Ken B here is the comment I wrote last night in the "At the Saturday Cafe" thread. I wrote subsequent ones that address how she tried to prove it was 1982 during the hearing (a contrived effort, too), and how the date changes can explain the omission of how she got to the party and how she left, and why I think she told the story the way she did:
One of the oddities of Ford's story might be easily explained by the theory that the therapist's notes were right all along, and Ford has not only been lying about it, but actively working around this inconvenient detail all along.
The polygraph exam required Ford to write a statement, the veracity of which she was required to attest to during the exam. Now this was an exam she took on August 7th, if memory serves, a week after she had sent the letter to Eshoo and Feinstein naming Kavanaugh as her assailant, and in the "early 80s" (I will come back to this date description in a moment). However, in the hand written statement she was required to write for the polygraph exam, she does two very unusual things- (1) she doesn't name Kavanaugh at all- it is a generic description of a potential sexual assault, and (2) she first wrote "early 80s", then changed by crossing out the "early", leaving the description of the time as simple "80s".
Why would she do these two seemingly inexplicable things in the polygraph statement- her story she is telling publicly is that it was Kavanaugh who attacked her, and it occurred in the "early 80s". If she is telling the truth, then the statement for the polygraph should have had both Kavanaugh's name and the unredacted "early 80s", but she not only omits Kavanaugh's name, but actively edits her own writing on the general date. At first, I couldn't explain this, but then someone reminded me of the therapist's notes and suddenly it is possible to make sense of this odd behavior. I have been working on the assumption that her entire story is a fabrication beginning to end, but if you give her the benefit of the doubt and accept the therapist's notes as a true depiction of Ford's assault, then you realize that she wrote the polygraph statement that way because it was the literal truth, but if she names Kavanaugh and keeps "early" next to 80s, then suddenly the statement isn't the truth, but is, in fact, a lie, and she was afraid she would fail the exam if she had to attest to that.
I defy you to come up with a better explanation for that polygraph statement- I can't think of one."
9/30/18, 11:58 PM
Remember how she tried to convince people that was 1982, because she "remembered" that it was before she had a driver's license. That is curious construct to my ear, and I think she did that with a very specific purpose- so that she wouldn't be asked if she drove to and from the party.
She had a problem in reconstructing the story so that Kavanaugh could be in the frame- she had to explain her transportation. That is a problem because someone would have had to drive her there, and driver her back, and those people would be witnesses, and the second of them might be a witness who would remember driving home a distraught Chrissy Blasey. Note how Ford discounts Keyser's lack of memory of this event - she points out correctly that the night wasn't memorable from Keyser's point of view (skipping over the fact that Keyser denied even knowing Kavanaugh). However, if she names someone driving her home, that argument isn't as easily invoked if that witness also denies the story.
All in all, the holes, the inconsistencies, and how I think Ford tried to deal with them- especially the therapist's notes, her only supporting witness of any kind, leads me to believe that Ford framed Kavanaugh for her assault. The above combined with the testimony Thursday convinces me that she is a cunning liar, but not a particularly good one at doing it on camera- under questioning, she kept making small errors, and you see that also in that written lie detector statement where she edits her own story to make it fit what the therapist had recorded in 2012 as closely as possible.
10/1/18, 12:16 AM
KenB, I had read that earlier this evening- I note this part:
"While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year"
I think she and her lawyers worked on it using Mark Judge's books which are autobiographical and describe his high school years. I think when she first started this endeavor, she wasn't sure how old Kavanaugh or, more likely, didn't know what year he graduated. More importantly, she couldn't risk nailing down a season and year until resources had been spent at least giving a rough outline where Kavanaugh was during his Summers in 1982 and 1983. Though it wasn't revealed at the hearing because no one cared, I would be very curious to find out if Kavanaugh was in Maryland in the Summer of 1983, or was he doing an internship that Summer before college? It could explain why 1982 was finally selected. As for 1982 itself, I think they carefully read Judge's book, and decided the details included could add some meat to the bones of her story. The entire Safeway tangent just sounds terribly contrived to me, like a really bad lie.
10/1/18, 12:58 AM
Read the senate investigator's memo and pass it along.
The Dems will do anything to win, or seem to win. Lying is merely a tactic.
Where is the Gang of Z? Why have they shut up? So far, anyway.