[MistyTiger]

@MistyTiger They cannot see it because the Cult of Trump is strong.

Yes. And it's so much easier to accept things on the surface. The real critical thinker can examine behavior and words to see what makes sense and what doesn't jive. To expect rational behavior and decisionmaking skills from a man who loves sex and firing people and drama is like expecting a camel to fit through a needle.

[Finfinder]

@Finfinder

How is that evidence?

The FBI didn't use her testimony as evidence?

Did you actually look at the entire video?

[Hindsite]

Yes. And it's so much easier to accept things on the surface. The real critical thinker can examine behavior and words to see what makes sense and what doesn't jive. To expect rational behavior and decisionmaking skills from a man who loves sex and firing people and drama is like expecting a camel to fit through a needle.

A real critical thinker was Senator Susan Collins that voted to confirm Kavanaugh and not accept the accusations on the surface. Senator Joe Manchin was the only Democrat not to be intimidated by the mob of zombies on the left. Innocent until proven guilty still rules. Praise the Lord.

[Stormsmith]

Finfinder

I watched 28 1/2 minutes, then i had to feed horses, laundry, etc. Just where is it, please and thanks.

[Finfinder]

Yes. And it's so much easier to accept things on the surface. The real critical thinker can examine behavior and words to see what makes sense and what doesn't jive. To expect rational behavior and decisionmaking skills from a man who loves sex and firing people and drama is like expecting a camel to fit through a needle.

With all due respect to you being a young shy single lady how could you easily relate to Kavanaugh's life. "The real critical thinker" would they ascribe to this bigotry, identity labeling, and personal attacks to anybody who dare support Trump in any small manner? I get it to a degree, its forum fodder, but many are serious about it. How is it critical thinking and rational to write off and label 50% of the population based on how they vote, or comment on a current event,makes no sense. Just curios you mentioned in another thread about dating, if a guy mentioned something positive about the current economy would that exclude him from your interest?

[Pants-of-dog]

The FBI didn't use her testimony as evidence?

Did you actually look at the entire video?

Did you look at the video?

If you did, you could tell me how that was evidence that she lied.

[Finfinder]

Did you look at the video?

If you did, you could tell me how that was evidence that she lied.

there you go with answering a question with a question again.

Of course I have did you watch the video why the games? Is Ford a Psychologist in California ?

[Pants-of-dog]

there you go with answering a question with a question again.

Of course I have did you watch the video why the games? Is Ford a Psychologist in California ?

I have asked you to present your evidence for the claim that Ford lied.

You have not done so.

I will now dismiss the claim as unsupported.

[blackjack21]

It is illegal too drink in MARYLAND until one's 21st birthday. Another lie.

That was not the case in the early 1980s. I think it was MADD that campaigned to raise the drinking age to 21 nationally. It was 21 in California, but we just broke the law. We couldn't care less back then.

Professor Ford wanted to derail Kavanaughs nomination because he attempted to rape her and she believed that he was unworthy of the position of a Supreme Court Judge.

The notion that Kavanaugh attempted to rape then Christine Blasey is a conclusion of fact not in evidence.

Why else?

She has left-leaning political views and a cursory connection to Kavanaugh. The Democrats needed a collateral attack on Kavanaugh's character, and she fit the bill. So they read Mark Judge's book and came up with this story. Swetnick's story is even more outlandish. The reason, of course, was to get evangelicals to abandon Kavanaugh. They saw right through it though, just like they did all the attacks on Trump.

I think that an intelligent, rational man with 20 plus years of jurisprudence experience should react in a calmer and more levelheaded manner. To say that people are ruining his life is what any young, melodramatic teenager might say to his mother.

Perhaps he would have been more calm had the Democrats handled this matter privately as Blasey-Ford had requested. The Democrats decided to use this as a pretext for a public collateral attack on Kavanaugh's character. Naturally, anyone facing that sort of vicious public attack would be pretty angry about it.

He should be able to formulate a case for why he is innocent.

Blasey-Ford's charges were non-specific as to date, time and location. That robbed Kavanaugh of a defense of alibi. That's why criminal courts have rules of procedure and rules of evidence, and why the burden is on the plaintiff not the defendant.

But how shocking that he was not able to, even after all that legal training and experience.

It's impossible to prove a negative unless you have concrete specifics. That's also why we believe it was a deliberate political attack, because it expressly denied Kavanaugh a defense of alibi when he had calendar entries for his whereabouts for the era of his life in question. By contrast, Blasey-Ford could not recall the year, day, time or location. She was even confused as to the day she took a recent lie detector test. That suggests that Blasey-Ford was an unreliable witness.

He was trying to discredit the women as was his chum, Trump.

There's nothing wrong with that. She was trying to discredit his character.

Why use the no credibility tactic? Hmmm, maybe because he cannot build a strong case of innocence?

Blasey-Ford did not specify a date, time or location, which expressly deprives the defendant of the opportunity to build a defense of alibi. Every lawyer knows this. I assume you aren't familiar with the legal system, or you would know this too. If you do know this, you must be mistaking us for fools.

Can you say, distraction or diversion? If what he says is true, why try to make others look like liars? Can you see the logic?

You are talking to a computer head. Of course I can see the logic. I understand exactly why the system is structured as it is, and I understand why Blasey-Ford's account has to be dismissed as unreliable.

Heterosexual men can be perverts. Pervert is a word associated with people who like unacceptable or immoral behaviors such as grinding against an unwilling victim.

Or behavior such as making public unsubstantiated and unprovable allegations of rape?

I have asked you to present your evidence for the claim that Ford lied.

There is reason to believe that Blasey-Ford was not so afraid to fly that she could have come to Washington sooner. So her attorneys definitely mislead the Senate Judiciary Committee and the press, which was likely on her behalf. In other words, Blasey-Ford's credibility was undermined by evidence of her regular air travel when placed into juxtaposition with her attorney's claims that she couldn't fly to Washington DC because she had a palpable fear of flying that arose as part of PTSD from her alleged rape some 30+ years ago. After all, she drafted her letter in Delaware with the aid of a friend that was a former FBI agent, who also apparently suborned at least Leland Keyser to perjure herself to corroborate Blasey-Ford's claim.

I will now dismiss the claim as unsupported.

That's what the Senate did with Blasey-Ford's claim. How do you like it when the very tactics you employ are used to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States?

[Godstud]

A one week investigation where the FBI could not question Kavanaugh, is not an investigation. It's a show. It's a farce.

[colliric]

A one week investigation where the FBI could not question Kavanaugh, is not an investigation. It's a show. It's a farce.

Once again, why question someone who already delivered their comprehensive testimony (including all of his evidence against the claims) about the accusations to the Senate Committee(which obviously included Democrats asking all the tough and rough questions) ON DIGITAL HD VIDEO?

Godstud what is your motivation for desiring this? Some sick Hail Mary purjury pass?

HE DELIVERED HIS TESTIMONY TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ALREADY. Why ask him to repeat himself off camera?

Also, Why ask Ford to repeat herself off camera too?

[Godstud]

It wasn't a real investigation. it was done for show and to placate people. FBI's a lame duck, these days.

[colliric]

It wasn't a real investigation. it was done for show and to placate people. FBI's a lame duck, these days.

That the Senate Committee already did most of the work for the FBI is not the FBI'S fault.

Both Kavanagh and Ford delivered their testimony to the Committee (which included the Democrats asking the tough questions to Brett, and the Republicans asking Ford the tough ones) on Camera.

[Hindsite]

I have asked you to present your evidence for the claim that Ford lied.

You have not done so.

I will now dismiss the claim as unsupported.

According to records, Ford is not licensed in the state of California
Chadwick Moore | Dangerous - September 28, 2018

Testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford identified herself as a ‘psychologist,’ but records indict this is a false statement under California law. Someone at Stanford University also appears to have caught the blunder and edited Ford’s faculty page.

Just one sentence into her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford may have told a lie.

After thanking members of the committee on Thursday, and while under oath, Ford opened her testimony saying, “My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.”

The issue lies with the word “psychologist,” and Ford potentially misrepresenting herself and her credentials, an infraction that is taken very seriously in the psychology field as well as under California law.

Under California law, in order for a person to identify publicly as a psychologist they must be licensed by the California Board of Psychology, a process that includes 3,000 hours of post-doctoral professional experience and passing two rigorous exams. To call oneself a psychologist without being licensed by a state board is the equivalent of a law school graduate calling herself a lawyer without ever taking the bar exam.

According to records, Ford is not licensed in the state of California. A recent search through the Department of Consumer Affairs License Bureau, which provides a state-run database of all licensed psychologists in California, produced no results for any variation of spelling on Ford’s name. If Ford at one time had a license but it is now inactive, she would legally still be allowed to call herself a “psychologist” but forbidden from practicing psychology on patients until it was
renewed. However, the database would have shown any past licenses granted to Ford, even if they were inactive.

Ford also does not appear to have been licensed in any other states outside California. Since graduating with a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Southern California in 1996 it does not appear Ford has spent any significant amount of time outside the state. She married her husband in California in 2002, and completed a master’s degree in California in 2009. She reportedly completed an internship in Hawaii, but a search of Hawaii’s Board of
Psychology licensing databased also did not turn up any results for Ford.

What makes Ford’s claim even more suspicious is someone affiliated with Stanford University appears to have also been aware of the potentially damning use of the word “psychologist” and rushed to cover for Ford. DANGEROUS exclusively uncovered an archived version of Christine’s Blasey’s page on the school’s faculty directory. On September 10, 2015, the only archived date available, Ford’s faculty page was saved to the Wayback Machine and showed Ford listed as a “research psychologist” along with her email address and office phone number.

The most recent version of that page shows Ford listed only as an “Affiliate” in the department, with the words “research psychologist” removed along with Ford’s email address and phone number. This suggests the page was altered by someone very recently to scrub Ford’s contact information and title after she entered the national spotlight.

.... Ford’s academic focus for years has been statistics, not memory or trauma. To look at her as some sort of expert in this area would be like asking a podiatrist about heart disease simply because he’s in the medical field. Still, the media ate it up. Hours after her testimony ended, various mainstream media outlets falsely identified Ford as a “psychologist” and praised her approach to science during the hearing, calling the statistician an “expert” on issues more closely related to clinical psychology.

https://www.dangerous.com/49836/records ... d-perjury/

[maz]

It wasn't a real investigation. it was done for show and to placate people. FBI's a lame duck, these days.

What do you think the FBI should have investigated and what exactly did you expect them to find after three decades?



I think President Trump apologizing to Justice Kavanaugh was a very presidential thing to do, however I do think that he should have took it a step further and apologized to the entirety of the nation for being forced to put up with this,

Trump Apologizes to Brett Kavanaugh At Ceremonial Swearing-In

Twitter Users Erupt After Trump Apologizes To Kavanaugh ‘On Behalf Of Our Nation’

President Donald Trump took a prime-time victory lap on Monday night following the successful confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, proudly proclaiming that the man had been “proven innocent” after a “campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception.”

“On behalf of our nation, I would like to apologize to Brett and his family for the terrible pain and suffering that you have been forced to endure,” Trump, standing in the East Room of the White House, said in the televised event. “Those who step forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation.”

“What happened to the Kavanaugh family violates every notion of fairness, decency and due process,” the president said in his remarks at the swearing in. “In our country, a man or a woman must always be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”

Trump continued: “And with that I must state that you, sir, under historic scrutiny, were proven innocent.”

Kavanaugh himself sought to recast himself as an impartial, evenhanded judge devoted to the rule of law in his own remarks, a departure from his fiery testimony before lawmakers last week.

“The Senate confirmation process was contentious and emotional,” he said. “That process is over. My focus now is to be the best justice I can be. I take this office with gratitude and no bitterness. My goal is to be a great justice for all Americans.”

Kavanaugh also singled out several lawmakers for their work, including Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), whose last-minute support and blistering 45-minute speech on the Senate floor all but secured his confirmation.

Despite the heated fight, the judge moved to distance himself from political divisions and said he planned to work with his new colleagues to be an “umpire, a neutral and impartial decider who favors no side.”

“The Supreme Court is an institution of law. It is not a partisan or political institution,” he said. “The justices do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle; we do not caucus in separate rooms. The Supreme Court is a team of nine, and I will always be a team player.”
RELATED COVERAGE

[Godstud]

@maz, talking to all parties would have been a start, but they didn't even fucking do that. Fuck off with your "fair investigation" bullshit. That's all it is. Rapeublicans are fucking assholes and pieces of shit.

[colliric]

@maz, talking to all parties would have been a start, but they didn't even fucking do that. Fuck off with your "fair investigation" bullshit. That's all it is. Rapeublicans are fucking assholes and pieces of shit.

Yes, let's repeat everything the Senate Committee already did for us on HD video.... That sounds like it's not a total bullshit waste of money and time. Ask the exact same questions the committee already asked and get the exact same answers and exact same evidence from both, why not?

How reliable is HD Recorded video and Audio anyway? Not very.... Let's do everything all over again, just in case the video camera missed the exact frame where Mrs Ford smiled and winked or Mr Kavanaugh smirked and stuck his thumb up....

[maz]

Fuck off with your "fair investigation" bullshit. That's all it is. Rapeublicans are fucking assholes and pieces of shit.

Well, I never said the investigation was fair, whatever fair means. I just thought that there didn't seem to be much to investigate to begin with, but that's just my opinion.

Also, since no one appears to have actually been raped, I'm not sure why you are calling them "Rapeublicans."

I can see that you are still very emotional about this thing, so maybe you can take comfort that at least there are some thinkers out there putting out a different take than the standard right wing view.

Kavanaugh Confirmation: There Was No Debate When We Needed One

The Democrats and their feminist allies failed the country in their approach to the Kavanaugh hearing.

Instead of finding out whether Kavanaugh believes in the unitary executive theory that the president has powers unaccountable to Congress and the Judiciary and agrees that a Justice Department underling, a Korean immigrant, can write secret memos that permit the president to violate the US Constitution, US statutory law, and international treaties, the Democrats’ entire focus was on a vague and unsubstantiated accusation that Kavanaugh when 17 years old and under the influence of alcohol tussled fully clothed with a fully clothed 15 year old girl in a bed at an unchaperoned house party.

Feminists turned this vague accusation missing in crucial details into “rape,” with a crazed feminist Georgetown University professor declaring Kavanaugh to be “a serial rapist” who along with the Senate Judiciary Committee’s male members should be given agonizing deaths and then castrated and fed to swine.

A presstitute at USA Today suggested that Kavanaugh was a pedophile and should not be allowed to coach his daughter’s sports team. On the basis of nothing real, a Supreme Court nominee’s reputation was squandered.

There are important issues before the United States having to do with the very soul of the country. They involve constitutional and separation of powers constraints on executive branch powers and the protection of US civil liberty.

Important books, such as Charlie Savage’s Takeover have been written about the Cheney-Bush successful assault on the principle that the president is accountable under law.

Can the executive branch torture despite domestic and international laws against torture?

Can the executive branch spy on citizens without warrants and cause, despite laws and constitutional prohibitions to the contrary?

Can the executive branch detain citizens indefinitely despite habeas corpus, despite the US Constitution’s prohibition?

Can the executive branch kill US citizens without due process of law, despite the US Constitution’s prohibition?

Dick Cheney and University of California law professor John Yoo say “yes the president can.”

Instead of using the opportunity to find out if Kavanaugh stood for liberty or unbridled presidential power, feminist harpies indulged in an orgy of man-hate.

And it wasn’t just the RadFem harpies. It was the entire liberal/progressive/left which has discredited itself even more than the crazed feminist Georgetown University professor, who, by the way, unlike what would have been required of a heterosexual male, did not have to apologize and was not fired as a male would have been.

There is now a “funding platform” endorsed by liberal/progressive/left websites that claims to have raised $3 million to unseat Senator Susan Collins for voting, after hearing all the scant evidence, to confirm Kavanaugh. Websites such as Commondreams, CounterPunch, OpEdNews are losing their credibility as they mire themselves in divisive Identity Politics in which everyone is innocent except the white heterosexual male. Precisely at the time when Trump’s capture by the Zionist neoconservative warmongers needs protests and opposition as the US is being driven to war with Iran, Russia, and China, there is no opposition as the United States dissolves into the hatreds spawned by Identity Politics.

To see how absurd the RadFem/liberal/progressive/left is, let’s assume that the vague, unsubstantiated accusation that is 30 to 40 years late against Kavanaugh is true. Let’s assume that the encounter of bed tussling occurred. If rape was the intention, why wasn’t she raped? I suggest a likely scenario. There is an unchaperoned house party. Alcohol is present. The accuser admits to drinking beer with boys in a house with access to bedrooms. The accused assumes, which would have been a normal assumption in the 1980s, that the girl is available. Otherwise, why is she there? So he tries her, and she is not. So he gives up and lets her go. How is this a serious sexual offense?

Even if the accused had persisted and raped his accuser, how does this crime compare to the enormous extraordinary horrific crimes against humanity resulting in the destruction in whole or part of eight countries and millions of human beings during the Clinton, Cheney-Bush, Obama, and Trump regimes?

Dear reader, don’t you think that these crimes are a million times worse that a drunk teenage Kavanaugh tussling on a bed with Christine Ford, assuming it really happened, and refraining from raping her? If you don’t, you are an idiot, and I despise you for your stupidity and total absence of moral conscience.

[Finfinder]

I have asked you to present your evidence for the claim that Ford lied.
You have not done so.
I will now dismiss the claim as unsupported.

I have presented the the evidence. All you have done is double speak, dodged, change the subject and answer questions with questions for 4 pages. Then say your are personally attacked. I posted the video and your reply was asking me if I watched it. I asked you if Ford was a psychologist and you dodged that question as well with the above reply. Of course your answer is you will dismiss because your trolling is irrelevant and not working.

There is reason to believe that Blasey-Ford was not so afraid to fly that she could have come to Washington sooner. So her attorneys definitely mislead the Senate Judiciary Committee and the press, which was likely on her behalf. In other words, Blasey-Ford's credibility was undermined by evidence of her regular air travel when placed into juxtaposition with her attorney's claims that she couldn't fly to Washington DC because she had a palpable fear of flying that arose as part of PTSD from her alleged rape some 30+ years ago. After all, she drafted her letter in Delaware with the aid of a friend that was a former FBI agent, who also apparently suborned at least Leland Keyser to perjure herself to corroborate Blasey-Ford's claim.

Not only that Mitchell (who was brilliant in her questioning) catches her on how many people she spoke to about this, it's starts at about 35 min mark of the video. The other thought I had was the FBI has done a favor to Miss Ford by not interviewing her. I agree with comments you made on previous posts that they would Flynn her in about 15 minutes of the first interview.

It wasn't a real investigation. it was done for show and to placate people. FBI's a lame duck, these days.

Missing the good old days with Comey and Stzrok ?

[Pants-of-dog]

While maz's editorial was flamboyantly partisan and biased, it did bring up one good point: no one seems to care about Kavanaugh's belief that the POTUS can pardon himself.

This glaring omission implies that neither party cares about government accountability.