Dr. or Judge? Who Do YOU Believe?

Why does anyone believe her when the evidence supports him? I would like to believe her; someone please give me a reason to.

Because she's a woman. Is that not enough for you?

Some people actually think that way. It's important to take any woman's allegations seriously, and it's just as important to not blindly believe them.

She took a polygraph, waved her rape shield protections, and is willing to be investigated by the FBI(the only way she can go to jail). Also two more women came forward. So until I see something from his case other than gender politics I'm going to believe her.



While the evidence doesn't exist to convict him in a court of law his character deficiencies are clearly established and he's not fit to serve as SCOTUS.

Let's look at the scenarios:

1) She is lying because she is either A) so extremely anti-Republican, B) so extremely hateful towards Kavanaugh as a person, C) paid so much or D) so extremely desperate for attention, that she's willing to destroy her own life in order to not let Kavanaugh make the Supreme Court. In this case Kavanaugh is telling the complete truth (about the incident).

2) She has simply mistaken him for someone else, but she has clearly said that it was Kavanaugh with a 100% certainty, so she pretty much ruled that out herself. If she's somehow still wrong about the identity of the person who supposedly did this to her, again, Kavanaugh is telling the complete truth (about the incident).

3) She misremembers/is misrepresenting the gravity of the moment. Something happened, but it was much lighter and less serious than she now remembers/is now telling. In this case Kavanaugh is lying a bit, except if he doesn't remember the incident anymore or if he blacked out (but then he still lied about being blacked out).

4) She's telling the whole truth. Kavanaugh is either lying in this circumstance or doesn't remember it anymore (which is highly implausible)/had a black-out (which means he still lied about being blacked out).

You have to choose between those four.

I personally BELIEVE (although I have absolutely no way of being sure) that it's probably somewhere between 3 and 4. There's no evidence to back it up though and the Democrats' way of handling this (and keeping the whole thing a secret for so long) has been highly unhelpful and changed this accusation into a political tool to block right-wing judges from the Supreme Court.

I'd personally ask for further investigation if I was a senator, but I understand why Republicans don't want to do this anymore. They'd reward the dirty tactics of the Democrats and risk losing the essential spot on the Supreme Court.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

None of that proves her case. Why did she not tell the truth when she was first asked today about who referred her to her attorneys? Do you think it's plausible that she would forget where, when, how she got there, and how she got home, yet remember exactly what she drank? Evidence could be in her therapist's notes, which they won't release. Her friend, who she was supposedly with, does not corroborate her story.



He appears to be a good friend, father, husband, and judge. What deficiencies?

My wife believes this. My wife voted Clinton and has long worked with victims of sexual abuse. She sees her as not popular in her past, and possibly jealous. She believes she could be mentally ill, as do I. I thought it was very strange when she answered a question about her memory with scientific talk about brain function.

Possible I believe.

If I had to bet, this is what I'd bet on.

Also very possible.

You have to choose between those four.

Good to see someone who thinks reasonably.

She doesn't need to prove her case, this isn't a criminal trial this is a government appointment from a poorly vetted SCOTUS.

Really
60-200K in gambling debts
millions of taxpayer money to investigate the death Vince Foster
involved with the Ken Starr report, and Gitmo

What standards other than political affiliations makes this man qualified to hold this office?

It could very well be that Kavanaugh was a bit of a bully when he was a teenager and that he left a very strong and negative impression on her. Combine that with her being a staunch liberal. Then imagine the realization that a credible accusation from her would make her a liberal feminist icon for the rest of her life, including having easy access to money forever.

It's a bit of a far reach and she'd be a hugely manipulative actress if this was the case, as I found her to be very convincing and believable, but it's always possible.

Have you seen Zootopia?

I'd like to propose an option related to 2 & 3. That Dr. Ford may believe what she's saying, but may have serious mental issues or may be easily impressionable so that she's basing her accusation on information suggested to her (such as the identity of her attacker suggested by a therapist).

The hearing began to touch upon her psychiatric treatment, but never followed up on it.

At one point it was stated that she was diagnosed with PTSD and her assault was a "contributing factor" - which suggests there are other factors as well.

Unfortunately, there was no delving into her complete psychiatric therapy history. (I'm also a bit unclear on her first revelation to someone else that Kavanaugh was her attacker - was that to her husband, and was it during therapy? And when did that first occur?)

There has been a lot of rumored suggestion that these alleged memories may be repressed ones recovered through therapy as that is where she claims she first ever mentioned the attack on her - unfortunately, they didn't ask about that either.

There is a lot of study on the veracity of recovered memories (most turn out to be false memories or those implanted through unintentional forms of suggestion) - which could also account for the lack of any other pertinent information (such as when, where, who did you come with, who drove you there, where did you go after, how did you get home, who took you home, etc.)

She does need to prove it, not for her own believability, but because the attempt is to impede someone else's progress. If that can be done just by making an allegation, then we obviously have big problems as a nation.



I wouldn't wholeheartedly agree about that having to with character, and it definitely has nothing to do with this case.

She told her husband in the '80s, although I believe she did not mention Kavanaugh by name then. She never said there was a period that she did not know who the perpetrator was, though, so I don't think the "recovered memory"-route would've resulted into something. She said that she was 100% sure that it was Kavanaugh.

I have not seen Zootopia.

She doesn't think he was a bully, but rather she thinks he was very popular. She also believes that she wasn't. There's evidence to support both things and there's definitely plenty of women who make false accusations for a variety of reasons.

These are just some observations from Dr. Ford's testimony this morning - I'm not out to refute her, just analyzing a few things:

Stumbling blocks:
I mentioned contributing factors to PTSD in my last post - Ford never answered the question about what other contributing factors she might have for this diagnosed condition. I believe the questioner got the term "contributing factor" from Ford's therapy notes. A contributing factor suggests there are other factors that cause the condition. If the assault was only a contributing factor, what are the other contributing factors to her PTSD and / or various other psychological conditions? Her answer went off on a psychobabble tangent. I'm surprised the questioner didn't reiterate the question to inquire what other experiences she may have had in addition to one incident 36 years ago.

Fear of flying - for someone so traumatized by her assault as to have a fear of flying ever since (which was used initially as an excuse by her lawyers that she would not be able to attend the hearing), it was shown she flies across the country & across the Pacific (to such places as Hawaii & Tahiti) pretty much year round for work, family visits, for leisure & to pursue hobbies, and has done so most her adult life.
Nothing too suspicious here in that she said she forces herself to overcome her phobia, but what's questionable is that her team tried to use it as an excuse not to attend and linked it directly to her assault trauma of 36 years ago.

Polygraph - she claimed a surprising lack of knowledge about Polygraphs. This seemed a bit questionable as Psychologists & biostaticians know more about them than the average layperson just as a casual part of their basic education. And it seems that someone with dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles relating to drugs, biology, experimental psychology and biostatistics would have a more than passing knowledge about polygraphs. I learned a great deal about them in college when I only took a few rudimentary courses in Psychology. This just seemed curious.

Many in the media commented on her overall demeanor, summing her up as being "girlish" or "childlike" with a very "girl like or childlike voice" and some people noted her sometimes seeming naivety over certain common things, while at other times sounding like a psychiatric science text book. I'm not making any diagnoses here, but sometimes these attributes are possessed by people with mental problems - a seemingly childlike affect in many areas while having an intellect capable of memorizing a lot of data.

This is indeed the essence. We can't have a society (nowhere!) where an accusation is enough to ruin someone's life or progress. This is the key here and that's why I think the Democrats' strategy was so disgusting.

For me, personally, 'innocent until proven guilty' is absolutely HOLY. I'd rather have a society where a thousand criminals are free than a society where one innocent man or woman is destroyed because of false allegations.

Because of this holy believe in that principle, I could very much relate to Lindsey Graham's theatrical anger during the hearing. It was the best thing I've ever seen him do, even if he might have potentially (but unintentionally) defended a rapist there:



This was probably also the moment that will bring Kavanaugh into the Supreme Court, by the way. It came after a moment where Kavanaugh was having real difficulties with senator Durbin's questions.

Would it be normal for a girl to go swimming in a public pool, then go to a gathering with that bathing suit still on under her clothes?

It's questionable, but at the same time there are reasonable scenarios where that might happen.

Kavanaugh made the point that Ford would have not been near her home wherever this party might have been, she was only 15 and couldn't drive (I think her testimony agreed with these facts as well) so she would have had to be driven to the party and then driven home by someone.

If she went out with a friend to swim, brought some street clothes, but then had nowhere to change and the driver wanted to go to this gathering, then she might have been forced to put her clothes on over her bathing suit. Or, perhaps there was enough time after swimming for the suit to dry (or maybe she never fully submerged to get it that wet originally) so it wasn't that uncomfortable to put clothes on over a bathing suit.

Another thing, she wasn't sure if she took the polygraph the same day as her grandmother's funeral or the next day. That sounds far fetched.

Victims do not need to prove a crime occurred, that is the job of "authorities". As for impeding his progress, he shouldn't be a nominee for the court. Having three people come forward and accuse you of a crime should be disqualifying from public office. We should hold our SCOTUS to a moral standard, a similar moral standard he had no issue trying to impeach a previous president on.


Now is the man a predator or not..who knows. The guy did marry a subordinate though, his financials are questionable and the reasoning for his nomination seems to be predicated on quid pro quo politics.




This has everything to do with his "case", because this isn't a criminal case this is a political appointment.

• Failed to impeach Clinton
• Helped open Gitmo and perjured himself about it
• Spent tax payer money on Vince Fosters suicide that brought about no charges
• Has several sexual assault charges to his name
• Has stated that he does not believe a sitting president could be indicted
• Has racked up tens of thousands of dollars in gambling debts over the years.

This isn't binary where you have one person who's guilty and one person who's innocent. This is a candidate for a job who is supremely unqualified for and should be investigated for sexual crimes he might have committed in his youth.

You really don't think this would be a totally abused policy? Any time a party viewed the other party's candidate as a threat, or any time one party nominated a judge, the other party would just pay three people to accuse the person of a crime. There is no logic behind this argument, at all. This is not in response to any other part of your post except for the bit that I quoted.