RIP Philo

Is now the time to indict team Blasey Ford?

They almost destroyed America.

They’re still trying.

People who tell such egregious lies should pay the price.

If people are allowed to do such things with no consequences, they’ll do it again or worse.
Permalink Armchair Lawyer 
October 7th, 2018 5:36am
They are going after her lawyers and advisors.

It seems clear they've decided to leave her alone saying that they believe her story but it was a case of mistake identity.

She lied several times, so there's that. But I agree that without some sort of smoking gun, like a video recording of her discussing with her attorney how to commit fraud and perjury, any accusation will be handing ammo to the Democrats who already are deploying a plan to label all Republicans as "rape enablers" in the midterms.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 8:47am
No! Her voice was changed. And she flies!
Permalink Bored Bystander 
October 7th, 2018 9:04am
There's a photo of "Blasey Ford" taking the polygraph. A bunch of people are asking "Why is her face shape different? Why is her skin color different? Why is her hairline different?"

Good questions. Personally I think she just got a makeover before coming in to testify, that's normal for lawyers to have their high profile witnesses do.

But what if she had a stand in? Some even think it was McLean! I think the photo looks more like Blasey than McLean.

Given that Blasey successfully coached McLean in how to beat an FBI polygraph it's clear Blasey is the expert in such matters and can do her own polygraph.

They key is to hypnotize yourself with new facts. It also helps to have friends "reenact" the crime with you. Then your brain believes it happened.

Blasey has a nice peer reviewed academic paper she published in a reputable journal on how to hypnotize yourself to implant false memories. What a fascinating thing to be publishing a paper about!
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 10:02am
I saw that chart.  It was unreliable.  This was marked as "evasive":

KAVANAUGH: Senator, I did not do this. The witnesses…
BOOKER: That — that’s not my question, sir. Could you try to answer my question, sir? Do you wish she never came forward?
KAVANAUGH: … The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen.
BOOKER: OK, sir. Do you wish she would’ve just remained silent then?
KAVANAUGH: I wish — the witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen. All allegations should be taken seriously.

I don't see that as being evasive.  He can't say "I wish she didn't come forward and lie", because then he looks like a jerk.  It was a jerk question, which deserved a jerk answer.
Permalink Send private email FSK 
October 7th, 2018 10:14am
> Do you wish she never came forward?

Bzzt.

Correct answer is, the premise of your question is flawed, there was nothing for which to come forward.
Permalink ,ndo 
October 7th, 2018 10:24am
He was asked directly “Do you wish she would’ve just remained silent then? ”

He didn’t answer
Permalink Bored Bystander 
October 7th, 2018 10:25am
The problem with saying "I wish she remained silent" is that seems insensitive to women with legitimate claims.

It's a "Did you stop beating your wife?" type of question.  Both yes and no are bad responses.
Permalink Send private email FSK 
October 7th, 2018 10:28am
And answering "I'm glad she came forward" means he agrees with her false claim.
Permalink Send private email FSK 
October 7th, 2018 10:29am
So 30 years a lawyer and judge and he can’t handle a tricky question? Doesn’t sound like Supreme Court material time!
Permalink Bored Bystander 
October 7th, 2018 10:59am
Booker's question was "Do you wish that she never came forward?"

That question wouldn't be allowed in court, it's leading the witness and framing.

He's under no obligation to answer either yes or no to legally invalid political questions in this sort of hearing where he's testifying under penalty of felony.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 11:00am
> It's a "Did you stop beating your wife?" type of question.  Both yes and no are bad responses.

Exactly. Loaded questions are defined logical fallacies. These, presuppositions, leading questions are not permitted in testimony.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 11:04am
To clarify, you can have questions with a presupposition, if-and-only-if the facts presupposed were previously established.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 11:06am
Anyway, the established way to handle a presupposition in a question is to answer the presupposition and not the question that depends on it.

The loaded question here presupposed he was guilty. So he responded that he was not guilty.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 11:07am
So I disagree he didn't handle that one correctly. He handled it exactly correctly. He identified it as a leading question, recognized there was no judge to object to and he, unlike Blasey, didn't have a team of top lawyers and retired FBI agent friends surrounding him. So he addressed the presupposition.

CORRECT:

Q: Have you stopped beating your wife?
A: I have never beaten my wife.
Q: That's not what I asked! I asked if you stopped! Answer yes or no! Witness is being evasive! Answer the question!
A: I have never beaten my wife.
Q: God damn you!

INCORRECT:
Q: Have you stopped beating your wife?
A: Yes.

Q: Have you stopped beating your wife?
A: No.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 11:10am
>unlike Blasey, didn't have a team of top lawyers

I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh had people helping him prepare.  He needed less help, already being a judge and having gone through the process before.
Permalink Send private email FSK 
October 7th, 2018 11:23am
> Kavanaugh, a Washington veteran who worked for President George W. Bush and helped write the Starr Report, has called on his vast network to help him get ready for the hearings. His former clerks, lawyers from the conservative Federalist Society and even Republican senators have participated in nearly a dozen practice sessions designed to mimic the conditions of the often grueling hearings, according to a White House official.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/08/30/kavanaugh-senate-hearing-prep-supreme-court-white-house-805490

> Kavanaugh spent hours at a time in the White House complex last week preparing for the upcoming hearing. He was joined by a team of officials including White House counsel Don McGahn and members of his staff, officials from the Justice Department, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, deputy press secretary Raj Shah and communications director Bill Shine. Shine’s presence was noteworthy, since he was ousted from his previous job at Fox News in part due to his handling of sexual harassment claims at the company.

Kavanaugh had a dry run of sorts with his Monday night interview with Martha MacCallum of Fox News Channel.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/whitehouse/are-they-ready-kavanaugh-ford-prep-for-high-stakes-hearing/2018/09/26/884bbcf0-c146-11e8-9f4f-a1b7af255aa5_story.html
Permalink Bored Bystander 
October 7th, 2018 11:27am
Fuck both you UP THE ASS for SELECTIVELY QUOTING me and then attacking a strawman.

Here's my fucking quote which you both saw:

> He identified it as a leading question, recognized THERE WAS NO JUDGE TO OBJECT TO and he, unlike Blasey, didn't have a team of top lawyers and retired FBI agent friends SURROUNDING HIM. SO HE ADDRESSED the presupposition.

Blasey's legal time raised LEGAL OBJECTIONS to Grassley as if this was a court hearing. Grassley, although not a judge, accepted the objections as if he was.

Kavanaugh DID NOT HAVE LAWYERS AND FBI AGENT FRIENDS SURROUNDING HIM. THEREFORE LAWYERS COULD NOT RAISE THE OBJECTION. SO HE HAD TO HANDLE THE PRESUPPOSITIONAL AND LEADING QUESTIONS HIMSELF.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 11:40am
SELECTIVE QUOTING THAT REMOVES CRITICAL CONTEXT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY AND IS DISHONEST BAD FAITH DISCUSSION.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 11:41am
He’s a lawyer. He should be able to handle testimony. No one else on the court needed a lawyer to assist them. Are you implying Kavanaugh has a mental disability and requires assistance? Sad
Permalink Boredbot 
October 7th, 2018 11:56am
I think McT's point is:

inappropriate question asked to Ford - her lawyers would object on her behalf

Kavanaugh - he nobody else to object on his behalf, when asked a question that would normally be tossed by a judge

Plus, the Republicans (even with their lawyer questioner) were forced to walk on eggshells, because they didn't want to seem insensitive to people who have legitimate 30 year old rape accusations they never reported.
Permalink Send private email FSK 
October 7th, 2018 12:16pm
> he nobody else to object on his behalf,

Grassley interrupted to save his ass. So there’s that.

He had 3 years of training, the majority and chairman support, chance to go second, and presumption of innocence.

Rigged system
Permalink Bored Bystander 
October 7th, 2018 12:23pm
It's only rigged if you believe he was guilty.

If you believe Ford is lying/nuts, the system worked as intended.

It was always going to be a party-line vote (Republicans all yes, Dems all no; 2 exceptions).  Zero votes were probably changed due to the false rape claim.
Permalink Send private email FSK 
October 7th, 2018 12:26pm
It’s rigged because it had no hope of getting to the truth


Here’s the objection . She answered anyway

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ51NNjB9Lo
Permalink Bored Bystander 
October 7th, 2018 12:35pm
> Zero votes were probably changed due to the false rape claim.

The claim was certainly accurate.

These claims are accurate 90% if the time. It was supported by the yearbook and her husband and doctor. She passed a lie detector. Kavanaugh did not. A proper FBI investigation would have confirmed.
Permalink Bored Bystander 
October 7th, 2018 12:39pm
The system is rigged.

That conclusion does not depend on the outcome or your point of view.

It’s an assessment of the process
Permalink Boredbot 
October 7th, 2018 12:42pm
Presumption of innocence is a huge gift to a job candidate.
Permalink Bored Bystander 
October 7th, 2018 12:47pm
> It's only rigged if you believe he was guilty.

When FSK is losing an argument he starts to lie and say dishonest things, this is classic FSK bullshit. FSK stop lying.
Permalink Obama's Nose Mole 
October 7th, 2018 12:51pm
> Zero votes were probably changed due to the false rape claim.

I disagree. Based on his record as a judge four Republicans were not going to vote for him.

After it became a vote on if he's a rapist, 3 of those 4 had to vote for him. The 4th abstained from voting. They also picked up a Democrat vote.

Without the false accusations, he would not have been confirmed.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 1:26pm
"It was supported by the yearbook and her husband and doctor. She passed a lie detector."

> It was supported by the yearbook

False. However HER yearbook specifically identifies HER as a blackout drunk.

> and her husband

False. Her husband has made no testimony.

> and doctor

False. No one has seen the notes of her therapist and personal friend, Dr. Sylvia Randall, who has also refused to testify or give any statement. Blasey's own description of the notes say that the therapist got things wrong and admits that no where in these notes is there any mention of Brett or Kavanaugh.

> She passed a lie detector.

She answered two questions total on a lie detector, both answering yes to if her written statement was true. The written statement is a few sentences and doesn't mention Kavanaugh at all.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 1:32pm
Mc T is lying.

The husband did confirm the story.

> In his declaration, Russell Ford says his wife first shared the details of a sexual assault during a couple’s therapy session in 2012.

“I remember her saying that the attacker’s name was Brett Kavanaugh, that he was a successful lawyer who had grown up in Christine’s home town, and that he was well-known in the Washington, D.C. community,” Russell Ford says. “In the years following the therapy session, we spoke a number of times about how the assault affected her.”



That’s big
Permalink NPR 
October 7th, 2018 1:45pm
Thanks NPR

Clear that he is just trolling
Permalink Bored Bystander 
October 7th, 2018 1:48pm
OK, here's the statement. He didn't testify put provided a sworn declaration. I last saw that Blasey only provided a letter she said was from him, not a sworn declaration.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ford0926.pdf

This is carefully formulated. Item 4 says she discussed a sexual assault during therapy in 2012. It doesn't say she mentioned the name of the assailant during the therapy. Item 5, a separate claim, says he remembers her saying the attacker was Kavanaugh. He does not say when she said that or that that happened during therapy, though the letter's been arranged to suggest he's saying that, but he isn't. This is the sort of thing a counsel will ask during a deposition. This claim #5, did she say this during the therapy in the presence of the therapist. No? Did she say this in 2012 or afterwards? You don't remember?

#6 says they talked how the assault affected her in the years after the therapy. This claim doesn't mention who the attacker is or that he knew that at that time.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 2:03pm
#7 says THE NEXT time she mentioned Kavanaugh - after the first time whenever that was - was in 2018 when Trump was selecting nominees and Kavanaugh was one of them.

So his statement says she mentioned Kavanaugh TWICE to him. Once at some time in the past. A second time in 2018 when Kavanaugh was said to be on the "short list".

IF she had mentioned who the attacker was in 2012 or in 2013-2017 while they were having discussions about how it affected her, then 2018 would NOT be the "next" time she mentioned him. He would have been mentioned during all the conversations in 2013-2017.

His statement is carefully constructed by an attorney and signed by him. It does not claim Kavanaugh was mentioned in therapy or at any time before mid 2018. It says Kavanaugh was mentioned in mid 2018 and ONE previous time, sometime before that. It also says that she discussed an attack in therapy, but it does not say she discussed an attack by Kavanaugh in therapy. Also her therapist has not claimed that in the notes that only Blasey has ever seen as far as anyone can determine.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 2:03pm
Also note that the only two people she has told about this are her therapist and her husband, BOTH whom are conveniently exempt from being required to testify under spousal and therapist privilege. She specifically says she didn't tell her parents, and we know she didn't tell her best friend whose name she gave as a witness to the assault.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 2:08pm
> He didn't testify put provided a sworn declaration. I last saw that Blasey only provided a letter she said was from him, not a sworn declaration.

So you admit you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Leave the thread and delete your posts. They are all exposed as lies. Adults are talking and correcting uninformed idiots is a waste of time. If you want to talk to uninformed idiots, go to iritu.
Permalink NPR 
October 7th, 2018 2:08pm
> Also note that the only two people she has told about this are her therapist and her husband, BOTH whom are convenient


More lies.

Educate yourself: “In her declaration, Adela Gildo-Mazzon said Ford told her about the alleged assault during a June 2013 meal at a restaurant in Mountain View, California,”

Please leave until you have a clue.
You’re just making nonsense noise.
Permalink NPR 
October 7th, 2018 2:13pm
Fuck off and die, shitdick.

I said he didn't testify, which is TRUE.

He provided a statement, which I agree he did. It wasn't previously available and was something she provided so it didn't seem to be a sworn declaration.

After you mentioned he provided a sworn declaration, and you agree he did not testify or attend the hearing, I dug up the sworn declaration. Which by the way is not notarized.

It was such transparent bullshit drafted by her attorneys I completely debunked claims that it was relevant at all.

You have no response to this so you say bullshit like "Oh you don't know what you're talking about" when I gave the fucking actual declaration and went over it point by point addressing it's actual claims.

You are such a fucking pathetic loser.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 2:16pm
Her attorneys provided this shit after the hearing began, providing no opportunity to check into them or ask questions about them.

Adela Gildo-Mazzon's declaration does NOT say she mentioned Kavanaugh. She says Christine mentioned a sexual assault in her past.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 2:19pm
Stop Mcsin lying guy, just stop, you derailed the thread which was your goal.
Permalink Obama's Nose Mole 
October 7th, 2018 2:22pm
She also has a letter from her kid's coach who says she told the name of in an email on June 29 2018, AFTER Trump named Kavanaugh and Blasey came up with this scheme.

All this mid 2018 first naming stuff after Kavanaugh was a known short lister and she was working her scheme is totally useless to establish that she mentioned Kavanaugh to anyone at all in 2012, 1982 or any time before mid 2018 for that matter.
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 2:22pm
not notarized.
not notarized.
Not notarized!
It was not not notarized.
not not not not notarized!
not notarized.
Not notarized!
It was not not notarized.
not notarized.
Not notarized!
It was not not notarized.
Notarized! Needs to be notarized!

YOU NEED TO SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Permalink GSK 
October 7th, 2018 2:34pm
Look at the timeline. Their testimony is NOT RELEVANT AT ALL, except to show manipulation by Blasey.

She contacts the Washington Post on JUNE 30.

On JUNE 29 she sends an email to her kids coach from years ago and says hey remember me? Remember when I mentioned on the field one day that I was sexually assaulted decades ago? You haven't seen this woman in years and you barely remember her and never knew her very well since your only connection was as coach to her kids. But you vaguely remember various people telling you stuff like this so you email back, yeah, sort of. And she asks, you remember the name of my attacker? And you have no idea and you say, no, who was it? And she emails you back and says it was Kavanaugh. She is telling you this at the same time she is contacting the Washington Post, and AFTER Kavanaugh is on the short list and you're a Democrat who hates Trump and your best friend FBI McLean who is advising you in all this is connected to Schumer and the Clintons.

Her telling him "Kavanaugh" on or after June 29 means NOTHING at all. It's useless as testimony showing Kavanaugh attacked her in 1982. However it does show her fucking around with potential witnesses and trying to get them to say stuff. So this "witness" writes an affidavit saying "Yes she sent me an email a couple months ago telling me for the first time Kavanaugh assaulted her. That's my testimony. She told me."

And you think this testimony is somehow relevant other than to show Blasey's claims are BS? How?
Permalink McCain's Tumor 
October 7th, 2018 2:51pm
It doesn't matter anymore.  He was confirmed.

It would take a majority in the House and 2/3 of the Senate to impeach him (remove him from the court).
Permalink Send private email FSK 
October 7th, 2018 3:11pm
Here's hoping to god that Democrats get those majorities in November and take him and Gorsuch off the court after Trump's arrest for treason.
Permalink Sane Citizen 
October 7th, 2018 3:16pm
not a majority, it takes 2/3 in the Senate to convict
Permalink Send private email FSK 
October 7th, 2018 3:24pm
Constitutional crisis scenario:

The Dems impeach Trump+Pence, the Speaker of the House (Pelosi?) becomes President.  That would be one way to start a civil war.
Permalink Send private email FSK 
October 7th, 2018 3:25pm
They would need to impeach and convict.

Clinton was impeached.
Permalink Hoo hoo hoo 
October 7th, 2018 4:42pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: October, 2018 Other topics: October, 2018 Recent topics Recent topics