Politics And Current Events

Postby **CBear3** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:32 pm

Yes. You're thinking like a lawyer and not a psychologist

In fact you sound like your making a closing argument in a bad SVU episode.

That said, she'd have to explain very clearly why she knew exactly who he was and how it popped into her memory after so long. I don't doubt the incident happened, nor do I doubt that it traumatized her. The therapists notes go back to 2012 so I think she believes this is exactly what happened. I just am curious if she might have filled in the blanks with some errors, and Kavanaugh's identity is obviously chief among those.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:39 pm

BREAKING: Trump orders declassification of FISA docs, other records related to Russia investigation

https://mobile.twitter.com/JasonLeopold ... 3379870723

Postby **Willie Kool** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:48 pm

Al Franken's groping behavior was not only witnessed by multiple people, it was captured on film... The accusation against Franken was substantiated and corroborated...

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:07 pm

Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh to testify under oath about sexual assault allegations at public hearing.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rollcall/sta ... 1585826821

Postby **Kaiser** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:08 pm

I'm sure that'll clear things up.

YouTube · Postby **mikey** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:36 pm

I'm with dodint here...as usual. He's said it more eloquently than I could...

I'd also find it interesting, in a parallel universe where perhaps political brand loyalty has not poisoned the water already, who is "for" this being worth a damn (or more) as it stands currently and who also supports various "Ban the Box", "Second Chance Acts", "Fair Chance Acts", "Clean Slate Acts", etc. with seemingly much worse crimes, with more mature adults, with actual convictions and involving positions that directly affect you and those that you associate with...the Supreme Court - while doing its best to legislate from the bench(tm) whenever given the chance - has a fairly unlikely shot of having any measurable impact on you in your lifetime...

That's the only thing I'd be curious about...the rest, dodint already covered...

Postby **Shyster** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:47 pm

Yes. You're thinking like a lawyer and not a psychologist
In fact you sound like your making a closing argument in a bad SVU episode.

I've heard a lot of people say "I don't remember" in a lot of ways. For many of them, they couldn't remember the details because they were lying.

Postby **CBear3** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:56 pm

I wasn’t saying it was a bad argument, just a bad episode

Postby **MWB** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:56 pm

Yes. You're thinking like a lawyer and not a psychologist
In fact you sound like your making a closing argument in a bad SVU episode.

I've heard a lot of people say "I don't remember" in a lot of ways. For many of them, they couldn't remember the details because they were lying.

What would be her reason for lying?

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:03 pm

I don't think she is lying per se.

I think she doesn't know who/what/when/where because they were all drunk*, and so she is filling in the blanks, as it were.

* - Her attorney admitted the accuser had "a beer" in her interview this morning. No teenager in Earth's history had "a beer" at a party.

Postby **MWB** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:24 pm

Yeah, certainly plausible. Although the “party” had only four boys, so not sure how much of a rager it was, or how long she’d been there.

But why fill in the blanks with Kavanaugh? The only plausible explanation seems that she wants to take him down. That’s a lot of personal angst to bring on yourself for something that won’t happen in all likelihood.

Postby **Shyster** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:25 pm

The Wash Post article goes into more detail on the beer issue:

She said she recalls a small family room where she and a handful of others drank beer together that night. She said that each person had one beer but that Kavanaugh and Judge had started drinking earlier and were heavily intoxicated.

So she can remember not only that she had one beer, but that everyone except Kavanaugh and Judge also had one beer, yet she cannot remember when this happened, where this happened, who owned the house, or how she got there or got home.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:26 pm

I may be misremembering this but then that lawyer person safe that there was another girl there

Postby **MWB** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:30 pm

I may be misremembering this but then that lawyer person safe that there was another girl there

I think you’re right. I just meant she said four boys (I don’t know how many girls), so it likely wasn’t a lot of people.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:35 pm

Evidently in 2012

March 2012 New Yorker profile of Kavanaugh: "If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh."

(link: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012 ... -court/amp) newyorker.com/magazine/2012/…

Postby **Shyster** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:48 pm

Yeah, certainly plausible. Although the “party” had only four boys, so not sure how much of a rager it was, or how long she’d been there.

But why fill in the blanks with Kavanaugh? The only plausible explanation seems that she wants to take him down. That’s a lot of personal angst to bring on yourself for something that won’t happen in all likelihood.

She could be, as Freddy has posited, filling in the blanks with Kavanaugh's name. That is certainly possible. But as to the "personal angst" question, let's say this accusation scuttles the Kavanaugh nomination, the Republicans don't manage to get another nominee through in time, and the Democrats take the Senate and keep the vacancy open until a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020. Ms. Ford would be lauded as the hero that "saved" the Supreme Court. The political motivations here are obvious and enormous. Does that mean that she is operating based on those motivations? There's no evidence she is, and no evidence she isn't.

Postby **tifosi77** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:07 pm

So she can remember not only that she had one beer, but that everyone except Kavanaugh and Judge also had one beer, yet she cannot remember when this happened, where this happened, who owned the house, or how she got there or got home.

This is completely normal behavior for survivors of traumatic events. Not just something of this nature, but trauma, generally. I mean, this is sort of where the term 'triggered' kind comes from. Small details specific to the actual trauma often follow a person through their lives, even if they block out the traumatic event itself.

Postby **Shyster** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:20 pm

This is completely normal behavior for survivors of traumatic events. Not just something of this nature, but trauma, generally. I mean, this is sort of where the term 'triggered' kind comes from. Small details specific to the actual trauma often follow a person through their lives, even if they block out the traumatic event itself.

The inability to remember details would also be consistent with making stuff up. And this isn't an abstract matter of psychology. Ms. Ford presumably wants the public to believe her. Belief requires proof. Proof comprises facts that can be checked and verified. No facts = no proof = no belief.

Postby **MWB** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:43 pm

Yeah, certainly plausible. Although the “party” had only four boys, so not sure how much of a rager it was, or how long she’d been there.

But why fill in the blanks with Kavanaugh? The only plausible explanation seems that she wants to take him down. That’s a lot of personal angst to bring on yourself for something that won’t happen in all likelihood.
She could be, as Freddy has posited, filling in the blanks with Kavanaugh's name. That is certainly possible. But as to the "personal angst" question, let's say this accusation scuttles the Kavanaugh nomination, the Republicans don't manage to get another nominee through in time, and the Democrats take the Senate and keep the vacancy open until a Democrat wins the presidency in 2020. Ms. Ford would be lauded as the hero that "saved" the Supreme Court. The political motivations here are obvious and enormous. Does that mean that she is operating based on those motivations? There's no evidence she is, and no evidence she isn't.

You’re glossing over the fact that her life will be completely exposed, she is fodder for every pundit, news show, and hockey forum, and will be reviled by a large group of people. Those things are certainties. That’s an awful lot of weight to put on a lie. The savior plot is very, very unlikely.

Postby **Tomas** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:46 pm

Now that Judge's recollection of the alleged event could become a focal point for all those looking into the accusation, flags have been raised regarding his own past writings.
Judge wrote the book "Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk," where he details his experiences of extensive drinking while attending Georgetown Preparatory School.
Judge writes that he is "shocked" about what he got away with in high school -- recalling beach parties that hundreds of people would attend.
At another point he describes his high school as "positively swimming in alcohol."
Judge also references a "Bart O'Kavanaugh," who he writes vomited in someone's car. It has not been confirmed whether this is a reference to Kavanaugh.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics ... index.html

Postby **MWB** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:51 pm

So what would the working theory be regarding her lying? Not the one where she mistakenly thought it was Kavanaugh many years ago, but where she is actively lying to scuttle the nomination? Is it that something happened to her years ago, she sought counseling, Kavanaugh got nominated, she remembered that Kavanaugh had been in the same circles as her in high school, she decided to put his name in her event, and then kind of put it out there, and then leaked it so it seemed like she didn’t want her name exposed? It seems like if you’re going to go about this, there would be better ways to do it.

Postby **MWB** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:53 pm

Lol, Bart O’Kavanaugh

Postby **Tomas** » Tue Sep 18, 2018 1:22 am

More details from Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/art ... 6d6a6ef69a

Both men have denied the accusation, which Christine Blasey Ford went public with this week in The Washington Post. Judge subsequently told the New York Times that not only did he never see a sexual assault, but that such behavior would be wildly out of character for the Catholic-raised-and-educated boys who went to Georgetown Prep in the early ’80s.

What Judge has written in his career as a journalist and author is another matter.

In two memoirs, Judge depicted his high school as a nest of debauchery where students attended “masturbation class,” “lusted after girls” from nearby Catholic schools and drank themselves into stupors at parties. He has since renounced that lifestyle and refashioned himself as a conservative moralist — albeit one who has written about “the wonderful beauty of uncontrollable male passion.”

Judge credits Georgetown Prep as the place he learned to write, even as he blames it for sending him down the path to alcoholism and immorality.

He was caption editor for his yearbook, which included lines like “Ebony and Ivory” beneath a photo of a white and a black student, and “Do these guys beat their wives?” beneath a group photo of several boys.

In his 2005 memoir, “God and Man at Georgetown Prep,” he wrote that he co-published the school’s underground student newspaper in his senior year, dedicating it largely to documenting the school’s party scene. One issue pictured a music teacher at a bachelor party “chugging a beer, surrounded by a group of us with raised mugs, sitting down while being entertained by the stripper.”

Judge never wrote about any sexual violence at those parties, nor did he mention Kavanaugh attending any. But Judge’s 1997 memoir, “Wasted,” references a “Bart O’Kavanaugh” character who passes out drunk and throws up in a car.

Postby **Shyster** » Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:31 am

You’re glossing over the fact that her life will be completely exposed, she is fodder for every pundit, news show, and hockey forum, and will be reviled by a large group of people. Those things are certainties. That’s an awful lot of weight to put on a lie. The savior plot is very, very unlikely.

People make up stuff even when they know it will cause lots of scrutiny and press coverage. Crystal Mangum fabricated the Duke lacrosse rape hoax.[1] "Jackie" fabricated the UVA rape hoax.[2] A former women's basketball player at the University of Nebraska faked an anti-lesbian hate crime and even carved "derogatory" words into her own skin[3] because " she thought it would inspire change in the treatment of gay people."[4] A Claremont McKenna College psychology professor vandalized her own car with racist slogans and then claimed to be the victim of a racist hate crime.[5] People make stuff up in order to get attention even when they know they will face pushback and scrutiny. It still happens.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/justice/ ... index.html
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -show-jail
[5] http://articles.latimes.com/2004/aug/19/local/me-dunn19

Postby **Troy Loney** » Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:10 am

I don't think she is lying per se.

I think she doesn't know who/what/when/where because they were all drunk*, and so she is filling in the blanks, as it were.

* - Her attorney admitted the accuser had "a beer" in her interview this morning. No teenager in Earth's history had "a beer" at a party.

Have you ever been to a party with girls that age?

I'd be surprised if any 15 year old girl gets a whole beer down. They usually take two sips and put it down, it's why the term "floater" was invented.