Maybe during the FBI investigation, they'll find out who leaked her name.

Wouldn't that be interesting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So he allegedly attempted to molest and due to age and fear (so common) she didn’t tell anyone, so what evidence are you expecting? That is why the FBI investigation is required, to determine if there were witnesses or a pattern of behavior that can support her claim.

Thousands of boys were molested by their priests, no evidence there, just stories by adults finally having the courage to come forward, you ok believing them without proof?

My X was raped in high school, never told anyone and only therapy decades later allowed her to share the horror and fear. No evidence it ever happened, no way to prove it, but the trembling she exhibited on telling me is proof enough.

Show some empathy, no evidence means nothing, this has been she said vs he said, an investigation is required. I doubt there isn’t a guy alive who acted that way in the past, who would emphatically deny it without proof or any investigation having been done.

ps: I have empathy for his family and even for him if proven to be innocent and she mistook him for someone else.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And I'm shocked that they you don't believe what she said. Do you have any proof of her lying in other instances.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just read the drinking age was 21when Kavanagh was joking about the Devil's Triangle. And if you know what that is it's not a drinking game like he claimed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well the republicans didn’t have the letter. so there’s that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Her friends knew about the letter
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wasn’t my research also posted that people being falsely accused it not as rampant as people like you suggest . You don’t have an issue shooting holes in her story but take exception to my lying language post and of course throw comunist in the mix you showed me.


So what did you think when he suggested he never passed out he just falls asleep lie white lie or his an angel
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it wasn’t any research, it’s as believable as convicting him based on body language. it’s beyond pathetic that you would claim that saying “ i never would” is evidence of guilt. tell that to the cops that al sharpton accused of raping tawanna brawley, tell that to the duke lacrosse players who were convicted by the left in day one, tell that to the UVA student who Rolling Stone accused of rape.

how about next we hear testimony from a fortune teller reading from a ouji board, maybe he was also a rapist in a past life, maybe the senate democrats want to know about that. maybe he was a viking 600 years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ask the FBI or a detective and they can explain to you how they interpret people's behavior when they are being interviewed, there are tells, whether you believe it or not.

I don't think you need to even go that deep. His conspiracy laden attacks on democrats, the left and even the Clintons should be enough to disqualify him.

Here is more information about how to conduct an interview and assess witnesses. Since Dr. Geiselman is an overpaid professor at a for sure liberal institution, this is likely all part of a plot.
"As an investigator, you may find a serving of ‘TEDS PIE’ to be helpful when you’re taking statements about a shooting from involved officers and witnesses.That acronym is offered as a questioning tool by Dr. Edward Geiselman, co-developer of the cognitive interviewing technique and a faculty member for the Force Science Certification Course.

The letters stand for various prompts you can use to probe deeper into a subject’s memories.

Open-ended questions
Cognitive interviewing is a method for gathering descriptive recollections of an event by encouraging an uninterrupted, free-flowing narrative from the person being questioned. In contrast to the stereotypical interrogation approach, the subject in a cognitive interview does about 80 percent of the talking, while the investigator speaks only about 20 percent of the time, primarily by posing open-ended questions that keep the interviewee supplying needed, detailed information.

“Closed-ended questions require only short answers and can signal to the officer or witness that his or her role is to speak only when spoken to during the interview. This can stifle meaty responses,” explained Geiselman, a psychology professor at UCLA. “Responses to open-ended questions tend to be more extensive and are more likely to be accurate,” Geiselman added.

During the subject’s grand narrative, Geiselman said, the cognitive interviewer notes areas that require follow up when the initial story is concluded. “The strategy then is to ask the interviewee to focus his memory and elaborate about one segment of the narrative at a time.

“This follow-up questioning begins with your asking an open-ended question: ‘Can you tell me more about...’ whatever element of the grand narrative — people, places, objects and conversations. — you want to explore in greater depth at that moment.

“The problem is that if you ask this same question over and over as you move through the various sections you want to follow up on, the interview may begin to seem stilted, stale and predictable, and the subject may become annoyed, fatigued, or disinterested.”

Deploying TEDS PIE
That’s where TEDS PIE comes in. It’s a means of prefacing follow-up questions that Geiselman says he learned from investigators with the London Metro Police, an agency that has worked on a number of research projects with the Force Science Institute.

TEDS stands for tell me, explain to me, describe to me and show me and PIE stands for precisely, in detail and exactly.

“By pairing a term from TEDS with a term from PIE, you have a different way of introducing the same open-ended question as you go through the segments you want the interviewee to expand on,” Geiselman said. “You’re still making the same inquiry repeatedly, but it doesn’t appear that way to the subject.”

As a reminder of the effectiveness of cognitive interviewing, he added, “Truthful subjects generally like answering open-ended questions and will work hard to mine their memories for as full an account as possible. Not so much those subjects who need to be deceptive. Overwhelmingly, they prefer closed-ended questions that let them get by with abbreviated statements.”
Lots more here to read if you are interested
https://www.policeone.com/police-pro...ying-suspects/
RELATED ARTICLES
Court rulings on interviews by law enforcement
7 types of witnesses and how to interview them
5 strategies for selecting interrogation themes
Quickly read, analyze, and interpret body language

Yeah, I know he changed sides
David Brock on NBC: “I used to know Brett Kavanaugh pretty well. And, when I think of Brett now, in the midst of his hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps." And that's why I want to tell any senator who cares about our democracy: Vote no. Twenty years ago, when I was a conservative movement stalwart, I got to know Brett Kavanaugh both professionally and personally. Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, "Blinded By The Right." I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word "bitch."
But there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.
Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.
At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke. In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.
When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr's operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.)
Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne's husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers — we called them "the elves" — who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr's office — and also that Conway's go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh.
That critical flow of inside information allowed Starr, in effect, to set a perjury trap for Clinton, laying the foundation for a crazed national political crisis and an unjust impeachment over a consensual affair.
But the cabal's godfather was Ted Olson, the then-future solicitor general for George W. Bush and now a sainted figure of the GOP establishment (and of some liberals for his role in legalizing same-sex marriage). Olson had a largely hidden role as a consigliere to the "Arkansas Project" — a multi-million dollar dirt-digging operation on the Clintons, funded by the eccentric right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run through The American Spectator magazine, where I worked at the time.
Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by peddling the same garbage at Starr's office.
A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.
Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.
Like millions of Americans this week, I tuned into Kavanaugh's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee with great interest. In his opening statement and subsequent testimony, Kavanaugh presented himself as a "neutral and impartial arbiter" of the law. Judges, he said, were not players but akin to umpires — objectively calling balls and strikes. Again and again, he stressed his "independence" from partisan political influences.
But I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is — because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights.
But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense. He made up his mind nearly a generation ago — and, if he's confirmed, he'll have nearly two generations to impose it upon the rest of us."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is stupid...he was under oath so he simply told the truth

Pete you really know how to make hair hurt...:wave:

I think you’re three years in without a meaningful post...seriously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't post the pic because I was implying Ford was a liar I did so because I thought it was hilarious and clever.........but I still love you...

glad you are taking the time to keep track....:hihi:

This classmate says he committed perjury
https://youtu.be/MLLjYGBWLyo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh good...we can lock him up and save everyone a lot of trouble next week :claps:

Certainly if this is important enough to be featured on YouTube......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

While jail time may not be appropriate, lying under oath when you’re trying to become a lifetime appointee to the Supreme Court is probably something you’d consider to be a character revelation. And one that we might not love to have decide some of the more important cases involving the constitution in our land.

At this time I feel like he’s a cooked goose. He would have been better served to just come out and play even keeled. The minute he got emotional, you could see him start to lose control of some of his answers.

I’d have probably done the same thing if I were in his shoes...but then again I’d NEVER appoint me to the Supreme Court.

But I do appreciate the man’s honesty about his relationship with beer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about Dr Ford’s selective fear of flying? she can fly on vacation, but not to testify? Her fear of flying is a function of the reason for her going to her destination? That’s creative.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=23594271 7 phrases in a liar's vocabulary

it’s beyond pathetic that you would claim that saying “ i never would” is evidence of guilt.

I never suggested this as evidence of Guilt I suggested you bounce the entire list off both of their testimony and draw your own conclusion... but clearly an OCD Calendar is proof of Truth ??

I know right?...why would a Federal Judge with a spotless record(or anyone for that matter) with a Mom, wife and two young daughters get emotional the day after being publicly accused, during what should be one of the proudest moments of their lives, of having orchestrated "rape trains" ?

Ian "I’d have probably done the same thing if I were in his shoes.."

you left that out

see here’s the difference between us, i never posted anything about a calendar. Never. You posted an idiotic article implying he lied because he said “I’d never”. How about his tie, was that the kind of tie only a rapist would
wear?

you’ve all gone completely, and i mean completely, bonkers. An accusation is not evidence. If the fbi uncovers real evidence, i’ll be the first one saying he’s unfit. until then, this is all politics.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would he be "unfit"?

Really you would ask why he is unfit if the FBI uncovered evidence to corroborate her accusations? If she had told authorities then and he was convicted, he would be automatically unfit, why would that change now, just because he cleaned up his act?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He was a minor then. The FBI would not have investigated it then. The local authorities would not have been given the time, the place, no corroborating witnesses, would not have had anything to investigate beyond her accusation, no prosecutor would have tried to convict him on those grounds. Again, he was a minor and would not have been tried as an adult. His record would have been sealed.

But being "unfit" because of a transgression as a minor, then leading a crimeless life after that, having a record as a judge to review which showed nothing to disqualify him, rather, it showing he was supremely qualified as stated by the bar association, having passed six FBI checks? Being called "unfit" after that seems strange. Especially given how "fit" various politicians and Presidents were to serve, and serve well by many accounts, after having done far worse than Kavanaugh is accused of, and having done them while an adult and actually in office.