WATCH: CNN's Tapper Argues There's 'No Contemporaneous Corroborating Evidence For Any Of The Charges' Against Kavanaugh
Not just contemporaneous evidence but no evidence whatsoever.
I found Ford's demeanor unconvincing during her testimony. It seems she believes that she was assaulted. But I am unconvinced she believes that it was Kavanaugh. It seems to me her demeanor during her testimony was attempting to manipulate the "jury"/the Senate committee.
Her recited memories of the event were as if she had just undergone the trauma recently, not 36 years ago. I have a few traumatic memories which I had not related to anyone for decades as well. But I never had any feelings of "living the event all over." I had some memory confusion and discomfort at telling these stories, but I did not devolve into baby talk or posing as Ford did.
I have questioned, interrogated, deposed, direct examined and cross-examined under oath, and listened while other did all of the above with thousands of witnesses. Ford's demeanor was not normal. The baby-talk, gurgling, soft voice, posing, and all of the rest are not what one hears 36 years after the event. Ford was attempting to place herself as a victim. It appears to me she was coached and coached hard.
She also does not retain the memories I would expect she would retain. We tend to suppress the memories of the event. We tend to ruminate on our "guilt" and whether we could have done something different and, thus, changed the outcome. I would expect Ford to remember things like how she got to the party, who invited her to the party, whether someone pressured her to go because these are things she would likely ruminate on for years after the event. The event itself would be suppressed, but not the surrounding events, her role and the role of others and the issue of blame.
I will offer this as an example: In 1977, I went to Heart's first Portland concert. I have an excellent memory of the concert, the wild things that happened both before, during, and after. For example, at the end of the concert the sound man turned up the power to the speakers so far, that entire banks of speakers started to burn. There were roadies and venue personnel with fire extinguishers running around the stage. I remember the group of guys in front of us who were sniffing ether and smoking joints. Probably because one dropped the can of ether and the lit joint in his hand caused an enormous fireball.
Regardless, until two or three years ago, I forgot the extent to which I was in a fight with two guys at the concert. We all left alive and mostly intact, but my memory did not fully include that event until my sister-in-law boggled when I told the story. Then she asked if I was going to tell about how knives were involved. Only then did I remember the real fight.
I remembered the details leading up to the fight, and the reasons the two men started the fight but not that we both pulled knives, exchange some punches, I disarmed him, and the two of them left. Why? Because that was out of character for me and I suppressed the memories of that part of the event. What I remembered was the boorish behavior of the two men towards two women, the assault of the women, and that I called the men out for the assault. What I suppressed was how far I was willing to go to stop the assault.
I would expect Ford's memory to be similar, to remember the background things she might have changed to avoid the party and the assault, but that she would have to some extent suppressed the actual assault. Instead, with Ford, she only remembers the assault. This is not normal. I expected personal recriminations and sharp memories of her or others actions which she believed placed her in danger. But, no.
There is a very good chance that Ford was assaulted at 15, but it is highly unlikely it was by Kavanaugh. There is no evidence. There are no witnesses. The alleged victim did not relate the story to anyone until 2012, more than 30 years after the event. The story as related is not convincing. Ford's memory is too focused on Kavanaugh and not sufficiently on her potential blame or the potential blame of others who invited her or drove her to the party.
Ford's memory is a "pillow" memory floating above all of her other memories with no connective tissue relating them. This is not how memories work. This is more like a separate memory which was lifted and neatly connected with a tiny few other memories regarding Kavanaugh and his friend likely soon before she met with her therapist in 2012. It seems likely that all of this was an attempt to gain sympathy from her therapist during couples counseling (or sympathy from her husband, or both). Ford's demeanor during the Senate Committee testimony was that of a woman desperately seeking sympathy, and emotional succor. It is not difficult to believe she has done this before.
Women behaving in this manner is a common vein in literary fiction and history.
To bear the burden of proof sufficient to destroy a man's reputation, destroy his career, and derail this confirmation, Ford needs more than an allegation no matter how strongly she believes it. She needs more than the fact that she told her therapist this story 30+ years after the event. Ford needs corroborating evidence. Even testimony from a friend would not be sufficient. She needs physical evidence or confirmed contemporaneous report(s) of the crime.
I tire of the Democratic Party's attempt to slander everyone who disagrees with their destructive progressive cult.
From now on, all Senate confirmations must be in-camera, with privacy guarantees. Leakers need to face federal felony charges. The Democrats have played this game for decades. They are so immoral and unethical they will stop at nothing to win. Time for Americans to assess this situation and decide whether this is how you wish to be represented.
Why Atheists Are Not as Rational as They Like to Think | RealClearScience
It is the belief that there is no God, as opposed to the obverse position that there is a God(s). These positions are different only in direction, otherwise, both are religions which can be defined as a worldview or an integrated part of a worldview which is based on belief or faith. The religious acolyte has faith in something greater than the self while the atheist believes there is nothing greater than the self. Neither can prove their position. Only the atheist denies they believe.
The religious acolyte is rational in their understanding that they believe. The atheist is irrational in their denial that they also believe.
Wanda Sykes heckled after Trump jokes at Count Basie; angry fans walk out
This is the Orange Crush giving it to the Blue Wave.
Mother of two punches Lindsay Lohan over 'child abduction' bid | The Express Tribune
The mother of none is no longer clueless about how a real momma bear protects her cubs!
This has the makings of must-see reality TV! Every week Lohan takes a beatdown for acting out some stupid progressive canard.
Cats Are Surprisingly Bad at Killing Rats
Terriers are very good, but only the female mink can go right down the rat hole and root them out!
The Death of Reason and the Slaying of Civility - Cafe Hayek
"The noir parade that is the march of at-least-as-yet unsubstantiated accusations that young Brett Kavanaugh serially committed indecent, and even heinous, sexual offenses against women has left me more despondent than I can ever recall being about American liberalism (by which I mean classical liberalism). I simply – and I mean this claim literally – cannot begin to begin to begin to begin to understand why so many of my fellow Americans are oblivious to the dangers of imposing the burden of proof or of persuasion upon the accused.
That Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing is not a criminal trial is, of course, true. But this fact does nothing whatsoever to change the logic of how civilized, decent, truth-respecting people assess claims of wrongdoing, no matter how paltry or grievous. And this logic has two essential component parts. First, any accuser must have something more than the accusation itself. Second, the accused is presumed innocent of the charge until and unless the accuser makes a reasonable argument that the accusation is true.
We follow this logic in our daily lives. If your six-year-old child accuses your seven-year-old child of punching him without provocation, do you – on the basis of that accusation alone – punish your seven-year-old child? (If you do, you are both a bizarre and a bad parent.) If you’re a teacher and student Jones sends you an e-mail telling you that student Smith cheated on an exam, do you presume – on the basis of that accusation alone – that Smith is in fact a cheater, or that Smith is obliged to ‘prove’ to you that she is innocent before you declare her to be innocent? (If you do, you are a sorry teacher; you should be fired.) If a stranger sends you a letter telling you that your spouse has had an affair with someone else, do you – on the basis of that accusation alone – assume that your spouse has been unfaithful and that he or she must prove to your satisfaction his or her innocence? (If you do, I’m glad that I’m not your spouse and I pity whoever is.)
The fact that children often hit their siblings without provocation – the fact that students often cheat on exams – the fact that spouses often are unfaithful – none of these facts (and facts they certainly are) remotely justifies you, in any of the above three scenarios, treating the accusation alone as being sufficient evidence of its truth, or of imposing the burden of proof on the accused.
I’m tempted to conclude that if we human beings routinely treated accusations alone as sufficient proof of, if not their absolute validity, at least of their presumptive validity, that civilization would be practically impossible. I think that this conclusion is likely correct. But, perhaps, it’s too strong. So I’ll conclude instead by saying that if we human beings routinely treated accusations alone as sufficient proof of, if not their absolute validity, at least of their presumptive validity, civilization as we know it would not exist. Whatever civilization we would then be members of would look and feel radically different from that which we now know."
Ford Rejects One-Week Cap on FBI Kavanaugh Query
This requires the investigation of Ford's story and her veracity just as much as it requires the investigation of Kavanaugh. The FBI needs to get Ford on tape making her statements and allegations. Same for Kavanaugh and his denials. Then investigate both thoroughly, if either is lying, they should be charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. I would also place the Senator who brought these allegations in the investigation, that's you Senator Feinstein, and charge her if she is found to have lied to the investigators.
Kavanaugh cannot mount a defense to these charges because they offer no specifics. This makes anything which happened over the course of a year or more potentially the date, or place, or people in question. No police force would take much time with a claim so devoid of specifics. A crime might have happened, sometime 34-36 years ago, involving some people whom, the alleged victim does not recall except for Kavanaugh and a friend of his (or two).
All of this is a theater of the absurd. This is not an allegation of seriousness; it is something quite different.