Posted on 09/28/2018 8:27:18 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
There was a subtle fact to be learned from Christine Blasey Ford's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. No, not merely that she lied about being afraid to fly on airplanes so she could delay the hearing as long as possible.
I'm referring to the mysterious incident in the bathroom. Press reports indicated that she claimed that Brett Kavanaugh "corralled" her into an upstairs bedroom. Now we have more detail: that Ms. Ford went to an upstairs bathroom, and when she came out, Kavanaugh dragged her into a bedroom.
My question is, why did Ms. Ford use an upstairs bathroom? Nearly all suburban homes near country clubs in America have bathrooms on the ground floor. Perhaps it was occupied, but Ms. Ford, who clearly remembers going to the bathroom, didn't even mention its existence.
If there had been a bathroom on the ground floor, as seems likely, and Ms. Ford could have used it, then there was no reason for her to use a bathroom upstairs. The only reason for Ms. Ford to go upstairs would be to go to a bedroom, with someone at this party.
This is what I believe is most likely to have occurred.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Especially if the "examiner" is being paid by Fineswine.
Mind was the EM Club in Rota,Spain, along with many sailors of approximately the same age.
See post 81.
Oops. Posted to wrong thread. Mods will remove.
Blumenthal is too stupid and arrogant to realize that this means that because he lied about serving in Vietnam, he lies about everything.
It took a lot of self-restraint for Kavanaugh not to say, "Yes, Senator Blumenthal, it means we can't believe anything you say because of your stolen valor past."
“did you ever go to any house not knowing who owns it?”
Yes. 99% of the time I at least knew of the student who lived there, even if I didn’t find out until the last minute.
There were some I had no idea who owned it, but was with friends so had no concerns about it.
Keep in mind I’m not on Ford’s side. The whole bit, even if true is just adolescent behavior which I summarily dismiss.
The GOP seems to concede that she was credible and that her allegations are not just allegations but “credible allegations,” that she sincerely believes them.
I don’t think her allegations are credible.
She made it up. Perhaps something happened to her that she is exaggerating. But the idea that she sincerely believes the story she is telling is and has been too easily conceded.
Her “memory” includes just enough details to make her allegation sound plausible. To put her in contact with Kavanaugh, she needs some reason — a small gathering. It wouldn’t be plausible to come up with a scenario that puts her in bed with Kavanaugh alone when she barely knew the guy. So she included a small group of kids that hung out together.
If you are making something up, it is better to include fewer people and details because you’ll have to keep those straight each time you tell the story.
I don’t know if it matters, but more on this as I reminisce.
The county has the full run of urban to country. And at that time, there were no seatbelt laws, airbags, or even such a thing as DUI. There was DWI, but not really enforced. (DUI is the “in between” charge, with a lower threshhold of BAC.)
In fact, I had a high school encounter with police while drinking & driving around with friends, the cop only had us pour out the opens and dump the rest in the nearby trashcan (we were on GW Parkway).
It was common for us to “cruise around” and I’d say our range was typically MoCo and DC. If we knew of a party, we’d stop but not usually stay for the duration. We’d hand out an hour or two and keep on movin.
Knowing the time and area, I can dismiss the ludicrous claims of gang rapes, etc.. Chalk it up to more innocent times, but that kind of crap was simply unheard of.
And NO ONE would get away with getting a chick pass-out drunk for sex without being thought as the ultimate loser. Better to be a virgin for life or have sex with squirrels.
maybe she was upstairs because she was stealing from the parents room? (it’s as good a reason as any)
“* She said he saw Judge six to eight weeks after the incident at the Safeway where he worked when she went shopping with her mother. But she didn’t tell her mother that he was one of the boys who had attacked her, and she joked that she had entered the store through a different door from the one her mother used because she didn’t want to enter through the same door.”
If you listened to her testimony, she said she went in a different door than her mother and when she saw Judge she “said hi” that’s when she said he acted weird or something. TRUST ME YOU DO NOT SAY HELLO TO SOMEONE WHO WAS
INVOLVED IN ANYWAY WITH MOLESTING YOU...
Why isn’t more being made of Ford’s drinking habits? She voluntarily disclosed that she drank one beer when she arrived but this was not followed up by either side of the committee. The Republicans had made the decision to “play for a tie” and do nothing to make themselves look bad by impuigning Ford’s story, preferring to make it a “he said, she said” since she had no corroboration. The Dims didn’t follow up on her drinking for obvious reasons. But much of her account of this incident could easily be explained by a more thorough examination of her drinking habits that day, habits that would account for her difficulties in college for her first two years that she testified to before pulling herself together enough to graduate at UNC. Yet the Dims focused on Kavanaugh’s alleged “drinking problem” as their central charge and Ford was not challenged on any of her account.
No one but me is saying this:
After forcibly penetration, one is injured and needs to go to the hospital. After forcibly penetration by a “train” or men, one is more seriously injured.
She did not go to the hospital.
Conclusion obvious.
Without details, a story is much more difficult to verify or falsify. You just have to believe. She is a woman, ya know.
Instead of reporting the allegation to the entire Judiciary Committee, Feinstein referred her to an activist Dem attorney.
Even the Sex Prosecutor the GOP hired, stated Ford’s testimony was flimsy and she’d not prosecute on such flimsy testimony.
Male Senate GOP members will never go after another female "victim" without concrete and verified evidence. Even then they will think twice after re-reading the 19th Amendment. Sadly, the "mean old men are hurting the poor widdle defenseless woman" talking point works well for the 'rats. That's why they were "outraged" when the format of the hearing was announced with no GOP males asking Ford questions.
How would her duty to protect Ford change anything? Ford was obligated to testify truthfully. Katz could not advise her otherwise.
Yes, the other option is to decline to answer a question on advice of council. That's done all the time. Of course, you have to have a real council for that option.
And I should add, my previous post is the very reason conflicts of interest are unethical. When there is a conflict, who does the council protect?
I'd love to get a lawyer's take on this, but I don't believe you can do this after you've already submitted a sworn statement on the matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.