The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Northwestcoug]

Do you think multiple front doors are cheap?

I chuckled.

Don't pretend to know her financial accomplishments. She could be have been an investor in Theranos.

[Uncle Ted]

The calendar thing is weak IMO. I know it's evidence, and I know he has to try to disprove the assault happening on any day during that time in question. But it still seems like he's relying on it a lot.

Yeah, it is about as weak as Dr. Ford's testimony and no collaborating witnesses. The difference is BK has witnesses that Dr. Ford named that back his calendar (and story).

[Donuthole]

His hair bugs me. Also, he looks like fat John Ritter.

[Northwestcoug]

Maybe that vote won't be delayed after all. This is one forceful denial.

[falafel]

The calendar thing is weak IMO. I know it's evidence, and I know he has to try to disprove the assault happening on any day during that time in question. But it still seems like he's relying on it a lot.

Created contemporaneously as well. I know it's not going to say "tried to rape Christine tonight, couldn't figure the swimsuit out", but I think it's solid evidence.

[falafel]

Do you think multiple front doors are cheap?

:Rollie:

[Commando]

His hair bugs me. Also, he looks like fat John Ritter.

[falafel]

I can't handle this. If he's innocent, I just can't comprehend Ford knowingly lying. She has no reason to. But he seems very sincere.

Ideological reasons? In over her head and can't retreat without damaging herself further? There are lots of reasons.

[Uncle Ted]

His hair bugs me. Also, he looks like fat John Ritter.

LOL

[Commando]

Of course he is relying on it! It is an historical record of his life in question.

While she is vague and going off memory that has not been Corroborated by anyone..

I find it solid vs. recollection..

He didn't put routine things 'brush my teeth,' 'go to church' and 'skeev on chicks at frat parties' on his calendar. Well that about wraps it up!

[creekster]

She is a professor. She's affiliated with Stanford medical school. What kind of money would she need to make upending her life for this worth it?

I think you are being extremely naive here. People do this stuff for many, many reasons. First, she might not be lying in her own mind. She might be absolutely certain she is telling the truth, but still be flatly wrong. it was 36 years ago, supposedly, and it was an event that she never mentioned, not once, for over 30 years and, when she did first mention it, the contemporaneous writing that recorded it doesn't say anything about Kavanaugh. She could be manufacturing memories (it happens) or she might have gradually but erroneously concluded it was Kavanaugh, or she might just be crazy on this topic. Second, if she was attacked, speaking out might be giving her some relief, some control, some victory over the experience that she suffered. Obtaining that relief might be well worth overstating or even lying about her certainty with respect to the attacker's identity. Third, she might just be lying. It happens. I have seen it happen. I have had witnesses do it. I have seen experts do it. I have seen cops do it. And all of these under oath. I have been flummoxed when it has happened. The problem is, once you tell a story like that, it is very hard to back up. So this is why we look for corroboration. And she has none. Zero. The only thing she has been certain of is that it was Kavanaugh. There is virtually nothing else --NOTHING--that she is certain about. Fourth, you are again being very naive if you think there is not a lot of possible glory and compensation ahead for her. She will be paid to speak. She will be given employment and research opportunities. She will be a popular professor. She will be the darling of a certain segment of the political world. While she will, in the near term, be facing nuts who threaten her (like Kavanaugh also faces) in the mid and long term she will likely benefit a great deal. While she does make a credible appearance, that does not mean she is truthful or accurate.

[Northwestcoug]

Created contemporaneously as well. I know it's not going to say "tried to rape Christine tonight, couldn't figure the swimsuit out", but I think it's solid evidence.

Ideological reasons? In over her head and can't retreat without damaging herself further? There are lots of reasons.

I know there's reasons. But none I really want to consider being plausible.

This is just terrible. I really am torn.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lots of rage, then emotion. Overall, very powerful.

[dabrockster]

He didn't put routine things 'brush my teeth,' 'go to church' and 'skeev on chicks at frat parties' on his calendar. Well that about wraps it up!

What a stupid response to try and disqualify a detailed historical document that reflects his life without any knowledge of what is now taking place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northwestcoug]

I think you are being extremely naive here. People do this stuff for many, many reasons. First, she might not be lying in her own mind. She might be absolutely certain she is telling the truth, but still be flatly wrong. it was 36 years ago, supposedly, and it was an event that she never mentioned, not once, for over 30 years and, when she did first mention it, the contemporaneous writing that recorded it doesn't say anything about Kavanaugh. She could be manufacturing memories (it happens) or she might have gradually but erroneously concluded it was Kavanaugh, or she might just be crazy on this topic. Second, if she was attacked, speaking out might be giving her some relief, some control, some victory over the experience that she suffered. Obtaining that relief might be well worth overstating or even lying about her certainty with respect to the attacker's identity. Third, she might just be lying. It happens. I have seen it happen. I have had witnesses do it. I have seen experts do it. I have seen cops do it. And all of these under oath. I have been flummoxed when it has happened. The problem is, once you tell a story like that, it is very hard to back up. So this is why we look for corroboration. And she has none. Zero. The only thing she has been certain of is that it was Kavanaugh. There is virtually nothing else --NOTHING--that she is certain about. Fourth, you are again being very naive if you think there is not a lot of possible glory and compensation ahead for her. She will be paid to speak. She will be given employment and research opportunities. She will be a popular professor. She will be the darling of a certain segment of the political world. While she will, in the near term, be facing nuts who threaten her (like Kavanaugh) in the mid and long term she will likely benefit a great deal. While she does make a credible appearance, that does not mean she is truthful or accurate.

Well call me naïve then. Yes there are many nefarious reasons, for many people. But for her, an accomplished person who just doesn't seem to need any of this limelight, I find it hard to believe that she is lying.
I think I can allow that for some reason, she is just completely mistaken about the identity of her attacker. That is plausible to me, but I still give her story a lot of weight. As far as compensation is concerned, yep, I bet some will come along her way. But I find it extremely implausible that given what we know of her, she is doing this for the hope of compensation. Just very unlikely IMO.