No, those were the Czechs!!!
Czechs always defend good causes.
Just for the record, I found Dr. Ford’s testimony highly credible, very close to 100%.
Regarding Kav…, his behavior, body language, attitude, … told me a lot. And his wife’s body language in the background…, Oh My!!! It appears that not even she can believe a word from him…
Just my take. I have no problem with those who see it different, even opposite to what I see.
and if that doesn’t work, they’ll apply for a presidential pardon…
I saw his wife as thinking, “who ARE THESE DISGUSTING PEOPLE!”
This whole thread of comments seems like a political and social Rorschach test. Ones political affiliation and ideological bent causes them to see what they see from testimonies, body language, etc. Splits right down left/right lines. It mirrors the entire nation.
May I ask, which is more based on factual corroborated information rather than emotion?
All based on ideological pre conditions as the driver for everyone, Pat.There are so may pre suppositions and assumptions on all sides…no one is immune. Jeremy diagnoses Kavanaugh as a functional alcoholic from watching televised testimony, while you offer a diagnosis of Dr. Ford and her mental competence based on the same. George sees Kavanaugh’s wife’s facial expressions and body language indicating that she doesn’t believe a word he’s saying, while you see it as her disgust for his questioners. None of you has sufficient evidence to make such a call. Is it coincidence that these opposing views come down along ideological lines?
I’m referring to the facts presented by the accuser and not subjective feelings. At present they would never stand in court. Would you like your person and career to be accused and judged based on the same measure? Just curious.
That is not political bias…it is fact.
“A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. 16 If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, 17 then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. 18 The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you.
The FBI is now interviewing other witnesses, according to reports today. We shall see…
Yes, but remember there are no others for Mrs. Ford’s event. All of her mentioned witnesses have denied.
There are others being interviewed who are also claiming sexual assault at his hands, Pat. This may be an innocent man being railroaded, or it could be a darker history that is coming to light. Innocent until proven guilty, with the burden of proof upon the plaintiff stands for a court of law, but the burden of proof shifts significantly for a SCOTUS nominee. He needs to be beyond reproach. If he is, and that comes out, he will sit on the bench. If he isn’t, he has no business being there.
Additionally, she took a polygraph and passed with flying colors. He refused one. She welcomed an investigation, FBI or independent. He balked. If he is convinced of his own innocence, why would he? She also began informing people and government officials about this as early as 2014…long before his nomination.
None of this proves his guilt. I’m just saying that it isn’t so cut and dry that he is a simple victim of partisan railroading. We shall see…
“burden of proof shifts significantly for a SCOTUS nominee.”
My last comment. I’ve heard multiple people say this. Why? Do you recognize the significance of this? Allegations alone removing one’s ability to serve especially in this day and age and political environment? Sorry, I suggest that reasoning should be considered ridiculous Frank.
They say this isn’t a court of law. Why are they sworn in? Why do attorneys immediately step in when they are not comfortable. She had two. He had none. Perjury is a legal term.
This will sound callous and ignorant no doubt, but it is surprising that a clinical psychologist is still in such a state after 36 years. Doesn’t give much hope to other PTSD sufferers in terms of coping individually and in the light of her ability to seek out the very best professional colleague for assistance.
I am sorry for both her condition and plight. Just as scary as her personal difficulties is she still teaches students at graduate level.
The fact that he drank at parties toward the end of HS and at college, is indicative of anything negative about anyones suitability for a job 30+ years later would probably rule out three quarters of the population.
the point is you were close friends, and one reason was because you drank together…if you, or they, weren’t drinkers, would you have been close friends…
in order to be an alcoholic, there needs to be a genetic susceptibility of some sort (likely GABRG3 on chromosome 15)…your brother may have had it, you may not…unless people do a genome test, they can’t know what their susceptibilities are until it’s too late…if kavanaugh drank to the point of passing out, and constantly vomitting, it suggests he is an alcoholic…
i’m merely positing the one way i see that both the testimonies of ford and kavanaugh can be true…we already know that ford can’t be lying, because she spoke about the incident yrs ago…this means that kavanaugh is either lying, or he isn’t…if he isn’t lying, it likely means he is an alcoholic who had blacked out while he assaulted ford…it is notable that there is a lot of corroborating evidence that kavanaugh drinks a lot, or at least drank a lot at one time…
It means what she thinks is true is sincere. Nothing more. So, if I don’t remember something I have been accused of, I am lying. God help us! You assume he is guilty and base your other thoughts on that!
He’s not being tried as a criminal. He’s being questioned about his fitness to sit on the SCOTUS, a lifetime appointment where he will help determine the law of the land for years. Charges are brought up of sexual assault in his past. The standard for him shouldn’t be higher? They should be ignored as if they, or the women who bring them don’t matter, Pat? They shouldn’t be investigated? Answers to such issues should be disregarded in determining his fitness to serve? He shouldn’t have to exonerate himself sufficiently? I’d really like an answer to these questions.
Clarence Thomas was installed after Anita Hill went through a circus while testifying. She was discounted and disregarded, even vilified along partisan lines. Any wonder why women avoid bringing these types of things to light, especially when it involves men in power? Subsequent history has revealed continual deviant sexual behavior on Thomas’s part.
I would say that erring on the side of caution here would be best. As I stated earlier, if he is truly innocent, he will sit on the bench. If not, he doesn’t belong there.
this conclusion isn’t tenable…if someone mentioned something in detail yrs before she gave testimony of it, even naming kavanaugh, how can it not be true…