Even more problematic stuff

[Forty Two]

I provided links. How many times do I have to do it? The literal words she spoke in her NBC news interview contradict the statements made in her affidavit, and I cited a particular paragraph in the affidavit.

None of your links or quotes support your false claim that she admitted to lying or admitted to not telling the truth.

None of your links or quotes support your false claim that he lied.

I don't recall saying she "admitted to not telling the truth" in the sense of "Ok, guys, I admit it, I lied." What I pointed out several times was that her own stories are self-contradictory. When you tell story A at time N, and then you tell story B at time N+1, and A =/= B, then by definition, you are not telling the truth (either A or B, or both, must not be true). What Swetnick openly "admitted" was never seeing Kavanaugh spike anyone's drink, rape anyone, or sexually assault anyone. She alleged was that she saw him at parties and he was on at least some occasions standing around the drinks and handing people cups. She claims to have been raped at a party, and thereby concluded that Kavanaugh standing around near doors in a house meant that he was part of a "Train" of guys waiting to rape drugged and inebriated women, but her NBC News statements were that she had no knowledge of any facts to support that claim.

Ford's own testimony excludes Timmy's house. Ford said she was swimming the the Columbia club in Bethesda, but Gaudette's house is in Rockville MD. A different city.

Blasey Ford said that the incident occurred in a house in the Bethesda area, not in Bethesda proper. Rockville is in the Bethesda area, about 15 minutes' drive from the country club.

No, no and no again. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true. She flat out was shown a map and confirmed that the house where she says the event occurred was "between" her house and the country club, and Timmy's house was not there - his house was in Rockville, nowhere near it. She also never once said it even could be Timmy's house.

Ford said, and I quote, “I would describe [the house] as it's somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that’s shown in your picture.” Tim Gaudette's house was not somewhere between her house and the country club in that vicinity that was shown in the picture.

Here is "the picture."

Thus, Ford's description of the location of the house does not leave open the possibility that it was Tim Gaudette's house in Rockville.

Rockville is about 10 miles north of Bethesda, and Chevy Chase is in the opposite direction, southeast of Bethesda. Timmy did not live between Blasey's house and the Columbia Country Club.

I have quoted Blasey's testimony - which she gave while looking at a map with her house and the Columbia Country Club circled, and Leland Ingham's home, and Kavanaugh's home, and PJ's home, highlighted for perspective. She said very clearly that the house she attended where the attack she says occurred happened was somewhere in between her house and the country club.

Do you believe her?

[Forty Two]

Blasey Ford said that the incident occurred in a house in the Bethesda area, not in Bethesda proper. Rockville is in the Bethesda area, about 15 minutes' drive from the country club.

Rockville is north of Bethesda, Chevy Chase (where the country club is) is southeast. Blasey said the house was between her house and the country club.



There. Do you see that the country club is all the way down there at the bottom left, east or southeast of Bethesda, and very close to Bethesda, but Tim Gaudette's house in Rockville is far away all the way up there in the other direction, and in no sense "between" the country club and Blasey's house?

Do you believe her?

[Forty Two]

Timmy Gaudette's house is not in that area, not at all. Rockville is not between the country club and Ford's house.

That's correct. However Gaudette's house is not far from the country club--in fact Rockville is nearer to it than her own house, and she was unable to give a precise location.

See the map above. She WAS able to say that it was "near" the country club and "between" her house and the country club. That makes sense for her to say that, because to have left a house abruptly, with no car, no phone, no ride, about 25 minutes mostly highway driving from her home and the country club strains credulity. Someone drove her all the way to Timmy's house, and someone went there to pick up the shattered Ford who thought she had nearly been killed - but she has completely blanked out how that happened. A location between her house and the country club are much closer together, and even could be walked. Five miles can be walked in about an hour, and a parent or family member dropping a 15 year old girl off at someone's house makes sense if it's not too far away (especially a 15 year old's parents who Ford said would have been really upset if she were "drinking with boys")

We don't know whether the July 1 'Timmy's for skis' thing was where the incident may have occurred, but there are similarities between it and what Blasey Ford described.

1. A small gathering on a summer evening.

So?

2. The location was in the Bethesda area.

No - was in Rockville, in the opposite direction of that described by Ford.

3. People were drinking beer at this gathering.

All gatherings of people drinking beer are alike?

4. All of boys Ford mentioned were at the 'Timmy's for skis' gathering.

None of the girls were, and additional boys were on the list Kavanaugh gave. Kavanaugh had a driver license with which to get to Rockville. Leland Keyser did not, and Blasey Ford did not. PJ did. For Keyser to get from the country club to Timmy's house, someone would have had to drive her. The guests, including her best friend Leland, would have known she was a 20 to 25 minute drive from home with no ride, and ran out of the house without a word for no reason anyone in the living room could fathom.... just walked home - a walk that would have taken three or four hours by foot - a wandering girl, 15 years old, walking the shortest distance (if she even knew the way to walk). But, she just doesn't remember how she got home from there, nor does the mention of Tim Gaudette jog her memory of where she was.

Also, the layout she described in her testimony does not match the layout of Tim Gaudette's childhood home. So, she remembers quite clearly a different floor plan.

Blasey Ford's recollections of the circumstances of the incident have been inconsistent,

Indeed. Which means what? Two inconsistent stories cannot both be true, right?

but that's to be expected.

Is it? For everyone, or just Blasey Ford?

Further, just because three decade old memories are expected to be difficult to accurately recount, and are expected to be spotty, that doesn't make a 30+ year old story reliable or believable. It's the very reason such inconsistent memories are not "believed" and must be corroborated - the expectation is that old memories will be faulty. Faulty memories, even ones that are expected to be faulty, are not reasons to believe a story.

Decades have passed. One thing that she's certain of, and told people about long before Kavanaugh was nominated for the US Supreme Court, and that is that when they were teenagers, Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.

No, no and no. Again, you repeat things - but that doesn't make them true. She never named Kavanaugh before he was nominated to the SCOTUS. She said, (a) she never brought it up at all for 30 years, until about 2012 or 2013, when she was talking to her psychologist for family counseling, and (b) she did NOT - she says this herself - she did not name Kavanaugh - she told her psychologist, according to the notes, that she was assaulted by someone in her late teens (no mention of Kavanaugh), and (c) she says that the counseling was in connection with a dispute over a second front door which she AT THAT TIME wanted to be installed - however, that door was already on the house years prior because she and her husband housed strangers in part of their home, and the issue of putting in the new front door was not at issue at the time she now says it was.

[Forty Two]

Different location, different people in attendance, etc. He doesn't consider them "like" each other.

I don't think that Kavanaugh never attended a gathering in the evening in the Bethesda area at which beer was being drunk. Nor do I think he never attended a gathering at which Mark Judge, P.J. and at least one other boy were also in attendance.

Kavanaugh said he went to parties quite often, and drank lots of beer. He never said he never attended such things. That doesn't make them "like" the gathering Ford described.

Absolutely not. Neither Leland Keyser nor Blasey Ford were in attendance at Timmy's. Only boys were in attendance at the post-workout meet-up for "skis" at Timmy's. Leland Keyser was not there.

Only boys are listed on Kavanaugh's calendar, but you have no way of knowing whether they were the only people there. The fact is that Blasey Ford had dated one of the boys in Kavanaugh's social circle, and could very well have been at that gathering.

Speculate all you want. What we know is that Ford said the party occurred somewhere other than Timmy's house, because of the location she described under oath, while looking at a map. We also know the people she listed attending the party, which do not match the people who attended the skis get together at Timmy's house. And, the layout described by Ford does not match Timmy's house. And, no facts of any kind set forth in any statement or testimony suggest that the party was at Timmy's house.

Saying "it's possible other people attended the party Kavanaugh was at on July 1, 1982 - 1982 --lol - and other people could have been at the party Ford described -- doesn't help her case and does not provide any reason -- any actual reason - to call Kavanaugh a liar.

It's not a lie to say that an event that nobody remembers happening didn't happen.

However, it is a lie to say that people who've said that they don't recall an event have said that the event 'never happened.' That is precisely the lie that Kavanaugh told.

LOL - then you've got a thin argument, if you think that's damning. Someone accuses me of beating the crap out of some guy at a party I never went to. They say three other people were there, and those three people say "I have no knowledge of any event like that." I think it's fine for me to characterize that as "they say it never happened..." Find a prosecutor who'd bring a perjury charge for that characterization. Characterizing the import of testimony is not a lie. If it was, then every attorney's summation and closing argument in a case would be a lie.

Go ahead and type out another long-winded screed if you like. I've had enough of your double standard on this topic, and doubt that I'll bother to respond. This tiresome exchange started when I posted about continued harassment of Blasey Ford--you took that as an opportunity to once again point out what you consider lies she's told. It's well established that you believe she was lying, and also believe that Kavanaugh never lied to the Senate. There are inconsistencies in Blasey Ford's recollections, but I don't know whether she's lying or not.

When I read this I had to just skip to the end. Long winded screed? You're covering all the same ground, with the same length, so fuck off.

My double standard? Dude - you don't find any fault with Ford's testimony, and you recast it as saying something she did not say. then you engage in speculation about facts that nobody testified to and claim that means Kavanaugh is a liar.

I don't say she was "lying" - I said she didn't tell the truth.

I don't say Kavanaugh "never lied" to the Senate - I said that nobody demonstrated that he lied.

And you say Blasey Ford's untruths may not be lies, but you don't afford Kavanaugh the same courtesy? How double standard of you.

[Cunt]

Fucking Texas, man. You drive for like 4 days and you're still in Texas. Florida is pretty big north to south, about 12 hours from Key West to Niceville on the Alabama border by the fastest route. Drive 12 hours in Texas and you aren't out of the Houston suburbs yet.

OK I'm exaggerating, but it's fucking big.

Yeah...Texas is nearly as big as some Canadian provinces.

[Cunt]

Forty Two, they simply can't believe their hero, the teary-eyed Ford, lied or was mistaken about anything.

But orange man bad, so they have to exaggerate any fault they think they see with Kavanaugh.

Your patient discussion with them is really showing nothing about the facts, but it IS showing just how firmly they will resist facts which don't support their fantasy.

[Seabass]

The "surgical precision" guy is back!

Thomas Farr Devised Ways to Keep Black People From Voting. Mitch McConnell Wants to Make Him a Judge.
A protégé of Jesse Helms wrote a law targeting minority voters with ‘surgical precision’ in North Carolina. His nomination is part of a plan to pack the courts with extremists.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/thomas-fa ... im-a-judge

Donald Trump’s federal bench picks look like a MAGA rally.

Of the 48 people he’s nominated to appellate courts, none are black or Latino. Thirty-nine of them are men. Eighty percent come from the far-right Federalist Society, though only 4 percent of the nation’s lawyers are members.

But the cream of the ultra-white crop is being pushed through by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell right now: longtime Republican lawyer and political operative Thomas Farr, up for a life-tenure judgeship in the Eastern District of North Carolina.

“Even among dangerous Trump nominees Farr stands out for his decades-long crusade to disenfranchise African Americans,” the NAACP said in a statement Thursday. “He learned how to intimidate Black voters from segregationist Sen. Jesse Helms and helped turn North Carolina into ground zero for voter suppression. His nomination is a travesty. His confirmation would be heresy.”

The Senate vote on his nomination is scheduled for the Monday after Thanksgiving, which comes on the heels of an election in which voter suppression was a major issue in a half-dozen other states, including North Carolina.

Farr’s record is astonishing.

In 2016, a federal appeals court struck down North Carolina’s array of voting restrictions, finding that they “target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision... The only clear factor linking these various ‘reforms’ is their impact on African American voters.”

continued: https://www.thedailybeast.com/thomas-fa ... im-a-judge

[Brian Peacock]

Boof.

[Sean Hayden]

Again, just for perspective:

shits_n_giggles.png

I don't know where Timmy's house was up in Rockville. But after 30 years and only ever being there one time, I'd say "between" the endpoints of the red line is a fair description.

Yeah I know, I made a picture!

[Brian Peacock]

It's interesting that while many right-leaning commentators were keen to point out the the Senate hearing wasn't a court of law but a job interview they're still keen to hold Ms Ford's testimony to a criminal standard of evidence - and at the same time excuse Mr Kavanaugh's testimony from exactly the same kind of consideration. This gives the impression that Ms Ford is actually on trial here - that she's a wrong-doer who's account, actions, motivation, and character need to be exposed. This, of course, says absolutely nothing about how Mr Kavanaugh acted during his 'job interview', about what he said, what he alleged on behalf of others, or his patent and booficatory evasiveness. The focus, it seems, it to remain on Ms Ford alone - because as long as we're talking about whether Ms Ford is a mendacious liar, a deluded confabulist, or a Democrat stooge, etc, we're not talking about whether Mr Kavanaugh is a fit and proper person to be elevated to a position on the Supreme Court - a position he will hold for life.

Essentially we are being urged to give Mr Kavanaugh's testimony and material evidence the most charitable of interpretations possible while Ms Ford's contribution to the process is to be subjected to exactly the opposite. So far, a justification for the operation of this extreme double-standard has not been forthcoming - and on that matter it seems we are destined to wait indefinitely, and in vain.

[Cunt]

It's interesting that while many right-leaning commentators were keen to point out the the Senate hearing wasn't a court of law but a job interview they're still keen to hold Ms Ford's testimony to a criminal standard of evidence - and at the same time excuse Mr Kavanaugh's testimony from exactly the same kind of consideration. This gives the impression that Ms Ford is actually on trial here - that she's a wrong-doer who's account, actions, motivation, and character need to be exposed. This, of course, says absolutely nothing about how Mr Kavanaugh acted during his 'job interview', about what he said, what he alleged on behalf of others, or his patent and booficatory evasiveness. The focus, it seems, it to remain on Ms Ford alone - because as long as we're talking about whether Ms Ford is a mendacious liar, a deluded confabulist, or a Democrat stooge, etc, we're not talking about whether Mr Kavanaugh is a fit and proper person to be elevated to a position on the Supreme Court - a position he will hold for life.

Essentially we are being urged to give Mr Kavanaugh's testimony and material evidence the most charitable of interpretations possible while Ms Ford's contribution to the process is to be subjected to exactly the opposite. So far, a justification for the operation of this extreme double-standard has not been forthcoming - and on that matter it seems we are destined to wait indefinitely, and in vain.

So Kavanaugh won a 'go fund me' thingy, and is reported to have given it all to his favourite charity or something. I think Ford got one, too. What happened to it?

If she told the truth, but Feinstein manipulated the timing and leaking of the story, does that change you view on things? What if she earned hundreds of thousands of dollars? Does that change anything?

[Joe]

For a little more perspective, here's a Google Maps route through the schools mentioned with a detour to Rockville, ending up at that country club. Take off the Rockville leg, and the trip drops to 26.7 miles and 1 hour and 10 minutes.

Hell, my commute is 42.8 miles one way.

BTW. Immaculata Seminary is where Immaculata Preparatory School used to be. It closed in 1986.



Everthing's close in this part of the world, and the red line running though the map makes it closer.

[Brian Peacock]

It's interesting that while many right-leaning commentators were keen to point out the the Senate hearing wasn't a court of law but a job interview they're still keen to hold Ms Ford's testimony to a criminal standard of evidence - and at the same time excuse Mr Kavanaugh's testimony from exactly the same kind of consideration. This gives the impression that Ms Ford is actually on trial here - that she's a wrong-doer who's account, actions, motivation, and character need to be exposed. This, of course, says absolutely nothing about how Mr Kavanaugh acted during his 'job interview', about what he said, what he alleged on behalf of others, or his patent and booficatory evasiveness. The focus, it seems, it to remain on Ms Ford alone - because as long as we're talking about whether Ms Ford is a mendacious liar, a deluded confabulist, or a Democrat stooge, etc, we're not talking about whether Mr Kavanaugh is a fit and proper person to be elevated to a position on the Supreme Court - a position he will hold for life.

Essentially we are being urged to give Mr Kavanaugh's testimony and material evidence the most charitable of interpretations possible while Ms Ford's contribution to the process is to be subjected to exactly the opposite. So far, a justification for the operation of this extreme double-standard has not been forthcoming - and on that matter it seems we are destined to wait indefinitely, and in vain.

So Kavanaugh won a 'go fund me' thingy, and is reported to have given it all to his favourite charity or something. I think Ford got one, too. What happened to it?

If she told the truth, but Feinstein manipulated the timing and leaking of the story, does that change you view on things? What if she earned hundreds of thousands of dollars? Does that change anything?

As well as continuing to make my point for me, re keeping discussion firmly focused on Ms Ford and away Mr Kavanaugh, I think it's worth pointing out two things here: i) that your brand of teleological pleading is fallacious, and ii) the turpitude of one person is not justified, offset or mitigated by the turpitude of another.



But, what do you think? If Ms Ford told the truth is that truth somehow rendered false by Feinstein's manipulations or negated by a certain amount of money?

[pErvinalia]

Putting gender on birth certificates is now optional in Tasmania. This means of course that we'll have toilets overflowing with perverts.

[JimC]

It will make it a little easier for them to marry their cousins...

Even Cousin It...