Even more problematic stuff

[Brian Peacock]

Rum,

In this post you refer to another forum member as an 'arrogant cunt' and a 'shit head'. This goes against the forum's prime directive, the Play Nice rule, as well as the Personal Attack rule. Please try to avoid similar posts in future.

Yer mods



* * *



On a general note, there are many ways for members to communicate a strenuous opposition to the ideas and views of others, and while we are a rather laid back bunch Yer Mods would be grateful if members could avoid posting vituperative opprobrium directed to the person rather than than to their ideas and opinions.

[laklak]

Kids keeping you busy today, Brian.

[Forty Two]

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

I guess the plumbers will appreciate the business.

I don't remember "gender" ever being on a birth certificate. The ones over here say "Sex."

The toilet thing is no big deal to me, or most men in general, I think. If a woman transitioning to a man would like to use the men's room to take a dump, then have at it. However, women tend to be more sensitive about the number of swinging dicks that come in and see them in various states of repair, undress other circumstances.

The solution is "Men's Room," and "Ladies' Room" and "Companion Restroom." Anyone who doesn't like the men's or the ladies' rooms can just use the "both" room.

It's interesting - we were at Disney World recently, and I took my 3 year old to the kid-care center for a break and to use the bathroom. They only have a ladies' room there. So, I couldn't take my daughter to the bathroom. I had to leave there, and find a "companion" room and take her there. So much for my "privilege." But, if I point that out, that's just me being a snowflake and masculinity "so fragile," even though I really don't care. It's fine. Not everything has to be catered to me.

In any case, it's wonderful how the sensitivities of trannies matter today, but women who don't want cocks out in their bathrooms are bigots and their feelings don't matter. Kinda funny.

[JimC]

Increasingly, new toilet facilities in Oz have a series of single rooms, each with a toilet and a hand basin, labelled "unisex toilet". Problem solved...

[laklak]

Just shit in the woods.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I've seen various polls about people's attitudes toward transgender bathroom use, but have never seen any that examine the response of women vs. men. Maybe there is such a poll, but I'm not going to just accept the assertion that women are more opposed to it than men. When somebody casually uses a derogatory term to refer to the transgender community, I'm disinclined to believe that they're a reliable source on the topic.

[Forty Two]

Increasingly, new toilet facilities in Oz have a series of single rooms, each with a toilet and a hand basin, labelled "unisex toilet". Problem solved...

Far more expensive to build, with the additional sink plumbing to each stall, and the space used per toilet is greater. In the Wolverine's football stadium in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the men's room has a few stalls in one area, but the rest of the perimeter of the bathroom is a single trough that goes all along the walls. There is a pipe about 3 feet off the ground which sprays water down and onto the walls constantly. You just walk up to an open spot and take a wiz. The number of pee-ers that can get through there is impressive.

Thing is, you have have old school sensibilities, back to a time when nobody gave a fuck about this shit.

[Forty Two]

I've seen various polls about people's attitudes toward transgender bathroom use, but have never seen any that examine the response of women vs. men. Maybe there is such a poll, but I'm not going to just accept the assertion that women are more opposed to it than men. When somebody casually uses a derogatory term to refer to the transgender community, I'm disinclined to believe that they're a reliable source on the topic.

I don't know of a poll, but I'll look for one. I can tell you that every, single, woman that I've talked to about it may say that people should be able to use whatever bathroom they want, but what they're really thinking about is women using men's rooms, or women transitioning to men using men's rooms. It's always been far more common to see women using men's rooms anyway - at a concert or sporting event, if the line at the ladies' room is long, women will just go to the men's rooms and grab a stall. No objection from men is honored - nobody cares how men who are bothered by that feel. However, have men go into ladies' rooms, and the attitude definitely shifts. Women don't want men in there. I don't think I need much of a poll for that to be given judicial notice. In the US, where there is any difference, ladies' rooms are generally better outfitted, larger, and kept cleaner (generally, not always).

Some men, may well have an issue with women coming into the men's room because often men are standing their with their dicks out by the urinals. However, most guys wouldn't care much. What women might face, though, is guys not being shy enough about it. Then the complaints will be that a guy was showing off, or not being modest enough to cover his cock when pissing in the urinal.

Anyway, this whole bathroom thing is a solution that didn't have a problem. People with dicks want to use the ladies' room. Come on. Stop it already.

On to more important things -- Lord of the Rings is Racist! https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/ ... n-of-orcs/

[Forty Two]

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 -

Odd - it's the left leaning commentators that were keen to point that out, so they did not need to use any standard of rational proof. It's not a court of law, so hearsay, decades old testimony, and uncorroborated, vague recollections are enough.

and at the same time excuse Mr Kavanaugh's testimony from exactly the same kind of consideration.

I do give his testimony the same kind of consideration, as do I give Ford's. Their testimony is eyewitness testimony to what they say they witnessed.

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.

This is a red herring, Brian. "The impression that Ford is actually on trial..." is not accurate. Nobody is "on trial." Ford's accusation is just that, an accusation. Uncorroborated and very damaging. The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion of fact. This is not putting her on trial. It's simply addressing a fact claim.

Fundamental fairness, even in the job interview context, is something most people understand. If you were interviewing for a job, and someone for some reason contacted your boss and said "don't hire Brian Peacock, because he embezzled money from the Children's Charity Fund," wouldn't you want the employer to do more than say "oh, well, this woman who reported Brian has no evident reason to be saying this, and she certainly told her story in a credible fashion with concerned, croaky voice, and she seemed nervous about being there and said she only wanted to do her civic duty, so, let's play it safe and hire someone who doesn't have that accusation against him?" The employer would, of course, be free to simply not hire you due to the uncorroborated allegation, but would that be fair? Also, the Senators here were plenty free to not consent to Kavanaugh. However, wouldn't there be some concern that next time around, when President O'Rourke nominates a very liberal, pro-choice guy to the SCOTUS, who is then accused by a right-leaning lady involved in Operation Rescue of having raped her in 1986, wouldn't you want something more than the accusation to corroborate that the event actually happened before confirmation is denied?

It's not a question of keeping the focus on Ford because "as long as she is a mendacious liar, etc., we're not talking about Kavanaugh's fitness. Yes. Sure. But it wasn't you or me that kept the focus on Ford's allegations. It's the Democrats in the Senate. Kavanaugh's fitness was vetted for months before the Senate. And, the Democrats could have kept on talking about anything that went to his fitness. They didn't. They chose to drop this uncorroborated bomb. And, when it was their turn to question Kavanaugh, did they ask questions about his fitness as a judge? No. They asked about innuendo riddled yearbook quotes and blurbs.

When evaluating the claim that Kavanaugh assaulted Ford in 1982, we have to, however, focus on Ford's claims. Why? That's all we have. Nobody else corroborates a single piece of her story. Nobody has come forward to say they remember her being at the Columbia Country Club on a day when she was driven to a party at anybody's house, Tim Gaudette's or otherwise. Nobody. Nobody has come forward to say this party happened. Nobody came forward to say they were there. Nobody came forward to say they talked to Ford about the party before or after it occurred. Nobody has any information about it whatsoever. There is no physical evidence to examine. No direct evidence to test, other than Ford and Kavanaugh's own statements. Kavanaugh says "never happened." Ford says what she said. So, to examine her story and identify inconsistencies, and contradictions is all we can do. I mean, at best, we have an uncorroborated allegation that Kavanaugh jumped on top of Ford - nobody knows what he was trying to do, not even Ford - her testimony could include anything from attempted rape to joking, inebriated rough-housing. But, at bottom, if taken as true, Kavanaugh jumped on top of her, roughhoused, and pulled on her clothing, laughed, was knocked off by Judge, and then she ran out and the two of them bounced back and forth off the walls drunk to go down and talk to the others. That's it. That's what she alleges. And, we don't know that that is true.

We don't know it's true, right? There is no "reason" or "proof" to believe it, right?

She may be telling the truth. He may be lying. We don't know. Right?

Is there reason to think she's not telling an accurate story? Yes. I've identified inconsistencies, factual inaccuracies, and reasons why stories in other contexts would not be deemed particularly strong.

You claim that there has been a double standard imposed - that some (i assume including me - but you haven't said exactly that) have been harsher critics of Ford's testimony than Kavanaugh's. For me, that's not accurate. Kavanaugh's testimony is not as detailed as Ford's. Kavanaugh says he was not at any such party, and did not ever assault Ford and did not do what she said he did. There is very little he adds beyond that. Why? Because he can't do anything with the vague allegations leveled against him. He's accused of being at a house somewhere with people who don't remember ever being there, where he jumped on Ford. If he didn't do it, and wasn't at a party like that with Ford, what more can he say about that, other than "I didn't do it?"

I've not pointed to irrelevancies, like Ford's yearbook quotes, and asked her to define the terms, and if there is disagreement about the meaning of terms, suggest that she's lying because of that. That's what was done to Kavanaugh. Not to Ford. When examining Ford's testimony, the inaccuracies and inconsistencies related directly to the meat and potatoes of her allegations. Like the second front door. That's very material, because she is explaining why she never said anything to anyone ever about it until 3 decades later, and her explanation is that she's always had a fear and a need for an escape hatch, due to this incident. She told her psychotherapist about it, and it was in relation to her house needing a second front door. Only.... that wasn't true. At the time she said she was seeing her therapist, that door had already been up for years. And, it was put in for the purpose, she said, of housing strangers in her home.

The location of the house where the incident occurred change. The timing of when the incident occurred changed - by several years. The layout of the house where it occurred changed significantly. All that goes right to the credibility of her story. And, if he had such shifting accounts in his own story, how would you approach it? What would you suggest about Kavanaugh if his story changed from X to Y, A to B, and C to D in aspects related to the event in question?

There is controversy over how much the guy drank. You accuse me of a double standard, when you and others seem to think that Kavanaugh is lying when he says he drank often and heavily, and too much, but never blacked out. He is lying because some guy who knew him for a few months back in 1983 or 1984 says Kavanaugh drank a lot and would get stumbling drunk. What am I supposed to do with that information? A college kid got stumbling drunk. Says he never blacked out. Nobody suggested he was blackout drunk at the party Ford desribes. Ford doesn't say he was (far from it - she describes him as socializing with the other guests after he and Judge walked down the stairs - she describes him as a boisterous and active drunk - no indication of "blackout"). She's the only one who remembers the party.

We're supposed to believe Kavanaugh attacked Ford because his denial is not credible because he drank a lot, and doesn't admit to blacking out when there is no evidence of him blacking out, and even the roommate who says he was drunk a lot doesn't say Kavanaugh actually blacked out - he, the roommate, just thinks Kavanaugh probably drank enough to where he probably blacked out at some point. That's why we are to believe Ford's story?

Or is it the yearbook quotes? Kavanaugh and every other early 1980s to mid-1980s high school kid had lots of stuff going on that parents would not normally approve of. They went to parties - they drank - they talked crudely and rudely - girls and boys included - and much of what is written in yearbooks aren't things that happened in actual fact, but are things they talked about. Words they used. Things they found funny. Little snippets of their high school years that they think will be memorable years later. Lots of innuendo. References to shotgunning and snorting, and farting, weed, smoking, running, pranks, shoplifting - whatever -- and often by people who didn't actually shotgun, snort, fart much in public, smoke weed, run, prank or shoplift. Example - Devil's Triangle - he's lying about that? Or was it a drinking game in his group? Boofing? That word means one thing, but it can also mean farting - in slang - poof means homosexual, for example, but it also means fart. Toot means to smoke something, but it also means far. I grew up not too far north of Maryland - a few hours drive - and when he said boof means flatulence, I recalled it meaning the same thing. We had a quarters and beer pong game called devil's triangle in college too. It also means a sexual threesome, and that innuendo is part of the fun of the name. So what? High school and college age kids drinking and carousing, talking about farting, or alluding to sexual matters? Really?

The fact that his drinking at high school and college parties, and innuendo in his yearbook, is suggested as somehow impacting his credibility -- and lack of belief in his definitions and explanations is offered as proof of him lying -- THAT is the double standard, Brian. Nobody did that to Ford - and they could have. Have you seen her yearbook? Why was she not asked to define terms there - and go over what she did in high school and how much she drank? If he "might have been black out drunk and not remember the incident..." then so too it's possible SHE was black out drunk and didn't remember it was someone else, or simply imagined it happening, right?

When there are gaping holes of missing information in her story, and she doesn't remember even how she got home from this supposed assault - we are told that when women report this stuff it's "consistent with" being assaulted that they will have inconsistent stories and missing information. That's normal, we are told we must say. However, for Kavanaugh, he is guilty unless he can remember exculpatory evidence and specific information about events he says never occurred and which he has no memory. And proof that his denials are lies come from the fact that he drank and his yearbook is raunchy, and he went to Tim Gaudette's house on July 1, a day that Ford never suggests, implies or alludes to as being a possible date of the incident.

What double standard are you referring to again?

[Forty Two]

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?

Ford apparently kept hers. She didn't need a "go fund me" page, because her lawyers were acting pro bono. So, if they have taken any of the funds raised for her defense, then that would be a problem.

Money is a motive to fabricate. If a person will gain from fabrication, then that's a possible motive.

In fairness, Kavanaugh has a big motive to lie, as do all candidates for a high appointment -- money and power. So, he does have a motive to lie. Nobody has claimed otherwise. They have, of course, claimed that Ford has no motive or reason to lie. We're supposed to accept that women never have any reason to lie about sexual assault, because of all the downsides associated with reporting such events. We are not asked by Ford supporters to accept that lying is "entirely consistent with" allegations of sexual assault. The fact that lies are "entirely consistent with" reports of sexual assault is not relevant, and monetary gain, book deals, and notariety/fame are all motives for other people to act, but not women.

[Forty Two]

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.

Exactly. That perspective is what I was pointing out. Tim Gaudette did not live "near" the country club, and definitely not "between" the country club and Ford's house. He's 10 miles almost 90 degrees away. Add a couple things to that - Ford's description of the layout does not match Tim's Rockville home. Also, add to that the fact that after the July 1 date was pointed out and Tim Gaudette was mentioned - she never said that her memory was jogged or refreshed and that she recalls going to Rockville or Tim's house, or that the party was on July 1.

We are asked to believe here that Tim Gaudette was possibly the house it took place in, despite the fact that the house she describes doesn't match Timmy's house, and despite the fact that Ford herself never suggests that Tim's house was a possible location. We're supposed to speculate gap-fillers for the accusation?

We believe Ford because something she never suggested might possibly fill in a gap in her account of events. Victims often can't accurately recount where they were, who was there, when things happened, and they often don't mention attacks for many decades -- therefore, Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed because he probably sexually assaulted her at a house she doesn't remember, with people who don't remember, because Kavanaugh went to a party on July 1 which Ford never suggests might be the party at which she was assaulted.

[Forty Two]

As well as continuing to make my point for me, re keeping discussion firmly focused on Ms Ford and away Mr Kavanaugh,....
[snip]
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?

The only way to make this not about Ford is to not discuss the alleged sexual assault at all. That's because the only person who says it happened is Ford. No physical evidence exists.

If you want to talk about qualifications for office, that's fine. But you're not talking about that either. You're talking about him being guilty or likely guilty of sexual assault.

The answer to your question is no. If Ford told the truth, the truth is not rendered false by Feinstein's manipulations or negated by a certain amount of money.

HOWEVER, politics and money provide motives to lie, and not just for men. I've addressed motive above. Both Kavanaugh and Ford have motives here. Motive is not proof. Motive is a reason why an alleged action makes sense. You don't need a motive to be convicted of murder, for example, but having a motive sure as fuck makes you a suspect. Why? Because people usually have some reason for what they do. Some people murder and lie just for shits and giggles, of course, but very often people kill for a reason - money, power, jealousy, envy, love, hate, revenge -- same goes for lying.

[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.

Exactly. That perspective is what I was pointing out. Tim Gaudette did not live "near" the country club, and definitely not "between" the country club and Ford's house. He's 10 miles almost 90 degrees away. Add a couple things to that - Ford's description of the layout does not match Tim's Rockville home. Also, add to that the fact that after the July 1 date was pointed out and Tim Gaudette was mentioned - she never said that her memory was jogged or refreshed and that she recalls going to Rockville or Tim's house, or that the party was on July 1.

We are asked to believe here that Tim Gaudette was possibly the house it took place in, despite the fact that the house she describes doesn't match Timmy's house, and despite the fact that Ford herself never suggests that Tim's house was a possible location. We're supposed to speculate gap-fillers for the accusation?

We believe Ford because something she never suggested might possibly fill in a gap in her account of events. Victims often can't accurately recount where they were, who was there, when things happened, and they often don't mention attacks for many decades -- therefore, Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed because he probably sexually assaulted her at a house she doesn't remember, with people who don't remember, because Kavanaugh went to a party on July 1 which Ford never suggests might be the party at which she was assaulted.

Everything is close, so Gaudette's house in Rockville isn't near Ford's house in Rockville. Sure Forty Two, whatever you say.

The July 1 party on Kavanaugh's calendar is like the one Ford described, in spite of Kavanaugh's denial under oath, your pathetic attempts to shift the debate away from that fact, and change the meaning of the word "like."

[Forty Two]

It's not in the position Ford pointed out in her testimony. The prosecutor showed her the map, and Ford was quite clear that it was accurate and depicted where the house would be -- that map did not include the area where Tim Gaudette lived. If you believe Ford, why don't you believe that?

No, the July 1, party is not like the one Ford described - it's at a different place, with different people who Ford never mentioned. And Kavanaugh's denial under oath was in the same breath as pointing to the calendar to show that he wasn't at the described party. He literally points to the calendar, and two sentences later says he wasn't at the described party.

The calendar is exculpatory, not incriminating. The July 1 party notation on the calendar is exculpatory. Ford's description of events is exculpatory, when she describes her recollection of the location of the house. Tim's house is not in the area pointed to by Ford as being the vicinity of the house where it took place, and her description of the layout of the home it took place does not match Tim Gaudette's childhood home. That's exculpatory to Kavanaugh.

Ford never says it might be Tim Gaudette's house. She never says her memory was jogged or refreshed when she saw the calendar. She never said the party was in Rockville.

Based on her testimony, the house where the assault took place was a single family home. Tim Gaudette's home was a townhouse. Quite different. Tim's house is a 16 minute drive from the country club. So someone drove her there, and someone drove her back again. As noted in testimony, the workout at Tobin's house on July 1 was from about 6 to 8pm, shortly before dark. That would mean that Kavanugh, and PJ and Judge would all travel (together or separately) after 8pm to go about 10 miles away to Rockville - post-workout. If they did not bathe or shower after their workout, they would go straight to the party and call it 8:15pm. Ford said Kvanaugh and Judge were both drunk as skunks when she arrived or they arrived. She doesn't remember who showed up first. So, give them time to get drunk.

Ford's testimony, to fit the July 1 narrative, must be that the party started after 8pm, and didn't end at least until Kavanaugh and Judge were falling down drunk -- drinking beer. She only had 1 beer (only part of one beer, because she went potty part way through that beer). She remembers the house, but not the location. She describes a single family home, not a townhouse. She says it's near the country club and between her house (due west) and the country club, but Tim is almost due north, at least 15 minute drive mostly by freeway away.

Ford testified that she likely arrived at the party after a day of swimming at the country club, and that the alleged assault occurred “early in the evening,” and Kavanaugh and Judge had been drinking heavily before she first saw them at the small gathering. The timing does not match.

“Mr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge were extremely inebriated, they had clearly been drinking prior,” Ford testified. “It was just a gathering that I assumed was going to lead to a party later on that those boys would attend, because they tended to have parties later at night than I was allowed to stay out. So it was kind of a pre-gathering.” - she wasn't allowed to "stay out" late. So, for it to be Gaudette's townhouse, she'd have to be driven there, dropped off in the early evening, which I guess "early evening" for a 15 year old girl would have to be some time after 8:00pm, and late enough for Kavanaugh to have been drinking heavily before the assault - then she'd have to run out of the house without a word into the street a 15 minute or so drive from home with no cell phone, after dark, in a neighborhood she did not reside. AND, she recollects the townhouse as a single family home, puts people there who have no memory of the party, and has absolutely no idea who could have driven her home that night, and after having been traumatized to the point of leaving the party without a word even to one of her best friends and her ex-boyfriend Garrett (who she doesn't even remember being at the gathering), she does not tell anyone. The person picking her up doesn't question why she's in the street, and Ford doesn't remember how she contacted anyone to let them know where to pick her up, and she doesn't remember the kind stranger who offered her a phone. She'd have to wait outside in the street until whoever she contacted got their stuff together and drove to meet her. And nobody apparently remembers this odd incident enough to come forward. "Oh, yeah! I remember that time when Chrissy called me and said to come pick her up - she was waiting on the sidewalk at night, at Tim Gaudette's house alone ...." Her best friend Leland never wondered where she went suddenly and without a word -- no commentary the next day or next time they saw each other -- "Blasey, what happened to you? Where did you go?" Nothing. For 30 years. Until Kavanaugh is mentioned as possibly on the list of those who might be nominated to the SCOTUS....

Ford described the people who were at the party she claims the assault occurred at. She does not name "squi" -- Squi is Chris Garrett - she dated Chris Garrett in high school for several months. Yet, she doesn't name him at the party. And, Squi was listed as at the July 1 post workout get together for "brewskis" according to Kavanaugh and his calendar. She doesn't remember her ex boyfriend being there.

Kavanaugh’s calendar lists seven boys in attendance at Tim Gaudette’s, but Ford recalls a party at which four boys and two girls (including herself) were present. At a townhouse, not a single family home. With a different layout. On a date Ford never even suggests is or may be the right date. That's not the same party, nor is it "like" the party Ford describes. Ford said that she recalls that Kavanaugh, Leland Keyser, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and “one other boy whose name I cannot recall” attended the party. Not three other boys - one other boy. Everyone identified by Ford has denied recollection of a party like the one she described, including her lifelong female friend and classmate Keyser. And Ford never says her ex-boyfriend Garrett was at the party, but Garrett is listed as attending the July 1 brewski thing.

When Ford first described the details of the alleged assault at a couple’s therapy session in 2012, the therapist’s notes indicate that she was attacked by four males. Four males attacked her. Why would the therapist lie? It's an error? Quite possibly - people's recollection can be bad and they can make mistakes. Not just therapists either. But the therapist wrote the notes right at the time Ford was talking to the the therapist. Contemporaneously. Ford is recounting recollections she herself claims she did not mention for 30 years to anyone, until she told the therapist. Can Ford also make a mistake? Or, just therapists? Ford’s lawyers did not provide the notes, even in redacted form, to the Senate Judiciary Committee - interesting. It's evidence, isn't it? She wants to use the report to the therapist as confirmation that she's telling the truth, but we're not allowed to see the notes from the therapy session?

[Brian Peacock]

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?

Ford apparently kept hers. She didn't need a "go fund me" page, because her lawyers were acting pro bono. So, if they have taken any of the funds raised for her defense, then that would be a problem.

Money is a motive to fabricate. If a person will gain from fabrication, then that's a possible motive.

In fairness, Kavanaugh has a big motive to lie, as do all candidates for a high appointment -- money and power. So, he does have a motive to lie. Nobody has claimed otherwise. They have, of course, claimed that Ford has no motive or reason to lie. We're supposed to accept that women never have any reason to lie about sexual assault, because of all the downsides associated with reporting such events. We are not asked by Ford supporters to accept that lying is "entirely consistent with" allegations of sexual assault. The fact that lies are "entirely consistent with" reports of sexual assault is not relevant, and monetary gain, book deals, and notariety/fame are all motives for other people to act, but not women.

So you think Ford did this for the cash and the notoriety. I read what you're saying but, frankly, it's beyond the bounds of credibility, even if the gold-digger trope seems ready made for the purpose - as does the attention-whore trope.

I guess you can cast Ms Ford as a bogieman and ascribe her whatever motivation suits your purpose, but it still smells like a hatchet job wrapped inside a conspiracy theory from here.