Was Christine Blasey Ford credible?

hopperace · Oct 1, 2018

GoldenBoy89 said:
Looks like along with Nike, the right's gonna have to give up Coca-Cola as well now for their clearly divisive and partisan marketing.

I, um, guess I'm the "Right". I've taken tests that say I'm a lefty, but I am both a life-long Democrat AND voted for Donald Trump, so... I remain open to the committee's determination.
AND, As a constituent of Georgia, from whence Coke hails, I have to say that Coke has tried to be bipartisan supportive of both Democrats and Republicans.

Of course, I'm not completely familiar with the current status of cola warfare. I know censured Republican Senator, anti-communist civil-rights suspender, and Lavender-scare supporter Joseph McCarthy, who died shorty after my birth (I did NOT have anything to do with that, if you may have heard anything), was a die-hard Pepsi fan.

I will, however, share linkage to Politics and the Cola Wars:

Due to the massive political dealings by Pepsi and Coke, they began to be affiliated with one of the two political parties. Pepsi officially became known as the Republican soft drink in the election of 1968 when they helped President Nixon win the election. This trend continued when Coca-Cola supported the Democrat Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential election, which he then won. From this point on wards, there was a party line associated with the colas. Their support of the presidential nominees was no secret to the American people either, which created the idea with some people that supporting a specific cola meant supporting a specific party. Whether this was true or not, the Cola Wars influenced how Americans saw domestic politics and how political figures impacted American lives through legislation. When a politician was supported by one of the two major cola brands, they were then expected to vote for laws that would help that cola brand. As this occurred, the trajectory of the Cola Wars and of American politics changed. This was especially true as Pepsi and Coke increasingly involved themselves with presidential campaigns.

Personally, I do the Dew, all my due diligence to the Dew, which is a Pepsi product. My mom, she's a Pepsi girl. However, I and all my siblings prefer Coke over Pepsi in blind taste-testing. I have every fervent hope that Coke may yet strive to take a more conciliatory course in this most divisive debacle, and come down on the correct side of building the world a home furnished with love, apple trees, honey bees, and snow-white turtle doves; teaching the world to sing in harmonious peace throughout the land(s). There is as yet absolutely no justifiable cause imo to in any way urge or otherwise facilitate a boycott or disregard of Coke on political grounds alone. Let's all just take a few deep breaths before jumping to any conclusions.

Beer, on the other hand, well, I have never drunk beer and I'm pretty sure that Jesus never drank beer excessively or on a daily basis. If we're talking a war between soda and beer, with Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other, well, I'd really rather we set some ground rules of having it be more a liberal vs conservative thing; and avoid altogether any characterisations of credibility until acceptable blood-alcohol charts are fully vetted. And may we at least all agree that cocaine is no longer a key ingredient in Coca-cola.

Willie T · Oct 1, 2018

Deidre32 said:
So is Trump being foolish since he called for an investigation?

At first blush, I would jump to that incorrect conclusion too. But, there have been so many times I felt that way, yet whatever he might have been doing at the time suckered both me and the Democrats into being blind to what he was really doing. Time and time again, I thought he should do the usual and the expected... but, each time his strange brilliance came through, and left all of us doubting his actions sitting stupidly, dumfounded, with egg on our faces.

Willie T · Oct 1, 2018

mark kennedy said:
I am of the opposite opinion, I can understand his outrage assuming he is innocent, but he refused to request an investigation. A judge should insist on all the valid evidence pusued exahustively. Failure to do so lacks due diligence. After the trial court reaches it's conclusion the evidence is no longer an issue, the purpose of an appeal is to review the civil rights and procedures involved. I know he wants this over and I found Ford's testimony moving and consider her credibility unquestionable. But even sincere and honest people can be mistaken. What would be the harm, what's the big hurry, why would he be so streniously opposed if all it results in is a 301 file? So far there is no corroborating evidence, if innocent, I would expect him to be anxious to have all lines of evidence exhausted. Thats what I would expect from a Federal Judge and certaily, a Supreme Court judge. But he is unlike any justice I've ever seen on that bench, he wants the politically expedient short cut. He's a partison hack and confirmed his decisions will react.

Did you really ask, "What's the hurry?"

November 6th is your answer. The entire scheme is to find some way to delay his nomination process till AFTER that all-important (they hope) vote.

Deidre32 · Oct 1, 2018

Willie T said:
At first blush, I would jump to that incorrect conclusion too. But, there have been so many times I felt that way, yet whatever he might have been doing at the time suckered both me and the Democrats into being blind to what he was really doing. Time and time again, I thought he should do the usual and the expected... but, each time his strange brilliance came through, and left all of us doubting his actions sitting stupidly, dumfounded, with egg on our faces.

He also wants to be re-elected and if there is a shred of truth to Ford’s testimony implicating Kavanaugh, he will not be re-elected.

blackribbon · Oct 1, 2018

AbbaLove said:
I read her body language just the opposite considering the circumstances. FWIW more than one person over the years has commented that i am "very perceptive" ... retired High School, College teacher and Quality Control Technician working with Medtronic and SciMed engineers. Do you really think she was going to lean forward and smile when she was possibly coached by her lawyer. Her own emotional state ("I'm terrifed") was such that she was just as likely taken back by both men and women that actually believed her for once in her life. Why shouldn't she have been taken back and gotten a little emotional and teary eyed?

On the other hand I could understand her getting angry (like did Kavanaugh) and leaning into the microphone if one of the Republicans would have tried to nullify her testimony.

My opinion is that your interpretation of her body language, considering the underlying circumstances, is biased and therefore flawed. Personally, i wouldn't pin a medal on either Brett or Christine, but i'd give Ford closer to 100% than i'd ever give Kavanaugh. The reason being, if for no other reason, is that for thousands of years of sexual assault "blaming the victim" has been perpetuated by men.

She is the one who said she was traumatized....enough that she did poorly in high school and college and then got in a fight with her husband thirty years after the fact about putting two front doors on her house even when it made no sense and lowered its value.

Who hasn't believed her? Why would she be surprised that someone believed her? Her husband believed her. Her counselor believed her. Diane Feinstein and a million other Democrats believed her...even before she sat that day in the committee room. Obvious her "beach friends" who adviced her to get a lawyer believed her..... the lie dectector believed her. Why would having someone believe her be so surprising.....unless she knows that she is lying.

Willie T · Oct 1, 2018

Deidre32 said:
He also wants to be re-elected and if there is a shred of truth to Ford’s testimony implicating Kavanaugh, he will not be re-elected.

Yes, that could be a factor.

blackribbon · Oct 1, 2018

AbbaLove said:
So, it's OK for someone chosen to be a Supreme Court Judge to show very noticeable facial emotional stress, tones of utter anger and talk back to a much respected US Senator. But it's not OK for a sexually assaulted woman (Ford) to get emotional when she is praised for her "bravery" having endured threats to herself and family ???

She didn't get emotional the expected way. She looked scared and showed tension when praised. Not the expected reaction. He was accused of a lot of horrible things. I would expect an innocent man to become upset just the way he did. I'd wonder about him if he didn't.

As a nurse, I'd have charted these observations for both these people.

blackribbon · Oct 1, 2018

Willie T said:
Yes, that could be a factor.

I sort of doubt that not getting your first choice for supreme court justice approved by Congress would keep Trump from being re-elected. He isn't the first and won't be the last. Do you remember any other President who their nominee was actually a election issue?

blackribbon · Oct 1, 2018

There is going to come a day when the best people will refuse the nomination because they don't want to put their families through this partisan smear campaign farce of a nomination process.

And what idiot thinks that a Republican president is going to nominate a candidate with liberal leanings or a Democrat president is going to nominate a candidate with conservative leanings. The question should be how does the candidate behave on the bench ... and in real life. Not, are they perfect?

hopperace · Oct 1, 2018

Please forgive me if this has been posted elsewhere before. I admit I don't know an extensive amount about this sort of thing, but I found it informative. Perhaps there's some other expertise that might have a different interpretation.

Deidre32 · Oct 1, 2018

blackribbon said:
I sort of doubt that not getting your first choice for supreme court justice approved by Congress would keep Trump from being re-elected. He isn't the first and won't be the last. Do you remember any other President who their nominee was actually a election issue?

No, but pushing a nomination through that has all this controversy swirling around him would be memorable for the voters in 2020. Thus, he called for an investigation. I think that he also found Ford’s testimony to be compelling.

blackribbon · Oct 1, 2018

Deidre32 said:
No, but pushing a nomination through that has all this controversy swirling around him would be memorable for the voters in 2020. Thus, he called for an investigation. I think that he also found Ford’s testimony to be compelling.

I think he called for the investigation because Senators would use this "uncertainty" as a reason to not vote for an obviously qualified justice candidate. There are Republicans representing formerly Democrat constituents and they still don't trust the Republican party. They have to be very careful how they vote. Personally, I think this is a farce but the FBI investigation hopefully will show that there is no evidence that this event ever happened.

overit · Oct 1, 2018

hopperace said:
Please forgive me if this has been posted elsewhere before. I admit I don't know an extensive amount about this sort of thing, but I found it informative. Perhaps there's some other expertise that might have a different interpretation.

The most ridiculous body language 'assesment' I've ever heard. Not to mention the commentators OBVIOUS ridicule and disdain for Ford makes her evaluation just bogus. I could only get through a few mins of that drivel.

A_Thinker · Oct 1, 2018

Calminian said:
I say no. She may have been a victim of some crimes in the past, and was definitely a victim of the Democrats. But she's not a credible witness. If you think she is, explain these:

In a suburban home in Maryland there was no downstairs bathroom?

She didn’t hear two very drunk and belligerent boys try to sneak up on her?

Why was music already on in a room no one was using?

Wouldn’t blasting the music ensure someone came upstairs to see what was going on, especially whoever’s house it was? This is completely counterintuitive to criminal behavior.

After she locked herself in the bathroom, Brett and Mark didn’t try to get at her? Didn’t jiggle the doorknob? Didn’t try to claim they were kidding? All tuned up for a rape, they just gave up and went downstairs like nothing happened?

She left without telling her best friend?

She left without WARNING her friend there were two rapists in the house?

No one asked why she was leaving or found it strange enough to ask her the following day why she just vanished from the party?

She can remember how many beers she had (one) but not whose house she was in, how she got home, the date, the place, how many people were there (sometimes it’s 4, or 5 or 6), or anything solid?

The only way her story adds up is if you are trying to weave the stuff of Kafka, where the accused cannot grab hold of something to clear himself, not even with an alibi because there is no where or when. In this respect, it is all a tad too neat.

Source

More reasons to question Ford's credibility. From Nolte on Breitbart.

She has aligned herself with the far-left.

She straight-up lied about being afraid to fly.

She said she wanted anonymity but continually reached out to the far-left Washington Post.

Her polygraph is a farce.

Her story has been carefully weaved into a Kafka-esque nightmare no man (even with detailed calendars) can ever escape from.

Every single one of her witnesses refutes her story — has no memory of the gathering in question or says it doesn’t happen, and this includes a lifelong friend.

Her team was so desperate to have The Woman Who Wants Anonymity to testify publicly, they turned down the opportunity to have her questioned in private at her home in California — and then lied about it.

Ford’s therapist’s notes from 2012 also refute here tale, even as the media and Democrats try to gaslight us into believing the opposite. Ford originally claimed four boys tried to rape her when she was in her late teens in the mid-eighties. Now she says it was one rapist and one bystander when she was 15 in the early eighties.

Ford refused to give her therapist’s notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In the statement she wrote out in her farce of a polygraph test, Ford crossed out “early 80’s” so it would only read “80’s.”

Ford told the Committee the “primary impact” of the event occurred during the “four years after” it happened. She goes on to say, “I struggled academically. I struggled very much in Chapel Hill and in College. When I was 17 I went off to college, I had a very hard time.” Note how she skips over two whole years, her junior and senior years in high school; the two school years directly after the attack (unless it did indeed happen in her late teens).

To later confirm the event did in fact happen in 1982, Ford told the Committee she was able to pin it down to 1982 because she remembered she did not yet have her drivers’ license. But… she also says she doesn’t remember how she got to or from the house party, so how does she know she didn’t drive herself?

Ford also used Mark Judge’s Safeway job to confirm the 1982 timeline. She testified she saw him working there 6-8 weeks after the attack. She could not yet drive, so her mother drove her there, but for some bizarre reason Ford and her mother entered the Safeway using different doors. (And now mom can’t confirm this happened!)

Five times during her testimony she mentioned Safeway to verify the date. How could she know such a thing unless it really happened? Well, in his memoir (which began circulating online among Kavanaugh critics in the week before Ford’s testimony) Judge helpfully reveals he was working at the “local supermarket” during the “summer before senior year.”

In summation: On top of all four of her own witnesses refuting her allegations against Kavanaugh, so too do the notes taken by her own therapist. (Margot Cleveland’s tweet thread was indispensable for much of this — you will want to readit all.)

Those with expertise with those who have experienced assault read her as credible.

A_Thinker · Oct 1, 2018

hopperace said:
Please forgive me if this has been posted elsewhere before. I admit I don't know an extensive amount about this sort of thing, but I found it informative. Perhaps there's some other expertise that might have a different interpretation.

The woman who does this analysis somehow gets it wrong that Dr. Ford's friend Leland Keyser drove her home.

blackribbon · Oct 1, 2018

overit said:
The most ridiculous body language 'assesment' I've ever heard. Not to mention the commentators OBVIOUS ridicule and disdain for Ford makes her evaluation just bogus. I could only get through a few mins of that drivel.

Actually, it was a pretty good one. When you know someone is playing the room, of course you will feel distain. What parts do you disagree with?

I was bothered from the beginning that this supposed PhD professor and researcher would act like a timid little girl. Psych profs tend to be very arrogant and bold. I also find it very hard to mesh that she would have little knowledge about how to heal and recover from traumatic events.

Truthfrees · Oct 1, 2018

Calminian said:
More reasons to question Ford's credibility. From Nolte on Breitbart.

She has aligned herself with the far-left.

She straight-up lied about being afraid to fly.

She said she wanted anonymity but continually reached out to the far-left Washington Post.

Her polygraph is a farce.

Her story has been carefully weaved into a Kafka-esque nightmare no man (even with detailed calendars) can ever escape from.

Every single one of her witnesses refutes her story — has no memory of the gathering in question or says it doesn’t happen, and this includes a lifelong friend.

Her team was so desperate to have The Woman Who Wants Anonymity to testify publicly, they turned down the opportunity to have her questioned in private at her home in California — and then lied about it.

Ford’s therapist’s notes from 2012 also refute here tale, even as the media and Democrats try to gaslight us into believing the opposite. Ford originally claimed four boys tried to rape her when she was in her late teens in the mid-eighties. Now she says it was one rapist and one bystander when she was 15 in the early eighties.

Ford refused to give her therapist’s notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In the statement she wrote out in her farce of a polygraph test, Ford crossed out “early 80’s” so it would only read “80’s.”

Ford told the Committee the “primary impact” of the event occurred during the “four years after” it happened. She goes on to say, “I struggled academically. I struggled very much in Chapel Hill and in College. When I was 17 I went off to college, I had a very hard time.” Note how she skips over two whole years, her junior and senior years in high school; the two school years directly after the attack (unless it did indeed happen in her late teens).

To later confirm the event did in fact happen in 1982, Ford told the Committee she was able to pin it down to 1982 because she remembered she did not yet have her drivers’ license. But… she also says she doesn’t remember how she got to or from the house party, so how does she know she didn’t drive herself?

Ford also used Mark Judge’s Safeway job to confirm the 1982 timeline. She testified she saw him working there 6-8 weeks after the attack. She could not yet drive, so her mother drove her there, but for some bizarre reason Ford and her mother entered the Safeway using different doors. (And now mom can’t confirm this happened!)

Five times during her testimony she mentioned Safeway to verify the date. How could she know such a thing unless it really happened? Well, in his memoir (which began circulating online among Kavanaugh critics in the week before Ford’s testimony) Judge helpfully reveals he was working at the “local supermarket” during the “summer before senior year.”

In summation: On top of all four of her own witnesses refuting her allegations against Kavanaugh, so too do the notes taken by her own therapist. (Margot Cleveland’s tweet thread was indispensable for much of this — you will want to readit all.)

Since when did we all start believing there are no good liars out there? She's a mess.

amen - well said

here's what rachel mitchell said after her senate hearing questioning of ford

Scribd

hopperace · Oct 1, 2018

overit said:
The most ridiculous body language 'assesment' I've ever heard. Not to mention the commentators OBVIOUS ridicule and disdain for Ford makes her evaluation just bogus. I could only get through a few mins of that drivel.

hmm... OK. Same reaction to this one?

Truthfrees · Oct 1, 2018

blackribbon said:
Her body language was that she leaned back wards (away from the speaker) and looked horrified every single time some speaker said that they "believed her" and told her how "brave she was". The normal reaction would be to lean into the person who supports them and look relieved and maybe even cry with relief because a weight has been lifted off her shoulders. She actually looked like the weight got heavier and almost looked like a scared rabbit. She reacted the exact opposite of what would be expected.

speaking of body language did you notice that every time rachel mitchell spoke about sexual assault definitions bk's nose curled up like the stench of such awful behavior was totally abhorrent to him?

sexual deviants don't look thoroughly disgusted with graphic sexual crime descriptions - deviants are comfortable with them - and sometimes even look interested - bk looked like he couldn't stand hearing that kind of evil behavior described

as i watched bk's repeated reaction to every mention of each type of sexual crime behavior i realized i was doing the same thing - curling up my nose in disgust also at being forced to hear that kind of language and graphic ungodly imagery

overit · Oct 1, 2018

Just because one does deal/heal doesn't mean re-living or re-telling an event won't bring up a different 'tone'- it's quite common to 'regress' that way re-counting the feeling of powerlessness one has. I personally am cautiously on her side....because as a woman who's experienced similar events (plural) and knowing the stats, and hearing his frat drunk entitled boy lifestyle-I'm betting it's true. I will reserve final judgment though until FBI finishes their investigation.

I also have a different take on this...I think there is a reason that is beyond this event that this story is causing such a huge uproar, especially in those condemning Dr. FORD (an alleged sexual abuse victim). I think resembles the disdain of the #metoo movement-and for OBVIOUS reasons these women are attacked-they WANT TO KEEP status quo (mainly men, sheep type women who follow husbands leads, typically right leaning, typically Christians) with men doing whatever they want and it go back in the dark like they want to keep it. I bet my life that there are those on this same board guilty of sexual assault and their entitlement causes them to lash out at possible victims. There are those that may have a son guilty of this they have defended or turned a blind eye to -after all boys will be boys. A victory against sexual assault is a DEFEAT for those that accept, endorse or perpetuate this behavior. It's sin exposed. Luke 8:17 "For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light."

"The righteous cry out, and the LORD hears them; he delivers them from all their troubles." Time is up....things are chaning...and the reason the resistance is this brutal is because they are afraid it's working. Yeah yeah, most will defend their stance with 'well what about if a good man's reputation is destroyed' as if HIS PAIN in not getting nominated is somehow more important then Dr. Fords reputation destroyed. The truth is false reports are VERY RARE-the truth is sexual assault rates are incredibly high....they are getting lower because of the TIRELESS work of people that care to make it change. This IMO will be another tightening of the noose around these perps. They feel the heat, they are lashing out violently....should tell you something. I read the comments (even on that youtube video). I for one welcome the changes and enjoy knowing their time is up.

Was Christine Blasey Ford credible?

long forgotten host

St. Petersburg Vineyard

St. Petersburg Vineyard

Follow Thy Heart

Not a newbie

St. Petersburg Vineyard

Not a newbie

Not a newbie

Not a newbie

long forgotten host

Follow Thy Heart

Not a newbie

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Not a newbie

Well-Known Member

long forgotten host

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Similar threads