Kavanaugh - Ford duel at the Not Okay Corral
Did you ever sit down with a gallon of your favorite ice cream flavor and decided after a few mouthfuls that this wasn't the right time for such indulgence? This has been my experience in the past 10 days. Like a moth to a flame, my eyes were irresistibly glued to the biggest show in town (at least for the moment). If anyone here needs a hint, it is the debacle of He-said-She-said ostensibly played in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee to an audience of literally millions. I have rarely been so entertained in my life.
Does any of this make a damn bit of difference after all? I am not referring to a two year time frame but decades long time frame. Does the uniparty system, replete with spineless worms on both sides of the slippery dividing frame between the two allegedly separate political parties? These parties are more akin to Mafia families than to political ideologies.
Below will be posted links to videos which definitively prove that both Brett Kavanaugh (BK) and Christine Blasey Ford (CBF) are both out and out liars. How does one differentiate a false memory from a planned prevarication? Actually there are ways more sophisticated and accurate than the world-famous polygraph. Using fMRI or other advanced neurodiagnostic studies this determination can sometimes be made.
Most of the time, the polygrapher relies on external physical signs of stress, which, hopefully is mirrored in a set of physiologic measures, to correlate not with Truth but with the subject's perception of the truth, i.e. memory. Because these tests are not fact-dependent, but memory-dependent, they are not admissible in most courts. One of the reasons this is so is due to false negatives, such as in delusional individuals. False positives also occur, such as with coaching, known euphemistically as "memory enhancement". Memory enhancement is no more and no less than brainwashing.
Consistency of story is important but not conclusive. Even poorly remembered details should within a short time frame remain relatively stable regarding memories long ago stored in long-term memory. This most definitely was not the case with CBF who is the epitome of a well-coached fraud. Inconsistencies abound in her testimony--and I fail to believe a single word of what she said--as to Brett Kavanaugh. She may have been sexually assaulted at some time in her life--or maybe not. Whoa! This is not misogyny. This is a statement of the human condition, to which both women as well as men qualify. For those who took umbrage at my previous post about this issue, please reclaim it. I have no use for excess umbrage.
While CBF's story fails to hold water, leakier than a sieve at the FBI, BK's past history, unrelated to this particular incident is not spotless either. In a 2008 and/or 2007 Senate Judicial confirmation hearing, BK apparently forgot some things happening while he served in Dubya's White House, such as the disposition of notes in his care while working in the West Wing. So, as predicate liar Senator Blumenthal (who campaigned on being a Viet Nam combat veteran) says, paraphrasing: lie once and the rest of your testimony is specious. I, for one, would use a different word. However, in keeping with c99 community standards, I will, at least for a while, try to maintain decorum. Considering my reptilian cerebrum, this is a challenge.
So CBF is a liar.
BK is a liar.
They both are spoiled brats of well-to-do parents.
Ralph Blaseys I, II, III are / or were all CIA.
Mama K. was Maryland judge
They are part of the bubble world. That is composed of denizens of the Washington, District of Corruption bubble, in which you, dear readers are not members. It's a big club... This translates into the following acronym: YDMS. A prize will be offered to anyone successfully solving that acronym (a copy of Aunt Alithea's cookbook, which contains a recipe for DECADEnt Black Robe Cake, which requires 35 years to prepare).
DBRC however can induce side-effects due to its potency such as Swiss cheese memory, visual agnosia, spatial disorientation, levitation, and teleportation. Which is why I'd rather drive a Toyota than a Ford.
Even somebody wit the crudest knowledge of body language could see almost immediately in CBF's testimony, her shrinking forward and down, squeezing her shoulders together, and responding in a plaintive, helpless voice as if she were a teenager caught in a big lie who is trying to sound believable. Body language analysis of CBF (26:47)
Similar video analysis of body language of BK is also given by the same analyst: body language analysis of BK.
Note: body language analysis is subject to some of the same flaws as polygraph as well as having more subjective input. The vlogger of both body language analyses is a conservative, not necessarily Republican.
A bit more information of the polygraph in question, and indeed it is very questionable is given here. I think the relevant time is at or after the 40 minute mark. But another lie, factual, not subjective, is that CBF is not a licensed psychologist, although she does have a PhD degree. The difference is that CBF either never took the state licensing exam or failed it.
Furthermore, CBF has deep CIA affiliations.
Inconsistencies in CBF testimony are numbered at twelve, according to this video. (20:18.)
Finally, there is an excellent Feinstein / CBF time line in the latter half of this video--watch about the last 10 minutes.
Finally, regarding CBF, the MSM smear of BK as a child predator is a typical Demon Rat attack.
Thus far, I have been pretty tough on CBF, whom I regard as either an MKultra poster child or an out-and-out liar. But I value Mr. Korporation Kavanaugh no more favorably. His juridical views are abhorrent as is his concern for us "little people". So he had 6 prior Feeb investigations.. So what? If these investigations were under the direction of the Swan, then they are as dubious as my 3 dollar gold piece. Even though Blumenthal is a lying POS, this doesn't give BK a pass.
A thoughtful analysis, fact-based, not body-language based, is given by David Doel, a Canadian who follows Amerikkkan politics closely. Unlike the other sources in this essay Mr. Doel is a good old-fashioned progressive--anti-war, pro-environmentalist, social safety net kinda guy--plus has very good commentary, such as his (factual) analysis of BK's lies. (27:30).
As a Bushite Neo-con insider Washington elitist, BK is abhorrent. I am hoping that the Feeb's find something substantive in their search for missing witnesses (all of whose memories seem to have been subject to alien abduction) or in other misdeeds. However this is unlikely. BK's mendacity seems pertinent to his service in Dubya's WH.
Final notes, only indirectly relevant to testimonial veracity: the matter of financing the litigation (a not quite accurate portrayal of the BK witch hunt) is, to say the least, difficult to swallow (something which rarely happens in my life). How this allegedly intelligent College Professor can be so oblivious as to the financing of her expenses, that she doesn't know who's footing the bill but nevertheless has three GoFundMe accounts (with more than $400 K pledged).
Mr. Bromwich said during the hearing that the legal fees were "pro bono", which actually only means the lawyers were not going to charge the client. This is not the same thing as no money will be collected from other parties.
In fact, I have a candid shot of Mr. Bromwich being pro bono'd by Sheila Jackson Lee (little boy lover) who managed to squeeze through the multitude to press the proverbial envelope into Bromwich's paw.
Say what?
What. Did. I. Say?
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ6s0BWe2vk]
FLASH!!!
Late Breaking News:
Three, or is it four, participants in CBF's nightmare. Caught on tape.
Comments
It's what struck me.
Right out of the starting gate, the basis for many believing Christine Blasey Ford was that she had passed a polygraph.
It's the very least I would expect a professor of psychology to accomplish.
At best these tests should be banned and at worst this is what happens.
False positives.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Whatevs... Mission accomplished.
The man has been
Swift Boated. He likely passes inspection and gets his bench. But mission accomplished.
And if her story is untrue somebody went to a LOT of trouble to concoct it.
The question is why? If not K some other winger will be confirmed, so what is it about K that inspired somebody to concoct this story?
Like a LOT of people I just happened upon the O.J. low-speed chase. I stopped into a bar on the way home from work for a pop or three and there it was. On CNN. what the hell is this?? they got o.j. on the run... That was the last I watched of that circus, talking about it at work was enough info for me. they're bringing in flea to work the case. flea?? yeah, f. lee bailey. ahh. But I Did listen to the verdict on the van radio at work.
the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.
Who is surprised by this?
I didn't think that her role was to try and determine the truth. It was to ask them questions about what Ford alleged he did? And how could she make an accurate statement about whether it happened or not if she wasn't allowed to question him? She was cut off right when she started asking him about that day in July when he wrote that he went to "?" 'skies with Judge, PJ and another friend. This was a week night which he had written that he didn't drink during the week.
Whether he assaulted her or not is not just the only issue that people should be concerned about. He perjured himself during his previous confirmation and again during this one. His outbursts against the democrats that questioned him showed quite a lot about his temperament and not only that. He threatened that there would be payback if he is confirmed. Then there's his roles in authorizing torture and spying on us and his other actions during the Bush and Clinton's administrations.
Do we want a Justice on the Supreme Court who has just made war on Democrats? Justice is supposed to be "blind." How he would vote certainly wouldn't be blind. This is not going to affect the democrats who vote against him. It's going to affect us.
For those that haven't seen this yet it's a great article about what we witnessed during his testimony.
How we know Kavanaugh is lying
****
This is conjecture. No one knows what was in the envelopes that she gave him. I also read that she doesn't know the people who set up her Go Fund Me accounts. The first one I saw said that the person who set it up does not know her personally, but heard that Ford had to leave her home and hire security because she was getting death threats. Should she be hung on this? Just my opinion on these two things.
Oops ...
Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
oh boy, your links taught me things I rather wouldn't
have learned.
What I really can not understand, (EDITED: I understand it now, as I read more from Monday nights videos - the whole shit is going on and on and on) is why no one here (as so many great researchers are among authors here) has put a full list of all uncut, complete videos of all hearings, testimonies etc. One place were everything can be found and watched and listened to.
The body language analyst's explanations for Ford were very helpful. I admit not having listened carefully enough to my own faint disbelief of her words when I watched her testimony the first time around, probably because I was too afraid to 'betray my sisters' victim status' by being critical of her. So, I didn't voice them and put them aside. (EDITED NOW: I am a lost puppy and don't know what to give more importance, Ford's being coached and trained to make her case, or Kavanaugh's disgusting lies. Right now I think his faults are way more important. I just wonder how people can prevent him from being nominated)
I don't trust any edited versions of anything anymore. I want raw material, unedited, uncut and complete.
And then I want another real scandal to push this one aside. How about some bombs falling somewhere where they shouldn't and get all analysts make money of telling us, why and where it happenend and who ordered it. How about a bunch of new lawyers accusing and defending the 'innocent liars' and the 'truthful evil doing bullshitters'. It pays, doesn't it?
WTF. Why did I read all this crap? Not that I say anything against you putting together what I wouldn't have read otherwise. You did good. But I can't stand the material. Need another book.
Best of your essay: Good 'ol Ray Charles ... If it weren't for the music and comedians ... I don't know anymore what I would do.
Thanks a lot, Ed. Two seconds after I glanced at your OP,
I started eating ice cream. I won't even say how much I put away. And, no, I've never wanted to stop eating ice cream after a few spoonfuls. That's why I seldom have it on hanss. However, I have kept the Kavanaguh saga an arms' length. Too much heat from too many posters and professional commentators, not enough light from anywhere.
From the start, I had the feeling that Democratic Senators were doing this for midterms, not for Ford and not for Supreme Court; and so my stomach turned as I listened to each of them repeat the same questions to Kavanagh, especially regarding the FBI examination. Meanwhile, Republican Senators were saying no to it. Small wonder Kavanaugh finally got exasperated. And that is the snapshot everyone is getting in print and broadcast media.
Anyway....If Democrats confirmed Thomas, the nominee of a Republican President, how likely is it that Republicans will confirm Kavanaugh, the nominee of a Republican President?
What a croc...
Sorry, (really) but lots of hate here for both sides with no data that I can see.
Truly, this is a job interview. It is not a mother-f**cking trial.
If he can't pass the interview, he shouldn't be hired.
Simple.
Next!
Better reasons to not approve Kavanaugh
I have come to the conclusion that this she said/he said side show was purposeful to divert our attention away from the real issues as to why Kavanaugh does not deserve appointment to the Supreme Court, to which I would add what appears to be a lack of judicial temperament.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I tend to agree with this
I tend to agree with this, and I'm starting to find the "she said-he said" thing tedious. Honestly, I just do not care if Ford's father worked with the CIA. Good grief, the Antarctic ice cap is disappearing at an alarming rate, and we're focused on making up stories about what the contents of envelopes might be? This whole thing is devolving into silliness.
On the other hand, I wonder how many people would have paid any attention to the Kavanaugh nomination if the Ford situation hadn't happened. Not nearly as many, I'd bet. Supreme Court appointments usually aren't the most exciting subjects. This one has turned into a spectacle. (The later days of the Roman Empire come to mind, albeit with metaphorical lions chewing up the participants, rather than real ones.) At least people are paying attention to it.
And I also agree, Kavanaugh showed himself not to be Supreme Court caliber.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Something else is being hidden.
The hearings have done a pretty marvelous job of distracting us all from noticing that the “Trump declassification order”, relative to the questionable basis for pre 2016 election FISA warrants, remains unfulfilled. This issue alone could unravel a much larger conspiracy involving high level FBI, CIA and elite members of both the Republican and Democratic parties, to both prevent Trump from winning the election and subsequently to remove him from office when that failed, based on fabricated charges and illegally obtained FISA warrants. In other words, a soft coup. This is the scandal that both Republicans and Democrats are working overtime to keep out of the spotlight.
“What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
If President Trump wants attention paid to it...
...all that he has to do is tweet. The legacy media have shown little ability to resist those.
Your quote ^^^
Did anybody catch the responses to the 1200 written questions the SJC gave him before testimony? Kavanaugh should not be confirmed--not because of this circus but because of his neoliberal positions. One could argue about the cultural issues, which gets debate absolutely nowhere, except around and around.
I had not seen the written Q&A, but I looked it up.
I did not have to go very far through the 200+ pages to find a glaring non response to Sen. Feinstein’s question #10. I don’t have the stomach to wade through them all, but thought a link might helpful for those with the time and temperament to explore more.
[Link]
“What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Thank you for the link.
Oops!
Mornin' all. Fingers not working properly yet.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Here is a good summary of K's rulings and pro-corporate bias
https://popularresistance.org/stop-brett-kavanaugh-a-corporation-masquer...
What I want to know is why the dims don't seem to want us to know about his judicial record?
The clips I saw, following the alligator's links, were beyond embarrassing. Good grief, is this what comes out of so-called elite schools? K stands revealed as selfish, whiney, spoiled, malicious, disrespectful of the institutions of our society, such as the Senate, and angry and contemptuous of any and all opposition to himself. With K. everything is personal.
Mary Bennett
Guess what?
Upper class women living in the bubble of DC with relatives in the CIA etc etc get sexually assaulted all the time. I guess they should shut up.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
The dems have had to rely
on courts more and more to try to halt republican moves and to make up for their lack of competence as legislators. They can see the writing on the wall. Even if they regain power they'll be neutered, and people will wonder what use are democrats. Even if the long shot retaking of the senate happens, I can see Schumer eagerly willing to compromise, to seat a conservative judge rather than stonewall for 2 years. Democrats have dug too many holes and can't seem to be able to stop.
2 things no one will say
1, Kavanaugh is a judge. he knows when someone is being railroaded, snd he resents it now that it's him being railroaded rather than him doing the railroading.
2, There is an obvious reason why he doesn't want the FBI to investigate, but Kavanaugh can't say it, and the Democrats want him to - he doesn't trust the FBI. And he's right not to.
On to Biden since 1973
Ugh! There’s enough BS to cover everyone
involved.
Did CBF really think sending that letter bomb to the WP, Eshoo, and Di-Fi wouldn’t cause a shit storm? The idea that someone would or could possibly think they could remain ‘anonymous’ while handing the Dims an ‘issue’ that they could/would/did use to derail Kavanaugh’s appointment to the SCOTUS is asinine. No one with more than one functioning brain cell would think that an anonymous accusation about something that happened in HIGH SCHOOL would be the magic bullet that killed his nomination. And from what I’ve read about the woman, she’s not an ignoramus. So people (including herself) that think reporting an alleged sexual assault would mean her identity could possibly remain anonymous are being unreasonable. It just isn’t how reality or politics or investigations work.
Then there’s the way this process rolled of the assembly line. Is CBF wanting to remain anonymous really the reason the Dims didn’t bring this up when the letter was received? Did they think that holding it back and revealing it at the last minute possible would do the trick? Did they think that it wouldn’t look like a desperation play of last resort? What was the REAL reason they sat on it? Was it actually ‘leaked’ and by whom? What the hell did they think they would accomplish? Those questions need to be answered.
I am absolutely against Kavanaugh’s appointment based on his PROVABLE history, not this fiasco. He a conservative corporatist who doesn’t believe in the ACA, abortion, or...
Those issues are enough for me. And he can’t deny his position on any of them. They are enough to say he should never be confirmed.
CBF’s story has changed several times including how many were there, who they were, and whether it was a ‘party’ or whatever. And the holes in her story are a mile wide and 10 deep. How did she get there, how did she get home? The getting home part is hard to believe she forgot. SHE was supposedly sober one (one beer). Even Bill Cosby’s victims remembered little details surrounding their assaults like that, and they were drugged. Ford’s trauma was the assualt. Certainly she should remember her escape? But then, she can’t even remember where she was. How is this helpful for anyone? Especially CBF?
Do I believe Kavanaugh could have attacked her? Sure I do. But so far there’s been no proof that he did. People who she says were there have come forward saying they believe her but they also deny ever seeing Kavanaugh do anything, or knowing about a sexual assault, or being at the ‘party’ for that matter. If there is proof out there maybe it would have been ‘found’ if the letter and the accusation were revealed in July, not at the last minute when his nomination was about to come out of the committee handling it. But we’ll never know because of the sleazy, underhanded way Di-Fi operates. She is FAR from being an honest broker in ANY situation.
And what was WP’s reason for staying quiet? How did CBF convince them to sit on this story? Better yet, why did CBF send a letter to the WP at all? Did she think that the Clinton pandering news outlet would be able to overturn the nomination with a couple big stories about sexual assault without any proof or victim? That there would be no fight to get the name of the accuser out there? Did they expect that most people would just roll over and accept an anonymous ‘leak’ like the msm’s big news story about secret operators in the Trump administration trying to undermine his policies? That’s crazy, especially for a story like this one. All it takes to puts a story on the front page for weeks is a connection to anything sexual. An assault, rape, affair, anything along those lines and the whole country is riveted, impatient for every new detail. A lifetime record of writing and rulings against the best interests of the plebs? Not interested. But sex? You betcha! But no way this story gets legs until there’s a victim. She had to know that.
The question of did he or didn’t he is going to continue to stir up deep feelings in this country while news about Israel firing a rocket into Syria, or the US threatening a naval blockade against the Russians, or a multi-trillion dollar tax break for those who already have the most gets extended are ignored because the whole country is playing amateur detective into what happened at a high school non-party among people (who would still be considered minors) over 30 years ago. Underage drinking is the only ‘crime’ we have “evidence’ for and that’s because both CBF and Kavanaugh both admitted to that one.
I’m sick of this whole mess and everyone involved. It was surreal to wake up and see Avenetti and his crazy woman involved. There is so much wrong with Swetnick and what she says happened, that it’s an obscene joke. But it involves sex so people are eating it up. And it was a situation ripe for someone like #creepypornlawyer to latch onto. And people want that woman’s garbage non-story ‘investigated’ too even though she doesn’t accuse BK of anything other than being there. (Before he was drugging the punch and setting up gang rapes.)
The Repubs hold the House, Senate, and Oval Office. He was going to be confirmed anyway. Unless someone has pictures, this won’t stop a damn thing. But it’s sure is emblematic of the hateful mess that is politics in 21st century America.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
How does CBF gain from coming forward?
I think a big question is why she (CBF) would do this? I would put the question somewhat differently from Wink (above). CBF doesn't appear to be a crank. Maybe you could think she's a dupe of the Dem's, but again, she doesn't seem that dumb, she appeared to be speaking in good-faith belief in the institutions of the US government. That temperament may well look (and be) naive; it is probably not unrelated to her social class and the fact that her father worked for the CIA (i.e, the government), but that fact alone doesn't say that she's lying. She didn't look to me to have been coached by anyone other than her lawyers (and you would not imagine that she would go into such a hearing without carefully going through what was to come with them), though she periodically looked down at her papers, which I assume were her own notes on how to answer particular questions that she had thought would arise.
But if she doesn't actually believe that the "event in question" happened, then what has she got to gain from publicly accusing K? Why put herself through that? What's the gain for her?
If it's not enough that she "believes" or "remembers" it, and if she is on trial, then legally she has to be allowed to make an argument to back up her allegations. That would entail being allowed to bring corroborating evidence such as other witnesses, calendars, and so forth, all of which was denied to her by Grassley. But the Senate hearing was not a trial; that was perhaps Grassley's duplicitous "reason" for disallowing her to corroborate her assertions before the Senate committee.
In furthering the ghastly parody of a Senate hearing, Grassley brought in a prosecuting attorney (R. Mitchell) whose job is to prosecute (alleged) perps, but who on Thursday was carrying on prosecuting questions of an (alleged) victim.
So Thursday's hearing was not a trial (it was a hearing) and simultaneously it was a trial (conducted by an attorney); and the attorney was questioning an alleged victim (CBF) as if she was an alleged perpetrator.
Mitchell's written report makes the specious distinction between having a "legal" scope and having a "political" scope, and then Mitchell says that she will adopt only the "legal" point of view. She has put CBF on trial. The written report repeats the crime by impugning CBF's testimony: the most damning point in Mitchell's report is that CBF's testimony was not sufficient to induce a "reasonable" prosecutor to take her case to court on her behalf. But in legal terms, if CBF had been a litigant in a court case, she would have been able to corroborate her allegations. For example, the entry for July 1 in K's 1982 calendar, while it may be circumstantial, nonetheless provides a HUGE corroboration of CBF's account, as Sen. Whitehouse pointed out. CBF was not privy to the calendar in advance of the hearing. Further, she was not allowed to bring witnesses to back up her allegations. If that hearing was in deed a trial, then the defendant (CBF, not K) was fatally hobbled in advance.
Believe me, I'm no fan of the Dem party as we know it today, but one thing is really clear. By hook or by crook they have stopped the machine. This was even a few weeks ago inconceivable, but it's happened. It couldn't have happened, but it happened: the Dems were shut out, they had already lost 11-10. Let me paraphrase the honorable gentleman from South Carolina Lindsey Graham: "If you wanna name judges you gotta get elected." In other words, "You're outnumbered on the committee, you don't have the *&!!* votes, you don't have any power, so you're gonna lose and we're gonna win." Brutal and simple and irrefutable. That's the way it works. Anybody could see that the Republicans were about to put a second judge on the SC and nothing could stop them.
Then they got stopped.
Well, the jury's not in yet, so we'll see. I would add that the longer K has to wait the worse it is for him and he and the Repubs know this. As the minutes and hours pass the stink that he's already occasioned by lying to Congress and by revealing himself to be virulently partisan in "temperament" (not to mention the history of pre-corporate, anti-human being rulings) only grows more odious.
If the Dem's have a strategy other than bumbling, I guess it has to do with wanting a win before November. I don't know how the SC works internally, but they already have 5 right-wing judges, so it's not apparent to me that yet another would make a decisive difference in the SC's future decisions. Would it?
Thanks to Alligator Ed and the good people here at C99% for providing a forum for this topic.