Christine Ford’s Parents Paula K Blasey and Ralph G Blasey were the Defendants in a foreclosure case in Maryland in 1996. Guess who the Judge was America? None other than Brett Kavanaugh’s mother, Martha G Kavanaugh. You literally cannot make this up.Here's the information from online court records:
And who presided over the case?
There's more substantiation here than of anything Christine Blasey Ford says regarding Kavanaugh's teenaged comportment. It's not 1991, when Anita Hill could get by with making up a he said/she said story.
17 comments:
Remembering high school, I can go with the idea that someone did something idiotic while drunk. Lots of people I knew did, though I don't know whether it would include anything that would resemble sexual assault. I wasn't cool enough to be invited to those parties, and I tuned out the descriptions of them I heard in school hallways.
Right now, I am between "why the hell did Feinstein wait here?" and "what if it is true?". The question that arises then is "do we take a he said/she said accusation about something that happened in high school as a reason to torpedo someone's career options 35 years later?" So I'm praying for all participants here to be flat out honest about whatever did or did not happen, because I don't believe any prosecutor would take this, and quite frankly I seem to remember we have different legal standards for minors precisely because you don't want to hold stupid stuff over a kid's head for his whole life.
It's not true, Bubba. No chance in hell it's true. It's a political hit job all the way. So there's no chance for all participants to be flat out honest, because if we were dealing with honest people, there'd be no accusation. Every time I imagine the Democrats have gone to the bottom of the well, they go lower. This is a disgrace from the jump.
Fabrication.
Now, if the Dems can find a photo of Kavanaugh flashing an "OK" sign at a high school pep rally, we might really have something.
Mark, that's why I'm praying that someone here becomes honest. You have he said/she said, both sides with some things arguing for their case and some things arguing against their cases, and therefore I know somebody's lying. Humanly speaking, repentance is difficult to impossible; with God, however...
One other thing I know for sure; Dianne Feinstein and her cronies are scum by using this as a political bargaining chip, ignoring the very real victims of sexual assault that are out there. And yes, I would agree that, by waiting weeks to come out with this, she is arguing that she doesn't believe Ford, or at least is arguing that it's not that big of a deal.
Mark, that's why I'm praying that someone here becomes honest. You have he said/she said, both sides with some things arguing for their case and some things arguing against their cases, and therefore I know somebody's lying. Humanly speaking, repentance is difficult to impossible; with God, however...
Sure. But we know who's lying. And I refuse to accept the first premise, the "what if it's true" argument. Ms. Ford can take the rest up with her Maker, but Kavanaugh has to live with this slander, this lie, the rest of his days.
i sure as hell hope the GOP doesnt cowar to this tactic. i've said it before, this is a war. this is not a policy debate, and hasnt been for very long time.
Feinstein is especially craven. In addition to using her position to obstruct the review process, she is also playing to her actual (as opposed to her philosophical) constituency. She was primaried by someone even further left than she is, so she needs some of what the kids call "cred" if she wants to maintain her chances of being the Strom Thurmond of the Left.
its a two democrat race in the general. DiFi would do better to throw a nod or two toward the right leaning voters if she wants to win, ya know... be that thougtful moderate she alwats pretend to be.
right now, im tempted to vote her whack job opponent just to get that mummified wreck out of there.
Gracious host, I don't know that she's lying--knowingly telling an untruth. Maybe I'll be persuaded, but what I see now is that the polygraph says she believes here somewhat muddled testimony, and a bunch of people are saying "um, no". I think this is a lot like the 60-80% of other sexual assault allegations whose evidence lies between "the accuser is perjuring herself/himself" and criminal conviction.
And here, that's sufficient to say "let's stop." And then if we would find, say, a dozen other victims with similar stories (and better corroborated), then I'd be very content to revisit the situation and possibly expel Kavanaugh from his position if the evidence was clear. Or, for that matter, Ford from hers. If in fact this is a political hit job on her part and not just Feinstein and Shumer's, I see no reason for her to retain tenure.
and a bunch of people are saying "um, no".
Except that's not right, Bubba. Kavanaugh and Judge have both issued categorical denials, not only of the conduct alleged but that it even happened. The burden is on the accuser to prove it happened. She can't. She can only assert it did. She cannot identify when or where it took place. She cannot even prove Kavanaugh and Judge were ever at a party with her.
This is no time to equivocate. And there is a good reason why polygraph tests are inadmissible in court.
No argument there. I'm simply arguing that, with due respect to the alpha and beta error rates that got polygraphs banned from trials, it may yet indicate that she may actually believe what she's saying, even though parts of it may be factually incorrect. Hence it may not technically be a lie on her part.
Agreed fully that when you cannot prove to a reasonable standard--say beyond a reasonable doubt--that you don't go forward. We can quibble over whether it's simply "not enough to indict" or whether it's "most likely it didn't happen in any way resembling her testimony", but either is sufficient.
It doesn't matter whether she believes what she's saying or not. If it's not true, or cannot be proven to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, it's false. Yes, the word lie has a moral dimension, but once you start going down that road, you open the door to all manner of mischief. If you'd prefer a more direct Anglo-Saxon term, we could always use "bullshit."
Last weekend our pastor said, unrelated to this topic, that "Your memories are your imagination of the past." That is, events happened and everyone that was there has a memory of it, filtered through their own imagination. He was ultimately making a point about using our imaginations to shape our future just as powerfully, but I thought it was an interesting description. Our own perspective does do things to the things we experienced; in extreme examples even blocking them from us.
I just view "insufficient evidence to indict" as more likely to pass muster with the public than "false". I reserve "BS" for lies so bad the person ought to have been ashamed to have said it. I get the anger at this, especially how Feinstein et al have used it, but I think that holding fire might get us further than responding in kind.
I just view "insufficient evidence to indict" as more likely to pass muster with the public than "false". I reserve "BS" for lies so bad the person ought to have been ashamed to have said it. I get the anger at this, especially how Feinstein et al have used it, but I think that holding fire might get us further than responding in kind.
She should be ashamed. And there's no reason to extend courtesies to people who was just as soon destroy you. They clearly don't care how they appear to the public. They just want to destroy. Good will is misplaced here.
Make that "who would just as soon destroy you."
Make that "who would just as soon destroy you."
i read it through my Trumpish, blue-collar talk filter, and knew exactly was was meant.
Correction not need, Mr English major.
:)
Post a Comment