HA/KS's Link
"Prof. Ford is unprofessional, lacks appropriate filters, and I am honestly scared of her. She’s made comments both in class and in e-mails, if you cross her, you will be on her bad side. I fear to think of the poor clients that had to deal with her while she got her MSW and her LCSW. Absolutely the worst teacher I ever had."
"Christine ford is the worst educator I have ever experienced. Avoid taking her class and avoid any interaction with this person. I feel like she has something wrong with her and I am surprised no one has caught this. Also avoid fullerton's MSW program as long as she is there."
"Certifiable crackpot"
Apparently her social media accounts have all been scrubbed.
If they ever get back in power they are going to feel the squeeze like never before... Gloves are off and blood has been spilled.
Even some LWL's are calling it a hoax.
"HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher is no fan of Brett Kavanaugh. But on Friday night’s show he conceded that a last-minute attempt to smear President Trump's Supreme Court nominee with accusations of sexual assault is making liberals “look bad.”"
She's a LWL activist Calif college professor and a member of the resist movement. No proof other than a person she said was there and he's claiming it never happened. This is just a scam to delay the vote hoping others will join in their metoo list to stop the conformation. I'm pretty sure they have another lined up to step forward after this one is proven false for a second delay, then a third, and so on.
1.) Women dont come forward historically, when this happens, for fear that THEY will be ridiculed, and lose what they may have. They recognize the aggressor may not get caught, and that she (the woman assaulted) may end up with even less. That's a horrible place to be, when you realize/believe that being assaulted by someone is going to be perceived as your fault. That's bogus. But it's real. And regrettably, it often seems to come out years later and look orchestrated. And that sucks. But you know what, if I find out, when my daughter is say 25 or 35 (she's 7) that she was assaulted in college or HS by some one... I dont care if he is the pope, president or any other position in the world - that person is going down. I bet all of you feel the same way.
2.) That said, in a moment as hyper politicized as this, it's hard to look at this as anything but some lame stunt - even given what I just said above. I'm not a huge fan of Kavannaugh. He's seemed like a good person, I just disagree with some of his positions. Even saying that, this just feels weird.
3.) Regrettably, it does feel like you have to give it a decent looking into, because, on the off chance it's true, this is a lifelong post for someone making massively important decisions. IF it were true, would you want someone who did that to be in the SC?
That's what sucks. It feels fishy thanks to the epically poor nature of the timing. But as a dad, I cant go right to "she's nuts and full of crap"... Maybe she appears nuts and full of crap because some A-Hole raped her in high school. I said that in a pretty over the top way intentionally... because if that's the case, well... I can understand that some folks break and others harden when horrible things happen... maybe she was the former?
Again, it sucks. The guy should be confirmed this week based on what's happened to this point, again, I'm not psyched about that, but I have felt to this point that he was at least, a good guy. I'm really hopeful this is not a political stunt, because that would flat out stink to heck!
Also to be noted: her mother was involved in a case judged by Kavenaugh's mother, who was also a judge.
This is an interesting tidbit. It could mean absolutely nothing, and certainly isn’t proof of reprisal, but I don’t think it should be dismissed out-of-hand. Is it simply a coincidence?
This Ford lady is most likely a hard lefty. She most likely abhors Kavanaugh’s politics. Maybe it didn’t take much to get her to participate in a smear campaign.
Which brings me to this link.
From the article:
"...Louisiana Republican Rep. Clay Higgins introduced a resolution that would require members of Congress to be drug tested once every term.
Higgins introduced House Concurrent Resolution 135 Thursday, saying “I have observed some behavior that would cause one to wonder,” in an interview with USA Today. “Elected officials in Washington, D.C., should be subject to the same kind of random drug screenings that blue-collar, working-class Americans have to endure,” he said in a statement to CBS News..."
There’s no doubt a conservative is going to be seated on the SC.
this we know
Asking for one without questionable character and assault allegations is not asking for too much
Is it?
Instead they use it as a last minute desperation ploy because they’ve run out of options and time!
A 2012 New Yorker piece naming Kavanaugh as a potential Romney pick for the Supremes may provide the genesis for Christine Ford’s questionable accusation.
Brett KavanaughBy now you’ve all heard that Christine Blasey Ford is the woman accusing Kavanaugh of attacking her 35 years ago, a claim he strenuously and absolutely denies. Her story is a bizarre pastiche of precise details and huge memory holes. It’s also got a big lie planted right in the middle, which is Ford’s claim that she always meant to be private and only went public now because she couldn’t hide anymore.
That’s bull crap. The moment Ford sent a letter to a Democrat pol, she knew with absolute certainty that this would be a big deal, that her name would emerge, and that she’d become the Democrats’ new darling.
But this post is going to focus on one of the more weird things about Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh, which is the fact her therapist’s notes date from 2012:
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. (Emphasis mine.)
Put aside for now the fact that the notes don’t jive with the accusations Ford is making. Focus, instead, on that date: 2012.
It’s a weird date. Keep in mind that Ford, aside from being a Bernie supporting academic, is a psychologist. Part of getting a degree in psychology is going through analysis. One would think that, even if, as a shy 15-year-old, Ford was too afraid to go public with her charge against Kavanaugh, when she went through psychoanalysis on her way to her degree, she would have spoken about this alleged assault, especially because she says it traumatized her for years. But she didn’t. Instead, suddenly, in 2012, she’s bathed in flop sweat from an incident decades before.
So what happened in 2012? Coincidentally (or not), 2012 was another election year.
In 2012, Romney ran against Obama. Up until his 47% gaffe, Romney was doing well. He actually had a shot of winning.
For the Democrats, as has been the case since Bork, having a Republican in the White House, especially with the ever-aging but never retiring Ruth Bader Ginsburg a perpetual risk, raised the specter of a conservative judge getting appointed to the Supreme Court. With that in mind, one Twitter user, who must have an amazing memory, remembered something interesting he’d read back in 2012:
https://t.co/hxaYqQfPI0 March 2012, the left was preparing for a possible Romney win. They assessed that Kavanaugh would be his Supreme Court pick and this accusation was ready to go. Then Obama won so the story died. Now its reemerged. Read last few lines of this 2012 article
— Stonewall Jackson (@1776Stonewall) September 16, 2018
I’ll save you a click to The New Yorker website. The article, which The New Yorker published in 2012, is a Jeffrey Toobin analysis about Bret Kavanaugh and the threat he would pose should he get on the Supreme Court. According to Toobin, Kavanaugh was a scary conservative who, if he got on the Court, might overturn Obamacare:
In other words, according to Kavanaugh, even if the Supreme Court upholds the law this spring, a President Santorum, say, could refuse to enforce aca because he “deems” the law unconstitutional. That, to put the matter plainly, is not how it works. Courts, not Presidents, “deem” laws unconstitutional, or uphold them. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, in 1803, and that observation, and that case, have served as bedrocks of American constitutional law ever since. Kavanaugh, in his decision, wasn’t interpreting the Constitution; he was pandering to the base.
In the nineteen-nineties, during Kavanaugh’s first brush with prominence, it was said that some conservatives suffered from Clinton derangement syndrome—an obsessive belief that the President and the First Lady had committed every misdeed that was attributed to them. (Hillary Clinton was involved in Vince Foster’s death; Bill Clinton had trafficked narcotics through Mena, Arkansas; and so on.) Kavanaugh’s bizarre opinion confirms that a contemporary analogue to the Clinton malady has taken hold: health-care derangement syndrome.
There’s more blah-blah from Toobin, a man who can never be trusted to be honest about the law. Don’t bother reading it. Just pay attention to that last paragraph:
If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh. (Emphasis mine.)
In 2012, Romney might have won the election. In 2012, Toobin stoked Democrat fears that Kavanaugh, a conservative, might get on the Supreme Court and overturn Obamacare. And in 2012, Ford, a psychotherapist who undoubtedly had years of prior therapy herself, suddenly can’t stop talking about her hitherto undisclosed claim that Kavanaugh was a bad boy almost 30 years before.
So here’s the question: What do you think the odds are that, when Romney seemed within striking distance of the White House, and Kavanaugh seemed like a potential Supreme Court nominee, Ford came up with a story about Kavanaugh trying to rape her? Knowing Democrat fanaticism as we do, it’s easy to imagine that, in 2012, while Ford couldn’t go back in time to 1983 to make contemporaneous claims she could still try to lend an air of verisimilitude to her otherwise unconvincing narrative by concocting a tale for a therapist, thereby creating a “just in case” record.
If this supposition is true, Ford positioned herself so that, during a potential future Romney administration, she could torpedo a Kavanaugh nomination. As it turned out, her plan took a few more years to come to fruition than she had originally thought, but it still might work.
Annony Mouse's Link
Democrats Refusing to Cooperate in Scheduling Follow-Up Calls With Kavanaugh's Accuser (see link)
Annony Mouse's Link
Obviously, the Demoraps need to delay any testimony from their "hail Mary" accusations until she can be coached and get her story straight. Notably, Nancy Pelosi has made sure that Putzie is kept away from her... ;o)
That’s the liberal mantra. Doesn’t matter if it’s true. Just win, baby!
Utter madness to know a political party in America is being governed by certifiable nut jobs.
Your fav poster's Link
Annony Mouse's Link
They could give a rat's ass about Ford. She's their pawn of the week and nothing more. All this is about is DELAY. That's all they've got.
Eff'em. Confirm Kavanaugh on Monday.
Re. ‘Martha K’
Boy, there are some really ‘slow’ people here, aren’t there?
"Odd that the memory of the alleged assault was recovered during couples therapy, and the therapist records were selectively leaked by the accuser."
When The Washington Post broke the story that Christine Blasey Ford was the person who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of assault dating back to high school, there were several aspects of the WaPo story that struck me as particularly strange.
First, there was a suggestion that this is a repressed and recovered memory case:
“Years later, after going through psychotherapy, Ford said, she came to understand the incident as a trauma with lasting impact on her life.”
If this is a case of repressed memory, then it changes everything. It’s a convenient explanation for why Ford said nothing to anyone for 30 years despite herself being a clinical psychologist. Repressed and recovered memory, however, is of questionable veracity and admissibility in court.
Second, that repressed memory allegedly was recovered in 2012 during couples’ therapy,
Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband.
Why in couples therapy, not in individual therapy? That seems like an odd time to recover memory, particularly for a clinical psychologist who likely underwent or practiced various forms of psychological therapy during her long career. This suggests that perhaps there was some marital problem which implicated an earlier trauma, if this story is true, or invented an earlier trauma as an excuse, if the story is not true.
Third, Ford volunteered the therapist’s notes to WaPo, but only selective portions chosen by Ford:
The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. (Blame her therapist, too. jack)
It seems odd for an alleged sexual assault victim to volunteer psychiatric records, particularly since the odious “nuts and sluts” defense so frequently is used against accusers. And why were only selective portions shared? This seems particularly calculating and defensively preemptive.
My gut tells me the therapy records hold a key to what did or did not happen here. Having voluntarily shared a part of those records with a newspaper, it’s hard for Ford to argue confidentiality.
It becomes even more important in light of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s statement today that Ford “is a woman that has been, I think, profoundly impacted, on this..I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know.”
Kavanaugh already has agreed to testify under oath at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Monday, September 24, 2018. As of this writing, it’s not clear if Ford will appear (though I assume she will).
Without the full couples therapy records Ford already partially shared with the Washington Post, I’m not sure we’ll ever really know how and why this allegedly repressed memory was recovered, or whether it actually is a memory. (Rumored to be California mushroom therapy. jack)
[Update 9:30 p.m. – Ford’s lawyer says she will not testify until after an FBI investigation.]
They need to quit while they're slightly ahead, take their losses, man up, and realize they screwed up their own chances...
That will NEVER happen
Just a guess
Did the person who she was allegedly in "couples therapy" with, validate this?
I would like to submit as evidence something I claim to have existed but I will be submitting my censored creation ... No need to look into it. Stinky at best!
HA/KS great one. One that we can use over and over again.
kps@work's Link
Kavanaugh should and would ask for an FBI inquiry if he was 100% sure of his innocence. Prove me wrong.
FBI investigates crime.
I think you're confusing them with supermarket checkout counter tabloid reporters..... which have proven that shortly after (sometime in the 90s I guess) she was abducted by aliens (the space kind) and experimented on.
Coyote 65's Link
http://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html?m=1
Learned that in High School civics.
No, they will not!
This disgustingly weak and sick attack on an honorable man is going to backfire on the Dems BIG TIME come election day.
Me thinks the average American voter easily sees through these lies and they are fed up with this crap from the Dems.
Howza' bout Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham?
They are both attorneys who clerked for SCOTUS justices.
Wouldn't that be a hoot?
Annony Mouse's Link
