Kavanaugh

[Jeb MT Mater]

It all comes down to, we have to hope, who was more believable.

That's my point. Not sure what you disagree with. That's also basically what Susan Collins said. She needs to listen to the answers, see them answer, and so on.

Btw, there's no existing evidence that she's a liar. There is existing evidence that he lied under oath. That's a fact and that's something.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And what if the lawyer refuses to send a copy to the chair? The client was wanting anonymity, what part of that sounds like sending it to a GOP committee chair is a good idea. Again, we would still be having this exact same debate. There is no scenario that doesn't lead us to right here.

She was anonymous. The lawyer gave no identying infiltration. The dems were more concerned weaponizing the victim than they were with a fair process.

 

[MrBing]

The Democrats are playing with fire here. Republican turnout is currently at complacent levels:

A leaked survey conducted for the Republican National Committee (RNC) found that a majority of President Trump’s supporters don’t believe that Democrats have a chance to win back the House during November’s midterm elections.
​

That's obviously not the case with Democratic voters. I don't see how Republicans have anything but to gain from keeping the SC empty for the November election. If I were McConnell, I'd cleverly prolong the Senate vote on Kavanaugh till the lame duck session. And milk the proceedings for all their worth in terms of showing great respect for FOrd and her concerns.

​

It worries me too.

 

[zeke4ahs]

She was anonymous. The lawyer gave no identying infiltration. The dems were more concerned weaponizing the victim than they were with a fair process.

And you’re more concerned about Diane Feinstein than what happened.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

She was anonymous. The lawyer gave no identying infiltration. The dems were more concerned weaponizing the victim than they were with a fair process.

It's cute how you keep insisting on pushing the narrative that only the Dems would politicize the process.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

That's my point. Not sure what you disagree with. That's also basically what Susan Collins said. She needs to listen to the answers, see them answer, and so on.

Btw, there's no existing evidence that she's a liar. There is existing evidence that he lied under oath. That's a fact and that's something.

I was disagreeing you your statement that it will be easy to see if he is lying. Decisions will be gut-wrenching, I hope. Otherwise they will be the equivalent of merely pulling the straight party ticket, as some on here do, I'm sure.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

She was anonymous. The lawyer gave no identying infiltration. The dems were more concerned weaponizing the victim than they were with a fair process.

Ok, they forward an anonymous letter that at an unknown party in an unknown time someone claims they were assaulted. What possibly does that change? Once again, at some point, about now, the media discovers who she is, they contact her, and here we are exactly in the here and now. Once she went from an unknown to a known, we were going to end up at this point. There was nothing Grassley could do. As I noted, they KNEW this charge was out there otherwise no one would have gone back and asked 65 high school classmate women to vouch for him. They never would have done that without the knowledge this person existed. We were always doomed to be here and now. That is unless Grassley has some psychic power I don't know about.

 

[Jeb MT Mater]

I was disagreeing you your statement that it will be easy to see if he is lying. Decisions will be gut-wrenching, I hope. Otherwise they will be the equivalent of merely pulling the straight party ticket, as some on here do, I'm sure.

I get it. Well, I find it easy to see through lies but I couldn't always. There are many tells and indicators. I'm not saying it will be easy to find evidence that directly contradicts what he says. We'll see, but I think it will be transparently obvious that she's forthcoming and honest and he's calculating and cloaking his answers.

Problem is, most Republican politicians are probably liars which renders them less able to perceive others' lies. Nature of the beast. That's not to say the Democrats aren't also liars, btw.

 

[MrBing]

Ok, they forward an anonymous letter that at an unknown party in an unknown time someone claims they were assaulted. What possibly does that change? Once again, at some point, about now, the media discovers who she is, they contact her, and here we are exactly in the here and now. Once she went from an unknown to a known, we were going to end up at this point. There was nothing Grassley could do. As I noted, they KNEW this charge was out there otherwise no one would have gone back and asked 65 high school classmate women to vouch for him. They never would have done that without the knowledge this person existed. We were always doomed to be here and now. That is unless Grassley has some psychic power I don't know about.

What I heard from a couple of scholars on the news this morning is that the normal procedure would have been to question him about it during the closed session part of the hearings. That seems reasonable.

 

[MrBing]

I get it. Well, I find it easy to see through lies but I couldn't always. There are many tells and indicators. I'm not saying it will be easy to find evidence that directly contradicts what he says. We'll see, but I think it will be transparently obvious that she's forthcoming and honest and he's calculating and cloaking his answers.

Problem is, most Republican politicians are probably liars which renders them less able to perceive others' lies. Nature of the beast. That's not to say the Democrats aren't also liars, btw.

They're ALL liars.

 

[Hank Reardon]

We'll see, but I think it will be transparently obvious that she's forthcoming and honest and he's calculating and cloaking his answers.

Not that you've made up your mind in advance, or anything like that.

 

[Jeb MT Mater]

Not that you've made up your mind in advance, or anything like that.

Sure it sounds that way, but I'm talking about my ability to see through people. Maintaining the ability is heavily dependent on me being honest. If I think she's lying, I'll have no qualms admitting it. I've got no fish to fry here. It's already patently clear that Kavanaugh lied under oath back in 2006 but that's not stopping Republicans from pushing him through. So the bigger picture is what's at stake here and that's flipping Congress in November. As I said above, I think an empty SC seat is detrimental to the Democrats. Seriously detrimental. But never underestimate the Democrats' ability to fubar an election.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

What I heard from a couple of scholars on the news this morning is that the normal procedure would have been to question him about it during the closed session part of the hearings. That seems reasonable.

Yes, that would be reasonable, assuming the story stayed quiet. Once it came out, there would be demands to give her an appearance. And if he was confirmed THEN it broke that the committee never heard from her, it would be bad too. As near as I can figure, this was guaranteed to be a public spectacle from the moment she decided to tell someone in the senate.

 

[Thyrsis]

They're ALL liars.

Maybe so, but can you imagine what it would be like if more folks just spoke candidly AND their candid speaking was reasonable and thoughtful?

(It's got to be both, by the way. Just candid won't cut it. Because most people aren't reasonable and thoughtful. Maybe especially a large segment of our Congress).

 

[Hank Reardon]

It will be curious to hear how Kavanaugh responds. He probably thinks his easiest path is just to deny, deny, deny even if lots of folks conclude that’s somewhat implausible (i.e., they might conclude SOMETHING happened even if it didn’t remotely rise to the level of attempted rape). He’s probably right about that (regardless of what actually happened) but nobody can really know what might come out of a hearing.

Of course that might just be the truth.

I don’t think we’re capable of adult conversation about this, so maybe that deny, deny, deny approach really is the only one available if he wants to be confirmed.

The accuser will have to face questions though. Not to minimize her claim, but she wasn’t raped (fortunately) and she was able to escape (if that’s the appropriate term). Those two fortunate realities can also open up gray area around differing perceptions of what transpired. I’m not making value judgments here (at least not intentionally), but instead predicting where focus might go.

That won’t be pretty in all likelihood, though. Again, we’re not adults to deal with this sort of thing.

In the end, I just don't see how Kavanaugh survives the process. Both Flake and Collins have said that if there is any question at all, they'd have to vote against Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has no way to prove he didn't do anything. And she doesn't need to prove anything.

What's his out here?

 

[hoosboot]

In the end, I just don't see how Kavanaugh survives the process. Both Flake and Collins have said that if there is any question at all, they'd have to vote against Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has no way to prove he didn't do anything. And she doesn't need to prove anything.

What's his out here?

If he's honest, compassionate, and composed, I think he has a good chance of being confirmed. It all depends on the merits of his and her testimony and whether any outside exculpatory or corroborating evidence emerges.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

In the end, I just don't see how Kavanaugh survives the process. Both Flake and Collins have said that if there is any question at all, they'd have to vote against Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has no way to prove he didn't do anything. And she doesn't need to prove anything.

What's his out here?

To sound trustworthy and at the same time, have empathy that someone did hurt her (just not him). Stress that he has two daughters and as such in no way takes sexual assault lightly. It seems unlikely that, based on Judge's record, that Kavanaugh can claim he was the school nerd who never partied. So he's going to have to admit that he partied but would never, ever, cross that line. I think he's got an opportunity to prove himself.

 

[hoosboot]

To sound trustworthy and at the same time, have empathy that someone did hurt her (just not him). Stress that he has two daughters and as such in no way takes sexual assault lightly. It seems unlikely that, based on Judge's record, that Kavanaugh can claim he was the school nerd who never partied. So he's going to have to admit that he partied but would never, ever, cross that line. I think he's got an opportunity to prove himself.

Yup...if he (and his supporters/handlers) takes the scorched earth/it's a witch hunt approach, I don't see it going well. But, if is honest and empathetic, he will do fine.

 

[Sope Creek]

. . . can you imagine what it would be like if more folks just spoke candidly AND their candid speaking was reasonable and thoughtful?

You do realize this is our fault, right? By that I mean, lawyers' fault generally.

I would love for folks to claim what they did and who they are - like Othello - but with the rules of evidence being as they are the only option available - as lawyers would advise anyway - is to avoid doing exactly that at all costs.

 

[MonroeCity]

And Ford has yet to commit to testifying:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...nfirmed-shell-testify-at-monday-hearing?amp=1

The real question is what next? Does the GOP leadership pull on its big boy pants and do what needs to be done, which is vote on Kavanaugh? Or does it remain in its favorite deer-in-the-headlights stance and do nothing?

 

[Jeb MT Mater]

Not that you've made up your mind in advance, or anything like that.

More. There are Democrats pushing to delay the Monday testimony till after the FBI investigates her allegations. The FBI says it's already done. Democrats are politicizing this. End of story. There's no need for Grassley to politicize it. He's invited her to testify, if she comes, okay. If she lets Democrats convince her to delay, she's politicizing it herself and undermining her credibility. Her only responsibility is to testify when Grassley decides. Either way, the right thing for Grassley to do is to shut up. This is an example of where taking the high road is better for your own and your party's image and taking the low road, which he did, keeps favorability ratings of Congess in single digits or so.

 

[Jeb MT Mater]

You do realize this is our fault, right? By that I mean, lawyers' fault generally.

I would love for folks to claim what they did and who they are - like Othello - but with the rules of evidence being as they are the only option available - as lawyers would advise anyway - is to avoid doing exactly that at all costs.

Read an article today about Dowd and how he had the Trump Administration cooperate with Mueller because he believed Trump was innocent. That got Trump in all sorts of trouble that is confounding his current lawyers. The article didn't go this far, but isn't the conclusion that Trump's guilty? Not that a court would accept such a simplified conclusion, but it sure seems an innocent person should be able to win by sticking with the truth.

Then there's that Youtube video of the professor saying, no matter how innocent you are, stfu. Don't say a thing. Unavoidable conclusion: our legal system sucks.

 

[Jeb MT Mater]

Anita Hill suggests how to get it right this time (NYT, use incognito):

Here are some basic ground rules the committee should follow:

Refrain from pitting the public interest in confronting sexual harassment against the need for a fair confirmation hearing. Our interest in the integrity of the Supreme Court and in eliminating sexual misconduct, especially in our public institutions, are entirely compatible. Both are aimed at making sure that our judicial system operates with legitimacy.

Select a neutral investigative body with experience in sexual misconduct cases that will investigate the incident in question and present its findings to the committee. Outcomes in such investigations are more reliable and less likely to be perceived as tainted by partisanship. Senators must then rely on the investigators’ conclusions, along with advice from experts, to frame the questions they ask Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey. Again, the senators’ fact-finding roles must guide their behavior. The investigators’ report should frame the hearing, not politics or myths about sexual assault.

Do not rush these hearings. Doing so would not only signal that sexual assault accusations are not important — hastily appraising this situation would very likely lead to facts being overlooked that are necessary for the Senate and the public to evaluate. That the committee plans to hold a hearing this coming Monday is discouraging. Simply put, a week’s preparation is not enough time for meaningful inquiry into very serious charges.

Finally, refer to Christine Blasey Ford by her name. She was once anonymous, but no longer is. Dr. Blasey is not simply “Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser.” Dr. Blasey is a human being with a life of her own. She deserves the respect of being addressed and treated as a whole person.
​

She explains why this is the right thing for the nation:

In 1991, the phrase “they just don’t get it” became a popular way of describing senators’ reaction to sexual violence. With years of hindsight, mounds of evidence of the prevalence and harm that sexual violence causes individuals and our institutions, as well as a Senate with more women than ever, “not getting it” isn’t an option for our elected representatives. In 2018, our senators must get it right.​

What she doesn't say is, this is how the GOP can win the election in 2018. Thank goodness she didn't, because the chances of the Republicans figuring this out are negative infinity.

 

[mohoosier]

I disagree. If all that happens on Monday is she says, "He did it", and he says, "I didn't do it", absent of any other evidence, we are right back to here.

Like someone said earlier, this is not a criminal case, this is a job interview. There is no IUPG standard. It all comes down to, we have to hope, who was more believable. It would be a shame if it comes down to, "what will serve my political goals more?"

What would happen if he is seated on the SC, and 2 years down the line, hard evidence (not sure what) came up that he was in fact lying, and did do this? Would there be consequences? Would the Right say, "Well, punch your T.S. card...you should have proved it when you had the chance"?

Not sure what the “Right” means in your view, but let me speak for Sanity. #1 Timing - why did this just now surface, given that Kavanaugh has been through years of these background checks at the highest levels of the US Federal Court system and the chance to voice concern has presented itself multiple times prior to this one. Also on timing - why did Feinstein sit on this news until this last moment in the proceedings? If she knew this in July, why wait? If this is a credible charge, why wouldn’t this be the first thing you would present? On that, why did the accuser go to Feinstein? Why not Grassley? (I think we all know the answer to that one). #2 How did she just remember this through counseling sessions with her husband but also claim of being affected in younger years by the same event? If she remembered it in the past, how did she just remember it again in 2012? #3 She doesn’t remember: how the party came together, who owned the house, how she got there, how she got home, and her story now differs from her statements to her counselor in 2012, concerning an event that took place 36 years ago.

Should sane people question an accuser’s story as such? Also, should sane people expect the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

One last thing, I’m as aware and impacted by the subject of rape as any man on this board. I’ll say no more on that.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

why did the accuser go to Feinstein?

Feinstein is HER Senator and Grassley is not?

 

[twenty02]

Not sure what the “Right” means in your view, but let me speak for Sanity. #1 Timing - why did this just now surface, given that Kavanaugh has been through years of these background checks at the highest levels of the US Federal Court system and the chance to voice concern has presented itself multiple times prior to this one. Also on timing - why did Feinstein sit on this news until this last moment in the proceedings? If she knew this in July, why wait? If this is a credible charge, why wouldn’t this be the first thing you would present? On that, why did the accuser go to Feinstein? Why not Grassley? (I think we all know the answer to that one). #2 How did she just remember this through counseling sessions with her husband but also claim of being affected in younger years by the same event? If she remembered it in the past, how did she just remember it again in 2012? #3 She doesn’t remember: how the party came together, who owned the house, how she got there, how she got home, and her story now differs from her statements to her counselor in 2012, concerning an event that took place 36 years ago.

Should sane people question an accuser’s story as such? Also, should sane people expect the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

One last thing, I’m as aware and impacted by the subject of rape as any man on this board. I’ll say no more on that.

This has been rehashed. She sent a letter to her Senator and House Rep. She asked to remain anonymous. Someone in one of their offices leaked it.

I don't see much to blame Feinstein for in this...other than not doing a proper job keeping the wishes of her constituent to remain anonymous.

I still have doubts this woman ends up testifying. And if so....it may well be in a closed hearing.

 

[Fro]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livew...s-at-georgetown-prep-stays-at-georgetown-prep



Definitely sounds like he did some stuff he doesn't want dug up

 

[zeke4ahs]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livew...s-at-georgetown-prep-stays-at-georgetown-prep

View embedded media

Definitely sounds like he did some stuff he doesn't want dug up

I don’t know, that’s too common of a joke to read much into.

 

[Chester Fried]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livew...s-at-georgetown-prep-stays-at-georgetown-prep

View embedded media

Definitely sounds like he did some stuff he doesn't want dug up

That’s a bit of a stretch, no?

 

[IUCrazy2]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livew...s-at-georgetown-prep-stays-at-georgetown-prep

View embedded media

Definitely sounds like he did some stuff he doesn't want dug up

And? Seriously, is there not stuff you did between the ages of 14 and 18 that you would not necessarily want brought up in a job interview in front of 300 million some odd people? I can think if many (non sexual assault related) things I said and did at that age that I would not necessarily want to have to defend. Particularly when roughly half of your questioners are doing their abject best to make you out to be a dirtbag unfit for the job.

 

[hoot1]

And? Seriously, is there not stuff you did between the ages of 14 and 18 that you would not necessarily want brought up in a job interview in front of 300 million some odd people? I can think if many (non sexual assault related) things I said and did at that age that I would not necessarily want to have to defend. Particularly when roughly half of your questioners are doing their abject best to make you out to be a dirtbag unfit for the job.

I completely agree.

Furthermore think of the many potentially effective public servants who will avoid entering the arena because of recalling youthful and young adult indiscretions which they fear might go public.

Interestingly, this doesn't apply to Kavanaugh who doesn't remember the incident, if you believe him.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Not sure what the “Right” means in your view, but let me speak for Sanity. #1 Timing - why did this just now surface, given that Kavanaugh has been through years of these background checks at the highest levels of the US Federal Court system and the chance to voice concern has presented itself multiple times prior to this one. Also on timing - why did Feinstein sit on this news until this last moment in the proceedings? If she knew this in July, why wait? If this is a credible charge, why wouldn’t this be the first thing you would present? On that, why did the accuser go to Feinstein? Why not Grassley? (I think we all know the answer to that one). #2 How did she just remember this through counseling sessions with her husband but also claim of being affected in younger years by the same event? If she remembered it in the past, how did she just remember it again in 2012? #3 She doesn’t remember: how the party came together, who owned the house, how she got there, how she got home, and her story now differs from her statements to her counselor in 2012, concerning an event that took place 36 years ago.

Should sane people question an accuser’s story as such? Also, should sane people expect the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

One last thing, I’m as aware and impacted by the subject of rape as any man on this board. I’ll say no more on that.

What, did you only read my post and ignore the rest of this thread (where all your questions have been exhaustively hashed and rehashed?

 

[Jeb MT Mater]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livew...s-at-georgetown-prep-stays-at-georgetown-prep

View embedded media

Definitely sounds like he did some stuff he doesn't want dug up

Didn't happen at Georgetown Prep, happened at a haunted house somewhere.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Particularly when roughly half of your questioners are doing their abject best to make you out to be a dirtbag unfit for the job.

Or maybe, better put, replace "make you out to be" with "find out if you are".

 

[cosmickid]

Not sure what the “Right” means in your view, but let me speak for Sanity. #1 Timing - why did this just now surface, given that Kavanaugh has been through years of these background checks at the highest levels of the US Federal Court system and the chance to voice concern has presented itself multiple times prior to this one. Also on timing - why did Feinstein sit on this news until this last moment in the proceedings? If she knew this in July, why wait? If this is a credible charge, why wouldn’t this be the first thing you would present? On that, why did the accuser go to Feinstein? Why not Grassley? (I think we all know the answer to that one). #2 How did she just remember this through counseling sessions with her husband but also claim of being affected in younger years by the same event? If she remembered it in the past, how did she just remember it again in 2012? #3 She doesn’t remember: how the party came together, who owned the house, how she got there, how she got home, and her story now differs from her statements to her counselor in 2012, concerning an event that took place 36 years ago.

Should sane people question an accuser’s story as such? Also, should sane people expect the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

One last thing, I’m as aware and impacted by the subject of rape as any man on this board. I’ll say no more on that.

To answer some of your points/questions...

"The fog was just lifting at Capitola beach one morning this July when Christine Blasey Ford confided in two friends. She had written her congresswoman and anonymously tipped off the Washington Post with her explosive story, claiming Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in high school." She didn't write Feinstein, she wrote her CONGRESSWOMAN...

"But now she was worried that her name would come out. She was bracing for an avalanche of attacks and searching her memory for anyone, anything, that could validate her story.

“I’ve been trying to forget this all my life, and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail,” one of those friends, Jim Gensheimer, recalled Blasey Ford saying that summer day while watching her kids participate in a Junior Lifeguard program. “They’re going to be all over me.”

She had mentioned this to friends PRIOR to Kavanaugh being nominated...

“I can’t really think of anyone better” to endure the grueling questions she is sure to face, said Rebecca White, one of Blasey Ford’s neighbors and a good friend. “She’s one of those people who teems with honesty and truth. She’s just that person.”

In an interview Monday with this news organization, White said that Blasey Ford had told her about the alleged assault — without naming Kavanaugh — in late 2017 during the height of the #MeToo movement and long before Kavanaugh was a Supreme Court nominee.

Last year, White had added her own #MeToo story about being raped as a teenager to a Facebook post.

“She reached out to me afterward, supporting me and my story and that she had something happen to her when she was really young and that the guy was a federal judge,” White said. “She said she had been assaulted. She said hers had been violent as well, physically scary, fighting for her life.”

After rumors swirled about her allegation for days, Blasey Ford revealed her identity and told her story in an exclusive interview posted Sunday by The Washington Post. Ford alleges that at a high school party some 30 years ago, Kavanaugh was “stumbling drunk,” pushed her down on a bed, groped her and attempted to assault her. He put his hand over her mouth as she screamed, she says. At the time, she was a 15-year-old student at the all-girls Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Maryland, she says, and Kavanaugh was a 17-year-old at Georgetown Prep. Kavanaugh strongly denies that the incident took place.

Knowing her credibility would be questioned, Blasey Ford took and passed a lie detector test about the incident, her lawyer Debra Katz says. She also retrieved notes from a therapist, with whom she spoke about it during couples therapy in 2012."

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09...year-before-kavanaugh-nomination-friends-say/

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Do you not recognize that people can become intoxicated to the point that they don't remember certain actions? Heck, I've done it before.

You’ve been toasted?

 

[Lucy01]

To answer some of your points/questions...

"The fog was just lifting at Capitola beach one morning this July when Christine Blasey Ford confided in two friends. She had written her congresswoman and anonymously tipped off the Washington Post with her explosive story, claiming Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in high school." She didn't write Feinstein, she wrote her CONGRESSWOMAN...

"But now she was worried that her name would come out. She was bracing for an avalanche of attacks and searching her memory for anyone, anything, that could validate her story.

“I’ve been trying to forget this all my life, and now I’m supposed to remember every little detail,” one of those friends, Jim Gensheimer, recalled Blasey Ford saying that summer day while watching her kids participate in a Junior Lifeguard program. “They’re going to be all over me.”

She had mentioned this to friends PRIOR to Kavanaugh being nominated...

“I can’t really think of anyone better” to endure the grueling questions she is sure to face, said Rebecca White, one of Blasey Ford’s neighbors and a good friend. “She’s one of those people who teems with honesty and truth. She’s just that person.”

In an interview Monday with this news organization, White said that Blasey Ford had told her about the alleged assault — without naming Kavanaugh — in late 2017 during the height of the #MeToo movement and long before Kavanaugh was a Supreme Court nominee.

Last year, White had added her own #MeToo story about being raped as a teenager to a Facebook post.

“She reached out to me afterward, supporting me and my story and that she had something happen to her when she was really young and that the guy was a federal judge,” White said. “She said she had been assaulted. She said hers had been violent as well, physically scary, fighting for her life.”

After rumors swirled about her allegation for days, Blasey Ford revealed her identity and told her story in an exclusive interview posted Sunday by The Washington Post. Ford alleges that at a high school party some 30 years ago, Kavanaugh was “stumbling drunk,” pushed her down on a bed, groped her and attempted to assault her. He put his hand over her mouth as she screamed, she says. At the time, she was a 15-year-old student at the all-girls Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Maryland, she says, and Kavanaugh was a 17-year-old at Georgetown Prep. Kavanaugh strongly denies that the incident took place.

Knowing her credibility would be questioned, Blasey Ford took and passed a lie detector test about the incident, her lawyer Debra Katz says. She also retrieved notes from a therapist, with whom she spoke about it during couples therapy in 2012."

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09...year-before-kavanaugh-nomination-friends-say/

Retrieved notes from her therapist! What does that prove? Exactly nothing. This is bull shit claim with no proof to try to stop at supreme court nominee.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

Retrieved notes from her therapist! What does that prove? Exactly nothing. This is bull shit claim with no proof to try to stop at supreme court nominee.

Or...

 

[Lucy01]

Or...

What’s Bruce have to do with it?

 

[Jeb MT Mater]

Is this what the Democrats are doing to Kavanaugh?