Kavanaugh Hearings a National Disgrace

[ramus]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/donations-to-christine-blasey-fords-gofundme-surge-after-she-mentions-it-in-testimony-2018-09-27

This stinks to high heaven, she conveniently mentions after a slow pitch, the Gofundme in the hearings.

"Ford said she has incurred security costs that crowd-funding and some of her wealthy friends and associates in Palo Alto, California, are helping to pay." She forgot to mention the democratic party also.

I don't need to tell you to read between the lines ...... bribe in plain view ...

Oh by the way I was forced to have sex with Kavanaugh too, where is my money, i'm scared, have children, how much do I get... I can't remember when or where this took place but I'm 100% sure it happen in the eighties at night on a week day in the United States in a house.

$305,000.00 are you seeing this.....


During Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, under questioning about how she was paying security and legal costs, Ford said some of it could be covered by GoFundMe accounts that have been started to help her.

Her mention of the crowd-funding website caused the authenticated GoFundMe webpage helping her to take off. It jumped from about $179,000 to $305,000 and counting merely 30 minutes later, according to the publicly displayed funds counter.

The lawyers who flanked her in the hearing, Michael Bromwich and Debra Katz, told the senators they were working pro bono and had no expectation of being paid. Ford, under questioning, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office referred her to Katz’s law firm.

Ford said she has incurred security costs that crowd-funding and some of her wealthy friends and associates in Palo Alto, California, are helping to pay.

[ramus]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/gofundme-campaigns-raised-over-500000-to-cover-blasey-ford-costs.html

GoFundMe campaigns have raised more than $500,000 to cover Blasey Ford's costs .

[Arcturian108]

I just checked today, Friday, and at 12:30 pm East Coast time the fund is close to $500,000.

I watched the whole show yesterday, and have a slight headache today from too much television-viewing. My immediate take on Dr. Ford when she first started speaking was her little girl voice. From my experience with clients over the years, that suggests to me that she was a very protected, daddy's little girl. I am not a trained psychologist, so that is simply my opinion. That she was so frightened at age 15 of being groped, not "sexually assaulted" as everyone keeps repeating, suggests again that she had some kind of pre-existing fear, from either this lifetime, or a previous lifetime. But of course this would never come up in this kind of attack by allegation.

I happened to have spent my high school years in the same area of Maryland that was being discussed, and Judge Kavanaugh even mentioned playing basketball at my high school.

[greybeard]

I was sexually assaulted by an older woman when I was fifteen.
She was seventeen
I did not invite it I did not expect it.
Ok that was my experience and I did not complain later..
It was a "fondle"--grope in other words.
She laughed at my discomfort, embarrassment.
Young hormones --hers --accepted.

So here we have a woman's stated experience--years after the event.
Who knows the truth of what happened without full context all these years ago.
Neither account--his or hers, will bring will bring the truth of what happened without full understanding of the context in which this is claimed to have happened.

Chris

Ps The Eagles have a song "Get over it"
Worth a listen.

[ramus]

$500,000.00 ... makes it easy to get over it.

[Bayareamom]

I have to say this. I viewed the entirety of this hearing yesterday. I found myself completely believing this woman. She seemed forthright, and exhibited the emotions one would expect from someone who has been traumatized, whether long ago or not. I honestly felt that the Republicans were really in a jam after viewing her testimony. But I realized that, to be fair and open-minded, I needed to hear Kavanaugh's testimony. When I listened to him speak and watched his own raw emotions, my heart went out to him as well.

So then, for a short while, I didn't know what to think. I felt they were both extremely credible and that both had given credible testimonies. What to believe...

But then, as I was speaking to a friend of mine afterwards, I suddenly came to a conclusion, which was one I hadn't expected. I remembered that Ford did not recall how she had arrived at this gathering, nor how she arrived back at her parents' home, afterwards. She doesn't recall whose home this alleged event occurred at, nor has she ANY (ANY!) corroborating evidence to support her story. Indeed, the four individuals she states who were there and of whom she states knew what happened, have ALL provided sworn statements, provided under penalty of perjury, that they do NOT recall being at this event. One of these four individuals is her best friend. This friend states that she does not recall being there, but yet states "she believes Ford."

Simply 'believing' someone DOES NOT provide corroborating evidence. And indeed, these four individuals who provided their sworn statements have REFUTED Ford's claims as to having attended this gathering.

So what do we have here? We have a woman who, although she appeared extremely credible (emotionally), has not proven her case whatsoever. She has no corroborating evidence to support her allegation.

I actually found Ford more likable in a way, than I did Kavanaugh. Although my heart went out to Kavanaugh as I viewed his testimony, at times, I felt I could see this sort of anger and belligerence one would see in someone who appears 'entitled.' Just my opinion, but I felt that at times, he was a little too boastful when speaking about both his academic and athletic accomplishments. But I did try to keep all personal bias aside as I viewed his testimony.

In the end, I arrived at the conclusion that I feel any fact finder should arrive at: Ford has absolutely NO CORROBORATING evidence to support her allegation. NONE. TO ME, if you are going to accuse someone of this type of incident, you need to have some corroboration to back up those claims. She had none.

Inasmuch as I found Kavanaugh somewhat distasteful, as an unbiased viewer I have to say that I come down on the side of his testimony. Ford was asked if she understands that in the state in which this alleged event occurred, there is no statute of limitations on this type of crime. In other words, she could still take this case to the police and have it investigated, should she wish. She hasn't done that.

To accuse someone of this type crime, and at this late stage in the nomination process, is despicable to me UNLESS she has the goods to back up her story.

SHE DID NOT.

I am glad to hear that Kavanaugh will most likely be sworn in. Ford, although I have sympathy for her and feel that something may have happened to her all those years ago, has not provided any corroboration for her story. I also believe that the Democratic Party has victimized BOTH Ford and Kavanaugh.

And lest anyone feel I am biased in any way -- I did not vote for Trump, nor do I consider myself a politically motivated individual. I am I suppose what one would call a non-political individual. I will not participate in ANY election because I understand how truly corrupted our political process is. It is a vile and completely corrupted system, from the top, down.

[Satori]

Very well put Bayareamom.

Like Senator Graham said, in the real world of civil and criminal law, this claim would not make it out of the batter's box. You have aptly stated the reasons why it would not, and why it should not have.

This whole fiasco is, at a minimum, a politically motivated operation that turned into a freak show.

[Midnight]

So sad.
Yet another of my formerly favourite sites has turned into a Trump groupie site.
I feel a need for a shower after visiting here.

[Helene West]

So sad.
Yet another of my formerly favourite sites has turned into a Trump groupie site.
I feel a need for a shower after visiting here.

with 9/10 of media as a one hive mind trump bashing site, it's still not enough for you. you guys want complete mind control monopoly over others. incredible
enjoy your santimonious shower

¤=[Post Update]=¤

@bayareamom - as someone who just didn't want to watch the entire hearings I appreciate your very unbiased take. admirable

[PurpleLama]

Graham's most salient point, good people will not be willing to step into such offices with such partisan tactics on display, paraphrased.


“And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you’ve done to this guy. … Boy, y’all want power. God, I hope you never get it.” R-SC Graham (whom I usually hate, or, out Spartacus the Spartacus)

[scotslad]

Apparently Christine was "100% convinced" - does that imply doubt....curious. ;)

[PurpleLama]

Apparently Christine was "100% convinced" - does that imply doubt....curious. ;)

Convinced of what, exactly?

[NeedleThreader]

This site has gone completely Trump nuts. Q crazies. Unbelievable. Very sad indeed. I have been following this site since 2011.

When you all wake from your misogynistic hangover, I will remember you.

Bill, this has been a long time coming, but this has become an unmoderated nightmare. Good Luck everyone!

[Foxie Loxie]

"Actors act!" Having been married to a conman, I have seen how a good "actor" can win over an audience...even turning on the tears! :ohwell:

I purposely did not watch the "show"....what a travesty of "justice"!!

I would like to state here that I am not a "Trump Groupie". What I wish for is a Restoration of Rule of Law & an end to the Double Standard that has been in play for so long.:highfive:

[ramus]

@ Midnight & NeedleThreader .... So because people don't agree with your beliefs you throw them in the trash,"my formerly favorite site" ... a shower won't wash that off... Politics, not worth fighting over.... And why is it ,that it turns into a personal attack ... "we are all Trump groupies","misogynistic" only a few people on this forum have voiced an opinion..... What is that?

[Helene West]

My mom is in her '80s and lives in an older community. She goes to church with two other older ladies every sunday for the past 3 years or so. She says they rarely talk politics and that's the way she prefers it. But this past sunday in their car ride en route one of the ladies mentioned what a circus the news has become in reference to the judge. My mom merely said, 'we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty'. Then the oldest of the bunch, 87, raised her voice and said to my Mom, "oh, so you're a trump lover, huh". It wasn't even about trump. My Mom was so taken aback and told me she felt uncomfortable the entire time in church!

You don't even have to say anything positive about this administration, if they just sense you are not a trump hater, woe to you!

[enigma3]

The back story to this is quite interesting.
1. A parent of Kavanaugh's (a judge) ruled against a parent of Ford's in a court hearing many moons ago.
2. An internet blogger stated that Christine Ford is currently (amongst other things) an undergrad CIA recruiter at Stanford.
3. That which was scrubbed from Ford's yearbooks indicates that she and her cohorts were hard partiers in high school and got very drunk on occasion.
4. Both Ford's parents are/were CIA assets.
5. The goodie #1. The CIA under Gina Haspel noted a big upsurge in traffic between two of its secret bases. Supposedly she/CIA captured all the chatter and determined that a rogue element within the CIA (still haven't cleaned it out yet) is behind the Kavanaugh attacks. She then confided this information to Trump and Grassley. Shortly thereafter Grassley called for a vote to send the nomination to the full Senate.
6. Goodie #2. Q has stated that the Dems tried to bargain the Kavanaugh seat by trading a yes on Kavanaugh for not releasing the unredacted FISA pages. That was summarily rejected by Trump et all.

One of the major problems I have with this is that the Dems have had some of this information and sat on it for at least 3 months. That doesn't exactly smell like above board ethics. It just plain smells.

As has been stated elsewhere, the accusers have brought NO corroboration for any of these charges. In fact, the 4 people Ford brought up have all issued statements that the events as described by Ford did not happen. Ford did state that one person witnessed the party. She is a close friend, so rather biased.

Finally, the woman prosecutor who questioned Ford later told the 51 Republicans in the Senate that she would never bring the case to trial for - wait for the boom - lack of evidence. Not even enough evidence to ask for a search warrant!

So there's that.

[Bayareamom]

To clarify: I did not vote in this last election. I am not a Trump groupie (nor anyone else's for that matter). If this were played out in a court of law -- well, forget that. Ford's allegation would not have seen the light of day inside a courtroom because she has (rather unfortunately) no facts to back up her assertions. I can't change that. It is what it is. Further, if she truly wants justice for herself, she can still legally pursue her claims against Judge Kavanaugh via appropriate channels. That's still an option for her as the statute of limitations in the county/state she's alleging this incident occurred still affords her the opportunity to pursue an investigation. .

Also, and just to be clear: I, too, am the victim of sexual assault. This happened years ago when I was living in Houston, Texas. This was during the early 1980's. I was clearly singled out by this man (I was sunbathing along w/many others at an apartment complex at the time); he approached me, struck up a conversation with me and asked me out on a date. Against my better instincts, I went out with this man. Later, he assaulted me in my apartment. I did confront him on the phone, afterwards. His reaction to my tears was one of complete disdain for me and what he'd put me through.

So after sharing this bit of very personal information, I can only say that, should I have been in Ford's shoes, only w/my own situation detailed above, I would NOT be able to PROVE what happened to me. I do not (in my own case) remember this man's name; in short, I have no other witnesses who can substantiate my claims against this man. I don't recall whether I told anyone about this incident or not, because I realized at the time that I had some small part w/all of this.

I should have listened to my better instincts. Something inside me told me not to have anything to do with this man, but I chose not to listen. HUGE mistake. There was a reason my instincts were clearly telling me not to have anything to do with this man at the time he approached me, but again, I chose not to listen.

SO - I am not at all saying that Ford was not telling the truth. Not at all. What I am saying is that she has absolutely no verifiable information within which to PROVE her allegation against Judge Kavanaugh. In this country, it is the ACCUSER who needs to prove his/her allegation(s) against the accused.

Unfortunately, in Ford's case, her claims do not reach this threshold. Ford is clearly seen as a sympathetic individual in this scenario. I, too, wept for her at times, as I watched and listened to her testimony. But you cannot accuse and judge someone based on EMOTIONS alone. What I do find so vile in this particular case is the fact that Ford has never had her claims investigated by legal/police authorities. She is making her claim against this man without having one single shred of evidence to support her allegation.

She could be telling the truth! But again, her inability to provide ANY substantiated evidence against this man is, to my view, unconscionable. IF she is mistaken (and she could very well be) that it was this man who tried to rape her, put yourself in Kavanaugh's shoes. She has destroyed his reputation, forever. She has destroyed his family and put them through absolute hell.

On the other hand, she could be telling the truth. Judge Kavanaugh clearly enjoys his 'beer' and openly states he still does to this day. I can somewhat see that he MAY be guilty of this horrific event, BUT SHE DIDN'T PROVE IT.

Further, there were 65 women who submitted a letter in support of Kavanaugh's character; this was submitted to the Judiciary Committee. As one talking point stated, there have been a plethora of women to come forward who have known Judge Kavanaugh for years - some since they were just 14 years old. They've kept in touch with one another and will attest to his integrity, decency and so forth, in either their personal and/or professional relationships.

In the end, this isn't just about politics, as disgusting as that part of this scenario is. This has been a very good lesson for all who viewed this hearing about simple decency to another human being; it's about truth, civility, and hopefully, will be a huge lesson for ALL concerned, as to the simple decency we should ALL be showing one another as human beings.

I do understand the emotions behind this entire scenario, i.e., the MeToo movement, etc. I think many need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and look at this without emotion, but as fact finders only, trying to find the TRUTH in this situation (without resorting to make calling, calling someone a Trump groupie, or what have you).

Yesterday was a very emotional day for me, for a number of reasons. But I learned A LOT when viewing this hearing yesterday. I hope others did as well.

[enigma3]

Democracy can get very messy. Usually this kind of politics is well hidden from us. I remember as a young person watching the Cook County legislative proceedings in the early 70's. Talk about madness.

If anyone would like to refresh the memory as to the messiness of democracy, read some of the history of the Andrew Jackson presidency as he successfully fought off those wanting a Rosthchild central bank. Now that's messy.

One final note. I agree with Kelleyanne Conway. In all probability Ford was sexually assaulted at a party long ago, but not by Kavanaugh.

[Olam]

I'm Canadian and so don't fully grasp the legal details of it all, so please enlighten me if I'm wrong...

This circus show to me speaks loudly on how the legal system is totally off the rails, even at the highest levels- the Supreme courts.
As far as I understand it, any judge, anywhere at anytime should be totally neutral politically speaking.
Yet, there is both sides fighting to have a mathimatical advantage on supreme justices voting, which tells me that in reality, and this is out in the open as everyone is fighting on it, that NO supreme court judge is politically neutral in any judgement rendered!

This circus exposes the complete sham that is the legal system, even at the highest levels!

Meanwhile, us the people keep thinking that we must have judges with high morals and everything else, while all this time, they will and they are politically biased...
If it was not the case, you would not have both sides fighting to get the numerical advantage on a supreme court ruling.
Just so messed up and corrupted on all sides if you ask me.

[Flash]

I was sexually assaulted by an older woman when I was fifteen.
She was seventeen
I did not invite it I did not expect it.
Ok that was my experience and I did not complain later..
It was a "fondle"--grope in other words.
She laughed at my discomfort, embarrassment.
Young hormones --hers --accepted.

So here we have a woman's stated experience--years after the event.
Who knows the truth of what happened without full context all these years ago.
Neither account--his or hers, will bring will bring the truth of what happened without full understanding of the context in which this is claimed to have happened.

Chris

Ps The Eagles have a song "Get over it"
Worth a listen.

Exactly, both you and Bayaramom are right. Drunk parties of youngster can be quite wild and many do not even remember coming back.

I did check on my daughter so much when she was a teenager.

And as you say Greybeard, on both sides (both sexes) inexperience and clumsiness are part of the learning curve. As long as it is not forcible rape, which is the definition of rape: forcible.

And, there is a chance she has been on the hired for trouble side (to me, tears alone are not enough for proof, real sociopaths are very good imitators, who knows, but if there was proofs or if she had talked about it then, maybe, which is not the case here).

You will rarely see me taking the men's side on those aspects, because women are raped much more than men, but here, it is a case of confusion and too many "maybe", and it is thoroughly damaging for the men, if it were not true. It is also politically motivated - this woman would never have come forward if it were not for a politically based election.

Anyhow, this is not my country, i have not much place to say anything, but.... I have to deal here, as a citizen, with policies implemented by kid - theater teacher - disguise enjoyer - Trudeau, it is quite enough.

[Fellow Aspirant]

I found Ford's testimony entirely convincing. The lack of certain detail in her recollection is in line with the recall of someone who has been the victim of emotional trauma. I am sure that most of us on the forum who have listened to or read from the accounts of mind altered whistle blowers will be familiar with the symptoms.

Kavanaugh, on the other hand, sounded and acted like a man who has, maybe for the first time in his life, had his word challenged. His testimony was driven by a self-righteous indignation that targeted the Democratic party as "evil" and seeking revenge for the Clintons' poor treatment at the hands of the Republicans during the impeachment hearings. As one of the interrogators of Bill Clinton, Kavanaugh led the charge to drag him through much more "mud" and sought to destroy him with direct, probing questions that intruded much further into Clinton's sexual activities than did any of the questions asked of him yesterday. His rage at his interlocutors and his embrace of partisan conspiracy theories was entirely inappropriate for anyone seeking to perform duties as a judge anywhere, let alone the idea of him presiding over the country in the nation's highest court. With his confirmation will go any hopes of keeping the Roe/Wade decision.

The hearings are a national disgrace, alright: they reveal how truth and justice have become political pawns in the once great United States of America.

Brian

[Valerie Villars]

I found his "rage" a normal reaction from someone who had worked for every single thing he has and has a formidably good track record for decades. There is nothing in any of his adult life that indicates he isn't suitable. He has an excellent track record.

What I saw was a man who had lived his adult life with integrity and a lot of hard work, seeing something he did in high school, determine whether he could have the position of a lifetime and the disbelief at the crap they were dragging up and focusing on. I saw a man whose idea of what was right and true in this world come crashing down in the worst way.

He saw the system for what it really is and I think he was just having a breakdown. Frankly, I don't blame him. When I got red pilled I did the same thing.

If he isn't an example, based on his record, of the kind of integrity we want on the Supreme Court, then there is nothing left. We are doomed and I agree what is being done to him is a disgrace.

And I've been raped more than once. Not groped in high school, but raped.

If we are all judged, not by the fruits of our life, but by some mistake we made way back when, then we are all truly screwed. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.

[onawah]

Can you tell us where you got that info, Enigma3, or provide any links?
If true, especially that Ford is CIA, it certainly puts a very different slant on the situation.
I don't understand how it is that the 3rd party allegedly in the room at the time, whose last name is Judge, has not been required to testify.
Of course the fact that he and Kavanaugh were friends could very well affect his testimony, but at least there would be the opportunity to form an opinion about whether he is a reliable source or not.
I didn't have a feeling one way or another about Ford's testimony, but having been a rape victim myself, I can certainly say without reservation that if she truly was a victim, the last thing she would want to be doing was testifying before the whole world about her experience, unless she felt a moral obligation.
On the other hand, if she is CIA, all bets are off.
I thought Kavanaugh's behavior did not recommend him as a potential Supreme Court judge.
Portraying himself as a victim is unwise and only creates more of a victim mindset, and the amount of evasiveness and sheer whining on his part was embarrassing, imho.
Clarence Thomas was a disgrace as a Supreme Court Judge, and with Kavanaugh's past record of voting against women's rights and the environment, I think he will not be better.

The back story to this is quite interesting.
1. A parent of Kavanaugh's (a judge) ruled against a parent of Ford's in a court hearing many moons ago.
2. An internet blogger stated that Christine Ford is currently (amongst other things) an undergrad CIA recruiter at Stanford.
3. That which was scrubbed from Ford's yearbooks indicates that she and her cohorts were hard partiers in high school and got very drunk on occasion.
4. Both Ford's parents are/were CIA assets.
5. The goodie #1. The CIA under Gina Haspel noted a big upsurge in traffic between two of its secret bases. Supposedly she/CIA captured all the chatter and determined that a rogue element within the CIA (still haven't cleaned it out yet) is behind the Kavanaugh attacks. She then confided this information to Trump and Grassley. Shortly thereafter Grassley called for a vote to send the nomination to the full Senate.
6. Goodie #2. Q has stated that the Dems tried to bargain the Kavanaugh seat by trading a yes on Kavanaugh for not releasing the unredacted FISA pages. That was summarily rejected by Trump et all.

One of the major problems I have with this is that the Dems have had some of this information and sat on it for at least 3 months. That doesn't exactly smell like above board ethics. It just plain smells.

As has been stated elsewhere, the accusers have brought NO corroboration for any of these charges. In fact, the 4 people Ford brought up have all issued statements that the events as described by Ford did not happen. Ford did state that one person witnessed the party. She is a close friend, so rather biased.

Finally, the woman prosecutor who questioned Ford later told the 51 Republicans in the Senate that she would never bring the case to trial for - wait for the boom - lack of evidence. Not even enough evidence to ask for a search warrant!

So there's that.

[Caliban]

I found Ford's testimony moving and believable but without a deeper and longer investigation, who knows?

I will say this: Kavanaugh looked and sounded like a lunatic. The guy looked totally unhinged. How anybody could think he's a suitable Supreme Court judge after that "performance"-- is way beyond me. He was just about foaming at the mouth. Granted, if it's all false, he has a right to be indignant. BUT not Undignified, which he was without question. He was not only rude, but insulting towards the senators asking him, yes, uncomfortable questions. And his (perhaps? justified) paranoia towards the Dems was unsettling. Is this the guy we want on the highest court for the next 40 years?

Let's not forget --- this guy was Bush's -- and Alberto Gonzalez's lackey. And we all know what went down during those years.

[Franny]

So sad.
Yet another of my formerly favourite sites has turned into a Trump groupie site.
I feel a need for a shower after visiting here.

I understand where you're coming from. However, it looks to me that the Kanvanaugh/Ford show is political theatre and I'm having hard time to see any merit in it except to get rid of Kananaugh. That said, I do not support his nomination.

This from Paul Craig Roberts should cover it nicely:


Trump appointed more Deep State CFR members and Bilderbergers (including Neil Gorsuch, James Mattis, John Bolton, et al.) to his administration than Barack Obama. And don’t be taken in by all of the political bickering surrounding Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The conservatives’ defense of Kavanaugh is as irrelevant as the liberals’ accusations against Kavanaugh. The fact is, Kavanaugh is a Deep State toady who is up to his neck in covering up the government’s murder of former Clinton Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster. Speaking of which, Trump has done nothing to bring the Deep State witch, Hillary Clinton, to justice like he said he would do, either.

In addition (and more relevant to the 9/11 discussion), Trump brought Deep State warlock, Rudy Giuliani, to the White House. As Mayor of New York City, Giuliani, more than any other single individual, provided cover for the real attackers of 9/11 by overseeing the massive effort of destroying the evidence from that horrific crime scene.

Read it all here:

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/09/26/chuck-baldwin-sums-it-up-trump-blew-it/

Neither does Judge Napilitano:

https://mises.org/power-market/judge-napolitano-kavanaugh-enemy-4th-amendment

[Helene West]

well stud feinstein succeeded in bullying murkowski and the spineless repubs have caved to the globalists in dems clothing. trump has ordered a supplemental fbi investigation into sexual harrassment of kavanaugh to not last more than 1 week!
lol. plenty of time for avenetti to dig up some more accusers. even if fbi find nothing, all clear, it will not get him 1 dem vote or maybe one rhino vote.

I'm sorry for all the women watching this who have been molested in any form. they are suffering the most from all this. The circus promotors and performers don't care though. They only want to keep that seat vacant until 2020. Screw their job of governing the country, they're not interested in that either since destroying the country in service to the banking and industrial ruling families is the goal of the club. Onward to the democratic plantation!

[Helene West]

Like Onawah, I too would like to know more details to Enigma3's intriguing Post#17!!

[pyrangello]

check out this link : https://beforeitsnews.com/v3/politics/2018/3026017.html

Kavanaugh Accuser Family CIA Black Budget Ops/Fusion GPS / Deep State Security Ties

[onawah]

That certainly looks convincing, though the source (beforeitsnews) isn't generally very reputable.
I would say just at first glance that in this case the article looks VERY well-documented.
And it sure does look like a great example of one faction of the Deep State conspiring against another.

check out this link : https://beforeitsnews.com/v3/politics/2018/3026017.html

Kavanaugh Accuser Family CIA Black Budget Ops/Fusion GPS / Deep State Security Ties

[Ratszinger]

The people laying into Kavanaugh the hardest were 80% other Yale grads just like him. They know what he was like in school. https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/another-yale-classmate-extremely-disappointed-by-kavanaugh.html

The other 20% of no voters were Mormon, Hatch, Flake and I think Harris went to Howard University and one of the other no votes was Columbia and Feinstein of course wen to Stanford. Otherwise it's quite a showing of other Yale grads all against another Yale grad, Kavanaugh. Causes you to pause. Steve Pieczenik put this together by the way in his latest video just out a couple Pieczenik video laying it out..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5kdwkkjWUw&t=13s

[Caliban]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brett-kavanaugh-foreclosure-accuser-parents/

From the article:
"Martha Kavanaugh did preside for certain parts of a 1996 foreclosure case involving Ralph and Paula Blasey, who are indeed Christine Blasey Ford’s parents. However, Kavanaugh actually ruled favorably toward the Blaseys, who ended up keeping their home. These two facts cause the logic of the conspiracy theory, such as it ever was, to collapse."

[Valerie Villars]

I watched the hearing. I know what went on. He said, she said, they said.

It is a disgrace. And a crying shame. The whole damn thing. The whole disgusting situation.

One senator doubting Kavanaugh's credibility when the senator had lied about his own Vietnam service.

A bunch of liars calling someone else unfit.

I wish Mr. Smith would go to Washington. At least we would have some purity.

[pyrangello]

Yep onawah and to everyone, always take the site" before its the news" with a grain of salt until you start seeing other sites with the same story or dots connecting each other. Sometimes there are very credible stories on there.

One statement I did hear a journalist say that struck me and kind of coincides with this article is that it does appear ms. ford did have something upsetting happen to her, but it doesn't appear kavanah was involved. Just my 2 cents from the peanut gallery.

[rodguy911]

Ford is cia as is her brother and Father.Their con is to steal prescription drug secrets when new drugs come to market since they have access.It goes like this: a new drug that cost millions to create goes to her area:
<i>The Professor is a biostatistician. She specializes in intervention evaluation by designing clinical trials. Reports of 62 of her research projects are on the Stanford website linked here:</i>
https://brassballs.blog/home/christine-blasey-works-for-stanford-universitys-cia-undergraduate-internship-program-her-father-is-cia-too-and-so-was-her-grandfather-nicholas-deak
Some sophisticated drugs require extensive development to bring to market.There can be 1,500 pages or more of documents accompanying their arrival to FDA.Only about 70 pages have the actual chemistry that is required to create the drug.
Balsy Ford steals the 70 pages sends it overseas,Pakistan or elsewhere makes the drug and when the timing is right they start selling it all over the world.Neat scam.
Other rumors are shes tight with Kavanaugh who is also deep state and the whole sham now goingon is timed to stop Trump from looking into Fisa warrants much less
declassifying them.

[rodguy911]

A stainless steel .357 will fit right into your purse. Don't leave home without it. And when you get home put it under your pillow!

[T Smith]

So sad.
Yet another of my formerly favourite sites has turned into a Trump groupie site.
I feel a need for a shower after visiting here.

So take a shower and move on.

I'm not aligned with Trump lock and step, and I raise enough eyebrows in regard to his politics and approach, but I am also absolutely disgusted by the degree to which a very a subtle and sophisticated psyop waged against we plebs (with obvious agenda) succeeds to enrage and incense so many otherwise conscious and thoughtful people. Are we really all that oblivious? It is absolutely astounding. I would petition a sober and rational look at the bigger picture when you decide you rabidly hate Donald Trump and all those who support what he is doing and ask yourself how you came to form your conclusions. If you are honest with yourself, and if you are courageous enough to dig just a few layers deeper than what you think you already know, you might just find yourself playing the unwitting part of a co-ordinated takedown.

I observe critically, but I refuse to play. I would advise the same.

[T Smith]

Graham's most salient point, good people will not be willing to step into such offices with such partisan tactics on display, paraphrased.


“And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you’ve done to this guy. … Boy, y’all want power. God, I hope you never get it.” R-SC Graham (whom I usually hate, or, out Spartacus the Spartacus)

Ditto that. Very uncomfortable aligning with Lindsey Graham on anything but he knocked it out of the park

[T Smith]

My mom is in her '80s and lives in an older community. She goes to church with two other older ladies every sunday for the past 3 years or so. She says they rarely talk politics and that's the way she prefers it. But this past sunday in their car ride en route one of the ladies mentioned what a circus the news has become in reference to the judge. My mom merely said, 'we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty'. Then the oldest of the bunch, 87, raised her voice and said to my Mom, "oh, so you're a trump lover, huh". It wasn't even about trump. My Mom was so taken aback and told me she felt uncomfortable the entire time in church!



You don't even have to say anything positive about this administration, if they just sense you are not a trump hater, woe to you!

That's account is just disturbing. What does the Kavanaugh hearing have to do with Trump?

There is a degree of unconsciousness afoot (comments above noted as case in point) that is simply alarming. Couple that a coordinated balkanization program and socially-engineered tribalism waged against the masses via popular culture, higher education, and media, and we're headed for disaster. If people are really no longer capable of thinking (and discerning coherent an logical distinctions between desperate constructs), we are in trouble. This is the stuff of civil wars...

[onawah]

Please finish your post and provide a link for this: "Steve Pieczenik put this together by the way in his latest video just out a couple"...
Thanks.

The people laying into Kavanaugh the hardest were 80% other Yale grads just like him. They know what he was like in school. https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/another-yale-classmate-extremely-disappointed-by-kavanaugh.html

The other 20% of no voters were Mormon, Hatch, Flake and I think Harris went to Howard University and one of the other no votes was Columbia. Otherwise it's quite a showing of other Yale grads all against another Yale grad. Causes you to pause. Steve Pieczenik put this together by the way in his latest video just out a couple

[onawah]

This actually makes a certain amount of sense to me, because I thought it was remarkable that Kavanaugh and Ford could be sitting next to each other in the same room (unless that was just tricky videotaping) and yet have virtually no energy passing between them. The space between was very neutral, and that really was striking.

Other rumors are shes tight with Kavanaugh who is also deep state and the whole sham now goingon is timed to stop Trump from looking into Fisa warrants much less
declassifying them.

[onawah]

Kavanaugh’s Yale Classmate Calls Out His ‘Blatant Lying’ at Hearing
(Worth copying here, imho):
https://thecut.com/2018/09/another-yale-classmate-extremely-disappointed-by-kavanaugh.html

At Thursday’s Senate hearing, where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh denied Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations that he sexually assaulted her in high school, he repeatedly argued that he never drank to the point of blacking out, contradicting several people who say he did.

After a second woman, Deborah Ramirez, came forward to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault at Yale University, his freshman year roommate released a statement saying he believes her, based on his experiences with Brett as a “notably heavy drinker” who became “belligerent and aggressive when he was very drunk.” Now, after hearing Kavanaugh’s testimony, Ramirez’s own roommate has spoken out, telling CNN’s Chris Cuomo Thursday that she is “extremely disappointed” in the judge’s “blatant lying.” In a phone call, Lynne Brookes said:

“I watched the whole hearing, and a number of my Yale colleagues and I were extremely disappointed in Brett Kavanaugh’s characterization of himself and the way that he evaded his excessive drinking questions. There is no doubt in my mind that while at Yale, he was a big partier, often drank to excess, and there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember. In fact, I would witness to the night that he got tapped into that fraternity, and he was stumbling drunk in a ridiculous costume saying really dumb things. I can almost guarantee that there’s no way that he remembers that night … There were a lot of emails and a lot of texts flying around about how he was lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee today.”

Brookes added that she and Liz Swisher, another classmate who said she was shocked by Kavanaugh’s denials of heavy drinking in his Fox interview, both played sports in college and routinely partied with Kavanaugh on Saturday nights. Brookes denounced Kavanaugh’s tactic at the hearing of evading questions and “trying to turn the question around to, ‘But I studied really hard.’ Well you know what? I studied hard too. I went to Wharton Business School. I did very well at Yale. I also drank to excess many nights with Brett Kavanaugh. The two things are not mutually exclusive.”

When asked about Chris Dudley, the former NBA player and friend of Kavanaugh’s who said “he never even close to blacked out” at Yale, Brookes described a party she remembers at which both men were very drunk. “They thought it would be really funny to barge into a room where a guy and a girl had gone off together, and embarrass that woman … The girl was mortified, and I was furious.”

This is not a case about drinking practices, but about proving whether Kavanaugh has the character to serve on the Supreme Court, she noted. “It is about the truth,” Brookes said. “I will tell my boys … as their coach, that winning isn’t everything. It should be about how you play the game.”



The people laying into Kavanaugh the hardest were 80% other Yale grads just like him. They know what he was like in school. https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/another-yale-classmate-extremely-disappointed-by-kavanaugh.html

The other 20% of no voters were Mormon, Hatch, Flake and I think Harris went to Howard University and one of the other no votes was Columbia. Otherwise it's quite a showing of other Yale grads all against another Yale grad. Causes you to pause. Steve Pieczenik put this together by the way in his latest video just out a couple

[ghostrider]

The prophecies of Enoch foretell after 2020 America will no longer be a super power
but will have two civil wars the second shortly after the first , and it cannot be helped that the country will be divided into five sectors ... Im wondering if because of the way Brett was presumed guilty by social media and democratic opposition , say the Republicans hold power even gain seats, could that be the trigger that sets off civil war ??? people are so polarized, divided and devoid of genuine compassion, friends and family can't coexist over political ideologies... my take, there is nothing in judge kavanaugh's 35 year work history around mostly women , that says abuser ... 35 years Zero complaints, gets nominated, gets to end of confirmation bam, woman brings charges , everyone loses, country further divided , both families suffer , accuser gets rich , accused loses 35 years work and good name flushed down toilet... all over high school hearsay ... stock up on food and water ...

[apokalypse]

one problem i having with is so many people on other side never see any issue with Ford...so far i find Kavaugh is right wing guy a pro-corporate. damn shock to me that we go with this crap on media for another with of distraction and i have been distracted while there's issue like IRAN-Syria-spending bills...ect.

[greybeard]

Let him without sin cast the first stone.
What male in his teens has not tried it on?
What person in their teens has not drank too much?
What young person has not regretted having sex?
How many carry that memory for countless years and the even though they have a degree of success claim their lives ruined?
How many wait till an opportunity for maximum damage to the "perpetrator arrives?

Seems there is some hypocrisy in all of this.

Personally I would not take sides--that's just playing into the hands of those who set these things up--divide and conquer --spread distrust and fear.

I am wary of things that spring up like"The me too movement"

To be very clear I am against anyone forcing their attentions on another and I can see why people dont make use of the current laws to prosecute the perpetrator--that has to change.

However
What about priorities?
Large amount of money raised to support an action, yet millions dying of starvation--being killed in wars financed by the Western World.

Terrorists need arms--who makes and supplies them?

That's a whole other subject

Politics a messy game.

Chris

[bluestflame]

the truth will come out , lot of people too invested in this case

[apokalypse]

Well, cheer up, the good news at least is I think we found someone today with the right temperament to make a fine Supreme Court Justice.
Her name is Christine Blasey Ford.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2018/09/27/well-i-think-we-found-our-supreme-court-justice-today/

jesus freak...forb running a piece want Ford for supreme court. past few days after hearing never hear anything on Ford which have so many contradiction while full attack Kav.

someone in here mention about civil war and agreed...America are so divided. i considered Bush worst than Trump for what he done to the world.

[Ratszinger]

one problem i having with is so many people on other side never see any issue with Ford...so far i find Kavaugh is right wing guy a pro-corporate. damn shock to me that we go with this crap on media for another with of distraction and i have been distracted while there's issue like IRAN-Syria-spending bills...ect.

Yes sir someone is awake! There be funny business about! Trump will likely win 2020 at this rate and the protests and attacks will just continue I'm sure. I spoke with people from back in my home town last night. What they believe is scary. They live in a 'blue zone and are all blue themselves of course' and they feel that the 'Educated conservative corp. elite via help from Russia and their puppet president Trump are taking over power in a coup from the 'few good representatives we have left' like Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer and forcing other good ones to resign or be fired! All to take power from the uneducated lay people and working force once and for all making them slaves to a foreign government!

[Helene West]

one problem i having with is so many people on other side never see any issue with Ford...so far i find Kavaugh is right wing guy a pro-corporate. damn shock to me that we go with this crap on media for another with of distraction and i have been distracted while there's issue like IRAN-Syria-spending bills...ect.

Yes sir someone is awake! There be funny business about! Trump will likely win 2020 at this rate and the protests and attacks will just continue I'm sure. I spoke with people from back in my home town last night. What they believe is scary. They live in a 'blue zone and are all blue themselves of course' and they feel that the 'Educated conservative corp. elite via help from Russia and their puppet president Trump are taking over power in a coup from the 'few good representatives we have left' like Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer and forcing other good ones to resign or be fired! All to take power from the uneducated lay people and working force once and for all making them slaves to a foreign government!

Yes, the Russia thingy is now common parlance amongst the blues. I have a family birthday coming up that I cannot get out of and I'm not looking forward to it because of all this. Most of them are blue. Trump is in league with Russia taking over the country, Schumer is my sister's hero....

All criminality is acceptable provided it is in the service of hurting the Orange Monster...

[spade]

So sad.
Yet another of my formerly favourite sites has turned into a Trump groupie site.
I feel a need for a shower after visiting here.

Exactly what does trump have to do with this thread?

[spade]

Err.. in which part of the thread title or Kavanaugh's name is Trump mentioned?

[Bill Ryan]

So sad.
Yet another of my formerly favourite sites has turned into a Trump groupie site.
I feel a need for a shower after visiting here.

with 9/10 of media as a one hive mind trump bashing site, it's still not enough for you. you guys want complete mind control monopoly over others. incredible

enjoy your santimonious shower


Hey, Helene: do please read this post of mine, an hour ago. You may not have got to that one yet. :bearhug:


http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?7330-The-quality-of-Avalon-keeping-the-signal-to-noise-ratio-high&p=1251241#post1251241

:focus:

[Bill Ryan]

This site has gone completely Trump nuts. Q crazies. Unbelievable. Very sad indeed. I have been following this site since 2011.

When you all wake from your misogynistic hangover, I will remember you.

Bill, this has been a long time coming, but this has become an unmoderated nightmare. Good Luck everyone!

It's fine, healthy, and utterly within integrity to offer a platform for intelligent debate. This is how we all learn. (Theoretically! :) )

It's HOW that's debated that matters. We're not going to moderate anyone for their political views. We will moderate them, if needed, for how they're presented.

As I noted above to Helene, please do read this new post of mine. It might be quite an important one for us all.


http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?7330-The-quality-of-Avalon-keeping-the-signal-to-noise-ratio-high&p=1251241#post1251241

:focus:

[enigma3]

Another interesting thought came to mind. If, and that's a big if, Kavanaugh is rejected, the next person up may very well be Amy Coney Barrett. She was on Trump's short list. She is a very devout Catholic, mother of 5 (2 adopted), and more conservative than Kavanaugh. She would be more likely to overturn Roe vs Wade that Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has stated on more than one occasion that he considers Roe to be established law. He has a high regard for legal precedent. Thus the question may be asked - are the Dems really acting on their own best interests?

[DNA]

So sad.
Yet another of my formerly favourite sites has turned into a Trump groupie site.
I feel a need for a shower after visiting here.

with 9/10 of media as a one hive mind trump bashing site, it's still not enough for you. you guys want complete mind control monopoly over others. incredible

enjoy your santimonious shower


Hey, Helene: do please read this post of mine, an hour ago. You may not have got to that one yet. :bearhug:


http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?7330-The-quality-of-Avalon-keeping-the-signal-to-noise-ratio-high&p=1251241#post1251241

:focus:


She has probably read it.




But, as Richard Dolan counsels at the end of all his weekly radio broadcasts, be kind to one another. No matter how irritating another member here might seem when they've just countered or disagreed with one of your well-crafted, deeply-felt posts — if that person was literally your real-world neighbor, living in the next-door house, you'd probably like them very a great deal.


But it's hard Bill.

Trump supporters have been kicked off facebook, silenced on Twitter and don't even have Alex Jones videos to share anymore.

We have the left paying people to harass us on social media.
And then we are here and getting the same type of treatment and expected to turn the other cheek, which we more often than not do.

I don't think anything Helene was saying was out of line.

[Ratszinger]

Please finish your post and provide a link for this: "Steve Pieczenik put this together by the way in his latest video just out a couple"...
Thanks.

The people laying into Kavanaugh the hardest were 80% other Yale grads just like him. They know what he was like in school. https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/another-yale-classmate-extremely-disappointed-by-kavanaugh.html

The other 20% of no voters were Mormon, Hatch, Flake and I think Harris went to Howard University and one of the other no votes was Columbia. Otherwise it's quite a showing of other Yale grads all against another Yale grad. Causes you to pause. Steve Pieczenik put this together by the way in his latest video just out a couple

My bad. As I explained to Bill I thought I did load it the first time but didn't go back to check. I ended up doing the same thing this time and had to load it again because it stays highlighted like it does on Bladeforums where I have my own forum and moderate there and I mistook the highlight area as an area I could backspace out and type into for a quick link. That was not the case. What I did was wipe out the link. loaded up now. Thanks

[Valerie Villars]

So sad.
Yet another of my formerly favourite sites has turned into a Trump groupie site.
I feel a need for a shower after visiting here.

with 9/10 of media as a one hive mind trump bashing site, it's still not enough for you. you guys want complete mind control monopoly over others. incredible

enjoy your santimonious shower


Hey, Helene: do please read this post of mine, an hour ago. You may not have got to that one yet. :bearhug:


http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?7330-The-quality-of-Avalon-keeping-the-signal-to-noise-ratio-high&p=1251241#post1251241

:focus:


She has probably read it.




But, as Richard Dolan counsels at the end of all his weekly radio broadcasts, be kind to one another. No matter how irritating another member here might seem when they've just countered or disagreed with one of your well-crafted, deeply-felt posts — if that person was literally your real-world neighbor, living in the next-door house, you'd probably like them very a great deal.


But it's hard Bill.

Trump supporters have been kicked off facebook, silenced on Twitter and don't even have Alex Jones videos to share anymore.

We have the left paying people to harass us on social media.
And then we are here and getting the same type of treatment and expected to turn the other cheek, which we more often than not do.

I don't think anything Helene was saying was out of line.

Thanks DNA for stating that. I agree with you 100%.

This forum has had a very strange vibe the past few weeks. It just feels different.

I don't understand why folks can't comment on appropriate threads instead of barging in the door of any old thread they want to try and shove their ideas down our throats. The world is a VERY confusing place right now.

I think most of us understand the concept of staying neutral and observing. That works great when you are maneuvering through a different dimension than this one. But, this dimension requires participation. It just does. Many people are just trying to do the right thing in a world where the right thing has been confused, obfuscated and made to look like something other than what it is.

I agree wholeheartedly that we Trump supporters are odd man out in the world today. I would rather stand for something than nothing. It's just the way I'm built.

It doesn't serve any purpose to shove my opposing ideas down the opposition's throats. And it serves no purpose for the opposition to do that to me or anyone else. I am not a stupid girl by any means and I don't see evidence of stupidity on this forum. However I do see those who think they have all the answers and the ONLY answers trying to bulldoze anyone who doesn't have the same outlook.

I wish they would just leave it be and worry about their own ideas.

[ghostrider]

The scary thing is people are too easily worked up into a frenzy (me included ) ... step away sometimes , ask yourself , why am i feeling this way , regroup and refuse to allow your inner core to leave your inner paradise... look how easily humanity has been divided on the words of two people most have never met... you support the judge or his accuser but , we can have different opinions and still be friends ... this global takeover is driving humanity towards chaos... I fear for America ... the push for silencing dissenting views is so in your face ... if the ptb can do this to a person with judge Kavanaugh's credentials , we don't have a chance ...

[Helene West]

ok. I read it, Bill.
Thoughts:
--The need for decorum is necessary obviously but it could leave wiggle room possibly for some 'teacher's pets', particularly those with writing talent, to troll a thread and then do their babe in the woods routine - 'I'm only trying to initiate a civilized debate', blah, blah when they really aim for the thread to disintegrate...
--All forums are microcosms of the outer societal macrocosm. We're watching, experiencing censorship and predatory techniques targeted selectively to kill choices and options in perceptions if not voice and assembly. . I feel defensive of many of those targeted. I still am sad over the loss of several key posters to the forums political threads. Yes, we need decorum and sensitivity but we can't be Casper Milquetoast either, pee on us and we'll say it's raining. I think they left because they won't be Caspers.

That being said, thanks for the reminder and I'll strive to adhere to the good intentions of the forum rules...





From Bill:
I still am sad over the loss of several key posters to the forums political threads.I e-mailed KiwiElf personally with a super-nice (and sincere) message. He never replied. Noelle also reached out to him... no reply. Debra even phoned him (several times), but never got through.

Everyone has to make their own life decisions. No-one can say we don't try to help and support, though of course a lot of what we do is unreported and behind the scenes. Anyone who thinks we don't care, doesn't know us. (I DO know you're NOT saying that, and neither is anyone else here. :) )

:focus:

[Spellbound]

People in the USA certainly know how to make a mountain out of a mole hill.

How embarrassing for a country, imo.

Dave - Toronto

[greybeard]

The scary thing is people are too easily worked up into a frenzy (me included ) ... step away sometimes , ask yourself , why am i feeling this way , regroup and refuse to allow your inner core to leave your inner paradise... look how easily humanity has been divided on the words of two people most have never met... you support the judge or his accuser but , we can have different opinions and still be friends ... this global takeover is driving humanity towards chaos... I fear for America ... the push for silencing dissenting views is so in your face ... if the ptb can do this to a person with judge Kavanaugh's credentials , we don't have a chance ...

The moment you take up a position in a situation like this--be aware that there is an agenda and probably isn't yours.
We are sold a bill of goods---all very subtle --but drip drip drip from the media--till we believe its true.
There is no need to take sides--we have no personal knowledge of the people involved.
We judge on whet is very secondhand info.
More fool us if we do.
Its ok to have an opinion but no wise to have it set in concrete.
Its a may be so.
Chris

[scotslad]

There's always 3 sides to every argument....

Side A's
Side B's
& The Truth

;)

[apokalypse]

what scary thing is accusations could destroy a person without evidence, can't find anything that more evil than that..nobody questioning on accuser fall into the game of politics. watching these scumbag make me sick..zero evidence and praise her coming out considered are true.


can't believe how dangerous media are..i can feel it already about CIA media .

[greybeard]

See how the media exaggerates by the words Shamed and revealing

Alyssa Milano is being shamed for her 'revealing' top at the Kavanaugh hearings

Alyssa Milano attended Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee in support of Professor Christine Blasey Ford‘s testimony that Judge Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school. However, Milano’s “Hollywood outfit” and “tacky” cleavage was slammed as theatrics.

The actress and mother-of-two was a guest of Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein who initially received a private letter written by Ford alleging that Kavanaugh held her down on a bed and forcefully tried to remove her clothing at a 1982 house party, restricting her breathing.

Wearing a black dress and a black leather jacket, Milano tweeted encouragement to Ford from the crowd. She also told ABC News, “I felt like I needed to be here to show my solidarity for Dr. Ford on this day that will be very difficult for her.” Milano reportedly teared up during the hearing

During the testimony, people opined that Milano’s outfit was inappropriate, tweeting “Nice cleavage” and “disrespectful.”


https://uk.yahoo.com/news/alyssa-milano-shamed-revealing-top-kavanaugh-hearings-193921427.html

[Valerie Villars]

When you click on the link, yahoo says you are now part of the "Oath Family" if you click o.k. Being part of the "family" (I just cannot believe the way they are distorting relationships and words) you allow them to know where you are and other intrusions into your privacy.


Yahoo is now part of the Oath family. We (Oath) and our partners need your consent to access your device, set cookies, and use your data, including your location, to understand your interests, provide relevant ads and measure their effectiveness. Oath will also provide relevant ads to you on our partners' products. Learn more

Select 'OK' to allow Oath and our partners to use your data, or 'Manage options' to review our partners and your choices. Tip: Sign in to save these choices and avoid repeating this across devices. You can always update your preferences in the Privacy Centre.

I chose not to be in the family.

[greybeard]

When you click on the link, yahoo says you are now part of the "Oath Family" if you click o.k. Being part of the "family" (I just cannot believe the way they are distorting relationships and words) you allow them to know where you are and other intrusions into your privacy.


Yahoo is now part of the Oath family. We (Oath) and our partners need your consent to access your device, set cookies, and use your data, including your location, to understand your interests, provide relevant ads and measure their effectiveness. Oath will also provide relevant ads to you on our partners' products. Learn more

Select 'OK' to allow Oath and our partners to use your data, or 'Manage options' to review our partners and your choices. Tip: Sign in to save these choices and avoid repeating this across devices. You can always update your preferences in the Privacy Centre.

I chose not to be in the family.

Ooops I forgot that you had to sign up---good choice not to be part of the so called family (giving your rights away)
Its all about control and division.
Your either with us or against us seems to be the underlying message.

Anyway the body of the message I printed. all that was missing was the photos.

Chris

[PurpleLama]

https://www.rt.com/usa/439804-alyssa-milano-dress-kavanaugh/

Milano dress controversy covered from a "safer" source, lol.

[Satori]

https://www.rt.com/usa/439804-alyssa-milano-dress-kavanaugh/

Milano dress controversy covered from a "safer" source, lol.

Post deleted by Satori for being in poor taste and adding nothing to a serious issue.

[happyuk]

Peter Hyatt (FBI statement analyst) picks apart Ford's statements in his typically thorough, forensic way:

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2018/09/dr-christine-fords-handwritten-letter.html

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2018/09/christine-ford-reliable-denials-and.html

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2018/09/judge-kavanagh-accuser-letter-for.html

He concludes:

"Deception Indicated

If the subject is describing an event between her and two teenagers, it is not a sexual assault but of something deeply embarrassing to her.

Her motive is political.

Her trigger is that they laughed at her.

She was not sexually assaulted and is manipulative. This is why she avoids giving a date, time and witnesses. Her attorney has now said it is not her responsibility to corroborate her account.

Her secondary motive is recognition."

[Bayareamom]

Thank you for posting those links, happyuk. As I was discussing the hearing this morning w/my husband, I wondered if Ford was an early childhood sexual abuse victim. Although I did find her to be credible, when reviewing the beginning of her testimony (today), I do wonder whether she is an early childhood sexual abuse, survivor. I also realized that the public knows essentially very little about this lady's background/bio. I do not like to speculate, but I really do wonder as to whether there is more trauma in this woman's background than has become public knowledge (not that it's anyone's business).

In contrasting this woman's alleged experience with Kavanaugh, in my own case (getting a bit personal here), I had already experienced consensual sexual relations in two relationships, prior to my own assault; my assault, however, was not something which caused me undue trauma, nor did it cause anxiety disorder issues, etc. In other words, I was not physically tortured or had any long lasting physical trauma as a result.

I'm just trying to figure out why there is STILL SO much emotional pain in this woman so many years after this event. That may sound a bit harsh, or naive, but I'm really trying to understand here. She is a professional; she understands, at least academically, the human brain and how trauma impacts the human psyche. I don't know -- it just seems as though something is 'off' w/her somewhat, but I can't figure out what that may be.

I'm not at all saying that she wasn't assaulted. Perhaps it was just sheer nervousness which caused her to appear so childlike in a way.

In the case of my own assault, it was NOT nearly as traumatic as Ford alleges, hers was (I'm not going to get into that for obvious reasons), and I did not struggle w/any sort of prolonged emotional trauma because of it. I got on w/things and learned from my experience (to listen to my instincts from hereon). On the other hand, I could relate to Ford's statement as to PTSD, anxiety disorder and academic issues, but in my case, when I experienced these same issues, it was because of an entirely different scenario (high strangeness events), and NOT because of sexual trauma.

Did anyone else here who viewed Ford's testimony feel that there was just something 'off' with her? I can't explain it, but am definitely picking up on something as I review her testimony.

Also, I've come to realize that I am not at all impressed with Judge Kavanaugh's demeanor (which I alluded to in prior postings), but on the other hand, I do not believe he has been treated fairly, w/the presumption of innocence, throughout this entire scenario. But as my husband and I were discussing earlier, this entire situation is nothing more than a political grandstand, on BOTH sides.

It's truly disgusting...

[Bayareamom]

I've not yet read thru the above links, but I am now reading the 'conclusion' of that analysis.

Now I'm wondering if this is what I was picking up.

I have real issues as to her inability to recall how she arrived at this event and her inability to recall how she arrived back at her parents' home. I believe Kavanaugh stated that the approx. address of this event (if this info. is correct as to the address) was no where near where Ford lived, at the time. It does give pause to then wonder how she then arrived back at her parents' home, after the event. Did she hitch a ride...did she walk...what happened? I realize there can be memory lapses caused by a traumatic event (believe me), but something about those two memory lapses bothers me.

[norman]

ACLU Breaks Own Policy, Comes Out Against Kavanaugh Nomination



The Hill (https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/409081-aclu-breaks-its-own-policy-comes-out-against-kavanaugh) - September 29, 2018



The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced Saturday that it has decided to break with its own policy and come out in opposition to Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court in light of the sexual assault allegations being leveled against him.


https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/409081-aclu-breaks-its-own-policy-comes-out-against-kavanaugh

[Flash]

Peter Hyatt (FBI statement analyst) picks apart Ford's statements in his typically thorough, forensic way:

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2018/09/dr-christine-fords-handwritten-letter.html

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2018/09/christine-ford-reliable-denials-and.html

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2018/09/judge-kavanagh-accuser-letter-for.html

He concludes:

"Deception Indicated

If the subject is describing an event between her and two teenagers, it is not a sexual assault but of something deeply embarrassing to her.

Her motive is political.

Her trigger is that they laughed at her.

She was not sexually assaulted and is manipulative. This is why she avoids giving a date, time and witnesses. Her attorney has now said it is not her responsibility to corroborate her account.

Her secondary motive is recognition."

truly good analysis , quite in line with something I learned years ago about statements versus non verbal language.

So, in conclusion, Ford lied in great part, and Kavanaugh could not defend himself well because of lack of timeline of the assault.

We call that a set up.

[Valerie Villars]

Thank you for posting those links, happyuk. As I was discussing the hearing this morning w/my husband, I wondered if Ford was an early childhood sexual abuse victim. Although I did find her to be credible, when reviewing the beginning of her testimony (today), I do wonder whether she is an early childhood sexual abuse, survivor. I also realized that the public knows essentially very little about this lady's background/bio. I do not like to speculate, but I really do wonder as to whether there is more trauma in this woman's background than has become public knowledge (not that it's anyone's business).

In contrasting this woman's alleged experience with Kavanaugh, in my own case (getting a bit personal here), I had already experienced consensual sexual relations in two relationships, prior to my own assault; my assault, however, was not something which caused me undue trauma, nor did it cause anxiety disorder issues, etc. In other words, I was not physically tortured or had any long lasting physical trauma as a result.

I'm just trying to figure out why there is STILL SO much emotional pain in this woman so many years after this event. That may sound a bit harsh, or naive, but I'm really trying to understand here. She is a professional; she understands, at least academically, the human brain and how trauma impacts the human psyche. I don't know -- it just seems as though something is 'off' w/her somewhat, but I can't figure out what that may be.

I'm not at all saying that she wasn't assaulted. Perhaps it was just sheer nervousness which caused her to appear so childlike in a way.

In the case of my own assault, it was NOT nearly as traumatic as Ford alleges, hers was (I'm not going to get into that for obvious reasons), and I did not struggle w/any sort of prolonged emotional trauma because of it. I got on w/things and learned from my experience (to listen to my instincts from hereon). On the other hand, I could relate to Ford's statement as to PTSD, anxiety disorder and academic issues, but in my case, when I experienced these same issues, it was because of an entirely different scenario (high strangeness events), and NOT because of sexual trauma.

Did anyone else here who viewed Ford's testimony feel that there was just something 'off' with her? I can't explain it, but am definitely picking up on something as I review her testimony.

Also, I've come to realize that I am not at all impressed with Judge Kavanaugh's demeanor (which I alluded to in prior postings), but on the other hand, I do not believe he has been treated fairly, w/the presumption of innocence, throughout this entire scenario. But as my husband and I were discussing earlier, this entire situation is nothing more than a political grandstand, on BOTH sides.

It's truly disgusting...

Bayareamom, yes, I do and did think there was something wrong with her being so tearful over a teenage incident. I had a real rape as a teenager and one five years ago. Actually, two as a teenager and honestly, the only time I cried was under a tree in a pasture with my horse looking on, which was also tied in with the high strangeness I experienced.

What really hurt me was the deliberateness of what was done to me. There was none of the drunken teenage b.s. in her account. It was calculated and that's what bothered me the most.

I'm not explaining myself well, but I completely understand what you are saying and agree.

[Bayareamom]

*Just want to make clear that although I 'liked' the links that were provided by happyuk (they're very interesting), that doesn't translate into agreement as to the conclusions by the author. Am still reading thru the analysis; have not yet arrived at an opinion.

[norman]

His election to office victory or failure is becoming secondary, now.


The impact on the upcoming mid term house and sennet elections is where the ball is.


These electors are the people the country will vote on soon. If there is any distaste in the minds of the swing voters it will show up in the results.


The dirty trick move from the opposition is a stroke of evil genius. The Reps lose if they don't select him, and they lose if they do.

[Bayareamom]

@Valerie: I understand what you're saying. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

[Helene West]

Am I recalling correctly that 64 women attested to Kavanaugh's good character? If that is the case, why don't those women count? Only the alleged victim counts?

Bluestflame posted a vid on another thread of former secret service agent Dan bongino. He was very passionate that the time has arrived to get it through our skulls that if we dont actually 'do' something, the vicious and the criminal will win.

Because the dems are proving that all that is needed is aggression.

They don't need facts, truth, integrity, evidence, intelligence, common sense, they don't need anything but sheer aggression. Harass, frame, demean, scream, threaten, obstruct, lie, stalk, bribe, SCREAM LOUDER, you name it and they are gaining points, winning over rule of law, traditional principles, etc.

It's breathtaking to watch the law of the jungle unfold before us. They know damn well there's enough weak people who will just vote for whoever seems the winner, principles be damned.

Good people are trying so hard to be fair, I see it here and with people I know, but Bongino says they only care about winning and that's what we better start caring about.

Some are saying both sides have been disgusting but I disagree. One side has been far more disgusting than the other.

The human species has a bad track record of letting the aggressive among them take charge while the rest murmur under their breaths.
Sadly I'm one of those murmuring and don't want to 'do' anything but watch and hope for truth to triumph. Bongino would have contempt for me....

[Fellow Aspirant]

Apparently Christine was "100% convinced" - does that imply doubt....curious. ;)

Convinced of what, exactly?

The reference is to the answer Ford gave to the question "Are you convinced that the person who assaulted you was Brett Kavanaugh". It's a pretty well known part of her testimony.

B.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Am I recalling correctly that 64 women attested to Kavanaugh's good character? If that is the case, why don't those women count? Only the alleged victim counts?

Bluestflame posted a vid on another thread of former secret service agent Dan bongino. He was very passionate that the time has arrived to get it through our skulls that if we dont actually 'do' something, the vicious and the criminal will win.

Because the dems are proving that all that is needed is aggression.

They don't need facts, truth, integrity, evidence, intelligence, common sense, they don't need anything but sheer aggression. Harass, frame, demean, scream, threaten, obstruct, lie, stalk, bribe, SCREAM LOUDER, you name it and they are gaining points, winning over rule of law, traditional principles, etc.

It's breathtaking to watch the law of the jungle unfold before us. They know damn well there's enough weak people who will just vote for whoever seems the winner, principles be damned.

Good people are trying so hard to be fair, I see it here and with people I know, but Bongino says they only care about winning and that's what we better start caring about.

Some are saying both sides have been disgusting but I disagree. One side has been far more disgusting than the other.

The human species has a bad track record of letting the aggressive among them take charge while the rest murmur under their breaths.
Sadly I'm one of those murmuring and don't want to 'do' anything but watch and hope for truth to triumph. Bongino would have contempt for me....

Wait Helene. You've got it all backwards. If you approach the situation logically, it's easy to see that ... that ...

oh never mind.

Brian

[onawah]

I think it goes without saying that any woman who had been sexually assaulted and had to testify on television before the entire world would be very prone to acting strangely.
But all these emotional arguments will get us nowhere. There seem to be missing facts that need to be unearthed.
And if at least some of the information in the article that Pyrangello posted here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?104440-Kavanaugh-Hearings-a-National-Disgrace&p=1251175&viewfull=1#post1251175
(link to the article: https://beforeitsnews.com/v3/politics/2018/3026017.html )
...is accurate, it needs to be taken into consideration imho.

Here are parts of the article by "Paul Revere" which I think may be worthy of consideration (and though it's from beforeitsnews, which is not generally reliable, this article does not read quite like their usual kind of fake news, though there is plenty of political blathering. Comments in italics are my own.):

"Dr Christine Blasey-Ford (Maiden Name = Blasey)

The Accuser = Dr Christine Basley-Ford KEY = Her FAMILY MAIDEN NAME IS BLASEY. Here are the KEY FACTS she provided about her Allegation:

1 – Unable to name the exact year it happened,

2 – Not remembering where the location incident took place,

3 – How they gathered together that night.

4 – How she got home

5 – Did not tell anyone of incident at the time

So this is her Real Factual based victimization. I do not know any other actual “Victim” that can not remember specific traumatic emotional distress of any attempted rape, including one where she also feared for her life. Each of us remembers traumatic moments of each of our lives, even 50+ years ago. What's going on inside her head/mind?

Current Job – Dr Christine Blasey-Ford is a Professor at Stanford University – who mentors a College job title Program named “CIA Undergraduate Internship Program”
https://haas.stanford.edu/students/cardinal-careers/fellowships/cia-undergraduate-internship-program
https://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/385908/images/zCIA%20Undergraduate%20Internship%20Program%20Haas%20Center%20for%20Public%20Service%20-%202018-09-18_14_05_45.png

You read that right! She Seeks/Mentors and Oversee’s a CIA College Training Program – who is looking for Future and Pre-Screens potential young CIA Agents. Dr Blasey-Ford's main College position is a Psychiatric Professor – Yet she needed a “Therapist” to Remember a lost memory for 30 years? “Psychiatry” is one who learns to control one’s Minds, Thoughts and Mental Illnesses! Stanford just removed all photos/job titles since she went public to hide her “Deep State” involvement. A Previous Professor of this Psychiatric position is linked to a MKULTRA mind control assassination in 1985, allegedly ordered by her very own CIA father, using this CIA Internship program.

(Re the following, the article's author claims that the professor Christine Ford mentioned following is the same person in question, whereas other sources claim they are two different people.)
A few comments from her students – many feel she has a “Dark Personality”, very Unstable, Scare and Instills Fear (in) them. From:http://checkyourfact.com/2018/09/18/fact-check-kavanaugh-christine-ford-professor/
https://beforeitsnews.com/contributor/upload/385908/images/Christine%20Ford%20at%20California%20State%20University%20Fullerton%20-%20RateMyProfessors_com%20-%202018-09-19_00_37_08.png

Dr Blasey-Ford has a Husband, Russell Ford, met at Stanford Univ, and were married in 2002. They have 3 young children. Russell Ford is the “Senior Director” at Zosano Pharma, and Exclusively Specializes in “Mind Altering” Drugs. Russell deleted his Facebook account, and removed his name from his Companies Website. Imagine that, he deals with Mind Altering drugs, and Christine is a CIA Internship recruiter for Stanford for CIA MKULTRA mind readjustments?

Keep in mind her 4 (or 2) boys statement was in 2012 – but in 2018, it changed to 2 guys!? If she remembers Brett, surely she remembers the 2nd boy. What was she and her husband in “Therapy” for and what caused this – as an average 98% of families do not ever need such treatment. So we see their was documented “Mental Stress” upon her. Now – what affects did her Stanford CIA MKULTRA college position have on her Mental Illness? Was she CIA MKULTRA Mind Controlled then or now? But wait, their are still 1 or 2 more “Mind Altering” MKULTRA connections to this specific CIA Stanford position that will be exposed.

She claimed to have passed a FBI Polygraph, but she already WORKS FOR IN A CIA FUNDED PROGRAM, HER FATHER (Ralph G. Blasey Jr) is a Life-Long CIA Operataive since the 1960s, and currently PROVIDES PUBLIC SECURITY TO ALL “DEEP STATE” OFFICIALS under Criminal Investigation today – AND HER BROTHER WORKS FOR A FUSION GPS LINKED FIRM!? How can one trust a FBI Polygraph when their is so much conflict with all these same Organizations under criminal investigation? This was clearly a CIA/FBI “Deep State” setup.

But this is just the start of her CIA and Deep State family connections.

Her Father = Ralph G Blasey Jr.

Her Brother – Ralph Blasey 3rd

Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh was a Maryland district judge in 1996. In an amazing coincidence, Martha Kavanaugh was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey-Ford’s parents were the defendants. Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh, not because of what he did in high school. Instead, Christine Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh out of spite and revenge for a case ruled on by Brett Kavanaugh mother. During the 1996 foreclosure case, Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey-Ford in the foreclosure case. Brett’s mother was Montgomery County Circuit Court judge from 1993 until she retired in 2001.

FULL STORY: https://archive.fo/69gvf
Brother – Ralph Blasey 3rd

GPS Connection – Worked for a law firm “Baker Hostetler” for 15 years as a Litigation Partner – that retained Fusion GPS, the primary “fixer” for the Clintons and the DNC.

From: https://www.pacificpundit.com/2018/09/17/ralph-blasey-iii-christines-brother-worked-for-baker-hostetler-llp-firm-made-payments-to-fusion-gps/
'RALPH BLASEY III (CHRISTINE’S BROTHER) WORKED FOR BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP (FIRM MADE PAYMENTS TO FUSION GPS) Ralph Blasey III, Christine Ford’s brother was formerly employed at the D.C. offices of Baker & Hostetler LLP. That’s the same firm that made payments over over half a million dollars to Fusion GPS. However, Ralph Blasey III was NOT with Baker & Hostetler LLP at the time of the Trump-Russia dossier formulation. Blasey left Baker & Hostetler LLP in 2004. Still, its’ just another rather odd twist to the case of the accuser of Brett Kavanaugh. First it was revealed Ford is a far left, Northern California professor. Then last night it was revealed that Brett Kavanugh’s mother, a Maryland district judge in the 1990’s foreclosure case against Christine Ford’s parents.

And now this. Christine Ford’s brother once worked for Baker & Hostetler LLP that paid Fusion GPS $523,651 between March 7, 2016 and Oct. 31, 2016. Even though the payments were made after Blasey III left Baker & Hostetler LLP, one has to wonder (and investigate) his connections with the law firm. He may have had no knowledge at all of the payment. Ralph Blasey might have had ZERO influence with the payment.

Ralph Blasey III (Christine’s brother) worked for Baker & Hostetler LLP (firm made payments to Fusion GPS)

But since the Christine Ford and the Democrats are trying to muck up the nomination and confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, Ralph Blasey’s connections to Baker & Hostetler LLP still need to be investigated.'


In a 11 January 2018, Yahoo Finance explained the role Baker Hostetler played in the Deep State’s attempts to bring down the duly elected President of the United States:

How did Baker Hostetler become a supporting character in the geopolitical drama over Russian meddling in the U.S. election, with possible implications for the fate of the Trump administration? The simple version? It was partly a matter of luck. The firm was tapped beginning in at least 2013 to defend a Cypriot company, Prevezon Holdings Ltd., against U.S. money laundering accusations. Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr. in June 2016—reportedly with the intent to provide information damaging to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign—was also working for Prevezon.

And Fusion GPS, the company that produced the infamous Steele dossier on President Donald Trump and Russia, was also retained by Baker Hostetler amid the Prevezon litigation.

Read the Entire Yahoo Story Here: https://archive.fo/bGxQf

2nd Story Here: https://www.pacificpundit.com/2018/09/17/ralph-blasey-iii-christines-brother-worked-for-baker-hostetler-llp-firm-made-payments-to-fusion-gps/

Father – Ralph G Blasey Jr

Ralph G Blasey Jr has been a life-long CIA Operative and Involved in CIA Black Ops Budgets and “Deep State” Security. His entire CIA & Deep State past spans 40+ years, would fill chapters, but he has been personally involved with the very top DC elites – including John Brennan, Robert Mueller, James Comey, Susan Rice, etc, as he does at this moment.
PRESENT POSITION – CIA black money operative Ralph G. Blasey Jr. remains secure, too—and who, today, is the VP of Business Development of Red Coats, Inc.—whose Admiral Security Services provides armed security for “Deep State” elites in Washington D.C.—that is overseen by Red Coats, Inc. co-founder and Vice Chairman William F. Peel III—and whose Datawatch Systems (LINK), Peel III also controls, has US government contracts extending till 23 June 2023 under the category of 246.42.1 to provide US defense and intelligence agencies with facility management systems—all of which intelligence analysts believe the American people have the right to know about in their evaluating the claims against Judge Kavanaugh being leveled against him by Dr. Christine Beasley.

No major issue with Mr Ralph Blasey Jr just “HAPPENS” to be VP over all Personal private Security for Comey, Brennan, McCabe, Rice, Lynch, Podesta, etc? Yeap – she just has a normal everyday daddy and family we all have – and the public wasn’t suppose to know about…
PAST POSITION(s) – Her father Ralph G. Blasey Jr.—a proven CIA operative who, from June-1962 to January-1974, was the Vice President of National Savings and Trust of Washington, D.C.—a CIA black budget bank best known for being 100 paces from the White House, and whom, in 1998, was taken over by SunTrust Bank—whose majority share owner is the CIA-linked investment fund BlackRock. (NOTE – Blackrock Secret contracted worth $100s Billions.)

The importance of noting this CIA banking connections of Ralph G. Blasey Jr., is due to the outbreak of what is now known as the “CIA Bank War”—and whose start of, in 1982, a CIA seized from publication news report (Declassified in Part-Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/09/05: CIA-RDP90-00965R00150010-7) describes as: “This is Wall Street, the center of the international banking system, a system on the edge of a crisis so severe that the CIA is preparing drastic measures. Something must be done to avert the breakdown of the Free World’s monetary system.”

The main CIA operative involved in this war, and whom Ralph G. Blasey Jr. reported to, was Nicholas Deak (LINK)—a longtime OSS and CIA operative, both during and after World War II, who ran the CIA’s main BLACK BUDGET OPERATIONS under the direct command of the feared CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Jesus Angleton.

To how the CIA prevented the total breakdown of the Western banking system in 1982, was by their illegally laundering hundreds-of-millions of dollars of Colombian drug cartel cash into it to keep it afloat in an operation overseen by the CIA’s “James Bond of Money” Nickolas Deak—but when the President Ronald Reagan administration found out what the CIA had done, and started investigating it, saw Deak, on 19 November 1985, being assassinated in his New York City office by a homeless woman named Lois Lang. (It was alleged that one Ralph G Blasey Jr was assigned this Deep State Wetworks, since he knew and worked with Mr Deak, and was his Senior).
Nicolas Deak assassin Lois Lang had previously been under the direct psychiatric care and medical supervision of the CIA’s own Stanford University Psychiatric Professor Dr. Frederick T. Melges just prior to her traveling from Seattle to New York City to carry out this assassination—and who was the exact type of assassin Dr. Melges had been working to create in his CIA-funded mind control MKULTRA programme—and whose Canadian victims of are still being silenced after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, this past December, imposed a gag order on them to keep them silent—but that does apply to Judge Kavanaugh accuser Dr. Christine Blasey, who remains able to teach her CIA Undergraduate Internship Program at Stanford University the MKULTRA mind control techniques discovered by Dr. Melges. (Ralph G Basley Jr was believed to have communicated with Dr Melges prior to Mr Deak’s death, and asked to use his MKULTRA program on Ms Lang, to target Mr Deaks.)
Understand Dr Blasey-Ford suspected CIA operative—and her Specific placement was due to her extensive and advanced educational training at Stanford, in the CIA-funded mind control-brainwashing techniques developed by Stanford University Psychiatric Professor Dr. Frederick T. Melges—whose primary mission for the CIA was to develop new technologies for interrogation and torture, secondary applications going towards studying the possibilities of exploiting highly “suggestible” subjects and getting them to do things — murders, couriers — they wouldn’t otherwise do, and of which they would have no memory in case they were caught.

Interesting “Connection” hey? So Dr Blasey-Ford was placed in Dr Melges position, so she could control and recruit “targets” the CIA/FBI needed – just like what her father, Ralph G Blasey Jr did to assassinate Nick Deak? See how this “Connects the Dots” right back to being a CIA Deep State Treason attempt of our nation?
As CIA & FBI Directors come and go after 4+ decades, Mr Blasey stayed at the very top of CIA/FBI officials, and was transitioned into each new CIA/FBI Administration. If their is any Unelected, Stable, Reliable “Deep State” criminal agenda going on today, Mr Blasey Jr is a Major link Lifelong connection between each New Administration to carry out and plan any longterm “Criminal Coup” of our nation. Understand how someone 40+ years in the CIA from controlling Black Ops Secret Bank Budgets, to now Providing Personal Public Security to each of the “Deep State” criminals (Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Mueller, Rice, Lynch, etc) who have been fired, removed, and now facing criminal charges. The one link to them all are one Ralph G Blasey Jr – and the REAL TOP TIER DEEP STATE CONTROLLER. If Jeff Sessions or anyone in the White House want to find out any “Criminal Behavior” or want to know where each of his Security Team travels, need to ask him under oath what his involvement is, and who/when they all met with each other, and have a record by his agents."

and so on...

[onawah]

I think I should add that even if everything in the article discussed in my post above turns out to be valid info, I personally don't feel that it lets Kavanaugh off the hook, by any means.
My perspective continues to be that this trauma drama is a good example of two factions of the elite warring for control, and neither is innocent.
The fact that the theme of the conflict has to do with what the US is already so focused on, namely power and relations between the sexes, is also very karmic, however, even if it has been deliberately managed.
That makes it no less tragic or painful or destructive, at least until we step back and see it all from a more cosmic view, and the way in which it may force us to fully face the big issues playing out that are so difficult to confront, both as individuals and as members of society.
It's not about taking sides, it's so much bigger than that.

[onawah]

Deleted by OP

[apokalypse]

this whole thing nothing more than chess game..some of the question could need to be ask such as the supreme court or Brett Kav that Dems trying to stop? distraction from who? how this related to metoo movement? psyop? i heard Brett Kav is right wing pro-business, what big corporation thinks? they trying to get him in?

we are much more than that not following mainstream BS..what this meant to be below the surface?

[Ratszinger]

People are saying McConnel suggested that Trump not nominate Kavanaugh just because of his history and background but Trump listened to him and found out more and did it anyway. One has to wonder since Trump has been going after sexual deviants since the first day he took office if maybe he didn't just get rid of one the only way he knew how. By parading him before the public and letting them see what he was. I understand Kavanaugh's life is ruined and the school doesn't even want him to come back. The students don't want him back apparently. So his life is ruined. If they give a soft offer to back out which I expect they have effectively ruined his career. Where will he go? Some are thinking Trump simply set up a sexual deviant to remove him. Thoughts?

[apokalypse]

i was wondering what Brett Kav has that GOP really into him? Bush nominated him and also Kav listed in Romney court pick for 2012..now Trump.

[norman]

I think I should add that even if everything in the article discussed in my post above turns out to be valid info, I personally don't feel that it lets Kavanaugh off the hook, by any means.
My perspective continues to be that this trauma drama is a good example of two factions of the elite warring for control, and neither is innocent.
The fact that the theme of the conflict has to do with what the US is already so focused on, namely power and relations between the sexes, is also very karmic, however, even if it has been deliberately managed.
That makes it no less tragic or painful or destructive, at least until we step back and see it all from a more cosmic view, and the way in which it may force us to fully face the big issues playing out that are so difficult to confront, both as individuals and as members of society.
It's not about taking sides, it's so much bigger than that.


I agree that it's so much bigger than that, but I don't agree that it's not about taking a side.


The liberation of the human race, at this time, very much requires a commitment to take a side. It won't happen without it. The confusion around how we identify the side we are on is where the current battle is.

[apokalypse]

one thing i don't get..now keep hearing attack on the left and socialist, is this psyop? have the country more divided? considered my self socialist alike want our kids live in star trek kind of society.

[Helene West]

People are saying McConnel suggested that Trump not nominate Kavanaugh just because of his history and background but Trump listened to him and found out more and did it anyway. One has to wonder since Trump has been going after sexual deviants since the first day he took office if maybe he didn't just get rid of one the only way he knew how. By parading him before the public and letting them see what he was. I understand Kavanaugh's life is ruined and the school doesn't even want him to come back. The students don't want him back apparently. So his life is ruined. If they give a soft offer to back out which I expect they have effectively ruined his career. Where will he go? Some are thinking Trump simply set up a sexual deviant to remove him. Thoughts?


I'm starting to feel what we watched in Ford was not a victim but a CIA operative in action. Good actors can make good agents and vice verse. She has family background with Intel, she has been well primed before she even met the attorneys.

The cabal of dems, rogue intel and media have been at this for awhile now. What the comey and stroke investigations et al reveal was the surreptitious workings behind the scenes but they have now taken their show center stage. She is a very good agent/actress.

Will most americans be hip to this? no way. In fact many will embrace the law of the jungle that the dems are unleashing while 'good' people will watch longingly for a hero to restore rule of law...

The globalist families have been trying to take their 'colony' back since 1776.
After this week, I've shaken the micro event off me, woke myself up and I'm back to the macro view - The infiltration since JFK has been so great. Is it too late for us?

[onawah]

If taking a side means taking the side of the human race as opposed to the elite and their controllers, then yes, it's about taking a side.
Taking a side between liberal and conservative at this point is just going to prolong the agony, though the majority don't yet realize that.
Yet it may be a necessary part of the process of getting to that realization.


I think I should add that even if everything in the article discussed in my post above turns out to be valid info, I personally don't feel that it lets Kavanaugh off the hook, by any means.
My perspective continues to be that this trauma drama is a good example of two factions of the elite warring for control, and neither is innocent.
The fact that the theme of the conflict has to do with what the US is already so focused on, namely power and relations between the sexes, is also very karmic, however, even if it has been deliberately managed.
That makes it no less tragic or painful or destructive, at least until we step back and see it all from a more cosmic view, and the way in which it may force us to fully face the big issues playing out that are so difficult to confront, both as individuals and as members of society.
It's not about taking sides, it's so much bigger than that.


I agree that it's so much bigger than that, but I don't agree that it's not about taking a side.


The liberation of the human race, at this time, very much requires a commitment to take a side. It won't happen without it. The confusion around how we identify the side we are on is where the current battle is.

[greybeard]

If taking a side means taking the side of the human race as opposed to the elite and their off controllers, then yes, it's about taking a side.
Taking a side between liberal and conservative at this point is just going to prolong the agony, though the majority don't yet realize that.
Yet it may be a necessary part of the process of getting to that realization.


I think I should add that even if everything in the article discussed in my post above turns out to be valid info, I personally don't feel that it lets Kavanaugh off the hook, by any means.
My perspective continues to be that this trauma drama is a good example of two factions of the elite warring for control, and neither is innocent.
The fact that the theme of the conflict has to do with what the US is already so focused on, namely power and relations between the sexes, is also very karmic, however, even if it has been deliberately managed.
That makes it no less tragic or painful or destructive, at least until we step back and see it all from a more cosmic view, and the way in which it may force us to fully face the big issues playing out that are so difficult to confront, both as individuals and as members of society.
It's not about taking sides, it's so much bigger than that.


I agree that it's so much bigger than that, but I don't agree that it's not about taking a side.


The liberation of the human race, at this time, very much requires a commitment to take a side. It won't happen without it. The confusion around how we identify the side we are on is where the current battle is.

Yes people have been manipulated into taking sides since for ever,
Thats how all wars large and little came about.
Im with onawah on this.
Of course we live in a world of duality--opposites prevail--two sides of the same coin --you cant have one without the other.
For my money the only way forward for the human race is an evolution of consciousness and I hope this is coming about.


This hearing is just a symptom of the current level of evolution.

Chris

[apokalypse]

Because the press and democrats attack this guy, it makes you forget hes a life long deep state lawyer.
Has ruled the cia can kidnap americans and the victims cannot sue.
Has been in the swamp as long as long as most here have been alive.
But now hes a hero and we are outraged he is being treated so poorly.

had a thought few days ago especially saw that moment ago about Brett Kav past being a Laywer,

i'm conflicted, i'm not supporting sexual assault case but what happen if Kav get in? could america get more worst? it's like you know he's a bad guy and the actions to stop him is unethical or unmoral, could you let it happen? both party are the same coins.

i haven't come to conclusion regarding but from i heard so far about Kav are negative...

[norman]

If taking a side means taking the side of the human race as opposed to the elite and their controllers, then yes, it's about taking a side.
Taking a side between liberal and conservative at this point is just going to prolong the agony, though the majority don't yet realize that.
Yet it may be a necessary part of the process of getting to that realization.


I think I should add that even if everything in the article discussed in my post above turns out to be valid info, I personally don't feel that it lets Kavanaugh off the hook, by any means.
My perspective continues to be that this trauma drama is a good example of two factions of the elite warring for control, and neither is innocent.
The fact that the theme of the conflict has to do with what the US is already so focused on, namely power and relations between the sexes, is also very karmic, however, even if it has been deliberately managed.
That makes it no less tragic or painful or destructive, at least until we step back and see it all from a more cosmic view, and the way in which it may force us to fully face the big issues playing out that are so difficult to confront, both as individuals and as members of society.
It's not about taking sides, it's so much bigger than that.


I agree that it's so much bigger than that, but I don't agree that it's not about taking a side.


The liberation of the human race, at this time, very much requires a commitment to take a side. It won't happen without it. The confusion around how we identify the side we are on is where the current battle is.
The way I see the dilemma is that we are all quite pressurised to make an 'idealistic' statement ( mainly to signal who we are, to others we hope are allies ) and almost shout it from our rooftop.

That's where they get us every time.

The battle, is a super pragmatic challenge that will upset every vested ideology on the planet before it's complete, and we win.

[norski]

I also experienced sexual abuse as a child. My grandfather, minister of our lutheran church, and great-grandfather, abused me, my sister, cousins, neighbor children, and so on. I know what this looks like and how perpetrators explain away and try to defend themselves.

Based on my own experience, I believe Dr. Ford was sexually abused. However, Ford seems much more like a victim of systemic abuse, along the lines of MKUltra, than the victim of a single episode. Her childlike and scattered demeanor suggests a person who has struggled to keep things together her entire life. Her unreliable memory and erratic testimony could easily be a natural outgrowth of trauma. My impression of her is that she is very fragile, almost hollow. She seems like someone who is looking for another person to define her, to tell her what to do. She’s a good wife, friend and mother, fulfilling the desired projections of others. Her immediate family has been largely unavailable for comment, which reinforces my suspicion that there is much more here than meets the eye.

Pervasive abuse severely damages a person’s mental coherence, making him or her susceptible to suggestion and manipulation. I think Ford was selected and groomed for her role. Unwittingly. That thought absolutely terrifies me. If this is the case, the Kavanaugh hearing is a witch trial, of the worst kind.

I found Kavanaugh highly believable. My sister and I confronted the pedophiles who assaulted us and others. Not one responded as Kavanaugh did. Having been a victim of this kind of abuse, one becomes fairly adept at reading unspoken body language. It’s a defense mechanism. Kavanaugh didn’t strike me as someone who was trying to avoid, equivocate or escape but as someone who was absolutely horrified by the accusations and filled with moral outrage. He did not waiver in his opening statement and was justifiably beside himself.

Can any one of us imagine what it would feel like to he falsely accused, tried and convicted on the basis of one person’s unsubstantiated allegations? If we allow this man to be destroyed because of these unsubstantiated allegations, we don’t deserve the constitutional due process we have been afforded. And, this slippery slope will certainly continue to erode what’s left of our civil liberties. These are very dangerous times indeed.

[Valerie Villars]

Norski, all of your post was excellent. This is what I tried to explain earlier but not nearly as eloquently as you did. It is also what I observed and felt in my gut:


Kavanaugh didn’t strike me as someone who was trying to avoid, equivocate or escape but as someone who was absolutely horrified by the accusations and filled with moral outrage. He did not waiver in his opening statement and was justifiably beside himself.

[Helene West]

@Norski - thank you for such an intelligent and objective response. And at the end of the day after what you went through you can still see and be concerned with a larger picture.

I woke up today weirdly distanced from the entire trauma-rama-drama and it feels good.
I just don't see her as a victim. I feel she's had enough amoral role models and models of self-aggrandizement to have left that incident behind long, long ago. It's a sham to me.

Those of us older grew up learning about battles, their names and dates and the dramas surrounding them. The Art of War has changed in style but it's wargames nevertheless. I'd bet my next paycheck she is an intel agent/asset.

I believe the country is, has been under attack for a long time and it's coming to a head. I have no trouble seeing those who planned Project Ford as totally willing and capable of shredding the constitution. It's very real to me.

[Valerie Villars]

60 minutes is getting ready to start. They have a segment on the Kavanaugh hearing. I'm going to have a listen.

Me too, Helene.

[Bubu]

I also experienced sexual abuse as a child. My grandfather, minister of our lutheran church, and great-grandfather, abused me, my sister, cousins, neighbor children, and so on. I know what this looks like and how perpetrators explain away and try to defend themselves.

Based on my own experience, I believe Dr. Ford was sexually abused. However, Ford seems much more like a victim of systemic abuse, along the lines of MKUltra, than the victim of a single episode. Her childlike and scattered demeanor suggests a person who has struggled to keep things together her entire life. Her unreliable memory and erratic testimony could easily be a natural outgrowth of trauma. My impression of her is that she is very fragile, almost hollow. She seems like someone who is looking for another person to define her, to tell her what to do. She’s a good wife, friend and mother, fulfilling the desired projections of others. Her immediate family has been largely unavailable for comment, which reinforces my suspicion that there is much more here than meets the eye.

Pervasive abuse severely damages a person’s mental coherence, making him or her susceptible to suggestion and manipulation. I think Ford was selected and groomed for her role. Unwittingly. That thought absolutely terrifies me. If this is the case, the Kavanaugh hearing is a witch trial, of the worst kind.

I found Kavanaugh highly believable. My sister and I confronted the pedophiles who assaulted us and others. Not one responded as Kavanaugh did. Having been a victim of this kind of abuse, one becomes fairly adept at reading unspoken body language. It’s a defense mechanism. Kavanaugh didn’t strike me as someone who was trying to avoid, equivocate or escape but as someone who was absolutely horrified by the accusations and filled with moral outrage. He did not waiver in his opening statement and was justifiably beside himself.

Can any one of us imagine what it would feel like to he falsely accused, tried and convicted on the basis of one person’s unsubstantiated allegations? If we allow this man to be destroyed because of these unsubstantiated allegations, we don’t deserve the constitutional due process we have been afforded. And, this slippery slope will certainly continue to erode what’s left of our civil liberties. These are very dangerous times indeed.

very well said and once again prove that firsthand experience should be the point of choice when connecting the dots not Tv shows and the likes.

My honest question since you and of course me strongly believe, that we cant allow this man to be destroyed because of these unsubstantiated allegations? What do you suggest the action we should take. You see its not a question of inaction anymore, I believe there is enough number of people that is willing to jump into action anytime, but like many others almost all of the others are uncertain of the course of action of choice?

[Bubu]

The human species has a bad track record of letting the aggressive among them take charge while the rest murmur under their breaths.
Sadly I'm one of those murmuring and don't want to 'do' anything but watch and hope for truth to triumph. Bongino would have contempt for me....

I can not agree more Helene, That is why I choose to speak up my mind on many occasions at the risk of being labeled anti social. Well this sorta thoughts bothers me the least nowadays I have become immune I mean more immune but not totally:). In my brain there is a group in avalon which I labeled real truthers. Thats where I put you. This group I admire love and all the goodies I can think of:) Often times I use this group as a barometer of truth. Well I dont have that coherent brain and I am poor at english to discern. So I normally go with this group whenever I am uncertain:) I can pat by back with this smart S***:) it makes life a lot easier for me to discern the truth the real truth because the real truthers do it for me:) whit an added bonus of knowing some of the trolls around. well when someone normally or often times disagree with people on my thruthest list that person is a troll to me. on my truthest list are the likes of Dennis,Daozen,Ernie; Paula;Jayke; wave;Satori: yoyoyo: Foxie; valerie; DNA;Norski; Greybeard; gohsthrider.... well toooooo many to remember and mention I love you all guys.

So again.... the big question come. What course of action do we do since We can not allow all this madness to continue? Do we tell people and try to educate them about their wrong beliefs and the correct ours? Do you see a glimpse of success there? Do we go to the streets and be physical? The ones that we are trying to fight are the support system of the elite...... its not the elite... once this lines of support system is destroyed the 1% percent is at your mercy. What and who are the support system. Can you think of the brainwash and program sheeples our own kind which has become a cancer due to the toxic influence that landed on earth. What would it take to reform them, so that the support system collapse??? we cant fight them.. if we do the best that we can hope for would be the efficacy of chemotherapy.

I think everyone can agree that the law of attraction or the low of contagion is at play all the times maybe its best to be what you want them to be, I mean be something that they can only dream of that way we become the more potent contagion........ I mean its there we only need to put it into action.

By the way I can spot also the lies because thats what the trolls use to promote.... and of course their association the trolls ....Damn if we are trying to expose the 1% better start with their stooges on avalon. They have successfully steered this site to the same garbage we want nothing to do with its a disgrace indeed. There is your answer as to why this forum is no longer as good as before. We allowed it.

[RunningDeer]

on my truthest list are the likes of Dennis, Daozen, Ernie; Paula; Jayke; wave; Satori: yoyoyo: Foxie; valerie; DNA; Norski; Greybeard; ghostrider.... well toooooo many to remember and mention I love you all guys.

Thank you, Julian and congratulations on your first grandchild.http://avalonlibrary.net/paula/smilies/star-swing.gif

♡

[ramus]

Just finished watching 60 minutes ..... worth a watch https://streamplay.to/snx0m7ahx37x close all the pop-ups snd pop-unders

Push .. " Proceed to Video " ....at bottom of screen not the arrow, it's used for advertisements .

[norman]

Just finished watching 60 minutes ..... worth a watch https://streamplay.to/snx0m7ahx37x close all the pop-ups snd pop-unders

Push .. " Proceed to Video " ....at bottom of screen not the arrow, it's used for advertisements .


streamplay ( just the link from here ) causes Malwarebytes to throw up a Trojan warning, for me. I assume that means the 'immunisation' ( a huge list of web addresses that are known to have something dodgy going on ) malwarebytes applied to my firefox browser, has got it listed.

[TargeT]

I thought the hearing was a great show... high drama really... but also clearly; lots of made up BS involved.

uGxr1VQ2dPI

[ramus]

@ Norman BEEN USING IT FOR YEARS .. ON A MACBOOK AIR.... FIREFOX... WITH NO PROBLEMS, THE ADVERTISEMENTS ARE WHAT CAUSING THE WARNINGS PICK ANOTHER LINK

HERE IS A LIST OF OTHER LINKS

https://www1.swatchseries.to/serie/60_minutes

[greybeard]

The person you were as a teen--sober or otherwise bears only passing resemblance to the adult.
What happened way back then is not so relevant to now.
AND anyone who carries undeclared baggage for that length of time is not normal or mature--and may have a faulty memory of what actually happened.

The mind is a great magnifier and story teller of remembered or imagined events.

Why there is even a hearing of an event so far back in the past I just dont get---to be credible there must be some chance of accurate memory of time and place. There does not seem to be.
Ch

[ramus]

Excellent video .... TargetT ..

[TargeT]

Excellent video .... TargetT ..

Plenty of good videos on this topic... But then, it's really hard to keep your lies strait when your lying a lot, isn't it?
7tyiGfITxkE

[Helene West]

The person you were as a teen--sober or otherwise bears only passing resemblance to the adult.
What happened way back then is not so relevant to now.
AND anyone who carries undeclared baggage for that length of time is not normal or mature--and may have a faulty memory of what actually happened.

The mind is a great magnifier and story teller of remembered or imagined events.

Why there is even a hearing of an event so far back in the past I just dont get---to be credible there must be some chance of accurate memory of time and place. There does not seem to be.
Ch

exactly. If everyone in their '40s, '50s, '60s had to depend on a review of their teenage years before they could get a promotion or new position they/we wouldn't be allowed to man a lemonade stand.

[TargeT]

so many shady characters involved in this....
zTeTHh_8CqI


High drama... haha
gQ0j3n1Na_o

[apokalypse]

even get rid of Memory lost thing and i'm willing to give you that reason but things never add up like not bring in evidence with the notes, fear of flying and the deletion of social media-year book-profile changing at university...ect.

[waves]

Isaac Green made a great observation....of this.... coincidence... ?

Carvey character: "...You think you're gonna hurl..."

https://i.postimg.cc/yW4p0pbV/hurl.jpg

[enigma3]

Don't know if we have any psychologists in the mix, but I have a question. Ford says she has a clear recollection of who assaulted her but cannot remember where the event took place. That strains credulity. I am not buying that one. What are the chances that she can remember her assailant but not the place it happened? Me thinks she has a fine memory of convenience. Or was too drunk to remember anything that night with accuracy.

[Valerie Villars]

What bothers me about her and her crying little girl voice many years after the fact is that as a Doctor of Psychology, shouldn't she have a healthy command of her own phobias, fears, trauma's etc?

For a doctor of psychology she seems pretty scrambled. Can you imagine her actually treating someone? Teaching a course on the CIA says a lot about the psychiatric community and the CIA. Maybe someone should question her ability to teach others. She's WAY more unstable than Kavanaugh has shown by his LIFETIME of work.

[Ratszinger]

I feel sorry for both of them being dragged into this. However, I have had a lot of psychology. I enjoyed the topic, seemed to excel in it as I got good grades. It wasn't that all of it was enjoyable but you know I knew I'd do better in it grade wise but I wouldn't begin to characterize her personality type by one interview. She may just be a really good actress. She may be trained very well. Or she genuinely could have avoidant personality disorder or some form of that with dependent personality syndromes from childhood trauma.

After forcing myself to watch the entire clip of her testimony she does appear damaged to me. Based on her father's connections and hers as well, and her mother's as well as ties to Fusion GPS, Stanford (Feinstein) and also the slip that they had the info. but sat on it strategically to delay the process all tells me her family are the ones we should be investigating for any abusive past there. I agree in investigating Feinstein and her staff also. They would be screaming to the heavens just as Graham said if this coin were flipped. When Jared Beck said the other day with his lovely wife that they would make Judge K step down I don't think they noticed the fire in Graham's eyes! I can almost hear the man saying 'fu%& no he isn't stepping down he is going through like it not! I think the right conservative base has had it with the left.

The social contract has always been the same in D.C. as it is in Hollywood! You meet someone, you befriend them, you play golf with them, and even share girlfriends a time or three but at some point in time you know that friend is going to screw you! You are going to be 'f$%7ed over big time but it's nothing personal and you can't hold that against me!? I mean we're still on for golf Sat. right?

This is how it has been folks. Only now the rules are changing. At least in D.C. They be holding grudges now! This violates that unspoken social contract all people in the know are aware of but never really speak about that much. Lindsy isn't playing by their rules anymore! I applaud the man! One has to ask though>Should he be put on suicide watch now?

[Helene West]

Don't know if anyone looked at that article onawah posted from a Paul Revere on Before its news? It's very long and it will be awhile before I read the whole thing but it seems that kavanaugh's mother is a judge who ruled against the Blasey family in a foreclosure case? That's motive for vengeance right there...

[Valerie Villars]

I heard on wwl's discussion show that the mother actually ruled in favor of them and not against them. Who or what to believe?

My kingdom for some truth.

[TargeT]

I heard on wwl's discussion show that the mother actually ruled in favor of them and not against them. Who or what to believe?

My kingdom for some truth.

In favor is correct...

FDGhEVQAQyg

Many Red Herrings (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red-Herring) attached to this situation.

[onawah]

That's what Snopes said too.
If it's a choice of Snopes or Beforeitsnews to choose from as to what to believe, it may help if you look at the BIN article as it looks fairly credible, and it includes documented evidence on various points.

I heard on wwl's discussion show that the mother actually ruled in favor of them and not against them. Who or what to believe?

My kingdom for some truth.

update (I posted this at the same time as Target posted the above from ABC News. It would be helpful to have more facts and details about the case. )

[Helene West]

But for a little levity: I was perusing zerohedge and there's an article about a white female professor at Georgetown U that says the white GOP congressmen supporting kavanaugh should die miserable deaths. I didn't read all her blather but scrolled down to the comments.
One guy wrote, bet you $1 she has 5 cats.
I cracked up.
Back to the show...

[ramus]

MY INVESTIGATION REVEALED THE WHOLE STORY :
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/no-brett-kavanaughs-mother-didnt-foreclose-on-his-accusers-parents

Maryland records ( Case No. 156006V in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County) show the Blaseys fought in court for several years to save their home from foreclosure. And a judge briefly involved in the case was none other than Martha Kavanaugh.

For some on the Right, the documents are proof that Christine Blasey Ford has an axe to grind with Brett Kavanaugh.

“Bad Blood: Judge Kavanaugh’s Mother Foreclosed on Far Left Accuser’s Parents’ Home,” reads a headline published by Jim Hoft, the most consistently wrong man on the Internet.
The records show Martha Kavanaugh was one of several judges involved in the case. The records show she made no ruling pertaining to a seizure of the Blasleys’ home. The records also show that her involvement in the case was minimal. Basically, she dismissed it, and that's it.

She even dismissed the foreclosure “with prejudice,” meaning that, on the merits, the case was over and could not be refiled on the same grounds. Also, in case you were wondering, the Blaseys still retain ownership of the home, according to the most current data available from the state of Maryland’s Department of Assessment and Taxation. So, no, it does not appear that they lost their home.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Kavanaugh did preside for certain parts of a 1996 foreclosure case
involving Ralph and Paula Blasey, who are indeed Christine Blasey Ford’s
parents. However, Kavanaugh actually ruled favorably toward the Blaseys, who
ended up keeping their home. These two facts cause the logic of the conspiracy
theory, such as it ever was, to collapse.

Background

Maryland state land records show that Ralph and Paula Blasey purchased a house
in Potomac, Maryland, in June 1977. According to Montgomery County Circuit Court
records, in August 1996 a company called UMLIC-Eight Corporation initiated
foreclosure proceedings against the couple.

However, by December of that year the Blaseys were able to refinance the
mortgage, and in January 1997 UMLIC filed a motion to dismiss their earlier
petition. Judge Martha Kavanaugh granted that motion on 4 February 1997, thus
formally bringing an end to the foreclosure proceedings against the Blaseys.

[ramus]

@ Helene West ... Now that's funny "BACK TO THE SHOW" oh what a show it is. The damage this has cause is a Polaroid moment, politics at it best, if this doesn't wake up many, nothing will.

[Deux Corbeaux]

When Christine Blasey Ford opened her mouth, my mouth dropped. The voice that I heard was not anything like what I expected. This lady has two master’s and a doctorate, and even teaches !

How on earth does she manage to inspire her students with a childish voice like that? Unless she is a good actress playing a 15-year-old teenager at the Senate confirmation hearing. To me it was an act.

Also simple parts of her story were out of joint. Like, she was in a house she’d never been in, but yet she went upstairs to use a bathroom. Wasn’t there a bathroom on the main floor? I would assume so.
So, what was she doing on the “second floor”?

And then the timing of the allegations themselves was more than suspect of course.

[ramus]

As the video from TargetT says it a manipulation, she doesn't sound like that in that the classroom i bet.

[ramus]

Now in the style of Ben Fulford i will make a prediction before Fridays vote, that the 40 thousand indictments will be served up as Kavanaugh is voted supreme court judge.....
ha ha ha. I needed a laugh this is painful, and embarrassing, our country has shown it ass. I have a friend that works for the gov't, he told me years ago watching the gov't work was like watching sausage been made. Nothing pretty, this sure proves it.

[onawah]

Good description re sausage making.
I lived in the D.C. suburbs in my younger years. Once I was invited to a party given by a photographer friend who lived in an apartment building in Georgetown.
Most of his friends there had federal government jobs.
The vibe was so depressingly miserable that I began weeping uncontrollably after no more than an hour there (apparently for no reason at all, but I am a highly sensitive empath, so there was definitely a reason).
I had to be sent home in a cab.
Even after I got home, I continued to cry, and didn't stop until I finally succumbed to emotional exhaustion and fell asleep.
D.C. is a very DARK town.

Now in the style of Ben Fulford i will make a prediction before Fridays vote, that the 40 thousand indictments will be served up as Kavanaugh is voted supreme court judge.....
ha ha ha. I needed a laugh this is painful, and embarrassing, our country has shown it ass. I have a friend that works for the gov't, he told me years ago watching the gov't work was like watching sausage been made. Nothing pretty, this sure proves it.

[onawah]

See: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?94907-Trump-is-NOT-the-answer&p=1251782#post1251782
...to see more of just how much of a lawyer he really is.


Because the press and democrats attack this guy, it makes you forget hes a life long deep state lawyer.
Has ruled the cia can kidnap americans and the victims cannot sue.
Has been in the swamp as long as long as most here have been alive.
But now hes a hero and we are outraged he is being treated so poorly.

had a thought few days ago especially saw that moment ago about Brett Kav past being a Laywer,

i'm conflicted, i'm not supporting sexual assault case but what happen if Kav get in? could america get more worst? it's like you know he's a bad guy and the actions to stop him is unethical or unmoral, could you let it happen? both party are the same coins.

i haven't come to conclusion regarding but from i heard so far about Kav are negative...

[T Smith]

Another interesting thought came to mind. If, and that's a big if, Kavanaugh is rejected, the next person up may very well be Amy Coney Barrett. She was on Trump's short list. She is a very devout Catholic, mother of 5 (2 adopted), and more conservative than Kavanaugh. She would be more likely to overturn Roe vs Wade that Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has stated on more than one occasion that he considers Roe to be established law. He has a high regard for legal precedent. Thus the question may be asked - are the Dems really acting on their own best interests?

It's Hail Mary. They're hoping to stall the process until Mid-terms, at which point they plan on retaking a majority in Congress (lie, cheat, or steal). Then they can dictate exactly who they will confirm, and the only nominee they will confirm will be a center-conservative candidate, or even left-of-center.

If Amy Coney Barrett is nominated, they will pull the same Alinsky tactics on her as they are doing with Kavanaugh. She won't even make it as far as Kavanaugh did.

[apokalypse]

If Amy Coney Barrett is nominated, they will pull the same Alinsky tactics on her as they are doing with Kavanaugh. She won't even make it as far as Kavanaugh did.

i don't know just type her name and first page said "Republicans may well like Brett Kavanaugh. But Trump should have chosen Amy Coney Barrett "- WAPO...trump and WAPO-CNN always on different pages so think someone else that WAPO really dislike.

i still think Kavanaugh will get it for many reasons that fits perfect with GOP and Trump administration...

[apokalypse]

just saw this post mention about Brett Kavanaugh reinstate Smith Mundt Act..you guys think possible? looking at current media spreading BS seems gonna happen. thinking about it this whole Ford thing might be TPTB setup.

[norman]

Alex Jones opened his show today spitting feathers about his having dropped the ball with the Dr Ford story and missed the big issue.


Here, he runs through a lot of background stuff about her occupation and connections. Some of it has been spoken about here already but some of it is news to me.


AJ Show - Alex on Dr Ford - 2018-10-02_Tuesday
MP3
https://app.box.com/s/6i3htbiq3veoswro2ti6kno8dslzzsnb

[pyrangello]

NBC News Sits Down With Kavanaugh Accuser Julie Swetnick But Can't Verify Claims ---- What a suprize!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick-sits-down-nbc-news-1148414

"I cannot specifically say that he was one of the ones who assaulted me," Swetnick told Snow. "But, before this happened to me, at that party, I saw Brett Kavanaugh there, I saw Mark Judge, and they were hanging out about where I started to feel disoriented and where the room was and where the other boys were hanging out and laughing."



https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/09/26/report-kavanaugh-accusers-julie-swetnick-and-christine-blasey-ford-have-an-interesting-connection/

Now guess what, Swetnick used an attorney over 10 years ago that happens to be the same attorney for Ms. Ford now, What a small world this is, isn't it!!!!!!!!! Wonder who the ring leader is?

[onawah]

I Know Brett Kavanaugh, but I Wouldn’t Confirm Him
Benjamin Wittes
Editor in chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution

(This reads to me as a very reasonable perspective from someone who knows Kavanaugh and knows the judicial system.)

"If I were a senator, I would not vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.

These are words I write with no pleasure, but with deep sadness. Unlike many people who will read them with glee—as validating preexisting political, philosophical, or jurisprudential opposition to Kavanaugh’s nomination—I have no hostility to or particular fear of conservative jurisprudence. I have a long relationship with Kavanaugh, and I have always liked him. I have admired his career on the D.C. Circuit. I have spoken warmly of him. I have published him. I have vouched publicly for his character—more than once—and taken a fair bit of heat for doing so. I have also spent a substantial portion of my adult life defending the proposition that judicial nominees are entitled to a measure of decency from the Senate and that there should be norms of civility within a process that showed Kavanaugh none even before the current allegations arose.

This is an article I never imagined myself writing, that I never wanted to write, that I wish I could not write.

I am also keenly aware that rejecting Kavanaugh on the record currently before the Senate will set a dangerous precedent. The allegations against him remain unproven. They arose publicly late in the process and, by their nature, are not amenable to decisive factual rebuttal. It is a real possibility that Kavanaugh is telling the truth and that he has had his life turned upside down over a falsehood. Even assuming that Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations are entirely accurate, rejecting him on the current record could incentivize not merely other sexual-assault victims to come forward—which would be a salutary thing—but also other late-stage allegations of a non-falsifiable nature by people who are not acting in good faith. We are on a dangerous road, and the judicial confirmation wars are going to get a lot worse for our traveling down it.

Despite all of that, if I were a senator, I would vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation. I would do it both because of Ford’s testimony and because of Kavanaugh’s. For reasons I will describe, I find her account more believable than his. I would also do it because whatever the truth of what happened in the summer of 1982, Thursday’s hearing left Kavanaugh nonviable as a justice.

A few days before the hearing, I detailed on this site the advice I would give to Kavanaugh if he asked me. He should, I argued, withdraw from consideration for elevation unless able to defend himself to a high degree of factual certainty without attacking Ford. He should remain a nominee, I argued, only if his defense would be sufficiently convincing that it would meet what we might term the “no asterisks” standard—that is, that it would plausibly convince even people who vociferously disagree with his jurisprudential views that he could serve credibly as a justice. His defense needed to make it possible for a reasonable pro-choice woman to find it a legitimate and acceptable prospect, if not an attractive or appealing one, that he might sit on a case reconsidering Roe v. Wade.

Kavanaugh, needless to say, did not take my advice. He stayed in, and he delivered on Thursday, by way of defense, a howl of rage. He went on the attack not against Ford—for that we can be grateful—but against Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and beyond. His opening statement was an unprecedentedly partisan outburst of emotion from a would-be justice. I do not begrudge him the emotion, even the anger. He has been through a kind of hell that would leave any person gasping for air. But I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary.

Consider the judicial function as described by Kavanaugh himself at his first hearing. That Brett Kavanaugh described a “good judge [as] an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no litigant or policy.” That Brett Kavanaugh reminded us that “the Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices on the Supreme Court do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms.”

A very different Brett Kavanaugh showed up to Thursday’s hearing. This one accused the Democratic members of the committee of a “grotesque and coordinated character assassination,” saying that they had “replaced advice and consent with search and destroy.” After rightly criticizing “the behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at [his] hearing a few weeks ago [as] an embarrassment,” this Brett Kavanaugh veered off into full-throated conspiracy in a fashion that made entirely clear that he knew which room he caucused in:

When I did at least okay enough at the hearings that it looked like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed.

Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready. This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a Democratic member of this committee, and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn’t take me out on the merits.

When it was needed, this allegation was unleashed and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford’s wishes. And then—and then as no doubt was expected, if not planned—came a long series of false last-minute smears designed to scare me and drive me out of the process before any hearing occurred.

He went on: “This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.”

As Charlie Sykes, a thoughtful conservative commentator sympathetic to Kavanaugh, put it on The Weekly Standard’s podcast Friday, “Even if you support Brett Kavanaugh … that was breathtaking as an abandonment of any pretense of having a judicial temperament.” Sykes went on: “It’s possible, I think, to have been angry, emotional, and passionate without crossing the lines that he crossed—assuming that there are any lines anymore.”

Kavanaugh blew across lines that I believe a justice still needs to hold.

The Brett Kavanaugh who showed up to Thursday’s hearing is a man I have never met, whom I have never even caught a glimpse of in 20 years of knowing the person who showed up to the first hearing. I dealt with Kavanaugh during the Starr investigation, which I covered for the Washington Post editorial page and about which I wrote a book. I dealt with him when he was in the White House counsel’s office and working on judicial nominations and post–September 11 legal matters. Since his confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, he has been a significant voice on a raft of issues I work on. In all of our interactions, he has been a consummate professional. The allegations against him shocked me very deeply, but not quite so deeply as did his presentation. It was not just an angry and aggressive version of the person I have known. It seemed like a different person altogether.

My cognitive dissonance at Kavanaugh’s performance Thursday is not important. What is important is the dissonance between the Kavanaugh of Thursday’s hearing and the judicial function. Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable pro-choice woman would feel like her position could get a fair shake before a Justice Kavanaugh? Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable Democrat, or a reasonable liberal of any kind, would after that performance consider him a fair arbiter in, say, a case about partisan gerrymandering, voter identification, or anything else with a strong partisan valence? Quite apart from the merits of Ford’s allegations against him, Kavanaugh’s display on Thursday—if I were a senator voting on confirmation—would preclude my support.

Perhaps if I believed Kavanaugh’s testimony in its totality, if I believed his denial—and thus his anger—to be entirely righteous, I could see fit to look past the impropriety of his performance. If Kavanaugh is, in fact, wholly innocent, after all, what has happened to him is so monstrous that perhaps we might forgive him the excess in view of the pressures he is under and the wrongs he would clearly have suffered—though the outburst was part of his prepared statement and thus should be seen as his considered decision about what he wanted to say.

But there are reasons to worry about the integrity of Kavanaugh’s testimony. A number of senators, most notably Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, suggested in the hearing’s wake that the evidence was in some kind of equipoise, that both Ford and Kavanaugh had testified credibly, and that norms of fairness thus counsel giving Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt. Before he shifted gears and sought a delay and an FBI investigation, Flake stated that he “left the hearing yesterday with as much doubt as certainty” and that “our system of justice affords a presumption of innocence to the accused.” Corker, for his part, declared that “both individuals provided compelling testimony” but that since “nothing that has been presented corroborates the allegation,” he would vote to confirm. President Trump presumably feels similarly, given that he continues to support Kavanaugh despite having declared Ford “a very credible witness.”

I fear the evidence is not, however, quite in equipoise, even if one believes that a senator should confirm a justice on the basis that the presumption of innocence should break the tie between two equally compelling testimonies. At least as I read it, though it pains me to say so, the evidence before us leans toward Ford. Let’s consider the balance sheet carefully.

On one side of the ledger, Ford is wholly credible. Yes, her story has holes. The location of the event is unclear in her memory, as is—importantly—how she got home and what happened after she left the house in question. Yet few observers seem to dispute her credibility. Not even Kavanaugh and his supporters contend that she is lying or making up the incident in question, merely that she is mistaken as to his involvement in it.

Her story is certainly plausible, and certain details she offers lend it additional credibility. She correctly identifies, for example, a social circle that appears actually to have existed around Kavanaugh during the summer in question. A fabulist likely would not know, for example, of Kavanaugh’s friendship with Mark Judge and their propensity to drink beer together in the relevant period with other individuals she named. While Kavanaugh said he didn’t recall meeting Ford but that it was possible they had interacted, it seems overwhelmingly likely that her claim to have known him and his circle socially while the two were in high school is true.

While Ford can offer no contemporaneous corroboration of story in the form of testimony from people who remember being present at the alleged event, her story is not wholly uncorroborated either. She appears to have told her therapist about the alleged event years ago, and she identified Kavanaugh as her attacker to her husband years ago, as well.

She initially raised the allegation with her congresswoman before Kavanaugh’s nomination took place. At a minimum, it seems quite clear that Ford was genuinely part of the world in which she claims the attack took place and that she genuinely believed—long before Trump’s election, let alone Kavanaugh’s nomination—that Kavanaugh attacked her.

That she believes this story sincerely is corroborated, if only weakly, by her polygraph exam. Polygraphs are not especially reliable, but the willingness to take one can be a show of strength in a witness. The polygraph is not evidence that Kavanaugh attacked Ford. It is evidence that Ford believes her story truthful and is an earnest accuser, not a conspirator.

Her story is also corroborated, imperfectly but perceptibly, by Kavanaugh’s high-school calendar. Ford describes the attack as taking place at a gathering at which at least four boys—Kavanaugh, Judge, Patrick (P.J.) Smythe, and a boy whose name Ford could not remember—and one girl, Leland Keyser, were drinking beer. Ford specifically allowed for the possibility that there might have been others present as well.

Kavanaugh’s calendar entry for the evening of July 1, 1982, contains an entry that reads, “Go to Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, P.J., Bernie and Squi.” In the hearing, Kavanaugh acknowledged that “skis” in this entry referred to “brewskis,” or beer; that P.J. was Smythe; that Judge was Mark Judge; and that “Squi” was a boy who, Ford had earlier testified, just happened to have been someone she “went out with” for a short time. The calendar entry does not include Ford or Keyser, so the corroboration is far from perfect. It also includes people not mentioned by Ford. Then again, the degree of overlap with Ford’s story is striking. In the summer in which Ford alleges that Kavanaugh attacked her at an evening get-together with a small group of boys drinking beers, his calendar identifies an evening get-together with a small group of boys drinking beers, including three of the boys named by Ford, along with one she dated. Why exactly Kavanaugh imagines his calendar entries to be powerfully exculpatory I am really not sure.

Ford’s story also finds some degree of corroboration in Mark Judge’s employment history. Ford claims that she saw Judge some weeks after the alleged attack at the Safeway where he worked and that he was visibly uncomfortable seeing her. The Washington Post verified from Judge’s own memoir that he was, in fact, working at a grocery story as a bagger in the relevant period. Assuming the FBI investigation firms that up, it would offer another data point tending to corroborate her account’s consistency with verifiable facts.

On the other side of the ledger is Kavanaugh’s testimony, and here we cannot be quite so confident that the witness was being candid.

Kavanaugh’s testimony, whatever one makes of his impassioned claims of innocence on the specific charge, is not credible on the more general issue of his drinking habits. It is, as Kavanaugh suggested at the hearing, absurd for senators to argue with a Supreme Court nominee over his high-school yearbook. Then again, Kavanaugh’s unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious—that his yearbook described a hard-drinking culture that he was a part of and that makes Ford’s account more plausible—made it necessary to do so. Kavanaugh would not concede that the phrase “Beach Week Ralph Club—Biggest Contributor” referred to drinking culture, claiming it was simply a reference to his having a weak stomach. He ascribed implausibly innocent definitions to other terms that appeared in the yearbook. He diminished the casual cruelty he and his friends showed to one girl, Renate Schroeder Dolphin, by describing themselves as “Renate Alumni.” He claimed they intended to show her respect and friendship, but that is not how she reads it three and a half decades later. She told The New York Times, “The insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way.” She is not a fool. His repeated suggestion at the hearing that he had never been so drunk as to have any possibility of memory loss flies in the face of the memories of a number of classmates from college.

My point is not that his confirmation in any sense turns on how much Kavanaugh drank or whether he and his friends made misogynistic jokes as teenagers. But his testimony doesn’t have the ring of truth either. And lack of candor in a witness in one area raises questions about the integrity of that witness’s testimony in other areas.

Thursday evening, after the hearing, former FBI Director James Comey tweeted, “Small lies matter, even about yearbooks. From the standard jury instruction: ‘If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness’ other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness.’”

In response, I tweeted a passage that had been haunting me all day from a Guantanamo Bay habeas case in the D.C. Circuit called Al-Adahi v. Obama. The passage reads:

Several days later, bin Laden summoned Al-Adahi for another meeting. According to Al-Adahi, at his meeting bin Laden asked him about people he was connected with in Yemen—some of whom were involved in jihad … In the habeas proceedings, Al-Adahi tried to explain his personal audience with bin Laden on the basis that “meeting with Bin Laden was common for visitors to Kandar.” This is, as the government points out, utterly implausible … [Yet] the district court said nothing, despite the well-settled principle that false exculpatory statements are evidence—often strong evidence—of guilt.

The opinion was not written by Kavanaugh, but Kavanaugh was on the unanimous panel that decided the Al-Adahi case.

There’s another factor that weighs in Ford’s favor: the failure of the committee to meaningfully engage Mark Judge. The current FBI investigation should ameliorate this problem, and it’s possible, I suppose, that Judge could change the picture significantly in Kavanaugh’s favor—if, for example, he informs the FBI that Kavanaugh was never out-of-control drunk with him or if he denies ever working at the Safeway. The committee’s contentment with the perfunctory letter he sent, however, has the air of fear—fear of what Judge would say. This unwillingness to ask Judge obvious questions erodes Kavanaugh’s position.

To be clear, I am emphatically not saying that Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did. The evidence is not within 100 yards of adequate to convict him. But whether he did it is not the question at hand. The question at hand is how a reasonable senator should construct the evidence to guide a binary vote for or against elevation of a judge to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. By my read, we have two witnesses who both profess 100 percent certainty of their position—one whose testimony is wholly credible and marginally corroborated in a number of respects, and the other whose testimony is not credible on a number of important atmospheric points surrounding the alleged event.

It’s not a tie, and it doesn’t go to the nominee.

There’s one more reason I could not vote to confirm Kavanaugh: His apparent lack of candor on the culture of drinking at Georgetown Prep and later is a problem of its own, quite apart from what it may indicate about the truth of Ford’s story. People throw around words like perjury too blithely. I won’t do so here. I will say that I do not believe he showed the sort of candor that warrants the Senate’s—or the public’s—confidence. To the extent some commentators on the right are defending Kavanaugh’s testimony as containing the sort of white lies that anyone might tell under the circumstances, let me just say that I don’t believe that Supreme Court justices get to tell self-exculpating white lies—and I don’t believe in white lies from anyone else either in sworn congressional testimony.

Over the weekend, I listened to a number of podcasts in which liberals mocked Kavanaugh as an entitled white male refusing to face accountability for what he had done. I find the tone of these discussions nauseating—undetained by the possibility of error. I, like Jeff Flake, am haunted by doubt, by the certainty of uncertainty and the consequent possibility of injustice. I spent a lot of time this weekend thinking about Oliver Cromwell’s famous letter to the Church of Scotland in which he implored, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” I also spent some time with Learned Hand’s similar maxim, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” We all need to think it possible that we may be mistaken; we all need to be not too sure that we are right.

But my bottom line is the opposite of the one Flake expressed in his statement: Faced with credible allegations of serious misconduct against him, Kavanaugh behaved in a fashion unacceptable in a justice, it seems preponderantly likely he was not candid with the Senate Judiciary Committee on important matters, and the risk of Ford’s allegations being closer to the truth than his denial of them is simply too high to place him on the Supreme Court.

We are in a political environment in which there are no rules, no norms anymore to violate. There is only power, and the individual judgments of individual senators—facing whatever political pressures they face, calculating political gain however they do it, and consulting their consciences to the extent they have them.

As much as I admire Kavanaugh, my conscience would not permit me to vote for him."

[norman]

. . . To be clear, I am emphatically not saying that Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did. The evidence is not within 100 yards of adequate to convict him. . . .






If they are putting up such a massive dirty fight to block him, go figure . . . .

[Valerie Villars]

We were more civilized in Kindergarten than these people are. The energy on this planet right now is one seething mass of hatred and obfuscation. It's disgraceful.

[AutumnW]

It's all a big stall until after mid-terms. Trying to find one "above reproach" candidate for the Supremes in that town? Better luck finding a virgin in a whore house.

[Satori]

For what it's worth:

Mr. Wittes' article posted by onawah in post #131 is a superb piece of dis-ingenuity and calculation. I read it carefully. Very well written. Almost convincing, if you allow yourself to succumb to the allure of syntax and grammar. He writes so well. If he writes well he must be smart. If he's smart he must be correct. After all, the man is an editor.

Mr. Wittes' thesis is that to be a Justice on the USSC one must be neutral, politically and otherwise. Cases are to be decided on the facts and the law, not politics, or petty bickering, or grievances, real or imagined. One should also be honest on the big things as well as the little things. No white lies allowed. Wow. What a revelation. Yep, that should be true for all stripes of judges and justices, from the lowly justice of the peace to the high Justice of the USSC. Fat chance there folks. That is the way it should be. That is what the books say. But then there is reality.

I personally could not care less if Kavanaugh is appointed or not. (So, please resist the urge to call me a Trump groupie or whatever.) It will be business as usual with or without Kavanaugh on the USSC. It would not matter if he is a Demopublican or an Republocrat. I do, however, care about, and I am fed up with, the insanity and the freak show that is Congress, and the USSC and the Office of POTUS--not to mention way too big government and bloated bureaucracy in general.

The person who is best suited and qualified to be a Justice on the USSC does not even have his or her name in consideration. (That is also true for pResidential selections and other selection processes.)

So, please Mr. Wittes, do not try to regale us with your prose. Go back to your think tank and think up more ways to harm the globe in order to socialize losses and privatize profits.

And, so sorry you felt compelled to write your article. For the good of the country I suppose. With friends like you Kavanaugh does not need any more enemies.

Add. Edited to fix typos. Geez

[onawah]

No argument, Satori, though I genuinely feel the despair that Wittes expressed in the article (however disingenuous he might have been), and I personally didn't feel that Kavanaugh conducted himself as a Supreme Court Justice should, either.
But I certainly agree...no surprise there... :tsk:

[Helene West]

@Satori

Hah. I wasn't going to put energy into that huge vain sack of hot air's article until I saw your post. I only read the 1st part, wasn't worth continuing.

He had nothing to offer anyone except his feeble attempt to hide his prejudice and possibly professional jealousy with a verbose phony intellectual patina. He basically said HE wrote to K and advised, don't go out there unless you can prove innocense ('without any asterisks', lol), the opposite of our tradition of having to prove guilt. Then he adds he should have appeal to the pro-choice crowd. Is this guy american? Don't we have any other laws in this land besides r vs w?? He was miffed K didn't respond to him that's clear.

I imagine other lawyers quickly perusing this article and chuckling to themselves. Good or bad, they're all sharp and they know their fellow self-important windbags. I'd bet a buck very few lawyers finished the article.

[PurpleLama]

For what it's worth:

Mr. Wittes' article posted by onawah in post #131 is a superb piece of dis-ingenuity and calculation. I read it carefully. Very well written. Almost convincing, if you allow yourself to succumb to the allure of syntax and grammar. He writes so well. If he writes well he must be smart. If he's smart he must be correct. After all, the man is an editor.

Mr. Wittes' thesis is that to be a Justice on the USSC one must be neutral, politically and otherwise. Cases are to be decided on the facts and the law, not politics, or petty bickering, or grievances, real or imagined. One should also be honest on the big things as well as the little things. No white lies allowed. Wow. What a revelation. Yep, that should be true for all stripes of judges and justices, from the lowly justice of the peace to the high Justice of the USSC. Fat chance there folks. That is the way it should be. That is what the books say. But then there is reality.

I personally could not care less if Kavanaugh is appointed or not. (So, please resist the urge to call me a Trump groupie or whatever.) It will be business as usual with or without Kavanaugh on the USSC. It would not matter if he is a Demopublican or an Republocrat. I do, however, care about, and I am fed up with, the insanity and the freak show that is Congress, and the USSC and the Office of POTUS--not to mention way too big government and bloated bureaucracy in general.

The person who is best suited and qualified to be a Justice on the USSC does not even have his or her name in consideration. (That is also true for pResidential selections and other selection processes.)

So, please Mr. Wittes, do not try to regale us with your prose. Go back to your think tank and think up more ways to harm the globe in order to socialize losses and privatize profits.

And, so sorry you felt compelled to write your article. For the good of the country I suppose. With friends like you Kavanaugh does not need any more enemies.

Add. Edited to fix typos. Geez

It is my opinion that the last 20 years of politics in the USA have been geared toward taking public faith from elected officials and offices and giving it to the unelected bureaucracy. The Kavanaugh kerfluffle dovetails neatly with my hypothesis.

[Omni]

If he is framed: what an atrocity.
If he is guilty: this country may be in some trouble.
I give him benefit of the doubt at this time.

[T Smith]

If Amy Coney Barrett is nominated, they will pull the same Alinsky tactics on her as they are doing with Kavanaugh. She won't even make it as far as Kavanaugh did.

i don't know just type her name and first page said "Republicans may well like Brett Kavanaugh. But Trump should have chosen Amy Coney Barrett "- WAPO...trump and WAPO-CNN always on different pages so think someone else that WAPO really dislike.

i still think Kavanaugh will get it for many reasons that fits perfect with GOP and Trump administration...

She is even more conservative than Kavanaugh and openly suspect of Roe v Wade. Kavanaugh has at least assured Dems in private interviews that he believes Roe v Wade is established law. If you think the other side of the aisle is in a frenzy now, just wait until Amy Coney Barrett is nominated.

[Helene West]

@purplelama - "It is my opinion that the last 20 years of politics in the USA have been geared toward taking public faith from elected officials and offices and giving it to the unelected bureaucracy. The Kavanaugh kerfluffle dovetails neatly with my hypothesis."

Agreed. Victim gets lauded, Supreme Court gets degraded.

[T Smith]

... But I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary.

I vehemently disagree with this reasoning. It is absolutely absurd to suggest the person in question does not have the temperament to be objective and impartial based on a very understandable and impassioned denial of the charge. Hello? Is a Supreme Court Justice not supposed to be a human being? Is that who/what we want on the court?

Frankly, he was reserved in temperament, as far as I'm concerned, given the charge against his name and the attempted assasination of his character. I assume this person is innocent -- until proven guilty. That is the system of justice I subscribe to. As opposed to mob rule. This person -- Kavanaugh -- (let's refrain from assigning him a gender pronoun or deposit him to a designated tribe of divisive identity politics, as we are programmed to do) let's just say, he's a human being, a person -- and not a robot -- I'm assuming we all can agree on that? This person (and non-robot human) was/is the subject of a brutal blanket party by a frenzied mob stoked and triggered by the opposition party that has openly admitted it will do anything necessary to block this non-person's nomination to the nation's highest court. What is Kavanaugh supposed to do under these circumstances? Lay down to the assasination? When a mob throws a blanket over you and begins pummeling you death, you fight back. As a matter of instinct and survival. To quote the very insightful and brilliant John Lennon, "...When you're drowning you don't think (with the proper temperament and manners of SCJ), 'I would be incredibly pleased if someone would notice I'm drowning and come and rescue me. You just scream'.”

I have no problem whatsoever with Judge Kavanaugh's temperament.

All ten democratic senators voted against Kavanaugh. All ten. That is nothing short of a declaration of desperation. On the record. This is a conspiracy. Plain and simple. An admitted one. On the record. We need to understand that. Is everybody paying attention here? Someone please tell me this is obvious to every single conscious observer, regardless of their political leanings or ideology. Tell me, if you lean to the left, that the means justify the ends and we must do anything we can to stop Kavanaugh from being confirmed, and I will respect that position. It is an honest argument. But when you advance the absurdity that it is blasphemous to claim this is a leftist conspiracy is nothing short of idiotic and insulting.

So let's understand what's going on here. When the sexual assault charges no longer stick, we are then told to swallow the notion that Kavanaugh's temperament is in question because he has called out the Democratic party on their smear campaign in the impassioned denials of his own defense? What? How dare this author evoke the taboo of "conspiracy" to suggest Kavanaugh is not fit for the highest court. If anything, in so doing (calling out the conspiracy) Kavanaugh has convinced me with considerable gravitas that his judgements are honed and sound and he is not afraid to speak the truth, even as his adversaries attempt to transmogrify the truth itself to a third rail meant to electrocute their enemy.

This whole thing is disgusting.

[Helene West]

@T Smith - Here Here! wonderfully put...

The man was being torn to bits and he was supposed to act like High Tea at the Carlyle.

The irony of life - the feminist movement is going to cause the mothers, sisters and daughters of society to have to protect our men from unconscionable females.

[raregem]

My dearest TSmith I stand wholeheartedly with your post above. I wished I could have worded it so well. Thank you.
I thought Kavanaugh held himself calmly for some time. After repeated subterfuge from the democratic questioners yes, he shot back. There was constant cornering and not having his answers respected as he consistently answered the same way. I was appalled at these proceedings.

Enjoyed the non-tribe assignation!

Also, the new word today (from you):
transmogrify.......transform, especially in a surprising or magical manner.

My fave word that surprises me is:
defenestrate........throw (someone) out of a window.

The word I never remember how to spell but like:

Chiaroscuro is an Italian artistic term used to describe the dramatic effect of contrasting areas of light and dark in an artwork, particularly paintings. It comes from the combination of the Italian words for "light" and "dark."

Oops..think I sidetracked here Avalon. Sorry.

[abmqa]

When Christine Blasey Ford opened her mouth, my mouth dropped. The voice that I heard was not anything like what I expected. This lady has two master’s and a doctorate, and even teaches !

How on earth does she manage to inspire her students with a childish voice like that? Unless she is a good actress playing a 15-year-old teenager at the Senate confirmation hearing. To me it was an act.

Also simple parts of her story were out of joint. Like, she was in a house she’d never been in, but yet she went upstairs to use a bathroom. Wasn’t there a bathroom on the main floor? I would assume so.
So, what was she doing on the “second floor”?

And then the timing of the allegations themselves was more than suspect of course.

It could be "Little Girl Voice" . I have heard Dr Drew Pinsky accurately identify several callers to his Radio Show ...here http://loveline.wikia.com/wiki/Little_Girl_Voice......

See extract below:


"The Little Girl Voice is an informal name for a vocal trait in adult women that is caused by psychological trauma before the onset of puberty. Women that are affected speak in a higher sounding, child-like pattern, usually in a manner similar to the age at which they suffered the traumatic event.

Dr. Drew frequently uses this as a cue when talking to female callers, in order to better understand the cause of their problems. He is so practiced at noticing it that he can often guess down to a 6 month period in the woman's life when she was traumatized, and sometimes even what the trauma was, much to everyone's amazement. Sometimes callers lie or obfuscate about having a trauma history at first, claiming their childhood was completely normal, only to reveal something horrific later in the conversation that precisely fits with Drew's initial deduction."

Something to consider....

[onawah]

Whatever one's emotional reaction to the Kavanaugh hearing, the evidence, what there is of it and hopefully there will be more, does not put him in a good light, nor does his obfuscation and avoidance of certain facts.

"While Ford can offer no contemporaneous corroboration of story in the form of testimony from people who remember being present at the alleged event, her story is not wholly uncorroborated either. She appears to have told her therapist about the alleged event years ago, and she identified Kavanaugh as her attacker to her husband years ago, as well.

She initially raised the allegation with her congresswoman before Kavanaugh’s nomination took place. At a minimum, it seems quite clear that Ford was genuinely part of the world in which she claims the attack took place and that she genuinely believed—long before Trump’s election, let alone Kavanaugh’s nomination—that Kavanaugh attacked her.

That she believes this story sincerely is corroborated, if only weakly, by her polygraph exam. Polygraphs are not especially reliable, but the willingness to take one can be a show of strength in a witness. The polygraph is not evidence that Kavanaugh attacked Ford. It is evidence that Ford believes her story truthful and is an earnest accuser, not a conspirator.

Her story is also corroborated, imperfectly but perceptibly, by Kavanaugh’s high-school calendar. Ford describes the attack as taking place at a gathering at which at least four boys—Kavanaugh, Judge, Patrick (P.J.) Smythe, and a boy whose name Ford could not remember—and one girl, Leland Keyser, were drinking beer. Ford specifically allowed for the possibility that there might have been others present as well.

Kavanaugh’s calendar entry for the evening of July 1, 1982, contains an entry that reads, “Go to Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, P.J., Bernie and Squi.” In the hearing, Kavanaugh acknowledged that “skis” in this entry referred to “brewskis,” or beer; that P.J. was Smythe; that Judge was Mark Judge; and that “Squi” was a boy who, Ford had earlier testified, just happened to have been someone she “went out with” for a short time. The calendar entry does not include Ford or Keyser, so the corroboration is far from perfect. It also includes people not mentioned by Ford. Then again, the degree of overlap with Ford’s story is striking. In the summer in which Ford alleges that Kavanaugh attacked her at an evening get-together with a small group of boys drinking beers, his calendar identifies an evening get-together with a small group of boys drinking beers, including three of the boys named by Ford, along with one she dated. Why exactly Kavanaugh imagines his calendar entries to be powerfully exculpatory I am really not sure.

Ford’s story also finds some degree of corroboration in Mark Judge’s employment history. Ford claims that she saw Judge some weeks after the alleged attack at the Safeway where he worked and that he was visibly uncomfortable seeing her. The Washington Post verified from Judge’s own memoir that he was, in fact, working at a grocery story as a bagger in the relevant period. Assuming the FBI investigation firms that up, it would offer another data point tending to corroborate her account’s consistency with verifiable facts.

On the other side of the ledger is Kavanaugh’s testimony, and here we cannot be quite so confident that the witness was being candid.

Kavanaugh’s testimony, whatever one makes of his impassioned claims of innocence on the specific charge, is not credible on the more general issue of his drinking habits. It is, as Kavanaugh suggested at the hearing, absurd for senators to argue with a Supreme Court nominee over his high-school yearbook. Then again, Kavanaugh’s unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious—that his yearbook described a hard-drinking culture that he was a part of and that makes Ford’s account more plausible—made it necessary to do so. Kavanaugh would not concede that the phrase “Beach Week Ralph Club—Biggest Contributor” referred to drinking culture, claiming it was simply a reference to his having a weak stomach. He ascribed implausibly innocent definitions to other terms that appeared in the yearbook. He diminished the casual cruelty he and his friends showed to one girl, Renate Schroeder Dolphin, by describing themselves as “Renate Alumni.” He claimed they intended to show her respect and friendship, but that is not how she reads it three and a half decades later. She told The New York Times, “The insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way.” She is not a fool. His repeated suggestion at the hearing that he had never been so drunk as to have any possibility of memory loss flies in the face of the memories of a number of classmates from college.

My point is not that his confirmation in any sense turns on how much Kavanaugh drank or whether he and his friends made misogynistic jokes as teenagers. But his testimony doesn’t have the ring of truth either. And lack of candor in a witness in one area raises questions about the integrity of that witness’s testimony in other areas.

Thursday evening, after the hearing, former FBI Director James Comey tweeted, “Small lies matter, even about yearbooks. From the standard jury instruction: ‘If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness’ other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness.’” "

And:

"There’s another factor that weighs in Ford’s favor: the failure of the committee to meaningfully engage Mark Judge. The current FBI investigation should ameliorate this problem, and it’s possible, I suppose, that Judge could change the picture significantly in Kavanaugh’s favor—if, for example, he informs the FBI that Kavanaugh was never out-of-control drunk with him or if he denies ever working at the Safeway. The committee’s contentment with the perfunctory letter he sent, however, has the air of fear—fear of what Judge would say. This unwillingness to ask Judge obvious questions erodes Kavanaugh’s position.

To be clear, I am emphatically not saying that Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did. The evidence is not within 100 yards of adequate to convict him. But whether he did it is not the question at hand. The question at hand is how a reasonable senator should construct the evidence to guide a binary vote for or against elevation of a judge to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. By my read, we have two witnesses who both profess 100 percent certainty of their position—one whose testimony is wholly credible and marginally corroborated in a number of respects, and the other whose testimony is not credible on a number of important atmospheric points surrounding the alleged event."

[raregem]

Interesting about Dr. Drew. I would like to know more.

Body Language Ghost on YT also spoke about the little girl voice.

Body Language: Brett Kavanaugh Hearing Christine Blasey Ford
https://youtu.be/uGxr1VQ2dPI

If anyone cares to post the actual video -I thank you.
I haven't seen a comparable video for Kavanaugh yet.

[apokalypse]

If Amy Coney Barrett is nominated, they will pull the same Alinsky tactics on her as they are doing with Kavanaugh. She won't even make it as far as Kavanaugh did.

i don't know just type her name and first page said "Republicans may well like Brett Kavanaugh. But Trump should have chosen Amy Coney Barrett "- WAPO...trump and WAPO-CNN always on different pages so think someone else that WAPO really dislike.

i still think Kavanaugh will get it for many reasons that fits perfect with GOP and Trump administration...

She is even more conservative than Kavanaugh and openly suspect of Roe v Wade. Kavanaugh has at least assured Dems in private interviews that he believes Roe v Wade is established law. If you think the other side of the aisle is in a frenzy now, just wait until Amy Coney Barrett is nominated.

"Even if the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh ultimately fails in the Senate, President Trump should re-nominate the judge ahead of the midterm elections and let the voters decide if they want him on the court, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News on Monday night.

“Here’s what I would tell the president: I would appeal the verdict of the Senate to the ballot box,” Graham said on “Hannity.” “This good man should not be destroyed. If you legitimize this process by one vote short, we’ll be on to the next person. I’d hate to be the next person nominated. I would feel horrible that we destroyed Kavanaugh."

GOP so into KAV, i can agreed with you guys there's better person out there but it seems KAV is the guy that they want to get. Bush and Romney want Kav..

this stuff are House Of Card TV Show but real life...

[PurpleLama]

Blasey Ford's Kavinaugh Testimony Unravels After Ex-Boyfriend Refutes Key Claims (https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-02/blasey-fords-kavinaugh-testimony-unravels-after-ex-boyfriend-refutes-key-claims)

If this pans out, some people must go to jail.

[mgray]

I don't normally cross post (https://grayseconomy.com/2018/10/03/kavanaughs-robe-and-feinsteins-bracelets/) but my Kavanaugh post speaks to the real reason this was a national disgrace. Patriot Act.

[Helene West]

When Christine Blasey Ford opened her mouth, my mouth dropped. The voice that I heard was not anything like what I expected. This lady has two master’s and a doctorate, and even teaches !

How on earth does she manage to inspire her students with a childish voice like that? Unless she is a good actress playing a 15-year-old teenager at the Senate confirmation hearing. To me it was an act.

Also simple parts of her story were out of joint. Like, she was in a house she’d never been in, but yet she went upstairs to use a bathroom. Wasn’t there a bathroom on the main floor? I would assume so.
So, what was she doing on the “second floor”?

And then the timing of the allegations themselves was more than suspect of course.

It could be "Little Girl Voice" . I have heard Dr Drew Pinsky accurately identify several callers to his Radio Show ...here http://loveline.wikia.com/wiki/Little_Girl_Voice......

See extract below:


"The Little Girl Voice is an informal name for a vocal trait in adult women that is caused by psychological trauma before the onset of puberty. Women that are affected speak in a higher sounding, child-like pattern, usually in a manner similar to the age at which they suffered the traumatic event.

Dr. Drew frequently uses this as a cue when talking to female callers, in order to better understand the cause of their problems. He is so practiced at noticing it that he can often guess down to a 6 month period in the woman's life when she was traumatized, and sometimes even what the trauma was, much to everyone's amazement. Sometimes callers lie or obfuscate about having a trauma history at first, claiming their childhood was completely normal, only to reveal something horrific later in the conversation that precisely fits with Drew's initial deduction."

Something to consider....

Hogwash. I catch myself reverting to a younger voice when I'm asking for something, especially help or info from strangers or a favor....It's learned gender behavior not trauma behavior. I sit for hours in front of a computer and listen to talk shows while working, particularly a famous shrink who always asks people's age when they are relaying their dilemmas. The amount of female voices that sound much younger than their age is something I noted years ago. Some of it also could be classified under what we used to call 'feminine wiles'.

For pete's sakes folks, look at her job at Stamford, she has intelligence background whether she is an actual agent or not. Our veterans who have seen war are suffering PTSD and they can't get jack together, not someone who has over 36 years amassed several advanced degrees and is in positions of serious responsibility and high pay. Once again we don't want to believe we're being scammed but we are.

We have the Lizzie Borden syndrome going on here en masse!!

Remember the childhood rhyme - 'lizzie borden had an ax, gave her old man 40 whacks'!! I'd laugh but people are still falling for it. She killed both her parents and got off because people just couldn't believe a Female Would Do Such A Thing.
Same thing years later. Her little girl voice - while she's ripping someone's entrails out.


@mgray - Thank you for today's post. I didn't know about his role in composing Patriot Act? Would like to know more. It doesn't invaldiate my view of above and the camoflage of the Little Bo-Peep voice she was using. But it does highlight again we are constantly put between a rock and a hard place with every so-called choice politically that is presented to us.

[TargeT]

Ford's testimony is falling apart, as it I thought was clearly obviously the eventual outcome after watching it.

dweAxenTE1s

Qanon makes a prediction about Judge Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation vote and suggests that a red wave will sweep Trump supporters into Congress in November.


Does this mean Kavanaugh is the perfect judicial candidate? I don't think so... but it certainly is entertaining.

[Pam]

@T Smith - Here Here! wonderfully put...

The man was being torn to bits and he was supposed to act like High Tea at the Carlyle.

The irony of life - the feminist movement is going to cause the mothers, sisters and daughters of society to have to protect our men from unconscionable females.

I would have been disappointed if he was not disturbed by the accusations. His behavior is to be expected, particularly if he is innocent.

[onawah]

Whatever actually occurred between the two, this is not something that can safely be ignored (from M Gray's article as linked at: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?104440-Kavanaugh-Hearings-a-National-Disgrace&p=1252047&viewfull=1#post1252047

"So what did all this get us? A Supreme Court Associate Justice who had a hand in writing the most draconian law in our nation’s history and not a word was spoken on it at his hearing for a life-time appointment.

I’m talking about the Patriot Act, which was passed into law soon after the 9-11 tragedy. I would have liked to hear his thoughts now on the implementation of this law and its conflict with many of the rights we used to enjoy from the Bill of Rights.

But alas no words on that, because he threw ice in someone’s face in a bar while in college. Fantastic. Glad it was dumbed down for us, so we didn’t have to expend anymore brainpower on it other than who we believed."

What a great distraction the hearing has been, to deflect everyone's attention away from this...

[abmqa]

When Christine Blasey Ford opened her mouth, my mouth dropped. The voice that I heard was not anything like what I expected. This lady has two master’s and a doctorate, and even teaches !

How on earth does she manage to inspire her students with a childish voice like that? Unless she is a good actress playing a 15-year-old teenager at the Senate confirmation hearing. To me it was an act.

Also simple parts of her story were out of joint. Like, she was in a house she’d never been in, but yet she went upstairs to use a bathroom. Wasn’t there a bathroom on the main floor? I would assume so.
So, what was she doing on the “second floor”?

And then the timing of the allegations themselves was more than suspect of course.

It could be "Little Girl Voice" . I have heard Dr Drew Pinsky accurately identify several callers to his Radio Show ...here http://loveline.wikia.com/wiki/Little_Girl_Voice......

See extract below:


"The Little Girl Voice is an informal name for a vocal trait in adult women that is caused by psychological trauma before the onset of puberty. Women that are affected speak in a higher sounding, child-like pattern, usually in a manner similar to the age at which they suffered the traumatic event.

Dr. Drew frequently uses this as a cue when talking to female callers, in order to better understand the cause of their problems. He is so practiced at noticing it that he can often guess down to a 6 month period in the woman's life when she was traumatized, and sometimes even what the trauma was, much to everyone's amazement. Sometimes callers lie or obfuscate about having a trauma history at first, claiming their childhood was completely normal, only to reveal something horrific later in the conversation that precisely fits with Drew's initial deduction."

Something to consider....

Hogwash. I catch myself reverting to a younger voice when I'm asking for something, especially help or info from strangers or a favor....It's learned gender behavior not trauma behavior. I sit for hours in front of a computer and listen to talk shows while working, particularly a famous shrink who always asks people's age when they are relaying their dilemmas. The amount of female voices that sound much younger than their age is something I noted years ago. Some of it also could be classified under what we used to call 'feminine wiles'.

For pete's sakes folks, look at her job at Stamford, she has intelligence background whether she is an actual agent or not. Our veterans who have seen war are suffering PTSD and they can't get jack together, not someone who has over 36 years amassed several advanced degrees and is in positions of serious responsibility and high pay. Once again we don't want to believe we're being scammed but we are.

We have the Lizzie Borden syndrome going on here en masse!!

Remember the childhood rhyme - 'lizzie borden had an ax, gave her old man 40 whacks'!! I'd laugh but people are still falling for it. She killed both her parents and got off because people just couldn't believe a Female Would Do Such A Thing.
Same thing years later. Her little girl voice - while she's ripping someone's entrails out.


@mgray - Thank you for today's post. I didn't know about his role in composing Patriot Act? Would like to know more. It doesn't invaldiate my view of above and the camoflage of the Little Bo-Peep voice she was using. But it does highlight again we are constantly put between a rock and a hard place with every so-called choice politically that is presented to us.


Ooops! I seem to have stepped into the vitriolic goo...

To be clear, I do not have an opinion in the subject as to what amounts to "he said" "she said" from over 30 years ago.

When I first heard Dr. Ford speak I immediately thought about the "little girl voice" theory that apparently can result from childhood trauma, often, but not always of a sexual nature. I used to listen Dr Drew's radio show during my late night drives between N.J and VA.

At no time did I mean to insinuate her condition is the result of an drunken encounter with the Judge.

I did not.

With no other information it would be silly of me to make such a speculation. ;)

However, to totally dismiss it as "hogwash" as women, using their feminine wiles, you say?

Seems dismissively insulting to the the hundreds of thousands of women who have been assaulted and suffer from much worse symptoms.....

I'm outta here.....tip toes away....goes back to lurking...its easier on the shoes...:silent:

[onawah]

Thanks to Target for posting this here:http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?104156-QAnon-An-Opposing-Viewpoint-LARP-Psyop-Cult-or-Something-Even-More-Sinister&p=1252074&viewfull=1#post1252074

lD7qzH4ob3Y

[Helene West]

@abmqa - sorry I should have made it more clear my "Hogwash" was to celebrity Dr. Drew, not you!. I apologize.

I was a feminist before roe vs wade and watching the pendulum swing from justified causes to calculated, biased political attacks seems to be the way of activism in the last decades. All sides have to be examined and seeing her with a jaundiced eye is not insulting all females.

[T Smith]

Whatever one's emotional reaction to the Kavanaugh hearing, the evidence, what there is of it and hopefully there will be more, does not put him in a good light, nor does his obfuscation and avoidance of certain facts.

"While Ford can offer no contemporaneous corroboration of story in the form of testimony from people who remember being present at the alleged event, her story is not wholly uncorroborated either. She appears to have told her therapist about the alleged event years ago, and she identified Kavanaugh as her attacker to her husband years ago, as well.

She initially raised the allegation with her congresswoman before Kavanaugh’s nomination took place. At a minimum, it seems quite clear that Ford was genuinely part of the world in which she claims the attack took place and that she genuinely believed—long before Trump’s election, let alone Kavanaugh’s nomination—that Kavanaugh attacked her.

That she believes this story sincerely is corroborated, if only weakly, by her polygraph exam. Polygraphs are not especially reliable, but the willingness to take one can be a show of strength in a witness. The polygraph is not evidence that Kavanaugh attacked Ford. It is evidence that Ford believes her story truthful and is an earnest accuser, not a conspirator.

Her story is also corroborated, imperfectly but perceptibly, by Kavanaugh’s high-school calendar. Ford describes the attack as taking place at a gathering at which at least four boys—Kavanaugh, Judge, Patrick (P.J.) Smythe, and a boy whose name Ford could not remember—and one girl, Leland Keyser, were drinking beer. Ford specifically allowed for the possibility that there might have been others present as well.

Kavanaugh’s calendar entry for the evening of July 1, 1982, contains an entry that reads, “Go to Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, P.J., Bernie and Squi.” In the hearing, Kavanaugh acknowledged that “skis” in this entry referred to “brewskis,” or beer; that P.J. was Smythe; that Judge was Mark Judge; and that “Squi” was a boy who, Ford had earlier testified, just happened to have been someone she “went out with” for a short time. The calendar entry does not include Ford or Keyser, so the corroboration is far from perfect. It also includes people not mentioned by Ford. Then again, the degree of overlap with Ford’s story is striking. In the summer in which Ford alleges that Kavanaugh attacked her at an evening get-together with a small group of boys drinking beers, his calendar identifies an evening get-together with a small group of boys drinking beers, including three of the boys named by Ford, along with one she dated. Why exactly Kavanaugh imagines his calendar entries to be powerfully exculpatory I am really not sure.

Ford’s story also finds some degree of corroboration in Mark Judge’s employment history. Ford claims that she saw Judge some weeks after the alleged attack at the Safeway where he worked and that he was visibly uncomfortable seeing her. The Washington Post verified from Judge’s own memoir that he was, in fact, working at a grocery story as a bagger in the relevant period. Assuming the FBI investigation firms that up, it would offer another data point tending to corroborate her account’s consistency with verifiable facts.

On the other side of the ledger is Kavanaugh’s testimony, and here we cannot be quite so confident that the witness was being candid.

Kavanaugh’s testimony, whatever one makes of his impassioned claims of innocence on the specific charge, is not credible on the more general issue of his drinking habits. It is, as Kavanaugh suggested at the hearing, absurd for senators to argue with a Supreme Court nominee over his high-school yearbook. Then again, Kavanaugh’s unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious—that his yearbook described a hard-drinking culture that he was a part of and that makes Ford’s account more plausible—made it necessary to do so. Kavanaugh would not concede that the phrase “Beach Week Ralph Club—Biggest Contributor” referred to drinking culture, claiming it was simply a reference to his having a weak stomach. He ascribed implausibly innocent definitions to other terms that appeared in the yearbook. He diminished the casual cruelty he and his friends showed to one girl, Renate Schroeder Dolphin, by describing themselves as “Renate Alumni.” He claimed they intended to show her respect and friendship, but that is not how she reads it three and a half decades later. She told The New York Times, “The insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way.” She is not a fool. His repeated suggestion at the hearing that he had never been so drunk as to have any possibility of memory loss flies in the face of the memories of a number of classmates from college.

My point is not that his confirmation in any sense turns on how much Kavanaugh drank or whether he and his friends made misogynistic jokes as teenagers. But his testimony doesn’t have the ring of truth either. And lack of candor in a witness in one area raises questions about the integrity of that witness’s testimony in other areas.

Thursday evening, after the hearing, former FBI Director James Comey tweeted, “Small lies matter, even about yearbooks. From the standard jury instruction: ‘If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness’ other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness.’” "

And:

"There’s another factor that weighs in Ford’s favor: the failure of the committee to meaningfully engage Mark Judge. The current FBI investigation should ameliorate this problem, and it’s possible, I suppose, that Judge could change the picture significantly in Kavanaugh’s favor—if, for example, he informs the FBI that Kavanaugh was never out-of-control drunk with him or if he denies ever working at the Safeway. The committee’s contentment with the perfunctory letter he sent, however, has the air of fear—fear of what Judge would say. This unwillingness to ask Judge obvious questions erodes Kavanaugh’s position.

To be clear, I am emphatically not saying that Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did. The evidence is not within 100 yards of adequate to convict him. But whether he did it is not the question at hand. The question at hand is how a reasonable senator should construct the evidence to guide a binary vote for or against elevation of a judge to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. By my read, we have two witnesses who both profess 100 percent certainty of their position—one whose testimony is wholly credible and marginally corroborated in a number of respects, and the other whose testimony is not credible on a number of important atmospheric points surrounding the alleged event."

I agree after hearing from Ford I found her credible and believable -- at the very least I was convinced she believed what was she was saying was true.

But one thing I hardly ever hear anyone point out is this:

How many Senators grilled her with unflattering implications and inuendo as they did with Kavanaugh? How many times was she required to answer the same question over and over, implying she wasn't being truthful the first time around? We are basically judging the credibility of these two people in relation to each other, and based on very different standards. We are asked who to believe, who is more credible, etc. But it is a grossly lop-sided inquiry, to say the least. We are treating one with kid gloves and throwing a blanket over the other and gang-piling it on. There have been six (now seven) FBI background investigations on the accused. In addition, the press, operatives for Democrats, and God only knows how many others with agenda and motive have looked under how many rocks, and how far back they went looking, to get any kind of embarrassing dirt on the accused. Back to high-school? Really? To when he was a kid? The charge against him is serious, yes. I won't downplay the charge. But going back to high-school to find dirt, to try to validate the charge in the court of public opinion is nothing short of absurd if you think about it.

There have been 60+ women who know Kavanaugh professionally and personally have vouched for him, presumably with some degree of discomfort given the mob reaction to any support for him -- How many people have vouched for Ford? How far back has the same inquisition dug into her past? So to judge her credibility beyond a very compelling two hour interview? What do we know about her high-school yearbook, or her character from 60+ people who know her, or from high-school friends? Or why she is therapy, etc., etc.? What would seven FBI investigations on her background reveal? That maybe she's out of her f*&^% mind?

To be clear, I am not saying that at all. I have no idea who she is or how credible she is as a witness because I don't know her, other than what I know from the riveting testimony that she gave before the judicial committee. From that she seemed credible. Even likable. But that's all I know about her. But so did Kavanaugh seem likable and credible (from six FBI investigations) before this charge arose from 34 years ago.

To this end, it appears there may be a serious discrepancy in Ford's very riveting testimony (based on hearsay, of course -- just as is Kavanaugh's damning discrepancies are based on hearsay). She testified that she had never been coached nor coached on how to preform on a polygraph. If we are to believe the sworn statement to the contrary, this is not true. Apparently Ford not only knows how to beat a polygraph, she actually coached someone on how to do so.

On this point, I will stick to my standards. I will presume she is innocent of perjury -- until proven guilty.

My point, here, is not to accuse Ford of not being credible. It is to put the entire inquisition in its proper perspective.

[onawah]

The fact that it is Kavanaugh who is being considered as a prospective Supreme Court Justice, and not Ford, must certainly have something to do with the amount of scrutiny he is being put under, as compared to her.



My point, here, is not to accuse Ford of not being credible. It is to put the entire inquisition in its proper perspective.

[T Smith]

The fact that it is Kavanaugh who is being considered as a prospective Supreme Court Justice, and not Ford, must certainly have something to do with the amount of scrutiny he is being put under, as compared to her.



My point, here, is not to accuse Ford of not being credible. It is to put the entire inquisition in its proper perspective.

True. But with her very serious accusation, she also has the power not only to deny a potentially innocent man from becoming the SCJ, but to also destroy his career, even his life. Perhaps such a powerful and damning accusation should also contain some degree of scrutiny?

[onawah]

Yes, it should, and it has but there was so little evidence in her case to investigate that if it weren't for Kavanaugh's help in the creation of the Patriot Act, I would say that he would probably have passed the test.
Hopefully his part in the Patriot Act will act as a deterrent.
But the question then is who will be the next candidate, and was this all a setup to make the next one, who could be much worse, more likely to get voted in?


The fact that it is Kavanaugh who is being considered as a prospective Supreme Court Justice, and not Ford, must certainly have something to do with the amount of scrutiny he is being put under, as compared to her.



My point, here, is not to accuse Ford of not being credible. It is to put the entire inquisition in its proper perspective.

True. But with her very serious accusation, she also has the power not only to deny a potentially innocent man from becoming the SCJ, but to also destroy his career, even his life. Perhaps such a powerful and damning accusation should also contain some degree of scrutiny?

[ramus]

The Christine Blasey Ford gofundme ..... fund is at least $760,000.00 the best i can make out. It could be more, but not less.

https://www.gofundme.com/mvc.php?route=homepage_norma/search&term=Christine%20Blasey%20Ford%20

[apokalypse]

The fact that it is Kavanaugh who is being considered as a prospective Supreme Court Justice, and not Ford, must certainly have something to do with the amount of scrutiny he is being put under, as compared to her.



My point, here, is not to accuse Ford of not being credible. It is to put the entire inquisition in its proper perspective.

True. But with her very serious accusation, she also has the power not only to deny a potentially innocent man from becoming the SCJ, but to also destroy his career, even his life. Perhaps such a powerful and damning accusation should also contain some degree of scrutiny?

thanks for that view t-smith..had a thought what should i do and open my eyes. only to blame for are the system and ourselves.. its freaking joke

[Satori]

Yes, it should, and it has but there was so little evidence in her case to investigate that if it weren't for Kavanaugh's help in the creation of the Patriot Act, I would say that he would probably have passed the test.
Hopefully his part in the Patriot Act will act as a deterrent.
But the question then is who will be the next candidate, and was this all a setup to make the next one, who could be much worse, more likely to get voted in?


The fact that it is Kavanaugh who is being considered as a prospective Supreme Court Justice, and not Ford, must certainly have something to do with the amount of scrutiny he is being put under, as compared to her.



My point, here, is not to accuse Ford of not being credible. It is to put the entire inquisition in its proper perspective.

True. But with her very serious accusation, she also has the power not only to deny a potentially innocent man from becoming the SCJ, but to also destroy his career, even his life. Perhaps such a powerful and damning accusation should also contain some degree of scrutiny?

Meet the principal author of the USPATRIOT Act (sic), Viet Dinh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_D._Dinh

Keep your eyes on this guy.

I met him in 2004. He confirmed to me in response to my question, and before a group of many people, that the Patriot Act (sic) had been written in substantial form and substance long prior to 9/11.

It is clear that piece-of-garbage law (sic) was lying around waiting for the opportunity to be resurrected. After 9/11 he, Viet Dinh, according to what he said publicly, formed a group of people both within and outside the DOJ (sic) to revise it in the form that was eventually, and at lightning speed, shoved down the throat of a compliant, docile and anti-Constitutional Congress.

[T Smith]

Yes, it should, and it has but there was so little evidence in her case to investigate that if it weren't for Kavanaugh's help in the creation of the Patriot Act, I would say that he would probably have passed the test.
Hopefully his part in the Patriot Act will act as a deterrent.
But the question then is who will be the next candidate, and was this all a setup to make the next one, who could be much worse, more likely to get voted in?


The fact that it is Kavanaugh who is being considered as a prospective Supreme Court Justice, and not Ford, must certainly have something to do with the amount of scrutiny he is being put under, as compared to her.



My point, here, is not to accuse Ford of not being credible. It is to put the entire inquisition in its proper perspective.

True. But with her very serious accusation, she also has the power not only to deny a potentially innocent man from becoming the SCJ, but to also destroy his career, even his life. Perhaps such a powerful and damning accusation should also contain some degree of scrutiny?

When it comes to civil liberties, it's a two-sided coin. Both parties are horrible. It's not entirely clear to me what would be better, a left-leaning SCJ or a right-leaning SCJ as far a deciding vote on something like the Patriot Act is concerned. Remember, the Patriot Act passed 98-1, the only dissenting vote in the Senate being Russ Fiengold (D-WI). On the right, Ron Paul adamantly condemned the act (and would have voted against it if he were a senator), and so would have Rand, the Republican Senator from Kentucky, if he were in the Senate at the time.

Other than these few-and-far-between principled politicians, however, I don't see much difference.

[Ratszinger]

The patriot act had to fit within the parameters of the constitution to be able to institute it but since it was signed, well since Sept, 14, 2001 we've been in a state of emergency. This as I understand it effectively suspended the constitution as of the date Bush signed it into law and then late in Obama's second term he renewed it so it is still now in effect. Surely Kavanaugh knows this since he helped write it. So all the focus on Roe vs Wade is just a smoke screen I suppose. They have to make it look like they object but they probably all agreed to this in secret some time ago. This brings a big question? Isn't it true if the constitution was suspended that Obama on his word or OK alone at that time could have ordered whatever investigation he wanted since he had the authority to do so under the emergency powers? So in other words Hillary isn't arrested because she did what Obama gave the okay on and since he had the authority to do so thanks to emergency powers no crimes were committed if he gave them permission! Even if meant spying on Trump.



Does that make all of this a dog and pony show? So if it's all just a show this is just the round up, the harvest the collection of peoples for the work camps of the future if it's the worst case scenario. I'm so glad sometimes that I'm getting older. Just give me 20 more years. Do you think the masses of people in camps doing all the manufacturing for the NAZI machine thought two years before it happened that they ever would be in such a place even though all the signs were there pointing to it? One year?

Proclamation 7463 of September 14, 2001


Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of
Certain Terrorist Attacks

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist
attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York,
and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate
threat of further attacks on the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the
United States of America, by virtue of the authority
vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States, I hereby declare that the
national emergency has existed since September 11,
2001, and, pursuant to the National Emergencies Act (50
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), I intend to utilize the following
statutes: sections 123, 123a, 527, 2201(c), 12006, and
12302 of title 10, United States Code, and sections
331, 359, and 367 of title 14, United States Code.

This proclamation immediately shall be published in the
Federal Register or disseminated through the Emergency
Federal Register, and transmitted to the Congress.

This proclamation is not intended to create any right
or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law by a party against the United States, its agencies,
its officers, or any person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
fourteenth day of September, in the year of our Lord
two thousand one, and of the Independence of the United
States of America the two hundred and twenty-sixth.

[signed:] George W. Bush

[Bayareamom]

I find this letter to be extremely compelling. I very much admire the quality of character and strength of the writer. I, too, have reached the same conclusion(s). These last few paragraphs were, to me, most poignant:


..."To be clear, I am emphatically not saying that Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did. The evidence is not within 100 yards of adequate to convict him. But whether he did it is not the question at hand. The question at hand is how a reasonable senator should construct the evidence to guide a binary vote for or against elevation of a judge to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. By my read, we have two witnesses who both profess 100 percent certainty of their position—one whose testimony is wholly credible and marginally corroborated in a number of respects, and the other whose testimony is not credible on a number of important atmospheric points surrounding the alleged event.

It’s not a tie, and it doesn’t go to the nominee.

There’s one more reason I could not vote to confirm Kavanaugh: His apparent lack of candor on the culture of drinking at Georgetown Prep and later is a problem of its own, quite apart from what it may indicate about the truth of Ford’s story. People throw around words like perjury too blithely. I won’t do so here. I will say that I do not believe he showed the sort of candor that warrants the Senate’s—or the public’s—confidence. To the extent some commentators on the right are defending Kavanaugh’s testimony as containing the sort of white lies that anyone might tell under the circumstances, let me just say that I don’t believe that Supreme Court justices get to tell self-exculpating white lies—and I don’t believe in white lies from anyone else either in sworn congressional testimony.

Over the weekend, I listened to a number of podcasts in which liberals mocked Kavanaugh as an entitled white male refusing to face accountability for what he had done. I find the tone of these discussions nauseating—undetained by the possibility of error. I, like Jeff Flake, am haunted by doubt, by the certainty of uncertainty and the consequent possibility of injustice. I spent a lot of time this weekend thinking about Oliver Cromwell’s famous letter to the Church of Scotland in which he implored, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” I also spent some time with Learned Hand’s similar maxim, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” We all need to think it possible that we may be mistaken; we all need to be not too sure that we are right.

But my bottom line is the opposite of the one Flake expressed in his statement: Faced with credible allegations of serious misconduct against him, Kavanaugh behaved in a fashion unacceptable in a justice, it seems preponderantly likely he was not candid with the Senate Judiciary Committee on important matters, and the risk of Ford’s allegations being closer to the truth than his denial of them is simply too high to place him on the Supreme Court.

We are in a political environment in which there are no rules, no norms anymore to violate. There is only power, and the individual judgments of individual senators—facing whatever political pressures they face, calculating political gain however they do it, and consulting their consciences to the extent they have them.

As much as I admire Kavanaugh, my conscience would not permit me to vote for him."


Inasmuch as I truly tried to find fairness when comparing these two individuals' testimonies (believe me, I did), as of yesterday I now realize that it was Kavanaugh's DEMEANOR which bothered me the most. I was left, at times, astounded with his belligerence toward one of the female committee members (asking HER if she had ever blacked out after drinking rather than simply answering her question w/a modicum of dignity). Kavanaugh appeared, to me, as a rude, belligerent frat boy, incapable of answering some of the questions directed at him, with any sort of dignity or respect. Those portions of his testimony were amazing to watch, most especially because he already sits on a bench as a judge and is being considered for the highest bench in this country.

I can sympathize and empathize with Kavanaugh on a certain level. I am sure he has been living in a kind of hellish nightmare since this all came out re his past. But he IS being considered for an extremely important life-time elevation into the highest court of this land, and therefore it is incumbent on him to behave in a manner which reflects that appointment.

I am sorry to say, he did not meet those standards.

No one is perfect; we all make mistakes. It might have served Kavanaugh's better purpose to simply and forthrightly own up to his past behavior and let the chips fall where they may. Frankly, I would have had considerable more respect for him had he simply owned up to this youthful indiscretions. Unfortunately, as of today, given this new letter which has surfaced, it only adds further fuel to an already simmering smoking flame. His protestations have been fraught with consistent lies, and lies I might add, on varying levels.

He does not exhibit someone I would consider to uphold the moral and high ground one would expect of any Supreme Court Justice. Having said this, I do not believe that any of our current judges sitting on the Supreme Court walk on water. They're not perfect, nor angelic. But in this instance, with Brett Kavanaugh, he has been CAUGHT...lying. HIs strength of character, or in this case, the lack thereof, is what concerns me.

I very much admire the gentleman who wrote the above letter; it must have been a painful process for him.

[onawah]

I'm afraid you may have summed it all up quite accurately, Ratszinger. It just keeps going from bad to worse. :bump:

The patriot act had to fit within the parameters of the constitution to be able to institute it but since it was signed, well since Sept, 14, 2001 we've been in a state of emergency. This as I understand it effectively suspended the constitution as of the date Bush signed it into law and then late in Obama's second term he renewed it so it is still now in effect. Surely Kavanaugh knows this since he helped write it. So all the focus on Roe vs Wade is just a smoke screen I suppose. They have to make it look like they object but they probably all agreed to this in secret some time ago. This brings a big question? Isn't it true if the constitution was suspended that Obama on his word or OK alone at that time could have ordered whatever investigation he wanted since he had the authority to do so under the emergency powers? So in other words Hillary isn't arrested because she did what Obama gave the okay on and since he had the authority to do so thanks to emergency powers no crimes were committed if he gave them permission! Even if meant spying on Trump.



Does that make all of this a dog and pony show? So if it's all just a show this is just the round up, the harvest the collection of peoples for the work camps of the future if it's the worst case scenario. I'm so glad sometimes that I'm getting older. Just give me 20 more years. Do you think the masses of people in camps doing all the manufacturing for the NAZI machine thought two years before it happened that they ever would be in such a place even though all the signs were there pointing to it? One year?

Proclamation 7463 of September 14, 2001


Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of
Certain Terrorist Attacks

By the President of the United States of America

A Proclamation

A national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist
attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York,
and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate
threat of further attacks on the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the
United States of America, by virtue of the authority
vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States, I hereby declare that the
national emergency has existed since September 11,
2001, and, pursuant to the National Emergencies Act (50
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), I intend to utilize the following
statutes: sections 123, 123a, 527, 2201(c), 12006, and
12302 of title 10, United States Code, and sections
331, 359, and 367 of title 14, United States Code.

This proclamation immediately shall be published in the
Federal Register or disseminated through the Emergency
Federal Register, and transmitted to the Congress.

This proclamation is not intended to create any right
or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law by a party against the United States, its agencies,
its officers, or any person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
fourteenth day of September, in the year of our Lord
two thousand one, and of the Independence of the United
States of America the two hundred and twenty-sixth.

[signed:] George W. Bush

[mgray]

I was waiting until Kavanaugh was confirmed before writing a column on this, bit I'll give PA a sneak peek. lol.

I would like for President Trump's next SCOTUS nominee to be Maryanne Trump Barry, his older sister.

This would really throw the Dems into a tither as they would not know how to react.

[ThePythonicCow]

I was waiting until Kavanaugh was confirmed before writing a column on this, bit I'll give PA a sneak peek. lol.

I would like for President Trump's next SCOTUS nominee to be Maryanne Trump Barry, his older sister.

This would really throw the Dems into a tither as they would not know how to react.

Well, on the surface, that seems nonsensical, as she is 81 years old. No President in his right mind (I realize some doubt that this is relevant to Donald Trump) nominates someone that old to the Supreme Court, for one wants one's nominations to have a good chance of remaining active for many years into the future.

So, I presume that there's a "twist" to your recommendation ... the details of which hopefully we won't have to wait for long.

[onawah]

Thousands of protesters today in D.C. This is on Facebook now:
https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/337514613490833/?notif_id=1538597215870279&notif_t=live_video_share
From the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/celebrities-rally-against-kavanaugh/2018/10/04/922ca2b1-543f-47d3-8f24-38330f6df28d_live.html?utm_term=.229b42626b3c
From ABC
https://abc7ny.com/politics/protesters-head-to-dc-as-senate-reads-fbis-kavanaugh-report/4404261/

[Bayareamom]

Upon reading further re the Kavanaugh issue, I came across information referencing a letter submitted by numerous law professors re the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh.

Here is the link:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1j9eWOK_v5a11Z7tsRIQ8AX_VtzvAZXR03wAdKDxA4TE/viewform?edit_requested=true[COLOR="red"]

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Open Letter to the United States Senate from Law Professors Around the Country

"Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, to be a judge requires that an individual have “a personality that is evenhanded, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” [1] The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist Paper 78, entitled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”

We are law professors who teach, research, and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Thursday, September 27, 2018, the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh located the hearing as a partisan question, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory, and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to questioners.

As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455. As this Congress has put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 USC § 455. These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.

We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that Judge Kavanaugh did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only."

[Satori]

Gee, a handful of law professors joined in signing this letter, which was likely written by even fewer law professors. That means many thousands of law professors did not join in the letter and probably knew nothing about such a letter and who would disagree with its conclusion as applied to Kavanaugh.

Also, we are not looking at a painful process taking place by those who are writing such things about Kavanaugh's perceived judicial temperament, we are looking at a political process taking place.

If we want to have a sense of Kavanaugh's judicial temperament, I'd be more interested in hearing from people, who will mostly be practicing lawyers (not Ivory Tower law professors), who appeared before him during oral argument.

[ichingcarpenter]

[QUOTE=Satori;1252303]Gee, a handful of law professors joined in signing this letter, which was likely written by even fewer law professors. That means many thousands of law professors did not join in the letter and probably knew nothing about such a letter and who would disagree with its conclusion as applied to Kavanaugh.

********************* UPDATE ************************

Date: Thursday, October 4, 2018

Time: 10:00 am Eastern Time

Time left to sign: 2 hours

Number of law professors who have signed: 1,500+

Number of law schools*: 160+



You must have hands that have over 1500+ fingers for 'a handful' these days

My brother was a judge and says he doesn't have the temperament
and I've watched him on the bench....and he never lost his cool and impartiality

I was a criminal court coordinator and after finally watching his testimony says
he doesn't have the temperment either to be a supreme court judge........ but he likes beer and still likes beer.

We can do better........

[Bayareamom]

Personally, I feel we DID view a 'sense' of Kavanaugh's judicial temperament - during the hearing. That's just my opinion, though (but apparently the same with a few others).

I am not at all suggesting that this letter should be the end all, be all, as to personal judgment when it comes to Kavanaugh's judicial temperament. I simply found the letter interesting...

I will say this: As much as I loathed viewing the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas issue (I viewed that hearing in its entirety), I found Thomas' demeanor during that hearing to be far superior to that exhibited by Judge Kavanaugh.

And I say this as someone who believed Anita Hill's testimony when all was said and done...

[Bayareamom]

I suppose I should add that I am married to an attorney (not a litigator) and I formerly worked as a legal assistant for many years (most of which was in litigation). So perhaps this is why this issue with comportment and 'judicial temperament' strikes me as it does.

I have no axe to grind on any political front as to how I have come to view Judge Kavanaugh. I have tried to stay as unbiased as is possible as I read through various transcripts, watch various videos, and read various differing testimonies of others who know, or have known, all parties involved.

I have come to the conclusion I have, after doing same, but certainly do not expect others to reach the same conclusion.

[Ratszinger]

What I hear going on myself is people confusing policy and principle a lot.
On principle it is true Kavanaugh probably lacks what is needed for temperament in the SC> but is Ginsburg unflawed?
The fact is Kavanaugh is being placed in there on policy not principle.

Ginsburg was a policy child. You know Kavanaugh is all about pollicy not principle even though he will try to walk the walk of principled, the truth is in the way he couldn't answer a question straight away but evaded it and did a dance around it never answering. This is a typical politician move, a move of policy.

A man of principle could have answered the question straight up but he'd never get into the SC because that is a politics thing, a policy thing! It's like people that mix up love and commitment all the time. They walk hand in hand so it's easy to lose track.

[Helene West]

re: letter in Post#172 above

Once you've truly internalized the motive of the so-called left, to transform america into a totally different place, to destroy the constitution and turn every tradition inside out and upside down, whether it's the laws of the land or obvious perceptions such as a man is a man and a woman is a woman, once you really take it in ----

Every utterance out of their mouths becomes Not Content but Technique.

When the great globalist hand has written that letter and paid off or made promises to whomever signs it, does it matter what it says unless you are smart enough to look for techniques in the letter that you can defend yourself from or use against them. Today it's this letter, tomorrow it will be another paid agent or fake boobed skank from a high class brothel or another shooting. As long as you stay with the minutiae du jour, we will eventually be taken over. Julian Assange believes those being born now are the last generation of relativity free people. I disagree. If there is not more of a consciousness that we are under attack from those who want their one government world, I'd say today's adolescents are the last.

Below is a link to a young lady whose self-evaluation journey she shares doesn't totally focus on Kavanaugh et al but has been inspired by it and all the happenings of the last 2 weeks. She is questioning whether we really should be aiming and longing to keep the country together after all?? She calls herself - 'Blonde in the Belly of the Beast'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2IUjVWtqRA

[TargeT]

Number of law professors who have signed: 1,500+



Academia you say?

Have we not seen the extra ordinary bias from that group already... or do we just ignore that when they try to influence politics on a national scale (a minor tactic shift, I suppose).

Letter means a lot less to me, given the source (seems like a logical fallacy is in there somewhere).

[Satori]

For what it's worth:

I've been a trial attorney for almost 40 years. I also do a fair amount of appellate work and I have appeared before state and federal appellate judges for oral argument.

My experience is that when a judge is on the bench he or she displays good judicial temperament during the proceedings; especially at the appellate level. This may not be true as much with trial judges who are on the bench sitting there alone, and who have to deal with the craziness at the trial level, often in cases with people appearing without qualified lawyers and causing havoc simply because they don't know the process or are bringing up ridiculous stuff. Some lawyers cause trouble too at the trial level due to incompetence and the like.

But with appeals and appellate judges the dynamics change. For instance, there is a panel of 3, sometime more, judges sitting on a case during oral argument. Thus, their peers are sitting next to them. Also, the litigants tend to behave themselves much better in oral argument on appeal. I've seen misconduct at the trial level, but never at the appellate level. Also, an appellate judge is not the sole "referee", and what a trial judge might do or want to do as the sole judge and decider at that stage, a judge will not do while sitting on a panel, especially at the appellate level.

To me the tag of poor "judicial temperament" is code for we don't want him because we do not like his politics.

But, a judge's temperament should not be confused with a judge's ultimate decision or opinion in a given case. Two different things there.

By the way bayareamom, I did not mean to give the impression that I was singling you out. I am not. I find your posts thoughtful and well worth reading.

[onawah]

Personally, I think Clarence Thomas has a pathological condition but is very skilled at mimicking a grounded, reasonably ethical person. They can be quite good at that.


I will say this: As much as I loathed viewing the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas issue (I viewed that hearing in its entirety), I found Thomas' demeanor during that hearing to be far superior to that exhibited by Judge Kavanaugh.

And I say this as someone who believed Anita Hill's testimony when all was said and done...

[Bayareamom]

I honestly do not view this issue as a political one FOR ME (although it is a political issue in sum). For me, what I SEE is a 'he said, she said,' scenario, w/o a lot of facts to bolster either side. Initially, I found both these individuals somewhat credible on the surface, but then later, as more information came out, I realized I needed to continue to dig just a little more -- the truth is in there somewhere, I thought, but I just need to dig a little deeper.

For me, and rather unbelievably so, I found Julie Swetnick to be credible. Why? First, I viewed her entire MSNBC interview. I LISTENED to her summation as to what she says happened many years prior. She gave a lot of nuanced, articulated information, information I found to be very credible. She did not state that she knows if either Mark Judge or Brett Kavanaugh were included in with the perpetrators of her gang rape, but what she stated after that remark, was surprising.

She actually DID file a police report -- in Montgomery County, Maryland. MSNBC researched her information and found her statement pertaining to the filing of a police report, to be truthful. When MSNBC contacted the Montgomery County, Maryland police department where Julie Swetnick says she filed the report, they found that the officer/detective who actually filed her report was, indeed, working with the police department in that county, at the time Julie claims to have filed the report. Unfortunately, this detective is now deceased, but the police department apparently stated to MSNBC that they could locate the records, but it may take up to a month to produce them (why that is, they didn't state during the interview itself).

Swetnick stated her reasons behind the hiring of the attorney she is using. She stated he was recommended to her by a friend (I believe that's what she said, but am not certain at this point). She states that she realized the blowback she would probably receive when she went public and wanted an experienced D.C. attorney who would be able to help her navigate the waters.

Honestly, I was shocked as I listened to her interview. I truly did not expect to believe anything Swetnick had to say. I learned a lesson there; I was relying on bits and pieces of material coming out of the mainstream media and made assumptions about Swetnick based on that information. But once I viewed her interview on MSNBC, that all changed. I viewed her as someone who I deemed, afterwards, to be truthful and then realized that of all the female witnesses and/or friends of Judge Kavanaugh's to have come out with public statements...

...Swetnick's testimony, to me, seems the most credible. I cannot tell you how much this shocks me; I did not see that coming.

Julie Swetnick would actually be someone who could have ample evidence to back up her claims, given the filing of her police report (filed the day after the alleged event) and not perhaps coincidentally, HER claim is the one that has received the most vociferous denials from the pro-Kavanaugh camp.

I find that very interesting.

Additionally, when I read the bit about the 'words' used in Kavanaugh's yearbook (something to do with sexual content)...that was also a game changer for me as well. And no, this is not about immature high school shenanigans. This is about integrity and strength of character - NOT about high school stupidity.

The fact that Judge Kavanaugh LIED about this, disturbs me. He was not truthful when questioned about this. He was combative, petulant and would not answer the questions about this issue, when confronted directly during the hearing.

To ME, when someone is going to be confirmed to the highest bench in the judicial system in this country, they need to exhibit appropriate decorum AT ALL TIMES, which would of course include appearing before a judiciary committee to answer very, very difficult questions.

He did not exhibit the type of judicial temperament that I would like to see of someone who will be sitting on that bench, for a life time. And I do not care one iota if he is a Democrat or Republican, but I DO expect that he will be a fair and impartial judge when he sits on that bench.

In the end, this is not at all about Christine Blasey Ford, or any of the others who have come out, for whatever reason, and have had their statements made about Judge Kavanaugh.

This is about integrity and character. Period.

I also believe that there are those who sit on the Supreme Court who also have issues with integrity, honesty, etc. The difference between those individuals and Judge Kavanaugh is that HE got caught up in his own lies. He got caught.

I would advise any young person today, who may be exhibiting this same type behavior as exhibited by Kavanaugh during his youth to understand that at some point, this same behavior may catch up with you later on in your lifetime. Certainly perhaps not for all, but for a few, it will. It is quite possible that Judge Kavanaugh is innocent, but given the information coming forth from others who clearly knew him during his Yale days, I would have to find ALL of these individuals to be lying and ONLY believe Judge Kavanaugh.

I just do not believe that every single one of these individuals is lying. They've nothing to gain by coming forth as far as I can see. And frankly, I loathe the shenanigans on BOTH SIDES of this spectrum. The Republicans are no better than their opposing camp mates as to their deviousness and political shenanigans (although I do find that the withholding of this first letter by Ford, by Feinstein, to be unconscionable).

This will probably be my last say on the matter. As I've said, I've absolutely no political pony in this race. I really don't feel we have the entire truth from either camp. I find Ford's testimony compelling in some parts, but weak in other parts.

But I DO have issues with Judge Kavanaugh's behavior during the hearing. I DO understand the emotional issues for both of these individuals (Ford/Kavanaugh), but nevertheless, I find Judge Kavanaugh's demeanor to be less than exemplary throughout this process.

[Bayareamom]

"Personally, I think Clarence Thomas has a pathological condition but is very skilled at mimicking a grounded, reasonably ethical person. They can be quite good at that."

Oh, I absolutely agree! Please understand - I am not at all stating that I find Thomas CREDIBLE or some sort of huge truth teller. I said I found his demeanor to be above and beyond that exhibited by Judge Kavanaugh, during his own hearing. I have found throughout these past several years in my own life that LISTENING involves more than just hearing WORDS. Body language, comportment/demeanor is a part of the listening process, most especially when BOTH parties (as in this case) appear heartfelt in their presentations.

There is just too much information coming out about Judge Kavanaugh by others who knew him at Yale to not question his integrity (that and his own demeanor during the hearing).

His defensiveness, his belligerence...were out there for all to see. I do understand that if he were truly innocent of these allegations, the enormity of the emotional impact would drive almost anyone to the brink. I get that.

But again, this is about an appointment to the highest level in our judicial system. This individual NEEDS to show he is worthy of this appointment. For me, he just hasn't exhibited what I would like to see in a judge who has a lifetime appointment on the highest bench in the United States.

I believe he will be confirmed and if that happens, it won't surprise me.

As my husband says, it's most likely that all of the others who already sit in this lofty position have their own skeletons to hide. He'll probably fit right in...

[Bayareamom]

@Satori,

You stated, ..."To me the tag of poor "judicial temperament" is code for we don't want him because we do not like his politics..."

I am not a prolific poster here at the forum; there is much about myself and my background that I have never revealed. Having said that, I will reveal one item. I have never voted. For anything. And never for a President in this country. I will not participate in a system which I believe is corrupted from the top, down. Although I registered to vote a few years ago, I ultimately decided that I just could not go against my higher conscience. I guess one could say that I am 'in this world, not of it.' There is much about our political process that I really do loathe.

So having said this, I again will state: I have absolutely NO AXE to grind with this Kavanaugh/Ford issue. None whatsoever. I do not keep up on politics, nor am I really familiar with political pundits, political stories, etc. I refuse to participate in a system which is not in this for me or for my own benefit (or anyone else's). I am not saying that anyone and everyone who is a political figure is evil, but some are more so than others. I DO know that in order to stay involved in politics, whether in this country or other countries, one has to PLAY THE GAME, or they're finished.

My husband and I found out the hard way that this political system/gamesmanship is borne out on the lower levels of government as well. When we had issues with our school district over our son's program in school, we had our eyes laid wide open when we found just how corrupted our school district is out here (CA). It was appalling to find out how corrupted our own school board is/was, which did nothing for my already negative feelings about politics in general.

SO - on that note. I care not one whit about Judge Kavanaugh's politics in general. What I DO care about - is his ability to sit on ANY bench in a fair and impartial manner.

I did not see during that hearing an individual I deem worthy of an appointment to the highest judicial branch in the U.S.

[onawah]

Would you please provide links for the Julie Swetnick info? Thanks! :thumbsup:
Is it this one?
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/julie-swetnick-speaks-about-alleged-behavior-by-judge-kavanaugh-1334265923929?v=raila&
"In an exclusive interview with NBC News' Kate Snow, Julie Swetnick describes being attacked at a party that was attended by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. While Swetnick cannot confirm that Brett Kavanaugh was one of her attackers, she does say that she knows both Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were at the party before the attack. NBC News has not been able to independently corroborate Swetnick's claims."


For me, and rather unbelievably so, I found Julie Swetnick to be credible. Why? First, I viewed her entire MSNBC interview. I LISTENED to her summation as to what she says happened many years prior. She gave a lot of nuanced, articulated information, information I found to be very credible. She did not state that she knows if either Mark Judge or Brett Kavanaugh were included in with the perpetrators of her gang rape, but what she stated after that remark, was surprising.

She actually DID file a police report -- in Montgomery County, Maryland. MSNBC researched her information and found her statement pertaining to the filing of a police report, to be truthful. When MSNBC contacted the Montgomery County, Maryland police department where Julie Swetnick says she filed the report, they found that the officer/detective who actually filed her report was, indeed, working with the police department in that county, at the time Julie claims to have filed the report. Unfortunately, this detective is now deceased, but the police department apparently stated to MSNBC that they could locate the records, but it may take up to a month to produce them (why that is, they didn't state during the interview itself).

Swetnick stated her reasons behind the hiring of the attorney she is using. She stated he was recommended to her by a friend (I believe that's what she said, but am not certain at this point). She states that she realized the blowback she would probably receive when she went public and wanted an experienced D.C. attorney who would be able to help her navigate the waters.

Honestly, I was shocked as I listened to her interview. I truly did not expect to believe anything Swetnick had to say. I learned a lesson there; I was relying on bits and pieces of material coming out of the mainstream media and made assumptions about Swetnick based on that information. But once I viewed her interview on MSNBC, that all changed. I viewed her as someone who I deemed, afterwards, to be truthful and then realized that of all the female witnesses and/or friends of Judge Kavanaugh's to have come out with public statements...

...Swetnick's testimony, to me, seems the most credible. I cannot tell you how much this shocks me; I did not see that coming.

Julie Swetnick would actually be someone who could have ample evidence to back up her claims, given the filing of her police report (filed the day after the alleged event) and not perhaps coincidentally, HER claim is the one that has received the most vociferous denials from the pro-Kavanaugh camp.

I find that very interesting.

[Bayareamom]

Here you go:

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/julie-swetnick-speaks-about-alleged-behavior-by-judge-kavanaugh-1334265923929?v=raila&

[onawah]

Senate Republican Leaders EXPLOSIVE Press Conference on Kavanaugh Confirmation after FBI Report
(So now, of course, we have this):
S5bogm15OUk

"Space Force News
Published on Oct 4, 2018
We Must CONFIRM Judge Kavanaugh NOW, Senate Republican Leaders. GOP Senators hold Press Conference on Judge Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation to Supreme Court Justice after FBI Investigation Report on Dr. Ford Accusation"

[onawah]

I found her credible as well.


For me, and rather unbelievably so, I found Julie Swetnick to be credible.

[onawah]

Absolutely agree.I should have added that I think Kavanaugh is just not that good at mimicking.

"Personally, I think Clarence Thomas has a pathological condition but is very skilled at mimicking a grounded, reasonably ethical person. They can be quite good at that."

Oh, I absolutely agree! Please understand - I am not at all stating that I find Thomas CREDIBLE or some sort of huge truth teller. I said I found his demeanor to be above and beyond that exhibited by Judge Kavanaugh, during his own hearing. I have found throughout these past several years in my own life that LISTENING involves more than just hearing WORDS. Body language, comportment/demeanor is a part of the listening process, most especially when BOTH parties (as in this case) appear heartfelt in their presentations.

There is just too much information coming out about Judge Kavanaugh by others who knew him at Yale to not question his integrity (that and his own demeanor during the hearing).

His defensiveness, his belligerence...were out there for all to see. I do understand that if he were truly innocent of these allegations, the enormity of the emotional impact would drive almost anyone to the brink. I get that.

But again, this is about an appointment to the highest level in our judicial system. This individual NEEDS to show he is worthy of this appointment. For me, he just hasn't exhibited what I would like to see in a judge who has a lifetime appointment on the highest bench in the United States.

I believe he will be confirmed and if that happens, it won't surprise me.

As my husband says, it's most likely that all of the others who already sit in this lofty position have their own skeletons to hide. He'll probably fit right in...

[T Smith]

Open Letter to the United States Senate from Law Professors Around the Country

"...to be a judge requires that an individual have “a personality that is evenhanded, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” ... The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. (emphasis added).



I agree with this reasoning... it's a reasonable argument and makes sense. I have no problem with the logic here, but I do take issue with the subtle manipulation underlying the premise of this argument. Specifically, the argument here is a classic non-sequitor. This wasn't a judicious inquiry. (see emphasis above). There is a very important distinction between the argument the author is advancing and what went down in reality. To put it simply, this was far from a judicial inquiry, this was a political assignation attempt, i.e., nothing short of a lynching....

That said, if someone seriously tries to advance the argument that "a SCJ candidate must have a personality that is evenhanded, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and be dedicated to lay down to the process of a lynching..., I would entertain the argument (I honestly would), but it wouldn't be very convincing to me. It would ring as ludicrous.

If you don't believe this was a lynching (and subscribe to the notion that this was simply a "judicial inquiry", as the author above), consider Chuck Schumer's statement on the record, the day after Kavanaugh was nominated (and well before any of the sexual assault allegations ever saw the light of day), "Yes, (we can stop this). I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation with everything I got...."

Pretty clear to me.

[Bayareamom]

Open Letter to the United States Senate from Law Professors Around the Country

"...to be a judge requires that an individual have “a personality that is evenhanded, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” ... The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. (emphasis added).



I agree with this reasoning... it's a reasonable argument and makes sense. I have no problem with the logic here, but I do take issue with the subtle manipulation underlying the premise of this argument. Specifically, the argument here is a classic non-sequitor. This wasn't a judicious inquiry. (see emphasis above). There is a very important distinction between the argument the author is advancing and what went down in reality. To put it simply, this was far from a judicial inquiry, this was a political assignation attempt, i.e., nothing short of a lynching....

That said, if someone seriously tries to advance the argument that "a SCJ candidate must have a personality that is evenhanded, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and be dedicated to lay down to the process of a lynching..., I would entertain the argument (I honestly would), but it wouldn't be very convincing to me. It would ring as ludicrous.

If you don't believe this was a lynching (and subscribe to the notion that this was simply a "judicial inquiry", as the author above), consider Chuck Schumer's statement on the record, the day after Kavanaugh was nominated (and well before any of the sexual assault allegations ever saw the light of day), "Yes, (we can stop this). I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation with everything I got...."

Pretty clear to me.

Agree for the most part, but having stated as such, and after having not only viewed the entire hearing, but having also read up on anything I can find regarding this story (which is very intriguing to me for various reasons), I have to again state that I have issues with Judge Kavanaugh's demeanor during the hearing.

I've already stated here at the forum that I do not believe he was given fair treatment and thus, he had to enter that hearing defending himself against unsubstantiated allegations. The fact that Feinstein withheld Ford's letter, knowledge of which she held to her vest while all the while Kavanaugh was sitting in her office, was very troubling. Clearly, there was an agenda here, but let's be completely honest. BOTH SIDES have played these same type of political shenanigans during the vetting process of political appointees. The Republicans do not get a pass from me on this one. Yes, this was particularly nasty on the part of the Democrats, but at the same time, neither party has embodied COMPLETELY fair and unbiased treatment when various parties have been undergoing the vetting process.

Interestingly, I just heard Mitch McConnell state during a Senate floor debate that one of the individuals who came out w/allegations against Kavanaugh has refuted his/her claim (according to the new FBI investigation). Another individual, McConnell states, has partially backpedaled his/her claim.

THIS is interesting. I'm wondering if either one of these individuals could possibly be Julie Swetnick. Perhaps time will tell. This is interesting to me inasmuch as I just had a conversation w/my husband about the MeToo movement; neither one of us feel that simply because a woman states she was raped does not equal telling the truth.

Allegations of this type need to be thoroughly investigated; the accused deserves to be heard, if possible, and deserves an "innocent until proven guilty' stance. Just because one is female does not mean said female is always telling the truth. Women do not always tell the truth; neither do men.

My heart went out to both Ford and Kavanaugh after I listened to both their testimonies. It was only after hearing so many former Yale graduates step up and make statements, alleging excessive drinking on behalf of Kavanaugh at the time they knew him, etc., so forth, that I began to have doubts as to Judge Kavanaugh's credibility.

I still don't have any definitive opinion as to whether ANY of the women who have made allegations against Kavanaugh are telling the truth. I have issues only as to Judge Kavanaugh's behavior when testifying under oath.

If he is innocent of the allegations brought forth by these women, my heart goes out to him. I cannot imagine how horrific this must have been for him, if these allegations at some later time in our history, are proven to be false.

Link to the Senate floor debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yZnI_4XcHc&t=9s&frags=pl%2Cwn

[Helene West]

It's hard for me to understand anyone saying this wasn't political. That is all it was. 100% pure, unadulterated political assasination and obstruction. The dems don't give a damn about this woman no matter who she really is.

If the dems are allowed to get away with this - that is a NO vote, they will get validation of turning our law into Guilty until proven innocent, on top of getting away with framing the president, spying on opposition, lying, bribing, non stop character assasination then covering everything up by accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of - it will set a precedent for an unlivable country. Anyone they don't approve of will be treated the same way as K.

This being said we know that they will be diabolical if he does get nominated anyway. It will just be worse if they are appeased because they will not be sated. They have unlimited resources from their globalist backers. I don't even care about him or her anymore, it's about not appeasing demons as far as I'm concerned.

[Bayareamom]

I hear ya, Helene. If you were referring to me specifically as to the statement about this all being political -- I never stated that it wasn't. For ME, I see this as a he said, she said issue as it pertains to truth. And it was w/this mindset as I viewed that hearing.

Of COURSE this is political; that's a given. But make no mistake, the Republican Party can get just as nasty (and has in the past). They're not angelic people who only spew truth and honesty in their wake. They can scream all they want about the Dems in this instance (and rightfully so as to some aspects), but this entire thing reeks of political shenanigans. It's disgusting...

[Bayareamom]

Interesting article I just ran across:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/retired-supreme-court-justice-speaks-out-against-kavanaugh-nomination?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[Helene West]

Baymom - agreed. on the other hand there are not too many republicans to me anymore. they've been infiltrated with dems and as one commentator put it, moderate dems have retired or left the arena and they are being replaced by extremists

[Bayareamom]

Hmmm. Just found this interesting article. This MAY relate to the statement made by McConnell that, according to the new FBI investigation, one of the individuals having made an allegation of sorts re Kavanaugh, has recanted his/her story. I googled "Has Julie Swetnick recanted her allegation" and this article came up. But when you read thru this article, it is clear that she has not recanted her story; parts of what was stated in her written statement were somewhat altered during her MSNBC interview, but I would not say that she recanted her story.

This is why I loathe politics. It could very well be that one of the individuals newly investigated by the FBI has recanted his/her story; at least, this is what McConnell states during the debate. But was he parsing? One thing may be telling: Should we hear nothing more from Julie Swetnick's attorney after all is said and done, I would imagine that it MAY be Ms. Swetnick who recanted her story. That's a bombshell statement and I would imagine that someone may 'leak' that info. at a later date, if true.

Here is the article:

https://www.lifenews.com/2018/10/02/kavanaugh-accuser-swetnick-recants-some-of-her-allegations-contradicts-previous-claims/

[T Smith]

...BOTH SIDES have played these same type of political shenanigans during the vetting process of political appointees. The Republicans do not get a pass from me on this one. Yes, this was particularly nasty on the part of the Democrats, but at the same time, neither party has embodied COMPLETELY fair and unbiased treatment when various parties have been undergoing the vetting process.



Agreed. 100%. This is why I detest both political parties, more or less equally. The Republicans are not above this type of dirty tactics, although I do think Democrats, as a matter of ideology and doctrine, believe the means justify the ends more than the Republicans, who embrace a pro-inividualism ideology somewhat contrary to that. So in my estimation, Democrats fight much dirtier as a matter of political constitution.

And apologies in advance for ruffling any feathers here and straying somewhat off topic and into the taboo ... but this is exactly why I, as a center-of-aisle observer, entertained the notion of Donald Trump as a potential political figure (all you liberal social scientists who are scratching your heads wondering how the hell Donald Trump got elected, please sit up and take notice. It has nothing whatsoever to do with an appalling message that resonated with the inherent racism, tribalism, xenophobia, etc., of a nation (yawn!). DJT got elected because he said what he meant, and he meant what he said... even when it got him in trouble with the decorous finger-wagging elites who very much like to instruct us plebs how and what to think (as we are mere chattel with no minds our own). DJT strayed from the established narrative and dared say what no other politician dare say, and he stuck to his words and defended them, without apology, which puts everything out in the open. As it should be. For the people to decide, to judge, and to vote on. Agree or disagree. And not to be told what to decide, what to judge, what to vote on, as has been the political culture in America for the past fifty years.

Let us all vote on that which is out in the open, raw and honest, even if it's offensive, and not that which is fashioned to manipulate the greatest number....

Yes, Donald Trump has been a narcissistic ass and is politically incorrect 80% of the time, but that's his strength as a politician, in my view. This is what the opposition -- and even some in his own party who continue to play the game of politics -- simply don't, and cannot understand. The people are tired of being handled. That's it. Plain and simple. This isn't brain surgery folks.

As for me, I don't want chameleons, I don't wan't sycophants, I don't want political operatives telling me one thing and the group on the other side of the tracks another. That's not democracy; that's a handling of the plebs...

Back to topic -- I'm terrified if Brett Kavanaugh supports the philosophy of the Patriot Act (which is wholly anti-American, in my view) and sides with Big Government on 4th Amendment issues... and I hope if he's confirmed he doesn't play a key roll in rolling back civil liberties. But this should be what we're talking about -- out in the open -- not trying to trick the people into believing he's Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein.

[Valerie Villars]

...BOTH SIDES have played these same type of political shenanigans during the vetting process of political appointees. The Republicans do not get a pass from me on this one. Yes, this was particularly nasty on the part of the Democrats, but at the same time, neither party has embodied COMPLETELY fair and unbiased treatment when various parties have been undergoing the vetting process.



Agreed. 100%. This is why I detest both political parties, more or less equally. The Republicans are not above this type of dirty tactics, although I do think Democrats, as a matter of ideology and doctrine, believe the means justify the ends more than the Republicans, who embrace a pro-inividualsim ideology somewhat contrary to that. So in my estimation, Democrats fight much dirtier as a matter of political constitution.

And apologies in advance for ruffling any feathers here and straying somewhat off topic and into the taboo ... but this is exactly why I, as a center-of-aisle observer, entertained the notion of Donald Trump as a potential political figure (all you liberal social scientists who are scratching your heads wondering how the hell Donald Trump got elected, please sit up and take notice. It has nothing whatsoever to do with an appalling message that resonated with the inherent racism, tribalism, xenophobia, etc., of a nation (yawn!). DJT got elected because he said what he meant, and he meant what he said... even when it got him in trouble with the decorous finger-wagging elites who very much like to instruct us plebs how and what to think (as we are mere chattel with no minds our own). DJT strayed from the established narrative and dared say what no other politician dare say, and he stuck to his words and defended them, without apology, which puts everything out in the open. As it should be. For the people to decide, to judge, and to vote on. Agree or disagree. And not to be told what to decide, what to judge, what to vote on, as has been the political culture in America for the past fifty years.

Let us all vote on that which is out in the open, raw and honest, even if it's offensive, and not that which is fashioned to manipulate the greatest number....

Yes, Donald Trump has been a narcissistic ass and is politically incorrect 80% of the time, but that's his strength as a politician, in my view. This is what the opposition -- and even some in his own party who continue to play the game of politics -- simply don't, and cannot understand. The people are tired of being handled. That's it. Plain and simple. This isn't brain surgery folks.

As for me, I don't want chameleons, I don't wan't sycophants, I don't want political operatives telling me one thing and the group on the other side of the tracks another. That's not democracy; that's a handling of the plebs...

Back to topic -- I'm terrified if Brett Kavanaugh supports the philosophy of the Patriot Act (which is wholly anti-American, in my view) and sides with Big Government on 4th Amendment issues... and I hope if he's confirmed he doesn't play a key roll in rolling back civil liberties. But this should be what we're talking about -- out in the open -- not trying to trick the people into believing he's Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein.

Feel the same way T Smith. Exactly.

[onawah]

THE INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENT WITH KEVIN SHIPP – THE DARK LEFT AGENDA: WHAT DOES THE KAVANAUGH HEARING MEAN?
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/the-intelligence-assessment-with-kevin-shipp-the-dark-left-agenda-what-does-the-kavanaugh-hearing-mean/
10/5/18
(There is a Vimeo video at the link, embedded below. Listening just a few minutes in, Shipp is not impartial, by any means. I will probably not listen to the rest.)

"Self-described “recovering CIA agent”, Kevin Shipp joins Jason Goodman on Crowdsource the Truth for their new weekly show, The Intelligence Assessment with their high-energy analysis of recent events.

Kevin provides background to the SCOTUS filibuster that we witnessed over the past week and he shares his view, as a former Democrat, that the Democrat Party is no longer that of JFK, Civil Rights and the working class. He says it has become a ruthless, power-hungry party that represents the Globalist, Corporatist interests of the elite, under the guise of representing people of color and sexual minorities. PC culture is wielded by the Democrats as a weapon to enforce an authoritarian bureaucracy.

This same Social Democratic model is seen in many European countries, like Sweden, where speech codes are brutally enforced. Several people there have been fired from their jobs and imprisoned, merely for using the word “Muslim” when publicly discussing violence that they have witnessed or directly experienced.

In my opinion, the fundamental shift needed in order to grasp our current political situation is to see that the divide is no longer one of Left vs Right or Liberal vs Conservative. It is about Globalism vs Human Beings."


https://vimeo.com/293448458

[Valerie Villars]

With FBI report on Kavanaugh, John Kennedy says 'put down the bong' if you think concern is genuine
BY BRYN STOLE | BSTOLE@THEADVOCATE.COM OCT 4, 2018 - 12:42 PM


WASHINGTON — Louisiana Senator John Kennedy said Thursday the several-day FBI investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh surfaced "no corroboration" for allegations against sexual assault against the judge but suggested it did show politics were at play.

Kennedy, a Republican, told reporters shortly after reading the report in a secure room in the U.S. Capitol that some revelations in it "really make me angry." The senator, however, declined to discuss the confidential report's contents.

"Anybody who thinks politics isn’t involved in this ought to put down the bong," Kennedy said, adding that he would encourage the White House to publicly release the report.

"I really wish you could see this," Kennedy told reporters. "I really wish you could read this report."

Kennedy is expected to vote to confirm Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. He's previously blasted Democrats over their handling of the sexual assault allegations — telling a Fox News host on Tuesday night that he doubted some Senate Democrats "have souls" — and dismissed testimony from one accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, naming Kavanaugh as her attacker.

Ford, who appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday, said she vividly recalled Kavanaugh allegedly pinning her to a bed, groping her and muzzling her screams with his hand at a high school gathering in suburban D.C. in the 1980s.

“She didn't convince me — nor does the record — that Brett Kavanaugh was involved," Kennedy told The Advocate Friday in announcing his continued support for Kavanaugh after Ford's testimony.

A second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, told the New Yorker magazine that drunken Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party during their freshman year at Yale University in Connecticut.

"There were 10 witnesses," Kennedy said Thursday afternoon after viewing the report. "One declined to talk to the FBI, five with respect to Dr. Ford’s allegations, four with respect to Ms. Ramirez’s allegations. There was no corroboration."

Sen. Kennedy on Fox News: I'm unsure if some Democrats 'breast-fed' or 'went right to raw meat'
WASHINGTON — The fight on Capitol Hill over Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, and the handling of sexual assault allegations against…

"Brett Kavanaugh continues, when you speak to anyone who knows him, except perhaps those two" — presumably a reference to Ford and Ramirez — to be "a man of sterling character," Cassidy added. "A guy who’s been a great judge, who I think will become a great Supreme Court justice."

I just came from reviewing the background information compiled by the FBI. There is still no corroboration of the allegations made against Brett Kavanaugh.

Brett Kavanaugh has been a great judge and he will be a great Supreme Court justice. I look forward to voting for him.

https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_d1a21202-c7fc-11e8-b98e-13b1e0c75c33.html

[PurpleLama]

Zero Hedge is reporting that they have the votes for thw confirmation. If you live in a city, watch out this weekend. Undoubtedly there will be some provocateurs amongst any genuine protest, as has become the usual in recent years.

[Valerie Villars]

I heard some protesters on the radio today, chanting "shame, shame, shame" over and over outside of some Senator's office (one who voted to move the confirmation forward) and I immediately went back to the "Game of Thrones" episode where they did this to the Queen, making her walk naked through the streets as they pelted her with spit, excrement and derogatory words, etc.

Shaming people. One of the most wicked, useless and damaging things that can be done to a living being.

[onawah]

Shameful for the US! And sure to create even more division.
Australian astrologer Ang Stoic's most recent report is very interesting in the way he describes an actual war between the genders becoming magnified by aspects of Libra, Scorpio and Saturn here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91348-Ang-Stoic-Astrological-Reports&p=1252401&viewfull=1#post1252401
"OCTOBER 2018
Those who say that “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” were probably talking about Venus in Scorpio, now stationary and about to retrograde at 10°50′ Scorpio (Oct 5) and heads back to 25°15′ Libra (Nov 16). Due to her hard aspects to long-duelling Mars/Uranus, and a skipped step to the Nodes, this is an epochal transit – already proving to be a revolutionary call to action between the genders.

There has never been a civil war between the genders. Somehow events are conspiring to divide this planet, and what could be more fundamentally divisive than the most common denominator in just about every household?

We get this. Surely we must. It seems that the dice of fate are supremely loaded. They’re loaded with such intent to settle a score which for years, decades… centuries… millenia has seen this world divided in many other ways. For no ‘good’ reason. Division and separation, exclusion and limitation are the domain of Saturn. Never through Saturn’s historic reign over ‘linear time’ has there been a ‘good’ reason for the world to be divided, usually over characteristics that we cannot change at birth, be they skin-colour, beauty, nationality, heritage, creed, background, class, economic status, family privilege, land-claim and sovereignty…

…oh and let’s forget the obligatory obvious: Gender

We are now at the point of ultimate division. Since 2014 we have talked much about the ultimate “divergence of humanity”. The Cardinal Grand Cross of in April 2014 would mark a distinct time in history, from which humanity would become increasingly set apart in all significant directions.

From that critical time of conflicting grand awareness, things of matter between us would accelerate to ‘matter’ to a point of obtuse annoyance. Awareness of our ‘differences’ would continue to divide us so diametrically, to such an absolute degree than we would eventually break matters down to the most common, most empirical denominator… the individual Self. And, until so, we will not be ready to fight the ultimate war.

We are near. This war is beyond any cross-nation war. We have seen many, many wars over the who-knows-how long, and over who-knows-what. War have always been waged between tribes and among individuals – often about things they do not understand."

(Julie Swetnick's recent testimony seems to have just been sidelined. )

[Helene West]

"Make Them Scared"
Article from Zerohedge. - "A website allegedly run by University of Washington students allows individuals to publicly accuse people of sexual assault with no evidence."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-05/make-them-scared-website-posts-uncorroborated-sexual-assault-claims-against-male

According to the FAQ page of the website, “Make them scared UW” is a “communal rape list.”
It is “intended to be an online hub for anyone who wants to expose the names of their attackers and harassers, and to fill a gap left by inadequate treatment of these cases by formal institutions.”

[Bill Ryan]

From Hal Turner, on 3 October:


http://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/news/u-s-national-news/3230-the-perjury-word-is-being-uttered

The "Perjury" Word is Being Uttered!

Too many images of documents in this long and detailed article to copy and post here, but it's most definitely worth reading for anyone who's been following this Shakespearean tale closely.

[apokalypse]

...BOTH SIDES have played these same type of political shenanigans during the vetting process of political appointees. The Republicans do not get a pass from me on this one. Yes, this was particularly nasty on the part of the Democrats, but at the same time, neither party has embodied COMPLETELY fair and unbiased treatment when various parties have been undergoing the vetting process.




Feel the same way T Smith. Exactly.

i have same feeling..now make me hate Dems and these supporters...some of the stuff said on page 10 are right how i want to express but stuck for words. if i open my mouth against ford case then these anti trump blindly follow attack consider i'm pro trump or pro Kav but i'm not...it's two different case.

it's like 9/11 whole thing just happen at right time and never believe ford first day i heard about it. Bret Kav is a a victim of accusation when there's no evidence..Guilty until proven pretty much meaningless words and have happen long ago but push harder with ford.

i pretty much blame ourselves or these people fall into this crap without questioning anything...

[Tam]

Just finished reading through this whole thread (yes, all of it). I’m a bit late now that Kavanaugh will, in the end, get the job, but I still feel a need to chime in for reasons that will soon become clear. This is gonna be a super, ultra, mega-long post (even for me) because it’s basically everything I would have put in this thread if I participated in it from Day 1, but in a single post. So yeah. I don’t blame anyone if they’re gonna scroll (and scroll, and scroll) right past this one. But do read it if you’re comfy right now. Might wanna get a snack first.



For starters, let me make something crystal clear: saying that sexual assault or molestation is something one can simply get over, or, worse, that money makes it somehow easier, is nuts. Not only is it somewhat misogynistic (and no, I am not a feminist), but beyond that, it’s totally outrageous, and, to an extent, lacking in empathy. I’m not going to name names right now, in the interest of keeping this on topic (but I can and will if made to), but seriously. Start doing some reflection if you somehow think that hundreds of thousands of dollars somehow makes this all easier on Ford (assuming of course she’s correct in her accusations, which is not a given).

Money is of course nearly always a plus, especially when one has a good deal of it, but the lifelong emotional trauma incurred from sexual assault is not something that any amount of money can fix or make better, ever. It could only serve as a distraction, or, in the best of cases, a coping mechanism or means of escape. Whether or not Ford is legit, to say that money makes it easier to get over a sexual assault is downright wrong.

Sexual assault, of all degrees (and yes, there is a spectrum) destroys you from the inside out and fundamentally damages you forever. Even if one heals, the scar never goes away. Sexual assault affects everyone differently; some people are not as impacted by it as others, some live with it with more ease than another. Each victim is different. But you never get over it. Ever. And getting money does not make the pain easier to bear, however fresh it may or may not be.

Anyway, I’m starting to ramble as usual, but I had to call this one out. However, I want it to be understood that this doesn’t mean I dislike anyone here (I’d break bread with all of you), even if I want to slap some sense into a couple of members. Just that, some of the things I’ve been reading on this forum as of late have been very, very disappointing. I’m not trying to incite division or virtue signal. I’m only saying this to avoid any misconceptions, since it’s so common for people to be enemies with anyone that disagrees with them at all nowadays, and I did get a little incendiary. But in the end, Avalon is a family, and part of that means calling each other out on our ****.

On the other hand, I’m also really impressed with some people in this thread, such as Onawah, Satori and Bayareamom. Not that my opinion or favor is a blessing or whatever; I just want to balance out the negativity a little.


*breathes*

With that off my chest, I’m going to change gears completely, and join the discussion, because there are some valid things said in this thread, as well as a few important points that need to be made/reinforced.

In the first half of the thread, there was some discussion about the weird behavior/demeanor/aspect of Ford. I noticed it when I was watching the hearings too (I did not finish them, full disclosure), and after thinking about it, her behavior reminded me of something. There is a very good book that should be required reading for everyone in America (and elsewhere): The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. It’s about a lot of things, but in the beginning it touches heavily on MKUltra-esque human psychological experimentation. To boil down a long and complex story, (unwilling) subjects were forcibly regressed to an infantile state via trauma, in order to “blank slate” their mind and personality for insidious purposes.

A victim of this highly calculated, cruel “conditioning” almost always regresses to a childlike state in all ways as a coping mechanism. It is, apparently, the natural result/coping mechanism human have when subjected to trauma in a specific fashion.

Given Ford’s definite ties to the CIA, and rumored connections to more shadowy aspects of government, this is something to keep in mind. She could very well regressing to an infantile state, as the result of actual trauma (not necessarily one inflicted by Kavanaugh). Just my 2 cents. Maybe it could shed some light on the whole CIA/behavior thing.

In addition, people are asking questions why Ford was wandering around in the apartment, why she remembers her aggravator but not the venue, and saying that details like that put her whole character/story into question. There’s a lot wrong with her and her story, but to me, small details like that aren’t it. Like Greybeard and others have said, memory is a faulty thing, especially older ones. Furthermore, trauma has a way of twisting up your memory, mixing things up and jumbling timelines. It’s part of why abductees have such difficulty with clear memory recall. So that is something to take into consideration. And as to why she may have been on the second floor or wherever, well, it doesn’t seem that nuts to me for people to start doing odd things at a drunken teenage party.

That’s kind of all I’m going to say about Ford, though, because at this point, I don’t want to beat a dead horse. We will never, ever know the truth.

What I’m interested in, at this point, is what you guys all think of Kavanaugh having been nominated, and what that means. How many of us here are in favor of this, and how many, against it?

What does this say about this whole circus?

I especially find the question Helene asked in post 178 intriguing. America is clearly a very fractured country. The question is, is it beyond repair? I would not be surprised to find a civil war erupting in the next 5, 10, 20 or so years, one that would divide this country for good.

Is that such a bad thing, in the grand scheme of it all?

Personally, I do NOT think Kavanaugh should be nominated. Bayareamom pretty much took every word out of my mouth on posts #182-184. I agree with her 100%. Also, the whole Patriot Act thing doesn’t sit well with me. I’m interested in hearing from the other side of the coin, though.

One thing’s for sure, though: we are living in one hell of a timeline. America isn’t going to be in trouble. America is 50 feet deep into a lake of steaming, festering ****.

I can’t stand Trump and pretty much everything that he stands for, but one thing’s for sure: he’s making people pay attention in ways they haven’t before (at least not for a long long time). Maybe that’s a blessing in disguise, and what America needs. I doubt it, though.

Final thing, and this one’s for Bill: why the Hal Turner article? I admit I’m not super informed about him, but isn’t he a known white nationalist that calls for violence against all kinds of people? If he is, we definitely shouldn’t be trusting his news source. This doesn’t sound like something you’d endorse, Bill. Am I missing something? Misinformed? What gives?

*breathes again*

[ThePythonicCow]

What I’m interested in, at this point, is what you guys all think of Kavanaugh having been nominated, and what that means. How many of us here are in favor of this, and how many, against it?
Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan may have said it about as well as anyone so far: Kagan fears Supreme Court losing swing justice (politico.com) (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/05/elena-kagan-supreme-court-kennedy-877288)

My political leanings are far to the right of either Kagan or politico, but I agree with her point that the way in which the Supreme Court will be viewed in coming years by many ordinary US citizens is changing. As Kagan explains, over the last 40 years, first with Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor and continuing with Justice Kennedy, the US Supreme Court has basically voted 4-1-4, with 4 to the left, 4 to the right and 1 unpredictable "centrist". Now the Supreme Court will be voting 4-5, with the right dominant, and thanks to the advanced age of a couple of the remaining leftists, with the likelihood of another currently left leaning seat or two being filled by Trump with rightists, pushing the Court to a 3-6 or even a 2-7 majority for the "right".

This will be yet one more way that the US politic is polarized.

The long term course of history will be little changed as the deep currents below the surface are seldom noticed by most of us. But whatever are the "signature" issues that arouse emotions and political activism will raise conflict to a fever pitch, as it seems that the Supreme Court is solidly "on our side", or "solidly against us", depending on which way you lean politically. I confidently predict that I will cheer, and you (by what I can guess of your political leanings from your post above) will be incensed by many a forthcoming Supreme Court decision.

Major economic collapse and resets of the world monetary system are always nasty times, as massive conflicts are used to energize the changes and to coverup what's really happening. This time will be no different. I guess however I am glad that it seems that "they", the elite bastards, have chosen political and economic chaos, rather than nuclear holocaust or some other such World War III, to conduct the massive conflicts that will go with the currently imminent world economic and monetary reset.

[apokalypse]

"Former President George W. Bush called a number of senators in recent weeks, and had several conversations with Collins to reassure the key Republican vote about Kavanaugh's character and temperament, a person familiar with the matter tells CNN."

i wonder Bush have any agenda? any thought about this?

[apokalypse]

My political leanings are far to the right of either Kagan or politico, but I agree with her point that the way in which the Supreme Court will be viewed in coming years by many ordinary US citizens is changing. As Kagan explains, over the last 40 years, first with Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor and continuing with Justice Kennedy, the US Supreme Court has basically voted 4-1-4, with 4 to the left, 4 to the right and 1 unpredictable "centrist". Now the Supreme Court will be voting 4-5, with the right dominant, and thanks to the advanced age of a couple of the remaining leftists, with the likelihood of another currently left leaning seat or two being filled by Trump with rightists, pushing the Court to a 3-6 or even a 2-7 majority for the "right".


yeh paul..i talked about this to people, Ruth Bader Ginsburg be gone soon and there's gonna be a bloodbath next supreme court pick...grab your popcorn people.

[NancyV]

I watched Ford's entire testimony and was not empathetic with her at all. It seemed to me that she was lying. First of all she was not raped but at the most, groped. Big effing deal. If a young girl can't handle being groped as a teenager when she goes to a drinking party, then I doubt that she would have been as successful professionally (supposedly, although her profession is also in question) in her adult life. Ford making such a big deal about being groped and turning it into attempted rape does a disservice to those who are actually assaulted and raped.

Having been kidnapped 3 times in Mexico and South America, and actually raped at least 6 times, I find it to be fairly unbelievable that someone can't get over being groped when I never even let being raped and beaten up (broken jaw and broken eye orbit bone at different times) change my life and I never sought sympathy or portrayed myself as a victim. Any situation that I was in was of my own doing. I am amazed that people cannot accept responsibility for making decisions that lead to them being attacked. I look on my life as perfect for my learning whatever it is I am here to learn. Even when it looks like you're just in the wrong place at the wrong time I would not give up my responsibility for being there. I find that to be disempowering, but that's what the left wants, totally disempowered victims, dependent on their oh so compassionate government.

It is disgusting to me that if one doesn't have sympathy for this poor, wounded little helpless (supposedly grown) woman, that one is judged to be at the least heartless and more commonly "pro rape". I refuse to be politically correct when the left has become unhinged, irrational and actually evil.

Perhaps there will be a civil war and it looks like it might happen. Thankfully more of the silent majority are waking up to the insidious nature of the politics of the left. It is also irrational of them to be promoting a civil war, since they have NO chance of winning. We of the more conservative bent have most of the guns and all of the balls. The vast majority of veterans and active military would be with us. So bring it on and you'll only lose faster.

Just think about the insanity of the left attacking law enforcement, ICE, the military and now all men. I would much rather be with the ones they're attacking than with a bunch of rabid, screaming idiot feminists and their emasculated so-called men supporters. IF the left wins and the USA becomes a socialist utopia as they envision, I am glad I won't be here to see the country fall apart as every single other socialist country has done. They will get exactly what they deserve.... as we ultimately always do.

[Deux Corbeaux]

I watched Ford's entire testimony and was not empathetic with her at all. It seemed to me that she was lying. First of all she was not raped but at the most, groped. Big effing deal. If a young girl can't handle being groped as a teenager when she goes to a drinking party, then I doubt that she would have been as successful professionally (supposedly, although her profession is also in question) in her adult life. Ford making such a big deal about being groped and turning it into attempted rape does a disservice to those who are actually assaulted and raped.

Having been kidnapped 3 times in Mexico and South America, and actually raped at least 6 times, I find it to be fairly unbelievable that someone can't get over being groped when I never even let being raped and beaten up (broken jaw and broken eye orbit bone at different times) change my life and I never sought sympathy or portrayed myself as a victim. Any situation that I was in was of my own doing. I am amazed that people cannot accept responsibility for making decisions that lead to them being attacked. I look on my life as perfect for my learning whatever it is I am here to learn. Even when it looks like you're just in the wrong place at the wrong time I would not give up my responsibility for being there. I find that to be disempowering, but that's what the left wants, totally disempowered victims, dependent on their oh so compassionate government.

It is disgusting to me that if one doesn't have sympathy for this poor, wounded little helpless (supposedly grown) woman, that one is judged to be at the least heartless and more commonly "pro rape". I refuse to be politically correct when the left has become unhinged, irrational and actually evil.

Perhaps there will be a civil war and it looks like it might happen. Thankfully more of the silent majority are waking up to the insidious nature of the politics of the left. It is also irrational of them to be promoting a civil war, since they have NO chance of winning. We of the more conservative bent have most of the guns and all of the balls. The vast majority of veterans and active military would be with us. So bring it on and you'll only lose faster.

Just think about the insanity of the left attacking law enforcement, ICE, the military and now all men. I would much rather be with the ones they're attacking than with a bunch of rabid, screaming idiot feminists and their emasculated so-called men supporters. IF the left wins and the USA becomes a socialist utopia as they envision, I am glad I won't be here to see the country fall apart as every single other socialist country has done. They will get exactly what they deserve.... as we ultimately always do.

Just thanking you was not enough.
I fully agree with you.

[Pam]

"Make Them Scared"
Article from Zerohedge. - "A website allegedly run by University of Washington students allows individuals to publicly accuse people of sexual assault with no evidence."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-05/make-them-scared-website-posts-uncorroborated-sexual-assault-claims-against-male

According to the FAQ page of the website, “Make them scared UW” is a “communal rape list.”
It is “intended to be an online hub for anyone who wants to expose the names of their attackers and harassers, and to fill a gap left by inadequate treatment of these cases by formal institutions.”

Maybe the UW students could make another website where we could name Nazi's without any evidence. I find it interesting the way many people are so smug about the Germans during the Nazi regime. They despise their weakness in letting the whole thing happen. The irony is that they are promoting something that is similar. Singling out individuals in a public venue that provides no evidence whatsoever and no consideration for the consequences in the bigger picture. I wonder what they would do if I got on that website and accused one of the people instigating this of raping me? Don't need any evidence, right?

[Valerie Villars]

The communal rape list gives me the willies. What good, really, is it? What does it hope to accomplish? What can it accomplish? How is that productive?

I think rapists should be called out. Lord knows I did it to the last jerk who drugged and raped me. And I let others know, without naming names, but in such a way that anyone familiar with the situation would know just who it was that did the raping. I called him out on his despicable behavior, will never forget what he really is and will speak that truth when appropriate. Then I let it go. I can never PROVE he did it. And is proving it really the point?

He knows what he did. I know what he did. I let him know I knew what he did. And it was pretty calm and factual. I called him on the phone and told him I knew what he did, the date he did it and that the dumbass had actually written his name and phone number on a piece of paper and gave it to me the next morning. He tried to deny knowing me, but I still have the piece of paper.

He has to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life, wondering if it might whammy him years down the road. That's his reality check.

After all, his act defined him, not me.

[Helene West]

Article by Paul Craig Roberts - The White Heterosexual Male has been Renditioned to the Punishment Hole

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-05/paul-craig-roberts-white-heterosexual-male-has-been-renditioned-punishment-hole


It the blasey-ford case was about an abused female it would have been handled totally differently by everyone, including other women, including Herself most of all. But it wasn't about abusing women. I won't give that line of thought even a nod any more.

If kavanaugh had a hand in the creation of the Patriot Act then his victory will be a hollow one for me. This isn't set in stone for me either as I haven't persued this aspect but worth more scrutiny. The emotions of 9/11 could have skewed many good intentioned jurists making them grist for being taken advantage of.

The two main carrot sticks to whip westerners into technocratic slavery by of the richest in the world are race and gender.

The war against white men was started, is encouraged, is funded and will continue to be perpetuated by the richest white men in the world.

If we can really grasp this IRONIC FACT we will have the Key and may have a chance for our grandkids to not be shells of human beings.

[Pam]

The communal rape list gives me the willies. What good, really, is it? What does it hope to accomplish? What can it accomplish? How is that productive?

I think rapists should be called out. Lord knows I did it to the last jerk who drugged and raped me. And I let others know, without naming names, but in such a way that anyone familiar with the situation would know just who it was that did the raping. I called him out on his despicable behavior, will never forget what he really is and will speak that truth when appropriate. Then I let it go. I can never PROVE he did it. And is proving it really the point?

He knows what he did. I know what he did. I let him know I knew what he did. And it was pretty calm and factual. I called him on the phone and told him I knew what he did, the date he did it and that the dumbass had actually written his name and phone number on a piece of paper and gave it to me the next morning. He tried to deny knowing me, but I still have the piece of paper.

He has to look over his shoulder for the rest of his life, wondering if it might whammy him years down the road. That's his reality check.

After all, his act defined him, not me.

I love your post, Valerie, I am so sorry about what happened to you, I had something very, very similar happen to me as well.

I do not in any way feel that raping someone is acceptable and feel the rapist should be punished to the full extent of the law if provable and if that is what the victim wants. What I have a huge problem with is publicly accusing someone without evidence. Think of a million reasons why someone who can make an allegation and does not have to provide evidence would abuse it. Maybe the guy shunned my advances, maybe he is just a rude guy that I want to see squirm a little. May I am jealous of his academic success.

I checked out the website and you don't even have to give your name, you can accuse anonymously. When there was an uproar, the website monitors add a new safety precaution: now they ask you to provide social media accounts for the accused. How in the world does that make anything better and more legit??? This is a witch hunt, plain and simple. It seems the UW hasn't spoken out against it, either.

[Pam]

Article by Paul Craig Roberts - The White Heterosexual Male has been Renditioned to the Punishment Hole

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-05/paul-craig-roberts-white-heterosexual-male-has-been-renditioned-punishment-hole


It the blasey-ford case was about an abused female it would have been handled totally differently by everyone, including other women, including Herself most of all. But it wasn't about abusing women. I won't give that line of thought even a nod any more.

If kavanaugh had a hand in the creation of the Patriot Act then his victory will be a hollow one for me. This isn't set in stone for me either as I haven't persued this aspect but worth more scrutiny. The emotions of 9/11 could have skewed many good intentioned jurists making them grist for being taken advantage of.

The two main carrot sticks to whip westerners into technocratic slavery by of the richest in the world are race and gender.

The war against white men was started, is encouraged, is funded and will continue to be perpetuated by the richest white men in the world.

If we can really grasp this IRONIC FACT we will have the Key and may have a chance for our grandkids to not be shells of human beings.

Helene, you are one wise woman who sees the bigger picture. I always appreciate your commentary, even if it doesn't always paint a pretty picture. We have to see what is really happening, no matter how ugly in order to enact change and avoid walking blindly into the slaughter house.

[Ratszinger]

Article by Paul Craig Roberts - The White Heterosexual Male has been Renditioned to the Punishment Hole

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-05/paul-craig-roberts-white-heterosexual-male-has-been-renditioned-punishment-hole


It the blasey-ford case was about an abused female it would have been handled totally differently by everyone, including other women, including Herself most of all. But it wasn't about abusing women. I won't give that line of thought even a nod any more.

If kavanaugh had a hand in the creation of the Patriot Act then his victory will be a hollow one for me. This isn't set in stone for me either as I haven't persued this aspect but worth more scrutiny. The emotions of 9/11 could have skewed many good intentioned jurists making them grist for being taken advantage of.

The two main carrot sticks to whip westerners into technocratic slavery by of the richest in the world are race and gender.

The war against white men was started, is encouraged, is funded and will continue to be perpetuated by the richest white men in the world.

If we can really grasp this IRONIC FACT we will have the Key and may have a chance for our grandkids to not be shells of human beings.

Wealthy white men are at the top of the trans lobby also by the way did you know that? Wealthy white heterosexual men! What is with that? There is a post on the net by Miranda Yardley I'm currently trying to find where she touches on the rich autogynephiles in positions of power in trans lobby organizations, and how these same organizations get millions of $$$ in bourgeois patronage from Starbucks, Apple, NBC, etc. We're talking big $. Magdalen Berns even responded to a VICE video again on this and I wish I could remember where it was which gave a glimpse of how many rich autogynephiles live in New York alone and boy is a bunch of them! She mentioned not only do they tend to be wealthy whites beyond reason, but they were inundated in strict conservatism growing up, so they tend to gravitate to wholly stereotyped visions of “womanhood” that as I recall how she put it looks like it came out of the 50s.

Apparently transgenderism is under one and the same ideological white leadership. So transgenderism as a whole is promoted by the world’s least oppressed white people and the richest and most educated conservatives! What do you suppose they are up to for real by doing this to themselves? Their own kind and they do this? It's akin to what I've read about Soros and other Jews being all for the NAZI war machine build up and everything they did even to their own Jewish people isn't it? Scary similarity.

[onawah]

Simply being groped is a very different thing than being trapped in a room with 2 powerful, very drunk young men whose clear intentions are to molest; being thrown on a bed and pinned down with the weight of a man's body, with a hand over one's mouth so that one cannot scream is terrifying, and in that situation, as I know first hand, it is extremely difficult to even breath because one is panicking. For an inexperienced, unaware young girl, and at that age a girl is probably still quite unaware of what can go on at such parties, it can hardly be anything but traumatic. Ford is clearly a very damaged woman, and since the men in her family are CIA, I imagine the damage started at an early age, as it often does for women of elite families. And an attempted rape experience always leaves scars, no matter who the woman is, and whether she is aware of it or not. There is certainly no lack of documented evidence of that.

Putting the incident in context is also essential. The young men at that party were from elite families, from which our country's leaders come. We don't expect the same kind of behavior from them as we do from common criminals. We have been programmed to have expectations of civil, even heroic behavior from the upper echelons of society, and it has come as shock to most of us that such expectations are not at all realistic. To a young insider girl, it could have come as even more of a shock, because she was completely immersed in it and could not escape.

Ford looks to me like a haunted woman who has been shocked repeatedly and never even come close to recovering. Her credentials don't necessarily belie that--children from elitist families have all sorts of privileges and short cuts to degrees, positions of prominence, etc. It doesn't follow that they are competent or mentally or emotionally fit for those positions--quite the contrary! Having Dubya as POTUS should have taught us that lesson by now. Just from the expression in her haunted eyes, I am surprised she is able to hold it together at all.

And has no one ever been at a party where the bathrooms were constantly full and you had to wait in a line or try to find a second, empty bathroom, possibly on the second floor? :facepalm:

This does not mean I am in favor of the Left. I think the whole scenario is disgusting, and it has little to do with sides, it has much more to do with the collective insanity of centuries finally and inescapably coming to a head, and this is just one symptom of it.

[rgray222]

It has become very clear that this entire process had nothing to do with Kavanaugh and nothing to do with allegations of sexual abuse. This "fiasco" was about undermining the legitimacy and confidence in the Supreme Court of the United States.

[onawah]

3 Constitutional Reasons Why Kavanaugh Should Not Be On Supreme Court
OiObm7dtcyA

Ben Swann
Published on Oct 4, 2018
Foundation for Economic Education

"The circus that has surrounded the Bret Kavanaugh nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court has been drowned out by 36 year old, uncorroborated accusations of sexual harassment.
But the truth is that Kavanaugh's record demonstrates that he is not a constitutionalist and has acted as an enemy to the 4th and 5th Amendments."

[Helene West]

@ratszinger - " Wealthy white men are at the top of the trans lobby also by the way did you know that? Wealthy white heterosexual men! What is with that?..."

The interesting aspect about transgender is meant to become another "ISSUE" of endless issues for the masses. As deadly as it is, that is how most will see it, another 'issue'. But it's just another weapon against us.

A more encompassing question - Why are there so many traitors?

Just about every western country have relinquished control of their own money to the small group of private bankers! How could they be so stupid and treasonous? They are relinquishing control of their respective cultures, countries, race, and even gender (!) to these controlling aristocrats. Why are there so many traitors?

Answer - Because they already see you as DEAD. The politicians, rogue intel agents and industry CEO's, etc. already see you as losers. As from a famous movie, "You're dead kid, get yourself buried."

Just as in the medieval days you have royalty and you have those who want a seat at royalty's table. They see the masses as nothing that can give them nothing and they want at any cost to not be them but to be with whom they see as the movers and shakers of the world. They will do what royalty wants. It's the same today but at a larger scale. The corporate, international aristocracy want total disempowerment of the masses including the psychological.

Sorry to be simplistic for lack of time but your perplexity is merely seeing old fashioned - bully says "jump" and the caspar milquetoast says "how high"? See 'issues as weapons' of the globalists and you won't get as perplexed by the so-called content/arguments of the 'issues'. Some of those that do the bidding of the owners of western assets may be rich but not the richest and they want more, or at least to stay that way. Transgender or transhumanism, they will push what they are told to push... Loyalties of class is hard for us peasants to grasp, we see loyalties of culture, race, gender, ethnicity, country, etc. They don't.

[norman]

A more encompassing question - Why are there so many traitors?




"Traitor" and "Treason" have been removed from the language and think space very carefully and replaced with the idea of siding with the winners.

It must be a strange and scary experience to be one of the players who are now remembering the meaning of "Treason".

"Oh yea, I forgot about treason"

[Helene West]

A more encompassing question - Why are there so many traitors?




"Traitor" and "Treason" have been removed from the language and think space very carefully and replaced with the idea of siding with the winners.

It must be a strange and scary experience to be one of the players who are now remembering the meaning of "Treason".

"Oh yea, I forgot about treason"

Norman, true what you say about treason but I was addressing the phenom in the context of Ratszinger's question about rich white hetero men aiding and abetting the trans cause, but maybe that is for another thread.

[DNA]

@ratszinger - " Wealthy white men are at the top of the trans lobby also by the way did you know that? Wealthy white heterosexual men! What is with that?..."
The interesting aspect about transgender is meant to become another "ISSUE" of endless issues for the masses. As deadly as it is, that is how most will see it, another 'issue'. But it's just another weapon against us.
A more encompassing question - Why are there so many traitors?

Just about every western country have relinquished control of their own money to the small group of private bankers! How could they be so stupid and treasonous? They are relinquishing control of their respective cultures, countries, race, and even gender (!) to these controlling aristocrats. Why are there so many traitors?
Answer - Because they already see you as DEAD. The politicians, rogue intel agents and industry CEO's, etc. already see you as losers. As from a famous movie, "You're dead kid, get yourself buried."
Just as in the medieval days you have royalty and you have those who want a seat at royalty's table. They see the masses as nothing that can give them nothing and they want at any cost to not be them but to be with whom they see as the movers and shakers of the world. They will do what royalty wants. It's the same today but at a larger scale. The corporate, international aristocracy want total disempowerment of the masses including the psychological.
Sorry to be simplistic for lack of time but your perplexity is merely seeing old fashioned - bully says "jump" and the caspar milquetoast says "how high"? See 'issues as weapons' of the globalists and you won't get as perplexed by the so-called content/arguments of the 'issues'. Some of those that do the bidding of the owners of western assets may be rich but not the richest and they want more, or at least to stay that way. Transgender or transhumanism, they will push what they are told to push... Loyalties of class is hard for us peasants to grasp, we see loyalties of culture, race, gender, ethnicity, country, etc. They don't.


I had the pleasure yesterday of entering into a impromptu conversation with a total stranger.

He was listening to Michael Savage on his phone and they were discussing Kavanaugh getting enough votes.

We started talking and we each were taking turns volleying to the other gauging how far we could go.

After only about ten minutes of this he told me something.

He said "the biggest problem with folks understanding how evil the elite are would come from them looking at doing things from their own perspective".

"Since they could never imagine doing anything so evil they just can't see anyone else doing so".
"I on the other hand, I've visited the old concentration camps, doing so changed me, I then was able to understand the depths of evil that men are capable of".

"After I visited those old Nazi death camps I was able to understand that true evil does in fact exist and I as able to see it in the elite who control the Globalist movements".

It was an amazing moment running into someone who shared my beliefs and shared how they arrived at this understanding.

This doesn't happen often, not even on Avalon where you would think these folks sharing such understandings would be plentiful. :)

[DNA]

Simply being groped is a very different thing than being trapped in a room with 2 powerful, very drunk young men whose clear intentions are to molest; being thrown on a bed and pinned down with the weight of a man's body, with a hand over one's mouth so that one cannot scream is terrifying, and in that situation, as I know first hand, it is extremely difficult to even breath because one is panicking. For an inexperienced, unaware young girl, and at that age a girl is probably still quite unaware of what can go on at such parties, it can hardly be anything but traumatic. Ford is clearly a very damaged woman, and since the men in her family are CIA, I imagine the damage started at an early age, as it often does for women of elite families. And an attempted rape experience always leaves scars, no matter who the woman is, and whether she is aware of it or not. There is certainly no lack of documented evidence of that.

Putting the incident in context is also essential. The young men at that party were from elite families, from which our country's leaders come. We don't expect the same kind of behavior from them as we do from common criminals. We have been programmed to have expectations of civil, even heroic behavior from the upper echelons of society, and it has come as shock to most of us that such expectations are not at all realistic. To a young insider girl, it could have come as even more of a shock, because she was completely immersed in it and could not escape.

Ford looks to me like a haunted woman who has been shocked repeatedly and never even come close to recovering. Her credentials don't necessarily belie that--children from elitist families have all sorts of privileges and short cuts to degrees, positions of prominence, etc. It doesn't follow that they are competent or mentally or emotionally fit for those positions--quite the contrary! Having Dubya as POTUS should have taught us that lesson by now. Just from the expression in her haunted eyes, I am surprised she is able to hold it together at all.

And has no one ever been at a party where the bathrooms were constantly full and you had to wait in a line or try to find a second, empty bathroom, possibly on the second floor? :facepalm:

This does not mean I am in favor of the Left. I think the whole scenario is disgusting, and it has little to do with sides, it has much more to do with the collective insanity of centuries finally and inescapably coming to a head, and this is just one symptom of it.


The left love to take advantage of folks who sympathize over every perceived wrong where there can be assigned a victim and an abuser role.

The left love those who are easy to manipulate in this manner.

This topic is a nothingburger with a side of cries and a bottle of weineken.

[onawah]

Equally accurate and revolting descriptions can be made about the the Right.
So what's the point of dwelling on "sides"?
It's exactly the ditch in the road the controllers want us to stay stuck in...
https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/aptopix_interstate_95_pileup-1.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1
...and keeps us from clearly seeing the whole picture.
http://roadtips.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341cad8253ef00e553d18d308834-800wi



The left love to take advantage of folks who sympathize over every perceived wrong where there can be assigned a victim and an abuser role.

The left love those who are easy to manipulate in this manner.

This topic is a nothingburger with a side of cries and a bottle of weineken.

[Helene West]

@ onawah - "...So what's the point of dwelling on "sides"?..."

Not "dwelling" but it is important to know thy enemy and their techniques. If you reject the idea we're under organized attack then you won't care about this. But our enemy, what you call the "controllers" do have techniques.

When you say, "...It's exactly the ditch in the road the controllers want us to stay stuck in...." - DNA alluded to some techniques, albeit condescendingly. You're correct, Don't dwell, particularly on content, learn the techniques, for defense and offense.

They Do Not treat every group the same at the same time. It wouldn't result in the dichotomy they need, good vs bad, scapegoats vs accusers, that's how they got us into 2 World Wars. The young haven't lived long enough to experience how the pendulum swings back and forth so it's even easier for many of these young protestors to jump on the scapegoat bandwagon.

Up until 9/11 they used the right-wing to achieve the legalistic frame work for the Patriot Act (the right's support of Bush). Mission accomplished, so they then dropped the right and the left became the tool to help them in their Next Phase - cultural war, diversity, diversity and the attempt to destroy the soveignity of every western country and cover that up with phony concerns about race.

At the present moment the left is the teacher's pet so it's important to isolate their techniques. Please don't tell me - but trump is right wing. Trump is either a lucky break and is for real warts and all, or he is there to ultimately cause a left-wing reaction so intense that, together with rapid advances in controlling technologies, we could become permanent left-wing, end of constitution, when you factor in the small window of time before their controlling technologies become peak ready.

If I was still into activism I'd have a list by now of techniques used by the left (globalists).

Trust me, it's what pre-eminent organizer Saul Alinsky would have done.

[DNA]

@ onawah - "...So what's the point of dwelling on "sides"?..."

Not "dwelling" but it is important to know thy enemy and their techniques. If you reject the idea we're under organized attack then you won't care about this. But our enemy, what you call the "controllers" do have techniques.

When you say, "...It's exactly the ditch in the road the controllers want us to stay stuck in...." - DNA alluded to some techniques, albeit condescendingly. You're correct, Don't dwell, particularly on content, learn the techniques, for defense and offense.

They Do Not treat every group the same at the same time. It wouldn't result in the dichotomy they need, good vs bad, scapegoats vs accusers, that's how they got us into 2 World Wars. The young haven't lived long enough to experience how the pendulum swings back and forth so it's even easier for many of these young protestors to jump on the scapegoat bandwagon.

Up until 9/11 they used the right-wing to achieve the legalistic frame work for the Patriot Act (the right's support of Bush). Mission accomplished, so they then dropped the right and the left became the tool to help them in their Next Phase - cultural war, diversity, diversity and the attempt to destroy the soveignity of every western country and cover that up with phony concerns about race.

At the present moment the left is the teacher's pet so it's important to isolate their techniques. Please don't tell me - but trump is right wing. Trump is either a lucky break and is for real warts and all, or he is there to ultimately cause a left-wing reaction so intense that, together with rapid advances in controlling technologies, we could become permanent left-wing, end of constitution, when you factor in the small window of time before their controlling technologies become peak ready.

If I was still into activism I'd have a list by now of techniques used by the left (globalists).

Trust me, it's what pre-eminent organizer Saul Alinsky would have done.


Onawah I was going to answer your statement to the best of my abilities but Helene said what I was wanting to communicate in a far better manner than I could have, so I would just like to state my agreement with Helene's post.

Also, I would just like to say don't let the left manipulate your emotions like this.

You can't dwell in sympathy for orchestrated causes.

[onawah]

No offense please, but I have no clue why I seem to be regarded by certain members as an uninformed someone who needs to be lectured about right/left politics, or warned against naivety and being manipulated.
(Perhaps this is because I am concerned about the environment, whereas to me those who are not are not just naive or uninformed, but absolutely oblivious.)
And I find it very comical that those who want to correct me are so sure that I am left leaning.
While it's quite clear to me that the controllers will use either right or left perspectives to create conflict and confusion in whatever way they choose, using anyone they choose, and that has often been the very point of my posts on these subjects.
About the only reason I even participate in these political threads is because I'm interested in "human" behavior (which is all too often not really human at all when it comes to politics, which seems to be designed to dehumanize us as quickly and completely as possible).
If Avalon continues to be primarily a forum about political matters, I will most certainly become too bored to even want to participate.
Maybe it's time for another sabbatical. :yawn:
In any case, now that we have Kavanaugh as our next SCOTUS, it would probably be more constructive to turn our attentions to things we might actually be able to do something about.

[Helene West]

You have "no clue"? okayyyy

[onawah]

Proves my point: "About the only reason I even participate in these political threads is because I'm interested in "human" behavior (which is all too often not really human at all when it comes to politics, which seems to be designed to dehumanize us as quickly and completely as possible)."

You have "no clue"? okayyyy

[Helene West]

most threads are about human behavior one way or the other. you post plenty on and of the political... we're not getting rid of politics... you got sensitive about dna's posts, I tried to make it better but, I give

[Bill Ryan]

You have "no clue"? okayyyy

Helene, that's not okay. You know it.



If Avalon continues to be primarily a forum about political matters, I will most certainly become too bored to even want to participate.

It's not. I've not done the math, but I'd bet quite a lot that there aren't more than 20 active members (and maybe just a dozen) who regularly post fairly passionately about political things.

For one or two of those, it may even be a kind of addiction, according to the strict definition of the word. They're compelled to keep coming back and saying the same things over and over again. One wonders why. American politics are important, but life is about much more than this. (Note: a LOT of members here aren't American. We might all think about that for a few seconds.)

Look at all the threads, 80,000 of them. Count them, too, anyone can. We cover everything you can think of, probably literally.

My advice to anyone who wants to redress the perceived imbalance (and it's perceived). Post on other subjects. Start threads on other subjects. That's what I do. If you don't want the fires on certain threads to burn more strongly, then just ignore them and be proactive somewhere else. That's how best to contribute positively.

:focus: — which is about a mudfight in American politics. :)

[onawah]

Yes, thanks Bill. Good suggestion.
I think we learn a lot more about how evil operates from the likes of Graham Hancock in his talk about 'Magicians of the Gods' http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102135-Dark-Journalist-Joseph-Farrell-UFO-X-Factor-Black-Budget-Secret-Space-Network-16-March-2018&p=1252707&viewfull=1#post1252707
...than wrangling about the latest "political mud fight".
It's very instructive what he says there about how the people who survived cataclysms were what we would now call indigenous people, who know how to live simply, in harmony with Nature, and without technology.
At the rate the planet is going now, as evinced by the Dutchsinse thread for (just) one, that may well be something much more important to think about than the next SCOTUS, imho.
That is just what such trivialities are designed to distract us from.

[Helene West]

You have "no clue"? okayyyy

Helene, that's not okay. You know it.



If Avalon continues to be primarily a forum about political matters, I will most certainly become too bored to even want to participate.

It's not. I've not done the math, but I'd bet quite a lot that there aren't more than 20 active members (and maybe just a dozen) who regularly post fairly passionately about political things.

For one or two of those, it may even be a kind of addiction, according to the strict definition of the word. They're compelled to keep coming back and saying the same things over and over again. One wonders why. American politics are important, but life is about much more than this. (Note: a LOT of members here aren't American. We might all think about that for a few seconds.)

Look at all the threads, 80,000 of them. Count them, too, anyone can. We cover everything you can think of, probably literally.

My advice to anyone who wants to redress the perceived imbalance (and it's perceived). Post on other subjects. Start threads on other subjects. That's what I do. If you don't want the fires on certain threads to burn more strongly, then just ignore them and be proactive somewhere else. That's how best to contribute positively.

:focus: — which is about a mudfight in American politics. :)

I disagree. She is political. Even her environmental posts in many of the first sentences start out as a snipe at the trump administration. Awhile back she was posting them on the Q thread and would have continued if not called out on it.
So, to me it's baloney that all of a sudden she's po'd at politics and wants to wash her hands of the whole dirty thing, but I'll apologize that my "you don't have a clue" remark was sarcastic. I should have refrained from that. Social credit demerit for me.





Mod note from Bill:
Helene, you're getting triggered. Stop it. Take the evening off (can you? :flower: ) ... go watch a Jim Carrey movie. Fun with Dick and Jane is great.

:focus:

[Helene West]

You have "no clue"? okayyyy

Helene, that's not okay. You know it.



If Avalon continues to be primarily a forum about political matters, I will most certainly become too bored to even want to participate.

It's not. I've not done the math, but I'd bet quite a lot that there aren't more than 20 active members (and maybe just a dozen) who regularly post fairly passionately about political things.

For one or two of those, it may even be a kind of addiction, according to the strict definition of the word. They're compelled to keep coming back and saying the same things over and over again. One wonders why. American politics are important, but life is about much more than this. (Note: a LOT of members here aren't American. We might all think about that for a few seconds.)

Look at all the threads, 80,000 of them. Count them, too, anyone can. We cover everything you can think of, probably literally.

My advice to anyone who wants to redress the perceived imbalance (and it's perceived). Post on other subjects. Start threads on other subjects. That's what I do. If you don't want the fires on certain threads to burn more strongly, then just ignore them and be proactive somewhere else. That's how best to contribute positively.

:focus: — which is about a mudfight in American politics. :)

I disagree. She is political. Even her environmental posts in many of the first sentences start out as a snipe at the trump administration. Awhile back she was posting them on the Q thread and would have continued if not called out on it.
So, to me it's baloney that all of a sudden she's po'd at politics and wants to wash her hands of the whole dirty thing, but I'll apologize that my "you don't have a clue" remark was sarcastic. I should have refrained from that. Social credit demerit for me.





Mod note from Bill:
Helene, you're getting triggered. Stop it. Take the evening off (can you? :flower: ) ... go watch a Jim Carrey movie. Fun with Dick and Jane is great.

:focus:


you definitely got it backwards. but whatever...

[DNA]

These are not politics as usual.

An orchestrated Globalist front wishes to start a civil war in the United States and bleeding heart sentimentalists are the pawns being pushed on the chessboard.
These pawns refuse to see the big picture but forever fret about incidentally trivial items that surely do not matter when taking into account the fall of Western Civilization as we know it.

So no, not politics as usual.

[Bill Ryan]

These are not politics as usual.

An orchestrated Globalist front wishes to start a civil war in the United States and bleeding heart sentimentalists are the pawns being pushed on the chessboard.
These pawns refuse to see the big picture but forever fret about incidentally trivial items that surely do not matter when taking into account the fall of Western Civilization as we know it.

So no, not politics as usual.

You're 100% correct. I'm not trivializing anything. I do know this is important.

I just wrote this to the mods:




Balance really is the key. The real challenge is how to be passionate, aware and articulate, but also balanced, grounded and fair at the same time. When most people get fired up to speak passionately, they immediately lose their balance. It's not easy.

[DNA]

I just wrote this to the mods:




Balance really is the key. The real challenge is how to be passionate, aware and articulate, but also balanced, grounded and fair at the same time. When most people get fired up to speak passionately, they immediately lose their balance. It's not easy.



This describes me in a nutshell which is why I tend to avoid these threads.

It's just I've never in my life seen the political machinations of the deep state so obvious, I'm in utter and complete disbelief how some folks do not see it.

It is literally the big bad wolf dressed up as Grandma and folks are literally fighting to the death defending she who will remove her mask and gleefully eat you with a fine Chianti and a side of fava beans.

[Bill Ryan]

It's just I've never in my life seen the political machinations of the deep state so obvious, I'm in utter and complete disbelief how some folks do not see it.

It is literally the big bad wolf dressed up as Grandma and folks are literally fighting to the death defending she who will remove her mask and gleefully eat you with a fine Chianti and a side of fava beans.

Yes. :) It's part of a much bigger picture, of course. Manipulation and falsification in the mainstream news media (which is a HUGE influence), the deliberate creation or amplification of a multitude of everyday problems so that most people have no time or energy to think of any bigger picture of any kind, trivial entertainment (including smartphone addiction and everything trivial that comes with it), not to even start on deliberate planetary-wide malnutrition and poisoning that affects us spiritually as well as emotionally and physically.

Those who really know what's going on, even if they may disagree on a few details, are a tiny minority.

Something to think about: Every member here is far far FAR more aware than 99%+ of the rest of the populace.

Folks, I'm just saying: don't turn against your own kind. It achieves nothing, except making one feel good for a few minutes after posting something one thinks is a clever one-up on someone else. Don't do it. We're all better than that.

~~~

@Helene, I appreciate your passion. I really mean it. But saying something like "Social credit demerit for me" is cheap and sarcastic. That's what got triggered. You never had to say that. It was a reaction.

Nothing like that will ever upset me personally, but this is your forum. Just make it what you want it to be, by example and proactivity. It's really not that hard.

:focus: (Again! :) )

[onawah]

To me, "being political" means taking sides and losing objectivity.
In my view, and I think it's been quite clearly borne out on this thread and others, both sides are so corrupt there's not much sense in taking sides.
If you aren't taking a side, you can explore and see much more clearly what any particular thing coming from either side needs to be criticized, what it might actually mean, why it may need to be examined more deeply, etc. etc.
If I sympathize with an individual who I see caught up in that circus, it's not because I have taken a side, but because I see what a trap the whole political system has become, and I would hate to be in their shoes, even if they have unwittingly put themselves in that situation.
That's only human, and is part of having compassion.
At the same time, I can find it very difficult to sympathize with others who seem to have intentionally put themselves in a position where they are inflicting great harm on others quite consciously.
Righteous anger is also a part of compassion, and can be a very positive thing.
And I think there is a difference between those two, which merit different responses.
If I snipe at the Trump Admin it's not because I've taken a side but because there are plenty of things that need to be criticized.
If I'm on a side, it would be Gaia's.
And a lot of the "snipes" I post are not mine, but originate from the environmental groups that I am quoting.
Those are important distinctions. and I speak not just for myself, but for other members who I see working from similar perspectives.
It's a learning process.


You have "no clue"? okayyyy

I disagree. She is political. Even her environmental posts in many of the first sentences start out as a snipe at the trump administration. Awhile back she was posting them on the Q thread and would have continued if not called out on it.
So, to me it's baloney that all of a sudden she's po'd at politics and wants to wash her hands of the whole dirty thing, but I'll apologize that my "you don't have a clue" remark was sarcastic. I should have refrained from that. Social credit demerit for me.

[Helene West]

To me, "being political" means taking sides and losing objectivity.
In my view, and I think it's been quite clearly borne out on this thread and others, both sides are so corrupt there's not much sense in taking sides.
If you aren't taking a side, you can explore and see much more clearly what any particular thing coming from either side needs to be criticized, what it might actually mean, why it may need to be examined more deeply, etc. etc.
If I sympathize with an individual who I see caught up in that circus, it's not because I have taken a side, but because I see what a trap the whole political system has become, and I would hate to be in their shoes, even if they have unwittingly put themselves in that situation.
That's only human, and is part of having compassion.
At the same time, I can find it very difficult to sympathize with others who seem to have intentionally put themselves in a position where they are inflicting great harm on others quite consciously.
Righteous anger is also a part of compassion, and can be a very positive thing.
And I think there is a difference between those two, which merit different responses.
If I snipe at the Trump Admin it's not because I've taken a side but because there are plenty of things that need to be criticized.
If I'm on a side, it would be Gaia's.
And a lot of the "snipes" I post are not mine, but originate from the environmental groups that I am quoting.
Those are important distinctions. and I speak not just for myself, but for other members who I see working from similar perspectives.
It's a learning process.


You have "no clue"? okayyyy

I disagree. She is political. Even her environmental posts in many of the first sentences start out as a snipe at the trump administration. Awhile back she was posting them on the Q thread and would have continued if not called out on it.
So, to me it's baloney that all of a sudden she's po'd at politics and wants to wash her hands of the whole dirty thing, but I'll apologize that my "you don't have a clue" remark was sarcastic. I should have refrained from that. Social credit demerit for me.


Wow, I'm now feeling sorry for you...
adios

[Helene West]

Bill
I saw no reason for you to jump in like Onawah was a 5 year old being bullied by bad Helene the 12 yrs old. That's not 'triggered'?
She got sensitive about dna's somewhat condescending remark and then when I tried to clarify it and give it more depth she goes into this whole denial of not being interested in politics and the whole thing was dirty, beneath her - that was kind of trivializing to all the good points that were made on the thread mine and others. I'm sorry you couldn't see that. I'm sorry I was sarcastic. This time I wasn't angry like other incidents, this was just weird to me.
I'm done here, good night.

[onawah]

I agree, these are not politics as usual, they are worse right now because we are in such a critical time and need so much to be pulling together as a race.
But they aren't all that different either because the patterns in general from behind the scenes haven't changed other than superficially over time.
The controllers may have found some new ways to manipulate and confuse, but the motivations are still the same-- to control and conquer.
The challenge is not just to be undeceived, but as Bill repeats on occasion, to maintain balance in the face of it ALL.

On a somewhat different subject, as I understand it, it is permitted to comment on threads about any particular topic, even if one does not necessarily agree with the opinion of the OP, as long as one has information to share about the subject that is relevant and of value.
Otherwise this forum would not be much different than a moderated debate.
I think the objective is to be more than that- to be a discussion and a process from which one can learn, not just about the subjects at hand, but about having good boundaries, about expressing oneself clearly and staying relevant.
That may be more of a challenge to some and more chaotic, but also more rewarding if growth is the objective.
If you just want to be right and to express your opinion, it may not be so much fun, but exposure may help you to arrive at an improved perspective.
One that incorporates more detachment and objectivity, and less emotional knee jerk reactions.
We may come at that objective from very different places, but if this is a group that pulls together, that is a necessary part of the process.
And we do need to be a group that pulls together, for as we all know, most people are still so very unaware.
Even just a little light can light up a whole lot of darkness.
I'm grateful to have an opportunity to be a part of that, even when it gets rough.


These are not politics as usual.

An orchestrated Globalist front wishes to start a civil war in the United States and bleeding heart sentimentalists are the pawns being pushed on the chessboard.
These pawns refuse to see the big picture but forever fret about incidentally trivial items that surely do not matter when taking into account the fall of Western Civilization as we know it.

So no, not politics as usual.

[apokalypse]

If you aren't taking a side, you can explore and see much more clearly what any particular thing coming from either side needs to be criticized, what it might actually mean, why it may need to be examined more deeply, etc. etc.

i keep telling people ignore this crap nothing more than a game but people talking sides especial anti-trump ignore the facts...i'm shock that media create as if Trump the worst guy ever or the world collapse but i considered Bush are the evil one got us into current mess.

No we moving on mid term and i have feeling GOP/Trump going to win it to push the agenda...i don't know but just my theory or feeling that this event of ford is created to bring in anti-media laws and reasons for trump mid term win.

i hve feeling and thought this whole crap is a setup..psyop.

[ThePythonicCow]

From Brietbart.com (https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/06/kavanaugh-confirmed-possibly-most-conservative-supreme-court-since-1934/) and from the Washington Times (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/6/brett-kavanaugh-gets-sworn-supreme-court-justice/):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JUSTICE

Brett Kavanaugh gets sworn in as Supreme Court justice

http://thepythoniccow.us/Supreme_Court_Kavanaugh_19574_thumb.jpg (http://thepythoniccow.us/Supreme_Court_Kavanaugh_19574.jpg)
<< Click >> on image for larger viewChief Justice John Roberts, right, administers the Constitutional Oath
to Judge Brett Kavanaugh in the Justices’ Conference Room
of the Supreme Court Building. Ashley Kavanaugh holds the Bible.
In the foreground are their daughters, Margaret, left, and Liza.
Brett Kavanaugh became the 114th justice to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday,
when the Senate confirmed him by a vote of 50-48, handing President Trump and Republicans
a historic victory that shifts the balance of power on the Court.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[mgray]

Why did the Kavanaugh dog and pony show (https://grayseconomy.com/2018/10/07/kavanaugh-and-the-patriot-act-nothing-to-see-here/) ignored his role in crafting the Patriot Act?

[thepainterdoug]

There are many guilty parties concerning the Patriot Act. How about why it was even constructed ? The lie of 9/11 ,thats why! We're trying to lock the corral after the horses have long since ran out. We collectively as a people, a Nation, have failed in never solving 9/11, the real dog and Pony show that changed this Country and all our children's lives forever. All brought to us by the BUSH CHENEY RUMMY PNAC dog and pony show. They should all be in jail .
Live your life as an integral , principled and responsible individual and you should never need the courts.

[mgray]

Thanks Doug, but to say if you obey the law you don't have to worry about your rights being violated is really not the way to go. The Bill of Rights is not freedoms granted to us by a benevolent overlord, they are human rights that no government can infringe upon.