Rachel Mitchell statement on Brett Kavenaugh hearing. Detailing her opinion of ford's responses

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Basically you're saying filing a report and not doing anything for 30 years are = as long as the guy doesn't show up for the hearing? I didn't see it that way, but ok.

 

---

 

New signed letter to Senate Judiciary about Julie Swetnick, who accused Kavanaugh of running a secret gang rape cartel: author says he thought she was a prostitute, she bragged about having group sex in high school, and her dad said she had mental issues.

 

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-02%20Signed%20Ketterer%20Statement%20-%20Swetnick%20Allegations.pdf

Signed and dated under penalty of perjury 

[vla1ne]

Basically you're saying filing a report and not doing anything for 30 years are = as long as the guy doesn't show up for the hearing? I didn't see it that way, but ok.

 

---

 

Nein nein nein. What they're saying is his credibility is damaged by not showing up for a hearing that was supposedly important to him. You know, the same thing ford did when she lied about flying. Can't attack one while using the other as a standard. Her own story is by far less plausible than the story her ex is putting up, but his own story still isn't strong enough to stand on it's own. Does it paint a picture? Yes, but it doesn't add anything of value that we didn't already have in the arsenal.

[Phantom Roxas]

It's that you're criticizing the accusers, and anyone who believes them, as doing so far too readily because it's somehow "lynching" Kavanaugh, all the while you're believing Vinneccy just as easily. Vinneccy's accusations do not have any greater merit than Swetnick's, so it's hypocritical to favor his accusation over Swetnick's, rather than holding both of them to the same level of scrutiny.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Ok yeah, that's fair, my error. Recanted

[Phantom Roxas]

Ok yeah, that's fair, my error. Recanted

 

I appreciate that. Thank you.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I appreciate that. Thank you.

I made a mistake, I'm happy enough to own that. Still think she's not credible for many other reasons tho

[vla1ne]

Ok yeah, that's fair, my error. Recanted

this thread must now be archived./s

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

God I feel like a dick right now.

 

I do appreciate the love and respect right now but from here on let's try and move on so we don't get too spammy.

[vla1ne]

Well, the main thing that the thread was made to discuss was the prosecutor's report on ford's accounting of the story. So the question expands then, to what can the FBI even investigate to get anything else out of the story? None of the details that would establish this as a plausible case are present, and had this been taken to the police, or the FBI in the first place, they wouldn't be having as much trouble as they are now. There's no setting and no set date. The month has changed multiple times, while the alleged hero of this story, her driver, is unnamed as well. There's nowhere to even start on this case that hasn't already been looked at. and this prosecutor has went after actual trafficking rings and other similar criminal cases, so it's not like her credentials are in question when she says that the story here is weak from a lawyer's perspective. what more is there to go over that would matter in a court of law? The second accuser has nothing backing her story, and the third accuser's story is so incredible that you'd need something massive to actually get it over the very first hurdle of proof.

[Phantom Roxas]

I made a mistake, I'm happy enough to own that. Still think she's not credible for many other reasons tho

 

That's fair. I'll respond more thoroughly in a bit, and despite our different positions here, I'm happy to reach some form of compromise regarding Vinneccy and Swetnick's respective testimonies, no matter how small.

 

God I feel like a dick right now.

 

I do appreciate the love and respect right now but from here on let's try and move on so we don't get too spammy.

 

I don't think you should feel like a dick. You wanted this thread to move towards a certain standard of conduct, and we're taking steps towards that.

 

Again, going to try and post something more relevant to the subject at hand later. Just wanted to focus more on managing my own tone in my posts, and I hope to maintain that going forward.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Another cut out of a thousand

 

Christine Blasey Ford’s ex says she coached people on passing polygraphs. He issued his statement in a sworn statement.

 

 

 

If true, this means she lied under oath. I wonder if Rachel Mitchell knew about this when she asked her about this.

[Phantom Roxas]

I'm a little skeptical, because this is the second ex-boyfriend making a statement that's specifically designed to undermine the accusations. This in no way proves that Ford lied under oath, because it's just another case of "She said, he said."

 

It's just as likely that the ex lied under oath, which means that either one of them (Or somehow both of them) could have committed perjury.

 

I hate to repeat myself, but I'll cut to the chase. This is exactly the same issue that we had just went over with Vinneccy and Swetnick's testimonies. The ex-boyfriend of a woman who has accused Kavanaugh tries to discredit the woman, and simply because you the ex-boyfriend said one thing, you immediately conclude that the woman must have lied.

 

It's also... suspicious that both of these testimonies from men claiming to be the ex-boyfriends have come from Fox News. I have no reason to believe either of these reports. This is admittedly speculation on my part, but I have to wonder if this Fox News fabricating reports to discredit the accusers as a way of protecting Kavanaugh. Can anyone else corroborate the reports from these ex-boyfriends?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm a little skeptical, because this is the second ex-boyfriend making a statement that's specifically designed to undermine the accusations. This in no way proves that Ford lied under oath, because it's just another case of "She said, he said."

 

It's just as likely that the ex lied under oath, which means that either one of them (Or somehow both of them) could have committed perjury.

 

I hate to repeat myself, but I'll cut to the chase. This is exactly the same issue that we had just went over with Vinneccy and Swetnick's testimonies. The ex-boyfriend of a woman who has accused Kavanaugh tries to discredit the woman, and simply because you the ex-boyfriend said one thing, you immediately conclude that the woman must have lied.

 

It's also... suspicious that both of these testimonies from men claiming to be the ex-boyfriends have come from Fox News. I have no reason to believe either of these reports. This is admittedly speculation on my part, but I have to wonder if this Fox News fabricating reports to discredit the accusers as a way of protecting Kavanaugh. Can anyone else corroborate the reports from these ex-boyfriends?

Yup, it's just a little sketchy again. He's risking an awful lot (as is she).

 

That document is from Sen Grassley's office actually, city redacted so that he doesn't get put on blast

 

I was more interested in why RM went along that exact questioning pathway. Seems like an odd question to ask if she's ever been coached to take a polygraph no?

[vla1ne]

I hate to repeat myself, but I'll cut to the chase. This is exactly the same issue that we had just went over with Vinneccy and Swetnick's testimonies. The ex-boyfriend of a woman who has accused Kavanaugh tries to discredit the woman, and simply because you the ex-boyfriend said one thing, you immediately conclude that the woman must have lied.

 

It's also... suspicious that both of these testimonies from men claiming to be the ex-boyfriends have come from Fox News. I have no reason to believe either of these reports. This is admittedly speculation on my part, but I have to wonder if this Fox News fabricating reports to discredit the accusers as a way of protecting Kavanaugh. Can anyone else corroborate the reports from these ex-boyfriends?

On that point, this one actually holds a bit more water. The first one was a random interview from a man who'd proven himself unreliable by skipping out on his court case. this one is a testament under oath, and is backed in spirit by the fact that ford is not only a psychology professor (polygraphs belong in the psychology field) but by the fact that she wrote a paper on false memories, or more specifically, how to induce them, a topic that is extremely relevant, even though indirectly related, to polygraph tests.

 

Not gonna mince words here, but do you really think MSNBC or CNN, who are currently obsessed with his being upset over the facts of the actual testimonies, are going to acknowledge this one? Fox might have bias, but for the most part, they remain a trustworthy news source, if only by virtue of pointing out what other sources blatantly ignore.

 

 

I was more interested in why RM went along that exact questioning pathway. Seems like an odd question to ask if she's ever been coached to take a polygraph no?

It's an easy catch that nets major points in a court of law if done successfully. It also has no penalty if it misses, since it's a legitimate question to ask anybody who's ever taken a polygraph, if they've eve been coached. Put simply, ford is a psychology professor, one of, if not the main profession relating to polygraph testing. Her taking and passing a polygraph in that light, is by far, too large of a target to not at least take one shot at. Considering this report, alongside the paper that she herself wrote, it seems she aimed true. It doesn't destroy the entire testimony, but it damages yet another massive chunk of it.

[Phantom Roxas]

Yup, it's just a little sketchy again. He's risking an awful lot (as is she).

 

That document is from Sen Grassley's office actually, city redacted so that he doesn't get put on blast

 

I was more interested in why RM went along that exact questioning pathway. Seems like an odd question to ask if she's ever been coached to take a polygraph no?

Yeah, they're both making a risk. It's just that there's a very specific overlap in these scenarios, including some of the language and word choice. It's not an exact copy-and-paste, but they seem similar enough that I doubt that these were from two separate people, or even if they were, they sound almost dictated. Specifically, both made a point about how neither accuser ever mentioned Kavanaugh during their respective relationships. It just seems unusual to stress that about both accusers.

 

Any source that this is from Grassley? From what I'm mostly seeing is that, while the Senate Judiciary Committee is said to have received this, the fact that Fox News is identified as the primary source of this document is what I'm suspicious about. I would be more willing to believe this document if Fox News didn't have such a direct involvement in both, and if the circumstances and word choices weren't so similar.

 

I understand being interested in Mitchell's choice of questioning. Apologies if I get this wrong, but I assume you're speculating if she might have been pressed to ask those specific questions?

 

On that point, this one actually holds a bit more water. The first one was a random interview from a man who'd proven himself unreliable by skipping out on his court case. this one is a testament under oath, and is backed in spirit by the fact that ford is not only a psychology professor (polygraphs belong in the psychology field) but by the fact that she wrote a paper on false memories, or more specifically, how to induce them, a topic that is extremely relevant, even though indirectly related, to polygraph tests.

 

Not gonna mince words here, but do you really think MSNBC or CNN, who are currently obsessed with his being upset over the facts of the actual testimonies, are going to acknowledge this one? Fox might have bias, but for the most part, they remain a trustworthy news source, if only by virtue of pointing out what other sources blatantly ignore.

 

-WILL BE EDITED SHORTLY-

 

This being a testament under oath doesn't particularly mean much when it's being used as though it were definitive proof that Ford lied under oath. It's just pitting two sworn statements against one another.

 

Whataboutism regarding MSNBC and CNN is irrelevant, and the notion that Fox News remains a trustworthy news source is laughable, especially when, at least to my understanding, it's not so much that Fox points out what other sources are ignoring, so much as that when most other news sources focus on information that reflects poorly on the Trump administration or his nominees, Fox News will either ignore that entirely, or deflect on someone else. Not to mention that the "report" on other subjects because they will outright lie, and the networks simply aren't sharing those reports because then they would also be guilty of lying. I don't want to make this into too much of a debate on "Fake News" beyond stating that for as much as Trump decries as many news media as he can as "Fake News" except Fox News, it's Fox that more often than not tends to be the most guilty source.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://twitter.com/Neoavatara/status/1047305151718084608

 

"It sounds like the Mitchell, the prosecutor, knew this polygraph information at question.

 

Ford's lawyers stupidly let her walk into that trap"

 

Nah I just saw this tweet and was wondering if the GOP was actually clever enough to pull this off

[vla1ne]

This being a testament under oath doesn't particularly mean much when it's being used as though it were definitive proof that Ford lied under oath. It's just pitting two sworn statements against one another.

 

Whataboutism regarding MSNBC and CNN is irrelevant, and the notion that Fox News remains a trustworthy news source is laughable, especially when, at least to my understanding, it's not so much that Fox points out what other sources are ignoring, so much as that when most other news sources focus on information that reflects poorly on the Trump administration or his nominees, Fox News will either ignore that entirely, or deflect on someone else. Not to mention that the "report" on other subjects because they will outright lie, and the networks simply aren't sharing those reports because then they would also be guilty of lying. I don't want to make this into too much of a debate on "Fake News" beyond stating that for as much as Trump decries as many news media as he can as "Fake News" except Fox News, it's Fox that more often than not tends to be the most guilty source.

This entire case, is nothing but sworn statements under oath at the moment. The majority of them are against ford's own at this point. It's not definitive proof, that was granted by winter at the very start, but like he said, it's yet another chip, and a plausible one, considering her profession, and her paper.

 

Fox news, as surprising as it sounds, was vetted, and found to be actually accurate. i would never say fox news doesn't ignore stories, but the stories they do put up, are usually pretty accurate (not talking about live interviews, talking about actual news reports) all sides ignore info, and i won't go into that, because it's worthy of a thread all it's own. There have also been multiple cases where fox news has apologized outright for any inaccuracies in their stories (not just them who do it, but they're the topic, so i'm keeping it narrow).

[spoiler=Two reports backing the claim.]

 

 

it's the same guy on both, but he's among the fairest reporters on youtube, and it's his literal profession offline as well

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/Neoavatara/status/1047305151718084608

 

"It sounds like the Mitchell, the prosecutor, knew this polygraph information at question.

 

Ford's lawyers stupidly let her walk into that trap"

 

Nah I just saw this tweet and was wondering if the GOP was actually clever enough to pull this off

So she saw this one coming? That's pretty sneaky. I mean, she's a lawyer, so it's to be expected, but i did not expect her to actually have set up full on trap questions beforehand. then again, who exactly is that twitter guy? is he related to the case?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This entire case, is nothing but sworn statements under oath at the moment. The majority of them are against ford's own at this point. It's not definitive proof, that was granted by winter at the very start, but like he said, it's yet another chip, and a plausible one, considering her profession, and her paper.

 

Fox news, as surprising as it sounds, was vetted, and found to be actually accurate. i would never say fox news doesn't ignore stories, but the stories they do put up, are usually pretty accurate (not talking about live interviews, talking about actual news reports) all sides ignore info, and i won't go into that, because it's worthy of a thread all it's own. There have also been multiple cases where fox news has apologized outright for any inaccuracies in their stories (not just them who do it, but they're the topic, so i'm keeping it narrow).

[spoiler=Two reports backing the claim.]

 

 

it's the same guy on both, but he's among the fairest reporters on youtube, and it's his literal profession offline as well

 

 

 

So she saw this one coming? That's pretty sneaky. I mean, she's a lawyer, so it's to be expected, but i did not expect her to actually have set up full on trap questions beforehand. then again, who exactly is that twitter guy? is he related to the case?

Nah, just another guy who was a little puzzled by the similar wording. This is the sorta thing Trump has a history of doing, if the GOP is learning from God Emperor, good for them

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Blumenthal: The FBI Participated In “A Cover-Up”

 

Of course 

[vla1ne]

Blumenthal: The FBI Participated In “A Cover-Up”

 

Of course 

That's legitimately disgusting. They demanded a week long investigation, after holding a senate hearing in front of the world. Then, they demanded an investigation, and said they'd be happy if it were only a week long. the republicans concede to it. then they claim trump is restricting it, trump backs off the investigation, they claim he's still restricting it because it doesn't go into the other people who filed allegations, come to find they've already looked into the second one, and have literally no lead on the third (as i they did, at least 20 other people would be going down along with ford, but the one witness able to corroborate, denied the allegations being true). FBI gives up, saying there's literally nothing to look into, democrats claim it's an inside job.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That's legitimately disgusting. They demanded a week long investigation, after holding a senate hearing in front of the world. Then, they demanded an investigation, and said they'd be happy if it were only a week long. the republicans concede to it. then they claim trump is restricting it, trump backs off the investigation, they claim he's still restricting it because it doesn't go into the other people who filed allegations, come to find they've already looked into the second one, and have literally no lead on the third (as i they did, at least 20 other people would be going down along with ford, but the one witness able to corroborate, denied the allegations being true). FBI gives up, saying there's literally nothing to look into, democrats claim it's an inside job.

Like I said, Guilty until proven guilty

[Dad]

How did this woman recall the one party out of decades ago that is the only time Kavanaugh and his homies were together?  What are the chances of that?

[vla1ne]

How did this woman recall the one party out of decades ago that is the only time Kavanaugh and his homies were together?  What are the chances of that?

she didn't. she couldn't narrow down the year, or even the month. on top of that, not one party listed by kavanaugh in his planners included any mention of her and her friends. the people attempting to grill him literally picked one party out of the planner, and tried to use it to put him on blast, knowing full well that the year 1982-3-4- in the month of June through August (aka peak party weather) was going to catch at least one party.

 

they literally picked a date out the planner, and ran with it at his hearing. making up stories as they went along. which is about as dishonest as it gets.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

How did this woman recall the one party out of decades ago that is the only time Kavanaugh and his homies were together?  What are the chances of that?

What are the chances that her then boyfriend, a known friend of kavanaugh and then one other friend they hang out together would be at a party together sometime. What crazy odds

[Dad]

So this party ( that she didn't recall) at the house with the exact layout (that she didn't remember) didn't have the same 3 people (who she didnt name) and wasn't 15 minutes from a country club (which she didn't mention) and never took place because she couldn't narrow down a year?

 

That's odd to me because you can ask a trauma patient a lot of things and man, If they remember much at all, Its usually a miracle.

 

But I mean, I certainly hope that the chances of naming those minute details at that one location aren't too difficult to dig up.

 

They didn't just pick one party. It was a party just before football season where she knows at least three people (Kavanaugh, the judge, the friend) who can be painted at the party.

 

Not IF. Not MAYBE. They were there. And so was her boyfriend (pitiful excuse for a boyfriend). That's four people.