Kavanaugh's mother did keep his event calendars for 36 years which is far more evidence of Kavanaugh's whereabouts than anything Ms Ford has offered.
Did the Democrats Betray Christine Ford?
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Kavanaugh's mother did keep his event calendars for 36 years which is far more evidence of Kavanaugh's whereabouts than anything Ms Ford has offered.
grit
New member
I appreciate your heartfelt words of wisdom. I quite agree that there is never an acceptable “statute of limitations” on any sinful act. We each will be called to give an account before the Righteous and Omniscient Judge -no one ever gets away with anything.
As I hope you see, the contrast I made was not toward any such dismissing of allegations due to time. Nor do I dismiss a claim of attempted rape and involuntary manslaughter. What I've indicated as “telling” (in my thinking) is the naming of Kavanaugh. As to anything being “scripted”, it isn't Dr. Ford's story that seems scripted to me, in fact it has changed in details often, but it's the unfolding of the events of it's telling, of which there can be no doubt was planned by Democrat strategists who have admitted as much. I thought I was very emphatically clear on that point.
Dr. Ford claimed it was kept secret – to have never conveyed the personal details of that unforgettable memory for over 30 years, not to anyone. When asked by Sen. Feinstien, “Why, why have you held it to yourself all these years, as you look back can you indicate what the reasons are?”, Dr. Ford answered, “Well, I haven't held it in all these years – I did disclose it in the, in the confines of therapy where I felt like it was an appropriate place to cope with the sequelae of the event.” But she's testified that therapy first began no less than 30 years after the event - in 2012, so held in, according to her, immediately seeming to contradict herself, apart from claims of communicating something to her husband in 2002.
She also testified that the primary impact of the ordeal was in the initial 4 years after the event, when perhaps she could have most benefited from the therapy later received. Further, she testified that prior to her earliest contact with the Washington Post she had to check with her provider as to whether or not marriage therapy records existed to even validate the occurrence of her sexual assault claim – records that do not name Kavanaugh, even where Christine's husband Russell Ford indicates Kavanaugh was indeed named in those sessions. Kavanaugh's name is also not mentioned in Ford's private therapy session records 0f 2013 where the event is discussed. Again, I'm not at all faulting her for not telling her story earlier or not getting therapy earlier. But the first thus far verifiable somewhat non-partisan mention of Kavanaugh by name comes 36 years after the claimed event, to the Washington Post, when Democrats had expressed they would fight Kavanaugh's confirmation with everything they have.
Regarding the alleged event Dr. Ford herself testified she, "tried to convince myself that because Brett did not rape me, I should be able to move on and just pretend that it had never happened." She's said, "…I don’t remember as much as I would like to. But the details about that night that bring me here today are ones I will never forget. They have been seared into my memory and have haunted me…" She then proceeded to recount this seared memory of the event, the details of which have differed every time in her various public “summaries” to others, apart from what might be termed as the claimed assault itself on the bed.
She said, “I had never told the details to anyone, the specific details, until May 2012, during a couple’s counseling session. The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband [Russell Ford] and I had completed a very extensive, very long remodel of our home, and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand... In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court and spoke a bit about his background... My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh. After that May 2012 therapy session I did my best to ignore the details of the assault because recounting them caused me to relive the experience and cause panic and anxiety. Occasionally I would discuss the assault in an individual therapy session, but talking about it caused more reliving of the trauma, so I tried not to think about it or discuss it; but over the years I went through periods where I thought about the attack. I had confided in some close friends that I had had an experience with sexual assault. Occasionally I stated that my assailant was a prominent lawyer or judge, but I did not use his name. I do not recall each person I spoke to about Bret's assault, and some friends have reminded me of these conversations since the publication of a Washington Post story on September 16th, 2018. But until July, 2018 I had never named Mr. Kavanaugh as my attacker outside of therapy.”
She then proceeded to recount how on July 6th, 2018 and the 2 days following she conveyed her story to her congressional representative's receptionist, the Washington Post's encrypted tip line, and some close friends on the beach. Then Monday, July 9th, the day of Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, she received a return call from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo. That timing seems perhaps telling to me. Telling that Dr. Ford was not primarily interested in justice in the matter, but primarily interested that Judge Kavanaugh not be the nominee to the SCOTUS. That's actually what she also claims as the reason for naming him, not justice for herself or the event she claims.
She initially said she did not know when the event happened, not even what year it happened, but her opening sworn testimony then details it was the Summer of 1982, just as she eventually corrected to the Washington Post, who she first told was the mid-eighties. Later, being questioned as to what year it occurred and how she was recently able to narrow down the time-frame to exactly 1982 she again says she, “can't give the exact date and, um, I would like to be more helpful about the date, and if I knew when Mark Judge worked at the Potomac Safeway then I would be able to be more helpful in that way; so I'm just using, um, memories of when I got my driver's license – I was 15 at the time and I, I did not drive home from that party or to that party”. These changes in professed memory were all in a matter of recent months, where she has at once sworn to not knowing the year she has nevertheless sworn was 1982.
Again, I am not faulting a claimed sexual assault for being cloudy on details surrounding said assault, nor am I faulting her for piecing together further detail in recently again working through the event. What is disappointing to me is the swearing of details regarding uncorroborated allegations against other individuals which then change with every retelling of the claimed event, even during the sworn testimony. Charges made against any individual, whether in a job interview or gossip around a water-cooler should be made of sterner and more valid stuff, and the Scriptures agree with me on that point. Every Democrat member of the Committee questioning Dr. Ford found it necessary to excuse every change in detail apart from the actual claimed assault on the bed. And every Democrat member of the Committee questioning Dr. Ford exclaimed how absolutely vital it was owed to the participants to have a thorough investigation, while not a one of them participated in investigating in a bipartisan manner when repeatedly asked to do so by their colleagues across the aisle.
It's fine and well to champion victims of sexual abuse, and it's fine and well to champion for victims either falsely accused or prosecuted in public opinion and by governmental force without sufficient evidences. I've been the victim of this myself, so I know of what I speak. These days all it takes to end a persons life is to point and say, “there's the devil!”
It's ironic to me that in the State to which Christine Ford moved, California, beginning in 1983, the year following her now revitalized memory, the story riveting the news for the rest of that decade was the McMartin Preschool Trial, where it was claimed that 360 children had been abused.
We're all for truth and justice. We all agree sexual abuse is horrific. I think we also all agree that alleged allegations absolutely demand due process and the rule of law, protecting the innocent until proven guilty. Lives destroyed by false allegations are every bit as precious and worthy of protection and revitalisation as every other victim in this world.
Wow. AN investigation? I wonder why no one thought to call for an investigation here?
oh wait.
Did the first men (or even most of the men) to come forward have an investigation to help them corroborate their claims? No, they didn't.
Glad you weren't around when the investigations into church sexual abuse and a cover up was starting.
or anything those men from Pennsylvania offered
you just described about every case of sexual abuse including all those men from Pennsylvania.
No his father kept a calendar/diary.
If you think Daddy knew everything Brett, the choir boy, did when he was 17 let me sell you this bridge I have.
You have to have evidence, witnesses, or some semblance of corroboration to prove there was a crime to begin with what would you have them investigate? a baseless allegation? anybody can allege anything it takes evidence to kick off an investigation or to convict, furthermore there have been six investigations by the FBI of this man to date, none of which have uncovered any allegations of misdoing, we can expect the same from the current one, nothing from nothing equals nothing after all. Let us know when there is anybody that can credibly corroborate anything Ms Ford has alleged because to date there is nothing here but, a lot of crocodile tears and a baseless accusation.
Who cares how it went down, you asserted there was no corroboration, and I have proven that there was in the church documentation, done here....moving on now.
Hmmmm, how so?
Okay...not sure it matters I knew one of the parents kept his old calendars. Most parents don't know everything their kids do, and again unless you got anything more than an unsupported allegation & your partisan opinion to offer here , you still got nothing....just sayin.
You were the one who suggested that one of the parents would know what he was doing. Backing off of that now? Just askin'.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Do you not know that in the USA an accused person doesn't have the burden of proof?
Just askin'.
Not responsive to my comment, Jerry.
And please note this is not a criminal proceeding. It is a determination by the Senate as to whether or not confirm a Supreme Court nominee. Allegations have been raised about his sexual abuse of women in several occasions. His testimony has raised questions about his veracity. A further investigation is appropriate.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Specifically?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So even though in our democracy if charges against someone is not in a criminal proceeding then all bets are off. The one who is accused has to prove his innocence?
But how can anyone prove that he didn't do something since it is impossible to prove a negative?
You people are just like the Bolshevik Party who supported Lenin on his way to power and that explains why the Democrats hate the Constitution of the USA!
At heart you are all Bolsheviks!