Monday, September 17, 2018

Judge Kavanagh Accuser Letter for Analysis



The following is the letter that an accuser sent to Sen. Diane Feinstein.  Analysis follows. 

Analytical Question:  Is she telling the truth?  Was she sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh? 

July 30 2018
CONFIDENTIAL
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dear Senator Feinstein;
I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.
Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.
Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.
The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.
Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.
Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.
From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop."
At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.
I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.
I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information. It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.
I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.
In confidence, REDACTED.

Analysis 

July 30 2018
CONFIDENTIAL
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Dear Senator Feinstein;

Appropriate introduction. Sense of writing etiquette associated with education.  
I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.

Priority: 

We always note where an author begins after the greeting. This is often the priority and the actual reason for the author's writing. 

Priority

We let the priority unfold, word by word, for us. 

Note the purpose: the author writes "with", not "about" and calls the information "relevant."

We generally see "with" between people as a signal of distance. "I went shopping with Heather" instead of "Heather and I went shopping." 

The former may indicate distance due to disinterest or disagreement, while the latter shows unity. 

It is interesting to note that the author appears to be distancing herself from the "information" ("with") which is coupled with the unnecessary emphasis on the information being "relevant."

Q. Would a victim of sexual assault distance herself from the information of the assault, itself?

"Relevantinformation 


This is unnecessary information. If the author is writing about a sexual assault, she should have no need to call her own information "relevant" unless...she has a need to. 

Note that she also explains why the information is "relevant", as it is in "evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.

"current nominee" is the first person to enter the statement after the recipient (Feinstein) and the author. 

"Current nominee" is not "the nominee"; but "current." Here the word "current" is dependent; that is, it requires, like a "numeric", the element of time.

This tells us as her priority, distancing herself from information, there is an expectation of a future nominee. 

Consider that the author's priority is having the "nominee" replaced with another.  
As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.

After the initial priority of being both "with" information and claiming the information is "relevant", the author goes back to herself with "as a constituent."

This use of identifying herself is consistent with her priority of having a successive nominee. 

Did you notice how she did not write, "until you and I have further opportunity"? She wrote "we."

The author has just told us that she is united with Diane Feinstein in her priority: getting a nominee who is not "current."

The author is united with the recipient in this context. 

She now gets to the accusation.  We seek a linguistic commitment, even with the passage of time, that includes processing. 
Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's. 

a. "current nominee" is now "Brett Kavanaugh." This is without his title of judge, and it is an incomplete social introduction. 
b. Linguistic Disposition: the incomplete social introduction is, in context, a negative linguistic disposition.  Given the context of "nominee to the Supreme Court", the lack of title is noted. 

Next, note the assault:  "physically" comes before "sexually", which in the context of a sexual assault is unusual.  

Note the element of time is present: "during" and "in the early 80's."

Expectation: Sexual assault is trauma producing and it is strongly in the memory of the victim (age appropriate) and we do not expect to see "physical" written before "sexual", and we not expect a life changing event to be generalized by a decade.

Thus far we have:

a.  motive
b.  weak commitment ("relevant")
c. Distance  ("with") 

We now add unexpected order of event and the lack of commitment to a specific date.

Being a victim of sexual assault and of many years to process, the date is expected to be "memorialized" as a life changing event.  It is not an estimate within a decade


He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.

a. "conducted" is not the language of assault. It is the language of an ongoing, methodical process.  This leads us to ask, "did the subject have consensual sexual contact with the accused?"
b. "these acts" Incongruent with a sexual assault. 
c.  "with" between people indicates distance. Why would the author not wish to put the two assailants together? 

Consider the question:  

Why would the author minimize sexual assault?

Was there some form of contact and possible humiliation perceived on the part of the author?


Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.

In the author's account, we do not have one assaulted but an author perceiving herself as exploited; being that they "both" were "one to two years older than me."

A sexual assault of peers (teen or adult) rather than of a child, is not likely to include the ages.  This inclusion should cause further consideration of the author being personally insulted or even humiliated.  
The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.

Note the unnecessary emphasis upon self.  If she was assaulted, she would have to have been at the locale.  That it included "four others" would provide corroboration of her account.  

It is interesting that she did not give the location of the sexual assault but the location as "suburban Maryland area" which is not only an estimate, but unnecessary information. 

The author is not making a "linguistic commitment" to a sexual assault. 
Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom 

The word "physical" is unnecessary; therefore, very important. We should ask,

"Did the author feel "pushed" in a way other than physical?" This would support the language of "older than me."

Note additional emphasis upon self. 

When someone offers that the account can be corroborated, we  note the "need" for it, which reduces linguistic commitment. Sexual assault is unique, personal, up close and trauma producing. 

It is not in the language. The wording "physically pushed" causes us to ask, "Is there another type of pushing other than physical to the author?"  Did the author experience emotional "pushing" to something she did not want to do?


as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. 

Although the author refuses to date beyond a decade, and refuses to identify a location, yet here she tells us where she was "headed" while he "physically pushed" her. 

This is narrative building language; what cops often call "story telling."  Subjects who engage in this often believe they will be seen as credible for giving such detail. Casey Anthony invented a "nanny" to conceal her murder of her daughter and told police, "she has perfect teeth." 

Narrative building, or "story telling" includes commentary: 

They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.

We have the language that avoids saying, "I screamed "no" but they played loud music" in her sentence.  

Q.  Could this be from the years of processing?

A.  It could. 

Note, however, the need to use the word "attempt" and "successful" as a possible hina clause; or an explanation as to "why" she did not scream or yell. 

In this scenario, the sentence would look like this: 


They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.

It is as if to preempt, "why didn't you yell?" Yet, in such a claim, we would not have asked this, but listened to her. Anticipation of a question or objection is the highest level of sensitivity in a statement. 

We now see both passive voice and the potential humiliation: 
Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. 

Note that she places him "on top" of "me" (over emphasis upon self; minimization on the assault is incongruent with sexual assault victims) 

Passive voice is a psychological term of weak commitment. 

a. He physically pushed me
b. He was on top of me

She did not say how he got on top of her (passivity conceals responsibility ). 

Why would the author conceal the responsibility of why he was on top of her. 

Note the inclusion of "while laughing" which is not "laughed", but an ongoing issue for the author. 

This "while laughing" came "with" the redacted accused.  (consider the LD of the author towards the redacted accused; the distancing language within the accusation of sexual assault). 

"While laughing" is a linguistic signal of humiliation.  This is, in context, while not making a reliable accusation of sexual assault. 

We find this humiliation in many false accusations.  

They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. 

"laugh" is repeated.  The analyst should carefully consider that the author is driven by humiliation, while not giving a reliable statement. This may be part of the motivation or the "trigger" for sending the letter. 

"tried" means attempted but failed.  Ex: "I tried to tell the truth" (President Clinton) 

"disrobe" is minimalist language; not the language of a sexual assault.  To "disrobe" is a slowing down of a pace and of will.  Sexual assault includes much stronger language; even after decades of processing, because it was an assault.  Sexual assailants do not "disrobe" their victims.  

"Their highly inebriated state" is not to say "they were drunk."  They were in a "state" in the author's verbalized perception of reality.  One should consider why the author employs this language when reporting of a personal sexual assault. 


With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.

She does not say how he got his hand over her mouth. She skips over time and she wants us to interpret this as something he did.  Truthful victims of sexual assault tell us what happened.  

Note the additional unnecessary word, "inadvertently" tells us that the author is not only commenting, but is refusing to commit to her charge. She speaks to Kavanagh's intention, and if the assailant of a sexual assault was "trying to disrobe" her, he would not mean to kill her. 

This is an example of a weak commitment to an inflated statement. The author knows otherwise. 

Next, we have communicative language. She has not told us that she told him "no" or screamed.  She preempted this question from being asked. 

We now allow the communicative language to guide us. 

"My boss said to be here at 8am" uses the two way and softer communicative word, "said."

"My boss told me to be here..." uses the stronger, "told"

In sexual assault, we do not expect soft communicative language to be associated with the word, "no." 

From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop."

She uses the word "said" associated with "stop"; which is incongruent. 

This may explain why she distanced herself from the 2nd accused. 

At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. 


After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. 

The author does not commit to trying to get away.  The passivity of such means she wishes to be interpreted as trying to get away, without committing to it. This is a tool used commonly in deception as direct fabrication or lying causes internal stress. 

Note "I was able to take" is not, "I ran..."

Note: "...and run across" using the verb "run" reducing commitment. 

"opportune moment" is consistent with both long term processing and narrative building. 

Which is it?

The analyst must consider it in context, thereby combining the lack of commitment with this point. 

I locked the bathroom door behind me.

This sentence would be reliable if she had not added "behind me" which points back to the accused unnecessarily.  This is something done when being chased or when one is involved in the scene. 


 Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. 

Note the revisiting of potential eye witnesses is given the gender neutral pronoun  "persons" here. This also is given the distancing language of "with" separating the two accused with the non-gender "persons."

They are not "people" but "persons" in the author's language. 


I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.

She didn't run out, but she "exited" and then "ran." This change of language should be considered in context with "laugh" and "laughing" as humiliation. 

The Rule of the Negative: 

We expect the author to tell us what happened, what she said and what she saw.  We do not expect her to tell us what she did not do: 
I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault

a,.  Why the need to elevate not seeing him?
b.  Did she see him but not "knowingly"? 

c.  "the assault" is not "since he attacked me" or "since he assaulted me." 

Sexual assault is deeply personal and invasive.  This is lacking from the statement. 


I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.

She interprets redacted's body language and reports no communication. 
I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. 

 Note the imperfect commitment to the medical treatment. She does not tell us what was injured nor what treatment (medical) was needed. 

On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information. 

It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.

That "discussing" sexual assault as "upsetting" is unnecessary information. This unnecessary information should be considered as artificial placement and ingratiation to genuine victims.  It is interesting to note this language given her profession. 

"I feel guilty" is to be seen in context of:

a. weak commitment
b. avoidance 
c.  minimization 
d. distancing language. 


I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.
In confidence, REDACTED.

She is "available" and given the unnecessary emphasis upon "self", we should believe her.  

Analysis Conclusion

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.  

For training in deception detection:  Hyatt Analysis Services 

262 comments:

1 – 200 of 262   Newer›   Newest»
Hey Jude said...

The writer’s priority is that her ‘information’ be regarded as relevant to what is current - the nominee. She exerts authority, both in claiming her information is relevant, (rather than suggesting that she believes it might be) and in her expectation of confidentiality - “I expect you to maintain confidentiality”.

She assumes unity with the senator - “until we have further opportunity to speak”. Have they spoken previously on this matter? The writer assumes unity ahead of expected further conversation.

‘Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.’

The allegation does not begin with ‘I’, which would give stronger commitment to the allegation. e.g. ‘I was physically and sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh….” Up till now, the writer has been strident in her use of ‘I’.

‘He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.’
Why does she not say she was assaulted by both? The language of experiment - ‘conducted’, and ‘assistance’?
These are polite and formal terms to use of an alleged perpetrator of a sexual and physical assault.

“Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.”

The age of none is given, excepting all were close in age, and school students.

The writer feels the need to include that they attended a private school. The information is unnecessary - as such it may be important to her to highlight their privilege.

‘The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.’.

Again she passes over the opportunity to say, ‘I was assaulted”.

Hey Jude said...

She avoids whose home it was, naming the type of gathering, or if the others present included girls.

‘Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room.’

There is no way but ‘physically’ to be pushed. She finds a need to explain why she went upstairs from the living room. She does not say if the boys were already upstairs, neither does she say they followed her up. It was a ‘short’ stairwell - why does she feel the need to include that? Does she maybe think others would find it would not otherwise have been appropriate for her to go upstairs?

‘They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.’ More than one person locked the door - or she does not know, or intend to say, who locked the door. If the music precluded any attempt to yell for help, she did not attempt to yell for help. The inclusion of ‘successful’ here, along with the slip into the present tense (‘precluding’), is, I believe, deceptive, and an attempt to obscure that she made no attempt to yell for help.

‘Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state.’

‘Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state’ - the pronouns are wrong, he becomes a ‘their’. He ‘tried’ - to try is to fail.

‘With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.’

It would have been a polite mistake?

Hey Jude said...

People more usually ‘inadvertently’ offend others when they speak or act out of turn - it is unknowingly. I think this may be leakage - it may be that *if* the boys actions were unwelcome, she did not let them know at the time.

First she said she could not yell for help, due to the loud music - yet would anyone not recall first, that it was (also?) because he had his hand over her mouth, all poised to inadvertently kill her, whilst also failing to disrobe her? She does not mention that she was unable to call out at the point where, if really it happened, the inability would have been actual, and the trauma great.

‘From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop."

At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.’

The ‘few attempts to get away’ are mentioned only after the boys start scrapping. ‘I was able’ is not ‘I took’ - they were scrapping, so it may be they had lost interest in scrapping with her by that time. She says, unnecessarily, that ‘the two scrapped with each other’ - ‘with each other’ are unnecessary extra words, which leads to the question, who were they scrapping with before they fell to the floor and began scrapping with each other? As she described it, I’d say with her.
If they were scrapping, she would have had more than ‘this opportune moment’ to have left the room. She locked herself into the bathroom - she does not say if this was for safety. When the loud boys become otherwise engaged with “other persons”, she makes her exit. Who were the other persons who were talking ‘with’ them - she does not specify, but the with is to create a distance between the boys and the other persons. Parents?

I think she is deceptive in trying to make it appear she was attacked whilst not stating such. I think they were rough-housing, and behaving as teenagers who have drunk alcohol sometimes do. It’s possible all the other guests were boys, and that the parents ended the evening. The language is quite formal - I don’t know if it was written with or by an attorney - I have read previously that the author is a professor - she may write in that authoritative style of her own accord.

Hey Jude said...

Also, I think that she said "take this opportune moment" is leakage - she "takes this opportune moment" to cast doubt, currently, on the character of Brett Kavanaugh.

Buckley said...

I think what she describes is generally true but exaggerated. He got on top of her, tried to take off clothes, but the other guy stopped him, she ran out of the room. Arguably assault, hardly sexual. Her motivation is definitely political and she knows it has no bearing on his ability to be an effective SCJ.

Hey Jude said...

If it was such a serious matter to her, would she not have reported it to the police sometime along the way? Why save it till "this opportune moment"? It's all more than a bit pathetic - they were kids at a party, with alcohol, acting as such often do. She avoids to say if she had drunk alcohol herself. The #MeToo thing has emboldened some women to bad mouth some good men, when otherwise they would have left their petty complaints in the trash basket, where they belong. I don't know if the complainant has aligned herself to the #MeToo 'movement' - some academics, have, including the renowned Mary Beard, whose recent 'rape' account was cringeworthy. IMO - at least she didn't have a name to put to her 'rapist'. These must be worrying times for any man who ever acted even a bit out of turn with a woman - it's not unlike a form of terrorism.



Anonymous said...

There is something strange to me about the way this statement is written but I can’t quite put my finger on it. While I have read and analyzed a number of the victim statements over the years this one is different. This does not appear to be the objective pure version (OPV) that we seek to analyze but rather seems to be a polished version edited by someone other than the alleged victim. It is almost like someone with a rudimentary knowledge of statement analysis reviewed and edited her statement to make it read as more believable. It is almost perfectly balanced on structure 25 – 50–25; however, I can’t shake the impression that it is doctored. It is just so fundamentally different from all the other statement I’ve ever reviewed.

-Akula

frommindtomatter said...

“Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room”.

I find the order to be strange. If recalling this from memory it should play out that she was heading for a bathroom then she was pushed into the bedroom.

Heading for “a” bathroom – suggests there was more than one bathroom and she was headed for one of them or she did not know where the bathroom was so could not use the article “the” to describe it.

It’s as though the bathroom has been added in as a reason to be upstairs.

“They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help. Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh”.

There seems to be a lot of missing information of how the situation went from a locked door and music to “Kavanaugh was on top of me”. In order for him to be on top of her she must be laid down but she doesn’t mention how she got into the horizontal position.

She does not scream, she does not fight or struggle. Would it be fair to consider that with her not showing any negative behaviour in relation to what was happening the men may have thought she was willing to go along with whatever was happening.

What does the victim class as a sexual assault? It’s a bit like Bill Clinton but she classes sexual relations as looking at her anywhere below her chin maybe.

As Peter pointed out the order she gave was physical then sexual.

She has no commitment to her words and they are full of soft tone language.

I want to know how much she’s getting paid to come out with this crap. Sounds like a bunch of kids drinking and being stupid.

Adrian.

BallBounces said...

Why must the word "current" point toward a subsequent nominee? Over the years, there have been a succession of nominations; Why can't the juxtaposition be to these past nominations?

Violet said...

I trust the analysis, but unless she owns a crystal ball, why discuss it with a therapist six years ago? There wasn't a political reason at that time.

Buckley said...

Makes sense as a possibility, but don’t you think her coming forth with this, she has at least some expectation it will derail his nomination?

New England Water Blog said...

It has been revealed that Kavanaugh's mother was the judge in a civil case that went against this woman's parents. SO the humiliation factor particularly as it distances from the sexual and emphasizes laughter, certainly seems to have a solid and long standing basis.

Buckley said...

Kavanaugh’s mother dismissed a foreclosure against their home. That seems like a positive to me.

Peter Hyatt said...

She wasn't sexually assaulted.

It is a memorable life altering event.

Sometime in the 80's...

I left off all the outside info, so as not to influence. Once the analysis is read, it is fine to read the other material and see how she and her Soros attorney orchestrated this.

She is a SJW, bizarre liar who believes "any means."

Peter

Hey Jude said...

Blogger frommindtomatter said...
“Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room”.

I find the order to be strange. If recalling this from memory it should play out that she was heading for a bathroom then she was pushed into the bedroom.


----

I missed that.

The 'physically' is odd, and unnecessary. Why did she say that?





Anonymous said...

Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's.

I only note that she may not have used the title Judge, because at the time he was not a judge, but in high school, which is reflected in the sentence.

Hey Jude said...

Lynda - I wonder how much of a snowflake would anyone need to be to have therapy for something like that, especially as she doesn't seem convinced that she was really assaulted.

I don't know of anyone who ever worried that someone might 'inadvertently' kill them - or anyone who was unable to attempt to scream due to the volume of music, rather than because, say, someone had their hand over their mouth, which would be an actual reason to not be able to scream.

He might find it way beneath his dignity to be willing or able to articulate the actual allegations by way of denial - he's a judge and a family man, and everyone is listening.

Do you have any good links to what you say - both sides?


Hey Jude said...

You make some good points, Anon, and I was almost swayed, but this, for instance, is very detailed, with an unnecessary need to explain:

‘Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room.’

If I was just wanting to get to the point and arrange a meeting, that wouldn't be in the letter - I'd probably say, "I would like to meet to discuss the fact that I was sexually assaulted by BK" - none of the story would be included - what would it matter to say that there were four other people there, and BK attended a local private school, if I was going to give a detailed account later? It is a detailed account, yet significantly, the expected detail for the particular allegation is missing.

lynda said...

Excellent points Anon, and some of which I thought of myself. Particularly the painstaking going over and over, editing the letter.

Hey Jude..

I think the phrase "Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as i was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room." was meant to convey that she did not go willingly in the bedroom with him. She was walking up the stairs and "physically" means just that...he came up behind her in the stairwell and pushed her into the bedroom.

The fact that she didn't go into extreme details is acceptable to me, and I believe the majority of others. The dirty details, so to speak, were to be left to if and/or when she ever got a face to face meeting. To me, it's a basic introductory letter of an assault saying, If you (the representative) want to see me, I'm willing to come in and share a more detailed experience. Already, things are leaking out of much more detail of the incident.In my opinion, we are dealing with an intelligent, well-educated woman that isn't going to write a "trash" letter that we are unfortunately, so used to seeing these days. The hearings will no doubt rake her over the coals. I'm hoping that Kavanaugh removes his own name with the standard "I am not going to put my family thru this blah, blah, blah, which translates to "shit, I got caught"
As far as the "inadvertantly kill me" I can also see that easily. He is on top of her, she is panicked and scared and her breathing is already compromised because of his weight on her. He then puts his hand over her mouth, further compromising her breathing, especially in a state of fear or panic. In that state of panic, a thought passes thru ones mind "He's going to kill me", or I'm going to die from suffocation, etc. whatever. We are talking about a 15 year old YOUNG GIRL.

As far as links...newly released emails (there were many docs held back before the confirmation started. That didn't go over well. In-fighting, etc. They released a batch (but are still witholding thousands of pages) in those release documents, is verification thru emails b/t Kavanaugh and others that show he LIED right to the faces of Senators, under oath, while testifying during committee.

Russ Feingold - a Senator for over 20 years wrote an editorial regarding how with the release of the emails, it is now proven he lied. Now, Sen. Feingold is a Democrat but that doesn't make him a liar. The questions asked and answered are ON THE RECORD. They are recorded for posterity, and no, they're not "fake". Just google Russ Feingold and you'll come up with the specific 2 incidences regarding his interaction. Here is a link to his editorial..
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-russ-feingold-kavanaugh-lies_us_5ba020f6e4b013b0977defff

other media outlets are carrying it also.









Hey Jude said...

Lynda - thanks for your reply. I'll consider what you wrote, and thank-you for the link and name to Google.

Hey Jude said...

I had wondered about that 'with information' and if distancing could be applied there as between people. That's as far as I have read of the analysis so far, and I already learned something new.

frommindtomatter said...

"They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state".

The use of the word “both” is unnecessary in this sentence. It is like saying “they they laughed”. She could have said something like “They were laughing”. In my opinion it is used for drama and storytelling purposes.

What bothers me more is:

“Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state”.

It should say “his” not “their”

She has no commitment in her words and cannot bring herself to use the possessive pronoun “his”. As we all know pronouns don’t lie. This sentence is not right and she would have had time to think about and edit her statement, but that doesn’t matter because this is not a mistake, she chose her words and they are not making sense.

As Peter said “disrobed” is soft tone language. You disrobe before getting in a bath or going to bed to sleep. Even soft language like “tried to remove my clothes” has more impact than the authors choice of word.

I have found from personal experience that watching an interview on TV and then analysing a transcript of the interview can give totally different results. I may have found the person to be believable and genuine when watching, but find the words don’t match up with my initial impressions when analysed.

I trust Peters judgement because he has the experience needed to put aside any biases which could influence the work done in analysis. If this statement had been given as a test I am sure most people would have come to the same conclusion over it, but as it is political it can force people to take sides before they begin their study.

If you go into it trying to prove something then you have lost.

Adrian.

Lars Bak said...

"Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home."

What can we say? Is "loudly" a hina clause, explaining why she "dared" exit the bathroom; hearing that they were out of the way?

And isn't "exited" similar to "left"?

If so we have a cluster of blues here. What's that about?

John mcgowan said...

Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's. "

On form alone isn't this a reliable statement.

Re priority. "Physically and sexually assaulted" wouldn't one have to be "physical" before the "assault" to gain control to "assault". Did a physical assault occur before the sexual assault. In other words, are they two separate event?

Peter Hyatt said...

To avoid the political context is to be disingenuous to analysis.

As to outside info:

the accuser and her family are activists.

She gave an account of a sexual assault but she can't remember the year, the location or details and her "medical" treatment was a therapist, 31 years later, in which the therapists notes do not match her account.

If one cannot see deception here, training will not help.

She had an alcoholic tumble with boys, but it may not have even been with the accused. I am unable to tell due to the volume of deception.

Peter

Matilda said...

I agree that she does not go into “extreme detail”, but that just means hat what she DOES choose to disclose is that much more important to her. If she is not going into detail, why does she need to tell us twice that they were laughing? That must be an important detail to her.

Bobcat said...

If he attacked her, why not just say "he shoved me into a bedroom, held me down and violated me"

"Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room."

She was headed for A bathroom. Were there other bathrooms available in other directions that didn't include a detour into a bedroom?
Was she headed up the stairwell TO the bedroom?
Was she physically walking/pulling backwards as he pushed forward?


Was she

Alex said...

Lynda said,
In that state of panic, a thought passes thru ones mind "He's going to kill me", or I'm going to die from suffocation, etc. whatever. We are talking about a 15 year old YOUNG GIRL.
Excellent point. I believe that is what she would have thought at the time and remembered now. Not inadvertently, I think that is the difference in story telling and experiencial memory.

Alex

Alex said...

The only thing I have read about the poly is that she "reportedly" passed a poly. this leaves one to wonder why and when and by whom was it administered.

Alex

Buckley said...

Bobcat, to me the unexpected word is “FOR a bathroom”. She wasn’t going TO the bathroom. It makes me wonder her reason for going as it implies more about the space she was going to and not why she was going there. I wonder if she was already uncomfortable and seeming privacy, maybe there was teasing or flirting prior to her heading “for a bathroom.”

I’m also having trouble picturing the layout. It seems only a short stairwell separates living room from the bathroom. Where is the bedroom between that? Does “pushed me into...” imply she was by the bedroom door when she was pushed? If there was distance between her route and the bedroom wouldn’t we expected something like “dragged me...” or “pushed me down the hall and into...”

Also, when she leaves the bedroom, she goes into “a” bathroom. Can we assume it’s a different bathroom than the one she initially was headed for since it had already been introduced?

She’s leaving out something about how she came to be in the bedroom.

Buckley said...

Meant “seeKing privacy” not seeming.

Buckley said...

Also curious about why the other boy in the room changed his attitude. It seems like there was some sort of escalation, maybe a change in his perception of her consent that prompted him to act and stop Kavanaugh. She seems to imply the other boy was erratic and fluctuating between attitudes, but the way she chronologically conveys “go for it” then “stop” seems like he was being logical: once he realized she was struggling against Kavanaugh, he intervened.

That she implies he is complicit when he clearly stopped the “assault” seems curiously deceptive.

Alex said...

I think this thing is going to fall apart quickly when she has to fill in the blanks.

I would like to read what Judge Kavanaugh has lied about.

Alex

Peter Hyatt said...

The blog is to assist those who are learning Statement Analysis, or for those who are curious and may end up studying.

It is not a place to propagate error.

If someone asserts, they must prove and use the tools of analysis. If not, don't post, or expect deletion.

If not, the Leftist "where is the analysis on...?" avoids addressing the analysis of what is.

If your argument is what is not posted, this is not the place for you.

Long term readers know and reference analysis done on Republicans, Democrats, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists and so on.,

If your argument is that the subject is telling the truth so that more unborn children' lives can be ended, there is...perhaps 90% or 95% of all media has places for you post where everyone will applaud.

This is not one of them.



Peter

Debra Mulgrew said...

why didn't she come fourth 6 years ago ? why didn't she come fourth last year ? this women is a college professor very well educated sadly I believe she partied with four boys and got drunk and didn't like her outcome of her own bad choices but I want to know how was her own sexual behavior as a teen

Lars Bak said...

I’ve just read this article about an interview with Mrs. Ford:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7013b944c319

It makes the story ridiculous. She tells us that “After so many years, Ford said, she does not remember some key details of the incident.” Are we not allowed to expect more, given the purpose of the accusation – key details?!

About the core of the drama “…that Kavanaugh — who played football and basketball at Georgetown Prep — held her down with the weight of his body and fumbled with her clothes, seemingly hindered by his intoxication.” This vicious, sexual assault led to:

““I think it derailed me substantially for four or five years,” she said. She struggled academically and socially, she said, and was unable to have healthy relationships with men (she was 15 – shouldn’t it be boys?). “I was very ill-equipped to forge those kinds of relationships.”

She also said that in the longer term, it contributed to anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms with which she has struggled.”

My oh my - what is wrong with you Americans?!

By the way – in the interview she frames the sentence “This is nothing, it didn’t happen…”

Anonymous said...

this letter is so edited and if not edited then filled with lies. No one says "He tried to disrobe me" in a case of sexual violence. Sexual violence is violent. The norm would be to say "he tried to take my clothes off, or rip my clothes off " this is a physically violent episode she is talking about... disrobing is for those who want to take their clothes off. I agree with those citing "for a bathroom" you go "to a bathroom" . "Inadvertently kill me". A 15 year old girl would have said "I thought he was going to kill me". Even telling the story 30 years later, you would use this direct language not words like "inadvertently". I also find the language awkward in " I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh". what does that mean? That you may have been in the same room with him and didn't know it? I don't buy that either. If you were in a room with a man that so frightened you that it effected your entire life and relationships... you would know when you saw him. the word "precluding" - again - this is not language of someone that was sexually assaulted. Even 30 years later, you would go back to the time of the event in your mind and relive it like it was yesterday and you would say "I tried to scream but the music was so loud..." All of these oddities in her language lead me to believe she is lying. When you add this to the fact that she has no date, not even a day of the week, no location, no details. A true victim would relay the event in real time and they would know every detail. So how did she pass a polygraph? With regard to Kavanaugh's denial. I don't believe it's a strong denial. He doesn't just say he didn't do it. I may not have been here for awhile, but I remember strongly that you look for the accused to say "I didn't do it" not all this unequivocally, categorically... nonsense...too many words, none of which state the simple fact. Could Kavanaugh have had a situation not exactly like she describes but similar enough that he cannot make the strong denial we are looking for?

rob said...

So she was at a gathering with 4 people. Whose house? Her, Kavanaugh, redacted, and what other 2? Let's name names, get to the truth. I forgot whose house, really? I might not remember the address, but I remember it was "Susy's" house. Why not come out with everybodys name, where we were, what was happening, etc.
I'm guessing the 2 private school boys she might have seen as more affluent than her, being that her families home went into forclosure. Did she feel like a fifth wheel? Was everybody there more affluent than her? or did this event ever take place.
Is she taking the fall for the greater good? for the liberals who will never get over Hillary's loss? Did Feinstein hold the letter for months because even she knew it was a last chance effort?
It's Anita Hill all over again. If Ginsberg dropped dead, they'd be rioting in the streets.

Hey Jude said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Was there a game of 'spin the bottle' that evening?

Were they playing a 'two on one' version of 'seven minutes in heaven'?

Hey Jude said...

Peter wrote:

‘Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom 

The word "physical" is unnecessary; therefore, very important. We should ask,

"Did the author feel "pushed" in a way other than physical?" This would support the language of "older than me."

Note additional emphasis upon self. 

When someone offers that the account can be corroborated, we  note the "need" for it, which reduces linguistic commitment. Sexual assault is unique, personal, up close and trauma producing. 

It is not in the language. The wording "physically pushed" causes us to ask, "Is there another type of pushing other than physical to the author?"  Did the author experience emotional "pushing" to something she did not want to do?


as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. 

Although the author refuses to date beyond a decade, and refuses to identify a location, yet here she tells us where she was "headed" while he "physically pushed" her. 

This is narrative building language; what cops often call "story telling."  Subjects who engage in this often believe they will be seen as credible for giving such detail. Casey Anthony invented a "nanny" to conceal her murder of her daughter and told police, "she has perfect teeth." ‘

————

There are ways to be pushed besides physically, of course. I’d think of ‘pressurised’, ‘persuaded’ or ‘manipulated’ rather than ‘pushed’ - that would be in the context of emotion rather than the physical. It *seemed* she must be referring to the physical as she was describing being pushed into a bathroom, but that superfluous ‘physically’ was puzzling. I knew it was important as an extra word, but not why. Once presented, the question which should or could be asked there becomes obvious:

"Is there another type of pushing other than physical to the author?"

It’s only an obvious question because I have now seen it. Learning how to ask the right sort of questions is difficult - it can be easier to make an assertion, but an assertion isn’t analysis, plus it’s lazy.

(Notes own passivity there. )

---

Deleted first version and reposted as I didn't make clear most of it was quoted from the analysis.

GeekRad said...

I agree she is lying based on her soft language and SA. I have however, not heard a strong denial from Kavanaugh. I am thinking along the lines of anon at 11:56. He may have been in a similar situation and there can't make a strong denial. I do hope Peter will analyze his statements.

Buckley said...

If he was too drunk to remove any of her clothing, and be laughed st for his attempt to, it’s plausible he doesn’t remember the incident.

Saint Theresa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Saint Theresa said...

We’ve been browbeaten by obamcrats and lefty sjw antifas who who think if we don’t use correct pronouns we should be thrown in prison. America is a sad place right now. It would be even sadder if we didn’t have a beacon of hope with President Trump.

Anonymous said...

This was an interesting read...
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2018/09/16/accusation-kavanaugh-plan-2012/


Anonymous said...

Maybe there was

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2018/09/16/accusation-kavanaugh-plan-2012/

MARY ANN said...

As an assault survivor, this is infuriating. It cheapens everything that true survivors go through and struggle with every day.

Let's look at the "victim":

- she was described by her college students as "dark, emotional, volitle and vindictive" with a warning to never take one of her classes

- she didn't want this information to go anywhere, but yet she hired her attorney and took a lie detector test back in August when she was "anonymous"

- right before her name came out, she scrubbed her entire social media presence so any trace of her politics/bias couldn't be found (she's a rabid anti-trumper and social just warrior; instead she's some poor little woman who's being abused by the system

- her big "proof" is that she told a therapist back in 2012 but yet when the notes of those appointments contradict her story, she says the therapist got it wrong

- the "witness" to the "assault" that she did name said she was crazy and the incident never happened

- after saying she was willing to testify and give her story, now she's demanding an FBI investigation before she will even dain to come before the committee

- the judge has 65 women who came out immediately testifying to his good character and respect of women; he's had years on the bench where all sides said he was fair and treated people with respect; she can't name the place/time, or even the year, doesn't know who was there (except for the one guy who called her crazy) - she doesn't have any details for the FBI to investigate on her heresay

- she admitted to not telling anyone until her therapist whom she now contradicts and the therapist said she didn't specifically name the Judge - it was just some guys

The most disgusting thing is with one accusation, she's totally undone decades of a sterling reputation. Even his friends are forced into saying "that doesn't sound like Brett" and tip-toing around the subject as everyone is saying "we have to take this seriously, we can't questions her motives, it's a serious accusation." Why? This woman is a liar who is trying to not only keep him from getting on the Court, but she's out to destroy his entire legacy on the bench and his family in the process. Maybe she did interact with him and his friends, and he blew her off or ignored her and now she's going to get him back. Whatever the truth, she's damaged his reputation with some people and there will always be a "what if?" connected with him.

After the spectacle that the Democrats did of lecturing, allowing all the protestors in and saying the most vile and vicious things forcing his daughters to be taken out of the room, they still could't win. The Democrats said they would do anything ANYTHING to derail this process and the fact that they are destroying a man and his family in the process and don't care, is disgusting.

Anonymous said...

So sorry. I did not mean to reply to you directly, just don't know how to post.

tania cadogan said...

"Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom

How else would you push someone into a room?

He mentally pushed me into a room?

tania cadogan said...

The parents of the woman who is accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct have a connection to the Supreme Court nominee through his mother, a Maryland state judge, online court records show.

Martha Kavanaugh granted a motion dismissing a 1996 foreclosure action against Ralph and Paula Blasey, according to the records.

Christine Blasey Ford publicly came forward Sunday to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago when they were both teenagers in prep school.

A North Carolina bank brought the foreclouse action and five months later moved to dismiss the case.

“That was 22 years ago. I don’t remember anything about the case,” the trustee in the foreclosure, Harry Kelly, told Fox News before hanging up the phone.

The lawyer for the bank did not return calls seeking comment.

It is unclear from the online records if the property being foreclosed on was the Blasey home in Potomac, a well-to-do neighborhood outside Washington, D.C.

The records suggest that the dismissal was granted after the Blaseys and the bank cut a deal that avoided a sale of the property at a foreclosure auction.

Martha Kavanaugh signed off on the motion after the case had initally been assigned to another judge. That other judge appointed Kelly the trustee.

Ford revealed this week that she is the author of the previously anonymous letter given to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that detailed the allegations against Kavanaugh.

Ford told The Washington Post that she told no one at the time of the alleged incident what had happened to her, including her parents. She said she was terrified that she would be in trouble if her parents realized she was at a party where teenagers were drinking.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/18/brett-kavanaughs-mother-is-judge-who-dismissed-foreclosure-action-against-accuser-fords-parents.html

Alex said...

Blogger Peter Hyatt said...


If your argument is that the subject is telling the truth so that more unborn children' lives can be ended, there is...perhaps 90% or 95% of all media has places for you post where everyone will applaud.

This is not one of them.



Peter

I had forgotten how far they will go to protect their agenda. It reminds of the time Al Sharpton was exposed for knowing his client was lying about being raped (I can't recall her name). It turned out she didn't want to get into trouble for not coming home on time. He said, "well it probably happened to someone". Or something along those lines. Never mind that they nearly ruined some innocent men's lives for their cause. No one has the right to sacrifice anyone's life for what they consider, however erroneously, the greater good.

I fear that is what is happening here.

Alex

Katprint said...

Since her attorney also had her take a polygraph, it certainly seems likely that they could have hired someone with Statement Analysis training to edit her statement.

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – A lawyer for a Vermont man accused by relatives of killing his millionaire grandfather and his mother to collect inheritance money said Tuesday that there is evidence that could exonerate him in the death of his grandfather.

David Anderson, who is representing Nathan Carman, made the statement during a hearing in federal court in Providence, Rhode Island, The Hartford Courant reported .

Carman, of Vernon, Vermont, denies any involvement in the deaths of his grandfather, John Chakalos, who was fatally shot in his home in Windsor, Connecticut, in 2013, and his mother, Linda Carman, who disappeared at sea in 2016 during a mother-son fishing trip near Rhode Island. No one has been charged in the deaths.

Anderson said in court there is evidence that Chakalos had a long phone conversation with a woman about money on the night of his death. He also said there is a witness who says Chakalos was killed about 2 a.m., and there is video that shows Carman was in his apartment until 2:40 a.m.

Anderson declined further comment after the hearing.

Police have said Carman was a suspect in Chakalos' death and was the last person to see Chakalos alive, but a prosecutor declined to sign an arrest warrant. Carman owned a semi-automatic rifle that police said was similar to the one used to kill Chakalos, but the firearm has disappeared.

Chakalos left more than $29 million to his four daughters, and $7 million of that money could go to Nathan Carman. Linda Carman's three sisters have filed a petition in probate court in New Hampshire, where Chakalos owned a home, asking a judge to bar Nathan Carman from getting his mother's share of Chakalos' estate.

The court hearing on Tuesday was part of a lawsuit against Nathan Carman filed by National Liability and Fire Insurance Co., which insured Nathan Carman's boat. The bank sank two years ago during the fishing trip in which Linda Carman disappeared. Nathan Carman was rescued at sea after being found floating on a life raft a week after they left a Rhode Island marina.

The insurance company is seeking to avoid payment on an $85,000 policy for Carman's boat, accusing him of making alterations to the boat that caused it to sink. The company also has been trying to get him to testify about the rifle it claims in court papers was used to kill Chakalos.

Judge Patricia Sullivan said Tuesday that she will grant the insurance company's request to reopen Carman's deposition to allow the company's lawyers to ask him about the rifle. Sullivan said Carman can invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and decline to answer the questions.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/18/lawyer-evidence-could-exonerate-man-in-grandfathers-death.html

Buckley said...

Of course her motivation is political. She sent her letter to the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Feinstein isn’t a therapist or a police officer- she’s a political figure. What possible non-political reason could she have for sending it to Feinstein?

Joe said...

The first time "bathroom" is mentioned it is preceded by the indefinite article (a) "A bathroom". Subsequent mentions of the same bathroom, in a truthful account, would include the indefinite article (the) "The bathroom"

Peter teaches this principle with "a gun" and "the gun".

Anonymous said...

This is called 'statement analysis' not 'what you think'.

Jamie Yvars
Chesterton, IN

Anonymous said...

Looking forward to the analysis of Kavanaugh's statements as well.

Anonymous said...

A "liar" demanding an FBI investigation into her accusations? Doesn't make sense. Ford has nothing to gain by lying and a lot to lose - her safety, livelihood (her family had to relocate due to death threats), freedom (lying to the FBI is a felony). Failed statement "analysis".

Matilda said...

This is not really statmement analysis, but I find it odd that in someone else's house two boys would go into a bedroom and find a way to turn up music so loud that others would not be able to hear her yell. If anything that would have drawn the attention of the others at the party. And do most bedrooms have thye type of stereo equipment capable of playing that loud?

In any event she skips over telling us when they turned the music off, but they must have done so since whe was able to hear them stumbling down the stairs.

Anonymous said...

What is your analysis of Kavanaugh's denial?

"This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes - to her or to anyone," Kavanaugh said in a statement issued by the White House.

"Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday," Kavanaugh added.

TimA said...

I'm curious if she has had contact with other Fusion GPS employees besides her brother.

Lars Bak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lars Bak said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Peter,

Fascinating analysis. I think the organizational flow of your post could use some work, though. With a story like this, it’s possible other media outlets may want to link to your blog. With that in mind, it would be useful to classify the various indicators of deception under bold-faced category headings, with quoted examples listed individually under each, followed by explanation. For example: distancing language, unnecessary emphasis, narrative building, weak commitment, time skipping/evasion, evidence of motive, etc. Some of these may overlap, but they seem sufficiently discrete as to categorize as separate types of indicators worth noting individually. From a casual reader’s perspective, I feel that this taxonomic approach would make things clearer, rather than letting the flow of the letter break up the organization of the analysis.

Another suggestion: Consider numbering the lines in the letter, so that you can refer to each quoted example by line number for clarity, especially when the same word choice occurs more than once in different places. Contrasting each example with the phrasing one would expect in a sincere statement of the same thing would also be very illuminating.

Anonymous said...

Lynda - Peter tells us many times not to interpret but to analyze the words. You have interpreted and not analyzed the words. Your emotional connection to the statement will hinder your analysis and subsequent conclusion.

Peter Hyatt said...

Judge K does not issue a reliable denial.

If an allegation is vague (decade estimate) and details are vague it can provoke a vague or general denial.

It doesn’t mean he is deceptive.

Kavanagh demanded a hearing. She refused to address

The ploy is revealed as she refused to speak until her demand was met.

FBI investigation.

This was made knowing the FBI does not investigate local crime as well as 36 year old allegation.

This indicates a desire to delay and defeat nomination by any means.

Our nation slides more and more into a 3rd world cesspool.

Leftism is not about women rights, civil rights or any specific issue.

It is about control.

It’s why adult core values can be claimed to “change” late in life.

It is untrue it is to exploit.

This is why Leftism not only has no standard but it is why it must be intolerant and leads to tyranny and eventual violence.

Peter

Buckley said...

This was made knowing the FBI does not investigate local crime as well as 36 year old allegation.

They do background checks on Presidential nominees, and in fact did one on Kavanaugh which they say is complete. I agree, though, the request is about nuance and getting “FBI investigation” in headlines and delaying more than actually getting an investigation.

Lucia D said...

She writes about her alleged assault in surprisingly bland language. A good example is "I exited the bathroom..." Who talks like that? Especially about escaping from a sexual assault? Another statement she made is that when the friend jumped onto the bed with her and Kavanaugh "the weight on me was substantial". Again, so bland, almost laughably so. Is she wanting us to assume that she was crushed? Unable to breathe or scream? If that was the case, why not use stronger language? Is it to avoid telling a direct lie?

Next she states "The pile toppled", rather than, they fell off me or something similar. A strange and awkward wording. It is bland, minimizing, distancing, passive. Her entire story is a very weak accusation, and the author knows it!



John mcgowan said...

Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before testifying

he woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault says the FBI should investigate the incident before senators hold a hearing on the allegations.

In a letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and obtained by CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys argue that "a full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions."

The letter from Ford's lawyers notes that despite receiving a "stunning amount of support from her community," Ford has also "been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats" and has been forced to leave her home.
"We would welcome the opportunity to talk with you and Ranking Member Feinstein to discuss reasonable steps as to how Dr. Ford can cooperate while also taking care of her own health and security," the letter from Ford's lawyers said.
Ford's attorney Lisa Banks told Cooper that Ford will talk with the committee but added, "She is not prepared to talk with them at a hearing on Monday."
"She will talk with the committee," Banks said. "She is not prepared to talk with them at a hearing on Monday. This just came out 48 hours ago."
"Asking her to come forward in four or five days and sit before the Judiciary Committee on national TV is not a fair process. If they care about doing the right thing here and treating this seriously as they have said, then they will do the right thing and they will properly investigate this, and she will work with them in that investigation and also to share her story with the committee," Banks said Tuesday night.
Grassley said in a statement Tuesday night that there were never any plans to sit Ford and Kavanaugh together at the witness table, as Banks told Cooper during the interview. He said there is no reason for more delay:
"Immediately after learning of Dr. Ford's identity from news reports Sunday, committee staff started working to gather facts related to her claims. We've offered Dr. Ford the opportunity to share her story with the committee, as her attorney said yesterday she was willing to do. We offered her a public or a private hearing as well as staff-led interviews, whichever makes her most comfortable. The invitation for Monday still stands."
"Dr. Ford's testimony would reflect her personal knowledge and memory of events," Grassley said. "Nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay."
A Justice Department spokesperson said the FBI had forwarded the initial letter from Sen. Dianne Feinstein on September 12 to the White House counsel's office in accordance with guidelines for conducting background checks.
The spokesperson noted that the allegation "does not involve any potential federal crime," and said if the FBI becomes aware of new information that raises suitability questions about a nominee or appointee, the agency will inform the White House, which is an existing agreement.
According to the spokesperson, the FBI "does not make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation."
The letter comes after a day of uncertainty about whether the hearing scheduled for Monday would even take place, as Republicans continued to emphasize their repeated efforts to reach out to Ford.

cont..

John mcgowan said...

Last week, news surrounding a private letter that had been sent to Feinstein, Democrat of California, raised potential questions about Kavanaugh's nomination. Feinstein later announced she had given the letter to the FBI. On Sunday, The Washington Post published a story that detailed Ford's personal account of an incident that Ford said took place when she and Kavanaugh were both in high school.
Ford alleges that while at a party, Kavanaugh pushed her into a bedroom along with his former classmate Mark Judge, and attempted to remove her clothes. She also alleges that Kavanaugh put her hand over her mouth when she attempted to scream. Kavanaugh has denied the incident, and he and Judge both deny being at the party in question.
"This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes -- to her or to anyone. Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday," Kavanaugh said in a statement. "I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity."
The public accusation led Grassley on Monday to announce that the committee would convene next Monday to give both Kavanaugh and Ford the opportunity to publicly testify, as both had indicated a willingness to do so.
But as of Tuesday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans had yet to hear from Ford or her lawyer regarding their request for her to testify.
"What we're saying is there should be an investigation because that's the right thing to do," Banks said.
"She is prepared to cooperate with the committee and with any law enforcement investigation," she added.
Democrats have pushed back on the hearing. All 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter on Tuesday to FBI Director Christopher Wray and White House counsel Don McGahn arguing that the FBI should conduct an investigation prior to a hearing.
"The Committee should have the completed report before any hearing occurs and we ask that you take immediate steps to make sure that we have the FBI's report before we proceed," the senators wrote.
Feinstein said in a statement she supported Ford's proposal.
"We should honor Dr. Blasey Ford's wishes and delay this hearing. A proper investigation must be completed, witnesses interviewed, evidence reviewed and all sides spoken to. Only then should the chairman set a hearing date," Feinstein said in a news release.
"I hope that each and every one of us will immediately denounce the horrific treatment of Dr. Blasey Ford. That this brave woman is receiving death threats and has been forced to flee with her family is appalling and heartbreaking. This abuse must stop. We're better than this."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, also supported Ford's proposal.

cont.

John mcgowan said...

"Dr. Ford's call for the FBI to investigate also demonstrates her confidence that when all the facts are examined by an impartial investigation, her account will be further corroborated and confirmed," Schumer said in a statement. "Senate Republicans and the White House should drop their inexplicable opposition to an FBI investigation, allow all the facts to come out, and then proceed with a fair process in the Senate. Dr. Ford's life has already been badly disrupted by death threats and other intimidation. She deserves to be treated with respect and fairness by the Senate."
However, Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, countered Ford's proposal on Twitter Tuesday night, arguing, "The FBI does not do investigations like this."
"The responsibility falls to us," Hatch tweeted. "Chairman @ChuckGrassley has moved our committee vote to accommodate Dr. Ford's lawyer's offer on TV yesterday to have her client testify before the Judiciary Committee. We should proceed as planned."

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/ford-letter-fbi/index.html?utm_content=2018-09-19T00%3A07%3A45&utm_source=fbCNN&utm_medium=social&utm_term=link

Hey Jude said...

Maybe that was a different bathroom to the one up the shirt stairwell.

"I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home." That is like 'left'. She couldn't leave the house, or go home, without exiting the bathroom - were some of them maybe doing something they should''nt in the bathroom? Why did she lock the door 'behind me" - were others also in the bathroom? Initially she was "headed" for a bathroom - rather than going to use the bathroom.

John mcgowan said...

Man identified as witness to alleged Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault claims he 'has no memory of incident' in letter to Senate panel



https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-identified-witness-alleged-brett-205900611.html?guccounter=1

Peregrine said...

`

Anonymous said...

Around 2009, a cop killer named Troy Davis claimed he was innocent and that 7 Witnesses who testified at his trial had recanted. He demanded a new hearing to put this new evidence on. To his and nearly everyone else's surprise, the Supreme Court granted him a new hearing.

At the hearing, Davis did not put on his 7 supposed recanting Witnesses. He didn't even put on some witnesses who were at the courthouse, including at least one who had gotten out of prison just to testify. Davis put on hardly anything. It was obvious that what he had put on was not sufficient to gain him a new trial.

The judge in charge of the hearing declared that Davis was not innocent and that nothing had changed as a result of the hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed the rest of his appeals and he was executed.

Now I'm getting a Troy Davis feeling about this Ford hearing that will be held on Monday before the judiciary committee.

Like Davis, Ford doesn't really want a hearing. She just wants to whine about how it's an injustice that she didn't get a hearing.

When Monday comes, the most likely scenario is that Ford will not show up at the Judiciary Committee. They will take their vote, and the whole thing will go to the floor, as if the Ford controversy had never been raised.

GeekRad said...

Kavanaugh has not issued a reliable denial that I have heard so far but Ford is clearly lying.
This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes - to her or to anyone," Kavanaugh said in a statement issued by the White House.
This is the only statement I have heard from him:

"Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday,"

...this never happened...this accusation. He did not say I did not sexually assault anyone" (or Ford by name)

frommindtomatter said...

Leftists or the better term “useful idiots” are brainwashed individuals who cannot think for themselves. Their minds have been subverted through many years of programming from the media and more and more in recent years the educational institutions they attend.

They don’t have the mental capacity through lack of knowledge to know what is right from wrong or normal from abnormal. They have never questioned anything in their lives because they were never taught to question but instead to copy and mimic their teachers. The media gives them idols to worship and trends to follow and they soak it all up like a sponge.

Social experiments have been carried out for decades to study the nature of the human being even going back as far as Pavlov and his dogs. He rang the bell and the dogs salivated. Now the media takes the place of the bell and triggers the social justice warriors into frenzy.

I am from the UK and the game is over here. The police spend most of their time investigating hate crimes like offensive tweets and the like. The crime in this country is horrific but the media don’t care they just ignore it because if they don’t report on it then people don’t know about it, and if people don’t know about it then it doesn’t exist. At least until something happens to your family or loved ones. But then you can’t say anything about it because you’ll be branded a fascist because after all its not the criminals fault it`s apparently your own.

Stop the signal and you stop the response.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

Fair play, you found fault in my words. I should have said a “disproportionate amount of their time”. I am guilty of using hyperbole, you got me.

I made the reference as free speech in my country is severely limited. Talking about facts which can be backed up with statistics can be classed as a crime. No need to call people names or be threatening in anyway but just talk about facts can have the police at your door. It can be an upsetting issue as it means people are powerless to have their voices heard or share information with others as they are in fear of saying something which may be labelled a hate crime. It’s all a bit Orwellian.

If people do as their told and follow what the teachers and leaders have told them to do then they have nothing to worry about. At least until the “useful idiots” have served their purpose.

Once again I say fair play to you for scrutinising my words you did a good job. I can’t scrutinise any of yours as you are “anonymous” in your posting so have the luxury of never having to answer to any of your statements.

Adrian.

Lucia D said...

Adrian touché regarding all the anonymous posters. They aren’t here for a real discussion.

rjb said...

To Adrian's point regarding how law enforcement uses their time in the UK:
https://reason.com/archives/2018/09/15/britain-turns-offensive-speech-into-a-po

MichaelD said...

It was 2012 when Christine Blasey Ford told her marriage therapist that FOUR males assaulted her. Four. In 2012, news articles published that if Romney were elected POTUS, he would nominate Judge Kavanaugh to SCOTUS.

Christine blamed her marital issues on a sexual assault from 36 years ago which she had never mentioned to anyone. She's a PhD psychologist using displacement and repression as defense mechanisms for her ego? (Nope.) Then she chose despicable, Republican, powerful, white males to be the perps. Upon Kavanaugh's nomination, her story changed stating only Kavanaugh assaulted her.

Anonymous said...

Further to Adrians point about UK free speech here is a petition in the UK to create a Freedom of Speech Act and end Hate Speech Laws. The petition was never actioned but read the UK government's response. They state free speech is "not an absolute right".

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/203615

Peter Hyatt said...

https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/17/anonymity-the-new-refuge-of-scoundrels/

Peter Hyatt said...


Most would assume that when Blasey Ford wrote in her allegation, “I have received medical treatment regarding the assault,” she would produce proof of a confirmable visit to an emergency room or doctor fairly soon after the alleged attack—not subsequently refer to a couples therapy session 30 years later, during which the therapist took notes that now do not, six additional years later, synchronize with the current allegations.

John mcgowan said...

The FBI did investigate Anita Hill's accusation, and it took 3 days

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/09/19/politics/anita-hill-clarence-thomas-allegations-timeline/index.html?utm_term=link&utm_source=fbCNN&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2018-09-20T15%3A00%3A34

frommindtomatter said...

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/20/brett-kavanaugh-accusers-classmate-retracts-claim-incident-did-happen/

frommindtomatter said...

Couple of good ones in that article.

“Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News,” she tweeted. “Organizing how I want to proceed. Was not ready for that, not sure I am interested in pursuing. Thanks for reading.”

You don't think she was attention seeking do you ;)

"served its purpose" - it was done for a purpose and the results are "I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews". She loves herself.

She didn't put an "I" in front of "was not ready for that" and she used "that" instead of "this".

She talks of "pursuing" why would she be pursuing anything. I think she was pursuing a bit of fame and attention but she lost her bottle when she found out you actually need to supply facts and not just feelings.


“In my post, I was empowered and I was sure it probably did [happen],” she said. “I had no idea that I would now have to go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over MSNBC and Twitter.”


"I was sure it probably did [happen]"

At least is was real in her mind.Good for a laugh though.

I am sure I will probably win the lottery. Nah I`m just kidding.



Adrian.

Anonymous said...

The longer this situation goes on the more it stinks to high heaven. I for one don't believe Blasey Ford is under death threats and had to go in hiding. It's just the next step to delay the process and another excuse of why she won't testify. It's Republicans who are being stabbed, shot, attacked, threatened, not Democrats. The senate has bent over backwards to accomodate her offering her open door, closed door, phone interview, they would fly to wherever she wanted for the interview - she has no intention of ever testifying.

Today it's come out that not only did Blasey Ford delete her social media accounts, now someone deleted her High School Yearbooks which have page after page of the girls bragging about drunken parties saying it was normal to not remember the night before, the girls pursued the boys, had exotic dancer and her pictures are plasted all over these pages. There was one classmate who initially said she thought it could have happened has now recounted. Another classmate said that boys did pursue girls but not Kavanaugh. A college friend has come out that she was contacted in July with Blasey Ford saying "don't you remember me telling you about this" and the woman said "no."

Now it's come out that Corey Booker who's been so nasty wrote a piece about how he fondled a girl without her consent when he was a teenager. Keith Ellison's ex-girlfriend has credible proof about his abuse of her (police calls, medical records, witnesses) and yet instead of supporting her, the democrats have threatened and bullied her. God help us if these bullies win back either the House or the Senate.

Alex said...

Ready, aim, fire, shoot self in foot.

Alex

Anonymous said...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6190311/Republicans-increasingly-confident-Brett-Kavanaugh-confirmed.html?ito=social-facebook


Kavanaugh accuser says she WILL testify - if senators offer 'fair terms' and 'ensure her safety' and NOT on Monday which Republicans have demanded

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Kavanaugh accuser says she WILL testify - if senators offer 'fair terms' and 'ensure her safety' and NOT on Monday which Republicans have demanded


fair terms (according to who)? - safety - refuses to come when they scheduled the hearing? - I'm not holding my breath for her to appear. This is just another delay tactic.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...


Kavanaugh accuser says she WILL testify - if senators offer 'fair terms' and 'ensure her safety' and NOT on Monday which Republicans have demanded


fair terms (according to who)? - safety - refuses to come when they scheduled the hearing? - I'm not holding my breath for her to appear. This is just another delay tactic.


and let's not forget she's already said once that she was eager and ready to testify and when the scheduled a hearing, it was oops, never mind. I say again, I'll believe it when I see it

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Ok, if Blasey Ford's as legit as she's claiming to be, then why didn't she sue Kavanaugh or file a police report against him at some point? If he actually did sexually assault her as she's suggesting, I'd expect her to go after him personally...not professionally through a political party committee. That screams political motive to me and automatically undercuts her credibility. It also suggest revenge/vengeance- a personal need to humiliate him (nod to Peter's post about the author of the letter feeling humiliation)

Having been a victim of a sexual assault, Peter's post was spot on that Blasey Ford's account is seriously sketchy on significant details of the alleged assault. The fact that she doesn't name where the house was, whose house it was, or specifically when it was makes her account pretty incredible (as in unbelievable). Reading it, I think she's either deliberately withholding information about those specifics or she's making some/all of the assault up- there's only two choices. I was assaulted 34 years ago and I know exactly where I was (whose house, what room, what color the furniture and carpet were and where it was located in the room, the noise level, where I was in relation to other furniture in the room-as well as where the windows and doors were, what time of day, exactly what happened, my thought process immediately following, and what actions I took to protect myself following. The vivid flashback, decades after the assault, was equally traumatic and completely unexpected. I remember all the details of that experience too and the panic attack. I can pretty much guarantee her counselor didn't advise her to send a letter to the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

"Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's."- Having had several friends who were also assaulted, no one who's actually been sexually assaulted is going to put a physical assault first. Even if they were initially physically assaulted, being sexually assaulted is a far more personal attack, with specific trauma. It linguistically trumps the physical assault every time for the victim.

That she seeks early in the letter to contrast her age with that of her alleged attacker and co-conspirator is in essence suggesting that because she was 1-2 years younger she was taken advantage of because of her age.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

The seriousness of the accusation doesn't fit the years' later minimizing of the event as a "gathering" of 5 "others". It was 30+ years ago. There should be no need to hide where in Maryland (suburban Maryland area)it was, whose house it was, who else was there, and what sex the 4 "others" were. That the two people she's describing were "...students at a local private school" is unnecessary information to the alleged assault. She's majoring on unimportant details; minoring on the defining, identifying details. She says Kavanaugh (singular) pushed her into the bedroom, yet "they" (plural) locked the door.

"Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh."- If Kavanaugh was on top of her and ---- jumped on Kavanaugh, wouldn't her description of how heavy that was have occurred at this point in her story? instead, she describes laughter twice. If she was being held down underneath an attacker, who was being jumped on "periodically" (multiple times by a co-sonspirator), I'd expect to hear about that amount of weight "crushing" her and her not being able to breathe...not about somebody laughing. My priority would be breathing in that situation. She does not say Kavanaugh "pushed her down", "pinned her down" or "was holding her down"-she leaves out how she allegedly got "down" with him on top of her. She doesn't even say she's down, nor on what (the bed, the floor, etc.). She names the bedroom, but doesn't reference a bed or any other horizontal surface in her story.

At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial."- Now she's talking about the weight, 3 sentences later...after the laughter, describing the attacker and co-conspirator's state of being, the attempted "disrobing", and her fear that his hand over her mouth may inadvertently get her killed. Words like "periodically" and "at one point" suggest time passing, a prolonged assault-yet the others in the house at this "gathering" don't notice the three of them missing for some time nor come looking for them to engage them in any way? What kind of "gathering" was it-the purpose/occasion they were "gathering" for? Is it expected to gather with 4 "others" at some house, in some region of your state, sometime during a decade; and with no stated activity, wander through the house, and disappear with 2 of those people (leaving the other 2) for a prolonged period, playing noise-drowning loud music...and somewhere along the way, the 2 you disappeared with were/became highly inebriated?

What she's describing sounds like she went to a private party, "participated", and then had regrets at some point after. She seems to want to blame someone else (the age factor). Her motivation is political-she seeks to stop Kavanuagh's nomination. She's not interested in protecting the next girl from a sexual predator.

John mcgowan said...

Christine Blasey Ford’s Yearbook Lends Context to Her Accusations


After viewing a few pages from Christine Blasey Ford’s yearbook, you can see why she can’t remember specifically where or when she was supposedly drunkenly pawed by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh. You can also see why the yearbook pages were scrubbed from the Internet — but not before Cult of the 1st Amendment saved them for posterity:

They are a testament to the incredible power these girls had over their teachers, parents and the boys of Georgetown Prep, Landon and other schools in the area. In the pages below, you will see multiple photos and references to binge drinking and the accompanying joy of not being able to remember any of it.

The Kavanaugh pawing supposedly happened in 1982, during the summer after her sophomore year…

10th grade seems to have been a ritual initiation into the “Holton party scene”. Another sophomore girl threw multiple all night benders, the highlight of which featured a male erotic dancer in gold g-string…

1982 was a particularly wild year and Scribe 82 [that year’s yearbook at her school Holton-Arms] published multiple pictures of minors drinking heavily, beer cans stacked up, liquor repeatedly glorified, “boys, beer and “the ‘Zoo’ atmosphere”.

Click through ( https://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html ) to see the pages that Christine Blasey Ford and her left-wing activist lawyer don’t want you to see.

Maybe she really was pawed by some guy. No doubt a lot of that went on at the bacchanalias she took part in. However, I doubt Brett Kavanaugh was there — not that Ford’s allegations would be relevant at this point even if true.

https://moonbattery.com/christine-blasey-fords-yearbook-lends-context-to-her-accusations/

Lars Bak said...

Anything goes:

https://www.gofundme.com/to-cover-dr-fords-security-costs

Lars Bak said...

Ups, one more: https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford

Anonymous said...

Some of Blasey Ford's demands now are she can't be questioned by lawyers; he can't be in the room when he testifies to contradict what she says and most ridiculously he must go first. And say what? Senator Feinstein still refuses to release the unredacted original letter to the Republicans and even her own party. She has a history of "releasing." When she was mayor of San Francisco during the Night Stalker killings against police instructions/wishes she released critical details to the investigation about his MO and footwear and sure enough he changed it up. Now she's allowing a man's reputation to be tarnished and possibly ruined for good without giving him the opportunity to address all accusations. Plus there's no way she will testify by Monday, maybw Tuesday. Also, the lawyers who prepped Anita Hill are now prepping her and her attorney is a huge Clintonista who dragged his acussers through the mud. No, there's no politics here

Anonymous said...

After analyzing Dr. Ford’s letter to Senator Feinstein, I don’t think Dr. Ford was ever assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh. They probably never even met.

However, I do think that Dr. Ford in her letter subconsciously (between the lines) gives AN ACCOUNT OF HER OWN ASSAULT ON JUDGE KAVANAUGH. Not a physical or sexual assault but an assault on the Judge in his capacity as U.S. Supreme Court Nominee (indeed: (partly) politically motivated).

Dr. Ford’s account is quite detailed and describes i.m.o. how she concocted the assault at “a gathering” in her “suburban home” “with the assistance” of at least one other (“local private”) person (her husband?).

Their plan was to ”successful[ly] attempt” to “help” “preclude” Kavanaugh from becoming Supreme Court Justice. Dr. Ford and the other person had a lot of fun while concocting this plan. They “both laughed” and – “while laughing” and in a “highly inebriated state” – formed their evil plan to undo Judge Kavanaugh from his judicial robe (they “tried to disrobe” “Kavanaugh”). In fact, Dr. Ford thought this plan was so funny that she put her “hand over” her “mouth” and she almost died laughing (it “may inadvertently kill me”). At the same time Dr. Ford realizes this plan may turn out very bad for her (“I feared” it “may inadvertently kill me”).

The other “very drunken” person sort of “pushed (..) [her] into” this plan by saying “mixed words (…) ranging from “go for it” or “stop”” (also: Dr. Ford may have had mixed feelings about the plan).

At one point, the pressure on Dr. Ford to execute their plan became substantial (“At one point (..) the weight on me was substantial”) and she and the other person argued with each other over their plan (“the two scrapped with each other”).

After some hesitation (“After a few attempts to get away”), Dr Ford decided to go for it (“I was able to take this opportune moment”). Subsequently, she and the other person (her husband?) may have discussed their plan with other persons at their home (“at which point other persons at the house were talking with them”).

Dr. Ford probably does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has never met him (“I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh”). She “did see REDACTED once” which was “extremely uncomfortable”.

Dr. Ford finds it “upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions”. Presumably because she was never sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh. This is why she “felt guilty” about “saying anything” “about the idea” (i.e.: deep down she feels guilty about accusing Judge Kavanaugh). However, she” felt (…) compelled as a citizen” to carry out “the idea”.

In other words, Dr. Ford’s assault on Judge Kavanaugh is politically motivated.

Another – maybe even more important – motive is: Dr. Ford wants to be relevant (look at the first sentence of her letter). Indeed: she wants recognition.

I agree that Dr. Ford seems highly manipulative. In my opinion her letter has a very brazen, bullying undertone. She almost commands Senator Feinstein to follow her orders (“(…) I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak”).

Underneath it all Dr. Ford is probably a very insecure person (“I have received medical treatment”) who cries for attention (“attempt to yell for help”). And: deep down, Dr. Ford never wanted to remain anonymous.

Just my two cents.

Autumn

Unknown said...

"I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak"

note the use of the word "further" indicating she had spoken to Sen. Feinstein previously.

tania cadogan said...

Off topic Published: 06:40, 21 September 2018 | Updated: 01:53, 22 September 2018

The Senate Judiciary Chairman has rejected key conditions that Brett Kavanaugh's accuser wants if she is to testify about her claim of sexual assault and given her until 10pm Friday to come to a 'reasonable resolution'.

Senator Chuck Grassley said his Republican-run panel would vote on sending Kavanaugh's nomination for Supreme Court Justice to the full Senate by Monday if attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford do not come to a decision by Friday night.

'We are unwilling to accommodate your unreasonable demands,' Grassley wrote.

He said his panel would vote Monday on Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination without an agreement and there has been no immediate response from Ford's lawyers.

That silence and Grassley's offer, which did not rule out further compromise, left uncertain whether Ford would appear and tell lawmakers and a captivated nation about her allegation that an inebriated Kavanaugh trapped her on a bed and tried removing her clothes when both were teenagers in the 1980s.

Kavanaugh, a 53-year-old District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals judge, has repeatedly denied the accusation.

Grassley sent Ford's attorneys a proposal earlier Friday offering a Wednesday hearing - Ford preferred Thursday - and said, 'It is not fair to him or to his family to allow this situation to continue without a resolution and without an opportunity for him to clear his name.'

Grassley said he was rebuffing Ford's proposals that she testify after Kavanaugh and that only senators, not outside counsel, be allowed to ask questions.

The committee's 11 Republicans - all men - have been seeking an outside female attorney to interrogate Ford, mindful of the election-season impression that could be left by men trying to pick apart a woman's assertion of a sexual attack.

He also refused to call additional witnesses. Ford wants an appearance by Mark Judge, a Kavanaugh friend who Ford asserts was at the high school party and in the bedroom where Kavanaugh's assault occurred.

Ford eventually escaped.

Grassley said he'd consented to several other Ford demands, including that she be provided security and that Kavanaugh not be in the hearing room when she testifies.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6192107/Kavanaugh-accuser-says-testify-right-terms.html


"Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home."

This reeks of attorney speak
Who would use the word persons(used to conceal gender and identity) when people would be the more natural turn of phrase, whilst still concealing gender and identity?

Exit not ran or escaped?
Note the dropped pronoun in relation to running outside
Why say ran outside of the house?
Why the need to say house when the shorter "ran outside" would be easier?
I ran outside and went home is even quicker.

Why not then say she called 911 or drove to a police station or if in a taxi, asked the driver to take her to a police station, or drove/taken to a hospital?

Anonymous said...

Unknown (September 21, 2018 at 8.31PM) wrote:

"I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak"

note the use of the word "further" indicating she had spoken to Sen. Feinstein previously.


I agree: at the very least Dr. Ford had already announced her letter to Senator Feinstein. Meanwhile, I think Senator Feinstein has her own doubts (probably mildly put) about the veracity of Dr. Ford’s account. She said about Dr. Ford’s accusation (i.a.): “Now, I can’t say everything’s truthful. I don’t know.”


Autumn

Anonymous said...

To Tania Cadogan:, I think your comments about Dr. Ford’s use of the words “exit” and “ran outside of the house” are VERY INTERESTING. They allude to a deeper motive. I also noticed how Dr. Ford seems to emphasize the concepts of “house” and “home”. E.g. in the sixth sentence of her letter she mentions:

“The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.”

Here, I think Dr. Ford may (also) be subconsciously referring to the near eviction of her parents from their (suburban) family home in Potomac, Maryland in a 1996 foreclosure case. Judge Kavanaugh’s mother (Martha Kavanaugh) was the judge in this case. Even though (from what I read online) Martha Kavanaugh eventually ruled favorably toward Dr. Ford’s parents (who ended up keeping their home), the Blasey’s may very well have felt that Martha Kavanaugh made their lives very difficult by keeping an eviction hanging over their heads for a certain time.

I.m.o., Dr. Ford perceived this case – and Martha Kavanaugh’s role in it – as an “assault” on her family. My guess is: Dr. Ford’s family consisted of five persons: herself, her parents AND possibly two siblings (“me and four others”). They had a “gathering” at the family home in Maryland after they were threatened with eviction.

I think a payback for this “assault” may very well be the MAIN motive for Dr. Ford’s accusation of Judge Kavanaugh (in addition to the ones set out in my previous comments). Dr. Ford perceived this near eviction as “very upsetting” and is now taking “repercussions” (see the second to last sentence of her letter).

Dr. Ford further (subconsciously) emphasizes this motive by using words like “they locked the door”, “locked the (…) door behind me”, “exited”, “outside of the house” and “went home”. In the context of escaping an alleged sexual assault, these words (especially “exited” and “ran outside of the house”) indeed seem somewhat out of place. However, in the context of a near foreclosure they all fit perfectly.

Where Dr Ford uses words like “bathroom”, “short stair well”, “living room”, “hallway bathroom” she may well be describing her parental home. I think the stairwell (and the fact that she writes “stair well” instead of “stairwell”) has a (subconscious) symbolic meaning to her. Due to the near eviction Dr. Ford and her family threatened to fall of the social ladder (“stumbled down the stair well”). They were no longer “well” to do. How dare Martha Kavanaugh have threatened Dr. Ford and her family with that, perhaps even with a smile on her face (“while laughing”). It felt to Dr. Ford like an attack on her and her family’s way of living and there was nothing she could do or say about it (“With Kavanaugh’s hand over my mouth I feared [s]he may inadvertently kill me.”)

All in all, I think Dr Ford is subconsciously referring to Martha Kavanaugh instead of Brett Kavanaugh when she writes “Kavanaugh” in her letter. This is a brazen act of revenge.

Tania, I think Dr. Ford uses the concealing word “persons” because she probably discussed this action with family members and she doesn’t want to reveal information about them.

I predict that Dr. Ford is NEVER going to testify (let alone testify under oath). She is feeling the heat right now.

If I were Judge Kavanaugh's lawyer, I would advise him to sue Dr. Ford and claim the highest possible damages for a ruined reputation.

All strictly my own opinion, of course.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

"It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions...". Yes, it is upsetting IF you were actually assaulted. She doesn't commit to being assaulted here.

"Sexual assault" - Do victims even use that language? Even years later and after processing? It really minimizes a violent sexual act. It sounds more like police terminology for a police report.

GetThem10

Anonymous said...

Democrats have now indicated that even if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed before November, they will further investigate this matter and may even push for his impeachment.

Assuming Judge Kavanaugh is innocent, the best way to deal with this seems to be for the Republicans to make sure that Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed before November. Subsequently i.m.o. Judge Kavanaugh should start legal proceedings against his accuser. He should pull out all the stops: have her publicly testify under oath, demand that she take an independent polygraph and (most importantly) claim multimillion-dollar damages, etcetera. If her accusations are false (I think they are), this will scare her off and she might be open for settlement negotiations. Stipulate that she retract her ("knowingly false") accusations in a written and signed statement as part of this settlement. Fight fire with fire.

Autumn

Peter Hyatt said...

Christine Ford self identified, not as a victim, nor as a survivor. She identified as a “constituent.” Motive in the her language.

Peter

Anonymous said...


This woman is never going to testify, she wants to keep Kavanaugh away from supreme court.
That she will do with this with character assignation and the me too alignment.
Democrats are threatening impeachment because they think it's working against Trump.
I can only hope that Kavanaugh will sue this woman into oblivion!

Alex said...

If she doesn't come over to D.C. and at least pretend to testify will she then feel a moral obligation to return the loot?

Alex

Anonymous said...

Mark Judge’s (Brett Kavanaugh’s high school friend / “REDACTED”) statements in this matter are also intriguing.

In a letter sent by his lawyer to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mark Judge states:

“I have no memory of this alleged incident. Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

Mark Judge also states that he has no additional information to provide the committee and therefore he does

"not want to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford's letter."

Mark Judge furthermore told the Weekly Standard:

"It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way."

I don’t know if and in how far Mark Judge’s letter was redacted by his lawyer. However, it’s interesting that Mark Judge on the one hand repeats that he never saw Brett act in the manner described by Dr. Ford while he on the other hand never denies (as far as I know) that he himself acted as described.

Also interesting is that Mark Judge says he does “not want to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford’s letter.” Again, I don’t know who worded this sentence, but this seems to confirm that there actually were “incidents”. Otherwise it would have been more logical to write that he does not want to publicly speak about the “allegations” made by Dr. Ford.

Therefore, I wonder if something actually happened between Dr. Ford and Mark Judge in high school. I’m not necessarily saying he sexually assaulted her. If that were the case, I suppose Dr. Ford would have given him a more prominent role in her allegations. Instead, the way she describes Mark Judge’s role seems relatively minor. In fact, he even seems to have ultimately tried to end the alleged assault (by saying “stop” and jumping on Kavanaugh).

Could it be that Dr. Ford really liked Mark Judge in high school and that he ridiculed/rejected her (like Peter said: she was humiliated)? I say this also because Dr. Ford at one point writes: “I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.” Somehow this has a ring of truth to it even though I think the extreme discomfort described by Dr. Ford is a projection of her own feelings at the time.

Also: if nothing ever happened between Mark Judge and Dr, Ford, why would she drag him into this?

I still doubt that Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh ever met, though. The main reason for this is the fact that Dr. Ford writes:

“I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault.”

The word “knowingly” just seems so out of place in this sentence. If you were sexually assaulted and even almost killed by someone, wouldn’t you remember whether or not you had seen that person afterwards? Perhaps you wouldn’t if you had suppressed the memory of that assault. But in that case, how can Dr. Ford have such a detailed memory of seeing Mark Judge (who allegedly had a relatively minor role) after the alleged assault? She remembers that she saw him once, she remembers where she saw him and she knows that he felt extremely uncomfortable seeing her (even though they seem to have never spoken on that occasion). And, most importantly, she remembers she saw him AFTER the alleged assault. How can she be so sure if she had suppressed the memory of that assault? Are we to believe that she saw Mark Judge after her memory of the alleged assault came back? In that case, why would Mark Judge have been so extremely uncomfortable about an alleged assault that happened decades ago, in which he had a relatively minor role and that he seems to have ultimately thwarted off? It’s all so strange. I think Dr. Ford subconsciously told us the truth when writing she hasn’t “knowingly” seen Kavanaugh since the assault: she doesn’t “know“ Kavanaugh.

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

Anonymous said @6:02

In a letter sent by his lawyer to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mark Judge states:

“I have no memory of this alleged incident. Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

“I have no memory” – isn’t very strong as it leaves the possibility that it did happen but he does not remember it.

“I do not recall” – second usage of not remembering – and leaves possibility with further thought he may recall something.

“I never saw Brett act in the manner” – “the manner” but has he seen him act in another manner?

I don’t like his statement it is weak. Why does he not say “it didn’t happen”?

Mark Judge also states that he has no additional information to provide the committee and therefore he does

"not want to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford's letter."

“The incidents” – he missed out “alleged” this time and identifies them with the article “the”.

Mark Judge furthermore told the Weekly Standard:

"It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way."

“just” – if he uses it to mean “really” nuts it ok, but if it is used to minimise by comparison then there is a problem.

He says he “never saw” which could mean he didn’t see it that way so he never saw it that way. And of course he use “that” for distance.

He might be better keeping his mouth shut because his statements are weak and leave room for interpretation from those reading them.
Just so people know I don’t believe a sexual assault happened as I have made clear in my earlier posts but have to say what I see in the language. The plot thickens.

Adrian.

Unknown said...

Blogger frommindtomatter said...
Anonymous said @6:02


one should take care in these statements. sometime distancing language is appropriate. given the time element involves to say "I don't remember" or "I don't recall" can be appropriate.

30 plus years can make statements weak and sensitive.

frommindtomatter said...

Unknown @10:40am

I agree with you in that 30 plus years is a long time. The problem is the kind of language he uses leaves him open to someone asking the question “Can you confirm it did not happen?” By his own words he will not be able to answer that conclusively.

If and when those involved are asked questions about the alleged events, using terms like “I do not recall” are going to come across as being at best weak, and at worse deceptive.

In life we find what really happened, or what the facts are, don’t seem to matter anymore (that’s if they ever did to all but the honest). What matters more is what people can be led to believe is the truth. Skilled lawyers make a living out of exploiting doubt, if they can’t find any then they will try to create some like a magician pulling a rabbit from a hat.

What we are seeing is very weak accusations being met with weak denials.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

“Remember” and “Recall” usage:

If someone is asked “did you kill John Smith in in 1986?”

And they answered “I don’t recall”. Would you be worried by their answer?

OK that’s a bit harsh so what about the example below:

If asked the question “did you attack Jon Smith in 1986” you have a choice of answer. The answer would depend of the following.

If you had an altercation with John Smith but you didn’t consider that you attacked him then you could deny it with:

“I did not attack John Smith”. – This would be based on your personal belief of what had happened.

If you did not remember anything in relation to an altercation with John Smith based on your own memory of it not happening, you could say

“I did not attack John Smith”. – There is no memory of it.

If you remember something about John Smith but are not sure about what happened you could say:

“I don’t remember attacking John Smith”- Means you may or may not have done it, but don’t remember.

If you did attack John Smith you could either admit to it or say something like “I don’t recall” to distance yourself from the event.

The fact there is a memory in your mind leads to the words “remember” entering your language and it would be in the negative “I don’t remember” as a denial. That in itself shows that you remember something. If there is no memory then it didn’t happen.

If you totally believe that you could never have attacked John Smith because you don’t do things like that you can skip using the word remember and move to strong denial (but you need strong personal belief).

If on the other hand you had been in a few altercations during your life you may start to question whether you had attacked John Smith and the word remember will enter the language again. The possibility that it happened is being entertained in the mind which shows self-doubt.

Adrian.

Unknown said...

Blogger frommindtomatter said...
“Remember” and “Recall” usage:

your questions are not good for SA since they prejudice the answer.

SA works best with the free editing process.

the context here is a vague story without a location or specific date. this can result in vague denials which may sound sensitive or deceptive.

imagine yourself being asked if you remember something an acquaintance said about you 35 years ago. it is very likely you will say the same thing as these people are now saying.

context is always important.

frommindtomatter said...

I understand what you’re saying. I am just trying to explore the story and appreciate the length of time is important in evaluating it. If I were to ask you an honest question now what would be your answer? This is hypothetical so please entertain me:

Imagine you had been to some party (Let’s assume you had been to a few) 20 years ago. A woman named Jane Doe has made allegations yesterday that you sexually assaulted her at that party. You are asked by the local paper:

Jane Doe says you sexually assaulted her at a party 20 years ago what have you got to say about it?

a)I don’t remember or I don’t recall anything like that. (Remember you would be
saying you don’t recall sexually assaulting someone).

b)That’s ridiculous; I did not and have not sexually assaulted anyone.

Would you not be offended if someone accused you of something you had not done, especially if it was a sexual assault? For me it is not about context here but about the softness of the language. I expect to hear a strong denial. I might not remember what someone had said about me 20 years ago but I would be worried if I couldn’t remember committing a serious crime.

You’re saying that because it was over 30 years ago it is something that one might not remember. We are talking about an alleged sexual assault here; the problem for me is whether someone would entertain the idea by saying “I don’t remember”.

“I don’t remember” implies there is something to not remember.

Something may have happened and the vague accusations and denials seem to show that nobody involved is really sure what it was but the language seems to suggest it was something. As I stated much earlier on in my posts I think this was a party with a bit of crazy behaviour so nothing new there. In today’s climate of political correctness it may be that people are becoming confused over what a sexual assault is. In the near future we may see people arrested for simply looking at someone “the wrong way”.

Adrian.

Unknown said...


Blogger frommindtomatter said...

You’re saying that because it was over 30 years ago it is something that one might not remember. We are talking about an alleged sexual assault here; the problem for me is whether someone would entertain the idea by saying “I don’t remember”.



I don't know what the question posed to the person was. so I can't say if it is appropriate or not.

the word "remember" can be innocent. if the person remembers things from that period of time but not the allegation in question.

there is a lot of speculation in these comments which is not SA.

Alex said...

I think there is a distinction between how a witness might verbalize what he does not remember and how an accused might.

Alex

Hey Jude said...

Kimberley Strassel on Twitter:

More big breaking news, which further undercuts the Ford accusation, as well as media handling of it. A source has given me the email that WaPo reporter Emma Brown sent to Mark Judge, one person Ford claims was at the party. This email is dated Sunday, Sept. 16, 2018
2) The email wants a comment from him. The subsequent story would reveal Christine Ford's name, and give details of the supposed "assault."
3) One part of the email to Judge reads: "In addition to Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, whom she called acquaintances she knew from past socializing, she recalls that her friend Leland (last name then was Ingham, now Keyser) was at the house and a friend of the boys named PJ."
4) This matters for two big reasons--Ford's credibility and WaPo's. The subsequent WaPo story would go on to cite Ford's name and details, and also list notes from a therapist that Ford told this to in 2012. Read carefully what WaPo reports, the same day it emails Judge:
5) "The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.”
6) Wait, say what? WaPo reports publicly that Ford says it was "four boys,"even after WaPo reporter tells Judge that Ford had told her it was three boys and a girl.

Hey Jude said...

7) So first, huge problem: This was just a week ago, and we have Ford giving two different accounts of who was present. Four boys. No, three boys, one girl. Either way, therapist notes from 2012 definitively say four boys, which Ford didn't dispute. But now... a girl!
8) Other problem: WaPo's reporting. Reporter has for a week had the names of those Ford listed as present. One is a woman. Yet it writes a story saying FOUR BOYS. Why? Maybe a mistake. But if so, why did WaPo never correct that narrative?
9) What, you can't find Keyser? She has lived in the DC area a long time. The paper had no trouble tracking down the other two men (btw, who also denied such party). And why not publish Keyser's name? It published the other men's names.
10) In its most recent update tonight, WaPo writes: "Before her name became public, Ford told The Post she did not think Keyser would remember the party because nothing remarkable had happened there, as far as Keyser was aware."
11) Wow. "Before her name became public, Ford told..." That is WaPo admitting that it had the name, and had Ford's response to what would clearly be a Keyser denial, but NEVER PUT IT OUT THERE. Again, why? A lot of people have a lot questions to answer.

23/09/18

Anonymous said...

Here's an interview with memory expert Elizabeth Loftus on this subject
https://townhall.com/columnists/scottmorefield/2018/09/23/exclusive-eminent-california-professor-and-human-memory-expert-weighs-in-on-christine-fords-allegations-against-kavanaugh-n2521636

tania cadogan said...

Off topic

THE dad-of-two accused of killing his pregnant wife and daughters reportedly confessed strangling his spouse following a chat with his dad.

Chris Watts had changed his story numerous times following the disappearance of his spouse Shan'ann, 34, and his kids, Bella, four, and three-year-old Celeste.

The 33-year-old at first denied knowing where his family was telling cops he'd had an "emotional" conversation before they vanished.

But after he was shown evidence he was having an affair Watts told police he would "tell the whole truth after speaking with his dad", People reports.

Following their chat he is said to have confessed to killing his wife and told police the bodies were hidden at an oil field where he worked.

Watts is charged with murdering of Shan'ann, Bella and Celeste at their home in Frederick, Colorado.

He told cops that he and his wife argued "emotionally" about splitting upon the morning of the disappearance and that his wife strangled the kids which prompted him to throttle her in a fit of rage.

The "confession" came after investigators learned he was allegedly having an affair with a co-worker.

He denied the affair but an investigation confirmed otherwise.

Once Watts was confronted with this information, he made the request to speak to his dad who was at the police station at the time.

He then confessed "the truth" of what happened but investigators have dismissed his claims as "lies".

A source close to the investigation told People: "The theory that she did it doesn't hold any water.

"There is absolutely no evidence she killed her children."

Earlier this month it was revealed that Watts is under suicide watch.

He is under Close Watch Protocol - a technical term for suicide watch - which means he spends 23 hours in a cell in protective custody.

Guards must check on Watts every ten to 15 minutes, it's reported, to ensure his well being and make eye contact with him.

Watts is also physically searched several times a day as well as a full cell inspection to ensure he "is not hiding any contraband that would allow him to harm himself".

For one hour per day, Watts is allowed to leave his cell and taken to a small room where he is allowed to shower and make phone calls - but it is not occupied by any other prisoners at the same time, and is not allowed commissary privileges, the report said.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7325736/chris-watts-admitted-strangling-his-wife-to-death-in-a-rage-after-a-heart-to-heart-with-his-dad/

Unknown said...


Blogger lynda said...
Hey Jude..

Kimberley Strassel is an alt-right


I have always wanted someone to explain to me what is alt-right. since you use it maybe you can explain it? thanks

Buckley said...

The alt(ernative) right is a conservative faction that differs from traditional conservatism in that it embraces protectionist, isolationist, “America first” policies as opposed to globalism, unchecked free trade, America’s ongoing use of military in foreign conflicts only tangentially concerning America. It’s populist as opposed to elitist. (Traditional conservatives tout big business, corporate America, so they embrace that aspect of elitism while liberals embrace Hollywood elite.) It’s anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-multiculturalism, and Euro-centric. More embracing of Christian heritage than Christian dogma. Some white nationalist and neo-fascist groups coined and embraced the term “alt-right” to distinguish themselves from those elements of the right wing that embraced corporate elitism and neo-conservatism/globalism.

I described it in American terms, but it can be found in European politics such as Nigel Farage in the UK (anti-EU, anti-immigration) and the National Front/National Rally party in France.

Buckley said...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

Unknown said...

alt-right is a construct of the collectivist minded socialists to denigrate people who believe in the rights of the individual and personal responsibility.

it was a question for Lynda. because if there is an alt-right there must be alt-left.

Buckley said...

No, it was a term coined by white nationalists because “white nationalist” wasn’t marketing very well. People who consider themselves “alt right” embrace the term; they don’t consider it an insult.

Buckley said...

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/

Unknown said...


Blogger Buckley said...


I'm not sold on it. I can see the white nationalist liking it but I think it made it into the mainstream by the progs/socialists trying to connect the conservatives to nazis who are actually socialists like themselves.

Buckley said...

I’m sure the left now uses it to mischaracterize, but initially it was meant to draw distinctions between two factions on the right: Elite globalists that controlled the GOP from Ike to GW Bush and populist “America first” nationalists who have made headway in the GOP with Trump’s presidency.

Unknown said...

that proves my point that it is a prog construct. the white supremacists (skinheads and nazis) are not and were not ever right.

Mizzmarple said...

Peter,

Thank you for this Analysis, which Analysis should be headline news on the MSM news networks.

After I read your post, I re-read CBFs letter. The word "victim" is not in the letter.

Since CBF did not refer to herself as a "victim" in her letter, in Statement Analysis we cannot say it for her.

Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect. I have a lot to learn regarding SA.

Again, thank you!

John mcgowan said...

OT:

'Hundreds' involved in search for missing 6-year-old boy from NC

GASTONIA, N.C. (WSET) -- Hundreds of first responders are in Gastonia, North Carolina searching for a six-year-old boy with special needs.

WSOC reports that Maddox Ritch was last seen at Rankin Lake Park at 1:30 p.m. Saturday.

He was wearing an orange shirt with “I’m the man” on the front of the T-shirt; he's 4 feet tall and weighs 65 pounds with blonde hair and blue eyes.

Maddox was seen with his father and another adult.

“They were walking around the lake,” Gastonia spokeswoman Rachel Bagley told WSOC. “They got around to the backside of the lake. He started running, according to the parents, and when they started running after him, they lost sight of him, and no one has seen him ever since.”

The city said crews are looking at surveillance photos and police are working to follow leads.

Ground searches resumed at daylight Sunday.

All activities at Rankin Lake Park have been canceled for Sunday and the park will be closed until further notice.

https://wlos.com/news/local/hundreds-involved-in-search-for-missing-6-year-old-boy-from-nc

habundia said...

to sound more convincing? yet it does the opposite.

John mcgowan said...

Brett Kavanaugh DENIES second sexual misconduct allegation: Yale classmate of SCOTUS nominee claims he 'exposed himself to her in the early 1980s without consent at a drunken dorm party'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6199903/Brett-Kavanaugh-hit-SECOND-sex-misconduct-allegation-Yale-classmate-claims-exposed-himself.html

Hey Jude said...

^. It was only after ‘six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney’ - who the White House noted was ‘provided by the Democrats’ - did she feel ‘confident enough of her recollections.’

Anonymous said...

Below I have copied part of an article from the New Yorker including Ms Deborah Ramirez’s statements relating to a second alleged sexual misconduct by Brett Kavanaugh.

Ms Ramirez doesn’t seem to believe her own accusations. I.m.o. this becomes clear from her statements. Look how after every one of her accusations she uses language that negates that very accusation (I have highlighted these negations in bold capital letters). This happens when people try to hide the truth. Unknowingly they will – between the lines of their statements – blurt out the truth. Their subconscious gives them no choice but to do so.

I think an incident with a penis may have happened, but – as Ms Ramirez qualifies it herself – it was a GAG, a JOKE, probably only involving a fake, plastic penis and not a (partly) undressed Kavanaugh.


At one point, she said, a male student pointed A GAG plastic penis in her direction. Later, she said, she was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words, as that male student and another stood nearby. (…)

A third male student then exposed himself to her. “I remember a penis being in front of my face,” she said. “I KNEW THAT’S NOT what I wanted, even in that state of mind.” She recalled remarking, “THAT’S NOT A REAL PENIS,” and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to “kiss it.”

She said that she pushed the person away, touching it in the process. Ramirez, who was raised a devout Catholic, in Connecticut, said that she was shaken. “I WASN’T going to TOUCH A PENIS until I was married,” she said. “I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated.”

She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. “Brett was laughing,” she said. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. “Somebody yelled down the hall, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said. “It was his full name. I DON’T THINK IT WAS just ‘BRETT.’ And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there.”

Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening (...). And yet, after several days of considering the matter carefully, she said, “I’m confident about the pants coming up, and I’m confident about Brett being there.” Ramirez said that what has stayed with her most forcefully is the memory of laughter at her expense from Kavanaugh and the other students. “IT WAS kind of A JOKE,” she recalled. “And now IT’S clear to me it wasn’t A JOKE.”


Autumn

lynda said...

Unknown:

Buckley was kind enough to explain it correctly, Thanks Buckley!


Buckley said...
The alt(ernative) right is a conservative faction that differs from traditional conservatism in that it embraces protectionist, isolationist, “America first” policies as opposed to globalism, unchecked free trade, America’s ongoing use of military in foreign conflicts only tangentially concerning America. It’s populist as opposed to elitist. (Traditional conservatives tout big business, corporate America, so they embrace that aspect of elitism while liberals embrace Hollywood elite.) It’s anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-multiculturalism, and Euro-centric. More embracing of Christian heritage than Christian dogma. Some white nationalist and neo-fascist groups coined and embraced the term “alt-right” to distinguish themselves from those elements of the right wing that embraced corporate elitism and neo-conservatism/globalism.

I described it in American terms, but it can be found in European politics such as Nigel Farage in the UK (anti-EU, anti-immigration) and the National Front/National Rally party in France.


Hey Jude said...
^. It was only after ‘six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney’ - who the White House noted was ‘provided by the Democrats’ - did she feel ‘confident enough of her recollections

What's your point here? Kavanaugh has been huddled with his group of attorneys "provided by Republicans" getting intensely coached also.

Not ONE, but now, TWO other women have come forward. One of the women, Ramirez, has corroboration. They have not released the name of the corroborator as of yet. It is being reported, however, that the Committee KNEW about Ramirez last week and still tried to ram Kavanaugh thru before this became public.

Grown men can come forward after 30-40 years after suffering abuse at the hands of a priest and they are believed and edified as courageous, strong, victims, etc. Women finally come forward and they are slut-shamed, vilified, and accused of having ulterior motives because *gasp* they're democrats.

If the GOP shoves Kavanaugh thru, they WILL lose control of Congress in November. I have no doubt about that. They're going to have to decide which is more important, keeping control, or seating another SCJ.





Unknown said...

Blogger lynda said...
Unknown:

correctly to you is when you hear what you want.

Anonymous said...


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6199471/Kavanaugh-calendars-1982-not-list-party-one-accuser-describes.html?ito=social-facebook

Kavanaugh has calendars from 1982 that do not list a party as the one his accuser describes and he's handing them over to the Senate Judiciary Committee

Anonymous said...

This is not related to SA but I have a personal observation here, hope it is okay.

I went to a New England prep school and college in the late 70's and early 80's.

At that time, I know of various professors who had relationships with students or with other professors or their wives.

I myself had a relationship with a married teacher in high school, and I know for a fact another of my classmates did.

He turned out to write for a conservative magazine, and was a beloved college prof for decades after our encounters.

If I had an agenda and wanted to shame him and by association his "side" I might harbor a grudge and blow things out of proportion or ignore the circumstances.

This woman who accuses K had an encounter with a peer, another student, not a professor, these things happen, or at least they did when I was in school. We all make decisions we regret.

What about the decades since?

She never did a thing, until she saw that Kavanaugh was poised for a very powerful position, now that he is high profile, the incident takes on new importance since she wants to shame his "side" by shaming him. She has an agenda and is jumping on Me Too the bandwagon.



Hey Jude said...

Lynda, it is a quote from the Daily Mail article.

It is interesting that she only became 'confident' of her memories after meeting with the attorney - and that it took her six days to 'assess' her memories.

Unknown said...

Blogger Hey Jude said...
Lynda, it is a quote from the Daily Mail article.



Lynda doesn't operate on facts. I suspect she is knitting a pink hat at this time.

frommindtomatter said...

Imagine the division this is causing all over the country between the people. These type of tactics just like the propaganda from the media are aimed at causing division which weakens the bond between the people. This has been done all over the world and we can see just how effective it is by looking at the turmoil it has caused.

From Aesop’s Fables:

The Father and His Sons

A father had a family of sons who were perpetually quarreling among themselves. When he failed to heal their disputes by his exhortations, he was determined to give them a practical illustration of the evils of disunion. For this purpose he one day told them to bring him a bundle of sticks. When they had done so, he placed the bundle into the hands of each of them in succession, and ordered them to break it in pieces. They tried with all their strength but were not able to do it. He next opened the bundle, took the sticks separately, one by one, and again put them into his sons' hands, upon which they broke them easily. He then addressed them in these words: "My sons, if you are of one mind, and unite to assist each other, you will be as this bundle of sticks, uninjured by all the attempts of your enemies; but if you are divided among yourselves, you will be broken as easily as the single sticks."

I see all over the world great nations falling one by one to division. Identity politics and political correctness have been the weapons used to turn people against each other while the politicians chant their favourite slogan “diversity is our strength”. Any politicians who speak with common sense are quickly attacked and the search to find dirt on them begins. Once found no matter how petty or ridiculous the accusations are, the mud slinging begins. Now we see the developing trend of being able to sling mud anonymously. Where will it all end?

Peter mentioned the book by Sir John Glubb “The fate of empires” somewhere on the blog. It’s a good read and a very important text in itself. I think things are not looking too good in the world at the moment as the rate of decline in common sense has probably sunk below the point of no return.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

Very well put, Adrian.

Autumn

Unknown said...

Blogger lynda said...
Unknown,

bahaha! I didn't quote anything from the Daily Mail rag. Hey Jude did that.


yes I am aware off that. you should do some SA on your comments.

your comments are over the top political. I don't expect you to see that or you wouldn't have written them. the reason I mentioned the pink hat is that you seem (from your language) to be what is referred to as a SJW. as for you calling me a racist (sewing a white hood) that is the expected response from a SJW.

Unknown said...

Blogger frommindtomatter said...

From Aesop’s Fables:


sadly that is also the symbol (bundle of sticks) of the collectivists such as the fabians and several facist groups/countries in the recent past.

Anonymous said...

OT: False reports indicate bipolar?

"Well the absolute scariest thing in my life just happened to me and let me start by saying this is 100% REAL AND CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE. I’ve constantly read stories like this and totally thought that would never happen to me.

I was approached at 2:40pm by two young females asking about my Jesus bracelets and asking about my beliefs. I engaged in conversation for no longer than a minute until I got an uneasy feeling and told them I needed to find my son because I could no longer see where he was. Greyson and I go to the park every single day, he knows his boundaries and knows to stay around me and on the jungle gym at all times. I started screaming his name to quickly realize I couldn’t see/find him. When I say I’ve never had such an awful sick feeling in my life .. I’m running around the park screaming bloody murder when I look at the bridge leading to the parking lot and a women is attempting to take Greyson across the bridge to her car. I sprinted towards her screaming and she claims he was "wondering away" (total lies, he never walks to that parking lot - let alone away from me) at that point I was just happy to have him back and it didn’t click that the two teenage girls that approached me were with the older women that was just trying to take him. A few moms came up to me after and we’re trying to settle me down and that’s when I saw the woman go up to the two girls and tell them they needed to get out of there.. that’s when it clicked exactly what they were trying to do. Luckily Avery pulled up to the park immediately after this happened and I told him to drive around to the other parking lot and get their plates/ model of the car. He than proceeded to follow them until they started driving erratic trying to lose him and the police told him to stop chasing for safety reasons. To say I’m in complete disbelief, shock, sick .. I have no words. If I didn’t stop conversation because I felt like something wasn’t right my baby could be gone. I live in Times #1 best place to live and this happened in a beautiful park, in the public, in broad day light. I beg every mom and dad to not have my mindset before this afternoon- this is real and this can happen to you. People are sick and the world we live in is just not the same anymore unfortunately. Luckily the Fishers Police are working hard on this and hopefully can stop these women from doing something like this again.

UPDATE: given the statement by Fishers Police Department we are only to trust that this was somehow pure miscommunication from the suspects. Avery and I stick by what we believe and only hope every parent never has to experience losing a child. Let this be a lesson to always have eyes on your babies and be careful who you talk to."

^^ Original link was deleted but I have a screencap.

frommindtomatter said...

Bobcat said...
OT: False reports indicate bipolar?

Interesting find Bobcat.

“I engaged in conversation for no longer than a minute”

“I engaged in conversation” –engaged is quite a serious word, very formal. It suggests a lot of commitment to something. I would have expected spoke or chatted etc…

“no longer than a minute” – not about or approximately a minute but “no longer” spoken in the negative. She is sensitive to the amount of time she was not watching her child for.

“Greyson and I go to the park every single day, he knows his boundaries and knows to stay around me and on the jungle gym at all times”.

Looks like the blame is being moved onto the child, “he knows” used twice in the sentence. I would be interested to know the age of the child.

The past and present tense usage is interesting. I starts as being reported in past tense and when the action gets started it shifts into present.

Adrian.

Unknown said...

Blogger lynda said...
Unknown..

Uh huh. Over the top political? lol. Yes, women aren't allowed to say they believe an accuser


keep digging Lynda. the hole is never deep enough for SJW.

it is you who brings up racism and now gender.

frommindtomatter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Unknown said...

https://iotwreport.com/this-oughta-clear-up-where-christine-ford-is-coming-from-politically/

Anonymous said...

"I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me."

*Still "A" bathroom even though she said she was going to it when BK pushed her into a room. Or were there two bathrooms?

I think she was Not going there when she was accosted by BK. I think she went upstairs to specifically to find him or went with him willingly upstairs then realized what this could mean and changed her mind. He had to physically push her into the room as opposed to seducing her.

"Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.

Both boys stumbled loudly down the stairs. That's all. They aren't looking for her. They aren't still laughing. They aren't talking to one another or bickering or calling out 'Hey baby, where'd you go?' They just tromp down the stairs the way teenage boys do.
And talk with the other 'Persons.' Not their friends or 'my' friends. Again, I think she didn't know the other people at the party.

I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home."


Even if she couldn't hear what they were saying she'd be able to hear more laughter or infer from tone of voice if anyone was asking a question like, "Where's Christine?" or "Where were you guys?" She exited the bathroom, stopped and listened to see if they were talking about her or see if they were coming back upstairs before leaving. This is why she wrote the two separate actions.

After eavesdropping she "ran outside of the house."

I think she left a different way than she came in totally avoiding the other party goers. She found a back or side door and booked it without any further interaction.

"...And went home."

Here is where it clicked for me. There were no obstacles between where she was and her house. She didn't say she was stranded with no way to get out of there. She didn't say she had to hail a cab or have to wait for a bus. She didn't tell how she had to run to the next door neighbor's to use their phone and call her parents or a friend to come get her. Because if your goal was to show Diane Finestein what a jerk this guy is and what he put you through wouldn't you include every bit of your ordeal?

She was within walking distance of the suburban Maryland area home and her own. I'd bet money on it. Anon-J

Anonymous said...

We need you now peter.....http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/24/kavanaugh-denies-sexual-misconduct-in-fox-news-exclusive-know-im-telling-truth.html

BOSTON LADY said...

I just watched the interview on Fox with Brett Kavanaugh and his wife. It was painful to watch. He repeated over and over that he did not do this. I think it looked like he came close to tears a few times. He was holding back. He knows whatever he says will be micro analyzed. I hope that he feels more free to answer the questions on Thursday. Like Clarence Thomas, he should be able to tell them all what he thinks of this disgusting smear.

I believe him. Brett and his family have been treated so badly by the Dem Senators, the news organizations, social media, all of it. I'm keeping him and his family in my prayers. He does not deserve this. His record is clean. And he answered the question about his sex life and he answered that he did not have sex in high school or college. Additionally he added he didn't have sex for many years after. This man was a virgin. Brett Kavanaugh did not have anything to do with Christine Ford. He had nothing to do with the latest smear. I'm disgusted with our senators who have judged him with no evidence. Salem Witch Trials did the same. Evil. I'd say gossip but this is more than that. It is an Evil attack on our freedom overall.

Anonymous said...

Considering the introduction and closing is quite formal, its somewhat surprising she goes into quite some detail to someone she doesn't appear to know or maybe only knows professionally.

I wonder if the original letter was something like this before it was massaged by the lawyers.

'Dear Senator Feinstein;

I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.

Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's.

I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.

In confidence,
REDACTED.'

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

I'm thinking that if someone was on top of me, attempting to "disrobe" me, with their hand over my mouth, it wouldn't take me 6 days with my attorney to "carefully assess my memories" to report the crime. I wouldn't be reporting it to a politician either. Dr. Ford really didn't want her allegations investigated impartially nor immediately.

Bottle Cap said...

Peter, you may find this denial interesting.

OT: Andy McCabe's spokesperson on the rumors he leaked memos to the NY Times about Rosenstein wanting to wear a wire while meeting with Trump:

Let me be 100% clear: no one associated with Andrew McCabe or his team shared, read, described, whispered or blinked in Morse Code any part of his memos with any reporter.

https://twitter.com/MSchwartz3/status/1043218739158757377

Ladela said...

I am gobsmacked that no one has labeled the behavior described by these women, repeatedly and in their own words, as nothing more than #Peers Behaving Badly (or stupidly or drunkenly)as is oft the case of drunken unsupervised high school and college student behavior.

I don't know much about Kavanaugh, but just from the words of these women, this was not sexual assault. It might have been inappropriate, but nothing they have stated even rises to the level of assault.

To compare the sexual assault of children by priests to what these women are claiming is utterly absurd. Seriously people?? And men have NOT been believed about sexual assault cuz they haven't reported it, a lot longer than women.


This blog is about Truth, not politics. If Peter chooses to analyze politics, and his own personal politics, that is his right. If you don't like it, go somewhere else for you politics cuz this is about Truth.

If this post has you questioning everything you've ever read here, then you haven't been paying attention to the teachings.

Hey Jude said...

Fools - that quote relates to the second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, whose statement does not appear to be available except as quotes within a narrative written by someone at The New Yorker. Maybe they are hoping it won't be analysed if presented in such a fragmented way. It invites doubt, but that maybe is the objective - to create doubts in everyone's minds about the candidate by any means, even through allegations which haven't been corroborated by the people who also supposedly were present at either of the claimed incidents. It's low - anyone who says it isn't politically motivated must be having a laugh.

Anonymous said...

Here is a full transcript of Kavanaugh's interview on Fox News - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/09/24/brett-kavanaugh-transcript-interview-fox-news-martha-maccullum/1415548002/

Kavanaugh multiple times stated "I have never sexually assaulted anyone". In statement analysis, the word "never" is not accepted, unless the question asked is, "ever" (and it was not).

Judge Kavanaugh is unable to say that he did not sexually assault Dr. Ford (and this is a very specific accusation!) and we cannot say it for him.

Anonymous said...

And Ford has not said she was a victim of sexual assault so we cannot say it for her.

Hey Jude said...


Peter wrote - further up in the comments:

'Judge K does not issue a reliable denial.

If an allegation is vague (decade estimate) and details are vague it can provoke a vague or general denial.

It doesn’t mean he is deceptive.'

Anonymous said...

OT: A mission from God. (Wesleyans are Davey Blackburn's "family")

Part 1:

https://wesleyanresistance.com/2018/09/24/in-the-spirit-of-john-witherspoon-wesleyan-pastor-answers-call-to-influence-the-entire-country-and-world-for-generations-to-come/

From Our Nation’s Founding

Scottish Presbyterian minister and 26-year president of what would later become Princeton University, John Witherspoon was the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence. Never heard of him? Me, neither, until I recently visited America’s Founding Fathers Exhibit in Rapid City, South Dakota.

“As possibly the best-known clergyman in America at the time, he did much to set the moral and spiritual tone for the new nation, emphasizing that religious liberty does not mean America should be religion-free, and that piety and morality are essential to the stability and strength of the nation.” 1

“Under his tutelage would be formed twelve future Continental Congress members, forty-nine U.S. representatives, twenty-eight senators, three Supreme Court justices, and a secretary of state.” 2 He literally shaped the men who shaped America.

Apparently, Witherspoon was highly criticized by other clergymen for his involvement in politics, which included serving on more than 100 committees and spending five years in the Continental Congress. 3 Witherspoon believed political and religious freedom were inseparable.

“There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire,” he warned. “If therefore we yield up our temporal property, we at the same time deliver the conscience into bondage.”4

In that sense, then, Witherspoon believed ministers had a moral obligation to influence public life through their influence on the republic.

Fast forward to today

For the past several years, Dr. Jim Garlow, senior pastor of Skyline [Wesleyan] Church in San Diego for 23 years, has sought to publicly influence culture through the political sphere. He has spearheaded ministries to the United Nations and to members of Congress in Washington, D.C. He has taken a moral stand at a time when many pastors and churches are capitulating to the moral decline applauded by many liberals. He has sought to leverage politics to influence the culture, much as Witherspoon also did, recognizing that an immoral republic will never survive.

Dr. Garlow has been criticized continually for his support of biblical principles in the public square and conservative voices, even by other pastors (some within his own denomination). Naysayers notwithstanding, he has stepped out to make a difference at a time when America is in dire need of a clarion call to repentance and renewed reliance on (and obedience to) the God of our Founding Fathers.

Anonymous said...

Part 2

It should come as no surprise that God has now called Dr. Garlow to full-time ministry to government leaders in Washington and at the United Nations. He is in the process of transitioning from his pastoral leadership of Skyline to a ministry with a decidedly national and international focus. He will be more intentionally fulfilling the Great Commission by reaching entire nations with the urgency and transformative power of the Gospel. You see, the Great Commission at its core isn’t about evangelism; it’s about the discipleship of nations. Because each embassy or mission around the United Nations is a sovereign territory of that nation, Dr.Garlow’s summer intern at the UN was able to be in 70 different nations without ever getting in a car or on an airplane. Nowhere else in the world and at no other time in history has this ever been possible. The opportunities for changing the world are unprecedented.

Dr. Garlow will be taking up the mantle of the prophet Daniel, who became a leader in the court of Persia, and of John Witherspoon, who influenced the founding of our great nation according to the principles of Christian morality. Already, Nikki Haley, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, has expressed her support of the Hammarskjold Society, a ministry of Skyline Church operating within the United Nations. Bible studies have also been approved for the House of Representatives and among our senators and three departments and/or agencies.

You can read more about Dr. Garlow’s journey and calling at Charisma News.

What Can You Do?

I highly recommend Dr. Garlow’s newest book, co-written with historian David Barton, that was released earlier this month. This Precarious Moment: Six Urgent Steps That Will Save You, Your Family, and Our Country is an excellent treatise on the moral issues facing our country, how our Founding Fathers would have viewed them, and how we should approach them from a biblical standpoint. Every pastor – every American Christian — should read this book. The website ThisPrecariousMoment.com offers free small group Bible studies, videos, and discussion questions to help you put the principles of the book into practice. It has the potential to change America’s course:

“There are six serious problems – racial strife, a massive immigration disaster, failure to understand Israel’s role in the world, millennial thinking, misunderstanding of the nature of government, and a church that has capitulated to culture – that are screaming for solutions. And the good news is: there are steps we can take. In this book, Pastor James Garlow and evangelical political activist David Barton present fellow Christians with six steps America needs to take to prevent chaos at this precarious moment in history.” [Ad copy]

The bottom line is that Dr. Garlow is not going away. His influence will continue to grow and to be a force for God’s work in the world. Keep him in your prayers. I believe he will be the new John Witherspoon to provide a moral compass for America and to revitalize the church. If you’ve been shocked or concerned because of the decline of the church in America, hold onto your hats. There is a reason for hope. God is raising up godly leaders like Dr. Garlow (as He did in the time of the Judges) to save us from our enemies. God has heard our cry for help. And Dr. Garlow is answering His call to be an agent of grace and transformation.

The Wesleyan Resistance is committed to providing updates on Dr. Garlow’s ministry, so check back often or follow us on Facebook.

END NOTES

See Framer of the Framers by John Eidsmoe at The New American, January 8, 2009
See John Witherspoon at The Witherspoon Institute
See Minister to Freedom by Joseph Loconte at The Heritage Foundation, July 1, 2001
Ibid.


Anonymous said...

Part 3

We are “The Wesleyan Resistance” – not a resistance TO Wesleyans, but a resistance OF Wesleyans to the moral and theological compromise we see in today’s culture and in the church in general. We want to stand firm together and resist the downward spiral of culture into gross immorality. We believe if we resist the devil, he will flee from us” (James 4:7). In a day when our society is rising up and resisting traditional values, we want to be the resistance to the resistance. We won’t sit by quietly and let people take our country from us and silence our biblical beliefs. We want our uncompromising stand to be a witness to the world and a spark for revival in our land. That can only happen if we stand for truth and if we join hands together (young and old) as we move forward for the kingdom.

If you’d like some guidance in developing a biblical worldview, you might enjoy this podcast series. It will show you how we’ve been taken captive by the philosophies of the world and how you can break free by renewing your mind through God’s Word. Click below for more information.

Hey Jude said...

Why should he be expected to deny sexually assaulting, by name, someone he doesn't even know or more than vaguely remember?
It's so demeaning. Plus, as the number of allegations increases, his general "I have never sexually assaulted anyone" must be a bit of a timesaver. He also said, "I'm telling the truth" , which is difficult for anyone to say, if they are not.


Hey Jude said...

Isn't he referring to the accuser alleging she was assaulted thirty five/six years ago at a 'gathering' he did not attend?

You have to agree, at the very least, that the timing is suspect, and that, despite their memory issues and inability to find any corroboration for their claims, the accusers are quite prepared to destroy him, along with his reputation.

It's incomprehensible how the New Yorker published Ramirez's claims when she wasn't even sure which student might have exposed himself. How can that happen?

Hey Jude said...

Is it not malice, after thirty-five years, given the timing, and more significantly, that she was not sexually assaulted? She said he tried to 'disrobe' her - but apparently she was wearing a swimsuit, as you do, indoors. Her GoFundMe's are doing well.

Hey Jude said...

^ Referring to Christine Ford in my previous post.

How do they find it acceptable to make such flimsy allegations? It's doubtful they would have wracked their brains quite so much, and assessed their dodgy memories for quite so long, or thought to contact a senator and the New Yorker, if their subject was of no importance. It's doubtful anyone would have given their allegations the time of day either if they had not concerned such a high profile person.

John mcgowan said...

To add to my above OT.

Maddox Ritch’s Father Speaks on Search for His Son

ASTONIA, N.C. – The search continues for six-year-old Maddox Ritch. The little boy’s dad reported him missing on Saturday.

Maddox’s father sent WCCB Charlotte’s Morgan Fogarty a statement Monday saying:

“I want to thank everyone for showing up to search for Maddox and also thank everyone for their prayers. We are trying to help the police in any way possible. They are still asking the public to just wait and let the professionals handle the search.”

It was another busy day for crews searching for Maddox. They combed woods, searching through dumpsters, and draining back the Rankin Lake shoreline. Monday, they began searching further outside the park.

“We still want to do everything possible to find Maddox and we’re hopeful that we’ll be able to do that,” says FBI Supervisory Special Agent Jason Kaplan.

Maddox’s father told police Maddox ran ahead of him and another unknown adult at Rankin Lake Park Saturday. He says they lost sight of Maddox, who hasn’t been seen since.

Investigators released new pictures showing the t-shirt and type of shoes the boy was wearing. They say he is autistic and is non-verbal.

Police and Federal Agents say they aren’t ruling anything out. During a news conference, they were peppered with questions about the boy’s parents.

Rev. Raymond Johnson asked investigators why Maddox’s parents aren’t coming out and pleading for help.

“The child is out there and we don’t know where the child is, but you protecting the parents. This ain’t right, that don’t pass the smell test,” Johnson says.

Investigators say the boy’s parents are asking for privacy but are cooperating.

“We recorded messages from them and are playing those messages now so that if he’s lost in the woods, he’ll be able to hear those messages played, we’re hoping he’ll come to the words from his mother and father,” Kaplan says.

The Gastonia Police Chief was asked if the boy’s father is a suspect. He said, “You know at this time, we’re looking at all possibilities.”

https://www.wccbcharlotte.com/2018/09/24/maddox-ritchs-father-speaks-on-search-for-his-son/

Anonymous said...

Linda, what is wrong with telling people you were a virgin? Why are you mocking him for that? They have wanted to know everything else about him, and asked. It's relevant considering the accusations, esp. considering the corner he has been pushed into by an out of control, fearful, desperate, dangerous, torch carrying lynch mob. It also speaks to his character. If you don't want to know such things, then don't wildly accuse men being considered for the SC of the US of being rape train gang bangers.

The truth is, people who use that word you used in your third sentence, don't have it.

John mcgowan said...

I wish i knew who this is?

"Maddox please don't give up. Baby please don't give up. If you're alive and out there come home, please just come home. And be alive. That's all i can keep thinking is be alive"

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=329516080928098&id=626747080763618

Hey Jude said...

John - according to this video, the lady is a total stranger/neighbour - she speaks here also:

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/boy-with-special-needs-missing-from-gastonia-park/839491236

Hey Jude said...

Also, maybe there or on a linked page - The parents are asking for privacy, a minister of religion has criticised them for such, and the FBI is asking people to not criticise them.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous - you are correct in principle but he had 2 accusers at the time of the interview so we must reduce the level of sensitivity.

Additionally as another anon wrote below Ford has also not said she's a victim of sexual assault.

In SA we must understand the greater as well as lesser context when analyzing.

There is without doubt an innocent victim(s) in all this and I hope that justice is served. However I see the democratic process globally is under severe threat so I'm not sure whether true justice will be met.

Hey Jude said...

The victims are Judge Kavanaugh and his wife and children, who are probably traumatised by the sleazy attacks upon their husband and father. He is the one asking for fairness, that both sides be heard - that his own voice also be heard.

Unknown said...


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Linda, what is wrong with telling people you were a virgin?



there is a lot of sensitivity with virgin and said poster.

Anonymous said...

I don't think MacCallum is a good interviewer. Half her questions were yes or no questions instead of just letting him talk. Plus several times she interrupted him before he could finish.

I got the feeling Judge K had a mental script that he was working from because he had like five key phrases he kept using over and over, 'dignity and respect', 'defend my integrity', 'I want to be heard' 'fair process' etc.

But in between those repeated key phrases he did say: "I didn’t do this or anything resembling this." "I'm telling the truth." He also said of the flashing allegation "The incident did not happen." "I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years there after."

Those are all reliable truthful statements.

Anon-J

lawyer said...

Peter,

I highly admire you for your work. I am a longtime lurker on your blog.

I do wonder though, whether you still look at the situation with professional eyes. To me, it seems like your political view is affecting your professionalism.

you wrote:

"Kavanagh demanded a hearing. She refused to address

The ploy is revealed as she refused to speak until her demand was met.

FBI investigation.

This was made knowing the FBI does not investigate local crime as well as 36 year old allegation.

This indicates a desire to delay and defeat nomination by any means.

Our nation slides more and more into a 3rd world cesspool.

Leftism is not about women rights, civil rights or any specific issue.

It is about control.

It’s why adult core values can be claimed to “change” late in life.

It is untrue it is to exploit.

This is why Leftism not only has no standard but it is why it must be intolerant and leads to tyranny and eventual violence. "

These words show us, where you stand politically. And it is clear that you feel so strongly. It makes me flabergasted to see that you look at the world in such a black and white way. I always thought you would differenciate much more.

Peter Hyatt said...

Lawyer:

Yes.

The left has made everything political.

The political motive is in her statement. She is not a victim nor survivor, but a "constituent."

My political view is this: the last person you or I should trust with our social lives, sex lives, food, health, private lives, etc, is a politician.

The less politicians are involved in our lives, the better we get along, produce, and function.

We are looking at extremism that is not about politics, but about control. This is why the nation changed so dramatically, before our eyes, in breathtaking speed.

Context of this false allegation is political.

The unreliable denial (which became firmer last night) is due to the lack of a specific allegation. "Never" is not reliable, but it is contextually fitting.

This is deception and it is politically motivated.

Corruption, by nature, grows.

I love this country, in spite of our faults, and in spite of our need to reform always.

To avoid political context here is to disengage from Statement Analysis.

Peter

lawyer said...

Thanks for the fast reply.

I am german, so please dont analyse my words too much. I am happy when I can bring my thoughts somehow into english language ;-)

I find it just hard to see that in the US, not even smart people like you are able to see the grey areas anymore.

Please, my friend, try to stay as open minded as possible. I do the same :-)

And: I love this country too. I am even in the process of moving into the US.

Anonymous said...

The FBI did look into it an found it to be lacking as a case.

Anonymous said...

To exploit is to seek control Pay attention questions will be asked.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

If Blasey Ford cannot make the allegations via legal channels (police report, subsequent non-partisan investigation, public courtroom proceedings), she should be denied private one-on-one meetings with Senate Judicial Committee members/ closed door Committee testimony.

She cannot claim victim trauma status to preclude public testimony or public scrutiny-she forfeited that by choosing to contact the leading Democrat on the Judicial Committee and releasing media statements. Had Justice been her goal, there would have been a police report. Considering the Chairman of the Judicial Committee is a Republican, her letter should have been addressed to him-regardless of whether the potential appointee was Democratic or Republican. She further forfeited all rights to privacy by contacting Feinstein and issuing statements to the Washington Post. One cannot lawyer up, lodge an unsubstantiated, unvetted explosive and exploitative charge against a supreme Court nominee via the opposing political party leading Judicial Committee member, and then cry foul because the media and the public are paying attention, investigating, questioning, and utilizing their Constitutional rights to free speech (whether in support or death threats).

It is not without merit to note that Blasey Ford's letter was also sent to a leading Democratic woman, rather than filing a police report. Senator Diane Feinstein's calls to "show some heart" and "[Blasey Ford] shouldn't be rushed" aren't designed to further judicial process either. As a woman first (Democratic prioritizing women voter base and #MeToo movement), as a law-maker, and as one of two high-ranking Senators on the , the expectation is the Feinstein's primary focus would be on the constitutional legal process- police report, subsequent police investigation detailing allegations and evidence of the crime committed, open court hearing and trial presenting evidence of the crime, judge or bench trial jury weighing evidence and determining guilt or innocence, and trial sentencing.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who delayed 3 months to broach the accusations, cannot afford to wait and allow the judicial process to naturally proceed. By that time, confirmation hearings would be over and Kavanaugh potentially would have successfully secured Senatorial confirmation and been confirmed a Supreme court Justice. Instead, she she chose to scheme (having knowledge of a "criminal assault" and failing to report it to any Capitol Hill Police officer regularly patrolling Congress, failing as a Judicial Committee member to report a known allegation against a sitting Circuit Court Judge, and colluding with the alleged victim to subvert Constitutional due process for another citizen-in the interest of politics) to derail a Supreme Court confirmation process that she/the Democratic Party could not otherwise control.

Blasey Ford cannot be allowed to bypass and usurp the legal system. It sets a dangerous precedent going forward, bypassing every citizen's Constitutional right to due process.

John mcgowan said...

Speaks out

What Brett Kavanaugh Got Wrong About Maryland’s Drinking Age in Fox News Interview

Brett Kavanaugh got it wrong when he discussed Maryland’s drinking age in the summer of 1982 during his Monday night interview on Fox News Channel’s The Story with Martha MacCallum.

Near the end of the first segment, host Martha MacCallum ran through some of the more recent allegations leveled against Kavanaugh by attorney Michael Avenatti. Specifically, allegations of group sex or “gang rape” involving women who had been plied with extreme amounts of drugs and/or alcohol.

MacCallum asked, “Did you ever participate in or where you ever aware of any gang-rape that happened at a party that you attended?”

Kavanaugh flatly denied the gang rape charge, calling it “totally false and outrageous,” before pivoting to an admission, of sorts, about Georgetown Prep’s hard-partying culture. Kavanaugh said:

And yes, there were parties. And the drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there. And yes, people might have had too many beers on occasion…

That’s not quite true–at least not fully.

After a nationwide pressure campaign waged by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Maryland voluntarily raised their alcohol purchase age to 21 on July 1, 1982. According to a Washington Post article from that day:

Starting today, most Marylanders must be 21 year old, instead of 18, to drink any alcoholic beverage legally.

Because the controversial new drinking-age law does not affect those who are already 18, 19, or 20 years old, the law’s immediate effect will be on those turning 18 today and in the future.

John mcgowan said...

The [state House] committee approved a compromise bill to raise the age to 21 and to “grandfather” in those persons now legally allowed to drink. Under that bill, anyone who turns 18 after July 1 would have to wait three years to drink. Anyone 18 years old before July 1 could continue to drink legally.

Would the grandfathering clause have applied to Kavanaugh? It would not have. As Law&Crime’s Matt Naham noted in a separate piece on Michael Avenatti’s recent claims regarding the Supreme Court nominee:

Either way, Kavanaugh would have been 17 at the time and not legally able to drink, as he was born on Feb. 12, 1965. Seniors who were “grandfathered in” would have been able to.

But let’s tread a bit carefully here.

Nowhere in the MacCallum interview did Kavanaugh himself admit to drinking while at Georgetown Prep. Rather, he made the above-mentioned references to “parties” and “the drinking age,” while also noting, “the seniors were legal and had beer there. And yes, people might have had too many beers on occasion…”

As a senior during that time, however, Kavanaugh appears to be alluding to himself. If so, he definitely got it wrong. And, in any event, he didn’t get it exactly right. Some seniors might have been grandfathered in to the legal drinking age–but Kavanaugh himself was not. And, without putting too fine a point on it, the drinking age was only 18 years old until roughly halfway through the summer in question.

And at another point in the interview, MacCallum noted and asked, “Sir, you are going to be pressed on something that you just said about people do things in high school, and you were all drinking, were there times when perhaps you drank so much – was there ever a time that you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened the night before?”

To which Kavanaugh replied, “No, that never happened.”

Again, Kavanaugh answered the question–but vaguely. And, again, he did not explicitly admit to drinking.

The controversial Supreme Court nominee seems to be categorically denying various much-discussed blackout drinking episodes which have become part of the Kavanaugh lore thanks to the writings of his longtime friend and conservative compatriot Mark Judge, but Kavanaugh didn’t confirm or deny drinking one way or another. Of course, another way to read this answer is that he tacitly admitted to underage drinking while simply denying the blackout charges.

TL;DR–if Kavanaugh drank in high school, he did so underage. And he got the law wrong about what the legal age was at the time. For almost any other political entity in the world, this would probably be a small potatoes sort of non-issue–if that. But we’re talking about a Supreme Court nominee who’s being called to account for his behavior and who has been accused of a pattern of untruthfulness, deceit and outright lying.

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/what-brett-kavanaugh-got-wrong-about-marylands-drinking-age-in-fox-news-interview/

Anonymous said...

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/hes-smooth-liar-body-language-expert-busts-kavanaugh-lying-wanting-fairness-fox-news/

tania cadogan said...

"Maddox please don't give up. Baby please don't give up. If you're alive and out there come home, please just come home. And be alive. That's all i can keep thinking is be alive"
It would be hard for him to be dead and come home.
he would have to be found and brought home.

Alex said...

Dear Lynda,

Please read this story. It may give a little insight as to why many of us believe the process to confirm a SCOTUS nominee is politicized.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/09/25/george-stephanopoulos-slammed-for-saying-trump-always-sides-with-men-on-sexual-misconduct-claims.html


Alex

Anonymous said...

Watch Michelle O. and Listen as she intones, phrases and gestures just like her husband. How did that happen?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lbb1Y6f6hE

John mcgowan said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Watch Michelle O. and Listen as she intones, phrases and gestures just like her husband. How did that happen?

when a couple have been together for a long period of time they do start to use the same mannerisms, and phrases and gestures as you stated. you will also find when in their company how in sink long term partners can be, even down to finishing one and others sentences..
Its not as rare as some may think.

Anonymous said...

Coaching and acting maybe?

Anonymous said...

So many TV news persons have the same way of talking and phrasing and intoning too. Taught.

John mcgowan said...

OT:


Father 'Heartbroken' as Search Continues for Son, 6, with Autism Who Vanished from Park


It’s been more than three days since 6-year-old Maddox Ritch disappeared from a North Carolina park. Now, the boy’s father, Ian Ritch, says he’s overcome with guilt, wishing he had done things differently on that fateful day.

Maddox, who has autism and limited verbal skills, was walking with his father and another adult at Gastonia’s Rankin Lake Park around 1:30 p.m. local time on Saturday when he took off running. Maddox hasn’t been seen since, and more than a dozen law enforcement agencies have launched a days-long search to find the little boy.

“These past few days have been hell for me. I’m so broken. I’m heartbroken,” Ian, 42, of Concord, tells PEOPLE. “Every time it gets dark at night I burst into tears because I’m thinking, ‘My little boy is out there alone.’ The longer [the search is] going the harder it gets because I’m so worried. He hasn’t had anything to eat or drink.”

Ian says he and his friend were walking with Maddox near the lake when the playful boy took off running behind a jogger. It’s common for Maddox to run around, so Ian allowed the boy to jog ahead for fun, he says. But when Maddox began running faster, Ian says he took off after him and wasn’t able to catch up with his son before losing sight of the boy.

“I was terrified. I didn’t know which direction he went so I looked as hard as I could, I went different ways and everything,” the grieving father tells PEOPLE. “I tried to find him. I don’t know where he went. Usually when he takes off running he’ll slow down and stop for me to catch up with him. This time he never stopped.”

RELATED: Massive Search Underway for 6-Year-Old Boy with Autism Who Vanished from North Carolina Park

Ian says park staff helped him search the area before calling police. He contacted Maddox’s mother, Carrie Ritch, who was “hysterical” when he broke the news.

Maddox is 4’0″ and was last seen wearing an orange t-shirt that read “I am the man” along with black shorts. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is also assisting in the search, and officials wrote on the site that Maddox may be in need of medical attention.

In a Facebook post on Monday, Carrie wrote that authorities are doing all they can to find her son.

“My main focus is bringing him home. Thank you all for your love and support. I am completly (sic) heart broken. I need him home. I want him in my arms. I want to see his smile and hear his precious laughter. I know God is with him protecting him.”

Carrie did not immediately respond to a request for comment from PEOPLE. City officials confirm to PEOPLE that she and Ian are cooperating with police in the investigation.

FBI officials in Charlotte have also joined the search, and one agent, Jason Kaplan, said in a weekend news conference that authorities are working to determine whether Maddox was abducted or is simply lost.

“I was thinking he was lost in the woods, now I’m not so sure,” Ian tells PEOPLE. “They’ve been looking for days and haven’t found anything. I’m starting to worry. It’s been too long. They had so many search and rescue [teams] that they should have found him by now.”

In the days since the incident, Ian says he’s been overcome with guilt, adding that feeling at fault has only added to his heartache.

“People are making it out like I did something to him. I would never hurt my little boy. I love him to death and I just want him back. I’ve been feeling the blame since this happened. I just wish I would have caught him before he got too far away from me. It’s broken my heart to think that I just let him get too far away.”

Ian and authorities have urged anyone with information to call the police department’s tip line at 704-869-1075.

https://people.com/human-interest/father-missing-north-carolina-boy-with-autism-maddox-ritch-speaks-out/

Anonymous said...

OT: Knobloch reporter Nina Moini

Part 1

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/09/21/reporters-notebook-how-i-did-the-story

This is an unusual story and a tough story. We thought you should know what went into my reporting.

I first talked to Laura Knoblach nearly two years ago, during a time when many reporters were reaching out to her.

It was December 2016, and she had written a public Facebook post accusing her father, state Rep. Jim Knoblach, R-St. Cloud, of "molesting" her for "most of her life."

Her phone number was listed publicly on her profile back then.

I called her and we talked a few times in the following weeks as she told me about her allegations. I worked for WCCO-TV at the time. She didn't tell me our conversations were off the record, but I didn't record them.

After a few weeks, I stopped hearing from her. I did not hear from her until more than a year later, on Feb. 22, 2018. She texted me and told me she felt ready to tell her story. By then, I was working for MPR News.

During that year we didn't speak, the Sherburne County Sheriff's Office had investigated the case, and the county attorney's office declined to file any charges against Jim Knoblach.

Laura Knoblach told me that she had taken some time after that decision to seek counseling for depression and anxiety.

She told me she wanted to move forward with sharing her story with MPR News.

I consulted with my MPR News editors and we decided to look into her allegations with the condition that she would need to give us significant documentation if we were going to pursue the story.

She agreed to request a copy of the investigative case file from the Sherburne County Sheriff's Office and to share those documents with MPR News.

She told me she reached out to Sheriff Joel Brott to obtain her case file on March 6, 2018.

Because the case involved allegations of possible sex crimes involving a minor, Minnesota data practices law says those records should be sealed to protect the privacy of the accuser. So she could get her own case file, but no one else could.

After she obtained her case file, she told me she was still reading through it on March 20, 2018.

The file included hundreds of pages of interviews with her, several of her friends, some family members and trusted adults she had reached out to in her childhood.

Anonymous said...

Part 2

The case file makes no mention of any attempt to reach Jim Knoblach. Brott eventually told me that Jim Knoblach, through an attorney, declined to be interviewed.

On May 12, 2018, Laura Knoblach sent me the file transcripts. She apologized via text for being "radio silent for a month."

I don't know why she waited to give me the materials, but I did not feel it was ethical for me to push someone into giving me something so personal, so I gave her as much time as she needed.

At this point, I then had to work to corroborate what was in the case file by reaching out to as many people interviewed as possible.

We also submitted several records requests to different counties in which the Knoblach family had lived.

We were also looking for information that would support Jim Knoblach's claim the alleged behavior never happened.

Many of the records requests came back within days, but some records requested did not become available to MPR News until Sept. 13, 2018.

MPR News did not consider the election a factor when taking the time necessary to thoroughly report this story.

During this research process, I also traveled to Boulder, Colo., to interview Laura Knoblach in person. I interviewed her for four hours at her home on July 5, 2018.

At this time, I asked her to go back to authorities and request the audio components in her case file. That would confirm that the transcripts we had already received were accurate and hadn't been altered.

She told me she submitted the request for the audio recordings on Aug. 14, 2018.

On Sept. 5, 2018, I received a CD with audio recordings from the investigation. The recordings matched the written transcripts exactly.

On Sept. 10, 2018, I contacted Jim Knoblach seeking his response to the allegations and he let me know his attorney would be in touch with me.

On Sept. 21, 2018, I interviewed Susan Gaertner, who had represented Jim Knoblach during the criminal investigation.

That same day, we broadcast and published our reporting.

John mcgowan said...

a part time park employee called in that #MaddoxRitch was missing. Felt police needed to get involved. #WBTV

WBTV Ben Williamson on Twitter

So Dad didn't call in. This is most unusual. Dad would be the one with all the information to relay to LE in finding Maddox.

Why would he allow someone else to call in?

911 is his first lifeline?

frommindtomatter said...

John mcgowan said

"So Dad didn't call in. This is most unusual. Dad would be the one with all the information to relay to LE in finding Maddox".


He seems to be letting others do the work for him.

“I was thinking he was lost in the woods, now I’m not so sure,” Ian tells PEOPLE. “[b]They’ve[/b] been looking for days and haven’t found anything. [b]I’m starting to worry.[/b] It’s been too long. [b]They[/b] had so many search and rescue [teams] that [b]they[/b] should have found him by now.”

“People are making it out like I did something to him. I would never hurt my little boy. I love him to [b]death[/b] and I just want him back. I’ve been feeling the blame since this happened. I just wish I would have caught him before he got too far away from me. It’s broken my heart to think that I [b]just[/b] let him get too far away.”

Mike Dammann said...

"At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial."
There is something missing here. She doesn't say "At one point when REDACTED jumped on me", but "onto the bed". At what point and how did the weight get on her? And what else happened in the meantime between jumping on the bed and getting substantial weight on her?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 262   Newer› Newest»