For liberals, facts are painful.
The sex crimes prosecutor brought on by the Senate Judiciary Committee to assist with
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings not only said that she
would not have pressed charges against Kavanaugh in the case, she found the evidence presented
by his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, was decidedly weaker even than a "he said, she
said" situation.
In a memo released late Sunday, Rachel Mitchell questioned Ford's version of events, including
the shifting timeline of when the attack occurred, Ford's inability to remember how she got
home, the ambiguity of her willingness to remain anonymous, and the failure of other
witnesses to back up her story.
"In a legal context, here is my bottom line: A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly
difficult to prove," the Arizona prosecutor said at the beginning of the memo, which can
be viewed here.
The document was addressed to "All Republican Senators."
"But this case is even weaker than that.
Dr. Ford identified other witnesses in the event, and those witnesses either refuted
her allegations or failed to corroborate them.
For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring
this case based on the evidence before the Committee.
Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence
standard."
Among the major problems Mitchell had was the fact that Ford could not give "a consistent
account of when the alleged assault happened."
In her conversations with The Washington Post, for instance, she said it was the "mid 1980s,"
which shifted to the "early '80s" in a letter to California Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
Therapy notes seemed to indicate she said it happened in her "late teens," while
Ford's eventual account had her at age 15.
While Ford eventually narrowed it down to the summer of 1982, Mitchell remained unconvinced.
"While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how
she was suddenly able to narrow the time frame to a particular season and particular year,"
Mitchell wrote.
Mitchell also referred back to notes taken by Ford's therapist in 2012, which did not
seem to identify Kavanaugh by name.
The first time her husband recalled hearing a name was in 2012, Mitchell wrote, when Kavanaugh
was "widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won
the presidential election."
Mitchell also took aim at Ford's memories of the party where she claimed the alleged
sexual assault happened.
She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was
located with any specificity," Mitchell wrote.
"Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to
her house."
She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club.
The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified
that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home."
While Ford was able to describe details of the night — including "hiding in the bathroom,
locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house," the drive back is more elusive.
Ford "has no memory of who drove her or when.
Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver," Mitchell wrote.
"Given that all of this took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not
have been easy.
Indeed, she stated she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state
that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone
else thereafter."
The memo also notes the inconsistencies in Ford's accounts of who was at the party
and her discussions with The Washington Post, and the fact that Ford "refused to provide
any of her therapy notes to the Committee."
(italics in the original) Mitchell did not examine Kavanaugh's testimony
in the memo.
However, this kind of analysis, one assumes, is why the Ford team did not want a sex crimes
prosecutor present at the hearing.
This was something that the left was crowing about the moment this hit the news wires,
as evinced by the reaction of BuzzFeed's legal editor, Chris Geidner:
Be very clear: This is a political document, nothing more.
It is not a legal document from a prosecutor.
Mitchell was not allowed to continue questioning Kavanaugh, has not been allowed to chase down
any leads, and, in any event, this is not a criminal trial.
For more infomation >> Sex Investigator Issues Her Report: Absolutely Takes Ford Apart - Duration: 4:59.-------------------------------------------
Hannity: Feinstein playing politics with Ford's claims - Duration: 15:44.
For more infomation >> Hannity: Feinstein playing politics with Ford's claims - Duration: 15:44. -------------------------------------------
Dem Asked If Her Party Leaked Confidential Ford Letter, Her Response Says Everything - Duration: 3:57.
A top Democrat was asked if her party leaked the confidential letter Christine Blasey Ford
sent to Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Democrat Sen. Diane Feinstein, and her response
says everything.
During an interview on ABC's "This Week," Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, was asked about
the letter Ford sent to Feinstein two months ago, which detailed allegations that Supreme
Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her nearly four decades ago at a
high school party.
Feinstein claims she didn't reveal the letter to anyone, but it was mysteriously leaked
days before a crucial Committee vote to confirm Kavanaugh.
When ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Hirono if she or anyone from the Democratic Party
leaked the letter, she flat-out refused to answer.
"Are you confident the Democrats didn't leak that letter, and how do you respond to
Senator Graham's charge that it was inappropriate for the Democrats to refer Dr. Blasey Ford
to a lawyer?"
Hirono was asked.
"All of these things do not focus on what we should be focusing, which is the credibility
of Judge Kavanaugh," Hirono said.
After deflecting the real issue of Ford's credibility, when asked again about the leak,
Hirono deflected.
"And, by the way, even as all of these accusations about this being politically motivated are
being tossed around, everyone acknowledges, including Judge Kavanaugh, that Dr. Ford is
not being politically motivated," Hirono said, who has suggested Kavanaugh didn't
deserve due process because of his conservative legal philosophy.
Whomever leaked the letter could be facing serious legal trouble, and could face jail
time.
Leaking confidential information from Congress is a felony, which may explain why Hirono
refused to answer the question.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has called for an investigation into Feinstein's office
to see who leaked Ford's letter and allegations to the media.
Graham has been demanding an investigation for weeks, and said the person who "betrayed
Dr. Ford's trust" should be held responsible.
"We're going to do a wholesale, full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable
process to deter it from happening again.
The FBI will do a supplemental background investigation, then I'm going to call for
an investigation of what happened in this committee.
Who betrayed Dr. Ford's trust?
Who in Feinstein's office recommended Katz as a lawyer?
Why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California?"
There are obviously a number of questions surrounding Ford's shoddy allegations, why
Feinstein refused to tell anyone for two months about the letter received from Ford, and who
leaked it to the media days prior to Kavanaugh's confirmation vote.
Kavanaugh has strongly denied the allegations, and many of the witnesses Ford claims were
at the party in question have told the Senate they never witnessed Kavanaugh doing anything
that Ford alleges.
Ford also has no memory of who invited her to the party, how she heard about it, how
she got to the alleged party, what house the assault allegedly took place at, where that
house is located, or how she got from the party back to her home.
And Hirono's refusal to answer if Democrats leaked the letter to the media speaks volumes,
and shows many people how dirty the Left is playing to harm Kavanaugh.
-------------------------------------------
Sen. Hirono is Asked if Dems Leaked Ford's Letter – Her Answer Speaks VOLUMES - Duration: 2:12.
During an interview with ABC, Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono refused to deny that the Democrats
leaked Dr. Ford's letter.
Today, Senator Tom Cotton announced that Senator Dianne Feinstein would be investigated for
the leak, as rumors swirl that one of her high-level staffers is responsible.
The Democrats want to play a game here, pretending that 1) Ford's sketchy allegations are credible
and 2) this entire sham is not political.
They truly think the American people are stupid.
Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono would not deny that Democrats leaked Ford's letter
-------------------------------------------
Ford 'Exposed' In Major Evidence – Dems Desperate To Bury It By 'All Means Possible' - Duration: 6:08.
For more infomation >> Ford 'Exposed' In Major Evidence – Dems Desperate To Bury It By 'All Means Possible' - Duration: 6:08. -------------------------------------------
After Ford's Lawyer Tells Major Lie, DC Bar Association Delivers Devatating News - Duration: 4:23.
On CBS' "Face The Nation" on Sunday, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) revealed that Christine
Blasey Ford's lawyer was guilty of telling a major lie.
Now, the D.C. bar association is stepping in to make her pay.
Last week on Capitol Hill, the Judiciary Committee saw perhaps the tensest hearing in Senate
history as Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the woman who has accused him
of attempting to rape her 36-years-ago, Christine Blasey Ford, both told their sides of a decades-old
story.
On Sunday, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton sat down with CBS' "Face The Nation" to
offer his take on the debacle.
"After watching the hearings — you were a supporter of Brett Kavanaugh's — how
did you process the new information that came out in the hearings?" asked anchor John
Dickerson.
Cotton replied by starting at the very beginning.
"Well, John, first off, let's understand why we had to have this hearing," he said.
"Miss Ford made these allegations in a confidential letter to Dianne Feinstein in July, shortly
after Brett Kavanaugh was nominated.
The very night he was nominated, Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, said that he would
do everything in his power to stop the nomination.
And that's what happened."
"For three months, the Democrats have turned the advise and consent process into a search
and destroy mission," added Cotton, according to Breitbart.
"These allegations are completely unsupported by any evidence.
What evidence there is to a 36-year-old claim, all support Judge Kavanaugh's denial.
But the Democrats have disgraced this process and the United States Senate in the orchestrated
smear campaign of character assassination they have run against Judge Kavanaugh."
Dickerson retorted, "Their argument, of course, was that Dr. Ford asked to have this
held in confidentiality and that they tried to do that.
And that's what it was…"
No no no no no," Cotton cut in, refusing to allow the news anchor the opportunity to
spread more lies in defense of the Democrats.
"No, John, let me talk to you about that," said Cotton.
"There is a well established process of confidentiality on the committee.
Dianne Feinstein could have showed that letter to Chuck Grassley and the two of them, as
the leaders of that committee could have shared it with the FBI who could have discreetly
conducted this inquiry in July and in August without betraying Miss Ford's confidences.
And they have betrayed her.
They pointed her to lawyers who lied to her and did not tell her that the committee staff
was willing to go to California to interview her.
Now, all of that is water under the bridge."
Then, the GOP senator dropped a bombshell that should have Feinstein and Ford's uber-liberal
legal team, including her attorney Debra Katz, sweating bullets: "Those lawyers are going
to face a D.C. bar investigation into their misconduct," said Cotton.
"Dianne Feinstein and her staff is going to face an investigation for why they leaked
that.
All of this could have been done discreetly.
It happens hundreds of times — HUNDREDS OF TIMES — every year in the Judiciary Committee."
A stunned Dickerson tried to downplay the severity of what Sen. Cotton had just said.
"It does not happen…
It does not happen hundreds of times with… with issues that are this sensitive, but let's…"
Dickerson stammered.
"No, John it does," Cotton cut in.
"It's designed for issues that are sensitive, John.
It's designed for issues like this."
Of course, Feinstein and her minions were hoping no one would mention the Senate's
well-established process of maintaining the confidentiality of accusers.
She could have done this the right way.
She could have gone to Grassley and the FBI with Ford's claims when there was still
ample time for them to be investigated before Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing.
But, instead, she sat on Ford's letter for six weeks, never breathing a word, even as
Kavanaugh participated in 65 different meetings with senators and testified for hours and
hours before lawmakers.
Then, on the eve of the judge's confirmation, having been entirely unsuccessful at thwarting
him through legitimate means, Feinstein finally made Ford's allegations public, igniting
a political firestorm.
She ought to be investigated.
So should Ford's lawyers.
They were complicit in this sleazy political hit job, and it has cost their client — and
one of the finest judges in the history of our country — greatly.
-------------------------------------------
BREAKING: Christine Ford Wrote 2008 Article Teaching Hypnosis To Create "ARTIFICIAL SITUATIONS" - Duration: 4:00.
The story of the college professor who serves as the foundation for the slime and destroy
attack against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh continues to present more questions
than answers despite what the media would lead the public to believe.
While Christine Blasey Ford disproved many skeptics when she showed up in Washington
last week for her hotly anticipated testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, her
demeanor has been described by some as strange and possibly coached or rehearsed.
Or maybe it was something else, something that could be far more sinister.
According to a bombshell report from Sean Davis of The Federalist, Dr. Ford was the
co-author of a 2008 study that – get this – examined the use of " hypnosis to "assist
in the retrieval of important memories" and to "create artificial situations"
for treatment.
Which begs the question as to the role of such hypnosis in the memories of Ford's
evidence-free accusations of Kavanaugh and his buddy Mark Judge.
Via The Federalist, "Kavanaugh Accuser Co-Authored Study Citing Use Of Hypnosis To Retrieve Memories":
Christine Blasey Ford, a California woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh of attempted rape in the 1980's, co-authored an academic study that cited the
use of hypnosis as a tool to retrieve memories in traumatized patients.
The academic paper, entitled "Meditation With Yoga, Group Therapy With Hypnosis, and
Psychoeducation for Long-Term Depressed Mood: A Randomized Pilot Trial," described the
results of a study the tested the efficacy of certain treatments on 46 depressed individuals.
The study was published by the Journal of Clinical Psychology in May 2008.
While the paper by Ford and several other co-authors focused on whether various therapeutic
techniques, including hypnosis, alleviate depression, it also discussed the therapeutic
use of hypnosis to "assist in the retrieval of important memories" and to "create
artificial situations" to assist in treatment.
Ford's paper cited a controversial 1964 paper on the use of hypnosis to treat alcoholics
and claimed that "hypnosis could be used to improve rapport in the therapeutic relationship,
assist in the retrieval of important memories, and create artificial situations that would
permit the client to express ego-dystonic emotions in a safe manner."
The study by Ford and her co-authors also used "self-hypnosis" to help treat their
randomized sample of patients.
Read the entire article HERE.
According to the abstract from the study, "Meditation with yoga, group therapy with
hypnosis, and psychoeducation for long‐term depressed mood: a randomized pilot trial"
the authors are listed as:
Lisa D. Butler Lynn C. Waelde T. Andrew Hastings Xin‐Hua Chen Barbara Symons Jonathan Marshall
Adam Kaufman Thomas F. Nagy Christine M. Blasey Elizabeth O. Seibert David Spiegel.
It's a helluva find considering how so much of Ford's history seems to not be readily
available online.
As of Monday evening and even with the FBI now conducting yet another investigation into
Kavanaugh, Ford and her backers STILL have not provided the all-important therapy notes
that have been taken as gospel by the media, the political left, the media and likely the
triad of Flake-Collins-Murkowski.
To quote "Alice In Wonderland" author Lewis Carroll, things are becoming "curiouser
and curiouser!"
And this study is most curious indeed…
-------------------------------------------
Christine Ford Wrote About Using Hypnosis To 'Retrieve Memories' & 'Create Situations' - Duration: 4:11.
One of Prof. Christine Blasey Ford's academic articles, published in 2008, included a study
on hypnosis in psychology and claimed that the practice of "self-hypnosis" can be
used to retrieve suppressed memories and "create artificial situations."
The research paper, co-authored by Prof. Ford and titled Meditation With Yoga, Group Therapy
With Hypnosis, and Psychoeducation for Depressed Mood: A Pilot Study," raises serious legal
questions about Christine Ford, a Professor of Psychology at California's Palo Alto
University, and the legitimacy of her Senate testimony.
More specifically, it raises the question — did Prof. Ford "retrieve" her hazy
memory of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the sexual assault she alleges he committed upon her
as a teenager while she was under the type of hypnotic trance she has written about in
her research?
Was Prof. Ford attempting to retrieve her own "suppressed memories?"
If so, Prof. Ford's testimony may be taken seriously in psychological circles, but the
legitimacy of her testimony is shot to pieces in legal terms.
Prof. Christine Blasey Ford refused to turn over her therapist's notes to the Senate
regarding her scattershot and suppressed memories about Judge Kavanaugh allegedly assaulting
her in the early 1980s.
This may be because if Prof. Ford's memories were "discovered" through hypnosis they
would be "absolutely inadmissible" in a court of law in many states, including New
York and Maryland.
christine-ford-academic-essay Front page of the research paper co-authored
by Christine Ford (as Christine M. Blasey) which promotes the use
of hypnosis to retrieve suppressed memories.
christine-blasey-ford-self-hypnosis Excerpt from Prof. Christine Ford's published
article.
With the kind of revelations coming out about Prof. Ford's back story, it is no wonder
her social media and academic history was largely scrubbed by mysterious helpers just
before she made her appearance in the public eye.
-------------------------------------------
Tom Cotton: Dianne Feinstein Will Be Investigated Over Leak of Christine Ford's Letter - Duration: 3:22.
For more infomation >> Tom Cotton: Dianne Feinstein Will Be Investigated Over Leak of Christine Ford's Letter - Duration: 3:22. -------------------------------------------
5 Major Problems With Dr. Ford's Testimony That Could Ensure Kavanaugh Gets The Vote - Duration: 5:19.
The whole nation sat next to their TV yesterday to listen to the Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's
testimony where she accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of a sexual assault.
There were two types of people watching yesterday.
Those on the right who tend to watch with an open mind and try to be fair and those
on the left are basically ruled by nothing more than emotion and their hate towards conservatives
and the white American male.
The same white American male who is responsible for the creation of our great nation but now
seems to be branded as the evilest thing since the creation of Satan.
Leaving aside all the left wing hate, if you actually listened to Dr. Ford's testimony,
you could not help but find at least five inconsistencies and contradictions.
Here is more via PJ Media:
"1.
She still can not confirm the basics of her account
She can tell everyone definitively that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, but she
does not know when, where, who took her there or picked her up (she was 15), or pretty much
anything of significance.
She has no facts, no corroboration, no medical report, no police report.
There is nothing but a claim from a woman with a bad memory and a story contradicted
by all her own witnesses.
At this point, there is not even any evidence that there was a party at all, much less that
Kavanaugh was there or that anything happened between Kavanaugh and Ford.
2.
There's the polygraph weirdness Rachel Mitchell, a sex crimes prosecutor in
Maricopa County, Arizona, who questioned Ford today, went out on what seems to be a strange
tangent about the polygraph that Ford took in August.
Surprisingly, it still prompted Ford to say a couple of very strange things.
Ford said the polygraph was done in Maryland because of her grandmother's funeral and
she was asked if it was done on the same day as her grandmother's funeral.
Ford did not know the answer to that question.
Mitchell also asked if she paid for the polygraph, which would normally be quite expensive, and
again, Ford said she does not know.
If Ford does not have a clear memory of big events that happened to her LAST MONTH, how
can anyone be sure her memory of what happened 36 years ago is correct?
Was Kavanaugh involved?
You would not think someone could get confused about something like that, but you would also
think someone would know if she spent thousands of dollars paying for a polygraph last month.
3.
She could have testified in California At one point, in response to Mitchell's
comment about how this was not the best forum to explore her allegations, Ford agreed it
would have been better if she could have testified at home without having to do this publicly
in D.C. — except she could have done exactly that.
Not only was the offer made to her legal team, but there were also news articles about it.
It was not a secret.
So either Ford is lying or perhaps worse yet, she really does not know what's going on
and her legal team unnecessarily tossed her into the meat grinder for political purposes.
4.
Ford's fear of flying is fake Ford's own lawyers have been publicly claiming
that she's too frightened to fly and they have gone out of their way to say that she
would not get on a plane because of the Kavanaugh incident.
Because of that, they said she'd have to drive cross-country to get to a hearing.
Of course, she actually flew.
Additionally, under questioning, she admitted she had flown to Maryland, Hawaii, and Tahiti.
In other words, that was a bald-faced lie.
If she is lying about that, what else is she lying about?
5.
Her witnesses do not back up her account In her initial letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
Ford claimed that four people besides her were at the party.
That number seems to change by the day, but let's go with her original claim.
Those four people were Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge, who she says were both
in the room along with PJ Smyth and her friend Leland Ingham Keyser.
All of them have denied her story under the penalty of felony perjury, which begs an obvious
question: whose house was the mystery party at?
Are they all supposed to have been partying at someone else's house while they were
gone?
It makes no sense.
It's even more damning that her friend Leland Ingham Keyser says she has never even met
Brett Kavanaugh.
How do you square that circle?
Keyser has never met Kavanaugh at all, but she was at the party where Kavanaugh did this?
Also, her best friend saw her run out of the party but said nothing?
She did not ask her about it the next day?
This single issue in and of itself completely destroys the credibility of Ford's accusation."
The Democrat Party needs to pay for this farce in November.
And
-------------------------------------------
Prosecutor Who Grilled Ford On Details At Hearing Just Made Stunning Admission Dems SILENT(VIDEO)!!! - Duration: 11:30.
Prosecutor Who Grilled Ford On Details At Hearing Just Made Stunning Admission Dems SILENT
developments in the confirmation battle over Brett Kavanaugh the white house
giving the FBI the go-ahead to expand its investigation of the Supreme Court
nominee by interviewing anybody at deems necessary this is a source tells Fox
News the bureau's probe could wrap up as early as tomorrow president Trump's
standing by his nominee in light of the latest FBI review this is now their
seventh investigation so it's not like they you know just starting I want them
to do a very comprehensive investigation whatever that means according to the
senators and the Republicans and the Republican majority I want them to do
that I want it to be comprehensive I actually think it's a good thing for
Judge Kevin Orr now with that being said I'd like it to go quickly and the reason
I'd like it to go quickly very simple it's so simple because it's unfair to
him at this point meanwhile after demanding this FBI probe
Democrats are predictably complaining that it's not good enough there's time
you know the thing is that every Senate vote matters and there's there's time to
get to the bottom of it even if is seven days that's bad enough but then to limit
the FBI as to the scope and who they're going to question
plus the Arizona prosecutor we saw at the hearing last week is dealing a blow
to Democrats Rachel Mitchell details in a memo why
she would not bring criminal charges against Kavanaugh saying it's even
weaker than quote he said she said all right Dana you missed this on vacation
this Cavanagh situation still happening I kept tabs on it a little bit was able
to you know they have some wife that thing called Wi-Fi over there in Spain
it is an absolutely remarkable week and it's one thing Greg I think you'll mind
I reveal our text I said I can't believe that I'm missed that week and he said
that's okay next week will be worse
so extremely compelling and some interesting polling came out today from
Quinnipiac who's saying that 48% of people polled voters polled said they do
not think it should be confirmed 42% did but 56% think he is being this is part
of a political smear campaign and I can't remember the other number and so
you're gonna see some more polling on this there are basically four senators
now that this comes down to Murkowski Blake Collins and then Manchin and
president Trump was in West Virginia over the weekend there's incredible
pressure on senator Manchin because his constituents at a number that is like
astronomical want Brett Kavanaugh to be confirmed who take a risk for Brett
Kavanaugh this week but for his nomination not for him personally is
that now the hearings done now we've got this FBI investigation as you said the
Democrats saying well that's not good enough the Senator McConnell saying
today we will vote this week and in the meantime you basically have dead air for
Brett Kavanaugh President Trump speaking so passionately about his nominee today
from the Rose Garden helps fill that gap a little bit but the news cycle moves so
fast President Trump has a rally tonight he's got one again tomorrow how long can
he keep this going it's really important I think for the nominee and for
President Trump to keep it in the news on their terms
well he's high-energy enough so I think he can fill the void this Mitchell
report Emily that came out and she was you know nonpartisan sex crimes
prosecutor who the Republicans brought in she released this letter that said
some really interesting things that she would never ever bring charges in a case
like this and it is incredibly wreak week for a number of reasons right and I
thought multiple things about that report so first of all we're already
hearing backlash that she even submitted a report which I found preposterous
because what is she gonna do text from the plane like thanks guys that's a wrap
this was out sourced by the Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans for her
to do a job so of course she's going to issue a report and I'm also hearing a
lot of backlash from other prosecutors saying well this wasn't a proper
investigation and that's not the appropriate standard but the bottom line
is the absolute best with what she was
given and the investigation in that closed world
she used the preponderance of an evidence standard which is the lowest
and note this that to bring charges as a prosecutor you the the standard for that
is that you have a reasonable belief that the charges are supported by
probable cause and then also that admissible evidence is supported by
beyond a reasonable doubt and that it's in the interest of justice so she used
basically the lowest possible standard giving it the lowest barter cross and
still found it insufficient so I found the report absolutely telling and that
she should be given a lot more credence than she is so what are the Democrats
out of bullets here we've had hearing after hearing we he's produced more
documents and answered more questions than any SCOTUS nominee and in history
and now we have a seventh FBI background check is that gonna be enough well check
your history I mean we've had much longer confirmation battles in our
history but I mean to me what you're seeing here one I am amazed at what you
just said about this prosecutor from Arizona not being partisan she was
brought in because there were all male Republicans and she was brought in by
the Republican side by definition there's a take her partisan yes it does
and and and in fact as I recall Lindsey Graham cut her up because he thought she
wasn't being effective and now she decides she's going to try to redeem
herself with her Republican buddies by issuing this report which has no
standing because it wasn't based on any kind of investigation or anything beyond
what she was able to gather at this hearing from Democrats that they liked
this woman and she did it was gentle if you perma Democrats were so there the by
peers but here's the thing I think the key point is the look at the poll
numbers that Dana referred to you look at the Fox polling Quinnipiac you look
at Harris Harvard it's all the same people don't believe Cavanaugh they do
believe her I think that's what that's I mean unless you start different Paul I
mean it's the question of much more clearly what I got is in the Fox poll
has fifty percent do not confirm thirty six percent believe Ford not Cavanaugh
I think it's become tribal Dana I think it's absolutely become traveling in the
latest polling what you see is an uptick in terms of the number of Republicans
who are back encounter previously by though is amazing to me they didn't back
Kavanagh to the extent they back Neil Gorsuch this is not a popular nominee
but now in the midst of the tribal warfare you see it tick up and it takes
up among Democrats as well the key question for me though yeah in terms of
what we go forward is what is the standard because what we've seen is now
I think it's for people who knew Kavanagh either at high school or
college or saying he wasn't forthcoming and truthful about his drinking so if
you hold you this standard now you're going to get Democrats who are going to
say this is a matter of character for someone we're putting on the court for a
lifetime appointment and this guy's lying about his drink know a lot about
any drinking 100 here's the beer standard the drinking standard Ted
Kennedy comes to mind Greg what do you think where to start I hate the fact
that we are using polling to gauge someone's innocence that is this is not
a job interview this is now the Coliseum in which we turn to the crowd on whether
or not I'm gonna give the thumb up or the thumb down they didn't just move the
goalposts here they just turned over the gameboard because they knew they were in
trouble to the point about the if he's lying about booze what else is he lying
about argument well it's clear that dr. Ford lied about a number of things as
well you can call them inconsistencies that's the nice polite way of saying
lies whether it was about about plane travel she only has a fear of flying
when it's not on vacation the polygraph she wasn't sure when it
was she said it was a devastating experience but there were two questions
the plane that she never got a lawyer an offer from the Republicans like Grassley
to take to have the meeting over they're giving notes to reporters changing
bystander to not bystander there's a lot of in I'll be diplomatic and say
inconsistencies to her otherwise credible testimony that's how you talk
apparently so if his lies about booze which I do
believe he fibbed about his drinking because he's talking about his drinking
in front of his wife and kids and I'm sorry I do the same thing when I when my
wife asks me how much I drank over the weekend while she's away I say not much
honey and Yeah right so the fact is those lies
have nothing to do with the actual accusation but we're talking since we're
talking about alcohol abuse let's talk about the media and the Democrats who
are obviously alcoholics because they completely blacked out the last five
days they do not remember that the third accuser has a history of lying and
sexual misconduct claims lying about unemployment lying about her education
but they don't seem to remember the avenatti bombshell from last week which
is now a bombshell that she lied about her background but that's somehow they
forget they blacked out about that they blacked out about the Rachael Mitchell's
a memo worthy we're covering it all the early reason we're covering it because
no one else is because they blacked out these are huge things that the media
cannot remember because they don't want to remember it
it's it's disgusting you know what though I mean you listen to the
president today the president's now engaging in just the kind of angry
bullying babe Oh Cory buck way down Richard Blumenthal is a liar so all
these Democrats they aren't angels over there i I know I've seen them in
compromise that great though it's next wait they said great this is let me tell
you we are talking about a Supreme Court nominee and a man and a family totally
denigrating the whole process it's now done corroborated we're destroying a
person's life an uncorroborated accusation that's right
your your talk you're focusing is if this is just that that's all about no
that's all it's about you will destroy somebody over a seat I could have the
seat I would say I'll tell you I've got bullets in me from trying to defend
someone when I thought they were unfairly be I'm alive but I'm going to
tell you this when you look at Cavanaugh you have to you just said you think he's
fibbing about the drinking yes you've got to speak to a man's or woman's care
doesn't stuck with them in the street the director of a guy like trying to
slow down the exaggerations over over beer a to the point on that though Greg
where's the yearbook you guys stuff in there about remember on the yearbook
remember about the devil astronomy when he turned baffi yes no you were here
excellent you were selling books while we basically went through that entire
drinking it's not a sexual position popping is not sexual being and it's
flatulent know what we're gonna ask me how I know I see your yearbook my poll
was here but please you don't have to go that far
thank you god bless you and God bless america
-------------------------------------------
JUST IN: Tom Cotton Drops a Legal BOMB on Ford's Lawyers - Duration: 0:51.
Senator Tom Cotton has just announced that he's turning over Dr. Ford's lawyers to
the D.C.
Bar Association to be investigated.
The reasoning is because Dr. Ford said she was not aware that Senate investigators had
advised they would be happy to travel to California to meet with her.
If true, her lawyers withheld this information from the client.
Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, also said lawyers recommended to Christine Blasley Ford
by Democrats will face a Washington, D.C., Bar investigation for telling her that committee
staffers would not travel to California to interview her about her alleged assault.
"They have betrayed her," Cotton said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"She has been victimized by Democrats … on a search-and-destroy mission for Brett Kavanaugh."
-------------------------------------------
How Ford vs Kavanaugh is killing us all | #BattleCry s1e4 - Duration: 8:06.
You know how some of my videos are kind of soft and fluffy?
This is not going to be that video
Well, hello brothers and sisters! Welcome to Mission: Zer0! My name is Shawnn and this is Battle Cry
This is the show where we talk through a theme for the week
that will help you get some motivation and carry you through the
week in a stronger way. So today what we're going to talk about is cognitive bias.
Cognitive biases are kind of shortcuts that your brain takes to more efficiently
process the loads and loads of information that it's constantly going through.
So the interesting thing about cognitive bias is if you go to Wikipedia
and search for the list of cognitive biases there's like 180 of them
and they range all the way from IKEA bias, where you believe
that something is worth more because you assembled it yourself, all the way up to
really complicated things like some of what we're going to talk about today
Today what I want to talk about are four cognitive biases that are absolutely
devastating to humanity, and things that we really really need to watch out for:
confirmation bias, negativity bias, status quo bias, and actor observer bias.
So confirmation bias says that if you believe a thing, or if you're convinced
of a thing, you will tend to seek out only information that adds to that
belief, and you will completely reject anything that is counter to it.
As it comes to society and the cohesion of people -- which is the thing I
spend all of my time talking about -- this is a real linchpin one because it makes
"us"es into "them"s, and all confirmation bias does is drive the "us"es and the
"them"s that much further apart. Which then ties a bit to status quo bias.
Status quo bias is also sometimes called "Golden Age Thinking." It's the belief
that what has always been is the best way to do it, and this is really the
thing that Gen X came along and said "F that; we're not going to deal with this" to,
because if you think about that -- if you take confirmation bias and you add it to
status quo bias -- you have an opinion that you will not change that the old ways
were the better ways. But we all know that that's not true! Just the shift in
the last 10 years -- 11 years and change -- since the smartphone was invented
everything -- everything -- about our way of life has changed. Status quo bias is in
a current state of upheaval, but your brain still wants it to be the case! You still
want to resist change, and this is your amygdala telling you that change is bad!
Hoo baby! It is toasty out here! OK, so the third cognitive bias that I want to talk
about is negativity bias. Negativity bias says that you will listen to, and put
more weight on, negative information than positive information. If I tell you
"I heard a rumor that you're going to be fired" you're going to put a lot more stock
in that, you're going to have much more of a reaction to that, than if I say "I heard a
rumor that you're going to get a big bonus." We are trained to expect negative outcomes.
Well, now add negativity bias to status quo bias and confirmation bias
and you've got a recipe for a really surly person! A person who believes that the old
ways are better, who believes that you are not going to change their mind, and
believes that every bad thing that happens is just proof that any attempts
to change are awful and nasty.
OK, so let's talk about the last bias which is actor observer bias.
Actor observer bias is potentially the most critical! What it says is that you will
weigh your own actions at a lower level then you will weigh the actions of
someone else. And to give you an example of this: say you're working on the job
and you make a mistake. You're going to point out every reason why that mistake
is just minor, and people need to let it go, and it was probably somebody else's
fault anyway. But if Bob sitting next to you makes the
exact same mistake Bob is a flaming moron. And if you add
these four together what that creates is exactly what we have in society today:
it's a lot of people who believe that what they know to be true is absolutely right,
YOU are absolutely wrong, and if you try to voice anything that is contrary to their
opinion you have just committed a grievous act of war against them.
So take for example this Kavanaugh / Ford thing, or the Clinton / Trump thing,
or the Black Lives Matter / Police thing. All of these third-rail
issues that have come up recently, they are all a case where you can
definitively see two sides: an "us" and "them." Confirmation bias kicks in
and all you look for are the articles that talk about what you believe to be true,
and you will filter out and invalidate all of the things that are counter to that.
Your status quo tells you that only the news sources you trust are the right
ones, and anybody that would try to suggest a different news source to you is
evil and wrong and throw that away. Negativity bias asks do you believe that rape
is worse, or some political agenda? These are all cases where we have not only
created an "us" and "them" situation, but we have allowed these cognitive biases to
drive "us" and "them" so far apart that the only possibility left is war.
And we cannot allow that to continue.
And so what I want to say today is: we have got to overcome this. For our
republic, for our nation, for our world, for our church, for our basic humanity!
These cognitive biases are inherent things that you tend to, but they are not
what you have to do. You can control these things, and so my exhortation for
us for this week is: question yourself, listen more than you talk, ask more
questions than you make statements. Because you just might find that those
things that you are so sure of aren't exactly accurate, and you may change your
opinion, and you may find common ground with another human being.
And that's the whole purpose this whole world. And so there's my message, and I know it
may not be terribly popular because everybody would rather argue than just
try to get along, but take this, this week, and use it to be the you-iest you
you can be. To be an even you-ier you than you were before, and I Love you and
may God pour out all of the blessings of Heaven upon you and, man, I Love you SO much!
Peace out!
-------------------------------------------
FBI Has No Current Plans For Interview With Brett Kavanaugh Accuser Ford | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC - Duration: 6:19.
For more infomation >> FBI Has No Current Plans For Interview With Brett Kavanaugh Accuser Ford | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC - Duration: 6:19. -------------------------------------------
FORD TRANSİT MODU •• ETS2 MOD - Duration: 10:26.
For more infomation >> FORD TRANSİT MODU •• ETS2 MOD - Duration: 10:26. -------------------------------------------
Nouveau Ford Edge – Technologies d'aide à la conduite | Ford FR - Duration: 1:39.
For more infomation >> Nouveau Ford Edge – Technologies d'aide à la conduite | Ford FR - Duration: 1:39. -------------------------------------------
Ford Ranger XLS 2019 Hoàn Toàn Mới - Duration: 2:22.
For more infomation >> Ford Ranger XLS 2019 Hoàn Toàn Mới - Duration: 2:22. -------------------------------------------
Prosecutor Who Grilled Ford On Details At Hearing Just Made Stunning Admission – Dems SILENT! - Duration: 4:13.
As I watched the Kavanaugh hearing where the prosecutor Rachel Mitchell grilled Brett Kavanaugh
and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, I was not overly impressed.
I thought that Mitchell went far too easy on Ford.
Perhaps things are not always what they seem and I underestimated the woman.
Mitchell just made a stunning admission and the Democrats are shockingly silent over it…
for now, that is.
Mitchell is the sex-crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to do the questioning during the hearing
last week.
She told senators the case would not hold up in a courtroom and that could prove critical
as wavering lawmakers prepare to vote.
The testimony did not even rise to the level of he said, she said according to Mitchell.
I agree with that assessment.
But I do think Mitchell could have tripped up Ford on many more facts than she did, thus
cementing her lack of credibility here.
Mitchell spoke at an overnight meeting where all 51 Republican senators were present.
"Mitchell spelled it out and was clear with senators that she could not take this anywhere
near a courtroom," one source told Fox News.
She told them she would not charge the Supreme Court nominee and reportedly said she would
not even seek a search warrant.
Mitchell wrote in the memo that she was presenting her "independent assessment" of the allegations.
She said this was based on her independent review of the evidence and her nearly 25 years
of experience.
She alleged in the document that "the activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's
attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford's account."
"She said she was not pressured to write the memorandum and it did not necessarily
reflect the views of any other senator or committee member.
"While I am a registered Republican, I am not a political or partisan person," she
wrote.
"Mitchell added, "There is no clear standard of proof for allegations made during the Senate's
confirmation process.
But the world in which I work is the legal world, not the political world.
Thus, I can only provide my assessment of Dr. Ford's allegations in that legal context."
"Mitchell wrote that a "'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove.
But this case is even weaker than that.
Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted
her allegations or failed to corroborate them….I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor
would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee.
Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence
standard.'"
Mitchell gave her professional reasons for her conclusions: Dr. Ford has not offered
a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
-Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
-Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
-When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to
become less specific.
-Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question – details that could
help corroborate her account.
-Dr. Ford's account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified
as having attended – including her lifelong friend.
-Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged attack.
-Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.
-Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations,
and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.
-Dr. Ford's explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.
-Dr. Ford's description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.
-The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely affected
Dr. Ford's account.
Mitchell provided multiple examples to back up her claims here.
She is an award-winning sex crimes prosecutor in Arizona.
The prosecutor's office has employed Rachel Mitchell for more than two decades.
If she says that she would not take this to court and that the case is flimsy in the extreme,
I believe her.
Shame on the Republicans for giving the FBI a week.
It's time to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét