Thursday, September 27, 2018

Brett Kavanaugh's Problem of Proving a Negative

Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images file
Time magazine declared that the denial of my motion to track sexual predators who work as clergy in one of America's largest Protestant denominations "one of the top ten most underreported stories in America" in 2008.

Holding accountable perpetrators of sexual assaults and giving support to victims is a decades-long desire of mine.

I believe it is high time that America wakes up to the problem of sexually predatory behavior and strengthens the laws that hold perps accountable. In other words, I laud the work done in the Bill Cosby court case.

But read carefully the following paragraph.
In the courts of America, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation of the claimant, not the defendant. The defendant is to be initially presumed innocent and to receive the benefit of the doubt, while the claimant bears the burden to prove his or her claim. 
No matter how empathetic and sympathetic we feel toward victims of sexual abuse, to maintain a civilized society, we must never forsake individual liberties for the sake of cultural sensitivities.

There is a gross imbalance between the time and effort of making a claim of sexual impropriety with the time and effort of disproving a claim.

That's why the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the defendant, and Americans should fear any process where the defendant has the onus (burden) to disprove a claim. Flipping the burden of proof to the defendant from the claimant is a threat to liberty in a civilized culture.

During the Salem witch trials, women were tortured and killed simply because men claimed they were witches and the women were wrongly burdened to prove they were not. 

It's where we get the phrase "witch hunt."

In civilized societies regulated by law, a claimant must prove that something did happen rather than a defendant being burdened to prove that something did not happen. It is much easier to prove a positive than it is a negative.

Claims of sexual abuse and inappropriate sexual behavior have been made against Brett Kavanaugh, nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Most reports of sexual assault, abduction, or other serious sexual crimes are true.

However, it is possible that someone might make a false claim of sexual assault, and the consequences can be horrific. It is also possible that a victim of sexual assault can misidentify the perpetrator and not lie about what happened, but simply be mistaken about the person who did it. The consequences are equally horrific.

That's why the burden of proof should always be on the claimant and the presumption of innocence on the accused until the evidence is presented and a judgment is made. 

The important part of today's congressional hearings is that no American should place the burden of proving a sexual assault did not take place on Brett Kavanaugh. 

If the burden of proof is not met by the claimants, then Brett Kavanaugh should be appointed to the Supreme Court. 

If we flip the burden of proof in America, our country will be entering a very dangerous time indeed. 


Anonymous said...

This has been a problem for quite some time. The media, whether local or national, takes a story and by using the word "alleged" can drag anyone through the mud. 98% of guilty pleas are made by plea agreements with the District Attorney, and they say over 1/4th of them are actually innocent, just that person doesn't have trust in the system to fight it, or are motivated by fear to sign a deal.

The burden of proof, once an accusation has been made, has been on the defendant for quite some time now.

Dee said...

I grew up in Salem., Ma and I know quite a bit about this history. Underneath the *witch hunt* was another selfish reason for fanning the flames of the witch trials. When women and men, who held desired property, were imprisoned, their land was auctioned off. Many of the devout Puritans were also greedy *Wall Street wolves* of their day who specialized in land acquisition. Just one more example of mixed motives. Seems appropriate for today, somehow.

Wade Burleson said...


Agreed. Mixed motives.

Unfortunately, any politicization of such serious issues brings minimalization of those same issues.

In other words, the people who should be angriest about any politicization of rape/assault are those victims of rape/assault who only seek justice, not political gain.

Anonymous said...

Interesting how Bill Cosby's and Kavanaugh's is juxtaposed. Both cases happened decades ago, in both Quaaludes was placed in drinks of multiple victims (never mind victims in one are 60+ and less than 5 so far in the other; one is already one too many). And yet, Cosby's is presented as predation and that the law in his case is put to good use. Kavanaugh's on the other hand is a "witch hunt." In other words, this is about defending Kavanaugh because we need him on the SC bench to defend the tribe against the ravages of abortion and such!

Do you think the president's statement that he "falsely accused" of sexual assault (by 17 women so far) is true? Why is the law not so effective in his or Harvey Weinstein's case (more than 60 and growing as of July 2018)?

bunkababy said...

There is a huge problem with this when it comes to sexual assault.

A rape kit is only viable for 72 hrs. The DNA results can be altered by showering, eating, smoking etc. And a rape kit can only provide DNA. If there was little or no resistance of the assault do to unconsciousness, or a myriad of other reasons rape becomes harder to prove it was not consensual.

Most women do not report immediatley because of being dismissed, not believed, being called a liar and the complete vilification of her reputation and life. The cost of coming forward is huge.

In Canada there is no statute of limitations on rape or sexual abuse.
I filed a claim with the RCMP. The people I told about were charged. The investigation went ahead and they did find witnesses . This was going back 23 yrs at the time. The crown decided not to to go further because my main witness my mother lied. Even though they had accumilated other witnesses.

I was seen by a Dr. Who specialized in sexual trauma of children. She found evidence of abuse , but it was not conclusive. She told me children heal very fast. And because they heal up fast even a child who sustained recent assault can be hard to prove physically. So essentially the child must be assaulted and brought in asap.

So even though the law presented above to prove yourself is there, what else does a victim have but her account?

I have all the psychological evidence of trauma, I have had Dr. Diagnosis and receive a disability by the federal government for the results of crime and yet there wasn't enough proof to convict.
Does it mean I am a false accusor?
Does it mean my abusers didn't do it?

No. And this is one of the biggest risks taken when coming forward. Women are vilified, crucified, accused before they even hit a court of law.

Here is a link on stats for false accusors.

Most people have decided in their minds if the person accused is innocent or not.
In the case of Kavanaugh he will be given the benefit of the doubt simply because of his political party.

People don't like hearing about people they esteem to be something other than what they want to hear and believe. Instead of remaining neutral , weighing the scales, educating themselves on the subject, they have already decided who is innocent or guilty.

Sexual assault is very hard to prove. It does not mean it did not happen.

Christiane said...

Dr. Ford's testimony before the Senate committee is proving to be very credible. I wonder why the FBI was not told to re-open the investigation as is the norm for such situations. It would have been more fair to everyone to follow right practice instead of cutting corners, but decisions were made in order to speed things up. That seems to me very short-sighted and unwise.

Christiane said...

Hello Wade,

you wrote, "The important part of today's congressional hearings is that no American should place the burden of proving a sexual assault did not take place on Brett Kavanaugh."

Before Kavanaugh was selected by Trump, while he was still on the 'short-list', Dr. Ford tried to reach people to alert them. That tells me that she wanted to spare everyone by doing her civic duty in telling about what she had experienced BEFORE everything went so far and his nomination was set. I think she tried to do the right thing.

I am wondering why everything was so rushed, is so rushed still. Mid-term elections, maybe?

Lee said...

Kavanaugh is not being tried in a court. He is being accused during the hearing process of becoming a supreme court justice, which is a totally different matter. There's no judgment to be made,

Rex Ray said...


I agree the burden of proof should be on the ‘accuser’. Kavanaugh states his calendar will prove he was not at the party where Christiane Ford accused him of sexual assault.

Her feelings sound true, so maybe she was assaulted, BUT NOT BY HIM.

bunkababy said...

As I have no political polarizations to either party in the states, nor really in Canada, I do have an opinion.

In my country voting is usually done by what political party's platform suits you best. There are some like my father and mother in law who will always vote for the same party year after year. They voted for opposite parties. My husband And I even voted for different parties. And so did my kids. There was a good representation for all 4 parties in my own household and we respect each other's views and opinions for those choices.
We have 3 strong parties to vote for and a 4th trying to get more seats. So in essence 4 parties.

You are not born into a familial party. I personally have flipped parties. And the majority of my friends do based on what party we think is the best. We also don't have the abortion issue, or gay marriage as a political sway. It is very much irrelevant in our politics.

That shapes my opinion.

But as a Christian,the Kingdom of God or spiritual kingdom outweighs a political or wordly kingdom and it is not my mission to assume a Godly kingdom her on earth.

Now, I don't know what Kavanaugh claims now, but he has claimed to be a church going virgin in his College days.

My Bible says to test every spirit, be wise as serpents, don't believe any wind of doctrine and to watch for fruit out of a Christian's walk with God.

Wisdom would say to eliminate preconceived ideas of political sway and tradition. Wisdom and the Bible says to test every spirit. To Do do this, history, witnesses from long ago and now, need to be looked at. What kind of fruit poured forth then and now?
Is there consistency from then and now? Who does this person surround themselves with, then and now? What are their track records? What fruit do they have?

If one claims Christianity then there is a very defined plumbline to go by. Is he a drunkard, a liar, a false witness, haughty, greedy, a reviler, immoral, quick to anger, is he full selfish ambition? Does he detest unjust scales? Is his tongue bridled? Does he love like Christ loved? There are so many avenues to check for fruit.

And these must be objectively looked at as well as what good he has said and done.
It is unwise to assume every negative recollection and witness is biased or untrue.

And all of these negative things must be taken into account. They must be scrutinized with a heart willing to see things we don't want to see.

If he is not a Christian, then you look for good attributes and honesty but it is pretty much a given he will behave in unchristian ways and you vote for the best you can.

In the case of Kavanaugh I don't know if he claims christianity or not. But if he does you bet your bottom dollar I would be looking for fruit, good or bad.

Here is another interesting link. It is Godly to look at both sides.

This persons personal account is important. It is detailed. If someone says he is a good guy, can he give proof for that side too?

Just saying someone is good, doesn't make them good. There must be good fruit.

If Kavanaugh is a Christian, and he did do what people accuse him of does he, or is he showing the fruits of repentance? Is he angry, hostile? Humble?, truthful?

The fact that he is willing for his appointment to be rushed through, is unwilling for a full FBI investigation, says a lot about his inner life. If you have nothing to hide , you hide nothing and go through due process.

Did he assault Dr. Ford? I don't know. The only people who really know are the people involved.

But I can base my opinion on the overall track record coming forth daily. Wisdom looks at everything. And if there his a history of drunkeness, lasciviousness, lying, false witness, that repeatedly is denied, despite eye witness accounts, it's not very Christian nor is it good fruit.

Christiane said...

I so wished that needed investigations had been continued by the FBI. I think it might have saved everyone from a lot of grief. Today has been terrible for everyone involved.

I hope someday our country can get back to civility, and to having our Congress being able to conduct oversight and advise-and-consent in good faith again.

I have hope for better times to come. We are way too divided.

Carolyn said...

This is my main concern too and I also thought about the Salem Witch hunts. The below article is worth reading and discussing. Follow the money and Ford's accusations are alarming. I'm known for being the first one to advocate for abused women. I believe them...but...this one concerns me because multiple people are claiming different things. Ford has named people as being present during the party and those people deny being present, knowing anything about it, or verifying that Kavanaugh ever acted in such a way. Doesn't mean he didn't, but if you're going to name witnesses you should be sure they can verify your facts. If you read up in depth about her polygraph you'll find it isn't an open and shut case...polygraphs never are and that's why they usually aren't admissible in a court of law. What is taking place reminds me more of the Salem Witch hunts than politics as usual. I understand how high the stakes are for this Supreme Court seat and I'm confident the left will do anything to stop it. Both sides are capable of anything. Both sides have corruption. I guess what bothers me most is...where were all the victim advocates believing everything the women said when Bill Clinton was in office? Why hasn't the media told us Mrs. Ford works for a pharmaceutical company that annually profits millions of dollars (billions total) off of the abortion pill RU-486?

Wade Burleson said...



Scott Shaver said...

Perhaps in the spirit of Herod and the interest of public safety and as a preventative against sexual abuse, all male children born forthwith in this county should be emasculated at birth. That's how ridiculous this charade has become.

Scott Shaver said...

I find nothing credible in this woman's testimony Doe's that conviction make me a misogynist or enabler of sexual abuse?

bunkababy said...

This is the problem with American politics. It doesn't boil down to wether a person is just,or honest, or not. It boils down to money, and who supports what. It always seems to boil down to abortion, planned parenthood and those companies that support either political party or not.

It's not about governing unbiased on behalf of constituents, keeping and conducting policy, actions and affairs of the people and future generations. It's about the money. It is nauseating to watch.

I stumbled upon the Kavanaugh hearing on TV and am watching. It is clear he is avoiding FBI interaction and relying on the committee, or lets just say he knows they have his back so it is irrelevant what he says or does. He is cleary evasive and redirects questions he does not want to answer. This is about his credibility to judge? He blows his credibility by not being completely transparent to the people who have the authority to investigate any and every witness, including Mark Judge.

And I am getting the impression he goes to church and is a Christian? Is that correct?

But I did not appreciate Lindsey Graham threatening the others of not voting fairly. What is that a veiled threat?

How in the world can a government govern fairly for all people on all issues when both sides seem to care about a only few issues?

Gah!! Both sides are massively corrupt and persuaded by money, greed and lust for prestige, affluence, and will stop at nothing underhanded, and deceptive, to persevere to get what they want.

I am pretty sure every government in every nation are corrupt at their core, but to govern a whole nation on a few things is just whole wrong.

But I find the absolute dismissal of immoral and corrupt behaviour in the last 20 yrs disgusting. Sexual immorality is being overlooked as if it is just a minor transgression.

Christiane said...

Hello Carolyn,

I found this which might be of interest to you:

"Ford worked for a pharmaceutical company that sells Korlym, a drug that treats Cushing’s syndrome. The main ingredient in that drug is used in combination with another drug to induce abortions, but the doses differ. The company does not promote the drug for abortions; in fact, it requires that doctors rule out pregnancy in order to administer the drug."

The article was interesting to me because our dog Noah is being treated by the vet for Cushing's disease, and we administer veterinary-prescribed medicine daily to control the disease's effects on our pup.

Rex Ray said...

Just listened to the most shameful display of a ‘witch hunt’ disguised as politics I’ve ever heard about. The way one Democrat asked such twisted questions (trying to show Kavanaugh in a bad light) I thought his tongue might turn into a snake’s.

I’m glad 65 women that were friends of Kavanaugh in high school signed a letter exclaiming he treated all girls with respect.

I liked the way it ended with Kavanaugh swearing before God and Country he had never treated any woman with disrespect.

Scott Shaver said...

By this kind of logic, Noah should have drawn, quartered and publicly exposed not long after the voyage of the Ark despite his "righteous standing" with God.

Scott Shaver said...

The FBI has investigated Kavanaugh six times. If there is to be a seventh investigation they need to check Ford's teeth as well.

Scott Shaver said...

Thanks Carolyn. Here's a lady who makes sense.

Scott Shaver said...

Ford's "polygraph" was a joke in its administration.

Scott Shaver said...

Is Ford's professional background and interaction with pharmaceutical industry a rock-solid guarantee she's not missing a few screws in her construct of reality?

Scott Shaver said...

Are you sure you haven't mistaken "looking for fruit" with "digging for dirt"? There is a difference.

Scott Shaver said...

Not to mention the perspective of not being able to financially afford a proper defense.

Scott Shaver said...

You realize, don't you, that your dog was named after a drunk and incestuous predator, right?

Scott Shaver said...

Witches replaced by Warlocks in the new Salem trials.

Scott Shaver said...

Christiane, how do you feel about Joe Biden's emphatic declarations that the FBI "does not draw conclusions"? Was that just in the case of Anita Hill? And who initiates the signal nationwide when the rules of "due process" are inverted by the winds and waves of culture?

Anonymous said...

Judicial Committee turned this into a circus. Judge Kavanaught told the Committee to start investigation immediately to clear his name. Yet, they wait and wait leaving a dark cloud hanging over the whole process.

This kind of reminds me of the elder board of Willow Creek and SWBTS trustees not handling the accusations forthtightly.

"The day after the allegation appeared, I told this committee that I wanted a hearing as soon as possible to clear my name. I demanded a hearing for the very next day. Unfortunately, it took the committee 10 days to get to this hearing. In those 10 long days, as was predictable and as I predicted, my family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional accusations. The 10-day delay has been harmful to me and my family, to the Supreme Court and to the country. When this allegation first arose, I welcomed any kind of investigation. Senate, F.B.I. or otherwise. The committee now has conducted a thorough investigation, and I’ve cooperated fully.

I know that any kind of investigation, Senate, F.B.I., Montgomery County police, whatever will clear me...."

bunkababy said...

Clearly, I am in the minority of my thinking on this post.

I just finished watching the interview of Dr. Ford. I actually watched the Judge Kavanaugh first because I was actually seeking to find another show and it was playing on that channel.

I was sucked in and watched it in full. So as it happens I watched it in reverse order not even knowing a thing about Dr. Ford's testimony.

I find her testimony credible. I watched her breathing throughout, her subtle nuances in response to her own testimony. These are things victims who have not suffered with can't fake.
I know them because I myself have done them, albeit far less gracefull, poised and in control
Her fight with her husband about needing two front doors I understood before she even said why.

I find her absolutely truthful.

As for Kavanaugh, he strikes me as a priveledged child who could do no wrong. He probably grew up rich and entitled expected to make something of himself.

He kept referring back to his accolades of basketball, academic acheivement and prestigious schools as if that alone can cover for what he has been accused.

He was clearly a party boy, and one who drank often.

Unfortunatley scholastic and athletic ability coupled with white male rich priveledge, doesn't guarantee moral character.

It does and can present itself as doing what is expected because of familial expectations and pressure. Which often creates a very developed outside appearace of good when the inside is corrupt.

His behaviour today struck me as being the first time he has ever been questioned or opposed in his life. And his squeaky clean veneer has started to crumble.

I find no difference in his attitude, or the attitudes of other poeple in power, such as pastors and leaders in the SBC etc who get caught in scandal. They are all of the same ilk.

bunkababy said...

Guys ask why women are so pissed off. Even guys with wives and daughters. Jackson Katz, a prominent social researcher, illustrates why. He's done it with hundreds of audiences:

"I draw a line down the middle of a chalkboard, sketching a male symbol on one side and a female symbol on the other.
Then I ask just the men: What steps do you guys take, on a daily basis, to prevent yourselves from being sexually assaulted? At first there is a kind of awkward silence as the men try to figure out if they've been asked a trick question. The silence gives way to a smattering of nervous laughter. Occasionally, a young a guy will raise his hand and say, 'I stay out of prison.' This is typically followed by another moment of laughter, before someone finally raises his hand and soberly states, 'Nothing. I don't think about it.'
Then I ask the women the same question. What steps do you take on a daily basis to prevent yourselves from being sexually assaulted? Women throughout the audience immediately start raising their hands. As the men sit in stunned silence, the women recount safety precautions they take as part of their daily routine.
Hold my keys as a potential weapon. Look in the back seat of the car before getting in. Carry a cell phone. Don't go jogging at night. Lock all the windows when I sleep, even on hot summer nights. Be careful not to drink too much. Don't put my drink down and come back to it; make sure I see it being poured. Own a big dog. Carry Mace or pepper spray. Have an unlisted phone number. Have a man's voice on my answering machine. Park in well-lit areas. Don't use parking garages. Don't get on elevators with only one man, or with a group of men. Vary my route home from work. Watch what I wear. Don't use highway rest areas. Use a home alarm system. Don't wear headphones when jogging. Avoid forests or wooded areas, even in the daytime. Don't take a first-floor apartment. Go out in groups. Own a firearm. Meet men on first dates in public places. Make sure to have a car or cab fare. Don't make eye contact with men on the street. Make assertive eye contact with men on the street.”

― Jackson Katz, The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help

(The first man to minor in women's studies at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, holds a master's degree from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and a Ph.D. in cultural studies and education from UCLA.)

Scott Shaver said...

Academics are no guarantee of the apprehension of truth. Some of the worst errors in the history of mankind have been academically driven.

Scott Shaver said...

Since you seem fond of psycho-analyzing, Romycat, consider this. Any Psych 101 student will tell you they learned that victims of "abuse" never refer to their abusers on a first name basis. Why did Ford constantly refer to "Brett" or "Brett Kavanaugh" today as opposed to "Mr Kavanaugh", "Judge Kavanaugh" or even just "Kavanaugh". Why is there still no coaboration of her testimony by the very witnesses she herself named? Something smells like dead fish in all of this.

Scott Shaver said...

When things get to this level of cultural absurdity, don't be surprised if fewer and fewer men DON'T CARE that "women are pissed off".

Scott Shaver said...

Should have "more and more men" instead of "fewer".

Rex Ray said...

Romycat Black,

Have you wondered why you’re in the minority? If you had a happy childhood, would you have the same views?

The Senate Judiciary Committee had a public hearing Sept. 4 to Sept. 7 where Brett Kavanaugh spent more than 32 hours answering nearly 3,000 written questions submitted by Senators. Not one time could they prove he lied.

You said, “I find her [Ford] testimony credible. I watched her breathing throughout, her subtle nuances in response to her own testimony. These are things victims who have not suffered with can't fake.”

Evidence reveals she was sexually assaulted, but the question is who did it? She said she was 100% sure it was Kavanaugh.

This link proves she is a smooth liar.

Mitchell: It’s been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying. Is that true?

Ford: Yes. So that was certainly what I was hoping to avoid, having to get on an airplane, BUT I EVENTUALLY WAS ABLE TO GET UP THE GUMPTION WITH THE HELP OF SOME FRIENDS AND GET ON THE PLANE.

Mitchell: You fly fairly frequently for your hobbies and you’ve had to fly for your work, is that true?

Ford: Correct, unfortunately.

Mitchell: I saw on your CV that you list interest of travel: Hawaii, Costa Rica, South Pacific islands, and French Polynesia. Have you been to those places?

Ford: Correct.

Mitchell: By airplane?

Ford: Yes.

Christiane said...

This makes sense to me:

Victorious said...

Rex Ray, 59 yrs. ago, I too was assaulted by two young men I considered my friends. I was held down in much the same way Dr. Ford was. I assure you that when an abuser's face is inches from yours during such an ordeal, you NEVER forget either the incident or the face.

At 75 yrs. old, I vividly recall the location it took place, the names and faces of those young men and you might be interested in knowing I never told anyone about it until just a couple days ago when I told my sister. They were laughing during the assault much the same as Dr. Ford's experience. Interestingly, much the same happened to her. She is 65 yrs. old and her recollection is equally vivid.

I might add, sadly, that there were a number of such experiences in both of our lives by young boys/men and I doubt these were isolated conquests in their lives.

It behooves us to take women more seriously regardless of small questionable details like a dislike or fear of airplane travel. Life itself necessitates our overcoming some of our fears, but memories remain.

Scott Shaver said...

Striking. As lawyers these "bar" associations should be the first to understand that "the FBI does not form conclusions" (Joe Biden). Check the track record of support for liberal left wing politics and "bar associations" will almost always break left.

Scott Shaver said...

An Anita Hill payday would be reason alone to get over one's fear of flying. Hill made millions as a result of her testimony in Clarence Thomas debacle. We are supposed to act stupid enough to believe that Ford's "civic duty" doesn't also involve big bucks?

Scott Shaver said...

When women come forward with credible, supported testimonies in such scenarios, they can be believed. Same as anybody else.

Rex Ray said...


I’m sorry you were assaulted, and I believe you will NEVER forget the incident or the face. But you DID NOT say the person was Brett Kavanaugh and that’s the point.

Victorious said...

When women come forward with credible, supported testimonies in such scenarios, they can be believed. Same as anybody else.

Scott, the problem with coming forward with "credible, supported testimonies" is that most types of assault are committed behind closed doors where there are no witnesses to support his/her report. Even when a roommate of mine reported an assault to law enforcement, they did not believe her due to a lack of (overly) emotional reaction on her part during the interrogation.

Even when evidence is taken during a hospital examination, there is no assurance it will be tested as there are hundreds of thousands rape kits still in storage:

So what kind of evidence/proof is possible other than her words?

Victorious said...

But you DID NOT say the person was Brett Kavanaugh and that’s the point.

I am amazed at the great lengths we will go to to discredit Ford's testimony. I'm reminded of Adam blaming both God and Eve for his disobedience.

Let's see if the two (or either one) provides evidence of their crime since one only "believes" he was responsible.

Can you blame women for not coming forth with assaults committed against them? No, I think we HOPE they will not come forth. How sad.

Scott Shaver said...

Certainly can not blame them from coming forth...36 years later without some form of evidence. Like it or not we follow a constitutional process of innocence until PROVEN guilt in this country. If you want to spiritualize all this, "In Christ there is no male or female". What's good for the goose is also good for the gander. "MeToo" not withstanding.

Scott Shaver said...

Ain't happenin. And rightly so.

Scott Shaver said...

Exactly Rex. Context, context, context.

Scott Shaver said...

You've stated, Romycat, your disapproval of Kavanaugh's PERCEIVE D lifestyle (in high school). Your personal conviction, however, produces no more evidence of the truth of the charges against Kavanaugh than the evidence sadly missing from the Senate Judiciary Committee members yesterday.

Scott Shaver said...

A single witness (which Ford named in advance) who would support her testimony of a 36 year old memory. We can start there.

bunkababy said...

Rex Ray, and to all commenters, and those who have an opinion but don't write it.

Questioning my childhood , insinuating that it disqualifies me, by being in the minority of opinion on this blog is blatantly ignorant.

If I came upon a burned down building with victims of that fire, and told the firemen and forensic team I knew the what ignited the fire, how fast or slow it consumed, what it consumed, it's tempurature, oxygen, back drafts etc then told a burn victim with 70% of burns how it felt, and that I didn't believe he was burned in the housefire is very arrogant, and ignorant.

My views are in a minority on this blog because I don't align with the majority of political beliefs here.

My views are based on experience of 16 years of sexual assault, rape,and living with
Many perpetrators who lie and deny up to the point of lying to the crown, and police investigators. My views are based on being denied a voice in court despite what happened to me.

My views are based on being intimidated, and harrassed by my abusers because I did go to therapy, because I did go to the police and report a crime.

If anything this should qualify me as a person with a valid opinion, not disqualify me based on my experience.

I find your assesment ignorant and is not based on fact but rather because my political opinion does not line up with you or the majority on this forum.
I am neither republican nor democrat. I have no allegiance to either party.

But , I can see through a ruse, a bully, a person who holds power over another. I can see a liar whether deliberate or not.
And I am very familiar with those using authority of law over someone to discredit their testimony.
Rex Ray I have never told you who raped or assaulted me or what position in society they held.

What Dr. Christine Ford did was An act of bravery not very many people have ever or will ever acheive. And to the people on here who minimize her courage, who nullify her experiences and testimony just because they don't line up with your political views is an act of ignorance and cowardice.

I would hope the majority of people on here can see this because, it eliminates past opinions and comments of sympathy, and compassion towards victims in the church, paricularly in the SBC and anyone who has had dealings with the likes of Paige Patterson and those of his ilk. Or are those victims credible because they line up with your political beliefs?

The hypocrisy on this subject is astounding. The appearance of discrediting my opinion by some on here even though I have given stats (linked)on false accusations, and rape kits, healing of sexual assaults on children told to me by an expert in the feild after an examination are nothing short of what all sexual assault victims come against.

Oh the hypocrisy is alive and well among christians to those who don't align with a particular party.

Rex Ray said...


notice the link about two men saying it was NOT Brett Kavanaugh, but them that assaulted Ford yesterday?

Link states:
“Two men have come forward to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to claim that they are the ones who actually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford during a house party in 1982 — and not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Republicans on the committee released a timeline of events late Wednesday, which included details about their interactions with the two men who admitted to the attacks.
On Monday, the timeline recounts GOP staff members interviewing “a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982.”
The “encounter” refers to an episode in which Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in a bedroom at a Maryland house party.
They had a follow-up interview with that man, and he provided more detail about the assault.
Then on Wednesday, the committee staff said they spoke with a second man who said he assaulted Ford in 1982.
The committee did not release any more details about the men, or why both were coming forward with the claims.”

Scott Shaver said...

The world is a hard place, romycat, granted. It's inhabited and stewarded by a fallen humanity. I do not in any way mean to discount your hurt or your life experiences,but operating from a framework of "justice" which promotes further injustice is a trap. Regardless of our "individual" tragedies. He who was without sin was led like a lamb to the slaughter. Not "what would Jesus do" but rather what Jesus did. That finished work is not yet fully discernable to us this side of the veil and all our human interventions and laws and cultural shifts will not change the natural course of a fallen creation. This goes way beyond politics and human theories and assumptions as to what constitutes "justice".

Christiane said...

I am grateful to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford for her courage in coming forward with her story which I found to be very credible indeed.

I think Brett Kavanaugh needs to pull himself together before assuming any role as important to the nation as that ofa SCOTUS Justice. His performance yesterday was revealing in ways that did not show a temperament that befits what is needed of a person on the high court.

I hope the vote is delayed today and that the documents needed to be reviewed on Kavanaugh are released for study AND the FBI is assigned to do its work in examining Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh, as well as others involved who have been named and who have come forth with allegations.

Unless the job of advise and consent is not done in good faith, our country is not served well. I hope people in power do the right thing for the sake of the nation. We need to be called to healing on SO many counts, and that this moment may be a time for starting that process is my hope.

Christiane said...

As to the investigations and reports of Senate committee staff members, this: they are not trained to do what the FBI does in the ways of investigation. The FBI is the appropriate agency to use now. The nation deserves the best we have to be called to duty now. This is an important time because the integrity of the Supreme Court is also at stake in what has unfortunately evolved into a highly partisan battle.

Failure to allow proper investigation by the FBI is a terrible mistake.

Scott Shaver said...

Failure to follow constitutional due process is an exponentially more "TERRIBLE mistake. Pick your poison Christianne.

Rex Ray said...

Today’s newspaper:

“Is Brett Kavanaugh one of the most vicious sexual predators to ever disgrace the federal Judiciary? Or a victim of one of the most fevered political witch hunts in American history?

Hey! Sounds like they’ve seen Wade’s post.

Last year, a widow of four years yelled at me, “I’m bringing sexual assault charges against you!”

She’s in our Civic Club of 12 people that meets for a meal and business once a month. We were eating when I got up and walked behind her; kissed her on her cheek and said, “Happy birthday.”

P.S. There was lots of laughing.

Scott Shaver said...

"Advise and consent", depending on agenda, can also be rightly interpretated as "stall and destroy". So there's that.

bunkababy said...

Scott Shaver I have a hard time recognizing and reconcilling your last comment with your previous snark,biting uncompassionate comments.

Unfortunately, it's a little late for me to take what you say without prejudice. Damage done.
Maybe you should apply your own words to your own behaviour and do what Jesus did.

This blog comment section should be a place in which different opinions should be reguarded, reflected on, and viewed as an opportunity to glean compassion, mercy and love for felow humans.

At times I have been cynical of this blog and christians in general. Some have embraced my views expressed despite being jaded by previous experiences within church walls and pastoral staff. Despite, the experiences that shape me.

I was hoping that by expressing my own opinions and experiences inside and outside church walls t could in general help those who have not had such experience grasp the fact that the church indeed is in need of a saviour, even when they think they have one.

What drew me here in the first place was the foul reaction of some guy relating other christians as to having sex with a donkey and gang rape.

And the fall out of victims within the church.
What has been made abundantly clear here is for some readers and commenters from my very first post was that politics trumps anything else. Politics trumps experience, and differing opinions, and differing nations.

And what has transpired with this post reconfirms the intial reactions of my first one and two comments back in the summer.

It is clear anyone with a differing opinion politically is to be ridiculed, dismissed and mocked.

Scroll back, there were a few biting comments towards my opinions. I thought I could ride it out being honest, giving another view, another world view other than the one on here.

Peace out.

Wayne, you speak about HIS church versus MY church.

Well His Church is international.HIS church is not republican, democrat, liberal,NDP, conservative, The green party. HIS CHURCH is not Canadian, American, British, German, Swiss or any other nation.

HIS CHURCH is not political but rather spiritual. And it is abundantly clear on this page that this is not HIS CHURCH.

Christiane said...

The principle of 'advise and consent' is found in the Constitution of the United States.

It is best accomplished when the participants have all the needed information in order to make good decisions.

90% of requested documented concerning Kavanaugh's previous work were denied to Democratic senators who wanted to look into them for needed information in order to do their 'due diligence' . . . apparently Republican senators did not 'need' to see those documents, as they did not request them and agreed that the documents should be withheld from view. . . .

Initially only the Democrats thought it wise to re-open the FBI investigation to take care of looking into the recent accusations against Kavanaugh. That appears to be changing thanks to the change of heart of Senator Flake and some others have joined him.

I keep thinking that whether a Senator supports or opposes Kavanaugh's appointment to SCOTUS, it would have been BETTER for him and for the Republican members of the Senate, if the requested documents had been delivered for examination;
and it would have been better for him IF the FBI had been called upon to re-open the case and examine the facts.

So I think there's blame on those who tried to subvert the process that would have possibly placed Kavanaugh in a much better light . . . . but now, people have to also process that unfortunate performance of the man falling apart in front of the nation, with out-of-control weeping and anger issues on full display.

ummmmm . . . . did the Republicans set him up for this disaster in their rush to get him on the court for political purposes????

would they have served the nation better by conducting themselves willingly more fully in the light?

some thoughts

what good can come out of this mess? Was anything of value learned?

Rex Ray said...

Romycat Black,

You said, “It is abundantly clear on this page that this is not HIS CHURCH.”

Is that because people don’t agree with you?

I believe “this page” is looking for truth, and HIS CHURCH said “The truth will set you free.”

Didn’t you quote some of the things God hates is a lying tongue and a false witness?

I believe plenty of that went on during the ‘Senate circus’ that America watched.

Wade’s post states: “The important part of today's congressional hearings is that no American should place the burden of proving a sexual assault did not take place on Brett Kavanaugh.”

I believe Wade meant to say, ‘…no American should place the burden of proving a sexual assault did not take place BY Brett Kavanaugh.’

Who got the burden of proof? In four days Kavanaugh was questioned 32 hours; Ford questioned 4 hours in five minute intervals with her lawyer giving advice.

Wonder why she needed a lawyer? Was he needed in helping her avoid the truth?

Rex Ray said...


I see now that "...on Brett Kavanaugh" is OK. Sorry about that Wade.

Scott Shaver said...

I have read and have no desire for further dialogue with your thought-policing and crystal-ball assessment of human or "Christian" motive Romycat. Peace out

RB Kuter said...

The entire procedures with the disgusting array of power hungry, insincere, Washington stage acting politicians are the most disappointing of this entire affair. Both players put before the examining process are pawns used by the politicians to further their agenda and election campaign propaganda. Be glad when its over. In the meantime, I'm going to limit my viewing of it all and with God's help focus more in Jesus.

Now THERE'S a winner!

Eric said...

Innocent until proven guilty is the standard for a criminal case where there are criminal consequences such as prison. Better to let off a few likely offenders than imprison one person wrongly.

But when deciding whether to hire someone, the burden of proof shifts somewhat. Weigh up the consequences of hiring someone who did that against not employing them. Eg you probably wouldn't hire as a church staff member someone who is somewhat likely to have abused children in the past.

There will always be cases that can't be proven one way or the other. I'd rather have a few more people miss out on employment and endure incorrect suspicion than a few more people assaulted with no consequence.

Rex Ray said...

How many of us have read the only link that Wade replied: “WOW”?

I’m ashamed that I’ve just now read it.

The comment was made by Carolyn on Thu Sep 27, 03:21:00 PM 2018

This is another link telling the same story:

“Christine Blasey Ford works for an abortion pill pharmaceutical company called Corcept Therapeutics, a $166 billion market cap company that has current annual sales of $216 million. Doctors prescribe this pill to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

Christine Blasey Ford is a co-author of at least eight published scientific papers produced by the pharmaceutical giant to promote its pills.

If Brett Kavanaugh were to be confirmed on the U.S. Supreme Court and be part of a decision that overturns Roe vs. Wade, it would make Corcept’s drug for abortion illegal.”

Christiane said...

I learned a long time ago to make up my own mind about the witness of someone, by listening closely and observing if possible.

It occurs to me that some here may NOT HAVE SEEN the testimonies of both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.

Here is a Canadian site that shows both, so you can see for yourselves what happened:

Anonymous said...

She lied about being a psychologist. She is not board certified. A crime in California. Stanford caught it and changed her med profile page in the last week calling her an “affiliate”. Way back machine is all the rage. Her specialty is biostatistics. She also lied about flying and found out at the hearing her lawyers never told her about the offer to be questioned in California so she had to ad lib that one.

Bromwich left the McCabe legal team to advance this narrative. Katz was the lawyer against Paula Jones who told her that what happened to her was no big deal. Go back and read Paula’s testimony where Bill Clinton reminded her that her boss worked for him while he had state troopers seeking out his conquests. Very intimidating. Diane Feinstein refused to read Juanita Broderick’s testimony into the record back then. No such virtue signaling compassion for them.

There isn’t enough for an investigation (no place, no date, etc) much less a search warrant. It’s pure no rules, no boundaries political hit. It’s not church. It’s government. It’s been kept vague on purpose. Once it becomes “specific” the framed narrative ends. The left has the MSM as an arm of the democrat party. USAToday is now floating he is a pedophile because he coaches girls basketball.

For those so willing to to live in such a lawless one sided rule of law country in order for political power or to feign compassion with virtue signaling, good luck. They eventually use the same on you. Lenin had a name for those he used to go along with the “cause”. We all know where they ended up. Especially the peasants. And yes, it’s already happening here.

But if you don’t get it. Here is the plan for you: Ian Millhiser of Think Progress is advocating (like Maxine Waters) that Republicans ‘should be confronted where they eat and sleep’. As some of you know that’s already been done in restaurants and such but let’s not forget the violence. They despise our Constitutional rule of law. The sooner people understand that, the better for everyone, including them. This is much bigger than Kavanaugh.

Scott Shaver said...

Canadian news is kinda like Canadian football. Nobody much listens or watches.

Scott Shaver said...

Good thing you're not a politician or legislator. God help us.

Scott Shaver said...

Yes a valuable lesson was learned. Senate democrats are insidiously dishonest and morally bankrupt and some republicans have no spine or integrity.

Scott Shaver said...

700k raised for Christine Blasey Ford on GoFund me as of this morning. She will be a millionaire by middle of the week. Excellent payola for a few hours work and a great retirement plan underway. Do I believe she is lying about Kavanaugh? ABSOLUTELY.

This is not a profile in "courage", it's a case study in filthy lucre for political advantage and power.

Scott Shaver said...

Another thing we learn from this the level to which American universities are hiring the dregs of the earth these days as educators.

Scott Shaver said...

Anita Hill got rich. Christine Ford getting rich. Please, no more pious platitudes about such WOMEN having "nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming forward. If its all about the Benjamins...guaranteed there is the kind of woman who can get over her "fear of flying" for 200K an hour. A break-through for sure in the field of psychology: The PTSD of abuse can be effectively assuaged with a MOUNTAIN OF MONEY. The Go-Fund me totals are only what's reported. No telling how much is being passed around under the table or envelopes ala Sheila Jackson Lee

Scott Shaver said...

After thinking about it, like Dr. Ford, I feel its MY "civic duty" to appear. I have nothing relevant or substantial to contribute to the committee's work, but am definitely excited about the per diem and day wages.

Scott Shaver said...

Would love for Maxine and her entourage to show up in our hood

Rex Ray said...

Today’s “Herald Democrat” newspaper:

“The Judiciary Committee was split 11-10 along party lines…Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) announced he would vote to advance the nominee. He said Kavanaugh was entitled to the “presumption of innocence…absent corroborating evidence.”

“He was later confronted by two women in a elevator who said they were raped survivors and passionately implored him to change his mind.

“Don’t look away from me”, one woman through tears told a visibly uncomfortable Flake. “Look at me and tell me that it doesn’t matter what happens to me!”

“Later Flake said he would not back Kavanaugh’s confirmation without an FBI investigation and a week’s delay…This country is being ripped apart here.”

Victorious said...

Scott, wealthy people and liars get sexually assaulted. Being wealthy and lying are not crimes. Sexual assault and domestic violence are crimes according the the laws of our land and should be reported as such. Dr. Ford recognized her responsibility to report such a crime and should not be ridiculed for that.

To trivialize her experience by deflecting the focus to her stated fear of flying or monetary donations is not only unfair, but absurd. The historic prevalence of violence against women demands exposure whether or not it can be proven with concrete evidence since these actions are normally committed behind closed doors.

The governing authorities are established for the express purpose of protection of the citizens of our country.

Sallie Borrink said...

I watched the entire thing in real time from 9:45 a.m. through the coverage all evening. I've read a lot. I didn't catch that she lied about being a psychologist until now.

Found this article if anyone wants the details.

Scott Shaver said...

Poor attempt at deflection Victoria. You are claiming that the intersection of Ford's new found wealth and civic duty are purely coincidental? Sell it to CNN or Rachel Maddow.

Ford'report is only 36 YEARS after the fact.

Your sense of "fairness" and mine obviously differ. Beyond that, What's "absurd" in my opinion, Victoria, is your tortured logic and rationale.

Scott Shaver said...

Flake melts like the snow over an activist in the gallery? Surest sign of all his departure from the Senate can't happen too soon. He could have just said, "Not only am I looking away...I am walking away. Advise you to do likewise lest I summon security." Sounds fairly simple to me.

Scott Shaver said...

Since it has gotten to this point, why shouldn't the FBI be going through Ford's high school yearbooks and every remote corner of her adolescence? Let's be "thorough" here. After all, "the American people DESERVE it".

Scott Shaver said...

Might be good to recognize that the age of "MeToo" is also the age of "GoFundMe".

Scott Shaver said...

As a side note Victorius, so far there is no evidence or testimony to "expose" Kavanaugh as ever having TOUCHED Ford, despite her "civic duty" claim. You speak as though the man has already been RIGHTFULLY found GUILTY and convicted. Disgusting.

Scott Shaver said...

Finally "Victorius", seeing that the "governing authorities are for the protection of American citizens" what exactly does Dr Ford (36 years after alleged incident) need "protection" from?

Scott Shaver said...

"Exposure whether or not it can be proven with concrete evidence" declares Victorious. Any American in his or her right mind should be chilled to the bone by that statement. Perhaps we should divert tax revenues now for the establishment of gulags.

Victorious said...

Sallie, I think Wikipedia is a fairly credible resource and I found this included in her biography:

Christine Margaret Blasey an American professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.

Victorious said...


You speak as though the man has already been RIGHTFULLY found GUILTY and convicted. Disgusting.

I did not say whether or not I think Kavanaugh is guilty. I spoke only to Dr. Ford's right to present her testimony and that her fear of flying and/or monetary donations are separate issues from that of her alleged sexual assault. I also stated that sexual assault and domestic violence are serious crimes and we ought not to trivialize them by engaging in character assassination because of her stated fear of flying and donated money from a Go-Fund-Me account. Do we know who set that account up for her?

I also stated that due to the fact that an assault is most often committed in a secluded area with no witnesses, concrete evidence other than a sworn statement may be impossible to present. I believe Dr. Ford submitted to a polygraph which, although is not permitted as evidence in a court of law, does at least show a lack of intentional deception from what I understand.

In addition, I see the wisdom in a FBI investigation which will hopefully be able to substantiate the guilt or innocence of both parties.

Scott Shaver said...

Victorius: Please do a little research on the shoddy "polygraph" administered to Ford. It has been roundly condemned by experts in the field as "botched" in nature. The only question she wzs asked dealt with the accuracy of her handwritten statement as opposed to the "truthfulness" of her charge.

Additionally, there is the type of person who can believe so strongly in their own delusions they can pass one even when properly administered. Ford's polygraph sheds absolutely no light on either the state of her mind or the truthfulness of her charge.

If even a PROPERLY administered polygraph is not permissable in court, how in the world do you accept it as reasonable proof that this woman has sterling character or won't lie?

Rex Ray said...


Once when my sons were 12 and 10 the younger one sat on his 8 year old sister on the floor. (parents not at home) He had a very runny nose that he let hang down within an inch of her face and then sucked it back up. He did it several times.

Before that happened, the boys wanted to watch one station and she another. She turned it to her station, pulled the channel knob off, and locked it and herself in the bathroom. After a long time, she came out.

We didn’t hear about it for over 30 years.

Was she assaulted or was she being taught a lesson?

I know that has nothing to do with anything going on now; just wanted to break the ice.

We’re usually on the same page, but I’m afraid it’s like Senator Flake said, “This country is being ripped apart here.”

You said, “Dr. Ford recognized her responsibility to report such a crime and should not be ridiculed for that.”

The REAL question is why did she wait over 30 years to report it?

I mean if the crime wasn’t bad enough then, why is bad now? That’s the real question.

Victorious, my father taught us if a person will lie about something small, they will lie about anything if it suits them.

After flying many trips all over the world, listen to her lie so convincing:

Mitchell: “It’s been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying. Is that true?”

Ford: “Yes. So that was certainly what I was hoping to avoid, having to get on an airplane, BUT I EVENTUALLY WAS ABLE TO GET UP THE GUMPTION WITH THE HELP OF SOME FRIENDS AND GET ON THE PLANE.”

I believe it all boils down to ‘Roe vs. Wade’.

I don’t think I have to explain she works for a company that makes millions from selling their abortion pills.

Victorious, I read this from your link about Dr. Ford: “She was assisted in preparing her testimony by Democratic adviser Ricki Seidman, who prepared Anita Hill for her testimony against Clarence Thomas during his 1991 Supreme Court nomination hearings.”

WOW. We know how much Anita Hill lied. I would think an honest person would stay away from Seidman as far as they could get.

Scott Shaver said...

Also questionable. Dr Ford according to sources other than Wikipedia is not licensed to practice psychology in the State of California. She is an academic doctor of psychology and they have edited her faculty page at the school to reflect her additional role as a "research statistician". Some less charitable than myself toward Dr Ford claim she has perjured herself at this point of detail.

Scott Shaver said...

If the character of Kavanaugh is in question OVER the accusation,the CHARACTER of the ACCUSER is also FAIR GAME as long as the accusation remains UNSUBTANTIATED.

Scott Shaver said...

You're now changing what you explicitly stated about "exposure with our without concrete evidence" in your previous statement. Not to worry, Victorious, readers here can simply scroll back to your previous statement.

Christiane said...

Concerning the bona fides of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, I would recommend that, for those who want to research them properly, to please CONSIDER THE SOURCE of information you are examining.

When people give certain sources that are blatantly not credible, it does their argument more harm than good.

Scott Shaver said...

Be a "profile in courage"...even if you have to lie like the devil getting there. Reminds me of the old Traveling Wilbury's tune "Inside Out,Upside Down".

Rex Ray said...

How much hurt is there to be falsely accused?

“He gets his power from Satan, the prince of demons.” (Matthew 12:24)

When I was 17, our math test was given back, and the teacher explained each problem. I asked Mrs. Hunter why was there an X on my paper when it was correct.

Without saying a word, the old lady held the paper against the window and said my writing was on top of her red X.

I did what my son did when he was told, “No one can finish the test this fast without cheating.” He said nothing, but hurt so much he dropped out of math. I didn’t quit the class but transferred schools to play basketball. (long story)

I was embarrassed before a small class. Can you imagine how Kavanaugh feels?

Victorious said...

Can you imagine how Kavanaugh feels?

Rex, with all due respect to your effort to garner some sympathy for Kavanaugh, being embarrassed by accusations of sexual misconduct is nothing compared to the embarrassment and humiliation experienced by being the victim of such sexual violations against their bodies.

You (or anyone interested) can do a search for a list of recent accusations against powerful CEO's, politicians, entertainers, physicians, sportscasters and coaches, pastors, and others is significant. Excluding those in religious circles, I've read over 200 just in 2017-18. All of the accused echo the same words to refute the allegations (much the same as our current President)....deny, deny, deny and attribute the accusations to a desire for money. They also boast of their education, popularity, successes in their careers, and hold up their families as apparent evidence of their desire to avoid such destructive, harmful actions to their reputations.

Even with a daunting 60 such accusations to Cosby, @87 to Harvey Weinstein, 250 against Larry Nassar, there's Al Frankin, Roy Moore, Bill O'Reilly and our own President with approx. 20, the echo continues....deny...deny...deny.

Nothing new under the sun as some Bible scholars "....suggest the female disciples who first found the empty tomb might have just had the wrong one, and the other disciples took advantage of that, concocting a Resurrection myth to explain the empty tomb."

Luke 24:10  Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles. 
Luke 24:11  But these words appeared to them as nonsense, and they would not believe them.


Rex Ray said...


Do you really believe what you wrote?: “…being embarrassed by accusations of sexual misconduct is nothing compared to the embarrassment and humiliation experienced by being the victim of such sexual violations against their bodies.”

That’s like saying an innocent person shouldn’t hurt going to jail become some innocent people are executed.

You’re comparing apples and oranges. One has nothing to do with the other.

You could list a million rapes of women, but that doesn’t make me or Kavanaugh guilty.

When I was 14, a girl that I liked, looked at my handwriting and angrily accused me of writing her a dirty note. I could never convince her otherwise. But today, I’ll say with Kavanaugh, “I’ve never done that to anyone.”

Rex Ray said...

Let’s see if this post ‘helps’ Brett Kavanaugh.

1.“The burden of proof is the obligation of the claimant, not the defendant.”
2.“The defendant is to be initially presumed innocent and to receive the benefit of doubt.”
3.“No matter how empathetic and sympathetic we feel toward victims of sexual abuse …we must never forsake individual liberties for the sake of cultural sensitivities.”
4.“There is a gross imbalance between the time and effort of making a claim of sexual impropriety with the time and effort of disproving a claim.”
5.“Americans should fear any process where the defendant has to disprove a clam.”
6.“Flipping the burden of proof to the defendant from the claimant is a threat to liberty in a civilized culture.”
7.“In civilized societies regulated by law, a claimant must prove that something did happen rather than a defendant being burdened to prove that something did not happen.”
8.“It is possible that someone might make a false claim of sexual assault.”
9.“It is possible that a victim of sexual assault can misidentify the perpetrator.”
10.“That’s why the burden of proof should always be on the claimant and the presumption of innocence on the accused until the evidence is presented and a judgment is made.”
11.“No American should place the burden of proving a sexual did not take place on Brett Kavanaugh.”
12.“If the burden of proof is not met by the claimants, then Brett Kavanaugh should be appointed to the Supreme Court.”
13.“Think Salem witch trials.”

Rex Ray said...

"When Christine Blasey Ford, the psychology professor who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually abusing her in high school, came forward with her accusation, she reportedly mentioned two other witnesses at the party where Kavanaugh allegedly abused her. One of them has spoken out, denying any knowledge of the party or the assault."

"I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'P.J.' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Patrick J. Smyth said in a letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday."

"I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh," Smyth declared.

"Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women," Smyth added. "To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have."

Jon L. Estes said...

Has there been any information on how long Dr. Ford had know Judge Kavanaugh prior to the time of the alleged assault?

Unknown said...

Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford, has just released her assessment of Ford's allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. The Washington Post has made it available at this link.

Christiane said...

Even if the 90% of the documents kept secret from the Democrats concerning Brett Kavanaugh were to be shared;
and if the full amount of witnesses were to be examined by the FBI and the FBI allowed to follow up on leads;
there is still the image of Brett Kavanaugh's appearance last week before the Committee to consider.

Chances are that we may never know the full truth about his past but the testimonies given by Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh last week were both impactful to the nation and I am glad we all had that opportunity to witness the two presenting themselves in their own words in a way that showed us something of their temperaments.

Too much has been left undone in investigation and study of documents for anyone to claim that Brett Kavanaugh has been thoroughly examined and, if he is chosen by the Senate for the high court, the lapses in providing needed information to the Democratic members of the Committee means that due diligence could not be completed.
The question remains 'why' 90% of documents were kept from view. The question remains why so much hesitation to re-open the FBI investigation after the women came forth with accusations. The current question remains as to how thorough this week's FBI investigation will be; is it being 'limited', if so by whom, and are we awaiting even more fall-out from this week's work that will contribute to a sense of 'nothing to see there, folks, move along'?

All that will be affected by any known lapses in diligent pursuit of the truth is just the reputation of Brett Kavanaugh and of the SCOTUS. So maybe people need to think about bringing everything into order with thoroughness regarding due diligence instead of partisan game-playing. The 'Advise and Consent' duty cannot be done unless light is put where it should be on the facts completely. Then our Constitution will be honored as it was meant to be.

Anonymous said...

"In the courts of America"

Your entire argument falls on this.

The Kavanaugh nomination is not a criminal trial.

It is a lifetime appointment to a job in the highest court in the land. The burden of proof is much, much smaller, here. As it should be. This man should be disqualified, if at least for his attack of "the left", "Democrats" and "Hilary Clinton" in his opening statement.
If the GOP nominates this man, we can immediately stop pretending that SCOTUS is anything but another political branch of this country: the founders would be turning in their graves.

Scott Shaver said...

Regardless of who did or did not do what between Ford and Kavanaugh, they were 15 and 17 years old respectively. Let that sink in. Got kids or grandkids? Our political process now in shambles over the behavior of adolescents...36 years ago. Perhaps they should start earmarking tax revenues to build gulags for our kids and upcoming generations.

Scott Shaver said...

"Then our Constitution will be honored as it was meant to be" while the teachings of Christ are tossed to the wind by those who profess to be "Christian".

Christiane said...

Hello Anonymous,

you wrote "This man should be disqualified, if at least for his attack of "the left", "Democrats" and "Hilary Clinton" in his opening statement."

I see the wisdom of this from the perspective that Kavanaugh KNEW he was being 'interviewed' by the Senate Committee and, knowing this, he either let this slip out OR he should have realized it would disqualify him from the Court.

If he let his attack on 'the left' slip out, he exhibited extreme lack of self-control.
If he had actually prepared and read aloud this attack on the left, not realizing that he exposed himself as a partisan hack, this calls into question his ability to be impartial in judging cases that will come before the Court.
In either case, his statement should be heavily weighed by the Senators before they vote, as their votes will be very telling about their own allegiance to upholding the very necessary respect our nation DESPERATELY NEEDS to have for the High Court.

Cindy Meyers said...

Whether the allegations of sexual assault are true or false and the testimonies from former roommates/classmates about Kavanaugh's drinking tales are in question, what keeps coming to my mind is the idiom (this from Wikipedia): "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. The test implies that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject's habitual characteristics." There was a pattern here, albeit long ago, that others close to Kavanaugh witnessed and, therefore, accuse him of lying. If there was only one arguing this, it might not fly but there are many. It would only take one lie to disqualify Kavanaugh from this process. He claims to be a Christian (Catholic) and that just heaps more coals on his head, in my view. If you hail your religious life as a sufficient cloak for other questionable behavior, your God sees and knows and says, "be sure, your sin will find you out!" matter how long it takes!!!!!

Scott Shaver said...

Would love to witness the emotional constitution of her piousness "Christiane" having her reputation, credibility and career attacked before the eyes of the nation at the hands of mindless thugs like Corey Booker (T-Bone) and the lying opportunist Blumenthal (lied through his teeth about his involvement im Vietnam. A sign of wisdom, IMO is the ability to see the world in perspective as opposed to delusion.

Victorious said...

... Our political process now in shambles over the behavior of adolescents...36 years ago.

I don't think the emotion we are seeing today is solely over the behavior of adolescents 36 yrs. ago. I think people have just had it with the violence toward both women and men regardless of the timeframe. They are saying "ENOUGH!" We can't simply sweep these serious crimes under the carpet any longer.

Check out the thousands who joined together in protest of Kavanaugh's confirmation:

Scott Shaver said...

Spoken as one, I am sure, is as spotless and pure as the driven snow😂😂😂

Scott Shaver said...

Don't give a hamster's buttocks about "thousands of protestors" Even if the whole herd of swine are motivated to jump headlong off a cliff, not a good reason to follow along

Scott Shaver said...

I thought your whole premise for Kavanaugh's unfitness for the court is his "emotional" response to the democrat inquisitors. Now you are appealing, as justification to perpetuate the witch hunt based on the "emotions" of protestors. Kinda making up the rules of observation and analysis as you go? Both Christianne and Victorius. Thank God u 2 don't serve on the bench anywhere in America.

Scott Shaver said...

Victorius, I am convinced that your brand of logic on the subject will in the long run serve to amplify the very problem you claim to be concerned with.

Scott Shaver said...

Again, WHAT CRIME? With Kavanaugh there is only an unsubstantiated allegation.

Scott Shaver said...

Regardless of gender, these internet trolling Romper-Room Perry Mason wannabes can definitely get mundo bizarro

Victorious said...

Scott, sadly it's often the amplification of serious issues that bring a solution. Protests are one form of drawing attention like those at the link above. Whether or not they are effective in the current issue, they make a statement that's deserving of our attention and consideration in future accusations of this type.

Some protests and marches changed our country in positive ways and others did not.

Scott Shaver said...

Rachel Mitchell is female. She says Ford's testimony LACKS CREDIBILITY. Many will now discount her gender because she was hired by Republicans. "BELIEVE WOMEN"... If they're the right kind of women of course.

Scott Shaver said...

They may be worthy of YOUR attention Victorius. To me they are a DISTRACTION from both JUSTICE and due process. Please be so kind as to avoid the use of "our" (collective) in stating your views. You speak for YOURSELF as I speak for MYSELF.

Scott Shaver said...

Why don't we just replace the U.S. Contitution and the rule of law with "Wikipedia". See how that works for the nation.

Scott Shaver said...

No, "The Founders" should be dug up from their graves and charged with various crimes of sexual abuse and injustice and all monuments to their "contributions" torn down as is already happening in various ways.

Rex Ray said...

The Bible records Amnon raping his half-sister. Why didn’t his father, David, do something about it? Could it be because David was also guilty of sexual sin?

Please keep reading, I’m trying to make a point. :)

IF Kavanaugh was guilty of sexual sin or approved of it, he might have cheered for Bill Clinton.


“Kavanaugh worked on Starr's team investigating Clinton. He said it may not be our job to impose sanctions on him, but it is our job to make his pattern of revolting behavior clear — piece by painful piece."

Scott Shaver said...

We could call the "new" consitution "Duck Duck Go" or something similar.

Victorious said...

Please be so kind as to avoid the use of "our" (collective) in stating your views.

Scott, I haven't a clue what made you think my use of "our" was directed only to you and I. I speak of "our" as citizens of the U.S. It's your choice whether or not you wish to be included.

Scott Shaver said...

Good point Rex. And just this week "Slick Willie" himself has been reported to state that men accused of sexual assault need to be barred from office. The cognitive dissonance of SJWs and MeToo fanaticism is startling to put it mildly.

Scott Shaver said...

Victorius, was following simple rules of grammar and context when reading your suggestion "worthy of our consideration".

Honestly, would rather live in a beneficent bananna republic than in a country run by views such as you have articulated here. Will continue as an American,however, to confront such views in open forums such as the one Wade provides here.
Live with it. You and I are obviously two DIFFERENT KINDS of Americans.

Scott Shaver said...

The very first word in your post,Victorious, was the personal salutation and proper name "Scott". When you address and write specifically to A NAMED individual, my understanding of "our" correctly assumes the collective in question is YOU and the SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL to whom your words are addressed. Learned that in elementary school.

Aussie John said...

Some wise words:

Victorious said...

Scott, I used your name as I was referencing your comment about amplification (today at 12:20 p.m.). You said, "your brand of logic on the subject will in the long run serve to amplify the very problem you claim to be concerned with. I continued by referencing and linking to protests and how some of them have changed American history for good rather than having a negative result.

In that sense amplification of problems in our country have been a good thing for us (citizens). Some individuals (of different ethnicity, race, gender, etc.) have found resolutions as the result of protests. A number of those with positive outcomes are listed in the link I provided.

Hope that clarifies my use of your name initially.

Scott Shaver said...

I was never "unclear" about the grammatical construct and context of your post in question, Victorius. Glad to see you, however, working through your own confusion on the matter.

Scott Shaver said...

Perhaps you will indulge me a question, Victorius, in your ongoing quest for "justice" and "truth" in the areas of women and sexual abuse. Do feel that the civil rights legacy of Martin Luther King Jr deserves to stand? Or should it be dismantled and discredited?

There is far more on the FBI record regarding King's "treatment of women" right up to his last days on earth than some have managed to glean from Kavanaugh's high school yearbooks and his escapades as a 17 year old.

What say ye?

Scott Shaver said...

Bingo Aussie John. I love reading "The Wee Flea". For years he has been, in my opinion, a cool and clear thinker.

Victorious said...

There is far more on the FBI record regarding King's "treatment of women" right up to his last days on earth than some have managed to glean from Kavanaugh's high school yearbooks and his escapades as a 17 year old.

Scott, if you refer to my comment of Sept. 29 at 9:19 p.m., it will reflect my opinion about the current situation without indulging in character assassination of either Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh. I stated that rape occurs regardless of lies, money, etc.

Both parties deserve to state their case and hopefully the current FBI investigation will establish evidence as to whether or not Kavanaugh has the temperament necessary for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.

The (perhaps?) unintended consequences of the Senate hearing, however, is the multitude of women who are bringing to the forefront the prevalence of sexual assault in our country. It has also generated questions about violence toward women, the reason for their negligence in an acceptable time frame, as well as the responses and unbelief once such reports are made.

I mentioned the protests as evidence of the interest on the part of many who, like myself, wish to see some recognition from those who deny (or marginalize) the number of assaults against women (and some men) in our country.

I was unaware of Martin Luther King's treatment of women, but it serves to validate the prevalence regardless of ethnicity, gender, or race.

Scott Shaver said...

On that we can agree.

Scott Shaver said...

My point is that the FBI files on King were biased according to the prejudices of the day (time period). Nothing proved or substantiated that King frequented the company of or paid for prostitutes, this despite his issues with marital infidelity.

As Joe Biden rightfully pointed out during Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas debacle.."The FBI does not offer CONCLUSIONS. This whether they take an additional 5 days or an additional 5 years interviewing witnesses in the wake of Ford's currently unsubstantiated charge.

Let's do the country a favor..take the vote already and get on with it.

Scott Shaver said...

And I am not a big fan of Joe Biden as footnote. He was correct about the FBI

Rex Ray said...

Ah, the FBI is going to reveal the truth; huh!

At least J. Edgar Hoover is not the Director anymore. In James Tague’s book “LBJ and the Kennedy Killing”
Pages 357-358:
TV program 60 Minutes tells a story in the early 2000’s about FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. Four men went to prison for murder over 30 years. Two died in prison. The FBI concealed documents that proved an FBI informant, a Boston mobster, had committed the murder. The truth came out after an investigation into corrupt relationship between FBI agents and the Boston mob.

Page 359:
In 1963, President Kennedy was going to drop Vice President Johnson from the 1964 ballot. Hoover was over the mandatory government employee retirement age, and Kennedy was going to force Hoover to retire.

Page 376:
Before JFK was killed, Johnson knew a scandal was about to erupt over his Bobby Baker dealing, Billie Sol Estes dealing, and his $100,000 kickback from General Dynamics, and that he could be facing criminal indictments.

Pages 360-377:
President Johnson would not authorize anyone but the FBI to investigate the murder of President Kennedy. The Dallas Police Department was coerced into turning the investigation of JFK’s murder over to them. The next day, Hoover’s secret memo to the FBI stated: “FBI must convince the public Oswald was the assassin.”

Hoover leaked to the press that Oswald was the lone assassin and he was murdered within 48 hours.

Christiane said...


you had written,
"Has there been any information on how long Dr. Ford had know Judge Kavanaugh prior to the time of the alleged assault?"
Mon Oct 01, 07:44:00 AM 2018

John, if you listen starting at marker 28 of Dr. Ford's testimony, she gives some background on that information. Hope this helps you some:

Jon L. Estes said...

Cindy M

//There was a pattern here, albeit long ago, that others close to Kavanaugh witnessed and, therefore, accuse him of lying. If there was only one arguing this, it might not fly but there are many. It would only take one lie to disqualify Kavanaugh from this process.//

The problem with this is how one person may describe, from their observation his drinking and how he would. With this argument, it is again... "He said / they said". 3 decades later and we want to let this vote come down to one opinion over another.

All that is left in any vote in the future is one person willing to accuse another nominee. Do we want to set a precedent with the BK nomination on what it will take to derail any and all nominees in the future?

Before anyone thinks I am bashing Dr. Ford... I am not. I want facts and so far... none are shown. A lot of opinions but the facts lack.

Jon L. Estes said...

Christiane -

Thank you for the link.

Scott Shaver said...

Wonder what the stats are on women sexually abusing under-age males. Sure seems to be a lot of school teachers in the news these days.

Rex Ray said...


Enjoied your link!

Christiane said...

Today a very brave woman who had told the Senate Committee that she was terrified has new reason to be frightened: today, at a 'rally' in Mississippi, the 'leader' of her country has put a target on her publicly and I am myself fearful for her safety in this strange world where his 'base' can cheer with passion a man who would do such a thing. But you know, if he order that his people would take immigrant infants and toddlers forcibly from their mothers' arms and put them in cages, who am I to be surprised at today's attack on Christine Blasey Ford?????

It's getting worse, with the FBI not able to operate properly this week. Why so much hidden from the public? With what IS known now, the public will not rest until it knows the truth and WHY the 'rush' to push this nomination through without permitting FULL disclosure of needed documents requested, and without an FBI investigation that was not 'limited' by who might be interviewed and by a limit on time to search out the truth.

I hope Dr. Ford is protected from harm. And her family also. I don't hold Kavanaugh responsible for today's attack . . . . it was Trump's doing all the way and we can expect now for some of the unhinged followers among his base to be encouraged to do what unhinged are capable of doing. Did Fox News not carry this part of his speech at the rally? Well, CNN did, so I'm providing a link

Rex Ray said...


I believe everyone’s experience in life has an influence on their thinking.

(I was 17 the first time I kissed a girl.) When I was in the 8th grade, I was picking cotton and went to sleep after lunch lying on my cotton sack. Girls laughing woke me up at the same time I felt a kiss on my cheek. (It was the second kiss this senior girl in high school had done.) I kept my eyes shut and wanted to die.

As they laughed, I heard, “Oh look, he’s playing like he’s asleep, but he likes it.”

I saw her once four years later on a sidewalk. I had grown a foot and she didn’t recognize me. We passed without speaking.

That was 71 years ago. I believe Ford remembers what happened to her, but Kavanaugh wasn’t in the ‘cotton field’.

Scott Shaver said...

Trump did not "out" Ford. That was the work of Senate Democrats. Only an "unhinged" individual refuses to see this.

Anonymous said...

Really Christiane, taking babies and putting them in cages? Try to join us in reality. As someone newly moved from a state in the "border war" I can assure you the children are not put in cages.

Some of parents, known criminals, were locked up. Children were placed in detention centers or a placement in foster care or with relatives. Same thing that happens when a citizen of this country is arrested and have children. We don't just turn criminals loose because they have children.

And I remind you: entering illegally does make one a criminal.


Scott Shaver said...

Excellent points Linda. Completely lost, however,among some of these thick as a brick SJWs.

Scott Shaver said...

Wrong. Trump's so-called "attack" on Ford's testimony was based point for point on the findings of the female special prosecutor who ran the hearing. If you want to place blame for Ford's current levels of angst, you might as well start with Dianne Feinstein and Senate democrats for "outing" her and with the female special prosecutor whose report to the committee calls into question the credibility and unsubstantiated nature of Ford's allegation. Trump's behavior on this matter is no more boorish, insensitive or inflammatory than the behavior of political obstructionists and those who hate him.

Rex Ray said...

Have people forgotten the real photograph of children in cages at the border was taken when Obama was President?

Rex Ray said...

Forgot the reference

Rex Ray said...


In a few days regarding Kavanaugh’s position, there will be more moaning and groaning. I hope I’m not one. :)

Christiane said...

Relax, REX RAY

Que sera, sera

I still believe that, although we win some battles and lose some battles, that 'tribal' thing will not override human decency in the long run . . . people DO see things differently (mostly 'cause these days, they only follow certain news sources);
but there is an old saying:

you can fool some of the people some of the time,
and you can fool all of the people some of the time,

I still hope that when the truth comes out in the end, that we Americans will have the grace to see it for what it is. We do have a national identity that still has in it the angels of our better natures, and I trust to that goodness.

Someday we will return to the good path as a nation again, but for now, we are being tested. You and I have different perspectives on that, but you know that even if I disagree with you, I still believe in your good heart, and that is something that helps give me some insight into a bigger picture than just the political crucible of this present moment.
If my words don't completely make sense, don't worry. Not sure I understand them fully myself. :)

Post Script:
how is your brother doing? They were able to dissolve the blood clots, the last time you wrote about him. Glad he got some good (and prompt) medical help. Not all people do.

Scott Shaver said...

Borrowing from A Forrest Gump meme: "And just like that the Democrats were mad at the FBI again".

Rex Ray said...


Thanks for asking. Hez was moved from ICU to a room. He is much improved. I talked with him a while yesterday.

Rex Ray said...


Sam Rayburn was speaker of the House of Representatives. We lived five miles from his home. EVERYONE was Democrats.

Now most are Republicans. WHY? Has their thinking changed? NO.

What changed is the THINKING of Democrats and Republicans have SWITCHED.

If all the Democrats and two Republicans vote against Kavanaugh, he will not be appointed.

Rex Ray said...


I thought of you writing: “Time magazine declared that the denial of my motion to track sexual predators who work as clergy…one of the top ten most underreported stories in America” when I read:

Yesterday’s Herald Democrat newspaper headline on page B5: “Dallas Theological Seminary settles third lawsuit over graduate who sexually abused North Texas boys”
They had repeated this story from the Dallas Morning News.

The charges against the Seminary were:
Knowingly allowed a child molester to graduate, enabling him to have access to boys he’d rape years later as a North Texas pastor, and that SWBTS required that Jon Gerrit Warnshuis undergo counseling before receiving a master’s degree in 1992; but didn’t report the allegation to law enforcement or tell future employers.

Oak Hills church officials say they followed a normal hiring process for Warnshuis, calling the seminary before inviting him to become their pastor in 1996.

Investigators believe Warnshuis could be responsible for sexually assaulting several more children, both in North Texas and California, where he lived before enrolling in the seminary.

About ten years later, Warnshuis was convicted in Denton Count for sexually abusing three boys. He is serving a 40-year prison sentence.

Wonder how much Patterson’s part was in ‘ignoring the facts’ on this guy?

Unknown said...

of exertion to make this article. I like your work.

Elizabeth said...

There is no such thing as a civil right to be elevated to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh was in no danger of serving time in prison. He was not being sued. He was not being fired from his prior position. So the Salem witch trials comparison strikes me as awfully melodramatic.

Years ago, my workplace was considering hiring a famous man to lead our organization. He was widely rumored to be a pedophile. Everyone in my line of work around the world had heard these rumors, yet, unlike Kavanaugh, no actual public allegations against this very powerful man had ever been made.

Did this famous man have a "right" to be elevated to such a prestigious position? Or did our management and Board have the right to say, these rumors make us queasy, so we don't want to move forward with hiring him?

We hired him. He was "needed" to usher in a golden age at my workplace.

During the search process (my workplace's version of "advise and consent"), a colleague told me that this famous man's "urges" must have calmed down by now, anyway. Meanwhile, the management and search committee was threatened from poking around at this famous man's workplace, by this man's own manager--who could and would have done our workplace a whole lot of damage.

Sexual abuse, meet societal power dynamics.

This famous man was one of many who fell this past year in the #MeToo era. I am certain that those brave souls who came forward represent the merest tip of the iceberg.

I do think that individuals of good will and moral probity can disagree about what due process in the face of such serious sexual allegations ought to look like, for a SCOTUS nominee who must prove his or her fitness to the Senate (and to the American people more broadly, who elect senators).

I could have even respected GOP senators who voted for Kavanaugh, concluding that the evidence on such allegations was ultimately inconclusive--IF a good faith effort to arrive at the truth had really been made.

However, what I can't stand is the glee with which conservatives--specifically, conservative Christians--have sought to vilify and discredit Dr. Ford.

I also can't stand the appalling ignorance about sexual trauma parroted by GOP senators, conservative pundits and their followers--and worst of all, conservative Christians.

This is precisely the cultural dynamic Rachael Denhollander has experienced, and persistently warns conservative evangelicals about. This is why she says that the evangelical church is the worst place for victims to come for help.

And by the way, I am a pro-life conservative evangelical who would have wanted Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, before Ford et al came forward.

Rex Ray said...


You said, “I am a pro-life conservative evangelical who would have wanted Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, before Ford et al came forward.”

Why did 90% plus Democrats vote AGAINST him and about the same percentage of Republicans voted FOR him?

You’d think smart and educated people if given a test would come up with the same answer unless it’s POLITCS.

I assume you believe Ford’s story. Is that based on your experience of a “famous man” who had rumors of being a pedophile?

The difference between ‘your’ “famous man” is Kavanaugh had a spotless reputation in his actions and respect for women his whole life before Ford accused him of sexual assault when they were teenagers.

“Anyone who refused to obey the law of Moses was put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (Hebrews 10:28 NLT)

Ford named FOUR witnesses, BUT none backed up her story. She was caught lying about her fear of flying. The Company she works for sells ‘abortion medicine’ and will lose millions if “Roe vs. Wade” is changed. The FBI could not find any truth in her story.

I never heard of Rachael Denhollander, but you quoting her saying, “The evangelical church is the worst place for victims to come for help” sounds like it came from the mouth of the devil.

Unknown said...

A must read for those with an open mind...

Scott Shaver said...

I personally agree with your assessment of the statement attributed to Rachel Denhollander. Also revealing is the statement by "Elizabeth","worst of all, conservative Christians".

If "conservative Christians" are so evil, my suggestion to her would be avoid them and do not interact with them. See how groups other than "conservative Christians" can stabilize her world.

Rex Ray said...

Wanda Martin,

WOW! Your link of 17 pages really sunk Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh. I’ve summarized it into six points.

1.Monica Mclean was Ford’s high school friend and onetime adult roommate. An ex-boyfriend of Ford describe Mclean as Ford’s life-long best friend.

2.Mclean was a lawyer that resigned after 24 years from the FBI in 2016. (When they were roommates, Ford coached her how to take a polygraph when she was looking for a job with the FBI.)

3.The Wall Street Journal reported that Leland Keyser (one of the four witnesses Ford named who had no memory of the events Ford claimed and didn’t know Kavanaugh) told Senate investigators that McLean had pressured her into making her statement less unfavorable to Ford. This showed Mclean took an active role in Ford’s efforts to block Kavanaugh’s nomination.

4.McLean worked in the so-called resistance against President Trump.

5.Ford composed her condemning letter against Kavanaugh in Rehoboth, Delaware which happened to be the hometown of McLean. She may have asked Mclean to help.

6.McLean was one of 24 women from Ford’s high school class that signed a letter supporting Ford. No blood-kin including her parents signed the letter.