Christine 'Baby Girl' Ford

[Stretch]

TIMELINE CONTINUED...

August 28
Senator
Feinstein’s
staff participates in the
first Background
Investigation
(BI)
call.
Senator
Feinstein’s staff
asked Judge
Kavanaugh numerous questions about
confidential background information.
Committee records
August 31
Senator Feinstein
writes Dr. Ford a letter
Senator Feinstein promises that “she
would not share [Dr. Ford’s July 30] letter
without [Dr. Ford’s] explicit consent.”
Hearing testimony

September 4-7
SJC holds a public
hearing on
Kavanaugh’s
nomination.
Committee records

September 6
SJC gives Senators an
opportunity to question
Kavanaugh
about sensitive issues at a
closed session.
Senator Feinstein does not attend closed
session.
Committee records

September 12
TheIntercept reports
that SJC Democrats
have requested to view
a “Kavanaugh-related
document” in the
possession of Senator
Feinstein
.
The article reported that a letter in the
possession of Senator Feinstein
“purportedly describe[d] an incident that
was relayed to someone affiliated with
Stanford University, who authored the
letter
and sent it to Rep. Anna Eshoo, a
Democrat who represents the area.”
Ryan Grim,
Dianne Feinstein Withholding Brett
Kavanaugh Document From Fellow Judiciar
y Committee
Democrats
, Intercept (Sep. 12, 2018),
https://theintercept.com/
2018/09/12/
brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-dianne-feinstein/

September 12
Ford’s attorney Debra
Katz is seen leaving
Capitol Hill shortly
after the
Intercept story
was published.
Lissandra Villa and Paul McLeod,
Senate Democrats Have
Referred a Secret Letter about Brett Kavanaugh
to the FBI
, BuzzFeed News (Sep. 13, 2018),
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...ravilla/senate
-democrats-have-sent-a-secret-letter-about-brett

September 13
Senator Feinstein refers
the letter to the FBI.
Burgess Everett & Edward
-
Isaac Dovere,
Feinstein Asks
Feds To Investigate Kavanaugh Claims in Letter
, Politico
(Sep. 30, 2018),
https://www.politico.com/story/
2018/09/13/
feinstein-kavanaugh-investigation-letter-822902

September 14
The New Yorker reports
on an interview with
Ford but does not
identify her by name.
The article described the incident in detail.
Ronan Farrow & Jane Mayer,
A Sexual-Misconduct
Allegation Against the Supreme Court Nominee Brett
Kavanaugh Stirs Tension Among Democrats in Congress,
New Yorker (Sep. 14, 2018),
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news
-desk/a-sexual-misconduct-allegation-against-
the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh
-stirs-tension-among-democrats-in-congress

September 16
The Washington Post
reports on an interview
with Ford.
The article described the incident in detail.
Emma Brown,
California Professor, Writer of Confidential
Brett Kavanaugh Letter, Speaks Out About Her Allegation
of Sexual Assault
, Washington Post (Sep. 16, 2018),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...ons/california
-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh
-letter-speaks-out-about-allegation-of-sexual-assault/
2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b story.html

September 17
SJC has a follow-up
BI call with Kavanaugh on
the Ford letter
. Senator
Feinstein does not
participate.
Senator Feinstein’s staff did not show up.
Committee
records

September 25
SJC speaks with
Kavanaugh about the
allegations against him.
Senator
Feinstein’s staff declared that they
were present “under protest” and did not
participate.
Committee records

September 26
SJC speaks with Judge
Kavanaugh about the
allegations against him.
Senator Feinstein’s staff declared that they
were present “under protest” and did not participate.
Committee records

[Stretch]

Sorry for printing all this. It seems that some aren't able to use PDF in their computers and were not able to use the simple links I've been providing which were...
https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...s-analysis.pdf

and

http://planetfreewill.com/prosecutor...ord-testimony/

[cancel2 2022]

How is this different from the lefties who make fun of Kav?

It should be off limits. You have no idea who is telling the truth & who isn't.

Are you seriously going to tell me that she sounds like that all the time?

[tinfoil]

How is this different from the lefties who make fun of Kav?

It should be off limits. You have no idea who is telling the truth & who isn't.

OMG STFU! Fucking pathetic, dude

[CFM]

There's a lot of policing women's voices. They're attacked if they let their tone rise at the end of sentences. They're attacked if they let it fall. They're attacked if they sound too girly or too mannish, if they seem too slangy or too stuffy. There's really no winning:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0aee7b8e8bd24
https://medium.com/@janetcoburn/lets...s-f85686268412
https://www.npr.org/2015/07/23/42560...-womens-voices

For shallow people, I suppose that's fun. For my own part, though, I care more about the content of someone's communication than the sound of the person's voice. If you read the transcript of Kavanaugh's and Ford's testimony, the contrast is huge. Ford spoke in a sincere and substantive way, with a clear effort to respond forthrightly to each question. Kavanaugh ranted and raved against his perceived enemies, dissembling constantly, mawkishly pitying himself, and dodging question after question.

I found this question-dodging graphic to be particularly illustrative:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-hearing-chart

Thanks for admitting Ford is a born loser.

[Oneuli]

There’s no real difference between denying a claim and not remembering one

There's an enormous difference between the two. If we took this outside of your giant blind-spot related to politics, you'd realize that effortlessly.

For example, say you asked me whether I've ever seen a TV show with Omar Sharif guest starring. I'd tell you I don't remember having seen such a thing. Yet, it's entirely possible I have seen one and it simply didn't make enough of an impression that I'm recalling it. Maybe he did a guest appearance on an old episode of the West Wing that I saw when I was too young to realize who he was, but if you recounted the episode to me I'd remember its plot, showing that I must have seen him. Would I be lying if I told you I didn't remember seeing him guest starring when, in fact, I had seen that episode? No, of course not. That's because there's a very real difference between saying you don't remember something and saying it didn't happen.

Obviously!

Now, Kavanaugh no doubt understands the difference between those two statements. So, under oath, he chose to lie to the senate about what those people had said. What do you think an appropriate punishment would be for that?

[Oneuli]

Thanks for admitting Ford is a born loser.

What misled you into thinking I'd admitted that? If you could identify what you're relying on to draw that false conclusion, I can walk you through your mistake.

[Darth Omar]

There's an enormous difference between the two. If we took this outside of your giant blind-spot related to politics, you'd realize that effortlessly.

For example, say you asked me whether I've ever seen a TV show with Omar Sharif guest starring. I'd tell you I don't remember having seen such a thing. Yet, it's entirely possible I have seen one and it simply didn't make enough of an impression that I'm recalling it. Maybe he did a guest appearance on an old episode of the West Wing that I saw when I was too young to realize who he was, but if you recounted the episode to me I'd remember its plot, showing that I must have seen him. Would I be lying if I told you I didn't remember seeing him guest starring when, in fact, I had seen that episode? No, of course not. That's because there's a very real difference between saying you don't remember something and saying it didn't happen.

Obviously!

Now, Kavanaugh no doubt understands the difference between those two statements. So, under oath, he chose to lie to the senate about what those people had said. What do you think an appropriate punishment would be for that?

So if you parse words, Kavanaugh lied to Congress lol.

You’re getting desperate. How about Ford straight up lying to Congress? What should be done about that?

[CFM]

What misled you into thinking I'd admitted that? If you could identify what you're relying on to draw that false conclusion, I can walk you through your mistake.

It wasn't a false conclusion. It's you refusing to admit what you acknowledged.

[Oneuli]

It wasn't a false conclusion. It's you refusing to admit what you acknowledged.

You lost track of the thread, little one. As a reminder, you claim I admitted Ford is a born loser. I asked you what you read as an admission of that. So, what's your answer?

[CFM]

You lost track of the thread, little one. As a reminder, you claim I admitted Ford is a born loser. I asked you what you read as an admission of that. So, what's your answer?

Your post, cunt. Not my fault you run from it.

[BRUTALITOPS]

Butera nailed it on Ford's innocent-speak complete with the up-noting.

im a poor wittle womyn and i got waped up my vagina by mean boy kavanaugh

LOL

[Oneuli]

Your post, cunt. Not my fault you run from it.

You lost track of the thread, little one. As a reminder, you claim I admitted Ford is a born loser. I asked you what you read as an admission of that. So, what's your answer? Be specific, please. Where in my post do you imagine you read such an admission?

[Stretch]

im a poor wittle womyn and i got waped up my vagina by mean boy kavanaugh

LOL

Now she's a 'wich wittle womyn'. Self-made too...that should make Jarod happy.

[anonymoose]

How is this different from the lefties who make fun of Kav?

It's not. They're both adults. Both fair game.

It should be off limits.

Why? Ballsey Ford brought this on to herself. And with that voice and looks going public? With something that allegedly happened over 36 yrs. ago? And having no recollection of any details? And the inconsistencies. Nope, she's more than fair game.

You have no idea who is telling the truth & who isn't.

Nobody does and probably never will.