45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 5)
Discussion
ScudNorth said:
Bombshell:
Text messages show Brett Kavanaugh contacted former classmates about Ramirez's allegations BEFORE the New Yorker published its story. Kavanaugh stated, under oath, that the first time he heard about the allegations was in the New Yorker. Perjury. Also, a tickle of witness tampering, perhaps?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mut...
Which explains how the GOP immediately had a letter signed by 65 women.... they all knew and did their best to counter it.Text messages show Brett Kavanaugh contacted former classmates about Ramirez's allegations BEFORE the New Yorker published its story. Kavanaugh stated, under oath, that the first time he heard about the allegations was in the New Yorker. Perjury. Also, a tickle of witness tampering, perhaps?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mut...
As for Kavanaugh, he's lied so many times throughout his confirmation hearing, you have to wonder if any of it was true.
His temper tantrum was because he'd been promised the position, sees it as his right, and someone was trying to take it away from him. He's already resigned his teaching position
Harvard Law Asoc Dean: "Judge Kavanaugh indicated that he can no longer commit to teaching his course in January Term 2019, so the course will not be offered"
Edited by Byker28i on Tuesday 2nd October 06:32
ScudNorth said:
NYT has the details of Chad Ludington's story.
In 1985, Kavanaugh was questioned (but not arrested) by police. Kavanaugh threw ice in a man's face, starting a fight which resulted in Kavanaugh's friend (who went on to become Republican nominee for Governor of Oregon) to smash a beer bottle on the man's head.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/kav...
Confirming the statement by Charles Ludington that Kavanaugh was a mean drunk who once started a fight by throwing beer in a mans face, leading to a friend getting arrested.In 1985, Kavanaugh was questioned (but not arrested) by police. Kavanaugh threw ice in a man's face, starting a fight which resulted in Kavanaugh's friend (who went on to become Republican nominee for Governor of Oregon) to smash a beer bottle on the man's head.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/kav...
Republican lawyer Bill Burck, who oversaw the release of Kavanaugh's documents and reps W.H. counsel Don McGahn and others in Mueller's probe, is part of a pro-Kavanaugh war room effort
The White House have out statements from Judge Kavanaugh's Yale classmates Dan Murphy and Chris Dudley saying they drunk with him but never saw him aggressive or black out.
The White House have out statements from Judge Kavanaugh's Yale classmates Dan Murphy and Chris Dudley saying they drunk with him but never saw him aggressive or black out.
On the Kavanaugh situation
David John Oates, the Australian specialist in reverse speech is applying his techniques to the testimonies given by Ford and Kavanaugh and, whilst there are many who doubt the validity of reverse speech, there are some who believe it gives a useful insight
(Oates defines reverse speech as 'Reverse speech is another form of human communication that is automatically generated by the brain as we speak. It occurs backwards in speech and can be heard if human speech is recorded and played backwards. Mixed amongst the gibberish at regular intervals can be heard quite clear grammatically correct sentences that detail what is happening in the unconscious mind of the speaker. If a person is lying in forward speech, their reverse speech may reveal the truth. At deeper levels reverse speech can reveal psychological causes for current issues, whether they be mental emotional or physical.')
Anyway, his first analysis of the testimonies was discussed on his radio programme last night. The clips he played (he plays the forward bit and then the reversal, at several speeds) were mostly very clear and understandable. The congruence between the forward and reverse was much higher for Ford than for Kavanaugh. On the basis of this preliminary analysis, Oates suggests this leads towards a conclusion that Ford was being more truthful than Kavanaugh.
David John Oates, the Australian specialist in reverse speech is applying his techniques to the testimonies given by Ford and Kavanaugh and, whilst there are many who doubt the validity of reverse speech, there are some who believe it gives a useful insight
(Oates defines reverse speech as 'Reverse speech is another form of human communication that is automatically generated by the brain as we speak. It occurs backwards in speech and can be heard if human speech is recorded and played backwards. Mixed amongst the gibberish at regular intervals can be heard quite clear grammatically correct sentences that detail what is happening in the unconscious mind of the speaker. If a person is lying in forward speech, their reverse speech may reveal the truth. At deeper levels reverse speech can reveal psychological causes for current issues, whether they be mental emotional or physical.')
Anyway, his first analysis of the testimonies was discussed on his radio programme last night. The clips he played (he plays the forward bit and then the reversal, at several speeds) were mostly very clear and understandable. The congruence between the forward and reverse was much higher for Ford than for Kavanaugh. On the basis of this preliminary analysis, Oates suggests this leads towards a conclusion that Ford was being more truthful than Kavanaugh.
JPJPJP said:
On the Kavanaugh situation
David John Oates, the Australian specialist in reverse speech is applying his techniques to the testimonies given by Ford and Kavanaugh and, whilst there are many who doubt the validity of reverse speech, there are some who believe it gives a useful insight
(Oates defines reverse speech as 'Reverse speech is another form of human communication that is automatically generated by the brain as we speak. It occurs backwards in speech and can be heard if human speech is recorded and played backwards. Mixed amongst the gibberish at regular intervals can be heard quite clear grammatically correct sentences that detail what is happening in the unconscious mind of the speaker. If a person is lying in forward speech, their reverse speech may reveal the truth. At deeper levels reverse speech can reveal psychological causes for current issues, whether they be mental emotional or physical.')
Anyway, his first analysis of the testimonies was discussed on his radio programme last night. The clips he played (he plays the forward bit and then the reversal, at several speeds) were mostly very clear and understandable. The congruence between the forward and reverse was much higher for Ford than for Kavanaugh. On the basis of this preliminary analysis, Oates suggests this leads towards a conclusion that Ford was being more truthful than Kavanaugh.
Seriously? There's enough dirt already without having to reduce ourselves to this kind of psychobabble, pseudo-scientific bullsDavid John Oates, the Australian specialist in reverse speech is applying his techniques to the testimonies given by Ford and Kavanaugh and, whilst there are many who doubt the validity of reverse speech, there are some who believe it gives a useful insight
(Oates defines reverse speech as 'Reverse speech is another form of human communication that is automatically generated by the brain as we speak. It occurs backwards in speech and can be heard if human speech is recorded and played backwards. Mixed amongst the gibberish at regular intervals can be heard quite clear grammatically correct sentences that detail what is happening in the unconscious mind of the speaker. If a person is lying in forward speech, their reverse speech may reveal the truth. At deeper levels reverse speech can reveal psychological causes for current issues, whether they be mental emotional or physical.')
Anyway, his first analysis of the testimonies was discussed on his radio programme last night. The clips he played (he plays the forward bit and then the reversal, at several speeds) were mostly very clear and understandable. The congruence between the forward and reverse was much higher for Ford than for Kavanaugh. On the basis of this preliminary analysis, Oates suggests this leads towards a conclusion that Ford was being more truthful than Kavanaugh.
t. Reverse speech is nothing more than a way for Oates to make money out of gullible people. See also the 'satanic messages' that you can 'hear' when you play rock songs backwards that was so popular back in the 70s. Nothing to see here and frankly repeating this kind of rubbish just gives Trumpists something concrete to refute.RobDickinson said:
ScudNorth said:
Bombshell in the sense that Republicans will have much more difficulty ignoring this example of perjury, as opposed to his lies concerning the definition of the word "boofed".
I think you seriously mis underestimate their ability to ignore this stuff. I also think they don't care about the voters, the gop right just exercise whatever power they can now because they won't be able to later
A lot of the other accusations are conjecture or difficult to substantiate. This alone "should" be enough to exclude him.
I'm astounded the GOP haven't cast him adrift. Where is the insistence it MUST be Kavanaugh coming from?
It's got to be more than just Trumps ego not wanting to be seen being beaten.
Gameface said:
RobDickinson said:
ScudNorth said:
Bombshell in the sense that Republicans will have much more difficulty ignoring this example of perjury, as opposed to his lies concerning the definition of the word "boofed".
I think you seriously mis underestimate their ability to ignore this stuff. I also think they don't care about the voters, the gop right just exercise whatever power they can now because they won't be able to later
A lot of the other accusations are conjecture or difficult to substantiate. This alone "should" be enough to exclude him.
I'm astounded the GOP haven't cast him adrift. Where is the insistence it MUST be Kavanaugh coming from?
It's got to be more than just Trumps ego not wanting to be seen being beaten.
deckster said:
JPJPJP said:
On the Kavanaugh situation
David John Oates, the Australian specialist in reverse speech is applying his techniques to the testimonies given by Ford and Kavanaugh and, whilst there are many who doubt the validity of reverse speech, there are some who believe it gives a useful insight
(Oates defines reverse speech as 'Reverse speech is another form of human communication that is automatically generated by the brain as we speak. It occurs backwards in speech and can be heard if human speech is recorded and played backwards. Mixed amongst the gibberish at regular intervals can be heard quite clear grammatically correct sentences that detail what is happening in the unconscious mind of the speaker. If a person is lying in forward speech, their reverse speech may reveal the truth. At deeper levels reverse speech can reveal psychological causes for current issues, whether they be mental emotional or physical.')
Anyway, his first analysis of the testimonies was discussed on his radio programme last night. The clips he played (he plays the forward bit and then the reversal, at several speeds) were mostly very clear and understandable. The congruence between the forward and reverse was much higher for Ford than for Kavanaugh. On the basis of this preliminary analysis, Oates suggests this leads towards a conclusion that Ford was being more truthful than Kavanaugh.
<snip> See also the 'satanic messages' that you can 'hear' when you play rock songs backwards that was so popular back in the 70s. Nothing to see here and frankly repeating this kind of rubbish just gives Trumpists something concrete to refute.David John Oates, the Australian specialist in reverse speech is applying his techniques to the testimonies given by Ford and Kavanaugh and, whilst there are many who doubt the validity of reverse speech, there are some who believe it gives a useful insight
(Oates defines reverse speech as 'Reverse speech is another form of human communication that is automatically generated by the brain as we speak. It occurs backwards in speech and can be heard if human speech is recorded and played backwards. Mixed amongst the gibberish at regular intervals can be heard quite clear grammatically correct sentences that detail what is happening in the unconscious mind of the speaker. If a person is lying in forward speech, their reverse speech may reveal the truth. At deeper levels reverse speech can reveal psychological causes for current issues, whether they be mental emotional or physical.')
Anyway, his first analysis of the testimonies was discussed on his radio programme last night. The clips he played (he plays the forward bit and then the reversal, at several speeds) were mostly very clear and understandable. The congruence between the forward and reverse was much higher for Ford than for Kavanaugh. On the basis of this preliminary analysis, Oates suggests this leads towards a conclusion that Ford was being more truthful than Kavanaugh.
p1stonhead said:
Gameface said:
RobDickinson said:
ScudNorth said:
Bombshell in the sense that Republicans will have much more difficulty ignoring this example of perjury, as opposed to his lies concerning the definition of the word "boofed".
I think you seriously mis underestimate their ability to ignore this stuff. I also think they don't care about the voters, the gop right just exercise whatever power they can now because they won't be able to later
A lot of the other accusations are conjecture or difficult to substantiate. This alone "should" be enough to exclude him.
I'm astounded the GOP haven't cast him adrift. Where is the insistence it MUST be Kavanaugh coming from?
It's got to be more than just Trumps ego not wanting to be seen being beaten.
t.After people wanted a new kind of politics and rejected Clinton for Trump, I wonder if this is what they envisioned? Americans bang on about freedom, decency and patriotism, but it's the deepest darkest most disgusting swamp in the western world. An entire administration of liar and cheats who don't give a f
k about the common man and are just in it for themselves.I hope the Mueller investigation destroys far more than just the Trumps.
RobDickinson said:
ScudNorth said:
Bombshell in the sense that Republicans will have much more difficulty ignoring this example of perjury, as opposed to his lies concerning the definition of the word "boofed".
I think you seriously mis underestimate their ability to ignore this stuff. I also think they don't care about the voters, the gop right just exercise whatever power they can now because they won't be able to later
durbster said:
Inspired by this, I've just watched the entire hearing upside down and from studying his inverse body language, I'm pretty sure he's talking bks too.
I've catalogued the correlation of cranks supporting Ford vs cranks supporting Kavanaugh on PH; my study reveals that Kavanaugh has four times more cranks on his side, now clearly correlation is not causation, PH cranks didn't make Kavanaugh a liar, but it is very telling all the same. ks too.
If they drop Kavanaugh now,will the WH have enough time to nominate another stooge judge before the mid-terms?
Presumably they are too far down the line now,regardless of any deals made to nominate him,to back off.
Without Kavanaugh backing Trump, how is SCOTUS split at the minute? Would he be vital in the Wardle v US case? I'm presuming so given the efforts to get him confirmed, regardless.
Presumably they are too far down the line now,regardless of any deals made to nominate him,to back off.
Without Kavanaugh backing Trump, how is SCOTUS split at the minute? Would he be vital in the Wardle v US case? I'm presuming so given the efforts to get him confirmed, regardless.
RobDickinson said:
Its 40 days until midterms or something
I wonder how much that will tell with Republicans thinking, this has got to be really damaging to their prospects. Surely the pragmatic view is to drop him and try to put it behind them. I guess we will see how deep their sense of self entitled arrogance runs.Gameface said:
p1stonhead said:
Gameface said:
RobDickinson said:
ScudNorth said:
Bombshell in the sense that Republicans will have much more difficulty ignoring this example of perjury, as opposed to his lies concerning the definition of the word "boofed".
I think you seriously mis underestimate their ability to ignore this stuff. I also think they don't care about the voters, the gop right just exercise whatever power they can now because they won't be able to later
A lot of the other accusations are conjecture or difficult to substantiate. This alone "should" be enough to exclude him.
I'm astounded the GOP haven't cast him adrift. Where is the insistence it MUST be Kavanaugh coming from?
It's got to be more than just Trumps ego not wanting to be seen being beaten.
t.After people wanted a new kind of politics and rejected Clinton for Trump, I wonder if this is what they envisioned? Americans bang on about freedom, decency and patriotism, but it's the deepest darkest most disgusting swamp in the western world. An entire administration of liar and cheats who don't give a f
k about the common man and are just in it for themselves.I hope the Mueller investigation destroys far more than just the Trumps.
We know ConfirmKavanaugh.Com was setup on the 8th Feb 2017, 16 months before Kavanaughs name was mentioned as a possible, his website attached to this is setup by ‘Judicial Crisis Network’ who are also running his TV Ads.
We know they want him in place to overrule state prosecution if a pardon is given...
It's almost a given that he's been promised the job no matter what by the GOP, which explains his outrage on Thursday as he sees that position as his right...
Byker28i said:
Also that there's big corporate money behind him, and has been for some time.
Just how was his gambling/season ticket debt paid off?
He is/was a mean drunk who may have attacked several women in the past, he's got a temperament issue and has likely lied under oath several times. But ignore all THAT, follow the money and something is still fishier than a bucket of week-old haddock in the hot sun. To pay down that level of debt (which had been running consistently for a number of years according to his released accounts) means there was an influx of money from somewhere OR at best, he had a savings account which he decided to wipe out. Just how was his gambling/season ticket debt paid off?
If it were all legit and I was looking at the most prestige and powerful job-for-life in American law, I'd be publishing bank statements in the papers to show how and where that money came from. Friends are lining up to defend his reputation against sexual assault but I've not seen or heard one of them say, yeah I owed him $20k for baseball tickets so I paid it back (which is what he claimed happened)...I find that odd.
arfursleep said:
Byker28i said:
Also that there's big corporate money behind him, and has been for some time.
Just how was his gambling/season ticket debt paid off?
He is/was a mean drunk who may have attacked several women in the past, he's got a temperament issue and has likely lied under oath several times. But ignore all THAT, follow the money and something is still fishier than a bucket of week-old haddock in the hot sun. To pay down that level of debt (which had been running consistently for a number of years according to his released accounts) means there was an influx of money from somewhere OR at best, he had a savings account which he decided to wipe out. Just how was his gambling/season ticket debt paid off?
If it were all legit and I was looking at the most prestige and powerful job-for-life in American law, I'd be publishing bank statements in the papers to show how and where that money came from. Friends are lining up to defend his reputation against sexual assault but I've not seen or heard one of them say, yeah I owed him $20k for baseball tickets so I paid it back (which is what he claimed happened)...I find that odd.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff