He will always have an asterisk next to his name . . . . It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine

Christine Blasey Ford said during her testimony before congress, said she was coming forward out of a sense of civic duty.

Well now we know part of why she came forward:

In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court. He will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important. It is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.

Now we know why she couldn’t nail down a date or address, or why no one she said was at the party could cooberate her story.

Oh in case your wonding, this is a statement by Ford’s attorney Debra Katz

There is NO asterisk by his name. He was more than qualified to be on the court, and no proof that what Mrs. Ford said happened.

1 Like

So is she lying?

She was giving an alternative fact. Believe me.

Everyone she said was at the party said they couldn’t recall anything like that happening, or a party with the people she said was there happening.

You be the judge.

Seems that way to me.

1 Like

I wonder why people couldn’t remember an event from multiple decades ago that occurred upstairs in a room they were not in.

1 Like

He is on the bench. He should be on the bench. He is clearly not Clarence Thomas. Moving on.

So, does that mean she is lying?

Based on what? The testimony of the accused?

How about her good friend saying she was never at a party with Kavanah and Ford BOTH there?

And that should couldn’t tell you who’s house she was at?
Or that she could only narrow it down to it must have occured sometime in the fall?
Or that she can’t remember how she got home after the alleged incident?

But she knows for Damn sure who was in the room with her.

1 Like

Why is that shocking? Remembering the car accident but not remembering how you got there is very common.

Remembering being raped seems more important than remembering if you had a beer or not.

Again, you should be an unbiased judge in the case.

Both allegedly in the room deny it.
Those supposedly at the party don’t recall any party like that happening
Her good friend said she wasn’t at a party with Ford and Kavanah present.
Can’t recall the name of the person’s house she was at.
Can’t recall how she got home.
Can’t recall more than a general time frame it occured.

And a LOT more discrepencies in her story.

Do you know the complete guest list of every social event you attended in your youth? Do you remember the complete details?

Do you think it might make more sense that someone who was allegedly sexually assaulted might have a more vivid recollection of what was done to her and by whom than someone who was just downstairs casually drinking or hanging out like any other day?

There have been 1000 threads and posts and responses on that accusation already. Every detail and nuance has been examined on this board, never mind the expanding universe of social media as a whole.

I have no interest in rehashing it all again.

Someone asked a question. I gave my opinion. I have no doubt your opinion differs.

Good for us both.


So your deflecting on no comment on what her attorney says planed a role in her coming forward then huh?

And the parties I attended. I could give you names of many that were at the party, and where it was (who’s house we were at). Hell To this day I could probably take you right to most of them (well, or where they used to be before they fell to progress.)

I don’t think she said anything controversial. Ford felt it was important to let the world know what she saw as the full story of the guy who was about to be appointed to the most important position we have in this country.

The only quibble I have with the lawyer’s statement is I don’t think Kavanaugh is going to be one of those that take a scalpel to Roe v Wade.

Just my take…your mileage may differ.

Interesting video. I think the truth slipped out about what the motivation was for the circus.

Truth has a funny way of standing up over time.



She very clearly said that what motivated Christine is that it was important that we know his character.

How you twist that into she obviously lied is really strange.

Her opinion isn’t worth much.

The more she talks, the less its worth.

The dear sweet psychology professor has enough issues.