dChan
Anonymous ID: cea3fc Sept. 17, 2018, 8:01 a.m. No.3056948   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>6986 >>7053 >>7066 >>7401 >>7614

Kavanaugh's accuser recovered her memory at the time Dems were panicked Romney would win and nominate him to SCOTUS

By Thomas Lifson

Bookworm has noticed an odd coincidence: after telling no one her story about the alleged incident for decades, she suddenly remembered and spoke about it in couples' therapy in 2012, when leftists perceived the possibility that Mitt Romney, ahead in the polls, would win the presidency and appoint Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. She writes:

 

In 2012, Romney ran against Obama. Up until his 47% gaffe, Romney was doing well. He actually had a shot of winning.

 

For the Democrats, as has been the case since Bork, having a Republican in the White House, especially with the ever-aging but never retiring Ruth Bader Ginsburg a perpetual risk, raised the specter of a conservative judge getting appointed to the Supreme Court. With that in mind, one Twitter user, who must have an amazing memory, remembered something interesting he'd read back in 2012:

 

https://t.co/hxaYqQfPI0 March 2012, the left was preparing for a possible Romney win. They assessed that Kavanaugh would be his Supreme Court pick and this accusation was ready to go. Then Obama won so the story died. Now its reemerged. Read last few lines of this 2012 article

 

— Stonewall Jackson (@1776Stonewall) September 16, 2018

 

I'll save you a click to The New Yorker website. The article, which The New Yorker published in 2012, is a Jeffrey Toobin analysis about Bret [sic] Kavanaugh and the threat he would pose should he get on the Supreme Court. According to Toobin, Kavanaugh was a scary conservative who, if he got on the Court, might overturn Obamacare[.] …

 

Just pay attention to that last paragraph:

 

If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh. (Emphasis mine.)

 

In 2012, Romney might have won the election. In 2012, Toobin stoked Democrat fears that Kavanaugh, a conservative, might get on the Supreme Court and overturn Obamacare. And in 2012, Ford…suddenly can't stop talking about her hitherto undisclosed claim that Kavanaugh was a bad boy almost 30 years before.

 

It certainly is an odd coincidence.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/kavanaughs_accuser_recovered_her_memory_at_the_time_dems_were_panicked_romney_would_win_and_nominate_him_to_scotus.html

Anonymous ID: cea3fc Sept. 17, 2018, 8:06 a.m. No.3056993   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>7001

WOW!!!!

 

Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh was a Maryland district judge in 1996. In an amazing coincidence, Martha Kavanaugh was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey-Ford’s parents were the defendants. Now it all becomes clear. Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh, not because of what he did in high school. Instead, Christine Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh out of spite and revenge for a case rulled on by Brett Kavanaugh mother. Martha Kavanaugh, Brett’s mother was Montgomery County Circuit Court judge from 1993 until she retired in 2001. During a 1996 foreclosure case, Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey-Ford in a foreclosure case.

 

The foreclosure case against Paula K. Blasey and Ralph G. Blasey was opened on August 8, 1996. The case number is 156006V.

Isn’t it kind of amazing that all the media reports today didn’t mention this little conflict of interest for Blasey-Ford?

 

https://archive.fo/69gvf#selection-511.0-511.714

Anonymous ID: cea3fc Sept. 17, 2018, 9:05 a.m. No.3057474   🗄️.is đź”—kun   >>7634

>>3057437

FULL CIRCLE

http://www.fmsfonline.org/?ginterest=RepressedMemories

 

Adults can have vivid memories, of which they are extremely confident, that are nevertheless wrong. Once those false memories have been established, they are not easily changed by contrary evidence. [48] A person’s level of confidence and conviction in a memory are not proof of its veracity. [49] Neither the clarity and volume of detail of a memory, nor its relative vagueness, are considered sufficient to judge its truthfulness; nor is the inclusion of false or inconsistent statements considered conclusive proof of its falsity. Such inconsistencies, may, however, raise the problem of distinguishing which parts are true and which parts are false.

 

There is no reliable method to determine the accuracy of a "recovered repressed" memory by examining its content or characteristics. Clinical psychologist Michael Yapko points out that greater levels of certainty, emotionalism or detail about a memory do not necessarily indicate likelihood of accuracy. [50] This is the consensus of many of the country’s experts on memory, suggestibility and the treatment of abuse survivors.