I took a look at that list of Brett Kavanaugh’s “lies”.
All I see is petty nit-picking and innuendo. There’s not a single incident there that matches the outright and provable lies Blasey Ford herself told about her phobias and trauma, on which much of her accusation rested.
You say: “obviously” Bill Clinton’s lies have nothing to do with Kavanaugh. I do really hate to gaslight people, so this is my logic:
(1) You’re very upset about a candidate for the Supreme Court being accused of sexual assault, enough to make posts and throw accusations that he lied. Seriously, if Kavanaugh had been caught out on one substantive lie, we would never have heard the end of it. All of these accusations against him are so flimsy, they are truly pathetic and clearly desperate.
(2) You clearly believe Blasey Ford, despite her clear lies about matters that were fully germane to her case against Kavanaugh. Here are some of them, just from a very quick search:
(3) Very shortly before this, a candidate for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton, completely shrugged off and ignored all the accusations that her husband was a serial rapist and abuser of women. Yet Juanita Broaddrick’s testimony is some of the most compelling, consistent and revealing evidence of exactly how Bill Clinton really behaved, and how he was fully backed up by Hillary, his rape enforcer.
Why so upset about a SC judge, when there was a Presidential candidate just before this, who was far, far more compromised, who has told far more lies, and who has covered up far worse incidents of rape than anything Blasey Ford talked about?
If you are really concerned with men in power who abuse women, and the women who protect and enable the abusers, then you should be as concerned with Juanita Broaddrick as you are with Blasey Ford. To me, it appears as a double standard. To you, it’s “obvious” that there’s no connection between Bill Clinton’s proven and in some cases self-confessed lies, and these pathetic dredged-up innuendos that were hurled at Kavanaugh.
Never mind, this is just a perfect example of how politics determines perception.
So, let me rephrase my query. Just out of interest, purely as an attempt to understand how you see these issues, completely separate from Brett Kavanaugh and anything to do with him: how do you see Juanita Broaddrick’s story? Have you followed it? Have you ever made comments about it? Have you ever supported Broaddrick on any forum? If not, why not? Is her story unimportant to you? Is it irrelevant to you? Do you think she’s a liar, as Hillary Clinton implied? If so, what makes you think she’s a liar?
If a candidate for the SC gets you riled up, surely a candidate for the Presidency should get some attention from you? For me, this gives the appearance of a double standard. For you, it’s “obvious” that these issues are not related. For me, it’s obvious that they are, and you’re ducking and dodging, because Juanita Broaddrick’s story is infinitely more credible than Blasey Ford’s, and it doesn’t fit your political narrative.
So let’s agree to disagree about what’s “obvious”, and you tell me, just as a matter of passing interest, what you think about the “obviously” unrelated case of a very powerful politician who raped a supporter of his, and after biting her lip until it was bruised, told her “You’d Better Put Some Ice on That”, the title of her book. Here’s evidence that this actually happened:
—> Norma Rogers, a friend of Mrs Broaddrick, told the Journal that she found the alleged victim in a state of shock. In reported speech, she is said to have alleged that Mrs Broaddrick’s lips were discoloured and swollen to twice their normal size and the crotch of her tights was torn.
“She just stayed on the bed and kept repeating ‘I can’t believe what happened’,” Mrs Rogers said. <—
Is this credible to you? Or is it all “obvious” lies? Is it irrelevant to you? If so, why? I’m genuinely interested.
Kurt Vonnegut said that the most powerful force in the universe wasn’t gravity, it was peer pressure. He was on the right track. The most powerful force in the universe is confirmation bias. People will go to the ends of the earth, will start world wars and kill their entire families, just to prove that their pet theories are true.
Full disclosure: I was quite a big fan of Bill Clinton back in the day, he seemed able to connect with people as few recent American politicians have been. I was prepared to overlook the “bimbo factor”, as it was known, until Monica Lewinsky came along, and I thought — this guy’s genuinely more preoccupied with his dick than anything else.
Then I came across Cathy O’Brien’s book, The Trance-Formation of America, and I got a whole new perspective on Bill and Hillary. I wrote to Cathy O’Brien, and got back a long, very articulate, very intelligent, very credible letter from her, around 1997. I decided that she seemed genuine, despite only having a very fragmentary view of these affairs — the view of a mind-controlled sex slave.
Around the same time, I also researched Hillary Clinton’s forays into “outcomes-based education”, which totally matched Cathy O’Brien’s accounts of promoting the New World Order’s education agenda. And I decided the Clintons were total gangsters. This was a long journey, and I was quite prepared to change my mind about Bill Clinton as the facts emerged. I’m not ashamed about this. I corresponded with Richard Pollock, the Daily Caller journalist who picked up the Ranbaxy fake drugs story. He told me that in his days as a White House correspondent, he was also a fan of Bill Clinton, he thought he was quite a cool guy. Then he saw behind the facade and woke up.
It’s really time the Democrats woke up to the real facts about the Clinton crime cartel and how they hijacked your political party. Are you capable of changing your mind, as the facts emerge? What would it take?