My Thoughts on Brett Kavanaugh’s FOX Interview

Tomorrow we will see the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford. Before that fury, I wanted to share my thoughts on Kavanaugh’s FOX interview.

Do I believe Brett Kavanaugh?  I do not.  For many reasons.

When the interview begins, the reporter tells us that Ford doesn’t remember the location or the exact date of what happened, but ironically, as Kavanaugh talks a few minutes later, he DOES. (If this is inaccurately reported by FOX, then my opinion is subject to change).

What on earth?  He says this didn’t happen, he wasn’t with Ford, he didn’t have an encounter with her but HE KNOWS where this non-event happened??

Really? How does that happen?

Kavanaugh says, “This is an allegation about a party in the summer of 1982 at house near Connecticut Avenue and East-West Highway with five people present.  I was never at such party. The other people who were alleged to be present said they do not remember any such party.”

Hmmm…no one was at any such party, but I know where it was! What?

Did Ford every specify this house? Who came up with this?

If it was Kavanaugh, it doesn’t bode well for him on ANY level. It’s a huge slip in that case.  I’m open to receiving more information if FOX reported this incorrectly.

If I never had anything to do with Ford, and I never was at any such party, I would not talk about a party that never happened. But Kavanaugh does.

Kavanaugh goes on to say that he always treated women with dignity and respect.  Yet we have Kavanaugh’s own college roommate in Yale saying what Deborah Ramirez accuses him is not out of line with the Brett Kavanugh he knew. That’s powerful.

According to the FOX reporter herself, this roommate said Kavanaugh was known to drink a lot in high school and college. This directly supports Ford’s account and contradict’s Kavanaugh’s church-boy self-portrait.

If you notice Kavanaugh cannot categorically DENY he didn’t know Ford, either.  He can’t say it. He says he “may have met her.  We may have traveled in the same circles.” This raises eyebrows.

Kavanaugh also brings up Ford’s lifelong friend to say that she didn’t remember the incident, which is true, but he didn’t talk about the fact that this friend of Ford BELIEVES her account as truthful!

Kavanaugh said he was not at the party “described”.  That word choice stands out to me.  Is that what you would say or think if you were honest?  If you were honest, wouldn’t you say something to the effect of I was never at a party with Ms. Ford where any contact between us occurred. Period. That’s clear and precise.

I find Kavanaugh’s answers very selective and evasive many times over.  His behavior to me is slippery.

Add in there is not one, but multiple accusers now.  The odds of him being honest gets more and more remote as more people have made claims that don’t know each other.

Outside of not believing Kavanaugh, it comes down to this for me: We are looking as a country to interview and put a man into one of the most important seats in our judiciary for decades to come. With any job interview, for high positions, we want the best candidate possible. We want a man or woman of high integrity, of supreme ethical value, a person who shows respect and dignity for all people, who has the untarnished character to serve our nation on one of the highest and most influential jobs in our legal system. We want someone we can trust.

Is Kavanaugh that person?  With all the controversy that surrounds him, regardless of whether you believe him or not, with all the people coming forward and saying things in contradiction to what Kavanaugh says, I say the answer is clearly no regardless of your political beliefs.

Many politicians are spinning this job interview into claims its an unfair persecution of Kavanugh.  Don’t be fooled — that makes you want to think Kavanugh is being treated unfair. He is not.  He is interviewing for a job and he owes all of us answers. Interviews for jobs require tough questions about character.

I think most people who would have to hire a person for a position of trust and authority to do the right thing for the good of a country would shy away from someone of such controversy, like Kavanaugh.   He is way too controversial, and frankly not believable on any level.

Though when Kavanaugh claims he is a virgin, I believe him there. That actually fits with his character. The guy who has to brag and act like he has all these conquests (see his yearbook entries) usually doesn’t–that’s what drives him to overcompensate.

Chris Watts Interview: My Thoughts

Many of you have wondering if Christopher Watts revealed clues that he was deceptive. The answer is yes. If you don’t know, he has sadly confessed to the killing of his wife and their children.

In the beginning of the interview, Chris actually glows when he first starts talking, yet he is putting on a down-tone in his voice and working hard to keep his emotions baseline. You get that deadpan feeling? That’s him manipulating his responses–trying to “act” down when he really isn’t. It’s an epic fail.

You can see him suppress a smile when he is asked what happened. It’s creepy. This is not a man grieving for or worried about his supposed missing wife.

When talking about her not responding to “her people” he talks about “That is what concerned a lot of peoples.” If you notice, it didn’t concern him. Isn’t that interesting? He also makes a disgust expression.

As he talks about coming home, he says, “Nothing. Just vanished. Nothing was here.” This is extreme distancing from his wife and kids. He acts like they are objects, not human beings who went missing. He then corrects and says, “She wasn’t here. The kids weren’t here.”

Interestingly, when he talks about the kids and says their names, you see a slow blink. There is some, albeit slight, emotional response here about the kids that is revealed by this. Does it bother him he killed them? Are their visions that get into his head that cause him to feel some emotion here? I believe the answer is yes, even if it is a minor emotion. With his wife, there is nothing.

When Chris spells Celeste’s name, he has an awkward swallow. It’s making him very uncomfortable and its notable.

As Chris talks about where they could be, he has a glow again. I get that sense he feels he is being believed and is successfully duping the reporter here. It’s very creepy. And it continues as he talks about the girls, and how they would be eating dinner and how he supposedly (not) misses it. He actually breaks out in slight laughter at 3:24. What you are seeing is a man who is loving the fact he is duping the reporter and getting away with his lies and thinks he is being believed.

He laughs again at 3:51.

He says they had an emotional conversation. Yeah, a fight. No doubt. He laughs again at 5:01.

When the reporters question him about what the police or sheriff are saying to you, he shows real indications of being uncomfortable and nervous again, which only helped investigators! He shows doubt throughout this interview as well.

And in the end, he says, as he pleas for his wife, “IF you are out there…” IF??? I love when they say “if”. It’s quite common and a huge reveal.

I personally suspect this man was controlling, angered easily and kept his demons behind closed doors. And something happened, and he snapped.

Fascinating Study of Deception

In the video above, Matthew Haverly is interviewed about the “body” found behind his house. Haverly talks to reporters as if he doesn’t know what is going on.

It later turns out that the body found was that of his mother!

Haverly gives all kind of clues that he isn’t being honest.

What do you see when you watch Haverly?

Be prepared to be chilled.

I will share my thoughts in the comments below in the coming days.

Stephanie Clifford, aka “Stormy Daniels” on 60 Minutes


Link to Full Video here.

 

In watching Stormy Daniels, aka Stephanie Clifford, on 60 Minutes last night one thing is clear to me: While she tells us statements that I believe are truthful, she is not consistent in what she says is motivating her.

Daniels wants you to believe she is upset about people talking about her, and she wants to set the record straight. And she also wants you to know she isn’t doing this for the money.

Do I believe either of those statements?

No, I do not.

When it comes to Daniels account of meeting Trump, and having sex with him, I do believe she had sex with Donald Trump, though I believe she fudges a bit on what happened between her and Donald Trump on their second meeting.

I don’t believe she just watch TV with Trump for four hours while nothing happened. Like with Bill Clinton, the caveat here is what Daniels would classify as “sexual relations” or sex.

When Daniels talks about being alone in the hotel room with Trump, I find her reasoning for having sex with him total nonsense and ridiculous:

Stormy Daniels: I realized exactly what I’d gotten myself into. And I was like, “Ugh, here we go.” (LAUGH) And I just felt like maybe– (LAUGH) it was sort of– I had it coming for making a bad decision for going to someone’s room alone and I just heard the voice in my head, “well, you put yourself in a bad situation and bad things happen, so you deserve this.”

Anderson Cooper: And you had sex with him.

Stormy Daniels: Yes.

Every woman knows that getting an invite to a hotel room to meet a man alone in the evening has a high chance the man is expecting sex—especially with a very powerful man with a reputation such as Trump.

Daniels wasn’t so naïve as to not realize this. To suggest so is flat out insulting.

Of course she went with her own expectations and a goal in mind—so if you are going to be honest, Daniels, admit it.

There is also a pattern of Daniels trying to get money. She’s tried and tried and tried.

First she agreed to take $15,000 in 2011 from In Touch magazine, but supposedly the money never came.

Then she took $130,000 from Michael Cohen, Trump’s attorney, on behalf of Trump, but the contract was never signed. Oops.

You wonder when Daniels discovered this?  Was it recently?  Another goldmine?

If she truly got great offers before, then why didn’t she take them between 2011 and the election? I mean she wouldn’t have had to sign a “hush agreement”, which didn’t benefit her at all. The only way I could see her great offers as being true is if she held out and held out for better ones and they never came. Oops, her mistake.

To me, it appears Daniels attorney, Michael Avenatti, is playing a game here. He is slowly building the stakes for Cohen and Trump. Little by little, Daniels is revealing more and more about what happened to the public, and I believe they are hoping before she reveals too much, Cohen and Trump will settle for another undisclosed amount.

Don’t believe me?

Watch Daniels on Jimmy Kimmel a few weeks ago. She taunts and teases the audience and Kimmel—letting her adversaries know she’s willing to talk, but she’s holding back for now.

That didn’t work.

So next she goes on CBS 60 Minutes with Anderson Cooper.

She reveals more: Will that work?

Watch her attorney speak since the 60 Minutes interview. He’s upping the stakes even more.

Why do you supposed that is, if it’s not for more money?

Frankly, I wouldn’t want to be in a room with either Trump or Daniels.  I would not trust either of them behind my back for a second.