Kavanaugh Hearing

I've read where some Democrats are unhappy she picked a well known Democratic operative. They were hoping to avoid having Dr. Ford associated with the Democratic party folks to avoid having it look like she is part of the Democratic establishment.

 

Good post.

To be clear, I am not saying that one person identifying Kavanaugh as being there should be enough to "convict" him in any legal sense.

What I am saying is that politically, even if Ford is very convincing on the stand, it won't go anywhere unless at least one person places Kavanaugh at that party with her.

If somebody does place him there, it would be a direct contradiction of his public statement, and would look very bad for him. If that is combined with her coming off as very credible, I think that in a political scenario like this, it could be enough to cost him the nomination.

Those are two big ifs, though. From what we've heard to date, I don't think it's likely that scenario plays out. But if both things occur, I think that could derail his nomination.

 

Makes sense. Possibly more of Feinstein mucking it up. LOL.

She is well past needing to be put to pasture. These parties protect their own for way too long.

 

Okay …. what of substance do you think will be stated in whatever style of hearing to be held … that has not already been covered in Ford's letter? What additional details can she offer?

 

False. She would have to testify in the prosecution's case in chief. Then the defense puts on their case. MAYBE the state puts on a rebuttal witness, but she cannot RE-testify to what she said in the state's case in chief.

 

I am guessing he meant Top Gun theme song, and the mental image has me rolling.

 

Re the highlighted assertion … how does anyone factually determine what is said in the hearing to be true? This happened 36 years ago …. recollections are not what they once were …. especially when political motivations (eg abortion issues) are involved. How is any independent entity going to confirm in Sep18 the veracity of any assertion as regards what may have happened 36 years ago?

One prime example of this is Ford's assertion she was not drinking at the alleged party. How is that determined to be an accurate statement ……. if it cannot be determined there was a party and who may have been attending?

 

Has there been evidence that she was drinking and that Kav forced her to drink and get drunk?

 

I would disagree. If someone states that they remember being at the party and Kavanaugh was there, that is probably it for his nomination. Kavanaugh backed himself into a corner by saying he does not remember ever being at a party and has denied being at one like Dr. Ford described. If it turns out that someone can place him at the party, it will look like he was lying about being at the party and his credibility will be shot.

 

Agree completely.

This will come down to which of the parties comes off as more credible, and whether there are any witnesses that contradict Kavanaugh's public statement.

As I said before, I think Ford Kavanaugh has to come off as very credible and has to have at least one witness placing Kavanaugh there with her in order for Kavanaugh's nomination to be impacted. But if that does happen, his nomination could be in trouble.

Finally, there won't be any way to know the objective truth of this event, IMO. And both parties and their families will be hurt by this regardless of what the truth really is.

 

Perfect. Look at me too!!

 

So, apparently, these are the conditions under which Ford will testify. How on earth can Kavanaugh be expected to speak first? That request is ridiculous. And demanding that the committee subpoena Mark Judge …. who has that authority to do so in this situation? I think Judge just tells her to take a hike and at best just sends a written statement.

I think #1, #2, #3, #4 are deal killers.. #6 is just goofy … how much time does she need? The committee should have the opportunity/obligation to curtail any statement she makes if it is not germane to the very specifics of her allegation as outlined in her letter.

Oy vey …………….. this is just sad.

Kavanaugh accuser lays out testimony conditions, doesn't want to be in same room

• Wants to testify second and Kavanaugh to appear first;
• Doesn't want Kavanaugh in the room at the same time with her;
• Prefers not to be questioned by outside counsel, but rather by the senators on the committee;
• Would like the committee to subpoena Mark Judge, the other student Ford alleges to be in the room at the time of the assault, to testify;
• Says each senator should have equal time questioning (already committee practice);
• No time limit on her opening statement; and
• Will appear at a public hearing but she would like to limit the number of cameras to pool coverage.

 

Speaking of the letter, I demand an FBI investigation as to why Feinstein suppressed information about a SC nominee for more than six weeks.

 

Whalen is now apologizing for his tweets last night.

twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1043117304152817664

I think it is the right thing to do but would not have been necessary if he had taken the night off from social media.

 

Planned Parenthood.

 

And President Trump just gave the Democrats one of the things that they were hoping for by delaying the hearings:

I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!

twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1043126336473055235

Just yesterday CNN actually gave Trump a somewhat positive story about how well he has handled the accusations against Kavanaugh by staying off twitter about it. I think they were trying to goad him into saying something about it.

 

Still hoping Whelan has a trick up his sleeve and is not just a complete idiot.

That his apology was not to disavow his theory, but instead for posting it in a way that publicly identified the guy, gives me at least some continued hope that he wasn’t just spit-balling to see if anyone would buy it.

 

I don't think an investigation is even needed. The Senate should be able to sanction her for intentionally delaying the hearings. I would think.

 

Closing argument works one of two ways (unless the prosecutors waive it):
P Closing
D Closing
P Rebuttal

Or

D Closing
P Closing

So no, I'm not wrong.

 

I'm already giving to PP and would be happy to donate to a provider solely benefiting liberal/dem women.