I can buy that but she does a hell lot flying to be scared of flying I also "thank" I heard her say she was not aware of the committee coming to her to do the interview
Tell me why any of this had to be brought to the public's attention. Is there a scenario where the allegation is investigated behind the scenes, which is how I believe Dr. Ford would have wanted it, and everything resolved, so we don't go through the dog and pony show? That's the point I'm making by saying the investigation should have been done back in July when the Democrats were first made aware of it.
That would have been nice. I wish that was what happened. But we can't change the past. Two wrongs don't make a right.
A lot of people are afraid of flying. Many still have to do it for work. I imagine her lawyer played on that fear to delay the hearing to give them time to prepare. You can't really say you need time to prepare in public, even if we all know that's what was happening.
Or vacationing in Tahiti..because you know, that's just something she HAS to do, even though she's afraid of flying.
Rest assured If I was in her place and I was to get a polygraph test that runs as high as a $1,000.00 I would dam sure know who is paying for it and I thank you would to
I mean it's pointless since it's entirely up to Trump to decide whether he wants to reopen the FBI investigation, whether it takes 3 days or weeks. He already said no. Yelling at the judicial committee isn't going to help. The Democrats could have participated in the congressional investigation by sending their own staffers to interview the potential witnesses, but as we heard yesterday they apparently didn't take advantage of that opportunity.
WSJ reporting that Rachel Mitchell was pulled from questioning after she advised the Pubs that under her oath in AZ she was required to advise Kavanaugh of his rights for lying under oath about the July 1 1982 calendar entry. Break was called immediately after her nnext question and her day was then over. Edit-this may not be accurate based on Ben's post below. I don't have a link, my wife said she saw this being reported
Ted Cruz is effectively calling Kavanaugh a goofball who should be confirmed “Frankly his reputation in this town for decades has been that he’s a Boy Scout. A boring Boy Scout.” “The idea that he uses a calendar as a diary is frankly, to me, a little odd. I don’t think that’s something that many people do. But that’s apparently something that Judge Kavanaugh and his father do.”
It's really too bad that no one has this kind of jurisdiction over the ClusterF#$% that is the Senate Judiciary Committee!
These responses are just unbelievable to me: Scott, like Flake, is a weasel. But it doesn't even make sense. "I found both their testimony to be credible, so I'm going to ignore the woman." What? If her testimony is credible, you should be calling for an investigation and refusing to vote until then. You're basically saying, "There's a credible allegation of sexual assault against a man up for SCOTUS, but since I'm not sure, I'm going to confirm him." Why would you put a man on SCOTUS if he has a credible sexual assault allegation against him with no investigation? I wish they'd just be honest. They don't believe her, or they don't care.
"I also saw on your CV that you list the following interests of travel, and you, in parentheses put 'Hawaii, Costa Rica, South Pacific islands, and French Polynesia,'" Mitchell said. "Have you been to all this places?" "Yes," Ford said, acknowledging she traveled by plane and adding later, "It's easier for me to travel going that direction when it's a vacation."
Mainly because all of her witness that she listed as being there basically said she was lying that they knew nothing about the event even her life long friend. Boy with a friend like that she does not need any enemies
Having been first a lawyer and now a large client for 35+ years I can tell you that its entirely common practice for lawyers to front virtually all expenses related to their representation, and then to be reimbursed by their clients through the monthly billing cycle. When the representation is pro bono there is no ordinary monthly billing cycle and since the poly was in August and its still only September, the bill from the polygrapher may not have even been received yet. It's not like check out at a grocer and I think Ford had more things going on the pst few weeks than who was paying for the poly. I know you want to crucify her for every nuance that she was either confused about or mis-recollected, which is fine, but since you could give a rats ass about Kavanaugh's overt lies on the flip side, I'll attribute it to party over country.
I view Ford as having an allegation with no verifiable proof to back up her allegation, since all of the supposed witnesses except her state that they don’t recall the alleged party as ever occurring. And the one female friend that everyone is clinging to stated in her sworn statement that she has no recollection of ever being at a party with Kavanaugh. So 3 independent witnesses say that they have no recollection of ever attending a party with Ford and Kavanaugh, where those 3 independent witnesses are the only other witnesses to the party. So the witness testimony is heavily on Kavanaugh’s side of the scale, and not Ford’s. So how do you look into it? This hearing has looked into it. Ford’s 35+ year old allegation has been investigated. And no information has surfaced to justify a deeper look into this allegation. There are sworn statements from everyone other than Ford that was alleged to have attended the party, and they all state that they have no recollection of the party and/or Kavanaugh and Ford being present at the same party. So what information exists that can be used to either further investigate her allegations and/or justify further investigations of her allegations? All the alleged attendees stated they have no recollection of attending this party. And before you say that their statements are not proof due to them not definitively saying the party didn’t happen, I am going to say you need to stop being obtuse. These people are represented by lawyers, who would have to be incompetent to allow their clients to definitively state that they are certain about events happening 35+ years ago, especially since these are sworn statements under the penalty of perjury. So using a statement crafted by lawyers to weasel out of the fact that none of the attendees back up her story is being disingenuous.
That seems to be someone tweeting that WSJ reported that when the WSJ hasn’t. There are a number of people posting that they are deleting their retweets of it for that reason.
If that's your stance, then just say you don't believe her. Scott is talking out of both sides of his mouth, as usual.
