So it's fair to say that she is being shielded? Controlled? Coached? By whom? For what purpose is her counsel withholding information? What else are they withholding? And Why?
Because he has denied even being there which was affirmed by Ford's friend who also made a SWORN STATEMENT that she NEVER ATTENDED a party or get together that was attended by her, Ford, and BK at the same time why are you ignoring this KEY FACT!
All named witnesses have denied the get together ever took place......but of course that doesn't matter
I thought the reason reported that she could not do a hearing earlier in the week because she said she was afraid of flying and would have to drive from CA. That obviously was either misleading on her part or reported incorrectly, since she already was on the east coast.
The only source I have to check how women feel about this is Facebook which may or not be accurate but it does include remarks from all over the country and women seem to thank Ford is untruthful and Kavanaugh is the victim by a very large amount so I would not count on women revolting against the Republicans but just the opposite as they seem to be behind the Republicans by a very large number if this is a accurate gauge
Sounds like she will fly when she wants to but be scared when she wants to delay an event. Kind of like her selective memory.
What you say? Having two X chromosomes doesn't mean that conclusions in critical thinking all end up the same?
Kavanaugh let his white male privilege all hang out in the hearing. He reeked of it. That'll have an impact on women watching....especially ones who have experience some level of sexual assault.
This is how the legal system and investigations work now? So if OJ drafted a certified letter that he wasn't there, that's it, GAME OVER! "Hey man, I drafted this letter and stated it's under penalty of perjury. I wasn't even there man. You think I'd lie"? The reason trained investigators question multiple people, is to catch them in their lies. Isn't this what lawyers do in all cases for their clients? "Shield" them, "Coach" them? That's literally their jobs LOL. Now they shouldn't be "witholding" information. So that Ford didn't know of the offer to meet in CA is somewhat inexplicable. Although I don't trust the politicians here either. I believe she said she was "confused" about what was actually on the table. Look at how the "investigation" and 1 week delay came about in the committee yesterday, chaos. They hardly knew what THEY agreed to amongst themselves. I believe Ford and her laywers may have been confused, because that committee is a mess in handling this.
So you want to call a recovering alcoholic and a cancer victim to let a bunch of low life Democrats on the panel can bounce on him like a bunch of sharks in a feeding frenzy. He gave his statement under oath to a attorney He should under his health condition be afforded the same courtesy as was offered to Ford that it can be done at another location
So if someone says they’ve been sexually assaulted, it’s proper to give this person no investigation, two days to provide testimony, and vote less than one day later, as long the timing is inconvient for you? I guess we should just say that your and my values regarding sexual assault are quite different.
I don't remember beer being such a beverage of choice among high school drinkers. At least it wasn't for me. I still remember a buddy of mine and me, both being underage, giving a black guy on the sidewalk some money and asking him to go into a liquor store and buy a pint of vodka for us. He bought it for us and my friend and I chug-a-lugged that night, having Coke to chase it with. Now why do I remember that? It was 60 years ago! But you know what? I don't remember who the buddy was.
About his sworn statement he provided to the Senate committee? To be character assassinated about the stuff he wrote about in his book? To respond to an open ended allegation with no date and location? That’s the ticket, give the accuser more ammunition to use against you to make their story more believable, especially since their story is fluid to this point, and can be easily changed to incorporate the details you provide without risk of contradiction? Even if Judge was innocent and had proof of it, I would advise him not to testify until she had pinned herself down with respect to a date and location, because she could easily change her story to match almost any proof that Judge has. For example, she says the party was sometime in early July. Judge presents evidence that the only party he attended near a country club was on July 14th. The victim then narrows her story to say the attack must have happened July 14th. If Kavanaugh and Judge both admit they attended that party on July 14th, then even if they are innocent and the victim has no proof, they are screwed in the court of public opinion.
They would do didly swuat, not even apoligize or own any kind of screw up. Just meekly confirm, while swearing under their breadth how they will still find some dirt somewhere on kav to get him impeached. Ong with trump.
That is true. But listen to his words. "Do you agree to an FBI investigation?". "Would you ask for an FBI investigation to clear your name". He always came back to "Whatever the committee decides". Which of course is some circular logic, because Grassley and the WH both basically said "no need to investigate", "this isn't what the FBI does", etc. If he was truly interested in being "all-in", as he claimed over and over on this, he would have said "Sure, I am open to a full and complete FBI investigation". But he was *VERY* careful not to utter those words, and it was very obvious that he was specifically instructed NOT to say that. I believe when he was just about to perhaps "turn to his left" and ask Don McGann as a Dem senator requested, that's when Grassley actually interrupted the hearing. I think Grassley at that moment thought that Kavanaugh might actually say those words (since this was during the period where he was melting down).
Great. That is what he should do. So if he along with the other witness tell the FBI the same thing as their sworn statements is that good enough to go forward with confermation. If they change there story and implicate him I will be the first to say drop him. Are you willing to say the same ?
CORRECTION: There was an ALLEGED eye witness, Mark Judge, who submitted a letter which explicitly stated Kavanaugh would never have done such a thing and that there was no such party. What sort of trick question do you think you're going to be able to ask him that will somehow reveal he's lying? He has no other eye witness testimony to refute. No physical evidence to refute. What do you think he's going to say that would not only damage Kavanaugh, but incriminate himself as well? Even if he was there at the party, it's not going to be difficult for a defendant to deny being there after 36 years, when nobody else is pointing a finger at him saying "yes, you were" and there is no evidence saying "yes, you were." Go ahead and hit me with your next grasp at straws. I'm ready.
