Not sure what you mean. I’m sure she wasn’t making her story up - looked pretty emotional. I think it’s funny she doesn’t believe Ford but would expect others to believe her and doesn’t see the inconsistency. And for clarity, her position was that she thinks something happened just not what Ford said happened. Brett couldn’t be involved so Ford has to be wrong.
They can "fully cooperate" through their lawyers, and I think that is what they will do. That is all usmcnole is saying.
How about everyone of those people that said they would cooperate did so through their lawyers. It's easy to say all cooperate fully with the FBI when that statement is coming from a lawyer that knows the FBI will not have subpoena power. No good lawyer is going to open their client up to legal exposure if they can avoid it.
"Well, his mom and wife were in attendance--theres 2 reasons....and his daughters at home, a couple more... Just sayn..." Um, ya kinda did...
& Nope. He said he couldnt think of ANY reasons for lying about alcohol, drugs n sex in high school. I pointed a few out. Never suggested those reasons would EXCUSE or justify perjury (noting further that i dont bekieve he committed perjury).
Micro splicing? I'm not so sure. Definition of REASON Definition of EXCUSE Definition of LIE Not exactly micro splicing. Especially considering the seriousness of the J Kav situation.
I had stated here last week that Dr. Ford's testimony at the hearing on Thursday was believable. After reading several excellent articles over the weekend, in addition to Rachel Mitchell's assertion Friday night that she would not pursue charges against Kavanaugh, I now find Dr. Ford to be unbelievable. Too many glaring inconsistencies between her therapy notes, her letter to Feinstein and her polygraph statements. Among many other inconsistencies. The "no go" from Mitchell is particularly damning and I would love to hear more from Mitchell as to why she said what she did. I suspect she noted many of the inconsistencies which have been illuminated quite nicely in the days following the hearing on Thursday.
This is from Mitchell herself. I hadn't seen this. A nice read: In Memo, Outside Prosecutor Pokes Holes in Christine Blasey Ford’s Testimony
When a prosecutor makes blanket statement like "no reasonable prosecutor would pursue this", that speaks volumes. Her reputation and career still very much at stake. Making such a blanket statement, in a written memo no less, is pretty bold.
Question for all, especially lawyers: Dr. Ford's sworn testimony is evidence, correct? I know this is not a trial, but, can Kavanaugh initiate a lawsuit for false accusations or defamation of character? If so...why hasn't his lawyers mentioned this? I think I know the answer....but response welcomed
You can lead a horse to water.... I read some excellent, unbiased analyses over the weekend. Her story and presentation has a lot of glaring inconsistencies and gaps.
