Apparently you've never seen an assault victim being questioned. Nor have you paid attention to to right wing attacks... right wing talking heads have already attacked the wrong Christine Ford. She is going to get in the Senate hearings, from right wing and alt right media and from partisans in her community. And she knows it.
No, they really don't. Not in the manner that this will occur. See also Courtney Smith or Erica Kinsman. It happens but it is highly unpleasant and doesn't happen every day.
Didn't say that. I suspect she truly believes the story she is relaying. It wasn't even brought out in a political scenario - it was brought out in marriage counseling, likely because she never really dealt with the event. Whether her memory is "the truth" is something altogether different. We are too far removed from the event and there are always three sides to every story. We'll never know the real truth.
C'mon ….. several women did this as regards assault and rape by Willy Clinton …. and you people claimed they were whores and liars. Don't be so disingenuous. Lefties are as bad or worse than any conservative when it comes to attacking folks with which they do not agree.
Well, now that she raised the allegation …. I hope she does accept the invitation to testify as to her "truth" …. the "truth" as per a California liberal academic. BTW …. is she going to testify?
The last I heard she is going to testify. Unless she completely made this story up to distract her husband and marriage counselor from some other issues, then this is something real to her. Her liberal background likely won't have anywhere near as much impact as being assaulted and locked up as a 15 year old girl. Just a guess.
1. "Judge wrote that he was “thankful that there was no social media to capture” he and his friends’ antics in high school. Relating a get-together he had with friends from high school, Judge wrote, “When my high school buddies and I got together and exchanged memories of that time, we found ourselves genuinely shocked at the stuff we got away with.” That is something that almost anyone who grew up pre-cellphones says. 2. Judge’s high school yearbook quote: “Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.” High school yearbook quote that is likely a reference to something we are not privy to. 3. Judge: Women need to learn how to be more polite when rejecting romantic advances from men. Judge wrote that “younger women seem to have lost the ability to graciously turn down a man who politely and non-aggressively shows an interest in them” in a September 2014 column Wow, that is a real proof of him being a terrible person that clearly hates women. 4. Multiple reference of how he disagrees with modern feminism. A common position held by many on the Right. 5. Accused him of deleting all of his social media accounts. The doctor making the accusations did the same thing. What you have in that article is a Media Matters calling a conservative writer a misogynist, racist, homophobe because they don't like his views and opinions.
Speaking only for myself, I may have been guilty of what is now called "inappropriate touching". I never tried to pull the clothes off a girl when I was in high school. There is a difference.
I doubt you’ll see much in the way of hard questioning from Senators (and certainly not another Specter “I think her credibility has just been destroyed.” moment). By way of example, the last thing Cruz needs is Bob “Beta” O’Rourke running “here’s Ted Cruz making a sexual assault victim cry” ads. Collins today requested that the Committee set aside time for Ford and Kavanaugh’s attorneys to question the other side. I suspect that, if they come, that’s where the hard questions will come from. That being said, from reading today’s reports (Ford’s lawyer has requested conditions on her appearance, they’re whining about it being on Monday, Feinstein fussing about not being able to call a bunch of other random folks too), I’d guess that it’s more likely than not at this point that she won’t appear at the hearing, which gives the GOP the political cover to confirm Kavanaugh by saying “we tried to hear her out, but we can’t stop this process over allegations that she’s unwilling to make under oath.”
Ted Cruz is already doing an effective job of making himself look bad. It would be too bad if she doesn't testify. I completely understand why she might make that choice. Anita Hill went through hell for daring to tell the truth about Clarence Thomas.
They seem to be stalling, but why do you think she would back out at this point after coming forward publically?
That's a fair question. I meant a little more than the first but certainly not anything like the second. Most guys at that age will try to get to push the envelope but stop. My question is that if this was truly the case, why to this point has no one else come forth with a similar story. That kind of disrespect for another human being is not a one off. If anything, the women in his life are portraying him as someone who was respectful & kind to everyone. Even his ex girlfriends who certainly would have some insight into his personal behavior when it comes to the opposite sex.
I'm not entirely convinced that much of this (including "coming forward") wasn't just political gamesmanship to see if they could delay things until after the election or get Trump and/or Kavanaugh to withdraw the nomination. The whole "She wanted to raise this, but she didn't want to do it publicly or pursue it further, but she just so happened to hire a lawyer and take a polygraph about the thing she didn't want to push a month ago when no one was pushing it. And silly old Diane Feinstein made a mess of this whole thing by not sharing it with the committee in a timely fashion, but would you look at our dumb luck, Feinstein completely botching the handling of it just so happened to work out in our ideal outcome. And now that it did leak, might as well come out publicly even though we totally didn't want to (although we went through all sorts of steps to prepare to do so)." seems like quite a coincidence. If that's the case, the GOP saying "Alright, you're right, we ought to hear this out. See you Monday!" may have called their bluff. Particularly given all of the indications prior to the Committee setting the hearing that Feinstein was not exactly being cooperative in trying to get this timely addressed.
Anita Hill told the truth. Hindsight has made that quite obvious. They never let Angela Wright testify. Another woman came forward later, Moira Smith, who alleged that Clarence Thomas groped her in 1999 at a conference. What was there to gain in 1999? And then there's all of the information out there that contradicts Thomas' testimony and paints him as dishonest, including what David Brock has had to say.
There is no way Collin's idea is going to fly. It is DOA. Neither Ford or Kavanaugh would sign up for that. Having an outside attorney act as the lead questioner for Reps will allow the Republican Senators to avoid having attack ads featuring them asking tough questions. I still think Ford shows up on Monday. She has to now that her name is in public and Democrats have invested so much in this accusation. If she doesn't, it will be seen as proof that this was nothing more than a Hail Mary attempt at Borking Kavaungh. It will be use in the future any time the Republicans are confirming a SCOTUS nominee to prove that Democratic charges cannot be believe based off their past actions. It is a worse case scenario for Democrats and if you think Dr. Baker has been attacked from the right, just wait to see how the Left reacts if she doesn't appear. I expect the Republican to take a firm stance that the hearing will happen on Monday. They are offering Dr. Baker the opportunity to be heard but it will be on the Senate's schedule and not on hers. Allow it to be delayed once and it will be delayed again and again.
