September 26, 2018

"It’s like any witness preparation times 2,000. You come at them with the worst version you think the antagonists are likely to ask them..."

"... and you probe for their emotional stability: Can they take it?... This is pressure like you’ve never seen. … That’s why they call it 'murder boards.'"

Said Georgetown lawprof Emma Coleman Jordan, quoted in "Democrats in the dark on eve of historic Kavanaugh hearing/Senate Democrats have had no apparent contact with Christine Blasey Ford — and have no idea how she'll hold up" (Politico).

Also:
Asked whether she has confidence in Ford’s prep team, [Senator Dianne] Feinstein said that "I have no idea” and insisted that “we’re not getting involved in any of that. I assume her own lawyers are prepping her. We’re not. Let me make that very clear."
NOTE: This is the second post in a series of posts about Kavanaugh this morning. Comments on this post should only be about this article. Here's my post warning you that a series of posts is forthcoming. If you want to draw attention to other articles, do so in the comments section for that post, not this one.

173 comments:

AllenS said...

She'll hold up just fine, because she won't show up.

Mike Sylwester said...

Why, when and how did you scrub your Internet presence?

rhhardin said...

She's got to keep the wronged woman drama up, facts don't matter. Women are the audience, and via voter polls influence the Senators.

Mike Sylwester said...

When you left the house, why did you not warn the other girl that she would be alone with at least two drunken sexual predators?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

ooo democrats are desperate to coach her.

readering said...

Surely whole point of Senate Judiciary majority retaining woman sex crimes prosecutor is that she won't be asking murder board questions of sex crimes victim.

Mike Sylwester said...

Why did you think he might kill you my covering your mouth?

Did he block your nose too?

Was he suffocating you? For how long?

Were you able to scream? If so, why did you not do so?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

I want to know why the media are not talking about her method of transportation from CA to DC?

Did she really drive?

Oso Negro said...

The opponents of women’s suffrage anticipated such days.

Achilles said...

The obvious liar will not show and the supporters of the obvious lie will claim intimidation and victim hood for all women.

Mike Sylwester said...

If you are afraid to fly, then how do you travel to Hawaii to surf there?

If you are not afraid to fly, then why have you announced that you are afraid to fly?

Henry said...

They're pre-Pontius-Pilating.

MikeR said...

"It’s like any witness preparation times 2,000" Give me a break. There is no way Senators are going to ask her anything like the kind of questions a lawyer would in a real rape case. They dare not ask her anything but softballs, lest they forever be tarred as anti-woman and pro-rape.
Fortunately she really didn't say anything so they don't need to ask anything.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

MSNBC this morning used the "white republican men" slur. and the slur came from a pudgy fat white corrupt fat white white fat corrupt democrat.

Achilles said...

rendering said...
Surely whole point of Senate Judiciary majority retaining woman sex crimes prosecutor is that she won't be asking murder board questions of sex crimes victim.

“Victim”

It must be humiliating to be so transparently amoral.

Dave Begley said...

CBF will melt down. She will resort to crying because that's the only thing she has.

For you lawyers here, you know what it is like to be in a courtroom: trial or appellate. Althouse can recall her first year in the classroom. It ain't that easy. This woman is a liar and an amateur.

Supposedly one of the top things most people are frightened of is public speaking. The whole world will be watching this crazy cat woman try to lie and slander a federal judge. I stand by my prediction of a bloodbath. And the Dem Senators will really disgrace themselves.

Worth noting is that DiFi had a respectable career until now. She goes out in complete disgrace. She will lose the general election in November. Too old.

Unknown said...

It is quite an advantage to have the female victim hood angle going. If she actually gets hard questioning, women will get their panties in a wad, but so be it. Having a female lawyer question her is a smart move by the republicans, not that they will not still be abeled as white men women haters for daring to even ask for her to show up.

I'm sure kavanaugh ( as w have seen) will get no such deference. The democrats continue to teach me to vote and do business with my own tribe. Their Balkanization project is coming along swimmingly.

Dave Begley said...

I tend to think she won't show. She can claim victory without going through the crucible of the hearing.

Her "evidence" is posted in a USA Today story. Rank and ancient hearsay from her husband and Palo Alto neighbors. What a joke.

Her own family won't even back her! They know she's a crazy cat lady.

Michael K said...

Ford finally found a corroborating witness.

In her declaration, Adela Gildo-Mazzon said Ford told her about the alleged assault during a June 2013 meal at a restaurant in Mountain View, California, and contacted Ford’s attorneys on Sept. 16 to tell them Ford had confided in her five years ago.

And

In another declaration, Keith Koegler said Ford revealed the alleged assault to him in 2016, when the two parents were watching their children play in a public place and discussing the “light” sentencing of Stanford University student Brock Turner.

“Christine expressed anger at Mr. Turner’s lenient sentence, stating that she was particularly bothered by it because she was assaulted in high school by a man who was now a federal judge in Washington, D.C.,” Koegler said.


Well, she finally got a male to agree with her. He sounds like a "house husband" but we know nothing more.

Both were after the 2012 "revelation" of her story during therapy.

Mike Sylwester said...

How many times were you at that house before and after that incident?

Did you know someone who lived there?

If so, was that person one of the persons whom you have named in relation to the incident?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

sex crime victim age 15.. a 17 year old didn't actually rape her.

= he raped her - yesterday.

Gahrie said...

I assume her own lawyers are prepping her

Her own lawyers being long time Democratic activists being paid mysteriously.

Levi Starks said...

I don’t need a prep team if my goal is to tell the truth.

Michael K said...

I don't think she will show up, either. The "witnesses" are for the show.

Michael K said...

The 2012 Planned Parenthood ad that set off Chrissy Ford's story.

They photoshopped Kavanaugh into the Supreme Court and suddenly she remembered !

urpower said...

The female imagined as chaos agent or terrorist serves what interests?

Mike Sylwester said...

How often do you feel distraught?

Have you ever lied when you appear to be distraught?

Balfegor said...

Her counsel's obvious desperation to find some excuse for her not to appear makes me think she's not going to be a good witness. On the other hand, I do think that if the questioning attorney tries standard investigation tactics -- e.g. asking the same question five times until she gets the "straight" answer she wants -- that's going to look really bad to the audience, and generate a lot of sympathy for the witness. At least, that sort of thing generates sympathy in me. I don't know the rules for Congressional testimony -- does her lawyer get to object?

All that said, Ford is a professor and you still have to do oral defense to get a PhD right? She's probably better than the average witness at standing up to the kind of rhetorical games played in testimony.

Mike said...

Feinstein is not believable. We are to believe that Ford, all by herself, just happened to pick the two lawyers who work for Andy McCabe and Hillary Clinton? Really? Even after Ronan Farrow said Democrats found Ramirez for him? Really? It’s time to remove Feinstein and Hirono from that committee.

Amadeus 48 said...

DiFi is managing expectations. What else are you going to do on that drive from Cali but prep? Did Ted Kennedy's staff leave anything to chance when they were smearing nominees?

By the way, Ford managed all those trips to Hawaii. I don't really think she can't fly. I think she is lying about that.

Mike said...

No she won’t show. That’s been my position all along. I see no reason to change my mind.

MikeR said...

"In her declaration, Adela Gildo-Mazzon said Ford told her about the alleged assault during a June 2013 meal" This one is most interesting to me. Does she say that Kavanaugh's name was mentioned?
Asking because presumably there was some incident like this one that did happen, that she told her therapist in 2012. But there is no reason to think that Kavanaugh did it. His name got attached later, when he was suggested for SCOTUS.
Update: I see her document https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4945539-Adela-Gildo-Mazzon-Support-Letter-Ford.html and it just mentions "a federal judge".
"I also have a receipt from the restaurant from that meal." Whoa. From 2013. Who does that? Scary person. I want to see a photocopy.

Belle17 said...

1. She isn't going to show up.

2. I cannot begin to express how many people I know that are not remotely into politics are so nuclear pissed about the media lynch mob here. The fundamental unfairness of this situation is motivating people to vote, and it isn't for the Democrats. Their "engaged" voters are part of this smear job.

tcrosse said...

They could bring in a ringer if CBF fails to appear. I wouldn't put it past them.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave Begley said...

Belle17 is absolutely correct. The Dems get crushed in November. After this stunt, I'll never vote for another Democrat again for ANY office. I'm talking at the county and city level. No decent person should want to be associated with today's Democrat party.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...

Do you think that a person's character should be defined by how he behaves while extremely drunk?

Do you define everyone's character by how he behaves while extremely drunk?

Should other people define your own character by how you have behaved while intoxicated?

LilyBart said...

Mike Sylwester said...
How many times were you at that house before and after that incident?

Did you know someone who lived there?


That she can't remember where or when feels significant. My husband says its because the story is false, and naming verifiable things (like time and place) can theoretically disprove her story (ie Kav was out of town or had his wisdom teeth out that day, etc).

My theory is that she doesn't remember because whatever happened in high school wasn't as significant as she tells us, and perhaps she now believes today. An uncomfortable thing happened, and she trumped it up into something far more significant in later years. So her memory on the specifics is weak (my memory of time/place for my near rape in high school (circa early 80's too) is quite sharp). This would explain why no one else who she names as being there remembers it (because it wasn't a thing). Something happened in 2012 that she began to refer to this event and tell people, even fairly casually, if her current 'corroboration' references are true, whereas, before 2012, she never told anyone, not even best friends and new husband. In 2012, she was in couples' therapy - her husband is complaining about her and she defends herself by bringing up a traumatic event. "You don't know what happened to me!". The story is quite alarming (four boys in a room attacking me!) And she's either invested herself in this new story, and allowed it to become part of the fabric of her life. Perhaps she's sharpened it and repurposed it for political use.

Browndog said...

Diane Feinstein engineered this entire thing months ago, and is calling the shots as we speak.

This is not the Clarence Thomas model. It's the Roy Moore model.

Sally327 said...

They shouldn't over-prepare her. It isn't going to help her credibility if she comes across as too mechanical. There really is no way for her to lose here unless she gets theatrical.

CWJ said...

“we’re not getting involved in any of that. I assume her own lawyers are prepping her. We’re not. Let me make that very clear."

Not prepping her, but no word regrarding, communication, consultation or being receiving briefings. But very clear on the "prepping." As in we're not physically there in the room. That's some Clinton quality word parsing right there.

Tommy Duncan said...

Will Ford's testimony be under oath? Will she be at risk of perjury?

If so, I'll bet she's a no-show. She's probably admiring the elk at Yellowstone right now.

Browndog said...

Debra Katz, "Ford's attorney", is pictured with Hillary getting into her SUV headed to a fundraiser in 2016.

John Lynch said...

All the talk about being afraid of flying and wanting to go last doesn't sound promising.

Andrew said...

Something very sad about this situation is how it exposes the ignorance of so many citizens. No understanding of due process, the presumption of innocence, the rights of the accused, etc. And the Democrats and news media are cynically exploiting and adding to the ignorance.

At the same time, I am gratified that many normally apolitical people are seeing through all this, and are becoming motivated to cast the Dems out in November.

Amadeus 48 said...

DiFi is chumming the chumps.

Michael K said...

In 2012, she was in couples' therapy - her husband is complaining about her and she defends herself by bringing up a traumatic event. "You don't know what happened to me!". The story is quite alarming (four boys in a room attacking me!) And she's either invested herself in this new story, and allowed it to become part of the fabric of her life. Perhaps she's sharpened it and repurposed it for political use.

Pretty good analysis.

The Crack Emcee said...

Belle17 said...

"1. She isn't going to show up.

2. I cannot begin to express how many people I know that are not remotely into politics are so nuclear pissed about the media lynch mob here. The fundamental unfairness of this situation is motivating people to vote, and it isn't for the Democrats. Their "engaged" voters are part of this smear job."

That's weird, because I've only seen two normal, non-news junky-type people who even recognize the name "Kavanaugh", and one wanted me to explain what's going on with him. When I did - I swear to God - they shook their head and said "white people" before walking away.

Apparently, outside of everyone else's watchful eyes, y'all really know how to live.

readering said...

Remember the Republicans purported to hire Alexandra Cabot, not Perry Mason.

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Browndog said...

Never been big on party loyalty but if the GOP has any brains from here on out they’ll remind people they’re the party of letting you get drunk in college without it ruining the rest of your life.

-Mark Hemingway

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Asked whether she has confidence in Ford’s prep team, [Senator Dianne] Feinstein said that "I have no idea” and insisted that “we’re not getting involved in any of that. I assume her own lawyers are prepping her. We’re not. Let me make that very clear.

Okay, I'll let you make that clear. Please clarify exactly who the pronoun we includes. When you say we're not getting involved in any of that, exactly what involvement has already taken place?

And please forward all correspondence amongst any elected Democrat as well as all their staff ( both office and campaign ) or Democrat party official or staff, any lawyers or consultants hired by any of the above, and Dr. Ford, and any lawyers or consultants working with her, from the start of July through the present.

Once you've done that, then I will consider this matter clear, and will consider the possibility that you might actually want the truth about this incident to come out. Until then, fuck off.

LilyBart said...

I cannot begin to express how many people I know that are not remotely into politics are so nuclear pissed about the media lynch mob here.


This whole thing has a very bad feel. I doubt we, as a country, will ever recover from it. And the problem started when the Dems decided to hold back this charge until the last minute - showing that this really is just about 'political strategy' for them. I don't think they give a rat's bottom about truth and justice. I don't think they'd mind smearing someone for political advantage. I don't think they mind using a troubled woman for political advantage.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

#Believe the accusers/females.

Unless it's a D.

Senator Bob Menendez only ‘likes the youngest and newest girls’ says Dominican prostitute who 'attended alleged sex parties with him'

The Crack Emcee said...

Browndog said...

Never been big on party loyalty but if the GOP has any brains from here on out they’ll remind people they’re the party of letting you get drunk in college...ruining the rest of someone else's life.

FIFY

John Lynch said...

Here's some speculation:

She remembered something during therapy in 2012, but didn't connect it to Kavanaugh until July of this year. She saw him on TV and was like, "THAT's THE GUY!"

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

"letting you get drunk in college"

What - should make drinking in college illegal now?

The Cracker Emcee Rampant said...


“If you are afraid to fly, then how do you travel to Hawaii to surf there?

If you are not afraid to fly, then why have you announced that you are afraid to fly?”

And what could make it plainer that this is just stalling? How could any sentient person think otherwise?
She will show. You don’t plan a production this big without managing every detail, especially making sure your lead hits the stage on opening night.

LilyBart said...

Crack said: That's weird, because I've only seen two normal, non-news junky-type people who even recognize the name "Kavanaugh", and one wanted me to explain what's going on with him.

A male co-worker, who is usually pretty quite and doesn't talk much about non-work things asked me out of the blue early this week, "What do you think about this Kavanaugh thing?".

I think people are noticing. Men have to be worried that one, decades old accusation can ruin them.

narciso said...

her former staffer, page hertzner, is coordinating the accusations under demand justice, headed by brian fallon, Clinton foundation factotum, but she doesn't know anything,

Amadeus 48 said...

I think all this "no-show" talk may be wishful thinking.

The woman is a psychologist. This is a dark money Soros/Steyer operation. There is a plan, a story, and a message. The object is to elicit maximum sympathy from a fair-minded and kind-hearted American public, particularly women. Look at how Althouse has given this unlikely story the benefit of the doubt. I expect Ford to knock it over the fence with the Oprah crowd.

Browndog said...

Ford was never meant to show up and testify. By now, Kavanaugh was supposed to be so toxic the republicans would have jettisoned him.

Roy Moore model.

FIDO said...

Do you, Legal Scholar, Professional Woman and "Cruelly Neutral" Althouse, believe Feinstein that she has nothing to do with Ford?

robother said...

I imagine that the Salem Witchcraft witnesses would not have performed well under this kind of cross-examination. Although, no doubt they would've perceived Satan in possession of the cross-examiner, who then would've been promptly taken into custody for his own trial. Wonder if Avenatti and the Dems are developing a similar strategy for deployment against the cross-examiner here?

Mary H said...

There is this on twitter, which I saw on a retweet. I have no idea of the credibility of the allegation or the person making it. But, hey!


Harold Finch

‏ @hfinch61
4m4 minutes ago

The odds of it being a coincidence that Dr Christine Ford is DIRECTLY connected to @petestrzok sister Jill Strzok AND DIRECTLY connected to Andrew McCabe's wife Dr Jill McCabe are near ZERO.

Now factor in McCabes former lawyer M Bromwich & a mccabe employee at FBI r her lawyers.

Mike said...

Diane Feinstein engineered this entire thing months ago, and is calling the shots as we speak.

Chuckie Schumer engineered this entire thing months ago, and is calling the shots as we speak. FIFY.

Read the end notes in Mark Levin's Men in Black for all the background memos from Chuck and Joe (Biden) and Ted (Kennedy of course) during the Thomas hearings. These things DO take a lot of planning and scheming to keep the lying witnesses straight.

dbp said...

It must have been tough to find a good prep-lawyer who was willing to do the job on a three day car ride. I suppose they could take the train, but there wouldn't be much privacy.

John Lynch said...

I don't expect anything. Anything could happen at the hearing. Keep an open mind.

But I'd bet on the one who's been doing hearings all month over the rookie who isn't used to being questioned by anyone. Psych profs live in another universe.

We'll see.

Dave Begley said...

Brett Kavanaugh's handwritten 1982 wall calendar is at USA Today. Just as I predicted. Really almost too good to be true.

Slam dunk. CBF is toast.

traditionalguy said...

DiFi wants no part of Subpornation of Perjury. That's the job of others in the Conspiracy.

The questioner is a Prosecutor. Could she be there to prosecute Ford for Perjury. Remember, Trump's guys are now the ones having access to the NSA downloads of all communications ever made.

Ralph L said...

Was this posted here?
10 red flags about sex assault claims
By an employment lawyer. I think she hit all 10.

John Lynch said...

Also, OF COURSE all her lawyers are Dem activists. Who else would do it? She's getting much better representation that way, so good for her.

SeanF said...

MikeR: "I also have a receipt from the restaurant from that meal." Whoa. From 2013. Who does that? Scary person. I want to see a photocopy.

I do. I keep all my receipts. Every so often I go through and toss some of the older ones, but it's not a regular process and I usually keep at least 5 years' worth. Would you like me to pull out some sample 2013 receipts and send images to you?

Caligula said...

Above-the-fold story in today's Journal-Sentinel:

"Why I didn't report: I was 15 and asleep. He was my sister's boyfriend."

"This personal essay was written for the Journal Sentinel by a Milwaukee native. She has chosen not to name her attacker and has asked not to be named."

"I remember it was a hot, sticky summer night. I remember he had long fingers that felt like spiders."

The photo for the story shows a picture of someone wearing a T-shirt with a large "Belive Women" printed on its front. Does a story like this "just happen" to get published as the above-the-fold headline story, and can we assume the reader is supposed to think "Well, if it happened to her then maybe something like this also happened to Kavanaugh's accusers? And if it could have happened then maybe it did happen (we can't be sure it didn't), and, well, drunken frat boys are like that, aren't they? And ...

Do these Gannett "journalists" ever question whether a "credible" (i.e.,even minimally plausible) accusation is or should be sufficient? Do they ever look in a mirror and see the ghost of Joe McCarthy looking back at them?

or is it somehow paranoid to see this story (and its placement) as anti-Kavanaugh agit-prop, even though it never explicitly mentions Kavanaugh?

https://www.jsonline.com/

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...

Do you think that a mature adult's character should be judged forever by how he behaved in high school?

Do you want your own character to be judged now by how you behaved in high school?

When you voted for Barack Obama to be President, were you aware that he was intoxicated on illegal drugs often while he was in high school?

If so, were you concerned that he would be intoxicated on illegal drugs often while he would be President?

readering said...

Haven't heard anyone worried Kavanaugh will show up for work drunk.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

A thin allegation against any R is very serious. A thick allegation against any D is unreliable and must be ignored.

Tommy Duncan said...

Blogger Dave Begley said...

"Brett Kavanaugh's handwritten 1982 wall calendar is at USA Today. Just as I predicted. Really almost too good to be true.

Slam dunk. CBF is toast."


I disagree. If true, this gives Ford a chance to pick an open weekend for "her event". The calendar should be released after her sworn testimony.

readering said...

We did worry Obama sneaked cigarettes as POTUS

Michael K said...

If true, this gives Ford a chance to pick an open weekend for "her event". The calendar should be released after her sworn testimony.

If The GOP was smarter than I think they are, they would release a fake calendar.

Wait for her to pick a date, then release the real one.

Amadeus 48 said...

Mike Sywester--If you believe David Garrow's book about Obama (Rising Star), Obama took a lot of drugs at Columbia and after. Garrow says he essentially moved to Chicago to get away from his social group in New York, who liked to "party" every weekend.

Nonapod said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Spiros Pappas said...

Rapists, like Mr. Kavanaugh, are generally "normal" men. They aren't overly impulsive, aggressive or violent. So we don't need to hear from Mr. Kavanaugh's teachers or coaches or whatever. I don't care that he got straight A's (a feat easily accomplished if you study two or three hours a day) and was a choirboy. And, by the way, Mr. Kavanaugh's Fox News interview was b*llsh*t. So it's only Dr. Ford's testimony that is important. Oh, by the way, evidence that the victim was intoxicated and delays in reporting the crime, doesn't mean the rape didn't happen! I hope the Republicans are better than this.

You people should know that we (men) don't live with the constant threat of rape. Maybe only men in prison have experienced fear comparable to that of Dr. Ford. So stop acting like pigs!!!

And I hope Trump gives Kavanaugh the ax today. This joker has been given too much leeway.

Char Char Binks said...

If it happened the way she said, he groped, she objected, he stopped. What's the problem?

Nonapod said...

Chuckie Schumer engineered this entire thing months ago, and is calling the shots as we speak. FIFY.

Yeah, I tend to believe DiFi is nothing but a slow-witted dupe in all this, and in general. You're talking about someone who was the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee for years who had a Chinese spy right under their nose. Why anybody takes her seriously about anything anymore is a mystery to me.

Ol' Chuckie Schumer, the Uriah Heep of the Senate, is the much more likely culpret behind all these shenanigans.

narciso said...

You dunk him in water, if he drowns he's innocent, if he lives hes a warlock,

Michael K said...

Look at how Althouse has given this unlikely story the benefit of the doubt. I expect Ford to knock it over the fence with the Oprah crowd.

Disagree. She won't show because the evil Republican white men bullied her.

She is too crazy to be interviewed by non-allies.

How many Psychology Professors do you know ? I have one in the family.

Belle17 said...

Dear Crack Emcee:
>>That's weird, because I've only seen two normal, non-news junky-type people who even recognize the name "Kavanaugh", and one wanted me to explain what's going on with him. When I did - I swear to God - they shook their head and said "white people" before walking away. <<

Actually, they are just regular people, mostly women, who see their sons, brothers, and husbands in Kavanaugh's place.

But good to know it's just a "white people" problem.

narciso said...

And whose staffer, Daniel jones, presented a very selective review of interrogation records, and subsequently was a channel for cody shearer's equally dubious second dossier, run through jonathan winer, a former staffer for john Kerry's witchhunt, against the company in the 80s, as a Sandinista toole, Michael Shannon plays him in the gary webb hagiography without naming him.

Michael K said...

Why anybody takes her seriously about anything anymore is a mystery to me.

Her husband and his tax lawyers do. He's made millions from her Senate role.

The Chinese do, too.

readering said...

Caligula: not anti-Kavanaugh, a response to POTUS idiot remark.

I Callahan said...

The comments by the Georgetown prof are just battlespace preparation. If Ford were to testify, she's going to be eaten alive by the questioner, and these will be the excuses used to justify believing her anyway.

Nonapod said...

Her husband and his tax lawyers do. He's made millions from her Senate role.

The Chinese do, too.


They may take the information and influence they derived from her seriously, but I suspect she personally is a laughing stock to the Chinese.

Big Mike said...

Is Ford even in Washington, DC? If so, how did she get there? Surely she didn’t fly after all?

mockturtle said...

The article endeavors to:
1. Show that CBF is not being influenced by Dems. {It fails].
2. Show CBF as a VICTIM. [She isn't]

Bias that was once a subtle but irritating mosquito has become a roaring Jabberwock.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

If it happened the way she said, he groped, she objected, he stopped. What's the problem?

C'mon, that's not what she claimed. Are you being disingenuous?

Assault, sexual assault, attempted rape. That's what she says happened. And he didn't stop (according to her). The assault stopped only when Judge jumped on them and allowed her to escape.

These are serious charges. IF true - if true - he's disqualified.

Mr. Majestyk said...

Don't kid yourselves: CBF will show.

mockturtle said...

Since a single Althouse blog post usually involves manifold topics it is sometimes difficult to find the focal point. If there is one.

Mr. Majestyk said...

Any and all of CBF's lapses of memory will be excused by the Dems/media as the result of the "trauma" from the "attack."

Michael K said...

They may take the information and influence they derived from her seriously, but I suspect she personally is a laughing stock to the Chinese.

Hillary, too. The Clintons were bought in 1996. They've just rented DiFi.

Browndog said...

These are serious charges. IF true - if true - he's disqualified.

How do you propose we get beyond "if"?

Feelz or facts? Because that's what is at stake here. Do feelings over-ride facts? Classic liberalism vs conservatism.

Which one wins the day in today's America is anyone's guess.

Maryland Geezer said...

The audience for the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing is Collins/Murkowski/Flake/Corker.

It’s clear that the Dem strategy for Ford from the beginning was to use the anonymous letter as Plan B when the Dems failed to derail Kavanauh during the hearings. It has failed, since the vague letter forced her out of her anonymity. She and the Dems have been improvising since.

Kavanaugh knows what’s coming, has a strategy, is well prepared, experienced and self-disciplined. The Martha MacCallum interview did a good job of prepping Kavanaugh for the hearing. He and wife Ashley showed remarkable self-discipline during tough questioning in that interview and previewed for Team Ford how he will handle the hearing

The Dems/Ford not so much, hence the addition of Bromwich and the last minute second accuser. The flurry of Team Ford demands for the hearing logistics signals that they’re hoping that she will not have to testify and are uncertain how she will handle herself during the hearing. Prepping her will help her, but the substance of her accusation is flimsy and cannot withstand scrutiny.

Grassley et al are smart to bring in an outside female lawyer to do the questioning. A disciplined, focused, non-political questioning by a non-politician is the best approach for the Republicans. The behavior of the Dems during the Kavanaugh hearings is ample evidence of how political grandstanding and posturing backfires. How will the Dems handle themselves? Will they be focused, disciplined and non-political and avoid grandstanding or will we have another “I am Spartacus moment”?

The most recent Dem meme of “guilty until proven innocent” will not fly with Collins/Murkowski/Flake/Corker or the American people. The spectacle in recent days of Schumer, Coons, Hirono, et al promoting the notion that somehow Kavanaugh has to prove he didn’t do it when there is no date, no location and those allegedly present have sworn they can’t corroborate, will not fly. Furthermore, C/M/F/C have signaled they are weary of the Dem antics.

The Dems are the ones headed down the road of uncertainty.

vermonter said...

My guess is that somewhere in flyover country, a mysterious illness, flu, head cold, etc. will crop up necessitating hospitalization for several days to a week.

Darrell said...

There is a rumor going around that Ford was involved in an incident like this and it didn't involve Kavanaugh at all. Her mom and her filed a police report and the matter was investigated and turned over to the local DA. The DA decided not to press changes and the resolution was a small amount of money for torn clothing and items lost when Ford left them, and an apology from the accused and a pledge to avoid contact with her as much as possible--with possible stronger action if he didn't. The incident happened at the boy's house--that's why she can't "remember" where--and the boy's father was a prominent lawyer with clout and he got all the records sealed. Rape wasn't a part of this, either, and it was at the time Ford mentioned.

Krumhorn said...

What prep is required? All she needs to do is squirt a few on a timely basis and run for the exit when she gets distraught. I’ve got my beer and pork rinds for the event and a Kleenex box at the ready for I may also be moved to weep.

- Krumhorn

Ken B said...

Don't we KNOW her lawyers were part of the "strategy" discussions with dems? Are plugged in to the DNC?

Mr. Majestyk said...

The Dems on the committee will go bonkers grilling Kavanaugh on his drinking in high school and college. As Although alluded to a few days ago, the idea of "blackout drinking" will feature prominently in their questioning.

Etienne said...

Let's review.

1. A woman writes Senator Feinstein advising of an incident she had, and offering it as a line of questioning in her interrogation of the nominee.

2. The Senator sits on the letter, and never confronts the nominee, but she devises a plan. What if she weaponized the letter, and drop it on the committee at the end. This will then provide the fuel for the delay tactic into the midterms.

3. The Senator doesn't really need the constituent anymore. The letter is now serving another purpose. The constituent and her claim is not even important to the delay tactic.

4. The constituent is asked by the Chairman to testify, in order to make the Chairman seem reasonable. The Chairman knows the game, and could care less about the constituent. He feels sorry for her, and has probably advised her that she is merely a victim now, and her best bet would be to not show up.

5. The victim constituent of Senator Feinstein has a chance to get out of this, by saying she doesn't trust in the process, and drop out. The earlier the better.

Francisco D said...

"All that said, Ford is a professor and you still have to do oral defense to get a PhD right? She's probably better than the average witness at standing up to the kind of rhetorical games played in testimony."

It is a myth that PhD candidates are significantly at risk during their oral defense. If your committee agrees to schedule your defense, they have accepted your dissertation. Of course, they don't tell you that because it is part of the ritual to put you under pressure.

The least (by far) risky part of the dissertation process is the oral defense. Getting your proposal accepted is probably the most risky and terrifying.

I had a three hour defense (with 5 professors) scheduled and spent the first two hours explaining the advanced data analysis techniques that I used. They were not questioning my analysis. They told me that I was the expert and they wanted to learn about it. The other hour was spent with simple questions and clarifications.

They asked me to leave the room so they could "vote." That is a very important part of the hazing ritual. They never held a vote. The just asked if anyone has reservations that were not addressed before the meeting.

The last step is to bring you into the room and congratulate you as a colleague. It is a formal and constantly repeated ritual.

Mr. Majestyk said...

If CBF has trouble with some of the questions, the media will focus on the prosecutor from Arizona and what a nasty, horrible, gender-betraying bully she is.

Leland said...

I think it is somewhat reasonable to expect a person bringing a charge to have their own lawyers prep them on handling the events regarding the charge. Certainly, Debra Katz is well paid enough to give Christine Blasey Ford that preparation.

Still, it is DiFi that made this woman a public figure, and it seems that she is now washing her hands of Blasey Ford. I think it is another misstep for DiFi.

Michael K said...

Darrell, that's an interesting story. I wonder if anyone is trying to get that record ?

When it's a Republican, every woman's hand is against him.

mockturtle said...

The Dems are deploying both Alinsky and Machiavelli. But since they are far more stupid than either, they will likely fail.

Ken B said...

Can private groups, lawfare, present evidence and get people charged with perjury some time in the future? Ie how real is the risk of perjury for anyone here? Anyone know?

Ambrose said...

"her own lawyers" were provided to her by the Democrats.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

How do you propose we get beyond "if"?

I was responding to the poster who said he just allegedly "groped" a girl in high school. The charges are far more serious than that.

As to the determination: we listen respectfully to her claims, we listen to other witnesses, we listen respectfully to Kavanaugh....

Then we - or the Senators - make their determination. If we find that judgment wrong, we vote them out.

That's the best - or least bad - approach we have.

mockturtle said...

Michael K asserts: When it's a Republican, every woman's hand is against him.

Be fair, Mike. Most of the women on this blog see through the crap.

Krumhorn said...

BTW, while I have always believed that Roe is bad law, and I have been forced over the years to acquiesce to the view that it is settled law, I now wish fervently for Roe to be overturned at the FIRST opportunity. The rabid lefties richly deserve paybacks which we all know to be a mf’er.

- Krumhorn

readering said...

Are there women on this blog?

Ken B said...

Darrell cites a rumor. Rumors aren't worth shit, on either side. Evidence folks, evidence.

Tom said...

Ford now has four declarations from other people who state she brought up the assault by Kavanaugh prior the nomination. They need to testify.

At least one of the declarations notes that Kavanuagh is a federal judge.

These declarations could increase the likelihood that her story is true. Or, it could mean that she had to come forward because she had made these accusations in the past and now would lose face if she didn't continue with the story.

Francisco D said...

"Kavanaugh knows what’s coming, has a strategy, is well prepared, experienced and self-disciplined. The Martha MacCallum interview did a good job of prepping Kavanaugh for the hearing. He and wife Ashley showed remarkable self-discipline during tough questioning in that interview and previewed for Team Ford how he will handle the hearing."

Psychologists with forensic training (usually by lawyers) are taught the three most common answers to rely on in their testimony:

1. Yes

2. No

3. I don't know

I don't know if CBF has forensic training, but it will be interesting to see how disciplined she is, if she shows up.

mockturtle said...

readering asks, sarcastically: Are there women on this blog?

There are quite a few of us and mostly, I would say, sensible ones.

Mike Sylwester said...

Steve M. Galbraith at 9:35 AM
Assault, sexual assault, attempted rape. That's what she says happened. And he didn't stop (according to her). The assault stopped only when Judge jumped on them and allowed her to escape.

That is her interpretation of what happened.

What did happen?

What sexual part of her body was touched?

If no sexual part of her body was even touched, then at what point can his actions be defined as "attempted rape"?

The questioning should determine what did happen, not merely what she thought might happen.

Gospace said...

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
"letting you get drunk in college"

What - should make drinking in college illegal now?


News flash- if the drinking college students are under 21- as most of them are- it IS illegal. Most colleges have their own independent uniformed police force, who ignore that aspect of the law.

College students on campus routinely get away with behavior, particularly involving illegal substances, that routinely causes criminal records for people the same age doing the same thing but outside the sacrosanct ground of the academies.

Krumhorn said...

There are no penumbras...only the murky shadows where libruls draft their diktat.

- Krumhorn

mockturtle said...

I don't know if CBF has forensic training, but it will be interesting to see how disciplined she is, if she shows up.

She is probably torn between two scenarios:
1. She could be forever lauded as a hero. The brave woman who saved Roe v. Wade.
2. She could be exposed as the neurotic and foolish woman that she is.

FIDO said...

Mockturtle said: Be fair, Mike. Most of the women on this blog see through the crap.


Yes, but how does a guy tell which kind of woman she is now...and what kind of woman she will turn into after high school and gender studies class?


This is a horrible slam on gender relationships and if there were any justice, MEtoo would burn every Democrat to the ground by their own standards.

FIDO said...

1. She could be forever lauded as a hero. The brave woman who saved Roe v. Wade.
2. She could be exposed as the neurotic and foolish woman that she is.



I embrace 'and' for situations like that.

Krumhorn said...

Are there women on this blog

Actually, there are a number of very interesting women on this blog starting with our hostess.

- Krumhorn

MikeR said...

@Spiros "Rapists, like Mr. Kavanaugh, are generally "normal" men. They aren't overly impulsive, aggressive or violent. So we don't need to hear from Mr. Kavanaugh's teachers or coaches or whatever. I don't care that he got straight A's (a feat easily accomplished if you study two or three hours a day) and was a choirboy. And, by the way, Mr. Kavanaugh's Fox News interview was b*llsh*t. So it's only Dr. Ford's testimony that is important. Oh, by the way, evidence that the victim was intoxicated and delays in reporting the crime, doesn't mean the rape didn't happen! I hope the Republicans are better than this."
This person seems never to have heard of "he said, she said". Or, "burden of proof". Of course none of it means the rape didn't happen. So bring some evidence that the rape did happen. Ford's testimony does not count for any more than Kavanaugh's testimony, except that it is far fuzzier.

JAORE said...

"Brett Kavanaugh's handwritten 1982 wall calendar is at USA Today. Just as I predicted. Really almost too good to be true.

Slam dunk. CBF is toast."

I disagree. If true, this gives Ford a chance to pick an open weekend for "her event". The calendar should be released after her sworn testimony.

My thought exactly. And why Ford has to testify first.

Imagine a detective show where the grill they accused, "Where were you on the night of an unspecified date, likely late spring or summer of 1982 or some other year?"

Nonapod said...

The most recent Dem meme of “guilty until proven innocent” will not fly with Collins/Murkowski/Flake/Corker or the American people.

Maybe. I'm not as certain as you seem to be though.

In the absence of any real evidence or corroboration, it's just a standard he said/she said. In such a situation the determining factors are the character of the accuser and the accused and the theatrics of the forum.

Unfortunately, character is largerly a subjective, emotional assessment.

In a more objective world, character would be determined by personal history. Do these either of these individuals have a history of lying? Does the accused have a history of behavior congruent with the accusation (in this case, is there any history to suggest Kavanaugh behaved badly toward women in the past)? And conversely, does the accuser have any history of making up stories such as this one, or of being untruthful in general?

But the problem is, humans often let their emotions overwhelmingly guide their decision making, especially where politics and personal trauma are concerned. If, for example, Ford bursts into tears while being questioned, some people may not be able to look objectively at the content of what she's actually alleging. They'll feel that it's an authentic response to being pressed about a real trauma. They'll feel it.

Democrats have always had the advantage in the arena of emotional combat.

Darrell said...

Bush's expunged drunk-driving record? Democrat fanatic releases it despite penalties of law and nothing happens to him afterward.

Sealed juvenile records? Unless you can find a Democrat to release something that would nuke their case, you'll never see it. Being sealed, no one is supposed to know what's in there and I don't think you can make a case with a judge to open it without getting the accused or Ford to request that.

I said it was a rumor and I don't put stock in that. But I keep it in mind, too.

Darrell said...

The evidence--witnesses named by Ford--support Kavanaugh in that they say they have no recollection of a party, Kavanaugh, or an incident like that.

Big Mike said...

Spiros Pappas (9:20) confidently asserts that Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist. Which I find interesting, becsuse neither Christine Blasey Ford nor Deborah Ramirez claim that they were raped. If their assertions are true — and there is less and less evidence of that as time passes — then they were put into humiliating positions while drunk. Neither claims to have had a single stitch of clothing removed, no hands under their clothing, absolutely no penetration.

That’s if either event actually happened. Witnesses have been named. Witnesses say nothing like that happened, in either case. In the other Althouse post this morning we have two “witnesses,” but I put the word in scare quotes because neither was there and has first-hand knowledge of the incident and can only say that it might have happened. If cross-examined, what would the former roommates be forced to say about the penchant Ramirez had for getting falling down drunk?

And, Spiros, you claim that men don’t get raped? Make sure you stay out of prison, nitwit.

CStanley said...

Blogger Maryland Geezer said...
The audience for the Ford-Kavanaugh hearing is Collins/Murkowski/Flake/Corker.


The swing voters who get to decide the swing vote Justice. How Meta.

Big Mike said...

And Christine Blasey Ford’s “just one beer”? Ask a cop how often they’ve heard the “just one beer” excuse from someone blowing 2.0 on the breathalyzer.

CStanley said...

It’s clear that the Dem strategy for Ford from the beginning was to use the anonymous letter as Plan B

At the risk of going n.n......

Someone posted a link to a Planned Parenthood Ad that ran in 2012, with a mock-up of Kavanaugh on the SC and R v W getting overturned. I had the thought that they were trying to abort Kavanaugh as soon as his nomination was conceived. Thi seleventh hour stunt is more like a partial birth abortion, not “plan B” abortifacient.

PB said...

No contacts with Christine Blasey Ford? Well, I'm sure that's accurate, but I doubt they could claim no contacts with the expansive team that has surrounded her. For the expected antics, I suspect there has been coordination, like last time.

Spiros Pappas said...

Big Mike, if Kavanaugh was a choirboy (!!!) who attended a Catholic Boys school (with homosexual priests!!!) and is a drunk, then maybe ???? Maybe this man experienced some sort of "trauma." Obviously, childhood abuse and neglect and later drinking problems are linked. Nice catch...

Michael K said...


Blogger readering said...
Are there women on this blog?


readering has trouble interpreting others' statements.

What kind of law do you practice ? Are any people involved?

Michael K said...

Spiros is more and more looking like just a troll.

Bruce Hayden said...

"is a myth that PhD candidates are significantly at risk during their oral defense. If your committee agrees to schedule your defense, they have accepted your dissertation. Of course, they don't tell you that because it is part of the ritual to put you under pressure.

The least (by far) risky part of the dissertation process is the oral defense. Getting your proposal accepted is probably the most risky and terrifying.

I had a three hour defense (with 5 professors) scheduled and spent the first two hours explaining the advanced data analysis techniques that I used. They were not questioning my analysis. They told me that I was the expert and they wanted to learn about it. The other hour was spent with simple questions and clarifications.

They asked me to leave the room so they could "vote." That is a very important part of the hazing ritual. They never held a vote. The just asked if anyone has reservations that were not addressed before the meeting.

The last step is to bring you into the room and congratulate you as a colleague. It is a formal and constantly repeated ritual."

My kid went through this in May, then was "hooded" that afternoon. Didn't actually turn in their dissertation until late July or get their diploma until August. You know that there wasn't much of a risk, because they scheduled both the defense and the "hooding" on the same day. The one difference was that there was first a public defense, where they presented their research to a bunch of us - mostly family members and other PhD candidates. Kinda a social event, with the rest of the research group bringing a lot of food. That lasted maybe an hour, then maybe 45 minutes with their panel, 15 mintes of the panel meeting alone, followed by their decision, which consisted of a couple tweaks to the written dissertation. Apparently, the general audience asked much better questions than the panel did (since the latter all understood the subject matter fairly well). Interestingly for me, I met their advisor's wife (who teaches in the same department) and his parents at the public defense.

Unknown said...

"I think people are noticing. Men have to be worried that one, decades old accusation can ruin them."

Vote and do commerce with your own tribe. Your life depends on it.

Etienne said...

Kavanaugh's calendar...

Mother Of All Calendars

100 years from now, this calendar will be defined as the Epoch, which delineated the end of the Progressive movement in America.

mockturtle said...

And Christine Blasey Ford’s “just one beer”? Ask a cop how often they’ve heard the “just one beer” excuse from someone blowing 2.0 on the breathalyzer.

Maybe it was a 2 gallon beer.

Unknown said...

She's not prepping and they aren't pushing her to do so because they don't expect her to appear, they believe the success or failure of this gambit to derail the nomination is already done.

-sw

JAORE said...

Kavanaugh's calendar...

Mother Of All Calendars

100 years from now, this calendar will be defined as the Epoch, which delineated the end of the Progressive movement in America.

Reports out now that accuser #3 has explosive claims that (conveniently) fit into one of the gaps in Judge K's calendar.

How stupid of the Judge K team to release that document.

readering said...

People not always great at knowing who is a woman commenter if not self-identified. I was repeatedly assumed to be a woman here (not that there's anything wrong with it). But I have several times noted that oldwhitemales dominate commenting. (Of course I'm an owm.) Guess I'm using my lawyer skills.

Matthew Sablan said...

"ooo democrats are desperate to coach her."

-- Given how Ramirez's was story was a failure... maybe they should try a different plan.

Francisco D said...

"The one difference was that there was first a public defense, where they presented their research to a bunch of us - mostly family members and other PhD candidates. Kinda a social event, with the rest of the research group bringing a lot of food."

That sounds like the process my ex-wife went through at a different university.

Tradition is important in the dissertation process. After mine was completed, I asked one of my committee members why it was so brutal and nerve wracking. His answer: "That's how it was for us."

If CBF actually appears before the SJC, she will find that it is not at all like the dissertation defense.

Earnest Prole said...

All Ford needs to do is start weeping in front of the Senate and the Kavanaugh nomination will be dead.

Etienne said...

JAORE said...How stupid of the Judge K team to release that document.

I suspect Kavanaugh is a hoarder. I suspect he has receipts for his baptism.

The ambulance chasers are all factored in.

walter said...

The Crack Emcee said...That's weird, because I've only seen two normal, non-news junky-type people who even recognize the name "Kavanaugh", and one wanted me to explain what's going on with him. When I did - I swear to God - they shook their head and said "white people" before walking away.
--
Right. Ignorant, uninformed and racist.
Tell 'em about Ellis.

gahrie said...

But I have several times noted that oldwhitemales dominate commenting.

We dominate everything....Patriarchy!!

Brian said...

She's not testifying. The demands for a FBI investigation first are the tell. The demands he go first were the other tell.

Originally I think they expected Trump to pull the nomination. After all, he was accused of similar behavior. They thought (probably based on Mark Judge's book) that Kavenaugh was a drunk in high school and college (blackout drunk if you will) and as such thought he might drop out because he didn't want to answer questions, under oath, about his drinking.

Well he didn't drop out. Because it turns out Kavenaugh isn't Mark Judge. He's Brett Kavenaugh his own man, virgin until well into college.

So now they are stuck.

This is the high water mark though. There is nothing she can say tomorrow that will change the charges reported. In fact, any further illumination of her story will be used to impeach her, "Oh now you remember the house, but you didn't back in July?"

Her testimony is a minefield, Brett's isn't. With her testifying it solidifies things. We see it in her own words. We see her. Not some vacation photo in sunglasses, which require us to fill in the blanks about her.

Anita Hill testifying didn't help derail Clarence Thomas's appointment. It made her a known quantity.

The democrats may be forced to bring her out though, having staked too much on it.

Brian said...

I still think shes not testifying though....

Brian said...

Ann, we need a poll!
Maybe 3? CBF testimony, yes or no. Judiciary Committee recommendation, yes or no. Full Senate vote, yes or no.

walter said...

..and ask them about Cosby, Crack.
I'm thinking his recently concluded saga inspired the rape train story.

FullMoon said...

If she testifies, she will now be able to fill in the blanks. Took Ramirez six days, with heplp from lawyers. to create a memory of what happened to her.

FullMoon said...


In another declaration, Keith Koegler said Ford revealed the alleged assault to him in 2016, when the two parents were watching their children play in a public place and discussing the “light” sentencing of Stanford University student Brock Turner.

“Christine expressed anger at Mr. Turner’s lenient sentence, stating that she was particularly bothered by it because she was assaulted in high school by a man who was now a federal judge in Washington, D.C.,” Koegler said.


Brock Turner got fucked by the system. So did the(recalled) judge who followed recommendations of probation department in sentencing him.

The woman, who got herself blackout drunk and remembers nothing of the event, where neither had their pants off, read a rather long and heartfelt statement about how terrible the incident was.

She was used by the feminists and her name has never been made public. Ford may have believed she could remain anonymous also

sodal ye said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sodal ye said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
hombre said...

“... her own lawyers ....” Oh please, Diane!

Do we really think this woman is paying for the “team of lawyers” servicing her. She’s furthering the cause! Even if there is no graft available, Democrat shysters will be, and have been, provided. These are not her Palo Alto hometown lawyers.

hombre said...

Blogger Spiros Pappas said...

“Rapists, like Mr. Kavanaugh, are generally "normal" men. They aren't overly impulsive, aggressive or violent.”

Wow! Remember when feminists made a mantra of, and wrote books about, “rape is a crime of violence

Sorry, Pappas, this line like the rest of your 9:20 Post is pure bullshit!

hombre said...

rhhardin said...
“She's got to keep the wronged woman drama up, facts don't matter. Women are the audience, and via voter polls influence the Senators.”

I’m really afraid he’s right. The Evil Party putting on a show for idiots. Obviously, not all women are idiots. Obviously, not all Muslims are violent. But the dominant majority of both groups and the damage they do ...?

Michael K said...

"Guess I'm using my lawyer skills."

Such as they are if you can't figure out the female commenters. A couple are mysterious but only a couple.

DanTheMan said...

>>Rapists, like Mr. Kavanaugh, are generally "normal" men. They aren't overly impulsive, aggressive or violent.

Not in my experience. I arrested a few rapists and they were all violent men, with a history of violence.

I have no idea where you are getting your generalizations from, but I'd recommend you find another source.


readering said...

Well I had two reactions to reading the Ford written statement: I can see why Ed Whelan was looking to make this a case of mistaken identity, and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo's office committed political malpractice by not moving this up to the people who would contribute to the decision on the nominee before a decision was made. Once Kavanaugh became the nominee and the letter circulated to Feinstein, it became more like a Greek tragedy. Still don't know who's telling the truth. It will be fascinating to see how the questions and answers go tomorrow.

Cara Membuat Obat Tidur said...

Obat Bius Di Medan
Obat Bius Di Palembang
Obat Bius Di Makassar
Obat Bius Manjur
Obat Bius Ampuh
Obat Bius Asli Manjur
Obat Bius Asli Ampuh
Obat Bius Asli
Obat Bius Di Jakarta
Obat Bius Di Pontianak