1. It's about to start. I'll update this post as we go.
2. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has taken her seat. She's nervously looking around, getting patted on the back. She's wearing a dark blue jacket over a dark blue top and has her hair done in a way that allows it to fall over her face and to need to be pushed back. Senator Grassley begins by apologizing to both Blasey and Kavanaugh for the incivility to which both have been subjected. He says he intends to preserve civility in the hearing and to make it "comfortable" for both witnesses.
3. Grassley criticizes Democrats for sitting on the allegations, allowing them to leak out belatedly, and failing to resolve matters in a bipartisan way. Democrats, he says, are to blame for the pain that "Dr. Ford" has suffered in recent days. He praises himself for doing he could to accommodate her. (I put "Dr. Ford" in quotes to indicate that's what she is being called here. I had switched to calling her "Blasey" after reading in the NYT that she preferred that name. From here on, I'll write "Dr. Ford" without quotes.)
4. Dianne Feinstein: "She wanted it confidential, and I held it confidential, up to a point..."
5. Feinstein casts an aspersion on Grassley: He didn't introduce Dr. Ford. Grassley, angered, interrupts to say that he didn't forget to introduce her. He was going to introduce her at the point when he was inviting her to begin speaking.
6. Still waiting for Feinstein to finish reading her intro statement. Dr. Ford seems to be struggling to keep her composure. After Feinstein, I presume we will hear Dr. Ford read this statement, already released to the press.
7. "I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified...." she begins, in a creaky voice.
8. Sorry, but I got an hour and a half behind. Will resume.
9. Now, I've watched the entire opening statement by Dr. Ford. She seemed very credible to me. Though she was reading, she seemed to be reliving a real, traumatic experience. It's hard to imagine that she could be infusing her speech with that kind of emotion phonily. Even an excellent actress would have difficulty affecting that kind of emotion.
10. Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor brought in to ask questions for the Senators, receives 5 minutes of time from Senator Grassley. Mitchell's use of the time is awkward, because she begin with documents that Ford must read and comment on, and Ford takes her time and makes small corrections to the documents. Grassley interrupts to say his time is up, and shifts the proceedings forward to the next Senator, Dianne Feinstein,
11. Feinstein takes her turn and focuses on the difficulties Ford experienced as her name became known. This material bolsters Ford's credibility, especially to the extent that it seems that Ford knew how painful this exposure would be before she decided to go public. Feinstein's time runs out quickly and Mitchell gets another 5 minutes to continue where she left off.
12. Mitchell's approach enables Ford, just by being careful, to slow everything down. The time will run out. The day will end. Maybe Kavanaugh supporters wanted it to play out like that, but Ford is a credible person, and I think the Republicans chosen approach, including the use of Mitchell, will backfire on them, and Kavanaugh will not be confirmed. I'm saying this at 11:06 ET in my recording, that is, an hour before I'm writing this update.
13. At 11:13 ET, Ford speaks of the "indelible" memory of Kavanaugh and Judge laughing — "having fun at my expense." "I was underneath one of them, while the 2 laughed, 2 friends having a really good time with one another."
14. At 11:56 ET, during the questioning by Senator Whitehouse, I exclaim aloud: "The Democrats are winning by a lot here." Whitehouse is talking about the lack of an investigation.
15. Grassley gets angry and yells — about why there is no new investigation — but it feels so wrong that he's yelling in the presence of Dr. Ford. She's the allegedly traumatized victim — don't yell around her! The Republicans are either too bland — operating through Mitchell — or irksomely angry — through Grassley. Do they know how badly they are losing right now? I wonder how Brett Kavanaugh is doing.
16. I'm skipping ahead, looking to see if Kavanaugh's testimony has begun. It has not. I talk with Meade for a while about what Kavanaugh might say if he were asked if he is 100% certain that Ford is wrong when she says she's 100% certain that Brett Kavanaugh did what she remembers. Here's what I imagined Kavanaugh saying: I cannot be 100% certain. I know that I drank far too much on some occasions when I was an immature teenager, and though I've said that I don't remember ever suffering alcohol-induced amnesia, I cannot know for an absolute certainty that it never happened. Watching Dr. Ford testify has been a horrific experience for me. What if there is a blank, dark spot in my memory where drunken young Brett Kavanaugh did what Dr. Ford describes? I pray to God that's not true, but I cannot say 100% that it's not true, and if it is, I am so terribly sorry. I beg Dr. Ford's forgiveness. I hope for God's forgiveness. I hope that my life's work as a sober adult makes up for what I may have done all those years ago. I still believe I have devoted and useful service to give to my country, and I humbly submit myself to your vote, Senators. And I thank all of you for considering my case, and I want Dr. Ford to know that my heart goes out to her, and my heart goes out to every victim of sexual assault. Thank you.
17. I picture Trump watching the hearings with Ivanka. Somehow I imagine Ivanka reacting like me. I wonder what they are saying to each other. Remember that Trump said at his press conference yesterday that he would watch and judge Dr. Ford for himself, that he had an open mind about it, and he could "believe anything."
18. I've been listening to Kavanaugh for a long time without stopping to write anything. Let me quickly say that I'm finding his opening statement extremely powerful and persuasive.
19. It was a long day! Let me try to wrap up this post. I thought Kavanaugh did really well in his written statement, expressing strong outrage and real emotion. In the questioning, this demeanor sometimes felt too strong. He interrupted and shouted back and seemed to show some hate and contempt for some of the Senators. He said more than once that his family had been "destroyed," and yet his wife is his "rock." The rock is not destroyed.
20. This was the ultimate he said/she said. Both were tremendously strong and they told diametrically opposed stories. If I had to decide, I would not go by who's more likely to be telling the truth, but how everything we've heard weighs on the question whether or not to confirm. In view of everything we know about Kavanaugh, does he deserve confirmation even with the degree of doubt we have about something terrible he might have done when he was 17 (and a couple of other, much weaker allegations)? I suspect most people will end up in the same position they had on him anyway, because it's a matter of weighing. But when I think about how BK and CBF could be so far apart, I have 3 explanations: 1. BK has some alcohol blackout holes in his memory, and what CBF remembers is in one of them, 2. CBF has a false memory and really believes it (caused by some genuine trauma), 3. BK has no route but forward, and he knows he did it, but feels entitled to what he's worked all his life to attain. Since there's no way back to his old life, he must force his way through this obstacle. And he's barreling ahead to save his life and save his family. Cornered, he had to fight like hell, and that includes lying.
September 27, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1,813 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 1813 Newer› Newest»She's 100% certain it was Kavanaugh.
I'm glad you watching the hysterical circus like a good, reliable drone Mike. I don't have too, I can get the gyst from your armchair diagnosis.
Incivility bullshit
I hate vocal fry. worse than a flat shovel upside down scraping on conctete
"I remember what I need to remember and forget everything else."
-- And de- or re-remembers facts as needed to rebut statements from others. Changing Smyth to downstairs instead of upstairs is a huge hit to credibility, but convenient for being able to reconcile her story with his.
"I just struggle with why someone so accomplished in psychology is still an emotional cripple "
If I were one of her patients, I would feel gypped.
Will Durbin run to the cameras during the break?
Thanks Crack for confirming my decision not to listen.
After a very shaky start to the Kavanaugh confirmation process, Chuck Grassley seems to be finding his footing a bit better as Chairman.
Revising the letter on the fly is basically proof that she is lying full out. Sorry, this is all an act on Ford's part.
Vocal fry is often the result of serios trauma. If you don't believe me, Sen. Leahy can introduce 100 studies that say so.
She comes across as credible but the devil - God, law - is in the details.
On that she's very spotty.
At this point - it's still early - this delays the vote. The pressure from Collins and Flake and Murkowski to have an FBI investigation will be enormous. They won't confirm unless one is done.
That takes us nowhere (most likely) but one will have to be done.
Donald Blodgett said...
She remembers all present except the fourth boy, at whose house the incident must have taken place. How unfortunate!
Allowing accusers to retrofit their testimony is one of the main goals of the Title IX Starchamber trials as well.
vocal fry is chicks wanting to deepen voice to sound intelligent, eg like a man
Read the letter. I call BS. She and her husband because of a dispute over a front door? It doesnt seem this impacted her life all that much. And after decades as a psychologist she couldn't get past it? Wouldn't a real psychologist uncovering this in therapy suggest the need to discuss this fuzzy memory (that is magically clear.and detailed now) with the ones responsible? Wou!d a psychologist suggest a Senate hearing as the best possible me setting?
"Revising the letter on the fly is basically proof that she is lying full out."
-- Exactly. The hearing should be ended, and she should be asked to submit a real document. Letting her change it willy nilly makes the whole point of submitting the document pointless! She'll just alter it if her testimony needs to change.
Donald Blodgett said...
She remembers all present except the fouth boy, at whose house the incident must have taken place. How unfortunate!
And yes, none of these named people remember the party/event at all! One of them says she's never met Kavanaugh.
"She comes across as credible but the devil - God, law - is in the details."
-- I don't get credible from her performance. She's sympathetic; but the content of her answers doesn't add up.
"that was my best estimate of how this could have happened"
Christine Ford
That is an telling way to describe the event,
Republicans choose wisely to cede their time to the proffesional. Dems are pontificating about almost everything except the evidence.
Revising the letter on the fly is basically proof that she is lying full out."
And yet, we'll allow a man to be ruined over her say-so.
Before all this I never thought much of Grassley one way or another. I'll admit that I've developed some real respect for him throughout this process.
Doesn't Dick Durbin's name evoke trauma?
This is the sort of thing that Ann dozes off to, she's probably gone off to scan the Powerline and the Daily Mail.
Crack, it seems to me that a hired special attorney who is ceded one side's time is such a good idea, I am surprised that the Dems didn't copy it. But then they (you, Harris, and you, Booker) wouldn't get the chance to showboat for their primary voters.
One of the reasons that the House Judiciary hearings on Watergate were so excellent was because of the professional work of Sam Dash and Fred Thompson.
Not too sure why R counsel is wasting time having her read documents.
When is she going to ask Ford about WHEN and WHERE the assault took place?
Pin her down!
Every Democrat has to mention an FBI investigation.
It's the law!
Well, they did a good job of sprucing up the crazy cat woman. She does have a bit of a sweetness, she is nervous and frightened, and, to me, that's actually a good thing. Shows her humanity.
The problem is with her 36-year old bullshit story from one night at a summer party where nothing happened.
The thing about the Stereo was good.
She remembers all the details about it, but can't remember the month of the assault or where it took place.
Grassley should go from 5 to 5 to 10 to 10. Stupid to keep breaking it up in five minute increaments.
Known Unknown said...
"I just struggle with why someone so accomplished in psychology is still an emotional cripple"
It's now established that grief counselors retard emotional recovery. It's not shocking someone who believes you should wallow in your emotions is emotionally unstable.
I really wish someone would ask her about her fear of flying.
Did she fly or drive?
That was one of the reasons for the delay.
"I am surprised that the Dems didn't copy it."
-- I'm not; watching Feinstein, the Dems are not there for facts. They're there to pound the table ("The FBI must investigate! Find Judge in his hideaway!") No need to pay someone a lot of money to do that.
Unknown said...The lack of details make the stories true, says Durbin
--
There are studies! By Ford's peers!
She will never be sexually assaulted again, by the looks of her.
I'm back to crying while laughing. If anyone wondered what makes me happy, I'M HAPPY. THIS IS FUCKING GREAT!! I was wrong about it just being theatre:
THIS IS GREAT THEATRE!!!!
"Not too sure why R counsel is wasting time having her read documents."
-- She's already gotten Ford to make multiple corrections and admit things like she can't be sure how many people were there, who pushed her into what room, etc. The counsel is attacking her on the things she USED to be able to say happened. There's no reason to pound her on facts she doesn't remember that are beneficial to the lawyer's case. What if Ford says, Wait! I *do* remember when it happened!
When you're a 51 y/o with 2 Kids, talking about traumatized you are to talk about a 35 year-old groping makes you sound like a nut.
You're a PHD and a professor - not a 15 y/o kid.
100%.
Case closed.
Someone named Paula notes:
"At the risk of being branded a misogynist, one thing that stands out to me thus far in this hearing is that Ford's voice sounds tearful — she has sobbed several times — but she has yet to wipe away a single tear. Shame on her coaches for not providing a box of tissues for her to grab at strategic moments."
No actual tears?
I think Grassley is coming off well here.
"I really wish someone would ask her about her fear of flying."
-- While it would be interesting, it wouldn't undermine any of the facts *of her accusation.* Which the lawyer (whose name I wish I could remember) has done an excellent job of undermining thus far.
The Democrats should have hired Oprah to conduct their "interrogation".
You would never hear me say Dick Durbin is my friend.
how many witnesses anticipate objections and offer peremptive responses?
rcocean said...The thing about the Stereo was good. She remembers all the details about it,.."
Oh..I'm missing some of this. Has she recalled the song? That would be good. "I relive it every time I hear __"
"What if Ford says, Wait! I *do* remember when it happened!"
She needs to be grilled on why she can't remember the Month of the assault.
The Fucking Month!
And how can she NOT remember where the house was, when she remembered all the details ABOUT the House. Did she ever go back there? Was that her first visit?
Hell, Ford's memory is so bad she can't remember the date *she wrote the letter this year.* And you want us to trust her memory on an event 30+ years ago, that we've seen her correct and hedge on multiple times? The lawyer is doing yeoman's work.
Howard said...
Mike K: Sarah Hoyt???? Send me a real article, not some ideological cult fantasy writer
The comments on posts at accordingtohoyt are far more fact filled than many of the comments here. She's a gust commenter at the blogfather's site. PJmedia publishes her political commentary on a regular basis.
I would think anyone here would celebrate a female immigrant who came here legally, became a citizen, and became a success through hard work giving her opinions and commentary on current events. Only in America would she have such an opportunity to express her thoughts freely.
I've seen many divorces and break-ups where there's his story, her story, and the actual truth. I've also seen some where his side or her side is truth, and her side or his side isn't.
In today's circus- one side is truth, the other side is lies. There is no middle ground.
Ms. Mitchell is spinning a web. She’s laying traps. She’s setting up bowling pins. Pick your metaphor but it’s clear to me the kill shot is yet to come. Ford is wary because she knows her story is a fabrication.
Remember that scene in Birth of a Nation that had blacks in politics drinking, gambling, and sitting with their bare feet on the desks?
I think we've found the white equivalent.
She sounds very credible to me. I think she should be asked when she attached a name to the abuser. In particular, did she know the name of the person who attacked her before the party? at the party? or immediately after the party? and did she remember it over the years? or was it something that she inferred later, and if so, how? It would go well to clarifying the chances of her having misidentified her abuser, which seems the most plausible possibility when it comes to evaulating the possibility of her being mistaken as to Kavanaugh having assaulted her (notwithstanding she claims to be 100% certain).
In the meantime, let's remember the fifth sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. He flatly denied it, and the accuser withdrew it. Here's Kavanaugh's response, from my story:
The nominee denied the incident occurred, and much more besides. "No," he said. "I was not in Newport, haven't been on a boat in Newport. Not with Mark Judge on a boat, nor all those three things combined. This is just completely made up, or at least not me. I don't know what they're referring to."
damn those extra spaces. They just appear!
Let me introduce letters from every person on Guam.
So ordered.
Crack
Pro tip. Do not use all caps. Only crazy people use all caps. Unnecessary and makes you appear...crazy.
"She needs to be grilled on why she can't remember the Month of the assault."
-- What is gained? We already know she doesn't remember it; you don't get anything from that. You *do* gain by forcing her to change her story about where Smyth was; who else was there; who pushed her when; etc. Beating her up on the point that she doesn't remember when or where it was is pointless -- we KNOW she doesn't know that.
Hit her on what little scraps of facts she's offered and force her to hedge or re-assert new facts to undermine her credibility.
I'm watching the Fox panel during the recess. Fox is all in for Ford, as I expected. Fox has always been against Trump but has had to be careful or risk losing their viewership. "She looked terrified ... She's soooo credible ... " She need not feel any fear. It cannot be proven that she is lying - which is the ONLY thing she needs to fear. I see book deals, cable appearances and general acclaim by the media and the Dems in her future.
Her story is sketchy 36 years old and shape-shifiting - but she's 100% sure it was Kavenaugh.
And she remembers meeting Judge later at Safeway, and he was uncomfortable.
What month was that? Oh sorry, can't remember.
Maybe the FBI could figure it out.
LOL.
When you're a 51 y/o with 2 Kids, talking about traumatized you are to talk about a 35 year-old groping makes you sound like a nut.
The same thing occurs with victim statements during sentencing after criminal trials. The victims all claim to be traumatized for life because their house was broken into when they weren't home. What else are they going to say, "It was initially shocking and disturbing but I got over it"?
How does that achieve the goal? By rewarding perpetual dysfunction we get enough perpetual dysfunction it now seems normal. At least to those who benefit from it.
It's an avalanche of sex abuse. This man is a rapey rape raping wrecking ball.
I think people need to realize sympathetic isn't the same as credible; she's sympathetic, but not credible.
While it would be interesting, it wouldn't undermine any of the facts *of her accusation.*
Well, a proven lie goes to character, and character is pretty much the only thing worth examining in the ol' he said/she said situation.
-- I don't get credible from her performance. She's sympathetic; but the content of her answers doesn't add up.
Credible in the sense of someone not acting, not glib and prepared.
This whole matter is said and awful. People's lives, career, families going through this. Anyone enjoying this tells us more about them than they want to admit.
I get it: you hate America. You hate most white people. Anything that hurts those two is good. Fine. We get it.
That last part wasn't directed at you.
Ask her who scrubbed her internet footprint.
Ask her about memberships in Democrat and George Soros organizations and statements about by all means necessary when it comes to stopping a Conservative replacing Roberts on the Court.
Her failure to remember the date and time is deliberate.
Once she says when and where than Kavanaugh can prove he wasn't there.
And she doesn't want that.
Matthew Sablan- agree. She has no details.
So lets look ahead...
How do the Dem senators trash Kavanaugh?
They will ask long form response questions about how he feels about women's feelings.
He will be seen as lacking the empathy of a Wise Latina or the proper viewpoints of "RBG"
Should K cry?
I meant the most plausible possibility that could have caused her to be mistaken as to Kavanaugh having assaulted her (I am not saying I think it more plausible that she was mistaken).
Gospace: thanks for confirming the worthless ness of hoyt
When is she going to ask Ford about WHEN and WHERE the assault took place? Pin her down!
Patience grasshopper. Patience.
Yancey Ward said...
The Democrats should have hired Oprah to conduct their "interrogation".
No, the Republicans should have. This prosecutor's approach represents the worst aspects of the Republican Party. As tone-deaf as can be. It's not fair - if they had gone on themselves, instead of choosing this woman, they might be able to show some nuance, but - by putting all on a prosecutor when a there's nothing to prosecute - they're damning themselves to going down with her.
I never realized what a Jackass Chris Wallace.
Sounds goes off.
> I see book deals, cable appearances and general acclaim by the media and the Dems in her future.
Don't forget the Congressional Medal of Accusation!
My God she is brave...
Why does she have big glasses? Reading glasses?
Insecure Mike lashing out because he is the idiotlogue and got called on it.
Unless, of course, you are the "idiotlogue" who is being called on it.
It must be a shock getting pushback on your bullshit and boastful blather.
You tell us.
I am sorry, the changes between the two letters and the oral testimony is pretty conclusive proof she is lying in great part, and probably in whole. I no longer really entertain the possibility that she is mistaking Kavanaugh for someone else.
BM: why do you need to call yourself big? low self esteem?
I can't see any way that Collins, Flake, Murkowski - maybe Corker - vote for confirmation tomorrow. This will be delayed. Has to be. They won't allow it otherwise.
Unless we have a Perry Mason moment at some point.
Someone at Google probably bleachbitted her social media presence.
I'm waiting for the Clarence-Thomas-hearings part -- where all the Yalies lie on each other.
"I no longer really entertain the possibility that she is mistaking Kavanaugh for someone else."
-- That always seemed to me like the polite, not to offend, way of calling her a liar.
Now she's saying she just guessed the year because it was before she got her driver's liscense!
Uh oh, Mitchells is bringing math. Facts!
We viewers now believe "something happened" because of her performance.
can facts stand up to "she seems very credible" when she read the prepared statement and took friendly questions?
Darrell said...
You would never hear me say Dick Durbin is my friend.
lol. Grassley said that in the next breath after calling him "Durbin." Which is technically a breach of Senate decorum.
Beware of people who swim in the sea of "unprovability." It's the scientific equivalent of "falsification."
"Hey, I was just thinking about you the other day.......
"Hey, great to see you, it's been so long, funny, I was just gonna call you......
"Hey, remember that time 36 years ago, when you told me I had pretty eyes, I really appreciated that!"
"Hey, I had this crazy dream last night where you doing a magic show at Carnegie Hall, and this audience of wolves started howling, it was crazy, man!"
Here is a "tell" that poker players and prosecutors look for:
Whenever she is mildly challenged, she reverts to the little girl voice.
One possible inference is that she is scared of being caught.
I'd like a Republican to mention that women do lie about sexual assault. One such lie got Emmett Till brutally lynched, and she didn't finally admit the truth until 2008, 53 years later, so she continued to lie for 53 years! Only Trump could say it though. Only he has the balls, and he's immune to the Left's assaults now due to heavy scar tissue.
Whitehouse starting with his sales job.
Big thanks to Ford. Will Kavanaugh be thanked?
BTW, isn't she brave?
50 minutes in seems a tad early for folks to be rendering such definitive judgements on Mitchell. The shit optics of the Grassleys of the Senate stumbling through this have been reduced.
God.
Every time the prosecutor comes on, she adds another twist to the Republican's hari kari routine - each question eliciting a grimace and nothing more - proving these fools are going down with honor, but, damn it, they're going down. Didn't I say yesterday I thought the style I saw here said y'all could blow it? I didn't really believe it, but, wow.
Oh well. Trump gets another bite of the apple, no matter what happens. The Republican Party is screwed.
Kavanaugh may totally upend the Dems by offering to submit to an FBI investigation, pre or post-confirmation.
I am surprised that Dick Durbin didn't enter 1000 letters from members of the National Assoc of Rapists in support of Kavanaugh into the record.
Still banging on the FBI investigation thing. I dont think the Democrats are going to like the new rules they are requesting.
Wait a minute. I think I'm on to something. Scholarship must be almost effortless. I'm a college drop out, with no papers published, and even I know what "exculpatory" means. It means the same thing as "you are full of shit".
Whitehouse is going overboard on the FBI thing.
Why was the matter not reviewed in July? Lots of lies this morning.
Grassley is pushing back.
Howard is sobbing by now.
“Only Trump could say it though. Only he has the balls, and he's immune to the Left's assaults now due to heavy scar tissue.”
Yep. Very very true.
I want to understand Ford's testimony in the light of cruel neutrality. How does she come across to a law professor?
What is it with this anachronistic "Doctor" crap in addressing the suspect accuser Mrs. Blasey Ford? Such hot air by both speakers and the in-need-of-a-doctor 'Doctor' herself.
You can't channel Perry Mason if you allow the clock to run out before making your summation.
Should have first questioned Blasey about what is already in the record.
When did therapist notes become medical records?
I think Chuck Grassley is a poster child for term limits. Boy...did he fuck this up. She's made serious, horrible accusations. Yes- she should be heard. And- she should be questioned. That's not happening. You might as well put duct tape over the Repub Senators mouths and have them sit there like that.
They've neutered themselves. Its just Ford and the Dems hand-wringing and accusing- with zero pushback.
Stephen Green reminds:
"Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is blowing serious smoke here.
He's asking Ford is she asked for an FBI investigation. And although the answer is Yes, the FBI has zero jurisdiction. He's asking if the FBI might find evidence, and of course her answer is Yes, because if she says No she destroys her own story. And even though the FBI has investigated Kavanaugh SIX TIMES.
This is the level of BS we have to fight every single day."
So far I'd have to say the Reps have failed to persuade anyone
and they were saddled with the burden of proof in the court of public opinion.
Ford got to perform her statement, and was not impeached by facts - Mitchell approach.
in 2nd quarter looks like a mistake not to just vote and skip this show....
Airplane question!!!
Oh, man, even the prosecutor's attempt at humor fell flat. Just a disaster.
What do you mean 'not impeached by facts?'
She can't be sure Kavanaugh pushed her into the room, or who did it. She changed a witness's location. Changed how many people were there. Her memory is greatly fallible; she can't remember when she wrote the letter to Feinstein!
She's been wounded badly, and that's just the part of the questioning I heard!
It seems my Rush is going to be preempted. Ford is diagnosing her own fragile mental condition at the moment. Maybe I can find a Rush stream somewhere.
She said she was hoping the committee staff would come to her.
They did offer to do that and she declined.
Into the topic of fear of flying.
Wait. She can't remember giving her therapist's notes to the WaPo?
Why is she "Credible" exactly?
Megan Fox says:
"These senators are a disgrace and Feinstein and Durbin and Leahy should be named in a defamation suit for not using the word ALLEGEDLY when referring to this alleged attack. Senator Leahy actually talked about the "laughing" incident like it 100% happened. It's alleged laughing, sir. You should know better. And Senator Durbin telling this woman that the people of America are braver because of her is absurd. We are terrified that our sons are going to be targeted by questionable accusations that ruin their lives one day because of this disgusting abortion of justice."
Yes, Mr. Nixon, you won the debate.
Mitchell is spending a lot of time on "air travel".
Ford played with the committee on "negotiations"
But nobody cares about that...
I'm not sure it's workable, but I wish there was one FBI agent in the room who would be summoned every time someone invokes an FBI investigation. He would stand up on cue and say, "I represent the FBI. We cannot and will not investigate these allegations because [insert several reasons here]. Thank you." Let him keep making the same brief speech until the Dems get the message.
Thanks guys. Based on your feedback (I'm not watching) I'm adjusting my realpolitik Kentucky windage that the prosecutor was deployed by the republican senate to sabotage O'K but providing sufficient plausible deniability to stave off Trump revenge.
So, Mrs Kavanaugh, did you at least enjoy the play?
Klobuchar is misstating the polygraph result.
Therapist reliability.
How many people go into therapy about remodeling the house ?
Klobuchar hits the talking points, well known by now
Thank you, thank you, thank you
Hey, why didn't we have an "FBI investigation"
Have you heard how brave she is? Believe survivors!
If she lied about her "fear of flying" what else is a lie?
Her story keeps changing. But hey - you can trust her memory.
At least we established she was driven home and the house was between the country club and her house ( 6 miles)
Who drove her? She can't remember.
"The Republican Party is screwed."
That's the least likely outcome.
Republicans will continue to out-win Dems in elections. Backlash will gain votes and energy for them, but with the presumption of innocence a thing of the past, we will all be Black, and Blacks will vote for Trump in record numbers. Let's do this, brothers!
Prosecutor gives cute reply, a smile, then turns over the mic.
Is this the best they could come up with?
"So Mr. Kavanaugh. Have you thought about what you'd do the rest of your life?"
She looks awfully old for member of Generation-X.
Funny to glance at Slate and see how every headline is pro-Ford. Contrast to here, where most of the comments are anti-Ford.
I think Kavanaugh's best defense would be to say, Nah, I never got so drunk I would do someone who looked like her.
Lefties are making the same mistake they have made with Trump from day one: they celebrate too soon based on echo chamber pronouncements. We are not even halfway through this thing.
"...accomplished professional woman."
OBJECTION! Assuming facts not in evidence.
LilyBart,
"I just struggle with why someone so accomplished in psychology is still an emotional cripple..."
Seriously, you've never heard the 'only crazy people go into Psych' trope? It's a stereotype for a good reason...
Nonapod @ 9:58am,
Clearly you're lacking in imagination (but then so are the R's.) Here's how it can go, assuming Republicans maintain their Senate majority:
Tuesday morning: relevant Senate committee receives formal notice of a nominee.
Tuesday afternoon: Committee chair announces the committee will vote Friday.
Friday morning: Committee chair announces the nominee received a favorable vote on a party-line basis, and thus recommends approval by the full Senate.
Monday morning: Senate Majority Leader announces that a vote for the nominee is scheduled for Wednesday.
Wednesday afternoon: Nominee is confirmed on a party-line basis.
DONE. In 9 business days, inclusive.
None of this "hearing" bullshit needs to happen. Take the instant case, for example: Kavenaugh has been seated on the DC circuit for a number of years; he's not exactly an unknown entity. The majority leader just needs to grow a pair, so that if any in his own party complain about the lack of TV posturing opportunity, he replies, "Appeal to your constituents on your own f'n time, not the Senate's."
She is SO acting like the little victim. The voice fry and the up talk......I want to scream. And so “cute” - “I need some caffeine”. A latte, maybe? A LIE-tay, I think.
Howard said...
LilyBart: good for you. Doctor BF is obviously the weakest lamest cow in the herd. No wonder she was targeted by a pack of jackals.
But not you, Howard. You, you're the king of the jungle. I'm sure you'll pick her up and carry her on your shoulders through the rest of her life. Good on you.
gen-x starts 1964-65 early 50's road hard put away wet too much sun
"Can you tell us what you don't forget of that night?"
Grassley should be wearing a red nose.
Mitch McConnell should run in and throw lit firecrackers on the floor.
This is definitely the highlight of the political year.
Unknown said...and they were saddled with the burden of proof in the court of public opinion.
This is the left wing media's belief but it's not really true. Very few people are going to change their minds about this, partially because almost no one who is persuadable is even watching. The vast majority of people understand (1) we're never going to know exactly what happened 35 years ago, and (2) accusations without any supporting evidence cannot be considered proof under any standard. Reps don't have to prove him innocent.
Howard said...
LilyBart: good for you. Doctor BF is obviously the weakest lamest cow in the herd. No wonder she was targeted by a pack of jackals.
But not you, Howard. You, you're the king of the jungle. I'm sure you'll pick her up and carry her on your shoulders through the rest of her life. Good on you.
When did therapist notes become medical records?
HIPPA puts medical doctors and mental health therapists of any licensed qualification in the same category. For all practical purposes, her therapist notes are considered medical records which are strenuously protected from the public.
You know someone else who suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a powerful political man?
Mary Jo Kopechne
She was NOT a survivor.
John Henry
Of course, you haven't specified who the jackals are that targeted her.
You know someone else who suffered sexual abuse at the hands of a powerful political man?
Mary Jo Kopechne
She was NOT a survivor.
John Henry
Grassley pushing back on travel to California for her testimony.
More about the polygraph.
They wanted the polygrapher to testify. More circus.
She is SO acting like the little victim. The voice fry and the up talk......I want to scream. And so “cute” - “I need some caffeine”. A latte, maybe? A LIE-tay, I think.
BL: What's with the low self esteem? I thought you New Yawkers were supposed to be jaded and tough.
You can't channel Perry Mason if you allow the clock to run out before making your summation.
A Perry Mason moment is a sudden revelation - a piece of evidence, an eyewitness account, a confession - that unexpectedly exposes what happened and solves the crime.
Unless we have something like that happen we're going nowhere. And the default position, in these times, is to go with the victim.
Kavanaugh doesn't have 50 votes. Not now.
> What do you mean 'not impeached by facts?'
I'd like to think so... but if the TV viewers are jury, do you expect them to say "we believe her" or "she is a liar"?
I'm betting on the first so far, while "impeached by facts" means everyone would see "that could never have happened".
The standard here is not beyond a reasonable doubt, or preponderance of the evidence, but "did something happen 36 years ago". She's met the standard.
Its a beauty contest.
Maybe I can find a Rush stream somewhere.
The vocal fry drove me away. My normal WSB is sticking with the hearing, but my second Atlanta Rush station is carrying him...WDUN-AM on Tunein.
John Henry: agreed, but the death of his two brothers paid for that coverup.
in advance!
Folks,
Pay attention to the tell.
She reverts to the scared little girl voice when she is mildly challenged by Rachel.
Why does she do that?
Uproarious laughter.
That lets John Oliver off the hook.
Maybe Bart O'K should try on the bloody glove for the win
"If we send K to the supreme court Ford will have been violated twice"
Likely theme.
You can't beat vocal fry, Gentlemen. Especially in 5 minute intervals with Democrats interrupting to call it's owner brave.
Anybody want to kneel with me, here, for the anthem?
tell us Francisco, you are the sexpert
Francisco D said...
When did therapist notes become medical records?
HIPPA puts medical doctors and mental health therapists of any licensed qualification in the same category. For all practical purposes, her therapist notes are considered medical records which are strenuously protected from the public.
HIPAA, not "HIPPA."
I'd kneel Crack, but I don't want to be expelled from school
Thanks Chuck! That helps
The little girl voice makes me think she went through trauma at a younger age. Her avoidance of answering that question makes me think so, too.
Michael K,
"Howard did you happen to read that link I posted for you ?"
In this thread, or earlier? I couldn't find it above.
This hearing has an intended audience of about three: the on-the-fence Republican senators. I'm guessing that the prosecutor is well aware that her job is not to show that Ford is a crazy, lying, cat-lady or that Kavanaugh is a living saint, but to give the wavering senators just enough cover so they can confirm Kavanaugh.
By that standard, the only way we'll know if the hearings were successful is if Kavanaugh is confirmed. I have no idea at this point.
The vagueness about date and place is the big problem in believing her.
Not for Howard, of course, but for the rational people.
Coons is now introducing an article about assault recollection. It would be interesting to see what it says about the details of the recollection. We all know the details of big events like the Kennedy assassination.
I don't know from personal experience but I assume the victim remembers details clearly.
One problem with real PTSD is ruminating on the details. Maybe Francisco can comment on that issue.
Dems focused on the politics, and emotions, Reps on the "facts".
Dems will play a lot better on TV.
Poker players would say that she is trying to sell her story, given the clear "tell".
In other words, she wants to bluff with a losing hand or hide the strength of her hand to induce further betting.
I very much doubt the latter.
I think I'm ready to take a knee.
I will send money to the challenger of any Republican who votes no on Kavanaugh, and I rarely send politicians money. I need to get with some Democrats and find out how to vote multiple times too.
"Howard did you happen to read that link I posted for you ?"
In this thread, or earlier? I couldn't find it above.\
I posted it twice. It has to do with the level of anger in "fly over country " about what is going on. Of course, he is not interested.
Again.
As the old guys in the old neighborhood would say: "nutty-er than a fruit cake"
she's a premature snowflake, good grief this is embarrassing,
I always consult beach friends.
How do you feel about "boys will be boys"?
Thank you, thank you, and could the FBI investigate?
So, basically, if she can stick pretty close to her story which has no verifiable information she will be considered to have been credible.
She could've at least tossed in that she seems to remember that there was a van outside with an airbrushed horse on the sides. It might've been blue. Or at least a dark color. Or a color that can look dark in your memory.
Then some poor bastard who, thirty years ago, owned a red 70s van with an airbrushed horse on the sides could be put up as an accomplice to rape and attempted murder.
I am Laslo.
This whole charade shows clearly what Democrats think of voters - not much.
Mitchell established that Ford lied yugely about her fear of flying. She has in fact been a world traveler. The lie was calculated to garner sympathy for Ford. Now we know without question that Ford has been willing to lie to gain sympathy. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
MayBee said...
"The little girl voice makes me think she went through trauma at a younger age. Her avoidance of answering that question makes me think so, too."
She's bulletproof. Now the prosecutor is getting partisan - not a good move. LEAVE HER ALONE, YOU MONSTER!!!
why is Mitchell focusing on the facts of the committee appearance rather than the facts of the event?
Who cares about letters to senators when this lady's life has been destroyed, other than she is highly achieved?
Michael K,
By its very definition, PTSD causes victims to obsessively ruminate about the details to the point of re-enacting the incident over and over again.
One of my patients was an Iraq war vet who was coming back to base in a Humvee when his machine gunners head fell into his lap. Saddam's people had strung razor across the arch through which they passed. He recalled the details quite vividly, which is why he could not sleep or concentrate very well.
Darrell said...
I always consult beach friends.
BWAAAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
did you talk to your parents about it?
Ford: Definitely not
I will send money to the challenger of any Republican who votes no on Kavanaugh, and I rarely send politicians money.
The problem is that Flake and Corker are retiring, Murkowski and Collins are not up for reelection. That these are the four potential "nays" is not a coincidence of course.
So far, the meanie Republicans have treated her with more respect than the Queen of England.
Should encourage future Liberal Democrats to lie about R nominees.
"needs an FBI investigation" is easy out for the Rep squishes.
Hope Barrett never felt up a boy in grade school
"We all know the details of big events like the Kennedy assassination."
-- Fun fact, until college, I honestly would swear I had vivid memories of the Challenger explosion, even though I would have been about 2 at the time. Even these days, if I don't stop and remember the date, I'll trick myself into believing I saw it with the rest of the country.
By its very definition, PTSD causes victims to obsessively ruminate about the details to the point of re-enacting the incident over and over again.
That's been my impression and the reason why I think she is lying or it is recovered memory.
I remember the day Roosevelt died and I was 7 at the time. I remember the details quite clearly.
Lizard face is going on about her teaching. God help any male student that stumbles into her classroom.
Bluementhal makes me want to puke.
Fucking Democrats are CRUSHING this.
It's hilarious.
So Democrats say "boys will be boys" and imply that's the Kavanaugh defense. What do you say, Dr. Ford?
Why didn't she scream? "Amazing teaching moment" for America? "Bravery is contagious?" Nonsense.
I screamed my head off for more than an hour -- when I wasn't being strangled or muffled by the stranger who climbed in my window. Nobody clapped for me.
I hired a P.I. to try to convince the prosecutor to try my case when the bastard got out of prison early -- again -- when they had, as is routine, shelved my case and many others when he was put away for either the third or fourth time (incomplete juvenile records). I was laughed out of the courthouse. He went on to a long career of brutalizing and likely working up to killing women, per the investigators, before he was put away for either the fourth or fifth time.
I tried to do the right thing. I stood up for the other victims and for myself. I lobbied. I testified. I served pro-bono on committees. I pushed the system to do better, at personal and financial cost. I put that before my career or personal life because I knew it was urgent to get a predator off the streets. I didn't have fights about remodeling my house and call that trauma after saying nothing for decades. I didn't say I was only available to do something if it didn't interfere with my vacation.
I seriously question the trauma narrative and descents into clinical babble.
And I call bull on her allegedly trauma-based inability to speak up before now. I'm not an expert like her, but I know the field. I received a Mellon to do a Trauma Studies unit at Emory University. I found a good bit of the field to be subjective and incoherent. These academicians were busy building therapeutic descriptions and narratives that would make victims less believable in the real-world legal system though they purport to be pro-victim.
The real goal was and is, I think, to re-shape the legal world to conform to the norms and narratives of their discipline and their politics, and if that actually made victims less believable to jurors by infantilizing them, I don't think people like this care. They have entered the legal world through academia and expert testimony in ways that ultimately serve political aims more than legal ones -- unless your legal goal is your political one: to implicate men and endlessly expand categories of victims, rather than put criminals behind bars.
The work some of them were doing on soldiers with PTSD and survivors of long term abuse, like child abuse, made sense therapeutically, but they were politically interested in applying it to situations like a one-time sexual assault or even sexual harassment.
When I hear someone from the field of trauma studies claim that she has been too traumatized to act until there happened to be a raw partisan imperative, I have to ask: why did she think it was OK to subject other sex assault victims to her purported rapist's courtroom judgment for the last 20+ years, especially since she's a trauma expert, unless, of course, trauma theory is just being selectively used as a political tool when she chooses? She of all people should have known what to do.
I believe you, and this is an amazing teaching moment
Honest people can't remember.
Blumenthal is a good liar.
Dems doing victory laps.
Reps brought knife to a gun fight
again
Wait, early '86, means I was barely 1 and a half. But, still! Memory is a funny thing.
exactly, lets continue with this pantomime horse, that's just such a horrifying image,
Tyrone Slothrop said...
Mitchell established that Ford lied yugely about her fear of flying. She has in fact been a world traveler. The lie was calculated to garner sympathy for Ford. Now we know without question that Ford has been willing to lie to gain sympathy. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
9/27/18, 11:28 AM
---
You either don't know what "established" means or don't know what "lied" means. Someone can be afraid of something and yet repeatedly do it. Lots of examples of that. Mitchell established only that any fear of flying was not insuperable or paralyzing. No one has claimed either of those things.
I've edited this for you: "Now we who have always assumed that Ford has been willing to lie to gain sympathy are continuing to assume that Ford has been willing to lie to gain sympathy; our assumptions and beliefs are independent of the evidence."
Blumenthal blames Trump. About time!
That said, Kaanaugh is toast.
I have to ask: why did she think it was OK to subject other sex assault victims to her purported rapist's courtroom judgment for the last 20+ years, especially since she's a trauma expert, unless, of course, trauma theory is just being selectively used as a political tool when she chooses? She of all people should have known what to do.
---
It really isn't that hard to deal with the facts. I look forward to you providing a quotation where she says it was OK to subject other sex assault victims to her purported rapist's courtroom judgment for the last 20+ years. You know you don't have it. You know you're making unsupported, bullshit claims. I guess you're in the right crowd for that.
Someone can be afraid of something and yet repeatedly do it.
Sure and can use the alleged fear to avoid doing something they don't want to do.
The Crack Emcee at 10:41 AM
Remember that scene in Birth of a Nation that had blacks in politics drinking, gambling, and sitting with their bare feet on the desks?
I think we've found the white equivalent.
Now that was very funny!
Pick the lawyer that works for George Soros.
It's a no-brainer.
Blogger Michael K said...
Someone can be afraid of something and yet repeatedly do it.
Sure and can use the alleged fear to avoid doing something they don't want to do.
9/27/18, 11:38 AM
---
Absolutely. I have no idea whether she is actually afraid of flying, and I have no idea whether she used her fear -- actual or not -- as a way to try to avoid testifying at all. Neither do you guys. But the fact that she has flown (even regularly) entails that she does not have a burdensome fear of flying is just idiocy.
Post a Comment