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.
२७ सप्टेंबर, २०१८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१,८१३ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 1813 पैकी 401 – 600 नवीन› नवीनतम»I pray that someone (probably only Trump has the guts) will stand upright and say: Who gives a rat's ass? Any alpha high school male SHOULD be acting up and pushing hard to cop even a few seconds of wild sex from a female! More power to him!
Sure Craig,
It's "superable" depending on desire to do so.
Even with the no-tears sniffing?
The key to being a good liar is to lie about stuff that can't be controverted. Stay vague, stay far in the past. Men often lie about their sexual conquests, and now "empowered" crazy cat women lie about sexual harassment claims.
I just hope Kavanaugh can specifically go into the details about how he spent his summers in 1982 & 1983. Hopefully, he can provide the context of his day-to-day life as a teenager, to show how crazy this stale unprovable charge is.
I pray that someone (probably only Trump has the guts) will stand upright and say: Who gives a rat's ass? Any alpha high school male SHOULD be acting up and pushing hard to cop even a few seconds of wild sex from a female! More power to him!
Having the lady lawyer ask questions of fact about the negotiation process is a game ending mistake.
> Dems doing victory laps.
Dems did the injustice to K leading up to this
But now they get their TV time to play the advocates of justice.
They look empathetic and moral, Reps look lost.
Despite the repetition, they seem to be running up the score.
What strikes me is CBF's little girl voice. It conveys...not quite immaturity...but not how I would expect grown person to speak. I get that she may be nervous. But it seems off. Not contrived, necessarily, but just...off.
I believe that Blumenthal is a Viet Nam war hero.
I have to believe that the votes on this were already counted--although with R's who knows.
Althouse,
She does seem credible to the untrained observer. However, you need to look for the "tell". Re: my two earlier posts.
Her apparent symptoms do not match PTSD criteria, but she thinks they do. Note that she is not a trained or experienced clinician. The memory issues are bullshit.
If you were almost raped at a party, would you not recall the year of the party (she guessed because it was before her drivers license), who invited you, drove you there and back and finally, the house in which it was held?
What a con job!
@Craig,
"But the fact that she has flown (even regularly) entails that she does not have a burdensome fear of flying is just idiocy."
Typical leftwing bullshit.
If she doesn't want to go somewhere -- I have a fear of flying!
If she does want to go on vacation -- I'm overcoming my fear of flying!
Someone above made the point that is getting missed here by most of you- Mitchell's cross isn't for the broad general audience- it is mostly for the Republican Senators who hold Kavanaugh's fate in their hands. You may not believe it possible for a politician, but the facts and how Ford is loose with them will be important to them, not just the polling after this farce is finished today. And it is not over yet on the public end of it, either- Kavanaugh gets the last word today.
Just a few items-
(1)she or her lawyers were clearly lying about the fear of flying- established;
(2)she revised both written statements on the fly to fit inconvenient statements of others; (3)seriously, she claimed not to remember clearly sharing the therapist notes with the WaPo even though the story explicitly stated she did? This was only a month or two ago- either she has some reason for lying about that lack of memory, or her memory is total shit;
(4)Not mentioned above that I noted, but she has admitted that she has been in contact with the WaPo reporter for almost two months- this contradicts her own story about how she was outed. In my opinion, the Senate Judiciary committee should subpoena the WaPo reporter and put her/him/they under oath- someone here is lying about the timeline of things, and some of those someones are Senate members and/or their staff.
Hope Barrett never felt up a boy in grade school
Why would it matter whether she did or did not?
I ask the Sherlock Holmes Society to conduct a thorough investigation.
@Craig 9/27/18, 11:35 AM
So she could control her fear of flying in order to vacation in Tahiti, but temporized when it came to traveling Washington to be questioned. Was her testimony less important that sipping mai-tais in Papeete, or was this a falsehood to delay proceedings and make her appear a victim?
Democrats are super-boring.
Blumenthal rambling on and on
Thank God for 5 minute limit and no Slow Joe Biden.
R's established she lied about fear of Flying and her polygraph was BS.
Just in terms of pictures, great for R's. No meanie R's harassing the poor innocent "victim".
Can we get Yancey in this Senate hearing? Please.
@Craig: " 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."
By her own admission she knew Kavanaugh was a judge. She's intelligent enough to know what that means, right?
She made a choice to remain silent. I don't think I could pass judgment on whether or not she's telling the truth about what happened to her. But I can judge the politics involved in her decision regarding speaking up right now. And I see someone who is using the language of trauma to make an excuse for not speaking up until now.
Listened to a little of her testimony on the car radio and three things struck me about her:
1. Baby voice.
2. Ends nearly every sentence with a question mark [very California]
3. Doctor Ford doesn't know what 'exculpatory' means. ;-/
This woman is an embarrassment to professional women everywhere.
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.
Gullible much?
9. Now, I've watched the entire opening statement by Dr. Ford. She seemed very credible to me. Althouse
But does she have the right culprit or rather culprits?
It only has to appeal to women, the same audience that the senators have to appeal to.
Time to think about what the new rules are after this Dem wipeout.
- believe the gender
- truth is what you feel
- the movement is bigger than any individual
as Oliver Hardy said
"Well, here is another fine mess you've gotten me into"
According to her testimony, she ran (escaped) out of house and then made her way home.
Now, we learn she was driven.
So, how did she contact her ride? No cell phones in 1982.
LFrancisco D said...If you were almost raped at a party, would you not recall the year of the party (she guessed because it was before her drivers license), who invited you, drove you there and back and finally, the house in which it was held?
That's my thinking--I can believe that she blocked out the details of the attack, but not of the party. In her case, it's the opposite. Which does not ring true.
The Democrats are good at playing to the camera. They know this isn't some deposition. It is something made for the next 24-hour news cycle.
This so called prosecutor is putting me and everyone else to sleep.
She seems okay on the scale of crazy women.
Hot vs Crazy
> 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. Althouse
That is the new standard of evidence.
Ford sure was brave... We must thank her.
I admit I look at this from too much of a lawyer standpoint that isn't always in tune with the general public, but I think the prosecuter has done a great job of respectfully trashing the legitimacy of this tale. This allows Kavanaugh to come in and forcefully argue that he cannot respond to claims that are being re-written on the fly. He was never going to win the sympathy battle. He has the chance to win the fairness battle amonst anyone that can think (or has a son).
> That is the new standard of evidence.
Said a week ago all she had to do was cry.
She cried enough, and won Althouse.
LFrancisco D said...If you were almost raped at a party, would you not recall the year of the party (she guessed because it was before her drivers license), who invited you, drove you there and back and finally, the house in which it was held?
Only if you told me when Judge worked at the Safeway.
"Though she was reading, she seemed to be reliving a real, traumatic experience."
How would you react to someone who talked about a traumatic experience without emotion? I know people who have lived through much more traumatic experiences and do just that. What then?
Not that this woman is lying. Who can know whether or not she is telling the truth without evidence?
But the idea that you can watch a person and assess their truthfulness is absurd. Much illegal trade is built around this false idea.
“Ford sure was brave... We must thank her.”
Yes. That is what a decent person would do.
Will Ms Mitchell talk about her conclusions publicly? Or will they be part of a closed-door session with the Republican senators? Or both?
rcocean: "According to her testimony, she ran (escaped) out of house and then made her way home.
Now, we learn she was driven.
So, how did she contact her ride? No cell phones in 1982"
And Ted Kennedy swam across the channel to Edgartown after his Chappaquiddick "manslaughtering" and abandonment of his young lover/staffer.
Lots of magical pixie-dust things occur when the dems are involved.
So..what to make of the guys who claim it was them? Durbin brought it up. Surely Ford's statement doesn't resolve that.
Give it up. They're not going to break her. Let the Democrats cluck about an FBI investigation 30 more times and be done with it.
Not watching; this thread is enough for today. Am almost interested enough in the details of this nonsense, however, to go investigate why the poor woman needed two doors-- one for entering through, one from exiting from? one for rainy days, one for sunny days? Almost.
Tina Trent said...
@Craig: " 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."
By her own admission she knew Kavanaugh was a judge. She's intelligent enough to know what that means, right?
She made a choice to remain silent. I don't think I could pass judgment on whether or not she's telling the truth about what happened to her. But I can judge the politics involved in her decision regarding speaking up right now. And I see someone who is using the language of trauma to make an excuse for not speaking up until now.
---
Wait, so you don't have any evidence that she thinks it was okay to subject other sexual-assault victims to her purported rapist's courtroom judgment for 20 years? So you did just make that up? Great.
Every single witness identified by Ford has denied her allegations.
But only every single one.
Every. Single. One.
Let's just say that when it comes time to identify actual witnesses, "Dr" Ford took a "flyer".....
""MORE TO COME" has been up for over an hour without a peep from her. "
Leave her alone. She's terrified, and distraught.
The lack of details make the stories true, so does the lack of evidence, and the lack of witnesses.
Has Durbin ever stopped beating his wife and raping his daughters and nieces?
Craig said:
"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."
****************
But SHE said she could not come to DC last Monday because she had a fear of flying. So SHE implied that her fear was insuperable. Yet her testimony shows that she frequently flies when it damn well suits her.
Maybe a lie on her part, but certainly a contradiction of what she wrote to the Senate.
There are precisely as many "witnesses" who can attest to Fords fantastical (and hopefully soon to be lucrative) claims as there are "witnesses" who can corroborate Trump/Russia collusion.
Precisely as many.
Craig: "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."
False.
"It's hard to imagine that she could be infusing her speech with that kind of emotion. Even an excellent actress would have difficulty affecting that kind of emotion."
Sure. Okay.
That's why when child actors cry in a movie they obviously have shared the mental torture of their character.
As opposed to being told to think of something sad. Like their puppy just died.
From my comment last night:
"After reading Althouse's posts today, I believe that -- in the end -- the latter stories help Ford, by making hers seem more reasonable in retrospect.
If she testifies tomorrow and keeps her composure steady, she will seem like a respite to the insanity, and only look more plausible in the framework of this shit-show week."
What Ford's testimony DOES prove is that Althouse has never been romantically involved with a high-maintenance woman.
I am Laslo.
My favorite part was when Ford shifted her story from definitely heard the guys laughing and talking to "assuming" it....
When one conjures up a fake conversation, it's important to be close enough to the mythical participants to clearly hear their mythical conversation.
I can't hear the repeated fear of flying reference without thinking about Erica Jong's novel, which also features sexual assault and psychological turmoil. It's kind of uncanny.
"It's hard to imagine that she could be infusing her speech with that kind of emotion phonily."
-- Really? We have entire professions designed around doing *just that.* I know several people of both genders who are able to cry, get angry, happy or laugh on command. It isn't hard to imagine someone acting at all. We have a very common verb for it!
Reps could bring Mark in to testify.
The emotional high point they crafted was "they both laughed".
She said, she said, no counter to her 'detail'.
falling for the big lie. I have to hand it to dems - they are great at the big lie.
Unknown: "Reps could bring Mark in to testify."
He has already provided his testimony in writing under oath. Unlike Ford.
Go ahead and prosecute him if you think you have a case.
If I were Judge, i would simply claim to suddenly be afraid of flying. That one always works on the lefties...
All I caught was Ford's bad vocal fry.
Someone might have already mentioned this but I wish we knew about her academic and social life for the rest of high school. She keeps mentioning problems at UNC but nothing about the two years before then. Why don't they ask her?
She's getting a chance to put a bullet in the back of Kavanaugh's skull. I'd think that would be exhilarating, not scary.
I don't even give a shit anymore.
If the left wins this? War.
They have torn asunder the fabric of civil society and must now bear the consequences.
It's that simple.
I see Ms. Althouse has resumed commenting:
"Though she was reading, she seemed to be reliving a real, traumatic experience."
Actually, every bit of that opening rings false to me- there was far too much emotion, especially the itty bitty girl voice. I sort of agree with one part that Ms. Althouse wrote thought, after that part:
"Even an excellent actress would have difficulty affecting that kind of emotion."
It isn't difficulty, it is the difference in talent. What Ford is doing is called emoting, or hamming it up. One of the ways a good actress makes it look authentic is by not overdoing it. Ford does this over-emotional, little girl voice act repeatedly when being questioned by the Republican counsel, too. Meryl Streep, Ford is not.
The combination of the event: (1) 36-years old + (2) mild severity = totally unbelievable.
If she were traumatically raped 36 years ago, but was too ashamed to ever mention it or go to the police, well, I could be sympathetic.
If she were groped at a party 2 weeks ago, and could provide the details (where? Who present?what happened afterwards?), it could be plausible.
The combination, though, stale and mild claim, totally promoted and massaged by a Democrat slander machine makes it a tough sell.
We can't prove she's not lying, because she's not given any specifics.
Hard for Kavanaugh to have an alibi, when there's NO DATE AND NO PLACE.
just 'Some house' on the "the way home". And "summer 1982"
if you had in a real trial, you'd ask her questions about the Summer of 1982. Where were you in july where in August, etc. What did you do every day? Who did you hang out with? Did you go on family vacations? Did you mom drive you everywhere? Did you have a Bike? Did you watch TV, during daytime? If so, what shows? Etc.
I am going to guess that the republican strategy, such as it is, is simply not to appear to be badgering the witness and at the end, stick with the line that there remains no corroboration for Ford's claims as well as her "official story" has now changed multiple times.
I'm going to further guess that this structure and approach is a Flake/Corker/Murkowski/Collins set of ground rules to secure their votes.
I keep arguing for establishing standards in society, parameters on reality I said, but, others keep arguing that's crazy. Now they grasp at air. Kavanaugh is being consumed by the phenomena of them lacking.
So - can Kavanaugh pull a Clarence Thomas and declare this a high-tech lynching?
I am distracted by the large Coke.
Brings back traumatic memories of speed freaks hangin' around the pool halls on Market Street.
The D's Chutzpah is amazing.
They complain about lack of FBI investigation, after sitting on letter for 7 weeks!
And Ms Ford, can't explain why she didn't contact Grassly, either.
Why are you people engaging with Craig?
He's questioned - from the very start - whether or not this was a political hitjob.
He's a moron with a law degree. Lot of that going around.
Howard said...
BL: What's with the low self esteem?
--Assumes facts not in evidence
I thought
--Assumes facts not in evidence
rcocean: "We can't prove she's not lying, because she's not given any specifics."
Precisely as designed.
By every single one of these "accusers" (dem plants)
That's the entire point.
If the dems can force Kavanaugh to withdraw based on this patently obvious made up college-campus-like Kangaroo Court tactics, thats the end of every republican.
And its also a test run for 2020 against Trump where the dems will probably have a new accuser announced every 48 hours for 6 months leading up to the election.
It also provides fodder for the lefty networks that LLR Chuck defends so aggressively to avoid covering the astonishingly good economic news.
Wonder how much damage this loss will do to coming elections.
Trump was on a roll, but the Reps never got any momentum since 2016.
But the idea that you can watch a person and assess their truthfulness is absurd.
The talking heads have already buried Kavanaugh and the nomination, but the seemingly ineffective questioning from Mitchell is laying the baseline for countering with the numerous uncorroborated elements testimony. She may be speaking 'her truth' but without corroboration it is just as credible to dismiss it.
3. Doctor Ford doesn't know what 'exculpatory' means. ;-/
Yes, I noticed that. Things like this standout to me. Because I am not degreed. But I am conversational in wide range of topics. That means my vocabulary is broad enough to understand the nomenclature of a lot of disciplines. Why? Because I have a curious mind. In fact lots of the people I know, includes lots of farmers, can talk for hours covering wide ranging topics, with a basic understanding of the subjects, and the language used to carry on the conversation.
But I am constantly told to listen to by betters in academia and let them do what is best for me because of their credentials, and my lack of same. Doctor Ford is clueless about the process of finding legal representation. It would take me 4 phone calls and I would have a list of 8 lawyers that would fill my needs. I don't have a doctorate, but at least I can do simple stuff.
Experience over the years tell me that credentialed persons are as a rule idiots outside of their extremely focused, and insulated bubble.
Dense much, Craig?
FFS, by her silence she condoned what she claims Kavanaugh did and therefore it must be "okay" that other sexual-assault victims are subject to her purported *harasser's* courtroom judgment for 20 years.
This allows Kavanaugh to come in and forcefully argue that he cannot respond to claims that are being re-written on the fly.
Yes but the lefties will turn it off then.
It doesn't matter because this whole production is directed at four people, none of whom is up for re-election.,
I was expecting Marlene Dietrich in Witness for the Prosecution, so I'm a bit disappointed. I don't expect Brett Kavanaugh to offer her an apology just more denials. Some Republican Senators will vote against him mostly because it is not safe for them to confirm him after she testified. It was not only an attempted rape, but also false imprisonment, and assault. Since she wasn't physically hurt, there was no battery. His drunkenness doesn't excuse it. In California the legal age for drinking is 21, and I think it is a good idea to keep it that way.
She's having fun, really enjoying her fifteen minutes of fame. Poor Kavanaugh has had his reputation ruined and I don't know if the all the Republicans will vote for him.
Maureen O'Sullivan says:
"The ability to detect lying was evaluated in 509 people including law-enforcement personnel, such as members of the US Secret Service, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, Drug Enforcement Agency, California police and judges, as well as psychiatrists, college students, and working adults. A videotape showed 10 people who were either lying or telling the truth in describing their feelings. Only the Secret Service performed better than chance, and they were significantly more accurate than all of the other groups. When occupational group was disregarded, it was found that those who were accurate apparently used different behavioral clues and had different skills than those who were inaccurate."
Evidence is superfluous to standards, apparently, only feelings coaxed by a therapist, which didn't surface again till six years later,
If the dems can force Kavanaugh to withdraw based on this patently obvious made up college-campus-like Kangaroo Court tactics, thats the end of every republican.
No, its all about Flake and Corker and Murkowski, who represents a state where abortion was legal before Roe v Wade, and Collins.
I bet Dr. Ford felt legitimately raped when Trump beat Hillary on election night.
Mike Wallace just mentioned Kavanaugh will need a high-tech lynching moment.
She's credible? What does that mean?
We all knew the hearing was going to add zero our knowledge.
We all know Flake, Collins, and Murkowski will vote whatever way they want -regardless.
If they wanted to vote for Judge K - this gives them cover. And also, if they wanted to vote against. The real question is Turkey McConnell putting pressure on them, or once again will there be NO consequences for betrayal.
I think she's doing a reasonably good job. But Kavanaugh goes last, and he can do a better job. I don't expect the hearing to prevent confirmation.
Blogger Karen of Texas said...
Dense much, Craig?
FFS, by her silence she condoned what she claims Kavanaugh did and therefore it must be "okay" that other sexual-assault victims are subject to her purported *harasser's* courtroom judgment for 20 years.
9/27/18, 12:08 PM
---
That's not how silence works.
> but Ford is a credible person
You always thought so, even before you knew you thought so. I don't think the testimony will change many minds, the whole spectacle remains political and emotional, facts, which are in short supply, don't matter.
However, I am beginning to think the husband has played a major role in this whole thing.
Her account amounts to "I felt afraid" and "they laughed",
no idea what body part was touched.
The TV standard is "if something COULD have happened".
Flake is a complete liar. Didn't he campaign on "Judges who respect the Constitution"?
How is Kavanaugh any different then Gorsuch?
Blogger Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
I bet Dr. Ford felt legitimately raped when Trump beat Hillary on election night.
She was almost raped in 2012 when she thought for a moment Romney would win and appoint Kavanaugh.
Candy Crowley saved her.
Blogger Jim at said...
Why are you people engaging with Craig?
He's questioned - from the very start - whether or not this was a political hitjob.
He's a moron with a law degree. Lot of that going around.
9/27/18, 12:06 PM
---
I might be a moron, but you're a terrible reader. I have not questioned whether or not this was a political hitjob.
"I am going to guess that the republican strategy, such as it is, is simply not to appear to be badgering the witness and at the end, stick with the line that there remains no corroboration for Ford's claims as well as her "official story" has now changed multiple times.
I'm going to further guess that this structure and approach is a Flake/Corker/Murkowski/Collins set of ground rules to secure their votes."
This is an excellent comment, and expresses my own feelings about the method. I do wish Grassley had broken the time up in a different way- I would have been perfectly willing to give the Democrats a full 3 hours uninterrupted just to give their counsel the same, but that is water under the bridge.
One other thing I will add, I think rebuttal witnesses are likely here. It might not happen today, but I think it will happen shortly.
Her emotion is credible. Her specific allegations, particularly of people, places, and times, are not.
Michael K said...
"If the dems can force Kavanaugh to withdraw based on this patently obvious made up college-campus-like Kangaroo Court tactics, thats the end of every republican."
No, its all about Flake and Corker and Murkowski, who represents a state where abortion was legal before Roe v Wade, and Collins.
Bullshit. The Republicans can't overcome the optics. Will they put another SCJ over a woman's body?
It can't be done.
she reminds me of sarah paulsens character in the dumpster fire that is American horror story, but she voted for the green party, all we need now are killer clowns, actually that would improve this hearing,
What's in the envelope?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnINBt4zUVs
The Gang-rape lady would've been much more interesting.
I am beginning to think the husband has played a major role in this whole thing.
Until you have been married to a crazy woman you can't appreciate his pain.
Or, it's highly unlikely.
> Her account amounts to "I felt afraid" and "they laughed",
We have all been laughed at.
Doesn't that hurt?
There is the rape - hurt woman's feelings.
"The ability to detect lying was evaluated in 509 people including law-enforcement personnel, such as members of the US Secret Service, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, Drug Enforcement Agency, California police and judges, as well as psychiatrists, college students, and working adults. A videotape showed 10 people who were either lying or telling the truth in describing their feelings. Only the Secret Service performed better than chance, and they were significantly more accurate than all of the other groups. When occupational group was disregarded, it was found that those who were accurate apparently used different behavioral clues and had different skills than those who were inaccurate."
Successful professional poker players are probably the very best at both lying and detecting lying.
Mitchell MUST do better in the second half. She’s running out of time.
I thought the voice and the fake non-tear sniffing was... fake.
It's hard to know what the Flake, Corker, Murkowski, Collins quartet wants to hear.
We know Flake is a pussy, who is butt-hurt over Trump. But, BK is his kinda guy.
Corker has been a good conservative, he's on the way out, why piss off the GOP, who can feed in nice lobbying clients on K Street? But, maybe, he has been offered nice lobbying clients by Soros?
Murkowski? Haven't heard her say anything. She's in Alaska, not up for reelection, should be an easy Yes.
Collins, to her credit, came out and softly criticized the anti-BK forces and DiFi's handling of the "secret" letter.
We shall see.
I hoped that someone would talk about an FBI investigation.
Surprised that no one has brought it up.
Facts or feelz?
It sounds like feelz is carrying the day. Then again, I just popped in from painting the garage, so I could be wrong.
Dems needed R’s to trip on a MeToo landmine. They’re planted everywhere. So far, nothing. Ms Mitchel in particular has adroitly step over all of them.
> but Ford is a credible person
She doesn't remember dates and chronology for recent events, but she remembers details of party night & participants?
She doesn't remember whether she took the polygraph on the day of or the day after her g'ma's funeral, but she remembers with "100%" certainty that it was K who accosted her? She doesn't remember when she saw Judge at the store, but his face went "white"?
Her testimony re: flying demonstrates her, shall we call it flexibility, regarding her willingness to stretch truth in pursuit of desired goals?
This is a credible person? Really?
I have a fear of flying.
I understand this is a partisan talking point. Emotions are running high. Maybe people don't care how the fear can manifest, cause talking points are more important.
I have been terrified boarding a plane. My husband has doused me with double doses of non-drowsy dramamine and dragged me on planes. I have been in planes during thunderstorms and quietly panicked thinking I was going to die.
Many times I board planes with no anxiety at all.
Here's the thing. If you're professional you know you gotta fly. You know it's irrational. If you care about your family, you know you need to fly for vacations and to travel your family.
You're brave, you deal with the anxiety, do get on that plane even though you're terrified. And the more you fly, the less you get scared.
But anxiety and periods of stress in life can bring the fear back. BOOM! You're scared of that plane again. But you get on the plane anyway.
Kavanaugh is guilty, presumed guilty. How can he prove he's innocent, what can he say to prove he is innocent. He's not a black man like Clarence Thomas so he can't go the high tech lynching route. Credibly accused is now tantamount to guilty. Be careful men, be very careful.
Jimmy Carter taught us looking at a woman with lust
is the same as Aardvarking her.
How can you be "credible" when you can't remember anything, no one corroborates anything you say, and your stories are always contradicting each other?
Christ, Althouse, you are such a woman. "Oh, she really looks like she feeeeeeelz like it happened!"
chuck said... I am beginning to think the husband has played a major role in this whole thing.
--
Explains her family's abstaining from signing the letter of support etc...which..oh hell..might be worth questioning her on.
I mean..only if her mind isn't too "tired".
Bullshit. The Republicans can't overcome the optics. Will they put another SCJ over a woman's body?
It can't be done.
I don't buy this. Thanks in no small part to the No Standards Doctrine established by #MeToo, everyone gets to establish their own standards, like Sure she sounds 'credible' but her statements are not corroborated. That's a credible standard even a Collins or Murkowski can justify.
The votes have already been counted, Kavanaugh will be confirmed. This is all boob bait for bubbas. This is more about trying to give dems in red states some sort of cover to vote no but I think it's only made things worse.
Fallback is hold the Senate and nominate a better, but female, conservative.
Then the victimhood is on your side.
Its interstitial rules now.
She doesn't remember dates and chronology for recent events, but she remembers details of party night & participants?
She doesn't remember whether she took the polygraph on the day of or the day after her g'ma's funeral, but she remembers with "100%" certainty that it was K who accosted her? She doesn't remember when she saw Judge at the store, but his face went "white"?
Do you want me to explain again how Norepinephrine and epinephrine lay down memories and how they are infallible and everlasting? Except when they aren't?
Inga...Allie Oop said...
“Ford sure was brave... We must thank her.”
Yes. That is what a decent person would do.
Says someone who voted for a known rapist.
People forget 2 things about the Clarence Thomas vote.
1. His high-tech lynching speech was off the charts awesome.
2. The Dems had a 57-43 majority. But he got 11 Dem Senators to vote for him.
The Dems were much more sane back then.
I was pretty sure right from the start that the person the Dems picked would seem to be on TV what she claimed to be - suffering from some sort of trauma. Image. And this person is rather childish and she is claiming that a high school grope traumatized her. Can a little child like this come on national TV and lie? Certainly, she did it in front of us all. She herself changed her story at once on national TV in full view. The prosecutor showed that her story is full of holes. And she has changed the story in all major particulars if you go back and collate the past sets of stories. I would say that she is an accomplished con woman and like all such accomplished at image. You may think that a good liar behaves like a second-hand car salesman as depicted on TV. I think a good liar believes her story of the moment and draws you, especially you men, in to assisting her to finish off the picture, to supply the missing details. I see several commenters think she is believable and they are all men ( to the best of my recollection.) I would put her testimony in the category of the home wrecker who keeps needing assistance and help in her vulnerability and sucks a deluded husband into an affair. Tears and trembly, "Oh, can I lean on your broad masculine chest and let you gaze down on my golden (still, at 47 thank god for hair dye) curls and will you be kind to me, please be gentle." Then he goes home and tries to explain to his wife who cannot believe he is falling for that obvious dyed hair and fake pitiful whine and destroying their life together. "But honey, you just don't understand, she is just sort of mixed up and needs a real man to stand by her for little while." Gah.
M Jordan said...
"Dems needed R’s to trip on a MeToo landmine. They’re planted everywhere. So far, nothing. Ms Mitchel in particular has adroitly step over all of them."
Somebody doesn't understand how the media works: Kennedy beat Nixon, though Nixon had all the facts. It's theatre. if Kavanaugh has even an inkling of Michael K, Gahrie, or Drago that comes across, he's screwed.
Craig: "That's not how silence works."
Given that millions of Americans have not accused Kavanaugh, their silence must construed as simply being too afraid to come out and tell the "truth" about Kavanaugh.
Apparently, thats how silence works...
Rush is playing 2-d chess on this.
Dems played the 4d chess this time.
Re. emotion: it is a perfect performance of the academic definition of trauma, which seems staged. This woman works in a field deeply implicated in politicizing criminal justice in ways that actually harm victims who do come forward to report crimes -- to police. Trauma Studies is dedicated to #metoo politics that expands definitions of victimization at the cost of keeping the criminal justice system credible to jurors.
She is just enacting trauma studies.
Politically, it's working.
After watching most of this I can see why dems vote dem. They believe anything.
Ross Douthat made an excellent point: the Republicans are focused almost entirely on making the process look fair, to make it appear that Ford is being treated fairly.
Yes, that's important but while they are doing this the Democrats are presenting a coherent - if flawed - narrative or story. They are talking about what happened; the Republicans are talking about the process.
Advantage Democrats.
I can't see how Kavanaugh alone can overcome this. One thing for sure, we're not having a vote tomorrow. Or anytime soon.
I think I will rent Confirmation tonight. Been meaning to watch that. I see HBO or FX or Netflix making a film of this hearing, however it turns out.
This woman is an embarrassment to professional women everywhere.
There is no uniting principle. She stands and falls on her own merits.
This allows Kavanaugh to come in and forcefully argue that he cannot respond to claims that are being re-written on the fly. He was never going to win the sympathy battle
Exactly. The very definition of a warlock trial. Democrats are relying on an emotional appeal for democratic leverage that will #Judge and #Label Kavanaugh as not viable and therefore eligible for a summary judgment that will abort his nomination.
Sir Crack-en pops up with hot takes from 60 years ago that he believes he alone has divined!
LOL
Oh well, its never too early to come with Dunning-Kruger-isms!
I had an employee's wife (he sent his wife!) come in and chew me out because I "I made him have a breakdown". She told me that I was a "cold, heartless bastard." I had just happened to have had an EKG the day before, and when she said it, it took much willpower to not say, "NO! I just had an EKG and I do in fact, have a heart. I'M just a cold bastard."
I just don't see it - I think Mitchell is slowly, methodically hanging Ford. I hope I am not wrong.
Juanita Broaddrick is on capital hill. She's a true survivor. Was raped by Arkansas Attorney Bill Clinton, told her friend Norma Rogers about it right after it happened, and showed Ms. Rogers the injuries to her lip, from Bill Clinton biting it.
Where was the #Metoo movement then?
(crickets)
wwww said...
"But anxiety and periods of stress in life can bring the fear back. BOOM! You're scared of that plane again. But you get on the plane anyway."
*************
But SHE didn't "get on the plane anyway" when asked to show up for Monday's scheduled hearing.
SHE conveniently delayed the hearing, probably because she needed coaching from her Dem activist attorneys.
So which was the worse take, that she wouldn't show or that she wasn't prepared for televised interrogation?
The only thing missing is Ford claiming the Russians have targeted her for opposing Trump.
There is still time however...
One question that might be asked: "Have you ever been sexually assaulted at any other time in your life?"
Where was the #Metoo movement then?
They are Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, and politically congruent.
But maybe that is just because I am a cold, heartless bastard and am incapable of seeing the empathy shown.
"she is claiming that a high school grope traumatized her."
no. That's not what coming across as the trauma. The trauma is getting her air cut off and not being able to breathe while being held down.
She couldn't get air. She couldn't escape. That's the trauma. The fear of suffocating & the claustraphobia.
People forget 2 things about the Clarence Thomas vote.
1. His high-tech lynching speech was off the charts awesome.
2. The Dems had a 57-43 majority. But he got 11 Dem Senators to vote for him.
The Dems were much more sane back then.
Also - the accusations made against Thomas were not 36 years old. The accusations were he-said/she-said and between two adults. (not time machine teenagers)
**Anita's were leftwing lies because of the same desperation. That's about the only similarity.
Ford, Dr. Ford if you will pardon me, has taken on the mantle of a high school girl, voice and giggle, She is a fantastic actress or is actually arrested in time as a perpetual high school girl. She is pitiful. She is crazy. She is stopping this nomination cold. Trump needs to put K on the shelf until Ginsberg dies and bring out the next candidate. In the meantime call in the FBI and the KBG and Avenetti to investigate their tits loose on K and Ford, excuse me Dr. Ford.
wwww: "She couldn't get air. She couldn't escape."
Were you a witness too?
LOL
Better hustle up. You'd be the first "witness" that actually corroborated this fake tale.
Michael: " In the meantime call in the FBI and the KBG and Avenetti to investigate their tits loose on K and Ford, excuse me Dr. Ford"
LOL
The FBI leadership is in full blown self-protection mode and is fully aligned strategically with the dems.
"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."
Ford's testimony is enough to bolster the credibility of a story that provides no deniable facts.
Which makes it difficult for Kavanaugh. And those in the future accused with no facts.
But -- on the brighter side -- it enables Althouse to stop her recent treading of water and go back to asserting that this testimony with no dates, times or places is "closer to the truth." So I bet that provides some relief. For a moment there, believing a person who has no proof and convenient memory lapses could've looked silly.
The Soap Opera Women* are now convincingly telling Althouse which way the wind blows.
(*hat tip to rh)
I am Laslo.
Playing devil's advocate.
I think it's likely that Kavanaugh is completely innocent on all these allegations. And if so, we have ruined the career and possibly the life of a good decent man due to a carefully orchestrated smear campaign. I can think of no lower moment in recent political history.
However, I have to grant the small possibility that Ford's testimony, despite the obvious issues, is true.
And this isn't a court of law. We don't have to get to "beyond a reasonable doubt". I am not sure we even need to get to "preponderance of evidence".
As much as it pains me, and as much as I know how this will set a precedent for Democrats going forward, don't we have to say that if we have any doubts as to whether the man is a rapist, that we can't confirm him for the Supreme Court of the United States? Do we really want him on the Court if there's any question when being reviewed by a moderately objective person?
I think at this point, Grassley and Cocaine Mitch have to either delay the vote until and if exonerating evidence appears, or vote him down, or encourage Kavanaugh or the White House to withdraw the nomination.
Which sucks completely. As I said, I think this will set a precedent for the Dems, and in all probability we are doing a grave disservice to a good and honorable man.
The ability to detect lying was evaluated in 509 people including law-enforcement personnel, such as members of the US Secret Service, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, Drug Enforcement Agency, California police and judges, as well as psychiatrists, college students, and working adults. A videotape showed 10 people who were either lying or telling the truth in describing their feelings. Only the Secret Service performed better than chance, and they were significantly more accurate than all of the other groups. When occupational group was disregarded, it was found that those who were accurate apparently used different behavioral clues and had different skills than those who were inaccurate.
This type of study has been replicated in the social science research literature countless times, in different variations.
Professional poker players are smart enough to stay away from guessing about whether a person is lying. They look at behavioral tendencies (i.e., tells and betting patterns). Even the best pros get that wrong often as not because you never know when an experienced pro will change up his or her pattern.
Pros are stone faced because they do not waste their time trying to pretend strength or weakness. Tat would give others an opportunity to detect their patterns. Only amateurs think they can determine whether a person is bluffing from their current facial expression.
I am looking at the behavioral pattern and inconsistencies shown by CBF. In my opinion, she is lying about Judge Kavanaugh.
Laslo: "Ford's testimony is enough to bolster the credibility of a story that provides no deniable facts."
Ford has been coached to avoid any specifics whatsoever. Therefore, no potential perjury implications.
Have you ever been sexually assaulted at any other time in your life?
Good question. It would explain the authentic emotion, if not the improper overlay forced by a recovered memory with missing links. The latter was supplemented through inference motivated by her prejudice and external coaching and incentives.
He put her hand over her mouth, to keep her from screaming.
But the record player was turned up, to cancel out any screams.
So, which was it?
And how do you rip someone's clothes off, keep them pinned down, AND keep your hand over their mouth?
Chris: "As much as it pains me, and as much as I know how this will set a precedent for Democrats going forward, don't we have to say that if we have any doubts as to whether the man is a rapist, that we can't confirm him for the Supreme Court of the United States?"
Pull the other one.
One question that might be asked: "Have you ever been sexually assaulted at any other time in your life?
Mitchell did ask a similar question, whether there have may have been other triggers that contributed to her anxiety, and Ford said none that was anything like this episode.
Evidently Trump is raging because he didn't think Ford would be this credible.
rocean: "And how do you rip someone's clothes off, keep them pinned down, AND keep your hand over their mouth?"
All republican predators have 4 arms.
Just ask wwww. I think there was a study completed somewhere....
Pickering: "Evidently Trump is raging because he didn't think Ford would be this credible."
Pickering got that from his FusionGPS sources.
Rachel Mitchell is about as competent of a prosecutor as Marcia Clark.
So..given she had "people" to interpret whatever was in the Grassley's letter offering to send staff, how in the world was it "unclear"?
Grassley was in the news repeatedly about the offer(s).
This performance isn't going to win the no-vote of Flake or Corker, and I don't think it will win the vote of Murkowski either. Collins, perhaps, but even I doubt that. The only other senator one might look to would be Sandoval, but he would guarantee his loss by voting no on Kavanaugh.
Ford has added no evidentiary support to her allegation, and that was necessary to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation. Again, as far as confirmation goes, the real audience that matters are all Republican Senators, not you, me, or any other American. And, again, even on the public part, we haven't heard from Kavanaugh yet.
It's interesting. Many people seem to have a different idea of what "credible" is than I personally do. In determining credibility I tend to put a great deal of emphasis on facts, clarity, and consistency of a story. If someone is shown to have lied or been inconsistent I tend to reduce my assessment of their credibility.
But there's some people put a lot more emphasis on an emotional performance over the actual content of what they're alleging. I don't quite understand that. And I can't help but feel that determining credibility or believability under those standards could be dangerous.
To people who seem to rely on an emotional performance to determine credibility, I have to wonder how they would feel if either they themselves or someone they loved were falsely accused of something horrible, how would they feel if the accuser put on such a "credible" emotional performance? Would they feel that justice was done?
She admitted the fear of flying was a lie and she smiled amusingly while admitting it.
And don't forget Thomas operated under the 60 votes for cloture rule.
Only if you told me when Judge worked at the Safeway.
Yes, she wants dates that she can latch onto. If Kavanaugh had gone first with his calendar, she would have remembered the dates.
I think the prosecutor is doing a good job. She will not make a closing argument in public but this is how they are constructed. I have been an expert witness probably 50 times, 10 or 12 in trial. You are always listening to the question and thinking about the next one.
Her closing argument will be to the committee. The Democrats will not participate, unless they want talking points fo the Senate floor.
readering said...
And don't forget Thomas operated under the 60 votes for cloture rule.
Those were the days when Democrats were sane and listened to logic.
Too bad they are gone.
Oclarki: "Rachel Mitchell is about as competent of a prosecutor as Marcia Clark."
I don't think so.
She is simply ill-suited for this political exercise and environment. Marcia Clark wasn't heading up a Senate questioning of a "witness", in public, who, apparently, was to be afforded the ability to call the tune.
That would be unfair to Marcia Clark and Mitchell.
Clark was incompetent in an actual courtroom in what was supposed to be her area of strength.
Dems play to the brain stem. It’s not very good at figuring stuff out, but it is great at feeling and being spooked and/or angered. It’s not the worst strategy.
we have ruined the career and possibly the life of a good decent man due to a carefully orchestrated smear campaign
Him, his wife, and daughters, too. There is a reason, here are several reasons, why our civil rights preclude warlock trials.
YW have you counted out red state dem senators?
readering: "And don't forget Thomas operated under the 60 votes for cloture rule."
Yikes!
The dems really don't like having to live under their own rules, do they?
Well, trust me. I can understand that.
Mazie going of on TDS
Without attacking CBF’s credibility through vigorous cross examination I don’t see how Kavanaugh wins. This procedure is a joke.
No, it was a tweet from the Vanity Fair reporter.
The way it's going, Mitchell is going to conclude by saying thanks very much Dr. Ford, you've been very persuasive. Then the sad little preppie will get his chance with actual Senators who know how to cross examine. I bet Kav starts crying at some point. Putting the best face on it, it's possible that Kav himself has forgotten/buried this traumatic episode as too damaging to his amour propre.
I do think Kavanaugh is gonna have to win this one, himself. I hope he can dance. He has to attack the Democrats for being weasels, talk about all the death threats he and his family have received, and rip her lies up. He has to name his high school friends, talk about his high school girlfriend, talk about how they spent their evenings, what their dreams were, etc, etc, etc.
If he's stuffy and robotic, and unemotional, it'll be a swing and a miss.
I could be totally wrong about all this. It's hard to gauge what the Senate Quartet is thinking.
Is Mitchell questioning Kavanaugh or just Senators?
I’m not watching; I have a lecture to prepare. Has Mitchell asked Ford why her parents and brothers wouldn’t sign an affidavit attesting to her honesty?
David Begley: "Without attacking CBF’s credibility through vigorous cross examination I don’t see how Kavanaugh wins. This procedure is a joke."
This is the "play it safe" procedure.
Don't give the dems any ammo on the #MeToo/#WarOnWomen front.
Of course, thats like playing "Prevent" at the end of the football game.
I think at this point, Grassley and Cocaine Mitch have to either delay the vote until and if exonerating evidence appears, or vote him down, or encourage Kavanaugh or the White House to withdraw the nomination.
I don't. The closing argument will point out all these little inconsistencies. We won't see it.
The most important is her claiming PTSD. If anyone knows anything about it, you know that memory is very specific and does not get vague.
I can tell you where I stood and where the radio was when I heard about the Kennedy assassination. I heard Oswald shot while listening to the radio in a car going from one field to another pheasant hunting that weekend.
John Pickering: "No, it was a tweet from the Vanity Fair reporter."
LOL
You realize how funny that is, right?
Right up there with you "supply and demand" ignorance.
AP style is to not use Dr. when referring to those who hold medical degrees. Remember how it was always Dr. Jill Biden? She had a Doctor of Education in educational leadership.
I think at this point, Grassley and Cocaine Mitch have to either delay the vote until and if exonerating evidence appears,
It's not possible to prove a negative.
But you already knew that, didn't you?
Transparent.
Here is another piece of information for the untrained (and perhaps cruelly neutral) observer:
CBF does not recall giving notes from one of her therapy sessions to the WaPo.
The procedure for getting 6 year old therapy notes:
1. She has to sign a release of confidential information that then therapist provides. It is a lawyerly, detailed form.
2. The therapist has to dig into his or her locked and stored files (usually tossed after 7 years) and copy the notes.
3. The notes should be hand delivered to the patient to keep them confidential. Some places are sloppy and may fax or mail the notes. They cannot be emailed.
4. Ford herself (not an agent fo hers) can only receive the notes and hand them to the newspaper.
I guess that is easy to forget because of trauma ... and men molest women all the time.
Time to dial that female pro-life Notre Dame law professor and ask if she has any skeletons in her closet.
@Bay Area Guy -- spot on. The Republican Senators and their proxy are useless. If Kavanaugh can pull this off, I'll be surprised.
Reps just let whatever she said stand
Dems won Althouse women with "something happened because you nobody can fool her with acting".
Adams proclaims "Ford seems credible to those who believed her, and looks a liar to those who did not believe her. Vocal fry means nothing."
Media will ceasely replay the emotional part, then sell the "rape is common in college" canard.
"Ford testified against all of us, we need to be better people."
"It's interesting. Many people seem to have a different idea of what "credible" is than I personally do."
I mentioned this a few day ago to another commenter, but I think a lot of people misconstrue two different words- credible and creditable. Ms. Althouse, whether she knows it or not is describing her reaction to Ford being creditable. As others have taken pains to point out, though, the facts that we have undermine her credibility at every single turn- only her story itself supports her story- no witness can support any part of it.
About her father, this is the gossip:
Dr. Ford’s father, Ralph Blasey IV, a Republican, is on the board of Columbia Country Club in MD. He stated through a family friend he is not publicly backing his daughter’s allegations because he believes he will lose his position with the country club.
Believe it or not
The only possible exonerating evidence that could be presented is if Kavanaugh could prove he was physically elsewhere on the date of the alleged attack.
Hence, entire years worth of fudgeable timeframes have been offered as to the timing.
That is very...convenient.
Without attacking CBF’s credibility through vigorous cross examination I don’t see how Kavanaugh wins.
I think that would be fatal. This is all about TV but the prosecutor will have lots of inconsistencies to use in her statement to the committee. She has an audience of four.
I still remember testifying in a med-mal trial in southern Alabama. The plaintiff lawyer, whose witness I was, warned me about the deceptive country bumpkin defense lawyer. He told me the guy was an art collector.
It was all an act for juries in Alabama.
Pickering: "Believe it or not"
LOL
We don't.
Cory Booker is the most grandstandiest of all politicians. They've had to add a definition to 'grandstanding' in the OED to include another definition as a 'being a Cory Booker'.
He's not done, but I'm sure he'll have a clip that we'll be playing for days.
"YW have you counted out red state dem senators?"
They literally don't matter at this point. If you want my opinion, though, I think Manchin and Heitkamp both vote for confirmation based on Ford's testimony and lack of any additional evidence from her.
One could say she's almost Spartacus-like.
How about (yes, this is not a new idea): Judge and Kavanaugh jumped on her - it was horseplay - and she thought it was attempted rape.
That's why she sounds so convincing: she believes it was attempted rape.
As memory expert Elizabeth Loftus points out, eyewitnesses who are wrong aren't lying. It's just that what they believe they saw isn't true. They're mistaken.
Michael K: "I think that would be fatal. This is all about TV but the prosecutor will have lots of inconsistencies to use in her statement to the committee. She has an audience of four."
Correct.
It is very clear that Mitchell was asked to nail down, under oath, some quite specific elements that will probably be used as the basis for the republican fence-sitters to say hey, still completely uncorroborated, in fact all witnesses agree with Kavanaugh, and Fords story has, once again, changed on the fly.
"They literally don't matter at this point. If you want my opinion, though, I think Manchin and Heitkamp both vote for confirmation based on Ford's testimony and lack of any additional evidence from her."
No, they won't.
Ah..Booker gobbling up time.
Corroborating witnesses denied? Like Keyser?
Steve M. Galbraith: "How about (yes, this is not a new idea): Judge and Kavanaugh jumped on her - it was horseplay - and she thought it was attempted rape."
LOL
Nice try.
Kavanaugh was not there. And neither were the witnesses that Ford identified, according to those witnesses.
But hey, lets call it a draw!....
> This is all about TV but the prosecutor will have lots of inconsistencies to use in her statement to the committee. She has an audience of four.
Getting K though is short term goal.
Getting "anybody but Dems" elected, defending rights of accused, and culture war where special belief is granted the "disadvantaged" is the long term goal.
Grassley gets angry and yells
However frustrated Grassley may be at Democratic shenanigans, they can't be a surprise. He's not new at this stuff, he needs to remember his purpose.
I have also hard that he was a CIA agent and she has connections to the CIA.
It depends on who you read.
@Drago & Dave Begley,
It's a tough call. Playing it safe with the crazy cat woman is probably necessitated by the stern Ms. Susan Collins, playing the role of high school principal. You don't want to give her an excuse to vote No.
On the other hand, Kavanaugh, himself needs to show some spunk.
Another example where Ford now claims she would have been happy to work with the republican committee staff whereas before she and her lawyers refused.
The Republicans are either too bland — operating through Mitchell — or irksomely angry — through Grassley. Do they know how badly they are losing right now?
Repeal the 19th.
I can tell you where I stood and where the radio was when I heard about the Kennedy assassination. I heard Oswald shot while listening to the radio in a car going from one field to another pheasant hunting that weekend.
I was in our school locker room right after 5th grade gym class. "Coach" announced the news while I was sitting on the bench between lockers, getting ready to shower. Most students groaned a and a few clapped. Obviously, I recall persons, places and dates.
Re: Oswald. I was at my aunt's house watching TV in her laundry/recreation room. Everyone else (cousins, aunt, uncle, mom) had left the room to do something else. I watched alone as Oswald was led out of the police station. A guy in a suit and hat interrupted the perp walk, stuck a gun out and shot him.
I was stunned for a while and then ran out of the room to tell everyone what happened.
I don't remember my aunt's specific address, but I recall the street name and suburb and how we got there and how we got home. I remember all the names and obviously the date despite the trauma
"We can't prove she's not lying, because she's not given any specifics."
-- She gave many specifics (number of people, who pushed her, whether she heard people laughing, etc.) and was forced to change or hedge on them many times.
"-- She gave many specifics (number of people, who pushed her, whether she heard people laughing, etc.) and was forced to change or hedge on them many times."
Which is why those "specifics" have to be fudged up and severely limited in number.
Exactly; I don't understand how any still thinks of her as "credible." Something may or may not have happened, but the only fact she hasn't hedged on is Kavanaugh did it.
Though, she can't be sure he was one of the people who even pushed her into the room.
Drago,
The repeatedly reported overtures were "unclear".
Her mind was/is tired.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा