Republicans want a Potemkin hearing for Christine Blasey Ford

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think his response this week has demonstrated fitness, integrity?

Yes. I think people are trying to blame him for things that some of his supporters have done.

It is not unrealistic to try to find holes and gaps in the accusation--especially, when it is just that: an accusation.

You have people like Gillibrand claiming "I believe her." when she has not even met her (or, maybe she has--and that would be a whole other story.)

Her lawyers are not just attorneys--they are professional Dem activists. "Resisters." Ford wrote WAPO in July and took the polygraph in August. And, yet she was not prepared to come testify. One of the women hired to prepare her, said in July that they have a strategy to stall the nomination.

From the morning of the first hearing, this has been choreographed and orchestrated. This is vicious.

What was in her letter to Feinstein?

What's been choreographed and orchestrated was the entire "blame a different student" theme of the past two days. Talk about vicious. Poor guy probably has to go into hiding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you think his response this week has demonstrated fitness, integrity?

Yes. I think people are trying to blame him for things that some of his supporters have done.

It is not unrealistic to try to find holes and gaps in the accusation--especially, when it is just that: an accusation.

You have people like Gillibrand claiming "I believe her." when she has not even met her (or, maybe she has--and that would be a whole other story.)

Her lawyers are not just attorneys--they are professional Dem activists. "Resisters." Ford wrote WAPO in July and took the polygraph in August. And, yet she was not prepared to come testify. One of the women hired to prepare her, said in July that they have a strategy to stall the nomination.

From the morning of the first hearing, this has been choreographed and orchestrated. This is vicious.

What was in her letter to Feinstein?

What's been choreographed and orchestrated was the entire "blame a different student" theme of the past two days. Talk about vicious. Poor guy probably has to go into hiding.

Apparently Ford noticed Whelan looming at her LinkedIn page early Sunday morning before she went public.

[Anonymous]

It’ll be a clown hearing, bro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want the FBI — the FBI — to investigate whether a couple drunk minors fell on another drunk minor at a party in Bethesda like 40 years ago? And you think we can’t possibly confirm a Supreme Court justice without this critical information? No, just no.

because they were drunk minors, it's OK to assault someone?

No, just no.

35 year old allegation is dem desperation. Confirm him already.

[Anonymous]

Let’s be clear: Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk (they had been drinking all day, per Ford’s interview with WaPo). Ford had just finished one beer when she was attacked on the way to the bathroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be clear: Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk (they had been drinking all day, per Ford’s interview with WaPo). Ford had just finished one beer when she was attacked on the way to the bathroom.

Let’s be clear: This is what Ford has said. Not under oath. Not surprising she would paint those she is accusing as “drunkards” and herself as a “teetotaler.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be clear: Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk (they had been drinking all day, per Ford’s interview with WaPo). Ford had just finished one beer when she was attacked on the way to the bathroom.

Let’s be clear: This is what Ford has said. Not under oath. Not surprising she would paint those she is accusing as “drunkards” and herself as a “teetotaler.”

Kavanaugh has said nothing under oath about this incident either. This is why it is important to allow the FBI to investigate. Anyone who lies to the FBI will be charged with a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be clear: Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk (they had been drinking all day, per Ford’s interview with WaPo). Ford had just finished one beer when she was attacked on the way to the bathroom.

Let’s be clear: This is what Ford has said. Not under oath. Not surprising she would paint those she is accusing as “drunkards” and herself as a “teetotaler.”

+1 Interesting that she remembers that she had one beer but can't remember where or when this took place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be clear: Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk (they had been drinking all day, per Ford’s interview with WaPo). Ford had just finished one beer when she was attacked on the way to the bathroom.

Let’s be clear: This is what Ford has said. Not under oath. Not surprising she would paint those she is accusing as “drunkards” and herself as a “teetotaler.”

Kavanaugh has said nothing under oath about this incident either. This is why it is important to allow the FBI to investigate. Anyone who lies to the FBI will be charged with a crime.

No, he apparently testified under oath on Monday, at the White House, to staffers. We don't know what he said, but presumably it was still "maybe it was some other guy".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be clear: Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk (they had been drinking all day, per Ford’s interview with WaPo). Ford had just finished one beer when she was attacked on the way to the bathroom.

Let’s be clear: This is what Ford has said. Not under oath. Not surprising she would paint those she is accusing as “drunkards” and herself as a “teetotaler.”

Kavanaugh has said nothing under oath about this incident either. This is why it is important to allow the FBI to investigate. Anyone who lies to the FBI will be charged with a crime.

No, he apparently testified under oath on Monday, at the White House, to staffers. We don't know what he said, but presumably it was still "maybe it was some other guy".

Maybe, he is giving her the benefit of the doubt that something did happen and perhaps she confused him. He knows he didn't do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be clear: Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk (they had been drinking all day, per Ford’s interview with WaPo). Ford had just finished one beer when she was attacked on the way to the bathroom.

Let’s be clear: This is what Ford has said. Not under oath. Not surprising she would paint those she is accusing as “drunkards” and herself as a “teetotaler.”

Those she is accusing spent the better part of the last 38 years bragging about their drunkardness.

[Anonymous]

At a minimum (after he denies this ever happened/he went to any such party) K should be asked about his drinking in high school; to explain his "memories" referenced on his yearbook page, e.g., treasurer of the 100 Kegs club; and asked whether he was ever blackout drunk in high school. Assuming he admits, as he has to (given all the evidence out there in public), that he drank a lot in high school/and or got black out drunk on occasion(s), the follow up question should be, "so you cannot be certain that this incident did not happen when you were black out drunk, isn't that right?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be clear: Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk (they had been drinking all day, per Ford’s interview with WaPo). Ford had just finished one beer when she was attacked on the way to the bathroom.

Let’s be clear: This is what Ford has said. Not under oath. Not surprising she would paint those she is accusing as “drunkards” and herself as a “teetotaler.”

Kavanaugh has said nothing under oath about this incident either. This is why it is important to allow the FBI to investigate. Anyone who lies to the FBI will be charged with a crime.

No, he apparently testified under oath on Monday, at the White House, to staffers. We don't know what he said, but presumably it was still "maybe it was some other guy".

Maybe, he is giving her the benefit of the doubt that something did happen and perhaps she confused him. He knows he didn't do it.

He knows he didn't do it but his past works against him. Aside from attacking her character, which he cannot do, he's stuck with "maybe she's mixed up". It's the nicest response he could come up with.

If he values a respected, nonpartisan, nonpolitical court, he would do the right thing. He's too political though. He wants to win.

[Anonymous]

Kaliyuga

[Anonymous]

I can’t fully agree about the Potemkin point given that her team was demanding that he testify first. Maybe not a great idea to place conditions on his defense.