Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love this prosecutor. She’s no bull.

Yes. She doesn't believe her.

It's her job to not believe her. They had to go all the way out to Arizona and Joe Arpaio country to find her.

She's punching holes all over the story

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This woman’s babbling about brain chemicals sounds cray cray.

She has a PhD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Both prosecutor Mitchell (pardon me, "the female assistant") and Dr. Blasey Ford are coming across as highly personable. Dr. Blasey Ford seems genuine and credible.

Is the prosecutor slated to ask judge Kavanaugh questions as well? Wouldn't it be something if she helped the accuser's credibility and punctured the accused's? It would be retribution for senator Grassley's "female assistant" comment.

Interesting question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love this prosecutor. She’s no bull.

Yes. She doesn't believe her.

Then she’s biased and this makes this “hearing” a total check-the-box sham by the GOP. We have a biased prosecutor doing the bidding of the GOP to add to the circus. Gross.

And, you think the Democrats are here with an open mind? You are kidding yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love this prosecutor. She’s no bull.

Yes. She doesn't believe her.

It's her job to not believe her. They had to go all the way out to Arizona and Joe Arpaio country to find her.

She's punching holes all over the story

No, not at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s not credible. Bubbling. Random weird details.

The random weird details are some of the things that make her credible. In traumatic (or for that moment, especially ecstatic), it's pretty normal to remember some random specific things.

Weird details are a sign of anxiety. She’s very nervous. I am a rape crisis counselor so this type of babbling is very common when nervous and anxious. She’s trying to please, I assume the senate panel.

She's being "collegiate". Speaks volumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is the man next to her? Her husband?

One of her attorneys, I think? Usually family sits behind the witness, right?

That's her lawyer, a former IG at Justice with tons of experience, who quit his well paying job to support Dr. Ford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love this prosecutor. She’s no bull.

Yes. She doesn't believe her.

It's her job to not believe her. They had to go all the way out to Arizona and Joe Arpaio country to find her.

She's punching holes all over the story

No, she's not. Take your trolling elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Now she's backing up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Both prosecutor Mitchell (pardon me, "the female assistant") and Dr. Blasey Ford are coming across as highly personable. Dr. Blasey Ford seems genuine and credible.

Is the prosecutor slated to ask judge Kavanaugh questions as well? Wouldn't it be something if she helped the accuser's credibility and punctured the accused's? It would be retribution for senator Grassley's "female assistant" comment.

Interesting question.

On a previous thread, someone said that he was. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This woman’s babbling about brain chemicals sounds cray cray.

She is a research psychologist who has likely had training in neuroanatomy, memory, emotion, etc. She said that the memory of their laughter was "indelible in the hippocampus." Sorry that you didn't quite understand that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love this prosecutor. She’s no bull.

Yes. She doesn't believe her.

It's her job to not believe her. They had to go all the way out to Arizona and Joe Arpaio country to find her.

She's punching holes all over the story

She's trying to establish the story, and Ford is reiterating the story and putting more details in some elements. She hasn't said anything egregiously different or contradictory in this testimony. If you feel she has, please share exactly what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mitchell is in way over her head. This is going to back fire. She is used to acting as a prosector, and asking questions she already knows the answer to. She's not going to get anything from Ford. It's almost like she is gearing up or fishing for a "catch you in a lie" question, and it's making Ford look highly sympathetic. Plus, Mitchell is not managing her time well by digging into details and asking question after question and then getting interrupted by her time being up. Mitchell is swimming in this so far and she is drowning.

I agree with this analysis. I'm a lawyer and a female. And, I think this prosecutor is actually too pleasant and too considerate of Ford. And, I'm a liberal Dem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Teach your kids to speak up when they are the target of assault, or witnesses anything that's not right.

Are you people doing this?

Guess what is the BEST way to teach them?

Believe victims who come forward. If we changed our reactions to victims coming forward it would DRAMATICALLY change the reporting stats.

+1,000,000
Well said.

And once more for the people in the back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman’s babbling about brain chemicals sounds cray cray.

She is a research psychologist who has likely had training in neuroanatomy, memory, emotion, etc. She said that the memory of their laughter was "indelible in the hippocampus." Sorry that you didn't quite understand that.

I understand that’s her background but she sounds like an idiot. Sorry.