Kavanaugh vote postponed. Judiciary Committee hearing on Sexual Assault complain Monday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

Give it a rest. Just because an 85 year old Senator thinks that her attorney hasn't responded to a couple recent phone calls made hours earlier doesn't mean she isn't responding.

In the meantime, Susan Collins has already proposed a format that's completely different than what Grassley outlined, so it's not surprising that her attorney is being deliberate. Note that she's a private citizen on a different coast who's being asked to provide a public victims account on national TV... I don't think it's unusual to take some before agreeing to logistical details. Most depositions I'm involved with take months to schedule, and her appearance is requested in 5 business days.

You obviously have an agenda. Drop it and let the process work.

Unlike the other 85 year old Senator who knew these allegations for around six weeks and interviewed the "assailant" and never even asked him about it.

Who cares whether Feinstein asked him it. Irrelevant. Go back to your yardwork and let the real lawyers weigh in.

It’s absolutely relevant. She sat on this information for months, and now wants a full blown FBI investigation.
Tell me she isn’t trying to delay. It won’t work.

Feinstein's motivations don't really matter. There's now a credible witness that has appeared, and there's no reason for the matter not to be vetted. Time is not of the essence here. Flake and Collins agree, so it's irrelevant. Back to the point: there's nothing unusual about a Congressional witness not having their counsel return phone calls hours after they occur. Your hit job is failing. Please go to the bullpen and bring in someone better at this.

Nice try attempting to brush off the delay tactics by Feinstein. We see this whole episode for what it is.
All the other attempts at derailing this nominee failed... so out of that back pocket they pull the #MeToo card.
Klassy.

Gosh, you are bad at this. Maybe take a break, go watch Fox, amd come back with some equally lame, but at least new, arguments.

And as to delay? Scalia’s seat sat open close to a year. It is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

Give it a rest. Just because an 85 year old Senator thinks that her attorney hasn't responded to a couple recent phone calls made hours earlier doesn't mean she isn't responding.

In the meantime, Susan Collins has already proposed a format that's completely different than what Grassley outlined, so it's not surprising that her attorney is being deliberate. Note that she's a private citizen on a different coast who's being asked to provide a public victims account on national TV... I don't think it's unusual to take some before agreeing to logistical details. Most depositions I'm involved with take months to schedule, and her appearance is requested in 5 business days.

You obviously have an agenda. Drop it and let the process work.

Unlike the other 85 year old Senator who knew these allegations for around six weeks and interviewed the "assailant" and never even asked him about it.

Who cares whether Feinstein asked him it. Irrelevant. Go back to your yardwork and let the real lawyers weigh in.

It’s absolutely relevant. She sat on this information for months, and now wants a full blown FBI investigation.
Tell me she isn’t trying to delay. It won’t work.

The fact that the republicans are absolutely terrified of even the most basic of investigations, i.e., calling additional witnesses, makes abundant clear they know Kavanaugh did it.

BTW, don’t worry about delay, Trump told us that just yesterday.

I am actually not at all worried about this hearing. I would LOVE for this woman to appear.
I have no doubt that Kavanaugh is totally innocent of these allegations. Innocent.
The fact that Feinstein sat on this for months tells me she has questions about the veracity of the claim.
And, my understanding is that she sent the information to the FBI with the name redacted. So, how would she expect the FBI to investigate this claim? And, it also makes me believe that the name was leaked on the Democratic side of the aisle since the Republicans knew nothing about these allegations.

Feinstein sat on it because Ford requested confidentiality. No conspiracy here. She went public once press started hounding her and it because clear her identity was going to leak.

Also quite telling that you refer to her as "this woman," similar to another entitled male harasser from 20 years ago.

And, yet, she hired an attorney, took a polygraph test, and scrubbed her social media back in August.
Pretty strategic moves for someone who planned to stay anonymous.
And, I refer to her as “this woman” because that is what she apparently wanted to be referred to as since she didn’t want her identity out there, supposedly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

I fear she may change her various recollections under oath.

And Mark Judge's novel is not allowed in the hearing. What would she do without the book as the reference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

Give it a rest. Just because an 85 year old Senator thinks that her attorney hasn't responded to a couple recent phone calls made hours earlier doesn't mean she isn't responding.

In the meantime, Susan Collins has already proposed a format that's completely different than what Grassley outlined, so it's not surprising that her attorney is being deliberate. Note that she's a private citizen on a different coast who's being asked to provide a public victims account on national TV... I don't think it's unusual to take some before agreeing to logistical details. Most depositions I'm involved with take months to schedule, and her appearance is requested in 5 business days.

You obviously have an agenda. Drop it and let the process work.

Unlike the other 85 year old Senator who knew these allegations for around six weeks and interviewed the "assailant" and never even asked him about it.

Who cares whether Feinstein asked him it. Irrelevant. Go back to your yardwork and let the real lawyers weigh in.

It’s absolutely relevant. She sat on this information for months, and now wants a full blown FBI investigation.
Tell me she isn’t trying to delay. It won’t work.

The fact that the republicans are absolutely terrified of even the most basic of investigations, i.e., calling additional witnesses, makes abundant clear they know Kavanaugh did it.

BTW, don’t worry about delay, Trump told us that just yesterday.

I am actually not at all worried about this hearing. I would LOVE for this woman to appear.
I have no doubt that Kavanaugh is totally innocent of these allegations. Innocent.
The fact that Feinstein sat on this for months tells me she has questions about the veracity of the claim.
And, my understanding is that she sent the information to the FBI with the name redacted. So, how would she expect the FBI to investigate this claim? And, it also makes me believe that the name was leaked on the Democratic side of the aisle since the Republicans knew nothing about these allegations.

Feinstein sat on it because Ford requested confidentiality. No conspiracy here. She went public once press started hounding her and it because clear her identity was going to leak.

Also quite telling that you refer to her as "this woman," similar to another entitled male harasser from 20 years ago.

And, yet, she hired an attorney, took a polygraph test, and scrubbed her social media back in August.
Pretty strategic moves for someone who planned to stay anonymous.
And, I refer to her as “this woman” because that is what she apparently wanted to be referred to as since she didn’t want her identity out there, supposedly.

Way back in August? Do you mean last month?

I don't know, I haven't looked her up on social media. Maybe you mean 2017?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

Give it a rest. Just because an 85 year old Senator thinks that her attorney hasn't responded to a couple recent phone calls made hours earlier doesn't mean she isn't responding.

In the meantime, Susan Collins has already proposed a format that's completely different than what Grassley outlined, so it's not surprising that her attorney is being deliberate. Note that she's a private citizen on a different coast who's being asked to provide a public victims account on national TV... I don't think it's unusual to take some before agreeing to logistical details. Most depositions I'm involved with take months to schedule, and her appearance is requested in 5 business days.

You obviously have an agenda. Drop it and let the process work.

Unlike the other 85 year old Senator who knew these allegations for around six weeks and interviewed the "assailant" and never even asked him about it.

Who cares whether Feinstein asked him it. Irrelevant. Go back to your yardwork and let the real lawyers weigh in.

It’s absolutely relevant. She sat on this information for months, and now wants a full blown FBI investigation.
Tell me she isn’t trying to delay. It won’t work.

Feinstein's motivations don't really matter. There's now a credible witness that has appeared, and there's no reason for the matter not to be vetted. Time is not of the essence here. Flake and Collins agree, so it's irrelevant. Back to the point: there's nothing unusual about a Congressional witness not having their counsel return phone calls hours after they occur. Your hit job is failing. Please go to the bullpen and bring in someone better at this.

Nice try attempting to brush off the delay tactics by Feinstein. We see this whole episode for what it is.
All the other attempts at derailing this nominee failed... so out of that back pocket they pull the #MeToo card.
Klassy.

Exactly. Their desperation is going ballistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

I fear she may change her various recollections under oath.

Her lawyer is saying they don't have to prove their story is true - Kavanaugh has to prove it isn't

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

The terms of the hearing are still being negotiated. Ford wants to bring all corroborating witnesses. Republicans are refusing, afraid of the truth apparently.

Not true - her lawyer stated they don't need to corroborate their side of the story.

[Anonymous]

Where did his buddy Mark Judge go to college? I assume he is not a Yale grad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

Give it a rest. Just because an 85 year old Senator thinks that her attorney hasn't responded to a couple recent phone calls made hours earlier doesn't mean she isn't responding.

In the meantime, Susan Collins has already proposed a format that's completely different than what Grassley outlined, so it's not surprising that her attorney is being deliberate. Note that she's a private citizen on a different coast who's being asked to provide a public victims account on national TV... I don't think it's unusual to take some before agreeing to logistical details. Most depositions I'm involved with take months to schedule, and her appearance is requested in 5 business days.

You obviously have an agenda. Drop it and let the process work.

Unlike the other 85 year old Senator who knew these allegations for around six weeks and interviewed the "assailant" and never even asked him about it.

Who cares whether Feinstein asked him it. Irrelevant. Go back to your yardwork and let the real lawyers weigh in.

It’s absolutely relevant. She sat on this information for months, and now wants a full blown FBI investigation.
Tell me she isn’t trying to delay. It won’t work.

The fact that the republicans are absolutely terrified of even the most basic of investigations, i.e., calling additional witnesses, makes abundant clear they know Kavanaugh did it.

BTW, don’t worry about delay, Trump told us that just yesterday.

I am actually not at all worried about this hearing. I would LOVE for this woman to appear.
I have no doubt that Kavanaugh is totally innocent of these allegations. Innocent.
The fact that Feinstein sat on this for months tells me she has questions about the veracity of the claim.
And, my understanding is that she sent the information to the FBI with the name redacted. So, how would she expect the FBI to investigate this claim? And, it also makes me believe that the name was leaked on the Democratic side of the aisle since the Republicans knew nothing about these allegations.

Feinstein sat on it because Ford requested confidentiality. No conspiracy here. She went public once press started hounding her and it because clear her identity was going to leak.

Also quite telling that you refer to her as "this woman," similar to another entitled male harasser from 20 years ago.

And, yet, she hired an attorney, took a polygraph test, and scrubbed her social media back in August.
Pretty strategic moves for someone who planned to stay anonymous.
And, I refer to her as “this woman” because that is what she apparently wanted to be referred to as since she didn’t want her identity out there, supposedly.

No, you refer to her as "this woman" (3 days after she publicly outed herself and revoked her prior request of anonymity) because you're a misogynist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

Give it a rest. Just because an 85 year old Senator thinks that her attorney hasn't responded to a couple recent phone calls made hours earlier doesn't mean she isn't responding.

In the meantime, Susan Collins has already proposed a format that's completely different than what Grassley outlined, so it's not surprising that her attorney is being deliberate. Note that she's a private citizen on a different coast who's being asked to provide a public victims account on national TV... I don't think it's unusual to take some before agreeing to logistical details. Most depositions I'm involved with take months to schedule, and her appearance is requested in 5 business days.

You obviously have an agenda. Drop it and let the process work.

Unlike the other 85 year old Senator who knew these allegations for around six weeks and interviewed the "assailant" and never even asked him about it.

Who cares whether Feinstein asked him it. Irrelevant. Go back to your yardwork and let the real lawyers weigh in.

It’s absolutely relevant. She sat on this information for months, and now wants a full blown FBI investigation.
Tell me she isn’t trying to delay. It won’t work.

The fact that the republicans are absolutely terrified of even the most basic of investigations, i.e., calling additional witnesses, makes abundant clear they know Kavanaugh did it.

BTW, don’t worry about delay, Trump told us that just yesterday.

I am actually not at all worried about this hearing. I would LOVE for this woman to appear.
I have no doubt that Kavanaugh is totally innocent of these allegations. Innocent.
The fact that Feinstein sat on this for months tells me she has questions about the veracity of the claim.
And, my understanding is that she sent the information to the FBI with the name redacted. So, how would she expect the FBI to investigate this claim? And, it also makes me believe that the name was leaked on the Democratic side of the aisle since the Republicans knew nothing about these allegations.

Feinstein sat on it because Ford requested confidentiality. No conspiracy here. She went public once press started hounding her and it because clear her identity was going to leak.

Also quite telling that you refer to her as "this woman," similar to another entitled male harasser from 20 years ago.

And, yet, she hired an attorney, took a polygraph test, and scrubbed her social media back in August.
Pretty strategic moves for someone who planned to stay anonymous.
And, I refer to her as “this woman” because that is what she apparently wanted to be referred to as since she didn’t want her identity out there, supposedly.

Way back in August? Do you mean last month?

I don't know, I haven't looked her up on social media. Maybe you mean 2017?

You mean after reporters showed up at her classroom at Stanford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

I fear she may change her various recollections under oath.

Her lawyer is saying they don't have to prove their story is true - Kavanaugh has to prove it isn't

That's what I've been saying. Her letter is enough. Kavanaugh is the one who needs to convince the Senate to confirm him.

This isn't an investigation. It's a confirmation hearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

I fear she may change her various recollections under oath.

Her lawyer is saying they don't have to prove their story is true - Kavanaugh has to prove it isn't

That's what I've been saying. Her letter is enough. Kavanaugh is the one who needs to convince the Senate to confirm him.

This isn't an investigation. It's a confirmation hearing.

True.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

I fear she may change her various recollections under oath.

Her lawyer is saying they don't have to prove their story is true - Kavanaugh has to prove it isn't

That's what I've been saying. Her letter is enough. Kavanaugh is the one who needs to convince the Senate to confirm him.

This isn't an investigation. It's a confirmation hearing.

So an accusation, i.e. words on a paper, are enough? That suggests anyone could say anything about anybody to derail whatever they want. Is that the game?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why has Ford not responded if she plans to attend? Doesn’t she want to be heard?

I fear she may change her various recollections under oath.

Her lawyer is saying they don't have to prove their story is true - Kavanaugh has to prove it isn't

That's what I've been saying. Her letter is enough. Kavanaugh is the one who needs to convince the Senate to confirm him.

This isn't an investigation. It's a confirmation hearing.

So an accusation, i.e. words on a paper, are enough? That suggests anyone could say anything about anybody to derail whatever they want. Is that the game?

Go ahead and write a letter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Great, have the White House ask the FBI for investiage everyone involved and the actual incident. You won’t find a single democrat opposed to that.

Okay. Do a background check on her and interview Kavanaugh and Ford. Also, interview Judge.

She doesn't know who else was there--according to reports. She doesn't know where it was. She doesn't even know what year it was--whether she was a sophomore, or whatever.

She said she told no one.

Good luck with your investigation.

She sure did smear the guy with all of her confusion. I think she had a bad therapist.

She know the general area it was, she knows the time of year, she has identified others there. Her story has been consistent for more than a decade.

He has changed his story entirely today from yesterday. There’s your liar.

Who were her girlfriends there?

Therapist notes said four boys attacked her. Ford says mistake in therapist notes--it was two boys and four was the number of people at the party. So a possible explanation is that the party was four boys and her with no other girls.

OMG. She clearly confused. I feel badly for her. Does she have children?

She said there were four boys were at the party, two in the room. She believes her therapist transcribed wrong. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

So her therapist is also confused. Lovely.

Therapist here. It’s vastly more plausible that the therapist wrote 4 instead of 2 or was condensing the story and got that wrong than that Christine Ford has been telling people a lie for years about being assaulted by a man who went on to become a federal judge.

+1. As a therapist, you do your notes between sessions or at the end of the day--it's possible Dr. Blasey's therapist may have inadvertently got a detail wrong.

+1 I've had therapists write details down incorrectly and had to correct them the next session when they read off their notes.