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:

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.

Merrick Garland put a permanent end to anything but hardball tactics when appointing to the SC. That's how it is now. Live with it. Unless Trump calls a truce and nominates a moderate instead. Which he will never do.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

Exactly.

Ford is not bringing a lawsuit. She's merely expressing her opinion as a citizen. It's up to Senators to vote how they want. It's not her job to carry some burden of proof here, just as it wasn't for the girls basketball team members that Kavanaugh presented as character witnesses.

[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?

Nope. Surely you realize there must be a plausible connection for an accusation to be taken seriously? So no, if someone who has lived in Wyoming all their life tries to accuse someone from Vermont who's a much different age of an attack at a high school party in Wyoming, and it's obvious that there's no plausible way the two were in the same place at the same time, no one is going to take that seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have never had a therapist read me their notes.

[Anonymous]

Where did his drinking 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:

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.

I have never had a therapist read me their notes.

How many therapists do you have?

[Anonymous]

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

Why, Georgetown, of course!

[Anonymous]

Kind of sounds like a sham hearing is being planned.

https://www.gq.com/story/kavanaugh-accuser-sham-hearing-grassley

There are two possible reasons that Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley might want to hold additional hearings next week on Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. The first would be to make a good-faith effort to find out if the allegations are true: if the incident occurred, and if it happened as Ford describes it, all in the name of ensuring that the American people—and the senators who will soon vote on the prospect of elevating Kavanaugh to the pinnacle of his profession for the rest of his life—can first better understand whether this Supreme Court nominee tried to rape a woman in high school, and is now lying about it.

The second is to provide his Republican colleagues—people who want good conservatives on the Supreme Court, but who are a little leery of voting to confirm a maybe-predator without knowing more first—with just enough political cover to announce that they found Kavanaugh to be honest and forthcoming, and that his denials were credible and her assertions were not, and that they are comfortable proceeding to a vote. The agenda should include enough process to allow Jeff Flake and Bob Corker to tell their constituents that they care deeply about sexual misconduct, and would never support someone who committed it. The agenda should not, however, include enough substance for them (or anyone else) to determine if sexual misconduct, in this case, actually took place.

Guess which strategy Chuck Grassley is embracing?
Will there only be two witnesses on Monday? @ChuckGrassley to @hughhewitt: "Yes."

In other words, Grassley apparently has no interest in hearing from, say, the therapist with whom Ford discussed the assault back in 2012, long before Kavanaugh was a household name. He sees no value in the testimony of the two other individuals Ford named as being present at the party. And he certainly doesn't want to hear from Mark Judge, Kavanaugh's friend, whom Ford says was in the room when the assault occurred. No experts, no character witnesses, no one.

Instead, what Grassley and company want is the word of one the most powerful men in Washington—a man who has the backing of a political party that desperately needs him to succeed—pitted against the word of a California college professor as she recounts a painful experience in graphic detail, and on national television, and before 11 men who want her to fail. Their ideal result is a messy, inconclusive, he-said-she-said circus, one that enables senators to shrug their shoulders and decide that the tie goes to the nominee, probably while offering him their profuse, sheepish thanks for his patience throughout the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Why, Georgetown, of course!

Catholic University actually.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

Yes go ahead. Any personal interaction with BK that can help in this nomination process? Share with the committee and the public your experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have never had a therapist read me their notes.

How many therapists do you have?

I had one for me, one for my son who had OCD and a family therapist for my other son to learn to deal with my son who had OCD.

About 8 visits to each, 2 months-ish.

How about you, care to share your mental healthy history? How many have you had? How long have you been seeing them? Why were you seeing a therapist? How often? Only one? Does your family also seek therapy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is true, all 10 Democrats on the Committee just issued a letter requesting that additional witnesses be called at the hearing. It is like you live in the world of fake facts. I can’t believe I’ve wasted so much time on a Trump troll. I have better things to do IRL so moving on.

[Anonymous]

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?

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?

Nope. Surely you realize there must be a plausible connection for an accusation to be taken seriously? So no, if someone who has lived in Wyoming all their life tries to accuse someone from Vermont who's a much different age of an attack at a high school party in Wyoming, and it's obvious that there's no plausible way the two were in the same place at the same time, no one is going to take that seriously.

So anything plausible is okay? If you are saying this is the standard it is quite frightening. This could become so abusive so quickly on both sides of the aisle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have never had a therapist read me their notes.

How many therapists do you have?

I had one for me, one for my son who had OCD and a family therapist for my other son to learn to deal with my son who had OCD.

About 8 visits to each, 2 months-ish.

How about you, care to share your mental healthy history? How many have you had? How long have you been seeing them? Why were you seeing a therapist? How often? Only one? Does your family also seek therapy?

I don't see a therapist. But most people I know who do only have one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Grassley knew in July.

Kavanaugh’s story is changing.