(09-27-2018, 06:34 PM)TJBender Wrote: They're indirectly attacking Ford by way of attacking Democrats. She's 100% sure it was Kavanaugh, and the Republican line is, "she may have been violated by some person in some place at some point in time".

They keep attacking the Democrats for timing rather than outright calling Ford a liar, which they're letting Kavanaugh beat around the bush to do. This is political theater. It's an embarrassment. Kavanaugh has no place on the Supreme Court, and Lindsey Graham is the only Senator I've seen act in an honest, open fashion today.

Have you been paying attention?  The republican line isn't just "timing" the republican line is that we have sworn testimony from everyone the accuser alleges was present that the event in question did not take place and the Accusers best friend states under penalty of felony that she did not know the nominee and does not recall ever being at a party with him.  In addition, the nominee has provided detailed documentation of his approximate whereabouts for the entire time period in question whereas the accuser can't remember any meaningful corroborating detail. Not to mention the fact that of all five alleged attendees at the party that NONE of them even lived in the area that the accuser has designated as the general location of the event.  CASE CLOSED!!!

You're right.  In this setting no one is outright accusing Ford of being a liar.  Why?  Because in the #metoo moment you're not allowed to be seen as critical of someone claiming "victim" status.  If that weren't the case of if this was a criminal case then she would have been excoriated by defense council should a judge or law enforcement officer ignored the exculpatory nature of the fact pattern above.  For instance, this whole thing was delayed for weeks because the accuser asserted a disabling fear of flying and needed time to make arrangements to drive across the country.  It was revealed that not only did she fly to the hearing, but she is a frequent recreational flier.  That's deliberate emotional deception to serve a personal end.  Then when asked if she would have been more comfortable testifying in California she responded with the quip that she "realized that would be an unreasonable condition" and thus heroically reconciled that she would have to brave commercial air transportation.  It was apparently lost on her that it has been documented in open source reporting that the Chairman of the Committee explicitly made the offer several times to fly to California for a private deposition to honor her supposed request for confidentiality.  Also the accuser was asked why she only shared her information with members of her own party.  She stated that she only acted on the advice of "Beach Friends" and stated that she "Didn't know how to do that" when asked about contacting the Chairman of the committee, The White House, etc.  Apparently she and her "Beach Friends" could find the name and number of her congressman, but Grassley's office contact information is stuck in some kind of encryption.  But don't worry.  Her "Beach Friends" did find the number for the Washington Post so that a reporter could write a story and protect her confidentiality.  

The accuser listed four individuals in her letter to the Ranking Member of the committee.  All four of those alleged attendees either refute or have no recollection of the event.  One being her best friend at the time who has no recollection of the party, denies knowing Kavanaugh or ever being at a Party with him and never heard any contemporaneous story from the Accuser.  When asked to explain this discrepancy the accuser cited her friend as having health issues she's currently focusing on.  Apparently she must be in some sort of coma to prevent her from answering a simple question in the affirmative.  

Moreover, the accuser dazzled the committee with her impressive expertise in the science of memory.  as a PHD in psychology she understands which hormones and which areas of the brain respond in what way to traumatic events.  It was truly riveting.  She did not, however, mention why on earth when she began this scientific field of study a mere 4 years after the incident that she wouldn't consciously keep any form of even informal documentation like a diary, journal dream journal etc. to prevent what she knew to be the potential erosion of a traumatic memory.  She also didn't mention why she didn't use her unique expertise in the field to pursue more detailed memory recovery since she first began talking to friends (after Mitt Romney began talking about Kavanaugh as a potential SCOTUS PICK and Kavnaugh's evil mother foreclosed on her house) about potentially needing to come forward to avert this miscarriage of justice.  She also baulked when presented with the fact that given her expertise that the best format for uncovering the truth about traumatic events would be a forensic interview with a professional to help sort through certain lapses in memory.  Instead she sits for a 2 question polygraph in an airport conference room (debilitating fear of flying) hours after her grandmother's funeral.  

As to timing, the Accuser alleges that she and her beach friends on acted three days before the announcement of the Kavanaugh nomination when his name appeared on the "Short list" to be picked by POTUS.  That might make sense for any other President's picks (which are usually shrouded in much more secrecy) but the Trump selections have all been sitting on a public list of 25 for the last 2 years (not to mention sitting on the DC court a feeder for the Supreme court since 06).  At any time, if she wanted an investigation and to protect her confidentiality she could have come forward and had her concerns heard as part of the regular order of the natural FBI background checks that take place when someone is nominated and that would have actually had a much greater chance of pushing his name to the bottom of the list and protecting her identity than this last minute he said she said.  But that would have meant a Barret on the court and no last minute drama for suburban moms 6 weeks from an election.  

So in summation, I'll go with the guy who actually has, you know evidence, sworn testimony (not to mention the whole thing about turning the high school virgin into a serial rapist) etc. over the woman who can't remember anything except that it was Brett Kavanaugh.  Incidentally, the questioning about a year book and this whole line of questioning about his drinking habits is just sad.  Did anyone ask her about her yearbook and her drinking habits?  Lol.

---

(09-27-2018, 06:56 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:

(09-27-2018, 06:35 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: DiFi about to sink the ship.

---

Cruz has grown on me since the election.

---

Harris bearing the same drum. So sad.

---

The dems are just deflated. You can tell.

Cruz is a creepy, spineless, suck up. I lost all respect for him after the election. Trump said horrible, nasty things about the guy and his family and he just took all of it and when Trump was elected, he kissed his butt. I can't stand someone with a weak character and Cruz is the epitome of that.

"It's not personal Sonny...  IT's strictly business."

---