The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles
Title: Alan Dershowitz On Prosecutor’s Cross-Examination Of Ford : ‘She Was Totally And Completely Incompetent’
Source:
The Daily Caller
URL Source: http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/27/a ... cross-examination-incompetent/
Published: Sep 27, 2018
Author: Katie Jerkovich
Post Date: 2018-09-28 10:12:40 by misterwhite
Keywords: None
Views: 4278
Comments: 43
Alan Dershowitz did not hold back his thoughts when asked about Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell’s cross-examination during Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony Thursday on Capitol Hill. The comments came during the Harvard Law professor’s appearance Thursday night on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” when the host noted that Dershowitz concerns the night before over Mitchell’s hiring for Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s hearing was justified. I was criticized very much for making that point I turned out to be 100% right,” Dershowitz replied. “She was totally and completely incompetent in terms of asking cross-examination questions. Because she has little experience.” "For example, the main issue now is whether or not she [Ford] recognized Kavanaugh correctly,” he added. “She was never asked whether ‘how well she knew him, how many times she encountered him before this. How close was their relationship?'” Dershowitz continued, “There was nothing that could raise questions about whether even if she believes she is telling the truth, she may have misidentified. So she just did a terrible job. And I think the Republicans realized that and they canned her right in the middle. But it was a very bad choice.” Tucker agreed that for “those of us who ask questions for a living sat and watched with our mouths open wondering throughout ‘what was the point of this,” noting that when you “asking questions of a witness, aren’t you doing so in order to prove a point, tell a story, you’re doing it for some reason, aren’t you?” “You have to have a theory,” the professor responded. “Every question has to be part of a tactic. You ask question “A” in order to lay a foundation for “B.” She was just asking questions. It just didn’t seem to go anywhere. She didn’t have much of a point. And in the end, she accomplished nothing.” Tucker responded, “Yes, Brett Kavanaugh defended himself. Nobody else was. Other than Lindsey Graham.” (Text bolded by poster)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: misterwhite (#0)
I agree with Alan Dershowitz & Tucker Carlson.
Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers) "No one ever rescues an old dog. They lay in a cage until they die. PLEASE save one. None of us wants to die cold and alone... --Dennis Olson " AMERICA! Designed by geniuses. Now run by idiots.
Ms. Mitchell's assignment was not to destroy Dr. Ford on television. That was the desire of the Democrats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klFIK_2IP5A Ms. Mitchell led Dr. Ford to admit over and over that she flew on planes. In a somewhat childlike manner, Dr. Ford appeared happy to tell of her flights to distant parts of the world for surfing. She practically testified that she was a frequent flier. The reason Dr. Ford could not appear on Monday was her supposed fear of flying. Ms. Mitchell elicited from Dr. Ford that she was unaware that the Senate committee had offered to go to California to interview her. Ms. Mitchell extracted from Dr. Ford that Sen. Feinstein recommended attorneky Debra Katz to her, well before Sen. Feinstein met with Judge Kavanaugh when he was submitting to interviews by various senators, well before the Senate hearing was opened, and well before the Ford letter became public knowledge without the consent and against the wishes of Dr. Ford. Ms. Mitchell elicited the testimony that the Ford letter was released by Ford only to Rep. Eshoo, Sen. Feinstein, and attorney Katz. Ms. Mitchell elicited the testimony that Dr. Ford had no idea if she was expected to pay for the polygraph administered at the Baltimore Airport Hilton, or who paid for it. The attorneys intervened for their confused client to admit that the polygraph was arranged by and paid for by them. Ms. Mitchell did this without giving anyone the slightest opportunity to allege she had badgered or bullied Dr. Ford. Ms. Mitchell revealed Dr. Ford's psychological state without demeaning Dr. Ford. What was clearly on display was that Dr. Ford is a damaged woman who was used and abused by the Democrat senators for their purely partisan political reasons. Dr. Ford's letter should never have been made public against her will.
"So, Dr. Ford. You lied. You lied to the Senate. You delayed Judge Kavanaugh's opportunity to clear his name by three days for no good reason. So why should we believe you now? "Ms. Mitchell elicited from Dr. Ford that she was unaware that the Senate committee had offered to go to California to interview her. What options for testifying were you told, Dr. Ford? And by who? The Senate offers for testifying were all over the news and the Internet. You never saw them?
Big deal. Feinstein gets a crazy accusation letter about a high school groping incident 36 years ago. She tells the sender to get an attorney. At that point in time, it's possible Feinstein wasn't even planning on mentioning this le letter letter to anyone.
YET...Dersh-Bag (D) still and all calls for a Feeb investigation. That means the guy is unprincipled garbage. Why do people hold this liar in high regard??
Exactly. The Dems were hoping for aggressive prosecution of their lying puppet. The Pubbies and Mitchell foiled their plans for bad optics. She purposely handled the 8 year old demeanor of Ford deftly, with kid-gloves. I thought Mitchell questioning was effective without giving the Dems (and especially Tee-Bee viewers) ANY reason to claim, "THEY WERE MEAN TO HER!!"
Karl Denninger said this about that: ---------------- And then the bomb dropped -- she got Ford to admit that she had never proceeded in such a fashion. Not in 2012 with her therapist when the allegation allegedly originally surfaced, 2013, 2015, 2016 or now. Remember, in her therapists notes from 2012 she never named Kavanaugh -- or anyone else -- as the assaulting party. This was very significant and in fact a monstrous admission on Ford's part, and she knew it. She got visibly uncomfortable as that line of questioning was going on; it sure looked to me like she knew damn well she'd been caught with her pants down and the first flicker of panic crossed her eyes. See, perhaps right now the time wasn't right for that sort of process... but when she originally had the "revelation" and didn't mention Kavanaugh by name it sure was. And....... she's a professor of psychology so she knew all this and didn't proceed that way..... intentionally. Rachel Mitchell, at that point, had her -- a follow-up question or two and she was done on her primary claim -- that she was 100% sure it was Kavanaugh. Ford was lucky this wasn't really an adversarial proceeding -- she would have been skewered right then and there. He's correct.
Meaning Ford never received the proper therapy. BFD. No wonder she's all fucked up. But if this was a bomb, it fizzled. No one noticed. No one commented on it. And that was my problem with Rachel Mitchell. She made her points but didn't hone in on them, amplify them, or make them obvious to everyone.
Fair point and perspective. Mitchell's line of questioning produced no immediate "A-HA!!" moment. What they were I believe were passive but potential explosive mines intended to highlight Ford's serial sloppiness with facts. If she played fast and lied about recent provable events and facts, then 36 year old claims are going to be taken far less seriously. It's up to Senate Republicans, their staffs, the WH, and conservative/Republican pundits to parse both questions and answers in order to detonate. I will certainly agree with you that the Republicans failed miserably in amplifying or building on ANY of Mitchell's questions (and Ford's consistencies) For their part, DID Republicans SANDBAG this Hearing and hang Kavanaugh out to dry?? Sure looked like it (expect for Lady Lindsey.) What I saw was indeed a VERY lame, effete, p*ssified defense of a good and honorable man. Can Senate Republicans be THIS intimidated by the Left's MSM Smear Machine? And by Hollywood and Antifa? OR...is this their way of screwing Trump?
Yeah, she could have been busted on a few of her answers. Republcans: Skeered p*ssies? Sandbagging Globalist Puppets? Or purposely jamming Trump up? OR, is the strategy for Republicans to just play it way safe? Maybe they are satisfied with a tie = winning. IMO the optics made the Dems look patently unfair and arrogant; By purposely not being confrontation, Maybe they see THAT as is an advantage in the mid-terms.) Ford is obviously a mental case. Yes, she lied through her teef when she claimed she "feared" flying. The old whoring pro-Clinton hag has been jetting all over the country.
And obviously has been groped by TSA numerous times, no complaints about that though.
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
I reach a different assessment of Dr. Ford. She suffers from serious mental illness. She is detached from reality. She did not lie. She was incapable of giving factual answers. She gleefully and smilingly told of her travels to distant places for surfing. She was more like a child than a 51-year old woman. She evidenced no comprehension that she had just contradicted the fear of flying claim the lawyer submitted just days before. She was like a child just loving the attention being given to her surfing. It was almost criminal for the attorney apparatchiks of the Democrat party to drag her out before a national audience to testify. Christine Margaret Blasey Ford The link goes to a California database to search for licensed psychologists. Christine Blasey or Ford is hard to find. She may not be a licensed psychologist. She was hiding out, terrified. It is highly unlikely she was following the news. Something happened to her, but her brain is fried. She only knew what her lawyer told her. She did not know about the committee would come to her, and she either did not know the attorney submitted a letter claiming she needed extra time to travel by car, or she was oblivious to it in her testimony. She was beaming when she got done talking about her travel for surfing.
At that point in time, it's possible Feinstein wasn't even planning on mentioning this le letter letter to anyone. It IS a big deal. Brought out at the hearing was that the Senate had established procedures to handle cases where the person requires confidentiality. They can take take testimony is a closed session and have it investigated without publicity. Feinstein was the Ranking Member. Her duty was to follow the established procedures and to notify the Chairman, Chuck Grassley. Ford's privacy could have been honored, the information could have been obtained, and the allegation could have been investigated without delay, and the current mess avoided. The current mess was desired and enabled/orchestrated by Feinstein. There was no excuse whatsoever to spring it on the committee after their scheduled hearing process had been closed. The only people who could have leaked knowledge of the letter were Ford herself, or Rep. Eshoo and staff, or Sen. Feinstein and staff, or Debra Katz and staff. Ain't nobody looking for the leaker, but the leak was criminal. It was especially embarrassing when the rest of the committee found out from Ford that Feinstein had advised her to get an attorney and recommended Debra Katz. This was prior to almost all the Committee interaction with Kavanaugh.
Ford was like a helpless child. She is ill and was used and abused by the Democrats for their political purposes. There was no need to skewer her. She simply offered testimony against self-interest, oblivious to doing so. Not one senator called her a liar when it was painfully obvious that she had contradicted prior claims. What Ph.D. hand writes their letter to a senator? Someone used the word exculpatory, and she needed to be given an explaination of what it meant. When she was told to stand to be sworn in, she stood at attention, clueless, until her attorney prompted her to raise her right hand.
I realize that. I'm saying at the time Feinstein suggested an attorney to Ford, it's not clear that Feinstein was taking Ford's accusation seriously. I'm not defending Feinstein's actions or Feinstein herself. I'm simply offering a possible scenario.
If that was indeed the strategy, the Senators themselves could have asked those softball questions. By the apologetic tone of the questioning, you'd think Mitchell was running for re-election in November.
THAT was not made obvious to the viewers. That's my point. I thought all the innocuous questions were leading to a damning conclusion. They didn't. They led to more innocuous questions followed by "Thank you for coming forward". WHAT??? When Mitchell said something like, "Let's focus on the last two weeks" I about broke the TV. NO! Focus on her story and how weak it was. That there was no evidence or corroboration. That HER witnesses were denying it ever happened. That she had no clue about the location, date, how she got there, how she left -- YET, Dr. ford, you ARE sure it was Brett Kavanaugh? How can you be 100% sure? Isn't it possible that this happened another place, another time, at a party not a gathering, with a different boy? Who told her about the "gathering" and how did she know where it was? Was she given an address? Did anyone at the gathering live in the house? What about HER drinking habits? HER fart jokes? HER yearbook? HER friends? HER going to parties attended by older boys where everyone is drinking? How often did you do that, you little drunken slut? Come on. This was like shooting fish in a barrel. I could have done a better job. Why insulate yourself by using a third party to ask the questions if you're not going to ask uncomfortable questions? Give me ONE question she asked that would have been risky for a Republican Senator to ask. There were ZERO. Actually, I thought her questions to Kavanaugh were tougher. But that could be the prosecutor in her.
When would have been the perfect time to point that out to the public? Gee. The perfect time would have been on TV when millions of Americans were watching. Too bad that situation never arose, huh?
Her lawyer withheld information from his client and lied about her fear of flying? Why? Because her lawyer has this desire to be disbarred in disgrace on the national stage? Must be. I can't think of any other reason to engage in behavior that will obviously be exposed by a simple question or two.
She is immersed in academia. In that environment she's brilliant. But she's a child when exposed to the real world. Like Bush's amazement when shown the latest supermarket scanner. At least she didn't say she came to Washington in an "iron bird".
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. "Trump said he found Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford's testimony 'compelling' and called her 'a very credible witness'" Many in the Senate felt the same way. Many watching the proceedings on TV felt the same way. Even I believe that she believes it -- to the point where she passed a polygraph. Doesn't mean Brett Kavanaugh did it. Just like the fact that he drank beer and made fart jokes in his teens doesn't make him a rapist. An unsupported accusation is not proof. A serious charge does not imply guilt. Not in the United States, anyways. "When Duke lacrosse captain Dave Evans was indicted on rape charges along with two other players in 2006, even his lawyer thought he’d committed the crime."
Stop your shameless shilling for..Democrats, for their Lies, and for Injustice. Are you going to keep on posting this same quote of Trump? (It's Trump playing political 4D chess. Not that you'd understand given your mind-set as an Anarchist and fake "freedom-fighter".) Fact is, you've stooped so low, I now consider you an enemy of this Nation, of THE Truth, and of all things decent and honorable. IOW, you are a festering POS.
That was the portrayal, wasn't it? Either her child-like voice, timidity, and confused/"helpless" demeanor were REAL or an Act. Either way it supports a woman who is part of an absolute orchestrated charade, the mind of the actual psychologically damaged, mental incompetent she is in earnest. Not one senator called her a liar when it was painfully obvious that she had contradicted prior claims. Proof that the GOP Senators are purposely sandbagging Kavanaugh. AND...the Fix was IN. This has transcended simple outrageous-ness. What Ph.D. hand writes their letter to a senator? Especially given how sloppily it was written. I'm surprised she didn't write her letter on construction paper IN CRAYON. Lest we forget, this so-called "helpless" woman flies and travels the world routinely. (She LIED about her claim of fearing flying.) NO mere idiot (as she's portrayed herself) can do that.
But...but...they didn't want to take the "flack" from hysterically insane protesters/resistors waiting for them outside of elevators (yes, like the ball-less Flake.) By the apologetic tone of the questioning, you'd think Mitchell was running for re-election in November. I agree. Mitchell's tone of questioning was...careful. So careful as if she thought she might make the Dem's vaudeville performer Ford cry hysterically. Mitchell spoke to her -- a contentious college professor at times from what we've heard -- as though she were 8 years old! The Republicans were unnecessarily walking on eggshells. The most FUBAR hearing I've ever witnessed. Kavanaugh -- an exemplary man's life -- was being shredded by 36 year old lies, and all the Republicans could muster was treat Ford as though she was a Time Bomb??
Mitchell could have hammered Ford mercilessly until she broke down crying and the Republican Senators could have said they never expected that and they're really sorry -- all the while patting themselves on the back. That's what the Democrats would have done if the situation was reversed -- and we all know that. If I was Kavanaugh I'd be pissed -- this is all I get in the way of support from you linguini-spined cowards?
Feinstein referred her to a rabid lib lawyer and his the letter from the committee until after the hearing closed, when it could do the most damage. To me, it appears Feinstein was complicit in orchestrating this delaying tactic.
Come on. This was like shooting fish in a barrel. I could have done a better job. Why insulate yourself by using a third party to ask the questions if you're not going to ask uncomfortable questions? Well, you could have reduced her to such a crying, blubbering mess that her attorney stated Ford was unable to continue, and have the video of Ford leaving go viral for the elections. Lindsey Graham or one of the other senators could have done that, but all succeeded in not creating that photo op. The Dems looked like a bunch of jerks and they will lose a couple of the endangered Dem senators up for reelection. The Dem disaster will also hurt them in November. I think the GOP had the purpose to win the day and the nomination, and not blow the November elections. It appears they succeeded. The nomination would have already been a fait accompli but for Flake's action after the testimony. Her questioning of Kavanaugh was like T-ball. She teed up a series of questions designed to create a testimonial record of Kavanaugh rebutting or refuting every allegation made against him. Kavanaugh and Graham gave all the fire and brimstone that was needed, and neither attacked Ford.
When would have been the perfect time to point that out to the public? Gee. The perfect time would have been on TV when millions of Americans were watching. Too bad that situation never arose, huh? It would have been. She may not be licensed, and a professor who does not see patients may not need a license. It is possible the senator staff went through this and found cause why it is not important. It appears Stanford changed her online listing from Psychologist to Associate a week or two before the hearing. More information than her non-appearance it the online database is needed to know the significance.
Why? Because her lawyer has this desire to be disbarred in disgrace on the national stage? Must be. I can't think of any other reason to engage in behavior that will obviously be exposed by a simple question or two. Because she believed, and still believes, she can get away with it. The lawyer and the party wanted testimony in Washington, in public, before a national audience. The lawyer and the party got that at Ford's expense. The lawyer knows that the only witness for the prosecution is Ford. She also knows Ford is mentally disturbed with a few malfunctioning memory chips. The lawyer says she was informed, Ford says she wasn't, or she canot recall clearly whatever she may have beeen told, and it goes away. Senator Cotton indicates she has been reported to the bar for investigation. https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=57391&Disp=0 “They have betrayed her,” Cotton said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “She has been victimized by Democrats ... on a search-and-destroy mission for Brett Kavanaugh.”
But she's a child when exposed to the real world. That Senate hearing was not the real world. That was a circus. She's childlike when she seeks adult approval.
Damn, the sadsack Lieberals lost another one and the great, the magnificant President Donald J. Trump did not give them shit they could use. Ford was not mistreated by the GOP, but it was clear that she was used and abused by the Dems.
Proof that the GOP Senators are purposely sandbagging Kavanaugh. AND...the Fix was IN. This has transcended simple outrageous-ness. Proof only that the GOP was very sensitive to the disaster that could have been created and averted it, frustrating the Dems no end. Kavanaugh would be approved but for the post-testimony flip-flop of Flake. The GOP did not fail at the taking of testimony, they succeeded. At the hearing, Ford did not say she feared flying. She odddly testified that she got up the gumption to get on the plane. That more resembles a fear or dread of going to Washington for a televised public hearing. Her lawyer wrote that Ford had to travel by car because she feared enclosed spaces and flying. Ford gave no indication that she was aware that assertion had been made to the Senate by her lawyer. An investigation might reveal she was not in California.
I see. So that's what the 3-day hearing extension was for. To get up the gumption to fly. Couldn't get that gumption up any sooner than Thursday. Also, it's bad juju to testify on any day that starts with the letter "M".
The MSM, however, is running that clip over and over. "See?", they say. "See? Even Trump believes her!"
Tomayto tomahto.
https://www.scribd.com/document/389821761/Mitchell-Memo Rachel Mitchell Memorandum, Analysis of Dr Christine Blasey Ford's Allegations (30 Sep 2018)
Thanks. She nailed it. I am at 99.9999% sure that nothing happened. Hell Im pretty sure they have never met each other. Everyone should take the time to read it. Time line I did not read.
When you have time, you and everyone should read the timeline to the end. The wrap up is priceless.
Thanks for providing a summary of Mitchell's assessment. She fundamentally and succinctly considers Ford a mentally ill lunatic, liar and fraud.
Comments (42 - 43) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: misterwhite (#0)
She was just asking questions. It just didn’t seem to go anywhere. She didn’t have much of a point. And in the end, she accomplished nothing.”
#3. To: nolu chan (#2)
She practically testified that she was a frequent flier. The reason Dr. Ford could not appear on Monday was her supposed fear of flying.
#4. To: nolu chan (#2)
Ms. Mitchell extracted from Dr. Ford that Sen. Feinstein recommended attorneky Debra Katz to her, well before Sen. Feinstein met with Judge Kavanaugh when he was submitting to interviews by various senators, well before the Senate hearing was opened, and well before the Ford letter became public knowledge without the consent and against the wishes of Dr. Ford.
#5. To: misterwhite (#0)
#6. To: nolu chan (#2)
Ms. Mitchell's assignment was not to destroy Dr. Ford on television. That was the desire of the Democrats.
#7. To: misterwhite (#0)
Right near the end of her testimony she was asked about the process of going over such traumatic events to get to the bottom of what actually happened and got a chuckle over a Senatorial hearing with 5 minute, no-followup questions not being the right means to discern what had happened. The prosecutor then laid out the correct, psychologically-accepted means of trying to sort out what happened in a traumatic event -- a one-on-one session where the person who underwent the traumatic experience does all the talking.
----------------
#8. To: Hank Rearden (#7)
And then the bomb dropped -- she got Ford to admit that she had never proceeded in such a fashion.
#9. To: misterwhite, Hank Rearden (#8)
(Edited)
If this was a bomb, it fizzled. No one noticed. No one commented on it. And that was my problem with Rachel Mitchell. She made her points but didn't hone in on them, amplify them, or make them obvious to everyone.
#10. To: Hank Rearden (#7)
Ford was lucky this wasn't really an adversarial proceeding -- she would have been skewered right then and there.
#11. To: Liberator (#10)
The old whoring pro-Clinton hag has been jetting all over the country
#12. To: misterwhite (#3)
So, Dr. Ford. You lied. You lied to the Senate. You delayed Judge Kavanaugh's opportunity to clear his name by three days for no good reason. So why should we believe you now?
What options for testifying were you told, Dr. Ford? And by who? The Senate offers for testifying were all over the news and the Internet. You never saw them?
#13. To: misterwhite (#4)
Big deal. Feinstein gets a crazy accusation letter about a high school groping incident 36 years ago. She tells the sender to get an attorney.
#14. To: Hank Rearden (#7)
Ford was lucky this wasn't really an adversarial proceeding -- she would have been skewered right then and there.
#15. To: nolu chan (#13)
Brought out at the hearing was that the Senate had established procedures to handle cases where the person requires confidentiality.
#16. To: Liberator (#9)
What they were I believe were passive but potential explosive mines intended to highlight Ford's serial sloppiness with facts.
#17. To: nolu chan (#12)
She suffers from serious mental illness. She is detached from reality. She did not lie. She was incapable of giving factual answers.
#18. To: nolu chan (#12)
She may not be a licensed psychologist.
#19. To: nolu chan (#12)
She only knew what her lawyer told her. She did not know about the committee would come to her, and she either did not know the attorney submitted a letter claiming she needed extra time to travel by car, or she was oblivious to it in her testimony.
#20. To: nolu chan (#14)
What Ph.D. hand writes their letter to a senator? Someone used the word exculpatory, and she needed to be given an explaination of what it meant. When she was told to stand to be sworn in, she stood at attention, clueless, until her attorney prompted her to raise her right hand.
#21. To: misterwhite, nolu chan (#0)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#22. To: Deckard (#21)
#23. To: Deckard, misterwhite, nolu chan, GrandIsland (#21)
(Edited)
#24. To: nolu chan (#14)
(Edited)
Ford was like a helpless child.
#25. To: misterwhite (#16)
(Edited)
#26. To: misterwhite (#16)
(Edited)
If that was indeed the strategy, the Senators themselves could have asked those softball questions.
#27. To: Liberator (#26)
#28. To: misterwhite (#15)
I'm saying at the time Feinstein suggested an attorney to Ford, it's not clear that Feinstein was taking Ford's accusation seriously.
#29. To: misterwhite (#17)
What about HER drinking habits? HER fart jokes? HER yearbook? HER friends? HER going to parties attended by older boys where everyone is drinking? How often did you do that, you little drunken slut?
Actually, I thought her questions to Kavanaugh were tougher. But that could be the prosecutor in her.
#30. To: misterwhite (#18)
She may not be a licensed psychologist.
#31. To: misterwhite (#19)
Her lawyer withheld information from his client and lied about her fear of flying?
Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, also said lawyers recommended to Christine Blasey Ford by Democrats will face a Washington, D.C., bar investigation for telling her that Senate Judiciary Committee staffers would not travel to California to interview her about her sexual-assault allegation.
#32. To: misterwhite (#20)
She is immersed in academia. In that environment she's brilliant.
#33. To: Deckard, misterwhite, Liberator (#21)
Trump said he found Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford's testimony 'compelling' and called her 'a very credible witness'
#34. To: Liberator (#24)
Not one senator called her a liar when it was painfully obvious that she had contradicted prior claims.
Lest we forget, this so-called "helpless" woman flies and travels the world routinely. (She LIED about her claim of fearing flying.) NO mere idiot (as she's portrayed herself) can do that.
#35. To: nolu chan (#34)
She odddly testified that she got up the gumption to get on the plane.
#36. To: nolu chan (#33)
the magnificant President Donald J. Trump did not give them shit they could use.
#37. To: nolu chan (#32)
That Senate hearing was not the real world. That was a circus.
#38. To: misterwhite, Liberator, Justified, A K A Stone, BorisY (#29)
#39. To: nolu chan, all (#38)
#40. To: Justified (#39)
Everyone should take the time to read it. Time line I did not read.
#41. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, Justified, A K A Stone, BorisY (#38)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]