• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Live coverage of Kavanaugh Hearing with new witnesses

Media_Truth said:
She is sure convincing. I think it fits. And I also do believe that Kavanaugh was a virgin. Sounds like his friend, Mark Judge, was encouraging him to change that status.
Click to expand...

And her story changes again

4 boys ( Letter to Feinstien )

4 boys in the room ( therapist )

3 boys and a girl ( WaPo )

5 boys and 1 I didn't know ( todays testimony )

Just to be clear, we havent seen ONE PIECE of corroberating evidence that would confirm her story. Not one
 
Fenton said:
And her story changes again

4 boys ( Letter to Feinstien )

4 boys in the room ( therapist )

3 boys and a girl ( WaPo )

5 boys and 1 I didn't know ( todays testimony )

Just to be clear, we havent seen ONE PIECE of corroberating evidence that would confirm her story. Not one
Click to expand...

twenty minute drive from her home to where the club was (party allegedly was near the club). SO someone had to have driven her there and home. the lady prosecutor is methodical-no bombs yet but I suspect she's setting up a trap
 
PirateMk1 said:
Is that woman prosecutor gona get a shot at her?
Click to expand...

she had two possible strategies-come out swinging and have the witness clam up, cry and the obstructionist senators bolster her

or methodological slow process where she gently leads the accuser down a path that once down, the accuser cannot go another way
 
TurtleDude said:
she had two possible strategies-come out swinging and have the witness clam up, cry and the obstructionist senators bolster her

or methodological slow process where she gently leads the accuser down a path that once down, the accuser cannot go another way
Click to expand...


Then I presume yes.
 
A professor and doctor doesn't know what "exculpatory" means?
 
Listening to Brett Hume who is convinced that this is a disaster for the Republicans, I am not certain of that. I do know that the Democrats grandstanding in every one of their five minutes is infuriating and I can't think that is helping them.

I don't know how this will go but I am thinking TurtleDude is right that the gentle but methodical establishment of facts into the testimony is more likely to expose any issues of credibility in it.
 
Democrats doing it again, What do these idiots want. We are finally at the hearing finally getting the chance to hear her story and these idiot democrats are pulling the same disruptions and same political games they did in the Kavannagh hearings....Freaking un real

Lets hear her story.......
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
Listening to Brett Hume who is convinced that this is a disaster for the Republicans, I am not certain of that. I do know that the Democrats grandstanding in every one of their five minutes is infuriating and I can't think that is helping them.

I don't know how this will go but I am thinking TurtleDude is right that the gentle but methodical establishment of facts into the testimony is more likely to expose any issues of credibility in it.
Click to expand...
Unless this attorney springs some trap that goes at the heart of the accusation, I don't see how she can effectively discredit the testimony. Ford already established that many of the details of the evening in question were hazy, as they would be for any party 35 years in the past; I can't remember every single who, what, when, where, how did you get there, etc from parties I attended sober in 2016. So the bar there isn't going to be high. What she is adamant about is that (1) she's certain she was assaulted, (2) she's certain Brett Kavanaugh did it, and (3) she's certain Mark Judge witnessed and/or egged it on.

And I think this entire thing is ****ing cringeworthy. I don't think Ford would be a good witness at trial, but she's doing well in this format.
 
Cardinal said:
A professor and doctor doesn't know what "exculpatory" means?
Click to expand...

Not embedded in her hippocampus;)

Ford seems sincere, but her little girl act with the squeaking voice and uptalk is not going to bolstering her emotional maturity. Could be a product of living in CA for so long.
 
TurtleDude said:
twenty minute drive from her home to where the club was (party allegedly was near the club). SO someone had to have driven her there and home. the lady prosecutor is methodical-no bombs yet but I suspect she's setting up a trap
Click to expand...

Yes, she is establishing facts provided by Ford, and there seems to be some unanswered questions coming up. Also, Ford seemed to be very believable from the outset, as she spoke without any questions. She seems to be tailing off a bit, and Kavanaugh has yet to respond.

The Democrats seem to only care about getting it delayed for a 7th FBI check, no surprise, as that is the true goal of their efforts.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
Unless this attorney springs some trap that goes at the heart of the accusation, I don't see how she can effectively discredit the testimony. Ford already established that many of the details of the evening in question were hazy, as they would be for any party 35 years in the past; I can't remember every single who, what, when, where, how did you get there, etc from parties I attended sober in 2016. So the bar there isn't going to be high. What she is adamant about is that (1) she's certain she was assaulted, (2) she's certain Brett Kavanaugh did it, and (3) she's certain Mark Judge witnessed and/or egged it on.

And I think this entire thing is ****ing cringeworthy. I don't think Ford would be a good witness at trial, but she's doing well in this format.
Click to expand...

This is getting drilled by the Dems. I have no doubt Ford believes she is a victim.
 
Acadia said:
Not embedded in her hippocampus;)

Ford seems sincere, but her little girl act with the squeaking voice and uptalk is not going to bolstering her emotional maturity. Could be a product of living in CA for so long.
Click to expand...

The fact that you don't like California is irrelevant.
 
During the first break, Chris Wallace, anchor of "Fox News Sunday," called Ford's reading of her prepared statement "extremely emotional, extremely raw and extremely credible."

Martha MacCallum, anchor of FNC's "The Story," said she felt that Republicans cannot feel that the hearing has gone well for them, noting that the format of having a lawyer ask questions in between questions from Democratic senators did not seem to be working.
Click to expand...

Even the Trump Propaganda Network is starting to comment that she is credible.
 
TurtleDude said:
she had two possible strategies-come out swinging and have the witness clam up, cry and the obstructionist senators bolster her

or methodological slow process where she gently leads the accuser down a path that once down, the accuser cannot go another way
Click to expand...

AlbqOwl said:
Listening to Brett Hume who is convinced that this is a disaster for the Republicans, I am not certain of that. I do know that the Democrats grandstanding in every one of their five minutes is infuriating and I can't think that is helping them.

I don't know how this will go but I am thinking TurtleDude is right that the gentle but methodical establishment of facts into the testimony is more likely to expose any issues of credibility in it.
Click to expand...

The prosecuter is in on the fix. She isn't going to press Ford.
 
Acadia said:
This is getting drilled by the Dems. I have no doubt Ford believes she is a victim.
Click to expand...
It's incredible watching all of these fossils stumble and bumble and argue with each other. I worked in the Senate years ago and it honestly seemed like we had some of the best and brightest in the country serving as members. Maybe I was just a young twenty-something impressed by the trappings of power.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
Unless this attorney springs some trap that goes at the heart of the accusation, I don't see how she can effectively discredit the testimony. Ford already established that many of the details of the evening in question were hazy, as they would be for any party 35 years in the past; I can't remember every single who, what, when, where, how did you get there, etc from parties I attended sober in 2016. So the bar there isn't going to be high. What she is adamant about is that (1) she's certain she was assaulted, (2) she's certain Brett Kavanaugh did it, and (3) she's certain Mark Judge witnessed and/or egged it on.

And I think this entire thing is ****ing cringeworthy. I don't think Ford would be a good witness at trial, but she's doing well in this format.
Click to expand...

This format is rigged in her favor.
 
Cardinal said:
The fact that you don't like California is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Never said that. Ford sounds like a lot of CA women; vocal fry and uptalk.
 
apdst said:
The prosecuter is in on the fix. She isn't going to press Ford.
Click to expand...
She's not supposed to be there to perform a cross-examiner's function or trip the witness up in a traditionally hostile manner. She's there to flush out information and inconsistencies.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
The prosecuter is in on the fix. She isn't going to press Ford.
Click to expand...

I've been interrogated by the opposing side's attorney in a deposition. It was a grueling experience, but the attorney was calm and polite, though she zeroed in on every detail she initially thought was incomplete or puzzling. That's their job. Her job isn't to scream at the person being questioned and call her a lying whore.
 
Acadia said:
Never said that. Ford sounds like a lot of CA women; vocal fry and uptalk.
Click to expand...

Yes, you don't like California. Noted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom