GOP hires female attorney to question Kavanaugh accuser

[apdst]

The old white men don't want their faces & voices on tape of them trying to demolish a sexual assault victim for purely political reasons.

They don't have to worry about it, because she isn't going to show up.

 

[roughdraft274]

They could manage just fine. They are denying the democrats the opportunity to change the narrative into men picking in women when the testimony falls flat.

So they are just playing politics? Seems like an easier avoidance could be to let the FBI do their job rather than hire someone specifically with the purpose of running the accuser through the ringer while they are throwing softballs to the accused. But whatever, we'll see how this plays out. I doubt it will prevent blowback by treating her differently than almost any other person going before the committee in it's history.

 

[jnug]

Incompetent is how I would describe DiFi sitting on the accusation and not addressing it properly when she had the chance. Instead she set there like a potted plant and didn't ask a single question about the allegations she had received. Or how some democrats made up this right to be believed nonsense before any testimony under oath is offered up.

But yeah most of what's comming out on both sides looks foolish

Feinstein did not acquit herself particularly well in that. However, she really did not have much wiggle room between Ford's wishes and a more aggressive role. Nobody is putting the Senators on the GOP side of the panel in anything like that sort of box. So sorry, whataboutism won't work here.

 

[Born Free]

The old white men don't want their faces & voices on tape of them trying to demolish a sexual assault victim for purely political reasons.

A sexual assault victim, my ass. That bitch makes claims she can't corroborate. She can't even file a civil suit, her case has no merit, zip zero. When you libs can't win on the merits you call in the bitches to make claims of sexual abuse and rape. You libs are pathetic.

 

[Sabre]

They don't have to worry about it, because she isn't going to show up.

Perhaps she won't, she is now dictating new rules for the Senate to follow. She wants a limit the press who will be allowed in the room to cover the hearing and sought to dictate at least some of the outlets.

Michael Bromwich said in emails sent Tuesday afternoon that he was requesting access for three “robocams,” three specific wire services, photographers from the Associated Press, Reuters and one unspecified service, and a pool reporter for newspapers and magazines. In a follow-up email he specified that the robocams should be operated by “the CSPAN TV pool,” and said he also wanted space for a radio reporter.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/25/accuser-senate-limit-press-kavanaugh-hearing/

 

[Chillfolks]

Feinstein did not acquit herself particularly well in that. However, she really did not have much wiggle room between Ford's wishes and a more aggressive role. Nobody is putting the Senators on the GOP side of the panel in anything like that sort of box. So sorry, whataboutism won't work here.

It works just fine you just choose to ignore it and excuse the incompetence on one side of the argument.

Both sides have acted poorly and look foolish in the theatrics they are employing.

 

[Chillfolks]

A sexual assault victim, my ass. That bitch makes claims she can't corroborate. She can't even file a civil suit, her case has no merit, zip zero. When you libs can't win on the merits you call in the bitches to make claims of sexual abuse and rape. You libs are pathetic.

Anything resembling a point you had is totally lost on your language choice. It is possible to make your point without resorting to derogatory terms.

 

[Barnacle]

They don't have to worry about it, because she isn't going to show up.

I don't believe either that she's gonna show up.

However, in the unlikely event she does, it would mean we would learn in whose house the "gathering" took place.
... and another name would be "drugged through the mud".

 

[Chillfolks]

I don't believe either that she's gonna show up.

However, in the unlikely event she does, it would mean we would learn in whose house the "gathering" took place.
... and another name would be "drugged through the mud".

I don't think we will. Ford or her lawyers will claim for that persons safety they are unwilling to name the persons house. Republicans object and presto chango the narrative is men picking on women not woman refusing to answer questions and giving no details

 

[WCH]

What else is there for her to lose?

Lying under oath.

 

[WCH]

If she doesn't show, and Avenatti (who has now said another 36 hours instead of tomorrow morning to 'present' his rape victim) ends up not showing anything, the whole **** show is going to blow up in the Democrat's faces.

It won't as far as their like-minded are concerned. They are ideologically certain.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

There's no game here, Kal'. What the Repubs are setting up is so transparently shameful & hypocritical. The optics of old men in their 80s hitting on a woman in her 50s would make for very bad TV.

This is the most naive comment I have ever seen on these boards.

 

[jnug]

It works just fine you just choose to ignore it and excuse the incompetence on one side of the argument.

Both sides have acted poorly and look foolish in the theatrics they are employing.

Really..what box were the Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans put into other than one of their own making?

Sen Kennedy says they don't think they have time to prepare. Hence, a prosecutor hired to do the questioning. Really......She has had more time to prepare?

By the way a Prosecutor defined as an "Assistant" by McConnell. These old dogs of the Senate can't help stepping on their own dingdongs and they know it. They don't need a "difficult circumstance" to trip over their own dingdongs. Its an engrained response mechanism and they know that too.

 

[OlNate]

I'm confused. At first they were saying it wasn't fair that she'd be questioned by a "bunch of old white men" and now they're saying it's not fair that she won't be.

No kidding! I mean, no matter what way she turns, she's going to face a tsunami of opposition, by a powerful group of people who want to utterly discredit her. Whether it's a man or woman asking the questions, it won't be to determine if this woman deserves justice, but rather it will be to destroy her so that the GOP can get the judge they want. If won't matter if her claims are true or not, they will drag her credibility through the mud, they will apply psychological strategies to make her look like a liar, all the while forcing her to rehash humiliating details of her life that she has managed to overcome and become successful in spite of. All of her accomplishments, everything she's done in her life, will be ignored, and she will be defined by a few moments that she should never have had to be present for in the first place.

I tell ya, if I were her, I probably wouldn't have even come forward in the first place... Oh...wait...maybe there's a problem here.

 

[Roadvirus]

Perhaps she won't, she is now dictating new rules for the Senate to follow. She wants a limit the press who will be allowed in the room to cover the hearing and sought to dictate at least some of the outlets.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/25/accuser-senate-limit-press-kavanaugh-hearing/

She's appearing more as a snotty bitch then an attempted rape victim.

I wonder if she'll demand a make-up table too.

 

[Born Free]

Anything resembling a point you had is totally lost on your language choice. It is possible to make your point without resorting to derogatory terms.

You get my points and they stand. Try responding to the points next time.