Kavanaugh/Ford Hearing Updates
@Bill_Coley has mentioned multiple times that the other people who were supposedly at the party Ford accuses Kavanaugh of would not testify under oath and penalty of perjury.
We have just learned in the confirmation hearing that they, in fact, DID submit statements under penalty of perjury/felony.
Sorry Liberals, you are losing this one.
Comments
-
Democrats didn't even show up to meetings with Kavanaugh on this issue. Must not be interested in the truth.
-
Oh Brother, Feinstein says she held the letter til the last minute because the accuser wanted to be confidential. WHAT A JOKE
-
Feinstein lies, said Republicans won't look into other people's allegations yet they have tried to reach out to them and they refuse to respond.
-
Naturally, Feinstein is repeating allegations that have been either proven false or have zero corroboration. - Katie Pavlich
-
Hopefully, Ford puts the blame for her public embarrassment in the right place. Senator Diane Feinstein.
-
Ford: "I wanted to be helpful and provide facts"
She has done neither.
-
Prosecutor Guidelines:
- Ask to clarify questions.
- Correct her if she is wrong.
- Will not ask the witness to guess.
- If you are estimating please say so.
-
In a text, Ford calls "PJ" a bystander. Now she is saying he was not near the event. @Bill_Coley that is a GLARING inconsistency.
-
Ford:
- Can't guarantee there weren't more people there. (Inconsistency)
- Can't promise that Kavanaugh solely pushed her into the room.
-
Feinstein puts letters from 1,000 female physicians in the record. What in the WORLD does that have to do with this? I know Ford hasn't seen 1,000 doctors in last few weeks.
-
Feinstein: How are you so sure it was Kavanaugh?
Ford: Same way I am sure I am talking with you right now.Here's the problem, that's the only thing she seems to be sure of.
-
Ford says this is "absolutely not" a case of mistaken identity. Unfortunately, everyone who accuses someone would say that.
-
Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) says we owe Ford a debt of gratitude for coming forward on an allegation that has not been fully verified.
-
Leahy: You do remember what happened do you not?
Ford: Very much so.Except you don't remember hardly anything at all.
-
Nobody else from the party has said they were there too to Ford.
-
She could hear them walking down stairs but couldn't hear conversations?
How do you know that there was a conversation? Answer: I was assuming.
-
Ford again says Leland Keyser was at the party. Keyser has denied being at the party. Ford also says she hasn't talked to anyone who was at the party since the allegation. Then corrects to say she spoke to Leland. - Katie Pavlich
-
Durbin: "Nobody should face cheap shots from politicians simply for telling the truth."
Problem Senator, we do not KNOW she is telling the truth.
-
So far we have learned that Ford was texting a Washington Post reporter weeks before she contacted Feinstein, and that the "second front door" argument, which she claims was about Brett Kavanaugh, was actually about having a separate entrance for random Airbnb renters.
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) September 27, 2018
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley has mentioned multiple times that the other people who were supposedly at the party Ford accuses Kavanaugh of would not testify under oath and penalty of perjury.We have just learned in the confirmation hearing that they, in fact, DID submit statements under penalty of perjury/felony.
Sorry Liberals, you are losing this one.
Sorry, conservative, but that's NOT what I've "mentioned multiple times." What I HAVE mentioned "multiple times" is the fact that there are other people who were "supposedly at the party" whom the Committee's majority has refused to subpoena to testify under oath before the Committee. What's the difference between submitting statements under penalty of perjury/felony and testifying to the Committee under oath? Cross-examination: questions and follow-up questions. Witnesses who testify under oath are subject to it. Witnesses who only submit statements under penalty of perjury are not.
Please summarize my assertions of fact accurately, reformed.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley has mentioned multiple times that the other people who were supposedly at the party Ford accuses Kavanaugh of would not testify under oath and penalty of perjury.We have just learned in the confirmation hearing that they, in fact, DID submit statements under penalty of perjury/felony.
Sorry Liberals, you are losing this one.
Sorry, conservative, but that's NOT what I've "mentioned multiple times." What I HAVE mentioned "multiple times" is the fact that there are other people who were "supposedly at the party" whom the Committee's majority has refused to subpoena to testify under oath before the Committee. What's the difference between submitting statements under penalty of perjury/felony and testifying to the Committee under oath? Cross-examination: questions and follow-up questions. Witnesses who testify under oath are subject to it. Witnesses who only submit statements under penalty of perjury are not.
Please summarize my assertions of fact accurately, reformed.
No need. She has been caught in several lies and inconsistencies throughout this hearing. No credibility at all.
-
I’m no psychology professor but it does seem weird to me that someone could have a selective fear of flying.Can’t do it to testify but for vacation, well it’s not a problem at all.
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) September 27, 2018
-
@reformed said:
No need. She has been caught in several lies and inconsistencies throughout this hearing. No credibility at all.
Your conclusions about the results of Dr Blasey Ford's morning testimony are VERY different from mine. In my view, her testimony is sounding like the prelude before the funeral for the Kavanaugh nomination. She's been a devastatingly credible and human witness. Obviously, you and I are each entitled to our views.
I will repeat the request with which I ended my previous post, a request to which you chose not to respond: Because your previous post inaccurately summarized what I had "mentioned multiple times," I ask you to summarize my assertions of fact accurately.
-
Ford: I don't expect PJ and Leland to remember this event.
That's convenient....
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
No need. She has been caught in several lies and inconsistencies throughout this hearing. No credibility at all.
Your conclusions about the results of Dr Blasey Ford's morning testimony are VERY different from mine. In my view, her testimony is sounding like the prelude before the funeral for the Kavanaugh nomination. She's been a devastatingly credible and human witness. Obviously, you and I are each entitled to our views.
I will repeat the request with which I ended my previous post, a request to which you chose not to respond: Because your previous post inaccurately summarized what I had "mentioned multiple times," I ask you to summarize my assertions of fact accurately.
HAHAHAHAHA There is zero credibility to her at all. This is a joke.
-
Way too many holes and inconsistencies and lies in her story. Too many changes. She can't remember what happened 3 weeks ago but remembers details of 36 years ago? She doesn't know who paid for thy poly? Really? Nobody corroborates her story, she can't remember important details, changes her story.
No credibility at all. Glad we will be proceeding with a vote tomorrow.
-
@reformed said:
Ford: I don't expect PJ and Leland to remember this event.>
That's convenient....
Had you quoted Blasey Ford's entire statement, reformed, we'd know that the reason she didn't expect PJ and LeLand to remember the event was that they were on the first floor of the house where, so Blasey Ford testified, nothing traumatic happened to them. Is that "convenient"? No. That's obvious.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Ford: I don't expect PJ and Leland to remember this event.>
That's convenient....
Had you quoted Blasey Ford's entire statement, reformed, we'd know that the reason she didn't expect PJ and LeLand to remember the event was that they were on the first floor of the house where, so Blasey Ford testified, nothing traumatic happened to them. Is that "convenient"? No. That's obvious.
Except she doesn't know where it was, how she got there, how she got home (depending on when you ask that question) and nobody else seems to recall this event either.
-
@reformed said:
Except she doesn't know where it was, how she got there, how she got home (depending on when you ask that question) and nobody else seems to recall this event either.
Your posts present me with a game of whack-a-mole, reformed.
- You inaccurately summarize my previous assertions of fact. I call you out on your inaccuracy, but you refuse even to mention, let alone acknowledge, your error, and instead change the subject to the "convenient" PJ and Leland meme.
- I then call you out on the fact that you chose to reference only part of Blasey Ford's remarks about PJ and Leland, leaving out the critical portion of her statement that completely explained her comment. You then refuse even to mention, let alone acknowledge, the incompleteness of your reference, and instead change the subject to other aspects of Blasey Ford's testimony.
You've become predictable, reformed. When I ask you a question you don't like or can't answer, you ignore it (until I remind you of it multiple times). When I point out an inaccuracy or other weakness in one of your posts, you ignore the critique and change the subject.
I remain struck by the irony of the fact that when other posters evidence such behavior to you, you express concern, even alarm, at their actions. Yet you continue to respond to me in that very same way.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Except she doesn't know where it was, how she got there, how she got home (depending on when you ask that question) and nobody else seems to recall this event either.
Your posts present me with a game of whack-a-mole, reformed.
- You inaccurately summarize my previous assertions of fact. I call you out on your inaccuracy, but you refuse even to mention, let alone acknowledge, your error, and instead change the subject to the "convenient" PJ and Leland meme.
- I then call you out on the fact that you chose to reference only part of Blasey Ford's remarks about PJ and Leland, leaving out the critical portion of her statement that completely explained her comment. You then refuse even to mention, let alone acknowledge, the incompleteness of your reference, and instead change the subject to other aspects of Blasey Ford's testimony.
I disagree with you on your point. You have clarified what you meant but they still submitted sworn testimony before the committee.
