Discussion:
Christine Blasey Ford's testimony
Add Reply
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-27 17:02:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
CSPAN-2 aired the Senate hearing session in which Christine Blasey Ford
testified.

Here are my quick thoughts, if anyone gives a damn:

She's credible. She's highly intelligent and doesn't come across as
polished and professional and detatched like Anita Hill. In other words,
she sounds like a victim and she's sympathetic.

The Republicans were absolutely right to hire a prosecutor with
experience in rape trials, who is a woman herself, to question the
witness. It must be killing them to have to bite their tongues and just
not speak.

The Democrats are so absolutely using her. I really empathize with her.
She should not have been put through the wringer for this crap.

The Republicans have fucked up beyond belief for not asking that the FBI
criminal background investigation be re-opened. That would have occurred
in private and not on national television.

I don't see Kavanaugh's nomination surviving this, but I don't have a
crystal ball. I see how that's unfortunate, 'cuz Trump is entirely
capable of nominating somebody worse, like Amy Coney Barrett.
m***@hotmail.com
2018-09-27 17:30:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
CSPAN-2 aired the Senate hearing session in which Christine Blasey Ford
testified.
She's credible. She's highly intelligent and doesn't come across as
polished and professional and detatched like Anita Hill. In other words,
she sounds like a victim and she's sympathetic.
The Republicans were absolutely right to hire a prosecutor with
experience in rape trials, who is a woman herself, to question the
witness. It must be killing them to have to bite their tongues and just
not speak.
The Democrats are so absolutely using her. I really empathize with her.
She should not have been put through the wringer for this crap.
Not having been put through the crap at her high school would even be better, don't you think?
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2018-09-27 20:14:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I don't see Kavanaugh's nomination surviving this, but I don't have a
crystal ball. I see how that's unfortunate, 'cuz Trump is entirely
capable of nominating somebody worse, like Amy Coney Barrett.
I suspect his nomination is being pushed because:
1) Trump hates the idea of his initiative failing, even though
plenty of other SCOTUS nominees by other presidents had to be
withdrawn. He'll keep pushing.

2) Kavanaugh is on record as supporting the President in times
of trouble, as Trump is in now. Given Trump's methods and
attacks on Mueller, Trump is desperately seeking any help he
can get and Kavanaugh represents help for Trump.

3) As mentioned, the evangelicals want Kavanaugh. He is
extremely conversative, and the far right want him, too.
These people push hard (see separate post).
RichA
2018-09-27 20:36:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You can almost never commit a person of murder without a body or confession, but you can convict them of assault?
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-27 20:40:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
You can almost never commit a person of murder without a body or
confession, but you can convict them of assault?
Without the assault victim's testimony? Uh, no prosecutor will be able
to obtain a conviction without the victim's cooperation. I have no idea
what this has to do with anything I'd written.
shawn
2018-09-27 21:01:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:40:58 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
You can almost never commit a person of murder without a body or
confession, but you can convict them of assault?
Without the assault victim's testimony? Uh, no prosecutor will be able
to obtain a conviction without the victim's cooperation. I have no idea
what this has to do with anything I'd written.
It sounds like Rich wants there to be video of the assault before they
can convict someone of assault.
h***@bbs.cpcn.com
2018-09-27 21:16:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:40:58 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
You can almost never commit a person of murder without a body or
confession, but you can convict them of assault?
Without the assault victim's testimony? Uh, no prosecutor will be able
to obtain a conviction without the victim's cooperation. I have no idea
what this has to do with anything I'd written.
It sounds like Rich wants there to be video of the assault before they
can convict someone of assault.
The Republicans keep treating this as a criminal case, demanding
criminal standards of evidence and testimony. They convenient
forget that this is NOT a criminal case. Rather, this is a
confirmation to give someone a LIFETIME appointment on the HIGHEST
court in the land.

The Republicans also whine about character assassination. They
forget they have done this to many leading Democrats (such as
Bill Clinton), as well as ordinary government clerks in their
zeal for an ideologically pure conservative workforce.

They forget that their trashing of the US State Dept in the
1950s--calling them all commies*--led to a lack of knowledge
and got us involved in Vietnam.

* Fox News commentators TODAY still think McCarthyism was the
right thing to do.
A Friend
2018-09-27 22:32:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:40:58 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
You can almost never commit a person of murder without a body or
confession, but you can convict them of assault?
Without the assault victim's testimony? Uh, no prosecutor will be able
to obtain a conviction without the victim's cooperation. I have no idea
what this has to do with anything I'd written.
It sounds like Rich wants there to be video of the assault before they
can convict someone of assault.
The Republicans keep treating this as a criminal case, demanding
criminal standards of evidence and testimony. They convenient
forget that this is NOT a criminal case. Rather, this is a
confirmation to give someone a LIFETIME appointment on the HIGHEST
court in the land.
Whether Kavanaugh did this stuff back in his high school and college
days goes to his character then and possibly now, but someone will make
the obvious argument that he's older, gotten married, is raising kids,
and people change, so maybe he shouldn't be held to it.

What we all deserve to know is whether, *right now*, he's lying about
not having done this stuff. That goes to his character *today*.

We should also find out about his "baseball tickets" credit-card debt.
Kavanaugh's net worth is around a million, including his home and
retirement fund. That's typically middle-class. How does someone in
those circumstances manage to accrue up to $200,000 in credit card debt
for "baseball tickets"? And how did he pay it off? Or did he?

The FBI's Anita Hill reinvestigation took three days. There's no
reason to think they'd take any longer now. The Senate is trying very
hard not to do its job here.
Dimensional Traveler
2018-09-27 22:54:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by A Friend
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:40:58 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
You can almost never commit a person of murder without a body or
confession, but you can convict them of assault?
Without the assault victim's testimony? Uh, no prosecutor will be able
to obtain a conviction without the victim's cooperation. I have no idea
what this has to do with anything I'd written.
It sounds like Rich wants there to be video of the assault before they
can convict someone of assault.
The Republicans keep treating this as a criminal case, demanding
criminal standards of evidence and testimony. They convenient
forget that this is NOT a criminal case. Rather, this is a
confirmation to give someone a LIFETIME appointment on the HIGHEST
court in the land.
Whether Kavanaugh did this stuff back in his high school and college
days goes to his character then and possibly now, but someone will make
the obvious argument that he's older, gotten married, is raising kids,
and people change, so maybe he shouldn't be held to it.
What we all deserve to know is whether, *right now*, he's lying about
not having done this stuff. That goes to his character *today*.
We should also find out about his "baseball tickets" credit-card debt.
Kavanaugh's net worth is around a million, including his home and
retirement fund. That's typically middle-class. How does someone in
those circumstances manage to accrue up to $200,000 in credit card debt
for "baseball tickets"? And how did he pay it off? Or did he?
The FBI's Anita Hill reinvestigation took three days. There's no
reason to think they'd take any longer now. The Senate is trying very
hard not to do its job here.
The Senate Republicans held up Federal judge confirmations at all levels
for _years_ hoping to have a chance to ram thru confirming conservative
judges under a post-Obama President. So a large chunk of the Senate has
been trying very hard to not do their job for a long time.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
super70s
2018-09-28 01:21:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by A Friend
What we all deserve to know is whether, *right now*, he's lying about
not having done this stuff. That goes to his character *today*.
I thought he had a Capt. Queeg-like meltdown. This guy doesn't need to
be presiding over a local traffic court as far as I'm concerned.

Ditto for Lindsey Graham, who's come a long way from "my party has gone
batshit crazy" in 2016 when Trump began to look unstoppable.
trotsky
2018-09-28 10:50:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by super70s
Post by A Friend
What we all deserve to know is whether, *right now*, he's lying about
not having done this stuff. That goes to his character *today*.
I thought he had a Capt. Queeg-like meltdown. This guy doesn't need to
be presiding over a local traffic court as far as I'm concerned.
Ditto for Lindsey Graham, who's come a long way from "my party has gone
batshit crazy" in 2016 when Trump began to look unstoppable.
Welcome that is the seething morass of corruption that is the Republican
party. They really ceased to exist as political party quite some time
ago, when they realized they exist solely to serve their corporate
overlords and don't give a flying fuck about the American people.
NoBody
2018-09-28 11:43:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Post by shawn
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:40:58 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
You can almost never commit a person of murder without a body or
confession, but you can convict them of assault?
Without the assault victim's testimony? Uh, no prosecutor will be able
to obtain a conviction without the victim's cooperation. I have no idea
what this has to do with anything I'd written.
It sounds like Rich wants there to be video of the assault before they
can convict someone of assault.
The Republicans keep treating this as a criminal case, demanding
criminal standards of evidence and testimony. They convenient
forget that this is NOT a criminal case. Rather, this is a
confirmation to give someone a LIFETIME appointment on the HIGHEST
court in the land.
And? You seem to think that an inconsistant accusation clearly
released as a political attack should be enough to stop a nomination
even though there is ZERO supporting evidence.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
The Republicans also whine about character assassination. They
forget they have done this to many leading Democrats (such as
Bill Clinton), as well as ordinary government clerks in their
zeal for an ideologically pure conservative workforce.
And you've forgotten Bork and Thomas. How convenient for you.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
They forget that their trashing of the US State Dept in the
1950s--calling them all commies*--led to a lack of knowledge
and got us involved in Vietnam.
And history is repeating itself right now.
Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
* Fox News commentators TODAY still think McCarthyism was the
right thing to do.
Cite anyone who has said this.

Rhino
2018-09-27 21:13:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by RichA
You can almost never commit a person of murder without a body or
confession, but you can convict them of assault?
Without the assault victim's testimony? Uh, no prosecutor will be able
to obtain a conviction without the victim's cooperation. I have no idea
what this has to do with anything I'd written.
It doesn't. As usual, Rich is talking out of his anal orifice.
--
Rhino
David Johnston
2018-09-27 20:59:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
You can almost never commit a person of murder without a body or confession,
Wrong. It's hard to convict a person of murder when there is no body
but "almost never" is of course a self-serving exaggeration.
moviePig
2018-09-27 21:10:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You can almost never [convict] a person of murder without a body or confession, but you can convict them of assault?
Yes. And, there's a "body".
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
m***@gmail.com
2018-09-27 23:42:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RichA
You can almost never commit a person of murder without a body or confession, but you can convict them of assault?
Commit?
Nancy2
2018-09-28 01:10:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
What is really unfortunate is that (1) they didn't let her testify last, and (2) the senators...by
finding a female lawyer (prosecutor of sex crimes) question her and the committee members
questioned Kavanaugh....thought their questions and answers held more weight because they think
they know more than some female (non-senator) prosecutor. That attitude was obvious in Grassley's
and Graham's comments.

N.
moviePig
2018-09-28 01:47:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nancy2
What is really unfortunate is that (1) they didn't let her testify last, and (2) the senators...by
finding a female lawyer (prosecutor of sex crimes) question her and the committee members
questioned Kavanaugh....thought their questions and answers held more weight because they think
they know more than some female (non-senator) prosecutor. That attitude was obvious in Grassley's
and Graham's comments.
Don't read too much genuine attitude in those comments. Remember the
ABCs of politics ...Always Be Campaigning.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Adam H. Kerman
2018-09-28 01:53:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nancy2
What is really unfortunate is that (1) they didn't let her testify last,
She's not the nominee. I don't have a problem with Kavanaugh rebutting
her statements.
Post by Nancy2
and (2) the senators...by
finding a female lawyer (prosecutor of sex crimes) question her and the committee members
questioned Kavanaugh....thought their questions and answers held more weight because they think
they know more than some female (non-senator) prosecutor. That attitude was obvious in Grassley's
and Graham's comments.
Eh. They just wanted to express lots and lots of anger while asking few
if any questions. The Senate is no longer a model of decorum.
NoBody
2018-09-28 11:40:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:02:26 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
Post by Adam H. Kerman
CSPAN-2 aired the Senate hearing session in which Christine Blasey Ford
testified.
She's credible. She's highly intelligent and doesn't come across as
polished and professional and detatched like Anita Hill. In other words,
she sounds like a victim and she's sympathetic.
Personally I get the impression that there's something not quite right
about her. Additionally she sounds rehearsed and stumbled every time
something was asked that was off script.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The Republicans were absolutely right to hire a prosecutor with
experience in rape trials, who is a woman herself, to question the
witness. It must be killing them to have to bite their tongues and just
not speak.
It was politically the right move although I don't think the
questioner was very effective.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The Democrats are so absolutely using her. I really empathize with her.
She should not have been put through the wringer for this crap.
Dems don't care who they have to run down or destroy to get what they
want.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
The Republicans have fucked up beyond belief for not asking that the FBI
criminal background investigation be re-opened. That would have occurred
in private and not on national television.
Nothing at all to be gained by yet another investigation, except for
an additional delay which is *exactly* what the Dems want.
Post by Adam H. Kerman
I don't see Kavanaugh's nomination surviving this, but I don't have a
crystal ball. I see how that's unfortunate, 'cuz Trump is entirely
capable of nominating somebody worse, like Amy Coney Barrett.
Personally I hope he does but there is still a decent chance of
confirmation.
Loading...