|
Post by femalebusiness on Sept 27, 2018 17:47:10 GMT
back to it-- Senator Hirono. I love her.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Sept 27, 2018 17:48:01 GMT
Who paid Kavanaugh's debt? I'm interested to find out.
|
|
Rhondito
Pearl Clutcher
MississipPea
Posts: 4,711
Jun 25, 2014 19:33:19 GMT
|
Post by Rhondito on Sept 27, 2018 17:48:34 GMT
What is the point of questioning who is paying for the polygraph? Is it because of accusations that she is being paid by the Democrats to bring these claims against Kavanaugh?
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Sept 27, 2018 17:48:39 GMT
He’s not there. That was one of her conditions I'm glad to see they honored that. I can see where having him there would be very daunting for her. The original plan was Kavanaugh and Ford sitting at the same table. The refusal to submit to that is one of the “unreasonable demands” that has been criticized. Can you imagine giving that testimony with him feet away? Yeah, I know a similar situation exists in criminal proceedings, but this committee process isn’t beholden to that. (And not for nothing, the proximity of a violent attacker probably contributes to victim’s reluctance/fear to report.)
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 27, 2018 17:49:57 GMT
Lindsey Graham is despicable...no other words fir him.. MSNBC... “Sen. Graham warns Democrats: “If this is the new norm, you better watch out for your nominees” Well since the republicans obstruct, lie, cheat, and steal the Democratic SC nomination opportunities...there shouldn’t be a problem then!
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 27, 2018 17:50:33 GMT
Ugh. Corey Booker is on now. IMO, he's the least credible of the Democratic committee people.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Sept 27, 2018 17:51:55 GMT
What is the point of questioning who is paying for the polygraph? Is it because of accusations that she is being paid by the Democrats to bring these claims against Kavanaugh? Yes, they suspect Soros paid her..😂😂😂
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 27, 2018 17:52:20 GMT
What is the point of questioning who is paying for the polygraph? Is it because of accusations that she is being paid by the Democrats to bring these claims against Kavanaugh? The republicans are trying to establish that she’s doing it for money/pay outs, as a way to discredit her.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 27, 2018 17:52:38 GMT
I'm glad to see they honored that. I can see where having him there would be very daunting for her. The original plan was Kavanaugh and Ford sitting at the same table. The refusal to submit to that is one of the “unreasonable demands” that has been criticized. Can you imagine giving that testimony with him feet away? Yeah, I know a similar situation exists in criminal proceedings, but this committee process isn’t beholden to that. (And not for nothing, the proximity of a violent attacker probably contributes to victim’s reluctance/fear to report.) Why shouldn't he have the opportunity to confront his accuser. That is one of the fundamental protections of our system.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 27, 2018 17:53:44 GMT
The Democrats are so obviously making it political that I think it's hurting her.
|
|
|
Post by hop2 on Sept 27, 2018 17:56:45 GMT
Who paid Kavanaugh's debt? I'm interested to find out. send me a link I’ll pay for her polygraph
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 27, 2018 17:57:38 GMT
What is the point of questioning who is paying for the polygraph? Is it because of accusations that she is being paid by the Democrats to bring these claims against Kavanaugh? Yes. And the added implication is that if she paid for the polygraph test, it might be skewed to her benefit. Which is hogwash, of course. The polygraph expert was interviewed yesterday and he did not know of Ford beforehand and he conducted the test in the same impartial manner he’s done his entire career.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Sept 27, 2018 17:59:13 GMT
Can somebody ( lizacreates !!) explain to me the role of Ms. Mitchell? Is it her job to act as she would when vetting a possible victim when she’s working as a prosecutor, or is her job to help the Republican committee members raise doubt? They’re paying her, so how does that shape her role? As in, she’s working as their counsel/their advocate more than doing a re-enactment of what she would normally do as counsel for the state? Am I making sense?
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Sept 27, 2018 18:00:54 GMT
The original plan was Kavanaugh and Ford sitting at the same table. The refusal to submit to that is one of the “unreasonable demands” that has been criticized. Can you imagine giving that testimony with him feet away? Yeah, I know a similar situation exists in criminal proceedings, but this committee process isn’t beholden to that. (And not for nothing, the proximity of a violent attacker probably contributes to victim’s reluctance/fear to report.) Why shouldn't he have the opportunity to confront his accuser. That is one of the fundamental protections of our system. Kavenaugh? His presence at her table at a confirmation senate hearing would serve as confrontation? And without that opportunity, he would be bereft?
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 27, 2018 18:02:14 GMT
This interrogation is far reaching—
“It's Jamar Guy's day off. But he came to Shaw's Tavern in Washington, which opened early, because he needed to watch this hearing.
This is personal for him.
"I was sexually abused as a child," Guy said. "I was 10. I told my mom about it when I was 28."
Guy, 35, says he's a survivor, and he understands why Ford did not tell people.
"People don't report it for a ton of reasons," he said. "Fear, shame are the top two. That's how it worked for me."
Now, he's talking more about his story to those close to him -- roommates, even friends.
"I feel the need to correct this misperception that people have, that because you didn't tell someone about it, it didn't happen," he says.”
It’s really bringing out (generally speaking PTSD) and having to relive such traumatic events for people.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Sept 27, 2018 18:02:48 GMT
Why shouldn't he have the opportunity to confront his accuser. That is one of the fundamental protections of our system. Kavenaugh? His presence at her table at a confirmation senate hearing would serve as confrontation? Not only that, this is not a trial. It's essentially Kavanaugh's JOB interview. It is to confim he is fit for the job in morality and character.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on Sept 27, 2018 18:04:11 GMT
This line of questioning is insane.
" who helped you pick your lawyers?"
Yeah because THAT has to do with her assault.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 27, 2018 18:04:20 GMT
Why shouldn't he have the opportunity to confront his accuser. That is one of the fundamental protections of our system. Kavenaugh? His presence at her table at a confirmation senate hearing would serve as confrontation? And without that opportunity, he would be bereft? Not at her table. But in the room and at a table of his own. Yes, that is his right.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 27, 2018 18:05:41 GMT
All of these types of questions bear on credibility. They actually are helping her so maybe rather than bitching about standard questions you ought to be looking at the big picture.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 27, 2018 18:07:58 GMT
Can somebody ( lizacreates !!) explain to me the role of Ms. Mitchell? Is it her job to act as she would when vetting a possible victim when she’s working as a prosecutor, or is her job to help the Republican committee members raise doubt? They’re paying her, so how does that shape her role? As in, she’s working as their counsel/their advocate more than doing a re-enactment of what she would normally do as counsel for the state? Am I making sense? Yes, you're making sense. She was hired simply to be the voice of the Repubs, not in a prosecutorial role. However, I have no doubt that she helped the Repubs fashion the questions because she has such a history in litigating sex crimes. Given her reputation, which seems to be excellent, I don't think she would allow herself to be used as an advocate for the Repubs; more like the "fact-finder." This hearing will be part of her reputation so I cannot imagine a respected litigator would want to be regarded as a Repub hired gun.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Sept 27, 2018 18:08:38 GMT
Kavenaugh? His presence at her table at a confirmation senate hearing would serve as confrontation? And without that opportunity, he would be bereft? Not at her table. But in the room and at a table of his own. Yes, that is his right. I don’t know enough about senate process, but it sounds like you do. I’m surprised we haven’t hear the chair bring that up in that passive aggressive way they all get their point across. I would think it would be a serious breach of protocol. Did they do it with Anita Hill...or was that a witness demand that also breached protocol/rights?
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Sept 27, 2018 18:09:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mrssmith on Sept 27, 2018 18:09:59 GMT
Can somebody ( lizacreates !!) explain to me the role of Ms. Mitchell? Is it her job to act as she would when vetting a possible victim when she’s working as a prosecutor, or is her job to help the Republican committee members raise doubt? They’re paying her, so how does that shape her role? As in, she’s working as their counsel/their advocate more than doing a re-enactment of what she would normally do as counsel for the state? Am I making sense? Here's an article I just read: Kind of addresses your questions above, I think. IMO, it doesn't seem like she is playing into the R narrative, but I believe Ford, so my assessment could be skewed.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Sept 27, 2018 18:11:20 GMT
This line of questioning is insane. " who helped you pick your lawyers?" Yeah because THAT has to do with her assault. yeah, but it has to do with who's going to PAY her... of course. <eye roll> Right now, she was just asked 'do you know why the other people there said THEY don't remember the party?' -- ummm-- they weren't assaulted, it wasn't quite as memorable to them. Jerks.
|
|
|
Post by thundergal on Sept 27, 2018 18:12:59 GMT
I love that last moment from Ms. Mitchell. Acknowledging that this procedure isn't ideal at all for addressing an assault.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Sept 27, 2018 18:17:12 GMT
Harris, my gal!!
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Sept 27, 2018 18:17:52 GMT
just finished questioning her... whew.
they did have to get a dig in at the end, there- about the Majority collecting the other statements, and not the Minority members-- 'because they didn't want to be involved' which I am SURE is not true.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 27, 2018 18:19:08 GMT
I love that last moment from Ms. Mitchell. Acknowledging that this procedure isn't ideal at all for addressing an assault. I agree. I think the entire thing was pointless from the Republican perspective.
|
|
peabrain
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,588
Jun 25, 2014 22:18:04 GMT
|
Post by peabrain on Sept 27, 2018 18:19:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 27, 2018 18:19:48 GMT
just finished questioning her... whew. they did have to get a dig in at the end, there- about the Majority collecting the other statements, and not the Minority members-- 'because they didn't want to be involved' which I am SURE is not true. Then why didn't any of the Minority members say that?
|
|