Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Ford Testifies, Says ‘100%’ Certain Kavanaugh Assaulted Her

Ford Testifies, Says ‘100%’ Certain Kavanaugh Assaulted Her

Ford: “Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They seemed to be having a very good time.”
Posted by Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 09:00am
More Sharing Options

At 10:00AM ET, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford will testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault back in high school.

I will update this thread as it goes. You can follow along and watch a livestream.

Democrats Asking Ford Questions

Harris

Yeah, Harris made it all about herself.

SPARTACUS!</strong

Now it’s time for Sparatacus. Oh, I mean Cory Booker.

Hirono

Hirono lectured Mitchell, a seasoned sex crimes prosecutor, how to do her job. Good Lord.

Blumenthal

Blumenthal spent the majority of the time fawning over himself because he believes Ford.

He finally asks Ford if she wishes the FBI would get involved. Ford says yes because then maybe she could find out the exact dates Judge worked at the Safeway.

Coons

Klobuchar

Whitehouse

Everyone’s favorite senator from Rhode Island has a turn. He’s asking her about her request for an FBI investigation.

Durbin

Leahy

Ford tells Leahy that there is no way she mixed up Kavanaugh or Judge.

She said she remembers them laughing, which is the strongest memory she has. “The uproarious laughter between the two”

Feinstein first:

Mitchell Asking Questions For Republicans

The man that Ed Whelan talked about on Twitter is the man that introduced her to Kavanaugh. She also “went out” with that man.

FBI investigations have come up. Ford said she’d be more than happy to cooperate.

About the funds:

Ford said she was hooked up to a machine for a long time and being asked a lot of questions. However, the polygraph results only showed two questions and the polygrapher said he only asked two questions.

Counsel advised Ford to take the polygraph test, which she found stressful. She didn’t see any reason not to take one. She didn’t choose the person who did the polygraph test. She doesn’t know who paid for the polygraph test either.

The polygraph test took place either on or the day after her grandmother’s funeral, which is why it happened at the hotel.

Mitchell said she did not retain a lawyer right away because she didn’t think she needed one.

Ford said she didn’t fully understand the offer for the senators to come out to California to question her. If she did she would have been more than happy to host them and thanked them for their offer.

Mitchell asked why Ford went to WaPo on July 6.

Beach friends gave her advice to go the media. She did not contact The New York Times because she thought one media outlet was enough.

Now comes up Ford’s fear of flying, but yet she has an extensive background of traveling by plane.

Mitchell reminds Ford that WaPo said they saw the notes.

The therapist notes have come up.

However…..

The map shows that her home is about 6.2 miles away. She agreed it was fair to say that someone drove her to the party or home afterwards. No one has called her and reminded her that they were the one who did that.

Mitchell asked about the timeline. Ford said she likes to drives herself so it must have been before she got her license because she did not drive to or from the party.

Mitchell gave Ford a map to describe where she lived.

Mitchell has gone back to the music. Ford said she doesn’t remember anyone turning down the music, but said probably since she could hear the boys walking down the stairs.

No one has contacted Ford saying that they attended that party, too.

Mitchell then asked if the first floor was loud and if there was music. Ford said no.

Mitchell has asked Ford if she was on any medication (no) and that she did not know if she expected Kavanaugh would be there. She also said that Judge and Kavanaugh were drinking before the party.

Ford is currently rereading the letter to make sure it’s the accurate. She found three areas she wants to address.

The other area was when she saw Judge at a Safeway. To figure out when he worked there would give her a better idea of exactly when the alleged assault took place.

Mitchell asked Ford if she wrote the letter to Feinstein on July 30, the date on the letter. She says she believes so, but definitely near that date.

Ford’s Opening Statement

Ford has shown up.

Feinstein Gives Her Opening Remarks

Grassley Opens the Session

From Earlier Today

Here are the logistics:

What They Will Say

Kavanaugh’s and Ford’s prepared remarks came out yesterday. Kavanaugh denied the allegations once again and insisted he will not resign over a last-minute character assassination.

Ford wrote that she came to the hearing because it is her “civic duty” to tell everyone what happened to her. She claims that Kavanaugh “locked her in a room, held her down and tried to remove her clothes at a party when they were both in high school.”

Questioners

Arizona sex crimes prosecutor will question Kavanaugh and Ford instead of the Republicans. She has worked for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for 26 years.

The Democrats on the panel will question Kavanaugh and Ford.

More Sharing Options
DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:
, , , ,

Comments

Wing | September 27, 2018 at 9:08 am

I think that it needs to be reiterated what a vicious ordeal this is, and what a waste of time. It is being done to assuage three senators—Flake, Murkowski and Collins. All the Democrats have announced their oppostion. Despite their fear of saying so out loud, all of the other Republicans are on board. This is an expensive, ego-massage for three senators. None of these accusations have any evidence to back them up. How much is it costing to get Ford to this hearing? Whose paying for it? Who is paying for her lawyers? How much money have Democratic senators fundraised off of this? The scandal here is not anything that Kavanaugh might have done, but the insistence of the Democrats on destruction, and the acquiescene of the Republican leadership–and three Vichy senators–who let them do it.

    Elzorro in reply to Wing. | September 27, 2018 at 9:30 am

    I wish they would just vote. If he does not get enough then put in someone else.

      Milhouse in reply to Elzorro. | September 27, 2018 at 10:38 am

      If that were to happen you can be absolutely sure that the next nominee would get the same treatment. Having had it work once, why would they not do it again? The only way to stop it is to not let it work the first time.

        RodFC in reply to Milhouse. | September 27, 2018 at 10:39 am

        Ehhhm Anita Hill didn’t work. It didn’t stop them this time.

          Milhouse in reply to RodFC. | September 27, 2018 at 10:43 am

          Anita Hill was in a different era, an era when even Democrats often behaved decently, as evidenced by the fact that 11 Democrats voted to confirm Thomas. Without D votes he could never have been confirmed, since they controlled the senate.

        MAB in reply to Milhouse. | September 27, 2018 at 10:41 am

        Tell that to the GOP Foursome, although I doubt it would sway them.

    Dejectedhead in reply to Wing. | September 27, 2018 at 9:53 am

    I don’t think that’s exactly right. I think Ford balking at testifying secured those Republican votes a while ago, but the game had already been set in motion. At this point, the Republican Judicial committee is just thinking about the Midterm election and not wanting to appear callous towards sexual assault.

    It’s folly because Democrats are going to run on that anyways.

    Milhouse in reply to Wing. | September 27, 2018 at 10:41 am

    It’s not the leadership’s fault; there’s nothing they can do to them.

    And if the wafflers had genuine concerns then they’d be doing the right thing and the cost shouldn’t concern them; they are elected senators, and it’s their job to exercise their judgment and to get whatever information they need to make a considered decision. I just can’t believe they still have genuine concerns; how could anyone take this shtick seriously?

      Anonamom in reply to Milhouse. | September 27, 2018 at 10:54 am

      “It’s not the leadership’s fault; there’s nothing they can do to them”

      Really? Then how, pray tell, did Pelosi get Obamacare rammed through Congress? Of course there are ways for LEADERSHIP to corral recalcitrant caucus members. Unfortunately, the GOPe is sorely lacking in leadership skills. When it comes to fighting, the Democrats have the Republicans whipped, hands down.

        Milhouse in reply to Anonamom. | September 27, 2018 at 11:16 am

        Pelosi got 0bamacare through the House by bribing some of her more reluctant members, and by having a big enough majority to not need all of them. If she’d had a majority of one she might not have got it through. And in the end, when the Ds lost their 60th senator so the House had to accept without amendment the bill the senate had already passed, she didn’t get it through the House; instead the Ways & Means Committee adopted a rule deeming it to have passed.

        None of those are options here.

      Colonel Travis in reply to Milhouse. | September 27, 2018 at 12:16 pm

      Yes, it is a leadership issue. I don’t mean just Grassley, I mean anyone who’s been in the Senate for a while and carries clout. An effective leader tries to get as many as possible on his side. You can try to be smart about it or dumb, but you can attempt it any number of ways. The most sensible way in this case is to try to persuade others to understand what a farce this is and how much damage it has caused and will cause in the future. Plenty of (R)s understand the farce, but if they do not even try to convince others why, they will have failed.

Elzorro | September 27, 2018 at 9:29 am

Why did Judge Kav and his gang only rape Democrat activists? Seems like they could of raped a few Republicans too.

guyjones | September 27, 2018 at 9:36 am

I read the accuser’s testimony, as released by her law firm in a 9-page document.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/library

Much inconsistent material, therein. Try this on, for transparent contradiction:

On page 2, she states, as she begins relating her account of the alleged attack, “One evening that summer.” “One evening?” Was this May? June? July? August?

Also on page 2, she claims that the details of the alleged event have been “seared” into her memory, yet, in the same paragraph, previously, she explains that she “truly wish[es]” she could remember details about how she got to the party, who hosted the party, etc. Sounds to me as though she had been drinking, heavily. And, it sounds as though she’s establishing a pre-emptive rationale to rebut obvious scrutiny of why she can’t recall basic details of that night.

Perhaps the most nauseating and manifestly devious excerpt:

“My hope was that providing the [letter] confidentially owuld be sufficient to allow the Senate to consider Mr. Kavanaugh’s serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family or anyone’s family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy we have faced since my name became public.”

Translation — “My hope was that my anonymous accusation, devoid of a scintilla of evidentiary supports, would be sufficient to derail Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, without me having to actually testify under oath, in support of the allegations.”

Page 4 – she writes that “everything changed in July 2018,” when the press reported Kavanaugh as a potential SCOTUS nominee. But, Kavanaugh had been mentioned as a potential SCOTUS nominee as far back as 2012.

This is embarrassing, venemous and transparent slander. The Senate should not be entertaining this nonsense, which would never hold up in a civil or criminal court, tardy and as devoid of evidentiary supports as it is.

    Milhouse in reply to guyjones. | September 27, 2018 at 10:47 am

    she claims that the details of the alleged event have been “seared” into her memory,

    But is it “seared, seared!” into her memory? Does she have a magic hat to prove it?

    Archer in reply to guyjones. | September 27, 2018 at 1:32 pm

    She also said in her prepared statement that she sent a confidential letter to Sen. Feinstein. According to all reporting thus far, this is false.

    Yes, the letter ended up in Feinstein’s hands, but Ms. Ford sent it to her House Rep, Anna Eshoo, who then passed it on to Sen. Feinstein.

    It’s a small detail, but it shows that she has trouble restating basic facts in a timeline, and if she’s having trouble with the details of her personal actions of two months ago, how can she be so certain of the details of others’ actions of 36 years ago?

MAB | September 27, 2018 at 9:40 am

In addition to ruining a good man, this circus is doing a disservice to real victims of sexual assault. What utter viciousness on the part of these women and their attorneys. And the members of the Republican foursome (can I say that?) should be ashamed of themselves… but in order to do that you would have to have morals.

regulus arcturus | September 27, 2018 at 9:41 am

And when it is shown that Ford is lying, it is our duty to prosecute her.

    Milhouse in reply to regulus arcturus. | September 27, 2018 at 10:50 am

    For perjury? How could you prove beyond reasonable doubt, not only that her testimony is false, but that she knows it to be false? There’s a big difference between “not proven true” and “proven false”.

      regulus arcturus in reply to Milhouse. | September 27, 2018 at 8:36 pm

      For fraud.

      She is committing a fraud on the Congress, among other violations.

      None of her other corroborating witnesses have agreed with her story.

      None.

      There is no pattern of behavior by Kavanaugh, as you would almost always see in cases like this.

      This woman is a liar. Her actions are criminal.

Leslie Eastman | September 27, 2018 at 9:48 am

It’s like the Russian Collusion fakery. Millions of dollars squandered, lots of emotional energy spent, and not one drop of reality present. I am beyond disgusted.

fscarn | September 27, 2018 at 9:49 am

It’s your BIG Day. Sure you’re nervous, but think of the Destiny that Stands Before You. The Day you take one for The Cause. Fighting against The Man. Your chance to Take It to the Patriarchy.

Stated otherwise, The Day you become rich beyond your dreams, with all the adulation the feminist movement can bestow.

You are woman/wymen. We await hearing you roar.

healthguyfsu | September 27, 2018 at 10:19 am

I could not have predicted from the photos being circulated that she would like the guy from the ’80s movie MASK

Immolate | September 27, 2018 at 10:22 am

Ford looks older than her years.

    MajorWood in reply to Immolate. | September 27, 2018 at 10:42 am

    I was about to ask why we stopped burning witches, but looking at her picture, apparently we still are. Ridden hard and put away wet also comes to mind. I don’t normally go after superficialities, but this picture, the permanent scowl lines, just reeks of sadness and dejection.

    pfg in reply to Immolate. | September 27, 2018 at 10:43 am

    For sure. Brett would have had better sense to go near this even in her younger years. Even if buzzed.

    Then again, “Don’t The Girls All Get Prettier At Closing Time”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-nkLMWDUt4

    Joe-dallas in reply to Immolate. | September 27, 2018 at 10:57 am

    In addition to looking older than 51, she also looks dishelved , kinda a permanent spacey look.

    C. Lashown in reply to Immolate. | September 27, 2018 at 12:45 pm

    Yeah, she looks like she’s had a hard life…but as a psych professor? Perhaps it’s all those sleepless nights staying awake and wrestling with her conscious?

    Archer in reply to Immolate. | September 27, 2018 at 2:02 pm

    To all above: I have little doubt her appearance is intentional. She is being presented as a victim and needs to look the part.

    Her voice is high-pitched, girly, and rough/broken. Over the radio (which is how I was paying attention), she sounds like a young victim of a fresh assault, not a educated professional 36-years-removed from the event in question.

    Again, this is likely intentional.

    My question: She has a Ph.D. in psychology and a Masters in epidemiology. She knows what unresolved trauma can do to a person’s long-term mental health. She also knows how memories are formed in the brain (she detailed the process to Sen. Feinstein, as a response to a question that I’m positive was asked just to show she’s an educated professional).

    Since she knows all this, then she also knows that memories are not like video recordings. Human brains are not computers: memories are not “read-only”. Each time a memory is accessed, it gets altered when the brain “re-saves” it. Like your uncle’s “big fish” story, it gets bigger with every retelling. Ergo, with a 36-year-old memory, which (by her own testimony) has had a lasting impact (meaning, she’s re-lived it repeatedly and episodically her entire adult life), it’s almost certain that some details have been lost or changed and are now flat-out wrong.

    And since she also knows about the lasting effect trauma has, why did she wait 30 years to bring it up to an impartial therapist? Knowing what she knows, I would think a reasonable person would want to resolve it ASAP.

    (As an aside, if I walked into a therapist’s office and the practitioner looked like Ms. Ford does now — to whit, like she had just been traumatized and wasn’t in her right mind — I’d walk right back out. How can I trust that the therapist can help me find stability in my mind, if she’s clearly not stable in hers?)

    Just a couple observations, worth every penny you’re paying for them. 😉

Virginia42 | September 27, 2018 at 10:30 am

There was this one time, when she was at band camp…

Elzorro | September 27, 2018 at 10:35 am

Democrats are reptiles.

Valerie | September 27, 2018 at 10:40 am

Waterworks, as expected.

    MAB in reply to Valerie. | September 27, 2018 at 10:44 am

    Have they started with “look at those big bad Republicans putting her through this horror again?”

    RITaxpayer in reply to Valerie. | September 27, 2018 at 10:49 am

    Logged on at 10:45 to post the same. This a Democrat war on men. Men don’t get to sob and have the masses say “Awwww, poor darling. Look what those mean old men are putting her through.”

    It’s a circus.

      Valerie in reply to RITaxpayer. | September 27, 2018 at 11:33 am

      I laughed during Dick Durbin’s speech about the effects of slander on a person. That man has no perspective or sense of proportion. What a waste.

    Virginia42 in reply to Valerie. | September 27, 2018 at 1:15 pm

    Anybody notice the sniffling and “sobbing” without actual tears? Creepy.

RodFC | September 27, 2018 at 10:41 am

I hope after the testimony Susan Collins says she cannot vote against unless Ford releases the video of her lie detector.

elle | September 27, 2018 at 10:44 am

Watched her start speaking with volume turned down. She looked surprisingly giddy. She seems to be relishing the moment.

Mercyneal | September 27, 2018 at 10:46 am

She has the voice of a teenager. Hard to believe if you were listening on radio that she was 51

    Archer in reply to Mercyneal. | September 27, 2018 at 3:56 pm

    By design, I’m sure. And she looks disheveled and traumatized, like it happened yesterday. Also by design, I’m sure.

    They’re making her out to be the victim. She needs to look and act the part.

MAB | September 27, 2018 at 10:47 am

“Too often, women’s memories and credibility come under assault. In essence, they are put on trial and forced to defend themselves,” Senator Dianne Feinstein — of course they have to defend themselves. You accuse someone of heinous behavior, back it up. Oh no, they expect their word to be above reproach and accepted without question. As a woman, this turns my stomach.

oldgoat36 | September 27, 2018 at 10:48 am

I am having a very hard time buying what she is selling. I find it hard to believe that she needs to read the whole thing over just having notes to make sure she hits her points.

I found Finestein’s remarks to be horrendous.

I just don’t find her credible.

healthguyfsu | September 27, 2018 at 10:49 am

Very clear coaching about how to establish the timeline to cover DiFi’s ass. This was what the delay was about.

Northwoods | September 27, 2018 at 10:51 am

I can’t believe that Feinstein brought the next 2 nuts into this. All of this crap about threats has nothing to do with Kavanaugh. Everyone involved is getting threats.

She’s set for life now, the Dem machine will take care of monetarily forever.

Elzorro | September 27, 2018 at 10:52 am

She wanted two front doors? Why so she could escape from her husband? Is she is a whacko. That makes no sense.

oldgoat36 | September 27, 2018 at 10:56 am

How can something be so seared into her memory, yet there are so many things she doesn’t recall?

Her demeanor changed completely so quickly right after she finished her opening statement.

forksdad | September 27, 2018 at 10:58 am

This is bull but it worked with Moore. If you don’t fight back when someone screams, ‘witch’ you guarantee you’ll get more nut jobs screaming witch. Half the republicans are rinos.

Joe-dallas | September 27, 2018 at 11:03 am

The Law Does Not Help Victims Whose SOL Expired Before October 1, 2017

Another issue with the law is whether it is retroactive to victims whose suits were previously blocked by the old statute of limitations. The answer is “yes” and “no.” “According to the wording of the provision, the law does not apply to any victim whose claim would have been barred (past the statute of limitations) prior to the effective date of October 1, 2017. In other words, the law says that it does not apply to any victim who turned 25 prior to October 1, 2017. But, Maryland’s highest court has held that the law extends the statute of limitations for anyone whose claim had not expired on the effective date. So, a victim who turns 25 on October 2, 2017 or anytime thereafter will have until he or she is 38 to bring suit.”

The above is the explanation of the civil statute governing the statute of limitations for civil suits

Still looking for the statute on the criminal side – regarding the person who has stepped forward to say he was the one the attacked CBF

RodFC | September 27, 2018 at 11:03 am

Funny she has interns living with her after her trauma?

RodFC | September 27, 2018 at 11:04 am

She doesn’t know her students?

UJ | September 27, 2018 at 11:04 am

“Dr.” Ford (as if “Dr.” has some relevance in this farce) looks like an angry borderline psycho in her pic above. Definitely worth 1000 words.

oldgoat36 | September 27, 2018 at 11:06 am

I am trying hard to be open to her testimony, but all I hear is someone who has fabricated a lot of this story.

How is it that all these reporters came out to her yet no one supposedly were made aware of this? I find this incredulous.

Basic memory functions, yet she can’t recall so many other details. I am sorry, all I keep smelling is BS flowing fast and furious.

Northwoods | September 27, 2018 at 11:13 am

She’s trying so hard to weep.

Massinsanity | September 27, 2018 at 11:18 am

To this moment this format is not working. Having the prosecutor ask questions in 5 minute bites lacks cohesion.

If this continues, he is toast.

Northwoods | September 27, 2018 at 11:23 am

God these Senators are such pukes. How do we end up with these 100 people governing us?

WillS68 | September 27, 2018 at 11:23 am

March 19, 2012 Jeffery Toobin writes an op-ed in the New Yorker opining on how Brett Kavanaugh would be the obvious nominee for and GOP candidate that beats Obama.

May 2012 Dr. Ford states she tells her therapist and husband.

Interesting.

oldgoat36 | September 27, 2018 at 11:24 am

I am sick of the Democrats grandstanding BS in their statements, and the assumption she is telling the truth.

Owego | September 27, 2018 at 11:37 am

Democrats are gathering a mob – supporting letters, phone calls, emails, and on and on and on. They are interested in nothing more than establishing rule by government sanctioned mob. They get to choose the mob and approve and disapprove (ignore) the targets. We have descended a long way, this outrageous circus is going to accelerate the descent, not slow it.

oldgoat36 | September 27, 2018 at 11:38 am

OMG, this is beyond belief how she has fabricated the Safeway bit. Why the hell would anyone who claims to have been assaulted by someone, or at least he was in the room according to her, go up and say “Hi” to that person? Wouldn’t you avoid them as best as possible? Going up to say hi implies there was nothing between them other than knowing each other.

I could even buy it if she said she was looking for a confrontation with Judge, but to go up and say “hi”… ?!? Who the hell does that? And her description of Judge turning white and being uncomfortable just sounds so disingenuous. I cannot believe this part whatsoever.

She doesn’t know where she was, where the party was, yet it is seared in her memory the minute or two of the alleged event?

I have been in terrible fights, ones where I got my rear kicked, a gang surrounding me and punching on me, and while I don’t know all the names because some I never knew, I can still recall details, the date, being brought home in the police car, the exact location where the beating took place, all the stuff that lead up to it, the argument, everything. I was out of school for 14 days from the beating I took. I had a concussion. Yet her memory is hazy on so many things, other than she didn’t drink, it was up a narrow stairs, and Kavanaugh was the one who assaulted her.

This just doesn’t add for me. I see an operative who saw the opportunity due to knowing him from the neighborhood, and hating his political side.

The Friendly Grizzly | September 27, 2018 at 11:39 am

I’ve watched a bit of it (what I could stand). In my 69 years I have not witnessed something so cringe-making and embarrassing as this circus. Who thought up this 5 minute format nonsense?

    Massinsanity in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | September 27, 2018 at 11:57 am

    The format is standard for this type of hearing but it clearly doesn’t work with this independent prosecutor who has no experience in this format.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | September 27, 2018 at 1:01 pm

    Yea they should have let the senators that wanted to ask their own questions first then just let her have the allotted time of all the others that wanted the Lawyer to ask their questions.

oldschooltwentysix | September 27, 2018 at 11:39 am

Curious if there were any different traumatic evens that may have affected her life.

People get screwed up in many ways and sometimes it involves a combination of things.

Mikey | September 27, 2018 at 11:43 am

She wanted to move to New Zealand because of Kavanaugh but she found the courage to say hi to Judge?

Mikey | September 27, 2018 at 11:43 am

She wanted to move to New Zealand because of Kavanaugh but she found the courage to say hi to Judge?

Elzorro | September 27, 2018 at 11:44 am

Judge Kav will just deny it all and then we will be right back where we started from. Vote. Her evidence amounts to a hill of beans.

ufo destroyers | September 27, 2018 at 11:48 am

Who the hell let Alissa Milano in? I see all the brown shirts in the hallways.

texasron | September 27, 2018 at 11:56 am

Judge Kavanaugh is a fantastic jurist and needs to be on the Supreme Court. If the Republicans do not vote him in, they all need to be replaced.
Democrats have shown themselves to be low-lifes without ethics and common decency.

Members of the house and senate who used OUR money to pay their victims to be quiet need to be exposed and removed from office. The representatives who voted to keep the list of members secret need to explain why they did so. They are as complicit as the others.

johnnytremain | September 27, 2018 at 12:00 pm

Whitehouse appears intoxicated.

oldgoat36 | September 27, 2018 at 12:15 pm

I can’t listen to this anymore. Hearing the Democrats proselytize in every single one of their “times” is beyond sickening.

She lied about flying. Plain and simple. I find too much of her testimony having come across as at the very least embellished, more likely fabricated.

She knew she got caught in an outright lie about flying.

txvet2 | September 27, 2018 at 12:15 pm

Well, color me surprised, for one, that she actually showed up, but unless you’re a lawyer or somebody writing a book, why waste time watching a well-rehearsed liar?

ufo destroyers | September 27, 2018 at 12:17 pm

You mean to tell all of America that she did not know how to contact the White House? Is she that insulated from the real world? People on the beach telling her what to do? How did she finally decide to get the second door?

HAG69 | September 27, 2018 at 12:18 pm

I think Mitchell is just letting the witness be herself. Now Ford is being questioned about her contacts with the press.

I get the impression that Ford is a tender spirit; fragile. “Beach friends.” So all these “beach friends” new about her allegations about Kavanaugh.

She wanted to torpedo Kavanaugh’s nomination anonymously.

Northwoods | September 27, 2018 at 12:22 pm

She didn’t know how to contact Congress but knew how to use an encrypted texting app. OK.

Massinsanity | September 27, 2018 at 12:25 pm

She keeps repeating how the alleged event impacted her studies in high school and then at UNC. UNC is a pretty competitive school to get into yet there she was.

And despite all her failings in her first 2 years at UNC she got into grad school at Stanford which is among the top 5 most difficult schools to get into in the country!

How does that happen?

This won’t be asked but is just one of so many inconsistencies in the narrative.

Colonel Travis | September 27, 2018 at 12:28 pm

The (R)s really screwed this up. The prosecutor lady is worthless.

    mailman in reply to Colonel Travis. | September 27, 2018 at 12:39 pm

    What you and others appear to want is for her to rip in to the woman and totally destroy her. Yeah…that will work wonders won’t it. She is destroying herself the longer she corrects what she has already said.

    What I believe they are doing is to allow her to speak because the more she speaks the more she is correcting herself and changing what she has already said. Let her hang her self by her own means. No need for the R’s to go nuclear on her.

      Colonel Travis in reply to mailman. | September 27, 2018 at 12:41 pm

      Friendly advice: if you do not know what I mean, then instead of making up shit about what I think, why don’t you ask me what I think?

      Massinsanity in reply to mailman. | September 27, 2018 at 1:06 pm

      In no way do I want her to rip Prof. Ford but she needs to narrow the questioning to some key discrepancies. For me the fact that she cannot name the owner of the house at which this alleged attack took place is perhaps the weakest link in her story. There were only 6 people there and we know it wasn’t her house or Cavanaugh’s house (this site consistently changes the K to a C… I am tired of correcting it) and we can be pretty sure it wasn’t the home of the other girl, so that leaves 3 people yet she cannot identify the location?

      Show the location of the 3 boys in relation to her house and the CC. Do something to create doubt.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to mailman. | September 27, 2018 at 1:24 pm

      The best way to prove someone is a nutter is to let them prove it themselves by letting them talk.

Mac45 | September 27, 2018 at 12:31 pm

I am surprised that Ford’s handlers had her show up to testify. already her credibility is being strained as she “corrects” previous statements that she has made in this matter. I expect this to continue. whether or not her testimony actually harms the confirmation remains to be seen. All Kavanaugh has to do is to continue to maintain that none of this involved him, if it happened at all.

I wonder if Avenatti may have precipitated the decision for Ford to appear. Swetwell’s claim appears to be totally outrageous and strongly supports the idea that all of these “claims” against Kavanaugh are nothing more than a Democrat character assassination operation. Ford may have had to testify in order to forestall a voter backlash against the Dems in November. It will be interesting to see what transpires come November.

    MajorWood in reply to Mac45. | September 27, 2018 at 1:10 pm

    So basically Avenatti’s move is confirmation of “better is the enemy of good enough.” I have a feeling this will be the political equivalent of pearl harbor, or maybe, AWB94 part 2. Billy Boy jump the gun on the AWB which then galvanized the real resistance into action. Ditto with WACO. They didn’t expect them to shoot back at WACO, and they didn’t expect Kavanaugh to stay the course after the initial accusation. They may not start a fire in the Senate Building, but I am sure that they have posted guards at all the fire alarms, or disabled them for the day. While this whole charade is annoying for us, it has to be downright painful for them, because they are literally expending every last round of ammunition and using every available tactic. In a way, this will make it far easier for Trump to push through RBG’s replacement because all of the tricks will be defeated ahead of time. I am actually surprised that multiple mass shootings haven’t been arranged for today as a distraction from this ongoing clusterf%$&.

    I didn’t think anyone would ever outdo Qyntel Woods in the area of crash and burn, but Ford is in the running.

f2000 | September 27, 2018 at 12:45 pm

She left her grand mother’s funeral and had a poly the same day?!?!?

No professional would conduct a poly within a month of an emotional event like that.

Between that and the questions about flying, it seems like the R’s are not bothering about the testimony and are aiming to indict some D’s over the process.

She was never told by anyone that the Committee was willing to come to her? An option she would have very much welcomed?

    f2000 in reply to f2000. | September 27, 2018 at 1:02 pm

    The other issue I see from Mitchell’s questioning comes up when she asked about sources of music at the gathering. Ford specifically said there were none, other than some playing from the upstairs bedroom.

    Ford claims the boys effectively ambushed her from behind.

    … Have you ever seen two stumbling drunk people trying to be sneaky?

    It seems to me that her story requires them to move with something akin to cat-like grace as she was heading up the stairs, but they were loudly bouncing off the walls as the left the room.

      Massinsanity in reply to f2000. | September 27, 2018 at 1:09 pm

      The implication based on the fact that she could hear them going downstairs while behind a closed bathroom door and then talking downstairs is that the music would have had to have been turned back down… by 2 drunken boys leaving a room.? Really?

    f2000 in reply to f2000. | September 27, 2018 at 2:13 pm

    And that last line of questions was a gut punch to the democrats.

Daiwa | September 27, 2018 at 12:47 pm

I’m beginning to think having Mitchell do the questioning was a mistake. Not getting to the point of anything.

    Sanddog in reply to Daiwa. | September 27, 2018 at 12:50 pm

    The format is screwing it up. The Republicans get 5 minutes and Ford is clearly scatterbrained so it’s not possible to develop a coherent line of “attack” since they immediately transition to the democrats telling her how brave and honest and truthful she is.

      RodFC in reply to Sanddog. | September 27, 2018 at 1:00 pm

      Actually you hit upon something. How does one so scatterbrained get a PhD from Stanford in the 80s.

      Maybe Idaho U by Stanford. ( No disrespect to Idaho U).

        Massinsanity in reply to RodFC. | September 27, 2018 at 1:12 pm

        Masters from Stanford, PhD from USC

          RodFC in reply to Massinsanity. | September 27, 2018 at 1:59 pm

          I stand corrected, still not something a scatterbrain does.

          EnquiringMind in reply to Massinsanity. | September 27, 2018 at 2:15 pm

          I agree that it is implausible that 2 drunken oafs, at least 1 of which was a 17 year old varsity basketball player, could manage to surprise a unsuspecting 15 year old girl in a tight hall way and push her into a bedroom.

          That they failed in their attack testifies to their drunkenness. But it says nothing about whether they could have momentarily gained the upper hand.

          I agree that something strains credulity. At the least she could have kicked them both in the nuts and swam away. The fact that she didn’t swim away, is proof that she wanted it.

    Mac45 in reply to Daiwa. | September 27, 2018 at 12:55 pm

    So far, Mitchell has done is allowed Ford to actually impeach herself. Ford is rapidly making herself look either confused or lying. As the questioning continues, these features will continue to highlight themselves.

    Remember, there is NO evidence, either physical or third party witness testimony which supports Ford’s account of what happened. Her claim is based solely upon her credibility, which is being eroded more and more as her testimony continues. Give it time to work.

    Now, nothing says that her lack of credibility will have any effect on the outcome of the hearing, as that is totally based upon political considerations, not on facts in evidence. But, it can sway public opinion.

      Fen in reply to Mac45. | September 27, 2018 at 1:02 pm

      Rush is on discussing her “up talk speech pattern, how it portrays her as vulnerable sensitive young girl, childlike. And whether that is deliberate.

        EnquiringMind in reply to Fen. | September 27, 2018 at 2:22 pm

        Yes, she had speech coaching in preparation for this hearing. If that is the best that Rush had to offer, he is truly grasping at straws.

    Mercyneal in reply to Daiwa. | September 27, 2018 at 1:29 pm

    Disagree. Mitchell is excellent

Sanddog | September 27, 2018 at 12:48 pm

Did I hear this correctly… she had the polygraph after she left her grandmother’s funeral? And the examiner thought that was a good idea?

JBourque | September 27, 2018 at 12:50 pm

This is intended as a serious question.

From what I’ve read here on LI, Ford asserted that she realized it was an unreasonable request to have Senate personnel go to her in California, so with great reluctance, she flew to D.C. But, everyone paying attention knows Grassley has repeatedly asserted his committee’s willingness to fly staff over to her, but “she refused”.

I’m reading from another blog’s livestream coverage that her attorney had her refuse to answer citing attorney-client privilege. How could that question be privileged… …unless, her attorneys filtered the information reaching her, and the attorneys themselves are why “it was unclear” Grassley was willing to do that, but it’s really, really inconvenient to admit this on live television? Is there any better reading?

    4th armored div in reply to JBourque. | September 27, 2018 at 1:00 pm

    i was watching fnc AND she said she sis NOT KNOW about the offer

    f2000 in reply to JBourque. | September 27, 2018 at 1:06 pm

    Yes, it seems like this line of questioning is intended to attack the lawyers and democrats.

    They really never told her about the offer to come to her? That seems damning in making a case that Ford was victimized by the D’s in this whole process.

      Valerie in reply to f2000. | September 27, 2018 at 2:06 pm

      Failure to convey that offer could be grounds for disbarment in California. A lawyer is required to keep the client informed of significant developments. It would seem to me that the Republican willingness to accommodate her by to coming to her would fall into that category.

RodFC | September 27, 2018 at 1:03 pm

Does Mitchell get to give the committee some sort of report? Seems like her arguments are geared towards making a closing argument.

    Pasadena Phil in reply to RodFC. | September 27, 2018 at 2:21 pm

    She’s taking a deposition. Complete disaster. We don’t need a deposition. This is not a trial. We need a cross examination. She needs to be exposed. There is no follow-up to the deposition. This is it.

    Once again, Republicans snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And while this is going on, the Republicans once again pass a Democratic Party spending bill.

    GOP = RIP

Elzorro | September 27, 2018 at 1:04 pm

Her surfboard hit her in the head at Malibu. She now thinks she is Gidget. Actuall this woman appears to have biological memory problems. i don’t think she is ‘all there’.

MAB | September 27, 2018 at 1:06 pm

I was reading Michelle Malkin’s commentary on her page and this caught my attention:

@michellemalkin
Mitchell: Did you pay for the polygraph yourself?
Ford: I don’t think so.
Mitchell: Do you know who paid for it?
Ford: Not yet, no.

And they still believe she did this all by her little ol’ self because it was her “civic” duty? There was another bit where they went on and on about her impressive resume.. when the word “exculpatory” was used she said she didn’t know the meaning of the word. Wow!

Fen | September 27, 2018 at 1:07 pm

I keep hearing how Republican Senators think it’s the right move to be gentle so they “aren’t seen as bullying Ford”.

They are giving up useful weapons for something that is going to happen anyway.

Who is the audience here? The two reluctant Republicans? Or the American people? Because the undecideds are not going to sit through this hearing, few will even read past tomorrow’s headline in the NYTs: Cruel Republican Torture Rape Survivor Into Nervous Breakdown.

Daiwa | September 27, 2018 at 1:09 pm

Shorter Blumenthal: “I’d be very suspicious that you were composing if your account was highly detailed and specific. But since you can’t remember shit, I believe everything you say.”

Fen | September 27, 2018 at 1:14 pm

I’m no longer angry, I’m watching this all go down as a primer on conservative tactics – will civility and political wisdom get results?

This morning I read that Estrada’s wife committed suicide as a result of watching her husband undergo similar ordeal. Is that true?

RodFC | September 27, 2018 at 1:16 pm

People upset at how it is going Shouldn’t be. People correctly told us there would be no “Perry Mason moment” ( google it ).

Her credibility is slowly getting chipped away. The problem is that much of Mitchel’s approach is that she seems to be setting up a closing argument. So she had better get a chance to give one.

RNJD | September 27, 2018 at 1:20 pm

She presents as a wounded soul. That will play extremely well with the high percentage of people who are influenced by that type of personality, and will only see carefully selected network clips of her performance. The fact that there is absolutely no corroborating witnesses hasn’t been touched upon. The Republicans are also losing on the Mark Judge issue (“if the FBI had investigated when Mark worked at the grocery store I could be more specific as to the date…”). I believe that Judge Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Court based on his stellar judicial career and admirable adult life. It’s sad this is coming down to a she said/he said adolescent memory and the current presumption that he is guilty until he can prove himself innocent. A sad moment in our country’s history.

    lc in reply to RNJD. | September 27, 2018 at 2:33 pm

    I think the little girl quivering voice is all for show.
    She’s been coached. She has to come across as a victim!
    I would love to hear a lecture from her classroom and determine her real voice.

MAB | September 27, 2018 at 1:26 pm

It will be an even sadder moment in our country’s history if the Dems win, aided and abetted by craven Republicans.

Elzorro | September 27, 2018 at 1:28 pm

She needs a bubble wrap dress.

    MajorWood in reply to Elzorro. | September 27, 2018 at 1:40 pm

    Was she wearing a bicycle helmet when she arrived? Dennis Miller would so own this charade.

    >> What the heck…I’ll just blurt it out. I don’t think the Democrats have handled Hillary’s loss as well as they could have. #DennisMillerOption <<

Daiwa | September 27, 2018 at 1:34 pm

The polygraph report consists of two questions. How could that have been the lengthy, sobbing ordeal that she claims?

UJ | September 27, 2018 at 1:48 pm

So when do these Dem clowns get shut down hard by the grownups?

iconotastic | September 27, 2018 at 1:50 pm

“Blasey Ford said she’s just “using memories of when I got my driver’s license,” which she didn’t have at 15.”

If I understand this correctly doesn’t this statement essentially destroy her entire complaint/claim? She drove to the party and back home–but not in summer of 1982.

Did Mitchell land a haymaker here?

    f2000 in reply to iconotastic. | September 27, 2018 at 2:04 pm

    I don’t think she’s ever claimed she drove to/from the party. She did say today it was likely someone drove her.

      iconotastic in reply to f2000. | September 27, 2018 at 2:36 pm

      Agreed. But according to a reporter for the Toronto Star this was was said :

      “Mitchell is challenging Blasey Ford on her statements about when the incident occurred: “early 80s,” “summer of 1982.” Asks how she was able to narrow down the time frame. Blasey Ford said she’s just “using memories of when I got my driver’s license,” which she didn’t have at 15.”

      @dddale8

Massinsanity | September 27, 2018 at 1:52 pm

Watching Spartacus, an admitted groper, is just too much.

Gremlin1974 | September 27, 2018 at 1:53 pm

OMG, if Spartacus kissed her butt any harder people would be missing eyebrows from the suction.

bw222 | September 27, 2018 at 1:54 pm

The Democrats have elevated fake molestation to an art form.

alaskabob | September 27, 2018 at 2:02 pm

I am reminded of the Kennedy-Nixon debate on TV. If one only listened, Nixon won but the optics and the way the network set the stage and lighting made Kennedy LOOK the winner.

Optics over substance. This is bread and circuses on TV.

Politics is not law and order. While the law may be the last “blood sport” this is the Coliseum and this battle is to the death.

    Milhouse in reply to alaskabob. | September 27, 2018 at 6:25 pm

    I am reminded of the Kennedy-Nixon debate on TV. If one only listened, Nixon won but the optics and the way the network set the stage and lighting made Kennedy LOOK the winner.

    Not really

Gremlin1974 | September 27, 2018 at 2:04 pm

Hey, I am proud of myself. I was able to listen to Kamala Harris for a full 15 seconds before I got nauseous and had to mute the stream.

RodFC | September 27, 2018 at 2:12 pm

OMG, Harris wants medical and forensic investigation.
What a rape kit and fingerprints?

    oldgoat36 in reply to RodFC. | September 27, 2018 at 2:42 pm

    Hey, guaranteed the results of a rape test and fingerprints now would be a slam dunk for Kavanaugh. Maybe they should agree to this stupid woman’s request.

    I think they should actually call the Democrats bluff, order the FBI investigate these claims, while confirming Kavanaugh for Justice. It stops the delay tactic that the left wants, yet gives them the investigation they harped on over and over, despite ignoring that there are plenty of people who were named by Ford who did not affirm her story.

    Notice that Ford threw her friend under the bus too, saying she has her own issues? What a sick woman Ford is.

Elzorro | September 27, 2018 at 2:20 pm

Mitchell was awesome. The stage is set. They will just go after the crooked democrat schemers now and bypass this pathetic woman.

elle | September 27, 2018 at 2:23 pm

I am super disappointed that the prosecutor did not follow up on two issues –

1. That she did not recall if the day she had the polygraph (in a hotel room) on the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or not.

2. It came out earlier, that they host(?) google interns and ask if what bearing that had on the 2nd front door.

Also, given what Cornyn and Graham are currently saying, I think they are setting the stage to censure DiFI.

    Mercyneal in reply to elle. | September 27, 2018 at 2:40 pm

    Ford said she couldn’t remember whether two key incidents were on same day. Mitchell just let it hang out there…. which was good

RodFC | September 27, 2018 at 2:27 pm

TO me ignoring the facts and just her presentation, she came off sort of creepy. The little school girl laugh she used to deflect, the scatterbrain approach when she wanted to delay. It all just seemed a little practiced, and extremely manipulative.

I’ve known several psych students and they all seemed to have a Hannibal Lector complex. They all thought that they could get inside of your mind and make you do what they want. I got that feeling.

Elzorro | September 27, 2018 at 2:29 pm

Mitchell discombobulated the democrat scheme team.

oldgoat36 | September 27, 2018 at 2:31 pm

So this can be summed up by the Republican attorney asking a decent number of questions which point to gaping holes in her story, while the Democrats talked, kissed her butt, praised her, told her they believed her, and maybe asked some softball question about as meaningful as “did she like the coffee?”

I think the Republicans should have set this up differently. I also think they would have been better splitting some time where they asked the questions themselves.

Too many things she said created far more questions than answers. There are way too many gaps in her “memory”, including recent events and decisions.

I don’t believe her. It might be she had something happen to her, but I don’t believe her tale that put forth today.

If there had been a drinking game for taking one drink every time the Democrats brought up FBI investigation for this we would all have alcohol poisoning.

I find the leftists, particularly Finestein to be loathsome and evil individuals who should not have power of any kind.

Mercyneal | September 27, 2018 at 2:44 pm

As a reporter back in 1990, I watched the Central Park Jogger, Tricia Meil testify. Although she had not a single memory of the incident, she did not laugh or smile or act like a helpless victim. Unlike Ford, er demeanor was sober, somber and serious.

Gremlin1974 | September 27, 2018 at 3:38 pm

How freaking sad is it that a 53 year old man has to try and remember how he spent the summer between his Jr. and Sr. High School years. Ridiculous!

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

CONTRIBUTORS

  • William A. Jacobson

    Founder

  • Kemberlee Kaye

    Sr. Contrib Editor

  • Mary Chastain

    Contrib Editor

  • Mike LaChance

    Higher Ed

  • Leslie Eastman

    Author

  • Vijeta Uniyal

    Author

  • Stacey Matthews

    Author

  • Jane Coleman

    Author

  • James Nault

    Author

  • Elizabeth Stauffer

    Author

  • Mandy Nagy

    Editor Emerita

  • Learn more about the Contributors
Log in or register to comment.Logout

SUBSCRIBE:

APPLE PODCASTS | SPOTIFY | IHEART RADIO
Accessibility by WAH