Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So.... Hearing in Doubt? Christine Ford’s Lawyer Rips Senate Plan to Have Prosecutor Ask Questions: Not ‘Fair and Respectful’

    In the letter addressed to Sen. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Ford’s legal team cites Sen. Majority Leader’s Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) speech on the Senate floor on Monday afternoon as “flatly inconsistent” with Grassley’s promise of a “fair and credible process.”

    “In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor’ as Mr. Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations,” attorney Michael Bromwich wrote. “It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s repeated requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning. This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate.”

    Ford’s team requested the identity of the sex crimes prosecutors the Committee would invite to the hearing along with their resumes.

    The letter also blasts the the White House’s refusal to order an FBI investigation into Ford’s allegation.

    “The hearing plan that Mr. Davis described does not appear designed to provide Dr. Blasey Ford with fair and respectful treatment,” Bromwich said.


    Either she believes her story is true, or she doesn't. What does it matter who questions her? This is sounding like another stall, or maybe even a "we're not going to testify at all" kind of thing.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Actually, that's referring to a different incident, the one that allegedly happened at Yale. As usual with salacious political gossip, you find the truth buried deep in the article, far below the misleading bullet points that lead off the story.

      First, Roche says he wasn't an eyewitness:

      "Roche claims that although he did not witness the alleged incident, he was inclined to agree with Ramirez based on his experience around Kavanaugh."

      Secondly, he says that he "did not interact with Kavanaugh 'beyond the first few days of freshman year'".

      Yet we're supposed to believe that he has some deep insight into Kavanaugh's character despite openly conceding that he barely knew the guy.

      Original story from Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/bret...egation-2018-9
      Yeah, just found that. I'm just trying to see this thing from all angles.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        So.... Hearing in Doubt? Christine Ford’s Lawyer Rips Senate Plan to Have Prosecutor Ask Questions: Not ‘Fair and Respectful’

        In the letter addressed to Sen. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Ford’s legal team cites Sen. Majority Leader’s Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) speech on the Senate floor on Monday afternoon as “flatly inconsistent” with Grassley’s promise of a “fair and credible process.”

        “In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor’ as Mr. Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations,” attorney Michael Bromwich wrote. “It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s repeated requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning. This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate.”

        Ford’s team requested the identity of the sex crimes prosecutors the Committee would invite to the hearing along with their resumes.

        The letter also blasts the the White House’s refusal to order an FBI investigation into Ford’s allegation.

        “The hearing plan that Mr. Davis described does not appear designed to provide Dr. Blasey Ford with fair and respectful treatment,” Bromwich said.


        Either she believes her story is true, or she doesn't. What does it matter who questions her? This is sounding like another stall, or maybe even a "we're not going to testify at all" kind of thing.
        Yep... they claim they want a full investigation, but when Grassley announces that he has secured an experienced and impartial sex crimes prosecutor to ask the questions, Ford's attorney cries foul. What's he afraid of, that the truth will come out?
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Yep... they claim they want a full investigation, but when Grassley announces that he has secured an experienced and impartial sex crimes prosecutor to ask the questions, Ford's attorney cries foul. What's he afraid of, that the truth will come out?
          I think it's becoming more apparent that the Dems never imagined that Ford's story would go this far. I don't think they were planning on releasing the name - I think they were counting on making a media stink (which is happening) and forcing the normally gutless spineless Republicans to back down.

          I think their bluff has been called, and they have no idea how to recover. Meanwhile, they're scouring the planet for ANYBODY who will make a credible allegation, or actually corroborate Ford's story.

          I think the Dems believe that all they have to do is keep enough confusion and mayhem in this that MAYBE this will be pushed beyond the midterms, and they can save the day from their newly found majority status.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • GOP hires female attorney to question Kavanaugh accuser

            Senate Republicans have hired an attorney to use as a questioner of Christine Blasey Ford at Thursday's high-stakes hearing on sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh but are declining to name her.

            Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told POLITICO on Tuesday as he entered the Capitol for a weekly GOP meeting that "we aren't announcing the name for her safety." Asked if Republicans have received any indication of threats to the attorney they're preparing to use, Grassley said: "I don’t know, but I guess we’re just being cautious."

            Grassley responded Monday to a personal letter he received from Ford over the weekend in which she vowed that "fear will not hold me back from testifying," Grassley told the 51-year-old California-based professor that he is "committed to fair and respectful treatment of you" during Thursday's make-or-break hearing on her claim against Kavanaugh.

            Although Ford's attorney wrote to Grassley on Monday night that his staff "still has not responded to a number of outstanding questions" about the hearing, including more details on how the female attorney would be engaged to speak on behalf of Judiciary Republicans' all-male roster, the Iowan made clear that he views the hearing as locked in.

            Heeding Ford's desire to avoid a "circus-like environment," Grassley said, he has agreed to limit the press presence in the hearing room and give her security protection through the Capitol Police. "I don't know what else we can do," Grassley said, adding that "I don't know of any problem" remaining.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Not naming the prosecutor is smart. It will prevent the Democrats from trying to manufacture "dirt" to disqualify her.

              Also, allowing a special counsel to do the questioning will ensure that no Democrat senators attempt to grand stand or otherwise disrupt the proceedings like they did during the confirmation hearing.

              I wish Grassley had stuck to his original Friday deadline, but it seems like he's doing everything in his power to give Kavanaugh's accusers all the rope they want.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                So.... Hearing in Doubt? Christine Ford’s Lawyer Rips Senate Plan to Have Prosecutor Ask Questions: Not ‘Fair and Respectful’

                In the letter addressed to Sen. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Ford’s legal team cites Sen. Majority Leader’s Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) speech on the Senate floor on Monday afternoon as “flatly inconsistent” with Grassley’s promise of a “fair and credible process.”

                “In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor’ as Mr. Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations,” attorney Michael Bromwich wrote. “It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s repeated requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning. This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate.”

                Ford’s team requested the identity of the sex crimes prosecutors the Committee would invite to the hearing along with their resumes.

                The letter also blasts the the White House’s refusal to order an FBI investigation into Ford’s allegation.

                “The hearing plan that Mr. Davis described does not appear designed to provide Dr. Blasey Ford with fair and respectful treatment,” Bromwich said.


                Either she believes her story is true, or she doesn't. What does it matter who questions her? This is sounding like another stall, or maybe even a "we're not going to testify at all" kind of thing.
                thelook.jpg
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  So.... Hearing in Doubt? Christine Ford’s Lawyer Rips Senate Plan to Have Prosecutor Ask Questions: Not ‘Fair and Respectful’

                  In the letter addressed to Sen. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Ford’s legal team cites Sen. Majority Leader’s Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) speech on the Senate floor on Monday afternoon as “flatly inconsistent” with Grassley’s promise of a “fair and credible process.”

                  “In our view, the hiring of an unnamed ‘experienced sex crimes prosecutor’ as Mr. Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority’s repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee’s members to fulfill their constitutional obligations,” attorney Michael Bromwich wrote. “It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a ‘circus,’ as well as Dr. Blasey Ford’s repeated requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning. This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of an experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate.”

                  Ford’s team requested the identity of the sex crimes prosecutors the Committee would invite to the hearing along with their resumes.

                  The letter also blasts the the White House’s refusal to order an FBI investigation into Ford’s allegation.

                  “The hearing plan that Mr. Davis described does not appear designed to provide Dr. Blasey Ford with fair and respectful treatment,” Bromwich said.


                  Either she believes her story is true, or she doesn't. What does it matter who questions her? This is sounding like another stall, or maybe even a "we're not going to testify at all" kind of thing.
                  They insist that the incident be investigated. Who better than an experienced prosecutor to investigate the allegations?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    Yep... they claim they want a full investigation, but when Grassley announces that he has secured an experienced and impartial sex crimes prosecutor to ask the questions, Ford's attorney cries foul. What's he afraid of, that the truth will come out?
                    more likely they want HER to have an attorney and be questioned by the senators so they can play legal games with objections and such and are afraid an experienced prosecutor will be wise to the games and get to the truth.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      GOP hires female attorney to question Kavanaugh accuser

                      Senate Republicans have hired an attorney to use as a questioner of Christine Blasey Ford at Thursday's high-stakes hearing on sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh but are declining to name her.

                      Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told POLITICO on Tuesday as he entered the Capitol for a weekly GOP meeting that "we aren't announcing the name for her safety." Asked if Republicans have received any indication of threats to the attorney they're preparing to use, Grassley said: "I don’t know, but I guess we’re just being cautious."

                      Grassley responded Monday to a personal letter he received from Ford over the weekend in which she vowed that "fear will not hold me back from testifying," Grassley told the 51-year-old California-based professor that he is "committed to fair and respectful treatment of you" during Thursday's make-or-break hearing on her claim against Kavanaugh.

                      Although Ford's attorney wrote to Grassley on Monday night that his staff "still has not responded to a number of outstanding questions" about the hearing, including more details on how the female attorney would be engaged to speak on behalf of Judiciary Republicans' all-male roster, the Iowan made clear that he views the hearing as locked in.

                      Heeding Ford's desire to avoid a "circus-like environment," Grassley said, he has agreed to limit the press presence in the hearing room and give her security protection through the Capitol Police. "I don't know what else we can do," Grassley said, adding that "I don't know of any problem" remaining.
                      She caused the circus, now she wants to avoid it?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        more likely they want HER to have an attorney and be questioned by the senators so they can play legal games with objections and such and are afraid an experienced prosecutor will be wise to the games and get to the truth.
                        Exactly. Her lawyer's letter even said that he wanted the senators to ask the questions, and that they would be shirking their Constitutional responsibility by passing it off to a special counsel.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          She caused the circus, now she wants to avoid it?
                          Like the plague.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Like the plague.
                            I suspect its not her who wants the circus.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                              I suspect its not her who wants the circus.
                              More likely, her attorney and/or Dem leadership wants the circus - assuming she's telling what she thinks is the truth. I expect she's having second thoughts.
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                                I suspect its not her who wants the circus.
                                Of course not - she's just a pawn in the hands of the destroyers.

                                But, hey, she'll get to write a book and the Dems will eat it up.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                50 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                190 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                315 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X