Live coverage of Kavanaugh Hearing with new witnesses

[calamity]

The women were trying to fight tears, including his mother right there.

I suspect my mother would cry too if I did what Kavanaugh did.

And, if I was accused of it, I would insist on a full and thorough investigation and not a political spectacle.

 

[rickc]

Kavanaugh is toast!

bring on the next one next January

 

[joko104]

Kvanaugh may be the one disbarred.

Nope. But dream on and cheer the lawyers who abuse their own clients.

 

[holbritter]

Check out the look on the faces of all the women.

I almost thought this was photoshopped

To be fair, they looked pretty much the same when Ford was testifying. Except that blonde on the left.

 

[buck]

The women were trying to fight tears, including his mother right there.

When I saw his wifes lip tremble and just about to break down in tears during his opening statement, I admit I had tears on my eyes too.

 

[Taylor]

Dr. Ford seemed out of the loop on several key points. I wonder if Ford even realizes how manipulated and handled she was/is.

Agree. I felt really bad for her at the very end of her testimony where she seemed to feel the need to defend the awful manner in which this was handled.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Oh please that tactic is getting old. It's customary to open a new investigation when new evidence comes to light especially when it comes to a position such as SCJ. Give it a rest. It's getting dumb and redundant.

hahhahahhaha WHAT EVIDENCE?

 

[joko104]

I suspect my mother would cry too if I did what Kavanaugh did.

And, if I was accused of it, I would insist on a full and thorough investigation and not a political spectacle.

NO, there absolutely must NOT be ANY police investigation NOR any Congressional investigation according to Dr. Ford and your side. After all, all sexual assault victims DEMAND they be front page news, while DEMANDING who they claim is the assailant absolutely must not be investigated by the police nor prosecuted.

WHY IS DR. FORD DEFENDING KAVANAUGH FROM A POLICE INVESTIGATION? That doesn't make any sense at all. How many sexual assault victims demand no police investigation?

 

[digsbe]

Check out the look on the faces of all the women.

I almost thought this was photoshopped

I hope you understand that the women to his left (in the pic) are his wife, friend, and mother in that order holding back tears...

But hey, don't let your seething partisan hate trying to mischaracterize emotions for political gain get in the way of fact.

 

[ludin]

If I am not mistaken, they say they don't remember the party in question. Big difference.

no it isn't.

They do not remember attending any party and she admits to not even knowing kavanaugh.
that is pretty not corroborating her story but his when he says that he was not there.
they all said they have no knowledge of attending any party described by her.

that pretty much means the party didn't happen like she said it happened.

We would be able to know where he was at on that day and time if she would say when it was.
but she can't give the date, the time, where it was.

 

[holbritter]

The women were trying to fight tears, including his mother right there.

Which one was his mother?

 

[calamity]

Which one was his mother?

Far left corner.

 

[digsbe]

Which one was his mother?

The one on the far left (from the picture's orientation)

 

[Mr Person]

Even when his opening defense is that he's completely open to clearing his name ASAP?


And remember: that's now off-topic. Your initial claim was that he wasn't being evasive. Now you're saying he shouldn't have to answer that question, which necessarily doubles as a defense of being evasive.

So which is it?






There's a reason lawyers tend not to tell the jury "he didn't do it, but if he did it it wasn't a crime"....

Lawyers make that kind of legitimate argument all the time.

It is entirely legit to say "I was no involved in group sex" and "group sex isn't illegal anyway." Maybe in your strange version of logic are those two statements a contradiction.

I see. So the many hundreds of transcripts I've read are the exception to the rule.

:roll:

No, lawyers do not make alternatives to a jury except very infrequently. Appeal is different, but then appeal is about constitutional/statutory error that might have swayed the jury.

But at trial, no, it is very uncommon for a lawyer to say he didn't do it but if he did it was all cool. That only works in the narrowest of circumstances. That should be obviously true. If you are a juror and you are simultaneously told that something didn't happen but if it did it was fine, you are quite likely to conclude it happened regardless of how much unemotional logical sense it makes. That's how people work, for better or worse. And how people work is what trial lawyers address.




If the victim is claiming rape, saying "we didn't have sex but if we did it was consensual" is just about as useless as doing it when it's attempted rape. And again, you continue - joko - to respond to my conversation with someone else, trying to draw it off topic. The topic of that conversation is whether Kavanaugh was being evasive in regards to questions about whether he'd approve of a re-opened FBI investigation.

your strange version of logic

Psssst: insult my post all you like but...y'know...

 

[joko104]

Not a big Wallace fan, but even he gets it.

Chris Wallace on Fox News: "If this were a trial, you could never convict Brett Kavanaugh because there was no evidence."

Put 12 Democrats in Congress on the jury and make the defendant a Republican and they've already voted guilty before the trial began - exactly as they did.

 

[trixare4kids]

I moved to California at age 17 and that was 48 years ago. I have a slight accent and use some wording at times that some people recognize that I originated for Chicago.

I Love California but I am highly disappointed with much of the politics that are prevalent here that have slowly but surely ruined a once wonderful State. imho

Roseann

It took me a while to learn to call soft drinks soda instead of pop.
CA. is a true culture shock for most of us from the midwest. The weather is the holding factor.
CA's Democratic Party has gone so far left, the only thing left is for it to spring back toward the center. Sort of like where it was when we first moved here.

 

[Barnacle]

I suspect my mother would cry too if I did what Kavanaugh did.

And, if I was accused of it, I would insist on a full and thorough investigation and not a political spectacle.

Sure ... then why doesn't she start with reporting the incident to the local police?

 

[joko104]

I see. So the many hundreds of transcripts I've read are the exception to the rule.

:roll:

No, lawyers do not make alternatives to a jury except very infrequently. Appeal is different, but then appeal is about constitutional/statutory error that might have swayed the jury.

But at trial, no, it is very uncommon for a lawyer to say he didn't do it but if he did it was all cool. That only works in the narrowest of circumstances.




If the victim is claiming rape, saying "we didn't have sex but if we did it was consensual" is just about as useless as doing it when it's attempted rape. And again, you continue - joko - to respond to my conversation with someone else, trying to draw it off topic. The topic of that conversation is whether Kavanaugh was being evasive in regards to questions about whether he'd approve of a re-opened FBI investigation.

Do not believe you have read hundreds of criminal trial transcripts, nor read even 1.

There is NO allegation of sex, so your example is irrelevant to anything.

Your message is false. He repeatedly said he is agreeable to whatever the Committee does and specifically in regards to if they call for another FBI report. He was not evasive in the slightest. His response was immediate and the same. The ONLY person who refused and still refuses to participate in investigations is Dr. Ford - and you know it too.

You know NOTHING about criminal law. Even the most simple basics.

For a criminal case:

1. It MUST be proven a crime was committed.
2. It MUST be proven the accused committed it.

Defense can challenge both. That you don't know that most simple of all basics means your claim is not believable in any way.

 

[calamity]

Sure ... then why doesn't she start with reporting the incident to the local police?

She just might.

 

[Barnacle]

She just might.

I'm not holding my breath ... :lol:

 

[joko104]

Dr. Ford's lawyer should be disbarred for a specific reason.

In every possible why - publicly, by letter and by phone call the Committee and Congressional investigators informed her lawyer that the investigators would come to her in California to speak to publicly or privately, that she could do so by tele-conference or in any other manner by which she would not have to fly due to her fear of flying.

Did her lawyer convey that offer to her? Dr. Ford sworn answer that no one explained that she would not have to travel to DC to testify. That means her lawyer hid that offer from her - or she's lying. However, if so, her lawyer was obligated at that point to withdraw as her attorney since NO attorney may knowingly allow their client to commit perjury. Either way, her lawyer should be disbarred either for literally terrorizing his client for his own personal agenda OR knowingly allowing perjured testimony.

Any lawyer who DELIBERATELY has his client TERRORIZED for his own fame and wealth should be disbarred. Any lawyer who allows sworn testimony by a client known to the lawyer to be false without withdrawing as the attorney should be disbarred.

So her lawyer decides to expose his client to what she says terrifies her and refused to convey an offer to his client because he wanted himself on TV and wanted the publicity for himself at her expense?

What more horrific professional misconduct is even possible than that?

 

[vesper]

that and bluthemthal is a POS.

I can think of several POS involved in this event starting with those representing Ms. Ford.

 

[GDViking]

I haven't heard him avoid one question.

what did he lie about? what proof do you have that he lied?
please i would like to see what evidence you have?

If you don't recognize his lies there is no hope for you...

 

[CharisRose]

Ain't it interesting that Judge all the sudden has no memory of anything that he wrote an entire book about? I guess it is "black out drunk" that clouds his memory.

Which Judge are you talking about? Mark Judge wrote those books.

Judge Kavanaugh did not write those books his friend Mark Judge wrote the books.

Roseann

 

[joko104]

She just might.

Not a chance in hell because she and her lawyer know the outcome - as to you. "No evidence." "All witnesses she claims contradict her story." "No date or location." End of investigation and it announced there is no basis to bring any charge, which backs him up. As of now, Democrat activists and politicians want to continue to spit on due process and presumption of innocence, claiming that the standards of the National Enquirer are the new legal system and standard for human rights in the USA.

The "presumption of innocence" is NOT just the American system of justice, it is a recognized basic human right by the UN. The Democratic Party can no longer pretend it supports any human rights. They favor mob rule.