Right off the bat we see why the Pubs don't want to be asking questions directly. Grassley is the poster child for dodgering old fools. And how about his comment that they would deal with the other allegations "at another time". When? He's already scheduled a vote in the JC for the next couple days...
The hearing- comments and observations (ongoing)
- Thread starter cosmickid
- Start date
Mitchell's initial questioning is so lawyerly and absurd. So Ford is being deposed? I'm a lawyer and hate the lawyer's ridiculous blindness to anything other than impractical legal process.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
What do you do with this story if it is true?
https://nypost.com/2018/09/27/two-men-tell-senate-that-they-not-kavanaugh-assaulted-ford/
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
This article points out that six times Kavanaugh had been investigated. Nothing came from it then? If he had committed rape or conspired so others would have, then it would have come out.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/john...d-gang-rape-parties-with-high-school-students
I really feel uncomfortable watching Ford struggle through this process.
Wish the process could be conducted by an impartial panel rather than partial politicians limited to five minutes of questions more designed to make an emotional point (sympathy for Ford) rather than reaching the truth.
Having said that, can the truth really be reached after all these years with only the Ford testimony and this strange process.
Wish the process could be conducted by an impartial panel rather than partial politicians limited to five minutes of questions more designed to make an emotional point (sympathy for Ford) rather than reaching the truth.
Having said that, can the truth really be reached after all these years with only the Ford testimony and this strange process.
Last edited:
Having 11 senators turn over their questioning time to a prosecutor is absurd.
This is pure political theater. It's outrageous bullshit. It's a disgrace to our democracy.
They are grilling her on the "mistaken identity" claim and she in convincingly shooting it down.
interesting tidbit: She later that summer saw Mark Judge, as he worked in a grocery store. It should be easy for an INVESTIGATOR to review Mark Judge's work history to verify if it was him, or one of these other guys.
If only we had at the Federal level, some sort of bureau to do these types of investigations!
You asked: "What do you do with this story if it is true?"
Do you want to know or not? I'm guessing not.
Mitchell had her a bit on the music level and being able to hear conversation downstairs, but what's the point? Doesn't disqualify her memory at all. Obviously she was in a state of shock and terror while in the bathroom, not knowing how to get out and safe, and no longer noticing the volume of the music.
Otherwise, Mitchell is gentle and softball. Respect.
Otherwise, Mitchell is gentle and softball. Respect.
I agree with you, hoot, the process of having 5 minutes of Ms. Mitchell's questioning Dr. Ford and then stopping for 5 minutes while someone else gives a speech or asks a few questions is jarring . . .
. . . that said, this process is allowing us to digest Dr. Ford's answers to the questions in real time. While uncomfortably jarring to do this 5 minute tango, it might actually be effective for the audience.
Chris is a VERY legit reporter.
Not sure why Baier is surprised that it's different to hear a person live vs in print. That's true in any such allegation. A name on a piece of paper is easy to denounce. A live human being that has emotions, quirks and voice is harder to denounce because we all have a sense of human decency.
The note about Judge working at a specific store is interesting. In investigations you look for those other little note of memory to figure out the reliability of a witness. Why would she remember an obscure factoid like Judge working at a specific supermarket unless she had somthing happen prior with Judge that made her pay attention to his presence more than others?
I missed her opening statement, but I don't find her to be that great in-person. Her retorts are very clinical. I know that's likely part of her education and profession, but it makes her sound more robotic.
That being said, I don't see how an investigation doesn't take place and hopefully Senate Republicans grant this.
I don't litigate any more, and while Mitchell's initial questioning was "lawyerly", my sense is that her purposes in that line of questioning were (1) to establish baseline facts outlined in the documents that Ford used to make her allegations, and (2) to get Ford comfortable with the questioning process, by asking about stuff that Ford was most familiar with recently.
I don't think that Mitchell has been out of line, and in fact I think she's done a pretty good job of not drawing the focus of the hearing from Ford to herself . . .
. . . overall, my sense is that so far Mitchell has been fine. I'd rather Mitchell be asking these questions than Grassley et al.
I haven't heard a retort from Ford yet, nor have I heard one from Mitchell.
Sorry, retort is the wrong word. Explanation and/or answer would have been better served.
Not always. Lawyers who have the better case more often than not work very hard not to get in the way of that case.Lord knows lawyers love to do this
Gotcha.
I found myself thinking that the clinical aspects of her testimony are interesting both from the fact that she's an expert in the emotional responses that she's testifying to and is able to apply that clinical knowledge to her personal experience.
I've let my mind to wander off a little bit, to wonder whether (1) her educational background is the result of her trauma from the attempted sexual assault experience, and (2) whether her background in this space might give rise to some conspiracy theories about why someone with this background just happens to be the accuser and witness.
It is fairly extraordinary that this confluence of expertise and history come together in this way.
I have a question . . . will Ms. Mitchell be asking questions of Judge Kavanaugh about the incident alleged by Dr. Ford, and if not why not?
Valid thoughts that I have no ability to comment further on. It certainly just makes it "different" from your typical victim.
In what way? Because of the 5 minute limitation allowed to each committee member?
Ha we posted at the same time. It is a weird situation where the prosecutor interrogates the alleged victim and doesn’t ask a question of the alleged perpetrator. Then again, what isn’t strange these days?
No. Just the basic notion that prosecutors don’t question victims like they are the ones on trial.
It seems like the Democrats' strategy in the hearing is to (1) offer support for Dr. Ford's testimony and (2) demonstrate deep empathy and connection with Dr. Ford.
The Safeway employment of Mark Judge is a detail Dr. Ford got right
Politicians, including those on this committee, think first about making an impression on the voters back home who are watching the hearings.
Not only that, but she keeps asking questions that were answered in her opening statement. I could have answered the questions she asked about the letter,phone calls etc... because she COVERED them in her opening statement...
Yup. Again, it's the kind of thing that if she said he worked at Safeway, but it was later revealed that he in fact did not, it would call into question her credibility...and rightly so. The fact she appears to have gotten it right is telling.
The question you have to consider...could Ford recall the employment of other casual acquaintances she came into contact with in 1982 that were not involved in her alleged assault? People who experience trauma tend to remember details about the people involved in that trauma to a degree they simply can't with people who had no emotional impact on them. In my years of investigating cases at corporations, that was always a line of questioning I pursued. Employees who claimed harassment/assault but who couldn't remember details about later interactions with the accused was often a "tell" that no trauma likely happened. Those who could remember minute details about later interactions tended to be the ones we found later to be telling the truth. The brain is a predictable beast.
Jeffrey Toobin (commenting on CNN) just described Mitchell's cross exam as trying to establish "CSI Chevy Chase". Fantastic line...
It's common for lawyers to ask for the same information in different ways. The answers might reveal some detail that is important, or it might capture the witness in an inconsistency, which is a way of undermining the witness' credibility.
Similar threads
