Without going to the proper authorities (Not the FBI) and reporting this incident, none of these women have any credibility whatsoever. If they really want an investigation nothing is stopping them from calling the police. With this new accusation with these two men I wonder if she is going to even show her face tomorrow?

If she doesn’t show, can they take the vote tomorrow?

That's true. Maybe 36-ish years ago, they could have at least recorded the date, address and people present, so her memory wouldn't be depended on.  It might also have exonerated Kavanaugh if investigators discover an alibi.  Hard to have an alibi without specifics almost 4 decades later.

I heard she specifically said it happened in Montgomery Co, Md, and not Northern Va or the Baltimore area, because that Co has no statute of limitations.

If these new guys saying they were her "attackers" testify they were in another location, they may be protected by the statute of limitations.

Claiming Swiss cheese memory to protect her story might come back to bite her.

Can’t wait to see what gems Hirono is gonna drop tmrw. Maybe shudder is a more appropriate verb...

A beer says CBF claims she doesn’t feel safe enough to appear tmrw.

I’ll probably lose but what the hell, you’re on.

Once again, we hear from the "judge of all that doesn't look good."   

Rather than couch your comments in euphemisms that don't really express what you meant, can you explain WHY this doesn't look good for him? 

What are the facts that make today a different lie from an accuser than yesterday's?

What are your predicted outcomes from this "doesn't look good" situation in terns of Kavanaugh's confirmation vote, considering the GOP merely has to get this past committee for a majority GOP full vote?

Please enlighten us how you came to that judgement.

Doesn't look good as in the outlook doesn't look as promising. I think the chance that he doesn't get confirmed increases.

I think that if there is a second and then a 3rd accusation against him it increases the credibility of the claims in people's minds and thus there is a chance that the vote could be swayed. There are two congressmen who are considered swing votes in this based just on Kavanaugh's position on abortion. Convince them or any other congressman that Kavanaugh did what was alleged and the vote could be swung. You wouldn't even necessarily need to convince the congressperson directly, instead rile up enough voters to go bug their senators and you could get them to change their vote that way as well.

So that is what I meant by doesn't look good for him. Do you feel enlightened?

After Ford fizzles, watch out for a false flag.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

After Ford fizzles, watch out for a false flag.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

What do you mean, like what type of scenario are you imagining?

HEY DRCK! YOU OWE ME A BEER!!! 

HEY DRCK! YOU OWE ME A BEER!!! 

Gladly!

Gladly!

BTW, I still have your shirt. We need to get together when you have time.

Was listening to CBF questioning/hearing when I was driving into work.  First thing that caught my attention was questions from the R side are factual in nature.  Getting dates confirmed, when did CBF contact Congress, when did she secure counsel, why, etc.  From the D side is emotional and far from factual.  How did it make her feel, how has it affected her.  Also the questions from the D side often interject opinion and unveiled shots. 

Another thing that caught my attention was that she seemed coached.  I read something on Foxnews' coverage that initial impressions of CBF was that she's highly intelligent and don't seem to be lying.  When I was listening to her testimony, her responses to many of the D Senator's questions were quick, but they included pauses in the middle of statements as she seemed to be recalling things.  Then when questions from R Senators came, there was usually a distinct pause, even when being asked questions about dates when things occurred when even CBF mentioned she had notes right in front of her.  Having gone through depositions recently, where I went through a good amount of preparation, as well as being present for other's depositions, those are things that I often picked up on.  I mean I'm no expert, but that's what I noticed. 

One portion of the questioning from the R side was on the timing of CBF's contacting anyone about her concerns.  Apparently, she was discouraged by the lack (slow) responses from her D Congressman.  Then when followed up by questions from D side, she went to the NYT because she panicked.  Again, going into the emotional side. 

Anyways, hope they get through the circus. 

Was listening to CBF questioning/hearing when I was driving into work.  First thing that caught my attention was questions from the R side are factual in nature.  Getting dates confirmed, when did CBF contact Congress, when did she secure counsel, why, etc.  From the D side is emotional and far from factual.  How did it make her feel, how has it affected her.  Also the questions from the D side often interject opinion and unveiled shots. 

Another thing that caught my attention was that she seemed coached.  I read something on Foxnews' coverage that initial impressions of CBF was that she's highly intelligent and don't seem to be lying.  When I was listening to her testimony, her responses to many of the D Senator's questions were quick, but they included pauses in the middle of statements as she seemed to be recalling things.  Then when questions from R Senators came, there was usually a distinct pause, even when being asked questions about dates when things occurred when even CBF mentioned she had notes right in front of her.  Having gone through depositions recently, where I went through a good amount of preparation, as well as being present for other's depositions, those are things that I often picked up on.  I mean I'm no expert, but that's what I noticed. 

One portion of the questioning from the R side was on the timing of CBF's contacting anyone about her concerns.  Apparently, she was discouraged by the lack (slow) responses from her D Congressman.  Then when followed up by questions from D side, she went to the NYT because she panicked.  Again, going into the emotional side. 

Anyways, hope they get through the circus.

She kept saying that if the committee had been willing to come out to her, she would have been happy to have done so. I also noticed she is very vague with questions she should have perfect knowledge of. Such as was she aware that Grassley’s office offered to come out to her to interview her. Her lawyer interrupted and refused to let her answer that question due to client privilege. But she did say that she didnt understand the details of the offer. So, my understanding of her answer is that she did receive the offer. If she didn’t understand something she could have asked but didn’t. I also noticed that she smiled some during some serious answers. Makes me wonder how truthful she is being even if she “thinks” she is telling the truth.

She kept saying that if the committee had been willing to come out to her, she would have been happy to have done so. I also noticed she is very vague with questions she should have perfect knowledge of. Such as was she aware that Grassley’s office offered to come out to her to interview her. Her lawyer interrupted and refused to let her answer that question due to client privilege. But she did say that she didnt understand the details of the offer. So, my understanding of her answer is that she did receive the offer. If she didn’t understand something she could have asked but didn’t. I also noticed that she smiled some during some serious answers. Makes me wonder how truthful she is being even if she “thinks” she is telling the truth.

Yeah!  I heard that part.  "Objection!".  Wait, what?  You can object to that?  Seemed like a perfectly honest and legit question.  She did super side step it.  She would have hosted them had she fully understood the invitation.  So, the invitation wasn't clear, so it's Grassley's fault.  Can't question factual basis of whether or not she understood something.  Another aspect why she seemed coached.  And did you notice that CBF jumped in as her attorney was objecting to answer Grassley "directly".  Seemed like she wanted to get that in to place doubt. 

And being a PhD in psychology, many nuances about her testimony were, say, interesting.  Like the smiling that you noticed.  I didn't see it, but stuff like that is being picked up in some of the commentary on the testimony. 

Then there was the part (before the above) when they were bickering over admission of the polygraph into record. 

This will be an epic contrast.

Kid gloves used by the (supposed majority) Republicans to question the accuser. Is Mitchell really going somewhere? Or just pointing out (irrelevant?) minor inconsistencies in Ford's memory?

Nuclear weapons will be used by the Democrats to question Kavanaugh. They are going to ask him about every time he ever drank and every time he ever touched a girl... how much he drank and where and when he touched them and if he had permission to do so. I suspect they will be raising their voices and interrupting him.

Just a guess... as we are only halfway through the Ford testimony... but it's pretty obvious.

Better start preparing the woman nominee for SCOTUS.

BTW, I still have your shirt. We need to get together when you have time.

She (CBF) said that she had hoped to avoid getting on a plane but eventually was able to “get up the gumption with the help of some friends and get on the plane.”

Darn.  I was so close!   

What do you mean, like what type of scenario are you imagining?

IDK just saying, something to divert the attention if it fizzles.

I could only stand to watch a few mins.  She was emotional and almost crying.  Some BS that happened almost 40 years ago.  And it was when Hirono got her turn.  And of course she lead off with the "thank you for being brave and coming forward". Like the above mentioned, not many factual questions by the dems.  More how she felt q's.

Ford stated that her coming forward is far from political.

Kav has come out swinging.  Adding some emotion here and there, but I'm liking his demeanor and responses to Feinstein.  Sticking to facts, but also injecting some emotion. 

Kav has come out swinging.  Adding some emotion here and there, but I'm liking his demeanor and responses to Feinstein.  Sticking to facts, but also injecting some emotion.

Funny how people were making fun of him for keeping a calendar of his activities.  Now that might save his ass, if Ford knew the date when it happened.

I remember when people also made fun of Pense for not having dinner alone with a woman besides his wife.  Only guy with iron clad no sexual harassment accusations.

Sen. Lindsey Graham 

Funny how people were making fun of him for keeping a calendar of his activities.  Now that might save his ass, if Ford knew the date when it happened.

I remember when people also made fun of Pense for not having dinner alone with a woman besides his wife.  Only guy with iron clad no sexual harassment accusations.

Then Sen Leahy going on and on about the yearbook.  I certainly hope the people of VT see that BS! 

Why do they keep asking for Kav to call for an FBI investigation, which he has no control of?  He is there to answer questions.  Just clouding the issue for folks that have already bought into the current sham. 

Then Dems keeping bringing up not having enough time. . . 

I just tuned in and the dems are flailing like fish out of water.
Even the network commentators are criticizing the dems.
Crazy mazie is blathering now. What a ditz!