(no message)
What kind of conclusions would you draw from such strident, unequivocal, angry answers?
How about the repeated, verbatim responses?
Does this guy strike you as a truthful witness?
Have questioned many people in courtrooms and in private.
Have seen many others questioned by others.
Too much outrage and defiance is a tell. It is a way for the guilty to force themselves to believe the falsehood they are pitching.
Deflection and repetitive safe answers are another tell. I have seen wrongly accused persons answer questions. They don’t need to deflect or go to scripted safety answers. Kavanaugh seemed to try to hard at times vs just answering the question with a short direct answer.
Anyone who would use his daughter as a prop (Daddy, let’s say a prayer for Dr Ford) says a lot.
That it almost looked like he was making a textbook example of lying, for exactly the reasons you said.
One is a Democrat; the other, a pro-life Republican, ND grad, and never trumper.
Both convinced he was lying.
There can be no settlement here,,, both sides are locked in their respective positions
(no message)
She was an extremely unconvincing witness.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
and he asks her if she ever did it?
That’s being a belligerent asshole.
She should have just said, Judge I’m not the one being accused of assaulting someone while incoherently drunk.
He made no effort to be nonpartisan up there.
No way this guy should be on a federal bench. Not even in a park.
He would have been confirmed unanimously in five days any time before this decade.
I have said repeatedly that he should be confirmed because her story is unverifiable.
But what in her testimony wasn’t credible? I think she was an excellent witness and if this were a real civil jury trial, I think she won that battle with him.
It could very well have happened. I think when he was that drunk back then it is possible. People who rejoice over this guy getting appointed should do some soul searching.
Why is it credible if no one corroborates it?
She named four people including her best friend
Doesn’t that strike you as odd
I love all the self righteous lawyers on here
Quite amusing
who was in the room is hiding in case a subpoena gets issued.
The fact that she named other people who were there, two of which regularly hung out with Brett adds to that credibility.
The fact that she first reported it before he was nominated also adds to that credibility. She called WaPo when he was on the shortlist.
Her demeanor was credible and believable.
She passed a polygraph.
Her story is credible, albeit not corroborated which is the fundamental problem.
Who cares who she told afterwards....she said that the woman was there and the woman denies the party ever existed
What part of that dont you understand?
Why did fucking Feinstein sit on this for 36 days
Please explain that.
Do better.
Why would she if nothing happened to her and nothing was told to her?
What part of that don’t you understand?
I’m not defending or talking about the D’s or how they handled it.
I’m talking about her and her story. I’m not convinced she is just making it up.
You think she is that much of a D operative to just make it up out of whole cloth against such a decent and honorable person?
You are a sad individual.
I think that and so do a hell of a lot of other people
Meanwhile the democrats think he is evil, think he will kill people if he becomes a justice, and have self proclaimed they will stop at anything to stop his nomination
Funny how you can be so fucking warped
But why am I surprised
And you went to a Catholic HS as well
What a surprise
(no message)