Posted on 09/29/2018 12:17:27 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I must have missed it, too. She was such a wee little mouse, I started to tune her out.
Apparently, I didn’t lead such a sheltered life as I thought I had. I was able to ride my bike all over town by myself or with my bestie who lived down the block. All was fine as long as my chores (everything was on me) were done and I was home to cook dinner.
Junior year, my bf could come over without parents being there but it was all innocent. I was very straight laced.
This woman is disagreeing with you. It is not respectful to treat women like china dolls. It’s condescending which is how everyone from Senators to msm has been treating Ford. It’s disgusting. Ford is a full grown supposedly intelligent woman. She is not a fragile little three year old.
female.
“It is “old-school” to treat women with deference and politeness. This also happens to be the correct way to treat them, by the way.”
This is what you are disagreeing with?
I don’t see anything about “china dolls” in there.
Is that really you, CBF? You certainly sounded like a fragile little three year old,
No. Piro would be too abrasive, therefore ineffective. Plus her voice is annoying.
Oh I thought Flake recommended Mitchell.
Should have hired a prominent criminal defense attorney. A defense attorney would have torn her testimony apart in short order by asking closed-ended questions. Asking open-ended questions was the worst approach.
Yep. The one person who defended Kavanaugh best was Kavanaugh himself in his opening statement.
Yep, she was working for the Democrats.
Agreed. Hiring her was a fail. The hearings should not have been televised either - thus no way for the rats to turn it into the Jerry Springer show that aroused their low-info, emotions-over-thoughts base. Republicans got rolled big time with this one.
Thank goodness it was televised
BK’s statement was critical.
I really think that the point of allowing the FBI investigation (drink) is to give the dems more rope.
Totally agree. Another plant.
Good observation. I think it backs up my opinion about her goal.
The maps were an opportunity for Ford to add some details to explain what she meant when she described the scene of the crime as being "near" something else. You'll note that Ford added NOTHING.
Similarly, the interrogator led Ford through her experience allowing her to add details. For example, Ford described that, as she entered the home, she saw that Brett and Mark were inebriated. In addition she described the room as being simply furnished, or some such thing. She added NOTHING to the short, one page description that she has stuck to in the past.
Since Ford concluded that Brett and Mark were inebriated, she could have described whether they were sitting or standing when she entered the home. How were they dressed? Were they holding drinks? Smoking? Talking? Singing? Snoring?
Ford added NOTHING. That is because there was nothing to add. The written description was invented without any supporting details. Ford couldn't take the risk of elaborating on anything. She's lying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.