Posted on 09/27/2018 9:51:57 AM PDT by conservative98
A disaster why, because women are not supposed to have to answer questions and they get a free pass for saying whatever they want to tear someones life apart with lies?
I simply do not understand at all your response
It seems everybody is wringing hands that this examination by Mitchell is not a Perry Mason moment. But she is getting Ford to be specific about her answers and also locking down lose items in her written statements.
Already she has shown that Ford lived at least 6 miles from any residence that was close to the country club she was swimming at that day. She has elicited testimony that although Ford doesn’t like to fly, she does so regularly for both business and pleasure. That pretty much destroys her excuse to have the hearing postponed.
The Democrats have nothing to say other than to support her and bash the President. They get tiresome after awhile.
Ford has admitted that this incident was just 1 of the reasons she says she suffers mental anguish. I think the attorney is laying the groundwork with the questioning about giving her therapist’s records to the Washington Post a door thru which she can question her further. (No expectation of Dr/patient privilege if the records are shared with a third-party). She already got Ford to admit she took the polygraph on the same day as her grandmother’s funeral which could have a profound effect on the results of the test. She also said “she was asked alot of questions”, yet her attorney only revealed 2.
This isn’t a sprint. I find it interesting that Ford cannot remember things with certainty that occurred within the past 30 days, yet her memory of selected events from 36 years ago are recited with specificity.
I expect the pace will pick up after lunch.
Isn’t she not a psychologist?......In my 38 year experience, I have found MOST psychologists need a psychiatrist.
Maybe she is child like. I mean how the hell do you not know who PAID for your polygraph?
She basically admitted she fabricated the part of her story that Kavanaugh and Judge were having a conversation with other people at the party right after the alleged assault.
When pressed if she didn’t hear or could’nt understand the conversation, she replied that she could’nt hear it and that she assumed they were having a conversation. This begs the question what else in her story is an assumption.
She also looked badly when questioned about the therapy notes. She could’nt remember if she showed them to the.reporter ??? This only happened a few weeks ago and you would think an important detail like that would stick in your memory.
She’s flown at least 6 times in the last 45 days. There aren’t any direct flights from Delaware or New Hampshire to SFO.
She’s a liar that her friends support was required to get on a plane to washington for the hearing.
Her attorneys have already refused to turn them over because they are "private medical records" -- but as another Freeper pointed out a few posts up this thread, that confidentiality has been waived if the notes have already been shared with another third party.
[I have found MOST psychologists need a psychiatrist]
Yes, we had one with a psychology degree in our church. I personally didn’t know this. Trying to be nice, our pastor wanted him to join the staff. As good church members, we went along with the Senior Pastor’s wishes.
Mr. Psychology stabbed us all in the back. Including the Senior Pastor who told me about it years later in a private discussion.
She never said Kavanuagh raped her....he is NOT a rapist.
Nor do I believe he physically or sexually assulted her.
Scary times when allegations such as this woman makes are given this kind of stage for political purposes.
For ANY purposes.
People saying she is credible when talking about serotonin and memories stored in hippocampus. Seriously? And if anyone would know about how to take a polygraph, it would be a PhD in psychology.
Her polygraph was composed of two questions, only. The polygraph examiner, defended himself by saying, the accused would be the one to get many questions....not the accuser.
>>She acts as if she doesn’t know what a polygraph is or how it works. Isn’t she not a psychologist?
Very interesting observation. Unlikely she’s never had ANY other polygraphs done. I had 6 and she’s a year or so older than I am.
One thing that stood out for me is, this very nervous, anxiety-riddled, woman came out and the first thing she requested was caffeine. Caffeine?
Playing the naive, child-like, victim is so obvious; along with crackly voice, and the sing-song rise at the end of her sentences (like teeny-bopper snowflakes), this is a academy award winning, dog and pony show.
And what have the dems contributed to “finding out the truth”? Nothing. Each one has spent their allotted time to praise her, and/or knock the Republicans and/or Trump.
There are many, many followups Mitchell didn’t ask. Things like, “how did she make the call to get a ride home after she left the house”? There were no cell phones back then. Things about how the polygraph guy was selected. How she found out about the party, how far it was from the pool, who told her about the party, who she was with at the pool, etc. The only reason to cut her some slack on that is if they have other things to get to and don’t have time to get all the details, and they have decided they don’t need it because they have some good stuff. If so, I will allow her some slack.
Never ask a question unless you already know: (1) the correct answer, or (2) an answer the witness already gave that you know is verifiably false.
I mean, really ... what's the purpose of asking this dingbat how she found out about a party that took place 36 years ago? LOL.
I heard some on the radio. She practice the crying.
This whole drama is for Collins, Murkowski and Flake. They are the only minds that need justification to vote yes and I think they more than have plenty of cover.
Sorry, Mark, but the morons on Fox (Trump haters Wallace, Baire, McCallum, Stirewalt, Hume)are saying she is wiping up the Republicans and Chris Wallace says it’s up to Kavanaugh to prove he’s innocent.
I’m quite familiar with that rule. It’s a rule for trial. In discovery, you ask those questions. This is not trial or discovery, so the exact reasoning for the rule may not apply, but were I Mitchell, I would not fear asking questions about the event in question. It’s all a lie, and we know all about what her lie entails. Maybe we don’t want to ask about her past traumas and make her more sympathetic or ask her about her degree and how distinguished she is, etc. but as to this event, ask away.
We already know the answers to any of the questions I was suggesting. The answers would be she doesn’t know, can’t remember or wou.ld have to name someone who would contradict her. She can’t name anyone because SHE doesn’t know what THEY would say. So she would be boxed in and shown that she can’t provide any details about things that should be remembered. The purpose of the questions would be to show she doesn’t remember anything about anything except that Kavanaugh jumped on her. And then, when people come forward and say that there was never any event like she describes, or others come forward and say they were at such a party, and Kavanaugh wasn’t there, she will be unable to dispute their accounts.
The only purpose of asking those questions is in a rapid summation where you ask 8-10 critical questions that any crime victim should be able to answer ... and let the successive "I don't know" answers hang in the air when you ask the last question: "So you don't know all those details, but you know it was Brett Kavanaugh who did this to you?"
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.