Posted on 09/28/2018 7:24:03 AM PDT by rktman
Given her background in psychology, it is not surprising that during yesterday's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Ford should tell us that the laughter of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge is indelible in her hippocampus. Nor is it unusual that it took the New Republic only a few minutes to publish a characteristically biased and irresponsible article on the subject.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
-PJ
Totally not credible.
The person who wrote it for her is more of a novelist. Abuse victims don’t talk about their trauma like that.
Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack
Mark seemed ambivalent, at times urging
Brett on, and at times telling him to stop
we toppled over
pinballing off the walls on the way down
The big glasses and blue dress and coaching for 2 weeks didn’t hide the flaws in her testimony. This is about raising money for the Dems. for midterms.
Seems more like she’s a budding bodice-ripping trash novelist.
Who gives a shi! about Ford. What is sad that Grassley call off the 9:30 vote for a communists Democrat filibuster and will hold the vote at 1:30 which will not happen. Grassley is useless.
I for one do not even believe this happened by ANYONE to her!
Could have been her fantasizing. Just think if it had been Mandinga!
A crappy one at that.
See #9 this thread. ;-)
I think it was clear to all that, Mitchell went easy on her. I couldn’t watch the testimony. I posted the link, and it was hard to watch.
In the end, it was probably a good move, not to go hard on her, although a crafty cross exam would have exposed her without be rude or aggressive.
No questions on how she new Kavanaugh, how she was sure it was him. Was that the first time you met the man? Did he talk to you at all during the party or just show up at the end?
How many other times were you at parties with the Catholic boys? Did she have a boy friend in HS? How about explaining HER year book for the crowd at hand? I mean, her’s was more damaging than his...
Does she really wear glasses? They looked all smudged on her close ups.
Most people who need glasses don’t let them get that dirty - so were they a prop to make her look more intellectual?
“is indelible in her hippocampus”
That’s the most incriminating one so far. Not language a trauma victim would use, regardless of their profession. This kind of language, in my opinion, proves she views the whole scenario as a distant observer, not one with subjective experience in the event.
She’s a Physcho ...period.....I believe NOTHING she says...she LIES!!!
Yes, the media said the vote was at 9:30am, but that was not the vote on Kavanaugh, that was the committee vote on the motion to end debate and set the time of the vote on Kavanaugh.
Grassley said that before he submitted the motion to set the vote, that he would entertain minority motions. That's when Blumenthal motioned to subpoena Mark Judge. Grassley called the vote on Blumenthal's motion for subpoena, which was voted down 10-11.
Grassley then called the motion to set the vote on Kavanaugh at 1:30pm, but Durbin tried to interject a point of order. Grassley ignored Durbin's point of order and proceed to call the vote on his motion to set the vote on Kavanaugh at 1:30pm. That vote was 11-8, with Harris and Booker refusing to vote in protest.
So now the vote on Kavanaugh is at 1:30pm. Once that vote happens, the Grassley/Feinstein show is over, and we move to the main stage where the McConnell/Schumer show begins.
That show begins with a 24-hour debate period before McConnell can call for a cloture vote, which is a vote to end debate and proceed to the final vote. That vote should be on Saturday at around 2:00pm. Once cloture is passed, the clock begins on a 30-hour deliberation period before the final Senate vote on Kavanaugh can happen. That vote should be around 9:00pm on Sunday.
These are the milestones. We'll have to wait and see what Schumer has in store for McConnell, and how adept McConnell will be at deflecting it.
-PJ
I couldn’t watch it either. And yes, she got real lucky with the cross examination.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoKowg2U8AAIj7l.jpg
Conman’s Tell: side by side photos of C. Blasey Ford and Peter Strzok
A PhD psychologist who is totally ignorant of polygraphs and what they do? An obvious lie.
YIKES!!!!!!!
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.