Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

She's gonna pick it back up when the next Republican's time starts.  Each side gets alternating 5 minute segments to ask questions.  The prosecutor is going to use every Republican segment.  It's going to be disjointed as result.

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sachick said:

Because she's not alone. So many of us have been there. I have friends who cannot watch because it bring up their own memory.

This, with a sledgehammer.  I have had conversations with several women the past few days -- top-notch, professional women, at the top of their game -- who are re-living their own experiences along with this.  Some of them are doing better than others, but the pain -- sweet Jesus, it's real, and it's astounding.

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Me too. And for what it's worth, she sounds very much like them them when they have described their own experiences being assaulted. 

And this, with a sledgehammer driven by an atomic blast.  And every word of it is excruciating to hear.  Every.  Single.  Time.  I've never listened to a story of a woman's assault experience that DIDN'T have that effect, and they were uniformly delivered the same way.  Oh, and for the record, I've probably had a dozen women share their story with me over the years.  I can think of two -- TWO  -- that actually brought their complaint to the justice system, and one of those experiences was a classic stranger assault where the guy dragged her into a dark place and assaulted her, so exactly the kind of assault you'd expect to be reported.  The remainder....never went to the justice system.  Because that's how humans work.

5 minutes ago, Woodrow Call said:

That woman is stronger than any man in that room and it ain't close.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again.  On an individual basis, watching a woman in a crisis can be truly awe-inspiring.  The strongest men I've ever seen are women.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i think this prosecutor is a wolf in sheep's clothing (for the republicans). 

she is going to rip kavanaugh apart, i would reckon.

also, grassley needs to shut the actual fuck up.

Well, actually her style with laying those "ground rules," was not meant to reduce her stress. She's going to use those to pin her down. I'd withhold judgement on her fairness until the end. 

That's a standard procedure with prosecutors. 

Edited by Woodrow Call
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

ok, someone explain procedure to me. why would they start with the prosecutor, and interrupt her after 5 minutes? i get congressional and parliamentary procedure to limit filibustering, but i feel the prosecutor was just establishing some background.

They chose a female prosecutor. The men cannot let women talk. The men are constitutionally incapable of allowing women to talk uninterrupted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, someone explain procedure to me. why would they start with the prosecutor, and interrupt her after 5 minutes? i get congressional and parliamentary procedure to limit filibustering, but i feel the prosecutor was just establishing some background.


DF turned her light on indicating she wanted to jump in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Woodrow Call said:

Well, actually her style with laying those "ground rules," was not meant to reduce her stress. She's going to use those to pin her down. I'd withhold judgement on her fairness until the end. 

That's a standard procedure with prosecutors. 

that's fair enough. she could be a stone cold assassin, but i think this particular witness is going to be difficult to pin down.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

How about it counselor? After one round of questioning do you think Ford's a good witness? If I was on a jury, she seems very credible. 

Also, if i was on a jury here - the staffer doing the questioning seems like she is attempting to set a credibility trap, but does not seem to be on the same page as Grassley. Where do you think she's going?

She's an excellent witness so far.  She's very credible.  And she's been coached really well by her lawyers--take your time to read the documents, don't guess, make sure your answers are precise.

The Republicans' questioner has a really hard job.  This is akin to a deposition--the questioner doesn't necessarily know what the answers are going to be.  A big part of questioning in a deposition is building a rhythm and developing a rapport with the witness.  You can't do either when you're being interrupted every five minutes.  It makes the questioning disjointed and really very ineffective.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kevwun said:

The prosecutor is going to go after her at some point.  She's trying to lull her in to a false sense of security. 

Yes.  This is how it’s done.  You make the witness comfortable, get them to drop their guard and start opening up.  Then you use their own testimony against them.  It’s cross examination 101.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

They chose a female prosecutor. The men cannot let women talk. The men are constitutionally incapable of allowing women to talk uninterrupted.

 

1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

 


DF turned her light on indicating she wanted to jump in.

 

granted, but grassley set out the ground rules at the beginning, and i thought i heard that he witness would be allowed to finish answers as long as anyone wasn't filibustering

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Anecdotally, this is happening a lot, right now, all over the country.  I have friends -- folks locally, longtime friends on FB, etc. -- who are doing just that.  Both telling and hearing stories of sexual assault for the first time, which seems to be a spontaneous and collective response of "oh, so y'all don't think that sexual assaults happen often at these sort of things, and if they do, women report them right away?  Well, let me tell you a story I've never told you before...."

I'll tell you this.  If I was a woman, I would never vote for a Republican again.  Ever.  Shit, in my house, I have to steer clear of my wife and daughter (my wife was never assaulted, but was present when two of her friends were violently assaulted -- she didn't know what had happened till it was over), because they are fucking PISSED.  My wife's words last night were rather pointed -- "these assholes want to make sure they send a message -- report an assault, and we'll make sure you're victimized twice."

I used to be able to get her to vote for GOP judicial candidates.  I'm not even going to get that from her any more.  And I don't blame her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

She's an excellent witness so far.  She's very credible.  And she's been coached really well by her lawyers--take your time to read the documents, don't guess, make sure your answers are precise.

The Republicans' questioner has a really hard job.  This is akin to a deposition--the questioner doesn't necessarily know what the answers are going to be.  A big part of questioning in a deposition is building a rhythm and developing a rapport with the witness.  You can't do either when you're being interrupted every five minutes.  It makes the questioning disjointed and really very ineffective.

MV5BMTY4NzAxNzc3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNzUz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

granted, but grassley set out the ground rules at the beginning, and i thought i heard that he witness would be allowed to finish answers as long as anyone wasn't filibustering


I’m guessing the light had been on for a bit, or past the previous question and on to another. Dunno.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

You can't possibly think there is one iota of credibility with Ramirez or creepy porn lawyer's client can you?  Especially CPL's client.  Claims to go to party where guys are spiking drinks and running rape trains on women.  What does she do?  Does she go to law enforcement?  Does she go to anyone's parents?  No, she goes back to nine more of these parties.  Claims to tell women to avoid the punch.   If any of this actually happened she would have been telling those women to avoid the parties, not the punch.  If you believe any of this you are straight up either insane or an idiot with the critical thinking ability of a small rock.

You attended K State.  You really should not be lecturing anyone around here about critical thought.  Enjoy the beatdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kevwun said:

The prosecutor is going to go after her at some point.  She's trying to lull her in to a false sense of security. 

She's locking in her testimony in each statement. In a few she's going to hit her over the head with any and all inconsistencies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll elaborate since apparently I upset Dolemite with my dismissive comment to the point he had to negrep me.

In a deposition, a good lawyer will attempt to pin down the witness to a specific set of facts.  Giving her the opportunity to "edit" her letter under oath now puts that letter with any revisions as her sworn testimony.  Of course the lawyer can always go back and point out that she "changed her story" with those edits, and that may or may not impact the witness's perceived credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...