I’d love to see Dr Ford gracing the cover of Time magazine as Woman of the Year. This is a great thing she is doing for ‘womanhood’, and what a difference its likely to make.
My local PBS station (which I get over the air) has four stations, and only one of them is the kids channel. Maybe it’s different if you have cable/satellite.
Unless, of course, you’re talking about priests abusing boys. :rolleyes:
Asserting that a claim is false without any basis sets back progress on the truth.
However, asserting that a claim is false when all the alleged witnessess say that it never happened does not.
My take-aways so far:
[ul]
[li]Christine Ford is not just sympathetic and credible but emotionally moving[/li]
[li]Quoting Jeff Toobin on CNN, anyone who at this point still thinks she’s lying must be insane[/li]
[li]Chuck Grassley is a reprehensible partisan bumbling octogenarian with absolutely zero principles. His opening statement was basically 20 minutes of Democrat-bashing while everyone waited for the hearing to get started.[/li][/ul]
None of them have testified under threat of perjury for lying, because the Senate Republicans chose not to subpoena them. Ford and Kavanaugh are the only ones who have for this allegation.
Oh, got it. If the perpetrators deny it, then it’s false. I am sure you apply that standard to people other than women accusing men of sexual assault. Or perhaps you are referring to the people who cannot recall a particular high school party at which nothing eventful happened to them?
I don’t think “without any basis” is accurate, but I also don’t believe there’s enough evidence one way or the other to definitively label her accusations as either “false” or “true”. They are, in my eyes, of uncertain veracity, and likely to remain so even after today’s hearing.
Don’t worry I’m sure that Fox can figure out a way to edit it selectively.
"Ms Ford, shed crocodile tears as the laid out her smear of the Honorable Judge, but wasn’t so distraught that she couldn’t end the reading of her written testimony with an order for a Latte. "
Keyser’s statement went a bit beyond “cannot recall a particular high school party”. The statement was “… she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”
And I am saying that the decision to construe that as a denial is part of the problem here.
Grassley is hemming and hawing over admitting the results of the polygraph test into the record – the test that proves Ford is telling the truth. Priceless! Grassley is forced to agree but demands all the supplementary polygraph material (presumably so the results can be challenged). He is reminded that he would have had all the supplementary material if he had allowed the expert who administered the polygraph to testify, but he refused to allow it (evidence that Ford is telling the truth is apparently not much to Chuck’s liking!). What a reprehensible excuse for a human being!
That’s not how polygraphs work.
I wonder if you’d have had the same opinion if it’d shown that she’d lied…
Wonder all you like. It’s not “proof”, it’s a gimmick for the gullible.
I can’t read Ditka’s mind to discern his motives in saying that, but he is factually correct on this point.
I wonder the same thing.
But I’m happy to substitute the words “provides evidence that” for “proves”. The comment about the wretched partisan octogenarian hemming and hawing remains the same.
Are “gimmicks” frequently entered as evidence in the Congressional record? :rolleyes:
Apparently Kav is on record expressing support for the validity of polygraph results. Thinks they should be used as evidence in trials and everything. So it is funny that he hasn’t released his polygraph results to the public. Either he really doesn’t have a lot of trust in those thingamabobs after all (which would make him a liar) or he knows he wouldn’t pass one (because he is a liar).
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
The part of the questioning about how Ford recalls running into Mark Judge at the supermarket where he worked, about 6-8 weeks after the incident, shows that a real investigation, including sworn statements from Judge and his employment history, might have discovered more facts about the alleged incident, including when it might have taken place. But the GOP Senators (and President) chose not to pursue that.
Facts? Don’t need no stinkin’ facts. (Unless they prove what we already believe.)