And now Orrin Hatch says rape as a teenager is okay.
“Porn star lawyer” has a name dumb asses.
“Don’t recall,” is him acknowledging to his friend that he was black out drunk.
He said the hearings were revenge for the Clintons and that they were being held so that the Democrats could get him.
On the digression here, pretty much this. For that matter, he might be saying he doesn’t recall, even if he did, because he was embarrassed. Basically telling a little white lie to his buds that they can all pretend to believe in order to skip past him being an asshole at some point. There is a lot of this inference stuff happening in this thread, with a lot of long chains of logic revolving around shaky ‘facts’ and then moving from there.
Could have been any number of things! Smacked with a baseball bat, a seizure, a stroke…early onset Alzheimer’s!
Shame on Avenatti for associating himself with the kind of people the president has sex with!
That’s a criticism of the motives of the Democrats, not a suggestion about how the committee should conduct its business.
And he hasn’t hesitated to interrupt them and try to be the one questioning them.
Which is a technique that can actually work pretty well if it’s clear that you’ve got a hell of a lot more of a clue than your questioners do. However…
He continues to say that Judge, etc. say the event never happened, I think they’ve said they don’t remember.
Sorry, what I meant by “offer examples” was: can you quote something he said. Specifically, something where he has made a suggestion about how the committee should conduct its business. I’m sure you can offer an opinion or a paraphrase that supports your claim. I’d like to see actual quotes of things he said.
ETA: OK, never mind. He just said that he asked for a hearing a few days after the allegation was made.
So, I’m still going to say he should have been more prepared to answer the way I suggested, and that includes not making suggestions like he did.
Yes, we can agree on that. Can we also agree that him being blackout drunk seems like by far the most likely explanation for what he said?
Funny how the Chairman gets to talk whenever he wants but everybody else gets 5 minutes.
Also, the Republicans just keep conveniently forgetting about Merrick Garland.
They were drunk.
I’m watching it on TV, not reading from a transcript. If you haven’t noticed him criticizing the way the Democrats have behaved in this process, then we’re watching different things.
"I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.” - Renate Dolphin
Brilliant opinion piece from the Washington Post about the hearing;
Democratic performance is abysmal, save perhaps Durbin. Why aren’t they bringing up the other accusers (at least the second one)? Why aren’t they asking about Mark Judge’s girlfriend’s claims that Judge admitted assaulting someone? Why are they letting him get away with saying the FBI doesn’t draw conclusions? Does he mean that prosecutors dont need detectives? If I didn’t know better I’d think the Dems were Pub moles.
I don’t know about “by far”, but yes, it seems like a likely explanation, probably even the most likely (I can’t readily think of one that I personally consider more likely).