I believe her

[Leawood]

Watching on C-Span.

[HouseDivided]

Watching on C-Span.

Color me not surprised.

[DrPepper]

Watching on ABC.

[Leawood]

If you're not watching/listening this, then you're a snowflake pussy to scared to listen/watch a witness under this stress.

[HouseDivided]

If you're not watching/listening this, then you're a snowflake pussy to scared to listen/watch a witness under this stress.

Meh. I already know what a lying, manipulative, sociopathic woman looks and sounds like. I have better things to do with my time.

[Leawood]

As I said, the above is an example of a snowflake pussy to scared to watch a witness testify, under oath, what she went through.

[DrPepper]

Wow. I’m sitting here and not posting anything about her believability because I’m not a professional.
Yet, you are typing disparaging and very hurtful things about her with, thus far, no basis of validity.

[ousdahl]

Wow. I’m sitting here and not posting anything about her believability because I’m not a professional.
Yet, you are typing disparaging and very hurtful things about her with, thus far, no basis of validity.

and without even watching

[Geezer]

If she is lying about that event, she is the best actress of all time.

[DCHawk1]

She's credible. And that's all that matters.

No corroborating evidence. Inconsistent story. Memory failures -- even within the last few months. And her friend, whom she has claimed was a witness, declaring under penalty of perjury that she has never met Brett Kavanaugh.

But she is incredibly composed and believable.

And that will be enough.

[Leawood]

The lawyer hired by the Republicans is trying to pierce the physician-patient privilege.

[Leawood]

Now she is trying to pierce the attorney-client privilege. That's pretty cheap.

And when the witness said she didn't completely understand the committee was willing to go to California, she would have been happy to host them, Sen. Grassley blurted out, "Thank you for acknowledging that we would have been willing to come to California." That misrepresented her testimony. But Grassley is not a lawyer.

[jfish26]

There is no question in my mind as to whether she is being truthful as to her recollections. There is obviously a mile (and, I suppose, some statutes of limitations) between that and criminal culpability or civil liability for Kavanaugh.

But that's not why we're here. By far, the more important part of today is Kavanaugh's own testimony. I am unsure on whether his confirmation is now a 50/50 proposition, 75/25 one way or the other or yet a fait accompli given the politics and timing.

I am sure, though, that what I want, coming out of today, is as clear a record as possible as to Kavanaugh's present candor and his present character (each of which, of course, is informed by his past actions). If Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed, I want the record to speak to itself as to what exactly the Senate blessed. Some day, the fever we're in will break, and I want history to be able to judge what exactly happened these last years/decades.

[DrPepper]

Doesn’t it sound like the Arizona questioner woman is trying to lead up to a story where she will imply that Dr Ford is making this all up for politics? All the “who did you talk to and when and did you use Brett’s name???’ There must be some reporter’s story that came out ‘earlier’ that will try to make this allegation look like a conspiracy.

[jfish26]

I agree that could be where this is going, but I'm not sure that gets the GOP to a better landing spot than "maybe she's telling the truth, but it's a politically-motivated truth and process!"

Ok?

I don't doubt that a great deal of strategy has gone into the timing of revealing things. At the end of the day, though, if this is something the nominee did, or sort of did, or was involved in, or acquiesced to, etc....then his categorical denial was knowingly false. And if retracted or softened under oath today, that tells me something too.

[DCHawk1]

I am unsure on whether his confirmation is now a 50/50 proposition, 75/25 one way or the other or yet a fait accompli given the politics and timing.

It's all about the political play now. It's about Collins and Murkowski.

My guess is that the GOP pushes on, hoping that Collins and Murkowski vote no, giving Trump a chance to rile up the base going into midterms.

Save the Senate, and we can start all over with the "cultist" Barrett in November.

[jfish26]

I assume you're familiar with what Murkowski has going on in her home state?

[DCHawk1]

Doesn’t it sound like the Arizona questioner woman is trying to lead up to a story where she will imply that Dr Ford is making this all up for politics? All the “who did you talk to and when and did you use Brett’s name???’ There must be some reporter’s story that came out ‘earlier’ that will try to make this allegation look like a conspiracy.

She's losing.

She's trying to establish facts that matter only to people who are already convinced that this is BS. You don't fly, eh? You can't remember if you shared your therapists notes with the Post, huh?

Dems, meanwhile, are exploring emotion and feelings and trauma, etc.

As Fish said, this isn't a trial, and the discrepancies don't matter anywhere near as much as the portrait of her as scarred.

[DCHawk1]

I assume you're familiar with what Murkowski has going on in her home state?

If you mean the Alaska Federation of Natives, then yes.

[jfish26]

Watching on ABC.

I'm watching Fox. I want to see this exactly as Trump sees it.