CSNbbs

The wheels are coming off.

Quote:In written testimony sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a third named witness has rejected the allegations made by Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser. Having been asked by a Senate staffer to comment on the charges advanced against the nominee, a lawyer for Leland Ingham Keyser wrote:

Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.

Under 18 U.S.C § 1001, letters to the Judiciary Committee are subject to criminal penalty if false.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/th...legations/

I'm guessing WingNut Ford named Keyser as the other girl at the party?

lol

This story identifies Keyser as a lifelong friend of Ford's.

Quote:The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford’s.

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/09...me-changer

Something smells.


I'll be shocked and amazed if Ford actually shows up to testify.

bahahahahahahaha

Well, I can see why Ford wants to be questioned by Senators and not real-life, in the trenches attorneys.

An opponent naming 4 fact witnesses, none of which corroborate their story, is a pattern that would give even a 112 year old litigator the Viagra boost when given an opportunity to examine that opponent.

Word is that it will be public and televised as well. Wow. Public execution.....

(09-22-2018 09:56 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]bahahahahahahaha

Here's your problem Frank Thorp V:

Quote:Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.

(09-22-2018 09:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I can see why Ford wants to be questioned by Senators and not real-life, in the trenches attorneys.

You're an attorney. Putting aside all politics, based on everything you've seen and heard in the media, what's your take on Ford's credibility? Further, how would an opposing attorney cross examine her and undermine her story?

The direct examination of Ford is going to be just brutal....

Seriously, I have seen some real shitwringers --- I actually kind of preemptively feel bad for Ford. The worst feeling ever is going into an examination (trial or deposition) and *knowing* that you are going to get your ass reamed inside out.

Seriously, I hold some empathy here.

Even though it’s said they’ve come to an agreement for Thursday, based on her nonsense, I have to believe the odds of her actually showing is still less than 10%. Tuesday-Wednesday, there will be a new excuse.

(09-22-2018 10:06 PM)TechRocks Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2018 09:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I can see why Ford wants to be questioned by Senators and not real-life, in the trenches attorneys.

You're an attorney. Putting aside all politics, based on everything you've seen and heard in the media, what's your take on Ford's credibility? Further, how would an opposing attorney cross examine her and undermine her story?

Objectively I dont know if she was assaulted or not. I think it is credible that she is mistaken about whom assaulted her. I have a gut feeling she is *not* making an assault up. But I have nothing but gut feeling on that.

*If* she is intentionally making this up, she is going to get the reaming that she deserves. If there is a mistake in identity, I really feel sorry for her.

The issue is whether *Kavanaugh* was involved. Kavanaugh flatly denied to the Senate under oath that he not did not do anything, but he has no idea of the incident. That stark denial tells me a lot. If that is a lie, not only does Kavanaugh not be seated, he could very well be removed from his current bench under the Code of Judicial Ethics for such a lie. And he could actually face prison time. If Kvanaugh was involved, there would have been a hedged statement -- in order to preserve his current position and avoid Club Fed time. The stark denial tells me he either is truly innocent, or he has the biggest farkin set I have ever seen. I think the former.

(09-22-2018 10:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2018 10:06 PM)TechRocks Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2018 09:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I can see why Ford wants to be questioned by Senators and not real-life, in the trenches attorneys.

You're an attorney. Putting aside all politics, based on everything you've seen and heard in the media, what's your take on Ford's credibility? Further, how would an opposing attorney cross examine her and undermine her story?

Objectively I dont know if she was assaulted or not. I think it is credible that she is mistaken about whom assaulted her. I have a gut feeling she is *not* making an assault up. But I have nothing but gut feeling on that.

*If* she is intentionally making this up, she is going to get the reaming that she deserves. If there is a mistake in identity, I really feel sorry for her.

The issue is whether *Kavanaugh* was involved. Kavanaugh flatly denied to the Senate under oath that he not did not do anything, but he has no idea of the incident. That stark denial tells me a lot. If that is a lie, not only does Kavanaugh not be seated, he could very well be removed from his current bench under the Code of Judicial Ethics for such a lie. And he could actually face prison time. If Kvanaugh was involved, there would have been a hedged statement -- in order to preserve his current position and avoid Club Fed time. The stark denial tells me he either is truly innocent, or he has the biggest farkin set I have ever seen. I think the former.

Apparently those who have sent in letters with their comments on the issue are also subject to some serious penalties if they're lying to the Senate.

As for whether or not she's intentionally making this up, how would that ever be discovered unless she just broke down under questioning and admitted she was lying? The fact that she can't come up with a timeframe, even a year, surely is suspicious to me.

As for cross examining her -- it would be two stages.

The first stage is to pin down precisely what she does know. Right now there is zero from her that adds any facts that can be proven or disproven -- place, people, not even a broad idea of a date.

I would keep up the steady stream of forcing her to answer 'I dont know' to every single question I asked. After the 10th or 15th of those 'I dont know' or 'I cant tell you' it is obvious that there is zero to the story. After about 50 of those, you calmly ask, considering we cant say *when* this happened, or *where* it happened (and then make up 'cant even tell us if the other people had sweaters on, or t-shirts'), you ask, "If we can discern nothing at all on (list 8 things), how in the world can we expect to rush to any sort of judgement on this'? Force *her* to answer it --- when all she can say is 'but but but but I *know* it happened and that *should* be enough' is when you change subjects with that emptiness there.

Next I would focus on the witnesses.

Ms Ford, isnt it true you said that PJ was there, correct? Yes
Are you aware he has submitted to the Senate a sworn statement saying he wasnt, a statement that if false is a crime? Yes

Wash, rinse, repeat with every other witness she has named.

Then sum up:

So we can say that *everyone* you have named to us says that what you say didnt happen, right? (dont care what the answer is, a denial makes her look foolish, an acceptance makes her look like a loser) And each of the 5 people you named said that under penalty of perjury right?

Yeah, the cross of her with these facts is going to be utterly brutal..... seriously....

(09-22-2018 10:12 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]Even though it’s said they’ve come to an agreement for Thursday, based on her nonsense, I have to believe the odds of her actually showing is still less than 10%. Tuesday-Wednesday, there will be a new excuse, and this will be over.

Have they reached an agreement on date? I understood Grassley was saying it would be Wednesday but her dyke attorney was saying it would have to be Thursday. I agree with you though, I doubt she ever shows, especially after this Keyser chick, her lifelong friend, has weighed in and says she doesn't know what the **** Ford is talking about.

Not a good look.

(09-22-2018 10:25 PM)TechRocks Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2018 10:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2018 10:06 PM)TechRocks Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2018 09:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I can see why Ford wants to be questioned by Senators and not real-life, in the trenches attorneys.

You're an attorney. Putting aside all politics, based on everything you've seen and heard in the media, what's your take on Ford's credibility? Further, how would an opposing attorney cross examine her and undermine her story?

Objectively I dont know if she was assaulted or not. I think it is credible that she is mistaken about whom assaulted her. I have a gut feeling she is *not* making an assault up. But I have nothing but gut feeling on that.

*If* she is intentionally making this up, she is going to get the reaming that she deserves. If there is a mistake in identity, I really feel sorry for her.

The issue is whether *Kavanaugh* was involved. Kavanaugh flatly denied to the Senate under oath that he not did not do anything, but he has no idea of the incident. That stark denial tells me a lot. If that is a lie, not only does Kavanaugh not be seated, he could very well be removed from his current bench under the Code of Judicial Ethics for such a lie. And he could actually face prison time. If Kvanaugh was involved, there would have been a hedged statement -- in order to preserve his current position and avoid Club Fed time. The stark denial tells me he either is truly innocent, or he has the biggest farkin set I have ever seen. I think the former.

Apparently those who have sent in letters with their comments on the issue are also subject to some serious penalties if they're lying to the Senate.

As for whether or not she's intentionally making this up, how would that ever be discovered unless she just broke down under questioning and admitted she was lying? The fact that she can't come up with a timeframe, even a year, surely is suspicious to me.

Two parter answer -- did the cross I would do below, and your points are dead on and addressed in the outline. You hit it head on. You have to layer those facts in for the best impact.

I wouldn’t hold my breath on this scumbag Ford being punished in any way.

(09-22-2018 10:29 PM)TechRocks Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2018 10:12 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]Even though it’s said they’ve come to an agreement for Thursday, based on her nonsense, I have to believe the odds of her actually showing is still less than 10%. Tuesday-Wednesday, there will be a new excuse, and this will be over.

Have they reached an agreement on date? I understood Grassley was saying it would be Wednesday but her dyke attorney was saying it would have to be Thursday. I agree with you though, I doubt she ever shows, especially after this Keyser chick, her lifelong friend, has weighed in and says she doesn't know what the **** Ford is talking about.

Not a good look.

(09-22-2018 10:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn’t hold my breath on this scumbag Ford being punished in any way.

Punishment enough for me would be to see her story thoroughly discredited and Kavanaugh seated on the Supreme Court in time for the 1 October opening session.

Then she can leave for New Zealand.

(09-22-2018 10:32 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2018 10:29 PM)TechRocks Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-22-2018 10:12 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]Even though it’s said they’ve come to an agreement for Thursday, based on her nonsense, I have to believe the odds of her actually showing is still less than 10%. Tuesday-Wednesday, there will be a new excuse, and this will be over.

Have they reached an agreement on date? I understood Grassley was saying it would be Wednesday but her dyke attorney was saying it would have to be Thursday. I agree with you though, I doubt she ever shows, especially after this Keyser chick, her lifelong friend, has weighed in and says she doesn't know what the **** Ford is talking about.

Not a good look.

With *every* person she has named not corroborating anything she has said, she is headed into something you see on the freeway and go 'ouuuccchhhh'.

Not a good look is one of the largest understatements I could imagine. It would be like how the Rice football team would feel if they drew the New England Patriots for a game. Just plain ugly........

getting to the nitty gritty -- if this were a civil case I would tell her to dismiss, right here, right now.

If this were a criminal case and what she says was the 'charging case', then you are talking civil suit against the DA (Duke Lacrosse stuff).

Her credibility has *nothing* to do with it -- the entire issue is not only is there no there there, there is literally 'vacuum space'.

I think her case has literally zero credibility or viability. As to *her* credibility, I havent seen anything either way. They have shielded her and her actions very well. And her persona and interactions go a long way with me as to 'personal' credibility. But notwithstanding her personal credibility, the *case* has *zero* credibility -- literally.

These Senators will not ask her any question that is attacking......


they are more afraid of how the media will portray them than trying to get at the truth or at least asking some hard questions. No matter what's said if she testifies the headlines will be Senator so and so attacks sexual assaulted teen. No woman should have to defend themselves or prove anything. It's bad enough that she had to live with this nightmare for 35 years of attempted rape and murder.

You can go ahead and write the headlines and story today...to the press anything she says is 100% God's honest truth. It wont matter if the other 4 people named dont remember it and denied even being there