Christine Ford Willing To Testify on 9-27-2018 that SCOTUS Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Assaulted Her.

September 20, 2018

She is finally ready to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary committee, in a public setting.

In nearly an hour-long telephone call in which the Judiciary Committee staff did most of the listening, Debra Katz, an attorney for Christine Blasey Ford, went through a series of concerns and preferences should she agree to appear before the committee next week.

The earliest she could show would be Thursday, Republican and Democratic sources told NBC News.

Ford’s attorney also relayed her concern about security and asked that the committee work with her to ensure she would be safe if she agrees to testify.

Here are the other items Ford requested:

Wants to testify second and Kavanaugh to appear first;

Doesn't want Kavanaugh in the room at the same time with her;

Prefers not to be questioned by outside counsel, but rather by the senators on the committee;

Would like the committee to subpoena Mark Judge, the other student Ford alleges to be in the room at the time of the assault, to testify;

Says each senator should have equal time questioning (already committee practice);

No time limit on her opening statement; and

Will appear at a public hearing but she would like to limit the number of cameras to pool coverage.

Source: www.nbcnews.com...

Are these demands reasonable? On the face of it, they seem to be easy to accommodate. I hope this hearing doesn't balloon into a multi-day, multiple-witness circus, like the Anita Hill vs Clarence Thomas hearing did.

Since neither FORD or KAVANAUGH has evidence to prove what she/he says, I see this hearing as being nothing more than a "sales pitch" for the hearts and minds of the Senators, and the public. Whomever is most believable, will be the winner. It's that simple.

What do you think ATS family?

-CareWeMust

Why should she get special treatment?
She is the accuser, she should present her case first doesn't she understand simple committee procedures?
She was asked to testify on Monday, why should she be allowed to dictate when she testifies?
Mark Judge already stated that he doesn't want to deal with this situation, and has already made his statement to the committee why should he now have to go infront of the committee?
Giving her unlimited time for an openning statment seems a little excessive, why can't she fit her statement within a timeframe?


I'm all for allowing her to go infront of the committee and present her case, but she's asking for a lot of special treatment that I'm pretty sure is outside the scope of anybody else that has ever been asked to go infront of a congressional committee.

a reply to: Guyfriday


You see her demands as excessive. I understand where you're coming from. At least she's dropped the "FBI Investigation" as a prerequisite.

a reply to: carewemust

The woman is lying without a doubt. Meet all her demands so she can finally testify in front of congress and get charged with perjury.

This is getting ridiculous.

I'm thinking this is the reason the #metoo movement was started, to prepare us for this #fest of a controversy.

They always pre-program us before introducing us to the distraction. I'm glad I see it all for what it is, a big ole scripted circus show to keep us in our seats.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Guyfriday


You see her demands as excessive. I understand where you're coming from. At least she's dropped the "FBI Investigation" as a prerequisite.

I see most of her demands as excessive. She is a PhD holding member of society, in fact she has a psychology degree so I believe that she knows a little something about propaganda, and by setting up demands that other people wouldn't have been afforded she is setting up a situation where she can make further claims of selective discrimination by the Judicial Committee.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: carewemust

The woman is lying without a doubt. Meet all her demands so she can finally testify in front of congress and get charged with perjury.

This is getting ridiculous.

IMO, the authorities would never charge a high-profile female assault victim with committing perjury.

In fact, I bet the questions she gets from Republican Senators will be "soft ball", and asked oh so delicately.

a reply to: carewemust

I think the opposite, that is if she actually goes before congress.

a reply to: Guyfriday


One thing that seems obvious is that Ms. Ford has been preparing for "something" like this since 2012. Otherwise, why would she have a lie detector test administered to herself back then?

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: carewemust

The woman is lying without a doubt. Meet all her demands so she can finally testify in front of congress and get charged with perjury.

This is getting ridiculous.

IMO, the authorities would never charge a high-profile female assault victim with committing perjury.

In fact, I bet the questions she gets from Republican Senators will be "soft ball", and asked oh so delicately.

I totally agree, and that is exactly the type of scenario I'm betting that is being set up. If anyone asks questions that paint her in a bad light, she can claim that she was victimized by members of the committee, if she gets called out for fabricating facts, she can cry about victim rights. She knows all the little buzz words needed to set off the public due to her work in the field of victim treatments.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Guyfriday


One thing that seems obvious is that Ms. Ford has been preparing for "something" like this since 2012. Otherwise, why would she have a lie detector test administered to herself back then?

I think we both know the answer to that.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: carewemust

I think the opposite, that is if she actually goes before congress.

If she comes across as combative, defensive and deceitful, she might be charged with something. But as GuyFriday stated, Christine Ford is well-studied in psychology. We'll see if she has discipline to match her knowledge of human psychology next week. It will be interesting, to say the least.

a reply to: Guyfriday

but maybe she was sexually assaulted. happens all the time. it seems you guys don't like women to stand up and fight against all these arseholes around the globe. ats is getting more and more a forum for hate and frustration.

a reply to: Vector99

The imagination runs wild when thinking about what all could make her change her mind, after committing to next week. How much flexibility will Chairman Grassley allow her to have, before becoming tired of being yanked around?

a reply to: carewemust

If she testifies, she is going to perjure herself. I hope congress decides to make an example of her.

originally posted by: oloufo
a reply to: Guyfriday

but maybe she was sexually assaulted. happens all the time. it seems you guys don't like women to stand up and fight against all these arseholes around the globe. ats is getting more and more a forum for hate and frustration.

That is a very bad generalization. I don't like people getting special treatment without evidence to back up their claims (male or female). She should be allowed to testify, but all these special conditions are silly. The law should be dealt fairly and evenly across the board, this is how I feel about it.

a reply to: oloufo


Do you know if Christine told her Mom or Dad of this traumatic event when it happened, or at any time thereafter?

All I've heard of is her 2012 therapist being told, before a CA. Congresswomen, who relayed this to Diane Feinstein.

The thing that stands out to me is why would she want Kavanaugh to go first? Puts him at a way unfair disadvantage. How can he know what he’s defending himself against? How can they even ask pertinent questions if he goes first?It’s supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. This reeks of deception. And no, nothing can come out of it this way but her pulling on heartstrings

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: oloufo


Do you know if Christine told her Mom or Dad of this traumatic event when it happened, or at any time thereafter?

All I've heard of is her 2012 therapist being told, before a CA. Congresswomen, who relayed this to Diane Feinstein.

Which brings up an interesting point;
"Why was this issue dropped back in 2012. If she wasn't trying to use this story as a political gain for somebody, then wouldn't she have pursued this back then?"

a reply to: Vector99


What if she was assaulted, but it was that other guy who looked like Kavanaugh's twin at the time?

Looked Just Like Brett Kavanaugh: www.abovetopsecret.com...