Since it happened in high school. and if he was a black out type of drunk, it may have been faster, easier, and more respectful for him to have come clean about it, say he doesnt remember and it is therefore possible, and then to explain how he has GROWN since then, as people hopefully do over decades.

The question is about his CHARACTER. So I think addressing what supports GOOD character now, would have been much better than chosing to attack the characters of those asking the questions or the accusers.

but we will see how it plays out. The Doctor is testifying now.

She isn't credible. She has been coached by dems to write a story, when she says she doesn't remember.

There were no clothes off, no rape, etc. More like wrestling with clothes on.


How can a Stanford professor not understand a question?
How can a Stanford professor think people will not see through her?








Most of her story is about the attention she's gotten since her name came out.

A step forward for assault survivors. Great courage in the face of haters and naysayers. She had much more to lose than to gain.

Let me clarify, being PUSHED in a room, door locked behind you, music turned up, and hand over mouth is not just 'wrestling with clothes on'.

there are many decisions that are no crime, but also lack character.

She tried to maintain anonymity up until her info was disclosed. I didnt hear any indication she did not 'understand' anything. She speaks in the language of an educated professor and I hope after this is done she can move on with her life.

LOL Except she isn't an assault survivor. She's a fake assault survivor, coached by the dems.

If that credible, Feinstein would not have sat on her letter for 2 months.

What would she have to gain by telling this to her shrink SIX years ago?

What would she have to gain by asking for confidentiality?

Why would she need to be coached on what she has already repeated many times before being called to testify?

see what you want. No one has proven her to be not credible. The details, her education and career level and prestige, her very clear and consistent answers, and her OWN call and request for an INVESTIGATION of her claims, , her willingness to be subject to a lie detector point much more to credibility than anything else.

SHE has been an open and cooperative book, unlike others.

does she remember the year it happened?

She is playing dumb, not remembering, not understanding questions.
Her mind is tired after 90 min. Not qualified to be a Stanford professor.




fumbling with dates, using up time, undoubtedly told to by dems.

she was never asked point blank on the lie detector test " did Kavanaugh assult you. She was asked questions regarding the letter she gave to f ckstien.

polygraph tests are so inaccurate, they can't be used in regular courts.

inspired, enlightened America with her bravery.

The Attorney questions to Dr Blasey Ford really seem to be confusing Her.

She didn't know even if she is going to have to pay for her polygraphs or anything else that has to do with her hearing.

Democrats are praising Dr. Ford for coming forward, On national TV.


I think I will turn to a channel this Junk cannot break in on.

:

Kamala Harris - FBI investigation




The lady doesn't have enough to tell the FBI anything.

Ford can't get out fast enough.

Fox News’ Chris Wallace Declares Start Of Christine Ford Testimony “Disaster For Republicans”

"During the break in Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford’s testimony, New York’s Dem Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told reporters, “I don’t know how any Republican watching this testimony could possibly vote for Brett Kavanaugh after what she said.”

http://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fox-news-chris-wallace-declares-161403243.html

Clearly, she doesn't know how many Republicans think. It doesn't matter to them whether he is a rapist or not. Most likely this guy will be confirmed guilty or not. That's just the way many Republicans are now. They have proven that with Trump.

she has no evidence, no date, time, town, house, no clue.

All fabricated, paid for by Dems.

BS she didn't know who paid for polygraph.

Not enough evidence to even take it to a grand jury.


.

there is often not 'evidence' of sexual assault when only the victim or accused were present, especially when they arent successful in culiminating a sexual penetration.

why would she know who paid for a polygraph if she didnt pay it?

She is not asking for a grand jury. it is not a trial. she is asking for review of the CHARACTER of a SCOTUS nominee.

Have they published the questions from the lie detector test?

She did not pick or write the questions. so she would not know what they might ask her. so it still says something about her willingness to sit through a test of questions which she had no way of knowing before hand to determine her veracity.

People dont remember dates and times decades later. And sometimes not even years later. IT is not like they are celebrating it on a calendar every year.

I have been assaulted on three different occasions. Once in a home of which I could not tell you the address because it was not someone I knew well. Twice were in outdoor areas, which is why I could name the park areas. I could not tell you DATES of ANY of them.


On the flip, I also remember amazing moments in my life, like my first kiss or losing my virginity, I do not and could never recall a specific DATE or address for either of those either, but I remember the DETAILS of what happened.

She didn't present anything but sketchy, foggy, dubious accounting of what she imagines happened.

No evidence of anything. Others named as being at party say they were never at such a party.

The truth will win.

Feinstein didn't even think it was credible enough to put forward.

The evidence so far is a lie detector test which she passed. Notes from a psychiatrist from years before about the assault and how it has impacted her anxiety and need for a second front door in her home. As well as her being cooperative about every part of this investigation and requesting an FBI investigation into the information so she can assist in the details that she is fuzzy on, (like dates)

she looks VERY credible, with nothing to gain in some long term play of over six years when she first disclosed this event to a medical professional.

and once again, if we look at Cosby as an example, even though that was an actual trial, there was no 'evidence' from those accusers either, not even lie detector tests or doctors notes, but we see how that turned out.


This person has gone above and beyond in reinforcing a sense of credibility, to what extent it will matter is yet to be seen.