The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on September 21, 2018, 01:31:15 am
-
Ford lawyer proposes testifying next Thursday
By Jordain Carney and Tal Axelrod - 09/20/18 08:56 PM EDT
Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault in the 1980s, is reportedly willing to publicly testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee next Thursday.
Lawyers for Ford told committee staffers during a call Thursday evening to negotiate details of a potential hearing that she wanted Kavanaugh to testify before her and she does not want to be in the same room as him, according to multiple reports.
A source told CNN that Ford's lawyers are also opposed to an outside counsel being used to question her during a hearing, something that was being discussed by Republican senators to avoid the optics of 11 male GOP senators questioning Ford.
The call comes after Ford's lawyers opened the door earlier Thursday to her appearing before the committee next week, while warning that a public hearing currently scheduled for Monday was "not possible."
“She wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety,†Ford lawyer Debra Katz wrote, asking to talk with Judiciary Committee staff about the “conditions†for her testimony.
Aides for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Thursday evening that they had a call with Ford's lawyers "to discuss receiving her testimony in the Judiciary Committee."
"[Grassley] will consult with his colleagues on the committee. He remains committed to providing a fair forum for both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh," they added.
The talks come after the chances of Ford publicly testifying had been all but written off amid a stalemate between her lawyers and Grassley's staff about whether the FBI should reopen its background investigation into Kavanaugh.
Ford's lawyers initially indicated the FBI reopening its probe was a precursor to any public testimony, while GOP senators and the White House had warned it was unlikely to happen.
Kavanaugh, who has strongly denied Ford's allegations, said in a letter to Grassley released by the White House on Thursday evening that he was prepared to go ahead with testifying at a hearing on Monday.
"I continue to want a hearing as soon as possible, so that I can clear my name," he wrote.
Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her during a party in the early 1980s. Ford told The Washington Post that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, tried to remove her clothing and covered her mouth when she tried to protest.
In her email to the committee earlier Thursday, Ford's lawyer ruled out Ford testifying on Monday, as Republicans had originally pushed, but kept open the possibility of her testifying later in the week.
“As you are aware, she has been receiving death threats, which have been reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and she and her family have been forced out of their home. She wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and ensure her safety,†her lawyer, Debra Katz, wrote in an email to the committee.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/20/christine-blasey-ford-remembered-dewey-beach-bar-s/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/20/christine-blasey-ford-remembered-dewey-beach-bar-s/)
-
Fox reporting only committee members can question her and Kavanaugh has to go first....
Kavanaugh needs to be able to rebuttal.......the accused always goes last...
-
Fox reporting only committee members can question her and Kavanaugh has to go first....
Kavanaugh needs to be able to rebuttal.......the accused always goes last...
They need to stick to Monday and of course allow Kavanaugh to rebut her.
-
Christine Blasey Ford's legal team has asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to agree to certain terms before she sits down for a potential interview over her accusation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her decades ago, two sources told Fox News on Thursday night.
Among the terms: Only members of the committee -- no lawyers -- can question her; Kavanaugh cannot be in the room at the time; and Kavanaugh should be questioned first.
But the attorneys said it was "not possible" for Ford to testify at a hearing scheduled for Monday by Senate Republicans, and they reiterated that she has a "strong preference" for an FBI probe beforehand.
excerpt:
Senate Judiciary
✔
@senjudiciary
· 8h
Replying to @senjudiciary
On Monday, staff interviewed Judge Kavanaugh under penalty of felony. Democratic staff was invited and could have asked any question of Judge Kavanaugh. They declined to participate.
Senate Judiciary
✔
@senjudiciary
Staff contacted Mark Judge and obtained a statement under penalty of felony. Staff contacted third person allegedly at party described by Dr. Ford and obtained a statement under penalty of felony. Staff contacted fourth person allegedly at party.
12:18 PM - Sep 20, 2018
more
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/20/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-fords-team-lays-out-terms-it-wants-for-potential-senate-interview-sources-say.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/20/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-fords-team-lays-out-terms-it-wants-for-potential-senate-interview-sources-say.html)
Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford's team lays out terms it wants for potential Senate interview, sources say
-
I have a novel idea: Monday or nothing, and the accuser goes first.
-
I have a novel idea: Monday or nothing, and the accuser goes first.
They'll agree to her terms..the Repubs are scared to death
-
They'll agree to her terms..the Repubs are scared to death
9999hair out0000
-
Laura Ingraham discussing this now...Byron York says the Repubs will not agree on Kavanaugh going first and may not agree on not outside lawyers...Kavanaugh's female lawyer should be present and be able to cross the accuser...we shall see
-
In a way, I thought there might be some compromises. They want this and this. We want this and this. And arrive at some middle point.
As far as I'm concerned, yes, they should do it Monday and get it over with. We will watch how they do this. I think there is some concern about public perception.
-
1. At what age did you have your first drink of alcohol?
2. What would your parents have said, if they knew you were going drinking alcohol, that night?
3. Did you ever forget things, after drinking alcohol?
4. Do you still drink alcohol?
5. Do you approve of teen drinking?
4. Have you ever researched, lectured or taught about alcohol use, abuse, addiction?
-
If it was a violent incident, might you have told someone? Maybe. That's what Rev. Austin Miles is saying.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/miles/180919 (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/miles/180919)
Also, someone said the mortgage story, that Kavanaugh's mother who was a judge ruled on a foreclosure of the house of Christine Blasey Ford's parents, some have said this is not officially a true story. It might have been taken to court but it was worked out without detriment to her family.
Back to the alleged violent incident, yes, I'd think there are plenty of cases where someone never mentions it.
I think Rev. Miles is correct though, that in 2012, Kavanaugh may well have been on a list of Judges for Mitt Romney in case, he had won.
-
1. At what age did you have your first drink of alcohol?
2. What would your parents have said, if they knew you were going drinking alcohol, that night?
3. Did you ever forget things, after drinking alcohol?
4. Do you still drink alcohol?
5. Do you approve of teen drinking?
4. Have you ever researched, lectured or taught about alcohol use, abuse, addiction?
That ought to rile the Dems up more than the questions for Pete Stozk.
-
I would tell her no later than Tues, do the committee vote Wed, floor vote by Fri.
-
I would tell her no later than Tues, do the committee vote Wed, floor vote by Fri.
She’s already had 30 years to come forward. No more delays.
-
She’s already had 30 years to come forward. No more delays.
You're negotiating with the nation watching. They are trying to delay so that Kavanaugh isn't on the court by showtime on the 1st. Giving them one extra day leaves plenty of time, makes them look stupid if they don't agree.
-
This circus leaves town the moment the vote is over and he takes the bench. Dragging this out another week allows more fake stories to be manufactured and pumped out. Stop it now. Take the vote.
-
I would tell her no later than Tues, do the committee vote Wed, floor vote by Fri.
I'd tell her she's welcome to stop by on Thurs, but he'll be confirmed by then.
-
She needs an extra three days to recall what happened 35 years ago? What a crock of schumer. This needs to end now.
-
CNN asked 5 women if they believe Judge Brett Kavanaugh's denial that he ever engaged in any kind of sexual misconduct with Christine Blasey Ford.
All 5 women say they believe him and they have no problem with him being on the Supreme Court.
https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1042975890395652096
-
She needs an extra three days to recall what happened 35 years ago? What a crock of schumer. This needs to end now.
A real crock of Schiff. Her mouthpiece said her client would do whatever it takes to get her story out. She was accommodated with a week's notice. Enough.
-
Also, someone said the mortgage story, that Kavanaugh's mother who was a judge ruled on a foreclosure of the house of Christine Blasey Ford's parents, some have said this is not officially a true story. It might have been taken to court but it was worked out without detriment to her family.
The real story is that Ford's parents reached an agreement with the bank and the judge essentially signed off on it via a court order. That order actually allowed Ford's parents to keep their home.
-
I want the Senators to do all the questioning. Many of them are lawyers and were prosecutors. They shouldn't be able to weasel out of asking difficult questions by bringing in hired guns. I want to see how the Senators handle it.
Neither person should have a lawyer. Neither person should hear what the other person says. It doesn't matter who goes first: Person A, Person B, Person A further questions, Person B further questions, etc. Public and televised, no investigation, no witnesses, it's not a trial, no one needs counsel.
-
The real story is that Ford's parents reached an agreement with the bank and the judge essentially signed off on it via a court order. That order actually allowed Ford's parents to keep their home.
And Kavanaugh's mom wasn't the "trial" judge, just the one who signed off on the agreement.
-
I want the Senators to do all the questioning. Many of them are lawyers and were prosecutors. They shouldn't be able to weasel out of asking difficult questions by bringing in hired guns. I want to see how the Senators handle it.
Neither person should have a lawyer. Neither person should hear what the other person says. It doesn't matter who goes first: Person A, Person B, Person A further questions, Person B further questions, etc. Public and televised, no investigation, no witnesses, it's not a trial, no one needs counsel.
So a few precepts of our legal system, bolded above, go out the window with you?
Why?
People in courtrooms every day, get to "confront their accuser?"
People incourtrooms every day, are represented by attorneys.
Did you see the5 women on CNN? The left is increasingly coming across as dishonest, manipulative.
-
I want the Senators to do all the questioning. Many of them are lawyers and were prosecutors. They shouldn't be able to weasel out of asking difficult questions by bringing in hired guns. I want to see how the Senators handle it.
Neither person should have a lawyer. Neither person should hear what the other person says. It doesn't matter who goes first: Person A, Person B, Person A further questions, Person B further questions, etc. Public and televised, no investigation, no witnesses, it's not a trial, no one needs counsel.
Everyone has a right to confront their accuser or accusers. :nono:
-
So a few precepts of our legal system, bolded above, go out the window with you?
Why?
People in courtrooms every day, get to "confront their accuser?"
People incourtrooms every day, are represented by attorneys.
Did you see the5 women on CNN? The left is increasingly coming across as dishonest, manipulative.
The Republicans on the committee say they just want a hearing, rather than a trial. No witnesses, no investigation, just them asking questions to satisfy themselves. Apparently they don't think either party needs to have a lawyer in the hearing with them. The only "trial-like" element they seem to want is a professional prosecutor. I think the senators should be able to ask their own questions.
I'd prefer a more "standard" judicial proceeding.
-
@truth_seeker Just to reiterate, I think it should be more like a standard judicial proceeding. Everyone has their lawyer, everyone can call witnesses, etc.
-
Neither person should have a lawyer. Neither person should hear what the other person says. It doesn't matter who goes first:
Both should and will have an attorney present. Both should and will hear what the other person says, especially since the accused has the right to hear his/her accuser. And, yes, it does matter who goes first. The plaintiff goes first, the defendant hears all testimony so he or she knows what he or she is being accused of. The defendant testifies last.
@LauraTXNM
-
The Republicans on the committee say they just want a hearing, rather than a trial. No witnesses, no investigation, just them asking questions to satisfy themselves. Apparently they don't think either party needs to have a lawyer in the hearing with them. The only "trial-like" element they seem to want is a professional prosecutor. I think the senators should be able to ask their own questions.
I'd prefer a more "standard" judicial proceeding.
I would prefer no procedure.
The lateness of the charges, in the normal legal context, take on a hyper partisan nature.
In my opinion, this is largely a partisaan concoction.
I think about the McMartin trial, where it urned out children were "implanted" with false memories.
I think this woman is motivaated by people saying to her, "you are our only hope." She knows plenty about psychology, and if asked, would do her part."
This is another"high tech lynching," to quote Justice Thomas.
-
Laura wrote in Reply 21 above:
"Neither person should have a lawyer. Neither person should hear what the other person says. It doesn't matter who goes first: Person A, Person B, Person A further questions, Person B further questions, etc. Public and televised, no investigation, no witnesses, it's not a trial, no one needs counsel."
Have a dose of Fishrrman's credo:
Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe to be.