Perhaps since she demanded to testify the Senate committee should subpoena Dr Ford?

Yes she did via her legal representative. The committee then scheduled it. Two days later this happened. @room101

@jackjjackson Nope. Even Fox News state that she asked for an investigation. Not that she demanded to be heard at Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing.

Do you have a source that you can share. You know, one that supports your claim.

Here you go my friend. From CNN so you should trust it. Once the testimony was scheduled THEN the demand for an FBI investigation first was announced. A clear case of moving the goalpost. BTW this is not a comment on the truthfulness simply a comment on the methods.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/17/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-ford-attorney-debra-katz-newday-sot.cnn

@room101

@jackjjackson Oh I see. So now "willing" equates to "demanded". Who woulda thunk it 🤔

Why would the lawyer say willing if she wasn’t REALLY willing when offered the chance? Some one changed someone’s mind. Interestingly Dr Ford also switched lawyers in the interim. Is Dr Ford herself paying for two lawyers? I think you’re playing semantics. Clearly when Dr Ford got what she requested she moved the goalpost. None of this reflects on what actually which we don’t know. I’m commenting on the process which smells like three day old fish @room101

@jackjjackson And here we are yet again. Dude, please, please, please stop asserting things that have no basis in fact.

You said that Dr Ford [b]demanded[/b] to testify. I questioned whether she had indeed made such a demand. Now you show me a clip where her lawyer quite clearly states that she was [b]willing[/b] to testify.

Who's moving the goal posts here and claiming semantics to boot? Come on now.

If she didn’t want to testify why would she

1. Hire more than one lawyer
2. Say she wanted to testify


Adding conditions AFTER agreeing to testify is moving the goalpost dude the difference between you and me is that I have an open mind. If there is something not sure what more than a bald accusation I say Kavanaugh is disqualified. You’ve made up your mind and are playing games. @room101

@jackjjackson Dude, you are not answering the question that I put to you. And, quite frankly, the more you obfuscate on what is a very simple question, the more I doubt the veracity of anything that you say on the topic.

Did she [b]demand[/b] to testify?

[i]DUDE[/i]

Now I understand why you like Dr Ford and it’s not only sharing the same politics. Both of you just want to play games [b]DUDE[/b]. Dr. Ford’s new demands tonight are:

Kavanaugh testifies first
She testifies on THURSDAY not Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Friday (nail, hair, waxing and therapist appointments?)

You’ve revealed yourself as a democratic stooge and attempted to cover it up by playing word games and acting as though YOU have the right to cross examine ME [b]DUDE[/b]. Let’s see what Dr Ford demands tomorrow [b]DUDE[/b].
@room101

@jackjjackson Yet another load of pointless bullshit. You know that I like Dr Ford because....? I'm a Democratic stooge because....? You remember that I'm a Brit right? You know that, to us Brits, your Democratic party is more right wing than our Conservative Party, right?

You recently authored a post calling for an end to name calling. It's a theme that you've returned to a number of times and, it's something that I've called you out on a number of times. Just as I've called you out on making false assertions.

False assertions are far more damaging than any amount of name calling. False assertions are insidious. They establish a narrative which has little or no basis in fact. They are FAKE NEWS!

You want to debate the veracity of the allegation put forward by Dr Ford? Go for it.
You want to debate if there is any political chicanery afoot? Go for it.

But do it factually! [b]DUDE.[/b]

@jackjjackson you may find this interesting

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA8J4jxkg0Q]

Actually I was writing on your American political leanings and you know it. There has been no name calling. You e done some creative word smithing I will grant you that. However there is nothing uncivil about that. You’re a Dr Ford supporter. I wrote that. All true without name calling.

I’ve outlined the sequence of events as they have unfolded. I can see why you reverted to word smithing because the sequence of events doesn’t fpfsvor your views. That’s perfectly fine. To reiterate if the facts show attempted rape Kavanaugh is disqualified in my opinion.

Since you can’t rebut any of these facts you’ve reverted to deflection. That’s OK that’s the liberal playbook. I understand. . @room101

Interesting interview. Nothing new. It all hinges in credibility. The maneuvering and changes of strategy by Dr Ford’s legal team don’t help and in fact hurt Dr Ford’s credibility. @room101

@jackjjackson Oh my dear lord. I wasn't accusing you of name calling (although calling me a Democratic stooge is indeed name calling), I brought up your post on name calling to illustrate something which I consider to be more damaging. And explained as such. That's not creative or clever word smithing. It's an explanation.

You insist that I'm a Dr Ford supporter (is that yet more name calling I wonder). I invite you to go to my profile, click on the "replies" button and show me where I've commented on Dr Ford as a person. Yeah, that's right, I haven't. But you conclude that I like her and that I support her. Based on what?

You also claim to know my political leanings. Again, based on what? That I dislike trump? There are still quite a number of Republicans that dislike trump are there not? Are they also.....what? Liberals? Lefties?

I dislike trump. Period.
I dislike what the GOP has become. Period.
I dislike what America is becoming. Period.

Read what I've said and try to understand it FFS!

@jackjjackson It is an interesting interview. By the guy who broke the story. By the guy who details the time line. By the guy who seeks to explain why Senator Feinstein initially held back but was then forced to go public. Which, in turn, forced Dr Ford to go public.

Or didn't you get any of that? Maybe it didn't play into your false narrative so you ignored it all.

If you don’t favor the US democrats and liberals and Dr Ford please deny it directly. If I inferred the opposite of your preferences from your writings I apologize and will author a definitive apology to you personally if you tell my the inferences I’ve drawn are the opposite of your true feelings. Despite the fact that I sort of feel under attack when reading your comments to me, I do enjoy corresponding with you. You’re sensible, polite and your writing andre thought provoking. @room101

I agree that the interview does put a spin on things. It omits that it wasn’t the Washington Post thst went to Dr Ford it was Dr Ford thst went to Dr Ford. Dr Ford has driven the narrative. Which is her right and her right alone. If accurate she will have done the US a service. If not she will have done the US a disservice. At this point no one other than Dr Ford KNOWS. @room101

@jackjjackson In terms of my political leanings, by UK standards, I'm a centrist. Make of that what you will.

In terms of Dr Ford, I have no opinion on her whatsoever. However, she has made a serious allegation against someone who is being considered for a life-long position in the highest court of the land. That allegation must be investigated as far as is humanly possible. Regardless of how inconvenient it may be to the GOP and to trump. To me, that's basic common sense.

I completely disagree with the way the GOP has rushed through Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. I completely disagree with them for holding back 100,000 documents which speak to his past. I completely disagree with them releasing more than 40,000 documents the night before the hearings started. To me, that's a bigger example of political chicanery than the allegations made by Dr Ford. AND IT's ALL FACTUAL!

You’re entitled to your opinion of course. Reasonable minds may differ. However stating your opinion the way you have means that you have bought into one of the many possible narratives which is more than OK. @room101

@jackjjackson So you think that what Ryan Grim is saying is merely a possible narrative and that I've brought into it. He has named names. He has given a time line. He has published for all to see. Ergo, everything is verifiable.

I'm not particularly invested in this debacle so I'm not inclined to try to verify what Mr Grim is saying (in terms of the letter etc, not whether the allegation is true or not) but if you are, go for it. It should be easy enough to determine if it's merely a possible narrative.

Finally, anybody with an ounce of sense and integrity would hit the pause button on Kavanaugh and sort this shit out. The fact that this is not what's happening, has made me wonder just WTF is going on in America today. Something that I've been wondering for more than two years and just seems to be getting worse and worse by the day.

The Senate confirmation hearing ground to a half when Senator Feinstem released the letter ten days ago. That is a long pause. Are you hinting that you don’t approve of the President? @room101

@jackjjackson And what have they done to sort this out in that time period? Has the GOP released the 100,000 withheld documents? Has there been an investigation into the allegations?

You know that I'm not hinting at anything. I've made my views on trump abundantly clear.

I understand. You’re one of those people who keep at it because of a need to be “right”. @room101

@jackjjackson It's very easy to be right when others are so patently wrong. It's no challenge whatsoever. And I like a challenge. Whether I'm challenging others or, being challenged by others or, challenging myself. It's all part of the learning process.

You should try it sometime.

It challenging to wait for facts prior to judging others. You haven’t met that one. Suppose Dr Ford ends up choosing not to testify, what should happen with the Kavanaugh nomination then? @room101