Kavanaugh's accuser has demands

[jimmyz]

Here's the list.

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

"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."

"It's the first time Republicans on the committee have spoken directly with Ford's attorneys since she went public with the allegation against Kavanaugh on Sunday and the discussion seems to have thawed a stand-off between the two parties as to whether she would testify."

"Among the requests, the one that appeared to be non-negotiable for Ford was a Monday appearance. The earliest she could show would be Thursday, Republican and Democratic sources told NBC News. Monday is the day that Senate Republicans had originally offered for Ford to come testify and when Kavanaugh has said he is ready to testify."

"Katz wrote that she wanted "to be clear" about their position. "The only issue I said was a deal breaker was that Dr. Ford cannot appear at a hearing on Monday for the reasons I described." Katz adds that Ford can't meet Grassley's demand that she submit written testimony by 10 a.m. Friday, calling it a "non-starter."

"After consulting with his fellow Republicans on the committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is expected to present Ford with a counter offer as early as Friday."

"As for the viability of the requests, the most controversial one is expected to be the subpoena of Judge, who has said he doesn't want to testify. It is unlikely that Republicans would allow a witness to dictate a subpoena of another witness."

__________________________________________

I don't know if a witness has ever made these types of demands of a Senate Subcommittee in the past? I understand both sides are trying their best to tune the optics in their favor. I especially like the Idea of the female counsel questioning Ms. Ford instead of male Senators. But that would be breaking precedent. The same thing the GOP Senators are accusing Ford and her attorney of doing.

Link - https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... lt-n911706

[John Galt]

why would an accuser ever go second in testimony, especially when the defendant denies he was even at the event that the accuser says he was at when he did something. defendant: "i wasn't there i dunno what she's talking about since all i have to go on was this stuff that the democrats held for the past few months and much of it is redacted. this is literally everything i can say about this issue: i wasn't there so i can't say anything else" "you are excused sir"

and i know it's not an actual court proceeding but rather this kangaroo business, but honestly, the defendant always has the right to face their accusers

[Kane]

Ever been raped John?

Yeah, me either. Accommodations have been made in the past during criminal proceedings to acquire testimony without having a face to face meeting (with children - I guess only they can be so traumatized as to not have to face the accused directly) but that’s neither here nor there. Again, this isn’t a criminal proceeding.

This is like when Grasseley said Ford had a deadline to set a date for her testimony. Entirely arbitrary and predicated not on procedure nor need - if they can keep Garland from being appointed for a year I’m pretty sure they can give Ford some time to testify. But they don’t want to - they know that this can go badly for them. Her testimony may come across as genuine and the questions they might ask of her in a public hearing? They might not go down well with the electorate if it looks like they’re hounding a woman that’s making a claim of sexual harassment.

Oh yeah...there isn’t a single GOP member of the judiciary committee that’s a woman.

So instead they’re trying to hire a lawyer to represent them during the hearing:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.co ... ford%3famp

So f**k sad. They literally have no balls.

[John Galt]

[NAB]

[John Galt]

[NAB]

[John Galt]

[NAB]

So it comes down to you don’t like certain terms. I’ll take that under advisement.