Fox’s Napolitano Says Christine Ford Comes Off With ‘Great Credibility’: ‘At This Point, She is 100%

exGOPer

exGOPer

After the Senate Judiciary Committee broke for their first recess, Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano weighed in on the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

Fox Business Network host Stuart Varney began the panel discussion by asking Napolitano Ford came across with “credibility.”

“With great credibility,” Napolitano responded. “With a serious intellect and with appropriate emotion. And at this point, she is 100%. No one has laid a glove on her and she’s absolutely believable in my opinion”

Varney noted that during her opening statement, Ford was “close to tears” and was “frail,” something Napolitano agreed with.

“I thought that that was rational to see that, given what she was talking about,” Napolitano told Varney. “I mean, she went through in vivid and graphic detail what she says happened. She’s absolutely certain that the person who did this to her was Brett Kavanaugh. Her memory of events before and after is fuzzy, but there doesn’t seem to be any deficiency in the stated aspect of her memory.”

Watch the clip above, via Fox Business Network.

https://www.mediaite.com/uncategori...h-great-credibility-at-this-point-she-is-100/
 
Appearing on ABC’s coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing with Kavanaugh sexual assault accuser Christine Blasey Ford, Abrams said that the early portion of the proceedings — including Dr. Ford’s opening statement, questioning from prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, and questioning from several Democratic Senators — went down horrifically for the judge.

“So far, this his been an unmitigated disaster for Kavanaugh,” Abrams said. “Both procedurally and substantively.”

From a procedural standpoint, Abrams asserted that the morning session’s format — in which Mitchell asked questions five minutes at a time, followed by a Democratic Senator spending five minutes bolstering Ford’s credentials — was working against Republicans.

“It’s a real problem for Republicans,” Abrams said. “I wonder whether they’re going to — at this break — start rethinking how they have to move forward here. Are they going to change strategy and say, you know what, some of us have to be able to get in and speak?”

And then, there was Dr. Ford’s testimony itself — which Abrams believes to be rock solid.

“She comes across credibly,” Abrams said. “And if that’s going to fail, you’re going to need someone to undermine her credibility, and to point out inconsistencies.”

https://www.mediaite.com/uncategori...earing-an-unmitigated-disaster-for-kavanaugh/
 
gwb-trading said:
Ford is starting to fall apart under questioning from the prosecutor Rachel Mitchell when being asked for dates, etc.
More...
She also said she "couldn't remember" if she shared her therapists notes with the Wapo reporter. Come on now, thats something someone would remember. I'm surprised Mitchell didn't dig in there. It was obvious she was lying about something.
___________________________

Here's one.... "Did you pay for the polygraph yourself"?
.... "I don't think so".
wtf?! Thats pretty much a yes or no question.
 
‘A disaster for Republicans’: Fox’s Chris Wallace says GOP ‘prosecutor’ failed miserably at Dr. Ford hearing

Fox News host Chris Wallace on Thursday reacted to a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh by calling it a “disaster for Republicans.”

After the first break in Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony about her experience with Kavanaugh, Wallace said that the Republicans had made a mistake by calling in an experienced prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, to question the accuser.

“This was extremely emotional, extremely raw, and extremely credible,” Wallace said of Blasey Ford’s testimony. “And nobody could listen to her deliver those words and talk about the assault and the impact it had on her life and not have your heart go out to her.”

“This is a disaster for for the Republicans,” he continued. “[The GOP prosecutor] is treating this like a deposition, like a court hearing and as a result, we’re now 15 minutes in. If there’s one round of 11 senators, that’s 55 minutes, she’s basically almost a third done and she hasn’t gotten anything from this woman.”

“And meanwhile, the Democrats are landing haymakers,” Wallace added, noting that Blasey Ford had recalled the “laughter” of Kavanaugh when he allegedly sexually assaulted her.

“The Democrats are making their points and building her credibility and Rachel Mitchell hasn’t landed a glove on this witness,” he pointed out.
 
It was obvious to me from the minute these absurd claims were made that this is how it would play out. A bunch of intimidated old men, knowing they are being played but powerless to combat it. A carefully coached and polished witness, emoting on national TV for all the liberals who base everything in their lives on emotion or guidance from nitwit celebrities. Just to cover that, they had actress Alyssa Milano there to provide the Hollywood stamp of approval. Mainly I blame Grassley for allowing it. He could have dismissed Feinstein's obvious stall ploy and held a vote. McConnell could have stepped up.

A drunk party girl got groped by a drunk teen. It probably did happen to Ford, probably a lot. The question of whether or not Kavanaugh was involved is one we will never answer to anyone's satisfaction. Over the years perhaps she convinced herself it was Kavanaugh, or at least after he became the nominee. A lifetime of resentment over her teen years, where she was marginalized by her domineering father and bullying brothers, fueled by the insanity of TDS and we get a woman who is 100% certain of a fantasy created in her fevered brain. The fact that every detail she has provided has been rebutted by the very people she claimed were also there is cast aside as victim-blaming. It's a no-win game for Kavanaugh, one he can thank Grassley for putting him in.

Is one incident among drunk teens a reason to cast aside a man's entire life? Not in a country run by sane adults. Sadly, that no longer describes us. Performance is more important than reality.
 
I listened to her statement and then the first round of questions by the prosecutor.
5 minutes in Sen. Feinstein got to lob her softballs.

I have no idea how things proceeded after that.

But, we know the witness was coached very well. Her statement was almost perfect but her delivery was too coached. My 12 year old it heard on the radio (also) as I was taking him to school around 8 am our time.
He blurted out "that is so fake". She is almost crying the whole time. Its an act.
I thought his thought would be the most sane I heard all day. I agree it was a well coached act. But, that does not necessarily rule out she felt she was telling the truth. Many witnesses are coached, it hurts their credibility but in my mind it does not completely discredit them.


My thoughts are that it was a hearing designed to fail.
Any attorney who has ever taken a sensitive depo knows you need to have a lot of time to cover background and discover inconsistencies. 5 minutes segments with 5 mins of friendly in between would almost be worthless in terms of being able to develop and explore inconsistencies.

So unless there was a hour long segment for questioning without interruption I doubt anything will be discovered.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top