Yes she did, she provided the summary. Once again you are completely ignorant of a subject you are commenting on.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.b940427992bf
She provided portions of them to WaPo. She didn’t provide any of it to the Senate committee.
KLOBUCHAR: And Mr. Chairman, could I put the polygraph results on the record, please? The polygraph results in the record.
GRASSLEY: Without…
KLOBUCHAR: Is there any objection?
GRASSLEY: Oh, or — let us see the chart.
KLOBUCHAR: The polygraph? You want to all see it?
GRASSLEY: Will you hold just a minute, please?
KLOBUCHAR: I think you may have it.
GRASSLEY: Yes, can we have the underlying charts, too?
KLOBUCHAR: The underlying charts? I have the polygraph results that I would just like to put in the record. I’ll — I’ll deal with the charts after that. Could I put the polygraph tests in the record?
BROMWICH: Mr. Chairman, we were — we had proposed having the polygraph examiner testify, as you know. If that had happened, the full panoply of materials that he had supporting his examination would have been provided. You rejected that request, so what we did provide was the polygraph report, which is what the members of the committee currently have.
KLOBUCHAR: And on September 26th, Mr. Chairman, this was actually sent to your chief counsel. And I just want to share with America so that they have this report as well.
GRASSLEY: OK. We will accept, without objection, what you asked us to include but we’re also requesting and expect the other materials that I’ve just stated.
KLOBUCHAR: But Mr. Chairman, you wouldn’t allow the underlying witness who performed the polygraph test to testify, nor would you allow Mark Judge to testify. And so I would just like to point out — thank you for allowing this report in the record, but that is the reason that we don’t have the underlying information for you.
I'm not sure what your post reeks of more, stupidity or desperation. In either case, stay downwind. Fucking idiot.
Yes she did, she provided the summary. Once again you are completely ignorant of a subject you are commenting on.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.b940427992bf
In the words of the immortal William Blake: "A truth told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent."
In order to tell yourself a believable lie you tell truth about what is irrelevant.
Nice.In the words of the immortal William Blake: "A truth told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent."
How's that odd? R or D all had the opportunity.And oddly enough Ford wasn’t asked about her drinking.
What makes it "good" to UC?
About the author: "Niall Campbell Ferguson is a British historian and conservative political commentator. He was a senior research fellow at Jesus College, Oxford"What makes it "good" to UC?
My guess is: confirmation bias.
Where's his view/opinion of Kavavnaugh's "performance", to be an unbiased and balanced article, it should include that as well.He's a smart dude, not sure what you're getting at. If you've ever seen the documentary series "The Ascent of Money" that ran on PBS he's the author/host.
Did you watch him in his opening statement in the hearing? That alone should disqualify him from the court. Also his dodging of questions, etc.He has been in a position of power for a very long time, also coached young girls in sports, and not a single accusation more recent than when he was a teenager? I find this hard to believe of a person who commits sexual assault. The allegations raised by Ford are also not a "drunken misunderstanding" they depict somebody predatory, violent, and capable of murder. I don't see how those two align without more recent allegations against him.
Did you watch him in his opening statement in the hearing? That alone should disqualify him from the court. Also his dodging of questions, etc.
Which you will cheerfully spread.Sounds like fake news to me though
We care about him lying about his drinking habits since the accusation is drunken sexual assault.Since we care about his drinking habits 36 years ago
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...ts-from-two-ex-kavanaugh-classmates-saying-he
Sounds like fake news to me though
When they find the 16 YO girl who's been handcuffed to a bedpost in secret dungeon bedroom in his basement for the last 18 months. That might do it, but don't count on the GOP even caring about that.I wonder when all the people who believed Kav will have their eyes opened. I wonder what it would take amidst all the lies coming to light.
Trump admitted Kavanaugh had a drinking problem. So either Trump or Kavanaugh lied.
It's all about putting the bar so ridiculously high that men like this don't have to take the reality of sexual assault seriously.
How is the bar ridiculously high. She’s literally provided nothing other than a memory from 36 years ago. No one she said was at the party corroborated her allegation. Nothing. We’ve absolutely tarnished this guys reputation to the point where half the country thinks he’s a violent alcoholic rapist based on a 36 year old memory. I’d hope he bar should be higher than that. It’s not men trying to silence women (the prosecutor that questioned Ms Ford is a woman and said she doesn’t have a case). It’s like I’ve said before, a power struggle over a Supreme Court seat. And Mr Kavanaugh unfortunately for him and his family has become a political football.