I thought the witnesses that she named had no recollection of the events happening?
One, Mark Judge, did. Not under oath, though. If it’s fair to get her story under oath, I’m not sure why it should be any different for him.
Legally speaking, this is not a difficult call, is it? While it would be better to have these individuals interviewed ahead of time, since we’re insisting that a senate hearing is the only way to proceed, this is the only way to make that hearing approach fairness. This is not gamesmanship, just simple fair play.
This is a very simple question.
Which has more probative value: a hearing with testimony from all potential witnesses, or one which features only the alleged victim and accused?
WaPo reporting Whelen had Dr Ford's name before it became public.
Hmm
Read the reporting before clutching your pearls.
That was an euphemism
Meanwhile, Keith Ellison decided to accuse his accuser of making it all up.
I'm sure there will be a march soon for his calling a victim a liar.
Right?
Wouldnt be surprised
Apple meet orange
My life has taught me allegations in this vein are damning .
Be it guilty of the accused act or guilty of a lack of judgement of place and/or company.
Ever wonder what Mike Pence's wife makes of all this ?