2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: punaperson on September 04, 2018, 08:38:12 AM
-
I hope everyone will watch the opening of the hearing. Can anyone even begin to imagine what would have happened, both in the room and in the "press" if opponents of Obama's nominees Sotomayor or Kagan had acted even half as disruptive as today with Kavanaugh?
Even Mazie makes some disruptive incoherent mumblings.
Unfuckingbelievable.
-
The first session video is up at C-SPAN. You'll have to move the slide to the actual start of the meeting... at 23:22... you will note the chairman Grassley spoke for exactly 6 seconds (!) before he is interrupted by Kamala Harris and it goes downhill from there... DRAIN THE SWAMP!!!!
https://www.c-span.org/video/?449704-1/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-begins-amid-democratic-objections-public-protests&live=
-
A ridiculous waste of time, just take it to a vote out of committee.... nothing is ever discovered or accomplished at these hearings. Just a fucking circus.
-
Is it possible that Kav can just come back once all the bickering is done? Seems like it's a waste of his time to just sit there while people speak out of turn.
-
Is it possible that Kav can just come back once all the bickering is done? Seems like it's a waste of his time to just sit there while people speak out of turn.
Pretty sure he's required to sit there and listen to as much bullshit as the collectivist social democrats can ooze. I guess the screaming people were somewhat alarming to his daughters, age 10 and 13, and at some point they were taken out of the room by their mother. Something, no doubt, they will always remember... and remember as being so different from what they were likely expecting, at least in degree, as they hoped to see their father (and coach) be vetted by our esteemed United States senators. What a joke. Sad.
-
The amount of documentation already provided to Democrats on Kavanaugh exceeds 500,000 pages. That's after the document providers pared it down from over 1 million pages requested, by eliminating duplicates and unnecessary pages.
That represents more documentation on a Supreme Court Justice nominee than THE LAST FIVE NOMINEES COMBINED.
Dem Senators in the past made comments that a sitting judge's record of decisions tells them all they need to know about their beliefs and thought processes. But in Kavanaugh's case, they are scouring every tissue he ever jotted notes on to find a reason to oppose his confirmation.
If they used the same standard as with past justices, the decisions would only be about 160,000 pages. He's had a very active career on the bench. His views and judicial leanings are well documented.
This paper chase is nothing more than a delay tactic, as the Dems do whatever they can think of to put off confirmation until after the midterms. They know they can't block him in the Senate as it stands. The only chance they have is to wait and see if the balance of power in the Senate shifts their way.
Politics suck. Drain the swamp!!
-
Follow on:
There are some parts of documents not allowed to be made public. Those documents were made available to Senators upon request to be read in private.
So far, as of yesterday, only 2 Senators bothered to go read them.
That's not stopping Dems from using the media to accuse GOP Senators and President Trump from "hiding relevant information on Kavanaugh under privacy and executive privilege claims."
-
Follow on:
There are some parts of documents not allowed to be made public. Those documents were made available to Senators upon request to be read in private.
So far, as of yesterday, only 2 Senators bothered to go read them.
That's not stopping Dems from using the media to accuse GOP Senators and President Trump from "hiding relevant information on Kavanaugh under privacy and executive privilege claims."
I thought Grassley gave an excellent and concise answer to their idiotic ravings, including mentioning Obama's use of "executive privilege" to refuse to disclose even the emails of Eric Holder in Fast and Furious. Grassley seems to be intent on maintaining at least his own decorum, which I consider an admirable quality, though perhaps not as effective as some possible other tacks, such as "Shut the fuck up you stupid fucking asshole! You're so fucking dumb and such a liar that only morons could have elected you!" Okay, maybe the calm decorum is best.
-
@SenFeinstein: “If the Supreme Court were to adopt your reasoning I fear the number of victims would continue to grow and citizens would be rendered powerless in enacting sensible gun laws.”
Let's hope so!! The "rendered powerless" part... we all know the first part ("the number of victims would grow") is a lie, or at least not causally related.
video:
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1036994785754730498 (https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1036994785754730498)
-
@SenFeinstein: “If the Supreme Court were to adopt your reasoning I fear the number of victims would continue to grow and citizens would be rendered powerless in enacting sensible gun laws.”
Let's hope so!! The "rendered powerless" part... we all know the first part ("the number of victims would grow") is a lie, or at least not causally related.
video:
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1036994785754730498 (https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1036994785754730498)
It's been a whole week since I've heard a Democrat / Liberal tell us what horrible consequence was going to come out of a Trump decision or Tweet. I just reset my "Days Since Liberal Hysteria" Calendar to "0".
-
A ridiculous waste of time, just take it to a vote out of committee.... nothing is ever discovered or accomplished at these hearings. Just a fucking circus.
....
100% correct
What a circus. Why does it take so long to remove screaming idiots from the peanut gallery?
If I was working security, I would just taser them and drag'em out by the ankles.
-
Pretty sure he's required to sit there and listen to as much bullshit as the collectivist social democrats can ooze. I guess the screaming people were somewhat alarming to his daughters, age 10 and 13, and at some point they were taken out of the room by their mother. Something, no doubt, they will always remember... and remember as being so different from what they were likely expecting, at least in degree, as they hoped to see their father (and coach) be vetted by our esteemed United States senators. What a joke. Sad.
He should have trolled them and taken out a news paper (NY Times) and start to read it.
-
He should have trolled them and taken out a news paper (NY Times) and start to read it.
He's a judge. He has on-the-job training listening to idiot lawyers make stupid speeches while he pretends to be interested. :sleeping:
-
The Democrats demanded over 1 million pages of documents be reproduced and delivered in a month.
After three years, the State Department still hasn't released all of HRC's known emails.
-
If you think this confirmation hearing is bad, wait until Trump's nominee to replace Ginsburg in his next term (assuming she survives this term).
-
I watched parts this afternoon. There was on part where Grassley asked what point the Ds on the committee had for reviewing and asking questions when they all stated that they oppose Kavanaugh before the hearing started. Grassley also mentioned that the documents had been available for review in a secure facity for a while now and none of the Ds on the committee seemed to be insterested in reviewing as they hadn’t made the effort.
One thing I did notice was the sort of free for all. Not an expert on hearings, but stuff like rules for being recognized and not interrupting. Ds weren’t following those rules, when they didn’t suit their end goal, but called for following other rules when it fit their wants.
And Hirono... oh man...
-
I watched parts this afternoon. There was on part where Grassley asked what point the Ds on the committee had for reviewing and asking questions when they all stated that they oppose Kavanaugh before the hearing started. Grassley also mentioned that the documents had been available for review in a secure facity for a while now and none of the Ds on the committee seemed to be insterested in reviewing as they hadn’t made the effort.
One thing I did notice was the sort of free for all. Not an expert on hearings, but stuff like rules for being recognized and not interrupting. Ds weren’t following those rules, when they didn’t suit their end goal, but called for following other rules when it fit their wants.
And Hirono... oh man...
The D's did that same rules BS during the Strzok hearing. Grandstanding, mud slinging and disruption. All part of the "resistance" playbook.
Same party that 100% voted for Obamacare before they even read it now wants to read everything ever written by or about Kavanaugh before voting "no".
:wacko:
-
The D's did that same rules BS during the Strzok hearing. Grandstanding, mud slinging and disruption. All part of the "resistance" playbook.
Yup... A complete waste of time. Call for the vote and get it over with. I can't bear to watch this bullshit....
-
And Hirono... oh man...
that bad?
worse than, "i'm confused..."?
-
that bad?
worse than, "i'm confused..."?
http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2018/09/04/video-hawaii-sen-hirono-at-kavanaugh-at-confirmation-hearing/
-
that bad?
worse than, "i'm confused..."?
That bitch needs to be put out to pasture.......
-
that bad?
worse than, "i'm confused..."?
It was some of the stuff she said later in the session. Made me roll my eyes a bunch of times and a lot of :wtf:
Even the Senator next to her made some faces like, “what did she just say?”
-
70 people arrested :rofl:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/04/politics/capitol-hill-police-protest-arrests/index.html
-
70 people arrested :rofl:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/04/politics/capitol-hill-police-protest-arrests/index.html
What kinda bothered me was that a few of the "removals" I saw it appeared that the cop was just kinda nudging them and let them keep screaming in place for at least another 10 seconds before starting to slightly forcefully pull on them... they shoulda yanked those idiots out of there and been gone from the room within 5 seconds of their disruption beginning. Or is it just me? Is it going to be the same for the next several days? You need someone other than an 84-year-old in charge... to handle the disruptors in the audience and on the dais. Ridiculous.
-
I hope everyone will watch the opening of the hearing. Can anyone even begin to imagine what would have happened, both in the room and in the "press" if opponents of Obama's nominees Sotomayor or Kagan had acted even half as disruptive as today with Kavanaugh?
Even Mazie makes some disruptive incoherent mumblings.
Unfuckingbelievable.
Yeah, Mazie went off the deep end there. Listening to a bunch of the clips I have to wonder whether we have passed the point of no return, a functioning congress seems to be melting away.
I do think it was unprofessional and immature for the republicans to dump 40,000 pages of documents on them the night before the hearing. Obviously there was no way they could have reviewed all the documents before the hearing.
-
What kinda bothered me was that a few of the "removals" I saw it appeared that the cop was just kinda nudging them and let them keep screaming in place for at least another 10 seconds before starting to slightly forcefully pull on them... they shoulda yanked those idiots out of there and been gone from the room within 5 seconds of their disruption beginning. Or is it just me? Is it going to be the same for the next several days? You need someone other than an 84-year-old in charge... to handle the disruptors in the audience and on the dais. Ridiculous.
Hard to justify stronger force for someone who is just being verbally disruptive. Safest bet is to give them a chance to comply first.
-
Hard to justify stronger force for someone who is just being verbally disruptive. Safest bet is to give them a chance to comply first.
---
and then tase 'em :rofl:
-
Yeah, Mazie went off the deep end there. Listening to a bunch of the clips I have to wonder whether we have passed the point of no return, a functioning congress seems to be melting away.
I do think it was unprofessional and immature for the republicans to dump 40,000 pages of documents on them the night before the hearing. Obviously there was no way they could have reviewed all the documents before the hearing.
Unprofessional?
The Democrats are on TV today (Mazie included) saying how "thousands of documents" have been WITHHELD from the Senate under executive privilege. The Democrats (and Republicans) were given the chance to review them in private rather than make them all public.
Only 2 Senators availed themselves. The rest simply used the situation to again lie about Trump and "abuse of executive powers".
Please don't try to sell your judgmental "unprofessional" BS here. It was unprofessional for Democrats to demand over 1 million documents be ready in 30 days. They knew it was impossible. They only want to delay the confirmation.
They asked for the impossible, then you bash Republicans for dumping less than 10% of what was provided the day before?
Democrats were opposing Kavanaugh LONG BEFORE they requested the 1M documents. If they already had their "nays" decided, no amount of documents would change their minds. It only cost tax payers a ton of money and wastes everyones time.
Unprofessional? LOL!!!!!
-
Democrats are terrified the days of having activist judges legislating from the bench are over, and will remain so for decades.
Without a favorable court, Democrats have to actually live within the law.
I can hear HRC hyperventilating .... :shake:
-
Looks like we will have a conservative court for the next 20 years, conservatively speaking.
-
Looks like we will have a conservative court for the next 20 years, conservatively speaking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY-gyVLAGjM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LASlHaZiWuk
-
Unprofessional?
The Democrats are on TV today (Mazie included) saying how "thousands of documents" have been WITHHELD from the Senate under executive privilege. The Democrats (and Republicans) were given the chance to review them in private rather than make them all public.
Only 2 Senators availed themselves. The rest simply used the situation to again lie about Trump and "abuse of executive powers".
Please don't try to sell your judgmental "unprofessional" BS here. It was unprofessional for Democrats to demand over 1 million documents be ready in 30 days. They knew it was impossible. They only want to delay the confirmation.
They asked for the impossible, then you bash Republicans for dumping less than 10% of what was provided the day before?
Democrats were opposing Kavanaugh LONG BEFORE they requested the 1M documents. If they already had their "nays" decided, no amount of documents would change their minds. It only cost tax payers a ton of money and wastes everyones time.
Unprofessional? LOL!!!!!
So let me ask you this, do you think they gave the 40,000 pages of document at night because they were just working so hard and couldn't get it done until then? Or would you consider that maybe republicans were playing games? Democrats were playing their game and republicans were playing theirs.
No one gets a pass in my book. Congress has become a joke and neither side is taking steps to improve things. They manipulate the rules when they are in power and then point fingers at the other side.
I do need to revise my earlier comments though. As I listened to more news (radio) I found out that democrats had asked for an unprecedented amount of documents and they were provided with an unprecedented amount of documents. Ironically it was from NPR where I learned this and it was a libertarian leaning program that only informed me of the 40,000 pages. So with that I will concede, maybe it was premature to call it immature but I still think republicans should have known better than to give those documents at the last moment.
-
So let me ask you this, do you think they gave the 40,000 pages of document at night because they were just working so hard and couldn't get it done until then? Or would you consider that maybe republicans were playing games? Democrats were playing their game and republicans were playing theirs.
No one gets a pass in my book. Congress has become a joke and neither side is taking steps to improve things. They manipulate the rules when they are in power and then point fingers at the other side.
I do need to revise my earlier comments though. As I listened to more news (radio) I found out that democrats had asked for an unprecedented amount of documents and they were provided with an unprecedented amount of documents. Ironically it was from NPR where I learned this and it was a libertarian leaning program that only informed me of the 40,000 pages. So with that I will concede, maybe it was premature to call it immature but I still think republicans should have known better than to give those documents at the last moment.
Do you read or just watch MSNBC and CNN?
You have NO EVIDENCE the Republicans willfully delayed anything. it was the archive office and Bush lawyers responsible for the production. So ... Nope. Republicans are not playing games.
The archive office was responsible for producing the information. Congress is not the warehouse for Kavanaugh's records. Those were forwarded to former Bush lawyers to review for potential Executive Privilege claims. It's a process, and they can only turn over records as fast as they can receive and review them. I think the volume of records requested (more than the number of pages requested for the past 5 Supreme Court Nominees COMBINED) created the logistic issues. That's on the Democrats for overloading the resources of those producing the records.
The final documents were made available the evening before the hearing started at 0930. The first day was grandstanding, vicious speeches impugning the character of the nominee, and protests. The Democrats and their staff had at least another 24 hours to read, highlight and incorporate that information before today's actual hearing started. I'm sure if they divided the work among the Democrat Senators & their Congressional staff, that amount of information would have been no problem to consume and digest in time for the hearing. You don't really believe Feinstein and Hirono intend to curl up for a week to each read the entire set of records themselves, do you??
The confirmation process is expected to last 20 - 30 hours in the Senate, based on recent confirmations. Bork's was 30 hours. Divided by a 6 hour day of hearings, that's roughly 4-5 days total.
The Democrats have no interest in reading the documents other than to fish for possible dirt. They've already made up their minds to oppose Kavanaugh -- as with any other Trump nominee.
Democrat Senators are outraged over nothing -- as usual. They are trying to find any reason they can to delay/derail the confirmation. Period.
-
Crazy Mazie strikes again..... not that it make a difference anyway. She thinks she’s something she isn’t but does prove that cow shit can talk.....
http://www.k5thehometeam.com/story/39034607/sen-hirono-releases-confidential-kavanaugh-documents
-
Crazy Mazie strikes again..... not that it make a difference anyway. She thinks she’s something she isn’t but does prove that cow shit can talk.....
http://www.k5thehometeam.com/story/39034607/sen-hirono-releases-confidential-kavanaugh-documents
John Yoo: Booker is trying to generate false controversy
Sep. 06, 2018 - 3:48 - Bush records representative: We cleared the documents last night, we were surprised at Booker's histrionics this morning.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5831704147001/?#sp=show-clips
-
CORY-OGRAPHED CHAOS: Booker’s ‘LEAKED EMAIL’ was Cleared for Release by DOJ in ADVANCE
Sen. Cory Booker’s overt grandstanding during Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing took a bizarre turn Thursday,
with DOJ officials confirming they cleared his “leaked email” ahead of his public demonstration.
“I am going to release the e-mail about racial profiling and I understand that the penalty comes with potential ousting
from the Senate,” said Booker. “If Sen. Cornyn believes that I’ve violated Senate rules then I openly invite and accept
the consequences.”
Despite Booker’s claims of “civil disobedience,” the emails were cleared for release by the Department of Justice and
the George W. Bush Presidential Library hours before his statement.
“The irony is after Senator Booker said basically he was going to release the document anyway… it had already been
worked out that this was going to be then released to the public,” Sen. Cornyn said.
“Apparently, some just wanted to break the rules and make a scene, but didn’t check their email,” a spokesman for
committee Republicans said in a statement.
https://www.hannity.com/media-room/cory-ographed-chaos-bookers-leaked-email-was-cleared-for-release-by-doj-in-advance/
-
FAIL: Cory Booker's 'Damning' Documents Show Kavanaugh OPPOSED Racial Profiling, Racial Bias
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) spent most of Thursday morning's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings threatening to
reveal "damning" confidential documents that he claimed might derail Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's
confirmation. At one point, Booker even called himself "Spartacus," referring to the gladiator who spoke out on
behalf of slaves kept by the ancient Romans.
But Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) approved some of those confidential documents for release, and other documents
leaked to The New York Times — and, strangely, they aren't damning at all, unless Sen. Cory Booker considers
opposing racial profiling in the wake of a major terrorist attack a "controversial" position.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/35534/fail-cory-bookers-damning-documents-show-kavanaugh-emily-zanotti
-
Do you read or just watch MSNBC and CNN?
You have NO EVIDENCE the Republicans willfully delayed anything. it was the archive office and Bush lawyers responsible for the production. So ... Nope. Republicans are not playing games.
The archive office was responsible for producing the information. Congress is not the warehouse for Kavanaugh's records. Those were forwarded to former Bush lawyers to review for potential Executive Privilege claims. It's a process, and they can only turn over records as fast as they can receive and review them. I think the volume of records requested (more than the number of pages requested for the past 5 Supreme Court Nominees COMBINED) created the logistic issues. That's on the Democrats for overloading the resources of those producing the records.
The final documents were made available the evening before the hearing started at 0930. The first day was grandstanding, vicious speeches impugning the character of the nominee, and protests. The Democrats and their staff had at least another 24 hours to read, highlight and incorporate that information before today's actual hearing started. I'm sure if they divided the work among the Democrat Senators & their Congressional staff, that amount of information would have been no problem to consume and digest in time for the hearing. You don't really believe Feinstein and Hirono intend to curl up for a week to each read the entire set of records themselves, do you??
The confirmation process is expected to last 20 - 30 hours in the Senate, based on recent confirmations. Bork's was 30 hours. Divided by a 6 hour day of hearings, that's roughly 4-5 days total.
The Democrats have no interest in reading the documents other than to fish for possible dirt. They've already made up their minds to oppose Kavanaugh -- as with any other Trump nominee.
Democrat Senators are outraged over nothing -- as usual. They are trying to find any reason they can to delay/derail the confirmation. Period.
No CNN and no MSNBC.
If you note, I corrected my position based on the new information I came across.
My point was that releasing it the night before the hearing seems like they were playing games. Was it intentional? I don't know, however the optics don't look good for the republicans because there was no way to look at that many documents in that short a time.
I think Hirono already had her preplanned rant, anxiously waiting to play her race card.
I think this has been mostly all for show.
-
I asked a Liberal friend what he thought of all the Kavanaugh news this week.
He said, "I think Nike can hire whoever they want."
The US is doomed. :wacko:
-
https://youtu.be/00u08fB4YSg
-
Whats the point of this hearing? everyone already made up their minds prior to on both sides . Right?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Whats the point of this hearing? everyone already made up their minds prior to on both sides . Right?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
The point is ... Congress has the Constitutional right and responsibility to provide "advice and consent" under the Appointments Clause. Confirmation hearings are happening all the time, but the Supreme Court, being the highest court in the nation and a lifetime appointment, gets special attention.
Trump just had 8 US District Court nominees confirmed 2 days ago, and 13 more in August. That's not including other confirmations for various other courts. We aren't seeing those confirmation hearings, are we?
Kabuki Theater is a way if life in DC.
-
Whats the point of this hearing? everyone already made up their minds prior to on both sides . Right?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
It wasn’t always like this. It used to be that the senate committee would actually ask pertinent and valid questions and then make up their minds. It used to be most justices were confirmed with 90+ votes. All based on whether the appointee was actually qualified and not which side of the political spectrum the appointee would side in a case. Because if the appointee actually was unbiased, then it would not matter if they voted R or D. The results should theoretically be the same.
As soon as the Dems figured out they could legislate from the bench, the whole process became politicized. And with the Crazytown progressives trying to win back power at all cost they see this appointee as a threat to their power structure. So they do anything to play to their base. It is all preplanned and organized. It really has turned into a circus. But whether everyone has already decided or not, the process has to be performed. Mostly because now the vote pretty much goes down party lines. So if the Progressives can sway just one or two votes with their theatrics then it would be worth it for them. You watch, when they have the majority in the senate, none of these theatrics will occur. Guaranteed. JMHO
-
Whats the point of this hearing? everyone already made up their minds prior to on both sides . Right?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
There are a few republicans that could potentially be swung. I think that is the Democrat's only plan here.
-
Whats the point of this hearing? everyone already made up their minds prior to on both sides . Right?
Some people speculate that Grassley's strategy of allowing all the disruption both on the floor and on the dais was to let the Dems hang themselves with their own rope. The other side of that is that it will "stimulate" the Dem "base" to get more actively involved in the fall election.
I'm guessing that a few people will be stimulated to be more "active" than they otherwise would have been... on both sides. Net result: zero difference.
It was quite the entertaining spectacle though.
My favorite part was the other day when the girls basketball teams showed up to support their coach and had their group pictures taken with him.
-
Some people speculate that Grassley's strategy of allowing all the disruption both on the floor and on the dais was to let the Dems hang themselves with their own rope. The other side of that is that it will "stimulate" the Dem "base" to get more actively involved in the fall election.
I'm guessing that a few people will be stimulated to be more "active" than they otherwise would have been... on both sides. Net result: zero difference.
It was quite the entertaining spectacle though.
My favorite part was the other day when the girls basketball teams showed up to support their coach and had their group pictures taken with him.
how do they decide who gets to testify?
like why was that MSD student allowed to talk?
-
how do they decide who gets to testify?
like why was that MSD student allowed to talk?
Choosing and Inviting Witnesses
In choosing witnesses, committees pay careful attention to the viewpoints that are heard, who should testify, and the order and format for presenting testimony.
In some cases a committee strives to assure that all reasonable points of view are represented, while in other cases witnesses expressing only particular points of view are invited. Senate rules allow the minority party members of a committee to call witnesses of their choice on at least one day of a hearing, when the chairman receives a request from a majority of the minority party members before the completion of the hearing (Rule XXVI, paragraph 4(d)). The Committee on Appropriations is exempt from this rule. In lieu of this formal option, the minority sometimes works informally with the majority to invite witnesses representing its views.
To testify, a witness must be invited by the committee. Before officially inviting a witness, committee staff identify, and often interview, prospective candidates. When appropriate witnesses are found, the committee chair commonly sends a formal letter of invitation. This letter gives the witness some basic information, including the purpose, subject, date, time, and place of the hearing. In addition to specifying the portion of a measure or issue the witness should address, the letter might contain a limitation on the length of the witness's oral testimony.
The committee may send the witness additional information. This information may include a list of committee members, the committee's rules, the measure under consideration, and press articles relating to the issue. A staff contact is indicated. Staff sometimes meet with witnesses before a hearing to answer questions and to review procedure.
A Senate standing order authorizes reimbursement for per diem expenses of witnesses (S.Res. 259, 100th Congress). The actual expense basis for reimbursement generally cannot exceed the daily rate set by the Committee on Rules and Administration although the committee may consider deviations from this policy on a case-by-case basis. A committee also may reimburse a witness for travel expenses related to testimony. If reimbursement is expected, the letter of invitation may address this. Usually a witness is reimbursed only in hardship circumstances, and then only for expenses related to transportation from the witness's place of residence to the hearing and return.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL30548.html#_Toc256754276
-
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL30548.html#_Toc256754276
mahalo
-
There are a few republicans that could potentially be swung. I think that is the Democrat's only plan here.
I think even these guys have already made up their minds.
Does anyone know when was the last year that it was a real hearing (majority supported regardless of GOP/Dem values)?
-
Does anyone know when was the last year that it was a real hearing (majority supported regardless of GOP/Dem values)?
Appointments have always been politically based. The main difference in the past: it required a vote of at least 60 Senators to confirm a justice.
Because the threshold was so high, it was understood if my party fought tooth and nail to prevent your party's nominee, you'd do the same to mine. No one wins if every nomination becomes a political mud fight. Between 1894 and 1968, the Senate rejected just one presidential nomination to the high court. Deference to presidential prerogative prevailed.
Additionally, with 60 votes needed, you had to to count on Senators from the other party to support your choice. That means your nominee had to at least appear to be less politically biased and more loyal to the Constitution for both sides to accept them.
Then came Thurgood Marshall, the first black justice. That was in 1967. With Civli Rights riots and desegregation a big issue, Many Senators, mainly from Southern Democrat states, refused to vote for him. They denigrated his credentials, of course, rather than come out and say it was racial politics.
After that, Supreme Court nominations because a game of political payback. You didn't support our nominee "A", so we won't support your nominee "B". it was no longer about the nominee's fitness as much as grandstanding for voters. Filibusters were still one way to kill a nomination, since cloture could not be achieved without a super-majority vote.
When the Bush v. Gore decision essentially named GW Bush President, the apolitical pretenses stopped. At that point, the political biases of every Supreme Court Justice became the #1 issue.
When Harry Reid allowed the Senate rules to be changed, reducing the threshold for cloture for lower court nominees to be a simple majority (51 out of 100), the Democrats acknowledged the facade no longer exists -- that all judicial appointments are political appointments.
That's what paved the way now for Republicans to make the same rule change on Trump's Supreme Court picks. The new rule is, "Whichever party is the majority gets to pick justices unopposed." That assumes the majority party isn't full of obstructionists, too. john McCain comes to mind.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/06/30/trump-supreme-court-nominations-history-bork-garland-218942
-
Through all of this, I was a little surprised to learn about the numbers of lower court positions that have been filled. Hopefully all good selections. But the Dems (Mazie in particular) Sen Judiciary committee brought up all of these issues they had with many of the confirmed selections. Uh, what do they have to do with Kavanaugh? To me, they are just trying to make a point that has no logical basis. So when asked to substantiate their case, they revert to stuff like "we hate Trump", which is basically what this is about.
-
Through all of this, I was a little surprised to learn about the numbers of lower court positions that have been filled. Hopefully all good selections. But the Dems (Mazie in particular) Sen Judiciary committee brought up all of these issues they had with many of the confirmed selections. Uh, what do they have to do with Kavanaugh? To me, they are just trying to make a point that has no logical basis. So when asked to substantiate their case, they revert to stuff like "we hate Trump", which is basically what this is about.
Ironically, probably Trump's worst selection to the circuit court of appeals was his pick for the Ninth Circuit from Hawaii, Mark Bennett, former Hawaii state Attorney General. (Like the Ninth Circuit needs another anti-Second Amendment judge!) This is made clear by the fact that both Hirono and Schatz spoke in glowing terms of the nominee (and you saw last week how Hirono treated Kavanaugh, so...), who famously submitted an amicus brief along with five other state AGs supporting Washington, D.C.'s handgun possession/ownership ban in the District of Columbia v. Heller case (aka Heller I). He also opposed, via amicus brief at SCOTUS, the Citizens United decision. During his confirmation hearings, Senator Cruz brought up both these issues (http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/12/ted-cruz-trump-ninth-circuit-nominee/).
-
Ironically, probably Trump's worst selection to the circuit court of appeals was his pick for the Ninth Circuit from Hawaii, Mark Bennett, former Hawaii state Attorney General. (Like the Ninth Circuit needs another anti-Second Amendment judge!) This is made clear by the fact that both Hirono and Schatz spoke in glowing terms of the nominee (and you saw last week how Hirono treated Kavanaugh, so...), who famously submitted an amicus brief along with five other state AGs supporting Washington, D.C.'s handgun possession/ownership ban in the District of Columbia v. Heller case (aka Heller I). He also opposed, via amicus brief at SCOTUS, the Citizens United decision. During his confirmation hearings, Senator Cruz brought up both these issues (http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/12/ted-cruz-trump-ninth-circuit-nominee/).
Both Hirono and Schatz voted for a R Trump nominee. Well, $hit. Will have to see how things pan out. The swamp is pretty deep in the 9th. I remember looking up the makeup after the Young decision and was shocked at justices from the Carter admin. O.o
-
Both Hirono and Schatz voted for a R Trump nominee. Well, $hit. Will have to see how things pan out. The swamp is pretty deep in the 9th. I remember looking up the makeup after the Young decision and was shocked at justices from the Carter admin. O.o
Trump's obviously playing the long game. Guaranteeing that gun rights cases get overturned in the 9th so it can be settled in the supreme court. Underwater 4D chess being played right before our browbeaten eyes.
-
How things stand as of today:
The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote for Thursday on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
The vote follows four days of testimony surrounding his nomination last week, including two in which he answered a marathon of questions from senators on the committee.
Democrats, however, will likely delay the vote until next week, which they are allowed to do under committee rules. The nomination is expected to be reported out of committee along party lines. This timeline will likely set up a full Senate confirmation vote on Kavanaugh the week of Sept. 24.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in an interview with Hugh Hewitt on MSNBC last week that he’ll be confirmed before the high court’s next term next month.
-
Trump's obviously playing the long game. Guaranteeing that gun rights cases get overturned in the 9th so it can be settled in the supreme court. Underwater 4D chess being played right before our browbeaten eyes.
Like many things with regards to Trump, I hope there is a method to the madness. Just that with the 9th, things are so "thick" there that I would think it would take 3-4 terms to even get back to somewhat of a balance. All of which affects us closer than others.
I see what you're saying and I hope so. That said, some of these issues are getting specific enough to expect them to be that high up on the "master plan". Time will tell. Again, while I do see a lot of the good in his actions, just have to wait and how things turn out. Like I mentioned before, just because he's playing a high level of chess, doesn't necessarily mean he's playing it well or will ultimately turn out for the good in terms of 2a. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but also not holding my breath.
-
How things stand as of today:
The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a vote for Thursday on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.
The vote follows four days of testimony surrounding his nomination last week, including two in which he answered a marathon of questions from senators on the committee.
Democrats, however, will likely delay the vote until next week, which they are allowed to do under committee rules. The nomination is expected to be reported out of committee along party lines. This timeline will likely set up a full Senate confirmation vote on Kavanaugh the week of Sept. 24.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in an interview with Hugh Hewitt on MSNBC last week that he’ll be confirmed before the high court’s next term next month.
So more time and tax dollars wasted. Everyone already made up their minds, but yet the dems are going to delay.
-
So more time and tax dollars wasted. Everyone already made up their minds, but yet the dems are going to delay.
Because that is what our congress has become. Dysfunctional bickering and wasting of time and both sides are guilty of it. Congress needs an overhaul.
-
Because that is what our congress has become. Dysfunctional bickering and wasting of time and both sides are guilty of it. Congress needs an overhaul.
Give us an example of the exact wording of a law or rule that would change what we saw during the Kavanuagh confirmation hearings (I mean other than limiting the time for each member to have the floor). I don't think "Be nice. And only ask questions that are REALLY relevant." will cut it. Not even a little. Nor would "Don't be a dumbass (Mazie)".
-
Give us an example of the exact wording of a law or rule that would change what we saw during the Kavanuagh confirmation hearings (I mean other than limiting the time for each member to have the floor). I don't think "Be nice. And only ask questions that are REALLY relevant." will cut it. Not even a little. Nor would "Don't be a dumbass (Mazie)".
TERM LIMITS. Two terms, just like the President and Vice President. Then, you have to find a job or run for a different elected position. If you switch chambers (House <=> Senate), then you can do 4 terms (2 per). After that, it's President or VP. In theory, you could be VP and then President -- 4 terms total.
That sounds like a reasonable limitation. Incumbents have too much power to leave "changing of the guards" up to the voters.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason." -- Mark Twain
-
Can someone explain what the big deal about Kav and Roe vs. Wade is? Like are they going to rehear the case and change it's decision since Kav doesn't believe in abortion?
Or are the left just finding something to complain about and crying over a nothing (as in it can't get another hearing)?
I remember when Trump was on his campaign and the gays were all upset that he will take away their rights. Then when asked in an interview what he plans on doing about gays, he replied "nothing, the courts already ruled".
Many SJW"s are concerned about Roe.
-
TERM LIMITS. Two terms, just like the President and Vice President. Then, you have to find a job or run for a different elected position. If you switch chambers (House <=> Senate), then you can do 4 terms (2 per). After that, it's President or VP. In theory, you could be VP and then President -- 4 terms total.
That sounds like a reasonable limitation. Incumbents have too much power to leave "changing of the guards" up to the voters.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason." -- Mark Twain
Term limits are a great start. Also, have their benefits (healthcare, after leaving office, etc) be subject to approval by each individual state. No more letting the "rats guard the cheese". Also set rules for consequences of non-performance. Can't get the budget set? Don't get to end the session for their breaks or get paid. I bet that solves a lot of the log jam when it comes time for passing budgets each year. In the past, it was like clockwork. Even numbered election years, budgets get passed way ahead of time. Odd numbered non-election years, budget issues drag on and then talks of sequestration, government shut down, etc. Do your damn job!
-
Term limits are a great start. Also, have their benefits (healthcare, after leaving office, etc) be subject to approval by each individual state. No more letting the "rats guard the cheese". Also set rules for consequences of non-performance. Can't get the budget set? Don't get to end the session for their breaks or get paid. I bet that solves a lot of the log jam when it comes time for passing budgets each year. In the past, it was like clockwork. Even numbered election years, budgets get passed way ahead of time. Odd numbered non-election years, budget issues drag on and then talks of sequestration, government shut down, etc. Do your damn job!
The things you mention (like budgets) that are in the Constitution or set in statute should be treated like all other laws, including penalties. Don't pass the budget on time? EVERYONE pays a hefty fine, not just the ones who want to make political hay out of a fight. That'll entice everyone to negotiate in good faith so they all are spared the humiliation and expense of that penalty.
It's the law. There should be consequences for failing to adhere to it.
-
The things you mention (like budgets) that are in the Constitution or set in statute should be treated like all other laws, including penalties. Don't pass the budget on time? EVERYONE pays a hefty fine, not just the ones who want to make political hay out of a fight. That'll entice everyone to negotiate in good faith so they all are spared the humiliation and expense of that penalty.
It's the law. There should be consequences for failing to adhere to it.
Yeah, pretty much what I had in mind. Like the class that has to all stay because of a couple of disruptive assholes. Like that whole filibuster thing. All of that stupidity drive me nuts. Yeah, that tactic and others serve a purpose, but all get in the way of what they're supposed to be there for.
-
I wonder if there were term limits, then people would submit a BS bill 50,000 pages.
-
I wonder if there were term limits, then people would submit a BS bill 50,000 pages.
ACA was initially 20K pages that nobody read before voting for it (all Dems, no Repubs). After passing, the additional implementation documents had to be at least that much.
Term limits won't make any difference in the size of bills submitted.
-
In case you missed the latest from Diane Feinstein, this sums it up ....
(https://i.imgur.com/XyMldbp.png)
-
The worst they MAY have (big assumption that it's not "made up") is that in high school he may have copped a feel or kissed some girl "without her consent". Who knows, maybe he called her "a bitch". Maybe she got drunk and "something happened" and now all these years later she has realized that she had not given consent. That would have been AT LEAST 35 years ago... 1983 or earlier! JFC! These people are out of their fucking minds. Again. :crazy:
-
The worst they MAY have (big assumption that it's not "made up") is that in high school he may have copped a feel or kissed some girl "without her consent". Who knows, maybe he called her "a bitch". Maybe she got drunk and "something happened" and now all these years later she has realized that she had not given consent. That would have been AT LEAST 35 years ago... 1983 or earlier! JFC! These people are out of their fucking minds. Again. :crazy:
Latest post I saw said he and another unidentified boy locked a 17 yr old girl in a room during a party, where she "felt threatened", but was able to get out.
The author of the letter is also unidentified.
So, two teens at a party may have done something juvenile at a party that another teen didn't like, and nobody was hurt.
Get that man in handcuffs!! :wacko:
-
Latest post I saw said he and another unidentified boy locked a 17 yr old girl in a room during a party, where she "felt threatened", but was able to get out.
The author of the letter is also unidentified.
So, two teens at a party may have done something juvenile at a party that another teen didn't like, and nobody was hurt.
Get that man in handcuffs!! :wacko:
Whatever it was, and it was likely something innocuous in in terms of 1981, or whenever, high school antics, for Feinstein to turn it over to "federal investigators" is utterly preposterous. But what else would we expect from her? :wtf:
-
Whatever it was, and it was likely something innocuous in in terms of 1981, or whenever, high school antics, for Feinstein to turn it over to "federal investigators" is utterly preposterous. But what else would we expect from her? :wtf:
Not much different than Harry Reid repeatedly lying on the Senate floor that Romney hadn't paid his income taxes for 10 years. When asked later if he regretted making those false statements, he said, "He didn't win, did he?"
The ends justifies the means.
-
Whatever it was, and it was likely something innocuous in in terms of 1981, or whenever, high school antics, for Feinstein to turn it over to "federal investigators" is utterly preposterous. But what else would we expect from her? :wtf:
I read a report from a journalist who asked the FBI about this report. FBI is going to include the information from Feinstein in Kavanaugh's background file for the White House, but they will not be opening any investigations into the accusations. At worst, it would be a local;/state investigation, assuming the statute of limitations hasn't run.
Maybe Feinstein can have her driver do some digging. I understand he has contacts ....
-
Give us an example of the exact wording of a law or rule that would change what we saw during the Kavanuagh confirmation hearings (I mean other than limiting the time for each member to have the floor). I don't think "Be nice. And only ask questions that are REALLY relevant." will cut it. Not even a little. Nor would "Don't be a dumbass (Mazie)".
I wasn't speaking so much about the Kavanaugh hearing rather I was talking about congress overall when I said they need an overhaul.
But specifically about SCOTUS nominee hearings, Republicans played the game when Obama nominated Merrick Garland. Now democrats are playing the game right back. I don't know what specific law or rule change would have made a difference to the Kavanaugh hearing. Maybe sets of rules that made clear obligations of congressmen. Time limitations could be something put on the table. Maybe preliminary vote on whether to hold an extended hearing which could avoid a long lengthy hearing if indeed the majority had their minds made up.
-
Can someone explain what the big deal about Kav and Roe vs. Wade is? Like are they going to rehear the case and change it's decision since Kav doesn't believe in abortion?
Some of it is people thinking the sky is falling but some of it is a legitimate possibility. A number of conservative states have passed laws that restrict abortion in a roundabout way and these laws are being challenged from what I understand. For example laws that add a lot of regulations in the name of safety that end up making it too expensive to keep most abortion clinics open anymore. These cases could work their way all the way up to the supreme court in which case the SCOTUS could have an opportunity to rule and write a majority opinion which could end up overturning some part of Roe V. Wade.
I don't know how significant a chance it is that Roe V Wade gets overturned but I think people are concerned because it is a possibility.
-
Some of it is people thinking the sky is falling but some of it is a legitimate possibility. A number of conservative states have passed laws that restrict abortion in a roundabout way and these laws are being challenged from what I understand. For example laws that add a lot of regulations in the name of safety that end up making it too expensive to keep most abortion clinics open anymore. These cases could work their way all the way up to the supreme court in which case the SCOTUS could have an opportunity to rule and write a majority opinion which could end up overturning some part of Roe V. Wade.
I don't know how significant a chance it is that Roe V Wade gets overturned but I think people are concerned because it is a possibility.
When Roe was decided on, we didn't have the scientific knowledge about fetal development and how to determine if a "clump of cells" can be classified as a life or not. Now that we do, there should at least be a review of the merits of the case and see if it's not reasonable to reevaluate the very real chance Roe was a mistake.
Even "Roe" herself said she wished she'd never won the case based on the results it created. As a matter of law, I think the rationale used was also faulty, in that there is no Constitutionally mandated "right to privacy" enumerated anywhere in it, and there are plenty of other laws (recreational drug use, etc) which violate the tenant "my body, my choice".
People are afraid because they shoehorned a decision into the law, and now they don't want it questioned for fear it'll be exposed as an error.
-
“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” Kavanaugh, 53, said in a statement Friday.
Okay... now let's see what "she said". Come on. Make the "statement"/"letter" public, Get this person (presumably a woman) to come forward publicly and substantiate her claims, preferably under oath. She can name the names of the other people that may have been present and they can verify her story... or his story. I'm sure she can remember who else was there, it was only 35 or 36 or 37 years ago. Just do it.
-
Are we forgetting that he went to an all boys prep school. Doesn't mean he had zero contact with other high school females, but reduces the exposure.
For Roe vs. Wade, I look at it like the 2a. It's up to you if you want to have one or not. But don't take away the option just because you don't believe in it.
-
For Roe vs. Wade, I look at it like the 2a. It's up to you if you want to have one or not. But don't take away the option just because you don't believe in it.
Uh, there is one minor difference. "Having" a gun doesn't mean someone (innocent) dies (I mean I know it DOES mean that according to the gun grabbers, but I mean in "reality"), whereas "having" an abortion DOES mean someone dies, at least in cases at a certain level of development (and the current inclusion of "partial birth abortions" as legal means that those favoring that position have to argue that a few seconds before birth at 8 or 9 months the "clump of cells" has no rights, but a few seconds later (outside the mother) it does (well, except most of them believe in euthanasia as well, so I guess they don't ascribe real rights to even babies). Okay, never mind. Yeah, you're right, having a gun and having an abortion are the same thing. So when is the government going to give away $500 MILLION dollars a year for us to have guns? I'd call it "Planned Armory".
-
Best thing Ive heard:
Unlike Planned Parenthood, everyone who goes into the NRA headquarters comes out alive.
-
“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” Kavanaugh, 53, said in a statement Friday.
Okay... now let's see what "she said". Come on. Make the "statement"/"letter" public, Get this person (presumably a woman) to come forward publicly and substantiate her claims, preferably under oath. She can name the names of the other people that may have been present and they can verify her story... or his story. I'm sure she can remember who else was there, it was only 35 or 36 or 37 years ago. Just do it.
Probably that old fugly ho Feinstein fantasizing again.... :wacko: ::)
-
From what I read it turns out the girl was locked in a room by Kavanaugh and another male. She felt threatened and was able to escape from the room. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. Are you kidding me? Do you know how embarrassing this has to be for Feinstein? She knew about this for months before she released it. She didn’t release it during the hearing because she knows it is a nothing burger. It is the people she is financially beholden to that is making her make a fool of herself. She is bought and paid for like most politicians. She is committing political suicide.
This is what happens with anonymous sources. Everything is exaggerated. Everything is overblown. And the naive believe the anonymous source because of their dislike of Trump. This goes directly to the other thread about the accusations from Woodward’s book and the anonymous op-ed from the NYT. Anonymous sourced material is suspect and believed by those who hate Trump. There is no other good reason to believe anything from anonymous sources.
-
From what I read it turns out the girl was locked in a room by Kavanaugh and another male. She felt threatened and was able to escape from the room. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. Are you kidding me? Do you know how embarrassing this has to be for Feinstein? She knew about this for months before she released it. She didn’t release it during the hearing because she knows it is a nothing burger. It is the people she is financially beholden to that is making her make a fool of herself. She is bought and paid for like most politicians. She is committing political suicide.
This is what happens with anonymous sources. Everything is exaggerated. Everything is overblown. And the naive believe the anonymous source because of their dislike of Trump. This goes directly to the other thread about the accusations from Woodward’s book and the anonymous op-ed from the NYT. Anonymous sourced material is suspect and believed by those who hate Trump. There is no other good reason to believe anything from anonymous sources.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij6mzMi8LJ8
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AriOjUfbBrw
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AriOjUfbBrw
OMG!!! Is she alive in this video? I get the impression she won’t make it another 6 years.
-
I dont think I could have said this any better:
Judge Jeanine: To Dems, you're guilty until proven innocent
https://video.foxnews.com/v/5835361179001/ (https://video.foxnews.com/v/5835361179001/)
-
OMG!!! Is she alive in this video? I get the impression she won’t make it another 6 years.
Apparently she has quite the rigorous exercise routine, at least given her age. Who knows how long she will last.
-
From what I read it turns out the girl was locked in a room by Kavanaugh and another male. She felt threatened and was able to escape from the room. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. Are you kidding me? Do you know how embarrassing this has to be for Feinstein? She knew about this for months before she released it. She didn’t release it during the hearing because she knows it is a nothing burger. It is the people she is financially beholden to that is making her make a fool of herself. She is bought and paid for like most politicians. She is committing political suicide.
This is what happens with anonymous sources. Everything is exaggerated. Everything is overblown. And the naive believe the anonymous source because of their dislike of Trump. This goes directly to the other thread about the accusations from Woodward’s book and the anonymous op-ed from the NYT. Anonymous sourced material is suspect and believed by those who hate Trump. There is no other good reason to believe anything from anonymous sources.
The writer wasn't exactly anonymous, her ID was known to the senator who received the letter but the name was kept confidential. Apparently her story was also made public without her consent too.
Well now the writer of the letter has apparently now gone public with her claim. Not sure whether this will bring him down or not but the details of her allegation are rather serious, as in justified use of deadly force serious.
I don't see this looking good for republicans if he gets confirmed. Not as bad as Roy Moore's endorsement but still looks bad. Unless the accuser's story is found to suffer some significant factual errors.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.e34972893c46
-
The writer wasn't exactly anonymous, her ID was known to the senator who received the letter but the name was kept confidential. Apparently her story was also made public without her consent too.
Well now the writer of the letter has apparently now gone public with her claim. Not sure whether this will bring him down or not but the details of her allegation are rather serious, as in justified use of deadly force serious.
I don't see this looking good for republicans if he gets confirmed. Not as bad as Roy Moore's endorsement but still looks bad. Unless the accuser's story is found to suffer some significant factual errors.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.e34972893c46
Nothing ever looks good to you for Trump, Republicans, Conservatives, 2A supporters, ...
Considering the fact that more people obviously care more about substance than appearance, given the political power shift in DC and at the state level in recent years, I have to disagree. Most people are smarter than you give them credit for as long as the truth finds its way to light.
The people don't elect Supreme Court Justices. Neither do Senators. The President picks them, and the Senate has the authority of advise and consent, nothing more. We elected Trump, and it's his job to do the picking. The GOP in the Senate are not going to allow an obviously rotten judge to slip through the cracks assuming that can be proven.
This whole letter thing is a delay tactic, and even the people who won't admit it know it. The timing, the way it was made public, the fact there was never any police report, Feinstein trying to prompt an FBI investigation she KNOWS is out of their jurisdiction (She's the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee), and 6 FBI investigations in 15 years for Kavanaugh, PLUS the fact Feinstein never mentioned the letter during a month of hearings, interviews, meetings and hundreds of written questions posed to the nominee.
If they want to investigate a sitting Supreme Court Justice, that's what'll have to happen. I have $50 that says once he's confirmed, this allegation will die a quiet death with no follow up.
Grassley already said the confirmation vote will happen on schedule for pretty much the same reasons I just posted above. So, any discussion of this accuser gumming up the confirmation is moot.
-
The writer wasn't exactly anonymous, her ID was known to the senator who received the letter but the name was kept confidential. Apparently her story was also made public without her consent too.
Well now the writer of the letter has apparently now gone public with her claim. Not sure whether this will bring him down or not but the details of her allegation are rather serious, as in justified use of deadly force serious.
I don't see this looking good for republicans if he gets confirmed. Not as bad as Roy Moore's endorsement but still looks bad. Unless the accuser's story is found to suffer some significant factual errors.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.e34972893c46
Now that she has come forward, she needs to testify in front of the confirmation committee. If she refuses, then it is a nothing burger. If she does, and I think this is the right thing for her to do, then she can tell her story. This means Kavanaugh and the other accused can then confront their accuser. However, due to all the circumstances surrounding this accusation, especially the games played by Feinstein and the Dems, I still think he gets the appointment.
Since no one can predict the future, we will just have to see how this plays out.
-
The claws are already coming out regarding Kavanaugh’s accuser. This morning I read reviews of her as a college professor and many of them were not good at all. And then I read that Kavanaugh’s mother presided over the accuser’s parent’s bankruptcy. Can we call her a revengeful nut job yet? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
If they have a public hearing for this woman to testify under oath, any bets on how many arrests will be made in the gallery? I'll start: 73.
-
I find it a bit, uh, "interesting" that Mr. Judge, the other person present with Ms. Ford (15 at the time), denies the allegation. She also claims the two boys were drunk, but I haven't seen that she said if she was also drunk, or not. She says Mr. Judge jumped on top the them twice (that'd be two more justified use of deadly force occasions according to EEF), the second time causing them all to tumble off the bed. She can't remember whose house it was, where it was, how she got there or how she got home. Curious.
-
At first her story was 4 boys in the room. Then it changed to 2-3. The final draft was Kav was on top of her, and another boy walked in just in time. She's claiming that her marriage counselor took notes incorrectly.
How did the NYT get the "notes" due to that privacy act thing?
Lets not forget she sent letters supporting open borders, donated funds to the Clinton campaign, etc...
If we all got looked at for the things we did in high school, I'm sure most of us would be in trouble. Willing to bet "just the tip" game is illegal.
-
The other day, the Democrats sent an additional 1,278 questions to Brett Kavanaugh - more than all other SCOTUS nominees COMBINED.
Can you say "desperation?" :geekdanc:
A reporter asked President Trump if Brett Kavanaugh is going to withdraw.
POTUS: “What a ridiculous question.”
-
The accuser's lawyer is now making the MSM TV circuit giving interviews -- ala Stormy Daniel's "Creepy Porn Lawyer".
She said it's not her client's responsibility to corroborate her accusations. Really??
The latest details trickling out is there were 4 boys at this party, and 2 girls counting the accuser.
Sorry, but in 1982, 6 high schoolers getting together is not a "party". It's just hanging out. "Party" makes it sound like there was a crowd of people, and anyone could sneak off without being noticed. Not the case here.
Kavanaugh also made a statement that he never attended any party such as the one being described. He further surmises the accuser must be confusing him with another boy that may have acted inappropriately with her.
-
LOL! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Now it's being reported that the accuser’s brother worked for the law firm that paid Fusion GPS for work
with the Russian lawyer who set up the Trump Tower meeting.
That's on top of Kavanaugh's mother being the judge that presided over the accuser's parent's foreclosure case.
How much more do we need before the credibility of the accuser hits "zero"?
-
LOL! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Now it's being reported that the accuser’s brother worked for the law firm that paid Fusion GPS for work
with the Russian lawyer who set up the Trump Tower meeting.
That's on top of Kavanaugh's mother being the judge that presided over the accuser's parent's foreclosure case.
How much more do we need before the credibility of the accuser hits "zero"?
Actually her parents lost two cases where Kavanaugh's mother was the judge: the foreclosure case and another that cost them something like $138,000.
Something for sure doesn't smell right, BUT just because she may be a progressive loon (she scrubbed her social media accounts to erase that record) and just because her family may have grudges against the Kavanaugh family, and just because she's been in therapy her whole life, and just because she's marched with and contributed to the Never Trump organizations, that doesn't mean that she is lying about this. I'm guessing that she may be "misremembering" the event, and/or she's confabulating. Then again she could just be outright lying. I don't think there is ever any way anyone will ever know what happened in that room all those 35 or 36 or 37 years ago (she can't remember what year it was). If it weren't for the #MeToo environment I doubt this would have gotten any play at all...
-
Actually her parents lost two cases where Kavanaugh's mother was the judge: the foreclosure case and another that cost them something like $138,000.
Something for sure doesn't smell right, BUT just because she may be a progressive loon (she scrubbed her social media accounts to erase that record) and just because her family may have grudges against the Kavanaugh family, and just because she's been in therapy her whole life, and just because she's marched with and contributed to the Never Trump organizations, that doesn't mean that she is lying about this. I'm guessing that she may be "misremembering" the event, and/or she's confabulating. Then again she could just be outright lying. I don't think there is ever any way anyone will ever know what happened in that room all those 35 or 36 or 37 years ago (she can't remember what year it was). If it weren't for the #MeToo environment I doubt this would have gotten any play at all...
This is a very good accounting of the "legal advisor" (I like how they avoided saying it's her lawyer), and the depth to which she is entrenched with her support of all things Democrat and anti-Trump.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2018/09/16/kavanaugh-accusers-lawyer-part-of-resistance-big-democrat-donor-and-has-trashed-paula-jones-n2519525
-
You would think by now that the dems playbook would remove anyone who has ties to the party that they're trying to overthrow.
If she did see a therapist, I want to see receipts. Credit card, cashed check, insurance co-pay. No one pays a marriage counselor in cash.
Ruth seems sharper than she looks. I want to see her walk on stage. I wonder if she's pulling a FDR. I guarantee she wants to retire, but the dems are telling her to stay.
-
Well, now the Washington Examiner has an article saying the whole "My parents were foreclosed on by his mother, so I hate him" theory is wrong.
Seems his mother was only one of several judges presiding over that case, that the role she played was minor, and that she is the judge that actually signed a "DISMISSED-WITH PREJUDICE" decision. Ruling in the accuser's parents' favor hardly makes for a motive almost 4 decades later.
The more you know ...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/no-brett-kavanaughs-mother-didnt-foreclose-on-his-accusers-parents
I know the source is a tabloid, but it wouldn't take much to verify the court documents they mentioned if they're online.
-
You would think by now that the dems playbook would remove anyone who has ties to the party that they're trying to overthrow.
If she did see a therapist, I want to see receipts. Credit card, cashed check, insurance co-pay. No one pays a marriage counselor in cash.
Ruth seems sharper than she looks. I want to see her walk on stage. I wonder if she's pulling a FDR. I guarantee she wants to retire, but the dems are telling her to stay.
Ever see "Weekend at Bernie's?" I see another sequel coming: "Four Years at Judge Ruth's."
-
(https://i.imgur.com/UE7SWZU.jpg?1)
-
Nothing ever looks good to you for Trump, Republicans, Conservatives, 2A supporters, ...
Perhaps you would like to tell me when an allegation of attempted rape looks good? :wacko:
This whole letter thing is a delay tactic, and even the people who won't admit it know it. The timing, the way it was made public, the fact there was never any police report, Feinstein trying to prompt an FBI investigation she KNOWS is out of their jurisdiction (She's the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee), and 6 FBI investigations in 15 years for Kavanaugh, PLUS the fact Feinstein never mentioned the letter during a month of hearings, interviews, meetings and hundreds of written questions posed to the nominee.
They do appear to be playing the stall game. Feinstein never released the letter because the author did not want her story made public. Feinstein apparently shared the content of the letter however either the request for condfidentiatlity wasn't relayed or it wasn't respected and the story was released.
They have now decided to have a hearing where both Kavanaugh and the alleged victim will testify under oath. I say that is the best thing given the circumstances. Get it all out there. Administer a polygraph while they are at it.
The decision to make it a public hearing is contentious though.
-
The accuser's lawyer is now making the MSM TV circuit giving interviews -- ala Stormy Daniel's "Creepy Porn Lawyer".
She said it's not her client's responsibility to corroborate her accusations. Really??
The latest details trickling out is there were 4 boys at this party, and 2 girls counting the accuser.
Sorry, but in 1982, 6 high schoolers getting together is not a "party". It's just hanging out. "Party" makes it sound like there was a crowd of people, and anyone could sneak off without being noticed. Not the case here.
Kavanaugh also made a statement that he never attended any party such as the one being described. He further surmises the accuser must be confusing him with another boy that may have acted inappropriately with her.
Sorry but I would hardly think it a very strong argument that someone's story must be unreliable because their definition of party doesn't meet your prerequisite number of people
One of the questions I want to know, and I am sure will be asked, is whether the female was intoxicated at the time. This would bring into question her ability to accurately identify who was there and who did what.
-
Perhaps you would like to tell me when an allegation of attempted rape looks good? :wacko:
They do appear to be playing the stall game. Feinstein never released the letter because the author did not want her story made public. Feinstein apparently shared the content of the letter however either the request for condfidentiatlity wasn't relayed or it wasn't respected and the story was released.
They have now decided to have a hearing where both Kavanaugh and the alleged victim will testify under oath. I say that is the best thing given the circumstances. Get it all out there. Administer a polygraph while they are at it.
The decision to make it a public hearing is contentious though.
Polygraphs are inadmissable in court for a reason (she has already taken one, administered to her by someone paid by her lawyer, and "passed"). All they measure are bodily reactions (blood pressure, heart rate, breathing rate, perspiration, etc.) that SOMETIMES, if elevated, can indicate a kind of discomfort, that can sometimes indicate an attempt at intentional deception. That same "reaction" can also indicate anxiety at just being questioned, irritation/anger that one's integrity or truthfulness is being questioned, etc. A polygraph has no objective value. People who are completely deluded "pass" a polygraph because they believe their delusion... actually it's not even a case of "belief", because just like stark raving lunacy or serious hallucinations it IS real to that person. Again, a polygraph is useless. Surprised to see someone suggest it's use.
It's gonna be a total circus even without a polygraph. Everyone is going to have their knives out while pretending that they are engaging in a "fair hearing" of "due process". It's gonna be ugly. There are people who are gonna be spending 18 hours a day between now and then preparing the witnesses and the senators who will be "questioning" the witnesses.
-
Polygraphs are inadmissable in court for a reason (she has already taken one, administered to her by someone paid by her lawyer, and "passed"). All they measure are bodily reactions (blood pressure, heart rate, breathing rate, perspiration, etc.) that SOMETIMES, if elevated, can indicate a kind of discomfort, that can sometimes indicate an attempt at intentional deception. That same "reaction" can also indicate anxiety at just being questioned, irritation/anger that one's integrity or truthfulness is being questioned, etc. A polygraph has no objective value. People who are completely deluded "pass" a polygraph because they believe their delusion... actually it's not even a case of "belief", because just like stark raving lunacy or serious hallucinations it IS real to that person. Again, a polygraph is useless. Surprised to see someone suggest it's use.
It's gonna be a total circus even without a polygraph. Everyone is going to have their knives out while pretending that they are engaging in a "fair hearing" of "due process". It's gonna be ugly. There are people who are gonna be spending 18 hours a day between now and then preparing the witnesses and the senators who will be "questioning" the witnesses.
And Schumer is touting the polygraph she took. :rofl:
BTW Feinstein is REFUSING to cooperate as is her job as the senior Democrat for the committee. She is refusing to contact this woman and Kavanaugh to arrange for them to be at the meeting next Monday. So stalling games? Yeah, this is a snow job which snowflakes will fall for.
-
[snip]
Administer a polygraph while they are at it.
She can't remember the date, the month, or even the year of the so-called incident.
She can't remember the house, who owned it, or what street the house was on.
She can't remember how she arrived at the house.
She can't identify all the other people at the house or who invited her
Gee, we should administer a polygraph to Kavanaugh to see if he can prove he didn't do what was alleged at this non-specific place, on a non-specific date, with non-specific group of people.
I guess if he says, "I don't recall," they can say his story matches hers!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
She can't remember the date, the month, or even the year of the so-called incident.
She can't remember the house, who owned it, or what street the house was on.
She can't remember how she arrived at the house.
She can't identify all the other people at the house or who invited her
Gee, we should administer a polygraph to Kavanaugh to see if he can prove he didn't do what was alleged at this non-specific place, on a non-specific date, with non-specific group of people.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Don’t forget to add that there is another accused in this case who is a witness to this supposed event that never happened. He should testify under oath as well. It will be on record that the witness also states under oath this never happened. When you combine all this with the FBI refusing to investigate this, it will be on record and the vote will move on.
-
Don’t forget to add that there is another accused in this case who is a witness to this supposed event that never happened. He should testify under oath as well. It will be on record that the witness also states under oath this never happened. When you combine all this with the FBI refusing to investigate this, it will be on record and the vote will move on.
Kavanaugh just has to use the Hillary and Bill Clinton testimony script:
"I don't recall."
"I don't remember."
"I don't think that's correct."
"I can't say with certainty."
Etc, etc....
Without evidence and corroboration, he can deny everything. Anyone who says he's lying (Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein ...) should be censured.
-
Kavanaugh just has to use the Hillary and Bill Clinton testimony script:
"I don't recall."
"I don't remember."
"I don't think that's correct."
"I can't say with certainty."
Etc, etc....
Without evidence and corroboration, he can deny everything. Anyone who says he's lying (Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein ...) should be censured.
You left out the classic "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is."
Here is the full quote from Clinton to the grand jury, just for fun... fun in the good ol' days, you know, then the Dems were in the White House and looked with pleasure and satisfaction on such statements from their president:
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. ... Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.”
-
Polygraphs are inadmissable in court for a reason (she has already taken one, administered to her by someone paid by her lawyer, and "passed"). All they measure are bodily reactions (blood pressure, heart rate, breathing rate, perspiration, etc.) that SOMETIMES, if elevated, can indicate a kind of discomfort, that can sometimes indicate an attempt at intentional deception. That same "reaction" can also indicate anxiety at just being questioned, irritation/anger that one's integrity or truthfulness is being questioned, etc. A polygraph has no objective value. People who are completely deluded "pass" a polygraph because they believe their delusion... actually it's not even a case of "belief", because just like stark raving lunacy or serious hallucinations it IS real to that person. Again, a polygraph is useless. Surprised to see someone suggest it's use.
It's gonna be a total circus even without a polygraph. Everyone is going to have their knives out while pretending that they are engaging in a "fair hearing" of "due process". It's gonna be ugly. There are people who are gonna be spending 18 hours a day between now and then preparing the witnesses and the senators who will be "questioning" the witnesses.
They are inadmissible in court but they are still used. A polygraph has a number of limitations that must not be overstepped but I would not agree that it has no objective value.
I hadn't heard that she already too one but I would personally prefer one that is independently selected.
You are right though that it will be ugly. I can certainly see why this lady initially requested confidentiality. I think that is one reason the hearing should be held privately (closed door) instead of televised for the world to hear her every personal detail.
-
Don’t forget to add that there is another accused in this case who is a witness to this supposed event that never happened. He should testify under oath as well. It will be on record that the witness also states under oath this never happened. When you combine all this with the FBI refusing to investigate this, it will be on record and the vote will move on.
If I understand correctly the FBI is refusing to investigate because it isn't really in their scope to investigate. It would be handled by cops and prosecutors where it occurred.
I would hardly say that the witness's claim this never happened clears Kavanaugh considering the witness is also accused of being part of the sex assault. Of course he is going to deny it if it happened. He should testify under oath though which would help to either corroborate Kavanaugh's claim or hurt his claim.
-
She can't remember the date, the month, or even the year of the so-called incident.
She can't remember the house, who owned it, or what street the house was on.
She can't remember how she arrived at the house.
She can't identify all the other people at the house or who invited her
Gee, we should administer a polygraph to Kavanaugh to see if he can prove he didn't do what was alleged at this non-specific place, on a non-specific date, with non-specific group of people.
I guess if he says, "I don't recall," they can say his story matches hers!!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
That would be a point for Kavanaugh's defense to bring up but the inability to remember these details 40 years later doesn't mean it never happened.
-
That would be a point for Kavanaugh's defense to bring up but the inability to remember these details 40 years later doesn't mean it never happened.
Dude, you keep trying to be Mr. Contrarian on every issue.
Remember your little rant on "If you make the claim, it's on you to back it up with evidence?"
Remember the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty?"
Remember the right to "remain silent?"
Remember how in a court of law (which is relevant since the testimonies in Congress are under oath), the defendant is not required to actually state a defense if the prosecutor/claimant is unable to sufficiently prove the elements of his/her accusations?
The inability to remember something that 99+% of women who were sexually assaulted said they would never forget DOES mean it's more likely than not it never happened.
So far, she's done nothing to provide any evidence anything occurred. Is she making it up? Who knows. She could be remembering a different boy at another house. Even she isn't sure.
Maybe something happened to her, maybe nothing did. We do know the facts point to a stall tactic by Feinstein.
This whole situation is an embarrassment to anyone with common sense. After the Anita Hill ambush on Thomas, it's not a surprise the Democrats would try the same tactic again hoping the #MeToo stuff would give it legs.
-
I would hardly say that the witness's claim this never happened clears Kavanaugh considering the witness is also accused of being part of the sex assault. Of course he is going to deny it if it happened. He should testify under oath though which would help to either corroborate Kavanaugh's claim or hurt his claim.
Let us just all understand that this is your opinion and NOT a statement of fact. :thumbsup:
-
Dude, you keep trying to be Mr. Contrarian on every issue.
Remember your little rant on "If you make the claim, it's on you to back it up with evidence?"
Remember the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty?"
Remember the right to "remain silent?"
Remember how in a court of law (which is relevant since the testimonies in Congress are under oath), the defendant is not required to actually state a defense if the prosecutor/claimant is unable to sufficiently prove the elements of his/her accusations?
The inability to remember something that 99+% of women who were sexually assaulted said they would never forget DOES mean it's more likely than not it never happened.
So far, she's done nothing to provide any evidence anything occurred. Is she making it up? Who knows. She could be remembering a different boy at another house. Even she isn't sure.
Maybe something happened to her, maybe nothing did. We do know the facts point to a stall tactic by Feinstein.
This whole situation is an embarrassment to anyone with common sense. After the Anita Hill ambush on Thomas, it's not a surprise the Democrats would try the same tactic again hoping the #MeToo stuff would give it legs.
Feinstein is using the Anita Hill circus as a guide to how this new situation should NOT be handled. She fully admitted it. Too late, she already made a circus of this.
Also, at the time I write this the accuser and her lawyer has not responded at all to Grassley’s invitation to testify next Monday. Grassley did the right thing and said if they do not receive an answer they will continue on without her.
-
Feinstein is using the Anita Hill circus as a guide to how this new situation should NOT be handled. She fully admitted it. Too late, she already made a circus of this.
Also, at the time I write this the accuser and her lawyer has not responded at all to Grassley’s invitation to testify next Monday. Grassley did the right thing and said if they do not receive an answer they will continue on without her.
They were discussing the differences between Thomas’ hearing and this one. Something like Anita Hill’s allegations were recent (less then two years ago), they were coworkers (or professionally involved) and other details with current relevancy. Not something happened one day, but I don’t remember all the details, but I know Kav assaulted me. Then stories change. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt that the initial release was not accurate, but so much doubt already.
As for continuing without her, I believe that’s the right call. However, if Ford doesn’t appear in the hearing, they will say she was bullied.
-
They were discussing the differences between Thomas’ hearing and this one. Something like Anita Hill’s allegations were recent (less then two years ago), they were coworkers (or professionally involved) and other details with current relevancy. Not something happened one day, but I don’t remember all the details, but I know Kav assaulted me. Then stories change. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt that the initial release was not accurate, but so much doubt already.
As for continuing without her, I believe that’s the right call. However, if Ford doesn’t appear in the hearing, they will say she was bullied.
I believe that she didn’t want to testify in the first place. If she does, I believe she would probably be bullied into it by the Democrats. They already released her identity even though she wanted to remain anonymous. Why not go all the way with this now that everyone knows? JMHO :shaka:
-
I believe that she didn’t want to testify in the first place. If she does, I believe she would probably be bullied into it by the Democrats. They already released her identity even though she wanted to remain anonymous. Why not go all the way with this now that everyone knows? JMHO :shaka:
Yeah, not sure what they were thinking. I took it as a sign of desperation. I get that people want their privacy, but you can't drop an anonymous bomb like this (or at least what I believe the Dems assumed it would be) and not have to back it up with a real person. Umm, we're talking about the Judicial branch of the Government. There are rules and laws that need to be adhered to. But when did that stop politicians? I just think that in this day in age, they are willing to try anything to smear someone's name. I think to a certain extent, there has been damage done on the nomination process, but I also hope that people are seeing right through this.
-
Yeah, not sure what they were thinking. I took it as a sign of desperation. I get that people want their privacy, but you can't drop an anonymous bomb like this (or at least what I believe the Dems assumed it would be) and not have to back it up with a real person. Umm, we're talking about the Judicial branch of the Government. There are rules and laws that need to be adhered to. But when did that stop politicians? I just think that in this day in age, they are willing to try anything to smear someone's name. I think to a certain extent, there has been damage done on the nomination process, but I also hope that people are seeing right through this.
I believe Feinstein held on to this for a reason. Not to drop it at the last minute as a Hail Mary. But because she knew the woman didn’t want to come forward and it would be meaningless if she didn’t testify. I believe she dropped it at the last minute as a Hail Mary because it was her intent to release, or have someone else release, the accuser’s name. Now she is hoping that the accuser will stall long enough to push the nomination vote past the elections. They are hoping after the elections it wouldn’t matter. But Grassley said they will continue if she doesn’t respond within a reasonable timeframe. So now the Dems have to bully her into testifying. It remains unclear whether she will or not. And if there will continue to be enough stalling that it will push this past election time. The Republicans have to play hardball politics with this and push on before the election. Otherwise we may never get this outstanding candidate on the SCOTUS. All of this is JMHO. I don’t know if my gut feeling is correct or not? It is just what my gut is telling me.
-
Ford's (Progressive) D.C. lawyer (the one who arranged the polygraph test) said a couple of days ago that her client would testify in public. Of course she didn't say where or when in public. Will she testify in public before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Monday? That's the only public venue that "makes sense", since they are the ones deciding the issue and the ones (Feinstein/Dems) who initiated the whole claim as to sexual impropriety and other crimes ("I thought he might inadvertently kill me."). I haven't looked at a news site for over 30 minutes, so it could all be settled by now.
-
When I was a kid I did stupid stuff. I'll bet you all did too. It's the job of kids (and young adults) to do stupid stuff.
It's called life lessons. Obviously the "assault" was not a big deal or it would have been exposed decades ago.
-
When I was a kid I did stupid stuff. I'll bet you all did too. It's the job of kids (and young adults) to do stupid stuff.
It's called life lessons. Obviously the "assault" was not a big deal or it would have been exposed decades ago.
Me? Do something stupid? No way! I am triggered by your assertion! I demand you lose your 1A rights and that the mods delete your racist statement since it was made towards a haole. :P :P :P
-
Memory is far from infallible.
http://science.time.com/2013/11/19/remember-that-no-you-dont-study-shows-false-memories-afflict-us-all/
https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/idea-happened-memory-recollection
-
Me? Do something stupid? No way! I am triggered by your assertion! I demand you lose your 1A rights and that the mods delete your racist statement since it was made towards a haole. :P :P :P
...
I am triggered by your accusation that I deliberately tried to trigger you.
BTW, how can an Asian-polynesian guy qualify to be a racist? :rofl:
-
Latest news I heard said Kavanaugh is having a 1-hour phone call with staff-level members of the Senate judiciary Committee to answer any questions they have on these allegations.
All the Democrats said their staff members will not participate.
So much for Democrats in the Senate rallying around the accuser.
If she felt raped in 1982-ish, she's in for a repeat at the hands of the Democrats who are using her.
-
The Wall Street Journal NAILS IT on the Kavanaugh Ambush
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/wall-street-journal-nails-kavanaugh-ambush
Nothing new, but I thought it was a good read.
-
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/wall-street-journal-nails-kavanaugh-ambush
Nothing new, but I thought it was a good read.
The WSJ is one of my goto news sources. I believe they tell it like it is positive or negatively be towards trump. Thanks for posting this.
-
The WSJ is one of my goto news sources. I believe they tell it like it is positive or negatively be towards trump. Thanks for posting this.
I don't come across their articles that much, but I've found them to be closer to "just the facts" than others.
Just the whole things seems super fishy. Had the information for months and sat on it. Maybe didn't intend to be a wild card, but when it's all you've got. I still think they are banking on the appearance of impropriety these days being enough, especially with the #MeToo and that stuff. I did think about that this was just enough of a bomb into the Republican party that it would at minimum cause chaos, but I hadn't thought about ramifications for the mid-terms if the nomination should falter.
I just want folks to see the hypocrisy here, on so many levels and starting with Feinstein and the trail of smear that should be on Democrats. I do believe folks are seeing it, but I also see stuff like this further energizing the Democrat voter base. I hope it energizes the Republican voter base as well. So much BS and infighting. Never recalled a time when things where like this, but then again, maybe just a symptom of the shakeup that was needed in this country.
-
I don't come across their articles that much, but I've found them to be closer to "just the facts" than others.
Just the whole things seems super fishy. Had the information for months and sat on it. Maybe didn't intend to be a wild card, but when it's all you've got. I still think they are banking on the appearance of impropriety these days being enough, especially with the #MeToo and that stuff. I did think about that this was just enough of a bomb into the Republican party that it would at minimum cause chaos, but I hadn't thought about ramifications for the mid-terms if the nomination should falter.
I just want folks to see the hypocrisy here, on so many levels and starting with Feinstein and the trail of smear that should be on Democrats. I do believe folks are seeing it, but I also see stuff like this further energizing the Democrat voter base. I hope it energizes the Republican voter base as well. So much BS and infighting. Never recalled a time when things where like this, but then again, maybe just a symptom of the shakeup that was needed in this country.
Yeah, I have never seen so much polarization in our country BT (Before Trump, LOL). I Believe Trump was needed as well. He was the only one who was going to shake things up like he has. I like this aspect of his presidency so far. I just wish there was not so much of the circus atmosphere and that neither side felt like they have to play dirty politics in order to get their way. I prefer that one party does not have the majority in all 3 branches and that they work together to get things each side wants. I honestly think that if the Dems played up to the Republicans and maybe did a little ass kissing that things would go more their way than it has for them. But that is JMHO.
-
Yeah, I have never seen so much polarization in our country BT (Before Trump, LOL). I Believe Trump was needed as well. He was the only one who was going to shake things up like he has. I like this aspect of his presidency so far. I just wish there was not so much of the circus atmosphere and that neither side felt like they have to play dirty politics in order to get their way. I prefer that one party does not have the majority in all 3 branches and that they work together to get things each side wants. I honestly think that if the Dems played up to the Republicans and maybe did a little ass kissing that things would go more their way than it has for them. But that is JMHO.
I have been polarized since LBJ was elected.
I was in 4th grade then, I remember the Daisy commercials.
I recognized how Democrats lie, at age 8,
and how the MSM enables Democrats.
I prefer moral and ethical people, unfortunately
they are totally absent in the Democrat party, and rare
in the Republican party.
-
Both parties are infested with active sexual predators. It's great to see them drag up this stuff from decades ago, because it means they are looking at each other nervously wondering who will be the next to fall. Like how far do they really want to push these childhood rape accusations before it comes back to bite them?
I'm still looking forward to the day one or more of Hillary's contract killers finally speak out. There's so much we are completely clueless about that will be revealed as the empire unravels and old power alliances turn on each other.
-
So Blasey Ford has “effectively gone into hiding” and requested security for her and her teenage children. Expected to some extent, but one of the main reasons is she reportedly stated she has been inundated with requests for her to share more of her story. Of course she mentioned threats and harassment, but she seemed more afraid of the nutjobs coming by her house trying to get her to “join the cause” and go after Kavanaugh. She been sold out and hung out to dry.
-
That would be a point for Kavanaugh's defense to bring up but the inability to remember these details 40 years later doesn't mean it never happened.
40 years later :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Can you remember things that happened underneath / over your bridge 40 years later?
-
Mazie Hirono dragged me into her house when I was young and going door to door selling Zippy's Chili tickets.
I cant remember when. It might have been around the time when Henry Kapono started his first of many many many many many many "retirement" concerts.
I cant remember why I was at her house.
I cant remember how I got there.
But there was Brian Schatz in the room and he was laughing the whole time while smoking batu.
I don't have to prove anything. Hirono and Schatz need to prove their innocence cause they're guilty until proven otherwise.
#AllVictimsShouldBeBelieved
-
So Blasey Ford has “effectively gone into hiding” and requested security for her and her teenage children. Expected to some extent, but one of the main reasons is she reportedly stated she has been inundated with requests for her to share more of her story. Of course she mentioned threats and harassment, but she seemed more afraid of the nutjobs coming by her house trying to get her to “join the cause” and go after Kavanaugh. She been sold out and hung out to dry.
The guy she claims who was in the room doesn't remember the story and will not testify. But her story did change from 4 guys in the room, to 2-3, to none and 1 guy walked in on them. He doesn't remember her, but did state that Kav has always had good morals.
-
The one 800 pound gorilla in the room is that the accuser has the obligation to prove it happened. Until she can provide proof that it did occur, no one should believe what she says. And all of this is because we have this little requirement that Kavaugh is innocent until proven guilty. Not sure how she is going to prove that it did occur? Especially since she has not been forthcoming in a timely manner, never reported it to police, and she still has not responded (as I write this) and agreed to testify next Monday. The truth and facts matter. Feelings do not.
-
Mazie Hirono dragged me into her house when I was young and going door to door selling Zippy's Chili tickets.
I cant remember when. It might have been around the time when Henry Kapono started his first of many many many many many many "retirement" concerts.
I cant remember why I was at her house.
I cant remember how I got there.
But there was Brian Schatz in the room and he was laughing the whole time while smoking batu.
I don't have to prove anything. Hirono and Schatz need to prove their innocence cause they're guilty until proven otherwise.
#AllVictimsShouldBeBelieved
#metoo
-
#metoo
I question the sanity of anyone who creates an anti-sexual-violence hashtag that's pronounced "Pound Me, Too".
-
I question the sanity of anyone who creates an anti-sexual-violence hashtag that's pronounced "Pound Me, Too".
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Head
-
The Demoncrats are pushing for a delay now. They claim that Ford refuses to testify until the FBI investigates this matter. The Feinstein goes on record and says:
"This is a woman who has been profoundly impacted by this," Feinstein said. "Now, I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know." But she also said she believes her 100%. She can’t have it both ways. She is lying.
Grassley should just continue with the hearing vote. This woman is no longer credible IMHO.
-
Just imagine... just imagine... if a male senator said things 180 degrees shifted from what Hirono said today... just imagine. They'd be at the end of a rope (at least metaphorically, maybe literally) within hours.
She's a ******* *******.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkLckeoeR8g
video is embedded in this story (these particular comments start at around 1:18... ):
https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/senator-mazie-hirono-wants-men-to-shut-up-about-kavanaugh.html
Senator Mazie Hirono Wants Men to ‘Just Shut Up’
-
Crazie Mazie strikes again...wow
-
Social justice meltdowns make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It's like they are waving a huge sign that says "I'm out of ideas. this bullshit is literally all I have left."
-
Social justice meltdowns make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It's like they are waving a huge sign that says "I'm out of ideas. this bullshit is literally all I have left."
....
:rofl:
-
I'm tempted to write her a letter or email just to see if her staff has come up with a boiler plate response for this.
I'll mention hot flashes, menopause and "hysterical". That's always good for countering attacks against us men.
-
http://www.independentsentinel.com/lindsey-graham-points-out-the-obvious-problem-with-blasey/
-
http://www.independentsentinel.com/lindsey-graham-points-out-the-obvious-problem-with-blasey/
grasping at straws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHGGNPMPz3M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHGGNPMPz3M)
-
grasping at straws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHGGNPMPz3M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHGGNPMPz3M)
Moral of the story is never make jokes on camera because some day in the future they could be used against you!
That old joke is evidence of nothing except a cliche rehash of another joke.
-
40 years later :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Can you remember things that happened underneath / over your bridge 40 years later?
I wonder if you see the irony in your subtle joke....
-
Dude, you keep trying to be Mr. Contrarian on every issue.
Remember your little rant on "If you make the claim, it's on you to back it up with evidence?"
Remember the phrase "Innocent until proven guilty?"
Remember the right to "remain silent?"
Remember how in a court of law (which is relevant since the testimonies in Congress are under oath), the defendant is not required to actually state a defense if the prosecutor/claimant is unable to sufficiently prove the elements of his/her accusations?
The inability to remember something that 99+% of women who were sexually assaulted said they would never forget DOES mean it's more likely than not it never happened.
So far, she's done nothing to provide any evidence anything occurred. Is she making it up? Who knows. She could be remembering a different boy at another house. Even she isn't sure.
Maybe something happened to her, maybe nothing did. We do know the facts point to a stall tactic by Feinstein.
This whole situation is an embarrassment to anyone with common sense. After the Anita Hill ambush on Thomas, it's not a surprise the Democrats would try the same tactic again hoping the #MeToo stuff would give it legs.
Not being contrarian, just acknowledging both sides and what the actual implications are and are not. It is called objectivity.
I am not sure why you are resistant to acknowledge that the inability to recall certain details due to time does not indicate that something never happened. I call BS on your claim that 99% of women who were sexually assaulted would be able to remember every little detail 40 years later. People who go through traumatic events often have trouble recalling certain details accurately. Cops forget how many shots they fired, for example.
Why are you trying to hard to not believe what she claimed?
Yes, Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty and he has a right to confront his accuser as well. Nothing I have said would suggest I wish to deny him his due process. If this lady refuses to come through and testify or make an official police report then Kavanaugh should be confirmed.
Yes, the onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence, but what evidence do you think she could give that you would actually accept? Video would be great but realistically the only thing someone could possess in a situation such as this is their testimony. People make police reports all the time with nothing but their statement as evidence.
Yes, I believe Feinstein or some other democrats used this woman's story as a stall tactic but that is a separate question than the accuracy of the lady's claims.
-
Not being contrarian, just acknowledging both sides and what the actual implications are and are not. It is called objectivity.
I am not sure why you are resistant to acknowledge that the inability to recall certain details due to time does not indicate that something never happened. I call BS on your claim that 99% of women who were sexually assaulted would be able to remember every little detail 40 years later. People who go through traumatic events often have trouble recalling certain details accurately. Cops forget how many shots they fired, for example.
Why are you trying to hard to not believe what she claimed?
Yes, Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty and he has a right to confront his accuser as well. Nothing I have said would suggest I wish to deny him his due process. If this lady refuses to come through and testify or make an official police report then Kavanaugh should be confirmed.
Yes, the onus is on the person making the claim to provide evidence, but what evidence do you think she could give that you would actually accept? Video would be great but realistically the only thing someone could possess in a situation such as this is their testimony. People make police reports all the time with nothing but their statement as evidence.
Yes, I believe Feinstein or some other democrats used this woman's story as a stall tactic but that is a separate question than the accuracy of the lady's claims.
There's no proof she ever went through a "traumatic experience." Therefore, using that as an excuse for repressed or fuzzy memory is unsupported.
"Something happened to me long ago. I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but that's because something happened to me long ago." Circular reasoning.
Did she really send a letter to Feinstein in July? Why did Feinstein sit on it until the hearings were over? If the accuser really wanted to remain anonymous, why did she pay for a lawyer and a polygraph a month or more before Feinstein leaked the letter to the press?
Objective? LOL! You mean willing to swallow any argument as plausible because a Liberal from California said it's true -- as much as she can remember anyway.
-
Our Hawaii Senator in DC has been getting all kinds of responses today.
(https://i.imgur.com/PwJqXAF.jpg?1)
-
Here's the proof it was nothing more than a delay tactic. Feinstein demanded the FBI and WH investigate. Now the accusers lawyer wants the FBI to investigate.
Not the FBI's jurisdiction. They don't investigate rapes, sexual assaults or "being in a room while feeling threatened almost 40 years ago" unless the victim and/or alleged assailant were associated in some way with the federal government at the time of the alleged assault.
Based on the details so far, I fully expect the accuser to suddenly remember tomorrow that the incident took place on federal property on a military base. The assailant also received federal financial aid for college, which could have been the same year as the incident -- or not -- she isn't sure.
(https://i.imgur.com/vCVW6vH.jpg?1)
-
I just read that a third person that has been identified by Ford as being at the party has now come forward and issued a statement that they have no rememberance of the party ever taking place. I cannot verify this article from Breitbart so I am not sure if it is real or not yet.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/18/third-person-that-kavanaugh-accuser-claims-was-at-party-denies-incident/
Considering Ford is refusing to testify next Monday. And, assuming this is true, this new witness that is not being accused has come forward to deny the event ever took place, it appears that Ford’s accusations are not credible.
The hearing on Monday should be cancelled and the voting should take place and the process should continue.
-
She's just sayin'. Seems fair to me. You know, the goose-gander thing. Hillary? Oh, that's right, another "bimbo eruption", right?
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/broaddrick-fbi-probe-ford-allegation-then-investigate-my-rape
Broaddrick: FBI Probe Ford Allegation? Then ‘Investigate My RAPE Allegations’ Against Clinton
(https://www.cnsnews.com/s3/files/styles/content_100p/s3/screen_shot_2018-09-19_at_9.25.12_am.png?itok=d9bVwWkk)
-
She's just sayin'. Seems fair to me. You know, the goose-gander thing. Hillary? Oh, that's right, another "bimbo eruption", right?
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/broaddrick-fbi-probe-ford-allegation-then-investigate-my-rape
Broaddrick: FBI Probe Ford Allegation? Then ‘Investigate My RAPE Allegations’ Against Clinton
(https://www.cnsnews.com/s3/files/styles/content_100p/s3/screen_shot_2018-09-19_at_9.25.12_am.png?itok=d9bVwWkk)
I read about either hosts on CNN or MSNBC demanding that Trump order the FBI to investigate. It is my understanding that the FBI looked into this on their own and determined that this wasn't something that they were going to (or could) pursue. Just more BS that they spew that sadly now has their impressionable viewer base now all up in arms and saying there's no justice for victims.
I believe everyone is taking the issue VERY seriously. Or at least were when the accusation seemed more credible.
And Mazie. . . oh man. . . :facepalm:
I've seen quite a bit of backlash on her lately on HNN. Hopefully folks remember when the seat is up for election.
-
I just read that a third person that has been identified by Ford as being at the party has now come forward and issued a statement that they have no rememberance of the party ever taking place. I cannot verify this article from Breitbart so I am not sure if it is real or not yet.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/18/third-person-that-kavanaugh-accuser-claims-was-at-party-denies-incident/
Considering Ford is refusing to testify next Monday. And, assuming this is true, this new witness that is not being accused has come forward to deny the event ever took place, it appears that Ford’s accusations are not credible.
The hearing on Monday should be cancelled and the voting should take place and the process should continue.
"PJ" will be written off as a Kav cronie. I mean, I believe the "The Skulls" style mens network stuff exists. But if you're gonna drop a bomb like this, at least to the effect that I believe would be needed, one better come up with more than just a statement. Right now, the therapist thing is probably the most credible thing, but even then, just another statement.
Blasey Ford is being given the opportunity to tell her story for the record. If she doesn't take it, I believe things should move forward. I do see the balance that tight on votes that this may have created enough doubt. I'm wondering that will be tried in the next few days.
-
"PJ" will be written off as a Kav cronie. I mean, I believe the "The Skulls" style mens network stuff exists. But if you're gonna drop a bomb like this, at least to the effect that I believe would be needed, one better come up with more than just a statement. Right now, the therapist thing is probably the most credible thing, but even then, just another statement.
Blasey Ford is being given the opportunity to tell her story for the record. If she doesn't take it, I believe things should move forward. I do see the balance that tight on votes that this may have created enough doubt. I'm wondering that will be tried in the next few days.
Now her lawyer(s) say (I expect this to change almost hourly for the next week at least) that she will testify before the committee... after all her preconditions are met... and we don't know what all those are besides the demand the FBI conduct an investigation first. Then what else? State police investigation? County sheriff investigation? City police investigation? Private investigator investigation(s)? Then, how much time after all those investigations are completed until she is "prepared", and I do mean "prepared", to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee? A rough estimate would put that sometime in 2020... maybe just a month or two prior to the election? And the Dems would then demand postponing the vote on Kavanaugh until after the election, just like the Repubs did with Garland. Now, some may think I'm exaggerating, but you know this is exactly the tactic of the Dems: the have only one goal, obstruct Trump in any manner possible, by any means necessary.
-
Now her lawyer(s) say (I expect this to change almost hourly for the next week at least) that she will testify before the committee... after all her preconditions are met... and we don't know what all those are besides the demand the FBI conduct an investigation first. Then what else? State police investigation? County sheriff investigation? City police investigation? Private investigator investigation(s)? Then, how much time after all those investigations are completed until she is "prepared", and I do mean "prepared", to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee? A rough estimate would put that sometime in 2020... maybe just a month or two prior to the election? And the Dems would then demand postponing the vote on Kavanaugh until after the election, just like the Repubs did with Garland. Now, some may think I'm exaggerating, but you know this is exactly the tactic of the Dems: the have only one goal, obstruct Trump in any manner possible, by any means necessary.
Yeah, I see the flip flopping, more demands, etc. If the committee moves forward, they didn't give the victim her fair shake, or was bullied and is now not comfortable with testifying and putting herself out there. All of which I get are "legit" concerns for Blasey Ford. But where was this back in July when supposedly this first surfaced for Feinstein?
I don't get why folks aren't more outraged that Feinstein appears to have purposely left BF out to dry.
If things don't start moving in the next week or so, I do fear that this tactic to stall and disrupt may be enough to derail the nomination proceedings.
-
Yeah, I see the flip flopping, more demands, etc. If the committee moves forward, they didn't give the victim her fair shake, or was bullied and is now not comfortable with testifying and putting herself out there. All of which I get are "legit" concerns for Blasey Ford. But where was this back in July when supposedly this first surfaced for Feinstein?
I don't get why folks aren't more outraged that Feinstein appears to have purposely left BF out to dry.
If things don't start moving in the next week or so, I do fear that this tactic to stall and disrupt may be enough to derail the nomination proceedings.
I think since Grassley has been around the block with these Dems numerous times I doubt he will let the nominations become stalled.
-
I think since Grassley has been around the block with these Dems numerous times I doubt he will let the nominations become stalled.
I hope so.
Thought this article was an interesting read.
Democrats’ smash and smear agenda reaches new heights - Opinion by Michael Goodwin
A nation gawks as Washington sinks deeper into the muck, but put aside your disgust long enough to digest what we’re seeing. Three big things are on display.
First, Democrats are proving again that their force multiplier is a win-or-die zealotry. They were on a mission to kill anybody President Trump chose to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy and, within minutes of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced he would fight Kavanaugh “with everything I have.” All 10 Dems on the Judiciary Committee pledged to vote no.
They looked silly given the nominee’s impeccable credentials, and worse when leftist legal luminaries lined up to praise Kavanaugh as a brilliant jurist and sterling father, husband and mentor.
One feminist supporter of Hillary Clinton called him “a superstar” and urged his confirmation by saying, “He is the most qualified conservative for the job.”
Yet the Dems persisted with unabashed fervor. They tried to stop the hearing before it started, took turns twisting Kavanaugh’s words and insinuated, without evidence, that dark secrets existed.
https://nypost.com/2018/09/18/democrats-smash-and-smear-agenda-reaches-new-heights/ (https://nypost.com/2018/09/18/democrats-smash-and-smear-agenda-reaches-new-heights/)
-
Another interesting opinion.
Laura Ingraham: Kavanaugh, Ford controversy – shades of Duke lacrosse rush to judgment
INGRAHAM: Now, we're led to believe that these are credible allegations. They're all reading from the same playbook. But given the age of the charges, what is the standard for credibility? Has any evidence been produced? Is there any corroborating witness? So far the answer is no. In fact, the only other person named in the accusation says it never happened.
And given what we know of the accuser's political inclination and her support of left-wing causes, it's not unreasonable to believe that she has a political axe to grind. The hyperbolic overheated reaction to these charges is somewhat reminiscent of what happened to the Duke Lacrosse team more than a decade ago.
Remember in 2006, the Duke Lacrosse team hired a pair of exotic dancers for a party at a rental house near the Duke campus. One of the dancers, a black woman, claimed that three of the Lacrosse players brutally raped her in a bathroom. Dave Evans, the captain of the team and one of the accused, he spoke to the media the moment he learned of the charges against him.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/19/laura-ingraham-kavanaugh-ford-controversy-shades-duke-lacrosse-rush-to-judgment.html (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/19/laura-ingraham-kavanaugh-ford-controversy-shades-duke-lacrosse-rush-to-judgment.html)
-
Yeah, I see the flip flopping, more demands, etc. If the committee moves forward, they didn't give the victim her fair shake, or was bullied and is now not comfortable with testifying and putting herself out there. All of which I get are "legit" concerns for Blasey Ford. But where was this back in July when supposedly this first surfaced for Feinstein?
I don't get why folks aren't more outraged that Feinstein appears to have purposely left BF out to dry.
If things don't start moving in the next week or so, I do fear that this tactic to stall and disrupt may be enough to derail the nomination proceedings.
If the invitation to testify isn't officially accepted or declined by Thursday, the hearing and invitation should be canceled. They can't wait until the weekend to set up a public hearing. Not only is it a problem logistically, but it wastes the time of those who could have scheduled other work on Monday.
-
If the invitation to testify isn't officially accepted or declined by Thursday, the hearing and invitation should be canceled. They can't wait until the weekend to set up a public hearing. Not only is it a problem logistically, but it wastes the time of those who could have scheduled other work on Monday.
I agree with you. However, you're speaking from a logical and rational perspective. Can't say the same for Feinstein, Hirono, et al. . .
-
This just in, who ever is nominated next to the SC by a GOP member, has touched someone at some time at some place.
-
This just in, who ever is nominated next to the SC by a GOP member, has touched someone at some time at some place.
The FBI is already looking to hire a full-time special council to investigate stuff the Democrats make up. The FBI doesn't have the time or manpower to waste on political stunts.
-
This just in, who ever is nominated next to the SC by a GOP member, has touched someone at some time at some place.
And maybe called someone a "bad" word. Aka "history" of "verbal abuse".
I myself vaguely recall in third grade once calling a girl "cheater" during a game of dodge ball. I'm out! :geekdanc:
-
And maybe called someone a "bad" word. Aka "history" of "verbal abuse".
I myself vaguely recall in third grade once calling a girl "cheater" during a game of dodge ball. I'm out! :geekdanc:
I was standing next to a kid who may or may not have used the "N" word in the presence of an African-American.
I'm seeing a therapist for my second-hand racism... O0
-
I was standing next to a kid who may or may not have used the "N" word in the presence of an African-American.
I'm seeing a therapist for my second-hand racism... O0
Since you're probably a Trump supporter, watch out for "reverse racism". Extra nice or do special favors to a black person because they're black.
-
(https://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2018-09/209160_5_.jpg)
And maybe that one dot on the left isn't even real... just an unfounded accusation... maybe.
-
Orin Hatch had to take to Twitter to call out this Fake News peddler ...
(FYI: He's on CNN)
(https://i.imgur.com/g7zsiql.jpg?1)
-
It is perfectly clear that this woman wants the FBI to provide her with some background info, as she cannot remember a damn thing and knows how that will play were she to testify.
Hence the FBI investigation demand so she has something to talk about.
-
It is perfectly clear that this woman wants the FBI to provide her with some background info, as she cannot remember a damn thing and knows how that will play were she to testify.
Hence the FBI investigation demand so she has something to talk about.
Feinstein wanted an FBI investigation.
This woman's lawyer wants an FBI investigation.
All the Democrats in the Senate brave (stupid) enough to face a camera are calling for an FBI investigation.
The FBI has no jurisdiction on this accusation. They did the background check and included the letter Feinstein sat on for almost 2 months in his file. It's there for consideration in the confirmation process.
That's the extent of the FBI's role. Demanding the FBI open an investigation is ludicrous.
They still haven't explained why Feinstein didn't bring this up during any of the confirmation meetings. Seems like it would be her duty regardless of what she claims the "victim" requested by way of anonymity.
Background checks are only concerned with recent conduct of the subject, meaning the most recent 7-10 years. Checks are not intended to investigate every accusation back almost 30 years during high school, especially when there is no official report with local law enforcement, and when the complainant has shared no details of the alleged attack. What details have been released have changed several times or include "I don't really remember".
If it didn't happen on federal property, and the parties had no association with the federal government at the time of the incident, the FBI has no authority to start a criminal investigation.
She's alleging a crime against an acting federal judge. I think she's seen "And Justice for All" too many times.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/LvWfCL7.jpg?1)
-
Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser says she is not prepared to testify on Monday.
So, 35 years wasn’t enough time to prepare? :rofl:
-
She now says she mught be wrong.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htGmvHKcCNY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htGmvHKcCNY)
Preaching to the choir here but, Hirono is up to her ill-conceived shenanigans again!
According to our benevolent senator, "all you men out there, you just do the right thing...shut up. You don't deserve to be heard simply because you are a man...I don't care if it is sensible or truthful. You are a man!!! Ahhhh!" well, that was paraphrased but you get the point. :wtf:
-
Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser says she is not prepared to testify on Monday.
So, 35 years wasn’t enough time to prepare? :rofl:
It took her 30 years to make any public statement at all (during a 2012 couples therapy session). Give her 30 more years to prepare to make "public" testimony under oath (even in a private location of her choosing in front of only Judiciary Committee staff members as offered by Chairman Grassley).
And let's hear from her lawyer... when the accused rapists/sexual assaulters are Democrats. WARNING: Do not have any liquids in your mouth when you read the following, as you will likely be subject to a nasal flush.
Katz dismissed [Paula] Jones’ assertions [against Bill Clinton] on March 30th, 1998 on CNN’s “Talkback Live” saying that, “Paula Jones’ suit is very, very, very weak. She’s alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace.”
Likewise, Katz again said on CBS’ Evening News on April 2nd, 1998 that Jones’ allegation could not hold up in court because, “Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim.”
…
In 1998, Katz told the media that, “If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern, that is someone in the company above her propositioned her but only once and she suffered no tangible job detriment. I would probably tell her that I’m sorry, it’s unfair, but you don’t have a case.’ Katz said that courts have generally held that a one-time proposition does not constitute harassment. If it’s one time, it has to be severe, almost a sexual assault, not just a touching of somebody’s breast or buttocks or even forceful kissing.”
Katz also defended Franken when several women accused him of sexual misconduct.
“Context is relevant,” Katz said of the scandal. “He did not do this as a member of the U.S. Senate. He did this in his capacity of someone who was still functioning as an entertainer.”
* * * * *
I'd love to read her defense of Ted Kennedy leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to slowly drown. You know, no doubt "context" or he was functioning as a chauffeur or something.
-
This just in:
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/19/nolte-kavanaugh-accusers-classmate-deletes-claim-everyone-knew-alleged-misconduct/
-
I think the Senate Democrats' biscuits is burning!
(https://i.imgur.com/gZnPfo5.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/Tla0qcn.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/3tqMdJx.jpg?1)
-
Good for Grassley for not putting up with the Democrats shit. Also, I like the fact that his letter to the committee was made public. To me, transparency is key for our government.
Fox News is reporting that the deadline for CBF to respond to testify has been set for Friday. If they don’t hear from her on Friday the nominations are going to go forward.
-
Funny article from Daily Wire.
“Here’s all the evidence against Brett Kavanaugh”
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36078/heres-all-evidence-against-brett-kavanaugh-michael-j-knowles?utm_source=cnemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=092018-news&utm_campaign=position4
-
Just read Grassley's letter. I hope more folks take the time to read and fully digest it. Though probably the folks that need to read it most will likely dismiss it as more lies.
I like the factual statements, pointing out on what happened with Anita Hill, and calling out of Feinstein. :thumbsup:
I just hope that voter bases for folks like Feinstein, HIrono, et al see through this BS.
-
I can't remember what year this happened
I can't remember what month or day
I can't remember who was there
I can't remember if I was the only female there
I can't remember who's home it was
I can't remember where this took place
I can't remember if I had been drinking that day
I can't remember how many people witnessed it
I do remember it was Kav who was doing it, oh wait, now maybe it was someone else
I want a full FBI investigation!!!!
-
I can't remember what year this happened
I can't remember what month or day
I can't remember who was there
I can't remember if I was the only female there
I can't remember who's home it was
I can't remember where this took place
I can't remember if I had been drinking that day
I can't remember how many people witnessed it
I do remember it was Kav who was doing it, oh wait, now maybe it was someone else
I want a full FBI investigation!!!!
Add:
I can't remember how I got to the house.
I can't remember how I got home.
I can't remember if I was alone with 2 boys, or if I was alone with Kavanaugh and the second boy walked in on us.
I can't remember the names of all 4, 5, or 6 (?) people at the house.
I can't remember if Feinstein said I'd be paid by check or in cash. Maybe it was direct deposit? I can't remember my bank account number, or what bank I use.
-
Maybe she's just taking this too literally?
If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.
— Mark Twain
-
Judge Kavanaugh’s wife, Ashley Estes Kavanaugh, received violent threats this week following the
allegations against her husband, a senior Trump administration official said Thursday. The U.S.
Marshals Service is investigating the emails.
Mrs. Kavanaugh received two profane notes in her work email account in recent days, the official
said. Both notes, which have been reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, were sent from the same
email address.
Citing intelligence reports, the official said that “Threats, including to his (Judge Kavanaugh’s) wife,
have risen this week.”
One note to Mrs. Kavanaugh, a town manager in the Washington, D.C. suburbs read, “May you,
your husband and your kids burn in hell.”
The other, whose subject line reads, “Hi, Ashley,” said she should tell her husband to “put a bullet in
his … skull.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/senators-in-standoff-over-handling-of-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-allegations-1537451055
-
FYI:
The Democrats, and the accuser's lawyer, are trying to get the FBI to delay the confirmation by opening an investigation into the allegations. Delay is the objective.
Without rehashing jurisdiction details, the FBI is not supposed to investigate supreme court nominees unless they have jurisdiction. Even if the Senate asks and begs and threatens, the FBI is not going to investigate.
The Senate, and the Senate alone, has the duty and right to "Advice and consent" in supreme court confirmations. The Senate has the duty to investigate if they feel this matter rises to the level of significance in advising and consenting on the nomination.
The Senate has all the resources they need to do this investigation. They could have done this all during the 2 months Feinstein sat on the letter without mentioning it to the FBI or Senate Judiciary Committee -- up to the point where she leaked the letter to the press after the hearings were over.
The call for the FBI to investigate is a red herring. The Senate, not the FBI, has that responsibility.
-
I can't remember what year this happened
I can't remember what month or day
I can't remember who was there
I can't remember if I was the only female there
I can't remember who's home it was
I can't remember where this took place
I can't remember if I had been drinking that day
I can't remember how many people witnessed it
I do remember it was Kav who was doing it, oh wait, now maybe it was someone else
I want a full FBI investigation!!!!
If she truly can’t remember what year this took place then how can she “know” she was 15 when it supposedly occurred? And if she knows she was 15 when this supposedly occurred, how could she not know what year it was? This is not passing the smell test IMHO.
-
If she truly can’t remember what year this took place then how can she “know” she was 15 when it supposedly occurred? And if she knows she was 15 when this supposedly occurred, how could she not know what year it was? This is not passing the smell test IMHO.
After over THREE DECADES, there's no way she can remember any details unless she has corroborating evidence, like a comment in her yearbook from that year from Kavanaugh or a date-stamped photo of the two of them together.
From some reports, her yearbooks have been expunged from the web, because they basically describe a school that partied and promoted promiscuity -- nothing short of a girl's version of Animal House. Not very good info on her character if she participated.
I didn't drink until college, and never did recreational drugs, including pot. Yet, my high school memories become more run-together as the years pass. I have to refresh my memory with prom pics, yearbooks and other classmates' recollections to get even the major facts straight.
-
CBF’s terms for appearing:
“Among the terms: Only members of the committee -- no lawyers -- can question her; Kavanaugh cannot be in the room at the time; and Kavanaugh must be questioned first.”
No lawyers? Kav can’t be in the room? Does she think they are still in HS? Yeah, she’s the alleged victim, but it’s not like Kav has a history of intimidating folks or stuff like that.
-
CBF’s terms for appearing:
“Among the terms: Only members of the committee -- no lawyers -- can question her; Kavanaugh cannot be in the room at the time; and Kavanaugh must be questioned first.”
No lawyers? Kav can’t be in the room? Does she think they are still in HS? Yeah, she’s the alleged victim, but it’s not like Kav has a history of intimidating folks or stuff like that.
The list of demands keep changing. Before they required the FBI do a full investigation into HER accusations before any hearing. I think they finally accepted that the FBI has no role or jurisdiction to do an investigation. That was the "indefinite delay" the Dems are still pushing for.
All the other demands are just excuses they can point to when she fails to appear Monday.
(https://i.imgur.com/ExcdaCt.jpg)
-
It's amazing to me there are people actually saying they believe Dr. Ford even though there's nothing she's offered by way of proof. In fact, all evidence so far has pointed to her being a liar (or more gently, "confused").
-
(https://i.imgur.com/uEtouwg.jpg?1)
-
It's amazing to me there are people actually saying they believe Dr. Ford even though there's nothing she's offered by way of proof. In fact, all evidence so far has pointed to her being a liar (or more gently, "confused").
So many opinions written by women who said it happened to them so because of that, they beleive CBF. Well, what about all of the men who spent time in jail because of false rape accusations only to be later overturned after an initial rush to judgement.
I mean allegations should be taken seriously, but they need to be substantiated. Like Inspector said, this one just doesn’t pass the smell test.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/8xgNN2h.jpg)
-
From some reports, her yearbooks have been expunged from the web, because they basically describe a school that partied and promoted promiscuity -- nothing short of a girl's version of Animal House. Not very good info on her character if she participated.
Here are some of the relevant pages from the yearbooks. Saved a short time ago by someone who saw the expungement coming.
https://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html?m=1
-
Ford's lawyer now has added to their list of demands for attending a hearing Monday:
- Answer who really shot President Kennedy.
- Ford wants to be exempt from all taxes for life.
- She wants free healthcare for life under a plan of her choosing.
- She wants the electoral college eliminated.
- She wants Kavanaugh to pay her back alimony and child support from the time of the incident, as she would have become pregnant and married him if anything had actually happened.
If these requests are not met, the GOP in the Senate will be guilty of trying to silence this poor victim.
-
Ford's lawyer now has added to their list of demands for attending a hearing Monday:
- Answer who really shot President Kennedy.
- Ford wants to be exempt from all taxes for life.
- She wants free healthcare for life under a plan of her choosing.
- She wants the electoral college eliminated.
- She wants Kavanaugh to pay her back alimony and child support from the time of the incident, as she would have become pregnant and married him if anything had actually happened.
If these requests are not met, the GOP in the Senate will be guilty of trying to silence this poor victim.
I can guarantee you that if all those conditions were met tomorrow morning, there would be a new list of demands by tomorrow afternoon. Now matter what they do or don't do, the/we deplorables will be guilty. You will never win with these people. They can never get enough.
As with our opponents who want to strip all citizens of their ability to defend themselves with firearms from anyone who would attempt to harm them, this is a war.
May I suggest:
http://pluckingtheyew.blogspot.com/2015/12/arguing-with-leftists-is-nonsense.html
Excerpt:
Arguing With Leftists Is Nonsense
I say again. They hate you. They are at war with you. ANY tactic which advances their strategy will be used against you. If "A" didn't work last week, they will use "B" this week. "C" is on the agenda next week. It will never end. They are at war. Get it through your head. They will NEVER leave you alone. They can't. They are at war. You are the enemy. You have not been subdued. You are an enemy standing, armed, in defiance of their plan to dominate you. They are not nice people, well meaning but misguided. They are evil. They want absolute dominion over you. You stand firm in your Christian faith and they spew venom at you. They hate you and they hate your beliefs. You had best be ready and willing to reciprocate.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W9tyRSFUKyg/VmBwF0ojMoI/AAAAAAAAApA/dyLkcd3R48I/s1600/forwardobama.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/8xgNN2h.jpg)
LOVE THIS!!! :love: :love: :love:
-
CBF’s terms for appearing:
“Among the terms: Only members of the committee -- no lawyers -- can question her; Kavanaugh cannot be in the room at the time; and Kavanaugh must be questioned first.”
No lawyers? Kav can’t be in the room? Does she think they are still in HS? Yeah, she’s the alleged victim, but it’s not like Kav has a history of intimidating folks or stuff like that.
Part of due process is Kav’s right to address the accusations being leveled on him. He can’t testify first. I assume Grassley will not go for that. But who knows?
-
Part of due process is Kav’s right to address the accusations being leveled on him. He can’t testify first. I assume Grassley will not go for that. But who knows?
Hillary was interviewed by Rachel Madcow (MSLSD) this week. Rachel asked if we'd learned anything since Bill was investigated for sexual harassment charges.
HRC first started off on how important due process was to protect Bill and his rights. Then she said it's important that due process protects the Kavanaugh accusers rights.
So dishonest how she spun "due process" as a right of the accused (Bill) and now wants to protect "due process" for the victim.
There is no "due process" for a plaintiff. Due process is a protection for the defendant to ensure they get fair and just treatment. The plaintiff has nothing to lose. The defendant has everything to lose.
She's such a Democrat.
-
Hillary was interviewed by Rachel Madcow (MSLSD) this week. Rachel asked if we'd learned anything since Bill was investigated for sexual harassment charges.
HRC first started off on how important due process was to protect Bill and his rights. Then she said it's important that due process protects the Kavanaugh accusers rights.
So dishonest how she spun "due process" as a right of the accused (Bill) and now wants to protect "due process" for the victim.
There is no "due process" for a plaintiff. Due process is a protection for the defendant to ensure they get fair and just treatment. The plaintiff has nothing to lose. The defendant has everything to lose.
She's such a Democrat.
I can’t say what I really think about her. It is too offensive. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
-
I can’t say what I really think about her. It is too offensive. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
Go for it. Trust me, I don’t be offended. ;D
-
Here are some of the relevant pages from the yearbooks. Saved a short time ago by someone who saw the expungement coming.
https://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html?m=1
There is some very interesting quotes in there including an interesting one from CBF. Yeah, Kav is as guilty as DRCK is. :rofl: :P
-
Go for it. Trust me, I don’t be offended. ;D
I can’t. My wife made me promise to never use that word. It starts with a “C”. I think you can figure it out.
-
I can’t. My wife made me promise to never use that word. It starts with a “C”. I think you can figure it out.
CUN-servative?
-
CUN-servative?
Close! :thumbsup:
-
There is some very interesting quotes in there including an interesting one from CBF. Yeah, Kav is as guilty as DRCK is. :rofl: :P
“Lastly one cannot fail to mention the climax of the junior social scene, the party. Striving to extend our educational experience beyond the confines of the classroom, we played such intellectually stimulating games as Quarters, Mexican Dice and everyone’s favorite, Pass-Out, which usually resulted from the aforementioned two.”
I can neither confirm nor deny.
I can’t. My wife made me promise to never use that word. It starts with a “C”. I think you can figure it out.
Gotta try this again after a few beers.
-
I can’t. My wife made me promise to never use that word. It starts with a “C”. I think you can figure it out.
Clinton?
-
I can neither confirm nor deny.
Gotta try this again after a few beers.
Won’t take much after a couple of beers. The F word might get used a lot as well. :rofl:
-
Won’t take much after a couple of beers. The F word might get used a lot as well. :rofl:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/21/anti-kavanaugh-voices-hirono-feinstein-took-campaign-cash-from-dem-colleague-who-admitted-hitting-his-wife.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/20/bookers-push-for-kavanaugh-vote-delay-called-out-over-his-1992-column-detailing-teenage-groping.html
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/21/anti-kavanaugh-voices-hirono-feinstein-took-campaign-cash-from-dem-colleague-who-admitted-hitting-his-wife.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/20/bookers-push-for-kavanaugh-vote-delay-called-out-over-his-1992-column-detailing-teenage-groping.html
The “F” word flows easily in me. The “C” word used to until my wife got as mad as I have ever seen her. But now I feel the words welling up in my throat.....
I need a beer. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
The “F” word flows easily in me. The “C” word used to until my wife got as mad as I have ever seen her. But now I feel the words welling up in my throat.....
I need a beer. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
The "C" word is mainstream in Britain, where it is applied to both males and females. Can't you claim to have had some British exposure to it? Oh, never mind, no "excuse" would ever suffice anyway. Just do what she says.
-
The "C" word is mainstream in Britain, where it is applied to both males and females. Can't you claim to have had some British exposure to it? Oh, never mind, no "excuse" would ever suffice anyway. Just do what she says.
My wife has only gotten this mad at me for two things in our 24 years together. One is using the “C” word and the other is threatening to buy a motorcycle many years after I had a nasty accident on one. If these are the only two things I have had to give up after 24 years, I can live with it. Tho I do miss riding quite a bit, after seeing the number of motorcycle, scooter, bicycle and pedestrian accidents here, I think she has a point.
-
Dan Bongino has a few words for Hirono re Kavanaugh... the only thing he gets wrong is at the end when he calls her "Maggie"...
Mazie Hirono Obviously Has Never Heard of the Biden Rule
There Doesn't Seem to Be Any Intelligent Life in the Democrat Party
https://www.nratv.com/videos/we-stand-mazie-hirono-obviously-has-never-heard-of-the-biden-rule?utm_source=NRATV&utm_campaign=daily_20180921&utm_medium=email&utm_content=body&= (https://www.nratv.com/videos/we-stand-mazie-hirono-obviously-has-never-heard-of-the-biden-rule?utm_source=NRATV&utm_campaign=daily_20180921&utm_medium=email&utm_content=body&=)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/lPJgqCi.jpg)
-
CNN Asked Five Women If They Believed Kavanaugh.
CNN Didn’t Like Their Answers
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/21/gop-women-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-florida-kaye-pkg-ac-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-allegations/
-
Now, this PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY can't control her fear of flying, and therefore needs to drive from California to DC.
The Monday hearing was scheduled 4 days ago. She just now remembers she can't fly 3 days before the hearing.
:crazy:
-
CNN Asked Five Women If They Believed Kavanaugh.
CNN Didn’t Like Their Answers
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/21/gop-women-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-florida-kaye-pkg-ac-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-allegations/
What do you expect from a group of women with names like LOURDES CASTILLO DE LA PENA, IRINA VILLARINO, GINA SOSA, and ANGIE VAZQUEZ. Oh, wait... nevermind.
-
My doctor grabbed my by the umbilical cord. 34 years ago...
-
My doctor grabbed my by the umbilical cord. 34 years ago...
I think the nurse saw me naked and then spanked me without my consent.
-
Debra Katz, one of Dr. Ford's lawyers (one of??), was on camera 2 years ago vowing:
"We're going to fight back. We are going to resist. We will not be silenced"
after Sessions was confirmed as USAG.
https://youtu.be/yS4LBCCeZJk
-
Democrat play book
1)as she walks in, all dems will stand and applaud her. Like she was neil armstrong returning home from the moon.
2)dems instead of asking questions will praise her courage and compare her to MLK, Rosa Parks, etc...
3) if she does answer any questions, they will be vague and emotional.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180922/16150222c28fba5abe3ec714e4f31adf.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Democrat play book
1)as she walks in, all dems will stand and applaud her. Like she was neil armstrong returning home from the moon.
2)dems instead of asking questions will praise her courage and compare her to MLK, Rosa Parks, etc...
3) if she does answer any questions, they will be vague and emotional.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Grassley extended the deadline for Ford's lawyers to accept the invitation to appear at the hearing from 5:00pm today to 10:00pm. They even offered to move the hearing date from Monday to Wednesday.
After Ford's lawyers once again begged for more time to respond, Grassley extended for the fifth time until tomorrow.
So, the hearing was going to be Monday -- now its Wednesday.
They were going respond by 5pm Friday -- then 10pm Friday -- now sometime Saturday.
Oh, and the lawyers want the hearing scheduled for Thursday now.
"We can't respond by Friday at 5. And can you move the hearing to Wednesday?"
"Okay, you have until 10pm to respond. And the hearing is now Wednesday."
"10pm is still not enough time to respond. And can you move the meeting to Thursday now?"
Grassley said if they let the deadline today come and go, he's going to cancel the hearing and schedule a confirmation vote for the committee on Monday.
These Senators are making accommodations one after the other. Grassley needs to announce the time Saturday the invitation expires so we know what's going on. I hope they ignore that extension and let it pass. That's all Grassley needs to shut this circus down.
(https://i.imgur.com/EziSJiw.jpg?1)
-
There's no proof she ever went through a "traumatic experience." Therefore, using that as an excuse for repressed or fuzzy memory is unsupported.
"Something happened to me long ago. I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but that's because something happened to me long ago." Circular reasoning.
Did she really send a letter to Feinstein in July? Why did Feinstein sit on it until the hearings were over? If the accuser really wanted to remain anonymous, why did she pay for a lawyer and a polygraph a month or more before Feinstein leaked the letter to the press?
Objective? LOL! You mean willing to swallow any argument as plausible because a Liberal from California said it's true -- as much as she can remember anyway.
Of course there is no proof for something that happened so long ago. What kind of proof would you expect to still exist if it actually did occur.
Not being able to remember all these details 36 years later is understandable but they have no bearing on whether it actually happened or not. Now when it comes to doing an investigation that inability to remember such details does make it extremely difficult/impossible to investigate such a thing.
She is fuzzy on some of the details yes, but she is not fuzzy on the specific elements that would be necessary to establish a criminal allegation. People who are victims of traumatic crimes often have trouble recalling specific details.
Why did Feinstein sit on it for so long? My money is on stalling. Democrats are absolutely milking this cow for everything it is worth but that does not mean the allegations are false.
Why did Ford pay a lawyer? Not sure, maybe for legal advice? Maybe she was considering going public but changed her mind? The question is a fair one but it does not prove her claim to be a hoax. You are grasping a non sequitur.
Objective because I can look at all the sides and consider all the angles. I don't discard plausible explanations just because they don't favor my political viewpoint. I don't discard plausible explanations just because I wouldn't personally do that in their situation.
There are a few possibilities here as I see it.
-She completely fabricated the incident
-The incident happened but she is not remembering it accurately. (Could be different suspect or could be different actions that did not amount to sex assault, etc.)
-The incident happened as she told it.
Try to be objective when you have questions like why didn't she say anything for 36 years or why did she hire a lawyer, and look at it through all the possibilities instead of the one you want to be true.
-
I think the democrats are absolutely milking this story for everything it has in an attempt to delay but honestly it is hard to complain about democrats delaying a SCOTUS nominee vote when the republicans did the same thing 2 years ago.
I am getting jaded at the dirty politics of both sides recently.
-
Grassley extended the deadline for Ford's lawyers to accept the invitation to appear at the hearing from 5:00pm today to 10:00pm. They even offered to move the hearing date from Monday to Wednesday.
After Ford's lawyers once again begged for more time to respond, Grassley extended for the fifth time until tomorrow.
So, the hearing was going to be Monday -- now its Wednesday.
They were going respond by 5pm Friday -- then 10pm Friday -- now sometime Saturday.
Oh, and the lawyers want the hearing scheduled for Thursday now.
"We can't respond by Friday at 5. And can you move the hearing to Wednesday?"
"Okay, you have until 10pm to respond. And the hearing is now Wednesday."
"10pm is still not enough time to respond. And can you move the meeting to Thursday now?"
Grassley said if they let the deadline today come and go, he's going to cancel the hearing and schedule a confirmation vote for the committee on Monday.
These Senators are making accommodations one after the other. Grassley needs to announce the time Saturday the invitation expires so we know what's going on. I hope they ignore that extension and let it pass. That's all Grassley needs to shut this circus down.
(https://i.imgur.com/EziSJiw.jpg?1)
typical-
"how come you won't compromise?"
-
typical-
"how come you won't compromise?"
And now they're talking about impeachment after he is confirmed, if he is confirmed, ever... not sure why Grassley is even talking to these people much less acquiescing to most of their delaying whims...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/22/democrats-float-more-kavanaugh-investigations-impeachment-even-if-is-confirmed.html
-
And now they're talking about impeachment after he is confirmed, if he is confirmed, ever... not sure why Grassley is even talking to these people much less acquiescing to most of their delaying whims...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/22/democrats-float-more-kavanaugh-investigations-impeachment-even-if-is-confirmed.html
Latest reports say Ford "agrees in general" to the hearing, but the lawyers need to sit down later today to negotiate over the details.
If one of those details is the date, then they don't agree. They have what's called a counter-proposal. Far from being an agreement. They are trying to delay, delay, delay.
Can't wait to see what "reasonable" accommodations they demand. So far, they've asked:
Ford will not appear any sooner than next Thursday;
No questions to be asked at hearing by any outside counsel -- only by Senators; (how are they going to stop counsel from passing questions to Senators?)
Mark Judge must be subpoenaed;
Kavanaugh would testify first, then Ford would testify, and Kavanaugh would have no opportunity to respond or rebut;
The Friday deadline for her to provide written statement before the hearing would be waived;
Provide adequate security;
Only one pool camera in hearing room;
Ford and Kavanaugh allotted the same amount of time to talk.
She also stated she is afraid to fly, so must drive to from CA to DC. That's counter to her stated "fear for her safety". On the road is much more of a safety risk than on an airplane. The time and distance opens her up to someone being able to hurt her, if these threats are even credible.
Waiting for the demands "all legal fees to be paid by tax payers" and "a new life provided by WITSEC" ....
-
Dr. Ford: Too terrified of flying to travel from CA to DC on an aircraft.
Also Dr. Ford: Moved to Hawaii for a one-year internship to complete her PhD.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Dr. Ford: Too terrified of flying to travel from CA to DC on an aircraft.
Also Dr. Ford: Moved to Hawaii for a one-year internship to complete her PhD.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
It’s a lot less terrifying flying over water than it is to fly over land. :wacko:
-
This just in, Keyser, a lifelong friend of Ford was identified as the other female at the party that this supposed groping took place. She has now come out and officially stated that she is denying this ever happened. So now out of the 5 people who were identified as being at this party, 4 of them have denied either being there or deny this ever happened. The 4 people are Kav, Judge, Smyth (all friends) and now Keyser (lifelong friend of Ford). Ford is pretty much on her own here.
I think the most logical explanation to all of this is that her memory of the incident is flawed. I don’t doubt this happened to her in her own mind. I just think she is getting some other incidents confused together. I have done this myself and I could swear something occurred but when I question someone who I remember was there, they deny they were a part of it. Yet my mind is telling me I am right. While it is absolutely possible that she is lying, I think it is too late for her to turn back.
-
Of course there is no proof for something that happened so long ago. What kind of proof would you expect to still exist if it actually did occur.
Not being able to remember all these details 36 years later is understandable but they have no bearing on whether it actually happened or not. Now when it comes to doing an investigation that inability to remember such details does make it extremely difficult/impossible to investigate such a thing.
She is fuzzy on some of the details yes, but she is not fuzzy on the specific elements that would be necessary to establish a criminal allegation. People who are victims of traumatic crimes often have trouble recalling specific details.
Why did Feinstein sit on it for so long? My money is on stalling. Democrats are absolutely milking this cow for everything it is worth but that does not mean the allegations are false.
Why did Ford pay a lawyer? Not sure, maybe for legal advice? Maybe she was considering going public but changed her mind? The question is a fair one but it does not prove her claim to be a hoax. You are grasping a non sequitur.
Objective because I can look at all the sides and consider all the angles. I don't discard plausible explanations just because they don't favor my political viewpoint. I don't discard plausible explanations just because I wouldn't personally do that in their situation.
There are a few possibilities here as I see it.
-She completely fabricated the incident
-The incident happened but she is not remembering it accurately. (Could be different suspect or could be different actions that did not amount to sex assault, etc.)
-The incident happened as she told it.
Try to be objective when you have questions like why didn't she say anything for 36 years or why did she hire a lawyer, and look at it through all the possibilities instead of the one you want to be true.
What if story:
I was selling makahiki tickets as a cub scout in pack 5. I was wearing a blue uniform with a yellow bandana tied around my neck. My shirt was tucked in and i was wearing sneakers. I had a pocket knife on ny blue belt that had a gold buckle. I arrivred at the door and knocked and hirono answered the door. I remmeber her because i saw her in the paper and on tv. I offered to sell the $3 ticket and she bought 2. She then ran her hand down my back and grabbed my butt. I ran away and moved on.
This happened when i was 8.
I dont remember what year
I dont rememebr whos home it was
I dont remember who i was with
I dont remember how i got to the area
I dont remember how i got home
I think 4 people saw this happen, but none can confirm.
I never told anyone until 2012
There is no payment history (check, cc, cash, insurance) to my counsalor
My post on fb that someone should accuse shatz of sexual harrassement. Then deleted my fb
I participate in anti democrat protesting
When asked to tell my story, i cant make it
When trying to tell my story, i need "terms"
My brother works for Trumps lawyer
My parents lost their home to Hironos family who filed a lawsuit against them
So i have specific details. Is hirono guilty now? Will there be a fbi investigation?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
This just in, Keyser, a lifelong friend of Ford was identified as the other female at the party that this supposed groping took place. She has now come out and officially stated that she is denying this ever happened. So now out of the 5 people who were identified as being at this party, 4 of them have denied either being there or deny this ever happened. The 4 people are Kav, Judge, Smyth (all friends) and now Keyser (lifelong friend of Ford). Ford is pretty much on her own here.
I think the most logical explanation to all of this is that her memory of the incident is flawed. I don’t doubt this happened to her in her own mind. I just think she is getting some other incidents confused together. I have done this myself and I could swear something occurred but when I question someone who I remember was there, they deny they were a part of it. Yet my mind is telling me I am right. While it is absolutely possible that she is lying, I think it is too late for her to turn back.
I've been engaging in this thread more than I should, mostly because I had a similar experience in high school. I haven't really told but a couple of friends, mainly because it really doesn't make any sense to me.
Long story short, there was this Sophomore girl I kissed ONCE and stopped when she said she had a boyfriend. But, for some reason, she told her boyfriend. I still don't know what she told him, but he came to my school and threatened me. He's a good 5 inches taller and a lot heavier -- football player from another school in our county. He yelled and made noise slamming his fist on the side of the school busses we were between, until the asst principal popped his head around the corner to see what was up. I told him this guy was just leaving, so he did.
Over a year later, I'd just finished my first year in college and was back home for the Summer. I hadn't thought of that guy all year long, then the phone at home rang. He wanted to meet to apologize for his yelling at me. So, I went to the mall as he asked to meet him. He and 2 of his friends walked me to the Sears loading dock, where he repeated the same yelling and hitting -- this time against a semi trailer. Luckily a security guard walked around the corner and told us to leave. As we walked away, the guard put his hand on his gun and ordered the others to drop their weapons. I hadn't noticed, but all three had hunting knives on their belts mostly covered by their shirts. The guard said they can claim them next week at the mall office. I had a feeling they'd also be trespassed and barred from mall property, but never heard if they did that.
As I got on my motorcycle, the guy yelled, "Meet me at your high school in 30 minutes." I said, "Okay. I'll be there."
I drove straight home, got my grandmother's Raven Arms .25, called a friend, picked her up on my bike, and we ate dinner at Pizza Hut in Charlotte. No way was I going to the school with 3 idiots looking for a reason to do whatever to me.
I never heard from them again. Maybe they were arrested for carrying concealed weapons? No idea.
The rest of that Summer and next year at school was fine. I came home after my Sophomore year and dropped by the high school for whatever reason. Speaking to the Sergeant at the JROTC trailer, I mention that girl's name. He said, "Didn't you hear? She committed suicide."
Apparently whatever was going on with her and that boyfriend caused her to put a shotgun in her mouth.
My guess is, she told him something more than what really happened in that activity bus in Raleigh that one night, or he didn't believe that was all there was to it. Why she told him at all is a mystery. Regardless, I was basically Kavanaugh with someone coming after me for something I never did -- and didn't even know what it was I was supposed to have done. All because a girl with an imagination decided ... what? She needed some drama to spice up her life? Maybe it was purely her guilt that exaggerated the magnitude of what happened.
I often wonder how much I may have factored into her decision to take her life. I wish I knew the whole story. So few details -- so much craziness.
-
This just in, Keyser, a lifelong friend of Ford was identified as the other female at the party that this supposed groping took place. She has now come out and officially stated that she is denying this ever happened. So now out of the 5 people who were identified as being at this party, 4 of them have denied either being there or deny this ever happened. The 4 people are Kav, Judge, Smyth (all friends) and now Keyser (lifelong friend of Ford). Ford is pretty much on her own here.
I think the most logical explanation to all of this is that her memory of the incident is flawed. I don’t doubt this happened to her in her own mind. I just think she is getting some other incidents confused together. I have done this myself and I could swear something occurred but when I question someone who I remember was there, they deny they were a part of it. Yet my mind is telling me I am right. While it is absolutely possible that she is lying, I think it is too late for her to turn back.
Here's what the lawyer, Katz, said about Keyser:
"It's not surprising that Ms Keyser has no recollection of the evening as they did not discuss it," Katz
said in a statement. "It's also unremarkable that Ms. Keyser does not remember attending a specific
gathering 30 years ago at which nothing of consequence happened to her. Dr. Ford of course will
never forget this gathering because of what happened to her there."
OMG! "Dr. Ford of course will never forget?" She barely remembers "who" was there, changes the "what" from "put his hands on me" to "attempted rape", and can't remember squat about "when", "where" or "how".
But, she'll never forget the "gathering." I thought she called it a party ... now it's a "gathering?"
They need to stop with the ever-changing storyline.
-
HA!
-
Here's what the lawyer, Katz, said about Keyser:
OMG! "Dr. Ford of course will never forget?" She barely remembers "who" was there, changes the "what" from "put his hands on me" to "attempted rape", and can't remember squat about "when", "where" or "how".
But, she'll never forget the "gathering." I thought she called it a party ... now it's a "gathering?"
They need to stop with the ever-changing storyline.
Of course she had to put a spin on it. If they accept it at face value they don’t have a case. Of course she doesn’t have a case anyway. I think Ford should just fade away into the sunset so everyone will just forget about her. Eventually.
-
Dr. Ford: Too terrified of flying to travel from CA to DC on an aircraft.
Also Dr. Ford: Moved to Hawaii for a one-year internship to complete her PhD.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Even if she did suffer a phobia, they offered to send someone out to interview her where she lives!
-
This just in, Keyser, a lifelong friend of Ford was identified as the other female at the party that this supposed groping took place. She has now come out and officially stated that she is denying this ever happened. So now out of the 5 people who were identified as being at this party, 4 of them have denied either being there or deny this ever happened. The 4 people are Kav, Judge, Smyth (all friends) and now Keyser (lifelong friend of Ford). Ford is pretty much on her own here.
I think the most logical explanation to all of this is that her memory of the incident is flawed. I don’t doubt this happened to her in her own mind. I just think she is getting some other incidents confused together. I have done this myself and I could swear something occurred but when I question someone who I remember was there, they deny they were a part of it. Yet my mind is telling me I am right. While it is absolutely possible that she is lying, I think it is too late for her to turn back.
An interesting twist of events. If Ford is lying, why would she name Keyser as having been at the party? Now if indeed Keyser did go to the party but it was uneventful it is possible she has no recollection of the party. And if Keyser was downstairs when the incident happened and Ford never told her then of course she would have no knowledge. Keyser did state that she did not know Kavanaugh either which again is possible that they were at the same party but Keyser's account doesn't help Ford's case.
I too think that a flawed memory could be at work. Scientists have found that our memories are much less accurate than we think them to be. We get various details wrong and the passage of time doesn't help. Our brains can even be tricked into remembering things that never happened or happened but the person was not their to witness it. So the accuracy of Ford's memory is a huge aspect to be contended, and if she had been drinking, even more to bring into doubt. Maybe she was touched but it was someone else, maybe she was touched but it wasn't as the recalls it, or even (less likely I think) she wasn't touched at all.
Of course the thing about pointing out difficulties of accurate memories are that it is a double edged sword. The same could be used to attempt to call into question Kavanaugh's memory or anyone else at the party.
-
And now they're talking about impeachment after he is confirmed, if he is confirmed, ever... not sure why Grassley is even talking to these people much less acquiescing to most of their delaying whims...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/22/democrats-float-more-kavanaugh-investigations-impeachment-even-if-is-confirmed.html
I must admit I didn't know it was possible to impeach a justice, guess you learn something new every day. It has only been done once in our history though.
I think this mechanism works in favor for the republicans saying just have the vote already. Hold the vote now and then direct the FBI to fully investigate Ford's claims and if they find good reason to believe Kavanaugh did what she claims then impeach him. That should be the response, give him the job but take it away if the accusations end up being true.
-
I've been engaging in this thread more than I should, mostly because I had a similar experience in high school. I haven't really told but a couple of friends, mainly because it really doesn't make any sense to me.
Long story short, there was this Sophomore girl I kissed ONCE and stopped when she said she had a boyfriend. But, for some reason, she told her boyfriend. I still don't know what she told him, but he came to my school and threatened me. He's a good 5 inches taller and a lot heavier -- football player from another school in our county. He yelled and made noise slamming his fist on the side of the school busses we were between, until the asst principal popped his head around the corner to see what was up. I told him this guy was just leaving, so he did.
Over a year later, I'd just finished my first year in college and was back home for the Summer. I hadn't thought of that guy all year long, then the phone at home rang. He wanted to meet to apologize for his yelling at me. So, I went to the mall as he asked to meet him. He and 2 of his friends walked me to the Sears loading dock, where he repeated the same yelling and hitting -- this time against a semi trailer. Luckily a security guard walked around the corner and told us to leave. As we walked away, the guard put his hand on his gun and ordered the others to drop their weapons. I hadn't noticed, but all three had hunting knives on their belts mostly covered by their shirts. The guard said they can claim them next week at the mall office. I had a feeling they'd also be trespassed and barred from mall property, but never heard if they did that.
As I got on my motorcycle, the guy yelled, "Meet me at your high school in 30 minutes." I said, "Okay. I'll be there."
I drove straight home, got my grandmother's Raven Arms .25, called a friend, picked her up on my bike, and we ate dinner at Pizza Hut in Charlotte. No way was I going to the school with 3 idiots looking for a reason to do whatever to me.
I never heard from them again. Maybe they were arrested for carrying concealed weapons? No idea.
The rest of that Summer and next year at school was fine. I came home after my Sophomore year and dropped by the high school for whatever reason. Speaking to the Sergeant at the JROTC trailer, I mention that girl's name. He said, "Didn't you hear? She committed suicide."
Apparently whatever was going on with her and that boyfriend caused her to put a shotgun in her mouth.
My guess is, she told him something more than what really happened in that activity bus in Raleigh that one night, or he didn't believe that was all there was to it. Why she told him at all is a mystery. Regardless, I was basically Kavanaugh with someone coming after me for something I never did -- and didn't even know what it was I was supposed to have done. All because a girl with an imagination decided ... what? She needed some drama to spice up her life? Maybe it was purely her guilt that exaggerated the magnitude of what happened.
I often wonder how much I may have factored into her decision to take her life. I wish I knew the whole story. So few details -- so much craziness.
Glad you are ok. I have had a few instances that I still fear could come back and bite me later in life even though my actions were innocent. Nothing with such a dramatic end though.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/qgxjDUP.jpg?1)
-
Look into who tweeted about providing funding for fords security...the law professor who rod reinstein consuled about the 25th amendment.heidi feldman. She also raised funds for a george town univesity student, whos mom was killed at sandy hook.
Also ford has some stake in big pharma and abortion pills. Guess who is against abortion...
Connect the dots.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
When I started this thread 14 days and 244 comments ago it was after watching the first couple hours (actually the first six seconds when Kamala Harris continually interrupted Chairman Grassley) of the committee hearing live on C-Span. I couldn't believe what I was watching, a total circus of orchestrated Democrat obstruction, that for some reason Grassley was allowing them to get away with... but I figured, okay, 4 days, maybe 5 of this crap and it'll be over. Now it's two weeks later and there is no end in sight. It seems to me this is a new, uh, low... even far exceeding the Anita Hill fiasco during the Clarence Thomas hearings that he termed "a high tech lynching". :crazy: :shake: >:( :( :wtf:
Now there's a new "poll" out about what people "think" and "believe", etc.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/fox-news-poll-record-number-voters-oppose-kavanaugh-nomination.html
The detailed poll itself is here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/fox-news-poll-923.html
If some event, as claimed by Ford, took place, the only people that ever knew what actually happened would only be the people in the room at the time, all else would be "hearsay". Given the eccentricities of human memory, especially under the influence of drugs like alcohol, even those people that may have been in the room IF anything happened at all, could be completely mistaken in their memories, and/or any of them could be deliberately lying.
None of any of that has any bearing, as far as I'm concerned, on whether or not the candidate, 36 years later, has the ability to competently perform the duties of SCOTUS justice.
But let's take a poll.
(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
-
When I started this thread 14 days and 244 comments ago it was after watching the first couple hours (actually the first six seconds when Kamala Harris continually interrupted Chairman Grassley) of the committee hearing live on C-Span. I couldn't believe what I was watching, a total circus of orchestrated Democrat obstruction, that for some reason Grassley was allowing them to get away with... but I figured, okay, 4 days, maybe 5 of this crap and it'll be over. Now it's two weeks later and there is no end in sight. It seems to me this is a new, uh, low... even far exceeding the Anita Hill fiasco during the Clarence Thomas hearings that he termed "a high tech lynching". :crazy: :shake: >:( :( :wtf:
Now there's a new "poll" out about what people "think" and "believe", etc.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/fox-news-poll-record-number-voters-oppose-kavanaugh-nomination.html
The detailed poll itself is here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/fox-news-poll-923.html
If some event, as claimed by Ford, took place, the only people that ever knew what actually happened would only be the people in the room at the time, all else would be "hearsay". Given the eccentricities of human memory, especially under the influence of drugs like alcohol, even those people that may have been in the room IF anything happened at all, could be completely mistaken in their memories, and/or any of them could be deliberately lying.
None of any of that has any bearing, as far as I'm concerned, on whether or not the candidate, 36 years later, has the ability to competently perform the duties of SCOTUS justice.
But let's take a poll.
(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
It goes further than that. For her story to be corroborated in any way, she needs others at the "gathering" (it's not a party now, according to the lawyers) to verify the fact she and Kavanaugh were physically in the same place at the same time. That at the very least creates opportunity for the alleged assault, as well as corroborates her memory of the two of them being there at the same time.
So far, each person Ford remembered being there who's been questioned has denied attending any such gathering, and they don't know of any time when Kavanaugh and Ford were anywhere together. Even a life-long friend of Ford's, Keyser, said she'd never seen Kavanaugh back then..
So, not only can she not get corroboration, her "witnesses" are digging her hole deeper by corroborating Kavanaugh's defense -- that he was never there, that he never tried to assault her, and he doesn't even know her.
-
I don’t like to speculate on things I know nothing about. But.
A very believable person went out on a limb and said that Kav has an airtight alibi. And it will be revealed next Thursday when they both testify. Obviously, no one knows what this alibi can be. So here is some speculation. One person felt there is a recording of Ford’s lawyer discussing the ruining of Kav’s nomination. While admitting the groping never took place. There Is the possibility of a witness to someone witnessing Ford accepting money or being involved in the money transfer. There could also be someone who Ford admitted something to prior to 2012 that is willing to come forward against her testimony. The one that sounds most realistic to me is that Ford already admitted that she was 15 and it took place in the summer of 1982. It could be that Kav was traveling in Europe or was at some place outside of the state for the summer. Something he can prove. They are just waiting for her to go record with this testimony.
Again, this is all speculation so it could be that there is no airtight alibi. I just thought I would throw this out here in case someone wants to google it and possibly discuss.
Right after I typed the above, I found this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/us/politics/kavanaugh-senate-calendar.html
-
I don’t like to speculate on things I know nothing about. But.
A very believable person went out on a limb and said that Kav has an airtight alibi. And it will be revealed next Thursday when they both testify. Obviously, no one knows what this alibi can be. So here is some speculation. One person felt there is a recording of Ford’s lawyer discussing the ruining of Kav’s nomination. While admitting the groping never took place. There Is the possibility of a witness to someone witnessing Ford accepting money or being involved in the money transfer. There could also be someone who Ford admitted something to prior to 2012 that is willing to come forward against her testimony. The one that sounds most realistic to me is that Ford already admitted that she was 15 and it took place in the summer of 1982. It could be that Kav was traveling in Europe or was at some place outside of the state for the summer. Something he can prove. They are just waiting for her to go record with this testimony.
Again, this is all speculation so it could be that there is no airtight alibi. I just thought I would throw this out here in case someone wants to google it and possibly discuss.
All the more troubling that anyone truly believes this woman, when she can't be sure of the time or place. Gives her too much wiggle room. If he says, "I was in Europe those Summer months', she can then counter with, "I wasn't 100% sure about the time."
No matter how much pressure the Democrats put on the public and the committee to believe her accusations, most people have common sense and know where to draw the line between "credible" and "you don't remember, so how can we ask him for a response?"
Too many holes in her recollection. It'll be interesting to see how much legal coaching she gets before the hearing to avoid getting called a liar every other statement. So much of her claims is already out in the ethershpere.
-
All the more troubling that anyone truly believes this woman, when she can't be sure of the time or place. Gives her too much wiggle room. If he says, "I was in Europe those Summer months', she can then counter with, "I wasn't 100% sure about the time."
No matter how much pressure the Democrats put on the public and the committee to believe her accusations, most people have common sense and know where to draw the line between "credible" and "you don't remember, so how can we ask him for a response?"
Too many holes in her recollection. It'll be interesting to see how much legal coaching she gets before the hearing to avoid getting called a liar every other statement. So much of her claims is already out in the ethershpere.
See the link in last post. I edited the post after you quoted it. Great NYT article.
-
See the link in last post. I edited the post after you quoted it. Great NYT article.
Yes. I saw most of that on various Tweets.
Her allegation is a moving target. No matter what he has to refute her "details", the Democrats will deflect with, "she wasn't positive that was the date."
I still say, if she can't do better than the story she's already given, I don't believe she's measured up to "credible". In fact, she's most likely doing this for political reasons, giving her a lot of motive for lying.
People ask, "Why would she lie, knowing this circus would involve her?" She didn't know. Her letter, according to Feinstein, said she won't testify and wanted to remain anonymous.
And where, exactly, is that letter? Grassley said he still hasn't seen it. Does it further cast doubt on her story? Something fishy about the letter being hidden when so much info is being leaked.
-
I've seen several Democrats holding fundraisers this week and using the Kavanaugh confirmation as their "carrot". Now this ....
In a long memo for the liberal activist group MoveOn.org, Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii writes:
“My question is: What are they trying to hide? What are they so afraid of? If Kavanaugh is innocent,
why isn't he calling for a full investigation to prove it unequivocally? I worry that the answer is that he
knows he is guilty. And if that's the case, we absolutely must do everything we can to stop him.”
(https://i.imgur.com/XqZAfN0.jpg?1)
https://t.co/zqd2cG2dUR
-
"This is a situation that is not going to go away."
- Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii
Hirono cites Kavanaugh's 'outcome-driven' legal philosophy as reason to deny him due process
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/top-democrat-cites-kavanaughs-outcome-driven-legal-philosophy-as-reason-to-deny-him-due-process.html
The top senator, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, left open the door to impeaching Kavanaugh if he is confirmed -- an idea floated by some Democrats, including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., last week.
"I know that Maryland has eliminated the statute of limitations for kidnapping and sexual assault," she said. "So there may be an investigation along those lines. This is a situation that is not going to go away."
The Supreme Court has held that changes to statutes of limitations cannot apply retroactively to enable the prosecution of past offenses, pursuant the Ex Post Facto provision of the Constitution. However, the Senate can technically remove any federal judge based on a two-thirds vote, regardless of whether a specific crime has been committed.
-
Unfuckingbelievable... they're crawling out of the woodwork at a breakneck pace... I predict 30 accusations by Thursday. Just like the McMartin pre-school satanic and UFO accusations... where people went to prison for years before it was revealed as a hoax...
Kavanaugh faces new accusations; Avenatti claims 'evidence' of 'targeting' women for gang rape
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/kavanaugh-faces-new-accusations-avenatti-claims-evidence-targeting-women-for-gang-rape.html
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh faced a storm of new sexual misconduct allegations Sunday after attorney Michael Avenatti said he had knowledge that Kavanaugh and high school friend Mark Judge targeted women with drugs and alcohol in order to "allow a 'train' of men to subsequently gang rape them."
Meanwhile, the New Yorker magazine reported late Sunday that a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh claimed that he exposed himself to her at a college party.
The woman, Deborah Ramirez, has called on the FBI to investigate the alleged incident. The magazine's report, which is co-written by Pulitzer Prize winner Ronan Farrow, states that four Democratic senators have received information about Ramirez's allegation and at least two have begun investigating it.
-
Unfuckingbelievable... they're crawling out of the woodwork at a breakneck pace... I predict 30 accusations by Thursday. Just like the McMartin pre-school satanic and UFO accusations... where people went to prison for years before it was revealed as a hoax...
Kavanaugh faces new accusations; Avenatti claims 'evidence' of 'targeting' women for gang rape
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/kavanaugh-faces-new-accusations-avenatti-claims-evidence-targeting-women-for-gang-rape.html
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh faced a storm of new sexual misconduct allegations Sunday after attorney Michael Avenatti said he had knowledge that Kavanaugh and high school friend Mark Judge targeted women with drugs and alcohol in order to "allow a 'train' of men to subsequently gang rape them."
Meanwhile, the New Yorker magazine reported late Sunday that a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh claimed that he exposed himself to her at a college party.
The woman, Deborah Ramirez, has called on the FBI to investigate the alleged incident. The magazine's report, which is co-written by Pulitzer Prize winner Ronan Farrow, states that four Democratic senators have received information about Ramirez's allegation and at least two have begun investigating it.
So here's where we are:
1 - Ford's accusations delayed the confirmation process for almost two weeks now.
2 - New accuser comes in with same time-frame of "sexual harassment" accusation. Ramirez takes us past another week of delay or longer. Ford no longer needs to testify.
3 - A third accuser comes in with same accusations. Same lack of credibility with fuzzy memories and witnesses countering her story. Her accusations take us another couple of weeks into October. Ramirez doesn't have to testify now.
It's like a game of leap frog. Each time another frog leaps ahead of you, you're spared the hearing that outs you as a liar. The Dems will send in as many frogs as needed to keep the confirmation from occurring before midterm elections.
If the Dems capture the Senate, they achieve their objective -- blocking a Trump Supreme Court Pick. They can keep blocking the committee vote indefinitely with enough unfounded accusations.
-
Lucky for us, Stormy Daniel's Creepy Porn Lawyer is on the case. He wants to know what the comments ANOTHER STUDENT wrote in Kavanaugh's yearbook mean.
We've entered the Romper Room of politics ....
(https://i.imgur.com/2VJQRUV.jpg?1)
-
Give an inch, they take a mile. Gop hasent learned yet.
So the 6 who Ramirez ID'd all say Kav wasnt in on "the joke".
Ford claims she called her friend from a cell right away after it happened. The "brick" wasnt invented until 1984 at a price tag of $3400 and only released in 6 cities iirc.
Gop fucking up. They only go on the defensive and not as a team. "Its not my attack, so i wont help". Look at Roy Moore as an example.
Its ok, major bombshells and arrest coming this week.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Give an inch, they take a mile. Gop hasent learned yet.
So the 6 who Ramirez ID'd all say Kav wasnt in on "the joke".
Ford claims she called her friend from a cell right away after it happened. The "brick" wasnt invented until 1984 at a price tag of $3400 and only released in 6 cities iirc.
Gop fucking up. They only go on the defensive and not as a team. "Its not my attack, so i wont help". Look at Roy Moore as an example.
Its ok, major bombshells and arrest coming this week.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Right now, nothing being played out in the press is testimony. It's a smear campaign with no official statements made under oath EXCEPT for Kavanaugh, who voluntarily participated in a teleconference last week to answer questions about Ford's accusations -- the one not a single Democrat cared enough to attend or send a staffer to take notes.
I think the GOP is wise to let the feathers and fur fly why they stay out of the fray. On Thursday, if and when Ford testifies, there will be an accounting as to which official testimony is more credible.
I'd much rather Grassley take a vote Monday, but with this question mark hanging over Kavanaugh, it might jeopardize his chance of making it to a full vote.
No matter how obvious it is she's lying, nothing is official yet. Gotta get her on the record before we break out the torches and pitchforks.
-
So here's where we are:
3 - A third accuser comes in with same accusations. Same lack of credibility with fuzzy memories and witnesses countering her story. Her accusations take us another couple of weeks into October. Ramirez doesn't have to testify now.
From what I read of the new accusation, her claim might have more witnesses than Ford's.
All of this is getting complicated. A new allegation, allegations about Kavanaugh's witnesses' credibility, character witnesses against him.
I don't think this is looking good for Kavanaugh when a second allegation comes out.
-
Give an inch, they take a mile. Gop hasent learned yet.
So the 6 who Ramirez ID'd all say Kav wasnt in on "the joke".
Ford claims she called her friend from a cell right away after it happened. The "brick" wasnt invented until 1984 at a price tag of $3400 and only released in 6 cities iirc.
Gop fucking up. They only go on the defensive and not as a team. "Its not my attack, so i wont help". Look at Roy Moore as an example.
Its ok, major bombshells and arrest coming this week.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Someone posted that on facebook but I see nothing in the news where Ford called a friend on a cell phone and told her what happened. Where did that one come from?
I know Ford said she didn't tell anyone so this would be a reversal of her previous statement if true.
-
From what I read of the new accusation, her claim might have more witnesses than Ford's.
All of this is getting complicated. A new allegation, allegations about Kavanaugh's witnesses' credibility, character witnesses against him.
I don't think this is looking good for Kavanaugh when a second allegation comes out.
Once again, we hear from the "judge of all that doesn't look good." :geekdanc:
Rather than couch your comments in euphemisms that don't really express what you meant, can you explain WHY this doesn't look good for him?
What are the facts that make today a different lie from an accuser than yesterday's?
What are your predicted outcomes from this "doesn't look good" situation in terns of Kavanaugh's confirmation vote, considering the GOP merely has to get this past committee for a majority GOP full vote?
Please enlighten us how you came to that judgement.
-
Check this article at The Daily Wire:
10+Serious+Problems+With+New+Accusations+Against+Kavanaugh
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36229/10-serious-problems-new-accusations-against-ryan-saavedra
-
Check this article at The Daily Wire:
10+Serious+Problems+With+New+Accusations+Against+Kavanaugh
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36229/10-serious-problems-new-accusations-against-ryan-saavedra
Serious questions on credibility of the allegations. However, sadly I feel many falling for these distractions.
Yes, allegations should be taken seriously at all levels. That said, the allegations have to have some merit or corroboration. The allegations on Kav don't seem to have ANY, but that's not stopping many getting on the feminism or #metoo train just because they want to make a point. While I would never want someone who has gone through sexual assault or abuse to have to go silent due to fear of retribution, there also needs to be consideration for punishing those who falsely accuse. I'm not saying in this case specifically, but I'm thinking in cases of rape where the accuser was later found to be lying and the person released.
-
It's all bullshit, Republicans need to grow some fucking balls and just call the vote already. None of this matters, it's all just a Democratic circus of shit slinging monkeys.
-
It's all bullshit, Republicans need to grow some fucking balls and just call the vote already. None of this matters, it's all just a Democratic circus of shit slinging monkeys.
^^^THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! X1,000,000,000,000
-
It's all bullshit, Republicans need to grow some fucking balls and just call the vote already. None of this matters, it's all just a Democratic circus of shit slinging monkeys.
I agree that the accusations, stalling, etc at all BS. That said, I think if they try to push the vote through, there may be enough Rs that could vote against confirmation. I don't recall the names, but I thought there were about 3-4 that said they would vote against if the accusations weren't at least given a hearing. Yeah, that speculation probably emboldened the Dems to stall further, but that's where we are at.
I believe they should roll the dice and have a vote. That said, I don't know if there's an overall strategy behind giving this more time, if there is one.
-
Tucker Carlson, from his show opening tonight, lays it out... just how dangerous (idiot) Hirono's statements and underlying principles (all men cannot be believed, all women must be believed, "court of credibility", etc.) are. It goes to the very core of the values our country was founded upon. It's 13 minutes long. He nails it.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/09/24/tucker-carlson-blasts-mazie-hirono-kavanaugh-men-comment-guilty-until-proven-innocent
Dem 'Folk Hero' Hirono Invented 'Court of Credibility' Putting Burden of Proof on Men, The Accused
-
Brett Kavanaugh announces she is actually a woman trapped in a man's body, and she therefore deserves to be believed.
Ball is in your court now, Liberals.
-
Brett Kavanaugh announces she is actually a woman trapped in a man's body, and she therefore deserves to be believed.
Ball is in your court now, Liberals.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
And, as predicted, Ford is still trying to delay the hearing set for Thursday. If the other accuser/s can piggyback on her repays, she'll back out of testifying altogether.
It was never about being heard. It's about attacking a nominee for political purposes. Period.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/25/kavanaugh-hearing-once-again-in-doubt-as-christine-ford-raises-new-concerns.html
-
Brett Kavanaugh announces she is actually a woman trapped in a man's body, and she therefore deserves to be believed.
BallS is are in your court now, Liberals.
FIFY ;D
I'm sure that statement would trigger a lot of them.
-
Couldn't find a good link to the HNN article yesterday, but it mentioned Hirono's attendance and even maybe leading the charge at a rally yesterday protesting Kav, men, etc. :facepalm:
The one positive I saw was the outpouring of negative comments railing against Hirono. Hard to say if the negative comments are local folks who vote, but I do hope that sentiment spreads.
-
Brett Kavanaugh announces she is actually a woman trapped in a man's body, and she therefore deserves to be believed.
Ball is in your court now, Liberals.
Brilliant lol... gonna start posting this on facebook whenever HNN posts a Kavanaugh story.
-
(https://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2018-09/209259_5_.jpg)
-
And, as predicted, Ford is still trying to delay the hearing set for Thursday. If the other accuser/s can piggyback on her repays, she'll back out of testifying altogether.
It was never about being heard. It's about attacking a nominee for political purposes. Period.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/25/kavanaugh-hearing-once-again-in-doubt-as-christine-ford-raises-new-concerns.html
Like I said and others have, GOP needs a sack and should not have given so many extensions. 1 and that's it.
-
Another interesting point. In 1996 Christina Ford's parents lost their home in foreclosure. The judge that ruled against them was Brett Kavanaugh's mother. Could this be revenge motivated?
-
Another interesting point. In 1996 Christina Ford's parents lost their home in foreclosure. The judge that ruled against them was Brett Kavanaugh's mother. Could this be revenge motivated?
That's why combo of things, not only her story that doesn't make sense.
She published 8 or so papers supporting an abortion pill RU-486 (Kav is against abortion)
She had a FB post about "someone should accuse Goersch of sexual assault" (FB page deleted prior to letter being public)
Afraid to fly, even though she studied here at UH
And for Ramirez
Her friends who she says can vouch for her story can't
The other guys who she claims were in on the "joke" claim Kav wasn't part of it
Her best friend who Ramirez tells "everything" wasn't told this story
Her attorney is funded by Soro's
Her attorney takes part in Anti Sessions (Jeff)/BLM protest (vid with her wearing a shirt with a black fist on it and doing an interview)
Just waiting to connect the dots for Avannati's "victim"
So far he's using a year book with a message signed "FFFFFFinally" or some shit. And claiming the F stands for and is code for French them, finger them, fuck them, feel them, find them,etc...
-
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/24/kavanaugh-fox-news-interview-220618
wtf?
"The striking aspect of this strategy is that it makes no pretense about keeping Kavanaugh outside the boundaries of blatantly partisan political tactics."
-
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/24/kavanaugh-fox-news-interview-220618
wtf?
"The striking aspect of this strategy is that it makes no pretense about keeping Kavanaugh outside the boundaries of blatantly partisan political tactics."
English please. . .
Sounds like the nutjob that was caught on camera screaming assault at the Q&A thing at UH last week. I wish I could find a link to a video that's not on FB. I can't find the video anymore now. Maybe it was taken down. But it showed a guy challenging the "change my mind" of the speakers Owens and Kirk event. He was screaming something that made no sense. How can you respond to someone who is rambling nonsense?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y_cQysF-Ks
TDS is real
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDYNVH0U3cs
My fav by far.
-
Grassley says he 'is not going to silence' Ford, vows key Kavanaugh hearing will proceed before possible vote
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/25/grassley-says-is-not-going-to-silence-ford-vows-key-kavanaugh-hearing-will-proceed-before-possible-vote
-
Michael Avenatti Locks Account After Admitting Kavanaugh Accuser Might Not Come Forward
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/25/michael-avenatti-locks-twitter-public-profile-after-admitting-kavanaugh-accuser-might-not-come-forward/ (https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/25/michael-avenatti-locks-twitter-public-profile-after-admitting-kavanaugh-accuser-might-not-come-forward/)
-
Just read an NBC report that the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to send the confirmation to the floor is now rescheduled for
FRIDAY!!
Just one day after Ford is supposed to testi-lie.
-
Is this that fish eye troll?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDYNVH0U3cs
-
Patricia McCarthy, yes, a woman, let's the leftist liars have it with both barrels... and reloads for the idiot Hirono... and the people of the state who elected her. I agree. I'm surrounded by idiots and morons and liars.
The Democrats have viciously overplayed their hand
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/the_democrats_have_viciously_overplayed_their_hand.html
There are no words to adequately describe how venal these conspirators among the congressional left are, how low they are prepared to go. To this day, not one Democrat has spoken out against this monstrous plan to destroy a fine man who has led an impeccable life. Not one. Each and every one of them knows that this is an odious campaign based on lies, but not one of them will admit to this fact. The Democratic Party is officially deplorable in every sense of the word.
.....
Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii is too ignorant of the Constitution and basic ethics to discuss; she is a disgrace to the Senate and her state. Men, to Hirono, should not have a voice because they are all guilty. She says the law does not apply here because "we are not in a court of law, we are in the court of credibility." No evidence needed. She is a very stupid woman, and Hawaiians actually elected her. This is a huge problem. It is disturbing that any of these people was elected. Voters need to be more cognizant of the character of the people for whom they vote.
-
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/25/michael-avenatti-locks-twitter-public-profile-after-admitting-kavanaugh-accuser-might-not-come-forward/ (https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/25/michael-avenatti-locks-twitter-public-profile-after-admitting-kavanaugh-accuser-might-not-come-forward/)
I couldn’t copy the link, otherwise I would have posted it here. I also don’t know if this is true or not. Maybe you can google it. According to the article from an unverified source a troll on 4chan punked Avenetti. This guy and his girlfriend used burner phones and convinced Avenetti that she could prove she was gang raped by Kav and Judge and you know all the other things Avenetti claimed. As soon as they saw Avenetti made public that he had a witness ready to come forward that could prove the gang rape thing, they destroyed their burner phones. It was not too long after that that he locked his Twitter account and said she might not come forward.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Just read an NBC report that the Senate Judiciary Committee vote to send the confirmation to the floor is now rescheduled for
FRIDAY!!
Just one day after Ford is supposed to testi-lie.
Good, let’s get this silliness over and done with.
-
I couldn’t copy the link, otherwise I would have posted it here. I also don’t know if this is true or not. Maybe you can google it. According to the article from an unverified source a troll on 4chan punked Avenetti. This guy and his girlfriend used burner phones and convinced Avenetti that she could prove she was gang raped by Kav and Judge and you know all the other things Avenetti claimed. As soon as they saw Avenetti made public that he had a witness ready to come forward that could prove the gang rape thing, they destroyed their burner phones. It was not too long after that that he locked his Twitter account and said she might not come forward.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Just did a quick Google search and couldn’t find anything to corroborate. Did see something about Avenatti saying a third accuser was “100% credible”. Either way, just get this done and move on.
-
Good, let’s get this silliness over and done with.
:thumbsup:
My thoughts exactly. Just posted that same sentiment as you were posting this. Haha
-
Just did a quick Google search and couldn’t find anything to corroborate. Did see something about Avenatti saying a third accuser was “100% credible”. Either way, just get this done and move on.
Here I found a better link:
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/09/25/michael-avenatti-locks-twitter-after-4chan-user-claims-girlfriend-pranked-him-posed-as-third-kavanaugh-accuser/
-
Here I found a better link:
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/09/25/michael-avenatti-locks-twitter-after-4chan-user-claims-girlfriend-pranked-him-posed-as-third-kavanaugh-accuser/
Ahh. Damn pranksters.
-
Ahh. Damn pranksters.
Could it be? Could it be that? Could it be that the? Could it be that the troll? Could it be that the troll was? Could it be that the troll was actually..........
Wait for it.......
TRUMP? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Could it be? Could it be that? Could it be that the? Could it be that the troll? Could it be that the troll was? Could it be that the troll was actually..........
Wait for it.......
TRUMP? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
4D chess, huh?
I’m waiting for Ford to appear at the hearing, then someone rip off a mask and reveal HRC like in an episode of Scooby Doo.
-
4D chess, huh?
I’m waiting for Ford to appear at the hearing, then someone rip off a mask and reveal HRC like in an episode of Scooby Doo.
You are insulting Scooby Doo!.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
4D chess, huh?
I’m waiting for Ford to appear at the hearing, then someone rip off a mask and reveal HRC like in an episode of Scooby Doo.
Fbi should investigate kav like how they investigated hrc. "Did u do anything wrong?". No, ok, were done here
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
(https://i.imgur.com/mrVBaYR.png)
-
Looks like accuser #2 is 99% ready ..... to run away!
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/25/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez-might-not-testify/1427657002/
When the New York Times passes on publishing a hit piece on a Trump nominee for the Supreme Court, it's almost a given it doesn't pass the most casual sniff test.
The New York Times passed on Ramirez’s story before it was published by The New Yorker over the weekend.
The Times claims neither publication “were able to find witnesses acknowledging the episode,” thought The New
Yorker said a fellow unnamed student heard about her alleged assault in the days following the incident.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/vX82GJi.jpg?1)
-
Looks like accuser #2 is 99% ready ..... to run away!
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/25/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez-might-not-testify/1427657002/
When the New York Times passes on publishing a hit piece on a Trump nominee for the Supreme Court, it's almost a given it doesn't pass the most casual sniff test.
Ahh the hypocrisy!
Was listening to NPR this morning and whoever was on was pointing out that Trump was citing holes in accusers' statements based on reporting in NYT and other sources, calling those statements by Trump unsubstantiated because he was just citing that those outlets were reporting. But they just on every word those same outlets spew if it served their narrative. I truly hope people are starting to see right through this. Sadly, I think folks are still being herded, blindly. . .
-
Ahh the hypocrisy!
Was listening to NPR this morning and whoever was on was pointing out that Trump was citing holes in accusers' statements based on reporting in NYT and other sources, calling those statements by Trump unsubstantiated because he was just citing that those outlets were reporting. But they just on every word those same outlets spew if it served their narrative. I truly hope people are starting to see right through this. Sadly, I think folks are still being herded, blindly. . .
I am hearing now that Avenetti’s accuser might actually be a real person. Her statement is very vague. More BS. I hope Grassley sees through this and calls a stop to this madness. Take the vote already!
-
I am hearing now that Avenetti’s accuser might actually be a real person. Her statement is very vague. More BS. I hope Grassley sees through this and calls a stop to this madness. Take the vote already!
Yup. Move forward with life.
I also read that Avenatti has a third accuser that he felt was “100% credible”. More characters added to the circus this has turned into. Where allegations seem to be smeared on anyone. Tides eventually change. Will see what happens then...
-
Yup. Move forward with life.
I also read that Avenatti has a third accuser that he felt was “100% credible”. More characters added to the circus this has turned into. Where allegations seem to be smeared on anyone. Tides eventually change. Will see what happens then...
What a lot of people don’t realize is the due process law that we have actually states that the government shall notify us of it’s intent in order to give anyone the opportunity to come forward and testify. More than enough notice was given. Many months notice to be more exact. Anyone who wants to testify needs to do so at tomorrow’s meeting because they have been provided more than ample time to prepare and come forward to testify. Friday is the vote to go to the senate or not. As far as I am concerned this charade is too little too late. These last minute accusations don’t matter any more. Grassley is doing the right thing by not legitimizing any more of these so called accusers. No corroborating evidence by any accuser. Period. And if there is, then bring it tomorrow. Otherwise SHUT THE F UP!!!
Can you tell I have had my coffee this morning? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
:rofl:
-
What a lot of people don’t realize is the due process law that we have actually states that the government shall notify us of it’s intent in order to give anyone the opportunity to come forward and testify. More than enough notice was given. Many months notice to be more exact. Anyone who wants to testify needs to do so at tomorrow’s meeting because they have been provided more than ample time to prepare and come forward to testify. Friday is the vote to go to the senate or not. As far as I am concerned this charade is too little too late. These last minute accusations don’t matter any more. Grassley is doing the right thing by not legitimizing any more of these so called accusers. No corroborating evidence by any accuser. Period. And if there is, then bring it tomorrow. Otherwise SHUT THE F UP!!!
Can you tell I have had my coffee this morning? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I agree. To be fair to NPR, they do bring on folks from both sides. Even though Steve Inscape's biases are super obvious.
They had someone from Trump's team on first and Inscape kept asking the question, "does Trump feel that Kav should be confirmed even if these allegations are true?". This is a poll that NPR is or was running. The guy stuck to the line that Kav has stated, under Oath and penalty of perjury that under no uncertain terms did NOT do any what he has been accused of. Inscape kept trying to get him to answer, which he didn't.
Then came on the opposition (I forget who or what group), but he's like "the guy kept dodging the question" and Inscape agreed. But then when Inscape brought up the timing of CBF letter and why it took so long for Feinstein to bring it forward, that the period for "discovery" was well after the letter's reported delivery and nothing was done. Well, the guy danced around that one.
And about to have my coffee now.
-
You can read Swetnick's "declaration" here:
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044960428730843136/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1044960428730843136%7Ctwgr%5E363937393b70726f64756374696f6e&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2F09%2F26%2Favenatti-releases-graphic-kavanaugh-allegations-calls-for-new-delay.html
Click on the small print and it will open in a new tab full size.
She should testify tomorrow. She claims to have multiple corroborating witness, who thus far are anonymous. Schumer says this means Kavanaugh should withdraw. Chaos indeed!
-
I read it. It is vague. Here is a list of questions:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36347/walsh-5-crucial-questions-about-newest-accusations-matt-walsh
-
I read it. It is vague. Here is a list of questions:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36347/walsh-5-crucial-questions-about-newest-accusations-matt-walsh
Other questions are:
1. If this was as common an occurrence as Swetnick claims, many parties on many weekends with these things happening frequently, why (apparently) was no police report ever filed by any of these women who were assaulted and/or gang raped? Every single one of them over years of this occurring regularly and not one single one of them ever reported it to anyone? If there are police reports, why have they not been made public? Surely, if these things happened and were reported at least a few people would have been arrested and charged, if not eventually convicted, because
2. The number of people at these parties who would have both been victims of the assaults and gang rapes, as well as the number of witnesses to all of it, would have been a huge number (witnesses who could have testified in court and help convict the rapists). It's hard to believe that every single one of them, including all the female victims, are part of some "conspiracty of silence". Why would they do that? Every single victim can't be in some position to lose a well-paying job if she talked to police,,, at any time during the past 35 years. Makes no sense. No sense at all. There must be at least dozens of witnesses. I hope they all testify tomorrow. Under oath.
This may all be true, but it's starting to have the McMartin pre-school fiasco aura to it. Mass hysteria.
-
Other questions are:
1. If this was as common an occurrence as Swetnick claims, many parties on many weekends with these things happening frequently, why (apparently) was no police report ever filed by any of these women who were assaulted and/or gang raped? Every single one of them over years of this occurring regularly and not one single one of them ever reported it to anyone? If there are police reports, why have they not been made public? Surely, if these things happened and were reported at least a few people would have been arrested and charged, if not eventually convicted, because
2. The number of people at these parties who would have both been victims of the assaults and gang rapes, as well as the number of witnesses to all of it, would have been a huge number (witnesses who could have testified in court and help convict the rapists). It's hard to believe that every single one of them, including all the female victims, are part of some "conspiracty of silence". Why would they do that? Every single victim can't be in some position to lose a well-paying job if she talked to police,,, at any time during the past 35 years. Makes no sense. No sense at all. There must be at least dozens of witnesses. I hope they all testify tomorrow.
This may all be true, but it's staring to have the McMartin pre-school fiasco feel to it. Mass hysteria.
And another question, why would Kavanaugh embarrass himself to the whole world by admitting he was a virgin throughout HS and college unless it was true? I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t admit this to anyone. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I understand, or at least as I believe I am able to understand, why it is difficult for an accuser to come forward. As seen by the circus surrounding CBF, it can be pretty nasty. While I believe it does take a tremendous about of courage to come forward, just that fact alone doesn't make that accusation any more credible. Every case should be looked at upon their own merit and in the case of CBF, I don't think it has any merit. At all, zero.
What is driving me nuts is the emotional outcry to support CBF and other alleged victims. Victims of sexual assault and what typically comes with raising accusations. Where other victims are judging Kav as guilty with the reasoning that "if it can happen to me, then what CBF is saying must be true". :crazy: :grrr:
I would think differently if there were some relevant, recent, or corroborated reports.
In any case, time to move forward. Committee vote first and then go from there. If Kav fails in the Senate, so be it. Move on. . . I just hope this does damage to those slinging the BS as well as other's learning from the tactics being used.
-
And another question, why would Kavanaugh embarrass himself to the whole world by admitting he was a virgin throughout HS and college unless it was true? I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t admit this to anyone. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
DOUBLE STANDARD! [/sarcasm]
I recall reading that Ramirez stated as part of her accusation that something about she was a devout Catholic, so the first time she intended on touching a penis was on her wedding night. As if that made her story have more credibility. Then folks jumping on that like "then it MUST be true!". ::)
Wait. . . so you were a virgin throughout HS and college? ??? :rofl:
-
In any case, time to move forward. Committee vote first and then go from there. If Kav fails in the Senate, so be it. Move on. . . I just hope this does damage to those slinging the BS as well as other's learning from the tactics being used.
"Move on" to what? Unless these accusations are proven to some standard, I would want "beyond a reasonable doubt", if Kavanaugh is not confirmed by the Senate, who the hell is ever going to submit to being nominated, much less ever get confirmed by the Senate? The only people who could consider being nominated by SCOTUS would be women, and even they wouldn't want to be subjected to this kind of smear tactics. The court will dwindle down the the last two survivors... unless one party can take a commanding majority in the Senate, and even then they won't be able to recruit nominees even if they could "guarantee" a confirmation vote... "Uh, no thanks. Remember what happened to Kavanaugh?"
-
The problem with claims of "sex assault" is that everyone now things any unwanted advance is SA. Let's ask people this. When you were 1st dating your spouse, how did the "1st move" come? Did you tell them prior that "I want to be kissed/hand grabbed, etc..?" Or did your spouse just go in for it?
So with the above being said, we have all "struck out" many times prior to our current relationship. And I have never been slapped or the other person got angry for attempting to go in. But these are girls who dates were gone on, and not some random girl you grab in the club and try and kiss her (that's the difference). So can all those men/women claim unwanted advances?
-
"Move on" to what? Unless these accusations are proven to some standard, I would want "beyond a reasonable doubt", if Kavanaugh is not confirmed by the Senate, who the hell is ever going to submit to being nominated, much less ever get confirmed by the Senate? The only people who could consider being nominated by SCOTUS would be women, and even they wouldn't want to be subjected to this kind of smear tactics. The court will dwindle down the the last two survivors... unless one party can take a commanding majority in the Senate, and even then they won't be able to recruit nominees even if they could "guarantee" a confirmation vote... "Uh, no thanks. Remember what happened to Kavanaugh?"
If Kav does fail, then this will give positive reinforcement to the DNC playbook on how to stop any Trump nominee for ANYTHING. Just call sexual assault, even though baseless.
-
"Move on" to what? Unless these accusations are proven to some standard, I would want "beyond a reasonable doubt", if Kavanaugh is not confirmed by the Senate, who the hell is ever going to submit to being nominated, much less ever get confirmed by the Senate? The only people who could consider being nominated by SCOTUS would be women, and even they wouldn't want to be subjected to this kind of smear tactics. The court will dwindle down the the last two survivors... unless one party can take a commanding majority in the Senate, and even then they won't be able to recruit nominees even if they could "guarantee" a confirmation vote... "Uh, no thanks. Remember what happened to Kavanaugh?"
Move on to what? The next nominee. You'd rather leave it to the next administration? That's exactly what the Dems want. A 4-4 stalemate held until they have a change at circumstances more in their favor. What would you propose, keep dragging this out to get "beyond reasonable doubt"? Stay at 4-4?
I'm just saying it's time to roll the dice and let things fall where they may. I just think this is too much of a circus and trying to fit it within the time constraints of the timing of the mid-term elections. I'm not saying that I believe Kav will fail nor do I want that. Just time to get the ball moving.
-
Move on to what? The next nominee. You'd rather leave it to the next administration? That's exactly what the Dems want. A 4-4 stalemate held until they have a change at circumstances more in their favor. What would you propose, keep dragging this out to get "beyond reasonable doubt"? Stay at 4-4?
I'm just saying it's time to roll the dice and let things fall where they may. I just think this is too much of a circus and trying to fit it within the time constraints of the timing of the mid-term elections. I'm not saying that I believe Kav will fail nor do I want that. Just time to get the ball moving.
My vote: vote in committee Friday at the latest. Vote in the Senate Monday at the latest.
I have no reason to believe that anyone nominated by Trump will be subject to the exact same scenario as we've seen here with Kavanaugh, except if the nominee is a woman, in which case she'll be subjected to the female version. The nly thing that would "work" wold be to ask Schumer who he wants the nominee to be and go with that... which halfway seems like what the gutless Repubs are de facto doing. I hope they prove me wrong Friday and Monday.
-
My vote: vote in committee Friday at the latest. Vote in the Senate Monday at the latest.
I have no reason to believe that anyone nominated by Trump will be subject to the exact same scenario as we've seen here with Kavanaugh, except if the nominee is a woman, in which case she'll be subjected to the female version. The nly thing that would "work" wold be to ask Schumer who he wants the nominee to be and go with that... which halfway seems like what the gutless Repubs are de facto doing. I hope they prove me wrong Friday and Monday.
I agree. To clarify, I mean move on with the whole process. Vote in committee ASAP (Friday would be great to hold the line), then assuming it makes it to the Senate, then vote there. That's what I meant with the roll of the dice and move on. Move on with the process as a whole. If it should turn out that the Senate vote that Kav is not confirmed, then move on with the next nominee. I was not saying move on to next nominees at THIS point. Only IF Kav's nomination fails in the Senate. You even highlighted that part of my quote.
I would think that anyone nominated by Trump would face slander and such. No doubt. I do think there are specific reasons why Kav is drawing fire as opposed to Gorsuch, but I sense the desperation here.
-
Ford's attorneys have released the polygraph results/report.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4945720-180926-Ltr-to-Davis.html#document/p2
Here are all the questions she was asked and her answers:
A. Is any part of your statement false? Answer: No
B. Did you make up any part of your statement? Answer: No
Results: "Not indicative of Deception".
Well, that pretty much proves it for me. So that takes care of that. The other interesting thing is that it was administered on August 7, 2018 in Maryland. How did she get to Maryland without flying? I'm just askin'...
-
If Kav does fail, then this will give positive reinforcement to the DNC playbook on how to stop any Trump nominee for ANYTHING. Just call sexual assault, even though baseless.
I think they will continue to use this strategy again, even if Kav is confirmed. Anything anti-Trump. Sadly, it's becoming a "cost of doing business" with all of the "movements" going on these days. I just hope it eventually blows up in the faces of those slinging the slander as folks wake up and get tired of the BS, like what appeared to change the tides in 2016.
-
The calendar reflects the daily activities of a typical 17-year-old boy: plans to mow the grass, go to the movies, play sports, go to “beach week” and attend summer camp. It includes mentions of prom, being grounded, birthday parties, lifting weights and interviewing at Yale and Brown universities.
Upon first glance, I saw porn instead of prom. :oops:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/26/republicans-stand-by-kavanaugh-fire-back-at-avenatti-as-new-allegations-jolt-court-bid.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/26/republicans-stand-by-kavanaugh-fire-back-at-avenatti-as-new-allegations-jolt-court-bid.html)
-
The 4 letters "corroborating" Ford's attack are from her husband and 3 friends who were told BY FORD (hearsay) that she was attacked in high school, most without hearing the attacker's name then -- just "a federal judge in DC".
None of those accounts happened before her 2012 therapy session. So, we are to believe that for 30 years, she told nobody, including her husband. Then, after a therapist gets her to "remember" the attack, telling four people over the past 6 years is "corroboration?" Corroboration of what ... that she believes what she said in therapy? She didn't even get the detail right -- she said 4 people were at the party during therapy according to therapist notes, then changed to 5 or 6 people in this current version.
If her memory is so unreliable about all the details that are missing or keep changing, and people supposedly there have denied the events, and the people "corroborating" the attack only repeat what she herself told them, then there is no corroboration.
Fail.
Fail.
Fail.
Fail.
Fail.
-
Avantti's accuser is as follows:
1) Was in college when Kav was in high school
2) Attended a high school party
3) Know the gang rapes happen often, still went to 10 other similar parties
As for her story, nothing changes even with the polygraph. Because details did change since she wrote about the story.
-
Avantti's accuser is as follows:
1) Was in college when Kav was in high school
2) Attended a high school party
3) Know the gang rapes happen often, still went to 10 other similar parties
As for her story, nothing changes even with the polygraph. Because details did change since she wrote about the story.
I heard she never said Kavanaugh raped her or anyone else, just that he was one of many boys "waiting" in an adjacent room for his "turn."
So, if attending a "gang rape party" makes you a rapist, she is a rapist 10 times over. Rape is a crime of power and assault, not merely having nonconsensual sex. She must have been having a good time to keep showing up.
It's also ridiculous that so many "rape gang parties" were happening, and not ONE SINGLE RAPE VICTIM ever reported these parties and made complaints leading to arrests of any rapists. Not one single attendee ever reported them to authorities.
So much for "credible."
-
I heard she never said Kavanaugh raped her or anyone else, just that he was one of many boys "waiting" in an adjacent room for his "turn."
So, if attending a "gang rape party" makes you a rapist, she is a rapist 10 times over. Rape is a crime of power and assault, not merely having nonconsensual sex. She must have been having a good time to keep showing up.
It's also ridiculous that so many "rape gang parties" were happening, and not ONE SINGLE RAPE VICTIM ever reported these parties and made complaints leading to arrests of any rapists. Not one single attendee ever reported them to authorities.
So much for "credible."
She just stated that Kav was "there". So at the party I guess, but not part of the actual train? Like how Kav is in DC, and DC has had 4 murders in the pats few days. Must be Kav's fault since he is "there" also.
-
I heard she never said Kavanaugh raped her or anyone else, just that he was one of many boys "waiting" in an adjacent room for his "turn."
So, if attending a "gang rape party" makes you a rapist, she is a rapist 10 times over. Rape is a crime of power and assault, not merely having nonconsensual sex. She must have been having a good time to keep showing up.
It's also ridiculous that so many "rape gang parties" were happening, and not ONE SINGLE RAPE VICTIM ever reported these parties and made complaints leading to arrests of any rapists. Not one single attendee ever reported them to authorities.
So much for "credible."
The latest accuser does say she was a victim of a gang rape at one of the parties, having been secretly dosed with quaaludes or some similar drug. My question is: Where in the series of parties that you went to when you witnessed the gang rapes, did you yourself get raped? If it was at the FIRST party you went to with this group of people, why did you ever go back to more parties when you saw the same thing happening over and over, as it would have been possible for you to be a victim again? If it WASN'T the FIRST party you went to that you got gang raped, but had seen women being gang raped at even a single party, much less more than one, why in the world would you have gone to more parties, knowing gang rapes were taking place, and that you could have been a potential victim (and ultimnately were)? Just curious. Under oath please.
-
The latest accuser does say she was a victim of a gang rape at one of the parties, having been secretly dosed with quaaludes or some similar drug. My question is: Where in the series of parties that you went to when you witnessed the gang rapes, did you yourself get raped? If it was at the FIRST party you went to with this group of people, why did you ever go back to more parties when you saw the same thing happening over and over, as it would have been possible for you to be a victim again? If it WASN'T the FIRST party you went to that you got gang raped, but had seen women being gang raped at even a single party, much less more than one, why in the world would you have gone to more parties, knowing gang rapes were taking place, and that you could have been a potential victim (and ultimnately were)? Just curious. Under oath please.
It's common sense, if she attended 10 of these parties, nothing close to a gang rape ever happened. Neither she, any of the victims, nor any of the attendees ever made a report to authorities at the school or law enforcement. There would be a record somewhere. Noting there.
Something this outlandish can't stay a secret. it just can not. Not enough ways to call "BULLSHIT!!" to describe this woman's story.
-
It's common sense, if she attended 10 of these parties, nothing close to a gang rape ever happened. Neither she, any of the victims, nor any of the attendees ever made a report to authorities at the school or law enforcement. There would be a record somewhere. Noting there.
Something this outlandish can't stay a secret. it just can not. Not enough ways to call "BULLSHIT!!" to describe this woman's story.
That's why I say it reminds me of the McMartin pre-school hysteria, where people ended up spending years in prison before the whole thing was exposed as a "hoax", albeit an unintentional one perpetrated by incompetent psychologists who "questioned" and "coached" the children until they gave the "right" answers (sexual abuse). Some of the "stories" were so outlandish... going to far distant places and seeing people murdered, being taken up into a UFO, etc. And people were sent to prison until dedicated people were able to slowly uncover, via acquiring public records and private medical records, the actual truth: nothing happened. Seems eerily similar.
-
(https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/mazie-hirono-believe-accusers-not-stance-for-daniel-inouye/)
Hirono’s involvement in the effort to sink the Kavanaugh nomination is nakedly political. She told Politico last Tuesday that she may try to derail for as long as two years any future Trump appointment. “I think we’ve had those kinds of vacancies before, and we certainly had over a one-year vacancy with Merrick Garland,” Hirono said. “So the world does not come to an end because we don’t fill all of the nominees.”
-
HNN is reporting a 4th and 5th accusers. The 5th is a male! Said “a Mark and a Brett” forced themselves on him while in a boat in RI. Said he knew it was Kav after seeding photo in Kav’s yearbook. Wow! Seriously Twilight Zone.
-
HNN is reporting a 4th and 5th accusers. The 5th is a male! Said “a Mark and a Brett” forced themselves on him while in a boat in RI. Said he knew it was Kav after seeding photo in Kav’s yearbook. Wow! Seriously Twilight Zone.
Kav should admit to it so he can be the first openly bi-sexual SCOTUS. What would the Dems say after that? They would have to support him/her. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I love this shit! :rofl: If someone wrote a tv show or movie with this crap in it people would say "That's too fake. Stuff like that could never happen in real life."
Note the source is leftist Politico.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348
Ex-boyfriend filed restraining order against third Kavanaugh accuser
Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and a friend of attending house parties where women — including herself — were sexually assaulted, had a restraining order filed against her years later in Miami by her former boyfriend.
A Miami-Dade County court docket shows a petition for injunction against Swetnick was filed March 1, 2001, by her former boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, who told POLITICO Wednesday the two had dated for four years before they broke up.
According to Vinneccy, Swetnick threatened him after they broke up and even after he got married to his current wife and had a child.
“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. "I know a lot about her.”
"She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”
Vinneccy made clear that he did not believe her story.
“I have a lot of facts, evidence, that what she’s saying is not true at all,” he said. “I would rather speak to my attorney first before saying more."
Avenatti said called the reporting “outrageous” and accused the press of “digging into the past” of a woman who stepped forward and is willing to testify under oath. [If he said that... well,.. fucking unbelievable...]
-
If this all turns out to be satanic ritual abuse and human sacrifice AND is proven true... I'm moving... to another planet. :crazy:
-
Obviously the FBI needs to step up their background checks. How can all this crap go unreported and undiscovered after so many background checks? I mean, they interview people based on names given by other interviewees. At some point, someone who knows something would have been uncovered.
And when did the rate of unreported sexual assault to law enforcement reach 100%? You mean not one "victim" or "witness" ever reported him? He must have found Jesus his senior year in college, because all these alleged assaults were much earlier.
-
Illuminatti I tell ya, Illuminatti...... :sleeping:
-
Illuminatti I tell ya, Illuminatti...... :sleeping:
-
They are all full of SHIT!!! :wtf:
-
You are not going to believe this one:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36377/judiciary-talking-man-who-thinks-he-forced-ryan-saavedra
Two men have come forward saying they think they are the ones who molested Ford. You can’t make this shit up!!!
-
You are not going to believe this one:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36377/judiciary-talking-man-who-thinks-he-forced-ryan-saavedra
Two men have come forward saying they think they are the ones who molested Ford. You can’t make this shit up!!!
I guess they're safe from prosecution since (1) she never filed a complaint, and (2) her accusation of the wrong man seriously brings her testimony into doubt.
Even if they are saying they are the 2 involved, they can still deny sexual assault. It could have been consensual making out, things got overheated, and she left with nothing happening. And no one put a hand over her mouth.
Who's to say different? Her? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: "Credibility" isn't just for Democrat talking points.
-
I guess they're safe from prosecution since (1) she never filed a complaint, and (2) her accusation of the wrong man seriously brings her testimony into doubt.
Even if they are saying they are the 2 involved, they can still deny sexual assault. It could have been consensual making out, things got overheated, and she left with nothing happening. And no one put a hand over her mouth.
Who's to say different? Her? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: "Credibility" isn't just for Democrat talking points.
Without going to the proper authorities (Not the FBI) and reporting this incident, none of these women have any credibility whatsoever. If they really want an investigation nothing is stopping them from calling the police. With this new accusation with these two men I wonder if she is going to even show her face tomorrow?
If she doesn’t show, can they take the vote tomorrow?
-
Without going to the proper authorities (Not the FBI) and reporting this incident, none of these women have any credibility whatsoever. If they really want an investigation nothing is stopping them from calling the police. With this new accusation with these two men I wonder if she is going to even show her face tomorrow?
If she doesn’t show, can they take the vote tomorrow?
Can’t wait to see what gems Hirono is gonna drop tmrw. Maybe shudder is a more appropriate verb...
A beer says CBF claims she doesn’t feel safe enough to appear tmrw.
-
Without going to the proper authorities (Not the FBI) and reporting this incident, none of these women have any credibility whatsoever. If they really want an investigation nothing is stopping them from calling the police. With this new accusation with these two men I wonder if she is going to even show her face tomorrow?
If she doesn’t show, can they take the vote tomorrow?
That's true. Maybe 36-ish years ago, they could have at least recorded the date, address and people present, so her memory wouldn't be depended on. It might also have exonerated Kavanaugh if investigators discover an alibi. Hard to have an alibi without specifics almost 4 decades later.
I heard she specifically said it happened in Montgomery Co, Md, and not Northern Va or the Baltimore area, because that Co has no statute of limitations.
If these new guys saying they were her "attackers" testify they were in another location, they may be protected by the statute of limitations.
Claiming Swiss cheese memory to protect her story might come back to bite her.
-
Can’t wait to see what gems Hirono is gonna drop tmrw. Maybe shudder is a more appropriate verb...
A beer says CBF claims she doesn’t feel safe enough to appear tmrw.
I’ll probably lose but what the hell, you’re on.
-
Once again, we hear from the "judge of all that doesn't look good." :geekdanc:
Rather than couch your comments in euphemisms that don't really express what you meant, can you explain WHY this doesn't look good for him?
What are the facts that make today a different lie from an accuser than yesterday's?
What are your predicted outcomes from this "doesn't look good" situation in terns of Kavanaugh's confirmation vote, considering the GOP merely has to get this past committee for a majority GOP full vote?
Please enlighten us how you came to that judgement.
Doesn't look good as in the outlook doesn't look as promising. I think the chance that he doesn't get confirmed increases.
I think that if there is a second and then a 3rd accusation against him it increases the credibility of the claims in people's minds and thus there is a chance that the vote could be swayed. There are two congressmen who are considered swing votes in this based just on Kavanaugh's position on abortion. Convince them or any other congressman that Kavanaugh did what was alleged and the vote could be swung. You wouldn't even necessarily need to convince the congressperson directly, instead rile up enough voters to go bug their senators and you could get them to change their vote that way as well.
So that is what I meant by doesn't look good for him. Do you feel enlightened?
-
After Ford fizzles, watch out for a false flag.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
After Ford fizzles, watch out for a false flag.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
What do you mean, like what type of scenario are you imagining?
-
HEY DRCK! YOU OWE ME A BEER!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
HEY DRCK! YOU OWE ME A BEER!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:thumbsup: Gladly!
-
:thumbsup: Gladly!
BTW, I still have your shirt. We need to get together when you have time.
-
Was listening to CBF questioning/hearing when I was driving into work. First thing that caught my attention was questions from the R side are factual in nature. Getting dates confirmed, when did CBF contact Congress, when did she secure counsel, why, etc. From the D side is emotional and far from factual. How did it make her feel, how has it affected her. Also the questions from the D side often interject opinion and unveiled shots.
Another thing that caught my attention was that she seemed coached. I read something on Foxnews' coverage that initial impressions of CBF was that she's highly intelligent and don't seem to be lying. When I was listening to her testimony, her responses to many of the D Senator's questions were quick, but they included pauses in the middle of statements as she seemed to be recalling things. Then when questions from R Senators came, there was usually a distinct pause, even when being asked questions about dates when things occurred when even CBF mentioned she had notes right in front of her. Having gone through depositions recently, where I went through a good amount of preparation, as well as being present for other's depositions, those are things that I often picked up on. I mean I'm no expert, but that's what I noticed.
One portion of the questioning from the R side was on the timing of CBF's contacting anyone about her concerns. Apparently, she was discouraged by the lack (slow) responses from her D Congressman. Then when followed up by questions from D side, she went to the NYT because she panicked. Again, going into the emotional side.
Anyways, hope they get through the circus.
-
Was listening to CBF questioning/hearing when I was driving into work. First thing that caught my attention was questions from the R side are factual in nature. Getting dates confirmed, when did CBF contact Congress, when did she secure counsel, why, etc. From the D side is emotional and far from factual. How did it make her feel, how has it affected her. Also the questions from the D side often interject opinion and unveiled shots.
Another thing that caught my attention was that she seemed coached. I read something on Foxnews' coverage that initial impressions of CBF was that she's highly intelligent and don't seem to be lying. When I was listening to her testimony, her responses to many of the D Senator's questions were quick, but they included pauses in the middle of statements as she seemed to be recalling things. Then when questions from R Senators came, there was usually a distinct pause, even when being asked questions about dates when things occurred when even CBF mentioned she had notes right in front of her. Having gone through depositions recently, where I went through a good amount of preparation, as well as being present for other's depositions, those are things that I often picked up on. I mean I'm no expert, but that's what I noticed.
One portion of the questioning from the R side was on the timing of CBF's contacting anyone about her concerns. Apparently, she was discouraged by the lack (slow) responses from her D Congressman. Then when followed up by questions from D side, she went to the NYT because she panicked. Again, going into the emotional side.
Anyways, hope they get through the circus.
She kept saying that if the committee had been willing to come out to her, she would have been happy to have done so. I also noticed she is very vague with questions she should have perfect knowledge of. Such as was she aware that Grassley’s office offered to come out to her to interview her. Her lawyer interrupted and refused to let her answer that question due to client privilege. But she did say that she didnt understand the details of the offer. So, my understanding of her answer is that she did receive the offer. If she didn’t understand something she could have asked but didn’t. I also noticed that she smiled some during some serious answers. Makes me wonder how truthful she is being even if she “thinks” she is telling the truth.
-
She kept saying that if the committee had been willing to come out to her, she would have been happy to have done so. I also noticed she is very vague with questions she should have perfect knowledge of. Such as was she aware that Grassley’s office offered to come out to her to interview her. Her lawyer interrupted and refused to let her answer that question due to client privilege. But she did say that she didnt understand the details of the offer. So, my understanding of her answer is that she did receive the offer. If she didn’t understand something she could have asked but didn’t. I also noticed that she smiled some during some serious answers. Makes me wonder how truthful she is being even if she “thinks” she is telling the truth.
Yeah! I heard that part. "Objection!". Wait, what? You can object to that? Seemed like a perfectly honest and legit question. She did super side step it. She would have hosted them had she fully understood the invitation. So, the invitation wasn't clear, so it's Grassley's fault. Can't question factual basis of whether or not she understood something. Another aspect why she seemed coached. And did you notice that CBF jumped in as her attorney was objecting to answer Grassley "directly". Seemed like she wanted to get that in to place doubt.
And being a PhD in psychology, many nuances about her testimony were, say, interesting. Like the smiling that you noticed. I didn't see it, but stuff like that is being picked up in some of the commentary on the testimony.
Then there was the part (before the above) when they were bickering over admission of the polygraph into record.
-
This will be an epic contrast.
Kid gloves used by the (supposed majority) Republicans to question the accuser. Is Mitchell really going somewhere? Or just pointing out (irrelevant?) minor inconsistencies in Ford's memory?
Nuclear weapons will be used by the Democrats to question Kavanaugh. They are going to ask him about every time he ever drank and every time he ever touched a girl... how much he drank and where and when he touched them and if he had permission to do so. I suspect they will be raising their voices and interrupting him.
Just a guess... as we are only halfway through the Ford testimony... but it's pretty obvious.
Better start preparing the woman nominee for SCOTUS.
-
BTW, I still have your shirt. We need to get together when you have time.
She (CBF) said that she had hoped to avoid getting on a plane but eventually was able to “get up the gumption with the help of some friends and get on the plane.”
Darn. I was so close! :P
-
What do you mean, like what type of scenario are you imagining?
IDK just saying, something to divert the attention if it fizzles.
I could only stand to watch a few mins. She was emotional and almost crying. Some BS that happened almost 40 years ago. And it was when Hirono got her turn. And of course she lead off with the "thank you for being brave and coming forward". Like the above mentioned, not many factual questions by the dems. More how she felt q's.
Ford stated that her coming forward is far from political.
-
Kav has come out swinging. Adding some emotion here and there, but I'm liking his demeanor and responses to Feinstein. Sticking to facts, but also injecting some emotion.
-
Kav has come out swinging. Adding some emotion here and there, but I'm liking his demeanor and responses to Feinstein. Sticking to facts, but also injecting some emotion.
Funny how people were making fun of him for keeping a calendar of his activities. Now that might save his ass, if Ford knew the date when it happened.
I remember when people also made fun of Pense for not having dinner alone with a woman besides his wife. Only guy with iron clad no sexual harassment accusations.
-
Sen. Lindsey Graham :thumbsup:
-
Funny how people were making fun of him for keeping a calendar of his activities. Now that might save his ass, if Ford knew the date when it happened.
I remember when people also made fun of Pense for not having dinner alone with a woman besides his wife. Only guy with iron clad no sexual harassment accusations.
Then Sen Leahy going on and on about the yearbook. I certainly hope the people of VT see that BS! >:( :(
-
Why do they keep asking for Kav to call for an FBI investigation, which he has no control of? He is there to answer questions. Just clouding the issue for folks that have already bought into the current sham.
Then Dems keeping bringing up not having enough time. . . ::)
-
I just tuned in and the dems are flailing like fish out of water.
Even the network commentators are criticizing the dems.
Crazy mazie is blathering now. What a ditz!
-
I just tuned in and the dems are flailing like fish out of water.
Even the network commentators are criticizing the dems.
Crazy mazie is blathering now. What a ditz!
And Hirono can't even read from her own prepared notes. . . ::)
She comes across so badly. Blumenthal too. I agree with Kav that Sen Klobuchar seemed pretty much on the up and up.
-
Sen Tillis to Dems:
(https://sep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-13942113699170_2272_12927064)
-
God bless Lindsay Graham.
For those that missed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GONHkIGagY
-
Finally done.
Sen Flake ::)
Time to roll the dice
-
Lindsay Graham :thumbsup: :worship: :thumbsup: :worship:
-
Interesting that CNN's "9 takeaways from the (Kav-CBF) hearings came out at 6:15 pm EST. Before the hearing was complete. Guess which way that one leaned. . .
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/christine-blasey-ford-testimony/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/christine-blasey-ford-testimony/index.html)
-
Darn. I was so close! :P
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Yeah she can fly all over the Pacific for vacations But is terrified of flying to DC? What a liar.
-
Kav has come out swinging. Adding some emotion here and there, but I'm liking his demeanor and responses to Feinstein. Sticking to facts, but also injecting some emotion.
Yes! I am happy he talked back to those assholes. What a bunch of morons. This is a circus under the big top that the Dems are running here.
-
And the “why won’t Kav call for an FBI investigation” has started. Oh man. You want an investigation? 1) you had ample opportunity to do so. 2) he’s sitting right in front of you and answer questions. And the questions that you come up with are “does your HS yearbook tell your whole story?” :wtf:
Come on man!
And when the question of who leaked CBF info, Feinstein explained “well, CBF must have”. Yikes!
-
Why do they keep asking for Kav to call for an FBI investigation, which he has no control of? He is there to answer questions. Just clouding the issue for folks that have already bought into the current sham.
Then Dems keeping bringing up not having enough time. . . ::)
I understand they are saying that if he has nothing to hide why not call for an investigation. But isn’t it like incriminating yourself by asking to have yourself to be investigated? That would be pointless if nothing happened. Especially with the biased and corrupt FBI that hates Trump so much. It would be like Kav inviting the FBI to make something up so he would lose the nomination. The Dems must still feel strongly that they have friends in the FBI to taunt him into something so insane. JMHO
-
And the “why won’t Kav call for an FBI investigation” has started. Oh man. You want an investigation? 1) you had ample opportunity to do so. 2) he’s sitting right in front of you and answer questions. And the questions that you come up with are “does your HS yearbook tell your whole story?” :wtf:
Come on man!
And when the question of who leaked CBF info, Feinstein explained “well, CBF must have”. Yikes!
Yeah, the yearbook. He said something like “FFFFourth of July...” The Dems are saying the F’s stand for something bad against women. Immature. Gawd I hate these politicians. At least the Reps showed some decorum in this circus.
-
Lindsay Graham :thumbsup: :worship: :thumbsup: :worship:
I agree. At least he called them out and brought a little civility back to the circus.
-
I understand they are saying that if he has nothing to hide why not call for an investigation. But isn’t it like incriminating yourself by asking to have yourself to be investigated? That would be pointless if nothing happened. Especially with the biased and corrupt FBI that hates Trump so much. It would be like Kav inviting the FBI to make something up so he would lose the nomination. The Dems must still feel strongly that they have friends in the FBI to taunt him into something so insane. JMHO
I mean I have/had my theories on why they kept asking. That said, they had their chance to call for all of that and get it done over a month ago and in a confidential manner. No. They waited until it would blow up in the public eye.
-
BTW, I still have your shirt. We need to get together when you have time.
Sounds like another sex assault story ... :shake:
-
Why do they keep asking for Kav to call for an FBI investigation, which he has no control of? He is there to answer questions. Just clouding the issue for folks that have already bought into the current sham.
Then Dems keeping bringing up not having enough time. . . ::)
Their only purpose for this drama and circus is to delay confirmation. It's all they have going for them, and it's all they want. They don't give two sh!ts about "truth" or "character."
When is the FBI starting their investigation into Keith Ellison? There's an actual police report, and it happened this century.
-
And Hirono can't even read from her own prepared notes. . . ::)
She comes across so badly. Blumenthal too. I agree with Kav that Sen Klobuchar seemed pretty much on the up and up.
She read part of one letter she added to the record where the group writing it called this confirmation "a crucible."
If you remember Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", this debacle has turned into an almost exact reenactment of that story.
(Hint: Salem Witch Trials).
-
And the “why won’t Kav call for an FBI investigation” has started. Oh man. You want an investigation? 1) you had ample opportunity to do so. 2) he’s sitting right in front of you and answer questions. And the questions that you come up with are “does your HS yearbook tell your whole story?” :wtf:
Come on man!
And when the question of who leaked CBF info, Feinstein explained “well, CBF must have”. Yikes!
Also, not one of those Democrats participated in the interviews with Kavanaugh or any of the other supposed witnesses Ford named. The Republicans actually investigated. The Democrats just kept piling rocks on top of the process hoping it would collapse.
-
I mean I have/had my theories on why they kept asking. That said, they had their chance to call for all of that and get it done over a month ago and in a confidential manner. No. They waited until it would blow up in the public eye.
The thing I think is that they are just playing to their base. But how sad is that if their base is expecting such antics.
-
Sounds like another sex assault story ... :shake:
It never happened. I took a lie detector test. There are no corroborating witnesses. QUIT BULLYING ME!!!!
-
It never happened. I took a lie detector test. There are no corroborating witnesses. QUIT BULLYING ME!!!!
(https://i.imgur.com/GQN6AJC.jpg?1)
-
This article discusses the event when Ford was asked if she knew that the committee offered to come out to CA to interview her. It comes to an interesting conclusion: “Malpractice”
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/malpractice-appears-fords-attorneys-may-misled-testimony/
-
This article discusses the event when Ford was asked if she knew that the committee offered to come out to CA to interview her. It comes to an interesting conclusion: “Malpractice”
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/malpractice-appears-fords-attorneys-may-misled-testimony/
I was curious about that. She seemed to be very much in the dark about many things her lawyers should have discussed with her.
I'm convinced more now than ever that her lawyers are not "her" lawyers. I think they are all part of a Democrat resistance effort, and Ford was used because she had really convinced herself Kavanaugh was going to assault her.
Her imagination is really amazing. How does anyone get from "he's covering my mouth" to "I was thinking he might accidentally kill me?" Not a rational, reasonable thought progression.
-
I was curious about that. She seemed to be very much in the dark about many things her lawyers should have discussed with her.
I'm convinced more now than ever that her lawyers are not "her" lawyers. I think they are all part of a Democrat resistance effort, and Ford was used because she had really convinced herself Kavanaugh was going to assault her.
Her imagination is really amazing. How does anyone get from "he's covering my mouth" to "I was thinking he might accidentally kill me?" Not a rational, reasonable thought progression.
I don’t doubt that this is true either completely or even partially. But anyway you look at it, she was taken aback by it. And her lawyer tried to cover it up by claiming client privilege. Which is ridiculous since it is public knowledge. I thought it was weird that she kept saying that the committee would not agree to come to her.
-
Yeah. I brought that part about CBF saying she wasn’t clear about the offer. If her attorneys didn’t advise her or advise her properly? Who knows. Or how could she have NOT been aware of the offers? It was all over the news. I guess I could give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn’t watch coverage.
Then the part about closed session interviews, which the Ds didn’t participate in and I’m glad the Rs pointed that out. That investigations by the committee was done and officially documented. That was the “wop to jaw” part.
Then there’s the redacted records that even the Ds has to acknowledge since it was part of the committee hearing records. Hope people picked up on that. Such BS!
-
Gonna stop going on FB for a while. Too many, “I stand with cBg because she’s a woman, women need to get ahead in this world, so I’m with her” type stuff. So because she’s making allegations and there have been men in the past that have been proven to have done awful things, you automatically believe CBF. Yeah, that’s super rational...
-
End result: No direct or circumstantial evidence was offered on behalf of the accuser to corroborate her claims of sexual assault.
Yet, Democrats are still talking as if an "attempted rapist" (that's a thing??) is about to be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
All evidence I've seen has been exculpatory.
If you don't know what that means, don't feel bad. Others with lots of college degrees have had a tough time with that one today!
Edit: I just Googled several sites on types of sexual assault (I hope the FBI isn't watching). Anyway, there is NO CATEGORY for "attempted" for any type of assault, rape or otherwise.
Apparently, only our Democrat Senators can come up with a new label that no one else recognizes for a sexual assailant who never actually completed that assault. Sure, there are crimes for attempted rape, but that earns the label "rapist." Without an actual trial to convict him of that charge, calling him an attempted rapist should be viewed as slander.
I hope he sues EVERYBODY that tried to destroy his life.
-
End result: No direct or circumstantial evidence was offered on behalf of the accuser to corroborate her claims of sexual assault.
Yet, Democrats are still talking as if an "attempted rapist" (that's a thing??) is about to be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
All evidence I've seen has been exculpatory.
If you don't know what that means, don't feel bad. Others with lots of college degrees have had a tough time with that one today!
Nothing really changed since this started besides Kav and his family being dragged through the mud. People really seem to hve lost their minds. Innocent until proven guilty. People jumping on how Kav didn’t answer questions. Well, he did, in the closed interviews. Well, maybe the Dems would remember that. Oh wait, they refused to participate.
If people don’t see right through this, they are blind. Why are there folks to are so convinced CBF is telling the truth despite not one shred of evidence to support her story? Because she has the courage to come forward? Because she seemed believable?
Then the D Senator brought up the jury warning thing. If a person giving testimony lies, then the rest of their testimony should be considered a lie. Well, what about your fear of flying CBF? Oh wait. I’m only afraid to fly when it’s anything except for work, vacation, etc.
-
Everyone here will probably blast me but I am going to say this anyway.
I found Ford’s testimony somewhat believable. Yes, there were holes and memory lapses. Believeable in the sense that I believe something happened to her. Whether it was what she says happened, not completely clear. But do I believe it was Kav? No, not at all. I found that there was nothing new in her testimony and there was no corroborating evidence. Which I think is necessary to find Kav guilty of whatever.
Bottom line is I believe some of what she says. But innocent until proven guilty is what we go by. So IMHO he is innocent. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is done by a long shot. The Dems will keep trying IMHO. How many more accusers will there be? Those politicians are evil people. At least Kav stood up for himself and a couple of Reps stood up for him and our country. Those politicians need to be voted out.
-
I found Ford’s testimony somewhat believable.
From what I have read about her and her HS yearbook, there were a few drunk party sluts, and she seems to have been one of them.
I am convinced she was "groomed" by the Soros funded types, like the other ones they found. A bit of research into what school K went to, where they partied, etc.
If anything did happen with Ford, she was clearly wasted and hardly in control of a damn thing, let alone ID'ing who was who. Probably desperately trying not to vomit all over the place.
The groomers found out about her somehow and got the ball rolling.
-
Yet, Democrats are still talking as if an "attempted rapist" (that's a thing??) is about to be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
You would have thought the liberals had learned from how Thomas has a very deep enmity for them, that they ran the same risk with Kavanaugh if they did not stop him.
I am fine with pushing another justice to be solidly against them, but making mortal enemies is not a trivial thing. If confirmed, K will be a very sharp thorn in their side for a long time as he recalls what they did to him.
Clarence Thomas and he ought to have a good time comparing notes.
-
Nothing really changed since this started besides Kav and his family being dragged through the mud. People really seem to hve lost their minds. Innocent until proven guilty. People jumping on how Kav didn’t answer questions. Well, he did, in the closed interviews. Well, maybe the Dems would remember that. Oh wait, they refused to participate.
If people don’t see right through this, they are blind. Why are there folks to are so convinced CBF is telling the truth despite not one shred of evidence to support her story? Because she has the courage to come forward? Because she seemed believable?
Then the D Senator brought up the jury warning thing. If a person giving testimony lies, then the rest of their testimony should be considered a lie. Well, what about your fear of flying CBF? Oh wait. I’m only afraid to fly when it’s anything except for work, vacation, etc.
There are lots of people who credibly believed they were in a romantic relationship with a celebrity. They 100% believed it to be so.
I don't put anything past the human mind. We can convince ourselves anything is true. After 3 decades, we have no idea what could have caused her to "remember" someone assaulted her at age 15. Was she creating an event to make herself important by interjecting herself into a federal judge's life? Was she a country club debutante who now has to imagine she's still important to important people? There is no telling what she's convinced herself to believe or why.
If he's telling the truth, she's either lying, was attacked by someone she today mistakenly believes was Kavanaugh, or she totally believes a fantasy. Doesn't matter now. She has produced nothing other than accusations and a list of "witnesses" who corroborate his story and not hers.
She should have come forward years ago. Maybe 6 years ago when she first told her therapist would be a good time. If she's going to start telling people, maybe telling people who matter would be wise. Doesn't matter that he wasn't being confirmed for SCOTUS. He was already on the next court below. That should have been no less urgent than this nomination.
-
I still suspect she was a foil to implant meories into. The leftists have gotten good at spotting patsies to take falls. They bought all the time they could to properly "prep" her.
I remember hearing all about the McMartin daycare molestation farce, and how the adult creeps planted memories in innocent children.
I suspect such manipulators got hold of Ford and "embellished" her hazy memories of "something".
She likely made herself available being a staunch anti-Trump type. Who knows what sort of "casting calls" were out there.
-
Nothing really changed since this started besides Kav and his family being dragged through the mud.
If people don’t see right through this, they are blind.
Exactly - investigatively the facts (i.e. none) have stayed the same, still at he said/she said. The scary part is that the party supporters have become even more entrenched in their camp, CBF or Kavanaugh. And the Ds are emboldening their base more than Rs - at least that’s what social media interactions are telling me.
And a D-controlled legislature come November is looking more and more likely every day this drags out.
-
I still suspect she was a foil to implant meories into. The leftists have gotten good at spotting patsies to take falls. They bought all the time they could to properly "prep" her.
I remember hearing all about the McMartin daycare molestation farce, and how the adult creeps planted memories in innocent children.
I suspect such manipulators got hold of Ford and "embellished" her hazy memories of "something".
She likely made herself available being a staunch anti-Trump type. Who knows what sort of "casting calls" were out there.
The Democrats have been transparent in their "Resist and Impeach" platform. They are obstructing Trump for no other reason than to obstruct.
Now they have this ridiculous position that they are only interested in "getting at the truth" on Kavanaugh.
"Stupid woman. You knew I was a snake."
-
I still suspect she was a foil to implant meories into. The leftists have gotten good at spotting patsies to take falls. They bought all the time they could to properly "prep" her.
I remember hearing all about the McMartin daycare molestation farce, and how the adult creeps planted memories in innocent children.
I suspect such manipulators got hold of Ford and "embellished" her hazy memories of "something".
She likely made herself available being a staunch anti-Trump type. Who knows what sort of "casting calls" were out there.
Word on the block is the former FBI agent who gives the poly, coaches and ask questions until the right answer can be read. This isnt his 1st rodeo.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
It seems Crazy Mazie and a handful of Dems walked out of the committee meeting this morning when it became clear that the Reps have enough votes to advance Kav to the senate vote.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36449/democrats-walk-out-kavanaugh-meeting-after-it-james-barrett?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=mjk
-
It seems Crazy Mazie and a handful of Dems walked out of the committee meeting this morning when it became clear that the Reps have enough votes to advance Kav to the senate vote.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36449/democrats-walk-out-kavanaugh-meeting-after-it-james-barrett?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=mjk
...
They're losing the ball game so they're pouting and walking off the field.
These are supposed to be highly respected elected officials.
Great role models for the rest of the world to see.
-
...
They're losing the ball game so they're pouting and walking off the field.
These are supposed to be highly respected elected officials.
Great role models for the rest of the world to see.
Agreed. And now they are delaying the vote. Should have happened 10 minutes ago. Circus run by a bunch of clowns.
-
Everyone here will probably blast me but I am going to say this anyway.
I found Ford’s testimony somewhat believable. Yes, there were holes and memory lapses. Believeable in the sense that I believe something happened to her. Whether it was what she says happened, not completely clear. But do I believe it was Kav? No, not at all. I found that there was nothing new in her testimony and there was no corroborating evidence. Which I think is necessary to find Kav guilty of whatever.
Bottom line is I believe some of what she says. But innocent until proven guilty is what we go by. So IMHO he is innocent. Unfortunately, I don’t think this is done by a long shot. The Dems will keep trying IMHO. How many more accusers will there be? Those politicians are evil people. At least Kav stood up for himself and a couple of Reps stood up for him and our country. Those politicians need to be voted out.
Traitor!!! :grrr:
Nah. I didn't catch the live feed of CBF's portion of the hearing. I only caught some of the audio and MSM highlights last night. Though the highlights are of course subject to cherry picking, bias added, etc. That said, from that I've seen and heard, it seems like a LOT of folks found her believable. I'm convinced that she's convinced something happened. I'm not going to judge, but I am free to speculate. She's a trained psychologist, she could be a narcissistic psychopath, whatever. But looking at things logically, the FACTS just aren't adding up. Too many inconsistencies and :wtf: stuff that questions her credibility. But of course, can't jump on those because that would be bullying her. Much of her backers are because they feel she's being courageous and standing up to the "man machine" that controls America. All emotional, NOTHING factual. So she may be convincing. But Hilter was also VERY convincing. . .
And yes, time for many of the politician to get voted out. :thumbsup:
-
There are lots of people who credibly believed they were in a romantic relationship with a celebrity. They 100% believed it to be so.
I don't put anything past the human mind. We can convince ourselves anything is true. After 3 decades, we have no idea what could have caused her to "remember" someone assaulted her at age 15. Was she creating an event to make herself important by interjecting herself into a federal judge's life? Was she a country club debutante who now has to imagine she's still important to important people? There is no telling what she's convinced herself to believe or why.
If he's telling the truth, she's either lying, was attacked by someone she today mistakenly believes was Kavanaugh, or she totally believes a fantasy. Doesn't matter now. She has produced nothing other than accusations and a list of "witnesses" who corroborate his story and not hers.
She should have come forward years ago. Maybe 6 years ago when she first told her therapist would be a good time. If she's going to start telling people, maybe telling people who matter would be wise. Doesn't matter that he wasn't being confirmed for SCOTUS. He was already on the next court below. That should have been no less urgent than this nomination.
No joke.
My dad's memory wasn't the greatest as he got into his later 70s. He somehow got it in his mind one day that he owned a Honda generator and that I had borrowed it. I would go over to his house at least once a week and he NEVER had a Honda generator, but he was absolutely convinced that not only that he owned one, but that I HAD IT! My sister and BIL eventually went with him to get a Honda generator. He stopped asking me about whether or not I borrowed his generator after that.
-
And Kav is moving on. . . at least passing committee.
Will see what next week brings. I'm sure this circus is not over.
Did you guys hear the protesters that cornered Sen Flake before the meeting to vote? :crazy:
-
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3ac1f4f1c5d52131f09a9923961f3974ca153b1ec5ffa5417e3cb62c718e2282.jpg)
Okay, now THAT'S over with.
Flake said his vote for Kavanaugh on the Senate floor vote is contingent upon a one week delay for the FBI to conduct an investigation of the "charges". Hopefully McConnell will be able to make something happen where Flake's vote won't be necessary... but then there's Murkowski and Collins. Is there anyone in this world that really believes that if the FBI report produces no credible evidence that Kavanaugh is likely guilty of the charges that the Dems will then vote for him? Or not further object and call for further delays, maybe for something like "an independent investigation" or whatever other kind of shit they make up? They're already talking about impeaching him if he is voted onto the court. And here all along I had believed Obama when he said "Elections have consequences". I guess in their true total hypocrite manner, that only applies when they win and they have the majority. Assholes. And Hirono is one of the bigger howling babies, though it's pretty close as to who is the worst. I almost threw up listening to Booker. I have to admit, it's nearly impossible for me to imagine the brain that would listen to that and think "Right on brother!", as opposed to "What a lying fawning sack of shit".
-
The problem I have with this entire show is that no GOP had the balls to ask Ford specific questions. The When, Where, etc...Because she and the DNC knows if she gives specifics and is wrong, then the entire charade is up. That's why she can't remember ANY details. Wait until it's their turn to defend themselves.
No GOP member want's to be associated with not believing an accuser, but this will continue to happen because people believe the accuser more. And this is an easy tactic because many cases cannot be proved.
-
The problem I have with this entire show is that no GOP had the balls to ask Ford specific questions. The When, Where, etc...Because she and the DNC knows if she gives specifics and is wrong, then the entire charade is up. That's why she can't remember ANY details. Wait until it's their turn to defend themselves.
No GOP member want's to be associated with not believing an accuser, but this will continue to happen because people believe the accuser more. And this is an easy tactic because many cases cannot be proved.
I didn't listen to most of CBF's portion, but what I assumed was happening was mostly that the line of questions served to get CBF's previous public statements on the record and under oath. I thought Mitchell did ask for specifics in terms of dates, location, etc, but that CBF didn't or wouldn't provide.
But yes, I believe they should have at least held her feet to the fire, at least in some regards. Some speculation was that the Rs got fed up with it and went off the plan, but not until they got to Kav's portion. I had hoped there was some reasoning behind Mitchell's almost friendly handling of CBF. That they would get her tangled up in her own web of lies. But I don't think that happened.
-
I didn't listen to most of CBF's portion, but what I assumed was happening was mostly that the line of questions served to get CBF's previous public statements on the record and under oath. I thought Mitchell did ask for specifics in terms of dates, location, etc, but that CBF didn't or wouldn't provide.
But yes, I believe they should have at least held her feet to the fire, at least in some regards. Some speculation was that the Rs got fed up with it and went off the plan, but not until they got to Kav's portion. I had hoped there was some reasoning behind Mitchell's almost friendly handling of CBF. That they would get her tangled up in her own web of lies. But I don't think that happened.
At what point will the GOP start fighting back and not just be on the defensive? Same with Antifa, at first, Trump supporters just took the abuse. Now they're starting to fight back. Based Stickman, and others.
-
At what point will the GOP start fighting back and not just be on the defensive? Same with Antifa, at first, Trump supporters just took the abuse. Now they're starting to fight back. Based Stickman, and others.
I believe Antifa was emboldened by the restraint showed by those that they opposed early on. But like you said, now that the groups being opposed are fighting back, it seems like some of that nonsense is dying down. Or at least getting less coverage.
Still having many friends in what appears to be an Antifa hotbed of Seattle, I get a glimpse of the thinking from folks that still live there. Some are Hawaii transplants, but also from other parts of the US as well as those that have lived in WA all their lives. That counter-culture aspect of Seattle has been like that since I went to college there. It wasn't quite the same, but I remember back to the WTO riots in 1999, there was a lot of that. From what I heard, most of the organizers of the more violent groups were from Cali and Oregon. Truly a disease that sadly is spreading.
I wish I had a cellphone camera back in 1999. There was some truly entertaining stuff. Seeing a 5' 10", 110 lb person (I think IT was male) dressed in a turtle costume think he would get a running start and break through a large glass window of the local McDonalds was one of the highlights of my memories of the riots. That and my coworkers watching the riots going in below from the third floor of an open air parking garage. When the cloud of gas started rising and then the wind shifted the cloud in their direction. :rofl:
-
Word on the block is the former FBI agent who gives the poly, coaches and ask questions until the right answer can be read. This isnt his 1st rodeo.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Saw an interview Wed night with the actual polygraph test giver. He was contacted last minute and had other commitments. Dr Ford FLEW to Md to be tested in the man's hotel room.
He asked her two questions for the test after a roughly 45 minute questionnaire session:
1. "Is any part of your statement false?" and
2. "Did you make up any part of your statement?"
He said there were preliminary questions asked to establish the baseline before these two "relevant" questions.
At no time was she tested on the voracity of the details of her story. In fact, some details she gave in the questionnaire portion conflicted with the details she previously provided others, such as the number of people present at the "gathering" in question.
Also, the test was administered either the day of, or the day after, her grandmother's funeral. It doesn't take a doctor of psychology to deduce her results may have been skewed by the stress she was under. If all answers show the same level of stress, including the baseline questions, she'll appear to be telling the truth on all questions.
"The result of a polygraph simply is whether you did or did not respond to a particular question.
A response is not a lie, because the polygraph is not a lie detector as most think," Mauriello added.
"A response is the activation of your sympathetic nervous system when answering a question
asked during the examination."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/26/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-ford-releases-results-polygraph-test-but-key-detail-appears-to-contradict-past-statements.html
-
No joke.
My dad's memory wasn't the greatest as he got into his later 70s. He somehow got it in his mind one day that he owned a Honda generator and that I had borrowed it. I would go over to his house at least once a week and he NEVER had a Honda generator, but he was absolutely convinced that not only that he owned one, but that I HAD IT! My sister and BIL eventually went with him to get a Honda generator. He stopped asking me about whether or not I borrowed his generator after that.
My ex's grandmother was living with my ex's mother. She had a bag of silver dollars from late 1800s to early 1900s. She asked my wife many times to take some for our girls. She finally agreed, and took 4 or 5 each.
The day after she took the coins, my mother-in-law came to us and said her mother was claiming we took ALL of her coins. We of course denied it and offered to return the few we accepted. She said not to worry about it.
We left that morning and drove home (they live in MD, and we in VA). As soon as we opened our front door, the phone was ringing. Mother-in-law was saying her mother was all distraught over the coins being "stolen". We said there's nothing we can do about that.
About 4 hours later, she called back. When her mother was in the kitchen, the MIL searched her room and found all the coins stuck in various hiding spots, and the empty paper bag they were in stuffed next to her bed.
She was suffering from Alzheimers, but they hadn't believed it was that bad yet.
Ford's lawyers refused to turn over Ford's medical records to the committee claiming privacy. I think there may be clues in there that she's not a well individual, and that she may have made outlandish claims to her therapist/doctor in the past.
Just a hunch.
-
I didn't listen to most of CBF's portion, but what I assumed was happening was mostly that the line of questions served to get CBF's previous public statements on the record and under oath. I thought Mitchell did ask for specifics in terms of dates, location, etc, but that CBF didn't or wouldn't provide.
But yes, I believe they should have at least held her feet to the fire, at least in some regards. Some speculation was that the Rs got fed up with it and went off the plan, but not until they got to Kav's portion. I had hoped there was some reasoning behind Mitchell's almost friendly handling of CBF. That they would get her tangled up in her own web of lies. But I don't think that happened.
The prosecutor from Maricopa County, AZ, did a mostly horrible job. She never seemed to be going anywhere with her questions. And when she did uncover discrepancies between CBF's answers and previously provided details, she didn't press for the reasons behind the different answers. And when CBF was caught in an obvious lie ("I'm too terrified of flying to make the Monday hearing"), the prosecutor didn't explore WHY she lied, which would have brought out the obvious delay tactic of the Democrats, her lawyer, and herself.
The decision to get a female prosecutor might have had merit, but not THIS prosecutor. If Kavanaugh had not stepped up to defend himself, no one in that hearing would have.
-
So, if I read that right, Jeff Flake (R) is forcing another 1 week delay before a vote in the full Senate. He wants an FBI background check to be completed before the vote. It's to look into all the CURRENT accusations against Judge Kavanaugh.
Mark Judge, who declined to testify or make public statements, has agreed to cooperate with the investigators.
Question: If (when) the FBI uncovers nothing new or substantive to support voting against Kavanaugh, how many Democrats will change their "no" votes to "yes"? Will they vote based on the FBI investigation they've been screaming for, or will they maintain their partisan stance and vote down party lines?
Answer: They won't give a crap about the FBI's findings. They have an agenda -- facts be damned.
(https://i.imgur.com/JBhHYZc.jpg)
-
What relief!! After all these partisan battles over Kavanaugh, we can finally get a non-partisan, apolitical perspective on this situation ....
... from the FBI. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Speculation on "backroom deals" aside, my take on Flake's call for investigation by the FBI was that Flake "wouldn't feel comfortable" voting in the open Senate confirmation process until the investigation. But the investigation could take no longer than a week. That if the Senate pushed forward, Flake may have been hinting at a no vote.
The Sen Rs appeared to have agreed. Seemed ok to me, but would delay a vote more than a week as the discussion/debate was supposed to start over the weekend in the Senate. Hopefully the FBI will do their thing and only take a couple of days.
I still don't think that changes much. Anything short of a video of Kav being on top of CBF in 1982, the Ds are gonna hold their line. Maybe the two swing Ds might be convinced.
In any case, just want this $hit show to be over with.
-
Speculation on "backroom deals" aside, my take on Flake's call for investigation by the FBI was that Flake "wouldn't feel comfortable" voting in the open Senate confirmation process until the investigation. But the investigation could take no longer than a week. That if the Senate pushed forward, Flake may have been hinting at a no vote.
The Sen Rs appeared to have agreed. Seemed ok to me, but would delay a vote more than a week as the discussion/debate was supposed to start over the weekend in the Senate. Hopefully the FBI will do their thing and only take a couple of days.
I still don't think that changes much. Anything short of a video of Kav being on top of CBF in 1982, the Ds are gonna hold their line. Maybe the two swing Ds might be convinced.
In any case, just want this $hit show to be over with.
Nothing the FBI finds will be enough to stop, or exonerate, him. After so much time has gone by, nobody is going to say "I remember a party where Kavanaugh and Ford were present, and I drove Ford home early -- she looked scared." No place, no time, no nothing.
Nothing short of Kavanaugh withdrawing his name from consideration will appease the Democrats.
-
Nothing the FBI finds will be enough to stop, or exonerate, him. After so much time has gone by, nobody is going to say "I remember a party where Kavanaugh and Ford were present, and I drove Ford home early -- she looked scared." No place, no time, no nothing.
Nothing short of Kavanaugh withdrawing his name from consideration will appease the Democrats.
I agree. Even after the FBI does their thing, I think things will be where they are when this thing first began and where we were after the hearings yesterday. Of course, with Kav and family being utterly humiliated. Well, same/similar can be said for CBF as well. It does give some politicians the satisfaction that they "did something". All still political BS, but hey. You wanted an FBI investigation, you're gonna get one. I was thinking what if the investigation digs up stuff that would come back to haunt CBF and Ds on the committee. You know, in the interest of full disclosure and getting to the truth.
All of that to get to a big fat nothing burger.
-
I think there may be clues in there that she's not a well individual, and that she may have made outlandish claims to her therapist/doctor in the past.
Just a hunch.
It could just be my personal perception, including the fact that in the past I had experiences with someone who had very similar facial expressions, bodily movement styles, vocal/intonation style, and eye movements to Dr. Ford, and that person was definitely, uh, "mentally unstable" and "had issues". She was not "normal". Like I say, it could just be me seeing Ford through that past experience filter. The other argument could be, if there IS something diagnosable with Dr. Ford, is that whatever experience she is describing (when, where, or with whomever) is what caused her current condition. We'd need video and audio records of her prior to "the incident" to judge whether she had similar mannerisms prior to that time. I'm betting she did, and that it's genetic. Just a guess.
-
FBI's gonna pull a Mueller. Gonna look into Kav's tax records, meeting history, and internet usage all in the name of the "sex assault" investigation.
How the investigation should really go:
FBI ask Ford what she thinks happened: Fords most current story
FBI ask Kav what happened: Nothing
FBI States: No witnesses to corroborate story, no timeline. Nothing much else we can do but ask if he did it.
Investigation is over in 30 seconds.
-
Confirmation of what I, and any living person with even a few active brain cells would have, predicted (links in the article):
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/09/28/president-trump-concedes-requests-limited-fbi-investigation-of-brett-kavanaugh-democrats-respond-this-is-only-one-step-in-the-process/
President Trump Concedes – Requests “limited” FBI Investigation of Brett Kavanaugh – Democrats Respond: “this is only one step in the process”…
DEMOCRATS: “A thorough investigation is critical to developing all the relevant facts. Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford welcomes this step in the process, and appreciates the efforts of Senators Flake, Manchin, Murkowski and Collins – and all other senators who have supported an FBI investigation – to ensure it is completed before the senate votes on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. No artificial limits as to time or scope should be imposed on this investigation.”
If President Trump, or any executive branch official acting on his behalf, attempts to set limits on the FBI investigation of a supreme court nominee, the President will have established the legal grounds for his impeachment. I know these people. I know their playbook. As Mr. Bromwich and Ms. Katz stated this is “a step in their process“.
Ms. Ford will avoid being available for an interview for as long as possible. She will then provide a name of a critical witness…. who will also avoid being available for an interview for a long as possible…. who will eventually also give a name of a corroborating witness, perhaps with recordings,… who will avoid being available for an interview for as long as possible…. And so it will go, and so it will go.
Within each step, each day in the process, the insider narrative engineers will be leaking “explosive developments” to the media; who will engage their readers with constructs of wide-eyed interest. Everyone will be enthralled; thousands of leads will be developed; the nation will be absorbed… Democrats will control every nuance.
-
So the DNC wants this to drag on and on and on. Probably coercing a "witness" until they get the answer that they want. She already had 4 people who she said can back up her story deny it. I wouldn't be surprised if at least 1 of the 4 change their story all of a sudden (coerced).
I say screw the investigation and just take a vote. The DNC is winning by doing an "investigation".
The GOP dropped the ball by delaying further than Monday and extending till Thursday. Mueller has every resource available to him and it's been 2 years and yet nothing on Trump. Imagine how long Kav will be under investigation.
Even if the investigation takes 6 months and Kav is cleared, no dem will change their vote. The only thing that can end this quickly is if the 2 who claim to be the 2 guys come forward and are credible. Some news agencies reporting that the "real 2" are coming forward. I didn't verify how legit the story is.
This also will set precedent to any future nominee for anything. Just 1 accusation can stall the entire processes. This is what the dems want because they don't control the house or the office. Every GOP person will be under some kind of accusation after this.
-
They (dems) said 1 week....in front of the entire country.
Would they lie? :rofl:
-
They (dems) said 1 week....in front of the entire country.
Would they lie? :rofl:
Does a bear shit in the woods? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
The FBI isn't going to "investigate" like they are doing to Trump. They are going to reopen the background check.
Now that they have a few negative reports on him, one of which Feinstein already gave them (late) and they included in the first Kavanaugh file, they can ask the 3 accusers for names of people to interview.
They can then ask those people for people to interview. If after 3 layers of references turn up corroboration of the accusations made or not, and no official reports from schools, law enforcement or other agencies are discovered, the file will be deemed complete, and it will be handed over to the WH. It'll then go to the Senate for confirmation considerations. If any crimes are corroborated, the Senate has the right to refer that information to local, state or federal law enforcement, depending on jurisdiction.
Only the Senators will be allowed to make any conclusions or findings from the FBI report. That's how the system works. This is all so the Senators can make an informed decision when they cast their vote for confirmation.
The FBI "investigation" will prove nothing except the Democrats are using the people's time, money and system to delay confirmation.
-
The FBI isn't going to "investigate" like they are doing to Trump. They are going to reopen the background check.
Now that they have a few negative reports on him, one of which Feinstein already gave them (late) and they included in the first Kavanaugh file, they can ask the 3 accusers for names of people to interview.
They can then ask those people for people to interview. If after 3 layers of references turn up corroboration of the accusations made or not, and no official reports from schools, law enforcement or other agencies are discovered, the file will be deemed complete, and it will be handed over to the WH. It'll then go to the Senate for confirmation considerations. If any crimes are corroborated, the Senate has the right to refer that information to local, state or federal law enforcement, depending on jurisdiction.
Only the Senators will be allowed to make any conclusions or findings from the FBI report. That's how the system works. This is all so the Senators can make an informed decision when they cast their vote for confirmation.
The FBI "investigation" will prove nothing except the Democrats are using the people's time, money and system to delay confirmation.
So 3 degrees of separation. How about the FBI also investigate
Fords Brother who works for the law firm who paid for-Fusion GPS (3 degrees)
Jill Strzoks is Peter Strozoks sister in law
Jill works with Thomas Blasey
Blasey is Fords Brother
Not sure if the above is entirely true, don't got time to research right now. Can someone else? I did also read something that said all the above grew up in the same area. So for them to know each other and their jobs is just a coincidence.
-
I don't believe Trump is giving in to Hirono and the Democrats
they should just vote already
this is just a delay tactic by the left
don't do anything that the left wants
-
I don't believe Trump is giving in to Hirono and the Democrats
they should just vote already
this is just a delay tactic by the left
don't do anything that the left wants
Yep. Trump knows the goal post is the day after midterm elections. As long as the confirmation beats that deadline, he can be "squishy" on small delays.
-
Does a bear shit in the woods? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
A smart bear shits in your house not his.
-
A smart bear shits in your house not his.
Tell me about it!
(https://i.imgur.com/q3IGFrP.jpg?1)
-
I didn't check, but I read Dr. Ford has 5 GoFundMe accounts totaling over $800,000.
And her lawyers stated in the hearing they are both working pro bono.
The next time someone asks, "So why would she put herself through all of this?" show them the money!! :popcorn:
-
The 2 women who verbally assaulted Jeff Flake in the Senate elevator today who may have gotten him to make the decision to request the delay for an FBI investigation are being outed. They are not sexual assault victims that they've ever posted about in any social media. BUT, they have posted about their political activism for Soros-funded groups.
Makes me sick these people think lying is a valid means to their ends ... and the GOP never learns.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/women-screaming-at-flake-in-elevator-were-soros-funded-astroturfed-activist-leaders-not-sex-abuse-victims/
-
I just hope investigating a party from 1982 somewhere in MD on no specific day and at no specific house doesn't slow the FBI down in their search for answers surrounding the Las Vegas massacre.
-
Can anyone find fords psychology license on the CA board website? Or previouslly expired license?
Calling yourself a psychologist is like calling yourself a lawyer without passing the bar. Illegal in CA.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
What I want to know is what Flake got in exchange for flaking out on this whole circus ordeal? ???
-
What I want to know is what Flake got in exchange for flaking out on this whole circus ordeal? ???
Word on the street is the woman who yelled at him isnt even a victim, but paid by soros
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Word on the street is the woman who yelled at him isnt even a victim, but paid by soros
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Fo' real? :wave:
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=32209.msg287125#msg287125
-
What I want to know is what Flake got in exchange for flaking out on this whole circus ordeal? ???
Flake and his former buddy Arizona senator John McCain are/were dyed-in-the-wool NeverTrumpers. His immediate reward is simply knowing that he stuck it to Trump, even if it might turn out to be only a temporary delay. Second, since he is not running for re-election he is job shoppiing, and this positions him to be one of the "conservatives" (really DemLite, not ever RINOs) that serve as the "Conservative Republican" voices as commentators on NPR, CNN, MSNBC, etc., you know, what they all advertise as "fair and balanced". "See, we have conservatives on and give them a voice". Yeah, like David Gergen and the other anti-Trump asshats they try to pass off as "conservatives".
I recently listened to an NPR show (laughably titled "Left, Right, and Center") during which it was impossible to distinguish whether the criticisms of Trump were coming from the "Left" or the "Right" "representative". Total fucking joke.
It's a job interview for Flake. It will be big bucks for Flake. He knows it.
-
I think this is the contemporary version of being tarred and feathered, put on a rail and rode out of town. Kavanaugh would have to be brain dead to not get pissed off about this whole debacle, but as soon as he displays that he's pissed, oh we found the chink in armor that we can exploit. It's a lose-lose situation no matter what. everybody loses in this sad circus.
personally, I think he should've burned that calendar long time ago. that disclosure will come to no good. now they're focusing on a date, 1 July. Now all Ford has to say is yes, that was the date, that was the party. Guilty! Even though at the outset, she had no clue. She strikes me as an airhead but that's just me, you know, the dimwitted slow one, always clueless. Maybe she was consequently bullied, pranked in HS as such. Seen my share of that in those days.
Flake is a flake. one of those two gals that accosted him, said, I never told no one. nobody believes me. there's a contradiction in there. if you never told anybody, how do you know they don't believe you? good play acting. professional drama queens. they replayed that same scene with Cruz.
So this time round, they're digging all the way back to HS. next time it will be grade school. and what kind of people are squeaky clean since grade school? not the kind of person I would want as a judge of fellow humanity. sad circus.
Even Spartacus Booker wrote about his days of trying to get to Third Base. huh? wut?
-
Kavanaugh should have admitted to his heavy drinking in HS and college. That’s what most jocks and college guys do. Obama admitted to smoking pakalolo before. He could have said, “Yes I drank and partied hard in HS and college, but I did not sexually assault anyone and I stopped the heavy drinking after I got out of college.” He tried to cover up the amount he drank, which some of his friends back then are saying he lied about the amount he drank. If that is proven to be true, then the rest of his story becomes less believable.
I like what Madonna did many years ago when she first became a big star and someone found nude photos of her when she trying to make a living modeling. They tried to blackmail her. She said “So what about the photos and actually published them in her book “SEX”.
-
... and the GOP never learns.
Of course they learned. They are playing this game perfectly. Oil is about to spike again bringing the economy to it's knees and you are distracted, right?
-
It's interesting how the Democrats can find a story about a high school party 35 years ago,
yet they still haven't found HRC's emails, that $6 billion missing from when she ran the State Department, the real reason she lost to Trump ....
-
The photo the news kept showing all the way up to the hearings, even though recent photos were available on her school's website:
(https://i.imgur.com/ztD3e1Y.jpg?1)
And this is her at the hearing:
(https://i.imgur.com/7Uu2Q3H.jpg)
Gee. I can't figure out why Trump keeps calling them "Fake News". This is so honest and legit.
-
I really hope the FBI, in their quest for the truth, can dredge up Ford's social media accounts. I'd like to see what was so bad that she had to delete them the day before sending the letter to Congress.
I also hope they can delve into her medical records. I think there's something there she's hiding as well. Privacy is one thing. But, when you accuse a judge of sexual assault over 35 years ago, there has to be more of a motivation than "civic duty."
What? Being a judge on the US Court of Appeals in DC for 15 years isn't a position of trust, but the Supreme Court, one step up, is?
-
Republicans didn’t want Merrick Garland confirmed, so they just didn’t vote. Democrats don’t want Brett Kavanaugh confirmed, so they accuse him of serial gang rape. And that is the difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Matt Walsh @MattWalshBlog
Tweeted on September 28, 2018
-
Can anyone find fords psychology license on the CA board website? Or previouslly expired license?
Calling yourself a psychologist is like calling yourself a lawyer without passing the bar. Illegal in CA.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
I hope this link works:
http://fbnewscycle.com/eee/
-
when you accuse a judge of sexual assault over 35 years ago, there has to be more of a motivation than "civic duty."
Ford's parents lost their home to foreclosure in 1996. The judge presiding over the case was Brett Kavanaugh's mother.
-
I hope this link works:
http://fbnewscycle.com/eee/
There was a blog site which posted some damning information on her use of the title "psychologist", but it was a rather sketchy-looking site, so I'm not 100% sure all the info was legit.
In short, according to the CA law they referenced, it's a crime to practice or even use the title "psychologist" UNLESS the person holds a license as a psychologist. The website I saw stated no one has been able to find a current or expired license under any variation of her name for any state in which she may have applied for one, including CA, MD or HI.
By introducing herself in the hearing as a research psychologist, she not only broke CA law, she also perjured herself while under oath.
The site claims to have used the Wayback website to the most recent snapshot of the school's page with her bio, a few years back, but it plainly advertisers her as a psychologist.
If she had a license that expired and it just can't be located, CA allows her to use that title, but she's not allowed to practice as a psychologist, of course. Expired licenses should be in the database, though.
It's akin to advertising yourself as a lawyer in a state where you never passed the bar exam and have never been issued a license to practice law. You can list yourself as having law degrees, but not using the title "lawyer".
-
During the hearings, they addressed her as "Dr. Ford".
Is she?
-
During the hearings, they addressed her as "Dr. Ford".
Is she?
"Dr." is afforded to anyone with a degree at that level, whether it's medical, a PhD, ... I worked with many math and science people who were Dr.s.
I assume since she came to Hawaii for a year to do clinical work related to her doctorate, she finished it.
As for the psychologist issue, her wikipedia bio still says "psychologist" all over it. But it you click at least one of the footnote links, it takes you to Stanford's page that now says "AFFILIATE, PSYCHIATRY AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford#cite_note-8
"Christine Blasey – Research Psychologist, Psych/General Psychiatry and Psychology (Adult)". med.stanford.edu. Stanford School of Medicine. 2015. Archived from the original on September 10, 2015. Retrieved September 28, 2018.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150910060006/https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/christine-blasey
Interestingly, when I click the archive link above, I first see this older page, then it refreshes to the latest changed version with Affiliate. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
(https://i.imgur.com/VqzQ7BE.jpg?1)
-
Bernie is so 2016 ....
(https://i.imgur.com/c7NlknT.jpg?1)
-
The sarcasm in that letter runs deep... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
The sarcasm in that letter runs deep... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I thought that was a spoof letter. :oops:
-
Don’t know if this one is for real or not? I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
http://fbnewscycle.com/d2/
She stated that she started having memories in relation to the alleged abuse around the same time that she and her husband decided to renovate their house, adding a second door.
On Saturday, the Gateway Pundit reported that the second door was added to Blasey Ford’s house years prior to when she claimed it was in her official testimony.
It now appears that the second front door had nothing to do with repressed memories of abuse. It’s seeming more like the door was put on the house in order to run a business.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/0MyW4uQ.png)
-
good to know what MSM sees and references.
For those who haven't seen it.
https://youtu.be/VRJecfRxbr8
References to:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-devils-triangle-boofing-renate-ralph-club.html
-
Some are accusing Kavanaugh of being an alcoholic in high school and college who frequently suffered blackouts and memory loss from drinking.
Let's see ....
Graduated #1 in his high school class.
Played JV and Varsity sports -- football, basketball, etc.
Graduated from Yale Law School.
Played sports in college.
Became a federal judge presiding on the second highest court in the nation 15 years ago.
If that's the record of an alcoholic who suffers from blackouts, sign me up!!! I mean, it's not like he's a alcoholic Senator who campaigns on his family name.
-
Here is another surprise for all you Crazie Marie LOVERS:
Sen. Hirono doesn't answer when asked whether Dems leaked Christine Ford's letter on Kavanaugh
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/30/sen-hirono-doesnt-answer-when-asked-whether-dems-leaked-christine-fords-letter-on-kavanaugh.html
-
I have no idea if the picture of Keyser is really her, and even if it is how old the photo is... but I can't help it... I found the idea of it amusing, even if it's fake...
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/798907f91b88acbcce014a1ab38918fb5e606b779d805628a4659bbd1ee9b921.jpg?w=800&h=443)
-
So ford claims she ran into mike judge a little while later at Safeway and he had a look of discust on his face. Safeway wasnt built until 4 years later...
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Ford's parents lost their home to foreclosure in 1996. The judge presiding over the case was Brett Kavanaugh's mother.
The court case in question saw the Ford's keeping their house. Brett Kavanaugh's mother denied a foreclosure so the Ford's got to keep their house.
So that isn't a motive here.
-
Some are accusing Kavanaugh of being an alcoholic in high school and college who frequently suffered blackouts and memory loss from drinking.
Let's see ....
Graduated #1 in his high school class.
Played JV and Varsity sports -- football, basketball, etc.
Graduated from Yale Law School.
Played sports in college.
Became a federal judge presiding on the second highest court in the nation 15 years ago.
If that's the record of an alcoholic who suffers from blackouts, sign me up!!! I mean, it's not like he's a alcoholic Senator who campaigns on his family name.
There are functioning alcoholics who are able to perform well in life however generally speaking I think it would suggest he wasn't a raging alcoholic. He could be a binge drinker at parties though and drink to the point of blacking out even if he wasn't a raging alcoholic.
-
There are functioning alcoholics who are able to perform well in life however generally speaking I think it would suggest he wasn't a raging alcoholic. He could be a binge drinker at parties though and drink to the point of blacking out even if he wasn't a raging alcoholic.
Unless he's been reprimanded for his drinking or received a DUI, it's obvious he is a responsible drinker. People who binge drink lose their good judgement and make mistakes. No way a man in his 50s is a "functioning alcoholic" or binge drinker with his accomplishments, his life, his family and his career.
You're really reaching. He's no Winston Churchill.
My Ex was a borderline alcoholic until she finally crossed that line. She lost 3 jobs in 2 years, totaled her car in a single car accident, received a DUI on federal land, and was arrested for contempt of court after she violated a TRO sworn out by the coworker she was staying with.
Sorry, but functioning alcoholics don't fly under the radar forever.
-
Unless he's been reprimanded for his drinking or received a DUI, it's obvious he is a responsible drinker. People who binge drink lose their good judgement and make mistakes. No way a man in his 50s is a "functioning alcoholic" or binge drinker with his accomplishments, his life, his family and his career.
You're really reaching. He's no Winston Churchill.
My Ex was a borderline alcoholic until she finally crossed that line. She lost 3 jobs in 2 years, totaled her car in a single car accident, received a DUI on federal land, and was arrested for contempt of court after she violated a TRO sworn out by the coworker she was staying with.
Sorry, but functioning alcoholics don't fly under the radar forever.
Like I said, I think those accomplishments would suggest he wasn't a raging alcoholic.
But I do not think those accomplishments serve as a reliable indicator that he never did something dumb binge drinking when he was young.
-
BREAKING: Multiple sources now reporting additional investigations are about to begin:
1. @FBI - felony lying to Congress by accusers making false claims.
2. Congress - @SenFeinstein’s handling of Ford letter.
3. DC Bar - into Ford’s attorneys malpractice.
-
Cotton says Feinstein will be investigated over leaked letter by Kavanaugh accuser
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cotton-says-feinstein-will-be-investigated-over-leaked-letter-by-kavanaugh-accuser
(https://i.imgur.com/dzpPvJx.png)
-
Well... DUH!
Left wants new rules to FBI's Kavanaugh probe; demands more time, perjury investigation
Goalposts. Move 'em. Delay. Lie about it. Job well done.
-
There are functioning alcoholics who are able to perform well in life however generally speaking I think it would suggest he wasn't a raging alcoholic. He could be a binge drinker at parties though and drink to the point of blacking out even if he wasn't a raging alcoholic.
....
I yoosed to pway tenis weely gud afta a fwoo bweerz...
But seriously, this is such an obvious smear campaign. :wtf:
My former boss was a great congressman for almost 10 years until he got smeared by the dems. :(
-
While waiting for my coffee this morning, was reading more coverage of the circus that this has become. Making me :sick: :puke: :wtf:
I hope that what comes of this will be more investigation blowing up in the faces of those who are slinging the dirt. Just like:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/so-democrats-what-are-you-hiding-from-the-fbi (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/so-democrats-what-are-you-hiding-from-the-fbi)
Funny thing about when someone goes digging in the past, you never know what might turn up. I do hope the investigation finds information that proves CBF perjured herself in her testimony.
-
This is what I had hoped would happen through all of this madness. That this would energize the Conservative base. While I don't put that much faith in polls, if things are even close to what the poll referenced in this article, then I think there's potential for a big D backfire in November.
It also means the progressive strategy of using sexual assault victims to bolster midterm turnout just backfired. Before the Kavanaugh fiasco, polls showed Republicans as less likely to vote in November than Democrats. The conservative base just wasn’t motivated to show up as compared to progressives.
That is no longer the case.
Republicans are now aflame with outrage. Sen. Lindsey Graham’s Braveheart-like performance at the Kavanaugh hearing was the most moving, to be sure, but anecdotal reading of conservative media, intellectuals and Twitter feeds confirm that the Democratic assault has awakened a Republican giant.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dems-to-pay-in-november-for-overplaying-kavanaugh-hand (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dems-to-pay-in-november-for-overplaying-kavanaugh-hand)
-
The dems are again going after something that cannot be proven or disprove, but sounds bad. Blacking out due to excessive drinking.
Next they will go after him and ask if he every had a sexual thought about anyone but his wife.
-
Kavanaugh Binge/Blackout Defense.....
WHISKEY DICK ! :D :love: :crazy: :P :sleeping:
-
For those who need an update but can't find the post:
*Ford doesn't remember what year it happened
*Ford doesn't remember where it happened
*Ford doesn't rememeber what month it happened
*For doesn't remember how she got there
*Ford doesn't remember how she got home
*Ford changed her story 3 times on who can verify her story.
-4 guys in the room
-2-3 guys in the room
-Kav in the room and Mike Judge walked in during
-Both Kav and Judge in the room
*Judge laughing during attack, and when she ran into him at Safeway he had a look of remorse/guilt on his face (Safeway wasn't built until 1986, 4 years later)
*Polygrapher only asked 2 questions and refused to release any video/graphs
*Claims under oath she's a psychologist, but CA has no record of her current or expired license (illegal to call yourself one with no license)
*Claims afraid of flying, but travels for work/education and vacations. But couldn't make it in time for 1st time date of hearing due to being afraid
*Doesn't know who paid for polygraph and hotel
*No documentation of her marriage consular visit which she claims when she told someone (check, credit card, insurance, cash receipt)
* Claims her best friend was told, best friend has no knowledge
Degrees of separation:
*Her brother used to work for the law firm that paid Fusion GPS (Russia thing)
*Has 8 papers showing abortion drug works (Kav against abortion)
*Own family won't sign a letter showing support
*Family claims she became crazy after Trump was elected (TDS?)
*Supports pink hats
*Deleted FB before sending letter to Feinstein
*Post also on her timeline that someone should accuse Goerstch of sexual harassment when he was nominated
*Reviews online while she was teaching said she's vindictive and not to get on her bad side or she'll make your life hell
*Parents home foreclosed and judge was Kav's mom
*Due to HIPAA, how did the NYT get the marriage consular s "notes"
*Kav was appointed by Bush and it was all over the media. Where was Ford?
-
For those who need an update but can't find the post:
*Ford doesn't remember what year it happened
*Ford doesn't remember where it happened
*Ford doesn't rememeber what month it happened
*For doesn't remember how she got there
*Ford doesn't remember how she got home
*Ford changed her story 3 times on who can verify her story.
-4 guys in the room
-2-3 guys in the room
-Kav in the room and Mike Judge walked in during
-Both Kav and Judge in the room
*Judge laughing during attack, and when she ran into him at Safeway he had a look of remorse/guilt on his face (Safeway wasn't built until 1986, 4 years later)
*Polygrapher only asked 2 questions and refused to release any video/graphs
*Claims under oath she's a psychologist, but CA has no record of her current or expired license (illegal to call yourself one with no license)
*Claims afraid of flying, but travels for work/education and vacations. But couldn't make it in time for 1st time date of hearing due to being afraid
*Doesn't know who paid for polygraph and hotel
*No documentation of her marriage consular visit which she claims when she told someone (check, credit card, insurance, cash receipt)
* Claims her best friend was told, best friend has no knowledge
Degrees of separation:
*Her brother used to work for the law firm that paid Fusion GPS (Russia thing)
*Has 8 papers showing abortion drug works (Kav against abortion)
*Own family won't sign a letter showing support
*Family claims she became crazy after Trump was elected (TDS?)
*Supports pink hats
*Deleted FB before sending letter to Feinstein
*Post also on her timeline that someone should accuse Goerstch of sexual harassment when he was nominated
*Reviews online while she was teaching said she's vindictive and not to get on her bad side or she'll make your life hell
*Parents home foreclosed and judge was Kav's mom
*Due to HIPAA, how did the NYT get the marriage consular s "notes"
The notes from her therapist were released to the NYT by Ford/her lawyers.
There was effectively one question asked twice by the polygraph tester, just worded differently:
1. Is any part of your statement false?
2. Did you make up any part of your statement?
Sounds like the exact same question to me.
The committee requested her medical records. Lawyers refused, citing privacy rights. Nothing says the chair can't review them privately and only release portions he thinks have relevancy. For example, if she's being treated for any mental illness, such as bipolar disorder, it could be a factor in determining why she might imagine or lie about Kavanaugh's alleged attack.
Since when does a victim need not just one, but two law firms to advise and represent her? And both stated they are doing this pro bono. Katz has been an active Democrat activist for decades. She even went on record diminishing the accounts of assault and harassment against Bill Clinton by Paula Jones and others -- basically she attacked the victims and didn't;t believe they were raped.
Both of her parents are registered Republicans. She and they had a falling out during the Bush years.
-
They also don't know if the changes to her hand written statement were made before or after the poly.
-
FBI released a sketch of the man Dr. Ford identified as convincing her to accuse Judge Kavanaugh ....
(https://i.imgur.com/1XHw7aT.jpg?1)
-
FBI released a sketch of the man Dr. Ford identified as convincing her to accuse Judge Kavanaugh ....
(https://i.imgur.com/1XHw7aT.jpg?1)
I suppose you know the multitude of tales re his behavior in "a certain arena" while spending all those years in Paris and London, right? I'm really surprised they allow his picture to remain on any currency. I'm sure #MeToo is on it already. Katz and Bromwich to the rescue!
-
GoFundMe
The new way to get money from Soro's.
-
Looks like Flake and McConnell had a sit-down ....
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said the Senate will hold a vote on Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination this week.
"The time for endless delay and obstruction has come to a close. Judge Kavanaugh's nomination is out of committee. We're considering it here
on the floor and ... we'll be voting this week," McConnell said.
McConnell's comments, made during a Senate floor speech, comes as the FBI has to wrap up its investigation into multiple sexual misconduct
allegations against Kavanaugh by Friday.
GOP senators and aides have been careful not to pin down a specific timeline on Kavanaugh's nomination, arguing that the FBI could wrap up
its work before the Friday deadline.
-
Christine Ford - 1982
(https://i.imgur.com/cgepOEs.jpg?2)
CASE CLOSED!
-
The more the Dems smear Brett Kavanaugh, the more afraid they are if/when he is confirmed.
Fortunately for them, he isn't the type to hold a grudge. Just don't tell them that!
:rofl:
-
Christine Ford - 1982
(https://i.imgur.com/cgepOEs.jpg?2)
CASE CLOSED!
beer goggles would need to be very thick for that. ;)
-
beer goggles would need to be very thick for that. ;)
that's why they think Kavanagh is a blackout drunk
-
that's why they think Kavanagh is a blackout drunk
Billy boy would be like, “oh yeah, I’d hit that!”
-
that's why they think Kavanagh is a blackout drunk
That accusation would actually make sense. Beer goggles. She must be a late bloomer, 64 prior partners.
-
It's impossible to witness someone experiencing an alcohol-induced blackout at the time it's happening.
A blackout is when you drink too much and continue to function. You will likely pass out at some point. Once you sober up, you cannot remember anything past a certain point in time.
A witness can tell when someone passes out, but if the "drunk" doesn't admit to having a memory lapse, there's no observable evidence of a "blackout".
-
Christine Ford - 1982
(https://i.imgur.com/cgepOEs.jpg?2)
CASE CLOSED!
Oh yeah, that’s worth going to jail for groping. :crazy:
-
It's impossible to witness someone experiencing an alcohol-induced blackout at the time it's happening.
A blackout is when you drink too much and continue to function. You will likely pass out at some point. Once you sober up, you cannot remember anything past a certain point in time.
A witness can tell when someone passes out, but if the "drunk" doesn't admit to having a memory lapse, there's no observable evidence of a "blackout".
I have blacked out once. I knew I wasn't passed out because we were at Maze Waikiki and down stairs there was a hotdog stand. I saw pics posted on FB and we had a group pic in front of the stand with the vendor. I have no memory of this pic or even how I got home. I do remember entering the club and that was it. And apparently I ordered and paid for a hotdog. I don't eat hotdogs. And my friends weren't holding me up like Bernie either.
That's when I learned what blacking out was.
-
I have blacked out once. I knew I wasn't passed out because we were at Maze Waikiki and down stairs there was a hotdog stand. I saw pics posted on FB and we had a group pic in front of the stand with the vendor. I have no memory of this pic or even how I got home. I do remember entering the club and that was it. And apparently I ordered and paid for a hotdog. I don't eat hotdogs. And my friends weren't holding me up like Bernie either.
That's when I learned what blacking out was.
Based on her testimony, I'd be more inclined to believe SHE blacked out. Can't seem to remember crap, but somehow she remembers being almost attacked.
Her biggest slip in the testimony was when she said she'd not had anything to drink at that party. Then, when asked when she didn't tell anyone like her parents, she said she knew she'd get in trouble if they knew she was drinking with boys.
Sneaking out behind her parents' backs, drinking with boys, and being more afraid of getting trouble for that than reporting SOMEONE WHO ATTEMPTED TO RAPE HER, AND WHO MIGHT ACCIDENTALLY KILL HER?
Yeah. She wasn't drinking. :wacko:
-
But you have to believe her because she is a woman.
-
But you have to believe her because she is a woman.
That's what's been keeping HRC afloat all these lie-infested years, I guess.
-
Hmmmmmm
https://dailym.ai/2Iwhq3d
-
Hmmmmmm
https://dailym.ai/2Iwhq3d
Accusation # 4
"now had Brett in an embrace" :popcorn:
-
Judge Kavanaugh was part of the Bush campaign in Florida helping oversee the recounts in 2000.
Now he's being jammed up by another "Chad"?
What are the odds? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
This is the whole reason the FBI only goes back into a subject's past 7-10 years for background checks. Any further back, and the amount of stories that really have no current relevancy would be unmanageable.
Saying he lied about his drinking is subjective. There's no set standard for one's "extent of drinking in college". College is where most of us experimented with alcohol. It's the first time most were away from home, of legal age, and being influenced by fraternities, sororities, concerts, ball games, and all the other school clubs and events that involve partying.
Depending on the state, most 18 year olds could drink beer & wine legally. My state raised the age from 18 to 21 a year at a time, which made me legally able to purchase it all through college.
So, it's no longer about finding the truth about Ford's claims. it's now about using his testimony to damn him, if they can find someone to claim he wasn't 100% accurate.
I hate Democrats.
-
Rachel Mitchell, the AZ Prosecutor who questioned Ford at the hearing, submitted her report. It's on Scribd:
https://www.scribd.com/book/389821761/Mitchell-Memo
She lists 9 reasons why she believes Ford is not credible.
This article does a good job of listing them and expounds on the points with additional info.
https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/01/christine-blasey-ford-not-credible-prosecutor-mitchell-senate-report/
I'm hoping this is the supporting data and opinion the Republicans on the committee were waiting for, so they have something to hang their hat on besides feelings.
-
I blatantly stole this to post on a liberal dominated forum.
Just because, I like tossing live grenades.
For those who need an update but can't find the post:
*Ford doesn't remember what year it happened
*Ford doesn't remember where it happened
*Ford doesn't rememeber what month it happened
*For doesn't remember how she got there
*Ford doesn't remember how she got home
*Ford changed her story 3 times on who can verify her story.
-4 guys in the room
-2-3 guys in the room
-Kav in the room and Mike Judge walked in during
-Both Kav and Judge in the room
*Judge laughing during attack, and when she ran into him at Safeway he had a look of remorse/guilt on his face (Safeway wasn't built until 1986, 4 years later)
*Polygrapher only asked 2 questions and refused to release any video/graphs
*Claims under oath she's a psychologist, but CA has no record of her current or expired license (illegal to call yourself one with no license)
*Claims afraid of flying, but travels for work/education and vacations. But couldn't make it in time for 1st time date of hearing due to being afraid
*Doesn't know who paid for polygraph and hotel
*No documentation of her marriage consular visit which she claims when she told someone (check, credit card, insurance, cash receipt)
* Claims her best friend was told, best friend has no knowledge
Degrees of separation:
*Her brother used to work for the law firm that paid Fusion GPS (Russia thing)
*Has 8 papers showing abortion drug works (Kav against abortion)
*Own family won't sign a letter showing support
*Family claims she became crazy after Trump was elected (TDS?)
*Supports pink hats
*Deleted FB before sending letter to Feinstein
*Post also on her timeline that someone should accuse Goerstch of sexual harassment when he was nominated
*Reviews online while she was teaching said she's vindictive and not to get on her bad side or she'll make your life hell
*Parents home foreclosed and judge was Kav's mom
*Due to HIPAA, how did the NYT get the marriage consular s "notes"
*Kav was appointed by Bush and it was all over the media. Where was Ford?
-
I have to make a correction to your post.
Ford originally said the event took place in the mid 80’s. Then she changed her story and said it was the early 80’s. Then after Kav released his calendars she again changed her story and said it was 1982. So your post was correct at one time. But now, with some evidence provided to her, she now knows what year it happened. Just saying. :rofl:
-
I have to make a correction to your post.
Ford originally said the event took place in the mid 80’s. Then she changed her story and said it was the early 80’s. Then after Kav released his calendars she again changed her story and said it was 1982. So your post was correct at one time. But now, with some evidence provided to her, she now knows what year it happened. Just saying. :rofl:
That word, "knows" ..... Not sure that really applies to Ford.
-
* Ford couldn't recall if the polygraph was administered on the day of her grandmothers funeral or the day before or after.
This was about a month ago.
Her lack of ability to recall facts on days that most of us can't get out of our heads is just pathetic.
-
Not only is she not credible, but her own witnesses deny it ever occurred.
BTW, you know the MSM is going to be all over Kav for allegedly throwing ice in a bar after a UB40 concert. And if that doesn’t stick, they will probably say he isn’t qualified to be a SCOTUS judge because he listened to UB40. :wacko: :wacko: :wacko:
-
Don't forget his 3rd accuser, the one with all the previous lawsuits and back taxes. She changed her story from Kav drugged her at a party to "he was standing near the punchbowl, someone spiked the punchbowl".
I guess filling his cup with punch wasn't enough.
-
Aaaaaaaand more elitists want to “protest”...again...
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/michael-stipe-alicia-keys-erykah-badu-to-protest-kavanaugh-confirmation-in-d-c-731810/
-
I'm pleased to see more women "stepping up" and calling out the Ford's testimony and those who slobber over her "credibility" and "sincerity" etc.
Here is Michelle Malkin in a brief video outlining a few of the "problems" with Ford and her "story".
https://twitter.com/CRTV/status/1046784734427209728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1046793258611826688&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2018%2F10%2Fmichelle-malkin-there-is-not-one-shred-of-evidence-to-back-up-christine-fords-uncorroborated-ever-evolving-opportunistic-story-video%2F
-
Saw a meme:
We need farmers
We need doctors
We need electricians
We need teachers
I have never needed an athlete or actor/actress
-
Now even CNBC questioning Swetnick's credibility after interview on on NBC News.
Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick alleges he was 'very aggressive,' but her latest interview raises new questions
Julie Swetnick, the third woman to publicly accuse Supreme Court hopeful Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct from decades earlier, said in a television interview Monday that Kavanaugh was a "very aggressive, very sloppy drunk — very mean drunk."
But parts of Swetnick's account in the face-to-face interview also appeared to deviate from her affidavit.
Whoops. . .
-
Now even CNBC questioning Swetnick's credibility after interview on on NBC News.
Whoops. . .
Her credibility was in question the minute she said she attended 10 gang rape parties which were never reported by any bystander/attendee, victim, participant or parents.
Then it came out she has a history of false sexual assault accusations, when SHE is the one who was found to be behaving in inappropriate ways in the workplace by making sexually suggestive comments.
-
Ann Coulter is recruiting ....
(https://i.imgur.com/xZmGocw.jpg?1)
-
Her credibility was in question the minute she said she attended 10 gang rape parties which were never reported by any bystander/attendee, victim, participant or parents.
Then it came out she has a history of false sexual assault accusations, when SHE is the one who was found to be behaving in inappropriate ways in the workplace by making sexually suggestive comments.
Yeah. I didn't mean that she was ever really credible. But when even CNBC questions credibility and doesn't even try to spin it, then that says something.
-
Her credibility was in question the minute she said she attended 10 gang rape parties which were never reported by any bystander/attendee, victim, participant or parents.
Then it came out she has a history of false sexual assault accusations, when SHE is the one who was found to be behaving in inappropriate ways in the workplace by making sexually suggestive comments.
one would think after one gang rape, you would stop going to parties at that location
-
one would think after one gang rape, you would stop going to parties at that location
That would be too logical. . .
Or maybe she's one that needs to learn lessons the hard way ???
-
Yeah. I didn't mean that she was ever really credible. But when even CNBC questions credibility and doesn't even try to spin it, then that says something.
Yeah. Her story was first provided to the New York Times, that bastion of truth and integrity in reporting. :rofl:
Even the NYT opted to pass on publishing it, because it failed to pass the most Liberal of sniff tests. Now the other outlets are figuring that out for themselves, but only after the smear has had the intended effect.
-
The same people crying "TEMPERAMENT" now voted for this woman ...
https://youtu.be/lEpEiBf8vvo
-
LOL! The Creepy Porn Lawyer representing accuser #3 (gang rape story) just got smacked down by the Senate.....
(https://i.imgur.com/1OHq10w.jpg)
-
LOL! The Creepy Porn Lawyer representing accuser #3 (gang rape story) just got smacked down by the Senate.....
(https://i.imgur.com/1OHq10w.jpg)
:rofl:
-
Serious question for males:
If you ran a business, and was filling a vacant position, would you seriously consider hiring a woman now?
Many are reconsidering if it's worth the risk.
Kavanaugh isn't the only victim of these unsupported criminal accusations.
-
Serious question for males:
If you ran a business, and was filling a vacant position, would you seriously consider hiring a woman now?
Many are reconsidering if it's worth the risk.
Kavanaugh isn't the only victim of these unsupported criminal accusations.
Let's not forget Commifornia is trying to pass a law that women must be on the board of directors. If there are 6 board members then a min of 3 women must be on it. This is LAW they're trying to pass.
Let's not forget about the plastic straw law and the 12 year olds now can get a sex change laws they have.
InB4 "wage gap". If women did get paid 25% less than men, then wouldn't all big companies hire more women? To save 25% on payroll. My dentist has an all woman staff. Would feel weird if a dude was sitting at the receptionist desk or as a dental hygienist. =P
-
Let's not forget Commifornia is trying to pass a law that women must be on the board of directors. If there are 6 board members then a min of 3 women must be on it. This is LAW they're trying to pass.
Let's not forget about the plastic straw law and the 12 year olds now can get a sex change laws they have.
InB4 "wage gap". If women did get paid 25% less than men, then wouldn't all big companies hire more women? To save 25% on payroll. My dentist has an all woman staff. Would feel weird if a dude was sitting at the receptionist desk or as a dental hygienist. =P
Norway already has such a law.
- Norway became the first country in the world to introduce a gender quota for company boards.
- But ten years on, the results aren't too flattering.
- There's been a good effect on listed companies’ boards, but zero effect on top management teams.
https://nordic.businessinsider.com/norway-passed-a-gender-quota-law-on-corporate-boards-10-years-ago--heres-the-verdict--/
-
It would be very difficult to measure what impact having a % of male to female ratio would have. Because you cannot go back and change the ratio.
So in the end, it's the government telling you how to run your company. Would an all female board have to bring on males?
-
It would be very difficult to measure what impact having a % of male to female ratio would have. Because you cannot go back and change the ratio.
So in the end, it's the government telling you how to run your company. Would an all female board have to bring on males?
Good question. Normally quotas are minimums for the specified "type" of member. There's usually no balance to quotas. It's just a way to give special treatment to a group over everyone else.
Quotas in hiring are rarely seen as good. It hurts the company by forcing them to hire based on qualities unrelated to the demands of the position, and it places a stigma on the new hire as an "Affirmative Action" or other quota hire. The assumption is, they were not necessarily qualified by reason of any other measure than their gender, race, etc.
-
REPORT: FBI Probe Finishing Tomorrow
The FBI probe into Brett Kavanaugh will end tomorrow with an expected vote on the Senate floor by the end of this week.
According to The Wall Street Journal, sources confirmed that "that the FBI investigation into the allegations of sexual misconduct
against Judge Kavanaugh could wrap up very soon, well ahead of the end-of week deadline." The probe could be done possibly
late Tuesday or early Wednesday.
"Agents had interviewed at least four key people as of Tuesday in its background investigation of Judge Kavanaugh," reports WSJ.
"The White House had given the bureau until Friday to wrap up the probe."The debate among the Senators now is whether or not
the FBI's findings should be made public, and that outcome is still up in the air. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday
that only Senators will be allowed to see the report.
"We will get an FBI report soon. It will be made available to each senator and only senators will be allowed to look at it. That’s the
way these reports are always handled. These background checks from the FBI to the Judiciary Committee. And we will be voting this
week," McConnell said.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer challenged that assertion by saying it should be made public, mostly because the FBI hotline
has been flooded with crazy allegations with no credibility whatsoever.
"We are getting report after report of people who call the FBI Hotline, the tips line, and are never called back," Schumer said. "People
who claim - we don’t know the veracity of these claims - but people who claim to have new and compromising information."
Other Republicans, like Sen. John Cornyn, think the FBI probe should be made partially public. "There does need to be some sort of public
statement, if not the reports themselves," he said. "Since the accusations have been made public, it seems to me that people are not going
to be satisfied until some public statement about what the FBI supplemental background investigation showed is made."
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said such an action would not be standard protocol. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said
the release should "be limited."
Recent polls indicate that if the FBI probe finds nothing, a majority of Americans want to see Kavanaugh confirmed.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36612/report-fbi-probe-finishing-tomorrow-paul-bois
-
REPORT: FBI Probe Finishing Tomorrow
...Sen. John Cornyn, think(s) the FBI probe should be made partially public. "There does need to be some sort of public
statement, if not the reports themselves," he said. "Since the accusations have been made public, it seems to me that people are not going
to be satisfied until...
If those "people (who) are not going to be satisfied" are the lying double-standard hypocrites, aka "Democrats", it's easy to finish that sentence: "until... hell freezes over". Is there a single person anywhere who doubts that? Not enough time for thorough report. Scope too limited, many accusers not even interviewed, much less their witnesses. He drinks too much. His lack of judicial demeanor is disqualifying. Etc. Etc. Etc. It'll never end. And they've already said (Nadler, et al.) that if Kavanaugh is confirmed this week, if they take control of the House and/or Senate after the midterms, they will attempt to remove him from the seat.
-
More contradictions surfacing. Moving toward perjury?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm)
When one digs deeper, sometimes you dig up skeletons.
-
More contradictions surfacing. Moving toward perjury?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm)
When one digs deeper, sometimes you dig up skeletons.
Well, based on that story it appears Ford lied during her testimony. More so than just being inconsistent. Which the Dems could shrug off. But a lie is a lie.
-
Well, based on that story it appears Ford lied during her testimony. More so than just being inconsistent. Which the Dems could shrug off. But a lie is a lie.
Yeah. A lie is a lie, but have to look closely at the question that was asked. I didn’t look into it that closely. Plenty of people already doing that.
That’s what I suspected Mitchell was doing. Getting stuff under oath, trying to catch her on something. It’s tough to maintain intricate details of a lie. Probably why those assisting her kept “helping”.
-
Yeah. A lie is a lie, but have to look closely at the question that was asked. I didn’t look into it that closely. Plenty of people already doing that.
That’s what I suspected Mitchell was doing. Getting stuff under oath, trying to catch her on something. It’s tough to maintain intricate details of a lie. Probably why those assisting her kept “helping”.
I think this was already posted, maybe even by me... who can keep track of this volume of crap? Anyway, here is Mitchell's memorandum, in which she outlines all the "problems" with Ford's testimony, and Mitchell concludes, based upon the existing evidence and testimony, that no prosecutor would bring a case even under the lower bar "preponderance of evidence" criteria, much less the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria.
https://www.scribd.com/embeds/389821761/content#from_embed
-
The more I digest the testimony the more I think Kavanaugh shot himself in the foot. Ford has some holes and flags in her testimony as well but not nearly as bad as Kavanaugh.
What worried me about Kavanaugh's testimony:
Going off on a tangent about Trump and Clinton and democrats about political hits. This is not what is generally expected of SCOTUS justices.
Kavanaughs odd testimony about how much he liked beer and that sometimes he drank too much. These statements conflicted somewhat with his initial denials
Kavanaugh's claim that Boofing, deviles triangle, ralph club etc all meant something other than what seems to be a generally understood to mean something else. If it were only one word I could see the existence of an alternate innocent meaning but for all of those terms to just so happen to have innocent meanings as well is hard to believe. That combined with the sentence structure that the terms were used makes it seem Kavanaugh is lying here. Kavanaugh would have been better off just saying he does not recall what those terms meant.
Kavanaugh's comments to the female senator asking if she had every blacked out drinking. I give him credit that he apologized afterwards though
Kavanaugh's level of anger at the testimony. I am not concluding that his anger means he is lying, rather what bothers me about his anger is that I would expect better demeanor from a SCOTUS justice.
Kavanaugh mischaracterized the statements of the alleged witnesses. He stated that the witnesses denied the accusations when in fact they didn't deny the accusations, only said they don't recall anything like that. Mark Judge stated he had no memory of the alleged incident. Kavanaugh, as a judge, should know better than to mischaracterize evidence (a witness statement).
The calendar thing was odd. I give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he really kept his old calendars but his calendar and what was on it really didn't do anything for his defense. In fact the calendar kind of worked against Kavanaugh.
I am not convinced that Kavanaugh is guilty however he gave a poor performance at the hearing which makes me think, whether guilty or innocent, that maybe he shouldn't be a SCOTUS justice. I don't think there is enough to satisfy a criminal charge against him though.
-
Based on her testimony, I'd be more inclined to believe SHE blacked out. Can't seem to remember crap, but somehow she remembers being almost attacked.
Her biggest slip in the testimony was when she said she'd not had anything to drink at that party. Then, when asked when she didn't tell anyone like her parents, she said she knew she'd get in trouble if they knew she was drinking with boys.
Sneaking out behind her parents' backs, drinking with boys, and being more afraid of getting trouble for that than reporting SOMEONE WHO ATTEMPTED TO RAPE HER, AND WHO MIGHT ACCIDENTALLY KILL HER?
Yeah. She wasn't drinking. :wacko:
I think it very likely they both blacked out. She has some "memory" though so it begs the question where the memory came from. I think something happened to her but it possible her brain pieced things back together from periods of being blacked out. For example maybe she remembers a guy falling on her and she noticed her bra and clothes were shifted and he brain concludes a possible attempted rape? Not saying that is what happened, just a hypothetical to illustrate.
-
For those who need an update but can't find the post:
*Ford doesn't remember what year it happened
*Ford doesn't remember where it happened
*Ford doesn't rememeber what month it happened
*For doesn't remember how she got there
*Ford doesn't remember how she got home
*Ford changed her story 3 times on who can verify her story.
-4 guys in the room
-2-3 guys in the room
-Kav in the room and Mike Judge walked in during
-Both Kav and Judge in the room
*Judge laughing during attack, and when she ran into him at Safeway he had a look of remorse/guilt on his face (Safeway wasn't built until 1986, 4 years later)
*Polygrapher only asked 2 questions and refused to release any video/graphs
*Claims under oath she's a psychologist, but CA has no record of her current or expired license (illegal to call yourself one with no license)
*Claims afraid of flying, but travels for work/education and vacations. But couldn't make it in time for 1st time date of hearing due to being afraid
*Doesn't know who paid for polygraph and hotel
*No documentation of her marriage consular visit which she claims when she told someone (check, credit card, insurance, cash receipt)
* Claims her best friend was told, best friend has no knowledge
Degrees of separation:
*Her brother used to work for the law firm that paid Fusion GPS (Russia thing)
*Has 8 papers showing abortion drug works (Kav against abortion)
*Own family won't sign a letter showing support
*Family claims she became crazy after Trump was elected (TDS?)
*Supports pink hats
*Deleted FB before sending letter to Feinstein
*Post also on her timeline that someone should accuse Goerstch of sexual harassment when he was nominated
*Reviews online while she was teaching said she's vindictive and not to get on her bad side or she'll make your life hell
*Parents home foreclosed and judge was Kav's mom
*Due to HIPAA, how did the NYT get the marriage consular s "notes"
*Kav was appointed by Bush and it was all over the media. Where was Ford?
I know that some of the details you posted are not accurate which leads me to question the accuracy of the rest of the details. Some I know to be true, some I know to be false, and the rest I will have to look up.
For starters, Kavanaugh's mother did not foreclose on the home of Ford's parents. The foreclosure was denied by Kavanaugh's mother so Ford's parents got to stay in the home.
I believe Flapp pointed out she did have documentation from the counselor, but who would keep a receipt or insurance claim from 6 years ago?
-
I know that some of the details you posted are not accurate which leads me to question the accuracy of the rest of the details. Some I know to be true, some I know to be false, and the rest I will have to look up.
For starters, Kavanaugh's mother did not foreclose on the home of Ford's parents. The foreclosure was denied by Kavanaugh's mother so Ford's parents got to stay in the home.
I believe Flapp pointed out she did have documentation from the counselor, but who would keep a receipt or insurance claim from 6 years ago?
Insurance claims paperwork is kept on file by the insurance company.
If she paid by check, the bank has a record. She probably still has the checkbook register or duplicate check in that stack. Nowadays, unless you're totally paranoid, most people stopped using checks and opted for making payments electronically, which means we don't cycle through checkbook registers and duplicates as fast. I'm sure I have 6-year-old duplicate checks in the current checkbook in my safe.
If she paid by credit card, the card company has a record.
If she paid cash, the therapist has a record.
The patient isn't the only party who needs to keep records.
-
Yeah. A lie is a lie, but have to look closely at the question that was asked. I didn’t look into it that closely. Plenty of people already doing that.
That’s what I suspected Mitchell was doing. Getting stuff under oath, trying to catch her on something. It’s tough to maintain intricate details of a lie. Probably why those assisting her kept “helping”.
It’s almost as if they knew about the ex boyfriend and his willingness to sign the sworn statement before the female prosecutor questioned her.
-
The news outlets are now reporting that Christine Ballsy Ford’s criminal records were deleted out of the database 3 weeks before she wrote the letter to Feinstein. I think that Feinstein and Ford’s lawyers have some explaining to do.
-
It is apparent to me that the Dems have abandoned Ford and are now trying to hang their hat on the ice throwing incident.
Also, Corey Booker is now quoted as saying that Kav is disqualified from being SCOTUS and it doesn’t matter if he is guilty of anything or not. To me this is an admission that they know Kav has done nothing wrong. They just want to obstruct.
-
It’s almost as if they knew about the ex boyfriend and his willingness to sign the sworn statement before the female prosecutor questioned her.
The friend denies it:
On Wednesday, McClean put out a brief statement denying the claim.
“I have NEVER had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime,” McClean said.
* * * * *
And she's a retired "FBI special agent", so we know she's telling the truth.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/10/03/christine-blasey-ford-friend-in-delaware-was-career-fbi-agent-and-likely-together-during-accusation-letter-construct/#more-154865
-
The friend denies it:
On Wednesday, McClean put out a brief statement denying the claim.
“I have NEVER had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime,” McClean said.
* * * * *
And she's a retired "FBI special agent", so we know she's telling the truth.
Thanks for letting us know.
-
The news outlets are now reporting that Christine Ballsy Ford’s criminal records were deleted out of the database 3 weeks before she wrote the letter to Feinstein. I think that Feinstein and Ford’s lawyers have some explaining to do.
criminal records?
-
I think this was already posted, maybe even by me... who can keep track of this volume of crap? Anyway, here is Mitchell's memorandum, in which she outlines all the "problems" with Ford's testimony, and Mitchell concludes, based upon the existing evidence and testimony, that no prosecutor would bring a case even under the lower bar "preponderance of evidence" criteria, much less the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria.
https://www.scribd.com/embeds/389821761/content#from_embed
I think I read another version, but yeah. Lots of discrepancies. Like I said, it's tough to keep together intricate details of an elaborate lie. Hell, it's difficult at times to recall the details of the truth.
-
It’s almost as if they knew about the ex boyfriend and his willingness to sign the sworn statement before the female prosecutor questioned her.
I think they knew a lot of information ahead of the hearings. Sort of "aces in the hole" in anticipation of certain issues/topics for the hearings. Just my speculation of course.
The friend denies it:
On Wednesday, McClean put out a brief statement denying the claim.
“I have NEVER had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime,” McClean said.
* * * * *
And she's a retired "FBI special agent", so we know she's telling the truth.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/10/03/christine-blasey-ford-friend-in-delaware-was-career-fbi-agent-and-likely-together-during-accusation-letter-construct/#more-154865
More he said, she said. Of course, #metoo and #womenpower will have everyone believing McClean. . .
-
criminal records?
Yeah, whut? ???
-
criminal records?
Here is what I read:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/10/christine-fords-criminal-record-scrubbed-from-database-three-weeks-before-her-letter-to-feinstein/
-
Here is what I read:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/10/christine-fords-criminal-record-scrubbed-from-database-three-weeks-before-her-letter-to-feinstein/
Ahh. Maybe if it was for something like extortion or bribery, then :o
I mean still doesn't look good, of course if it's true. I always get a laugh of people or websites with "pundit".
-
I think they knew a lot of information ahead of the hearings. Sort of "aces in the hole" in anticipation of certain issues/topics for the hearings. Just my speculation of course.
More he said, she said. Of course, #metoo and #womenpower will have everyone believing McClean. . .
If people like the weeds, you gotta read the article and comments at the conservative treehouse, cited above.
Ford just happened to be in the location where her best friend "didn't get coached for a lie detector test" FBI lawyer McLean when Ford (who said she didn't get any help) wrote the letter to Feinstein. Ford's father has deep ties to the CIA, and Swetnick worked for him for 12 years. Not that there's anything wrong with that... It's looking more and more like "A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma".
-
I sure hope all the Republican senators follow McConnell's lead here... I have suspicions about at least several of them...
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1047520641727922176
-
Funny how Feinstein wants the FBI instigation classified. What info could there be that makes this a national security matter? They're the ones who called for it.
-
Ford's lawyers sent a letter to Grassley saying the documents the Senate committee requested will be delivered when Ford is interviewed by the FBI. So far, the FBI hasn't requested another interview. But, her lawyers are trying to force them to, so she can "explain" some of her testimony statements.
Sorry, but the FBI doesn't need to know about Senate committee testimony. Not their domain.
More delay tactics.
I say hit her with obstruction and contempt charges. This "control the Senate's process" game by her, her lawyers and certain Democrat Senators has gone on too long.
-
If you think this circus is ridiculous, just wait until President Trump nominates Ginsberg's replacement!
-
If you think this circus is ridiculous, just wait until President Trump nominates Ginsberg's replacement!
I long for the day.
-
Christine Blasey Ford's changing Kavanaugh assault story leaves her short on credibility
As a sex-crimes prosecutor, Republican questioner Rachel Mitchell is well-positioned to “know it when she
sees it.” But rather than see Ford as a victim of sexual abuse by Kavanaugh, Mitchell saw her as a witness
lacking in credibility. And this conclusion comes from an expert who knows that there are many reasons
victims delay reporting sexual abuse. Mitchell also recognized that victims may legitimately not remember
certain details related to an attack.
But the problem for Ford is not that she doesn’t remember everything: It is that everything she remembers
changes at her convenience.
First, Ford’s testimony that the assault occurred in the summer of 1982, when just 15, conflicted with both
her therapist’s notes and the text message Ford sent to the Washington Post. According to reporter Emma
Brown, Ford claimed she had been assaulted in the mid-1980s; and the therapist’s notes stated Ford had
been the victim of an attempted rape in her late teens. But by that time, Kavanaugh was attending Yale, so
Ford’s recasting of the attack to the summer of 1982 is suspect.
The article goes on to list statement by statement and how the "facts" are fluid each time Ford recounts them.
Reminds me of the old adage: If you just tell the truth, you won't have to remember what you said.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/03/christine-blasey-ford-changing-memories-not-credible-kavanaugh-column/1497661002/
-
If you think this circus is ridiculous, just wait until President Trump nominates Ginsberg's replacement!
Can't wait. Gloria Algred already put a press conference together claiming sexual assault for who ever the nominee may be.
-
Can't wait. Gloria Algred already put a press conference together claiming sexual assault for who ever the nominee may be.
While I prefer judge Hardiman, I almost hope it's Amy Coney Barrett or Joan Larsen just to see how the Dems will slut shame them to hell.
"Have you ever been treated for any vaginal or urethral infection commonly associated with frequent or prolonged sexual intercourse?"
-
While I prefer judge Hardiman, I almost hope it's Amy Coney Barrett or Joan Larsen just to see how the Dems will slut shame them to hell.
yup, I can't wait to see how they try and take down a conservative female judge
"ACB is not believeable because she's a female"
-
yup, I can't wait to see how they try and take down a conservative female judge
"ACB is not believeable because she's a female"
Well, we know that by definition by any woman who is a conservative is a "traitor to her sex", thus disqualified from any lifetime judicial appointment, at least, at SCOTUS.
-
Well, we know that by definition by any woman who is a conservative is a "traitor to her sex", thus disqualified from any lifetime judicial appointment, at least, at SCOTUS.
"She'll deny all women the right to necessary reproductive and female health care."
She hates women, because .... TRUMP!!!
-
Another theory as to why Ford started cooking up a false allegation charge against Kavanaugh in 2012, the year she told her "therapist" about an unnamed Federal Judge in DC attacking her 30 years earlier.
She may have been worried Romney would defeat Obama in 2012. Obama wound up appointing 2 Supreme Court justices 2 years earlier and nominating a third in 2016, so her fear would not have been unfounded.
Guess who was on Romney's short list of nominees .....
https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/court-romney-list/index.html
-
Doxxing. Learn something new every day.
-
yup, I can't wait to see how they try and take down a conservative female judge
"ACB is not believeable because she's a female"
That’s gonna really mess up Hirono...
-
If liberals can call a black woman (Owens) a racist and won't let her sign an anti-white supremely banner, then liberals can have another female accuse a female for sexual assault.
Snoop Dogg calling Kanye & 50 uncle tom.
-
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:
(https://i.imgur.com/6YEAJmq.jpg?1)
-
A picture allegedly of the liar Ford taking the lie detector test has emerged, showing someone else entirely!
What a shock. It is likely her DOJ/FBI lawyer friend. Monica Lee McLean. Sure is not the Ford liar.
The swamp never rests...............
(https://media.wfmynews2.com/assets/GANNETT/images/a6ca9922-7db9-4eac-81c6-3deb4ea76d58/a6ca9922-7db9-4eac-81c6-3deb4ea76d58_750x422.jpg)
(https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/monica-lee-mclean.jpg)
-
So dems what a full investigation, but katz wont release any info...
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
https://youtu.be/XfmgExFpmw8
-
A picture allegedly of the liar Ford taking the lie detector test has emerged, showing someone else entirely!
What a shock. It is likely her DOJ/FBI lawyer friend. Monica Lee McLean. Sure is not the Ford liar.
The swamp never rests...............
(https://media.wfmynews2.com/assets/GANNETT/images/a6ca9922-7db9-4eac-81c6-3deb4ea76d58/a6ca9922-7db9-4eac-81c6-3deb4ea76d58_750x422.jpg)
(https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/monica-lee-mclean.jpg)
How do you reach that conclusion?
The girl in the alleged photo looks more like Ford than the circled friend to the left.
-
Another theory as to why Ford started cooking up a false allegation charge against Kavanaugh in 2012, the year she told her "therapist" about an unnamed Federal Judge in DC attacking her 30 years earlier.
She may have been worried Romney would defeat Obama in 2012. Obama wound up appointing 2 Supreme Court justices 2 years earlier and nominating a third in 2016, so her fear would not have been unfounded.
Guess who was on Romney's short list of nominees .....
https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/court-romney-list/index.html
That would make a pretty crazy drama suspense movie!
-
Funny how Feinstein wants the FBI instigation classified. What info could there be that makes this a national security matter? They're the ones who called for it.
Wouldn't a law enforcement investigation into a sex assault accusation normally be classified at some level though? Surely an in progress investigation isn't usually made public.
-
Insurance claims paperwork is kept on file by the insurance company.
If she paid by check, the bank has a record. She probably still has the checkbook register or duplicate check in that stack. Nowadays, unless you're totally paranoid, most people stopped using checks and opted for making payments electronically, which means we don't cycle through checkbook registers and duplicates as fast. I'm sure I have 6-year-old duplicate checks in the current checkbook in my safe.
If she paid by credit card, the card company has a record.
If she paid cash, the therapist has a record.
The patient isn't the only party who needs to keep records.
No doubt that if people went digging a record could probably be found somewhere, what I meant was that the fact she doesn't have it on hand, to me, doesn't make her claim that she saw a counselor less believable. Now if the FBI went digging and couldn't find any proof whatsoever then I would say that there are honesty concerns.
-
Wouldn't a law enforcement investigation into a sex assault accusation normally be classified at some level though? Surely an in progress investigation isn't usually made public.
Nope. FBI didn't do a criminal investigation. Nothing you said irrelevant.
FBI reopened the background check and added reports of additional interviews. That's all they can do when there's no formal complaint of a crime. This is still all playing out based on a hand-scribbled statement she sent to Feinstein. No one has jurisdiction to do a criminal investigation. Period.
The rules of the Senate are what's relevant. The background file goes to the White House, then it's forwarded to the judicial committee for their consideration. There are also financial records reviews. The Office of Government Ethics, along with an ethics official from the relevant agency, reviews the financial disclosures. If they find conflicts of interest, they may help the candidate mitigate them.
This is still a confirmation, not a public trial. Accusations should not be used to air the nominee's dirty laundry publicly when there is no evidence the accusations are true.
I'm sure the gist of the background check will be blasted all over the news.
Republicans: The FBI exhaustively and professionally followed up on every available witness, and the interviews offered nothing new into Dr. Ford's allegations. The matter is now closed, with our apologies to Judge Kavanaugh.
Democrats: Kavanaugh is evil! He can't be allowed to be confirmed. Trump micromanaged the FBI's half-assed investigation and didn't;t talk to 25% of the people crawling out of the woodwork to support Ford and make new accusations against Kavanaugh. If he's confirmed, it will destroy our democracy!! We need another delay to find out whether or not the FBI did their job the way we arbitrarily decide is sufficient.
-
No doubt that if people went digging a record could probably be found somewhere, what I meant was that the fact she doesn't have it on hand, to me, doesn't make her claim that she saw a counselor less believable. Now if the FBI went digging and couldn't find any proof whatsoever then I would say that there are honesty concerns.
She's had 6 years to get her ducks in a row. There needs to be at least some modicum of common sense standards applied to this accuser. So far, people like you seem to have 1M reasons her story could make sense, why she can't produce a single piece of evidence to corroborate anything she says, and why Kavanaugh should be punished for claims he did a bad thing in high school without that evidence.
Maybe if she's that bad at supporting her stories, she should have kept it to herself? Once he's confirmed, just like Clarence Thomas, what will her efforts have accomplished .... other than delay the inevitable and reap a million bucks from Liberals via go-fund-me donations?
-
(https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/monica-lee-mclean.jpg)
The woman in the picture is the one Ford's boy friend said Ford helped before her FBI polygraph.
They seem to be lifelong friends.
Of COURSE McLean would say she never received help from Ford. A statement like that could land her in jail. The FBI frowns on employees taking steps to beat their tests. Kind of defeats the whole purpose.
-
Fast-forward to time mark 27:40 for the start of the press conference:
https://youtu.be/TZQyHHiTP50
-
Protester yells at Lindsey Graham: "Why won't you make Kavanaugh take a polygraph?"
Graham: "Why don't we dunk him in water and see if he floats?"
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
How to properly celebrate Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation this weekend ....
(https://i.imgur.com/2Rmgn48.gif)
-
A couple of relevant, if slightly peripheral, articles today:
Toxic diversity
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/toxic_diversity.html
Those activists who accosted Jeff Flake in a Senate elevator made him feel threatened. Would those two women have approved if two men had cornered Sen. Hirono in an elevator and yelled at her for being dismissive of men?
Are there no mothers with sons in Hawaii?
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/are_there_no_mothers_with_sons_in_hawaii.html
But far and away the most significant comment, I think, came from Hawaii's apparent patroness of feminist rights, Senator Mazie Hirono, who said early on that "I just want to say to the men of this country: Just shut up and step up."
The Democrats have made polarization politics into an art form – balkanize the electorate, demonize a particular group, rally the faithful around the blazing fire at the stake as the demonized group is destroyed. But what an interesting group that Hirono and the other Democrats have targeted for pillorying: men. The subgroup "men" intrinsically breaks down into secondary subgroups such as fathers; uncles; brothers; and, most interesting of all, sons. You can't tar men without tarring all of the subgroups, and that includes sons. Therein lies the rub.
Over a hundred million American women have sons. So these hundred million American women have a problem: how can they trash and dismiss American men if in doing so they trash and dismiss their own sons? It may be too much to ask of Senator Hirono, but I wonder if Senators Collins and Murkowski – or more importantly, all those moms in Maine and Alaska – are okay with throwing their sons under the bus as Senator Hirono and the accusers of Brett Kavanaugh seem to be.
-
It's starting to appear as if someone has been lacing the GOP water dispenser with testosterone ....
(https://i.imgur.com/ydlQzI1.jpg?1)
-
Trump said it perfectly the other day. Now is a dangerous time in our nation. You're guilty until proven innocent. Compared to how it should be, innocent until proven guilty.
4 dentist were arrested in Vegas because a woman said they raped her. Well I guess they took video and all were released and charges dropped. Did the vid show the "Eiffel tower"?
So if you're a dentist, watch out. =P Heads.
-
Trump said it perfectly the other day. Now is a dangerous time in our nation. You're guilty until proven innocent. Compared to how it should be, innocent until proven guilty.
4 dentist were arrested in Vegas because a woman said they raped her. Well I guess they took video and all were released and charges dropped. Did the vid show the "Eiffel tower"?
So if you're a dentist, watch out. =P Heads.
Dentist = oral fixation
-
Trump said it perfectly the other day. Now is a dangerous time in our nation. You're guilty until proven innocent. Compared to how it should be, innocent until proven guilty.
4 dentist were arrested in Vegas because a woman said they raped her. Well I guess they took video and all were released and charges dropped. Did the vid show the "Eiffel tower"?
So if you're a dentist, watch out. =P Heads.
heads
-
How to properly celebrate Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation this weekend ....
(https://i.imgur.com/2Rmgn48.gif)
I have a friend who says he's gonna open a bottle of champagne
-
I have a friend who says he's gonna open a bottle of champagne
I figure with all the gnashing of teeth over his supposed beer guzzling in high school and college, that adult beverage would be the most "in your face" to the Democrats. :popcorn:
-
I have a friend who says he's gonna open a bottle of champagne
Is he French?
-
Not only will Kavanaugh give the Conservatives a 5-4 "majority" on the Supreme Court (which are lifetime appointments), this confirmation circus has energized a lethargic Republican voting base who's become complacent after almost 2 years of winning.
It's the Obama Effect all over again.
Thanks, Spartacus!! :rofl:
-
Another anti-Kavanaugh narrative (lie) shot down in flames.
Democrats used to be able to win by controlling the narrative. Now, it looks like the truth matters more.
Thank you, Internet. No longer can the main stream Liberal media control the message.
(https://i.imgur.com/bU6O8Nt.jpg?1)
-
Amy Schumer just got arrested protesting Kavanaugh. Some reports say arrested, others say just detained.
Something to talk about at her next Hollywood party.
Meaningless acts of actors.
-
Not saying Senators have to be perfect, but to judge a good man guilty with no direct, circumstantial or corroborating evidence
is pure hypocrisy when you look at their own pasts.
(https://i.imgur.com/nJcVxMv.jpg?1)
-
You know all this complaining that we are seeing and are going to see and hear for the foreseeable future about Kavanaugh from the
idiots morons Hirono Democrats? I think Lindsey Graham pretty well sums it up.
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1047935948196122626 (https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1047935948196122626)
url]
-
You know all this complaining that we are seeing and are going to see and hear for the foreseeable future about Kavanaugh from the idiots morons Hirono Democrats? I think Lindsey Graham pretty well sums it up.
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1047935948196122626 (https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1047935948196122626)
url]
Hopefully they don't send her back, but it looks like Honolulu's village idiot got lost
In Washington D.C. I expect to see her picture on a milk carton.
-
Hopefully they don't send her back, but it looks like Honolulu's village idiot got lost
In Washington D.C. I expect to see her picture on a milk carton.
She's been attending lots of fundraisers the last month or so, piggybacking on the Democrat resistance to Kavanaugh's nomination.
After the vote, that well dries up. I'm sure she's out milking that cow for all it's worth today and tomorrow, promising to "continue fighting" a lost cause.
-
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/97fc0bbb3e9334f35d1e4ca79dc377d97a8d1a3c1b0fad547b48f6842a480b56.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/2f17zvC.jpg?1)
-
To be honest, this is what I would like to do to Hirono. If only I could get Soros to fund ME.
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1047990537100427264
-
Actions have consequences.
North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a red-state Democrat, announced her opposition to Kavanaugh Thursday, citing the FBI report and what she called doubts surrounding his character. Heitkamp is facing long odds in her November re-election bid, apparently owing in part to her reluctance to support Kavanaugh. Fox News' polling shows Republican challenger Kevin Cramer now leading her by 12 points (53-41 percent). Last month, he was up by only 4 points (48-44 percent).
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kavanaugh-fate-hangs-in-balance-with-3-swing-vote-senators-trying-to-get-to-yes-source-says (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kavanaugh-fate-hangs-in-balance-with-3-swing-vote-senators-trying-to-get-to-yes-source-says)
-
I was thinking Trump should nominate a woman next time to replace Ginsberg (you know he'll get at least one more Justice pick).
In fact, that woman should be Hillary Clinton.
Maybe then we'll have a full investigation into her scandals. :geekdanc:
-
Feinstein just announced she's received a letter from yet another woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault.
There were no details given other than the woman's name:
Anita De Leigh
-
This whole mess should have ended when no police report was filed 35 years ago.
-
This whole mess should have ended when no police report was filed 35 years ago.
To me, she has no credibility due to her still not reporting it to the police. If this was really about a crime being committed, it can still be reported.
-
deleted
-
To me, she has no credibility due to her still not reporting it to the police. If this was really about a crime being committed, it can still be reported.
=================
Statute of limitations?
---
BTW, I caught the first few minutes of anti-Trump Colbert show last night.
It was truly disgusting how Colbert was making fun of Kav, a respected judge for 12 years.
Basically he was smearing Judge Kav for the amusement of his audience.
-
=================
Statute of limitations?
---
BTW, I caught the first few minutes of anti-Trump Colbert show last night.
It was truly disgusting how Colbert was making fun of Kav, a respected judge for 12 years.
Basically he was smearing Judge Kav for the amusement of his audience.
I’ve seen little bits and pieces of his show. He is a sick individual. The judge deserves our respect. This is not supposed to be a partisan discussion. Or a political battle. :(
-
To me, she has no credibility due to her still not reporting it to the police. If this was really about a crime being committed, it can still be reported.
But, but, but do you hve no empathy for women who have suffered sexual abuse? That sort of attitude shows a cavalier caveman attitude toward women!
At least that’s my imitation of what a liberal college friend is spewing. He very argumentative and actually quite intelligent. Just when he gets his mind stuck on something, there no shaking it. In this case, the root of this is really Anti-Trump. It’s no logical and he has friends trying to argue with him. It doesn’t help that a few are as extremely right wing as he seems to be left though.
-
=================
Statute of limitations?
---
BTW, I caught the first few minutes of anti-Trump Colbert show last night.
It was truly disgusting how Colbert was making fun of Kav, a respected judge for 12 years.
Basically he was smearing Judge Kav for the amusement of his audience.
I’ve seen many arguements that this is about his character and not subject to standard of innocent until proven guilty and criminal standards don’t apply. Can’t wait to have that logic turn around to bite person sprewing it.
-
I’ve seen many arguements that this is about his character and not subject to standard of innocent until proven guilty and criminal standards don’t apply. Can’t wait to have that logic turn around to bite person sprewing it.
That's never gonna happen. They are hypocrites, and liars, and have permanent double standards. Booker admitted that he groped at least one woman during his youth (only one?), Ellison has an outstanding complaint of domestic violence against him which has been brushed off by ludicrous reason by a totally partisan "nonpartisan" "investigation", and of course there are many other cases, not the least of which are the seriously un-FBI-investigated charges of sexual assault, harassment and rape against Bill Clinton by numerous women. Obama admitted to all kinds of drug (cannabis, alcohol, cocaine, etc.) use/abuse when he was young, and I didn't see any leftist claims that he was unfit for the presidency because of that. The socialist Democrats have conpletely different standards fror themselves compared to what they have for their enemies. That's never gonna change. You're never gonna see all the late night talk show comedians and stand ups reaming the leftists night after night after night... even though there is acutally more material there. Hypocrites to the core.
-
Then reports of Leyland Keyser being pressured to modify, oh I mean clarify, her previous statements because they were baking used against CBF. I believe that is now on record in the investigation.
-
That's never gonna happen. They are hypocrites, and liars, and have permanent double standards. Booker admitted that he groped at least one woman during his youth (only one?), Ellison has an outstanding complaint of domestic violence against him which has been brushed off by ludicrous reason by a totally partisan "nonpartisan" "investigation", and of course there are many other cases, not the least of which are the seriously un-FBI-investigated charges of sexual assault, harassment and rape against Bill Clinton by numerous women. Obama admitted to all kinds of drug (cannabis, alcohol, cocaine, etc.) use/abuse when he was young, and I didn't see any leftist claims that he was unfit for the presidency because of that. The socialist Democrats have conpletely different standards fror themselves compared to what they have for their enemies. That's never gonna change. You're never gonna see all the late night talk show comedians and stand ups reaming the leftists night after night after night... even though there is acutally more material there. Hypocrites to the core.
You watch late night comedians?
In things like the hypocrisy, I’m VERY black and white. While i think in reality it probably has slim to no chance of happening, I still hope it comes around to bite them in the ass. To a certain extent, I think it has been. Time will tell and one checkpoint will come in Nov.
-
You watch late night comedians?
No, but I do read articles about their "acts" that sometimes include brief video excerpts that verify the statements quoted in the articles.
-
Judicial Watch head Tom Fitton's op ed in today's USA Today, as an "Opposing View". There is a poll at the end. Currently 69%+ "strongly agree"...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/05/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-senators-should-vote-yes-editorials-debates/1527857002/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=action+alert&utm_term=members&utm_content=20181005182848
Confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court
The FBI report on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh confirms what most in Washington knew all along: There is no supporting evidence for the claims made against him. The supplemental report is said to show nothing that corroborates any claim of sexual assault or misconduct. This concludes the seventh FBI background check of Kavanaugh.
The confirmation vote for him can’t come soon enough.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations were corruptly handled by Sen.Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and fellow Democrats. They didn’t have the votes to stop him, so they sought to destroy him with smears.
-
Judicial Watch head Tom Fitton's op ed in today's USA Today, as an "Opposing View". There is a poll at the end. Currently 69%+ "strongly agree"...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/05/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-senators-should-vote-yes-editorials-debates/1527857002/?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=action+alert&utm_term=members&utm_content=20181005182848
Confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court
The FBI report on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh confirms what most in Washington knew all along: There is no supporting evidence for the claims made against him. The supplemental report is said to show nothing that corroborates any claim of sexual assault or misconduct. This concludes the seventh FBI background check of Kavanaugh.
The confirmation vote for him can’t come soon enough.
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations were corruptly handled by Sen.Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and fellow Democrats. They didn’t have the votes to stop him, so they sought to destroy him with smears.
Like I mentioned, this will not convince the DNC of anything nor liberals. The only thing that can fully exonerate Kav is if there was a video recording and it showed that it was someone else.
The recording would have to have the time and date in the bottom corner
The guy behind the camera would have to sign an affidavit and show his ID
Both parties would have to show both their ID's, social security card, birth certificate, and their grandma there to verify who they are
-
From Gun Owners of America this morning:
The Anti-gun Left is Doubling Down Against Brett Kavanaugh
Please urge your two Senators to vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Call Sen. Brian Schatz (D) at (202) 224-3934 and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D) at (202) 224-6361 and register your voice of support for Trump's nominee! You can also email your Senators here (https://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/app/take-action?engagementId=490774&ep=AAAAC2Flc0NpcGhlcjAxn8DYNolz4Wz4v4NgpkGwiPtZ75HRjtIipE4lKA7_Ij__OaW6z81jHIv5oajCsqvzU3MEZv8HFP6voborWhaMLmH2K19bGMZtMkaQas1n0JA&lp=0)
-
From Gun Owners of America this morning:
The Anti-gun Left is Doubling Down Against Brett Kavanaugh
Please urge your two Senators to vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Call Sen. Brian Schatz (D) at (202) 224-3934 and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D) at (202) 224-6361 and register your voice of support for Trump's nominee! You can also email your Senators here (https://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/app/take-action?engagementId=490774&ep=AAAAC2Flc0NpcGhlcjAxn8DYNolz4Wz4v4NgpkGwiPtZ75HRjtIipE4lKA7_Ij__OaW6z81jHIv5oajCsqvzU3MEZv8HFP6voborWhaMLmH2K19bGMZtMkaQas1n0JA&lp=0)
If I call Hirono’s office now, I might end up in trouble. At least if I said what was on my mind. On some good pain meds right now, so who knows what I’ll say. Haha.
-
If I call Hirono’s office now, I might end up in trouble. At least if I said what was on my mind. On some good pain meds right now, so who knows what I’ll say. Haha.
You can bet that if someone calls and uses the same tone and volume level of voice as when she uttered "Guess who’s perpetuating all these kinds of actions? It’s the men in this country. And I just want to say to the men in this country, just shut up and step up. Do the right thing, for a change.", you'd be judged sexist, misogynist, have anger management issues and be "out of control". I know from experience.
EDIT: I just called both offices and said "I would like to urge the senator to vote to confirm judge Kavanuagh. I'd like the senator to step up and do the right thing for change". Both women gave curt responses, the Hirono phone person "Okay. buh-bye!"
-
You can bet that if someone calls and uses the same tone and volume level of voice as when she uttered "Guess who’s perpetuating all these kinds of actions? It’s the men in this country. And I just want to say to the men in this country, just shut up and step up. Do the right thing, for a change.", you'd be judged sexist, misogynist, have anger management issues and be "out of control". I know from experience.
EDIT: I just called both offices and said "I would like to urge the senator to vote to confirm judge Kavanuagh. I'd like the senator to step up and do the right thing for change". Both women gave curt responses, the Hirono phone person "Okay. buh-bye!"
I emailed her.
-
Miracle of miracles! An "on the fence" Democrat breaks ranks and will vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh. :thumbsup:
(https://i.imgur.com/rYqeqYN.jpg?1)
-
Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination secures votes for passage
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh on Friday secured the support needed to win Senate confirmation to the
Supreme Court as two Republicans and a Democrat who had waited to announce their votes rallied
to the side of President Trump’s nominee.
The announcement of support by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Joe
Manchin III (W.Va.) capped a bitter partisan fight in which Kavanaugh fended off allegations of decades-
old sexual misconduct.
In a key procedural vote earlier Friday, Flake, Collins and Manchin joined with the majority in a 51-to-49
vote to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination. Following the vote, all three senators indicated they plan to
support Kavanaugh’s confirmation in a final vote scheduled for Saturday.
In a speech on the Senate floor, Collins said Kavanaugh had “received rave reviews” for his 12 years
as a federal appeals court judge and that the misconduct allegations against him failed to meet a standard
of “more likely than not.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kavanaugh-vote-hours-before-a-key-test-grassley-says-he-doesnt-know-how-it-will-go/2018/10/05/a71d92ba-c886-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.88801ef1d4d7
-
You can bet that if someone calls and uses the same tone and volume level of voice as when she uttered "Guess who’s perpetuating all these kinds of actions? It’s the men in this country. And I just want to say to the men in this country, just shut up and step up. Do the right thing, for a change.", you'd be judged sexist, misogynist, have anger management issues and be "out of control". I know from experience.
EDIT: I just called both offices and said "I would like to urge the senator to vote to confirm judge Kavanuagh. I'd like the senator to step up and do the right thing for change". Both women gave curt responses, the Hirono phone person "Okay. buh-bye!"
No Problemo
Just call and identify yourself as "Female" and tell her you are a "Survivor" of Hawaii's Democrats and that she should " #BelieveMe. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I hope Mazie either listened to the speech or reads this. Susan Collins might actually convince more Democrats to confirm.
https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senator-collins-announces-she-will-vote-confirm-judge-kavanaugh
[snipped a whole bunch]
Mr. President, we’ve heard a lot of charges and counter charges about Judge Kavanaugh. But as those who have
known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband, and father.
Despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to
lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in
our Judiciary and our highest court is restored. Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.
-
The Media on Kavanaugh's last hearing:
Out of control, angry, lacks temperament ...
Also the Media on people protesting Kavanaugh -- screaming in the faces of members of the Senate, snatching and ripping up "Confirm Kavanaugh" signs from other people, and being arrested for trespassing:
Peaceful protests.
-
Seems like all offices had the names removed and doors closed. With the exception of Graham.
-
Kavanaugh was surrounded by his friends, family, and longtime colleagues...
who were visibly shaken from watching him get attacked.
Ford was surrounded by activists, actresses, and lawyers...
who were coaching her to help her keep her story straight.
-
Can anybody here tell me why we bother to talk to our Federal congress critters?
I'd get a better response from the Russians.
ht tp://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/
remove the space.
-
Kavanaugh was surrounded by his friends, family, and longtime colleagues...
who were visibly shaken from watching him get attacked.
Ford was surrounded by activists, actresses, and lawyers...
who were coaching her to help her keep her story straight.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/the_kavanaugh_setup_becomes_clear.html
-
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/the_kavanaugh_setup_becomes_clear.html
I know more than a few people who would lose their minds if they read this.
Her testimony was obviously scripted, practiced, massaged, and fabricated out of whole cloth.
That was my first impression. That and CBF just seems like a psychopath. IMO, having taken only 200 college level psych and sociology.
-
Kavanaugh was surrounded by his friends, family, and longtime colleagues...
who were visibly shaken from watching him get attacked.
Ford was surrounded by activists, actresses, and lawyers...
who were coaching her to help her keep her story straight.
Even her parents didn't show support for her story. And to afraid to fly to be in DC by Monday to face her accuser and tell her story. So needed an additional 3 days to practice.
-
(https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/sarah-palin-2.jpg)
-
Can anybody here tell me why we bother to talk to our Federal congress critters?
I'd get a better response from the Russians.
ht tp://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/
remove the space.
IMHO, it falls into the same category as applying for a Hawaii CCW Permit.
If you don't at least go through the motions, they can blame you for not making an effort regardless of zero chance of success.
-
Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski will be the sole Republican to vote against Kavanaugh. If Manchin (D - West Virginia) hadn't announced his last second support for Kavanaugh, it would have been a tie vote. Had one of the other Republican flakes (Flake, Collins) gone the Murkoswski route, Kavanaugh would have lost.
Be sure to send more money to the geniuses at the NRA!
NRA Endorses Lisa Murkowski for Re-election to U.S. Senate
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160928/nra-endorses-lisa-murkowski-for-re-election-to-us-senate
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2016
FAIRFAX, Va.—The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is proud to endorse Senator Lisa Murkowski in her re-election bid for the U.S. Senate.
“The NRA is proud to endorse Lisa Murkowski and appreciates her continued support of the Second Amendment. We urge all NRA members and gun owners in Alaska to vote Lisa Murkowski for U.S. Senate,” concluded Cox.
* * * * *
Here was the choice against Murkowski:
https://www.ammoland.com/2016/09/joe-miller-offers-chance-replace-murkowski-true-reform-liberty-advocate/#ixzz5T6uH50tL
Joe Miller Offers Chance to Replace Murkowski with ‘True Reform’ Liberty Advocate
“Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund is proud to endorse Joe Miller to represent the state of Alaska in the U.S. Senate,” an email from GOA announced Friday. “Joe Miller's commitment to the right to keep and bear arms is unwavering … Unlike other candidates in this race, Joe Miller returned his GOA Candidate Questionnaire 100% in favor of your gun rights.”
The main “other candidate” to be concerned about is Republican Lisa Murkowski, recipient of a mediocre “C” rating from GOA based on performance in office. That assessment comes from a scorecard for votes and concludes Murkowski only agreed with GOA’s positions 69% of the time.
Among the reasons for Murkowski’s low score: She did not vote on a concealed carry reciprocity bill they supported. She voted for a bill that would “create an incremental path to citizenship for most illegal immigrants in the country.” She voted for an amendment that “would send a person to prison for 15 years for selling a gun to a veteran, without realizing that he was one of the 165,000 military veterans who was put into the NICS system for PTSD.” And she voted for cloture on the nomination of a rabidly anti-gun New York judge to the DC Court of Appeals.
-
I wish someone had a camera to catch Fineswine's hissy fit
-
I wish someone had a camera to catch Fineswine's hissy fit
She is probably being tranquilized right about now.
-
Kav is in. 50-48
When is the rioting starting?
-
Kav is in. 50-48
When is the rioting starting?
let the snow flake melting begin!
-
She is probably being tranquilized right about now.
I'd prefer her being Mirandized ....
-
Kav is in. 50-48
When is the rioting starting?
Interesting that Murkowski abstained. She gave an incoherent explanation for her not supporting the confirmation yesterday. I guess the pressure from the GOP as the lone Republican to oppose confirmation, backlash from Alaskan voters, the news commentators blasting her "reasoning" and Sarah Palin's threat to run against her next time were weighing on her.
She voted "No" Friday on cloture -- a procedural vote to halt debate and call a vote to confirm. She stated she would be voting against confirmation, but instead changed her mind and voted "present". That is also debatable. :wacko:
"I believe that Brett Kavanaugh is a good man. I believe he is a good man, it just may be that in my view he is not the right man for the court at this time," she said in her Friday explanation. She would have voted for Kavanaugh as a NOMINEE, but she was going to vote "no" over some fuzzy, ambiguous, irrational feeling that he's not the "right man for the court at this time." Made absolutely no sense. How do people keep electing these Democrats-in-Republican clothing to high office? No common sense. She makes Hirono look quasi-intelligent.
Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana was not present at the vote because he was attending his daughter's wedding.
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who broke with her party on Friday and voted against advancing Kavanaugh's nomination, voted "present."
-
Sorry, but I haven't had enough winning yet. Not even close.
Next up: Ginsburg and/or Breyer.
7-2 for the next 30 years would look really good to me.
Plus, if you think Trump Derangement Syndrome is taking a toll now...the oceans will rise... not from "global climate change", but due to the inundation of liberal tears. I can't wait.
:worship: :rofl:
-
She makes Hirono look quasi-intelligent.
Whoa there big fella. You got a little carried away there. Okay, you got a LOT carried away there.
You're not gonna beat some lying hypocrite saying that half the people in the country don't ever do the right thing and should shut up* just by being incapable of explaining that you do stuff by "feels" rather than reason, logic and evidence.
* And that the presumption of innocence doesn't apply in this case because she disagrees with several of his judicial opinions. I pray that some day she has the same standard applied to her.
-
Whoa there big fella. You got a little carried away there. Okay, you got a LOT carried away there.
You're not gonna beat some lying hypocrite saying that half the people in the country don't ever do the right thing and should shut up* just by being incapable of explaining that you do stuff by "feels" rather than reason, logic and evidence.
* And that the presumption of innocence doesn't apply in this case because she disagrees with several of his judicial opinions. I pray that some day she has the same standard applied to her.
I think Hirono doesn't actually believe the stuff that spews forth from her mouth. She's just mouthing the words her party scripts for their members in Congress. Where she gets in big trouble is in embellishing.
After her performance these last few weeks, the Star-Provdatizer has the gall to pronounce "Hirono is on fire." I would lean more towards "Hirono's credibility burns up in a cloud of sexist smoke." Her crap actually plays well to the people who vote for her.
Don't get me wrong. I don't give her any more credit for intelligence than the nearest slug, but at least she articulates her stupidity so there's no question about her stance. Murkowski couldn't even do that. "I'm voting "no" unlike every single other Republican in the Senate, and I really can't explain why." Either she can't explain, or she won't. Did Feinstein hold a carrot out for her vote? I tend to think not, since she dropped out and voted "present."
-
These media-based Obama sycophants are the first to lavish praise on Obama for preaching about divisiveness and tribalism in the US tearing us apart, believing it's all Trump's doing.
Then they post something that clearly demonstrates who is dividing the country. This "us versus them" attitude is exactly why Trump calls these purveyors of Fake News the enemy of the people.
"You guys?" I guess he puts himself in the losing "tribe."
(https://i.imgur.com/nK3tIM0.jpg)
-
Kavanaugh's staunch gun-rights defense among hundreds of decisions in spotlight
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kavanaughs-staunch-gun-rights-defense-among-hundreds-of-decisions-in-spotlight (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kavanaughs-staunch-gun-rights-defense-among-hundreds-of-decisions-in-spotlight)
-
These media-based Obama sycophants are the first to lavish praise on Obama for preaching about divisiveness and tribalism in the US tearing us apart, believing it's all Trump's doing.
Then they post something that clearly demonstrates who is dividing the country. This "us versus them" attitude is exactly why Trump calls these purveyors of Fake News the enemy of the people.
"You guys?" I guess he puts himself in the losing "tribe."
(https://i.imgur.com/nK3tIM0.jpg)
Hey Jim. Fuck you!
I'm just sayin'...
-
Here's the video of the roll call vote in the senate, including all the screaming interruptions by the "protesters".
Can anyone imagine what the response of the Democrats would have been had their their opponents behaved in such a manner on any Obama legislation or nominees?
Hypocrites.
https://youtu.be/ih3am3lVk7M
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Cn2KCdL.jpg?1)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Cn2KCdL.jpg?1)
lol
heads
-
And Ford disapears.
Maybe 4D? ATF bans bump stocks. Goes to Scotus and loses...accessories now protected? All state bans revearsed.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Hahahahaha!!!! :rofl:
So predictable. After Harry Reid and the Democrats changed the Senate rules 4 years ago from a 60 vote super-majority to a simple majority to pass cloture (ending filibusters), Chuck Schumer is now saying the Democrats should look at changing it back **IF** they regain the Senate.
So, it was okay when it worked for them, but a horrible rule when it prevents them from blocking two Republican Supreme Court Justice nominees.
Democrats <==> Hypocrites
The terms are interchangeable.
Look out for this new "campaign issue."
McConnell warned them then, but they don't care if it furthers their agenda.
https://youtu.be/qduJjDJnQfo
-
(https://i.imgur.com/TCvh6zw.jpg?1)
-
P.S. The ACLU, the gold standard for supporting individual Constitutional rights (like presumption of innocence), just flushed $1 million down the toilet to try and stop Kavanaugh's confirmation.
-
=================
Statute of limitations?
---
Took me a while to find it but Maryland has no statue of limitations on this type of offense. So she can at any time still file a complaint. However, according to this article her lawyers say she won’t pursue it.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36817/christine-blasey-ford-will-not-pursue-further-ashe-schow?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=matt_walsh
-
Maybe we will start seeing some real backlash from the Dems actions:
http://fbnewscycle.com/vlf/
-
Took me a while to find it but Maryland has no statue of limitations on this type of offense. So she can at any time still file a complaint. However, according to this article her lawyers say she won’t pursue it.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36817/christine-blasey-ford-will-not-pursue-further-ashe-schow?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=matt_walsh
The no statute of limitations in that jurisdiction was known early on, and numerous commentators and even a few Democrat senators suggested that she file criminal and/or civil complaint(s) in that jurisdiction, which (criminal complaint) would have resulted in a full police investigation, with possible filing of charges and arrests. Of course that's all based on the premise that something actually happened, which thus far investigators from the United States Senate and the FBI have not been able to corroborate, AT ALL. Maybe the Maryland police have better investigators and will vindicate Ford. You have to wonder why she wouldn't make use of all avenues to validate her claims. Hmmm?
I call bullshit.
-
The no statute of limitations in that jurisdiction was known early on, and numerous commentators and even a few Democrat senators suggested that she file criminal and/or civil complaint(s) in that jurisdiction, which (criminal complaint) would have resulted in a full police investigation, with possible filing of charges and arrests. Of course that's all based on the premise that something actually happened, which thus far investigators from the United States Senate and the FBI have not been able to corroborate, AT ALL. Maybe the Maryland police have better investigators and will vindicate Ford. You have to wonder why she wouldn't make use of all avenues to validate her claims. Hmmm?
I call bullshit.
We all know why she didn’t file a police report. This was a political hit job. Last I heard those GoFundMe pages set up for her were worth $900k. Not bad for a day’s work.
-
We all know why she didn’t file a police report. This was a political hit job. Last I heard those GoFundMe pages set up for her were worth $900k. Not bad for a day’s work.
If I had the power, I'd order investigations into Ford, her "friend" McLean, her attorneys, all the committee Democrats, especially Feinstein, re their collusion to commit perjury, libel, lie to investigators, etc., etc., etc.
I don't, so I won't, and I rather doubt the Republicans in the positions to do so will call for it either... they're too scared it will cast them in a bad light. Fuck the bad light, grow a pair and find out what really happened and who's responsible and have them face serious consequences if they engaged in any wrongdoing.
"Look, Kavanaugh is on the court. Isn't that enough?" NO! FUCK NO, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH! Put these criminals on trial.
-
If I had the power, I'd order investigations into Ford, her "friend" McLean, her attorneys, all the committee Democrats, especially Feinstein, re their collusion to commit perjury, libel, lie to investigators, etc., etc., etc.
I don't, so I won't, and I rather doubt the Republicans in the positions to do so will call for it either... they're too scared it will cast them in a bad light. Fuck the bad light, grow a pair and find out what really happened and who's responsible and have them face serious consequences if they engaged in any wrongdoing.
"Look, Kavanaugh is on the court. Isn't that enough?" NO! FUCK NO, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH! Put these criminals on trial.
Don’t forget potential witness tampering.
-
The gop should call for an investigation. Because the dnc will use this tactic from now on. But if u send people to jail, then it will reduce the amount its done. The gop are stupid and to afraid of bad PR. Wait until its one of them next.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
The no statute of limitations in that jurisdiction was known early on, and numerous commentators and even a few Democrat senators suggested that she file criminal and/or civil complaint(s) in that jurisdiction, which (criminal complaint) would have resulted in a full police investigation, with possible filing of charges and arrests. Of course that's all based on the premise that something actually happened, which thus far investigators from the United States Senate and the FBI have not been able to corroborate, AT ALL. Maybe the Maryland police have better investigators and will vindicate Ford. You have to wonder why she wouldn't make use of all avenues to validate her claims. Hmmm?
I call bullshit.
After the location was narrowed down to Montgomery county, the chief of police there drafted a letter on their position. The basics: crimes are charged based on the time in which the crime occurred. In 1982, the crimes Ford accused Kavanaugh of committing were misdemeanors with a statute of limitations of one year.
So, unless she can claim the memories were part of a repressed memory she just recently remembered, which she can't, filing a report would be a waste of everyone's time. She told her therapist 6 years ago. The one year limitation started ticking (again) then if she tried the repressed memory approach.
ROCKVILLE, Md. (WBFF) - The Montgomery County Police Department and Montgomery County State’s Attorney
released a letter Friday in response to a Maryland delegate’s call to open a criminal investigation involving sexual
assault allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
The allegations come from professor Christine Blasey Ford, who testified Kavanaugh assaulted her back in the
1980s, while the two were in high school in Montgomery County.
In a letter, the MCPD and state’s attorney’s office said the agencies remain prepared to investigate any allegation,
should a victim come forward.
“To date, there have been no criminal reports filed with the Montgomery County Department of Police that would lead
to the initiation of any criminal investigation related to Judge Kavanaugh,” the letter said.
The letter went on to discuss the statute of limitations.
According to police, the law at the time of the offense occurred is the law that must be applied to any charges
that might be brought.
“For example, in 1982, assault and attempted rape were both misdemeanors and subject to a one-year statute
of limitations,” the letter stated.
MCPD said if a report is filed, the department would investigate the allegation, then turn over the results to the
Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s office.
The office would then determine if the allegation would be prosecutable, police said.
https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/montgomery-police-states-attorney-respond-to-call-for-kavanaugh-sex-assault-probe
-
ACLU has a good point about Kav because he loves constitutional crushing laws like the Patriot Act and wasting billions collecting worthless metadata and government spying programs that were designed solely to intimidate uppity proles into submission. If the Dems had highlighted Kav's record of kowtowing to the deep state swamp monsters then they might have gotten somewhere, but instead they continued their journey of self annihilation by beating the Political Correctness dead horse in an era where most people are living paycheck to paycheck and sick of their endless broken promises.
-
Looks like the DEMS are gonna push to impeach Kavanaugh after midterms. :wacko:
-
Annnnd.... Mazie takes the number one spot for stupidest most absurd unhinged response to Kavanaugh confirmation. I knew she had the potential to achieve such heights of idiocy, and she finally got there. At least as far as a Twitchy editor is concerned. The ratings of the editor are totally subjective, of course, and there are many others that seem near equally deserving of most unhinged.
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/10/07/literally-shaking-from-laughter-top-10-unhinged-lefty-responses-to-kavanaughs-confirmation/
Literally SHAKING (from laughter): Top 10 UNHINGED Lefty responses to Kavanaugh’s confirmation
After spending weeks and weeks and weeks writing about the Left’s response to even the idea of Kavanaugh being confirmed, we knew that once it happened on Saturday (woot!) that the explosion on Twitter would be monumental.
And hilarious.
The one thing we’ve said from the very beginning of Trump’s presidency is all the Left has to do is not be crazy … so of course, they went totally batsh*t.
Here are the top 10 meltdowns we could find in response to Kavanaugh’s confirmation (please note, there are literally thousands of these tweets to go through so we could have missed a few hundred … heh)
-
If anyone ever asks, "why are the people in elected office not the best or brightest we have to offer?" remind them of Kavanaugh, and how his opponents were willing to use the "scorched Earth" approach to prevent his confirmation.
The best & brightest have to be willing to endure those kinds of tactics to campaign and win. They need a squeaky clean background, or the money and muscle to suppress any claims of prior bad behavior. Obama spent millions to hid his past. HRC was in charge of "Bimbo Eruptions" during Bill's presidential campaign.
Look at the stuff they dug up on Romney. Dog on the roof of the car? Doesn't matter the dog was having a problem with diarrhea. Harry Reid lied on the floor of the Senate repeating a false rumor Romney hadn't paid his taxes for 10 years.
Anything to make the voters angry at the candidate/nominee is fair game -- relevance notwithstanding.
-
"Annnnd.... Mazie takes the number one spot for stupidest most absurd unhinged response to Kavanaugh confirmation. I knew she had the potential to achieve such heights of idiocy, and she finally got there. At least as far as a Twitchy editor is concerned. The ratings of the editor are totally subjective, of course, and there are many others that seem near equally deserving of most unhinged."
The problem we have in Hawaii, is that we are filthy with people like Mazie.
I know a possible solution, best quote I ever heard,
" kill them all and let God sort it out"
-
Another headline for Hirono! She's raking them in! Without further comment from me...
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/10/wth-idiot-mazie-hirono-says-kavanaugh-did-not-have-anyone-to-corroborate-his-story-but-christine-ford-did-video/
WTH? Idiot Mazie Hirono Says Kavanaugh Did Not have Anyone to Corroborate His Story But Christine Ford Did (VIDEO)
This woman is dumb as a brick.
Senator Mazie Hirono told CNN on Sunday morning Judge Brett Kavanaugh did not have anyone to corroborate his story but Christine Ford did.
How stupid.
Mazie Hirono: I certainly believe Dr. Ford. Anybody watching her testimony would know, I’d say, would conclude that she was being very truthful. And the one thing she recollects with 100% accuracy is that Judge Kavanaugh, that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her.
Dana Bash: You think that Senator Collins is insulting to Professor Ford?
Mazie Hirono: Well, to say that she thinks that Dr. Ford thinks that she was assaulted. What is that? Is she mistaken? She, herself, said that she heard from so many survivors from her state and elsewhere… I also note that in your interview she also said that there was no corroboration. Um, there was not corroboration on Brett Kavanaugh’s bald assertion that he didn’t do it. Because the people that the FBI interviewed which was a small number of the dozens that they should have interviewed they all said that they have no recollection. That is hardly what I would call exoneration. But on her side there was corroboration because she had talked about this assault to her husband to others before Brett Kavanaugh was ever nominated to the Supreme Court.
Once again, Hirono has NO IDEA what she is talking about.
EVERY ALLEGED WITNESS to Ford’s 36-year-old story says they don’t remember the incident and don’t even remember the party!
Even Ford’s friend, who was pressured by Democrats to lie about the incident, told investigators she did not remember the incident and had NEVER been to a party with Brett Kavanaugh. Someone needs to explain to Mazie what corroboration means.
Come on Hawaii, you can do better than this! [Alas, I think not... unfortunately...]
-
It's official.
There is more corroboration Bigfoot exists
than there is Justice Kavanaugh sexually assaulted anyone ... ever.
-
Mazie Hirono is an embarrassment to the state of Hawaii. I would like to say more but will probably get into trouble if I did.
-
This woman is dumb as a brick.
Intelligence is not required to be a democrat politician, only ideological purity.
Say the right catch phrases to the appropriate audience and you are in.
How do you think that moron Jackson-Lie or the rodeo monkey from Florida ever got elected? Sure as hell not sharp commentary on government.
-
Intelligence is not required to be a democrat politician, only ideological purity.
Say the right catch phrases to the appropriate audience and you are in.
How do you think that moron Jackson-Lie or the rodeo monkey from Florida ever got elected? Sure as hell not sharp commentary on government.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/22392/Democrats-Celebrate-Serial-Rapist-Dan-Inouye.aspx (http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/22392/Democrats-Celebrate-Serial-Rapist-Dan-Inouye.aspx)
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesDailyNews/tabid/65/ID/22404/Letters-to-the-Editor-October-2018.aspx (http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesDailyNews/tabid/65/ID/22404/Letters-to-the-Editor-October-2018.aspx)
-
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/22392/Democrats-Celebrate-Serial-Rapist-Dan-Inouye.aspx (http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/22392/Democrats-Celebrate-Serial-Rapist-Dan-Inouye.aspx)
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesDailyNews/tabid/65/ID/22404/Letters-to-the-Editor-October-2018.aspx (http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesDailyNews/tabid/65/ID/22404/Letters-to-the-Editor-October-2018.aspx)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kavanaugh-makes-good-on-his-pledge-at-hearing-to-hire-women-as-law-clerks (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kavanaugh-makes-good-on-his-pledge-at-hearing-to-hire-women-as-law-clerks)
-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kavanaugh-makes-good-on-his-pledge-at-hearing-to-hire-women-as-law-clerks (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kavanaugh-makes-good-on-his-pledge-at-hearing-to-hire-women-as-law-clerks)
wtf is that at the top of the steps?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31tLJPxdmD8
-
Sweet, sweet liberal tears.
-
wtf is that at the top of the steps?
=================
which one??? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Can't Soros afford to hire professional singers? Worse singers I have ever heard.
-
Can't Soros afford to hire professional singers? Worse singers I have ever heard.
MOney went to signs, until Trump tweeted about it. Then amazingly, the protest in front of Lincoln had only 2 signs visible.
-
They seem pretty convinced victory is inevitable
-
They seem pretty convinced victory is inevitable
The list of deluded fantasies they believe are "inevitable" approaches infinite length...
-
wtf is that at the top of the steps?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31tLJPxdmD8
Tijuana boob job on "I identify as an ugly bearded women" ? :shake: :shake: :shake:
-
Tijuana boob job on "I identify as an ugly bearded women" ? :shake: :shake: :shake:
....
Could be a dude with a TBJ. :rofl:
Is this the real Rockette? Or is it Rocky having an extreme midlife crisis? :shake:
-
....
Could be a dude with a TBJ. :rofl:
Is this the real Rockette? Or is it Rocky having an extreme midlife crisis? :shake:
Been trying to upload a Kav pic but it won't post so I thought I would try thru Rockette's account
-
Been trying to upload a Kav pic but it won't post so I thought I would try thru Rockette's account
...
I emailed the admin about the picture problem over the weekend.
-
...
I emailed the admin about the picture problem over the weekend.
Just sent it to your emaill addy
-
From what I've seen online, it seems like hot chicks support Kav/Trump.
-
Left-wing Liberals called George W. Bush "illegitimate" when he won Florida's recount, which the Left said was because his bother was Governor, and the Supreme Court leaned Republican.
They called Donald Trump "illegitimate" since the day after his election win. They uses a phony Russian Collusion story as "proof".
Now they call Brett Kavanaugh "illegitimate", and they use phony sex assault allegations as "proof".
We can't let these people gain power in ANY government body, much less the Senate. They already promised to start another "witch hunt", this time to impeach Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court. That's how irrationally afraid they are of not having a Left-leaning court to push the Left-Wing agenda.
Both Kavanaugh and Thomas endured unsupported allegations of sexual misconduct. The difference? They had to go back 35 years for Kavanaugh's accuser's allegations. At least Anita Hill's accusations were less than 5 years prior to the confirmation. Other than that, no real difference. Accusations without evidence are all that's needed to make an elected or appointed official "illegitimate."
-
Left-wing Liberals called George W. Bush "illegitimate" when he won Florida's recount, which the Left said was because his bother was Governor, and the Supreme Court leaned Republican.
To be fair, GW was never "elected". Gore conceded due to the missing Florida ballots or something.
I found GW funny as hell, all his "bushisms"
-
I watched Thomas sitting there today in the front row of the Kavanaugh ceremonial swearing in, and had to wonder: Is Thomas thinking "Welcome to the club, in more ways than one".
P.S. Ginsberg wasn't looking too spry again today... after that event last week where she seemed barely conscious at times.
-
To be fair, GW was never "elected". Gore conceded due to the missing Florida ballots or something.
I found GW funny as hell, all his "bushisms"
To be accurate, Gore only conceded after the Supreme Court stopped the recounts in Democrat-leaning counties. When they did, Bush was in the lead by over 500 votes. Technically and legally, Bush won Florida and the electoral vote count.
There were many subordinate issues, such as absentee ballots requiring a postmark, butterfly ballots being confusing, hanging chads, marked vs. punched ballots, and so on.
The recount became a crazy house of lawyers fighting over the letter of the state's election laws versus the "intent" of the voter.
BTW, Kavanaugh was part of the Bush recount team. :thumbsup:
-
This is the face of the Liberal Left-Wing extremism. She's an Elementary Special Education Teacher (Suspended).
Samantha Ness: Teacher Accused of Threatening to Kill Kavanaugh
Samantha Ness has been identified as the woman who wrote a tweet that referred to killing Brett Kavanaugh.
Ness, an employee at the Alliance Education Center in the Rosemount School District. Though her tweets
have since been deleted, a web cache of her Twitter account reveals that she tweeted on Saturday (following
Kavanaugh’s Senate vote), “So whose going to take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh?”
She later followed up with a subsequent tweet, “Brett kavanaugh will be dealing with death threats for the rest
of his life being on the Supreme Court. I doubt my mid-west ass is a real threat”
(https://i.imgur.com/Z8B6dps.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/HOioke9.jpg)
-
Whoa...painted eyebrows and pink hair. Nice
-
If you don't think Liberals try to win AT ALL COSTS, you haven't been paying attention.
Senator Collins made herself the most powerful member of the Senate last week by keeping her vote secret until Friday, 3:00 PM EDT. by doing so, she had everyone who had an interest in her decision trying to "entice", and in many cases bribe, threaten and verbally attack her, to influence her vote.
This weekend, she related some of the efforts people made to guide her vote.
Sen. Susan Collins believes the nation has come to a “very sad place” as opponents of Justice Brett Kavanaugh
attempt to “buy votes and buy positions.”
The Maine Republican has been feeling the aftermath of her affirmative vote for the Supreme Court nominee which
secured his confirmation, which she discussed with Scott Pelley on “60
Minutes” Sunday.
The anti-Kavanaugh groups targeted the senator ahead of the vote and continued the attacks after she voted ‘yes,’
taking up the offensive as well in her home state.
“A website went up over these last couple of weeks collecting funds for whoever your opponent may be in 2020,”
Pelley said.
“And the deal was that if you voted for Kavanaugh, then the credit card pledges would be processed. If you voted
against Kavanaugh they wouldn’t process the credit card numbers,” he continued. “And something over $2 million
was raised.”
Collins denounced the fundraising tactic as a blatant and illegal attempt at bribery.
“This is a classic quid pro quo as defined in our bribery laws,” she said.
“They are asking me to perform an official act and if I do not do what they want, $2 million plus is going to go to my
opponent,” she added. “I think that if our politics has come to the point where people are trying to buy votes and buy
positions, then we are in a very sad place.”
Collins will not be up for re-election until 2020.
“Maine People’s Alliance and Mainers for Accountable Leadership are joining dying father, Ady Barkan, to beg Senator
Collins to vote ‘no’ on Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh,” the Crowdpac fundraiser page reads.
The campaign has raised over $3.5 million so far, nearing its $4 million goal which, in the case of Collins voted to confirm
Kavanaugh – as she did – donations “will go to her opponent’s campaign, once that opponent has been identified.”
“Your card will only be charged if Collins votes for Kavanaugh’s confirmation,” donors are told.
“If you fail to stand up for the people of Maine and for Americans across the country, every dollar donated to this campaign
will go to your eventual Democratic opponent in 2020. We will get you out of office,” the page addressed Collins.
Comments left by donors on the campaign page were filled with personal attacks on the lawmaker.
“You are a disgrace to all women!” wrote one donor.
“You’re done, Collins. #makethempay,” added another.
“Because it’s a middle finger to an utterly corrupt, self-hating Republican who has sold herself a hundred times over to
Trump,” one person who endorsed the campaign wrote.
“Karma is a b*tch, and so is Susan Collins,” another wrote.
Before her final vote was even cast on Saturday afternoon, Collins had already ignited the haters.
Not only did Hollywood have a meltdown over the Collins’ speech declaring her intention to support the Supreme Court
nominee, abortion industry giants slammed the Senate Judiciary Committee member as did “General Hospital”
actress Nancy Lee Grahn who was triggered into revoking Collins’ “female parts” in response. :wtf:
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/10/08/sen-collins-describes-illegal-bribes-and-threats-of-liberal-groups-that-tried-to-buy-her-and-its-jolting-681574
-
Have they "given up", or are they regrouping for a serious assault? Doesn't seem like they'd "let off" an alcoholic serial gang-rapist lacking proper judicial temperament that easily. :shake:
https://www.courthousenews.com/muted-arguments-at-supreme-court-for-kavanaughs-first-day/
Muted Arguments at Supreme Court for Kavanaugh’s First Day
WASHINGTON (CN) – Asking just five questions during his first day at the Supreme Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on precedent Tuesday in oral argument for a criminal case about the classification of violent felonies.
The hearing this morning went off without interruption and with only minimal protests outside of the court. A far cry from the throngs who took to the court and Senate office buildings to protest Kavanaugh’s confirmation in recent days, between 20 and 30 protesters gathered in front of the building to chant their disapproval an hour before arguments. Most if not all of the protesters appeared to have disbursed by the time arguments ended.
-
This is the face of the Liberal Left-Wing extremism. She's an Elementary Special Education Teacher (Suspended).
Samantha Ness: Teacher Accused of Threatening to Kill Kavanaugh
(https://i.imgur.com/Z8B6dps.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/HOioke9.jpg)
Who’s gonna dirt nap that bitch....... but wait....it’s a waste of perfectly good ammo on that pile of cow shit!
-
This is the face of the Liberal Left-Wing extremism. She's an Elementary Special Education Teacher (Suspended).
Suspended "with pay". Some "punishment"!
-
I wish.
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/kn100618dAPR20181005074506.jpg)
-
Suspended "with pay". Some "punishment"!
The school she teaches at number was posted on IG. I'm sure they got hundreds of calls.
-
The school she teaches at number was posted on IG. I'm sure they got hundreds of calls.
She's now toast.
Minnesota teacher who tweeted call to 'kill Kavanaugh' resigns
"Uh, no, I won't be able come in for a job interview at that time as I have an interview with the FBI."
-
She's now toast.
Minnesota teacher who tweeted call to 'kill Kavanaugh' resigns
"Uh, no, I won't be able come in for a job interview at that time as I have an interview with the FBI."
Hope now when she applies for another job and gets googled no one hires her. But in reality, all she has to do is apply for a liberal school and she will get a job.
-
wtf is that at the top of the steps?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31tLJPxdmD8
...
Dammit, I got that catchy tune stuck in my head.
It reminds me of stray cats screwing at 3am.
-
...
Dammit, I got that catchy tune stuck in my head.
It reminds me of stray cats screwing at 3am.
Why do you insult stray cats screwing at 3am?
-
Why do you insult stray cats screwing at 3am?
:rofl: :rofl:
-
...
Dammit, I got that catchy tune stuck in my head.
It reminds me of stray cats screwing at 3am.
Is that a topless chick in the upper left corner dress as a pirate, or a dude with bitch tits.
-
Is that a topless chick in the upper left corner dress as a pirate, or a dude with bitch tits.
...
:rofl: the world may never know...
____
But seriously folks, why are these idiots making like kav is the devil reborn?
You would need to be horribly insecure or mentally unstable to think that one man can singlehandedly destroy the country.
Oh wait, never mind....I just answered my own question. :rofl:
-
Is that a topless chick in the upper left corner dress as a pirate, or a dude with bitch tits.
that's what i was asking
-
I watched Thomas sitting there today in the front row of the Kavanaugh ceremonial swearing in, and had to wonder: Is Thomas thinking "Welcome to the club, in more ways than one".
P.S. Ginsberg wasn't looking too spry again today... after that event last week where she seemed barely conscious at times.
NEXT.
-
Am I beating a dead horse to death, again? Yeah, probably. But these horses aren't actually dead, and just waiting in the wings to wreak more havoc via their lies.
One female professor's (too bad we have to rely on a Canadian to present the truth to Americans) take on Ford :
To Understand Christine Blasey Ford, Take a look at Palo Alto University
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFL6k5yOAFM
-
So far, people like you seem to have 1M reasons her story could make sense,
Its called objectivity. Looking at all possibilities, not just the desired one.
why she can't produce a single piece of evidence to corroborate anything she says,
This is kind of circular reasoning. Often times in sex assault cases there are no pieces of evidence to corroborate a story, the only evidence you have is the statement.
Maybe if she's that bad at supporting her stories, she should have kept it to herself?
If indeed she was a victim of an attempted sex assault then she has every right to tell her story, there is no should or should not at this point.
-
Its called objectivity. Looking at all possibilities, not just the desired one.
This is kind of circular reasoning. Often times in sex assault cases there are no pieces of evidence to corroborate a story, the only evidence you have is the statement.
If indeed she was a victim of an attempted sex assault then she has every right to tell her story, there is no should or should not at this point.
No. If you'd actually quoted my post instead of trying to take my words out of context to make them conform to your responses .... maybe you would not have made the responses you did.
Objectivity includes using common sense (as I said). "ALL POSSIBILITIES?" LOL! No, only plausible ones that fit the facts. Since she's offered almost no specific facts, the plausible possibilities don't increase as you tend to believe. They decrease, because without facts or corroboration of any kind, the credibility diminishes. If all it takes is a lack of contradictory evidence to increase possibilities something happened, then I guess Big Foot is an empirically and objectively proven fact.
The only person going in circles is you -- unfortunately we can't call it "reasoning". We are not talking about "often times". This is a specific case. Evidence can be direct or circumstantial. If she'd written in a diary or journal, told a friend or parent, confided in a teacher, or filed a police report, maybe there would be some kind of corroborating evidence. After 35 years, all we have is a smear at the 11th hour of a Supreme Court Justice by a bunch of Democrats who hate Trump and are already butt-hurt over his first Supreme Court pick. Every single person Ford mentioned as potential witnesses denied any such knowledge of any event fitting her description. Ford lied under oath about many things, and her lawyers showed their political agenda when they unethically refused to tell her of Grassley's offer to travel to CA if needed to take her testimony.
What's more likely? Smear job by the same juvenile Democrat Senators (someone in Feinstein's office had to be the leaker) trying to get a delay on confirmation until after midterms, or he almost committed 2 misdemeanors in high school that were never reported with statutes of limitations of 1 year apiece in the early 80's, and that was enough to make a woman try to ruin his life 35 years later?
The Democrats never cared about Ford's "distress". They only wanted to use it to run the clock out waiting for the FBI to chase down non-existent leads to find non-existent evidence of a non-existent crime.
-
^^^Facts, but let's not forget about degrees of separation.
1 fact not remembered or 1 degree of separation no problem. But combined of them all together then you have to question Ford's motives.
-
No, I haven't "let go" of this yet. Talk to me in mid-November 2020.
Article includes llinks to several articles about the interview and the original audio interview (http://www.hughhewitt.com/senator-tom-cotton-on-the-lefts-descent-into-the-tactics-of-intimidation/).
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/10/tom-cotton-schumers-political-operation-along-with-preet-bharara-were-behind-christine-fords-hit-on-kavanaugh/
Tom Cotton: Schumer’s Political Operation Along with Preet Bharara Were Behind Christine Ford’s Hit on Kavanaugh
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-ARKANSAS): Hugh, I believe the Schumer political operation was behind this from the very beginning. We learned last week that a woman named Monica McLean was Ms. Ford’s roommate, and she was one of the so-called beach friends who encouraged Ms. Ford to go to Dianne Feinstein and the partisan Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. Well, it just turns out, it just so happens that Monica McLean worked for a Preet Bharara, the former U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, now a virulent anti-Trump critic on television and former counsel to Chuck Schumer. So I strongly suspect that Chuck Schumer’s political operation knew about Ms. Ford’s allegations as far back as July and manipulated the process all along to include taking advantage of Ms. Ford’s confidences and directing her towards left-wing lawyers who apparently may have violated the D.C. code of legal ethics and perhaps may face their own investigation by the D.C. Bar.
-
No. If you'd actually quoted my post instead of trying to take my words out of context to make them conform to your responses .... maybe you would not have made the responses you did.
Objectivity includes using common sense (as I said). "ALL POSSIBILITIES?" LOL! No, only plausible ones that fit the facts. Since she's offered almost no specific facts, the plausible possibilities don't increase as you tend to believe. They decrease, because without facts or corroboration of any kind, the credibility diminishes. If all it takes is a lack of contradictory evidence to increase possibilities something happened, then I guess Big Foot is an empirically and objectively proven fact.
The only person going in circles is you -- unfortunately we can't call it "reasoning". We are not talking about "often times". This is a specific case. Evidence can be direct or circumstantial. If she'd written in a diary or journal, told a friend or parent, confided in a teacher, or filed a police report, maybe there would be some kind of corroborating evidence. After 35 years, all we have is a smear at the 11th hour of a Supreme Court Justice by a bunch of Democrats who hate Trump and are already butt-hurt over his first Supreme Court pick. Every single person Ford mentioned as potential witnesses denied any such knowledge of any event fitting her description. Ford lied under oath about many things, and her lawyers showed their political agenda when they unethically refused to tell her of Grassley's offer to travel to CA if needed to take her testimony.
What's more likely? Smear job by the same juvenile Democrat Senators (someone in Feinstein's office had to be the leaker) trying to get a delay on confirmation until after midterms, or he almost committed 2 misdemeanors in high school that were never reported with statutes of limitations of 1 year apiece in the early 80's, and that was enough to make a woman try to ruin his life 35 years later?
The Democrats never cared about Ford's "distress". They only wanted to use it to run the clock out waiting for the FBI to chase down non-existent leads to find non-existent evidence of a non-existent crime.
Yes, all reasonable, plausible possibilities.
Ford offered a number of very specific facts in her statement. Specific actions and specific people. You are focusing on the things she cannot recall to try and bring doubt to the things she can recall. People who act like not remembering where something happened 36 years years ago means that it must not have happened don't have any idea what they are talking about. They don't want to admit that it is quite normal for people to not recall many details during such traumatic types of events.
Case in point, Ford named Judge as the other person in the room during the time of the attack. Judge publicly stated that he doesn't recall that event. Kavanaugh supporters presented this as Judge saying it never happened which is very different than what he actually said. Consider also the fact that Judge was described as basically an accomplice to the attack, yet Kavanaugh supporters are so quick to believe his lack of memory. Why? Because they are looking for excuses to believe Kavanaugh, that is not objectivity.
Ford had a few holes in her testimony but there is no proof she lied under oath about "many things". Ford had a better showing than Kavanaugh in the hearing. The hearing didn't really show who was telling the truth but it did show Kavanaugh not maintaining a cool normally expected from SCOTUS justices.
Sigh...
I can't force you to be objective if you don't want to.
What bothers me is that people on both sides of this look only to the possibilities that support their desired views. Kavanaugh supporters look for reasons not to believe Ford and do not consider anything else. Kavanaugh haters look for reasons not to believe Kavanaugh and do not consider anything else. People don't want to consider reasonable plausible scenarios that don't fit with their desired outcome. The liberals don't want to admit that Ford's memory can be compromised by alcohol and the passage of time. Republicans don't want to admit that maybe the witness lied to protect his own butt or that maybe Kavanaugh was too drunk to remember what happened.
-
She didnt name judge until her 3rd revision.
4 people were in the room
2-3 people were in the room
Kav was in the room and someone walked in (not judge yet)
Final version
Kav and judge were in the room
Details of what happened are not enough. What if i said schatz ran his hand down my back and squeezed my left butt cheek. Thats details. Does this mean schatz is automatically guilty? Does it mean im automatically credible? I have no clue where he did it. How i got there. How i left. 4 people who i claim was there when he did it, cant remember. So am i still credible and shall schatz go to jail?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
She didnt name judge until her 3rd revision.
4 people were in the room
2-3 people were in the room
Kav was in the room and someone walked in (not judge yet)
Final version
Kav and judge were in the room
Details of what happened are not enough. What if i said schatz ran his hand down my back and squeezed my left butt cheek. Thats details. Does this mean schatz is automatically guilty? Does it mean im automatically credible? I have no clue where he did it. How i got there. How i left. 4 people who i claim was there when he did it, cant remember. So am i still credible and shall schatz go to jail?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Forget it. EEF is hopelessly in Liberal land. He's all about facts and sources and links to support claims until it's a sexual assault complaint against Trump's nominee. Now, all of a sudden, rule of law goes out the window. Proof, evidence and corroboration aren't needed after 35 years, because "people forget."
People who suffer a traumatic event might forget insignificant details. But they don't forget the major things like place, date, time, arriving and leaving. Ask any rape survivor, and I guarantee they remember where they were, how they got there, and what day it was -- unless they are so drunk or high they can't function. According to her, she wasn't as drunk as Kavanaugh and Judge were. So, brain cells weren't casualties if we believe that part of her story.
Here's the bottom line: credibility means you have to base your belief on something. To me, if she can't recall major, basic facts of the event, then what else about that day is she forgetting or mis-remembering? Wrong boys? Wrong interpretation? Did one of them insult her and she's held a grudge all this time?
If you think girls don't remember every detail of everything someone has done wrong to them, you've never been married! :shake:
-
Yes, all reasonable, plausible possibilities.
"Reasonable" and "plausible" are not objective terms. You are being subjective in using those.
Ford offered a number of very specific facts in her statement.
Not one single one of which have been corroborated by anyone, including the people she "factually" named as being witnesses to the alleged assault and at the home where the alleged assault occurred. One of those alleged witnesses was her best friend at the time who has no recollection of any such event and claims to have never met or been in the presence of Kavanaugh.
Specific actions and specific people.
Not one single one of which have been corroborated by anyone, including the people she "factually" named as being witnesses to the alleged assault and at the home where the alleged assault occurred. One of those alleged witnesses was her best friend at the time who has no recollection of any such event and claims to have never met or been in the presence of Kavanaugh.
You are focusing on the things she cannot recall to try and bring doubt to the things she can recall. People who act like not remembering where something happened 36 years years ago means that it must not have happened don't have any idea what they are talking about. They don't want to admit that it is quite normal for people to not recall many details during such traumatic types of events.
Most people that I have read commenting on the lack of memory of many of the surrounding moments of Ford's assertions of fact are not claiming that those failures to remember are proof of a false accusation, but that the failure of memory demonstrates the possibility that the things she claims to remember may not be factual. That seems, to use your term, perfectly "reasonable". Why would someone conclude that her lack of memory of things such as how she got there and how she got home and why her best friend who was there never asked her about why Ford disappeared from the house without saying a word to her or asked her anything about how she got home, etc. is not evidence of possible mistaken memory or intentional lying?
Case in point, Ford named Judge as the other person in the room during the time of the attack. Judge publicly stated that he doesn't recall that event. Kavanaugh supporters presented this as Judge saying it never happened which is very different than what he actually said. Consider also the fact that Judge was described as basically an accomplice to the attack, yet Kavanaugh supporters are so quick to believe his lack of memory. Why? Because they are looking for excuses to believe Kavanaugh, that is not objectivity.
You're kidding right? No one can "prove a negative". No one can prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. Impossible. No one can prove that any of the events alleged by Ford didn't occur. Impossible. All the people can say who she claims were witnesses to the events are "Yes, I was there" or "No, I was not at such a gathering or witness to any such events, to the best of my recollection". All the people she named, including her best friend at the time said the latter. No one can prove it didn't happen. Only Ford can produce corroborating evidence that it DID happen. Thus far she has not produced a single piece of corroborative evidence.
Ford had a few holes in her testimony but there is no proof she lied under oath about "many things".
The "second front door" to her home, which she claimed was the cause of the marital issues that led to her being in therapy (whose notes she won't release to investigators) in 2012 had been installed at least by 2011 at the latest, and was installed based upon a bulding permit taken out in 2007. So five years after the permit is taken out they have to go to marital counseling because they're still having an issue with her need for a second front door due to being groped 30 years previously? There is evidence that the door was installed to allow for an illegal rental within the home. She had claimed that the hearing would have to be delayed because of her fear of flying, yet she traveled on planes frequently. Etc. Etc. Etc. Rachel Mitchell outlined some of the "problems" with Ford's testimony in her summary, which concluded her account was not credible enough to bring charges, or even to get a search warrant, i.e. "probably cause".
Ford had a better showing than Kavanaugh in the hearing.
That's what you consider an "objective" statement of fact? That's a joke. That is pure 100% subjectivity. Here's my subjective take on that: You're a hypocrite.
The hearing didn't really show who was telling the truth but it did show Kavanaugh not maintaining a cool normally expected from SCOTUS justices.
The only thing that could demonstrate the "truth" of the allegations by Ford would have been corroborating evidence of some kind, including corroborating testimony/statements from the people, including her best friend at the time, who she alledged were at the incident. Zero corroboration. None. Nothing. Zip. Nada. As above re the impossibility proving a negative, there can be no proof of any kind that it didn't happen... all that can happen, and did, is that the people she said were there all said they weren't. As for your subjective claim about "a cool normally expected from SCOTUS justices", I (subjectively) call bullshit. What is expected of justices is that they are "fair" in their role as judge/justice, giving the sides arguing a case a hearing on the merits and the law rather than going into a case already having made up their mind. If you think any human being, because of some job they hold, is or should be, above human emotion, you are totally deluded and living in a dream world. Perhaps you, in your fantasy world of you being "objective", never have emotional responses to anything, including being accused of being a mastermind of serial drugging and gang raping of young women... well, good for you. I'm the opposite, I guess that would be "subjective" to you, but if Kavanaugh had gotten up there and calmly said nothing but, "As I've already testified, I did not do those things. I have nothing to add", well, I'd have been very disappointed in him as a man, as a human. But that's just ol' subjective me.
Sigh...
I can't force you to be objective if you don't want to.
Sigh...
Yeah, and we can't force you to acknowledge that you aren't objective either.
What bothers me is that people on both sides of this look only to the possibilities that support their desired views. Kavanaugh supporters look for reasons not to believe Ford and do not consider anything else. Kavanaugh haters look for reasons not to believe Kavanaugh and do not consider anything else. People don't want to consider reasonable plausible scenarios that don't fit with their desired outcome. The liberals don't want to admit that Ford's memory can be compromised by alcohol and the passage of time. Republicans don't want to admit that maybe the witness lied to protect his own butt or that maybe Kavanaugh was too drunk to remember what happened.
It is probably true that some people believe what they believe independent of evidence, but maybe far fewer than you believe. I believe a very large percentage of people would be swayed by "credible" evidence, just as juries are. The fact is that there is absolutely not one shred of corroborating evidence for the allegations of Ford. There is a lot of evidence that she is mistaken and/or lying about a number of her assertions. That tilts the scale. But the bottom line is NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. Plus, the whole thing just smells (subjectively).
-
I'm going to call it now, Trumps next SCOTUS nominee will be accused of a racial/homophobic (if nominee is black, then homophobic will be used. If nominee is gay and black then religist slur will be used) slur. Zero evidence. But an acquaintance will come forward saying they heard the person using it. They will not remember where or why they were in ears range of hearing it. But they heard the nominee say it.
Every BLM/LGBT member will come and protest the nominee.
-
[snippy]
Add to all of that the fact Feinstein did not immediately hand the letter over to the committee chairman. The complaint could be vetted PRIVATELY before the hearings even started, to see if they warranted more investigation. Questions related to the claims could have been included in the hours and hours of questionnaires, interviews and hearings Kavanaugh endured. At no time would the accuser's name have been leaked unless the Democrats did it.
That's exactly how the Anita Hill accusations were handled. Up until she testified, the FBI investigated, the Senators on the committee read the evidence, and THEN they heard the witness testify.
Ambushing Kavanaugh 3 days before the vote not only betrayed the trust Ford said she had that she could remain anonymous, but it also smacked of a last minute "Hail Mary" to delay the confirmation -- exactly what the Democrats were trying to do the whole time they acted up in the hearings, and by requesting millions of pages of documents they never intended to read.
All of these events combine to give this accusation the "smell" it has, and it's not pleasant.
-
I'm going to call it now, Trumps next SCOTUS nominee will be accused of a racial/homophobic (if nominee is black, then homophobic will be used. If nominee is gay and black then religist slur will be used) slur. Zero evidence. But an acquaintance will come forward saying they heard the person using it. They will not remember where or why they were in ears range of hearing it. But they heard the nominee say it.
Every BLM/LGBT member will come and protest the nominee.
I don't know. I think they will have learned to not smear a good person with lies after the midterm Red Wave.
Next time, they will go after Trump to claim his nomination is somehow illegitimate. Maybe because Trump's mentally unfit, because he Tweeted something partisan about the nomination, or whatever, but it'll be another Trump attack vs. a nominee attack.
I know, Dems never seem to learn, but this smear will be fresh in everyone's minds, and they might not want to dredge up memories of Kavanaugh so soon afterward.
-
Next time, they will go after Trump to claim his nomination is somehow illegitimate. Maybe because Trump's mentally unfit, because he Tweeted something partisan about the nomination, or whatever, but it'll be another Trump attack vs. a nominee attack.
They already used that and lost. So right after Kav got in, they tried to go after his parents estate or something like that about tax loopholes.
They might go after him harder on the fact that his family doesn't have a dog.
-
That's why I'm hoping the next nominee is Amy Coney Barrett (well, really I want Thomas Hardiman, but for confirmation fiasco purposes I'd like to see Barrett), who is waaaay right of Kavanaugh. I just can't wait to see what all the #BelieveWomen brigade comes up with!
(https://s17-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Frcrc.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F09%2Fbelieve-women.jpg&sp=8bec57dca0b72bfda1d73ee60e38c67d)
(https://s17-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fj6al5j1fmsq11.jpg&sp=082270535a5ccfc0dda9096e24ad18d6)
Therefore...
-
About three weeks till elections. I wonder what’s the next headline to grab attention.
I still see lots of liberal folks on FB still stuck on Kav. I think it’s a good thing. Keeping the rabid dog occupied with chewing on a non-issue. There have been some rumblings from the Clintons. Can’t they just go away?
-
That's why I'm hoping the next nominee is Amy Coney Barrett (well, really I want Thomas Hardiman, but for confirmation fiasco purposes I'd like to see Barrett), whose is waaaay right of Kavanaugh. I just can't wait to see what all the #BelieveWomen brigade comes up with!
I believe the next nominee will be female
and I cannot wait to see what kind of sh@t "they" are going to try
-
Forget it. EEF is hopelessly in Liberal land. He's all about facts and sources and links to support claims until it's a sexual assault complaint against Trump's nominee. Now, all of a sudden, rule of law goes out the window. Proof, evidence and corroboration aren't needed after 35 years, because "people forget."
Strawman.
People who suffer a traumatic event might forget insignificant details. But they don't forget the major things like place, date, time, arriving and leaving. Ask any rape survivor, and I guarantee they remember where they were, how they got there, and what day it was -- unless they are so drunk or high they can't function.
I have heard numerous accounts the confirm that people do forget details just like that. Often times alcohol is involved but not always. Have you looked at studies about police shootings? Officers regularly are unable to recall significant details accurately and they weren't even intoxicated. So no, the inability to remember things like how she got there or how she got home are not proof that she is lying.
Here's the bottom line: credibility means you have to base your belief on something. To me, if she can't recall major, basic facts of the event, then what else about that day is she forgetting or mis-remembering? Wrong boys? Wrong interpretation? Did one of them insult her and she's held a grudge all this time?
I agree, those are all aspects of her story that bring up valid questions about the accuracy of her story.
-
Strawman.
I have heard numerous accounts the confirm that people do forget details just like that. Often times alcohol is involved but not always. Have you looked at studies about police shootings? Officers regularly are unable to recall significant details accurately and they weren't even intoxicated. So no, the inability to remember things like how she got there or how she got home are not proof that she is lying.
I agree, those are all aspects of her story that bring up valid questions about the accuracy of her story.
Police shootings are not sexual assault cases. Apples and oranges.
I bet the officers know the specific significant details I keep mentioning: location, date, approximate time and how they got there.
The proof she is lying is in the timing as well as lack of details. This is not an opinion based on one or two factors. it's 4 or 5 or more things that are wrong with her allegations.
I don't have to prove she's lying. All I have to do is look at the evidence to see if it supports her story.
Waiting for evidence .........
(https://i.imgur.com/yJcgT0D.jpg)
-
Police shootings are not sexual assault cases. Apples and oranges.
I bet the officers know the specific significant details I keep mentioning: location, date, approximate time and how they got there.
The proof she is lying is in the timing as well as lack of details. This is not an opinion based on one or two factors. it's 4 or 5 or more things that are wrong with her allegations.
I don't have to prove she's lying. All I have to do is look at the evidence to see if it supports her story.
No one said police shootings are sexual assault cases. Strawman. The point is that they both involve high stress traumatic incidents which affects what information the brain records and how to record it.
You are wrong, a lack of details is not proof she is lying and the timing is not proof she is lying. The only thing those two things mean is that more questions need to be asked because there are holes in the story that need to be filled.
-
True no proof either way, thats why we have due proccess and "innocent until proven guilty". But you have to admit the liberals/dnc are saying guilty regadless of any facts or lack of facts.
Thats why people are pissed. If this is the new standard then one day it will can be you, your father, brother, uncle, nephew, son, husband, boyfriend, etc...
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
"Reasonable" and "plausible" are not objective terms. You are being subjective in using those.
Yet reasonable is regularly used and recognized in court cases.
Not one single one of which have been corroborated by anyone, including the people she "factually" named as being witnesses to the alleged assault and at the home where the alleged assault occurred. One of those alleged witnesses was her best friend at the time who has no recollection of any such event and claims to have never met or been in the presence of Kavanaugh.
The alleged witnesses gave neutral statements that neither proved nor disproved her statement.
Most people that I have read commenting on the lack of memory of many of the surrounding moments of Ford's assertions of fact are not claiming that those failures to remember are proof of a false accusation, but that the failure of memory demonstrates the possibility that the things she claims to remember may not be factual.
This is a valid and reasonable question about the accuracy of her memory.
Why would someone conclude that her lack of memory of things such as how she got there and how she got home and why her best friend who was there never asked her about why Ford disappeared from the house without saying a word to her or asked her anything about how she got home, etc. is not evidence of possible mistaken memory or intentional lying?
I have driven home a number of drunk friends from high school parties (I never drank) and I don't think they remembered how they got home. That is why I am saying it is reasonable that Ford could remember going to a party but not how she got home. Let me ask you this though, what if Ford did have a memory of who drove her home and how she got to the party, would that do anything to change your mind?
You're kidding right? No one can "prove a negative". No one can prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. Impossible. No one can prove that any of the events alleged by Ford didn't occur. Impossible. All the people can say who she claims were witnesses to the events are "Yes, I was there" or "No, I was not at such a gathering or witness to any such events, to the best of my recollection". All the people she named, including her best friend at the time said the latter. No one can prove it didn't happen. Only Ford can produce corroborating evidence that it DID happen. Thus far she has not produced a single piece of corroborative evidence.
My point there was that one of the witnesses was an accomplice to the alleged crime so it makes no sense that people are in a rush to cite Judge's lack of memory of such an incident as proof of her mistaken memory. If you were part of a crime you would most likely deny it would you not?
The "second front door" to her home, which she claimed was the cause of the marital issues that led to her being in therapy (whose notes she won't release to investigators) in 2012 had been installed at least by 2011 at the latest, and was installed based upon a bulding permit taken out in 2007. So five years after the permit is taken out they have to go to marital counseling because they're still having an issue with her need for a second front door due to being groped 30 years previously? There is evidence that the door was installed to allow for an illegal rental within the home. She had claimed that the hearing would have to be delayed because of her fear of flying, yet she traveled on planes frequently. Etc. Etc. Etc. Rachel Mitchell outlined some of the "problems" with Ford's testimony in her summary, which concluded her account was not credible enough to bring charges, or even to get a search warrant, i.e. "probably cause".
The way trauma manifests itself in the brain does not always make logical sense. The whole fear of flying thing is overblown, having a fear doesn't mean one abstains from that thing. The face Ford flies regularly does not prove she is lying about a fear of flying. This is kind of a stretch in my opinion. But like I said, I agree there are some holes in her testimony.
That's what you consider an "objective" statement of fact? That's a joke. That is pure 100% subjectivity. Here's my subjective take on that: You're a hypocrite.
And why is my opinion that Kavanaugh had a worse hearing any less valid than your opinion that he did better than Ford? Sounds like a double standard.
But I don't just make that up out of thin air, I can explain the reasons why I think Kavanaugh had a poor showing.
-He appeared to be lying about what things like Boof, devil's triangle, etc. meant.
-He came out very angry and maintained that. (I don't consider this proof he is lying, only that his demeanor is not that of what is expected from a SCOTUS judge.
-He snapped back at the senator when questioned about drinking to the point of blacking out
-He spoke a lot about how much he liked to drink beer.
-He admitted to drinking a lot of alcohol in high school, something which he initially denied publicly.
-He mischaracterized what the witnesses stated. There is no excuse for a federal judge to mischaracterize such a thing.
-He claimed he never drank to the point he blacked out which contradicts a speech he made 4 years prior where they had to "piece things together" after a night of too much drinking.
So no, it isn't just subjective, I can back up my opinion with facts. I don't think there is enough to prosecute Kavanaugh for rape however I do think that Kavanaugh's performance at the hearing means he shouldn't be a supreme court justice though. Ford's testimony didn't change my mind, Kavanaugh shot himself in the foot.
It is probably true that some people believe what they believe independent of evidence, but maybe far fewer than you believe. I believe a very large percentage of people would be swayed by "credible" evidence, just as juries are. The fact is that there is absolutely not one shred of corroborating evidence for the allegations of Ford. There is a lot of evidence that she is mistaken and/or lying about a number of her assertions. That tilts the scale. But the bottom line is NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. Plus, the whole thing just smells
When it came to the senate hearing there appeared to be very few who were considered swayable. When I looked at arguments on here and facebook it seemed there were very few who appeared swayable.
You are right, there is no evidence to corroborate her statement about the specific incident. There are corroborating statements about Kavanaugh drinking to excess however that is circumstantial. Keep in mind thought that lots of crimes never have corroborating evidence.
If your point is that Kavanaugh should not be convicted given a lack of evidence I agree. Claiming that the lack of corroborating evidence is proof she lied though is a non sequitur and that is what I am speaking out against. I was not for or against Kavanaugh.
-
True no proof either way, thats why we have due proccess and "innocent until proven guilty". But you have to admit the liberals/dnc are saying guilty regadless of any facts or lack of facts.
Thats why people are pissed. If this is the new standard then one day it will can be you, your father, brother, uncle, nephew, son, husband, boyfriend, etc...
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Agreed. Bill Maher spoke out about this. I can't find the video but he said something to the affect that it is not believe absolutely a victim's statement. About how the left wants to take it as infallible.
-
No one said police shootings are sexual assault cases. Strawman. The point is that they both involve high stress traumatic incidents which affects what information the brain records and how to record it.
You are wrong, a lack of details is not proof she is lying and the timing is not proof she is lying. The only thing those two things mean is that more questions need to be asked because there are holes in the story that need to be filled.
Only you could claim "straw man" when I point out your straw man argument. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Hypocrite of hypocrites. Hirono.
Video and written excerpts and links:
VIDEO: Mazie Hirono Covers Up Sexist Harassment at UH
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/22441/VIDEO-Mazie-Hirono-Rocked-By-Scandal-For-Covering-Up-Sexist-Harassment.aspx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=329&v=vrNk0kilQh8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=329&v=vrNk0kilQh8)
-
Grassley sends criminal referral for attorney Michael Avenatti and Kavanaugh accuser
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/grassley-sends-criminal-referral-for-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick-and-attorney- (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/grassley-sends-criminal-referral-for-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick-and-attorney-)
Not quite the backfiring of what I thought could happen with all the calls for more investigation, but interested to see how this goes.
-
Grassley sends criminal referral for attorney Michael Avenatti and Kavanaugh accuser
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/grassley-sends-criminal-referral-for-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick-and-attorney- (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/grassley-sends-criminal-referral-for-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick-and-attorney-)
Not quite the backfiring of what I thought could happen with all the calls for more investigation, but interested to see how this goes.
To bad GoFundMe's aren't taxed.
-
To bad GoFundMe's aren't taxed.
If they are found guilty of lying about Kavanaugh and the gang rape BS story, GoFundMe would be within their terms of service to go after her for the money raised and return it. Fraud is prohibited.
It's happened before. I have to assume GoFundMe demands the money back from the scammers, then follows up with a lawsuit.
The couple has been banned from the platform for violating "GoFundMe's terms of service,
and all donors will receive a refund," GoFundMe said...
"It's important to remember that our platform is backed by the GoFundMe guarantee, which means
that in the rare case that GoFundMe, law enforcement or a user finds campaigns are misused,
donors are fully protected and will get their money back. Additionally, we are working with law
enforcement on their investigation."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/couple-lied-cancer-child-gofundme-scam-police/story?id=55011676
-
If they are found guilty of lying about Kavanaugh and the gang rape BS story, GoFundMe would be within their terms of service to go after her for the money raised and return it. Fraud is prohibited.
It's happened before. I have to assume GoFundMe demands the money back from the scammers, then follows up with a lawsuit.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/couple-lied-cancer-child-gofundme-scam-police/story?id=55011676
Let's hope she's dumb enough to admit it to someone via email.
-
Let's hope she's dumb enough to admit it to someone via email.
She already has admitted it indirectly. In a recent interview, she backtracked on almost every detail of her story rather than be caught directly telling the exact lies in her original account.
Snow, who stressed that NBC News has not been able to “independently verify” many of Swetnick’s specific claims, spent much of the interview addressing some of the issues that could affect her credibility, including the fact that she had already graduated from high school at the time of the alleged parties and that she was sued by a former employer for “unwelcome sexual and inappropriate conduct after three weeks on the job.” That lawsuit was subsequently thrown out.
Asked how she remembers meeting Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge, Swetnick said they both have “distinctive” faces and that she believes they may have been wearing Georgetown Prep uniforms. As she laid out in her original affidavit, she alleged that she saw Kavanaugh engage in all kinds of predatory behavior at these house parties, including “groping” girls, and she referred to him as a “very aggressive, very sloppy, mean drunk.” While in her prior allegations she said she saw him “spike” drinks, she now said she only saw him hand red Solo cups to girls. “I would not take one of those glasses from Mark Kavanaugh—Brett Kavanaugh, excuse me,” she said.
Swetnick also asserts that she was raped by several young men at one party but would not say for sure whether Kavanaugh was one of them. “I cannot specifically say that he was one of the ones who assaulted me,” she said. “But before this happened to me, at that party, I saw Brett Kavanaugh there. I saw Mark Judge there. And they were hanging about the area where I started to feel disoriented and where the room was, and where the other boys were hanging out.”
Swetnick also has a history of making false allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct in the workplace when it was SHE who was acting that way.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/julie-swetnick-grilled-about-kavanaugh-gang-rape-in-msnbc-interview
-
Creepy Porn Lawyer, now known by the alias CPL, has some 'splaining to do when the DOJ talks to him. Maybe NBC execs should be called to have a talk as well?
NBC News is under fire for sitting on information that would have cast serious doubt on wild claims abut now-Supreme Court
Justice Brett Kavanaugh just when the unsubstantiated allegations were rocking the judge's confirmation to the high court.
Controversial attorney Michael Avenatti and client Julie Swetnick claimed last month Kavanaugh took part in high school
gang rapes just as Kavanaugh was defending himself against a separate, uncorroborated claim. Avenatti connected NBC
News with an anonymous woman he claimed could corroborate Swetnick's allegations, but instead accused the lawyer of
"twisting" her words. Still, NBC went with Swetnick's story without disclosing the exculpatory reporting.
On Thursday, nearly three weeks after Kavanaugh's confirmation, NBC News published an article headlined, “New questions
raised about Avenatti claims regarding Kavanaugh,” that detailed "inconsistencies" with Swetnick’s claims. In the article, NBC
News admitted the unidentified woman repudiated the sworn statement Avenatti provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee
on her behalf to corroborate Swetnick's claims.
“Reached by phone independently from Avenatti on Oct. 3, the woman said she only ‘skimmed’ the declaration. After reviewing
the statement, she wrote in a text on Oct. 4 to NBC News: ‘It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn't see anyone
spike the punch...I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one,’” NBC News reporters Kate Snow and Anna Schecter
wrote on Thursday.
"I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence. Male or female,” the woman told NBC when pressed about
Avenatti and his client’s claims, according to NBC’s report.
NBC’s latest story also noted that Avenatti attempted to “thwart the reporting process” and the woman changed her mind
several times before eventually texting the network a final time.
“I will definitely talk to you again and no longer Avenatti. I do not like that he twisted my words,” she wrote.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/nbc-news-raises-eyebrows-by-sitting-on-info-that-contradicted-michael-avenatti-client
This more than answers why Swetnick appeared in the MSNBC interview alone, unlike Stormy Daniels who always had CPL with her. Obviously, CPL thinks "representing his client" somehow includes "making up stuff for his client to say."
-
Was she the accuser who claimed she was raped and that rapes happen all the time at these parties, but still goes to them all the time?
-
Was she the accuser who claimed she was raped and that rapes happen all the time at these parties, but still goes to them all the time?
Which version are you talking about? ???
Swetnick was the gang rape "victim" who went to approximately 10 such parties, but only stopped going after she, herself, was allegedly raped.
She is also the same one who later in life accused a co-worker of sexual misconduct. Her lawsuit was thrown out after it was proven not only were her claims false, but she, in fact, was the one making inappropriate sexual comments and making co-workers uncomfortable.
-
So fords getting multiple book offers for about $1mil.
Wonder whats gonna be in the book when the only thing she can remember is having 1 beer.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
So fords getting multiple book offers for about $1mil.
Wonder whats gonna be in the book when the only thing she can remember is having 1 beer.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Well, at least we know one appropriate title is already taken:
(https://i.imgur.com/bVC1vB7.png?1)
-
So 1 acussor now saying she wasnt raped by kav. Glad we have due proccess even though liberals dont like it.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
For those so inclined to venture into the weeds...
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/11/04/senate-judiciary-committee-releases-414-page-kavanaugh-report-investigators-continue-review-of-former-fbi-agent-monica-lee-mclean-involvement/
Senate Judiciary Committee Releases 414-Page Kavanaugh Report – Investigators Continue Review of Former FBI Agent Monica Lee McLean Involvement…
The Senate Judiciary Committee has released a lengthy report (full pdf below) containing the investigative material from the senate investigation of the Kavanaugh accusations.
On page #27 of the report the senate committee notes their intent to continue investigating the role of retired FBI Agent Monica Lee McLean, who appears to have been ‘handling‘ accuser and best friend, Christine Blasey-Ford:
(https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/senate-judiciary-committee-monica-mclean.jpg?w=640&h=290)
-
For those so inclined to venture into the weeds...
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/11/04/senate-judiciary-committee-releases-414-page-kavanaugh-report-investigators-continue-review-of-former-fbi-agent-monica-lee-mclean-involvement/
Senate Judiciary Committee Releases 414-Page Kavanaugh Report – Investigators Continue Review of Former FBI Agent Monica Lee McLean Involvement…
The Senate Judiciary Committee has released a lengthy report (full pdf below) containing the investigative material from the senate investigation of the Kavanaugh accusations.
On page #27 of the report the senate committee notes their intent to continue investigating the role of retired FBI Agent Monica Lee McLean, who appears to have been ‘handling‘ accuser and best friend, Christine Blasey-Ford:
(https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/senate-judiciary-committee-monica-mclean.jpg?w=640&h=290)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kavanaugh-reports-biggest-bombshells-grassley-probe-reveals-details-behind-mistaken-identity-claims-more/ar-BBPnxwZ?ocid=spartanntp