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/

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

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! 

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! 

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...   

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...   

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. 

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)

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.

Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser says she is not prepared to testify on Monday.

So, 35 years wasn’t enough time to prepare?   

She now says she mught be wrong.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

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.

Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser says she is not prepared to testify on Monday.

So, 35 years wasn’t enough time to prepare?   

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/