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."

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? 

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? 

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.

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!!

 

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.

 

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!!

 

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. 

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 

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 

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.