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 ******* *******.



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."

....
 

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/

grasping at straws

grasping at straws

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  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.

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.

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

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

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.