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? 

 

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? 

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.   

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".    

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.   

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?    

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.   

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/26/republicans-stand-by-kavanaugh-fire-back-at-avenatti-as-new-allegations-jolt-court-bid.html