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?   

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.   

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.

What relief!!  After all these partisan battles over Kavanaugh, we can finally get a non-partisan, apolitical perspective on this situation ....

... from the FBI.   

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?

They (dems) said 1 week....in front of the entire country.
Would they lie?

Does a bear shit in the woods?