Allegations throw Kavanaugh confirmation into turmoil (Liars!!!)

Source: The Hill
Published: Sep 17, 2018
Author: Jordain Carney
Post Date: 2018-09-17 08:45:00 by IbJensen
Views: 3531

Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination was plunged into chaos after a woman accusing him of sexual assault spoke publicly for the first time about the allegation on Sunday.

The fallout from the decades-old allegation is putting a spotlight on Senate Republicans, who must decide if they want to rush forward with Kavanaugh’s nomination with questions lingering over the Senate’s debate and vote.

Republicans have been confident for months that Kavanaugh would be confirmed by October, when the court starts its next term. But they are under intense pressure to delay a vote after Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, told The Washington Post that in high school in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed at a party and forced himself on her.

Ford told the Post that Kavanaugh "groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it."

Kavanaugh has denied the allegations.

Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans quickly defended Kavanaugh, noting he had undergone multiple FBI background checks, and questioned the timing of the allegations.

Taylor Foy, a spokesman for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), released a lengthy statement after the Post published its interview with Ford saying it was “disturbing” that the “uncorroborated allegations from more than 35 years ago, during high school, would surface on the eve of the committee vote.”

“It raises a lot of questions about Democrats’ tactics and motives to bring this to the rest of the committee’s attention only now rather than during these many steps along the way. Senator Feinstein should publicly release the letter she received back in July so that everyone can know what she’s known for weeks,” he added.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — who could become Judiciary Committee chairman next year — said that he aligned himself with the statement “about the substance and process regarding the allegations in this latest claim.”

Graham became the first Republican to open the door to a hearing from Ford, saying he would “gladly listen to what she has to say and compare that against all other information we have received about Judge Kavanaugh.”

But he caveated that the testimony should happen within the current timeline for confirming Kavanaugh, “so the process can continue as scheduled.”

And Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), another member of the Judiciary Committee, said on Sunday he believes the panel shouldn’t vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination until they’ve had time to dig into the allegation.

“For me, we can’t vote until we hear more,” Flake told the Post.

A spokeswoman for Flake didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. But if the committee tried to move forward on Thursday and Flake joined all Democrats in voting "no," that would leave the panel in a tie.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has a vote scheduled on Kavanaugh’s nomination on Thursday at 1:45 p.m. Republicans hold a majority on the committee, meaning if they stick together he could clear the panel this week.

In a move that could help stave off GOP defections, and keep Kavanaugh’s nomination on schedule, Grassley is working to set up calls before Thursday’s vote with both Kavanaugh and Ford.

“Given the late addendum to the background file and revelations of Dr. Ford’s identity, Chairman Grassley is actively working to set up ... follow-up calls with Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford ahead of Thursday’s scheduled vote,” a spokesman for the Judiciary Committee said on Sunday.

Republican leadership showed no intention of slowing down their plan to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by the end of the month. If confirmed, he would give the party a major victory less than two months before the midterm election and is expected to help tilt the court to the right for decades.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) declined to comment on Sunday, but the tightlipped GOP leader has not signaled that the sexual assault allegations have changed his mind about confirming Kavanaugh before October.

But even as Republican leadership is indicating they want to move forward with Kavanaugh, his nomination remains short of the 50 votes needed to be confirmed.

The caucus’s two potential swing votes — GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine) — have yet to say how they will vote or if they want to delay the vote in the wake of the allegations, which first surfaced late last week when Senate Democrats said they had given a letter detailing the alleged incident to the FBI.

Spokespeople for both senators didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Sunday. Collins had a one-hour phone call with Kavanaugh on Friday that was previously scheduled.

"Well I obviously was very surprised and it's, it's an issue that I brought up with him last Friday and he denied as he did in his written statement,” she told CNN on Sunday, declining to comment further.

The two senators are under a mountain of pressure by liberal activists and outside groups to oppose Kavanaugh in the wake of the sexual assault allegation. The two were already considered potential swing votes because they’ve previously broken with their party on ObamaCare repeal and abortion- related legislation.

Democrats would need to win over two Republican senators if they want to block Kavanaugh’s nomination. And the caucus began to break its days-long silence over the assault allegations on Sunday to unify behind a call for Kavanaugh’s vote to be delayed.

"Senator Grassley must postpone the vote until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated. For too long, when woman have made serious allegations of abuse, they have been ignored. That cannot happen in this case," Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D- N.Y.) said in a statement on Sunday.

Democrats are widely expected to oppose Kavanaugh’s nomination, but the sexual assault allegation comes as several red- and purple-state senators up for reelection remain on the fence.

Sens. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.) previously voted for Neil Gorsuch, President Trump’s first Supreme Court pick, and were widely seen as potential "yes" votes for Kavanaugh.

But the three are facing renewed pressure from progressives who believe Kavanaugh’s nomination should be withdrawn, or that senators should block him, after the sexual assault allegation. Progressives warn that voting for Kavanaugh would backfire for incumbent senators by angering base voters they need to turn out to win their tight elections.

“We believe Christine Blasey Ford and so should every U.S Senator,” Demand Justice, a progressive group that opposes Kavanaugh, said shortly after The Washington Post published its story on Sunday.

Shaunna Thomas, executive director and co-founder of UltraViolet, said on Sunday that all senators must give the allegations the “seriousness that it deserves.”

“Ford’s accusations against Brett Kavanaugh are deeply troubling and totally disqualifying. Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination immediately. Violence against women should have no place in our society and it certainly should have no place on the highest court in the nation.”

Heitkamp, Manchin and Donnelly, who aren’t on the Judiciary Committee, didn’t immediately echo their colleagues on Sunday to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Spokespeople for the three moderate senators didn’t respond to a request for comment.

It was a break from fellow red-state Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.), who said on Twitter on Sunday that the Senate should hit “pause” on Kavanaugh’s nomination.

"It is more important than ever to hit the pause button on Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote until we can fully investigate these serious and disturbing allegations. We cannot rush to move forward under this cloud," Jones, who is not a member of the committee, said in a tweet.

The allegations sparked criticism from the conservative Judicial Crisis Network. "Judge Kavanaugh is admired in his church, in his community, and in his profession. Throughout his distinguished career in public service, he has undergone half a dozen FBI background checks, and never a whisper of misconduct. Until the eve of his confirmation," the group said.

"It doesn't add up. But what does add up is that Democrats are doubling down on a strategy of character assassination, seeking to destroy the life of a distinguished public servant for the sake of appeasing their base."

Donald Trump Jr. mocked Democrats on Instagram by posting a photo of a note that asks, in childlike handwriting, "hi Cindy will you be my girlfriend," with boxes for checking yes or no.

"Oh boy... the Dems and their usual nonsense games really have him on the ropes now," Trump Jr. added.

Poster Comment:

This latest liberal slander is no more than than a rally cry of resistance for the leftists radicals in hopes of fooling the terminally gullible. They would have pulled a despicable stunt like this no matter who Trump nominated for the Supreme Court. No doubt the trolls are out promoting this nonsense. It is pointless to debate with them, as they consistently fail to engage in honest dialogue. They must be defeated. Given recent events, the term "McCarthyism" should no longer be used; "Democratism" is more appropriate and my guess is that Diane Feinsten's disgraceful performance will cause her to lose her senate seat to an even worse Democrat.

Boys will be boys. Obama claimed he 'pushed his girlfriend', probably when she found out he liked boys best. Clinton has been ''raping' girls since he was a toddler.

And of course the bed-wetting NeverTrumper Jeff Flake is giving this made up story some legs. As if it wasn't already obvious that these NeverTrumpers are aligned with Democrats.

Feinstein quite possibly might be the most corrupt politician in America, which is saying a lot. If the Chinese government controlled her and the Democrats, they could not improve upon the amazing job Feinstein and the Democrats are doing to subvert the Constitution. Her and her husband have made MILLIONS off govt contracts over the years!

And the little Chinese spy on her payroll collecting all that government information for years.

Post Comment   Private Reply

#1: misterwhite    To: IbJensen (#0)

And Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) ... said on Sunday he believes the panel shouldn’t vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination until they’ve had time to dig into the allegation.

Take that up with accuser and Feinstein. They could have released this information months ago, giving the panel ample time to dig into it.

Had they wanted the panel to dig into it.

misterwhite posted on 2018-09-17 09:30:58   Reply   Private Reply

#2: misterwhite    To: IbJensen (#0)

Shaunna Thomas, executive director and co-founder of UltraViolet, said on Sunday that all senators must give the allegations the “seriousness that it deserves.”

They are. It's the accuser who is not being serious, bringing up a 35-year-old high school groping incident at the last minute.

misterwhite posted on 2018-09-17 09:35:06   Reply   Private Reply

#3: IbJensen    To: misterwhite (#2)

Stinks to high heaven! She's a Californicate professor now, a Hitlery lover, a feminist who wants killing babies to be the law of the land forever....at least until the Second Coming at which time she and her fellow butchers will take the express elevator to the basement.

IbJensen posted on 2018-09-17 10:12:47   Reply   Private Reply

#4: IbJensen    To: misterwhite (#1)

Digging into something 35 years old should leave the doors open to dig very deeply into the backgrounds of all Congressional Democrat-Communists and then air it broadly!

IbJensen posted on 2018-09-17 10:14:19   Reply   Private Reply

#5: Liberator    To: IbJensen (#0)

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), another member of the Judiciary Committee, said on Sunday he believes the panel shouldn’t vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination until they’ve had time to dig into the allegation.

“For me, we can’t vote until we hear more,” Flake told the Post.

Jeff Flake is lower than a viper's belly. ("Those who smelt it, dealt it")

Let's dig deep into Jeff Flake's past (or any OTHER member of this committee).

With 110% certainty investigators will find a treasure trove of graft, bribery, selling out US/local interest, obstruction of justice, treason, sedition, "touching minors", adultery, conspiracy to commit fraud, ETC.

Apply the SAME standards of morality and ethics toward serving on that Judiciary Panel.

Liberator posted on 2018-09-17 13:25:37   Reply   Private Reply

#6: Liberator    To: IbJensen (#0)

Feinstein quite possibly might be the most corrupt politician in America, which is saying a lot.

...Feinstein and the Democrats are ...subvert[ing] the Constitution. Her and her husband have made MILLIONS off govt contracts over the years!

And the little Chinese spy on her payroll collecting all that government information for years.

Great point!

While Feinstein is STILL committing serial treason, selling out America and using her Senate seat to run a profiteering racket that would make the Mafia blush, crickets are heard from Jeff Flake, the GOP, and MSM.

MEANWHILE, Judge Kavanaugh has been slandered and libeled by Feinstein and the MSM for a fake and phony charge of a dating impropriety (as a minor) 35 years ago....and here are the Democrats/MSM demand "JUSTICE!!"??

What a pathologically lying, corrupt cluster**** of a government the Clinton/0bama-led Democrats and MSM have mainstreamed!

If not for the courage and perseverance of Donald-the-Lionhearted (and those conservatives in Congress), America and the world would NEVER have known the disturbingly audacious extent and degree of corruption and sabotage of the US and our Constitution!

Liberator posted on 2018-09-17 13:39:56   Reply   Private Reply

#7: Hondo68    To: IbJensen, Jesuit swamp critters (#0)

Don't be distracted by idiotic story of a high school prank. It's Feinstein & Ginsberg's trick to get Jesuit Kavanaugh confirmed by ignoring Swampy's long career as a DC radical leftist "fixer" for the Clinton Bush administration, aka the D&R party.

Don't be a Ruth Bader Ginsberg tool, reject Judge Swampy, Hillary's bag man, after she shot Vince Foster and Kavi covered it up.

Deep Swamp, endorsed by Queen Elizabeth, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Jesuit Pope Francis, and Dubya

Hondo68 posted on 2018-09-17 13:50:13   Reply   Private Reply

#8: Vicomte13    To: IbJensen (#0)

Pretty simple: Republicans have the power. Disregard the Democrat request, proceed with the vote, put him on the court.

It's simply a matter of raw power.

Vicomte13 posted on 2018-09-17 15:39:34   Reply   Private Reply

#9: Vicomte13    To: hondo68 (#7)

Jesuit Kavanaugh

I didn't realize that Kavanaugh was an unmarried man who has taken holy orders, which is what a Jesuit is.

Do simply mean he's a Catholic? But that's a good thing, a plus.

Vicomte13 posted on 2018-09-17 15:41:33   Reply   Private Reply

#10: Hondo68    To: Vicomte13 (#9)

Governor Jerry Moonbeam Brown at the Jesuit Seminary, but he's not a Jesuit. Ya right...

He's not just your average Catholic, he's got numerous Jesuit ties which we've gone over before. You choose to pretend that he's just Joe Sixpack because he's not officially on the Jesuit roster.

Dream on.

Hondo68 posted on 2018-09-17 16:46:40   Reply   Private Reply

#11: IbJensen    To: Liberator (#6)

What a pathologically lying, corrupt cluster**** of a government the Clinton/0bama-led Democrats and MSM have mainstreamed!

You've nailed it!!!!!!!!!!!

IbJensen posted on 2018-09-17 21:56:37   Reply   Private Reply

#12: IbJensen    To: Liberator (#5)

I believe the past of ALL elected Democrats should be thoroughly investigated and published.

IbJensen posted on 2018-09-17 21:57:40   Reply   Private Reply

#13: nolu chan    To: Liberator, IBJensen (#6)

Republicans have been confident for months that Kavanaugh would be confirmed by October, when the court starts its next term. But they are under intense pressure to delay a vote after Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, told The Washington Post that in high school in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed at a party and forced himself on her.

Ford told the Post that Kavanaugh "groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it."

WHAT Blasey Ford CANNOT REMEMBER:

  • What year the alleged incident occurred.

  • Who invited her to the alleged gathering.

  • Whose house she was in.

  • Where the house was.

  • How she got to the house.

  • How she got back home from the house.

  • Who was at the house besides Kavanaugh and Judge.

While Blasey Ford allegedly wanted anonymity and to not become a part of the story like Anita Hill, she allegedly took a polygraph examination in August before her identity was known — for what purpose? How could an anonymous polygraph result support anonymous allegations?

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/15/us/testing-president-overview-experts-say-suit-against-president-faces-big-hurdles.html

Archives | 1998

TESTING OF A PRESIDENT: THE OVERVIEW; EXPERTS SAY SUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT FACES BIG HURDLES

By NEIL A. LEWIS

[EXCERPT]

Lawyers for President Clinton, who has denied Ms. Jones's account of what happened at the Excelsior Hotel seven years ago, have pitched a more constricted argument: Even if he did proposition her on that single occasion, and even if he did so as crudely as she has described, she has no legal claim under sexual harassment law. She simply has not shown convincing evidence that she suffered harm in her career or even that she was particularly upset, the President's lawyers have argued.

That view is echoed by Debra S. Katz, a Washington lawyer who specializes in sexual harassment lawsuits. Although Ms. Katz said that she typically represents plaintiffs, she believed that Ms. Jones's case is anemic to the point that most judges would readily dismiss such a claim if it were not against the President of the United States.

''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,'' Ms. Katz said, ''I would probably tell her that I'm sorry, it's unfair, but you don't have a case.''

Ms. 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,'' she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/18/kavanaugh-accuser-has-not-yet-accepted-invitation-to-testify-before-congress.html

Grassley suggests last-minute Kavanaugh hearing could be canceled if accuser doesn’t accept invite

By Alex Pappas | Fox News

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Tuesday raised the possibility that next week’s high-stakes open hearing to examine the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could be canceled if the accuser doesn’t accept the committee’s invitation.

Grassley, R-Iowa, scheduled a hearing for Monday for Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford to answer questions from senators about the allegation. But Grassley said during a Tuesday radio interview that his office has reached out several times to Ford and her attorneys to discuss her allegation, but has heard nothing back.

“We have reached out to her in the last 36 hours three or four times by email and we have not heard from them, and it kind of raises the question, do they want to come to the public hearing or not?” Grassley said on The Hugh Hewitt Show.

Asked whether there would be a hearing if Ford did not agree to appear, Grassley suggested he couldn’t see a reason to hold one.

“What would be the purpose of the hearing if Dr. Ford doesn’t want to respond?” Grassley said.

[...]

nolu chan posted on 2018-09-18 13:04:54   Reply   Private Reply

#14: Liberator    To: nolu chan (#13)

While Blasey Ford allegedly wanted anonymity and to not become a part of the story like Anita Hill, she allegedly took a polygraph examination in August before her identity was known — for what purpose?

How could an anonymous polygraph result support anonymous allegations?

Great point. Good stuff.

Grassley said during a Tuesday radio interview that his office has reached out several times to Ford and her attorneys to discuss her allegation, but has heard nothing back...“What would be the purpose of the hearing if Dr. Ford doesn’t want to respond?” Grassley said.

At first this was the case. But...hasn't the Hoaxer/Ford now agreed to meet with the panel behind closed doors? Or am I erroneous?

IMO this entire Ford filthy-trick and charade is designed by the Democrat-Marxist cabal simply to intimidate future SCOTUS candidates as well as Republican candidates from running for higher office.

"BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY".

Democrats have ZERO moral and ethics so for them, institutional lying and hate is a default standard position. The MSM -- possessing the very same lack of morals and ethics, provide them cover.

OTOH, because Pubbies/conservatives DO have standards of morality and ethics, they will not and do NOT resort to lies, cheating, slander, and destroying reps in the name of power.

Liberator posted on 2018-09-18 13:16:52   Reply   Private Reply

#15: Liberator    To: IbJensen (#12)

I believe the past of ALL elected Democrats should be thoroughly investigated and published.

If even a cursory investigation was conducted, EVERY Dem's closet would be full of nasty revelations.

Liberator posted on 2018-09-18 13:19:01   Reply   Private Reply

#16: nolu chan    To: Liberator (#14)

Grassley said during a Tuesday radio interview that his office has reached out several times to Ford and her attorneys to discuss her allegation, but has heard nothing back...“What would be the purpose of the hearing if Dr. Ford doesn’t want to respond?” Grassley said.

At first this was the case. But...hasn't the Hoaxer/Ford now agreed to meet with the panel behind closed doors? Or am I erroneous?

Grassley's comments are from today in an interview with Hugh Hewitt.

Yesterday it was reported that the hearing was scheduled and and there was some breathless reporting that Kavanaugh and Ford would appear. Kavanaugh and Ford were invited/scheduled to appear, but it seems Ford has not responded to the invitation.

nolu chan posted on 2018-09-18 14:18:43   Reply   Private Reply

#17: misterwhite    To: IbJensen (#0)

According to her story there were 6 people at this party -- 4 boys and 2 girls. Who was the other girl and the other 2 boys?

Won't the committee want to talk with them also?

misterwhite posted on 2018-09-18 15:10:21   Reply   Private Reply

#18: Fred Mertz    To: misterwhite (#17)

I understand she doesn't remember exactly when and where this happened. That doesn't sound good for her allegations. She will likely get skewered if there is a hearing for this.

She may be telling the truth as she remembers it. I don't know.

Kavanaugh seems like a choir boy nomination to me. I feel bad for him and his family.

I think back to when I was 17 years young and remember timelines and major events, but the other stuff is kind of blurry. I'd have to pull out my HS transcript to tell you what classes I took and who taught them when I was 17. I kinda wonder if my memory is normal.

I attended some HS graduation parties and have vague recollections of them. Yes, we were drinking beer at them.

Fred Mertz posted on 2018-09-18 15:26:42   Reply   Private Reply

#19: misterwhite    To: Fred Mertz (#18)

She may be telling the truth as she remembers it.

Well, it was 35 years ago and the incident wasn't all that memorable to begin with -- some groping at a party?

"I feel bad for him and his family."

Yeah, me too. Just as I felt bad for Clarence Thomas. He'll always have that little mental asterisk next to his name when I hear it.

misterwhite posted on 2018-09-18 16:23:39   Reply   Private Reply

#20: IbJensen    To: misterwhite (#17)

Won't the committee want to talk with them also?

Republicrats are afraid of their own shadows. They need to rear up and remind the communists who the hell is supposed to be in charge here!

IbJensen posted on 2018-09-18 17:00:38   Reply   Private Reply

#21: nolu chan    To: misterwhite, Fred Mertz (#19)

Yeah, me too. Just as I felt bad for Clarence Thomas. He'll always have that little mental asterisk next to his name when I hear it.

Quite an asterisk. From today:

https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/09/18/abc-news-chief-political-analyst-matthew-dowd-alleges-clarence-thomas-is-a-sexual-predator/

ABC News Chief Political Analyst Matthew Dowd Alleges Clarence Thomas Is a ‘Sexual Predator’

John Nolte
Breitbart
18 Sep 2018

Matthew Dowd, the chief political analyst for ABC News, smeared Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas with a “sexual predator” allegation on Monday.

Doing his part to derail Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, Dowd tweeted that America already has one “sexual predator” on the Supreme Court — meaning Thomas.

“It was despicable and outrageous what happened to Anita Hill more than 25 years ago, and a sexual predator was given a lifetime seat on the SC,” Dowd wrote. “Let’s hope history doesn’t repeat itself in 2018.”

After five decades of public service, only one accuser has every come forward against Thomas, and that was Anita Hill, whose unproven allegations involved only harassment — nothing reaching the level of a sexual predator.

Nevertheless, at the time, Thomas was confirmed, primarily because most of the public did not find Hill credible after learning she followed Thomas from job to job despite the alleged harassment.

[snip]

nolu chan posted on 2018-09-18 17:30:07   Reply   Private Reply

#22: misterwhite    To: nolu chan (#21)

What a jerk.

misterwhite posted on 2018-09-18 18:08:17   Reply   Private Reply

#23: nolu chan    To: Liberator, IBJensen (#14)

Here is some stuff from twitter that is echoing about the net.

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1042156415169769472

Chad Pergram
@ChadPergram

From colleague Connor Marley. Feinstein on Ford. Says Ford "is a woman that has been, I think, profoundly impacted, on this..I can't say that everything is truthful. I don't know."

2:00 PM - 18 Sep 2018

Chad Pergram is a Fox News reporter.

https://twitter.com/therealcornett/status/1042095258945900545

Josh Cornett
@therealcornett
3h

BREAKING: According to sources Diane Feinstein's reluctance to mention the Kavanaugh accuser's letter during confirmation session is because the accuser sent a similiar letter directed at Judge Gorsuch last year. The whereabouts of the earlier letter remain a mystery.developing

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Josh Cornett
@therealcornett
3h

I was literally forwarded this information 50 minutes ago. Is it true? I have no idea..but the MSM are reporting the Kavanaugh accuser's claim with absolutely zero evidence. So let's report this story too? I will say that my source has been very accurate in the past. Let's see!

nolu chan posted on 2018-09-18 19:35:42   Reply   Private Reply

#24: Hondo68    To: nolu chan (#23)

my source has been very accurate in the past. Let's see!

Neo-conned again by *JJ Swamp.

Another "anonymous" CNN tipster?

You Bernie Bros are pulling out all of the stops to get Ruth Bader Ginssberg's pick, *Jesuit Judge Swap confirmed.

Hondo68 posted on 2018-09-18 20:18:03   Reply   Private Reply

#25: nolu chan    To: hondo68, Liberator, IBJensen (#24)

You Bernie Bros are pulling out all of the stops to get Ruth Bader Ginssberg's pick, *Jesuit Judge Swap confirmed.

Now Christine Blasey Ford's by her attorneys wants a full FBI investigation before appearing. The FBI has never investigated alleged crimes which cannot prosecuted. The FBI also lacks jurisdiction to investigate non-federal crimes.

The blatant purpose of delay, delay, delay becomes ever more obvious with this farce. Ford is never going to appear.

As the Judiciary Committee has recognized and done before, an FBI investigation of the incident should be the first step in addressing her allegations. A full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions.

Ltr of Christine Blasey Ford attorneys to Sen Grassley (18 Sep 2018) re FBI investigation

https://www.scribd.com/document/388942511/Ltr-of-Christine-Blasey-Ford-Attorneys-to-Sen-Grassley-18-Sep-2018-Re-FBI-Investigation

nolu chan posted on 2018-09-18 21:20:33   Reply   Private Reply

#26: IbJensen    To: nolu chan (#25)

Questions to ask the poor little victim:

What made you think about this alleged attack? Was it a telephone call from a Democratic operative that jogged this ancient memory?

When did this happen? Date? Time?

Did you make a written account at the time>

Who went with you to the party? Names? Contact information?

What time did you arrive back home? Were you greeted by your parents?

Who did you vote for in the last presidential election? Do you know her?

What political activities have you engaged in over the past 35 years?

Has this sort of abuse happened to you before?

By whom? What date? Who was with you that can verify?

Were you a virgin through high school? If not when did you lose your virginity? To whom? How many times did you engaged in sexual activities? width whom?

IbJensen posted on 2018-09-19 08:30:37   Reply   Private Reply

#27: misterwhite    To: nolu chan (#25)

She was groped 35 years ago and now wants the FBI to investigate it? What federal crime are they supposed to be investigating?

I suggest calling up any newspaper and give them the details about the time and place and who was there, and they'd be happy deliriously overjoyed to investigate it AND splash their findings all over the front page.

Hmmm. But maybe you don't want that, huh?

misterwhite posted on 2018-09-19 11:01:29   Reply   Private Reply

#28: misterwhite    To: nolu chan (#25)

The blatant purpose of delay, delay, delay becomes ever more obvious with this farce. Ford is never going to appear.

That's the thing. The delay would almost be worth it if, at the end, she appeared in front of the committee on national television. But there's no guarantee she would.

Actually, it's becoming increasingly obvious she'll never appear and testify under oath under any condition.

misterwhite posted on 2018-09-19 11:04:44   Reply   Private Reply

#29: Liberator    To: nolu chan (#23)

According to sources Diane Feinstein's reluctance to mention the Kavanaugh accuser's letter during confirmation session is because the accuser sent a similiar letter directed at Judge Gorsuch last year.

The whereabouts of the earlier letter remain a mystery. developing

Let's try and understand this latest Dem stunt:

The one and only "witness"/aka usual Dem fake accuser/smearer sponsored, submitted to committee (at 11:59:59 no less) wants the FBI to investigate BEFORE she testifies that Kavanaugh is some kind of "Monster"?? This sh*t MUST stop. Humoring insane people merely legitimizes ANY insane lie and encourages them.

Said "Witness"/Designated-Smearer is a p*ssy-hat wearing, Feminazi "professor" whose "repressed memory" has suddenly been jogged 35years later (incident and details even SHE claims are hazy at best).

She is also busted for having an agenda, sending a similar letter directed at Neil Gorsuch as well? (an earlier submission of this bulls*** would have been dismissed pronto -- THIS BS was obviously calculated for maximum effect at the 11th hour.)

Q: WHO PILFERED THAT LETTER?? Q2: Why do Dems ALWAYS get away with stealing/hiding evidence with impunity??

THAT is the best the Dems have??

...The MSM are reporting the Kavanaugh accuser's claim with absolutely zero evidence. So let's report this story too? I will say that my source has been very accurate in the past. Let's see!

Yes, indeed.

Btw -- What's the legal recourse for this latest framing and smearing of reputation by Democrats? Will Democrats be allowed to make a mockery of justice, the process and any and all semblance of of ethics??

Liberator posted on 2018-09-19 12:56:24   Reply   Private Reply

#30: Liberator    To: nolu chan (#25)

Now Christine Blasey Ford's by her attorneys wants a full FBI investigation before appearing. The FBI has never investigated alleged crimes which cannot prosecuted. The FBI also lacks jurisdiction to investigate non-federal crimes.

The blatant purpose of delay, delay, delay becomes ever more obvious with this farce. Ford is never going to appear.

Of course it's nothing but a farce. Dems operate in a vacuum of lies and absurdity ad Infinitum...

They depend solely on their MSM/Social Media Ministry of Propaganda as their Armor and Big Guns to mis-inform, disinform, float rumors and innuendo, and viciously smear and slander.

Making a mockery of justice, the process and creating pandemics among the social media pods is their goal. As "The Resistance", their MO is simply to toss another yuge p*ssy-earred tantrum and hope Pubbies balls contract into their pseudo-sacks and back down. I am sick of IT and their supporters/lunatic brigade.

Liberator posted on 2018-09-19 13:17:20   Reply   Private Reply

#31: nolu chan    To: Liberator (#29)

[Josh Cornett] According to sources Diane Feinstein's reluctance to mention the Kavanaugh accuser's letter during confirmation session is because the accuser sent a similiar letter directed at Judge Gorsuch last year. The whereabouts of the earlier letter remain a mystery.developing

This is without evidence or verification beyond an unnamed source who may, or may not, exist.

[Josh Cornett] Is it true? I have no idea..but the MSM are reporting the Kavanaugh accuser's claim with absolutely zero evidence. So let's report this story too? I will say that my source has been very accurate in the past.

Other sources have suggested that Blasey Ford originally came up with her grand plan in 2012 before Romney crashed and burned. Back then, Kavanaugh was purportedly on Romney's short list. The speculation is that the counseling session of 2012 was part of a plan to attack Kavanaugh, had Romney won.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/30/politics/court-romney-list/index.html

Supreme Court possibilities if Romney wins election

By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer

Updated 12:33 PM ET, Tue October 2, 2012

Here is an unofficial list of potential nominees for the Supreme Court if Mitt Romney is elected president in November.

[...]

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit

Born 1965. Began his job May 2006 in a court that has seen several of its former members make the jump to the Supreme Court. A former top official in the George W. Bush White House. His nomination to a federal appeals court for the D.C. circuit was held up for three years by Democrats. Senators Patrick Leahy and Richard Durbin later accused Kavanaugh of misleading the Judiciary Committee during his confirmation over whether he helped formulate policy on the detention and questioning of accused terrorists held overseas by the U.S. military. He is relatively young and considered one of the brightest conservative legal minds. He co-authored the Starr Report investigation of President Bill Clinton and clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy and conservative appeals court Judge Alex Kozinski.

[...]

nolu chan posted on 2018-09-19 18:20:21   Reply   Private Reply

#32: nolu chan    To: misterwhite (#22)

What a jerk.

Here is today's jerk of the day. These jerks just repeat their crap until it becomes internet "fact." I guess Anita Hill was assaulted by an alleged pubic hear on a coke can.

https://twitter.com/chelseahandler/status/1042801332636114945

Chelsea Handler
@chelseahandler
3h3 hours ago

One known sexual predator on the Supreme Court isn’t enough for Republicans. They want two. The president bragging about sexual assault isn’t an issue for them either. They have no regard for women. No regard for their daughters or wives.

nolu chan posted on 2018-09-20 14:41:11   Reply   Private Reply

#33: misterwhite    To: nolu chan (#32)

The president bragging about sexual assault ...

It's not sexual assault if the immoral slut lets you. They even have a name for them -- starfuckers.

By the way, Clarence Thomas was confirmed because the Senate didn't believe Anita Hill. Not when she followed this "sexual predator" from job to job.

Christine Blasey Ford deserves to lose her teaching position, and I hope her lies destroy the #metoo movement.

misterwhite posted on 2018-09-20 15:09:27   Reply   Private Reply

#34: misterwhite    To: nolu chan (#32)

"Handler said she wouldn’t return for another season of her eponymous Netflix talk show. Handler, 43, said in a statement ... she would devote more of her time to political organizing and activism.

Donald Trump, Jr. tweeted: "I’d say stick to comedy but you weren’t funny enough to avoid cancellation of your Netflix show. Stay away from politics — no reason to suck at two things."

misterwhite posted on 2018-09-20 15:15:21   Reply   Private Reply

#35: CZ82    To: misterwhite (#33)

Christine Blasey Ford deserves to lose her teaching position, and I hope her lies destroy the #metoo movement.

I wonder how many other women will magically appear out of the closet to back up her story between now and Monday even though they have no 1st hand knowledge of the "supposed" event??

CZ82 posted on 2018-09-20 16:50:37   Reply   Private Reply

#36: CZ82    To: misterwhite (#34)

Handler said she wouldn’t return for another season of her eponymous Netflix talk show. Handler, 43, said in a statement ... she would devote more of her time to political organizing and activism.

I just love it when they come out and announce to the whole world "If you think I'm a dumbass now just wait you ain't seen nothing yet"..

CZ82 posted on 2018-09-20 16:57:42   Reply   Private Reply

#37: CZ82    To: nolu chan (#32)

One known sexual predator on the Supreme Court isn’t enough for Republicans. They want two. The president bragging about sexual assault isn’t an issue for them either. They have no regard for women. No regard for their daughters or wives.

That's just a set up for if/when another Roe vs Wade case ever makes it to SCOTUS.

CZ82 posted on 2018-09-20 17:03:33   Reply   Private Reply