According to three sources... a former West Wing official... According to sources... Two sources told me the White House has heard rumors

Anonymous, of course.

Which Democrat has "gone to the mat" for this lying bitch? Name one Democrat who has said "I believe her".

This murdering cunt right here

Sen. Hirono: Men Need To "Shut Up," Kavanaugh Accuser Needs To Be Believed And I Believe Her

I saw that she received the couples counseling in 2012

Just for the record, I don't believe she mentioned Kavanaugh's name during those sessions.

"Instead, they're actually stalling and CARING about some guy's high school sexual hijinks 34 years ago"

They care about how this will make them look. They could give a FF about some teenage groping incident 35 years ago.

And so should we. But the MSM and the #metoo movement will never allow that.

Sen. Hirono: Men Need To "Shut Up," Kavanaugh Accuser Needs To Be Believed And I Believe Her

She believes the accuser because, well, the accuser said so. Kavanaugh said it didn't happen ... but she doesn't believe him.

Let's say the accuser comes forward and admits she was confused and it was some other guy. Will Sen. Hirono then vote to confirm Kavanaugh?

Let's say the accuser comes forward and admits she was confused and it was some other guy

That's as likely to happen as Kavanaugh saying I didn't do that to her, I did that to Betty Boop.

That's as likely to happen as Kavanaugh saying I didn't do that to her, I did that to Betty Boop.

I think it's dawning on her that she's in waaaay over her head.

Someone miscalculated and told her the Republicans, misogynists all, would try to bury it and go forward with the vote despite the accusation. And that would be that. Then the Democrats would have the excuse they were looking for to vote "no".

I don't think she ever envisioned herself testifying, under oath, on national television, in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But she's been in academia her entire life. She doesn't know the real world.

She may be telling the truth like I said before, but there is no way to prove it.

How can Kavanaugh testify about something that he claims didn't happen? I'll guess he'll make a short statement to that effect and be done with it.

I think she mentioned only two people present at the party by name, Kavanaugh and Judge.

Correct. But according to her there was another girl and two other boys. Where are they? Don't they see the news? Why aren't they stepping forward to either confirm or deny her story?

I'm still confused as to why she said Mark Judge was there. She had to know he'd deny it making it two against one.

How can Kavanaugh testify about something that he claims didn't happen?

Maybe he'll testify he was out of the country that year.

If she provided more more more specifics as to the date and location he could defend himself. But that vagueness along with the passage of 35 years, makes it difficult.

Very unfair to any defendant.

But according to her there was another girl and two other boys. Where are they? Don't they see the news? Why aren't they stepping forward to either confirm or deny her story?

Those are good questions although the other three may have been unaware at the time that there was alleged hanky panky going on in the other room.

Yes, where are they? Well, I'm off to lunch now.

This bitch wrote a similar letter during Judge Gorsich's hearing. It has been covered up, but some honest Congressmen remember it well. So Why not trample over the evil Democraps and vote Kavanaugh in!

Grassley and the GOP actually played this perfectly, and got the best result possible given Feinstein's dirty trick. They demonstrated good faith by delaying the committee vote and offering a chance to tell her story under oath, in public or in private. She has refused. In the minds of most voters, they acted with reasonable fairness.

One last thought, the Pubbies played this one pretty well. Borrowed these comments from another site.

Those are good questions although the other three may have been unaware at the time that there was alleged hanky panky going on in the other room.

True. But they could testify a) there was a party, b) Kavanaugh and Judge were there, and c) they were both very drunk. Given the statements on record by Kavanaugh and Judge, that alone would be damning.

Or they could say there was a party but the two drunk boys were Brett Kavastein and Mark Juggs.

One last thought, the Pubbies played this one pretty well.

They were given lemons and made lemonade. I would have shoved the lemons up Feinstein's ass, but that's me.

There are many good reasons not to confirm Kavanaugh...

Really?

Like exactly WHAT??

Poster Comment (Hondo):

Kavanaugh confirmation before midterms will result in GOP loss of the HOR, he's that bad.

Back it up or STFU.

There are many good reasons not to confirm Kavanaugh...

Really?

Like exactly WHAT??

Like the fact he led the Starr “investigation” into the death of Vince Foster, and concluded against all logic and all the evidence that he killed himself in Fort Marcy Park. You have to be quite a “judge” to support these kinds of impossible official narratives. By anyone’s standards, Kavanaugh proved his establishment mantle in that “investigation” alone.

Kavanaugh, as White House counsel under Bush, also sought to limit compensation under the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund.

Kavanaugh- Another Fake Sideshow

Like the fact he led the Starr “investigation” into the death of Vince Foster, and concluded against all logic and all the evidence that he killed himself in Fort Marcy Park.

You have to be quite a “judge” to support these kinds of impossible official narratives. By anyone’s standards, Kavanaugh proved his establishment mantle in that “investigation” alone.

Is that your party's (D) opinion and quibble?

And btw -- why should I believe you and your alleged "source"? You guys do nothing but lies your azzes off 110% of the time.

Kavanaugh, as White House counsel under Bush, also sought to limit compensation under the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund.

Are you seeking the hangman's noose or electric chair, Madam?

Wanna start making arguments to dismiss YOUR judges over "qualifications"?

START WITH YOUR PARTY'S (D) fake/partisan SCOTUS judges: Bader-Ginsburg, "The Wise Latina," and the other chubby man-hating ACLU/anti-Constitution judge. And don't forget Prog-globalist, Breyer.

They could testify a) there was a party, b) Kavanaugh and Judge were there, and c) they were both very drunk. Given the statements on record by Kavanaugh and Judge, that alone would be damning.

"Damning" in what context??

Teen-age high school kids getting drunk? Big whoop.

This is all bullsh**.

100% of Democrats facing an iota of proper, reasonable scrutiny would all be JAILED.

NONE of this desperate fairy tale "GOTCHA!" and so-called "Litmus Test" by the highly criminal Democrat Party should be humored.

"Damning" in what context??

For starters, Kavanaugh is on record saying he wasn't at that party.

START WITH YOUR PARTY'S (D) fake/partisan SCOTUS judges

Get your facts straight Sparky - I'm not a Democrat.

Partisan politics is Kabuki theater for the rubes.

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth says in the letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, according to CNN. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

Get your facts straight Sparky - I'm not a Democrat.

But...you join them in their fatwa against Trump. And the Bible/gun clingers.

This isn't a fake/Dubya "you're either for us or against us" BS choice; It's real. The Dems are at war. And "freedom" is NOT on their menu.

For starters, Kavanaugh is on record saying he wasn't at that party.

Yes...But here's my point: Even IF he was -- *would* it be "damning" to be drinking at a party as a teenager?

This bizarre standard created out of thin air by Dems (which began with Moore) shouldn't be considered even slightly seriously.

Kavi & Crisco are from the same Jesuit mobster zone, the MD/NJ swamp. Authoritarian goons, aka tyrants. It's a miracle that Judge Napolitano turned out so well, he's old school patriotic American. Gonna busta cap on the tyrants!

Father Rodreguez & the Boys, Team Kavanaugh. (some say that they're not REAL Jesuits)

But...you join them in their fatwa against Trump.

I don't have a fatwa against Trump ass-clown. I disagree with him on completely different reasons than the Dems - but by all means, keep playing that false left-right paradigm card.

You just don't get it Poindexter - one can be critical of Trump and not be a Democrat. I'm just not into the cult of personality like so many of you here seem to be.

I've already stated that he's done some good things.

I think he's an obnoxious clown, a megalomaniacal narcissist, but still - he's better than Hillary.

Speaking of Hillary - when is Trump going to make good on his campaign promise and "LOCK HER UP"?

Oh wait, that's right - he says "she's suffered enough".

How's that "swamp draining" thingie coming along?

This isn't a fake/Dubya "you're either for us or against us" BS choice; It's real.

In your paranoid mind, maybe so.

And "freedom" is NOT on their menu.

Apparently, not on yours either.

If you Trump-ettes had your way, you would silence anyone who isn't totally on board the Trump Train.

I don't mind Trump so much, his childishness and whining aside - it's his genuflecting worshipers like you who are simply over the top with your idolizing the guy.

Kavi & Crisco are from the same Jesuit mobster zone, the MD/NJ swamp. Authoritarian goons, aka tyrants.

Great chart - at one time Luberator would have seen the Trump presidency for what it really is.

Nowdays, he's too busy drinking the kool-aid.

Drain the swamp? When is that going to start?

Yes...But here's my point: Even IF he was -- *would* it be "damning" to be drinking

You're missing the point. He said he wasn't there. If the other three (now 2) say there was a party and he was there, the left will say he's a liar and we can't trust anything he says. He's toast.

But why would he lie about not being there? Too many witnesses. If he was there he could have very easily said he was but he was sober and never left the downstairs.

Kavanaugh confirmation before midterms will result in GOP loss of the HOR, he's that bad. The GOP wing of the party will totally lose the HOR if they confirm *JJ Swamp before the midterm elections. *Jesuit Judge Swamp Now Kavi can go back to picking up Hillary's spent shell casings, and other cover up ops to protect her.

Have you been smoking crack?

Ron Paul and company are doing themselves a big disservice by acting like spoiled rotten children. You are just like the demoncrats in having a tantrum!

I really think you guys are mad that Trump is actually accomplishing everything you wanted by different means and you are not part of it!

No. What she wants is to drag this out for another 2-3 months then refuse to testify under oath.

True. She is never going to appear and never had intent to appear. Let the confirmation proceed after she does not appear. Regardless of any potential mid-term fallout, this appointment could determine the makeup of the court for the next 20 years of so.

Not making the appointment could make the senators up for reelection an endangered species with the GOP voters.

Someone miscalculated and told her the Republicans, misogynists all, would try to bury it and go forward with the vote despite the accusation. And that would be that. Then the Democrats would have the excuse they were looking for to vote "no".

A major miscalculation was the possibility that it would stop the nomination to SCOTUS and that would be that. If the allegation is sufficient to disqualify Kavanaugh from SCOTUS, it is sufficient to impeach and remove him from the Circuit Court. Blasey Ford would still be in the middle of a shit storm.

True. But they could testify a) there was a party, b) Kavanaugh and Judge were there, and c) they were both very drunk. Given the statements on record by Kavanaugh and Judge, that alone would be damning.

For those keeping score, there has been a third male, Patrick J. (P.J.) Smyth who was alleged to be at the party, and he has denied the allegation.

https://nypost.com/2018/09/19/kavanaughs-prep-school-pal-fords-wrong-i-was-never-at-party/

Kavanaugh’s prep school pal: Ford’s wrong, I was never at party

By Yaron Steinbuch

September 19, 2018 | 8:40am | Updated

Another former classmate of Brett Kavanaugh denied attending a party like the one described by the woman accusing the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her during a party in 1982 when they were teens, according to a report.

Patrick J. Smyth — who graduated with Kavanaugh from Georgetown Prep in North Bethesda, Md., in 1983 — also denied seeing any “improper conduct” from the nominee, CNN reported, citing a letter written by Smyth’s lawyer and sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth says in the statement,

“I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women,” he continued.

“To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.”

The letter was expected to be sent Wednesday to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Earlier this year, before Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh became public, Smyth signed a letter testifying that the judge “is singularly qualified to be an Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court,” along with a dozen more of the all-boys school’s alumni.

Kavanaugh has vehemently denied attending the party and the allegation of sexually and physically assaulting Ford.

On Tuesday evening, Ford’s attorney Lisa Banks told CNN that Ford will talk with the committee — but that she’s not prepared for a hearing as soon as Monday.

“This just came out 48 hours ago,” she told CNN’s Anderson Cooper, referring to her client’s account in the Washington Post.

Mark Judge, another friend and classmate of Kavanaugh’s, has been named as the other person who was in the room when the alleged incident took place. He also has denied the incident took place.

A committee vote to recommend or not recommend the nomination is not an actual necessity.

I think you're an attorney, right? Well, believe it or not, I actually knew all that but didn't want to complicate my answer. Plus, politics dictates the committee vote be taken to report a recommendation, and Grassley's not going to call the vote until he's sure he'll get a positive result - however much arm-twisting that takes.

I'd forgotten about Clarence Thomas' outcome, though.

Like the fact he led the Starr “investigation” into the death of Vince Foster, and concluded against all logic and all the evidence that he killed himself in Fort Marcy Park.

Ken Starr was the Independent Counsel. Hickman Ewing was Starr's Deputy Independent Counsel. Young Brett Kavanaugh was an Associate Independent Counsel.

"Kavanaugh's" report, in October 1997, concluded that the death of Foster resulted from suicide. The investigation was led by Ken Starr and it is the Starr Report.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pur1.32754067900252;view=1up;seq=2

http://www.fbicover-up.com/ewExternalFiles/Purdue%20University%20vol.1.pdf

X. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

To sum up, the OIC has investigated the cause and manner of Mr. Foster's death. To ensure that all relevant issues were fully considered, carefully analyzed, and properly assessed, the OIC retained a number of experienced experts and criminal investigators. The experts included Dr. Brian D. Blackbourne, Dr. Henry C. Lee, and Dr. Alan L. Berman. The investigators included an FBI agent detailed from the FBI-MPD Cold Case Homicide Squad in Washington, D.C.; an investigator who also had extensive homicide experience as a detective with the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., for over 20 years; and two other OIC investigators who had experience as FBI agents investigating the murders of federal officials and other homicides. The OIC legal staff in Washington, D.C., and Little Rock, Arkansas, participated in assessing the evidence, examining the analyses and conclusions of the OIC experts and investigators, and preparing this report.

The autopsy report and the reports of the pathologists retained by the OIC and Mr. Fiske's Office demonstrate that the cause of death was a gunshot wound through the back of Mr. Foster's mouth and out the back of his head. The autopsy photographs depict the wound in the back of the head, and the photographs show the trajectory rod through the wound. The evidence, including the photographic evidence, reveals no other trauma or wounds on Mr. Foster's body.

The available evidence points clearly to suicide as the manner of death. That conclusion is based on the evidence gathered and the analyses performed during previous investigations, and the additional evidence gathered and analyses performed during the OIC investigation, including the evaluations of Dr. Lee, Dr. Blackbourne, Dr. Berman, and the various OIC investigators.

politics dictates the committee vote be taken to report a recommendation, and Grassley's not going to call the vote until he's sure he'll get a positive result - however much arm-twisting that takes.

https://www.scribd.com/document/388944844/CRS-Report-Supreme-Court-Appointment-Process-Roles-of-the-President-Judiciary-Committee-and-Senate-2010

Text at page 32-35, footnote 123 at page 32.

Reporting the Nomination

Usually within a week of the end of hearings, the Judiciary Committee meets in open session to determine what recommendation to “report” to the full Senate. The committee may report favorably, negatively, or make no recommendation at all. A report with a negative recommendation or no recommendation permits a nomination to go forward, while alerting the Senate that a substantial number of committee members have reservations about the nominee. If a majority of its members oppose confirmation, the committee technically may decide not to report a nomination, to prevent the full Senate from considering the nominee. However, since its creation in 1816, the Judiciary Committee’s almost invariable practice has been to report even those Supreme Court nominations that were opposed by a committee majority,¹²³ thus allowing the full Senate to make the final decision on whether the nominee should be confirmed.¹²⁴ This committee tradition was reaffirmed in June 2001 by the committee’s then-chair, Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), and its then-ranking member, Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), in a June 29, 2001, letter to Senate colleagues. The committee’s “traditional practice,” their letter stated, ... has been to report Supreme Court nominees to the Senate once the Committee has completed its considerations. This has been true even in cases where Supreme Court nominees were opposed by a majority of the Judiciary Committee.

We both recognize and have every intention of following the practices and precedents of the committee and the Senate when considering Supreme Court nominees.¹²⁵

In recent decades, reporting to the Senate frequently has included a printed committee report, although the three most recent Supreme Court nominations were reported without printed reports.¹²⁶ Prepared behind closed doors, after the committee has voted on the nominee, the printed report presents in a single volume the views of committee members supporting a nominee’s confirmation as well as “all supplemental, minority, or additional views ... submitted by the time of the filing of the report....”¹²⁷ No Senate committee, however, is normally obliged to transmit a printed report to the Senate. Instead, the chair of the Judiciary Committee may simply file a one-page document reporting a nomination to the Senate and recommending whether the nomination should be confirmed.

A printed report, it can be argued, is valuable in providing for Senators not on the Judiciary Committee a review, in one volume, of all of the reasons that the committee’s members cite for voting in favor or against a nominee.¹²⁸ A written report, however, might not always be considered a necessary reference for the Senate as a whole. For instance, in some cases, Senators not on the Judiciary Committee might believe they have received adequate information about a nominee from other sources, such as from news media reports or gavel-to-gavel video coverage of the nominee’s confirmation hearings.¹²⁹ Further, preparation of a written report will mean additional days for a nomination to stay with the committee before it can be reported to the Senate.¹³⁰ In some situations, this might be viewed as creating unnecessary delay in the confirmation process, particularly if there is a desire to fill a Court vacancy as quickly as possible.¹³¹

The Senate usually, but not always, has agreed with Judiciary Committee recommendations that a Supreme Court nominee be confirmed.¹³² Historically, negative committee reports, or reports without recommendation, have been precursors to nominations encountering substantial opposition in the full Senate, although a few of these nominations have eventually been confirmed by narrow margins.¹³³

- - - - - - - - - -

¹²³ Since its creation in 1816, the Judiciary Committee has reported to the Senate 106 Supreme Court nominations. Of the 106, seven were reported unfavorably—those of John Crittenden (1829), Ebenezer R. Hoard (1869), Stanley Matthews (1881), Lucius Q.C. Lamar (1888), William B. Hornblower (1894), John J. Parker (1930), and Robert H. Bork (1987). Two were reported without recommendation—those of Wheeler H. Peckham (1894) and Clarence Thomas (1991). See CRS Report RL33225, Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 - 2009: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President (under heading “Nominations Reported Out of Committee to Full Senate”).

- - - - - - - - - -

Young Brett Kavanaugh was an Associate Independent Counsel.

The equivalent of a "sweeper" who brushes out the illegal aliens footprints with a branch, so that the Border Patrol won't know that they invaded the USA.

Covering up the Clinton's tracks gets you an A+ rating in the D&R party.

[PJ] “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.

Thanks for that. I would have used the terms recollection or memory rather than knowledge. Again, that is just me talking.

Okay, the score is 3-1 against the accuser.

The equivalent of a "sweeper" who brushes out the illegal aliens footprints with a branch, so that the Border Patrol won't know that they invaded the USA.

The Associate Counsel falls under the General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel in the scheme of a legal organization. The Associate Counsel does not run the show.

The Associate Counsel does not run the show.

Neither does a "sweeper", numbnuts. But as a SCOTUS Justice, yes he would run the show. DUH!

Neither does a "sweeper", numbnuts. But as a SCOTUS Justice, yes he would run the show. DUH!

And you imagine the CHIEF JUSTICE takes orders from the JUNIOR Associate Justice?

And you imagine the CHIEF JUSTICE takes orders from the JUNIOR Associate Justice?

All Kavi would have to do is to tell the chief justice that he just gave Hillary a brand new box of hollow points, and the vote would go his way.

Btw -- Must you now sport a pink p*ssy-hat EVERY minute of the day?

All Kavi would have to do is to tell the chief justice that he just gave Hillary a brand new box of hollow points, and the vote would go his way.

Further evidence you are either demented or just a bullshitter.

I don't have a fatwa against Trump ass-clown. I disagree with him on completely different reasons than the Dems - but by all means, keep playing that false left-right paradigm card.

You just don't get it Poindexter - one can be critical of Trump and not be a Democrat. I'm just not into the cult of personality like so many of you here seem to be.

This "False left-right paradigm card" actually IS still in play; Just NOT by Trump. That is IF you've actually been playing attention. It's participants are establishment Republicans (Bushies) v. Dem-Left.

MEMO: Donald Trump is NOT. ONE. OF. THEM. (and neither are the Republican Conservative Caucus.)

Maybe you're just overwhelmed by the sheer insane volume of upheaval and chaos. This is thanks to the successful PTB tactics and execution of several Psy-Ops simultaneously, like:

Cloward and Piven, Hegelian dialectic, and Alinsky etc. Again, all of which Donald Trump is NOT PART OF. (THIS is the problem. FOR the Left and Establishment PTB.)

Here's an analogy and perspective that may be helpful in understanding and appreciating Trump:

FLASHBACK: The effete US Brass during WW2 whined, b*tched, moaned and groaned about General Patton's style and stragegy, "disagreeing" with nearly everything HE did; Meanwhile he ignored THEIR backbiting and professional sabotage as he stayed aggressive and he led and held the US Army together long enough TO HELP WIN THE WAR.

Sadly, you're overlooking an insight and foresight in understanding what's at stake in what has emerged into the turning point of the Left-Right paradigm of power. What's at stake is...the US Constitution, Rule of Law, Process of Justice -- our very Republic.

I'm not saying there aren't issues of which to criticize Trump or ANY politician; What I'm saying is, your sense of propriety AND priority are myopic and your fighting spirit and energies wildly misplaced.

A coup is still being waged against President Trump. That has NOT ended. Have you been following these events at all??

For instance: Are you aware that Swamp-Rats Brennan and Comey were both officially Communists? That Brennan and Democrats are encouraging further subordination at the Swamp-Central at FBI, routinely committing sedition?

The SCOTUS process has been hijacked by the Left; its exposed and revealed the extent of their war against (especially) truth, against justice & fairness, against men, and against logic. A REAL live hot-war is being waged right before our very eyes -- and here you are kvetching over the equivalent of a "bad sprig of parsley" as you were served a gourmet meal at a 5-Star restaurant.

Speaking of Hillary - when is Trump going to make good on his campaign promise and "LOCK HER UP"?

But...Doesn't that require an actual Attorney General who's NOT "part of the Swamp"?? (or hadn't you noticed Sessions was indeed PART of it since Day-One of his bizarro-world "recusal" ?)

How's that "swamp draining" thingie coming along?

Brennan: GONE. Comey: GONE. McCabe: GONE. Others: GONE.

Do you really expect five decades of the Globalist-Leftist Foggy Bottom hive to just surrender their power in a snap of Trump's finger? He's fended off every dirty trick they had. And still they are fighting Trump. But you don' see it STILL?? You can't be this naive or stupid. Then again...your priorities have been about the abuse of power at the BOTTOM of the authoritah food-chain. NOT the Top.