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.

("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.

Did you say, "Paranoid"??

From the same guy who hides under his bed with and laptop scoping out the latest "COP SHOOTS DOG!" stories at "Reason" and "Thought-Project"?? AS the USA becomes a Banana Republic and an active ongoing coup by the Democrats, GOPe and Deep State are still in progress?

If you Trump-ettes had your way, you would silence anyone who isn't totally on board the Trump Train...it's his genuflecting worshipers like you who are simply over the top with your idolizing the guy.

Stop being a selfish contrarian crusader. It's beyond ridiculous.

The PTB's abuse of institutional power and manipulating the rest of us won't and cannot stop until their entire machination is punctured. Without Trump to battle and expose them, your supposed "Crusade for Liberty" is political roadkill.

Stop being a selfish contrarian crusader. It's beyond ridiculous.

That's what watching too much CNN will do to you...

That's what watching too much CNN will do to you...

That is definitely bad for mental health.

Had to believe that the Republicans let this happen. They have the power, and could simply ignore the nonsense and plow ahead.

This is true.

Let's say that Kavanaugh did what was said: locked a girl in a room 30 years ago. Who cares?

The man probably had such a squeeky clean record in College they had to go back to High School to find something. Ok, Don't know about you Vic but there are many things I did in High School I am not proud of.

It's long done. The statute of limitations has run. The whole thing is ridiculous.

Not to be callous I have to agree. There was no police report, rape kit no evidence it is the classic "he said, she said" scenario from 35 years ago.

The Democrats apparently believe in sinless perfection. Go figure.

ALL MEN are sinners - and Democrats don't hold their leaders accountable for that fact, and they don't LET the Republicans hold them accountable for it either. They ignore the bitching, ignore the complaints, put their heads down and charge through.

Indeed.

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?

Given the exclusive nature of the academy she went to, the 'others' are probably in the Senate or House and have a (D) next to their name and know the truth.

"Damning" in what context?? Teen-age high school kids getting drunk? Big whoop. This is all bullsh**.

Even when I was going for my military security clearance as a college student, the background investigators only asked for job history going back to High school. Man if they asked fellow students about drinking and partying, no one would get a security clearance.

Love the chart and its footnote.

That was hilarious no? LOL. I never had to turn in my Jesuit decoder ring.

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.

Point, match you are correct.

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

Words don't help you understand. Crayons won't help.

Maybe THIS simple photo and graphic will:

You're missing the point. He said he wasn't there.

That's a different point.

I'm simply exposing the bizarro-world over-reaching contentions of 36 year-old "indictments of character": TEENAGERS DRINK ALCOHOL! AND AT TIME GROPE EACH OTHER!

But why would he lie about not being there? Too many witnesses.

Again -- I'm NOT saying that he lied or would lie about this fake incident; Only that the so-called bogus "criminal-charge" is:

a) BS
b) IRRELEVANT
c) WELL-BEYOND ANY REASONABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATION
d) Is OBVIOUSLY designed to criminalize all men.

FOR BEING MEN. FOR BEING WHITE. FOR BEING HETEROSEXUAL.

Words don't help you understand. Crayons won't help.

Maybe THIS simple photo and graphic will:

Have you been smoking crack?

You need to ask?

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.

Gentlemen, I believe the American public is being bamboozled.

Any "Fall-Out" is pure myth. Any negative "fall-out", controversy, and "contention" is based SOLELY on the MEDIA'S usual psyop character assassination of Republicans, Whitey, Men, Conservatives, Trump, etal "evil" fantasy portrayals of the Left's opponents. (What's they'll NEVER concede: Trump has succeeded in his own psyop: "FAKE NEWS".)

Q: HAS THE MEDIA NOW "OUT-KICKED ITS COVERAGE" and OVERESTIMATED THEIR ACTUAL INFLUENCE?

Q2: IF REPUBLICANS REALIZE THIS IS THE CASE AND STOP FEARING MEDIA RETRIBUTION, AREN'T THE DEMOCRAT-TERRORISTS FINISHED?

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.

Lotta assumptive worst-case scenarios there.

If that flimsy allegation is sufficient to prevent the nomination of Kavanaugh, Due Process is dead. And so is the USCON.

With respect to Ford's Blatant Lie and Smear and "justice", let's remember Hitlery,0bama, etal should also be in jail serving a 500 year term. BUT SHE AND THEY AREN'T.

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.

Thank you for clarification. And the truth of the matter.

I'm not a big fan of subverted "truth" and disinfo campaigns.

Further evidence you are either demented or just a bullshitter.

Can't he be both?

("Stop being a selfish contrarian crusader. It's beyond ridiculous.")

That's what watching too much CNN will do to you...

THAT.

And hanging way too much over at Reason, Thought Project, and other fake "libertarian" propaganda sites.

Had to believe that the Republicans let this happen. They have the power, and could simply ignore the nonsense and plow ahead.

This is true.

Disagree.

This is absolutely predictable. (You guys see who the (R)s on the Judiciary committee are?? Flake. Corker. Collins. BY DESIGN they "Designated Wild-Cards", aka RINOs/GOPe.)

The man probably had such a squeeky clean record in College they had to go back to High School to find something. Ok, Don't know about you Vic but there are many things I did in High School I am not proud of.

Yup. That's exactly the case. They had to go 36 years back into HS Daze. And even at that, this is still a trumped up, bogus allegation. (Imagine the chaos created were the Dem-Terrorists to "find" multiple (lying) witnesses??

On your last note Red, for sure -- ALL of us are guilty of doing stupid things -- not only in our teens, but into our early 20s (and beyond.) But is THAT what this insane War-on-Men has come to?? THAT is exactly what this bogus charge is about; That and...oh, and "The War on Whitey".

'Others' are probably in the Senate or House and have a (D) next to their name and know the truth.

Absolutely the case.

The problem as you well know at this point is:

"BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY".

Even when I was going for my military security clearance as a college student, the background investigators only asked for job history going back to High school.

Man if they asked fellow students about drinking and partying, no one would get a security clearance.

Yep...

But even BEYOND that; The Dem-Left-Terrorists seem to be creating a whole new precedence and criteria for political appointments and security clearance based on lies, rumor, innuendo, and POLITICAL AFFILIATION and MOB RULE.

(this trend can't turn out well if it gains even an inch of traction)

Any "Fall-Out" is pure myth.

Rejecting Ford out of hand would have been bad politically. She can have an opportunity to be heard, but she cannot further delay and dictate terms.

If the GOP wants to see real fallout, they can just fail to grow a pair and bring the nomination to a vote.

Did you see how Ford and the Demoncrats want her to go after the accused? 2000 years of legal precedence where an accused hears the charges before defending themselves is being thrown out the window. This on a Judiciary committee which should know better.

Rejecting Ford out of hand would have been bad politically.

I can't disagree with that; Those optics would have been bad. But they have already been patient with this stunt.

She can have an opportunity to be heard, but she cannot further delay and dictate terms.

THIS is where the entire stunt jumps the shark. (And when the GOP should have blown their fuse at the the Dem-Terrorists AND Ford. Again, the usual GOP problem: FEAR OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPRISAL)

If the GOP wants to see real fallout, they can just fail to grow a pair and bring the nomination to a vote.

As much as I'd like to believe that's the case, it's....not. Again, just look at who was chosen for that Judiciary Committee: Flake?? (PULEESE) Corker?? (Publicly HATES Trump) Collins?? (A Dem). And wasn't McStain on it as well? These are "Republicans In Name Only". The GOPe has consistent given the Finger to (R) voters. Fearlessly.

Listening in to Mark Stein in for Rush today. He quoted from Acts 23 where under Roman law an accused must first hear the accuser before delivering a defense.

Nice. The mention of Acts 23 (even under Roman Law!) reinforces our own constitution-based criteria for "justice" and due process. As well as GOD'S justice.

THIS was sickeningly lacking in this case. That any of our "Due Process" is being reduced and/or eliminated means the End of Justice, End of Law, and...ANARCHY.

WARNING: TANGENT...

This whole War on Cops, War on ICE, War on Whitey and Men, and push to de-criminalize CRIMINALS is by design. (IMO by the Shadow Government and its LE Gestapo: "The Deep State". All in the name of the Globalist-Elites, aka The NWO.)

Anarchy ----> Chaos ----> Martial Law ----> "RE-ORDER"/FASCIST CONTROL

Ok, Don't know about you Vic but there are many things I did in High School I am not proud of.

I will freely and candidly admit every immoral thing I ever did. The reason I keep my mouth shut about all of it is not to protect me. It is to protect the other half of the relationships. They have families and children and reputations too. Mine will shrug their shoulders - I never claimed to be a saint. People hide things for a reason. It is not my place to go exposing them.

Did you see how Ford and the Demoncrats want her to go after the accused?

Yes. Via Kangaroo Court and False Witness. This not only cannot be allowed to stand but heads should roll.

2000 years of legal precedence where an accused hears the charges before defending themselves is being thrown out the window. This on a Judiciary committee which should know better.

Yup. There quite a bit of that "thousands-of-years-of-precedence" getting tossed out the window (as in "Marriage" and the natural roles/inclinations of Males and Females.)

This Judiciary Committee DOES "know better"; However as you know, the Dems are possessed, and the Pubbies are either cowards OR owned.

We are witnessing the further crumbling of a political infrastructure and will to stand on righteousness.