Grassley announced this week that Kavanaugh would testify before the Judiciary Committee for a second time next Monday, days after the initial committee vote was scheduled.

Now Christine Blasey Ford's by her attorneys want 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

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

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

The Senate is expected to leave town for the week on Tuesday.

What, exactly, did those parasites do during this grueling 2-day workweek?

Kavanaugh's in - the girl's running away from her lies and Feinswine's diaper stench.

Call the vote, Grassley, and get it done. Then we move on to replacing the decrepit old bridge troll next year with Amy Coney Barrett.

locked a girl in a room 30 years ago. Who cares?

I agree with you on that. There are many good reasons not to confirm Kavanaugh, but that ain't one of them.

“Dr." Ford

You are too kind. She deserves no title besides lying snowflake cunt.

They have the power, and could simply ignore the nonsense and plow ahead.

No they can’t, dip shit. It will cause a blue wave at the next election cycle. Have you been sleeping under a rock since 2008? It’s OVER SENSITIZED AMERICA. The majority has to at least make it look like they have sympathy for the lying bitch... and POLITELY discredit her without being too mean and male chauvinistic.

Just exactly how have you become this friggin retarded, as of lately?

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

That is not what Dr. Ford actually said, although it is what was originally reported. Dr. Ford wrote she was pushed into the bedroom where Kavanaugh held her down, and when Judge jumped on them she got free, ran to the hallway bathroom where she locked herself in, stayed about 15 minutes until she heard them go down the stairs, and she let herself out and left the house and went home. Allegedly.

While the bedroom door was locked, it kept others from coming in. When she got free and ran to the hallway bathroom, the locked bedroom door did not stop her from leaving. While she was locked in the bathroom, she locked herself in and then let herself out. Allegedly.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-letter-feinstein/index.html

July 30 2018

CONFIDENTIAL

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Dear Senator Feinstein;

I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.

As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.

Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED. Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school. The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.

Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.

From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop."

At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.

I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me. I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information . It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.

I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.

In confidence, REDACTED.

I have received medical treatment regarding the assault.

Is this the counseling that she refers to? I wouldn't call it medical treatment, but that's just me.

Call the vote, Grassley, and get it done.

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

The necessity is to report the nomination out to the Senate. It may be reported out with a recommendation to approve, to disapprove, or with no recommendation. Even where the committee majority is against the nomination, it is still reported out to the Senate for their consideration.

It may be reported out with or without a printed report. The chair of the Judiciary Committee may file a one page document reporting a nomination to the Senate.

Only two nominations have been reported out without recommendation; Wheeler H. Peckham in 1894 (rejected by the Senate) and Clarence Thomas in 1991 (approved by the Senate).

Just get it done before going out of session.

Is this the counseling that she refers to? I wouldn't call it medical treatment, but that's just me.

I do not believe that has been made clear. It is possible she had individual counseling/therapy before couples counseling. I believe either would qualify as "medical treatment" under modern definition.

Modern language abuse includes certain things as a "disease" or "medical treatment" to make it payable by health insurance.

GI>> lying snowflake cunt

“Cut Bait”: As the Kavanaugh Nightmare Escalates, Trump Is Gripped with Uncertainty as Ivanka Suggests Cutting the Judge Loose

The threat of losing the House and Senate has stopped Trump from going scorched-earth on Christine Blasey Ford. If Trump antagonizes women voters, it could increase the odds Republicans would lose both houses in Congress.

White House has heard rumors that Ford’s account will be verified by women who say she told it to them contemporaneously. People worry, without apparent evidence, of another Ronan Farrow bomb dropping. One source says Ivanka Trump has told her father to “cut bait” and drop Kavanaugh.

Another reason Trump hasn’t gone to the mat for Kavanaugh is that he’s said to be suspicious of Kavanaugh’s establishment pedigree. “He’s a Bush guy, why would I put myself out there defending him?” Trump told people

“Trump wants this guy on the court, but Trump knows there are five other people he could put on the court if this falls apart,” a former official said.

“He’s a Bush guy, why would I put myself out there defending him?” Trump told people

OMG, crucify him, crucify him.

I have no choice but to follow this soap opera. It makes me slightly ill, but I'll watch what happens.

[Vanity Fair/Gabriel Sherman] “Trump wants this guy on the court, but Trump knows there are five other people he could put on the court if this falls apart,” a former official said.

Trump knows that if the GOP loses the Senate after the election, he will not get any of the other five.

[Vanity Fair/Gabriel Sherman] According to three sources... a former West Wing official... According to sources... Two sources told me the White House has heard rumors that Ford’s account will be verified by women who say she told it to them contemporaneously... One source says Ivanka Trump has told her father to “cut bait” and drop Kavanaugh"

It is thoroughly sourced.

“He’s a Bush guy, why would I put myself out there defending him?” Trump told people

Well, at least the great, the magnificent President Donald J. Trump told "people" and not dogs or cats or walls.

[nolu chan] It is possible she had individual counseling/therapy before couples counseling.

I saw that she received the couples counseling in 2012 and had individual counseling the following year after that.

To be clear, there had been no suggestion that she sought any sort of medical attention at the time of the alleged incident, circa 1982.

I have no choice but to follow this soap opera. It makes me slightly ill, but I'll watch what happens.

You may want to follow the polygraph Q&A where no deception was detected.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/experts-doubt-claim-of-truthful-polygraph-result-from-kavanaugh-accuser

Experts doubt claim of ‘truthful’ polygraph result from Kavanaugh accuser

by Eddie Scarry
Washington Examiner
September 17, 2018 04:31 PM

[excerpt]

Ford “engaged Debra Katz, a Washington lawyer known for her work on sexual harassment cases,” said the Post report, detailing how Ford recently decided to go public with her accusation. “On the advice of Katz, who said she believed Ford would be attacked as a liar if she came forward, Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent in early August. The results, which Katz provided to the Post, concluded that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.”

The report included no other information about the test.

A subsequent story by the New York Times identified the polygraph administrator as Jerry Hanafin, whose website says he is a retired FBI agent based in Virginia.

According to the Times, Hanafin said the result of the exam was that there was “no deception indicated,” meaning Ford “was being truthful” when he questioned her for the test.

Well, isn't that just special?

She was not detected being deceptive when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate; i.e., it accurately described her allegations.

The statement summarizing her allegations could be a 100% accurate summary, even if the allegations themselves were 100% fiction.

Now why didn't this trained former FBI agent ask her about whether her allegations were truthful?

No they can’t, dip shit. It will cause a blue wave at the next election cycle.

The blue wave with be overmatched by a red wave if the Republicans press ahead and motivate their voters.

If the Republicans don't use their power and fail to put Kavanaugh on the court, there will be a blue wave ANYWAY - the Left hates Trump and they will come out and they will vote. But there will be no countervailing red wave. The Right will be demoralized and will stay home.

The Democrats use their power, all of it. And that's why the whole national policy agenda is their belief system.

The Republicans don't, so they lose anyway, and they don't get their agenda.

Insult me all you want. You sound like a coward. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is at stake - and you, and the Republicans, are so afraid of an election cycle that you're going to squander that opportunity, to simply lose anyway? I'm not a retard, but you guys are pussies. That's why the Democrats win: they always fight. It's their cardinal advantage over you guys. They fight, and you run away from the fight. Every time.

That is not what Dr. Ford actually said, although it is what was originally reported. Dr. Ford wrote she was pushed into the bedroom where Kavanaugh held her down, and when Judge jumped on them she got free, ran to the hallway bathroom where she locked herself in, stayed about 15 minutes until she heard them go down the stairs, and she let herself out and left the house and went home. Allegedly.

I don't care if he raped her. It's 30 years ago. They were minors. It doesn't matter, to me.

Republicans are such stupid, sniveling cowards. Clinton? Obama? What these men did thirty years ago was also disgraceful. Republicans bring the stuff up and bandy it around, AS IF it were important, and the Democrats fucking ignore them and plow ahead and win. Republicans tried to impeach Clinton for lying over a blowjob, and a blue wave came out and gave the Democrats MORE SEATS in a mid-term lame-duck election. Never happens, but it happened, because in the end Democrat voters are smart enough to realize that the moral failings of individual men are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT when power and policy are at stake. 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.

Democrats are like Patton - they fight to win..

Republicans HAVE the power and can bulldoze through right now, like Democrats. Instead, they're actually stalling and CARING about some guy's high school sexual hijinks 34 years ago, and in the process squandering their opportunity to control the Supreme Court, because some girl was groped in the 1980s.

If the Republicans blow this, they deserve to lose, and they will, and that will be it. Game over. The Democrats have no power. The Republicans are GIVING THEM power. Just before an election that Republicans are very likely to lose.

If high school sexual hijinks are disqualifying from office, the Republican party is doomed. Strike the colors and go home.

The proper response to this is what the Democrats do: give the opposition the finger, use power, ignore their bleating, plow forward and impose their will.

Now Christine Blasey Ford's by her attorneys want a full FBI investigation before appearing.

No. What she wants is to drag this out for another 2-3 months then refuse to testify under oath. She's using the #metoo movement to bully the Republicans.

Fine. When this is over we'll use her lies to bully the #metoo movement.

They have the power, and could simply ignore the nonsense and plow ahead.

In a sane world that's what they would do. But they'd get crucified by the MSM and the #metoo movement for their lack of sensitivity and for ignoring the victims of sexual abuse.

What, exactly, did those parasites do during this grueling 2-day workweek?

They gave a lot of interviews. They furrowed their brows and frowned. They displayed concern and compassion.

Being phony takes a lot of work. Two days of that and they're exhausted.

She deserves no title besides lying snowflake cunt.

Let's compromise. Dr. Lying Snowflake Cunt.

Another reason Trump hasn’t gone to the mat for Kavanaugh

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

When this whole thing blows up, no Democrat wants to be on record as being a part of it.

Where are the Hollywood types stating they believe her 100%? The MSM? The liberal talk shows? The late night comics? SNL? Her peers at the university? Her friends?

If they believe her, I haven't seen or heard anything.

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.

("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.

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.

Sound judgement and sense.

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

I agree. They gave her Monday. She can't do it? Tough.

The Interrogation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh

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.

Much of the GOP base vote was concerned with Supreme Court nomnations. Give them the finger, don't even bring the nomination to a vote, and see how many 2016 voters stay home in November.

PJ Media did a nice little satire piece:

The Interrogation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh

That was good. You may enjoy a new HuffPo poll.

https://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/athena/files/2018/09/19/5ba234fde4b046313fc11590.pdf

Huffington Post has a YouGov poll with Question #9 regarding Christine Blasey Ford —

"9. Credible accusation

Do you think that the allegation of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh generally is or is not credible?"

The results show that the following percentages found her allegation credible:

26% — total
31% — registered voters
28% — male
25% — female
25% — 18-29
22% — 30-44
27% — 45-64
24% — white
42% — black
21% — hispanic
23% — other

26% — total
53% — dem
19% — ind
04% — rep
62% — 2016 Clinton vote
04% — 2016 Trump vote
24% — <$50K
26% — $50-100K
33% — $100K+
31% — Northeast
29% — Midwest
21% — South
28% — West

All that huffing and puffing and still no sale. A HuffPo poll. That had to sting.

I think they read the questions as, "Do you want to believe that the allegation of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh is credible?"

From Burgess Everett, Politico political reporter

https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1043204451253727233

Burgess Everett @burgessev

Dr. Ford has indicated to Republicans she doesn't want to fly, in part revealing why she doesn't want the hearing to be on Monday

She probably just rediscovered a long repressed memory that she does not fly.

I hate flying too. Its the prices and pat downs that irk me.

I hate flying too. Its the prices and pat downs that irk me.

Walking or driving 4,000 miles pisses me off way more that your pat-down irritation. Don’t be a cheap fuck at your age. You can’t take it with you, grandpa.

All that huffing and puffing and still no sale. A HuffPo poll. That had to sting.

You know just as well as I do that they don't give one damn about that poll no matter how stupid it makes them look. It's all about the end game which is make sure Kavanaugh is not confirmed.

https://media.giphy.com/media/mpfMDb6MB6EWQ/giphy.gif

Is that Gatlin??

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

No, there are still way too many stupid/naïve people out there in the world.

Dr. Ford has indicated to Republicans she doesn't want to fly

I'll bet we can find dozens of times in the past where she did fly, and for lesser reasons.

I hope someone on the committee finds out then confronts her with it to illustrate her lack of candor.

I'll bet we can find dozens of times in the past where she did fly, and for lesser reasons.

So she could be groped by TSA?

That's what happens when you putt with a driver.

You misspelled putz.

No. What she wants is to drag this out for another 2-3 months then refuse to testify under oath. She's using the #metoo movement to bully the Republicans.

Your post is full of BS as is usual.

I'll bet we can find dozens of times in the past where she did fly, and for lesser reasons.

She completed her Ph.d. with an internship in Hawaii.

I read she was in D.C. twice last year for seperate events.

You misspelled putz.

Nah. That's spelled h-o-n-d-o-6-8.

That’s right. Republicans have to fight to the death on this one.

And this includes WV senator Manchin (D). He's toast if he does not vote to confirm. Trump will see to that with just one rally in his home state.

Montgomery County police: No word from Christine Blasey Ford about Kavanaugh investigation

The helmet BDE is on the move there.

And this includes WV senator Manchin (D). He's toast if he does not vote to confirm. Trump will see to that with just one rally in his home state.

Yea, verily. People counting only Republicans are probably miscounting. There are two or three Dems who will be deeeply engangered by a "nay" vote.

Just imagine if one of the Pubbies votes "Nay" followed by a Dem "Yea." That Pubbie would face a tough time for reelection.

Kavanaugh will be confirmed. All 51 Republicans will vote for him.

The GOP will hold both houses of Congress.

Rosenstein will deliver a nice October Surprise in Trump's favor.

Bookmark it and ball up your fists to laugh at me when it turns out otherwise. But have a frozen crow ready in the fridge for when I turn out right.

I'm calling it now. Kavanaugh will be confirmed. All 51 Republicans will vote for him. The GOP will hold both houses of Congress. Rosenstein will deliver a nice October Surprise in Trump's favor. Bookmark it and ball up your fists to laugh at me when it turns out otherwise. But have a frozen crow ready in the fridge for when I turn out right.

Murkowski is waffling from recent reports. But Manchin is not speaking with reporters. Might be 50 votes with Pence deciding.

So it’s a 50-49 body now. Any single Republican can blow it up, which means that a few of them will need to be bought off with pork.

And there’s the guy who’s leaving office - Flake - he has no future election to protect and can vote his conscience, which could make it 49-49, Pence breaks the tie.

Collins, Murkowski, Snowe - Alaska and Maine are going to be getting some serious pork. Just sayin’. Definitely worth it.

If the Republicans fail on Kavanaugh, they will lose both houses, and the Trump presidency will devolve into what the Clinton presidency did after the Republicans took over Congress.

You see this one yet?

Montgomery County police: No word from Christine Blasey Ford about Kavanaugh investigation

The helmet BDE is on the move there.

Yea I responded to it bta you probably already know that by now :)...

Lol.

Ringo over there was exploding last night.

Lol.

Yeah he's been sitting on a couple of the Kavanaugh threads for a couple of days now. You would think he has something better to do but I guess not. He was on the board almost continuously from 10AM to 2AM and made about 40 posts strictly on Kavnaugh. And I'd bet if I took the time to read from his very first post on the subject the theme would be "Kavanaugh is guilty he needs to be hung, neutered, drawn and quartered". AAARRRGGGHHHH.......

That subject most be his only assignment from his handlers lol...

BTW I sent you a PM.