Another allegation emerges!
 |
Burn him!!! |
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Look who agrees with Coldheart
www.cnn.com/kavanaugh-fbi-background-investigation
Scope will be legally limited (not limited by Trump):
The FBI has no more authority than the Senate Judiciary committee. Like it or not, the President does not have the authority to make up a "new" manner in which the FBI would investigate something. Since there is no Federal criminal crime alleged, the only investigation the FBI can proceed with is a background check.
Since they cannot subpoena anyone, they will likely only be able to talk to those who will provide the same accounts that they previously did. However, stating something to the FBI doesn't make that statement any "more" or any "less" true. If someone states something to the FBI that has previously been stated (to the committee or the press) it does not make it "new information" nor does it make it more credible.
Lastly, in a situation like this, it is much more likely that the FBI will find possible holes in the allegations than they will find anything that corroborates these claims. There several rumors regarding possible holes out there, and by all accounts the FBI will be looking into these holes as well. Politics may allow for a situation where we allow the accuser the benefit of the doubt, but the FBI will have no such responsibility.
In other words, the FBI will likely be performing the politically incorrect job of really searching into the credibility of these accusers. We already know that the Avenatti's client is a flake who has been previously sued for false allegations (which she walked back to save herself). We may find out many things about the other two accusers that was previously undisclosed. That could end up helping (not hurting) Kavanaugh.
Remember Kavanaugh has been through several background checks. Ford and the others have not been through "any"... prior to this one.
Scope will be legally limited (not limited by Trump):
FBI officials will likely try to question some or all of the potential witnesses, in addition to Ford and Kavanaugh. The FBI, however, cannot force interviews in background check investigations, or in criminal investigations for that matter. While witnesses in a criminal case can be subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury, witnesses to a background investigation don't face a similar law enforcement tool to get them to talk.FBI will not draw conclusions:
In addition to the people said to be at the party, investigators may seek out witnesses who can attest to the credibility of Ford, including her parents, the former agents said. Evidence of any substance abuse problems could color a claimant's accusation, but the FBI notably does not make any conclusions about the credibility or significance of an allegation in a background investigation report. "They could interview someone who says I saw Judge Kavanaugh get beamed down from a UFO -- he's an alien. They would put that in the 302," said Chris Swecker, a former FBI assistant director, referring to the form in which agents will memorialize their interviews. "They wouldn't say 'we disproved this, they didn't disprove this.'"Could be over quickly:
While background checks typically take days of on-the-ground investigation, in a case this closely scrutinized, FBI leaders could decide to go full bore, assigning a slew of agents from multiple squads to wrap the probe in short time. "They could just about drop everything else they're doing, every other background check for generals to get the next star, and cabinet secretaries and US attorneys," said Tom Fuentes, a former FBI assistant director and senior CNN law enforcement analyst. "They could wrap everything. If they want to put 500 agents on this tomorrow they could do that."Bottom Line:
The FBI has no more authority than the Senate Judiciary committee. Like it or not, the President does not have the authority to make up a "new" manner in which the FBI would investigate something. Since there is no Federal criminal crime alleged, the only investigation the FBI can proceed with is a background check.
Since they cannot subpoena anyone, they will likely only be able to talk to those who will provide the same accounts that they previously did. However, stating something to the FBI doesn't make that statement any "more" or any "less" true. If someone states something to the FBI that has previously been stated (to the committee or the press) it does not make it "new information" nor does it make it more credible.
Lastly, in a situation like this, it is much more likely that the FBI will find possible holes in the allegations than they will find anything that corroborates these claims. There several rumors regarding possible holes out there, and by all accounts the FBI will be looking into these holes as well. Politics may allow for a situation where we allow the accuser the benefit of the doubt, but the FBI will have no such responsibility.
In other words, the FBI will likely be performing the politically incorrect job of really searching into the credibility of these accusers. We already know that the Avenatti's client is a flake who has been previously sued for false allegations (which she walked back to save herself). We may find out many things about the other two accusers that was previously undisclosed. That could end up helping (not hurting) Kavanaugh.
Remember Kavanaugh has been through several background checks. Ford and the others have not been through "any"... prior to this one.
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Week long FBI investigation will not delay the vote one week...
As it stood, the full Senate was planning on making some procedural moves over the weekend and set up a full confirmation vote either Monday (or more likely Tuesday). Given that whatever sort of FBI report would be due by Friday in order to allow for the Flake demand agreed upon delay of one week before a vote, the Senate would be technically free to continue moving through any procedural moves and plan a vote for next Friday (worst case of Saturday).
Chances are that the FBI will be able to complete the additional Kavanaugh back ground check prior to Friday. There is literally a very specific (and limited) list of witnesses to account for, and interviewing them is not going to take that much time.
There are at most eight potential witnesses in the Christine Ford case. The four that were said to have attended the party, and the four that provided statements to the committee about Ford's discussions about the allegations. All of these people have already provided written statements under penalty of perjury. All of these people are said to have spoken to investigators from the Judicial committee. To change their story now could produce criminal charges, so I would expect every witness will say the exact same thing to the FBI as they did to the committee.
Likewise with the second Ramirez allegation. The FBI has already reached out to her, and there were only a limited amount of people involved in that situation. At this time nobody (including Ramirez) can state that they saw Kavanaugh expose himself. Ramirez herself is said to not know what exactly she pushed away and only remembers (at least today) that she saw Kavanaugh pulling up his pants. It's unlikely that the FBI will interview hearsay witnesses, and even if they did interview them, those statement remain hearsay.
I have yet to hear to what degree they are pursuing the Julie Swetnick allegations. According to sources the committee did not take her charges very seriously. They did speak to her, but apparently she had a fraction of the information that Michael Avennati has claimed. Bottom line, she had no actual personal allegation against Kavanaugh. She did not say he raped her or anyone else.
Lastly, I think it's important to understand that this is a background check, not a criminal investigation. Moreover, Judge Kavanaugh is the only person being checked out. The FBI is not going to do any extensive investigations of anyone else (including Mark Judge).
So a week was probably a generous amount of time for the FBI to update the background check of Judge Kavanaugh. I would not be surprised to see the vote by Friday, or only three or four days later than originally scheduled.
Chances are that the FBI will be able to complete the additional Kavanaugh back ground check prior to Friday. There is literally a very specific (and limited) list of witnesses to account for, and interviewing them is not going to take that much time.
There are at most eight potential witnesses in the Christine Ford case. The four that were said to have attended the party, and the four that provided statements to the committee about Ford's discussions about the allegations. All of these people have already provided written statements under penalty of perjury. All of these people are said to have spoken to investigators from the Judicial committee. To change their story now could produce criminal charges, so I would expect every witness will say the exact same thing to the FBI as they did to the committee.
Likewise with the second Ramirez allegation. The FBI has already reached out to her, and there were only a limited amount of people involved in that situation. At this time nobody (including Ramirez) can state that they saw Kavanaugh expose himself. Ramirez herself is said to not know what exactly she pushed away and only remembers (at least today) that she saw Kavanaugh pulling up his pants. It's unlikely that the FBI will interview hearsay witnesses, and even if they did interview them, those statement remain hearsay.
I have yet to hear to what degree they are pursuing the Julie Swetnick allegations. According to sources the committee did not take her charges very seriously. They did speak to her, but apparently she had a fraction of the information that Michael Avennati has claimed. Bottom line, she had no actual personal allegation against Kavanaugh. She did not say he raped her or anyone else.
Lastly, I think it's important to understand that this is a background check, not a criminal investigation. Moreover, Judge Kavanaugh is the only person being checked out. The FBI is not going to do any extensive investigations of anyone else (including Mark Judge).
So a week was probably a generous amount of time for the FBI to update the background check of Judge Kavanaugh. I would not be surprised to see the vote by Friday, or only three or four days later than originally scheduled.
Friday, September 28, 2018
Committee votes through Kavanaugh
11-10
Apparently Flake votes "yes" but thinks there should be a "one week FBI investigation" into Kavanaugh's sexual harassment allegations.
Now the ball is squarely in McConnell's court. Obviously McConnell nor Flake have authority to order the FBI to do an investigation. They would require the White House to step in on that one.
What would be the point of a "one week investigation" by the FBI? What could the FBI do in one week that the Judicial committee "could not" do in several months?
The answer, of course, is to delay the vote for another week without providing anything new.
Meanwhile at least two Democrats (Manchin and Heitkamp) are wavering and said to be leaning towards a "yes" vote. A recent poll shows Manchin winning by 12 if he votes "for" Kavanaugh, but slightly behind if he votes "no". He's in a very tough spot.
Something tells me that a "compromise" is brewing with some of these undecided moderates. Let them say there was an FBI investigation (which would not conclude "anything" new) and then it provides them cover to vote "yes".
Will Trump and McConnell go for it, or will they call down the bet?
UPDATE: Perhaps Flake inadvertently did the GOP a favor here. Already there are Democrats coming out and rejecting the one week timeline as arbitrary and ineffectual. Of course a one week investigation is silly and will not accomplish anything. But neither would a one month investigation or any other investigation.
The committee had plenty of time to investigate. They choose not to.
By rejecting the Flake offer, it would seem politically that the Democrats won't take yes for an answer.
Perhaps the White House and McConnell would be smart to order it to start tomorrow and schedule the vote in eight days.
Apparently Flake votes "yes" but thinks there should be a "one week FBI investigation" into Kavanaugh's sexual harassment allegations.
Now the ball is squarely in McConnell's court. Obviously McConnell nor Flake have authority to order the FBI to do an investigation. They would require the White House to step in on that one.
What would be the point of a "one week investigation" by the FBI? What could the FBI do in one week that the Judicial committee "could not" do in several months?
The answer, of course, is to delay the vote for another week without providing anything new.
Meanwhile at least two Democrats (Manchin and Heitkamp) are wavering and said to be leaning towards a "yes" vote. A recent poll shows Manchin winning by 12 if he votes "for" Kavanaugh, but slightly behind if he votes "no". He's in a very tough spot.
Something tells me that a "compromise" is brewing with some of these undecided moderates. Let them say there was an FBI investigation (which would not conclude "anything" new) and then it provides them cover to vote "yes".
Will Trump and McConnell go for it, or will they call down the bet?
_______
UPDATE: Perhaps Flake inadvertently did the GOP a favor here. Already there are Democrats coming out and rejecting the one week timeline as arbitrary and ineffectual. Of course a one week investigation is silly and will not accomplish anything. But neither would a one month investigation or any other investigation.
The committee had plenty of time to investigate. They choose not to.
By rejecting the Flake offer, it would seem politically that the Democrats won't take yes for an answer.
Perhaps the White House and McConnell would be smart to order it to start tomorrow and schedule the vote in eight days.
Ford Kavanaugh has made people forget the constitution and the rule of law...
Yesterday we had several Democrat spend much of their limited time wailing on the idea that the country should put everything on hold while the FBI investigates any and all rumors and wild allegations surrounding Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Now, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence and honestly already realizes that this is little more than a stalling tactic. However there are plenty of those people out there who are neither smart or honest enough to know the difference.
Yesterday we also heard elected Senators bring up the name of a private citizen and suggested that this woman was sexually passed around by Kavanaugh and friends, and demanded that Kavanaugh "fess up" to these indiscretions. Were these Senators acting in good faith, based on sworn testimony of actual witnesses? Not a chance. They were reacting to anonymous analysis being pushed into the public eye on the Twitter account of Michael Avenatti.
While this is "obviously" about bringing down Brett Kavanaugh by making him look bad, does anyone stop to consider what the consequences are for the woman in question? Everyone seems so concerned with Professor Ford (who offered to be there), but these same champion of women's rights seem to have zero concern for the innocent bystander who was repeatedly suggested by United State Senators on national television to be a high school slut.
According to all "sworn testimony" the women was a high school friend of Kavanaugh and his friends, the women and Kavanaugh are still occasionally in touch, and that they never engaged in any sexual activities at all. But even after providing this sworn testimony, other Senators were still harping on the idea that this woman was much like a piece of meat, who was simply used for sex, and that such an idea should disqualify Kavanaugh from consideration.
But let's get back to the FBI for a second. The fact that Kavanaugh has been nominated for the Supreme Court does not involve the FBI for any other reason that a normal background check (which they have done six times). The idea that the FBI can do a background check on Kavanaugh is because Kavanaugh agrees that the FBI can do a background check on him.
What Kavanaugh does not have the rights under our constitution to do is tell the FBI that they have authority to do background checks on other people. He cannot waive the rights of Mark Judge or anyone else, simply because certain politicians and news organizations believe it would be a good idea.
As obvious as this SHOULD appear to people, the simple concept seems to be missing.
Moreover, even if the FBI had some sort of jurisdiction over this sort of situation, they would still likely require warrants to interview anyone associated with this situation. But there is literally no justifiable legal or constitutional means to provide to a Judge to ask for the warrant. A Judge does not have any ability to take the political wishes of politicians or news media sources into consideration when he grants a warrant to engage someone in a criminal investigation (which is what the FBI does).
"Yes, your honor, we have literally no proof that any of these witnesses were part of any criminal activities under our jurisdiction, and the government already has sworn statements on record from each of these people. But this is really important to the NY Times, Washington Post, and several Politicians that we be given the chance to harass them about 36 year old allegations in order to delay a confirmation hearing and possibly derail the nominee."
Um yeah... no!
Now, anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence and honestly already realizes that this is little more than a stalling tactic. However there are plenty of those people out there who are neither smart or honest enough to know the difference.
Yesterday we also heard elected Senators bring up the name of a private citizen and suggested that this woman was sexually passed around by Kavanaugh and friends, and demanded that Kavanaugh "fess up" to these indiscretions. Were these Senators acting in good faith, based on sworn testimony of actual witnesses? Not a chance. They were reacting to anonymous analysis being pushed into the public eye on the Twitter account of Michael Avenatti.
While this is "obviously" about bringing down Brett Kavanaugh by making him look bad, does anyone stop to consider what the consequences are for the woman in question? Everyone seems so concerned with Professor Ford (who offered to be there), but these same champion of women's rights seem to have zero concern for the innocent bystander who was repeatedly suggested by United State Senators on national television to be a high school slut.
According to all "sworn testimony" the women was a high school friend of Kavanaugh and his friends, the women and Kavanaugh are still occasionally in touch, and that they never engaged in any sexual activities at all. But even after providing this sworn testimony, other Senators were still harping on the idea that this woman was much like a piece of meat, who was simply used for sex, and that such an idea should disqualify Kavanaugh from consideration.
But let's get back to the FBI for a second. The fact that Kavanaugh has been nominated for the Supreme Court does not involve the FBI for any other reason that a normal background check (which they have done six times). The idea that the FBI can do a background check on Kavanaugh is because Kavanaugh agrees that the FBI can do a background check on him.
What Kavanaugh does not have the rights under our constitution to do is tell the FBI that they have authority to do background checks on other people. He cannot waive the rights of Mark Judge or anyone else, simply because certain politicians and news organizations believe it would be a good idea.
As obvious as this SHOULD appear to people, the simple concept seems to be missing.
Moreover, even if the FBI had some sort of jurisdiction over this sort of situation, they would still likely require warrants to interview anyone associated with this situation. But there is literally no justifiable legal or constitutional means to provide to a Judge to ask for the warrant. A Judge does not have any ability to take the political wishes of politicians or news media sources into consideration when he grants a warrant to engage someone in a criminal investigation (which is what the FBI does).
"Yes, your honor, we have literally no proof that any of these witnesses were part of any criminal activities under our jurisdiction, and the government already has sworn statements on record from each of these people. But this is really important to the NY Times, Washington Post, and several Politicians that we be given the chance to harass them about 36 year old allegations in order to delay a confirmation hearing and possibly derail the nominee."
Um yeah... no!
Guess who's making calls on behalf of Kavanaugh
Rumor has it that Brett Kavanaugh was not just the ultimate choice of Trump, but the favorite choice of the "Bush wing" of the Republican Party. By all accounts, Senators like Flake, Murkowski, Manchin, Donnelly, Collins, and others have received phone calls from the former President asking for their support.
Bush has been said to be staying far away from politics these days, but has felt it important to reach out now. One has to wonder what it exactly means when the Trump and Bush wings of the GOP are in agreement on something like this? One of the seven signs of the apocalypse or something a more politically subtle?
Will the Flake committee vote tell the story?
(UPDATE) Flake a yes
Certainly if Jeff Flake is a no vote, the path to confirmation becomes much more complicated for Kavanaugh and the GOP. That being said, there are reports coming in from a variety of sources that the GOP feels confidence with both the Judicial committee and the floor vote. So if Flake votes yes, it could signal that there is something more known behind closed doors than what is being led on publicly.
Reports are that Rachel Mitchell's job was actually two fold. She was to ask questions, quite obviously. But apparently she provided her own analysis to the Republican Senators as well. Suggestions are that it was Mitchell's report that convinced Bob Corker to vote yes.
Meanwhile, there are reports of a potential voting bloc by Murkowski, Collins, Donnolly, and Manchin. The two Republicans and two Democrats are said to be considering voting together to provide some sort of political cover. Strangely that doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the case of Murkowski and Collins voting no. Murkowski being part of a bloc that brings down Brett Kavanaugh would be political suicide in Alaska. Collins could also end up with a primary challenge and then all bets may be off. It simply makes much more sense that a unanimous GOP vote along with at least two Democrats would provide more cover for red state Democrats in tough reelection campaigns.
At least two separate sources are reporting that Manchin is (short of new information) leaning heavily towards a yes vote, and will use the reasoning that it's his job to do what the majority of his constituents want him to do. If these reports are true, it would likely break the ice for other vulnerable red state Democrats to follow suit. Certainly the Democrats want to stop Kavanaugh, but if it looks like he has 50 votes (or more) then they will look to what is politically expedient. Irrelevant no votes that might cost them a seat would not be worth the matter of political principal.
Update: According to multiple sources, Jeff Flake has made the decision to vote yes on Judge Kavanaugh. This was not unexpected, but still good news for Kavanaugh and the GOP. I suspect he wanted to make this call prior to the committee vote.
Murkowski and Collins still have time to pretend to be making up their minds. I would be shocked if they are still "thinking it over" but it certainly makes them look more open minded and reasonable if they continue to argue that that is what they are actually doing.
Reports are that Rachel Mitchell's job was actually two fold. She was to ask questions, quite obviously. But apparently she provided her own analysis to the Republican Senators as well. Suggestions are that it was Mitchell's report that convinced Bob Corker to vote yes.
Meanwhile, there are reports of a potential voting bloc by Murkowski, Collins, Donnolly, and Manchin. The two Republicans and two Democrats are said to be considering voting together to provide some sort of political cover. Strangely that doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the case of Murkowski and Collins voting no. Murkowski being part of a bloc that brings down Brett Kavanaugh would be political suicide in Alaska. Collins could also end up with a primary challenge and then all bets may be off. It simply makes much more sense that a unanimous GOP vote along with at least two Democrats would provide more cover for red state Democrats in tough reelection campaigns.
At least two separate sources are reporting that Manchin is (short of new information) leaning heavily towards a yes vote, and will use the reasoning that it's his job to do what the majority of his constituents want him to do. If these reports are true, it would likely break the ice for other vulnerable red state Democrats to follow suit. Certainly the Democrats want to stop Kavanaugh, but if it looks like he has 50 votes (or more) then they will look to what is politically expedient. Irrelevant no votes that might cost them a seat would not be worth the matter of political principal.
Update: According to multiple sources, Jeff Flake has made the decision to vote yes on Judge Kavanaugh. This was not unexpected, but still good news for Kavanaugh and the GOP. I suspect he wanted to make this call prior to the committee vote.
Murkowski and Collins still have time to pretend to be making up their minds. I would be shocked if they are still "thinking it over" but it certainly makes them look more open minded and reasonable if they continue to argue that that is what they are actually doing.
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Roger, James, and Dennis believed Dr Ford !!!
We were all wondering?
I watched the entire event.
Outside of politics it was a credibly event. I believe Doctor Ford.
Outside of politics it was a credibly event. I believe Doctor Ford.
When I heard the woman speak, I believed the woman.
commie said...Yeah sure rat hole....like the BS of flying yesterday....Me thinks your desperation smells just like trumps fat white ass!!!!!
Final conclusions?
- Most liberals seemed happy with the testimony of Christine Ford
- Certainly conservatives seemed more than happy with the testimony of Judge Kavanaugh
- I would offer that the Democrats were more interested in calling for more delay (aka - FBI investigation) than they were interested in asking real questions of Kavanaugh or getting to the truth.
- Kavanaugh and the GOP appeared to have a strategy to not attack Ford under any circumstance, but rather save all of their attacks on the Democrats and the process. (smart).
- I think the fact that Kavanaugh went second certainly overshadowed what happened with the Ford testimony. I can see why it was important to Katz and gang to try to go second.
- Certainly the final questions from Senator Kennedy put an explanation point on what the GOP and Kavanaugh were trying to accomplish.
I would say if you believed her before the hearing, you probably still believe her. If you believed him before the hearing you still believe him. In fact, it's perfectly acceptable to believe them both to at least some degree. I might argue that to call one or the other a "liar" may even be somewhat inappropriate all things considered.
What you have to do in this sort of situation (where you might find two credible people providing opposite testimony) is call it a draw and move on to the tiebreaker. As much as liberals and anti-Trumpers might hate it, that tiebreaker is the evidence and the facts.
Quite literally every bit of objective evidence, and pretty much all third hand accounts of these events support Judge Kavanaugh. Moreover, given he is the accused, and in our system of justice the burden always falls on the accuser, there was nothing provided by Christine Ford in the way of evidence that implicates that Kavanaugh did any of this. Every last bit of corroboration falls in favor of the Judge.
_______
Personally, from what I saw, the independent prosecutor the GOP hired wasn't that good, but then again I never thought that the GOP had much to gain by going after Ford in a big way. This was always going to be about Kavanaugh, and in the end that is really how it turned out.
This wasn't a debate or an election. The only one you can vote for is Kavanaugh. So the question becomes, after hearing all the evidence and hearing both sides tell their tale, is there enough there to vote AGAINST Judge Kavanaugh.
I didn't see it. I think he seemed honest. As someone who is a logical computer troubleshooter in my real life, I cannot with any objective honestly say that I believe he attempted to rape anyone, stuck his penis in anyone's face, or was part of a gang rape ring.
Kavanaugh's turn....
I guess he plans on just boring us with the facts...
- Who really cares if all the eyewitnesses corroborate his side of the story?
- Who really cares if his accuser cannot remember "anything" other than her claim she was assaulted?
- Who really cares if over 130 character witnesses (including close to 100 of her classmates) back his version of events and not a one backs her version?
Quick observation from what little I watched of the Ford testimony...
She seems like a reasonable witness. At least somewhat sympathetic, and somewhat believable. You sort of had to expect that. She does appear a little flaky and a little disassociated at times, but you had to expect that as well given the magnitude of the situation.
But jolly gosh darn, those two attorneys who are flanking her have "sleaze" dripping out of their ears. A couple of times when both leaned over to talk to her, I thought I was watching one of those old gangster movies where the slick mob lawyer is whispering in the mob boss's ear right before he steps up and pleads the fifth.
Just saying... could have picked better looking attorneys (optics-wise) to sit next to her.
 |
| No, I did not order the killing of snub-nose bob |
But jolly gosh darn, those two attorneys who are flanking her have "sleaze" dripping out of their ears. A couple of times when both leaned over to talk to her, I thought I was watching one of those old gangster movies where the slick mob lawyer is whispering in the mob boss's ear right before he steps up and pleads the fifth.
Just saying... could have picked better looking attorneys (optics-wise) to sit next to her.
Here is a simple question?
Christine Ford's written statement that she sent to congress...
Differs from the account she made when she took a polygraph test...
Which differs from her statement she will give tomorrow....
btw... these all differ from the account she provided in 2012 to her therapist.
It is literally impossible that the letter, the statement, and her polygraph are truthful.
Which of them is the truth? They cannot all be the truth?
One would prove that the polygraph test is illegitimate.
The others would prove she lied to congress.
So which is the truth and which are the lies?
But it will also provide her with more inconsistencies.
Differs from the account she made when she took a polygraph test...
Which differs from her statement she will give tomorrow....
btw... these all differ from the account she provided in 2012 to her therapist.
It is literally impossible that the letter, the statement, and her polygraph are truthful.
Which of them is the truth? They cannot all be the truth?
One would prove that the polygraph test is illegitimate.
The others would prove she lied to congress.
So which is the truth and which are the lies?
_______
In my humble opinion, she is changing the number of people there from her and four others to the four she mentioned, an unnamed boy (who she cannot remember). This will provide her with cover when asked about other previous statements regarding who's house she was in (as none of the people she mentions lives in a house as she described).
But it will also provide her with more inconsistencies.
Man who claims he (not Brett Kavanaugh) was the alleged assaulter interviewed multiple times?
It was only a matter of time... but apparently there has been more than one person who has contacted the Judicial committee with the desire to clear Kavanaugh's name by taking the blame for the alleged attack.
Reports suggest that at least one of those men has been taken fairly seriously, interviewed multiple times, and had offered at least some non-public information that matches up to information they have gathered in earlier interviews with Christine Ford.
I doubt that this person is going to be called to testify or even referenced today in the hearing, but it would seem like the sort of information that could reinforce support for Kavanaugh within the GOP Senate ranks.
In other words, if this person appears credible to Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski, and Bob Corker, it may swing everything Kavanaugh's way when it comes time to vote. Amidst all the foot stomping and temper tantrums, what should ultimately matter is whether or not Judge Kavanaugh gets a fair hearing and a fair result. If these Senators do not believe that he did what he was accused of, then it's their obligation to vote for confirmation.
It's not very American to deprive someone of their liberty and pursuit, because of petty politics, because certain people want to punish him over the sins of others who grew up like him, or because one women has convinced herself that he is guilty. Only evidence that proves he did this should disqualify him.
 |
| It was him! |
I doubt that this person is going to be called to testify or even referenced today in the hearing, but it would seem like the sort of information that could reinforce support for Kavanaugh within the GOP Senate ranks.
In other words, if this person appears credible to Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski, and Bob Corker, it may swing everything Kavanaugh's way when it comes time to vote. Amidst all the foot stomping and temper tantrums, what should ultimately matter is whether or not Judge Kavanaugh gets a fair hearing and a fair result. If these Senators do not believe that he did what he was accused of, then it's their obligation to vote for confirmation.
It's not very American to deprive someone of their liberty and pursuit, because of petty politics, because certain people want to punish him over the sins of others who grew up like him, or because one women has convinced herself that he is guilty. Only evidence that proves he did this should disqualify him.
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Third accuser previous filed sexual harassment case...
Which is all fine and dandy...
But guess who was her attorney?
I will give you a hint.
She currently represents one of the other accusers who happens to be scheduled for a hearing tomorrow morning.
Ironic and coincidental? Only if you are very very gullible.
But guess who was her attorney?
I will give you a hint.
She currently represents one of the other accusers who happens to be scheduled for a hearing tomorrow morning.
Ironic and coincidental? Only if you are very very gullible.
I might have a little more respect....
for those jumping on the Kavanaugh is a sex predator bandwagon, if they would simply acknowledge the obvious truth that even if you are prone to believe Ford, these other allegations are so far out there that it's literally impossible to take it serious...
But it seems that most everyone on the left is taking "everything" that is being tossed out there at face value, regardless of how dumb the allegation is?
But it seems that most everyone on the left is taking "everything" that is being tossed out there at face value, regardless of how dumb the allegation is?
- A college woman who can't be sure if what was in her face was dildo or a penis? But was able to push it away with her hand? Last time I checked, boys do not have detachable penises. If there was a real penis in her face, the rest of the body was there too (that's kind of how that works)... and you couldn't just push the penis away without pushing the entire person away.
- A female college sophomore hanging out with 11th grade boys, going to party after party where she witnessed gang rapes, and not one of these gang rapes was reported to anyone, and this witness never thought (as an adult) to try to stop it or tell anyone herself? This sophomore in college continued to go to these high school gang rape parties, watching the rapes over and over and over and over... until she was finally raped herself.
And btw... if you really had a story to tell about sexual assault, would you ever in a million years hire the same attorney who is representing Stormy Daniels? Well maybe if you are either dumb enough to go to gang rape parties over and over till you get raped yourself, or if you are dumb enough to think people should believe you.
Public supports McConnell?
Voters Still Favor Kavanaugh Vote in Senate - And Want It Soon
Bottom line: there will be a floor vote on Judge Kavanaugh sometime next week, no matter how hard the temper tantrum from the Democrats and left wing media is. While several Senators remain "mum" on both sides of the aisle, there is still not a single Republican or a single Democrat who suggest that they are crossing over.
I would have always expected most moderate Republicans (Collins, Flake, etc...) to publicly claim they are waiting for the hearing (in fact, I am surprised to see as many Republicans as there are already stating their support). I would expect that red state Senators up for reelection might be a little quiet right now. Both Collins and Murkowski are satisfied with Kavanaugh from a Roe v Wade standpoint, so at least in terms of rhetoric... it's all about the allegations.
But something about all of this tells me it was about the optics of the situation. Certainly the GOP has bent over backwards to seem objective and fair to the allegations, but that doesn't necessarily prove that any of them "believe" that the allegations should derail the confirmation.
At the end of the day, I would expect pretty close to a Party line vote.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell insists the U.S. Senate will vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and most voters still support that decision. There’s also only slightly less urgency in their minds about getting the job done.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 56% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe that every person the president nominates to serve as a judge or in a government position should receive an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate. Only 20% disagree, while slightly more (23%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Bottom line: there will be a floor vote on Judge Kavanaugh sometime next week, no matter how hard the temper tantrum from the Democrats and left wing media is. While several Senators remain "mum" on both sides of the aisle, there is still not a single Republican or a single Democrat who suggest that they are crossing over.
I would have always expected most moderate Republicans (Collins, Flake, etc...) to publicly claim they are waiting for the hearing (in fact, I am surprised to see as many Republicans as there are already stating their support). I would expect that red state Senators up for reelection might be a little quiet right now. Both Collins and Murkowski are satisfied with Kavanaugh from a Roe v Wade standpoint, so at least in terms of rhetoric... it's all about the allegations.
But something about all of this tells me it was about the optics of the situation. Certainly the GOP has bent over backwards to seem objective and fair to the allegations, but that doesn't necessarily prove that any of them "believe" that the allegations should derail the confirmation.
At the end of the day, I would expect pretty close to a Party line vote.
Meet the Michael Aventatti client
 |
| Julie Swetnick - now please respect her privacy |
- She furthermore claims she was a victim of one of these train gang rapes.
- Makes me wonder why any girl would continue to go to these parties where gang raping was the thing to do. How many times do you suppose girls can be tricked by the old spiked punch, gang rape routine?
- It also seems amazing to me that these repeated gang rapes went unreported by anyone for 36 years. Not a single victim came forward to report anything. Not a single witness said anything to anyone. Not a single parent notified.
Ramirez lawyer plays along...
John Clune, the attorney for Deborah Ramirez, has disputed the reports that his client will not talk to the judiciary committee or any Senate investigators by demanding that his client will not talk to the judiciary committee or any Senate investigators.
Huh?
Well, it would appear that Clune is playing the same game that Ford/Katz were playing by insisting that the Senate open up an "FBI Investigation" into the matter, claiming that his client is only interested in talking to the FBI.
Of course, he also believes that.... wait for it... wait for it... that the Senate should "delay" the confirmation process of Judge Kavanaugh, until such a time that his client is satisfied that her newly found memories have been fully investigated.
As everyone by now should understand, the Senate does not have jurisdiction over the FBI, and in fact has their own investigative authority (with investigative resources) to investigate matters important to Senate business. Quite obviously, allegations against a nominee that is being considered by the Senate would be as specific as specific could be in regards to the jurisdiction of Senate investigators.
Furthermore, the FBI has no jurisdiction over 35 year old unprovable allegations of College dorm drinking game antics, where maybe someone who may or may not have been Brett Kavanaugh put something that may have been a dildo or the real thing somewhere near her face... or maybe not. There are actually no witnesses, the accuser admits to being stumbling drunk, having memory gaps, was conveniently covering her face as to not look, and only within the last six weeks remembering that she thinks it was Kavanaugh who she saw "pulling up his pants" afterwards.
That being said, if the FBI felt a strong credible need to investigate something like this as a Federal law enforcement matter, then they could certainly make that decision on their own, and then later check themselves into a psychiatric ward for evaluation.
Last time I checked, attorneys did not have authority over FBI business. But these attorneys do have mind control over everyone who is suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. As long as those who suffer from delusions "believe" that demanding the FBI investigate is something other than a delay tactic, then they will continue to spew that nonsense.
Huh?
Of course, he also believes that.... wait for it... wait for it... that the Senate should "delay" the confirmation process of Judge Kavanaugh, until such a time that his client is satisfied that her newly found memories have been fully investigated.
As everyone by now should understand, the Senate does not have jurisdiction over the FBI, and in fact has their own investigative authority (with investigative resources) to investigate matters important to Senate business. Quite obviously, allegations against a nominee that is being considered by the Senate would be as specific as specific could be in regards to the jurisdiction of Senate investigators.
Furthermore, the FBI has no jurisdiction over 35 year old unprovable allegations of College dorm drinking game antics, where maybe someone who may or may not have been Brett Kavanaugh put something that may have been a dildo or the real thing somewhere near her face... or maybe not. There are actually no witnesses, the accuser admits to being stumbling drunk, having memory gaps, was conveniently covering her face as to not look, and only within the last six weeks remembering that she thinks it was Kavanaugh who she saw "pulling up his pants" afterwards.
That being said, if the FBI felt a strong credible need to investigate something like this as a Federal law enforcement matter, then they could certainly make that decision on their own, and then later check themselves into a psychiatric ward for evaluation.
Last time I checked, attorneys did not have authority over FBI business. But these attorneys do have mind control over everyone who is suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. As long as those who suffer from delusions "believe" that demanding the FBI investigate is something other than a delay tactic, then they will continue to spew that nonsense.
Nobody expects the Mitchell inquisition
Republican senators have selected Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to question Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the woman who has accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers, a top senator announced Tuesday.
 |
| Make her sit in the comfy chair!!! |
Mitchell, the sex crimes bureau chief for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office in Phoenix, will query the two at Thursday's highly anticipated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. A registered Republican, Mitchell has worked for the Maricopa County Attorney's Office for 26 years.
The division Mitchell heads deals with family violence, physical and sexual abuse of children, and sex offenses, including sex assault cases. Mitchell oversees about 40 to 50 people in the division, said Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery. Mitchell has a long history of investigating years-old sex crimes and allegations that are difficult to corroborate, including in her role re-examining hundreds of cases that were unresolved and inadequately investigated by the sheriff's office, Montgomery said."
Over the course of Rachel's career, she has dealt with victims in this very circumstance of delayed disclosure and circumstances where allegations were difficult to corroborate," Montgomery said. "She has had to make a decision as a prosecutor whether or not those cases can move forward."Senate Judiciary Committee staff contacted Montgomery over the weekend asking about her experience, and Montgomery encouraged the staff and Mitchell to communicate directly, he said.
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Ford attorneys declare hearing "unfair" and "disrespectful"
Let's recap the reality here:
A person, relying on her drunk 15 year old high school girl memory - from 36 years ago - is accusing a highly respected Judge who has been nominated to the USSC of sexual assault. She makes these allegations with no evidence, no corroboration, and quite a few holes in the story (not to mention quite a few people disputing her memory).
Feels that it's her right to:
A person, relying on her drunk 15 year old high school girl memory - from 36 years ago - is accusing a highly respected Judge who has been nominated to the USSC of sexual assault. She makes these allegations with no evidence, no corroboration, and quite a few holes in the story (not to mention quite a few people disputing her memory).
Feels that it's her right to:
- Make the accusations publicly
- Be given a forum to air her accusation under oath
- Determine the manner in which the forum is held
- Determine the manner in which the accused defends himself
You can't make this shit up, people...
Drunk 15 year old who 36 years later remembers an unbelievable story that nobody in the world remembers...
concerned about who will ask her the questions about this alleged memory?
Gee, I wonder why?
Did you know that only 1 or 2 drinks will cause memory deterioration issues? One has to wonder how a few drinks would affect a 15 year old girl?
Explicit memory requires conscious and intentional effort for recall.[31] It includes both episodic memory (for specific events, such as a party) and semantic memory (for general information, such as one's name).[31]
Alcohol impairs episodic encoding, specifically for cued recall, recognition of completed word fragments, and free recall.[32] A blackout is an example of a difficulty in encoding episodic memories due to alcohol. Blackouts are caused by a rapid increase in blood alcohol concentration (BAC) which in turn distorts the neurons in the hippocampus.[33] This distortion impairs a person's ability to form new episodic memories.[33]
High doses of alcohol severely disrupt the storage process of semantic memories.[34] Alcohol was found to impair the storage of novel stimuli but not that of previously learned information.[34] Since alcohol affects the central nervous system, it hinders semantic storage functioning by restricting the consolidation of the information from encoding.[34]
Retrieval of explicit memory is significantly impaired by alcohol. When compared to sober participants, intoxicated participants performed quite poorly on a recall task for everyday events (i.e., episodic memory).[35] Intoxicated participants are also slower to respond in reaction time tasks.[36] Alcohol also impairs retrieval in word recognition tasks.[32] When both encoding and retrieval take place during intoxication, there are surprisingly more impairments for cued recall than for free recall.[32] In terms of gender differences in retrieval processes, females tend to score lower than males on recall tasks when intoxicated.[36]
Gee, I wonder why?
Did you know that only 1 or 2 drinks will cause memory deterioration issues? One has to wonder how a few drinks would affect a 15 year old girl?
Explicit memoryIn new letter from Dr Ford’s Attorney to the Judiciary Committee, they again object to having outside counsel ask the questions for republicans at Thursday’s hearing, and ask for the name and resume of who that person will be.— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) September 25, 2018
This does not appear to be a done deal. pic.twitter.com/MwggIeBGbs
Explicit memory requires conscious and intentional effort for recall.[31] It includes both episodic memory (for specific events, such as a party) and semantic memory (for general information, such as one's name).[31]
Alcohol impairs episodic encoding, specifically for cued recall, recognition of completed word fragments, and free recall.[32] A blackout is an example of a difficulty in encoding episodic memories due to alcohol. Blackouts are caused by a rapid increase in blood alcohol concentration (BAC) which in turn distorts the neurons in the hippocampus.[33] This distortion impairs a person's ability to form new episodic memories.[33]
High doses of alcohol severely disrupt the storage process of semantic memories.[34] Alcohol was found to impair the storage of novel stimuli but not that of previously learned information.[34] Since alcohol affects the central nervous system, it hinders semantic storage functioning by restricting the consolidation of the information from encoding.[34]
Retrieval of explicit memory is significantly impaired by alcohol. When compared to sober participants, intoxicated participants performed quite poorly on a recall task for everyday events (i.e., episodic memory).[35] Intoxicated participants are also slower to respond in reaction time tasks.[36] Alcohol also impairs retrieval in word recognition tasks.[32] When both encoding and retrieval take place during intoxication, there are surprisingly more impairments for cued recall than for free recall.[32] In terms of gender differences in retrieval processes, females tend to score lower than males on recall tasks when intoxicated.[36]
Interesting?
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Forty-five percent of Americans now have a favorable view of the Republican Party, a nine-point gain from last September's 36%. It is the party's most positive image since it registered 47% in January 2011, shortly after taking control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections. Forty-four percent give the Democratic Party a favorable rating.
Former Senator Kelly Ayotte is current favorite to question Professor Ford
Except she will be played by Jeanne Tripplehorn
Monday, September 24, 2018
Rosenstein resigns or not?
Update: Or not - Rosenstein has not resigned. Meeting with Trump on Thursday!
Apparently Rod Rosenstein is on his way to the White House to offer his resignation, has already offered his resignation to Chief of Staff John Kelly, or is not resigning...
depending on which source you read,
Oddly, Trump is in New York today, and according to almost everyone had not made up his mind as to whether he was going to fire Rosenstein or not. Most of his advisers has suggested holding off at least through the mid-terms, if not till the Mueller probe was over.
Something tells me that there were more "shoes to drop" in regards to Rosenstein and his past behavior. If he actually is resigning, it would be because Rosenstein hopes to take the heat off so to speak.
This would also means that Robert Mueller would have a new boss.
The speculation about those implications would run rampart.
Apparently Rod Rosenstein is on his way to the White House to offer his resignation, has already offered his resignation to Chief of Staff John Kelly, or is not resigning...
depending on which source you read,
Oddly, Trump is in New York today, and according to almost everyone had not made up his mind as to whether he was going to fire Rosenstein or not. Most of his advisers has suggested holding off at least through the mid-terms, if not till the Mueller probe was over.
Something tells me that there were more "shoes to drop" in regards to Rosenstein and his past behavior. If he actually is resigning, it would be because Rosenstein hopes to take the heat off so to speak.
This would also means that Robert Mueller would have a new boss.
The speculation about those implications would run rampart.
Avenatti update...
Brett Kavanaugh ran a "gang rape ring"
Avenatti's mystery client "appears" by all accounts to be a woman who dated Mark Judge while they were in high school. She allegedly makes the claim that Judge told her that he and some other boys from that school once got a girl drunk, and then took turn having sex with her. Judge apparently still claims the "train" was consensual.
The ex girlfriend doesn't know the name of the girl, the names of any of the other boys involved, or whether or not Kavanaugh was one of them.
Not sure how that goes from Mark Judge making a claim about a girl, and Brett Kavanaugh being involved in a gang rape ring. It certainly seems a bit odd that over 70 different women who went to school with Brett Kavanaugh would come out as character witnesses for a guy who was actively involved in multiple gang rapes.
Mass hypnosis perhaps?
Apparently the committee is asking Avenatti to supply the evidence that he specifically has against Kavanaugh. He says there are multiple unnamed witnesses that will confirm the "gang rape ring", that he has uncovered secret coded year book signings regarding the "gang rape ring", and he is stating that he will have more information to provide everyone in the coming days.
In the meantime:
Reality here folks... if his client is just the ex-girlfriend, then we are looking at a hearsay accusation about a classmate of Brett Kavanaugh. Nothing more and nothing less. The Judiciary committee has no business getting involved with any of that.
If Avenatti really has more to offer, it better be in the form of some sworn statements from actual people willing to testify under oath to first hand knowledge of this so called "gang rape ring". Which of course would mean either a rapist or a rape victim.
Avenatti's mystery client "appears" by all accounts to be a woman who dated Mark Judge while they were in high school. She allegedly makes the claim that Judge told her that he and some other boys from that school once got a girl drunk, and then took turn having sex with her. Judge apparently still claims the "train" was consensual.
The ex girlfriend doesn't know the name of the girl, the names of any of the other boys involved, or whether or not Kavanaugh was one of them.
Not sure how that goes from Mark Judge making a claim about a girl, and Brett Kavanaugh being involved in a gang rape ring. It certainly seems a bit odd that over 70 different women who went to school with Brett Kavanaugh would come out as character witnesses for a guy who was actively involved in multiple gang rapes.
Mass hypnosis perhaps?
Apparently the committee is asking Avenatti to supply the evidence that he specifically has against Kavanaugh. He says there are multiple unnamed witnesses that will confirm the "gang rape ring", that he has uncovered secret coded year book signings regarding the "gang rape ring", and he is stating that he will have more information to provide everyone in the coming days.
In the meantime:
- Avanatti has been insistent that Mark Judge be subpoenaed to confirm the "gang rape ring".
- Avanatti is insistent that Kavanaugh be asked about the secret coded yearbook messages regarding the "gang rape ring".
- Avanatti is insistent that Kavanaugh be asked numerous questions about this "gang rape ring".
Reality here folks... if his client is just the ex-girlfriend, then we are looking at a hearsay accusation about a classmate of Brett Kavanaugh. Nothing more and nothing less. The Judiciary committee has no business getting involved with any of that.
If Avenatti really has more to offer, it better be in the form of some sworn statements from actual people willing to testify under oath to first hand knowledge of this so called "gang rape ring". Which of course would mean either a rapist or a rape victim.
Sunday, September 23, 2018
New unfounded allegations?
So disgusted with politics right now I could vomit
Let's be clear... Republican leadership "allowing" unfounded decades old allegations to be taken seriously, you simply allow for others to step forward with unfounded allegations and demand the same.
All I can say is that I hope certain people have learned their lesson here. I know the Democrats have.
Let's be clear... Republican leadership "allowing" unfounded decades old allegations to be taken seriously, you simply allow for others to step forward with unfounded allegations and demand the same.
- We now have another unfounded allegation from 35 years ago with no corroboration, and an admitted memory issues from the accuser admitting to being highly inebriated, along with denials from anyone and every named (with similar praising of Brett Kavanaugh). According to the story, even her "best friend" in college disputes that this happened.
- Also Stormy Daniels attorney is now claiming "he" has an additional client who will no doubt tell another unfounded story with no corroboration from anyone at all.
All I can say is that I hope certain people have learned their lesson here. I know the Democrats have.
Reports are that Ford will come testify on Thursday...
Reports have been circulating that Ford's attorney's have accepted the latest offer from the Senate Judiciary committee to come testify on Thursday. According to the reports, the Senate Judiciary committee will determine who is called and the order (Ford and then Kavanaugh), who will ask the questions of Ford (outside counsel assumed to be a woman), as well as control the scope of the questioning.
Reports are that Ford's attorneys are still upset with the terms and are calling them unfair, but at this point, the Senate Judiciary committee is standing firm on these areas, which they have deemed to be hard lines. I cannot stress enough that the Committee has the obligation to protect the rights of Kavanaugh (who is being accused) in this situation.
Of course, this isn't the first time that there were reports of an agreement floating through the media, when after some times, both sides later declared that there was no agreement. But I suspect at this point an official announcement will be made by Grassley and Ford's legal team on this one. Ford and her team have come to the end of the gamesmanship. With the last potential witness failing to back her story, her options became shit or get off the pot.
Or to put it more bluntly, come to Washington and testify, or look like you were only in this for a chance to smear Kavanaugh with a hit and run attack.
Update: Ugh! Another outlet is reporting that Ford's legal team is suggesting that while they have agreed to testify on Thursday, that they are saying terms are still being worked out. This one might still not be in the books.
Reports are that Ford's attorneys are still upset with the terms and are calling them unfair, but at this point, the Senate Judiciary committee is standing firm on these areas, which they have deemed to be hard lines. I cannot stress enough that the Committee has the obligation to protect the rights of Kavanaugh (who is being accused) in this situation.
Of course, this isn't the first time that there were reports of an agreement floating through the media, when after some times, both sides later declared that there was no agreement. But I suspect at this point an official announcement will be made by Grassley and Ford's legal team on this one. Ford and her team have come to the end of the gamesmanship. With the last potential witness failing to back her story, her options became shit or get off the pot.
Or to put it more bluntly, come to Washington and testify, or look like you were only in this for a chance to smear Kavanaugh with a hit and run attack.
______
Update: Ugh! Another outlet is reporting that Ford's legal team is suggesting that while they have agreed to testify on Thursday, that they are saying terms are still being worked out. This one might still not be in the books.
The statement from Ford's attorneys said the other unresolved matters included whether the GOP senators on the committee would ask questions of Ford themselves.
Washington Post knew the name of the other girl....
and apparently were told by Ford and her attorneys that she wasn't going to remember the party in question.
This goes to both the credibility of the accuser as well as the independence and credibility of the Washington Post. A real newspaper, upon learning of the name of another key witness would have pursued that lead, rather than fill their newspaper with opinion pieces and crazy stores based on more anonymous sources.
Ironically, the Washington doesn't have any sort of lead story or any story I can find regarding the fact that the fourth and final potential witness for Ford has denied not only any knowledge of a party, but any knowledge of even knowing Kavanaugh. It's if the story doesn't exist.
Read through the following twitter feed for more details....
Note: If one were to solely rely on the Washington Post to get their news, they would truly be living in an entirely different reality than the rest of the country.
This goes to both the credibility of the accuser as well as the independence and credibility of the Washington Post. A real newspaper, upon learning of the name of another key witness would have pursued that lead, rather than fill their newspaper with opinion pieces and crazy stores based on more anonymous sources.
Ironically, the Washington doesn't have any sort of lead story or any story I can find regarding the fact that the fourth and final potential witness for Ford has denied not only any knowledge of a party, but any knowledge of even knowing Kavanaugh. It's if the story doesn't exist.
Read through the following twitter feed for more details....
1) More big breaking news, which further undercuts the Ford accusation, as well as media handling of it. A source has given me the email that WaPo reporter Emma Brown sent to Mark Judge, one person Ford claims was at the party. This email is dated Sunday, Sept. 16, 2018— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) September 23, 2018
Note: If one were to solely rely on the Washington Post to get their news, they would truly be living in an entirely different reality than the rest of the country.
Democrats admit what this is really about!
House Democrats increasingly see the controversy swirling around Brett Kavanaugh as a political boon just weeks ahead of the midterm elections — a saga they think will energize female voters already put off by President Trump and threatening to bring their frustrations to the polls. “Beware of the wrath of women scorned, Mr. President and Majority Leader [Mitch] McConnell,” said Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.). “It will be your party’s downfall.”
“It is making absolutely sure that women across the country — in both parties, frankly — are paying attention. … That is not good for the Republicans,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Friday in a phone call. “Many of the races for the midterms will depend on what women, including suburban women and rural women, do.”
Saturday, September 22, 2018
Opps!!!
Senate Judiciary Committee contacts Ford's friend about party
Now the other women who is said to have been at this party has been contacted and her attorney has had this to say:
This is now falling deeper and deeper into the area of a paranoid fantasy by Ford. Either Ford is delusional or there is some other reason why pretty much nobody who knew her back then believes that this happened (including the lifelong friend she claims was the one with her).
It's one thing to have the two males alleged to be at the party deny any knowledge of this sort of thing. But it's a big, big game changer when the other girl that she supposedly came with not only denies any knowledge of the party, but denies that she even really knew Brett Kavanaugh.
How anyone can still believe Professor Ford is beyond me?
Honestly, if the Democrats had a shred of dignity at this point, they would step up, disavow their support of Professor Ford, and apologize to Brett Kavanaugh for being duped by all of this.
Btw... this latest information could strongly alter the "negotiations" of the Senate Judiciary committee and Professor Ford. If I was Ford at this point, I would seriously consider putting an end to this matter, and then actually following through and moving to New Zealand. Sooner rather than later.
Now the other women who is said to have been at this party has been contacted and her attorney has had this to say:
Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.So now Ford is a whopping zero for three with her potential witnesses regarding the alleged party. This person went so far as to say she never even knew Brett Kavanaugh. She also has identified herself as a "lifelong friend" to Christine Ford.
This is now falling deeper and deeper into the area of a paranoid fantasy by Ford. Either Ford is delusional or there is some other reason why pretty much nobody who knew her back then believes that this happened (including the lifelong friend she claims was the one with her).
It's one thing to have the two males alleged to be at the party deny any knowledge of this sort of thing. But it's a big, big game changer when the other girl that she supposedly came with not only denies any knowledge of the party, but denies that she even really knew Brett Kavanaugh.
How anyone can still believe Professor Ford is beyond me?
Honestly, if the Democrats had a shred of dignity at this point, they would step up, disavow their support of Professor Ford, and apologize to Brett Kavanaugh for being duped by all of this.
Btw... this latest information could strongly alter the "negotiations" of the Senate Judiciary committee and Professor Ford. If I was Ford at this point, I would seriously consider putting an end to this matter, and then actually following through and moving to New Zealand. Sooner rather than later.
Latest update on the continued drama of Crazy Christine Ford
From what can be deciphered from all of the available information, we know this:
- That the Senate Judiciary committee and representatives for Ford spoke for about 15 minutes
- That the Senate Judiciary committee agreed to push back the hearing from Wed to Thurs.
- That the previous agreements regarding a pool camera, additional security, and that neither Kavanaugh or Ford will be present when the other testifies are still in place (but being offered by some in the media as new concessions).
- That the same sticking points exist regarding the request by Ford's legal team that she testify second, that the questions are not asked by counsel, that there be certain limits as to what can be asked, as well as their desire to subpoena Mark Judge.
Nobody on either side has issued any statements, although the White House has offered that the two sides appeared no closer to an agreement than they were previously. That statement came out at just a few minutes ahead of the media reports, so it would appear that the President was informed of the details (or lack of details) just before the generic reports were provided to the media.
I have to sort of agree that until there is an actual agreement, that there is no actual agreement, and if all that was settled on was an agreement to extend both the hearing and the deadline, that we are probably no closer than we were yesterday. In fact, it would appear to be just another day of stalling by the Ford team.
Grassley's arguments about having counsel question Ford, not limiting those questions, as well as Kavanaugh testifying second are simply no-brainers. He should not (under any circumstances) give up the ship on any of those demands. Kavanaugh has rights here as the accused, and it's up to Grassley and the GOP to protect those rights.
As far as subpoenaing Mark Judge, that would be a tough call. He doesn't appear to have much information to provide about the actual assault, and this is not a legal hearing. My best guess is that Ford's counsel would like someone who might slip up and say something damaging, and they know it's not likely that Kavanaugh would do so.
But Mark Judge is also an American citizen, and there are rules in place as to who you can subpoena and why. None of those legal reasons would apply to this situation. It would quite literally be an infringements of his constitutional rights to be pulled into this circus for the sake of being some sort of "target"of the Ford attorneys. Grassley by all ethical and legal accounts should hold his ground on that one as well.
Grassley's arguments about having counsel question Ford, not limiting those questions, as well as Kavanaugh testifying second are simply no-brainers. He should not (under any circumstances) give up the ship on any of those demands. Kavanaugh has rights here as the accused, and it's up to Grassley and the GOP to protect those rights.
As far as subpoenaing Mark Judge, that would be a tough call. He doesn't appear to have much information to provide about the actual assault, and this is not a legal hearing. My best guess is that Ford's counsel would like someone who might slip up and say something damaging, and they know it's not likely that Kavanaugh would do so.
But Mark Judge is also an American citizen, and there are rules in place as to who you can subpoena and why. None of those legal reasons would apply to this situation. It would quite literally be an infringements of his constitutional rights to be pulled into this circus for the sake of being some sort of "target"of the Ford attorneys. Grassley by all ethical and legal accounts should hold his ground on that one as well.
So here are a couple of questions for every idiot out there?
First:
I sort of thought that Ford already "agreed" that she wanted to testify.
In fact, I sort of thought that Ford had actually requested that she wanted to testify?
Was I wrong? Did I miss something?
So... the questions:
I sort of thought that Ford already "agreed" that she wanted to testify.
In fact, I sort of thought that Ford had actually requested that she wanted to testify?
Was I wrong? Did I miss something?
So... the questions:
- If Christine Ford had not previously decided she wanted to testify, then what the hell has been going on with the cancellation of the confirmation hearing, the scheduling of not one, but two different hearing for here?
- Why did she hire an attorney and now a Democratic operative to guide her in the process if she hadn't determined that she wanted to testify?
- Why has the Senate judiciary committee been negotiating with these attorneys for several days already if Ford was not sure that she wanted to testify?
Bottom line: Anyone who believes that this statement is actually an "agreement" to anything has an elevator that doesn't go all the way up to the top!
Was I right or was I right!!!
My prediction: That in spite of the poor optics, that Katz comes back with more demands, including another delay to the hearing itself. She will have to throw in something that the GOP has already rejected and will not agree to, because if Ford is going to actually testify, I suspect that they want to look like the victims of having to "agree" to something they are uncomfortable with. They could not afford to come back with an "offer" that is accepted. That would make he GOP look way more reasonable than they would like them to look.
Dr. Ford accepts the Committee's request to provide her first-hand knowledge of Brett Kavanaugh's sexual misconduct next week. Although many aspects of the proposal you provided via email, on September 21, 2018, at 2:33 pm, are fundamentally inconsistent with the Committee's promise of a fair, impartial investigation into her allegations, and we are disappointed with the leaks and the bullying that have tainted the process, we are hopeful that we can reach agreement on details. Can we set up a time for later this afternoon to continue our negotiations?
_______
Let's be clear here folks. Ford has not agreed to anything.
That statement is complete red herring and strawman.
This is simply another attempt to "renegotiate" and delay the process, as is clearly stated in the letter. The first statement was for the "media" and for those dumb enough to not read past it.
Grassley and the GOP have made their offer. Katz asked for another day to consider it. They are not responding to Grassley's offer, they are ignoring it and pretending that it doesn't exist. They are wanting to once again "start over with negotiations" and want additional time to wallow.
Honestly, this is even more crass and daring that I thought Katz would be. She's literally wanting to simply start over from scratch and negotiate as if there has not been any ongoing negotiations.
Honestly, this is even more crass and daring that I thought Katz would be. She's literally wanting to simply start over from scratch and negotiate as if there has not been any ongoing negotiations.
Grassley has drawn red lines that are extremely consistent with what he should do. In this process, the rights of Judge Kavanaugh are as important as the rights of Ford. Grassley is, and I suspect will, continue to fight for Kavanaugh's rights.
I have no idea if Grassley is willing to continue to make more concessions. I really believe that the GOP is "concessioned" out on this thing. They don't "owe" Ford anything other than the opportunity to come tell her story under the normal operating rules of the Senate. They do not owe it to Ford to undo constitutional protections from someone who is being accused.
Would they move the date back another day or two, if Ford agreed to the rest? Possibly. But if Grassley gives away anything else regarding this, I think it would be time for the GOP to look for a new leader of the Judiciary committee.
Would they move the date back another day or two, if Ford agreed to the rest? Possibly. But if Grassley gives away anything else regarding this, I think it would be time for the GOP to look for a new leader of the Judiciary committee.
Christine Ford is flat out bat shit crazy!!!
- She wants to move to another country?
- She can't fly?
- She wants to drive 2800 miles?
- She needs every room in her house to have a door that goes outside?
- She is scared of having Senators question her, and scared if it isn't Senators?
- She just needs more time to ask for more time to ask for one more day to ask for more time?
The woman is flat out nuts. We should be fitting her for a straight jacket, not providing her with a forum to discuss her paranoid delusions from 36 years ago! The entire country is "waiting" on someone who is likely certifiably insane, because democrats cannot stand that they lost an election and desperately will go to any lengths to disparage the reputation of someone who has garnered complete and universal respect his whole life.
They only found "one" person in the whole world who doesn't respect Kavanaugh.
Christine bat-shit-crazy Ford.
They only found "one" person in the whole world who doesn't respect Kavanaugh.
Christine bat-shit-crazy Ford.
Grassley gives Ford another day to decide...
Certainly Grassley had the "right" to follow through with his ultimatum and shut things down with Ford (and her Democratic operatives) and simply follow through with the Monday committee vote.
But by providing one more day for Ford to decide, it ends any and all allegations that Ford is being bullied or otherwise treated unfairly. If she cannot make up her mind tomorrow, or decides to demand more concessions, then nobody can blame Grassley or the GOP if the committee vote takes place on Monday.
Perhaps this was the play all along. Set a 10:00 EST deadline knowing full well that Katz would push back. Then by agreeing to another day, Katz appears to have gained another concession, but now really has little play in demanding anything else without appearing unreasonable.
Moreover, Ford and Katz "technically" had the weekend to send out a letter to Grassley (and the media) accepting the terms provided. No way would Grassley and the GOP reject an agreement to testify if it came in before Monday. In other words, the 10:00 EST deadline was really not a "true" deadline. I might suspect that neither is the extension into Saturday, although Ford will lose serious credibility if they do not provide an answer by end of day.
My prediction: That in spite of the poor optics, that Katz comes back with more demands, including another delay to the hearing itself. She will have to throw in something that the GOP has already rejected and will not agree to, because if Ford is going to actually testify, I suspect that they want to look like the victims of having to "agree" to something they are uncomfortable with. They could not afford to come back with an "offer" that is accepted. That would make he GOP look way more reasonable than they would like them to look.
But by providing one more day for Ford to decide, it ends any and all allegations that Ford is being bullied or otherwise treated unfairly. If she cannot make up her mind tomorrow, or decides to demand more concessions, then nobody can blame Grassley or the GOP if the committee vote takes place on Monday.
Perhaps this was the play all along. Set a 10:00 EST deadline knowing full well that Katz would push back. Then by agreeing to another day, Katz appears to have gained another concession, but now really has little play in demanding anything else without appearing unreasonable.
Moreover, Ford and Katz "technically" had the weekend to send out a letter to Grassley (and the media) accepting the terms provided. No way would Grassley and the GOP reject an agreement to testify if it came in before Monday. In other words, the 10:00 EST deadline was really not a "true" deadline. I might suspect that neither is the extension into Saturday, although Ford will lose serious credibility if they do not provide an answer by end of day.
My prediction: That in spite of the poor optics, that Katz comes back with more demands, including another delay to the hearing itself. She will have to throw in something that the GOP has already rejected and will not agree to, because if Ford is going to actually testify, I suspect that they want to look like the victims of having to "agree" to something they are uncomfortable with. They could not afford to come back with an "offer" that is accepted. That would make he GOP look way more reasonable than they would like them to look.
Friday, September 21, 2018
The delusions of self importance here is staggering
Update: Looks like it's Professor Ford with the excuse in the hidden location...
The delusions of self importance here is staggering.
This woman asked to speak before the Senate. The Senate promptly cancelled the schedule committee confirmation vote of the USSC, and set a date for her, providing her with a week's notice of the hearing. One might think that one of the most powerful institutions on the planet agreeing to push back important business, just because of one person, might actually provide that person with some gratitude. Hardly, she simply demanded more.
The delusions of self importance here is staggering.
Ford and her attorneys waited for nearly 36 hours before responding and immediately asked to have the deadline pushed back, as well as asking for more concessions. The Senate agreed to push back the hearings to Wednesday, and provided Ford with several of her conditions. Again, one might think that the Senate granting a private citizen with several conditions, all so she can do what SHE asked to do would make her feel special? Nope.
The delusions of self importance here is staggering.
Now they claim that they need more time to decide, and obviously need the Senate to push back the date even further, but not actually providing any idea of when they can come to a decision. Don't call us, we'll call you, huh?
The delusions of self importance here is staggering.
Either that or they are simply attempting to "play" Grassley and the GOP Senators as long as they can, all in the desperate hope that they can derail the nomination by playing political four corners.
Attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford on Friday night decried an “arbitrary” deadline set by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) for her to respond to negotiations to testify about her sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh, seeking an additional day to reply.
“Its sole purpose is to bully Dr. Ford and deprive her of the ability to make a considered decision that has life-altering implications for her and her family,” Katz wrote in an email obtained by POLITICO.So just so we all understand it... The entire constitutional system of government is supposed to sit around and "wait" until some neurotic professor decides whether or not she wants to drive across the country (because she won't fly) and provide her 36 year old teen allegations from a high school house party regarding the current nominee to the USSC.
The delusions of self importance here is staggering.
This woman asked to speak before the Senate. The Senate promptly cancelled the schedule committee confirmation vote of the USSC, and set a date for her, providing her with a week's notice of the hearing. One might think that one of the most powerful institutions on the planet agreeing to push back important business, just because of one person, might actually provide that person with some gratitude. Hardly, she simply demanded more.
The delusions of self importance here is staggering.
Ford and her attorneys waited for nearly 36 hours before responding and immediately asked to have the deadline pushed back, as well as asking for more concessions. The Senate agreed to push back the hearings to Wednesday, and provided Ford with several of her conditions. Again, one might think that the Senate granting a private citizen with several conditions, all so she can do what SHE asked to do would make her feel special? Nope.
The delusions of self importance here is staggering.
Now they claim that they need more time to decide, and obviously need the Senate to push back the date even further, but not actually providing any idea of when they can come to a decision. Don't call us, we'll call you, huh?
The delusions of self importance here is staggering.
Either that or they are simply attempting to "play" Grassley and the GOP Senators as long as they can, all in the desperate hope that they can derail the nomination by playing political four corners.
Offer and Counteroffers
This is what will happen (if something does happen)
- There will be a hearing next Wednesday.
- The hearing will have one camera (assume a shared feed to media).
- The hearing will only include committee members.
- Ford will testify first. Kavanaugh will testify second.
- Neither will be present while the other testifies.
- The GOP will use a woman attorney to do the questioning.
- No other witnesses will appear.
To be clear, Grassley and the GOP will have the votes if Ford refuses to testify under these conditions. So for all practical purposes, it's put up or shut up, shit or get off the pot, speak now or forever hold your peace.
I suspect that a woman attorney questioning Ford will not provide the "old white male" narrative that Ford was hoping for when they requested only a judiciary committee hearing. I suspect that a women attorney questioning Ford on the details of these allegations is more than a bit scary for Ford. Certainly Ed Whelan was not the only one researching her claims and finding all of the holes in her story.
On the flip side, Kavanaugh has been through the ringer multiple times. There isn't going to be anything that Ford, Katz, and Seidman will uncover between now and then that the FBI and congressional investigators have not. They will more have their work cut our for them, prepping Ford for the inevitable questions about the inconsistencies that will not go unasked.
I suspect if Kavanaugh defends himself forcefully and is believable that he will be confirmed. I have yet to run across any conservative I know who believes this should derail his confirmation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)