______
Democrats have consolidated their view that an FBI investigation "must be done first". Obviously the letter suggests the same thing. The problem with this demand is that the Senate does not have the authority to order the FBI to do anything, and the FBI has flat out stated that they neither have the jurisdiction to investigate, or enough tangible information to perform an investigation. As many law enforcement experts have stated, the first step in this sort of case would be to interview Ford, which is exactly what the Senate is offering.
I still argue, as I have argued all along that Ford will pretty much "have" to testify at this point to keep her credibility. If it does happens, it is looking more and more as if it will be behind closed doors, and likely only in front of the Judiciary committee. The GOP has already determined that none of their Senators will ask questions, but rather they will hire an outside attorney (experienced in sexual allegations) to do the questioning. This makes sense, but it also means that Professor Ford will be cross examined by an actual attorney who knows all the ins and outs. This is a fairly intimidating thought process.
All that being said, there is still an underlying sense that this could be just another step in a longer process of "drawing things out". The idea that she could not make it "Monday" but be able to make it another day next week feels much more "arbitrary" then asking her to come during the scheduled hearing time which was made public almost a week prior. I still strongly suspect that there will be some sort of petty obstacle that will prevent the actual testimony from happening next week, which would provide more opportunity to "finger point" as to who is to blame.
82 comments:
Democrats have consolidated their view that an FBI investigation "must be done first". Obviously the letter suggests the same thing. The problem with this demand is that the Senate does not have the authority to order the FBI to do anything, and the FBI has flat out stated that they neither have the jurisdiction to investigate, or enough tangible information to perform an investigation.
imo, the demand that the FBI "investigate" this nonsense springs from the democrats thinking they can use that scenario to spring some sort of perjury trap on kavanaugh. they get kavanaugh to state unequivocally that he was not at a certain place on a certain date and time, and then democrats produces multiple liars, er, witnesses that call kavanaugh's version into question.
there is a really nasty and evil game being played here. grassley should greet all of it with a giant "fuck no" and hold the vote early next week.
democrats will smear kavanaugh like they have thomas. that ship has sailed. might as well seat the new USSC judge and be done with it.
my only question is what's in it for cray cray?
exactly how big is the check she's collecting to go through all this?
She's gonna testify.....now is the time for preppie boy brett to get worried...OH WELL!!!!
He's still going to be confirmed by this old man white club or republicon's, but his reputation may be tarnished, ....Thank goodness they are short on time and will soon leave to greener pastures....
Washington (CNN)Christine Blasey Ford opened the possibility she would testify before Congress about her accusation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
An email her lawyers sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee said Ford "would be prepared to testify next week" if the senators offer her "terms that are fair and which ensure her safety."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-testimony/index.html
can you believe this psycho bitch?
terms that are fair?
God bless grassley. i would've told her to go fuck herself by now.
It's still fluid.
She will testify.
The political pressure on the Republicans is deafening. If she is denied any testimony if they cannot provide safety it's going to have a negative effect in November.
(CNN)Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin's campaign listed Brett Kavanaugh accuser's attorneys as headliners at a Washington fundraiser slated to take place next month, according to a copy of the invite obtained by CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/ford-attorneys-democrat-fundraiser/index.html
This is why she fears for her safety.
can you believe this psycho bitch?
A nutcase would love to kill her.
The pressure isn't on GOP. They've offered for her to testify in private, in California. They've given what she wanted. She is refusing to take yes for an answer.
The pressure is on dems. The country sees the farce they are forcing upon us all.
The political pressure on the Republicans is deafening. If she is denied any testimony if they cannot provide safety it's going to have a negative effect in November.
what a fucking drama queen.
first of all alky, the GOP is in the driver's seat. especially since mcstain is in the fucking ground. thank goodness for that.
provide safety? it's only about the safest place in the nation, so that's a bullshit concern. it's not like the hearing is being held on chappaquiddick for chrissakes.
dr. cray cray keeps making shit up.
meanwhile, keith ellison's ex has produced medical records of abuse and can't get anyone to hear her TRUE STORY of sexual assault.
so dr. cray cray's lawyers keep moving goalposts and making shit up. and the GOP is supposed to capitulate to that?
LOL.
puhleeze. tell your psycho bitch to get her ass to washington.
A nutcase would love to kill her.
psychologically projecting again i see.
she's not receiving any death threats. none that are legitimate anyway. only the one's her lawyers claim. LOL.
by the way, has steve scalise fully recovered?
Kirsten Gillibrand: "Who is not asking the FBI to investigate these claims? The White House. Judge Kavanaugh has not asked to have the FBI to review these claims. Is that the reaction of an innocent person? It is not." (via CBS)
my senator is such a lying feckless c*nt.
The political pressure on the Republicans is deafening.
Sure... if they do not confirm Kavanaugh, then they will lose "bigly" in November.
So Kirsten Gillibrand believes that anyone accused of something is supposed to call on authorities to investigate? The fucking world has gone mad.
Frank Luntz is out predicting this will blow back on dems, that it will highly motivate republicans to get out and vote.
Will Roger's nutcase be wearing a pink hat or a black antifa mask?
exactly how big is the check she's collecting to go through all this?
Hopefully bigger than your dick, asshole.....Maybe Brett can funnel some keep quiet money through the RNC or donnie!!!!
Anonymous Myballs said...
The pressure isn't on GOP.
LOLOLOL whatta fool you are....It's all on the old white haired men in the senate trying to grandstand against a learned accuser...The optics should scare the shit out of any R with a brain, which excludes you, asshole...
If you're telling the truth, you don't need coaching.
Will Roger's nutcase be wearing a pink hat or a black antifa mask?
I'd suggest a garter belt with black stockings for the old white men on the panel and see if they drop dead from shock....asshole
Frank Luntz is out predicting this will blow back on dems, that it will highly motivate republicans to get out and vote.
It may motivate men period who are tired of being dispariage, falsely accused and told to shut up by feminist politicians.
It's far beyond this. But the woman vote is expected to be strongly Democratic. This is more important than you think. We will see.
Yes, we will. I know my wife is extremily pissed off.
At Democrats.
President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, has participated over the last month in multiple interview sessions lasting for hours with investigators from the office of special counsel, Robert Mueller, sources tell ABC News.
The special counsel’s questioning of Cohen, one of the president’s closest associates over the past decade, has focused primarily on all aspects of Trump's dealings with Russia -- including financial and business dealings and the investigation into alleged collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign and its surrogates to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.
Investigators were also interested in knowing, the sources say, whether Trump or any of his associates discussed the possibility of a pardon with Cohen.
Over the 16 months that Mueller has been investigating, the president has repeatedly bashed the investigation as a partisan witch hunt, insisting there has been no collusion and no obstruction of justice.
Its being pointed out that the extreme vagueness of her accusation - no date, no time, no place, nothing as bout how she met him, this unfairly prevents him from proving he wasn't there because he doesn't know when to look for an alibi.
I say she doesn't testify. Just like stormy.
Even cookie Roberts is asking if ford is 'playing footsie with dems'.
She's lost morning Joe and cokie. Uh oh.
cookie Roberts is asking if ford is 'playing footsie with dems'.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! Of course she is....LOL
I say she doesn't testify. Just like stormy.
I say she does....loser...
She never going to testify, it's just goimg to be an endless round of goalpost moving and delay.
Which is exactly what the Democrats want.
Grassley is just going to have to sy enough is enough.
The Republicans don't want her to testify.
The visual of old, white men accusing a highly educated woman of being "confusion" and partisan motivations will be all over the television campaign ads.
The Republicans don't want her to testify.
The Republicans extended an invitation for her to testify a full week before the hearing.
And she's the one who refuses to testify.
I would say that is one of the most stupid and asinine statements you've made but I've lost count.
The Republicans don't want her to testify.
- Grassley will listen to what Ford demands.
- He will talk to those who are concerned and get their input.
- Then make his counter.
His counter will enough so that if Ford and Katz refuse, that he will have support within his caucus for confirmation in spite of that refusal. At this point, most everyone on the GOP side is ready to vote if she refuses to show on Monday.
If it's Tues or Wed instead, I suspect Grassley and the fence-sitters will go along with it and agree. But Grassley will not allow a long delay. Period.
If the demands are out of line (such as limiting what she can be asked, or still demanding other action take place first) - then Grassley will refuse, with the support of the GOP caucus and the vote will go through.
Even with all of that, Roger... it's unlikely that anyone will change their minds about this. Those who believe her will believe her. Those who believe him will still believe him. It's still an unprovable allegation from 36 years ago, that even if it was a real allegation, probably wouldn't disqualify him in the eyes of most people anyways.
She has the Truth, Right?
So why does she need coaching, why does she need a fleet of lawyers. Swear to God to tell the truth and tell your tale.
Which version of the truth is she going to go with?
I have specific memories from when I was 17.
I had never been drunk or on any drugs.
If I had been through a traumatic experience I would remember every single detail.
You want to believe that she is either lying or politically motivated.
You have never made any comments on if this is true, that he's disqualified for the actions of a 17 year old boy.
You dance around this possibility.
Roger, please with the known facts tell us your case for her to be believed.
Go ......
She keeps claiming that she's ready to testify yet she keeps refusing to.
Smacks of political bullshit to me.
Even Susan Collins is speaking out now about it.
Her case as I see it, is the truth.
And because even though he was only 17, that he is not qualified to be a justice in the Supreme Court of the United States.
That's my judgment.
I do want to see both of them testify under oath.
I would then make my final decision on her veracity. If I don't believe her upon her testimony then he should get a vote. I would not approve his nomination. But that's based upon my view of the Constitution.
Both sides are playing politics.
No his case is the truth. He's being accused for something he I'd unable to disprove. And its absolutely about politics. Her story has far too many holes. Even morning Joe is skeptical.
You're just showing off your ignorance.
Meanwhile dems want the FBI to look into threats against ford while ignoring all the threats against kavanaugh and his wife. Disgraceful.
Kavanaugh has a spotless record. There's still no evidence refuting this.
It's hard to imagine that Ford will cut anything other than a sympathetic figure in front of the committee. An accomplished professional woman sacrificing her privacy -- and her safety -- to step forward to tell her story, facing down a group, at least on the Republican side, of mostly men? It's a visual Republicans badly wanted to avoid. It now seems likely they will not dodge that scene.
Washington (CNN) - Both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the professor who has accused of him of sexual assault as a teenager, have received a slew of death threats in recent days, CNN has learned.
Citing an internal law enforcement report that details threats to the protectee, a senior administration official told CNN Thursday that the number of death threats made against Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh and his family have increased since Ford's allegations came to light. The official said there are several current threats against the Kavanaughs that law enforcement deems credible, while several others have been opened and closed since he was nominated.
The Trump administration chaos is not going away because he's nuts.
You are calling her a liar or nuts.
I tend to believe her. But I still want to see them testify under oath.
MyballsSeptember 20, 2018 at 7:43 PM
Kavanaugh has a spotless record. There's still no evidence refuting this."
Emotional effeminate Alky has made a spectical of herself with no evidence or proof to support Dr Cray Cray.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has been overly kind to the good Dr.
Sympathetic witness? I think not. Her story doesn't pass the smell test. She doesn't get to ruin the reputation and career of a man who has had dozens of professional people, from both parties, speak in his behalf.
A simple accusation is not enough. Evidence that Virginia tech coed and the duke lacrosse team.
And I didn't call her anything because I don't know whether she is lying is nuts, or mistaken. There are a great many unanswered questions.
Notice that the Emotional effeminate Alky never posts facts.
Like the President likes to say: We will see.
If I had been through a traumatic experience I would remember every single detail.
You mean like the year, the place, and other details?
Reality Roger. Your memory is reconstructed each time you "remember" something. It's never exactly like the last time you "remembered" it. Of course everyone "believes" that their memories don't change, but psychologically it simply is a medical fact that they do.
Moreover, we have a tendency over time to exaggerate things in our memory. That tarantula sized spider that scared you when you were six years old and found him in the shower... was likely a half inch wood spider that your dad picked up with a couple of squares of toilet paper.
The chances that Ford has memories that are not substantially different from reality is slim to none.
Because, of course, she doesn't have Roger super powers.
Ok. Kput'z and rrb said that.
U.S. Stocks Close at Records
Investors’ focus on robust U.S. economy gives stocks a boost"
Anyone seen the negative of President Trump's effort to level the trade deals.
#metoo , well not so much. Jane held her out as the angle from heaven to save the US from the Evil Bret Kavanaigh. Jane, duped again
"A former classmate of Christine Blasey Ford tells NPR that she does not know if an alleged sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh took place as she first suggested on social media."
Of course everyone "believes" that their memories don't change, but psychologically it simply is a medical fact that they do.
Then that applies to Kavanaugh too. Unless you (choose) not to believe everything you just said.
One of the fleet of lawyers the DNC is funding.
"The New York Times published portions of an email from Ford’s lawyers to Judiciary Committee staff claiming it “is not possible” for her to appear Monday."
She wants what now?
Then that applies to Kavanaugh too. Unless you (choose) not to believe everything you just said
It applies to both of them. Neither of them have a clear memory of what happened back in 1982.
The best you can do is "guess" as to what "might" have happened, based on what they both "believe" might have actually happened.
You don't ruin a man's reputation, career, life, and families life because of a guess. Nobody deserves to be chastised for an unfounded, unprovable, accusation that cannot be verified by any means what-so-ever.
The sole person that made the criminal claim has the duty to testify at the time, date and place summons to do so.
Can she provide the time, date, year it happened?
GOOD NEWS
More Oppose Kavanaugh Than Support Him
A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal finds that more American voters now oppose Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination than support it after he was accused of committing sexual assault while he was in high school, with opposition increasing 9 points since last month.
Key findings: 38% of voters say they oppose Kavanaugh’s nomination to serve on the nation’s highest court, including 27% who “strongly” oppose him.
That’s compared with 34% who support his nomination, including 25% who “strongly” support him. Twenty-eight percent say they don’t enough to have an opinion.
MORE GOOD NEWS
Republicans Have Lost Messaging Battle on Tax Cuts
A new RNC survey has led Republicans “to a glum conclusion regarding President Trump’s signature legislative achievement: Voters overwhelmingly believe his tax overhaul helps the wealthy instead of average Americans,” Bloomberg reports.
Key finding: “By a 2-to-1 margin — 61% to 30% — respondents said the law benefits ‘large corporations and rich Americans’ over ‘middle class families.'
“The result was fueled by self-identified independent voters who said by a 36-point margin that large corporations and rich Americans benefit more from the tax law — a result that was even more lopsided among Democrats. Republican voters said by a 38-point margin that the middle class benefits more.”
Alky what proof convinced you she is telling the truth?
James, your girl bailed.
Too funny.
Mueller to issue report on Oct 15, 2020.
Roger
Absolutely everything that we know about Kavanaugh, everything that is documented, all current opinions of people that know him, and have known him suggests he is a stand up guy. An honest guy who is actually good to people and treats women well.
Yet, you sit here today and demand that he is a rapist.
Why exactly would you believe that this man is a rapist when every single shred of known evidence about him says the 180 degree exact opposite?
Obviously you could never sit on a jury. You have zero ability to be objective in your thinking.
"The New York Times’s report notes no specific reasons for further delay, but notes that Katz hopes to set up a call Thursday evening to “discuss the conditions” for her client’s testimony. The scheduling of the Monday hearing was already a delay on Kavanaugh’s confirmation process, which included four days of public hearings at which Ford’s allegations were never mentioned and was set for a committee vote Thursday. A letter detailing Ford’s claims was in Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) possession during the entirety of Kavanaugh’s original hearing and for several weeks before."
Senator Sandbag has so splainning to do to the Senate Ethics committee.
Yet, you sit here today and demand that he is a rapist. "
And had murder on his mind according to Dr Cray Cray.
Don't dare drop the murder charge. Let's give her a full hearing.
10 am Friday, will her team of lawyers be a no show?
Scum , now blames media.
"Dr. Blasey Ford did not want her story of sexual assault to be public. She requested confidentiality, and I honored that. It wasn’t until the media outed her that she decided to come forward. You may not respect women and the wishes of victims, but I do,” Feinstein tweeted"
Update
The Republican leadership of the Senate committee will hire a woman lawyer to interrogate the nominee and Doctor Ford. The visuals of old white men accusing a woman of lying about sexual assault is something they want to avoid.
It applies to both of them. Neither of them have a clear memory of what happened back in 1982.
Mr. Cavanaugh has stated repeatedly that the incident (absolutely) did not happen.
Doctor Ford has said specifically stated that he pinned her down, covered her mouth to prevent her screaming and attempted to remove her bathing suit.
Doctor Ford came forward with this recollection in family therapy in 2012. There are some inconsistencies in her recollection of the incident.
Do you really think that she would come forward with the intent to sew doubts about the character of Mr. Cavanaugh and subject herself to the trauma that has occurred?
And yet Ford wants to be questioned by those old white men.
Think this is not political?
FWIW I think she made a big mistake. She just gave license for those old white men to take off the gloves.
OTOH I don't think she wants to testify under oath at all so she's making unreasonable demands to get her off the hook.
Even if the senate do agree to all her demands, I'll bet the farm that she'll move the goalpost again.
Doctor Ford came forward with this recollection in family therapy in 2012. There are some inconsistencies in her recollection of the incident.
This doesn't necessarily mean that she is lying.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣"Among the terms: Only members of the committee -- no lawyers -- can question her; Kavanaugh cannot be in the room at the time; and Kavanaugh should be questioned first, before he has the opportunity to hear Ford's testimony."
She has truth on her side, Right?
Do you really think that she would come forward with the intent to sew doubts about the character of Mr. Cavanaugh and subject herself to the trauma that has occurred?
Anonymously slander Kavanaugh's character? Yes. Subject herself to the political circus that followed? No That's why she wanted stay anonymous.
Her reasoning is that since Kavanaugh was a man and therefore naturally a sexist rapist, all she had to do was plant the seed and watch other women come forward and do the heavy lifting.
Imagine her surprise when that didn't happen and that the women who came forward said that he was a man of outstanding character.
More and more I am of the opinion that she delibertly slandered Kavenaught withva false rape charge.
And the reason she nor anybody else can remember when and where it happened was because it never happened in the first place.
Do not forget Dr Cray Cray also thought him as a murderer.
It has been interesting to watch the left self distruct.
This kind of slanderous behavior directed at Judge Kavanaugh is page 1 of the Obama Radicalized left. Transformed. The attack on white men cost Hillary the election, move married white woman from her camp.
So by all means, keep attacking the husbands of white women.
Update: Dr Cray Cray will bless the world with her version of sumthin' IF she gets to sit in a pink pussy chair.
The uneducatable left.
"
Why Did A Majority of White Women Vote For Trump
Class Featured Gender & Sexual Identity Race
Why Did a Majority of White Women Vote for Trump?
January 2018 Sarah Jaffe
No single fact about the highly improbable election of Donald Trump seems to be more confounding than the fact that Trump’s margin of victory included a slim majority of white women voters.
White women were presumed to be in the bag for Hillary Clinton; after all, she would be the first woman president. When the tape of Trump bragging about what sounded a lot like sexual assault hit the airwaves, reporters assumed—not for the first time—that his campaign was toast. Yet on Election Day, 53 per- cent of white women voters pulled the lever for Trump. Clinton won women voters overall, but that puzzling number has befuddled commentators or eluded their attention completely."
Keep attacking the husbands.
A drunken 17 year old boy really tried to hold a young girl down and try to fuck her.
If I had done that, but because if I had been selected for the Supreme Court I would flatly deny my sexual assault.
I find that she is more credible because she knew damn well what would happen to her because the Republicans would do the same thing they did in 1991. And the man who assaulted her should never be a justice for his life.
David Brooks a life long conservative activist.
Like millions of Americans this week, I tuned into Kavanaugh's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee with great interest. In his opening statement and subsequent testimony, Kavanaugh presented himself as a "neutral and impartial arbiter" of the law. Judges, he said, were not players but akin to umpires — objectively calling balls and strikes. Again and again, he stressed his "independence" from partisan political influences.
But I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is — because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights. But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense. He made up his mind nearly a generation ago — and, if he's confirmed, he'll have nearly two generations to impose it upon the rest of us.
Brooks a life long conservative activist?? You're kidding right?
I find that she is more credible because she knew damn well what would happen to her
Yeah all you have to do is ignore the red flags of she couldn't remember where the incident took place, when the incident took place, who was at the party besides Kavanaugh and Jodge and both men denied it ever happen and the fact that Kavanaugh willing to go under oath and say so.
Oh and there no corrobrating witness who said they were even at this party. Which is understabable since she can't remember where and when the party took place.
And if she can't remember where and when the party took place how could she possibily remember who triied to assult her without a shadow of a doubt.
You really are a tool Roger.
Why exactly would you believe that this man is a rapist when every single shred of known evidence about him says the 180 degree exact opposite?
kavanaugh must be defeated because... abortion.
that's it in a nutshell.
all this has ever been about has been the singular blessed sacrament of liberalism - abortion.
and you're right - the alky could never sit on a jury. not with his pickled cranium.
We will see.
Neither one of them can offer evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm not a tool.
I don't buy the pretense is strictly partisan by Ford. Or the ramblings of a delusional woman. You do.
You are the tool.
The point is you presume innocents untill the charges can be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
I've pointed out several inconsistencies in her story that indicates she's lying.
You on the other had just ignore these inconsistencies just making a blanket statement that you believe her without ever examining what she said.
So yes, you are a tool.
Burden of proof is hers. Why do you continue to pretend its on him?
And the Whelan theory, if nothing else, offers a plausible reasonable doubt.
Post a Comment