Pages

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

So...


We demand that the Senate hear from Christine Ford!!!
We demand that the Senate hear from Christine Ford!!!
We demand that the Senate hear from Christine Ford!!!
We demand that the Senate hear from Christine Ford!!!
We demand that the Senate hear from Christine Ford!!!

We cannot allow Senate Republicans to traumatize Christine Ford by forcing her to testify about her allegations. But we are willing to cooperate in any other manner that works to delay the process.
_____

Face it liberals. You've been had. Ford originally stated she wanted to stay anonymous, even as she wiped her social media of any political information and hired an activist liberal attorney. Then she stated that she needed to come forward and tell her story, daring the Senate to allow for hearings. Now it would appear that Christine Ford had neither the intention of staying anonymous or going on record and testifying in any sort of Senate hearing. 

In a situation where credibility and honesty are the only thing that matters, Christine Ford has shown herself to be incredible and dishonest. 


78 comments:

Roger Amick said...

No sexual assault survivor should be subjected to such an ordeal.

rrb said...



Blogger Roger Amick said...

No sexual assault survivor should be subjected to such an ordeal.



she has only herself to blame. and you don't get to pick and choose who to automatically believe and who not to.

btw, if she's sincere about insisting that an FBI investigation be conducted, the very first step in the process would be for her to undergo a lengthy FBI interview.

Roger Amick said...

The nomination should not proceed without the resolution of this situation. Politics aside I have to repeat.

No sexual assault survivor should be subjected to such an ordeal,

Anita Hill was subjected to abuse from the Republicans in 1991. You seem to be repeating the assault on a woman who was sexually assaulted is irrelevant because of your political views.

rrb said...




i'll give democrats points for consistency.

they NEVER think through the consequences of their actions, and ALWAYS think they're entitled to a 'do-over' if they fuck up.



and today's latest liberal outrage? sesame street creators will not admit that bert and ernie are gay.

seriously.


rrb said...



repeat it in bold til the fucking cows come home, alky. that doesn't make it any more compelling or legitimate.

dr. cray cray's mouth wrote a check she and her lawyer can't cover. and now they want another rules change.

fuck 'em.

monday is their big day. show up and put up.

you don't get to freely assassinate the character of a political opponent and expect no blow-back or consequences.


rrb said...



Anita Hill was subjected to abuse from the Republicans in 1991.

abuse?

a better word (or two) for it is "due process" as in the accused is allowed to defend themselves against the accusation.

James said...

IT IS CLEAR FROM ALL THE FOLLOWING THAT IT IS THE REPUBLICANS WHO ARE COVERING UP

Mark Judge, key witness to alleged Brett Kavanaugh assault: 'I have no memory of this alleged incident'

BECAUSE HE WAS DRUNK?

Mark Judge, the man who Christine Blasey Ford has said was in the room while Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her when they were in high school, has declined to speak before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Democrats had called for him to do so. But in a statement to committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Judge claimed he had no memory of the incident and declined to speak publicly about the allegation.

“I did not ask to be involved in this matter nor did anyone ask me to be involved,” Judge said in a letter signed by his lawyer on Tuesday. “The only reason I am involved is because Dr. Christine Blasey Ford remembers me as the other person in the room during the alleged assault.

“In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident,” he added. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the matter Dr. Ford describes.”

Judge added: “I have no more information to offer the Committee and I do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford’s letter.”

Senate Republicans have agreed to allow Blasey, a psychology professor, and Kavanaugh to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Monday. But Grassley said they would be the only two witnesses at the hearing, leaving out Judge.

Kavanaugh has agreed to appear at the Monday hearing. Blasey’s lawyer Lisa Banks said on Tuesday that an FBI investigation into the accusation should be “the first step.”

"There's no reason that we should have a public hearing on Monday ... this is being rushed through, and it's too important to be rushed through. It's not a game, this is a serious situation." Lisa Banks, attorney for Christine Blasey Ford https://cnn.it/2DgWvlw

In a Washington Post interview published Sunday, Blasey publicly identified herself as the author of a confidential letter detailing alleged sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh that was sent to Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and then Feinstein in late July.

Blasey told the Post that Kavanaugh, who appeared to be drunk, pinned her down and groped her as Judge, also apparently drunk, watched during a party in suburban Maryland while they were all in high school, around 1982.

Blasey said she tried to scream, but Kavanaugh covered her mouth. She was able to escape after Judge jumped on top of them both, according to the Post.

Roger Amick said...

An FBI investigation should involve extensive interviews with both parties.

The memories of events of over 30 years have to be carefully reviewed.

The bottom line is we cannot allow this to slip away and just vote for a lifelong appointment in the Supreme Court without a complete investigation. Sexual assault calls into question his judgment.

Let's look at both sides before the nomination is voted on.

Commonsense said...

Ford was afforted every courtesy the in the judicery's power to tell her story either in open or closed session.

Refusing to testify, as Roger said, "Doesn't help her cause.".

That was of course, before he got his talking points.

Roger Amick said...

James, we should never reply to the blog bigot.

He's not mentally capable or stable.

James said...

Kavanaugh and Judge have both denied Blasey’s allegation. Judge called the accusation “just absolutely nuts” in an interview with The Weekly Standard published before Blasey’s identity was revealed.

After news of Blasey’s letter came out, Judge, who attended Georgetown Preparatory School in Maryland with Kavanaugh, told The New York Times that students raised in Catholic homes would not tolerate the type of behavior described in the letter.

“Something like that would stick out, which is why I don’t think it would happen,” he told the Times.

But in 1997, Judge published a memoir that detailed a culture of binge drinking and partying during his high school years.

In Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk, Judge told stories of himself and other students drinking heavily and trying to “hook up” with girls.

Steven Portnoy

@stevenportnoy
In a letter from his attorney, Mark Judge says he has "no memory of this alleged incident." "Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school," he says, "but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter."

Here's what Judge recounted in his book --
Steven Portnoy

@stevenportnoy
In his 1997 memoir, “Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk,” Mark Judge explained the meaning of “100 Kegs Or Bust,” a reference he and classmate Kavanaugh made on their Georgetown Prep yearbook pages 14 years earlier.

He said that his “immersion” into alcohol began at the end of his sophomore year during an annual “beach week,” a time when Catholic high school students went to the shore after school was out.

“Now I had an opportunity to make some headway [with girls],” Judge wrote. “Most of the time everyone, including the girls, was drunk. If you could breathe and walk at the same time, you could hook up.”

In the book, Judge changed the name of his school to “Loyola Prep.” He does not specifically mention Kavanaugh’s name, but he did briefly mention a character named “Bart O’Kavanaugh” who “puked in someone’s car” and “passed out on his way back from a party.”

He also refers to the name again when listing off Irish surnames from his elementary school, including, “O’Neal, Murphy, Kavanaugh.”

Judge has also written of “uncontrollable male passion” in a 2015 review of the publisher Hard Case Crimes:

"Of course, a man must be able to read a woman’s signals, and it’s a good thing that feminism is teaching young men that no means no and yes means yes. But there’s also that ambiguous middle ground, where the woman seems interested and indicates, whether verbally or not, that the man needs to prove himself to her. And if that man is any kind of man, he’ll allow himself to feel the awesome power, the wonderful beauty, of uncontrollable male passion."

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

Yesterday you stated that it would make Ford look bad if she didn't agree to testify AFTER DEMANDING THAT SHE WOULD TESTIFY!

Today, you are simply following the talking points memo. Proving you cannot even keep your own story straight.


The only thing consistent and unwavering is the honesty and integrity of Brett Kavanaugh. He is obviously telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

James said...

Democrats have called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to force Judge to testify with a subpoena.

Committee rules allow the panel to issue a subpoena as long as the chairman, Grassley, and the ranking Democrat, Feinstein, agree to it, or by a committee vote.

“I think this committee ought to subpoena Mark Judge to come forward,” Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) told CNN’s Jim Acosta on Tuesday.

“You can count on the fact that that letter, his response, is going to be entered in the record by someone, and that needs to be tested as well,” Jones, who is not on the judiciary committee, said. “And I just think this committee, if he doesn’t want to do it and they’re going to go forward with a hearing, they need to subpoena him, let him say that and let some senators or someone cross-examine him.”

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), who is a member of the committee, said Tuesday that Judge “and other witnesses” should testify before the committee to “provide insight” into Blasey’s accusations.

“The public deserves a thorough process not a rushed job,” she tweeted.


Kamala Harris

@KamalaHarris
Mark Judge and other witnesses who can provide insight into Dr. Ford’s allegations should also testify in front of the Judiciary Committee. The public deserves a thorough process not a rushed job.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), also on the judiciary committee, told The Washington Post that there is no reason to have Judge speak before the committee.

“He’s already said what he’s going to say,” Graham told the Post. “I want to hear from her, if she wants to speak, and I want to hear from” Kavanaugh.

Some legal experts have pointed out that Judge, who denies the incident took place, may not want to testify during the hearing because he would be speaking under oath.

“When you’re THIS witness, testimony isn’t optional,” Joyce Vance, University of Alabama professor of law, tweeted Tuesday.

“The Senate needs to delay the hearing until Mark Judge’s appearance can be obtained. If, in fact, he ‘declines’ to testify, it’s a concession he’s not willing to repeat his ‘no recollection’ remarks under oath.”


Joyce Alene

@JoyceWhiteVance
When you're THIS witness, testimony isn't optional. The Senate needs to delay the hearing until Mark Judge's appearance can be obtained. If, in fact, he "declines" to testify, it's a concession he's not willing to repeat his "no recollection" remarks under oath.
POLITICO

@politico
BREAKING: Mark Judge, whom Christine Blasey Ford said was in the room when Brett Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her, said he will not testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor, pointed out that both Judge and Kavanaugh may be “criminally liable” for the alleged assault because Maryland has no statute of limitations for rape or assault.


Laurence Tribe

@tribelaw
It appears that Mark Judge says he won’t voluntarily testify under oath. If that’s true, the Senate Judiciary Committee must subpoena him. He has no criminal exposure (unless he has lied to the FBI), so he can’t take the 5th.


Laurence Tribe

@tribelaw
Good point. Maryland has no statute of limitations for rape or for assault, so it seems that both Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge remain potentially criminally liable for what Christine Blasey Ford alleges they did to her in high school. Nobody seems to be taking that into account
Renato Mariotti

@renato_mariotti
Replying to @tribelaw
It's not entirely clear to me that he has no criminal exposure if there is no statute of limitations for attempted rape in Maryland.

But it's also not clear to me that he's taking the Fifth. Thus far he has just said that he doesn't want to testify. Most people don't.

James said...

MY POSTS MAKE IT CLEAR WHO IS COVERING UP

Commonsense said...

Mark Judge, key witness to alleged Brett Kavanaugh assault: 'I have no memory of this alleged incident'
BECAUSE HE WAS DRUNK?


No dipwad because it never happened.

Roger Amick said...

Before I got my talking points? Bullshit.

I have been trying to figure out how and why we need to proceed. It's complicated but there is nothing that no woman should not be denied a complete investigation into the charges of sexual assault. Politics aside.

JAMES'S FUCKING DADDY said...

**** BREAKING NEWS ****

a woman named Cristina King Miranda, responding to actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus regarding the letter circulated by alumnae of the Holton Arms school in Maryland, says she remembers Christine Blasey Ford, “knew both Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge,” and that the “incident was spoken about for days afterwords [sic] in school”


boy this is solid proof after 36 or so years and 6 missed FBI background checks except someone else pointed out:

Jonathan H. Adler
✔ @jadler1969

This is interesting. Have not seen this claim reported, and Ford has said she didn't tell anyone or talk about it.


So obviously one or both are lying and they are both women so we have to believe both of them. So confusing and we know they don't have any agenda. I wonder what most Americans other than unhinged liberals are going to believe... and so near an election ...


https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/09/19/woman-claimed-in-now-deleted-tweet-to-have-gone-to-school-with-christine-blasey-ford-and-said-the-incident-was-spoken-about-for-days-in-school/

rrb said...



Roger Amick said...

An FBI investigation should involve extensive interviews with both parties.



ok, fine. that would make a total of SEVEN interview/background checks that kavanaugh would have participated in.

carefully reviewed means delayed until after the mid-terms.
we know you're not sincere, so stop trying to fake it.

the fact is there are far too many pieces of this puzzle missing that can never be reconciled. the truth can never be known, and to try and destroy a person on this basis is the shittiest and dirtiest of liberal tricks. feinstein knew about this, sat on it with her big, fat, corrupt ass, and said yesterday that she's not even sure it's truthful.

are you fucking kidding me?

grassley needs to stay on schedule. fuck dr. cray cray and the democrats.


C.H. Truth said...

And let's be clear about something else.

Lawyers for people who are making 36 year old claims against highly respected, highly honest, and highly ethical Federal Judges...

Do not get to tell the FBI what they should and should not investigate. The FBI simply has absolutely "zero" to do with this. This is not a Federal law enforcement issue of any kind. Period.

Moreover, Ford and her attorney are well aware of this fact.


This is a Senate confirmation hearing, and this is a Senate issue. The Senate has it's own investigative channels, and does not rely on other law enforcement agencies to start an investigation or a probe. They have the authority and abilities to conduct this.

They have offered Ford and her attorneys the choice of either a private or public hearing.

Ford and her attorneys are balking. Plain and simple.

Commonsense said...

I suspect Tribe is wrong on simple assult and Ford never said she was raped.

However, even if true no jury would ever convict base on the skechy recollections if an imeberated "victim" and no self-respecting prosecutor would ever bring it to trial.

That's what they don't tell you.

rrb said...




but there is nothing that no woman should not be denied a complete investigation into the charges of sexual assault. Politics aside.

fine.

kavanaugh has undergone 6 FBI background investigations. let's use those as already in evidence since the FBI DID go all the way back to adolescence. it's what they do.

what's missing is dr. cray cray's FBI interview. so let's get on that, ok?

Roger Amick said...

It's complicated but no woman should be denied a complete investigation into the charges of sexual assault. Politics aside.

When and only is the investigation and public testimony is complete should the nominee's nomination be voted upon.

James said...

The Senate had better do the investigating, and now in public, or the GOP will be tainted, tainted, tainted.

C.H. Truth said...

James

The only thing tainted here is Christine Ford and her attorney.

They simply lied.

One day agreeing to testify.
The next day demanding that she will not.

In a situation where credibility is "everything" - you would need to be a complete and absolute MORON to still believe the liar is telling the truth.

Commonsense said...

Can't really do an investigation if the accuser refuses to testify.

This is turning out to be just an elaborate delaying tactic. The GOP shouldn't get sucked down this rabbit hole. If she doesn't show up, vote Kavenaugh out of committee.

Roger Amick said...

Why the Democrats didn't open up the accusations until the nomination process was almost complete isn't relevant to the investigation. Did Senator Feinstein hold onto the accusations until late in his process? Yes. But: When and only is the investigation and public testimony is complete should the nominee's nomination be voted upon.

rrb said...

The only thing tainted here is Christine Ford and her attorney.

eh, i would take it a bit farther and say that feinstein is tainted here too. what she did was despicable, and probably at the direction of chuck schemer because she's just not that fucking bright.

JAMES'S FUCKING DADDY said...

the "pastor" said "The Senate had better do the investigating or the GOP will be tainted, tainted, tainted. "

We can investigate Feinstein after the vote, should be early next week.

Great election issue for Republicans, unhinged liberals are shamelessly exposing their raw political agenda.

And Americans certainly need to ignore "advice" from a rabid "pastor"

ROFLMFAO !!!

Commonsense said...

but there is nothing that no woman should not be denied a complete investigation into the charges of sexual assault. Politics aside.

Nothing is stopping her from filing a complaint with the state of Maryland in the county of Montgomery.

I suspect however, she won't do that either.

rrb said...



Why the Democrats didn't open up the accusations until the nomination process was almost complete isn't relevant to the investigation.

it's completely relevant and goes to credibility.

only a goddamn fool or pathological liar will deny what delaying the accusation was all about.


rrb said...



In a situation where credibility is "everything" - you would need to be a complete and absolute MORON to still believe the liar is telling the truth.


ouchie.

hey alky, "you better put some ice on that."

Roger Amick said...

It's complicated but no woman should be denied a complete investigation into the charges of sexual assault. Politics aside.

If she lied, and we cannot say without a doubt that she lied, until the investigation is complete, the vote for a lifelong appointment should not proceed.

rrb said...

Nothing is stopping her from filing a complaint with the state of Maryland in the county of Montgomery.


precisely. that would be the proper jurisdiction, and it's my understanding that there is not a statute of limitations on the "crime" of which kavanaugh stands accused.

Anonymous said...

Sister Toldjah 🤔‏ @sistertoldjah

Can you imagine ANY national MSM journo saying Keith Ellison's accuser stepping fwd "took guts"? It actually takes a lot of guts to accuse someone on your "own side" of sexual assault, especially when it comes to the left because they rush to sweep these things under the rug.


C.H. Truth said...

Brett Kavanaugh by all accounts (except one) is an honest, decent, hard working, ethical, family man, and an exceptional Jurist.

If you simply are predisposed to believe unfounded allegations against him from someone who has been totally dishonest with the manner she has made these allegations.

Then you obviously have alternative motives, are willing to put those motives ahead of your integrity, and are probably not a very decent human being.

Myballs said...

Even CBS I'd asking what if she remembered it wrong? What if its a case of mistaken identity?

After all, its 36 years later and there are already many gaps in her memory about it.

And BTW, how do any of the men prove their innocence? Please tell me.

Roger Amick said...

I don't think that Kavanaugh would like to have the Montgomery police conduct an investigation into the alleged sexual assault.

Myballs said...

If it's so credible, difi should have at least brought it up in the closed hearing. She did not for a reason.

rrb said...

If you simply are predisposed to believe unfounded allegations against him from someone who has been totally dishonest with the manner she has made these allegations.

Then you obviously have alternative motives, are willing to put those motives ahead of your integrity, and are probably not a very decent human being.



an honest person would admit that this has nothing to do with justice for dr. cray cray. this has everything to do with destroying kavanaugh and derailing his USSC appointment.

this is exactly like the harry reid lie that mitt romney hasn't paid his taxes in ten years. the accusation turned out to be completely false, but in the words of harry reid "it worked, didn't it?"

Myballs said...

No shit. No one we wants to be the subject if a police investigation.

Ford wouldn't like it either. We have seen accusers end up being charged for false accusations.

That university of Virginia coed and the duke lacrosse accusers for example.

Roger Amick said...

It's complicated but no woman should be denied a complete investigation into the charges of sexual assault. Politics aside.

No decent human being should push aside a women's rights to a complete investigation into charges of sexual assault for political purposes.

You are no longer a descent man.

C.H. Truth said...

I don't think that Kavanaugh would like to have the Montgomery police conduct an investigation into the alleged sexual assault.

I am sure he would not mind one bit, Roger.

Unlike his accuser, he is willing to sit down and answer questions.


But seriously Rog...


What would they investigate? No date, no address, no witnesses, no evidence?

and both parties were likely minors.

rrb said...


Blogger Roger Amick said...

I don't think that Kavanaugh would like to have the Montgomery police conduct an investigation into the alleged sexual assault.



on the contrary, i'm sure he'd welcome it, the delay to his appointment not withstanding.

you keep avoiding the fact that kavanaugh has been investigated by the FBI six times. FBI background checks are unbelievably detailed and intrusive. if he can withstand that a visit from the montgomery county sheriff would be a breeze.

C.H. Truth said...

No decent human being should push aside a women's rights to a complete investigation into charges of sexual assault for political purposes.

Nobody is pushing her aside, Rog...

Her decision not to testify is her decision, not mine, not Kananaughs, not the Senate, not the FBI, not local law enforcement.

She was offered her day in court, and she refused it.




Roger Amick said...

She needs to sit down also. She said that she had a polygraph and she passed. They are not conclusive.

Scott, it will come down to what the people believe.

rrb said...



Blogger Roger Amick said...
It's complicated but no woman should be denied a complete investigation into the charges of sexual assault.



you can repeat this line of bullshit forever, and even put it in bold type.

it's still bullshit.

Anonymous said...


Laura Ingraham
✔ @IngrahamAngle

Subpoena accuser. She must testify. Question Kavanaugh. Do it in closed session. No circus.


rrb said...




all a polygraph proves is that the person being questioned truly believes what they're saying.

it's why they're not admissible in court.

the value of her passing a polygraph in this case is zero.



Roger Amick said...

I won't be here for a while. I have to go give the laboratory a few vials of blood.

Unnecessary update. My health is very good.

rrb said...




alky,

try to imagine how little i care.


Anonymous said...

rrb said...

all a polygraph proves is that the person being questioned truly believes what they're saying.

it's why they're not admissible in court.

the value of her passing a polygraph in this case is zero.
---------------------------------------------
things like hypnosis can also be done to defeat them, especially with a compliant administer

C.H. Truth said...

all a polygraph proves is that the person being questioned truly believes what they're saying.

Or if they are part of the population that can beat them (she is, after all, a professor of psychology). Or if the person who administered the polygraph provide certain considerations in rendering a verdict.

But

Let's be clear. The polygraph was supposed given to her by an attorney who was hired to represent an anonymous person who requested that she not be identified. The only reason this would have been done, is if there was a plan all along to have Ford go public, meaning they (Ford and Katz) were colluding with the Democrats from the start.

Myballs said...

They were hoping he would implode and they wouldn't have to use her.

Laura In graham is right. She should now be subpoenaed to testify. And standard practice to that the committee sets the calendar. Not the witness.

rrb said...




...meaning they (Ford and Katz) were colluding with the Democrats from the start.

you know, THIS is the investigation we need to have. after this is over and if the GOP retains a majority in the senate, i'd like to see a thorough investigation into exactly what the fuck has really been going on here. ford and her amnesiatic allegation didn't just show up out of nowhere. there looks to me to me a very coordinated and sinister effort to destroy kavanaugh's appointment and even kavanaugh himself.

JAMES\S FUCKING DADDY said...

James said...
I guess her friends might have something different to say about that, if such friends have indeed come forward.


looks like the "pastor" got sucked into some more lies. One "did" come forward. Only problem is the "victim" said she had told no one. ever.

Pretty hard to verify, especially after 36 years.

Next time democrats try this ruse they will leave it more open-ended... they have no shame, like the "pastor"

cowardly king obama said...

rrb said...

...meaning they (Ford and Katz) were colluding with the Democrats from the start.

you know, THIS is the investigation we need to have. after this is over and if the GOP retains a majority in the senate, i'd like to see a thorough investigation into exactly what the fuck has really been going on here. ford and her amnesiatic allegation didn't just show up out of nowhere. there looks to me to me a very coordinated and sinister effort to destroy kavanaugh's appointment and even kavanaugh himself.


Absofuckinglutely.

Myballs said...

A movement has begun to have feinstein apologize to kavanaugh, his family, the country, and then resign.

Yes, that's what should happen.

rrb said...



A movement has begun to have feinstein apologize to kavanaugh, his family, the country, and then resign.

with chuck schemer standing by her side and apologizing profusely as well since he's behind all this. she's too fucking stupid to have done this without direction.

KD said...

Ok, show of hands.
Ally said he is perfectly health.at face value, ok. But then he is getting more blood drawn, odd, if your health.

I have blood that is being shipped to the flood zone on the east coast. Next time I give I r reach a personal goal. I will have given two gallons .

rrb said...




"Hello, FBI? We need you to investigate a sexual assault allegation? Oh, that's a police matter? Still. When was it? Roughly 36 years ago? The actual date? No idea. The location? Not sure. What do we know? There were either 2 or 4 people in the room. Hello, hello? Did you hang up?"

—John Hawkins

KD said...

RRB, your butt kicking of Roger on his local cop investigation was a thing of beauty. You drew blood.

KD said...

US Housing up Bigly , up 9 percent. Roger predocpre it was going down.

rrb said...

Blogger KD said...
RRB, your butt kicking of Roger on his local cop investigation was a thing of beauty. You drew blood.


i appreciate that but it didn't take much.

demanding an FBI investigation is disingenuous, dishonest bullshit on stilts.

the FBI has no jurisdiction in this matter, everyone who's honest KNOWS THIS, and if the desire for a criminal investigation was sincere, the local cops would already be involved.

the fact that anyone out there with an IQ higher than room temperature is actually falling for and/or advocating the alky's position should trouble us all.

the accused doesn't get to dictate the terms of an investigation. especially into a 36 year old claim where the details are so sketchy to begin with.




rrb said...

the accused doesn't get to dictate the terms of an investigation.

*ACCUSER*

KD said...

Hurricane Reponse has been fantastic.

Myballs said...

Even morning Joe is supporting republicans on this and being critical of ford and dems tactics.

KD said...

This was a targeted drive by shooting by To the DNC and All Democrats.

KD said...

Bye bye bitch.

"“I am deeply troubled by these allegations,” McCaskill said in a statement. “They should be examined thoroughly and fairly by the Judiciary Committee without any artificial timeline.”

Myballs said...

Maybe the FBI should testify about all the investigations they've already conducted on kavanaugh over the years.

rrb said...

Maybe the FBI should testify about all the investigations they've already conducted on kavanaugh over the years.

heh. which would lay waste to the left's demands that the FBI investigate this. they've investigated kavanaugh 6 times. there's nothing left to investigate. except for dr. cray cray's allegation that is, which is out of the FBI's jurisdiction.

and by the way:


Kavanaugh's accuser is being represented by Debra Katz, a Washington D.C. lawyer and the vice chair of the board of the Project On Government Oversight.

POGO co-signed a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Grassley along with a variety of lefty groups demanding Kavanaugh records. This was the obstruction tactic of choice of the left for trying to secure the Court seat before they fastened on to this latest smear.

Where does PGO gets its funding?

From, among other sources, George Soros and his Open Society Foundation tentacles.

And, to no one's surprise, she's allegedly a Dem donor.


https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/271357/kavanaugh-accusers-lawyer-vice-chair-org-opposing-daniel-greenfield#.W6DaNkGh9Mo.twitter

rrb said...




Willie Brown's Side Piece Kamala Harris: Kavanaugh Accuser ‘Should Not Be Bullied’ Into Testifying

"I support Dr. Blasey Ford’s request for an FBI background investigation before a hearing. She should not be bullied into participating in a biased process and we should not rush forward before facts are gathered," tweeted Harris, who sits on the Judiciary Committee.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36060/kamala-harris-kavanaugh-accuser-should-not-be-paul-bois?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro


sounds good. and we will not be bullied into believing dr. cray cray.

deal?




KD said...

We almost had this as President.

"Sanders said, “We just starve little children, we go bomb houses and buses of children, and we give tax breaks to billionaires, but we don’t use dirty words.”

KD said...

Willie Brown's Side Piece Kamala Harris: Kavanaugh Accuser ‘Should Not Be Bullied’ Into Testifying"

Amazing , so Dr. Cray Cray is being bullied, Lordie.

Getting this bitch to tell her rape fantasy is odd.

Myballs said...

GOP offered her the opportunity to testify either publicly or privately, her choice. She's now making excuses to not testify. (Shades of stormy s few months ago).

GOP extended a very reasonable offer.

And Lindsey Graham is now speaking out about the absurdity of her FBI demand, pointing out the length of time and significant lack of specifics in her allegation.

KD said...

The Liberals here Love Lidsey Graham.

Will they stick with him on this?

Myballs said...

Difi admits she doesn't know if Ford is being truthful.

She's trying walk back this bullshit because of all the outrage over a good man being smeared by unsupported allegations.

KD said...

She can try ,but , she took a bath in shit with Dr. Cray Cray.

KD said...

What B.S.. She is taking fists full of out of state money and Insurance money and now she is saying she is against it.

Citizens United is settled Law.

"his positions on several key issues, most importantly the avalanche of dark, anonymous money that is crushing our democracy.

McCaskill said that Kavanaugh “has revealed his bias against limits on campaign donations which places him completely out of the mainstream of this nation.”