Feinstein releases cryptic statement about Brett Kavanaugh nomination amid intrigue over secret letter

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Andrew O'Reilly | Fox News


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/6356/96O1Yu.jpg

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday threw a cryptic curveball at Brett Kavanaugh, insinuating the Supreme Court nominee could be guilty of a crime even as Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee seek to delay his confirmation.

The vague accusation comes after the Senate Judiciary Committee already grilled Kavanaugh and other witnesses and prepares to vote on sending his nomination to the full Senate. The White House blasted the ambiguous charge as a last minute gambit.

“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Feinstein said in her surprise statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”

A spokesperson for Feinstein declined Fox News’ request to elaborate on the lawmaker’s statement, but there has been much speculation that she is referring to a secret letter that has been the subject of intrigue on Capitol Hill over the last few days. A source familiar with the confirmation proceedings told Fox News that Feinstein received the letter back in July, but did not make its existence known publicly until Thursday.

According to a report by The Intercept, the letter was relayed to lawmakers by an individual affiliated with Stanford University and concerns an incident involving the 53-year-old Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school. According to two officials who spoke anonymously with the New York Times, the incident involved possible sexual misconduct between Kavanaugh and the woman.

The letter reportedly was given to Feinstein by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., but has not been publicly disclosed by senators who have seen the document. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said that the letter in question has been referred to the FBI for investigation.

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/1376/G8VigI.jpg

Two sources familiar with the matter tell Fox News that Feinstein has had possession of the letter regarding Kavanaugh since July. Feinstein met privately with Kavanaugh on August 20 and also questioned him repeatedly in open and closed session during the Judiciary Committee hearings on his nomination last week. There is no indication that the matter came up in either the private meeting or the closed committee session.

The FBI conducts background checks on all major government appointees, including Supreme Court nominees.

“Upon receipt of the information on the night of September 12, we included it as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard process,” the FBI said in a statement. Fox News has learned that the White House would have to request that the bureau follow up on the letter for the matter to be investigated further. It was not clear whether the White House had done so as of Thursday evening.

The woman referenced in the letter has yet to be identified, but is being represented by Debra Katz, a whistleblower attorney who works with #MeToo survivors, according to The Intercept.

Despite the turmoil over the letter, a spokesperson for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said there is no plan to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Grassley set the panel's vote on Kavanaugh for Sept. 20 and Republicans hope to confirm Kavanaugh by the start of the new court session Oct. 1.

“Sen. Grassley is aware of Senator Feinstein’s referral,” Grassley’s communications director Taylor Foy said in a statement. “At this time, he has not seen the letter in question, and is respecting the request for confidentiality. There’s no plan to change the committee’s consideration of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.”

The White House attacked Feinstein's statment as an 11th hour attack on the nominee.

“Throughout his confirmation process, Judge Kavanaugh has had 65 meetings with senators—including with Senator Feinstein—sat through over 30 hours of testimony, addressed over 2,000 questions in a public setting and additional questions in a confidential session," White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement. "Not until the eve of his confirmation has Sen. Feinstein or anyone raised the specter of new ‘information’ about him."

[Teh One Who Knocks]

According to a report by The Intercept, the letter was relayed to lawmakers by an individual affiliated with Stanford University and concerns an incident involving the 53-year-old Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school.

So something that allegedly happened at least 35 years ago? :facepalm:

[RBP]

So something that allegedly happened at least 35 years ago? :facepalm:

Typical toxic male. :x

#believeallwomen > #proof, #ruleoflaw, and #statuteoflimitations combined :hand:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I forgot :sad2:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

In all seriousness, this should be a concern for almost every man on the planet. I mean, if you become famous or successful, it's like there's some woman that's just waiting to spring some unsubstantiated and unprovable thing against you that can completely derail or ruin your career and/or life. :|

[RBP]

All wars have casualties. :hand:

[Pony]

So something that allegedly happened at least 35 years ago? :facepalm:

Most likely a minor at the time.

Next CNN headline: "Kavanaugh commits statutory rape of underaged girl"

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Alex Pappas, Andrew O'Reilly | Fox News


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/3228/kJw5O0.jpg

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh vigorously denied claims involving an alleged high school incident made in an undisclosed letter and turned over to FBI by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” Kavanaugh, 53, said in a statement Friday.

Feinstein on Thursday released a statement insinuating Kavanaugh could be guilty of a crime after saying she turned information about Kavanaugh over to the FBI. She did not detail the accusation.

“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Feinstein said in her surprise statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”

Fox News has confirmed that the letter involved an allegation about Kavanaugh while a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in Bethesda, Maryland in the 1980s. A woman, who was also in high school at the time, accused Kavanaugh in the letter of holding her down and trying to force himself on her during a party, before she got away. The details were first reported Friday by the New Yorker.

The White House blasted the charge on Thursday as a last-minute gambit.

“Not until the eve of his confirmation has Sen. Feinstein or anyone raised the specter of new ‘information’ about him," White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement.

The accusation comes after the Senate Judiciary Committee already grilled Kavanaugh and other witnesses and prepares to vote on sending his nomination to the full Senate.

A source familiar with the confirmation proceedings told Fox News that Feinstein received the letter back in July, but did not make its existence known publicly until Thursday.

The letter reportedly was given to Feinstein by Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., but has not been publicly disclosed by senators who have seen the document. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said that the letter in question has been referred to the FBI for investigation.

Feinstein met privately with Kavanaugh on August 20 and also questioned him repeatedly in open and closed session during the Judiciary Committee hearings on his nomination last week. There is no indication that the matter came up in either the private meeting or the closed committee session.

The FBI conducts background checks on all major government appointees, including Supreme Court nominees.

“Upon receipt of the information on the night of September 12, we included it as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard process,” the FBI said in a statement. Fox News has learned that the White House would have to request that the bureau follow up on the letter for the matter to be investigated further. It was not clear whether the White House had done so as of Thursday evening.

The woman referenced in the letter has yet to be identified, but is being represented by Debra Katz, a whistleblower attorney who works with #MeToo survivors, according to The Intercept.

Despite the turmoil over the letter, a spokesperson for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said there is no plan to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Grassley set the panel's vote on Kavanaugh for Sept. 20 and Republicans hope to confirm Kavanaugh by the start of the new court session Oct. 1.

“Sen. Grassley is aware of Senator Feinstein’s referral,” Grassley’s communications director Taylor Foy said in a statement. “At this time, he has not seen the letter in question, and is respecting the request for confidentiality. There’s no plan to change the committee’s consideration of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.”

[RBP]

So he was in high school in the 80's trying to get some pussy at a party and failed?

That's the bombshell? :lol:

[Muddy]

#metoo

[Teh One Who Knocks]

So he was in high school in the 80's trying to get some pussy at a party and failed?

That's the bombshell? :lol:

He was obviously trying to rape her and force the patriarchy on her, didn't you read how it's worded? :nono:

All Men = Rapists/Rapists-in-Waiting

[RBP]

All the shit I pulled in the 80's to get laid? Don't nominate me. :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/921/3TI8ZK.jpg

[Pony]

Seems legit.

[DemonGeminiX]

Ben Shapiro kills me. :lol:

[Pony]

https://i.imgur.com/lAeGDGW.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Gregg Re | Fox News


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img921/1666/pT0D32.jpg

The woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault came forward with her explosive allegations on Sunday, saying the supposed attack "derailed me substantially for four or five years" and claiming that the episode rendered her "unable to have healthy relationships with men."

The woman, Christine Blasey Ford, is a professor at Palo Alto University, according to The Washington Post, which published her account on Sunday. Her decision to go public has capped a whirlwhind week that began when Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sent shockwaves through Washington by announcing she had sent the FBI information about Kavanaugh she received from an anonymous accuser in July. It's also threatened to upend Kavanaugh's confirmation, as top Democrats call for a full investigation.
1041511626388713474
Many Republicans immediately pushed back Sunday, saying it was "disturbing" that the decades-old allegations surfaced just days before the Judiciary Committee is set to vote on whether to advance Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Senate floor. Republicans have given no indication that they intend to delay Thursday's key vote, as a series of Democratic senators demanded throughout the day; however, Senate Judiciary Committee spokesman Taylor Foy said Chairman Chuck Grassley was working to set up follow-up calls with Kavanaugh and Ford in light of the Post report.

"It’s disturbing that these uncorroborated allegations from more than 35 years ago, during high school, would surface on the eve of a committee vote after Democrats sat on them since July," Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement.

"If Ranking Member Feinstein and other Committee Democrats took this claim seriously, they should have brought it to the full Committee’s attention much earlier," he continued. "Instead, they said nothing during two joint phone calls with the nominee in August, four days of lengthy public hearings, a closed session for all committee members with the nominee where sensitive topics can be discussed and in more than 1,300 written questions."

Grassley called on Feinstein to publicly release the letter she received in July, "so that everyone can know what she’s known for weeks." He added that the sudden reveal of the allegations "raises a lot of questions about Democrats’ tactics and motives" and noted that no similar allegations had surfaced in Kavanaugh's past despite six separate federal background checks throughout his career.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican on the committee, said late Sunday he'd "gladly listen" to Ford so that he could compare her accusations "against all the other information" the panel has on Kavanaugh. But, he said, if Ford does testify, "it should be done immediately" so as not to delay the confirmation vote.
1041430520255721472
Another GOP member of the committee, Jeff Flake of Arizona, told Fox News that he was "uncomfortable moving forward with a 'yes' vote until we hear from" Ford.

Feinstein tweeted late Sunday that she agreed with Flake that the committee vote should be delayed. "There's a lot of information we don't know and the FBI should have the time it needs to review this new material," she wrote. "Staff calls aren't the appropriate way to handle this."

Republicans hold a 51-49 advantage in the Senate and can afford only one defection to keep the nomination alive.

Ford, a 51-year-old registered Democrat who has published in academic journals and has trained students in clinical psychology, described the alleged incident in The Washington Post on Sunday, saying it occurred during a summer day in the 1980s at a Maryland house where teens had gathered. Ford claimed she headed upstairs to a bathroom when she was suddenly pushed onto a bed, as rock-and-roll music blared.

However, Ford told The Post she did not recall exactly who owned the house, how she came to be at the house, or how the gathering was arranged. She remembered only that the house was in Montgomery County, near a country club, and that parents were not present.

Ford said Kavanaugh and a friend, Mark Judge, were "stumbling drunk" and laughing "maniacally" when Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and tried to forcibly remove her one-piece bathing suit, as well as the clothes she was wearing. According to Ford, Kavanaugh put his hand over her mouth when she attempted to scream.

"I thought he might inadvertently kill me," said Ford, who works as a research psychologist in California. "He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing."

Ford claimed she was able to escape to a bathroom and then outside of the house when Judge jumped into the fray and sent everyone in the room "tumbling."

Judge strongly denied the allegations on Friday, when they were anonymous, saying the claims were "just absolutely nuts" and insisting that "I never saw Brett act that way."

After Ford went public on Sunday, Judge repeated his denial.

"Now that the anonymous person has been identified and has spoken to the press, I repeat my earlier statement that I have no recollection of any of the events described in today’s Post article or attributed to her letter," Judge said. A classmate of Kavanaugh's at Georgetown Preparatory School, Judge has gone on to write for a variety of conservative publications, including The Daily Caller.

Debra Katz, a D.C. attorney specializing in sexual harassment cases, provided The Post with results of an August 2018 polygraph test showing Ford was truthful when she said a summary of the allegations was accurate, the newspaper reported.

Also on Friday, Kavanaugh released a statement through the White House as the allegations surfaced: "I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time."

The White House stood by that denial on Sunday in the wake of The Post's report.

"As the story notes, we are standing with Judge Kavanaugh’s denial," White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah told Fox News.

The Post reported that she had contacted the newspaper in July, along with Feinstein. According to Ford, she kept the episode mostly to herself until 2012, when she mentioned it in a couple's therapy session.

The therapist's contemporaneous notes, provided to The Post, reportedly confirmed that Ford maintained she had been attacked by four individuals "from an elitist boys’ school" who are now "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington." The therapist, Ford said, had confused the number of people involved in the alleged attack with the total number of people in the house.

Although Ford said she initially wanted to remain anonymous, she later changed her mind after Kavanaugh's defenders argued that the allegations were unfair.

"Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and terror about retaliation," Ford told The Post. She added that the incident "derailed me substantially for four or five years" and that "I was very ill-equipped to forge those kinds of relationships" going forward.

Republicans had accused Feinstein of orchestrating a last-minute smear after she announced she had forwarded the then-anonymous account of sexual assault to the FBI.

After Ford's interview was published Sunday, Feinstein said Kavanaugh's confirmation should be delayed pending a federal investigation -- a move that would potentially push a confirmation vote until after the midterm elections.

"From the outset, I have believed these allegations were extremely serious and bear heavily on Judge Kavanaugh’s character," Feinstein wrote. "I support Mrs. Ford’s decision to share her story, and now that she has, it is in the hands of the FBI to conduct an investigation. This should happen before the Senate moves forward on this nominee."

That sentiment was echoed Sunday by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who has previously suggested Kavanaugh's hearings should be delayed for other reasons.

“Senator Grassley must postpone the vote until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated," Schumer said. "For too long, when women have made serious allegations of abuse, they have been ignored. That cannot happen in this case."

Last week, the FBI, which conducts background checks on judicial nominees, said that it already had reviewed the allegations.

"Upon receipt of the information on the night of September 12, we included it as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard process," the FBI said in a statement. Fox News has learned that the White House would have to request that the bureau follow up on the letter for the matter to be investigated further.

On Sunday, before Ford's name came to light, Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy said he was embarrassed for Congress by the unsubstantiated accusations of decades-old sexual misconduct leveled at the Supreme Court nominee.

"So far, it’s pretty much been an intergalactic freak show," Kennedy, a member of the judiciary committee, told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." "Most Americans are looking at this – most mainstream Americans – and they’re thinking that Congress has hit rock bottom and started to dig."

Kennedy said Kavanaugh's vote before the Senate Judiciary Committee would continue as planned on Thursday.

And on Friday, more than five dozen women came forward to defend Kavanaugh, calling him "a good person" in a letter to the committee.

"We are women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983. For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect," the letter read. "We strongly believe it is important to convey this information to the Committee at this time."

[RBP]

Out of control.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

And come to find out, now that she's released her name, she's involved in anti-Trump demonstrations...coincidence?

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/16/kavanaugh-accuser-signed-letter-fighting-trump-border-enforcement/

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/16/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford-donned-brain-pussy-hat-trump-march/

[RBP]

:shocker:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

And that's stuff you definitely won't see reported on the MSM because of course #BelieveAllWomen

[PorkChopSandwiches]

I think the title should have been Feinstein released from her crypt

[PorkChopSandwiches]

https://i.imgur.com/H8hqTVa.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Ben Shapiro - The Daily Wire


https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/921/YeXaoe.jpg

Last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) threw a last-minute Hail Mary attempt to stop the ascension of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court: an anonymous letter accusing Kavanaugh of sexual impropriety. The accuser was anonymous; the charge was unclear. On Sunday, Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s sexual assault accuser came forward in the pages of The Washington Post. Christine Blasey Ford, a professor in California, apparently first contacted the Post in July after Kavanaugh began being discussed as a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy, but she didn’t talk with the paper on the record until now. “Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and terror about retaliation,” she stated.

According to Ford, when she was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17, they were at a pool party where both got drunk. Her story continues in her letter:


Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's… The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others. Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stairwell from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help. Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with [Mark Judge], who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me. From across the room a very drunken [Judge] said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop."

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

Originally, Ford contacted Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), who sent Ford’s letter on to Feinstein.

Kavanaugh has said this never happened. “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time,” he said. Judge says the same. Judge told The Weekly Standard, “I can recall a lot of rough-housing with guys. It was an all-boys school, we would rough-house with each other. I don’t remember any of that stuff going on with girls.” He strongly denied witnessing an attempted assault.

On its face, the allegations aren’t non-credible. Ford has come forward, and she’s told a story with specifics. But serious questions remain. Here are six:

1. Why Didn’t Feinstein Come Forward Earlier? Feinstein had every opportunity to ask Kavanaugh about the allegations. She didn’t. She didn’t even share the letter, which she had for weeks, with her Democratic colleagues. Instead, she waited until days before the vote to dump the allegations publicly, and did so without revealing the name, choosing to release this absurd statement:


"I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” she wrote. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities."

Furthermore, she referred the matter to the FBI only at that point. All of this looks heavily political – in the interests of justice, she should have come forward earlier.

2. Why Isn’t The FBI Investigating? Feinstein passed along the charges to the FBI. The FBI immediately passed the charges on to the White House instead of investigating. Why? Perhaps it's because the charges are four decades old, non-specific, and impossible to verify.

3. Why Didn’t Ford Tell Anybody About This Incident Until 2012? In many cases of accused sexual assault (see Moore, Roy), accusers told their friends, family, or medical workers about the accusations at the time. This at least time-stamps the accusations. That didn’t happen here: the accuser says she first told no one for three decades. That makes it questionable as to when this even happened, and difficult to track down.

4. Why Do Her Therapist’s Notes Conflict With Her Account? Ford showed her therapist’s notes to The Washington Post. Those notes conflict with her account. The notes don’t include names, instead stating that the alleged perpetrators were “from an elitist boys’ school,” and had since become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes also state that four boys were involved, not two; she says her therapist got it wrong, and that there were four boys at the party but only two boys involved. Another therapy session the following year includes the charge that Ford underwent a “rape attempt” in “her late teens,” but she was allegedly 15 – not late teens – when this incident occurred. Her husband, who was present for the first therapy session, said Kavanaugh’s name was raised, but the Post account doesn’t say that Kavanaugh was called the alleged perpetrator.

5. She Doesn’t Remember Key Details. According to the Post, she doesn’t remember key details:


She said she believes it occurred in the summer of 1982, when she was 15, around the end of her sophomore year at the all-girls Holton-Arms School in Bethesda. Kavanaugh would have been 17 at the end of his junior year at Georgetown Prep….Ford said she does not remember how the gathering came together the night of the incident. She said she often spent time in the summer at the Columbia Country Club pool in Chevy Chase, where in those pre-cellphone days, teenagers learned about gatherings via word of mouth. She also doesn’t recall who owned the house or how she got there. Ford said she remembers that it was in Montgomery County, not far from the country club, and that no parents were home at the time. Ford named two other teenagers who she said were at the party. Those individuals did not respond to messages on Sunday morning.

6. Why Aren’t Any Other Women Coming Forward? In other cases, many women come forward. In fact, it’s difficult to think of another high-profile #MeToo case without multiple accusers. In this case, it’s one woman making an unsubstantiated three-decade-old allegation – the ultimate he-said, she-said. In this case, of course, it’s actually a he-said-he-said-she-said, since there were two men accused of involvement.

You don't have to believe that Ford is lying to believe that these allegations require more substantiation. Thirty-year-old events are difficult to reconstruct; memories change over time. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable in many cases. And she could be telling the absolute objective truth, of course.

With all of that said, it’s not out-of-bounds for Republicans to call Ford to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee – we need to know more about these allegations. It’s also not inappropriate to delay the vote on Kavanaugh until after such a hearing, or at least until Ford has turned down such an invite. Kavanaugh has already offered to come back and testify on this matter. But allegations alone, without further supporting evidence – even contemporaneous accounts, witness accounts, or corroborating details – should not destroy someone’s life. Kavanaugh deserves more, and so does the appointments process.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

https://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2018-09/209140_5_.png

[PorkChopSandwiches]

https://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2018-09/209141_5_.png

[PorkChopSandwiches]

https://i.redd.it/u1aooz3w6um11.png

[Muddy]

Sit down Uncle Tom.. :hand:

[lost in melb.]

I am thinking that women come forward in these situations precisely in order to inflict maximum damage with the minimum personal inconvenience.

This is probably, in part, because the justice system is likely to fail them and they don't want to go through a long court proceeding.

[DemonGeminiX]

I am thinking that women come forward in these situations precisely in order to inflict maximum damage with the minimum personal inconvenience.

This is probably, in part, because the justice system is likely to fail them and they don't want to go through a long court proceeding.

In this case, it's because she's completely full of shit. Think Anita Hill.

[Muddy]

Clarence Thomas had 52% of Americans support during his confirmation hearing and then the Anita Hill thing came up when it was all said and done Clarence Thomas then had 58% of Americans support

[lost in melb.]

In this case, it's because she's completely full of shit. Think Anita Hill.

By full of shit, you mean making this up?

[RBP]

Why are we even having this conversation?

[Pony]

By full of shit, you mean making this up?

Yes.

[lost in melb.]

Why are we even having this conversation?

:dunno:


Yes.

Thank you.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Why are we even having this conversation?

#ResistTrump
#BelieveAllWomen
#MeToo
#RapeCulture

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Amber Athey | Media and Breaking News Editor - The Daily Caller


https://i.imgur.com/BZAmfyul.png

Debra Katz, the attorney for the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, said that it is not her client’s job to corroborate her claims.

Katz said on CNN on Monday that investigators should be responsible for proving Christine Blasey Ford’s claim that Kavanaugh held her down and drunkenly groped her while at a party in high school.

During the interview, Katz revealed that there was another girl present at the party, which allegedly took place in 1982 while Kavanaugh was attending Georgetown Prep. Ford previously told the Washington Post that there were four boys at the party but never indicated if there were other girls beside herself.

“While we have you, perhaps you can help us fill in the blanks on some of her story. She says that she was at a party in probably 1982 in Montgomery County, Maryland. She says that there were four guys there, these are high school students, as was she. There were four guys there. Were there any girls there that day?” anchor Alisyn Camerota asked.

“Yes, there was another girl at this party, yes,” Katz said.

Camerota asked if Ford has tried to talk to any of the other partygoers to see if they will corroborate her story, but Katz declined to place the burden of proof on her client.

“That’s not her job to do that. If this is going to be investigated, it should be done by investigators,” Katz asserted.

[RBP]

:facepalm:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

It's not her job to prove her own story :nono:

[RBP]

Muddy is a wookie. #believeallRBPs

[Muddy]

That chick on the right needs a doo-rag..

[lost in melb.]

It's all speculative.

I wasn't saying this woman is morally entitled, just offering an alternative explanation why she brought it up now, the other implausible explanation being that a professor decided to randomly accuse a to-be judge of sexual assault.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Alex Pappas | Fox News


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/7410/gjajge.jpg

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Tuesday raised the possibility that next week’s high-stakes open hearing to examine the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could be canceled if the accuser doesn’t accept the committee’s invitation.

Grassley, R-Iowa, scheduled a hearing for Monday for Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford to answer questions from senators about the allegation. But Grassley said during a Tuesday radio interview that his office has reached out several times to Ford and her attorneys to discuss her allegation, but has heard nothing back.

“We have reached out to her in the last 36 hours three or four times by email and we have not heard from them, and it kind of raises the question, do they want to come to the public hearing or not?” Grassley said on The Hugh Hewitt Show.

Asked whether there would be a hearing if Ford did not agree to appear, Grassley suggested he couldn’t see a reason to hold one.

“What would be the purpose of the hearing if Dr. Ford doesn’t want to respond?” Grassley said.

In the case Ford accepts the invitation, Grassley said he is considering the possibility of having an independent questioner ask all the questions to Ford.

Ford, a California-based professor, revealed her identity over the weekend in a Washington Post report. She said that Kavanaugh, while in high school, pinned her down, tried to remove her bathing suit and put his hand over her mouth when she attempted to scream. Kavanaugh has denied the allegation.

The announcement of the last-minute hearing evoked memories of the 1991 Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, where senators scrambled to arrange a hearing after Thomas was confronted with sexual harassment accusations by law professor Anita Hill. Thomas denied the accusations and was narrowly confirmed.

During television appearances on Monday, Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, indicated her client was “willing to take whatever it takes to get her story forth,” and would testify before the committee under oath. But Katz has not confirmed that Ford will show up for Monday’s open hearing, which would be aired live on television.

Speculation about whether Ford will ultimately accept the invitation follows reports she was reluctant to go public with her accusation after tipping off congressional Democrats.

Grassley, announcing the Monday hearing, said it would "give these recent allegations a full airing."

White House spokesman Raj Shah said Kavanaugh is willing to testify.

“Judge Kavanaugh looks forward to a hearing where he can clear his name of this false allegation. He stands ready to testify tomorrow if the Senate is ready to hear him,” Shah said.

Democrats have called for delaying Kavanaugh’s vote until there is a full FBI review of the matter.

But Grassley told Hewitt on Tuesday that the FBI investigation “is closed” and that the FBI is not doing any further investigation.

Meanwhile, Kavanaugh was spotted Tuesday arriving at the White House for meetings – as he did the day before.

President Trump on Monday stood by Kavanaugh, calling him one of the “finest people that I have ever known” while acknowledging a "little delay" may be necessary before the nomination is voted on in the Senate.

In his first public comments on the controversy, the president also criticized Democrats over the timing of the allegation.

“I wish the Democrats could have done this a lot sooner because they had this information for many months," Trump told reporters at the White House. "And they shouldn't have waited until literally the last days. They should have done it a lot sooner.”

The president said he’s open to delaying the confirmation proceedings in Congress while the allegations are investigated.

"If it takes a little delay it'll take a little delay," Trump said. "It shouldn't certainly be very much."

Kavanaugh has forcefully denied the sexual assault accusations Ford alleged took place while the two were in high school.

"This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone," Kavanaugh said in a statement. "Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making the accusation until she identified herself yesterday."

All 10 Democrats on the committee on Monday have urged Grassley to postpone the vote on Kavanaugh's nomination. Multiple sources told Fox News Thursday's committee confirmation vote has been postponed amid the newly scheduled hearing.

[DemonGeminiX]

It's all speculative.

I wasn't saying this woman is morally entitled, just offering an alternative explanation why she brought it up now, the other implausible explanation being that a professor decided to randomly accuse a to-be judge of sexual assault.

Randomly? An uber-liberal university professor (if you've been paying attention to news articles in here, then you'll realize that "uber-liberal" and "university professor" is pretty much saying the same thing), who has been outed as an Anti-Trump protester, decides at the 11th hour to come out and accuse Trump's pick for the Supreme Court of sexual assault. Because nothing else the Democrat's have done to try to sabotage this appointment has worked.

Why throw the accusation out there anonymously? And why wait this long?

If this really happened, then why can't she remember details? She doesn't remember exactly where it happened, she doesn't remember exactly when... if it was so pivotally detrimental to her life that she needed intense therapy for years, then wouldn't every last horrible detail be burned in her memory for the rest of her life? Before you answer that question, keep in mind that I have been through a pivotally detrimental experience in my life, and I know exactly what I'm talking about. I remember every fucking detail of it, and I will until the day I die.

Furthermore, why not go to the police? I mean you can't prove anything now, and even if you could, the statute of limitations has surely ran out by now. But she could have brought charges against him and the other guy that she named (surprise! surprise! A conservative writer!) 35+ years ago when it allegedly happened. She could have brought charges at any time during which the statute of limitations hadn't expired. Did she? No.

Now let's talk about Feinstein. She knew about this accusation since July and she didn't bring it up until now. She went through all the interviews and committees related to this appointment, even meeting Kavanaugh and questioning him in private, knowing this accusation was out there, and she didn't even bring it up. She said and did nothing about it at all, not even to her own party members until now.

Feinstein forwarded the accusation to the FBI, and the FBI decided not to bother with it. If there was any clout to this accusation, they would be all over it.

This woman hasn't accepted an invitation to testify before Congress after saying that she would testify. Kavanaugh has quickly accepted the invitation. They have a tentative hearing scheduled. It depends on whether or not she agrees to testify before Congress. If she accepts, I will be surprised. She is full of shit, lying her ass off, making it up... however you want to put it, that's what she's doing. And the Democrats are using it to play dirty politics. This is not real, this is a bullshit tactic to #StopTrump. #MeTooGoneTooFar

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Debra Katz, the attorney for the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, said that it is not her client’s job to corroborate her claims.


What the actual fuck

[RBP]

Randomly? An uber-liberal university professor (if you've been paying attention to news articles in here, then you'll realize that "uber-liberal" and "university professor" is pretty much saying the same thing), who has been outed as an Anti-Trump protester, decides at the 11th hour to come out and accuse Trump's pick for the Supreme Court of sexual assault. Because nothing else the Democrat's have done to try to sabotage this appointment has worked.

Why throw the accusation out there anonymously? And why wait this long?

If this really happened, then why can't she remember details? She doesn't remember exactly where it happened, she doesn't remember exactly when... if it was so pivotally detrimental to her life that she needed intense therapy for years, then wouldn't every last horrible detail be burned in her memory for the rest of her life? Before you answer that question, keep in mind that I have been through a pivotally detrimental experience in my life, and I know exactly what I'm talking about. I remember every fucking detail of it, and I will until the day I die.

Furthermore, why not go to the police? I mean you can't prove anything now, and even if you could, the statute of limitations has surely ran out by now. But she could have brought charges against him and the other guy that she named (surprise! surprise! A conservative writer!) 35+ years ago when it allegedly happened. She could have brought charges at any time during which the statute of limitations hadn't expired. Did she? No.

Now let's talk about Feinstein. She knew about this accusation since July and she didn't bring it up until now. She went through all the interviews and committees related to this appointment, even meeting Kavanaugh and questioning him in private, knowing this accusation was out there, and she didn't even bring it up. She said and did nothing about it at all, not even to her own party members until now.

Feinstein forwarded the accusation to the FBI, and the FBI decided not to bother with it. If there was any clout to this accusation, they would be all over it.

This woman hasn't accepted an invitation to testify before Congress after saying that she would testify. Kavanaugh has quickly accepted the invitation. They have a tentative hearing scheduled. It depends on whether or not she agrees to testify before Congress. If she accepts, I will be surprised. She is full of shit, lying her ass off, making it up... however you want to put it, that's what she's doing. And the Democrats are using it to play dirty politics. This is not real, this is a bullshit tactic to #StopTrump. #MeTooGoneTooFar

And don't forget, this isn't his first confirmation. The senate approved him 12 years ago for the circuit court.

[DemonGeminiX]

Exactly.

[Pony]

https://i.imgur.com/BXkBzbL.jpg

[lost in melb.]

Randomly? An uber-liberal university professor (if you've been paying attention to news articles in here, then you'll realize that "uber-liberal" and "university professor" is pretty much saying the same thing), who has been outed as an Anti-Trump protester, decides at the 11th hour to come out and accuse Trump's pick for the Supreme Court of sexual assault. Because nothing else the Democrat's have done to try to sabotage this appointment has worked.

Why throw the accusation out there anonymously? And why wait this long?

If this really happened, then why can't she remember details? She doesn't remember exactly where it happened, she doesn't remember exactly when... if it was so pivotally detrimental to her life that she needed intense therapy for years, then wouldn't every last horrible detail be burned in her memory for the rest of her life? Before you answer that question, keep in mind that I have been through a pivotally detrimental experience in my life, and I know exactly what I'm talking about. I remember every fucking detail of it, and I will until the day I die.

Furthermore, why not go to the police? I mean you can't prove anything now, and even if you could, the statute of limitations has surely ran out by now. But she could have brought charges against him and the other guy that she named (surprise! surprise! A conservative writer!) 35+ years ago when it allegedly happened. She could have brought charges at any time during which the statute of limitations hadn't expired. Did she? No.

Now let's talk about Feinstein. She knew about this accusation since July and she didn't bring it up until now. She went through all the interviews and committees related to this appointment, even meeting Kavanaugh and questioning him in private, knowing this accusation was out there, and she didn't even bring it up. She said and did nothing about it at all, not even to her own party members until now.

Feinstein forwarded the accusation to the FBI, and the FBI decided not to bother with it. If there was any clout to this accusation, they would be all over it.

This woman hasn't accepted an invitation to testify before Congress after saying that she would testify. Kavanaugh has quickly accepted the invitation. They have a tentative hearing scheduled. It depends on whether or not she agrees to testify before Congress. If she accepts, I will be surprised. She is full of shit, lying her ass off, making it up... however you want to put it, that's what she's doing. And the Democrats are using it to play dirty politics. This is not real, this is a bullshit tactic to #StopTrump. #MeTooGoneTooFar

I"m still thinking 'something happened' due the probabilistic unlikely-hood of a university professor making up a rape accusation about a random Trump-fanboy. Plenty of reasons not to go to court - mainly he's a powerful man likely from a powerful family. Maybe she's a coward. Plenty of reasons to anonymously leak it out now: maximum damage to him and least effort to her. Revenge at last!

As for the Dem's - yep milking it for all it's political worth. Would you expect otherwise?

[DemonGeminiX]

I"m still thinking 'something happened' due the probabilistic unlikely-hood of a university professor making up a rape accusation about a random Trump-fanboy. Plenty of reasons not to go to court - mainly he's a powerful man likely from a powerful family. Maybe she's a coward. Plenty of reasons to anonymously leak it out now: maximum damage to him and least effort to her. Revenge at last!

As for the Dem's - yep milking it for all it's political worth. Would you expect otherwise?

I'm still thinking nothing happened and she's just one of those crazy asshat liberals that thinks it's ok to damage someone else's reputation just because they have different political opinions or just because she wants the attention. If you recall, in the recent past, there has been a deluge of women falsely accusing men of rape in this country. They've all been found out. And I bet dollars to donuts that this loon is too much of a pussy to step up to plate and testify, because she knows that once she's on the hot seat, she's going to be exposed for the fraud that she really is.

A man is innocent until proven guilty in this country, and no accusation without trial and conviction should be enough to ruin his life.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Gregg Re | Fox News


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/7207/ddwUaa.jpg

One day after Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., raised concerns about the polygraph test taken by Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford, her attorney is refusing to comment on who paid for the examination or provide additional details on how it was conducted.

And experts contacted by Fox News confirmed that while polygraph examinations can be useful, they are ultimately fallible tools that "can be beaten." Without mentioning any particular instances, one former senior FBI agent said polygraphs would have difficulty detecting deception by sociopaths, psychopaths and committed liars lacking a "conscience."

Even well-intentioned individuals who have come to believe that their false stories are, in fact, true -- whether because of therapist-induced memories or other causes -- can sometimes pass polygraph tests, former FBI officials and psychology experts told Fox News.

Ford provided The Washington Post the results of a polygraph examination conducted by a former FBI agent in August, which reportedly showed that she had been truthful in her allegations. According to the Post, Ford took the polygraph on the advice of her attorney, Debra Katz.

Katz did not respond to numerous requests for comment by Fox News on Tuesday concerning the polygraph.

Speaking to Fox News' "Hannity" on Monday, Graham questioned who had paid for the polygraph, which experts told Fox News could cost anywhere from $500 to $1,000.

"If Ms. Ford really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward ... why did she pay for a polygraph in August, and why did she hire a lawyer in August? And who paid for it?" Graham asked.

Democratic politicians and operatives have repeatedly cited the claim that Ford had passed a polygraph exam to bolster her claims.

"The woman who says Kavanaugh attacked her has reportedly passed a polygraph test," Paul Begala, a onetime aide to former President Bill Clinton while he was besieged by numerous accusations of sexual misconduct while in office. "Will Kavanaugh take one?"
1041385675294232576
But several experts told Fox News that viewing polygraphs as reliable lie-detector machines is a dangerous oversimplification.

"It's not the result of the polygraph; it is what polygraph subjects say during the polygraph interview that is most valuable," said Thomas Mauriello, a lecturer in criminology at the University of Maryland who worked as a senior polygraph examiner at the Defense Department.

"The result of a polygraph simply is whether you did or did not respond to a particular question. A response is not a lie, because the polygraph is not a lie detector as most think," Mauriello added. "A response is the activation of your sympathetic nervous system when answering a question asked during the examination."

James Gagliano, a former FBI agent who led a SWAT team in New York for several years and now teaches at St. John's University, told Fox News that while polygraphs are valuable, they "can be beaten."

"In this case, if they want to put this out as irrefutable evidence that this woman is telling the truth because she passed a polygraph -- that's not the way polygraphs work," Gagliano added. "If that were the case, I would've taken every drug dealer, gangbanger, and pedophile I investigated, and I would've thrown them on the polygraph."

Gagliano, who said he was subjected to several polygraphs at the FBI but never administered one himself, said people can sometimes pass polygraphs if they've convinced themselves they are telling the truth: "It's not a lie if you believe it," he said.

"Everyone knows polygraph exams can be beaten," Gagliano added. "If someone is a psychopath or a sociopath, if you don't have a conscience, if you don't know right from wrong -- you can beat it."

Ford announced on Tuesday she would refuse to testify about her allegations, despite numerous invitations from Senate Republicans, until the FBI conducts a full investigation into the events she claims occurred at a house in Maryland more than 35 years ago. Ford has been unable to identify who owned the house in question, or why she was there.

"It's totally inappropriate for someone to demand we use law enforcement resources to investigate a 35-year-old allegation when she won't go under oath and can't remember key details including when or where it happened," a federal law enforcement official told Fox News.

Gagliano explained that polygraphs are typically conducted by highly trained professionals who first establish a "baseline" physiological response by asking simplistic questions. Then, Gagliano said, polygraphists often attempt to "scare" examinees by asking a question to make them think they're in trouble, which provides an additional data point.

Speaking separately on "The Ingraham Angle" Monday night, Mauriello explained that numerous factors -- including how questioners pose those complicated interrogatories -- can affect polygraph results.

Asked what it meant that Ford had passed a polygraph, Mauriello said flatly, "absolutely nothing."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, seemed to admit as much Tuesday night, even as she insisted Ford was credible.

"This is a woman who has been profoundly impacted by this," Feinstein told Fox News. "Now, I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know."

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Speaking to Fox News' "Hannity" on Monday, Graham questioned who had paid for the polygraph, which experts told Fox News could cost anywhere from $500 to $1,000.

"If Ms. Ford really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward ... why did she pay for a polygraph in August, and why did she hire a lawyer in August? And who paid for it?" Graham asked.


Those are very good questions...


Gagliano, who said he was subjected to several polygraphs at the FBI but never administered one himself, said people can sometimes pass polygraphs if they've convinced themselves they are telling the truth: "It's not a lie if you believe it," he said.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Gregg Re | Fox News


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/8532/EBdlOC.jpg

Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor claiming Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than 35 years ago, late Tuesday demanded a "full investigation" by the FBI before she attends any congressional hearing or "interrogation" into her accusations.

In response, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, who said Ford is still invited to speak to the committee, countered that "nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay.”

Lisa Banks, one of Ford's lawyers, told CNN that her client "will talk to the committee," but she is not prepared for the hearing on Monday.

She said her client has been faced with threats and she has been figuring out how to protect her family.

"There should be no rush to a hearing," Banks said.

Other top Republicans, including Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, who had said they wanted to hear from Ford before voting on Kavanaugh's confirmation, have indicated they would move forward with a vote if Ford chose not to testify.

https://i.imgur.com/0AxyyZW.png

https://i.imgur.com/6sJ9wz0.png

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., tweeted late Tuesday that Republican leadership "took immediate action" to ensure Ford and Kavanaugh could be heard.

"If we don’t hear from both sides on Monday, let’s vote," he tweeted.

Republicans had repeatedly invited Ford and Kavanaugh to testify next week after delaying a planned Judiciary Committee vote that had been scheduled for Thursday. Kavanaugh accepted the committee's invitation, but Ford stayed mum until Tuesday night.

Ford's insistence on an FBI investigation, which a federal law enforcement official told Fox News was "totally inappropriate," throws the entire hearing into doubt: Grassley, R-Iowa, had threatened to nix the proceeding if Ford refused to participate.

It was also sure to add fuel to Republican claims that the allegations -- which were known to ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat Dianne Feinstein in July, but revealed to federal authorities just last Thursday -- are part of a concerted effort to stall Kavanaugh's nomination at the last minute.

"While Dr. Ford’s life was being turned upside down, you and your staff scheduled a public hearing for her to testify at the same table as Judge Kavanaugh in front of two dozen U.S. Senators on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident," Ford's attorneys wrote to Grassley.

But Republicans on the Judiciary Committee directly disputed that claim Tuesday night, writing in a statement that Ford had been offered a chance to testify privately, and had never been told she would need to sit near Kavanaugh.

In the letter, Ford's lawyers went on to assert that Ford's family "was forced to relocate out of their home" and that "her email has been hacked, and she has been impersonated online."

"The hearing was scheduled for six short days from today and would include interrogation by Senators who appear to have made up their minds that she is 'mistaken' and 'mixed up.' While no sexual assault survivor should be subjected to such an ordeal, Dr. Ford wants to cooperate with the Committee and with law enforcement officials."

The lawyers, Debra Katz and Banks, said historical precedent supported the delay, echoing comments by Feinstein, who on Tuesday wrote on Twitter that the FBI had also "investigated Anita Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas," the Supreme Court justice.

However, Thomas was accused of sexually harassing Hill while both worked at federal agencies, in potential violation of federal law; Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexual harassment that would fall well outside of any applicable federal or state statute of limitations because the alleged episode occured decades ago.

"As the Judiciary Committee has recognized and done before, an FBI investigation of the incident should be the first step in addressing her allegations," the letter continued. "A full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions."

But a federal law enforcement official told Fox News, "It's totally inappropriate for someone to demand we use law enforcement resources to investigate a 35-year-old allegation when she won't go under oath and can't remember key details including when or where it happened."

Because Ford's allegations do not involve any federal crime within the applicable statute of limitations, Fox News has learned that the bureau would require explicit instructions from the White House to conduct any additional probe.

The document concluded: "We would welcome the opportunity to talk with you and Ranking Member Feinstein to discuss reasonable steps as to how Dr. Ford can cooperate while also taking care of her own health and security."

The Judiciary Committee statement Tuesday night condemned any threats against Ford, but maintained that her request for an FBI probe was unfounded.

"The FBI has indicated to the committee and in public statements that it considers the matter closed," Grassley and other top Republicans wrote. "The FBI does not make credibility determinations. The FBI provides information on a confidential basis in order for decision makers to determine an individual’s suitability. The Senate has the information it needs to follow up with witnesses and gather and assess the relevant evidence."

The Republicans also disputed the suggestion in Ford's letter that the committee had not been accommodating: "Contrary to suggestions by Dr. Ford’s attorneys, the committee had no plans to place Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh on a panel together, and never indicated plans to do so. Grassley’s staff offered Dr. Ford multiple dates as well as a choice of providing information in a public or private setting."

Meanwhile, Feinstein and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer released statements backing Ford.

"I agree with her 100 percent that the rushed process to hold a hearing on Monday has been unfair and is reminiscent of the treatment of Anita Hill," Feinstein said. "I also agree that we need the facts before senators—not staff or lawyers—speak to witnesses.

"We should honor Dr. Blasey Ford’s wishes and delay this hearing," Feinstein continued. "A proper investigation must be completed, witnesses interviewed, evidence reviewed and all sides spoken to. Only then should the chairman set a hearing date."

Feinstein had told Fox News earlier Tuesday that she could not be sure Ford was being entirely truthful.

"This is a woman who has been profoundly impacted by this," Feinstein said. "Now, I can't say everything's truthful. I don't know."

Eric Holder, the former attorney general, tweeted late Tuesday that the FBI should do a "routine, normal inquiry concerning new Kavanaugh allegations. This is basic background investigation procedure."

In a separate statement, Schumer said an FBI probe would be consistent with "precedent," adding, "Dr. Ford’s call for the FBI to investigate... demonstrates her confidence that when all the facts are examined by an impartial investigation, her account will be further corroborated and confirmed."

Earlier Tuesday, Judiciary Committee member Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., rejected a comparison to the Clarence Thomas episode.

"You’re talking about history," Graham said. "We’re not looking back. We’re looking forward.”

The attorneys' letter was yet another curveball in Kavanaugh's ongoing nomination drama, which began last week after a leak to The Intercept revealed that Feinstein was in possession of a supposedly damning letter relevant to his confirmation. Republicans have charged that Senate Democrats orchestrated that leak, which then prompted Feinstein to discuss the letter and its then-anonymous accusations publicly and with the FBI.

Ford went public on Sunday, alleging that Kavanaugh forced himself onto her and covered her mouth in the 1980s, when Kavanaugh was 17 and she was 15. Ford did not mention the incident to others by her own admission until 2012, according to The Washington Post, when her therapist recorded her claim that four individuals had committed the assault.

Ford has since claimed that the therapist incorrectly transcribed that detail, and that she had said there were only two people in the room. Her husband has maintained that Ford mentioned Kavanaugh in the therapy sessions.

Ford also told The Post she could not remember in whose house the alleged incident occurred, the exact month of the episode, or why there was a gathering there.

Republicans on Tuesday also reiterated Grassley's criticism of Feinstein for not telling Republicans, even privately, about the claims against Kavanaugh during days of private and public hearings on the nominee.

"Ranking Member Feinstein first received a letter with allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh from Dr. Ford in July," the Republicans' statement read. "However, Feinstein neglected to notify Committee Republicans of the letter until the day of the first Committee markup, six weeks after receiving the letter and well after the vetting and hearing process had concluded."

The statement concluded by charging that Feinstein had not taken the matter "seriously."

"Feinstein referred the letter to the FBI, which added it to Kavanaugh’s background investigation file," it continued. "She should have treated these allegations seriously, as Grassley has done, in immediately acting upon hearing of them."

Earlier Tuesday, a key potential swing vote senator, Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, said he would move to push Kavanaugh's nomination forward if Ford refused to show up to the hearing planned for Monday. Graham, R-S.C., has also said that if Ford refused to testify, the committee would move forward with a vote within the week.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

And here we go....this just proves that this is nothing more than a stall tactic. WTF is an FBI investigation going to do to get to the bottom of this and why does it need to be done before she appears in front of congress? The more this unfolds, the worse it stinks.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Penny Star - Breitbart


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img921/9859/hlTc3B.jpg

Debra Katz, the attorney hired by Christine Blasey Ford to represent her and her claim that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh attacked her at a high school party three decades ago, is a longtime Democratic activist and donor. Katz has, in the past, defended men accused of sexual assault by multiple women, including former President Bill Clinton and disgraced former U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-MN).

And she is a part of the “resist” movement, the anti-President Donald Trump crowd. In an October 2017 interview posted on the National Women Law Center’s website, Katz was asked about sexual misconduct cases.

“Today, in your practice, have you noticed an increase in these kinds of cases or complaints? Why do you think that is?” Emily Martin, vice president for Education and Workplace Justice, asked Katz in 2017.

“Unfortunately, these kinds of cases do not go away. In times of economic uncertainty when people feel vulnerable on many levels, it is easy for them to blame other ‘outside’ groups, including women, African-Americans, and national origin minorities, for their lost opportunities,” Katz said. “Part of President Trump’s appeal is apparently that he reinforces those fears and resentments.”

“We are seeing a large uptick in sexual, racial, and religious harassment cases since the election,” Katz said. “Unfortunately, President Trump’s misogynistic, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim conduct and comments have radically lowered the bar and have normalized abusive and assaultive conduct in the workplace.”

However, when asked about men who have been accused of sexual assault by numerous women — Clinton who was impeached and Franken who resigned — Katz has defended them.

In Clinton’s case, Katz took his word over that of Paula Jones, who claimed that the president exposed himself and pressured her to commit a sexual act, according to a report in Townhall:


Katz dismissed Jones’ assertions on March 30th, 1998 on CNN’s “Talkback Live” saying that, “Paula Jones’ suit is very, very, very weak. She’s alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace.”

Likewise, Katz again said on CBS’ Evening News on April 2nd, 1998 that Jones’ allegation could not hold up in court because, “Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim.”

…

In 1998, Katz told the media that, “If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern, that is someone in the company above her propositioned her but only once and she suffered no tangible job detriment. I would probably tell her that I’m sorry, it’s unfair, but you don’t have a case.’ Katz said that courts have generally held that a one-time proposition does not constitute harassment. If it’s one time, it has to be severe, almost a sexual assault, not just a touching of somebody’s breast or buttocks or even forceful kissing.”

Katz also defended Franken when several women accused him of sexual misconduct.

“Context is relevant,” Katz said of the scandal. “He did not do this as a member of the U.S. Senate. He did this in his capacity of someone who was still functioning as an entertainer.”

Katz has also been a longtime financial supporter of Democrats, according to Open Secrets. She donated more than $8,000 to both former President Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns.

At an event to raise money for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2015, Katz is credited with raising $29,000.

She also has ties to George Soros, according to the Washington Times, through her involvement with the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), an organization that has been directly funded by Soros’s Open Society Foundation.

POGO co-signed a letter to Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) with a variety of leftist groups demanding Kavanaugh records, according to FrontPageMag.

[RBP]

:shocker:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Yep, they think if they can push for the FBI investigation they will have to wait to confirm him. Since she wont even show up to make her statement in front of congress makes me feel she is full of shit, and I imagine they just go ahead and confirm him.

[Muddy]

Yep, they think if they can push for the FBI investigation they will have to wait to confirm him. Since she wont even show up to make her statement in front of congress makes me feel she is full of shit, and I imagine they just go ahead and confirm him.

They wont.. Anyone voting yes right now will be killed by the #metoo movement. Not everyone has balls like Trump.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

They wont.. Anyone voting yes right now will be killed by the #metoo movement. Not everyone has balls like Trump.

If she refuses to appear in front of congress on Monday, I bet they vote to confirm. She has her chance.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/923/ioHlRe.jpg

[PorkChopSandwiches]

If she refuses to appear in front of congress on Monday, I bet they vote to confirm. She has her chance.

Thats what Im saying, you cant make accusations and then not come face the people when asked to bring your story. So then they will vote because its a non issue

[Muddy]

They may vote but lefty is going to make a stand.. Watch..!

[PorkChopSandwiches]

We will see, its tough since everyone is guilty until proven innocent these days

[PorkChopSandwiches]

https://i.redd.it/fkuom6ofx6n11.png

[PorkChopSandwiches]

https://i.redd.it/ato9op53w3n11.png

[DemonGeminiX]

Have I not been saying this all along? 11th hour hail mary.

[Muddy]

That's a given! :lol:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Have I not been saying this all along? 11th hour hail mary.

https://i.redd.it/tpnqcnipb7n11.jpg

[DemonGeminiX]

The accuser's lawyer has just been quoted as saying, "There's no need to rush to a hearing".

This is all bullshit. It's a stall tactic to try to get to the November elections without a Kavanaugh confirmation vote. The Democrats are hoping they can retake the Senate in the midterms, and that will guarantee that none of Trump's picks will get confirmed.

The Senate needs to ignore this horseshit and vote on it now.

[RBP]

Amen, brother. but they have also miscalculated the midterms. I am not so sure the historic outcomes apply this time.

[DemonGeminiX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrXmCKEqGXo

[RBP]

rawr

[DemonGeminiX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRberchH73g

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Howard Kurtz | Fox News


After the nation was riveted by the Senate testimony of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court nomination came to a vote.

Democrats controlled the Senate. Joe Biden had chaired the hearings.

And yet Thomas was confirmed, with 11 Democrats joining 41 Republicans to provide the margin of victory (and two Republicans voting against him).

That would be inconceivable today. The hyperpartisan nature of today’s politics would never allow so many Democrats to defect in favor of a Republican president's nominee, one who was not only extremely conservative but had faced a last-minute accusation of sexual harassment.

With Brett Kavanaugh's nomination now on the line after an eleventh-hour charge of long-ago sexual assault, it's become a cliché to say that America is a very different place than it was back in 1991. Indeed, it's a very different place than in 1998, when most Democrats stuck by Bill Clinton despite numerous sex scandals, including his affair with a White House intern.

The cultural landscape now includes Bill Cosby (who is being sentenced next week) and a #MeToo Movement that has cost powerful men their jobs in Hollywood, media, Silicon Valley and many other businesses and walks of life. With more female office-holders, there is an automatic presumption that women making such accusations are entitled to a fair hearing.

That's why Christine Blasey Ford, who came forward with a harrowing tale of what she called attempted rape when she and Kavanaugh were high school students, posed such a grave threat to the judge's confirmation.

But in the last day or so, that threat seems to be deflating.

When Republicans invited Ford to a hearing next Monday, she had a prime opportunity to make her case. A credible appearance, even with Kavanaugh's steadfast denials, would have made it difficult for at least some GOP senators to approve him for the high court.

But Ford, after saying through her lawyer she was willing to testify, is balking. She is balking even though Chuck Grassley offered her the option of testifying in a private session (though that would lessen the public impact of her appearance). And that is taking the air out of the Kavanaugh opposition.

Even Mika Brzezinski, the MSNBC liberal and women's rights advocate, said yesterday that if Ford won't testify, "you have to wonder what the Republicans are supposed to do except demand a vote ... This is something that happened in high school. This is going to need her voice. There's no other way around it. No one can do it for her, as miserable as that may be."

Across the political spectrum, National Review's David French agreed:

"It is of course extraordinarily difficult for any person to face cross-examination. It's even more difficult when facing examination based on memories so painful and so far in the distant past." But, he said, it is crucial to our system of justice.

Now I get why this is so daunting for Christina Ford. She has, according to The New York Times, gotten death threats, moved out of her house, away from her kids, and is "essentially in hiding." She has gotten a ton of online abuse, along with plenty of support. It's a sad spectacle that underscores why she was reluctant to go public in the first place.

But for Ford to insist on an FBI investigation before she appears, whether you agree with that or not, is overplaying her hand. It turns what had been an alleged tale of moral outrage into a process story. Now we're down to Grassley offering to send a team to interview Ford in California. Maybe she's just getting cold feet.

Some minor developments aren't helping her case. Mark Judge, the Kavanaugh friend named by Ford as having joined Kavanaugh in the assault at a party (and who has acknowledged being a teenage alcoholic), has denied being at the party or involved in any such assault.

A woman named Cristina King Miranda wrote on Facebook that she knew Ford and Kavanaugh in high school and that "the incident was spoken about for days afterwards in school. Kavanaugh should stop lying." But that contradicts Ford's account that she told no one for 30 years—and Miranda quickly deleted the post. ("I will not be doing anymore [sic] interviews. No more circus," she tweeted yesterday.)

Patrick J. Smyth, who attended Georgetown Prep with Kavanaugh, said in a statement that he understands he is the person identified by Ford as "PJ" who was supposedly present at the party: "I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh." It is not clear why he believes that Ford named him.

All this dramatizes how hard it is to prove a 36-year-old allegation without witnesses, without an address, and without at least an approximate date. And without Ford's testimony, that is very likely where it will remain.

[lost in melb.]

Coward

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Benny Johnson - The Daily Caller


Former FBI assistant director Chris Swecker told CNN that the accusation against Brett Kavanaugh would not hold up in court.

Swecker was asked a series of questions about the scope of potential FBI involvement with the recent sexual misconduct against the Supreme Court nominee. Kavanaugh is facing an allegation of sexual misconduct in the 11th hour of his confirmation process from Christine Blasey Ford, who has publicly accused him of assaulting her 36 years ago when they were both teenagers. Kavanaugh has forcefully denied the allegation, as has others who were allegedly present during the sexual misconduct.

Swecker said that the FBI had no business looking into the 36-year-old allegation. “The FBI has no independent jurisdiction to open up a standalone investigation of rape allegations or assault allegations that may have taken place 36 years ago,” Swecker said, “That is a local crime. Unless it involves a federal official or on federal land or has some federal nexus, there’s just jurisdiction to do it.”

Host Brooke Baldwin asked about the facts of the case and how law enforcement could prosecute with so few details. “How would you even go about investigating something like this?” Baldwin asked, “Because clearly she remembers what she says specifically happened to her, but she doesn’t remember where it happened. She doesn’t remember when it happened. How do you investigate with so few details available?”

Swecker said, “There is not much there.”

“There just can’t be any forensic evidence. I would be shocked if they brought a garment forward that might have DNA or something like that,” Swecker said, noting they could interview the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator and anyone else who might have been at the party.

“But it’s all fairly thin. None of this would hold up in court,” Swecker said bluntly.

The CNN host noted that Kavanaugh had already gone through six FBI background checks and asked what is in them.

“Well, these background checks are called special inquiries. They are very thorough,” Swecker said, “They talk to employers. They do criminal checks. They do broader checks of public information that is out there. They interview people who have relevant information: associates, social network, people who are part of their social penumbra. These are the most thorough background checks that you can possibly do.”

[Teh One Who Knocks]

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/5863/zQuv3I.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7379/mFy41j.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/5760/Ll1fT1.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Gregg Re | Fox News


Christine Ford, the California professor accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday that she “would be prepared to testify next week" -- apparently dropping her bid for the FBI to first launch a new inquiry.

According to an email sent by Ford's lawyers and obtained by The New York Times, she would appear as long as senators provide “terms that are fair and which ensure her safety."

“As you are aware, she has been receiving death threats, which have been reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and she and her family have been forced out of their home,” the email continues. “She wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.”

Senate Republicans had invited Ford to testify at a hearing on Monday, and given her a Friday deadline to indicate whether she would attend.

A Monday hearing still appears unlikely, though.

In the letter Thursday, Ford's attorneys wrote that it “is not possible" for Ford to testify on Monday. The lawyers added that "the Committee’s insistence that it occur then is arbitrary in any event.”

Late Tuesday, Ford's lawyers had strongly suggested she would only testify if a "full investigation" were conducted first by the FBI.

[RBP]

Death threats. C'mon man. It's not like she's testifying against the Clintons.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Death threats. C'mon man. It's not like she's testifying against the Clintons.

Pretty sure that the lawyer is playing all that stuff up too....they had to move, death threats, her e-mails have been hacked :rolleyes:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

If she was, she would have already commited suicide

[RBP]

:lol:

[lost in melb.]

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/5760/Ll1fT1.jpg

:wank: :wank:

[DemonGeminiX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaywr7ogVvQ

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Gregg Re, Shannon Bream | Fox News


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/5314/ecukaE.jpg

Christine Blasey Ford's legal team has asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to agree to certain terms before she sits down for a potential interview over her accusation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her decades ago, two sources told Fox News on Thursday night.

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.

The requests, some of which appeared to be negotiable, capped a whirlwind day of back-and-forth statements. Ford's lawyers told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she was open to testifying next week, apparently backing off her bid for the FBI to first launch a new inquiry into her allegations.

But the attorneys said it was "not possible" for Ford to testify at a hearing scheduled for Monday by Senate Republicans, without explaining why, and they reiterated that she had a "strong preference" for an FBI probe beforehand.

According to an email sent by her attorney Debra Katz to the committee, Ford would appear as long as senators provide "terms that are fair and which ensure her safety."

It was not immediately clear whether Senate Republicans would agree to Ford's latest requests, but they reportedly have indicated they were considering them. Judiciary Committee Republicans have offered Ford the opportunity to testify privately, and have indicated they're willing to fly out to California "or anywhere else" to question her there if she would find that more convenient.

Speaking to Fox News' Sean Hannity on Thursday night before a rally in Nevada, Trump called Kavanaugh "an outstanding person" and said, "I don't think you can delay it any longer."

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate considered a potential key swing vote in Kavanaugh's confirmation, previously had suggested that lawyers from both sides initially question Kavanaugh and Ford. That arrangement, Collins suggested, would avoid an overtly political atmosphere in which Ford was questioned by Republicans on the Judiciary Committee -- an entirely male contingent.

For his part, Kavanaugh, in a letter to the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, indicated he would be ready and willing to testify on Monday. "I continue to want a hearing as soon as possible, so that I can clear my name," he wrote.

"Since the moment I first heard this allegation, I have categorically and unequivocally denied it. I remain committed to defending my integrity."

Kavanaugh's letter did not contain any preconditions for his testimony. Fox News has learned that Kavanaugh, under oath, answered questions from the Judiciary Committee earlier this week, and denied the allegations.
1042825426769461249
In a series of tweets earlier Thursday, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee noted they had obtained statements, under penalty of felony, from two other people at the house party where the alleged assault occurred, including Kavanaugh friend Mark Judge and another individual.

Committee members also wrote that they had reached out to a "fourth person allegedly at the party," as well as "a schoolmate who claimed on social media this week to have info related to Dr. Ford’s allegations" -- but had not heard back.

That was an apparent reference to a widely circulated online account by Cristina Miranda King, who claimed that she heard about the alleged assault at the time. King deleted her online post after questions emerged about apparent inconsistencies in her claims.

"[Ford's] attorneys say there needs to be an investigation, which is exactly what the committee has been doing all week," the GOP members wrote. "And we would love to hear from Dr. Ford. Democratic staff is invited to participate fully every step of the way."

On Thursday, Ford's lawyers reportedly requested that the Judiciary Committee subpoena Judge to testify. Earlier this week, Judge told committee Republicans that he had "no memory" of the alleged incident, and said he did not want to testify.

Asked whether Republicans had planned to call Judge to testify, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, “No reason to. ... He’s already said what he’s going to say."

It would be highly unusual for a witness before a Senate committee to dictate who receives a subpoena as a precondition to testifying.

Meanwhile, a former classmate of Kavanaugh's said that he had no "recollection" of any incident at the house party Ford described, saying he was one of the people Ford had claimed to be there.

Senate Republicans have been harshly critical of Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., for receiving a letter from Ford outlining her allegations in July, but failing to disclose them, even anonymously, to federal officials or other committee members until last week.

Ford alleged in the letter that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her more than 35 years ago, although she has since indicated that she cannot be sure in which house the assault occurred, or why there was a gathering there.

"I cannot overstate how disappointed I am," Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote Wednesday, charging that Feinstein "chose to sit on the allegations until a politically opportune moment."

Grassley again requested Feinstein turn over an unredacted version of the letter Ford sent to Feinstein in July, and expressed exasperation that he still had not received it. The only copy Grassley had was included in the supplemental materials provided by the FBI after Kavanaugh's background check, he wrote to Feinstein.

He said the document was necessary as he worked to "prepare for Monday's hearings" -- proceedings that appeared very much in doubt Thursday evening.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

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.

Really? Please tell me they aren't going to agree to that. She's the bitch with the accusations, he should be able to hear what she's claiming so he can refute it. What a fucking circus sideshow they are trying to turn this into.

[DemonGeminiX]

Since when does an individual get to lay out terms to Congress? If Congress calls you to testify, then you respond to their request and deliver as ordered or you go fuck yourself. That's the way it really works.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Since when does an individual get to lay out terms to Congress? If Congress calls you to testify, then you respond to their request and deliver as ordered or you go fuck yourself. That's the way it really works.

And the thing is, they're already bending over backwards for her. They've offered to let her testify in a public hearing or in a private hearing behind closed doors. They've even offered to come out to her to get her testimony. But no, her 'team' keeps making this more and more ridiculous with her 'terms' to testify.

[DemonGeminiX]

Fuck her and her team. Issue a subpoena. She comes to testify at 9am EST Monday morning, she testifies first in front of the man she's accusing of sexual misconduct 40 fucking years after the alleged incident, which she did nothing about after the fact, and which she has no details about which is really shady and suspect, and he gets to respond to the accusations like is supposed to happen in a free and civil society, or she gets slapped with a Contempt of Congress charge and spends 30 days in federal prison while they set up the vote and confirm Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

After being fairly reserved all week, Trump's patience has run out...and I can't really blame him:
1043121858797686785
1043126336473055235

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I mean look at the facts she's presented...that she can't or won't expand on:

When did it happen - some time during the summer, doesn't know exactly when
Where did it happen - some house, can't say the exact location, doesn't know how she even got there

And she doesn't want to be questioned by lawyers, only members of the Judiciary Committee? :-s Is that because she's afraid she'll perjure herself? That sure sounds like a request from someone with something to hide.

[Muddy]

Its like the black girl that used to grab at my dick on the school bus when I walked by her.. I cant remember if it was middle or high school..?

[RBP]

I believe you Muddy. #believeallmuddy

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Its like the black girl that used to grab at my dick on the school bus when I walked by her.. I cant remember if it was middle or high school..?


I believe you Muddy. #believeallmuddy

#I'mWithMuddy

[Teh One Who Knocks]

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/1360/kWJXgB.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/8946/sa6gPp.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7184/uVD8zf.jpg

[DemonGeminiX]

And she doesn't want to be questioned by lawyers, only members of the Judiciary Committee? :-s Is that because she's afraid she'll perjure herself? That sure sounds like a request from someone with something to hide.

But just about everybody in Congress, except for a few of them, are lawyers.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Plus the while thing about bringing it up to her shrink...but not naming him. So if in fact something happened it could very well have been someone else

[Teh One Who Knocks]

But just about everybody in Congress, except for a few of them, are lawyers.

Yeah, but they aren't Judge Kavanaugh's lawyers who are no doubt digging into her background to catch her in her lies.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

And now after getting yet ANOTHER extension, she's agreed to testify next week. But not on Wednesday as was previously proposed by the Judiciary Committee after she refused to testify on Monday, but she'll do it on Thursday instead...if negotiations for the hearing are favorable to her. :roll:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://i.imgur.com/afAbPho.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Edmund DeMarche, Samuel Chamberlain, Chad Pregram | Fox News


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img921/4917/N2ZBIr.jpg

An uncorroborated, decades-old claim that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a fellow law school student did not pass The New York Times' smell test, according to the White House.

The claim by Debbie Ramirez that the federal judge sexually harassed her during a party while they attended law school is the latest to rock the confirmation process. It was published by The New Yorker, despite the fact that none of the people Ramirez said could back her story did so.

“The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge," the Times wrote in a story that followed the New Yorker report. "Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”

The claim followed that of a California woman who alleges Kavanaugh held her down and tried to force himself on her while both were in high school. Like Ramirez's claim, that charge, by Christina Blasey Ford, has not been corroborated.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, late Sunday slammed Senate Democrats for withholding information from the committee regarding the new sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh.
1044032678951960576
The Iowa Republican said the committee will attempt to evaluate the new claims, but said in a statement “it appears that they [Democrats] are more interested in a political takedown" than “pursing allegations through a bipartisan and professional investigative process.”

His office released the statement after two new allegations emerged against Kavanaugh. A third potential allegation has arisen from Michael Avenatti, the attorney for porn star Stormy Daniels, who claims Kavanaugh took part in gang rapes at high school parties, which also has lacked anything resembling corroboration to date.

Ramirez claimed Kavanaugh exposed himself to her while she was intoxicated during a drinking game in the 1983-84 academic year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman. She also claimed she inadvertently touched Kavanaugh's penis when she pushed him away and says the incident left her "embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated."

The report stated that the magazine had not corroborated that Kavanaugh was at the party in question. An anonymous male classmate said he was told that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to Ramirez within the following days.

Ramirez admitted to the magazine that she does not fully remember the alleged incident because she had been drinking at the time. The magazine also reported that Ramirez spent six days "carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney" before telling the full version of her story.
1043858492107497472
Kavanaugh says the event “did not happen” and that the allegation is “a smear, plain and simple.”

A White House spokeswoman adds in a second statement that the allegation is “designed to tear down a good man.”

Grassley’s office said the committee’s majority staff learned about the allegations in the magazine’s article. His statement read that Democratic staff were aware of the allegations, but did not inform Republican staffers.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called the timing of the new allegations “very suspicious.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Ct., called on a full FBI investigation and said the committee cannot "in good conscience" vote on the nomination at this point.

Michael Avenatti, the attorney for Stormy Daniels, on Sunday alleged that he had knowledge that Kavanaugh and high school friend Mark Judge targeted women with drugs and alcohol in order to "allow a 'train' of men to subsequently gang rape them."

He did not state the source of his evidence and did not name any alleged victims.

Grassley’s office said it reached out to Avenatti to find out more information about his allegations and requested that he provide any new information.

Avenatti posted a letter he wrote to Mike Davis, the chief counsel on nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

He wrote that he had “significant evidence of multiple house parties” in the 1980s where Kavanaugh, high school friend Mark Judge and others would target women with alcohol and drugs in order to take advantage of them sexually, including gang rapes. He said to expect additional evidence in the coming days.

Avenatti included a list of questions for Senate investigators to ask Kavanaugh, including: "Did you ever attend any house party during which a woman was gang raped or used for sex by multiple men?"

Neither Kavanaugh nor Judge immediately responded to Avenatti's accusations.

Kavanaugh is slated to testify Thursday about the first allegation of sexual assault, dating back from a high school party more than 35 years ago. His accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is also set to testify.

Kavanaugh, 53, an appellate court judge, has denied Ford's allegation and said he wanted to testify as soon as possible to clear his name.

"This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so," Kavanaugh responded. "This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name--and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building--against these last-minute allegations."

In response to the New Yorker report, Judiciary Committee ranking member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called on the committee's Republicans to postpone all proceedings related to Kavanaugh's nomination and refer Ramirez's allegation to the FBI.

[lost in melb.]

He's done. Truth or not :hand:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Cameron Cawthorne - Washington Free Beacon



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T5BQNu3kE0

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, where she appeared to insinuate that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh does not get the presumption of innocence because of his "ideological agenda," citing his views on abortion.

Christine Blasey Ford, a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University in California, has accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly pinning her to a bed, groping her, and trying to stifle her screams at a high school party in the early 1980's. Kavanaugh denied the allegations, as has his former classmate Mark Judge, who Ford claims was also in the room at the time of the alleged incident. Two other people that Ford alleges were at the party in question, have also denied any knowledge of the party or sexual assault.

Tapper said that four witnesses have denied knowledge of the sexual assault allegation waged against Kavanaugh before asking Hirono whether Kavanaugh should get the presumption of innocence as any other American.

"I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases. As I said, his credibility is already very questionable in my mind and in the minds of a lot of my fellow Judiciary Committee members, the Democrats," Hirono said. "When I say that he is very outcome driven, he has an ideological agenda, very outcome driven, and I could sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplifies his ability to be fair."

She went on to talk about abortion and how she believes that Kavanaugh is against women having the right to reproductive choice.

"This is a person who is going to be sitting on our Supreme Court making decisions that will impact women’s reproductive choice. He very much is against women’s reproductive choice," Hirono said.

"There are so many indications of his own lack of credibility," she added.

Tapper then pressed her to clarify whether she doesn't think he has credibility because he wouldn't give an opinion on the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade.

"This is why it is so important that there at least be an investigation, so that there's some effort at collaboration," Hirono said. "We think that there was a lot of drinking going on and as far as his friend, Mark Judge, not even testifying. That is astounding to me."

Later in the interview, Tapper asked Hirono about the sexual assault allegations against Democratic National Committee co-chair Keith Ellison, prompting her to say that she makes "no excuses" for people who engage in this behavior. She then said that there needs to be an investigation into the allegations against him before quickly pivoting back to the Kavanaugh allegation. Ellison has denied the allegations.

Dr. Ford's lawyers told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Saturday that she is accepting a request to speak before the committee next week. A person briefed on the call said that Ford's lawyers and a bipartisan group of committee staff agreed to a Thursday hearing.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Ryan Saavedra - The Daily Wire


https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/924/aMA09T.jpg

The New Yorker published new accusations on Sunday from a second woman who alleges that Judge Brett Kavanaugh acted sexually inappropriate towards her at a party during their college years.

Deborah Ramirez, 53, alleges that while she was at a Yale party, intoxicated to the point that she was on the ground in a "foggy" state "slurring" her words, Kavanaugh pulled his pants down and exposed himself to her.

The New Yorker report and a subsequent report from The New York Times both raise multiple red flags about the credibility of the allegations. Here are 10 key points compiled from both reports that raise serious questions about the claims:

1. The New Yorker could not find a single witness who could put Kavanaugh at the alleged party.

Buried more than 1,000 words into the report, Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer wrote:


The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.

2. The New York Times could not find a single person who could corroborate Ramirez's claims.

The New York Times likewise could not find a single witness to backup her allegations:


The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge.

3. The man accused of egging on Kavanaugh denied Ramirez's allegations and vouched for Kavanaugh's character.

Buried more than 1,400 words into the New Yorker story, Farrow and Mayer provide a quote from one of the men named by Ramirez:


One of the male classmates who Ramirez said egged on Kavanaugh denied any memory of the party. "I don’t think Brett would flash himself to Debbie, or anyone, for that matter," he said. Asked why he thought Ramirez was making the allegation, he responded, "I have no idea." The other male classmate who Ramirez said was involved in the incident commented, "I have zero recollection."

4. A third person that Ramirez claimed was at the party says she was not there for the alleged incident.

The classmate, who was not named, said that "she was not present at the incident."

5. Ramirez contacted her former classmates, asking about the incident, and admitted she was not sure that Kavanaugh was the male who exposed himself.

The Times' report states:


Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

6. A woman who claims she was "best friends" with Ramirez says Ramirez never mentioned the story and initially said her friend's accusations against Kavanaugh might be "politically motivated."

Buried nearly 1,700 words into the New Yorker piece, the report states:


The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.” She said she hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of what she called their “larger social circle.” In an initial conversation with The New Yorker, she suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated. Later, she said that she did not know if this was the case.

7. Ramirez, just like Christine Blasey Ford, is a registered Democrat and is dedicated to leftist causes.

Farrow and Mayer note more than 1,800 words into their report that "Ramirez is a registered Democrat," noting that she "works toward human rights, social justice, and social change."

8. Ramirez wasn't even sure her memory was correct — until she spent six days going over it with her Democrat lawyer.

"In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty," the outlet reports. "After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh..."

The New Yorker waits for more than 2,100 words to inform readers that Ramirez's lawyer is "Stanley Garnett, a former Democratic district attorney in Boulder..."

9. Ramirez admits there are holes in her memory due to how much she drank at the party.

"She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident," the New Yorker report states in the second paragraph.

Ramirez said that at the party, where students were playing a drinking game, she "quickly became inebriated" because of the large amounts of alcohol she was consuming, adding that she became so intoxicated that she "was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words."

10. People who knew Ramirez after her time at Yale say that she never once mentioned the incident — until Kavanaugh's nomination was pending.

More than 1,500 words into the article, the New Yorker report states:


In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.

[lost in melb.]

Come to think of it, I was at this party once and this slightly older dude flopped out his penis and started harrassing women. Looks like the guy in that picture! :drunk:

[lost in melb.]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The courage Deborah Ramirez and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford have shown is remarkable. Their treatment by Republicans and right wing pundits is despicable. These brave women deserve an FBI investigation, a pause on the nomination process, and basic respect.</p>&mdash; Senator Bob Menendez (@SenatorMenendez) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorMenendez/status/1044056251339034624?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

:rofl:

Ok, I'd better go do some work...

[Teh One Who Knocks]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The courage Deborah Ramirez and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford have shown is remarkable. Their treatment by Republicans and right wing pundits is despicable. These brave women deserve an FBI investigation, a pause on the nomination process, and basic respect.</p>— Senator Bob Menendez (@SenatorMenendez) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorMenendez/status/1044056251339034624?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 24, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

:rofl:

Ok, I'd better go do some work...

And THAT'S exactly the mentality Judge Kavanaugh is up against.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/5200/GThA4p.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Breaking911.com


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/2944/CjfjnM.jpg

President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is facing new allegations of sexual misconduct.

This after a woman claiming to be his former classmate at Yale has come forward—paired with Stormy Daniels’ lawyer alleging evidence of a ‘gang-rape’ group involving the judge.

The accuser is 53-year-old Deborah Ramirez, she claims the ‘drunken incident’ occurred during the 1983-84 school year.

She shared her story to the New Yorker, alleging ‘Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.’

Ramirez admitted in the article her memory ‘contained gaps’ and she was reluctant to come forward but did so after speaking with her attorney. She then participated in a photo shoot for the magazine.
1044021941391249408
Judge Kavanaugh disputes the claims as a ‘smear’: “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name–and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building–against these last-minute allegations.”

White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said: “This 35-year-old, uncorroborated claim is the latest in a coordinated smear campaign by the Democrats designed to tear down a good man. This claim is denied by all who were said to be present and is wholly inconsistent with what many women and men who knew Judge Kavanaugh at the time in college say. The White House stands firmly behind Judge Kavanaugh.”

Around the same time the New Yorker published the latest accusation, aspiring Democrat politician and the lawyer who represents porn actress Stormy Daniels claimed he has ‘credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge.’
1044006928416825344
Michael Avenatti later said the unidentified woman was not Deborah Ramirez.
1044013350873489409
Avenatti then revealed an email sent to Mike Davis, the Chief Counsel for Nominations for U.S. Senate Committee. In the email, Avenatti claimed he has ‘evidence’ Judge Kavanaugh and his college friend Mark Judge targeted women for ‘gang rapes.’

Avenatti wrote, in part, “We are aware of significant evidence of multiple parties in the D.C. area in the early 1980s during which Brett Kavanaugh […] and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang-rape them.”

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/6804/vKXcBf.jpg

Brett Kavanaugh ‘must also be asked about this entry in his yearbook: “FFFFFFFourth of July.” We believe that this stands for: Find them, French them, Feel them, Finger them, F*ck them, Forget them. As well as the term “Devil’s Triangle,” Avenatti continued.
1044056219084828672
Kavanaugh’s first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is scheduled to testify before the senate on Thursday.

During the confirmation process for the supreme court, Ford came forward and, through interviews to the press and statements by her attorney, alleged that in the early 1980s Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.

Specifically, Ford stated that in the early 1980s, when she and Kavanaugh were teenagers, Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge, corralled her in a bedroom at a house party in Maryland. According to Ford, Kavanaugh pinned her to the bed, groped her, ground against her, tried to pull off her clothes, and covered her mouth with his hand when she tried to scream. Ford said that she was afraid Kavanaugh “might inadvertently kill [her]” during the attack.

Kavanaugh disputed these claims as well.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Is this guy for real? :|

[Muddy]

:lol: What a bunch of silliness.

[RBP]

Maybe they should bring some out that doesn't have an axe to grind. Just an idea. :lol:

[lost in melb.]

silly typing error. Not gang-rape :nono: gang rap

https://media1.tenor.com/images/b9b72ae9dd02b01d79b9103178e8c4c0/tenor.gif

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Mike Brest - The Daily Caller


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/1378/tjBmoI.png

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham condemned what he called the Democrats’ attempt to destroy President Trump through the allegations levied against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Hannity Monday night.

“For them to complain about the process is like an arsonist complaining about a fire. The allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are collapsing. This has been the worst low point in the Senate for me and that is saying a lot,” Graham said.

“I never thought it would get this bad. We are going to have a hearing Thursday and have a vote soon thereafter. And I look forward to supporting this good man,” Graham added. “The takeaway for me, Sean, is that when it comes to Donald Trump, there are no boundaries, there are no rules. Whatever you need to do to destroy him or his agenda is okay.”

He continued, “Well, Democrats are willing to believe anything about a Trump nominee. They didn’t believe anything about President Clinton, who had a long history of this. Here’s what I can tell you – this man, Judge Kavanaugh, has been in very responsible jobs for well over twenty years. Not one woman has ever come forward to say he acted inappropriately in the workplace, that he used his power in an untoward way.”

[DemonGeminiX]

I hope the Republicans do the right thing and confirm him. Maybe it'll shut up all the fucking morons.

[RBP]

I hope the Republicans do the right thing and confirm him. Maybe it'll shut up all the fucking morons.

Dream on, not a chance.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I hope the Republicans do the right thing and confirm him. Maybe it'll shut up all the fucking morons.


Dream on, not a chance.

If anything, it will make it worse. The democrats are already saying that if Kavanaugh gets confirmed , as soon as they regain control of congress, whether it's these upcoming mid-terms or another election in the (near) future, they will look to have him (Kavanaugh) impeached and removed from the bench.

[RBP]

If anything, it will make it worse. The democrats are already saying that if Kavanaugh gets confirmed , as soon as they regain control of congress, whether it's these upcoming mid-terms or another election in the (near) future, they will look to have him (Kavanaugh) impeached and removed from the bench.

Which demonstrates their fundamental lack of understanding of our government.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Which demonstrates their fundamental lack of understanding of our government.

I would bet that more than half of the members of congress would struggle to pass a high school level civics class pertaining to the function of our government.

[RBP]

I meant the protesters. I think the members know that they are saying things that are impossible just to whip up the base.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I meant the protesters. I think the members know that they are saying things that are impossible just to whip up the base.

Ohhhhh, my bad :oops:

NONE of the protestors could even come close to passing the same high school level civics class :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/921/0NDhsg.jpg

[DemonGeminiX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJzCJUhK_zs

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Lukas Mikelionis | Fox News


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/4061/3ClLqU.jpg

Christine Blasey Ford’s attorneys have sent documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee with declarations from four people who they say corroborate her story of sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

The declarations, as obtained by USA Today, are from Ford’s husband Russell Ford and three friends who stand behind the accuser’s allegation against Kavanaugh while both were high school students in 1982.

The statements will be used by Ford’s legal team during the much-anticipated committee hearing Thursday that will examine both the credibility of Ford’s allegations and Kavanaugh’s denials.

In a declaration by Adela Gildo-Mazzon, who has known Ford for over 10 years and considers her a “good friend,” she claims Ford told her about the incident involving Kavanaugh back in June 2013. She contacted the attorneys for Ford on Sept. 16 to inform that she was told about the story.

“During our meal, Christine was visibly upset, so I asked her what was going on,” Gildo-Mazzon says in her declaration. “Christine told me she had been having a hard day because she was thinking about an assault she experienced when she was much younger. She said she had been almost raped by someone who was now a federal judge. She told me she had been trapped in a room with two drunken guys, and that she had escaped, ran away and hid.”

Keith Koegler, another person who claims to corroborate Ford’s allegations, says he talked about the alleged assault with her in 2016 in the midst of the sentencing of Stanford University student Brock Turner.

“Christine expressed anger at Mr. Turner’s lenient sentence, stating that she was particularly bothered by it because she was assaulted in high school by a man who was now a federal judge in Washington, D.C.,” Koegler said.

“Christine did not mention the assault to me again until June 29, 2018, two days after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his resignation from the Supreme Court of the United States,” he continued.

He says that Ford told him in an email that the person who had assaulted her in high school was President Trump’s favorite for the nomination of the Supreme Court. After asking to reveal his name, Ford then named Kavanaugh in the email.

Another declaration is from Rebecca White, who has known Ford for more than six years. She says Ford told her about the allegations against her sometime in 2017.

“I was walking my dog and Christine was outside of her house,” she said. “I stopped to speak with her, and she told me she had read a recent social media post I had written about my own experience with sexual assault.

“She then told me that when she was a young teen, she had been sexually assaulted by an older teen,” White added. “I remember her saying that her assailant was now a federal judge.”

The last declaration is from Ford’s husband who reportedly learned about the allegations when they got married, though she shared the details only in 2012 when they were having a couple’s therapy session.

“I remember her saying that her attacker’s name was Brett Kavanaugh, that he was a successful lawyer who had grown up in Christine’s hometown, and that he was well-known in the Washington D.C. community,” Russell Ford said.

He said his wife was “afraid” Kavanaugh will become the nominee for the Supreme Court and wasn’t sure if she should come forward with her allegations.

“However, in the end she believed her civic duty required her to speak out,” he added. “In our 16 years of marriage I have always known Christine to be truthful person of great integrity. I am proud of her for her bravery and courage.”

The declarations of four individuals are sure to strengthen Ford’s case when she appears before the Senate committee. In recent days, her story took a hit after initially telling the Washington Post last week that here were a total of “four boys at the party” where the alleged episode occurred and that two – Kavanaugh and friend Mark Judge -- were in the room during her attack.

She claims her therapist made an error when he noted in his notes that she said all four boys were involved in the alleged incident.

Those boys purportedly included Kavanaugh, Judge and another classmate, Patrick Smyth -- all of whom have since denied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, under penalty of felony, any knowledge of the particular party in question or any misconduct by Kavanaugh.

However, a woman, Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate of Ford's at the Holton-Arms all-girls school in Maryland, has since been identified by Ford as the fourth witness at the party. In a dramatic twist, Keyser, who has never been described as a “boy,” emerged Saturday night to say she doesn’t know Kavanaugh or remember being at the party with him.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/922/cr0Bhz.jpg

[Muddy]

:lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

by Caleb Howe - Mediaite


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/5720/Q19pP5.jpg

Attorney for Stormy Daniels, Michael Avenatti, earlier this week, claimed to have a client with a third allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. He made the announcement, and tweeted lurid accusations, without offering the identity of the client or any evidence.

Today, Avenatti tweeted a name and photo of that client, along with screenshots of email correspondence and a sworn statement from her laying out her allegations.
1044960940884709378
In his tweet that included the email screenshots, Avenatti asserted that Kavanaugh’s nomination must not go forward without more investigation of the claims.
1044960428730843136
Paragraph 13 of the sworn statement has the specific personal allegation.

In approximately 1982, I became the victim of one of these “gang” or “train” rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present. Shortly after the incident, I shared what had transpired with at least two other people. During the incident, I was incapacitated without my consent and unable to fight off the boys raping me. I believe I was drugged using Quaaludes or something similar placed in what I was drinking.”

Here are the screenshots.

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7825/wXaOeQ.jpg

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/7460/uwlqcE.jpg

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/5761/b8oefz.jpg

[RBP]

Oh boy.

[lost in melb.]

Wow.

She's either telling the truth or a complete pathological liar. No punches pulled. Aside from the drugging, though, it sounds like a fairly typical 80s college house party. Been there, done that. Gotta wonder how many in high office led the good life as kids? Answer: probably the high achieving ones with initiative.

But where will the witchhunt stop? I can hardly remember my college years. Just a numb blur. Who cares...

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Joel B Pollak - Breitbart


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/4991/B69ilS.png

Questions arose Wednesday about claims by Julie Swetnick, the third “accuser” against Brett Kavanaugh, after it was revealed that she would have been in college during the time period she claims he was “present” at gang rapes at high school parties.

On Wednesday morning, Michael Avenatti, the aspiring presidential candidate and lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels, released a sworn affidavit from Swetnick in which she claimed to have met Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge in “approximately 1980-1981.”

She then went on to claim that in 1981-82, she “became aware of efforts” by Kavanaugh, Judge, and others to “spike” the punch “at house parties I attended” with the intent of incapacitating a girl who could then be gang raped. She said she witnessed Kavanaugh and Judge lining up outside a room waiting for their “turn.” She also said that in 1982, she was a victim of such gang rape, while drugged, with Kavanaugh and Judge “present.”

However, according to the New York Times, “Ms. Swetnick grew up in Montgomery County, Md., graduating from Gaithersburg High School in 1980 before attending college at the University of Maryland, according to a résumé for her posted online. Judge Kavanaugh graduated from Georgetown Prep in 1983.”

That means she would have met Kavanaugh while she was 17 or 18, and he was 15 or 16 years old. It also would mean that she was attending high school parties while in college.
1045005936665010178
1045005424502530049
1045007070221742080
Senate Judiciary Committee staff investigating Swetnick’s claims have reportedly failed to find corroborating witnesses or evidence, as of Wednesday afternoon.

[lost in melb.]

She's a pedo. What's the big deal :dunno:

[DemonGeminiX]

She's a liar. And Avenatti is a scumbag.

[lost in melb.]

She's a liar. And Avenatti is a scumbag.

I wanna hear more about these school parties :wank:

[DemonGeminiX]

I wanna hear more about these school parties :wank:

I'm sure they'll make more shit up to get you off.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

She's a liar. And Avenatti is a scumbag.:privilege:

#BelieveAllWomen
#RapeCulture
#SmashThePatriarchy
#MeToo

[DemonGeminiX]

Kavanaugh's friends, people that knew him in high school, men and women, are all coming out and saying that all of these allegations are complete and utter bullshit.

[lost in melb.]

I'm sure they'll make more shit up to get you off.

:privilege: :lwank:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Gregg Re | Fox News


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/8841/HoM0X9.jpg

As an extraordinary series of uncorroborated, lurid last-minute allegations threatens to derail his confirmation to the Supreme Court, nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Ford, the California professor accusing him of sexually assaulting her more than three decades ago, are set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday morning.

The proceedings may be upended by late-breaking developments: In a statement released Wednesday evening, Judiciary Committee Republicans revealed that on Monday, they conducted their "first interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his [sic] complaint." They conducted a second interview the next day.

On Wednesday, Republicans said in the statement, they received a "more in-depth written statement from the man interviewed twice previously who believes he, not Judge Kavanuagh, had the encounter in question with Dr. Ford." GOP investigators also spoke on the phone with another man making a similar claim.

Ford has previously said there is "zero chance" she would have confused Kavanaugh for anyone else.

In response, an aide to Democrats on the Judiciary Committee reportedly unloaded on Senate Republicans: "Republicans are flailing," the aide said, according to NBC News. "They are desperately trying to muddy the waters. ... Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted her. Democrats were never informed of these assertions in interviews, in violation of Senate rules."

The aide, before again calling for an FBI probe into Ford's accusations, added, "This is shameful and the height of irresponsibility."

But Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, shot back on Twitter late Wednesday, writing, "Some might find it exceedingly difficult to imagine Judiciary Committee Democrats expressing this complaint with straight faces."

Ford first brought her allegations to the attention of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in July, but Feinstein didn't disclose the allegations to her Senate colleagues or federal authorities until days before a crucial Judiciary Committee vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation earlier this month. Republicans have accused Feinstein's office of compromising Ford's anonymity by sitting on the allegations until she could deploy them for maximum political gain.
1045162374645403648
The stakes for Kavanaugh could not be higher: Key swing-vote senators have said Thursday's hearing, which will begin at 10:00 a.m. ET, presents a pivotal opportunity to assess Ford's credibility and determine whether to advance Kavanaugh to the nation's highest court.

The hearing, which for days had been in doubt, will be a chance for the public to see Ford, in person, explain in detail what she claims happened at the Maryland house party in 1982 where Kavanaugh allegedly jumped on top of her and tried to muffle her screams -- and why she didn't tell anyone about the episode until 2012.

The proceedings will commence with opening statements from Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking committee member Feinstein. After taking an oath, Ford will deliver the prepared remarks she has already provided publicly, according to a schedule provided by the committee. Each senator on the committee will then be afforded a single five-minute round of questions, with the opportunity to ask questions alternating between Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans have retained Rachel Mitchell, an experienced sex-crimes prosecutor, to handle some of their questioning, saying it will help avoid an overtly political atmosphere. Grassley has hammered Democrats, including Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., for "grandstanding" during the confirmation hearings earlier this month.

Democrats have indicated they intend to ask their own questions. After Ford's testimony is completed, the process will repeat for Kavanaugh.

In her prepared remarks, which Ford's attorney's released in advance on Wednesday, Ford will tell senators that she "thought that Brett [Kavanaugh] was accidentally going to kill me," and "I believed he was going to rape me."

She will explain that she remembers "four boys" being at the party, including one "whose name I cannot recall." The people she did name -- Kavanaugh and his classmates Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth -- have denied under penalty of felony knowing anything about the alleged episode.

Ford will also describe one girl, "my friend Leland Ingham," as also in attendance. Ingham, in a previously released statement, has also denied knowing Kavanaugh or having information about the alleged assault.

Ford's letter to Feinstein in July, however, gave a different tally, saying that the gathering "included me and 4 others."

Additionally, in a handwritten statement she provided the former FBI agent who administered her polygraph exam in August, Ford wrote "there were 4 boys and a couple of girls" at the party -- again apparently contradicting her letter to Feinstein.

Republicans, through Mitchell, are expected to question Ford on the apparent discrepancies.

Ford is also expected to tell senators that she finally decided to disclose the alleged assault during a therapy session in 2012 because during a remodeling of her house that year, she insisted on installing a "second front door" -- leaving her husband and others wondering why.

Additionally, questions have surfaced concerning the credibility of some of Kavanaugh's other accusers, who will not be present Thursday because they have not responded to overtures from committee Republicans.
1044960940884709378
For example, Julie Swetnick, who emerged Wednesday to accuse Kavanaugh of participating in "gang rapes" and rape "trains" in the 1980s, had a restraining order filed against her by an ex-boyfriend, Politico reported.

“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Richard Vinneccy told Politico. "I know a lot about her. ... She’s not credible at all. Not at all."

Swetnick is represented by anti-Trump lawyer Michael Avenatti, who has refused multiple requests by the Senate Judiciary Committee to interview her in the past week. On Wednesday afternoon, 60 men and women who attended Kavanaugh's high school or sister schools signed a letter saying they had never heard of Swetnick or anything like the overt, systemic gang raping that she described.

According to The Washington Post, both the state of Maryland and the federal government have filed since-resolved liens on her property in recent years for unpaid taxes totalling tens of thousands of dollars. It was not immediately clear exactly how Swetnick, who has held multiple security clearances relating to her work with the government, resolved both liens.

Republicans, including President Trump, have repeatedly pointed out that none of the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh has first-hand corroboration. In The New Yorker on Sunday, former Kavanaugh classmate Deborah Ramirez claimed that Kavanaugh had exposed his penis to her at a party decades ago, even as her close college friend denied ever hearing about the episode and suggested she was making the claim for political reasons.

Ramirez, who also did not immediately respond to GOP Judiciary Committee inquiries, has acknowledged not being sure whether Kavanaugh had assaulted her until last week, after she spent days consulting with her attorney.

Several other allegations emerged this week. On Tuesday, a constituent told the office of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., that in 1985, two "heavily inebriated men" referred to as "Brett and Mark" had sexually assaulted a "close friend" on a boat.

The constituent, whose name was redacted in a document release by the Judiciary Committee but uncovered through tweets cited by the committee, recanted the claim Wednesday night on Twitter -- but several media outlets continued to report the allegations for hours afterwards.

In Twitter posts, the person making the accusation had also evidently advocated removing President Trump from the White House by means of military coup. On Wednesday, a post on the accuser's Twitter account read, "Do everyone who is going crazy about what I had said I have recanted because I have made a mistake and apologize for such mistake."

In a separate case, Kavanaugh was asked by GOP investigators this week specifically about a new claim in a letter received by Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., from an anonymous individual apparently in Denver, alleging that Kavanaugh "shoved" someone up against a wall "very aggressively and sexually" during an outing in front of four witnesses in 1998. Gardner's office received the letter on Sept. 22.

"We're dealing with an anonymous letter about an anonymous person and an anonymous friend," Kavanaugh told committee investigators asking about the alleged episode. "It's ridiculous. Total Twilight Zone. And no, I've never done anything like that.

"It's bad -- it's doing damage to the Supreme Court," Kavanaugh added. "It's doing damage to the country. It's doing damage to this process. It's become a total feeding frenzy, you know? Every -- just unbelievable."

[lost in melb.]

In the end the future of humanity boils down to cunt & cock. #sad

[Teh One Who Knocks]

She's a liar. And Avenatti is a scumbag.

Avenatti Claims He Doesn’t Know When He First Spoke to His Client About New Kavanaugh Allegations
By Jeffrey Cimmino - Washington Free Beacon



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyGWBw-1JJo

Potential 2020 Democratic presidential nominee and Stormy Daniels’ attorney Michael Avenatti said he does not know when he first spoke to his client, Julie Swetnick, about new sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Swetnick claimed she was a victim of a gang rape around 1982, after she graduated high school, and she alleges Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge, were "present" there while they were still high schoolers.

She says she "witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train' of numerous boys."

Kavanaugh denied the allegations, calling the claims "ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone."

"I don't know who this is and this never happened," Kavanaugh said.

"When did you first hear from Julie Swetnick, before or after Christine Blasey Ford's story was published in the Washington Post two Sundays ago?" CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Avenatti.

"Within the last month," Avenatti responded.

"Within the last month, but after Professor Ford's allegations came out?"

"I don't know, frankly," said Avenatti.

Tapper followed by asking Avenatti about witnesses to Swetnick’s allegations.

"You say that there are two witnesses. Witnesses to what? What can they back up?" Tapper asked.

"Well, there's more than two witnesses," said Avenatti. There were two witnesses to the actual assault involving my client, but there are multiple witnesses that can attest to the balance of the conduct, which is set forth within this declaration. There's many, many witnesses, Jake."

Asked about the identity of the witnesses, Avenatti said "there's a number of men and women that can attest to the facts and circumstances in this declaration, and we're going to provide those witnesses to the FBI as soon as we're contacted."

Tapper pointed out that the FBI is not likely to investigate the allegations against Kavanaugh, and asked Avenatti if he would give CNN the names of the witnesses.

"Well, Jake, CNN and the Jake Tapper show is not the investigatory bodies that pass judgment ultimately on allegation, so we're going to consider what to do with the names of these witnesses, to corroborate these accusations," said Avenatti.

[RBP]

https://i.imgur.com/t6VZ8nb.gif

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/923/ZIevjP.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/924/JNAHzX.jpg

[RBP]

:lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I was lucky enough to be able to listen to the hearings at work today. I heard all of Dr Ford's hearing and about a little more than half of Judge Kavanaugh’s hearing and here's what I came away with.

I think something did happen to Dr Ford at one time back when she was in high school. She was fairly composed and fairly credible in most of her testimony. My problem is that she says that she's 100% sure it was Judge Kavanaugh that assaulted her, but when it comes to everything else, she's not sure of the details. Not to mention the fact that all of her witnesses that she says were there deny it completely. So while I think she did have something bad happen to her, I don't for a moment think it was Judge Kavanaugh.

Second, I without a doubt believe the Judge in his testimony. He was very believable and he had the evidence (or lack thereof) on his side. He was very passionate in his defense and he didn't let the democrats bully him around no matter how hard they tried (at least up until the point where I couldn't listen any more).

Also, kudos to Senator Lindsey Graham during his portion of the hearing, he ripped the democrats a new one and he was 100% right on everything he said. He was awesome today.

[DemonGeminiX]

I concur.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTBxPPx62s4

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Peter Hasson - The Daily Caller


https://i.imgur.com/HFylB1ql.png

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh might keep facing political attacks from the left if he is confirmed to the nation’s highest court.

Kavanaugh faced an onslaught of attacks from Democrats and liberal activists even before Palo Alto University professor Christine Blasey Ford accused him of drunkenly trying to force himself on her while the two were in high school. Kavanaugh denied Ford’s accusation once again in an emotional testimony Thursday.

Brian Fallon, former press secretary on Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2016 presidential campaign, predicted Kavanaugh “will not serve for life” if confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Fallon leads Demand Justice, a Democratic dark money group dedicated to opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation, and previously called for Kavanaugh to be impeached from his current position on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“If Senate GOP ignores Dr. Blasey Ford and tries to muscle an attempted rapist onto the Supreme Court: 1. They will pay dearly this November. 2. Senators up in 2020 (Collins, Gardner et al) will feel intense heat for next two years. 3. Kavanaugh will not serve for life,” Fallon predicted.
1045452225454239744
Some congressional Democrats are already pledging to investigate Kavanaugh if they retake Congress with him sitting on the Supreme Court.

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Senate Judiciary Committee member, pledged to investigate Kavanaugh “as soon as Democrats get the gavel.”

“This is such bad practice that even if they were to ram this guy through, as soon as Democrats get gavels we’re going to want to get to the bottom of this,” Whitehouse told CNN on Sept. 20.

“His background is fair for consideration, both before he is confirmed and, if he should be confirmed, we would be duty-bound to follow-up on any blemishes on his record that were not fully discovered prior to his confirmation,” Georgia Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson told The Intercept on Wednesday. “We would owe that to the American people.”

California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu “would need more information” before weighing in on Kavanaugh’s impeachment, he told The Daily Caller News Foundation in a private Twitter message Thursday.

Lieu noted he hasn’t “heard Mark Judge or the other accusers questioned under oath,” but didn’t rule out supporting impeachment.

One of Lieu’s fellow California Democrats, Rep. Eric Swalwell, previously floated the possibility of a “judicial impeachment” in the event that Kavanaugh is confirmed.

“If the Republicans rush through a nominee where you have unanswered sexual assault allegations, I can promise you that Democratic senators will be interested in going and looking at those allegations, and if Judge Kavanaugh lied under oath, you could see a judicial impeachment, and that’s not good for anybody, so we should try and avoid that,” Swalwell told Fox News in a Sept. 22 interview.

Liberal activists and journalists Thursday predicted a push to impeach Kavanaugh if he is confirmed and Democrats retake Congress.
1045420611298832384
1045447108701159426
Kavanaugh criticized Senate Democrats’ no-holds-barred campaign to stop his nomination in his statement before the judiciary committee Thursday.

“This confirmation process has become a national disgrace,” Kavanaugh said. “The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process, but you have replaced ‘with advice and consent’ with ‘search and destroy.'”

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham similarly condemned Senate Judiciary Democrats’ handling of the Kavanaugh confirmation.

“What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open, and hope you win in 2020,” Graham said. He went on to call the entire process “the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics.”

[Pony]

I was just thinking.... With all the BILLIONS of dollars the liberals waste trying to buy power and influence, they could really help most of the people that they pretend to care about.

[DemonGeminiX]

But they won't... because they're full of shit.

[Muddy]

OK, Lets go ahead and go after Hillary.. These mafuckas wanna play? Lets bring a little heat back..

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Remember how when Obama won (I don't remember if it was his first or second term) when all the democrats were gloating and saying how elections have consequences (I believe even Obama himself echoed that but I'm not 100% sure)? Well I guess that elections only have consequences when they control the White House. :roll:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/3923/SCq2Ce.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/922/zSLH2Q.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Senator Flake has sided with the democrats...he will vote the Kavanaugh nomination out of committee, but he won't vote to confirm unless there's an FBI investigation next week. :|

[RBP]

Senator Flkae has sided with the democrats...he will vote the Kavanaugh nomination out of committee, but he won't vote to confirm unless there's an FBI investigation next week. :|

Anyone else or are they still at 50?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Anyone else or are they still at 50?

It's still in committee right now, they haven't voted it out yet, they're still discussing Sen Flake's stance.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Now they just adjourned.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Here's what I got what happened because I was interrupted by work :lol:

I believe they did get it voted out of committee (they did, 11-10 along party lines), but Senator Flake has indicated that he won't vote to confirm on the full senate floor vote until there has been up to and no more than a week given to the FBI for an investigation. The democrats cornered him in an ante room and I guess they all said enough to swing him over to their side for this magical FBI investigation.

Of course all they can do is ask though because once it gets to the floor, Sen McConnell who is the the majority leader, can call for a vote at any time. But I'm guessing if he does, then Flake will fall to a 'no' vote.

[Pony]

Hasn't the FBI all but said there is nothing to investigate? What would be the point? No charges can be brought after all this time, he was a "child" at the time and all the named witnesses that were "present" at the alleged party have said they have no idea what she's talking about. The investigation would just cost millions of dollars to do and would come to the conclusion that there is nothing there. Either she's lying or has convinced herself that he's "the guy". It's proven that memories are not "rigid" and change over time. The only thing an FBI investigation would accomplish is delaying the vote until after the midterm election. That's exactly what this is all about. Literally buying time.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

McConnell might not even go for it, like they said in the committee after the vote, all they can do is ask, McConnell is the one that runs the senate. The only way I can see McConnell delaying the vote and continuing with the circus is if they don't have the votes. They can only lose 1 republican vote if no democrats vote yes to confirm. There are some democrats that might (like Senator Manchin of West Virginia) but no one knows for sure, although I am sure there will be many head counts taken this weekend to see how many votes they have, and that's what will ultimately decided whether they go forward with this FBI investigation nonsense.

[RBP]

My nomination hearing would be hilarious.

Senator: "Can you tell what you saw on a canoe trip in Lafeyette, Indiana in 1985?"

Witness: "The nominee was sitting in a shallow stream after consuming psychedelic mushrooms"

Senator: "Did he say anything?"

Witness: "He said, 'dude, these rocks are fucking beautiful'"

Nominee: *shrugs* *nods*

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Well, it's a done deal, the White House has ordered the investigation. The democrats win again. :|

[RBP]

Well, it's a done deal, the White House has ordered the investigation. The democrats win again. :|

Marry, sir, they have committed false report;
moreover, they have spoken untruths;
secondarily, they are slanders;
sixth and lastly, they have belied a lady;
thirdly, they have verified unjust things;
and, to conclude, they are lying knaves.

[RBP]

Kavanaugh's response:

Prince, I won’t wait for my trial: listen to my story, and let the count kill me now. I tricked your own eyes. These stupid fools have uncovered what you in all your wisdom could not. They heard me confess to Conrade how Don John, your brother, prompted me to slander Hero—how you came to the orchard and saw me making sexual advances toward Margaret, who was disguised as Hero; how you disgraced Hero when you should have married her. They’ve recorded my crimes, and I would rather die than have to retell this shameful story. The lady has died because of the false accusations of me and my master. I desire nothing now but a criminal’s punishment.

[Pony]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) released the following statement after the conclusion of the today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing:

“I had the opportunity to watch the hearing today and listened carefully to both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh testify. I believe allegations of sexual assault should be taken very seriously, and Dr. Ford deserved the opportunity to tell her story and be heard. I believe my job is to assess the facts that we have before us, and that’s very difficult when no corroboration exists regarding this allegation. Judge Kavanaugh has adamantly denied the allegation. The only three others named by Dr. Ford as being present, including Leland Keyser, who Dr. Ford described as one of her lifelong friends, have no recollection of this event or this party. In fact, Ms. Keyser says she was never at a party with Brett Kavanaugh and, in fact, does not know Brett Kavanaugh. Dozens of men and women who knew Brett Kavanaugh in high school have attested to his good character. This includes 65 women who knew him at that time who wrote a letter saying the Brett Kavanaugh they knew treated women with decency and respect. In America there is a presumption of innocence when there is no evidence to corroborate a charge. Throughout his decades of public service, Judge Kavanaugh has been thoroughly vetted by the FBI on six different occasions, and no such allegation ever surfaced. I have known Judge Kavanaugh for more than 15 years, I know his wife Ashley, and I know his family. The Brett Kavanaugh I know is a man of integrity and humility. He also has the right qualifications and experience to serve on the Supreme Court. In fact, the American Bar Association has given him their highest rating, unanimously. I support his confirmation.”

[DemonGeminiX]

Well, it's a done deal, the White House has ordered the investigation. The democrats win again. :|

I really don't think so. Kavanaugh and Trump have nothing to lose by giving in to the Dems here. Kav's already been investigated 6 times, and there are tons of witnesses that say that the things Kav's accused of never happened. That's not going to change. If anything, when the FBI's done and have nothing to report, the Dems will probably cry about it and stomp their feet and sit in the corner with their arms crossed across their chest with pouty lips, and then the Republicans will point to them and say, "Hey, look, we tried to work with them and this is the result. Do you really want to vote for these people?" And this will all take place before the midterms.

[DemonGeminiX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNoKn-yCrzs

[PorkChopSandwiches]

I really don't think so. Kavanaugh and Trump have nothing to lose by giving in to the Dems here. Kav's already been investigated 6 times, and there are tons of witnesses that say that the things Kav's accused of never happened. That's not going to change. If anything, when the FBI's done and have nothing to report, the Dems will probably cry about it and stomp their feet and sit in the corner with their arms crossed across their chest with pouty lips, and then the Republicans will point to them and say, "Hey, look, we tried to work with them and this is the result. Do you really want to vote for these people?" And this will all take place before the midterms.

Yeah, I think this can only help shut the whore mouths of these people screaming about clearly nothing. Where not doing it allows them a platform to continue the anti women bs

[Pony]

You both think the FBI clearing him will shut them up? They will never back down. Either they will shift the focus to something (or someone else) or blame the old white men in the FBI for not investigating good enough.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Gregg Re | Fox News


https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/924/34b2Fv.jpg

Sen. Mazie Hirono, who has emerged as one of the most vocal opponents of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, on Sunday didn't directly answer when asked if she was confident Democrats didn't strategically leak Christine Ford's accusations against him just days before a crucial Judiciary Committee vote.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., received a letter from Ford in July outlining her claim that Kavanaugh had attacked her at a house party in the 1980s, and her office immediately recommended Ford retain a prominent liberal lawyer. But, as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and other top Republicans repeatedly noted last week, Feinstein failed to follow committee protocols and notify her colleagues or federal authorities, even on a confidential basis, about the accusations.

"Are you confident the Democrats didn’t leak that letter, and how do you respond to Senator Graham’s charge that it was inappropriate for the Democrats to refer Dr. Blasey Ford to a lawyer?" host George Stephanopoulos asked Hirono on ABC's "This Week."

"All of these things do not focus on what we should be focusing, which is the credibility of Judge Kavanaugh," Hirono, D-Hawaii, responded, before calling Kavanaugh's claims of a political conspiracy against him "bizarre."

"And, by the way, even as all of these accusations about this being politically motivated are being tossed around, everyone acknowledges, including Judge Kavanaugh, that Dr. Ford is not being politically motivated," Hirono, who has suggested Kavanaugh did not deserve due process because of his "outcome-driven" conservative legal philsophy, continued. "That is very clear."
1046432705309798400
The apparent non-answer likely would fuel Republicans' efforts to seek a deeper inquiry into exactly how news of Ford's confidential letter ended up in the hands of The Intercept -- a leak that GOP leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have strongly suggested was orchestrated by Democrats.

"I'm going to get to the bottom of it," Graham told Fox News on Sunday, suggesting that someone in Feinstein's office or one of Ford's attorneys may have been responsible for strategically deploying the leak to harm Kavanaugh's chances. Graham also flatly said it was improper for Feinstein's office to recommend to Ford that she hire an attorney, especially one with connections to Feinstein and the Democratic Party.

In an explosive exchange during Thursday's hearing, Feinstein denied leaking the letter under questioning from Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, R-Texas. Feinstein then turned to her staff behind her, who also claimed they did not leak it, and suggested Ford's friends were behind the disclosure.

"Well, I'm telling you I did not," said Feinstein, who added: "It's my understanding that [Ford's] story was leaked before the letter became public and she testified that she had spoken to her friends about it, and it's most likely that that's how this story leaked ... But it did not leak from us, I assure you that."

Feinstein's handling of the letter has drawn the ire of top Republicans for weeks. In a scathing letter to Feinstein earlier this month, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote that "I cannot overstate how disappointed I am" in the California Democrat's refusal to share Ford's allegation, saying her decision had ultimately compromised Ford's anonymity and unfairly stalled Kavanaugh's confirmation by politicizing a sexual assault claim.

Separately, Hirono also suggested that the unfolding FBI supplemental background check into Kavanaugh -- which Democrats had long demanded -- is shaping up to be a "farce," saying it should not be limited to seven days or limited to certain topics.

President Trump has insisted the FBI will have discretion to interview "whoever" it wants, and in response to Hirono's interview, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the Hawaii senator was being predictable.
1046417443474866177
"The goalpost moving never stops," Hatch wrote on Sunday.

None of the witnesses that Ford, a California professor, has identified as being present at the party where she was allegedly assaulted -- including Leland Ingham Keyser, her best friend at the time -- have said they remember anything about the episode. Asked about Keyser's statement, Ford suggested on Thursday her friend was having medical issues.

In her testimony earlier in the day, Ford -- who had told Feinstein in her July letter that the party included "included me and 4 others" -- changed the tally, and told senators that there were four boys there, in addition to her female friend. In an August note Ford wrote in advance of a polygraph exam she took at the direction of her lawyers, she maintained that "there were 4 boys and a couple of girls" at the party, again apparently contradicting her letter to Feinstein in July.

Crucially, in Ford's Thursday testimony, she mentioned for the first time that she did not know the identity of one of the boys at the party, offering a possible last-minute explanation for why the other purported attendees were at a party relatively far from their own neighborhoods.

Ford has claimed that her therapist inaccurately recorded in 2012 that she had said four boys were in the room when she was attacked. Ford has also testified that the alleged attack occurred in 1982, after first telling The Washington Post it happened in the mid-1980s.

Additionally, Ford testified Thursday she had been unaware of committee Republicans' offers, which were communicated publicly and to her attorneys, to fly out to California to meet with her so that they could accomodate her reported fear of flying and expedite the confirmation process -- one of several discrepencies that Graham told Fox News on Sunday he wanted to probe.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Andrew O'Reilly, | Fox News


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/4994/kcBg08.jpg

Sen. Tom Cotton said Sunday that Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office will be investigated to determine whether or not they leaked the confidential letter from Christine Blasey Ford that detailed allegations of sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Feinstein, who represents California and who is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, had received the letter from Ford sometime over the summer and was asked to keep it confidential. At some point, however, the letter was leaked to the press, although Feinstein denies that anyone in her office is responsible.

“They have betrayed her,” Cotton, R-Ark, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” about Ford. ” “She has been victimized by Democrats ... on a search-and-destroy mission for Brett Kavanaugh.”

Cotton added that the Democrats will be to blame if women stop coming forward to report sexual assaults because Ford’s confidentiality was compromised. The National Sexual Violence Resource Center found that 63 percent of incidents of sexual abuse go unreported to the police.

Along with the investigation into Feinstein’s handling of the letter, Cotton noted that lawyers recommended to Ford by Democrats will face a bar investigation in Washington, D.C., for telling her that Senate Judiciary Committee staffers were unwilling to travel to California to interview her about her sexual-assault allegation.

The Arkansas Republican’s comments come as the FBI is investigating two of the three allegations of sexual misconduct leveled at Kavanaugh.

Besides Ford, Deborah Ramirez has accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct when they were Yale classmates. Kavanaugh has denied Ramirez's claim that he exposed himself to her at a party in the early 1980s.

Another woman, Julie Swetnick, accused Kavanaugh of excessive drinking and inappropriate treatment of women in the early 1980s, among other accusations. Kavanaugh has called her accusations a "joke."

The FBI is not investigating these allegations.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

She's a liar. And Avenatti is a scumbag.

Kavanaugh Accuser Lied About Background, Has History Of Making Sexual Misconduct Claims In Workplace, Report Says
By Ryan Saavedra - The Daily Wire


https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/922/NgIowo.jpg

One of the women who has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct from over 30 years ago allegedly has an extensive history of making sexual misconduct claims in the workplace and has lied about her background to employers.

Julie Swetnick, who is represented by sensationalist Democratic lawyer Michael Avenatti, faced serious allegations of misconduct in a lawsuit brought by Portland-based Webtrends, a company where she was employed for a few months in 2000.

Webtrends said in the lawsuit that Swetnick claimed that she graduated from Johns Hopkins University and that the company subsequently learned that the university had no records of her ever attending, and that she also made false claims about her work experience. OregonLive reports:


The suit also alleges Swetnick "engaged in unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct" while at Webtrends and "made false and retaliatory allegations that other co-workers had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her."

The suit alleges Swetnick "engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo and inappropriate conduct" directed at two male employees during a business lunch, with Webtrends customers present. Swetnick claimed two other employees had sexually harassed her, according to the suit.

The tech company said that Swetnick engaged in misconduct but never found any evidence to corroborate any of the allegations she made against her coworkers.

Webtrends also said that Swetnick had taken a medical leave of absence while simultaneously collecting unemployment benefits in Washington, D.C. The company added that she threatened legal action against the company over her unsubstantiated claims of workplace harassment.

This is only the latest accusation that has been made public about Swetnick that raises serious concerns about her credibility as a witness against Kavanaugh.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Swetnick sued New York Life Insurance Co. over a sexual misconduct claim using a law firm run by Debra Katz, the lawyer who is representing Christine Blasey Ford, one of Kavanaugh's other accusers.

Politico also reported last week that Swetnick, who has had her fair share of problems with the IRS, had a restraining order filed against her by her ex-boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, who said, "She’s not credible at all. Not at all."

Swetnick claimed that Kavanaugh participated in a gang-rape ring that ran trains on drugged girls at parties while he was a sophomore in high school and that she, as an adult in college, attended around ten of these parties with high schoolers and that she never reported the alleged crimes that were being committed against the minors.

Avenatti responded to the allegations against his client in the OregonLive report as being "Complete bogus."

[DemonGeminiX]

Imagine that.

[Muddy]

Uh oh... Tables a turnin'...

[RBP]

Imagine that.

I love how the FBI is just ignoring her. :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I love how the FBI is just ignoring her. :lol:

http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img921/2053/tvX12V.gif

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Ryan Saavedra - The Daily Wire


https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/921/Clgbq6.jpg

Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford last week during a hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote a five-page memo that was released on Sunday that outlines why she would not bring criminal charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Mitchell's memo notes nine significant problems with Ford's testimony and underscores that her case is "even weaker" than a "he said, she said" case.

"A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove," Mitchell states. "But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard."

Here are the nine problems outlined in Mitchell's memo:

1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:


In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”
In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”
Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.
A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”
Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.
While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year

2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name:


No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.

3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:


Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.

4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account:


She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.
She does not remember how she got to the party.
She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.
Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.

Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.
Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.
But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.
Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.

She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend:


Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.
All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “[s]imply 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.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”

Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.


6. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault:


According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.

In her letter, she stated, “I locked the door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.”
Kavanaugh or Mark Judge turned up the music in the bedroom so that the people downstairs could not hear her scream. She testified that, after the incident, she ran into the bathroom, locked the door, and heard them going downstairs. But she maintained that she could not hear their conversation with others when they got downstairs. Instead, she testified that she “assum[ed]” a conversation took place.

Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.

According to The Washington Post’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.
She told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.
In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party.
In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward.
Dr. Ford listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post, although she testified that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s.


7. Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory:


Dr. Ford struggled to remember her interactions with the Washington Post.
Dr. Ford could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter.

She does not remember whether she showed the Post reporter the therapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The Washington Post article said that “portions” of her “therapist’s notes” were “provided by Ford and reviewed by” the Post. But in her testimony, Dr. Ford could not recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the actual records.

She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the Washington Post WhatsApp account on July 6.

Dr. Ford said in her first WhatsApp message to the Post that she “ha[d] therapy notes talking about” the incident when she contacted the Post’s tipline. She testified that she had reviewed her therapy notes before contacting the Post to determine whether the mentioned anything about the alleged incident, but could not remember if she had a copy of those notes, as she said in her WhatsApp message, or merely reviewed them in her therapist’s office.


Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.
Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.

She claimed originally that she wished for her story to remain confidential, but the person operating the tipline at the Washington Post was the first person other than her therapist or husband to whom she disclosed the identity of her alleged attacker. She testified that she had a “sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president.” She did not contact the Senate, however, because she claims she “did not know how to do that.” She does not explain why she knew how to contact her Congresswoman but not her Senator.

Dr. Ford could not remember if she was being audio- or video-recorded when she took the polygraph. And she could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral.

It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.



8. Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions:


She maintains that she suffers from anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying. But she agreed during her testimony that she flies “fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and … work.” She flies to the mid-Atlantic at least once a year to visit her family. She has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also flew to Washington, D.C. for the hearing.
Note too that her attorneys refused a private hearing or interview. Dr. Ford testified that she was not “clear” on whether investigators were willing to travel to California to interview her. It therefore is not clear that her attorneys ever communicated Chairman Grassley’s offer to send investigators to meet her in California or wherever she wanted to meet to conduct the interview.


She alleges that she struggled academically in college, but she has never made any similar claim about her last two years of high school.
It is significant that she used the word “contributed” when she described the psychological impact of the incident to the Washington Post. Use of the word “contributed” rather than “caused” suggests that other life events may have contributed to her symptoms. And when questioned on that point, she said that she could think of “nothing as striking as” the alleged assault.

9. The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account:


See the included timeline for details.

1046615365885800449

[PorkChopSandwiches]

He's still guilty though

[Teh One Who Knocks]

He's still guilty though

Well, duh :rolleyes:

:lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Matt Richardson | Fox News


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/1285/TVXYrV.jpg

Even if the nomination of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh ultimately fails in the Senate, President Trump should re-nominate the judge ahead of the midterm elections and let the voters decide if they want him on the court, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News on Monday night.

“Here’s what I would tell the president: I would appeal the verdict of the Senate to the ballot box,” Graham said on “Hannity.” “This good man should not be destroyed. If you legitimize this process by one vote short, we’ll be on to the next person. I’d hate to be the next person nominated. I would feel horrible that we destroyed Kavanaugh.

“So what would I do? I would re-nominate him and I would take this case to the American people and I’d ask voters in Indiana, in Missouri, in North Dakota and other places where Trump won - saying who he would nominate if he got to be president – and see if the voters want to appeal the verdict of their senator.”

However, ultimately, the senator said he didn't anticipate the nomination of the judge reaching that point, saying he believed that concerns from Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, would be resolved.

"I don’t think we’re going to find anything new from this supplemental FBI investigation to take Jeff from yes to no," he said. "I think Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins want to make sure the FBI did their homework to check the committee's work, that our work was good. I think that’s what this is all about."

Graham famously slammed Democrats last week during Kavanaugh's testimony on his sexual assault allegations. The senator called the handling of the claims “the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics.”

“And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you've done to this guy,” Graham continued.

“If you’re looking for a fair process, you came to the wrong town at the wrong time,” Graham said on Sept. 27. “This is hell.”

[DemonGeminiX]

Graham's really been impressing me as of late.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Diana Soriano, Boston University - The College Fix


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/4982/eiRuAu.jpg

BOSTON — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a democratic socialist and rising star within the Democrat Party, called Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh a liar in a speech to Boston University college students on Monday.

While she did not use the word liar, she essentially lodged the accusation at him when asked about the Kavanaugh controversy during the Q&A.

“A generation ago, committing perjury and lying to Congress multiple times in your nomination hearing would have been an automatic disqualifier. To see the rules that we are willing to dismantle just to insert a partisan pick is truly disturbing,” she told the audience of roughly 350, most of whom were students.

She went on to hail “activism” as the solution, and boasted to the crowd that one of the women who had cornered judiciary committee member Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) in an elevator and yelled at him for several minutes after he agreed to vote “yes” on Kavanaugh was from her district.

“Ana Maria Archila is from our district, is from Queens,” Ocasio-Cortez, prompting a round of applause. “In fact, she is an immigration activist, which just goes to show intersectionality and how interwoven all of these fights are. Because she is putting everything on the line and risking deportation … not even for a direct immigration action but for the action of all survivors. And that’s how we need to be. We need to be championing the causes of our neighbors. That is what creates power and movement, coalition building.”


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuKW-hGy9K8

Ocasio-Cortez, who recently secured the endorsement of former President Barack Obama in her bid for New York’s 14th Congressional district, is a 2011 graduate of Boston University, and visited her alma mater for a speech that had sold out in within hours.

The lecture was arranged by Samantha Delgado, an undergraduate student, and BU’s Political Science Department. Though socialist student organizations, such as the Socialist Alternative, tabled outside of the venue and sold literature, Ocasio-Cortez did not specifically discuss any of her proposed democratic socialist policies.

When she delved into the Kavanaugh controversy in response to a question, her long-winded answer assumed his guilt, despite the fact that no corroborating evidence or support from any witness testimony has been established at this time.

“I feel for every woman and survivor in America who just lived through this week. I mean, I cannot convey how serious and dangerous and in peril our most basic political institutions are right now. When we see and talk about depicting things that happen in history and people say, ‘How could this have happened?’ It is because in the slow slide of our public institutions too many people did nothing,” she said.

She also called on men to check their male privilege.

“Men, right now is your moment. … The keys right now are in your hands to amplify our voices, because when a man says ‘I believe her’ or ‘I believe whoever the survivor is,’ frankly that is what creates legitimacy in these claims — that is what these power structures are all about,” she said. “Is it right? No. But ultimately Dr. Ford was facing a panel of eleven men.”

“Can you imagine if Kavanaugh was facing a panel of eleven women,” she added, prompting a smattering of chuckles. “The tears that would result.”

It is unclear if she was referencing the fact that Kavanaugh did tear up during his testimony defending himself before the judiciary committee.

During her speech, Ocasio-Cortez also spoke of her personal experiences during college. She was originally a pre-med student, but switched to studying economics when she learned more about the legacies Martin Luther King and Howard Thurman left at the university. She emphasized the importance of grassroots activism and how it enabled her to win a Democratic primary many believed to be hopeless.

When asked for advice about how to go about activism, Ocasio-Cortez advocated for putting personal testimony over statistics and facts.

“When you are organizing and when you are connecting with people, the most powerful tool that you have is not a statistic, it is not a fact, it is not a news article, the most powerful tool that you have is your personal testimony,” she said. “No one can tell you that something that happened to you is not true, and that especially goes for this moment right now, especially when we’re talking about survivors.”

[RBP]

I can tell you something that "happened to you" is not true if you're fucking lying.

[DemonGeminiX]

This whore again. :roll:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Why does she keep getting a platform? Nobody can see passed "free stuff" that they will never get because its not feasible?

[Muddy]

Why does she keep getting a platform? Nobody can see passed "free stuff" that they will never get because its not feasible?

*past*

[RBP]

https://i.imgur.com/zbP0YiL.jpg?1

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/921/UhhYJL.jpg

[RBP]

Oh for fucks sake. Political rape? That's now a thing? :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/921/0BBGeE.jpg

[Muddy]

I never heard of any of those terms this woman is using..

[RBP]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/921/0BBGeE.jpg

That reminds me... we used to call one of my brothers "boof daddy". :lol:

[DemonGeminiX]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/921/0BBGeE.jpg

Well you can fuck right off. Because it doesn't really matter what he did as a fucking teen or a college kid. It has no fucking bearing on his ability as a judge to interpret the Constitution or the Amendments to the Constitution. And regardless of what the terms mean, the fact remains that Ford had no evidence and no witnesses to back up her claims, no one could prove anything, and that means that there would be no indictment, no charges, and no conviction. We don't fucking care about emotions, we care about verifiable facts. Because that's how the system works in our country. It's not guilty until proven innocent like in some European and Asian countries. It's innocent until proven guilty. And nothing was proven. Maybe you should fucking learn it and appreciate it, because it could be you too. It could be you being railroaded by a bunch of hotheads that want to ruin your life just because. Dumbass.


I never heard of any of those terms this woman is using..

I have. But when I heard it, it was just 3 F's: "find 'em, fuck 'em, and flee". Like in the NRA song.

[DemonGeminiX]

Looks like Ford is in hot water now. She may have lied to Congress while under oath. If they find that she did, her ass is going to jail. That other one, Swetnick, is gonna end up in jail already. These idiots need to stop.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Gregg Re, John Roberts | Fox News


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/772/wP2EHM.jpg

In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.

He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a "very small," 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Ford "never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," the former boyfriend wrote.

However, on Thursday, Ford testified, "I was hoping to avoid getting on an airplane. But I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends and get on the plane." She also acknowledged regularly -- and, in her words, "unfortunately" -- traveling on planes for work and hobbies.

And Ford explicitly told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday that she had a second front door installed in her home because of "anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms" that she purportedly suffered in the wake of Kavanaugh's alleged attack at a house party in the 1980s -- "more especially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."

In a pointed, no-holds-barred letter Tuesday evening that referenced the ex-boyfriend's declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded that attorneys for Ford turn over her therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday's dramatic Senate hearing.

"Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination," Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote.

Under questioning from experienced sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell last week, Ford said that she had "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process was stressful and uncomfortable.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OFBBDuB7Q8

But in his declaration, the ex-boyfriend wrote that, "I witnessed Dr. Ford help [Monica L.] McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam" and that Ford had "explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped [her] become familiar and less nervous about the exam," using her background in psychology.

<p style=" margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;" ><a title="View Declaration Redacted Ford Friend on Scribd" href="https://www.scribd.com/document/389992060/Declaration-Redacted-Ford-Friend#from_embed" style="text-decoration: underline;">Declaration Redacted Ford F...</a> by <a title="View 's profile on Scribd" href="undefined#from_embed" style="text-decoration: underline;"></a> on Scribd</p><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" title="Declaration Redacted Ford Friend" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/389992060/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true&access_key=key-oyrCpczgwZyUBd5eMgNb" data-auto-height="false" data-aspect-ratio="null" scrolling="no" width="600" height="800" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Mitchell, in a report Sunday, said Ford's case was even weaker than the typical "He said, she said" situation and pointed out numerous discrepencies in her version of events in the past several weeks, concerning everything from how many people were at the purported party to when it occurred and how she found her way home. Mitchell also noted that none of the witnesses Ford identified as having attended the party could back up her version of events.

Some of the apparent inconsistencies, Grassley wrote, could possibly be addressed if Ford's legal team turned over all video or audio recordings produced during her own August polygraph examination. Ford passed that polygraph, and in a handwritten statement she wrote prior to the test, she indicated "there were 4 boys and a couple of girls" at the gathering.

But in Ford's letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in July, she gave a different tally, writing instead that the party "included me and 4 others." Under oath on Thursday, Ford for the first time mentioned that a fourth boy was at the party, but that she could not remember his name.

Grassley also demanded Ford's attorneys hand over notes from her 2012 therapy sessions in which she claimed to have discussed her alleged sexual assault decades ago. The senator said it was "not justified" any longer for Ford to cite privacy and medical privilege given that she has relied on them extensively as a kind of corroborating evidence to implicate Kavanaugh.

On Thursday, Ford claimed she could not say definitively whether she had shared those notes with The Washington Post approximately two months ago, as opposed to describing them abstractly. The Post wrote that it had reviewed a "portion" of Ford's notes.

Additionally, Grassley requested copies of communications between Ford and the media describing her allegations, saying that the legal team's failure to provide Ford's full correspondence with The Washington Post suggested a "lack of candor."

<p style=" margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;" ><a title="View 10.02.18 CEG to Ford Attorneys (1) on Scribd" href="https://www.scribd.com/document/389989823/10-02-18-CEG-to-Ford-Attorneys-1#from_embed" style="text-decoration: underline;">10.02.18 CEG to Ford Attorn...</a> by <a title="View 's profile on Scribd" href="undefined#from_embed" style="text-decoration: underline;"></a> on Scribd</p><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" title="10.02.18 CEG to Ford Attorneys (1)" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/389989823/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true&access_key=key-3iH3aukClAp4EFjqnoTh" data-auto-height="false" data-aspect-ratio="null" scrolling="no" width="600" height="800" frameborder="0"></iframe>

In a separate letter to Democratic Sen. Chris Coons, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, Grassley wrote, "The accuser freely admits to having no evidence whatsoever that Judge Kavanaugh even attended this party. … We’ve reached a new level of absurdity with this allegation."

The scathing letters come as Fox News has learned from a source that the FBI may wrap up its investigation into misconduct accusations against Kavanaugh as soon as late Wednesday, potentially clearing the way for a final Senate vote on his confirmation within days.

If the FBI's report is indeed delivered to the White House on Wednesday, Fox News expects a vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation could come as soon as Saturday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., must first satisfy a number of procedural and parliamentary hurdles before a vote can be held, including filing a cloture petition, which must remain pending for a full day, in order to formally end debate on Kavanaugh's nomination. McConnell has vowed to hold a vote by the end of the week.

The uncorroborated sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh have faltered in recent days, as the credibility of his three most prominent accusers -- Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick -- has come under question. Democrats increasingly have focused their arguments on Kavanaugh's temperament during Thursday's hearing, as well as whether he lied under oath about references in his high school yearbook.

Kavanaugh acknowleged sometimes having "too many" beers in high school and college, but some Democrats have suggested he lied by not going further and admitting that he had "blacked out." None of Kavanaugh's classmates has said he blacked out, although some have come forward to suggest it's likely that he did at some point.

For his part, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Monday called out what he said were transparent stall tactics in a fiery floor speech.

"If you listen carefully, Mr. President, you can practically hear the sounds of the Democrats moving the goalposts," McConnell said. He added later: "Their goalposts keep shifting. But their goal hasn't moved an inch. Not an inch."

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I wonder if she's regretting wanting that FBI investigation now? :-k

[DemonGeminiX]

They think they can do anything they want, regardless of the consequences to those effected by their actions, and they can't be touched. They're all gonna find out how very wrong they are.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

The chickens have come home to roost as they say

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/9513/cLs0C4.jpg

Leland Keyser, the high school friend Christine Blasey Ford counted on to corroborate her sexual assault charges, has told the FBI she has no knowledge of the supposed 1982 party or the accused, Brett Kavanaugh.

Howard J. Walsh III, her attorney, told The Washington Times that she met with the FBI on Saturday.

Asked if she had repeated the same two statements she provided the Senate Judiciary Committee, the lawyer answered, “yes.”

Ms. Ford accuses Supreme Court nominee Judge Kavanaugh, and his friend, Mark Judge, of trying to rape her at a home in Montgomery County near the Columbia Country Club.

They both deny the charge. Patrick Smyth, a third party-goer identified by Ms. Ford, also denies he attended any such party.

That left Ms. Keyser, Ms. Ford’s best friend at Holton-Arms school, as the remaining witness of the five people who supposedly attended.

Before the FBI interview, Mr. Walsh submitted two statements to the Senate committee, both saying the same thing.

“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,” Mr. Walsh said.

After Mr. Trump ordered an FBI investigation last Friday, Mr. Walsh submitted a reaffirming statement to the committee.

“Ms. Keyser asked that I communicate to the Committee her willingness to cooperate fully with the FBI’s supplemental investigation of Dr. Christine Ford’s allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh,” Mr. Walsh said. “However, as my client has already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

All told, she has now provided the same account three times.

In her testimony last week, Ms. Ford brushed aside Ms. Keyser’s statement, saying that her friend has been ill and is focused on herself.

Ms. Ford: “Leland has significant health challenges, and I’m happy that she’s focusing on herself and getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes, and et cetera, So I’m glad that she’s taking care of herself. I don’t expect that P.J. and Leland would remember this evening. It was a very unremarkable party. It was not one of their more notorious parties, because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening. They were downstairs.”

Ms. Ford has said she doesn’t know where the party occurred, how she got there or how she got to her parents’ home, which was perhaps 10 miles away. She has said she wasn’t given a ride.

[DemonGeminiX]

You know, I was thinking, maybe she truly believes that she was really sexually assaulted even if it didn't happen. Maybe her brain constructed false memories of her being assaulted... kinda like there's some nutjobs out there that really believe that they were abducted by aliens and their brains have constructed false memories.

Then I came to my senses.

[PorkChopSandwiches]

She co-wrote an entire paper on creating "new" memories through self hypnosis. Weird stuff

https://thefederalist.com/2018/10/01/kavanaugh-accuser-co-authored-study-citing-use-hypnosis-retrieve-memories/

[Teh One Who Knocks]

She co-wrote an entire paper on creating "new" memories through self hypnosis. Weird stuff

https://thefederalist.com/2018/10/01/kavanaugh-accuser-co-authored-study-citing-use-hypnosis-retrieve-memories/

So....she wrote a paper on how to believe your fake lies....interesting. :-k

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Pretty much

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Hank Berrrien - The Daily Wire


https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/922/rO6LTR.jpg

On Wednesday night, the attorneys for Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser of Judge Brett Kavanaugh who testified in front of the Judiciary Committee, complained that because the FBI investigation of Kavanaugh conducted this week did not include an interview with her, the FBI investigation did not constitute a real investigation. In addition, they hilariously said that witnesses who corroborated her testimony (?) were not interviewed.
1047690994244706305
This, of course, was all too predictable; the attackers of Judge Kavanaugh have moved the goalposts numerous times to prevent the judge from gaining confirmation to the Supreme Court.

One might think the attorneys would be genuinely concerned about any inquiry the FBI might make into Ford’s own story, since her ex-boyfriend has stated that she did, in fact, communicate with someone as to how to take a lie detector test and Ford testified under oath that she had never done any such thing.

Not only that, but just what corroborating witnesses are they talking about?
1047694871136333824
1047700140960567296

[DemonGeminiX]

Dr. Ford... GO FUCK YOURSELF.

[DemonGeminiX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdoASjNQoyY

[Muddy]

"Dr"... :lol: Whats her doctorate in?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

"Dr"... :lol: Whats her doctorate in?

Psychology I think

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/NTYJpr.jpg

[Muddy]

"Doctor"... Boy has that word been corrupted.. It used to mean something to be a doctor.. A Medical Doctor.. Now any hack in every field can get one in what, 6 years total? And I am supposed to refer to them as "doctor"? :lol: I dont think so. She will always be "Ms." at best to me.

[DemonGeminiX]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q90/923/NTYJpr.jpg

Craaaaaaaazzzzyyyyyyyy, over the rainbow, she is craaaaazyyyyy........

[PorkChopSandwiches]

I'm saying he gets confirmed. Flake can go fuck himself

[Teh One Who Knocks]

The FBI’s confidential report was delivered to the Senate overnight. Senators have to read it in a secure room in the Capitol complex.

Senate Democrats says the investigation was incomplete and may have been limited by the White House.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Democrat, Dianne Feinstein of California, says it appears the White House had “blocked the FBI from doing its job.”

Get ready for more attempts at delay....

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Trump has already gave them everything they asked for, no more delays

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Feinstein just said the White House blocked the FBI from doing their job :nono:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Even 40% of Democrats now say Kavanaugh confirmation process a 'national disgrace'

The nation is paying close attention to the ongoing controversy surrounding the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

A new Rasmussen Reports survey released Tuesday finds that most voters now agree that the process has turned shameful — including a surprising number of Democrats.

“An angry Brett Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee late last week: ‘This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process, but you have replaced advise and consent with search and destroy,’” the Rasmussen analysis says.

The poll found that 56 percent of all likely U.S. voters agree with the U.S. Supreme Court nominee’s statement. Thirty percent disagree, while 14 percent are undecided

“In addition, 77 percent of Republicans and 51 percent of voters not affiliated with either major party agree that Kavanaugh’s confirmation process has become a national disgrace,” the pollster said. “Even among Democrats, whose senators have been leading the charge against the nominee, 40 percent agree with Kavanaugh’s statement, and only slightly more (43 percent) disagree.”

[PorkChopSandwiches]

https://i.redd.it/lzia5fb2f5q11.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

1047873530157846528
:rofl:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/922/KIITIQ.jpg

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Benjamin Brown | Fox News


A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured to clarify her original statement regarding an alleged sexual assault involving Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

Ford identified Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate, as having attended a house party Maryland in the early 1980s, in which she accused Kavanaugh of pinning her to a bed, attempting to remove her clothes and putting his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream.

Keyser originally said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 23 she “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present.” After Kavanaugh and Ford testified in front of the committee last week, Keyser wrote a letter to the committee dated Sept. 29 that said she did not refute Ford’s claims, but “is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question," according to CNN.

Keyser told the investigators that she was -- as the Journal notes -- urged to clarify her statement by Monica McLean, a former FBI agent and friend of Ford’s, the paper reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

McLean’s lawyer denied his client tried to influence Keyser to change her account, telling the Journal in a statement it is “absolutely false.”

A person close to the former classmates told the Journal she believed mutual friends of both Ford and Keyser – including McLean – simply reached out to Keyser to warn her that her statement was being used by Republicans as vindication for Kavanagh and if she felt she needed to clarify what she meant, she should. The person said the mutual friends did not “pressure” Keyser.

Howard Walsh, a lawyer for Keyser, declined to comment to the Journal.

Kavanaugh, along with his allies, reportedly lobbied to bolster his defense ahead of a New Yorker report on Sept. 23 that published allegations from Deborah Ramirez, who claimed the federal judge exposed himself to her at a university party while at Yale.

According to the journal, a former classmate of Kavanagh’s received a call from “Brett’s guy” and was asked to “go on the record,” the paper reported citing a memo of the conversation from another friend.

The FBI was tasked by Trump last week to look into allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against Kavanaugh by three women – including Ford.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, along with the White House received the FBI's supplemental background investigation into Kavanaugh on Wednesday.

The White House and the Senate received additional information from the FBI on Thursday, including text messages between Keyser and McClean, according to the Journal citing a source.

Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans released an executive summary of the FBI's confidential supplemental background investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh late Thursday, which key swing-vote senators vowed they would continue to review Friday ahead of a major vote on his confirmation.

According to the summary of the report, FBI agents interviewed 10 people and reached out to 11. They focused exclusively on witnesses with potential first-hand knowledge of alleged sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh.

A major procedural vote in the Senate is scheduled to take place on Friday morning on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation, as three of four key moderate swing-vote senators are "trying to get to yes," a GOP source told Fox News.

Those senators -- Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski, and Maine Republican Susan Collins -- have kept their options open throughout the nomination process, but there were outward indications that at least some of them will ultimately support Kavanaugh.

[DemonGeminiX]

There are so many shenanigans going on here, I can't see how anybody could ever trust the Democrats again after all of this crap.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Hank Berrien - The Daily Wire


https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/921/TadQSo.jpg

On Thursday, Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent a searing letter to the attorneys representing Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her in 1982. Grassley reiterated his already twice-stated request for the attorneys to turn over the “therapy notes, polygraph materials, and communications with The Washington Post that Dr. Ford has relied upon as evidence.”

Grassley began by noting that as the Senate is charged by the Constitution to advise the president on his nominees for the Supreme Court, the Committee had a “constitutional obligation to investigate and evaluate independently the President’s nominees.” He pointed out that the Senate’s “obligation is unrelated to anything the FBI does … We have to make our own assessment.”

Grassley then set the record straight about the attorneys using their objections to the FBI investigation as an excuse to deny the Judiciary Committee access to the information they were demanding. He wrote, “The FBI’s investigative decisions aren’t our concern. Even if the FBI never interviews Dr. Ford, or interviews her ten times, this Committee has a constitutional obligation to investigate Dr. Ford’s allegations, and that’s what we’ve been doing since we became aware of her allegations.”

Grassley pointed out that the attorneys had “claimed repeatedly that the evidence I have requested supports Dr. Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. She even provided some of this evidence to national news. Indeed, if the evidence supported your client’s allegations, you surely would produce it as quickly as you could.”

Then Grassley really got to the nitty-gritty: “But you have repeatedly refused to produce this evidence to the Senate. In doing so, you are preventing the Senate from considering the evidence most crucial to Dr. Ford’s allegations. I don’t know what other inference we should draw from your refusal but that the withheld evidence does not support Dr. Ford’s allegations in quite the way you have claimed.”

Grassley’s concluding paragraph indicated he thought there might have been some interesting communication going on between Ford or her attorneys and some of the alleged witnesses she named to the alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh:


In addition to the evidence I requested in my October 2 letter, in light of recently uncovered information, please turn over records and descriptions of direct or indirect communications between Dr. Ford or her representatives and any of the following: (1) U.S. Senators or their staffs, particularly the offices of Senators Feinstein and Hirono, other than your communications with me and my staff in preparation for the September 27 hearing; (2) the alleged witnesses identified by Dr. Ford (Leland Keyser, Mark Judge, and Patrick “P.J.” Smyth); and (3) Debbie Ramirez, Julie Swetnick, or their representatives.

Complete letter below:


I’m writing in response to your response to my letter dated October 2. You said that Dr. Ford is willing to turn her documents over to the FBI, but my request of you was not for documents to be turned over to the FBI. I asked you to provide the documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Your response on behalf of your client is a non-sequitur. The Constitution charges the Senate with advising the President on his nomination. Senators have a constitutional obligation to investigate and evaluate independently the President’s nominees. Our obligation is unrelated to anything the FBI does. That’s why we don’t just vote on nominees after the President loans us the FBI background investigation. We have to make our own assessment.

The U.S. Senate doesn’t control the FBI. If you have an objection to how the FBI conducts its investigations, take it up with Director Wray. But don’t raise that objection as a reason not to respond to this Committee’s demand for relevant evidence. The FBI’s investigative decisions aren’t our concern. Even if the FBI never interviews Dr. Ford, or interviews her ten times, this Committee has a constitutional obligation to investigate Dr. Ford’s allegations, and that’s what we’ve been doing since we became aware of her allegations.

It’s not even clear to me what purpose turning over these materials to the FBI would accomplish. The FBI would simply turn over that evidence to the Senate. That is precisely the outcome I seek with this request.

You have claimed repeatedly that the evidence I have requested supports Dr. Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. She even provided some of this evidence to national news. Indeed, if the evidence supported your client’s allegations, you surely would produce it as quickly as you could.

But you have repeatedly refused to produce this evidence to the Senate. In doing so, you are preventing the Senate from considering the evidence most crucial to Dr. Ford’s allegations. I don’t know what other inference we should draw from your refusal but that the withheld evidence does not support Dr. Ford’s allegations in quite the way you have claimed.

I urge you once again, now for the third time in writing, to turn over the therapy notes, polygraph materials, and communications with The Washington Post that Dr. Ford has relied upon as evidence. In addition to the evidence I requested in my October 2 letter, in light of recently uncovered information, please turn over records and descriptions of direct or indirect communications between Dr. Ford or her representatives and any of the following: (1) U.S. Senators or their staffs, particularly the offices of Senators Feinstein and Hirono, other than your communications with me and my staff in preparation for the September 27 hearing; (2) the alleged witnesses identified by Dr. Ford (Leland Keyser, Mark Judge, and Patrick “P.J.” Smyth); and (3) Debbie Ramirez, Julie Swetnick, or their representatives.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Ryan Saavedra - The Daily Wire


https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/924/PFhpWm.jpg

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday ahead of his confirmation vote this weekend, pledging that he will be a fair and impartial judge on the nation's highest court.

Kavanaugh stressed that "a good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no political party, litigant or policy" and who is not "swayed by public pressure."

The op-ed comes as some have questioned whether he can remain politically neutral on the court after the Democratic Party launched a vicious smear campaign against him that dominated national headlines for nearly three weeks.

"My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate," Kavanaugh wrote. "That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled."

Kavanaugh said he was more emotional during the hearing than he has ever been before and that he "might have been too emotional at times" during his testimony due to "vile and violent threats" that his wife and daughters have faced in recent weeks.

"I do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences," Kavanaugh continued. "I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge."

Kavanaugh called the judicial system the "crown jewel of our constitutional republic" and noted that the Supreme Court is "the last line of defense for the separation of powers, and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution."

Kavanaugh repeatedly stressed the importance of the U.S. Constitution and vowed that if confirmed to the Supreme Court, he will "will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law."

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny-NVn1Ao-E

[DemonGeminiX]

If Feinstein has anything to do with these allegations, I hope they nail her ass to the wall.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

If Feinstein has anything to do with these allegations, I hope they nail her ass to the wall.

You know as well as I do, that if they start investigating her and she feels threatened, she'll find some staffer to throw under the bus that she discovered by her own 'internal investigation of her staff' and claim she had absolutely no knowledge that her staff member leaked anything.

[DemonGeminiX]

No one's untouchable. And she's an idiot. She's gonna slip up. She's gonna be caught.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Adam Shaw | Fox News


https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/924/leFf2Y.jpg

The Senate voted Friday to end debate on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, moving the chamber to a final vote Saturday evening amid a rancorous fight over decades-old sexual assault allegations against him.

The vote to invoke cloture was 51-49.

While the vote was not necessarily indicative of the final confirmation vote, it moved him one step closer to sitting on the highest court in the land and three out of four key senators voted "yes" to advance the nomination.

Kavanaugh’s nomination was embroiled in a controversy that gripped the nation after multiple women made sexual assault allegations originating from his time in high school and college. The most prominent allegation was from California professor Christine Blasey Ford, who said that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a high school party. That allegation resulted in a high-stakes Senate Judiciary hearing last week where both Ford and Kavanaugh testified.

Democrats said the allegations were credible and deserved a full investigation, while Republicans accused Democrats of using uncorroborated allegations to scuttle or delay the nomination -- leading to a stream of angry flashpoints between lawmakers. The accusations eventually led to President Trump ordering an FBI investigation. Republicans who had seen the FBI’s report said the FBI had produced no credible corroboration of the allegations.

Ahead of Saturday’s vote, all eyes were on four undecided senators who are widely seen as the swing votes: Republican Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, as well as West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin. Collins, Flake and Manchin all voted "yes" on cloture, with Murkowski voting "no."

With a 51-49 majority in the Senate, Republicans can afford no more than one defection from their ranks if all Democrats vote together. Collins was expected to announce her decision in a speech on the Senate floor at 3 p.m. Friday.

Protesters flooded the capital in the days ahead of the vote, and clashed with Republican lawmakers in an effort to sway their votes, and initially appeared to have some success. Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., demanded the limited FBI investigation last week after being cornered in an elevator by screaming protesters moments before a Senate Judiciary Committee vote to recommend Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Other Republicans later pushed back against protestors. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told protesters chasing him to “grow up” while Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., responded to one protester’s call for Kavanaugh to take a polygraph test, asking: “Maybe we can dunk him in water and see if he floats?”

Ahead of the cloture vote, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, urged the Senate to say “no to mob rule.” He also blasted Democrats for their treatment of Kavanaugh, describing it as “nothing short of monstrous.”

“The conduct of left-wing dark money groups and allies in this body have shamed us all,” he said. “The fix was in from the very beginning.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said that the vote was "a pivotal day for us here in the Senate."

"The ideals of justice that have served our nation for so long are on display," he said, calling the last two weeks a "disgraceful spectacle."

But Democrats had pointed to not only the sexual assault allegations, which they described” but also questions about Kavanaugh’s temperament during the hearing last week and whether he had lied about his drinking during high school and college, and what certain references in his high school yearbook meant. They also sought to paint him as a justice that would swing the court deeply to the right.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, accused him of being evasive in his answers during his confirmation hearings on key topics. He said his views are “deeply at odds with the progress America has made in the last century of jurisprudence and at odds with what most Americans believe.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on the Senate floor before the vote, raised concerns that Kavanaugh would vote to overturn Roe v Wade -- the 1973 decision that found a constitutional right to abortion -- and was extreme on gun rights.

But she said the last few weeks had raised further concerns, particularly his emotional defense in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he had blasted Democrats for their treatment of the sexual assault allegations against him.

“This behavior revealed a hostility and belligerence unbecoming of someone seeking to be elevated to the Supreme Court,” she said.

Kavanaugh defended his behavior in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal late Thursday, in which he expressed some regret for his fiery attack on Democrats.

“I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times,” he said. “I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said.”

He added: "I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters."

[Pony]

Vote 50-48.

https://i.imgur.com/1wkhd1l.jpg

[Hikari Kisugi]

LOL well he got in 50-48

funny pic that previous one

Are all these results always voted on part lines?
Can a supreme court judge be neutral and not affiliated with a party?

[lost in melb.]

Annnnd...Democrats successfully galvanise the unification of Republicans in time for mid-terms

[lost in melb.]

Vote 50-48.

https://i.imgur.com/1wkhd1l.jpg

But...just to check...is that a massive keg of beer? :fu:

[RBP]

But...just to check...is that a massive keg of beer? :fu:

That's what is it is, yes. A keg... as in kegger party. :headbang:

Fun fact. The hardest part of being a fraternity pledge is carrying kegs down stairs. :|

[Pony]

LOL well he got in 50-48

funny pic that previous one

Are all these results always voted on part lines?
Can a supreme court judge be neutral and not affiliated with a party?

Pretty much yes but a republican President is gonna nominate someone who he feels will make decisions favorable to conservative values and vice versa. Judges are supposed to be impartial but looking at the history of court case decisions usually reveals which way they lean.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Vote 50-48.

https://i.imgur.com/1wkhd1l.jpg

:lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan also took an apparent swipe at Kavanaugh, warning Friday that the high court may lose legitimacy if there’s no justice who acts like a swing vote on issues, the Hill reported.

She praised Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Anthony Kennedy for being the jurists “who found the center or people [you] couldn't predict in that sort of way.”

“It’s not so clear, that I think going forward, that sort of middle position — it's not so clear whether we’ll have it," Kagan said at Princeton University just hours after it appeared that Senate Republicans secured enough votes to confirm Kavanaugh's nomination Saturday.

This came out over the weekend. We have an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, one that was confirmed with bipartisan support mind you, that thinks this way? Does she not understand how the law works? Having someone on the Court that is openly calling for someone to be a 'swing vote' is openly political in and of itself. And they're all worried about Kavanaugh??

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Gregg Re | Fox News


http://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/3447/Sib3GB.jpg

In the wake of his vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Saturday, Republican Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., revealed to Fox News on Sunday that his wife had received a graphic text message with a video depicting a beheading, and that someone has publicly posted the names and addresses of his family members.

Gardner announced his support for Kavanaugh in July, and reaffirmed it after reviewing the supplemental FBI report into uncorroborated sexual misconduct allegations against him.

Late last month, Gardner received a letter from an anonymous individual apparently in Denver, alleging that Kavanaugh had "shoved" someone up against a wall "very aggressively and sexually" during an outing in 1998 in front of four witnesses. The allegation was later deemed not to be credible.

"Every victim of abuse, assault, and violence has been through an unspeakable tragedy and we need to do a better job listening to them, ensuring support is available, and fighting to end abuse of any kind," Gardner said in a statement prior to receiving the graphic text messages. "I hope that the partisan divide we all feel today does not hinder the people that have bravely come forward.”

Kavanaugh, his wife Ashley, and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford have also all received numerous death threats in recent days.

The apparent intimidation efforts follow reports from Capitol police that the Democratic congressional aide accused of publishing the private information (known as "doxxing") of at least three Republican lawmakers last month also allegedly threatened to leak senators’ children's health information if a witness told anyone about his activities.

Jackson Cosko, who recently worked for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, was arrested for allegedly doxxing Senators Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah on Wikipedia -- with information such as their home addresses and phone numbers. Graham, Lee and Hatch's information was published last week.

According to a sworn statement by Capitol Police Captain Jason Bell, a witness saw Cosko at a computer in a senator’s office, where he used to work, a day after two other unnamed senators' information had been put on Wikipedia. Cosko worked for other Democratic senators including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., and former Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. While earlier reports identified Cosko as an intern for Jackson Lee, his lawyer said that he was working as a fellow in her office, paid by an outside institution.

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/924/p3VurW.jpg

Sources familiar with the case told Fox News that Cosko was in Sen. Hassan's office, where he was not authorized to be and was caught using a login he was not authorized to use. Cosko earlier was let go by Senator Hassan's office. A spokesman for Hassan said she "strongly denounces the alleged actions.”

According to Bell's statement, Cosko is alleged to have been confronted by the staffer and then walked out. The staffer then called the police. Hours later the witness received an email from "livefreeorpwn@gmail.com" saying: “If you tell anyone I will leak it all. Emails signal conversations gmails. Senators children’s health information and socials.”

“Socials” apparently referred to social security numbers, while Signal is a secure messaging application. Bell said that there was probably cause to believe that Cosko published the information of senators, and then made threatening statements directed to the unnamed witness “with the intent to hinder, delay, or prevent” the witness from reporting it to authorities.

Cosko's defense attorney, Brian Stolarz, told Fox News his client acted alone.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Gregg Re | Fox News


https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/923/2Itatx.jpg

Julie Swetnick on Sunday wrote that she was "disgusted and appalled" by the reaction to her uncorroborated claims last month that then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh engaged in systemic gang rapes decades ago.

Swetnick's allegations -- which key swing-vote senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, called "outlandish" on Friday -- have been cited by top Democrats and observers as so unbelievable that they might have undermined the credibility of other accusers, like California professor Christine Blasey Ford. Kavanaugh was confirmed by a 50-48 vote to the Supreme Court on Saturday.

"As a sexual assault victim, I am disgusted and appalled by the way that I have been re-victimized over the last 2 weeks after I had the courage to come forward," Swetnick said in a statement released by Michael Avenatti, an anti-Trump attorney who represents her. "I had every right to come forward and I literally placed my life in jeopardy to do so."

In an interview with NBC last week, Swetnick could not say whether she ever saw Kavanaugh or his friend Mark Judge spike the punch at Maryland house parties with drugs -- seemingly contradicting her prior sworn statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, in which she definitively said that she "became aware" of efforts by Kavanaugh and Judge to do so in the early 1980s.

But on Sunday, Swetnick stuck with her original statement, and took a shot at Collins for "caring more about politics than women and victims."

"I stated the truth in my sworn declaration and I stand by everything in it," Swetnick wrote, noting that she has previously passed "six security clearance investigations" and knows of "multiple corroborating witnesses."

Swetnick gave NBC News the names of four friends she said could corroborate her story. The network said two of those people had not responded to requests for comment, a third was deceased and a fourth said he could not recall knowing Swetnick. Kavanaugh has called Swetnick's accusations a "joke."
1048938173932482561
Swetnick was not interviewed as part of the FBI's recently supplemental background check into Kavanaugh, and the White House has said it did not find her claims believable. In her letter, Swetnick charged that Republican senators had "purposely prevented any inquiry into my claims and those of other sexual assault victims in the interest of politics."

Swetnick's credibility has taken a beating in recent days, with one ex-boyfriend telling Fox News she "exaggerated everything" and had threatened to kill his unborn child. Another ex-boyfriend similarly cast doubt on her credibility, as reports surfaced that she had previously been sued by a previous employer for allegedly concocting false sexual harassment claims.

That lawsuit, which Avenatti called "bogus," was filed by Portland-based Webtrends before the company voluntarily dismissed its complaint.

In a telling sign that perhaps Swetnick had lost the confidence of even top Democrats, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Friday didn't mention Swetnick or her accusations in her remarks from the Senate floor at all, choosing instead to focus on uncorroborated claims of sexual misconduct by Ford and another accuser, Deborah Ramirez.

For his part, Avenatti has lashed out on Twitter in recent days against the suggestion that his decision to promote Swetnick's claims had ultimately helped Republicans secure Kavanaugh's confirmation by discrediting other attacks against the then-nominee.

"This argument is complete nonsense," Avenatti unapologetically wrote late Saturday. (President Trump has repeatedly called Avenatti, who has 2020 presidential ambitions and represents a porn star suing him, a complete "low-life.")

Avenatti then appeared to endorse a scorched-earth approach going forward, drawing a contrast with former First Lady Michelle Obama, who urged supporters to "go high" when political opponents take the low road.

"When they go low, we hit harder," Avenatti wrote on Twitter. "There is far too much at stake for any other approach."

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/924/P9fHxj.jpg

:roll:

[PorkChopSandwiches]

Shes a loon

[RBP]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/924/P9fHxj.jpg

:roll:

What's even more ridiculous is that the leftist lunatics would lose their minds if Roe V Wade was actually used as the standard.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/800x600q90/924/V4HSID.jpg

[PorkChopSandwiches]

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford

[lost in melb.]

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford

https://media.tenor.com/images/c4e101a712c6ba2a8322b320575da0a7/tenor.gif

[PorkChopSandwiches]

https://i.redd.it/n1h0brwj5zq11.jpg