Kavanaugh is about to get the Merick Garland treatment!

[iolo]

apparently you haven't looked at Congress or SCOTUS make up. Hillary was a warmonger -find someone else

You did that - or rather your masters did - and we are seeing the incredible results. Jesus wept!

 

[Darth Omar]

I'm not even following that. It's allnoise untile I see it in context.
what also makes perfect sense is Feinstein waits until AFTER the hearing s and drops the bomb.
Then the woman who requested anonymity decides she no longer wants it.

Plus the woman scrubs her social media ,which looks like she was into 'da resistance"
It's a he said she said, except the she said part id now considered gospel

She has three big strikes against her that I can see:

Inconsistencies in the account; her parents got an unfavorable ruling from Kavanugh’s father who was a judge; and she scrubbed her online presence.

There’s plenty there to work with if you’re a Republican asking questions in the hearing. The last two give her a possible motive to smear Kav. The only reason she would scrub the internet would be to keep people from seeing how rabid a partisan she is.

I’ll wager she’s stark raving.

 

[Minister of Truth]

and the republicans would not allow the other women to testify who corroborated the story then too

Some people don't like being lied to. Anyway, another friendly reminder that it's Dems (as always) who have blood on their hands, after the Estrada affair.

 

[Stretch]

She has three big strikes against her that I can see:

Inconsistencies in the account; her parents got an unfavorable ruling from Kavanugh’s father who was a judge; and she scrubbed her online presence.

There’s plenty there to work with if you’re a Republican asking questions in the hearing. The last two give her a possible motive to smear Kav. The only reason she would scrub the internet would be to keep people from seeing how rabid a partisan she is.

I’ll wager she’s stark raving.

True. One correction...Kav's mother Martha was the judge.

 

[Stretch]

Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh was a Maryland district judge in 1996. In an amazing coincidence, Martha Kavanaugh was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey-Ford’s parents were the defendants. Now it all becomes clear. Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh, not because of what he did in high school. Instead, Christine Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh out of spite and revenge for a case rulled on by Brett Kavanaugh mother. Martha Kavanaugh, Brett’s mother was Montgomery County Circuit Court judge from 1993 until she retired in 2001. During a 1996 foreclosure case, Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey-Ford in a foreclosure case.

The foreclosure case against Paula K. Blasey and Ralph G. Blasey was opened on August 8, 1996. The case number is 156006V.

Isn’t it kind of amazing that all the media reports today didn’t mention this little conflict of interest for Blasey-Ford?


https://www.pacificpundit.com/2018/0...s-foreclosure/

 

[LV426]

I'm not even following that. It's allnoise untile I see it in context.
what also makes perfect sense is Feinstein waits until AFTER the hearing s and drops the bomb.
Then the woman who requested anonymity decides she no longer wants it

If Conservatives sat on this incident, what else are they sitting on? 96% of Brett's e-mails from when he was a Bush the Dumber toady are being withheld.

Plus the woman scrubs her social media ,which looks like she was into 'da resistance"
It's a he said she said, except the she said part id now considered gospel

Well, she took a lie detector and passed.

He lied under oath.

Then this "letter" showing support of 65 women appears hours after the accusation is made public.

So the GOP knew about this and didn't bring it up in his hearing; what else did they find that they didn't bring up?

 

[LV426]

Obviously it has something to do with the predictability of the Democrat Party Lying Machine.

There's only one way to find out; subpoena them.

I bet most of them never received any sort of communication from Grassley.

I bet most of the women in his letter either didn't actually sign it, or simply don't exist.

 

[Stretch]

If Conservatives sat on this incident, what else are they sitting on? 96% of Brett's e-mails from when he was a Bush the Dumber toady are being withheld.




Well, she took a lie detector and passed.

He lied under oath.

Then this "letter" showing support of 65 women appears hours after the accusation is made public.

So the GOP knew about this and didn't bring it up in his hearing; what else did they find that they didn't bring up?

Lie detector tests mean squat. Easy as heck to pass one of those while lying.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

She has three big strikes against her that I can see:

Inconsistencies in the account; her parents got an unfavorable ruling from Kavanugh’s father who was a judge; and she scrubbed her online presence.

There’s plenty there to work with if you’re a Republican asking questions in the hearing. The last two give her a possible motive to smear Kav. The only reason she would scrub the internet would be to keep people from seeing how rabid a partisan she is.

I’ll wager she’s stark raving.

I'm not sure how it's possible to think the bolded.

It's fairly common when people come under scrutiny like this to get rid of their online presence. Not sure if you've noticed, but there is quite a bit of negative chatter about her on the ol' internet right now.

 

[LV426]

Lie detector tests mean squat.

Well that's certainly a new position Conservatives have.

Suddenly, lie detectors aren't reliable? Then why do they want to have everyone at the WH submit to one to find out who wrote that Op-Ed?

Easy as heck to pass one of those while lying.

I guess you would know...

 

[Teflon Don]

ccording to the Post, Ford has an imperfect memory of the events. “Ford said she does not remember how the gathering came together the night of the incident.… She also doesn’t recall who owned the house or how she got there.” She does seem to remember the county, and this will no doubt be helpful to the committee if she musters the courage to appear. She never mentioned the event to anyone until 2012, when she attended couples therapy. The therapist’s notes from those sessions conflict with her current story but she claims that is an error on the therapist’s part. Her basic story goes thus:

She alleges that Kavanaugh — who played football and basketball at Georgetown Prep — held her down with the weight of his body and fumbled with her clothes, seemingly hindered by his intoxication. [Kavanaugh classmate Mark] Judge stood across the room, she said, and both boys were laughing “maniacally.” She said she yelled, hoping that someone downstairs would hear her over the music, and Kavanaugh clapped his hand over her mouth to silence her.

She escaped by locking herself in the bathroom, from whence she emerged after a few minutes. She isn’t sure how she got home. That’s pretty much it. This event happened 36 years ago among adolescents. The victim and the villain were under the influence of alcohol and the former can’t remember half of the details — yet somehow recalls enough to ruin the latter’s career. The latter says it never happened. This is why we have the Sixth Amendment, folks. Anonymous accusers enjoy little credibility and less respect among honorable people. These are characteristics they share with Democrats and journalists

Let's not forget that the "therapists" notes conflict with what she is saying today. The "therapists" notes say there were four boys in the room when she claims to have been assaulted. Today she says it is only two of them. That is a pretty big discrepancy. She claims the therapist got it wrong. But, who are you going to believe? The transcribed note at the time it was said or what the accuser says today? I think any court of law would put more weight into the written word

 

[Ralph]

Let us see if this left wing democrat prof has the (wink, wink) BALLS to testify "UNDER OATH" to congress....when...if proven to be lying through the preponderance of evidence (at least 50% of her statements are proven to be obvious and premeditated untruths)….carries a possible prison sentence of up to 5 years under US CODE 18 section 1001. Something as serious as a SCOTUS appointment indeed would set a great example for those involved in the 11hr "ME TOO" accusation.....for future legal precedent.

Enjoy the show....and lets see how far the left is willing to go...UNDER OATH.




POPCORN ANYONE? Everyone realizes that "Chairman" Grassley has the authority to demand these statements from both sides plus witnesses be heard behind closed doors, and can be as long or as brief as the chairmen sees fit when its obvious who is telling the truth and who is lying....no?

 

[Stretch]

Good news for America, bad news for Kavanaugh:

"Washington (CNN)Debra Katz, the lawyer for a woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, said Monday that her client would be willing to testify in public to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/debra-katz-christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh/index.html

Yeah but they're not too anxious for Ford to open her mouth, no one's invited her yet. LOL
I can't wait for her to start yapping.

 

[Stretch]

Well that's certainly a new position Conservatives have.

Suddenly, lie detectors aren't reliable? Then why do they want to have everyone at the WH submit to one to find out who wrote that Op-Ed?
I guess you would know...

Yes I DO know. I posted elsewhere about my own experience with lying on those things and getting away with it 46 years ago at a job I had which required them every 2 months.

 

[MAGA MAN]

There's only one way to find out; subpoena them.

I bet most of them never received any sort of communication from Grassley.

I bet most of the women in his letter either didn't actually sign it, or simply don't exist.

Meh. Waste of time. Say hello to Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh.

Then be prepared to say goodbye to Race Baiter Ginsberg, the corpse currently on life support.

 

[LV426]

Meh. Waste of time. Say hello to Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh

Ahhh, you want to move on because you don't want the process to be put under the microscope. Why? Well, because it's going to reveal bad faith actions by the GOP during this process...and it likely wouldn't be the first time they did this either.

So Grassley invents 65 women who say Brett's a good guy, doesn't provide their signatures on a document he says they signed, then bristles when called on his bluff.

The reason Grassley won't call these 65 women to testify on behalf of Brett is because they don't exist, right?

 

[MAGA MAN]

Ahhh, you want to move on because you don't want the process to be put under the microscope. Why? Well, because it's going to reveal bad faith actions by the GOP during this process...and it likely wouldn't be the first time they did this either.

So Grassley invents 65 women who say Brett's a good guy, doesn't provide their signatures on a document he says they signed, then bristles when called on his bluff.

The reason Grassley won't call these 65 women to testify on behalf of Brett is because they don't exist, right?

No, I want to move on because this inconsequential process should have been over already. Let's get on with the real fireworks.

 

[Ralph]

Ahhh, you want to move on because you don't want the process to be put under the microscope. Why? Well, because it's going to reveal bad faith actions by the GOP during this process...and it likely wouldn't be the first time they did this either.

So Grassley invents 65 women who say Brett's a good guy, doesn't provide their signatures on a document he says they signed, then bristles when called on his bluff.

The reason Grassley won't call these 65 women to testify on behalf of Brett is because they don't exist, right?

That's why US CODE TITLE 18 Section 1001 exists. Its time to put an end to He said, She Said.....its time to GO UNDER OATH and face a 5 year prison sentence for perjury. Let's see if the left really wants a formal hearing on the hill.

 

[LV426]

No, I want to move on because this inconsequential process should have been over already. Let's get on with the real fireworks.

But it's not because this isn't just about Brett anymore; this is about what the GOP stoops to in order to hide exculpatory information from the people who would vote on his confirmation.

Grassley made up most of those 65 women, didn't he? He forged their names to a document to provide political cover for a nominee they knew had these accusations against him.

So this isn't just about Brett; this is about how the GOP consistently and routinely acts in bad faith.

You see that bad faith trickle down to Conservatives on message boards.

 

[LV426]

That's why US CODE TITLE 18 Section 1001 exists. Its time to put an end to He said, She Said.....its time to GO UNDER OATH and face a 5 year prison sentence for perjury. Let's see if the left really wants a formal hearing on the hill.

I'm all for it. And while we're at it, subpoena all 65 of those women who supposedly signed that "Brett-is-a-good-guy-no-really-believe-me-er,um-believe-these-women-I-just-made-up".