CNN Exclusive: Judge Kavanaugh's Accuser Wants FBI Investigation Before Testifying

Her attorney is on Anderson Cooper right now, not Mrs. Ford the accuser.

Ticks me off how the accuser has been bullied, even by DJT Jr.

No legitimate investigation will happen before Monday says her attorney. So it means she will not testify Monday. You know they are going to push Kavanaugh through and won't wait.

The DOJ has already told Politico that it isn't going to happen:

A DOJ spokesman says the FBI won't get involved in investigating Kavanuagh allegations: "The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime."

Accuser has received death threats

Shit. She came forward and ruined her life for nothing.

I guess the Republicans called their bluff and she doesn't want to be interviewed under oath. Flake already said on Politico that if she doesn't show up on Monday, then he's fine with it going forward.

It's getting to the point I never want to get my hopes up any more. Trump and the Republicans keep doing evil things and they just roll over everybody.

Here's the clip

In other words it was all just a ploy to delay the confirmation hearing. But we knew that.

We live in a nation run by Brock Turners, my friends.

[quote]A DOJ spokesman says the FBI won't get involved in investigating Kavanuagh allegations: "The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime."

The FBI does background checks all the time that don't "involve any potential federal crime."

If they confirm him, I hope something truly horrific he has done comes to light before the mid-terms.

Conservatives are disgustingly immoral beings.

Calling for an “FBI investigation” doesn’t help the cause of the accuser. Obviously, the accusation involves a state crime and not a federal one, so the FBI has no jurisdiction. It’s more dramatic to shout for the FBI to do something.

A background check is not a criminal investigation. The local police would do the investigation and the FBI would add the police’s info to their file.

I'm confused. The FBI SHOULD investigate the impersonation and the death threats. They are right though that the assault is for the State of Maryland to investigate. And if the statute of limitations has passed (and it likely has) then there's nothing to be done. Now, is she asking for the FBI to investigate the assault or is she asking to investigate the threats?

[quote]The FBI SHOULD investigate the impersonation and the death threats.

If they were threats toward a federal judge, not an ordinary college professor.

AS an aside, he's going on the court folks. And the appellate courts have a lot more right wingers on them now. This battle was over before it began, and we lost. We were always going to loose. The federal judiciary is in the hands of far right. For too long, we wasted time thinking the Presidency and the Federal Courts would save us. That avenue is closed. We must work swiftly to take over state governments and legislate our agenda at that level. It's our only option now.

The FBI investigated Anita Hill's accusations. What was the federal crime she was alleging?

R17: Sexual harassment of a federal employee (her) by another federal employee (him). And NEVER link to that neocon rag EVER AGAIN.

R16's post really rankles.

"We lost big time, major losses, we can't best the Republicans. Guess we'll have to push through oir (gay?) agenda only on the local level."

Am I missing something or does it sound that way to others?

Yes, sexual harrassment by the assistant secretary of the Department of Education and the chairman of the EEOC, Clarence Thomas. Harrassment by a 17 year-old high schooler is not in the same category.

this move makes the whole thing look more like a ploy.

A lot can happen between now and Monday.

R18, was not a crime, federal or otherwise, in 1981-3. And I only linked to that site because it detailed how Hill was investigated (and mistreated IMO) by the FBI.

R19: We've been content to win the White House and rely on the federal courts to protect rights. The courts are about to be extremely hostile to us. We can win the Presidency again, we will in 2020. But the courts are for life, they're not going to change because of one election. We're going to need to build a firewall at the state level and we're going to need more blue states to do that. Activist groups need to adjust to this new reality and focus on elections, especially at state level, and stop relying on federal lawsuits to strike down laws from hostile state governments.

R18/R20, the FBI's excuse is that they aren't investigating because there's no potential federal CRIME. It's a copout. What Hill alleged was not a crime at the time either.

[quote]this move makes the whole thing look more like a ploy.

How so?

P.S.

You forgot to sign your post with MAGA!

I hope Ford and her attorneys are being strategic, letting the GOP think she might not show up Monday. And then she shows up and calls their bluff.

I can't imagine a respected statistics professor with recent and highly regarded work would have done this just "as a ploy."

If the enemy is setting the time table then don't follow the time table. This is not Grassley's to dictate. Not anymore.

R28, if you think women are something less than fully human, inherently illogical and prone to hysteria, and to be valued only for the content of their wombs, you'd have no trouble imagining just that.

You'd also be a Republican.

Anything to be done about this MAGA soldier at R9?

[quote]In other words it was all just a ploy to delay the confirmation hearing. But we knew that.

- Dianne Feinstein releases mysterious, ominous statement on Brett Kavanaugh -

[quote]Fallback position: Next week Chuck Schumer will announce he has heard rumors that somebody's third cousin twice removed whose brother in law was in second grade with Kavanaugh might or might not have seen Kavanaugh refuse to drink his milk at snacktime..

[quote]It was a really shabby trick by Feinstein. If anything it will solidify republican support for Kavanaugh. Lotsa luck picking off Collins or the others now.

[quote]So to reconcile the thread with the Guardian, no sex with an underage girl. No sexual battery. No rape. No transporting girls over state lines. No abortion. Thirty five years ago a teen boy played a dumb trick on a girl who isn't even the person making the complaint.

[quote]So Dianne is violating the poor woman's confidence?

She just set up Kavanaugh to withdraw his nomination.

If the Judiciary Committee moves forward without her testimony, there will be hell to pay on the floor of the full Senate. And on the capitol steps in front of the Senate. Anita Hill was a long, long time ago. Much has changed. If she does not testify and this moves forward, Kavanaugh will be radioactive.

But if the FBI does investigate, Kavanaugh might be risking jail. That is a long shot, but how wonderful it would be to see him before the committee, taking the Fifth Amendment.

So this was all a big nothing in the end and he'll get confirmed. Oh, well.

I'm so sick of this fucking shitfest. It feels like a roller coaster ride. I was so pumped up when Manafort agreed to work with Mueller. Today it's this shit.

I'm with you r34. I just turned up the 70's music station loud and am turning off the political stuff.

Oh, yet another Kavanaugh thread. I wondered why no one was posting much about this on the two that already exist.

[quote] I just turned up the 70's music station loud

That's good music but may I suggest some old(er) time radio. I love these old school sci-fi and suspense radio shows.

Kavanaugh is a sexual predator.

It's almost like bots and trolls just want everyone to forget this ever happened and move on.

The problem is there can be a full investigation by the FBI or any other police agency and they will never be able to prove or disprove her accusations, they happened over thirty years ago, and she can't or won't say in what house it occurred, what day it occurred, or even whom else was at the party, and there is of course no physical evidence left. Therefore they only way for this to be done is for them both to testify publicly, under oath and present any witnesses or evidence to back up their side, and for people to decide which is more credible.

BTW... I am sick of the mantra that every person must be believed when they make an accusation, because they shouldn't be. Accusations shouldn't be dismissed but it also shouldn't be believed, they should be taken seriously and investigated. If Democrats aren't careful, they may win the SC fight, but destroy #MeToo in the process.

The FBI's role isn't to prove or disprove anything. Do you not understand what an investigation is? It's gathering information, including interviewing all potential witnesses. That provides substance for the Senators to base questions on, as opposed to the shit show they want to give us.

Without an investigation, what the fuck are they going to ask? "So Ms Ford, are you lying? Did you lie to your therapist? Did you lie to your husband? You say you're not lying, but golly gee I just have a feeling you are...."

R41 but they can't properly investigate something, when she can't tell them, when or where it occurred, or who witnessed it. There is a reason for statute of limitations. Memories are faulty things.

r42 She is choosing not to tell, yet. She knows how they operate. Keep em guessing. Brett is sweatin it. He is trying to figure out if she truly knows which party he tried to rape her at so he can get an alibi.

[quote]We were always going to loose.

[bold]Lose.[/bold] We were always going to [bold]lose.[/bold]

R42, who says she can't? Again, there's been NO INVESTIGATION.

R27, that's be amazing. Like Patrick Swayze at the end of To Wong Foo, in the red dress waking down main street, empowered.

A lot can happen before Monday.

R45 according to numerous publications "Ford says she doesn’t remember many details of the event, such as how she got home, the exact year it took place, or how the gathering was put together."

[quote]"Ford says she doesn’t remember many details of the event, such as how she got home, the exact year it took place, or how the gathering was put together."

And this is why Dianne Feinstein didn't take the matter farther. This woman is very sketchy with the details and is not a reliable witness. She should at least be able to remember the year it took place.

She said she was 15. How hard it is to figure out the year the assault took place?

R49 most articles, I have seen, say around 15 not 15 exactly.

I don't believe she can't remember. Sounds like RW smears. She said she was 15. She told her therapist 6 fucking years ago. Unless she has a time machine, she is telling the truth.

Oh, that's just great, R51. Now Chuck Grassley is going to accuse her of having time machine.

Shhhhh!

Juanita Broaddrick “couldn’t remember” basic information, like what time of year it was, but the right didn’t care about that.

R51 you can't rely on what she told the therapist, because the therapist's notes say that she told her there were four boys who assaulted her, but now she says that was wrong and it was only two. Here is the article from the Washington Post, where they interviewed her. No where does it say she was 15, only that it occurred in the early 1980's.

R53 the difference is that with Bill Clinton, just like Cosby, Weinstein, etc..., there was a pattern of multiple accusations. As opposed to this case where there is one accusation, which makes credibility much more of a factor.

R42 she couldn't remember "when or where it occurred, or who witnessed it."

That's not what she told the Post. She said she couldn't remember the exact year. It doesn't say whether she remembers an approximate date or time of year. She already named a witness. It's not clear how much she remembers of the location.

Again, without a proper investigation, it's just people fishing for details.

R54, don’t link to that rag.

None of her memories much matter. Kavanaugh has lied time and again during his various confirmations. The last thing he wants is the FBI snooping in his dirty business. Once they start, he's got his own little Mueller investigation on his hands. Gawd knows what they will find. He cannot afford to have the FBI referring their findings to local prosecutors.

He's going to be scheming over-time to find out how to prevent an FBI investigation. But Anita Hill got an investigation. And her allegations surfaced only a week before the hearing. The FBI produced 22 witnesses, some for and some against Clarence Thomas. There is no reason not to have the FBI investigate these allegations, too. There will be immense pressure to do so. But if that happens, I think Kavanaugh will withdraw and lie low.

[quote]Without an investigation, what the fuck are they going to ask?

The police where the attack allegedly occurred are responsible for any such investigation.

Did Kavanaugh rape or did he not rape Mrs. Ford? Why are Republicans losing track of a simple yes or no question?

Agree r58, the only reason he wouldn't want the investigation is if he has more to hide

He does have more to hide. Talking to women he harassed during his clerkship would be the first step.

Brett Kavanaugh's morning routine

R59 local police don't report to Senate committees.

Attention Putin! Your trolls need updated American civics classes!

Another woman will come forward by Thursday. Count on it. The Repugs are pissing off the wrong group of people at the wrong fucking time.

If another woman comes forward Kavanaugh is instantly toast.

This woman has had her e-mail hacked, death threats, had to move her family to a safe place. You can see why nobody else wants to come forward.

But, still they will, R67. We're sick of this shit. He's going down just like the rest of them have been going down. We're done playing by their fucking demented rules. Two hundred and fifty women who went to school with her have already signed a real letter in support of her. The GoFundMe someone set up for her security has raised nearly $50,000 IN LESS THAN ONE DAY.

He's fucking done.

R59 is too ignorant to bear.

R68 yeah 250 women who say, they have no knowledge of this incident.

Block R59. Boris.

His money issues are totally weird.

Oh, look, another little MAGA foot soldier AKA R70! Working this thread, and this thread only, with admirable zeal!

[quote] Two hundred and fifty women who went to school with her have already signed a real letter in support of her

Over 600 signed, but going to school "with" her wasn't a criteria.

The letter Louis-Dreyfus signed onto, which boasts the signatures of nearly 600 alumnae, raised a few eyebrows when it became obvious that many who signed the letter did not know Blasey Ford or did not attend school with her. Their graduation dates ranged from 1962 to 2018.

Louis-Dreyfus, who graduated from Bethesda’s Holton-Arms School in 1979, is among those who did not attend the school at the same time as Blasey Ford, who graduated in 1984 and would not have matriculated until 1980.

According to 2005 graduate Kate Gold, another signatory, specific knowledge of Blasey Ford or her situation was irrelevant to their support. “As far as Dr. Ford’s specific allegations, it is inconsequential/irrelevant to us whether anyone has heard them before,” she said, “and in no way affects our belief that she is telling the truth.”

Good articles on Slate right now.

I can't believe, given how used to lying this man is UNDER OATH, that some of you have a hard time believing he was a sleazy teenager.

MAGA soldiers have been in full force all week.

Senile Senator Grassley planned to have the Unregistered Sex Offender and his victim sit at the same table together on Monday's circus.

Instant deal-breaker for Ford and her legal team.

American Psycho

It's a long one, the Slate article, but to give you a taste:

[quote]Men Are More Afraid Than Ever

[quote]Why Kavanaugh advocates would rather defend malfeasance than deny it.

[quote]It is a remarkable fact of American life that hordes of men are now defending sexual assault. It’s not immediately clear why. It seems like the very definition of an unforced error. But a substantial group, many of them in politics, has taken to the internet to argue that a 17-year-old football player should get to do as he likes to a 15-year-old girl—say, for example, trap her in a bedroom, violently attempt to remove her clothes, and cover her mouth to muffle her screams—without consequences to his life or reputation. The “locker room” once invoked to normalize Trump’s language (every man talks this way behind closed doors!) has expanded into a locked American bedroom with a woman trapped inside. It’s all in good fun, defenders declare. Horseplay.

[quote]Here’s the most surprising part: They’ve launched this peculiar defense despite the fact that the accused party denies it ever happened.

[quote]To be clear, there are perfectly feasible defenses of Brett Kavanaugh that others have attempted. One could respond to Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation that he assaulted her at a party while they were teenagers by saying (as some have) that we can’t know the facts or that more evidence is needed. But no: This group has opted instead to defend male impunity for sexual assault and frame a woman’s story of coping with years of trauma as a true crisis … for men. A White House lawyer was quoted saying, “If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried.” Similar things were voiced by Ari Fleischer and Joe Walsh. Per this dark vision of the future, any consequence for committing assault—even being unable to move from one lifetime appointment to another lifetime appointment—is the beginning of the end of a just society.

STOP IT. There's more than one "letter of support" for Ford.

One was signed by her actual classmates from high school.

Added on to that were various alumna of her school (including JLD).

Another was from professional colleagues who knew/know her from her psychology and teaching careers.

If she refuses to testify, Kavanaugh is in.

To give you a taste:

[quote]Brett Kavanaugh and Our Accountability Crisis

[quote]The judge is the perfect nominee for our era of elite impunity.

[quote] What’s striking about the many defenses of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in the face of a credible accusation of sexual assault when he was a teenager is how they put broad concerns over accountability and impunity into sharp relief. Calls for leniency and understanding for the judge before courts of power and opinion that may determine his career sit uncomfortably next to the treatment of young black Americans at the hands of police, or of unauthorized immigrants at the hands of border authorities.

[quote]Watching the machinery of elite power operate on behalf of Kavanaugh is both a lesson in who is entitled to second chances and absolution as well as an illustration of larger conflicts over the limits and boundaries of accountability. And read in that light, Kavanaugh is the perfect vessel for a view that puts the most privileged and powerful beyond the reach of public account.

"The possibility that Ford might not appear put a bit of a spring in Republicans’ step by Tuesday afternoon."

R80 and Kavanaugh has letters of support from numerous classmates and colleagues as well.

[quote]R80 and Kavanaugh has letters of support from numerous classmates and colleagues as well.

Yeah, classmates and colleagues who have no knowledge of this incident because they were not there, so?

Another good article just out.

[quote]The GOP Response to the Kavanaugh Allegations Sends an Unmistakable Message to Women

[quote]To understand why women overwhelmingly support a Democratic takeover of Congress—a landslide majority of 65 percent, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post survey—it’s worth parsing some of the initial Republican responses to the sexual-assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. The remarks explain why, on the cusp of the first national elections of the #MeToo era, Republicans on the ballot are confronted with a gender gap that threatens to become an unbridgeable canyon.

[quote]After Christine Blasey Ford, a clinical-psychology professor, put her name to the accusation, announcing publicly that she’d passed a polygraph and had shared her story in a 2012 therapy session, Senator Orrin Hatch, a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s all-male Republican contingent, told the cameras: “This woman, whoever she is, is mixed up.” He also said that even if the assault accusation were true, the past wouldn’t matter so much: “It would be hard for senators not to consider who he is today.”

[quote]His Republican colleague Bob Corker voiced sympathy for Kavanaugh, but none for his accuser: “I mean, I can’t imagine the horror of being accused of something like this.” Donald Trump Jr. joked on Instagram that Kavanaugh had merely had a schoolyard crush. And an unnamed lawyer close to the White House said that the alpha gender is under assault: “If somebody can be brought down by accusations like this, then you, me, every man certainly should be worried.”

[quote]After their initial defensive flurry, Republicans quickly recognized that ramming Kavanaugh’s nomination through without affording Ford an opportunity to testify under oath would be politically suicidal. But even though they’ve hit the pause button and slated a public hearing for Monday, it’s likely that many women in the electorate have already gotten the message, one that mirrors the message they’ve received from Trump Republicans all along: that the ruling patriarchy does not respect, and indeed feels threatened by, the power of women.

[quote]Come November, these dynamics could have serious consequences for the Republicans on the ballot. The gender gap—essentially, the difference in the way men and women vote—has generally plagued the GOP at the national level since 1992, when, in the so-called Year of the Woman, Democrats won back the White House after 12 years in the wilderness. Bill Clinton was buoyed by strong female support, and the gap was even wider when he won reelection in 1996. That year, male voters split more or less evenly between Clinton and his challenger, Bob Dole, but women favored Clinton by 18 percentage points.

R85 That was my point, they both have support of classmates and colleagues with no knowledge of what happened so that cancels each other out.

[quote][R85] That was my point, they both have support of classmates and colleagues with no knowledge of what happened so that cancels each other out.

No, that was not your point. Your point was to invalidate her story.

Of course all these people will sign letters of support for Ford. Because it was incredibly stupid and short-sighted for the 65 "friends of Kavanaugh" to rush out their letter of support.

She's stalling

This is how you phrased it, R88.

[quote]R68 yeah 250 women [bold]who say, they have no knowledge of this incident.[/bold]

[quote]R80 and Kavanaugh has letters of support from numerous classmates and colleagues as well.

Block the fuckers.

R89 No, my point is that just because she has people supporting her that doesn't validate her story. What people like you are setting up is a world, not unlike how white women in the segregated south could have any black man lynched if she said he had looked at her. That is what is wrong with "believing" the victim. Accusations do not have to be believed to be treated seriously. An accusation should be neither believed or disbelieved, they should be taken as what they are an accusation, that then has to be proven or disproved.

R94, read what you wrote quoted at R92. You've been working very hard on this thread to discriminate the woman and you have nothing on Kavanaugh's part (he says he has no memory of the incident) to back up your suspicions.

Lawrence O'Donnell and his guests were kvelling about Team Ford's "brilliant" legal strategy, but they don't understand how the Republicans on the Committee don't care if she doesn't show up on Monday. They're going to ram the Unregistered Teen Sex Offender through without regard to morals, ethics, concern for female voters, the implication that BK is guilty as charged, or anything other than the attainment of power.

I have not tried to "discriminate" the woman, whatever you mean by that. R95 Sorry, I didn't spell it out but I meant that neither group of supporters had knowledge of the incident, which I thought would be clear to anyone with half a brain that read my post.

"What people like you are setting up is a world, not unlike how white women in the segregated south could have any black man lynched if she said he had looked at her."

You just showed your ass, R94. Rich white boy Kavanaugh is not being lynched, not in any way shape or form. Lynchings were extra judicial activities that were often undertaken with the cover of sham trials. Here, the VICTIM, not the accused, is the one asking for due process, and the accused's supporters are the ones trying to railroad her with a sham hearing. The VICTIM is the one getting death threats and who had to evacuate her own home. The accused is the one who has already lied under oath.

I omitted "against" when I wrote discriminate. Should have taken my time before hitting post.

[quote]Sorry, I didn't spell it out but I meant that neither group of supporters had knowledge of the incident, which I thought would be clear to anyone with half a brain that read my post.

Well, in these two comments you are dismissive of only one group of supporters:

[quote] [R68] yeah 250 women who say, they have no knowledge of this incident.

[quote][R80] and Kavanaugh has letters of support from numerous classmates and colleagues as well.

R98: how can she have due process when the statute of limitations has passed?

This happened 36 years ago. Why is she coming forward now? He’s been judge and powerful man in Washington for many years, so why now? If it’s been so traumatic involving therapy only 6 years ago, why now?

We all know the answer to that. ...

I don’t know how the fbi can get involved - as Anita hill was a federal employee - that made it a federal investigation. But Ford is a private citizen, and with the statute of limitations long gone, how can they even investigate?

[quote]But Ford is a private citizen, and with the statute of limitations long gone, how can they even investigate?

Like this:

(taken from another thread - thank you, poster who wrote this0

[quote]You are being willfully obtuse to suggest that the FBI's has no jurisdiction in this matter because it is a state criminal offense beyond the statute of limitations. They are not investigating it as a crime that would be prosecuted, but rather as part of a comprehensive background investigation to see is KavaNO is a suitable candidate for the position to which he has been nominated. They do this every damn day. They have a whole unit at the Bureau dedicated just to performing background investigations. This is a classic example of something that they would investigate.

[quote]Many years ago there was a candidate whose background investigation had been completed. But, before he was nominated, allegations surfaced about an extramarital affair with a subordinate in his office. And, the FBI investigated those claims. It wasn't a criminal investigation, and neither is this. (And, the candidate in that case didn't make it.)

[quote]So please, stop making the absurd claim that this is beyond the jurisdiction of the FBI. It is not.

[quote]This happened 36 years ago. Why is she coming forward now? He’s been judge and powerful man in Washington for many years, so why now? If it’s been so traumatic involving therapy only 6 years ago, why now?

That is why there should be an investigation, but Republican's do not want one. Hence the hearing.

The woman in question WANTS an investigation.

The Democrats WANT an investigation.

The Republicans do NO WANT an investigation.

Where do you stand on this, R100?

[quote] What people like you are setting up is a world, not unlike how white women in the segregated south could have any black man lynched if she said he had looked at her.

Jesus, guy. It's bad enough you're a troll, but a sociopath too?

Ford should show up.

On Monday as Grassly is about to adjourn the hearing, the doors will open and ...

I didn't think this thread was gay enough.

The woman says she was wearing a bathing suit. That should help some other people who were at the party at least remember both of them being at a pool party. Anyway, what about the friend witness who does not wish to testify? Why not?

Republican's = Republicans

R46, are you kidding?

Empowering isn't the word I'd choose . . .

Mwah r106 that was perf !

[quote]An accusation should be neither believed or disbelieved, they should be taken as what they are an accusation, that then has to be proven or disproved.

Maybe one day we will arrive at that point. But right now, this country is undergoing a cultural correction. For years and years and years, this sort of behavior against women was tolerated and inculcated and embedded into the fabric of our society. The principles of due process are not going to get us where we need to be on this issue. So what we are seeing can accurately and fairly be described as an over-correction. At the moment, all it takes is a credible accusation in order to do serious damage to an accused individual's reputation, career, and livelihood. Is that fair? At the individual level, no, it is not fair. And there have probably been more than a few people who have lost everything despite being guilty of nothing. But at the broader level, in terms of our culture itself, it is fair and it is what we need. For the time being, we have made a decision as a culture that we will accept the possibility of going too far, so that we can eventually establish the equilibrium that is required. Eventually, once we reach equilibrium, we will absolutely have to revert to the usual due process mechanisms. But this is not the moment for us to do that. In fact, this is the exact wrong moment for us to do that. If Brett Kavanaugh is treated differently than every other person accused of sexual assault during the past year and a half, then that would underscore and underline the central point behind the #MeToo movement: that far too often, powerful men get away with abhorrent crimes against women.

Brett Kavanaugh needs to be taken out. Then we can talk about due process.

R100 that was a whole lot of words to tell us you have no clue what you're taking about.

R112 wrote "Brett Kavanaugh needs to be taken out. Then we can talk about due process."

In NORTH KOREA, perhaps! Sheesh!

Except for your last sentence, I really like your post, r112.

R112 I disagree that due process needs to be suspended, anytime YOU think it ought to be. jfc

How long will Trump hold out before he cuts Kavanaugh loose? It’ll happen when McConnell tells Trump the votes are no longer there to confirm him. Trump should have listened to McConnell in the first place when he advised against picking Kavanaugh.

[quote]And there have probably been more than a few people who have lost everything despite being guilty of nothing.

There isn't a single man accused but not convicted of sexual assault who has lost everything. They all get second third fourth fifth chances, and usually all they lose is some status.

The GOP judicial committee (all white males) has already refused to release BK's full archived information. The Dems received a mere10% of Kavanaugh's judicial history on the night before the start of the confirmation hearings. So there must be something they don't want the public to see. They have filed a lawsuit to release this archive information That's one.

Two: Kavanaugh has not said anything of material to the questions he was asked. It's either 'I don't recall' or 'I will not answer any hypothetical question'. When he denies knowing Clinton's emails were stolen back in Dubya's investigation, he was caught lying and he knew Clinton"s emails were hacked and he even CC'd his reply as "spying".

Three: he claimed he'd never seen or heard about Kozinski's infamous Gag list e-mails (sexually tinged and highly misogynistic running jokes). There's proof that he did at least know about it since they released some of it in print.

This is concealment and perjury! The Dems have already laid down tracks for criminal malfeasance on Kavanaugh for later down the line if he is confirmed. And they can add this new assault victim. There's going to be a reckoning for him. If he is seated on the Supreme Court, he won't be there for long.

Only a Southern lady would think ‘Oh, you hate my family? Here, have a cupcake.'”

This just bubbled up, courtesy of Senator Elizabeth Warren.

What a dumb ass this guy is. A coddled, spoiled dumbass. While his statement falls a wee bit short of meeting the standard needed to wrap this baby up, it is damning, nonetheless. And it never should have been uttered in a public forum at an event being videotaped.

It does prove conclusively that Kavanaugh is just too fucking stupid to be a judge, anywhere.

La Senatrice: "It is imperative the Judiciary committee move forward on the Kavanaugh nomination and a committee vote be taken as soon as possible.”

The unedited undistorted version of Warren's jacked post.

The full context of the video, that Warren left out, shows Kavanaugh was merely making a warm-up joke.

“I, by coincidence, three classmates of mine at Georgetown Prep were graduates of this law school in 1990 and are really really good friends of mine,” Kavanaugh said, and named his three friends.

“And they were good friends of mine then, and they are still good friends of mine as recently as this weekend when we were all on email together,” he added. Then he made the joke that got a few laughs from the audience.

This dude is totally guilty. It totally happened, no question.

The sad fact is republicans just don’t care. They’re ok with it.

Let’s see if they really go through with this. There will be an outrage when all the working people who don’t have time to follow the news figure out what they are doing.

If it could tank Roy Moore, then they are all in trouble come November.

How do you know he is “totally guilty”, r124? Just wondering. I’m curious what makes you so sure. Do you think that a description of a letter is enough to make you certain?

We haven’t with our eyes seen her or him, make statements, so that we can assess who is credible. We just have written reports of other writings.

He’s guilty because he has an R after his name. Al Franken and co are totally innocent though.

The GOP knows he's guilty. Why else parade the wife and kids, the basketball Lolitas he loves, and that fake testimonial letter ready to pull out of the top drawer?

R125, Democrats are desperate to get rid of Kavanaugh. They couldn’t care less if it’s true or not. This is all they have. Spare me the “think of the poor woman” routine when this board calls women and the MeToo movement every name in the book. It’s only when it’s convenient do posters suddenly side with the alleged victim.

[quote]He’s guilty because he has an R after his name. Al Franken and co are totally innocent though.

Franken resigned. Will your Republican hope resign?

R126/R128 also started this thread:

- Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is slammed for wearing $3,500 outfit to pose for a magazine shoot with New York construction workers -

It's good to know you are a Republican.

Block him, R130. That Ocasio thing he posted was utterly disingenuous.

Blocking for sure.

"Democrats are desperate to get rid of Kavanaugh. They couldn’t care less if it’s true or not. This is all they have."

Actually, no. They also have him lying under oath, his shady finances, and his disturbing views on presidential powers. The problem is the GOP is so corrupt, they don't even bother pretending to care anymore.

We will never have a “What did the president know, and when did he know it?” type moment again.

No one is questioning his guilt, of course he did it.

They are only concerned with ramming this through while everybody else is working an actual job. Something that repugs know little about. They are too busy milking Uncle Sam for every nickel they can get.

But believe me when the average person figures out that yet another abuser of women is on a the high court, and another privileged, spoiled prick got away with it it will be the defining issue of 2018.

These skull and bones types never have to work a day in their life, they sit on these benches and judge others, all while never having to lift an actual finger.

They plot against and scheme and destroy those who are less fortunate for sport.

They use the leftover blue-blooded laws on the books to force average citizens to bend to their whims and carry their water.

Enough is enough.

Morning Joe, normally the go-to place for Trump antagonism, was surprisingly supportive today of the Republican decision to move to a Judiciary committee vote on Kavanaugh next Wednesday, rejecting Dem demands for an investigation of Christine Ford's allegations.

Mika Brzezinski accused the Democrats of "moving the goal posts." Joe Scarborough and Mike Barnicle scoffed at the idea of an FBI investigation: "investigate what?" Anti-Trump Republican Susan Del Percio said if Ford is not willing to testify on Monday, "what right does she have to delay this or ask for the FBI investigation?"

Because she was assaulted by this judge. I think that’s reason enough?

England circa 1650 called...

This guy is on line 2...

Joe Scarborough is a Republican team player, through and through.

There are very few never-Trumpers who are ideologically opposed to Trump (including his misogyny), they just want to preserve their careers after he goes down in flames.

G

U

I

L

Y

Y

It's clear that the Republicans do not consider sexual assault a crime. This means nothing to women with silver spoons and rich GOP cock in their mouths.

I consider Mika the barometer of American thought on #MeToo and even Mika is siding with the Republicans now on the hearing date.

This is destroying lives.

[Quote] No one is questioning his guilt, of course he did it.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

I consider Mika the barometer of American thought on vapidity.

How many hushed rapes has Joe committed in his day? And how many times has Mika hooked her way around?

In other words, no surprise that they are on board with looking the other way.

Mika isn't the barometer on anything. And public support for Kavanaugh is a historic low for a SCOTUS nominee.

Wait until the working people get a whiff of this.

More like a blue tsunami.

This guy must be an excellent judge if they’re willing to risk it all for him.

Hope it backfires and they all get sent packing.

Kavanaugh's guilt is secondary to the lawless approach being used by the GOP to push this through. They finally realized that this 'we are a nation of laws' business is just too confining for them and will not accommodate their plans to acquire power. They are willing ignore anything in their way and are just fine with avoiding any effort to enforce the law against themselves.

At this point, we are no longer governed by the Constitution. We are governed by sick fucks like Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley and their ad hoc decisions about what best suits them. If the FBI does not investigate this allegation, the stink of it never comes off Kavanaugh or the Supreme Court. It's a huge loss for everyone concerned, except for short sighted politicians like Grassley and McConnell who care for nothing but their own personal grasp on power.

This became a diversion from the things that could have potentially stopped him. The accuser actually did him a favor with this.

Don't forget the power hungry like Cruz and Nunes who support the release of the FBI data. They will go down in history as complicit. Don't count on it, R151. They now have time to read the mountain of shit they tried to hide and go after him.

R151, oh really, genius? Name the Republicans who were oh so ready to vote against him and for what reason until this accuser came along.

Can we later Impeach K, after we get Trump out of the White House? One can impeach a SCOTUS no?

The notion that the stink of it will never come off Kavanaugh is pointless. Clarence Thomas is only age 70 and has done nothing except occupy a chair - AND VOTE. This smug fucker will be the same way - as time goes by, attention will revert back to Trump and other issues, and this bastard will be taking up a space on the SC - and VOTING. And he's only 52. McConnell, Grassley will die - hopefully sooner rather than later - and the national attention span will forget who did and said what, and this fucker will sit on the court for LIFE - VOTING.

It's so fucked.

She’s full of shit. Sad for the people that were really attacked.

I'm sad for your poor grasp of English grammar, Boris.

R153 Bite me, cunt. Seriously.

[quote] R120: This happened 36 years ago. Why is she coming forward now? He’s been judge and powerful man in Washington for many years, so why now? If it’s been so traumatic involving therapy only 6 years ago, why now?

This is an absurd question that might seem reasonable at first, but is not at all reasonable with a little thought.

Firstly, it is perfectly understandable, reasonable, and common, for a 15 year old not to come forward. The victim puts this out of their mind, and may tell no one, ever. The longer a person is silent, the harder it is to decide to come forward.

The criminal then starts attaining positions of power, but first goes unnoticed by the victim. By the time the victim does notice, the criminal is already in a powerful position (more than before, I mean). After that, the victim, if she even hears about the criminal’s career advancement, wrestles with the idea that it is already too late, he’s already in a powerful position, she might not feel up to the effort, she might not want to put her husband, parents, and children through this, and times goes by. She knows she will be vilified, and for what? She’s going to get absolutely nothing for her efforts except possibly a great financial expense and maybe a ruined career. Nothing. Nobody is throwing her a parade. Ask Anita Hill. People aren’t going to believe her.

Final, a SCOTUS nomination. The victim can’t ignore this. Even in far away California, his decisions will affect her family. Maybe the metoo movement emboldened her. This is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. So, she comes forward.

I submit to you, this - regardless of this particular matter. If anyone, anyone at all, cannot understand the above, the humans dynamics involved in “why now” - they are unfit to hold any public office. Writing as a man who was sexually harassed by two different men, and by one woman over the years, I know enough that the question “why now” is an incredibly stupid question. As someone who occasionally learned, late, that old friends of mine have claimed the ranks of the judiciary and the Navy, I know I wouldn’t know what an old criminal aquaintence was doing with his career. It’s a stupid question that demonstrates a lack of adult experience and an absence of compassion and imagination.

To,dr: it is simply stupid that armchair warriors demand to know why a particular victim did not fall on their sword years before. Just asking the question should disqualify someone from the judiciary.

R158 no matter where you're bit, you cannot name a single thing that would have cause the GOP to put a stop to Kavanaugh.

It's not an absurd question. She would have had a better chance of stopping W from putting him on the federal bench.

30+ year old he said she said. From high school. There's no there there.

Whoever leaked Blasey's name out needs to be jailed for outing her.

Blocking the cult members makes this thread peaceful and informative.

Not sure why so many of us want to argue with them. It's a cult — reason does not govern them. No argument will change their minds. There is no fair play, recognizing facts as facts.

Make your lives more peaceful and pleasant. Block Trump cultists.

They want to shoot him down because of a he said she said. But they're okay with Beto's rap sheet.

It's hilarious how they fall back on cliches like "he said she said" when there's at least one WITNESS. Who REFUSES to testify.

But deplorables aren't known for their smarts.

Ignore it, R166. Nothing meaningful comes from them.

Hahahahaaa R165, is that the latest? Beto, who never laid a hand on anyone, who took his hits in the criminal justice system, and who has repeatedly owned up to what he did?

Yeah, go with that comparison.

R166, it doesn't seem hilarious to me. At this point it's predictable and boring. Same cult nonsense, iterated for the current big story.

I guess some still find it simulating to engage with the cult drones.

He could probably get away with his youthful drunken indiscretion if he were honest about it, but he is probably lying. That is a crime.

I have blocked so many Russian/RW trolls on this thread. They are going bonkers.

All sociopaths who, like others have pointed out, are cult members.

Does Brett have a mushroom head cock too????

What's the point of Monday's hearing again?

Hatch, if hearings found her allegations to be credible: "If that was true, I think it would be hard for senators to not consider who the judge is today. That’s the issue. Is this judge a really good man? And he is. And by any measure he is."

Ford’s Lawyer Holds Firm in New Statement: ‘Rush to a Hearing is Unnecessary’

Can someone start a thread about this.

Jeffrey Toobin on AC 360 is pissed. Said if this woman does not testify on Monday Kavanaugh will be confirmed, period. Referred to her as “Ms. Ford.” Ouch.

r175, why don't you fucking start the thread yourself? Why do we have this infusion of morons who have been in prison for the last 30 years? We're not your personal assistants.

Why the fuck is Jeffrey Toobin pretending anything she says at this sham hearing will make a difference?

They aren't calling any other witnesses! Not even the guys she says was also in the room!

So is every ad in a Democrat's Senate race, for the next week, going to ask: Why do Republicans want to put a Rapist on the Supreme Court? If not, why not?

Republicans = The Party of Rape and Russia

The FBI( will not get involved. They will refer it to the jurisdiction where the incident occurred, FBI was involved in Anita case because she and the accused were both federal employees.

Begone troll at R181.

Why do Rapists always want to stamp out abortion? Is it because they feel they have a right to have their genes spread, whether anyone agrees or not?

This woman and her lawyer stated that she would testify. Now they won't. An FBI investigation is not going to happen. This is coy, lame and pointless. It will make Kavanaugh and his boosters look justified.

Sick at how this has gone.

What were you expecting, R184? A real hearing? Republican Senators withholding judgment? A deeper investigation? Are you that naive?

R183 it's also about controlling women and their bodies.

Everyone must go for the jugular on this. No more holding back. Call the Republicans what they are, Rapists and Rapist enablers. Call it out on the ads, call it out on the campaign trail, call it out on the floor of the Senate and the steps of the Capitol. The moment has arrived. Don't play around with this. This is a pro-Rape Party pure and simple. Make that clear.

Trump, the actual head of the party, is very pro-Rape. Don't shy away from noticing that fact, and asking why Republicans don't seem to give a shit that the head of their party is pro-Rape.

R184, quit blaming the victim. The republicans are setting this up as a she said he said scenario. They only want him and her to testify (no corroborating witnesses) and they don't want an investigation. Why is that?

It’s to the point now that you’ll have to have committed sexual assault to be a GOP nominee.

R188 The Dems would have a stronger hand if we hadn't defended Bill Clinton.

R189 She's refusing to testify. I can't blame her, I wouldn't want to go through that either. But this is over, at this point.

Who are the other characters?

What are their names?

Pics? I want to see what the people who are covering for this guy look like.

Nothing is over R191. Nothing. This is how very weak Democrats think. Oh noes, they pushed back, quick, quick, EVERYONE FOLD! Don't think like that. Think for a second like a Republican. How can we make this not over? How can we bring it back to the truth, that Republicans really, really, really want to put a Rapist on the Supreme Court?

Oh, garbage, r191, on both counts. Her testifying, or refusing to testify, clearly wasn't going to influence Senate Republicans. And nobody gives a shit about Bill Clinton.

They need to run ads full of doe-eyed pregnant 12 year olds and ask, "Is this who you want deciding your daughter's future?"

Always come back to the central question: WHY are Republicans so anxious to push a Rapist onto the Supreme Court as quickly as possible? Make it the question this week.

R193 We don't have the votes, we never did. 4 Democrats are expected to vote for him. It was over as soon as he was nominated. This did not help. It just makes it look like a culture war thing, when there are legitimate reasons not to let him be seated on the SCOTUS bench.

I'll even be a "reasonable Democrat" and say Possible Rapist

again Good Old Give Up in Advance Democrat, R197. No thanks.

R196 And then Republicans say "Bill Clinton". This is why we should not have defended him. It's come back to bite us in the ass.

R199 Gold old "miracles can happen" Dem. VOTE in the midterms. That's the way out!

And then Democrats laugh their asses off if Republicans pull that shit, R200. Clinton is over. Nobody gives a shit. And no, it did not, and will not "bite us in the ass." You're not even trying to make sense.

Get lost with your concern trolling R200. Nobody is talking about Bill Clinton. They are talking about Clarence Thomas and Al Franken. Sen. Collins is getting a ton of heat for "believing" Franken's accusers right away and demanding his resignation while now getting mealy mouthed about Ford.

nobody cares, R201. Nobody cares what happened 1000 years ago (in political time). Nobody but a very weak Democrat even thinks like that. No Republican has ever cared about the lies they told for Nixon, or during Iran Contra, or in the leadup to the Iraq War. Nobody, not one. Put that nonsense aside. Nobody cares about Clinton, or even Anita Hill. Make them care about THIS. It really isn't that difficult.

[quote]This did not help.

It also did not hurt.

[quote]It just makes it look like a culture war thing

Sexual assault is no longer a "culture war thing."

[quote]when there are legitimate reasons not to let him be seated on the SCOTUS bench.

None of which Republicans give a shit about.

Rape is visceral, Rape is a thing, Rape will make every woman and most men sit up and take notice. The fact that Kavanaugh would whore for every useless asshole of a corporation doesn't matter to most people. But Rape, actual real rape of women, that will actually matter to people.

^ Sorry, I should have said no one of consequence is talking about Clinton. The deplorables are of course, but they'd support Kavanaugh even if someone came forward with video proof of the assault. Plus they always obsess about the Clintons, just like they obsess about pizzagate, Benghazi!!11!, crisis actors and the wall.

r206, have you met people? Straight men, even supposedly progressive ones, hate women. Most straight men either have sexually assaulted a woman (or more) or would have if they thought they could have gotten away with it. They despise women. The only way the cultural reverberations of that changes is when women and gay men hold a majority of governing positions.

most straight men do not hate women. Though a surprising number do. But regardless, the idea of putting a Rapist on the Supreme Court is grotesque to the vast majority of Americans. Democrats need to grow a spine about this, and make that the issue.

r208, who do you work for?

When is DNC chairman Keith Ellison going to step down? Dems don’t have a leg to stand on.

[quote] most straight men do not hate women.

Most gay men do though.

most gay men don't actually. though there is a disturbing amount of misogyny on this board. but most don't. and again, R208, who do you work for?

When are you going to stop posting stupid shit in a pathetic attempt to change the subject, R211?

what worries me is Democrats, still, after ALL THESE GODDAMN YEARS, don't get that this is war, and don't get what war is.

Supreme Court Justices shouldn't be appointed for life. That needs to change.

THEY are so fucking vulnerable. They have shown that they are complete assholes constantly, in pretty much every situation. They worship the rich. They love to rape. They love to kill. They love to defend the worst piece of shit to ever pollute the Oval Office. And still, we hesitate to call them on it. STOP FUCKING HESITATING YOU CUNTS.

R211 is a Repub troll. FF & block.

There has been an invasion of pro-Trump trolls this week. Muriel needs to take out her red pen pronto.

I know. Many assholes, but honestly I'm more talking to the Democrats who just kind of fold all the damn time. It ain't the Republicans who piss me off, it's the stupid damn Democrats who refuse to win a damn fight that they actually can win easily.

36 years... and ford goes to Diane first - yet never went to law enforcement. Ahhhh ok. Ford is a professor, smart and accomplished woman. Yet never went through the appropriate legal channels to get this guy - INSTEAD she writes a letter to Diane..

Mmmmm Kay.

He will be confirmed as planned.

This looks like nothing more then a desperate last minute attempted stall tactic. People are not stupid.

It's amazing to me that the republicans have apparently successfully spun this ridiculous narrative that her not testifying means her allegations can be disregarded. I thought we were supposed to be getting away from it being acceptable for a bunch of old men to set a statute of limitations for when victims are allowed to tell their stories.

And the media is just eating it up. The media really are just as stupid as everyone else. It's no wonder we have such a fucking moron in office.

no this looks like another attempt to ram through a rapist for Republicanism. They held up a Supreme Court nomination for a year. they do not care about the timing or the speed. they just really, really, really want a rapist on the Court., this is what the Democrats who feel like fighting should point out.

Oh and also too, The Media "eat" what they are trained to eat. Democrats, if there are any paying attention. making them eat this: Republicans like Rapists.

[quote]This looks like nothing more then a desperate last minute attempted stall tactic. People are not stupid.

Based on your post, on the other hand, you clearly are.

It's the fault of the Republicans. Not the Democrats, not the media, the Republicans. This is solely and completely on them.

The heavy trolling on this topic is, in some sense, a positive sign. If it all was done and dusted, there would not be such aggressive trolling.

the smugness of an R221 is precisely what should piss off Democrats. Hey, here's an idea. Give a FUCKING GODDAMN about what could happen, and stop giving up in advance!

Particularly since R221 is not correct. The media hasn't completely bought into Republican spin.

The Russian bots know what they want. Do the Democrats know what they want?

Sorry. I listened to Mika this morning (I know - why????) and heard her insist that Dr. Ford needed to testify, and I just couldn't help but think, "You are just so so stupid. You're supposed to be an advocate for women? What?"

r210 = paranoid schizophrenic -- we're all out to get you!!!!

Seriously, book an appointment with a shrink so you can tell them all about how these anonymous people who are stating the obvious about institutionalized misogyny are *in actuality* masquerading as anonymous people who are stating the obvious about institutionalized misogyny.

Bill Maher is right, Democrats watch the polls, Republicans MOVE the polls. This is really, really not so hard. there is a goddamn rapist on his way to the Court. MAKE THAT MATTER.

Yes, the trolling on this thread has me blocking more bots than I have ever-combined! It is a good sign when the Russian trolls are out in droves. Speaks volumes. They are trying to distract and divide.

yes, you go with that, r230, You Berry Berry Convincing.

Some people feel that a rapist on the Supreme Court will bring the revolution immediately, if he gets in. Then things will really, you know, explode.

[quote]paranoid schizophrenic -- we're all out to get you!!!!

Actually, they were doing you a favor since what you've been posting is so amazingly stupid that they assume you must have been paid to post it. Of course, if you want to insist that it's 100% natural stupidity, no payment required, we'll be happy to take that explanation.

[quote] This looks like nothing more then a desperate last minute attempted stall tactic.

Reasonably so since DiFi had this information since July, but sat on it until a week before the scheduled vote.

The Russians are worried.

[quote]When is DNC chairman Keith Ellison going to step down? Dems don’t have a leg to stand on.

The DNC Chairman's name is Tom Perez.

You are a Repub. Why do you care about the DNC?

Are you saying that a Deputy DNC Chair (that is, in fact, Ellison's position) holds the same status and influence as a SC judge?

And when is the Republican POTUS currently in the WH and who has been accused of dozens of sexual assaults going to step down? Repubs don't have a leg to stand on.

Lastly, why are you on a progressive site when you despise everything the progressives stand for?

DLers, block this guy & ignore his threads. There is no middle ground here. There just isn't.

Another thread started by Repub at R211:

[quote]Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is slammed for wearing $3,500 outfit to pose for a magazine shoot with New York construction workers

Another Kavanaugh classmate at Georgetown Prep comes forward to state publicly that the story of the sexual assault was widely distributed throughout the school contemporaneous with the time it happened.

Lots can happen before now and Monday morning.

Funny - what a doofus in r240's post. These classmates didn't give a shit about this story 36 years ago... and suddenly the public is expected to believe this bullshit? It went through the school 36 years ago and no one did anything about it? No one told a teacher? No one went to the police? Really? But rumors flew and everyone knew about it?

Sure, Jan.

In a Facebook post, which she also removed, King further elaborated on what she claims to have known about Kavanaugh’s alleged attempts to drunkenly sexually assault Ford at a party in 1982.

“I did not know her personally but I remember her. This incident did happen,” she wrote. “Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details. However Christine’s vivid recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true.”

There are some inconsistencies with King’s account, 𝒉𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓. 𝑰𝒏 𝒂𝒏 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒗𝒊𝒆𝒘 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑾𝒂𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒕𝒐𝒏 𝑷𝒐𝒔𝒕, 𝑭𝒐𝒓𝒅 𝒔𝒂𝒊𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒔𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒊𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒍 𝒂𝒏𝒚𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒊𝒎𝒆, 𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝑲𝒊𝒏𝒈’𝒔 𝒄𝒍𝒂𝒊𝒎𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒃𝒆 𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒆, 𝑲𝒂𝒗𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒖𝒈𝒉 𝒉𝒊𝒎𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇 𝒐𝒓 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒇𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒈𝒆𝒅 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝑴𝒂𝒓𝒌 𝑱𝒖𝒅𝒈𝒆 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒐𝒍𝒅 𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒊𝒕. 𝑨𝒅𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚, 𝑭𝒐𝒓𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒈𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒐𝒄𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝒅𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒔𝒖𝒎𝒎𝒆𝒓 𝒗𝒂𝒄𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒍𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑲𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒔𝒂𝒚𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒈𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒑𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒊𝒕 𝒂𝒕 𝒔𝒄𝒉𝒐𝒐𝒍.

King went on to note that even before the allegations, “I was and still am completely against his nomination.”

“I do not want him representing me or making decisions on my behalf in the Supreme Court as he goes against everything sacred to me as [a] woman,” King stated. “If Kavanaugh truly has the integrity mentioned by those who support him, then he should be just as courageous as Christine and stop trying to dodge the accusations, admit his actions from so long ago, speak from the heart, and apologize.”

She also described the rampant drinking and general debauchery that took place among her classmates and students at Kavanaugh’s elite all-boys prep school.

In a follow-up tweet, King explained why she deleted the tweet.

[quote] Hi all, deleted this because it served its purpose and I am now dealing with a slew of requests for interviews from The Wash Post, CNN, CBS News. Organizing how I want to proceed.

---------------

oops. She tripped up herself.

Are there no journalists investigating this? Ronan? Posting a FB message is good, but it won't have a wide enough reach.

You've been blocked R211. Go to Breitbart where you belong.

Is DiFi going to be censured for this?

Censure DiFi for what, Boris? What is the "this" about which you inquire, Boris?

Olivia Benson wasn't on the force yet in 1982.

Has SVU filmed an episode based on Kavanaugh yet?

[quote] Bill Maher is right, Democrats watch the polls, Republicans MOVE the polls.

Bill Maher also just said women lie.

Bill Maher is often an ass with known attitude towards intelligent women. This does not disqualify him from commentary on other topics, but it should cause you to give him the occasional side eye when discussing women.

and ALL people lie, which is why we can usually tell when someone believes their own lies....

Who wrote that pathetic nonsense at R242? There's no inconsistency.

I have that poster on block, R151? It's a Repub troll.

She might have changed her mind...

She’s gonna testify and he’s TOAST.

Dr. Ford is my hero.

[quote]Shit. She came forward and ruined her life for nothing.

Twas ever thus.

Her conditions for testifying

"Ford’s attorney told Judiciary staff that she is open to testifying next Thursday in a public hearing in Washington assuming her safety is guaranteed, Kavanaugh testify first and no outside counsels question her. She wants them to subpoena Mark Judge. GOP will now mull it over"

I don't see them agreeing to having him testify before shes makes her accusations. I don't think Republicans are that stupid.

[quote] Guarantee her safety

As if Grassley is going to leap across the room and assault her.

[quote] and no outside counsels question her.

Res ipsa loquitur

The Judiciary Committee is exploring having an independent lawyer question Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford, should she agree to testify on Capitol Hill next week.

Having an outside lawyer do the questioning would avoid the spectacle of senators engaging in a testy back-and-forth with Ms. Blasey Ford, who has accused Judge Kavanaugh of an attempted sexual assault more than three decades ago. He has vehemently denied the allegation, and so far no corroborating witness has publicly come forward to back up Ms. Blasey Ford’s account.

Two sources familiar with the negotiations confirmed the committee is considering using a non-partisan lawyer for the questions.

A little off topic, but he shouldn’t be seated because the man who appointed him is a Russian agent and serial criminal, too.

R259, is this inquisitor “independent, outside, and non-partisan”? Or a Republican attack dog?

The Democrats are saying that this investigation [bold]will continue even if K gets appointed.[/bold] They are ready to investigate the documents that Repus have refused to release (documents pertaining to the Senate hearings from two weeks ago) in addition to these most recent accusations.

If Democrats win in November, which we all want to happen, K will be under extreme scrutiny again.

In 1969, Abe Fortas became the first—and, to date, only—Supreme Court justice to resign under the threat of impeachment. Named to the court by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965, Fortas was forced to step down due to financial improprieties that involved him agreeing to act as a paid consultant to the family foundation of a man under investigation for securities fraud.

In addition to Samuel Chase, 14 other federal judges (who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate) have been impeached over the course of American history, on charges ranging from drunkenness on the bench to accepting bribes. The first impeachment was in 1803 and the most recent was in 2010. Eight of the jurists were convicted by the Senate and removed from office, while three were acquitted and three resigned. ADVERTISEMENT

This all is so sinister. The way they are almost frantic to get him on the bench. Beyond frantic. It is a power grab straight out of a 3rd world country.

Putin will not be denied on Brett getting his SC seat.

They will still dump the guy but how long will they drag this out?

The sooner, the better.

What's interesting is that their very franticness has caused them considerable damage. And it was completely unnecessary. I still think the odds are in favor of Republicans holding the line and voting to confirm but all they had to do was wait a few extra days, give some semblance of an investigation and sympathy, then vote to confirm and they could have done that without all that much fuss or harm.

Instead, they've made it clear that the fix is in and they don't give a shit, the victim is dealing with threats, their artificial deadlines have been called into question because there is no reason for such deadlines, their unwillingness to have a deeper investigation ... all of these have caused damage.

Yes, they are scrambling, and cursing Trump for sending this nominee, who they thought had a history that was too complicated anyway. Turns out more problematical than they expected, but they are stuck with him.

Since when does the FBI need permission to investigate? I thought they just did that as a matter of course in these situations. Who has to give OK? Don’t they just investigate?

Who knew?

Isn’t anyone investigating? The Senate, the press, some partisan funded private detectives? The FBI is not the only option.

Exactly, how about a deep dive from investigattive journalism.

Do they have a thread yet on reddit? I don’t even know what the accessories look like? Don’t they have a picture out there?

We needs names, faces, times etc...

Fan out.

The absence of a statute of limitations on sexual assault in the state of Maryland and the Fifth Amendment is what is making this so much fun.

Mark Judge was present for the assault. He could be an accessory to this crime. If forced to testify under oath, it is highly foreseeable that he will either testify truthfully that Kavanaugh assaulted the girl, or he will take the Fifth Amendment. Either of those outcomes would make the entire GOP radioactive. So, Mark Judge will NEVER be called to testify. Especially in a public hearing.

Kavanaugh is in a much tighter spot, but is faced with the same problem. Admit the facts or take the Fifth. Perjuring himself would be a separate crime, in an of itself, and he already has attracted a lot of attention for the veracity of his sworn statements. This is not the time to compound that problem. He will prevaricate wildly.

Neither Mark Judge nor Brett Kavanaugh will submit to questioning by the FBI. It's not a federal crime at issue, but it is a state crime and the GOP will not force Kavanaugh or Judge into questioning by law enforcement officers. None of them will have the luxury of that choice if, independent of the Feds, Maryland law enforcement decides to investigate.

[quote]is what is making this so much fun.

The fact that this is being done to a woman in fucking 2018 by a bunch of geriatric white men is what makes this such a tragedy.

Isn’t it a crime to lie to the FBI? R271?

Yes, it is, R273, if the lie is told during the course of an official investigation.

Agreed, r272. Just watched some clips on CBS of Anita Hill being questioned and it was disgusting.

Two sources say the Senate Judiciary Committee will likely send a proposal to Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyer proposing a Wednesday hearing, with Ford testifying first and Brett Kavanaugh second.

The proposal would have outside counsel asks the questions.

Ford had asked that Kavanaugh testify first, but congressional aides, said that is a non-starter. It’s not how the committee works, they said, and given Kavanaugh would need to respond to Ford’s testimony, it will not occur.

This is starting to get ridiculous...Politico is reporting: "The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington, according to the Republican senator, which means she may need to drive across the country to make the hearing."

The absolute pettiness of saying "We'll give you Wednesday." when she asked for Thursday is so childish. Like that one day will make all the difference for them. They did that just because they could.

Don't the Repugs realize how obvious they are with hiring a female lawyer to interrogate Blasey? Again, ignorant and petty children. Does having counsel ask the questions mean the Democrats on the committee aren't going to be allowed to speak for themselves, either?

[quote] she may need to drive across the country

delay delay delay

CNN reporting "Christine Blasey Ford and her legal team have until 5 p.m. ET to respond to the Senate GOP offer"

CNN's Manu Raju says deadline extended to 10:00pm ET:

Get ready for a late night: sources say Ford’s camp has until 10pmET to respond to Senate GOP offer. Previous deadline was 5pm

As I said, they seem like EVERYTHING is riding on Brett. Why? They would get another right wing nut in there even if the Dems control the Senate in 2019. If the Dems control the Senate, it will be super close. No more than 52-48. They would peel off at least 2 Red state Dems, likely.

So why so frantic about Brett? Hmmmmmm. He IS Putin's pick.

[[ FWIW - Gore Vidal once said "If only women knew how much men hate them." I took that as pretty close to the truth. ]]

I want to watch Kamala Harris chew this little weasel up and spit him out on live TV. Please let this happen.

Chuck Grassley says vote will occur on Monday if no agreement is reached tonight:

"Still no agreement on Professor Ford testifying before Senate Judiciary Committee; Deadline has been extended until 10 PM Eastern. Chair @ChuckGrassley says if no agreement tonight on testimony the committee will vote on the Brett Kavanaugh nomination on Monday."

R283, it's possible they have a clue.

This woman should tell her story to Oprah Winfrey on primetime television, then.

[quote]The absolute pettiness of saying "We'll give you Wednesday." when she asked for Thursday is so childish. Like that one day will make all the difference for them. They did that just because they could.

Thursday doesn't give them enough time to confirm Kavanaugh before SCOTUS goes back into session. One day DOES make the difference for them.

Fuck the sham Senate hearing. Go on 60 Minutes with her therapist and husband (and in my dreams someone who was at that party whose willing to come forward is unbeknownst to us who has old faded Polaroid pics from that day).

ABC News’ Ali Rogin:

Senator Collins says that Republicans should let Ford testify when she's ready (unclear if Collins saw the latest note from R's offering Wednesday). "If she can't be there Monday then invite her for Tuesday. Invite her for Wednesday. Invite her for Thursday."

I agree r289. She should just put him only blast with a Diane Sawyer interview. He will fry in the court of public opinion and the Senate will have no choice but to not vote for him, less they face the wrath of the public.

Dear Catholics and Evangelicals

Ummm, the “deadline” is approaching.

They better not make us wait until next week to find out if it's going to happen or not. They've been stringing us along all week with this tit for tat!

BREAKING NEWS BITCH!

I'm trying hard not to pay attention to all of this and the news, but why does the entire government have to freeze in motion because this woman has decided to report being groped at a preppy kegger party 36 years ago? She sounds tiresome with the back and forth yes and no and demanding the Senate make accommodations for her personal schedule. It's all so fucked up. So many women have overplayed the MeToo hand that now people are beginning to ignore it, and this bitch it why. Come speak your truth or take a seat!

Grassley response: No to every request. Accuser response: That’s not fair. Which sounds like a no.

They don’t care about the truth...just their agenda.

Hypocrites.

Arbitrary ridiculous deadlines. If the point were to truly vet the allegations, they could schedule this sham two months from now.

r297 she's supposed to drop what the fuck she's doing just because this asshole, Trump and his cronies want her to testify on their schedule? No. I'm a private citizen too and if *I* was the victim and they were *my* allegations, I would testify when I'm good and fucking ready, or else you ain't getting me to testify.

And the entire government is not frozen, stop being so dramatic. The only thing frozen is their crooked agenda to put this fat "prestigious" jackass on the bench for decades. Trump and most of these dinosaurs will be dead by the time he gets off the court, so they can go fuck themselves.

R204 You make them care about this, when we didn't care about THAT. It's a slippery slope. What ground do we have to stand on? That we haven't tolerated abuse from our own? I said at the time that of we sweep the Clinton thing under the rug, we will never be able to stop them from pushing through any kind of abuser that they want. And here we are.

Another agreement with r289. Screw the Senate. Create her own hearing with a more sympathetic host and bring husbear and colleagues and support. Burn that sex pig.

R297, the government froze? Really? Was your local post office not open today? Did your SSI check not come through? Did Border Patrol pack up and go home? Did the federal courts not arraign anyone on drug charges?

This isn't going anywhere. Most straight guys have abused women and girls, in one way or another. It's the culture. And their wives enable them. It's disgusting, but show me the straight guy who hasn't done something gross towards women, and I'll show you a unicorn. Which is why we can never stop these creeps.

[quote]I said at the time that of we sweep the Clinton thing under the rug, we will never be able to stop them from pushing through any kind of abuser that they want. And here we are.

Sweep under the rug? Buddy, he was fucking impeached.

And you're clinically insane if you think Repugs weren't putting monsters into office before Clinton was even born.

[quote] So why so frantic about Brett?

My completely invented opinion is that Kennedy insisted on Kavanaugh as part of his deal with Trump (as protection for his son, who is pretty obviously involved with Putin) and has said he'll spill the beans on the whole plot if they don't get Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS.

How is the FBI supposed to investigate something that happened 36, or is 35, or is it 38? years ago, which was never reported to the police? This woman and the people fueling this insanity need to see a shrink ASAP. This is truly insane.

^Orin, get off DL and go take your Namenda. It's past your bedtime.

The same way the FBI investigate something that is "about 20 to 30 years old."

Try harder trolls.

He's going to be confirmed isn't he?

I don't want him to, but every time something like this happens the media keeps us in suspense about the results for the ratings. The Democrats act like their is a chance so they can fundraise off of hopes.

McConnell bragged to a lunch today he would be confirmed. He has a record of not saying he has the votes unless he has them. At the end of the day, Republicans stick together. Murkowski and Collins will vote Yes. They always do. We will tell ourselves the mythical "suburban white moderate Republican woman" will wake up and vote for Democrats. They won't. Just like they didn't in 2016.

Not trying to be pessimistic I just feel like we've seen this movie before again and again. Republicans will NEVER change.

[quote]He's going to be confirmed isn't he?

Of course he is. That's all the GOP's job is. They vote for the Supreme Court. That's what they're hired for. The Supreme Court is a lifetime position. GOPers only care about packing the courts. They don't care about Congress or the presidency. It means nothing to them. Democrats don't understand this.

Kavanaugh Accuser Says She Needs More Time to Consider Testifying Before Senate.

I think it's obvious at this point, she's never going to testify. I originally thought she would but the demands are just getting ridiculous at this point (saying she needs time to drive from California to Washington D.C.). They extended the deadline twice already today (5pm, and 10pm) and she's still only "considering" it. I predict they vote on Monday and she goes on 60 Minutes on Sunday night. Depending on what she says on 60 Minutes, they may question Kavanaugh about any specific allegations she makes on 60 Minutes.

Republicans were trying so hard to keep Democrats from being fired up to save Roe v. Wade leading into the midterms (floating all that crap about Kavanaugh being a carpool Dad) and now this mess.

Kavanaugh always had the votes to be confirmed but now Independent, Republican and Democratic women are outraged and bitter. America’s women are going to spit fire at Republican men cone November. Republicans really screwed this thing up.

So did Grassley say no to her request tonight? The hearing will proceed on Mon w/o her?

The GOP will vote to confirm him no matter what this woman says, when or where. He will be confirmed unless he withdraws (or Trump drops him). And that's not happening unless something else is about to come to light that we don't know about. Given how shameless and craven these people are, I can't even imagine what could make him withdraw.

R313, it says a lot if she goes on 60 minutes while still only "considering" testifying UNDER OATH.

[quote] I think it's obvious at this point, she's never going to testify.

At least not UNDER OATH subject to cross examination -- enter 60 Minutes. I bet her reluctance to fly will disappear when she is ferried around for political rallies, MSNBC softball interviews, and award banquets for her "courage".

[quote]Not trying to be pessimistic I just feel like we've seen this movie before again and again. Republicans will NEVER change.

True, but this is why I'm glad she continues to drag him and the establishment through the mud, as long as she possibly can. It may not keep him off the court, but hopefully it will turn some voters to the Democratic party and encourage people to vote in general.

R317, yeah, it says she knows the Senate hearing is a joke.

[quote]r179 Republicans = The Party of Rape and Russia

It's the new [bold]3 R's[/bold]

Grassley just caved! He granted her another extension.

"Judge Kavanaugh I just granted another extension to Dr Ford to decide if she wants to proceed w the statement she made last week to testify to the senate She shld decide so we can move on I want to hear her. I hope u understand. It’s not my normal approach to b indecisive"

[quote]Judge Kavanaugh I just granted another extension

Kavanaugh is granting Ford an extension?

Grassley granted it. That’s his tweet to Kavanaugh.

Collins (and maybe Murkowski) told Grassley they need the cover of her testimony in order to vote yes on Kavanaugh.

I think they are fooling themselves, or else playing Grassley, a doddering old fool, R326.

But also want to add, Gay Men who hate women are actually playing a very dangerous game. Hating women and hating gay men has gone together for 2000 years. we should all stop that nonsense.

He’s granting her an extension? They have never agreed on a date and time. An extension to his own made up deadline? What nonsense.

I’m so tired of all this political gamesmanship. Enough!

Don't get tired of it yet, R328. Start playing it. Democrats used to actually know how to play this game. When did we lose that? (and yeah, it ain't really a game, but by the time it gets to Washington, it is a damn game.)

and I don't know why, but I want to post this here. this is a dance, and we need to be the last ones standing when it is done. And for the first time in a long time, I think we will be.

Let's not forget Roy Moore's people burned down the house of the woman he had molested (who was a teen at the time).

I think the endgame is to continue this game until Sunday, then do a surprise 60 Minutes interview on Sunday night and then a second interview later in the week on the eve of the final vote on CNN's Anderson Cooper show.

okay this might work better. because damn, we need something.

The new deadline is 2:30pm today:

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley set a 2:30 p.m. EST Saturday deadline for a woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault to negotiate terms of her testimony, the New York Times reported.

Though Kavanaugh is delayed another day, per the Atlanta Journal Constitution there appear to be four other federal judges scheduled for votes on Monday.

Or maybe not delayed now I see r334. We'll see. Personally I'm betting on Tuesday.

[quote]U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley set a 2:30 p.m. EST Saturday deadline for a woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault to negotiate terms of her testimony, the New York Times reported.

When will men stop telling women what to do?

Is she suddenly scared as shit making all these demands to torpedo herself to get out of this nightmare? She didn't prepare herself knowing damn well with the Republicans she was entering into a shitstorm of cataclysmic proportions?

It's like taking on the mafia. Could she and those surrounding her have been that dim? She driving from CA to DC? Is she certifiable? She and those around her did not plan this well. I hope Kavanaugh gets taken down and obliterated but I'm feeling pretty nervous.

Whether she helps derail this creep, or not, at this point she better the fuck SHOW UP and be calm and collected about this.

[quote]r337 Is she suddenly scared as shit making all these demands to torpedo herself to get out of this nightmare?

Well, one of the "demands" I read is that she doesn't want to be sitting at the same table as her alleged attacker. That's perfectly reasonable. There are real things to work out in a situation like this.

It's not like she's demanding a hair and makeup crew.

If it can be worked out, I'm sure she'll be fine. She's an experienced college professor of many years who's taught at Stanford, among other institutions.

I don't think it's fair when such damning accusations are made against someone in a formal setting they don't have a chance for a rebuttal and for her to respond to that rebuttal.

She wanted him to speak first - that was a demand that they denied.

And I understand why.

He needs to be able to RESPOND to his accuser. That can't happen if he speaks first.

Yes I agree which is why In this case she is making a demand that is unreasonable. She and her lawyers know it which is why I claimed it looks like she is torpedoing herself because she might have taken on more than she can deal with.

No matter her accomplishments she's reliving a scarring adolescent trauma in front of the entire nation and has suddenly found a hitherto unimaginable deeply threatening and powerful number of thugs out to get her and her family. It's enough to make the strongest person unless they have ice water in their veins very shaky.

Chris Hays perfectly summed up what is going on... So even though Dr Ford is saying please stop, slow down, I’m not comfortable with the way this is going, the GOP is gonna plow through, ignore her telling them to stop and just take what they think is rightfully theirs?

R342 - she's a grown accomplished woman. She's throwing out a career ending accusation at a man at the 11th hour - yet when asked to testify under oath she is pulling back.

She's had 36 years to pursue this with the local authorities as there is no statute of limitations in sexual assault - YET instead of contacting them over the summer, she sends a letter instead.

Why not file an official report along with the letter?

Shit or get off the pot.

She's not 15 anymore.

But she still feels like she’s 15 when she thinks about the attack. That’s the point. Trauma.

"She's throwing out a career ending accusation at a man at the 11th hour"

That's not true, R344, and you know it. We all know it. Immediately after Kavanaugh's selection was announced, she contacted Anna Eshoo, her Representative in her district. She gave her Representative the information she had, hoping there would be an investigation into Kavanaugh's past behavior.

AND SEVERAL MONTHS LATER, THERE HAS STILL BEEN NO INVESTIGATION.

Her claim today is the same claim she made immediately after Kavanaugh's selection was announced. And it is still not being taken seriously by the GOP and given the weight it deserves. They are just pushing their boy.

I noticed Senator Schumer finally backed off calling Dr Ford a Stanford professor..PAU is a quasi diploma mill.

R346 Ford's lawyer has been saying that the accusations just came out in the last 72 hours

She and her team asked for the FBI because skidmarks Kavanaugh can't lie to the FBI, it's a crime.

What would you guys do if some guy appeared and said that this DL poster grabbed by dick and ass when I was 16? No witnesses no proof etc.

Laugh at him for the silliness of an anonymous individual posting accusations about another anonymous individual on a site devoted to bitchiness and trolling.

Seriously, R350, if that's your "A" game, you need to hang it up and go back to working at Burger King.

R343 wins the day.

R342 I agree that it appears that she is torpedoing the negotiations. Thursday it was the demand that he be interviewed first. Friday it was the demand that she be allowed to drive from the Bay Area to Washington DC. I think they've been fair with what demands they've granted and not granted (see below). Let's not forget they even offered to come to her and do it in private.

Oh GTFO r354. Do tell, what do you recall about what they did to Anita. Bitch is old enough to REMEMBER what they did to Anita. What the fuck do you know about that? What she is doing is right the fuck on point.

Anita Hill didn't happen in the metoo era. It would have been very different today.

That does not matter r356. Many of the same fuckers who did that to Anita are on this Committee. Her concerns are legit. I say this with love, but you type young.

And they know better this time, r357, which is why they want a female independent counsel to conduct the hearing. And why it was offered to be done privately. And why it was offered that they would come to her. I'm not typing young. I'm typing objectively. None of these concessions were offered to Hill.

Is R344 block worthy? I can't tell anymore when someone is oblivious to facts/information or a trolling?

Um, r358, you’ve got it all backwards. They offered to have female counsel because it’s the same white men as before, bad optics. They offered to do it privately so that there’s no coverage, bad optics. They offered to come to her so they don’t look like the pricks they really are, again, it’s bad optics.

You seem to think they are motivated to “do better” now that we’re in #MeToo lololol? Again, you type young kid. Their motivation is utterly self-serving and she and her attorneys get that.

I want her to confront him and nail him but she is off fucking point and screwing around making a fool of herself.

Really, she wants to see the USA in her Chevrolet? This is not the time She wants to confront him and not allow him a rebuttal about which she should be able to respond?

Cunty mother you're out cunting yourself.

You are allowing Repubs to influence how you think, R361? You sound defensive, powerless. That's what they do to people.

Snap out of it.

R361 in what world do you think there will be some big “you can’t handle the truth!” Confrontation with this Committee? Her lawyer is being a total Cunt AS WELL SHE SHOULD.

R360, you also seem to forget that there are four women, all Democrats, on the committee now. Back in the Anita Hill day there were no women. To say this is going to be exactly like Anita Hill is just using Anita Hill as an excuse. We are in different times despite the three holdovers from the Hill hearing.

And you want her to take all her sweet time getting there? And not allow Kavanaugh a rebuttal?

R362 you sound like a republican.

The fools on this thread pretending like this woman has nothing to fear because of #metoo and time have changed since Anita Hill conveniently ignore that both McConnell and Hatch have already publicly revealed that this hearing means nothing. It's a dog and pony show.

No r365, Christ, you are thick.

R366, having the confirmation rushed through without proper due diligence is not what Anita Hill went through. Anita Hill was abused by a committee of only men. As pointed out there are four women on the committee this time.

And, yes, optics is the driving force behind having a woman counsel conduct the hearing. Duh. The optics behind that decision didn't exist in the Anita Hill's time. And to say that this is a done deal does not take into account the key vote of two women, Murkowski and Collins, despite McConnell and Grassley rushing the hearing. There were no Murkowski and Collins in Anita Hill's time.

"That's not true, [R344], and you know it. We all know it. Immediately after Kavanaugh's selection was announced, she contacted Anna Eshoo, her Representative in her district. She gave her Representative the information she had, hoping there would be an investigation into Kavanaugh's past behavior.

AND SEVERAL MONTHS LATER, THERE HAS STILL BEEN NO INVESTIGATION."

You're kidding right? This woman has had 36 years to have someone investigate this crime. 36 YEARS.

Why not go to the authorities when his election was announced? If there is no statute of limitations - then she could have gone to the police! BUT NO - instead of that she writes to her rep? Sorry, I don't buy this bullshit. The police would have made sure her identity was confidential too.

Shit or get of the pot.

Btw, I'm a woman who thinks this woman is full of shit.

I also eat my own shit and smear it on my cunt.

R369, sexual assaults are the most underreported crimes. It was especially underreported in the 80s when this happened because the victim wasn't taken seriously and was more often than not shamed and blamed as the instigator. Why not go to the police when his selection was announced? What would that have done? She wanted her voice heard as a testament to his character because he is up for a job when character is important and it appears his is dubious. She wasn't looking for a criminal trial.

The staffer for the Republican majority on the Judiciary Committee - the guy in charge of the Republican messaging about Kavanaugh's confirmation - just quit because (wait for it) he has been accused of past sexual harrassment and lying on his resume.

Somehow - and this whole thing stinks worse than Cheryl's vajayjay - the same staffer is also employed by CRC Public Relations - the private crisis PR firm that pushed the whole discredited and disgraceful "Someone else did it" theory that blew up in their faces yesterday.

Conncet the dots, DL

Ed Whelan's Keystone Cops detective work complete with floorplans and photos from someone else's house didn't just blow up in his face with the far-fetched "maybe someone DID assault Dr Ford but not our Brett" theory but may be in deeper shit than he is now. His theory was hyped in advance by Matt Whitlock, deputy chief of staff to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), who directed people to Whelan’s Twitter feed on Wednesday in a tweet of his own and later deleted his tweet.

“Keep an eye on Ed’s tweets the next few days,” Whitlock wrote. After Whelan unveiled his theory Thursday evening, Whitlock deleted the tweet, explaining that he “didn’t want to promote” anything that “dragged an unrelated private citizen into this unfortunate situation. I had no idea," Whitlock added, "what Ed was planning.”

Once more CRC Public Relations was involved. "Best known for its work with the Swift Boat Veterans in 2004, CRC bills itself as a full-service communications firm “specializing in media relations, social media and issues management,” according to its website. It has long been the go-to communications firm for conservative organizations in Washington and across the country. Its current clients include the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network, the chief outside groups working to help confirm Kavanaugh."

[quote]And you want her to take all her sweet time getting there? And not allow Kavanaugh a rebuttal?

[quote][R362] you sound like a republican.

I see what you did there. It won't work, asshole.

Yes, I think she and her lawyer should bust Republican balls. I wish all Democrats would do the same.

[quote]Really, she wants to see the USA in her Chevrolet? This is not the time She wants to confront him and not allow him a rebuttal about which she should be able to respond?

Use some critical thinking skills before making such a ridiculous assertion

Do you think anonymous air travel is possible after 9/11? It's not like one can travel under an assumed name and without presenting ID at the airport. Yeah, because after all of the death threats she's received, she wants to buy an airline ticket under her own name and travel in a sealed tube with about 150 passengers some of whom may be able to identify her and are hostile to her or have been tipped off about her presence. (recall Grassley had her name long before it was revealed publicly) It's a security risk for her and it's not within the means of an average American to rent a private jet. You can drive across the U.S. on a cash only basis.

Good job showing your ass R368. The Judiciary Committee refused to call additional witness to said they could corroborate Anita Hill's story. So yes, Thomas' confirmation was in fact rushed without due diligence. And lo and behold this time around we have Grassley immediately announcing, and then reiterating, that there will be no additional witnesses here.

What magical thing do you think the 4 women on Judiciary who are in the minority party can do here? And this idea that Collins and Murkowski can be relied on for anything but lock step voting with their party is laughable.

She told the committee she doesn't want to fly because she has a phobia about flying. Apparently she has a fear of confined spaces. Gee, I wonder why?

The deplorables are now frantically trying to debunk her fear of flying, desperately trying to find evidence that she's flown before and arguing that a car is more confined. They are so stupid they don't even realize the flaw in both those arguments.

Well, she’s coming to Washington one way or another. Her attorney says she will testify.

Let's face it. Her life will never be the same after this. Whatever precautions she's taking, whatever legal measures she's contemplating, she's thinking about the future of her family. From what I've seen, all of her steps taken so far have been rational and thoughtful. She is not some hysterical harpy who can't make up her mind.

She and her lawyer are not letting themselves get railroaded by the Republicans in the Judiciary, something that we have seen Democrats do over and over again in the political sphere. They pushed for negotiations. Of course, she won't get everything she's asking for, but she got the deadline extended several times even when the Repubs said No More!.

And now the GOP smear campaign can really begin. What we've seen so far is paper cuts compared to the chainsaw massacre that's to come.

[quote] Well, she’s coming to Washington one way or another. Her attorney says she will testify.

That doesn't surprise me. I think she knew all along she would do it, but refused to concede to Republicans early on in the game.

[quote]And now the GOP smear campaign can really begin. What we've seen so far is paper cuts compared to the chainsaw massacre that's to come.

Democrats in the House have an opportunity to make this scenario work for them. But will they?

Let's talk timeline. The cross-country road trip (beginning tomorrow or as late as Monday) is expected to last 3-4 days. For all we know, there may be some last-minute negotiations but let's say the testimonies are given on Monday, Oct. 1 and Tuesday, Oct. 2. If I'm not mistaken, the Judiciary Committee vote would be a few days after, say Friday, Oct. 5. A Senate vote by no later than Friday the 12th (three and a half weeks before election day?).

She's now accepts their request to testify but "the two parties are still far apart on what day the hearing will take place and other details" so in other words, nothing has changed.

R383 I can't see them pushing it back to Oct 1. That would be a non-starter. They would just dump him at that point since the new session of the Supreme Court will have started at that point and move on to Amy Coney Barrett.

Right you are, R385! Either way, the clock is ticking.

Another reason why I think she has no plans to actually testify...if she were to drive cross country from the Bay Area to Washington, D.C., she's looking at a 3 day trip (bathroom breaks, stop for gas, stop for meals, sleep overnight in hotel, etc). By the time she gets to Washington, D.C, she's going to be beat and tired from the long trip. Would her lawyers really allow her to testify under oath the next day? The Republicans aren't going to play softball. The chances of her making a mental mistake (misspeaking or misremembering) would be too high as she would still be tired from the trip.

For all we know she's already in DC.

She could take a train.

A train wouldn't help her fear of confinement. If you're in a car, you can stop whenever you want. Any kind of transport where you're locked in for a long period of time with no control is going to be a problem.

That could be the case, R391, but you can get up and walk around on trains more than planes and there are big windows with familiar natural environments outside. A lot of people who don't fly because they feel trapped in a flying tin can take trains.

R377 and the person who refused to call other witnesses was Joe Biden and IIRC correctly it was Grassley who wanted more due diligence in the Anita Hill case.

r377, the metoo movement has changed how this will be handled no matter how much you stamp your feet and say no.

I'll believe it when I see it but Republicans have folded according to Politico and will allow her to testify on Thursday:

UPDATE: 7:50 p.m.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has tentatively agreed to a hearing on Thursday with Christine Blasey Ford regarding her allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while in high school, according to a person briefed on a call on Saturday night. Representatives of the committee will speak to Ford's lawyers on Sunday to continue hammering out details, the person said.

Christine Blasey Ford has accepted the Senate Judiciary Committee’s request to testify next week on Ford’s allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school, Ford’s attorneys told Senate Republicans on Saturday in an email obtained by POLITICO.

R392, well it would certainly depend on the severity of her phobia. I was just pointing out that a train wouldn't necessarily be a solution for her.

R393, you can stamp your feet and ignore reality all you want, but it was Grassley who said only 2 witnesses.

So Thursday (with hopefully her testimony after his) and a full Senate vote sometime before next Monday morning.

He's not answering questions ("Too personal") during the hearing prep the White House is running him through.

The Repugs are good and truly screwed: push him through battered and bruised and onto the court the week after next and see an awful lot of women vote Republicans out of office a little more than a month later

OR

Don't get him through and watch the deplorables who otherwise would vote for them but now won't because the Republicans have proven the actually can't do squat so their supporters stay home.

And deal with the fact that if Kavanaugh is later found to have lied, he can be impeached. Starting the whole cycle over again: "He lied and you put him there and now you're voting to keep him there?"

I've never wanted to be a Republican member of the US Senate. I wonder how many of 'em feel the same way this evening.

R371- Another pro woman DLer.

"I also eat my own shit and smear it on my cunt.'

Sometimes you think that those who say gay men hate women are right..

R375 'Oooh I see what you're doing asshole!'

Ok.

[quote]And you want her to take all her sweet time getting there? And not allow Kavanaugh a rebuttal?

[quote][[R362]] you sound like a republican.

And she will not only testify, but she got the date she wanted. A

And you were accusing her of what again, R361/R399, stalling, whining, making demands?

I think we know which one of us sounds like a Republican.

[quote]Is she suddenly scared as shit making all these demands to torpedo herself to get out of this nightmare?

[quote]I don't think it's fair when such damning accusations are made against someone in a formal setting they don't have a chance for a rebuttal and for her to respond to that rebuttal.

[quote]Yes I agree which is why In this case she is making a demand that is unreasonable.

[quote]I want her to confront him and nail him but she is off fucking point and screwing around making a fool of herself.

[quote]And you want her to take all her sweet time getting there? And not allow Kavanaugh a rebuttal?

You sure you are a Democrat, R361... R399?

[quote] The Repugs are good and truly screwed:

Or not. What anti-Kavenaugh sentiment there is seems more that he is a Trump nominee, not the tar him as a rapist strategy.

The sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court hopeful Brett Kavanaugh so far appears to have had virtually no effect on public support for his nomination, new polling finds. Although he remains historically unpopular, he doesn’t appear to have suffered any further attrition over the course of the past week.

In three HuffPost/YouGov surveys ― one taken entirely before the scandal broke, one after the revelation that an allegation had been made against him and the third after the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, publicly stepped forward ― opposition to confirming Kavanaugh has ranged between 31 and 34 percent.

In the most recent poll, 32 percent support his confirmation, 32 percent oppose it and another 36 percent aren’t sure. Among those who disapprove of President Donald Trump’s choice of Kavanaugh for the seat, just 46 percent say their opposition stems from an objection to Kavanaugh personally, rather than a lack of confidence in Trump’s ability to nominate a suitable candidate.

September surveys from other outlets, most of which were conducted prior to the latest news cycle, put Kavanaugh’s net support between -1 and +6.

Fewer than a quarter of respondents to the latest HuffPost/YouGov survey say they’re following Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings very closely, basically unchanged from earlier in the month.

Nearly half of Americans say they’re not sure if the allegation against Kavanaugh is credible or not ― those who do have an opinion one way or another are close to evenly divided. Thirty-nine percent say that the sexual assault allegation, if true, disqualifies Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court, with 18 percent calling it relevant but not disqualifying, and 20 percent finding it not relevant at all.

Sixty-two percent of Hillary Clinton voters, compared to 18 percent of non-voters and just 4 percent of Trump voters, say the allegation is credible; three-quarters of Clinton voters, 34 percent of non-voters and a tenth of Trump voters consider it disqualifying if true. More than 80 percent of Trump voters say they’d rather see the president continue to back Kavanaugh than replace him with another conservative nominee.

Male and female Trump voters both see the accusation against Kavanaugh as lacking credibility and irrelevant to his nomination, but the men are 23 points and 9 points likelier, respectively, to hold those opinions. Across the aisle, male Clinton voters are more likely than female Clinton voters to view the accusation as credible ― the women are no more likely to doubt it, but do more commonly choose not to state an opinion.

------------------------

And Thursday if she doesn't come up with another excuse to delay the best she can do is make unprovable accusations that DiFi already put out there.

r397, gop isn't losing any votes over anything. they have multi-front election fraud machinations in place that have been in use for decades now. their true number of voting supporters couldn't fill a single megachurch. their concerns are with law enforcement, local and federal. those pesky laws make looting so much harder than they want it to be.

If this does actually happen, will it be behind closed doors and not televised?

It won't be televised.

Polls differ. The Hill isn't exactly a front for the Dems

NBC/WSJ

Reuters

r235 eats old people's excrement.

The man needs a fucking stylist and a goddamn haircut. And his lips and face are too goddamn ugly for a seat on the Supreme Court. He belongs in a blue chip law firm somewhere, out of sight and out of mind.

[quote]r405 It won't be televised.

I am perversely disappointed.

He's going down. He sucks, because he's a whore for the rich, always. but he's going down for this. good.

Will the audio be streamed?

dammit, gotta post again. fine. ya blew it, cunts, you picked the guy who sucked the most just because it seemed like he would let the Donald off the hook.

R411, the hearing will be public. I don't know if any announcement has been made as to whether it will be televised.

he is doomed. this shit is over

I thought one of her demands was that there be a single camera which the Republicans agreed to.

This may be a stupid question, why was Gorsuch so easy to get on the court? I dislike them both, but Gorsuch seemed more arrogant to me. The epitome of a WASP. His sense of entitlement was disgusting. There was really no skeletons in his closet?

R418 Most people think it is because he was replacing a diehard conservative so Democrats didn't care as much.

that's not actually a stupid question, R418. We need to start playing hardball on our side.

Well, r411, here's some Anita Hill clips you can relive....

R418, Gorsuch was objectionable due to his legal philosophy, but there appeared to be no other basis to oppose him. Kavanaugh, by contrast, has nothing but skeletons in his closet.

I agree with all comments on Gorsuch — it was a very different situation. We weren’t at level ten alarm bells yet with this Presidency.

R395, I'm talking about the Anita Hill hearing, which you seem so fond of comparing this hearing to despite he fact that metoo didnt exist back then.

Again, stamp yor clown feet and shake your tiny fists into the air but the truth is metoo has already had an impact on how this proceeding is being handled no matter how much you try and deny it.

For some reason, there is less fuss when a person replaces a likeminded person. A conservative replacement for that piece of shit, I forget his name at the moment, was not considered a big deal.

I don’t get it, because the lifespan is different, of course.

Of course, no one is guaranteed longevity, but they do seem to mostly live long lives.

Sure R424. That's why McConnell, Hatch, Graham and Heller have all already publicly stated that basically hearing means nothing. Because #metoo changed everything.

I think the Gorsuch yes votes by the red-state Dems give them enough cover to tell Kavanaugh to fuck himself and still be okay in their election. They are going to have a lot more pissed off Democrats in their states if they do vote for him who will then stay home. The Repugs already aren't voting for him and I can't see them getting angry enough about them not voting for this creep to now rush to the polls when they already weren't going to vote because they are disgusted with Trump. It would be antithetical for them to dislike Trump enough to have decided to stay home in November but now be energized to go out and vote because of the exact same behavior that they hated from the Repugs and Trump in the first place.

I know Repug voters are not logical creatures but they are stubborn little fuckers and I don't think the red-state Dems voting no is as big a deal as they are making it out to be. They should all announce now, as a block, that they will not vote for him. That puts all the pressure on Murkowski, Collins, and maybe a couple of other Repugs to support this piece of shit all on their own and be the only reason he's on the Court.

I agree R428 but they probably want to see if there is any chance he will lose. If he’s going to win anyway, some of them are going to go ahead and vote for him.

But that takes some of the pressure off of the "moderate" Repugs. If Collins and Murkowski knew, 100%, that it was their specific votes that were going to decide this, I think that changes their thinking. Every single news program and article will point out that not one Democrat supported him and the votes of Murkowski and Collins made this happen.

[quote]Sure [R424]. That's why McConnell, Hatch, Graham and Heller have all already publicly stated that basically hearing means nothing. Because #metoo changed everything.

And your post would have merit, r427, if McConnell, Hatch, Grahm and Heller were the only people voting. They're not and that makes your post meaningless.

Has anyone considered that voting FOR confirmation could cost some red state dems the election?

The Fox poll from today says that the majority is against this guy.

It could actually hurt them, even in red states.

And your repeated insistence R431 would have merit R431 if Grassley hadn't already limited the hearing to 2 witnesses. He did and that makes your point ridiculous.

Mitch hasn’t said a word since the poll came out. Radio silence. Graham has not said a peep either since it came out. His statement was prior to the poll release.

I believe they’re going to try their best to ram him through but I don’t think he will get the votes. That poll was chilling.

When I’m not eating shit and doing scat movies, there’s nothing I love doing more then digging up corpses and raping them!

R433 you seem sad that the metoo movement already has had an impact. The fact that a hearing is even going to take place in itself is proof since they were pushing for a vote without a hearing last week. Again, who gives a shit what Grassley said, what he said last week and what is playing out are turning out to be different .

They will probably draw this out at least a few more days because they know that it increases pressure on Ford's side because they issued a statement this weekend saying "Dr. Ford accepts the Committee’s request" to testify and most of the media ran that as a headline. That was terrible language to use in my opinion. They should have just said we are continuing to negotiate with the Republicans.

Gorsuch wasn't a ruthless, scummy, sleazy GOP operative. BK is the epitome of that.

[quote]They should have just said we are continuing to negotiate with the Republicans.

I think Ford's team came out saying she'd testify because of the Repub theory how she would have no reason NOT to testify unless she's LYING.

The resident DL trolls have been pushing that narrative for days.

She shut them up.

All of Ford's named witnesses of the party, both male and female, have now denied any recollection of attending such a party.

Christine Blasey Ford has claimed that four other people attended a small gathering at which she was allegedly assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Three of those people, PJ Smyth, Mark Judge, and Kavanaugh, have already denied any recollection of attending such a party.

On Saturday night, Leland Ingham Keyser, a classmate of Ford's at the all-girls school Holton-Arms and her final named witness, denied any recollection of attending a party with Brett Kavanaugh.

"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," lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

CNN reports that " Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford's." Keyser previously coached golf at Georgetown University and is now executive producer of Bob Beckel's podcast. Keyser is the ex-wife of Beckel, a former Democratic operative and commentator.

Everyone get ready, we're about to see history in the making. You will always remember exactly what you were doing the moment #MeToo finally jumped the shark.

R440 Yeah that benefits Kavanaugh's side because it prevents Ford's side from coming forward with any more possible attendees of the party because all the people she said were at the party have now been accounted for.

R436, so your evidence that Judiciary is taking this more seriously than they did Anita Hill because of #metoo is that they're going to hold the hearing... just like they did for Anita Hill. Brilliant.

And they weren't pushing for no hearing last week. The day after Ford was identified Grassley said there would be a hearing. They were pushing for a rushed hearing with no FBI investigation (such as the one Anita Hill had). And despite the delay which is longer than it took the FBI to investigate Anita Hill's allegations, there is still no FBI investigation. Because Grassley said his staff was handling the investigation. And then one of his staffers resigned after it was revealed he had his own history of sexual harassment allegations. But still no FBI investigation.

Even though #metoo changed everything.

Another stellar comment from troll at R441: "They want to shoot him down because of a he said she said. But they're okay with Beto's rap sheet."

Can Blasey be charged with perjury in this situation?

[quote]"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," lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So, she doesn't know him but does know she was never at a party where he was in attendance. Oh, okay. Just like Trump doesn't seem to remember anyone working on his campaign.

[quote] Can Blasey be charged with perjury in this situation?

A) Unlike her "corroborating" witnesses she so far has very carefully made no statement under oath.

B) If she actually does testify instead of finding further excuses to punt, she could blatantly lie her head off and #metoo will spin any consequences as abuse of a woman.

I blocked R441 a while ago. You should too, R444.

Moron at R447, none of those statements have been under oath concerning this issue. You're just trolling now, right? You can't really be this obtuse, can you?

[quote]You're just trolling now, right?

Yes, R447 is a troll. FF and block.

I feel she was used. The enabling Dems made her think this bomb could be dropped in the public sphere and the nomination would be torpedoed. Just like that. Now that she was actually called to testify she's getting cold feet over perjuring herself. Hence the delays and demands.

Wow, the stupid trolls are working today. R451, are you sure you don't want to stick with the Kavanaugh doppelganger theory instead? At least that one is entertaining.

Grassley being a whiny little bitch:

^ I should note. that was 2 days ago, before his staffer resigned. I'm sure Ford's confidence in this committee taking her seriously is just growing and growing....

Maybe Kavanaugh can take a lie detector test like Dr. Ford and reassure all his supporters.

Thursday hearing is now on the official calendar

And while he’s at it, r455, he should also demand an FBI investigation so that his good name can be cleared once and for all.

I’m sure he’ll do just that, any minute now.

What is an FBI investigation going to turn up 36 years after the fact regardless of who is asking for one? There is no physical evidence. All it will be are the same questions that will be asked at the hearing.

MSNBC's Peter Baker: Kavanaugh has calendars from summer 1982 that he plans to give the Senate that don't show a party that matches Blasey Ford's description, according to someone working for his confirmation. Calendars can't prove it didn't happen but his team will argue there is no corroboration.

Josh Barro, in response: Does one enter underage drinking parties into one’s dayplanner when one is in high school?

Kavanaugh to Give Senate Calendars From 1982 to Back Up Denial

WASHINGTON — Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has calendars from the summer of 1982 that he plans to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that do not show a party consistent with the description of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, according to someone working for his confirmation.

The calendars do not disprove Dr. Blasey’s allegations, Judge Kavanaugh’s team acknowledged. He could have attended a party that he did not list. But his team will argue to the senators that the calendars provide no corroboration for her account of a small gathering at a house where he allegedly pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothing.

The calendar pages from June, July and August 1982, which were examined by The New York Times, show that Judge Kavanaugh was out of town much of the summer at the beach or away with his parents. When he was at home, the calendars list his basketball games, movie outings, football workouts and college interviews. A few parties are mentioned but include names of friends other than those identified by Dr. Blasey.

All Kamala Haris has to do is ask to see his calendar the day of the hearing and see if he wrote any entry in it. If it's not there, he's outta there.

R458, FBI agents are actually trained in, you know, investigating. So it's more than just the ad hoc efforts of some committee staff. A committee with not-at-all impartial members who have been publicly hostile to the accuser, by the way.

FBI agents keep their investigations confidential until they are complete. So there are none of these strategic leaks to the press to attack the accuser (or the accused) in advance of their sworn testimony.

Plus, lying to the FBI in the course of an investigation is itself a crime. So there are more consequences than simply popping off a letter that says "I don't know anything, leave me alone" a la Mark Judge.

They also document statements in such a way that a witness can't just say "that's not what I said" when asked under oath. As opposed to Hatch's stunt last week where he reported what Kavanaugh told him about never having attended any such party ever and then backtracked and changed the statement.

Ditto to what R462 said. Lying to an FBI agent is a crime. Lying to a Senate staffer is not.

Two different things.

R450, do we really want someone on the Supremen Court who has saved their calendars since they were a teenager.

This calendar thing is the stupidest thing I have heard. Oh, if only SNL were on, the skits they would make.

SNL is the unfunniest pos on tv. No thanks. We just witnessed that abortion, the Emmys.

[quote] All Kamala Haris has to do is ask to see his calendar the day of the hearing and see if he wrote any entry in it. If it's not there, he's outta there.

Oh, is Kamala gonna pretend to know something again and then come up with nothing for the three billionth time? Give me a break. Diane Frankenstein needs her old ass kicked out of the party for sitting on this shit.

[quote] Grassley being a whiny little bitch:

“Whiny little bitch” coined by Bill Maher who just reminded us that women lie about being sexually assaulted a week before this whole thing broke by Miss Farrow. Brilliant.

Kavanaugh now has four witnesses including women who say this incident never happened.

R468, no he doesn't, but your trolling is noted.

This is all going to come down to sex toys and perverted tales. The GOP is on a kamikaze mission.

Does Avenatti have another accuser?

[quote]Kavanaugh now has four witnesses including women who say this incident never happened.

Um, you do realize that's a rather stupid statement to make, right?

[quote]What is an FBI investigation going to turn up 36 years after the fact regardless of who is asking for one? There is no physical evidence. All it will be are the same questions that will be asked at the hearing.

The FBI investigation will involve more than just the two principals, unlike the Senate non-investigation. It may well be inconclusive but it's premature to decide that before any investigation has taken place.

An investigation should also be made into that Whelan debacle, as there are indications that the White House, Senate Republicans, and even Kavanaugh himself might have been involved.

R462, lying to senate is also a crime.

I ask again, 36 years later what is there to investigate? Not one of the names she provided said they recall the party. What is the FBI going to turn up? That there was a party? And if there was a party, is the FBI going to prove someone is lying if they say they don't remember it? By her own admittance, she never told anyone but her husband and her therapist. What more are they going to add that 1) isn't already known and 2) adds more detail than someone who was there at the time? Is it that you think he told someone years ago and the FBI vetting overlooked it?

?

Lying under oath to the Senate is a crime. Lying to a Senate aide in an interview is not, which is why your statement that "not one of the names she provided said they recall the party" is not exactly compelling.

As to what the FBI will investigate, why don't you ask them? This would not be the first time that a decades-old crime is investigated. Interesting that you don't even want to allow that minimal investigation to take place. What are you afraid of?

A lot of the priest molestations were reported many years after they happened. They were investigated.

There's another accuser now....

I'm asking you, r475, someone who thinks that a FBI investigation is going to get blood from stones or statements from people who have already come out and said they don't recall.

I'm not afraid of anything, r475. I was highly amused by a post that said Kavanaugh should have the FBI investigate his claims in retaliation. It's like everyone has lost their mind here. I don't care if you are pro Kavanaugh or pro Ford, but I really want to know what you think an FBI investigation will turn up to prove either side? It, literally, is a she said / he said and both will be testifying to Senate where lying is a crime.

R476, really??? Those investigations had people who could recall, and in the case of Pittsburgh, it was by the hundreds.

You're wrong, R478. Actually, now it's a he said-she said-she said-she said. Please keep up.

Oh, the FBI could query additional women about such things as what happened when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale, R478. Or they could ask those women who were told that Kavanaugh likes a certain "look" from his female interns. Or they could subpoena Whelan's texts, phone calls, and email messages to find out just who he coordinated with on that ridiculous story.

And yes, they could ask classmates of both people about their experiences in high school. If Kavanaugh was a drunken groper, then that gives the story credence. And yes, if Kavanaugh truly is innocent, he should be the first one to insist on the investigation. If nothing turns up, then it truly remains he-said-she-said, which works in his favor.

Well, the FBI could follow up with his friend who was in the room.

Well, that was a valiant effort R478 (not really), but now that Farrow/Mayer have revealed that the committee was aware of another accuser and, despite that, Grassley still insisted there would be only 2 witnesses and tried to rush the hearing, there's ANOTHER reason the FBI should have investigated rather than a committee led by corrupt partisans.

Not to mention asking that same friend about Kavanaugh's drinking to the point of vomiting.

I think the FBI should be investigating this Russian/GOP senate panel. Hm. Seems like they're actively trying to hide evidence of crimes.

What I find interesting about this is that, in my opinion, the Republicans have handled this about as badly as it could possibly have been handled. And they didn't even need to do that, since they could have handled this reasonably gracefully and still have voted for Kavanaugh. Instead, they're coming across as insecure bullies terrified of something coming out. And they're doing this with the #metoo movement still going strong.

Those ridiculous deadlines and conditions, most of which have made no sense, the refusal to actually investigate, the refusal to call for the FBI to investigate, the insistence from some of them that even if the incident were true, it didn't matter (ignoring that if it were true, Kavanaugh committed perjury), that it wasn't really sexual assault because he didn't manage to get her clothes off, and on and on. They just keep shooting themselves in the foot.

None of this means that Kavanaugh absolutely won't get confirmed but, either way, they've still done some damage and this is a bad year for Republicans to have done that damage to themselves.

r485, 1) Herr Dump forced them to pick Brett, despite their protestations about his dirty laundry 2) There are no smart people working for the GOP except Putin and he can't be bothered with trifles like this 3) Brett is now their only chance at ruining the Supreme Court and revoking personhood from women so they have no choice but to dig their heels in

R482, a valiant effort for what? For being amused at DL? For now being amused that Ronan Farrow turned up something that the FBI didn't in their initial vetting background investigation, cause, you know, the FBI should be better than Ronan Farrow.

Oh, CNN finally reporting the story.

A valiant effort at pretending that there was nothing for the FBI to investigate.

Sorry, I can’t make the link work...

Second woman accuses Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct; he denies it

A second woman has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, a claim the judge denies. In a story published Sunday, The New Yorker reported that Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation against Kavanaugh from when he attended Yale University in the early 1980s. Deborah Ramirez, who attended the college with Kavanaugh, recalls that "he 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," according to the magazine. She called for an FBI investigation into the incident.

The report comes on the same day the Senate Judiciary Committee said Christine Blasey Ford, who accuses Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a party when they were both in high school, will publicly testify on Thursday. Senate Republicans are pushing to confirm the appellate judge to the top U.S. court quickly, despite the accusations against him.

One version of the story was linked in R480, R490.

You can't make a link work?

CNN moving on with Anthony Bourdain. MSNBC staying on the story. Fox is on it now too.

So, you still can't explain how the FBI would be able to confirm Ford's specific story, r489, particularly since they missed something that should have been picked up during the vetting process.

See r480, R494. And the fact that they missed something the first time does not mean that they will miss it a second time, particularly since they now have a specific incident, location, potential witnesses, etc. And a potential pattern to use to look for other such incidents. Just how exhaustive do you think the initial investigation was into Kavanaugh's teen years?

Seriously, just stop. At this point, you're just making a fool of yourself.

Or they could ask people about Kavanaugh's drinking and how that impacted his behavior, R494, as the New Yorker story demonstrates:

[quote]He recalled Kavanaugh as “relatively shy” until he drank, at which point he said that Kavanaugh could become “aggressive and even belligerent.”

This does not specifically corroborate Ford's specific story but if you want to pretend that bringing this to light would not materially impact Kavanaugh's chances for confirmation, we're just going to laugh at you.

The FBI doesn't have to "confirm" anything, you dolt. They gather information, get statements on the record, identify potential witnesses, etc. Then they pass on what they've learned to the adjudicating body. And law enforcement reopens investigations as new information comes forward all the time.

And even with their flaws, the FBI is still one step removed from partisan hacks on a committee led by a party whose top ranking members repeatedly publicly indicated they didn't take these allegations seriously. That's why due process matters.

So now FNC is alleging this new accusation is part of a leftist plot.

I, for one, am incensed by Kavenaugh's reinforcement of negative Irish stereotypes.

There is no way Dr. Ford is lying.

She wants Judge to testify even though he claims it didn't happen. He refuses to. Hmmm. Why? Why not help out his buddy?

She took a lie detector test. Hmmmm. Why won't Brett?

She told her therapist 6 years ago.

She wants an investigation. Brett doesn't. Hmmm Why, Brett?

This nomination has stink all over it. Brett has stink all over him. He is shady and has a dark soul.

Her fibromyalgia and peanut allergies prevent her from flying to the hearing.

That;s OK, R501. By Thursday the White House will have withdrawn the nomination and Kavanaugh will be resigning from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in disgrace. But look on the bright side, Trump will have one more Appeals seat to fill.

I have 501 blocked. For good reason. He sounds pressed and reeks of cheap Vodka from the homeland. Typical low IQ Russian.

In a statement, Judge Kavanaugh denied the allegation from the woman, Deborah Ramirez, and called it “a smear, plain and simple.” The New Yorker did not confirm with other eyewitnesses that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party.

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. 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.

-----------------

That leaves kind of a big hole in her story.