Kavanaugh's SC Confirmation Hearings

She also admitted that

.... she doesn’t remember key details like exactly when the incident occurred or where specifically, and she says the first time she told anyone about it was when she was in couples counseling with her husband in 2012 — 30-some years after the night in question​

Kind of difficult to disprove something with no time or place.

Kavanaugh’s Accuser Has Now Come Forward

 

Apparently Kavanaugh's mother was the judge in a home foreclosure proceeding against the accuser's parents. just interesting .
Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) | Twitter
Pics of the docket
Christine Blasey-Ford motive: Revenge - Kavanaugh's mother judge agai…

Interesting that she scrubbed her social media accounts before she admitted publicly who she was. What was she hiding?

This incident could have happened. What is troubling is the timing of releasing it.No mention was made when he was confirmed for DC district. Why not?

 

Another good question might be -- Why is whatever Kavanaugh may have done as at age 17 definitely disqualifying, while Beto's DWI at age 26 totally irrelevant?

 

JF
It isn't just a DWI. It was the auto he struck while DWI and that he tried to flee the accident.

BUT we both know why he gets a pass.

 

I'm not as disturbed about scrubbing your phone of social media content as I once was. We all have things on there that are not relevant to other matters but we don't want it splashed out in public as it might involve friends of ours. Even just saying you think Trump is doing a good job is a risk these days and your friends might not want that aired.

 

Here's the problem. Let's say the accusations are a bald-faced lie. If it was me, I'd want to stand up and call her a god damned liar in front of everyone. But if he does that they'll just say he was bullying her and showed the world he is unstable. That's the beauty of it all for the Left. So instead he has to maintain his poise in front of his family and give her the respect she does not deserve.

 

Good point By
I hope both testify this week and the vote goes forward. If as the woman and her husband are both NOW saying they think he is such a terrible candidate why did she first say she did not want to say anything?
DiFi also needs to be truthful but we know that won't happen.
Against the woman's wishes she made public there was a letter.
But yea politics had nothing to do with this.

 

This is the true essence of political correctness. They want equality. So be it. But we have to then elevate the entire species into one entity; a human being, no different than anyone else. We either respect everyone or everyone is allowed to say what needs to be said regardless of whether or not the accuser is a woman. But there is a stipulation at play here:
"We've been raped. We've been bullied. We've been marginalized. We bring these stipulations as evidence against someone who is not innocent until proven guilty because of these stipulations. And if you attack us then you attack the stipulations, meaning you attack our history and all women."

EDIT: By introducing historical wrongs as evidence, we have moved away from what we know the Left demands; the past does not indicate guilt in the present. But in this arena, there are no rules. And Kavenaugh has now paid a heavy price for the sins of others especially when he looks into the eyes of a questioning family.

 

Let us say that everything she is saying is true. Then it's not good. I have a daughter. I think of her as I write these things. If he is lying then that is a problem. Does it indicate the man he is today or his legal acumen? No. But did he get away with "boys will be boys" or did he rape. A lot of men didn't do what she is alleging in high school. I know I didn't. I can't prove a negative though.

In the end, the tactics employed by Feinstein is the real problem because she is in fact being tactical and not compassionate. This is about political gamesmanship in order to regain power; a Machiavellian maneuver. Had she really cared this would have been vetted months ago.

And that is why I feel I can question it without being a typical man who harumphs the #metoo movement.

 

When I started doing God's Work, I used to tell clients to close their social media accounts. However, once I started getting millennials for clients, it became clear that telling them to close their social media accounts was like telling them to have themselves bound to a chair and gagged for a year. So I modified my advice to tell them never to post anything about their case (and explained to them what this means) and advised them never to post anything that they wouldn't mind seeing on the front page of the new York Times everyday for the rest of their lives.

 

How'd that go?

"OMG The judge just yelled at the other lawyer. I'm totally getting off. Vids soon! XOXOX!!"

 

Diane Feinstein absolutely played politics with this.

Mrs. Ford seems to have only jumped into the public sphere when her hand was forced. At this point she's a reluctant witness. Props to Kellyanne Conway for saying her side should be heard rather than jumping right to the character assasination.

Earlier I said unless this woman stepped forward this was a non-issue. Now that she's stepped forward was should pause to vet this event, if that's possible.

 

I've said it before. This is the blow back from denying Obama's nomination. The Dems couldn't care less about accusations of gamesmanship or refusing to participate in anything short of a total media circus. It may be that the accuser was totally on board with withholding the information. If it's all true she may have had the past come roaring back and this is now her chance for street justice.

 

Now that would be a reason to vote against him.

 

Except now we know she isn't a "reluctant witness." And btw - that story was always ridiculous.

The Washington Post Story Contradicts Christine Ford's Lawyer

"
Christine Ford's lawyer claims Ms. Ford wanted anonymity and reached out to Dianne Feinstein privately. The Washington Post, however, reports that Ford first reached out to them via a tip line to tell her story.

Then, while still claiming to not want to come forward, Ford both lawyered up and got a polygraph.

She now claims she knew she would have to come forward because the media was working on stories and would expose her, but that comes full circle to her calling a tip line and outing herself.

Likewise, we have the fact that her therapist described four assailants and Ford now claims that was an error on the therapists part. Though her therapist has detailed notes, she never writes down Kavanaugh's name. We just have Ford's husband claiming Ford named Kavanaugh at the time, but it was apparently not a detail significant enough for the therapist to record."

Oh, and we also have the lawyer saying that their position is not that Kavanaugh is disqualified from serving by this accusation. Ummm... what?

Katie Pavlich - Lawyer for Kavanaugh’s Accuser: My Client Isn't Saying Kavanaugh Shouldn't Be Confirmed to the Supreme Court

 

Bork and Thomas were treated this way too. Democrats have fought dirty since the 1960s and will continue to fight dirty. F@%& 'em

 

I hear you...

 

The bad news about all of this: the press will come down hard on anyone who offers any resistance to the accuser's story, regardless of how ridiculous the story becomes. Will any of the republican senators stand up to the press? I would normally count on Ted Cruz, but with the election so close, who knows?

 

LOL. Not quite. The worst that ever happened to me is that a client of mine who had a knee injury had a little BS called on him because of something he posted on Facebook. The knee injury was legit. A MRI showed nasty ligament tears, and he ended up having surgery. The carrier didn't dispute any of that.

Good case? Sure, but it should have been better. Here's the problem. He also claimed in deposition to have difficulty walking as long as two years after surgery. I was a little skeptical, because I hadn't noticed a limp when he came to our office, but I honestly hadn't paid that much attention since I usually saw him in the conference room, where he was sitting down. After the deposition, he got up, limped around, etc., so I didn't call BS on him right away.

At mediation, defense counsel pulled out a video that he had posted on Facebook just a few days before the deposition. He was playing basketball and clearly doing so without any kind of limp. He was running, jumping, etc. We still did OK, but that certainly impacted the case value and made him look like he was exaggerating his injury, which he clearly was. Dumbass. This is one of these cases that I'm still bitter about, because I gave that douche the social media advice that I mentioned earlier.

 

Debra Katz, the attorney for the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, said that it is not her client’s job to corroborate her claims.
Kavanaugh Accuser’s Lawyer: It’s Not Her Job To Corroborate Her Story

Interesting that the story is her therapist 's notes contradict Ford's story
Who released the name of the therapist? Pretty quick release of the therapist notes for this person who wanted to remain anonymous

 

Wait, wut?

He's innocent unless your client can prove him to be guilty, you silly twit.

 

Based on the evidence provided by Hornfans, the upcoming hearing with Ford will be fun to watch.
What is it about Republican SCOTUS nominees being so attracted to raging liberal women? Strange.

 

Just heard Senator Hatch say Kavanaugh told him he was not at the party inquestion.

 

I am now of the opinion that the woman has a mistaken memory. Kavanaugh has almost 40 years of no complaints wrt women since age 15 except for this allegation. What is more likely: a one time offender of assault vs a woman with a bad memory combined with other issues (and we all have issues to some extent, so no dig on the woman).

 

No doubt. The press will treat anything but "you're right. He tried to rape you, so let's burn him at the stake" as misogynistic bullying. Furthermore, they will characterize her testimony as "credible" (which just means "we believe her") not matter what she says or how weak her story might be. The Democrats and the press (which is redundant at this point) want maximum political benefit from this. They will want it to entice Flake, Corker, and maybe Collins and Murkowski to vote against Kavanaugh. If they can't get all of them, they'll at least want to make it politically easier for red state Democrats up for reelection in 2018 to vote against him. And if he gets on the Court, they'll want this to taint his tenure as they've tried to make Anita Hill taint Clarence Thomas's tenure. That's just the burden of being the party detested by the media and the privilege of being the party favored by the media, and it's something the GOP has had to deal with since the 1930s and will have to deal with for our lifetimes at least.

However, there is a right way to make her look bad without looking like an *******. I've taken apart and discredited sympathetic witnesses before. It's tough, but it can be done. Obviously, the best thing would be to have a woman on the committee who can question her. Knowing how high profile the Judiciary Committee was going to be with a Supreme Court nomination, the GOP was stupid for not having at least one woman on the committee. Instead, we've got a bunch of white guys. (Ted Cruz is white. Only liberal Hispanics are allowed to call themselves non-white, and some liberal white guys (like Beto) are allowed to effectively pretend to be non-white.)

Cruz isn't the guy to haggle with her. He's too aloof and too prone to sanctimony. It needs to be a likable and easygoing guy. Grassley and Hatch are decent guys who would have been fine 30 years ago, but they're too old and gruff now. It needs to be somebody who's younger and likable. Jeff Flake won't do it for obvious reasons, though he could. Crapo, Thillis, and Cornyn are too bland. Kennedy is better but still not ideal. The guys to go with are Ben Sasse, Lindsey Graham, and Mike Lee. I don't always like Lindsey Graham, but he's good at this stuff. (I do pretty much always like Ben Sasse and Mike Lee.) The others can ask her questions, but they basically need to just be nice and let Sasse, Graham, and Lee ask the tough questions the right way.

 

Actually, that may very well be true. It wouldn't surprise me if she actually believes what she's going to say, which would help her pass a polygraph. Just remember the words of the great George Costanza at the very top of his game.

 

******** (with all due respect - ). That is what some pundits will say to make the Democrats' actions look more justifiable or righteous, and it wouldn't make it any more righteous or justifiable either way. Even if Merrick Garland got cheated (which he didn't), that wouldn't justify taking a crap on another human being who had nothing to do with the Garland seat.

This is happening because it's the decisive swing vote on the Court, and that is the only reason it is happening. If Merrick Garland had gotten on the Court with a 100-0 vote, the Kennedy seat had gone to Gorsuch, and Ginsburg died and Kavanaugh was nominated to replace her, they would do the same exact thing to him.

 

Trump should go nuclear and announce a more conservative alternative to Kavanaugh if he is not confirmed.

 

It's good to get dog-cussed every now and then by my "legal" coach! Ha... I'm trying not to be naive.

Why don't you think Garland was cheated?

I understand the swing vote. Your reasoning makes sense. I just think it opened a can of worms to deny Garland the nomination.