Feinstein On Kavanaugh Accuser: 'I Can't Say That Everything Is Truthful'

townhall.com...


I wish I could say I was shocked , but honestly there is no tactic beneath the democrats anymore. It is funny when a democrat nominates a judge, or cabinet member the votes are normally in the 90's- single digits to nominate the individual, but, when it is a conservative nominee it is always a party line vote. They want to name the nominees and to that I say what the liberals messiah obama said. Elections have consequences, go win elections if you want to name nominees.



I personally think they should not have delayed the vote but now that they did they should tell her Monday is your day to come in and prove this and if she does not come in they should just hold the vote Monday. They are playing right into the democrats hands by delaying this. And her lawyer should be embarrassed to say what she said that it is not the accusers job to prove the accusation. Of course it is up to her to prove it, we have presumption of innocence in this country.

a reply to: norhoc

This is a circus and a disgrace.

The leftists in congress (both republicans and democrats) are total effing losers.

To do this to Kavanaugh and to smear him with what. . . ? A liar now?

A clear leftist who had planned this, it's disgusting.

originally posted by: norhoc
townhall.com...


I wish I could say I was shocked , but honestly there is no tactic beneath the democrats anymore. It is funny when a democrat nominates a judge, or cabinet member the votes are normally in the 90's- single digits to nominate the individual, but, when it is a conservative nominee it is always a party line vote. They want to name the nominees and to that I say what the liberals messiah obama said. Elections have consequences, go win elections if you want to name nominees.

I have seen this going around, but I would like to see the direct source where she said this.

However, if she did, it just shows feinstein to be more disgusting than she already was, which is saying a lot.

No matter how this shakes out, feinstein setting on this allegation until the last second is a truly disgusting move that belittles all victims of sexual violence by using this alleged incident as a mere political ploy.

If she was really concerned with the alleged victim, she would have came forth immediatly, and asked kavanauggh about it during the hearing.

Instead this is a transparent ploy to capitalize off of a sexual accusation in hopes of delaying conformation until after the election.

If she is now saying she is not sure if the alleged victim is telling the whole truth, that is just the cherry on top of her immoral actions here.

All peopole, ESPECIALLY real advocates of seal abuse victims like the metoo movement should be appalled by feinsteins actions; yet most are silent.

I wonder why that is? Could it be it never was about seeking justice for all victims, but merely using this movement as a tool to go after people they dont like (while protecting accused abusers on gthier own side, see ellison)?

I just found out Christine Blasey Ford scrubbed her social media accounts. Probably to hide her political affiliations .

a reply to: norhoc

How about the tactics of Republicans who denied Obama’s constitutional right to choose a nominee

Nothing is lower than that and the GOP did it

a reply to: Grambler





www.mediaite.com...

Here you go watch the video in this link Feinstein on video saying it. I don't know how to embed, sorry

a reply to: Willtell


You don't think accusing a guy of sexual assault and attempted rape is lower than that? Your moral compass must point straight to hell

originally posted by: Fallingdown
I just found out Christine Blasey Ford scrubbed her social media accounts. Probably to hide her political affiliations .

I had heard that as well. Supposedly she is an extreme leftist.

In my mind, that is why the Dems sat on this since late July... to scrub her internet presence and coach her for a little bit.

They should have coached her better.

October 13th, 1982, about 11pm. I was a Junior in high school.

I remember my little trauma very well... she doesn't remember the year?

Not buying it.

a reply to: Grambler
yeah i only see them and the daily caller going with it , nbc is running with she may not even be wanting to testify www.nbcnews.com...

WASHINGTON — The scheduled hearing next Monday on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court appeared to be in some doubt Tuesday, as senators said that Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were in high school, had not yet agreed to appear. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Tuesday morning that he had extended invitations to both Kavanaugh and Ford to testify on Monday, but that while Kavanaugh has agreed to appear, Ford had not yet responded. "We have reached out to her in the last 36 hours, three or four times by email and we’ve not heard from them, so it kind of raises the question, do they want to come to the public hearing or not?" Grassley said on The Hugh Hewitt Show radio show.

so now that its delayed she might not want to show up? and

WASHINGTON — The scheduled hearing next Monday on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court appeared to be in some doubt Tuesday, as senators said that Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were in high school, had not yet agreed to appear. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Tuesday morning that he had extended invitations to both Kavanaugh and Ford to testify on Monday, but that while Kavanaugh has agreed to appear, Ford had not yet responded. "We have reached out to her in the last 36 hours, three or four times by email and we’ve not heard from them, so it kind of raises the question, do they want to come to the public hearing or not?" Grassley said on The Hugh Hewitt Show radio show. How will sexual assault claims affect Kavanaugh's confirmation? Sep.18.201802:01 Responding to the uncertainty around the hearing and Ford's lack of a response, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told reporters Tuesday: "That's very puzzling to me...I really hope that she doesn't pass up that opportunity." Speaking to reporters at a Senate GOP leadership press conference Tuesday, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that they had offered Ford the opportunity to testify in an open or closed session. Asked if the Senate can get a full picture of the incident without speaking to other witnesses, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., reiterated that Ford already provided her account to The Washington Post, and said that Kavanaugh has already been through six FBI investigations over the course of his public career. Kavanaugh returned to the White House on Tuesday, according to a White House official, after spending about nine hours there on Monday. Grassley spokesman Taylor Foy said Tuesday that Democrats decided not to participate in a phone call Monday with Kavanaugh. "Our staff reached out to Dr. Ford’s lawyer with multiple emails yesterday to schedule a similar call and inform her of the upcoming hearing, where she will have the opportunity to share her story with the Committee," he said. "Her lawyer has not yet responded." Democrats, meanwhile, blasted Republicans for how they arranged the hearing. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor Tuesday morning that it would be unacceptable for senators to hear from witnesses just a day or two before being asked to vote on the nomination. He also called it "inadequate" for the committee to hear from only two witnesses on Monday and that Mark Judge — who Ford said was a witness to the incident — should also testify. "Let's not repeat the mistakes of the Anita Hill hearings," Schumer said. "Let's call all the relevant witnesses." In a letter to Grassley and Feinstein on Tuesday, Judge's attorney, Barbara Van Gelder, shared a statement from Judge denying Ford's account. "I did not ask to be involved in this matter nor did anyone ask me to be involved. The only reason I am involved is because Dr. Christine Blasey Ford remembers me as the other person in the room during the alleged assault," the statement said. "In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident. Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes." Judge added that he did not wish to speak publicly about the incident and had no additional information to provide to the committee.

so her other witness who refutes her story will not testify it seems (judge) so that seems it will be a "he said she said" situation at best. id guess it means if she doesn't testify that confirmation will continue in early october,and even if she does unless she has some mindblowing evidence that it will happen anyways

This whole charade is about to come crumbling down on Feinstein.....

www.politico.com... politico is also saying its unsure if judge will not testify

Indeed, one of the critical Republicans remaining undecided on Kavanaugh suggested that he wouldn’t oppose moving ahead on the confirmation if Ford decides to forgo testimony. "I don't know how they can say: I'm just not going to appear. She has the option of a closed session, with cameras or without. We want her to appear. And then she has said, before we made the decision, that she wanted to appear. So that's what we want," Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said after he and other Judiciary Committee Republicans met with McConnell for nearly an hour. "She's asked to come and testify, she needs to be heard," Flake said. "I hope she comes." Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a former Judiciary chairman, said “I think” the hearing would proceed even if Ford chooses not to accept the invitation to testify. Judge wrote a memoir that discusses his binge drinking while in high school and another book that features a character named “Bart O’Kavanaugh” drinking heavily. But his resistance to speaking further about what Ford has alleged was an assault fueled by alcohol abuse likely closes the door to any appearance before the Judiciary panel, since Republicans would be able to defeat any Democratic attempt to subpoena Judge’s testimony.

so they are gonna do the hearing anyway even if she does not testify and its unlikely judge would be supeonaed and appears to want nothing to do with this other then his limited public comments

www.washingtonexaminer.com... and it seems kavanaugh has hired one of the better defamation attorneys in the country to defend him which would seem to imply that he may want to go after her for defamation and or slander

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has reportedly hired Washington trial lawyer Beth Wilkinson amid the fallout over a woman alleging he sexually assaulted her while in high school. The allegation of sexual misconduct emerged late last week, following Kavanaugh's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. His accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, revealed her identity in the Washington Post over the weekend and has agreed to recount her experience in sworn testimony before the Senate panel if called in the coming days. Kavanaugh has described Ford's accusation as "categorically false," saying in a statement Monday he did not know who was making the accusation until she came forward over the weekend and has "never done anything like what the accuser describes – to her or to anyone."

heavy.com... 5 "fast facts" about the lawyer he chose

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: norhoc

How about the tactics of Republicans who denied Obama’s constitutional right to choose a nominee

Nothing is lower than that and the GOP did it

That was low I agree.

This situation has all of the same things that made that low, with two added additions.

Smearing a man forever with allegations of sexual assault for political reasons.

And Belittling all real victims of sexual abuse by using their suffering as a mere political ploy.

So this is much, much lower.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: norhoc

How about the tactics of Republicans who denied Obama’s constitutional right to choose a nominee

Nothing is lower than that and the GOP did it

I'd say what Hillary did to Bernie was on that level....

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Willtell


You don't think accusing a guy of sexual assault and attempted rape is lower than that? Your moral compass must point straight to hell

It is not low if the accusation is true.

I cannot say whether she is telling the truth or not, but I do know I will not judge or berate either her or Kavanaugh unless something can be proven either way.

Such an accusation should be taken quite seriously and I cannot bring myself to form an opinion on this solely because of politics.

I see many doing that, and it's quite sad.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Willtell


You don't think accusing a guy of sexual assault and attempted rape is lower than that? Your moral compass must point straight to hell

It is not low if the accusation is true.

I cannot say whether she is telling the truth or not, but I do know I will not judge or berate either her or Kavanaugh unless something can be proven either way.

Such an accusation should be taken quite seriously and I cannot bring myself to form an opinion on this solely because of politics.

I see many doing that, and it's quite sad.

And yet you have been silent on the accusations against ellison.

Strange isnt that?

Again, of course this womans should be heard, and perhaps she is telling the truth.

But feinsteins actions are disgusting here. she clearly sat on this for two months and sprung it on the week before the confirmation for political purposes.

That is lower than what was done with garland, regardless if the allged victim is telling the truth or not.

a reply to: introvert


I disagree somewhat, if you are going to make that level of accusation (whether it is 35 minutes or 35 years after the fact) you had by god better bring proof. Burden of proof is on the accuser , It blows my mind how many people don't seem to believe in presumption of innocence.

a reply to: Willtell

they (mitch meconnol) took a hell of a gamble and it paid off,it could have backfired on republicans and cost us votes instead the base rallied behind trump and got him elected and got him one pick and a second forth comming as well as allowed trump to stack the lower federal courts with close to 70 appointees since his election

www.politico.com...

On that frigid February day when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died, Mitch McConnell made what appeared to be a potentially disastrous decision when he vowed to keep Scalia’s seat vacant until the next president took office. The Senate majority leader didn’t consult any of his colleagues, and Democrats promised to make him pay for blocking nominee Merrick Garland by taking back the Senate and keeping the White House. That, of course, didn’t happen. And you can argue with McConnell’s tactics and whether he invalidated the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency, but you can’t argue with the results: He’s now on the precipice of altering the balance of the court for a generation, and there may be nothing at all Democrats can do about it. Not only that, there are indications that McConnell’s calculated gamble may have helped elect Donald Trump and keep his Senate under Republican control.

calculated gamble and it paid off in spades

www.msnbc.com... if the dems hadnt gotten rid of the filibuster rule he wouldn't have been able to pull it off but he did and he considers it the most consequential action of his career

McConnell said once again that the most important accomplishment, in his mind, of Donald Trump’s administration so far has been the number of conservative judicial appointments the president has gotten through. “I believe that’s the most important thing we’re doing,” the majority leader said. “You’ve heard me say before that I thought the decision I made not to fill the Supreme Court vacancy when Justice Scalia died was the most consequential decision I’ve made in my entire public career. The things that will last the longest time – those are my top priorities.”

again had fillibuster rule not been removed he wouldnt have been able to do it so thanks dems

www.washingtontimes.com...

Mr. McConnell looked like a conservative hero, and the Court was saved. Even if Mrs. Clinton would’ve won, Mr. McConnell would’ve energized his conservative base by waging the fight. But don’t expect things to get any less contentious. Although Republicans hold the Senate, it’s likely Democrats will filibuster Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court pick. Mr. McConnell will then have to make a hard decision: use the so-called “nuclear option,” which Senate Democrats used in 2013 to counter judicial blockades, or try to broker a broader consensus. There’s no doubt what former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would do — he led the 2013 revolt to enable judicial and executive nominees to be confirmed with just 51 votes instead of 60. I hope it doesn’t come to that. But one thing’s for certain: Payback’s a you-know-what.

elections have consequences and yeah pay back can be one cold mother

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas


The funniest thing is this guy and the dem's pick garland were in agreement on 90+% of their judicial opinions

a reply to: norhoc

I disagree somewhat, if you are going to make that level of accusation (whether it is 35 minutes or 35 years after the fact) you had by god better bring proof. Burden of proof is on the accuser , It blows my mind how many people don't seem to believe in presumption of innocence.

Absolutely. She is accusing the man of something, she should bring the goods.

I think it is completely out-of-line and unfair for her to bring for these accusations, unless she is willing to put her money where mouth is.

Sadly, people can be pathetic, low pieces of # and will use things like these to score political points against people they disagree with. (See the member above who is using my lack of commentary on another case as a political tool against me)

So I tend to stay out of issues like this, because there is no point in arguing about something unless we can argue about the evidence/facts presented. But make no mistake about it...there are those that will lie and use things like this as political tools.

I just can't do that. It takes a true piece of # to do so and I hope she isn't one of them. If she is, so be it.

a reply to: Lumenari

I read an article from American thinker that said she makes pink vagina hats. Sane people don’t do stuff like that .

I agree with you about scrubbing and coaching and I also agree it was all for naught. Cross-examination will take the wind right out of her sails.

I’m willing to bet there’s going to be a slew of shameful Husseys making accusations come October.

But I can sympathize with her on the memory loss.

Cause I don’t remember anything about the 80s.