Ford - Kavanaugh Hearings 9-27-18

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
I believe that Fienstien didn't leak it. I'll put money on Ford's lawyer leaking it.

This is what I think too. Feinstein recommended the lawyer because she knew she could get them to leak it.... the little envelope from sheisty sheila....maybe the benefits of doing Diane's dirty deed.....

A2D

a reply to: Grambler

Oh ok, so we can just take an outlets word for it.

Call mueller, wikileaks says russia didnt send them the DNC emails.

So is there any evidence that contradicts Ryan Grim's assertion because there's a whole mountain to contradict Assange's.

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Did Ford's attorney NOT tell Ford Grassley offered to come to Calif. to interview her?

she said she was unaware of the offer........

Well...HOW about THAT?
Dems completely exploited this poor woman...beginning to end.
Despicable.

a reply to: Grambler

I just can't imagine not watching the live testimony of someone who is trying to prevent you from getting on the Supreme Court, under any circumstances. I just don't buy his ad lib on preparation. His old Yale classmates were laughing about his portrayal of himself as a kind of "choirboy". I think he was prepared for a pro forma confirmation and abhors the idea of getting into the nitty gritty of who he really is.

My God ,it's finally over just a few minutes ago ! I watched the whole sorry mess.......the bottom line is that an allegation without any proof or facts is hollow and any sane person should side with Kavanaugh....no matter how compelling Ford's emotional testimony was .

To me this all looked like a carefully scripted piece of theater on both sides, both sides working towards the same goal/agenda but coming at it from different angles. It is all in what they said and didn't say when they were supporting their "side". Those 5 mins of non-hostile questioning offers up a lot of insight into what is really on their minds. It really looks like they are trying to crack down on the sexual harassment/assault issues and even some of the non-hostile grandstanding had a way of coming off as a little hostile.

At the beginning when Kav was told to read the definition of sexual harassment/assault I'm wondering what is the time frame from that definition because I KNOW it has changed a great deal since 1980, and what would be considered harassment or inappropriate if not by the word of law than at least by what was common or "accepted" (right or wrong - I'm not making a judgment on that - that is why definitions have changed - been expanded and clarified). Can someone be held to today's standards of sexual harassment (law) for actions of 35+ years ago when that wasn't the definition? There seems to be a major dis-connect in what we have been shown. We are putting a man on trial and holding him to todays standards when that would have been impossible for him to know what was expected of him in the future.

There was a medication that caused lots of birth defects in the 60's to 80's - lost limbs IIRC - and obviously the mother didn't know the medication was harmful at the time - but it would be like telling her today that she was a horrible mother and deserved jail time for taking the medication that was "common" back then and accidentally injuring her child. That is no different than holding someone accountable for the current legal environment's laws for the actions taken 40 years ago.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: TinySickTears

Belonging to a political party means we support their actions. It makes us as bad as them and knowingly so. Until people have the backbone to be independently minded, separate themselves from the game of pitting us against each other to control us and tell us what to believe, we are to blame.

No matter what anyone believes is the truth, if they still support these clowns from both parties, they become as bad as they are. Why oh why is anyone a proud Democrat or Republican when they should bow their heads in shame for letting themselves be told what to think, how to think and what to believe.

These two parties under our system have been given free reign to limit us to just two choices by making it impossible for any independent to make it on a ballot. The parties pick who will or will not be allowed to participate and the people who should run this country would never be stupid enough to even run for office and it's been orchestrated to make sure of that.

God help us if either party ever gets complete control.

Reading your post gives me hope, good to see not everyone falling for this farce.

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: Grambler

I just can't imagine not watching the live testimony of someone who is trying to prevent you from getting on the Supreme Court, under any circumstances. I just don't buy his ad lib on preparation. His old Yale classmates were laughing about his portrayal of himself as a kind of "choirboy". I think he was prepared for a pro forma confirmation and abhors the idea of getting into the nitty gritty of who he really is.

Then you answer yourself

You can’t imagine it under any circumstances meaning it makes him no more likely innocent or guilty to you

I like the quote from Kavanaugh

"you're replaced advice and consent, with search and destroy"

well said Brett, well said

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Did Ford's attorney NOT tell Ford Grassley offered to come to Calif. to interview her?

I thought I may have not heard that correctly, but if you heard it, too, then I think we heard the same thing. Ford seemed a bit surprised by that and thanked Grassley for having offered that.

originally posted by: ipsedixit
I realize that not everyone agrees, but I think Kamala Harris's question was very telling. The idea of him not watching Ford's testimony, if he is innocent, is unbelievable.

Everyone is playing hardball on this confirmation so I hope that the allegations of Julie Swetnick result in rape charges against him in Maryland. They can't come soon enough, if they are coming. If he is appointed, the pressure to squash them will be tremendous.

Good, bring it on.

Would love to see her cross examined.

Why should he have watched a bunch of BS?

a reply to: Grambler

No. I think he's guilty. He doesn't want to know what she has to say, doesn't want to acknowledge it.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I am Ashamed Cory Booker is a Representative of My State , For the Record , I Also did not Vote for this Pompous Ahass . His Questioning of the Honorable Judge Brett Kavanaugh was Shameful and Condescending in SOOO Many Ways . His Questioning was just an Obvious LAME Attempt of Looking for Dirt on the Judge , and you could just see he Obviously Cares Absolutely Nothing about this Man and the Ordeal he is being Submitted to as a Fellow Human Being . He Will be OUT OF OFFICE SOON .............

Looks like they will be voting tomorrow.....

Senator John Cornyn tells reporters the committee will vote tomorrow on the nomination.

Congressional Reporter elwasson Trump has ended any suspense about whether he will stick by Brett Kavanaugh by tweeting his support for him and demanding a vote. The nomination is clearly heading to the Senate floor. It could fail if two Republicans join all Democrats in voting no. We will be keeping an eye on Jeff Flake of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

www.bloomberg.com...

originally posted by: Blaine91555

I'd blame this on the Democrats who excel in character assassination, but I have zero doubt the Republicans would do the same if the situation were reversed.

While not exactly traditional, the GOP did NOT pull one of these stunts. Merick Garland's name wasn't dragged through the mud, his career wasn't destroyed, his character was not assaulted... the GOP merely refused to carry his nomination forward to committee. As I said, not exactly fair play by them, but a damn far cry from attempting to take an honorable family man down to the level of a sexual assaulter, drunkard, liar... WTF ever those disgraceful fools tried to do to him today.

The fact that Blumenthal, Leahy, Feinstein, Booker, Harris, and Durbin are even elected representatives speaks volumes about the majority character in the districts which sent them to DC... My opinion of several regions of the US continues to decline.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

Oh ok, so we can just take an outlets word for it.

Call mueller, wikileaks says russia didnt send them the DNC emails.

So is there any evidence that contradicts Ryan Grim's assertion because there's a whole mountain to contradict Assange's.

Sometimes I wonder about you.

originally posted by: loam
So how does the left react?

Someone on Capitol Hill just doxxed Republican Sens. Mike Lee, Orrin Hatch, and Lindsey Graham

Lawless pieces of #.

From that article:


"The Left has taken as fact that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a serial sexual predator without corroborating evidence."

No, the Left is trying to fabricate Kavanaugh as a serial sexual predator.

None of it is true and we all know it!

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: Grambler

No. I think he's guilty. He doesn't want to know what she has to say, doesn't want to acknowledge it.

you are entitled to your opinion I suppose

as misguided as it is.......

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

Oh ok, so we can just take an outlets word for it.

Call mueller, wikileaks says russia didnt send them the DNC emails.

So is there any evidence that contradicts Ryan Grim's assertion because there's a whole mountain to contradict Assange's.

Well we know only feinsteins office, the office if ashoo the dem congressman (I think they had it) and the lawyers recommend by Feinstein working for ford had the letter

So my guess is they leaked it

Maybe someone they leaked to gave it to the intercept

But what’s your theory if it wasn’t them

Did the Russians leak this as well

a reply to: ipsedixit

doesn't want to acknowledge it

Sort of like Dr. Ford's witnesses who 'acknowledged' they never saw Kavanaugh at that party