Feinstein v. Kavanaugh
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sen. Dianne Feinstein's distortion of data points to the agenda driving this new discussion from the left to derail the Kavanaugh vote by any means necessary. Nothing, certainly not facts, will get in their way.
While questioning Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh about abortion during his Senate confirmation hearings, Senator Dianne Feinstein grossly misstated statistics about abortion deaths before Roe v. Wade.
"In the 1950s and 1960s, two decades before Roe, deaths from illegal abortions in this country ran between 200,000 and 1.2 million. That's according to the Guttmacher Institute."
The Guttmacher Institute has very close ties to the abortion lobby, but even their numbers proved Feinstein way off base.
The Guttmacher study actually reported 200,000 to 1.2 million as the number of procedures. Regarding actual deaths, in 1965, for example, there were 200, according to Guttmacher.
When corrected, Feinstein was dismissive of the gravity of her error. "So, a lot of women died in that period," she demurred.
Feinstein's distortion of data points to the agenda driving this new discussion from the left to derail the Kavanaugh vote by any means necessary.
Nothing, certainly not facts, will get in the way of their attempts to control the courts, regardless of any collateral damage done to the reputation of an upstanding and decent man.
Thus we can understand the sudden emergence of Christine Blasey Ford and her claim that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982, when she was 15 and he was 17.
As reported in The Washington Post, Ford, a vocal progressive and pro-Democrat donor, wrote to Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, describing the incident but requesting anonymity, in July.
Apparently, Feinstein was so moved to keep the letter anonymous that she buried the contents as well as the identity of the author.
Per reports, Feinstein did not ask Kavanaugh about this in her interview with him prior to the hearings. Nor did she question Kavanaugh about it during the hearings.
Suddenly, two months after Feinstein received Ford's letter, she announced she had information about Kavanaugh that she reported to the FBI.
Then a story revealing the contents of Ford's letter appeared in the press. Days later, Ford concluded her "civic responsibility" compelled her to shed anonymity and step forward, armed with a polygraph test corroborating her story and a seasoned, progressive legal advisor.
How can anyone take this seriously?
Even liberals should concede that in America one is innocent until proven guilty. Particularly with 36-year-old allegations that are impossible to corroborate.
Kavanaugh has had a long, distinguished career, serving as counsel in the White House and for the last 12 years as a federal district appeals court judge. Along with this, he has undergone a half-dozen FBI background checks, with no irregularities arising.
This is now standard fare for Democrats. When they perceive that our constitutionally defined machinery of government is not serving their far-left interests, they reach into the "dirty tricks" bag and pull out racist or sexual accusations to derail things.
This is exactly the swamp in Washington that President Trump was elected to drain.
If Feinstein thought Ford's accusations had teeth, then she had two months to vet them. It is a travesty to our system of government and justice to now interrupt the progress of Kavanaugh's confirmation with these tenuous claims. Feinstein had her chance.
It is transparent that this is about Democrats wishing to cause a delay until after November, opening the door for a new, progressive nominee, should Democrats gain control of Congress.
Nothing prevents Democrats from continuing to investigate Kavanaugh after he is confirmed – if they so wish.
The abuse that concerns me now is the abuse of our system of government by devious progressive political operatives.
It is imperative that Republicans show leadership now, before the election in November, and move forward immediately to vote on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination.
Star Parker (starparker@urbancure.org) is an author and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education.
Tags
Who is online
61 visitors
“Even liberals should concede that in America one is innocent until proven guilty. Particularly with 36-year-old allegations that are impossible to corroborate.
Kavanaugh has had a long, distinguished career, serving as counsel in the White House and for the last 12 years as a federal district appeals court judge. Along with this, he has undergone a half-dozen FBI background checks, with no irregularities arising.
This is now standard fare for Democrats. When they perceive that our constitutionally defined machinery of government is not serving their far-left interests, they reach into the "dirty tricks" bag and pull out racist or sexual accusations to derail things.
This is exactly the swamp in Washington that President Trump was elected to drain.”
Senator Feinstein is a despicable human being for what she has done in this case. She is trying to destroy a great man and his life, family , and career. Based on no evidence whatsoever.
If he did what he is accused of, he did it to himself.
And if he didn't, and he says he didn't, then Democrats have besmirched his good name for politics.
Classy move.
The republicans aren't angels in the "besmirching" department themselves, especially the twitter in chief.
Ooooh, nice deflection.
They’ve got to be good at something.....deflection will have to do.
LOL!
Sounds like Obama was actually right...…"The Russians aren't the problem".
[Removed]
Whatever else we've learned, we now know that the accuser is not just a regular person coming forward, but a Democratic activist perfectly willing to act as a Democrat pawn. Since she came forward when the Dems desperately needed a reason to delay the vote, everything she's done has been alignment with the partisan agenda of the Democrats. From refusing to turn over the letter she wrote, hiring Democratic activists as her lawyers, claiming she wants to testify, and then making ridiculous demands to keep from testifying, it all in service of the Democrats.
Asking for another 24 delay to supposedly "make up her mind" after she announced last week her willingness to testify is just her embracing the role of a partisan. She's sticking it to Grassley and the Republicans. She'll be a featured speaker for the Democrats on the campaign trial, no matter how this plays out. She's doing her part for the party.
Whatever else we've learned, we now know that the accuser is not just a regular person coming forward, but a Democratic activist perfectly willing to act as a Democrat pawn.
Tell you what, Sean, let's put your allegation to the test … whether or not Ford is a Democratic activist, and whether or not that is the bottom line in an attempted rape charge … can be put to the test …
… so …
Let me POSIT A PLAUSIBLE REACTION TO CHUCK GRASSLEY'S DENIAL OF DR. FORD'S REQUEST THAT WITNESSES TO THE ALLEGED ATTEMPTED RAPE BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE … and, to your contention.
Given the real possibility Brett Kavanaugh could still face charges for Attempted Rape in Maryland since Maryland has no statute of limitations for attempted rape, and the Attorney General is being encouraged by members of the public to investigate …
Hey, Sean, Chuck, Mitch, Donald, Brett et al …
I say … "In the absence of an open, FAIR HEARING FOR DR. FORD … I would urge her attorney to call for Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh to open an investigation, especially if the FBI doesn’t. And, depending on what may be found … FILE CHARGES!"
_______________________________________________________________________
Gee, I miss my old job … to quote Wilford Brimley's character in the film, Absence of Malice …
James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: "Now we'll talk all day if you want to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Angie - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's ass in muh briefcase.
What is the Md. AG going to charge him with in a 36 year old allegation with no phisical evidence and a named witness saying neither he nor Kavanaugh were at the event described by the Democrat party operative?
The FBI does investigate, that is what the I in FBI stands for so, they can INVESTIGATE this, IF THE PRESIDENT TELLS THEM TO, this happened during George H. W. Bush's administration and, it can happen now, if the president (Trump) wanted it to so, the question I posit is this, why doesn't Trump and, Grassley want the FBI to look into it? Don't bother answering, I already know the REAL answer, they're afraid of what the FBI will find.
The FBI does the background checks on SCOTUS nominees and this allegation must be investigated as a continuation of the Kavanaugh background check; since the White House nominates candidates, it is incumbent upon the White House to direct the FBI to investigate the allegation.
Beyond this, the FBI can issue ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS for cases involving child abuse … and Ford's allegation states that she was a MINOR at the time of the alleged incident.
"FORD'S REQUEST THAT WITNESSES TO THE ALLEGED ATTEMPTED RAPE BE ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
They've already submitted evidence to the committee, and if they lied they can go to jail. The only identified person who yet to put themselves in legal jeopardy for lying to Congress is Dr. Ford. Why do you think that is?
Perhaps you might want to revisit that quote you posted about what innocent people do? Kavanuagh wrote yet another letter asking Grassley to testify under oath, publicly, as soon as possible while Dr. Ford keeps making excuses not to be forthcoming.
Just think about what you wrote yesterday.
In the absence of an open, FAIR HEARING FOR DR. FORD
I think you mean Kavanaugh. Ford is dictating the terms of the hearing, yet still refuses to commit to testifying and is hiding the key piece of evidence (her original letter). Kavanugh is willing to submit to Democratic questioning without making ridiculous demands.
In the name of open fair hearings, how is it possible that her letter is still being hidden from the accused?
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh to open an investigation
By all means, it's a local crime. Of course the first step is for the accuser to tell her story so, why is she so hesitant to do what she promised to do? Do you think her story will change depending on who asks the questions? All she has to do is tell her version of what happened 40 years ago. If she's honest, it will be the same whether she's talking to the FBI, The Senate, or the Maryland State police.
There are witness's that Grassley has flat out denied can be heard at the hearing, the FBI can question them and, get their testimony which can be presented to the committee, yet, Grassley doesn't want the FBI to do it, he wants his people to do it and, they've already shown that they are biased towards Dr. Ford, if this goes forward without Dr. Ford's witness's then this is nothing more than a kangaroo court to smear her name.
I should mean "Kavanaugh," but given that Grassley and Hatch and you and the right-wing media have decided Ford's allegation is not credible … the alleged VICTIM, like Anita Hill, will be the Republican focus of the hearing, Sean.
By all means, it's a local crime. Of course the first step is for the accuser to tell her story so, why is she so hesitant to do what she promised to do?
In the absence of her ability to allow witnesses to be questioned UNDER OATH before the committee, her attorney may likely file.
Do you think her story will change depending on who asks the questions? All she has to do is tell her version of what happened 40 years ago. If she's honest, it will be the same whether she's talking to the FBI, The Senate, or the Maryland State police.
The difference between an "investigation" by the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee and one conducted via a legal filing and the ACTUAL INVESTIGATION in conjunction is obvious to the point of being rhetorical, Sean.
It's not that I think her story will change, it's that I fear how her story will be considered by the likes of Hatch, Grassley et al.
That depends on what is or is not determined by a credible investigation; let the witness make his statement under oath.
Surely the Maryland AG isn't THAT stupid?
They were both minors at the time the Democrat party operative alleges something happened
The chances of the Maryland AG filing attempted rape charges against Kavanaugh should be ZERO.
But even in Maryland, the actual odds would be too low to bet on. Why take on a case with national attention and have absolutely NO evidence of ANY kind to go on and make his dept. look like bumbling fools?
That isn't a recipe for being reelected.
You seem to be making a case that if only witnesses testified under oath, physical evidence will somehow manifest!
That isn't sane.
But the mantra is "Let her be heard!"!!!
As long as it isn't on Monday or Tuesday, I suppose!
Or Wednesday.
Well put this in your brief case. According to the progressive left and the internet we are all guilty if we are conservatives. If we are overtly conservative then our sources are questionable. If we believe in creation or young earth, or even angels, or oppose global warming as the left calls, it then our sources are pseudoscience, and if we oppose abortion and same sex marriage even while supporting other gay rights as part of our religious beliefs we are a hate group per the liberal hate groups at the SPLC and at MBFC. That is how they black ball us daily. And regularly they are changing more sites to questionable, pseudoscience, and hate because they and we are conservatives and or Christian conservatives. Last summer MBFC has rerated a bunch of our conservative sites to censored here categories over those reasons and none other because the owner there is a big dicked liberal scientist doctor who openly hates Christians and conservatives.
Most of those things simply make a person naive, superstitious and gullible, but at least one makes a person a greedy opponent of equal civil rights and a supporter of sharia law.
So?
So, anyone that has a 30+ year allegation of anything should be allowed to testify before the full senate committee on any nomination without being vetted as to if her testimony is beliveable or not? Will those rules work for democrat nominatees when the dems are in power?
Also, there is no need for caps, bolding and coloring. We are all adults enough to read what you have to say.
Um, at 17, so was Judge Kavanaugh. So, he wouild have to be sent to Juvenile Detention if he was found guilty of this spurrious, at best, accusation?
We both know this is an attempt to derail the President's Nominee. If it wasn't, Dr. Ford would have gone to a law enforcement agency, not to a politician.
Remember, the allegation is that they were both under the age of 17. Where do you think the charges will go? Usually, most cases involving underaged people go to juvenile court and are then SEALED and cannot be used to affect future employment. So, is supposed to spend time in Juvenile Hall over this should they bring charges?
So far every single witness that Ford has pointed to has no recollection of the party let alone the alleged assault. Ford can't remember time or place of the alleged assault. So, what can the Maryland DA do? If he brings any charges right now, he would be doing exactly the same thing that got Nifong sent to jail and disbarred for in the Duke Lacrosse team scandal.
So glad you know that there is nothing to find. Does Mueller brief you daily?
She is nothing more than a Democrat party hack at this point.
A pronouncement with no specifics … have some integrity when making such a definitive allegation; you boys demand (correctly) that the "burden of proof" be satisfied by Ford, only to declare her to be disingenuous WHILE FIGHTING THE IDEA OF AN INVESTIGATION INTO HER ALLEGATION!
That's the exact opposite of what's happening, and you know it. It's all about delaying an actual investigation.
Why hasn't her letter been turned over to Kavanaugh? The first step of an investigation is her testimony, which she has so far refused to give.
Why should the letter be turned over to Kavanaugh?
If this was a real court of law, I would agree but, this is a Republican kangaroo court that has only one function right now, to confirm Kavanaugh no matter who they have to walk over to do it so, what they will do, at least on the Republican side is try their best to make Dr. Ford not only look like some nut case with an agenda but, make her look like a slut.
Do you believe hiding evidence is how just results are obtained?
It isn't a court at all, and never pretended to be.
The burden of proof IS on Ford because of HER accusations.
That's how things work.
And I have to say, it don't look too good on that front. She doesn't seem able to remember the time, or lace, or even year the alleged incident took place. No police report, no witnesses, no speaking to her close girlfriends at the time, no nothing except her faulty memory.
Christine Blasey Ford Wants F.B.I. to Investigate Kavanaugh Before She Testifies
I have to laugh. You want Kavanaugh to testify without knowing the specifics of her allegations, and then give her the chance to testify without allowing Kavanaugh to respond to what her actual allegations are. Think about that.
It's so ass backwards from any sense of fairness as to not possibly be made in good faith. Even Vyshinky would have thought the Democrats plan was too unfair to the accused.
And then to a call a plan allowing Democrats and Republicans equal time to question the parties a kangaroo court. It's too ridiculous for satire.
See post 8.
Enjoy!
Make her [Dr. Ford?] look like a slut, for real, is that still even a thing?
As far as agendas go, are you denying that Dr. Ford has one ..? I would not call her a nut case nor a liar .. yet I have a feeling she has some things confused in her mind. I would not expect Dr. Ford to know the day this alleged 'violent sexual assault' took place, but I do expect that at minimum an accuser should be able to recall when or where. Dr. Ford has no recollection - Does she want the FBI to investigate and fill in the blanks for her?
All anyone can do is speculate at this time … my problem with all of this is that Feinstein sat on an alleged allegation against a Supreme Court nominee .. for reasons of anonymity? deal breaker for me - this information should have been presented at the time the accusation was made .. which was the letter received by Feinstein dated July 30, 2018
CRTV's Steven Crowder: Christine Blasey Ford is a "lying whore"
A shock jock? You used big letters regarding the words of a shock jock .. will you be quoting Limbaugh next?
Perhaps I should have said is that still a thing among reasonable individuals? ...…. John there will always be those that say things like that about an accuser - it was done to Al Franken's first accuser right here on NT … where was the outrage then?
So, you won't call her a nut case but, you will call her confused? Senator Grassley, is that you? Nah, it can't be but, it is one of his parrots. Let me give you some much needed information about sexual assault victims, you already know that they can take years to come forward, if they ever do but, one thing that is a constant with all of them, they remember the person who assaulted them, even if they didn't know them, they remember their face, their smell at the time of the attack and, the way they sound when they talk so, if you believe Ford was assaulted then know this, she remembers the man who did it, she is not mistaken or, confused.
Just as with Clarence Thomas, this is yet another high tech lynching of a conservative by the progressive democrats.
Crowder is a right-wing fraudster who has made several hoax videos before in an attempt to slander and demean Muslims. In fact several conservative NT members have cited him as credible.
Hey! Worked for Nunez, Issa, and the Soooper Select Trey Gowdy team.
Drama much? Mr. G she has no recollection of where and when this attack took place -- trust me, I know exactly when, where I was, down to the time of day I was violently sexually assaulted and it is now close to 30 years later..
Let me give you some much needed help on sexual assault? Thanks but no thanks Mr. G … you have nothing to teach me …
Tell me something Mr. G if what you say is true, why are men still be set free due to DNA after being falsely accused, convicted and incarcerated by the woman with their face burned into her memory?
I realize that individuals desire to believe Dr. Ford .. but as it stands her identification and claims are baseless - my opinion Mr. G
Morning Skrekk .. I had to look Crowder up … I cannot help what others see in their view as truth. I tend to read all I can on a subject in order to find what information is available before formulating an opinion .. this Crowder guy is a used car salesman with a platform ..
That's unique to your particular experience but it's not at all uncommon for the victims of sexual assault to remember details of the attack itself but not much else. Many victims suffer from PTSD and that definitely impacts one's memory. Maybe you should read what Reagan's daughter said about her own rape?
Crowder tries to infuse his show with a lot of humor. He's being funny to point out a double standard. He labels her a lying whore without evidence and that's outrageous, of course. But he does it because Kavanaugh has been labeled a racist without evidence and that's ok.
Huh?
Through your barely intelligible rant there, it sounds like you're talking about the Republicans.
"I was 15 but can't remember the year it happened."
That my friend
.....makes it disingenuous !
And the Democrat Kangaroo Court has only one function right now, to try and block any nominee of anything put forward by President Trump.
Actually, Dr. Ford looks like a political pawn pulled out fo the bag of dirty tricks by the Democrats to try and block what they knew was going to be a sure fire win. Amazing that Senator Feinstein say on this letter throughout the vetting process and the questioning process until she need to throw the 'Hail Mary' pass. Good to see her playing politics instead of doing what is best for the country. Business as usual.
Well, if she had any proof of the allegation instead of having every single witness write to the Senate Judiciary committee that they do not ever remember any such party let alone an assault at the party that NO ONE REMEMBERS. The alleged victim cannot remember a time or place where this party occurred. All of the evidence that points to an assault are all on Ford's say-so, there is no proof that anything like this occurred. Remember, the notes from her therapist are based on what Ford said to the therapist. Another reason why we declare her disingenuous is the fact the story keeps changing: From the notes, it was 4 boys attacking her at a party. From her letter, it was 2 boys attacking her and 4 boys at the party. From what she told a WaPo reporter around Sept 16, 2018, it was 3 boys and a girl at the party. So, which is it?
Link please to the dna setting rapist free after eyewitness testimony?
Oh, FFS. AGAIN????
25 Wrongly-Convicted Felons Exonerated By New Forensic ...
www.forensicsciencetechnician.net/25-wrongly-convicted-felons...
Dean Cage: The only evidence against Dean Cage was the erroneous testimony of the victim of a rape. Cage was convicted at a bench trial in Chicago in 1994. Only after 14 years and DNA testing was Cage exonerated and set free. He actually received compensation for the events stemming from his …
DNA Exonerations in the United States - Innocence Project
187: DNA exonerations worked on by the Innocence Project 158: Actual assailants identified. Those actual perpetrators went on to be convicted of 150 additional violent crimes, including 80 sexual assaults, 35 murders, and 35 other violent crimes while the innocent sat behind bars for …
Innocence Project: DNA frees Oklahoma man convicted of rape
www.foxnews.com/...project-dna-frees-oklahoma-man-convicted-rape.html
Jul 10, 2018 · An Oklahoma man who spent more than 30 years in prison for rape in southeastern Oklahoma is free after the Innocence Project presented DNA evidence …
DNA Evidence Clears Two Men in 1983 ... - The New York Times
...
Sep 03, 2014 · The exoneration based on DNA evidence was another example of the way tainted convictions h
Top 10 Wrongful Convictions Overturned by DNA Evidence ...
...
A faulty analysis of hair evidence is surprisingly common across many of the stories of people set free by DNA, analysis often claim to be able to match hair with a particular suspect on the basis of characteristics but this is almost impossible.
ave unraveled in recent years because of new technology and legal defense efforts like those of the Center ...
Here is a possible FBI investigation into this farce:
FBI interviews Ford. She claims attempted rape and assault.
FBI interviews Kavanaugh. He denies all allegations ever occurred.
FBI interviews Kavanaugh's buddy who Ford claims was there. He says he doesn't remember anything like that happening, as he has already stated.
FBI looks for any physical evidence. There is none.
FBI closes case, declaring that there isn't enough evidence for any reputable prosecutor to even bring charges against Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh is confirmed to SCOTUS.
Ford returns to school with a severely tarnished reputation.
That pretty much sums it all up.
Here is a possible FBI investigation into this farce:
FBI interviews Ford. She claims attempted rape and assault.
FBI interviews Kavanaugh. He denies all allegations ever occurred.
FBI interviews Kavanaugh's buddy who Ford claims was there. He says he doesn't remember anything like that happening, as he has already stated.
FBI looks for any physical evidence. There is none.
FBI closes case, declaring that there isn't enough evidence for any reputable prosecutor to even bring charges against Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh is confirmed to SCOTUS.
Ford returns to school with a severely tarnished reputation.
Well, then, it's in everyone's best interests to go ahead with an investigation so that you can claim how right you are …
… even so, I'll wait until witnesses respond to questions to which their answers, should they be intentional lies, get them 5 years in prison for perjury.
Good for you.
Enjoy your wait while Kavanaugh is confirmed.
Keep the dream alive!
Lots of taunts, lots of pronouncements, lots of whistling past the grave yard ... let’s see where the ultimate realities take us.
Lots of talk, lots of bull, lots of stories, VERY short on substantiated facts.
Yes, let's see where Ford's story take us.
Would be interesting if they got Judge's former girlfriend to testify. He as much admitted to her about a gang rape that he was part of. He didn't implicate Kavanaugh but Kavanaugh was stumbling drunken black out drunk during much of his high school and college years.
Over privileged bastards who knew they could pretty much get away with just about anything.
TADA !
"Conjectures" are fun to throw around though. Makes for a great Biased fairy tale that can sell millions to the gullible.
What if her story is an intentional lie? Maybe why she's flip-flopping on testifying?
They already have answered the question that is at the crux of the issue: Do you remember ever being at a party with Kavanaugh and Ford? Every single one of the named witnesses do not remember any such party. It's like you want them to be launched from The Bridge of Death for answering incorrectly.
Well, how about now? The Arizona prosecutor pretty much put to rest any chance to stop Kavanaugh
The proof about how this political is to compare how democrats treat one of their own, Kieth Elliison who is facing a second allegation of assualting women.
THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY is accused, again, and the Democrats respond with crickets.
Anyone who thinks the Democrats would care about Dr. Ford if she was a Republican activist who came forward with the exact same allegations about a Democratic Supreme Court nominee on the eve of confirmation is either lying or delusional. Democratic media like the Times wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.
But you see, the difference is that the allegations against Ellison are fairly recent--not 35 years ago!
and purportedly there is forensic evidence backing up the abuse claim , ie documentation...… that can be either a police or drs exam report.
Oh, I get it---you mean like PROOF!
Something sorely lacking in Ford's claims!
I'm a Democrat, Sean, and my position is … "when an allegation is made and the maker of the allegation asks for an investigation as a means of satisfying the 'burden of proof,' such an investigation should go forward and, consequences, be they ultimately on the accused or the accuser … or, on neither due to inconclusive results, should stand. And unless some evidence surfaces in the future (double jeopardy aside should a trial result in a "not guilty") … the allegations remain in the past."
So, let's begin with allegations against the current POTUS …
… otherwise … let's not call "crickets".
Funny how you have to drag Trump into an allegation against Ellison.
Defend the kid gloves treatment of the multiply accused Ellison on it's own.
If you can.
Great! Let's lock him up with some others since you're playing tit-for-tat Jim Knoblach.
A Republican, diddling his daughter for 10 years...where is that outrage? He quit now...had to read up on more of the Republican family values...
Well, he got the family part.
I haven’t defended either one ... just citing your selective indignation; what did I say about responding to allegations?
What did I say about investigations in response to allegations?
Before you criticize any of my positions, quote me specifically at the top of your critical comment.
But, he is the New Chosen One
This is not a criminal trial. We are not deciding whether or not to throw Judge Liar in jail for attempted rape. We are vetting Judge Liar to see if he has the impeccable morals and integrity that we SHOULD demand in a SCJ. It is Judge Liar's job interview and HE should be the one getting grilled, asked about how much he drank back then, etc. HIS reputation is what we should be scrutinizing here, not hers. BTW, Judge Liar has already failed miserably in his interview, before this allegation even surfaced.
Who cares how much he drank back then--when he was a freaking teenager, FFS.
How much he drinks NOW MIGHT be legitimate, but 35 years ago? Please, that is stupid.
He performed quite well, and will be confirmed.
So he could have been so drunk he assaulted her, and forgot about it... Thanks for the help.
Yes, that is possible. Not likely, but possible.
It is also possible Ford is lying bout the whole damn thing.
Her polygraph results make that highly unlikely.
Pretty cheeky to assume HER witness is lying just because HER witness didn't take a polygraph.
Why does ONLY ONE person (Ford) remember this alleged party and incident?
And it has been. Six times by the FBI and again in the last several weeks by many many people. We're supposed to throw all that out in favor of an accusation that he did something as a minor, even though the accuser can't remember when or where it happened and the people she claims were there refute her story. Is that what you're asking for?
If his nomination is an intended set up predicated on stacking the court with a fifth Republican appointee … which will likely enable all 5-4 outcomes to preclude Trump's being questioned, subpoenaed, indicted and/or locked up no matter how egregious his misfeasance or crimes … that may well suit religionists who seem to want America to be a "Christian nation," and, nationalist who see Trump as their "Jess Willard," but both objectives are dangerous.
Kavanaugh is the hand picked plant of the Heritage foundation and the Federalist Society ... he is Trump's get out of jail free card and enabler of his coronation!
Kavanaugh could become one of the five "tailors" who could sew the emperor’s new clothes for the first King of America!
Kavanaugh was the most liberal and establishment like nominee the other side could have expected. He wasn’t on the original list and was added later. He should have nominated Amy Barrett instead.
Who was Trump's alternative to Kavanaugh.....Torquemada?
As quite a few political scientists have noted it's not a surprise that racist and reactionary conservatives reacted badly to the first black president. So the alternative they sought was the King of the Birthers, a racist who conveniently also shared their homophobic, misogynistic, Islamophobic and xenophobic views. It doesn't matter that he's incompetent and wholly unfit for office......at least he shares their phobias.
And given Trump's support for torture there's little doubt that he'd nominate Torquemada if he were available.
A very odd comment given that the majority of voters chose Clinton. Apparently most voters opposed Trump and shit themselves when the EC installed him.
Here are some things I hope for, but don't expect:
That people realize that ALL Presidents are installed by the EC.
That people realize that the popular vote isn't how Presidents are elected, or "installed".
And I hope that the people stupid enough to shit themselves seek and get professional help, and select a candidate who tries to win the most EC votes instead of the popular votes so maybe they can win an election and stop whining and bitching.
E.A How about the Fact::
The US of A is not a Democracy but a Federal Republic?
That the Foundation of the Country was based upon " God We Trust " Because of the Horrendous treatment of other forms of Govern Ment world wide?
Amy Barrett....she will be next.
Radical Christian extremist.
Are you talking about the theocrat who has just 10 months of experience as a judge?
That would be 10 months more experience as a judge than Elena Kazan had.
Always a pleasure talking to you Arkpdx,
Since Elena Kazan is a famous Russian model I'm assuming you mean Elena Kagan?
So yes, i would posit that she has a ton more experience than either Elena Kazan or Amy Coney Barrett.
Yes it was supposed to be Kagan. I hate autocorrect .
You just missed one point .Both Skrekk and I specifically stated experience as a judge of which Elana Kagan had none prior to her appointment to the Supreme Court .
Exactly. Barrett will have had some very good experience as an appeals court judge when Trump promotes her to the Supreme Court.
SO, no biggie. 200 is sorta close to 200,000 or 1.2 million after all. At best she's off by a factor of 1,000 and at worst, by a factor of a mere 6,000.
That's TOTALLY the same kinda thing!
Liberal math...
It’s the progressive way.
Not even going to open or look at it until you properly link and or attribute its source first.
The source is FACE the NATION and the interview is with REPUBLICAN TREY GOWDY.
PREDICTION:
For political expediency, Trump will privately tell Kavanaugh to withdraw his name from nomination citing as his “reason” ... “None of the allegations made against me are true, however, I do not want my family to endure any more of this.”
my bet is kavanaugh is confirmed.
c-ya back here friday
cheers
Good luck with that bet.
it is still a solid bet.
cheers
You know the saying about a fool and their money.
the judiciary committee votes in 40 mins.
place your bets
he passed committee
now the bet is he will be confirmed by the senate -
but in the meantime... I hope the fbi can find the location of fords party
and that name she would not release? she will now
she will be investigated just as much as kavanaugh.
35yrs of her past with every word said, every possible motive for every accusation made.
I hope she can handle it
Perhaps they will raid her attorney's office.
Does this include Feinstein and her staff? Who leaked the letter?
Democrats and Flake opened a whole can worms.
kavanaugh has been thru many fbi investigations. other than saying "NO" and "that is bs" a few more times, this fbi check will be no different for him.
besides... worms are fun enough, lets dig them ALL up
who knows... a worm may pop up that changes my mind.
cheers
In other words they don't have the votes unless there's an FBI investigation.
What are the odds now? Is Mark Judge still in hiding?
.
It seems they missed this.
Maybe, I think they need all the worms they can get for their fishing trip.
ive been diggin around.
trump called for a limited "supplemental investigation"
translation, fast and cheap. nothing new will come from it.
I think just maybe.... chuck grassley snookered flake and the dems with that "so-called agreement"
time will tell
What have I told you about bets and a fool and their money?
Just sayin . . .
I think 🤔 that you are right.
and so far, every time, you have been wrong.
just sayin :)
A second and possibly third accuser have come forward with new allegations against Kavanaugh and apparently Republicans on the Judiciary Committee knew about them at least a week ago ... and pushed for a rushed confirmation vote as a result.
I double down on my prediction that Kavanaugh will not be confirmed.
I'm not surprised that more women have come forward. Once the dam breaks.....
Looking forward to more pronouncements, taunts and mockery ... and seeing if I can find which Republican members of the Judiciary Committee had the information of the new allegations and tried to ramrod Kavanaugh’s confirmation ahead of the breaking story.
FYI:
Nothing about the Republicans’ attitude toward sexual abuse of women should be a surprise. It, too, is a pattern. When the Senate voted on the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA), only twenty-two members were opposed. All were Republicans.
Among those twenty-two Republicans were the six current senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Chairman Chuck Grassley.
___________________________________________________________________
When an accuser makes an allegation, if/when the accused claims "innocence," and, both accuser and the accused remain steadfast in their positions, the only logical way to potentially break the impasse, is via a neutral third-party/entity INVESTIGATION.
In such an investigation, there are only three possible outcomes … • evidence more-or-less validating the allegation, • evidence contrary to the allegation raising questions about the credibility of the accuser, or, • ABSENCE OF -- FAILURE TO FIND EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND (thus enabling the accused to declare, i.e. "Of course no evidence was found because the allegation is false!"
Thus, two-out-of-three investigatory outcomes, FAVOR THE ACCUSED!
I contend that, if/when either the accused or accuser resists the idea of an investigation, the one who resists manifests "consciousness of guilt" in fear of what truth(s) may be revealed!
Gee, and all along I was being taught in school that violence against fellow humans was illegal!!
Who knew that only because of a law enacted in 2013 could people get punished for assaulting females?
Gee, and all along I was being taught in school that violence against fellow humans was illegal!!
Who knew that only because of a law enacted in 2013 could people get punished for assaulting females?
Among other aspects, the Act
… allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave un-prosecuted.
Gee, when you have nothing of value to add to a particular piece of information, rather than embarrassing yourself with some pseudo-knowledgeable sarcasm …
… you might just keep restrain yourself.
People have always had access to the court for civil cases.
Did you think that became something NEW in 2013?
You are intentionally recalcitrant.
No point in trying to have a discussion with you.
'Gee, when you have nothing of value to add to a particular piece of information, rather than embarrassing yourself with some pseudo-knowledgeable sarcasm …
… you might just keep restrain yourself.'
If you have any evidence to support your theory that people couldn't sue civilly before 2013, by all means, present it.
Or if ANYONE has evidence to support it, show it.
Of course, that's not what AMAC said is it?
The VAWRA of 2013 primarily addressed legal issues concerning Domestic Violence,
particularly where as AI Tribes could not prosecute or investigate sexual crimes committed against AI women by non Indians.
Although the law was passed in 2013 it did not take full effect until March7, 2015;
prior to which, non Indians could basically not be prosecuted for crimes against American Indian women (depending on where it happened) .
VAWA 2013 and Tribal Jurisdiction Over Crimes of Domestic Violence
Of course, since the Bill was a Reauthorization of the 1994 Bill, it has many other ramifications for Title IX etc.,
He said that the bill allowed civil redress.
Which was already allowed.
Or could someone NOT be sued prior to that law passing?
Read 17.1.1 and tell me what YOU think he said in it.
The whole sentence about civil redress might mean something different to us.
But pray tell, how can a new law "allow" something that has already been allowed?
Where it had not been before...
He never said "all people" under all circumstances, he specifically referred to VAWA 2013.
And I pointed out that female Native Americans were exempt from pursuing various sexual crimes do to loopholes in existing law which prevented them from seeking criminal or civil redress from white men/non Native Indians.
IIRC the new version also covered domestic violence for same-sex couples and was otherwise written to be gender neutral despite the name of the bill.
By all means AMAC, let's discuss Democrat's attitudes towards women.
Let's start with how many current Senators have beaten their wives? Count the Republican wife beaters and the Democratic and get back to me.
And of course, which party has a Vice Chairman who has been accused of beating multiple women?
Sorry if the facts are disturbing.
But you can easily look them up and see that I am right.
Sorry if the facts are disturbing.
But you can easily look them up and see that I am right.
I urge you to follow your own advice and learn what improvements were thwarted by Republicans.
The DEFEATED REAUTHORIZATION WOULD HAVE ADDED PROVISIONS to the current law, such as …
• expanded programs for youth education and prevention.
• tougher protections for victims using housing grants
• established a Violence Against Women director position in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, among other additions to the law.
Seems like Rump has not filled many positions in his administration, very important positions.
Just seems like he's doing his best to loot the treasury as quickly as possible before his big fat thug ass is brought up on multiple charges.
And how is he doing that all by himself ?
Here are the ways Trump is cashing in on the presidency.
Trump’s own golf trips
Secret Service golf-cart rentals alone cost taxpayers $137,000 in nine months. The payments go to Trump’s business.
Not only do Trump’s frequent golf trips burn taxpayer dollars ; they also make the Trumps lots of money. The system is rather simple and, once you see how it works, you can see why Trump spent over 25% of his first year in office at his own golf clubs.
Overall, the easiest mark is the U.S. Secret Service tasked with the job of protecting Trump. As the law stands, the agency cannot receive payments from presidents. This law exists to limit potential conflicts of interest (irony alert). So the Secret Service paid $137,000 to Trump’s Florida and New Jersey properties for golf cart rentals in just the first nine months of 2017.
Trump businesses making millions from political and taxpayer spending – report
The president has openly speculated that he could make money in the White House. “It’s very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it,” he told Fortune in 2000.
Trump will arrive in Mar-a-Lago, his Palm Beach resort, on Monday, where he will host Japan’s prime minister, Shinzō Abe. He is expected to spend much of the week in Florida. Since his inauguration in January 2017, Trump has spent 138 days at his properties in Florida, New Jersey and Virginia.
“Trump’s propensity for travel to his own resorts and dining at his own restaurants has resulted in considerable spending of tax dollars at Trump-owned properties,” the report concludes. However, it is difficult to assess quite how much money has been spent as the information is not yet fully available. The final tally is likely to be far larger than the $15.1m identified in Public Citizen’s report.
Existing public records of federal agencies spending money at Trump properties are incomplete but several agencies have detailed some spending. The US Department of Defense, for example spent nearly $140,000 at Trump businesses in the first eight months of his presidency, according to records obtained through a public records request by Property of the People, an open government group.
Oh yeah, Rump is taking a loss.
Our Government said Okay !
Trump even wants his "Government" pay to go else where but in his pocket.....unlike Dumbo !
What's the problem again ?
Obama came in.....a popper....according to him and his wife....and he left a millionaire on the backs of their constituents !
Hell....the Clintons came in and left poppers....according to Hillary...… but somehow they were able to pick themselves up and become Multi-millionaires, almost Billionaires...... on the backs of their constituents !
So what's your Trump issue again ?
Oh Yeah....because of Trump...…. I'm gaining !
Isn't it supposed to be the goal of all Politicians to make sure that "American Citizens" gain first ?
Are you losing ?
What's a popper?
"a small vial of amyl nitrite used for inhalation that makes a popping sound when opened."
Should I expand that for you ?
Okay...….I'll do it !
"It is recreationally used as an inhalant drug that induces a brief euphoric state "
I knew you meant paupers, did you?
So you do have a lot of experience with poppers then?
You knew NOTHING !
What's a "Popper" ?
Also I heard only gays used poppers during sex. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Heard ?
You told me.
That's so cute.
It gives a false impression that "forgoing" his salary saves the Treasury/Taxpayer $400k … it does not go back to either; and, you may like to believe that Trump won't claim the donation as a tax deduction … but that would be a rather naive belief.
I'd provide the vouchers I submitted, but I actually can't. I couldn't even take a copy home as they're actually classified. Why I have no idea. I have a couple of theories, but I never took the time to explore them.
That is not necessary; despite our political differences, I assume any information you give about yourself is honest.
I will CONCEDE A POINT HERE (with some reservation), that being, by giving his salary to government agencies, he does in fact save the taxpayer money.
But while the president does donate his salary to different government initiatives each quarter, no donation to date has been specifically made to repair military cemeteries. Nor has he donated $400,000 — a whole year’s salary — to one specific cause.
An Aug. 1 headline on the Gateway Pundit told readers otherwise. “Trump Gives $400,000 to Repair Military Cemeteries — Liberal Media Ignores the Story,” it reads.
Thousands have shared and reacted to the Gateway Pundit story on Facebook. The story’s only evidence was a widely shared tweet by New York-based radio host Mark Simone, who claimed that Trump has donated his annual salary for “construction and repair needs at military cemeteries” but that the “media gave this no coverage.”
We emailed Simone to ask which report he was citing, but we did not receive a response.
The direct quote included in Simone’s tweet is the exact language in a viral email that has circulated since last year, and which some readers recently forwarded to FactCheck.org. That email also was posted as early as July 2017 on several websites , and was the basis of a YouTube video .
The viral email cites an “annual report to Congress on White House Office Personnel. It includes the name, status, salary and position title of all 377 White House employees.”
Yet the 2017 White House Annual Report to Congress on White House Office Personnel does not make any mention of Trump’s salary. Nor does the 2018 report provided to Congress in June.
The president in May donated his salary for the first quarter of this year to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders announced in a press briefing. VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said the donation had been earmarked for “caregiver support in the form of mental health and peer support programs, financial aid, education training, and research.”
That announcement was indeed covered by the press , as were the president’s other quarterly donations. Here’s where the president donated his salary during his first year in office, with links to both the White House announcements and some of the many examples of corresponding press coverage:
Trump’s first donation — of $78,333 — in 2017, to the National Park Service, did go toward a pair of projects at the Antietam National Battlefield — which houses the Antietam National Cemetery . But the Interior Department said the money, along with other funds, would be used to “restore the historic Newcomer House on the Antietam battlefield, and will underwrite the replacement of 5,000 linear feet of deteriorated rail fencing along the Hagerstown Turnpike.”
We could find no announcement indicating how Trump will use his salary for the second quarter of 2018. The White House did not respond to our inquiry, though it’s likely an update will come soon; the 2017 second quarter salary announcement was made July 26 last year.
If Trump does decide to give his second quarter salary to the Interior Department for military cemeteries, that amount would not be $400,000 – but a quarter of his salary.
One final point … But we shouldn’t think the donation to the National Park Service suddenly means Trump is suddenly interested in conservation.
While the White House’s proposed budget for the 2018 fiscal year would potentially increase funding for park maintenance, it would cut the Interior Department’s overall budget by $1.5 billion, or 12 percent, including a hiring freeze that would prevent the filling of non-seasonal positions. Other cuts in government funding would also leave NPS sites vulnerable. Trump’s proposal to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program could damage more than 50 parks and historic sites throughout the six-state watershed.
Wow Mac - as the # 2 person of NT, you sure as hell know how to go off topic and stay off topic.
Wow - just wow.
Wow yourself, Counselor!
I was responding DIRECTLY to 18.1.2 … and WOW! again … you didn't "wow" the origin of this part of the thread.
My administrative status has nothing to do with my participation as a member.
Well it darn well should. You should be held to a higher standard due to your position here.
Since I explained precisely why my comment was in direct conjunction with the flow of discussion, your comment is unwarranted.
But anyone who wants to play the “higher standard” game may be opening himself to parallel criticism; challenge me on that and I will, in going forward, cite incidences where one is claiming the metaphorical “high road” while consistently singing the praises of those who live and work and lie and slither along the “low road”.
One cannot have it both ways.
And writes off.......
So what. He passes up $400,000 and gives it to worthy government or charitable causes. That he can get back $148,000 or 37% against his other income is not an issue. Only a liberal would find something wrong with that.
E.A Just a Question::
1) Individual Deductions Vs Corporate :
How can one claim them?
Trump's company is not a public entity.
E.A Good to know!
So who was elected as the " President " the Corporation, OR, the Individual?
Not sure, since both are getting money from the taxpayers.
E.A I see::
So then we are talking cross purposes, since if he made a deal to donate his Income and the Tax department agreed with that, that means technically he makes " No Income " from the Taxpayer, but if you know better, .....
And if " His " income is lower that the " Taxable Max " that means he can not make any taxable deductions, for those " donations " but then again if you know better ….
Now as to what his " Companies " make I suggest a discussion with a Tax Expert!
E.A It also seems the word " elected " must have a plethora of meanings, so NM!
'However, any 'expenses" Trump accrues are in reality to public businesses also. While you like to believe otherwise, it simply is not factual.'
To his own businesses? Right.
And now it seems that Ford had something happen to her, but that it was one of two men recalling events they were in with her in that time frame that matched her account according to senate committee records.
Well, that's all done now....she stuck a broomstick in his ass and wiped the floor with him today.
He is soooo fucked.
this is fast becoming a comedy...
Yes. Women and minority voters are going to deliver the punch line in Nov.
I heard that old joke in 2016. try stand up... online comedy is not your thing.
Here's a new one....the Republicans were already losing female voters before Kavanaugh....go ahead and confirm him.
LOL
OK then.
thanks for your support
GATEWAY PUNDIT
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence ( Learn More ). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Bias: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Nationalism, Some Fake News
History
The Gateway Pundit is an extreme right news and opinion website that is not afraid of conspiracy theories and the occasional publication of falsehoods (see analysis). The website was founded by Jim Hoft in 2004 to “speak the truth” and to “expose the wickedness of the left.”
According to their about page “The Gateway Pundit is one of the top political websites. It is consistently ranked as one of the top political blogs in the nation. TGP has been cited by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, The Drudge Report , The Blaze , Mark Levin, FOX Nation and by several international news organizations.”
Funded by / Ownership
The Gateway Pundit is owned by Jim Hoft and funded primarily through online advertising.
Analysis / Bias
In review, The Gateway Pundit demonstrates extreme right wing bias in story selection that always favors the right and denigrates the left. There is significant use of loaded emotional language in headlines such as this: President Trump RIPS INTO Peter Strzok After He’s Fired – Calls For Hillary ‘Sham Investigation’ to be ‘Properly Redone’ . The Gateway Pundit is also fiercely dedicated to the promotion of Donald Trump. TGP always sources their information, but sometimes utilizes questionable sources such as Breitbart and Mike Cernovich , who both a have terrible track records with fact checkers.
The Gateway Pundit has published numerous false or conspiracy stories such as Hillary Clinton having a seizure, identifying an innocent person in the Las Vegas mass shooting and again identifying the wrong person after the motor vehicle homicide at the White Supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Further, TGP claimed the “FBI received tips well in advance of the Florida school shooting and decided, for whatever reason, not to act.” Finally, based on publishing false information, TGP has faced lawsuits for defamation and damages to innocent individuals.
A factual search reveals several failed fact checks by IFCN fact checkers. Here are a select few.
Overall, we rate The Gateway Pundit Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracies and numerous instances of publishing false (fake) news. (10/4/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 8/13/2018)
and back to work, seems they have a busy morning planned