Just read that the Kavanaugh go first and the Ford lawyers gets to demand additional witnesses demands are non-starters.

Yeah that's a no go. She does not get to set the rules. They have offered her various ways to give testimony such as over the phone and such but beyond that tough shit.

Just get to the vote and don't worry about what the fake news MSM says about it or the democrat senators. They are always going to spin it to be extremely negative about President Trump and the republicans anyway even if they bent over backwards to accommodate their idiotic requests.

Sen Grassley has to be aware of the games these people are trying to play.

He has to make the appearance seem to be one thing while doing exactly what he knows has to be done.

I prefer his "Monday is the hearing" with the accuser first. I'm sure there's some adequate attorneys from which to choose for that round of inquiry.

There's bound to be more 'surprises' regardless of what protocol is followed.

Quite presumptuous of this person to think she has the right and power to effectively hold the entire judicial nomination process hostage to her delicate feelings.

She is one of 330 some million people in this country. I’ll agree she has a right to be heard and make her claims, but making an actual claim and being interviewed then become her responsibility.

Or to put it another way, shit or get off the pot.


All of these “conditions” are just additional stalls and attempts to claim that the system is “re-victimizing” her by not being “sensitive”, blah, blah, blah.


You put this in motion lady, put your big girl panties on and take your best shot. Just remember with every supposed “threat” and unwanted bit of attention that comes your way, you brought this all on yourself.



The attention you get is not always the attention you seek, but usually the attention you deserve...

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
All of the year books at the Holton Arms all girls prep school where Ms. Ford attended were scrubbed from the web site but not before some fast acting blogger got there and captured some pertinent pages. Quite the party school.

Link

Google has text-only caches of the yearbooks. Search "Holton Arms Scribe 82" "Holton Arms Scribe 83" or "Holton Arms Scribe 84" and click on the web cache of the Issuu.com websites that are now scrubbed of the scanned in yearbooks. Looks like years of the reCAPTCHA "type the characters you see" challenges finally paid off.

Scribe 82

Scribe 83

Scribe 84

Yeah, screw her and screw her attorney. I'm sick of the media calling this a "decades old claim." It IS NOT a decades old claim. It is a days old claim for something the good professor claimed happened decades ago.


Before there is a hearing, this liberal, activist "professor" needs to prove that her claim has a shred a credibility. So far, there is none. Frankly, I think she simply made it up. And frankly, I think the judge-candidate ought to sue this "professor" and her attorney for slander. If this isn't a case of it, then slander doesn't exist.

And a claim of defamation of character can have some real teeth. Here's a recent Virginia case involving a woman who scuttled a colonel who was up for promotion to general over a false rape allegation. Now she owes him $8+ million for her false allegation.

https://www.armytimes.com/news...-defamation-damages/

Ann Coulter had an excellent article about this top yesterday. I thought this point was spot on:

"It's also great how the media act as if attempted rape was perfectly acceptable in America, until we were educated by the #MeToo movement. No, the breakthrough of the #MeToo movement was that it was finally acceptable to call out liberal sexual predators. Until recently, it was OK to rape and even murder girls -- but only if your name was "Clinton," "Kennedy" or "Weinstein," et al. Then Hillary lost, and Teddy was dead, so there was no point in ferociously protecting the Democrats' rapists any longer."



HAVEN MONAHAN TO TESTIFY AT KAVANAUGH HEARINGS
by Ann Coulter
September 19, 2018



If this is what the left pulls against a sweet nerd like Brett Kavanaugh, I can't wait for the hearings to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

Observers of the passing scene were not surprised that the same lunatics screaming that Kavanaugh is going to impose "The Handmaid's Tale" on America also announced that he had committed attempted rape and murder in high school.

His accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, remembered this in a therapy session 30-plus years after the alleged incident -- coincidentally, at the exact moment Kavanaugh was all over the news as Mitt Romney's likely Supreme Court nominee.

She doesn't remember the time or place of the assault, told no one for 30 years and has no evidence or corroboration. Maybe the party was at Haven Monahan's house. (He was the instigator of the fraternity gang rape reported in Rolling Stone, which never happened and -- luckily for Monahan! -- who doesn't exist. Otherwise, he was in BIG trouble.)

But the psychology professor at Palo Alto University -- who recently signed a letter denouncing President Trump's border policies (thank you, Attorney General Sessions!) -- says a teenaged Kavanaugh threw her on a bed at a party and began groping her, trying to take off her clothes.

Here's the kicker: "I thought he might inadvertently kill me."

We went pretty quickly from drunken teenaged groping to manslaughter.

This is always my favorite part of any feminist claim: The leap from "he used a bad word" to "HE ADMITTED COMMITTING SEXUAL ASSAULT!" (That's what the media lyingly said about Trump's remarks on the "Access Hollywood" tape, as detailed in Chapter Two of my new book, Resistance Is Futile!: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind.)

Kavanaugh emphatically denies that anything of the sort ever occurred at any party, but feminists are already off on, Maybe he's one of these sick people who rapes corpses!

It's also great how the media act as if attempted rape was perfectly acceptable in America, until we were educated by the #MeToo movement. No, the breakthrough of the #MeToo movement was that it was finally acceptable to call out liberal sexual predators.

Until recently, it was OK to rape and even murder girls -- but only if your name was "Clinton," "Kennedy" or "Weinstein," et al. Then Hillary lost, and Teddy was dead, so there was no point in ferociously protecting the Democrats' rapists any longer.

Thus, for example, The New York Times defended Blasey Ford's failure to tell anyone about the alleged groping/manslaughter for 30 years, claiming things were different in the 1980s. "More likely," the editorial explained, "a girl in the early 1980s would have blamed herself than report it."

As proof, the Times linked to a Washington Post article citing the Times' own treatment of a Kennedy victim. After Patricia Bowman accused William Kennedy Smith of rape, the Times "reported on her speeding tickets, partying in adulthood and even dredged up an unnamed woman who claimed Bowman showed a 'little wild streak' in high school."

So the Times' defense of the decades-old, therapy-induced recovered memory by Kavanaugh's accuser is, Look at the way we abused a Kennedy accuser! We were horrible to her! OK, New York Times, you win.

Most hilarious is the media's insistence that Kavanaugh's accuser is putting herself at enormous risk by coming forward.

Oh, cut the crap, media. In terms of press coverage, no one alive would prefer to be Kavanaugh than his accuser. Everywhere you look, someone is praising the "survivor" for her stunning, unprecedented courage as she viciously tries to derail Kavanaugh's nomination.

True, accuse a Clinton, a Kennedy or a Weinstein (et al), and you'll be treated like dirt. You'll get the Patricia Bowman treatment. Paula Jones was smeared and laughed at for three years, until Stuart Taylor's 15,000-word article defending her in the American Lawyer. (That took courage.)

But accuse the elitist white male Duke lacrosse team, Haven Monahan or a Republican nominee to the Supreme Court, and you can upgrade to a much better university and spend the rest of your life being showered with awards, fellowships, honorary degrees, media appearances and so on. Look up "Anita Hill."

And, boy, was Hill right about Clarence Thomas! (Honorary white male.) He got confirmed, and now he issues conservative rulings. We warned you.

Following days of the entire media demanding that the victim (by which they mean the accuser) be allowed to tell her story, it turns out she'd really rather not. Blasey Ford spent an eternity deciding whether to accept the Senate's invitation to testify, finally announcing on Tuesday night that she would appear only after a thorough and complete FBI investigation.

Tell me what an "investigation" of this matter involves. Do agents go door to door in Montgomery County, Maryland asking everyone who went to high school in the early 1980s if they remember going to some kind of party?

Second: IT'S NEVER THE VICTIM WHO NEEDS AN INVESTIGATION! She knows what her story is. It's the accused who wants an investigation to know exactly what he's accused of.

Blasey Ford already knows what she thinks happened. I've been waiting my whole life to unburden myself about that night in 1981, 1982 or 1983 in a dark bedroom. Well, I'm not sure if it was a bedroom, but it definitely had a door. And a ceiling and a floor-ish kind of thing. And walls -- I know I was surrounded by walls. I remember thinking, "OH MY GOSH, I'M IN A CLOSED SPACE!" On one hand, walls keep me warm, but that's also why I've never enjoyed sex.

The only reason for the professor to insist upon an "investigation" is to delay having to give her story under oath until she knows what can be proved -- and what can be disproved.

Of course, the main purpose of an "investigation" is to give the media time to browbeat Republicans into withdrawing Kavanaugh's name and doing the honorable thing by nominating someone more suitable. Someone like Asia Argento.



http://www.anncoulter.com/colu...09-19.html#read_more

At one point last week Grassley mentioned having the questioning done by an independent party.

IF this disgusting bitch decides to testify I hope that happens. I cannot imagine the circus that will become of a televised hearing with the democrats fascists.

Our congress had devolved into a bad episode of TV. None of them care about the country that they claim to serve, they only care about getting rich off the backs of taxpayers.

quote:

Originally posted by signewt:
There's bound to be more 'surprises' regardless of what protocol is followed.

She will probably say No, no, no on testifying and then when they announce a vote she will wait until just hours before the vote and say that she is ready to testify now and why won't the mean old white men listen to what she has to say.

https://www.nationalreview.com...p-stalling-and-vote/

No Hearing; Just Vote on Kavanaugh Nomination

Andrew McCarthy

Senate Democrats’ blatant abuse of the hearing process, their “delay, delay, delay” strategy, continues to pay dividends. Putting a stop to it would be long overdue.

Thursday was the day Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s manifestly meritorious nomination to the Supreme Court should have been voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and sent to the full Senate. Instead the nomination languishes because of an eleventh-hour stunt pulled by committee Democrats — led by ranking member Senator Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.).

...

It is time to stop playing games. This confirmation process, coupled with Kavanaugh’s ample record as a judge, has developed more information about the fitness of this nominee than any confirmation process in American history. It is time to vote. Past time.

Ford only has the power that the Republicans give her. And they have given her a lot, way too much, to the point of absurdity, actually. It is as if she is Queen, and on their knees they tremblingly await her next command.

The hearing is Monday. She shows up and testifies in the way they arrange, or not. If not, the vote goes forward on Monday. It's really not complicated. Only weakness and timidity make it so.

The more this becomes about Ford, the better it is for Kavanaugh.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
The hearing is Monday. She shows up and testifies in the way they arrange, or not. If not, the vote goes forward on Monday. It's really not complicated. Only weakness and timidity make it so.

+1
Just take the vote. Let's be done with this.

I bet if Trump tweeted today he would resign if the dems would vote today for confirmation, this would all blow away...

And I used to not believe in evil

The 10am deadline is nearing. Stay adamant, Grassley. Don't let us down, for the sake of Pete.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
The 10am deadline is nearing. Stay adamant, Grassley. Don't let us down, for the sake of Pete.

Balzé, you and I both know that if she shows up on Monday she's going to be allowed to say her piece.... whether she has submitted written testimony by today's deadline or not.
The rules only apply to one side. This thing has been dragged out by people who don't respect the committee and hearing process. One of whom (Feinstein) is the ranking Dem. member of the committee....

The Senate cannot let this wrong go unaddressed.

National Review
Michael W. Schwartz

Regardless of the fate of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, the Senate should censure the ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein. Her deception and maneuvering, condemned across the political spectrum, seriously interfered with the Senate’s performance of its constitutional duty to review judicial nominations, and unquestionably has brought the Senate into “dishonor and disrepute,” the standard that governs these matters. As a matter of institutional integrity, the Senate cannot let this wrong go unaddressed.

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution provides that each House of the Congress may “punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour.” Nine times in American history the Senate has used that power to censure one of its members. Feinstein has richly earned the right to join this inglorious company.

The senior senator from California not only disgraced herself personally in the underhanded and disingenuous way she dealt with the sex-assault charge against Judge Kavanaugh, but she also misused her position on the Judiciary Committee and broke faith with her fellow committee members. She was further, to quote the San Francisco Chronicle, no less, “unfair” to Judge Kavanaugh — manipulating the public disclosure of the charge so as to maximize the adverse publicity Judge Kavanaugh received and minimize the judge’s opportunity to defend himself. Censure is appropriate in this case for the Senate to defend its procedures and institutional reputation.

By her own account, Feinstein was aware of the charge shortly after President Trump nominated Kavanaugh, nearly two months before her committee opened its hearings. She came into possession of the letter making the charge by virtue of her position on the Judiciary Committee. We don’t know what contact she had thereafter with the accuser or the accuser’s Democrat-activist Washington lawyer — but we do know that Feinstein kept the information from her Senate colleagues, ensuring it was untested and unmentioned in the committee’s hearings. This, even though the hearings were accompanied by loud complaints from Democrats that the administration’s document production was insufficient. Indeed, as this is being written, while yet another Judiciary Committee hearing has been scheduled, she still has not released the unredacted text of the letter that made the charge.

Her conduct has been condemned all across the political spectrum. Her hometown newspaper, the left-leaning Chronicle, editorialized that she chose “the worst possible course” in dealing with the charge. The Chronicle specifically noted that her treatment of the more than three-decade-old assault charge was “unfair to Feinstein’s colleagues — Democrats and Republicans alike — on the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Across the political aisle, her conduct was called “totally dishonest and dirty” in the pages of the Washington Examiner; the Wall Street Journal, more restrained, described her conduct as “highly irregular.”

In substance, she “deliberately misled and deceived” her fellow senators, with the “effect of impeding discovery of evidence” relevant to the performance of their constitutional duties. No one should know better than Feinstein herself that such deceptive and obstructive conduct, widely regarded as “unacceptable,” “fully deserves censure,” so that “future generations of Americans . . . know that such behavior is not only unacceptable but also bears grave consequences,” bringing “shame and dishonor” to the person guilty of it and to the office that person holds, who has “violated the trust of the American people.” These quoted words all come from the resolution of censure Feinstein herself introduced concerning President Bill Clinton’s behavior in connection with his sex scandal. She can hardly be heard to complain if she is held to the same standard.

Comparison with other past censure cases only makes Feinstein’s situation look worse. The last three senators censured, Thomas Dodd, Herman Talmadge, and Dave Durenberger, were all condemned for financial hanky-panky: converting campaign contributions to personal use and the like. They were all found to have brought the Senate into “dishonor and disrepute” even though nothing they had done implicated the Senate’s performance of its constitutional duties. Feinstein, in sharpest contrast, sought to keep her committee from timely and properly investigating an apparently serious charge of misconduct, and is still doing so, even in the face of criticism from all (or most) quarters.

As the second-richest member of the Senate, with a net worth of $94 million, Feinstein is presumably above the temptations to which Dodd, Talmadge, and Durenberger succumbed. She does, however, face a difficult reelection campaign, with a serious enthusiasm gap on her left, the California Democratic party having refused to endorse her bid for a sixth term in office. Her conduct in arranging matters to make her appear the champion of an allegedly abused constituent, and perhaps positioning herself as the woman who sank the Kavanaugh nomination, can only help on that flank. Is a nakedly political motive for senatorial misbehavior any less reprehensible than a financial one?

How does she stack up against the most famously censured senator, Joe McCarthy? While what people remember is McCarthy’s trafficking in smears and innuendoes — immortalized in Joseph Welch’s “have you no sense of decency” reproach — McCarthy was actually condemned for “non-cooperation with and abuse of” one Senate subcommittee and abuse of another. The words of McCarthy’s condemnation — that his conduct “tended . . . to obstruct the constitutional processes of the Senate, and to impair its dignity” — fit Feinstein’s conduct as the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee like a glove.

And if trafficking in smears and innuendoes is relevant, consider what Feinstein did: Not only did she fail in her committee duties, but she did everything she could to make the charge public in a way that made the target’s defense difficult or impossible. The charge was lodged anonymously, and rather than subjecting it to vetting by her fellow senators, Feinstein made a transparently groundless referral of the matter to the FBI — as if there could conceivably be a federal law-enforcement dimension to the decades-old claim of sexual assault — which the FBI, to its credit, unceremoniously filed away. Left hanging in the glare of a still-untested sexual-assault charge — which today has the same resonance that a charge of Communist sympathies had in McCarthy’s day — are Judge Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters. They are in a far worse position than was the young lawyer in whose defense Welch made his famous statement.

It bears noting that, in August of this year, only 17 percent of the American public approved of the way Congress was doing its job, down from a not-very-lofty 20 percent a year earlier. If the Senate gives Feinstein a pass for her irresponsible and self-serving abuse of the chamber’s processes, that number will deservedly fall still further.

Where does all this leave the Kavanaugh nomination? Barring the emergence of evidence unequivocally confirming the charge, senators who are on the fence might want to consider that a vote against the nominee now necessarily excuses and even legitimates Feinstein’s misconduct. If the senators don’t take their own institution’s procedures seriously, and refuse to stand against so blatant a breach, it’s hard to expect the rest of us to do so.

Link

^^^^
You are correct. I bet she will show up right before the vote and cry they hate women.

Sometimes I think we’ve all been sucked into a Netflix series.