quote:

“If they continue to contest those two things, there won’t be a hearing,” Graham said. “We’re not going to let her determine how many people we call” and on outside counsel. “I hope she comes.” …”

^^^ There's the line in the sand. KEEP IT!

What gets me is the original letter to finestine, will not be released to grassley, and what has been released has been redacted. So, we run the judges name into the ground, screw up his appointment to the SC, on this witches word, and the party of lies ?

quote:

the original letter to finestine, will not be released

I thought they wanted an investigation? Isn't withholding material evidence obstruction of justice?

Looks like it's on for Thursday. And Kavanaugh will testify AFTER Ford.



Attorneys for Christine Ford, the California professor accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of committing sexual assault in high school, vowed Sunday that Ford would appear at a Senate hearing Thursday morning despite unresolved "procedural and logistical issues."
"We made important progress on our call this morning with Senate Judiciary Committee staff members," the attorneys, Debra Katz, Lisa Banks, and Michael Bromwich said. "We committed to moving forward with an open hearing on Thursday Sept 27 at 10:00 am."

Sources on Capitol Hill tell Fox News they are now preparing in earnest for the Thursday hearing, which is likely to push a confirmation vote on the Senate floor beyond October 1, the start of the next Supreme Court term.

The hearing had been in doubt after days of back-and-forth tussling between Senate Republicans and Ford's legal team, who disagreed on the ideal timing of the hearing, as well as who should testify first and whether outside lawyers should be allowed to ask questions.

But Ford's legal team said definitively on Sunday that those potential sticking points would not derail the hearing.

WATCH: LINDSEY GRAHAM RIPS DEMS FOR 'USING' KAVANAUGH ACCUSER

"Despite actual threats to her safety and her life, Dr. Ford believes it is important for Senators to hear directly from her about the sexual assault committed against her," the attorneys said. "She has agreed to move forward with a hearing even though the Committee has refused to subpoena Mark Judge. They have also refused to invite other witnesses who are essential for a fair hearing that arrives at the truth about the sexual assault.

"A number of important procedural and logistical issues remain unresolved, although they will not impede the hearing taking place," the attorneys added. "Among those issues is who on the Majority side will be asking the questions, whether senators or staff attorneys."

Kavanaugh will reportedly testify after Ford, allowing him the opportunity to respond to her claims. According to Bloomberg News, Republicans also refused to accede to Ford's lawyers request that the Judiciary Committee subpoena Kavanaugh friend Mark Judge to testify.

Judge, who Ford has said was in the room when she was allegedly assaulted by Kavanaugh, had indicated he did not want to testify because he had nothing to add beyond his denial of any knowledge of the purported episode. Republican senators had said it would be inappropriate for a witness to dictate who would be called.

Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that there would be two witnesses: Kavanaugh and Ford.



http://www.foxnews.com/politic...gistical-issues.html

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
I think she will flake out at the last minute and come up with another excuse as to why she can’t appear in DC.

Exactly! Ford has no intention of appearing before the Senate and never did. This has all been an exercise on the part of liberal democrats to try and embarrass the Republicans, hope that a couple of rhinos will vote no and gain talking points for the midterms.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
I think she will flake out at the last minute and come up with another excuse as to why she can’t appear in DC...

Ya think?

Susan Collins reportedly assembled a team of 19 lawyers to investigate Brett Kavanaugh to see if he is worthy of a yes confirmation vote from her. If this is true that is insane and who pays for that? I wonder if she did that for SCOTUS nominees from democrat presidents too?

She is most likely the reason why Grassley keeps keeps changing the meeting dates trying to accomadate the accuser.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/ne...accuser-13247712.php


"In New Hampshire, Collins said she has assembled a team of 19 attorneys to help her understand Kavanaugh's record and was about 95 percent finished with her analysis when she spoke to him by phone Sept. 14, after the allegations against him became known but before Ford came forward publicly.

"I recognize how import this decision is. I want to make sure I've been extremely thorough," she said. "Do I feel pressure? Sure. But I don't feel pressure to make a decision until I'm ready."

"Collins, a swing vote on the nomination, spoke at events in Portland, Maine, and later in New Hampshire. She said it is reasonable for Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation vote to be delayed to allow Christine Blasey Ford to testify Wednesday or Thursday. She said it's important for the Judiciary Committee to "make it as comfortable as possible," and that she agrees with some, though not all of Ford's testimony requests."

There is no agreement as of a few minutes ago. They are still holding out on order, questioners, etc. Nothing has changed.

?

Is the DEM tactic to hold to outrageous conditions and force Grassley to hold a vote w/o Ford testifying ?

Several DEM advantages to that:

1. they may know Ford would give a terrible interview (for her)

2. Flake may not vote "yes" because he is a McCain look alike

3. the DEMs can scream to high heaven how unfair the REPs were

4. a DEM rallying point for Nov elections

I hope the REPs know they don't have a choice. Hard to imagine a more qualified nominee than Kavanaugh. If DEMs can stop Kavanaugh, they can stop anybody w similar tactics

the ONLY way to change DEM behavior is to vote them out.

We can get frustrated, but our only recourse is to vote. Stop DEMs at the local, state, and national level.

Three Witnesses Described by Kavanaugh Accuser Do Not Support Her Claims….
by sundance

Dr. Christine Blasey-Ford has stated three witnesses were present at the mysterious high school party where she claims supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her approximately 36 years ago.

The claimed witnesses were: (1) Mrs. Leland Ingham Keyser, (2) Mr. Mark Judge, and (3) Mr. Patrick “PJ” Smyth.

According to CNN’s current reporting here’s the statements from the witnesses:

(1)Simply put, “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” said (2) Mark Judge in a September 18 letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said he did not recall the party and never saw Brett Kavanaugh act in the matter Ford describes.

(3) Patrick J. Smyth issued a statement:

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post. I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.

Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.”

CNN article link.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22...l?platform=hootsuite

According to the accusations by Ms. Ford there were five people present at the unknown residence, at the unknown time, at the unknown party. Three boys and two girls.

Four of the people Ms. Ford claimed were present, including the accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh, now publicly state they have no knowledge of anything related to the accusation; including no recollection of any attendance at any gathering at a high school party claimed by Ms. Ford.

The only person left claiming attendance to a party; at the unknown time; in the unknown year; at the unknown residence; is the accuser, Mrs. Blasey Ford.

Who’s House? According to her story, there are five teenagers at “the house”. So it has to be one of “their houses”. Yet four of the five have said they don’t have any idea what she’s talking about; it’s not their house… and it’s not Mrs. Ford’s house; so...



... She’s lying!

https://theconservativetreehou...-claims/#more-154401

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
?

Is the DEM tactic to hold to outrageous conditions and force Grassley to hold a vote w/o Ford testifying ?

Several DEM advantages to that:

1. they may know Ford would give a terrible interview (for her)

2. Flake may not vote "yes" because he is a McCain look alike

3. the DEMs can scream to high heaven how unfair the REPs were

4. a DEM rallying point for Nov elections

Delay. They hope to stall until after the election, to take the God Damned Commies in red states off the hook, hoping to save those Senate seats.

Too, maybe a Senator will have a heart attack, get hit by a car, struck by lightning. Not every state has the provision like AZ to appoint another of the same party.

Remember Kenny Stabler! Just don’t let the clock run out!

You know what? At this point, the Dems have already stated that they will continue to investigate Kavanaugh even if he is confirmed to the SCOTUS so the Republicans really just need to schedule the vote and confirm him so he can sit starting October 1. They can at the same time inform the Dems that they can continue their "serious investigation" for as long as they like and present their evidence at their leisure given all the accommodations and concessions they have already made. Considering he will be on the Supreme court for probably the next 25 to 30 years, they will have plenty of time to do so to their hearts content.

Enough of this BS already!

quote:

Is the DEM tactic to hold to outrageous conditions and force Grassley to hold a vote w/o Ford testifying ?

Absolutely. Unless the vote is held within the next few days they have already prevented him from being seated before 1 Oct. That in itself is a victory for them. Now they are just seeing how far they can go. After the election is the next goal. The fact that they are already talking investigation and impeachment means they assume he will be confirmed eventually.

quote:

Who’s House? According to her story, there are five teenagers at “the house”. So it has to be one of “their houses”. Yet four of the five have said they don’t have any idea what she’s talking about; it’s not their house… and it’s not Mrs. Ford’s house; so...

good point

I bet they are working on that weakness.

Ford's story will change to add someone else to the party list. With the DEM power attorneys and $ working this, they are no doubt trying to get at least one more person to corroborate Ford. Expect new surprises if she testifies.

Threats by the Democrats to investigate and impeach Mr.Kavanaugh if he is appointed to the Supreme Court, because he is a sexual predator.

I have one comment. If he is not confirmed he will retain his position as a United States Circuit Judge.

You will never hear another word about investigating or impeaching Circuit Court Judge Kavanaugh.

asking again


Question

If the letters from Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth, and Keyser fall under

18 U.S.C § 1001, letters to the Judiciary Committee are subject to criminal penalty if false.

Why wouldn't Ford's letter that she sent to Feinstein also fall under 1001 ?

quote:

Why wouldn't Ford's letter that she sent to Feinstein also fall under 1001 ?

What letter? Feinstein hasn't produced a letter.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
asking again


Question

If the letters from Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth, and Keyser fall under

18 U.S.C § 1001, letters to the Judiciary Committee are subject to criminal penalty if false.

Why wouldn't Ford's letter that she sent to Feinstein also fall under 1001 ?

I think this is precisely why Feinstein has not provided it to Grassely because up to now, Ford would not have officially perjured herself and the letter would likely do just that, especially with the denials coming out from the other alleged witnesses/attendees.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Why wouldn't Ford's letter that she sent to Feinstein also fall under 1001 ?

sdy, you're chasing your tail on this and getting drawn deeper and deeper into the irrelevancies that DiFi et al want to use to derail the confirmation.

Think for a second. Who did Ford actually send the letter to?

And then forget the whole thing because the only things that matter now are the things that actually happen.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
asking again


Question

If the letters from Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth, and Keyser fall under

18 U.S.C § 1001, letters to the Judiciary Committee are subject to criminal penalty if false.

Why wouldn't Ford's letter that she sent to Feinstein also fall under 1001 ?

This has been answered: She did not send the letter to Feinstein. She sent it to a Congresswoman not involved in the judicial selection process.