Who do we like for SCOTUS?

Given his 2A record, this is winning.

Bigly.

Here's hoping he's not the sacrificial first choice a la Bork.

Kavanaugh is a great 2A pick.

Post someone with no experience and case history like Lee and the left would scream about the lack of background. This guy will suffer because they say that there could be MILLIONS of documents to review. From his cases to his time in the White House. So they can't get through all that in time.....

Sometimes I think I have an on-line problem. But how do people like this and FBI Strock have so many comments, emails and memos to review? They must always be typing.

I'd love to see them go for someone like Rick Green and maybe start moving it back to what it is supposed to be... But that's a pipe dream

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AMMOLAND

Ammoland Inc. Posted on July 12, 2018 by David Codrea

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “This week, President Donald J. Trump announced his intent to nominate Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s assumption of senior status,” the White House announced Monday. “Judge Kavanaugh has earned a reputation as a brilliant jurist with impeccable legal credentials, and he is universally respected for his intellect, as well as his ability to persuade and build consensus.”You expect them to say that about Kavanaugh’s legal qualifications. He’s their guy. But what does a legal expert from “the other side” have to say about him?

Yale Law School Professor Akhil Reed Amar, who “strongly supported Hillary Clinton for president as well as President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland,” had good things to say about the nominee[after which he has now been harassed and threatened by the left]. In The New York Times of all places…

“… Judge Kavanaugh … prioritizes the Constitution’s original meaning. A judge who seeks merely to follow precedent can simply read previous judicial opinions. But an ‘originalist’ judge … also cares about what the Constitution meant when its words were ratified in 1788 or when amendments were enacted…”
That’s encouraging. Coming from a Hillary supporter, it’s also suspect. So what can gun owners glean about Kavanaugh’s disposition toward issues most affecting “legal” recognition of the right to keep and bear arms?
National Review outlined an important consideration:

“Enforcing the Second Amendment. Kavanaugh argued (in dissent) that the District of Columbia’s ban on possession of most semi-automatic weapons and its registration requirement for all guns violated the Second Amendment.”
His views could be critical if and when SCOTUS hears a case challenging state bans on what they pejoratively term “assault weapons.” It still doesn’t get us to a birthright “to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense,” but it’s a better starting place than a court with many of the previous “Republican” picks on the bench (case in point: John Paul Stevens).
Giving further insight, attorney and author David Kopel offers perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of Kavanaugh’s Second Amendment inclinations.

“Judge Kavanaugh's text, history, and tradition methodology for Second Amendment cases will not please people who believe that all gun control is impermissible, nor will it please advocates who want to make the Second Amendment a second-class right,” Kopel notes. Significantly, he appears supportive of a rationale for licensing, and does not appear to agree that “in common use” should apply to arms a militia would need to be an effective counterforce, not just to what is commercially “popular” for civilian uses.

At least Kavanaugh admits that even though he might personally support some “gun control” goals and laws, “our task is to apply the Constitution and the precedents of the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the result is one we agree with as a matter of first principles or policy.”

And there’s another threat critical for gun owners to fight against (even if some use a hollow “single issue” excuse to avoid addressing it) that NRO touches on:

“Ruling for the American worker. In dissents in immigration-related cases, Kavanaugh has opined that illegal-immigrant workers are not entitled to vote in union elections and that ‘mere economic expediency does not authorize an employer to displace American workers for foreign workers.’ He has also recognized the government’s interest in ‘supporting American farmers and ranchers against their foreign competitors.’”
That still comes up short from the real concern, “amnesty” and a “pathway to citizenship”. All credible polling and real-world experiences (think “California”) show that will result in millions of new anti-gun Democrat voters, unchallengeable majorities in the legislatures, and confirmations of anti-gun activist judges who will uphold whatever infringements come before them.
Going back to Professor Amar’s assessment at The Times, he offers an interesting “compromise.” While normally wary of such “offers,” this one has merit:

“Each Senate Democrat will pledge either to vote yes for Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation — or, if voting no, to first publicly name at least two clearly better candidates whom a Republican president might realistically have nominated instead (not an easy task). In exchange for this act of good will, Democrats will insist that Judge Kavanaugh answer all fair questions at his confirmation hearing.”

I like it, since questioning such candidates is something I advocate despite a tradition of giving judicial nominees a pass.
Think of one job you’ve ever applied for where you’d have gotten it if you decided to play coy with the hiring managers. While it may be “inappropriate” for a judge to weigh in on a specific case before confirmation, there’s no reason why general principles of understanding should be off-limits.
As such, here are questions gun owner rights advocates should rightfully want to see answered:

• What did the Founders mean by “A well-regulated militia”?
• What did the Founder mean by “being necessary to the security of a free State”?
• What did the Founders mean by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”?
• What did the Founders mean by “shall not be infringed”?
• How can past Supreme Court opinion specifying protected arms as those being “in common use at the time” not apply to the types of firearms needed for militia service?

I’d also add a tangentially-related question, one not directly part of the “single issue,” but one that nonetheless is being used to undermine it:

What Constitutional basis is there to “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” by exercising protective measures over who may enter the country and who may become a citizen?

Don’t expect any of these to be asked. And do expect the Democrats to pull every filthy trick in the book to try and destroy Judge Brett Kavanaugh and bring pain to him and to his family.

---

Ammoland Full Article

Feinstein sends letter to FBI and makes the following press release...

Quote:

---

Sep 13 2018
Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) released the following statement:

“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”

---

Sources...

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...9-B5C6CC553DC4

https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.59bc6407b69a

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...et-letter.html


Speculation is that it has something to do with #MeToo in his high school years. The release implies criminality but, of course, it's from a Democrat. Earlier today the cry was to delay the confirmation for an investigation of unknown behavior/accused by an unnamed party.

Attempt has blown up in her face. FBI refuses to investigate and adds "info" to Kavanaugh's background file.

The folks who say Democrats and Republicans are the same are being proved wrong on a daily basis. This is a new level of low.

I still contend that Trump could nominate Merick Garland and the democrats would still try to derail it.

Fuckin' democrats. I really hate them. Really.

Newsflash for the commies: Trump won. The fucking witch lost. Grow the fuck up and get over it already. Stop trying to destroy the country with your stupid games. This coming from the moron senator from CA who had a Chinese spy working for her for 20 years. FFS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

I still contend that Trump could nominate Barack Obama and the democrats would still try to derail it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

Fuckin' democrats. I really hate them. Really.

Newsflash for the commies: Trump won. The fucking witch lost. Grow the fuck up and get over it already. Stop trying to destroy the country with your stupid games. This coming from the moron senator from CA who had a Chinese spy working for her for 20 years. FFS.

---

For the win!

Details coming out...

A Sexual-Misconduct Allegation Against the Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Stirs Tension Among Democrats in Congress

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...ts-in-congress

Best part...

Quote:

---

In the letter, the woman alleged that, during an encounter at a party, Kavanaugh held her down, and that he attempted to force himself on her. She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand. She was able to free herself. Although the alleged incident took place decades ago and the three individuals involved were minors, the woman said that the memory had been a source of ongoing distress for her, and that she had sought psychological treatment as a result.

[snip]

In a statement, Kavanaugh said, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

Kavanaugh’s classmate said of the woman’s allegation, “I have no recollection of that.”

The woman declined a request for an interview.

---

So Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist. No actual assault happened.

Accuser stayed silent for ~30 years. Accuser won't be named or interviewed.

I can't say this is how it happened here, but we saw with Judge Roy Moore and Trump how it works. They assemble a pool of money (compensation) and start looking for people who will make allegations in bad faith. Typically, so far in the past they are impossible to disprove in the short term. Then they hire a high profile "feminist" attorney with ties to Dems to shield the whole operation and make it look legitimate.

Nothing even goes to court or faces an evidentiary standard. No one is put under oath.

This accusation didn't organically happen. Feinstein is a CA senator. None of this involves her district.

If you have a penis and haven't worn a body cam your whole life, the same can be done to you.

Still no pubic hair and a Coke can. Welcome to the bench Justice Kavanaugh.

I don't believe this at all. Not a bit. Another fabricated lie by democrats.

I hate 'em. But by God they are persistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Still no pubic hair and a Coke can. Welcome to the bench Justice Kavanaugh.

---

Perfect response! [LOL]

You think Thomas and Kavanaugh just became friends?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

I don't believe this at all. Not a bit. Another fabricated lie by democrats.

I hate 'em. But by God they are persistent.

---

It's 11th hour BS. The way it was drafted also implies criminality when it turns out the accuser didn't even accuse Kavanaugh of a crime, just an "attempt."

People on socials are saying Feinstein sat on this from July on and waited. We all know why... Less time = less time to prove innocence and #MeToo demands the presumption of guilt.

Over on Legal Insurrection, they said this very thing was predicted -- the Dems knew Grassley's staff would be organized so they staged a hit on his character for after hearings ended in order to upset Murkowski and Collins.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/0...is-allegation/

https://t.co/TMWf9uzzEV

Kabuki Theater at its sickest.

This 11th hour accuser. Just the accusation with all the TV play makes him "guilty" in the Democrats mind. Any excuse they can make to derail a good man.

Same play they employed against Clarence Thomas. At a minimum, they hope to besmirch him forever like they did to Thomas and on the outside they hope to derail or delay his confirmation.

I don't have a problem with resurfacing an allegation that's decades old but 1) this is fuzzy, 2) Feinstein held onto it all summer as a last-ditch weapon instead of pushing it immediately to the FBI for confirmation or negation, 3) a clinical psychologist from CA who remembers this 30 years later during a marriage counseling session? Really? Juanita Broadrick's accusations (which were conveniently ignored by the mass media until they could say it was "old news") had contemporary corroboration -- she told people immediately after it happened, even if she didn't file charges.

Ole Bill had a fairly open history of using political, legal, and even physical force on women but the press conveniently ignored it all to focus on Bush's "lack of spine". I was less offended by how much Bill let the little head do his thinking than by the outright partisan skullduggery on the part of the mass media. Similarly, I am less concerned about the last minute allegations than the way Feinstein manipulated the process and clearly chose 2 months ago to hold onto this as a political attack. She ought to be vilified by the feminist press for this (but won't be).

They are trying to make this blow up and the accuser has stepped forward...

https://apnews.com/e2c35c0fb46f4464b...-comes-forward

Quote:

---

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

Ford, 51 and a clinical psychology professor at Palo Alto University in California, says she was able to get away after a friend of Kavanaugh’s who was in the room jumped on top of them and everyone tumbled.

---

So definitely not a politicized Dim then.

Quote:

---

Ford’s husband, Russell Ford, also told the newspaper that his wife described during therapy being trapped in a room with two drunken boys and that one of them had pinned her to a bed, molested her and tried to prevent from screaming. He said he recalled his wife using Kavanaugh’s last name and expressing concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might someday be nominated to the Supreme Court.

---

Uh huh.

I too worry about all the Federal judges who might someday because Supreme Court Justices but only if I disagree with them.

Quote:

---

The therapist’s notes say four boys were involved, but Ford says that was an error by the therapist. Ford says four boys were at the party, but only two boys were in the room at the time.

---

Sounds like Duke Lacrosse team party. Where she was the only female. Where she got every detail wrong and it doesn't matter because she's a victim. This all sounds very familiar.

And then kept her mouth shut from 198x (we still don't have a date/place) - 2012 because Kavanaugh is so dangerous he should be allowed to get rapey for 30+ years.

Quote:

---

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a committee member, told The Washington Post and Politico in interviews Sunday that he’s “not comfortable” voting for Kavanaugh until he learns more about the allegation. Flake is one of 11 Republicans on the committee, whose 10 Democrats all oppose Kavanaugh. A potential “no” vote from Flake would complicate Kavanaugh’s prospects.

Feinstein applauded Flake’s call to slow things down.

“I agree with Senator Flake that we should delay this week’s vote,” she said. “There’s a lot of information we don’t know and the FBI should have the time it needs to investigate this new material.”

---

Thanks FLAKE.

Anyone know how the FBI investigates a non-crime that happened 30 years ago? Let alone gives Congress a definitive opinion on what happened.


The Legal Advisor for Kavanaugh’s Accuser Is a Big Time Democratic Donor, Thinks People Who Work for Trump Are 'Miscreants'

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timoth...jones-n2519525

This one is good too. The people behind this are anything but objective.

Hey, it's all for women. Do you hate women?

Oh, it gets better....

Quote:

---

Kavanaugh Accuser Signed Letter Fighting Trump Border Enforcement

The woman accusing President Trump's United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of a "rape attempt" when the two were in high school previously signed a letter fighting Trump's "Zero Tolerance" policy at the U.S.-Mexico border.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)an open borders advocacy organizationletter was written and sent to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in June.

Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor, signed the ACLU letter as "Christine Blasey Ph.D. Psychologist," signing off on statements that accused Trump of using southern border enforcement to "traumatize children" and claimed the Zero Tolerance policy was "violating fundamental human rights."

The policy to prosecute all illegal border crossers, enacted by the Trump administration, including illegal alien adults who cross the border with children, results in border-crossing parents having their children taken into federal custody. This is a loophole known as the Flores Settlement Agreement.

Detaining child border crossers was a policy during the Obama administration when Breitbart Texas exclusively reported on the conditions in which unaccompanied minors were being packed into crowded cells and holding facilities. As Breitbart News reported, the federal government has separated adult border crossers from the children they have brought with them into the U.S. as far back as 2001, court records reveal.

The ACLU letter, signed by Blasey, demanded the Trump administration stop the border enforcement policy, claiming the enforcement measure was an "intentional infliction of pain on children," calling it "inhumane."

Read the full letter here: https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...r-enforcement/

---

And the brother works for Fusion GPS??

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ralph-blasey-5a84515/

http://walkersresearch.com/profilePa...100020756.html


Sour grapes?

https://af-mg.com/2018/09/17/breakin...was-the-judge/

So in addition to Kavanaugh's accuse being a leftist activist and agitator, it appears that she may have a beef with the Kavanaugh family because:

Quote:

---

Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh was a Maryland district judge in 1996. In an amazing coincidence, Martha Kavanaugh was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey-Ford’s parents were the defendants. Now it all becomes clear. Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh, not because of what he did in high school. Instead, Christine Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh out of spite and revenge for a case ruled on by Brett Kavanaugh mother. Martha Kavanaugh, Brett’s mother was Montgomery County Circuit Court judge from 1993 until she retired in 2001. During a 1996 foreclosure case, Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey-Ford in a foreclosure case.

The foreclosure case against Paula K. Blasey and Ralph G. Blasey was opened on August 8, 1996. The case number is 156006V

---

https://archive.fo/69gvf

If you go here: http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us...uiry-index.jsp and search for case number 156006V

You get the actual case (just can't link to it), so this is a pretty reliable source if you ask me.

I really think the Civil Justice system needs to change to address situations like this. A baseless accusation (proved by preponderance) should mean losing everything financial with the accuser's name on it.

I also think the Senate needs to subpoena and get her on the record. That way the accusation can't move as more facts (if any) are discovered.

One of the things people forget about Justice Thomas' hearing is that Anita Hill admitted to lying as soon as she was put under oath. She lied about coordinating the attack on Thomas with Congressional Dems. She had to admit to those communications under oath which seriously damaged the credibility of her claim.

I think the case involving Judge Kavanaugh (the mom) is going to turn out to be not such a big deal. From what I can tell she presided over the case which resulted in a settlement between the Blasey's and the lender. The Blasey's were able to keep the home. It appears they sold it in 2011.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ourt-case.html

Rake this person over the coals. No need to be civil, destroy her in the same manner she and other accusers are ruining others lives.

This lady decides to bring this up now when he is getting confirmed under Trump? But silence for 30 years and when he was getting confirmed under Bush (2004?)? This is insane. Just another tactic from the left.

News today is she won't testify until after the FBI investigation. Why she gets to make that call is beyond me. She should be subpoenaed!

I think the reason why is fairly apparent. She hasn't given a date/location of the incident. And it's not hard to see how risky that is if the FBI finds dates/locations which indicate Kavanaugh couldn't have done it. Having the FBI go first means they can manage the testimony/details to be consistent.

They learned well from Anita Hill who's credibility was challenged once put under oath, had to stop lying, and was asked about her previous lies/forced to admit them.

Think of the absurdity of this whole thing... A person can come out of the woodwork, accuse from 35 years ago, not have to give details until the FBI provides date/locations/details that can be worked into the testimony. Kavanaugh must be guilty! Somehow, some way.

This is well beyond the "deep state," this is some top level Stasi bullshit!

Any investigation would need to start with her interview by the FBI. If she were to knowingly provide this interviewing agents with false information she is in violation of 18 USC 1001.

The FBI doesn’t have any jurisdiction here as rape, sexual assault are state crimes in Maryland. This would be investigated by the Montgomery County Police Department if the allegation contained enough details to warrant a case being opened.

IMO Ms Ford’s attorneys are making these demands to slow the vote till after the midterm elections while making the GOP force the vote without giving her a full investigation. This tactic reinforces the “war on women” theme the Democrats have been so consistently harping on. The only thing missing from this allegation is the Rev Al Sharpton and the Duke lacrosse team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skip

They learned well from Anita Hill who's credibility was challenged once put under oath, had to stop lying, and was asked about her previous lies/forced to admit them.

Think of the absurdity of this whole thing... A person can come out of the woodwork, accuse from 35 years ago, not have to give details until the FBI provides date/locations/details that can be worked into the testimony. Kavanaugh must be guilty! Somehow, some way.

This is well beyond the "deep state," this is some top level Stasi bullshit!

---

Anita Hill jumping in...so predictable and reeks of desperation.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/09/19/...testifies.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Any investigation would need to start with her interview by the FBI. If she were to knowingly provide this interviewing agents with false information she is in violation of 18 USC 1001.

[snip]

---

I would hope, but that is the old thinking. It is now perfectly acceptable to lie to the FBI if you are advancing the Lib agenda. There are plenty of politicized DoJ employees to cover that up or decline to prosecute.

"I got confused" "I blocked it out" "It was so long ago, my memory was..."

Libs would screech such accountability is victim shaming. They are already saying her life is in danger so she can't testify. Convenient, right?

Everyone should face the fact that these exercises are relatively free (even lucrative) for #MeToo accusers under the new rules. That is the entire idea of building #MeToo as a movement and a device to attack.

I think in old ways. It comes natural to me. [Flower]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

I think in old ways. It comes natural to me. [Flower]

---

That's the way it should be!

But the law is no longer the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

This would be investigated by the Montgomery County Police Department if the allegation contained enough details to warrant a case being opened.

---

Correct me if this is wrong, but even if she was telling the flat truth (while not impossible, is about as unlikely as anything I can think of), is there any scenario where MCPD would spend any time/resources investigating something which I would imagine has far exceeded the SOL (whatever that is in this instance)? I wouldn't think so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DireWolf

Correct me if this is wrong, but even if she was telling the flat truth (while not impossible, is about as unlikely as anything I can think of), is there any scenario where MCPD would spend any time/resources investigating something which I would imagine has far exceeded the SOL (whatever that is in this instance)? I wouldn't think so...

---

Well the story has changed a bit.

[pileoshit]

At first it was "attempted rape" which is a non-crime. Covering her mouth (as she claimed) is simple assault and I think SOL has run out.

Now she says he groped her, over her clothes, as he was covering her mouth and attempting to undress her.

So that is sexual assault. Speculation on the socials is that Maryland has no SOL on sex assault. I don't have a link.

Any investigation is unlikely to produce any concrete evidence as the accuser will not name a location/date/time, so what can investigators find after 35 years? The witnesses (now two) of them saying this never happened have been already dismissed by #MeToo. The risk to the accuser is that she claims a location/date that doesn't work which is why they want the FBI (DoJ) in first and then she will testify once she can get her story to align.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if they have a person(s) in the FBI who is ready to leak time windows/locations that can be used.

Attempted rape is sexual battery and Maryland has no statute of limitations on most sexual assault crimes.

Most departments would first need a report filed containing the basic allegations with the who, what, where, how’s filled in. Then a supervisor for the detectives reviews it for “solvability” which in this case would be pretty low.

I just worked a ten year old rape allegation with an east coast city police sex crimes detective. In the end the prosecutor’s office politely declined to file charges in the case. Something about no possibility of obtaining a conviction given the facts we could prove.

No one is suggesting that Ms Ford’s allegations be used to bring criminal charges. I believe the Democrats who are funding and otherwise supporting her would be satisfied with destroying Judge Kavanaugh’s reputation and any chance of him becoming a justice on the Supreme Court. This is the revenge for Merrick Garland’s nomination never being considered. When you think progressives remember “the truth is not in them.” They don’t care about process, only results. If millions need to die for them to achieve their idea of utopia, so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Attempted rape is sexual battery and Maryland has no statute of limitations on most sexual assault crimes.

[snip]

---

Legally, yes. (I think morally too)

But the goalposts in 2018 do not require unwanted physical contact to be "attempted rape." Making out and touching without explicit consent = rape. Along with... "Stare Rape," regret sex rape (consent revoked after act), and some feminists even claim all PIV (Penis In Vagina) to be rape because the man is in a position of power even if the woman freely consents.

I hate to keep being that guy, but the role of #MeToo is being completely downplayed. #MeToo is extralegal. People need to start understanding this. Easy to dismiss as PC bullshit and then it gets used against you or your kid, or used to shape the makeup of the highest court!

And as you point out, they demand the impossible. But it will yield info that they can use to strengthen her testimony.

Personally, I'm fine with the investigation; FBI or MD. But she should be under oath and on the record first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

[snip]

No one is suggesting that Ms Ford’s allegations be used to bring criminal charges. I believe the Democrats who are funding and otherwise supporting her would be satisfied with destroying Judge Kavanaugh’s reputation and any chance of him becoming a justice on the Supreme Court. This is the revenge for Merrick Garland’s nomination never being considered. When you think progressives remember “the truth is not in them.” They don’t care about process, only results. If millions need to die for them to achieve their idea of utopia, so be it.

---

BOOM! Agree 100%.

If Trump dropped the Kavanaugh nomination there wouldn't be a single call for justice in Ford's name.

Quote:

---

We need to judge Brett Kavanaugh, not just by what he may or may not have done, but how he treats a woman’s pain. And that is something I’m going to be paying attention to on Monday. How does he respond to what’s happening. Whether or not he agrees that this happened with her, does he take her pain seriously? Do the people interrogating her pain take her pain seriously? Now, I’ll give you a spoiler alert, I don’t think Brett Kavanaugh takes women’s pain very seriously, and I know that because of the decisions he’s made as a judge.

---

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36025...ng-ben-Shapiro


She, of course, is under no obligation to consider the pain inflicted on Kavanaugh or his family.

And if the pain isn't genuine? Doesn't matter. Kavanaugh is guilty.

Grassley has today offered to send staffers to Ford in CA to get her testimony in light of claims of threats being made. $~200K has been raised for her security costs and the family has left their Palo Alto home for their Santa Cruz beach house. Life is tough when you have to leave for your beach house, or so I've read.

There is no excuse for not testifying. For the Senate to allow this to be held up by a (living) party who is able and refuses to testify is relatively unprecedented. I can't recall a single case of it. Even invoking 5A requires an appearance.

Lots of pressure to start an FBI investigation but still not willing to do an interview with the FBI either.

This whole thing still rests on one #MeToo attorney and a letter from Feinstein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skip

f Trump dropped the Kavanaugh nomination there wouldn't be a single call for justice in Ford's name.

---

And it doesn't matter who he picks to replace Kavanaugh, they would get the exact same treatment (just like it doesn't matter what Republican won in 2016 they would still be "literally Hitler").

There is no rational or reasonable way to deal with the modern Democrat party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

And it doesn't matter who he picks to replace Kavanaugh, they would get the exact same treatment (just like it doesn't matter what Republican won in 2016 they would still be "literally Hitler").

There is no rational or reasonable way to deal with the modern Democrat party.

---

I think you and cstone are absolutely right on this point!

Trump's win meant a more Conservative Court and they are doing everything the can, short of violence, to stop it.

---

Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford opens door to testifying next week

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...next-week.html

Quote:

---

According to an email sent by her attorney Debra Katz and first obtained by The New York Times, Ford would appear as long as senators provide “terms that are fair and which ensure her safety." Fox News has also obtained the email.

“As you are aware, she has been receiving death threats, which have been reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and she and her family have been forced out of their home,” the email continued. “She wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.”

A Monday hearing still appears unlikely, though.

In the letter Thursday, Ford's attorney wrote that it “is not possible" for Ford to testify on Monday. She added that "the Committee’s insistence that it occur then is arbitrary in any event.”

---

Of course it's arbitrary on an 11th hour shenanigan! Even so, testifying before the Senate isn't like making dinner reservations.

It's not clear if Grassley will hold to his Monday deadline or not.


---

Ford taps Obama, Clinton alum to navigate Senate hearing

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...senate-hearing

Quote:

---

Seidman, now a senior principal at TSD Communications, confirmed her role in an interview with Politico.

Seidman worked as Joe Biden’s communication’s director during the 2008 general presidential election campaign after Biden was picked as Barack Obama’s running mate. She also assisted in guiding Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Before then, Seidman was a deputy communications director in the Clinton White House.

[snip]

“This feels more like a Democratic super PAC than a legal effort to get at the truth,” a senior Republican official told Politico.

---

Seems legit.

And just where is all this money coming from?!?