FBI: Brett Kavanaugh ‘Allegation Does Not Involve Any Potential Federal Crime’

| September 18, 2018


The sexual assault accusation that Senator Feinstein sat on all summer has had it’s intended effect on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, Democrat outrage. The event allegedly occurred at a party, where a drunken 17 year old Kavanaugh sexually assaulted the now Professor Ford.

Kavanaugh has unequivocally denied the charge. Some 60 people who knew him from his high school days, including a woman who dated him months after the alleged event occurred, to the present have signed a document vouching for his character and the respect he showed to all.

Ford has stated she will not testify to the Senate Judicial Committee until the FBI completes a thorough investigation.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) said Monday that the FBI will not investigate the sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.


Meanwhile, the Dems are acting pretty much as they were during the hearing.

After refusing to participate in a phone call with Kavanaugh set up by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Democrats on the Judiciary Committee called on the FBI to investigate high school-era allegations against Kavanaugh.

“In view of the enormity and seriousness of these allegations, a staff-only phone call behind closed doors is unacceptable and Democratic staff will not participate,” Feinstein said in a statement on Monday.

She added that the FBI “has the resources and know-how to conduct an objective, independent evaluation of these sensitive allegations with appropriately trained investigators.”

Senate Minority Leader Schumer (D-NY) is also calling for an FBI investigation.

The FBI states, “Not our job.”

The DOJ, however, told a reporter for the far-left Politico, “The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime.”

Furthermore, the Associated Press reports that in a statement, the DOJ said late Monday that “it’s not the job of the FBI to judge the significance or the credibility of an accusation.”

Nevertheless, Democrats continue to call for the FBI to investigate in the hopes it will put an indefinite hold on the vote for Kavanaugh’s nomination, which has already been postponed.

Dem tactic- If they can’t halt the nomination, delay it. If they can’t delay it, besmirch the name of the nominee. This is their last “at bat.”

The entire article may be viewed Here.

Category: Politics

Comments (245)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Late Night With In The Mailbox, 09.18.18 : The Other McCain | September 19, 2018
  1. Combat Historian says:

    Is anybody even remotely surprised that the demonrats would pull this out of their smearbag?

    • desert says:

      I too think there should be an investigation, of Feinstein, the whore college prof, schumer and anyone else involved in this fairy tale…prosecute the bastards to the hilt and remove, REMOVE their retirement and health benefits, because the a.h.’s and their phony shyt cost the taxpayers billions of wasted dollars! imho prison time is also in order…are there any patriots out there listening, NEVER, vote for them again!

      • Alberich says:

        A senate censure of Feinstein (like the one visited on Sen. McCarthy in ’54) might be in line, anyway.

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      Actually, yes. I thought they had reached the moral and ethical bottom of the barrel, but now they’ve gone and gotten a deeper barrel.

      • 5JC says:

        They are going to need a bigger barrel.

        There isn’t shit to investigate. The only other supposed witnesses are denying everything. Whatever crime may have been committed was not covered under any Federal Statue. Statue of limitations has passed for state law and the “victim” can’t remember where it was, when it was, what was going on or really anything about it. In fact if I were a police officer talking to her I would not even take a report the whole thing is that stupid. If she managed to get in to talk to an FBI agent they would laugh her out of the office.

      • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

        For a party whose Lion of the Senate left a woman to drown while he went home, showered, caught up on his sleep and then phoned counsel they sure show a lot of outrage over what sounds like little more than the drunken ramblings of a 15 year old who can’t remember what house, what year, how she got to the unknown house and how she got home from the unknown house.

        Remind me again how many Republican actors in Hollywood and producers were caught up in the whole #metoo brouhaha? I seem to recall it was either zero or zero….

        There’s definitely a lot of shitbag men who prey on women, most of them apparently Democrats. Their hero Clinton used the State Police to round up his lady friends…and now I’m supposed to believe that maybe(and it more like he didn’t do it all) a drunk 17 year old who tried and failed to disrobe a female also likely drunk at this party isn’t qualified?

        And they say this shit with a straight face, the bastards.

      • MrFace says:

        So stupid they have hit rock bottom and kept digging.


  2. Sea Dragon says:

    The democrats want to use the FBI as an extra-judicial star chamber. Sorry, no jurisdiction, no investigation.

  3. SgtM says:

    Out here in California the demonrats are running around screaming that anyone that commits a crime under 25 or so, should be let off. Their brains are not formed yet or some such nonsense. Here they are screaming about what a 17 year old kid with a few beers in him did at a high school party…… Bunch of hypocrites.

  4. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    “The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime.” Nor does it involve any potential state crime, either. Nor does it involve any potential tort. The statute of limitations has run on them. This is absolute insanity. A loony left chick who likely voted for Cigar Bill and, later, his wife who pointed fingers at his many accusers, makes a bald allegation of juvenile antics 35 years after the fact, and it’s to ruin Kavanaugh? These things (some call them people) are unconscionable. Now she wants to dictate terms to the DOJ and says she won’t appear to testify before she gets compliance? This is a f’n travesty, a sick, twisted joke. Close the f’n hearing. Call for a vote and get it done. Will they? No. That requires balls.

    • AW1Ed says:

      Personally, I think the last thing this woman wants to do is to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath. One could drive a truck through the holes in her allegation. Now the reality of her actions are hitting home, and she’s getting cold feet. Monday will be interesting.
      JMHO, YMMV

      • Alberich says:

        Serious question (for people who follow the Senate more closely than I do): Is there anyone on that committee who has the nerve, and the skill, to cross-examine her properly?

          • desert says:

            “Ranking Member” wine stain? I have to agree that the pig is RANK as hell!

          • Alberich says:

            Glad to hear it. Mind you, cross-examination without proper background research is a very uncertain art even in the best hands…and Feinstein’s last-minute trickery is depriving them of that.

            • rgr769 says:

              How does one do background research on a 35 to 36 year old purported event where the accuser can’t or won’t provide details like where it happened, when it happened, and who witnessed it, when the acuser admits everyone present was drunk and she claims she never reported it to anyone and has purportedly repressed all memory of it for over 30 years. However, we do know she is a card carrying Trump hating “progressive” D-rat who has a reputation for lying and is vindictive, if her student evals mean anything. But I do love how she claims it was so traumatic it gave her PTSD and has ruined her life.

              • Alberich says:

                I think you answered the question very well yourself…you do the background research on Ford herself, and get more details about her being a card-carrying Trump-hating progressive etc. etc. And cross her about that, but with as many particulars as possible.

                If you cross her about her postdated lies, she gets to play the “traumatized victim” and maybe squeeze out a few tears. Boo hoo hoo, it was so horr-ible, I was in fear for my liiiife, I was a chi-yuld, how can I remember, boooo hooo…

                But if you cross her about anti-Trump social media messages, or a student who heard her say “anything goes to stop the Trump agenda,” or what have you…and you have solid evidence to back it up in case of a denial…that makes the point, “consider the source,” and doesn’t make her look like such a victim.

          • luddite4change says:

            There is discussion that R Senators want to bring in a professional/neutral prosecutor to conduct the questioning/testimony.

            I think this is the right call on the R side as it avoids the optic of 11 old white guys rhetorically beating up a defenseless white lady while still giving her an opportunity to get her story heard.

            What is going to happen on Monday if Kavanaugh shows and answers the committee’s questions?

        • jonp says:

          I’ll take Ted Cruz for $1,000, Alex

      • timactual says:

        Of course she doesn’t want to testify. What she originally wanted to do was destroy the reputation and career of a prominent and widely respected federal judge anonymously. There are words for that behavior, none of them good.

    • BigJohn says:


    • LC says:

      The statute of limitations has run on them.

      I’m no fan of how Kavanaugh is being treated sans proof at this point (his word vs. hers is tough on all parts), but I don’t think Maryland has a statute of limitations for attempted rape. Or any felony, maybe.

      It sure doesn’t strike me as a federal case, though.

      • AW1Ed says:

        Dammit, LC. Just had a nice dinner and enjoying an adult beverage, and now I have to go and search Maryland case law about statute of limitations for juvenile sex assault offenses?
        Not happening.
        You brought it up, you do the research.

        • 2/17 Air Cav says:

          Where the hell did attempted rape come from? Cripes. This is insanity. Hey LC. Be sure, after you check the current statute, that you check the one that existed at the time of the imaginary battery, as it was known back then. Also, check out the then-existing statutes regarding juveniles and waiver to adult court. Then, check out the limitations on the torts that might have been brought years ago,–you know, in a court, where there is evidence required to establish facts.

          • LC says:

            I’m not a lawyer and don’t know the difference between sexual misconduct, sexual assault (which is what I’ve seen reported in most of the stories) and attempted rape. But again, as per the link above, there’s no statute of limitations for most felonies in MD, and sexual assault likely qualifies.

            I’m not saying he sexually assaulted and/or attempted to rape her, as I have no evidence one way or the other.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            None of LC’s arguments hold water in any venue. LC just posts comments to hear himself talk.

            There IS no crime here. There never was.

        • LC says:

          According to Maryland state law, there is no statute of limitations for felonies in Maryland. Some assault and sex offenses are considered felonies and there is no limitations on when charges could be filed if those offenses are alleged to have occurred.

          From: https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/police-fire/county-police-wont-investigate-allegations-against-kavanaugh-unless-complaint-is-filed/

          And there’s some question of how ‘sexual assault’ is categorized, and people are jumping on me for saying ‘attempted rape’, but if she made this up, as most here contend, do you honestly think she’s going to make up something that can’t be prosecuted?

          • 11B-Mailclerk says:


            The dem goal is smear, delay, and derail. If it was justice, this would have been surfaced way sooner.

            Actual prosecutions get messy on discovery, cross examination, depositions under oath, and all that equal justice under law stuff that an attorney can law-splain.

            Why demand the FBI? They can’t touch this. She has had loads of advice by now, so why go there?

            Smear, delay, derail.

            This is a ” high-tech lynching”, and not even original.

            When she makes a -formal- complaint, to proper LE, with the relevant legal obligation not to fib, -then- you can argue about “felony” with lawyers.

            • 2/17 Air Cav says:

              Exactly, 11B.

            • Hondo says:

              Exactly. The Left is trying to do to Kavanaugh exactly what it did to Justice Thomas – conduct a “high tech lyching” of an eminently qualified candidate for the SCOTUS because they don’t like his political leanings.

              Except this time, I expect Kavanaugh’s accuser to refuse to appear before the Senate. She’s already laid the groundwork for doing so by saying she’s unwilling to appear until the FBI has investigated a matter over which it has absolutely no jurisdiction.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            Yes, she is going to make up something that can’t be prosecuted, you idiot. People do that on a recurring basis over absolutely nothing, with false accusations based on poppycock that get tossed out by the judge and labeled “frivolous litigation”.

            Several of us at TAH have been subjected to that kind of thing, you idiot, LC. What you don’t know about human behavior would fill an entire encyclopedia.

            • rgr769 says:

              LC is a borderline proglodyte and we all know they are brain dead true believers. Also, this proggy scrunt doesn’t want her fake crime prosecuted because then she would have to testify in a court of law and be cross-examined by a real criminal defense lawyer. If I were Kavanaugh, I would sue this bitch, her lawyer, and everyone connected with her for defamation. And once judgement was awarded, garnish her wages for the rest of her life.

          • USMCMSgt(Ret) says:


            You asked “…do you honestly think she’s going to make up something that can’t be prosecuted?”

            Think about the allegations made against some athletes at Duke and Virginia Tech universities and how that played out.

          • Hondo says:

            If the Bethesda police have any lawyers worth a damn advising them, they will not waste their time if Kavanaugh’s accuser (a) ever makes a complaint at all, and (b) that complaint is substantially the same as the allegations that have been made public.

            From what I’ve read, the claim is that Kavanaugh allegedly groped his accuser while both were drinking and while he was 17 and she was 15 – or roughly 35 years ago. She objected, and he stopped.

            Per this article from what appears to be a law firm licensed to practice in Maryland, that alleged conduct supposedly “remembered” 30+ years after the fact and under discussion now would qualify today as a “Fourth Degree Sexual Offense” (if it actually ever happened). To be anything else, the accuser’s “memory” of the incident would have to change dramatically from what’s been said publicly to date.


            Per this Dec 2017 document from the advocacy group RAINN (www.rainn.org), Fourth Degree Sexual Assault has a 3 year statute of limitations if the accused is in a “position of authority” and other statutory requirements are met, and a 1 year statute of limitations otherwise. A 17 year student does not qualify as someone in a “position of authority” under Maryland law (see MD Criminal Code Section 3-308). And I think RAINN’s legal work here is probably correct, as they primarily concern themselves with exactly this type of issue (rape/sexual assault/incest).


            That’s today. I have no idea what the statute of limitations would have been 35 years ago, or what Maryland law might have been violated in the event the claims are true. I’m also not going to even attempt to research 35 year old Maryland law, since I seriously doubt that copies of MD’s legal code from 35 years ago are readily available in any location where I could gain access easily.

            Due to the US Constitution’s ex post facto law prohibition, Maryland law in effect at the time (e.g., 35 years ago) (including any then-applicable statute of limitations) would govern the case. As 2/17 has noted above, in his opinion 35 years ago such conduct was under MD law classified as a type of assault and was a misdemeanor with a 1 year statute of limitations (same as today). I also feel fairly confident in his opinion on the matter given his profession.

            Regarding Findlaw: if you believe they are in error or misleading in the article I cited, feel free to let them know and provide them citations to MD Code showing them that they are wrong. They kinda do law for a living, so I tend to trust them more than articles in the media written by someone with God-only-knows-what background. But like everyone else, they’re not infallible; perhaps you can convince them to change the article I cited by showing them that it’s incorrect or misleading.

            • jim h says:

              not to mention that anything she does apart from this accusation is going to require a sworn affidavit or sworn testimony – both of which will find her in jeopardy of perjury and any number of state and federal crimes relating to false swearing and false reporting of a crime, among others.

              what needs to happen is to thoroughly legally smash the accuser, and then underscore that this is not attacking the victim, because that’s the next card that will be played. falsely accusing someone of this is simply pandering to the #metoo people.

              and you can bet your last dollar that there is already a certain specific investigator at the FBI chosen to put crosshairs on this guy. that “investigation” is probably already complete with typed-up findings of guilt and recommendations for indictment.

          • Ret_25X says:

            yes. because you leftwits will reward such lies. You make celebrities of them and find them very nice no show jobs.

            Lying about sexual crimes is almost as lucrative for leftwits as lying about race crimes.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        Drunken groping by teenagers at a party is NOT attempted rape, LC. You are SO off the mark on this one.

        Don’t try to defend yourself. I’m quite sure we can find wimmins who were dumb enough to let YOU cop a feel.

        • AW1Ed says:

          Dammit Ex, you don’t need a pistol.
          You are one.
          But get one anyway.

        • LC says:

          That may be, but those are the words of her lawyer, so presumably that’s what they’re alleging:


          But I guess stating the facts -through a Fox News link, of all things?- is ‘defending myself’? Try decaf, Ex-PH2.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            And it doesn’t occur to you that HER lawyer is doing this to get money? Or that SHE is doing it to get money, book deals and attention?
            Or that she and possibly HER lawyer are lying, because perjury only applies when someone is speaking under oath?

            You fly is open, LC. Your brains are leaking out.

            • rgr769 says:

              She is doing it for all those reasons and because she is a pink pussy hat wearing Trump hater and is a tool of the D-rats. Her attorney is not doing this because this dizzy twat is paying her. The attorney is undoubtedly getting paid by D-rat party operatives or some Soros financed entity.

              • rgr769 says:

                Actually, it is being reported that her prog lawer works for one of the Soros Foundations. So ex-Nazi collaborator George is likely funding this travesty.

          • David says:

            LC – and HER LAWYER would of course never, ever bend a story to try and make their case more credible? It would be more shocking if she didn’t, especially since no matter what happens, this will be tried in the court of public opinion.

      • Hondo says:

        Findlaw disagrees. They say that Maryland in general has a 5 year statute of limitations for felonies other than murder.


        Maryland civil statute of limitations in such cases recently has been extended from age 25 to age 38, but she’s also well past that age – and I’m reasonably sure that ex post facto would apply anyway.


        Finally – as Ex-PH2 noted above, implying that the act alleged here constitutes “attempted rape” is . . . well, as Hank Hill might say: “That’s just asinine.”

        • 2/17 Air Cav says:

          The crime of an unwanted touching was called battery in Maryland before the criminal code was revamped. What she has reportedly described constitutes an unwanted touching and would have qualified as a misdemeanor when it allegedly occurred, in my view. Since he was a juvenile at the time, w/o prior juvenile detentions, he would have most likely been placed on juvenile probation for a year and the records sealed.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            The Law Does Not Help Victims Whose SOL Expired Before October 1, 2017.

            Her SOL is long since expired, if she was 17 some 35 years ago. The statute says ’38 before October 1, 2017′. Prior to that, age limit was 25.

            If this was so important, why did she not file a claim prior to Oct. 1, 2017?

            Why? Because she has no claim.

            It is a manufactured complaint, and nothing else.

        • LC says:

          You know more about the law than I do, Hondo, but what do you make of this then:


          And I’ll quote the relevant bit here:

          In Maryland, the criminal statute of limitations varies depending on the severity of the offense. The criminal statutes of limitations include:

          Felony sexual offenses: no statute of limitations, and
          Misdemeanor offenses: one year from the event.

          As for the ‘attempted rape’ bit, those are the words of her lawyer, who presumably would be the one making the charge in court, no?

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            There IS a statute of limitations. Apparently YOU can’t read.

            There was NO attempted rape. If anything happened at all, she had more than enough time to file a complaint and did NOTHING. It is ALL BS, nothing other than a grab for money, book deals and attention.

            What part of THAT is so hard for you to understand, LC? This is why you are a mordant idiot.

            • timactual says:

              If I am not mistaken any investigation, by the FBI or local police, will start with a detailed statement by the complainant. Given the lack of detail so far, I doubt that any honest investigation will get past that part of the process. In any less politicized proceeding it is more likely she would be prosecuted for filing a false report.

          • rgr769 says:

            Hey dumbshit, no prosecutor is going to file a charge on the pile of excrement from this woman, period, irrespective of any statute of limitations. First, because there is no evidence to present to a court. Second, even if there was no applicable statute of limitations (but there in fact is one), there is something in the law of every state known as the Doctrine of Laches, which is slumbering on your rights to the detriment of their timely assertion. And yes, I too know more about the law than you do. So, there is no federal crime here (even in theory) and no viable, non-time-barred state crime.

            • Poetrooper says:

              Thanks for reminding me of that, Rgr. For those unfamiliar with the term here is a more complete definition:

              “When asserted in litigation, laches is an equity defense, that is, a defense to a claim for an equitable remedy. The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has “slept on its rights”, and that, as a result of this delay, circumstances have changed, witnesses or evidence may have been lost or no longer available, etc., such that it is no longer a just resolution to grant the plaintiff’s claim. Laches is associated with the maxim of equity, “Equity aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones [that is, those who sleep on their rights].” Put another way, failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches.”

              While I had forgotten the term from my long ago legal studies, you can bet your ass Judge Kavanaugh hasn’t.

          • Fyrfighter says:

            I believe the point Hondo and others are trying to make on this one is that it doesn’t matter what the offense would be considered today, or what the statute of limitations for that offense would be, the relevant discussion would be what would the offense have been at the time it allegedly occurred (in this case, it’s been pointed out that it would have been “unwanted touching” which was a misdemeanor, and the statute of limitations would have run out on that.
            As for the second point, the accusers lawyer would NOT be the one making the charges, that would be the job of the DA. The accused would file a complaint, and the DA’s office would determine what, if any charges would be appropriate. The lawyer for the accuser can make whatever claims she’d like, but she is definitely NOT the one that decides on the charges.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        “It sure doesn’t strike me as a federal case, though.” Strike you? Cripes, man. A case is a Federal case or potential Federal case if it qualifies as a Federal case. It’s not subject to a vote or, God forbid, your feelings.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          First of all, NO federal law was broken if a couple of drunken teens got frisky with each other.

          Second – and this DOES count a LOT – the date of PASSING a statute making UNWANTED TOUCHING also counts. That is UNWANTED touching, which does not constitute attempted rape. Unwanted touching is aimed at penalizing someone who gropes or grabs someone’s ass on public tramsportation OR some other crowded venue, or drags someone at a bus stop into an alley and gropes her all over everywhere, which is BATTERY, NOT RAPE.

          Third – and this does count – if this female individual was involved in under age drinking, how is she able to clearly recall everything or anything that Kavanaugh did, but can’t recall who else was there?

          She’s lying and if you can’t figure that out, LC, then you are even DUMBER than I thought you were the first time you tried to post something. You haven’t got a clue.

          Last and most important, the legal definitions of things are important, means that BATTERY is physical abuse and illegal touching, whereas ASSAULT is verbal abuses as in libeling someone.

          • LC says:

            She’s lying and if you can’t figure that out, LC, then you are even DUMBER than I thought you were the first time you tried to post something. You haven’t got a clue.

            I must have missed the bit where you were at that party, too. I don’t know if she’s lying or not, and neither do you. Absent any evidence, he gets the benefit of doubt. Shocking concept, I know.

            • Ex-PH2 says:

              And just where IS the evidence? There isn’t any.

              Hearsay is not evidence. An affidavit is evidence. She has not presented an affidavit.

              Some 200 people signing a “letter of support” means nothing, period. It is not evidence. It is not an affidavit nor is it even a legal document.

              Keep fanning the smoky fire, LC. You couldn’t make a point if someone gave you a pencil sharpener. You have NOTHING, just like Ford. NOTHING.

              • Commissioner Wretched says:

                “You couldn’t make a point if someone gave you a pencil sharpener.”

                I am SO stealing that.

                • ChipNASA says:

                  I’m adding that to The Continent of Insults®™

                • ChipNASA says:

                  This is for LC….

                  “My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, ‘If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.’ Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- ‘Don’t ever smoke. Please don’t put your family through what your Grandfather put us through.” I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because your fucking posts gave me cancer anyway.”
                  😀 😀 😀

            • ArmyATC says:

              ” Absent any evidence, he gets the benefit of doubt. Shocking concept, I know.”

              Why? Why does she get the benefit of the doubt and Kavanaugh not? He’s saying it didn’t happen. He has witnesses to corroborate his statement and speak to his character then as well as now. So why don’t you give him the benefit of the doubt? It was your “benefit of the doubt” that ruined the lives of certain Duke lacrosse players, UVA frat house members, the UCSC mascot, Hofstra University students, the Oberlin College ‘rapist of the month,’ as well as many others. Eventually the allegations and charges were found to be nothing more than a pack of lies.

        • LC says:

          I love how you hang on every word, 2/17. Here, I’ll be more precise, since apparently my manner of speaking was lost on you: “I, though not a lawyer, can’t see how this is a federal case.”

          • 2/17 Air Cav says:

            The DOJ is pleased that you agree with them, then. And one need not be a lawyer to know that a Federal crime is an act or omission in violation of Federal law.

    • Hondo says:

      2/17: if the committee chair had cojones, he’d subpoena her to testify – about 3 weeks from now. And they’d investigate the hell out of her in the interim in preparation for questioning her account in extreme detail.

      Probably isn’t gonna happen. But I’d like to see exactly that.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        Yeah, I hear you. I would love her to be cross examined by a competent litigator. Following that, I would like to see Judge Kavanaugh sue her for defamation. Neither will happen, but it sure would be nice. I’m still smarting over the slimey deal arranged for Wide Load in which she was allowed to ‘testify’ w/o first being placed under oath. “What difference does it make now, Senator?”

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          I was under the impression that it is nearly impossible for any such political public figure to be successful in such a matter. (Absent the accuser outright admitting to lying with malice)

          • rgr769 says:

            Actually, the “actual malice” requirement only applies to media defendants who publish the defamatory statement. This woman is not a media defendant. Since she has accused him of a crime, if Kavanaugh did not commit it, she is liable for defamation, without proof of any economic damage.

      • MSG Eric says:

        Hondo 2020!

      • Poetrooper says:

        You’d better think about for a moment Hondo. Do you really want to give those grandstanding Dems another hearing platform for their propaganda arm, the liberal media, to play up the Republicans as a bunch of women hating old white guys?

        I don’t think so. best solution is to end this thing as quickly as possible. The biggest obstacle right now is that sorry ass, Trump-hating Jeff Flake.

  5. OWB says:

    Exactly what is it that is supposed to get us all riled up? A teenage boy might have groped, or something, a teenaged girl at a party 40 years ago. She doesn’t seem to remember exactly where it was, who it was, or much else except that they were both drunk and that the “assault” did not result in anything which could remotely produce pregnancy.

    So what? Even if something sort of unseemly occurred, there is no criminality here. The statute of limitations, on whatever state or local “crime” occurred, if it occurred at all, ran out long ago. Even on the admitted under age drinking.

    This is so far out into the ozone that it makes all the previous stupid shenanigans look almost sane.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Smear, delay, derail.

      They are highly dependant on courts to enforce what they cannot get legislated, and to protect what they do manage to emanate in penumbras.

      If Trump seats Kavanaugh, they ate -hurt-. If Trump can seat Kavanaugh, he can seat another one.

      And -that- is the ball game for a generation if #3 seat is a replacement for a reliable lefty.

      Panic is setting in. They are missing the obvious.

      If this seat is still open in November? Red -avalanche-. The one open SCOTUS seat probably put Trump in office. If the Donks just went along with this one, with minor speech-making, it would have lulled our side. No drama, no fire under conservative butts.

      I have lost count of the number of conservative buddies who keep expressing dismay at some Trump antic, but keep saying “but as long as he picks another Gorsuch…”

      Dumb mistake, Donks. But do please ignore me. (Grin)

      • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

        One does NOT interrupt an enemy or adversary while they are cutting their own throats, here’s hoping that the American Voters who elected President Trump cause a proverbial Red Tide in November instead of the “Blue Wave” the D-rats are sniveling about.

  6. Deckie says:

    Over 60 people vouched for his integrity and character? Check.

    Two prior girlfriends from the era in which this sexual assault is alleged to have happened vouched for his integrity and character? Check.

    The man the accuser says was there when it happened is on her side? Negative.

    All signs point to her being full of shit. Full of shit, disgraceful and pathetic.

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      The thing that soooooooooo pisses me off is that IF there are any decent people remaining in Congress…no, cancel that. There aren’t.

    • LC says:

      Meh, 60 people vouched for his integrity and character,… but not all of them are still doing it. And she had 200 people sign a similar letter in support of her. There’s a reason this sort of thing needs to go by evidence, not popularity.

      I wouldn’t say all signs point to her being full of shit, but without evidence, he doesn’t get to be treated as an alleged rapist.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        “And she had 200 people sign a similar letter in support of her.” You know, I get that you are the resident liberal, regarded as reasonable, but you make it very difficult it sometimes for me to stay cool. 200 signatures? Do you recall the Duke lacrosse team incident? Do you recall how many faculty signatures were affixed to the infamous letter all but calling for the lynching of the coach, athletic director, and the players? Were those 200 at the party–if there even was one at which both the accuser and Judge Kavanaugh were present? Do you not suspect something untoward, if not devious and defamatory, might be afoot in the timing of this accusation (35 years after the incident allegedly occurred) and that the accuser has now balked at telling her lies–I mean testifying–now? All signs DO point to her being full of shit.

        • LC says:

          Let’s go back to what I said: there’s a reason this sort of things needs to go by evidence, not popularity.

          I’m not defending her by saying, “Hey, well, 200 people signed a similar letter for her, so clearly she’s a victim!”. I just said that using 60 signatures in favor of him is as worthless as 200 signatures in favor of her. Is that wrong? If so, how?

          • 2/17 Air Cav says:

            The letter was written by a woman who says that in so many of these cases, the woman accuser is disbelieved, so she wrote the letter FOR THAT REASON. It contains no names and NO ONE attests to their personally knowing the accused or anything about the incident. They all attended the same high school, or so it’s reported. On the other hand, dozens of men and women who have known Judge Kavanaugh personally or professionally have stepped up to say that such an act as that which is being attributed to him is inconsistent with his personality, demeanor, and character. There’s the difference. Mean anything to you?

            • Poetrooper says:

              Cav, Ex, Hondo, all of you–this LC is nothing more than a liberal gadfly who gets his jollies with all his “Yes, but…” arguments. You’ll never convince him because the purpose of his game is to never be convinced.

              Trust me, I know the type well. My younger brother in California is the same way.

              • 2/17 Air Cav says:

                You are right, of course, but it’s not about convincing him of anything, It’s to spotlight his game. How many times can he be off the mark? As many times as he comments. In that regard, I wonder if he’s going by the name Cthulhu now and then or, if not, whether those two are related by blood.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        “200 people signed a letter in support of her”

        Herd mentality does not substantiate a claim drunken episode of stupidity that more than likely did NOT occur 35 years ago, LC, you mordant dimwit. There is NOTHING in what she claims happened that supports her claims. If she did not file a police report, she has NOTHING and DITTO Feinstein.

        You are so off the wall in this one, you can’t even get back.

        • LC says:

          You really need to relax – I haven’t defended her once. I just said that getting a bunch of people to add their signature to something ain’t worth a damn. Evidence is.

          But hey, I guess wanting evidence makes me a mordant dimwit.

          • 2/17 Air Cav says:

            LC. What makes you a dimwit is that you are willingly playing into the hand served up by Feinstein and the Crazed Left. The idea was to create doubt, to disparage Kavanaugh and impugn his good character and reputation, to suggest that maybe, despite the absence of evidence or anything remotely resembling a timely or substantive complaint by the accuser, there just might be something to it after all. Well, the burden is hers. What are YOU waiting for to call her a useful idiot, character assassin, and liar?

      • MSG Eric says:

        Actually, they are still supporting him. The difference is that not all 65 of them are willing to go on the news and do interviews.

        Huge huge difference there bucko.

        • LC says:

          I don’t know that. You don’t know that. And, and this is the most important bit, it doesn’t matter.

          It’s not a popularity contest, it’s about evidence.

          • 2/17 Air Cav says:

            She has delivered none, not to a prosecutor, not in a tort action, not anywhere. Why are you not willing to call her out?

      • Deckie says:

        LC… the difference is that overreactive feminists and extremely anti-Trump people with no personal knowledge of Kavanaugh are more than likely to be the bulk of those 200 people supporting her, if not all of them.

        My own flaming liberal sister even believes her… simply because “no one ever believes women when they report shit like this. Guys always get away with it.”

        Huge difference. The guys is being raked over coals simply because he is a threat to the left’s agenda.

        Me thinks you know this too….

        • LC says:

          Here’s what kills me – I know people like your sister, and they drive me crazy, too. All I’m arguing here is what I’d argue for any other person – let’s see the evidence.

          If there’s none, she doesn’t have a leg to stand on. If there is, he’s in a heap of trouble.

          But all of us commenting here aren’t privy to any evidence or lack thereof, and quoting some ridiculous stuff like, “Oh, but 60 people whom he knew many years ago in high school say he’s cool!” doesn’t mean jack shit.

          I don’t care about politics, I care about finding out what the truth is, as best we can tell. If she’s got nothing and it seems she’s making it all up, fuck her. If he’s covering shit up, fuck him. That’s apolitical, not zealotry.

          • 2/17 Air Cav says:

            There is no evidence other than her accusation and that isn’t evidence at all. Did she make a diary or journal entry immediately after the event? Do records show that she sought therapy or medical attention immediately after the event? Do school records show that she was absent from school for a day or two after the alleged event? Did she make a spontaneous utterance to another contemporaneous to the event? Did she establish anywhere with anyone whose testimony could be accorded weight that she named him way back when as someone who groped her?

            What you claim to seek in order to support the accuser does not exist or it would have been laid out. If it was an attempted rape, as you say, she would not be before a prosecutor. It’s bullshit, so it’s high time you just came out with it and stop the charade and pretense.

      • rgr769 says:

        They weren’t “people,” they were other effing progtard D-rats with the same objective of derailing this nomination to the Court. I didn’t think you were that obtuse, but you have proven me wrong. Also, since they weren’t there lo those 36 years ago, they have no way of knowing what, if anything she claims, happened, you dim wit.

  7. Marine 0331 says:

    Let me see if I got this. So, he’s at a high school party, he’s had a bit too much to drink and he gropes the girl. She says no and he stops. Ain’t that sort of typical of every high school date? I realize that situation might not have been a date, but it sure as hell is typical of teenage behavior. Bill dorks chicks in the White House as the pres. Where was Di Fi then?

  8. Skippy says:

    My repost from yesterday
    It’s time to call their bluff
    I’m tired of there made up bullshit

    COMMON SENSE: Now that Christine Blazey Ford has come forward, some interesting things about her are beginning to surface. Knowing this would happen, perhaps it’s the real reason why Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) kept these allegations secret since July. Here is what we now know that we didn’t just a few hours ago:
    1) The brother of Christine Blazey Ford worked for Fusion GPS. Wow, what a coincidence.

    2) Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh, was a Maryland district judge in 1996. She was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey Ford’s parents were the defendants. Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey Ford in the foreclosure case. Could there be residual resentment?

    3) Ford’s lawyer is a big Democrat donor who was involved in the Clinton / Paula Jones case.

    4) Christine Blazey Ford is a far left professor and an open-borders activist who has signed anti-Trump immigration letters.

    5) She also deleted her social media accounts just before coming forward. I don’t blame her for that, but what would her posts reveal?

    6) An “online professor rating site” has numerous reviews by from her students. Some say that they think she’s crazy, and they were actually scared by her behavior.

    There will be much more to come—trust me on that.

    • Skippy says:

      Also time is a complete idiot if he doesn’t
      Get rid of the former McCain lawyer
      Working for his White House legal team
      How many more made up scandals do we have deal with most of us independents
      Out here are fed up with the Dems
      A lot of moderate Dems I know are sick of
      Them to but Trump needs to do a document
      Dump like yesterday if he hopes to have a chance of ever getting anything done
      A lot of laws were broke before he became
      potus. And there were plenty of republicans
      That looked the other way

    • David says:

      At the risk of being vilified, re point number 2 – Martha Kavanaugh ruled in FAVOR of Ford’s parent. You can strike that point.


      Personally, I am thinking they need to get Ford under oath and warned of the penalties for perjury ASAP – like tomorrow. Fly her to DC, grill her, and her story doesn’t smell any better, jail her or sue the hell out of her. The vote isn’t for almost two weeks – I am sure they can find a flight with an empty middle seat.

  9. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    The United States Senate is where the members refer to one another as “My distinguished colleague” and other sugary shit, and most of the members are slithering snakes in the grass. I am very sorry for the Kavanaugh family that they have to suffer as their son, husband, and Dad gets dragged through the mud and treated like a sex offender. This is truly despicable behavior. It makes even me sick and I’ve seen and heard enough from the slime in Congress over my years. Enough is enough, indeed.

    • AW1Ed says:

      The real offense is who in their right mind would be willing subject themselves to this acid dipped lash of a Dem kangaroo court?
      No one is perfect; going back 36 years and accusing one of an event that did or didn’t happen?
      If this is the vetting process the Dems want, qualified people for high office will stay away in droves.
      This may be exactly the Dems intention.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        It’s part of the “Resist” movement. They know damn well nothing will come of it but the Left is getting more and more emboldened and taking to task every Dem in Congress who does not walk their walk. Even Chuckie Schumer got nailed and he’s trying hard to please them now, coming out and saying that he believes the accuser. Based upon what? Based upon absolutely nothing other than placating the Left. The shame of it is what these senators (spit!) are willing to do to Kavanaugh and his family.

    • Mason says:

      Said that I feel bad for his kids the night he was announced. Told the wife they’re at a tough age to hear half the country say your dad is a racist, bigot, etc. I even predicted a sexual harassment allegation coming out of the woodwork. This one is even weaker than Anita Hill.

  10. Roh-Dog says:

    It’s days like this that make me hope this sets-us-back-to-1890’s solar flare happens sooner than later.
    Turkey season Fall firearms in 17 days!

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      Excellent. Perspective is everything. Sometimes, I get a tad carried away. Just a smidge.

      • 5th/77thFA says:

        Not that I am advocating any of this, but does anybody remember the ending to Clancy’s Debt of Honor? That kinda took care of some of the congress critter problems with a bang. In, I think, Executive Orders, Jack Ryan fixed the rest of the problem. We really, really, really need to fire them all, now!

        • UpNorth says:

          Read Vince Flynn’s Term Limits. He did a good job of laying out a way to clean up D.C.

          • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

            “Politicians and diapers both need to be changed often and for the same reason.” – Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

        • David says:

          Yeah, and when 9/11 happened, all the pundits said “who ever would have thought of using an airplane?” Only several million Clancy readers…

      • Roh-Dog says:

        Passion is great, until it ain’t.
        Karma will make this all right, have the faith.
        This is just 11th hour wrangling over a already baked cake.
        I ain’t tired of winning yet!
        DJT 2020!

  11. Warcloud says:

    As the father of a boy, it scares me that any girl can at any time make some sort of allegation and turn his life upside down until he is proven innocent. I think the person making this claim should file a local police report provided she can recall the date, time, location and names of wits of this alleged event. By signing a police report, at least she could be held to account for making false statements if that turned out to be the case. If the locals REFUSE to take a report because there is a lack of critical details, or if they do a prelim investigation, such as interviewing a witness, maybe that would put this to bed one way or the other.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Based on what has happened in the recent past with Trump and the bimbos who dated him when, it’s more reasonable to believe that this is a play for money, attention and a book deal.

  12. Ex-PH2 says:

    Name anyone in the Hallowed Halls of Congress that has not engaged in misconduct. Anyone. I’ll show you their tombstones.

    It’s a shame that Rule XIX is in place. Glorious fistfights are no longer allowed.

  13. Ex-PH2 says:

    Find out which Congress critters did NOT vote to impeach Bill Clinton and fire his ass over Monica Lewinski, and ask them if they’d still vote that way now.

  14. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    I suspect there is another thread to this

    They came up with some new questions, too late for the hearing.

    Perjury trap. You said you wore a size 8 shoe in 9th grade! We found a receipt for 9-1/2! Impeach!

    Dark secret. He was accused of cheating at Pinewood Derby by another kid!

    You get the idea. They have some ambush-treachery besides one accuser.

    If she isn’t there, under oath, he shouldn’t say a thing. No accuser, no accused.

    • UpNorth says:

      It’s very simple for Judge Kavanaugh. Tell the committee that he’ll testify, right after she does.

    • Mason says:

      Grassley said today there’s no point having a hearing if she won’t testify. Now that her attorney is saying she isn’t ready, this might fizzle rather fast.

      • Hondo says:

        If Grassley lets her (and Soros, one of who’s “Foundations” is funding her “legal” fees) get away with that he is a damn fool.

        Grassley should go ahead and schedule a hearing about 2 weeks from now. That’s more than enough time for her to “prepare” if she’s telling the truth. In the interim, he should have people investigate the hell out of her background.

        If she shows for the hearing he should have a dossier on her available – and have someone prepared to question her in detail on her claims and potential motives. The fact that Kavanaugh ruled against her family in a lawsuit IMO may well be sufficient motivation for someone to manufacture an unsworn, bogus public accusation against a public figure being considered for high Federal office. That should be part of the hearing record.

        If she pulls a no-show (as I firmly expect she would) he should refuse to let her attorney enter a statement in her behalf and insist that the invitation was for her to testify in person, not submit a statement.

        If she still does not appear, Grassley should cut her attorney off if he attempts to speak for her (and have him escorted from the committee hearing if he persists and creates a disturbance). In this case Grassley should also enter a statement into the hearing record that Kavanaugh’s accuser was accorded the opportunity to present her accusations under oath, but declined to appear and do so. That way, there’s no valid argument that “she wasn’t allowed to present her side of the story”.

        Grassley should then hold an immediate up/down committee vote.

        • 2/17 Air Cav says:

          Ford’s attorney wrote that her client will “talk” to the committee but today, tomorrow, over the weekend, or on Monday. The atty also wrote that her client has rec’d death threats. Of course, those death threats were reported to police. Or not. The atty doesn’t say. Funny how that works.

        • Mason says:

          Here’s the latest. She’s to testify by 1000 hours Monday, if she doesn’t, sounds like they don’t want to hear it.


          I love the lefties talking about “we need to hear her story” crap, but then blame the Republicans for “bullying” her into testifying for reopening the hearings and selecting a time for her to appear.

          Infuriating that nobody in the fake news media will call the Dems out for everything related to their handling of this from the beginning.

  15. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    Here’s how Judge Kavanaugh’s wife handled the press recently… with poise and class:


    Shit reminds me of how Justice Thomas was handled during his confirmation process.

  16. Mike W. says:

    Hopefully spineless RINO’s will not blow this nomination.

  17. 26Limabeans says:

    Be fitting if some woman comes forward and accusess Ford of fondling her during a slumber party. Big burly biker chick with tats.

  18. DefendUSA says:

    When I was 14 and babysitting, the stepson of the parents came over. He was 28. He was acting quite inappropriately, and I knew what to do. I told my mother, and the parents- who told me I surely misconstrued. Either weigh the consequences of charges as the he-said she-said and fight or walk away scared shitless and move on. I moved on and eventually the offender got what he deserved. In 4o years, I would never go back, even if he was a millionaire to screw up his life because I have lived my life. This is preposterous.
    Inside of 1 hour, I told my best friend. How do you go 37 years and not even tell your best friend? No, you wait until marital troubles and couples therapy and maybe spin a lie that you can’t take back and now, it’s so fucked up, you can’t even own it? This is what I think has happened. A damn shame and the democrats are wholly complicit.

    • Ret_25X says:

      she is just grasping at the DNC cash carousel for fake victims.

      She has her sinecure at the university that all libtards drool over so now she wants some of that sandra fluke money the morons shower on wimmins who play victim.

      What I find funny is that these wimmins keep playing victim and accusing men of all sorts of vile and vexatious crimes and then can’t understand why men won’t even speak to them anymore.

  19. Cthulhu says:

    If what she claims he did was true it was a crime. Not a federal crime but a crime. Perhaps even a felony depending on what he did with his hands during the time he was attempting to force himself on her.

    However, it does not matter.

    If what he is accused of never happened it is deeply unfair to him if his nomination is scuttled by it.

    But that does not matter either.

    The question is not “what is fair to judge Kavanaugh?”

    The question is “what is best for the United States People?”

    Nobody is entitled to be a supreme court justice. He is not being denied any of his rights. Due process matters in a court of law. It does not matter politically. Political appointment are not rights.

    They are privileges and trusts afford to individuals by the consent of the American people. Ideally they are granted to exceptional people by our, ideally, exceptional elected representatives.

    There are dozens of equally or even perhaps better qualified candidates for the supreme court. President Trump has a list of at least four others his administration also accepts as qualified.

    People are denied privileged positions of trust all the time without ever having committed a crime.

    You do not have to be a criminal to be denied a security clearance. We can all agree that being provided a security clearance in of itself is a lesser privilege of trust that being given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. An appointment that will make him one of the most powerful people in America. A position that will allow him to shape the ethical compass of out nation for decades.

    Any credible information that a candidate is not a person of strong ethical character and sound judgement is sufficient to deny a clearance.

    It is also definitely sufficient to choose someone else for appointment to the Supreme Court.

    Judge Kavanaugh will then continue his life as a federal judge having lost nothing he was entitled to have.

    • Fyrfighter says:

      “Any credible information that a candidate is not a person of strong ethical character and sound judgement is sufficient to deny a clearance.”

      You’re spot on there Cthulhu… but here’s the thing, there’s not a single thing about this accusation that’s credible. In fact, there are a multitude of reasons to believe that it’s entirely made up.

      But thanks for playing

      • Cthulhu says:

        The FBI is investigating. They will make a decision on how credible the accusation is.

        She has also agreed to be publically questioned by congress.

        You can make your own determination of her credibility after hearing her out.

        • Deckie says:

          Where are you hearing they will investigate? Last I heard they say they will not.

        • AW1Ed says:

          What is the title of this post, C?

        • timactual says:

          Until they have some facts to work with there is nothing to investigate. What will they investigate? Somewhere in Maryland sometime in 1982 or 1983 there was a pool party where a sexual assault allegedly took place. Two of the three people the complainant says witnessed the event deny it happened.

    • timactual says:

      Disagree. The whole point of our country, and the position to which Kavanaugh aspires, is being fair to EVERY individual, no matter who they are. If “fairness” to one of the elite in our society must be sacrificed “for the good of the country”, how expendable are we peasants?

  20. Cthulhu says:

    So many of you seem to think she is lying.

    She might be.

    However, she agreed to and passed a FBI administered lie detector test. While I think lie detector tests are bullshit in detecting lies the process itself is fairly effective at either getting people to stop lying or indicating they are lying in their efforts to avoid key elements of the process.

    If she is lying she also is committing a federal crime in her accusation.

    She would be committing a second federal crime by lying to congress if she testifies.

    She has already cooperated and provided he account to the FBI and has agreed to testify in front of congress.

    So she has been willing to put her entire livelihood, career, reputation, and her freedom at stake over these allegations.

    In my mind it makes it very unlikely she is lying.

    Kavanaugh’s friend, who was in the room, while saying he does not remember this happening, is unwilling to deny it happened in any circumstance where he is under oath or under criminal penalty for lying. He refuses to testify in front of congress.

    It is also worth noting that Kavanaugh’s friend also wrote a book about his “exploits”. In his book he brags about how easily it was for he and his friends to have their way with girls. He describes this in the context of them throwing parties where everyone got drunk including the girls.

    So let me be clear; he is bragging about how easy it was for he and his friends to have their way with teenage girls. Interactions that do not meet the legal standard of consent by TWO standards; their being under age and their being intoxicated.

    It is no wonder he is unwilling to deny these allegations under oath.

    • Fyrfighter says:

      “So she has been willing to put her entire livelihood, career, reputation, and her freedom at stake over these allegations.”… she’s a tenured lefty professor, so yeah, no… if anything, she’s increased her cred with that crowd (and you apparently).
      “She has already cooperated and provided he account to the FBI and has agreed to testify in front of congress.” The FBI found no grounds for an investigation (that seems a ding on the credibility), as you point out, polygraphs are by and large BS, which is why they’re not accepted in court. As to her agreeing to testify before Congress, her lawyer is now backtracking, and she’s saying she won’t testify before congress, until the FBI completes an investigation, which they’ve already said they won’t do… convenient isn’t it???

      And lastly, “In my mind it makes it very unlikely she is lying”… this statement says much more about your state of mind that it does about anything related to this accusation..

    • OWB says:

      Her story is that he made advances, she said “NO” and he stopped. What law does that violate?

      • Mason says:

        He should have anticipated the #Metoo movement 35 years in advance, clearly.

      • Cthulhu says:

        That not even close to her story. Her story was he assaulted her and covered her mouth and turned up the music to prevent people from hearing her scream.

        According to her he was so aggressive she feared he would accidentally kill her because he hand was so tightly held against her mouth she could not breathe.

    • David says:

      FBI administered my ass.

      A lie detector only indicates whether someone THINKS they are lying – that is why they are inadmissible as evidence.

      Where do you see she talked to the FBI? Not on any report I have seen… or doubtless anyone else. EVERY account I have seen says her letter was provided to the FBI by Feinstein, and they declined to get involved then – and now.

      Judge (Kavanaugh’s friend) categorically stated such an incident ever took place in his presence. Have to admit, were I he, I would also decline to testify – probably because I would happily do a Woody Allen (see: The Front) and tell Feinstein et al to go fuck themselves.There is absolutely no upside for Judge to testify, especially when all he can say is “didn’t happen when I was around.”

      Oh! The horror! Teenagers drinking and attempting sex! Legally that is impermissable! All you have to do is change human nature.

      Sorry, I find your entire ‘logical’ chain to be be primarily opinion and fantasy. And, yes, that ‘sorry’ is every bit as sincere as you can imagine.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        “However, she agreed to and passed a FBI administered lie detector test.”

        As David said, “FBI administered my ass.” The FBI did not administer a polygraph exam. Whatever else Chipolte/Chuluhulu/Whatever wrote, I did not read. He started out with a false statement so I can only imagine what was going to follow. It’s time for his bud to appear.

      • Fyrfighter says:

        I looked around a bit, and as to Cthulhu’s claim of “FBI administered”, apparently, besides hiring a lawyer, the accuser arranged for and took a polygraph administered by a RETIRED FBI agent… all related to a subject on which “she didn’t intend to come forward or testify on”… hmmm yeah, that doesn’t pass the smell test even a little bit..

      • luddite4change says:

        Clinical psychologists are one of the special populations where a polygraph is worthless anyway.

        Even if she believes that the event it true, it doesn’t make it true.

      • Cthulhu says:

        You are correct it was a former FBI agent that administered the test.

    • Mason says:

      There’s nothing about her statements made publicly so far that’s credible. They are both uncredible and incredible.

      Curious what your thoughts are, Cthulhu, on Keith Ellison. Should he resign or withdraw from all of his public offices immediately? At least his accuser is referencing things that happened this century and when he was already in a position of public trust.

      • Cthulhu says:

        Yes I do.

        • Mason says:

          At least you’re consistent in rushing to judgment based on reporting in mainstream media.

          We have a process for these alleged crimes to be investigated. It’s the police. Not the court of public opinion or in front of congress.

          The FBI has no jurisdiction for a 35 year old vague report of an 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦𝘥 assault which would be under a state statute. At best an investigation could be done by a state or local police agency, but none will take a report 35 years after the fact for a 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦𝘥 crime, the statute of limitations for which are long past, when she wouldn’t be able to say where/when/how the incident played out. There’s nothing to investigate.

          I hate Ellison, but think even he needs to get a fair investigation. As much as I’d love to see him resign, absent an actual investigation by the people trained and empowered to do so (the police), he should stay where he is. Of course, that he’s part of the party of “every woman needs to be believed”, he’s on shaky ground politically, but not legally. Yet.

          • Mason says:

            And before you draw correlations to the Anita Hill accusations, the FBI had standing to investigate that as she and Justice Thomas were federal employees when the 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦𝘥 harassment occurred.

    • Commissioner Wretched says:

      One of the primary reasons polygraph, or “lie detector,” tests are inadmissible as evidence in court concerns belief. A person who passes a polygraph test is not necessarily telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – if they sincerely believe what they are saying, then they will pass the test, regardless of facts proving them totally wrong.

      A polygraph test is not infallible, and the fact that Dr. Ford has “passed” one does not give her claims any more credibility than they already had.

      There’s just too much that flies in the face of logic for this to be anything other than a last-ditch, desperation, Hail Mary pass with less than one second on the clock and 90 yards from a touchdown.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        The WaPo’s account that Accuser Ford took a polygraph exam is a hoot. It is being played up as some sort of proof that she must be telling the truth, as she believes it, anyway. We’re told that a former FBI agent administered the exam. Who? Was he with the FBI for two years or 32 years? Was he accredited to administer the exam? How much experience did he have in administering such exams? Is there a video tape of the entire exam (i.e., pre-test, test, and post-test phases)? If so, where is it? If not, why not? Who paid for the exam, directly or by reimbursing Ford? Where was the exam conducted?

        None of these questions have been answered and, thus, there is no corroboration for her claim. If someone has it, why wouldn’t they come forward or release the information? I know why: it’s bullshit. Using the “FBI” tag used to be a sign of reliability. No longer. That alone makes me suspect the hired examiner just gave the paying customer what the paying customer wanted.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          Pop did investigations, professionally, for decades. He considered polygraph to be voodoo. In almost any circumstance, the interrogator determines the result. The machine is mostly a prop.

          There are darn good reasons polygraphs are almost never admissible evidence.

    • Deckie says:

      Wow, Cthulhu… dumb.

    • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

      C – where was Ford when Kavanaugh was going through the nomination for his current position? Or, for any other post that he has held in government? After 30+ years she now decides to “speak out” when she could have sunk his career earlier?

      BTW… it is really starting to smell like a hit job – Ford’s lawer is a Soros lackey:


    • timactual says:

      ” passed a FBI administered lie detector test”

      No. The person who administered the test was a former FBI employee. The FBI is not involved.

      No, so far she has been willing to make an accusation. That’s it. No details, no sworn statements, nothing she could be held accountable for.

      ” He refuses to testify in front of congress”

      I would too. And it remains to be seen whether she will testify. And don’t forget, SHE didn’t want to testify either. She wanted to remain anonymous while accusing others.

  21. AW1Ed says:

    Got your wish, Cav.

    Third Person that Kavanaugh Accuser Claims Was at Party Denies Incident

    A third high school student Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford claimed attended a party more than 35 years ago where the future Judge Kavanaugh attacked her denied any memory of the alleged incident in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, CNN reported Tuesday.

    CNN obtained a letter from Patrick J. Smyth, a Georgetown Prep alum who graduated in Kavanaugh’s class, to Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). The letter was penned after Ford apparently identified Smyth as “PJ” – another teenager who was one of around five people at a drunken gathering in a Montgomery County, Maryland, home in or around 1982.

    “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,” the letter, penned by Smyth’s attorney, Eric Bruce, reads. “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.”

    Smyth remains Kavanaugh’s friend and had already written to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of his nomination to the Supreme Court, calling him “singularly qualified to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court” in a letter co-authored by Georgetown Prep classmates of Kavanaugh.

    The entire article may be viewed Here.

  22. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    I myself was not wondering if but WHEN the D-rats were going to play the Sexual Misconduct Card®™, there are MANY third world whorehouses that are far more ethical and honest that today’s D-rat party there in The Great Whorehouse on the Potomac River!

  23. Ex-PH2 says:

    This feeding frenzy is so incredibly reminiscent of “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” that it is almost ridiculous.

    Isn’t it about time some of the Democrats participating in this nonsense were held accountable for their OWN misbehavior? Yes, we can. They are just as liable for what they’ve done as anyone else.

    It’s unfortunate that the majority of news outlets will not carry such detrimental stuff to show them up.

  24. DefendUSA says:

    Lemme axe a question. Does anyone remember what Clarence Thomas was charged with? Saying, in front of Anita Hill, something about a pubic hair. AYFKM and this is what was known then as Sexual Harassment? Give me a break, FFS!! Stop the madness. Ford should not be dictating to anyone and the burden of proof IS on her…and she simply does not have it.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Aawwww, come on, Defend!!!!

      It’s the circus of it all! They’re a bunch of little kids looking for cheap thrills and someone to pick on!

      You gotta throw them a used bone once in a while.

  25. West Point 1987 says:

    On the last day of the hearings, Kavanaugh was asked by either Hirono or Harris (I forget which) if he had ever sexually assaulted or harassed anyone at any point in his life. Kavanaugh looked confused by the question (why would that come up?) but firmly answered “no”. I wondered at the time why the question, but now see that it was a carefully laid perjury trap. So, Feinstein wasn’t the only person that knew about the letter…this was planned from the get-go as a well placed L shaped ambush. If only they had real ammo…

  26. Cthulhu says:

    Let’s be clear on what her claims are since several of you have intentionally or inadvertently misrepresented them.

    Her claims are that

    1. They pushed her into a bedroom.
    2. Kavanugh pinned her on her back to the bed.
    3. Kavanugh “attacked” her and attempted to take her clothes off.
    4. He sexually groped her and grind against her while she struggled.
    5. When she tried to scream he covered her mouth.
    6. He was being so aggressive in stifling her screams that she feared he might accidentally kill her because she could not breath.
    7. His friend who was watching jumped onto the bed and because the two of them they both drunk they tumbled off the bed and she was able to get up and run out of the room, and locked herself in the bathroom. Then when she felt she could she fled the house.

    So whether you believe he or not stop trying to pretend this was teenage heavy petting that went to far or that he stopped when she said “no”.

    Additionally, she is willing to testify under oath to these events.

    She is also willing to cooperate with the FBI in their investigation.

    Both decisions expose her to severe legal jeopardy if she is lying.

    She has no more reason to lie about this than he does. And his lying about this will not lead to charges. Since the assault itself is well passed in statute of limitations and lying under oath would be impossible to prove since he can claim he was too drunk to remember anything that happened so there was no criminal intent in denying it happened.

    Her lies could and likely would lead to charges. Particularly lying to FBI investigators.

    • Deckie says:

      I’m still curious as to what FBI investigation you’re referring to, since they uh…. yanno… keep saying they will not be doing so?

      Considering the army of dicks she has backing her on the left, I’d say she is likely being coached quite well on what to say and how to handle herself in all this.

      • Mason says:

        Yup, saying “I’m perfectly willing to testify, under oath, in front of Congress” with a great big “but” only once these conditions are met is a huge red flag. Especially when she’s demanding an FBI investigation that they’ve already said they aren’t going to do. To the left and media, she looks perfectly reasonable to demand “justice” from the FBI. Which plays into their delay and derail agenda.

        The FBI has no standing from which to do an investigation, except for politics. They’ve done enough meddling in our politics thank you very much.

    • AW1Ed says:

      “Particularly lying to FBI investigators.”

      Let me help.

      FBI: Brett Kavanaugh ‘Allegation Does Not Involve Any Potential Federal Crime’

      The FBI is through with its Kavanaugh investigation, and has no reason to interview Ford.

      • Cthulhu says:

        That is flat false. A new allegation needs to be investagatded. Period.

        The same would happen in a security clearance investigation if a new allegation emerged after the background investigation was conducted.

        Happens all the time. I have have initiated a few myself.

        • AW1Ed says:

          For the last time, there is no federal crime here. For an investigation to commence, Ford will have to file a complaint with Bethesda law enforcement. She has not done this.

          The same would happen in a security clearance investigation if a new allegation emerged after the background investigation was conducted.

          Apples to oranges. Security clearances are the purview of the Federal Government; this is a state issue, if there is one at all.

          And before you grasp at this straw, the FBI indeed investigated Anita Hill’s accusation against Clarence Thomas- because they were both federal employees at the time.

        • 2/17 Air Cav says:

          You are much too dense to be in a position that carries any responsibility in the real world. Thus, you must be a Federal gov’t employee.

          • AW1Ed says:

            Hey now, Cav- I resemble that remark!


            • Twist says:

              So do I.

              • 2/17 Air Cav says:

                I do believe that gov’t workers who are former military are the exception–for a couple of years, until their co-workers and supervisors prevail upon them to get with the gravy-train program.

                • AW1Ed says:

                  I really disagree, Cav, but will not add to this already lengthy post except to say, years of zero cost of living raises, and sequestration. See, I’m Department of the Navy govvie, work harder, not smarter.

        • USMCMSgt (Ret) says:

          FBI agents don’t perform interviews for background checks.

          The SF86 also can’t be used to bring criminal charges. If clarification is needed on a self reported item, follow on questions would be appropriate, but not with the implied purpose of building a case.

    • 26Limabeans says:

      “inadvertently misrepresented them”

      Liberal speak is so kind.

    • West Point 1987 says:

      It’s the same penalty as lying to Congress when sworn in. She’ll never be interviewed by the FBI and knows it. She’s offered to “meet the committee members”, but not in committee (unsworn), until the FBI investigation she knows will never happen happens. I’d tend to believe her if not for the obvious shenanigans by the Democrats on the committee to time this to delay past Mid-Terms. It’s an obvious Hail Mary.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        “They pushed her into a bedroom.” Again, the first line from Chipolte/Chuluhulu/Whatever is false. Her contention is that Kavanaugh pushed her.

        But, sometimes, the tiny details are the case crunchers. Take, for instance, her therapist’s notes, which the WaPo says it reviewed. Ford told WaPo that she named Kavanaugh to the therapist in 2012, yet the therapist’s notes say nothing about that. STOP. Judge Kavanaugh, in 2012, was on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and had been since 2006. A patient/client tells you that a US Ct of Appeals judge, a guy named Kavanaugh, pushed her into a bedroom and assaulted her, that she feared for her life as Kavanaugh covered her mouth, and that she escaped Kavanaugh but his name doesn’t make it into your notes of her account? Bullshit. In that regard, the therapist did note that Ford said that there four boys involved, not the two that Ford years later told the WaPo. So, the WaPo reporter asked about this and Ford replied that the therapist made a mistake. What a load of horse shit. And Ford further would like us to believe that she is motivated by what she calls her “civic duty” to come forward now. More horse shit.

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          She’s motivated by money, public attention, money, being interviewed, money and more money.

          Those are her motivations.

          If you’re going to fabricate a story and want to be believed, have all the details worked out before you spill your “guts” in public.
          1 – what was she waearing?
          2 – what was she drinking?
          3 – how come she doesn’t name ANYONE ELSE? Even this “PJ” person says it did not happen. Who else was there? What did they look like?

          4 – Also consider the simple notion that she’s a compulsive liar looking for attention.

          I’ve seen better and more believable stories concocted out of whole cloth in the film industry.

    • timactual says:

      “she is willing to…”

      So she says. We will find out Monday.

      ” his lying about this will not lead to charges.”

      Other than lying to Congress and possibly perjury? And don’t forget impeachment from his current position.

      “Her lies could and likely would lead to charges. Particularly lying to FBI investigators.”

      Right. Just like Hillary et al. Of course, now that Comey is gone there is a chance.

  27. ChipNASA says:



    “County Police Won’t Investigate Allegations Against Kavanaugh Unless Complaint Is Filed
    Whether statute of limitations would apply would depend upon the type of complaint”


    • Mason says:

      This goes with what I said above. She’d need to report it to an agency with jurisdiction. If she can’t remember any of the details, there’s nothing to investigate.

      Even investigating something like this that happened last week is difficult.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        I would like the police to investigate.

        “Where did this occur?”

        “A house of a boy who…”

        “Wait. Which house?”

        “It was a house with a bedroom, short stairs and a bathroom. Oh. There was a lock on the bedroom door.”

        “Ma’ am, what I mean is on what street was the house? What was the house number?”

        “Ask me another question, will you?”

        “Okay. When did this event occur?”

        “It was in the summer.”

        “No, what date?”

        “You mean exact date?”

        “That would be helpful.”

        “It was 1982 or 1983.”

        “Thanks for your time, ma’ am. We’ll be in touch.”

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Why was she at a party in a one-piece bathing suit? And what color was it?

      This just gets hokier all the time.

      I smell a book deal offstage, waiting to be dickered.

      • AW1Ed says:

        Supposedly a pool party, Ex. Scantily dressed teens, alcohol, and no adult supervision. What could possibly go wrong?

    • AW1Ed says:

      This looks vaguely familiar, right Cthulhu?

  28. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    The trauma of the brutal and vicious attack left her so traumatized that she has blotted out damn near everything. Thank goodness the DNC was there to provide her the essential fact that Kavanaugh was the perpetrator.

  29. Cthulhu says:

    It is really interesting you all are ignoring the fact that not only is the witness (Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge) is unwilling to voluntarily testify under oath to congress or investigators.

    Why is that not a huge red flag for you all?

    Congress could subpeona him and force him to testify but thus far have said they won’t.

    Also should be a red flag.

    There is zero reason to continue with the confirmation process until after this allegation is investigated.

    This is a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in the US. One that will shape the ethical and moral fabric of our laws and society for decades.

    It is simply too important a position to not follow up on this.

    Kavanaugh is not being denied anything to which he is entitled to to which he has any right.

    It is a position of trust and there is other qualified candidates at least as worthy as he is.

    If the administration does not want to wait they can nominate someone else from their list.

    Or they can let investigators and congress follow up on this and have witnesses testify in front of congress.

    What is the rush? It adds two to three weeks to the process.

    I am sure very few of you were whining about things needing to be done quickly and “fairly” when Justice Scalia’s seat was being held open for FOURTEEN MONTHS. For entirely partisan political reasons. Using a completely invented and almost certainly unconstitutional justification to deny the sitting president his appointment and hold it for the next president.

    The supreme has increasingly been losing credibility on BOTH sides of the aisle for more than two decades.

    Let’s take a few weeks to double check that the next judge we place on the bench is not a sexual predator before appointing him for the rest of his life.

    Besides, if this hearing does not happen I doubt Kavanaugh will get the votes he needs at this point.

    There has already been more than a few republicans calling for a hearing on this before the vote.

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      Are you a female?

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        I guess that’s too tough a question. Take your time. Check your driver’s license if you need help.

        Here’s the way it works, Sally. A person levels a serious allegation. If the allegation involves a crime, the burden is on the state or Federal sovereign to prove the allegation. If the allegation involves a tort, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the allegation. The standards of proof are different but the burden belongs to the party that brought the issue. No one else has to do jack shit, such as offer to testify, absent a subpoena. Diving into the lion’s den of irrational, pussy-hat wearing, man-hating, Trump-hating, Kavanaugh-hating resisters who couldn’t care less who else they damage to placate the crazed Left would be foolhardy. A red flag? Cripes. You just don’t want to get it, do you?

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        I think it’s a Commissar sockpuppet typing in whatever LARS TAYLOER tells it to type.

        This is too much like his balderdash and time-wasting egocentricity. Definitely female, however, otherwise it wouldn’t keep pounding on this nonsubject.

    • AW1Ed says:

      There has already been more than a few republicans calling for a hearing on this before the vote.

      And here it is, straight from the NYT.

      WASHINGTON — The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, under mounting pressure from senators of his own party, will call President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, and the woman who has accused him of sexual assault before the committee on Monday for extraordinary public hearings only weeks before the midterm elections.

      New York Times Link

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        Not sure about that AW1ED. I saw only part of the piece before the pay wall zapped me but it looks like it was dated 17 Sept. Much has happened since then. I know that Grassley has told her or her atty that rules require docs before appearances anfd that she has until Friday to submit them. She, on the other hand, says she will not testify until after the FBL conducts an investigation. If anything, Kavanaugh can be recalled and subjected to another horror show, but it all depends on who needs the help for the midterms. Decency and justice has nothing whatsoever to do with any of these clowns.

        • AW1Ed says:

          Point taken, and consider the source. As far as I’ve heard/read/viewed though, the hearing is still set for Monday.

          To just about every one’s credit, the Reps are willing to give Ford her day in court, as it were; all she has to do is show up.

          Something I find unlikely.

          • rgr769 says:

            If this is merely a stalling tactic, why would she show up. Bet her prog activist TARDO lawers don’t want her to show up. They will say they are waiting for that FBI investigation they told her to demand be completed before she will testify. You know, that investigation that can’t be completed before the first Tuesday in November.

    • Twist says:

      “when Justice Scalia’s seat was being held open for FOURTEEN MONTHS. For entirely partisan political reasons”

      Ever hear of the Biden rule? Liberals hate it when their own tactics are used against them.

    • AW1Ed says:

      It is really interesting you all are ignoring the fact that not only is the witness (Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge) is unwilling to voluntarily testify under oath to congress or investigators.

      No Cuttlefish, we’re just ignoring you.

    • timactual says:

      “Why is that not a huge red flag for you all?”

      As I mentioned before, she was unwilling to testify at first also, and it remains to be seen if she ever will. Mark Judge did exactly what Ford did, made an unsworn statement and then sought anonymity. The difference is that her statement was an accusation. Why is that not a huge red flag for you?

  30. ex-OS2 says:

    I am curious when Joy Behar is going to “slut shame” Ford and call her a “tramp”. Oh wait, that is soooo 2016.

  31. Hack Stone says:

    So now the FBI is tasked with investigating every claim that an allegedly drunk teenage boy allegedly tried to score with a girl? They are going to need to hire a shitload more Special Agents.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Not a federal crime. It’s at the state and local levels, Hack Stone. Unless it violates the Mann Act and moves across a state line, it is state and local level stuff.

  32. Hack Stone says:

    Hack Stone has been sitting on a letter from Elaine Ricci in which she claims that Brett Kavanaugh snapped her bra strap on the Metro. Does anyone have Diane Feinstein’s phone number?

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      Whoa, tiger! First, you must wait 30 years. Then, you must retain a therapist and tell him or her about the incident. Then, wait another six years and retain an atty. Next write a letter, have your atty review it, and submit it to the Washington Post. Then, you may call Senator Feinstein.

      • timactual says:

        Speaking of that therapist, how is it that she is in possession of his/her notes? Inquiring minds want to know!

        • rgr769 says:

          I am thinking she had to pay a very special price in a private session with her “therapist” to get those notes.

  33. Ex-PH2 says:

    Wow. We have all seen what we thought were the most incredibly idiotic attention whores on the planet, but when this one showed up, along with its sock puppet Chthulhus, it just takes the cake.
    Nothing that Chthulhu has posted has any backup.

    It’s all hearsay and hearsay is not admissible as evidence. Witness accounts have to be verified and documented.


    The Bethesda police have stated that they will not investigate anything without a complaint filed and NO COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED.

    So this is slightly more than a dog and pony show by the leftreds, to generate an audience, flex their alleged political muscles, and get on camera for interviews. They’ve even intimidated Chuckie Schumer, for Pete’s sake!

    That’s the basic summary so far. The leftrerds are desperate because they are facing losing control of everything and they know it.

    I hope this inspires voters in the midterms in November to vote these bozos out of office, for good.

  34. 26Limabeans says:

    Have not heard much from the supportive hubby.
    Gotta be a story there after years with the emotionally distraught victim. Hope she brings him along for you know….emotional support.
    He can reach for his hanky at just the right moment.

  35. Ex-PH2 says:

    How many times does the media have to repeat that the FBI has said there is NO Federal crime here, before that bimbo shuts up?

    This is from CBS News:

    Kavanaugh accuser calls for FBI investigation before she testifies
    Share Tweet Reddit Flipboard Email
    The woman who has accused Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, Christine Blasey Ford, is calling for an FBI investigation before testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And Ford’s lawyers admonished the committee for scheduling the hearing so soon after her allegations became public.

    “While Dr. Ford’s life was being turned upside down, you and your staff scheduled a public hearing for her to testify at the same table as Judge Kavanaugh in front of two dozen U.S. senators on national television to relive this traumatic and harrowing incident,” said a letter Tuesday evening from Ford’s lawyers to Sen. Charles Grassley, the committee chairman.

    The committee invited both Kavanaugh and Ford to testify on the allegations, and Kavanaugh accepted. Mark Judge, who allegedly was also at the party in question in the 1980s, and in the room with Kavanaugh, said through his attorney he has no memory of the alleged incident and does not wish to testify publicly.

    More here; Grassley responded to the letter later Tuesday evening: “Dr. Ford’s testimony would reflect her personal knowledge and memory of events. Nothing the FBI or any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr. Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay.”

    So, per Grassley’s statement, either she shows up or shuts up. Period. If she shuts up, I hope it’s before dinner on Friday. She’s incredibly boring and decidedly in search of attention. Her insistence on NOT having a hearing without the FBI investigating something that is NOT a Federal-level incident makes it rather clear that there IS no crime and she made the whole thing up.

    I smell a book deal or something like that. She’s boring, too. I now wonder if she was given notice by her employer (university?) that funding for her position depends on her publishing something, and soon, too. She’s in the ‘publish or perish’ kind of field where which requires results. How come she isn’t back at school teaching classes?

    • timactual says:

      It amazes me how all those super lawyers don’t seem to know how the legal system works. Perhaps that is because their legal skills have gotten rusty while they have been burnishing their PR skills.

      • rgr769 says:

        They are not real lawyers. They are paid political whores with law degrees. Most of them have never tried a case in court, let alone even taken a deposition. You think Barack Obama or Michele have ever tried a case. I doubt either of them have ever taken a deposition. If they claimed they did, I’d have to see a certified transcript before I would believe it. Barack’s name is on a couple of lawsuits when he worked for a Chicago law firm for a couple of years before he went into politics, but I doubt he even drafted the complaint.

  36. Ex-PH2 says:

    Well, well, well. Looky-looky here. Is it possible that the other shoe has dropped, or about to do so?


    “That partisan hit job? It’s absolutely a partisan hit job.

    Kavanaugh’s accuser is being represented by Debra Katz, a Washington D.C. lawyer and the vice chair of the board of the Project On Government Oversight.

    POGO co-signed a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Grassley along with a variety of lefty groups demanding Kavanaugh records. This was the obstruction tactic of choice of the left for trying to secure the Court seat before they fastened on to this latest smear.

    Where does PGO gets its funding?

    From, among other sources, George Soros and his Open Society Foundation tentacles.

    And, to no one’s surprise, she’s allegedly a Dem donor. – Article

    What a surprise! Debra Katz, the lawyer representing the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, has donated thousands of dollars to Obama, Hillary and the DNC! pic.twitter.com/WK5XYTlcqL
    — Jacob Wohl (@JacobAWohl) September 17, 2018

    So is anyone surprised by this? Anyone? Bueller?

    Is there a conflict of interest here, that can be used to stop this nonsense?

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      Uh-oh. A third person of the four that Ford claimed was at the ‘party’ says he has no idea wtf she is talking about. First there was Kavanaugh, then Judge, now Smtyhe.

      “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,” Smyth, who graduated the same year as Kavanaugh from Georgetown Prep in North Bethesda, Maryland, said in the letter that was obtained by CNN. “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.”

    • rgr769 says:

      I’m not surprised, because I suspected this was the case and read reports yesterday. I smelt the aging Nazi collaborator’s hand and money in this several days ago. If Soros isn’t the Anti-Christ, I don’t know who is.

  37. FatCircles0311 says:

    I hope this experience turns him hard right. They did the same thing to Thomas and I don’t think he’s ever going to forget this injustice perpetrated against him by the democrat party.

  38. Mike W. says:

    Pardon my language, but F*CK the Democrats and push him through for a vote !

  39. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Well, Grassley has offered Ford everything under the sign to accomodate her. He has offered her a ‘private’ Q/A away from the TV. He has even offered her to stay in CA and the staff would come to her. But, through her mouthpiece, comes nothing. This is all good prep for Trump’s 3rd (!) Supreme Ct nomination, which is bound to come. If you combine the ages of Ginsburg and Breyer and then subtract that total from the current year, the result is 1853. Bwahahahahahahaha.

  40. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    I love this story. Some woman, a former HS classmate of Ford’s posted on-line (I think it was FB) that Ford talked about the attack for days after it happened. Odd. She was the only one who said that. Odder: Ford has maintained that she told no one about the imaginary event for years after it happened. The former classmate had a whoopsie moment and pulled down the lie, along with the rest of whatever was there.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      AirCav, you just made my day, and it’s barely sunrise here in my kingdom. And a thunderstorm threatens us to the northwest.