Bizarre, Congress, Lawyering, Media, Politics, Society

The Kavanaugh Hearing Leaves Lingering Questions Over Representations Made To The Committee By Counsel

Yesterday’s Kavanaugh hearing left many questions on both sides, including the ultimate question of the alleged attempted rape of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.  However, for lawyers, one exchange sticks out from a professional standpoint.  Ford was questioned why she delayed the hearing due to her alleged fear of flying and, more importantly, why she did not simply meet with committee staff in California.  Ford admitted that, while she does not like to fly, she does in fact routinely fly around the world, including frequent trips to nearby Delaware.  The most striking statement however was the suggestion that she was never told by counsel that she did not have to fly to Washington and the Committee was ready to fly to her — a prospect that she said she would have welcomed.  That left a lingering question of whether her counsel did not tell her of a material offer or whether she misrepresented the reason for her delay in speaking to the Committee.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) challenged Ford when she said

“I was hoping that they come to me. But, then, I realized that that was an unrealistic request. . . . So, that was certainly what I was hoping – was to avoid having to get on an airplane – but, I eventually was able to get up the gumption, with the help of some friends, and get on the plane.”

Chairman Grassley immediately raised the conflict with what the Committee had been told by her counsel on her behalf:

“Dr. Ford, I want to correct the record, but it’s not something that I’m saying that you stated wrongly, because you may not know the fact that, when you said that you did not think that it was possible for us to go to California as a committee, or investigators to go to California to talk to you – we did, in fact, offer that to you. And, we had the capability of doing it, and we would have done it, anywhere or any time.”

That offer was made on Sept. 21st and it was sent to Ford’s lawyers.

That offer was widely reported in the national media so it was curious why Ford was unaware of the offer, but it was in direct conflict with what the Committee understood from her counsel.  However, there was an objection from counsel when she asked whether it “was communicated to you by your counsel or someone else that the committee had asked to interview you, and that they offered to come out to California to do so?”

Ford responded

“Can I say something to you? Do you mind if I say something to you directly? I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not — it was not clear to me that that was the case.”

It was not explained how an offer to fly to her in California was not “clear.”  Counsel was required to convey and explain such material offers to Ford in order to represent her position in good faith.  The D.C. bar rules state:

Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.4–Communication

   (a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.
(c) A lawyer who receives an offer of settlement in a civil case or proffered plea bargain in a criminal case shall inform the client promptly of the substance of the communication.

That rule puts counsel in a difficult place. Michael Bromwich, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks indicated that they are working pro bono but blocked queries as to whether the offer of the Committee was clearly conveyed to their client.  That objection was made despite their effectively telling the Committee that their client would not accept the offer.  The situation is particularly precarious for counsel after Ford admitted that she was given the pro bono counsel at the suggestion and referral of Dianne Feinstein.  That can create concerns over the representational lines, though Katz is a respected litigator and has always fought vigorously for her clients in this area.

The most likely scenario is that Ford was told. Certainly a case can be made for her counsel that she watched coverage making the offer clear, even if she did not get clarity from counsel.  This conflict would ordinarily trigger probing questions over the basis of past representations. However, there was a clear decision not to press Ford on such conflicts due to the bad optics even when using a female prosecutor as a buffer between the witness and the all-male GOP senators.

 

393 thoughts on “The Kavanaugh Hearing Leaves Lingering Questions Over Representations Made To The Committee By Counsel”

  1. Let’s just cut to the chase here.

    It isn’t about establishing a thorough and credible investigation, it is more likely an attempt by Democrats to create a emotion charged spectacle to brand Mr. Kavanagh as a rapist (whether true or not doesn’t matter) with the full intent to instill in the minds of other senators a fear or shame of such a degree they wouldn’t risk voting for him because they might face a #metoo backlash. It isn’t about fairness or facts, its about making Kavanagh radioactive enough that nobody will dare support him.

    1. true Darren but more so it is just a delay tactic, to allow more false accusations to emerge from the mass hysteria of metoo, thus to derail the timely confirmation, and they think they will come out ahead in the midterm and then be able to scotch it entirely.

      not because they care about metoo or victims or abortion rights but just because they are strictly and strongly focused only on power and have cast aside many conventions of the day in this circus to try and get it.

      be careful what norms you break, they may soon be broken getting back at you in turn

      1. Kurtz, norms were broken when Merrick Garland was denied a seat That was not only a mean-spirited insult to Judge Garland, but it was an even meaner insult to President Obama. The message seemed to be that Obama wasn’t a full president and therefore lacked the authority to get an additional court pick. As for Judge Garland, he was a highly respected moderate who may not have always voted liberal. Garland was quite arguably a far less partisan nominee than Kavanaugh.

        1. P.H. get the facts straight. Garland wasn’t denied a seat, he was denied an appearance before the committee. That is not something I necessarily favor but Democrats have played dirty games over and over again as we are seeing presently. Then again we have the Biden Rule which plays a part in what happened to Garland.

          There was no message that Obama wasn’t “a full president ” though there was widespread knowledge that he was a lousy President.

          “Garland was quite arguably a far less partisan nominee than Kavanaugh.”

          Why don’t you make the cogent argument you suggest. Kavanaugh doesn’t stand up for the Republican Party. He stands for the Constitution.

    2. Darren, let’s go with that. Let’s say Dr Ford was a willing pawn in coordinated effort to make Kavanaugh radioactive. Even if that’s true, we learned that Kavanaugh was a rowdy, drunken youth who may have continued drinking well into his 20’s and possibly much later. What’s more, during his testimony yesterday Kavanaugh came across as unusually combative for a Federal Judge. Not exactly dignified or cool under fire. Furthermore, Kavanaugh seemed to display an attitude like he’s ‘entitled’ to that SCOTUS seat. Which may have struck many people as highly off-putting.

      1. P H – if you had been put through the wringer like Kavanaugh and then at the last, very last, very very last moment, they slip out this sexual assault claim from 36 years ago, how would you react. I have read the decisions of the current SCOTUS and they can be pretty snotty with each other. There are often cases of dueling footnotes. And you know that bitch DiFi has been sitting on the info for two months. You don’t think that made Lindsey Graham angry? Should Kavanaugh be less angry than Graham?

        Now, on top of all of this, your family receives death threats. And as Kavanaugh stated, he will probably never be allowed to coach girls basketball again regardless of how this ends. So, there goes your bonding with your daughter. Your daughter and her friends are going to have to find a new coach.

        Then Dr. Ford’s legal team grinds out having Ford show up to testify. They make outrageous demands. She is afraid of flying, yet she flies all over the world for conferences and surfing. She flies East every year to see her folks? She wants Kavanaugh to testify first. Really, what would he testify to? And when she finally does testify she does her best “I’m a widdle 4-year-old so don’t hurt me and I’m so cute” imitation. I threw up in my mouth.

        Where would your anger level be if you were Kavanaugh? I thought under the circumstances he was remarkable calm.

        1. Paul, I think it would have been only human had Obama publicly expressed his bitterness with Mitch McConnel. And the fact that Obama kept his cool showed that he was made of better stuff than Kavanaough.

          Merrick Garland is another. No one could have blamed Garland for giving a bitter interview and saying how insulted he was that Republican senators wouldn’t even consider his nomination. Like Garland was dead on arrival only because a Black man appointed him. Garland could have framed it in those terms for divisive effect. And a certain percentage of liberals would have backed-him-up on that. But Garland like Obama kept his cool; trying ‘not’ to inflame tensions.

          1. P H – do you forget Obama giving the finger periodically? Besides, Obama had a pen and a phone, remember?

      2. P.H. are you crazy? Kavanaugh’s character has been assassinated by ugly people. It has hurt his wife, children (that had to be removed fromthe hearings because of Democratic roudiness and inappropriateness) his parents, and his friends. He has had an impeccable reputation though as a child he acted as a child though still was top in his class and participated in loads of school activities. You sound like you lack common sense and perhaps decency as well. His actions before the committee were quite restrained considering the inhospitality and rudeness of some of those questioners.

    3. Or, just as likely, the moral of the story is: don’t use a litmus test (“will you protect the day glo bozo from a subpoena”) that is utterly anathema to the ethical standard that a moral person would adhere to. Someone who would agree to such an immoral abdication of his judicial and ethical duties is very likely to have other such examples of immoral or unethical conduct in his past. The crows apparently have come home to roost. So sorry for your loss. Pro tip: sociopaths come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and economic hierarchy. This guy was apparently “an honorable man.”

      to darren

  4. Michael Avenatti “warning” earlier today:

    “Michael Avenatti
    ‏
    Verified account

    @MichaelAvenatti

    Warning – If the committee advances the nomination this afternoon, my client and I are going to thoroughly enjoy embarrassing @ChuckGrassley @LindseyGrahamSC @tedcruz and all of the other GOP members on the committee this weekend when her story is told and is deemed credible.

    10:36 AM – 28 Sep 2018”

    https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1045728933596016640

    More to come.

    1. more unethical communications. he is not representing the interests of his client but clearly using her as pawn.

  5. Return to sender

    Did Dr. Ford have a teenage crush on Brett that was rebuffed?

    We had a quarrel, a lovers spat. That address I know. Return to sender, no such number. No such address.

    1. If he had, there would be people who would recall the association between the two. Such people are nonexistent.

    1. i’ll spot you this Shitehouse. Got your spot right here. not convincing, not pathetic. not funny, just boring

      this is all about delay delay delay. isnt this obvious? Di Fi sat on it strategically. Ford has been used and abused.

      End this, confirm.

      If Flake wants to play his leverage, one day he’s going to regret it. Millions are watching Flake and will judge him unkindly if he doesn’t help deliver an favorable end to this charade.

      1. Dear Ms. Bragg,

        I’m giving serious consideration to devoting more attention to your comments. Won’t that be fun.

    1. anonymous – Kananaugh would have thrown her out of court if she had acted the way she did, let’s be real. And he did apologize. I wouldn’t have.

    2. he’s not perfect. it was a legit question and she asked it politely and he was foxy with her answering a question with a question. that was one little tiny strike against him and hardly grounds not to confirm.

      as for alcohol abuse it’s terrible but among lawyers it’s as common as dandelions in an unkept lawn. it should be addressed without making people with such problems feel as if they must not lie to cover themselves. i feel the questioning about alochol abuse was just more counterproductive stuff the Dems were using for their goal, and not really concerned with any such issue in a sincere way. ON the whole at least.

      anyhow by middle age you don’t need to be an alcoholic to forget. stress alone is enough to make you forget stuff all the time. I wish I could forget the news half the time I hear it.

  8. I can not wait till Supreme Court Justice JK votes with the majority to overturn every god forsaken Mueller conviction for being “fruit of the poisonous tree.” It would restore a good portion of the distrust since Obama’s DOJ conspired to let Jamie Dimon and GS walk free after causing the 2008 depression.

  11. Pamper and coddle the babies, born of the anti- and unconstitutional 13th,14th, 15th and 19th amendments, to stop them from throwing an hysterical crybaby’s tantrum.

    We don’t need no stinking rationality and logic! Right?

    A Senate investigation is equal to or greater than an investigation by the FBI which we know is completely corrupt. How does Congress investigate the FBI? It’s doubtful it employs the FBI. Oh yeah, huh?

    The Senate, DNC and RNC have investigated exhaustively and done extensive “oppo” research on the “Tales of Ford’s Theater.”

    There’s no there there! The LIAR has no police report, medical report, witnesses or any other form of corroboration. She doesn’t even have an 8-mile ride home; no driver to submit her complaint to. She is in the movement to “Resist” and she hates Trump.

    Means, motive and opportunity.

    Since the 13th,14th, 15th and 19th amendments, America has become a farce in the theater of the absurd.

    If President Trump does not repeal, by executive order, these amendments which have been injurious to the Constitution, Martial Law is waiting in the wings.
    _____________________________________

    “…amendments…as will not injure the constitution…”

    Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789

    ” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”

    – James Madison

  12. The attorneys may be working for Ford without charging her, but someone could be paying their bills, travel, polygraph, etc. someone directed the polygraph expert to ask only 2 questions, none of which was about the groping.

    In a criminal investigation, it is my understanding the defense subpoenas mental health records, as well as who pays the bills.

    In addition, repressed memories theory has been debunked. What often occurs is that patients in a relaxed state under hypnosis are highly susceptible to the power of suggestion. They can create a false memory that they met Bugs Bunny at Disneyland, and it will seem real.

    Finally, as Brandon Tatum pointed out, why did Ford cry with no tears?

    1. If Kavanaugh becoming Supreme Court Justice is “our chickens coming home to roost,” then keep the chickens coming. We need two more chickens to get to 7 – 2.

  14. Actually, an FBI investigation may be warranted. I choose FBI agent Mulder.

    Something happened at that house party that Dr. Ford isn’t telling.

      1. Ivan – my guess and it is a guess, is that Ford is really screwed up emotionally. However, it had nothing to do with Kavanaugh. It was something that happened in her late teens.

        1. It’s possible nothing happened to her, and she just had mental health issues.

          The repressed memory may be a false memory, which she was susceptible to. Her husband said she thought her hometown was male-dominated. She left because she wanted more attention and respect than she was getting. What more effective way for a psychologist to get both than victimhood?

          Her original story to her therapist was there were 4 guys in the room, and she was in her late teens. That would have precluded Kavanaugh, who was in college by that time. She also told WaPo this was in the late 80’s. But she told the committee 1982. Any later and Kavanaugh was out of state.

  15. Good Title for yesterday’s performance from the left. One can always count on Shakespeare. “Methinks thou doth protest too much.”

  16. Doctor Ford repeatedly said that she wanted to speak directly to the Senators. When Grassley said “we were willing to come and speak to you” he was referring to his “staff” not the committee. That was public knowledge. Was the committee really willing to go to California? This is a mis-understanding.

    1. It wasn’t a misunderstanding. ANYONE watching the internet at the time would have seen the endless attempts by Grassley to communicate his willingness to bend over backwards and fly out to CA and conduct the hearing in private! There is simply no way around this most obvious fact.

      I also almost fell out of my chair twice when I heard her tell two obvious lies: (1) that she was unaware or confused in ANY way about the offer, and (2) that her supposed fear of flying delayed the hearings.

      Her credibility is toast. No one she said was there agrees with her. Not even her best friend. How sad.

      1. No, Ivan, Dr. Ford’s best friend said she DOES believe her, but she doesn’t recall the party. Kavanaugh, Grassley and Cruz all misrepresented the facts about this point. Not one of Kavanaugh’s or Ford’s friends say they both: 1. recall the party; AND 2. that Dr. Ford was not sexually assaulted. A witness who says they don’t recall the party does not refute the testimony of someone who DOES recall the party and who testifies to an assault. Kavanaugh denies he attended the party, denies sexually assaulting females and denies drinking to excess. His roommate says he’s a liar. Mark Judge hasn’t been vetted under oath, but he also says he doesn’t recall. That is not exoneration. However, if there’s doubt, let the FBI investigate.

        What about the yearbook references to beer drinking and Renate? Did anyone believe his spin on these entries? He testified that he was an admirer of Renate. If that’s true, he could be described as a member of “Renate Fan Club, not a “Renate Alumnus”. The difference is obvious, and insulting, even if Renate was the high school slut that these fine Catholic, Jesuit-educated boys imply that she was. He also said he aspired to the 100 keg club, but denies drinking to excess, blackouts, etc.. When questioned about his drinking, he insulted the female Senator by turning the tables on her and questioning her about her drinking. He insulted a United States Senator, elected by citizens of her state, who asked him perfectly reasonable questions in her role to advise and consent, given the allegations that were at issue. He lacks the judicial temperance to even be a District Court judge, much less a Circuit Judge, which he is now. His performance was bizarre, intemperate and unhinged at times. How dare Christine Ford accuse him? How dare the Senator ask him about drinking? How dare the Committee ask him to consent to an FBI investigation, as if he has a right to be a justice of SCOTUS. Trump reportedly told him to put on the aggressive act witnessed yesterday. He flopped badly, but this hearing was not about getting to the truth, because if it were, the FBI would be called upon to ferret out what additional facts there may be to shed light on credibility. Yesterday’s hearing was about the appearance of fairness to Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh, a Kellyanne talking point Kavanaugh repeated about 13 times during his Faux News interview. What about fairness to Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez and Ms. Swetnik? Why can’t they have the FBI vet their claims, instead of being pilloried as liars?

        1. Blasey’s chum Leland says she’s never met Brett Kavanaugh. Pretty much wrecks Blasey’s account considering the other three people ‘present’ deny the incident took place.

        2. Anonymous – is the female Senator sacred? Is she not to be questioned? Frankly, it would have been my response to her question, especially after my family being threatened, being accused of sexual assault at the last minute, actually blindsided with the attack. You have Cory Booker who has admitted groping a girl and he had his Spartacus moment (he has been sent for ethics review) and DiFi (who is next for ethics review). And then you have Whitehouse who wanted to talk about fart jokes??? That was Senatorial.

          And the Republicans were nice guys and did not blow up Chrissy’s yearbook pages. Yes, they are out there still. And yes, if the Democrats try to impeach Kavanaugh those pages are going to be blown up to the size of a football field. You will be able to see them from space.

          BTW, Kavanaugh just got voted out of committee.

          1. And the Republicans were nice guys and did not blow up Chrissy’s yearbook pages.

            No, that would be holding her accountable on the same terms as Kavanaugh is being held accountable for the Yearbook staff’s tongue in cheek jabs. Only Kavanaugh can be held accountable because White Privilege.

            1. Oh, and also because of the minor fact that he’s seeking a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court, unlike Professor Ford.

              this is to “damn, hannity’s talking points set me up to look the fool” tabbie

              1. Marky Mark Mark – Dr. Ford probably already has lifetime tenure at Palo Alto University. She doesn’t need another job.

          2. Paul C………just subscribed to. BombardsBodylanguage…….Also, called Murkowski’s and Collins’ Capitol offices….left messages asking them to vote for Kavanaugh.

            1. Cindy Bragg – if you go to her website all the old video are there and you can catch up. There are some fun ones. I love Mandy’s voice. 🙂 And she is very good at what she does. You will learn a lot.

              Flake voted yes for out of committee but he wants to delay before a floor vote, he wants an FBI investigation. Of what, I ask?

              1. Paul C. Yes. Mandy has an excellent broadcasting voice.
                I just hope the Bureau sends agents that think this is as stupid as we think it is. And.the Dems are lining up more faux “witnesses” as we speak. you can bet.. I really think the Dems have met their match with Brett….I don’t think he will withdraw for months!
                We need for someone on that Dem. committee to be caught in a hotel room with either a live boy or a dead girl, as Gov Edwards (La.) used to say!! LOL

          3. Kavanaugh appearance before the Senate Committee was the equivalent of a job interview. He was rude to a duly-elected U.S. Senator asking questions directly bearing on credibility related to serious allegations regarding his character and fitness. The Constitution requires this of her in her role to advise and consent. All Senators are entitled to respect. Lil Brettie’s performance alone is disqualifying. Talking about families, Dr. Ford’s family had to flee their home. She underwent a polygraph. Lil Brettie refused to do so and was insulted at the notion that anyone would believe Dr. Ford. Why not let the FBI polygraph him? His entire stance is based on the premise that Dr. Ford is a liar, that Democrats have somehow “orchestrated” a hit job on him by procuring multiple lying women to falsely accuse him, a pious Catholic boy who just studied and did his sports at his private Jesuit high school, and thereby, they created a circus. The American people aren’t buying it. Too many holes in his story.

            It doesn’t matter what Cory Booker or any other Senator did. They weren’t applying for a seat on the SCOTUS, a lifetime job, where judicial temperament and respect for the rule of law are required. Lil Brettie failed that test. He shouldn’t even be a Circuit Court judge. Trump and Kellyanne’s tactic for him to show outrage over the mere suggestion that he was a drunken abuser of women blew up in their faces. Corroborating witnesses as to his high school boozing are coming out of the woodwork. Even if he somehow slimes his way onto the SCOTUS, this isn’t going away. Women aren’t going to allow credible victims of sexual abuse to be dismissed as liars or accused of mistaken identity.

            1. It’s not a job interview, Natacha. If it had been, the HR director would be on the warpath now.

              He was rude to the Democrats because they deserve rude. If the majority is fine with that, he gets the job.

            2. Anonymous – having done job interviews I know you don’t spring something like that at the last minute. That is something you do in private and if it needs to be investigated you have the time to do it. The Democrats are playing with fire and what they don’t realize is they are going to get badly burned by it. I am horrified by the 3 young women who cornered Jeff Flake and bullied him in the corridor. They had him surrounded so he could not escape and there were cameras running to catch everything. The FIX was in. This is the first time I have felt bad for Jeff Flake. That is how bad it is.

              Kavanaugh is right. When you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind.

              1. Flake deserves whatever he gets now. he’s a Flake

                when you betray the team that brought you into a game, the other side won’t love you, they just use you; and the old team will hate your guts.

                stay on the horse that brung ya

                it’s not to say you can’t play fair. Dems in the future, perhaps the near future, will need to consider how many social and ethical and legal and institutional norms they have cast aside with this delay operation and wonder if it was worth it.

          4. Not so fast…The Fibbies will get a swing. What is that ticking sound?

            this is to “Huh! but hannity pinky-swore swore they were baddies!” paulie – georgie

            1. Marky Mark Mark – I could care less about Hannity, I am a registered Independent. Everybody has to suck up to me if they want my vote. Right now the Democrats are losing my vote because of their actions. At the rate they are going they will have lost it by Monday.

        3. DSS, I think you are right. Anonymous seems to be Diane who is Late4 Dinner. Diane seems used to duplicity so one can see why she lacks any concern over Ford’s testimony.

          1. No, bilious green anonymous is Natacha. Brown anonymous is Diane / Late4Yoga / R. Lien / etc. The verbosity and the raw emotionalism is Natacha. Diane is too canny for that.

            1. DSS, I don’t bother with Natacha so I have to trust you on that, but I do note that Diane is not always canny. I will take better notes of the icons. Anonymous/Natacha looks similar to your present one and Diane’s Anonymous looks like dog doo.

        4. You are obviously being deliberately obtuse, to put it kindly.

          Your argument makes no sense: “Not one of Kavanaugh’s or Ford’s friends say that they recall that Ford was not assaulted.” How can a person recall that someone else wasn’t assaulted? It’s impossible. That’s some deceptive argumentation there.

          Her best friend has said that she “believes” her friend, but at the same time has testified that she has no recollection of the party or a story of rape. Therefore, Ford’s best friend can not corroborate her account. This is not an exhoneration no matter how much you wish it to be. It’s damning of Ford. Not even her best friend knew anything about this supposed assault.

          2. You are obviously being deliberately obtuse, to put it kindly.

            It’s not deliberate. She really is that obtuse. Keep in mind that Natacha claims to be a lawyer (which is funny) and claims to be a nurse (which is anxiety provoking).

        5. Ananymous:

          Leland said, under penalty of perjury, that she doesn’t know Kavanaugh and never attended a party where he was.

          That is her legal statement that directly refuted Ford’s.

          When interviewed, she gave a brief statement that she is friends with Ford and believed her.

          She has zero knowledge of this party, but she supports her friend.

          She was abundantly clear that she was not involved in any way.

          The thing about a false memory is you cannot differentiate it from reality. You are so sure certain people were there, but they have no idea what you are talking about.

          Both Renate and Kavanaugh confirm they never slept together. Drinking in high school when the legal age was 18 does not make you a rapist. Race, gender, socioeconomic status, or political belief is not evidence of guilt.

          The evidence contradicts her story, which materially changed multiple times.

          Why is Kavanaugh upset? Because the Left openly declared that alleged victims must be believed without a shred of evidence, with contradictory evidence, just like the Democratic lynch mobs of old. Because his friend had to take his wife to safety in a secured room in a restaurant. People told Cruz he will never be safe because he is Kavanaugh’s friend. Again, with evidence the accusation was disproven. Because he and his family have received death and rape threats. Is being upset about the miscarriage of justice and the weaponization of government against conservatives is a reasonable reaction.

          Please note: Kavanaugh shed actual tears in his testimony, unlike Ford.

          1. How could Leland know who or what Dr. Ford knows? As to Renate, would you expect at this point in her life, with a husband and children, that she would admit to even the implication that she was a promiscuous slut when she was in high school? When she signed the letter of support for Lil Brettie, she didn’t know about the Renate Alumni references. Now that she does, she is indignant. Why would Lil Brettie, the studious, pious Catholic jock, brag about implied sexual conquests, the 100 keg club, etc? Poor judgment, arrogance, disrespect for women? Was public intoxication illegal in Maryland? Why not let the FBI look into this. There’s enough evidence from his yearbook alone to justify such an investigation in view of his hubris.

            Kavanaugh’s feigned outrage was orchestrated by Kellyanne, just like the factual spin that an assault occurred, therefore Dr. Ford is not lying, but it’s a case of mistaken identity, so it’s OK for compassionate Republicans to vote for Kavanaugh. Putting a political spin on the accusations was extremely non-judicial. There is no evidence that Democrats paid, orchestrated, or otherwise procured the statements of Brettie’s accusers. I have little doubt this was also a Kellyanne tactic.

            As to Brettie’s boozing, blackouts and aggressive behavior when drunk, he denies this. Many acquaintances are now calling him a liar. A thorough FBI investigation is demanded.

    2. Ford or her lawyers misrepresented her and that lie was found out when the question of flying came up. She quickly recanted stating the fear of flying was a phobia from the past So who lied. Her attorney or herself? But the need for anyone to fly to California was even worse. She was in Delaware the whole time. The other end of a commuter train. A quick switch to a subway and bingo. And what happened to the two who just two days ago said it could have been them? Just how much of a Party Girl was she? At the age of 15. The Long Island Madam comes to mind. No facts. What little she kniew was blurred. And nothing substantiated or corroborated which means proven beyond any doubt. Her testimony didn’t reach the threshold of supporting evidence ,

      And as for Blumenthal complaining about being treated as a leftist? You are a leftist Senator who routinely violates you Oath of Office each and every day and you are so far from the center which in our Republic IS the Constitution you couldn’t see one letter of that word with 20 power Binoculars or a drone with a camera. We of the Constitutional Centrists the non affiliated self governing independents do not consider you to be a citizen much less an American. but a ‘thief’ who steals bit by bit crumb by crumb Our Republic to build Your Democracy .Worse you are in no way Democratic. Even that is a lie..

      1. We? Haha. You, your imaginary companions, and the mouse in your pocket don’t make a political movement. So sorry for your loss. There’s likely a participation ribbon for you, however.

        this is to “I’m not really that drunk, my thoughts just aren’t linear any more” mikey

        1. Marky Mark Mark – you didn’t watch the hearings did you? You missed her blowing the fear of flying and getting her attorneys in hot water. Logic is hard.

    3. Guns and doctorates should not be sold to nutjobs.

      This is the useless detritus, which is “afraid” to fly having flown around the world, that is propped up, supported and under-girded by “Affirmative Action Privilege” and the anti- and unconstitutional 19th amendment. The few temperate and intelligible women have no need for any form of crutch. Left to her own, natural devices, this bizarre, frothing zealot would be absolutely nothing of no consequence whatsoever; unimaginable in a free country that relies solely on merit. The most egregious consideration in all of this circus act is the debacle that this type of freak indoctrinates and brainwashes young Americans.
      Where are her social media postings? Where is her online, ideological identity? Scrubbed! It cannot be known the she is a rabid, extremist, communist activist.

      1. George – she played many parts in the hearing starting with the “I’m just a widdle girl, so don’t hurt me.” and moving up to fully adult. She did a good job with the voices. Did you all catch that Jackson Lee slipped an envelop to Dr. Ford’s lawyer?

          1. Cindy Bragg – yeppurs, during a break. She took an envelope from her purse, gave it to Dr. Ford’s male attorney (Andy McCabe?) and he slipped into his interior breast pocket. Then she and her hulking body guard left.

            1. Paul C………….Holy cow. Well, just so you know, She’s really a (yankee). She is not one of us. Moved down to Houston and ran for office…..but she’s not Texan! 🐂
              BTW I think that’s McCabe’s lawyer. The McCabe from the DOJ doesn’t look like that, or at least didn’t before he was fired. 🙂

  17. I wonder how long it will be before we learn about the real Christine Blasey Ford. As a former law enforcement investigator I just felt there was something missing about the person. I totally missed her family’s support on this matter. I also missed any questions about taking any psychotropic drugs in her “life time” and if so why. The renovation of the home and the 2 doors in the front of the home as a means of escape, I don’t buy. I think everyone picked up on the fear of flying routine and how she reacted like a deer in the headlights. The Dems will continue to resist and cause trouble it’s just a matter of what’s next. Lindsey Graham better take all the GOP boys out in the playground and learn how to fight in the dirt.

    2. I think it’s safe to say that we will “learn about the real” Kavanaugh in a fairly short time; Professor Ford? There won’t be a need. What is that ticking sound?

      this is to “yes, elections have consequences, former Chairman Grassley” zambi

      1. Marky Mark Mark – remember what was said about the Democrats getting power. If they get power and try to impeach Kavanaugh there isn’t a stone in Dr. Ford’s life that will be left unturned by the Republicans.

          1. George – the WayBack machine is going into overdrive. If there is an impeachment hearing. It will all reappear.

      2. It is the sound of a clock winding down to zero. and the day all of you socialists are deported as you should be from OUR Republic.

        1. I would be happier if they just up and left like Jim Jones and his merry gang of liberals. They should voluntarily go off and create their utopian Jonestown in some other country.

        2. I completely understand that you hate the founding document and ideals of America. Your ridiculous totalitarian ramblings here make that plainly evident. So, since you aren’t really connected to the real America, I will gently break the news to you that American citizens aren’t “deported” from America merely for their (imagined in this case) political beliefs, just as nonsensical, ill-informed buffoons who spew ignorant, childish potty-rants are not. So, fire up your keyboard, and keep on doing you when you do what you do.

          this is to “I have a secret ‘hannity was here’ tattoo but I can’t tell you where it is” mikey

    3. The second front door has nothing to do with her needing another avenue of escape. It was put in to facilitate the entry and exit of the Google interns that she rents part of her home out to. It was a financial decision, not a defense mechanism due to an assault. She did not feel the need for a second door for 36 years, and I am not buying it now.

  18. Any question that that begins by asking whether it “was communicated to you by your counsel…” is going to reflexively draw an attorney/client privilege objection – at the very least, to avoid any waiver of the privilege.

  19. Christine Ford must be channeling Erica Jong with her silly “Fear of Flying”. Which any good Jungian would recognize the concept as a fear of sex.

    Really, if I could say one thing to Christine, it would be “Grow up you stupid B*TCH!, and quit your silly-a$$ whining about having your boobs grabbed by some teenage boy! My God, what a pathetic excuse for a “cause! Put your big girl panties on, and quit acting like some little Southern Belle with a case of the vapors!”

    My God, she makes me want to puke!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

      1. Thank you, Paul! That was hilarious, and sickening at the same time. I loved the “pretty pose” stuff when Christine would go into her “I am just a widdle fibe year old girl, sooo pwease don’t be mean to me, OK???” act.

        I loved watching Christine pop in and out of her various poses.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Squeeky – when I heard that “baby voice” at the beginning I did not if that was the real Chrissy or if it was acting lessons. Now we know it was the lessons.

      2. girls learn this body language stuff early and practice it all lifelong

        it is readable, and it varies by culture. you can watch different culture foreign tv shows and their nonverbal lingo is different just like different languages. some of it is universal human expression stuff but some is socially taught

        the narrative of the assault was so breathy and fake, the croaky fake speech that was clearly coached and polished

        “because his weight was heavy” that phrase rings really fake. who says that? people say “because he was too heavy.” as an example

        also “they were drunkenly laughing” who says that. just “they were drunk and laughing”

        who ever uses “ambivalent.” a rarely used word in writing and more so in speech

        maybe something bad happened to her, i will give her that. but it was far too polished and borderline fake and nothing in the testimony seemed to credibly tie it to Kav at all.

    3. OK, Ms. Fromm Know It All: I have a fear of flying. I didn’t used to, but then I went to work at a law firm that did plane crash litigation. I’ve seen photos and the other fallout of what happens when a plane goes down. As Sweet Baby James says: “Sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground”. All because someone got on an airplane that they didn’t know had defective parts, a drunk or impaired pilot, or hadn’t been maintained properly, and so forth. Yes, I know that, statistically, there’s greater risk of getting killed in a car accident on the trip to the airport, but I feel safer and more in control on the ground. When I get on a plane, I don’t know if the pilot is hung over, drunk, on pills, whether the plane was property maintained, whether key moving parts are near fatigue and could fail, or anything else reassuring.

      I also like to travel, sometimes to places where it’s impractical to go by any other means. Like Dr. Ford, I suck it up and go anyway, because it’s that or stay home, but it is stressful. I doubt if you’ve seen what I’ve seen, you would think concerns about flying are silly, unless you are one of those people who think: “that’s them, that could never be me, so what?” Unless you are really stupid and/or arrogant, you would have to realize that it could be you, too. I have no fear of sex, other than the forced kind that Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh’s other victims have described. So,as usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about

      I really don’t understand people like you who lack compassion for others. You apparently believe what Dr. Ford says happened, but degrade it from attempted rape to a boob grab, and that she should just get over it. So, it’s OK with you that someone who touches a young girl without her consent, and then lies about it, which is the case if you believe an unconsented sexual contact happened, regardless of what it was, should have a lifetime appointment to our court of last resort. You also think it’s OK that Kavanaugh misrepresented what the 4 witnesses said: they never said he didn’t do it: they said they didn’t recall. That’s not an exoneration, nor does it rule out that he did what he is accused of. His deceitful spin on these facts, his indignation at the suggestion to take a polygraph, for an FBI investigation, and his past misrepresentations about documents he obtained and his involvement in other judicial appointments are, in and of themselves, disqualifying. He claimed he passed previous FBI investigations, but the information about his sexual misconduct wasn’t known then, so it couldn’t have been investigated. Even the ABA says these allegations should be investigated. At minimum, Mark Judge should be subpoenaed to testify. What are the Republicans afraid of? Losing the only judge who believes that a sitting President, even one whose election may be tainted by illegality, cannot be brought to justice? What does that say about Republicans and their alleged respect for the rule of law? There are literally dozens of other qualified possibilities. Why are they so hell-bent on this one, and what is the rush? Merrick Garland’s nomination sat for over a year. The facts show who is playing politics with the SCOTUS.

      Kavanaugh really screwed the pooch when he started insulting the female Senator who asked him about his drinking. How dare she? Who does she think she is, anyway? That performance should be enough to prove, at the very least, that he lacks judicial temperament, but there’s more: he started politicizing and attacking Democrats for orchestrating an unwarranted attack against him. Even non-lawyers know that judges are not supposed to engage in partisan political sniping. Where’s the proof that Democrats caused Dr. Ford, Ms. Ramirez or any of the other accusers to come forward? Where’s the proof that Democrats sat on Dr. Ford’s letter solely to deny Kavanaugh the benefit of privacy regarding Dr. Ford’s accusations? And, as it turns out, whether the investigation was private or public, it would make no difference to Republicans. Senator Feinstein denied she or her staff ever leaked Dr. Ford’s letter to the media. In fact, media only reported her name and her accusations, not the actual letter, so Senator Feinstein was telling the truth. Do we want a partisan politician sitting on the SCOTUS, and who lied to get there? Most Americans do not.

      Talk about drama queens: Lindsey Graham claimed that Dr. Ford was trying to ruin Kavanaugh’s life. Well, if you believe she is telling the truth, which apparently even you, Squeeky do, then if Kavanaugh’s life is ruined (an extreme exaggeration), then he’s the one responsible. I ask again: what would be her motivation to come forward and to lie? What does she stand to gain? Where is the proof that she is motivated by anything other than her civic duty, as she claims? On the other hand, what does he stand to gain? The power and prestige he craves. If there is doubt about which party is being truthful, minimum fairness REQUIRES further investigation, not forging ahead. If Dr. Ford is lying, the FBI could uncover evidence of motivation to lie. On the other hand, if Kavanaugh is lying, the FBI can discover facts and witnesses to show this as well. That’s what Republicans are afraid of.

      This case shows why women do not report sexual crimes. Even someone like Dr. Ford, a well-educated and accomplished woman, will be accused of lying if her attacker is wealthy and/or powerful. It’s bad enough to go through a sexual assault, but to be branded a liar after going through the stress of making the allegations known, is a powerful deterrent. American should be better than that. This is not a partisan issue. It is a human issue.

      1. You asked, ” I ask again: what would be her motivation to come forward and to lie? What does she stand to gain? Where is the proof that she is motivated by anything other than her civic duty, as she claims?”

        Possible Reasons:

        1. She is an Attention Whore;

        2. She is lying for political reasons, because she thinks Democrats are holy, and Republicans all devils;

        3. Money;

        4. For 15 minutes of fame;

        5. To get a spot speaking at the Democratic Convention;

        6. She is mentally ill.

        7. Self importance.

        You could just as well ask some ding-a-ling who falsely confesses to a crime why they do it.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Brilliant.

          Comment I saw elsewhere:
          “This decades-long insanity is not about Brett #Kavanaugh, it’s about a war between the Left & Right. Kavanaugh is just anoter battle in the Left’s ambition to helm human existance, feigning love of all minorities, especially women, for political exploitation.”

          1. Exactly. It is all political theatre, with the Democrats walking out of the vote. What a load of horse crap.

            You didn’t see them walking out on Hillary because of Bill Clinton’s rape of Juanita B.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Bill Clinton wasn’t seeking a LIFETIME appointment to the court of last resort with decades of power to overturn abortion rights, cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP benefits, civil rights, consumer protections, environmental protections and financial protections. You say Bill raped Juanita? Where’s the proof?

              1. And Kavanaugh is not seeking to be Commander in Chief and the ability to fire nukes off whenever he wishes.

                As far as proof that Juanita was raped, you can listen to her tell you about it. Unlike Christine, Juanita can tell you when and where it happened, and the details. And, she told her friends at the time.

                But by all means, continue to be a Mindless Democrat and believe the one who has no details over the one who does. Funny, isn’t it, how simply being a Democrat requires one to check one’s brain at the door, and embrace pure emotion. It’s almost religious in a way. Faith based. Oh well, you probably never had much in the way of brains and reason to start with. So, no great loss.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. 1978: Her account
                  Broaddrick, who was known as Juanita Hickey at the time, first met Clinton when he made a visit to her nursing home during his 1978 gubernatorial campaign. Clinton was Arkansas Attorney General at the time. Broaddrick wanted to volunteer for the campaign, and says Clinton invited her to stop by the campaign office in Little Rock.[12] She contacted the office a few weeks later while in the area for a nursing home conference. Clinton said he would not be in the campaign office that day and suggested they meet at her hotel’s coffee shop instead. Upon his arrival, however, he allegedly requested that they instead have coffee in her room to avoid a crowd of reporters in the lobby. Broaddrick agreed.[3]

                  Broaddrick says the two spoke briefly in her room, with Clinton describing plans to renovate a prison visible from her window if he became governor. Then, according to Broaddrick, Clinton suddenly kissed her. Broaddrick says she pushed Clinton away and told him she was married and not interested, but he persisted. As recounted in the NBC interview:[3]

                  Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip … He starts to, um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ‘No,’ that I didn’t want this to happen but he wouldn’t listen to me. … It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ‘Please stop.’ And that’s when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip. … When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says ‘You better get some ice on that.’ And he turned and went out the door.

                  When asked if there was any way Clinton could have thought it was consensual, Broaddrick said “No, not with what I told him and with how I tried to push him away. It was not consensual.”[3]

                  Broaddrick shared the hotel room with her friend and employee Norma Rogers. Rogers attended a conference seminar that morning, and says she returned to their room to find Broaddrick on the bed “in a state of shock,” her pantyhose torn in the crotch and her lip swollen as though she had been hit. Rogers says Broaddrick told her Clinton had “forced himself on her.”[12] Rogers helped Broaddrick ice her lip, and then the women left Little Rock. Rogers said that Broaddrick was very upset on the way home and blamed herself for letting Clinton in the room.[3] Broaddrick says she did not tell her husband, Gary Hickey, about the incident, and told him she accidentally injured her lip. He told NBC he did not remember the injury or her explanation.[3][13] David Broaddrick, however, has said he noticed her injured lip, and she told him that Clinton had raped her when he asked about it. Three other friends confirmed that Broaddrick had told them about the incident at the time: Susan Lewis, Louis Ma, and Jean Darden, Norma Rogers’ sister.[3] Broaddrick did not recall the date of the alleged incident, but said it was spring of 1978 and that she had stayed in the Camelot Hotel. Records show Broaddrick attended a nursing home meeting at the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock on April 25, 1978.[3][13] The Clinton White House would not respond to requests for Clinton’s official schedule for the date,[14] but news reports suggest that he was in Little Rock that day, with no official commitments in the morning.[3]

                  Three weeks after the alleged assault, Broaddrick participated in a small Clinton fundraiser at the home of a local dentist. Broaddrick said she was “in denial” and felt guilty, thinking that she had given Clinton the wrong idea by letting him into her room.[3] When she arrived at the event, she says, her friend who had picked the Clintons up from the airport told her that Hillary Clinton had asked if she would be at the event. Broaddrick says Bill Clinton did not speak to her at the event, but Hillary Clinton approached her, took her hand, and said “I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate what you do for him.” When Broaddrick moved her hand away, she says, Hillary Clinton held on to her and said, “Do you understand? Everything that you do.” Broaddrick says she felt nauseated and left the gathering. Broaddrick says she interpreted the incident as Hillary Clinton thanking her for keeping quiet.[15][16][17]

                  Subsequent developments
                  She divorced Hickey around 1979 and married David Broaddrick around 1981.[12]

                  Broaddrick opened a second facility, to provide services for mentally disabled children in Fort Smith, Arkansas.[1][18]

                  In 1984, Broaddrick’s nursing facility was adjudged the best in the state, which brought a congratulatory official letter from the governor. On the bottom was a handwritten note from Clinton, saying, “I admire you very much.”[19]

                  Broaddrick said that in 1991, Clinton called her out of a state nursing standards meeting to try to apologize: “‘Juanita, I’m so sorry for what I did. I’m not the man that I used to be, can you ever forgive me? What can I do to make this up to you?’ And I’m standing there in absolute shock. And I told him to go to hell, and I walked off.”[8][14] Jean Darden, in whom Broaddrick had confided about the incident, also attended the meeting, and said she saw Broaddrick talking to Clinton in the hallway.[3] Clinton announced his 1992 presidential campaign soon after that alleged interaction.

                  1992–1998
                  Though Broaddrick was resistant to talking to the media, rumors about her story began circulating no later than Clinton’s presidential bid in 1992. Broaddrick had confided in Phillip Yoakum, whom she knew from business circles and at the time considered a friend. When Clinton won the Democratic nomination, Yoakum, widely considered to have a Republican agenda,[12] contacted Sheffield Nelson, Clinton’s opponent in the 1990 gubernatorial race. Yoakum arranged a meeting between Nelson and Broaddrick, who resisted Yoakum’s and Nelson’s push that she go public.[1] Yoakum secretly taped the conversation and wrote a letter summarizing the allegations, which began to circulate within Republican circles. The story reached the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times in October 1992, but the papers dropped the story after Broaddrick refused to talk to reporters and Yoakum refused to release the recording.[12]

                  In the fall of 1997, Paula Jones’s private investigators tried to talk to Broaddrick at her home, also secretly taping the conversation.[20] Broaddrick refused to discuss the incident, saying “it was just a horrible horrible thing,” and that she “wouldn’t relive it for anything.” The investigators told her she would likely be subpoenaed if she would not talk to them. Broaddrick said she would deny everything, saying “you can’t get to him, and I’m not going to ruin my good name to do it… there’s just absolutely no way anyone can get to him, he’s just too vicious.”[21] Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Jones suit soon after and submitted an affidavit denying that Clinton had made “any sexual advances”.[1][2] The recording of Broaddrick’s conversation with the investigators was leaked to the press, but Broaddrick continued to refuse to speak to reporters.[20]

                  Despite Broaddrick’s denial in her affidavit, Jones’ lawyers included Yoakum’s letter and Broaddrick’s name in a 1998 filing.[20] The letter suggested that the Clintons had bought Broaddrick’s silence, describing a phone call where Broaddrick’s husband asked Yoakum to say the incident never happened and said that he intended to ask Clinton “for a couple of big favors.”[22] This, along with the discrepancy between the letter and Broaddrick’s affidavit, attracted the attention of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was investigating Clinton for obstruction of justice. After being approached by the FBI, Broaddrick consulted her son, a lawyer, who told her she could not lie to federal investigators.[12] After Starr granted her immunity,[23] thus assuring that she would not be prosecuted for perjury regarding her affidavit in the Jones case, Broaddrick recanted the affidavit. However, she insisted that Clinton had not pressured or bribed her in any way, and so Starr concluded that the story was not relevant to his investigation and his report only mentioned the recanting in a footnote.[1]

                  from wiki

        2. OK, where’s your proof for any of these things? An FBI investigation could uncover proof in support of or to refute the foregoing allegations. If she is an attention whore, as you claim, why hasn’t she gone on the talk show circuit? Kavanaugh was interviewed by TNN/Faux News, but really, he was preaching to the choir. You know that all real news outlets would grant her an interview. She said she was terrified of coming forward. I believe her.

            1. Nothing? You mean like Trump’s admission that he grabs women by the pussy? Nothing? Like all of the people who are saying that Lil Brettie WAS a hard-drinker, hard-partyer, and not the studious jock at a prestigious Jesuit high school. Multiple people say he’s a liar. Get them under oath. The sheer number should be concerning. Dr. Ford says it happened. She says she reported it to her husband, her therapist, and others. How about getting them under oath? She’s being accused of being the pawn of Democrats. How about looking into that claim, to see if there are any facts or evidence to back it up? What about the other women? Why should their claims be dismissed out of hand. Because Lil Brettie might look bad.

              No, you want Lil Brettie sitting on the SCOTUS, wearing his black robe, taking away civil rights, Obamacare, Social Security, SNAP benefits, Medicare and Medicaid, and also stopping the Mueller investigation. You don’t care that he may have lied to get there.

              1. Nothing. This fanciful event occured 33 years ago or 36 years ago depending on whether you believe her counselor’s notes or her letter to Eshoo. She cannot remember when. She cannot remember where She cannot remember the number of her assailants. All four people she has named as being present deny any such gathering and one denies further that she ever met Judge Kavanaugh.

                Your emotional upsets – and that includes your rather fanciful characterization of Kavanaugh – are not real outside your head. There is no reason for the FBI to waste precious resources because people like you are upset. Your upsets are worthless and worthy of being ignored.

              2. Anonymous – how about getting her therapist, her husband, her builder and her lawyers under oath. I cannot wait to go through her yearbooks.

            2. “Anonymous – there is NOTHING for the FBI to investigate.” So says Paul.

              There is PLENTY for the FBI to investigate, Paul.

          2. You implied that there was no other reason than “civic duty” which would motivate her. I gave you some other possible motives. Can you PROVE it was “civic duty”? Nope, didn’t think so. Can I PROVE mine? Nope.

            We are entitled to our opinions BUT, when the accuser is sooo weak on details, and appears sooo contrived in her testimony, then I tend to think she is not telling the truth and that she is NOT uber-patriot.

            It is not North Korea. You are entitled to believe whatever spurious and specious crap that you wish. You can even believe OJ was innocent, and Michael Brown was a Gentle Giant, if you wish.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

      2. Welcome to the pillowcase-cutting, hatred-oozing spectacle that is the squeeKKK. Purty, ain’t it.

        to anonymous

        1. But accurate. The four reasons are sex, money, revenge and misplaced patriotism. Try one through three. She has no patriotism.

      3. Are you that third rate lawyer from New YAWK CITEEEE? Wha’ts his face that didn’t show up with his ‘soiled dove?’ That whole tirade was all about you and nothing about the subject at hand.

      4. Anonymous – do you think Dr. Ford is NOT trying to ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life? Really? What do you think a public sexual assault accusation is? Let’s ask Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, etc. if public sexual assault allegations have ruined their lives? How about Fatty Arbuckle?

      5. if you worked in a mass tort plaintiffs firm than 99% of the people in your office were Democrats and prolly you too,. I know a thing or two about law offices and btw there are not that many who do airplane accidents and I can toss out some names and Dem connections if you want me to make my point clearly. Or you can just admit you are a partisan and to use airplane lingo, stow the phony “not partisan” remark; preferably in the rear with the gear, and carry on with more plausible remarks. thank you.

    4. Really? Cuz your flat ass whining makes me wanta more than puke. This isn’t a sex crime. It is someone who may be voted into a seat of power that has demonstrated that they can’t handle positions of power. Like most of the Repubs there that are manipulating the rules and playing games with the Constitutionally empowered sectors they inhabit. I suppose if you weren’t blind you would see how precarious the rule of law is at this moment….

      1. Only in your fevered imagination. If you truly believe Christine, then watch this, first posted by PaulCS, and see if you still believe her:

        youtube.com/watch?time_continue=434&v=uGxr1VQ2dPI

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

      2. Everiy time without fail there backs are against a wall the left remembers the Constitution and forgets they already are known for breaking their oath of office. What right does the left have to even hold an office in OUR Republic? None. What right to run for office? None. What right to claim anything after rejecting their citizenship except the status of undocumented alien. None.

        1. Are you a moron? This is both a Republic and A Democracy. It s not a pure Republic unless the Romans continue to start fires and fight for the sake of fighting cuz they don’t seem to mind doing harm and there are plenty of people in this Country who don’t expect to be victimized which is why it is such a shock when it happens. And no, I am not jumping on your creepy bullying pick on the victim wagon you sick twit.

      3. actually he’s handled being a fed judge really well and an appeals judge

        not that all federal judges are free from bad behavior. the name of one came up in the hearing. kav is nothing like that guy obviously

  20. “The situation is particularly precarious for counsel after Ford admitted that she was given the pro bono counsel at the suggestion and referral of Dianne Feinstein. That can create concerns over the representational lines, though Katz is a respected litigator and has always fought vigorously for her clients in this area.”
    *****************************************
    If anybody thinks Ford was not a played pawn in this fiasco, they just aren’t paying attention. She’s a psychologist with a PhD. She understands, “they’ll come to you.” The lawyers were the puppets but the puppetmaster remains elusive — for now.

    1. No one’s a puppet. Feinstein, Schumer, Eshoo, Blasey, Katz, the cut-out, and the ultimate financier are engaged in a co-operative enterprise. It’s just that Blasey is comparatively naive and also the fallgal if this sleazy enterprise really goes south.

Comments are closed.