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.
It is ironic that there is a call to convict a federal judge in the court of public opinion, permanently destroying his reputation, on the basis of evidence that directly contradicts a claim of sexual assault.
People have expressed the urge to believe a witness without evidence, in fact with contradictory evidence, because she is female, while judging a candidate to sit upon the Supreme Court. Is that how they would wish for the Supreme Court to judge the cases before them? Ignore the evidence, or lack thereof, and obey their inner feelings.
If that were the case, then handsome, likable Ted Bundy, would still be free today, raping and murdering women.
Professor Turley’s article points to something missed in the wake of the tumultuous hearing. The Republican-chaired SJD should be congratulated for how it handled what could not have been a contentious hearing. They showed extreme deference to a witness who claims she was a victim of sexual assault. They bent over backward to not seem to be hard on a citizen who accused another citizen of a dastardly crime. They erred on the side of one highly-educated professional, who has to be presumed to fully understand the process they had voluntarily submitted themselves to. In short the SJD put Brett Kavanaugh in a position where he had no chance of coming out whole, but Kavanaugh also gave his consent to however the process went. By not asking questions of the accuser, by failing to follow up obvious holes in her account, the SJD turned American due process on its head in the pursuit of another goal that clearly wasn’t fairness. It was sympathy for a sympathetic and highly credible witness. I leave it to others to argue whether this is an appropriate goal for the Senate, where such sympathy actually violates the principle of fairness, and in the process lowering the burden of someone who accuses another.
The legal profession, legal scholars, philosophers, political theorists are the ones we would expect to rescue us from the abyss to which we are giddily and excitedly heading. Unfortunately if the ABA and ACLU are any indication, the capitulation of the one, and the silence of the other leave us helpless and hopeless. You almost want to believe there is a god who can rescue us from this madness.
Alex:
I read your comment to argue that the SJD should be both praised (“The Republican-chaired SJD should be congratulated for how it handled what could not have been a contentious hearing”) and decried (“By not asking questions of the accuser, by failing to follow up obvious holes in her account, the SJD turned American due process on its head in the pursuit of another goal that clearly wasn’t fairness”).
Is that right? Is that possible?
Garland was never treated like this.
REPUBLICANS OUTRAGED BY TREATMENT OF KAVANAUGH
BUT OBAMA AND GARLAND WERE TREATED DEPLORABLY
Anton Scalia’s body was barely cold when Mitch McConnell brazenly announced that Obama would not be permitted to fill Scalia’s seat. For at least half the country, the optics looked quite possibly racist.
McConnel, an older White man, from a Southern state, was telling our first Black president that Obama’s rightful pick to the court would not even get a hearing. Just a flat ‘No’..!! No reason given except naked partisanship which reeked of racist malice. And one must note that unlike Donald Trump, Obama scored decisive victories in 2008 and 2012.
But Kentuckian Mitch McConnel just stood in the door. Like Obama ‘had no right’. Like Obama was lucky to get the picks he got and there would be no more.
The optics looked ‘more’ than a little racist. Especially when McConnel publicly bragged about it. McConnel sounded like a Grand Wizard boasting he slapped a Black man.
So when Supporters of Kavanaugh spin this narrative that Margaret Sanger was a racist, it sounds outrageously hypocritical. Like ‘criminalizing abortion is a national emergency! ‘Because we have to save those Black children killed by Planned Parenthood’.
Those same people implemented voter suppression schemes that were highly instrumental in Trump’s Electoral College victory. Wisconsin, under Scott Walker, deliberately set about to chill Black voters in Milwaukee. That’s how Trump won Wisconsin; ‘good ole voter suppression’.
So if I go off like Kavanaugh when Trumper’s bring up that ‘Margaret Sanger was a racist’ line, you now understand where I’m coming from.
After witnessing the recent Senate hearings, it has become obvious to me that the structure of the American system of government is in need of a judicious adjustment, to reflect the demographics of today’s America. Watching Grassley and other dinosaurs illustrate their function of power for power’s sake, it becomes apparent that these old and practiced demagogues are nothing but an anchor holding back the social evolution of America. This investigation into the merits of Kavanaugh requires the most stringent and thorough procedures, not the involvement of partisan politics illustrated by a clear intent to vote this mutt into the Supreme Court, regardless of whether or not he is guilty of lying as well as of teenage sexual misconduct. Kavanaugh’s performance played directly to the cheap theatre that is the Senate and at this time illustrated in the extreme by the Republican Party. Again and again the obvious was presented, an FBI investigation, and again and again it was refused with arguments grounded in the privilege of tenured stupidity. Out of eleven Republican Senators, only three had the intelligence and the intestinal fortitude to move the process in the right direction. In the end it will be about the process. That equates to over 75% of the Republican Senators present as being corrupt and wrong, emphatically. If our system produces this sort, then our system is sorely in need of review. One or two slipping by is one thing but this degree of rot is totally another. There is nothing sacred about this system when it is populated by such unworthy characters as those who showed up representing the Republican Party.
issac – as several of the Republicans said, had you listened, if they wanted an investigation of Chrissy’s charges they only had to come to the majority. However, they sat on it until the hearing was over and then either DiFi or her top asst. leaked it to the press. However, Dr. Ford had already been talking to the WaPo. This is something that should have been handled behind close doors early in the process, so if their was a problem Kavanaugh could gracefully withdraw. However, the Democrats decided to make it a blood sport. It’s an election year and Pelosi can taste being Majority Leader again. They needed that blood from Kavanaugh to save their seats. DiFi, who is 85, is running for a six-year term. What are the chances she will survive it? She wants a 6 day funeral like McStain.
Now, as several people have said, there are enough holes in Chrissy’s story to drive a convoy of Mack trucks through (they allow Mack trucks in Canada, right?). And, if we are to believe L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark Chrissy suffered from an alcoholic blackout, which is why she cannot remember how she got there or how she got home.
Neither were treated deplorably. They just were not given what they wanted. They were otherwise left alone. I know partisan Democrats fancy it’s outrageous when the don’t get what they want, but the proper response to such feelings is for you to grow up. Engaging in grotesque campaigns of defamation against Judge Kavanaugh and others is not a proper response.
PH – so McConnell is OLD, WHITE and from a SOUTHERN state. All these are disqualifying factors? BTW, it was old, white Republicans who freed the slaves and who passed the Civil Rights Act the first time. Always remember, Democrats supports slavery and Jim Crow. Republicans did not.
Paul, the civil war was 150 years ago. A lot has changed since then. So ‘why’ do Trumpers keep bringing up the Civil War..?? Because they know that Republicans have a terrible public image with regards to race relations.
Trump’s 2016 campaign was blatantly racist in nature; scapegoating Muslims and Mexicans. What’s more, the NFL’s one-knee protests have essentially become part of the resistance movement. Trump’s current standing with non-White Americans is about 20% in the polls.
That’s why we’re hearing so much about the Civil War lately. Republicans are desperate to distract from their dismal image with non-Whites.
But while Republicans keep reminding us about Abraham Lincoln, they never mention Theodore Roosevelt; another face on Mount Rushmore. It seems that Republicans don’t want to be linked with Roosevelt’s progressive politics. That aspect of their history would be incorrect to their current list of donors.
PH – you want to talk about Woodrow Wilson who brought back the KKK?
Yeah, Paul, let’s talk about the Klan’s ‘golden age’ in the 1920’s. During that period, Indiana, a northern state, was so dominated by the Klan that its Grand Wizard bragged he ‘was’ the law in Indiana. That all happened under a Republican state government.
Though it’s still ancient history as far as American politics go. If we want to stay relevant, the last 50 years is all that really matters.
I think you are referring to DC Stephenson who was a Democrat but as the perfect opportunist changed political parties. He even tried to run for public office as a Democrat. There were some Republicans that were members of the KKK but predominantly the KKK was in the south and was a Democratic organization.
PH:
“A lot has changed since then.” Oh, really? Ever see what Democrats do to black minority conservatives? They savage them with racial slurs and try to terrorize them into coming back onto the Democratic plantation, to be cared for and told what to think and say, and how to vote.
I suggest you search the Youtube video of white Democratic activists literally screaming as loud as they can in the face of Candace Owens, at a restaurant. Many women would have been cowed and retreated in terror. Such continued assaults could frighten women to either be too afraid to voice a contrary opinion, or even vote against their conscience.
But not Candace. She is not afraid of Democratic gangs trying to get black conservatives back in line.
These are not the fringe, either. I suggest that you GOOGLE search for racist slurs made on mainstream media, across the country, against black conservatives.
May you find enlightenment, your Red Pill moment.
Also, the Democratic Party still evaluates worth based on race, gender, and ethnicity.
There is a victim valuation scale. Your worth, innocence from crime, and place in society is gauged based on where you fall on the identity politics scale.
Democrats still judge skin deep.
They still have low expectations for minorities, and believe that they need elite saviors to care for them, as they are unable to do so themselves. The bar lowered. That is racist.
I remember a discussion about Game of Throwns in which Danny realized she was no savior at all to the Lamb Men. The witch was still raped, regardless that she had stopped the men after the 5th time. The Great White Savior is hubris and vanity.
Dang it. “Thrones.” Really, Auto Correct? You jump in all the time and write what I don’t intend, and this time you don’t actually do your job and correct a misspelling?
Karen…….I feel you pain re: auto correct
Candace Owens is now with Turning Point USA. She has gotten a lot of flack from the so called non racist Liberals but she is smart and an outspoken conservative. She would mincemeat out of PH / Peter Hill. Liberals hate that in black people because according to Liberals black people belong on the Democratic plantations. She joined with Charlie Kirk’s group Turning Point USA just under a year ago. I think the first motto of that group was Big Government Sucks and was started by Charlie while he was in college and a couple of years later they expanded to many colleges and guess what PH, the group consists of all colors, races and religions where men and women work together.
“Paul, the civil war was 150 years ago. A lot has changed since then. ”
Because a lot of you guys are racists and haven’t changed. Any black that deviates from the Democratic plantation and has something positive to say is called an Uncle Tom or worse. Yes, some have tried to strip themselves from their racism but have become paternalistic instead. Others practice a never ending type of identity politics to hide their racism from themselves. Just look at the Civil Rights bills and take note that they passed because of the Republicans.
“Trump’s 2016 campaign was blatantly racist in nature; scapegoating Muslims and Mexicans.”
That is what true racists say all the time. They listen to what they wish to hear and don’t look at what the person does. You “racists” have even called Trump an anti Semite despite the fact that he has grandchildren that are Jewish and his daughter converted to Judaism. That he hired more woman than any other similar builder for high position for the same area means nothing to “racists” because again they don’t look at actions rather they listen to what they wish to hear. You guys think President Wilson was swell when he was a racist and had racist policies in his years in office. You are full of BS.
People did not come out of the woodwork to accuse Garland of running a gang rape ring.
There had not been a Supreme Court justice chosen after an election had switched the White House in a hundred years.
I did not agree with their reasoning. I felt that if there was enough time to conduct a hearing, then the currently sitting president gets his pick. However, there was most certainly no concerted effort to destroy Garland utterly and completely, or label him a sexual predator. If there was such a claim, all available evidence contradicted it, and zero available evidence supported it, then I would hope that Republicans would not have convicted him in the court of public opinion.
Garland and Kavanaugh have most emphatically not been treated the same.
McConnel’s race was immaterial. It is racist for you to assume that he is guilty of wrongdoing because of his race, or for implying he is like the Klan. That is based on zero evidence.
You must understand that people can disagree vigorously over politics, and not be racist. People must not be frightened or terrorized out of free speech or politics because they will be branded racist for opposing a minority public figure. That is using political terrorism to silence free speech and debate.
As for voter suppression schemes – does the DMV suppress minority drivers by requiring a drivers license? Do welfare, Social Security, and check cashing places suppress minority customers by requiring ID? Why do you engage in the bigotry of low expectations, assuming that minority voters are incapable of obtaining free ID? Are they unable to cash a check, go to the DMV, to the grocery store, or a job interview because they are minorities? That is a very racist low expectation based solely on race.
When an activity depends upon identifying a person, then the person must identify himself or herself. That is true for cashing a check, writing a will, or executing a medical power of attorney. Having ID opens up a broad array of transactions to people. Without being able to legally identify who they are, they are severely limited in the transactions they can conduct.
I get asked to show ID at checkout lines all the time. I cannot get a legal document notarized without a legal and current photo ID. That is to prevent fraud. Don’t you want to prevent fraud?
Otherwise, busloads of Republicans can go from town to town, switching blue states red. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. There would be no stopping it. And that would disenfranchise legal voters. Don’t you want safeguards in place to prevent the disenfranchisement of poor voters?
Karen, Those I.D. requirements are intended to eliminate Blacks born in the Jim Crow South (many of whom are still under 70). In rural areas of the Jim Crow South, Black births were often not recorded by County officials (which may have been the fault of illiterate parents in many cases). Hispanics of Texas were also born at home in many cases to parents who negated to get the births recorded. Therefore a significant ratio of older Blacks and Hispanics have never had official ID’s and can’t obtain them without the assistance of lawyers. And that becomes a major problem for people too poor to afford lawyers.
Republicans know all about these issues. And that’s precisely why they hit upon these voter ID laws. It’s a cynical, mean-spirited calculation: “We’ll just knock off ‘X’ number of potential Democratic votes by requiring ID’s”. Republicans actually hit upon these scheme shortly after Bush-Gore when it occurred to them that every vote was crucial with no margin of error.
But the scheme is not just about people having ID’s. The calculation is also a cynical bluff. By demanding ID’s, ‘X’ number of poor voters may think police will be at the polls swiping ID’s on a scanners for unpaid traffic tickets and outstanding warrants. That prospect is scary to people barely getting by. Consequently many poor people will figure that voting’s a big hassle and not even try.
We’re going to investigate him until we get it right.
This investigation is the senates job, not the FBI. He’s already gone through 6 background checks with the FBI.
“Michael Avenatti says witnesses will soon corroborate his client’s allegations against Brett Kavanaugh”
Brianna Stone, Austin Bureau
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2018/09/28/michael-avenatti-says-witnesses-will-soon-corroborate-clients-allegations-brett-kavanaugh
If so, then Swetnick will be arrested for participating in gang rapes. After all, she allegedly attended these parties to watch rapes over and over and over again. 10 times at least. Did they charge her a cover to watch girls get raped?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/29/liz-swisher-yale-classmate-sloppy-drunk-bts-cuomo-vpx.cnn
Classmate: Kavanaugh drank heavily
Cuomo Prime Time
Liz Swisher, former Yale classmate of Brett Kavanaugh, told CNN’s Chris Cuomo she never saw Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh be sexually aggressive, but said that he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee about his drinking habits.
Source: CNN
So, she never saw him get sexually aggressive, but said he drank more in college than he said he did in high school. Doesn’t everybody?
And????
Once again, zero evidence of sexual assault is conflated with evidence. It is so ironic that this miscarriage of justice is affecting a federal judge. I’ll bet Kavanaugh has an especially open mind, and insight, to defendants’ claims of innocence from now on.
Karen S distorts the record… — which isn’t a surprise.
According to this woman, she would have “let it go,” if he’d told the truth this past week, but he lied under oath, given what she knows.
This isn’t meant as a vote against Brett, but he is drinking a lot of alcohol these days and has been for a long time. You can see it in his puffy cheeks, lack of color in his face, the reddish tint to his nose and the glassy look in his eyes. Just my opinion.
sue brighyam – he may have rosacea, my sister has it and she does not drink at all. It causes that flushing on the face.
https://www.aad.org/public/diseases/acne-and-rosacea/rosacea
Yes, Sue, I observed that too in a Facebook post 2 weeks ago. When Kavanaugh turned away from that father of the Parkland School Massacre, I noticed his face has that pasty, doughy look drinkers get. It’s common to cold climates where people pass winter weekends sitting in bars.
You’re an utter vicious fraud.
DSS, P.H. sounds like that moron here before for a short time as a replacement for another alias. The same one you asked about.
Another sock puppet? Is that what people do when they can find no one to agree with them?
One has to take note of the new aliases as the old aliases recognize what fools they have made of themselves. Remember Hollywood, a real jerk. He’s been back more than once and if I am correct I had a debate with his recent alias and probably another that was too short lived to draw a conclusion. I believe this is so because of the syntax and it is hard to find people so stupid. This present one you are talking to sounds a bit like Peter HIll and has the same initials. Both of them have a “racist” attitude that is similar believing to be above racism when they actually seen to promote it. If PH starts adding that he has Republican tendencies then it will indicate more strongly that both are Peter HIll. Who cares. They promote garbage and a new form of racism and sexism with an inability to recognize what they are doing.
You better look at the video again. You are a moron.
He looks 10 years younger than he actually is, which is not what lifelong alcoholics look like. He’s also has 3 decades under his belt of professional accomplishment.
On to your next lie.
This would be a good time to mention your qualifications to diagnose substance abuse over the television. Be sure to list any professional experience you may have in identifying the signs of alcohol ingestion from a patient’s appearance while under severe psychological stress, and any personal experience you may have either in excessive ingestion of alcohol or that of your close associates. Thank you.
” but he is drinking a lot of alcohol these days ”
Sue, do you have evidence that what you say is true? No? That tells us you are untruthful and the rest tells us that you confabulate. Your opinion is worthless.
Sue – his eyes were glassy because he’d been crying. On camera. In public.
It is slander to declare someone an alcoholic or heavy drinker because he has a pasty skin tone and ruddy cheeks.
He has zero history of DUIs or drunken behavior or arrests as an adult.
Why do you spread malicious gossip about people? Would you want someone to do that to you? Maybe people could whisper that if you put on a few pounds, you must be drinking, or if you went out with a cold and runny nose, you and your husband must be having marital problems.
Perhaps, and I’m obviously just spitballing here, we could treat the evaluation of a federal judge for the Supreme Court, with a fair legal standard, considering that’s what we expect him to do on the job.
Sue…………..my god, if you were to put me in Brett’s place right now…..I would be drinking a lot, too!
PCS, “Did you all catch that Jackson Lee slipped an envelop to Dr. Ford’s lawyer?”
PCS, what was in that envelope?
__________________________
“Simply, what was passed were unopened stationery notes to counsel for Dr. Ford from women who wanted to enter the hearing room but were not allowed to enter the hearing room,” according to the congresswoman’s press office.
George – that envelope was VERY flat an untitled. Just the size for a check.
“Trump On Kavanaugh: ‘Con Job’ To ‘Senate Must Vote’ To ‘Credible Witness’ In 48 Hours”
“The president tones down the urgency to confirm his Supreme Court nominee after GOP Sen. Jeff Flake’s demand for an FBI investigation.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-kavanaugh-fbi_us_5bae9e94e4b0c75759651857
Excerpt:
“Hours later, the White House released a statement from Trump honoring the Senate’s request: “I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file. As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week.”
“On Friday, after Flake’s announcement that he would not feel comfortable with a floor vote until an FBI investigation had been conducted, Trump claimed that he, too, found the testimony of Kavanaugh’s accuser, professor Christine Blasey Ford, moving.
““I thought her testimony was very compelling, and she looks like a very fine woman to me. A very fine woman,” Trump said. “Certainly she was a very credible witness. She was very good in many respects.”
“I thought her testimony was very compelling, and she looks like a very fine woman to me. A very fine woman. — President Donald Trump on Christine Blasey Ford
Anonymouse….the President did not say that Christine is a con job…..He said the Dems on the committee and the porno lawyer were pulling a con job on all of us. You would be less stressed if you wouldn’t take words out of context. It’s up to you.
To Cindy Braggart — on her high horse, again:
You’ve got the title, an excerpt and a link to the full article. I highlighted the section that I wanted to relate. Don’t like it? Then copy and paset the full article. As for being stressed, you must be projecting again.
Anonym……….Eh?. What’d ya say? Sorry, but I can’t hear anything up here on this very high horse…….🐂
Do you sign?
“Do you sign?” ROFF (Roll on Floor Funny)
😎
Cindy, don’t blame Anonymous. She is the product of a bad education and can’t read very well. That is why she calls herself Anonymous hoping no one will know who she is.
Allan…………thank you for the tip. 🙂
Could you imagine Jeff Flake as President of the United States. He be shining Vladimir Putin’s shoes. This man is absolutely spineless.
I am glad the FBI is doing another investigation. Can’t hurt, but could do a lot of good. Waiting a week won’t kill anyone.
It won’t do any good. There is nothing to investigate. It’s just Jeff Flake jerking everyone around.
AND, the likelihood the FBI investigation unearthing ANYTHING more then we know today is extremely small.
Then what ?
My GUESS, is exactly 5 minutes before the report is released, the attorneys will at THAT time file a police report in Maryland, asking for another delay until THAT investigation is completed.
Put this on your calendar and Mark my words because that’s the next move I predict.
This is terrible, and EVERY time I see someone refer back to Garland, their motivation becomes clearer. We aren’t interested in the truth, this is revenge. Unfortunately the ramifications will be long reaching.
Dr Ford SHOULD see a forensic psychologist, why she herself never pursued that is a question. What therapy HAD she explored to help deal with the trauma ?
I BELIEVE she BELIEVES it was Kavanaugh. I believe Mark Judge COULD be involved in whatever happened to her. Reading through her own polygraph statement she specifically NAMES MARK, but at no time writes Brett, Kavanaugh or any other identifier of the person she believes put their hands ON HER BODY.
Does that HONESTLY not cause reasonable people to pause ?
I don’t know how we get out of this. Another Investigation for the next 2 years going absolutey NOWHERE ?
Actually let me rephrase that, the wildly expensive Mueller Investigation WILL clear Trump and ALL his associates of RUSSIAN collusion. HOWEVER, enough EVIDENCE has emerged to warrant a FULL investigation of the FBI, DOJ, Former AG, Obama Administration, HRC and the DNC of sedition, among many other SERIOUS federal crimes. Ultimately that evidence would have vanished if HRC won, and TOO many people depended on that. When a sting operation catches now FORMER FBI agents attempting to destroy evidence… every bell in your head needs to ring.
Do you think it’s a coincidence the Kavanaugh situation is walking the SAME timeline of the upcoming Declass ???
Will EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN see the evidence with their OWN eyes and take it as face value ? Extremely unlikely at this point.
“Could you imagine Jeff Flake as President of the United States. He be shining Vladimir Putin’s shoes. This man is absolutely spineless.” — I. Bob
Sure he is. So spineless that he was able to assist in getting Trump to change his tune and order a limited FBI investigation.
Anony….It was cowardice. A real man would have stood up for what he knows is right…..even if he loses friends, like Coons.
Anonymous, you sound so dumb. Flake has one vote and is not running. He has been throwing tantrums.
Flake isn’t running in 2018, Allan; he didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting reelected to the Senate.
It looks like he has ambitions for 2020, with the goal of running as the GOP Presidential candidate.
I think Sen. Grassley was the one who mentioned that he didn’t want this process to be exploited by those Senators looking to position themselves for a 2020 run at the Presidency.
I don’t think Grassley was referring exclusively to Democratic Senators.
Flake doesn’t seem to have strong principles. They seem to have changed bouncing from Liberal to conservative to Rino and now ? I wouldn’t be surprised to see him in the future running as a Democrat.
Allan,…
–Flake seems to be promoting himself as “The Bipartisan One.”
IMO it is a contrived ploy calculated to boost his chances as a 2020 Presidential candidate.
Jeff Flake has a 98% rating from Americans for Prosperity, which is a prominent conservative group.
He is extremely opposed to earmarks, and supports lower government spending than the Trump administration.
MarryA – most of little Jeffies rating is based on when he was a Congressman. He was a great Congressman. He was MY Congressman and I was delighted to vote for him for Senator. Then he decided to become mini-McStain. I used to call his office about once a week and tell him to be his own man, but you could see the Soy seeping into his body, it was like the Pod People had taken him over. So, he is no longer a strong conservative like he used to be. And that is why he got no support when he tried to run for re-election. If the old Jeff Flake had been running for re-election, manna would have poured from the skies. Instead, he got scorn.
Keep your eye on the ball. Jeff Flake has been all over the place. After his Liberal gamemanship he became a conservative with high ratings from some groups but that doesn’t make anyone a conservative. That just means they agree with the goals of a group that calls themselves conservative. He was conservative at one time, but since then he has been out to lunch and spiteful.
You don’t know what you are talking about with regard to Trump. He signed a bill that increased military spending at a time he wished to stop Korea, Russia, Iran and China from extending their power and borders. He can’t help it that RINO’s and Dems love to spend.
Anonymous – Trump is a populist, not a conservative, which drives conservatives crazy.
Paul, the terms don’t have much meaning. Trump is more of a populist but he seems more conservative than a lot of Republicans. Working with obstructionists in government has probably increased his conservative tendencies and made him think twice about any Liberal tendencies he may have had.
We actually have two basic groups, the left and everyone else.
Allan – if it were just the Left against everyone, it would work out nicely. However, the Republicans are fragmented between RINOs, Conservatives and Populists. The Independents are all over the place, too. The Independents are the largest registered party? in AZ.
You miss the point, Paul. Those are the two fundamental groups but people that vote Liberal or Democrat today are voting leftist. I later posted a video you might want to listen to.
Tom, Flake could be betting that the next Democratic President will appoint him a cabinet secretary. I’m okay with that. Every administration likes to fill a few positions with well-known faces from the other party. Though Trump, of course, would scarcely consider that. And no democrat would consider working with him.
Every administration likes to fill a few positions with well-known faces from the other party.
Actually, they do very little of that. Robert Gates was held over for a couple of years, but he’s an academic dignitary and intelligence professional who has never been strongly identified with either party. George W. Bush put underperformin’ Norman Mineta in charge of the Transportation Department. The seminal institutional culture of the Transportation Security Administration is his baby. Obama put swamp creature Ray LaHood in charge of the Transportation Department. Since his approach to public affairs is similar to that of a typical Democratic pol and since he’d been a source of sound-bites useful to Democratic candidates, that’s not exactly gutting it up.
Hear, hear!
Jeff Flake, go face your 10 year-old daughter.
There is a special place in hell for you.
Bromwich and his team’s investigations reported their conclusions in a final report published in 2007. They found pervasive fraud in the Houston crime lab, including fabrications of forensic analysis, false statements, and other forms of misconduct, and recommended major changes to crime lab procedure. Houston closed its crime lab and reestablished a new crime lab, independent of law enforcement, in 2014, with new procedures and standards.
the conservative editorial page of Wall Street Journal criticized Bromwich for charging exorbitant fees for his services, and agreed with Apple that he was wandering outside of the bounds of his mandate from the Court, while also suggesting that his selection for the assignment in the first place had more to do with his long-standing political connections to Judge Cote than with any relevant experience.
Oh the tangled web we weave
Motor Mouth Harris did an absolutely superb job of keeping track, in writing, the steps taken by the Gang of Ten during this weeks street theatre. I could find not fault except at the end she assigned blame to the other side of the aisle for whatever reason. She would make someone a wonderful secretary … but…. one would have to vet everything for accuracy.
Booker exhibited his skills at Doing ‘The O’Bomb’Ah which as you may recall is the only known legacy after eight years. He ducked out early but we won’t discuss what happens. That state is not Recreational Friendly.
The other eight were for the most part unremarkable over the hill something like the background singers to really great lead singer and band. After All how many of you can remember the names of the band backing Nino Tempo and April Stevens? Life is sooo strange and so unforgiving.
Odd, isn’t it. I asked counsel repeatedly if he had conducted discovery. He didn’t answer. Rather, he insisted I accept defendant’s offer which was 493,000 dollars less than what he demanded originally without consulting me. The judge threatened to incarcerate me. I had done nothing, but my own lawyer lied to him about me. Told the judge I wasn’t cooperating. My own lawyer threatened to sanction me. I asked him if he was conducting discovery. I had turned over all the discoverable documents he and opposing counsel asked for as soon as they asked for them. I received nothing.
The procedural rules discussed by Prof Turley were ignored. “Judge, you are being lied to,” I said. “Well this is not the time to discuss that. At some point you may be allowed to bring that up, but now is not the time.” I was never given such an opportunity. This judge is as corrupt as they come, I learned. I began to research judicial corruption and to my surprise, found it everywhere.
Any one want a lawyer to represent you as you attempt to hold a judge accountable for violating the canons and more? Not possible. What does that tell you?
Snow Flake.
Trump gave democrats their wish. An FBI investigation. Be careful what you wished for.
Stake holders are NSA, CIA, Military PSYOP
PSYOP can encourage popular discontent with the opposition’s leadership and by combining persuasion with a credible threat, degrade an adversary’s ability to conduct or sustain operations. They can also disrupt, confuse, and protract the adversary’s decision-making process, undermining command and control. When properly employed, PSYOP has the potential to save the lives of friendly or enemy forces by reducing the adversary’s will to fight. By lowering the adversary’s morale and then its efficiency, PSYOP can also discourage aggressive actions by creating disaffection within their ranks, ultimately leading to surrender.
Word for the Day: Confabulation
Confabulation is the creation of false memories in the absence of intentions of deception. Individuals who confabulate have no recognition that the information being relayed to others is fabricated. Confabulating individuals are not intentionally being deceptive and sincerely believe the information they are communicating to be genuine and accurate. Confabulation ranges from small distortions of actual memories to creation of bizarre and unusual memories, often with elaborate detail.
Confabulation refers to the production or creation of false or erroneous memories without the intent to deceive, sometimes called “honest lying.” Alternatively, confabulation is a falsification of memory by a person who, believes he or she is genuinely communicating truthful memories. These false memories may consist of exaggerations of actual events, inserting memories of one event into another time or place, recalling an older memory but believing it took place more recently, filling in gaps in memory, or the creation of a new memory of an event that never occurred. While some confabulated memories are easier to identify as false, in other cases, the confabulated memory may be so personal and unique, only a corroborating witness like a family member or close friend may be able to confirm the veracity of the memory.
Here’s another technical term: Nut job.
Avenatti has become the face of the left. This weekend should solidify that. They should nominate him for President. Stormy or Ford could be VP.
Ivan,..
Avennati has mentioned running for president in 2020.
Do you think he’s getting enough press coverage and TV interviews to keep himself in the news? 😒😀😂