Image 01 Image 03

Kavanaugh Open Thread: Senate Republicans Offer to Hold Ford’s Hearing on Wednesday

Kavanaugh Open Thread: Senate Republicans Offer to Hold Ford’s Hearing on Wednesday

Ford has until the end of the day to respond.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley gave Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, until 10AM ET to decide if she will testify on Monday.

Ford’s team handed out the terms for her testimony late Thursday night and I doubt it will sit well. First of all, she won’t do it on Monday and she still wants an FBI probe.

Now the Senate Republicans have given Ford a counteroffer with a hearing on Wednesday.

Wednesday Hearing?

Ford asked for a hearing on Thursday, but Senate Republicans offered Wednesday. From Politico:

The Senate Judiciary Committee is giving Christine Blasey Ford attorney’s until the end of the day Friday to work out terms of next week’s proposed hearing on Ford’s allegations that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, according to a Republican senator.

Senate GOP is offering to hold the hearing on Wednesday after Ford asked for a Thursday hearing and is meeting some of Ford’s requests but not others, the senator said.

“We’ll do it on Wednesday, we expect the accuser before the accused and we do intend to have the counsel do the questioning,” the senator said, summing up the Republicans’ stance. The party is OK with limiting the hearing to one camera as requested by Ford and has also “acquiesced” to Ford’s request that Kavanaugh not be in the same room as her, the senator said.

GOP members of the Judiciary Committee held a conference call on Friday morning to discuss how to respond to Ford’s requests on Thursday. And barring new revelations, the party plans to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination in Judiciary Committee shortly after hearing her testimony next week.

In July, Ford Advisor Spoke of “Strategy” That Could Defeat Kavanaugh

Ford has sought advice from Democratic operative from Ricki Seidman, the woman who helped Anita Hill.

Well, back in July, Seidman spoke to the American Constitution Society about a strategy that could end up defeating Kavanaugh. Remember, July is when Sen. Dianne Feinstein received Ford’s letter. From The American Mirror:

“While I think at the outset, looking at the numbers in the Senate, it’s not extremely likely that the nominee can be defeated. I would absolutely withhold judgement as the process goes on. I think that I would not reach any conclusion about the outcome in advance,” Seidman says in the recording.

Was she teasing a post-hearing surprise that was triggered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein?

Seidman speculated that Kavanaugh was chosen prior to Justice Anthony Kennedy announcing his retirement, and that liberal groups — who would oppose any Trump nominee — were caught flat-footed.

“Over the coming days and weeks,” Seidman says in the recording that seems to have occurred shortly after Kavanaugh’s announcement, “there will be a strategy that will emerge, and I think it’s possible that that strategy might ultimately defeat the nominee.”

She didn’t provide further details, but given the fact that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford “is being advised by” Seidman, according to Politico, it’s not difficult to conclude the plot currently unfolding began months ago.

VIDEO: Democrats Already Decided Kavanaugh is Guilty

Trump Tweets Support for Kavanaugh

Ford’s Terms

In other words, they’re going to drag this out for as long as they can. From Fox News:

Among the terms: Only members of the committee — no lawyers — can question her; Kavanaugh cannot be in the room at the time; and Kavanaugh should be questioned first, before he has the opportunity to hear Ford’s testimony.

The requests, some of which appeared to be negotiable, capped a whirlwind day of back-and-forth statements. Ford’s lawyers told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she was open to testifying next week, apparently backing off her bid for the FBI to first launch a new inquiry into her allegations.

But the attorneys said it was “not possible” for Ford to testify at a hearing scheduled for Monday by Senate Republicans, without explaining why, and they reiterated that she had a “strong preference” for an FBI probe beforehand.

According to an email sent by her attorney Debra Katz to the committee, Ford would appear as long as senators provide “terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.”

It was not immediately clear whether Senate Republicans would agree to Ford’s latest requests, but they reportedly have indicated they were considering them. Judiciary Committee Republicans have offered Ford the opportunity to testify privately, and have indicated they’re willing to fly out to California “or anywhere else” to question her there if she would find that more convenient.

Interesting. Why must Kavanaugh go first? Probably so she can get in the last word. Plus he won’t know exactly what he’s responding to.

Kavanaugh has shown eagerness to testify on Monday so he can clear his name. I don’t blame him one bit.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


He has every right to respond to any accusations.
If she does show up, she needs to go first.
Why are they letting this woman dictate and demand?

    fscarn in reply to lc. | September 21, 2018 at 9:30 am

    The demand that only Committee members do the questioning, that no proxy questioners be allowed, is a demand that the optics of older, white, GOP males favor her. The Ds are getting ready all the niceties for the fund-raising to come out of this.

      guyjones in reply to fscarn. | September 21, 2018 at 10:55 am

      Oh, fundraising, indeed. The Dumb-o-crats are going to milk this putrefying teat for all of its rancid worth, to attempt to gin up the Dumb-o-crat base for the midterms.

      Look at the way that the GOP placed a sexual assaulter on SCOTUS! Look at how these vicious, old, white men, defenders of the patriarchy, have treated a sexual assault victim!

      Meanwhile, actual girlfriend-beater Keith Ellison continues to enjoy the Dumb-o-crats’ unwavering support, with his victims treated like garbage, to the extent that they have been acknowledged, at all.

      MattMusson in reply to fscarn. | September 21, 2018 at 12:32 pm

      Let Kavanaugh’s Wife question Ford.

A classic negotiating tactic is to offer unacceptable “terms” in order to provoke a rejection. My guess is that DJT might be given the opportunity to make this call.

Fifty minutes to go…

    JPL17 in reply to MTED. | September 21, 2018 at 9:17 am

    This is a first! Using the phrase “tick tock” on the Internet might actually mean something this time … We can only hope

Bucky Barkingham | September 21, 2018 at 9:13 am

If the ones in charge at the committee weren’t Roll-Over Party senators this tactic wouldn’t even be tried.

She wants an FBI probe so she can find out what her memory needs to be.

regulus arcturus | September 21, 2018 at 9:15 am

Ford is in a position to dictate nothing.

The vote should have occurred yesterday, as originally scheduled.

Kavanaugh has shown eagerness to testify on Monday so he can clear his name.

This doesn’t seem terribly relevant. Nothing he can say will dent The Narrative, since (at least for now) they’re all pretending to play the game of Believe The Woman, no matter what.

This is the United States of America, NOT Mao’s China! Judge Kavanaugh has every right to face his accuser and to respond directly to her allegations.

And since any statute of limitations has long since expired (if a crime actually happened – copping a feel wasn’t a crime in 1982) and this is a clear attempt to derail a Supreme Court nomination with spurious allegations, he has a right to hear what his accuser has to say sooner rather than later.

Grassley needs to stick to his guns or the Democrats will use this tactic to derail every Republican presidential nomination from now on out.

    iconotastic in reply to Granny. | September 21, 2018 at 11:36 am

    It appears that in the state of Maryland there is no statute of limitations now for felony sexual assault. 1 year for 4th degree sexual assault. But that is now, the law may have been different then. From my untaught reading whoever was guilty of the attack described by Ford only merited a misdemeanor charge, but I am certain my opinion on that is worthless.

      But this would not have been a felony.
      From what I recall, Alan Dershowitz has said claim of rape has to actually involve attempt to penetrate.
      This would have been a minor offense if anything did occur, and the statute of limitations is long gone. A former FBI official has said “none of this would hold up in court”.

        iconotastic in reply to lc. | September 21, 2018 at 4:35 pm

        You might think that, I might think that, even Professor Dershowitz might think that. But the only person who really matters is the prosecutor.

        OTOH, Mark Steyn this morning said that the law regarding the unlimited statute of limitations was only changed last year. So wouldn’t that mean that this alleged crime would be investigated under the earlier statute of limitations, whatever that was?

Interesting that the media keeps using that picture of sunglasses shielding her eyes. We see her eyes please. Is she an actual human or just some caricature they’ve manufactured.

“Casting Call for female models that Soccer Moms can relate to”

Because a counteroffer of terms operates as a rejection of the original offer, she’ll be a no-show on Monday. Since Grassley runs the Committee

– please, Sen. Grassley, remember that you’re in charge; you run the show; so Play Hardball –

and the deal is Show Up on Monday if You Want to be Heard, that’s it. Play Hardball.

And the demand that he go first. How can he go first? Since she’s the one making the charge, she’s to go first in giving testimony, thereby framing the issue to be addressed. At the moment the Committee has no allegation in front of it. That comes about only when she makes her charging statement. If he goes first, he’s punching at the air, not knowing what he’s suppose to be refuting.

Com’n, he’s got to have advisors warning about all these dangers? Right? Right?

By participating in this charade, the Republicans are endorsing this strategy. Thanks to the spineless noodles with Rs after their names, we can now expect to see this every. single. time.

Criminal courts have evidentiary rules and statutes of limitation for very good reasons. We are seeing those reasons on display here.

There’s only one thing Kavanaugh can offer testimony on, and that’s if he ever sexually assaulted this democrat prop. She can’t offer a time, date, place, or even the county it occurred in. Enough with enabling this kind of bulls*it, just get on with the vote.

An FBI investigation – What are they going to uncover

1) PJ smyth – who says it did not happen
2) mark judge – who says it did not happen
3) miranda – who said it was widely discussed at school the following days even though the event occurred in the summer
4) Miranda – who has recanted.
5) the therapist who has notes which conflict with the allegation

    iconotastic in reply to Joe-dallas. | September 21, 2018 at 11:45 am

    There is a story floating around that an unnamed girl was present. I wonder if someone representing herself as that girl will appear this weekend.

What are the odds Ford never testifies?

Ummmm … time’s up, folks! It’s after 10 a.m. Friday, September 21, 2018. So has she submitted her testimony and agreed to show up on Monday, or not? Hello, U.S. Senate? Please respond!

I guess we are going to find out if it was 10am local time or 10am laaaalaaaland time very shortly.

I still don’t care about what teenage antics may or may not have happened 36 years ago.

I do care what happened in 2003 when Leftists delayed Kavanaugh’s nomination to the DC Circuit Court for 3 years.

No more. Confirm Kavanaugh and move on. Leftists be damned.


Well, they could play this as background music for the hearing:

If any of it is true, this tells the story.

This sounds like where she got the line:

‘Cause we were barely seventeen
And we were barely dressed

Baby don’t you hear my heart
You got it drowning out the radio

Just like in blackjack or poker, there is a major advantage to going last. You have already seen everyone else’s moves, and know how to respond. She would get the last word, and could refute whatever it is Kavanaugh testifies to. She can twist or tailor what she says to counter his statements.

In what world does an accuser say that the accused needs to lay out their story first. Like “I know what you did last summer, so tell us”.

still waiting…

I’m really hoping the chair issues a statement vaguely like, “Well, Missus Ford has not responded to our request for testimony, so we will conduct the meeting on Monday as normal. If she shows up and is prepared to give testimony then, we will accommodate her as best we can, but if not, we will hold the vote and send Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination on to the Senate.”

    MarkSmith in reply to georgfelis. | September 21, 2018 at 10:55 am

    I say tell them to go pound sand. No hearing on Monday, just the vote. They have too much control. If Kavanaugh does not make it, so be it. It will get out the vote.

      No, the objective at this point is to chop off any (D) talking points at the knees, such as “She was refused access to testify!” (R: She could have testified at any point right up to the moment of the committee vote) or “She could not face all the cameras and media !” (R: Grassley offered her a closed session with the committee where the press would be excluded)

        MarkSmith in reply to georgfelis. | September 21, 2018 at 11:52 am

        It has been done, time to get back in the real game and ignore the side show.

        There are infinite leftist talking points: cutting off one generates two more.

        Arminius in reply to georgfelis. | September 21, 2018 at 2:19 pm

        Actually, I think there are several objectives. The wolf closest to the sled is the Senate GOP. Grassley needs to make sure the “swing” GOP votes, Flaken, Corker, and Collins, are onboard with the fact that this is simply a delaying tactic. McConnell needs to verify that the entire Senate caucus is onboard with the reality of the situation and will vote for Kavanaugh.

        This should have been going on since Feinstein’s late hit.

        It’s sad that we need to verify that the Senate GOP recognizes basic reality; that this is a political stunt to delay Kavanaugh’s nomination. But they’re thinking of the #MeToo meme no doubt. From the tweet it appears Trump has found the solution to that. The headline at Drudge is that the U.S. Marshalls are investigating the threats to Ford and her family.

        I think what we’ll find is that the threats were SO bad she had to move her family to an undisclosed location. The threats were SO bad, according to her attorneys, that she was considering hiring private security. The threats were SO bad that….

        she never considered filing a report with the Palo Alto PD and/or the Santa Clara county Sheriff. According to the U.S. Marshall’s Service.

        So much for “always believe the woman.” Dr. Ford seems to have a habit of accusing people of crimes and never going to the law enforcement authorities who have the jurisdiction to investigate those crimes.

        I would delay the confirmation vote, though. I would schedule a hearing for the FBI and the U.S. Marshalls to testify. First, that Ford filed no police reports. But also after sending a female Marshall to reach out to Kieth Ellison’s accuser Karen Monahan to ask to see the video that Ellison says can’t exist but purportedly shows him engaging in domestic violence. Monahan persuasively argues that she won’t make the video public because it is too traumatic and shows her in an extremely compromising position and in a state of undress. IF it exists, have the Marshall testify to that fact, and that Monahan has good reason not to go public with it.

        If it doesn’t exist then have the Marshall advise her not to inflate her claims as Monahan has already released some documents that would be admissable in court. And don’t mention the visit during the testimony.

        The FBI can explain to the committee Democrats why it doesn’t investigate 36 y.o. non-fedearal crimes.

        Stomp on the #MeToo meme good and hard. Kill it. Publicly humiliate Feinstein and her cohort. Maybe that will give the Senate, and hopefully all GOP candidates, some spine to push back.

          Arminius in reply to Arminius. | September 21, 2018 at 2:38 pm

          The Dems accuse Trump of being crazy and want to invoke article 25. I think he’s crazy as well. Crazy like a fox. His tweet indicates the U.S. Marshalls have already looked into the claims that Ford is living under death threats and found that she isn’t. And that they concluded their investigation before the headline went up on Drudge.

          The cherry on top would be if they found Ford and her family were still living at their home of record, although I think her attorneys Lisa Banks and Debra Katz are at least smart enough to put them up at a motel and at least maintain that part of the charade. But among the infinite is human stupidity.

          At least that’s the way I would play it. On the other hand if we’re finding out the U.S. Marshalls are going to investigate before they’ve investigated and Trump is tweeting prematurely then he’s just a f***ing idiot and in a just world I would be the billionaire.

Very simply, if Grassley backs down on his deadline, ignoring the bad faith behavior and outright obstruction on the part of the Democratic members of his committee, then he has surrendered any control over the process – and the expansion of time for the media and the Democrats to dominate the conversation will destroy Kavanaugh – which will be a fatal wound to the civil compact that enables our country to function as a representative democracy.

I’m not sure what eventually will emerge in its place – the European secularist ruling elite model that is withering as we speak, or hard line tyranny*, but our institutions will not survive this betrayal of the fundamental liberal values that our nation was founded upon…unless the American people issue a full repudiation of the Democrats’ behavior in the November elections, and even then, I’m not sure the Republican leadership in Congress is capable of acting accordingly.

…Waiting to hear from Grassley whether he will stand tall or describe the terms of surrender.

*No, I don’t list violent civil war within this scenario, apart from perhaps a few scattered and futile eruptions. And the timeline could range from just a few years to perhaps decades.

…. and the horse she might ride in on.

And !!!!

I think there’s a lot of merit to McCarty’s take on this, though I do think that Grassley has handled this well to this point, politics considered.

    Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | September 21, 2018 at 12:18 pm

    The big flaw in McCarthy’s proposal is that if the vote had been held as scheduled it would have failed. When you only have 51 senators, and need 50 to confirm the nomination, you have to compromise with your wafflers. There’s no other choice. If Grassley and McConnell had had 54 or 55 senators, so they could afford to lose three or four, we’d be seeing an entirely different story.

theduchessofkitty | September 21, 2018 at 12:07 pm

Its 12:10 EST now…

I have come to the conclusion that when Ford agreed for Feinstein to use the letter, Feinstein and the Democrats made her a lot of promises…Ford would be a hero, that she would be protected, that she would not suffer any legal consequences for proceeding.

The stall is now because Ford is panicking, because she knows that the accusations will not survive real scrutiny and the backlash has brought the liberal professor partially into the realm of reality.

The GOP Senate needs to treat Kavanaugh as if he is innocent, which he is under our system, and proceed with the vote.

The bottom line is that it all depends on the Republican whip. If they have 50 solid votes they can ignore all this and proceed to confirmation. If they had 50 solid votes last week they’d never have delayed the vote in the first place. But once Flake asked for a hearing Grassley had to give him one, because he needs his vote. If he, Collins, Corker, and any other doubters in the R caucus are now convinced then nothing more is needed.

Deadlines don’t matter, (R) party will fold.
They are negotiating hearing parameters.

Hedge for RINO….. ” no credible evidence but can not take the risk of placing him in SCOTUS”. I thought one had to have actually raped someone to be a “rapist”. Camille Paglia recounted how a college coed said she had been “mini-raped” when a college guy commented that she had good looking legs.

This was never meant to be proved or disproved. It was meant to trigger more whackos to come forward, either delaying the vote until after the midterms or derailing the vote entirely. It’s not called the “metoo” movement for nothing.

If you want to see how the other side is thinking, you can rarely go wrong by reading either the New York Times, or Atlantic Magazine. Here’s an excerpt from “The Logical Fallacy of Christine Blasey Ford’s ‘Choice’ by Megan Garber:
“ ‘Believe women,’ the ethic goes, in its attempt to correct misogynies that have accumulated over centuries, and in its two efficient words is summoned a determined optimism that the world that is can be better than the world that has been. What the public treatment of Ford has revealed, however, among so many other sad revelations, is that, even in the America of #MeToo—even in the America that promises so readily that Anita Hill’s warnings will be heeded, this time around—“believe women” remains a pipe dream.
“The discussions of this week, which have found politicians and commentators finding new ways to cast the old doubts on Ford, have suggested how far the country has to go before “believe women” can manifest as anything more than an empty performance.”

I looked for where Garber presents this “logical fallacy,” but was unable to find it. Instead, following a long apologia for “Why didn’t she say anything sooner,” I got to the heart of the pro-Ford argument. Which seems to come down to:

1. Believe Women
2. Ford is a woman
3. Therefore we must Believe her.
4. Corollary: There is no defense; one must never cast doubts upon an accuser.

I do agree that Ford had no obligation to say anything sooner (or ever), but, has anyone questioned that she always had the right to remain silent (or not)? BUT, a right to speak (or not) surely does not imply a right to be believed: thus, this appears to be a straw-man argument.

Perhaps someone could point out what I’m missing here? Is a “logical fallacy” presented? And is there any actual pro-Ford argument here, other than a demand to comply with “Believe Women!” dogma?

I’m willing to look at counter-arguments and perhaps I’m missing something here. Did Atlantic Magazine really publish an article containing nothing but straw-man and absurdist dogma?

    The proper answer to this is “Duke Lacrosse.”

      The proper answer is that “believe women” is not an ethic, it’s a deeply unethical and wicked proposition that all decent people must reject. Women are every bit as likely as men to lie, and therefore deserve no more credibility than men do. The Duke Lacrosse case is merely one tiny example of this truth, significant only because it got a lot of publicity.

Its fascinating how stupid these dems think people are. Lawyers, telling a bunch of other lawyers(senators and their lawyers) plus the nominee to the f’n supreme court (a lawyer) what terms she will agree to testify to, like, “He’s gotta go first” what a bunch a whoey stall tactics is all this is.

If, after all this song and dance, Kavanaugh turns out to be another Roberts . . .

. . . I’m going to be almighty peeved.

    Evan3457 in reply to tom_swift. | September 21, 2018 at 1:28 pm

    My paranoia always runs deep. Suppose all this is kabuki theater to make us think we’ve won a great victory for the right, when in fact Kavanaugh was chosen to replace Kennedy because…he will replicate Kennedy.

    No matter, a more conservative nominee (i.e., one who is seen as very like overturning Roe v. Wade) would not get through Collins, Murkowski and Flake, and possibly Corker as well, like say, Cornett, would not have been confirmed by the Senate in any case.

    At THIS moment, Kavanaugh is the best the Right can do. I hope it’s good enough.

    Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | September 21, 2018 at 2:15 pm

    Kavanaugh certainly seems to believe in the power of precedent, claiming that the “judicial power” in Article 3 of the constitution includes the power to create law, as it did in the 1790s. And he specifically cited not only Casey but also Dickerson v US. So unfortunately I’d expect him to be a vote against overturning Roe and Casey.

10 AM EDT has come and long gone as I write this at 1:19 PM. Grassley just showed himself to be another establishment Republican with a linguini spine and a talent for failure theater.

The only unyielding spine Grassley shows is when someone challenges the Ethanol mandate.

    Milhouse in reply to Edward. | September 21, 2018 at 2:17 pm

    It’s not up to Grassley, it’s up to Flake, Collins, and the other wafflers. If the numbers are not there to confirm him then what choice does Grassley have? This is what happens when you have only 51 senators.

    hrhdhd in reply to Edward. | September 21, 2018 at 5:47 pm

    Upvote for EDT.

Trying to have him go first is a gotcha trap. She knows something that has not been revealed to the msm and if he says something that she can prove is a lie about ANYTHING from that period she has nailed him as a liar! This is the opposite of all of our jurisprudence and if the spineless Republicans go along with it they are done! Grassley said 10 AM on Friday was the deadline and that has come and gone. Where is the jellyfish of the Senate?

Just read that CNN is reporting that the counter offer from Grassley goes something like this. Ford testifies, then Kavanaugh. An independent counsel will ask questions, and the hearing will be Wed., not Thurs. I think Katz will decline to have her client testify under those conditions. Call the vote.

    So, Grassley has set the precedent that the Republicans will negotiate with terrorists.

      Milhouse in reply to Rick. | September 21, 2018 at 2:19 pm

      He’s not negotiating with terrorists, he’s negotiating with his wafflers. He’s doing what he needs to do to secure their votes. When you only have 51 senators, you have no choice but to do that.

        alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | September 21, 2018 at 2:48 pm

        The Governor of Alaska (I=D) and Lt. Gov. (D) have come out against Kavanaugh. Murkowski (“Lisa” as her moniker for elections) is needing to appease Native voters against “white privilege” in hunting in potential SCOTUS case. She needs all the fems and LGBTQEVERYBODYELSE in Anchorage also. Plenty of reasons to vote Democrat for this issue.

I hope everyone realizes that, as of now, this country is being run by a liberal nutcase and an Arizona Senator whose only wise decision has been to not run for reelection.

amatuerwrangler | September 21, 2018 at 1:52 pm

What if there is no letter, at all? Feinstein said she got it from Eshoo who sourced it as coming from who we now know as Ford. No one outside that loop has seen it. (Maybe someone at FBI, if a letter exists.)

What if Ford spoke with Eshoo and told her “story” or in discussing what was left to derail the nomination, the idea of a long-ago indiscretion was entertained; and Ford allowed that she might be willing to carry that water.

Consider that Eshoo writes a letter to this effect to Feinstein and describes a “person associated with Stanford” (as it was originally reported) and Feinstein likes the idea, and sits on the letter while others convince Ford to go through with it… In this scenario, the words on the letter will be those of Eshoo, paraphrasing those attributed to Ford. This would explain Feinstein’s refusal to provide the letter to Grassley. And this is why Ford needs all the extra time: she needs to learn her lines…

This reminds me of an old Monty Python Skit.

It’s Dead!

I cannot believe how stupid Republicans are.. What of Judge Kavanaugh’s right to face his accuser? This is such a farce!

Their last offer until their next last offer.

Or how about this one “I’ii bite your legs off”

Gotta have some humor to get though this.

they are out to crucify him

Kamala Harris: ‘Reasonable Doubt’ Standard Does Not Apply to Kavanaugh; Ford’s Sex Assault Charge Does Not Need to Be Proven

    theduchessofkitty in reply to MAB. | September 21, 2018 at 2:15 pm

    This shows she doesn’t truly believe in the Constitution. She called it “a piece of paper”… remember?

      No, she did not call it a piece of paper. That is a vicious lie.

      When discussing unenumerated rights, which by definition are not listed in the constitution, she noted that they would not be in the book Kavanaugh referred to so often. This was obviously true, though he pointed out that the book explicitly says that there are rights that it doesn’t list.

      And she’s 100% right that the “reasonable doubt” standard does not apply. Would you support the appointment of someone who is only probably guilty of a crime, or even someone who is probably not guilty but you can’t be sure? Would you trust such a person with your child or your wallet?

        Observer in reply to Milhouse. | September 21, 2018 at 4:15 pm

        Willie Brown’s former mistress is right that the “reasonable doubt” standard does not apply in the senate hearings; apparently, no standards apply. A nominee with a spotless record and hundreds of people willing to attest to his fine character can be smeared as a “rapist” and a “sex offender” based on someone’s fuzzy memory of a drunken groping incident that allegedly happened when the nominee was in high school, nearly 40 years ago.

        So no, Ford’s accusation does need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But when Kavanaugh has flatly denied it happened, and the other two witnesses named by Ford (Mark Judge and Patrick J. Smyth) have both denied it happened (and both said they never witnessed Kavanaugh behave that way towards any female), and when Ford has offered nothing whatsoever to corroborate her sketchy account, it would be ludicrously unfair to let this accusation derail Kavanaugh’s nomination.

        And I’d let Kavanaugh babysit my kid and my wallet, any time. In fact, I’d be thrilled that I had somebody of such integrity to look after them!

          Milhouse in reply to Observer. | September 21, 2018 at 5:57 pm

          Of course we’d all trust Kavanaugh, because we don’t merely have reasonable doubt about the charges, we’re actually convinced beyond reasonable doubt that they are false. But that’s not the question here. Would you trust someone who you think probably is guilty, or even someone who you seriously suspect might be guilty? No, of course not. Therefore Harris is correct that reasonable doubt is not the correct standard here. The standard needs to be a lot stricter than that, but Kavanaugh passes any reasonable standard.

Bucky Barkingham | September 21, 2018 at 2:09 pm

The 10 am Friday red line expired, so in true Roll-Over Party style they drew another red line. They are as lame as Obama was with red lines.

    Tactically, this offer of scheduling on Wednesday would only make sense if Grassley is 100% certain that the accuser has no intention of testifying, as it makes the GOP fairly appear to be more than reasonably-accommodating. In such a scenario, he would basically be calling her bluff.

    But, if the accuser — a self-aggrandizing and narcissistic sociopath, in my opinion — actually does show up on Wednesday, and spins an alleged tale of woe and salacious predations that, however manifestly suspect and lacking in evidentiary supports, is nonetheless high on self-pity, drama and self-styled victimhood, the damage inflicted will be substantial, irrespective of Kavanaugh’s staunch denials, his undeniably laudable personal and professional lives and the myriad attestations from friends and colleagues as to his good character.

    The Dumb-o-crats’ vicious and contemptible goal here, as I see it, doesn’t even involve engaging in a pretense of making the allegation stand up to cursory scrutiny — the mere slinging of the allegation is sufficient to tarnish Kavanaugh and provide ample “cover” for weak-willed and easily-duped Republican Senators, such as Flake, Collins and Murkowski, to waver and announce that, given the “cloud” that now surrounds Kavanaugh, and, because of the innumerable women in the past who have never achieved “justice” against their assailants, Kavanaugh must be served up as the sacrificial lamb to appease the “Me-Too” mob.

“You’ve watched the fight. You’ve watched the tactics, But here’s what I want to tell you: In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the United States Supreme Court… Don’t get rattled by all of this. We’re gonna plow right through it and do our job.” ~ Mitch McConnell

    Wanna buy some snake oil?

    Yea every little group by the other senators including Mazie Hirono will be plastered all over the place unless Mitch gets his way. I am betting 98-2. Ha.

    Now back to reality, it might not happen because it has zero to do with Kavanaugh and all to do with RvW and Trump.

    But then again, NYT is trying to distract, so there is hope:

    NYT: Rosenstein Suggested He Secretly Record Trump and Discussed 25th Amendment

    Note this came from an anonymous source. not Rosenstein. If you don’t read the headlines you would not know. But I don’t trust Rosenstein either.

I don’t understand the need to placate Dem’s desire for theatre.

My hope is… and fairly plausible but too well thought out for the GOP to ever do… is that someone has come across some very unflattering facts with regard to the accusation that will not play well in the news cycles on Mon-Thur of next week, thus hanging Dems with their own rope. Trump is that smart, the rest of them …not so much.

    tom_swift in reply to Andy. | September 21, 2018 at 3:12 pm

    It’s not the D’rats being placated, it’s the f’n Repubs.

    We know how the D’s are going to vote, and this ridiculous show is superfluous so far as they’re concerned. Not so for the R’s. If Collins, Murkowski, and Flake weren’t such douches, this confirmation would have happened weeks ago.

Again, everyone is looking for a way out of this predicament. First of all, Gillibrand et al must shut their mouths. Take them away from the microphones. Dems know that Ford really has no ammo against Kavanaugh. I believe that before Sunday is over Ford will produce a statement saying she thinks that Kavanaugh was the guy that attacked her BUT she can never be 100% sure. Therefore, she will withdraw her accusation, blah, blah blah. Then the vote can be scheduled for Monday. Ford cannot keep digging this hole deeper for herself because the ending will terrible for her. The Dems can then once more rally around the poor soul who was irreparably attacked by a vicious male.

That seems plausible.

It may be politically smart. I don’t personally like it, but I can see it.

Is there no Democratic attack to which the Republicans will not capitulate? Holy cow, what a bunch of losers! And they keep asking me to send them money. Not just, “No,” but “HELL, NO.”

And…. we’re done here.

“Literally Unf*ckingbelievable: “Dr. Ford” Doesn’t Want to Come to DC to Testify, Because She Doesn’t Want to Fly, Now
—Ace of Spades
So sorry to inconvenience you, Dr. Ford, whose credibility must not be questioned, Polite Company Conservatives keep telling me.”

    Colonel Travis in reply to SDN. | September 21, 2018 at 6:43 pm

    I don’t even know what to say about this crap any more.

      Well, there is a kind of ‘Geraldo and Al Capone’s Vault’ vibe about the whole ordeal.

        guyjones in reply to MrE. | September 21, 2018 at 8:39 pm

        At least Geraldo’s stunt produced a couple of dusty, empty Gilbey’s gin bottles — a let-down after the initial promotional hype, to be sure, but, I don’t think we’ll receive even that much of substance from the accuser, when this transparent charade is exposed as such.

    oldgoat36 in reply to SDN. | September 21, 2018 at 9:34 pm

    I wonder if it is possible to confirm that Ford doesn’t fly. Checking through records might be worthwhile to see if she never flies or if this is a sudden phobia she developed when the hearing was going to happen too soon.

    I am glad Grassley has not caved to all her “demands”. Though I’m not happy about all of the ones he agreed to. I think he is working the optics as best he can with a hostile media.

    Time is ticking down to 10 when she is supposed to respond by. I expect a counter offer. They want this more for a means of delaying confirmation, and the Monday date had them figuring that wouldn’t work so well for the timetable they set.

      Not just a hostile MSM, but Collins and Murkowski. It appears that Flake and Corker have decided enough is enough, but might still be “shaky” votes.

#No #TimesUp #MeToo #HateLovesAbortion

“One…two…two and a half…two and three quarters…two and fifteen sixteenths…”

Sadly, they are allow them to control the game. At some point you have to run the ball. It should have been Monday. They had over 1.5 months to prepare for this. Maybe this allows the Uniparty to look good.

My wife is furious about this. 35 year old teenager day claim. Come on.

I just think about how many times my hand got pushed away back then and how many times it didn’t. It was all part of growing up. It has zero to do with disrespecting women. It was all about learn about ourselves.

Let it to the democrats to make something so normal and natural dirty, yet they are the ones screaming Abortion on demand, the pill and all sorts of disrespecting sex acts

Why not lean on some red state dem senators who are up for re-election? Just have The Donald schedule some pre-election ralleys in places where the race is close. If I were DJT, I’d put holds on as many CA projects as possible. Apply $$ pressure and even Feinswine might wake up and vote for Kavanaugh.

    He needs to come to Indiana again. Maybe a couple more times, since Braun is getting pretty much zilch from McConnells Senate fund while tens of millions are coming in to Silent Joes campaign

So, it’s 6:28 PM in DC. Is her time up yet? Or does she get until midnight in California to decide?

Grassley: “I’m providing a notice of a vote to occur Monday in the event that Dr. Ford’s attorneys don’t respond or Dr. Ford decides not to testify. In the event that we can come to a reasonable resolution as I’ve been seeking all week, then I will postpone the committee vote“

Sounds like good strategy.

    MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | September 21, 2018 at 6:54 pm

    Actually it does not. Grassley needs to tell them times up. Peoples lives are impacted every day this drags one and it costing millions of dollars to drag it out.

    What are they waiting for, photoshopping some pictures.

    8 pm CA time should be the latest he waits. Should have giving EST to wrap it up.

      Actually, I believe the Senate rules ( which I will grant I am not an expert on ) do not allow the committee to vote Monday unless he provides that notice to vote.

      So, in the end, it is a moderate line. I agree if they don’t have a deal by then and they move the vote again, then Grassley will have blown it.

      Ragspierre in reply to MarkSmith. | September 21, 2018 at 7:16 pm

      Really? Point me to your accounting.

      Nonsense. What does an adverse election cost?

      Grassley is being smart. Toeing a very fine high-wire.

      Vladtheimp in reply to MarkSmith. | September 21, 2018 at 7:17 pm

      Agree – Couching it in terms that her activist “attorney” has until the end of the day Friday to work out terms of next week’s proposed hearing on Ford’s allegations opens the door for more delay, given the 10:00 AM Red Line was abandoned.

      President Trump could have told them to write “If you don’t agree, on behalf of your client, that she will testify in accordance with the normal Committee processes on Wednesday, September 26, 2018, we will hold a vote on the confirmation on that same date.”

      It is absurd that Republicans are employing the same negotiating techniques utilized by Bill Clinton and Obama with North Korea, and Obama’s Red Line technique.

        Ragspierre in reply to Vladtheimp. | September 21, 2018 at 7:26 pm

        Duh Donald does not dictate to the Senate.

        That might just be the very stupidest of all the stupid things he might do.

          Vladtheimp in reply to Ragspierre. | September 21, 2018 at 7:41 pm

          Duh – Did you miss that I wrote ” President Trump could have told them to write”?

          Since you missed it, notwithstanding your prodigious intellect, I was noting how a successful businessman could advise the politicians about negotiating strategy.

          Being someone who has negotiated multi-million dollar construction claims on behalf of my client, I know a little bit about the art.

          Your comment:

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 21, 2018 at 7:55 pm

          Duh Donald does not dictate to the Senate.

          That might just be the very stupidest of all the stupid things he might do.

          Don’t blame me for your lack of writing skills. Which are prodigious.

          Grassley has set Monday.

          Vladtheimp in reply to Ragspierre. | September 21, 2018 at 8:20 pm

          Apparently you don’t understand the difference between “could” and the Separation of Powers concept of “dictating.”

          My writing skills are fine – your comprehension skills are obviously lacking – maybe the same as your negotiating history.

        Ragspierre in reply to Vladtheimp. | September 21, 2018 at 8:33 pm

        “President Trump could have told them to write “If you don’t agree…”


        President T-rump could have suggested…proffered…offered…recommended…proposed…submitted…etc. This is how one writes for comprehension, unless you meant what you said.

        I’m WAY better at negotiations that Mssr. Arte d’Deal. Who, from his own ghost written book, is an asshole any good negotiator would walk out on.

        I have no basis to judge you as a negotiator. As a writer, you apparently have a prodigious amount on which you may yet aspire.

          Vladtheimp in reply to Ragspierre. | September 21, 2018 at 9:09 pm

          I guess you are referring to our President who won a large majority of voters over the whole country, as required by the Constitution – he is President Trump, not T-Rump.

          It amazes me that you don’t understand that my comment was what a businessman, or his or her lawyer or COO would know how to negotiate a simple issue:

          But I’m sure you can tell us about your professional experience in high dollar negotiations.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 21, 2018 at 9:27 pm

          I see you running away from the point.

          In reality, T-rump didn’t win by any majority of the popular vote. And many who voted did so to vote against the other slug who was given us by the nominating process. So, there’s that…

          Any good businessman, COO, lawyer, etc., would know not to tell senators what they “could” write. As I’ve said.

          It amazes me that you’ll stick by your crap with such adhesion.

          I’m just a simply country lawyer who negotiates complex litigation. And who’d walk away from the asshole portrayed in “The Art Of The Deal”. Maybe you’d eat that…???

      dmi60ex in reply to MarkSmith. | September 21, 2018 at 8:09 pm

      Gloria Alred is having a year book forged as we speak.

I drive 1440 miles from my house in NM to my house in GA, several times a year. I can either do it in one shot, which with stops puts it at about 24 hours or I break it into two 11 hour legs and it takes a day and a half. She’s had plenty of time to drive from Palo Alto to DC. If she’d left this morning, she’d be there by Sunday evening, even with stops to sleep.

    Chuckin Houston in reply to Sanddog. | September 21, 2018 at 8:27 pm

    I predict her drive will become a cross country caravan. Something like a multi-day circus parade.

    Beto O’Rourke will accompany her across Texas in his van. Liberal cities will have the town band playing at she arrives at their gate. Lots of Subaru driving muffin squeezers will follow her track, each with a yoga mat in the back of their Forrester or Outback.

    CNN, NBC, ABC, etc. helicopters will fly overhead filming it all like OJ in his Ford Bronco (maybe Ms. Ford will be driving a Ford?)

      History’s saddest road trip…

      That’s either his real name, Robert O’Rourke, or his Chris Salcedo nickname – Beta O’Rourke. That “Beto” nickname is for suckers who are more likely to vote for an ethnic Hispanic. There are ethnic Hispanics who have Irish patronymics, but O’Rourke’s family stepped off the boat from the “Ould Sod”.

Breaking…Senator Grassley Calls For A Kavanaugh Vote For Monday
Posted at 7:00 pm on September 21, 2018 by T.LaDuke…senator-grassley-calls-kavanaugh-vote-monday?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=breaking…senator-grassley-calls-kavanaugh-vote-monday&utm_content=0&utm_campaign=PostPromoterPro

Grassley said in a statement Friday that he is giving Ford’s lawyers until 10 p.m. on Friday to respond to the GOP request for her to testify on Wednesday. If they do not, or if Ford declines to testify, Grassley said the Judiciary Committee will vote Monday on Kavanaugh’s nomination.

“I’m providing a notice of a vote to occur Monday in the event that Dr. Ford’s attorneys don’t respond or Dr. Ford decides not to testify. In the event that we can come to a reasonable resolution as I’ve been seeking all week, then I will postpone the committee vote to accommodate her testimony. We cannot continue to delay,” Grassley said in a statement.

Collins seems desperate to avoid having to go on record with a vote. She’s still pretending she can’t make up her mind.

All along she’s made an impossible demand—that a judge promise how he’ll decide a hypothetical case which hasn’t even been made yet. Such a promise would be a repudiation of a judge’s proper function; therefore, any judge worthy of appointment to the SC can’t make it. As I’m sure Collins knows perfectly well. Therefore, we know that she’s never had any intention of voting to confirm any judge who isn’t a liberal activist.

So Collins is effectively voting “no” on Kavanaugh, but for political safety would like to deflect the blame to someone else—Ford, Ford’s lawyers, Feinstein . . . the President will do, even if she has to make up some irrelevant excuse.

If Grassley or McConnell can’t come up with some irresistible pressure to put on Collins, the only options are an immediate vote with hopes that a D’rat or two will defect—an impractically slim hope—or withdrawal of the candidate. I don’t see much advantage to submitting a weaker candidate; Trump may have to leave the SC short-handed until the composition of the Senate changes to something which makes Collins’s vote unneeded.

Of course that will convince the D’rats that the circus of imaginary character assassination is the way to handle any of Trump’s appointments. The D’rat and Liberal crowing and victory-dancing will be damn near unbearable, but there may be no alternative. But let’s keep the blame where it belongs—not on the D’rats or their Press allies, but with a few fake Republicans.

regulus arcturus | September 21, 2018 at 8:21 pm

The longer this farce continues, the more our system erodes, and baseless leftist accusations become legitimized instead of prosecuted.

    I disagree. In the present political reality, the right is being vindicated as best it may.

    The nation waits on answers, and those can only come from a limited set of people.

    Many of us know how things really stand. We all can take a lot of comfort from that knowledge. Liars will lie. Good people will be good.

Offer should have been “We vote on Monday, or we vote on Monday.” Testify in person, or testify in person. Like everyone else.”

Offer #2. “We feel like you’ve committed a felony, and once we recover the memory of what it was, or approximately what it was, or we’re told by an anonymous source what it was we may even name it. Meanwhile we’ll send you to to our partners in some other country we can’t remember to hang out and answer a few friendly questions. For your safety. All expenses paid. One Way.”

You can’t simply say, “no, none of this happened. You’re making this up.” We have to pretend that what this hyper partisan nut job says is reasonable and beyond reproach. At the most they say it was another guy, she’s mistaken.

We always believe the woman even when it’s a clear hit job. Welcome to the world of the feminist.

Ford’s attorney is delaying as long as she can because she already knows her client is a horrible witness and is going to get destroyed under any kind of questioning.

The reason we can’t see the original letter is because it contradicts what the story has morphed into and will only hurt her credibility.

This women is being used and it’s pure evil!

    Sanddog in reply to Merlin01. | September 22, 2018 at 2:59 am

    She’s not being used. Don’t make excuses for her. No one forced her to send that letter to Feinstein and she should have known it would be released to the public. If she didn’t, she’s too stupid to hold a degree or be employed.

If you look at most of the women saying that they believe her, you can see right away that they have never had any man/boy attempt to grope them. They simply do not understand the rite of passage that both boys and girls go through as teens. If the standard that the Dims are trying to pin on Kavanaugh were applied to all men alive today we would all be out of a job! For Ford to extrapolate that he was going to rape her and then possibly kill her is off the charts absurd. This is, of course, the view only if she is being truthful. How many of us on this site have had “One too many” at college or high school and then did something that we would later regret or not even remember? This is the most unfair incident I have seen in politics for a long time.