Image 01 Image 03

Kavanaugh Open Thread: Grassley Threatens to Cancel Monday’s Hearing if Ford Doesn’t Show Up

Kavanaugh Open Thread: Grassley Threatens to Cancel Monday’s Hearing if Ford Doesn’t Show Up

Ford wants a full FBI investigation before talking to the Senate.

Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her in high school, said she wanted to testify in front of the Senate.

The Republicans immediately made it known they wanted to hear from her. After all, these are serious accusations and she, along with all victims, deserve to be heard.

But Ford has not accepted the invite and now wants an FBI investigation before she testifies. Sen. Chuck Grassley said that if she doesn’t show up on Monday, the Senate will move on and schedule a confirmation vote for Kavanaugh.

Key Republican Senators on Track With Kavanaugh Confirmation

Unless Ford shows up on Monday, Kavanaugh looks to an easy confirmation in the Senate as those Republicans who voiced doubt earlier have gone back to pushing for the confirmation vote.

This includes Sen. Bob Corker and Sen. Jeff Flake. From The Daily Mail:

Republican Sen. Bob Corker, who called for a delay on the Kavanaugh confirmation vote after Ford went public on Sunday, is now saying she should testify in Monday’s scheduled hearing or the vote should proceed.

‘After learning of the allegation, Chairman @ChuckGrassley took immediate action to ensure both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have the opportunity to be heard, in public or private. Republicans extended a hand in good faith. If we don’t hear from both sides on Monday, let’s vote,’ he tweeted late Tuesday night.

Republican Sen. Jeff Flake was the first lawmaker to put Kavanaugh’s confirmation in doubt when he said Sunday he was ‘not comfortable voting yes’ on President Donald Trump’s nominee until the Senate Judiciary Committee heard from Ford.

He is now pleading with Ford to speak to lawmakers – either in public or private.

‘When Dr. Ford came forward, I said that her voice should be heard and asked the Judiciary Committee to delay its vote on Judge Kavanaugh. It did so. I now implore Dr. Ford to accept the invitation for Monday, in a public or private setting. The committee should hear her voice,’ he tweeted Tuesday night.

Sen. Susan Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski still have not committed to voting for Kavanaugh.

Grassley Sends New Letter to Ford’s Attorneys

Kavanaugh’s Wife Brings Cupcakes to Reporters Outside House

I know Kemberlee and I would do this. Ashley Kavanaugh brought out cupcakes to reporters who have camped outside of their house. From PJ Media:

On Tuesday night, the press added yet another indignity to the family of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. CBS News reporter Kathryn Watson revealed that reporters had besieged the family home of Kavanaugh. The judge’s wife, Ashley Estes Kavanaugh, had a very classy response to this situation.

“Per our CBS News cameraman at Kavanaugh’s house, his wife handed out cupcakes from Sprinkles to any of the photogs and producers who wanted them,” Watson tweeted.

Jim Treacher wanted to know why reporters have camped out at the Kavanaugh home and Drew Savicki from Decision Desk told him, “That’s what reporters do.”

PJ Media continued:

Savicki, thinking himself all sophisticated and in the know, thought Treacher just didn’t get the concept. “It’s called a media stakeout. You wait outside their house to track your subject’s movements,” he responded.

Treacher — rightly — did not dignify this response. He merely retweeted his own tweet asking “What do they think is going to happen at his house?”

That is the key question. Why would the media stakeout Kavanaugh’s house?

Morning Joe Supports Republicans Moving Forward With Kavanaugh

When you’ve lost Morning Joe….

A panel on the morning show took the side of the Republicans except for Nick Confessore of The New York Times. From Newsbusters:

MIKE BARNICLE: Don McGahn, White counsel, could call the FBI this morning and ask that an investigation be conducted — and I don’t know what they’d investigate at this time —

JOE SCARBOROUGH: I was going to say, Mike: investigation of what? What is this: 35, 36 years later?

BARNICLE: That’s the point, Joe.

. . .

SUSAN DEL PERCIO: If she [Ford] is not willing to be heard on Monday, what right does she have to delay this, or ask for the FBI investigation, which you so right point out will not show anything different than the fact testimony she’s going to offer?

. . .

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Everyone said, let her speak! Let her testify! Give her a moment to have her voice, let’s hear her story. I think she even said she would testify. So, I guess some could argue, and some Republicans could argue, this is moving the goalpost.

Dianne Blames Republicans…

Uh, okay. You’re the one who had the letter since July and didn’t even bring it up during your closed door meeting with Kavanaugh. As we have shown, Republicans have reached out to Ford and her lawyer.

But even Feinstein doesn’t know what’s “truthful.” From Fox News:

Senate Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday blamed Republicans for failing to get in touch with Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford ahead of a planned hearing on Monday, even as GOP leaders said they’ve made repeated attempts to reach out, and accused Feinstein of refusing to help.

Feinstein, who has vouched for Ford’s credibility, also admitted she could not verify that Ford’s allegations were entirely true.

“I have no say, I’m the lead Democrat. … I think it’s really too bad that no one called her, or called her lawyer,” Feinstein, D-Calif., told Fox News on Tuesday. “My understanding is she got emails. This is a woman who has been profoundly impacted by this. Now, I can’t say everything’s truthful. I don’t know. But I do know that you’ve got to contact her lawyers.” Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, did not respond to Fox News’ requests for comment Tuesday.

Former Classmate Denies Being at Party

Kavanaugh’s former classmate Patrick J. Smythe denies being at the party. From CNN:

Patrick J. Smyth attended Georgetown Prep — an all-boys school in North Bethesda, Maryland — alongside Kavanaugh. Both men graduated in 1983. Smyth signed a letter this summer, before the allegations against Kavanaugh were made public, testifying that Kavanaugh “is singularly qualified to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court,” along with dozen other of the school’s alumni.

Eric Bruce, who is representing Smyth, authored a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the committee. CNN has obtained a copy of the letter, which includes a quote from Smyth denying seeing any “improper conduct” from Kavanaugh.

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have.”

Trump: I’ll Have to “Make a Decision” if Ford Gives “Credible Testimony”

From Fox News:

President Trump said Wednesday he would have to “make a decision” about the future of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court if accuser Christine Blasey Ford gives “credible testimony” about her allegation.

Speaking to reporters outside the White House, the president said if Ford appears before the committee “and makes a credible showing, that will be very interesting and we’ll have to make a decision.”

“If she shows up, that would be wonderful,” Trump said. “If she doesn’t show up, that would be unfortunate.”

Yet it’s not clear if the California professor who claims Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than 35 years ago will ultimately accept an invitation to testify on Capitol Hill, amid an impasse with Republicans, who have invited her to document her claims Monday.

Ford Demands Full FBI Investigation

I guess short term memory loss has affected many people because Sen. Dianne Feinstein sent the FBI the letter when it became public and the agency turned down an investigation.

That hasn’t stopped Ford and others from demanding an investigation. From Reuters:

In a letter to the committee’s chairman, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, Ford’s attorneys said an FBI investigation needed to come first.

“A full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions,” the lawyers wrote. A copy of the letter was posted on the committee’s website. (

2018-09-18 Blasey Ford to G… by on Scribd

Grassley Responds

Ford wanted a hearing and she got one. I guess she wasn’t expecting the Republicans to be so accommodating? The Republicans said she could testify in public and even offered to have a third party to the questioning. They also said she didn’t have to sit anywhere near Kavanaugh.

They tried to use Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill as an excuse. From Fox News:

The lawyers, Debra Katz and Banks, said historical precedent supported the delay, echoing comments by Feinstein, who on Tuesday wrote on Twitter that the FBI had also “investigated Anita Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas,” the Supreme Court justice.

However, Thomas was accused of sexually harassing Hill while both worked at federal agencies, in potential violation of federal law; Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexual harassment that would fall well outside of any applicable federal or state statute of limitations because the alleged episode occured decades ago.

A law enforcement agent told Fox News that “[I]t’s totally inappropriate for someone to demand we use law enforcement resources to investigate a 35-year-old allegation when she won’t go under oath and can’t remember key details including when or where it happened.”

Plus it’s not a federal crime.

[Featured image via YouTube]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Memo for Democrats: When you’ve lost Bob Corker….

She’s never gonna show up. Yet another leftie bluff to try and destroy a decent man.
No show – go right to a vote.

Hell – if even Corker is ready to go.

Unfortunately, others are facing literal blackmail to sway their vote.

DJT’s move to declass, was a shot across the bow (which hopefully turns into a broadside), that this kind of fluckery is going to have consequences.

Republicans extended a hand in good faith.

That’s a worthless gesture.

The only thing leftists will accept is for Republicans to prostrate themselves, and admit they’re to blame.

    We know the gesture is futile. We do it anyway. That’s what civilized people do when dealing with barbarians.

    The *last* thing we should do is fall on our knees and beg forgiveness (as the Republicans have been doing for the last few decades whenever threatened). All that gets us is kicked in the ribs. Stand up. Offer the young lady an opportunity on Monday to testify under oath. When she doesn’t show, have the vote and send the nominee to the Senate, where he will be confirmed and move on to the Supreme Court. End of story.

      To clarify, she’s not a young lady.

      inspectorudy in reply to georgfelis. | September 19, 2018 at 7:46 pm

      You used the word “Civilized” but it only applies to the right side. The left has engaged in such uncivilized behavior and unethical as well that I do not see a way back for them. It’s like a shoplifter grabbing the store clerk after he has been caught and holding a knife to her throat. Once he went down that road there is no “Everything is ok” line. The Dims have gone too far and they cannot walk this one back. What they have attempted to do to Kavannaugh is total assassination not only of his character but his life’s work. His family will have to live with this lie and unlike Anita Hill, he will never be able to confront his accuser. There can be no bottom below the Senate’s Dims actions. I hope and pray that America sees them as the liars and charlatans they really are.

    Humphrey's Executor in reply to rinardman. | September 19, 2018 at 10:09 am

    Tactically, it was the right move. “We delayed the vote and gave every opportunity to tell her story, in public, in private, whatever. But she declined. So we’re moving on.”

    Exactly. There should be a consequence for this slander, else they will just do it again and again.

      There are consequences. They weaken their credibility.

      But what do Democrats expect: They call us deplorables, then dregs of society. They vilified milquetoast Mitt Romney as a monster who puts women in “binders,” they go after affable (if dumb) Jeb! with hammer and tongs and called his brother Bushitler, John McCain was a dangerous warmongering lunatic (back in 2004) until he was canonized as a Saint (after he was safely dead).

      Seriously, who cares anymore what they think.

      forksdad in reply to Fen. | September 19, 2018 at 9:12 pm

      There is no consequences. It worked with Moore. It may or may not work with Kavanaugh, but that doesn’t matter. They will NEVER stop using it because it keeps working.

      Why should they quit when there will never be consequences? This game is played one way; always to the left, no take-backs on the right.

      If I didn’t know the swamp was deep and full of Rinos as it is democrats I would be confused about this, but there really is a bifactional ruling party and they really do hate the rest of us.

    Ragspierre in reply to rinardman. | September 19, 2018 at 12:13 pm

    Politics, dude…!!!

    Remember, this is about perceptions in an election year with the female vote very much in play.

    The GOP has a fine line to walk, so the play is to indulge any colorable claim with a reasonable inquiry. Which isn’t facially a wrong idea. Yes, there’s a lot that goes into how much credence should be indulged, but to dismiss it out-of-hand isn’t just a bad idea, in this climate it’s a terrible idea.

      I suspected these claims were a lie or a case of mistaken identity (don’t all prep school boys look the same), but they should be heard out. Is it possible it is true? Of course. Hard to prove after 37 years, but ok.

      Ford has the opportunity to tell her story on Monday (privately or publicly). She does not, however, have a right to substantively delay the vote in a manner that is clearly partisan and politically motivated (at a minimum by the Democrats harping on it). Especially when there is no good reason why this could not have been raised sooner.

        tom_swift in reply to EBL. | September 19, 2018 at 8:52 pm

        . . . but they should be heard out.

        Rule #1 of victory—stop surrendering!

        Not every trash story merits a hearing.

Good move by Grassley!

One of the best encapsulations of this travesty I’ve read.

If she’s not there Monday…without special treatment…CALL THE VOTE.

    Anyone else catch to this:

    “Of course it is,” Kristol deadpanned. “But it’ll take a long time. Meanwhile, it’s still possible to live well.”

    Really explains NeverTrump Cuck Kristol.

      Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | September 19, 2018 at 10:56 am

      IFFFF you could even read without the crazy, you’d know that was IRVING, not Bill.

      Another lode of bullshit taken grossly out of context.

        “If it doesn’t support me it’s out of context!”


        Oh, Irving not Bill. My mistake.

        (See how easy that was, little troll? And I get bonus points for admitting I screwed up. One day, you’ll catch up)

        Intellectual integrity. Try it, Rags.

          Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | September 19, 2018 at 11:25 am

          I have it. You don’t.

          I posted a very fine piece. You posted bullshit to TRY to discredit it.


          Who’s the “troll”?

          Fen in reply to Fen. | September 19, 2018 at 11:36 am

          Now you’re just lying.

          The quote was attributed to “Kristol”, not Irving Kristol and not Bill Kristol. I wrongly assumed it was Bill and admitted my error when it was brought to my attention.

          As for integrity, we are still waiting for you to admit you misunderstood the definitions of “semi” and “auto”, as proven by Army, Navy and Air Force Field Manuals. And then there’s the renegotiated trade deals you insist would never happen, and on and on. Without end.

          Else, so us where you have EVER admitted you were wrong.

          Such a simple way for you to prove that you have intellectual integrity and you won’t be able to do it go ahead. Go ahead, prove me wrong…

          Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | September 19, 2018 at 11:53 am

          You make this too easy…

          “Judge Robert Bork used to tell a prescient and darkly humorous story about watching Clarence Thomas’s Senate confirmation hearings — etched in pre-hashtag history as the “Thomas–Hill hearings,” in homage to Anita Hill’s role as the Left’s heroic accuser.

          At the time, Thomas was a judge of the same eminent D.C. Circuit federal appeals court on which Bork had served. As he viewed Thomas’s “high-tech lynching” in horror, Bork recalled, a friend of his, the iconic Irving Kristol, approached and asked him what was happening.

          “The end of civilization,” the judge sadly quipped.

          “Of course it is,” Kristol deadpanned. “But it’ll take a long time. Meanwhile, it’s still possible to live well.”’

          A chain gun is not an “automatic” weapon. I’ll butt-hurt you any time you want to bring that up. Automatic weapons don’t require a motor to cycle. Chain guns DO…!!! That’s why they require a chain drive.


        Be honest: did you run out of meds?

Here’s to hoping she doesn’t show and they start to schedule confirmation voting!
Of course THEN Ford will decide she wants to be heard, in private, and there will be another attempt to muck up the confirmation timetable.

    Bucky Barkingham in reply to pwaldoch. | September 19, 2018 at 12:25 pm

    Predictions: She won’t show and when Grassley tries to schedule a vote the Leftists will stomp their feet and call him a meanie, so he will fold like a cheap lawn chair. Also on Monday we will have another spectacle of Leftist agitators putting on a show in the peanut gallery, complete with banners that they somehow manage to sneak past security.

    Circuses for the plebes.

      Grassley may not fold on us. There has to be thoughtful discussion going on with Grassley about how to end this. We know that the democrats will never give up and that they will never be satisfied.

regulus arcturus | September 19, 2018 at 9:21 am

Threaten her – no FBI investigation (FBI has confirmed). Stipulate that up front.

If she still insists, move the vote back to tomorrow.

She has zero right to influence government confirmation processes using uncorroborated sensational allegations.

Shut this farce down now.

Ford’s lawyer isn’t seeking justice for her client, obviously. She is seeking the delay of the confirmation hearing, and nothing else is even a consideration. She is executing a plan, where the only variable is whether Ford is an easily-manipulated and mentally unstable pawn, or part of the conspiracy. I suspect the latter.

    These are Democrats. What she’s really seeking is a big check.

    She’ll testify just as soon as somebody ponies up a few million $ for her story, and not one second before.

What is the FBI going to investigate ?
When – I dunno
Where – i dunno
Who was there – i dunno (mark judge maybe?
35+ years ago
Can you provide us with any info?
Uncoorperative accuser
Non federal crime.

    Exactly–I thought the same when someone said she’s passed a lie detector test.

    “Is it true you don’t remember when this took place?”
    “Is it true you don’t remember where the house was?”
    “Is it true you brought this up 30 years after the fact?”

    Easiest lie detector pass ever.

      This is Stalinism, folks.

      Think hillary klinton’s high crimes; and john kerry’s recent crimes in Iran; and Lois Lerner; the sedition James O’Keefe just exposed at the State Department.

      How, think about what America’s highest elected officials (the leftist loons, at least) are getting hysterical about with Kavanahgh: nothing, but pure character assassination. All that’s missing is the Gulag.

      #metoo; #blacklivesmatter; #antifa; Lois Lerner; reverse sexism; letters to Feinstein…

      We are ONE election away from a reign of terror by the Justice Department and the IRS and the rest of the Federal Government.

      thalesofmiletus in reply to hrhdhd. | September 19, 2018 at 6:21 pm

      Polygraphs from accusers is basically the George Costanza gambit: “Jerry, it’s not a lie if you believe it!”

D..D…D…Death Threats! Whew! No one saw that one coming!


    And because of the alleged “death threats” the Drama Queen has had to “move out of her home for the safety of her family.”

    Me me me! I had “death threats” at 3-1 in yesterday’s thread! Check and see!

    What did I win? What did I win?

    Oh… A set of steak knifes. That’s… nice.

One other point to consider –
During my high school years, we rarely associated with students of a different grad. Other than friends of my brothers, I probably know less than 10 students of the other grades.

Same is true of my daughters, none of their friends were in different grades.

the ages of 15 vs 17 – Senior vs soph or junior vs freshman. Seems very unlikely that there was much opportunity to met up. especially if the party was only attended by 4 guys and 2 girls. Based on my memory of high school years, that interaction seems unlikely.

    AmandaFitz in reply to Joe-dallas. | September 19, 2018 at 10:49 am

    I went to Holton-Arms and we knew more boys from St. Albans and Landon, not so much Georgetown Prep. Gorsuch was in her grade level at Georgetown Prep, two years behind Kavanaugh, so I’m surprised she didn’t accuse HIM!

      Supposedly she was going to, but her handlers decided not to.

      Petrushka in reply to AmandaFitz. | September 19, 2018 at 11:36 am

      In her 2102 counselling session, she left the name of the accused blank, to be filled in as needed.

        VinceBrewster in reply to Petrushka. | September 19, 2018 at 2:56 pm

        Not according to her husband, from what I’ve read — he named Kavanaugh. Furthermore, according to the article, she and her husband scheduled couples therapy (or psychotherapy? — isn’t that for psychos?) when Romney was leading in the polls and they feared he would nominate Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court if a vacancy occurred.

        If that’s the case, it would seem than the plan currently being executed has been in play for the last six years.

      It seems that Chi-stein had a problem with presenting her letter, thus sitting on it for 6 wks, because she wrote the same letter against Gorsuch. Chi-stein had that one also. That letter has, mysteriously, disappeared. Daily Caller had it on yesterday.

    MarkSmith in reply to Joe-dallas. | September 19, 2018 at 12:40 pm

    Little bit of Doxing research you will find out where she lives. Palo Alto is a liberal world, so I am guessing those death threats are not too serious. but I would be concern because she does have two boys. The liberals are the ones to act out violent.

    They live in a modest house what is assessed at 1.5 M. Not high rent stuff where they are living at.

    As for her high school days, here is an interesting link:

    It Will Not End Well For Christine Margaret Blasey by Publius Tacitus

      Joe-dallas in reply to MarkSmith. | September 19, 2018 at 2:53 pm

      Interesting comment in your article was the Christine Blazing had a reputation as a troubled teenager.

      A second point is that another person named as being at the party states that the event did not happen

      Third point – A large pool of psychologist and psychiartist enter the profession because they themselves have issues they are dealing with.

      As more information is becoming available, the more skeptical I am becoming.

      Valerie in reply to MarkSmith. | September 19, 2018 at 6:50 pm

      Good snag. Country clubs are like small towns.

Oops. Perhaps Ford should consider finding a new lawyer and replacing Feinstein as her enabler in the senate. The following from the Washington Examiner…

“Early Monday morning, Ford lawyer Debra Katz told CNN that Ford would appear if asked.

“Will your client, Christine Ford, be willing to testify in public to the Judiciary Committee?” asked anchor Alisyn Camerota.

“The answer is yes,” said Katz.”

Wait for it… another accuser will come out of the wood-work over the weekend.

    guyjones in reply to Paul. | September 19, 2018 at 10:04 am

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the Dumb-o-crats find a way to play off of the recent Catholic Church abuse scandals. So, perhaps the next accuser will be a man, alleging that Kavanaugh aided and abetted priests in the decades-long molestation of altar boys. While simultaneously torturing puppies and sacrificing kittens to Satan.

If anyone had doubts about the motives of the accuser and the validity of her allegation, the call for an FBI investigation confirms it to be an utter sham. Playing the FBI card is a transparent smokescreen. It only confirms that this entire disgusting, sociopath stunt is about one thing, and, one thing, only — delaying/preventing Kavanaugh’s ascendancy to SCOTUS, while simultaneously destroying him on a personal level so thoroughly, that large numbers of future GOP judicial nominees will reject appointments, to avoid putting themselves and their families through the same sausage-grinder thrashing.

Grassley made the valid point — what the heck does this woman need an FBI investigation to be carried out, to testify as to events that she claims she experienced first-hand, and, has personal knowledge of?

so…the fbi is supposed to investigate something that happened in an unknown location at an unknown time AND since its not a federal crime also investigate unlawfully.

Kavanaugh’s accuser Christine Ford has named another person she says was at the party: PJ Smyth, another Georgetown Prep student.

Smyth has now issued a statement saying that he has no knowledge of any such party as Ford describes, and that he never saw Kavanaugh assault anybody, and considers Kavanaugh to be a person of great integrity.

From the Smyth letter (as reported by CNN): “I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post. I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”

The reason for the delay in accepting the invite, is that she and her slimeball attorney have been doing practice testifying sessions and she cannot disguise the fact that she is lying through her teeth. Her attorney knows that she will come off as a liar. Unless she can coach her to be able to lie like Schmuck Schumer it ain’t gonna happen.

    nomadic100 in reply to Sky2u. | September 19, 2018 at 12:20 pm

    Ford needs lying lessons from Hillary Clinton, liar par excellence!

      Actually, Hillary is not a particularly good liar, like her husband.

      Her many lies are easily refuted, but we have a Press that simply isn’t interested in pointing them out to their audience

    guyjones in reply to Sky2u. | September 19, 2018 at 12:49 pm

    This woman has had thirty-six years to get the details of her allegedly “traumatic” story straight — but, apparently, that still isn’t sufficient time.

    Which only lends weight to the belief that this entire narrative was only recently-contrived, and, that it is manifestly and transparently false. Only bald-faced liars need time and practice to stand in front of a mirror and attempt to perfect their acting and storytelling skills.

CaliforniaJimbo | September 19, 2018 at 10:21 am

This entire circus stinks like 2 day old elephant dung. I expect the dems to come up with another delay tactic unless they get the message that this isn’t going to work. This is all to appease the Resist movement and throw shade on Judge Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court tenure. If they (the Dems) were serious, why are they icing out Ellison’s ex girlfriend. With actual 911 calls / police report and corroboration, that one should be a slam dunk.

    You’re probably right; I expect the Dems to come up with yet another stall tactic within the next couple of days if Ford doesn’t show up on Monday.


“But Ford has not accepted the invite and now wants an FBI investigation before she testifies”

Read her statement carefully. She said she would be WILLING to testify, not that she would actually testify. Two different things when dealing with word weasels on the Left.

Looks like the latest move by the Democrats is to “insist” on having an FBI investigation opened. There are a LOT of articles with headlines saying that the accuser is demanding an FBI investigation when in fact the demand originated with the Senate Democrats (curiously unnamed in the article by the New York Times). The New York Times corrects the headline about halfway through the article.

The demand from the Senators (gee, which ones?) was made after the letter had been turned over to the FBI, which filed it and declined further action.

The New York Times also includes an unsourced fact supporting the accuser’s credibility:

“A person close to Blasey, who asked not to be identified to discuss her situation in detail, said Blasey knew Kavanaugh in passing before the gathering where she says the attack took place, which could make it harder for his defenders to make a claim that she had confused him with someone else.”

This is unethical bolstering by a “news”paper known for printing unsourced statements that later turn out to be false. Local and regional papers do not print statements like this.

I am not linking to this article because it is FAKE NEWS.

    If Dems were acting in good faith, they would have called for the FBI to investigate back in July when Ford first contacted them.

    Besides, who here still trusts the FBI to hold a thorough and fair investigation?

      Tom Servo in reply to Fen. | September 19, 2018 at 11:28 am

      Calling for the FBI to “investigate” is itself an act of bad faith. The FBI has no jurisdiction in such a case; if there were any investigating to be done, then the complaint should be made to the local police force, which does have jurisdiction. BUT they would ask for pesky little details like where did it happen, and what day did it happen, and answers like “well somewhere in Maryland” and “about 35 years ago” aren’t going to play very well with whoever takes that complaint.

        Ragspierre in reply to Tom Servo. | September 19, 2018 at 3:37 pm

        Really? They don’t do background investigations for judicial appointees?

        Who did the six he’s previously been through?

          geez, Mr Lawyer, they are demanding an FBI investigation of the alleged crime, one the FBI has no jurisdiction over, that has passed well beyond the expiration date even if there were any validity.

          They are not requesting a background investigation.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 19, 2018 at 10:24 pm

          Geezl, Mr. Nobody, prove they were demanding a criminal investigation.

          Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | September 20, 2018 at 1:13 am

          Are you trying to make a fool of yourself, Rags? Ford’s ambulance chaser Debra Katz has said several times that it isn’t up to her client to establish the validity of her thirty six year allegations. That’s the job of law enforcement and the Senate. Establishing the validity of her claim would require a criminal investigation.

          You may not understand for some reason that Ford through her attorneys is demanding a criminal investigation, but the FBI does. They know exactly what these clowns are demanding, which is why they declined to investigate on the grounds that no one has alleged a federal crime had been committed. And in any case no law enforcement agency would investigate the validity of a criminal allegation over three decades old with a statute of limitations of three years.

          As opposed to a background investigation. Do you know how much effort the FBI would put into such an ancient allegation if they felt like putting in the motions of a through background investigation? They’d call the agencies that had jurisdiction to investigate the alleged crime, the Chevy Chase Village PD and the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office since Ford has no idea whether the house is in the incorporated or unincorporated part of Chevy Chase, and ask them if they had any reports of the incident. After both told them “Nope” that would be the end of it. They wouldn’t launch their own investigation into criminal allegations, and they’re not now.

          That’s the difference between a criminal investigation and a background investigation. Katz et al are demanding a criminal investigation, even if you don’t have the sense to realize it the FBI does, and they’re not going to do one. They just updated Kavanaugh’s latest background investigation. How? They added the letter to Kavanaugh’s file. That’s the only action required for a background investigation. They’re not even going to bother making two phone calls because it would be a waste of time as they already checked with the two Maryland law enforcement departments the first time they did a background invetigation. Now it doesn’t seem like Ford and her attorneys Katz and Banks are satisfied with that, are they? Because they want something more than a background investigation. What kind of investigation are they demanding, Rags?

    State Sovereignty National Untion in reply to Valerie. | September 19, 2018 at 1:11 pm

    FBI refuses to do another fake ‘investigation’! Commits deep state treason.

    Dem party blue in livid anger ‘What do you mean NO, that’s what you’re there for’!!

    Media ‘OMG what if Trump actually wins this one’?!!! Defcon, all hands, hold line at all costs.

    GOPe, ‘what just happened’?

    Stay tuned.

OH for heaven’s sake! Since when is a 17 year old drunk boy trying to feel up a 15 year old girl who has also been drinking THIRTY SIX YEARS AGO a federal crime?

She doesn’t remember how she got to the party, who else was at the party, where the party was held or even what month or year the party was held? There literally is nothing to investigate.

This is nothing more than a scam to get Kavanaugh to withdraw his nomination.

Is it not customary for a complaint to filed before a local law enforcement authority takes action?

If the FBI has a cause in action, would it not be for the liar using interstate communication to promulgate a false claim?

I suppose the FBI should also be called in for truancy cases or even wearing politicaly insensitive t-shirts.

If Ford is a no show, VOTE IMMEDIATELY.
Don’t waver, don’t waffle, don’t listen to the cries and tantrums from the usual suspects – VOTE.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to HamiltonNJ. | September 19, 2018 at 11:27 am

    I think she shows.

    Ford’s lawyer risked nothing demanding the FBI investigation. Republicans usually cave. Why not give it a shot?

    The big decision she had to make is whether she wanted to remain anonymous or to go public. She chose (or was forced by Democrats leaking the existence of her letter) to go public with her identity. If she does not testify now, it damages her credibility. At least in my eyes.

    She’ll be under oath, but if she lies how can it be proven?

    I’ll be surprised if she does not show.

      “…but if she lies how can it be proven?”

      How about if she finally tries to establish some credibility and says the infamous drunken attempted rape party in the Summer of 82 took place in July.

      And Kavanaugh can prove his “elitist” (Ford’s word) parents had a beach house in North Carolina and he was there the entire month. So she starts guessing, “I meant June” and he turns and smiles and says, “I spent the whole summer at the beach house.” And he has witnesses.

      That’s the kind of thing that sank “Jackie” and Rolling Stone. She said she was at a frat party on a particular weekend. The frat didn’t have a party that weekend. She identified a particular frat boy as one of her rapists. The frat boy could prove he was away from campus the whole weekend. Etc., etc, etc.

A hearing would progress pretty much like a trial. Not exactly like a trial but pretty close.

This is not just an attempt to sink Kavanaugh but to rewrite the rules for trying rape.

Perhaps if the Republicans maintain the Senate after the elections, during committee assignments, they could limit the democrat committee members to one or two positions.

This has a benefit to democrat members, they would have more time to go out and enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayer and become multimillionaires even faster.

They may be “serious” accusations, but they’re not credible. They’re decades late and lacking in basic, but important details. There are no contemporaneous accounts or evidence. The only other identified alleged parties and witnesses have all denied even being at any such party or behaving in the manner described. There’s no evidence of this type of behavior. To the contrary, by all accounts Kavanaugh has been a model citizen, in addition to being an excellent jurist.

Plus, it is obvious Christine Blazing Fraud doesn’t want to testify and the Democrats don’t want her to testify as that would expose their scheme for a fraud that it is. They went from “she needs to be heard” to “withdraw the nomination” at warp speed when nothing changed. It’s all a ploy to delay and obstruct. That Republicans and even Trump are being so gracious as to allow this Bernie-loving, pussy-hat wearing leftist member of the “resistance” even say her piece is remarkable. That she and the Dems aren’t accepting is just more proof it’s all a giant scam.

Like the ubiquitous toothy grin photo of Lisa Page, this sunglass shot of Blasey Ford will be posted everywhere.

Very odd that there is only the one recent picture of this woman circulating. Saw one of her at a protest, but you could not really see her closely.

    G. de La Hoya in reply to elle. | September 19, 2018 at 1:33 pm

    I was thinking the same thing. One pic maybe high school and the one pic with shades. Does she even exist? Reminds me of the lonely guy that keeps the beautiful woman in the purchased picture frame 😉

I expect the next shoe is CBF appearing in Maryland and filing charges against Kavanaugh.

Nope, at least not criminal. Maryland is good that throwing those cases out. Catholic church as some good wins here.

Notice how the story has gone from attempted rape to rape?

State Sovereignty National Untion | September 19, 2018 at 12:45 pm

Must be very discouraging for Dems to see one of their only well-functioning DNC affiliates choose not to create a reason to ‘investigate’ these ‘allegations’. T45 has FBI peering out of the fort watching for more incoming.

Most likely T45 was wanting SCOTUS confirmation before issuing his timely E.O. but now he’s up in the rigging looking down on the 7th floor. ‘Damn the torpedoes’.

When Trump said he ‘would teach them how to win’ do you think he had any idea how hard that would be?

I’d like to see her and Trey Gowdy have a long conversation.

I could make a fortune in popcorn sales watching that go down.

The Leftists fear Kav on Scotus for one main reason. All their arguments on appeals will have to be base upon US Law, not bogus Social Justice schemes.

A guess. I think this woman has made such claim (s) before. And I think Feinstein knows it. Hence Feinstein’s equivocation. One of the worst liars in the Senate, she has done this equivocation routine before. My guess is this is not Feinstein’s first contact with this woman. She knows her.

Well I think Soro is linked to this:

Debra Katz, the attorney representing Kavanaugh’s accuser — Christine Blasey Ford — is vice chair of the Project on Government Oversight, an organization that has been directly funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundation.

Combined with her brothers connection to Baker-Hostler/Fusion GPS, I think the fixers are out in full force.

    Arminius in reply to MarkSmith. | September 19, 2018 at 4:56 pm

    I linked to the letter that POGO sent to Grassley and Feinstein essentially demanding that they comply with all the demands that the Democrats were making to delay the hearings until all the documents the Dems were requesting from the National Archives were delivered on this thread.

    I don’t want to link to POGO again as I’ll need another shower. Suffice to say it was a dishonest letter. Kavanaugh submitted half a million pages of documents, more than any other nominee in history. More than the last five nominees combined. POGO referred to that unprecedented document production as “a limited set of records.” But the Dems (and POGO) didn’t really want to see the documents they requested. It was just a delaying tactic. The documents were irrelevant as they were emails that crossed Kavanaugh’s desk when he was Bush’s Staff Secretary. He didn’t actually produce the content of those emails that either originated with Cabinet officers and went to Bush or went the other way.

    The whole point was to make impossible demands. The National archivists couldn’t produce those millions of documents within Trump’s second term, and they were demanding that GWB be intimately involved in the process, flagging every single on of the documents he wished to declare executive privilege over and explain why. It was a naked delay tactic. I doubt they could have produced those documents by 2030.

    And Debra Katz is vice chair on the POGO board so she was intimately involved. This is just another one of her delaying tactics.

    Grassley and the other GOP committee members need to be prepared for especially vicious political circus on Monday. I expect more ambushes from the committee Dems, the other Capital Hill Dems, and from Ford, Katz, et al. Which will continue all the way until the midterm elections.

      Arminius in reply to Arminius. | September 19, 2018 at 5:03 pm

      If you want to verify that Debra Katz is vice chair of the POGO board, just go to the other thread and find the link (search for my name on the page). At the top of the page hosting the letter click on the about button. On the about page click on the board & staff button on the right side. If it defaults to staff, there’s a board button at the top of the page. Scroll down down and you’ll find her. She also has a pic of her ugly mug so you’ll see it’s the same Debra Katz who is representing Ford.

I believe the FBI can only investigate accusations that might result in criminal charges. The fact that 36 years have passed, far beyond the statute of limitations, means that no criminal charges would be likely in any version of the truth. Also, since Kavanaugh was 17 at the time, any charges would have to be filed in juvenile court.

I suspect that Ford doesn’t want to testify under oath. Complaining anonymously to her Democratic representative didn’t have a down side. But testifying under oath with all the TV cameras watching would invite perjury charges if anyone watching on TV comes forward and provides further evidence that the event never happened. Combined with Smyth’s testimony, an additional witness would (or at least should) ensure a perjury charge.

“Unless Ford shows up on Monday, Kavanaugh looks to an easy confirmation…”

Ahh, but what if she shows up, and (tearfully) “recovers” some of of those long-lost who-what-where-when-how memories?

    Arminius in reply to Albigensian. | September 20, 2018 at 1:39 am

    Then Kavanaugh and the others she has accused of either being complicit or just present can blow her story apart by proving they were no where near the place.

    Which is why her story is so vague in the first place. It makes it impossible for Kavanaugh and his friends to provide alibis. Which is the point.

“Second woman” at party published it was talked about for days but when pushed retracts and hunkers down. Roach meet light?

Dems must continue to stir hysteria. Time is of the essence.

I wonder if the marital counseling was for infidelity or some such as someone else noted and this would be a convenient excuse for marriage problems.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley told the lawyers of Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of high school-era sexual assault, if she wants to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee she must have prepared testimony submitted by Friday morning.

So, now he wants her testimony in writing.

    mailman in reply to amwick. | September 20, 2018 at 8:13 am

    If she doesn’t submit her testimony by 10am Friday morning then its game over for her and they, I assume, will move on to the vote.

Ed Whelen predicts…and he’s a pretty smart cookie who knows stuff…

If she knows what’s good for her bank account she will show up and cry like her financial future depends on it.

She is sitting on a gold mine here and if she turns the water works on and just goes completely over the top liberals will donate to her go fund me account like crazy.

The truth means nothing to the left.

A warlock hunt based on a concoction of emotion, guile, and opportunism. There be babies at the twilight fringe… the penumbra.

Are any reporters camped outside Ford’s home? If not, why not?

This woman’s lawyer now says that having he client testify under oath at a Judiciary Committee hearing would be “contrary to the Committee discovering the truth.”

I don’t even….

    That’s funny, Col. That says a lot about the client, and none of it good. This lawyer just called her client a liar who can’t be expected to testify truthfully under oath.

    Ford’s attorney: “Senator Grassley, I’m warning you. If you want your committee to discover the truth, the last thing you want is for my client to testify under oath!”

How is she getting death threats … Didn’t she delete her social media

My admiration of and respect for Senator Grassley could not be any greater. The absolutely stellar way he has handled this circus, with his thoroughly courteous, no bullshit, take-no-prisoners approach has been awesome to watch. To the extent any one person can, he has given me a glimmer of hope for the future.