Image 01 Image 03

Kavanaugh Open Thread: Hearing Set for Monday, But Will Accuser Show Up?

Kavanaugh Open Thread: Hearing Set for Monday, But Will Accuser Show Up?

Ford has not responded to the invitation.

Hopefully today is a little calmer than yesterday when it comes to Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. We learned Monday evening that the Senate postponed his confirmation vote and scheduled a hearing on Monday with him and the woman who has accused him of sexual assault.

Except she hasn’t accepted the invitation yet.

Once again, if you come across anything, please leave it in the comment section.

Doubting Dianne?

Looks like Sen. Dianne Feinstein is unsure if Ford is truthful.

Kavanaugh’s Classmate Won’t Testify

From Politico:

GOP senators are pressing ahead with a rare public hearing next week on Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh despite not yet getting her agreement to testify.

Another key witness in Ford’s decades-old allegation, Kavanaugh’s high school classmate Mark Judge, also declined to testify Tuesday. Judge, who Ford says was the third person in the room when Kavanaugh assaulted her, said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that “I have no more information to offer the committee and I do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents.”

Trump Defends Kavanaugh

Collins has Demands

Collins also confused as to why Ford hasn’t responded:

“That’s very puzzling to me. I have said from the beginning that these are very serious allegations and she deserves to be heard. She’s now being given an opportunity to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee and to answer questions and I really hope that she doesn’t pass up that opportunity,” Collins said to a group of reporters in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Tuesday morning.

Grassley Threatens to Cancel Monday Hearing

If the Senate does not hear from Christine Blasey Ford, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has threatened to cancel Monday’s hearing. From Fox News:

Grassley, R-Iowa, scheduled a hearing for Monday for Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford to answer questions from senators about the allegation. But Grassley said during a Tuesday radio interview that his office has reached out several times to Ford and her attorneys to discuss her allegation, but has heard nothing back.

“We have reached out to her in the last 36 hours three or four times by email and we have not heard from them, and it kind of raises the question, do they want to come to the public hearing or not?” Grassley said on The Hugh Hewitt Show.

Asked whether there would be a hearing if Ford did not agree to appear, Grassley suggested he couldn’t see a reason to hold one.

“What would be the purpose of the hearing if Dr. Ford doesn’t want to respond?” Grassley said.

White House Contacting Women in Kavanaugh’s Past

From CNN:

The plan, the officials said, will rely heavily on women who will attest to Kavanaugh’s good character — including from his teenage years, during which he is alleged to have sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford.

The White House has been contacting many of the 65 women who signed a letter in support of Kavanaugh that was released after an anonymous allegation of sexual assault surfaced — before Ford emerged this weekend to put a name and a face to her accusation — to see if they would be willing to publicly back him in the coming week. Many of those women, one official said, are prepared to publicly defend Kavanaugh.

Some of those women and other female surrogates will be out front this week attesting to his character. Already on Monday, women who worked with Kavanaugh in the administration of President George W. Bush began to release statements expressing their support for him as part of a campaign to defend the federal judge’s integrity using the hashtag #IStandWithBrett.

“I’ve known Judge Brett Kavanaugh for nearly 20 years,” wrote Sara Fagen, the former Bush White House political director. “I don’t believe he would ever harm any person, let alone assault a woman. These eleventh hour allegations as he was about to be confirmed to the Supreme Court reflect the sad state of American politics today. He’s a good man, a brilliant jurist, and he does not deserve to have his good name ruined because the base of the Democratic party doesn’t want a conservative on the Supreme Court.”

Hearing on Monday

Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford seemed eager to get in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee to tell their stories. Fox News reported that Ford has not responded:

Much has been made of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s invitation to testify before an open hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee next week — but it’s not set in stone yet she will actually show.

Fox News is told that the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday night reached out to Ford’s lawyers to invite her to Monday’s open hearing to discuss her allegation of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but she has not responded yet.

Ford, a California-based professor, revealed her identity over the weekend in a Washington Post report. She said that Kavanaugh, while in high school, pinned her down, tried to remove her bathing suit and put his hand over her mouth when she attempted to scream. Kavanaugh has denied the allegation.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | September 18, 2018 at 9:09 am

“The Anita Hill to Die on…”

    IBD via Ace at the above link:

    “This is about sending a warning.

    Democrats are warning conservatives, and those who would appoint them, that they will do anything to derail their nominations. That includes flagrant attempts at character assassination — even if that requires throwing out unverifiable allegations from the distant past at the 11th hour.

    At this point, the only real question that needs an answer is whether Republicans will reward Democrats for their craven attempts to scare highly qualified conservatives away from public service.”

    I’ll take “Death Threats” at 3-1

    “Dr Ford is now too terrified to testify in public due to the numerous death threat emails from right wing Nazis that we refuse to show you or forward to FBI”

    Wait for it, in 3.. 2…1

At this point, if she died of natural causes tomorrow, the Deemocrats would HAVE to drag her body into the hearing room. It is extremely unlikely she won’t show.

    I disagree–by not showing, she and the dems can delay the proceedings further. Unlike Kavanaugh, she will suffer no ill press because of it. In fact, the press will continue to tout her strength in the face of adversity.

      Ragspierre in reply to MTED. | September 18, 2018 at 9:30 am

      I disagree. This schedule has given her plenty of time to show up and be prepared (more than I would have suggested).

      A failure to appear would be seen by a lot of people as a sign she has nothing to tell, and any move for more delay would be easily quashed with little or no political consequence. It could…and should…be portrayed as a crass delaying tactic and swept aside.

      Call the vote.

        Indeed. I would have called for several hours of testimony starting Thursday morning with the Committee vote still held afterwards. I don’t expect any real change in the factual presentation, though who knows what the Democrats will sink to. The Democrats will vote in lockstep, both in Committee and on the floor. The usual suspects, Flake, Corker, Collins and Murkowski will be the “king makers” or assassins. I’m reasonably sure Flake is looking for any thin cover to vote against the President. Corker will probably cave to pressure, but from which side? I could be wrong, but suspect that Collins and Murkowski will vote to confirm as I don’t see Kavanaugh blowing it at the hearing.

          The Packetman in reply to Edward. | September 18, 2018 at 11:34 am

          I’m with you except instead of several hours of testimony, I’d have allotted 4, starting at 8:00am, with the vote to be held at 2. If Ford doesn’t show, then the vote comes earlier (like 08:30).

          No speech-making, no pontificating, and no hem-hawing … vote.*

          And looking at Trumps vote totals, if Corker is coming back to TN he’ll vote to confirm (though Hamilton Co. totals are nothing to write about).

          *Extra cojones points if Feinstein is given notice of an ethics charge right before questioning begins.

        Rags is probably right on that. Even Flakey Jeff would probably vote to move her along, and Murkowski and Collins would have cover to vote yes too.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | September 18, 2018 at 1:41 pm

        I agree and I think Sen. Collins recent statements bear that out. If she doesn’t show then the squishies in the GOP can vote yes and say; “We gave her a chance.”

        iconotastic in reply to Ragspierre. | September 18, 2018 at 2:12 pm

        I don’t think the lies are over. Katz has already claimed there was another girl at this party, though she refuses to provide the name. I am looking for this woman and at least another to come forward with equally unlikely stories before Monday.

        I think you underestimate the depth of Democrat dishonesty.

          Evan3457 in reply to iconotastic. | September 18, 2018 at 4:12 pm

          Possible. Very possible.
          And the tactical error was giving the Left 7 days to come up with these women and polish their “acts” up. They should’ve heard from both Ford and Kavanaugh early Thursday, and held the vote late on Thursday.

          Chuckin Houston in reply to iconotastic. | September 18, 2018 at 5:04 pm

          Katz threw out the presence of another woman when she was on TV this past Sunday but didn’t name her. The ‘victim’ apparently forgot this fact in her letter to DiFi. No name was mentioned because Ford and Katz don’t know yet who she’ll be. Probably someone who was living in the DC and of about the right age to have been at the party. They may have to hold auditions for the role.

          “I think you underestimate the depth of Democrat dishonesty.”

          Just about everybody does.

      MajorWood in reply to MTED. | September 18, 2018 at 10:35 am

      Will we get a memorable car-chase through San Francisco in a Shelby Mustang?

    She may be having some qualms about going in front of the entire world and committing obvious and blatant perjury, even if the chances of her being sanctioned for it fall somewhere around zero.

The Left says that “every woman should be believed;” I say “Duke Lacrosse.”

Given that I believe the Republicans do not have the stones to actually subject Ford to significant examination of her claims, there is absolutely no downside for Ford to show up. I think the Republicans will prefer wishy washy questions which they believe will not cause “people” to dislike them for “again abusing” the accusing woman.

Meanwhile the Democrats refused to join the Republicans in extending the invitation to Ford. This means nothing as they will show up, whether Ford does or does not, to take advantage of the further effort to grandstand and accuse Kavanaugh of actual rape of at least a dozen or two other women who preferred to remain anonymous.

Anonymous of a sort different from the anonymity of Ford who sent a letter to her Congresswoman and phoned the WaPo tipline in July. Hired an attorney in July or early August and took a polygraph test in August. September saw her “Scrub” her social media presence of all political content which she had the ability to clear. I wonder what additional steps she would have taken had she known she was going to be identified as the accuser?

    Occasional Thinker in reply to Edward. | September 18, 2018 at 9:57 am

    The only thing that would have kept her from being identified was something actually supported by evidence being revealed. If this had been reported to police when it happened it is doubtful, considering the time period it occurred, that it would have been considered a crime beyond underage possession of alcohol and even if it was charged as a crime the records would have been sealed for juveniles. She lawyered up and started a paper trail just in case and then everything was sat on until the last minute when nothing else appeared.

    Ragspierre in reply to Edward. | September 18, 2018 at 9:58 am

    Every good trial attorney knows how to very effectively interrogate a sympathetic witness in ways that don’t alienate a jury.

    There are some good interrogators on the panel, and they can hire others.

    As some have noted here, there’s a lists of obvious questions that Americans want answered by Mrs. Ford, and they can be put carefully and effectively.

    Of course there will be more bullshit from the Deeocrats. That’s baked in the cake, and it won’t change a single vote in the body politic.

      Gods, you’re naive.

      This is not a courtroom, this is a political circus. My realm if expertise, not yours.

      “It’s their idea. Any move we make on it, we lose”

        Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | September 18, 2018 at 3:40 pm

        It’s all the psychology of persuasion.

        I understand that you and a few others here think the Code Pink nutters and shrieking banshees are just super effective.

        That’s because you don’t much believe in the American voter. Keep calm.

      EnquiringMind in reply to Ragspierre. | September 18, 2018 at 3:02 pm

      What if she is telling the truth? She has stuck to her story over the years, although she did not tell anyone contemporaneously. Do you skillfully cut her to pieces, anyway? Does the truth matter?

      Unlike true predators, this appears to have been a singular act. What if it is true and Kavanaugh simply said something like: ‘For a period of time I hung out with a guy. We often got very drunk. I don’t remember this, but I am sincerely sorry’. In politics, isn’t the coverup often worse than the crime?

      When the first accusation came out about Franken, I knew there would be more.

      Clarence Thomas had more than more than 1 accuser; although only 1 was allowed to testify. At least 1 other was ready, willing and able.

      Clinton had a bucket full; although there is only one who claims it was not consensual. Juanita Broaddrick’s story has not remained constant.

      Well, Kavanaugh can always point out that he was only 17. We don’t treat the crimes of 17 year old children the way we treat adults.

It doesn’t take too much research into Christine Blasey Ford’s college ratings to find out she is a vindictive leftist. The reviews left by students on the “rate my professor” are some of the most negative I have seen.

    Occasional Thinker in reply to Tsquared. | September 18, 2018 at 10:03 am

    I have seen comments a couple of places that the ratings being referenced are for Christine Ford at a different California university. Same first and last name but a different person. I think that may be why many articles are including her maiden name to differentiate.

I don’t see why there couldn’t be a chorus of, “What evidence do you have to support your assertions?” and when the answer is “none,” “Do you not see the essential unfairness in leveling serious accusations sans evidence, and thus which can be never be shown to be either true or false”? Perhaps with a few references to the late Tailgunner Joe.

It’s not a court of law, it’s a political show. It’s necessary to behave accordingly: point out the essential unfairness/unreasonableness of asking someone to defend against an accusation for which one has no evidence (with suitable analogies) while always remaining careful to maintain a deferential tone.

I certainly don’t doubt Ford has been carefully prepped.

    Ragspierre in reply to Albigensian. | September 18, 2018 at 10:04 am

    “Do you not see the essential unfairness in leveling serious accusations sans evidence, and thus which can be never be shown to be either true or false”?

    That’s a good portion of a closing argument, but a terrible question to put to a hostile witness. You take them down with small cuts. And you do it carefully.

    tom_swift in reply to Albigensian. | September 18, 2018 at 10:35 am

    I don’t see why there couldn’t be a chorus of, “What evidence do you have to support your assertions?

    Liberals don’t think that way, and Democrats don’t act that way.

    This is not going to change any time soon.

      Facts are irrelevant. Kinda sad.

        tom_swift in reply to amwick. | September 18, 2018 at 4:54 pm


        Facts are how you deal with the real world. There’s no adequate substitute.

        Arminius in reply to amwick. | September 18, 2018 at 5:32 pm

        It isn’t so much that facts are irrelevant but that facts are a threat if your goal is corruption. And that’s the goal of the Democrats; to corrupt this process.

        Frankly I strongly suspect that the Dems have a few other accusers in their back pocket so that they can delay or sink this nomination. Then Kavanaugh will go back to, the second most important court in the land. But if the Dems retake the House and Senate (God forbid) I wouldn’t put it past them to impeach him from the bench of the D.C. circuit.

        The publicly stated reason will be these unverified, unverifiable allegations that only meet the #MeToo standard of truth. As in, no woman lies about sexual harrassment or assault. The real reason will be to destroy Kavanaugh for having the temerity to accept Trump’s nomination. And to make sure no one else does knowing that the Dems will destroy them, too.

    The DOJ has already said: “The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime.”

Ms. Ford won’t testify. She won’t need to do so.

Mr. Kavanaugh will testify. If you though the prior hearing was a circus, just watch this one. We’ll see more protesters (given entrance via passes from Democratic Senators who are in cahoots), more disruptions, more grandstanding, more demands for the FBI to “investigate” (what’s to investigate? A good agent can do an investigation in an hour), and so on.

It will be a circus. The Democrats are sliming Judge Kavanaugh, as Ace points out, as a warning to other Republicans about serving in the Trump administration. The Democrats also hope to gin up their base so as to make the “blue wave” come true. And some of the Democratic Senators are prepping for their 2020 primary runs.

Given the real purposes of the new hearing, Ms. Ford won’t testify. She doesn’t need to.

    Bucky Barkingham in reply to stevewhitemd. | September 18, 2018 at 10:28 am

    Agreed. New allegations will be sprung at this TV circus event in between shrieking Leftists with banners that they somehow managed to smuggle past House security.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to stevewhitemd. | September 18, 2018 at 1:47 pm

    I don’t think so since Grassley has already said that if she doesn’t show there is no reason for the rest of the hearing. So if she doesn’t respond he can cancel the hearing and move along to a vote and I think that is exactly what he will do. Why give the Dem Senators more time to flogg Kavanaugh.

She’ll be there if the Democrats have to drug her and kidnap her. The real question is whether either side will allow anybody else to testify.

And by the way, expect her next Monday to have suddenly become very, very sure of the date of the party, where it was, the names of others who were there, and all the details necessary to gin up the Democrats. They are hammering all of that into her brain, such as it is, even as we write this morning.

    2nd Ammendment Mother in reply to Wing. | September 18, 2018 at 3:55 pm

    The moment she picks and settles on a date, Kavanaugh has the ability to produce witnesses as to his actual whereabouts.

Well, Ms. Ford not showing up will certainly provide an excuse for the Dems to ask for a delay in the proceedings – so “Ms. Ford can prepare herself” or something like that…

For the first time I can agree with Lindsey Graham. This is what he said last night on Hannity:
Senator Graham: Here is what I want your audience to know. If Miss Ford really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward, never planned to come forward, why did she pay for a polygraph in August and why did she hire a lawyer in August if she never intended to do what she’s doing?… And who’s paid for it?

Inquiring minds would like to know!

They should ask her for details. Did he have his crank out? Anything remarkable about it, like with Clinton’s per Paula Jones? Did it bend to the left like Flake’s nose?

Honestly, I would expect Kavanaigh is going to give a rather interesting speech on the subject, and that we’ll get a good view of why he’s considered a foremost legal scholar.

I saw that her lawyer claimed that Kavanaugh has to prove his innocence… How does anyone go about doing that? Especially after so much time has gone by, and why is it that in this case he should prove innocence instead of presenting evidence that he did something?

    If Dems bring the allegation, the onus is clearly on them to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, not for the accused to disprove it. This is America. Or at least it used to be. Unfortunately for Dems, they’ve been stuck on stupid with this “seriousness of the charge” B.S. for the last 25 years or so. Maybe longer.

    “her lawyer claimed that Kavanaugh has to prove his innocence”

    Which is a tell that they have no evidence.

    And I suspect they are keeping her from the cmte because under examination she will come across as a loon.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Fen. | September 18, 2018 at 1:51 pm

      Can we call that the Mueller standard? Or would that be just taking a person and investigating until you find a crime?

“Every woman should be believed”
Mary Jo Kopechne


By that standard, Ms Ford should also have to prove she’s not a witch. Fortunately, there exist tests for that.

    Milhouse in reply to beagleEar. | September 18, 2018 at 1:54 pm

    Well, yes, but those tests aren’t terribly scientific. I mean it’s all very well to say that witches weigh the same as ducks, but what kind of duck? Peking? Muscovy? Mallard? And has anyone established the range over which normal duck weights can be expected to vary? For that matter, the evidence for the whole idea doesn’t seem very strong; how do we know witches don’t weigh the same as swans, Canada geese, or even emperor penguins? After all, those all float too, don’t they?

There is a very simple line of questioning, hardly offensive, that would question her credibility. Identify those girls who you considered your closest friends at the time in question. Which of those, if any, did you tell of this occurrence or warn that they should not place themselves in compromising situations with these fellows? My wife tells me that from time immemorial teenage girls talk among themselves about guys and their relationships with them. Would you agree with that statement? Did you think at the time that this was a significant enough event to share with your most intimate girlfriends?

    AmandaFitz in reply to Hurtline. | September 18, 2018 at 4:31 pm

    Ask her HOW she knew Kavanaugh and Judge. Since they didn’t go to school together and she is two grades below the two boys, how did she know them?

      AmandaFitz in reply to AmandaFitz. | September 18, 2018 at 4:36 pm

      Since Holton-Arms is an all girls school, the girls at Holton could only have known older boys socially or through church. Landon, Georgetown Prep, St. Albans and Episcopal were just four of the many single sex schools in DC.

It’s going to take a week for them to get her story straight.

    Is it really possible to scrub social media accounts the way she intended?

    Because there are good odds she made “ends justifies means” comments like “false accusations are acceptable if they result in Trump-Hitler’s impeachment”.

    And then her credibility is zero.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Fen. | September 18, 2018 at 1:50 pm

      In a word No. You can bet twitchy and several others are scouring the net looking for copies of her deleted posts.

Grassley is finally showing some backbone by threatening to cancel the hearing if he doesn’t get a response from the other side. They have not answered several requests to get together for the hearing. He needs to set a deadline and publish it widely so that everyone can see he has made the offer and the deadline for response or else.

    Bucky Barkingham in reply to inspectorudy. | September 18, 2018 at 11:42 am

    It will all come down to how the flakes (Flake, Collins, Murkowski) will react. If they signal their satisfaction then the floor vote can proceed, otherwise it’s show time for the Leftist circus.

If she doesn’t show, the Senate Judiciary Committee should go right into a vote to approve and move him to the general Senate vote the next day and be done.
Then let President Trump tweet the defense of that strategy as only he can. Let leftist heads explode while Trump shoots his red laser pointer all around.

Kavanaugh and his lawyer should have the papers ready to sue Ford for defamation after the hearing whether she shows up or not.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to elliesmom. | September 18, 2018 at 1:53 pm

    While I agree in principle, it wouldn’t be a good idea since the media and left would just use it to keep castigating Kavanaugh after his appointment.

    Milhouse in reply to elliesmom. | September 18, 2018 at 1:58 pm

    Defamation is a no-go, because as the plaintiff the onus would be on him to prove the story is false, and how can he do that? Plus, as a public figure, he’d have to prove she knows it’s false, which is even harder to do.

      NOLA69 in reply to Milhouse. | September 18, 2018 at 7:00 pm

      Although I understand your comment that Kavenaugh could not successfully sue for defamation for various reasons, does that logic also apply to Mark Judge, who does not want to be publicly involved in the hearing and is having his life disrupted by the allegations? As for proving Ford to be intentionally lying, I am expecting some researcher finds something over several weeks or months that shows she made up the story, perhaps finding a copy of the rumored similar letter that “sources” claim was written against Gorsuch and caused Feinstein to doubt the Kavenaugh letter.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | September 18, 2018 at 7:43 pm

      The press would be trumpeting the fact that she passed a polygraph test. Of course, the polygraph results wouldn’t be admissible in court, and for a very good reason. I’m aware that judges do very rarely permit them under certain circumstances, and one such circumstance would be that both sides would have to agree which ain’t gonna happen.

      The very good reason courts don’t admit the results of polygraph tests is that they are complete garbage.

      For some reason the general public places a great deal of trust in polygraph tests. As a former Naval intel officer I know for a fact they are worthless, and considering the well publicized cases of foreign agents and domestic traitors who passed counterintelligence scope polygraphs at the FBI, CIA, and DIA the word has gotten out but yet the blind public trust continues. For instance, for some reason Cuban-born Cuban Intelligence agent Nicolás Alberto Sirgado Ros was able to wangle a job at CIA. There he was a mole for the Cuban intel services for 10 years beginning in 1966. The CIA is known for it’s free-wheeling polygraph tests, some lasting as long as two and a half hours and going into every aspect of the agent’s or analyst’s life including intimate details of their private lives. Sirgado passed three such polygraphs before returning to Cuba in 1976, possibly because he got word his cover was possibly about to be blown. Or merely because at the ten year point it would have been time for his second five year update investigation for his TS/SCI clearance and didn’t want to roll the dice a third time as all the information he provided to get a clearance was fiction. In 1978 Sirgardo wrote an English language article for the Communist party’s English language magazine (readily available) in which he recounted his experiences as a Cuban double agent at CIA. He talked about the polygraph tests. In his opinion the CIA knew the tests were ineffective but they were designed to humiliate and denigrate the employees by going deeply into their sex lives.

      I agree that these “lifestyle polygraphs are extremely intrusive and insulting, but in my opinion departments and agencies use the polygraph tests because they have fallen in love with and trust the machines. They look at as a cheap and easy way to do counterintelligence as opposed to the hard work that goes into an actual investigation by counterintelligence agents. As a Cuban intel officer it’s unthinkable that the Cubans didn’t train Sirgado to pass polygraph tests. It’s a skill that anyone can learn with enough practice but natural liars don’t need training.

      So perhaps more interesting is the case of American citizen Ana Belen Montes who also spied for Cuba as an analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency. She passed a polygraph at least once according to her attorney, although the DIA could not confirm if she was or wasn’t polygraphed. Their spokesman said that they could confirm to the press if she had or hadn’t been, just not the results, but they had no records of it !?!?. Montes claimed not to remember when she took the test. She had never been to Cuba until the DIA selected her for the Excellent Analyst program and sent her their in the mid-90s. The Cubans didn’t try to recruit her there as that would have been too hazardous. Instead whe was recruited by the Cubans in Washington D.C. Another American citizen, Marta Rita Velazquez, who was then working as a legal officer for the U.S. Agency for International Development (who upon Montes’ arrest avoided prosecution by fleeing to Sweden which doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the US for espionage cases). It’s unclear if she was recruited before or after she took the polygraph (prosecutors in her case allege she was already working for the Cubans when she joined DIA after working at DoJ so it’s possible) but it either didn’t detect her spying and it certainly didn’t deter it. By the time she was arrested in 2001 she had been promoted to become DIA’s senior analyst for all matters pertaining to Cuba. Not only did she pass extremely valuable intel to the Cubans (which enabled Cuban-backed guerillas to kill at least one Green Beret when the attacked a supposedly secret base in El Salvador just weeks after Montes visited it) but also to warp U.S. policy in Cuba’s favor. She wouldn’t have had any special training in beating the polygraph but really good liars don’t need it.

      CIA agent Aldrich Ames certainly took multiple polygraphs during his 31 year career. He began spying for the Soviets in 1985. Oddly enough he could stroll right into the Soviet Embassy because he worked for an office that monitored the Soviet Embassy and assessed the workers their for their potential as U.S. assets. So with permission from both the CIA and FBI he was permitted to make contacts at the embassy. But his intention was to become a double agent for the KGB because he was an alcoholic heavily in debt (and they knew about his heavy drinking as it was noted in his personnel file and was the last person they should have allowed to do this). He passed at least two polygraph tests as he was spying for the KGB. At first he was panicked at the thought of taking the test but his KGB handler told him “just relax.” That was the extent of his “special training to beat the test, and he passed both. So he wasn’t a really good natural liar like Montes, which shows that even below-average liars can pass the test.

      DoD conducts thousands of polygraphs every year, and in a typical year only one employee will fail the test. And those employees make substantial admissions. Employees who don’t make substantial admissions always pass the test. Suffice to say I’m not impressed that Ford passed a polygraph especially one administered by friendly examiner. The only thing I’m surprised by is that the public AND federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies still trust the make-believe science that polygraphs are based upon.

I have come up with a new conspiracy theory that works like this. Every conservative, republican federal court judge has a dossier in the hands of the democrats, who are long-range thinkers. Furthermore, a cadre of believable “victims” have been selected and have prepped to come forward as did Professor Ford, in the event one of these conservative judges is nominated to the Supreme Court.

Professor Ford, in my conspiratorial view, is one of these “sleepers” that was awoken when President Trump included Kavanaugh in his list of potential nominees in 2016. Her proximity to him when teenagers, along with her political leanings, made her the best choice in this circumstance.

This morning on FoxNews, a commentator offered the following succinct opinion: “Accusers [such as Professor Ford] are either victims or liars. There is no middle ground.”

This truism explains why the professor has not yet responded to the Senate Judiciary Committe’s invitation to testify under oath, in public, on live TV. Her handlers are busy working on creating a plausible middle ground.

If you would like an example of a well-crafted middle ground, here it is. CrookedHillary, after winning the New York State primary election in April 2016, said: “New Yorkers, you’ve always—you’ve always had my back. And I’ve always tried to have yours.”

Let’s see what some of the smartest radical progressive democrat minds can come up with for Professor Ford to say next week.

    Arminius in reply to JustSayN2O. | September 18, 2018 at 5:50 pm

    I agree, although perhaps not on every federal judge. But certainly every judge on the list that Trump put out during the campaign. Perhaps a tactical error on Trump’s part as he did cut down on the amount of work the Dems had to do. Certainly leftist groups have done oppo research on all those judges since Trump won in 2016.

    It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that this threat has been subtly communicated to those judges. “Nice judicial career you have going. It would be a shame if something happened to it.” Well, the threat would have been more opaque than that. The judges wouldn’t have even recognized it as a threat, and may have been puzzled by the comments. Now that they see the wholesale character destruction being levied against Kavanaugh they know exactly what whomever communicated the threat meant.

    “I have come up with a new conspiracy theory…”

    Not exactly new. Some of us understand the depths to which the commies go. You can bet they have dossier’s on everyone and a compliant FBI to gather data. Any way they can create a weakness, they’ll find a true believer, a Ms. Ford, to carry out their plan.

    One only need look at recent history to verify this.

I don’t know if he can sue for defamation. I believe he falls into the category of a public figure.

    sdharms in reply to MAB. | September 18, 2018 at 12:29 pm

    it is a high bar for a public figure but not insurmountable.

    alaskabob in reply to MAB. | September 18, 2018 at 12:38 pm

    The defense for her would be traumatized person who unfortunately remembered things wrong. w

    The real lawsuit would be based on proof the Dems totally fabricated the story. That will never happen. Anyone considering leaking that evidence has only to remember Seth Rich.

    The Dems want to convince everyone that the accusation is evidence.

I’m beginning to wonder if she did this for attention and it’s gotten out of control.

She wanted to feel relevant, so she took a memory and altered it to fit current events and then sent a letter to her senator. She wanted a pat on the back, commiseration, not to be put under oath in front of television cameras.

But I hear Rolling Stone will be all over this, like “Jackie” at a frat party.

    Valerie in reply to Fen. | September 18, 2018 at 12:38 pm

    There’s a timeline to this, which includes a polygraph test and wiping the accuser’s social media well in advance of the hearing. There is a whole series of actions from which intent can be inferred, and it does not point to a desire to maintain privacy.

    CincyJan in reply to Fen. | September 18, 2018 at 4:04 pm

    My opinion is that she did this because she is a true believer who is willing to do what she can for the cause. Of course, the fact that Kavanaugh’s mother was the presiding judge in Foprd’s mother’s foreclosure muddies the water. Let’s hope the Senate Republicans are prepared to go after her. It’s been how many years since the Bork controversy? They should have tactical plan in place by now.

    Barry in reply to Fen. | September 19, 2018 at 12:43 am

    “I’m beginning to wonder if…”

    Stop wondering Fen. This is an orchestrated event, long in the planning.

    It’s not their first, it will not be their last.

Democrats behaving badly would be the mildest way to put this. From the antics at the opening of the hearings, to paying protestors to disrupt and get arrested at the hearings, to the Spartacus moment and Kamala Harris making a fool of herself, this has been the Demo-rat playbook all the way. Finally, Diane Spy-stein drops this on us at the 11:59 hour – right out of the tar and feather Clarence Thomas playbook. Now Judge Kavanaugh is being told by this fraud’s attorney that she does not have to prove anything but he has to prove a negative for something that never happened. Please America – respond at the polls and vote against every Democrat on every ballot. We need to teach them a lesson at the polls.

it is a high bar for a public figure but not insurmountable.

For starters, the hearing room needs to be pruned down to pool cameras, both video and still, to bring the number of leaping, moving, and distracting individuals to about five. Second, SPACE the seating out to put only half the number of chairs in there, thus allowing law enforcement clear and easy paths to drag out the screaming nuts. Third, a mute button for the chair so the screeching doesn’t get transmitted, thus cutting down the ‘fifteen minutes of fame’ to about one squawk.

All of this is excused under “We want to reduce the stress on the witness, so she does not feel threatened by the procedure.”

H = MC^2. If only we had a machine that could convert hypocrisy to c!ean energy.

Fake news from Politico, rapidly debunked.


Politico writer Daniel Lippman raised questions when he tweeted that of the 65 women who initially signed a letter in support of Kavanaugh, “only TWO said they still stood by him.” (That number was later updated to five.)

According to his article, however, that number only actually reflected the women who had responded positively to requests for comment.

…..So according to Daniel Lippman of Politico, he can “interpret” a failure to respond to an inquiry from him any way he likes.

This is why independent news entities, such as The Gateway Pundit, Breitbart, the Professor here, Alex Jones, Pajamas Media and other new publishers have an audience: we know we cannot trust the propaganda we are getting from the Democratic Party.

    amwick in reply to Valerie. | September 18, 2018 at 4:35 pm

    So FWIW, Laura Ingraham had two of those women on her radio show that denied ever being contacted. They also claimed that among their acquaintances who signed that letter, no one had walked it back. They said that the MSM claim was a blatant lie.

This leftist should not even be given an appearance. This is just absurd.

oboy. Even the Democratic operatives are getting disgusted. Somebody ratted out the rent-a-protester operation at the Kavanaugh hearing, and managed to get a reporter in on it.

Good thing she is not a Moslem, otherwise her family would have to stone her to death in the name of Allah and family honor.

She will never appear because the truth will come out at the hearing.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Gersh204. | September 18, 2018 at 10:26 pm

    She will appear, because there is no way to either prove or disprove this allegation. So they lose nothing by continuing to propagate it.

Y’all are smarter than this! Dr. Ford will be there, attorney and team in tow, looking like a middle America soccer mom!

Sure she and her team haven’t responded to Sen. Grassley but I’d bet my left nugget Sen. Fienstien and her staff not only have made contact but already know what flight she’ll be in and what hotel she’ll stay at! This is a huge win for her – imagine; a leftist professor “resisting” and standing up to the bigoted, racist, sexist Trump and his party 50 days before the election! She’ll be a hero to Democrats and the #metoo crowd. She’ll be there.

Only question is will the borderline trifecta of Republicans in the Senate, which we need, hold up?

Ford’s Dem operative attorney–Katz–has already claimed there was another girl at the party. So the story has changed yet again. However, as far as I can tell from news reports the name of this girl has not been released. Feinstein and the Democrats may be still beating the bushes to find someone else willing to perjure themselves for the cause.

So that is new person #2–leaving out the changes in the count of boys present at the party.

I suspect the Democrats are desperately seeking someone willing to pull an Anita Hill on Judge Kavanaugh. It will be a lie but Democrats admire the ‘by any means necessary’ approach to politics. Call her person #3.

I expect the public outing of person #2 by end of day tomorrow and person #3 coming forward over the weekend. All with insufficient time to properly show the lies by Monday morning in D.C., so yet another delay while the committee prepares for another hearing. Given enough time Democrats can find more women to claim abusive behavior by Judge Kavanaugh.

From my perspective the only way to end this is to aggressively pursue perjury charges against any of these leftist foot soldiers. Make it clear that the price for lying to Congress is very high. Ford may be willing to pay that price but is her husband?

    Observer in reply to iconotastic. | September 18, 2018 at 2:10 pm

    What could the other girl, assuming such a person could be found, have to say? Ford claims she didn’t tell anybody about the alleged attack until the 2000’s. In the WaPo article, she describes herself in the bathroom, immediately after the alleged attack, checking her clothes to make sure she didn’t appear to have just been attacked.

    So from her own version of events, we know the alleged attack took place in a locked bedroom (so it could not have been witnessed by anyone outside the room), that Ford didn’t tell anybody at the party she’d been attacked, that Ford checked her clothes immediately after the attack to make sure she didn’t look disheveled, and that Ford then left the party house and went home.

    So what could the other girl, even if she exists, possibly have to say now that would tend to prove that Ford’s story is true? Nothing. Or at least, nothing that would not contradict the version of the story that Ford has already given.

      iconotastic in reply to Observer. | September 18, 2018 at 2:19 pm

      I don’t think consistency matters to progressives. Clearly the story from the lawyer and the original story are at odds but I suspect a clever lawyer and dishonest accuser can come up with some sort of lie to justify the inconsistency. And the Greek choir of Democrat media will eat it up.

      Also, making a mess of this accusation while fabricating another one would be great psyops against the GOP wrt the Kavanaugh nomination. A new accusation would stimulate even more calls to delay confirmation for these hearings, thus providing even more time to find and groom more liars. Rinse and repeat as necessary.

      Another possible end game is that Kavanaugh withdraws rather than face a never-ending blizzard of lies. As Mathew Dowd already demonstrate, Judge Kavanaugh will always be a rapist now and the GOP has already nominated two sex predators to the Bench (Kavanaugh and Thomas). A lie of course but that is the currency of the Left.

      Geez, this is the commie communist democrat party. The girl will say she noticed that something looked wrong and didn’t know until now what it was.

Iconotastic: Her husband is already supporting her. He is the one who said she told him it was Kavanaugh, so I would venture to say he is in this 100% and is probably of the same political persuasion as she is.

    iconotastic in reply to MAB. | September 18, 2018 at 2:21 pm

    True. But right now there is no cost and even an upside for him. Lying worked out well for Anita Hill so he very well might assume that lying will work out as well for his family.

    Defending themselves from a DoJ prosecution, even successfully, is an extremely expensive affair. Losing the case can easily mean financial ruin. When faced with that I wonder just how committed he is to supporting his lying wife.

      Evan3457 in reply to iconotastic. | September 18, 2018 at 4:24 pm

      Time and stress, maybe. Money, not so much.
      If an obvious degenerate like Strzok can raise $500,000 on GoFundMe, the Ford can raise millions to pay for their defense the same way, even if she loses, and Kavanaugh is confirmed. She’ll be a martyr the same way Tawana Brawley was, only 100 times larger.

Geez, this reminds one of the vetting of Odumbo. Or Eric Holder. Or Loretta Lynch. Or Van Jones. Or Ted Kennedy. Or Hillary Klinton. Or Sotomayor. Or Kagan. Or John “Muppet” Kerry. Or Harry Reid. Or Jeff Sessions. Or —

— Or maybe not.

Lesson: if you play spin the bottle at 16, careful how you do it – unless you join the leftist cause, of course.

This is such over the top thuggery, it needs to be met in kind.

    EnquiringMind in reply to | September 18, 2018 at 3:20 pm

    Obama was vetted twice by a majority (not a plurality) of the voting public. I understand the limitations of that fact in the face of actual power. Just don’t try to claim the moral high ground.

      Obama’s entire “known” life is a lie. No vetting was done.

      Ask his preacher. Or his “friends” at Columbia and Harvard.

        EnquiringMind in reply to Barry. | September 19, 2018 at 3:53 pm

        You did drink the kool-aid. But you need to drain the cup.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to EnquiringMind. | September 19, 2018 at 5:42 pm

          You might want to wipe that purple stain off your upper lip before you bring up others Kool-Aid habits.

          EnquiringMind in reply to EnquiringMind. | September 19, 2018 at 8:24 pm

          Oh, now you hurt my feelings.

          I am a big believer in Liberty. I want the freedom to control my reproduction. I want water and air that isn’t polluted. I want a planet that my descendants can still inhabit and enjoy. I want to practice my beliefs without a plurality impinging on them; as the 1st Amendment guarantees.

          It is clear that Kavanaugh is going to find lawyerly ways to take away my liberty. If you don’t think I will fight fair, dirty or to the death about that, you are badly mistaken.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to EnquiringMind. | September 19, 2018 at 8:45 pm


          Oh, so you do believe moronic talking points instead of actual evidence and fact. There is zero evidence that any of what you say is true and Kavanaugh’s judicial history would indicate that any of it is true.

          If you want to see who is censoring and trying to remove rights from people and take away liberties, just check the mirror.

          “I am a big believer in Liberty.”

          Now there’s a laugher. You’re a Marxist. Paid one. The only liberty you believe in is yours, and your right to tell others how to live.

          Your miserable as all those like you are.

          EnquiringMind in reply to EnquiringMind. | September 19, 2018 at 9:42 pm


          I don’t believe in Original Intent because I know that Original Intent is BS. The Founding Fathers didn’t agree on much so how did they somehow share a common Original Intent? Besides, Jefferson believed in the rights of man and was a slave holder. Adams signed the ‘Alien & Sedition Act. Hamilton wanted a powerful federal government. None of them had more that the most infinitesimal understanding of how the forces of the universe or the human body worked. Their life expectancy was half of ours.

          Tell me, please: What was the original intent of the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments? Do you think that the gutting of the Voting Rights Act was in keeping with the Original Intent? I have no doubt that you will have a rationalization. The Supreme Court Origialists came up with one. But it was just lawyerly BS. The Supreme Court once came up with ‘Separate But Equal’ – talk about an unfunny joke! Did they really believe there was such a thing?

          The confederate states all ratified the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments and then went right back to enforcing white supremacy. We are still fighting over it today. What was the original intent?

          What you don’t know about me is that I call BS when I hear crap from the left, too. I come here, when they let me, because someone has got to call BS. You said that democrats are character assassins. Okay, tell me: Is any one a bigger character assassin than Donald J. Trump?

          What was the original intent of the ACA? You guys failed to legislate it out of existence. So Trump is killing it by a thousand cuts. Shouldn’t SCOTUS, based on original intent and stare decisis force Trump to stick to the intent of the act? You don’t believe that. You will cheer when the Supreme Court guts it. Stop the BS. You aren’t convincing anyone. All you are doing is trying to justifying lies.

          I am a hell of a lot more honest than you because I won’t lie to myself.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to EnquiringMind. | September 19, 2018 at 11:03 pm


          Oh, so you are a psychopathic basement dweller who believes in alternate history. I will address the coherent points…so this will be short.

          No the founding fathers came up with a compromise between all of their ideas, they disagreed but still worked together, that is the difference between “Original Intent” and your psychotic ramblings.

          The left does not believe in such things, their idea of compromise is “just do it our way or we will throw petty baby fits until you do”. Note I am not saying the right isn’t guilty of some of that the vast majority of it comes from the left. Just like the vast majority of the rhetoric comes from the left, along with the violence.

          Your points about past courts are irrelevant to the current court. Yes bad decisions were made in the past but they were also corrected. Your assertion that there is still a race war on is partially correct, except now it is racism against whites mostly because you know I am evil because I was born with a lower melanin content. Besides Racism isn’t a problem anymore it’s a business because people make money on keeping the fear of racism alive.

          Let me let you in on a secret, 99% of us on the right don’t give a tinker’s damn what color you are, who you sleep with, or if you think you are a damned Baleen Whale trapped in a human’s body, we just reserve the right to not think you are special because of any of those things. We believe in equality of opportunity, where your side believes in equality of outcome. Oh and btw most of those poor underserved people you pine for are in that situation because they had the misfortune to be born in areas controlled by Democrats.

          As far as Trump talking mean to people, no that is not character assassination it is talking mean about people, what is happening to Kavanaugh and what happened to Thomas and Bork is character assassination.

          I am sure you do call out Liberals, probably because they were actually forced to compromise and didn’t fight hard enough, at least in your small minded opinion.

          As far as me coming up with excuses for stuff, I don’t come up with excuses for things that haven’t happened and are unlikely to happen, because I don’t live in fear of maybes.

          What this whole thing is really about is the supposed “takeover” of the courts. Here is a hint, there is no “takeover” just as the courts have swung to the more liberal side now the pendulum is going back the other way, it happens. But that is the real fear of the left and people like you, the fear that since they can’t actually get their moronic and unpopular policies past the voters they won’t be able to use the courts to enforce their policies by fiat.

          As far as your ramblings regarding the ACA, well I have more than 20 years in medicine and one thing I can tell you for sure the ACA was about power not healthcare, which is why 60% of the bill didn’t even relate to healthcare. Oh and yes I do know I read over 5000 pages of legislation (i.e. both of the bills) and I knew exactly what was being passed and I got bad news for you the ACA is gone deal with it.

          But the left has to play it’s chicken little the sky is falling games, because that is what they do, they are the spoiled children screaming and ranting that Daddy won’t buy them the toy that the family can’t afford.

          Now I suggest you get Mom to refill your meds before you bust something important and remember those dryer sheets, we don’t want Mom’s sheets not to smell spring fresh.

          EnquiringMind in reply to EnquiringMind. | September 20, 2018 at 12:14 am


          I don’t believe in alternative history; just something that goes beyond fairy tales.

          I don’t know who ‘The Left’ is; unless you mean a few celebrities and politicians. I don’t talk with or meet anyone who thinks like you claim ‘The Left’ thinks on a daily basis. But I guess that as a member of ‘The Right’ you MUST believe that Sandy Hook never happened, that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii and that the slaves were better off being owned by benevolent massas. I particularly don’t understand how you could possibly think that anyone would prefer slavery like I KNOW YOU DO because you are in ‘The Right’.

          If you really think that life is so easy for the melanin endowed, why don’t you get some shoe polish and try playing that game. I bet you be runnin’ back to your mama before the sun goes down. Definitely before the sun goes down.

          The ACA was a compromise, too, because republicans wouldn’t engage. But Trump promised a better, cheaper bill. I feel better already. How about you? Generally after a major bill becomes law , a true reconciliation is passed to fix unforeseen problems. But the ‘The Right’ would rather that people suffer; in order to gain political advantage than to actually work to fix the ACA. How many hearings did the republicans have on patching the ACA?

          ‘The Right’ would rather stoke the problems in this country than to fix them because resentment is its stock and trade. Where is Trump’s infrastructure plan? Where is any Trump plan except for a tax plan from which he particularly benefited.

          But ‘The Right’ is fine with all that because resentment is what fuels their movement. The Right doesn’t even care if the vast majority of its members are getting screwed; as long as they can find scapegoats to blame the failure on. The Right has had the bulk of the power in this country going back to Reagan. Why isn’t America Great, YET.

          When Trump leaves you more screwed than you are now, you will blame the left. That wouldn’t bother me in the least – except I am on that bus, too.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to EnquiringMind. | September 20, 2018 at 2:15 am


          Wow, let me help you out there.

Professor Ford is a clinical psychology professor. Professor Ford says that the alleged attack had serious mental health consequences for her. She says she was unable to have healthy relations with men and that the alleged attach contributed to anxiety and PTSD that she suffered. Yet, she says that she never discussed the alleged attack until 2012 when she and her husband were in marital counseling.

I find this impossible to believe. She teaches clinical psychology. One would think that a person in her profession would seek professional help early on.

We will never know about any earlier psychological or psychiatric counseling she has received unless she gives her consent. We need to know about any earlier counseling she has received. We need to if she told her earlier counselors about the alleged attack and, if so, how she described it.

Also, perhaps I am wrong, but I was under the impression that certain mental health professionals are required to have annual (or some other periodic) psychiatric or psychological evaluation.

I am truly amazed at complaints about Democratic tactics. Anyone who thinks that Democrats don’t remember Garland, please raise your hand. Every time McConnell speaks, he just inflames Democrats more.

You can bring up Republicans who were slighted as much as you want. But Thomas was confirmed by a Democrat majority in an era when there was still a filibuster.

Garland didn’t get a hearing.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to EnquiringMind. | September 18, 2018 at 10:30 pm

    No he didn’t get a hearing nor was he entitled to one. The senate has the power to advise and consent, their advice was to not move his nomination forward and to withhold their consent, which was perfectly within their rights.

      EnquiringMind in reply to Gremlin1974. | September 19, 2018 at 3:48 pm

      And the democrats will do whatever they can do. At the moment, admittedly, that is not much. But if seizing on Fords accusation can bring Kavanaugh down, that too, would be advise and consent.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to EnquiringMind. | September 19, 2018 at 5:40 pm

        Actually that has nothing to do with advise and consent, their power to advise and consent stops at Yea or Nay. The Senate as a body has the Advise and Consent power and an artifact of that is that the party in the Majority sets the agenda.

        Not that I care with the narrative falling apart around them the Dems are looking like idiots (which they generally are) and that if fine by me. If you don’t want this to happen accept that you are in the minority and don’t play games.

        That is the main difference between the two sides if the left doesn’t get their way they try to sabotage, use character assassination, bogus charges, and theater to stop a vote. On the other side the right just says no or votes no and moves along.

        Do not try to compare dems theater to how the senate is supposed to run, you saw how it is supposed to run with Garland. The Majority party did not find him acceptable therefore he was not moved forward in the process, the hearings are only one step in that process.

          EnquiringMind in reply to Gremlin1974. | September 19, 2018 at 8:01 pm

          Actually, a woman has now come forward who says she was at the school, at the time, and remembers hearing about the incident. Do you want the truth, Mr. Republican Stand-Up Guy? BTW, 17 year olds are held accountable for their actions ever damn day in this country.

          That is the main difference between the two sides if the left doesn’t get their way they try to sabotage, use character assassination, bogus charges, and theater to stop a vote. On the other side the right just says no or votes no and moves along.

          Who taught you these things? The republican myth fairy?

          Just don’t cry too much when the shoe is on the other foot. SCOTUS won’t save you. It will just make the fight that much nastier.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Gremlin1974. | September 19, 2018 at 8:19 pm


          Actually no there isn’t a woman who has come forward. There is some random person who made an unsubstantiated claim on social media who then deleted the post. When asked why she deleted the post her response was; “It did what I wanted it to do.” or something to that effect.

          There is a huge difference between someone just stirring shit up and actual evidence. (No actual evidence has been presented as of yet.)

          Why would we cry when the shoe is on the other foot? Obama got Kagen and Sotomayor, they were confirmed in a timely manner without unfounded character assassination attempts by the right. Kagen is the least qualified person ever to be appointed to the court and what happened. Well republicans voted no or yes and life went on.

          Now, remember to put the dryer sheets in with the laundry Mom left your you and put on some socks those basements get cold at night.

          EnquiringMind (now there is an oxymoron) is nothing more than one of the paid Marxist operatives.

“Collins also confused as to why Ford hasn’t responded”

The Senator also expressed confusion about those “laser thingies” that ring up your food at the checkout counter, along with “the internet,” and how to set her VCR clock.

You know what would be awesome?

Jane Doe #3 comes forward to testify that “Me Too’.

But the moment she is sworn in, she reveals she is part of a Project Veritas sting, explaining how Dem Senators and staff massaged her fake story and encouraged her to lie in service to their abortion god.

    We know how to solve the abortion problem. Create a Black Market. It worked really well the last time it was tried.

    What ever happened to non-government solutions? Convince women it is a bad idea.

What bothers me about all these holier than thou individuals who are opining is that invariably everyone says that she deserves to be heard. What about the judge? It’s like they haven’t even thought that she may be lying or at least embellishing the truth, whatever that may be.

My opinion: Monday is too early for the Dems to deploy their screeching legions, to construct a believable narrative for the witness to parrot, etc… Ford *may* say she’s going to show up on Monday, but there will be (claimed) death threats, relentless attacks, white nationalism, global warming, and a host of other factors that will have her make a last-minute withdrawal and only a cruel, evil, heartless, white nationalist, sexist, bigot would ever force her onto the stand under this kind of relentless assault, so the hearing needs to be delayed, just a week or twelve until she’s had a chance to be coached… um… prepared for this ordeal.

    It’s more than enough time. They are already working overtime and at lightning speed. Don’t you remember that it took them only a weekend to prepare the stage to disrupt the hearing.

Something I hope…very, very much…is that Clarence Thomas and his Ginnie have brought over a hot-dish, and a long, long conversation about the value of endurance in the face of evil.

    Yes, I too would love to see that and do hope it happens. Who knows he may read your suggestion and run with it.

      Ragspierre in reply to MAB. | September 18, 2018 at 4:34 pm

      One danger here is that Kavanaugh will just quit in disgust. I discount that, partly because this good man has been through all this before, seen it in the bowels of D.C. many times, and had to have steeled himself and his family for this very fight.

      I expect him to endure, and to triumph in the end.

      Something I picked up in my reading; a very, very smart lawyer would never issue a denial as expansive and absolute as he has if the was even slightly afraid of controverting facts.

The weak republican senators, if they allow the dem’s to succeed with this assault on Kavenaugh by no voting for him, will give the dem’s the power to derail ANY future nominee by merely suggesting any type of sexual impropriety, no matter how old, false, or weak the claim may be.

There’s a rumor flying around this afternoon on Twitter (:mentioned by Rush) that the accuser sent a similar letter about Gorsuch to Feinstein last year. Person says his source has been reliable before, but it is NOT confirmed

This is not hard. Neither Ford nor her attorney has ever said she would answer questions in front of the committee. All they have ever said is that she will appear before the committee to tell her story. What she wants is to tell a narrative, preferably behind closed doors, but if forced, publicly, and then leave without having to be grilled. And guess what? As long as Jeff Flake says he will vote no unless he “hears from her”, that’s what she will get. I expect the formal announcement by tomorrow morning.

There is no point in having a hearing on this ridiculous, 36-year old story. The woman, if she even shows up, will just repeat the tale she has already told the media (probably adding a few tears to the mix), Kavanaugh will repeat his denials, and nothing will be resolved, because it can’t be resolved.

There is a reason why we have statutes of limitation. We know that human memory is a very malleable thing. After nearly four decades, there is no way to determine if this woman’s memory of the alleged attack is real, or a memory her mind has created in the intervening years, or if her memories have been distorted by the PTSD she claims to suffer from, or if she’s just a hyper-partisan anti-Trump nutjob trying to scuttle Kavanaugh’s nomination for political reasons.

Whatever the case, it’s grossly unfair to ask Kavanaugh to try and defend himself against such a nebulous accusation: “Judge Kavanaugh, before we vote on your confirmation, prove that you were not in this house (we don’t know whose house), on this night (we don’t know which night) in 1979, or 1980, or 1981, or 1982 . . . .” It’s beyond ludicrous. Kavanaugh has flatly denied that the alleged attack ever happened. Mark Judge, the other person supposedly present, has flatly denied that it ever happened, and there is no other evidence whatsoever, other than this accuser’s dubious 36-year old memory, that it happened. That should be the end of the inquiry.

Enough is enough.

I think nominees should just refuse to show up for any interrogations. They can meet individual Senators at their request (making sure the session is taped).

There really is no need for a nominee to face questions. Either they are qualified or they’re not. The investigation done by the appropriate agency and any other documents and such that a particular Senator may request should be sufficient.

It’s an up or down vote. No maybes. The circuses must be canceled.

Apparently Flake has offered her the option of testifying in closed session if that makes her feel more comfortable.

    alaskabob in reply to RodFC. | September 18, 2018 at 5:23 pm

    She said – he said now will be they said- they said… Leaving a cloud over this all as Flake and the Dems wish. Flake has to do this to get a job after this year to keep him in the limelight as McCain’s channel.

    Valerie in reply to RodFC. | September 18, 2018 at 7:08 pm

    That is unacceptable, to me. This is a person who wants to influence how my representatives vote on a Supreme Court nominee, and she wants to do so by launching accusations of bad conduct against him. I have a right to judge her credibility.

This is the most outrageous thing I have ever seen. What we have is a person who is making nebulous charges lacking any specificity, which allegedly occurred 30+ years ago [the accuser is not exactly sure when it happened or where], to which NO witnesses have been produced, not even any evidence that it occurred at all and people in positions of power are taking this seriously. Really? Do I have to list all of the people, many of whom were women, who made serious charges against others, only to have those charges exposed as being entirely fabricated [Tawana Brawly and the Duke Lacrosse Team leap to mind].

We have no idea what actual criminal act is being alleged. We have no accurate location for the incident. We have no accurate time of the alleged incident. We have no reliable identification of the people involved. There was no real time report of the alleged incident. In a sane world, you couldn’t charge, let alone convict Al Capone of any criminal act here. This should all be ignored, unless some conclusive evidence that this event is both real and involved the people claimed is produced.

    tom_swift in reply to Mac45. | September 18, 2018 at 5:48 pm

    All true enough.

    But the real goal here isn’t a marginally legal investigation of an ancient crime which didn’t actually happen. It’s a display of just enough activity to jolly along a couple of prima donnas, especially Snowe (who is apparently still playing hard-to-get). Once that’s accomplished, the charade can be dropped.

    Ridiculous though all this is, it’s not clear that there’s any other way forward. Trump, Kavenaugh, Grassley, and McConnell have to work with the Senate they have, not a Senate which is any good.

Whether the allegations are true or not, Ford knows that she will be lionized by Democrats and other leftists for the rest of her life, just like Anita Hill. Note that the media have avoided any discussions about whether Hill was telling the truth. One investigator wrote, “By any reasonable evidentiary standard, [Thomas] should be vindicated of Hill’s charges.” Undoubtedly the media will extend the same courtesy of not investigating to Ford.


Note that Feinstein’s timing is perfect: Bring out the letter after the hearings, to postpone a vote. The Democrats used similarly perfect timing to try to torpedo Clarence Thomas. They used perfect timing to crucify Roy Moore, making allegations that couldn’t be investigated before the election, and they took over Sessions’ Senate seat. It’s time the Republicans started learning and using some of these dirty tricks.

I’m going to be the honest one here. I’m pretty damned sick of manufactured outrage. I don’t even care if this cockamamie story is true. If a teen guy got stinking drunk one night and groped a girl – so what? I don’t care. I was a teen in the late 70’s early 80’s. We all got drunk. We all got groped. None of us are the worse for wear and if we are, we’re working hard at it. Truth? We woke up with a hangover and said wow what a wild night that was and went back and did it again. To feign outrage over a non-event 35 years later is despicable.

    txvet2 in reply to labrat. | September 18, 2018 at 11:34 pm

    It’s been pretty obvious that this isn’t so much about Kavanaugh, one of the cleanest nominees ever to be named (although they’d take his scalp if they can get it); it’s about each and every future Republican nominee to any job, no matter what. The clear message is that if you’ve ever done anything, no matter how trivial, from the cradle to you nomination, they’ll use it to get you – and if you haven’t done anything they can use, they’ll just make something up.

She looks a bit younger than 50 in that photo.

I’m sure our lawyers on the site will chime in on the law but if what I understand is correct then Ford’s lawyer knew that one, the FBI would never investigate such a case plus it is beyond any statute of limitations. Two, her lawyer is now saying it is not up to Ford to corroborate her story but the law and the Senate! Since no one knows the time, place or who was involved I doubt that there will be an investigation. Three, seeing this approach by Ford’s side leads me to think that she will not appear and then claim that the hostile atmosphere created by the Repubs make it too uncomfortable to testify. Four, by doing this she has not committed any fraud or broken any laws. She can walk away with some damage to Kavannaugh’s reputation but none to hers. If that leads to one Repub voting no she has done her work.

An allegation or accusation ≠ corroboration
An accusation ≠ evidence
An accusation ≠ a proof point or fact
An accusation = an opinion and in this case = motivated cognition

(1) If reasonable people who vote don’t recognize the pattern of character assassination that the ‘new Democrats’ have employed post Ted Kennedy, then all is lost and the center won’t hold.

(2) The only way for the center to hold, unfortunately, is for Conservatives to employ the same tactics that Democrats employ.

(3) For those who reject that strategy, know that you are bringing a butter knife to a gun fight, and the result will reflect past history:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were confirmed by the lopsided margins of 96–3 and 87–9, respectively

(4) Democrats have become so anti-everything non-progressive that they apparently don’t understand that:

(A) Conservatives, who are not their Grandfathers, will follow the standards for Supreme Court confirmations Democrats have established;

(B) No competent, decent Judicial candidate will ever accept a nomination, much less be confirmed – so another Leftist Ruth Bader Ginsberg,or right-leaning John Roberts will never be a Justice;

(c) No politically active nominee, like Elena Kagan, who had never been a judge, will ever lend her experience as a Justice;

(d) We will be saddled with nebbishes who have never had a life; never interacted with their peers; never written an opinion;

And just think, the whole process worked for a century until Harry Reid decided to overturn the wisdom of history to gain an ephemeral win for Barack Obama’s judicial nominees.

The professor reports in an update on this post…

…that Ford’s attorney has stated her client will not testify until after an FBI investigation.

Thus confirming it’s all a lie cooked up by a couple of leftist activists, with no doubt some Senate Democrats complicit in the lie, to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

The alleged incident is so far beyond the statute of limitations that no law enforcement agency, even if the appropriate agency was the FBI, could investigate it. But the appropriate agency isn’t the FBI. The FBI has already stated that it won’t investigate as no one has alleged a federal crime. They don’t have jurisdiction over this sort of thing. At best this was a Hail Mary pass to coerce the FBI into wasting resources in a months long investigation, which would kill Kavanaugh’s nomination. But it isn’t even that as I’m sure the last thing Ford and her attorneys want is an investigation of any sort into this baseless claim. What they want is an excuse not to testify but to keep the lie alive in the court of public opinion.

These activists, as well as the Congressional Democrats, will scream bloody murder but it’s time to confirm Kavanaugh without delay. It’s a naked, partisan, and despicable dirty trick. By asking for the impossible they obviously wanted to do, with an assist from Feinstein, was to throw a grenade into the hearings in the hope of blowing it up.

    DINORightMarie in reply to Arminius. | September 18, 2018 at 11:47 pm

    I agree with your post, except for the “she won’t testify.”

    That is what her lawyer said today, says now.

    It won’t last. That is all part of the play, the script.

    She will testify, I believe, and tell a tale that has been written for her – maybe even by her and some chums – to destroy a good man all because a POTUS she/they don’t like sits in the White House……

    Beyond disgusting.

      She won’t testify on Monday so she misses her chance to testify at all now that it’s clear that this is a vile smear campaign and a despicable delaying tactic. Grassley and the rest of the GOP Senators can’t reward this behavior. On Thursday at the latest Grassley should announce he’s cancelling what has become an entirely pointless hearing and instead scheduling the vote.

      As it turns out Ford’s attorney Debra Katz is on the board of directors (she’s the vice chair) of the extremely left wing, Soros funded Project On Government Oversight or POGO. Recall when demanding an impossibly large and irrelevant document dump from the National Archives was the leftist delaying tactic duJour? POGO joined in the effort. If you care to read their dishonest letter the group sent to Grassley it’s on their site.

      I can save you the trouble. Kavanaugh provided over 500,000 pages of documents. No SCOTUS nominee has ever provided anything close to that many documents. As Ted Cruz pointed out that’s more than the last five nominees combined. How did POGO refer to that in their letter? They called it “a narrow set of records.” And if you want to verify the fact that Ford’s lawyer is on the board, go to the “about” page, then to the board and staff link at the right side of the page, then click on board link. Her picture and name are there.

      She’s also big Dem donor in her own right.

      Her client is also a lefty activist, but she scrubbed her internet presence this month before going public by closing her social media sites. Still the internet is forever and traces of her anti-Trump activism remain.

      This hit job was clearly planned for months.

        “This hit job was clearly planned for months.”

        Of course. The Marxist party plans well ahead. The pussy party doesn’t even recognize the attack.

Bill Cosby was a test run – the left wanted to see if one of the most beloved men could be taken down in this way. (They wanted him discredited because he was a pillar of the black community telling the kids to stop being victims and do what he did – work HARD and achieve your dreams. Can’t have that if you want to keep ’em down, on the plantation, voting D forevah.)

It worked. Beautifully.

No evidence. Thirty+ year old allegations. Settlements that implied guilt. More women come to make the accusations appear more credible. It is, after all the “seriousness of the charges” dontcha know.

Of course, Clarence Thomas came before; however, he was not world-beloved. He was also confirmed, so that attack was not 100% successful. Tweak the D playbook, make the changes to the plays and test it out again……..

Now, here we are.

It will not end unless and until the Republicans and sane people stand up and STAND AGAINST this defamation.

FBI investigated Blasey Ford’s Claim and Responded Tuesday: “It’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.”

also there’s rumor of Blasey Ford doing this because Candidate Romney put Kavanaugh on Romney’s SCotUS list

another rumor of writing a letter defaming Gorsuch