Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Who do you believe?


  • Total voters
    453
Grassley sets Friday deadline for Kavanaugh accuser to say if she will testify

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley is giving Christine Blasey Ford until Friday morning to say whether she will take lawmakers up on their offer to testify about her allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Grassley, in a letter to Ford’s attorneys on Wednesday, set a 10 a.m. Friday deadline to respond to the invitation “if she intends to testify on Monday.”

“You have stated repeatedly that Dr. Ford wants to tell her story,” Grassley wrote in the letter. “I sincerely hope that Dr. Ford will accept my invitation to do so, either privately or publicly, on Monday.”

It’s still not clear if Ford -- who claims Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than 35 years ago while in high school -- will ultimately accept the invitation to testify on Capitol Hill.

Earlier this week, her attorney said Ford was willing to do so. But her legal team now says she won’t testify until the FBI investigates the allegations, something Republicans and the bureau have rejected.

Grassley said it’s not the FBI’s “role to investigate a matter such as this.”

“The Constitution assigns the Senate, and only the Senate, with the task of advising the president on his nominee and consenting to the nomination if the circumstances merit,” Grassley said in his letter to Ford’s lawyers.

A federal law enforcement official told Fox News that Ford's insistence on an FBI probe is "totally inappropriate."

"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," the official said.

A highly placed law enforcement source also said there won’t be an FBI investigation because there are no allegations a federal crime was committed. The bureau has also already conducted a background investigation.

In a follow-up letter Wednesday, the lawyers, Lisa Banks and Debra Katz, doubled down on that request, even as Republicans characterized it as a stall tactic that did not excuse Ford from providing sworn testimony before the Senate.

"Dr. Ford was reluctantly thrust into the public spotlight only two days ago. She is currently unable to go home, and is receiving ongoing threats to her and her family's safety," the lawyers wrote. "Fairness and respect for her situation dictate that she should have time to deal with this. She continues to believe that a full nonpartisan investigation of this matter is needed and she is willing to cooperate with the Committee. "

Also on Wednesday, Grassley unloaded a torrent of criticism on Sen. Dianne Feinstein for her handling of the sexual assault accusations, telling the ranking Democrat on the committee, "I cannot overstate how disappointed I am."

Saying Feinstein "chose to sit on the allegations until a politically opportune moment," Grassley demanded she immediately turn over an unredacted copy of the letter from Ford that Feinstein received July 30.

Feinstein, D-Calif., shared the letter with federal authorities and other senators only last week, days before a key Judiciary Committee vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation, after a leak about the letter was published in The Intercept.

Republicans have accused Democrats of orchestrating that leak.

Grassley who called the document a "significant piece of evidence in Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation process," said that despite multiple requests, he still has access only to a redacted copy of the letter included in supplemental background materials provided by the FBI to a select group of senators.

Meanwhile, President Trump said Wednesday he hopes Ford appears before the committee.

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

A growing number of Republican senators have called for moving ahead to a vote if Ford doesn’t show up for the planned hearing.

Ford went public on Sunday, alleging that Kavanaugh forced himself onto her and covered her mouth in the 1980s, when Kavanaugh was 17 and she was 15. Ford did not mention the incident to others by her own admission until 2012, according to The Washington Post, when her therapist recorded her claim that four individuals had committed the assault.

Ford has since claimed that the therapist incorrectly transcribed that detail, and that she had said there were only two people in the room. Her husband has maintained that Ford mentioned Kavanaugh in the therapy sessions.

Ford also told The Post she could not remember in whose house the alleged incident occurred, the exact month of the episode, or why there was a gathering there.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...kavanaugh-accuser-to-say-if-will-testify.html



10 AM

FRIDAY



TICK-TOCK, BITCH. <MaryseShutIt>


EDIT : So if she doesn't respond or refuses to testify, then the vote will happen....ON MONDAY from all indications. Time has run out for the Democraps.
 
That's a really stupid conclusion to make. What those "same individuals" are asking for is an investigation where one seems warranted, for the purpose of transparency into matters that are important: Investigations in foreign interference in our elections; and whether or not accusations that a nominee to our highest court committed sexual assault.

Your side however wants both investigations to end in fear that it might discover illegal behavior by the Trump WH and campaign; and that the other might tank a partisan nominee who's already lied under oath during his conformation hearings. In both cases, the only reason given is that the accusers are lying.

The presidents own lawyer, lying. The porn star the president paid to have sex with, lied about it, and then admitting that he paid to silence her, she's lying. Any media outlet that runs an unfavorable story, fake news, they're lying. The people that have pled guilty to crimes and are now cooperating with federal authorities, all liars. And now this women, clearly a liar.

That's pretty much par for the course with you guys. Anyone who speaks out against your side = liars.

But please, continue calling everyone else a partisan.

Right now we have 3 people saying it didn't happen and some therapist's notes about an incident that seems to be different from what the accuser is describing now.

This nomination has taken 73 days already, and the dems know that if they can get him scrubbed and a new appointee that it will be into the text term and are hoping to have control of the Senate by then. The lady either needs to make her allegations under oath or the dems need to stop with the grandstanding for votes in the midterms.
 
Wait, so she didn't identify this guy publicly, right? So how does he know that she is identifying him privately?

She gave the WaPo reporter the name "PJ" and they figured out who it would have been and reached out for comment over the weekend before the story ran.

He hadn't got back to them by Sunday morning so he was left out of the story.
 
Not sure if this has been posted yet.

Two women who say they dated Kavanaugh issue statement defending him



https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...riends-vouch-for-him-following-sexual-assault

Wow, women that graduated in 1967 are sure of the veracity of Ford's story from some time in the 80's simply because they attended the same school.

You know I attended school with a few dr's, lawyers, minor politicians, a couple that went to Ivy schools, drug users, at least 1 child molester, a murderer, etc. People aren't saints just because they attended you're old hs.
 
Wow, women that graduated in 1967 are sure of the veracity of Ford's story from some time in the 80's simply because they attended the same school.

You know I attended school with a few dr's, lawyers, minor politicians, a couple that went to Ivy schools, drug users, at least 1 child molester, a murderer, etc. People aren't saints just because they attended you're old hs.
How is this a response to my post?
 
How is this a response to my post?

It's in the bottom of the story you linked:
Alumnae of Ford’s high school, including actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus, are circulating a letter to show their support for her.

“We believe Dr. Blasey Ford and are grateful that she came forward to tell her story,” reads a draft letter from alumnae of Holton-Arms, a private girls school in Bethesda, Md.

The letter, which has been signed by hundreds of Holton-Arms alumnae from classes of 1967 through 2018, asserts that Ford’s allegations about Kavanaugh are “all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton.”
 
Yeah, it was posted last Friday, but got buried quickly by a deluge of shit posts over the weekend. I also included it in the Thread Index in the OP along with other news articles, so late-comers can catch up on the latest developments later without having to scuba dive through all the muck.

That story is pretty much being ignored by the mainstream media because it doesn't fit their preferred narrative, but I bet they (and especially the partisan drones in this thread) would be all over that subject like flies buzzing on a pile of dung had any of Kavanaugh's former girlfriends (or any women in his life for that matter) have anything bad to say about him at all, instead of coming out en masse to defend his character like they are now.

You need certain qualifications to be eligible for "I Believe Her" Status
 
Are you aware that abortion services would continue to be available to most women in the USA even if Roe v Wade were overturned?
I'm quite aware how it works...in the end Roe won't get overturned. What the conservatives on the court will do is to continue to constrain access to abortions (which will also continue on the state level) through other decisions. They know they will never make abortion "illegal" again, but if you make it defacto very difficult to do, you've won as best you can.
 
He's right, it doesn't mention the boys school - just a prestigious school in Montgomery County - that could describe at least 7 different school in the area.
Ok. One good way to find out...

The solution to this whole thing is obvious. Forget an investigation by the FBI. The Republicans don't want that and it won't happen prior to testimony. The 3 people in the room at the time need to be brought to testify. From there you figure out what to do. The Republicans just accepting that Mark Judge won't testify is ridiculous and a clear admission (as if everyone didn't already know) that they want this to simply remain a he said she said and be on with confirming before they lose the house and possibly the senate and are essentially held hostage for the next few years by the Dems (which is inevitable in this climate).
 
They know they will never make abortion "illegal" again, but if you make it defacto very difficult to do, you've won as best you can.

Abortion wasn't "illegal" throughout the United States pre-Roe.

What the conservatives on the court will do is to continue to constrain access to abortions (which will also continue on the state level) through other decisions.

By what means do you think the "conservatives" on the Court are going to "constrain access to abortions"? Give an example.

Roe usurped state authority, forcing the states to legalize abortion even if their voters opposed it. If the voters of Alaska decide that abortion should be illegal after the first trimester except when the abortion would affect the mother's health? Too bad, SCOTUS has spoken! Roe was a clear violation of the 10th Amendment.
 
Last edited:
Wow, women that graduated in 1967 are sure of the veracity of Ford's story from some time in the 80's simply because they attended the same school.

You know I attended school with a few dr's, lawyers, minor politicians, a couple that went to Ivy schools, drug users, at least 1 child molester, a murderer, etc. People aren't saints just because they attended you're old hs.
I think you didn’t read this story
 
It's hilarious. The Liberal pundits were over the moon about her potential testimony, before they got their marching orders from the Dems. Chris Cuomo in particular has flip flopped so shamelessly. He was originally hyping the hearing up like Don King. Now all of a sudden it's "unfair" to ask her to testify.


They didn't think the Republicans would say yes... now that they did,.......oh shit. Move the goalposts

More evidence it's a all for show.
 
Last edited:
They didn't think the Republicans would say yes... now that they did,that like oh shit.

More evidence it's a all for show.


Yeah....I think they thought it would be the typical Dems vs. Republicans disagreement thing.

But the Republicans threw the ultimate curveball and agreed with them, and called their bluff.

THAT was something they were not nor would ever be prepared for.

After 10 am tomorrow, it will all be over and the voting will FINALLY commence on Monday.
 
Judge said he didn't recall any incident like that. And again you forgot about PJ.

At least get the basic facts down before you ruin a man's career and name over politics.

“I never saw anything like what was described,” Judge told The New York Times:


Further, he said, it did not match Mr. Kavanaugh’s character: “It is not who he is.” He said that the two were around each other constantly in high school, and recalled him as a “brilliant student,” who was very into sports, and was not “into anything crazy or illegal.”
Judge has no credibility. He was a blackout drunk that beat women like gongs.
 
Abortion wasn't "illegal" throughout the United States pre-Roe.



By what means do you think the "conservatives" on the Court are going to "constrain access to abortions"? Give an example.

Roe usurped state authority, forcing the states to legalize abortion even if their voters opposed it. If the voters of Alaska decide that abortion should be illegal after the first trimester except when the abortion would affect the mother's health? Too bad, SCOTUS has spoken!. Roe was a clear violation of the 10th Amendment.
This only scratches the surface, if you don't understand how states have made abortion much more difficult for women, you haven't been paying attention (I know you're just playing dumb, but some people haven't been paying attention). A quick google search will yield dozens of examples in dozens of states. And the Supreme Court will see many of these decisions in a vacuum over the coming years and uphold, regardless of Roe, that they do not infringe upon Roe (when they clearly do).

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/end-roe-v-wade-coming-states-ohio-have-rolled-back-ncna889056

"Ohioans already face so many challenges when they seek abortion services because, since 2011, more than 20 anti-abortion laws have been passed. They've been effective at eliminating access: In January 2011, there were 16 clinics providing abortions in Ohio but, as of today, there are only eight. Ohio has also seen a trend of private hospitals that formerly performed abortions — particularly in the case of severe fetal anomalies — refusing to provide abortions because of political pressures and required signage and literature in facilities that provide abortion."
 
This only scratches the surface, if you don't understand how states have made abortion much more difficult for women, you haven't been paying attention (I know you're just playing dumb, but some people haven't been paying attention). A quick google search will yield dozens of examples in dozens of states. And the Supreme Court will see many of these decisions in a vacuum over the coming years and uphold, regardless of Roe, that they do not infringe upon Roe (when they clearly do).

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/end-roe-v-wade-coming-states-ohio-have-rolled-back-ncna889056

"Ohioans already face so many challenges when they seek abortion services because, since 2011, more than 20 anti-abortion laws have been passed. They've been effective at eliminating access: In January 2011, there were 16 clinics providing abortions in Ohio but, as of today, there are only eight. Ohio has also seen a trend of private hospitals that formerly performed abortions — particularly in the case of severe fetal anomalies — refusing to provide abortions because of political pressures and required signage and literature in facilities that provide abortion."

You cited an opinion piece which frames the issue in accordance with a particular ideology. Here's a more neutral frame:

Voters in different states prefer to have different standards for abortion. That's to be expected, and is true of many issues. A democratic society respects the wishes of voters. An autocratic society overrules the will of voters by fiat. For an example of rule by fiat, see: Roe v Wade.

The framers left the state governments the power to decide how restrictive or unrestrictive abortion laws should be within their borders. Pre-Roe, you could have had one state that allowed abortion up to the day before birth, and another state that outlawed all abortion. That would have been consistent with the 10th Amendment and the principles of federalism upon which our great nation was founded.

=================

I asked you to provide an example of a Supreme Court decision that "constrained access to abortion", or to outline a hypothetical case by which that would occur. Could you please do that?
 
You cited an opinion piece which frames the issue in accordance with a particular ideology. Here's a more neutral frame:

Voters in different states prefer to have different standards for abortion. That's to be expected, and is true of many issues. A democratic society respects the wishes of voters. An autocratic society overrules the will of voters by fiat. For an example of rule by fiat, see: Roe v Wade.

The framers left the state governments the power to decide how restrictive or unrestrictive abortion laws should be within their borders. Pre-Roe, you could have had one state that allowed abortion up to the day before birth, and another state that outlawed all abortion. That would have been consistent with the 10th Amendment and the principles of federalism upon which our great nation was founded.

=================

I asked you to provide an example of a Supreme Court decision that "constrained access to abortion", or to outline a hypothetical case by which that would occur. Could you please do that?
I cited clear examples, no opinions, of how Ohio has made abortions more and more difficult for women to get, which is there right to do.

You're asking for something you know is impossible and I explained in the previous post that the Supreme Court WILL be in a position to decide on related abortion issues, not necessarily overturning ROE.

So let me make it clearer, the Supreme Court will be less and less likely to stand in the way of States making abortion defacto very difficult or impossible for some people.
 
I cited clear examples, no opinions, of how Ohio has made abortions more and more difficult for women to get, which is there right to do.

You're asking for something you know is impossible and I explained in the previous post that the Supreme Court WILL be in a position to decide on related abortion issues, not necessarily overturning ROE.

So let me make it clearer, the Supreme Court will be less and less likely to stand in the way of States making abortion defacto very difficult or impossible for some people.
How fucking weird is it that killing babies is people’s primary concern. How will I kill it? You might have to drive to another state. Why isn’t it a drive through?

I’m for abortion the same way I’m for needle exchanges. The absence of them is a worse scenario. You are actively taking a step to kill the baby though. It isn’t like you don’t take vitamins or something. You have to actively kill it. So yeah it should be legal but don’t sell it as anything else.
 
Back
Top