Professor Speaks Out About Alleged Sexual Assault By Kavanaugh

[coorslite21]

12 Reasons to Question the Truthfulness of Kavanaugh’s Accuser

By Grabien News 
September 17, 2018 at 9:16am

 

The anonymous woman who had accused Brett Kavanaugh — President Trump’s nominee to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court — has come forward. Her name is Christine Blasey Ford, and she currently works as a professor in the Social Work Department at California State University, Fullerton.

 

She’s accused Kavanaugh of forcing himself on her at a party in the early 1980s when she was 15 and he was 17.

Here’s her allegation, per the Washington Post:

 

While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

 

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

 

Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.

 

So, is it true?

 

In favor of Ford’s accusation: She reportedly told her therapist a version of this story in 2012, and her husband likewise says she told him, too. At the suggestion of her attorney, she also successfully took a polygraph test in early August.

 

 

There are also reasons to question Ford’s allegation. Here are the top 12:

 

12. Ford’s therapist’s notes of the incident don’t match her current version of the story. 

Ford says Kavanaugh pinned her down and attempted to take off her bathing suit; in the room also, she said, was his friend, Mark Judge. Ford first told this story in 2012 — about 30 years later — to her therapist during couples therapy. The therapist’s notes from that session don’t name Brett Kavanaugh and also report Ford said four men were in the room. Ford says the discrepancy is the fault of the therapist.

 

11. Ford, by her own admission, has a hazy recollection of the incident.

Despite telling The Washington Post this incident so traumatized her she’s been in recovery ever since, she also admitted not recalling the incident specifically. She doesn’t remember the year it happened, but believes it occurred in 1982, when she was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17. She does not recall where the incident occurred, only that it was at a house in Montgomery County, Md. She forgets whose house it was and how she got there. She forgot whether Kavanaugh and Judge were already upstairs when she went up, or if they came up after her. She also forgot how she got home that night.

 

10. Some of Ford’s students suggest she is vengeful and is mentally unbalanced.

On RateMyProfessor, Ford’s students give her generally negative reviews, with some going so far as to call her the “worst teacher” ever and that “something is wrong with her.” She’s also said to hold grudges against students who somehow “cross her.”

“Christine ford is the worst educator I have ever experienced,” one student wrote. “Avoid taking her class and avoid any interaction with this person. I feel like she has something wrong with her and I am surprised no one has caught this. Also avoid fullerton’s MSW program as long as she is there.”

“Prof. Ford is unprofessional, lacks appropriate filters, and I am honestly scared of her,” another in a 2014 review. The student reported receiving an A in her class despite his or her displeasure with the professor. “She’s made comments both in class and in e-mails, if you cross her, you will be on her bad side. I fear to think of the poor clients that had to deal with her while she got her MSW and her LCSW. Absolutely the worst teacher I ever had.”

 

9. Polygraph tests are so unreliable they are inadmissible in court.

Polygraph tests do not have any reliable capacity to detecting the veracity of a statement, and are therefore inadmissible in criminal proceedings (except in rare circumstances where both parties agree). Here’s how the law firm Broden & Mickelsen explain polygraph tests: “The machines measure a person’s biological processes to determine if they are becoming stressed out during interrogations. Factors such as an increase in blood pressure or heart rate are measured. While these may be indicators that a person is lying, they may also simply indicate that a suspect is feeling pressurized by the interrogation even if they are telling the truth.”

 

8. The allegation wasn’t released until Kavanaugh’s hearings were over. 

Ford’s story first surfaced in July when she sent a letter to her congressman, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.). That letter was forwarded to Sen. Dianne Feinstein in late July. For reasons Feinstein has not disclosed, she kept the letter secret until after Kavanaugh’s hearings concluded, missing repeated opportunities to question Kavanaugh directly. By releasing the letter after the hearings concluded, Kavanaugh is effectively robbed of an opportunity to defend himself directly in a public forum. Feinstein has suggested she sought to simply honor Ford’s request for confidentiality. Yet that doesn’t explain her not bringing the matter up during the hearings, as she could have left the accuser nameless.

 

7. Kavanaugh has successfully passed six FBI background checks. 

Brett Kavanaugh has already served in many of the highest levels of government, almost all of which required extensive FBI background checks. He passed all of these without incident. As Sen. Grassley wrote Monday, “Judge Kavanaugh has undergone six FBI full-field investigations from 1993 to 2018. No such allegation resembling the anonymous claims ever surfaced.”

 

6. 65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school have vouched for his character. 

Unlike other recent #MeToo accusations, there are no similar stories from other Kavanaugh contemporaries. Indeed, it’s the opposite. After Ford’s anonymous allegation surfaced, a group of women who knew Kavanaugh in high school signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, collectively serving as a character witness for Kavanaugh.

“Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity. In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day.”

 

5. The only witnesses deny her allegation.

Besides Ford, there are only two other named parties: Brett Kavanaugh himself and his friend, Mark Judge. Both have issued vehement denials. Ford, per the Washington Post, also named two others who were in attendance that night. The Washington Post said neither party responded to requests for comment.

 

4. The haze of alcohol.

By Ford’s own telling, she was drinking the night of the incident. She says Kavanaugh was heavily intoxicated by did not indicate her own level of sobriety. Did alcohol affect her perception of the incident that night, or her memory of it? The Washington Post account does not describer her level of intoxication when the incident occurred.

 

3. Deleted her public social media accounts before revealing herself. 

As The Washington Post reported, Ford deleted all of her public social media before she came forward, making it difficult to see the advocacy and partisanship she was engaged in the time leading up to her making her allegation public. Of course, Ford may simply value her privacy, but the act of deleting her public postings will inevitably make some wonder what she didn’t want seen.

 

2. Ford may have an unrelated grudge against Kavanaugh, as his mother, once a circuit court judge, ruled against Ford’s parents

In August 1996, Christine Blasey Ford’s parents, Paula and Ralph Blasey, were foreclosed upon. Kavanaugh’s mom, Martha, was then serving as a judge on the Montgomery Country Circuit Court, and she ruled against Christine Ford’s parents. (Information about the case is available here.) This is more significant in the context of Ford’s students reporting she harbors grudges against those who “cross her.”

 

1. Ford is a Democrat who donates to left-wing causes, attended the anti-Trump March for Science, and previously signed an open letter challenging Trump’s border policy. 

Ford is a political activist who has made dozens of donations to left-wing causes. According to OpenSecrets, she has made more than 60 donations to liberal causes, with almost four dozen to the pro-abortion group, Emily’s List, alone.

 

Ford also donated to the DNC, Hillarious Clinton (more than 10 times), Bernie Sanders, and the progressive organizing group ActBlue.

 

Ford likewise attended the anti-Trump March for Science, where she wore a hat knitted like a human brain, but inspired by the feminist “***** hats” worn at the Women’s Marches. Ford also added her name to an open letter from health professionals who argued the U.S. border policy resulting in temporary separation of some families was harmful to children’s development. The letter, titled “America’s Health Professionals Appeal to Trump Administration: End Family Separation at Border Immediately,” argued:

 

“Thousands of medical voices from across the United States have joined forces with Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) to urge the Trump administration to immediately halt the separation of migrant and asylum seeking children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. …

 

“It should not be U.S. policy to traumatize children, and especially not as a form of indirect punishment of their parents. …

 

“Forced separation of children and parents, especially in connection with the detention of a parent, can constitute an adverse childhood experience, which research links with disrupted neurodevelopment, resulting in social, emotional, and cognitive impairment, and even negative intergenerational effects.”

 

Grabien News is the consumer site of the news prep service, Grabien.

 

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

[Pitcher]

Yes I saw that CL. Smells of bad pilitics but let her testify and see how she handles the questions. It’s a serious accusation and she needs to be heard

[jg1]

This is so much nonsense it's hard to respond to lies. Makes accusations, and if they are lies what is done about it. She gets a big payday, and takes out a Trumpster at the same time. 

[jg1]

6 minutes ago, jg1 said:

This is so much nonsense it's hard to respond to her lies. Makes accusations, and if they are lies what is done about it. She gets a big payday, and takes out a Trumpster at the same time. 

 

[jg1]

7 minutes ago, jg1 said:

 

[new york kevin]

11 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I can't say one way or the other.....wasn't in the bedroom, if there even was a bedroom.  And I agree the timing is complete political hack stuff....but the story itself was passed along through the proper political channels by the accuser after Kavanaugh was added to the short list but before his nomination.

 

GO RV, then BV

Chalk this up to one more rare thing we agree on Shabbi. Point of parliamentary procedure. The claim/story was not passed along through the proper channels. Diane Feinstein held onto it since receiving it in July 2018. At no time during her 2 or 3 hearings on Kavanaugh did she ask him about it. So with it coming out now, just prior to a vote on his candidacy for the Supreme Court it is beyond suspect. Nothing but a unverifiable she said thing ploy on the part of the Socialist and left leaning Dems. JMHO

[Indraman]

'Shame on her': Bruce Slams Feinstein For Using Kavanaugh Accuser's letter a 'Political Hatchet'

 

 

Indy

[coorslite21]

Just more stupidier every minute..... So now we're supposed to postpone this by several weeks...... So the FBI can do a investigation.. A jurisdiction that they have no right to  Investigate...... This would be a county, state investigation by law...... And you might think about 36 years .....and statutes of limitation that have passed...... Totally insane in my mind...... This individual doesn't wish to sacrifice...(purgure).. herself, so she will not testify...... But, like Anita hill from the past, she will profit from all of this.....and the damage has been done..... Just the facts......CL

[Indraman]

***LANGUAGE***

 

Even The WSJ Realizes That The Kavanaugh Allegations Are BS | STYXHEXENHAMMER666

 

 

Indy

[yota691]

August 23, 2018

In case you forgot: Congress paid millions in hush money to protect politicians

By Keith Edwards

 

For all those Democrats and the MSM seeking to use Michael Cohen's plea deal to implicate President Trump in the alleged crime confessed to by Cohen, don't forget to use the precedent set by the highly respected institution we call the Congress of the United States of America when you make arguments that Donald Trump was trying to influence an election with a payment to silence his accusers.

The following is a list of articles from major news outlets with short excerpts written about members of Congress paying "secret settlements" for everything from sexual harassment to who knows what else – because we really don't know "what else" they did.  It's a secret.

The secrecy, or can we say cover-up, is meant to protect the identity of the elected officials involved who need to silence their accusers.  You know, just in case the information might become public and affect their positions in Congress or – wait for it – the outcomes of their next elections.

Sexual harassment fund exposes Congress

Under Congressional Accountability Act, taxpayers pay for secret settlements. Where's the accountability?

 

When sexual harassers agree on confidential settlements with victims, at least the payments come out of the harassers' own pockets or from companies that choose to employ them.

But not, as the nation has learned this month, when the harasser serves in Congress. Then, taxpayers foot the bill. And the entire episode remains hidden.

From USA Today (11/17/2017)

How Congress plays by different rules on sexual harassment and misconduct

Congress makes its own rules about the handling of sexual complaints against members and staff, passing laws exempting it from practices that apply to other employers.

The result is a culture in which some lawmakers suspect harassment is rampant. Yet victims are unlikely to come forward, according to attorneys who represent them.

From The Washington Post (10/27/17)

Congress' sexual harassment system, decoded

It has all the makings of a serious scandal: more than $17 million in public money paid since 1997 to settle workplace disputes on Capitol Hill.

But the reality of what critics lambaste as a sexual harassment "slush fund" is more complicated, like much about Congress' policy for handling harassment complaints.  The money covers all sorts of settlements, just not for sexual harassment, and some lawmakers cut their own side deals with accusers.

From Politico (11/21/17)

Congress paid out $17 million in settlements. Here's why we know so little about that money.

Two things have become painfully clear on Capitol Hill this week: Lawmakers and staffers say sexual harassment is "rampant" – but even members of Congress have no idea just how widespread the problem is.

The controversial and sensitive issue has taken center stage in Congress this week, with female lawmakers making fresh allegations of sexual harassment against unnamed members who are currently in office, and the unveiling of a new bill on Wednesday to change how sexual harassment complaints are reported and resolved.

On Thursday, the Office of Compliance released additional information indicating that it has paid victims more than $17 million since its creation in the 1990s.  That includes all settlements, not just related to sexual harassment, but also discrimination and other cases.

From CNN (11/16/17)

Record sexual harassment settlement exposes byzantine congressional process

Of all the secret deals cut on behalf of accused members of congress, the one that resulted in the largest settlement yet uncovered may be the most surprising.  The details provide a window into a process so opaque, convoluted and confusing that even the accused congressman was left in the dark about exactly how and why his accuser ended up being paid $220,000 for her claim.

With new harassment accusations being revealed on a nearly daily basis in Congress, documents obtained by NBC News from this one case shed light on how taxpayer money ends up being used to essentially sweep such incidents under a bureaucratic rug with little accountability.

From NBC News (12/17/17)

Congress details some payouts to sexual harassment accusers

The Congressional office that has been using taxpayer funds to secretly settle cases of sexual harassment on Capitol Hill lifted the veil on a sliver of data today, showing that between 2008 and 2012 it paid out $115,000 to staffers who had filed workplace sexual harassment complaints while employed by a member of the House of Representatives.

From ABC News (12/19/17)

Rep says Congress paid out $15M to silence sex harassment victims

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) told MSNBC that the millions have been doled out to alleged victims of harassment from congressional members over the past decade.

The US congresswoman who testified that current members of Congress are known sex harassers said Tuesday night that $15 million in hush money has been paid to accusers.

From New York Post (11/14/17)

Why Are Congressmen Using Taxpayer Funds to Buy Off Sex Abuse Claims?

Staffers who are the targets of unwanted sexual advances on Capitol Hill should not have to endure a lengthy mediation process and pay the legal bills as lawmakers secretly draw on a mysterious slush fund to settle the accusations against them, an advocate for taxpayers argues.

In the event of a monetary settlement of sexual harassment complaints, members of Congress can draw on a taxpayer-funded account set up within the Treasury Department to cover their legal expenses and settle cases.

The account has paid out $17 million in the past 10 years, public records show, although it is not clear how much of that was for cases of sexual harassment.

From Newsweek (11/29/17)

Congress Has A Sexual Harassment Problem

After weeks of stories detailing dozens of such sexual harassment incidents on Capitol Hill – most involving unnamed lawmakers – two things are clear: Congress has an abuse problem, and Congress is not sufficiently dealing with it.

From The Huffington Post (11/21/17)

Congressional watchdog demands names in $17M sex harassment payoffs

Frustrated with congressional stonewalling, an ethics watchdog group is going public with its demand that the list of lawmakers tied to $17 million in tax dollars used to pay off sexual harassment claims be released.

"The public deserves to know," said the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, or FACT.

Congress' Office of Compliance has paid out $17 million in harassment cases and kept the names of members involved secret. Two current female members said that there are two sitting lawmakers involved.

[Shabibilicious]

On 9/17/2018 at 6:03 PM, coorslite21 said:

12 Reasons to Question the Truthfulness of Kavanaugh’s Accuser

By Grabien News 
September 17, 2018 at 9:16am

 

The anonymous woman who had accused Brett Kavanaugh — President Trump’s nominee to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court — has come forward. Her name is Christine Blasey Ford, and she currently works as a professor in the Social Work Department at California State University, Fullerton.

 

She’s accused Kavanaugh of forcing himself on her at a party in the early 1980s when she was 15 and he was 17.

Here’s her allegation, per the Washington Post:

 

While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

 

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”

 

Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.

 

So, is it true?

 

In favor of Ford’s accusation: She reportedly told her therapist a version of this story in 2012, and her husband likewise says she told him, too. At the suggestion of her attorney, she also successfully took a polygraph test in early August.

 

 

There are also reasons to question Ford’s allegation. Here are the top 12:

 

12. Ford’s therapist’s notes of the incident don’t match her current version of the story. 

Ford says Kavanaugh pinned her down and attempted to take off her bathing suit; in the room also, she said, was his friend, Mark Judge. Ford first told this story in 2012 — about 30 years later — to her therapist during couples therapy. The therapist’s notes from that session don’t name Brett Kavanaugh and also report Ford said four men were in the room. Ford says the discrepancy is the fault of the therapist.

 

11. Ford, by her own admission, has a hazy recollection of the incident.

Despite telling The Washington Post this incident so traumatized her she’s been in recovery ever since, she also admitted not recalling the incident specifically. She doesn’t remember the year it happened, but believes it occurred in 1982, when she was 15 and Kavanaugh was 17. She does not recall where the incident occurred, only that it was at a house in Montgomery County, Md. She forgets whose house it was and how she got there. She forgot whether Kavanaugh and Judge were already upstairs when she went up, or if they came up after her. She also forgot how she got home that night.

 

10. Some of Ford’s students suggest she is vengeful and is mentally unbalanced.

On RateMyProfessor, Ford’s students give her generally negative reviews, with some going so far as to call her the “worst teacher” ever and that “something is wrong with her.” She’s also said to hold grudges against students who somehow “cross her.”

“Christine ford is the worst educator I have ever experienced,” one student wrote. “Avoid taking her class and avoid any interaction with this person. I feel like she has something wrong with her and I am surprised no one has caught this. Also avoid fullerton’s MSW program as long as she is there.”

“Prof. Ford is unprofessional, lacks appropriate filters, and I am honestly scared of her,” another in a 2014 review. The student reported receiving an A in her class despite his or her displeasure with the professor. “She’s made comments both in class and in e-mails, if you cross her, you will be on her bad side. I fear to think of the poor clients that had to deal with her while she got her MSW and her LCSW. Absolutely the worst teacher I ever had.”

 

9. Polygraph tests are so unreliable they are inadmissible in court.

Polygraph tests do not have any reliable capacity to detecting the veracity of a statement, and are therefore inadmissible in criminal proceedings (except in rare circumstances where both parties agree). Here’s how the law firm Broden & Mickelsen explain polygraph tests: “The machines measure a person’s biological processes to determine if they are becoming stressed out during interrogations. Factors such as an increase in blood pressure or heart rate are measured. While these may be indicators that a person is lying, they may also simply indicate that a suspect is feeling pressurized by the interrogation even if they are telling the truth.”

 

8. The allegation wasn’t released until Kavanaugh’s hearings were over. 

Ford’s story first surfaced in July when she sent a letter to her congressman, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.). That letter was forwarded to Sen. Dianne Feinstein in late July. For reasons Feinstein has not disclosed, she kept the letter secret until after Kavanaugh’s hearings concluded, missing repeated opportunities to question Kavanaugh directly. By releasing the letter after the hearings concluded, Kavanaugh is effectively robbed of an opportunity to defend himself directly in a public forum. Feinstein has suggested she sought to simply honor Ford’s request for confidentiality. Yet that doesn’t explain her not bringing the matter up during the hearings, as she could have left the accuser nameless.

 

7. Kavanaugh has successfully passed six FBI background checks. 

Brett Kavanaugh has already served in many of the highest levels of government, almost all of which required extensive FBI background checks. He passed all of these without incident. As Sen. Grassley wrote Monday, “Judge Kavanaugh has undergone six FBI full-field investigations from 1993 to 2018. No such allegation resembling the anonymous claims ever surfaced.”

 

6. 65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school have vouched for his character. 

Unlike other recent #MeToo accusations, there are no similar stories from other Kavanaugh contemporaries. Indeed, it’s the opposite. After Ford’s anonymous allegation surfaced, a group of women who knew Kavanaugh in high school signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, collectively serving as a character witness for Kavanaugh.

“Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity. In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day.”

 

5. The only witnesses deny her allegation.

Besides Ford, there are only two other named parties: Brett Kavanaugh himself and his friend, Mark Judge. Both have issued vehement denials. Ford, per the Washington Post, also named two others who were in attendance that night. The Washington Post said neither party responded to requests for comment.

 

4. The haze of alcohol.

By Ford’s own telling, she was drinking the night of the incident. She says Kavanaugh was heavily intoxicated by did not indicate her own level of sobriety. Did alcohol affect her perception of the incident that night, or her memory of it? The Washington Post account does not describer her level of intoxication when the incident occurred.

 

3. Deleted her public social media accounts before revealing herself. 

As The Washington Post reported, Ford deleted all of her public social media before she came forward, making it difficult to see the advocacy and partisanship she was engaged in the time leading up to her making her allegation public. Of course, Ford may simply value her privacy, but the act of deleting her public postings will inevitably make some wonder what she didn’t want seen.

 

2. Ford may have an unrelated grudge against Kavanaugh, as his mother, once a circuit court judge, ruled against Ford’s parents

In August 1996, Christine Blasey Ford’s parents, Paula and Ralph Blasey, were foreclosed upon. Kavanaugh’s mom, Martha, was then serving as a judge on the Montgomery Country Circuit Court, and she ruled against Christine Ford’s parents. (Information about the case is available here.) This is more significant in the context of Ford’s students reporting she harbors grudges against those who “cross her.”

 

1. Ford is a Democrat who donates to left-wing causes, attended the anti-Trump March for Science, and previously signed an open letter challenging Trump’s border policy. 

Ford is a political activist who has made dozens of donations to left-wing causes. According to OpenSecrets, she has made more than 60 donations to liberal causes, with almost four dozen to the pro-abortion group, Emily’s List, alone.

 

Ford also donated to the DNC, Hillarious Clinton (more than 10 times), Bernie Sanders, and the progressive organizing group ActBlue.

 

Ford likewise attended the anti-Trump March for Science, where she wore a hat knitted like a human brain, but inspired by the feminist “***** hats” worn at the Women’s Marches. Ford also added her name to an open letter from health professionals who argued the U.S. border policy resulting in temporary separation of some families was harmful to children’s development. The letter, titled “America’s Health Professionals Appeal to Trump Administration: End Family Separation at Border Immediately,” argued:

 

“Thousands of medical voices from across the United States have joined forces with Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) to urge the Trump administration to immediately halt the separation of migrant and asylum seeking children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. …

 

“It should not be U.S. policy to traumatize children, and especially not as a form of indirect punishment of their parents. …

 

“Forced separation of children and parents, especially in connection with the detention of a parent, can constitute an adverse childhood experience, which research links with disrupted neurodevelopment, resulting in social, emotional, and cognitive impairment, and even negative intergenerational effects.”

 

Grabien News is the consumer site of the news prep service, Grabien.

 

Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.

 

12 Reasons To Question The Truthfulness of Kavanaugh's Denials

 

 

Note:  Ted Cruz was counted twice.    

 

GO RV, then BV  

[Shabibilicious]

On 9/17/2018 at 9:19 PM, new york kevin said:

Chalk this up to one more rare thing we agree on Shabbi. Point of parliamentary procedure. The claim/story was not passed along through the proper channels. Diane Feinstein held onto it since receiving it in July 2018. At no time during her 2 or 3 hearings on Kavanaugh did she ask him about it. So with it coming out now, just prior to a vote on his candidacy for the Supreme Court it is beyond suspect. Nothing but a unverifiable she said thing ploy on the part of the Socialist and left leaning Dems. JMHO

 

With respect to Professor Ford's actions, she did indeed pass the info along through the proper channels.....Diane Feinsteins devious actions however, are completely separate from those of the accuser.  

 

GO RV, then BV  

[Indraman]

1 minute ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

With respect to Professor Ford's actions, she did indeed pass the info along through the proper channels.....Diane Feinsteins devious actions however, are completely separate from those of the accuser.  

 

GO RV, then BV  

 

In 36 years of dealing with this event in her life, when was the very first time that she said the person who did this to her was Kavanaugh? 3 months ago?

 

Indy

[Shabibilicious]

3 minutes ago, Indraman said:

 

In 36 years of dealing with this event in her life, when was the very first time that she said the person who did this to her was Kavanaugh? 3 months ago?

 

Indy

 

Would have to ask her therapist.....probably a HIPAA violation for him/her to tell though.  

 

GO RV, htne BV

[caz1104]

a "HE SAID, SHE SAID" from 35 years ago......another waste of taxpayer money

[Shabibilicious]

26 minutes ago, caz1104 said:

a "HE SAID, SHE SAID" from 35 years ago......another waste of taxpayer money

 

You can say that again, Caz.    .....and Good Morning.  

 

  

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited September 19, 2018 by Shabibilicious

[coorslite21]

55 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

12 Reasons To Question The Truthfulness of Kavanaugh's Denials

 

 

Note:  Ted Cruz was counted twice.    

 

GO RV, then BV  

It does run deep in the Swamp....really pathetic when Ted Kennedy was on the panel questioning Anita Hill in the Clarence Thomas proceedings ....

[nstoolman1]

2 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Would have to ask her therapist.....probably a HIPAA violation for him/her to tell though.  

 

GO RV, htne BV

If she makes an accusation that can only be corroborated through her therapist then the HIPPA law goes out the window.

If she wants the truth to be known ALL facts need to be disclosed. No hiding behind the therapist skirt/pants. 

She has already said what she said to the therapist. Let see proof it was disclosed when it was. 

[Shabibilicious]

32 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

If she makes an accusation that can only be corroborated through her therapist then the HIPPA law goes out the window.

If she wants the truth to be known ALL facts need to be disclosed. No hiding behind the therapist skirt/pants. 

She has already said what she said to the therapist. Let see proof it was disclosed when it was. 

 

Fine by me.....But do you really think it will make any difference?  

 

GO RV, then BV

[new york kevin]

Shabs Perhaps. But why can the accuser not remember the place , date, or time the alleged attack took place.   She emerged, her charges were taken seriously, stated that she is willing to testify immediately, and today through her attorney she will only testify AFTER the FBI starts an investigation into her claims. Again, the accuser not remember the place , date, or time the alleged attack took place.

  So what facts could any police agency; local, state, or federal (FBI) . Why are the Dems demeaning the accuser of Keith Ellison for domestic violence accusations, after she released medical records as evidence. Both situations are nothing less than proof that there is a double standard being applied here. Accuse a Republican of an unproveble  attempted abuse of a women 45 years ago, and attack the accuser/victim of a Democrat, when the victim of the Dem provides evidence. Both indicate the playbook of the Socialist, Dems, and Deep State Republicans, which is to delay and obstruct everything that this President is trying to do.

 The people of this country elected Donald Trump POTUS in large part because he promised to return the Court  Systems in this country to a fair and balanced constitutional foundation. Many insiders don't want that. Whoever POTUS Trump picks will be from a select group of Constitutional lawyers and judges. Preventing the Supreme Court , the last chance for the LEFT to effect the course of this country in the future, subverting the actual rule of law,  free of the constraints provided by the constitution. How the founding Fathers of this country saw the complex twisted lengths some in this country would go to to eliminate the will of the people of this country, and thus the course this nation would take back in the time of our hard fought independence amazes me. 

 Fair and balance application of the law is not an antiquity , it is necessary for the plaintiff and defendant in all courts of law.  One can not just make a claim, and then provide no proof. There are laws and penalties for filing a false police report you know. 

[new york kevin]

1 hour ago, nstoolman1 said:

If she makes an accusation that can only be corroborated through her therapist then the HIPPA law goes out the window.

If she wants the truth to be known ALL facts need to be disclosed. No hiding behind the therapist skirt/pants. 

She has already said what she said to the therapist. Let see proof it was disclosed when it was. 

HIPPA laws are ment only to protect medical info from being transmitted for needless or nefarious reasons. HIPPA Laws do not prevent any and all medical records from being  subpoenaed in a valid legal action that is filed in a court of law. Once cause is shown to the bearing said documents may or may not have on a case.

Edited September 19, 2018 by new york kevin

[Karsten]

•  
• ort post

•  

 

 

As for this.....Nothing more than a Stall Tactic to get the vote put off until after the mid terms.......liberals really think they are going to take the Senate and then they will see to it that that seat remains vacant for 2 more years when they plan to steal the white House from POTUS Trump and the American People.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Brett Kavanaugh accuser will
not testify in public until FBI properly investigates her claims, says lawyer

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

There was no Federal Law broken if anything ever did happen so the FBI would have no Jurisdiction. The Statute Of Limitation has well expired and they no there is no proof of anything from 36 years ago other than her story.......At best the liberals will hope they can flaw his credibility enough he will back down like those in the past have done......

 

The Judge needs to go after her in a big financial way or these 11th hour accusations will just continue in the future.

 

Karsten

 

[new york kevin]

Karsten, additionally the FBI does not investigate crimes of this nature. Such crimes are investigated by local law enforcement .  All accusers deserve to be heard, but how can this accuser be heard if she is unwilling to come and be heard. Putting aside the statute of limitation issue.

[Shabibilicious]

11 minutes ago, Karsten said:

•  
• ort post

•  

 

 

As for this.....Nothing more than a Stall Tactic to get the vote put off until after the mid terms.......liberals really think they are going to take the Senate and then they will see to it that that seat remains vacant for 2 more years when they plan to steal the white House from POTUS Trump and the American People.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Brett Kavanaugh accuser will
not testify in public until FBI properly investigates her claims, says lawyer

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

There was no Federal Law broken if anything ever did happen so the FBI would have no Jurisdiction. The Statute Of Limitation has well expired and they no there is no proof of anything from 36 years ago other than her story.......At best the liberals will hope they can flaw his credibility enough he will back down like those in the past have done......

 

The Judge needs to go after her in a big financial way or these 11th hour accusations will just continue in the future.

 

Karsten

 

 

And her knowing that the 11 Republicans she needs to tell her story to have already made up their minds just like you, why would you not think she would want it investigated first?  Heck you already want her prosecuted for false accusations and she hasn't even testified yet.  Wow.

 

Good RV, then BV

[new york kevin]

All accusers/victims of sexual assault deserve to be heard. But how can this accuser be heard if she is not willing to come before the committee on Monday to be heard . FBI does not need to open a investigation prior to her testimony. Mostly because such accusations are investigated by local law enforcement.  Unverifiable 11th hour accusation should not derail any Supreme Court Nominee's candidacy .  If unverifiable accusation can have this result , then any political party that desires to obstruct such a candidate for any appointed position ... well all that has to be done is to make an unverifiable sexual allegation against said candidate. This is the Socialist and Dems playbook