DemonRATS panic~Full Scale Probe into Smearing Kavanaugh ready to explode

[Skylar]

Witness: Kavanaugh Accuser Likes Having Sex with More Than one Guy at a Time
Gateway Pundit ^ | October 2, 2018 | Jim Hoft

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today received a signed statement from Mr. Dennis Ketterer, the former Democratic candidate for Congress and weatherman for WJLA Channel 7 in Washington, regarding the recent allegations made by Julie Swetnick against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Mr. Ketterer had a relationship with Ms. Swetnick in the 1990s. Below are excerpts of the signed statement, which was provided to the committee under penalty of felony. “During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.

“I asked her if this was just a fantasy of hers. She responded that she first tried sex with multiple guys while in high school and still liked it from time-to-time. She brought it up because she wanted to know if I would be interested in that.” …

“Julie never said anything about being sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will. She never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity.” …

“Because I had lost Julie’s number I called her father to get it. When I talked to him about possibly bringing her on to help with my campaign, he told me that she had psychological and other problems at the time.” …

“I know what it’s like to be sexually assaulted and not be believed. I was 9 years old when it happened at the hands of my grandfather’s best friend.” …

“My heart still feels heavy, for me as well as Julie and the Kavanaughs. That said, based on my direct experience with Julie, I do not believe her allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh

Kinky bitch!

Which has relevance how?

I'm still waiting for you to back the batshit 'Christine Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony' conspiracy.

Can I take it from your refusal that you don't put much credence in what Pam Geller puts in her blog either?

Her book backs me up, the BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT backs me up...relevance, it ALL has relevance, your side made it that way!

As the Gang-Rape Claims Against Kavanaugh Fall Apart, Will Anyone Rethink Their Approach?
National Review ^ | October 2, 2018

Of all the dispiriting things that have occurred since the start of the Brett Kavanaugh sexual-assault controversy, the overwhelmingly credulous and furious response to Julie Swetnick’s gang-rape claims is perhaps the most disappointing. Her claim was wildly implausible on its face, featuring her repeated attendance at parties where women were being gang-raped, personally witnessing Kavanaugh in line to rape a woman, and claims that Kavanaugh personally drugged or “spiked” the punch at these parties to facilitate rape.

These things allegedly happened in full view of many non-victim witnesses. There were allegedly multiple victims. Yet the only person to come forward was Swetnick, through none other than Michael Avenatti — lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels. She didn’t tell her story through a reputable news outlet. She didn’t allow a team of reporters to vet her claims. She used Avenatti’s vast Twitter reach to drop an explosive sworn declaration on Twitter, the day before Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony, and the world responded exactly as Avenatti hoped it would.

All the Serious Outlets covered it. All too many of the Serious People rushed to defend its claims. The ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Kavanaugh about it at his hearings. When I tweeted my skepticism of the claim, based on its facial implausibility, the response was furious. Blue checkmarks lined up to scold me.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ..

Body landguage experts claim that Christine Blasey Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony?

You may want to re-read what you think you're quoting. As it says no such thing.

 

[The Purge]

Ford;s Friend Leland Keyser Reaffirms That She 'Does Not Know Mr. Kavanaugh' During FBI Interview
IJR ^

The FBI has already begun its supplemental investigation into the allegations of sexual assault against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, including an interview with Leland Keyser.

Keyser was a friend of Kavanaugh's original accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Dr. Ford claimed that she attended a party with Keyser and a few boys, including Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge, where the alleged attack took place.

Although Dr. Ford testified that Keyser attended the party, Keyser stated in an email to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she does not remember any party like the one described.

As part of the deal struck by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and others, the FBI was called by President Donald Trump to further investigate the claims made by Ford and others. The investigation is set to include interviews of any alleged witnesses.

In the new investigation, the FBI sat down with Keyser and her attorneys to further discuss the allegations.

According to the Washington Times, Keyser's attorney stated that she issued the exact same statement to the FBI that she had emailed to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," Keyser's attorney Howard J. Walsh III said.

Walsh also explained that Keyser cooperated fully with the investigation, but that she did not know of any event that occurred as Ford explained.

"Ms. Keyser asked that I communicate to the Committee her willingness to cooperate fully with the FBI's supplemental investigation of Dr. Christine Ford's allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. However, as my client has already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford."

During her testimony, Ford said that Keyser's "health challenges" were the reason why she may not recall the event. Watch:

"Leland has significant health challenges, and I'm happy that she's focusing on herself and getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes, and et cetera, So I'm glad that she's taking care of herself. I don't expect that P.J. and Leland would remember this evening. It was a very unremarkable party. It was not one of their more notorious parties, because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening. They were downstairs."

Either way, it does not look as though the FBI gathered anything new from Keyser's perspective because she doesn't remember an event like the one explained by Dr. Ford.

 

[The Purge]

Witness: Kavanaugh Accuser Likes Having Sex with More Than one Guy at a Time
Gateway Pundit ^ | October 2, 2018 | Jim Hoft

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today received a signed statement from Mr. Dennis Ketterer, the former Democratic candidate for Congress and weatherman for WJLA Channel 7 in Washington, regarding the recent allegations made by Julie Swetnick against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Mr. Ketterer had a relationship with Ms. Swetnick in the 1990s. Below are excerpts of the signed statement, which was provided to the committee under penalty of felony. “During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.

“I asked her if this was just a fantasy of hers. She responded that she first tried sex with multiple guys while in high school and still liked it from time-to-time. She brought it up because she wanted to know if I would be interested in that.” …

“Julie never said anything about being sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will. She never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity.” …

“Because I had lost Julie’s number I called her father to get it. When I talked to him about possibly bringing her on to help with my campaign, he told me that she had psychological and other problems at the time.” …

“I know what it’s like to be sexually assaulted and not be believed. I was 9 years old when it happened at the hands of my grandfather’s best friend.” …

“My heart still feels heavy, for me as well as Julie and the Kavanaughs. That said, based on my direct experience with Julie, I do not believe her allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh

Kinky bitch!

Which has relevance how?

I'm still waiting for you to back the batshit 'Christine Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony' conspiracy.

Can I take it from your refusal that you don't put much credence in what Pam Geller puts in her blog either?

Her book backs me up, the BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT backs me up...relevance, it ALL has relevance, your side made it that way!

As the Gang-Rape Claims Against Kavanaugh Fall Apart, Will Anyone Rethink Their Approach?
National Review ^ | October 2, 2018

Of all the dispiriting things that have occurred since the start of the Brett Kavanaugh sexual-assault controversy, the overwhelmingly credulous and furious response to Julie Swetnick’s gang-rape claims is perhaps the most disappointing. Her claim was wildly implausible on its face, featuring her repeated attendance at parties where women were being gang-raped, personally witnessing Kavanaugh in line to rape a woman, and claims that Kavanaugh personally drugged or “spiked” the punch at these parties to facilitate rape.

These things allegedly happened in full view of many non-victim witnesses. There were allegedly multiple victims. Yet the only person to come forward was Swetnick, through none other than Michael Avenatti — lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels. She didn’t tell her story through a reputable news outlet. She didn’t allow a team of reporters to vet her claims. She used Avenatti’s vast Twitter reach to drop an explosive sworn declaration on Twitter, the day before Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony, and the world responded exactly as Avenatti hoped it would.

All the Serious Outlets covered it. All too many of the Serious People rushed to defend its claims. The ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Kavanaugh about it at his hearings. When I tweeted my skepticism of the claim, based on its facial implausibility, the response was furious. Blue checkmarks lined up to scold me.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ..

Body landguage experts claim that Christine Blasey Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony?

You may want to re-read what you think you're quoting. As it says no such thing.

WATCH: A Body Language Expert Analyzes Ford's Testimony, and She's Not Impressed

 

[Skylar]

Witness: Kavanaugh Accuser Likes Having Sex with More Than one Guy at a Time
Gateway Pundit ^ | October 2, 2018 | Jim Hoft

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today received a signed statement from Mr. Dennis Ketterer, the former Democratic candidate for Congress and weatherman for WJLA Channel 7 in Washington, regarding the recent allegations made by Julie Swetnick against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Mr. Ketterer had a relationship with Ms. Swetnick in the 1990s. Below are excerpts of the signed statement, which was provided to the committee under penalty of felony. “During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.

“I asked her if this was just a fantasy of hers. She responded that she first tried sex with multiple guys while in high school and still liked it from time-to-time. She brought it up because she wanted to know if I would be interested in that.” …

“Julie never said anything about being sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will. She never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity.” …

“Because I had lost Julie’s number I called her father to get it. When I talked to him about possibly bringing her on to help with my campaign, he told me that she had psychological and other problems at the time.” …

“I know what it’s like to be sexually assaulted and not be believed. I was 9 years old when it happened at the hands of my grandfather’s best friend.” …

“My heart still feels heavy, for me as well as Julie and the Kavanaughs. That said, based on my direct experience with Julie, I do not believe her allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh

Kinky bitch!

Which has relevance how?

I'm still waiting for you to back the batshit 'Christine Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony' conspiracy.

Can I take it from your refusal that you don't put much credence in what Pam Geller puts in her blog either?

Her book backs me up, the BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT backs me up...relevance, it ALL has relevance, your side made it that way!

As the Gang-Rape Claims Against Kavanaugh Fall Apart, Will Anyone Rethink Their Approach?
National Review ^ | October 2, 2018

Of all the dispiriting things that have occurred since the start of the Brett Kavanaugh sexual-assault controversy, the overwhelmingly credulous and furious response to Julie Swetnick’s gang-rape claims is perhaps the most disappointing. Her claim was wildly implausible on its face, featuring her repeated attendance at parties where women were being gang-raped, personally witnessing Kavanaugh in line to rape a woman, and claims that Kavanaugh personally drugged or “spiked” the punch at these parties to facilitate rape.

These things allegedly happened in full view of many non-victim witnesses. There were allegedly multiple victims. Yet the only person to come forward was Swetnick, through none other than Michael Avenatti — lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels. She didn’t tell her story through a reputable news outlet. She didn’t allow a team of reporters to vet her claims. She used Avenatti’s vast Twitter reach to drop an explosive sworn declaration on Twitter, the day before Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony, and the world responded exactly as Avenatti hoped it would.

All the Serious Outlets covered it. All too many of the Serious People rushed to defend its claims. The ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Kavanaugh about it at his hearings. When I tweeted my skepticism of the claim, based on its facial implausibility, the response was furious. Blue checkmarks lined up to scold me.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ..

Body landguage experts claim that Christine Blasey Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony?

You may want to re-read what you think you're quoting. As it says no such thing.

WATCH: A Body Language Expert Analyzes Ford's Testimony, and She's Not Impressed

And where does your 'body language expert' claim that Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony?

Just quote the passage.

 

[The Purge]

Witness: Kavanaugh Accuser Likes Having Sex with More Than one Guy at a Time
Gateway Pundit ^ | October 2, 2018 | Jim Hoft

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today received a signed statement from Mr. Dennis Ketterer, the former Democratic candidate for Congress and weatherman for WJLA Channel 7 in Washington, regarding the recent allegations made by Julie Swetnick against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Mr. Ketterer had a relationship with Ms. Swetnick in the 1990s. Below are excerpts of the signed statement, which was provided to the committee under penalty of felony. “During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.

“I asked her if this was just a fantasy of hers. She responded that she first tried sex with multiple guys while in high school and still liked it from time-to-time. She brought it up because she wanted to know if I would be interested in that.” …

“Julie never said anything about being sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will. She never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity.” …

“Because I had lost Julie’s number I called her father to get it. When I talked to him about possibly bringing her on to help with my campaign, he told me that she had psychological and other problems at the time.” …

“I know what it’s like to be sexually assaulted and not be believed. I was 9 years old when it happened at the hands of my grandfather’s best friend.” …

“My heart still feels heavy, for me as well as Julie and the Kavanaughs. That said, based on my direct experience with Julie, I do not believe her allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh

Kinky bitch!

Which has relevance how?

I'm still waiting for you to back the batshit 'Christine Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony' conspiracy.

Can I take it from your refusal that you don't put much credence in what Pam Geller puts in her blog either?

Her book backs me up, the BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT backs me up...relevance, it ALL has relevance, your side made it that way!

As the Gang-Rape Claims Against Kavanaugh Fall Apart, Will Anyone Rethink Their Approach?
National Review ^ | October 2, 2018

Of all the dispiriting things that have occurred since the start of the Brett Kavanaugh sexual-assault controversy, the overwhelmingly credulous and furious response to Julie Swetnick’s gang-rape claims is perhaps the most disappointing. Her claim was wildly implausible on its face, featuring her repeated attendance at parties where women were being gang-raped, personally witnessing Kavanaugh in line to rape a woman, and claims that Kavanaugh personally drugged or “spiked” the punch at these parties to facilitate rape.

These things allegedly happened in full view of many non-victim witnesses. There were allegedly multiple victims. Yet the only person to come forward was Swetnick, through none other than Michael Avenatti — lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels. She didn’t tell her story through a reputable news outlet. She didn’t allow a team of reporters to vet her claims. She used Avenatti’s vast Twitter reach to drop an explosive sworn declaration on Twitter, the day before Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony, and the world responded exactly as Avenatti hoped it would.

All the Serious Outlets covered it. All too many of the Serious People rushed to defend its claims. The ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Kavanaugh about it at his hearings. When I tweeted my skepticism of the claim, based on its facial implausibility, the response was furious. Blue checkmarks lined up to scold me.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ..

Body landguage experts claim that Christine Blasey Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony?

You may want to re-read what you think you're quoting. As it says no such thing.

WATCH: A Body Language Expert Analyzes Ford's Testimony, and She's Not Impressed

And where does your 'body language expert' claim that Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony?

Just quote the passage.

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and “Create Artificial Situations

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and "Create Artificial Situations"

 

[Skylar]

Which has relevance how?

I'm still waiting for you to back the batshit 'Christine Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony' conspiracy.

Can I take it from your refusal that you don't put much credence in what Pam Geller puts in her blog either?

Her book backs me up, the BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT backs me up...relevance, it ALL has relevance, your side made it that way!

As the Gang-Rape Claims Against Kavanaugh Fall Apart, Will Anyone Rethink Their Approach?
National Review ^ | October 2, 2018

Of all the dispiriting things that have occurred since the start of the Brett Kavanaugh sexual-assault controversy, the overwhelmingly credulous and furious response to Julie Swetnick’s gang-rape claims is perhaps the most disappointing. Her claim was wildly implausible on its face, featuring her repeated attendance at parties where women were being gang-raped, personally witnessing Kavanaugh in line to rape a woman, and claims that Kavanaugh personally drugged or “spiked” the punch at these parties to facilitate rape.

These things allegedly happened in full view of many non-victim witnesses. There were allegedly multiple victims. Yet the only person to come forward was Swetnick, through none other than Michael Avenatti — lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels. She didn’t tell her story through a reputable news outlet. She didn’t allow a team of reporters to vet her claims. She used Avenatti’s vast Twitter reach to drop an explosive sworn declaration on Twitter, the day before Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony, and the world responded exactly as Avenatti hoped it would.

All the Serious Outlets covered it. All too many of the Serious People rushed to defend its claims. The ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Kavanaugh about it at his hearings. When I tweeted my skepticism of the claim, based on its facial implausibility, the response was furious. Blue checkmarks lined up to scold me.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ..

Body landguage experts claim that Christine Blasey Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony?

You may want to re-read what you think you're quoting. As it says no such thing.

WATCH: A Body Language Expert Analyzes Ford's Testimony, and She's Not Impressed

And where does your 'body language expert' claim that Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony?

Just quote the passage.

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and “Create Artificial Situations

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and "Create Artificial Situations"

Laughing....with your source being Pam Geller, who's blog also includes the batshit conspiracy gem that Christine Blasey Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony.

A conspiracy backed by absolutely nothing, of course.

I don't think 'huge' means what you think it means.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The shit is really going to hit the fan....slow and steady conservatives play this shit out until the very last days of Oct....then drop ALL THE HAMMERS!

Why Dr. Ford Must Provide Her Therapy Notes to the Senate
National Review ^

Last week, Senate Democrats turned upside down centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence when they put the onus on Brett Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault charge. Compounding the injustice of this nonsensical approach was the Senate Judiciary Committee’s willingness to allow Ford to testify that in 2012 and 2013 she had told her therapist about the now-36-year-old alleged incident, even though her attorneys had refused to provide the senators with a copy of her patient file.

Prior to the start of Thursday’s hearing, committee chairman Charles Grassley had requested the notes; her attorneys had demurred, claiming it would invade Ford’s privacy. But the therapy notes are significant to the Senate’s assessment of Ford’s account, because the details Ford apparently provided to her therapist conflict with the story she told the Judiciary Committee.

In her opening statement, Ford told the senators that in the summer of 1982, when she was 15 years old, an intoxicated Kavanaugh locked her in a bedroom, groped her, and attempted to remove her clothing, while his friend Mark Judge laughed and encouraged him to “go for it.” But the Washington Post’s Emma Brown reviewed portions of the therapy notes (provided by Ford), and wrote in her story breaking the news of Ford’s allegation that they describe “a ‘rape attempt’ in her late teens.”

Fifteen does not translate into “late teens,” even under a generous reading of that phrase. Further, in her initial text to the Washington Post, Ford stated that Kavanaugh had attacked her in the mid 1980s, which would put Ford in her late teens and Kavanaugh in college.

Additionally, the Washington Post reported that the therapist’s notes state that four boys were involved in the attack. Ford claims that was a mistake made by her therapist and that while “there were four boys at the party,” only two — Judge and Kavanaugh — were in the room. The Washington Post further stressed that the notes “do not mention Kavanaugh’s name,” but do state that Ford “was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’”

They may reveal significant changes to the accuser’s story. Last week, Senate Democrats turned upside down centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence when they put the onus on Brett Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault charge. Compounding the injustice of this nonsensical approach was the Senate Judiciary Committee’s willingness to allow Ford to testify that in 2012 and 2013 she had told her therapist about the now-36-year-old alleged incident, even though her attorneys had refused to provide the senators with a copy of her patient file.

Prior to the start of Thursday’s hearing, committee chairman Charles Grassley had requested the notes; her attorneys had demurred, claiming it would invade Ford’s privacy. But the therapy notes are significant to the Senate’s assessment of Ford’s account, because the details Ford apparently provided to her therapist conflict with the story she told the Judiciary Committee.

In her opening statement, Ford told the senators that in the summer of 1982, when she was 15 years old, an intoxicated Kavanaugh locked her in a bedroom, groped her, and attempted to remove her clothing, while his friend Mark Judge laughed and encouraged him to “go for it.” But the Washington Post’s Emma Brown reviewed portions of the therapy notes (provided by Ford), and wrote in her story breaking the news of Ford’s allegation that they describe “a ‘rape attempt’ in her late teens.”

Fifteen does not translate into “late teens,” even under a generous reading of that phrase. Further, in her initial text to the Washington Post, Ford stated that Kavanaugh had attacked her in the mid 1980s, which would put Ford in her late teens and Kavanaugh in college.

Additionally, the Washington Post reported that the therapist’s notes state that four boys were involved in the attack. Ford claims that was a mistake made by her therapist and that while “there were four boys at the party,” only two — Judge and Kavanaugh — were in the room. The Washington Post further stressed that the notes “do not mention Kavanaugh’s name,” but do state that Ford “was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’”

The disparity and vagueness raise significant questions that could best be answered by a thorough review of Ford’s therapy-session notes. And Ford’s testimony at Thursday’s hearing unwittingly highlighted this reality.

Early on during questioning by sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell concerning the accuracy of the letter Ford had sent to Senator Dianne Feinstein, Ford incongruously raised the issue of Mark Judge’s employment at Safeway. Ford claimed that about six to eight weeks after the attack, she saw Judge once at the Potomac Village store, adding “it would be helpful with anyone’s resources if — to figure out when he worked there, if people are wanting more details from me about when the attack occurred. If we could find out when he worked there, then I could provide a more detailed timeline as to when the attack occurred.”

Ford would later raise the question of Judge’s job at Safeway an additional four times, and two Democratic senators would follow her lead and suggest that the FBI determine when Judge worked at the Safeway. Ford would also later add in the cross streets for the store location and a strange story about how she refused to enter the store through the same door as her mother — thus when she saw Judge, she was alone.

Why did Ford dwell on Judge’s job at Safeway? And how would knowing when Judge worked there help? It made no sense. Ford had already testified that the attack happened in the summer of 1982, and since she claimed she ran into him six to eight weeks later, at best this information could narrow down the time of the claimed assault only slightly.

What this talking point did achieve was to distract attention away from changes in Ford’s timeline. The media quickly picked up Judge’s book, Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk, in which the former Kavanaugh classmate wrote that for three weeks during the summer before his senior year in high school, he worked at the local supermarket. The press saw this passage as corroborating Ford’s testimony that the attack occurred in the summer of 1982. And with that, the therapist’s notes went to the wayside, and the conflict between Ford’s original claim that the attack occurred in the mid 1980s, in her late teens, was ignored — at least in the press.

Ford’s focus on Safeway, however, did not distract the seasoned specialist, and Sunday night, in a report to the Senate, Mitchell stressed, among other things, the disparate stories concerning the timing of the attack and Ford’s age.

Yet the investigation continues, and some Republican senators and moderate Democrats seem undecided. For those gentlemen and gentlewomen, I have one suggestion: Request a full copy of Ford’s therapy reports, and if her attorneys refuse to provide the information (confidentially of course), refuse to consider any of Ford’s testimony.

"they put the onus on Brett Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault charge"



FALSE ^

Completely unnecessary since she has no proof, evidence or corroboration to even substantiate a charge.
You must be a Soviet.

Her eye witness testimony under oath is evidence. You can tell by the fact that the investigation was initiated only *after* she testified.

The investigation underway isn’t criminal.

Which is irrelevant to her testimony being evidence. Where did you ever get the idea that eye witness testimony under oath is only evidence in a criminal investigation?

Her testimony is unsubstantiated rendering it virtual hearsay.
There is no case.

You haven't the slightest clue what hearsay is. Hearsay is reciting what you heard someone else say. Its a 2nd hand account.

She's relaying a personal experience. A 1st hand account.

You may not know the difference between a 1st and 2nd hand account. But the law certainly does. As does any rational person with an even passing acquaintance with it.

I said virtual hearsay. We don’t have a criminal case because we don’t have a crime. We don’t have a crime because no crime has been reported. We won’t have a reported crime or charges because we have no evidence.
Just wait until I tell your boss about the time you raped me in the ass with a coke bottle. You’ll get no promotion and you’ll likely lose your job just because I said it happened.
Democrats should not be allowed to vote.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The people who did this (Democrats) and all those supporting it are just plain really bad human beings.
Starting at the top of the Democrat leadership - Schumer, Feinstein etc Scum of the Earth bad, evil, nasty people

right down to those on this forum....and with the audacity to say the Republicans are bad.

hard to find words for their actions and disposition other than ......evil....pure evil

 

[Skylar]

"they put the onus on Brett Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault charge"



FALSE ^

Completely unnecessary since she has no proof, evidence or corroboration to even substantiate a charge.
You must be a Soviet.

Her eye witness testimony under oath is evidence. You can tell by the fact that the investigation was initiated only *after* she testified.

The investigation underway isn’t criminal.

Which is irrelevant to her testimony being evidence. Where did you ever get the idea that eye witness testimony under oath is only evidence in a criminal investigation?

Her testimony is unsubstantiated rendering it virtual hearsay.
There is no case.

You haven't the slightest clue what hearsay is. Hearsay is reciting what you heard someone else say. Its a 2nd hand account.

She's relaying a personal experience. A 1st hand account.

You may not know the difference between a 1st and 2nd hand account. But the law certainly does. As does any rational person with an even passing acquaintance with it.

I said virtual hearsay.

And putting the word 'virtual' before the word hearsay doesn't magically make a first hand account become a second hand account.

Again, you have no idea what hearsay is. Ford's testimony was her first hand account of her own experiences. You're embarassing yourself.

 

[Skylar]

The people who did this (Democrats) and all those supporting it are just plain really bad human beings.
Starting at the top of the Democrat leadership - Schumer, Feinstein etc Scum of the Earth bad, evil, nasty people

right down to those on this forum....and with the audacity to say the Republicans are bad.

hard to find words for their actions and disposition other than ......evil....pure evil

Its evil to look into allegations of attempted forcible rape from a man who has been caught lying repeatedly under oath?

I don't think 'evil' means what you think it means.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The people who did this (Democrats) and all those supporting it are just plain really bad human beings.
Starting at the top of the Democrat leadership - Schumer, Feinstein etc Scum of the Earth bad, evil, nasty people

right down to those on this forum....and with the audacity to say the Republicans are bad.

hard to find words for their actions and disposition other than ......evil....pure evil

Its evil to look into allegations of attempted forcible rape from a man who has been caught lying repeatedly under oath?

I don't think 'evil' means what you think it means.

And I think you have no concept of right from wrong

What part of....they are ALLEGATIONS.....don't you understand?
I can make some against you. Does that make you guilty because I say so?

 

[Skylar]

The people who did this (Democrats) and all those supporting it are just plain really bad human beings.
Starting at the top of the Democrat leadership - Schumer, Feinstein etc Scum of the Earth bad, evil, nasty people

right down to those on this forum....and with the audacity to say the Republicans are bad.

hard to find words for their actions and disposition other than ......evil....pure evil

Its evil to look into allegations of attempted forcible rape from a man who has been caught lying repeatedly under oath?

I don't think 'evil' means what you think it means.

And I think you have no concept of right from wrong

What part of....they are ALLEGATIONS.....don't you understand?
I can make some against you. Does that make you guilty because I say so?

What part of 'investigation' do you not understand?

We have a credible eye witness alleging attempted forcible rape. And per your hysterics, its EVIL to investigate those allegations.

Again, your moral compass is just a wasteland of absurdity.

Of course we're going to investigate those claims. Especially from a credible witness like Christine Blasey Ford. Especially when we've already caught Kavanaugh lying repeatedly under oath.

 

[The Purge]

Her book backs me up, the BODY LANGUAGE EXPERT backs me up...relevance, it ALL has relevance, your side made it that way!

As the Gang-Rape Claims Against Kavanaugh Fall Apart, Will Anyone Rethink Their Approach?
National Review ^ | October 2, 2018

Of all the dispiriting things that have occurred since the start of the Brett Kavanaugh sexual-assault controversy, the overwhelmingly credulous and furious response to Julie Swetnick’s gang-rape claims is perhaps the most disappointing. Her claim was wildly implausible on its face, featuring her repeated attendance at parties where women were being gang-raped, personally witnessing Kavanaugh in line to rape a woman, and claims that Kavanaugh personally drugged or “spiked” the punch at these parties to facilitate rape.

These things allegedly happened in full view of many non-victim witnesses. There were allegedly multiple victims. Yet the only person to come forward was Swetnick, through none other than Michael Avenatti — lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels. She didn’t tell her story through a reputable news outlet. She didn’t allow a team of reporters to vet her claims. She used Avenatti’s vast Twitter reach to drop an explosive sworn declaration on Twitter, the day before Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony, and the world responded exactly as Avenatti hoped it would.

All the Serious Outlets covered it. All too many of the Serious People rushed to defend its claims. The ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Kavanaugh about it at his hearings. When I tweeted my skepticism of the claim, based on its facial implausibility, the response was furious. Blue checkmarks lined up to scold me.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ..

Body landguage experts claim that Christine Blasey Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony?

You may want to re-read what you think you're quoting. As it says no such thing.

WATCH: A Body Language Expert Analyzes Ford's Testimony, and She's Not Impressed

And where does your 'body language expert' claim that Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony?

Just quote the passage.

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and “Create Artificial Situations

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and "Create Artificial Situations"

Laughing....with your source being Pam Geller, who's blog also includes the batshit conspiracy gem that Christine Blasey Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony.

A conspiracy backed by absolutely nothing, of course.

I don't think 'huge' means what you think it means.

That is you problem, Skywalker...YOU don't think...ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

 

[Skylar]

Body landguage experts claim that Christine Blasey Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony?

You may want to re-read what you think you're quoting. As it says no such thing.

WATCH: A Body Language Expert Analyzes Ford's Testimony, and She's Not Impressed

And where does your 'body language expert' claim that Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony?

Just quote the passage.

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and “Create Artificial Situations

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and "Create Artificial Situations"

Laughing....with your source being Pam Geller, who's blog also includes the batshit conspiracy gem that Christine Blasey Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony.

A conspiracy backed by absolutely nothing, of course.

I don't think 'huge' means what you think it means.

That is you problem, Skywalker...YOU don't think...ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

Smiling.....or I don't gobble Pam Geller's conspiracy theories without thought or questionn as you do.

I'm still waiting for you to show us the evidence that Chrsitine Ford was in a hypnotic trance when she gave her testimony.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[The Purge]

WATCH: A Body Language Expert Analyzes Ford's Testimony, and She's Not Impressed

And where does your 'body language expert' claim that Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony?

Just quote the passage.

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and “Create Artificial Situations

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and "Create Artificial Situations"

Laughing....with your source being Pam Geller, who's blog also includes the batshit conspiracy gem that Christine Blasey Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony.

A conspiracy backed by absolutely nothing, of course.

I don't think 'huge' means what you think it means.

That is you problem, Skywalker...YOU don't think...ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

Smiling.....or I don't gobble Pam Geller's conspiracy theories without thought or questionn as you do.

I'm still waiting for you to show us the evidence that Chrsitine Ford was in a hypnotic trance when she gave her testimony.

I won't hold my breath.

I didn't say that, self hypnosis csn leave you with false memories, if you want, but please, hold your breath...Ever see the Manchurian candidate?

 

[The Purge]

Evidence doesn't support claims against Kavanaugh, Judiciary Committee questioner says
NBC News ^

"I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the committee," Rachel Mitchell writes.



No reasonable prosecutor would bring sexual assault charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh based on the public evidence, the prosecutor whom Republicans hired to ask the questions during last week's Senate hearing said in a memo to senators.

In the memo, which was sent to all Republican senators and was obtained Sunday night by NBC News, Rachel Mitchell, the deputy county attorney in charge of the Special Victims Division in Maricopa County, Arizona, said her "bottom line" was that "a 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove."

"But this case is even weaker than that," Mitchell wrote. "Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them."

"I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the committee," she wrote....

(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...

 

[Skylar]

And where does your 'body language expert' claim that Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony?

Just quote the passage.

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and “Create Artificial Situations

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and "Create Artificial Situations"

Laughing....with your source being Pam Geller, who's blog also includes the batshit conspiracy gem that Christine Blasey Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony.

A conspiracy backed by absolutely nothing, of course.

I don't think 'huge' means what you think it means.

That is you problem, Skywalker...YOU don't think...ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

Smiling.....or I don't gobble Pam Geller's conspiracy theories without thought or questionn as you do.

I'm still waiting for you to show us the evidence that Chrsitine Ford was in a hypnotic trance when she gave her testimony.

I won't hold my breath.

I didn't say that, self hypnosis csn leave you with false memories, if you want, but please, hold your breath...Ever see the Manchurian candidate?

Your source, Pam Geller certainly had 'Christine Blasey Ford was in a hypnotic transe during her hearing' among her many baseless accusations.

If even YOU are going to ignore Pam Geller's blog, why would I listen to her?

 

[The Purge]

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and “Create Artificial Situations

HUGE! Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and "Create Artificial Situations"

Laughing....with your source being Pam Geller, who's blog also includes the batshit conspiracy gem that Christine Blasey Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony.

A conspiracy backed by absolutely nothing, of course.

I don't think 'huge' means what you think it means.

That is you problem, Skywalker...YOU don't think...ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

Smiling.....or I don't gobble Pam Geller's conspiracy theories without thought or questionn as you do.

I'm still waiting for you to show us the evidence that Chrsitine Ford was in a hypnotic trance when she gave her testimony.

I won't hold my breath.

I didn't say that, self hypnosis csn leave you with false memories, if you want, but please, hold your breath...Ever see the Manchurian candidate?

Your source, Pam Geller certainly had 'Christine Blasey Ford was in a hypnotic transe during her hearing' among her many baseless accusations.

If even YOU are going to ignore Pam Geller's blog, why would I listen to her?

Is your mother crazy Andrea Mitchell? Sounds just like your logic!

Andrea Mitchell Wants FBI to Investigate Kavanaugh Being ‘Rude’ to Democrats

Newsbusters ^
During an interview with Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy on Tuesday, MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell fretted that the seventh FBI background check into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was too restricted. Her hyperventilating over the issue got to a point where she suggested that the Bureau should actually investigate Kavanaugh for being “rude” to Democrats

 

[Muhammed]

There will be fury in the street if he makes it in.

This entire system is so gawd dam crooked its' sickening.

That's fucking ridiculous. The whole circus is obviously a bunch of bad acting. Nobody is actually angry that Kav was nominated except perhaps another judge who wanted the nomination.

 

[idb]

Polls show WRT hearing believability, it’s a wash. And, for Democrats, that is an absolute nightmare.

They connived like thieves.....had it all planned.

They’d lacerate Kav and Repubs ......and collect the votes at midterm.

Too fucking bad ...that aint happening.

Democrats set themselves up by screaming for an investigation. It just blew up in their faces as Sen. Graham says he’ll make sure there is a full-scale probe into Dems smear campaign efforts.

Senator Lindsey Graham has the Democrats in a virtual panic. Graham shredded Democrats during the Kavanaugh hearings saying they used to be his friends and that all they care about now is hurting Trump, stalling Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the 2020 election. But if they thought that was a one-off for Lindsey, they were sadly mistaken.

Graham is now calling for an investigation into the Senate Judiciary Committee’s management of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations, accusing Democrats of handling her accusations so as to inflict maximum damage on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. He’s right of course. This was politically choreographed to the hilt.

(Excerpt) Read more at redrightvideos.com ...l)11110

Haha..."DemonRats".
You watch Time For A Drink With Jeanine Pirro...don't you?