More feet dragging by the Ford

[MisterBeale]

AND since her shit was together at the drop of a hat, it was all premeditated and going according to plan.

well, til no one believed her and her facts fuzzier than 5 year old cheese mold in the fridge.

I don’t think they care if everyone believes her. I think what they are doing is two fold:

1) trying to delay the vote until after the election or at least until the new court session starts or if that fails force the republicans to shut down this circus and then they scream republicans support rape and hate women for their midterm campaign.

2) they are laying the foundation for impeaching Kavanaugh if they can get power back

which is why we need to prosecute liars in this regard. if there is no penalty for this, it will continue to be used as a political tactic.

That’s what so devious about it. She never actually filed a report. So she hasn’t technically filed a false claim. If she doesn’t testify, which I think they are setting it up so she doesn’t, I don’t think the law can touch her

How to Sue for Defamation

Defamation is civil and not a criminal charge

Agreed. It would still be a deterrent to would be accusers.

 

[MisterBeale]

AND since her shit was together at the drop of a hat, it was all premeditated and going according to plan.

well, til no one believed her and her facts fuzzier than 5 year old cheese mold in the fridge.

I don’t think they care if everyone believes her. I think what they are doing is two fold:

1) trying to delay the vote until after the election or at least until the new court session starts or if that fails force the republicans to shut down this circus and then they scream republicans support rape and hate women for their midterm campaign.

2) they are laying the foundation for impeaching Kavanaugh if they can get power back

which is why we need to prosecute liars in this regard. if there is no penalty for this, it will continue to be used as a political tactic.

That’s what so devious about it. She never actually filed a report. So she hasn’t technically filed a false claim. If she doesn’t testify, which I think they are setting it up so she doesn’t, I don’t think the law can touch her

Exactly. Unless there is a falsehood in a sworn statement, or under oath, then lying isn't a crime.

However, lying can be a part of another overt criminal act, say fraud if the lie is used for material gain.

That's how they can pass so called "Stolen Valor" laws, because they only concern material gain based on falsehoods, not just falsehoods themselves.

well there's this.

something tells me the left is going to cry foul and say UNFOUNDED!!!! and the irony parade will begin.

Do you have a source for this or any evidence this isn't hearsay?

 

[iceberg]

I don’t think they care if everyone believes her. I think what they are doing is two fold:

1) trying to delay the vote until after the election or at least until the new court session starts or if that fails force the republicans to shut down this circus and then they scream republicans support rape and hate women for their midterm campaign.

2) they are laying the foundation for impeaching Kavanaugh if they can get power back

which is why we need to prosecute liars in this regard. if there is no penalty for this, it will continue to be used as a political tactic.

That’s what so devious about it. She never actually filed a report. So she hasn’t technically filed a false claim. If she doesn’t testify, which I think they are setting it up so she doesn’t, I don’t think the law can touch her

Exactly. Unless there is a falsehood in a sworn statement, or under oath, then lying isn't a crime.

However, lying can be a part of another overt criminal act, say fraud if the lie is used for material gain.

That's how they can pass so called "Stolen Valor" laws, because they only concern material gain based on falsehoods, not just falsehoods themselves.

well there's this.

something tells me the left is going to cry foul and say UNFOUNDED!!!! and the irony parade will begin.

Dang...

again - this is he said she said 100% - but it's just the same as ford is doing to kavanaugh. i'm sure the left won't see it that way.

 

[iceberg]

I don’t think they care if everyone believes her. I think what they are doing is two fold:

1) trying to delay the vote until after the election or at least until the new court session starts or if that fails force the republicans to shut down this circus and then they scream republicans support rape and hate women for their midterm campaign.

2) they are laying the foundation for impeaching Kavanaugh if they can get power back

which is why we need to prosecute liars in this regard. if there is no penalty for this, it will continue to be used as a political tactic.

That’s what so devious about it. She never actually filed a report. So she hasn’t technically filed a false claim. If she doesn’t testify, which I think they are setting it up so she doesn’t, I don’t think the law can touch her

Exactly. Unless there is a falsehood in a sworn statement, or under oath, then lying isn't a crime.

However, lying can be a part of another overt criminal act, say fraud if the lie is used for material gain.

That's how they can pass so called "Stolen Valor" laws, because they only concern material gain based on falsehoods, not just falsehoods themselves.

well there's this.

something tells me the left is going to cry foul and say UNFOUNDED!!!! and the irony parade will begin.

Do you have a source for this or any evidence this isn't hearsay?

nope and i've said so many times.

 

[DrLove]

Ford lawyers say she is open to testifying, but not Mondayhttps://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-testimony/index.html

What a load of crap...keep stalling hoping to move it past the election.

Every day it is more obvious she is full of shot

So tell us these things GG:

1. What reason would she have had to come out with this and have her life all but ruined for the next 25 years if the incident didn't occur?
2. She wanted FBI involved. Everyone knows that lying to the FBI is a felony punishable by 5 years. Would she risk such a thing?
3. Why should she abide by Old Man Grassley's demand that she show up on Monday and submit her testimony beforehand. This while being forced from her home, death threats, doxing and FEAR. And whilst Bart O'Kavanaugh was practicing up every day in the White House?
4. Why are those 11 old white guys wanting to hire a female prosecutor to do the questioning for them other than to avoid bad optics, and why would she put up with that?
5. What gives Republicans the right to whine about an extra week or two when Garland was cock-blocked for almost 400 days?
6. What is Grassley's problem with having the FBI interview a few of these folks who have come out of the woodwork when Grassley himself supported the same during the Anita Hill fiasco?

There are really no good answers to any of these questions.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Ford lawyers say she is open to testifying, but not Mondayhttps://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-testimony/index.html

What a load of crap...keep stalling hoping to move it past the election.

Every day it is more obvious she is full of shot

So tell us these things GG:

1. What reason would she have had to come out with this and have her life all but ruined for the next 25 years?
2. She wanted FBI involved. Everyone knows that lying to the FBI is a felony punishable by 5 years. Would she risk such a thing?
3. Why should she abide by Old Man Grassley's demand that she show up on Monday and submit her testimony before hand. This while being forced from her home, death threats, doxing and FEAR. And whilst Bart O'Kavanaugh was practicing up every day in the White House?
4. Why are those 11 old white guys wanting to hire a female prosecutor to do the questioning for them other than to avoid bad optics, and why would she put up with that?
5. What gives Republicans the right to whine about an extra week or two when Garland was cock-blocked for almost 400 days?
6. What is Grassley's problem with having the FBI interview a few of these folks who have come out of the woodwork when Grassley himself supported the same during the Anita Hill fiasco?

There are really no good answers to any of these questions.

What if she is insane?

 

[iceberg]

Ford lawyers say she is open to testifying, but not Mondayhttps://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-testimony/index.html

What a load of crap...keep stalling hoping to move it past the election.

Every day it is more obvious she is full of shot

So tell us these things GG:

1. What reason would she have had to come out with this and have her life all but ruined for the next 25 years?
2. She wanted FBI involved. Everyone knows that lying to the FBI is a felony punishable by 5 years. Would she risk such a thing?
3. Why should she abide by Old Man Grassley's demand that she show up on Monday and submit her testimony before hand. This while being forced from her home, death threats, doxing and FEAR. And whilst Bart O'Kavanaugh was practicing up every day in the White House?
4. Why are those 11 old white guys wanting to hire a female prosecutor to do the questioning for them other than to avoid bad optics, and why would she put up with that?
5. What gives Republicans the right to whine about an extra week or two when Garland was cock-blocked for almost 400 days?
6. What is Grassley's problem with having the FBI interview a few of these folks who have come out of the woodwork when Grassley himself supported the same during the Anita Hill fiasco?

There are really no good answers to any of these questions.

there's never a good answer to stupid questions.

 

[DrLove]

Ford lawyers say she is open to testifying, but not Mondayhttps://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-testimony/index.html

What a load of crap...keep stalling hoping to move it past the election.

Every day it is more obvious she is full of shot

So tell us these things GG:

1. What reason would she have had to come out with this and have her life all but ruined for the next 25 years?
2. She wanted FBI involved. Everyone knows that lying to the FBI is a felony punishable by 5 years. Would she risk such a thing?
3. Why should she abide by Old Man Grassley's demand that she show up on Monday and submit her testimony before hand. This while being forced from her home, death threats, doxing and FEAR. And whilst Bart O'Kavanaugh was practicing up every day in the White House?
4. Why are those 11 old white guys wanting to hire a female prosecutor to do the questioning for them other than to avoid bad optics, and why would she put up with that?
5. What gives Republicans the right to whine about an extra week or two when Garland was cock-blocked for almost 400 days?
6. What is Grassley's problem with having the FBI interview a few of these folks who have come out of the woodwork when Grassley himself supported the same during the Anita Hill fiasco?

There are really no good answers to any of these questions.

there's never a good answer to stupid questions.

Stupid people usually call good questions stupid

 

[keepitreal]

how is Kavanaugh supposed to defend himself? he's helpless. its like Ford is beating a helpless tiny newborn kitten.

Shit...how are guys, in general, supposed to defend themselves
from these sorry ass, sad excuse, pathetic parasites,
that are a disgrace to the female gender

I might suggest wearing body cams 24/7

 

[martybegan]

Exactly. Unless there is a falsehood in a sworn statement, or under oath, then lying isn't a crime.

However, lying can be a part of another overt criminal act, say fraud if the lie is used for material gain.

That's how they can pass so called "Stolen Valor" laws, because they only concern material gain based on falsehoods, not just falsehoods themselves.

well there's this.

something tells me the left is going to cry foul and say UNFOUNDED!!!! and the irony parade will begin.

Is there a screenshot of it?

Still too easy to fake, and it isn't worth it trying to go after her like this when she won't even step up and testify.

dunno and yea, very easy to fake. my main point with this is she scrubbed her entire social history before doing this. why? something like this is possible but certainly would need actual proof.

but there's about as much proof of this as there is the "sexual misconduct" that happened in some year, at some house, with some people at some time. if that's good enough, so is this. if *this* is not proof, then neither is anything she's provided so far.

You are assuming the other side is ignorant of their own hypocrisy on this. For them it's not a bug, it's a feature.

That's why the left keeps winning at these things, because they don't care about the method, just the results.

To them there are no conflict of interests, because their only interest is power and winning.

100% agree. when they lie about someone, well they deserved it and made them lie, so it's not a lie it's some fucked up form of "justice" that they would never allow used on them.

which to me makes posts like this fair game. you don't want bullshit coming at you - don't send it to others.

That's assuming that the game is fair, the problem is it isn't.

When one side ignores the rules for its own side, and makes up rules for the other, it is never a fair game.

 

[martybegan]

I would bet money that said outside counsel will be a woman.

Yep...that's what I read...

In addition, Katz writes that she has "registered a strong objection" to bringing in outside counsel to question Ford. Republicans said earlier on Thursday they were strongly considering on bringing in a woman litigator to question Ford instead of the senators to avoid the optics of an all-male, Republican panel questioning her.

Among other things...
To testify second and not be in the same room with BK

If I were telling the truth, I'd want to face the man
whose actions inflicted such emotional trauma in my life,
that it effected my studies, my ability to forge healthy relationships,
and required professional help...and now, is calling me a liar

The fact they object to the outside counsel shows that for at least her lawyer, all she wants is the optics, not the truth.

 

[iceberg]

Ford lawyers say she is open to testifying, but not Mondayhttps://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-testimony/index.html

What a load of crap...keep stalling hoping to move it past the election.

Every day it is more obvious she is full of shot

So tell us these things GG:

1. What reason would she have had to come out with this and have her life all but ruined for the next 25 years?
2. She wanted FBI involved. Everyone knows that lying to the FBI is a felony punishable by 5 years. Would she risk such a thing?
3. Why should she abide by Old Man Grassley's demand that she show up on Monday and submit her testimony before hand. This while being forced from her home, death threats, doxing and FEAR. And whilst Bart O'Kavanaugh was practicing up every day in the White House?
4. Why are those 11 old white guys wanting to hire a female prosecutor to do the questioning for them other than to avoid bad optics, and why would she put up with that?
5. What gives Republicans the right to whine about an extra week or two when Garland was cock-blocked for almost 400 days?
6. What is Grassley's problem with having the FBI interview a few of these folks who have come out of the woodwork when Grassley himself supported the same during the Anita Hill fiasco?

There are really no good answers to any of these questions.

there's never a good answer to stupid questions.

Stupid people usually call good questions stupid

stupid people think their stupid questions are good while smart people laugh at said stupidity.

laugh.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I would bet money that said outside counsel will be a woman.

Yep...that's what I read...

In addition, Katz writes that she has "registered a strong objection" to bringing in outside counsel to question Ford. Republicans said earlier on Thursday they were strongly considering on bringing in a woman litigator to question Ford instead of the senators to avoid the optics of an all-male, Republican panel questioning her.

Among other things...
To testify second and not be in the same room with BK

If I were telling the truth, I'd want to face the man
whose actions inflicted such emotional trauma in my life,
that it effected my studies, my ability to forge healthy relationships,
and required professional help...and now, is calling me a liar

I say quit catering to her. Tell her she testifies first and the person questioning her will be Trey Gowdy.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[martybegan]

Ford lawyers say she is open to testifying, but not Mondayhttps://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-testimony/index.html

What a load of crap...keep stalling hoping to move it past the election.

Every day it is more obvious she is full of shot

So tell us these things GG:

1. What reason would she have had to come out with this and have her life all but ruined for the next 25 years if the incident didn't occur?
2. She wanted FBI involved. Everyone knows that lying to the FBI is a felony punishable by 5 years. Would she risk such a thing?
3. Why should she abide by Old Man Grassley's demand that she show up on Monday and submit her testimony beforehand. This while being forced from her home, death threats, doxing and FEAR. And whilst Bart O'Kavanaugh was practicing up every day in the White House?
4. Why are those 11 old white guys wanting to hire a female prosecutor to do the questioning for them other than to avoid bad optics, and why would she put up with that?
5. What gives Republicans the right to whine about an extra week or two when Garland was cock-blocked for almost 400 days?
6. What is Grassley's problem with having the FBI interview a few of these folks who have come out of the woodwork when Grassley himself supported the same during the Anita Hill fiasco?

There are really no good answers to any of these questions.

1. Doesn't matter until her accusations are on the record.
2. The FBI has no jurisdiction in this case, unlike the Anita hill/Clarence Thomas accusations which happened at a federal agency
3. Because that's what he wants as the Chair of the Committee.
4. Because they can, and they don't want to give morons like you a freebie. Frankly if the accusations are what you care about who asks the questions shouldn't matter
5. Because when he was not given a hearing they were following the rules, waiting until the week before a vote to spring a surprise gets you where you are now.
6. Again, those accusations happened at a federal agency, where the FBI has jurisdiction.

 

[Dreadnaught1968]

This whole thing just smells like that happened to Herman Cain in 2012. Some women come forward and accuse him of something. Then, when he dropped out, they vanished pretty quickly. They were just a means to an end.

 

[DrLove]

1. Doesn't matter until her accusations are on the record.
2. The FBI has no jurisdiction in this case, unlike the Anita hill/Clarence Thomas accusations which happened at a federal agency
3. Because that's what he wants as the Chair of the Committee.
4. Because they can, and they don't want to give morons like you a freebie. Frankly if the accusations are what you care about who asks the questions shouldn't matter
5. Because when he was not given a hearing they were following the rules, waiting until the week before a vote to spring a surprise gets you where you are now.
6. Again, those accusations happened at a federal agency, where the FBI has jurisdiction.

1. Her basic accusations are indeed on the record
2. Yes they do
3. I see, so Grassley gets to rule by fiat
4. Most of those assholes are gutless and out of touch - Trust me, a female questioner would be fed THEIR questions minus the obvious dripping sexism e.g. "I think she's mixed up" -Orrin Hatch
5. There was no precedent for the Garland cock-block .. spite and spite alone motivated McTurtle. Garland was about as moderate as they come. Also no spring chicken
6. No difference - FBI conducted the original investigation into Bart O'Kavanaugh. They could simply reopen it based on new revelations

So you were wrong on all 6 - however you tried, and therefore receive a shiny participation trophy

 

[martybegan]

1. Doesn't matter until her accusations are on the record.
2. The FBI has no jurisdiction in this case, unlike the Anita hill/Clarence Thomas accusations which happened at a federal agency
3. Because that's what he wants as the Chair of the Committee.
4. Because they can, and they don't want to give morons like you a freebie. Frankly if the accusations are what you care about who asks the questions shouldn't matter
5. Because when he was not given a hearing they were following the rules, waiting until the week before a vote to spring a surprise gets you where you are now.
6. Again, those accusations happened at a federal agency, where the FBI has jurisdiction.

1. Her basic accusations are indeed on the record
2. Yes they do
3. I see, so Grassley gets to rule by fiat
4. Most of those assholes are gutless and out of touch - Trust me, a female questioner would be fed THEIR questions minus the obvious dripping sexism e.g. "I think she's mixed up" -Orrin Hatch
5. There was no precedent for the Garland cock-block .. spite and spite alone motivated McTurtle. Garland was about as moderate as they come. Also no spring chicken
6. No difference - FBI conducted the original investigation into Bart O'Kavanaugh. They could simply reopen it based on new revelations

So you were wrong on all 6 - however you tried, and therefore receive a shiny participation trophy

1. No, they are not. Nothing under Oath or as part of a sworn/signed statement or affidavit.
2. No, they don't. They even admitted to it.
3. He's within the rules of the committee he heads as chair.
4. This just shows you are purely for the optics and not for the truth in this matter
5. I didn't say anything about precedent, I said the rules. There is no time limit on the "Advice and Consent" portion of the Senate's role in the confirmation process. Plus if the Dems would have won they could have appointed someone even more to the left, as a Hillary Presidential victory would probably have given them the Senate as well
6. The conducted a background check, not an investigation. And they added the email to the check information they previously sent to the White House. Background checks rely on information from local authorities and investigations, the FBI just collates the information, interviews a few people, and sends the information. That the Committee in question is already trying to question her means the FBI doesn't have to do anything.

Keep coming back, and I will keep Fisking your ass.

 

[Lesh]

She has agreed to testify on Thursday.

What's the rush?

This guy is asking for a LIFETIME appointment

 

[keepitreal]

Ford lawyers say she is open to testifying, but not Mondayhttps://www.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-testimony/index.html

What a load of crap...keep stalling hoping to move it past the election.

Every day it is more obvious she is full of shot

So tell us these things GG:

1. What reason would she have had to come out with this and have her life all but ruined for the next 25 years if the incident didn't occur?
2. She wanted FBI involved. Everyone knows that lying to the FBI is a felony punishable by 5 years. Would she risk such a thing?
3. Why should she abide by Old Man Grassley's demand that she show up on Monday and submit her testimony beforehand. This while being forced from her home, death threats, doxing and FEAR. And whilst Bart O'Kavanaugh was practicing up every day in the White House?
4. Why are those 11 old white guys wanting to hire a female prosecutor to do the questioning for them other than to avoid bad optics, and why would she put up with that?
5. What gives Republicans the right to whine about an extra week or two when Garland was cock-blocked for almost 400 days?
6. What is Grassley's problem with having the FBI interview a few of these folks who have come out of the woodwork when Grassley himself supported the same during the Anita Hill fiasco?

There are really no good answers to any of these questions.

What reason would she have had to come out with this and have her life all but ruined for the next 25 years if the incident didn't occur?

Believe in something,
Even if it means sacrificing everything

Just Do It

She professes a 'civic duty' but, where was this 'civic duty'
while he's been presiding, on a bench as a federal judge?

Where was her moral obligation to other women?

She wanted FBI involved. Everyone knows that lying to the FBI is a felony punishable by 5 years. Would she risk such a thing?

Why not go to the FBI to begin with,
instead of calling a tip line and writing your congresswoman?

Sounds good when your story is weak and suspect

Why should she abide by Old Man Grassley's demand that she show up on Monday and submit her testimony beforehand. This while being forced from her home, death threats, doxing and FEAR. And whilst Bart O'Kavanaugh was practicing up every day in the White House?

Who the **** is she to require certain terms be satisfied,
as a condition to provide the testimony and answer questions,
regarding her accusations and a 'civic duty' to come forward?

Shit or get off the pot!

Why are those 11 old white guys wanting to hire a female prosecutor to do the questioning for them other than to avoid bad optics, and why would she put up with that?

That's EXACTLY what should happen,
so she, and other women, can't use that,
as an excuse to shit on men, more than they have

That's like a black defendant,
preferring an all white jury

Get the **** out of here

What gives Republicans the right to whine about an extra week or two when Garland was cock-blocked for almost 400 days?

Why did this sit on the shelf since July?

What gives her the right to prolong it any longer?
37 years wasn't long enough

What is Grassley's problem with having the FBI interview a few of these folks who have come out of the woodwork when Grassley himself supported the same during the Anita Hill fiasco?

Who came out of the woodwork?...Gloria Allred

 

[DrLove]

She professes a 'civic duty' but, where was this 'civic duty'
while he's been presiding, on a bench as a federal judge?

"Civic duty" my ass. Moral obligation my ass. To turn one's life upside down? BS. And the DC Circuit is far different than SCOTUS.

Why not go to the FBI to begin with,
instead of calling a tip line and writing your congresswoman?

Because she wasn't initially interested in coming out, only in alerting HER Senator. Once you talk to the FBI you are out. And Feinstein's office didn't out her. It came out in the Intercept that fellow Senators were anxious to see the letter. Her name got leaked from there.

Who the **** is she to require certain terms be satisfied,
as a condition to provide the testimony and answer questions,
regarding her accusations and a 'civic duty' to come forward?

I see, so she has no bargaining power when it is she who holds all the cards? Again - take your "civic duty" and put it where the sun don't shine.

That's EXACTLY what should happen,
so she, and other women, can't use that,
as an excuse to shit on men, more than they have

An excuse to shit on men? How long have you been an angry old white guy who makes inappropriate comments and assess ridiculous blame on women? You probably think she was "asking for it" too.

Why did this sit on the shelf since July?

Because she requested anonymity - DERP

Who came out of the woodwork?...Gloria Allred

Nope - catch up .. Here is one, there are several others. Start with them and move to their circles of close friends at the time.

Accuser's schoolmate: I recall hearing of alleged Kavanaugh incident