Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Government' started by Hal Pollner, Sep 24, 2018.
She voted to confirm Kavanaugh to the Circuit court last time around with no problem. I
Apparently Kavanaugh has been confirmed.
Yes I saw that but I also read that there's to be another convention on the topic in 30 days time.. not sure if that's correct
This article says nothing about that. Someone may have been referring to the November election.
He's confirmed. Expect, however, that if the Democrats get a majority in the Senate, they'll try to impeach him.
Oh yes..I think the vampires will be out for his blood now for sure!!
If that does pose a threat then the GOP needs to order a psychological analysis on R. Ginsburg as to her mental acuity.
This could actually work against conservatives in the next election. With all of the fussing and fuming that has been going on, and conservatives rallying around to be sure and vote, now this will definitely be a reason for the liberals to vote and try to get control of Congress.
We'll see, but the recent polls found about 75% of likely voters across party lines were disgusted by Dianne Feinstein and the way she handled the allegations. Only time will tell, but if the Dems take control of Congress in November, see @Ken Anderson's thread on civil war, as there will be investigations, impeachment trial and riots everywhere.
Here is an article from July on Kavanaugh after his nomination. It explains why the Left hates him. They talked about Roe v. Wade in their commercials, but what the Right wants to get rid of is Chevron Deference. It is at the heart of big government, and, while abortion should go back to the states according to conservatives, deference to the Executive Branch and Kavanaugh is a textualist on top of that--Congress should makes the laws, not the courts.
I had grave doubts when Bush nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice. Still did, but tonight modified them somewhat after learning he has Czech ancestry!
Some students of the court predict Roberts will act differently with Kavanaugh on the court. When he didn't have a conservative majority of thought on the Supreme Court, he had to toe a line to avoid disruption. Now he will not have to fear upsetting the "middle" justice Kennedy.
Here's my theory about Dr. Ford's testimony.
While it is entirely possible that she made the whole thing up from scratch, or someone else made it up for her, it's more likely that they built the lie on a framework of an actual event.
In a marriage therapy session in 2012, she said that the assault had taken place while she was in her late teens. She said the same thing during an individual therapy session in 2013. She didn't name Kavanaugh during either of these sessions. She also said that she had trouble in college because of the trauma of the sexual assault but said nothing about having had any trouble in high school. The problem with Kavanaugh assaulting her when she was in her late teens is that he was enrolled in Yale by then, while she was not.
According to her own testimony, she was assisted in filling in some of the details by her good friend, a former FBI agent, and the attorneys that Senator Feinstein arranged for her. Her former FBI agent friend resigned from the FBI on the day that Trump was inaugurated, and was a good friend and associate of FBI agent Peter Strzok who was instrumental in getting the Mueller investigation against Trump going, later fired from Mueller probe when it came out that he had plotted against Trump since before the election. They worked closely together and they were friends. These are reported facts, not theories; I haven't gotten to the theory yet.
After discussing it with her former FBI agent friend and the attorneys who were arranged for her by Senator Feinstein, she came out with a different time frame and now said the assault occurred in the early 1980s or, in some cases, 1982 specifically. The new date fit the period in which there was some possibility that she and he might have attended the same party. These people helped her to fix the date at 1982 or sometimes in the early 1980s, and to attach Kavanaugh's name to the story.
Here's the theory.
I believe that she had actually been assaulted while she was in her late teens, and it may have caused her some emotional upset during her college years. She had some documentation of that from prior to Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, although still belated. Her FBI friend and her attorneys realized that an assault that occurred while she was in her late teens wouldn't do the trick because that would have made it much more difficult to connect Kavanaugh, so they helped her to "remember" that it had actually occurred in the early 1980s, and that Brett Kavanaugh had been the chief attacker.
She may or may not have been a willing accomplice in this, as it has been documented that false memories can be implanted through psychological pressure by people who know how to do such a thing. I tend to believe that she was a willing accomplice, given that she is a psychologist and because she clearly stood to gain from it, and has gained at least a million dollars that we know of, using a Go Fund Me account as a way of moving the money, and there may have been other payoffs that we don't know about yet. Plus, she was a leftist who ran in the same circles. I am not stuck on her being a willing accomplice, but the troubled ten-year-old persona that she put on during the Senate hearings was about as phony as it comes.
So, I believe that she probably was assaulted, but that it occurred while she was in her late teens, probably even during a graduation party, and Brett Kavanaugh was not the person responsible. Had she been assaulted in the early 1980s, she would have suffered greater emotional problems during her last two years of high school than later, when she was in college, if these problems were related to the assault, yet she didn't mention any such problems in high school.
She was assaulted when she was in her late teens. Kavanaugh had nothing to do with it. The date was changed, and Kavanaugh's name added to the story either because she was a willing accomplice in the plot to sabotage Kavanaugh's nomination or because she was otherwise persuaded that it had occurred earlier and that Kavanaugh had done it.
The theory of a Liberal blogger who has seen the light:
"I believe that the Christine Blasey Ford gambit was an extension of the sinister activities underway since early 2016 in the Department of Justice and the FBI to un-do the last presidential election, and that the real and truthful story about these seditious monkeyshines is going to blow wide open.
Stunning if true.
It turns out that the Deep State is a small world. Did you know that the lawyer sitting next to Dr. Ford in the Senate hearings, one Michael Bromwich, is also an attorney for Andrew McCabe, the former FBI Deputy Director fired for lying to investigators from his own agency and currently singing to a grand jury? What a coincidence. Out of all the lawyers in the most lawyer-infested corner of the USA, she just happened to hook up with him.
It’s a matter of record that Dr. Ford traveled to Rehobeth Beach Delaware on July 26, where her Best Friend Forever and former room-mate, Monica McLean, lives, and that she spent the next four days there before sending a letter July 30 to Senator Diane Feinstein that kicked off the “sexual assault” circus. Did you know that Monica McClean was a retired FBI special agent, and that she worked in the US Attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York under Preet Bharara, who had earlier worked for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer?
Could Dr. Ford have spent those four days in July helping Christine Blasey Ford compose her letter to Mrs. Feinstein? Did you know that Monica McClean’s lawyer, one David Laufman is a former DOJ top lawyer who assisted former FBI counter-intel chief Peter Strozk on both the Clinton and Russia investigations before resigning in February this year — in fact, he sat in on the notorious “unsworn” interview with Hillary in 2016. Wow! What a really small swamp Washington is!"