Republicans War on Women

The reasons she doesn't want to testify sans an impartial investigation are completely obvious.

The Committee Playing Games with Perjury Referrals Swears They Can Make Mark Judge Tell The Truth Without Testifying

Quote :

This is the committee, remember that referred Christopher Steele to the FBI for lying to the FBI, but that refuses to make Don Jr testify a second time to clarify problems with his testimony, much less refer him to FBI for lying about a second meeting at which he accepted election assistance from a foreign government (actually two: the Saudis and the Emirates).

Chuck Grassley has already demonstrated his view of lying to the committee: He’s perfectly okay with it, so long as helps Republicans.

happy jack wrote:

Quite frankly, I’m kind of surprised that she’s not jumping at the chance to testify...

She is willing to testify, once the FBI has done an investigation and has evidence to offer the committee.

Quote :

Without the context that the findings of an F.B.I. investigation could provide, the Senate hearing planned for Monday pitting Brett Kavanaugh against Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused him of sexual assault, runs the risk of being seen as little more than Kabuki theater, or, more pointedly, a gesture of appeasement to the #MeToo movement.

In other words, we gave her a hearing, now we’re ready to vote.

With no other witnesses or evidence, we’ll end up with a high-status, high-profile male judge squaring off against an unknown female research psychologist from Northern California. This “he said, she said” standoff is unlikely to change any minds and might merely reinforce the preconceptions of the senators who will vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court. And we know how that is likely to turn out.

. . .

Indeed, an F.B.I. investigation could be especially important for Judge Kavanaugh’s supporters on the committee. They are obliged to challenge Dr. Blasey’s credibility. To do so without facts, with only the usual tropes about what women do or don’t do, comes with extraordinary political risks.

A hearing without an investigation will be a useless and pointless exercise.

happy jack wrote:

...unless, of course, that whole ‘under oath’ thing has her worried.

You're thinking of Mark Judge.

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

...unless, of course, that whole ‘under oath’ thing has her worried.

You're thinking of Mark Judge.

Yeah,and before he starts with "Well Mark Judge gave a signed statement"...You can't cross examine a piece of paper.

The unindicted co-conspirator just can't stay off Twitter

tRUmp asks why Ford didn't report. Twitter answers #WhyIDidn'tReport, and it's trending #1

Quote :

The thing in the Oval Office asked in a tweet, “Why didn’t someone call the FBI 36 years ago?”

So Twitter is answering.

But, in the spirit of a diary I wrote yesterday, “I am Christine Blasey Ford,” they’re answering personally.  Telling their own stories of why they didn’t report.

By the thousands.

It’s heartbreaking.

And it’s trending #1 in the USA as I write.

With the whole weekend ahead of him holed up in NJ,angrily watching cable TV, we can only imagine what's going to come next.

From the Twitter account of the honorable
Michael Avenatti

@MichaelAvenatti I represent a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify. The nomination must be withdrawn. wrote:

@MichaelAvenatti

Hi ho,hi ho,it's off to work we go

Artie60438 wrote:

From the Twitter account of the honorable
Michael Avenatti

@MichaelAvenatti I represent a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify. The nomination must be withdrawn. wrote:

@MichaelAvenatti

Hi ho,hi ho,it's off to work we go

Thanks for the scoop! I gotta go check this out...

Scorpion wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

From the Twitter account of the honorable
Michael Avenatti

@MichaelAvenatti I represent a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify. The nomination must be withdrawn. wrote:

@MichaelAvenatti

Hi ho,hi ho,it's off to work we go

Thanks for the scoop!  I gotta go check this out...

There's more according to Ronan Farrow....

Quote :

Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years

Quote :

As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University. The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote. The Democratic Senate offices reviewing the allegations believe that they merit further investigation. “This is another serious, credible, and disturbing allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. It should be fully investigated,” Senator Mazie Hirono, of Hawaii, said. An aide in one of the other Senate offices added, “These allegations seem credible, and we’re taking them very seriously. If established, they’re clearly disqualifying.”

The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

Avenatti tweeted earlier that this is not the woman he represents

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's Yale roommate says he believes second accuser

Quote :

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's Yale roommate says he believes second accuser

Brett Kavanaugh's Yale roommate says he supports the second woman accusing the judge of sexual misconduct, and that he respects her courage.
Updated 16 mins ago
SAN MATEO, Calif. (KGO) --
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's roommate from Yale says he believes the second woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.

James Roche says he was Kavanaugh's roommate in the Fall of 1983.

RELATED: 2nd woman reportedly claims sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh

"We shared a two-bedroom unit in the basement of Lawrence Hall on the Old Campus. Despite our living conditions, Brett and I did not socialize beyond the first few days of freshman year. We talked at night as freshman roommates do and I would see him as he returned from nights out with his friends," Roche said in a statement.

He went on to describe how Kavanaugh conducted himself while they shared a living space.

"It is from this experience that I concluded that although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk. I did not observe the specific incident in question, but I do remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk."

Roche says he became friends with Debbie Ramirez. "She stood out as being exceptionally honest, with a trusting manner. As we got to know one another, I discovered that Debbie was very worried about fitting in. She felt that everyone at Yale was very rich, very smart and very sophisticated and that as a Puerto Rican woman from a less privileged background she was an outsider. Her response was to try hard to make friends and get along."
Roche says he does not consider himself to be a political person and went on to say he has no political agenda.

A full investigation would end any speculation.

And rule out hypnosis.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

A full investigation would end any speculation.

And rule out hypnosis.

Yeah, hypnosis does sound rather silly, doesn't it?
But do you know what doesn't sound silly, and what would not surprise me in the least?

$$$$$$$$$

Yeah. No reason to investigate. Let's just say it's because of money, and rush to confirm Kavanaugh ASAP.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

A full investigation would end any speculation.

And rule out hypnosis.

Yeah, hypnosis does sound rather silly, doesn't it?
But do you know what doesn't sound silly, and what would not surprise me in the least?

$$$$$$$$$

Yeah. No reason to investigate. Let's just say it's because of money, and rush to confirm Kavanaugh ASAP.  

It's possible that you missed what I wrote earlier.

happy jack wrote:

It's certainly a serious enough charge to warrant an investigation, but without her testimony, what will there be to investigate?

No. I didn't miss it. Ford testifies tomorrow. Then, according to the Republicans, they vote. There has been no investigation and there will not be any investigation after her testimony.

So what's your point? Perhaps I'm missing it. Care to clarify?

Thanks!

happy jack wrote:

Are you telling me that when a woman sees a man's penis at a college keg party, it's 'sexual assault', but when a little girl sees a man's penis in the ladies' room, it's 'tolerance'?

Is that what you believe happens in the ladies room?  Because, unsurprisingly, the reality is the complete opposite.

Her testimony in front of the committee is not required for an FBI investigation.

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Are you telling me that when a woman sees a man's penis at a college keg party, it's 'sexual assault', but when a little girl sees a man's penis in the ladies' room, it's 'tolerance'?

Is that what you believe happens in the ladies room?  Because, unsurprisingly, the reality is the complete opposite.

hu·mor

(h)yo͞omər

NOUN
the quality of being amusing or comic, especially as expressed in literature or speech.
"his tales are full of humor"
synonyms: comical aspect · comic side · funny side · comedy · funniness · hilarity

happy jack wrote:

hu·mor

(h)yo͞omər

NOUN
the quality of being amusing or comic, especially as expressed in literature or speech.
"his tales are full of humor"
synonyms: comical aspect · comic side · funny side · comedy · funniness · hilarity

Exactly. The best humor and satire is always grounded in truth. That's why it failed to land.  It's why Fox's attempt at a Daily Show failed. Poe's Law doesn't make your attempts at comedy any easier, either.

But at least we finally agree that all your blathering about transgender bathroom use was complete and utter bullshit. Progress.

happy jack wrote:

No, it's not. But without it, what is there to investigate?

Her very public allegations. Do you not know? Have you not heard of Ford before today?

Because, again, her testimony before the committee is not required for an investigation.