The Kavanaugh Confirmation

[Javelin Man]

Has anyone thought of accusing Senator Feinstein of criminal Obstruction of Justice since this is apparently a felony and she has withheld evidence the past two months?

[catfish86]

Here is one thought that struck me. I confirmed that there is no statute of limitations on a felony, which rape is, in Maryland. Now why do none of these victims file a police report? The answer to that is pretty simple...filing a false police report is a crime with a sentence up to six months in jail. I am getting to the point where I think the FBI should investigate and when their results basically tell us what we already know, which is there is no corroboration for these claims, then 1) Kavanaugh is confirmed and 2) the accusers have to answer. But then again the FBI did that with Anita Hill concluding the accusations were unfounded, and nobody seems to have noticed.

[Bruenor]

What rape ? Neither one ever had their clothes off in the supposed situation per her statement. Media keeps saying attempted rape, rape rape, as if they say it enough it will become true.

In Maryland, the criminal statute of limitations varies depending on the severity of the offense. The criminal statutes of limitations include:

Felony sexual offenses: no statute of limitations, and
Misdemeanor offenses: one year from the event.

In Maryland, a civil sexual abuse case must be filed within:

In childhood sexual abuse cases, seven years from the victim’s 18th birthday, and
Three years from the event for adult cases.

there's no federal crime for the FBI to investigate they won't take on an investigation for the supposed incident.

There's no hard evidence for the local LEO to take on an investigation either, she can't provide an accurate date, location, any physical evidence or material witnesses. The hearsay written statements from her husband and friends are just hearsay, they weren't there, they really have nothing to testify to. Everyone else that she said was there, has either said they weren't there, or they never saw anything like what was described happen. Not to mention imho the level of the accusation doesn't seem to fit the felony level so it's beyond the SOL for the local LEO's to take on.

Frankly I'm wondering if she's even going to show up to testify, or if she'll no show to avoid perjuring herself.

The other accuser is refusing to testify other than accusations in the press.

If the dems pull this off with #MeToo accusations and no evidence, Trump will likely never get another justice confirmed.

[ArmedAviator]

Just remember folks, every day Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court, he will remember what the Democrats did to him and his family. No matter how down to Earth a man is, something like this is not forgotten and subtle, small, vengences are likely to be had even by a truly stand up guy like Kavanaugh.

[bignflnut]

As FT US political columnist Janan Ganesh writes in a column published Thursday, Trump's runner-up for the SCOTUS nod - federal judge Amy Coney Barrett - may not have as extensive a history of court ruling (something that was heavily weighed by the Federalist Society members who ultimately selected Kavanaugh), but she boasts more populist bona fides that would likely resonate more fully with Trump's base.

Amy Coney Barrett is a southerner who attended a mid-western law school. Of her seven children, two are Haitian adoptees. The current Senate thought her fit as a circuit judge just 11 months ago. She does not have much judicial experience but then her opponents do not have much of a "paper trail" to scrutinise. What Democrats know - or infer - is that such a fervent Catholic would menace Roe v Wade, which forbade states from prohibiting abortion, and Obergefell v Hodges, which secured same-sex marriage throughout the US. She is no liberal’s idea of a Supreme Court justice. Nor mine. Nor, I wager, Mr Trump’s. But the political reptile in him must see that no judge would be trickier for Democrats to oppose and electrify his own voters quite as much.

While Kav is a product of elite East Coast institutions (Georgetown Prep, Yale the George W Bush Administration), Barrett is a southerner who attended a midwestern law school, and her strong religious convictions would likely establish her as a menace to Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges (the ruling that legalized Gay Marriage throughout the US). Indeed, while abandoning Kav and switching to Barrett risks turning the midterms into a referendum on her nomination, selecting the right's first female SCOTUS contender since 1981 would transform the Kavanaugh scandal into a pyrric defeat for the president.

To be sure, there are other risks:

There are risks. Unless she were confirmed in a rush, the midterms would become, in part, a referendum on Ms Coney Barrett. Even if the Republicans retain control of the Senate, which is less certain than it was, the freethinking likes of Susan Collins might vote against her. A second defeated nominee would constitute not just a farce but the end of Mr Trump’s judges-for-votes bargain with evangelicals. He might curse the Federalist Society and other conservative judicial candidate-vetters, but the reputational damage would be his.

But he may have no good options. As soon as Ms Ford came forward, he was choosing between lesser and greater evils.

Still, given the uproar over Kavanaugh's nomination and the risks of Trump alienating women so soon before a mid-term vote (though, to be sure, he still won a greater share of white women voters during the 2016 campaign), making a late-game switch to Barrett is looking like an increasingly more plausible alternative.

Tossing a lady to these wolves would be interesting...
Trump's team has to have known that the Dems would throw all this garbage at the wall to see what sticks...

Like the Kennedy assassination, Challenger explosion and the twin towers, will the Kavanaugh-Ford hearing be a where-were-you moment? Read all of @AP coverage here:

Woah...

[High Power]

During her testimony Dr. Ford stated that she was asked a lot of questions during the polygraph test.

Skip ahead in the video to 4:45 to hear her statement about being asked a lot of questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDY-Ye58MBs

Now watch the interview with the polygrapher who said he only asked her two questions. http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/09/27/c ... graph-test

That only goes to show that the number two is a very big number

[djthomas]

During her testimony Dr. Ford stated that she was asked a lot of questions during the polygraph test.

Skip ahead in the video to 4:45 to hear her statement about being asked a lot of questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDY-Ye58MBs

Now watch the interview with the polygrapher who said he only asked her two questions. http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/09/27/c ... graph-test

That only goes to show that the number two is a very big number

What the polygrapher likely meant was that he asked two relevant questions. In a typical polygraph exam there's only one or two relevant questions where the response is scored. The 100+ other questions they ask are irrelevant. Note - relevant and irrelevant here are terms of art, not literally their relevance to matter under investigation, although some questions are irrelevant in every sense of the word.

[High Power]

During her testimony Dr. Ford stated that she was asked a lot of questions during the polygraph test.

Skip ahead in the video to 4:45 to hear her statement about being asked a lot of questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDY-Ye58MBs

Now watch the interview with the polygrapher who said he only asked her two questions. http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/09/27/c ... graph-test

That only goes to show that the number two is a very big number

What the polygrapher likely meant was that he asked two relevant questions. In a typical polygraph exam there's only one or two relevant questions where the response is scored. The 100+ other questions they ask are irrelevant. Note - relevant and irrelevant here are terms of art, not literally their relevance to matter under investigation, although some questions are irrelevant in every sense of the word.

That may be true but what Dr. Ford, more than likely, meant was that she was asked a lot of questions while she was being administered the polygraph test, not any pre-screening tests. She gives the impression that the lie detector test was very intrusive, which it was not.

Nevertheless, she still cannot recall the exact date of the event nor where it was at nor who drove her to/from the party. Those are details that I don't think a victim of a sexual assault would forget. So I believe that she is lying.

[AlanM]

Orrin Hatch and Lindsey Graham Deliver Proof That Dems Orchestrated Kavanaugh Hit Job

The two videos in this article are really quite entertaining. The repubs tear the dumbocrats a new one.

[AlanM]

Here's another one: https://www.onenewspage.us/video/201809 ... f-That.htm

I downloaded this one as an .mp4 if anyone wants it let me know.
It's an 18 meg file.

[WhyNot]

''Has anyone thought of accusing Senator Feinstein of criminal Obstruction of Justice since this is apparently a felony and she has withheld evidence the past two months? ''

At a minimum, she should receive some type of internal Senate censure / reprimand. Even as weak as the idea of censure or reprimand is, chances are the (R)'s won't have the stomach for it.

[ashtabula]

After watching the hearings, I believe something happened to Dr. Ford at the gathering in question. I also believe that she does not truly remember, but has convinced herself that judge Kavanaugh was the perpetrator. I have no doubt that at this time she truly believes what she is saying.

This was the first time I have watched an entire Senate hearing. If this is representative of how things are done, we, as a nation, are in trouble.

[AlanM]

I've already signed this open letter to the US Senate.

Do what you think is best.

Open letter to the US Senate to confirm Kavanaugh

[bignflnut]

For those wishing to count chickens...

With the Senate Judiciary Committee holding a vote at 9:30 A.M. tomorrow, a Senate insider has told Townhall that Kavanaugh has the votes to make it out of committee and the votes to be confirmed on the floor for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sens. Flake (R-AZ), Collins (R-ME), Murkowski (R-AK), and Manchin (D-WV) are expected to vote in favor of Kavanaugh. All the Republicans are voting yes. Also, in the rumor mill, several Democrats may break ranks and back Kavanaugh. That’s the ball game, folks.

[M-Quigley]

I saw somewhere that they are looking at a Sunday vote.

Rush made an important observation today. Newscasters are saying that Kavanaugh will still have a cushy job. No, he likely won't. How can an abused sex offender sit as an appellate judge? He'd always be tainted. The progressives will have effectively destroyed the life he worked so hard to build. These people are evil.

That may be true but they sure as heck, ticked off the wrong conservative, who certainly won't be a vote for any liberal causes brought to the SCOTUS. In other words, it will be hard to have an independent view point after they have tried to destroy him.

With that said, more pro-gun cases might stand an even better chance of getting a favorable opinion from now on if Kavanaugh is confirmed.

I don't know who this person is or why the news considered him important, but I saw this today. He might not have had a reason to feel the way he does until these recent events.

http://jamiedupree.blog.ajc.com/2018/09 ... testimony/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Umpire" no more:Just as Trump doesn't pretend he's president for those beyond his coalition, #Kavanaugh identified more overtly than any recent predecessor as a Justice for only 1 political party & an angry enemy of the other. That will shadow each decision he makes if confirmed

— Ronald Brownstein (@RonBrownstein) September 27, 2018

On a different sub topic related to the nomination, there's this:

https://www.whio.com/news/national/sen- ... YiX0WLoUP/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As of Thursday evening, Flake told reporters he was undecided, after a day of emotional testimony from Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, who says she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh when they were in high school. But Friday morning, Flake released a statement in support of Kavanaugh’s nomination.

FLAKE IS A YES ON KAVANAUGH pic.twitter.com/1yJ7qbY08U
— Todd Zwillich (@toddzwillich) September 28, 2018


Flake had been seen as a key vote, after the Arizona Republican insisted that Christine Blasey Ford be allowed to testify before the committee, the Wall Street Journal reported. The Republicans hold a slim 11-10 majority on the committee.

I thought his answer was well reasoned and fair, and no one can credibly accuse him of being a Trump supporter. Also I thought I heard he isn't running for reelection. His explanation however makes no difference to some people.

Women confront Sen. Jeff Flake after he says he'll vote yes to Kavanuagh: “That’s what you’re telling all women in America, that they don’t matter. They should just keep it to themselves because if they have told the truth you’re just going to help that man to power anyway.” pic.twitter.com/T7fSpyT69E
— CNN (@CNN) September 28, 2018