Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[Mountain Man]

Whhy do you assume that Professor Ford has something to hide...

Because her story keeps changing, and she and her lawyer are using one delay tactic after another to avoid having Ford testify under oath.

...and what does Kavanaugh have to fear from an honest open enquiry?

Nothing. That's why he has already agreed to testify under oath.

[Alsharad]

Why do you assume that Professor Ford has something to hide

Like her yearbook that paints her and her class as rebellious, party-going teenagers that brag about getting so drunk they can't remember the party. She would probably want to hide that fact since it destroys the reliability of her testimony.

and what does Kavanaugh have to fear from an honest open enquiry?

Nothing, especially since it is nothing more than he-said-she-said.

There's no hurry...Scalia's seat was vacant for more than 400 days.

Very disingenuous. There is a hurry. The Democrats are clearly trying to push the confirmation past the 2018 election so that they can shut down the nomination if they take the senate. This is a political move and they are using Dr. Ford to get what they want. Don't tell me that they care about her. If they did, Feinstein would have taken action in July, as soon as she heard about it.

Surely it is preferable to have the whole thing out in the open. Dr Ford has an established reputation as an honest, rigorous academic and is seen as a woman of great integrity.

Judge Kavanaugh shares the same qualities (except for being a woman, of course).

She deserves to be taken seriously, not slandered by the likes of you and the pro-Trump media, who are behaving as though Kavanaugh is guilty of the sexual aggression of which he's been accused.

She does deserve to be taken seriously. And she has been. She has been invited to give testimony before congress. Sounds like they are taking it seriously. But no one can get past that it is nothing more than he-said-she-said. There is no evidence, no corroborating testimony. She does not remember when or where the alleged assault took place. I am not saying nothing happened, but even if something did, we have no way to know objectively what it was. We can't even know if a crime was committed. We have no way to get evidence. All we have is a vague memory from 36 years ago from an at-the-time inebriated 15 year old.

Even then, are you the same person that you were at 17? I am definitely not. Even if it were true, I would argue that Kavanaugh certainly is not. He is imminently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. If he isn't because of something that may or may not have happened that may or may not have been a crime when he was a teenager, then no one can possibly be qualified. Is that the standard that you think we should use?

[Leonhard]

I don't see any good reasons to doubt her testimony, beyond that though, I don't see anything here that can convict Kavanaugh.

I also believe the death threats happened. Its what usually happens to women who comes forward with claims of rape, which is one of the reasons why few women actually report rape.

[rogue06]

Now there are threats being made against Kavanaugh's family...

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...apist-husband/

The MSM is focused on reporting on death threats made against Ford while for the most part ignoring those made against Kavanaugh and his family. And when they are mentioned the wording used is often starkly different. For instance on ABC Ford received "death threats" where Kavanaugh merely "received threats and hateful e-mails."

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), who's vote is often seen as a swing vote and is under tremendous pressure from women's groups to oppose Kavanaugh since he was nominated, has mentioned that she too has received numerous death threats as well.

In response to Collin's statement, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-California) mocked and belittled her experience by sneering "Boo hoo hoo." Swalwell has since apologized saying his statements were "stupid." You think?

You would think Swalwell would have been a bit less cavalier considering that just a little over a week ago Swalwell's Republican opponent, Rudy Peters, was assaulted by a knife-wielding attacker near a vendor's booth at the Castro Valley Fall Festival after the attacker began screaming profanity-laced remarks about the Republican party and Trump and repeatedly shouting "I'll kill you" as he attacked. Fortunately Ford was able to fend of the attacker using one of his election signs. The attacker, Farzad Fazeli, ran off but was later arrested and charged with felony assault, making criminal threats and brandishing a weapon.

This is just one of a growing list of Republican politicians being physically attacked in a little over the past year. Here are a few aside from the knife attack on Peters:

In June of last year we had the shooting at the baseball field in Washington D.C. by James Hodgkinson, a left wing activist, MSNBC News junkie (notorious for the vitriol directed at Republicans and conservatives) and Bernie Sanders campaign worker who frequently expressed his hatred toward Republicans^[1]. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) was in critical condition for several days as a result of the shooting and was hospitalized for 6 weeks.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) was attacked from behind in his backyard resulting in five rib fractures including 3 displaced fractures as well as lung contusions as he was mowing his lawn by Rene Boucher, a neighbor and supporter of the far-left Occupy movement and who's Facebook account is full of anti-Trump rants.

Rep. David Kustoff (Tennessee) was nearly run off the road by a stalker, Wendi Wright, who was angry about his vote to repeal and replace Obamacare. She then confronted him when he pulled over screaming, striking the windows on Kustoff's car and even reaching inside the vehicle before finally leaving. She was later arrested after boasting of the confrontation on Facebook and charged with felony reckless endangerment.

The MSM has either downplayed or ignored most of these and other actual attacks (the baseball shooting being the notable exception) while constantly bemoaning how Trump's rancorous rhetoric may some day lead to violence. The fact is that, as can be seen above, the venomous rhetoric spewed from the left in a near constant stream has already led to violence. "Comedians" and other "entertainers" have a long and sordid history of making "jokes" or producing songs and the like advocating violence against Republican leaders. And with few exceptions the left rallies in their defense.

And you also have Democrat politicians like Mad Max Waters (D-California) demanding that people "push back" against Republicans, calling for in-your-face confrontations as well as encouraging people to mob and harass Trump Administration officials.

Of course aggressive rhetoric of this sort is nothing new and Trump is hardly the first president to employ some. The last occupant of the White House, Barrack Obama was known to employ more than his share of it, saying things like

• "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
• "argue with your neighbors. Get in their face."
• "Punch back twice as hard."

Well... this little rant kinda went off on a tangent












1. before the shooting he asked if those out on the field were Republicans or Democrats

[rogue06]

Why do you assume that Professor Ford has something to hide

Not necessarily something to hide but she has to be aware that her claims have been to say the least contradictory and short on any sort of corroborating details

[One Bad Pig]

According to the Washington Post Express this morning, the latest delay tactic from Ford's camp is "I won't testify Monday, but maybe later in the week if certain conditions are met and I feel comfy about it."

[Sparko]

According to the Washington Post Express this morning, the latest delay tactic from Ford's camp is "I won't testify Monday, but maybe later in the week if certain conditions are met and I feel comfy about it."

Yeah, you don't keep congress waiting. They should just schedule the hearing and if she shows up fine, if not then her position is that it is not important enough to bother with so they can safely ignore it.

[Cow Poke]

Why do you assume that Professor Ford has something to hide, and what does Kavanaugh have to fear from an honest open enquiry?

That has already been an honest open enquiry, and DiFi, knowing about the allegations, said absolutely nothing. This is just stall tactics by the Dems, along with some good ol' fashioned character assassination.

[Cow Poke]

According to the Washington Post Express this morning, the latest delay tactic from Ford's camp is "I won't testify Monday, but maybe later in the week if certain conditions are met and I feel comfy about it."

I love the part where K has to testify FIRST!

[Sparko]

I love the part where K has to testify FIRST!

They better give him a rebuttal if she does testify.

[Cow Poke]

They better give him a rebuttal if she does testify.

I can't imagine any scenario where it makes sense for the accused to testify first.

[Sparko]

I can't imagine any scenario where it makes sense for the accused to testify first.

nope. me either.

I think they might be agreeing to it to just get things underway because they know she is stalling and won't show up.

[Cow Poke]

nope. me either.

I think they might be agreeing to it to just get things underway because they know she is stalling and won't show up.

IF he goes first, his testimony should emphasize the impossibility of defending against such a vague and spurious and shifting accusation.

The first thing a falsely accused defendant has as a defense is alibi. How can he even provide an alibi when he doesn't know when or where this allegedly occurred? Then, perhaps, he should call forth his character witnesses.

[rogue06]

According to the Washington Post Express this morning, the latest delay tactic from Ford's camp is "I won't testify Monday, but maybe later in the week if certain conditions are met and I feel comfy about it."

It is becoming evident that she wants to merely come and issue a rehearsed statement and then leave but baring that if she has to face questions then they're to be kept to an absolute minimum and done behind closed doors so no cameras can record her responding to questions about her numerous consistencies.

[Cow Poke]

It is becoming evident that she wants to merely come and issue a rehearsed statement and then leave but baring that if she has to face questions then they're to be kept to an absolute minimum and done behind closed doors so no cameras can record her responding to questions about her numerous consistencies.

I'm a bit surprised at the otherwise intelligent people who can't seem to grasp that this is such an odd (and weak) allegation, and just outright want to believe her, I guess cause it makes them feel noble to defend (or support) women?