Ragnarok

From Powerline: Selected quotes from Grassley letter to Ford's attorney after they requested another delay: (Then answer is no) Still don't think she shows. You suggest that Dr. Ford’s testimony should be further delayed because of allegations made in the New Yorker by Deborah Ramirez. I am unclear why Ms. Ramirez’s claims should have any bearing on Dr. Ford’s testimony. In fact, the obvious connection between the two claims is that Senate Democrats hid both allegations of misconduct from the Committee and the public. I think Grassley is losing patience. At last. As of now, the only allegations of which the Committee is aware with respect to Ms. Ramirez are the allegations described in the New Yorker. As you know, false statements made to the press are not subject to criminal penalty, but false statements to Congress are. If Ms. Ramirez submits testimony and evidence to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Committee investigators have requested, we can decide how to proceed. But, at this time, Democratic staff has not shared any such evidence it has with Republican staff.

She has to fly to Hawaii first for a quick surfing vacation before she starts the drive to Washington.

We're emotionally invested in seeing this tactic fail. If bringing forth a string of liars after the confirmation hearings are over, none of whom have testified under oath, can bring down a candidate, it will always be used in the future.

Let her tell her story under oath once first.

From HotAir: Oh, one more thing. If true, this actually could make the questioning of Ford on Thursday interesting: BREAKING: Chairman Grassley has asked Blasey-Ford's lawyers to turn over results of a private polygraph Ford claims she took & passed–along with "the list of questions." The test was based on a statement "summarizing" her allegations, and may not have mentioned Kavanaugh by name — Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) September 24, 2018

She can call them out all she wants, but nobody is caving to this asinine demand. Let her no-show over it. What do you think people will assume then?

It's going to come down to the credibility of Ford. If she's credible, he's probably toast. If she's not credible, the other stuff isn't going to be either. Her lawyer is still "negotiating", so I'm still not convinced she's going to tell her story under oath. Apparently she's still objecting to having outside counsel question her, especially since outside counsel will be experienced with sex crimes. For some reason, Ford finds that to be a problem.

Only if you don't understand what verify means. That's something the FBI is supposed to do, but didn't, even though they said they did.. That's the crux.

If you actually want to understand what is going on with FISA & Carter page, (which I'm sure you don't), read Andrew McCarthy. Long but very informative, with several follow up columns. Hint: you have no idea what you are talking about. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/carter-page-fisa-applications-fbi-steele-dossier/

That's his real problem. They didn't support an extension. Otherwise Carter Page would have been charged.

The transparency of this smear is it's greatest weakness. If they pull Kavanaugh, the next confirmation will be a circus too, especially having proved that it works.

Carville's saying needs an update: No telling what you'll find if you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, and spend a few weeks with the women at a therapist recovering memories. There's some serious bullshit being flung about. It might actually work though when you just need so few Republicans to cave.

So, Brett Cavanaugh ran a child sex ring out of his dorm room, in between selling pizzas. Does that about cover it?

Link? And from the grassy knoll, It appears our 2nd accuser is about to make her presence known.

There it is---under Aug. 2nd, 1982. Did not attempt to rape Christine Ford. Game, set, match.

I have no idea whether Kavanaugh was a big drinker and partier in high school. But he has so many people talking about his character and integrity, I doubt it. As to the character, who knows? Maybe the joke was Kavanaugh was a teetotaler. That WILL come out, so we won't have to speculate. As to the character, who knows?

I think many people on the left figure Kavanaugh won't be able to effectively refute this. After all who can say where they were 36 years ago. Obviously, it is tough to have an alibi when the accusations are so vague regarding time and place. The Senate will be trying to pin her down on that, and the more vague her answers, the more difficult to refute. But also the less credible they will seem. You were 15. Was it summer? Beginning of summmer? End of summer? etc. etc. But after thinking about it, the fact that he was still in high school may help him out. Did he even drink when he was 17? Had he ever been drunk? I hadn't (yeah, yeah, late bloomer) Athletics were important to me, and I had a few drinks during the summer between my junior and senior year, then nothing until the spring. I had one friend who was a straight arrow who never drank at all until he went to UT. Yes, it may be difficult to prove absolutely, but he may have some strong circumstantial evidence that will be believable. Her story is that he was drunk. I could effectively refute that. He may be able to as well. He was also from a wealthy family. It's very possible he was gone most of the summer, and can prove it. I frequently was, even if it was considerably less glamorous than vacationing in Europe. And given, the way Republicans have bent over backwards to get her testimony, when she gave them reason to just shut her down, I have to believe the Republicans believe Kavanaugh will make a good showing. I still think she finds an excuse to not testify, but we will see.

I've seen players quit on a coach, but that punt was the first time I've seen a coach quit on his players.

OMG . This thread delivers.

This is most likely true, and the most disturbing thing about the whole affair. Is this really what we want as the new standard? That somebody can place you at a party 35 years ago with an accuser. I have never ever come close to any lines that would reflect assault. But I don't even remember the names of some of the girls I've been with. This probably true for many of you. But I'm guilty if somebody can place me at a party 20 or 30 years ago with one of them who makes up an assault story? If it happened yesterday, they would have to prove a hell of a lot more than I was just there. How does anybody defend themselves against that? It's impossible. Anybody can win with a lie. And if that's true, you get a lot more liars.

Ford places Ms Keyser at the party. Ms. Keyser, a lifelong friend, says she never met Kavanaugh and has no idea what Ford is talking about. Your response to that is: Well, she's not really a witness then, is she? I don't usually bother responding or even reading anything on this board since it turned into one long boring lefty circle jerk, but this thread, well, it's been worth reading just for gems like that above. And that it is victim shaming to point out that Ms. Ford seems to be able to fly when she wants to. You need to learn what victim shaming is. It's the NY Times, after Patricia Bowman accused William Kennedy Smith of rape, "reporting on her speeding tickets, partying in adulthood and even dredging up an unnamed woman who claimed Bowman showed a 'little wild streak' in high school." Or James Carville, tallking about Paula Jones, saying that you never know what you'll find when you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park

From NY Times puff piece: Dr. Blasey developed a passion for surfing, which she shares with her husband and two sons. “She’s been chasing waves,” said Beth Stannard, a friend and former co-worker, who said Dr. Blasey’s decisions to teach at Pepperdine, in Malibu, Calif., and to complete an internship at the University of Hawaii were at least partly informed by the campuses’ seaside locations. Lives in Palo Alto. Inquiring minds would like to know how she made those little commutes.

LOL, she ain't testifying. New demand: Kavanaugh testifies first, must display his penis to see if it matches the description she will make.

Fineswine still refuses to release Ford's unredacted letter: Senator John Cornyn tweeted about it: More gamesmanship: after sitting on Dr. Ford's letter of July 30th, it was leaked after Kavanaugh hearing had concluded. Senator Feinstein, the ranking D, still refuses to release to the Judiciary Committee the original, unredacted letter so it contents may be investigated. — Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) September 20, 2018 She is never going to testify. She won't say that though. She's gonna make Grassley say no. She will wait until 10 tonight and say she will testify if only they can move it to Friday... or some other thing Grassley will have to refuse.

James Woods: College professor Christine Ford can’t remember the year her “assault” happened, but can remember that she was fifteen. Chances are she won’t be joining the Math Department any time soon.