Kavanaugh Hearings - Senator Grassley Needs to Resign

Chuck Grassley wouldn’t know how to handle a narrative if you had Spielberg directing him with every lawyer in the DC area advising him on what to say. And. How. To. Say. It.

Diane Feinstein played the afternoon perfectly and one cannot see Jim Geraghty’s column in National Review (where he wondered if Senator Feinstein was getting a little forgetful to put it politely) as anything but wishful thinking from all of us who feel Judge Kavanaugh is being treated very poorly by the Democratic Senators and much of the media as these hearings come crashing to some sort of a conclusion.

Her pitch. Her pacing. Her tone. Her well-rehearsed and impactful questions. Like other Democrat Senators who grabbed the storyline and hit their marks cynically and perfectly, Senator Feinstein said what she wanted the way she needed to, all in order to create an impression of near-saintly goodness on the part of Professor Ford, and evil intent lurking under the surface in the case of Judge Kavanaugh. It was war, and how did the GOP side of the Senate Judiciary Committee respond?

They brought a dicta-phone to an Evo Championship Tourney in Vegas.

Sweet, polite, and focused, Maricopa Country prosecutor Rachel Miller was a complete blunder by the scared old men on the GOP side of the Committee. She was clearly sympathetic to Professor Ford and soft-balled her questions, in order one would assume to assure independents and suburban college-educated women that the GOP are not horrible sexists.

Great move Grassley. You the man.

The man who creaked and stumbled through his opening statement which was a whining complaint about Democrat tactics as led by Senator Feinstein. Um, Senator. The Democrats will do anything. Any. Thing. To keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, all in the name of abortion politics. You know that. You were unable to rise to the occasion. To put it mildly. You should really think about retiring, whatever good you've done for your state. Or at least hand over the reins of your committee. Which you won't, of course. But angry GOP voters might. So to speak.

Professor Ford was near-perfect. Sweet, terrified. Intelligent and compelling. Something happened to her back in 82 or 83. Who, how and where are not clear. Although of course she insists she remembers the important details.

But. There are no corroborating and credible witnesses as of yet, anonymous and increasingly outrageous accusations aside. And you can be sure that every Democrat-connected attorney, investigator, oppo-research nerds, plane-loads of journalists, congressional aides, lobbyists, and billionaires, are all combing every bit of data, rumor, or slander they can get their hands on. And still, no credible confirming evidence.

After the ludicrous spectacle of Rachel Miller commiserating with Professor Ford, (maybe some answers she coaxed from Ford will help, maybe) it was Kavanaugh's turn an hour or so later. And he came out swinging of course. Was he too emotional and angry? You try sitting in that chair. I would be spitting and sobbing all at once, but hey I'm a silly old fool.

Finally, Senator Lindsey Graham had had enough. Unlike the GOP Senators who handed their time to Rachel Miller, he grabbed the narrative by the scruff of the neck and fought back. It was high time, and hopefully it wasn't too late. As he said:

Boy y'all want power, God I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham, that you knew about it and you held it, you had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford, none! I hate to say it because these have been my friends, but if you were looking for a fair process, you came to the wrong town at the wrong time.
Although that really will depend on how Senators Collins, Murkowski, Flake, and Corker decide to vote. The Judiciary Committee puts it to a vote on Friday and apparently the full Senate does their thing on Tuesday. If Kavanaugh goes down, it will be Chuck Grassley's senile blunders that played no small role. He's the one Geraghty should have been writing about. Not Feinstein. Posted by Keeley at September 28, 2018 1:17 PM
Comments
Comment #432038

Anyone of these whining repubs on the Judiciary Committee that was involved with the stonewalling of Merrick Garland should resign. They have no credibility nor integrity. They least of all should be complaining about what the dems supposedly did with Kavanaugh.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now

Posted by: j2t2 at September 28, 2018 2:07 PM
Comment #432040

“all of us who feel Judge Kavanaugh is being treated very poorly by the Democratic Senators”

What a laugh. Brat Kava Nought has been snarling at the Democrats from the beginning of the hearings, besides his jesuitical equivocation.

equivocate: to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge

synonyms: con, dodge, evade, falsify, fib, jive, lie, prevaricate, pussyfoot, quibble, shuck, shuffle, stonewall, cop out

from Macbeth

Lechery, sir, it provokes, and unprovokes;
it provokes the desire, but it takes
away the performance: therefore, much drink
may be said to be an equivocator with lechery:
it makes him, and it mars him; it sets
him on, and it takes him off; it persuades him,
and disheartens him; makes him stand to, and
not stand to; in conclusion, equivocates him
in a sleep, and, giving him the lie, leaves him.

“the scared old men on the GOP side of the Committee”
Cowards all, they let Rachel Miller attempt to prosecute Blasey Ford. Grassley established the rules, which he verified to Hirono before it was Kava Nought’s turn. After his tantrums, Graham ignored those rules and began attacking his “friends” while auditioning for Attorney General for an audience of one, Tramp.

“all in the name of abortion politics”

BS, there are many other issues on which Kava Nought is objectionable, besides his numerous perjuries and clear manifestation of the lack of judicial temperance of a dry drunk.

“Who, how and where are not clear. “

“Who” was made very clear yesterday, “How” was made very clear, which leads us to the “where”, which was clearly a location where lying Brat and lying Mark were very familiar. Clearly they had done the same thing before in that same location. Take off the partisan blinders.

Blasey Ford’s lawyers should contact the Montgomery County authorities and seek prosecution of Brat and Mark. They can figure out exactly where this happened from details, or Mark Judge, or someone else there could remember or confess that location. Brat should be impeached from his current position on the Circuit Court, which may be the whole point of the appointment by Tramp. Throw a bum in the path of his own impeachment.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 28, 2018 2:45 PM
Comment #432058

The party in question happened on July 1, at “Timmy’s” house, as specified in Brat’s alibi calendar, by the names of the participants listed there,((going to Timmy’s for skis with Judge, PJ, et al)) and by Blasey Ford’s approximate timing, 6 to 8 weeks before she ran into Mark Judge working at the Safeway. The house may be the one owned by Mark Judge’s grandmother. When Rachel Miller began questioning Brat about that date in his calendar, Lindsay Graham began pitching his hissy fit to stop Miller’s questioning. He knows Brat is a rapist, and wants him on the SCOTUS. Scum of the earth.

From the NPR link in j2t2’s post:

But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia’s death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void.

As for nullification, Jackson’s contempt was un-reserved. He declared it an “abominable doctrine” that struck at the very roots of the Union, which he considered “perpetual,” and it violated the principle of majority rule. He distinguished nullification from traditional states’ rights principles. States’ rights “will preserve the union of the states,” Jackson explained, but nullification “will dissolve the Union.”

from

http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Washington-Johnson/Andrew-Jackson-Nullification.html

Posted by: ohrealy at September 28, 2018 9:28 PM
Comment #432066

Every time Ford and Kavanaugh answered the question — and didn’t answer the question:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart

Posted by: ohrealy at September 28, 2018 11:30 PM
Comment #432090
Lechery, sir, it provokes, and unprovokes; it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance: therefore, much drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery: it makes him, and it mars him; it sets him on, and it takes him off; it persuades him, and disheartens him; makes him stand to, and not stand to; in conclusion, equivocates him in a sleep, and, giving him the lie, leaves him.

I pray you, remember the Porter!

Posted by: Warren Porter at September 29, 2018 6:47 AM
Comment #432100

I pray you, remember the Porter!
Posted by: Warren Porter at September 29, 2018 6:47 AM

WP lives!

Posted by: ohrealy at September 29, 2018 1:54 PM
Comment #432116

Just before Graham’s hissy fit, Rachel Mitchell’s questions and Brat’s answers about the party on July 1, 1982:

MITCHELL: The entry says — and I quote — “Go to Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom , P.J., Bernie and Squee ”?

KAVANAUGH: Squee. That’s a nick…

MITCHELL: What does…

KAVANAUGH: … that’s a nickname.

MITCHELL: OK. To what does this refer, and to whom?

KAVANAUGH: (BS for a couple of minutes)

MITCHELL: If you could just identify, is — is “Judge,” Mark Judge?

KAVANAUGH: It is.

MITCHELL: And is “P.J.,” P.J. Smith?

KAVANAUGH: It is.

So — all right. It’s Tim Gaudette, Mark Judge, Tom Caine, P.J. Smith, Bernie McCarthy, Chris Garrett.

MITCHELL: Chris Garrett is Squee?

KAVANAUGH: He is.

So the house belonged to Tim Gaudette, and that is a real location that can be determined. SO that’s the where.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 29, 2018 7:22 PM
Comment #432130

This is good! Ford can’t remember, or doesn’t want to reveal, the house where the party takes place so ohrealy picks one for her.

Why aren’t you on the stand, ohrealy?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 30, 2018 10:30 AM
Comment #432136

I don’t think Grassley did a bad job.
There is nothing wrong with being respectful to Ford, since there is no evidence to prove she is lying or not.

It is a good thing that Republicans did not stoop to the level that Democrats did (i.e. the Democrats’ tons of insinuations of sinister behavior; the high school year book nonsense; assuming Kavanaugh guilty until proven innocent; leaking Ford’s letter at the most opportune time to cause delays and possibly derail the confirmation, ignoring the fact that Ford did not have a shred of evidence, etc.).

The majority of independents will probably see it for what it was.
Independents decide elections, because there are more independent voters than Democrats, and more independent voters than Republicans.

And hopefully, enough independent voters will NOT be impressed with the Democrats’ “Guilty until proven innocent”, dirty tricks, and level to which the Democrats will stoop.

Democrats did not do themselves any favors.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 30, 2018 4:09 PM
Comment #432216

Huge difference between using the process to your favor, and resorting to threatening, attacking and destroying individuals when it doesn’t.
The former is how it works in a Constitutional Republic. The latter is how it works in a leftist fascist state.

Posted by: kctim at October 2, 2018 8:22 AM
Comment #432313

Agen judi Togel

Posted by: Cs 007 at October 4, 2018 10:51 PM
Comment #432314

Agen Togel Terpercaya

Posted by: Cs 007 at October 4, 2018 10:51 PM
Post a comment