Lol ... Not even close. You all just love these pervs more than Jesus.
I can't tell if they genuinely identify with weird creeps, or they're just towing the line.
(This is something that happens within every ideology, but Jesus, they are stretching it lately)
This is what we're talking about when we say you all on the left had this guy convicted before he was even tried.
You haven't proven anything, the obvious moving of the goal posts proves you aren't going to prove anything.
He had already completed the job interview when the weirdos on your side of the aisle pulled the stunt they did and released Dr. Ford's identity to the public. Being passionate about defending yourself from accusations of rape and sexual assault is not a bad thing, to reasonable people. You're just grasping at straws to say 'he doesn't have the temperament'. The whole 'this didn't happen to Gorsuch' argument is rather weak as well. Were he up for the swing vote seat on the court, I have no doubt he'd have been Borked in one way or another.
WE DON'T NEED A QB BEFORE WE GET A LINE THAT CAN PROTECT HIM my two cents...
In a letter released Tuesday, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, seemingly contradicted her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.
The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor said she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford helping a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.
He also claimed Ford never voiced any fear of flying and seemingly had no problem living in a small apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. due to a fear of flying, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living anywhere without a second front door.
In a pointed, no-holds-barred letter Tuesday evening that referenced the declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demaned that attorneys for Ford turn over her therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her polygraph examination during Thursday's dramatic Senate hearing.
"Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination," Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote.
Under questioning from experienced sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell last week, Ford said that she had "never" given any tips or advice to someone "planning on taking a polygraph."
Declaration Redacted Ford Friend by Fox News on Scribd
Mitchell, in a report Sunday, said Ford's case was even weaker than the typical "He said, she said" situation and pointed out numerous discrepencies in her version of events in the past several weeks, concerning everything from how many people were at the purported party to when it occurred and how she found her way home. Mitchell also noted that none of the witnesses Ford identified as having attended the party could back up her version of events.
Some of the apparent inconsistencies, Grassley wrote, could possibly be addressed if Ford's legal team turned over all video or audio recordings produced during her August polygraph examination. Ford passed that polygraph, but in a handwritten statement she wrote prior to the test, she indicated "there were 4 boys and a couple of girls" at the party where Kavanaugh allegedly attacked her.
FORD'S POLYGRAPH RESULTS SHOW KEY INCONSISTENCY -- HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE AT THE PARTY?
In Ford's letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in July, the accuser gave a different tally, writing that the gathering "included me and 4 others."
Grassley also demanded Ford's attorneys hand over notes from her 2012 therapy sessions in which she claimed to have discussed her alleged sexual assault decades ago. The senator said it was "not justified" any longer for Ford to cite privacy and medical privilege given that she has relied on them extensively as a kind of corroborating evidence to implicate Kavanaugh.
On Thursday, Ford claimed she could not say definitively whether she had shared those notes with The Washington Post approximately two months ago, as opposed to describing them abstractly. The Post wrote that it had reviewed a "portion" of Ford's notes.
Additionally, Grassley requested copies of communications between Ford and the media describing her allegations, saying that the legal team's failure to provide Ford's full correspondence with The Washington Post suggested a "lack of candor."
10.02.18 CEG to Ford Attorneys (1) by Fox News on Scribd
Mitchell, in a report Sunday, said Ford's case was even weaker than the typical "He said, she said" situation and pointed out numerous discrepencies in her version of events in the past several weeks, concerning everything from how many people were at the purported party to when it occurred and how she found her way home. Mitchell also noted that none of the witnesses Ford identified as having attended the party could back up her version of events.
Some of the apparent inconsistencies, Grassley wrote, could possibly be addressed if Ford's legal team turned over all video or audio recordings produced during her August polygraph examination. Ford passed that polygraph, but in a handwritten statement she wrote prior to the test, she indicated "there were 4 boys and a couple of girls" at the party where Kavanaugh allegedly attacked her.
In Ford's letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in July, the accuser gave a different tally, writing that the gathering "included me and 4 others."
Grassley also demanded Ford's attorneys hand over notes from her 2012 therapy sessions in which she claimed to have discussed her alleged sexual assault decades ago. The senator said it was "not justified" any longer for Ford to cite privacy and medical privilege given that she has relied on them extensively as a kind of corroborating evidence to implicate Kavanaugh.
On Thursday, Ford claimed she could not say definitively whether she had shared those notes with The Washington Post approximately two months ago, as opposed to describing them abstractly. The Post wrote that it had reviewed a "portion" of Ford's notes.
Additionally, Grassley requested copies of communications between Ford and the media describing her allegations, saying that the legal team's failure to provide Ford's full correspondence with The Washington Post suggested a "lack of candor."
In a separate letter to Democratic Sen. Chris Coons, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, Grassley wrote, "The accuser freely admits to having no evidence whatsoever that Judge Kavanaugh even attended this party. … We’ve reached a new level of absurdity with this allegation."
The scathing letters come as Fox News has learned the FBI may wrap up its investigation into misconduct accusations against Kavanaugh as soon as late Wednesday, a source tells Fox News, potentially clearing the way for a final Senate vote on his confirmation within days.
If the FBI's report is indeed delivered to the White House on Wednesday, Fox News expects a vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation could come as soon as Saturday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., must first satisfy a number of procedural and parliamentary hurdles before a vote can be held, including filing a cloture petition, which must remain pending for a full day, in order to formally end debate on Kavanaugh's nomination. McConnell has vowed to hold a vote by the end of the week.
The uncorroborated sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh have faltered in recent days, as the credibility of his three most prominent accusers -- Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick -- has come under question. Democrats increasingly have focused their arguments on Kavanaugh's temperament during Thursday's hearing, as well as whether he lied under oath about references in his high school yearbook. Kavanaugh also acknowleged sometimes having "too many" beers in high school and college, and some Democrats have suggested he lied by not going further and admitting that he had "blacked out."
Being passionate about defending yourself from accusations of rape and sexual assault is not a bad thing, to reasonable people. You're just grasping at straws to say 'he doesn't have the temperament'
He spent his job interview telling obvious lies while he alternated between screaming and crying about how much he enjoyed drinking.
Being passionate about defending yourself from accusations of rape and sexual assault is not a bad thing, to reasonable people. You're just grasping at straws to say 'he doesn't have the temperament'
He spent his job interview telling obvious lies while he alternated between screaming and crying about how much he enjoyed drinking.
Grasping at straws?
Seriously?
I have no problem believing PDF never touched a woman.
I have to watch what I say to PDF because he crys to the refs.
Yes me too. They believe a woman who comes on TV with no witness playing the helples female talking in a little girl voice trying to ruin a man who had 65 people saying what a honest wonderfull man he is and the Libs want to believe her who is a Democratic activist.
Yes me too. They believe a woman who comes on TV with no witness playing the helples female talking in a little girl voice trying to ruin a man who had 65 people saying what a honest wonderfull man he is and the Libs want to believe her who is a Democratic activist.
Well, it appears now 'they' are going after the 'lied in testimony' thing, and forgetting about the sexual assault thing.
But, they are getting what they want: delay. Investigate NOT what they said they wanted to investigate, but now other things as well.
My guess is more people will make accusations in the coming days, just to lengthen the investigation.
What is the fbi investigating? 37 years ago. Still not even a police report.
Perhaps Christine Blasey Ford should be investigated as well?
OH, and I KNOW people will say "Oh, so you blame the victim, huh arch?" Nope. I don't. I just really have to question if she was a victim. Do some research on her.
I wonder what dark money is behind all these witnesses coming out against the accusers on Fox that no other network is covering... IT'S AN ANTI-SOROS/CLINTON CABAL KNOWN AS THE TROGS!
Liberals did the same thing with the fine gentlemen like Roy Moore and Bill Cosby. These women are whores and actresses. They're all pedos too like that Asia Argento character. Never eat pizza with a lib!!!
Liberals did the same thing with the fine gentlemen like Roy Moore and Bill Cosby. These women are whores and actresses. They're all pedos too like that Asia Argento character. Never eat pizza with a lib!!!
Being passionate about defending yourself from accusations of rape and sexual assault is not a bad thing, to reasonable people. You're just grasping at straws to say 'he doesn't have the temperament'
He spent his job interview telling obvious lies while he alternated between screaming and crying about how much he enjoyed drinking.
Grasping at straws?
Seriously?
I have no problem believing PDF never touched a woman.
I have to watch what I say to PDF because he crys to the refs.
The "can somebody please Google something for me!? I don't know how to use Google. I'm employed, you can't expect me o hold down a job *and* know how Google works" guy is here to attempt cracking wise.
Yes me too. They believe a woman who comes on TV with no witness playing the helples female talking in a little girl voice trying to ruin a man who had 65 people saying what a honest wonderfull man he is and the Libs want to believe her who is a Democratic activist.
Dawg Duty's clueless old man Breitbart rambling aside...you're seriously curious as to what the obvious lies were, arch?
It seems to me, a number of years ago, you attempted to grope me. Somewhere.
BAM, dude, you can't be a teacher anymore. Right? I need NO proof - just the allegation. Right?
Shocked that the "oh, so just because he said he likes to grab strangers' gentials and shove his tongue down their throats, that means he sexually assaults people?" guy has this to say.
Democratic Sen. Cory Booker, amid the ongoing FBI probe into sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, suggested the Senate needs to “move on” to another Supreme Court nominee whether Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) was the latest Republican lawmaker to be harassed by a protester who opposes the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination.
Several Republicans -- including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- have been targeted by demonstrators who do not believe Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the high court due to a series of sexual assault allegations.
On Monday, Cassidy was walking in the hall of a Senate office building when he was confronted by a woman who demanded to know why he's supporting Kavanaugh.
Cassidy pushed back, asking her if she would like her husband or son's life "destroyed" by an "uncorroborated" charge.
When the protester accused Cassidy of being "OK if a rapist goes on the Supreme Court," the senior senator from Louisiana fired back, “No, I’m not. But then on the other hand, clearly you’re OK, the absence of evidence obviously means nothing to you.”
After the woman refused to answer his questions about acting on uncorroborated allegations, he told her "you know it's unfair."
Here's The Daily Caller's transcript of the back-and-forth:
Quote:
Cassidy: “Why wouldn’t I support Kavanaugh?”
Protester: “Because rapists are bad.”
Cassidy: “Wait a second — everybody there said that it did not happen. So why am I going to–”
Protester: “So you’re going to believe Mark Judge over a woman?”
Cassidy: “No, I’m going to believe her best friend.”
Protester: “Her best friend didn’t say it didn’t happen. Her best friend said she wasn’t told about it.”
Cassidy: “She said she didn’t remember.”
Protester: “So you’re OK as a doctor to harm a woman?”
Cassidy: “Wait a second – are you OK as a person to go ahead and to accept a non-corroborated charge to destroy someone’s life? If it destroyed your life, your son’s life, or your husband’s? Wait a second, answer my question. If it was your husband, your son, your father, whose life has been destroyed by uncorroborated, would you like that?”
Protester: “I would support a full FBI investigation.”
Cassidy: “No, no. Would you like that? An uncorroborated charge, destroying—”
Protester: “I wouldn’t marry somebody that was a drunk.”
Cassidy: “Oh no, wait a second. Uncorroborated. Answer the question. I don’t think you’re able to. Because you know it’s unfair.”
Protester: “I would stand up.”
Cassidy: “You know it’s unfair.”
Protester: “I would fight. And I would make sure women are heard. Clearly you’re OK if a rapist goes on the Supreme Court.”
Cassidy: “No, I’m not. But then on the other hand, clearly you’re OK, the absence of evidence obviously means nothing to you.”
Protester: “No, there is evidence. Look at the standard. How many people are in jail for less?”
Here's The Daily Caller's transcript of the back-and-forth:
The Daily Caller.
Can you go a day without citing weird racist sites?
For those who don't know, The Daily Caller has had to fire six writers in the last year when it turned out they were members of white supremacy groups, and was founded by Tucker Carlson, the guy who did a "white genocide" segment on his show last week.
It's funny how the right can twist a simple job interview and background to determine if someone is fit for the position they are being considered for into a witch hunt and a crucifixtion.
#snowflakes
Then try to blame the Democrats for it when it was three Republicans that demanded it before they were willing to vote for the GOP nominee.
You can't make this BS up folks!
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
It's funny how the right can twist a simple job interview and background to determine if someone is fit for the position they are being considered for into a witch hunt and a crucifixtion.
#snowflakes
Then try to blame the Democrats for it when it was three Republicans that demanded it before they were willing to vote for the GOP nominee.
You can't make this BS up folks!
A simple job interview? Are you serious?? LOL
Raise your hand Dawgs if you've ever interviewed for a job, great or small, that required you to defend yourself against bogus rape claims.
Hell, Raise your hand if you've ever sat for an interview and were accused of any kind of crime without any credible corroboration.
I probably won't wait
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things." -Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
Political appointments take a bit longer and are more public. A better example would be something like someone sending a resume for a job posting you had. You like the resume, do a phone interview and it goes well. The on site even goes well. While you do this you have a background check service conducted. It is revealed that your candidate has multiple allegations against them for sexual assault, harassment, and general debauchery. If you have another candidate who is JUST AS GOOD as this candidate, which one do you go with?
Just as good in this case would be anyone else you like on the purported list of supcom candidates, e.g. Amy Coney Barrett. It's a fact that Kavanaugh is not the only valid candidate for the position. It's also a fact that he has several allegations made against him. It's also a fact that in his job interview, when asked about these allegations, he responded by telling the interviewees that they are out to ruin him and verbally yelled at them. If he was applying for a private sector job interview, no one in their right mind would be thinking he is the best person for the job. Too risky. Too much of a loose cannon.
Why is it ok that a company be risk averse but for the Supreme Court, we must be willing to take on this amount of risk? It doesn't make sense.
It's funny how the right can twist a simple job interview and background to determine if someone is fit for the position they are being considered for into a witch hunt and a crucifixtion.
#snowflakes
Then try to blame the Democrats for it when it was three Republicans that demanded it before they were willing to vote for the GOP nominee.
You can't make this BS up folks!
Good Gosh man...that wasn't a simple interview. That was sickening.
You drank beer in HS and college.
My attitude is "interviews " don't need to go back to HS and college stuff unless you are entering the workforce. Once established, you stick to relevant work history. You don't dig back 40 years and bring up some girl who say he groped her at some slumber party.
What's next, he ate boogers in the 2nd grade?
Sorry, this woman had a long time to step up if all is true. She didn't. That is a problem to me.
If this guy was a actual sexual predator, she knowingly let him do his thing to other women or people. I have a problem with that. She allowed a sex offender to roam the streets for over 30 years before speaking up.
You know as well as I do that this is a hack job, even if you don't admit it.
Be real or I can check another off the list.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Or, maybe it's like being nominated for a DIFFERENT federal job, after having already passed 6 (I believe) back ground checks.
And all of a sudden, being accused, with no proof mind you, of something from 37 years ago.
Oh, being accused by some one that hates you.
By someone that can't remember for sure who, when, where, or anything else. But, someone whose parents lost a court case due to the nominees dad. (or was it mom?).
Poor post. Victim blaming that she didn't reveal a sexual assault that happened to her. You're part of the reason why victims don't report.
And in fairness to job interviews, they conduct themselves quicker and fairer. This was a coronation that got side railed when this guy got accused and then committed perjury. We don't need need someone like that in the Supreme Court. How could you ever want someone like that in the Supreme Court? Just cuz you wanna get buzzed with him? It's shameful.
A man apologized on Twitter for making a false accusation to his senator about Brett Kavanaugh, in which he claimed the Supreme Court nominee sexually assaulted his friend on a boat in Rhode Island.
The man, whose name was redacted in documents from the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday night that he made a “mistake” when he said that Kavanaugh attacked his friend in 1985.
Jeffrey Catalan’s Twitter account was identified in Senate documents, and he quickly issued the apology after news of his claims went public.
“Do (sic) everyone who is going crazy about what I had said I have recanted because I have made a mistake and apologize for such mistake,” Catalan tweeted.
His false allegations were detailed in questions posed to Kavanaugh by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, according to documents released by the Senate.
The man had called Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and said he encountered two men named “Brett” and “Mark” on a boat in Newport after they assaulted his friend.
Catalan claimed he left the two with “significant injuries” after the altercation.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)