Kavanaugh protesters swarm Chuck Grassley’s office

[mystery-ak]

Kavanaugh protesters swarm Chuck Grassley’s office
by Caitlin Yilek
 | September 20, 2018 12:32 PM



Demonstrators sympathetic to Christine Blasey Ford crowded into Sen. Chuck Grassley’s office and marched through the Hart Senate Office Building on Thursday to protest Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her decades ago when the two were in high school. She alleges Kavanaugh pinned her down on a bed and tried to remove her clothing during a party. When she tried to escape, he allegedly covered her mouth so no one could hear her scream, she said.

Kavanaugh vehemently denies the allegation.

Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had originally planned for a committee vote on Kavanaugh for Thursday. The vote was postponed after Ford detailed her allegations to the Washington Post and Grassley, R-Iowa, has planned a hearing for Monday for Kavanaugh and Ford to address the allegation. So far Kavanaugh has agreed to testify while Ford is holding out, demanding that an FBI investigation take place first.

“We believe Christine Ford,” protesters chanted before they silently walked with their fists raised in the air into Grassley’s office.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/kavanaugh-protesters-swarm-chuck-grassleys-office

[Wingnut]

This act reeks of desperation.  It is the Rats have left.  Pitiful just pitiful.

[GtHawk]

The only positive result to this lunacy is Soros  adding to the economy with his paid  for demonstrations.

[skeeter]

This act reeks of desperation.  It is the Rats have left.  Pitiful just pitiful.

You are right, this could be a good sign.

Unless they can get someone who'll be willing to give semi credible testimony that corroborates Christina Notsoballsy Ford's in the next three days this would be all they have left.

[XenaLee]

You are right, this could be a good sign.

Unless they can get someone who'll be willing to give semi credible testimony that corroborates Christina Notsoballsy Ford's in the next three days this would be all they have left.

Pretty funny that the only one that seemed to corroborate Ford's claim has retracted that and admitted that she (lied) has no such knowledge of the incident.

Yeah... they're desperate all right.  I hope voters remember this fiasco at the election booth this November.  I hope voters realize what lying cretins these Democrats truly are.

[endicom]

Pretty funny that the only one that seemed to corroborate Ford's claim has retracted that and admitted that she (lied) has no such knowledge of the incident.

Yeah... they're desperate all right.  I hope voters remember this fiasco at the election booth this November.  I hope voters realize what lying cretins these Democrats truly are.

I hope that people are tired of these squadristi tactics.

[bilo]

Pretty funny that the only one that seemed to corroborate Ford's claim has retracted that and admitted that she (lied) has no such knowledge of the incident.

Yeah... they're desperate all right.  I hope voters remember this fiasco at the election booth this November.  I hope voters realize what lying cretins these Democrats truly are.

Can't help but wonder if the Pubs are holding copies of her social media accounts, high school yearbook, etc., that indicate she was quite the "partier". All that would be fair game to ask about once she's under oath. If you're going to trash someone's good reputation you should be prepared for some scrutiny.

[bilo]

I hope that people are tired of these squadristi tactics.

Not a chance. If we win we let it go and there are no consequences for the accuser or the Rat who started the smear. Until there is a whirlwind push back that doesn't let up the Rats will never hesitate to lie and smear.

[XenaLee]

Can't help but wonder if the Pubs are holding copies of her social media accounts, high school yearbook, etc., that indicate she was quite the "partier". All that would be fair game to ask about once she's under oath. If you're going to trash someone's good reputation you should be prepared for some scrutiny.

Odd that she can't remember any details of the encounter... who owned the house that held the party, where the party was, names of who else was there, etc.  Apparently the girls school she attended was known for girls loving to "party".  Maybe she was too drunk to remember accurately...?

I would require that she take a 'real' lie detector test with questions concerning her sobriety on that night.  It's definitely a relevant question, considering.

[bilo]

Odd that she can't remember any details of the encounter... who owned the house that held the party, where the party was, names of who else was there, etc.  Apparently the girls school she attended was known for girls loving to "party".  Maybe she was too drunk to remember accurately...?

I would require that she take a 'real' lie detector test with questions concerning her sobriety on that night.  It's definitely a relevant question, considering.

I'm with you on questioning the lack of details.

FWIW, polygraphs are not reliable. If someone believes what they are saying is true, or remains calm when they lie nothing registers. The key is the examiner being able to pick up on a subjects unease.

[XenaLee]

I'm with you on questioning the lack of details.

FWIW, polygraphs are not reliable. If someone believes what they are saying is true, or remains calm when they lie nothing registers. The key is the examiner being able to pick up on a subjects unease.

True.   But a good examiner (ie one that isn't on the left's side of this issue...lol)...should be able to ask the pertinent questions in such a manner as to elicit the proper reaction, assuming she's lying.  And I am convinced that she is lying through her teeth. 

If she had really been "almost raped and/or killed" (such a typical leftist drama queen)... she would have remembered every detail.  Not 'just' his name.  She didn't even bring up his name to her therapist.  And ....she wouldn't have waited three decades to bring it up for some justice.  I'm just not buying her BS.

[Emjay]

I'm with you on questioning the lack of details.

FWIW, polygraphs are not reliable. If someone believes what they are saying is true, or remains calm when they lie nothing registers. The key is the examiner being able to pick up on a subjects unease.

I don't think she'll testify.  Right now, she is covering her azz and doing a delaying action.

When the time comes, she will become way too ill and nervous with all the mean people talking about her and she will back out.

I'd put money on it.  Not a lot but some.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

She has said she'll testify as long as the process is "fair".  Which means that if she testifies, she'll have boxed herself in to conceding the fairness of the process.  So if he's confirmed anyway, they can't complain afterwards that the process was unfair.

And that's as good an indication as any that she won't testify.  No way they'll give up the chance to claim they afterwards were treated unfairly.  It's too valuable of N issue to them.

[XenaLee]

She has said she'll testify as long as the process is "fair". Which means that if she testifies, she'll have boxed herself in to conceding the fairness of the process.  So if he's confirmed anyway, they can't complain afterwards that the process was unfair.

And that's as good an indication as any that she won't testify.  No way they'll give up the chance to claim they afterwards were treated unfairly.  It's too valuable of N issue to them.

Really odd.... that another "Christine" pops up today... with the last name "Fair".  And the one that just backtracked on her claim.....Cristina King Miranda (odd last name, too).   Surreal world these days.... like it's all just a really bad dream.  Pinch me....please!!!

[skeeter]

She has said she'll testify as long as the process is "fair".  Which means that if she testifies, she'll have boxed herself in to conceding the fairness of the process.  So if he's confirmed anyway, they can't complain afterwards that the process was unfair.

And that's as good an indication as any that she won't testify.  No way they'll give up the chance to claim they afterwards were treated unfairly.  It's too valuable of N issue to them.

"Fair" means utterly unchallenged. She won't testify.

Does anyone know what happens to the court if the new guy isn't seated in time for the next term? Can he/she just jump in anytime or does he/she have to wait for a break, or what?

[Fishrrman]

skeeter asked:
"Does anyone know what happens to the court if the new guy isn't seated in time for the next term? Can he/she just jump in anytime or does he/she have to wait for a break, or what?"

Not an expert here, but it seems to me that as soon as Kavanaugh is:
1. confirmed by the Senate
and
2. goes through a quick orientation on the Court (gets office set up, gets pay set up, etc.)
...he will take his seat the next day...