Win the battle, lose the war?

[ARP]

This Ford/Kavanaugh after the show show....I have read in a variety of threads how many would like a scorched earth policy with her, like Arlen Spector did to Anita Hill. Does not work in today's climate. Ford will get attacked, but not near as bad as we would like. If the Rz go scorched earth, they absolutely lose big in the mid terms. It's a tightrope walk, they need to unravel her story with HARD evidence and I think they got it, it's just will they skillfully use it, without a scorching attack on what appears to be all women who have had a set of circumstances like the allegation happen to them. Skillfully unpack her story, lay every possible trap for a perjury charge for her along the way, and defuse her claim. It's the only way to win. Anita Hill case was probably studied more than the battle of Gettysburg to figure out how to win at derailing a SCOTUS nominee. If the Dz win this round, no American is safe from this type of allegation.

Over in the other site that starts with a G, I read an article about what this is really about. Clintons, payback. I was thinking that this was all about RoeVWade, naw it goes further than just that. Kavanaugh was a driving force behind Ken Starr and the Clinton Investigation. I think Kavanaugh has been on the Clinton Cartel hit list for a looooong time, can't prove it, but is sure does make sense. Millions being spent to try and shut this down.

Also read some where that 93% of Kavanaugh's opinions sided/were in line with Merrick Garland's. I hope nothing really crazy happen this week, it might get met with overwhelming force, like that shootout in Miami the other night.

Edited September 23, 2018 by ARP

[Dric902]

Did you know that under statute if you send a letter to a house member about a senate confirmation, you are not liable under making false statements law?

i didn’t know that, would the average statistics professor know that?

In the coming days, Ford's decision to send a letter to Rep. Anna G. Eshoo, a House member with zero jurisdiction over or authority to investigate presidential nominations, rather than Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has explicit jurisdiction, is going to get a lot more scrutiny.

A plain reading of 18 USC 1001 suggests that in the matter of a specific presidential nomination pending before the U.S. Senate, statements made to a House member on that matter may not be covered by the statute's prohibition on false statements.

 

.

[Ricordo]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/21/rep-anna-eshoo-details-how-christine-blasey-fords-/

Any decent cross-examiner can take Ford and Eshoo's potential testimonies  and unveil discrepancies. On one hand we have a letter that can be read in less than three (3) minutes and on the other hand  a one-and-a-half hour long conversation.

If done correctly, Ford would not realize that her testimony would sink her in. All done very cordially, very respectfully, very amicably... heck, at the end she might even thank the cross-examiner for being so pleasant to her.

[fortyofforty]

This is about abortion.  Just that.  Abortion.

[G26S239]

Well the next progressive smear job last minute complainer has stepped up against Kavanaugh and there is a whole ******* conga line behind her. When Dims still had the filibuster, before it benefited them to do away with it for Obamacare, they silent filibustered all of Bush's judge nominees. At that time McCain, Graham and other backstabbers formed the Gang of 14 to prevent Nuclear Option and leave it for the Dems to use. Dems will stoop to any low and pretending Ford and now this bitch Ramirez are anything but smear job bitches is not being realistic. **** the Democrats and their made up bullshit.

[Dric902]

18 minutes ago, G26S239 said:

Well the next progressive smear job last minute complainer has stepped up against Kavanaugh and there is a whole ****ing conga line behind her. When Dims still had the filibuster, before it benefited them to do away with it for Obamacare, they silent filibustered all of Bush's judge nominees. At that time McCain, Graham and other backstabbers formed the Gang of 14 to prevent Nuclear Option and leave it for the Dems to use. Dems will stoop to any low and pretending Ford and now this bitch Ramirez are anything but smear job bitches is not being realistic. **** the Democrats and their made up bull****.

So she’s lying?

 

.

[ARP]

41 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

So she’s lying?

 

.

Did you hear who is warming up in the bull pen? Creepy porn lawyer is claiming he got goods to spill this week. Gonna be a dog pile on this week.

[Dric902]

3 minutes ago, ARP said:

Did you hear who is warming up in the bull pen? Creepy porn lawyer is claiming he got goods to spill this week. Gonna be a dog pile on this week.

So she’s lying?

 

see I get this same stuff from liberals at work when I ask them why they automatically believe Ford without ever hearing from her, evidence, seeing her testify. Just jump up and believe because they want to.

they tell me that we do the same rejecting out of hand. Denying because we want to.

 

.

[ARP]

51 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

So she’s lying?

 

.

No, what were saying is Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty of an allegation that is at this point is a story written on a piece of paper. That's all it is, a story on paper.

[Dric902]

1 minute ago, ARP said:

No, what were saying is Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty of an allegation that is at this point is a story written on a piece of paper. That's all it is, a story on paper.

So why attack the witness?

 

homestly, I blame McConnell. 

There is no reason on Earth that a confirmation should take this long. The SCOTUS is seated for the next session on oct 1

no nomination should take more than three weeks, one to interview and research, one for committee, then vote. We have been doing this for months, if the Senate is not in recess the there is simply no way it should be delayed so long.

 

The odds are turning, I’m starting to think the nomination will,be withdrawn by the end of next week. We will have an 8 Justice session.

It could be that is the plan since Obama had an 8 judge session or not.

 

.

[fortyofforty]

After what I've seen now, I believe she's lying.  She is fighting Trump and this is all part of the resistance.  I've heard and seen enough to know politics when I see it.

[Dric902]

7 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

After what I've seen now, I believe she's lying.  She is fighting Trump and this is all part of the resistance.  I've heard and seen enough to know politics when I see it.

Valid point. Thanks for it

At least you had the balls to answer, so many don’t 

 

.

[G26S239]

1 hour ago, Dric902 said:

So she’s lying?

 

.

I believe she is lying to engage in a smear campaign and I believe that it is a reasonable idea to consider given how convenient it is for the Democrats delay strategy that she, Blasey Ford, waited and her smear ally DiFi also waited until a vote was very near to drag it the confirmation vote past the mid term elections. DiFi has had a change of heart based on whether an (R) - Trump - is in office versus her 1998 vote to keep a (D) - Clinton - in office after it was established beyond any reasonable doubt that he was masturbating on WH office staff Monica Lewinsky. Changing from team "drag a $100 bill through a trailer park" to believe all XX accusers all the time is a major shift of position.

Emma Sulkowicz. Crystal Mangum, Leanne Black, Kellie Bartlett, Mary Zolkowski, Tawara Brawley and numerous other women have made false accusations and most of the time such accusations being shown to be false do not result in charges ever being filed though in the six names I listed three have been charged and/or convicted. I consider it safe to state that no matter how wobbly Ford's story gets the Dems and their #MeToo Pussyhat foot soldiers will never stand for charges ever being considered. She is right now in the same never to be charged for anything status as Hillary.

[Dric902]

54 minutes ago, G26S239 said:

I believe she is lying to engage in a smear campaign and I believe that it is a reasonable idea to consider given how convenient it is for the Democrats delay strategy that she, Blasey Ford, waited and her smear ally DiFi also waited until a vote was very near to drag it the confirmation vote past the mid term elections. DiFi has had a change of heart based on whether an (R) - Trump - is in office versus her 1998 vote to keep a (D) - Clinton - in office after it was established beyond any reasonable doubt that he was *********ing on WH office staff Monica Lewinsky. Changing from team "drag a $100 bill through a trailer park" to believe all XX accusers all the time is a major shift of position.

Emma Sulkowicz. Crystal Mangum, Leanne Black, Kellie Bartlett, Mary Zolkowski, Tawara Brawley and numerous other women have made false accusations and most of the time such accusations being shown to be false do not result in charges ever being filed though in the six names I listed three have been charged and/or convicted. I consider it safe to state that no matter how wobbly Ford's story gets the Dems and their #MeToo Pussyhat foot soldiers will never stand for charges ever being considered. She is right now in the same never to be charged for anything status as Hillary.

Now that’s a valid argument.

 

.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Dric902

[fortyofforty]

All Ford or any other woman needs to do is say she believes the story and stick by it.  Nobody can ever prove they're lying.  Ever.  No lawsuits.  No criminal charges.  Just one man's reputation, destroyed.  But it's a small price to pay for, you know, abortion and all.

[pipedreams]

I can't type what I'm thinking right now because I don't want the FBI at my door.  I'm simmering with rage at the injustice of these smears.  They need to vote and get it over with.  Problem is the Republicans are afraid of loosing the senate in Nov. and the Dems would control everything from there on.  Trump wouldn't be able to get anything past and they would keep talking impeachment.

 

Now we have two women who claim they were drunk and Kavanaugh abused them. Both can't remember, but this one is sure after talking with her lawyer.

Edited September 24, 2018 by pipedreams

[fortyofforty]

This is an outrage.  The Fascists are pulling out all the stops, now.  RESIST!  I'm fed up.  Shame on the Fascists and their allies.

[pipedreams]

5 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

This is an outrage.  The Fascists are pulling out all the stops, now.  RESIST!  I'm fed up.  Shame on the Fascists and their allies.

Your correct, but you can shame them all you want they don't care as long as they get control.

Edited September 24, 2018 by pipedreams

[steve4102]

13 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

This is about abortion.  Just that.  Abortion.

I don't think this is about abortion, that is just the cover.  It is about taking down the Deep State.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-09-23-emergency-report-signed-executive-orders-reveal-trump-is-planning-mass-arrests-military-tribunals-for-deep-state-traitors-like-comey-clinton-and-obama.html#

[G26S239]

7 hours ago, steve4102 said:

I don't think this is about abortion, that is just the cover.  It is about taking down the Deep State.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-09-23-emergency-report-signed-executive-orders-reveal-trump-is-planning-mass-arrests-military-tribunals-for-deep-state-traitors-like-comey-clinton-and-obama.html#

Trying US civilians under military tribunals has been tried and over ruled by the Supreme Court already. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/354/1

Edited September 24, 2018 by G26S239

[G26S239]

Force the vote. If they don't get Kavanaugh on this will only get worse. 

[steve4102]

2 hours ago, G26S239 said:

Trying US civilians under military tribunals has been tried and over ruled by the Supreme Court already. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/354/1

During declared Marshal Law and after EO 13818, EO 13618, EO 13825,?

 

[Dric902]

We aren’t under Marshal Law

we aren’t at war

 

congress declares war and they haven’t done that since 1941

 

 

[G26S239]

43 minutes ago, steve4102 said:

During declared Marshal Law and after EO 13818, EO 13618, EO 13825,?

 

Read the case I posted. International treaties do not supersede the US Constitution. Neither do Executive Orders. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land as per Article VI. The principle of checks and balances does not allow a President to rule by fiat even though Obama certainly seemed to think otherwise. 

[willie-pete]

Marshal law isn't the problem;

 

you guys should be more worried about martial law.