Senate Democrats sending secret letter about Kavanaugh to FBI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f19c8d916b25

She revealed herself.

I don’t believe her.

He should totally be confirmed.

FTFY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s public now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

Start shaming her now Republican women! Liar, promiscuous, mentally ill. Repeat steps 1-3 as needed!

Despite your sarcasm, just because a woman or man makes an accusation doesn't mean the other person is guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s public now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

Start shaming her now Republican women! Liar, promiscuous, mentally ill. Repeat steps 1-3 as needed!

Despite your sarcasm, just because a woman or man makes an accusation doesn't mean the other person is guilty.

Of course. But there aren't any Republicans saying that the claims should be investigated. Just blanket statements to accuse the accuser and a push to the finish line of confirmation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s public now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

Start shaming her now Republican women! Liar, promiscuous, mentally ill. Repeat steps 1-3 as needed!

Despite your sarcasm, just because a woman or man makes an accusation doesn't mean the other person is guilty.

Of course. But there aren't any Republicans saying that the claims should be investigated. Just blanket statements to accuse the accuser and a push to the finish line of confirmation.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s public now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

Start shaming her now Republican women! Liar, promiscuous, mentally ill. Repeat steps 1-3 as needed!

Despite your sarcasm, just because a woman or man makes an accusation doesn't mean the other person is guilty.

Of course. But there aren't any Republicans saying that the claims should be investigated. Just blanket statements to accuse the accuser and a push to the finish line of confirmation.

I believe many of us would have a different view of this entire situation had these allegations been brought up....
1. When he was confirmed for his previous judicial position
2. When the Senators met personally with Kavanaugh
3. During the week-long series of hearings including
a. The public hearings
b. The private closed hearings
4. On questionnaires submitted by members of the Senate

There was ample time to investigate these claims had any of the above happened. But, it didn’t.
So, you can see why this appears to be yet another attempt at derailing a nomination because you don’t want this nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s public now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

Start shaming her now Republican women! Liar, promiscuous, mentally ill. Repeat steps 1-3 as needed!

Despite your sarcasm, just because a woman or man makes an accusation doesn't mean the other person is guilty.

Of course. But there aren't any Republicans saying that the claims should be investigated. Just blanket statements to accuse the accuser and a push to the finish line of confirmation.

I believe many of us would have a different view of this entire situation had these allegations been brought up....
1. When he was confirmed for his previous judicial position
2. When the Senators met personally with Kavanaugh
3. During the week-long series of hearings including
a. The public hearings
b. The private closed hearings
4. On questionnaires submitted by members of the Senate

There was ample time to investigate these claims had any of the above happened. But, it didn’t.
So, you can see why this appears to be yet another attempt at derailing a nomination because you don’t want this nominee.

It *IS* an attempt to derail his nomination. The accuser is being manipulated for political purposes by the Democrats. But it should be investigated anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s public now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

Start shaming her now Republican women! Liar, promiscuous, mentally ill. Repeat steps 1-3 as needed!

Despite your sarcasm, just because a woman or man makes an accusation doesn't mean the other person is guilty.

Of course. But there aren't any Republicans saying that the claims should be investigated. Just blanket statements to accuse the accuser and a push to the finish line of confirmation.

I believe many of us would have a different view of this entire situation had these allegations been brought up....
1. When he was confirmed for his previous judicial position
2. When the Senators met personally with Kavanaugh
3. During the week-long series of hearings including
a. The public hearings
b. The private closed hearings
4. On questionnaires submitted by members of the Senate

There was ample time to investigate these claims had any of the above happened. But, it didn’t.
So, you can see why this appears to be yet another attempt at derailing a nomination because you don’t want this nominee.

It *IS* an attempt to derail his nomination. The accuser is being manipulated for political purposes by the Democrats. But it should be investigated anyway.

Did she get $$$$?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was Feinstein hiding this for three months?

Because she isn’t find this story credible.

I agree ...... and because she came under fire from the left for not being aggressive enough during the hearings, she felt the need to surface this accusation.

Enough with the trolls, she was trying to balance the woman’s desire to retain anonymity with the public interest in the allegation being investigated.

Nice try. She could have redacted her name back in July when she received this information like she did a couple of days ago - but she didn’t.
Seems as if she thought this was a nothing burger from the start. Now, she looks more like an obstructionist than anything.

I would not be surprised if the woman who alleges the incident is identified this coming week and there is an attempt by Democrats to have her appear as a witness before a final vote.

If she refuses to be identified and cross examined, it will not delay a vote to confirm.

I said this earlier this morning and now she has identified herself. This is a last ditch attempt to derail Kavanaugh's confirmation. It is really aimed at the Collins/Murkorwski votes to try and get them to say they want it investigated before voting.

She must have come under a lot of pressure to go public with the warning that he would otherwise be confirmed which is why her identity is now known. Everyone knew that there was no way the confirmation would be delayed based on an anonymous allegation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why was Feinstein hiding this for three months?

Because she isn’t find this story credible.

I agree ...... and because she came under fire from the left for not being aggressive enough during the hearings, she felt the need to surface this accusation.

Enough with the trolls, she was trying to balance the woman’s desire to retain anonymity with the public interest in the allegation being investigated.

Nice try. She could have redacted her name back in July when she received this information like she did a couple of days ago - but she didn’t.
Seems as if she thought this was a nothing burger from the start. Now, she looks more like an obstructionist than anything.

I would not be surprised if the woman who alleges the incident is identified this coming week and there is an attempt by Democrats to have her appear as a witness before a final vote.

If she refuses to be identified and cross examined, it will not delay a vote to confirm.

I said this earlier this morning and now she has identified herself. This is a last ditch attempt to derail Kavanaugh's confirmation. It is really aimed at the Collins/Murkorwski votes to try and get them to say they want it investigated before voting.

She must have come under a lot of pressure to go public with the warning that he would otherwise be confirmed which is why her identity is now known. Everyone knew that there was no way the confirmation would be delayed based on an anonymous allegation.

Actually if you read the Wapo article, you’d know that she and her story were already known to the GOP and she had begun getting outed. At that time her calculus changed.

[jsteele]

This thread appear to have been overtaken by events. Please continue in this thread:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/752722.page