How Is The Circus, Err, Hearing Going?


Feinstein is a moderate…Deleon is a communist


Oh, do you guys remember when the ball-less, worthless, draft dodging coward president was yelling “LOCK HER UP!”?

Well, him and his dumb supporters should be sued for slandering.

Kind of these dummies forget about “being innocent until proven guilty”. Right comrade?:joy::joy::joy::joy:


The options are:

  1. Her lawyers didn’t tell her which could get them disbarred
  2. They told her and she forgot
  3. They told her and she lied under oath about it


“Judicial Watch”…sounds like an impartial organization akin the the American Bar Association…until you look under the hood…

Same old same old fringe right conspiracy theories…but Hillary and the Weiner laptop.


That doesn’t change that it has to be one of the 3 options I listed. The real stuff often happens after the mainstream media moves on and is barely reported.

People are still livid over Freddie Gray and think the cops killed him. How many people know the DA was disbarred for how she handled the case agaisnt the cops? How many people still believe hands up don’t shoot vs know that wasn’t true at all. The list can go on and on of peoole only remembering the initial headline and thinking it’s still true.


Option 4 – the devil is in the details. There was an offer for her to testify in California but it was not clear who would be involved/fly out. Her lawyers (correctly) discouraged her from agreeing to it because it was in practice an effort to minimize her testimony and push her story under the rug.


No. She was asked about it in the hearing. She wasn’t aware that the offer was made, so my 3 options stand. They didn’t tell her, she forgot, or she lied.


Believe woman. Woman don’t lie


Her exact words were “I wasn’t clear on what the offer was.” That is different from not from not being aware of the presence of an offer. But attention to detail doesn’t seem to matter these days when everyone has an agenda to push. Too bad you can’t just turn it into a double negative…


She wasn’t aware she was going to used as a political punching bag until she was. The Democrats abused this poor woman more than any teenage boy. She was used by political hacks.


Agree. They use pathos and change their minds often😀


“Dr. Ford said, “I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request.”
· When Dr. Ford was asked if her attorneys had told her about the committee’s offer to meet her in California, her lawyers objected to her answering the question. She answered anyway, saying “I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you—had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not—it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.””

Why did her lawyers object to the question? Isn’t it her lawyers job to explain the offer, so she can understand it? It’s a pretty simple offer, and it met her wishes of not traveling. You would think if it was clearly explained she’d eagerly accept it. So did her lawyers explain it that poorly or was it just too confusing for her to understand?



Such a word the hypocrite republicans don’t know now.


I am not an attorney so am speculating here – they probably objected because getting into a discussion of the details of Grassley’s offer was not directly relevant to the investigation and intended to sidetrack things.

Who was going to fly out to California to interview her? Certainly not the whole judiciary committee. The reports I’ve read said that Grassley offered to send his STAFF (with no disrespect to congressional staff, a bunch of smart but inexperienced 23 yr olds). In the hearing Grassley made it sound like he himself would fly out along with other members of the judiciary committee, which is a very different scenario. This is entirely consistent with Ford’s comment (i.e. option 4) – she wasn’t clear on who would come out. This may be because Grassley offered one thing before the hearing and implied that he had made a different, more compelling offer when Ford was on the stand.


Thanks for sharing the information with us.


You can spin it however you want. The committee made 3 offeres to have a private hearing in California. For someone who wanted to avoid a public hearing and flying, that seems like it’d be an easy decision.

The whole thing back fired on Democrats anyway. Their polling numbers are down across the board since the hearing. Clearly, the middle of the road voters realize it for what it was.



That’s on top of him losing a $4M+ lawsuit. At this rate, he won’t even be able to practice law anymore.


Ok, that was fast…


“while the other asks whether a high school football coach who is a devout Christian has a right to kneel in prayer on the field at the end of a game.”

I’m pretty sure they have more important cases. It’s at the end of the game. Let the man pray.

“One tests the constitutionality of a 40-foot cross that stands at a busy public intersection”

As long as the cross is on private land and isn’t in violation of zoning rules, then who cares?

I’m honestly amazed lower courts ruled the way they did in both cases.


It seems that Avenatti sent a text message from the woman’s phone? Seems that this second woman denies everything when talking to media on the phone, but text is totally the opposite.

If Avenatti misrepresents what the woman said, or even posing as the woman to send text message to the media, he still does not go to jail, right? It’s legal to lie to media, correct?

Since the sworn statement is not directed to the Senate or FBI, it would be only a lie and not a criminal act.

“He sent a follow-up message moments later: “I just confirmed with her yet again that everything in the declaration is true and correct,” Avenatti said. “She must have been confused by your question.”

Roughly five minutes later, the woman sent a formally-worded text backing Avenatti. “Please understand that everything in the declaration is true and you should not contact me anymore regarding this issue,” the text read.

But when reached by phone minutes later, the woman again insisted that she never saw Kavanaugh spike punch or act inappropriately toward women. She said she’s “been consistent in what she’s told Michael.”

In a subsequent text on Oct. 5, she wrote, “I will definitely talk to you again and no longer Avenatti. I do not like that he twisted my words.”