Posted on 09/25/2018 6:56:30 AM PDT by sickoflibs
Last night, the legal team representing Christine Ford, she’s the California woman who claim Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh groped her at some place at some time in the past, sent yet another letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee whinging about most everything. Colleague Miranda Morales covered it in this post but, parsing it, it seems more like someone laying the groundwork for a refusal to show up rather than anything else.
Check out the points.
1) This Bromwich character snivels about Senator Mitch McConnell’s righteous floor speech yesterday. One would hope that Bromwich is bright enough to realize that Chuck Grassley doesn’t tell McConnell, or any other senator, what they may or may not say. So it seems he is setting the predicate to claim that Grassley reneged on his guarantee to allow Ford to spin her yarn without laughing (let me say it again, there is zero evidence that anything this woman has claimed, beyond her name, is the truth).
2) He is objecting to how Grassley wishes to conduct the investigation. This is not something that is any of his concern.
3) One would think Bromwich would be chomping at the bit to have an experienced sex crimes investigator ask the questions. Who, after all, would know more about how to not further traumatize an actual victim and how to elicit maximum facts from them. The fact that Bromwich craps himself over this issue is a clue as to his fears.
4) The clear objective here is to generate video of old, white male Republican senators asking Ford some very tough questions about which she will have no answers but the sad trombone (can we say “womp, womp”?) will play as he gets pouty faced and tears up.
5) There is zero reason that the Senate Judiciary Committee would have to provide Bromwich with any information on whom the Committee has selected to do the examination. Their qualifications have nothing to do with anything. The Committee could have anyone it pleased ask the questions. But we know why they want the name. They want to sent a rent-a-mob to the person’s home and they want to try to preemptively discredit them by the cases they’ve prosecuted.
All of this seems like that Ford is looking for a reason not to show up on Thursday morning. And with good reason. Thus far, of the five people Ford alleges were in the house when she was groped, four of them deny being at any such event and Ford’s lifelong friend says she’s never met Brett Kavanaugh. If she presses ahead with this bullsh** it is hard to see how she doesn’t make herself vulnerable to charges of lying to Congress.
Join in the “MELT THEIR PHONE LINES!!” Campaign.
CALL!!
numbers to call.. Ask them to vote to confirm before October 1.
Susan Collins 202-224-2523
Lisa Murkowski 202-224-6665
Heidi Heitkamp 202-224-2043
Joe Manchin 202-224-3954
Joe Donnelly 202-224-4814
Chuck Grassley 202-224-3744.
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Does Gilroy, CA smell?
Stop pretending Christine Ford exists. There may be someone alive by that name, but she is not a real person with her own thoughts, ideas or agency.
The Christine Ford that Grassley is dealing with is a composite, a hologram - and a product of high-level Democrat politicians and strategists. THAT’S what you are dealing with.
As the Libs would stay 'Oops sorry Brett, out of time for you! NEXT!'
Perhaps she’s just really tired of all the driving, fast food, and cheap motels as she drives across the country?
Its one thing to babble and attack a public figure in the media, its an entirely different proposition to go under oath and lie about that individual. Perhaps she is not willing to personally sacrifice what is required for her vile cause. Kavanaugh is no Sicilian but seems to be a serious man who will demand and seek ultimate “justice” against her.
Her links to the CIA need to be investigated (after all the voting).
Anyone curious as to her current location? If she is really committed to show up, she would be on the road to Washington.
Maybe she was just like Rosenstein — “I was just kidding.”
Dr. Ford sure doesn’t want to testify under oath.
She has been in Maryland with her CIA connected father for sometime.
A) They aren’t going to get the optics of a bunch of old white senators and a crying woman.
B) The sex crimes prosecutor is savvy enough to scare the crap out of these frauds.
C) All the oxygen is going to get sucked out of the news cycle by the Rosenstein meeting anyway.
Senators,Our system of jurisprudence has always been based on the tenet of the presumption of innocence. The accuser must meet the burden of proving the accusation is true.
As a Justice on the Supreme Court, would you have had me rule that the burden was on Dredd Scott to show why he should be an American citizen, or should that burden have been on Sandford to demonstrate why Mr. Scott should not be a citizen?
Should the burden have been on Oliver Brown to show that the separate school his daughter was forced to attend was not equal to closer white-attended schools, or should that burden have been placed on the Topeka Board of Eductation to prove that "separate but equal" schooling was necessary?
Should I rule that the burden was on Ernesto Miranda to know his full legal rights when he was arrested, or should Arizona police have to inform Mr. Miranda of his right to an attorney when they arrested him?
Should Norma McCorvey have to justify to the state why she needed an abortion? Should Fred Korematsu have to prove his loyalty to the United States? Should women have to demonstrate their competency to sit on juries? Should the Cantwell family have to prove that their public expression of religion was not a breach of the peace and a public disturbance?
In our system, the accused has a right to know the specific charges and factual evidence against him or her. It is a mockery of our judicial system to suggeest that a sitting federal appellate judge, or anyone else for that matter, has to prove his innocence against vague, unspecified, and suddenly recalled allegations, when the very essence of being a judge is to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the accuser. The burden of proof is on those who make the claims, not on those who are their targets.
Thank you.
-PJ
The test was based on a statement "summarizing" her allegations, and may not have mentioned Kavanaugh by name
,Fi better pray she doesn’t. Promoting a person who you know is committing perjury can get her five years.
Hmmm. If she left (EXTREMELY doubtful), where would she be by now? You know she wouldn’t want to be confined in that small space for 12 hours at a stretch. So, 1,500 to 1,800 miles under her belt? Will there be video of her screechig to a halt slamming on her brakes and running to the meeting room on Thursday. I mean since it’s so important for her to get her “story” out. Meanwhile, assclown avanatti is putting batter number 3 or 4 on deck?
Hold the hearing... if she no shows... so be it.
End this nonsense.
Anyone with a few working neurons and that isn’t a complete partisan hack sees right through this...
Have you notice the similarity between Ford and the M K Ultra sex slaves?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.