Posted on 09/22/2018 11:38:50 AM PDT by tinyowl
Edited on 09/22/2018 12:45:01 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
She’s been saying all along that she “will testify”....
IF
“further negotiations” meet her ridiculous demands.
I don’t believe we’ll ever see her in DC.
She wants to put others under oath and create a trial atmosphere where her recollection is unassailably true, whether she has any details or not. And every denial is untrue, and an assault on all the female victims of the me too generation. From Great Grandma to those just being born.
And I hate to think Republicans will go along with that. But we have seen nothing from them yet.
I’ll believe it when I see it. Is there anything out there saying that she has accepted the terms of testifying first and being questioned by a female attorney?
Will they have to publicly apologize, and denounce their male white privilege, before she takes the stand.
This is the same crap! What's new about it? She "accepts" as long as her lengthy list of demands is met.
Admin’s could you perhaps put the title of the thread in quotes? It’s a little misleading probably without them. Up to you! Thanks!
Judge Pirro, Judge Judy, and Coulter.
hell NO !
This mockery has gone on about 3 weeks too long .. gawd how I hate those Rat bastards !
who is Christine? A friend we know?
If Grassley has kept to the last deadline, we would nor be here now. This is ludicrous. I have no faith in Grassley, the Republicans, or the government.
ENOUGH with these games!!!
I think this is nothing more than a way to prevent the Monday vote. I don’t think she will ever show. They should have let the last deadline pass and taken that Monday vote.
Delay, delay it’s all about delaying!!! They are playing this PREFECTLY BRILLIANTLY! They have the spineless asses right where they want them!! 3 datelines and still negotiating.... imbeciles!
More stall
She hasn’t made an actual allegation in anything remotely resembling a legitimate legal format. No police report, no sworn statement ... nothing of the sort.
If “justice delayed is justice denied”, and no charges were made in the 1980’s (and we don’t even know what year), then WHO is being denied justice? If Kavanaugh could have cleared his name in he 1980’s, isn’t HIS justice being denied?
Wai....wut? I missed that. It is on that blogger’s page with the yearbook.
I read the letter and they didn’t agree to anything. This is an obvious stalling tactic. How do you agree to something and then state that you only agree to it if you will get the conditions you have demanded all along. If the committee accepts this than I have lost all respect for them.
Republicans have been stupid from the start. (Either that or they never wanted Kavanaugh--and I'm beginning to suspect that.) Their first mistake was taking too long to get the hearings started. It's as though this was their first rodeo. Like they didn't know the Demoncrats were going to play the delay-and-accusation game. Where have they been? Grassley is a damn fool. I wish he'd prove me wrong, but he won't.
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.