Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hanity's take on the confirmation mess
#1
Shocked 
Like him or not Hanity brings up several good points about the senate proceedings we have seen during the nomination process for the supreme court.


Reply
#2
It is a Sham, The reason it took her so long to Testify is because she had to be Couched into believing her own LIE enough to cry and be Believable to the Brain Dead Sheeple.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#3
After watching this today, and listening to what the talking heads have to say about it, I feel a tremendous sense of relief.

You see, I saw bigfoot in November, 1979 (3 years BEFORE Ms. Ford's "trauma" - yet I recall it clearly). Yes, I can recall the date - I'm not wavering on it, nor am I unclear about it. It was traumatizing for a fine young buck that thought he could whip the world, who then ran into something he couldn't whip, and which nearly made him piss his pants.

I can recall every little detail. I can even recall how I got home, and precisely what I did after I got there. The entire episode and surrounding events are etched in my traumatized hippocampus (thanks, Ms. Ford for that 50 dollar word!), just like Ms. Ford's are... well, not JUST like hers - she can't recall ANY of the details, but I can recall ALL of mine.

Now, I find that all I have to do to prove it, in spite of the folks who think I made it up, is to just be willing to testify before congress. That is, apparently, according to the talking heads, proof positive that I am telling the truth. We must believe this particular political operative because she was willing to testify before congress. One of the talking heads said so, explicitly. That means you have to believe ME, too - otherwise you're a sexist, believing her a female, but not me, a male.

Therefore, if I am willing to testify to my experience before congress, I am telling absolute truth.

I am most certainly willing to testify to it before congress, even if they want to bring in cameras to record it.

Ipso facto, I have just proved my story. If I have proved my story, that I saw bigfoot, then bigfoot MUST exist. I could not have seen him if he did not exist.

It naturally follows that I have just proven the existence of bigfoot. Break out the balloons and noisemakers.

==========================

I saw most of Ms. Ford's testimony. It was utterly unconvincing. I've, been married 4 times, and consequently have seen way too many fake tears. Ms. Ford's tears were utterly fake... except in one instance. When she said she had never testified before a prosecutor, that was REAL fear in her voice. Talking to a prosecutor, who might sniff out her lies, scared the complete shit out of her.

Is there a  PhD anywhere on planet Earth who does not know the meaning of the word "exculpatory"? Ms. Ford does not know what that word means, according to her testimony. I am NOT a PhD - but I know what "exculpatory" means. It's from the Latin "ex-" meaning "out of" or away from", and "culpa", meaning "guilty". "Exculpatory" means "showing lack of guilt". ANY PhD should know that - even a dumbass hillbilly like me knows that... but a California PhD does not. I should probably puff my chest out a lot more than I do. I'm just waiting for the TV show that changes "Are you Smarter than a Fifith Grader?" to "Are You Smarter than a PhD?".  I can win it, hands down.

It feels GOOD to be smarter than a PhD!

Either she is NOT a PhD (which she clearly IS), or she was LYING under oath. People are scared to point that out because of PC, and we for some unfathomable reason MUST blindly believe the "Me Too!" crowd. Fuck 'em - a lie is a lie, and the goddamned emperor just shed all his clothes.

That is but one of her many, MANY faux pas! I didn't keep score, because the show was so entertaining, but there were lots of fuck-ups like that. I can not, in any way, take this woman's allegations seriously, all because of her deficient testimony and complete lack of corroboration.

I have a rabid dislike of Lindsay Graham. As far as I'm concerned, he's a warmongering neocon hack who is way to willing to send OTHER folks to die for HIS misguided beliefs. Yet even HE made me a little bit proud of him when he tore congress a new ass over the DEMOCRAT'S disgraceful and patently partisan behavior.

Fuck 'em all. Either way this confirmation goes, I'm going to voter straight Republican this year, just because... and then I'm coming home to load magazines for the inevitable war coming due to this attempt at a communist takeover of my country. I fought 'em before, and I'll fight 'em again, until I stop breathing. I owe my grandkids that much, and I never planned on living forever anyhow.

The Left appears to have moved away from the "yer a racist!" battle cry to the "yer a misogynist!" battle cry. Like that's going to move me any farther. Fuck 'em. I'll play their silly-assed games!

.
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply
#4
I was fortunate to watch the proceedings on this side of the Atlantic and what was brought home to me was the recurring
evidence regarding the dumbness that western society embraces.
Again and again, we wallow in the mire of sexual discourse in the same manner that school children giggle at each other's
genitalia or pout their outrage about an angst that belongs in the playground.

Maybe Ms. Ford had a traumatic experience and maybe the beer-loving Judge did it, but in a toothless and decadent forum
such as a Congress Hearing, the actual act has been desensitised in the name of in-house political squabbling and a ratings
-hungry media.

The vagueness of Ms. Ford's account, the poor reasoning to her travel problems, her constant third-party wordage wrapped
in rococo emotive flavour and the current blunt-headed hatred of a sisterhood agenda, all went to making a serious ordinance
of a societal structure into a male-hating tantrum that insulted both parties giving evidence, their families and those officiating
the Hearing.

The low-brow display was obviously a power-grab, the accused had to be a man, the victim had to be a woman and was
so infested with crime-avoiding rhetoric in order that the alleged assault would never venture into the real world of culpability.
It's like a badly-scripted chunk of entertainment that warrants use in our 'Rack & Ruin' thread!

There's no-need for adult reasoning of:
*Will the relevant law enforcement agencies follow-up on Ms. Ford's allegations after she reports her account to them...?

*Will the sad-eyed lawyers for Ms. Ford leave her now she is no further use for any backroom jurisdictive jousting?

*Did the same lawyers/activists decide that allowing Ms. Ford to relate how she couldn't tell the difference between a known
college pupil smiling at her window and a Reporter looking in that she'd never met, was a fine idea?!

*Oppressed-Katz and the bearded-lawyer who can't get a girlfriend, did they think they'd help Ford find justice by allowing the
troubled-woman to admit that the Hearing-delay was due to her fear of flying -although she flies for her pastimes and family
reunions?!

*What do the blue-haired lesbians feel for Mrs. Kavanaugh and her daughters...? Or doesn't it matter because they betrayed
the finger and cleave to a filthy man?

No, it was an in-house protest by a particular group of women at the behest of their election-beaten leader.
In another thread, I've shown there was a meeting in the Hamptons by certain individuals to maintain this ongoing action
of polluting a current administration with potential scandal and fact-less rumours.

We now cut to the commercials.
......................................................................

Trough-position-worrying Congress brought this circus for all the viewers to see and a reasonable and mature act would be
that Congress provide information to the same viewers who they serve -that all avenues of law and accountability were sought.

But they won't, the media will wander away and just like the empty Congress-decorated plastic water bottles strewn about the
room, Judge Kavanaugh's private-life and aspirations will be forgotten about too.

There are other men and women out there who don't want to watch a political pinata being beaten in the name of sexual assault,
they wanted bipartisan equal-to-all justice without the glitter and parade. However, it brings poor ratings and those who did undergo
such brutal oppression can go-and-f*ck-themselves.

As seen by yesterday's display, being raped and assaulted pales into insignificance when the anguish of Government-funding for
over-budgeted boondoggles is restricted. Take your problem elsewhere until the next election, honey.

So based on Thursday''s Hearing, it's advisable for a victim to take the hit, monitor the man's -because it's always a man, monitor
the man's career for thirty-odd years until he's almost at the pinnacle of his quest and then appear with smudged-spectacles and
sans-hair-tie, announcing that the last three dreadful decades might have hampered her surfing hobby on Hawaii and visits to her
family in Baltimore.

It didn't matter that anyone who could claim they had any orbit with Ms. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh denied suggestions of the
incident, just as it didn't matter that TV pundits and media guests talked of Kavanaugh going first in his testimony to deny a crime
where no evidence had been presented.

The regulations are there and have always been there, but it was simply the Elite laughing at the Walmart deplorables -or to put it
another way, all those who watch their dumb-downed television news-outlets and still believe Journalists are genuine folks.

There was a belief going around that if you chose a candidate for a particular station of governance, that trust was accepted and
held dear by the person will to serve a larger goal. Now it seems, anyone who votes is a sucker and should be looked-down on
as such.

I mean come on, a less-sensitive person may suggest Ms. Ford stalked Judge Kavanaugh for over thirty years, but that may have
confused the viewer of which side to support in this biased gladiatorial entertainment. So now Ford is Sandra Locke's character
in the movie 'Sudden Impact' and she just patiently waited for the opportunity to kick the Judge in his 'Supreme-Court-nomination'
-grinding genitals?!!

At least it followed canon with the wife and kids being dragged through the mud too. Yer' never know, they might turn out to be
lesbians and wouldn't that make Hillary smile.

President Trump may have been correct when he said that the Democrat-leaning Senators were 'laughing like hell' in a room
somewhere, about the whole farce from Thursday. They probably were.

But what might wipe the mirth from their faces is when they realise they also took an assumed scholarly, sagacious and impartial
process and brought it down to a 'tell-us-about-yer'-privates', purile foot-stomping that belongs in the bedroom of the bitching and
whining social-media hedonist who wasn't asked to the prom.

O.J and Jackson's Doctor must be giggling like hell too.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#5
Hannity said it all.  I can't add anything more, especially after Ninurta's and BIAD's post.  I agree with all that is stated in this thread.




Maybe I can add this------>                                    [Image: attachment.php?aid=4548]



Collusion? That couldn't be Ford's lawyer with Clinton, could it?  Would the Democrats ruin a good man's name just to gain power?

(If you answered NO to that question, please move to a different country; you are the problem here.)


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
#6
Oh, and this just came my way.  If the prosecutor wouldn't prosecute Judge Kavanaugh, that only adds to his credibility.

While watching the hearing yesterday, I noticed something I haven't seen anyone else mention. She had asked Ms. Ford once if she could hear conversations on the floor below, and she answered no. Then she asked her if she couldn't hear, then how did she know there were others there?  It was something along those lines. The point is, she contradicted part of her testimony during the questioning.  I noticed the prosecutor made a note of it. tinysure 


Quote:Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford at Thursday's Senate Judiciary Committee, privately told GOP senators she would not prosecute Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh based on the evidence she heard, according to the Washington Post.
That detail was spotlighted Friday by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, whose office sent out  a news release Friday referring to Mitchell's conclusion.

Read the full report and see the video here:  Prosecutor who questioned Christine Ford says she wouldn't prosecute Brett Kavanaugh
Reply
#7
From Twitter:


Quote:Paul Sperry‏ @paulsperry_ 24h24 hours ago


BREAKING: Ford's polygraph expert has been a subcontractor of the Democrat law firm representing Ford in DC. Hanafin's a "progressive" from Boston who says that when administering polygraphs on "victims" like Ford u automatically "believe them" & don't ask them specific questions

tinyok
Reply
#8
Latest Q post: #2295  https://qntmpkts.keybase.pub/


Quote:Q !!mG7VJxZNCI No.306 [Image: fold.png]
Sep 28 2018 11:37:24 (EST)

NEW D's Playbook (Midterm E):
We will impeach Justice K (ZERO corroborating evidence and ALL factual witnesses provided by accuser ALL DENIED ALLEGATIONS) should we take control in NOV.
LIBERAL LEFT LUNACY [BAIT].
These people are EVIL, SICK, & STUPID.
You are watching/witnessing the systematic destruction of the OLD GUARD.
OLD GUARD >>> POWER TO THE PEOPLE
RED OCTOBER.
Q
Reply
#9
(09-28-2018, 05:24 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Hannity said it all.  I can't add anything more, especially after Ninurta's and BIAD's post.  I agree with all that is stated in this thread.




Maybe I can add this------>                                    [Image: attachment.php?aid=4548]



Collusion? That couldn't be Ford's lawyer with Clinton, could it?  Would the Democrats ruin a good man's name just to gain power?

(If you answered NO to that question, please move to a different country; you are the problem here.)

Dammit, dear daughter! I had constructed an elaborate scenario that would have allowed for Ms. Ford to actually believe her tale, and which explained her utter inability to support it, which involved teenage fantasies becoming "real" over time but only in the mind of the unstable "victim", not the real world, and incorporated the fact that the vast majority of psychologists/ psychiatrists go into the profession seeking to "fix" themselves and their own psychological problems - a known fact. I was once married to a psychologist who readily admitted it to me. This theory would have accounted for Ms. Ford's 36 year long stalking spree of Kavanaugh, and allowed for Ms. Ford actually and fervently believing her own bullshit, giving her the benefit of the mentally-troubled doubt.

THEN, after I had wrapped up all of the loose ends in my theory, and tied them into a tidy bow for gift wrapping, you post THAT picture, clearly the lawyer who was sitting to Ms. Ford's right during the hearing, the mouthy one, and I heard an audible POP! when my whole theory exploded in favor of low-born collusion and conspiracy.

DAMMIT ALL!

Back to the drawing board, I reckon...

.
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply
#10
Grace's condensed take on this debacle:

1) this is just an attempt by the communists to stack the SCOTUS with leftists.

2) Kavanaugh, being a constitutional textualist instead of a "living constitution" interpretationalist (who "read" the constitution by the light of whatever the current emotionally charged fad is, effectively changing the entire Constitution to conform to current dictates of the Party in charge), is seen as a threat by the opponents of freedom, so they are energetically trying to block the nomination by any means necessary, to borrow a page from the Malcolm X playbook.

3) When one reports an actual crime, one does it to the police, NOT the press or one's congress-critter.

4) One does not wait 36 years to seek redress of grievances if they actually occurred.

5) The crime alleged is a local crime, not a federal crime, and should be investigated by local authorities in the jurisdiction in which it is alleged to have occurred. The FBI has already done it's due diligence in the matter, to the extent of it's jurisdiction.

6) In American jurisprudence, the burden of proof is upon the accuser, not the accused. I.e. "presumed innocent until proven guilty". Kavanaugh does not have to prove his innocence, instead Ford has to prove his guilt, a point spectacularly absent in the matter.

7) In the modern day, FBI "investigations" are conducted by the expedient of digging up legally actionable "dirt" on the witnesses with which to coerce them into changing their story to conform to what the Party wants it to be.

Of course, Grace is a good bit more vocal, animated, and colorful in her assessments, but that is what they boil down to in calmer waters.
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply
#11
(09-28-2018, 06:11 PM)Ninurta Wrote: ...THEN, after I had wrapped up all of the loose ends in my theory, and tied them
into a tidy bow for gift wrapping, you post THAT picture, clearly the lawyer who
was sitting to Ms. Ford's right during the hearing, the mouthy one, and I heard
an audible POP! when my whole theory exploded in favor of low-born collusion
and conspiracy.

DAMMIT ALL!

Back to the drawing board, I reckon...

I posted something on this on another thread, Debra Katz really gets around!


Quote:Julie Swetnick Sued Employer for Sexual Harrassment, Her Lawyer’s
Firm Now Reps Christine Blasey Ford.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=4546]


'Julie Swetnick received a financial settlement after a sexual harassment
complaint against her former employer -and she was represented at the
time by the firm run by Debra Katz -who now happens to represent Christine
Blasey Ford.

Swetnick, the third woman to accuse Judge Brett Kavanaugh of something
nefarious, claims that he was at parties she frequented where girls were raped.
She alleges that she was eventually raped at one of the parties after failing
to notify authorities about the “gang rapes.”

Kavanaugh has denied knowing her.

According to a new report from the Wall Street Journal:
''...In 1993, she filed a criminal harassment complaint with state prosecutors in
Maryland against a podiatrist and his wife, alleging repeated phone calls, according
to court records, but the case was withdrawn two months after it was filed.

In 2001, Ms. Swetnick was the defendant in a domestic-violence case filed by
Richard Venneccy in Miami-Dade County, Fla. The case was dismissed when
both parties failed to appear in court in March of that year, according to court
documents reviewed by the Journal.

Roughly a decade ago, Ms. Swetnick was involved in a dispute with her former
employer, New York Life Insurance Co., over a sexual-harassment complaint she
filed, according to people familiar with the matter.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=4547]


Representing her in the complaint was the firm run by Debra Katz, the lawyer
currently representing Dr. Ford. The company ultimately reached a financial
settlement with Ms. Swetnick, the people said.

Swetnick also has a problem paying taxes. In 2015, she owed $30,000 in unpaid
taxes causing Maryland’s comptroller filing a lien against her in Anne Arundel County.


“In 2017, the Internal Revenue Service filed a lien on Ms. Swetnick’s Washington
apartment for $40,303 in unpaid taxes, and released it in March, saying the tax bill
had been paid,” WSJ reports...'
Pundit:
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#12
@BIAD - Somehow, I get the feeling that it might be a mistake to hire Ms. Katz's firm to represent one's self in any cases going before the Supreme Court after this...

... and yes, the creature stalking behind Hillary in Mystic's image is clearly the same creature as the one in the second mugshot in your post.
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply
#13
(09-28-2018, 06:11 PM)Ninurta Wrote:
(09-28-2018, 05:24 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Hannity said it all.  I can't add anything more, especially after Ninurta's and BIAD's post.  I agree with all that is stated in this thread.




Maybe I can add this------>                                    [Image: attachment.php?aid=4548]



Collusion? That couldn't be Ford's lawyer with Clinton, could it?  Would the Democrats ruin a good man's name just to gain power?

(If you answered NO to that question, please move to a different country; you are the problem here.)

Dammit, dear daughter! I had constructed an elaborate scenario that would have allowed for Ms. Ford to actually believe her tale, and which explained her utter inability to support it, which involved teenage fantasies becoming "real" over time but only in the mind of the unstable "victim", not the real world, and incorporated the fact that the vast majority of psychologists/ psychiatrists go into the profession seeking to "fix" themselves and their own psychological problems - a known fact. I was once married to a psychologist who readily admitted it to me. This theory would have accounted for Ms. Ford's 36 year long stalking spree of Kavanaugh, and allowed for Ms. Ford actually and fervently believing her own bullshit, giving her the benefit of the mentally-troubled doubt.

THEN, after I had wrapped up all of the loose ends in my theory, and tied them into a tidy bow for gift wrapping, you post THAT picture, clearly the lawyer who was sitting to Ms. Ford's right during the hearing, the mouthy one, and I heard an audible POP! when my whole theory exploded in favor of low-born collusion and conspiracy.

DAMMIT ALL!

Back to the drawing board, I reckon...

.

Sorry.   tinylaughing
Reply
#14
tinyangry Flake just made a motion to delay the vote for another week so the FBI could investigate!  WTH?!!!   smallkillingpc
Reply
#15
(09-28-2018, 07:13 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: tinyangry Flake just made a motion to delay the vote for another week so the FBI could investigate!  WTH?!!!   smallkillingpc

I'll tell you the same as I've recently told others - to no effect. Just wait for the dust to settle, and see who is still standing. Emotion-laden theatrics at this critical juncture will only cause us to lose - that only kicks up more dust. This is the EXACT time to keep our wits about us. We cease to think when we are goaded into only reacting. That doesn't usually promote planning, and planning is what WINS.
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply
#16
Good news.

Quote:Senate panel backs Trump's Supreme Court pick Kavanaugh
Naturally, All the Democrats, Voted against him.
Luckily, Republicans Are Tougher and Smarter.


Quote:Washington (AFP) - The Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday approved Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump's pick for the US Supreme Court, one day after he fought off allegations of sexual assault at an emotional day-long public hearing.

The panel split along strict party lines with the 11 Republican members backing Kavanaugh and all 10 Democrats voting against the president's controversial nominee.

The nomination of the 53-year-old conservative judge to the nation's highest court will now go to the full Senate, where Republicans hold a slim 51-49 majority.

But in a dramatic last-minute move, Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona asked for a delay of up to a week before the full vote takes place to allow for an FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh.
Source
 
You know, Flake and the Dems begged for one more week for an FBI investigation. Translation: we need one more week to groom additional accusers.
Now the Democrats want to start an Impeachment Hearing to Impeach Kavanaugh.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#17
(09-28-2018, 07:47 PM)guohua Wrote: You know, Flake and the Dems begged for one more week for an FBI investigation. Translation: we need one more week to groom additional accusers.
Now the Democrats want to start an Impeachment Hearing to Impeach Kavanaugh.

They're squealing about "impeachement", and I take that as a good sign. Reading between the lines, it means they already KNOW they have lost - they can't impeach him before he is even confirmed, which means they are planning on him being confirmed.

What I am seeing here, which some others seem not to be seeing through their rage, is that the Dems are painting themselves into a corner, and the Republicans are standing there grinning, holding the bucket of paint for them.

Have patience, let them have their week. At the end of it, they will be locked into a cage of their own making with all these theatrics, and we will be standing with a smile so sweet and cold that butter wouldn't melt in our mouths.

There's my prediction, my assessment based on what I was watching - before the TV got turned off.
" I don't mind killin' a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight... or if there's money involved... or a woman... "

 - Jayne Cobb, Hero of Canton
Reply
#18
Here is an excellent video that has a person explaining how her actions at the hearing show she is a Tool for the Democrats, A Liar and Scammer.
Link
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#19
(09-28-2018, 06:47 PM)Ninurta Wrote: @BIAD - Somehow, I get the feeling that it might be a mistake to hire Ms. Katz's firm to represent
one's self in any cases going before the Supreme Court after this...

It's just using activism to garner support and ruin an adversary.

A person can have similar views to others and just by natural selection, cause a movement and become
the leader. The other way is to take a group, spout the rhetoric that they want to hear, make promises
that cater for a groups wants and then if successful, offer them a token gesture in case they're needed
again.
But since I -who hasn't a clue about political manipulation, can see it, dickheads like Killary thought the con
was so smooth, the voters in the last US election would miss it and break the glass-ceiling.
I was just disappointed she didn't wear a Darth Vader outfit and Trump didn't come-off as Luke!

But for those who make a living in the political world, there are no enemies... just funding and the talent
to use people. I an only presume that Christine Blasey Ford is now back in the cupboard with that haunting
childish voice.
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#20
Quote:Wired Sources‏ @WiredSources 2h2 hours ago


BREAKING: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announces on the Senate floor that all 51 Republican Senators support proceeding to nomination of SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh

smallgreenbananadancer
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)