Well, well, well... what have we here? Why it's a picture of a young Christine Ford with none other than Bill Clinton. I had already posted somewhere that she was an anti-Trump activist, and she scrubbed her Face Book account a couple months ago to get ready for this. They've had this planned all along.
Senator Flake was approached by a woman as he got on the elevator after the hearing. I believe this was before he came back in and asked for a week delay so the FBI could investigate for a sixth time. : She was screaming about how the Republicans were against women's rights, blah, blah, blah...
I posted on Twitter that I bet she was paid to do it, and now, it appears I was right.
What has happened to common human decency? I couldn't live with myself if I knew I was destroying someone's life's work, a good person, with my lies. Not a wink for me!
Quote:Ana Maria Archila, one of the women who confronted Jeff Flake on the elevator at the Capitol after he said he was voting for Brett Kavanaugh, is the co-executive director for the Center for Popular Democracy and the Center for Popular Democracy Action Fund.
The Center For Popular Democracy is heavily funded by George Soros. The organization also identified Maria Gallagher to the press as the other woman confronting Flake.
Ford slipped up and said that Feinstein would hold her letter until right before the hearing. The prosecutor tried to catch her on it but Ford's lawyers butted in and stopped her from repeating.
This confirms it was a delay tactic to be brought out at the very end of the confirmation hearing. It also shows these two are involved in collusion.
09-29-2018, 08:01 PM (This post was last modified: 09-29-2018, 08:02 PM by BIAD.)
The woman in Mystic's image is Maria Gallagher, a young woman who:
Quote:'...She admitted to The Daily Beast that she had never told anyone about her sexual assault before -even her mom found out about it by seeing it on cable TV that day...'
09-30-2018, 09:18 PM (This post was last modified: 09-30-2018, 09:19 PM by BIAD.)
Just in case there's anyone out there who still thinks the MSM bubble doesn't exist, here's
another example of Journalists talking to Journalists and generating their own narrative.
The Guardian provides the evidence...
Quote:'...The FBI will not interview Julie Swetnick, the third woman to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, according to multiple reports and Republican senator Lindsey Graham, highlighting the narrow scope of the agency’s supplemental investigation into Donald Trump’s supreme court nominee.
After NBC News and the other outlets said Swetnick would not be questioned, the White House, which has stood by Kavanaugh through the fallout from an explosive Senate hearing on Thursday, denied it was limiting the investigation...'
Okay, that's the outcome The Guardian is showing from the linked multiple reports.
Then...
Quote:'...On Saturday Donald Trump said on Twitter he wanted the FBI “to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion”.
On Sunday Kellyanne Conway, a senior Trump counselor, told CNN’s State of the Union: “We trust the hardworking men and women of the FBI to do their jobs, and they will determine what will be included within that scope.”...'
I clicked onto a link provided by the page you kindly offered and it was about Ms. Swetnick
and her claims of 'train-raping'.
From the moment of Ford's claim, I've noticed that the narrative is being driven by the so-called
questions asked by the same mediums and in my view, they're deliberately missing the point.
If Kavanaugh committed any of these crimes, his nomination to the Supreme court shouldn't even
be more that an after-point. The crime he's accused of should be the focus.
But just as the 'Creepy Porn Lawyer' -Michael Avenatti tweeted, it's kept in the narrative because
that is the true goal.
(Creepy Porn Lawyer's Tweet) '...Below is my correspondence to Mr. Davis of moments ago, together with a sworn declaration from my client. We demand an immediate FBI investigation into the allegations. Under no circumstances should Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed absent a full and complete investigation...'
They can't help it. If they were really concerned of the allegations, Ford's and Swetnick's local police
forces would be involved and yet, we're treated to another example of drama and the MSM clambering
for viewers and readers.
It's another display of why Trump was voted in, drummed-up intrigue that only involves the east and
west coasts.
I saw an article on Twitter yesterday where the female prosecutor said there was not any evidence provided from Ford's testimony that would convince her to take the case to trial if this had been in a court of law. (I can't find that article now to post it here.)
So, since the sexual assault didn't work to keep Kavanaugh out, now they are attacking his morals from his teen days because he drank too many beers on certain occasions. Really?
I actually find this laughable. Who doesn't "party" when they are in high school/college?
And, what's worse, I bet no one on the Senate Committee could pass the extensive background check they put Judge K through.
Maybe we should request a background investigation on their teen years?
Quote:Ask any casual observer what the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation fight is about, and the answer will be the allegation that at a high-school party 36 years ago, when Kavanaugh was 17, he drunkenly forced then-15-year-old Christine Ford onto a bed, tried to undress her, and, when she tried to scream, covered her mouth with his hand.
That is now old news. In the last 48 hours, immediately after Senate Republicans and President Trump agreed to Democratic demands that the FBI investigate the 1982 incident, the Kavanaugh goalposts have moved dramatically. Now, a key issue is Kavanaugh's teenage drinking, and whether he testified truthfully to Congress about the amount of beer he consumed in high school and college more than three decades ago, and the effect it had on him.
"Yale Classmate Accuses Kavanaugh of 'Blatant Mischaracterization' of His Drinking." (New York Times)
"Another Yale classmate breaks silence: Kavanaugh lied." (CNN)
"Brett Kavanaugh's College Friends Say He Lied Under Oath About Drinking." (NBC)
And many others. The allegation is that at last Thursday's hearing, Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he was asked about his drinking practices both in high school and at Yale University. Kavanaugh was under oath at the time.
"Lying to Congress is a federal crime," Sen. Bernie Sanders noted in a letter to Judiciary Committee chairman Charles Grassley. "Kavanaugh's truthfulness with the Senate goes to the very heart of whether he should be confirmed to the court."
The new developments raised two questions. One, did Kavanaugh actually lie to the Senate about his drinking? And two, why are Democrats, now that they have finally won the FBI investigation they wanted into the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, suddenly making a bigger deal of his drinking?
On the first, Kavanaugh clearly told the Senate he drank in high school and college. He told the Senate he sometimes drank to excess. But he said he did not black out, nor did he drink so much that he could not remember events that took place while he was drinking.
"I drank beer with my friends," Kavanaugh testified. "Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone."
That was pretty clear. Kavanaugh repeated it all when the Republican-appointed prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, questioned him.
"Yes, we drank beer," he said. "My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers."
Mitchell pressed Kavanaugh on whether he sometimes drank so much that he forgot what he did when he was drinking.
"Have you ever passed out from drinking?"
"I — passed out would be — no, but I've gone to sleep, but — but I've never blacked out," Kavanaugh said. "That's the — that's the — the allegation, and that — that — that's wrong."
"So let's talk about your time in high school," Mitchell said. "In high school, after drinking, did you ever wake up in a different location than you remembered passing out or going to sleep?"
"No, no."
"Did you ever wake up with your clothes in a different condition, or fewer clothes on than you remembered when you went to sleep or passed out?"
"No, no."
"Did you ever tell — did anyone ever tell you about something that happened in your presence that you didn't remember during a time that you had been drinking?"
"No..."
"During the time in high school when you would be drinking, did anyone ever tell you about something that you did not remember?"
"No."
Later in the hearing, Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar picked up the questioning. "Drinking is one thing, but the concern is about truthfulness, and in your written testimony, you said sometimes you had too many drinks. Was there ever a time when you drank so much that you couldn't remember what happened, or part of what happened the night before?"
"No, I — no," Kavanaugh answered. "I remember what happened, and I think you've probably had beers, senator, and — and so I..."
"So you're saying there's never been a case where you drank so much that you didn't remember what happened the night before, or part of what happened?"
"It's — you're asking about, you know, blackout," Kavanaugh said. "I don't know. Have you?"
"Could you answer the question, judge? I just — so you — that's not happened. Is that your answer?"
"Yeah, and I'm curious if you have," Kavanaugh said.
"I have no drinking problem, judge."
"Yeah, nor do I."
Some Democrats and their allies in the press suggested Kavanaugh lied in his exchanges with Mitchell and the Democratic senators. But how? Kavanaugh was quite open about the fact that he drank in high school and in college, and also about the fact that he sometimes drank too much. He denied having alcohol-related blackouts, but said he had "gone to sleep" after drinking. On another occasion, responding to Klobuchar, he said "I don't know" when asked if he had ever drunk so much that he didn't remember what happened the night before. It's hard to see where the "federal crime," as Sen. Sanders put it, is in that testimony.
But by Sunday night, the Washington Post reported that "many Democrats have called for the FBI to take a broader look at whether Kavanaugh may have misled senators by minimizing his carousing behavior in high school and college."
Both the Post and the New York Times featured statements by a man named Charles Ludington, who was a classmate of Kavanaugh's at Yale and is now a professor at North Carolina State University. (He has written an academic history of wine.) Ludington said that in college Kavanaugh was "a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker." Ludington said he had heard Kavanaugh "slur his words" and saw him "staggering from alcohol consumption." (Ludington said he knew that because "I often drank with him.")
"When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive," Ludington continued. "On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man's face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail."
Ludington said he was going to take his tale of a 35-year-old scuffle to the FBI for further investigation, to show that Kavanaugh lied under oath to the Senate. "I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth," Ludington said.
The problem is, there is nothing in Ludington's statement that actually contradicts Kavanaugh's testimony. As noted, Kavanaugh testified that he drank plenty. And Ludington did not say that he, Ludington, ever witnessed Kavanaugh blacked out or passed out from alcohol. It is unclear what, if anything, the FBI would do with such a presentation from Ludington. But such stories are causing great excitement in Democratic Washington at the moment.
Why? The answer is the theory behind the Democratic attacks on Kavanaugh.
The most serious allegation against Kavanaugh is, of course, Christine Ford's. (To a lesser extent, there is also accuser Deborah Ramirez's claim that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her in a college drinking session, and to an even lesser extent, there is the gang rape allegation of Michael Avenatti client Julie Swetnick, which is not taken very seriously by either Democrats or Republicans.)
Kavanaugh has strongly and unequivocally denied the Ford allegation. The problem for Democrats is that there is no contemporaneous evidence to support Ford's claim. By her own account, Ford told no one of what happened at the time. She told no one in the next few years. No one in the next few decades. No one for 30 years, until, in 2012, when Ford says she told her therapist what had happened to her long ago.
The people Ford claims were at the home where she says Kavanaugh attacked her, including one close friend of Ford's, have said they have no memories that support her account.
So the Ford case is quite hard to make. And that is where, for Democrats, Kavanaugh's supposed blackouts come in. With no contemporaneous evidence that the Ford attack happened, Democrats are trying to make the case that it could have happened. What if Kavanaugh got drunk, attacked Ford, and later didn't remember that he did it?
That is the theory behind some Democratic senators' questioning of Kavanaugh last week. The idea was to get Kavanaugh to admit alcohol-induced memory loss and thus undermine his firm contention that he did not do what Ford alleged. How could he really know? He himself admitted that he sometimes drank so much he couldn't remember what happened the night before. He could have attacked Christine Ford in an alcoholic blackout and never remember that he did it.
The problem, of course, is that is all anti-Kavanaugh theorizing. There's no evidence to support it, just as there is no evidence beyond Christine Ford's word to support the original attack allegation. But it's what Democrats have to work with right now, and it's why they are trying to change the subject from alleged sexual misconduct to Kavanaugh's teenage drinking.
Talk about desperation! The Swamp Rats are evil... pure evil.
Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey exposed for ties to Big Pharma abortion pill maker… effort to derail Kavanaugh is plot to protect abortion industry profits!
Quote:Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford, who claims — without any evidence — that Kavanaugh inappropriately touched her at a drunken party while in high school, turns out to have ties to an abortion pill pharmaceutical company called Corcept Therapeutics. This discovery brings to light an obvious conflict of interest in Blasey’s story, revealing that she works for a pharmaceutical company that manufacturers an abortion pill drug, whose profits could be strongly impacted by future Supreme Court decisions on abortion rights.
Corcept Therapeutics (Corcept.com) manufacturers and markets an abortion pill drug called mifepristone, and Christine Blasey Ford is a co-author of at least eight published scientific papers produced by the pharmaceutical giant to promote its pills. You can see Blasey’s name listed on several publications at this Corcept.com web page detailing their research papers.
Corcept Therapeutics, Inc., a $166 billion market cap company (stock symbol CORT) reportedly has current annual sales of $216 million. The company offers just one drug, mifepristone, which is widely known as an “abortion pill” or RU-486. Many drugs have multiple uses, and mifepristone — brand name “Korlym” at Corcept — is currently marketed by the company for the treatment of Cushing’s syndrome. (h/t to The Gateway Pundit for initial work on this breaking story.)
Like all FDA-approved drugs, mifepristone is frequently prescribed off-label, meaning doctors prescribe it for conditions that it has never been approved to treat. It is well known throughout the medical industry that doctors routinely prescribe this drug to terminate unwanted pregnancies. It is a covert “abortion drug,” in other words.
You know Big Pharma is going to pay her good to stop Judge Kavanaugh from making it to the SC. He is a threat to Roe vs. Wade.
10-02-2018, 10:00 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2018, 04:13 PM by BIAD.)
Isn't it strange that after a nominee is accused of sexual assault and the accuser provides no evidence except her
own claim, Kavanaugh is painted as doubtful because -even with physical proof, his word is not good enough.
As Mystic Wanderer offered above, claims that Christine Blasey Ford is attempting to protect abortion rights
by trying to derail Kavanaugh's Supreme Court approval at the behest of a pharmaceutical company is now
being ridiculed because... well, because Blasey Ford denies it!
Quote:No, Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford isn't linked to abortion pill
By Manuela Tobias on Tuesday, September 25th, 2018 at 4:29 p.m.
'Several headlines on the internet claim Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, had an ulterior motive. "Kavanaugh accuser worked for pharma company that sold ‘abortion pill’ for alternative uses," a Sept. 21 headline on Patriot News Alerts read. (Kavanaugh has denied the accusation.)
Others took it further. "Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey exposed for ties to Big Pharma abortion pill maker… effort to derail Kavanaugh is plot to protect abortion industry profits," a Sept. 20 headline on Natural News read.
Abortion rights advocates worry that Kavanaugh would reverse Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court case that legalized abortion. These stories suggest that Ford went after Kavanaugh because of a special interest in protecting abortion -inducing drugs. That’s a big stretch...'
Politifact suggests that it's a 'big stretch' because of a mere four-word sentence in brackets!
Still, what can this website -that hurriedly produced this rebuttal, offer in proof that she has no connection to anything
linking a pharmaceutical situation?
Quote:'...Ford worked as director of biostatistics for Corcept Therapeutics, a California pharmaceutical start-up, from 2006 to 2012, according to an archive of her since-deleted LinkedIn page. Corcept published six papers under her name...'
Anyone wanna offer the garbage that the deletion was just merely good house-keeping?!
Quote:'...But claiming that Corcept sells an abortion pill is like saying a road salt company sells food seasoning. The company sells Korlym to treat Cushing's syndrome, a rare, deadly condition characterized by high cortisol levels. Korlym’s main ingredient, mifepristone, blocks the effect of cortisol...'
I use household salt on my driveway when it's iced-up because I don't have access to road salt. By offering an
alternative use doesn't dilute the effectiveness, Polifact's comparison doesn't work!
But I'm sure in the next paragraphs, there'll be no hint that Korlym has anything to do with abortion or being a
contributor to abortion.
Quote:'...That ingredient has another use. Just like it blocks cortisol, mifepristone blocks progesterone, which is crucial to the development of a pregnancy. In a medication-induced abortion, mifepristone is administered first and another drug, misoprostol, follows. That empties the uterus by causing cramping and bleeding.
The latter drug, misoprostol, can and is used alone for abortions. However, the combination of both drugs is typically used for greater effectiveness and fewer side effects...'
So a company that Blasey Ford was a Director of -manufactures a drug to deal with a over-accumulation of cortisol.
Cortisol, a hormone that's produced by the body to deal with stress and effects fats, suppresses the immune system
and can decrease bone growth.
Misoprostol, which is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines, is a medication used to start
labour, cause an abortion, prevent and treat stomach ulcers, and treat postpartum bleeding due to poor contraction
of the uterus.
Judge Kavanaugh is seen as an anti-abortion advocate and his progress to the Supreme Court is being thwarted
by a person who was paid by a company who creates a drug that is used for abortion reasons.
And Politifact are saying what...? There's no connection?!!
Quote:'...Mifepristone, on the other hand, is not administered alone to induce abortions...'
Technically, this is correct if going off Wikipedia -a valuable website managed by anyone using the internet. But in
the nuances of wording, something offered as a fact can also be debated.
However, Wikipedia claims Mifepristone: " For abortions it is often used with mifepristone or methotrexate. By itself effectiveness for this purpose is between 66% and 90%. It is taken either in the cheek, under the tongue, or placed in the vagina."
So the 'stretch' isn't as elastic as Politifact are suggesting!
Maybe anecdotals could persuade the reader that as a Director of a company that produces abortion-assisting drugs,
Ms. Blasey Ford didn't have an ulterior motive for accusing an alleged anti-abortion nominee of trying to feel her tits?
Quote:'...In some other countries, it is used alone as emergency contraception, according to Clare Flannery, a professor of endocrinology and reproductive sciences at Yale University. That’s not an abortifacient, according to Flannery, because it plays a role before the sperm and egg implant in the uterus. (Pregnancy occurs after implantation.)...'
Keep the above in your mind for a moment. I mentioned nuanced word-play earlier, here's a good example of it. 'In some other countries...' is said and please remind yourself that when a female human aborts a fetus via medicament
means, the actual part of the planet where it occurs has no bearing. Only the laws and standards of a country do.
Here's where the other part of the word-play is done.
Quote:'...In order to induce an abortion in the United States, a low dose of mifepristone is used only once in combination with misoprostol. Korlym patients take up to four times that dose of mifepristone daily for months or even years...'
See...? Not only have we moved away from the accusations that Blasey Ford worked for a business that created an
abortion-generating drug, we're now reading spurious reasons of why misoprostol should draw a nod from the reader
because in Africa it's okay as a contraceptive pill, but due to silly let's-not-talk-about-'em standards in the United States,
it's seen as a major patron to abortion.
One can only hope the assumed-brown envelopes are well-filled with money for this writer's over-the-top explanation
and denial.
Quote:'...Korlym was the first drug the Food and Drug Administration approved for Cushing’s syndrome. "Mifepristone was developed in 1980, but there was so much political concern for its use in aiding abortions, that its other therapeutic potentials were overlooked and companies were nervous to pursue it for other conditions," Flannery said.
The company explicitly warns about the drug’s potential to terminate a pregnancy...'
Fair enough, a warning is a good thing when the drug was originally created to deal with other ailments.
It's nice to see that -not only is the warning on the back of packet and website, POLITIFACT ARE F*CKIN' PRINTING IT HERE!!
Quote:'..."Korlym should never be taken by women who are pregnant or who might become pregnant," a banner on the websit reads. "Taking Korlym during pregnancy will result in the loss of a pregnancy. A pregnancy test is required before starting Korlym or if treatment is interrupted for more than 14 days."...'
Take a bow, Mr. Tobias... you've earned it.
Quote:'...Our ruling A headline said, "Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey exposed for ties to Big Pharma abortion pill maker… effort to derail Kavanaugh is plot to protect abortion industry profits."
Ford worked for a pharmaceutical company that sells Korlym, a drug that treats Cushing’s syndrome. The main ingredient in that drug is used in combination with another drug to induce abortions, but the doses differ. The company does not promote the drug for abortions; in fact, it requires that doctors rule out pregnancy in order to administer the drug.
It warrants a whiff of smoke, but when providing a non-sourced headline and then explaining that the drug in question
does induce abortion -but wasn't designed to, Politifact's overall proof that Blasey Ford didn't accuse Kavanaugh of
sexual assault in order to protect a company she worked for, is anemic -at best.
The clue in this Journalistic-chicanery is that the author spent too-much time on the drug and hardly anything on evidence
that the accuser's motives. Tut-tut, must do better next time in the Shill-Department.
Who has seen this cartoon by Cartoonist Chris Britt recently mocked U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s 10-year-old daughter Liza in a caricature he drew and posted to Facebook.
Sick Bastard!
(10-02-2018, 06:06 PM)guohua Wrote: Who has seen this cartoon by Cartoonist Chris Britt recently mocked U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s 10-year-old daughter Liza in a caricature he drew and posted to Facebook.
Sick Bastard!
I saw the one you are referring to Ms.G. Yes, "Sick Bastard" is putting it mildly.
These people are pure evil.
The only thing that helps me get through some of what I've seen is knowing that Karma will get them, eventually. If not in this life, then in the next.
I wouldn't want to be them.
10-02-2018, 07:33 PM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2018, 07:33 PM by BIAD.)
(10-02-2018, 07:16 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: ...The only thing that helps me get through some of what I've seen is knowing
that Karma will get them, eventually. If not in this life, then in the next.
I wouldn't want to be them.
Yeah, feeding these disruptive factions will not stop if the Democrats ever get back in the White House.
A power-grab knows no bounds.
Quote:It appears likely that they knowingly subordinated their client’s interest in avoiding the publicity of a Senate hearing and avoiding travel to Washington, D.C. to the desire of Democratic Senators on the Committee to have such a hearing take place in Washington, D.C.
A bar complaint has been submitted by government watchdog Judicial Watch against Christine Blasey Ford’s attorneys Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks, and Michael R. Bromwich “for violating the rules of professional responsibility in their representation” by withholding crucial information.
The complaint letter, dated October 16, 2018, was addressed to Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Board of Professional Responsibility in Washington, DC.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the complaint against District of Columbia bar members Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks, and Michael R. Bromwich in their representation of Christine Blasey Ford.
Read the full article by clicking on the title above.
Good for Tom Fitton! Keep up the good work!
Quote:It appears likely that they knowingly subordinated their client’s interest in avoiding the publicity of a Senate hearing and avoiding travel to Washington, D.C. to the desire of Democratic Senators on the Committee to have such a hearing take place in Washington, D.C.
A bar complaint has been submitted by government watchdog Judicial Watch against Christine Blasey Ford’s attorneys Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks, and Michael R. Bromwich “for violating the rules of professional responsibility in their representation” by withholding crucial information.
The complaint letter, dated October 16, 2018, was addressed to Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Board of Professional Responsibility in Washington, DC.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the complaint against District of Columbia bar members Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks, and Michael R. Bromwich in their representation of Christine Blasey Ford.
Read the full article by clicking on the title above.
Good for Tom Fitton! Keep up the good work!
Yes, Wouldn't that be Fantastic if something actually Materialized from this complaint!!
But,,,,, they are part of the Democrat Machine, like M.Walters, N. Poleosi, L. Bird and Hillary, Protected.
10-22-2018, 04:00 AM (This post was last modified: 10-22-2018, 04:03 AM by Ninurta.)
(09-30-2018, 09:18 PM)BIAD Wrote: Just in case there's anyone out there who still thinks the MSM bubble doesn't exist, here's
another example of Journalists talking to Journalists and generating their own narrative.
The Guardian provides the evidence...
Quote:'...The FBI will not interview Julie Swetnick, the third woman to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, according to multiple reports and Republican senator Lindsey Graham, highlighting the narrow scope of the agency’s supplemental investigation into Donald Trump’s supreme court nominee.
After NBC News and the other outlets said Swetnick would not be questioned, the White House, which has stood by Kavanaugh through the fallout from an explosive Senate hearing on Thursday, denied it was limiting the investigation...'
I don't blame them. I wouldn't interview her, either, simply because I would only have one relevant question for her: "Ms. Swetnick, if I understand you correctly, you assert that you went to a Kavanaugh 'train-rape party', and liked the experience so much you went to NINE MORE... am I hearing that right?"
I can only imagine what a field day the MSM would have when I asked THAT question, so that's a minefield better left unwalked.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
She was screaming about how the Republicans were against women's rights, blah, blah, blah... ![[Image: Screen-Shot-2018-09-28-at-10.28.25-AM-e1...00x630.png]](https://bigleaguepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Screen-Shot-2018-09-28-at-10.28.25-AM-e1538144990730-1200x630.png)
![[Image: 2iuv3f.jpg]](https://i.imgflip.com/2iuv3f.jpg)
![[Image: christine-ford-cant-remember-how-she-got...334421.png]](https://pics.me.me/christine-ford-cant-remember-how-she-got-to-the-house-36334421.png)
![[Image: 43ij3zz3qvm11.png?width=612&s=048cc39081...c0896b91c9]](https://preview.redd.it/43ij3zz3qvm11.png?width=612&s=048cc39081bd680ebbb01b6efc4789c0896b91c9)
![[Image: 2i546h.jpg]](https://i.imgflip.com/2i546h.jpg)
![[Image: 200918yearbook.jpg]](https://www.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/200918yearbook.jpg)
![[Image: DoX5o1QUwAArqZO.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoX5o1QUwAArqZO.jpg)
