Figures … Flake Flakes and the Gutless, Spineless, Outging Flake Waffles & Calls for delay of Kavanaugh Vote to Allow for FBI Investigation

GO FIGURE …

BREAKING: Flake calls for delay of Kavanaugh vote to allow for FBI investigation

There was some drama when Sen. Jeff Flake went missing from the meeting room and then came back — with a condition on his “yes” vote.

So here’s where things stand, as far as we can tell:

Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination has been approved. It now heads to the floor.
Sen. Jeff Flake voted yes on the grounds that he would get support to request a floor vote delay and a one week FBI investigation.
However, Flake has been given NO commitment by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
If McConnell moves forward without that investigation, Flake will vote against Kavanaugh.
Whether this happens or not rests with senators such as Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, who have not announced how they plan to vote.

FORD-KAVANAUGH HEARING: Christine Ford Admits During Testimony that Senate Democrat Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein Recommended Activist Attorney Debra Katz to Her (VIDEO)

WHAT WE LEARNED YESTERDAY DURING SENATE JUDICIARY HEARING THAT IS TROUBLING …

From the Washington Free Beacon, it was revealed yesterday during the Ford-Kavanaugh judiciary hearing that the Senate ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein’s office recommended the liberal activist attorney Debra Katz. HUH? How does this happen? From the Feinstein office that withheld the Ford letter from from the Republican chairman and the FBI comes this gem. Yeah, there was no political games going on here.

Rachel Mitchell, a prosecutor in the Maricopa County, Arizona Attorney’s Office who the committee selected to assist Republican lawmakers in questioning Ford, asked Ford in what she described as a “clean-up question” about her attorneys representing her through the process.

“Which of your two lawyers did Senator Feinstein’s office recommend,” Mitchell asked.

“The Katz firm,” Ford responded.

Ford is represented by Debra Katz and Michael Bromwich. Of the two, Katz, has been the public face of Ford’s team. She is the one who appeared on television to announce that Ford would testify publicly.

53 Year Old Accuser Deborah Ramirez Comes Forward With Allegations Against Kavanaugh … Was Drunk, 35 Years Ago, Cannot Really Remember & No One Can Corroberate Story

ANOTHER WOMAN COMES FORWARD WITH A 35 YEAR OLD STORY THAT NOT EVEN THE NEW YORK TIMES THOUGHT WAS FIT TO PRINT …

The New Yorker published a story on Sunday night of a second woman accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of lewd behavior from some 35 years ago while in college. Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer have released a report in the New Yorker from Deborah Ramirez, accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct. The salacious story includes a dildo and penises. And once again, we have a completely drunk woman at a party, vague memories and not one person who supposedly atteneded the party could confirm Kavanaugh was at the party.  The 53-year-old accuser Deborah Ramirez told the New Yorker that she was initially hesitant to speak out because she was drunk at the time and her memory had gaps. Then miraculously after 35 years she spent six days “carefully assessing her memories” and consulting with her attorney before going public. Just like that she could remember.

Shameful. Not even the New York Times would touch this story because they could not find anyone to corroborate the story. Neither did the New Yorker. In other words, journalism is now considered just printing the vague recollections of accusation and rumor. But this is what it has come to. Piling on and making stuff up at all cost by the Left and Democrats. This is truly sad.

The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

After 35 years and drunk at the time, suddenly she had an epiphany after 6 days of being coached by her lawyer …

Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned about her memory, given her drinking at the party.

And yet, after several days of considering the matter carefully, she said, “I’m confident about the pants coming up, and I’m confident about Brett being there.”

For some reason, even though the New Yorker had not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party, they printed this story anyhow.

The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party. A classmate of Ramirez’s, who declined to be identified because of the partisan battle over Kavanaugh’s nomination, said that another student told him about the incident either on the night of the party or in the next day or two. The classmate said that he is “one-hundred-per-cent sure” that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He independently recalled many of the same details offered by Ramirez, including that a male student had encouraged Kavanaugh as he exposed himself. The classmate, like Ramirez, recalled that the party took place in a common room on the first floor in Entryway B of Lawrance Hall, during their freshman year. “I’ve known this all along,” he said. “It’s been on my mind all these years when his name came up. It was a big deal.” The story stayed with him, he said, because it was disturbing and seemed outside the bounds of typically acceptable behavior, even during heavy drinking at parties on campus. The classmate said that he had been shocked, but not necessarily surprised, because the social group to which Kavanaugh belonged often drank to excess. He recalled Kavanaugh as “relatively shy” until he drank, at which point he said that Kavanaugh could become “aggressive and even belligerent.”

In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and one other classmate, Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”

Democrats: We Already Know Know Brett Kavanaugh Is Guilty … So Much for the Presumtion of Innocense

SO MUCH FOR THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE … WELCOME TO THE BAIS & TAINTED DEMOCRAT JURY.

The actions of the LEFT and Democrats should be frightening to all. Their political bias and Trump resistance at all cost, including trashing the US. Constitution and the laws of the United States is chilling.  The Democrats have deemed SCOTUS nominee Judge  Brett Kavanaugh as guilty of something he has not either been accused of in a court of law, nor substantiated. That is correct, guilty before being proven innocent. No one knows whether Kavanaugh or his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is telling the truth or credible, until they present their case in front of the Senate Judiciary committee. But not for Democrats, they know he is guilty. They have a crystal ball.

I have two cases for you where all thought they were guilty also, Duke Lacrosse and the University of Virginia rape case brought to us by Rolling Stone. We both know now has both of those sexual assault and rape cases went , don’t we? Both were lies. Crystal Mangum and Jackie lied. No such accusations ever occurred. But of course these two huge miscarriages of justice and jumps to conclusions seem to mean nothing to Democrats.

Let’s take a look at the fact we know. A supposed accusation of sexual misconduct happened 36 years ago when Christine was 15 years old, but was never mentioned to anyone, including family, friend or the authorities. Not until 2012 in a doctors office and no names were referenced. Her therapist notes state that four people were present, 3 individuals have come forward to say they have no knowledge or recollection of the incident.  Ford can’t remember the year the incident happened, she can’t remember how she got to the house party, or how she got home, or where the part was. She was a 15 year old girl consuming alcohol and has no memory of major facts of the case. The accused, Brett Kavanaugh has denied it ever happened. So tell me … if this was in a court of law in front of a jury, this would be the textbook definition of reasonable doubt. But not for Democrats, Kavanaugh Is Guilty, even though nothing has been presented in front of them. Talk about a tainted and bias jury.

JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT, WHAT HAPPENS IF KAVANAUGH PROVIDES PROOF LIKE A PASSPORT OR PHOTO STAMPED PICS THAT HE WAS NO WHERE NEAR THIS SO-CALLED PARTY? WILL THERE BE DEMOCRAT APOLOGIES?

Watch VIDEO here.

No matter.

Kavanaugh, many Democrats say, is clearly guilty.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said Thursday: “I believe her because she is telling the truth and you know it by her story.” [You know it by her story? What story? Dr. Ford's story is 36 years old and lacking the basic who, what where, when and why of any story. The accusers story is vague at best. If anything, Ford's story is so lacking in every form of detail that is pertinent to the case, that it is the textbook definition of reasonable doubt.]

“Judge Kavanaugh has not asked to have the FBI review the claims,” Gillibrand added. “Is that the reaction of an innocent person? It is not.” [WTF you liberal fool, talk about your straw argument. Judge Kavanaugh does not have the right or standing to ask the FBI to do anything. The FBI is not his personal private detective. No Sen. Gillibrand, the mark of an innocent person is his obsolete denial of what he is being accused of and his want to show up on Monday and clear his name.]

When Sen. Duckworth (D-Ill.) was asked about Kavanaugh denying the accusation, the senator responded, “Well, I have heard, you know, many, many predators say and refute allegations against them.” [Actually Sen. Duckworth, many accusers actually know when and where the presumed assault took place.]

Former spokesman for Bernie Sanders and CNN contributor, Symone Sanders, said she didn’t even need to wait for more information: “For me there is no debate. I believe Professor Ford. Judge Kavanaugh has lied multiple times under oath.” [Wow, really Bernie. Kavanaugh lied under oath. When. I think Bill Clinton might be squirming with that position you took, hoping Juanita Broderick doesn't pursue her rape claims years later.]

And here are other select quotes from Democratic lawmakers:

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) said: “I believe Dr. Ford as I refer to her because she makes a very credible case. It is really difficult for someone to come forward in this way. Why should she destroy her life? Already there are efforts to cast aspersions on her credibility, to look into her family, all of that. This is really very much like what happened with Anita Hill where she was vilified, she was called names. This cannot happen to Dr. Ford.” [Hmm, she came forward and the letter that was supposed to remain confidential was presented right before the Kavanaugh vote. It might be more credible that this is a political scam.]

Sen. Blumenthal (D-Conn.): “Let me just say right at the outset I believe. Dr Ford, I believe the survivor here, there’s every reason to believe her. She has come forward courageously and bravely knowing that she would face a nightmare of hostile and vicious scrutiny and challenge. And there are plenty of reasons to disbelieve Judge Kavanaugh after his evasive and seemingly misleading testimony before the Judiciary Committee.” [So here is a dude that strictly on the accusations of a woman, he is believable and Kavanaugh is guilty. You want want to see Duke Lacrosse rape case and UVA. Really? You better hope no woman ever accuses you of anything.]

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); “I hope that she does [testify], because I’m afraid that what the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee really want is they want her to go away. They don’t want the country to hear from her, and they certainly don’t want the country to hear from her live and on television. She’s absolutely right, the FBI should do a thorough vetting of these allegations. The Senate shouldn’t simply rely on hearing two conflicting accounts and decide, ‘Well, we’re OK with not knowing. We’re OK with the fact we might be putting a — someone who committed attempted rape on the Supreme Court of the United States.’ They should get to the bottom of this. And it wouldn’t take that long to do. This is the same crowd that waited a year to fill the last vacancy during the Obama administration on the Supreme Court, so why this rush? And I think they realize they have a very imperfect candidate, in fact they may have a candidate who has committed attempted rape.”

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.):  “Listen, it comes down to credibility to your point. It’s going to be about listening to what each party has to say, but I believe her. Listen, first of all, anybody who comes forward at this point to — to be prepared to testify in the United States Senate against someone who’s being nominated to one of the most powerful positions in the United States government, that takes an extraordinary amount of courage. And frankly, you know, I have personally prosecuted sexual assault cases, and my concern is— and she knows this — she is putting herself out there knowing that they’re going to try and excoriate her. She’s doing it, I believe, because she knows that this is an important matter. It’s a serious matter, who serves on that court. And she has the courage to come forward? She has nothing to gain. What does she have to gain?” [LOL, what does she have to gain? Seriously? She is a Democrat operative. I think we all know what she has to gain. Good grief, do not insult people's intelligence.]

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.): “Well I can tell you it really does have a ring of truth to it. The fact that she can refer to therapist notes so that she did bring it up before. I am skeptical of polygraphs, but those who believe them, she has passed a polygraph test.” [The notes that Durbin refer to in no where references names.]

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.): “I believe Professor Ford. I think she’s credible and I think when the investigation is finished and when she testifies and Judge Kavanaugh testifies, I think a majority of senators will find her credible.”

Christine Blasey Ford Lawyers Say She is Open to Testifying Before Congress, But Not Monday … And as Long as she Goes After Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, HUH?

WTF … FOLKS, WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS THAT ACTUALLY CALLS FOR A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENTS AND A RIGHT FOR ONE TO CONFRONT YOUR ACCUSER.

The four corners Democrat stall is underway …

Christine Blasey Ford lawyers know say she will testify before Congress, but with conditions. They stated that she will not testify on Monday,  The right to confront your accuser is one of the basic tenants of law in the United States, as well as the presumption of innocent. But not when it comes of all things to decide on the selection of a Supreme Court Justice. Does anyone see a problem with that? Democrat already know that Kavanaugh is guilty before they have ever heard from the accuser or the accused. Seriously! So lets understand this, Christine Blasey Ford is accusing Brett Kavanaugh of forcing himself on her at 1982 party somewhere in Montgomery County, MD and Democrats know she is telling the truth merely on the accusation. However, Christine Blasey Ford cannot say for sure when the 36 year old assault was committed, she cannot say where the assault was committed and she has admitted she was 15 years old and drinking alcohol.

Christine Blasey Ford opened the possibility she would testify before Congress about her accusation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

An email her lawyers sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee said Ford “would be prepared to testify next week” if the senators offer her “terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.”

The message came a day ahead of a 10 a.m. Friday deadline set by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley for Ford to decide whether she would appear before a hearing he set for Monday.

Testifying Monday, however, “is not possible and the Committee’s insistence that it occur then is arbitrary in any event,” Ford’s lawyers wrote.

“As you are aware, she has been receiving death threats, which have been reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and she and her family have been forced out of their home,” the email said. “She wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.”

Here are the conditions that Ford’s attorney put forward in order for her to testify. Ford’s lawyers outlined these demands, according to a source close to the process. So the individual who so wanted to testify and accuse Kavanaugh now has demands. Why would that be? The one that should stand out more than anything is the one highlighted in red. In what world do these people live in because it is obviously not America. The accuser does not go second, they go first. I mean seriously, in America under the United States Law an individual has the right to confront their accuser. How in the hell would Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh know what the f*ck he is supposed to respond to if Christine Blasey Ford did not go first and make put forth her accusations. But this just shows the disingenuous of the negotiations.

• Ford will not appear any sooner than next Thursday;
• No questions to be asked at hearing by any outside counsel — only by Senators;
• Mark Judge must be subpoenaed;
• Kavanaugh would testify first, then Ford would testify, and Kavanaugh would have no opportunity to respond or rebut;
• The Friday deadline for her to provide written statement before the hearing would be waived
• Provide adequate security;
• Only one pool camera in hearing room;
• Ford and Kavanaugh allotted the same amount of time to talk.