Posted on 09/16/2018 7:58:37 PM PDT by bitt
Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who claims she was physically attacked at a high school party by Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh three decades ago, has taken part in events opposing President Donald Trump, including a science march in California last year where she donned a version of the “pussy hats” worn at the January 2017 Women’s March.
Blasey Ford is cited in a San Jose Mercury News article as wearing the hat at the march, which the newspaper said was held because people were “angered by the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to research.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Laura Ingraham already tweeted it out so it’s out there
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn the dims have a “petty funds” (billion(s)? dollars) to dip into for this kind of thing.
Consider this:
One thing a dim hates more than letting a fetus live is spending their own money.
SO, they filter OPM, via taxes, to the right people and a “Soros” pays for it.
Money laundering..if the left is willing to do anything than why wouldn’t they be laundering money?
She is a mentally disturbed radical left wing activist, sanders supporter and Trump hater, big surprise that she would lie to defeat something like this.
It will certainly be interesting whether this relevant point is brought up during her appearance. One would expect her "testimony" would be subject to something approaching cross-examination. Unless, of course, the chair wishes to avoid offending the Dems.
Apparently the full Senate can still vote on the nomination even if the judiciary committee fails to vote in favor.
And with flake still a no it’s a tie at best with pence breaking the tie. It would also be the first time it’s happened.
See post # 68 ...... for more reality on this.
Kevin may be correct when describing the case as not negatively impacting Ford's credibility. That is what some of us deserve for speculating the poster of that info wouldn't have bothered if it was a nothing-burger.
Nonetheless, I wouldn't bet on it unless the duration between paying off the debt with its generally simultaneous filing on the record of a release of lien (12-17) and the granting of dismissal <1-17) was a statutory period.
If it was not a statutory matter, Mr. & Mrs. Ford who were no doubt anxious and impatient to have their credit restored especially over the holidays might have wondered why the court was taking its sweet time to clear the title. And, they may have shared that view rather bitterly with close family members.
But again, Kevin is correct, there are much clearer issues with this dedicated political operative.
For what it's worth, judges generally don't do anything without being asked by someone. Once the payment was made, it would have been up to the lender to request dismissal. If the lender dragged its feet in doing so, the attorney for the borrower would ask the lender to do so. If the lender continued to drag its feet, the attorney for the borrower would ask the judge to dismiss the case.
The Blasey refinance closed on 12/17/96. According to the docket, the lender (plaintiff) filed the motion to dismiss on 01/27/97. That is a reasonable period of time. Nobody asked Judge Kavanaugh to get involved prior to that. She then signed the dismissal on 02/04/97, only a week after it was filed, which is actually pretty fast for a judge. (I have some experience in these matters.) I could see there being some animosity towards Kavanaugh if she failed to timely act on something after being asked to do so, but the record does not reflect that.
________________________
God blesses the intelligent poster and citizen .... and also the batter who easily smacks the good curve ball.
;-)
Well, now we are having fun.
You are correct again, the original lender would have been the moving party. And, at least in my case, if the lender wants his money he better start moving (I also have some experience in such matters).
If M/M Ford were properly represented (or perhaps represented at all) that request for dismissal would have been in the closing documents. After disbursing funds to the lender the escrow holder would then file lender's request with the court. The Fords would have timely received what they were paying for with no exposure to foot dragging
I had not seen the docket which according to you indicates lender finally got around to the request on 1-17, but believed it was possible the request had languished in the courthouse for some 30 days or so.
As you suggest, it seems clear if the Fords are angry with anyone, it should be themselves or their...advisor.
According to her set of rules, all women don’t have vaginas so she was being hurtful and bigoted.
There are less than 6 degrees of separation between her and the an Rather/Kitty Kelly caper.
The accuser donated to the group Physicians for Human Rights. That group is affiliated with Physicians for Social Justice.
Both are partially funded by George Soros.
One of the two groups links to a source in Kitty Kelley’s book.
The group she donated to, rather than being focused on straightforward health care as the name might imply and mislead, is actually a pusher for leftwing causes such as amnesty, unfettered muslim refugee immigration, gitmo detainees, and trying to pin the actions of Ms. England and her lover prison guard at Abu Ghraibh on the US government as if their personal behavior was national policy.
This is priceless and should be plastered all over the news. I’ll copy this to Twitter.
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.