Posted on 09/17/2018 12:26:17 PM PDT by libstripper
During Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing earlier this month, Senate Democrats seemed content just scoring points with their base by quizzing the Supreme Court nominee about President Trump, abortion, dark money, racial issues and the like. Now, in the wake of Christine Ford's sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh, Democrats appear to be shifting to a new strategy aimed at delaying the final confirmation vote until after the November 6 election and actually defeating the nominee.
Playing to the base while implicitly acknowledging that Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation was unlikely to be slowed or stopped was a safe strategy. The same cannot be said of the new Democratic strategy that is emerging. It is politically risky while offering little upside.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Kavanaugh just said he wasn’t at the party in question!
Source?
This is all a stall tactic - hope against hopes - that there is a blue tide, the House impeaches Trump, and the Senate confirms radical liberal judges who make up the law on the fly.
Oops, just now saw the post on FR about his statement.
Unfortunately, it isn’t very informative. But thanks for the heads up about it!
I’m stealing that and will give you full attribution.
L
Either he has an alibi or he is going to take a he said/she said approach?
and then you have Keith Ellison beating up women all over the country
If it backfires they get what they would have gotten anyway...Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.
This is a Hail Mary pass that gives them at least some chance of derailing him. In their view some is better than none.
Every democrat “plan” always contains two things. The first is Evil, it’s always at the heart of their plans. Luckily for us, the second thing that’s always included in their plans is Stupidity.
Exactly how do you have an alibi when the date of the putative offense is unspecified?Except that she claimed a specific male Kavenaugh friend was present - and he says it never happened.
The thing is, the allegation is of a “recovered memory” - that is, a “memory” evoked by psychoanalysis. Someone who has a “recovered memory” is unable to distinguish such a “memory" from a reliable, real memory of an actual event.
That is, she will be adamant about the truth of the memory, but that is not probative. She may be certain she knows, but that doesn’t mean you can take her testimony to the bank.
He was on his way to becoming a superlawyer. He was probably billing his summer job in 15 minute increments and still has the records.
Perhaps he was gone during the summer in question?
If the dumb repressed memory professor can't even get the year right, it doesn't look good...:^)
It seems they are afraid of having the nut-job under oath and don’t want her actually testifying to anything...i wonder who actually administered the lie detector test...doesn’t help that at least one ‘witness” claims it isn’t so...
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.