Posted on 09/25/2018 6:39:10 AM PDT by SmokingJoe
President Donald Trump is none too pleased with how Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) is handling demands made by attorneys for Christine Balsey Ford, the California psychology professor who is scheduled to testify Thursday about her decades-old sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a new report says. According to the Washington Post, President Trump believes Grassley has been “too accommodating” towards Ford, and he has grown tired of the professor’s legal team “getting their way” when it comes to setting the terms of their client’s testimony.
As Breitbart News reported, the chairman late Saturday evening granted yet another extension to Ford’s legal team to reply to a request that the accuser testify before lawmakers Wednesday. The following day, Ford’s legal team convinced members of Grassley’s staff to allow their client to appear before the panel on Thursday. The tentative agreement came after lawyers for Ford accused the Republicans of being “fundamentally inconsistent with the committee’s promise of a fair, impartial investigation into her allegations.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
ISSUE THE FREAKING SUBPOENA AND SEND THE US MARSHALS, FOR THE LOVE OF DOG.
At first, Ford was taken seriously ...there was an interest in what she had to say.
Now she’s turned into a nit-picking pest ....... her only complete thought seems to be “Me First.”
This kooky woman has become the fabled “boy who cried wolf.”
She’s gone too far....and simply cant be believed.
Or Grassley is leading them in for the slaughter. Without him giving them rope, they wouldn’t have enough to hang themsevles.
Are Democrats engaging in political blackmail?
Trump needs to determine if Democrats are raising money on this issue.
If so, “political gain” might qualify as meeting the definition of criminal blackmail.
It would appear that the perpetrators and principles of this scripted midterm stagecraft, meets the definition of blackmail perfectly.
Senators,Our system of jurisprudence has always been based on the tenet of the presumption of innocence. The accuser must meet the burden of proving the accusation is true.
As a Justice on the Supreme Court, would you have had me rule that the burden was on Dredd Scott to show why he should be an American citizen, or should that burden have been on Sandford to demonstrate why Mr. Scott should not be a citizen?
Should the burden have been on Oliver Brown to show that the separate school his daughter was forced to attend was not equal to closer white-attended schools, or should that burden have been placed on the Topeka Board of Eductation to prove that "separate but equal" schooling was necessary?
Should I rule that the burden was on Ernesto Miranda to know his full legal rights when he was arrested, or should Arizona police have to inform Mr. Miranda of his right to an attorney when they arrested him?
Should Norma McCorvey have to justify to the state why she needed an abortion? Should Fred Korematsu have to prove his loyalty to the United States? Should women have to demonstrate their competency to sit on juries? Should the Cantwell family have to prove that their public expression of religion was not a breach of the peace and a public disturbance?
In our system, the accused has a right to know the specific charges and factual evidence against him or her. It is a mockery of our judicial system to suggest that a sitting federal appellate judge, or anyone else for that matter, has to prove his innocence against vague, unspecified, and suddenly recalled allegations, when the very essence of being a judge is to balance the rights of the accused with the rights of the accuser. The burden of proof is on those who make the claims, not on those who are their targets.
Thank you.
-PJ
I think the odds are no better than 50/50 she'll testify, but if she doesn't we'll know one thing for sure: THE ENTIRE THING WAS A SCHEME TO STALL/DERAIL THE NOMINATION.
The Dims probably figured the feckless GOP would simply roll over and play dead once her allegation came out. When they didn't do that, Ms. Ford and her team of "advisers" began adding conditions, most of which were ridiculous, hoping that would stall things and the GOP would finally cave under intense public pressure. Right now I think Ms. Ford and her handlers are between a rock and a hard place.
I said it before, I’ll say it again.
Bring up “Keith Ellison” every time “Kavanaugh” is brought up.
No shortage of articles in Minneapolis media about the 9-1-1 calls reporting domestic violence allegations. This stands in stark contrast to circa mid-1980s memories which kinda sorta might be accurate.
Pound the DEM hypocrisy until it goes away. The only way to deal with those wanting to bully is to take it patiently, giving them a chance to correct their bad behavior, and should they fail to — whack them good upside the head. Continue until they realize the nature of their ways.
Instead of having a lawyer by her side “IF and WHEN” she testifies, I say let her bring in Meryl Streep.
Streep can make sure Ford wont screw-up her “victim routine.”
Who knows it is in the Washington Post..
The purpose of the ‘delay tactic’ is to keep Kavanaugh from being on the SC and determining which ‘cases’ will be scheduled for the next year.
That is how you keep from going to jail, you control WHO decides what cases to pursue.
Streep can make sure Ford wont screw-up her “victim routine.”
That would be hilarious!
"Meryl Streep calls the reports of sexual harassment against Harvey Weinstein "disgraceful" and says she was unaware of the alleged incidents."
This was after she called Weinstein God in her acceptance speech at the Academy Awards.
Didnt know? Two thousand miles away grads of the NY Film School were warned not to take jobs in the Weinstein company.
Who's she kidding? Hollywood is an insular small town....everybody knows everything about everyone.
Grassley lost control of the process on day 1 and hasn’t been able to catch up since. This is a study in how to be way ahead of everyone in the room if you’re the leader.
“According to the Washington Post,”
““In private talks, Trump has targeted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Grassley for criticism, complaining that they have not been forceful enough in speeding up the process and have been too deferential to Ford’s attorneys, according to two people familiar with Trump’s concerns,””
That would explain McConnell’s speech as he did address it to Mr President.
I think Grassley/McConnel are in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” kind of situation.
Go too fast and Kav probably won’t get enough votes. Go too slow and repubs are pissed off and threatening to stay home in Nov.
The witnesses that CBF named herself all swore the party never happened. All the woman can do is repeat the accusation and perhaps embellish it with more unsubstantiated testimony.
Grassley should have asked if they had any solid physical evidence or any witnesses that have first hand knowledge of the incident. If not, there is no need to hold up senate business for any hearing. He should cancel the hearing and hold the vote.
If any senator wants to vote no and try to justify their action to their constituents, so be it.
Thanks for posting this. I called yesterday. We're talking in an echo chamber on FR. If we really want to do good on this issue, we need to call Grassley and then our own senators. Just whinging among ourselves doesn't help--though venting sure feels good and is necessary in its own way.
In other news, sun rises in east. Senate leadership has been a disaster, but what else would you expect given their record?
It's also possible that Sen Grassley, that old dumb farm boy from Iowa, is letting all those smart city-slickers think they've pulled a fast one on him.
Confirm Kavanaugh, then release the records of the Congressional Slush Fund for Sexual Misconduct.
Who was paid, on whose behalf. Open the books to those who pay the bills.
Maybe that will give these uppity schmucks something to be concerned about.
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.