Results 1 to 8 of 8
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Perjury hedge? Sure starting to look that way with Kavanaugh's two accusers

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    61,622

    Perjury hedge? Sure starting to look that way with Kavanaugh's two accusers

    Perjury hedge? Sure starting to look that way with Kavanaugh's two accusers
    September 24, 2018

    Amazing how many legal steps Judge Kavanaugh's accusers have taken to insulate themselves from any potential charge of perjury.

    By Monica Showalter

    While Democrats and the public holler to each other about who's lying in the 11th-hour sexual abuse charges seeking to shoot down the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, and the Drudge Report headlines it as a he-said, she-said case, what stands out is that the two sides in this aren't equal. It's amazing how much careful hedging against perjury charges Kavanaugh's accusers have taken, in contrast with Kavanaugh's defenders.

    Christine Blasey Ford set off a few red flags from the get-go, not only because of first her insistence on anonymity in making the charges, then her vague recall of critical details such as when the incident was and how she got there, and finally her lawyer's crazy conditions for her client to testify before the Senate, insisting that only male Senate members ask questions, Kavanaugh speak first, and lots of time to set up the Senate hearings due to the Hawaii-commuting professor's suddenly disclosed fear of flying, alongside her false claim that the Senate insisted she sit at the same table as Kavanaugh as she made her charges.
    All of those could be called small perjury hedges. Her defenders might argue that those aren't hedges at all. But there is a big one: the fact that she sent her letter accusing Kavanaugh to Rep. Anna Eshoo, who sits in a House seat of no importance to the Senate confirmation – and didn't send it to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who sits in a Senate seat of significant importance.
    Why could she have done that? Well, because sending a letter to Eshoo (and hoping it stays anonymous) means it's not under oath, because Eshoo is of no importance to the matter. Sending it to Feinstein means that it is under oath, because it's sent as evidence for the case.
    Now it looks like a perjury hedge. Nobody can get her on a Robert Mueller-style lying-to-the-investigators rap if the charges don't pan out, given that she sent her letter to Eshoo, and what's more, Feinstein, who has the letter now, doesn't want to release it into the testimony pile.

    Here's the second thing: All of the three people named as witnesses in the incident, including the female, Leland Keyser, did send letters to the Senate, under oath, as did Kavanaugh. That's four people – and they all said nothing happened. They didn't take a perjury hedge. If they're lying, they can be busted, quite unlike Ford, the accuser.
    In the case of the second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, who was a student at Yale and claims that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her, we have the same perjury-hedge dynamic. She's spoken only to the press, and in the wake of intense solicitation from those parts. And she's on stage one of the Ford style of accusations: lots of hazy and indistinct memories that she became sure of only just recently. Muddled memories certainly can be read any way a person wants them to be read. They're also a convenient hedge against perjury, since a defense team can't come up with pinned details to refute them.
    Yet everyone else in this confirmation drama is testifying under oath and telling lawmen to haul them away to jail if they aren't telling the truth.
    Does this farce need to be continued?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    61,622
    The Burning of Brett Kavanaugh

    How many drama-queen explosions can we put up with? How many lies can we absorb?

    September 24, 2018
    By Deanna Chadwell

    Any thinking person today is hearing alarms going off in all directions over the Kavanaugh accusations. It’s obvious that this is all dirty politics; we can see that in the timing, in the fussiness about Ford testifying, in the nasty rhetoric that swirls in poisonous clouds throughout Washington. But the problem is much deeper.
    In the first place, we have no clearly defined morés for sexual behavior anymore. The sexual revolution has opened a multitude of fearful doors. Our young women find themselves defenseless in compromising situations and we have no guidance to give them. We have no way to counsel them -- or our young men either -– about just where the line is. Sex is now allowed, performed, promoted. Women feel they can behave in any way they wish, wear whatever they wish, and men have to hold that line and read feminine signals with no idea of what they mean. This looseness has been trending for decades and suddenly now we’ve turned puritanical and are horrified at the very thought of sexual advances happening.
    We have no clear idea of what, exactly, “sexual assault” means. From the precious little detail Ford has given, we can’t tell whether she’s describing teenaged roughhousing or attempted rape. She obviously wants us to picture the latter, but if she had suffered such a violent attack, would she not have been visibly distressed at the time? Wouldn’t friends have noticed? If anything happened at all between these two people, how do we know what it was, exactly? A hand brushing across a breast? Some pushing and shoving, playful or otherwise, that got out of hand? At what point do we know that a crime occurred? “Assault” is a violent, injury-producing attack. At least it used to be. A quick check with a dictionary defines “assault” as “an unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.“ If Kavanaugh had actually committed such an act, wouldn’t that have been noticeable to others? Wouldn’t all the details be burned into her brain? You’d think so.
    Secondly, we live in a time in which men, especially white men, are automatically guilty -- of most everything, and in which women are all victims –- of everyone male. It is, in part, the vague definitions of sexual faux pas that have made this possible. Almost any advance a man makes can now be interpreted as over the line because no clear line exists. I find this disturbing. I’ve been around for a long time, worked with men for decades and have never known any who were sexually threatening, so this intense enmity between the sexes is incomprehensible to me.
    Thirdly, it seems that evidence is no longer of any importance –- for anything. Kirsten Gillibrand kept saying in her recent speech on Ford’s accusation, “I believe her. I believe her.” On the basis of what? Guilt or innocence isn’t determined by “belief” but by evidence, but Gillibrand had already made up her mind without meeting Ford, without examining her testimony, without any specifics at all. Even my religious beliefs are based on overwhelming evidence, not on how I feel at the moment. But today, logic and facts garner no respect –- every opinion is just based on emotional reaction. How is anyone to get a fair hearing under those circumstances?
    Fourthly, all this is happening at a time when few seem to understand how things are done, how our government works. Ever since Trump became president I’ve been aware of this confusion. The left acts as if they can get rid of Trump –- evidently by any means –- that Hillary will take over. They don’t seem to be aware that losing an election is an actual loss. Even Obama said “elections have consequences”. It means loss of control over administrative agencies; the whole Russia debacle stems from a failure to recognize this fact. An election loss means loss of control over who gets appointed to the Supreme Court and if you don’t have control of the Senate, that’s just done. So the leftists feel justified in throwing every hissy-fit they can drum up. Damn the law and ethics and truth.
    According to the Constitution it is within the purview of the Senate to “advise and consent” on SCOTUS appointees. The Constitution says nothing about grilling these appointees half to death, about setting land mines made out of vague and ancient fictions. The concern is supposed to be whether or not the candidate has the education, the clarity, the self-discipline to weigh issues brought before him. It is not about changing the world. It is not about getting the jump on the opposing party. It is certainly not about high school antics –- if in fact any happened. The left seems to think that a SCOTUS judge can just haul off and change laws, which explains their hysteria, but a little knowledge about the balance of power would calm those fears. SCOTUS can’t initiate lawsuits; they can only rule on what is brought before them.
    We also have forgotten that the FBI doesn’t do this kind of inquiry. Ford wants a special favor –- an FBI investigation. But each federal agency has its own job, its own territory. The FBI can only do background investigations, investigate possible federal crimes, and teenage fondling doesn’t qualify -- unless the activity crosses state lines and involves kidnapping. It is also questionable that the FBI is even capable of objectively investigating anything that connects to Donald Trump and his choice for the Court. In the last two years this agency has demonstrated appalling bias and dishonesty in its dealings with our president; it is no wonder Ford is anxious for their support here.
    We have also lost track of the concept of innocent until proven guilty -- beyond reasonable doubt. This has been slipping away for quite a while now. The media have become our judge and jury; the more sensational and politically potent an accusation is, the more likely it will be seen as true, and no amount of correction will undo that.
    What bothers me the most, however, is that we’ve lost all contact with common sense, with any desire to arrive at the truth. The truth is that Democrats believe they will take Congress in November (The key word here is “believe.”) and they want to put off the confirmation vote until then. So, Ford’s accusations have burst onto the scene in a most orchestrated, obvious manner. She wants to raise a fuss, but not be held to account, which says to me that she is unsure about the whole thing. If it were me, I’d want to get on with it, get it over with, but her hesitancy feels really off. If she didn’t want the attention why write the letter in the first place? And where does she get off wanting Kavanaugh to testify first? Testify to what? This all flies in the face of thousands of years of jurisprudence. Common sense would dictate that we pay attention to policies that have worked for millennia, but common sense is dying.
    Eventually the dust will clear, and Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and things will calm down -- until the next appointment comes up, until the next overblown accusation is thrown at the next decent man. How many drama-queen explosions can we put up with? How many lies can we absorb? How many crucifixions can one nation stand?
    Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor and department head at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking.


    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...kavanaugh.html

  3. #3
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    61,622
    Mazie Hirono gives away the game

    September 24, 2018

    Senator Mazie Hirono leaped out of obscurity onto the national stage with her slander of the male half of the electorate. Yesterday, she gave away the game when it comes to the Democrats' opposition to Kavanaugh.

    By Thomas Lifson

    Senator Mazie Hirono leaped out of obscurity onto the national stage with her startling injunction to "the men of this country" to "shut up and step up ... do the right thing ... for a change" and (presumably) believe the completely unsupported allegations of childhood groping by Judge Kavanaugh leveled by Christine Blasey Ford.



    Youtube Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htGmvHKcCNY

    Normally, in politics, it is bad idea to insult ("shut up") and impugn ("do the right thing ... for a change") half the electorate – particularly when one is standing for re-election. But "Blue Hawaii" isn't just an Elvis movie, and Hirono's Republican opponent in November is Ron Curtis, who received not even a quarter of Republican votes in the crowded primary field. Hirono is rated a likely solid victor by the Cook Political Report. But there is a larger constituency than Hawaii's watching, and Hirono's slander of American males likely is not welcomed by Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, or other Senate Democrats running for re-election in red states.

    Her public misandry was enough to get her on just one of the Sunday TV talk shows, CNN's State of the Union. Instead of backtracking, she compounded the damage, implying that the reason she denies Kavanaugh the presumption of innocence is because she doesn't like his "ideological agenda." Cameron Cawthorne of the Free Beacon was among the relatively few viewers of low-rated CNN yesterday morning, and he saw her keep digging in the face of actual probing questioning by host Jake Tapper:
    Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, where she appeared to insinuate that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh does not get the presumption of innocence because of his "ideological agenda," citing his views on abortion. ...
    Tapper said that four witnesses have denied knowledge of the sexual assault allegation waged against Kavanaugh before asking Hirono whether Kavanaugh should get the presumption of innocence as any other American.
    "I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases. As I said, his credibility is already very questionable in my mind and in the minds of a lot of my fellow Judiciary Committee members, the Democrats," Hirono said. "When I say that he is very outcome driven, he has an ideological agenda, very outcome driven[."] ... She went on to talk about abortion and how she believes that Kavanaugh is against women having the right to reproductive choice.
    "This is a person who is going to be sitting on our Supreme Court making decisions that will impact women's reproductive choice. He very much is against women's reproductive choice," Hirono said.
    Hirono strayed from the Party Line that far more credible allegations of domestic violence against Keith Ellison – supported by evidence of police calls and medical treatment – should be ignored. Kudos to Tapper for raising the issue and forcing a response.
    Later in the interview, Tapper asked Hirono about the sexual assault allegations against Democratic National Committee co-chair Keith Ellison, prompting her to say that she makes "no excuses" for people who engage in this behavior. She then said that there needs to be an investigation into the allegations against him before quickly pivoting back to the Kavanaugh allegation. Ellison has denied the allegations.
    Watch:



    Youtube Video https://youtu.be/4T5BQNu3kE0

    John Fund remembers when Hirono didn't tell men to shut up and believe accusers:
    [Hirono] had the opportunity to choose sides in the 1990s when credible allegations were made that Daniel Inouye, then a Democratic senator representing Hawaii, had engaged in a pattern of sexual assault.
    Lenore Kwock, the senator's hairdresser for 20 years, said she had been forced into nonconsensual sex back in 1975 and had suffered persistent gropings since then.
    Kwock's story became public after she was tricked by a campaign worker for Inouye's 1992 Republican opponent into telling her story into a tape recorder. The tape was briefly used in a political ad until Kwock demanded it be withdrawn. Kwock told reporters she had "forgiven" Inouye, even as she stood by her story. But she nonetheless spoke cautiously: "It could cost me my business, and so I speak with tact and diplomacy."
    Nonetheless, Kwock was surprised at the silence of Hawaii's female political leaders about her account, given that the Anita Hill hearings had riveted the nation just one year earlier. Mazie Hirono, then considered a protégé of Inouye's as a member of the State House, maintained a studied and consistent silence. There is no evidence she believed Kwock.
    I wonder if Hirono is hearing from the organized forces attacking the Kavanaugh nomination to shut up and stay out of the public eye.



    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...the_game_.html

  4. #4
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    The second accuser said she's spent 6 days with a lawyer working on her "recollections". WHAT???!!! 6 days with a lawyer to get your stupid drunken-state story right? And even then, you aren't sure of what happened by whom??!!!

    Crazy people!!
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    61,622
    Deep State Democrats conducting “memory plant” operation on second Kavanaugh sex accuser who also can’t recall key details

    (Natural News) The White House slammed a New Yorker report on Sunday containing disgusting accusations by a second woman who claims Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh sexually accosted her while drunk at a party during their time at Yale University. As reported by The Gateway Pundit, “The 53-year-old accuser Deborah Ramirez … [Read More...]

    Monday, September 24, 2018 by: JD Heyes
    Tags: Alt-Left, brainwashed, Brett Kavanaugh, Deborah Ramirez, denial, hoax, insanity, left cult, mass hypnosis, memory plant, mind games, no witnesses, phony allegations, President Trump, Sexual assault, support, Supreme Court, uncorroborated, White House, witness denials, Yale

    210 Views


    (Natural News) The White House slammed a New Yorker report on Sunday containing disgusting accusations by a second woman who claims Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh sexually accosted her while drunk at a party during their time at Yale University.
    As reported by The Gateway Pundit, “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. She spent six days ‘carefully assessing her memories’ and consulting with her attorney before going public. Ramirez is also calling for an FBI investigation.”
    The New Yorker story by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer reports: “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 touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.”
    The story also noted: “Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and that, if she ever presents her story to the FBI 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.”
    Once again, as in the case of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations, Kavanaugh has come out unequivocally stating not only is the story categorically false, but that he’s more than willing to appear again before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday and say as much – though Democrats on the panel, who have been plotting these attacks all along, aren’t really interested in hearing him.

    Democrats and Dem activists involved at every level

    According to a full, detailed statement and rebuttal by the White House, there are indeed substantial “gaps” in Ramirez’s ‘memory’ – almost as if what she is recalling was planted:
    — The New Yorker reported that Ramirez at first was “hesitant” to publicly speak about the alleged incident because of “gaps” in her memory caused by her being highly inebriated at the time.
    — The report also admitted that initially Ramirez “was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.”
    — She had to ‘assess’ her memories for “six days’ before she could recall that it was Kavanaugh who committed the alleged act of indecency and, as the White House said, “that came only after consulting with an attorney provided by the Democrats.”
    “Senate aides from Ramirez’s home state of Colorado alerted a lawyer, Stanley Garnett, a former Democratic district attorney in Boulder, who currently represents here,” the New Yorker reported.
    Boy, Blasey Ford and Ramirez sure lawyered up fast, didn’t they? What’s more, there are Democratic lawmakers and activists at every level of these allegations.
    — The New Yorker also admitted that it was unable to corroborate anything Ramirez was saying with any eyewitnesses, reporting that no one “confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.” In other words, Ronan and Mayer – and The New Yorker– went ahead and published the story without any real justification or proof.
    “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 three other classmates…disputed Ramirez’s account of events,” the magazine reported.
    It said:
    We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate of some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez 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.
    Once again, Democrats have demonstrated they are willing to destroy a pillar of America – innocent until proven guilty – in the raw, naked pursuit of power, even if it means planting fake memories in the minds of a hapless dupe.

    Video at the page link

    Read more about the White House backing of Kavanaugh at WhiteHouse.news.


    Sources include:


    TheNationalSentinel.com
    TheGatewayPundit.com


    https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-09-...h-accuser.html

  6. #6
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    61,622
    Democrats and the media are now just TROLLING for stories to cast doubt on Judge Kavanaugh, true or not

    (Natural News) As new allegations of sexual assault against Judge Brett Kavanaugh surfaced on Monday, seasoned political analysts were predicting that this week would be one of the most chaotic and even troublesome the United States has experienced in decades. Allegations that Kavanaugh, in a drunken state during his first year at Yale … [Read More...]

    Monday, September 24, 2018 by: JD Heyes

    Tags: allegations, Alt-Left, Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford, confirmation, Deborah Ramirez, Democratic plot, democrats, fake news, false accusations, Journalism, left cult, lies, news cartels, nomination, President Trump, propaganda, scheming, Sexual assault, smeared, Supreme Court, White House


    260 Views



    (Natural News) As new allegations of sexual assault against Judge Brett Kavanaugh surfaced on Monday, seasoned political analysts were predicting that this week would be one of the most chaotic and even troublesome the United States has experienced in decades.
    Allegations that Kavanaugh, in a drunken state during his first year at Yale University, dangled his penis in the face of an equally drunken female student, Deborah Ramirez, were immediately and forcefully denied not only by the Supreme Court nominee himself but by the White House.
    The allegations were contained in a piece by The New Yorker published on Sunday, which noted:
    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 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.
    “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name — and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building — against these last-minute allegations,” Kavanaugh said in a statement.
    The White House pushed back as well, dissecting the New Yorker piece paragraph by paragraph, pointing out inconsistencies as well as statements of fact that couldn’t possibly ever be considered serious legal arguments in a court of law, let alone warrant an FBI investigation.
    But then, Democrats who are assisting with this seemingly concocted story aren’t pushing for investigations (not really) or confirmations of allegations by Ramirez and, last week, Christine Blasey Ford.
    They want disruption of the process. They aren’t interested in “justice” for these women, their sole interest is in keeping Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court or, at a bare minimum, tainting him with the same stench of false allegations as they did Justice Clarence Thomas in the early 1990s.

    Democrats are blowing up American government

    These facts were revealed in the New Yorker story, in fact. One of the story’s authors, Ronan Farrow, admitted as much. During a Monday interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America” program, Farrow said of Ramirez, “She came forward because Senate Democrats came looking for this claim. She did not flag this. This came to the attention of people on the Hill independently, and it has cornered her into an awkward position. She said, point-blank, I don’t want to ruin anyone’s life, but she feels this is a serious claim.”

    Right. So, in order not to ruin someone’s life, you go ahead and conspire with Democrats and their mainstream media allies to ruin someone’s life, or attempt to anyway.
    This was all predictable and in fact, it was predicted.
    On his nationally syndicated radio show last week, top talker Rush Limbaugh said:
    I’m telling you right now it’s already in the works with, and I know it’s in the works because I heard a Drive-By Media person talking about it. The Drive-By Media person was Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post who says she wouldn’t be surprised if more women surface over the weekend alleging similar acts by Kavanaugh. She’s just telegraphed that they’re out there trying to find women that they can convince to come forward and say what they want them to say. You know they’re working on that.
    And sure enough, just like magic, it happened.
    Meanwhile, these allegations are also the Democrats’ and their propaganda media’s way of changing the subject. As Washington Examiner contributor Dan Hannan pointed out in a column on Monday, the incessant noise over Kavanaugh’s confirmation is crowding out any Republican talk of a massively growing economy or Democrats’ attempts to talk about the ballooning budget deficit.
    Democrats are blowing up the nomination process and the rule of law at the same time. They don’t care what happens to the country.

    Video at the page link


    Read more about the Trump administration’s backing of Judge Kavanaugh at Trump.news.

    Sources include:


    TheNationalSentinel.com
    NPR.org

    RushLimbaugh.com


    https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-09-...kavanaugh.html

  7. #7
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    61,622
    Lawyer Casts Doubt on Ford Appearing at Thursday Kavanaugh Hearing

    September 24, 2018, 8:41 pm by Kristinn Taylor 825 Comments

    Michael Bromwich, newly retained by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford for her legal team, cast doubt on his client’s commitment to appearing at the scheduled Thursday hearing where Ford is expected to personally level her uncorroborated charge of sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh at a drunken high school pool party decades ago.


    In the letter replying to one by Mike Davis, Chief Counsel for Nominations , Bromwich implies that Ford is not one hundred percent committed to appear on Thursday, raising serious reservations about the Republican majority’s plan to have a sex crimes prosecutor question Ford, and stating the hearing plan “does not appear designed to provide Dr. Blasey with fair and respectful treatment.” Bromwich also complained that a “number of outstanding questions” about the hearing have not been answered.
    The letter has been posted to Twitter by reporters including NBC’ Frank Thorp V, who noted, “This does not appear to be a done deal.”



    Frank Thorp V @frankthorp



    In new letter from Dr Ford’s Attorney to the Judiciary Committee, they again object to having outside counsel ask the questions for republicans at Thursday’s hearing, and ask for the name and resume of who that person will be.

    This does not appear to be a done deal.
    9:07 PM - Sep 24, 2018








    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...naugh-hearing/

  8. #8
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    I may have missed it, but who specifically or which liberal groups are paying for all these lawyers? From what I can gather Dr. Ford has a legal "team" and the other has legal representation. Or are they just liberal lawyers working pro bono?

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-22-2016, 10:22 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-14-2016, 05:17 PM
  3. Breaking CNN - New Tapes Being Released, Other Accusations, Accusers
    By GeorgiaPeach in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-12-2016, 09:06 PM
  4. Herman Cain's accusers may band together at news conference
    By JohnDoe2 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-09-2011, 01:42 AM
  5. Rev. Pike - AZ Shooting: Right Protects ADL/SPLC Accusers
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-18-2011, 02:00 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •