Christine Blasey Ford has no plans to further pursue allegations against Brett Kavanaugh: Attorney

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Christine Blasey Ford has no plans to further pursue allegations against Brett Kavanaugh: Attorney

WASHINGTON --
With the Senate voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, Christine Blasey Ford has no further plans to pursue her sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, according to her lawyers.

Ford only wanted to speak with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, her attorneys told CNN on Friday. Ford does not want the situation to "drag on into the next Congress should Democrats end up winning control on Capitol Hill," the network reported.

When asked about the possibility of impeachment proceedings, attorney Debra Katz told the network: "Professor Ford has not asked for anything of the sort. What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI, and that's what she sought to do here."

"She does not want him to be impeached?" CNN's Dana Bash later asked.

"No," Katz replied flatly.

Ford's attorney Lisa Banks added that Ford feels she did the right thing by testifying and has no regrets.

click link for article..

Sooo, uhm.. yeeah..

To those on the right - we were correct
To those on the left - Told ya so.

All the accusers are dropping the media / accusation push against Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford doesnt want the investigation to continue or for Kavanaugh to be impeached should Democrats win the Senate / House in the midterms.

While I dont see Democrats winning either in the midterms, should it occur, lets watch Democrats once again ignore Kavanaughs request and do it anyways.

That is so F'd up.

I doubt he will, but I wish Kav would press charges against all 3 women that brought these BS claims.

If they were real I would be all about him going down.

Facts are....there are no facts and it was a political hit job. Someone should be held responsible....I'd settle for Feinstein. She was the catalyst for the whole charade. Need to put some fresh eyes on her Chinese spy days....

Is there anything upcoming in the SCOTUS that has anything to do with any Chinese companies?

I'm sure that I read a while back that Kavanaugh hired one of the best defamation lawyers in the country.

a reply to: Xcathdra

She is trying to backpedal now that she is about to get sued for defamation of character. Her lawyers are trying to save her stupid ass from getting sued and maybe even catching some criminal charges.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Christine Blasey Ford has no plans to further pursue allegations against Brett Kavanaugh: Attorney

WASHINGTON --
With the Senate voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, Christine Blasey Ford has no further plans to pursue her sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, according to her lawyers.

Ford only wanted to speak with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, her attorneys told CNN on Friday. Ford does not want the situation to "drag on into the next Congress should Democrats end up winning control on Capitol Hill," the network reported.

When asked about the possibility of impeachment proceedings, attorney Debra Katz told the network: "Professor Ford has not asked for anything of the sort. What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI, and that's what she sought to do here."

"She does not want him to be impeached?" CNN's Dana Bash later asked.

"No," Katz replied flatly.

Ford's attorney Lisa Banks added that Ford feels she did the right thing by testifying and has no regrets.

click link for article..

Sooo, uhm.. yeeah..

To those on the right - we were correct
To those on the left - Told ya so.

All the accusers are dropping the media / accusation push against Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford doesnt want the investigation to continue or for Kavanaugh to be impeached should Democrats win the Senate / House in the midterms.

While I dont see Democrats winning either in the midterms, should it occur, lets watch Democrats once again ignore Kavanaughs request and do it anyways.

That is so F'd up.

I doubt he will, but I wish Kav would press charges against all 3 women that brought these BS claims.

If they were real I would be all about him going down.

Facts are....there are no facts and it was a political hit job. Someone should be held responsible....I'd settle for Feinstein. She was the catalyst for the whole charade. Need to put some fresh eyes on her Chinese spy days....

Is there anything upcoming in the SCOTUS that has anything to do with any Chinese companies?

Not that I know of.

However there is a supreme court case ruling for this fall dealing with double jeopardy and pardons. Currently the accepted loophole revolves around the federal government and state government being separate sovereigns. A person can be charged for the same / similar crimes because they are different governments.

An old scotus ruling applied the double jeopardy clause to the states. The latest case is recent and long story short a guy was arrested and charges with crimes from both, federal and state. The way they prosecuted him violated a lesser known segment of the 5th in that punishment for a crime cant be applied twice.

Scotus agreed to hear the case and if it goes in the suspects favor it would render the Democrats plans of using state prosecutions to bypass Trumps pardon authority null. A few states, like New York, have state laws that say if a person is charged federally or pardoned federally they cant be charged using state statutes.

The laws consider it double jeopardy.

On the conspiracy side of things should military tribunals be used to go after the coup plotters / deranged left, it will go to the supreme court. Kavanaugh helped draft the policy for military tribunals and my guess is, if the tribunal stuff turns out to be true, Kavanaugh would support the prosecutions.

Democrats are already talking about packing the Supreme Court when they get the majorities again, adding seats to overcome the most recent appointments and protect their agenda.

a reply to: Xcathdra


And not a simple majority, you need 2/3 in the senate which is 66 which they will never get.

originally posted by: madmac5150
a reply to: Xcathdra

So....

...stay quiet, and avoid prosecution for multiple felonies...

Time for her to slither back under the rock she slithered out of . And stay very , very low key

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yeah. I'll never understand that. When I voted Democrat, I never held this level of animosity towards Republicans. I'd have drinks with them and discuss politics and we'd agree to disagree. Now days, as a conservative, I feel like a black homosexual living in the deep South in the 60's. Especially where I work. Let's just say, the company I work for is in a lolsuit against this admin. So I really have to watch who I "come out" too.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: madmac5150
a reply to: Xcathdra

So....

...stay quiet, and avoid prosecution for multiple felonies...

Time for her to slither back under the rock she slithered out of . And stay very , very low key

Patrick already owns that rock...

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: Xcathdra

Impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice is different than that of a President.

All they need to do to impeach a SCJ is have a majority to vote that he/she is unfit for or unable to hold the office... no high crimes/misdemeanors involved.

Which is why I am surprised that they didn't do that when they had a super-majority last time around.

Of course, the court was still in their favor then...

Supreme court justices are political appointees confirmed by the Senate. The impeachment process is the same across the board. Articles of impeachment in the House and the trial to convict in the Senate. Majorities are required in both chambers (simple for house and super for senate).

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Christine Blasey Ford has no plans to further pursue allegations against Brett Kavanaugh: Attorney

WASHINGTON --
With the Senate voting to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as an associate justice of the Supreme Court, Christine Blasey Ford has no further plans to pursue her sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, according to her lawyers.

Ford only wanted to speak with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, her attorneys told CNN on Friday. Ford does not want the situation to "drag on into the next Congress should Democrats end up winning control on Capitol Hill," the network reported.

When asked about the possibility of impeachment proceedings, attorney Debra Katz told the network: "Professor Ford has not asked for anything of the sort. What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI, and that's what she sought to do here."

"She does not want him to be impeached?" CNN's Dana Bash later asked.

"No," Katz replied flatly.

Ford's attorney Lisa Banks added that Ford feels she did the right thing by testifying and has no regrets.

click link for article..

Sooo, uhm.. yeeah..

To those on the right - we were correct
To those on the left - Told ya so.

All the accusers are dropping the media / accusation push against Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford doesnt want the investigation to continue or for Kavanaugh to be impeached should Democrats win the Senate / House in the midterms.

While I dont see Democrats winning either in the midterms, should it occur, lets watch Democrats once again ignore Kavanaughs request and do it anyways.

That is so F'd up.

I doubt he will, but I wish Kav would press charges against all 3 women that brought these BS claims.

If they were real I would be all about him going down.

Facts are....there are no facts and it was a political hit job. Someone should be held responsible....I'd settle for Feinstein. She was the catalyst for the whole charade. Need to put some fresh eyes on her Chinese spy days....

Is there anything upcoming in the SCOTUS that has anything to do with any Chinese companies?

Not that I know of.

However there is a supreme court case ruling for this fall dealing with double jeopardy and pardons. Currently the accepted loophole revolves around the federal government and state government being separate sovereigns. A person can be charged for the same / similar crimes because they are different governments.

An old scotus ruling applied the double jeopardy clause to the states. The latest case is recent and long story short a guy was arrested and charges with crimes from both, federal and state. The way they prosecuted him violated a lesser known segment of the 5th in that punishment for a crime cant be applied twice.

Scotus agreed to hear the case and if it goes in the suspects favor it would render the Democrats plans of using state prosecutions to bypass Trumps pardon authority null. A few states, like New York, have state laws that say if a person is charged federally or pardoned federally they cant be charged using state statutes.

The laws consider it double jeopardy.

On the conspiracy side of things should military tribunals be used to go after the coup plotters / deranged left, it will go to the supreme court. Kavanaugh helped draft the policy for military tribunals and my guess is, if the tribunal stuff turns out to be true, Kavanaugh would support the prosecutions.

Democrats are already talking about packing the Supreme Court when they get the majorities again, adding seats to overcome the most recent appointments and protect their agenda.

Found it....this has something to do with the Chinese Exclusion Act.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Oddly Kamala Harris asked specifically about this in her questioning....

Harris had asked the nominee last week whether the 1889 case that had upheld the law was correctly decided. The decision has yet to be overturned. 

“This case has never been explicitly overruled,” Harris said during the hearing. “Was the United States Supreme Court correct in upholding that Chinese people could be banned from entering our country.” 

m.huffpost.com...

Now the most interesting part is this quote:

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s reaction to a question from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) during his confirmation hearing isn’t sitting right with the chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. 

In a statement exclusive to HuffPost, Rep. Judy Chu said that Kavanaugh’s inability to answer Harris’ question regarding the Chinese Exclusion Act, which was passed in 1882 and put a 10-year moratorium on Chinese labor immigration, is “alarming.”

So....Judy Chu....Democrat in Feinstein/Harris district.

There is SOME connection here.

Definitely more than Blasey Ford....

originally posted by: madmac5150

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: madmac5150
a reply to: Xcathdra

So....

...stay quiet, and avoid prosecution for multiple felonies...

Time for her to slither back under the rock she slithered out of . And stay very , very low key

Patrick already owns that rock...

Now you are talking my game...
He will just call in his sister to "take out the trash"

a reply to: Xcathdra

Christine Ford didn't want the CIRCUS to begin with. Abuser Diane Feinstein, and the attorney Feinstein recommended, violated Ford's wishes for a private investigation.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Although an appointment to the United States Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment, the U.S. Constitution includes language that allows a justice to be impeached and forcibly removed from office. Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution states, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."

Article 3 mentions good behavior of judges, without defining it.This is taken to mean that the reasons for impeachment of a federal judge aren't limited to criminal acts.

You are thinking of Article 2, Section 4...

Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution states: "The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Because federal judges are considered civil officers, they are subject to this rule.

Judges have another set of rules that apply as well.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xcathdra

Christine Ford didn't want the CIRCUS to begin with. Abuser Diane Feinstein, and the attorney Feinstein recommended, violated Ford's wishes for a private investigation.

I gotta call "shenanigans"....

Feinstein is in trouble....

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xcathdra

Christine Ford didn't want the CIRCUS to begin with. Abuser Diane Feinstein, and the attorney Feinstein recommended, violated Ford's wishes for a private investigation.

Then why ask friends what she should do?
Why contact Rep. Eshoo and tell her the accusations?
Why write a letter to Feinstein?
Why retain a lawyer?
What take a polygraph?
Why refuse to release corroborating evidence?

She wanted the publicity and so did Democrats. However I believe it blew up in their faces when Republicans refused to abandon Kavanaugh and fought back. I think the actions above were taken to lend credibility to the lie she told with the mindset it would be enough to sink the confirmation without ever having to prove the allegations or appear to the public.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Xcathdra


And not a simple majority, you need 2/3 in the senate which is 66 which they will never get.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xcathdra

Christine Ford didn't want the CIRCUS to begin with. Abuser Diane Feinstein, and the attorney Feinstein recommended, violated Ford's wishes for a private investigation.

Then why ask friends what she should do?
Why contact Rep. Eshoo and tell her the accusations?
Why write a letter to Feinstein?
Why retain a lawyer?
What take a polygraph?
Why refuse to release corroborating evidence?

She wanted the publicity and so did Democrats. However I believe it blew up in their faces when Republicans refused to abandon Kavanaugh and fought back. I think the actions above were taken to lend credibility to the lie she told with the mindset it would be enough to sink the confirmation without ever having to prove the allegations or appear to the public.

The theory has been thrown out that McLean actually sent the letter in without Blasey knowing I think.....

Oddly McLean was the only friend/family member at the hearing....I find that really strange.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Your theory is a plausible reason why Ford (more likely her attorneys) do NOT want to pursue the matter further. But then why does she still want to consult with Senators individually in private?

originally posted by: madmac5150

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xcathdra

Christine Ford didn't want the CIRCUS to begin with. Abuser Diane Feinstein, and the attorney Feinstein recommended, violated Ford's wishes for a private investigation.

I gotta call "shenanigans"....

Feinstein is in trouble....

I sincerely hope Lindsey Graham continues his recent streak of gutsiness, and follows through on his pledge to investigate the entire "Stop Kavanaugh!" episode, that certain Dem Senators orchestrated.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The wicked California witch (one of them) of the U.S. House, doesn't care what Christine Ford wants. Nancy Pelosi is going to continue attempting to hurt Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, any way she can.

On Saturday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi announced she planned to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to obtain documents related to the FBI's supplemental probe of Kavanaugh, which senators said showed no corroboration of the decades-old sexual misconduct allegations against him. FBI background checks on judicial nominees have traditionally been kept confidential so that only senators, White House officials, and certain aides can view them.

“In purposefully limited the FBI investigation, it is clear the Republicans were not seeking the truth,” Pelosi, D-Calif., wrote in a statement. “They were seeking cover to do what they wanted to do anyway. To add insult injury they blocked the public’s access to the report.”

Pelosi also requested any communications from Senate Republicans to the FBI concerning the scope of the investigation. Congress is legally exempt from FOIA requirements, and it was not immediately clear to what extent the FBI would respond to Pelosi's request.

www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: carewemust

She is an idiot who needs to resign and face charges.

She already admitted, after condemning the FBI investigation, that she never read the FBI report.