President Trump Impromptu Presser Heading to West Virginia…

Prior to boarding Marine One traveling to West Virginia, President Trump holds an impromptu presser delivering remarks on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Feinstein Staffer and Most Likely Leaker, Heather C. Sawyer

Advertisements
This entry was posted in media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Press Secretary - Trump, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

233 Responses to President Trump Impromptu Presser Heading to West Virginia…

  1. Ditch Mitch says:

    Lou Holtz speaking. Says Joe only votes with PDJT when the bill already passed. So true for many but not many point that out.

    Liked by 16 people

    • Sherri Young says:

      Our state rep does the same thing in Austin.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Chickficshun says:

      Holtz? The football coach?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Binkser1 says:

      I love Lou Holtz but he is the spitting image of Granny Clampett from the Beverly Hillbillies.😁😁😁😁

      Liked by 4 people

    • Bullseye says:

      One of the things that drives me nuts. Yes they make sure in this case the Repubs have the votes then the in trouble dems will only vote with repubs in this case. (Repubs do it also) Why in the hell do they allow voting like this? Should be a blind vote…everyone votes then the results and whom voted what announced.

      Liked by 4 people

    • fleporeblog says:

      Red our President is absolutely right! Democrats are going to pay for the stunt they pulled off with Judge Kavanaugh. Republicans are going to vote in massive numbers. Independents will also break our way. The only two Democrats not to share their vote are Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. The other 8 from states our President won have said they are not voting for the Judge.

      We are going to win in the following Senate races:

      Missouri
      Indiana
      North Dakota
      Florida
      Montana
      Arizona (we will hold this seat)

      I think we have a 50/50 chance in the following Senate races:

      West Virginia (100% if Manchin votes NO)
      Wisconsin
      Nevada (we are trying to hold this seat)

      I put our chances at 45/55 in the following Senate races:

      Ohio
      New Jersey

      I put our chances at 40/60 in the following Senate race:

      Michigan

      I put our chances at 25/75 in the following Senate race:

      Pennsylvania

      We will hold the House either losing 5 seats or possibly gaining a few.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Ditch Mitch says:

        NV will be held after Heller got a very warm and honest endorsement from PDJT at the last rally.
        That will be +7 and two keeps. 2 out of the last 4 on your list would be the magic number of 60. Very doable.

        Fle, don’t say it. I got the the name change set for Friday night the latest. Going into the third turn at the Belmont midterms.

        Liked by 3 people

  2. Heika says:

    ugg.. is he joking? “They will have free reign, they will do whatever it is they have to do, they will do things we haven’t even thought of to do…” ha ha ha… I am quite sure they will… Methinks this is a joke by the Don Batman

    Liked by 6 people

    • Firefly says:

      This is the President Trump saying he didn’t restrict the FBI. The FBI has their own policy and procedures for doing their job. PTrump picked who the republicans recommended – even Bush is out helping garner support for Kavanaugh. PT backed off and authorized whatever they requested. This one is on the GOP Senate if they mess this up. The Dems might have over played their nasty underhandeness.

      Liked by 14 people

      • scott467 says:

        “PTrump picked who the republicans recommended – even Bush is out helping garner support for Kavanaugh. ”

        __________________

        Which has to be a HUGE red flag no matter how you slice it!

        Did Soros help garner support for Kavanaugh too?

        Either the Uni-Party exists, or it doesn’t.

        If Bush — a Trump hater who will almost certainly be charged with Treason and crimes against humanity if the truth about 9/11 comes out — is supporting Kavanaugh…

        WHAT should that tell us about Kavanaugh?!?

        The globalist traitors are not just ‘Uni-Party’ when it’s convenient for us to explain their actions — either they ARE Uni-Party, or they AREN’T.

        If they ARE, and they are supporting Kavanaugh, then HOW do you spin that as a positive reason to support Kavanaugh?

        Liked by 3 people

        • cats23 says:

          Bush appointed Kavanaugh to his current position.
          Bush staying silent as HIS appointee is slaughtered by the press and Dems would
          make Bush look like he appointed a loser. HIS reputation would be on the line.

          Liked by 9 people

          • scott467 says:

            “Bush staying silent as HIS appointee is slaughtered by the press and Dems would
            make Bush look like he appointed a loser. HIS reputation would be on the line.”

            _______________

            I’m certain Bush cares a lot more about not being executed for Treason after a military tribunal than he cares about his reputation at this point.

            I think the biggest problem our side has is the UNWILLINGNESS to recognize our enemies and treat them accordingly.

            The enemy does not suffer from this problem, and never has.

            That’s why they usually win.

            Liked by 3 people

        • Firefly says:

          I’ve never been a supporter of Kavenaugh. I don’t even think PTrump should have picked him. I suspect PTrump was being pragmatic getting a conservative through the process was probably his priority in picking. I think there are some serious issues with Kavenaugh – hence the restrictions on witnesses and restrictions looking into his drinking that’s contrary to his testimony.

          The WH counsel office dictating witness who the FBI can interview could backfire. It’s contrary to hat PTrump stated. Rosenstein is supposedly a supporter of Kavenaugh too. I don’t know what’s going on- but too many cooks in the kitchen can screw things up.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Sentient says:

            We’re struggling to get 50 votes and you think President Trump should have picked someone MORE objectionable to the Dems?

            Liked by 8 people

            • Firefly says:

              No – i’m Saying that’s why he picked Kavanaugh- even if we or PTrump didn’t put him as the number 1 choice or even if you don’t particularly like him.

              It was important to be pragmatic. And that’s what PTrump was. Bush want Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court, SC judge Kennedy wanted him too, Rosenstein is also supposedly in favor of him too.

              Liked by 2 people

            • scott467 says:

              WHEN was the last time ANYONE on the devilrats picked a SC nominee based on whether he or she was ‘objectionable’ to the Republicans?

              WHY do we play this game, trying to appease the most hateful, vile, vicious anti-humans in our country?!?

              Whether or not a candidate is objectionable to the traitor-party should be IRRELEVANT, except to the extent that the devilrats objection is a badge of HONOR.

              Like

            • scott467 says:

              We either have 50 votes plus the VP or we don’t.

              Horsewhip the dirtbags on the GOPe if necessary, but any consideration for what the devilrats may think about our nominee should be absolute anathema.

              Like

          • Flashman says:

            It is clear the Judge does not have a drinking problem. If he did when in HS and College he would not of gotten to the very top.

            Liked by 12 people

        • darcy says:

          So we had Clinton — and sandwiched in-between him and O was Bush.
          How many years is that?
          24 I think. Is it possible that on the heels of the nefarious Clinton administration there would be NO judgeships to hand out? Was Bush supposed to permit attrition to take its course and leave our federal courts unmanned?
          The argument that “Bush appointed Kavanaugh” as a strike against K is frankly not very well thought out.
          We have Justice Alito due to Bush, don’t we. And as far as judges go (and lawyers too) the pool of good candidates for appointment is rather thin — now, since the left stormed the academy long before Reagan, and still holds it, if I’m not mistaken.
          Just ask Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett.

          Liked by 7 people

          • scott467 says:

            “the pool of good candidates for appointment is rather thin — now, since the left stormed the academy long before Reagan, and still holds it, if I’m not mistaken.”

            _______________

            We could start by NOT selecting ANYONE from Harvard or Yale, ever again. These schools have become EMBARRASSMENTS, not just to our nation, but to the whole WORLD.

            Harvard’s motto is “Veritas”. It’s enough to make me want to VOMIT.

            Vomitas‘. THAT should be Harvard’s motto.

            Currently, ALL of the (not at all ‘supreme’) injustices are from either Harvard or Yale. Just like Kavanaugh is.

            And here is something else you NEVER see discussed — no doubt for self-interested reasons.

            From before Scalia’s ridiculously mysterious and uninvestigated death, this was the breakdown:

            Antonin Scalia: self-described “Roman Catholic” (Wiki)

            Clarence Thomas: self-described “Roman Catholicism” (Wiki)

            Samuel Alito: self-described “Roman Catholicism” (Wiki)

            John Roberts: self-described “Roman Catholicism” (Wiki)

            Anthony Kennedy: self-described “Roman Catholicism” (Wiki)

            .

            The Leftists:

            Sonia Sotomayor: self-described “Roman Catholicism” (Wiki)

            Stephen Breyer: self-described “Judaism” (Wiki)

            Elena Kagan: self-described “Judaism” (Wiki)

            Ruth Bader Ginsburg: self-described “Judaism” (Wiki)

            .

            Then Gorsuch:

            Neil Gorsuch: “Neil and his two siblings, brother J.J. and sister Stephanie, were raised as Roman Catholics and attended weekly Mass. Neil Gorsuch later attended Georgetown Preparatory School, a Jesuit school in North Bethesda, Maryland, from which he graduated in 1985.” — Wiki

            .

            And now Kavanaugh:

            Brett Kavanaugh: “He is a Roman Catholic and graduated from the Georgetown Preparatory School.”
            ………………………….

            Just look at it. Let that sink in for a moment. Regardless of your own scholastic or religious background. Just think about that. Roman Catholics and Jews make up just 23% of the U.S. population according to Pew Research. But they hold every seat on the (un) Supreme Court. And ALL of them from Harvard or Yale.

            Is there NO ONE in the whole country who is qualified to be on the (not very supreme) Court, besides Jews and Roman Catholics from Harvard or Yale?!?

            In a country of 330 MILLION people?!?

            Is that just an organic, naturally occurring coincidence?

            In a world that is HYPER-CONSCIOUS of virtue-signalling and political-correctness and ‘diversity’, while simultaneously filled to overflowing with hypocrisy and nepotism?

            Can you even IMAGINE the uproar from Roman Catholics in this country if the (not) supreme Court consisted of 4 Southern Baptists, 3 Lutherans and 2 Jews?

            Who’s pulling the strings to make sure only those who are ‘properly indoctrinated’ (whatever that may mean, university-wise or religious-wise) ever even get considered for the highest court in the land?

            Like

            • No I cannot. I don’t see that it matters worth a hill of beans what religion the SC Justices have other than I would be reluctant to see a Muslim.

              I think the Left does enough to separate people on the basis of race, religion, sex, economic class, social strata, we don’t need to help them divide America. In America we base things on individual merit, character and achievement, not class/race/sex etc.

              When looking for a judge I am most concerned about interpreting the Constitution as written & intended in the context of the time and in a justice who has shown fidelity to that concept and abhors Judicial activism. A judge that believes in States rights rather than Federal intervention & control. Anything else is secondary.

              I am not amoured with Harvard or Yale but I wouldn’t hold it against someone if I got to know them & they demonstrated they weren’t a git.

              Liked by 2 people

              • scott467 says:

                “No I cannot.”

                ______________

                Really? Because we learned about it in school, how Roman Catholics had to fight for acceptance in WASP America. How it was so important that Kennedy finally overcame the ‘bigotry’ to become the first Roman Catholic president.

                You don’t know anything about that?

                It’s ONE of the reasons I thought Roman Catholics might be a little more SENSITIVE to the situation… but no, they’re just like anybody else who gets in power. They suddenly get amnesia, keep the power for themselves and push everybody else down.

                Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. One of the oldest stories there is.

                .

                “I don’t see that it matters worth a hill of beans what religion the SC Justices have other than I would be reluctant to see a Muslim.”

                _______________

                Are you a Roman Catholic?

                .

                “I think the Left does enough to separate people on the basis of race, religion, sex, economic class, social strata, we don’t need to help them divide America. In America we base things on individual merit, character and achievement, not class/race/sex etc.”

                _______________

                That sounds lovely. Truly. So ‘splain somethin’ to me then. If it’s based on individual merit, character and achievement, then HOW COME WE HAVE 73% of the recent and future Supreme Court Justices who just happen to ALL be from the SAME church?!?

                What do you think the ODDS are of that happening? For barely 20% of the population to occupy 73% of the seats on the Supreme Court?

                Liked by 1 person

                • Wow this was a far ranging rebuttal. I will try to be meticulous in my reply.

                  I am well aware that it was important to the Catholics to finally have a catholic president (while I personally despised & despise Kennedy). I do not consider the religion of a President relevant as I have said. I am not, nor was I ever a Roman Catholic. I was raised without a religion, a product of a 1/2 Jewish 1/2 Catholic mother and a lapsed Catholic father. I spent some time in a summer camp that was heavily Jewish and high school in a Catholic school so I had times as an observer of both to form impressions.

                  I do not believe in being sensitive to sharing power in situations based on merit. That smacks of a quota system which has been the destruction of many areas in our society. The best person should be selected and that will be dependent on circumstances and the people presenting themselves. Concentrations from certain schools tends to be self perpetuating because the people looking out for the talent to recommend will be getting input from their colleagues who will tend to be people they met at school.

                  The last part of your response I think I addressed in an earlier reply. Thank you for the opportunity to think so deeply at 3am
                  : )

                  Liked by 2 people

              • scott467 says:

                “When looking for a judge I am most concerned about interpreting the Constitution as written & intended in the context of the time and in a justice who has shown fidelity to that concept and abhors Judicial activism. A judge that believes in States rights rather than Federal intervention & control. Anything else is secondary.”

                ________________

                That all sounds well and good, but at some point we can’t pretend to be blind to the reality that the court is STACKED with people from one particular and very specific religious worldview.

                And STACKED with people from two very specific and particular bastions of wholly corrupt Leftist ideology.

                We can pretend like neither of those things make any difference, but that don’t make it so.

                .

                “I am not amoured with Harvard or Yale but I wouldn’t hold it against someone if I got to know them & they demonstrated they weren’t a git.”

                ________________

                I wouldn’t hold it against them either, but when do you say ENOUGH?!?

                Enough from these two schools. WHAT is going on, that only people from these two schools are ever even NOMINATED to the Supreme Court?!?

                That doesn’t happen by accident. It’s mathematically IMPOSSIBLE.

                So when do you say something about it?

                After FIFTY consecutive SC Justices are all Roman Catholic or from Harvard and Yale?

                After a HUNDRED?

                How long do you keep up the self-delusion that it’s just organically ‘happening’ that way?

                After a THOUSAND?

                Human beings are ‘wired’ to see ‘patterns’. Sometimes we see ‘patterns’ where none really exist, but this isn’t one of those times.

                NOTHING happens within the boundaries of that infernal city by accident.

                ………………………….
                “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt
                …………………………

                (I am aware that the author of that quote is contested by some)

                Liked by 1 person

                • scott467 says:

                  “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action” ― Ian Fleming

                  Hmmm… I wonder what EIGHT times is?

                  Like

                • I guess this is an area where we will have to agree to disagree. I do not see people as representing groups. I see individuals.

                  I see traits in groups that are expressed to varying extents in individuals. Jews as a group are committed to education and philanthropy. They believe in seeking positions closest to power or where value is generated. So you find them in business, education and the law. Catholics have a strong service ethos and the Jesuit spirit brings an emphasis on analytical process. Catholics tend to have a strongly developed sense of right & wrong and a drive to personal honor. It is not surprising that many pick the law and seek Judgeship. So perhaps rather than a bias in choosing those group, those groups represent a greater % of the pool suitable for picking.

                  As far as the number from Harvard & Yale even that is amenable to this kind of analysis. If those schools are perceived as being “the best” whether the perception is accurate, they will draw the most ambitious, the most gifted and the most well disciplined. There will be many self satisfied muddy thinkers as well but the concentration of gifted ambitious tenacious folks will be higher than at a less prestigious school.

                  I agree that there are gifted alumni of many other schools. The ones from those schools have an easier time being recognized just as the Judges in the DC circuit are more often chosen for advancement to the SC. Hopefully President Trump will have enough picks that he may have choices from further afield to broaden the background of the court.

                  Liked by 2 people

              • scott467 says:

                I only found your post because I happened to check back. If I hadn’t, I wouldn’t have known you replied.

                It is very helpful to click the ‘like’ button to let someone know you have replied to their post. If you don’t really ‘like’ the post, but you just want to get their attention to let them know you replied, you can always click the ‘like’ button a second time, and it will remove your ‘like’.

                Liked by 1 person

            • MAGAbear says:

              Actually, Scalia made this very point once. He actually wanted to see some Protestants on the bench. But if I’m not mistaken, Gorsuch became a Protestant at some point.

              Liked by 2 people

              • scott467 says:

                “Actually, Scalia made this very point once. He actually wanted to see some Protestants on the bench. But if I’m not mistaken, Gorsuch became a Protestant at some point.”

                ________________

                Well that was nice of Scalia, but it didn’t change anything.

                And I wasn’t meaning to even argue *for* Protestants, I just used a Protestant example (Southern Baptists and Lutherans) because that’s what most people relate to, i.e., either Roman Catholic or Protestant. Again, another false dichotomy.

                The problem is, at least from a Biblical perspective, there is no such thing as ‘denominationalism’ in Christianity.

                Christ’s church is not divided.

                And this is the most frustrating thing. You can’t even TALK about these things because people either get angry or they simply can’t hear you, because their mind is made up and their hearts are hardened.

                It’s a very simple thing. The logic simple, and proving it is simple. It’s only accepting it that is so hard.

                1) Christ’s church was established on the day of Pentecost, in the 1st century, in Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts chapter 2. It says “Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:47, KJV)

                “Added to the church daily”. So we know that the church existed at that moment.

                Fortunately, this is not credibly disputed by anyone. The reason it is not credibly disputed is because to argue against it is to argue directly against what God’s Word plainly says, which is very hard to do while claiming to follow God.

                2) Neither ‘Protestantism’ nor ‘Roman Catholicism’ are mentioned anywhere in God’s Word. They just aren’t. Protestantism did not begin until the 16th century, but nobody can show me when Roman Catholicism started.

                Lots of Roman Catholics tell me that it started in the 1st century, but there are some obvious and really big problems with that unfounded dogmatic assertion.

                And fortunately (again), these problems are not credibly disputed by anyone:

                Jesus Christ never taught the religion of Roman Catholicism, and the apostles never practiced Roman Catholicism, because the religion of Roman Catholicism did not exist in the 1st century.

                The New Testament says LOTS about the Lord’s church and Christianity, gives all KINDS of information, but never says a single word about Roman Catholicism (or Protestantism, obviously, and for the same reason — it didn’t exist yet).

                But dogmatically it did… many Roman Catholics simply insist on it.

                In reality, there was no church in the 1st century that even remotely resembles the RCC. Not even close. Not the division between ‘clergy’ and ‘laity’, not the special clothing for the ‘clergy’, not positions like ‘cardinal’ or ‘pope’, not the organizational structure of one congregation overseeing all other congregations, not many of the doctrines and practices, and on and on and on. There is no Scriptural example or command for MANY things which the RCC does.

                And this isn’t about being ‘anti-Roman Catholic’, it’s about LOGIC — but that’s usually one of the first things a Roman Catholic will do, is play the ‘victim card’ and say I’m a ‘Catholic basher’ or some such. And then accuse me of being a follower of all sorts of historical ‘Catholic-bashers’ of the past. Good luck having a rational discussion after that blood is in the water. And that’s exactly what it is designed to do — to muddy the water (or bloody the water?), to shut down conversation.

                So here’s the kicker.

                This is the part where the rubber meets the road and causes all the problems.

                If the Lord’s church was established in the 1st century and was thriving throughout the known world (which no one can credibly dispute); and no such thing as Roman Catholicism (or Protestantism) existed, then as a matter of basic logic and TIME (which moves inexorably forward and not backward), both Protestantism AND Roman Catholicism necessarily came about sometime after the Lord’s church was already established and thriving throughout the known world.

                There is no logical way around that reality.

                But the implications of that simple acknowledgement are very serious to one of the two ‘bodies’ being discussed here.

                Protestants don’t try to argue otherwise, because obviously there were no “Protestant” churches until the ‘Reformation’ in the early 1500s.

                But most Roman Catholics will absolutely insist that the RCC is literally the Lord’s church, that it is an ‘unbroken chain’ straight back to Peter and the other apostles. Even though Roman Catholicism is never mentioned a single time in all of God’s Word, and the RCC has almost no resemblance to 1st century Christianity as recorded in Scripture, and there is no Authority in God’s Word for any OTHER kind of Christianity than that which was recorded.

                It doesn’t matter. NONE of that matters.

                It’s just a BRICK WALL that you can never get past — because dogma. You can point out these basic facts and others until you are blue in the face, and it won’t make any difference at all, because people believe what they want to believe, and facts, ultimately, have very little to do with what most people believe.

                About anything, not just religion.

                Even though we all believe otherwise.

                What a mess.

                Like

                • Covadonga says:

                  I definitely agree with you on the creepy Harvard/Yale thing. There are way too many presidents and other officials from those two Left-infiltrated institutions, not just SCOTUS justices. So many the two have virtually a cartel.

                  The point becomes even stronger when you broaden it to include graduates of all the Ivy League schools, plus a few other other specially-connected schools (e.g. Stanford, Johns Hopkins, U. of Chicago, U.C. Berkeley,) or narrow it to include only Harvard and Yale alums who belonged to certain on-campus undergraduate societies (e.g. The Porcellian Club at Harvard, Yale’s notorious Skull and Bones.)

                  After examining the academic pedigree of government officials, you could peep at the resumes of leading urinalists to see which ones wrote for the Harvard Crimson undergraduate paper when in college. Again, a virtual cartel situation in some corners of the Yellow Stream world.

                  I’m less convinced by your point on religious affiliation, but think it is an interesting question to raise.

                  Northern European Jews have the highest average IQ scores of any ethnic group for which there is reliable data. They are head and shoulders above northern European whites as a whole, which are themselves one of the highest IQ groups. Northern European Jews are the only Western group that has higher average IQ scores than the Han Chinese.

                  So we naturally see Jews way over-represented at the top in all sorts of activities that depend on brain power: science, scholarship in many fields, finance, among tech CEOs, among chess grand masters, etc.

                  It’s a shame so many of them are Leftists.

                  Most US public grade schools and high schools range from “mediocre” to “sucky and dangerous”.

                  The “good” schools in the suburbs are called that mostly because of a combination of spending a lot of money on trendy things, being graded on a curve relative to the sucky dangerous schools, and having decent programs for preparing STEM-oriented honors students. For things like teaching the American Constitution, or American history from an individual rights/MAGA perspective, they suck.

                  The Catholic schools are head and shoulders above the public schools academically, and have (or at least had, back in Judge Kavanagh’s day,) a much better chance of teaching humanities well, along with a philosophical perspective that is pro-reason, pro-rights, or at least mixed, versus the Leftist indoctrination of the public schools.

                  IMO, the existence of these Catholic schools is the main reason you see so many Roman Catholics among the constitutionalists sitting on the upper courts. Any bright kid in the public school system who was interested in humanities/history/philosophy/politics/law either got so bombarded with Communist drivel year after year that he grew up to be a raving Leftist, stopped getting good grades, began drinking heavily, changed majors to math/science, or dropped out entirely.

                  You don’t think the religious affiliation of the judges occurred spontaneously or by coincidence. What is your theory?

                  Like

            • Beverly says:

              hmmmm………..that IS interesting. We Protestants are actually 3/4 of the Christians in America, but you’d never know it if you go by New York/Boston & Co. Power in the US has always clustered around Yankeeland.

              Liked by 1 person

        • GB Bari says:

          IMHO, your concern is unfounded.

          Why?

          IMHO, if the Swamp truly wanted Kavanaugh approved because he will rule against MAGA policies and foil PDJT, then there is no good reason that explains this extreme and very hostile Swamp-driven effort to crucify Kavanaugh and keep him out of SCOTUS.

          IMHO, the Swamp & Dimms aren’t expending all of that political capital just for a head fake. They really don’t want this man as a SC Justice.

          Which tells me he is against what they stand for.

          Which to me is an excellent reason to want him in. (YMMV)

          Liked by 9 people

          • LCSmom says:

            Now you’re just making too much sense!

            Liked by 2 people

          • scott467 says:

            “IMHO, the Swamp & Dimms aren’t expending all of that political capital just for a head fake. They really don’t want this man as a SC Justice. ”

            ____________________

            It’s not about Kavanaugh.

            The devilrats are going to do the same thing to ANY candidate DJT nominates, because it gives DJT a 5 to 4 advantage on the S.C.

            And once he has that advantage, he can drop the hammer.

            He can toss the lit Zippo in the gas-filled trench and burn down the entire Uni-Party, and everything associated with it.

            And THAT is what they’re trying to prevent.

            If they brought back Mother Theresa from the dead and nominated her for the S.C., the devilrats would accuse her of gang-rape and bestiality and devil-worship (projecting, as usual), and miraculously, like a fine Swiss watch of old, two or three RINOs would pop up to help block her from confirmation.

            That’s what is going on here.

            The devilrats / treasonistas / Deep State Cabal knows that once DJT has a 5-4 split on the S.C., the next words out of his mouth are going to be “Let the Games begin!”.

            Liked by 1 person

      • Jimmy Jack says:

        If Bush of helping then Kavanaugh really is a deep state asset. He’s fine nothing like this in a decade so why now? Bush needs Kavanaugh in there for something.

        If Bush is acting like he’s helping Kavanaugh while a working against him as Flake is now doing, Kavanaugh is a safer bet.

        Really wish Amy Barrett had been nominated instead. I have to trust God on this one though bc I can’t even keep up w the machinations being set forth right now.

        This is crazy beyond belief.

        Liked by 1 person

        • clive hoskin says:

          I’m not sure that Amy Barrett could stand up to the onslaught that has been leveled at Kavanaugh.These DemocRATS are lower than a snakes belly.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Sharon says:

          Jay Sekulow Really likes Kavanaugh and had many good things to say about him! Does that make Jay a deep state asset too? You people are crazy!😳👿

          Liked by 3 people

          • Paula Daly says:

            No kidding Sharon… this is all to much. The man is over qualified for that seat. you people sound like Alex Jones. No Judge thru out history ever votes our way every time. Good Grief people… grow up!

            Liked by 3 people

          • scott467 says:

            “Jay Sekulow Really likes Kavanaugh and had many good things to say about him! Does that make Jay a deep state asset too? You people are crazy!”

            _____________________

            Not crazy.

            You get burned by something a thousand times, you learn not to touch it.

            Well, most people do.

            Hopefully it doesn’t take a thousand times to learn the lesson.

            Jay Sekulow isn’t infallible, and neither is anybody else. And substituting someone else’s judgment for our own is a bad practice that leads to bad habits.

            Like

            • That’s not a universal truth. If someone else, that we trust, has inside information or a personal knowledge & we don’t whether we say we are substituting their judgement for ours or we say we are incorporating their judgement since they have access to information, is moot although one is derogatory. To have an opinion worth having you need a vantage point & a frame of reference, without those or a chance to get them it is sensible to harvest opinions and sift them based on past experience with those people.

              Liked by 1 person

              • scott467 says:

                “That’s not a universal truth. If someone else, that we trust, ”

                _______________

                There’s the problem.

                Who can we trust?

                I hope your experience in this life has been better than mine 😁

                I wish I had a positive answer to that question. I’m not suggesting it’s hard to trust that someone’s motives are good. Lots of people mean well.

                I don’t know anyone who knows Brett Kavanaugh, so there isn’t anyone whose opinion I can ‘trust’. I’m stuck relying on the same ‘narrative constructs’ and emotional manipulation (for that is what they are) everybody else reading, along with some alternative news sources that dig into the past of people in current events far better than anyone in mainstream news does.

                But nobody on ‘our side’ wants to hear anything negative about Kavanaugh, because most of the people on ‘our side’ have already been manipulated into the ‘us vs. them’ dynamic and now seem almost prepared to die if need be in order see Kavanaugh seated on the Court.

                When I see the herd charging over the cliff like that, filled with emotion and falling for the same old routine again, I carefully make my way to the edge of the crowd and then go some other direction.

                Sure, I’ll shout a few warnings, because I should and because I would want someone to do the same for me. But I know that nobody is going to listen and nobody cares, because they’ve already made their decision 🙂

                Liked by 1 person

                • The funny thing is that I wasn’t particularly excited about BK initially either. He seems like a man with a perpetual anxiety about being “good” enough. I was concerned about a motivation to virtue signal with his decisions.
                  I was reassured by his emphasis on interpreting the Constitution as written and on not allowing on personal inclination or belief to determine his decisions. A person that conscientious would not betray his perceived duty to interpret narrowly and as understood at the time it was written.

                  I summed him up as an strongly analytical man, a safe consistent, SC choice, unlikely to evolve & shift Left so I was content.

                  The way he has been treated has, as you say, has transformed me into a more passionate supporter. In view of the vicious unwarranted attacks and attempts to upend the confirmation process I am determined to see BK confirmed. So I do see the events shaping the fervor on the right as you mention but that maybe a net benefit because while we are all united by the evil machinations and the willingness to destroy others for the Left’s purpose there will be an involvement that will translate into higher turnout to vote. A larger margin in the Senate & retention of the House is vital for President Trump to press forward with cleansing the swamp & restoring America.

                  Like

                • This article seems to address the same concerns you were voicing about the herd & the cliff. I thought you might enjoy it.
                  Psychology of Ford-Kavanaugh Townhall.com ^ | September 30, 2018 | Lawrence Meyers

                  https://townhall.com/columnists/lawrencemeyers/2018/09/30/psychology-of-ford-kavanaugh-n2524009

                  Like

        • Rhoda R says:

          Whether Kavenaugh was a globalist or not, these last two week have to have had an impact on his political philosophy.

          Like

          • I’d love to say it will armor him against the noble sounding lies of the left but who can say. I think it will make him more sensitive to how power can be abused.

            Liked by 1 person

            • scott467 says:

              ” I think it will make him more sensitive to how power can be abused.”

              _______________

              Please allow me to offer the skeptic’s perspective, lol!

              All this abuse from the hateful Left could just as easily make him overcompensate in their favor, trying to prove to them that he’s not a bad guy.

              It’s basic psychology, seeking approval from those who have spurned you.

              It’s also a primary characteristic and pattern of abusive relationships 😉

              Liked by 1 person

              • I certainly hope that your assessment will not prove correct. I don’t read him as being that weak. He certainly has not given way to their bullying during questioning or after this dreadful attack on his character. Rather than choose the safe approach of keeping his head down he has sallied forth colors flying and denounced them and their perversion of the process. I think the Left has taught him better than to try & placate, they will go for the throat at any opening or weakness. You are certainly correct that dynamic is a common one but BK has shown himself a man of principle under fire and IMO he would resist that urge, seeing the trap therein.

                Like

    • singingsoul says:

      Heika says:
      “ugg.. is he joking? “They will have free reign, they will do whatever it is they have to do, they will do things we haven’t even thought of to do…” ha ha ha… I am quite sure they will… Methinks this is a joke by the Don Batman”
      ______________________________________________
      If Kavanaugh is clean they will not find a thing. Kavanaugh has more credibility than The fraught woman. One cannot live in a community as Kav has and hide bad behavior or iviant behavior.
      The lawyers for the fraught woman should be shot out of the Senate process otherwise the senate will loose control. Sorry the senators are idiots and idiots on both sides. The democratic senators beside being idiots they are also evil. West Virginia needs to get the pretend conservative democrat out.
      We need to get the democrats out .

      Liked by 10 people

      • Heika says:

        Aye, indeed, but that’s not my point. The FBI are GREAT at hiding evidence, and also digging it up from sordid places, as we well know. What has changed in the FBI to give them one iota of credibility? That is the joke! The leadership is recalcitrant and working against Donald Trump. So I am sure they will be ‘real’ helpful in this process. My bet is that they ‘extend’ this week ad infinitum. Trump will accept that, Grassley will get all steamed up, but it will be extended, and extended, yawnnn…. wake me up when hell freezes will you?

        Liked by 1 person

      • MelH says:

        Just for kicks I’d like the first SC words from Kavanaugh to be “let’s overturn Roe v. Wade.”

        Like

    • rf121 says:

      Some of you still need a PT translator.

      Liked by 14 people

    • Newton Love says:

      The crooked FBI will send a criminal referral to Mueller to prosecute Brett Kavanaugh for unreported income from a lemonade stand that he ran in his front yard in the summer between his 4th and 5th grades.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. GrandpaM says:

    That she/he is ugly as a bucket of @$$holes.

    Liked by 5 people

  4. vikingmom says:

    The press is going to twist anything he says…

    Liked by 3 people

    • rf121 says:

      Which is why he tells them what they want to hear.

      Liked by 1 person

      • GB Bari says:

        PDJT does not like to be wrong; what they “want to hear” is mostly wrong or inaccurate.

        So, IMO, he tells them what he believes to be accurate at the time he is asked, because he knows full well it becomes a matter of record. Our President take pride in being proven correct.

        Liked by 4 people

  5. Archie says:

    The backup plan is to appoint Kav in a recess appointment and then put him in permanently at a later date. LOL

    Liked by 3 people

    • rf121 says:

      Once the senate repubs allow that then I am sure he will.

      Liked by 1 person

      • GB Bari says:

        Mitch McConnell wants BK in.

        If he comes to the conclusion that the three Rat-keteers – Flakey, Collins and Murkowski, simply are not going to support BK, MM might just decide to call a recess so that PDJT can appoint the Judge. Unless MM can figure another way to step on the Rat-keteers tails and make them squeal.

        Liked by 4 people

    • Firefly says:

      Probably the prior background checks already were aware of the heavy drinking in high school and college. Then it’s no surprise and already adjudicated. These new allegations so far have no others witness or nor any corroboration of evidence.

      Like

      • Doogiesblog says:

        Firefly
        Definition of a heavy drinker? Someone who drinks more than you.
        Those opinions are meaningless unless you get a lot more information about the people who are spouting opinions and their motives/perspectives.

        Liked by 8 people

        • Agreed. “Heavy” is a subjective term.

          Liked by 3 people

        • Firefly says:

          I probably should have pointed out he was under the legal age limit. He was 17 and the legal age limit was upped to 21 on the 1 July date. The 1 July date applied the 21 age requirement to those who were 18 on 1 July. The amount of drinking was way beyond just having a drink or two under the legal age limit,

          Hopefully prior background checks caught that.and already adjudicated it. The added restrictions of not investigating his testimony regarding legal age and his drinking is interesting. Any background check will ask people about drinking- so having restrictions placed is odd.this could end up being a big political mistake. It would be politically cleaner to say it was caught in the applicable prior background checks and already adjudicated.

          Liked by 1 person

            • Flashman says:

              Judge does not or had a heavy drinking problem. He would not be in the top of his class. He would not of gotten White House when he first got there clearance. For that type and even most classified positions they check your drinking background.

              Liked by 6 people

              • Firefly says:

                Yes I know first hand. I never drank period even before my clearance. I know many who stopped drinking when they got their clearance. The background investigators ask people for their opinions on drinking levels. If several say there is heavy drinking it all has to be addressed and adjudicated. It’s easy if you don’t drink at all – and many with high clearance do that just to avail even being accused of drinking too much. Sad but true- a person with a grudge can make a false accusation and it happens quite frequently.

                There are plenty of people who drank heavy or even who took drugs and get a clearance. The background investigator will ask the person being interviewed for their opinion. Those issues that come up in a background check are adjudicated. When you have witness stating the heaving during to a background investigator it has to be adjudicated. Maybe they are restricting the investigation for that reason.

                The more serious issue might be Kavenaugh claiming or inferring under oath he was of legal age. He wasn’t of legal age and got a bit defensive about it when questioned. The left is already making it an issue. Hopefully it was adjudicated in his prior background investigations because it will steal the lefts and holdout votes thunder. Kavanaugh should have admitted he was under age at his hearing- it was an obvious dumb lie under oath.

                Like

          • Deb says:

            Everyone I know drank under the legal drinking limit. Everyone. When you are young you drink on or two beers and then call it a night.

            The hypocrisy of this is mind boggling.

            Liked by 6 people

            • Jimmy Jack says:

              I agree. This is ridiculous. Neither W abd his coke habit nor Obama and his various drug use got even half this flak.

              On the upside sane Americans think this is ridiculous. Any congress member attacking on the alcohol issue needs to be exposed w specific examples of their hypocrisy like Murkowski abd her 6AM beer drinking.

              Liked by 3 people

            • Firefly says:

              Kavenaugh should have said that under oath. He complicated matters by stating or implying he was of age while under oath. It was a very dumb lie.

              Like

              • Maryland State Law now (it was probably if anything less restrictive then):
                Someone under 21 would also be allowed to consume alcohol in a private residence as long as that individual did so with the consent and supervision of a family member, usually a parent, over the age of 21.

                Liked by 1 person

            • free2313 says:

              Thank you Deb (7:46) for that, I was getting frustrated with all the holier then thou rants about drinking as a teenager.
              First, when you are a teen ager and if you do not drink two, three or even four beer normally and you go along with your friends and suddenly find yourself inebriated no one is surprised. You sleep it off and if you a smart teenager you begin to gage yourself. Secondly, as a teenager drinking under the legal age at a party, so what, who didn’t?
              Jeeze, he was a boy and is currently a man, between being a boy and reaching manhood, life teaches you certain things better than any damn classroom or book.

              Liked by 2 people

          • peace says:

            Wasn’t Bush an admitted alcoholic before he became president? I do not see the connection between heavy drinking in college and where he is in life now.

            Liked by 1 person

          • free2313 says:

            I understood that the legal age to drink and purchase alcohol was enacted in 1984 Kavanaugh was 19 years old.
            He was born on February 12, 1965… He was 17 years old in 1982…

            Liked by 1 person

      • Avi says:

        heavy drinking among most football players, not Valedictorians.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Beverly says:

        What “heavy drinking”??? OH, you mean the heavy drinking ALLEGED by those Paragons of Honesty and All the Virtues, the Satanists? er, I mean, the Demoncrats?

        Every word that comes out of their mouths is a lie, including A, And, and The.

        Like

    • MelH says:

      Wait! Last night there was a You Tube video in which Turtle was saying he was beginning the PROCESS of the confirmation of the Judge because he had the 51 votes he for sure needed. He then proceeded to read a prepared monologue of the Judge’s resume and accomplishments, and fine personality traits, a part of the process I think was supposed to take 30 hours total because senators would be encouraged to ask any questions they wanted. I don’t know for sure the rest of the process but got the idea confirmation would happen around Wednesday or Thursday. i was surprised at the Process because it seems that certainly ALL the questions anyone could ever be asked of Kavanaugh had been asked and answered ad nauseum. So Fle says confirmation will happen a week from tomorrow and I wonder why then and not sooner.

      Like

  6. Heika says:

    Oh…buzz saw cuts on 50 something greying women, with brown stitched man suit hmmm. I wonder what her view on life is? Why bother with the earings?

    Liked by 3 people

  7. MaineCoon says:

    “FBI will be doing things we never even thought of…”

    I cringed when I heard that. God help us.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Cuppa Covfefe says:

      VSGPDJT was throwing out a bone there…

      Keep the faith…

      Liked by 17 people

    • avgjosephine says:

      Won’t they be looking at the credibility of the witness against Judge K? Surely it’s the FBI’s duty to seek the truth, right? Maybe the left “never even thought of” this aspect of what the FBI can do.

      Liked by 4 people

      • vikingmom says:

        I saw an interview with a retired agent and he said they have specific criteria that is applied to each witness, which he called, “the ‘Carla B Fad’ pneumonic. It stands for character, associates, reputation, loyalty, ability, biases, financial responsibility, alcohol use, and drug abuse.”

        If that standard is applied evenly to each of the witnesses, including the lawyers for Dr. Ford and the members of Feinstein’s staff, then all will be well. If not, then this farce will continue to drag out until the midterms or beyond!

        Liked by 3 people

        • Beverly says:

          The Fibbers won’t investigate the witnesses — they’ll only investigate the poor Judge.

          Lord help us all: Satan is driving this, and he’s too much for us to handle. Amen.

          Like

    • Troublemaker10 says:

      Maybe he had this in mind when he said that….

      Or maybe the FBI can find what was previously on the internet and social media re Ford that was so thoroughly scrubbed before she made her allegation re Kavanaugh?

      Liked by 14 people

    • Petrel says:

      Given the road map of DC’s outer suburbs — including the Route 495 Washington Beltway and other major roads — how did 15-year old Crissy Blasey normally reach Columbia Club, for get-togethers with the children of family friends? There must have been regular arrangements of chauffeuring / car-pooling the 7-mile distance between her home and the pool. Also, where and what did these children eat at the Club during the day? (May we assume that she had access to a Club eatery, with her parents paying a monthly tab?) Since Crissy was 15 at the time of the claimed trauma, who would have picked her up in 1982 when she phoned from the Club, or the home of some other childhood friend?

      If Crissy cannot remember how she reached the Club before obtaining a license to drive and use of the family car, surely her brother Ralph, a DC lawyer, will know.

      Like

    • GB Bari says:

      Like investigating the leaking & lying Democrats and their staffers, maybe?
      Like investigating the liars’ attorneys, maybe?
      Like investigating paper or communications trails between the attorneys and/or the Democrats and Obozo and/or his former staff, maybe?

      Remember when PDJT says “we”, he isn’t including himself because he’s already thought about it!

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Troublemaker10 says:

    That was actually well done. POTUS sounds in a good mood.

    Liked by 13 people

  9. Karry says:

    Notice at the end the CNN commentator throws in “what if the FBI does find out he blacked out…like with a video”….whatevs! No bias at all.

    Liked by 4 people

    • tuskyou says:

      “like with a video” I thought WTH? Are they cooking up some grainy video that might show Judge K and might show him passed out and he might have a beer in his hand and his pants unzipped. I don’t put anything past them.

      Liked by 3 people

      • David Vicknair says:

        Kavanaugh was at Yale in the early 1980’s, I think. The first VHS/Betamax camcorders were introduced around 1982-83. Very, very clunky things and difficult to film with in low light. Not something someone would willingly choose to carry around at a party. My guess is that if something like this ever occurred (and what fraternity boy, including yours truly, has never passed out at a party?), and was taped, the tape would be long gone by now. For better or for worse, today such embarrassing moments are much easier to memorialize and publicize. Just ask Michael Phelps.

        Liked by 5 people

        • GB Bari says:

          The only tape would be a cassette audio-only tape. And I seriously doubt one was made.

          ON the other hand, film photographs or Polaroids are another story…..

          Liked by 1 person

        • ichicinnabar says:

          David,
          the Sony Porta-pak came out 72 to 73
          It was VHS reel to reel. VHS cassettes came out just after that.
          Yes, they were big. The camera was connected to the recorder by a cable.
          It revolutionized video recording.
          It was the first truely portable, widely available video recorder.
          Ichi

          Like

        • ichicinnabar says:

          David,
          the Sony Porta-pak came out 72 to 73
          It was VHS reel to reel. VHS cassettes came out just after that.
          Yes, they were big. The camera was connected to the recorder by a cable.
          It revolutionized video recording.
          It was the first truely portable, widely available video recorder.
          Ichi

          Like

      • Jimmy Jack says:

        George Webb has been warning this was coming all week. Blasey’s grandfather and father were involved with high speed video recordings used in low light. Blasey herself is tied to similar optics programs at Stanford. Who knows what’s coming?

        Liked by 1 person

        • tuskyou says:

          Whoa–guess I need to check out George Webb’s videos. Will we really be talking about VHS tapes this week, omg

          Liked by 1 person

        • GB Bari says:

          Again, the only remote possibility is polaroids or regular photos taken at parties, if any possibility exists at all. Of course all of the sleaze bag attorneys have probably been trolling all of the families of classmates 2 or 3 years on either side of BK’s age with big $$$$ for any such photographic “evidence”.

          Like

      • BebeTarget says:

        I think it may be time to get out that photo of her lying naked on the picnic table surrounded by empty bottles. Just in case.

        Liked by 2 people

      • I think they forget that just like the cell phone that didn’t exist at that time, video cameras were common. Sony released the first consumer camcorder in 1983. They were expensive, and bulky. Not the kind of thing that would be at a dorm party.

        Liked by 2 people

    • dreamguardian007 says:

      My thought was that the CNN propagandist meant a cell phone video, that her intellect is too limited to be aware that such things didn’t exist then. I can’t imagine that she meant a video recording as sophisticated as those referenced in other posts, but I suppose anything is possible!

      Like

  10. G3 says:

    “This could be a Blessing in disguise” – President Trump

    Liked by 23 people

  11. Troublemaker10 says:

    Wouldn’t it be funny if after the FBI updated background probe is complete you have Republicans saying it establishes no evidence against Kavanaugh, and the Dems are screaming like Biden did in 1991 that ““FBI explicitly does not in this or any other case reach a conclusion. Period.”?

    I had a dream last night that all would be okay Thursday. I hope it comes true.

    Liked by 6 people

  12. scott467 says:

    A boy named Heather?

    Come on, that dude makes Michael Obama look feminine.

    Liked by 9 people

    • Cuppa Covfefe says:

      Yep. More like Pete Bog…erm, Peat Bog…

      Liked by 1 person

    • starfcker says:

      Maybe, but Mike could still kick it’s ass.

      Liked by 3 people

      • scott467 says:

        Mike could certainly kick Hussein’s ass.

        That video of Hussein ‘working out’ with 2-1/2 Lb ‘barbells’ was just so pathetic I didn’t know whether to laugh or feel sorry for him.

        Then I remembered who he was, and what he was doing to our country, and I didn’t feel sorry for him anymore.

        Liked by 4 people

        • nimrodman says:

          Barky wasn’t even doing an honest lift on the 2-1/2 lb weights! – for gosh sake.

          He was rotating/oscillating his elbows and forearms around his torso’s center of gravity and doing nearly NO actual bicep work at all.

          Like that little dipping birdie tchotchke that dips down to get a drink, then his weighted tail pulls his head back up, repeat, repeat, repeat – nearly a frictionless perpetual-motion approximation with very little work done.

          Total fraud in everything he did.
          Can’t even lift weights honestly.

          Liked by 1 person

          • dreamguardian007 says:

            Reminds me of the post I saw a while back of Barky’s feeble attempt at a golf swing compared to VSGPDJT hammering a drive down the fairway!

            Like

  13. jmclever says:

    wouldnt it be rich if there was already surveillance on DiFi office and staff because of chinese driver/spy thing and they picked up the plot inadvertently and already knew about the plot against Judge Kavanaugh? and already had every plot detail foiled ahead if time? anything is possibe these days

    Liked by 12 people

  14. Cheri Lawrence says:

    Omg! Is that a woman? Are all socialists gender neutral? I loved our Lion’s comment on the FBI getting to the bottom of this fiasco! CNN ugh! Alluding there is a tape of Kavanaugh. These people are so dirty and disgusting and what makes me mad is they all know exactly what they are doing! Pure narccism, they have never had to develop any character and are incapable of shame or regret. No compassion and no love, except for greed and power. I hope Kavanaugh hangs in there. God put him in this moment of time as the perfect man to help us see the horrific absurdity and evil of these monsters. This man’s character is beyond reproach and his heart is pure gold. Massive prayers that he and his family understand what is at stake and stays strong!! Please surround them with light and heal the sickness they have witnessed. We, the voting warriors are just around the corner to ensure victory!!

    Liked by 9 people

    • singingsoul says:

      I knew a woman who looked like that she had lost her hair through chemo.
      I do not pay much to looks I know its our culture that does. I look for character that is more important than looks.
      We fall for looks that is why we vote in idiots we do not look for character.
      POTUS was wonderful he let it all hang out who he is honest and direct. I love that in people.

      Liked by 5 people

  15. Harry Lime says:

    Everybody knows where that stench is coming from…

    Liked by 13 people

  16. yes, “a blessing in disguise”, as I said earlier today, bulletproof if the Dems try to “impeach” Kavanaugh after confirmation.
    AND double blessing, additional evidence of Dem dirty trim

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Margaret Berger says:

    I am putting on my tin foil hat but after illiary cheating at the debates who doesn’t think that ford’s glasses were an ear bud and that hair do arranged to hide it and that is why they didn’t want more than one camera.

    Liked by 11 people

    • Cheri Lawrence says:

      These days we now know the conspiracies are all pretty much true. One thing I have learned is they are always scheming because their whole reality is based on lies and deceit. Good people don’t need lawyers flanking them. Thank goodness we can now wear tinfoil hats made in America as steel and aluminum are back in town hahahaha!!

      Liked by 6 people

    • I believe it is being rooted out that Ms.Ford is unrecognized by the State of California as any kind of “Dr.”. Gateway Pundit is writing that her employment description has been scrubbed recently. She may not be a Doctor. I personally think she is a Psycho Logist !

      Liked by 6 people

      • Cuppa Covfefe says:

        Put the lime in the coconut, you called your doctor, woke her up
        And said, Doctor, ain’t there nothing I can take
        I said, Doctor, to relieve this bellyache?
        I said, Doctor, ain’t there nothin’ I can take
        I said, Doctor, to relieve this bellyache?

        You put the lime in the coconut, you drink ’em both together
        Put the lime in the coconut, then you feel better
        Put the lime in the coconut, drink ’em both up
        Put the lime in the coconut, and call me in the morning
        (apologies to Harry Nilsson)

        Liked by 3 people

      • G. Alistar says:

        I don’t know but as I listened to her….I felt it was just too rehearsed and disengenuous. I would not trust Ford any further than I could throw her. Sadly, the legitimate “me too” victims are the big losers in this con act.

        Liked by 1 person

      • G. Alistar says:

        I don’t know but as I listened to her….I felt it was just too rehearsed and disengenuous. I would not trust Ford any further than I could throw her. Sadly, the legitimate “me too” victims are the big losers in this con act.

        Like

  18. tvollrath66 says:

    Heath. She looks like a young Podesta.

    Liked by 4 people

  19. maiingankwe says:

    Not exact wording, but darn close:

    So if he (Kavanaugh) blacked out and they find a video tape of him assaulting could he be in legal trouble?

    So this is what they’ve come to? A video tape, but he was blacked out of course, so he wasn’t lying per se? Thank goodness I don’t watch this tripe. It’s like they are holding out to anything, or should I say, trying to convince their viewers that anything could still come out of this. Next there will be unicorns 🦄 jumping over rainbows or did I miss that hour?

    Be well good Treepers,
    Ma’iingankwe

    Liked by 8 people

    • avgjosephine says:

      Anything can and will happen this week. Some wise person I read faithfully on t–tter (who is among many currently blocked/suspended voices) said: if you don’t have the stomach to tolerate the no-holds-barred mud-slinging to come, turn off the electronics. Step away, ’cause it’s gonna get uglier!

      My eyes are wide open. And I won’t look away. In fact, I’m feeling pretty peaceful at the moment.

      Liked by 6 people

      • maiingankwe says:

        One can feel peaceful without watching the garbage on cnn, msnbc etc along with reading WP and the NYT.

        I have no doubt Kavanaugh will be on our Supreme Court as a Justice. I have no doubt our President Trump knows far more than he’s letting on. I also have complete faith he will destroy the deep state and the players within. I seriously don’t have to watch or read the garbage to know that.

        I’d much rather read CTH and other conservative news sites. They’re pretty good at letting me know what the other side is doing. Plus, I’m pretty lucky with the friends I have for sharing information. So I think we both can feel peaceful through our different choices on how we score our information. Rest assured there are no blinders on here.

        Liked by 8 people

        • avgjosephine says:

          I’ve always learned much from your posts. CTH has been a blessing for me. If something happened here like what happened in the current t–tter purge, to deprive me of hearing my friends on the branches, I don’t know what I’d do.

          Liked by 3 people

          • maiingankwe says:

            You’re right, there would be a number of us a bit lost without CTH, Sundance and the commentary. I’d include myself as one of them.

            I apologize for being a bit rough on you. I believe I read into your post wrong. Im just so against the msm and cannot handle reading or watching any of it. I do fully understand the need to watch our enemies close, but I don’t have the stomach for all of the lies. It’s why I rely on other sources to do the dirty work. One can call me a wuss, but I’d much rather do it my way. It keeps me sane for the most part, and I like my sanity, I really do.

            Take care and stay smiling, we are in exceptional hands,
            Ma’iingankwe

            Liked by 2 people

        • nikkichico7 says:

          Ma’iingankwe I thought about you last night with hope you and family are doing well ..
          so glad to see you .. 🙂❤️‼️

          Liked by 3 people

    • Lovely to read your comment, maiingankwe – been praying for you;
      God bless

      Liked by 3 people

    • mom4tomic says:

      I’m about the same age as J Kavanaugh and thank goodness we didn’t have video recorders in high school. But I do have children in college and high school, they will never be able to be president or a SC judge or … if this keeps up. They are great kids but they and/or their friends post silly words and photos on social media.

      Liked by 2 people

      • maiingankwe says:

        Mom4tomic,
        I would hope that our children will not be judged at these levels when they become adults. I hope people will be a bit more understanding with kids being kids.

        You know, it’s like the conservatives and dems have switched places. In the 80’s and 90’s wasn’t it was the conservatives against some of the lyrics to some of the popular bands? They claimed it would have our children commit suicide if they continued to listen to it.

        Now it’s the dems going all ape about everything and anything. It’s amazing to see the switch.

        Hopefully, it will calm down in the next few years. Hopefully. I know I tell my thirteen year old over and over like a broken record that she needs to understand everything that she posts is for ever. Delete is no longer the magic button, so if there is anyone you wouldn’t want to see it, don’t post it, especially future employers. Thankfully, she is still making videos of our pups. However, there have been a thing or two I’ve brought to her attention and have asked about. To our children most of it is innocent and they are still too young to understand the way adults think and view things. It’s just going to take us as parents to monitor and protect them the best we can.
        Your children and my child may never become president or a Supreme Court Justice, but I have a feeling they will succeed no matter their choice.
        Be well,
        Ma’iingankwe

        Like

  20. CountryDoc says:

    Not sure who to trust now. Conflict in Sundance opinions, who thinks Trump unwisely caved. Methinks there is much we don’t know. There are some good things about PDJT’s decision to allow the FBI investigation:

    FBI is investigating good guys (Kavanaugh) and their credibility as an organization is being questioned (spying with DOJ on PDJT to win the elections). If they find Kavanaugh clean, they can’t say FBI is crooked, because they need the FBI to be Legit if it finds dirt in “Trump/Russia collusion”.

    Also, while everyone is scrambling to organize the finding of dirt, or the creation of an irrefutable lie in order to reject Kavanaugh, the FBI and Dems have to talk with one another, move, and communicate. The same people are likely under a FISA warrant investigation for working as a DEM/DOJ/FBI colluding force to sabotage an election or take down a sitting president.

    If they find dirt that cans Kavanaugh, we lose a SC nominee candidate. If they find nothing, or if they get caught cheating, it could be UGE in swaying midterm votes from blue to red.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. Tim Holden says:

    The President was relaxed and confident. Some of the phrases he used might have the Democrats feeling faintly queasy: “use things they haven’t thought of, find out about Feinstein, blessing in disguise,” has probably prompted a few phone calls. This is an opportunity for a counterpunch, and we know he’s got the leverage to deliver a heavy blow. More will come out about the Dodgy Doctor Ford, for certain, and we’ll see whether suspicions about Wray are confirmed – and I would imagine the President advised Mr Wray of that latter issue in the clearest terms.

    Liked by 3 people

    • use things they haven’t thought of. Hmm. There was speculation on Twitter that Feinstein may be a current target of a FISA due to her Chinese spy connections. If that’s the case then that phrase makes sense and they would have proof that she lied about not releasing Blasey’s letter to the enemedia.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Sentient says:

        Now THAT would be fun.

        Liked by 2 people

      • MelH says:

        In the early days of this debacle, we were told Ford thought Feinstein was not gong to ever surface the letter so she (Ford) called WaPo and read them the letter herself.At first she wanted privacy but then thought she would rather be outed than the Judge get to the SC because she didn’t force the letter. So she outed herself!

        Like

  22. Ditch Mitch says:

    Just listened to the presser while waiting for PDJT at WV.

    PDJT sounds so confident about Justice K. So much so he must know quite a bit, which I suspected. McConnell speech on the floor after the vote said volumes about what he may know also.

    Liked by 3 people

  23. L4grasshopper says:

    I sincerely don’t understand how Manchin can be 9 to 10 points ahead in current polls in WV.

    Truly…..it’s just a mystery.

    Liked by 2 people

    • soozword says:

      Look at the internals and it will probably help (heavily loaded on Dems/women?).

      Liked by 1 person

    • benifranlkin says:

      it’s the match up. Manchin is a man’s man…his opponent Morissey not so much…and its a Monmouth poll. But things can change and u know Trump can move mountains. If Manchin doesn’t vote for Kavanaugh he will lose many votes and Morissey may be able to edge past him.

      Like

    • scott467 says:

      “Truly…..it’s just a mystery.”

      ________________

      It’s not a mystery, it’s just a bald faced lie.

      Just like EVERY poll you’re going to see that is published by enemedia.

      They are FAKE NEWS.

      They are LIARS.

      L I A R S.

      They lie. Professionally. That’s what they do. That’s literally what their JOB is.

      To LIE.

      To US.

      ALL the TIME.

      About EVERYTHING.

      Liked by 1 person

    • clive hoskin says:

      There is an old saying”Never conduct a poll,unless you know what the results will be.”

      Like

  24. Pam says:

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Liked by 4 people

  26. zooamerica says:

    President Trump just said the FBI investigation could be a blessing in disguise, twice.

    I was thinking this earlier today after reading the Gateway Pundit.

    Here are some headlines that made me think this FBI investigation might be a “blessing in disguise,” too. (My comments are in parentheses.)

    What? Last Person Senator Jeff Flake Called Before Asking for Another Week of Supreme Insanity was DAG Rod Rosenstein

    (Now we know why President Trump did not accept Rosenstein’s resignation…”let him finish his work.” The black hats inside the FBI are leaking as per usual, but this time I think they’re being set up! Has President Trump “flipped” Rosenstein? LEVERAGE – inside the DOJ.)

    BREAKING: Christine Ford Caught in MAJOR LIE – Photos Prove House Updates Occurred Much Earlier Than Claims in Senate Testimony!

    (A Google Earth picture is worth a thousand words. How does “Dr.” Ford explain this? Airbnb?)

    Christine Ford’s Friend Leland Keyser Will Cooperate With FBI, Says She DOES NOT Know Brett Kavanaugh

    (Will Comey get her to flip??? Sorry, that was a joke!)

    HOLY CRAP! Christine Ford’s Stanford Bio Page WAS ALTERED — Updated 10 Days Before Hearing

    (Stanford University has some explaining to do to the FBI…will Stanford fire “Doctor” Ford?)

    PSYCH OUT! Is Christine Ford a Doctor? — There Are NO RECORDS to Prove This in State of California Database

    (Even NPR didn’t call her a “Doctor.”)

    Sadly. Democrat Party’s Attempt to File Charges Against Judge Kavanaugh in State of Maryland Is Quickly Shot Down

    (Still no charges filed….because…)

    Dr. Ford Caught in Another Lie? Says Friend Drove Her Home But She Left Everyone at the Party?

    (I thought she didn’t remember? She did remember a minute detail – having “1 beer,” but did not remember whose house it was, how she got there or how she got home.)

    —————– ^^^^^^^ This is getting interesting.

    The old saying goes, “Be careful for what you wish for.”

    BOOMERANG EFFECT!

    How ironic is this…

    https://psychologydictionary.org/boomerang-effect/

    in social psychology, refers to a persuasive form of communication sent to a receiver, yet returned back with the opposite reaction. Thus, the consequential result is not the original, intended message. This effect is often generated when the counter-argument is stronger than the original statement. ———–

    This FBI investigation could BLOW UP IN THEIR FACES LIKE A GIANT STICK OF DYNAMITE.

    Liked by 7 people

  27. scott467 says:

    “They will have free reign, they will do whatever it is they have to do, they will do things we haven’t even thought of to do…”

    ____________________

    Wait… isn’t that the problem with the FIB?

    That they have ‘free reign’ (laws don’t apply to them), that they do whatever they have to do (including blackmail, murder, facilitating mass-casualty events, and attempting to overthrow the president of the United States) and do things we haven’t even thought of to do (like cooking up Hooker Pee Dossiers)?

    Are you sure this is the agency you want looking into Kavanaugh’s background?

    ROTFLMAO!

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Jpcarson says:

    “…they (FBI) will do things we haven’t even thought of to do…”— like a forensic test on the calendar to verify it is from 1982. Also, maybe recover Chrissy Ford’s social media profiles that have been scrubbed???

    Liked by 3 people

  29. H.R. says:

    Nice Mohawk, Heather.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Francis Moran says:

    M’gosh. Looking at Heather, one would never guess in an eon she might be a female homo.
    Homos have a “half of fame”? Don’t they mean infamy?
    What must one do to get into a homo …. hall of fame?
    Never mind. Sorry I asked. Don’t care to know.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Super Elite says:

      “… I would be willing to stretch and say her baby voice, ditzy behavior, and all of her ‘persona’ were nothing more than an act.”
      Yep, that nails it. One word stood out to me as I listened to her testimony. When she used the word “divorce” her voice took on another persona ─ that of a wife who had been threatened with a divorce if she didn’t play ball. Probably the ball she needed to play was write the accusation against Judge Kavanaugh. Mrs. Ford’s major concern was most likely that her important doctor-hood would be jeopardized.

      I heard the baying of the hounds… I swear I heard it.

      Liked by 1 person

  31. dogsmaw says:

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Liked by 3 people

  33. Holy cow!

    Liked by 1 person

    • The Boss says:

      I think we all want to know who the “beach friends” are, just for starters. Are they hermit crabs and sea gulls? Or a bunch of old guys wearing black socks with their sandals while they sweep the beach with metal detectors? C’mon FBI! Make us proud! 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  34. Liked by 1 person

  35. Firefly says:

    Republican Senate just grew a spine. Grassley filed a criminal complaint for the FBI to investigate.
    Bush is calling a Flake, Collins et al to vote for Kavenough.

    Hopefully this criminal referral to the FBI will deter false allegations.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. zooamerica says:

    I think the FBI is investigating Mrs. Ford now….

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Another Scott says:

    when they cut back to the CNN anchors they immediately went into spin mode “Trump said he would give the FBI free reign so if they do uncover proof that Kavanaugh was a blackout drunk it will come out” CNN is a total joke.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. RyderLee says:

    I was confused , but now , I guess I am Not ( ??? ) 🙃
    ^^^
    🤔

    Like

  39. Super Elite says:

    Is Most Likely Leaker, Heather C. Sawyer a transgender?

    Like

  40. Fools Gold says:

    💯👍

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s