I cant wait to watch the ridiculous theatrics of the dems during the hearing. She has nothing new to add to her story and all witnesses have denied it. All they are going to do is have your go up there and cry womp womp and they are gonna clap and probably cry themselves rofl and then kavanaugh will be confirmed. The dems will spend a week throwing a fit like usual and then move on to the next outrage. Its pathetic how spineless Republicans have been. Can't wait until the next generation of Republicans replaces these idiots.
Every liberal Democrat Senator that I have heard comment says that she is telling the truth because a women would not lie about a sexual assault. Have you heard anything different from liberals in the MSM or Democrat party?
One really has to be amazed that a 36 year old accusation with no evidence by a mentally unstable liberal could be actually considered.
She does not remember when the incident occurred.
She does not know where this house the incident occurred at is. .
She does not know who invited her to the party. .
She does not know who she went with to the party. .
She does not know how she got home from the party. .
She talked to no one about the incident fr 30 years. .
She has "repressed memories" of an incident. .
She told the therapist 4 men were involved. .
She never told the therapist Kavanaugh's name. .
The three men she has named at this alleged party have all said it never happened. .
A friend of hers who attended parties like this has said she never saw this happen. .
She wants the FBI to investigate.
Democrats believe her. Democrats say Kavanaugh is guilty. Democrats demand an investigation.
Does anyone really see any logic in:
1. Considering anything this woman says? or
2. Consider anything Democrats say?
They have another accuser comming out that says he waved his penis in her face at Yale. Just now remembered it was him. If the radicals are allowed to stop this appointment we will never get a conservative judge which is their objective. Anyone believe these are legit claims? I expect a bunch of these pro abortion loonies to keep making claims
I blame this all on the republicans for allowing this to happen. Once they allowed this wench to tell them when she was going to testify, the socialists new they had control of the proceedings. If Grassley still has a hair on his ass, he needs to put a stop to this tomorrow and call a vote. Let the chips fall where they may.
The New Yorker runs an article about an accusation made by a woman named Deborah Ramirez (53, pictured right) about a freshman party at Yale, where she claims she was in a drunken stupor and Judge Brett Kavanaugh, then 18, pulled out his penis during a drinking game.
Etc. Etc. Etc…. Really, no need to go further.
Because despite their search, and discussions with “dozens” of potential witnesses…
“The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident”…
….the New Yorker was unable to find a single witness to corroborate the story being made by the accuser. None. Not a single confirming witness to back up the claim. They write:
…”The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.”…
It gets better.
The accuser did give the New Yorker six names to support her claim. Six witnesses Deborah Ramirez stated could substantiate her accusation. And when the New Yorker interviewed them, ALL SIX said it never happened.
[…] “In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale.”
“We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”” (The Article)
Now, stop for a minute and think about this.
A claim is made.
The New Yorker tries to substantiate the claim.
The New Yorker finds ZERO people who can validate the claim.
The six witnesses the accuser says will back up her claim all deny any knowledge of the claim; yet the New Yorker still runs the article.
100% of the evidence discovered by the New Yorker refutes the claim.
Yet they publish it.
Enter the Star Chamber….