On Ford

Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been and continues to be slimed by the Democrats.

For many, many years, the Democrats have been using he courts to achieve law changes, which they know that they cannot make trough legislation in congress.

They are desperately afraid that, if a strict constructionist (real jurist) is seated on the Court, they might lose the opportunity to circumvent the legislative process.

For this reason, the Democrats are doing everything in their power to delay the Kavanaugh nomination approval process, in the hope that eventually they will regain a majority in the senate, and thereby be able to prevent the approval of a real judge.

The playbook of the Democratic Party is on display for the world to see.

They destroyed the reputation of Judge Bork with unsubstantiated claims,

And they attempted to prevent Clarence Thomas from being approved by dredging up a patently false claim of sexual impropriety.
Justice Thomas correctly described that shameful effort by the Democrats as a lynching.
The all white Democrats were terrified of being revealed as the racists that they really are, so whey immediately backed off, and begrudgingly approved and consented to the elevation of Justice Thomas.

Now they are attempting the same slimy despicable dirty trick with Judge Kavanaugh.

What do Justice Thomas and judge Kavanaugh have in common?

They are both Catholic.

Democrats have frequently allowed their anti-Catholic bias to show, despite the fact that they try to deny the existence of that bias.
We recall that when Judge Amy Comey Barrett (a graduate of the University of Noe Dame Law Scool, and a devout Catholic) was nominated for the position of a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, during the advice and consent hearings conducted by the Judiciary Committee of the United State Senate, Diane Feinstein exhibited her anti-Catholic bias, hen Diane expressed with revulsion her (Feinstein’s) disapproval of that Catholic nominee with the words: “Your faith runs deep in you, as though in Feinstein’s mind the nominees faith was a disqualifier.

The Democrats frequently resort to their last gasp approach, namely, if you cannot win on the merits, slime the opposition.

THE DESPERATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
SLIME JOB NUMBER ONE
“HE FORD WRECK”

Despite 6 prior very thorough FBI investigations of Judge Kavanaugh’s background, suddenly the Democrats have produced 2 women, each of whom the Democrats want to bring before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate, each of which women is willing to make an obviously false claim, namely, that Brett Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct with them, in totally separate instances occurring long, long ago.

The Slimy, but obvious lies:
. The first of the mysterious “discoveries” was the “discovery of Christine Blasey Ford, who, not surprisingly represented by lawyers closely associated with the Democratic Party.

One of those Democratic Party operatives is Debra Katz, the attorney for the Me Too Movement.
The second such lawyer is Mark Bromwich, who co-incidentally represents Trump hating disgraced Justice Department operative Andrew McCabe.

Bromwich is becoming prominent for representing liars.

Why do we say his?

McCabe is presently under indictment for lying.
To support her obviously false claim, Ford named 4 persons, whom she claims witnessed the misconduct.
Each of those 4 supposed “witnesses” denies having witnessed anything claimed by Ford, (the first Ford lie (or wreck)).Each of those denials as made under penalty of felony, if the declarations were false.
Background:
The record shows that Christina Blasey Ford had attended the white privileged, elite Holton Arms nigh school.
Holton Arms is described in the news media as an elite high school attended by well to do racially bigoted girls who prided themselves as heavy drinkers. It is reported that those girls were fond of saying that they preferred to drink so much that, on the next morning, they would be unable to recall what had happened during the prior night!
It is also reported that these rich girls loved to attend “keg parties.”
Motive:
Christine Blasey Ford would have rekindled her hatred of the Kavanaugh family during the televised White House introduction of Brett Kavanaugh as the nominee to become a justice of the Supreme Court.
During that introduction, Judge Brett Kavanaugh mentioned that his mother was a judge.
At that time, it is likely that Christine Blasey Ford realized that it was Brett Kavanaugh’s mother who had been one of the judges presiding over the lawsuit brought to foreclose the home of Ford’s parents.
One can certainly appreciate the fright and trauma of a child trying to deal with the prospect of her family’s home being taken away from them by foreclosure.
From that point on, Ford (or any other emotionally disturbed person) would say or do anything to hurt the Kavanaugh family.
The fact that the Democratic Party was willing to pay all of her expenses and make her “queen for a day” made this revenge even sweeter.
Democrats shrilly scream that this admittedly drunk accuser “must be believed,” because she is “risking so much” to tell her story.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ford is risking nothing.
But the Democrats would much prefer to play the bigotry card, than risk America thinking or looking through Ford’s absurd lie.
Ford’s lies will make her famous. Ford’s lies will enhance her reputation attthe ultra-liberal school at which she teaches.
And Ford’s lies will most likely guaranty her a lucrative book deal.

We are sick and tired of listening to the liberal whining that Ford is taking such a risk in sliming Brett Kavanaugh.

Look at Ford’s new role model, the “courageous” Anita Hill, who turned her slime job of Justice Thomas into a net worth of $850,000 on a school teacher’s salary.
If you willing to be a slime liar for the Democratic Party, all of your expenses will be paid and there will be a pot of gold for you at the end of the rainbow over the swamp, where most of the slimy Democrats live.

The Democrats play the “woman card” by insisting that any woman who “claims” that she was sexually abused must be believed.

This is not true, because, in America, one who makes that claim must establish the truth of that claim, and further because in America any person caused of misconduct has the right to defend himself or herself.

The “must be believed” argument is belied by the following historic realities:

Tawana Brawley

The Duke Lacrosse team

The University of Virginia fake news story
Claims against President Trump made by women who withdrew those claims declaring that they had been paid by Democrats to make those false allegations

On September 26, 2018, Christine Blasey Ford testified in public before the Judiciary Committee.

During Ford’ testimony, Ford was cross examined by Rachel Mitchel , a sex crime prosecutor for the Prosecutor’s office of Maricopa County, Arizona,

Ms. Mitchel was representing the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee.

Ford delivered what appeared to be a well written, and well-rehearsed presentation.
Ford’s demeanor and vocal affectations appeared to be more of a Hollywood creation rather than the natural presentation of a supposedly well respected college professor.

Ford Sounded like a reticent frightened child.
While that scripted demeanor was effective for her presentation before the Judiciary Committee, it is hard to imagine that this is the persona that Ford’s students see in her college classes.

During the Judiciary proceeding, Senator Blumenthal asked Brett Kavanaugh, if Kavanaugh was familiar with the standard instruction frequently given to jurors, namely, Falsis in Unum, falsis in omnibus. Translated, this phrase means that if a juror should find that a witness has lied about one thing, the juror is free to believe that that witness has lie about everything.

While this is an excellent rule for evaluating the story of anyone testifying under oath,
it is ironic that senator Blumenthal should mention this valuable rule, because Blumenthal got himself elected by falsely (lying) that he had served in the armed forces in Viet Nam, which was untrue.

None the less, we should view the Ford story in light of this rule.

If the Ford story is false in any respect, it should be distrusted or regarded as false in all respects.

Christine Blasey Ford is obviously a deeply troubled person.

In fact, it is Ford who has said, during her testimony, that she is a deeply troubled person.

This fact alone must raise skepticism in evaluating her well-rehearsed story.
Ford lie number one:
During her testimony Ford was questioned about her delay in testifying.

It had been claimed by Ford’s legal team, that Ford’s testimony “had to be” delayed because Ford was afraid of flying, and needed time to drive from her home in California to Washington DC.

At this point, it is well to remember that the Democratic Party had abandoned the hope of stopping the Kavanaugh’s elevation to the Supreme Court on the merits, so these Democrats, who had already announced that they would vote against Kavanaugh, switched their tactics to the delay game, in the hope the Democrats could delay Kavanaugh’s nomination process until after the November mid-term elections, in the hope that as a result of that election, the Democrats might succeed in taking over the majority of the Senate and thereby obstruct Donald Trump from appointing anyone to the Supreme Court.

Hence, everything the Democrats would try had the desired goal to resist, obstruct and prevent by delay, delay, delay.

Ms. Mitchel’s cross examination got an admission from Ford that Ford flew frequently to Pacific islands, to visit family in Delaware and elsewhere.
Ford’s second lie:

The majority (the Republicans) on the Judiciary Committee had volunteered to fly to California to take Ford testimony in private at the location of Ford’s choice in California.

These location negotiations were held between representatives of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Ford’s attorneys.

When asked why this was unacceptable, Ford feebly said that she was unaware of the Committee’s offer.

We are therefore asked to believe that Ford’s Demotic Party operative attorneys never told Ford of the Committee’s offer, and that this offer, which was reported on all new media throughout the country was somehow not seen by Ford.

But, this failure to accept the Committee’s offer did cause further delay in the Senate’s nomination, advise and consent process.

Ford also parroted the Democratic Party’s FBI themed delay tactic.

In this matter, the Democratic Party has limited ideas and is becoming reminiscent of the “one trick pony.”

But, because the Democratic Party selected the jackass as its mascot, we propose that these Democratic Party whiners should be called one trick jackasses.

The ridiculous refrain is that the nomination process cannot proceed without another FBI investigation. (background check)

DELAY, DELAY DELAY

Ford said that she did not know the details of her story and could not know those details without an FBI investigation.

Translation: Delay:

It was a fascinating admission that Ford made under cross examination, namely, that it was Diane Feinstein who recommended that Ford hire Katz as Ford’s lawyer before Feinstein ever disclosed the existence of Ford’s claim to the other members of the Judiciary Ford and her legal team are is cl afraid to tell a story, which might conflict with real facts.

This was another reason to have an FBI investigation of Ford’s scripted testimony before Ford had to present that story under oath before the Judiciary Committee and thereby risk perjury (and exposure) by a subsequent investigation of the scripted presentation including an in depth investigation of who wrote that presentation and wo coached Ford in the creation of and rehearsal of Ford’ false persona for Ford’s Judiciary Committee performance

At the outset of Ford’s presentation Ford declared that she was frightened by having to speak before the Judiciary Committee. With the risk of the exposure of the falsity of her claim and the risk of the exposure of the Hollywood creation of her script and the Haywood refinement and rehearsal of her performance, Ford had expellant reason to be frightened before going out to the public.

This is known in the industry as “stage fright.” With the questions to be posed by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and Ford’s answers also having been scripted as in any good Broadway play and with her bearded ‘lawyer” standing next to her to whisper any lines which Ford may have forgotten, (as a good Broadway stage manager) or to give her the answer to any questions, which might come from the Republican side, Ford (a truly troubled soul) was nonetheless suffering from stage fright.

In her presentation (or her play debut, (sort of like opening night of her play), Ford’s well-constructed story defensively tried to hide facts, which could be investigated to illustrate the falsify of her story.

As a result of this, vey facts that could be investigated were deliberately omitted and masked under the cloak of “I can’t remember.”
Clever strategy:

Ford claimed that:
She did not know when the Alleged Incident occurred.

She did not know location of the house (hereinafter referred to as the “Party House”)
She did not know who owned the Party House.

She did not know how she got to the Party House

She did not know how she got home from the Party House.

Ms. Mitchel was prepared for this minimal fact approach by having read press reports of the Ford Story.
To try to create some factual context for this minimal fact story, during the cross examination, Ms. Mitchel provided a map of the region around Ford’s house for review by Ford snd review by the Judiciary Committee.

That map established that the distance from Ford’s house to the country club, hitch figured prominently in the Ford story was about a twenty minute car ride. (Simple arithmetic tells us that a car traveling at 30 miles per hour (a usual speed limit for a residential community) would travel 10 miles in 20 minutes)

Cross examination also disclosed that at the period of the Alleged Incident, Ford was too young to have had a driver’s license.
Ford claimed that she did not know where she had been before going to the Party house. (Another fact that could not now be investigated. Clever!)

Ford claimed that she did not recall, if she had had any drinks before going to the Party House.

Is the pattern of this minimalist fact strategy becoming more clear?

Ford claimed that people were gathered in a room (hereinafter referred to as the “Gathering Room”) on the first floor of the Party House when she arrived.

Ford claimed that there were 4 boys and some girls at the Alleged Party.

Ford claims that when Brett Kavanaugh arrived at the party House he was drunk.

Ford named the four persons whom she claimed were in attendance at this Alleged Party, all four of those supposed “witnesses” denied under penalty of federal prison that they were at such a party.

One of those supposed” witnesses” was Ford’s best girlfriend.

All four of those supposed “witnesses” refuted Ford’s story.

No wonder that Ford’s story was so bereft of facts.

It was not that Ford’s memory of the event was clouded by alcohol or the passage of time, it is that the clever people who scripted this story wanted to be sure that there were no facts in the story which could be easily disproved.

One of the boys named by Ford as an attendee at this Alleged Party, claimed that the group of boys named by Ford was a highly suspect grouping , because each of those boys lived a distance from one another, thereby making it unlikely that they would be together at a social gathering.

Ford claimed that she had a couple of beers in the Gathering Room before he climbed a flight of steps to the second floor to use the bathroom. Ford claimed that when she arrived at the top of the steps she was pushed into the bedroom by one or two persons, whom she could not identify, because they were behind her.
(again no details.)

Ford claims that Mark Judge turned up the volume of the music in the bedroom.

Under cross examination Ford said that there was no music playing in the Gathering Room. (making the Ford story implausible because the presence of loud music in a house otherwise without music would have been likely to have attracted partygoers.)

Ford claims that:
Then Mark Judge and Brettt Kavanaugh were on top of her on the bed.

Then Brett Kavanaugh was on top of her and put his hand over her mouth.

Ford claims that she escaped, when the boys “fell off of her.”

How the boys fell off, she does not say

Ford claims that she ran out of the bedroom and into the bathroom across the hall.

Ford claims that she locked the bathroom door and stayed in the bathroom until she heard Brett and Mark “bowling pinning” down the stair case to the first floor.

How she could have heard this rough a locked bathroom door, with music playing loudly in the bedroom across the hall, she does not explain.

Ford claims that she then ran down the stairs, said nothing to anyone, thereby implausibly not asking for help, although she claimed that she feared for her life
(This not screaming for help, when Ford claimed that she was so frightened by Brett and Mark defies all logic.)

Ford claims that after she passed through the Gathering Room, she ran out the front door.

She said that she was relieved to note that Brett and Mark were not following her.
(This comment magnifies the implausibility of her not asking for help in the Gathering Room
Next, Ford claims that she then went home. How, he does not recall (again, the minimalist fact strategy)

Let us explore the universe of possibilities as to how Ford might have gotten home:

This 15 year old beer drinking, supposedly traumatized girl could have:

1. walked (staggered) through the night a distance of possibly as long as 10 miles.

2. Ford could have found and used a skate board.

3. Ford could have taken a bicycle that she found on the lawn, or
   4 Ford could have been driven home by someone else whom she did not remember, and this Good Samaritan did not come forward, despite the publicity surrounding this Alleged Incident(
   f course there is no Good Samaritan in the script because, if there were Good Samaritan in the Ford story, that Good Samaritan would obviously asked the following questions: and that Good Samaritan would have been subject to investigation as the following issues:

How did this Good Samaritan learn of the Allege Party?

Why was the Good Samaritan at the Alleged Party?

What did this Good Samaritan observe at the Alleged Party?

Did this Good Samaritan bring Ford to the Alleged Party?

What was the condition of Ford prior to this Alleged Party?

(No wonder that this well-crafted script contained no Good Samaritan)

If these possibilities sound absurd, that is because, they are absurd.

The fawning Democratic claim that we must believe Ford’s story, because her story is so “credible.”

That is a strange word for them to use when, under analysis Ford’s story does not make sense. and frankly this scripted Hollywood fiction story defies logistic
But of course, we are frequently told by movie critics that even the best and most enjoyable movies defy logic.

For example:

In The first Star Wars movie (“episode IV”) Darth Vader, when pursuing the X wing fighter being piloted by Luke Skywalker through the canyon of the death star comments “the force is strong in this pilot”. Vader is supposed to have sensed this at that speed and distance and through the metallic- like surface of t Luke’s X wing fighter and the metallic-like surface of Vader’s Tie fighter.
In the next episode, the revenge of the Empire, Vader senses that Luke is his son.

Yet, we learn in Episode VI (The “Return of the Jedi “) that the force is strong in all of Luke’s family: in his father and in his twin sister, Princess Leia.

However in Episode IV (the first episode o be screened, Princess Leia is captured and tortured by Vader while Leia and Vader re in the same room, yet Vader fails to sense that Leia is his daughter. An obvious flaw in the Star Wars script writing. Just as there are many flaws in the Ford story scrip.t

Now, the one trick jackasses claim that unless the FBI investigates this Ford story, the Ford story cannot be properly evaluated, thereby exposing poor Christine Ford and her Hollywood handlers to exposure.

The desperate Democrats do not care about Ford, who is a mere pawn in their delay game. The one trick jkasses have not yet realized the disaster which will befall the Democrats following the revelation of their involvement of this Hollywood script and production. All the democrats can focus on i:

DLAY, DELAY, DELAY

And the proof of our thesis is as follows:

All the FBI agents in the world re not going to help this absurd Ford story make sense.

What are these Sherlock Holmes –like FBI Agents going to investigate?

Oh Yea, lets send the FBI to look at some house located, we do not know where, to see if a party occurred there when, we do not know.

We can also have them talk to the “witnesses,” who have all denied under oath that they do not know what Ford is talking about. Maybe this will help Ford to fill in the necessary parts of her story that she says hot she does not know.

There is no location to investigate

No forensic evidence to examine

No electronic data to evaluate
No timeline to consider, and
all of the so called witnesses have already denied , under oath that they do no knee what Ford is talking about (for example, Ford’s supposed best friend, Leland Keyser, said under oath that she (Leland) never attended a party, at which Brett Kavanaugh was present, with or without Christine Blasey Ford.)

Of course no one has yet interviewed the trees in the community.

How long will this wild goose chase take?

The one trick jackses do not care so omg as they get DELAY, DELAY, DELAY.

It is absolutely clear that Diane Feinstein sat on this claim, so that she could use the Ford claim as a last minute delaying tactic, if all else failed.

Republican members of the judiciary Committee demanded to see a copy of the original Ford letter, after it had been released to the press.
Initially Diane Feinstein handed over a copy of the letter, which was described as a redacted copy

Perhaps he copy of the letter only appeared to be redacted by inadvertence..
Didi Fine Slime had been sitting on that letter for so long that the letter as probably soiled because of leaks in Didi’s Deepens diapers.

During the hearing, Senators began to ask who leaked the Ford claim letter to the press.

Since Feinstein refused to provide a copy of the Ford claim letter to the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee until weeks after the letter ws leaked to the press, the world of potential culprits would appear to be limited to one. of the following three sources

Ford’s local Congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, Debra Katz. Ford’s lawyer (recommended by Diane Feinstein) or Diane Feinstein, herself.

Of course, Feinstein denied that the leak came from her or her office.
But how can we believe Feinstein, until the completion of an FBI investigation of the leak?

Christine Blassey Ford initially requested to remain anonymous. Much was made of this request for anonymity during the course of the Judiciary Committee hearings.

It is truly a shame that someone outed Ford.

The FBI should also be asked to investigate with whom on the Democratic side of the United States Senate did Ford or her attorneys or other representatives discuss the matter ,of Ford’s testimony or the questions to be asked by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee prior to those questions being posed to Ford during the hearing.
What was the date of each such discussion?

THE DESPERATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
SLIME JOB NUMBER TWO
“DEBBIE DOES YALE”

Finding some success in their delay game, using the heavy drinking Ford, another accuser mysteriously appeared, namely Deborah Rmiriz, represented by Democratic Party hot shot Lawyers, John Clune and Stan Garnett of Colorado.

Background:

Ramirez fabrication became the second batch slime hurled by the Democratic Party in the Democratic Party campaign to slime a candidate, whom they clearly could not defeat on the merits.

Deborah Ramirez is a Board Member of the Progressive Alliance for Non-violence and she is a registered Democrat.

It certainly would not have been difficult for democratic Party operatives to have found this activist, progressive Democrat and determine from her Progressive, liberal organization Board biography that she was a graduate of Yale college at the time that Judge Kavanaugh attended Yale.
One can get a liberal democrat to lie for the cause with precious little effort.
Possible Motive:

Perhaps Ramiriz thought of herself as “hot” while she was at Yale, and she harbored deep resentment that Brett Kavanaugh was not interested in her.
Like Ford, the Democrats other phony accuser, Rmiriz mentioned the names of 4 persons whom she claimed witnessed the Alleged Incident.

Of course, just as was the case in the Ford wreck, each of the so called “witnesses” denied seeing anything like what Ramirez claimed to have happened.

Following the revelation of the Ramirez Slimeation (by the Democrats, The New York Times dispatched several instigators to Yale, who interviewed “dozens of people” (Students and Faculty) but those investigators found no support for lying Debbie’s story.

Debbie’s story was so flimsy that even the New York Times refused to publish that story.

According to Debbie’s own word, Debbie as so drunk on the evening of the Alleged Incident that she could not stand up.

Debbie says that during the Alleged Incident, she was lying on her back on the floor of the location of this Alleged Party. (In a jocular vein, at least Debbie admits that she was ling)

Debbie also said that she was so drunk that she “blacked out” several times during this Alleged Party.

Debbie also admitted that she could not be sure that the alleged wrongdoer was Brett Kavanaugh.

Amazingly, Debbie said that she had no recollection of the incident at all, until she met with her lawyers.
One wonders how her Colorado, Democrat Party friendly, lawyers were able to “help” Debbie “recall” an Alleged Incident, which supposedly occurred at a location at which those lawyers were not present, and which incident supposedly occurred decades in the past, at a location thousands of miles from the office of those lawyers!

Nevertheless, Debbie’s cock smd bull story was sufficiently salacious (like the story in the phony Dirty Dossier, paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party) that the Democrats decided to proceed with this next sliming attempt.

Debbie claims that she attended a drinking bash at Yale, where the alleged incident occurred.

Debbie claims that she was totally dunk during the alleged event, as a result of her drunken condition, she cannot remember the details and she can’t remember it Brett Kavanaugh was the wrongdoer.

(Heavens, another minimalist fact script)
Does Debbie’s “I got myself drunk and cannot remember any details” story sound remarkably similar to the Ford story. in which poor Christine Ford,” I had some beers at the party and cannot remember any details”?

It is pathetic that the dopey Democrats cannot eve come up with a new story line, even with the Democrat Party’s access to Hollywood’s vaunted fiction writers.

After Debbie’s claimed “witnesses” refused to support Debbie’s claim, Debbie and her Democrat Party supporting buddies began calling all of Debbie’s classmates in an effort to find someone who would serve as some kind of witness. Those calls failed to find anyone to support Debbie’s obvious lie.

Reporters identified Debbie’s roommate and supposedly best friend at Yale. That lady told the reporters that Debbie always told her everything involving Debbie, which occurred when she and Debbie were at Yale.

Debbie’s best friend told the newspaper reporters that Debbie never mentioned the salacious Alleged Incident while Debbie was at Yale together with this best friend.

If such an event did occur at Yale, one would imagine that such a tale would have been known all over campus (and surely throughout the dormitory where this Alleged Incident allegedly took place.)
(Note to Debbie’s script writers: The problem with providing the time and the location of a slimeation Alleged Incident is that it can be checked out as the reporters for the New York Times did do)
Since there is not much of a chance of the discovery of the hand of the Democrats in the creation (authorship) of Debbie’s script, it is no wonder that the Democrat’s want an FBI investigation.

DELAY, DELAY, DELAY
Plus
The Democrats are finding it impossible to concoct a credible tory without getting some background on which they might be able to create a plausible story.

Even Walt Disney and his cartoonist first drew a background and then layered the characters and the story on that background canvas.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, some gooey slime simply will not tick to a clean surface!

Naturally, the one trick jackasses are demanding that they have the FI investigate this story.

Oh yeah, we can have the FBI talk to the dozens of people interviewed by the New York Times reporters. You remember, all of the people who denied any knowledge of the event.

Or perhaps the FBI can set up a telephone bank to help Debbi to call around to encourage some leftie Yale-ies to lie for Debbie.

THE DESPERATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
SLIME JOB NUMBER THREE
“THE SLIMY PORN LAWYER FARIE TALE”

Mark Avenatti (, the attorney for Stormy Davis) why has declared his hatred for President Trump and Rudy Giuliani, and who laughably said that he intends to run for president soon, announced that he located a woman who would make an accusation against Brett Kavanaugh.

(Yeah, that is a surprise)

Avenatti is L.A .based ad very connected with the Ultraliberals.

Tucker Carlson, of Fox news has created a widely accepted nickname for this slob, namely “the slimy porn lawyer.”

Despite Avenatti’s regular appearance on CNN “news” programs, Avenatti is rapidly becoming known as “Avenutti slimy porn lawyer” lawyer.
While some Democrats were salivating waiting for this next lime thrower to come forward, many Democrats feared that with an Avenatti claimant, the Democrats will be correctly viewed as having overplayed heir hand.
Avenatti did forward his client’s affidavit to the Judiciary Committee of the U S Senate, and the worst fears of the rational Democrats was realized, Avenatti grossly overplayed his hand.
The affidavit was signed by Julie Swetnick, who claimed to be a victim.

Clearly, Julie is a victim. What is not yet clear is whether Julie is a victim of some boys, who attended Georgetown Prep over 30 years ago, or whether he is a victim of Avenatti this year.

Avenatti had his “client” sign this affidavit under oath, which means that if Julie’s’ story is false in any material regards, Julie will be going to jail for perjury, and/ or for filing a redolent claim with federal officials.

Women who are part of the Democratic Party are wringing their hand whining that this is a horrible “story.”

We agree that this is a horrific “story,” with particular emphasis on the word “story.”

A summary of t Julie’s allegation is as follows:

1. There were several parties (at least 10 in number) involving several boys, who were then attending Georgetown Prep, and several girls of high school age (but the identity of their high school is not provided)

2. Several gang rapes were committed at these parties.

3. There were many victims of these gang rapes.

4. Julie was a college student (meaning that she must have been 19 or 20 years old) while Julie was supposedly hanging out at parties with high school kids, during these Alleged gang rapes.

5. Adult Julie witnessed these alleged gang rapes going on at 10 different parties (allegedly going on 10 weekends), and adult Julie did nothing to help the alleged rape victims or to notify authorities who might prevent future rapes.

(Julie sounds like a real woman’s advocacy gem).

1. After seeing what was happening to all of these Alleged rape victims, Julie attended yet another party and got raped herself.
   (On the basis of this claim, one might ask: How dumb is Julie Swetnick?

But, then, Julie was dumb enough to get involved in this slimeation with Avenatti)

If these allegation were true, these stories would have been well known throughout the entire North Bethesda community (North Bethesda is the community in which Georgetown Prep is Located)
North Bethesda is a small town.

Anyone who has spent time in a small town in America knows that there are no secrets in a small town.

Everyone in the town knows who is fooling around with whom.

If these stories were true, these stories would have been on the front pages of all of the newspapers in the area.

We know that the FBI conducted no fewer than 6 full background checks regarding Brett Kavanaugh during recent years.

Americans are now being asked to believe that these stories are true, notwithstanding the fact that several thorough FBI background checks discovered not a hint of any of these allegations.

It is impossible that any person with n I Q higher than that of plant life could believe this whopper?

Julie Swetnick has an interesting history a well.

A former boyfriend of Julie obtained a court restraining order against Julie, because she had become so obsessed with the ex-boyfriend that Julie had been stalking her ex and threatening the wife and child of Julie’s ex. Julie is portrayed as a character from the Mark Douglas-Glenn Close movie “Fatal Attraction.”
Brett Kavanaugh deserves to be confirmed immediately, but no, the one trick jackasses are insisting that the FBI investigate this ridiculous fairy tale.

DELAY, DELAY, DELAY.

Following the elevation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the FBI should investigate whether Avenatti, who got his “client “ to sign a sworn affidavit, committed subornation of perjury ,and conspiracy to file a false claim with federal officials requiring that Avenatti spend time in prison.

THE DESPERATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
SLIME JOB NUMBER FOUR
THE ANONYMOUS LETTER FROM COLORADO
a/k/a “If there is smoke, there must be something to fire at Kavanaugh, even if the smoke is marihuana smoke”

An anonymous letter from Colorado was presented to the Judiciary Committee by the desperate Democrat’s in an effort to delay the nomination process. Of course, the one trick jackass demanded another FBI investigation.

DELAY DELAY DELAY

We agree that aft5er Judge Kavanaugh has been elevated to the Supreme Court, This anonymous letter should be investigated by the FBI to determine what part Democrats played in this attempted slimeation.