Kavanaugh accuser's lawyer is vice chair of soros funded org opposing kavanaugh

[Jewboo]

I don’t think one should be judged to harshly on what one is doing in a drunken uninhibited state when a testosterone filled teenager, unless you really hurt people.

https://images.mentalfloss.com/sites...size=1100x1100

This.

[Neuro]

https://images.mentalfloss.com/sites...size=1100x1100

This.

Sadly, I remember that movie with John Belushi...

[Ares]

Document Expert: Multiple Discrepancies Discovered in Senator Feinstein’s Christine Ford Letter – Looks Like a Fraud

Another Internet sleuth released a series of tweets that are damning to the letter provided by Senator Feinstein from Dr. Ford who accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct nearly 40 years ago.

The Internet is the place where individuals with different backgrounds and skill sets are able to combine their efforts to address the many lies in the MSM today. This happens all the time and the MSM hates it when their lies are uncovered or questioned.

Yesterday Dr. Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal released a series of tweets that dissect and refute the letter provided by Senator Feinstein from the accuser of Judge Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford’s letter is full of flaws which lead one to realize something just doesn’t add up!

Dr. ‘Dossy’ Blumenthal states that she believes Ford’s letter is written by a third party –

1) I believe the letter from Dr. Ford was written by a third party.#ConfirmKavanaughNow pic.twitter.com/qbJPviP75p

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Dossy lists her credibility reviewing letters to Congress –

17) My professional opinion is based on 2.5 years of being responsible for constituent letters from Congress. Meaning, I have scanned, read, reviewed, routed and responded to hundreds of them.

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Dossy also has a Ph.D with a focus on creative writing –

19) I have a Ph.D. in sociology and a bachelor’s degree in interdisciplinary studies with a focus on creative writing.

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Dossy overall believes that an educated person did not write Dr. Ford’s letter –

21) First of all, as has already been pointed out, Dr. Ford’s letter does not read like a very educated person wrote it. https://t.co/WN8kGCUMtk

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Dossy provides a copy of the letter –

22) Here is the letter.https://t.co/errMnJaoHF pic.twitter.com/mTN8iVUmQV

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Dossy notes that the first clue is “high school” is capitalized when it shouldn’t be –

23) The first clue is that she capitalized “high school.” In this sentence, it doesn’t need to be capitalized. pic.twitter.com/VeDewwB4SV

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Dossy says people use their best English when writing Congress yet Dr. Ford’s letter is sloppy –

24) It has been my experience at work that private citizens generally use their best English writing skills in communicating to Congress. Dr. Ford has a Stanford pedigree, is a PhD, and is heavily published. The letter is sloppy.

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

The font size of the first line of the second paragraph is in a different font – would a professor send such a sloppy letter to Congress?

25) The second clue is the first line of the second paragraph. As others have pointed out, the font size is not consistent; is this a sloppy printout she is sending on a letter of historic importance? pic.twitter.com/yyQUiBm6Mg

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Dr. Ford wrote “in the early 1980’s” – wrong grammar – should be “1980s” –

26) Also noteworthy is that she says “in the early 1980’s.” The grammar here is wrong – you would write “1980s” without the apostrophe. pic.twitter.com/WbJTVnlUZd

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Emotional constituents would not be so vague –

27) Further, in the letters I have reviewed, emotional constituents are usually hyper-specific about their complaints — never vague. Logically, that is why they are writing to Congress: to remedy a wrong that is clear to them, but not others.

So “early 1980’s” is not normal. pic.twitter.com/sOYc4sPf2G

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

It’s odd that Judge Kavanaugh’s name is not in the first line – why? –

28) Here’s another odd thing. Why didn’t she put Kavanaugh’s name in the first line, eg “I am writing to express my concerns about Judge Brett Kavanaugh.” pic.twitter.com/wQbQFrfJun

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Why did Dr. Ford say she hasn’t “knowingly” seen Kavanaugh since? Was she drunk?

29) Why did the writer of the letter go to such pains to say: “I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since…”

What does “knowingly” refer to?
Was she drunk at other parties and can’t remember him? pic.twitter.com/olQ5FxRPwg

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Dr. Ford says “they” locked the door – which one – both?

30) “They” locked the door. Who is “they?” Which one? Both together? pic.twitter.com/HtZJWe56FH

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Dr. Ford writes a “very drunken” – poor English again – should be “very drunk” –

31) “a very drunken Judge said mixed words to Kavanaugh” — this is the writing of either an illiterate or someone for whom English is a second language.

—“Very drunken”? She means “very drunk.”

—“Mixed words?” She means “said contradictory things.” pic.twitter.com/t73djlNI7r

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

The letter does not mirror being from someone who is a Dr. –

32) This is not to offend people who don’t have good English skills or who are struggling to learn. Rather it is to point out that the letter does not reflect someone of Dr. Ford’s professional rank.

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

The awkward English has poor grammar interspersed with flowery language –

33) The awkward English and poor grammar is interspersed with flowery language.

“The two scrapped with each other,” for example.

“I was able to take this opportune moment.” pic.twitter.com/N8OIUHWFIP

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Dr. Ford calls psychotherapy as medical treatment – why? –

34) Why does she refer to psychotherapy as “medical treatment?” pic.twitter.com/Ha4tpy8Gy7

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

The letter is not from someone who has been published in journals – no way –

35) This person has been published in countless peer-reviewed journals.

Doesn’t add up.

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

The letter refers to the same bathroom twice making it sound like two different bathrooms –

36) Another example: The letter writer refers to the same bathroom twice, but the second mention makes it sound like it is a totally different bathroom. pic.twitter.com/Uqva0uwjls

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Why does Dr. Ford use her maiden name in the letter?

37) If she is married and published under her married name why is she using her maiden name? pic.twitter.com/FVOQqrqRyt

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Why does Dr. Ford not refer to herself as Dr.?

38) Why doesn’t she refer to herself as “Dr.?” Where is her return address? Where is Feinstein’s address? Eshoo’s? pic.twitter.com/3fwyYctT1c

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Confidential is in the letter 3 times – when did Dr. Ford agree to release her name? –

39) The word “confidential” appears three times, once in bold. Where did Ford agree to have her name released again? pic.twitter.com/gfDgEPUu6J

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Dr. Ford shifts tense in the same sentence – not professional –

40) Shift in tense here: “It is upsetting” (present tense) but “I felt” (past tense). Again not PhD level writing or even basic business writing. pic.twitter.com/6t2V2nVU8f

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Was there a privacy release from Dr. Ford? If so, when? –

41) Where is the Privacy Release Form that would allow Feinstein to inquire on Ford’s behalf?

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

The whole letter just does not add up – no way –

45) This whole story just doesn’t add up.

Starting with that very fake-sounding letter.

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

Finally— Dossy states that it is ironic that the same people that contaminate our culture promoting sex to children scream outrage when conservatives are accused of sexual misdeeds –

13) I find it ironic that the same people who want to use government money in our schools to teach children to have sex — the same people who plant articles in Teen Vogue about sodomy — are the ones who scream “RAAAAPPPEE” because Brett Kavanaugh was part of heterosexual life.

— Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-like-a-fraud/

[Twisted Titan]

No wonder this Jezebel doesn't want lawyers asking her questions.

They would cross exam her ass to pieces

[midnight rambler]

No wonder this Jezebel doesn't want lawyers asking her questions.

They would cross exam her ass to pieces

Not just that, the committee is wanting a woman to question Ford, not one of the all man committee.

[Twisted Titan]

Not just that, the committee is wanting a woman to question Ford, not one of the all man committee.

They are fools

A woman will slice your throat far deeper and quicker than any man could.


That interview will be her meal ticket to the big time

[Ares]

LMAO HA HA HA HA HA

Looks like 4chan trolled Avanatti

http://gold-silver.us/forum/attachme...3&d=1537901438

[madfranks]

LMAO HA HA HA HA HA

Looks like 4chan trolled Avanatti

^If true, this is amazing.

[Down1]

That is excellent.
He is a dirtbag.

UPDATE: Avenatti Denies 4chan Prankster Punked Him With Hoax Kavanaugh ‘Train’ Gang Rape Accusation

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...pe-accusation/

[Cebu_4_2]

Senate Judiciary Committee reschedules vote on Brett Kavanaugh for Friday morning

Tension builds ahead of high-stakes Kavanaugh hearing
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser Dr. Christine Blasey Ford are scheduled to testify under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday; chief congressional correspondent Mike Emanuel reports from Capitol Hill.
The Senate Judiciary Committee announced Tuesday that it had rescheduled a vote on Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination for Friday morning.

The vote is scheduled to take place at 9:30 a.m. ET one day after Kavanaugh and sex assault accuser Christine Blasey Ford are due to testify before lawmakers. Ford has claimed that Kavanaugh tried removing her clothes during a party when they were in high school. Kavanaugh denies her accusation.

A successful vote Friday is not necessary to advance Kavanaugh's nomination to the full Senate. Current Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas received no recommendation from the Judiciary Committee in 1991, but was still confirmed by the Senate. Conversely, Robert Bork received an unfavorable recognition from the committee in 1987, though his nomination was rejected by the full Senate.

The allegations by Ford, who went public with her claims Sept. 16, have caused cracks in what appeared to be a smooth path to confirmation for Kavanaugh. Multiple Republican senators have told Fox News that they want to hear Ford's testimony before deciding which way to vote on Kavanaugh's nomination.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a key undecided Republican, told reporters she will be "glued to the television" during Thursday's hearing.
However, GOP lawmakers sounded more bullish about Kavanaugh's chances on Tuesday, with some discussing keeping the Senate in session this weekend so that they can begin the process of confirming Kavanaugh right away.
"I go into the hearings with very positive feelings about him, and I hope Thursday goes well," Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told reporters.
The debate took another twist Sunday night when the New Yorker magazine published claims by Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh who says he exposed himself to her while drunk at a college party in the 1980s. Kavanaugh has denied that allegation as well.

Fox News has learned that Judiciary Committee staffers interviewed Kavanaugh by phone about the Ramirez allegations on Tuesday. A source familiar with the call told Fox News that Republican staffers led the interview, while Democratic aides listened without asking any questions.