haha!!!

Kavenaugh's legal team say Ford's lie detector test results and her therapist's notes have not been turned into the Senate Judiciary Committee ahead of tomorrow's hearing. Gee, I wonder why?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brett-k...ay-2018-09-26/

Tomorrow's Judiciary hearing should be very interesting indeed -if Ford even bothers to show up (even Diane Feinstein cannot guarantee that)

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/25/f...cuser-hearing/

Seeketh and ye shall find...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...chael-avenatti

Spanky really is a piece of shit.

Never heard of the guy before EF.
But two things crossed my mind:
If a lawyer of mine would ever tweet about a case of mine - he'd need a darn good lawyer!

And this Kavanaugh's reminicing about "good old wild days" sessions will not be very soothing from now on.

This lawyer, Avenatti, represented Stormy Daniels, the porn star who went after Donald Trump. He was dealt a 10 million dollar judgment in bankruptcy court last May.

Not the guy I would ever choose to represent me (if I made such an allegation)as he has an auspicious at best reputation (what rhymes with sleazy??) From Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Avenatti

To quote:

In 2018, Avenatti's law firm was subjected to a $10 million judgment in U.S. bankruptcy court.[47] Avenatti has also defaulted on a $440,000 judgment in back taxes, penalties, and interest that he was personally obligated to pay under another bankruptcy settlement. The U.S. Attorney's office asserted in court that a motion seeking payment would soon be filed against Avenatti.[47] Eagan Avenatti had been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings and, in December 2017, had agreed to pay $4.8 million in unpaid fees to a former partner, $2 million in back taxes, and $1 million to other creditors.[48] In June 2018, the former partner filed a motion in U.S. bankruptcy court asking for a lien on any and all legal fees Avenatti's firm might collect, up to $10 million, from clients in 54 cases including his representation of Stormy Daniels.[49]

Curious as to why Dems are "tiptoeing" around this announcement. And this from Vanity Fair - which is decidedly not conservative!

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018...anaugh-accuser

Whoa there cowboy, that's libellous.

As you've so handily quoted there, his company filed for bankruptcy, not him.

If you believe this disqualifies him from being your lawyer, you presumably also think that doing it 5 or 6 times should disqualify you from being president 5 or 6 times over too?

Also, auspicious doesn't mean what you think it does, it is a positive adjective. You are mixing it up with suspicious.

@Curley - As others have noted, he didn't tweet about his client without consulting them first and receiving their blessing.

The tweet was deleted on the next day and corrected.

Poor old guy should have a better Carer to control his tweets!

Ah okay, fine then. Missed that bit of info.

Thanks, I feared I would have to eat humble pie

Matthew 7:7–8
"7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye. shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh. findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

I always found "knocketh" a bit weird!

And where are Kavenaugh's lie detector test results?

Correct about auspicious...my bad as they say! This lawyer reminds me of a publicity seeking sleaze. Just my opinion but Dems also did not enthusiastically endorse him nor his "surprise" client.

As I stated before, I never voted for Trump. Regarding Kavanaugh, I don't believe supposition without hard evidence. And so far, Avenatti and his client have done a lot of mud slinging but it will be interesting to see if they can corroborate/prove their accusations. I also find the timing of this latest reveal fascinating.... Anything to delay/stall the nomination.

I do not believe that anyone should make an accusation without backing it up with facts/evidence and therein lies the caveat. Lots of hearsay but not a lot of evidence.

Busy week in Trump land, hard to know where to start!

Source

Source

Source

Source

Trump tweeted

And Avenatti tweeted

And it is only Wednesday

He never claimed nor offered to take a lie detector test but Ford did so why not produce the results if you claimed they were positive?

Wonder if Washington Post (WaPo) did their due diligence there? There are also inconsistencies between the WaPo article and what Ford now claims. Initially, her therapist's notes said four boys assaulted at this so called party; she claimed the therapist got it wrong and there were 4 boys at the party (a pretty big mistake by therapist but okay we will "go with " her claim) Later, the 4 boys became 3 boys and 1 girl (with no retraction from WaPo - which is highly unusual!) Now, apparently WaPo says there were 6 at the party. So who is the fourth boy and why wasn't he identified?

Here is a link to Kimberely Strassel's Twitter (For those who do not know, Strassel is a senior editor at the Wall Street Journal. Also Emma Brown was the journalist who write the Ford article in the WaPo):

Kimberley Strassel
‏
Verified account

@KimStrassel
14h14 hours ago
More
Kimberley Strassel Retweeted emma brown
Still waiting for @emmersbrown to explain a few things. Ford told her therapist in 2012 there were four boys and her at the party. Now we hear three boys and a girl. WaPo has glided over this glaring inconsistency, trying to claim "six" people at party. Who is No. 6? Sloppy?

"He never claimed nor offered to take a lie detector test" Now why would that be?

Because they are not admissible in court as they are not 100% reliable. However, saying you have passed a polygraph does give one a certain "gravitas" regarding their accusation in the eyes of many Americans.

Which begs the next question: Why say you have passed a polygraph but fail to submit the test results to the Senate Judiciary Committee - notwithstanding the therapist's notes which seem to contain some inconsistencies with Ford's own account?

And the WaPo article (which also has inconsistencies)? Like Strassel, the WSJ editor states, it looks like sloppy journalism to me...

But this is not a Court hearing, it is a Senate hearing so what has Kavenaugh to fear from submitting to a polygraph?

Also...it begs the question whether Kavanaugh is even mentioned in the so called polygraph test. If not, Dr Ford can forget (along with many other details she cannot remember) this accusation regarding Kavanaugh being taken seriously.

While she may have been assaulted and experienced trauma at some point, unless she mentions Kavanaugh by name in the polygraph, this test is weightless and completely inadmissible. And her accusations will fall flat and render her account hearsay.

Maybe that is why she has not turned the test over to the Committee? If so, extremely sloppy journalism by the Washington Post.

Apparently, Dr Ford's polygraph test has just been released to the Judiciary Committee but she and her legal counsel still refuse to release her therapist's notes.

Why would you not insist the FBI investigate if you have nothing to hide? why would you ask for an FBI investigation if you were lying?