In an act of desperation designed to block Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court by smearing his reputation, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., hinted Thursday that someone she would not name has made unspecified accusations about Kavanaugh that possibly might involve criminal conduct.

Feinstein’s Hail Mary pass came exactly one week before the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the nomination of the highly qualified judge, who now sits on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Feinstein is leaving it to the media to fill in the facts about her vague and unsubstantiated claims about Kavanaugh, who was nominated by President Trump. She clearly is counting on Trump’s many opponents in the media to help her keep the president’s nominee off the Supreme Court – as they would seek to do for anyone nominated by Trump.

Feinstein said in a statement: “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”

What the heck does that mean? (Translation: I got nothing).
OK – Feinstein is claiming she knows something – but she’s not saying what that mystery something is. How on Earth is anyone supposed to evaluate that? How would any of you reading this like someone to make a cryptic charge like the one Feinstein has thrown out about you, without presenting a shred of evidence?

Fox News reported that two sources said Feinstein got a letter from Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., in July making the allegations against Kavanaugh – although the senator never spoke about it publicly before Thursday. That’s the way Hail Mary passes work – you don’t throw one until you’re desperate and headed for a loss on the football field.

The mystery letter wasn’t even concerning enough for Feinstein to show to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

The Intercept reported the letter was sent by someone associated with Stanford University and involved a woman and Kavanaugh when she and the 53-year-old judge were both in high school.

The New York Times reported that, according to two sources it did not identify, the letter referenced possible sexual misconduct between Kavanaugh the unidentified woman. Possible, but that is awfully vague for this late stage of a U.S. Supreme Court confirmation.

With so little information, how is anyone supposed to figure out what is going on?

If Feinstein knows something, she should say something. If Kavanaugh is being accused of sexual misconduct then we all have a right to know.
So much about this just smells like a political skunk, not the least of which is the timing of Feinstein’s public non-release of this new information.

If this is an 11th hour power play by Feinstein – and there’s no “there” there – then the senator is playing politics with an otherwise respectable man’s reputation. Kavanaugh has a wife and two young daughters and as far as we know has been an upstanding member of his community.

The White House also hit back at Feinstein, questioning the timing of her new claim.

“Throughout his confirmation process, Judge Kavanaugh has had 65 meetings with senators – including with Senator Feinstein – sat through over 30 hours of testimony, addressed over 2,000 questions in a public setting and additional questions in a confidential session,” White House spokesperson Kerri Kupec said in a statement. “Not until the eve of his confirmation has Sen. Feinstein or anyone raised the specter of new ‘information’ about him."

If this is all a political game, then shame on you Sen. Feinstein. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what it looks like.

Washington Post White House reporter Seung Min Kim tweeted Thursday: "New – FBI does not now plan to launch a criminal investigation of the Kavanaugh matter; instead the bureau passed the material to the White House as an update to Kavanaugh's background check, via @mattzap"
It looks as though Feinstein was saving this “new” allegations for the last minute and then counting on her smear to keep Kavanaugh from being confirmed. But now that the FBI is saying it has no plans to investigate, it seems like her Hail Mary pass may get intercepted.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/13/feinsteins-shameful-kavanaugh-hail-mary-pass.html

Democrats are getting desperate and this isn't the first time Feinstein has made up something to attack Republicans and President Trump. Feinstein should be kicked out of office and soon to be United States Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh should file a lawsuit against Feinstein for Slander and Deformation of Character.

This is the most qualified candidate we have ever had for Supreme Court and because the Democrats are sore losers and are ravenous whiner babies they will ruin a good mans name and image because they are desperate and aren't getting their way.

Once again Democrats have to lie and deceive to to try and get their way.

I also love how President Trump while a candidate for President released all of the names of the people he was going to nominate for top judges across the country and United States Supreme Court Justices. Kavanaugh's name was on that list and Democrats are now just bringing up all these issues...…. If anything they have said about Kavanaugh over the last couple weeks were true they would have used it to attack then Presidential Candidate Trump during the campaign and not wait until Kavanaugh is all bit confirmed.

I hope voters hold Democrats accountable this November and also November of 2020.

how many times do they think the Roy Moore-Gambit is going to work?

The only thing they can do is make up lies since they cant go after President Trump on the issues.

The Democrats MO is to smear and tarnish someone's image, even if what they are saying are all lies.

I've heard a couple of guesses about what this is about. Just the fact that it happened when he was in high school, is completely stupid. Supposedly, they locked some girl in a room.

Oh horrors. They were acting like kids. Shall we go way back and start blaming him for sucking his thumb? How about soiling his diaper? Riding his bicycle on the sidewalk? Cookie thief? Talking back? Running with scissors?

This coming from Diane Feinstein. The lady who had a chinese spy working for her. Uhhh, yeah.

I think it's time we take away sharp objects from these people.

Good Post!

WWG1 WGA..

Once again Democrats have to lie and deceive to to try and get their way.


lol ... sure doesnt seem like just a Democrat thing.


And I dont know why it would be a lie that someone received information, why is that so unbelievable? The quote did not describe at all what type of information or what it was about.

Haven't others for DECADES been talking about 'information' thats going to be brought to light about certain democrats?

just part of the lazy thinking part of politics (again, happening on both sides)

poor comparison msharmony, one is a source???. Talking about 1 person who seem to be as honest and good hearted as can be when he was a adolescent. He did something???. ... The other is emails and files that show bias and possible corruption by the highest law enforcement dept. in the country. Adults vs Children. What a sniveling , cowardly thing to do, even for a democrat. Shame on the democrats that don't call her on it.

i should have clarified my self. Shame on Diane fienstien not msharmony.

No, emails and files were INVESTIGATED ALREADY. I'm talking about the constant claims about what is out there that is going to 'eventually' come to light about other past candidates. If she got information, it was not 'childish' thing to turn it over, but the 'legal' thing. Although I understand in today's climate how people seem to twist the two definitions around.

Then why didn't Feinstein turn it over when she got it? Back in July?

More liberal B.S..

Someone ( who's name will remain silent) approached me today ant told me of a incident that happend many years ago according to this persons friend. This incident had something to do w/Obama ( obviously while he was in high school ) and it had something to with sex. I don't know if it's true. But I think I'll leak it to the news . I hope it doesn't cause trouble with his family. Oh well if it stops him from being nominated to the scotus it's worth it. Remember Harry Reid's lies about Romney not paying his taxes. He made that lie up to take votes away. We've come to expect this kind of tactics from the left. It really says a lot about a person that is comfortable to knowingly decieve like that.

Okay. Well, we would leave it up to the educated public to decide if its relevant to anything having to do with the job in question for Obama. That is in an ideal world where the public is educated and can use apply logic though.

on the other hand, if OBama was trying to be a SCOTUS (a lifetime job if approved that oversees the law of the land for their lifetime) and someone did not reveal that, people who didnt want him to get the nomination would pitch a fit that nothing was said.

SCOTUS is a unique position that should be vetted. If nothing is there, nothing is there. if there is, there is. a SCOTUS should have the aptitude to answer or explain the answers to those question. The public should have the aptitude to decide if those questions are relevant to the job position.

B.S. This man answerd all the questions they asked him for three days . No worse or better than any other scotus appointment interviews. But this was a young man that at worse tried to do what boys have been doing for ever, tring to get in a girls pants( sorry ladies for my crude talk) . To me it makes him normal at worse. No reason to try to ruin this guy. Suppose you were overlooked for a job for something you might have done when you were a youngin . Even though you out grew that adolesent behavior . It wouldn't be fair I don't care what job you were applying for. Jesus made mistakes also.

thats a matter of perception, ask Kamala Harris. Whether he 'answered' or 'evaded' is another topic of question. If all he did was 'boy stuff' when he was a boy, there is no harm done unless he has since not shown any propensity towards growing out of said 'boy stuff', in which case his judgment in cases regarding females may be a bit slanted.

thats a matter of perception, ask Kamala Harris. Whether he 'answered' or 'evaded' is another topic of question. If all he did was 'boy stuff' when he was a boy, there is no harm done unless he has since not shown any propensity towards growing out of said 'boy stuff', in which case his judgment in cases regarding females may be a bit slanted.

This is exhausting , sometimes I think I'd rather be communicating with a rock.

lol .... something we agree on.

unlike 'any other job' SCOTUS is a position that oversees the laws of the land, that can be called upon to interpret constitutional rights, and is appointed for the LIFE of that individual.

thorough vetting should be expected moreso than 'any other job' and the candidate should, at that level, have the aptitude to explain or answer whatever those questions are.