Brett Kavenaugh Supreme Court Nomination

[U-Ute]

An already contentious nomination is set to even get more so now that there are stories out there that he may have lied under oath in 2005 and 2006.

[LA Ute]

Kamala Harris earns 4 Pinocchios.

Did Brett Kavanaugh signal he supports ‘going after birth control’? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/11/did-brett-kavanaugh-offer-dog-whistle-abortion-foes/?utm_term=.febdf0ee66ee)

It won't matter and she probably doesn't care. She might ask the staffer who fed her that line of questioning to be more careful.

[U-Ute]

You know, I'd be a little more on board with the "there is no there there" on this if it didn't seem like the Republicans were working overtime to hide something about him.

[LA Ute]

2416

[UTEopia]

I am so tired of this type of crap. I have not seen anything that suggests that Kavanaugh is not qualified to sit on SCOTUS.

[concerned]

I am so tired of this type of crap. I have not seen anything that suggests that Kavanaugh is not qualified to sit on SCOTUS.


I agree that this is crap, but if I were a Senator I would vote against him for at least 3 reasons:

1. His dissent In the DC Cir. case has such an expansive view of the 2nd amendment that I think it would make any reasonable gun reform unconstitutional. He went way beyond Scalia's opinion in Heller. That is why the NRA is spending so much money supporting him. I think that would be extremely unfortunate.

2. He will overturn Roe v. Wade and return abortion rights to the states. His statement that Roe is settled law is meaningless if it was wrongly decided, as he asserts. I personally think that is a bad thing.

3. His memos regarding a president's immunity from process while in office would render a president untouchable except for impeachment, I believe. The Nixon, Clinton, and Trump presidencies are examples why that would be wrong for the health of the country.

[UTEopia]

I agree that this is crap, but if I were a Senator I would vote against him for at least 3 reasons:

1. His dissent In the DC Cir. case has such an expansive view of the 2nd amendment that I think it would make any reasonable gun reform unconstitutional. He went way beyond Scalia's opinion in Heller. That is why the NRA is spending so much money supporting him. I think that would be extremely unfortunate.

2. He will overturn Roe v. Wade and return abortion rights to the states. His statement that Roe is settled law is meaningless if it was wrongly decided, as he asserts. I personally think that is a bad thing.

3. His memos regarding a president's immunity from process while in office would render a president untouchable except for impeachment, I believe. The Nixon, Clinton, and Trump presidencies are examples why that would be wrong for the health of the country.

I agree with each item you mention and while those views are troubling to me personally, I don't believe that holding them make him unqualified.

[LA Ute]

I agree that this is crap, but if I were a Senator I would vote against him for at least 3 reasons:

1. His dissent In the DC Cir. case has such an expansive view of the 2nd amendment that I think it would make any reasonable gun reform unconstitutional. He went way beyond Scalia's opinion in Heller. That is why the NRA is spending so much money supporting him. I think that would be extremely unfortunate.

2. He will overturn Roe v. Wade and return abortion rights to the states. His statement that Roe is settled law is meaningless if it was wrongly decided, as he asserts. I personally think that is a bad thing.

3. His memos regarding a president's immunity from process while in office would render a president untouchable except for impeachment, I believe. The Nixon, Clinton, and Trump presidencies are examples why that would be wrong for the health of the country.

It’s all a matter of one‘s political persuasion, I guess. When Kagan came
up for confirmation there was no doubt how she would vote on the issues you described. And yet people on my side of the aisle pretty much figured that Obama had won the election, and he had the right to appoint a justice he liked. Of course, the difference was that Kagan was not going to be a swing vote, like Kavanaugh will be (and that’s only because of how the Democrats defeated Bork, then Ginsberg was found to have smoked marijuana [!!!], and we ended up with Kennedy, who turned out to to be the favorite justice of many liberals). Had the situation been different, there might have been more of a GOP outcry against Kagan. I’m not sure — I don’t think Republicans have mounted campaigns against judicial nominees the way the Democrats have. That might just be a matter of how each nominee came up, and when.

As I’ve said before, I think the Supreme Court is just too darned important now. People on both sides of the aisle, but mainly on the left, see the SCOTUS as a means of achieving their policy goals, usually goals that can’t be achieved at the ballot box. That sounds like a slam, and it is, but it’s only a very gentle one. But this is all just a matter of the tides of history, I guess. Maybe that is the proper role of the courts. I don’t think so, but nobody ever checks with me about these things in advance. It’s very frustrating for me.

[concerned]

It’s all a matter of one‘s political persuasion, I guess. When Kagan came
up for confirmation there was no doubt how she would vote on the issues you described. And yet people on my side of the aisle pretty much figured that Obama had won the election, and he had the right to appoint a justice he liked. Of course, the difference was that Kagan was not going to be a swing vote, like Kavanaugh will be (and that’s only because of how the Democrats defeated Bork, then Ginsberg was found to have smoked marijuana [!!!], and we ended up with Kennedy, who turned out to to be the favorite justice of many liberals). Had the situation been different, there might have been more of a GOP outcry against Kagan. I’m not sure — I don’t think Republicans have mounted campaigns against judicial nominees the way the Democrats have. That might just be a matter of how each nominee came up, and when.

As I’ve said before, I think the Supreme Court is just too darned important now. People on both sides of the aisle, but mainly on the left, see the SCOTUS as a means of achieving their policy goals, usually goals that can’t be achieved at the ballot box. That sounds like a slam, and it is, but it’s only a very gentle one. But this is all just a matter of the tides of history, I guess. Maybe that is the proper role of the courts. I don’t think so, but nobody ever checks with me about these things in advance. It’s very frustrating for me.

I agree; it is a matter of political persuasion. McConnell hit the jackpot when he refused a vote on Merrick Garland. At the time, I thought he was foolhardy, and would end up with someone Hillary appointed much more liberal and younger than Garland. On both sides, i wish that they had kept the filibuster for Sup. Ct. nominees, to keep people on the extremes from getting nominated. And I do believe that while Kavanaugh is very qualified, he is extreme.

And now that I think about it, the Garland nomination was another attempt by Obama to compromise and reach across the asile; we all remember that even Hatch has said Garland would make an excellent justice.

[sancho]

And now that I think about it, the Garland nomination was another attempt by Obama to compromise and reach across the asile

I don't know. Garland would have voted with the liberal justices on every hot button issue. Maybe he'd have been conservative on some of the cases that only lawyers know about. I'm sure that conservatives would not have experienced Garland as a compromise.

When a vote is a discrete yes/no, it doesn't really matter that ideology is a continuous spectrum.

[LA Ute]

And now that I think about it, the Garland nomination was another attempt by Obama to compromise and reach across the asile; we all remember that even Hatch has said Garland would make an excellent justice.

I thought the Garland nomination was very clever. He is center-left and moderate — very vanilla. Kennedy was center-right, with occasional forays to the left (to the rapturous delight of liberals, and the outrage of conservatives). So although Garland looked like a very reasonable nomination, the shift on the Court would have been significant — and I think Garland was around 63 years old at the time. Clever.

[Irving Washington]

I thought the Garland nomination was very clever. He is center-left and moderate — very vanilla. Kennedy was center-right, with occasional forays to the left (to the rapturous delight of liberals, and the outrage of conservatives). So although Garland looked like a very reasonable nomination, the shift on the Court would have been significant — and I think Garland was around 63 years old at the time. Clever.

Clever is how bipartisan efforts get done.

[Irving Washington]

I don't know. Garland would have voted with the liberal justices on every hot button issue. Maybe he'd have been conservative on some of the cases that only lawyers know about. I'm sure that conservatives would not have experienced Garland as a compromise.

When a vote is a discrete yes/no, it doesn't really matter that ideology is a continuous spectrum.

We'll never know how Garland would have voted. A vote on a hot button issue is one thing, the basis for the vote is another. I suspect what concerns Concerned, and others, is that Kavanaugh will not just further limit Roe, but eliminate the right of privacy that is the underpinning of Roe. This could have a significant impact on other rights, which conservatives for the most part are uncomfortable with. I don't have an opinion on the likelihood of Kavanaugh doing this, but I think the chances of Kavanaugh doing that is far greater than Garland taking a similar approach on a similar hot button issue. Agree, LA Ute?

[LA Ute]

We'll never know how Garland would have voted. A vote on a hot button issue is one thing, the basis for the vote is another. I suspect what concerns Concerned, and others, is that Kavanaugh will not just further limit Roe, but eliminate the right of privacy that is the underpinning of Roe. This could have a significant impact on other rights, which conservatives for the most part are uncomfortable with. I don't have an opinion on the likelihood of Kavanaugh doing this, but I think the chances of Kavanaugh doing that is far greater than Garland taking a similar approach on a similar hot button issue. Agree, LA Ute?

Sure. Kavanaugh is a conservative. Then again, so is John Roberts, who has been more independent than expected. Kavanaugh is just one vote, after all. Right now there are 4 almost 100% predictable liberals and 3 equally predictable conservatives, and Roberts. Who knows what will happen? Roe is so settled, as is Obergefell, and so many permanent societal adjustments have been made around those decisions, I can’t really imagine either one being overturned.

[Scratch]

We'll never know how Garland would have voted. A vote on a hot button issue is one thing, the basis for the vote is another. I suspect what concerns Concerned, and others, is that Kavanaugh will not just further limit Roe, but eliminate the right of privacy that is the underpinning of Roe. This could have a significant impact on other rights, which conservatives for the most part are uncomfortable with. I don't have an opinion on the likelihood of Kavanaugh doing this, but I think the chances of Kavanaugh doing that is far greater than Garland taking a similar approach on a similar hot button issue. Agree, LA Ute?

Griswold v. Connecticut is one of the worst, most ridiculous judicial opinions I've ever read. This has nothing to do with the underlyuing policy (the law that was deemed unconstitutional was a horrible law), but the gymnastics that the Court went through to create policy, not law, was absurd. It never should have happened. That said, it is settled law and it and its progeny should not be overturned. I don't think Kavanaugh would overturn it, and I'm pretty certain Roberts wouldn't.

[LA Ute]

Griswold v. Connecticut is one of the worst, most ridiculous judicial opinions I've ever read. This has nothing to do with the underlyuing policy (the law that was deemed unconstitutional was a horrible law), but the gymnastics that the Court went through to create policy, not law, was absurd. It never should have happened. That said, it is settled law and it and its progeny should not be overturned. I don;t think Kavanaugh would overturn it, and I'm pretty certain Roberts wouldn't.

You don't believe in emanating penumbras?

[Irving Washington]

Sure. Kavanaugh is a conservative. Then again, so is John Roberts, who has been more independent than expected. Kavanaugh is just one vote, after all. Right now there are 4 almost 100% predictable liberals and 3 equally predictable conservatives, and Roberts. Who knows what will happen? Roe is so settled, as is Obergefell, and so many permanent societal adjustments have been made around those decisions, I can’t really imagine either one being overturned.
I think Breyer is about as independent as Roberts. Roberts shocked everyone on the ACA decision, but has he been "independent" anywhere else? An while his decision certainly impacted the ACA decision didn't impact anything beyond the ACA and his analysis won't impact other cases or issues.

[Irving Washington]

You don't believe in emanating penumbras?

I guess we'll have to wait and see. Roberts may see the possible negative political impacts of more "aggressive" conservative decisions, and try to restrain the other conservatives.
The next great movement might be to strip corporations and other entities the status persons for the purposes of constitutional protections. That's the only way to prevent money from controlling politics.

[Irving Washington]

Griswold v. Connecticut is one of the worst, most ridiculous judicial opinions I've ever read. This has nothing to do with the underlyuing policy (the law that was deemed unconstitutional was a horrible law), but the gymnastics that the Court went through to create policy, not law, was absurd. It never should have happened. That said, it is settled law and it and its progeny should not be overturned. I don't think Kavanaugh would overturn it, and I'm pretty certain Roberts wouldn't.
It was 40 years ago that I read it, so I couldn't even begin to comment on its analysis. If it's so bad, why isn't it ripe to overturned with Roberts being the most moderate of five justices? At least four of the justices are adherents of the Federalist Society. What's it's stance on Griswold and penumbral rights?

[LA Ute]

Roberts has expressed one unifying principle of his approach to constitutional jurisprudence. He calls it “judicial modesty.“ I think we saw that with the ACA decision. He simply doesn’t think courts should assume the role of overturning an act of Congress that passed with a large majority, for example. My guess is that belief was what motivated his effort not to overturn the ACA in a 5-4 decision. I also guess, and that’s all I am doing, that his bitter dissent in Obergefell (the gay marriage decision) was motivated by the same belief — don’t make a hugely important decision on an issue like that in a 5-4 vote. Instead, let the people work it out in their legislatures.

So I doubt that a Roberts-led court is going to be remaking the constitutional law of the land much, especially when there is a 5-4 split and he is a potential swing vote, and he is the chief justice who has responsibility for guiding the court as much as possible. We will see. I think our institutions are pretty sound and pretty durable, thanks to the wisdom of a bunch of now-dead white males 250 years ago.

[concerned]

Griswold v. Connecticut is one of the worst, most ridiculous judicial opinions I've ever read. This has nothing to do with the underlyuing policy (the law that was deemed unconstitutional was a horrible law), but the gymnastics that the Court went through to create policy, not law, was absurd. It never should have happened. That said, it is settled law and it and its progeny should not be overturned. I don't think Kavanaugh would overturn it, and I'm pretty certain Roberts wouldn't.


I don't have that confidence. Dred Scott, Plessy, Lochner were all settled law. And you can chip away and circumscribe into oblivion without overturning.

[LA Ute]

I don't have that confidence. Dred Scott, Plessy, Lochner were all settled law. And you can chip away and circumscribe into oblivion without overturning.

Isn't that what liberals want the SCOTUS to do with 2nd Amendment precedent? (I am not a gun owner or gun rights enthusiast, BTW.)

[concerned]

Isn't that what liberals want the SCOTUS to do with 2nd Amendment precedent? (I am not a gun owner or gun rights enthusiast, BTW.)

Not me. Heller said the right to bear arms is an individual right, subject to regulation. The question is what is a reasonable regulation within the 2nd amendment. The DC Cir upheld certain regulations; Kavanaugh dissented. I want the Supreme Court to uphold and not chip away the regulations that have been enacted or upheld by the lower courts--assault weapon bans, magazine limitations, background checks, mental health restrictions, etc. The NRA would strike them all down.

[LA Ute]

Asked to compare the Kavanaugh hearings to her own, she says, "The way it was was right. The way it is is wrong."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AriOjUfbBrw&feature=youtu.be

[LA Ute]

The NRA would strike them all down.

I spoke with an acquaintance a week or so ago — a very respectable member of the community — who thinks the heavy regulation of machine guns is wrong and should be abolished. I can’t wrap my mind around that. Can you imagine what American life would be like if those were easily available?

[concerned]

I spoke with an acquaintance a week or so ago — a very respectable member of the community — who thinks the heavy regulation of machine guns is wrong and should be abolished. I can’t wrap my mind around that. Can you imagine what American life would be like if those were easily available?

I am afraid that many many people feel the same way.

[LA Ute]

I am afraid that many many people feel the same way.

Count me as one conservative Republican who just doesn’t accept that way of thinking and never will.

[Irving Washington]

Asked to compare the Kavanaugh hearings to her own, she says, "The way it was was right. The way it is is wrong."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AriOjUfbBrw&feature=youtu.be
I'm sure in the way it was Garland would have come up for a vote. I'm sure Kavanaugh prefers his experience to Garland's, unless there's something in the letter about his youth.

[USS Utah]

I spoke with an acquaintance a week or so ago — a very respectable member of the community — who thinks the heavy regulation of machine guns is wrong and should be abolished. I can’t wrap my mind around that. Can you imagine what American life would be like if those were easily available?

We don't have to imagine, we just need to look at history of the 1930s.

[USS Utah]

I'm not a lawyer, and am probably completely out of my depth on a discussion such as this, but at this time I just don't see a court case getting anywhere near the Supreme Court that could over turn Roe v Wade, though the odds might be just a little better than on the possibility of an amendment ever getting out of the congress and being ratified by the requisite number of states.

[LA Ute]

Sen. Susan Collins is dead-on right.


“What is puzzling to me is the Democrats, by not bringing this out earlier, after having had this information for more than six weeks, have managed to cast a cloud of doubt on both the professor and the judge,” Collins told The New York Times.

Collins asked if Democrats believed Ford, "why didn't they surface this information earlier," and if they didn't believe Ford, "why did they decide at the 11th hour to release it?"

"It is really not fair to either of them the way it is was handled," Collins said.

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/406952-collins-knocks-democrats-over-handling-of-kavanaugh-assault?__twitter_impression=true

[U-Ute]

Sen. Susan Collins is dead-on right.



https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/406952-collins-knocks-democrats-over-handling-of-kavanaugh-assault?__twitter_impression=true


Just returning the favor after the whole Merrick Garland thing.

Nothing about any of this is fair. Nor is it supposed to be.

[LA Ute]

Just returning the favor after the whole Merrick Garland thing.

Nothing about any of this is fair. Nor is it supposed to be.

Merrick Garland was power politics, stinky in a different way. This is an out and out appallingly vicious smear campaign and it stinks to high heaven. (Not that I feel strongly about this or anything.)

[Rocker Ute]

The timeline and actions of people in the know that is coming out about all of this is disturbing, proving yet again that neither party is above the fray.

If the accuser is indeed telling the truth then I feel very badly that a horrible moment is being made a spectacle in the exact worst possible way by other women like Feinstein.

If Kavanaugh is innocent it is a sleazy move set to brand someone for the rest of his life, because he will forever have a question mark above him now.

And I used to wonder why good people tend to stay out of politics.

However, regardless of all of this, the accuser needs to be heard, the evidence weighed and they need to delay proceedings until this is all cleared up. I hope the republicans do the right thing in that regard. I have little faith anyone is capable of doing the right thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Irving Washington]

Merrick Garland was power politics, stinky in a different way. This is an out and out appallingly vicious smear campaign and it stinks to high heaven. (Not that I feel strongly about this or anything.)
Is it a smear campaign if it is true? People's personalities can certainly change from their teen years, but not necessarily. You could put a legitimate spin on hiring female law clerks and coaching girls basketball teams that is not inconsistent with the alleged teen behavior - he is in a position of power/control.
The likely timing answer is that they were hoping not to use it, but we're unable to make a dent in the hearings.
I think we have to be very careful about writing off such behavior if it is true. As far as fairness goes, if he did it he hasn't suffered any consequences up to now.

[sancho]

The likely timing answer is that they were hoping not to use it, but we're unable to make a dent in the hearings.


That is nowhere near as likely as the other explanation.

True or false, it is a smear campaign because of how it was handled. They are playing their game, and they just put their opponent in check.

[Rocker Ute]

The likely timing answer is that they were hoping not to use it, but we're unable to make a dent in the hearings.
I think we have to be very careful about writing off such behavior if it is true.

That would be even more disturbing that they sat on it hoping not to use it, because if true that is by far the weightiest concern about him. It is an actual crime and if true a despicable one at that. All other criticisms to this point were about his political ideologies, not his personal character, competence or ethics.

So in other words if they were able to successfully defeat his appointment this would have never surfaced. What an injustice to the victim and that he would be able to continue on as a federal judge.

They had no right to sit on it for that reason or at all. It is true, their handling of this has somehow undermined the credibility of both the accuser and the accused, and I'm a guy who is firmly in the camp that women who have the courage to come forward should have the benefit of being heard and typically believed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Is it a smear campaign if it is true? People's personalities can certainly change from their teen years, but not necessarily. You could put a legitimate spin on hiring female law clerks and coaching girls basketball teams that is not inconsistent with the alleged teen behavior - he is in a position of power/control.
The likely timing answer is that they were hoping not to use it, but we're unable to make a dent in the hearings.

I think we have to be very careful about writing off such behavior if it is true. As far as fairness goes, if he did it he hasn't suffered any consequences up to now.

Sorry, but I think this stunt is indefensible. Predictably, people will line up ideologically on the question. The charge against Kavanaugh is unprovable and impossible to disprove as well. It's disgraceful. Consider the following:


The timing and details of how Ms. Ford came forward, and how her name was coaxed into public view, should also raise red flags about the partisan motives at play. The Post says Ms. Ford contacted the paper via a tip line in July but wanted to remain anonymous. She then brought her story to a Democratic official while still hoping to stay anonymous.Yet she also then retained a lawyer, Debra Katz, who has a history of Democratic activism and spoke in public defense of Bill Clinton against the accusations by Paula Jones. Ms. Katz urged Ms. Ford to take a polygraph test. The Post says she passed the polygraph, though a polygraph merely shows that she believes the story she is telling.

The more relevant question is why go to such lengths if Ms. Ford really wanted her name to stay a secret? Even this weekend she could have chosen to remain anonymous. These are the actions of someone who was prepared to go public from the beginning if she had to.

The role of Senator Dianne Feinstein is also highly irregular and transparently political. The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee knew about Ms. Ford’s accusations in late July or early August yet kept quiet. If she took it seriously, she had multiple opportunities to ask Judge Kavanaugh or have committee staff interview the principals. But in that event the details would have been vetted and Senators would have had time to assess their credibility.

Instead Ms. Feinstein waited until the day before a committee markup on the nomination to release a statement that she had “information” about the accusation and had sent it to the FBI.
Her statement was a political stunt.

She was seeking to insulate herself from liberal charges that she sat on the letter. Or—and this seems increasingly likely given the course of events—Senator Feinstein was holding the story to spring at the last minute in the hope that events would play out as they have. Surely she knew that once word of the accusation was public, the press would pursue the story and Ms. Ford would be identified by name one way or another.

***

Democrats waited until Ms. Ford went public to make public statements. But clearly some were feeding the names of Ms. Ford and her lawyer to the press, and now they are piling on what they hope will be an election-eve #MeToo conflagration.

“Senator [and Judiciary Chairman] Grassley must postpone the vote until, at a very minimum, these serious and credible allegations are thoroughly investigated,” declared Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday. “For too long, when women have made serious allegations of abuse, they have been ignored. That cannot happen in this case.”

His obvious political goal is to delay the confirmation vote past the election, fan the #MeToo political furies until then, and hope that at least two GOP Senators wilt under political pressure. If Republican Senators Jeff Flake and Bob Corker think a hearing will satisfy Mr. Schumer, they are right to retire from politics.

GOP Senators should understand that the political cost of defeating Mr. Kavanaugh will likely include the loss of the Senate. Democrats are already motivated to vote against Donald Trump, and if Republicans panic now their own voters will rightly be furious. They would be letting Democrats get away with the same dirty trick they tried and failed to pull off against Clarence Thomas.

It would also be a serious injustice to a man who has by all accounts other than Ms. Ford’s led a life of respect for women and the law. Every #MeToo miscreant is a repeat offender. The accusation against Mr. Kavanaugh is behavior manifested nowhere else in his life.

No one, including Donald Trump, needs to attack Ms. Ford. She believes what she believes. This is not he said-she said. This is a case of an alleged teenage encounter, partially recalled 30 years later without corroboration, and brought forward to ruin Mr. Kavanaugh’s reputation for partisan purposes.

Letting an accusation that is this old, this unsubstantiated and this procedurally irregular defeat Mr. Kavanaugh would also mean weaponizing every sexual assault allegation no matter the evidence. It will tarnish the #MeToo cause with the smear of partisanship, and it will unleash even greater polarizing furies.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-metoo-kavanaugh-ambush-1537197395

[sancho]

So, LA, what do you think your GOP should do? Seems like they've been boxed into a lose-lose situation?

[mUUser]

This isn't a surprise. In fact, I'm sure the GOP was expecting something along these lines. And, if it doesn't work, the dems will attack from a different angle. The dems are desperate to kill this nomination so as not to further tilt the court right. But, this will be child's play if Trump has the opportunity to replace RBG.

[sancho]

But, this will be child's play if Trump has the opportunity to replace RBG.

Wouldn't that happen under a democrat congress though? They could just ride it out with 8 justices.

[Scratch]

Wouldn't that happen under a democrat congress though? They could just ride it out with 8 justices.

We're quickly approaching the point where you will never get a new SC Justice unless the same party controls the Senate and the Presidency. Frankly, that's why I think Kavanaugh gets appointed; the Republicans will vote on it because if they don't confirm him they know that there won't be time to appoint and get someone through the process before the Democrats take control of the Senate, and at that point we would just have a stalemate for two years. That's where this is all heading.

[sancho]

We're quickly approaching the point

I agree, but I think we're already there. It would be funny in a sad way if, 10 years from now, we're plugging along with 4-5 justices, unable to confirm anyone.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

I agree, but I think we're already there. It would be funny in a sad way if, 10 years from now, we're plugging along with 4-5 justices, unable to confirm anyone.

There's no "think" about it. Republicans stalled for 9 months on replacing Scalia, and even before the election, McConnell was already saying that he would continue his antics past the election if Hillary won.

[LA Ute]

So, LA, what do you think your GOP should do? Seems like they've been boxed into a lose-lose situation?

They’re doing what I thought they’d do — letting her answer questions from the panel next Monday. Kavanaugh can respond. The senators will have to decide whom to believe. It will probably go by party line, but Democrats will try really hard to peel away one or two Republicans, which is all they need. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, he will live under this cloud for the rest of his life, because there is no way to prove or disprove what happened. This is a mean and low business.

[LA Ute]

Passing a polygraph test merely means that you believe what you said to the examiner was true.

[Ma'ake]

I just don't know who to believe...

Orrin Hatch: "The Democrats aren't playing fair" (This isn't a joke - Hatch is actually making this point). "Democrats are being increasingly transparent that their game plan was about delay all along". Right. Ford waited for just the right moment to weaponize her marriage counseling, knowing it would result in death threats and the Right Wing attack factory going after the wrong Christine Ford. That's completely believable.

Steve Bannon: "The difference between us is our side goes for the head kill, while your side engages in pillow fights"

Hatch is crying crocodile tears, appealing to the sense of decency Bannon alludes to, hoping all these soft-hearted Democratic voters have forgotten the hypocrisy-on-steroids Garland got, and especially the Anita Hill interrogation Hatch helped administer.

One of the members of the GOP hit squad - who termed Anita Hill as "a little nutty, a little slutty" - David Brock, who now regrets being part of that smear campaign - a GOP group Kavanaugh himself later joined - predicts the Republicans will be kinder and gentler, but the result will be the same: 11 white males will side with Kavanaugh.

Democrats should absolutely take a page out of the GOP play book and use this like an anvil in the elections, using the embarrassing footage of what Anita Hill had to go through from Hatch & Co, and then Hatch's new "she's a little confused" swipe on Ford (even though he's never met her), and say "Some things never change. It's your turn to make a difference. Vote!".

[sancho]

Democrats should absolutely take a page out of the GOP play book

It's not a GOP play book. It's a politics play book, and both parties take pages out of it all the time. The democrats just took a page out of it by sitting on the accusation until late in the game. The GOP is currently more despicable because they are supporting Donald Trump, but both parties have always been willing to toss decency out if that can lead to political gain.

[Rocker Ute]

Sadly, whether he did it or not We the People decided long ago that such behavior is not a disqualifier to serve in public office. From the election of Trump to the continued support for Bill Clinton, both sides are hypocritical in their feigned and politically driven outrage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

I just don't know who to believe...

Orrin Hatch: "The Democrats aren't playing fair" (This isn't a joke - Hatch is actually making this point). "Democrats are being increasingly transparent that their game plan was about delay all along". Right. Ford waited for just the right moment to weaponize her marriage counseling, knowing it would result in death threats and the Right Wing attack factory going after the wrong Christine Ford. That's completely believable.

Steve Bannon: "The difference between us is our side goes for the head kill, while your side engages in pillow fights"

Hatch is crying crocodile tears, appealing to the sense of decency Bannon alludes to, hoping all these soft-hearted Democratic voters have forgotten the hypocrisy-on-steroids Garland got, and especially the Anita Hill interrogation Hatch helped administer.

One of the members of the GOP hit squad - who termed Anita Hill as "a little nutty, a little slutty" - David Brock, who now regrets being part of that smear campaign - a GOP group Kavanaugh himself later joined - predicts the Republicans will be kinder and gentler, but the result will be the same: 11 white males will side with Kavanaugh.

Democrats should absolutely take a page out of the GOP play book and use this like an anvil in the elections, using the embarrassing footage of what Anita Hill had to go through from Hatch & Co, and then Hatch's new "she's a little confused" swipe on Ford (even though he's never met her), and say "Some things never change. It's your turn to make a difference. Vote!".

I think its difficult to make the Repubs the bad guys in this part of the story.

[LA Ute]

Congratulations, Sen. Feinstein: You've managed to make our politics even uglier


The only thing I am sure of now is that Sen. Dianne Feinstein has behaved outrageously. Because no matter what you choose to believe, she waited too long to reveal the accusation.

Feinstein knew about these allegations in July. She made no attempt to ask Kavanaugh about them, even in closed session. If she believed the allegations were true or credible, she should have acted on them. If she didn’t — as has been reported — going public as a desperate ploy to derail or delay his confirmation is an act of grotesque cynicism, particularly when she had no idea whether Kavanaugh’s accuser would come forward.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-kavanaugh-feinstein-20180917-story,amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

[U-Ute]

I think its difficult to make the Repubs the bad guys in this part of the story.

This is one of those "they started it" moments.

2420

[Irving Washington]

I think its difficult to make the Repubs the bad guys in this part of the story.
Not yet.

[sancho]

Not yet.

That's right, and that's the play. Republicans now have to choose between being bad guys or losing a spot on the supreme court (possibly forever).

[LA Ute]

Not yet.

How would you question a witness like her? She will be prepared by some of the best legal minds on the left. In a different setting it would be easy: She will be talking about events that allegedly occurred 35 years ago. There are no eyewitnesses except the other two individuals allegedly involved, and both claim nothing of the kind ever happened. She never said anything about the event until 30 years later, when Kavanaugh was already in the public eye. I read somewhere that the therapist‘s written notes about that late disclosure are somewhat ambiguous. I also read that the witness is a Democrat activist. She wanted to be anonymous, but did not really act like a person who wanted anonymity. A recent refusal to testify this coming Monday has the effect of delaying the proceedings, which happens to align with the Democrats’ goals. So a competent questioner could have a field day with all those weaknesses in her story.

And yet we are in the me-too era. Any aggressive questioning, or even gentle, but probing questioning, will be portrayed as anti-woman. The Democrats will have a field day with that, with the enthusiastic support of most of the major news media.

The above are many reasons why this is such a cunning political move by the Democrats. Depressingly cynical too. Not to mention vicious and malicious in its effect on a man who appears, regardless of what he did when he was 17, to have lived a very good, positive and productive life.

[Irving Washington]

How would you question a witness like her? She will be prepared by some of the best legal minds on the left. In a different setting it would be easy: She will be talking about events that allegedly occurred 35 years ago. There are no eyewitnesses except the other two individuals allegedly involved, and both claim nothing of the kind ever happened. She never said anything about the event until 30 years later, when Kavanaugh was already in the public eye. I read somewhere that the therapist‘s written notes about that late disclosure are somewhat ambiguous. I also read that the witness is a Democrat activist. She wanted to be anonymous, but did not really act like a person who wanted anonymity. A recent refusal to testify this coming Monday has the effect of delaying the proceedings, which happens to align with the Democrats’ goals. So a competent questioner could have a field day with all those weaknesses in her story.

And yet we are in the me-too era. Any aggressive questioning, or even gentle, but probing questioning, will be portrayed as anti-woman. The Democrats will have a field day with that, with the enthusiastic support of most of the major news media.

The above are many reasons why this is such a cunning political move by the Democrats. Depressingly cynical too. Not to mention vicious and malicious in its effect on a man who appears, regardless of what he did when he was 17, to have lived a very good, positive and productive life.
I would let Ford tell her story, clarify and ask questions about things that don't seem to ring true (as if you were assuming she is honest.) Let Kavanaugh tell his side, which presumably is that nothing like that even remotely happened. I hadn't heard anything about another witness, but I'd be more gently aggressive with her. Maybe Kavanaugh can have witnesses of his own, although that might be hard to do. If the witness says Ford described what happened at that time, or before Kavanaugh became a public figure, then Kavanaugh should rightly be in trouble. There is nothing that says they can't extend hearings after Monday to look behind the testimony. The committee needs to be sure that Kavanaugh gets a full hearing on the issue.
Don't forget, the Republicans rushed this thing and precluded the chance to review a lot of documents. Now they need to take the time to do it right.
If all the complaints are about Republicans not being able to rush this, oh well.

[Rocker Ute]

With three of the five people involved in this saying it didn't happen, and the fourth apparently not responding I don't know how you resolve this or how further investigation can solve it. With it being a "he said, she said" situation and only one of the five people making that claim I don't know how you decide against Kavanaugh either.

And I'm sympathetic to that sort of situation. In college three guys in a car ran a red light and hit me. There were no other witnesses, and when the police arrived and I told him my story and then he heard their story he said, "Well three people are saying YOU ran the red light, so you get the ticket..."

At this point it is simply a circus.

I saw an extended news piece on a woman who went to the same school at a different time, didn't know either party but claimed she "remembered her" saying that she stuff like happened at that school all the time. The snippets leading to the story were of her saying, "I believe Christine..." and "... he absolutely did this..."

That's nice, but her opinion on the matter is about as valid as mine, and every high school had "stuff like this happen all the time". In fact there are a few classic John Hughes teen movies about the subject.

That's not to say it is okay or to be dismissive of it, but that is not evidence and shouldn't be presented as such.

I haven't been able to find anything but did she tell anyone about it at the time or even subsequent years before this? Family, a close friend, etc?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

I would let Ford tell her story, clarify and ask questions about things that don't seem to ring true (as if you were assuming she is honest.) Let Kavanaugh tell his side, which presumably is that nothing like that even remotely happened. I hadn't heard anything about another witness, but I'd be more gently aggressive with her. Maybe Kavanaugh can have witnesses of his own, although that might be hard to do. If the witness says Ford described what happened at that time, or before Kavanaugh became a public figure, then Kavanaugh should rightly be in trouble. There is nothing that says they can't extend hearings after Monday to look behind the testimony. The committee needs to be sure that Kavanaugh gets a full hearing on the issue.
Don't forget, the Republicans rushed this thing and precluded the chance to review a lot of documents. Now they need to take the time to do it right.
If all the complaints are about Republicans not being able to rush this, oh well.

If you keep this up you’re buying lunch next time at an expensive restaurant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

This really needs to stop.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180920/945868d7e3f669c0f8e61b1fac54e4b0.png

[mUUser]

This really needs to stop.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180920/945868d7e3f669c0f8e61b1fac54e4b0.png

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/media-abc-pbs-use-facebook-to-beg-other-kavanaugh-accusers-to-talk-truth-will-emerge

[Irving Washington]

If you keep this up you’re buying lunch next time at an expensive restaurant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did we make a bet, or something?

[LA Ute]

Did we make a bet, or something?

No, l’ll simply accept that lunch as your penance.

[Rocker Ute]

Hawaiian Senator Hirano expressing her frustration on sexual harassment and assault:

"Guess who is perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country. And I just want to say to the men in this country: just shut up and step up, do the right thing for a change."

You're all guilty now.

I'm all for the #metoo movement but these kind of statements don't help.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/20/politics/mazie-hirono-brett-kavanaugh-hearings/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

And then Trump steps in like the idiot he is and claims that if what happened was as bad as she says it was she would have called police.

False and so ignorant of the facts around sexual assault and a harmful statement to all who have been sexually assaulted.

We had a week of our president acting like a president - wasn't that nice?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sancho]

And then Trump steps in like the idiot he is and claims that if what happened was as bad as she says it was she would have called police.


I've heard some "Sure, he was a drunken, spoiled, frat boy at an elitist private school, but we don't know if he attempted to rape her." I just hate that drunken, spoiled, rich, elitist is still a prereq for politics. I don't think those things disqualify him because those things describe almost everyone in public office. But they sure don't make me enthusiastic about him.

[LA Ute]

Reports are in that both the accuser and Kavanaugh’s wife have received death threats.

[Diehard Ute]

Reports are in that both the accuser and Kavanaugh’s wife have received death threats.

Does this surprise you?

Death threats are common place

You’d be amazed how many death threat reports are made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[concerned]

And then Trump steps in like the idiot he is and claims that if what happened was as bad as she says it was she would have called police.

False and so ignorant of the facts around sexual assault and a harmful statement to all who have been sexually assaulted.

We had a week of our president acting like a president - wasn't that nice?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Gotta love the Onion


The Onion‏Verified account @TheOnion (https://twitter.com/TheOnion) 2m2 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1043195163043094532)More

Trump Asks Why Kavanaugh Accuser Didn’t Just Immediately Request Hush Money https://trib.al/5p0hVQX (https://t.co/rfeD31a5Xe)

[Rocker Ute]

Does this surprise you?

Death threats are common place

You’d be amazed how many death threat reports are made.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vo0RndMsas

[LA Ute]

Does this surprise you?

Of course not. It does dismay me.

[LA Ute]

“Travesty” doesn’t come close to describing what is happening now.

10 Serious Problems With New Accusations Against Kavanaugh

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36229/10-serious-problems-new-accusations-against-ryan-saavedra

[Ma'ake]

And then there is the Avenatti angle: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/24/17896136/michael-avenatti-email-brett-kavanaugh-devils-triangle

The range on Avenatti is pretty vast. He could either be just an adrenaline junkie / former race car driver who has a little Saul Goodman in him with some TV charisma... or he could be the next POTUS. (The bar is pretty low, nowadays.)

[LA Ute]

And then there is the Avenatti angle: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/24/17896136/michael-avenatti-email-brett-kavanaugh-devils-triangle

The range on Avenatti is pretty vast. He could either be just an adrenaline junkie / former race car driver who has a little Saul Goodman in him with some TV charisma... or he could be the next POTUS. (The bar is pretty low, nowadays.)

Here’s a right of center publication’s take on Mr. Avenatti:

Stormy Daniels' Lawyer Claims He Has Evidence Kavanaugh Ran A 'Gang Rape' Ring

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36232/stormy-daniels-lawyer-claims-he-has-evidence-amanda-prestigiacomo

I expect him to have his own show on MSNBC or CNN before too long.

[Rocker Ute]

Here’s a right of center publication’s take on Mr. Avenatti:

Stormy Daniels' Lawyer Claims He Has Evidence Kavanaugh Ran A 'Gang Rape' Ring

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36232/stormy-daniels-lawyer-claims-he-has-evidence-amanda-prestigiacomo

I expect him to have his own show on MSNBC or CNN before too long.

Questions #5 and #6 certainly fall into the category of loaded question. There is no way to answer them directly without implying involvement. "Did you stop beating your wife?"

[sancho]

My favorite line by far:


The book is dedicated to her daughter.

[sancho]

I've heard some "Sure, he was a drunken, spoiled, frat boy at an elitist private school, but we don't know if he attempted to rape her." I just hate that drunken, spoiled, rich, elitist is still a prereq for politics. I don't think those things disqualify him because those things describe almost everyone in public office. But they sure don't make me enthusiastic about him.

Follow up to my thought from the Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/opinion/columnists/kavanaugh-georgetown-supreme-court.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

[LA Ute]

Follow up to my thought from the Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/opinion/columnists/kavanaugh-georgetown-supreme-court.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

I don't think we know that Kavanaugh was a "drunken, spoiled, frat boy." That's been a big part of the character assassination, but the majority of the evidence is that he's been a Boy Scout.

[sancho]

I don't think we know that Kavanaugh was a "drunken, spoiled, frat boy." That's been a big part of the character assassination, but the majority of the evidence is that he's been a Boy Scout.

Well, we know he drank before being of legal age, right? We know he went to a high school for spoiled people. And we know he belonged to a fraternity. So...drunken, spoiled, frat boy. Maybe he was the nicest drunken, spoiled, frat boy at Yale, though.

Like I said, none of that disqualifies him. Plenty of drunken, spoiled, frat boys turn out to be wonderful people. He may be a really great guy and an excellent judge. He's qualified and would do well. I just think that, in a world of millions of good people, we don't need every political figure to have a Yale/Harvard background. A little diversity would be a good thing.

[Irving Washington]

I love how none of the Republican committee members want to be the one questioning Ford. I guess none feels like he can appear neutral and fair

[LA Ute]

I love how none of the Republican committee members want to be the one questioning Ford. I guess none feels like he can appear neutral and fair

I think they know what will happen with whatever they say.

[sancho]

I think they know what will happen with whatever they say.

Yeah, there's no way to come out of that looking good.

[Diehard Ute]

I don't think we know that Kavanaugh was a "drunken, spoiled, frat boy." That's been a big part of the character assassination, but the majority of the evidence is that he's been a Boy Scout.

Your scout troop must have been a lot different than mine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Your scout troop must have been a lot different than mine.

In my troops character assassination wasn’t a point of the Scout Law.

[LA Ute]

Well, he’s teed up some specific claims that can be damaged by fact witnesses:

On Fox, Brett Kavanaugh Mounts an Aggressive, Specific Defense

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-fox-news-interview-aggressive-specific-defense/

[Diehard Ute]

In my troops character assassination wasn’t a point of the Scout Law.

Who knows if the accusation is true or not.

But it’s obvious from his own yearbook writings characterizing him as a Boy Scout was a poor choice on your part.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Irving Washington]

Yeah, there's no way to come out of that looking good.
No one is capable of questioning both witnesses like an appellate judge would, letting them talk, questioning weaknesses of both, and appearing neutral and fair?

[Irving Washington]

I don't think we know that Kavanaugh was a "drunken, spoiled, frat boy." That's been a big part of the character assassination, but the majority of the evidence is that he's been a Boy Scout.
Do the Boy Scout reports come from peers of the same system?

[Rocker Ute]

I despise Ted Cruz but this stuff needs to stop:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics/ted-cruz-heckled-restaurant-brett-kavanaugh/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

At this point I have no idea who to believe, but for what it is worth when I was in high school a rumor was floating around that at a party I was blackout drunk. It spread around like crazy because it was out of character for me. Problem was, I wasn't even at the party, but people throughout my senior year and probably to this day thought I was a partier.

Knowing the nature of high school and college and stories that build into legend it is interesting to me that there haven't seemed to be a lot of corroboration of him even being wild at parties.

The National Review viewed his interview with Fox as a driving a stake in to defend his good name, CNN characterized it as a disturbing political ploy by him, they also omitted key comments. You can chart who believes whom by political affiliation on this and the court of public opinion has decided without hearing any testimony or seeing a shred of evidence.

I'll tell you that if I was innocent I would likely do the same thing with my primary motivation being to clear my name before being nominated. It does seem he has presented some items that can be corroborated now. If he really wasn't at the parties that is the biggest deal. If people who knew him can say they never saw him blackout drunk that is less reliable, but important. I don't know how you prove his virginity, but it does seem less likely that he'd be waiving it around at parties... although life in Utah has taught me that often those same people in that point of their life can also be overly aggressive too, but those are typically kids struggling to balance their hormones to fit into their religious standards versus being shy about it or whatever.

If Kavanaugh did this I believe it is a disqualifier, but right now I am disturbed by how all of this is proceeding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sancho]

No one is capable of questioning both witnesses like an appellate judge would, letting them talk, questioning weaknesses of both, and appearing neutral and fair?

It doesn't matter if someone questions both witnesses in a neutral and fair manner. I think you know that, right? Whoever does the questioning will be the object of ridicule, possibly for decades to come.

[Diehard Ute]

I despise Ted Cruz but this stuff needs to stop:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics/ted-cruz-heckled-restaurant-brett-kavanaugh/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

At this point I have no idea who to believe, but for what it is worth when I was in high school a rumor was floating around that at a party I was blackout drunk. It spread around like crazy because it was out of character for me. Problem was, I wasn't even at the party, but people throughout my senior year and probably to this day thought I was a partier.

Knowing the nature of high school and college and stories that build into legend it is interesting to me that there haven't seemed to be a lot of corroboration of him even being wild at parties.

The National Review viewed his interview with Fox as a driving a stake in to defend his good name, CNN characterized it as a disturbing political ploy by him, they also omitted key comments. You can chart who believes whom by political affiliation on this and the court of public opinion has decided without hearing any testimony or seeing a shred of evidence.

I'll tell you that if I was innocent I would likely do the same thing with my primary motivation being to clear my name before being nominated. It does seem he has presented some items that can be corroborated now. If he really wasn't at the parties that is the biggest deal. If people who knew him can say they never saw him blackout drunk that is less reliable, but important. I don't know how you prove his virginity, but it does seem less likely that he'd be waiving it around at parties... although life in Utah has taught me that often those same people in that point of their life can also be overly aggressive too, but those are typically kids struggling to balance their hormones to fit into their religious standards versus being shy about it or whatever.

If Kavanaugh did this I believe it is a disqualifier, but right now I am disturbed by how all of this is proceeding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given his writings about alcohol, and now a girl, in yearbooks, coupled with his speech saying “What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep”...and how well that’s served he and his classmates to this day....he’s no “Boy Scout”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sancho]

Given his writings about alcohol, and now a girl, in yearbooks, coupled with his speech saying “What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep”...and how well that’s served he and his classmates to this day....he’s no “Boy Scout”


I don't know. I was about as much of a boy scout as you've ever seen in high school, but I still said things that I'm not proud of. My yearbook didn't let us write a blurb like his, but mine probably would have been full of dumb inside jokes too. All guys are a wreck as teenagers. It's hard to know where the normal wreck ends and the serious wreck begins, though.

Did you know that Neil Gorsuch went to the same high school? Why in the world do we need that school to provide our politicians? How about a little outside the box thinking, Mr Drain the Swamp?

[Rocker Ute]

Given his writings about alcohol, and now a girl, in yearbooks, coupled with his speech saying “What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep”...and how well that’s served he and his classmates to this day....he’s no “Boy Scout”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like I said and as you've just supported, the court of public opinion has already decided on this along political lines. (I never called him a Boy Scout).

As far as being a "Renate Alumnus" (purported boasting of sexual conquest with her) it appears to be just that. She has confirmed nothing ever happened with them or any of the other purported alumnus. Go watch American Vandal for further information on high school boys lying about not being a virgin.

And now you've got me defending him. I don't know anything about him, and I think the accusers should be heard and these accusations thoroughly investigated, but it is also hard not to be suspicious about the political motivation at this point, particularly with the second accuser.

If he has proof he wasn't at the party, time to pony up the evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

Like I said and as you've just supported, the court of public opinion has already decided on this along political lines. (I never called him a Boy Scout).

As far as being a "Renate Alumnus" (purported boasting of sexual conquest with her) it appears to be just that. She has confirmed nothing ever happened with them or any of the other purported alumnus. Go watch American Vandal for further information on high school boys lying about not being a virgin.

And now you've got me defending him. I don't know anything about him, and I think the accusers should be heard and these accusations thoroughly investigated, but it is also hard not to be suspicious about the political motivation at this point, particularly with the second accuser.

If he has proof he wasn't at the party, time to pony up the evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but she also confirmed she has no idea a group of kids was claiming everyone had been with her.

And this thread speaks to another issue, the “boys will be boys, so it’s ok” thought process. It has to stop.

As for this proof, it doesn’t strike you as weird he has calendars from high school? Who keeps their family calendars for 30 years?

The entire thing from both sides has jumped the shark. It’s probably more produced than reality TV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mormon Red Death]

Yes, but she also confirmed she has no idea a group of kids was claiming everyone had been with her.

And this thread speaks to another issue, the “boys will be boys, so it’s ok” thought process. It has to stop.

As for this proof, it doesn’t strike you as weird he has calendars from high school? Who keeps their family calendars for 30 years?

The entire thing from both sides has jumped the shark. It’s probably more produced than reality TV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My father in law kept receipts and calendars for 40+ years. He had detailed notes on lots of different things. When I helped put in new sod 10 years ago he showed me how much he paid for sod in 1978 when he bought the house

[LA Ute]

But it’s obvious from his own yearbook writings characterizing him as a Boy Scout was a poor choice on your part.

Maybe. I was looking at information that has become reliably public about his conduct as an adult. He seems to have led an honorable life. I wonder how any of us would look if our behavior as minors (or while at Boy Scout camp) were scrutinized?

[LA Ute]

Do the Boy Scout reports come from peers of the same system?

Remember, I was commenting on the slam that he was a "drunken, spoiled frat boy." Sounds like the way BYU fans describe Utes fans.

[LA Ute]

Did you know that Neil Gorsuch went to the same high school? Why in the world do we need that school to provide our politicians? How about a little outside the box thinking, Mr Drain the Swamp?

I do think it would be better to have a few SCOTUS justices who aren't alums of Harvard or Yale Law. I've tried to get nominated but have never gotten even a look. It probably relates to my hijinks at Clayton Junior High.

[Scratch]

I do think it would be better to have a few SCOTUS justices who aren't alums of Harvard or Yale Law. I've tried to get nominated but have never gotten even a look. It probably relates to my hijinks at Clayton Junior High.

So what's your position on alums of Clayton Jr High and Harvard or Yale law? Is there a middle ground there?

[sancho]

So what's your position on alums of Clayton Jr High and Harvard or Yale law? Is there a middle ground there?

Ugh, Bryant is the middle school of choice in SLC, and Duke is the law school to choose if you must go snooty.

[concerned]

Ugh, Bryant is the middle school of choice in SLC, and Duke is the law school to choose if you must go snooty.

You would be surprised at the jr. highs now. A large percentage of the aves and upper aves families send their kids to Clayton. It is bursting at the seams. My daughter (8th grade) says about half her grade is from the aves or outside the boundaries. Bryant, unfortunately has been rendered an inner city school. It is a shame, really.

[sancho]

You would be surprised at the jr. highs now. A large percentage of the aves and upper aves families send their kids to Clayton. It is bursting at the seams. My daughter (8th grade) says about half her grade is from the aves or outside the boundaries. Bryant, unfortunately has been rendered an inner city school. It is a shame, really.

All the more reason for me to support the Braves. Isn't Clayton the cougars anyway?

I loved walking to Bryant. Sometimes, we'd stop at the 7-11 on 3rd ave on the way home for a soda or candy.

[concerned]

All the more reason for me to support the Braves. Isn't Clayton the cougars anyway?

I loved walking to Bryant. Sometimes, we'd stop at the 7-11 on 3rd ave on the way home for a soda or candy.


Yep. Cougars, but colors are red and white. Very politically correct.

[Rocker Ute]

Yes, but she also confirmed she has no idea a group of kids was claiming everyone had been with her.

And this thread speaks to another issue, the “boys will be boys, so it’s ok” thought process. It has to stop.

As for this proof, it doesn’t strike you as weird he has calendars from high school? Who keeps their family calendars for 30 years?

The entire thing from both sides has jumped the shark. It’s probably more produced than reality TV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you think I'm saying "boys will be boys" you are sorely mistaken. However, immature teenagers bragging about pretend sexual exploits to likely cover their virginity is a completely different thing than sexually assaulting a
woman. In fact I bet most high school kids, male and female are guilty of as much.

Weird or not, if he's got proof like a calendar that he wasn't at the party it is time for him to pony up or shut up, but that is a strange way to paint himself into a corner like that.

I think the reason I am talking about this is our legal standards are problematic in these types of cases and how do we fix it?

On the one hand in the US a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and a conviction for a crime is supposed to come only when it is beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem with sexual assault is that is a hard threshold to cross and not only that, it further victimized the victim. It is hard to say people are affording Kavanaugh a presumption of innocence and the burden of proof has yet to cross the threshold of reasonable doubt in my mind. Additionally accusations like that because they are almost equally unprovable, and so a person's reputation is certainly destroyed regardless of conviction.

Case in point: when Chris's (webmonkey's) estranged wife accused him of molesting his daughter. Chris came to me asking for help on what to do as the police had searched his house and seized all of his electronics etc. I told him to comply with all of their requests and try to find a good attorney.

Even though I didn't believe he would do such a thing I had a question mark in my head about him from that point forward. It wasn't until he passed and I confronted her demanding to know the truth that she admitted she made it up because she was angry. Yeah...

So how do we fix it? I don't know but I think it begins with coaching our daughters to report immediately and that there won't be retribution and protection for them. We need to figure out a way to get to the truth without further victimizing women too. But that isn't much of a solution.

That is why I am fascinated by this and discussing it. I have no read on Kavanaugh's character, either as a teen or as an adult. He isn't my first choice as a Supreme Court nominee either. And I also don't think being a "good guy" is a defense on this. As you know there are a lot of "good guys" in jump suits at the point of the mountain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

On another semi-related note: Enjoy prison Dr Huxtable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

If you think I'm saying "boys will be boys" you are sorely mistaken. However, immature teenagers bragging about pretend sexual exploits to likely cover their virginity is a completely different thing than sexually assaulting a
woman. In fact I bet most high school kids, male and female are guilty of as much.

Weird or not, if he's got proof like a calendar that he wasn't at the party it is time for him to pony up or shut up, but that is a strange way to paint himself into a corner like that.

I think the reason I am talking about this is our legal standards are problematic in these types of cases and how do we fix it?

On the one hand in the US a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and a conviction for a crime is supposed to come only when it is beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem with sexual assault is that is a hard threshold to cross and not only that, it further victimized the victim. It is hard to say people are affording Kavanaugh a presumption of innocence and the burden of proof has yet to cross the threshold of reasonable doubt in my mind. Additionally accusations like that because they are almost equally unprovable, and so a person's reputation is certainly destroyed regardless of conviction.

Case in point: when Chris's (webmonkey's) estranged wife accused him of molesting his daughter. Chris came to me asking for help on what to do as the police had searched his house and seized all of his electronics etc. I told him to comply with all of their requests and try to find a good attorney.

Even though I didn't believe he would do such a thing I had a question mark in my head about him from that point forward. It wasn't until he passed and I confronted her demanding to know the truth that she admitted she made it up because she was angry. Yeah...

So how do we fix it? I don't know but I think it begins with coaching our daughters to report immediately and that there won't be retribution and protection for them. We need to figure out a way to get to the truth without further victimizing women too. But that isn't much of a solution.

That is why I am fascinated by this and discussing it. I have no read on Kavanaugh's character, either as a teen or as an adult. He isn't my first choice as a Supreme Court nominee either. And I also don't think being a "good guy" is a defense on this. As you know there are a lot of "good guys" in jump suits at the point of the mountain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which is my issue with people (not you) invoking the “Boy Scout” stuff.

By all accounts people thought Ted Bundy was a great guy too.

And as you referenced, Bill Cosby was the poster child for a great person for decades.

Working within the system I can completely understand why people don’t come forward.

The cases are often very difficult to prove and often involve the accused being drug through the mud as that’s the easiest way to fight the accusation.

I don’t know what the solution is

But when our politicians are of the caliber they are, it’s no real surprise. We’re not electing real fine upstanding folks. .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Which is my issue with people (not you) invoking the “Boy Scout” stuff.

It was just a figure of speech. Let's move on.

[LA Ute]

All the more reason for me to support the Braves. Isn't Clayton the cougars anyway?

I loved walking to Bryant. Sometimes, we'd stop at the 7-11 on 3rd ave on the way home for a soda or candy.

I am pretty sure I did some things at Garfield Elementary that would come back to haunt me if I were ever nominated for the bench. Like the Saturday afternoon we figured out how to climb up on the roof and explore all the ways we could have sneaked into the building. We didn't do that but we could have. Trespassing! And there are living witnesses!

[Scratch]

I am pretty sure I did some things at Garfield Elementary that would come back to haunt me if I were ever nominated for the bench. Like the Saturday afternoon we figured out how to climb up on the roof and explore all the ways we could have sneaked into the building. We didn't do that but we could have. Trespassing! And there are living witnesses!

You are not alone. I still have a huge scar on my hand from climbing on top of our church and getting severely electrocuted. It was an old building with a projector room over the gym for showing movies back in the day (the room still had some VERY old-school projectors in there cool stuff), and the projector room had a small window onto the roof. The latch on the window was broken so we could get into that room and look down on the gym. Now, when you're showing a movie you need to be able to control the lights in the "theater," so this projection room had switches that controlled the gym lights. Therefore, whenever we'd show up at the church to play basketball and someone else was already in there playing, I would climb onto the church roof, go through the window and turn off the lights in the gym. the players would turn them back on, but after I had turned them off 5 or 6 times they would give up and leave so that we could play.

Do you think this would preclude me from getting confirmed?

[concerned]

All the more reason for me to support the Braves. Isn't Clayton the cougars anyway?

I loved walking to Bryant. Sometimes, we'd stop at the 7-11 on 3rd ave on the way home for a soda or candy.

is this you, or is there more than one?







https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/954207488991117313/rG4nD15P_bigger.jpgSancho‏ @UtePadre (https://twitter.com/UtePadre) 5m5 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/UtePadre/status/1044715994898288641)More



You got this my man! Keep fighting the good fight!

[sancho]

is this you, or is there more than one?







https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/954207488991117313/rG4nD15P_bigger.jpgSancho‏ @UtePadre (https://twitter.com/UtePadre) 5m5 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/UtePadre/status/1044715994898288641)More



You got this my man! Keep fighting the good fight!





There's only one of me! That guy is an imposter!

[LA Ute]

x:)x


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htvr9XR1qGE&feature=youtu.be

[concerned]

x:)x


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htvr9XR1qGE&feature=youtu.be
You could also play the Orrin Hatch clip saying an FBI investigation is appropriate and necessary. These clips are easy pickings.

[sancho]

You could also play the Orrin Hatch clip saying an FBI investigation is appropriate and necessary. These clips are easy pickings.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[LA Ute]

You could also play the Orrin Hatch clip saying an FBI investigation is appropriate and necessary. These clips are easy pickings.

So politicians take inconsistent positions. We can still call them on that. Or we could just stop paying attention to them...which is tempting, but they still make decisions that affect us all. Rats.

[Irving Washington]

I despise Ted Cruz but this stuff needs to stop:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics/ted-cruz-heckled-restaurant-brett-kavanaugh/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

At this point I have no idea who to believe, but for what it is worth when I was in high school a rumor was floating around that at a party I was blackout drunk. It spread around like crazy because it was out of character for me. Problem was, I wasn't even at the party, but people throughout my senior year and probably to this day thought I was a partier.

Knowing the nature of high school and college and stories that build into legend it is interesting to me that there haven't seemed to be a lot of corroboration of him even being wild at parties.

The National Review viewed his interview with Fox as a driving a stake in to defend his good name, CNN characterized it as a disturbing political ploy by him, they also omitted key comments. You can chart who believes whom by political affiliation on this and the court of public opinion has decided without hearing any testimony or seeing a shred of evidence.

I'll tell you that if I was innocent I would likely do the same thing with my primary motivation being to clear my name before being nominated. It does seem he has presented some items that can be corroborated now. If he really wasn't at the parties that is the biggest deal. If people who knew him can say they never saw him blackout drunk that is less reliable, but important. I don't know how you prove his virginity, but it does seem less likely that he'd be waiving it around at parties... although life in Utah has taught me that often those same people in that point of their life can also be overly aggressive too, but those are typically kids struggling to balance their hormones to fit into their religious standards versus being shy about it or whatever.

If Kavanaugh did this I believe it is a disqualifier, but right now I am disturbed by how all of this is proceeding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's harder to prove a negative. Makes Kavanaugh's job a lot harder, at least as far as his general character/style at the time goes.
I agree, people accosting conservatives in public places needs to stop.

[Irving Washington]

It doesn't matter if someone questions both witnesses in a neutral and fair manner. I think you know that, right? Whoever does the questioning will be the object of ridicule, possibly for decades to come.
The people who will criticize him despite his fairness or objectivity will also criticize all Republican members for no one being willing to question. The one fair and objective questioner may get more heat than the whole body of questioners, but will make points for the rest of his group, for himself and for Kavanaugh from those who are willing to listen. I think there are quite a few of them out there.

[Irving Washington]

I do think it would be better to have a few SCOTUS justices who aren't alums of Harvard or Yale Law. I've tried to get nominated but have never gotten even a look. It probably relates to my hijinks at Clayton Junior High.
Must be. I've never told anyone what you did at Highland.

[Rocker Ute]

With a calendar now produced a new disturbing question emerges: Do we really want a justice who spent nearly every weekend as a teenager at an apparent beach house they owned? ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

“The reason the Constitution requires a speedy trial in criminal cases, and the reason the law imposes statutes of limitations (in federal law, it is usually five years), is that unreasonable delay unfairly prejudices an accused’s right to present a defense. After five years, to say nothing of 36 years, physical evidence is no longer available, witnesses are often unavailable, and even if witnesses can be produced, their memories have faded and become unreliable. There is no way to conduct a proceeding that satisfies fundamental fairness.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearings-not-a-trial/

[LA Ute]

Must be. I've never told anyone what you did at Highland.

You can threaten me all you want but I’m not going to increase my monthly hush money payments to you.

[U-Ute]

“Travesty” doesn’t come close to describing what is happening now.

10 Serious Problems With New Accusations Against Kavanaugh

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36229/10-serious-problems-new-accusations-against-ryan-saavedra

Yes. In the face of accusers getting dragged the conservative swamp train, it is the fact that they can't find anyone to corroborate the story that is a travesty.

[sancho]

With a calendar now produced a new disturbing question emerges: Do we really want a justice who spent nearly every weekend as a teenager at an apparent beach house they owned?

I'm guessing that 95% of current congressmen, supreme court justices, federal justices, cabinet members, and all past and current presidents spent nearly every weekend as a teenager at a beach house they owned. It takes a crucible like that to produce real leadership.

This is ridiculous. Why can't we just move on to the next conservative judge already? Are there fixed timelines on confirmations? Can they withdraw Kavanaugh today, nominate Barrett immediately, and confirm her tomorrow? Can it be done before elections? What are the rules?

[Applejack]

I'm guessing that 95% of current congressmen, supreme court justices, federal justices, cabinet members, and all past and current presidents spent nearly every weekend as a teenager at a beach house they owned. It takes a crucible like that to produce real leadership.

While that is true for presidents (except for Bill C.) and increasingly true for congressmen, it has not been true generally for SCOTUS.

Consider:
Justice sotomayor grew up in housing projects in NY; Clarence Thomas was destitute until he went to live with his grandfather (who had indoor plumbing!) at age 7;

Justice Breyer comes from a middle class family (SF); Justice Roberts is from the midwest and his family appears to have been middle class. Justice Ginsburg (NY) had two immigrant parents.

Justice Alito's family and Jutice Kagan's family had cash (NJ and NY).

Of course Trump's two picks (Gorsuch and Kavenaugh) both come from families that were rich enough to send their kids to the same very private school: Georgetown Prep.

[sancho]

While that is true for presidents (except for Bill C.) and increasingly true for congressmen, it has not been true generally for SCOTUS.

Consider:
Justice sotomayor grew up in housing projects in NY; Clarence Thomas was destitute until he went to live with his grandfather (who had indoor plumbing!) at age 7;

Justice Breyer comes from a middle class family (SF); Justice Roberts is from the midwest and his family appears to have been middle class. Justice Ginsburg (NY) had two immigrant parents.

Justice Alito's family and Jutice Kagan's family had cash (NJ and NY).

Of course Trump's two picks (Gorsuch and Kavenaugh) both come from families that were rich enough to send their kids to the same very private school: Georgetown Prep.

That was interesting. Thanks

[Ma'ake]

The newest (3rd) accuser claims to have witnesses of Kavanaugh & Mark Judge spiking drinks to get girls so disoriented they couldn't say "no", with the boys then pulling "trains" on the girls in a side bedroom.

Meanwhile, the 2nd accuser's attorney said no Republicans called in to a previous scheduled phone interview.

Mark Judge wants nothing to do with any of this, of course, and must certainly regret his writings of their partying ways, has been laying low, but not low enough for reporters to find him:
2421

(Avenatti definitely came through on this promise to produce more accusers.)

[Rocker Ute]

It is still impossible to know what really happened but there seems to be a "critical mass" that at the very least demands a delay on the proceedings and and further investigation into the many claims.

I would also expect now with the various claims and their surroundings circumstances that more people will corroborate the accusers stories.

If there were at least 10 parties where Kavanaugh behaved like he is accused of behaving certainly there has to be dozens of witnesses that will now come forward.

But there is no reason to proceed ahead until proper time is given to investigate in my mind.

And if this is all a political ploy then it makes the Garland stuff look like child's play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sancho]

It is still impossible to know what really happened but there seems to be a "critical mass" that at the very least demands a delay on the proceedings and and further investigation into the many claims.


Seriously, just move on before it's too late. If he's entirely innocent, it sucks for him, but he'll always be tainted by this. Just move on.

[LA Ute]

The newest (3rd) accuser claims to have witnesses of Kavanaugh & Mark Judge spiking drinks to get girls so disoriented they couldn't say "no", with the boys then pulling "trains" on the girls in a side bedroom.

Meanwhile, the 2nd accuser's attorney said no Republicans called in to a previous scheduled phone interview....

This Twitter thread makes that claim look like a falsehood:

https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1044790886494863360

It will be interesting to see if any of these folks are willing to testify under oath. Last I heard, Ford was not. Has that changed? Kavanaugh's interviews with committee investigators are transcribed and were given under oath.

[LA Ute]

It seems that the Dems are keeping their distance from Avenatti. Smart. He's a sleazeball (and calling him that is probably an insult to sleazeballs everywhere).


Senate Judiciary Committee staff have contacted Michael Avenatti on six separate occasions asking that he produce evidence to substantiate the allegation of sexual assault levied against Brett Kavanaugh by his client, Julie Swetnick.

“Altogether, this is my 6th email to you since your Sunday night Tweet, to seek your cooperation in obtaining evidence about your allegations,” a Judiciary Committee staff member wrote to Avenatti in a Wednesday email obtained by National Review. “Please let me know immediately whether your client will agree to an interview by committee investigators today. We can do a telephone interview anytime this afternoon or evening.”

Committee staffers first reached out to Avenatti for evidence of his client’s claims ten minutes after he tweeted about the allegations Sunday night and, in a subsequent email, provided a link to a local FBI field office so that he might report his client’s allegations himself.

“Going back to last Sunday evening (9/23), you Tweeted anonymous accusations against Judge Kavanaugh. Within 10 minutes, I emailed you and requested that you provide to the Senate Judiciary Committee the specific allegations and any evidence,” a Committee staff member wrote in the Wednesday email summarizing their correspondence thus far. “The Chairman’s committee investigators immediately started inquiring about your anonymous allegations. On Tuesday (9/25), the committee investigators questioned Judge Kavanaugh, under penalty of felony, about all pending and specific allegations against him, including your then-anonymous allegations and questions. He unequivocally denied the allegations. He has called them a smear – and worse.”

When reached for comment, Avenatti explained that while he is not opposed to allowing Senate staff to interview his client, he would first like to receive an adequate answer to an email he sent to the staff on Monday that included a number of requests regarding the investigation into his client’s claims. In that email, Avenatti asked for a full FBI investigation of his client’s allegations, including a polygraph test, and also requested that Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge be called to testify regarding Kavanaugh’s behavior at parties in high school.

After first describing the allegations in a Sunday tweet, Avenatti released the name of his client, Julie Swetnick, Wednesday. Swetnick alleges (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/michael-avenatti-client-accuses-brett-kavanaugh-of-being-present-at-her-gang-rape/) that Kavanaugh routinely sexually assaulted girls at parties in high school and was “present” while she was gang raped at one such gathering. While she does not accuse Kavanaugh directly of participating in gang rape, she claims to have seen him waiting in line outside a bedroom where she believed a gang rape was taking place.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kavanaugh-nomination-michael-avenatti-senate-judiciary-committee/

[sancho]

This is ridiculous. Why can't we just move on to the next conservative judge already? Are there fixed timelines on confirmations? Can they withdraw Kavanaugh today, nominate Barrett immediately, and confirm her tomorrow? Can it be done before elections? What are the rules?

I really do want to know this. Is it possible to move on, or did the Democrats successfully preclude that by holding onto their info for so long? Can the Republicans choose to lose this battle but win the war?

[Ma'ake]

It seems that the Dems are keeping their distance from Avenatti. Smart. He's a sleazeball (and calling him that is probably an insult to sleazeballs everywhere).

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kavanaugh-nomination-michael-avenatti-senate-judiciary-committee/

You can definitely see the race car driver / adrenaline junkie in Avenatti coming out. No fear, very calculating... with ambition for Trump's job.

Trump: (paraphrase) "Avenatti is a low life lawyer" (Which is pretty funny, when you consider the source.)

Avenatti: "Let's go!" (Avenatti wants to debate Trump on TV, which could generate much more pay-per-view than Mayweather-Pacquiao.)

His take down of Tucker Carlson was pretty emphatic: "Why do you even have a show if you didn't know these two basic facts?"

Just tonight: "Even Don, Jr. got into the act today by calling me the 'porn star lawyer' while he evidently forgot that it was his own father who was having unprotected sex with my 'porn star' client while his wife was at home with a four month old baby". (Ouch. I don't think Don, Jr will be taking on Avenatti any time soon in a TV debate.)

If Avenatti's visibility keeps rising and the rest of the Democrats can't get their act together for 2020, we may see a symmetry rise on the left with the same basic "style" that allowed Trump's rise, which opened the door for the Republicans to make their Faustian Deal to get the SCOTUS stacked for a generation, ie, the Kavanaugh circus.

Avenatti is a much smarter version of Saul Goodman, with serious ambition. Of course he's a sleeze ball lawyer... yet the assertion has no traction, in our current context. If Avenatti takes down Trump, he would be the hero of 60% of Americans.


Summary: We live in an insane time. This is all nuts, and not good. But it's where we are.

[Rocker Ute]

Trump: (paraphrase) "Avenatti is a low life lawyer" (Which is pretty funny, when you consider the source.)



I imagine they see each other at all the low-life meetings.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

I really do want to know this. Is it possible to move on, or did the Democrats successfully preclude that by holding onto their info for so long? Can the Republicans choose to lose this battle but win the war?

I'm getting the sense the answer is an emphatic "no". It's got to be Kavanaugh, as he will be a loyal ace card in a possible Constitutional Crisis that requires the SCOTUS to try to resolve it. And it's got to happen ASAFP, even if that means Republicans take a beating in the election.

[Rocker Ute]

Now two men have purportedly come forward and claimed they were responsible for the assault on Ford? Weird twist:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-two-men-say-they-had-disputed-sexual-encounter-christine-ford/1439569002/

Not much detail there to go on, and who knows what they said but if true that's pretty remarkable. Why would they admit that? Because the statute of limitations is long past? Their lives will be destroyed by partisans regardless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Now two men have purportedly come forward and claimed they were responsible for the assault on Ford? Weird twist:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-two-men-say-they-had-disputed-sexual-encounter-christine-ford/1439569002/

Not much detail there to go on, and who knows what they said but if true that's pretty remarkable. Why would they admit that? Because the statute of limitations is long past? Their lives will be destroyed by partisans regardless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I read somewhere that there is no statute of limitations on rape in Maryland. Then again, she was not raped, only assaulted, if what she says is true. I don’t know what the Md. statute of limitations is on sexual assault.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

You can definitely see the race car driver / adrenaline junkie in Avenatti coming out. No fear, very calculating... with ambition for Trump's job.

Trump: (paraphrase) "Avenatti is a low life lawyer" (Which is pretty funny, when you consider the source.)

Avenatti: "Let's go!" (Avenatti wants to debate Trump on TV, which could generate much more pay-per-view than Mayweather-Pacquiao.)

His take down of Tucker Carlson was pretty emphatic: "Why do you even have a show if you didn't know these two basic facts?"

Just tonight: "Even Don, Jr. got into the act today by calling me the 'porn star lawyer' while he evidently forgot that it was his own father who was having unprotected sex with my 'porn star' client while his wife was at home with a four month old baby". (Ouch. I don't think Don, Jr will be taking on Avenatti any time soon in a TV debate.)

If Avenatti's visibility keeps rising and the rest of the Democrats can't get their act together for 2020, we may see a symmetry rise on the left with the same basic "style" that allowed Trump's rise, which opened the door for the Republicans to make their Faustian Deal to get the SCOTUS stacked for a generation, ie, the Kavanaugh circus.

Avenatti is a much smarter version of Saul Goodman, with serious ambition. Of course he's a sleeze ball lawyer... yet the assertion has no traction, in our current context. If Avenatti takes down Trump, he would be the hero of 60% of Americans.


Summary: We live in an insane time. This is all nuts, and not good. But it's where we are.


I like the comparison to Saul Goodman. Avenetti is exactly the type of lawyer you want if you're going up against Trump. He's willing to get in the mud pit and sling some. You aren't going to win any confrontation with him using traditional tactics. He's immune to them.

[Irving Washington]

You can threaten me all you want but I’m not going to increase my monthly hush money payments to you.

I've been considering raising yours to what Concerned pays.

[LA Ute]

I'm getting the sense the answer is an emphatic "no". It's got to be Kavanaugh, as he will be a loyal ace card in a possible Constitutional Crisis that requires the SCOTUS to try to resolve it. And it's got to happen ASAFP, even if that means Republicans take a beating in the election.

Aren’t people upset there’s no Russian connection being investigated here? 😉

[LA Ute]

I like the comparison to Saul Goodman. Avenetti is exactly the type of lawyer you want if you're going up against Trump. He's willing to get in the mud pit and sling some. You aren't going to win any confrontation with him using traditional tactics. He's immune to them.

But Saul is the least kind of funny. Avenatti simply made his name by exploiting stormy Daniels. She is now a nobody, not making much money, and being heckled and so forth while she “performs.“ He is now a media star. He owes it all to her, and is standing right on top of her.

[Scratch]

I have some connections to Aventti through my firm. I've never met him, but there are lots of people here who have significant history with him. What is out there already is just the tip of the iceberg. He is an absolutely despicable human being (even by lawyer standards). He is morally bankrupt and completely dishonest. He will say or do whatever it takes to help himself He will screw (and has screwed) his partners or clients to advance his own interests. There are very few people out there who are worse human beings than Trump, but Avenatti is almost certainly one of them.

Don't believe a single thing this guy says about anything.

[sancho]

I like the comparison to Saul Goodman. Avenetti is exactly the type of lawyer you want if you're going up against Trump. He's willing to get in the mud pit and sling some. You aren't going to win any confrontation with him using traditional tactics. He's immune to them.

I disagree with this. I don't believe in fighting fire with fire. An Avenetti/Trump showdown just lowers the discourse of the nation even further and makes us all dumber.

[sancho]

I'm getting the sense the answer is an emphatic "no". It's got to be Kavanaugh, as he will be a loyal ace card in a possible Constitutional Crisis that requires the SCOTUS to try to resolve it. And it's got to happen ASAFP, even if that means Republicans take a beating in the election.

Presumably, there are plenty of candidates who can be loyal ace cards for conservatives. Why stick with Kavanaugh? Is it just the timing, or is it stubbornness?

I feel like, if Kavanaugh truly cared about the conservative cause, he'd take one for the team here. There's already talk of impeachment and investigation should the republicans confirm him. This will never go away for him unless he withdraws. Just back down. Continue to deny, but say you realize now that stepping down is what is best for the nation you love. Let the president and congress complain about how due process was trampled on simply because of political disagreements. All that should resonate with the republican base. Then, just appoint someone else (obviously, a woman).

Of course, Kavanaugh has probably dreamed about this appointment since Yale.

[concerned]

You guys are short changing Saul Goodman. He may have been a criminal lawyer, according to Jesse Pinkman, but he was great in court. He is a born salesman, made very creative (creative in a good effective way, not illegal) and very convincing arguments before a jury. His cross-examination of his brother in the disciplinary proceedings was a master class.

Also, you have to put Avenatti to one side. He is irrelevant. His client is either telling the truth or she isn't. That he is her lawyer doesn't affect that one way or the other, unless he put her up to it. If that happened, she (with two security clearances and an affidavit under oath) is the biggest idiot on the face of the earth. Her credibility matters, not his.

[LA Ute]

Presumably, there are plenty of candidates who can be loyal ace cards for conservatives. Why stick with Kavanaugh? Is it just the timing, or is it stubbornness?

I feel like, if Kavanaugh truly cared about the conservative cause, he'd take one for the team here. There's already talk of impeachment and investigation should the republicans confirm him. This will never go away for him unless he withdraws. Just back down. Continue to deny, but say you realize now that stepping down is what is best for the nation you love. Let the president and congress complain about how due process was trampled on simply because of political disagreements. All that should resonate with the republican base. Then, just appoint someone else (obviously, a woman).

Of course, Kavanaugh has probably dreamed about this appointment since Yale.

Here’s one part of the matter that is compelling to a great many people, including me: Precedent. Should someone be able to come forward out of nowhere with a 36 year-old sensational but unprovable allegation of horrible behavior and change the course of history (not to mention destroy someone)? People can pooh-pooh that all they want but it is the precedent that will be set. That’s why Kavanaugh is fighting, at least in part, and that’s why lots of people, including me, think he needs to fight. I hope and believe is say the same thing if the political parties were reversed.

If anyone thinks the Dems here have any other goal than to derail the Kavanaugh nomination, or that there not a gleeful response to this among most partisan Democrats, they’re dreaming. I think what is being done here is beyond despicable.

[sancho]

Here’s one part of the matter that is compelling to a great many people, including me: Precedent. Should someone be able to come forward out of nowhere with a 36 year-old sensational but unprovable allegation of horrible behavior and change the course of history (not to mention destroy someone)? People can pooh-pooh that all they want but it is the precedent that will be set. That’s why Kavanaugh is fighting, at least in part, and that’s why lots of people, including me, think he needs to fight. I hope and believe is say the same thing if the political parties were reversed.


But you're gonna die on that hill. At best, you get a tainted judge. At worst, you get nothing. I'm not sure the principle, in this case, is worth it. I think, regardless of how this ends, the precedent has been set.



If anyone thinks the Dems here have any other goal than to derail the Kavanaugh nomination

This is clearly the goal. It may be beyond despicable, but it's what the republicans would do. And, more importantly for republicans, it might work. They could lose this. I think they should take a step back and think strategically here.

[LA Ute]

It may be beyond despicable, but it's what the republicans would do.

There is no history in the last 50 years of the Repubs (which is all I remember) engaging in character assassination of any SCOTUS nominee. That has been a part of the Democrats' playbook at least since Clarence Thomas. I don't think either side did it before then. Also, if the Repubs tried that tactic how well do you think it would play in the news/entertainment media?


I'm not sure the principle, in this case, is worth it. I think, regardless of how this ends, the precedent has been set.

It's not really set until it works. That's the decision the Repubs have to make: Do we let this tactic work?

[sancho]

There is no history in the last 50 years of the Repubs (which is all I remember) engaging in character assassination of any SCOTUS nominee. That has been a part of the Democrats' playbook at least since Clarence Thomas. I don't think either side did it before then. Also, if the Repubs tried that tactic how well do you think it would play in the news/entertainment media?


I guess I should have said that the republicans will do whatever they can get away with, just like the democrats. If they thought it would work, they would do this. You are right, though. Due to differences in things like the media, the republicans have to do different despicable things.


It's not really set until it works. That's the decision the Repubs have to make: Do we let this tactic work?

It's working, man. The real decision will be: when do we jump ship on this? I think they will jump too late. They could still gain politically. They could energize their base and get a conservative judge.

[U-Ute]

I have some connections to Aventti through my firm. I've never met him, but there are lots of people here who have significant history with him. What is out there already is just the tip of the iceberg. He is an absolutely despicable human being (even by lawyer standards). He is morally bankrupt and completely dishonest. He will say or do whatever it takes to help himself He will screw (and has screwed) his partners or clients to advance his own interests. There are very few people out there who are worse human beings than Trump, but Avenatti is almost certainly one of them.

Don't believe a single thing this guy says about anything.

You are repeating yourself. You already said he was a lawyer.:stirthepot:

[U-Ute]

I guess I should have said that the republicans will do whatever they can get away with, just like the democrats. If they thought it would work, they would do this. You are right, though. Due to differences in things like the media, the republicans have to do different despicable things.

It's working, man. The real decision will be: when do we jump ship on this? I think they will jump too late. They could still gain politically. They could energize their base and get a conservative judge.

I agree with you on this. This seems like a very strange hill for the GOP to fall on their swords for.

My initial inclination was to think that the GOP knew about Kavanaugh and knew he would fail, and they knew that the Democrats were desperately craving a win against Trump, so they put him up as a sacrificial lamb so that whomever they proposed after him would sail through unscathed.

But the GOP keeps pushing this obviously flawed candidate.

Maybe it is to energize their base going into the elections. Poll after poll has shown how despondent they are.

[LA Ute]

It's working, man. The real decision will be: when do we jump ship on this? I think they will jump too late. They could still gain politically. They could energize their base and get a conservative judge.

Oh, I think that will happen. Kavanaugh will become the bloody shirt they wave in the midterm elections. I think the Dems should be careful about how they play their taking Kavanaugh down in this disgusting manner. It won't hurt them with their base, but they need much more than their base to win. Trump has said he will have another nominee out 1 hour after Kavanaugh withdraws, if that happens. There's been talk that the Repubs may take that nominee straight to the floor, and bypass the committee hearings, but I don't think they have the GOP votes to pull that off.

In the event he withdraws, I hope my liberal buddies everywhere will enjoy their celebratory libations, at least a little.

[LA Ute]

Just for fun:

‘False Memories’ Are More Common Than You Think (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/cognitive-science-false-memories-more-common-than-you-think/)

[Ma'ake]

I listened to local talk radio yesterday afternoon, Rod Arquette's show.

- Arquette was agreeing with his listeners that this was all made up BS, and predicted Ford wouldn't even show up today.

- One caller, comfortable in the echo chamber, said this is all part of the FemiNazi agenda for women to take over and rule, but "that's not going to happen because God wants men to rule over women".

The stuff people say... and think. (From all directions)

[U-Ute]

Just for fun:

‘False Memories’ Are More Common Than You Think (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/cognitive-science-false-memories-more-common-than-you-think/)



This was a great podcast on the subject of the "flexibility" of our memory.

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/23-a-polite-word-for-liar-memory-part-1

[U-Ute]

This is not going to be decided based on words alone. Most people react to body language and tone.

1045393451456638978

[LA Ute]

This is not going to be decided based on words alone. Most people react to body language and tone.

1045393451456638978

That tweet is a great example of how different people can see the same thing and interpret it 100% differently. It's why eyewitness testimony alone is unreliable.

[LA Ute]

She may be right.

Now a Kavanaugh FBI investigation is obligatory

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/09/27/now-a-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-is-obligatory/?utm_term=.7509540266d3&__twitter_impression=true

A taste:


If Republicans are giving any thought to pushing the nomination through without taking adequate time to investigate, they should first search their souls — and then get their heads examined. You do not risk putting a gang rapist on the Supreme Court to “own the libs (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/own-the-libs-meaning-703845/)” or even for the sake of overturning Roe v. Wade. If basic human decency and a respect for the probity of the courts don’t tell you that, then grubby electoral calculations should.

But by the same token, Democrats should stop calling for Kavanaugh’s nomination to be withdrawn, as if that could possibly put this scandal to rest. Two days ago, yes, but now the nation cannot afford to punt. Regardless of what it might do to Republican chances of putting a conservative in the seat, or to Democratic chances of retaking the Senate, once Thursday’s hearing concludes, the president must reopen the FBI background checks to try to establish the truth of the allegations, from Swetnick and Ford and Ramirez. If the FBI substantiates them, any criminality should be referred to local prosecutors for possible prosecution. If the FBI is unable to substantiate any of them, then despite the lingering questions, Democrats should join Republicans and unanimously confirming Kavanaugh, to signal that some things — both #MeToo and the integrity of the nomination process — are above politics.

Either grave crimes have passed undetected for decades and we must now do our utmost to see them punished, or a new crime is unfolding before our eyes: an attempt to manipulate the composition of the highest court of the land through the strategically timed release of unfalsifiable accusations of sexual assault. Either way, it’s too late for a political solution. This is now about preserving the integrity of the American justice system; it can’t be brushed away with “politics ain’t beanbag.” At this point, it’s more like Fiat justitia ruat cælum: Let justice be done though the heavens fall.

[U-Ute]

Twitter right now on the Kavenaugh hearing:


R: LAUREL!

D: YANNY!

[Rocker Ute]

I felt Kavanaugh was quite attractive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Irving Washington]

There is no history in the last 50 years of the Repubs (which is all I remember) engaging in character assassination of any SCOTUS nominee. That has been a part of the Democrats' playbook at least since Clarence Thomas. I don't think either side did it before then. Also, if the Repubs tried that tactic how well do you think it would play in the news/entertainment media?



It's not really set until it works. That's the decision the Repubs have to make: Do we let this tactic work?
Speaking of precedents, they set a modern one two years ago and are now running from it. Maybe they should have thought about the value of precedents two years ago. Maybe they wouldn't be in this situation now.

[Irving Washington]

There is no history in the last 50 years of the Repubs (which is all I remember) engaging in character assassination of any SCOTUS nominee. That has been a part of the Democrats' playbook at least since Clarence Thomas. I don't think either side did it before then. Also, if the Repubs tried that tactic how well do you think it would play in the news/entertainment media?



It's not really set until it works. That's the decision the Repubs have to make: Do we let this tactic work?

A while back I mentioned the effect an aggressive, unbalanced Court can have on voting trends. The Warren Court is an example. It helped create the "tough on crime" mantle that the Republicans used for decades, as well as solidifying the Dixiecrats' move the the Repubs, as well as other things, like "liberal" becoming a negative term. What you're hoping for from a truly conservative block on the Court may already have a big impact on voter tendencies, and with a tainted justice making the fifth vote, the reaction may be even stronger.
Be careful what you ask for.

[Irving Washington]

Just for fun:

‘False Memories’ Are More Common Than You Think (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/cognitive-science-false-memories-more-common-than-you-think/)

Sadly, this is probably true. I also suspect that incomplete, or wrong memories occur more frequently to someone who has suffered trauma, such as sexual assault or rape. Additional victimization.

I wonder if the NR will now take on the charge of criminal justice reform related to issues of "planted" memories or incomplete, wrong memories of trauma victims, which would include most victims of crimes of violence. You know it won't, so why is it bringing it up here.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

I felt Kavanaugh was quite attractive.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Almost pleasing.

[Irving Washington]

So Kavanaugh says that Blasey Ford was wrong, but was just an innocent victim of despicable Democrats. Did he explain this, why he thought she wasn't also despicable?

[tooblue]

So Kavanaugh says that Blasey Ford was wrong, but was just an innocent victim of despicable Democrats. Did he explain this, why he thought she wasn't also despicable?

Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-two-men-say-they-had-disputed-sexual-encounter-christine-ford/1439569002/

[LA Ute]

A while back I mentioned the effect an aggressive, unbalanced Court can have on voting trends. The Warren Court is an example. It helped create the "tough on crime" mantle that the Republicans used for decades, as well as solidifying the Dixiecrats' move the the Repubs, as well as other things, like "liberal" becoming a negative term. What you're hoping for from a truly conservative block on the Court may already have a big impact on voter tendencies, and with a tainted justice making the fifth vote, the reaction may be even stronger.
Be careful what you ask for.

I really hope that a Court with Kavanaugh (or whoever) on it will not change the law much. It should not be an activist court with the 5 guys who would be in the majority. I think liberals fear that it will be activist, because that's how they see the SCOTUS's role -- as an activist body.

[LA Ute]

So Kavanaugh says that Blasey Ford was wrong, but was just an innocent victim of despicable Democrats. Did he explain this, why he thought she wasn't also despicable?

I watched most of his testimony, albeit with just one eye. He said several times that he thinks Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted but it wasn't by him. You might not like that (I get that) but that's how he avoided attacking her or suggesting that her behavior was despicable. He even said his young daughter prayed for Dr. Ford.

[LA Ute]

And I thought this situation had reached the depths of rotten behavior:

Someone on Capitol Hill just doxxed Republican Sens. Mike Lee, Orrin Hatch, and Lindsey Graham (http://Someone on Capitol Hill just doxxed Republican Sens. Mike Lee, Orrin Hatch, and Lindsey Graham)

"Somebody working from a House of Representatives office is editing the Wikipedia pages of Republican senators to post what looks like their home addresses."

Hey, if it's righteous to run them out of restaurants, why not do this too?

[Irving Washington]

I watched most of his testimony, albeit with just one eye. He said several times that he thinks Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted but it wasn't by him. You might not like that (I get that) but that's how he avoided attacking her or suggesting that her behavior was despicable. He even said his young daughter prayed for Dr. Ford.
So the conservative position is that Blasey Ford was probably sexually assaulted, but not by Kavanaugh, and liberals are despicably using her with no concern about whether the sexual assault was perpetrated by Kavanaugh. So the Democrats have victimized and used Blasey Ford. Did they manipulate her into coming forward? Poor little Dr. Ford.

[Irving Washington]

I really hope that a Court with Kavanaugh (or whoever) on it will not change the law much. It should not be an activist court with the 5 guys who would be in the majority. I think liberals fear that it will be activist, because that's how they see the SCOTUS's role -- as an activist body.
You think the conservatives on the Court haven't already been activists? Just in the small area I have practiced in, they have substantially changed the law on sovereign immunity, the enforceability of federal statutes under section 1983, rewrote the ADA, among other things.

[LA Ute]

You think the conservatives on the Court haven't already been activists? Just in the small area I have practiced in, they have substantially changed the law on sovereign immunity, the enforceability of federal statutes under section 1983, rewrote the ADA, among other things.

I only care about the Court being activist on matters I don't want them to be activist about.

Seriously, I am talking about really big changes that affect everyone. Roberts believes in what he calls "judicial modesty." That's why he stretched to avoid overturning the ACA (Obamacare). He didn't want to strike down a law that had passed with a huge majority in Congress.

[Rocker Ute]

Almost pleasing.

Seriously at this point I worry about Orin Hatch's faculties. Nobody could be that tone deaf, even when you are a million years old like he is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

Mike Lee's statement is a fairly generic GOP talking point:

"I believe Dr. Ford was assaulted - but it wasn't Kavanaugh. (Even though she said it was 100% him. And now we must stonewall any other claims or evidence or considerations and seat him ASAP)"

Reactions to Kavanaugh's performance reflect our sharply divided tribalism:

Facebook friend: "I greatly admire Judge Kavanaugh and I wish I could be more like him".

Rep Ted Lieu: "If Kavanaugh gets that angry on national TV, imagine how he is when he gets inebriated"

[LA Ute]

Mike Lee's statement is a fairly generic GOP talking point:

"I believe Dr. Ford was assaulted - but it wasn't Kavanaugh. (Even though she said it was 100% him. And now we must stonewall any other claims or evidence or considerations and seat him ASAP)"

Reactions to Kavanaugh's performance reflect our sharply divided tribalism:

Facebook friend: "I greatly admire Judge Kavanaugh and I wish I could be more like him".

Rep Ted Lieu: "If Kavanaugh gets that angry on national TV, imagine how he is when he gets inebriated"

She seemed very sincere and I think she believes her story. People of sincere good will wonder, however, look at the lack of cooperation and witnesses, the passage of time, and so forth, and can’t be sure her memory of her story is accurate. Only she and Brett Kavanaugh are in a position to know, assuming their memories actually are accurate. Juries have to figure these things out all the time. Right now the American public is the jury. Anyone who says the answer is clear or obvious simply isn’t paying close attention.

[Diehard Ute]

She seemed very sincere and I think she believes her story. People of sincere good will wonder, however, look at the lack of cooperation and witnesses, the passage of time, and so forth, and can’t be sure her memory of her story is accurate. Only she and Brett Kavanaugh are in a position to know, assuming their memories actually are accurate. Juries have to figure these things out all the time. Right now the American public is the jury. Anyone who says the answer is clear or obvious simply isn’t paying close attention.

And as you know, juries are often very wrong in their findings.

Anyone who is innocent and knows the justice system would ask for a bench trial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Irving Washington]

I only care about the Court being activist on matters I don't want them to be activist about.

Seriously, I am talking about really big changes that affect everyone. Roberts believes in what he calls "judicial modesty." That's why he stretched to avoid overturning the ACA (Obamacare). He didn't want to strike down a law that had passed with a huge majority in Congress.

Those things affect quite a few people, mostly those with little money or power.

[LA Ute]

And as you know, juries are often very wrong in their findings.

Anyone who is innocent and knows the justice system would ask for a bench trial.

You’re right about juries. I absolutely would ask for a bench trial. I think that you once again misread my intent. I was saying that the truth is unknowable here, that the American public is the jury, and there’s no telling whether this jury is going to get this one right. In my opinion, our system is not perfect, but it’s the only one we have and we have to live with it.

[sancho]

She seemed very sincere and I think she believes her story.

I didn't see it, but most people agree with this. Simplifying a bit, let's say there were three possibilities before:

1) She made it up
2) It happened, but not like she remembers
3) It happened, and he's lying

I think her testimony yesterday means there are really just two possibilities now:

1) It happened, but not like she remembers
2) It happened, and he's lying

The best possible outcome for Kavanaugh is now off the table, and the worst just became much more likely. I just don't think he's worth it to the GOP. Not when there are other conservative options. If Roe vs Wade is the only thing that matters, I'm sure they can find someone else who will overturn it.

I think Kavanaugh had the option of honorably withdrawing as recently as two days ago. I don't think that's really an option for him anymore. Now, I think the GOP's best play is to call for a vote immediately and to vote him down convincingly. Do this, and say something about believing both of them (and in particular say something about the importance of believing women) and not wanting to take any chances with something as important as a supreme court justice opening. Then start on the next nominee immediately.

Unrelated thought: my whole life, liberals have been erroneously touting the virtue of outrage. Now, when Kavanaugh is outraged, they say his outrage disqualifies him. Just another drop in the sea of political hypocrisy.

[UTEopia]

I am disgusted by the conduct of the Senators. I have 0 respect for all of them. They are doing a tremendous disservice to the Country.

[Ma'ake]

You’re right about juries. I absolutely would ask for a bench trial. I think that you once again misread my intent. I was saying that the truth is unknowable here, that the American public is the jury, and there’s no telling whether this jury is going to get this one right. In my opinion, our system is not perfect, but it’s the only one we have and we have to live with it.

The truth is unknowable in this case.

It's like asserting someone is a bad driver, based on an alleged accident that wasn't documented, 35 years ago. Yet while we're left to judge on a single incident, others might be able to add to the mosaic.

"I remember he was driving too fast and took out the neighbor's fence because I had to fix it", or "Didn't he back over your brother's bike, too? A few of us remember that one".

Nothing else is allowed, at this point. Did the incident occur, or is it unknowable? He gets the benefit of the doubt, where Ford gets a pat on the head, and the others get the Stonewall McConnell treatment. Republicans bellow that it's not a trial... and then use the tightest political filter to exclude relevant information, on a lifetime appointment.

[Rocker Ute]

The truth is unknowable in this case.

It's like asserting someone is a bad driver, based on an alleged accident that wasn't documented, 35 years ago. Yet while we're left to judge on a single incident, others might be able to add to the mosaic.

"I remember he was driving too fast and took out the neighbor's fence because I had to fix it", or "Didn't he back over your brother's bike, too? A few of us remember that one".

Nothing else is allowed, at this point. Did the incident occur, or is it unknowable? He gets the benefit of the doubt, where Ford gets a pat on the head, and the others get the Stonewall McConnell treatment. Republicans bellow that it's not a trial... and then use the tightest political filter to exclude relevant information, on a lifetime appointment.

That's fine to collect that information, but we are already ignoring the information like that which has been gathered and submitted, including the two of the others present who deny it happened, the many people who have vouched for his character in HS and college, and apparently two men who have purportedly confessed to doing it. Conversely we've also ignored the other character witnesses for Ford, and even timelines of when she started talking about this before K's nomination.

I honestly don't think that it will uncover anything new or even as substantial as what we have now. Plus an important factor in all of this is being drunk at a party, and even blackout drunk doesn't make him a sexual predator either, and that seems to be the very best we can come up with. Plenty of people out there getting blackout drunk that aren't committing any crimes beyond soiling their own pants.

It also seems pretty disingenuous to be critical of Republicans using a tight filter when Feinstein deplorably sat on this information throughout the entire vetting process. It seems she has escaped this whole thing unscathed when her actions have done harm to Ford second only to what Kavanaugh is accused of doing.

[Ma'ake]

That's fine to collect that information, but we are already ignoring the information like that which has been gathered and submitted, including the two of the others present who deny it happened, the many people who have vouched for his character in HS and college, and apparently two men who have purportedly confessed to doing it. Conversely we've also ignored the other character witnesses for Ford, and even timelines of when she started talking about this before K's nomination.

I honestly don't think that it will uncover anything new or even as substantial as what we have now. Plus an important factor in all of this is being drunk at a party, and even blackout drunk doesn't make him a sexual predator either, and that seems to be the very best we can come up with. Plenty of people out there getting blackout drunk that aren't committing any crimes beyond soiling their own pants.

It also seems pretty disingenuous to be critical of Republicans using a tight filter when Feinstein deplorably sat on this information throughout the entire vetting process. It seems she has escaped this whole thing unscathed when her actions have done harm to Ford second only to what Kavanaugh is accused of doing.

I don't know the timeline of when Feinstein got the letter from Ford, but Feinstein seems to be getting into Hatch territory, cognitively. Which is a big problem, on both sides. I fear in the 2020 if the Democratic side boils down to Joe Biden, a bunch of nobodies and Avenatti... look out. Who could have predicted the Bernie Sanders movement?

Watching the re-runs of the Clarence Thomas hearings, it's like watching home videos. Everyone's younger, but it's the same damn people.

(I don't hold it below Dem Senators to take a page out of the McConnell-Reid playbook and delay to get maximum political impact right before the elections. Besides waiting for these people to die off, how do we start to put things back together? A formal rule requiring Dems & Republicans to eat lunch together twice a week?)

I'm glad the FBI is getting involved. If there are serious concerns, we should know about them. If there aren't, Kavanaugh gets his name cleared, the SCOTUS gets a small increase in legitimacy in the eyes of those not close to the epicenter of the our political dysfunction.

[sancho]

(I don't hold it below Dem Senators to take a page out of the McConnell-Reid playbook and delay to get maximum political impact right before the elections. Besides waiting for these people to die off, how do we start to put things back together? A formal rule requiring Dems & Republicans to eat lunch together twice a week?)


Term limits! The congress was never intended to be a career. If I can't get term limits, can we at least stop calling it "public service" after they've milked us for over $1 million in salary?

[LA Ute]

Democracy in action.

Jeff Flake confronted by protesters


https://youtu.be/3GnSn21ykWs

He doesn’t look happy but he’s a US senator and he isn’t paid to be happy.

What I find fascinating about this mess is how people on one side of the issue can look at a witness or protester or senator, whoever the person may be, and see outstanding courage and intelligence; and people on the other side look at the same person and see a pathetic liar and fool. That happens all the time, of course, but the passion seems hotter and more deeply felt on both sides in this case than in most. It seems really remarkable to me. I’ve been seeing it all day today as I’ve discussed yesterday’s hearing with colleagues.

[USS Utah]

I don't know the timeline of when Feinstein got the letter from Ford

Ford contacted both The Washington Post and her Representative Anna Eshoo in early July 2018, after Judge Brett Kavanaugh was reported to be on Donald Trump's shortlist. On July 20, eleven days after Trump nominated Kavanaugh, Eshoo met with Ford, becoming convinced of her credibility and noting that Ford seemed "terrified" that her identity as an accuser might become public. Eshoo and Ford decided to take the matter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. In a letter to Feinstein, Ford alleged that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when both were in high school, and stated that she expected her story to be kept confidential.


Owing to her confidentiality commitment to Ford, Feinstein did not raise the issue in the initial Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings. On September 12, The Intercept reported (without naming Ford) that Feinstein was withholding a Kavanaugh-related document from fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats. Feinstein then referred Ford's letter to the FBI, which redacted Ford's name and forwarded the letter to the White House as an update to Kavanaugh's background check. The White House in turn sent the letter to the full Senate Judiciary Committee.


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

[Ma'ake]

Ford contacted both The Washington Post and her Representative Anna Eshoo in early July 2018, after Judge Brett Kavanaugh was reported to be on Donald Trump's shortlist. On July 20, eleven days after Trump nominated Kavanaugh, Eshoo met with Ford, becoming convinced of her credibility and noting that Ford seemed "terrified" that her identity as an accuser might become public. Eshoo and Ford decided to take the matter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. In a letter to Feinstein, Ford alleged that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when both were in high school, and stated that she expected her story to be kept confidential.


Owing to her confidentiality commitment to Ford, Feinstein did not raise the issue in the initial Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings. On September 12, The Intercept reported (without naming Ford) that Feinstein was withholding a Kavanaugh-related document from fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats. Feinstein then referred Ford's letter to the FBI, which redacted Ford's name and forwarded the letter to the White House as an update to Kavanaugh's background check. The White House in turn sent the letter to the full Senate Judiciary Committee.

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

Good find.

I've heard one description of Ford & the other accusers as "willing dupes". That seems like a stretch, given the death threats, getting hacked, etc.

LA's right - the passions on both sides are slanting peoples' views beyond normal biases.

Republicans see Kavanaugh as rightly outraged and angry, and standing up for himself. Democrats see a nominee who is angry that his past now threatens a perceived entitlement to the highest job in the law profession.

A week and a closer look seem like the right thing to do.

[LA Ute]

Ford contacted both The Washington Post and her Representative Anna Eshoo in early July 2018, after Judge Brett Kavanaugh was reported to be on Donald Trump's shortlist. On July 20, eleven days after Trump nominated Kavanaugh, Eshoo met with Ford, becoming convinced of her credibility and noting that Ford seemed "terrified" that her identity as an accuser might become public. Eshoo and Ford decided to take the matter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. In a letter to Feinstein, Ford alleged that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when both were in high school, and stated that she expected her story to be kept confidential.


Owing to her confidentiality commitment to Ford, Feinstein did not raise the issue in the initial Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings. On September 12, The Intercept reported (without naming Ford) that Feinstein was withholding a Kavanaugh-related document from fellow Judiciary Committee Democrats. Feinstein then referred Ford's letter to the FBI, which redacted Ford's name and forwarded the letter to the White House as an update to Kavanaugh's background check. The White House in turn sent the letter to the full Senate Judiciary Committee.


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

I think we need to know more about all this than that Wikipedia piece tells us. Remember, Wikipedia is not an objective source of news, especially on politics. For example, I don’t think anyone knows exactly who leaked the letter to the major news media. During the hearing yesterday, Feinstein certainly didn’t know, and nobody seemed to be willing to take responsibility for that leak.

[Ma'ake]

Some reflection on how we got here, and how these battles have impacted the Justices that survived them. This is from the NYT, but it seems reasonably fair and covers the rising acrimony from Thomas to today, with impressively sage words from Roberts: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/kavanaugh-testimony-supreme-court.html

A couple of excerpts:

"Whoop-de-damn-do" was Thomas' reaction to the news that he'd been confirmed, and he's been open about how angry the experience made him, with a voting record more conservative than Scalia's.

"Every bit of research ever done on the subject concludes that judges are human beings with emotional reactions that influence how they decide cases. Research suggests Kavanaugh will be unable to set aside this experience when deciding relevant cases with or parties aligned with those he has today treated as personal enemies". - Jeff Rachlinski, law professor at Cornell

"His time in the executive branch, and his work for Ken Starr suggest he was one of the most partisan appointees in a long time" - Eric Segal, law professor at Georgia State.

I know if I was in Kavanaugh's shoes it would be tough to be objective when dealing with anything that could be related to what he's been through.

The whole process is broken, we need to wring the politics out of it, look for judges who have demonstrated abilities to be impartial.

I know Kavanaugh's emotional reaction yesterday resonated with his supporters and had others recoil that he might get that much power.

What about the attorneys here? Is that level of venom ever appropriate in a judge?

Klobachar's question about alcohol brought a "do you?" kind of snarky response (that he later apologized for), but I can't imagine half the country thinking he would even try to be impartial, but would be expecting him to be a judicial hitman, seeking revenge, and some portion of the electorate would want him to cheer lead at rallies where he could really rip the Democrats and turn the SCOTUS into an openly partisan "thunder dome" scenario.

Nominate the woman prosecutor who was brought in, or somebody without that level of scorn.

We need to get some respect and rationality back into the SCOTUS, it seems to me, not continue the descent toward SCOTUS as openly partisan.

[Diehard Ute]

I think we need to know more about all this than that Wikipedia piece tells us. Remember, Wikipedia is not an objective source of news, especially on politics. For example, I don’t think anyone knows exactly who leaked the letter to the major news media. During the hearing yesterday, Feinstein certainly didn’t know, and nobody seemed to be willing to take responsibility for that leak.

The reporter whom the letter was leaked to states it was not Feinstein or anyone on her staff. They also stated the letter itself wasn’t leaked. Merely its existence and basic cintends

It’s quite plausible it was someone outside of politics.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Some predictions:


We will see. Many on the right suspect that Democrats are not acting in good faith, and that in the coming days, we will see more implausible, evidence-free accusations such as that of Michael Avenatti’s client, more Da Vinci Code–level interpretations of Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook, and more Democratic lawmakers making furious denunciations of the nominee as not merely a judge they disagree with but a dangerous menace to society.

We will see what happens, but it is entirely likely, based upon what we have seen, that Democrats immediately move the goalposts again and insist that the FBI investigation is “being rushed,” that it didn’t interview some key figure or ignored some other allegation or evidence, or that the whole investigation was “a fraud” because after all, FBI Director Christopher Wray answers to the president. They will always find a reason to delegitimize a process that gives them a result they don’t like.

And we can count on most Democratic senators to echo the argument of Chris Murphy: “Whatever they find doesn’t change the fact that Kavanaugh, especially after his performance yesterday, is the most dangerous Supreme Court pick of our lifetime.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/jeff-flake-fbi-investigation-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation/

[LA Ute]

The reporter whom the letter was leaked to states it was not Feinstein or anyone on her staff. They also stated the letter itself wasn’t leaked. Merely its existence and basic cintends

It’s quite plausible it was someone outside of politics.

seems to me the most likely leaker is one of Dr. Ford’s lawyers. It is extremely unlikely that this happened in some innocent fashion.

[LA Ute]

To vote against Judge Kavanaugh is to reject his certain, clear and unequivocal denial that this event ever happened. The logical implication of a “no” vote is that a man with a flawless record of public service lied not only to the public but to his wife, his children and his community. Any Republican who votes against Judge Kavanaugh is implying that he committed perjury in front of the Senate, and should resign or be impeached from his current judicial position, if not charged criminally.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-kavanaugh-stakes-1538088433?emailToken=5efb7f64fba39f3ffa8179b3b0d8 cd80rYP4Izwg9+lIbVG1KxeBxu7V1xYBCl1RMV7TqFsGb/lZgnlZkZeRDFI8KYdvy/fV&reflink=article_gmail_share

[LA Ute]

Megan McArdle is a center-right pundit. I usually agree with her, and I think she got it right in this depressing peace.

The Kavanaugh-Ford hearing broke the committee

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/09/28/the-kavanaugh-ford-hearing-broke-the-committee/?utm_term=.fbe7f47430e8

[sancho]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-kavanaugh-stakes-1538088433?emailToken=5efb7f64fba39f3ffa8179b3b0d8 cd80rYP4Izwg9+lIbVG1KxeBxu7V1xYBCl1RMV7TqFsGb/lZgnlZkZeRDFI8KYdvy/fV&reflink=article_gmail_share

This quote is super dramatic. They can just say they certain, and they don't want to take risks with the supreme court. Say things that will help keep the few women they still have. And move on.

Confirming him at this point seems like a political disaster.

[Ma'ake]

The Kavanaugh nomination has mushroomed into a much larger airing of issues, some that we guys don't think about much.

- Gallup demonstrates the gender gap on the SCOTUS is at a high point. 2422

- Maybe Kavanaugh is getting caught up in a phenomenon outside himself in the larger public, but the furor of the #metoo movement is impressive in its intensity. Eg, the woman who confronted Flake in the elevator: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-was-demanding-a-connection-ana-maria-archila-reflects-on-confronting-jeff-flake-over-kavanaugh-nomination/2018/09/28/7593b4fe-c381-11e8-97a5-ab1e46bb3bc7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2a519ea75b8a

(Will the #metoo movement run out of steam? Not any time soon, it seems.)

- The subconscious yearning for "justice" is deep inside us. To me, a lot of what Kavanaugh is going through is directly attributable to Mitch McConnnell… in the same way LA seemed to view Merrick Garland's discarded nomination by McConnell as attributable to Harry Reid.

[Rocker Ute]

I'll just say this, there has been a lot of deplorable things that have happened with this whole process, but none more than how Feinstein handled this. If you are an advocate for victims what she has done to Ford is indefensible, and if you buy the narrative that she was just trying to protect her anonymity, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

This quote is super dramatic. They can just say they certain, and they don't want to take risks with the supreme court. Say things that will help keep the few women they still have. And move on.

Confirming him at this point seems like a political disaster.

His responses to Feinstein and Klobuchar probably help w/ his & Trump's base, but IMO they exacerbate the gender gap.

As Feinstein continued to talk more about the reasons to have an FBI investigation, Kavanaugh interrupted her saying "You're interviewing me! You're interviewing me! You're doing it, Senator!" "I'm sorry to interrupt, but you're doing it." (Does he think his own testimony is all that matters?)

The exchange with Amy Klobuchar was another pivotal moment. "If I had acted like he did, in his own court, I would have been thrown out", Klobuchar said later.

I'm sure his impassioned defense of himself reinforced the Trump base and Kavanaugh's supporters, but I get the sense he's absolutely the wrong candidate if the GOP wants to make inroads with women.

[sancho]

I'm sure his impassioned defense of himself reinforced the Trump base and Kavanaugh's supporters, but I get the sense he's absolutely the wrong candidate if the GOP wants to make inroads with women.

Yup, he's just not worth it. The testimony this week resonated with women in a way that should not be ignored. Pick a female judge, and move on.

[UTEopia]

I'm sure his impassioned defense of himself reinforced the Trump base and Kavanaugh's supporters, but I get the sense he's absolutely the wrong candidate if the GOP wants to make inroads with women.

I've spoken with several women this week about Kavanaugh and the responses were interesting. Those who lean left think he's lying. Those who lean right think he's rightfully indignant and courageously standing up for himself and his family. Dropping Kavanaugh will have little impact on women. Women, like men, are entrenched in their position or simply not interested or engaged.

[Ma'ake]

I've spoken with several women this week about Kavanaugh and the responses were interesting. Those who lean left think he's lying. Those who lean right think he's rightfully indignant and courageously standing up for himself and his family. Dropping Kavanaugh will have little impact on women. Women, like men, are entrenched in their position or simply not interested or engaged.

I might have missed something, but how has his family been damaged? He told Feinstein his family "had been destroyed".

Maybe this is part of a paternalistic mindset I'm ignorant of, or maybe the "sins of the father" thing persists beyond the attempts to de-emphasize it. (I could have a blind spot on this perspective, as my family growing up was marginalized, second class citizens because my dad was a jack Mormon who smoked, and we were Ute fans in a sea of BYU, LDS orthodoxy, etc. In hindsight, I don't think anything my dad did made any difference on my trajectory, for the worse. It helped me develop thick skin.)

[Ma'ake]

I posted this in the Trump era section, but maybe a winner in the hearings is Amy Klobuchar, who has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate before.


“Klobuchar has managed to become the one Dem on the judiciary committee who conservatives think was acting in good faith while also getting a damaging answer out of Kavanaugh and acquitting herself well with Democrats, which is quite a feat.” - Josh Barro (considered a centrist), NY Magazine


The nation desperately needs leadership that can unify. (The candidates in the last presidential election were sorely lacking in that skill, needless to say.)

[LA Ute]

"To the person who leaked Dr. Ford's letter, to the person who breached Dr. Ford's anonymity, and to the person who did not tell her she could have avoided this by testifying privately in her home in California, you know who you are. You should bow your head in shame, in my opinion, and you should hide your head in a bag every day for the rest of your natural life."

—Senator John Kennedy, R-LA.

[Ma'ake]

The 2 tribal lenses view Kavanaugh's testimony as either dangerously partisan, or justifiably passionate.

Apparently the ABA had some reservations about his demeanor, back in 2006, and downgraded his ranking: http://www.telegram.com/news/20180929/american-bar-association-raised-concerns-about-brett-kavanaugh-12-years-ago

He shaped up enough to get his ABA rating back up on top for this appointment, but the concerns from the past appeared to have re-emerged this week in the hearing.

[UTEopia]

I have very little doubt that the information discovered through the FBI investigation, unless it uncovers something totally unexpected, will disclose any information that will cause any Senator to change his/her mind, but I share Jeff Flake's reasoning for calling for an investigation limited in time/scope. The institutions of government are crumbling, and while this has occurred over 20, 30, 40 or 50 years, depending on your view, the pace has accelerated and the combatants are aggressive and confrontational. There are very few in political office today who care about Country over Party. If the FBI investigation creates even a little resemblance of acknowledgement that the process is still viable, that is enough for me. In a Polyanna world, I would ask the GOP to be the larger people and withdraw Kavanaugh. Certainly there are other conservative Judges who can get the job done. I understand this will never happen, but for this Country to ever get out of the situation we are in, one Party will need to be big enough to say enough is enough. The past is the past and we need to move forward.

Jeff Flake explains himself:


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jeff-flake-explains-himself/ar-BBNHpAc?li=BBnb7Kz

[LA Ute]

I agree with Piers Morgan maybe 1/3 of the time but I think he nailed it here:

PIERS MORGAN: The day DC should have died of shame as it watched two broken souls be publicly tortured over their pasts in a viciously partisan bear-pit

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6216409/PIERS-day-DC-died-shame-Tears-rage-two-broken-souls-publicly-tortured.html

Just my opinion.

[Rocker Ute]

I might have missed something, but how has his family been damaged? He told Feinstein his family "had been destroyed".

Maybe this is part of a paternalistic mindset I'm ignorant of, or maybe the "sins of the father" thing persists beyond the attempts to de-emphasize it. (I could have a blind spot on this perspective, as my family growing up was marginalized, second class citizens because my dad was a jack Mormon who smoked, and we were Ute fans in a sea of BYU, LDS orthodoxy, etc. In hindsight, I don't think anything my dad did made any difference on my trajectory, for the worse. It helped me develop thick skin.)

A lot of people on the left I talk to who have questioned how he or his family is harmed by this don't seem to get the gravity of the accusation.

This is a modern scarlet letter. Short of some incredible evidence yet unfound that completely exonerates him he is branded for life. The toll of watching a loved one get dragged through the mud is taxing.

On a minor level I've experienced this. My father was an attorney in a small firm. One of the partner attorneys got mixed up with some business deals and people in those deals were caught committing massive fraud. It was a high profile thing at the time in Utah, but basically three degrees removed from my father. Because this partner attorney in my dad's firm was associated with these guys, people attempting to get their money back sued anyone and everyone including my dad. He faced lawsuits for many years and spent countless dollars defending his good name. None of the lawsuits got anywhere but it took a massive toll on my family and an innocent man.

Keep in mind this is small scale stuff, and nothing on the level of what Kavanaugh has been accused of nor even remotely the same audience.

I think it is a fair assessment to say this thing has destroyed his family, if not emotionally and mentally.

The same could be said for Ford too, this is hugely unfair to all parties all the result of a disgusting political ploy.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

A lot of people on the left I talk to who have questioned how he or his family is harmed by this don't seem to get the gravity of the accusation.

This is a modern scarlet letter. Short of some incredible evidence yet unfound that completely exonerates him he is branded for life.

Think about just one tiny (but not really so tiny) detail, one among many others: Kavanaugh has to explain to his 10 year-old daughter what "gang rape" means, and how people have said her daddy was involved in it. They have to prepare her for what she'll hear at school about that, what she'll see online about it as she gets older, and so forth. Play that one down all you want, guys; you'll be on the wrong side.

[LA Ute]

This timeline is hard to explain as innocent. Does the writer have anything wrong?

*****

There was a moment during Thursday’s hearing (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1809/27/ip.01.html) when Christine Blasey Ford was asked, “Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else, that the committee had asked to interview you and that — that they offered to come out to California to do so?”

At which point, her lawyer Michael Bromwich grabbed the microphone to interrupt: “We’re going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and Dr. Ford.”

A poker player would call that a “tell.” Among the many things we learned from Thursday’s hearing was that the excuse given for delaying Professor Ford’s testimony was a lie. She wasn’t afraid of flying. She was a frequent flyer, traveling to vacations around the world and, in point of fact, at the time the Senate Judiciary Committee was offering to fly to California to interview her, Professor Ford was not in California. She was already in the D.C. area, having flown there to strategize with her lawyers, who were recommended to her by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She had also flown to the D.C. area in August, when she took a polygraph test at the Hilton Hotel (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/26/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-ford-releases-results-polygraph-test-but-key-detail-appears-to-contradict-past-statements.html) near Baltimore-Washington International Airport.

This was all a set-up, a carefully planned ambush by Democrats, calculated either to force Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw his name for the Supreme Court nomination, or else to delay the process past the midterm elections, turning the nomination into a campaign issue.


Once you understand this, the coordination between Senate Democrats and Professor Ford’s lawyers appears highly significant. Anyone could look at the calendar (https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/21/timeline-democrats-changing-demands-for-christine-blasey-fords-testimony/) and see how long Feinstein, her Democrat colleagues and the media prepared this ambush. On June 27, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and, within a few days, Professor Ford contacted the Washington Post to share her 1982 tale about Judge Kavanaugh, who was widely reported to be on President Trump’s short list of candidates to replace Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s name was announced July 9, and days later, Profesor Ford met with her Democrat congresswoman, Rep. Anna Eshoo, who recommended that Professor Ford detail her accusations in a letter to Feinstein. That letter was hand-delivered to Feinstein on July 30. The next day, Aug. 1, in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt radio program (http://www.hughhewitt.com/judiciary-committee-chairman-chuck-grassley-on-the-timing-of-the-kavanaugh-hearings/), Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said:


“If we could get this all done by October 1st when the Supreme Court starts its new fall session, [that] would be ideal. But I think we can get it done soon after that if we don’t get it done by October 1st.”


Grassley explained in that interview that the hearing would likely be delayed until after Labor Day, because August was already booked up with the Senate committee scheduled to consider a series of votes on President Trump’s lower-court appointees. The clock was ticking, however, and Professor Ford’s lawyers wasted no time getting to work. By Aug. 7, Professor Ford was being polygraphed — and Feinstein didn’t say a word about this accusation to her Republican colleagues on the committee. That’s a crucial fact to keep in mind, now that the vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation has been delayed because Jeff Flake got harassed in an elevator by Soros-funded protesters (https://bigleaguepolitics.com/woman-who-confronted-flake-in-elevator-runs-soros-funded-organization/).

The confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh began Sept. 4. Feinstein had been in possession of Professor Ford’s letter for 36 days, and the accuser had been a client of the lawyers recommended by Feinstein for five weeks. Yet while Judge Kavanaugh sat for more than 30 hours of hearings in the Judiciary Committee, where Feinstein was the ranking Democrat member, she never asked a single question about this accusation and, most importantly, nobody on the Republican side of the aisle had any clue that Christine Blasey Ford existed, and was working with a team of lawyers hand-picked for her by Feinstein.


Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony ended Friday, Sept. 7, and the Judiciary Committee vote was already scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 20 (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/4/brett-kavanaugh-judiciary-panel-confirmation-vote-/), allowing another week for the full Senate to debate the nomination and vote, thus to have the new appointee confirmed by the time the Supreme Court convened on Oct. 1. Feinstein, who had been holding onto Professor Ford’s letter since late July, waited until Thursday, Sept. 13, to go public with it, pretending that this delay was about protecting the accuser’s anonymity. Of course, the Washington Post had been talking to Professor Ford for more than two months by then, and they had a feature story ready to go for the front page of their Sunday edition on Sept. 16.


What happened here was all a result of Feinstein’s bad faith (mala fides (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith)) in handling the accusation from Professor Ford. She had an obligation to inform her Republican colleagues of this accusation, and her failure to do so in a timely manner is inexcusable. We have been repeatedly told, by Democrats and their allies in the media, that Professor Ford’s accusation is “credible,” and yet it was not until Sept. 13 — nine days after Judge Kavnaugh had begun testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a week before the committee was scheduled to vote on his nomination — that Feinstein dropped this bombshell. Judge Kavanaugh has testified that, when the accusation first became public, before Professor Ford discarded her mask of anonymity, he had no idea who could be making such a claim against him. Everyone named as a potential witness to this alleged incident has disclaimed any knowledge of it. Leland Keyser, the accuser’s “lifelong friend” whom she named as a witness, said she “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/29/leland-keyser-to-tell-fbi-she-has-no-knowledge-of-/)

Professor Ford’s description of the party at which the alleged incident occurred, near the Columbia Country Club, has been suggested as indicating the home of Judge Kavanaugh’s friend Chris “Squi” Garrett, whom Professor Ford briefly dated. Yet she didn’t name Garrett as having been present at the party, and no one else named by her — Kavanaugh, his friend Mark Judge or P.J. Smyth — lived near the country club. However “credible” Professor Ford may seem to anyone, the known facts simply don’t match her story. Can the FBI unravel this?


During Friday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse focused on one date — July 1, 1982 (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/28/politics/brett-kavanaugh-july-1-theory/index.html) — on the calendar that Judge Kavanaugh fortuitously had kept all these years. That entry indicates that Kavanaugh went to “Timmy” Gaudette’s house for a party (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/about-that-july-1-calendar-entry/) where Judge, Smyth and Garrett were also in attendance. The problem, however, is that Gaudette lived 10 miles from the country club, and Professor Ford never mentioned him as being present at the party where this alleged incident occurred. Furthermore, as has been often noted, Professor Ford was 15 at the time — too young to drive — and the country club was some eight miles from her family’s home (https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/map-columbia-country-club-ford-kavanaugh-home/), but she has no memory of who drove her to this party, or who drove her home. If this is a “credible” story, what would an incredible story look like?

The discrepancies between Professor Ford’s account and the available facts, of course, were not known to Feinstein in July when this whole smear machinery against Judge Kavanaugh was set into motion. If Feinstein had informed her Republican colleagues prior to the Sept. 4 beginning of Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony before the committee, it would have been possible for committee staff to investigate this accusation, to obtain whatever evidence and testimony were available, and to have Judge Kavanaugh address the accusation during his four days of testimony. Why didn’t that happen?

Because Democrats didn’t want it to happen.

*****

http://theothermccain.com/2018/09/29/never-negotiate-with-sociopaths-liars-democrats-and-the-kavanaugh-smear/

[Rocker Ute]

In the probable event that the FBI comes back and says that they can find no credible evidence to support Ford's claims (which don't get upset, it had been 30 years and finding any evidence will be near impossible - I'm surprised we have the evidence we do - they also won't be able to prove his innocence), will the Left join the Trumpistas in hating and being skeptical of the ethics and credibility of the FBI too?

I'll get a kick out of that unholy union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

In the probable event that the FBI comes back and says that they can find no credible evidence to support Ford's claims (which don't get upset, it had been 30 years and finding any evidence will be near impossible - I'm surprised we have the evidence we do - they also won't be able to prove his innocence), will the Left join the Trumpistas in hating and being skeptical of the ethics and credibility of the FBI too?

I'll get a kick out of that unholy union.


lol.

What I'm hearing now are complaints that some accusers aren't being interviewed by the FBI, at all. (Maybe those accusers are somehow be related to Trump family finances, which are past the red line?)

Assuming these reports are accurate... what would be the rationale for not talking to them?

Here's an interesting angle - even though it's well past any statue of limitation time limit, supposedly the State of Maryland will investigate complaints. There wouldn't be any charges filed, but what if Maryland finds and investigates which characters were at "alleged" parties where industrial strength, Bill Cosby-level of debaucheries (allegedly) took place?

Wouldn't the US Senate be interested in information that goes to the heart of the principal complaints? It's not a trial. Hold a closed section to spare further damage to Kavanaugh, Ford, Ramirez, etc.

[Irving Washington]

This timeline is hard to explain as innocent. Does the writer have anything wrong?

*****

There was a moment during Thursday’s hearing (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1809/27/ip.01.html) when Christine Blasey Ford was asked, “Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else, that the committee had asked to interview you and that — that they offered to come out to California to do so?”

At which point, her lawyer Michael Bromwich grabbed the microphone to interrupt: “We’re going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and Dr. Ford.”

A poker player would call that a “tell.” Among the many things we learned from Thursday’s hearing was that the excuse given for delaying Professor Ford’s testimony was a lie. She wasn’t afraid of flying. She was a frequent flyer, traveling to vacations around the world and, in point of fact, at the time the Senate Judiciary Committee was offering to fly to California to interview her, Professor Ford was not in California. She was already in the D.C. area, having flown there to strategize with her lawyers, who were recommended to her by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. She had also flown to the D.C. area in August, when she took a polygraph test at the Hilton Hotel (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/26/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-ford-releases-results-polygraph-test-but-key-detail-appears-to-contradict-past-statements.html) near Baltimore-Washington International Airport.

This was all a set-up, a carefully planned ambush by Democrats, calculated either to force Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw his name for the Supreme Court nomination, or else to delay the process past the midterm elections, turning the nomination into a campaign issue.


Once you understand this, the coordination between Senate Democrats and Professor Ford’s lawyers appears highly significant. Anyone could look at the calendar (https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/21/timeline-democrats-changing-demands-for-christine-blasey-fords-testimony/) and see how long Feinstein, her Democrat colleagues and the media prepared this ambush. On June 27, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement and, within a few days, Professor Ford contacted the Washington Post to share her 1982 tale about Judge Kavanaugh, who was widely reported to be on President Trump’s short list of candidates to replace Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s name was announced July 9, and days later, Profesor Ford met with her Democrat congresswoman, Rep. Anna Eshoo, who recommended that Professor Ford detail her accusations in a letter to Feinstein. That letter was hand-delivered to Feinstein on July 30. The next day, Aug. 1, in an interview on the Hugh Hewitt radio program (http://www.hughhewitt.com/judiciary-committee-chairman-chuck-grassley-on-the-timing-of-the-kavanaugh-hearings/), Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said:


“If we could get this all done by October 1st when the Supreme Court starts its new fall session, [that] would be ideal. But I think we can get it done soon after that if we don’t get it done by October 1st.”


Grassley explained in that interview that the hearing would likely be delayed until after Labor Day, because August was already booked up with the Senate committee scheduled to consider a series of votes on President Trump’s lower-court appointees. The clock was ticking, however, and Professor Ford’s lawyers wasted no time getting to work. By Aug. 7, Professor Ford was being polygraphed — and Feinstein didn’t say a word about this accusation to her Republican colleagues on the committee. That’s a crucial fact to keep in mind, now that the vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation has been delayed because Jeff Flake got harassed in an elevator by Soros-funded protesters (https://bigleaguepolitics.com/woman-who-confronted-flake-in-elevator-runs-soros-funded-organization/).

The confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh began Sept. 4. Feinstein had been in possession of Professor Ford’s letter for 36 days, and the accuser had been a client of the lawyers recommended by Feinstein for five weeks. Yet while Judge Kavanaugh sat for more than 30 hours of hearings in the Judiciary Committee, where Feinstein was the ranking Democrat member, she never asked a single question about this accusation and, most importantly, nobody on the Republican side of the aisle had any clue that Christine Blasey Ford existed, and was working with a team of lawyers hand-picked for her by Feinstein.


Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony ended Friday, Sept. 7, and the Judiciary Committee vote was already scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 20 (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/4/brett-kavanaugh-judiciary-panel-confirmation-vote-/), allowing another week for the full Senate to debate the nomination and vote, thus to have the new appointee confirmed by the time the Supreme Court convened on Oct. 1. Feinstein, who had been holding onto Professor Ford’s letter since late July, waited until Thursday, Sept. 13, to go public with it, pretending that this delay was about protecting the accuser’s anonymity. Of course, the Washington Post had been talking to Professor Ford for more than two months by then, and they had a feature story ready to go for the front page of their Sunday edition on Sept. 16.


What happened here was all a result of Feinstein’s bad faith (mala fides (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith)) in handling the accusation from Professor Ford. She had an obligation to inform her Republican colleagues of this accusation, and her failure to do so in a timely manner is inexcusable. We have been repeatedly told, by Democrats and their allies in the media, that Professor Ford’s accusation is “credible,” and yet it was not until Sept. 13 — nine days after Judge Kavnaugh had begun testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a week before the committee was scheduled to vote on his nomination — that Feinstein dropped this bombshell. Judge Kavanaugh has testified that, when the accusation first became public, before Professor Ford discarded her mask of anonymity, he had no idea who could be making such a claim against him. Everyone named as a potential witness to this alleged incident has disclaimed any knowledge of it. Leland Keyser, the accuser’s “lifelong friend” whom she named as a witness, said she “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/29/leland-keyser-to-tell-fbi-she-has-no-knowledge-of-/)

Professor Ford’s description of the party at which the alleged incident occurred, near the Columbia Country Club, has been suggested as indicating the home of Judge Kavanaugh’s friend Chris “Squi” Garrett, whom Professor Ford briefly dated. Yet she didn’t name Garrett as having been present at the party, and no one else named by her — Kavanaugh, his friend Mark Judge or P.J. Smyth — lived near the country club. However “credible” Professor Ford may seem to anyone, the known facts simply don’t match her story. Can the FBI unravel this?


During Friday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse focused on one date — July 1, 1982 (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/28/politics/brett-kavanaugh-july-1-theory/index.html) — on the calendar that Judge Kavanaugh fortuitously had kept all these years. That entry indicates that Kavanaugh went to “Timmy” Gaudette’s house for a party (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/about-that-july-1-calendar-entry/) where Judge, Smyth and Garrett were also in attendance. The problem, however, is that Gaudette lived 10 miles from the country club, and Professor Ford never mentioned him as being present at the party where this alleged incident occurred. Furthermore, as has been often noted, Professor Ford was 15 at the time — too young to drive — and the country club was some eight miles from her family’s home (https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/map-columbia-country-club-ford-kavanaugh-home/), but she has no memory of who drove her to this party, or who drove her home. If this is a “credible” story, what would an incredible story look like?

The discrepancies between Professor Ford’s account and the available facts, of course, were not known to Feinstein in July when this whole smear machinery against Judge Kavanaugh was set into motion. If Feinstein had informed her Republican colleagues prior to the Sept. 4 beginning of Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony before the committee, it would have been possible for committee staff to investigate this accusation, to obtain whatever evidence and testimony were available, and to have Judge Kavanaugh address the accusation during his four days of testimony. Why didn’t that happen?

Because Democrats didn’t want it to happen.

*****

http://theothermccain.com/2018/09/29/never-negotiate-with-sociopaths-liars-democrats-and-the-kavanaugh-smear/

Can we just say that both sides of the aisle came out of this looking poorly, from the Republicans' initial efforts to ramrod this through before a trove of documents could be released, through the Democrats manipulation of Ford's story to the Republicanns' fear of asking Ford any questions and Lindsay Graham's tirade? The only two Senators coming out of this looking good are Flake, God bless him, and Klobuchar. I doubt we'll ever know what happened, whether Kavanaugh is a horribly wronged good man or an ambitious liar who was, overall, a disgusting criminal punk as a kid. He didn't help himself with his performance on Thursday, and it's interesting to note that the ABA downgraded his evaluation as a judge because of his demeanor. The will be some benefit to both sides in the November elections from this bizarre episode. It should be discouraging to all and no one should feel particularly righteous.
It's hard to see things changing soon in the Judiciary Committee. I don't know what will change it. It's been going on since the Bork nomination, with each side contributing equally and all rising with righteous indignation.
My prediction: Kavanaugh will become the fifth member of a strong conservative block, the work of the Federalist Society will be complete, many will tangibly and intangible suffer, and the Court will have a real impact on voting trends, in favor of the Democrats.

[Rocker Ute]

lol.

What I'm hearing now are complaints that some accusers aren't being interviewed by the FBI, at all. (Maybe those accusers are somehow be related to Trump family finances, which are past the red line?)

Assuming these reports are accurate... what would be the rationale for not talking to them?

Here's an interesting angle - even though it's well past any statue of limitation time limit, supposedly the State of Maryland will investigate complaints. There wouldn't be any charges filed, but what if Maryland finds and investigates which characters were at "alleged" parties where industrial strength, Bill Cosby-level of debaucheries (allegedly) took place?

Wouldn't the US Senate be interested in information that goes to the heart of the principal complaints? It's not a trial. Hold a closed section to spare further damage to Kavanaugh, Ford, Ramirez, etc.

Apparently there has been no limitation on who the FBI can investigate, just Avenatti concocting news in this case (hey, he would be a worthy opponent to Trump in 2020!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

A down the middle analysis by Andrew Sullivan. There’s stuff in here that everyone will agree and disagree with.

Everyone Lost at the Ford-Kavanaugh Hearings

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/kavanaugh-ford-hearings-everyone-lost-andrew-sullivan.html

[Ma'ake]

Apparently there has been no limitation on who the FBI can investigate, just Avenatti concocting news in this case (hey, he would be a worthy opponent to Trump in 2020!)



I didn't say he would be a desirable candidate, only that in the circus we live in, he would be in the same mold as Trump, just from the left...or wherever it is he comes from (kind of like Trump).

The anti-circus candidate I would prefer seems to be picking up momentum, even drew an apology from Kavanaugh. It would be nice to migrate back toward being a civil society: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/amy-klobuchar’s-big-brett-kavanaugh-moment-earned-rave-reviews-but-is-it-what-democrats-demand-for-2020/ar-BBNIwIH?ocid=spartanntp

Hearkening back to an earlier discussion about females as leaders, maybe the nation is ready for somebody like Klobuchar, letting the fossils who led us into this ongoing low intensity civil war fade into the history books. Detoxify the environment a bit, coax people to work together. Sounds intriguing, right?

DC is setup for confrontational zero-sum battles, but there was a time when a "growing pie" compromise mindset was more prevalent, even with all the political drama. My co-worker's father was the GOP counsel for the Commerce Committee, said there's no way he could do his job in the environment that has predominated the past 20 years.

[concerned]

The reporter whom the letter was leaked to states it was not Feinstein or anyone on her staff. They also stated the letter itself wasn’t leaked. Merely its existence and basic cintends

It’s quite plausible it was someone outside of politics.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


diehard--you have a private message that is time sensitive

[UTEopia]

I might have missed something, but how has his family been damaged? He told Feinstein his family "had been destroyed".

Maybe this is part of a paternalistic mindset I'm ignorant of, or maybe the "sins of the father" thing persists beyond the attempts to de-emphasize it. (I could have a blind spot on this perspective, as my family growing up was marginalized, second class citizens because my dad was a jack Mormon who smoked, and we were Ute fans in a sea of BYU, LDS orthodoxy, etc. In hindsight, I don't think anything my dad did made any difference on my trajectory, for the worse. It helped me develop thick skin.)

I don't think his family has been destroyed, but like Dr. Ford, his family has been subject to threats of violence.

[concerned]

Ok, I know this will set off a lot of people here, but earlier this week my daughter wrote about this stuff for Vox, and yesterday Kamala Harris retweeted it.


Kamala Harris‏Verified account @KamalaHarris (https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris)FollowFollow
@KamalaHarris

Kamala Harris Retweeted Vox
“Our country is telling not only that sexual assault as a teenager is forgivable, but that if the allegations are true, it would not even disqualify a person from the highest court in America. As a teenage girl, it terrifies me.”

Kamala Harris added,
[B]VoxVerified account @voxdotcom
To those dismissing the Kavanaugh allegations: Teen girls like me are listening https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/9/25/17897964/kavanaugh-confirmation-sexual-assault-allegations-yale-georgetown-prep?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter …

7:26 PM - 29 Sep 2018

[sancho]

Ok, I know this will set off a lot of people here,

Far from it - I'll speak for everyone and say, Good for your daughter! Being retweeted by a senator probably feels good to someone who tweets.

[sancho]

Hearkening back to an earlier discussion about females as leaders, maybe the nation is ready for somebody like Klobuchar, letting the fossils who led us into this ongoing low intensity civil war fade into the history books. Detoxify the environment a bit, coax people to work together. Sounds intriguing, right?


What makes you think that she, or any current senator, is likely to detoxify the environment?

Someone at church today was telling me how qualified Kavanaugh is while we were setting up chairs, and it occurred to me just how unqualified most of our congress representatives are. I mean, we've done it to ourselves by voting these people in, but there aren't a lot of amazing resumes out there.

[concerned]

Far from it - I'll speak for everyone and say, Good for your daughter! Being retweeted by a senator probably feels good to someone who tweets.

It feels good to an 18 year old, that is for sure. It wasn't just a tweet; Harris retweeted her article.

[sancho]

It feels good to an 18 year old, that is for sure. It wasn't just a tweet; Harris retweeted her article.

It's a big deal. Good for her. I could focus the rest of my life on nothing more than writing an article worthy of a senator retweet, and I would never make it.

[LA Ute]

It feels good to an 18 year old, that is for sure. It wasn't just a tweet; Harris retweeted her article.

Very cool, concerned. You are justly proud of her.

[concerned]

Very cool, concerned. You are justly proud of her.


Yes, I confess.

[LA Ute]

This appeared in the Illinois Times:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20181001/c9f67615114829fbd0a93dd079d66bfc.jpg

The lack of decency should appall everyone here.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/when-they-came-for-kavanaugh-kid-chris-britt/

[mUUser]

Ok, I know this will set off a lot of people here, but earlier this week my daughter wrote about this stuff for Vox, and yesterday Kamala Harris retweeted it.


Kamala Harris‏Verified account @KamalaHarris (https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris)FollowFollow
@KamalaHarris

Kamala Harris Retweeted Vox
“Our country is telling not only that sexual assault as a teenager is forgivable, but that if the allegations are true, it would not even disqualify a person from the highest court in America. As a teenage girl, it terrifies me.”

Kamala Harris added,
[B]VoxVerified account @voxdotcom
To those dismissing the Kavanaugh allegations: Teen girls like me are listening https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/9/25/17897964/kavanaugh-confirmation-sexual-assault-allegations-yale-georgetown-prep?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter …

7:26 PM - 29 Sep 2018



This is not necessarily a knock on your daughter. My high school son has virtually no interest in politics. Doesn’t bother me at all. I like that he’s into sports at this point in his life and not politics. But good for your civically minded daughter.

45 million Americans voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 when rumors of sexual misconduct swirled about, but I don’t hunk any allegations had emerged at that point. He received 47 million votes in 1996 after credible allegations of groping by Paula Jones. 63 million voted for Donald Trump despite plenty of allegations and evidence that he’s groped/assaulted women all his adult life. Another 66 million voted for Hillary Clinton despite the fact she’s enabled her husband, who turned out to be another prolific predator, as well as attacking the women who came forward with credible allegations. Cory Booker, wrote an article as a student at Stanford about how he groped a drunk girl just a few years earlier. Yet he was elected to local and national positions by his constituents who don’t seem too concerned with his actions as a 17 year old high school student.

My point is that the dye was cast long before Kavanaugh entered the scene. For many decades Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty of accepting this behavior from its government officials.

The difference between those I’ve mentioned and Kavanaugh is there is ample evidence they were sexual predators. To date, there’s one credible allegation and zero credible evidence that he actually did what he is accused. Let’s see if the FBI comes up with something before labeling him a sexual predator. That’s my opinion anyway.

[concerned]

This is not necessarily a knock on your daughter. My high school son has virtually no interest in politics. Doesn’t bother me at all. I like that he’s into sports at this point in his life and not politics. But good for your civically minded daughter.

45 million Americans voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 when rumors of sexual misconduct swirled about, but I don’t hunk any allegations had emerged at that point. He received 47 million votes in 1996 after credible allegations of groping by Paula Jones. 63 million voted for Donald Trump despite plenty of allegations and evidence that he’s groped/assaulted women all his adult life. Another 66 million voted for Hillary Clinton despite the fact she’s enabled her husband, who turned out to be another prolific predator, as well as attacking the women who came forward with credible allegations. Cory Booker, wrote an article as a student at Stanford about how he groped a drunk girl just a few years earlier. Yet he was elected to local and national positions by his constituents who don’t seem too concerned with his actions as a 17 year old high school student.

My point is that the dye was cast long before Kavanaugh entered the scene. For many decades Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty of accepting this behavior from its government officials.

The difference between those I’ve mentioned and Kavanaugh is there is ample evidence they were sexual predators. To date, there’s one credible allegation and zero credible evidence that he actually did what he is accused. Let’s see if the FBI comes up with something before labeling him a sexual predator. That’s my opinion anyway.

I dont disagree with anything you said. Neither would my daughter. She is appalled by trump and Clinton too. One quibble: Fords testimony is evidence. Lots of criminal defendants are convicted on similar first person testimony. It's just not corroborated by an eyewitness, and may be contradicted by one.it may be indirectly corroborated by circumstantial evidence.

[Diehard Ute]

I dont disagree with anything you said. Neither would my daughter. She is appalled by trump and Clinton too. One quibble: Fords testimony is evidence. Lots of criminal defendants are convicted on similar first person testimony. It's just not corroborated by an eyewitness, and may be contradicted by one.it may be indirectly corroborated by circumstantial evidence.

That’s what makes many sexual assault cases so difficult to try. There is little physical evidence, or that physical evidence can be “explained away”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

And I thought this situation had reached the depths of rotten behavior:

Someone on Capitol Hill just doxxed Republican Sens. Mike Lee, Orrin Hatch, and Lindsey Graham (http://Someone on Capitol Hill just doxxed Republican Sens. Mike Lee, Orrin Hatch, and Lindsey Graham)

"Somebody working from a House of Representatives office is editing the Wikipedia pages of Republican senators to post what looks like their home addresses."

Hey, if it's righteous to run them out of restaurants, why not do this too?

They were just following the example of our own POTUS who publicly outed Lindsay Graham's cell phone number.

[U-Ute]

In the probable event that the FBI comes back and says that they can find no credible evidence to support Ford's claims (which don't get upset, it had been 30 years and finding any evidence will be near impossible - I'm surprised we have the evidence we do - they also won't be able to prove his innocence), will the Left join the Trumpistas in hating and being skeptical of the ethics and credibility of the FBI too?

I'll get a kick out of that unholy union.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, but it won't happen.

The rumors on Twitter is that Trump is using his powers over the Executive to control who the FBI talks to and who they don't.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/30/politics/fbi-brett-kavanaugh-investigation/index.html

So the left can continue to direct their ire at Trump.

[LA Ute]

Sorry, but it won't happen.

The rumors on Twitter is that Trump is using his powers over the Executive to control who the FBI talks to and who they don't.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/30/politics/fbi-brett-kavanaugh-investigation/index.html

So the left can continue to direct their ire at Trump.

Well, if that’s what the Twitter rumors say.... 😉

[Rocker Ute]

There was an interesting conversation on Facebook started by a friend of mine who investigates sex crimes that started out with him saying, "Unless you are a victim of sexual assault or work in sex crimes shut the f*** up."

He went on to explain that silence on sexual assault and even people around them not knowing it happened is very common and victims often don't come forward for years. He also noted the very low rate of false accusations of sexual assault and that people's memory tends to be fuzzy around details even immediately around the trauma. He also noted that almost all assault accusations are unsubstantiated when first reported and it require an investigation to corroborate facts. Finally, a lot of seeming great upstanding guys are guilty of sexual assault.

I think most of us knew that already. But then he was pretty emphatic about how politicians on both sides have behaved poorly and interfered with a fair investigation and the last people on earth who should be asking these two people questions are politicians. He said at this point it will be very hard to do a proper investigation.

And I think that is what has been troubling to me about this. Nothing about this is fair to either individual involved and the public spectacle of it all is unfair and further victimizes people. It is particularly troubling that all of this could have been investigated in a more fair way in private where the real facts could hopefully come out.

Now I'm reading a report, "Kavanaugh threw ice at someone in a bar in college..." which of course means that he is guilty of sexual assault. Or photos of Ford being circulated when she was young, "Look she was homely, no way he'd assault her." That's about as low humanity can get on this subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[U-Ute]

I don't know whether Kavenaugh is guilty of sexual assault or not. Frankly, without any evidence, I don't think he would ever be convicted or should be.

What he is guilty of, however, is a pattern of bad behavior that brings into question as to whether or not he should serve on the Supreme Court.

[LA Ute]

TAnd I think that is what has been troubling to me about this. Nothing about this is fair to either individual involved and the public spectacle of it all is unfair and further victimizes people. It is particularly troubling that all of this could have been investigated in a more fair way in private where the real facts could hopefully come out.

Now I'm reading a report, "Kavanaugh threw ice at someone in a bar in college..." which of course means that he is guilty of sexual assault. Or photos of Ford being circulated when she was young, "Look she was homely, no way he'd assault her." That's about as low humanity can get on this subject.

I've never thought that her not telling anyone was significant from a proof standpoint. What troubles me about this is the lack of evidence and the many inconsistencies and missing pieces in her story. I'm sympathetic to the "believe women" idea but we need more than an allegation.

[Rocker Ute]

I've never thought that her not telling anyone was significant from a proof standpoint. What troubles me about this is the lack of evidence and the many inconsistencies and missing pieces in her story. I'm sympathetic to the "believe women" idea but we need more than an allegation.

Agreed, but the conduct of the senate committee didn't afford either person that option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diehard Ute]

I've never thought that her not telling anyone was significant from a proof standpoint. What troubles me about this is the lack of evidence and the many inconsistencies and missing pieces in her story. I'm sympathetic to the "believe women" idea but we need more than an allegation.

There’s often a lack of evidence.

Sadly Hollywood has conditioned people to think there is hard physical evidence most of the time. Reality is in most crimes physical evidence is hard to come by.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Agreed, but the conduct of the senate committee didn't afford either person that option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What? You don't think a group of preening politicians seeking to maintain or obtain power is likely to get at the facts of a politically-charged controversy?

[LA Ute]

There’s often a lack of evidence.

Sadly Hollywood has conditioned people to think there is hard physical evidence most of the time. Reality is in most crimes physical evidence is hard to come by.

No doubt. I'm not talking about the DNA evidence that always solves the case on TV or in movies, just good old-fashioned corroboration and a version of events that makes sense. Both are missing here.

[Irving Washington]

I've never thought that her not telling anyone was significant from a proof standpoint. What troubles me about this is the lack of evidence and the many inconsistencies and missing pieces in her story. I'm sympathetic to the "believe women" idea but we need more than an allegation.
The appropriate step would have been to pull the nomination back and do a thorough investigation, but we all know that wouldn't happen.
The real problem is that the nomination couldn't be considered in an appropriate fashion. The Republicans wanted to quickly push through a very conservative candidate before the elections or the end of the year, when the Democrats may take control the Senate. The Democrats tried to manipulate the process to slow it down.
We now have a serious issue that demands thorough investigation. The Republicans are still trying to push it through and the serious issue will not be adequately considered. Isn't that the bottom line?
Would you feel good about how this is playing out if it was May 1, 2017 and there was a decision to investigate for one week?

[LA Ute]

The appropriate step would have been to pull the nomination back and do a thorough investigation, but we all know that wouldn't happen.
The real problem is that the nomination couldn't be considered in an appropriate fashion. The Republicans wanted to quickly push through a very conservative candidate before the elections or the end of the year, when the Democrats may take control the Senate. The Democrats tried to manipulate the process to slow it down.
We now have a serious issue that demands thorough investigation. The Republicans are still trying to push it through and the serious issue will not be adequately considered. Isn't that the bottom line?
Would you feel good about how this is playing out if it was May 1, 2017 and there was a decision to investigate for one week?

You're just as incorrigible as you were in high school.

[Ma'ake]

What complicates Kavanaugh's nomination in this existential political war for both sides, is his past in an era when behavior which was perhaps "borderline" is today absolutely disqualifyingly toxic, now.

The standards of interaction between men & women have changed. Ask Al Franken.

We all remember some of the "locker room talk" some engaged in. I turned away, disgusted. This was part of what drove me out of the church of my upbringing, listening to little old ladies in church praising our neighborhood's new generation of young priesthood leaders by name who would lead us as a people to the Millennium... after I'd heard the same guys talking about girls in truly disgusting ways just the night before.

(It wasn't all of them, but the mismatch in deeds and perceived righteousness was too much for me to take. It was nauseating, it was wrong, but the adults lavished praise on young men I knew were minor league immoral monsters, bragging about getting to different "bases" with different girls, and how certain "smells" differed between them. "Tuna!" was some slang I remember being bantered around in the hallways in HS, referring to specific girls.)

Ahh... but that was just "boys being boys", right?

Kavanaugh as the rowdy, beer drinking Yale frat boy "man's man" leader doesn't square with the wholesome image he portrays today as the righteous anti-abortion evangelical.

I've seen this movie before. When Kavanaugh was first nominated, my wife immediately reacted - "there's something about him that's just not right." A woman's intuition? Or just another hysterical anti-Trump liberal?

Trump could sidestep all this with a different candidate, but it's turned into a duel of honor.

As GOP Senators are being harassed in airports and other public places, “This is really not even about the Senate,” Bob Corker said. “It’s about where the country right now and we as a nation have to figure out a way to unite. Right now there are just so many issues that separate us.”

[LA Ute]

This is pretty depressing, but it does give us a snapshot of what we have sunk to as a nation. And I’m not excusing those on the other side who do similar things.

Georgetown University responds amid backlash to prof's 'white men' tweet, Twitter suspends account

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11374

[LA Ute]

One of my law partners who is a dear friend has a nephew who is a sophomore at Occidental College here in Los Angeles. He wrote this short essay, which I think is remarkable.

Men suck and other lessons from an uncontrolled Myconian beach rave

http://www.theoccidentalnews.com/opinions/2018/09/24/men-suck-and-other-lessons-from-an-uncontrolled-myconian-beach-rave/2893836

I went in to the piece not knowing what to expect — was I going to read another virtue-signaling essay from an idealistic college kid with no real life experience?

Nope. This is good. I am impressed by his humility, maturity, and open- mindedness. He is only 20 years old. The closing is powerful:

“But if we can make this step — if we can make it so that to be masculine and powerful is to stand up for what’s right and not to take advantage of others — then we as men will no longer have to worry if the ‘right thing’ to say to a man is the socially acceptable thing to say because the two will be equivalent.”

It seems to me that masculinity is not the problem, it’s what kind of masculinity one espouses. IMO, “Bad” masculinity has been responsible for most of the horrible things that have happened throughout history, and that are still happening. “Good” masculinity is a big part of the good things that have happened. Maybe we just need better men.

As for Kavanaugh, there is too much to say and I’m not even going to try. At bottom, I do wonder what this means for public service. How far back in someone’s life are we going to go? What kind of youthful misbehavior are we going to accuse someone of, based on nothing but recollections from those who knew him and maybe liked him or didn’t like him? What have we done to the presumption of innocence? I have a daughter, and 80% of the group I lead at my firm is composed of women whose careers I have been promoting for many years now. I wonder: Has the MeToo movement crossed a line, so that now the obvious need for support for and sympathy for women who have been abused turns into something like what Beria said: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime“?

Big questions. I hope we do something close to finding answers to them. Right now there is not a lot of discussion going on in this country about these issues. People are mainly yelling at each other.

[Irving Washington]

You're just as incorrigible as you were in high school.
Are you in curmudgeon mode?

[Rocker Ute]

How far back in someone’s life are we going to go? What kind of youthful misbehavior are we going to accuse someone of, based on nothing but recollections from those who knew him and maybe liked him or didn’t like him?

The future for our youth is a permanent digital record of all of their youthful indiscretions carefully catalogued and curated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Are you in curmudgeon mode?

No, but when I am you'll know it.

2423

[LA Ute]

Orrin Hatch weighs in (what a surprise):


A notable shift occurred in the left’s anti-Kavanaugh campaign over the weekend. Attention has turned away from Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations of sexual assault—the entire reason for last week’s hearing and the ensuing delay in Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote—and toward his behavior at the hearing.

We’re starting to see arguments like the following: Even if Judge Kavanaugh is innocent, what he said at the hearing, and how he said it, is disqualifying.

This is rich. The hearing occurred in the first place only because of Democratic duplicity. It occurred only because Senate Democrats sat on Ms. Ford’s allegations for six weeks rather than referring them to committee investigators, as they should have done immediately. It occurred only because Ms. Ford’s lawyers—recommended to Ms. Ford by Senate Democrats—refused to tell their client of our invitation to testify privately in California, as she said she preferred.

That Judge Kavanaugh had the temerity to defend himself vigorously is now being counted as a strike against him. Over and over we hear him described as “angry,” “belligerent” or “partisan,” followed by the claim that his conduct at the hearing shows that he lacks a judicial temperament. Even “Saturday Night Live” got in on the action.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Do the people making this argument really expect a man who until five seconds ago had an unblemished reputation to sit passively while his reputation is viciously and permanently destroyed? While he is accused of the most horrific and obscene acts imaginable? Judge Kavanaugh’s critics seem to be aghast that he is a human being who is unwilling to take slander lying down.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/brett-kavanaughs-righteous-anger-1538519713

[LA Ute]

Ross Douthat wrote this. It’s a very interesting piece, and describes a world I just don’t know. I recommend it, although it’s only tangentially about the Kavanaugh mess.

The Meritocracy Against Itself
How Ivy League resentments took over the Kavanaugh debate.

“So the story Miller is telling is about how a jock from the No. 5 private high school in Maryland was a jerk to his roommate who went to the No. 2 private high school in Connecticut, and who years later communicated the story to a reporter who also went to that same No. 2 private high school, who then wrote it up as a tale of social stratification for our times....

“But people also need to recognize that the ‘profile’ we’re being given of Kavanaugh — a creature of privilege who drank a lot in college and sometimes struck other people as a jerk — isn’t the narrow profile of a rapist, and isn’t even the somewhat more expansive profile of a particular kind of arrogant preppy. It’s a profile that fits many of the same people attacking him today — and so part of what we’re watching is one group of meritocrats returning to their undergraduate resentments and trying to pin on Georgetown Prep graduates the vices that define our entire depressing class.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-ivy-league-meritocracy.html

[LA Ute]

OK, after this I promise to shut up about Cavanaugh for a while. I just had to share this one, however. It is a joint piece written by Frank Bruni and Ross Douthat, the two most thoughtful columnists at the New York Times, IMO. Bruni’s liberal, Douthat is conservative. But they’re not yellers.

What Has Brett Kavanaugh Done to Us?

[i]No matter what the F.B.I. finds, he will color the midterms, 2020, institutional trust and partisan warfare going forward.[/B]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/opinion/kavanaugh-supreme-court-hearing.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

[sancho]

Orrin Hatch weighs in (what a surprise):


Again, there is a double standard here on outrage. For a long time now, I've been told that outrage is a virtue. That's certainly the unofficial Twitter motto. Now it's a vice?

Anyway, I don't think anger is a good thing. If the accusations are false, anger is understandable. Understandable, but not right or righteous. We'd all be better off without our outrage, even in the face of injustice.

[U-Ute]

ou’ve got to be kidding me. Do the people making this argument really expect a man who until five seconds ago had an unblemished reputation to sit passively while his reputation is viciously and permanently destroyed? While he is accused of the most horrific and obscene acts imaginable? Judge Kavanaugh’s critics seem to be aghast that he is a human being who is unwilling to take slander lying down.


Putting this quote in the context of one of your previous messages, the answer is a resounding yes.

The bro-masculinity culture would disagree, but lashing out is not an appropriate response. Calm, collected dispute is.

[LA Ute]

Putting this quote in the context of one of your previous messages, the answer is a resounding yes.

The bro-masculinity culture would disagree, but lashing out is not an appropriate response. Calm, collected dispute is.

To be clear, as I watched Kavanaugh’s testimony I winced at his highly emotional demeanor and I think he should have dialed that down. I also think he should have asked someone less emotionally involved to review and comment on his remarks before he gave them.

That said, I think it is intellectually and morally repugnant to beat up on him for his emotional response, and to suggest that it has anything to do with anything. The guy was slimed in the worst way imaginable — sexual assault, indecent exposure, gang rape (!). For the people who did that, or who condoned it, or who sat idly by, somewhat happily, as it took place, now to attack him for not having the appropriate “temperament“ because of his angry response, strikes me as morally questionable, at best, and outright despicable at worst. (I’m not talking about you.). They provoke someone in the most extreme way imaginable, then they attack him for becoming angry? Really?