PDA

View Full Version : Kavanaugh is live now



Rum_Pirate
09-27-2018, 02:42 PM
Regardless of that accusations etc, from the few minutes that I have listened to of 'his' address at the hearing, I would have serious reservations in appointing him.

wizbang 13
09-27-2018, 02:52 PM
He 's gonna need to pee really badly.
I think he needs a beer.

LeeG
09-27-2018, 02:55 PM
I like beer.

Looks like he’s coming apart. This was going to be his shining moment and you Democrats took it away.

Keith Wilson
09-27-2018, 02:55 PM
Sounds hysterical.

LeeG
09-27-2018, 02:58 PM
wow, the prosecutor is still speaking for the Republicans.

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2018, 02:59 PM
he sounds upset. i would be too.
True. Sounds like he can't believe this is happening and he can't find a way forward.

Paul Pless
09-27-2018, 03:00 PM
23608

Joe (SoCal)
09-27-2018, 03:00 PM
He's a sniveling, angry privileged white guy. Do you really want someone that emotionally unstable on the bench ?

Paul Pless
09-27-2018, 03:03 PM
dude's a douchebag

Paul Pless
09-27-2018, 03:05 PM
is he gonna cry?

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2018, 03:06 PM
Appears to be recovering under current questions.

Paul Pless
09-27-2018, 03:08 PM
i've never passed out
not from beer
i've gone to sleep


:D

LeeG
09-27-2018, 03:08 PM
Appears to be recovering under current questions.

recovery doesn’t happen that way

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2018, 03:09 PM
About to. If he wanted an investigation by the FBI all he had to do was ask ten days ago. As is, only the Republican staff members investigated him but, they weren't biased at all. This is a total Joke. His comment to Ms. Feinstein proves it.Of course, republicans will lap what he says right up.

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2018, 03:11 PM
I think Kavanaugh needs a beer or two.

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2018, 03:12 PM
A recess.

wizbang 13
09-27-2018, 03:12 PM
45 minutes ... there ya go...Kavanaugh gotta take a break...gotta have a wizz!

Chris Smith porter maine
09-27-2018, 03:13 PM
As a teenage boy I know I would have put down the dates of drunkin parties and attempts at sexual assaults.

wizbang 13
09-27-2018, 03:13 PM
i've never passed out
not from beer
i've gone to sleep


:D

..in his clothes apparently.

CWSmith
09-27-2018, 03:13 PM
Is it really his place to ask the FBI to investigate these claims? I would think it was the job of the Senate committee.

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2018, 03:14 PM
Kavanaugh can't remember! What a surprise, he was probably drunk out of his gourd!

CWSmith
09-27-2018, 03:20 PM
I really do detest the political statements he made early on. It's inappropriate and at least some of it was entirely untrue. He even seems to blame the Clintons. Really? He's a partisan hack.

Bobcat
09-27-2018, 03:23 PM
yall sure are sanctimonious. i'd like to see how yall would defend what you considered baseless allegations of sexual assault on a national stage.

I would have urged the FBI to investigate and taken a polygraph

You?

wizbang 13
09-27-2018, 03:24 PM
baseless allegations?... no problemo

Paul Pless
09-27-2018, 03:26 PM
yall sure are sanctimonious. i'd like to see how yall would defend what you considered baseless allegations of sexual assault on a national stage.


I dont think I would have cried.

Ted Hoppe
09-27-2018, 03:31 PM
I am reminded of the WWF. The profit for the business gets better when a few premature wrestlers die on live TV.
23610

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2018, 03:32 PM
All he had to do is support Ms. Ford and call for an investigation into these incidents. He didn't Allan. I'd think that would be the first thing he'd do.

Secondly, take a polygraph test the way Ms. Ford did and was willing to do. Why hasn't he done that?

I can give you an answer why he hasn't but, you won't like it. As far as Judge is concerned, what he said under oath does NOT prove he's telling the truth but, the Republicans won't call him to the hearings, why not?

John of Phoenix
09-27-2018, 03:39 PM
Another whining red. But this one cries? Yeah, when the going gets tough...

:D LMAO :D

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2018, 03:45 PM
Gotta love it, Sen. Durbin just asked Brett to look to his left (an FBI admin must have been there) and request that a complete investigation be initiated forthwith into this allegation. Then, here come Grassley nixing it to let Kavanaugh off the hook. Good job Republicans, good job Grassley.

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2018, 03:48 PM
Oh wee Graham Crackers, what did McNuggets say about Obama five minutes after he took the oath of office! Something along the line that I'll work my dman best to make Obama a one term president. You had no problems with that did you Crackers.

John of Phoenix
09-27-2018, 03:48 PM
graham is going for an Emmy.

skuthorp
09-27-2018, 03:51 PM
I am minded of Icarus, flew too close to the sun (the USSC) and fell losing everything.

And of course if he is innocent then it's worse in a he said she said affair.

Chris Smith porter maine
09-27-2018, 03:54 PM
Weak stomach wow

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2018, 03:55 PM
graham is going for an Emmy.Graham is going to have a stroke!

BETTY-B
09-27-2018, 04:05 PM
I believe he likes beer.

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2018, 04:08 PM
I believe he likes beer.By the keg!

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2018, 04:13 PM
Interesting, the Republicans appoint Ms. Mitchell to ask the questions during this hearing. Apparently, they think she was not doing a good enough Job and the Republicans have taken charge. That's fantastic optics Grassley, your hired lawyer is asking the wrong questions and YOU don't like it.

LeeG
09-27-2018, 04:20 PM
yall sure are sanctimonious. i'd like to see how yall would defend what you considered baseless allegations of sexual assault on a national stage.

y’all sure like avoiding talking about Kavanaugh.

John of Phoenix
09-27-2018, 04:27 PM
And you'd think that Mark Judge guy was dead and buried.

Chris Smith porter maine
09-27-2018, 04:35 PM
Orrin Hatch with the boy will be boys defense, it was just high school , maybe a year of college.

Norman Bernstein
09-27-2018, 04:37 PM
I could be wrong... But it seems to me that this hearing has provided a very valid excuse for Collins, Murkowski, and Flake, to vote no, without a full FBI investigation.

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2018, 04:43 PM
I could be wrong... But it seems to me that this hearing has provided a very valid excuse for Collins, Murkowski, and Flake, to vote no, without a full FBI investigation.The question is will they take it? I suspect not based on their voting patterns.

LeeG
09-27-2018, 04:44 PM
Sounds like a high functioning alcoholic, nothing wrong with that, but his hysterical characterization that Democrats have ruined his life sure doesn’t make him look like an impartial judge but someone who has had a lot of things catch up with him. I wonder what he thought he was doing to Vince Fosters family when he restarted another investigation into his suicide and attempting to link it to the Clintons.

Bobcat
09-27-2018, 04:47 PM
This did not go well for the GOP

wizbang 13
09-27-2018, 04:56 PM
Every DAY has been like a LIFETIME!

Chris Smith porter maine
09-27-2018, 04:57 PM
I agree he has pretty much demonstrated he cannot be and impartial judge.

CWSmith
09-27-2018, 04:57 PM
This did not go well for the GOP

I'm not so sure. Some of the GOP have done a very good job of restoring dignity to his testimony.

There is never a winner in a 30 year old "he said, she said". Everyone, including the Democrats, are looking bad here. My greatest complaint against Kavanaugh is that he is parroting Trump's campaign rhetoric and is clearly a partisan hack.

Beowolf
09-27-2018, 05:40 PM
i'd be up there right now giving a expletive laden rant running down every last one of those politicians and the media and the person making false claims. i actually am surprised he's maintaining any sort of composure. no way i could

...so we can rule you out as an alternate candidate?

McMike
09-27-2018, 05:48 PM
yall sure are sanctimonious. i'd like to see how yall would defend what you considered baseless allegations of sexual assault on a national stage.

How do you know they're baseless? That's easy, you don't.

Arizona Bay
09-27-2018, 05:55 PM
I didn't listen to the hearings, but this photo tells me all I need to know.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoIO7-yUUAAlhLf.jpg

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2018, 05:58 PM
How do you know they're baseless? That's easy, you don't.In fact, the reverse seems to be true. Ms. Harris asked Brett would he agree to an investigation over the recent three allocations against him. First, he said he'd do what the committee wanted him to do. A joke because that's the LAST thing the Republican committee wants to do and then, when asked personally if he would, he refused to answer. An innocent man wouldn't refuse.

Ted Hoppe
09-27-2018, 06:01 PM
I didn't listen to the hearings, but this photo tells me all I need to know.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoIO7-yUUAAlhLf.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThUwkI0_gTCGlJBoOdmVkHJvQeBlKBw 4yWCB2rvLvjR2EnmPdF

Now he is the monster Democrats have to fear if/when he becomes a Justice of the Supreme Court in the impeding months to come. The hint of humanity in this mad creation means he will scare many and likely cause panic in most.

LeeG
09-27-2018, 06:15 PM
i'd be up there right now giving a expletive laden rant running down every last one of those politicians and the media and the person making false claims. i actually am surprised he's maintaining any sort of composure. no way i could

Are you serious? He went from controlled rage to crying.

Chris249
09-27-2018, 06:18 PM
i'd be up there right now giving a expletive laden rant running down every last one of those politicians and the media and the person making false claims. i actually am surprised he's maintaining any sort of composure. no way i could

You've completely pre-judged the matter, though. Your posts here imply that the allegation are false.

EDIT - sorry, beaten to it by McMike.

Arizona Bay
09-27-2018, 06:19 PM
Here we see the gravitas of a potential SCOTUS justice... not.

Too many of the Democrats seem to be as spineless and "me" focused as the Rips, and they'll give him credibility by turning him into a monster when he's really more like a mean drunk.
He sure fits with the cruelty present today's Repo party... the whole thing is disgusting and not just the sexual assaults.

Duncan Gibbs
09-27-2018, 06:22 PM
The instant he started ranting on the whole "political hit" thing he killed his nomination. Stone dead.

'Beyond reasonable doubt' works for both convictions and SCOTUS nominations. If, by some fluke, he is confirmed and voted in by the Senate, I would expect his impeachment and removal at the first available opportunity by a Democratic Party controlled House and Senate. Every ruling he made would be under a cloud and challenged again and again. Whether the other SCOTUS justices could actually work with him is another question entirely.

This is where Trump and his clown car have hit the wall of implacable inertia of the American political system that he, or his fellow idiots have little understanding of.

The Trump "base" is looking increasingly deranged and narrow. The idea that they might mount some kind of violent upheaval should Trump come unstuck before his term is up looks more and more like a schoolboy fantasy akin to Patrick Swazye 'fighting off the communists' in Red Dawn.

Pubescent ammosexuals with Nazi tendencies.

TomF
09-27-2018, 06:28 PM
As I've said for a while, even apart from these sexual allegations, my problem with Kav is the degree of his high octane partisan background. I would have the same trouble if a high octane Dem partisan were nominated - the SCOTUS exemplifies the "justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done" ethic. That includes a presumption of nonpartisan status. Kav has not demonstrated that - and he only underscored it today.

I dunno how to resolve the "mistaken identity" thing. They each say 100%, eh? But what is clear is that Kav is every bit the partisan he has been through his career.

It is possible that Ford is mistaken about who assaulted her, but it is also possible that Kav either is lying or blacked out. Which would be why Mark Judge should have been subpoenaed.

Duncan Gibbs
09-27-2018, 06:50 PM
Kav has not demonstrated that - and he only underscored it today.
^ This.

Ford could have jumped up and down and pulled faces after Kav' started on his rant, and it wouldn't have made diddly squat difference. Kav' just machine-gunned his foot to pulp.

I would truly mark this day as the beginning of the end for the current incarnation of the GOP and their corrupted, hyper-partisan view of politics, and I think in six weeks time this will writ large in the midterms. Flying in the face of facts only works for so long.

http://delibere.fr/wp-content/uploads/Th%C3%A9orie-du-coyote-suspendu-1.jpg

johnw
09-27-2018, 06:54 PM
The instant he started ranting on the whole "political hit" thing he killed his nomination. Stone dead.

'Beyond reasonable doubt' works for both convictions and SCOTUS nominations. If, by some fluke, he is confirmed and voted in by the Senate, I would expect his impeachment and removal at the first available opportunity by a Democratic Party controlled House and Senate. Every ruling he made would be under a cloud and challenged again and again. Whether the other SCOTUS justices could actually work with him is another question entirely.

This is where Trump and his clown car have hit the wall of implacable inertia of the American political system that he, or his fellow idiots have little understanding of.

The Trump "base" is looking increasingly deranged and narrow. The idea that they might mount some kind of violent upheaval should Trump come unstuck before his term is up looks more and more like a schoolboy fantasy akin to Patrick Swazye 'fighting off the communists' in Red Dawn.

Pubescent ammosexuals with Nazi tendencies.
Impeachment would require a supermajority. Not going to happen. If he's confirmed, he's on the bench for life, and we can expect him to be vengeful in his rulings.

LeeG
09-27-2018, 07:09 PM
Impeachment would require a supermajority. Not going to happen. If he's confirmed, he's on the bench for life, and we can expect him to be vengeful in his rulings.

His vitriol aimed at Democrats is a bizarre position for a Supreme Court nominee.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/27/the-most-telling-moment-kavanaugh-goes-after-sen-klobuchar/?utm_term=.77118c921623

The worst moment was his confrontation with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) who questioned him about blackout drinking. She explained that she understood alcohol abuse because her father was an alcoholic. Have you ever blacked out? she asked. He sneered in response, “Have you?” It was a moment of singular cruelty and disrespect. One saw a flash in the exchange with Klobuchar the same sense of entitlement, cruelty and lack of simple decency that Christine Blasey Ford allegedly experienced way back when, the memory seared in her brain of two obnoxious teens laughing at her ordeal.

After the break, no doubt advised by a White House minder, he apologized. But the damage was done. The spontaneous reaction was the real one.

Canoez
09-27-2018, 07:19 PM
Ford’s allegations could be baseless - I don’t think so, as she has more to lose than gain, personally. Regardless, Kavanaugh’s own remarks showed him to not be able to be an impartial jurist.

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2018, 07:27 PM
Ford’s allegations could be baseless - I don’t think so, as she has more to lose than gain, personally. Regardless, Kavanaugh’s own remarks showed him to not be able to be an impartial jurist.I'd like to say no kidding but, this is blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain.

Duncan Gibbs
09-27-2018, 07:39 PM
Impeachment would require a supermajority. Not going to happen. If he's confirmed, he's on the bench for life, and we can expect him to be vengeful in his rulings.
Doesn't that depend upon the outcome of the midterms? If there are enough democratic and republican rep's and senators who think enough is enough.

Further I would suggest that confirming and voting in Kavanaugh would result in a Supreme Court that at least half the country would refuse to accept any rulings from, as they would view it as a corrupted and completely politicised institution. Other SCOTUS justices might resign in protest. It's been know to happen. Government, the executive and the judiciary would break down completely. Democracy is, ultimately, based purely on trust and acceptance of the rule of law. Once that trust and acceptance is gone, the only remedy would be impeachment.

C. Ross
09-27-2018, 07:41 PM
I listened to the whole thing, end to end.

I thought Dr. Ford was very credible, and did not come across as politically motivated.

I thought Judge Kavanaugh's opening comments were aimed solely at President Trump. I thought his denials were heartfelt, but his attack on Democrats and the process seemed a little contrived to me: he couldn't attack Ford and couldn't risk it becoming he said / she said, so he attacked Senator Feinstein (and "left wing outside groups" and "the Clintons").

What a mess.

I think a fair person could see how the Democrats could have handled the report from Dr. Ford better. In a perfect world it would have been part of the original hearings. But if it had been, it would have been rougher on Judge Kavanaugh - how could the Committee not call corroborating witnesses on both sides?

What to do now? The President is calling for an immediate vote. Senator Sasse showed his hand - he's voting to confirm. Senator Flake showed nothing. It's down to three or four Senators.

My bet is he is confirmed on a pure party line. I feel badly for Chief Justice Roberts - he's about to get a very, very angry Justice on his bench, who's likely to be a polarizing presence.

Osborne Russell
09-27-2018, 07:50 PM
It makes me a jolly good fellow.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ7j292Y_Cw

Duncan Gibbs
09-27-2018, 07:56 PM
Like I said Cris, if Kavanaugh is confirmed you will see a complete break down in any kind of respect for the judicial system, and society could really begin to rip itself apart. What if Chief Roberts immediately resigned? Or one or other of the justices?

If I'm thinking these thoughts in far away Australia, you can bet that others on both sides of the political aisle are too. It would be an act of ridiculousness to put Kavanaugh on the bench. One of those moments where you just know the crap will hit the fan as a result.

Osborne Russell
09-27-2018, 08:04 PM
The Republicans' supposedly big kablammer was the vast left wing conspiracy, proven by Senator Feinstein's concealment of Ford's identity.

The question was not actually addressed until almost the end of hearing. "As a point of personal privilege" Feinstein gave the explanation on her own initiative. Ford asked that her name not be made public for fear of retaliation to her and her family. Feinstein said OK.

The Republicans say "We could have done it in secret." That might satisfy them but it may be plausibly unsatisfactory to someone whose life may be threatened. It took time to change her mind. That accounts for the time. Republicans, after Merrit Garland, are not in a position to argue time without covering themselves in shame.

If there is some reason to question Ford's reasoning about her concerns, and any collusion by her with the vast conspiracy, by all means, get into it. She is before you, under oath. But this is one of those deals like Benghazi where the last thing they want is an answer.

But you have your answer and you had your opportunity to question witnesses. You got zip. Therefore the factual basis for Lindsay Graham's Clarence Thomas impression was chopped off at the ankles.

Kavanaugh is intellectually dishonest and an evader of issues. Not what is wanted in a Justice. He says the process was grossly unfair, but refused to say what he wished done. Hits and runs away. Hm.

He says he doesn't remember it happening. She says she does. No contradiction.

In any case it's not a credibility contest. It's a demonstration to the public that they can have confidence in the nominee, and by extension, in the judicial system, and the entire government. A very high level of confidence. In some ways, the highest.

Paul Pless
09-27-2018, 08:05 PM
i agree with most everything cris said above

as a diehard liberal i'm appalled at the thought of kavanaugh being placed on the court, but i didn't really see anything today that i think would preclude him from taking his seat - sad but true

face it liberals suck and they play this game very poorly, i hope they don't come out the worse for the wear in november because of this

ford, while i feel for her, is thirty years too late with these accusations (yes i know its complicated), they are uncorroborated, and she got played by feinstein


he's about to get a very, very angry Justice on his bench, who's likely to be a polarizing presence.do you think he'll be as petulant as thomas?

Paul Pless
09-27-2018, 08:06 PM
Like I said Cris, if Kavanaugh is confirmed you will see a complete break down in any kind of respect for the judicial system, and society could really begin to rip itself apart. What if Chief Roberts immediately resigned? Or one or other of the justices?seriously bro? more than half of the country won't even bother to vote in the upcoming midterms. . .

TomF
09-27-2018, 08:12 PM
Fooking "liberty" and "democratic values", eh?

johnw
09-27-2018, 08:12 PM
Doesn't that depend upon the outcome of the midterms? If there are enough democratic and republican rep's and senators who think enough is enough.

Further I would suggest that confirming and voting in Kavanaugh would result in a Supreme Court that at least half the country would refuse to accept any rulings from, as they would view it as a corrupted and completely politicised institution. Other SCOTUS justices might resign in protest. It's been know to happen. Government, the executive and the judiciary would break down completely. Democracy is, ultimately, based purely on trust and acceptance of the rule of law. Once that trust and acceptance is gone, the only remedy would be impeachment.
First of all, it's a tough electoral map for Democrats in the senate. There are 35 senate seats contested this year, only nine are held by Republicans, so Democrats and independents who caucus with Democrats would have to win 26 seats just to keep the large minority they have, and flip a couple Republican seats in states Trump won to get a bare majority. Even if they won every seat contested this year, they would not have enough votes to impeach on partisan lines.

Duncan Gibbs
09-27-2018, 08:17 PM
First of all, it's a tough electoral map for Democrats in the senate. There are 35 senate seats contested this year, only nine are held by Republicans, so Democrats and independents who caucus with Democrats would have to win 26 seats just to keep the large minority they have, and flip a couple Republican seats in states Trump won to get a bare majority. Even if they won every seat contested this year, they would not have enough votes to impeach on partisan lines.
If the result is a wipeout of every Republican seat up for grabs, would that change the mood of those moderate R's that remain?

Chris Smith porter maine
09-27-2018, 08:18 PM
I agree with cris as well, we will have a pissed off whinny a**ed privileged little rich boy on the bench come Monday afternoon. Mitch will let every Republican know vote against Kavanaugh and your state gets nothing, nada, Mitch is a master at this part of it.

johnw
09-27-2018, 08:26 PM
If the result is a wipeout of every Republican seat up for grabs, would that change the mood of those moderate R's that remain?
The which?

Those went the way of the dodo.

Duncan Gibbs
09-27-2018, 08:30 PM
In any case it's not a credibility contest. It's a demonstration to the public that they can have confidence in the nominee, and by extension, in the judicial system, and the entire government. A very high level of confidence. In some ways, the highest.
Exactly.

Half the country may well not turn up to vote, but that doesn't mean its not in mortal danger from such an appointment.

C. Ross
09-27-2018, 08:31 PM
If confirmed, I think it will be a true pyhrric victory.

Kavanaugh on the bench will certainly make the Blue Wave higher.

And, I can't imagine Chief Justice Roberts giving Angry Justice Kavanaugh any leash. If he actually behaves, he might be allowed to write the occasional opinion. Kavanaugh is likely to vote with Thomas and Gorsuch 95% of the time, and they'll be assigned the opinions.

C. Ross
09-27-2018, 08:33 PM
And, I don't know about you all, but I'm almost exactly Kavanaugh's age and high school seems a million years ago.

He sure stepped easily into his preppy private high school penny loafers with ease, and vivid memories of pals and hijinx.

Seriously dude, grow up.

Duncan Gibbs
09-27-2018, 08:38 PM
The which?

Those went the way of the dodo.
If O'Rourke defeats Cruz, I'd be pretty sure the re-evolutionry process would speed up.

johnw
09-27-2018, 08:47 PM
If O'Rourke defeats Cruz, I'd be pretty sure the re-evolutionry process would speed up.
For decades, it's been the moderates who have been losing. In a blue wave, they lose to Democrats, and in a red wave, they lose to teabaggers. The center-right consists of a few Democrats in red states.

Canoez
09-27-2018, 09:19 PM
And, I don't know about you all, but I'm almost exactly Kavanaugh's age and high school seems a million years ago.

He sure stepped easily into his preppy private high school penny loafers with ease, and vivid memories of pals and hijinx.

Seriously dude, grow up.

As you note, I don’t think that he ever stepped out of those penny loafers.

Chris249
09-27-2018, 10:06 PM
I didn't listen to the hearings, but this photo tells me all I need to know.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoIO7-yUUAAlhLf.jpg

The video shows that some of those women, for example the one immediately to his left as seen in the pic, seem to actually be sharing his sadness and anger and feeling sympathy for him. I'm NOT saying I agree with them, but the pic itself seems to show some of them in a different light to the vid.

Arizona Bay
09-27-2018, 10:33 PM
The video shows that some of those women, for example the one immediately to his left as seen in the pic, seem to actually be sharing his sadness and anger and feeling sympathy for him. I'm NOT saying I agree with them, but the pic itself seems to show some of them in a different light to the vid.


I think that is his wife, his mother is supposed to be in the photo as well, maybe to her left?. The woman in the front row far right is often seen flashing the 'white power' hand sign in photos, I forget her name though.

LeeG
09-28-2018, 01:25 AM
And, I don't know about you all, but I'm almost exactly Kavanaugh's age and high school seems a million years ago.

He sure stepped easily into his preppy private high school penny loafers with ease, and vivid memories of pals and hijinx.

Seriously dude, grow up.

His breakdown over that recollection was revealing. “I was a jock, I was at the top, this is my moment and you Clinton loving Democrats ruined my life. And I like beer”

LeeG
09-28-2018, 01:32 AM
American Bar Association recommends FBI investigation

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/kavanaugh-american-bar-association/index.html

America: Jesuit Review Journal withdraws recommendation

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/09/27/editors-it-time-kavanaugh-nomination-be-withdrawn

Paul Pless
09-28-2018, 05:24 AM
I was a jockthere's no crying in baseball

Ian McColgin
09-28-2018, 05:37 AM
We should thank Kavanaugh for his display of judicial temperament. Told us all we need to know.

StevenBauer
09-28-2018, 06:11 AM
https://i.redd.it/0whcvrqgmuo11.png

Paul Pless
09-28-2018, 06:12 AM
We should thank Kavanaugh for his display of judicial temperament. Told us all we need to know.but for reds love that kind of ****

StevenBauer
09-28-2018, 06:12 AM
https://i.redd.it/xd2n1yevrvo11.png

StevenBauer
09-28-2018, 06:21 AM
Kavanaugh’s Testimony Was a Master Class in American Male Entitlement
Christine Blasey Ford was astonishingly composed and accommodating during her testimony about her sexual-assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. The Supreme Court nominee,however, was the polar opposite during his time on the stand: petulant, belligerent, and indignant. His opening statement was, more than anything, a performance — and one that seemed to be clearly directed at his (white, male) Republican supporters. The threat it delivered: Imagine how you’d feel if —or when — you were in my position.
Ever since Ford accused Kavanaugh (https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-christine-ford-palo-alto-university.html) of sexual assault earlier this month, the SCOTUS nominee has vocally denied the allegations, maintaining that he would never assault any woman. In his opening statement, he angrily and occasionally tearfully pushed back against the assault claims, insisting thathe’s just a man who loves to crack open the occasional beer, pray with his daughters, and get nostalgic over a calendar. In his version of the story, he is the victim.
Below, all of the tactics Kavanaugh used in an attempt to prove himself as a man who deserves power, and is having his shot at attaining more unfairly threatened....


https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-hearing-testimony-male-entitlement.html

John Smith
09-28-2018, 06:27 AM
When you cut through all the crap, doesn't this come down to his not saying "yes" to the FBI investigating?

Yet, I fear he'll be confirmed.

John Smith
09-28-2018, 06:30 AM
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

Click on Kavanauhs defense relies on weak foundation

Norman Bernstein
09-28-2018, 06:34 AM
The public reaction over the weekend will determine whether a few Republican senators might break (Murkowski, Collins, Flake, and possibly others).

As for Kavanaugh himself: regardless of his previous testimony and his record as a judge, he destroyed himself... the minute he stated and/or implied that it was all a vast left wing conspiracy, and a result of 'revenge of the Clintons'. Sure, we all know that justices are indeed partisan... but they're supposed to not blatantly advertise their partisanship.

I make NO judgment about the veracity of either Ford's claims, or Kavenaugh's denial. I think he should not be confirmed for entirely different reasons: I suspect he committed perjury in his last senate confirmation, and I believe that they are hiding stuff which would be revealed by a release of his papers from his time in the Bush administration.

Mike H
09-28-2018, 06:49 AM
I watched some of Kavanaugh's testimony and he reminded me of May Ella Ewell in To Kill A Mockingbird. He's lying everyone knows he's lying and it won't make a difference in the outcome.

Jim Mahan
09-28-2018, 07:15 AM
Belligerent man tries to prove he isn't belligerent

The senator should have asked him right then, "Mister Kavanaugh, are you drunk now?"

Another accuser should come forward and at some point derisively scorn him with "... and then he when he hauled it out, I had to laugh even though I had had few drinks myself because he was so small and limp, and then he passed out right in the middle of his pre-tumescent rage" ...

and then the killing started.

LeeG
09-28-2018, 07:23 AM
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show

Click on Kavanauhs defense relies on weak foundation

Maddow lists very clear problems with Kavanaugh beyond events 35 yrs ago. His behavior and temperment now. His partisan advocacy and paranoia. His integrity weakened through small lies and misdirection. His unwillingness to seek an FBI investigation.

Norman Bernstein
09-28-2018, 07:29 AM
On Kavanaugh... from someone who knew him very well:


David Brock on NBC: “I used to know Brett Kavanaugh pretty well. And, when I think of Brett now, in the midst of his hearings for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, all I can think of is the old "Aesop's Fables" adage: "A man is known by the company he keeps." And that's why I want to tell any senator who cares about our democracy: Vote no. Twenty years ago, when I was a conservative movement stalwart, I got to know Brett Kavanaugh both professionally and personally. Brett actually makes a cameo appearance in my memoir of my time in the GOP, "Blinded By The Right." I describe him at a party full of zealous young conservatives gathered to watch President Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the Union address — just weeks after the story of his affair with a White House intern had broken. When the TV camera panned to Hillary Clinton, I saw Brett — at the time a key lieutenant of Ken Starr, the independent counsel investigating various Clinton scandals — mouth the word "bitch."

But there's a lot more to know about Kavanaugh than just his Pavlovian response to Hillary's image. Brett and I were part of a close circle of cold, cynical and ambitious hard-right operatives being groomed by GOP elders for much bigger roles in politics, government and media. And it’s those controversial associations that should give members of the Senate and the American public serious pause.

Call it Kavanaugh's cabal: There was his colleague on the Starr investigation, Alex Azar, now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mark Paoletta is now chief counsel to Vice President Mike Pence; House anti-Clinton gumshoe Barbara Comstock is now a Republican member of Congress. Future Fox News personalities Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson were there with Ann Coulter, now a best-selling author, and internet provocateur Matt Drudge.

At one time or another, each of them partied at my Georgetown townhouse amid much booze and a thick air of cigar smoke. In a rough division of labor, Kavanaugh played the role of lawyer — one of the sharp young minds recruited by the Federalist Society to infiltrate the federal judiciary with true believers. Through that network, Kavanaugh was mentored by D.C. Appeals Court Judge Laurence Silberman, known among his colleagues for planting leaks in the press for partisan advantage.

When, as I came to know, Kavanaugh took on the role of designated leaker to the press of sensitive information from Starr's operation, we all laughed that Larry had taught him well. (Of course, that sort of political opportunism by a prosecutor is at best unethical, if not illegal.)

Another compatriot was George Conway (now Kellyanne's husband), who led a secretive group of right-wing lawyers — we called them "the elves" — who worked behind the scenes directing the litigation team of Paula Jones, who had sued Clinton for sexual harassment. I knew then that information was flowing quietly from the Jones team via Conway to Starr's office — and also that Conway's go-to man was none other than Brett Kavanaugh.

That critical flow of inside information allowed Starr, in effect, to set a perjury trap for Clinton, laying the foundation for a crazed national political crisis and an unjust impeachment over a consensual affair.

But the cabal's godfather was Ted Olson, the then-future solicitor general for George W. Bush and now a sainted figure of the GOP establishment (and of some liberals for his role in legalizing same-sex marriage). Olson had a largely hidden role as a consigliere to the "Arkansas Project" — a multi-million dollar dirt-digging operation on the Clintons, funded by the eccentric right-wing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife and run through The American Spectator magazine, where I worked at the time.

Both Ted and Brett had what one could only be called an unhealthy obsession with the Clintons — especially Hillary. While Ted was pushing through the Arkansas Project conspiracy theories claiming that Clinton White House lawyer and Hillary friend Vincent Foster was murdered (he committed suicide), Brett was costing taxpayers millions by peddling the same garbage at Starr's office.

A detailed analysis of Kavanaugh's own notes from the Starr Investigation reveals he was cherry-picking random bits of information from the Starr investigation — as well as the multiple previous investigations — attempting vainly to legitimize wild right-wing conspiracies. For years he chased down each one of them without regard to the emotional cost to Foster’s family and friends, or even common decency.

Kavanaugh was not a dispassionate finder of fact but rather an engineer of a political smear campaign. And after decades of that, he expects people to believe he's changed his stripes.
Like millions of Americans this week, I tuned into Kavanaugh's hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee with great interest. In his opening statement and subsequent testimony, Kavanaugh presented himself as a "neutral and impartial arbiter" of the law. Judges, he said, were not players but akin to umpires — objectively calling balls and strikes. Again and again, he stressed his "independence" from partisan political influences.

But I don't need to see any documents to tell you who Kavanaugh is — because I've known him for years. And I'll leave it to all the lawyers to parse Kavanaugh's views on everything from privacy rights to gun rights.

But I can promise you that any pretense of simply being a fair arbiter of the constitutionality of any policy regardless of politics is simply a pretense. He made up his mind nearly a generation ago — and, if he's confirmed, he'll have nearly two generations to impose it upon the rest of us."

LeeG
09-28-2018, 07:43 AM
Kavanaugh does a fair amount of projecting claiming he’s a victm of a Democratic mission to search and destroy him, while he was an active participant in doing the same to the Clintons.

He has really screwed his integrity as a judge right now.

SKIP KILPATRICK
09-28-2018, 07:57 AM
Lindsey Graham sure has changed his tune towards all things Trump. He has become his wingman, it seems like a strange turn of events.

I wonder if there are some personal as well as political reasons he is now such a defender of the President.


Years ago, for one Summer I was dating a guy who lived in Alexandria, VA. He was a retired Major (USAF) who at the time was working for the Treasury Dept.

One night I was up at his house and a buddy of his stopped by to borrow a set of diamond cuff-links. Jerry introduced his buddy but I don't remember his name. This fellow was a youngish, good looking Lt. Colonel on active duty with USAF. He wanted the cuff links to go with his black tie suit. Apparently he wasn't going to wear his Dress Uniform to this "exclusive" soiree.

When the Colonel left, I asked jerry who he was dating. Jerry laughed and said "ugh, he's a dweeb on the South Carolina Congressional Delegation. And they don't like to call it dating. "They are just friends" (Jerry said the last sentence with air quotes) You figure it out."

At that point, I was 100% sure who he was talking about but, not really caring, I groaned an "Ugh" too. We both shrugged our shoulders went out for pizza.

Nothing was ever mentioned again, until maybe now. It's really a nothing story, no evidence and it doesn't prove anything. But it is completely the truth.

LeeG
09-28-2018, 08:02 AM
Sure would be nice to have Kavanaughs records from the Bush administration available to the committee. Picking and choosing intel for a particular foregone conclusion was a hallmark of that administration with significant consequences. Now we have a potus who simply disregards facts for a given action.

Jim Mahan
09-28-2018, 08:08 AM
He doth maybe protesteth too much, that Graham. Being that emotional about it makes me wonder if he's got some serial thing in the past he'd rather no one knew about, or maybe a paid to be quiet and it's worked so far deal coming unravelled.

I'm also wondering what the Federal Judges Association's membership might have to say regarding Kavanaugh's behavior in front of the Senate and his suitability for a lifetime appointment.

Osborne Russell
09-28-2018, 08:14 AM
Listening to his combative answers, there is a meanness and cold-blooded calculation in Kavanaugh.

Would you want such a person to be the judge in your case? In anyone's case?

C. Ross
09-28-2018, 08:19 AM
I believe Senator Graham's speech served two purposes.

One, it's the Republicans' line of defense on this nominee: you Democrats ambushed and kneecapped him, and that's all we need to know.

Two, he's got to run in 2020 in South Carolina, which is located in Trumpistan. He wants to avoid a Trump wannabe running against him in a primary.

C. Ross
09-28-2018, 08:20 AM
American Bar Association recommends FBI investigation

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/kavanaugh-american-bar-association/index.html

America: Jesuit Review Journal withdraws recommendation

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/09/27/editors-it-time-kavanaugh-nomination-be-withdrawn

These are going to sting.

LeeG
09-28-2018, 08:20 AM
the hyperbole is extra thick in here. some of you might try adding some water, it's hard to swallow a brick.

Then put down your metaphorical brick and water and try to discuss the topic. Come on, be a big boy. Use your words.

Osborne Russell
09-28-2018, 08:20 AM
When you cut through all the crap, doesn't this come down to his not saying "yes" to the FBI investigating?

Only in the sense that that would have been the only prospect of rehabilitating his reputation. And it's more than not saying yes. It's not saying yes, at the Committee's direction. A judge needs to be independent.

David G
09-28-2018, 08:21 AM
On Kavanaugh... from someone who knew him very well:

Quite revealing.

LeeG
09-28-2018, 08:24 AM
I believe Senator Graham's speech served two purposes.

One, it's the Republicans' line of defense on this nominee: you Democrats ambushed and kneecapped him, and that's all we need to know.

Two, he's got to run in 2020 in South Carolina, which is located in Trumpistan. He wants to avoid a Trump wannabe running against him in a primary.

Grahams charges of unfairness sure sound hysterical when you consider what they did for 14 months against Garland.

Norman Bernstein
09-28-2018, 08:26 AM
the hyperbole is extra thick in here. some of you might try adding some water, it's hard to swallow a brick.

Are you here to contribute an opinion... or are you here only to disparage the opinions of others?

Canoez
09-28-2018, 08:29 AM
Two people gave testimony yesterday. Both have been evaluated as being "truthful". I do not believe you can move forward and seat Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court without looking further into the situation. Someone perjured themselves in that hearing.

Republicans are loathe to delay the nomination process any further with an investigation because they are looking at the potential of losing their majority in Congress ultimately losing them this candidate. They do not hold the moral ground on delay of nominations after the Merrick Garland debacle and they certainly put that delay tactic into motion.


A judge needs to be independent.

Agreed. Kavanaugh has disqualified himself for the bench by his own words, which were nakedly partisan in his opening statement. He has shown himself to be unable to be an impartial jurist.

Hugh Conway
09-28-2018, 08:31 AM
I think a fair person could see how the Democrats could have handled the report from Dr. Ford better. In a perfect world it would have been part of the original hearings. But if it had been, it would have been rougher on Judge Kavanaugh - how could the Committee not call corroborating witnesses on both sides?

It's politics, there's nothing fair about politics, and Brett Kavanaugh is where he is because he was a cold-hearted political killer. The Republicans will push him through and their brand will be cemented as the brand of angry middle-aged white male entitlement, and whatever claim to originality & textualism is shown to be the naked cover for power politics it is.

LeeG
09-28-2018, 08:37 AM
We should thank Kavanaugh for his display of judicial temperament. Told us all we need to know.

not a shining moment:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/27/the-most-telling-moment-kavanaugh-goes-after-sen-klobuchar/?utm_term=.107003d2f1a6

The worst moment was his confrontation with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) who questioned him about blackout drinking. She explained that she understood alcohol abuse because her father was an alcoholic. Have you ever blacked out? she asked. He sneered in response, “Have you?” It was a moment of singular cruelty and disrespect. One saw a flash in the exchange with Klobuchar the same sense of entitlement, cruelty and lack of simple decency that Christine Blasey Ford allegedly experienced way back when, the memory seared in her brain of two obnoxious teens laughing at her ordeal.

TomF
09-28-2018, 08:45 AM
One of Kavanaugh's high school sports and drinking buddies stepped in it this morning in a live interview with CNN, in which he was trying to be a character witness for Brett K. Amidst the other words, he expressed his concern that "something" clearly "seems to have happened to Crissy Blasé," though he believes Brett that it wasn't him who did it. And he believes that in part because if anything had occurred he'd have heard the story the next day. "You know, we'd have heard "Brett and Mark and a couple of Holten girls got pretty banged up, and one of the girls ran out of the house. ... And those girls we ran with - you didn't trifle with them. You don't trifle with them now, as you just saw; you didn't trifle with them then. They hung together, and if you did something to one of them, they'd pull together. You'd be done."From this we learned that Brett and his crowd "ran with" a social circle of girls which included some from Holten. And that one of them was "Crissy Blasé." Not Dr. Christine Blasé-Ford, the accomplished research psych professor, but "Crissy Blasé." Kav's high school buddy demonstrated live on national TV how "norepinephrine and epinephrine can encode specific details of a memory in the hippocampus" (Dr. Ford's words from yesterday) which will emerge unbidden 35 years later when triggered. And when it was triggered in the interview, it was suddenly clear that Dr. Ford's memory of moving in the same social circle was accurate ... because one of Kav's posse from that time spoke about her in an interview using the familiar name he'd have heard and used when they were both teenagers ... the name encoded into his hippocampus.

CWSmith
09-28-2018, 08:50 AM
...And that one of them was "Crissy Blasé." Not Dr. Christine Blasé-Ford, the accomplished research psych professor, but "Crissy Blasé." Kav's high school buddy demonstrated live on national TV how "norepinephrine and epinephrine can encode specific details of a memory in the hippocampus" (Dr. Ford's words from yesterday) which will emerge unbidden 35 years later when triggered. And when it was triggered in the interview, it was suddenly clear that Dr. Ford's memory of moving in the same social circle was accurate ... because one of Kav's posse from that time spoke about her in an interview using the familiar name he'd have heard and used when they were both teenagers ... the name encoded into his hippocampus.

Are they saying there are repressed memories and that's why nothing was said until now?

CWSmith
09-28-2018, 08:52 AM
the hyperbole is extra thick in here. some of you might try adding some water, it's hard to swallow a brick.


Are you here to contribute an opinion... or are you here only to disparage the opinions of others?

Oh, come on, Norman! Did you just arrive here yesterday? This is his standard schtick.

woodpile
09-28-2018, 08:58 AM
Grahams charges of unfairness sure sound hysterical when you consider what they did for 14 months against Garland.

You remember the names Bork and Thomas?

Jim Mahan
09-28-2018, 08:58 AM
Breaking news!

From the None-ian


—a fourth (or is it fifth now?) accuser has come forward and says that she and her sisters will testify to attending a certain after party, and that "she still has that cocktail dress from that night? From when the crack pipe caught the free base and torched it? It was only all the slopped Coors that kept the whole thing from going up."

Meanwhile a cable cooking show is looking for an exclusive interview on how to make Kavanaugh toast.


I know it's serious. I guess I'm a little fatigued with the constant breaking news bombshells that are like fireworks that light up the sky and quickly fade to be replaced by another glitzy thing. I think it's the real-time timing of the whole phenomenon. You see this story in a film on the big screen and it gets resolved in an hour and the evil guys get his comeuppance. We also get to see the same story on the smaller screens, an hour at a time, nearly get resolved in literal serial cliff hangers that will never really ever be resolved but they'll keep trying season after season, til the children leave for college, if you let them. This is somewhere in the middle. There may or may not be another bombshell and there may or may not be a dramatic conclusion, and it may or may not have a profound effect on the lives of counted millions.

Wouldn't it be nice, for the sake of balance, to have some actual smoking gun for once, so we can all heave a big sigh and convict someone in the court of pulic opinion with complete certainty that justice is being done. I'm glad real life isn't puncuated with minutes long ads for things you have to ask a doctor to see if it's right for you.

Hugh Conway
09-28-2018, 09:03 AM
but i do get to enjoy all the crazies in here talking about the end of days if he gets confirmed.

and here we have the voice of the Trump supporter "I watch Nascar for the car crashes" when they don't realize they are in one of the cars in the race.

Hugh Conway
09-28-2018, 09:05 AM
Wouldn't it be nice, for the sake of balance, to have some actual smoking gun for once, so we can all heave a big sigh and convict someone in the court of pulic opinion with complete certainty that justice is being done. I'm glad real life isn't puncuated with minutes long ads for things you have to ask a doctor to see if it's right for you.

Yes, it'd be wonderful if life was as cut 'n dry as a hollywood movie and we all walked around wearing white hats or black hats.

S.V. Airlie
09-28-2018, 09:07 AM
Mac, Trump has been pretty clear about why he chose Kavanaugh as his pet on the Supreme Court, what he will do as a justice is NOT crazy, it's almost a promise. Look at his record.

LeeG
09-28-2018, 09:10 AM
https://mobile.twitter.com/TODAYshow/status/1045635241975664641/video/1

TomF
09-28-2018, 09:13 AM
Again, the ABA calling for a pause and an FBI investigation might be the most effective thing here, either to clear Kav's name or to submerge it. I think it's pretty clear from the evasions that both Kav and the Republicans on the committee think it would do the latter.

S.V. Airlie
09-28-2018, 09:21 AM
Again, the ABA calling for a pause and an FBI investigation might be the most effective thing here, either to clear Kav's name or to submerge it. I think it's pretty clear from the evasions that both Kav and the Republicans on the committee think it would do the latter.I agree. The last thing Republicans don't want is the truth.

Canoez
09-28-2018, 09:24 AM
i agree. The last thing republicans want is the truth.

ftfy.

Keith Wilson
09-28-2018, 09:58 AM
I think Nancy LeTourneau nails it here (emphasis added). Today's Republican party is actually reactionary; we're seeing the rage of the rich white men, those who have run things pretty much since the Republic's founding, who believe power is theirs by right, and who fear that their grip is slipping. Kavanaugh's testimony is a perfect example, a successful privileged rich white guy who's now having his nose rubbed in the crap he did when he was young. Anti-immigrant hysteria comes from the same source. It's not pretty. (Source (https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/09/28/the-gop-strategy-to-distract-from-christine-fords-testimony/))


The GOP Strategy to Distract From Christine Ford’s Testimony
by Nancy LeTourneau
September 28, 2018

When Christine Blasey Ford finished testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the consensus (even among a lot of Republicans) was that her allegations were credible. Keep in mind that, when asked, she said that she was 100 percent certain that it was Brett Kavanaugh who assaulted her. It certainly looked like his confirmation to the Supreme Court was in doubt.

But for Republicans, all that changed after Kavanaugh’s testimony. Suddenly they felt emboldened, as is evidenced by the fact that they plan to go forward with a vote as soon as possible. What happened?

Beyond the suggestion that Ford’s allegations haven’t been corroborated, neither the nominee or Republicans on the committee attempted to refute her allegations. Instead, it was this statement in Kavanaugh’s opening remarks that became the rallying cry:

“Since my nomination in July, there’s been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything to block my confirmation … When it was needed, this allegation was unleashed and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford’s wishes…. This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit…. pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election….revenge on behalf of the Clintons…. millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.”

From the nominee and one Republican senator after another, we heard claims about the process by which these allegations were brought forward as a way to craft a narrative that it was a conspiracy designed by Democrats to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation. That echoed what Trump said in his press conference Wednesday afternoon when he called it a “con job” by “evil people”.

Obviously, that was the strategy designed by Republicans to distract everyone from the claims that were so powerfully voiced by Dr. Ford. They knew that attacking her directly would backfire. So they paid lip service to being sympathetic to her, all while wrapping her claims in the cloak of some Democratic plot.

That explains why the rage we saw from Kavanaugh and senators like Lindsey Graham were ramped up to be off the charts. While I don’t agree with all of Kevin Drum’s conclusions about the hearing, I think he nailed it when he wrote about how the Republican playbook has been all about feeding a sense of victimization.

“This sense of endless victimization by liberals didn’t start with Donald Trump, but it’s no surprise that it’s reached his peak during his presidency. He literally rode conservative victimization to the White House and taught Republicans that it was even more powerful than they thought. Now they’re using it as their best chance of persuading a few lone Republican holdouts to vote for Kavanaugh not on the merits, but so that Democrats don’t have the satisfaction of seeing their contemptible plot work.”

As Christopher Buskirk demonstrates at the American Spectator, the show wasn’t merely about convincing a few lone Republican holdouts.

“Over and over again I have heard from people outside of politics and the media, but all over the political spectrum, about their extreme distaste for the Democrats’ blood lust. They see it for what it is: there is no search for truth, it’s not about justice. It’s a well-orchestrated political hit-job designed to destroy a good man and accomplished judge because he represents an end to Leftist control of the Supreme Court which they have used since the 1930s as a super-legislature to force their radical, dehumanising agenda on the country over the objections of the American people. At least they know what’s at stake…

This will have an impact on the upcoming midterm elections – but not the way Democrats will hope. They envision their pussy-hat wearing legions descending on the polls and sweeping into power a host of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez clones and their ‘male allies.’ ‘This is it comrades,’ you can hear them say, ‘today we overthrow the patriarchy!’ But no. They have done, once again, for Republicans what Republicans could not do for themselves: energize the base.”

The one Democrat who, during his questioning of Kavanagh, demonstrated that he understood the Republican strategy to distract us from Ford’s testimony was Senator Cory Booker.


https://youtu.be/J3LxPcftcDA
In case you can’t watch the video, here is some of the transcript:

Sen Booker: She was not doing this for political effort in 2012 when she talked to her therapist about this attack. She was not coordinating about this painful experience when she made revelations to her husband. She did not coordinate in 2013, 2017—before you were nominated—that wasn’t coordination.
Kavanaugh: All the witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen. Ms. Keyser is her longtime friend, said she never saw me at a party with or without Dr. Ford.
Sen Booker: —and Ms. Keyser has said clearly, I’ll quote what she said, she said she does not remember the night in question—that supports what you said—but she also said she believes Dr. Ford.
Sen Booker: She is not a political pawn. She is not orchestrating. She is not part of the Clintons’ efforts to get some kind of revenge. She’s a woman who came here with corroborating evidence to tell her truth.

The point here is that the process by which these allegations came forward does not dismiss the fact that Dr. Ford made credible claims that she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Nothing the nominee or any Republican said during the hearings yesterday addressed those claims directly. It was all an attempt to distract us, paint Kavanagh as the victim and gin up outrage in the Republican base about their own victimization by liberals.

"Policy differences, ideology and even narrow-minded self-interest cannot explain the deep and growing divide in American politics. Nor can it explain the popularity of Donald Trump in some quarters. The only way to explain or understand these phenomena is to attribute it to a bone-deep cultural resentment that probably does not originate in politics, but that finds its outlet and expression in politics … [Trump] understood when no else did that loyalty to that ideology was an inch deep among the GOP base, and that the true unifying force was resentment."

That is the heart of the GOP’s politics of resentment that got Trump elected and could result in a seat on the Supreme Court for Brett Kavanaugh. When it comes to political polarization, it is the heart of the divide.

David G
09-28-2018, 10:11 AM
It's sad to watch the ongoing, and accelerating, degradation of our Republic. But history teaches us that this is precisely what happens when we allow the wrong sort to amass too much wealth and power. I can't tell if we've reached a tipping point... or have already passed it. I'm hoping... and betting... that it's the former, and that a reversal is still possible.

Please vote. And please get everyone you know to vote. If you have time, please volunteer with organizations getting out the vote.

"When there is an accumulation of money and power into fewer and fewer hands, people with the mentality of gangsters come to the fore. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- Lord Acton <Keep in mind that he's British, and he said this in 1877. This is not the first time the pattern has played out>

Jim Mahan
09-28-2018, 10:28 AM
I'm hoping... and betting... that it's the former, and that a reversal is still possible.

This is almost verbatim what I heard the geology professor say in class in the nineties about global warming. We're busy debating it and truth is that we already passed the point where, if we stop right now, it's still going to have profound and drastic and catastrophic changes, for decades into (not very apparent at all) foreseeable future.

We shoulda nipped it in the bud during and after Ronnie the popular.

CWSmith
09-28-2018, 10:29 AM
I must have missed this part of the questioning. What I saw of Booker late in the day was not impressive. This is good. This changes my opinion of his efforts.



Sen Booker: She was not doing this for political effort in 2012 when she talked to her therapist about this attack. She was not coordinating about this painful experience when she made revelations to her husband. She did not coordinate in 2013, 2017—before you were nominated—that wasn’t coordination.
Kavanaugh: All the witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen. Ms. Keyser is her longtime friend, said she never saw me at a party with or without Dr. Ford.
Sen Booker: —and Ms. Keyser has said clearly, I’ll quote what she said, she said she does not remember the night in question—that supports what you said—but she also said she believes Dr. Ford.
Sen Booker: She is not a political pawn. She is not orchestrating. She is not part of the Clintons’ efforts to get some kind of revenge. She’s a woman who came here with corroborating evidence to tell her truth.

Jim Mahan
09-28-2018, 10:34 AM
Yes, it'd be wonderful if life was as cut 'n dry as a hollywood movie and we all walked around wearing white hats or black hats.

Ipso facto, it would be in our future best interest to just shoot everyone with a gray hat.

We might assuage the second amendment types, morose for having lost the NRA pork festival, and relieve some of their anxiety about when to be a good guy, by turning them loose on the gray hats.

"trmp or no tmrp?"

"trmp"

Blam blam blam.

"Next. trmp or no tmrp?"

"trmp"

Blam blam blam.

"Next. tmrp or not?"

"Not!"

Click.

"Next. trmp or no trmp..."

LeeG
09-28-2018, 10:54 AM
listening to the senators, Cruz -“He may never get to coach again”

Jesus

oznabrag
09-28-2018, 11:09 AM
One of Kavanaugh's high school sports and drinking buddies stepped in it this morning in a live interview with CNN, in which he was trying to be a character witness for Brett K. Amidst the other words, he expressed his concern that "something" clearly "seems to have happened to Crissy Blasé," though he believes Brett that it wasn't him who did it. And he believes that in part because if anything had occurred he'd have heard the story the next day. "You know, we'd have heard "Brett and Mark and a couple of Holten girls got pretty banged up, and one of the girls ran out of the house. ... And those girls we ran with - you didn't trifle with them. You don't trifle with them now, as you just saw; you didn't trifle with them then. They hung together, and if you did something to one of them, they'd pull together. You'd be done."From this we learned that Brett and his crowd "ran with" a social circle of girls which included some from Holten. And that one of them was "Crissy Blasé." Not Dr. Christine Blasé-Ford, the accomplished research psych professor, but "Crissy Blasé." Kav's high school buddy demonstrated live on national TV how "norepinephrine and epinephrine can encode specific details of a memory in the hippocampus" (Dr. Ford's words from yesterday) which will emerge unbidden 35 years later when triggered. And when it was triggered in the interview, it was suddenly clear that Dr. Ford's memory of moving in the same social circle was accurate ... because one of Kav's posse from that time spoke about her in an interview using the familiar name he'd have heard and used when they were both teenagers ... the name encoded into his hippocampus.

I was listening to NPR the other day, and they had a psychiatrist on, talking about the memory problems that victims of trauma experience.

She said that during the trauma the brain is flooded with these 'neuro-chemicals' (my own made-up word, there), that jigger the brain's ability to keep a time line, as well as blacking out random parts of the experience.

This makes it almost impossible for a victim of rape to give consistent testimony, a fact that defense attorney's have been exploiting for eons.

SKIP KILPATRICK
09-28-2018, 11:15 AM
Breaking news!

Photos from Bret Cavanaugh's Beach Week have surfaced.

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/P_hZOelh63R3kOotGvzOGQ6cNRc=/0x0:1280x720/920x613/filters:focal(499x155:703x359)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/61568753/Sixteen_Candles.0.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ8YGv2Dl4kdfow_4KYn0wQjFUZMINep EuhIczVzWzZfykVxfh7


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YqTXAJGoNAE/UdbvpjxmgBI/AAAAAAAAD0E/a4sc1ru1iX0/s1600/Sixteen-Candles-Farmer-Ted-Moments-farmer-ted-2481039-1600-900.jpg

Rum_Pirate
09-28-2018, 11:47 AM
Breaking news!

Photos from Bret Cavanaugh's Beach Week have surfaced.


What about some of Brett Kavanaugh? :rolleyes::D:rolleyes:

TomF
09-28-2018, 12:05 PM
A pithy observation in the editorial by America Magazine, the Jesuit periodical which previously endorsed Kavanaugh's candidacy but now rescinded it:

"There is no presumption of confirmability". A higher standard than applies in courts of law.

LeeG
09-28-2018, 12:19 PM
A pithy observation in the editorial by America Magazine, the Jesuit periodical which previously endorsed Kavanaugh's candidacy but now rescinded it:

"There is no presumption of confirmability". A higher standard than applies in courts of law.
never knew about that journal. It looks worthwhile.

This sentence sticks out:

The hearings and the committee’s deliberations are now also a bellwether of the way the country treats women when their reports of harassment, assault and abuse threaten to derail the careers of powerful men.

SKIP KILPATRICK
09-28-2018, 12:50 PM
What about some of Brett Kavanaugh? :rolleyes::D:rolleyes:


Sorry, I'm new at this! When I'm posting fake-news does the spelling need to be correct?

CWSmith
09-28-2018, 01:08 PM
Sorry, I'm new at this! When I'm posting fake-news does the spelling need to be correct?

:) :)

TomF
09-28-2018, 01:55 PM
Sorry, I'm new at this! When I'm posting fake-news does the spelling need to be correct?Use the President's style sheet.

mmd
09-28-2018, 02:06 PM
Isn't this the same type of evidence that recently convicted Bill Cosby?

Keith Wilson
09-28-2018, 02:13 PM
show of hands. who here would convict Kav based on the information you have at hand right now?One more time: This is not a criminal trial. It's a job interview.

And, also, one more time: The Republicans on the committee are trying as hard as they possibly can to avoid gathering any more evidence. They haven't allowed anyone else to testify, neither the other women who have accused Kavanagh, nor the fellow who Dr. Ford said was was when the assault occurred. They have refused to allow the FBI to gather more information. You'd think they didn't want to know more before the vote. I wonder why? http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

johnw
09-28-2018, 02:14 PM
A pithy observation in the editorial by America Magazine, the Jesuit periodical which previously endorsed Kavanaugh's candidacy but now rescinded it:

"There is no presumption of confirmability". A higher standard than applies in courts of law.

That's a much better way of saying what a lot of us have been saying. Thank you.

Chris Smith porter maine
09-28-2018, 02:18 PM
show of hands. who here would convict Kav based on the information you have at hand right now?

I wouldn't convict him, but based on his temper tantrum yesterday, his display of partisan bias's during his opening yesterday, his filibustering or failure to answer questions in a timely accurate manor, I certainly don't feel he is up for the job, regardless of whether he was a drunken perv or NOT in high school. His performance yesterday was enough to disqualify him for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

Jim Mahan
09-28-2018, 02:30 PM
...his display of partisan bias's during his opening yesterday, his filibustering or failure to answer questions in a timely accurate manor, I certainly don't feel he is up for the job, regardless of whether he was a drunken perv or NOT in high school. His performance yesterday was enough to disqualify him for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

Concur.

If he were in court and in front of a jury for any of this, and I had any money to bet, I'd put most of the kid's farm on a guilty verdict.

[Not to worry; there's no farm, and no kids either.]

Keith Wilson
09-28-2018, 02:32 PM
that's not what i'm asking though. i'm asking who would convict him based on what you know? i suspect several rabid loons in here would. Convict him of what? Perjury? Sexual assault? If I were on a jury, I couldn't convict him on either of those, based on what I know now. Reasonable doubt, and all that. If I had to bet, I'd bet at better than even odds he's guilty of both.

John of Phoenix
09-28-2018, 02:41 PM
show of hands. who here would convict Kav based on the information you have at hand right now?What was Merrick Garland convicted of? Oh, yeah...

johnw
09-28-2018, 02:41 PM
that's not what i'm asking though. i'm asking who would convict him based on what you know? i suspect several rabid loons in here would. but i still find it funny that everyone likes to call this a "job interview". this is WAY past a job interview. what job interview have you ever been to that could have landed you in prison if you fudged something on your resume?

If he ever faced a trial, there would have to be a lot more evidence presented. And so far, no one who is participating in these hearings has suggested that he should go to prison.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think confirming someone to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court so he can stay out of jail is a good idea.

And by the way, most of us haven't done anything worth sending us to prison for, no matter what the job interview. If you think he's done something that puts him in peril of going to prison, do you support him being on the Supreme Court?

John of Phoenix
09-28-2018, 02:46 PM
If he ever faced a trail there would be an actual INVESTIGATION!

C. Ross
09-28-2018, 02:47 PM
that's not what i'm asking though. i'm asking who would convict him based on what you know? i suspect several rabid loons in here would. but i still find it funny that everyone likes to call this a "job interview". this is WAY past a job interview. what job interview have you ever been to that could have landed you in prison if you fudged something on your resume?

I would not convict him based on one witness and one rebuttal. If these alleged events happened yesterday I think the police and local prosecutors should investigate. (Apparently there is not statute of limitations for these crimes in Maryland.)

People have said this is a job interview to distinguish it from a criminal trial. It is the advice and consent of the Senate for the appointment of a Justice to the Supreme Court. Article 2 Section 2 does not put limits in what they may review or what criteria they should apply.

I don't think anyone has ever been imprisoned for "fudging something on their resume" when they have been reviewed by the Senate. Can you think of any such time? I can think of plenty of people who fudged their resumes for such jobs.

I think Dr. Ford's allegations are more serious than "fudging something on a resume".

I have applied for jobs with the state and federal government where I could be prosecuted for providing false information.

I think the American Bar Association got it right. Investigate and inform the Senate.


Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

LeeG
09-28-2018, 03:24 PM
show of hands. who here would convict Kav based on the information you have at hand right now?

For the job of SC Justice if he hadn’t had that melt down I’d follow up with an FBI investigation and release of records from his time working in the GW administration where torture and disinformation were normalized.

But since his hysterical meltdown where he provided flustered and confused responses and challenges to Senator Kobuchar about excessive drinking where there is sufficient information that binge drinking was a favored pastime in highschool and college it reflects a person who has covered it up all his life and hasn’t come to terms with it. His extremely partisan rant about being victimized by Democrats pretty much caps off his unsuitability for the SC and puts a question mark on his ability to judge some cases right now.

wrt convicting him this isn’t the purpose of the hearing so nice try in reframing reality.

Keith Wilson
09-28-2018, 03:26 PM
Well, you're sane Keith. I'm not worried about you (well, except of you being ashamed of your testicles:D)Oh, my personal testicles are fine, thank you very much. It's what other folks who have them do altogether too damn often that bothers me.

Y'know, you could say "To a first approximation, all criminals are men" and it would be pretty close to true.

LeeG
09-28-2018, 03:27 PM
that's not what i'm asking though. i'm asking who would convict him based on what you know? i suspect several rabid loons in here would. but i still find it funny that everyone likes to call this a "job interview". this is WAY past a job interview. what job interview have you ever been to that could have landed you in prison if you fudged something on your resume?

Right, you could also ask whether he makes good lasagna but it really wouldn’t apply.

Rum_Pirate
09-28-2018, 03:28 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rum_Piratehttp://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png
(http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=5684964#post5684964)What about some of Brett Kavanaugh? :rolleyes::D:rolleyes:Sorry, I'm new at this! When I'm posting fake-news does the spelling need to be correct?


No, but you don't need to post fake news on this issue, there is enough already. :D

Rum_Pirate
09-28-2018, 03:30 PM
Sorry, I'm new at this! When I'm posting fake-news does the spelling need to be correct?


show of hands. who here would convict Kav based on the information you have at hand right now?
While I mightn't convict him of whatever, I'd be highly unlikely to appoint him to the Supreme Court based on his presentation yesterday.

johnw
09-28-2018, 03:34 PM
i've already stated i don't care if he gets on it or not. it's no skin off my fetus.
First of all, I don't believe you have a fetus. Second, why are you worried about whether he'll go to prison? He's undergoing a job interview. If, at some point in the future, he is charged with a crime and convicted, it would not be because he fudged his resume. It would be because some criminal act was proven in court. And why would you object to justice being done?

Osborne Russell
09-28-2018, 04:18 PM
that's not what i'm asking though. i'm asking who would convict him based on what you know? i suspect several rabid loons in here would.

I wouldn't. So, there's my answer. Why do you ask? -- if one may ask.

S.V. Airlie
09-28-2018, 04:21 PM
I wouldn't. So, there's my answer. Why do you ask? -- if one may ask.This is not a trial. Only you think it is. He's being interviewed to see if he had the competence, the integrity, the honesty to vote on matters independent on any bias. Well, he strikes out badly.

Osborne Russell
09-28-2018, 04:40 PM
The public reaction over the weekend will determine whether a few Republican senators might break (Murkowski, Collins, Flake, and possibly others).

As for Kavanaugh himself: regardless of his previous testimony and his record as a judge, he destroyed himself... the minute he stated and/or implied that it was all a vast left wing conspiracy, and a result of 'revenge of the Clintons'.

. . . offering no evidence.


Sure, we all know that justices are indeed partisan...

Not me.


I make NO judgment about the veracity of either Ford's claims, or Kavenaugh's denial.

You don't have to. The issue is Kavanaugh's fitness. It's shown by how he handles things. This was a trial, big time -- just not a legal trial. There's lots of kinds trials. Speed trials, trial of metals. Subject something to stress and see what it's made of. "A test of the performance, qualities, or suitability of someone or something." Subject something to stress and see what it's made of.

How would he go about analyzing the issues in a case? Well, how did he go about analyzing the issues in this case?

The committee, likewise. How did the committee go about conducting the trial?

Kavanagh was on trial. The committee was on trial. The majority party was on trial. America was on trial.

It was a trial.

johnw
09-28-2018, 04:53 PM
. . . offering no evidence.



Not me.



You don't have to. The issue is Kavanaugh's fitness. It's shown by how he handles things. This was a trial, big time -- just not a legal trial. There's lots of kinds trials. Speed trials, trial of metals. Subject something to stress and see what it's made of. "A test of the performance, qualities, or suitability of someone or something." Subject something to stress and see what it's made of.

How would he go about analyzing the issues in a case? Well, how did he go about analyzing the issues in this case?

The committee, likewise. How did the committee go about conducting the trial?

Kavanagh was on trial. The committee was on trial. The majority party was on trial. America was on trial.

It was a trial.
Was it a speed trial? Was he fast enough?

The fact that more than one thing is called a trial does not make this a trial.

norseman
09-28-2018, 04:54 PM
Regardless of that accusations etc, from the few minutes that I have listened to of 'his' address at the hearing, I would have serious reservations in appointing him.

Bingo. The guy is aggressive, employs DARVO as most abusers do. The community vouches for him etc, these are arguments for him being a disturbed person. Abusers are Jekyll and Hyde personalities. Abuse occurs behind closed doors. For the people on the outside the man seems spic and span.

S.V. Airlie
09-28-2018, 04:59 PM
Bingo. The guy is aggressive, employs DARVO as most abusers do. The community vouches for him etc, these are arguments for him being a disturbed person. Abusers are Jekyll and Hyde personalities. Abuse occurs behind closed doors. For the people on the outside the man seems spic and span.I've mentioned the Jekyll and Hyde syndrome previously. I agree.

johnw
09-28-2018, 05:00 PM
Bingo. The guy is aggressive, employs DARVO as most abusers do. The community vouches for him etc, these are arguments for him being a disturbed person. Abusers are Jekyll and Hyde personalities. Abuse occurs behind closed doors. For the people on the outside the man seems spic and span.
Hadn't run across that acronym before. Fits.

norseman
09-28-2018, 05:20 PM
Hadn't run across that acronym before. Fits.
Thank You. Apparently it stems from the Hill investigation. Shrink4men is another source. https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html
http://shrink4men.com/2011/01/19/presto-change-o-darvo-deny-attack-and-reverse-victim-and-offender/

Arizona Bay
09-28-2018, 05:22 PM
Hadn't run across that acronym before. Fits.

I hadn't either, but it pretty well describes the workings of the entire Repo bubble world...


https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html

Short Definition of DARVO

DARVO refers to a reaction perpetrators of wrong doing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior. DARVO stands for "Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender." The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim -- or the whistle blower -- into an alleged offender. This occurs, for instance, when an actually guilty perpetrator assumes the role of "falsely accused" and attacks the accuser's credibility and blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation.
Institutional DARVO occurs when the DARVO is committed by an institution (or with institutional complicity) as when police charge rape victims with lying. Institutional DARVO is a pernicious form of institutional betrayal. (http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/institutionalbetrayal/index.html)

Institutional Betrayal

The term "Institutional Betrayal" refers to wrongdoings perpetrated by an institution upon individuals dependent on that institution, including failure to prevent or respond supportively to wrongdoings by individuals (e.g. sexual assault) committed within the context of the institution. The term "Institutional Betrayal" as connected with betrayal trauma theory was introduced in presentations by Freyd in early 2008 (https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/institutionalbetrayal/index.html#introduce) and is discussed in more detail in various publications, including in a section starting on page 201 of Platt, Barton, & Freyd (2009) (https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/articles/pbf09.pdf) and in a 2013 research report (Smith & Freyd, 2013 (https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/articles/sf2013.pdf)). Institutional betrayal is a core focus of the book Blind to Betrayal (https://sites.google.com/site/betrayalbook/), (https://sites.google.com/site/betrayalbook/) by Freyd and Birrell, 2013. Currently the most definitive exploration of institutional betrayal is presented in the American Psychologist (Smith & Freyd, 2014) (https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/articles/sf2014.pdf). Also see Freyd, 2018 (http://www.latimes.com/sns-when-sexual-assault-victims-speak-out-their-institutions-often-betray-them-87050-20180111-story.html).

Hallam
09-28-2018, 08:48 PM
...........drain the swamp?

PeterSibley
09-28-2018, 10:12 PM
https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/42876519_1875705079151844_6577362966348300288_n.jp g?_nc_cat=1&oh=aa0acd5977e5ba7024dadaaf259208dd&oe=5C1E223F

skaraborgcraft
09-29-2018, 02:47 AM
He came aqcross, to me at least, as an a.hole. He played a lot on what he says he has done to empower woman, and the number of woman he has on his staff. Im reminded of Sir Jimmy Saville, who had a lifetime of being surrounded by young children, raised more than 40 million in charity, yet was a serial sex predator but never convicted while alive.
Why this whole debacle was shown live on tv says more about the American way than your so called due-process. I do not expect the FBI to come up with anything, and if they do, why didnt they find it over the last investigations into his background? No one comes out of this looking good. Sad.

skuthorp
09-29-2018, 04:06 AM
Well, Geoff Flake decided not to be one after meeting sexual abuse victims in an elevator.
And the FBI get a guernsey after all….
Who'd a thunk it?

StevenBauer
09-29-2018, 06:28 AM
https://i.imgur.com/rIKj91O.jpg

StevenBauer
09-29-2018, 06:41 AM
This alone disqualifies him from the Supreme Courf, not to mention his current job.




https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/42876519_1875705079151844_6577362966348300288_n.jp g?_nc_cat=1&oh=aa0acd5977e5ba7024dadaaf259208dd&oe=5C1E223F

Duncan Gibbs
09-29-2018, 08:18 AM
This is an instructive exercise in finding flaws and holes:


Washington: As he began his questioning of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh (https://www.smh.com.au/link/follow-20170101-p506j8) on Thursday, Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal asked Kavanaugh about a point of procedure in criminal trials:"As a federal judge, you're aware of the jury instruction falsus in omnibus, are you not?" Blumenthal asked. "You're aware of that jury instruction?"
Kavanaugh said he was, but he deferred to Blumenthal on a direct translation.

"False in one thing, false in everything," Blumenthal replied. "Meaning in jury instructions that we - some of us as prosecutors have heard many times, is - told the jury that they can disbelieve a witness if they find them to be false in one thing."

Blumenthal's point was that the exceptional hearings centred on the credibility of Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, who alleged that she'd been assaulted by Kavanaugh at a house party in 1982 when both were in high school. Over the course of his testimony, though, Kavanaugh offered several answers to questions that stretched or misrepresented the truth.
Here are those responses - and some for which he has incorrectly been accused of having been untruthful - in chronological order:

1. "Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready. This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a Democratic member of this committee, and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn't take me out on the merits . . . This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit . . . "

Kavanaugh here refers to how Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein had received a letter in July detailing Ford's allegation, and that it was released publicly only this month. He implies that the letter was withheld until a politically expedient point as part of a political "hit".

Feinstein has said that she was unable to move forward with the allegation because Ford wanted to remain anonymous. On Thursday, Ford testified that she decided to step forward once the media learnt about the letter. (Feinstein also denied leaking the letter.)

2. "I never attended a gathering like the one Dr Ford describes in her allegation."

The word "like" carries a lot of weight in that sentence, but it's clear from Kavanaugh's later testimony and the personal calendars he submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he attended parties like the one Ford describes - up to the point of the alleged assault. More on this below.

3. "She and I did not travel in the same social circles."

Ford testified that in the spring and summer of 1982 she was going out with Kavanaugh's friend nicknamed "Squi", who appears more than a dozen times on Kavanaugh's calendar of social events.

4. "Dr Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers. Refuted."

Kavanaugh's presentation of what the others have allegedly said about Ford's accusations is misleading.
At various points in his testimony, Kavanaugh said that the two male friends alleged to have been at the party, Mark Judge and PJ Smyth, had sworn under penalty of perjury that the party didn't happen. Both actually said that they didn't recall the party as described, and Judge's statement to that effect didn't carry the weight of sworn testimony. (After Kavanaugh's testimony was complete, he submitted a letter that met that standard.)

At other points, Kavanaugh refers to the fact that the four witnesses that Ford alleges were at the party all rejected her account. One of those four witnesses is Leland Keyser, who told The Washington Post in a brief interview that she believed Ford's allegation, although she didn't remember the party. Another of the four witnesses is Kavanaugh.

5. "The event described by Dr Ford presumably happened on a weekend because I believed everyone worked and had jobs in the summers. And in any event, a drunken early evening event of the kind she describes, presumably happened on a weekend . . . If the party described by Dr Ford happened in the summer of 1982 on a weekend night, my calendar shows all but definitively that I was not there."

Ford never said when the alleged incident occurred. It's also not the case that Kavanaugh's social circle restricted its drinking bouts to weekdays in the summer. Judge, Kavanaugh's friend, wrote in a book about his battle with sobriety that he would often show up to work either hungover or still intoxicated from the night before.

6. "The calendars show a few weekday gatherings at friends' houses after a workout or just to meet up and have some beers. But none of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr Ford has identified. And as my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there; very precise. "

There's one entry, on July 1, that indicates that Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth and the boy Ford says she was going out with were headed to a friend's house for "skis" - acknowledged by Kavanaugh during his testimony as a gathering that involved drinking.

It's hard to judge how detailed the attendee lists presented on Kavanaugh's calendar are, but on multiple occasions he refers to parties in the abstract or to events that he acknowledged included people beyond those mentioned. (An example: when he would go lift weights at a friend's house.)

7. "My friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school, and was 18 in DC for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends."

Kavanaugh is being misleading.
The drinking age in Maryland was 18 when Kavanaugh was a freshman, sophomore and junior in high school - when he was 15, 16 and 17 years old. In the summer of 1982 - on July 1, in fact - it was raised to 21.

At other points in his testimony, he claimed that seniors could drink legally when he was in high school. That was true - until he was a senior.

8. "One of our good female friends who we would admire and went to dances with had her name used on the yearbook page with the term 'alumnus'. That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us. But in this circus, the media's interpreted the term is related to sex. It was not related to sex."

Kavanaugh here is referring to yearbook mentions of a woman named Renate Schroeder Dolphin, who had joined 64 other women in signing a letter of support for his candidacy. She then learnt that Kavanaugh and his friends had referred to themselves as "Renate" alumni in their yearbook, which she recognised as an insinuation that she was promiscuous and had engaged in intimate relationships with each of the boys.

Bolstering Dolphin's perception of the meaning of the term was a poem one of Kavanaugh's classmates included in his yearbook entry: "You need a date / and it's getting late / so don't hesitate / to call Renate." She told The New York Times that the insinuation was "horrible, hurtful and simply untrue."

Kavanaugh's argument that the term was meant to show she was "one of us" is hard to believe - especially since she learnt of it only after news reports chronicled it this month.


cont...

Duncan Gibbs
09-29-2018, 08:22 AM
cont...


Responding to questions

Rachel Mitchell, the Republicans' prosecutor: "Dr Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, PJ Smyth and Leland [Keyser] also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?"

Kavanaugh: "No, as I've said in my opening statement."

In a later set of questions, Mitchell asked a similar question:
Mitchell: "Is there anything [on your calendars] that could even remotely fit what we're talking about, in terms of Dr Ford's allegations?"
Kavanaugh: "No."

The latter response is noteworthy because Mitchell had just asked about the July 1 gathering (which included drinking) that Kavanaugh acknowledged was attended by Judge and Smyth.

Both answers seem to depend on the inclusion of Keyser in the question. In response to an earlier Mitchell question, Kavanaugh said this about her: "I - I know of her. And it - it's possible I, you know, saw - met her in high school at some point at some event. Yes, I know - I know of her and, again, I don't want to rule out having crossed paths with her in high school."

Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: "Judge, have you - I don't know if it's 'boufed' or 'boofed' - how do you pronounce that?"

Kavanaugh: "That refers to flatulence. We were 16."

Whitehouse: "Okay. And so when your friend Mark Judge said the same - put the same thing in his yearbook page back to you, he had the same meaning? It was flatulence?"

Kavanaugh: "I don't know what he did, but that's my recollection."

Whitehouse: "Devil's triangle?"

Kavanaugh: "Drinking game."

Whitehouse is referring to comments in Kavanaugh's yearbook that read, "Judge - have you boofed yet?" and simply "Devil's Triangle".
Some have claimed that this is a clear reference to vomiting, suggesting drunkenness, or perhaps that it refers to a form of alcohol ingestion meant to avoid the smell of alcohol on one's breath. Others have said that "devil's triangle" refers to a sexual encounter involving three people. There is no contemporaneous documentation of those terms available online that would suggest those meanings were Kavanaugh's real intent. (Sites such as Urban Dictionary emerged only in the internet era and may not be instructive about past slang.)

High school slang is often very specific to small groups of people, so it's hard to say that Kavanaugh was misleading here. We'll note, though, that The New York Times' David Enrich says that he spoke with a number of Kavanaugh's former classmates and that he therefore thinks Kavanaugh was not being truthful.

Kavanaugh to Whitehouse: "We in essence were having a party and didn't pay attention to the game even though the game was the excuse we had for getting together.
"I think that's very common. I don't know if you've been to a Super Bowl party for example, Senator, and not paid attention to the game and just hung out with your friends. I don't know if you've done that or not. But that's what we were referring to in those - those two occasions."

Kavanaugh was responding to questions about two other yearbook entries, one reading "Georgetown vs Louisville - Who Won That Game Anyway?" and another reading "Orioles vs Red Sox - Who Won Anyway?" The "party" referred to in the beginning of his response refers to the Georgetown game. The Orioles game is documented on his calendar; he attended it in person with a number of his classmates.
He claims that in both cases his awareness of the victor was impaired not by drunkenness but by distraction. This is a central point that Kavanaugh reiterated repeatedly: he had no issues with drinking to the point of forgetting. If he did have such issues, of course, it would undercut his assertion that he can say with certainty that the alleged attack on Ford did not happen.

So he's left in a position of twice suggesting that he didn't know who won the sports events because he was simply having too much fun with his friends. It's an iffy excuse in the abstract, but in context it's obviously untrue.

Why? Another example:
Whitehouse: "Let's look at, 'Beach Week Ralph Club - Biggest Contributor'. What does the word 'Ralph' mean in that?"
Kavanaugh: "That probably refers to throwing up. I'm known to have a weak stomach and I always have. In fact, the last time I was here, you asked me about having ketchup on spaghetti. I always have had a weak stomach . . . I got a weak stomach, whether it's with beer or with spicy food or anything."

Beach Week was and is known as an event focused on having fun and drinking. Kavanaugh is suggesting that the "Ralph Club" is because he vomited a lot - but that this had more to do with his constitution than his drinking.

Over and over, Kavanaugh dismisses the yearbook entries as being unrelated to his drinking. But he wasn't asked about other entries, including "Keg City Club (Treasurer) - 100 Kegs or Bust." It's hard to think that this is about anything other than beer. So either his yearbook entry is littered with repeated references to drinking, being sick from drinking and forgetting things because of drinking - or each has an innocent explanation that doesn't jibe with the most natural understanding of the term.

Demoract Senator Kamala Harris: "Judge Kavanaugh, have you taken a professionally administered polygraph test, as it relates to this issue?"
Kavanaugh: "Of course, those are not admissible in federal court, but I'll do whatever the committee wants, they're not admissible in federal court because they're not reliable."

Kavanaugh's presentation of the effectiveness of polygraph tests is accurate. But it's worth noting that this hasn't always been his position:
"As the Government notes," he wrote in a 2016 decision, "law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to 'screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defence, and intelligence collection roles.'

"The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes," he summarised.

Washington Post
The guy is SO unfit to be a judge, let alone one on the Supreme Court it's just not funny. He's most likely a rapist, or sexual predator, as alleged by Ford and other women, as well as just as much a liar as Trump.

He will taint any court he presides over, and I could just about every person who comes before him from here on in just about demanding a new presiding judge from whichever authority they can approach.

LeeG
09-29-2018, 08:47 AM
https://i.imgur.com/rIKj91O.jpg

Needs another color for beer.

Another bizarre aspect to this is that a nominee for SC Justice is at minimum expected to be truthful. But the guy in the White House lies nonstop and the GOP enables him.

Now the FBI, which Trump has undermined, is supposed to bring facts to light.

Osborne Russell
09-29-2018, 10:53 AM
Was it a speed trial? Was he fast enough?

The fact that more than one thing is called a trial does not make this a trial.

Very true. Was it a trial?

Jim Mahan
09-29-2018, 10:57 AM
It was an ordeal for some.

Osborne Russell
09-29-2018, 10:57 AM
Thanks for that, Mr. Sibley.

Kav sez he used to drink a lot with guys that drank more. A female senator asks, did you ever black out? Kav sez, did you? He wouldn't have said that to a male Senator cause he's a punk.

Avoid the appearance of impropriety at all times?

S.V. Airlie
09-29-2018, 11:12 AM
Thanks for that, Mr. Sibley.

Kav sez he used to drink a lot with guys that drank more. A female senator asks, did you ever black out? Kav sez, did you? He wouldn't have said that to a male Senator cause he's a punk.

Avoid the appearance of impropriety at all times?Exactly, not only to a woman but, a frigging Senator. That says a lot about his upbringing and dislike for women. Yup, and when a suit comes up dealing with woman's issues, I'm sure how he'll vote.

LeeG
09-29-2018, 11:23 AM
Just maybe the GOP senators will be apalled enough to say no to Cavanaugh. Quite a contrast with Obama’s middle of the road pick with Garland. Leaving what happened 35 yrs ago out of the picture it’s obvious his piles of little lies, blatantly partisan history and presentation make him unacceptable. I don’t think Trump can recognize the values that make Cavanaugh unacceptable. Another chance for the GOPsenators to represent the nations interest and not a sliver of it behind the curtains of the GOP.

Bobcat
09-29-2018, 11:35 AM
Thanks for that, Mr. Sibley.

Kav sez he used to drink a lot with guys that drank more. A female senator asks, did you ever black out? Kav sez, did you? He wouldn't have said that to a male Senator cause he's a punk.

Avoid the appearance of impropriety at all times?

Agreed. My father ended a long career with 15 years on the bench as a trial judge. His comment about this guy would be that lacks judicial temperament.

I would add in spades.

We saw someone who cannot believe that he could lose his, his, seat on the supreme court because of some women.

His attack on the Democrats and claiming the Clintons are to get him renders him unfit in my view

S.V. Airlie
09-29-2018, 11:44 AM
Agreed. My father ended a long career with 15 years on the bench as a trial judge. His comment about this guy would be that lacks judicial temperament.

I would add in spades.

We saw someone who cannot believe that he could lose his, his, seat on the supreme court because of some women.

His attack on the Democrats and claiming the Clintons are to get him renders him unfit in my viewAnother couple of nails in the coffin, Kabvanaugh built for himself. All I can do is agree with 99.9% of what others have said. I haven't heard much from the right, must be off licking their wounds or something.

Osborne Russell
09-29-2018, 12:40 PM
Does "a judge" as in "a judge shall . . ." mean any judge? I know "at all times" means "at all times."

Kavanaugh should be removed from his current job on the basis of his conduct at the interview for the new job. Now that's a job interview with teeth. Not only are you not hired, you're fired!

Canoeyawl
09-29-2018, 12:44 PM
It may come come back to that.
I wonder if there is evidence created there in that debacle to suggest he will be prejudicial in any pending cases? We may see more crocodile tears before this thing is over.

C. Ross
09-29-2018, 12:47 PM
Exactly, not only to a woman but, a frigging Senator. That says a lot about his upbringing and dislike for women. Yup, and when a suit comes up dealing with woman's issues, I'm sure how he'll vote.

And to a female Senator whose father was an alcoholic in the public eye.

It was so egregious that he apologized after the break.

S.V. Airlie
09-29-2018, 12:50 PM
And to a female Senator whose father was an alcoholic in the public eye.

It was so egregious that he apologized after the break.Some things I just don't know, this is one.

Canoeyawl
09-29-2018, 12:52 PM
Kavanaugh has expressed opinions and made legal decisions on detainees and thier "rights".

It now makes some sense why he would object to Chrisene Blasey Ford's accusations that he had done anything at all wrong in "detaining" her.

S.V. Airlie
09-29-2018, 12:56 PM
He voted for not allowing a girl, 17 in an immigration camp an abortion. Roe vs Wade is still the law of the land. Luckily, his ruling was overturned as it should be.

oznabrag
09-29-2018, 01:58 PM
Does "a judge" as in "a judge shall . . ." mean any judge? I know "at all times" means "at all times."

Kavanaugh should be removed from his current job on the basis of his conduct at the interview for the new job. Now that's a job interview with teeth. Not only are you not hired, you're fired!

I think the ABA should disbar that twit.

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

:D

WI-Tom
09-29-2018, 03:18 PM
I think the ABA should disbar that twit.

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

:D

What would really be a hoot is, Trump would still be free to nominate him, and the Republicans could still approve him. You don't even have to be a lawyer, much less a judge, to serve as a SC justice. And I wouldn't put it past them.

Tom

johnw
10-01-2018, 12:33 AM
The FBI investigation is turning out to be a sham.

https://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-gop-limits-kavanaugh-fbi-probe-experts-react-2018-9

Have they no shame?

TomF
10-01-2018, 06:01 AM
Getting ready to nominate him for Attorney General as a consolation prize...

Tom Montgomery
10-01-2018, 08:13 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=291&amp;v=VRJecfRxbr8

S.V. Airlie
10-01-2018, 09:07 AM
Courage in a bottle!