Sen. Leahy Won't Vote for Kavenaugh

Sen. Patrick Leahy has an op-ed in the Washington Post today explaining why he won't vote for Brett Kavenaugh.

Time and again, Kavanaugh appears to have misled the Senate under oath.


Leahy writes:

Just as troubling is that there is still much we do not know. With the rush to confirm Kavanaugh, the Senate has vetted only 7 percent of his White House record. And Republicans are intent on keeping the rest hidden. On Thursday, Republicans repeatedly blocked subpoenas that would have answered these questions. And the White House is withholding an outrageous 102,000 pages of records, the “most significant portion” of which relates to judicial nominations. The chance that these records do not contain evidence relevant to Kavanaugh’s truthfulness under oath? Approximately zero.

Act in haste, repent at leisure.

I still worry that any replacement nominee will be far worse.

< Hurricane Florence Rips the N.C. Banks | Manafort's D.C. Guilty Plea >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Until a GOP Senator goes on record (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 14, 2018 at 11:06:14 AM EST
    as planning to vote against Kavanaugh, there's nothing to see here.

    Seems to me (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 14, 2018 at 07:51:28 PM EST
    This could make it very difficult for the two women.

    More difficult than it was already.


    I think the pressure (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 03:16:38 PM EST
    On these 2 female republicans just got turned up to 11

    The previously annonymous (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 02:03:10 PM EST
    woman who alleges that Brett Kavanaugh (and his friend) assaulted and attempted to rape her when both were high school students, has now come forward.

     Christine Blasey Ford, a professor at Palo Alto University, in California, has said that "civic responsibility began outweighing anguish and terror about retaliation."  Miss Ford said she took a lie detector test, administered by a former FBI agent, in August and that it indicated that she was telling the truth.

    Palo Alto University,a non-profit, private educational institution, was formerly known as the Pacific Graduate School of Psychology (1975-2008). The University offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in the field of psychology, including joint programs with Stanford University.

    Justice Baby Teeth (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 02:05:43 PM EST
    Has a serious problem.  As do Orin Hatch and Chuck Grassley and Mitch.

    Just on today's morning shows (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 02:08:06 PM EST
    I saw a half dozen people say this is not a problem because it's an anonymous allegation.

    Yes, now it will (none / 0) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 02:37:59 PM EST
    be very difficult to sweep it all under the rug. Those 65 women (53 more than Judge Moore got) attesting that Kavanaugh never assaulted them becomes what it always was: irrelevant.  Hope Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer are on this.  And, of course, if Miss Ford coming forward helps any additional women that may possibly have similar stories (Kavanaugh did not get married until 2004, when he was almost 40), he was in the dating game for a while), he will surely be toast, if not already.  

    She took and passed (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 02:43:06 PM EST
    A polygraph.  Will Baby Teeth do the same?

    This is an election year folks.  Is getting this guy who may eventually be impeached on the court worth losing the Senate?

    Decisions decisions


    Hopefully, this won't involve (none / 0) (#14)
    by McBain on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 04:31:02 PM EST
    Gloria Allred.  

    I don't really have a strong opinion about Kavanaugh and the Supreme Court but I do have a problem with an allegation from decades ago coming forward now.  According to this article she didn't tell anyone about it until she was in couples therapy in 2012. It's going to be difficult to prove this did or didn't happen.  


    The burden is on the (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 12:00:06 AM EST
    nominee to prove his good character because in part it is a lifetime appointment.  

    She did raise the issue in 2012.  You find that troubling.  It really is the opposite.  She raised well before these hearings  Thus, it is not an accusation that first occurred during the nomination process.

    And she passed a polygraph administered by an ex FBI agent.   This is not a criminal law proceeding, so a polygraph is an interesting added factor.


    If it didn't happen (none / 0) (#36)
    by McBain on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 08:22:37 AM EST
    how does he prove his good character?

    Truly (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 08:28:17 AM EST
    No man is safe.

    No straight man (none / 0) (#41)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 09:25:45 AM EST
    perhaps. ;)

    Pass a polygraph (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 09:41:03 AM EST
    She took one; will he?

    Irony is (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 09:48:30 AM EST
    He might pass because he may actually not remember it

    Wonder how far his denials will go (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 01:43:20 PM EST
    He was at party but did not assault her;

    He was not at Party;

    He did not know her.

    He may go too far in his denials.


    How accurate are they (none / 0) (#48)
    by McBain on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 11:41:44 AM EST
    for events that took place 36 years ago?

    One of the problems I have with very old accusations is no one is going to remember exactly what happened and exact details are extremely important here.


    SO (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by jmacWA on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 11:51:58 AM EST
    you think that fearing for your life when you were being groped by a boy is something a 15 year old girl is likely to forget?

    OR are you saying she just made it all up?


    She just wants her 15 minutes (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    Of death threats

    Why (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 11:52:26 AM EST
    should the exact details matter at all?

    Why would the exact details be (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 11:57:03 AM EST
    "extremely important"? It seems to me that if what Dr. Blasey says occurred back then is even roughly correct, then it's all the same. Either a sexual assault committed when Kavanaugh was 17 and highly intoxicated -- about which either he lied the other day or somehow he does not recall -- together, of course, with whatever else will now come out about his personal conduct when a young man, is disqualifying for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States, or it isn't. The details of the circumstances of the assault would not seem important to this question.

    Because the difference between (2.00 / 1) (#70)
    by McBain on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 02:30:44 PM EST
    a sexual assault and something else could hinge on a specific detail.  Hard to remember those details from way back in 1982.



    Absolutely true, if this were (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    a criminal trial or a criminal appeal. But it is neither. Whether the behavior at issue technically meets the definition of some particular sexual assault statute or not does not determine whether this guy ought to be confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court (to fill an unfairly stolen seat, let's not forget). For such an appointment, there are no pre-defined qualifications; we all just presume that it requires being shown to be one of those "best people," at least in pertinent respects. Among those characteristics being integrity, a deep appreciation of the equal worth of all other persons, and exceptionally good judgment.

    Pretty sure every SC judge we've ever (none / 0) (#79)
    by McBain on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 03:27:48 PM EST
    had used poor judgment at some point when they were 17.  I'd like to know, specifically, what Kavanaugh did with her that night, if anything. Details would matter very much to me if I was voting.

    The "everyone does it" defense (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 06:39:48 PM EST
    Pretty sure every SC judge we've ever had used poor judgment at some point when they were 17.

    Yeah - because sexually assaulting someone is just "poor judgment".  Like driving over the speed limit or having one-too-many beers.

    No explain anyone should take anything you say seriously.


    How about we elevate and promote (none / 0) (#153)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    The men who didn't need to rape anyone? Those guys have been getting short changed my whole life.

    This is not a criminal trial (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 11:58:51 AM EST
    The statute of limitations would protect men, your concern here, from criminal and civil liability for old accusations.

    But this is a unique case.   We do not have that many Supreme Court nominations.  The polygraph is relevant evidence in this case.


    Doesn't really matter what kind of trial or (none / 0) (#71)
    by McBain on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 02:39:16 PM EST
    vetting process this is in regards to the accuracy of the polygraph in my opinion. If it's reliable then it means something. If it isn't, it doesn't.

    One thing I like, at least so far, about this issue is there hasn't been quite the rush to judgement we normally see with sexual assault allegations.


    I was molested when I was a teenager. (5.00 / 9) (#81)
    by vml68 on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 03:42:03 PM EST
    One of the problems I have with very old accusations is no one is going to remember exactly what happened and exact details are extremely important here.

    30 years have gone by but I remember exactly what was done to me and how I felt. Trust me, the feelings of violation, humiliation, anger, powerlessness, fear, etc., are not ones that are forgotten, no matter how much time goes by.
    I don't remember exact details like what the fu@ker was wearing or the kind of furniture in the room or the day/date. According to you since I don't remember the "exact details", I am not to be believed.
    I am pretty sure Jeralyn would ban me if I wrote exactly what I think of you and your comment.


    is something that most people would do pretty well.

    I know I still remember the details, name, occupation, etc., of the dude that sexually assaulted me when I was in 6th grade. And that was over 40 years ago...


    Details (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by yerioy on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 06:22:16 PM EST
    I was seven years old and molested in a park. I remember exactly what he did, but could not identify him even then.

    This guy drove the ice cream truck (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 03:37:38 PM EST
    at our local pool. Every kid in the area could identify him, and probably most of their parents, too.

    For me, it was my music teacher. (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by vml68 on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 07:09:15 PM EST
    Private lessons in his home. His wife was always in the house. I used to silently will her to come into the room so she could see what was happening but she never ever entered the room. I always wondered if she knew what was going on.

    I was 14 and he was in his 50s-60s at the time. So, he is most likely dead.
    I spent many years fantasizing about the numerous violent ways in which I would exact my revenge. Now, I only vaguely remember his face and I no longer remember his name.


    was ongoing, which makes it even more horrible. My heart goes out to you.

    Alexandra Petri (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by leap on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 08:18:55 PM EST
    has something to say about verbs conjugated by gender.

    That's (none / 0) (#29)
    by Towanda on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 05:59:11 AM EST
    Dr. Blasey.

    (She earned a Ph.D. She uses, as msny stories state, her maiden nsme professionally.

    (And when you use her maiden name, why use "Miss"?)


    Cx (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Towanda on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 06:01:00 AM EST
    When you use her married name, wh use Miss?

    Thanks, Towanda. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 12:05:09 PM EST
    I did not know for sure at the time of my writing that she held a PhD degree, although I thought that was the case, since she was reported as being a professor--but i did not confirm for the comment.

     The University's faculty directory lists Dr. Blasey as a (full) professor, so an appropriate salutation might also be "professor."  Although, probably used more in academic circles. But, say, a letter could appropriately be addresses to her as "Dear Professor."

    Dr. Blasey's credentials are quite impressive (of course, all the more for Republican trolls to attack).

     She completed her undergraduate studies at U. North Carolina, received a Master's in psychology at Pepperdine, a Master's in education at Stanford, and a PhD in educational psychology from U.S.C. Her research interests appear to have traversed the spectrum of her field, including experimental design and statistical analysis.  Her body of work suggests scholarly observations of scars from abuse.

    Thanks, too, for pointing out to me the use of honorifics. My usage is probably a Southern thing---meant to be endearing, not disrespectful. Never-the-less, in need of serious updating.

    The NY Times, in its reporting is using its customary style (unless informed otherwise) of Ms, for single or married-- For example, Ms. Ford and her husband, Russell.  


    All goid. And yes, the New York Times (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Towanda on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 03:39:05 PM EST
    and thus most media refuse to recognize a Ph.D. as deserving of Dr., despite the Times' unusual usage of other titles. been interesting explorations into the history of that ardent anti-intellectualism. But, of course, those probably were done by academics in communication, so they can be discounted.

    And, yes, usage of Prof. is a fallback, when it is not known if someone earned the Ph.D. It is more useful in conversation, though, as some consider its usage in, say, written salutatios in letters to be incorrect. (I consider them a bit too traditional.)

    And, yes, full prof is an achievement, as well I know. (It took three books for me, which means decades, because at my Research 1  institution, books are required in history -- and historical research worthy of peer review and publication takes a long time. The sciences and professions are fine with articles, and even multiply authored articles. But they get the big bucks in grants, so campuses cater to them.)

    And, yes, that she is affiliated with Stanford, too, is impressive. As it happens, I have a sister-in-law on faculy at Stanford in psycholgy, so I hope for an informative email for family soon.


    Wow I just heard (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 03:24:22 PM EST
    What is currently the republican "plan".  It's three parts.

    1. It was a long time ago. Ok.

    2. Her recollection of other things the day of the attack is not clear so why should we think this is.  (Which is a great point.  Why should she remember being assaulted)

    3. Her story has discrepancies with the therapist notes.  McBain would have been all over this one.  She has explained it as the therapist note taking or understanding at the time.  Namely she said there was four boys at the party not that all four attacked her.

    Baby Teeth has a VERY serious problem.

    Trump stands by Kavanaugh (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 03:58:00 PM EST
    That will definitely boost his credibility

    You know, Cap'n, most of us here at TL ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 07:42:13 PM EST
    ... are old enough to remember when the Reagan administration felt compelled to withdraw the SCOTUS nomination of U.S. Appellate Court Judge Douglas Ginsberg, merely upon the revelation that His Honor once admitted to smoking weed.

    How oddly quaint and innocent those times were in sharp contrast to the present, when lying under oath, being in possession of stolen correspondence, and allegations of sexual battery / attempted rape appear to be no serious impediment to a Republican who seeks a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary.

    (Sigh!) Where's my bong?


    Judge Douglas Ginsburg (none / 0) (#22)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 10:03:37 PM EST
    (note spelling) withdrew from consideration for elevation to the Supreme Court after it was disclosed that he smoked weed with students while teaching at Harvard. I think it was the element of bad judgment that this displayed, not the use of marijuana itself, that did him in.

    Thank you for the correction. (4.50 / 2) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 11:03:25 PM EST
    That said, my comparison of the respective eras is still valid, and it still stands. These are not normal times, and we need to stop pretending that the old norms somehow still apply, because they clearly don't.

    I mean, just look at the standards for judicial disqualification back in 1987-88 versus what they apparently are thirty years hence. The mere implication of a nominee's liberal or Democratic leanings is grounds for summary dismissal, while being a total partisan stooge who's willing to stoop to any base level in order to "own the libs" is celebrated by white GOP wingbats and the Trump White House as the ultimate in personal integrity.

    We are being subjected to scorched earth political warfare by fascists and white supremacists. And the sooner we recognize that, drop any further pretensions of comity and civility and start fighting fire with fire, the better our country's chances will be for surviving this crisis with our democratic institutions still relatively intact. Even if they are a little banged up, and in need of some diligent rehabilitation and tender loving care.

    Yeah, this is going to get ugly -- very ugly. Those who are squeamish and faint of heart can move to the rear and get out of the way. Now is the time for warriors, not courtiers.



    I hear Kavenaugh (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by CST on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 11:52:57 AM EST
    Put together a list of rather interesting questions to ask Bill Clinton.

    Maybe the Judiciary Committee could start there.

    I think he might withdraw (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    I think keeping his current job is starting to be a question

    Yup, he's lawyered up (none / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 12:26:03 PM EST
    With someone Jeralyn knows.

    Stick a fork (none / 0) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 12:34:24 PM EST
    in him.  He is done.

    At least, that would be the best outcome; having a wounded animal on the court for possibly the next 30 years would be dangerous.

     Clarence Thomas has seemed to have been pouting for the past 27 years.   While other reasons have been given, I have always been curious as to whether being embittered by the confirmation process played into his never asking questions.


    Robert Costa (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 03:11:15 PM EST
    Just said if the votes are not there by the end of today he will likely be withdrawn.

    I was "out of pocket" all weekend, (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 05:36:04 PM EST
    so just getting caught up on this now.
    Katz described Ford's recollection of the incident in stark terms, going as far as saying her client considered it an attempted rape.

    "She believes that but for his inebriation and his inability to take her clothes off, he would have raped her," Katz said.

    Ford said to The Washington Post, "I thought he might inadvertently kill me. He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing."

    If she had said he groped her while drunk without her permission, I think that could have been enough to lose him the nomination.

    But actual attempeted forcible rape and maybe involuntary murder?

    That may have gone a bit too far.

    We shall see.

    And more... (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 06:02:51 PM EST
    Kavanaugh's classmate [Judge] said of the woman's allegation, "I have no recollection of that."

    The Kavanaugh classmate quoted in the New Yorker is Mark Judge, a writer in Washington, D.C. Judge spoke to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Friday afternoon, strongly denying that any such incident ever occurred. "It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way," Judge told TWS.

    In this kind of he said she said situation, how could you possibly name a witness w/o knowing beforehand whether that witness would support your story?


    I don't think she expected (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 06:23:09 PM EST
    To be in this situation.  She never planned to, and in fact fought all summer to not, come forward.

    Also if you read upthread this guy is hardly a reliable witness.

    But I heard a prosecutor say today if this guy was subpoenaed to testify under oath and risk of perjury his memory might improve.


    comments above. Shedding some more light.

    It's a good thing irony is dead (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 06:32:32 PM EST
    We have a guy accused of assault by 17 women nominating a guy accused by one (so far) to be in a position to make decisions that will effect every woman in the country.

    And btw
    Kavanaugh might well be brought down by sexual misconduct far worse than he was unable to nail Clinton for no matter how hard he tried.

    I miss irony.

    Bill and Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 07:29:25 PM EST
    must be eating karma for breakfast these days.

    Other voices (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 11:19:06 AM EST
    In an alleged letter from King circulating on social media, the purported former classmate insisted that the sexual assault incident happened.

    "This incident did happen," the letter said. "Many of us did hear about it in school and Christine's recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true."

    I don't think this can be ignored

    Source link? (none / 0) (#136)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 11:43:07 AM EST
    Raw Story (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 11:50:08 AM EST
    She says (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 11:51:59 AM EST
    She (understandably) might want to "come forward"

    She could still be interviewed by investigators


    Sorry (none / 0) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 11:57:08 AM EST
    Might NOT want to

    Mahalo. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 02:09:02 PM EST
    I guess Tr*mp's babysitter must have finally (5.00 / 5) (#201)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 21, 2018 at 11:55:54 AM EST
    crashed out of sheer exhaustion, 'cos the Tangerine Turd has his phone back in his tiny little paws.
    Trump unleashes on Kavanaugh accuser

    Why is it some people have difficulty believing a woman if she comes forward with allegations of sexual abuse after 30 years but don't have as much of a problem believing men when they come forward 30 years later with accusations against priests?
    I am not suggesting the men should not be believed, just wondering at the difference in treatment.

    Please God (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 21, 2018 at 11:58:37 AM EST
    Let reliving the Anita Hill horror be the final nail in Biden's political coffin.

    I cant believe some of the stuff coming out if his pie hole about that episode.

    I'm starting to think (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 21, 2018 at 12:26:08 PM EST
    The Dr should blow them off and do 60 minutes.  With possibly others supporting her.

    SUO, I can't imagine what Dr Ford has to gain. (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 21, 2018 at 01:01:05 PM EST
    Her life has been turned upside down. She and her family are in hiding. No matter how this ends, whether Kavanaugh is confirmed or not, her life is never going to be the same.
    If I were her, I'd probably spend the rest of my life wondering if some lunatic with a gun is going to come after me or my family.

    If what I have read is true, that she has had exits to the outside installed in most of the rooms of her house, this is a woman who is still haunted by her past and is fearful of not being able to escape a horrible situation. I am really not seeing the upside for her personally.

    Is there really anything to personally gain (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by CST on Fri Sep 21, 2018 at 01:17:25 PM EST
    By replacing one republican on the court with another republican on the court?

    Don't get me wrong, if the Republicans somehow find a way to come out of this whole mess without confirming anyone before the midterms I'll be the first to stand up and cheer that result, but it doesn't seem likely even if Kavenaugh isn't the one who gets there.

    I guess you could make the case that it hurts Republicans in the midterms but that seems like a pretty vague/non-specific/non-personal "reward" for something that has the potential to be this life-altering.  I do think that accusations against politicians are more likely to be refuted because of the potential political implications.  The problem with that of course is the question of whether you think politicians are less likely to actually be guilty than the general public - frankly I think the opposite is more likely to be true just because of the nature of power.

    I suggest we move Kavanaugh (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 21, 2018 at 01:57:56 PM EST
    Into a thread that not full.


    Leap, yes I did. And, everything he said (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 21, 2018 at 03:13:56 PM EST
    resonated with me. The first person I spoke to about my experience was a guy I was dating when I was 19. Everytime, he got close to me I would push him away. He was patient for a while because he thought it was due to my cultural upbringing. One day, he finally snapped because he thought I was sending mixed signals and asked me why I was so repulsed by him. I did not want to talk about what had happened to me but I did not want him to think it was about him either.

    I told my dad about it a couple of years later and I told my mom about it just 5 years ago.

    Also, as Charles Blow said, you get on with life and for some of us we have good lives. There may not be any scars showing on the outside but it is always with you/inside you, somewhere at the back of your mind.

    in this case, and certainly the people who back her, have something to gain.

    accusations against Kavanaugh do not equal accusations against priests.

    Gee it must be true (1.25 / 8) (#15)
    by SomewhatChunky on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 04:37:19 PM EST
    This is a criminal defense site.  We all know that 40 year old allegations by people who were 15 year old girls at the time must be true.    Forget any presumption of innocence - any prosecutor would love this slam-dunk case!  She can't remember what year or what house.   Seems to recall people were drinking, in bedrooms, stuff like that.  We all know multiple teenagers recalling the same event have never had different stories about what may have happened under such circumstances.  Doesn't matter.  Must be true.  Not even clear if it ever happened or who was there.   Let's be real - if you were a parent this would be tough to sort out the next day, let alone decades later.  

    Want to bet which side of the political spectrum Ms Ford is on?   But I'll guess nothing matters if you don't like Kavanaugh.

    Let's investigate!  We must!  The public needs to know the truth!  Let's just have the FBI whip out their time machine, go back 40 years, use some super duper eavesdropping machine they must have and tell us what happened.  Perhaps they can interview everyone who was there if they can figure where "there" is and "when" it was.   I often can't even remember many of my former high school friends at my reunions when I know they will be there, but that's probably just me.  I'm sure everyone involved will have total recall as we all do about all of our teenage parties.

    If this is the new standard for hearings, watch out.  You'll always be able to find somebody to "recall" something that can't be refuted that "disqualifies" them from the job.  Both sides will use this tactic.  It stinks.

    You want to know why Trump won despite being a known (fill in the blank - lots of choices)?  Stuff like this is it.  Feinstein's sitting on this the way she did makes her and the democrats look awful. Character assassination does not play well.   Maybe hardcore political types are all for it.  Most people I know are not.   This is not good strategy.

    This is not a court (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 04:45:27 PM EST
    And this is not a criminal case.

    Wa wa wa !!!!

    For the record Chunky I have seen no one say any of the hysterical nonsense you said.

    They are saying this is a credible allegation against a man about to be appointed FOR THE REST IF HIS LIFE to the most powerful court in the land.

    This needs to be delayed.  I think the woman has a right to be heard if she wants.  If the republicans agree with you and don't do this the Senate is ours.

    DiFi did exactly what she was asked to do by the woman who has praised her for the way she did it.


    Someone known to drink to excess (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 10:13:56 PM EST
    at his Catholic boys' prep school -- and to have treated young women badly when drunk -- is highly likely, in my opinion, to have continued doing so while an undergraduate at Yale. In fact, from what I know of undergraduate life among the preppies at Yale (observed from the perspective of a grad student there, not from inside), I think there is a very high probability of similar stories now coming out that are (at least a little) more recent.

    His wing man (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 07:49:34 AM EST
    Who has denied it is also reported to have written a book about, among other things, his life during this very period as a blackout drunk.

    WASTED (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 08:15:58 AM EST
    Did you find the part (none / 0) (#37)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 08:22:59 AM EST
    of his old friend Mark's book that talks about the author's high school buddy "Bart O'Kavanaugh"?

    The (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 08:31:09 AM EST
    A prosecutor just said (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 03:26:31 PM EST
    If there is more testimony he could very well be called.

    He was the only witness.

    Oh man.


    A speech given (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 04:53:21 PM EST
    by Kavanaugh at Yale, after becoming an Appellate Court Judge. Topic: Binge Drinking

    Until I followed your link, I had made (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 08:38:54 PM EST
    a totally erroneous assumption about this "speech at Yale." The story does not recount how Judge Kavanaugh returned to his undergraduate haunts to warn the kids against the dangers of binge drinking. NO. It quotes extensively from a talk he gave in 2014 at the law school to a Federalist Society meeting, recounting as an amusing tale anecdotes of his own excessive drinking while a law student. I have to say I had assumed he had given up his excessive drinking by the time he finished college. Not so, by his own account.

    Taking this line of thinking one more step (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 10:41:47 PM EST
    If Kavanaugh drank too much in high school, and drank to get drunk (not "socially") while in law school, then he was undoubtedly also drinking heavily while in college. That tells me that there are probably a dozen women who were undergrads at Yale at the time (or some other, nearby college) who would have a similar tale to tell, if they dared. Indeed, my wife (who graduated from Yale Law School some years before Kavanaugh, and is 1/4 Irish Catholic) believes that someone like this (Irish-American graduate of an all-male Catholic prep school, Yale College grad, and on to YLS) was probably dating undergrads while at the law school. Some of whom, she suspects, could also be potential witnesses. It is rather likely, if he kept drinking (as he says he did), that his conduct while drunk would be a pattern, not a one-off.

    Here is a story about Kavanaugh at kollege (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 06:51:38 PM EST
    that tends to confirm my suspicions.

    People are doxxing Christine Blasey Ford ... (4.83 / 6) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 11:30:35 PM EST
    ... and have been publishing her home address and phone number online.

    This is exactly why women often refuse to come forward in general in this sort of situation, and why women are really, REALLY reluctant to go public when it involves high-ranking nominees or officials.

    If you see this sort of thing happening online at the sites you peruse, please object and report it to the controlling online authority.

    As it stands, Wingbats are already characterizing Ms. Ford as vindictive, manipulative and opportunistic.

    But the way I see it, Ms. Ford has stepped forth from the shadows of anonymity to warn us against seating an morally repugnant and ethically corrupt nominee on the U.S. Supreme Court. There's no upside or benefit for her, she knows that she's probably going to be destroyed personally for the effort and yet, she's doing it anyway.

    That's patriotism.


    As Towanda pointed out (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 07:36:22 AM EST
    It's Dr. Blasey, not "Ms. Ford."

    No criminal defense (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 05:27:18 PM EST
    involved.  The process is the exercise of a provision of the US Constitution (Art II, Sect.2, Clause 2)for the "advice and consent" of the US senate to the presidential nomination for a life-time appointment to the Supreme Court.

     A political body, the US Senate, whose composition does not require a legal background, is to advise and consent, in keeping with the concept to moderate the power of one branch of government by requiring the concurrence of the other.

     Neither the chair nor the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee are attorneys, criminal or other. Kavanaugh can be rejected for reasons such for those of nominees, Clement Haynsworth, G. Harrold Carswell, Bork and Abe Fortas.

    Senator Feinstein is faulted for "sitting on" the information, yet she is criticized for making it known, albeit as late as she was able. Incongruence anyone?

    As a background check and as a piece of the determinant in decision-making on Kavanaugh, an allegation, even one of 30 years ago, needs to be examined, particularly, when the allegation involves a crime of assault and attempted rape. Kavanaugh's truthfulness has been an issue during this and his earlier confirmation hearings.  He hs denied, unequivocally, this allegation while it was anonymous. Need to check this one out, now that the Miss Ford has come forward.


    As a possible indicator of how serious (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 10:49:22 PM EST
    the described conduct is, consider that if a 17-year-old did the same in Maryland today, he could be adjudicated delinquent for it (sexual offense in the third degree, it looks like) and in addition to the punishment, would be required to be listed on a "juvenile sex offenders registry."

    She passed a polygraph (none / 0) (#28)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 12:01:57 AM EST
    First question I have is why (1.25 / 4) (#198)
    by ragebot on Fri Sep 21, 2018 at 12:28:26 AM EST
    DiFi has refused to share the unredacted letter from Ford with the Republicans on the committee.

    Next question is why Ford's lawyers are demanding that Kavenaugh has to testify before Ford does.

    As the Red Queen said first the verdict and then the charges; or something like that.

    Your answers: (5.00 / 6) (#199)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 21, 2018 at 04:23:55 AM EST
    First off, your use of "DiFi" is disrespectful for a woman of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's age and stature and coming from you, it's likely meant as a term of diminution. You want people to respect you, then you need to first offer it yourself.

    Now, regarding Senator Feinstein's refusal to give her Republican colleagues Dr. Blasey Ford's letter in unredacted form, the portions that were redacted are clearly in reference to both the writer (name and location) and a witness to the alleged assault, which some have concluded is Mark Judge. (Apparently, Mr. Judge concurs online.)

    While Dr. Blasey Ford has since identified herself as the author, the alleged witness has not done so -- at least, not formally. So, unless and until that person waives his or her own right to privacy, standard operative procedure is to redact the name before disseminating the document in public.

    Further, given that everyone already pretty much knows who all these people are, the current GOP argument over not receiving an unredacted version is a red herring and a distraction from the letter's actual contents, as far as I'm concerned.

    With regards to Dr. Blasey Ford's demand that Judge Kavanaugh's testimony precedes her own, this is part of the current negotiations over securing her presence next week. Sen. Grassley's initial indication was that both Mr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey Ford were to be seated side by side at the same table, which is clearly and understandably unacceptable, and likely unfair to Mr. Kavanaugh as well.

    This is undoubtedly going to be a very uncomfortable experience for both individuals. Why make it excruciatingly painful, as well? As to who goes first, I have no particular preference, one way or the other. But suffice to say that the American people do deserve to hear from the both of them at this point.

    Finally, given that current evidence which recently came to light during these proceedings very strongly suggests that Judge Kavanaugh gave false and misleading testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee at multiple points back in 2004 and 2006 in order to secure his present position as an appellate jurist on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, what makes you believe he won't also do it again in this particular instance?

    (Or is lying to Congress while under oath now an acceptable standard for you and other conservatives regarding candidates for our federal judiciary, as long as you all get to "own the libs"?)

    Surely, there are other honest conservative judges who aren't political operatives, and who haven't committed perjury when discussing their past activities. Forget this clown, and look for one of them instead.

    As an admitted liberal, I have no right to expect that members of the judiciary reflect my own political beliefs and orientation, and it would be unfair of me to demand it. I don't have to agree with everything a nominee believes.

    But that said, I do expect honesty and forthrightness from nominees in their testimony under oath before the U.S. Senate, and I do expect integrity, balance and due diligence in the performance of their official duties.

    And sad to say, judging by what I've seen in the public record, we haven't gotten any of that from Brett Kavanaugh over the course of the past two decades. So again, as far as I'm concerned, I believes that he's forfeited his right to any further consideration.

    And if Judge Kavanaugh had any personal sense of honor and decency left in him, he'd withdraw his name from nomination, rather than subject his fellow citizens any further to this monstrous right-wing mockery of a selection process.



    With 60 women signing a letter (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 14, 2018 at 12:55:46 PM EST
    Save Bretts bacon?

    It might.   But you know what? It might not.

    Brett's bacon (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 14, 2018 at 02:50:59 PM EST
    is in need of saving.  Senator Feinstein has been criticized for sitting on the letter from the woman, apparently to honor her wish for privacy---not an unfounded worry given that the Republicans are barracudas, especially when the stakes and investment in Brett is so great. A guy groomed by the Federalist Society since law school needs defending.

    However, the information is relevant to a background check; certainly, if there was an allegation of any serious crime, even 30 years ago, it would be fitting to examine the circumstances. The public should know.

    Feinstein's late arriving information is being criticized as 11th hour desperation, but it may well be more effective at this point, standing apart from, but still a part of, the eclipsed record of Kavanaugh.

     Grassley gets an A+ for providing a list of 65 women who were then high school students at nearby schools (Brett went to an all boys school) within 48 hours. Going back 30 years to round up all these women did not seem that difficult for him.

     But, he gets an F- for his helping hand to Kavanaugh. They would have been better off just denying it, as Brett did. But,  having this list ready to go is curious, at best. And, creates doubt where none may have previously existed. Almost as if they knew about it, and saw it coming.

    They still, at this point, have the votes. Any other president would have withdrawn Brett's nomination by this time.  It is not as if Republicans are only one deep in right wing judges; surely there is a suitable alternative without the creepiness.  


    I was thinking (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 09:02:20 AM EST
    Seems to me this list and the way it was instantly produced might end suggesting they knew about this and were taking steps to deal with it when it came up.

    I wouldn't want to find 65 women who knew me as a teenager let alone ones who would only say glowing things about me.

    And I didn't go to an all boys school.


    They did know. It was in the file (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 09:29:20 AM EST
    provided to all the Senators, and had been forwarded to the White House handlers' team. But because the accuser at that time was trying to remain anonymous, DiFi couldn't use it, and therefore it was not made part of the public hearing record. As I understand the situation.

    Perhaps I am wrong (none / 0) (#45)
    by jmacWA on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 10:43:06 AM EST
    Peter, I understood it to be that once DiFi gave the letter to the FBI it went to all the Senators

    That is what I (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 10:45:57 AM EST
    Understood the story to be.  Hence my point.

    According to Politico (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 11:43:04 AM EST
    Only 2 women will now answer the phone and admit to continuing to support Kavanaugh. Others pulled their support when contacted by Politico.

    And Dr. Ford now has a letter of support signed by women she went to high school with that claims they had similar experiences.


    More accusers? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 02:07:32 PM EST
    That would make sense.

    One of the 65 women (none / 0) (#58)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 12:09:44 PM EST
    attesting that Brett did not assault them as teenagers was Virginia Hume, daughter of Fox's Brett Hume.  That engenders confidence, of course.

    I saw one say she had known him (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 12:16:16 PM EST
    For a decade.

    Terrific.  This was 3 decades ago


    Jon Cooper tweeted (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 12:19:58 PM EST
    That Kavanaugh's high school buddy Mark Judge has spent years online refuting his own rape allegations.

    I read that Mark Judge (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 12:22:28 PM EST
    Had deleted much of his online social stuff.

    Brett Kavanaugh is done.


    I agree (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 12:29:45 PM EST
    Uh Oh (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 01:17:16 PM EST
    Rumors that the Kavanaugh support letter was prepared to address a "clerkship" accusation they thought was coming.

    The GOP was waaaaay too quiet once they dropped their letter and the accuser was named. I thought that was shock coming off them, wasn't sure.


    If he's done (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    We probably owe Al Franken a lot. We all do know the difference between a dumb sexualized photo and actual physical sexual assault.

    I know losing Franken chapped a bunch of folks, but a precedent was set, one that Al did willingly after discussion with his peers. He probably saved us from Kavanaugh. I know there other names in the hopper, but the Republicans have to start over again and jamming someone through may lose them the Senate, especially after the first jam through has become this


    They're going to fight for Kavanaugh (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 02:13:57 PM EST

    Diabolically clever (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 03:47:11 PM EST
    Kavanaugh is apparently setting up a mistaken identity defense. That way his allies won't have to attack Dr. Ford as making it all up.

    Seriously? Dr. Blasey says (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 05:01:16 PM EST
    there were only a handful of kids at the house; doesn't she say four boys (and perhaps a similar number of girls)? She named two of them, the perp and the buddy who was present in the room. Clearly, she knew all four quite well. It doesn't seem particularly believable to me that she would have mixed up which one it was who grabbed her as she was heading for (or coming out of, I'm not clear which) the bathroom, threw her on a bed, lay his football-player body on top of her, and pawed at her clothes and the bathing suit she was wearing underneath. This is not about a stranger who jumped her in an alley or from behind a bush in the park.

    Good point (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 09:31:03 PM EST
    One would typically remember who it was that assaulted them, especially if they knew them from before.

    And more so, if it was a small party of known friends or acquaintances.

    My point was that Kavanaugh was coming forward with more than a standard denial, but a denial with wiggle room.  He is very smart. Doesn't mean I believe him.   Very slippery is my take.


    Doh! Ewwww (none / 0) (#100)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 12:16:08 AM EST
    It has permeates what wasn't flashflooded. Seems to be the defense.

    I heard Kavanaugh (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 02:58:10 PM EST
    Had been at the white house all day and "McGhan wants him to fight"

    Which didn't sound like Kavanaugh was all in for a fight.

    I say go for it Mitch.


    Me too. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 03:17:25 PM EST
    Go for it Mitch. We can have this dicussion and have Kavanaugh take a lie detector test and all. Let everybody testify and go from there.

    It so hard for me to (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 03:21:22 PM EST
    Imagine a testimony circus.  Which is what it would be.  I think Mitch is smart enough to know there is no way they win that.

    In another comment I said Robert Costa just said if he doesn't have to votes by the end of day today he will be withdrawn.

    That seems likely to me but who knows.  Clearly republicans are detached from reality.


    There WILL be a public hearing (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 04:54:09 PM EST
    With both of them.

    Oh boy


    And Mark Judge? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 05:02:07 PM EST
    Or did she mistakenly identify him too?

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 03:22:26 PM EST
    Kavanaugh would know best on whether to fight.  McGhan has been shown the door, but wants to cap his White House tenure by bagging another extremist right winger for the top court.  

    Trump, for his part, does not, I am sure, know what all the fuss is about.  Certainly nothing that %130,000 couldn't ordinarily fix. Better call Roy Cohen...what is it you are saying, not available?

    And, then there is "fighting".  Kavanaugh has already denied it, so the fight means to attack Professor Blasley. The trolls are already out in force. Maybe some of the golden oldies will work for Kavanaugh...how about the one about a sex ring in the basement of a pizza parlor...you know the place without a basement---- and a sex ring.


    Lindsey Graham (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 04:10:32 PM EST
    Has issued a statement basically inviting her to testify.  

    Said the spider to the fly.

    Dust (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by FlJoe on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 05:01:47 PM EST
    off the old Anita Hill playbook, it worked before. Maybe he should call up his buddy Biden for some coaching.

    I hope she takes him up on it (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 05:10:55 PM EST
    They she can run for congress in 20.

    (Chunky just had an aneurysm)


    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 08:03:42 AM EST
    she called his bet,
    Debra Katz, the lawyer for a woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, said Monday that her client would be willing to testify in public to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
    It's getting worse by the minute for the GOP. Holding the vote without hearing from her would be a disaster.

    It really is (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 08:17:43 AM EST
    And it really would

    Heading from her could be a pretty big disaster as well


    God (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 10:49:17 AM EST
    To be a fly on the wall when these guys discuss the possibility of Cruz, Grassley and Hatch interrogating an alleged assault victim in front of millions 56 days before an election where they were already fu@ked.

    No republican women on that committee.


    Jeff Flake (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 16, 2018 at 06:16:29 PM EST
    Finally makes a difference.

    Calls for a delay.

    Meh. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 06:02:07 PM EST
    Flake is the only one (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 06:24:41 PM EST
    Who spoke up who could have stopped it being voted out of committee.

    It was important


    But will he vote AGAINST Kavanaugh? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 09:00:09 PM EST
    That remains to be seen. But were I a betting man, my money would be on Kavanaugh getting Flake's vote. As my grandmother used to say, the guy is all meringue and no filling.



    I guess (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 09:27:20 AM EST
    I was thinking that Flake might be the one to save the GOP from a potentially disastrous up or down vote on Kavanaugh by not voting him out of committee.

    Clearly exit ramps are being explored.  Flake is not running.


    I hope so. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 10:12:34 AM EST
    I've just learned through experience to not depend upon Jeff Flake making any real difference. To be sure, he can be quite compelling when talks the talk, which is why the media loves him for good copy. But when it comes to his actions on the Senate floor, well, he's always been a reliable Republican vote.

    It seems (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 11:55:46 AM EST
    You were entirely correct

    That's too bad. (none / 0) (#142)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 02:07:36 PM EST
    CaptHowdy: "It seems you were entirely correct."

    One would've hoped that for all his blathering, Jeff Flake might finally show some gumption during his last few months in the Senate that would finally match his rhetoric.

    Good riddance to a right-wing tumbleweed.


    Senator Kennedy (R. LA), (none / 0) (#85)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 17, 2018 at 05:00:26 PM EST
    asks Kavanaugh about what he was like in high school, things that happened over 30 years ago. Kennedy asked if Kavanaugh ever got into trouble. No direct answer, just that he was an athlete at the Jesuit school and still uses their facilities for exercise.

    Dr Ford speaks (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 07:02:04 PM EST
    CNN is reporting she wants an FBI investigation before she testifies

    Ba boom

    The GOP (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 07:42:37 PM EST
    should just withdraw Kavanaugh. Paul Begala said on CNN that he is evil. He literally tortured the Foster family after 4 investigations had said that Vince committed suicide. Everyone who votes to confirm him should be run out of office.

    Then there's the problem of Maryland has no statue of limitations on attempted rape and Kavanaugh literally could be charged with a crime while sitting on the supreme court and tried as an adult.


    It makes me laugh grimly (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 08:02:38 PM EST
    To hear people talking about how investigating this would be best for him so that he doesn't "have a cloud over him"

    Like he or any if his supporters give a rats azz if he has a cloud over him.

    They want him on the court and could care less if there is a cloud over him.

    That said.  I think this is all but over.  If they do not do an investigation and force a vote I can't imagine how the two republican women's for him.  If they want to keep their jobs.

    If they do an investigation the findings will not be in his favor.  All you have to know about that is she is calling for an investigation and he is not  


    ... please be advised that Senate Republicans do not believe she is entitled to safety if her male classmates / acquaintances are drunk enough.

    My money (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 02:31:48 AM EST
    would be on they vote to confirm him and they both lose their jobs. If Kavanaugh goes on the court they are all going to lose their jobs sooner or later. We're going to take out Purdue in 2020.

    What's your source for saying (none / 0) (#120)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 10:46:11 PM EST
    that there is no criminal statute of limitations in Maryland for attempted rape? I'm not doubting it, but you provided no link. I would question whether that was the case at the time (there are strict constitutional restrictions on retroactive extensions of criminal statutes of limitations), and if so whether the absence of SOL applied to acts of juveniles.

    I heard it on the (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 11:18:20 PM EST
    tee vee too.

    As MKS (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 02:46:28 AM EST
    said on TV from a legal analyst. However they did not deal with the fact that what he did might not have been a crime in the early 80's only that it is now.

    I just hear it too (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 10:08:45 AM EST
    From Ken Dilanian.

    He said the state could investigate


    Yes, the state prosecutor for that county (none / 0) (#133)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 10:35:41 AM EST
    in Maryland (district attorney, or whatever that person is called in Maryland) could investigate, unless it is obvious on the face of it that the statute of limitations would bar any prosecution today for attempted rape (or similar offense) committed by a 17-year-old in 1982. It is generally true, however, that if a serious act of juvenile delinquency (the term used for a criminal act committed by a then-juvenile) goes undetected before the kid turns 21 (depending on the state) then the matter can be charged against him as a crime in adult court, assuming again that the SOL has not run. I would like to hear about this from an experienced Maryland criminal lawyer, not a TV talking head generic "legal expert," much less a "national security reporter" (Dilanian) is not a lawyer at all.

    She won't appear Monday (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 07:05:13 PM EST
    To soon
    Dealing with death threats
    Keeping her family safe

    Nothing of substance (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 07:06:23 PM EST
    And nothing legitimate can happen by Monday

    The (none / 0) (#109)
    by FlJoe on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 07:58:40 PM EST
    Republicans are getting backed into a corner. The Democrats have been calling for an FBI investigation and now that that Dr. Ford has agreed the GOP inquisitors will have to at least temporarily back down.

    Notwithstanding the game clock in Grassley's head, time is on the Democrat's side. Trying to ram through the nomination leaving these allegations unresolved would be political suicide a delay with a continuing investigation would be a political slow death.


    At this point, Republican senators ... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 09:12:58 PM EST
    ... need to hit the pause button, and ask themselves a common-sense question: Why would a respected and accomplished woman like Dr. Christine Blasey Ford publicly risk her family, her reputation and her career to tell her story if Brett Kavanaugh were truly innocent?

    But they won't. Beset on all sides by their political demons, both real and perceived, they've instead been gripped by a blind combativeness and their own hubris. Thus, they're determined to die on Kavanaugh Hill.

    Oh, well. So be it.


    DailyBeast (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 09:31:01 PM EST

    Trump allies say they were taken aback by the president's muted tone. "I don't think the president ever gets scared, but it shows us the seriousness of what we're heading into this week," the 2016 Trump campaign veteran said. "I thought for sure he'd come out swinging. The fact that he didn't means he knows how serious this is. We very rarely hear that tone from him."

    And within Trump's West Wing, there was a strong sense that backing down would be a major humiliation for Trump, who has made two distinct promises to conservative voters: that he revels engaging in political fights and that he will stack the judiciary with nominees they love. One senior administration official said that pulling Kavanaugh at this moment would be akin to Team Trump signing its own political "death warrant."

    I wonder (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 02:47:34 AM EST
    if his mood has less to do with Kavanaugh and more to do with Manafort turning against him.

    Yup (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 08:03:35 PM EST
    Just said pretty much the sane rhing

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by FlJoe on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 08:30:19 PM EST
    the Judge gets thrown overboard?  
    Ivanka Trump is urging her father to abandon Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the United States Supreme Court, Vanity Fair reported Tuesday.

    Normally(tRumpland normal) I would suspect tRump's ego would not allow him to give in, however this story is sucking up all the media oxygen while tRump is only a bit player. That is a big no-no in Trumps eyes.

    50-50 he's gone by next week.


    forgot (none / 0) (#113)
    by FlJoe on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 08:31:23 PM EST
    I agree (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 08:42:29 PM EST
    They have admitted they have not allowed Kavanaugh to be in the same room with Trump even tho he has been in the white house for two day because he might get tossed overboard so Trump kept him at a distance.

    I'm not really clear on the reasoning of how it "helps" Trump to not meet with the guy he chose against the advise of Mitch and many others but whatever.

    I agree.  


    That said (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 08:45:38 PM EST
    If he goes down the church ladies are going to be pi$$ed (at Trump) they did not get Amy Coney Barrett like they all wanted.

    I agree (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 18, 2018 at 08:31:42 PM EST
    They are completely screwed.

    You underestimate the GOP (none / 0) (#125)
    by Steve13209 on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 05:58:30 AM EST
    Been watching MSNBC where most are saying the GOP is in deep trouble and Dr. Ford has the upper hand. I disagree.

    They will vote after the Monday session (if there is one), all the GOP members will vote yes and the nomination will go to the Senate where 51 GOP Senators will vote him onto the SC.

    The GOP is willing to do anything they must to get what they want. Public opinion doesn't matter to them. Murkowski and Collins will be promised big money jobs if they lose their next elections.


    It's coming down to optics. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 02:12:27 PM EST
    Do Republicans really want a televised hearing on Monday, in which a majority panel of entitled Republican white males will be seen questioning another entitled Republican white male about an allegation that he tried to rape someone as a privileged white teenager, and then nodding in bobbleheaded approval as he denies the charge?

    I almost agree (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 06:46:31 AM EST
    But I think the fact we are 7 weeks from an election will matter.

    It might not matter enough but I think it will.


    Mostly (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 06:56:59 AM EST
    agree though there are some that are worried and want an FBI investigation to go through first before a vote. Certainly all of this gives the red state dems plenty of room to vote no. Everybody else is going to have to answer to their angry constituents.

    No matter what I believe Kavanaugh's time on the court is limited. The GOP is hiding a lot of stuff that is going to come out whenver the Dems take over the senate and then there's Clarence Thomas too that can be removed if he doesn't resign.


    Interesting point about Clarence (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 07:20:19 AM EST
    Watching the replay of the Hill headings is painful and completely cringeworthy

    I can imagine lots of people to young to remember it thinking WTF.

    What the he11 is this guy doing on the supreme court.


    Also (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 07:24:41 AM EST
    Worth mentioning while in every discussion of Hill there is agreement it was rushed and unfair.

    And in fact Ford is being treated substantially less fair in that Hill got and FBI investigation and other witnesses were allowed at the hearing.

    And she was talking about dirty talk.  Not assault.

    I agree with him that most, and possibly all, republicans think this is important enough to go for it.  But all it takes is two.  And if they don't step up I really think they are committing political suicide


    One wild card (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 07:26:35 AM EST
    And no doubt the reason for the rush ..

    If there is,even a whiff of another woman.


    Yes, exactly (none / 0) (#131)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 10:06:07 AM EST
    Agreed that any other allegations would (none / 0) (#145)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 02:16:07 PM EST
    be the end for Kavanaugh.

    Reading more about this, it was interesting to find out that both the Dems and Repubs knew of Ford's allegations a number of months ago.

    With that, I would think that if there are any other allegations out there, both sides probably already know of them as well.

    Random thoughts of this chess match...

    The Dems are in control of choosing if, when, and how to bring forth any other allegations.

    I would think that if there are any other allegations out there we'll hear of them before the confirmation. I can't think of any benefit to wait until after the confirmation.

    I would think if the Dems know of other additional allegation(s) but don't bring them forward before the confirmation, then they don't feel the allegation(s) would benefit them.

    If Ford does not participate on Monday, I would think it would be because the Dems don't feel it would benefit them.

    If she doesn't participate, and no other shoes drop, well...


    One-off? Or start of a flood? (none / 0) (#147)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 02:27:47 PM EST
    WASHINGTON -- A former schoolmate of Brett Kavanaugh's accuser wrote a Facebook post saying she recalls hearing about the alleged assault involving Kavanaugh, though she says she has no first-hand information to corroborate the accuser's claims.

    "Christine Blasey Ford was a year or so behind me," wrote the woman, Cristina Miranda King, who now works as a performing arts curator in Mexico City. "I did not know her personally but I remember her. This incident did happen."

    She added, "Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details. However Christine's vivid recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true."

    FWIW (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 02:27:02 PM EST
    the intercept is reporting that there are more women, something about a clerkship.

    I don't see that on the Intercept (none / 0) (#151)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 03:17:42 PM EST
    What I see is an article pointing to an offer to provide evidence that Kavanaugh did not testify truthfully when he denied knowing of his mentor, former Judge Kozinski's sexual mistreatment of many of his law clerks. That is serious (it could establish perjury in one of the Kavanaugh answers at the hearing that I found least credible), but it's not another accusation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. Are you referring to something else?

    No, (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 04:43:20 PM EST
    that's probably what I was thinking about.

    I've been reading about this on twitter (none / 0) (#164)
    by vml68 on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 07:12:41 PM EST
    for the past few days but have not seen it anywhere in the mainstream news.
    I don't understand why the Dems aren't looking into it.

    Maybe they are looking. (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 09:00:41 PM EST
    But finding someone who will speak up/speak out is very hard. The vicious and personal attacks on Dr. Blasey and her family are not only designed to hurt her but also to intimidate any others.

    Looks like the Republican (none / 0) (#141)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 12:41:50 PM EST
    senators are going to power their way through to confirm Kavanaugh, believing their tactics are no more dangerous to them than blocking President Obama's nomination of Judge Garland.

     Or, at least, in their tone-deafness, that they can manage the situation with their claim of reasonableness along with a campaign to canonize Kavanaugh and discredit Professor Basely Ford.

    After all, the stakes are high for them.  Indeed, right wing Supreme Court appointments are necessary to ward off the impact to their agenda  of a changing country for decades. And, of course, is a big part of the reason they put up with Trump.

    But, they do not seem to fully grasp that Kavanaugh is a bad penny who will contaminate the Court.  Added to a Court that includes Clarence Thomas with his Anita Hill charges eternally fresh, Washington, DC in-breds, like Gorsuch (two Justices who are graduates from the same high school), the credibility and trust given to a Court that is to be a neutral arbiter of the Constitution may be seriously undermined in the eyes of a significant portion of Americans.

     Not due to the unacceptance of difference of opinions or interpretations of the law, but concern that these "men" in black robes are not Justices, but Republican political operatives masquerading as such. And, they would not be wrong. The mid-terms seem to be our last hope.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 02:28:52 PM EST
    the supreme court is going to be completely contaminated with 2 sexual abusers on the court. What woman is going to believe she ever has a chance in court with those two on the court? Then you throw in Alito who thinks children should be strip searched and you have got a mess.

    Our two senators are kicking some a$$. (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 02:33:24 PM EST
    Sen. Brian Schatz: "[Kavanaugh] is not just a conservative jurist. He's not John Roberts. He's not even Neil Gorsuch. He's a Republican operative who is posting as a judge." (Pod Save America, Sept. 15, 2018)

    Sen. Mazie Hirono: "Guess who is perpetrating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country. I just want to say to the men in this country: Just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change." (Press conference, Washington. D.C., Sept. 19, 2018)

    Good for them. I'm proud of them.


    UPDATE: Sen. Hirono is out of fcks to give. (5.00 / 4) (#176)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 11:40:41 AM EST
    Sen. Hrono: (to ABC News): "I would like us to come together and figure out what is the best way to proceed. Not this seat-of-the-pants stuff. The latest, being a letter from the chairman to the Democrats saying, `We have done everything we can to contact her.' That is such bullshit, I can't hardly stand it."

    You go, girl.


    I have a feeling (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 03:16:01 PM EST
    Republicans may regret daring this woman to show up on Monday

    If it comes to that.  After all this letting them win seems unlikely

    The Kozinski federal employees letter (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 03:55:31 PM EST
    Is still out there too.

    It is only Wednesday


    I was thinking (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 06:04:11 PM EST
    that might be Friday when that cat comes out of the bag.

    Yes, I am beginning (none / 0) (#155)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 04:41:43 PM EST
    to think that Dr. Ford should appear before the Judiciary Committee on Monday, provided that certain terms and conditions are met to her and her lawyer's satisfaction. Or ask for a reasonable extension, to say, Wednesday.

     For starters, separate hearings.  Of course, the harebrained and insulting idea of meeting at the same time, at the same table, Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford, has to be jettisoned.

    Not ideal, as with a newly completed FBI background check, but I think we can depend on Grassley and his merry band to step on their d**ks.  Grassley and Hatch have learned nothing since the Thomas hearings, although they will be coached to appear respectfully awful. Lindsey has already shown his misogynistic bona fides by saying he would like to hear from "the lady", who has no name. Flake will be wishy-washy, and it will be hard for the rest not to become testy....we have the votes, let's vote.

    True, Kavanaugh will likely lie through his teeth, as is his custom, but the Democrats can ask about his binge drinking (for the record) in high school, college, law school, and what it is like today. And, what he meant by that "joke" about what happens in Georgetown Prep stays there--spoken when a federal judge, and, I think, he was a little too old for that frat boy humor, if that is what it was.

    I think we can depend on the Democratic senators to do a good job in their questions, both in the case of the judge and the professor.

     At worst, it will be the cliched "he said, she said," but it will, assuming that Dr. Ford is as good as I believe she will be as a credible, sincere witness, obliterate the crazy, mixed up picture being painted of her and allow more doubts about the honesty of Kavanaugh and his fitness for the Supreme Court (or any court). The outome will not change the Republicans senators, but it may well impact many American citizens.

    If there is enough time, Dr.Ford could hire a private gumshoe to see if the house at which the party was held can be identified, and perhaps more.  A last minute notification of her appearance would be good, less time for smearing.


    I was very impressed (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 05:51:32 PM EST
    With her lawyer that appeared on CNN last night.

    It would seem she is in pretty good hands.  Republicans should delay the high 5ing

    This is not over.


    The letter (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 07:50:12 PM EST
    sent to Grassley was masterful, as well.

    I saw (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by FlJoe on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 04:42:42 PM EST
    her and was also impressed, I have little doubt that she has assembled a kickass brain trust. I assume she has no shortage of pro-bono offers of legal help and I would take a highly trained psychologist
    and her peers over the craven Republican fools any day of the week, on a level playing field of course.

    CNN is reporting

    An email her lawyers sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee said Ford "would be prepared to testify next week" if the senators offer her "terms that are fair and which ensure her safety."
    so the horse trading is beginning, "terms that are fair"
     sure carries a lot of weight and it's being reported that her team has ruled Monday out.

    Dr. Blasey has a lot of support (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by leap on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 06:23:37 PM EST
    Almost $210,000 was raised on a go-fund me page yesterday, to help cover her security costs brought on by RWNJ/Republican affholery.

    I was wondering (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 06:03:26 PM EST
    if making a last minute appearance wasn't the plan in order to have the GOP and Kavanaugh unprepared and/or caught off guard.

    Robert Costa (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 06:14:18 PM EST
    Says there is growing discord and disagreement within the republican party.  That so far leadership is winning but that could change.

    Michael Steele (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 07:03:39 PM EST
    said on Hardball that the GOP has really sunk themselves. If they put Kavanaugh on the supreme court there is going to be massive defections of white suburban women. If they don't put him on the supreme court the base is going to sit home. The thing is though pleasing the base is not going to work because there are not enough of them. There are ones they never talk about that are endangered like Dean Heller. What is he gonna do?

    ... in November, Sen. Dean Heller is likely sunk. The Vegas metro area of 2.1 million residents constitutes 75% of Nevada's population and it's become a reliably Democratic city.

    Sen. Hirono (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 10:33:39 PM EST
    is sounding really good, sharp here.   Without shouting or drama, she can really land a blow.

    I've known Mazie Hirono for 30 years. (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 11:48:19 AM EST
    She's one of the nicest people you'll ever meet. But just like the late Hawaii Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto Mink, when she gets annoyed and angry, she quickly drops the "gracious Japanese lady" schtick, becomes very blunt and doesn't mince her words. And she's clearly angry.

    If nothing else (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 19, 2018 at 07:15:45 PM EST
    It's made red state democrats lives easier

    I don't really like getting (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 04:19:47 AM EST
    Into the cross tabs after elections, but I try to read those who do. I thought that the breakdowns were showing this future split.

    I see it in the Republican women in my family too. Some are clearer than others, will talk a little about some of the things that have happened to them as women and they want something better for their daughters, others just look panicked and confused, but nobody is happy.


    I wonder how many are left? (none / 0) (#172)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 08:29:19 AM EST
    Seems like Trump has already alienated a good chunk of the suburban woman vote.  My guess is that this won't make much of a difference among those that have stuck with him to this point, but I hope I'm wrong.

    I agree so far (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 09:11:06 AM EST
    BUT I think if Kavanaugh goes down and especially if this some how gets delayed till after the midterms it will effect his approval BIGLY

    I have been reading that he is "out of Mulligans" with the Christians


    I daresay many women across the country ... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 01:15:43 PM EST
    ... are likely now asking themselves why the GOP is so hellbent on propping up the SCOTUS candidacy of a man who appears ever more awful with each successive glance at him.

    Misogyny is obviously not a good look for Republican candidates, especially only seven weeks out from Election Day.



    Indeed (none / 0) (#185)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 01:46:33 PM EST
    Still if Mitch has the votes they will confirm him.  They don't give a damn how it looks.  They have been more than happy to celebrate Clarence.

    IMO the only hope is to make it just to hot for frightened republicans.

    Which I think means she really needs to show up sooner or later and speak publicly.


    Ha (none / 0) (#186)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 02:00:17 PM EST
    Looks like sooner.   I turned on the tv and she is back in talks.   She wants to not do it Monday

    Stay tuned


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#187)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 02:33:01 PM EST
    Dr. Ford  needs to testify. As I noted in an earlier comment, it may be a "stalemate" of he said, she said, but it would be fatal to the Republicans to then just move on and vote for Kavanaugh a day or so later.  Josh Barro (on Chris Hayes), feels that if she testifies, Kavanaugh's nomination will be pulled. If not, he is confirmed.  Jennifer Rubin has some interesting suggestions, such as bypassing the Judiciary Committee and going on TV, such as 60 minutes, saying she cannot get a fair hearing.

    .Some reporting indicates that the Republicans are weakening on the time to get her written testimony in tomorrow morning, to be eligible  for the Monday hearing.  Not that the Republicans are reasonable, and really want her to testify, but they need to put up a front, at least on that score.  And, if Dr. Ford offers to testify on Tuesday, rather than Monday, Grassley would be hard pressed to say no.  Of course, it is not out of the question given the Republicans need to get this done before any more shoes drop.

     Grassley got caught on that grand idea of his to have his staff, rather than the FBI, conduct an examination of the matter---his chief counsel, Mike Davis, tweeted, "we will confirm Kavanaugh."  And, of course, there is no crime in lying to Grassley's people, unlike the FBI.


    Behold, America's GOP: (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 03:48:03 PM EST
    Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC): "Did y'all hear this latest late-breaking news on the Kavanaugh hearings? Ruth Bader Ginsburg came out saying she was groped by Abraham Lincoln."

    This is who they really are, folks. The question now before American voters is whether people like Congressman Norman should continue calling the shots.



    You want crazy? (none / 0) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 03:57:49 PM EST
    Wayne Allyn Root is opening for Trump at his rally tonight

    ... too cuckoo for cocoa puffs:

    "After the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) blasted Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) for reportedly "welcoming Charles Johnson to a meeting," the California lawmaker penned a letter to the ADL where he "welcomed support" from the known Holocaust denier on areas of mutual agreement."

    Methinks we needs us some Freddie Mercury and Queen.


    Can someone explain this? (none / 0) (#200)
    by jmacWA on Fri Sep 21, 2018 at 05:27:49 AM EST
    time to get her written testimony in tomorrow morning

    What is the purpose of the hearing, if the written testimony is submitted in advance?  I knew opening statements were submitted, but the entire testimony?


    Ford's classmate changes claim (none / 0) (#174)
    by McBain on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 10:36:17 AM EST
    about alleged incident.

    "That it happened or not, I have no idea," Cristina King Miranda told NPR's Nina Totenberg. "I can't say that it did or didn't."

    That's different from what Miranda wrote Wednesday in a now-deleted Facebook post that stated definitively, "The incident DID happen, many of us heard about it in school."

    Ford's former classmate goes on to say...

    "In my [Facebook] post, I was empowered and I was sure it probably did [happen]," Miranda told NPR. "I had no idea that I would now have to go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over MSNBC news and Twitter."

    Miranda noted on Twitter that she did not have "first hand knowledge" of the incident.

    This reminds me of what I don't like about the #MeToo movement.  People want show support for others making claims of sexual assault without knowing what actually happened. Instead of saying "their claims should be investigated", people say "Me Too" or "it did happen".

    Like the 65 women (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by CST on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 11:30:24 AM EST
    Who said kavenaugh was super nice to them and totally wouldn't do such a thing -without knowing what actually happened?

    Glad to hear you think the claim should be investigated.   Sounds like you want the same thing as Dr. Ford.


    Well, you can surely understand (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 11:46:06 AM EST
    them saying "Me Too" if it did happen to them, and they'd been keeping it all bottled up for a long time.

    Given the level of viciousness directed at Kavanaugh's accuser, it's perfectly understandable if one of her public supporters may be a tad daunted.

    Elements on the Right, with their unconscionable harrasment of the Sandy Hook families, have already shown that they don't give a flying f*ck about considerations of common decency, if it becomes an impediment to the pursuance of their holy mission from God.


    You completely miss the point of #MeToo. (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 11:58:19 AM EST
    Do you understand that one in four college women will be subjected to sexual assault / battery before they're 22 years old? Or that 90%+ of sexual assailants get away with it.

    Do you know what happened down at Baylor University, and why Ken Starr is all over the TV airwaves today instead of running that school as its president and chancellor?

    Do you even care about anything other than protecting and defending white male authority and privilege, regardless of circumstances?



    I don't agree with the "one in four" (2.00 / 1) (#181)
    by McBain on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 12:38:20 PM EST
    statistic.  I believe we discussed that a while ago.   Here's an interesting article...

    "Maybe one in 100 women are raped during their college careers. Maybe one in 50, including the rapes, are sexual assaulted, maybe fewer. And those statistics come from the best surveys that have been done," he said.
    "Surveys that get you to one in five or one in four are highly misleading, if not fraudulent," he added.

    I don't know about the 90% stat.  Do you have a link?

    In general, I don't agree with the "college rape culture" claim and think #MeToo does more harm than good.

    As I pointed out before, I like that there hasn't been a huge rush to judgement in the allegations against Kavanaugh.


    Again, you miss the point. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 01:02:47 PM EST
    Let that be your epitaph on your tombstone.

    Disagree ... perhaps he gets the point ... (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Erehwon on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 01:31:18 PM EST
    Channelling the correct Sinclair ... It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his [lifestyle] depends on his not understanding it ...

    "Interesting article" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 10:49:51 PM EST
    No.  Stuart Taylor spouting off his usual, silly opinions unsupported by evidence is not remotely "interesting".  Here's the same idiot who makes ridiculous claims like this on a regular basis:

    Especially on-campus, because there are squadrons of sex bureaucrats at all the colleges in the country who are encouraging women to say they were raped when what they really were was regretful afterwards.

    What you don't like (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 12:23:06 PM EST
    About #MeToo is not a mystery.

    Maybe he could get behind this... (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by vml68 on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 06:03:47 PM EST

    What you don't like About #MeToo is not a mystery.

    Or (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 06:17:17 PM EST
    Bu//$hit (5.00 / 6) (#192)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 20, 2018 at 05:49:49 PM EST
    Her story stayed the same.  She was clear in her first post that the basis for her opinion that it happened was the widespread discussion of it among their peers at there school.  She was not making a statement of fact because she was not in the room at the time and was not a witness.

    But you already knew that.

    This reminds me of what I don't like about misogynists.  They mischaracterize the statements of victims in order to trivialize the allegations of sexual abuse victims.


    Cheeto has thrown another stink bomb (none / 0) (#204)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 21, 2018 at 12:24:36 PM EST

    Republicans said that their party is now more likely to accommodate Ford's attorney's requests for testimony next week after the president's broadside, given the lack of compassion it showed toward an alleged victim. She's asked for one camera, subpoenas of other witnesses, to not be in the same room as Kavanaugh and to testify after him.

    "The issue is that the compassion component Is now turned on its head because you have the president filling the airwaves with something that is not compassionate," said a plugged-in former Republican leadership aide. "People will go out of their way now to be much more accommodating to unreasonable requests than they were yesterday."

    This has really happened since the latest Grassley  "counter offer"

    Kavanaugh vs other (none / 0) (#208)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 21, 2018 at 01:29:44 PM EST
    Options for Trump are also options for Senate Republicans, who could reject Kavanaugh and still confirm a replacement before the end of the year. But the political risks of rejecting the president's favored nominee now are too high. Conservative evangelicals backed Trump in hopes of winning an anti-abortion majority on the Supreme Court. They are his most reliable constituency, one reason his job approval hasn't collapsed entirely, and key factor if Republicans plan to survive a "blue wave" in the fall. They want Kavanaugh, and if Republicans fail to put him on the court, their support may waver.

    One of the political costs of failing to confirm Brett Kavanaugh is likely the loss of the United States Senate," said evangelical leader Ralph Reed to the New York Times. Reed and his peers have urged the White House to push forward and ignore the allegations against Kavanaugh, under threat of political disaster. "If Republicans were to fail to defend and confirm such an obviously and eminently qualified and decent nominee," Reed said, "then it will be very difficult to motivate and energize faith-based and conservative voters in November."

    Ralph Reed says we want Brett

    reply to vml68 @201 - did you see Charles Blow (none / 0) (#211)
    by leap on Fri Sep 21, 2018 at 02:25:26 PM EST
    on CNN, describing when he was sexually abused as a kid, and did not tell anyone about it for decades? Very affecting narrative, illustrating why Dr. Blasey and many others do not ever report such a horrible event.