Running Out the Kavenaugh Clock

Christine Ford, through her counsel, has accepted the Committee's invitation to speak about her misconduct allegation against Brett Kavanaugh next week. However, there are still details to be worked out. The hearing will not be Monday.

Ford also added a lawyer to her team -- Michael Bromwich, a former inspector general of the Justice Department who is also representing former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Ford wanted to testify after Kavenaugh. That's silly -- she's the accuser, how can he fairly be expected to respond to her accusation if he hasn't heard it first-hand from her?

If Ford can delay her appearance to the end of the week, perhaps the vote on Kavenaugh won't come in time to get Kavenaugh onto the Supreme Court for the October term.

Most egg on his face in this: Ed Wheelan, the former Scalia clerk and conservative lawyer and friend of the Federalist Society, for doxxing a high school classmate of Kavenaugh's and labeling him the possible perp. At least he's now apologized. But others are reporting he didn't act alone, but with the aid of a public relations company called CRC, which just so happens to list the Federalist Society as one of its clients. [More...]

A former CRC employee, Garrett Ventry, had been working for Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) until Saturday, when he resigned after news surfaced that he had faced accusations of sexual harassment in the past. NBC News first reported the resignation.

A source said Ventry had joined the Committee after the Federalist Society requested that CRC send somebody over to the Hill to help with the Kavanaugh nomination. Ventry did not respond to an email seeking comment and said in a Twitter post that the Committee had no foreknowledge of Whelan’s plans. It is not clear whether Ventry remains an employee of CRC, where he worked as recently as July.

None of this should be taken to suggest I believe Ford's allegations. I believe in the presumption of innocence, and I know that mistaken eye-witness identification is one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions. When these witnesses are wrong, they are usually mistaken, not lying. Memory is not like a videotape -- it changes over time. It's affected by things like post-event information.

I also don't believe in vigilante justice. Trials should take place in courtrooms not living rooms.

My question: Will Kavenaugh withdraw his name from nomination before the hearing, to avoid the spectacle and preserve his lifetime seat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals?

Every decision Donald Trump makes leads us closer to a constitutional crisis. Although, it's about what I expected from someone with his intellectual and moral deficits.

< Manafort's D.C. Guilty Plea | “Kavanaughed”: Who Will Agree to Serve in Public Office After This Charade? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I think he will withdraw (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 22, 2018 at 04:42:37 PM EST
    Not only to protect his current job but I think there will be pressure to protect senators from making this vote.

    On Wheelan, this was on RawStory

    Kavanaugh ally did online searches for Christine Blasey Ford before she was revealed as accuser: report

    There are just too many questions and weird coincidences.  The democrats are going to have a field day if this hearing happens.

    I'm not sure this is a good thing.  Hopefully it is but it seems very possible they will just ram through someone even worse in the lame duck session.  

    I wish he would (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 08:02:14 AM EST
    I think they'll have a farce of a hearing, probably while hiding behind an outside counsel who's doing the questioning.  Then they'll push it through.

    Hope I'm wrong.


    I am less pessimistic (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 08:15:54 AM EST
    At least about his confirmation.  After that my optimism drops off a bit.

    I think if he is stopped all hell is going to break loose.  They are going to be in rage/panic mode.

    I expect someone even worse to replace him. In fact I would expect Trump to dig up the worst most offensive night crawler he can find.

    I do not think there is a good outcome for republicans here.  But I'm afraid there might not be one for us either.


    Amy Coney Barrett (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 10:01:21 AM EST
    Comes to mind.

    Oh Christ you two (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 04:21:54 PM EST
    Roe is gone. Unless there is some kind of bizarre fluke. Roe is gone.

    All you can do is the next right principled thing.

    If you crap out on assaulted women right now, you deserve to lose for another decade.

    Quit it, fight the principled fight before you.


    I think you misunderstand (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 05:02:12 PM EST
    I don't think, necessarily, dumping a damaged nominee who could conceivably be impeached and replaced with a real justice and replacing him with someone even more right wing crazy who is not damaged by a history if perjury is "fighting the principled fight before you"

    I would be happy to see Kavanagh go down in flames.  I simply am not convinced that is the best outcome for us.


    Don't we have to have 2/3 of the Senate (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 05:13:08 PM EST
    To impeach?

    They've never tried to impeach Clarence Thomas even though he has other victims and much more evidence.

    You know what I really really don't like? People in the legal profession place judges on pedestals like the military does Generals. And I'm seeing the exact same problems holding judges accountable for sexual assault and harassment in their ranks that Gillibrand and Speier had to kick the $h*t out of "the military system" for.


    Well (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 05:20:46 PM EST
    One thing we know for sure, unless they can actually manage to delay this until after the election - which while possible seems really unlikely, is whoever replaces him will be just as bad and will come with zero chance of impeachment.

    So as unlikely as impeachment might be it's not zero with Kavanagh.

    The one absolute upside of dumping Kavanagh would be the next person will not be likely to have his fondness of autocracy


    Whatever.  I'm a logician.  I game sh!t out.


    This one I can't game out (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 06:32:33 PM EST
    But I will say, thousands of women will be in front of the hearing, television, news sobbing. It will affect our spouses, our friends, our parents, our family, our children, our grandchildren.

    I'm not afraid to do it, I'm not afraid to go there, I'm not afraid to feel it in front of everyone. The whole horror of it all. Maybe it needs to happen that way.


    Maybe it does (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 06:40:21 PM EST
    This entire thing has played out with the surreal backdrop of dozens of women being dragged screaming out of the hearing room.

    I do not think that was a pointless exercise at all.


    Sorry (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 04:27:44 PM EST
    As a rape survivor I'm really flamed right now.

    Yes (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 10:05:03 AM EST
    Or even worse.  She "might" be a problem if we believe what the two republican women say because she is flat out straight up opposed to Row v Wade and is committed to overturning it.

    I honestly begin to think (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 10:06:51 AM EST
    And I said this before, it might be the best outcome for us if Kavanaugh limps through damaged and dirty.

    As Jennifer Rubin (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 02:27:54 PM EST
    said in the Wa Po if the Republicans fail to thoroughly investigate Kavanaugh the Dems will in 2019. So the GOP can push him through but that is not going to be the end of it. And while they are at it they can call Anita Hill back to testify along with all the other people that were not allowed to testify against Clarence Thomas and his new accuser.

    Or they could (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 22, 2018 at 07:24:58 PM EST
    be stupid enough to ram Kavanaugh through on a lame duck session. They seriously need to quit looking at the Federalist Society for supreme court nominees and find another organization.

    I (none / 0) (#6)
    by FlJoe on Sat Sep 22, 2018 at 08:09:47 PM EST
    am not sure WTF this Whelan guy hoped to accomplish with his ridiculous and possibly libelous alternative theory of the crime, it just seems so ham-handed on all levels. I understand that the right has been trying to push the mistaken identity meme, but this seems like a rather flimsy and apparent attempt to create evidence out of whole cloth.

    Of course I do expect this sht to come flowing down from the likes of Alec Jones or Louis Gohmert, but reportedly this Whelan is a longtime operator with direct ties to Kavanaugh, the Federalist Soc, the WH and GOP.

    I understand the rights proclivity to throw outrageous sht out there to muddy the water, but this seemed rather feeble and from someone so close to  the main players. Pure stupidity if you ask me, the only question is whether this comes from pure hubris(they think they can get away with anything) or sheer panic.


    All Whelan (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 22, 2018 at 08:17:19 PM EST
    did is make Ford more credible and Kavanaugh look guilty. As far as hubris or panic you never can tell with this bunch.

    She needs it. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Sep 22, 2018 at 09:50:43 PM EST
    Not really (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 22, 2018 at 10:03:33 PM EST
    "It's not surprising that Ms Keyser has no recollection of the evening as they did not discuss it," Katz said in a statement. "It's also unremarkable that Ms. Keyser does not remember attending a specific gathering 30 years ago at which nothing of consequence happened to her. Dr. Ford of course will never forget this gathering because of what happened to her there."

    Of course that paragraph is buried at the bottom.  The author of that story with the clickbait title  CNNs "supreme court reporter" has been almost comically hostile to the Dr and her story


    I (none / 0) (#28)
    by FlJoe on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 09:45:46 AM EST
    know it's a little thing, but I keep getting bothered by the depiction of this as a party, since when is 5-6 people hanging out considered a party?

    The word party signifies something eventful when all appearances this is more like some teens hanging out for a few hours. Judging by my
    party days(albeit mostly after HS) just hanging out at someones house (sometimes with strangers) was a common and mostly very forgettable occurrence.


    No kidding (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 10:02:43 AM EST
    Where were you on the night of fill in the blank 1983.

    Oh sure, anyone should be able to answer that.

    The thought I have had about this is how little I remember about the 10-20 years around this time.  I can't tell you how many times I have had people say 'you remembercthst time when....'

    Uh, no.  Sorry.  I have absolutely no memory of that.

    Or course I was not being raped.


    That's funny (none / 0) (#19)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 07:59:55 AM EST
    Not the story itself, but the way you characterize it.  This person never said she remembered being at a party with Kavenaugh 36 years ago and Ford says she never told her.

    Try again.


    Current summary. (1.00 / 8) (#23)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 08:30:46 AM EST
    Ford provided 5 people who she says can corroborate her story.
    Smyth: Denies it under penalty of perjury.
    Judge: Denies it under penalty of perjury.
    Kavanaugh: Denies it under penalty of perjury.
    Keyser: Denies it under penalty of perjury.
    Ford: Refuses to testify under oath.

    Bullsh*t (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 10:14:45 AM EST
    Under penalty of oerjury. Really?

    Denied? Really? Failure to recall is not a denial.


    You realize what a stupid (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 11:57:18 AM EST
    ... argument that is, right?  First of all, your claim is a LIE.  They didn't "deny it".  They said they couldn't remember whether they were at a party with Kavanaugh 36 years ago.

    Either you (like the orange buffoon you support) are intentionally mischaracterizing something (aka lying), or you can't understand that simple difference.  Personally, I think anyone with at least a 4th grade education would be able to do that, soooo ...

    BTW - Here's an accurate summary:

    1.  Dr. Ford told her therapists about this years ago.
    2.  Her husband, who was there at the time, states she named Kavenaugh.
    3.  Shes taken - and passed - a polygraph.
    4.  She wants a complete investigation by the FBI.
    5.  Republicans refuse to allow anyone to testify to corroborate her allegations.
    6.  Republicans won't allow the FBI to investigate.  They only want their staffers - who have publicly  stated Kavenaugh will be confirmed - to do so.
    7.  Kavenaugh won't take a polygraph.
    8.  Judge refuses to testify.

    Don't (none / 0) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 09:26:04 AM EST
    be ridiculous, not one of these people have even been close in a position to commit perjury. Lying to congressional investigators would be the only issue and answering "I do not recall" about a decades old event is hardly the basis of criminal charges.

    Ford has not refused to testify as you claim.


    Perhaps I messed it. (1.00 / 7) (#27)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 09:42:55 AM EST
    When and where did Ford testify under oath?

    Not what he said (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 09:58:04 AM EST
    But you know that

    I assume she will (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 10:12:12 AM EST
    Which ones have taken and passed a ploygraph.

    Hubris and panic (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 22, 2018 at 09:02:38 PM EST
    Is a good bet.  You have Mitch telling the "values voters" not to worry.  He's gonna "plow right through".  

    The stakes really could not be much higher for republicans


    Kavanaugh is going to try to ride it in (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 03:52:41 PM EST
    The guy has gotten away with crazy chit his whole life :)

    Republicans are going to have to bodily throw him out of the nomination.


    True (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 04:02:41 PM EST
    Has has been groomed for this almost literally his whole life.

    He sees it as his right.  Birthright even.

    I loved the report about him getting all upset about the "personal questions" in his practice sessions.

    I imAgine a couple of female committee members and former prosecutors high fiveing over that.


    Sounds like he's had the judiciary (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 04:26:04 PM EST
    Committee Repubs on the horn constantly. He is quite the little peddler. Has been his whole life. Now I want to know who printed the counter school paper his senior year of high school that they called The Heretic.

    Can you (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 05:23:31 PM EST
    imagine the questions that are going to come out in this next Q & A session? He is really going to get peeved.

    FWIW Benjamin Wittes has turned on Kavanaugh. He originally seemed really naive as to exactly who Kavanaugh is. If the GOP is hiding records you know there really is a problem with him.


    I can (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 05:30:22 PM EST
    I believe her (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 07:41:39 AM EST
    Trials should take place in court rooms, but this is not a trial.  There are no presumptions and no burden of proof.  This is a job interview for one of  the most (arguable the most) important position in our government.

    Yes, and (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 10:47:56 AM EST
    right wingers have been arguing that we need a "business man" to run the country, or that the government "needs to be run like a business."

    Top notch CEO's would not allow such a circumstance to rise to the level that it would bring unwanted attention or jeopardize the corporation.  If the individual even reached to the point of a job interview, it would go no further in today's environs. And, HR would be called out.

     And, even in the past, no matter how otherwise competent and deserving, it would not take a "beyond a reasonable doubt" to end the prospects of a candidate who was the subject of whispers, did not have a lovely wife, two children and house on a cul-de-sac, or wore the wrong clothing or sported a non-conventional hairdo. Lucky for Trump and Kavanaugh, the US is not run like a business--or a government.


    Bahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 03:48:57 PM EST
    I was just Tweeting to Grassley and autocorrect turned Grassley into Grandpa.

    Apparently, it is very strange that Dr Ford (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by vml68 on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 06:44:47 PM EST
    did not speak up earlier about the alleged assault but not at all strange that a 17 year old boy kept a calendar/diary and still has it 35 years later!!

    Kavanaugh to Give Senate Calendars From 1982 to Back Up Denial

    You know what else (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 06:50:00 PM EST
    I have not heard a single person ask a single man what they waited 30 years or more to report being diddled by a priest.

    Oops. Here is the (none / 0) (#62)
    by vml68 on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 06:47:03 PM EST
    Dear diary (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 06:47:48 PM EST
    Today I held a girl down and tried to force myself on her.  Unfortunately I was blotto and she got away

    Farrow & Avenatti (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by obsessed on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 10:21:16 PM EST
    Genital exhibitionism, drugging and gang rape should do the trick, no?

    Oh wait, I forgot it's the 2018 GOP. Never mind.

    I am not convinced (1.00 / 4) (#14)
    by ragebot on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 12:02:35 AM EST
    Ford/her lawyers will be able to hammer out an agreement with Grassley/whoever.

    I still remember when Kissinger and the PRVN had problems agreeing on the shape of the table.  The differences between the two sides here seem bigger.

    Reading the letter from Ford's lawyers I got the impression they expected major concessions from the previous position of the Senate.  

    Ford/her lawyers seem to want more investigating and more wittnesses called, differ on who will speak first, who will do the questioning, cameras, and probably more.  

    The committie also seems to be splitting apart more.  Since the new wittness has stated through her lawyer she has no knowledge of the party, along with saying she believes Ford I am guessing DiFi finally released the full letter Ford's lawers wrote detailing her claims.  Combined with the minority on the committie supporting Ford/her lawyers position about how the testimony in sharp disagreement with the majority on the committie I see a big gap that needs to be bridged before there is an agreement.

    Some other random thoughts.  I have seen multiple posts on what I consider mainstream conservative sites saying Kavenaugh was not really Trumps first choice; he was too much of an establishment prep school, Yale undergrad, Yale law.  Trump viewed him as more of an establishment almost "deep state" guy rather than someone who would drain the swamp.  So it would not bother Trump too much if more of a bull in a china shop type was nominated and it would not be that big a deal for Trump to say to Kavenaugh 'you'r fired'.

    While I get it that Kavenaugh is considered a conservative he is far from the most conservative judge around.  I would bet Trump would have no problem throwing Kavenaugh under the bus and rushing a super conservative woman through the process.  Someone like Amy Coney Barrett would likely avoid any sex issues and calm down some of the women on the fence.

    Problem with all that is we have never seen a recent image of Ford and she may be more of a 'face made for radio' person who would not come accross well on television.  I am not so sure Ford and her lawyers really want a hearing.  Grassley has been more than willing to allow normal rules; in fact he offered to move the location to the West Coast.  There are good reasons the minority wants to delay things, but now the delays have reached the point that the attention span of a lot of folks has been exceeded.

    My best guess is that there is no hearing, or only one with Kavenaugh there, and he is confirmed on a straight party line vote with several red state Democrats losing their seats in the mid terms.

    There is so much BS in this comment (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 07:33:04 AM EST
    I will ignore most of it and address the largest turds.

    "A face for radio"?  You know what, I don't even want to know what you mean by that.

    You may be reading on right wing sites he was not Trumps first choice.  Of course you are.   Actually he was not only his first choice he had him added to the list he got from the right wing groups later so he could pick him.  That's because of his rather extreme views on executive power.  Kavanaugh was not the first choice of any one else.  Mitch tried hard to convince Trump he might not get through the process.  Many others were against him.

    As far as the "delays" my own suspicion is they were playing Grassley and the committee.  They never expected to get most of that stuff.  It was a way to point out the unfairness, rather successfully I think, and make sure everyone in the country was paying attention.

    Finally.  I will take that bet.  There will be a hearing.  The Dr will be there.  And she will have a suitably TV face.


    Pay up (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 11:54:55 AM EST
    "We have committed to moving forward with an open hearing on Thursday Sept 27 at 10 a.m."

    Be there or be square


    "A face made for radio" (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 07:54:45 AM EST

    Just like your POTUS.

    Grassley has been more than willing to allow normal rules; in fact he offered to move the location to the West Coast.  There are good reasons the minority wants to delay things, but now the delays have reached the point that the attention span of a lot of folks has been exceeded.

    That's laughable.  They're treating her worse than they treated Anita Hill, which was deplorable.  Grassley did NOT "offer to move the location to the West Coast".  He "offered" to have HIS investigators (Mike Davies, anyone?) interview her out there, because it would allow them to question her out of the public view. It's the same reason he wants an outsde counsel to question her at any hearings - the spectacle of all these old, white men conducting an inquisition of a sexual assault victim.  Not to mention that THEY have "faces for radio", right?

    My best guess is that there is no hearing, or only one with Kavenaugh there, and he is confirmed on a straight party line vote with several red state Democrats losing their seats in the mid terms.

    Not really much of a prediction.  With or without a hearing, they're likely to push it through on a party line vote, particularly since they won't allow for any investigation or additional facts to come out.  "Several (whatever THAT means) Red State Dems could easily lose their seats with or without the Cavenaugh issue, just given the election map this year.


    In addition to Davis (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 08:09:39 AM EST
    Another Grassley aid was involved in sending Kavanaugh the stolen emails.

    But you are correct.  That business of "sending his investigators" to question her was amazing.  Even more amazing it's being cited on this site as an effort to accommodate the Dr.


    ragebot: "I still remember when Kissinger and the PRVN had problems agreeing on the shape of the table."

    The debate over the shape of the table at the Paris peace talks occurred in the fall of 1968, well before Henry Kissinger arrived on the scene in any official capacity. The chief American negotiator at the time was W. Averell Harriman, U.S. Ambassador-at-large for the State Department.

    Further, the initial objection to the original seating arrangement came not from the North Vietnamese but rather, from our own South Vietnamese allies led by their chief delegate, Premier Nguyen Cao Ky, who refused to consent to any permanent seating plan that would effectively place the National Liberation Front (NLF or Viet Cong) on an equal diplomatic footing with his own government in Saigon.

    At that point, the North Vietnamese delegation responded to Ky's objection by informing Ambassador Harriman that if this was the case, then Hanoi would likewise balk at any arrangement which would effectively recognize the Saigon regime as the legitimate government of South Vietnam. The NLF chimed in its support of Hanoi's position.

    Harriman ultimately resolved the impasse by proposing the placement of two square tables separated by a round table. That way, the NLF representatives could join the North Vietnamese negotiating team without having to be acknowledged by Saigon's delegates Similarly, Premier Ky and the South Vietnamese delegates could sit with their U.S. allies without having to be similarly recognized by Hanoi's negotiators.

    All parties were amenable to the new seating arrangement, and the talks finally got underway. However, the actual consequences of this seemingly silly tempest was quite profound, because it effectively rendered all subsequent negotiations in Paris as exclusively bilateral between Washington and Hanoi, rather than multi-lateral between all four parties as was originally envisioned and intended by President Johnson.

    Thus, Premier Ky's objections to the NLF's presence in Paris -- which a few historians have recently speculated may have been prompted by Anna Chennault's secret communications with South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu, as part of the Nixon campaign's efforts to sabotage the peace negotiations prior to the Nov. 1968 election -- served only to marginalize the Saigon government at the peace talks, by subordinating its diplomatic position to that of the United States.

    So, what looked to many at the time to be trivial and nonsensical at initial glance instead turned out to be deadly serious, because those seating arrangements ultimately determined that Washington's position would eventually prevail over Saigon's at the peace talks. President Thieu and Premier Ky cut their throats with their posturing, which ensured that Washington would eventually cut its own deal with Hanoi, and the Saigon regime wouldn't last 28 months from the date of the Jan. 27, 1973 signing of the Paris Peace Accords.

    I've taken the time to recount to you the actual history of the Paris negotiating table snafu because facts and details do matter, ragebot. Your repeated inability to get the facts right undermines your positions time and again. If you can be bothered to get the facts right in your on historical analogy, then what else in this matter might you similarly blow off as inconsequential?

    In this instance, not only did you not reach first base with your argument here, you stumbled to a pratfall right out of the batter's box.



    Still hearing (1.00 / 2) (#24)
    by ragebot on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 09:05:07 AM EST
    DiFi has not released Ford's letter yet.  Anyone know why this is so?

    I explained it to you in the previous thread. (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 09:47:47 AM EST
    LINK. Besides, the FBI has it. Why does this Republican red herring even matter to you at this point, rather than the thousands upon thousands of Kavanaugh-related documents and memos which the Trump administration and the Senate GOP Majority have deliberately withheld from minority members and the general public? Because Fox News bobbleheads told you it does?

    I don't think he will withdraw. (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 22, 2018 at 05:50:47 PM EST
    I think doing so would be interpreted by many (most?) as an admission of guilt.

    Or be withdrawn (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 22, 2018 at 06:06:09 PM EST

    There are IMO better reasons for him to not withdraw.  The right will lose its mind.  Voting will be depressed on the right.  

    But if there is a hearing I think there will not be the votes to confirm him.  They absolutely won't put him up for a vote if that's true.

    It would be the worst thing they could do.  Make all the senators vote on him and not confirm him.

    All the chatter is about Collins.  I think Murkowski might be a bigger question.  She is under major pressure from the native people in her state.  And several state officials including the governor has come out against Kavanaugh.

    All that said, predictions are risky.  


    Sure, he could be withdrawn. (none / 0) (#5)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 22, 2018 at 08:04:22 PM EST
    It's an interesting game of chess.

    No risk for us, we're all just interweb noodniks...


    Not sure what a noodnik is (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 22, 2018 at 08:58:12 PM EST
    But I kind of feel at risk.

    From your prediction? (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 22, 2018 at 11:11:10 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 07:35:14 AM EST
    From my prediction.

    Well, there ya go. I spend one day not (none / 0) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 11:20:24 AM EST
    checking the news, and all hell breaks loose.

    I think he's toast.


    I don't believe (none / 0) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 22, 2018 at 10:53:35 PM EST
    the withdrawal of Kavanaugh's nomination would be as harmful or difficult for Trump as suggested.  An announcement such that Kavanaugh does not want to put his wife and children through this any more and continue to mar his reputation and integrity , blah, blah.....will make him a martyr and victim by Evangelicals and other right wingers.

    Trump can then, very quickly, announce a replacement and...bang! all the attention will shift to the new nominee. If they thought the harebrained Whelan scheme would work, this type of plan should be a piece of cake.

    Trump, if he had any real executive experience, would have cut bait on this guy a week ago, while he was still in his non-tweet, well-handled mode. By this time it would be Kavanaugh who?  And, Kavanaugh would be able to reclaim his appellate judgeship, and hit the Evangelical speaking circuit, enabling him to buy lots more sportsball tickets.

    No chance of anything happening Thursday (none / 0) (#52)
    by ragebot on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 05:50:08 PM EST
    Drudge is headlining that there are reports of a second woman with a dil doo (you know what that means and why Jerlyn does not want the word in here) involved some how with Kavenaugh.

    This will likely delay things even more.  I have no idea what to make of it in terms of anything else.  She is reported to be a "never trumper" with little or no confirming evidence.

    Time to put on the pop corn.

    I had been reading Farrow and Mayer (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 05:58:48 PM EST
    Had something coming.

    Michael Avenatti has been dropping tantalizing tweets as well.  No idea if it's the same person.  It doesn't really sound like it.

    Hope it's not.


    Also this from your previous comment (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 06:04:17 PM EST
    There are good reasons the minority wants to delay things, but now the delays have reached the point that the attention span of a lot of folks has been exceeded.

    This is why they were delaying and guess what, this will prick up those ears.


    Who knows (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 06:15:56 PM EST
    with Drudge. He's pretty inaccurate unless someone is feeding him stuff to try to the get the GOP to pull Kavanaugh.

    He's talking about (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 06:21:05 PM EST
    Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer and the New Yorker.

    A rumor for a while.  OTOH if they had something worth releasing it seems unlikely they would let DRUDGE release it.

    On the OTHER hand, Avenatti has been saying very similar stuff.


    Twitter (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 06:30:17 PM EST
    Yashar Ali (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 06:37:55 PM EST
    From the Drudge Report. This has been brewing all day with several rumors going around about a potential story. I won't share them now.

    Two White House sources have confirmed to me that they are aware of a potential story.

    Here (none / 0) (#67)
    by FlJoe on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 07:14:20 PM EST
    it comes
    Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University.
    Pretty graphic  
    "I remember a penis being in front of my face," she said. "I knew that's not what I wanted, even in that state of mind." She recalled remarking, "That's not a real penis," and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to "kiss it." She said that she pushed the person away, touching it in the process. Ramirez, who was raised a devout Catholic in Connecticut, said that she was shaken. "I wasn't going to touch a penis until I was married," she said. "I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated." She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. "Brett was laughing," she said. "I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants." She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. "Somebody yelled down the hall, `Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie's face,' " she said. "It was his full name. I don't think it was just `Brett.' And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there."

    Interestingly (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 07:20:16 PM EST
    This does NOT appear to be the dild0 story.

    The story has officially dropped (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 07:06:08 PM EST
    New Yorker (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 07:09:41 PM EST
    Welp (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 07:15:52 PM EST
    there's at least one of the explanations for the demand for Ford to speak on Monday. I wonder if there are any more to drop.

    Maybe the question the senators need to ask Kavanaugh is when did he quit assaulting women? Rolling Stone had some stuff from his emails about massages and "don't tell the wives" kind of thing from around 2001 I think.


    White House (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 07:24:23 PM EST
    Releases a statement saying "we stand firmly behind Kavanagh"

    Which means he will be gone by noon.


    Oh, yeah (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 09:37:11 PM EST
    the mobster kiss of death. I guess Avenatti has also let the senate know about his client too. I hate that he is so cryptic in his tweets but I guess that is how lawyers have to be.

    Well (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 09:40:30 PM EST
    There is lots of news out there.

    Google "Avenatti gang"


    Jeebus, if what Avenatti is alleging is true, (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by vml68 on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 10:10:30 PM EST
    forget about the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh should be in jail.

    Along with all of his frat bros... (none / 0) (#80)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 10:31:23 PM EST
    and anyone who aided or abetted him.

    At the very, very, very least, he needs to be removed from the bench.


    Gonna be (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 10:52:31 PM EST
    An interesting week

    Tweet tonight that I saw (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Towanda on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 12:04:39 AM EST
    sums it up well::

    "Next week has been exhausting."


    Wow - I hope Avennati (none / 0) (#79)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 10:22:07 PM EST
    ... has this firmed up and had the goods to back it up, otherwise it could backfire badly.

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 11:25:02 PM EST
    I posted that before I found out. Sheesh, if that's true it's really bad and there's no way Kavanaugh can survive that I would think. Also looks like another reason he did not call for an investigation.

    Stormy Daniels is a hero for our times. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 11:41:21 PM EST
    She hired Avenatti, and we can be grateful that she did. It's worth remembering her cameo appearance lst My on Saturday Night Live, when Alec Baldwin's Trump asked her, "What can I give you to make this all go away?" and she replied coldly, "Your resignation."

    A Colorado resident... (none / 0) (#74)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 09:29:37 PM EST
    ...being represented by ex-Boulder County DA, Stan Garnett - who I think is a friend our TL's creator and principal author.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 07:31:46 PM EST
    But Avenatti just tweeted he has ANOTHER woman.

    Here (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 23, 2018 at 07:34:30 PM EST
    I represent a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify. The nomination must be withdrawn.
    6:33 PM · Sep 23, 2018
    Michael Avenatti
    Michael Avenatti
    Replying to
    My client is not Deborah Ramirez

    his claim is a (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 05:19:56 AM EST
    gang r*pe. I have never trusted a word Avenatti says.

    I didn't even think I should spell out (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 07:32:28 AM EST
    The charge without more than a tweet.

    Yman is correct.  Could backfire


    And in that regard, it matters not whether you and I "trust" Michael Avenatti. I can only assume that it's an issue of style and personality with you, because so far as I can see, the facts have since borne out on each and every one of Avenatti's once-considered-outlandish contentions about Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen.

    I'll grant that Avenatti's public posture is often brash and grating at times, not unlike a cocky bantam rooster. But he also strikes me as an otherwise level-headed guy who knows exactly what he's doing in the public arena. And because he's clearly staking his own professional reputation in this high-stakes affair by going on MSNBC, he likely isn't going to make a rash claim in public which can't ultimately be substantiated.

    Now, who knows, events may well eventually prove that Avenatti went one bridge too far in his public assertions. But that said, his track record so far has still been pretty good. So, until he proves otherwise, my money's riding on him to deliver the goods.



    I understand what (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 25, 2018 at 07:33:40 PM EST
    you say about him being brash and cocky and he is that. However he seems to be the perfect TV foil to take on Trump and the GOP these days.

    Jane Mayer (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 07:37:24 AM EST
    Is on MJ giving considerable cred to the New Yorker story

    Wow (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 07:41:54 AM EST
    She just repeated the gang r@pe story almost word for word.

    Jane Mayer is not Avenatti.


    Should add (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 07:54:02 AM EST
    This was all Jane Mayer and her reporting.  An hour in they have not mentioned Avenatti or his charges.

    Well (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 08:03:51 AM EST
    if Jane Mayer has the story then I would think it is credible. It would also explain why the GOP was so dead set against an FBI investigation. They knew it would come out.

    The (none / 0) (#91)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 08:16:44 AM EST
    (third hand) gang r@pe allegation was in the New Yorker  
    Elizabeth Rasor, who met Judge at Catholic University and was in a relationship with him for about three years, said that she felt morally obligated to challenge his account that " `no horseplay' took place at Georgetown Prep with women." Rasor stressed that "under normal circumstances, I wouldn't reveal information that was told in confidence," but, she said, "I can't stand by and watch him lie." In an interview with The New Yorker, she said, "Mark told me a very different story." Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman.
    Perhaps Avenatti is representing this woman

    Just now on MJ (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 08:19:32 AM EST
    (Actually 6am central)

    "We have not yet touched on Michael Avenatti and his tweets, we are all kind of waiting to see how that plays out."

    I think you might be right about his client.


    I wonder what (none / 0) (#93)
    by Zorba on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 08:33:01 AM EST
    Merrick Garland is thinking right about now?

    He and Kavanaugh are both justices on the same court, the US District Court for DC, so they obviously know each other and hear cases together.

    Correction (none / 0) (#94)
    by Zorba on Mon Sep 24, 2018 at 08:35:41 AM EST
     Court of Appeals.