home

Kavenaugh Comes Out Strong and Angry

For those who thought it was all over, think again. Brett Kavanaugh is angry, very angry. And he's credible.

< Senate Hearing Today With Ford and Kavanaugh | Senate Committee Passes Kavenaugh, Flake Calls for FBI Investigation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The more he talks... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by desertswine on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 02:29:25 PM EST
    the more I dislike him.

    I don't like or dislike him (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 02:34:58 PM EST
    I'm sticking to the issue of credibility and I find his outrage very credible

    Parent
    Angry, arrogant (5.00 / 9) (#15)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 02:58:57 PM EST
    and entitled.  He made sure to tell everyone how important he is--his trouble will cause an earthquake in our society, he is that important.

    He is angry that he is being questioned.  That has apparently not happened before.

    Not credible in my view.

    And, I totally disagree that he in entitled to a presumption of innocence.   This is not a criminal proceeding.  The burden should be on him to prove his character.

    Parent

    He looks like he needs a drink. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by desertswine on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 03:00:51 PM EST
    A commentator said (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 03:35:43 PM EST
    his being angry suggests he has another, angry side, which could come out when drinking.

    Parent
    the commenter did not "suggest" (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 04:59:26 PM EST
    that, she stated it as a fact -- not even as opinion. That's why it was deleted.

    Parent
    I was referring to (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 05:34:03 PM EST
    a t.v. commentator.

    Parent
    Omg (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 03:02:23 PM EST
    Great minds

    Parent
    He told Leahy (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    he was first in his class in high school, so how dare he question him.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Zorba on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 04:10:50 PM EST
    I don't find him credible at all.
    And I also agree about the so-called "presumption of innocence."  It's not a criminal trial, it's essentially a job interview, for a job, moreover, that he would have for life.

    Parent
    IMO, Kavanaugh is not (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by caseyOR on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 01:40:37 PM EST
    the least bit credible. Over the course of all his public testimony, even the FOX interview, he told so many lies, both big and small, that I lost count. That alone disqualifies him in my opinion.

    And yesterday he appeared to be completely unhinged and out of control. His whole performance was a giant temper tantrum by a spoiled, elite, privileged man. Hardly the demeanor I look for in a judge.

    And, yes, I watched him thinking how much his behavior reminded me of alcoholics I have known. I Do Not Know if Kavanaugh is an alcoholic, but I grew up in a family with more than its share of alcoholics, and Kavanaugh's behavior was all too familiar to me.

    Parent

    Classic behavior (5.00 / 10) (#51)
    by Towanda on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 06:34:55 PM EST
    of alcoholics and abusers.  

    Not that he is one.  Oh, no.  Just saying it was unwise to act like one, with millions of us watching who know that classic behavior.

    Parent

    WTF has happened to you, Jeralyn (2.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 08:44:44 AM EST
    There is NOTHING about Kavanaugh that is credible. Zero. He should have never been a judge in the first place. Try to defend judges who have never been trial lawyers. Please try. What are you going to compare it to, baseball umps who have never played ball? Egad.

    Good Lord, I repeat: What. Has. Happened. To. You?

    I guess what happened to you with your blithe attitude about guns. I remember years ago when you were trying to convince us that, no, America didn't have a mass shooting problem. Your intellect is atrophied and broken.

    So sad. Pfft.

    Parent

    Perhaps she doesn't realize (none / 0) (#181)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 10:45:55 AM EST
    it's a job interview and not a trial.

    Parent
    a dogmatic and blinkered defense attorney? (none / 0) (#182)
    by leap on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 03:06:39 PM EST
    Kavanaugh, the accused, supposedly being the one in the defense box; Prof Blasey Ford being part of the prosecution. Even though this was not a trial.

    Parent
    He certainly has (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 02:38:00 PM EST
    Reason to have genuine outrage.

    Parent
    That said (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    I think he kind of pushing it at this point.

    Parent
    It looks like an act to me. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by desertswine on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 02:57:01 PM EST
    I would ask him (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 03:08:08 PM EST
       1.  Will he take a polygraph?

       2.  How many hours did he spend at the White House preparing for this hearing?

    Parent

    And we still have (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 02:39:59 PM EST
    Question time

    Parent
    I agree with Jeralyn (none / 0) (#58)
    by linea on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 08:04:27 PM EST
    I found his righteous indignation credible and his tears touching. I was also swayed by the facts of the witness testimony he detailed and his calendar-diary. Sorry.

    Parent
    Did you find Dr. Ford credible? (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 10:07:12 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#80)
    by linea on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 10:29:07 PM EST
    I found the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford before the committee to be credible.

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 02:33:37 PM EST
    I still kinda think it's over

    Parent
    He's definitely not doing himself any good. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by desertswine on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 02:37:11 PM EST
    I'm pretty f*cking angry myself (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by CST on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 02:45:24 PM EST
    The question has been posed - what if this means no men want to be on the supreme court anymore?

    Personally, that's a result I can live with for the foreseeable future.  That's how angry I am about the state of power in America.  Is that fair?  No, certainly not.  But I've never seen America be fair before so I wouldn't know what that looks like anyway.

    I think this gets worse before it gets better, for everyone.

    I'll fine with that (1.00 / 2) (#82)
    by linea on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 11:19:43 PM EST
    I've posted essentially the same thing and have been savaged on this forum.

    I want the Republican Party President to nominate Republican women and the Democratic Party President to nominate liberal women. Of the short list Trump proposed, I wanted Amy Coney Barrett because she is a woman. But OH NO everyone here was against me and we got this circus. Thanks.


    Parent

    Maybe not (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 02:47:52 PM EST
    But it's possible

    Parent
    Again (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 05:03:31 AM EST
    the GOP refuses to investigate. The people that are making Kavanaugh look guilty are his own supporters. I would think he would want to clear his name but Kavanaugh does not. And to compare statements made under oath to pizzagate conspiracy theories is the height of idiocy.

    Miss Lindsay (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 07:25:34 AM EST
    Said this was the biggest sham since he had been in politics. No. The biggest sham was refusing to give Garland a hearing and letting Obama fill Scalia's seat.

    The GOP loves to play dirty and underhanded until it happens to them. Karma MFers, karma.

    I've reached the point I don't care if he did it or not. I'm enjoying the spectacle after what they did to Garland and Obama.

    Yes (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 08:40:16 AM EST
    the karma that is coming back to land on the GOP is just wonderful. I am loving it too.

    Parent
    I find him entirely INcredible (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 08:36:51 AM EST
    His false claims about peripheral matters make him not credible:

    1.  "Ralph Club" - Claims it's because he's known for throwing up for to his "weak stomach", which could be for to beer or spicy food.  Unless he hangs out with a similar sensitivity to spicy food, this is clearly a reference to throwing up after drinking excessively.  But he wouldn't even admit this.

    2.  "Renate Alumnius" - clearly some kind of reference to a sexual conquest, whether real or false boasting.  Not some innocent, friendly reference as he claimed.

    3.  "Devil's Triangle" - not a drinking game - or even close.

    4.  "Boofing" - not flatulence.

    If he won't tell the truth about these things, why would anyone believe the rest of his testimony.  There's a reason they won't have Mark Judge testify, and it's because they'll ask him about these (and other) matters.

    This was remarkable (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 08:43:19 AM EST
    They will appear again in commercials if there is a campaign to impeach him.

    This was special


    Computer in House offices attempted to edit Wikipedia entry for `Devil's Triangle' to match what Kavanaugh claimed


    Parent

    He even felt the need ... (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 10:26:33 AM EST
    ... to lie and claim that he was over the legal drinking age at the time.  He wasn't.  The age was changed from 18 to 21 and he want old enough to be grandfathered in.  He couldn't even admit to underage drinking, which is ridiculous.

    Parent
    If republicans ram this through (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 10:31:34 AM EST
    I can only explain it one way.  They already have internal polling saying the Senate is gone.

    Be cause it damn sure is if they do it.

    There is no logic to this any other way.  They are committing political suicide because they know this is it.  The last Harrah.  


    Parent

    Also (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 10:33:24 AM EST
    Personally I was more amazed and offended by the partisan conspiracy rant.  That was disqualifying for ANY federal judge.  Period.

    Parent
    And btw (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 10:39:29 AM EST
    If they do this it's  all out war.  The calls for a democrat president and congress to increase the number of justices to 11 and pack it with democrats are going to go main stream

    Ask yourself,  after Garland and now THIS why on earth would they even hesitate to do whatever it takes.

    Parent

    The laughable bridge-too-far (none / 0) (#138)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 01:31:27 PM EST
    for me was that folk tale about him being a dewy, blushing virgin until he was "several years" into, or was it out of? college.

    Parent
    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 08:41:08 AM EST
    That is insane.  Particularly your smear about "you and the rest of the Avennati/Pizzagate crazies.". Learn the difference between tinfoil conspiracy theories and credible accusations based on a victim's sworn statement before you try to claim the "rational" mantel.

    I don't believe (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 09:14:30 AM EST
    Kavanaugh showed the temperament to be a traffic court judge.

    He would make a great (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 10:21:57 AM EST
    FOX NOOZE legal analyst.

    Parent
    So yelling while you lie (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 10:38:03 AM EST
    Makes a man credible?

    Same as it ever was

    Here is the hearing (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 10:36:45 PM EST
    The 4th person to give me this :) (none / 0) (#184)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 03, 2018 at 02:07:55 PM EST
    I'm with CST (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 11:59:26 AM EST
    after 2016, I wouldn't put anything past the goofball electorate in this country.

    All bets are off. We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

    Worth remembering (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:03:18 PM EST
    This is conveniently happening at the EXACT time when the left, ALL the left, is more organized, motivated and funded than any time in my life.

    This, if it happens, will up in their stupid faces.

    Parent

    Whitehouse just said (none / 0) (#122)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:16:50 PM EST
    "Given what's happening in the ante room" the vote should be delayed. But does not give details

    Republicans surrounding Jeff Flake.

    Parent

    I wonder (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:22:53 PM EST
    if Avenatti has given more witness names to the senators.

    Parent
    Graham looks like someone (none / 0) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    Thumped him

    Parent
    Between today and the Senate vote (none / 0) (#125)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:19:46 PM EST
    If more evidence of sexual assault or rape emerges, everyone who would not allow an FBI investigation is what?

    Parent
    Mitchs last public statement (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:23:57 PM EST
    Was "he would get an up or down vote"  

    Which is very different thing

    After saying for days he would be confirmed.

    I am hoping and praying this is one of those "give the Cheeto what it wants" moments and the idea is to have a vote to shut it down for good

    But you know I'm a optimist

    Parent

    Joe Donelly (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:32:20 PM EST
    comes out against Kavanaugh.

    Tester also a NO (none / 0) (#135)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    Das Bier ist sehr gut. (5.00 / 5) (#137)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 01:17:38 PM EST
    Just about the only thing believable that come out of Kavanaugh's mouth.  The advise and consent process has been clarified repeatedly that it is not a trial--more like a job interview.

     And, there are not many human resource people in any reputable company/corporation/academic institution that would hire someone like Kavanaugh for a responsible position (and maybe any position) with a list of allegations of sexual assault outstanding.  Get them cleared up and come back, is the likely outcome of the job interview.

     As bad as the allegations are, and as credible as the testimony of Dr. Ford, the only accuser given an opportunity to be heard,was:  the confirmability of Kavanaugh needs to take into account the whole: the cumulative information that was available to assess the fitness for elevation to the Supreme Court.  

    As a 53-year old nominee for a life-long appointment on the Supreme Court--a judicial institution that has responsibility and authority way beyond that which Kavanaugh already has as a federal appellate judge,--his decisions will impact generations of Americans.  

    His ideology is that what can be expected from the president who nominated him.  However, what should also be expected is a Justice with a judicial temperament and demeanor.

     Kavanaugh's very long opening statement was a polemic delivered at a decibel level that exceeded the pain threshold of the ear. The louder, the more truthful, was the reed supporting his tirade. And, the content might have been drafted by a junior Brietbart staffer plus lifting aspects of Clarence Thomas's defiant testimony, 27 years ago.

     Ranting against Democratic senators in front of him, the 2016 election (a bad omen for anything that might come before him if confirmed), and Clintons. No less of a disaster, but criticized for not have the desired belligerent tone, was the unprecedented interview on FOX News. Not re-assuring for someone or a group coming before him who is a Democrat or who has Democratic ties.

    In addition, and critically, is Kavanaugh's credibility--a character flaw all too evident for over the past ten or more years.  It took him three years to get confirmed to the circuit court, and his credibility has been a factor at that time and glaringly apparent throughout the SC confirmation. He has been accused of being a liar and a thief; and documents have been withheld from senator's review.  

    During Q&A yesterday, Kavanaugh gave misleading/inaccurate/no answers to questions by Democratic senators. On matters large and small. Indeed, he was contemptuous of them and flaunted it.  The rude and insensitive question to Senator Klobuchar was revelatory. He was fortunate that the senator was so gracious in accepting his apology offered after the break, and did not, at least, remind him of the Grassley's admonition (which he, himself, did not adhere to) for civility.

    Dr. Ford testified that she came forward to provide information about the nominee (actually, and credibly, before the nomination) about Kavanaugh and her awful experience.  It was information given for the Committee to take into account and to consider.

    Further examination was required, and even Kavanaugh came close to acknowledging this, when he smart-mouthed that if we wanted to know if Mark Judge's Bart O'Kavanaugh was a Roman a clef for him, he responded: you would have to ask him. Next to how much he like beer, then and now, that was the best idea I heard from him. And when the hapless "female assistant" started to probe the July 1, 1982 calendar date, a weekday in which he named boys planned on "skiss", she was whisked away, without explanation.

    Kavanaugh and his confirmation process was a travesty, that brings a cancer to the Supreme Court. Two out of nine justices will have unresolved sexual harassment/assault allegations left hanging.  A real mess, unless the objective is to subvert democratic institutions.

    Rude Pundit (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by leap on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 06:26:38 PM EST
    put a question on his twitter to HR people:

    Last night on Twitter, I asked how HR at people's workplace would have reacted to Kavanaugh. The responses are enlightening.

    Here

    Parent

    No, Kavanaugh's accusers do not have (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 10:21:03 PM EST
    a burden of proof, much less an elevated burden, in the present context. His supporters have the burden of showing -- by clear and convincing evidence, you might say -- that he is one of the most qualified individuals in the entire United States, by intellect, learning, compassion, and temperament -- to occupy, potentially for life, one of the nine seats on the Supreme Court.

    Save your "explanations" (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 06:41:03 AM EST
    ... and Holiday-Inn-lawyering for someone who doesn't know better.  It's like watching a child explain to an engineer their version of how they think a car works.

    I'll break it down into little, baby bites for you.  I know the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.   I'm an actual lawyer, not someone reading a Wikipedia entry.  Most 8th graders know what it is.  What's arbitrary is your selection and use of it.  There is no standard of proof OR burden of proof in the Kavenaugh hearing.  This is Not a civil lawsuit in an American court.  This is NOT even a court of law.  It's a job interview.

    Sadly, I have not been nominated by (5.00 / 5) (#163)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 04:10:32 PM EST
    the President of the United States to a lifetime commission as a federal judge. So your hypothetical example does not seem to apply. That said, if I were to be reminded of some occasion (or told that there had been an occasion), decades ago, when I mistreated an acquaintance or friend (which I would like to think never happened, but I certainly cannot rule out), I don't think my reaction, regardless of the context, would not be to say "prove it, and until you do I will deny it angrily and tearfully."

    strike that last "not" (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Peter G on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 04:12:08 PM EST
    No amount of proofreading is ever enough.

    Parent
    Peter g, you appear to have excellent (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 05:50:39 PM EST
    a judicial temperament.  The comment to which you replied absolutely infuriated me. Still does.

    Parent
    Peter, Linea's comment (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 07:09:10 PM EST
    has been deleted, as have several other comments of hers in this thread.  She has been warned so many times and that comment was so over the top that she is now banned from the site.

    Parent
    Disappointed to hear that Jeralyn (none / 0) (#167)
    by McBain on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 12:30:39 AM EST
    While I understand some of Linea's comments where over the top as you said, she certainty isn't alone in that regard.  

    Parent
    ;-D

    Parent
    There,s still time. (none / 0) (#171)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 11:52:55 AM EST
    Nope (none / 0) (#172)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 02:42:58 PM EST
    Too old.

    Parent
    My opinion (1.67 / 6) (#56)
    by linea on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 07:48:30 PM EST
    My preference would have been that a woman be nominated. Even more so after this circus. Unfortunately, and particularly after Michael Avenatti`s scurrilous and outrageous PizzaGate-level allegations, Bret Kavanaugh deserves to be confirmed so as not to give credence to the hideousness of the most extreme allegations. Sorry.

    About Christine Ford, Ph.D., I watched the hearing and while everyone can be sympathetic, the preponderance of the evidence is strongly on the side of Bret Kavanaugh.

    None of us can have the slightest idea (5.00 / 11) (#57)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 08:01:59 PM EST
    where the preponderance of the evidence lies (which, by the way, is not the applicable standard), because the majority on the committee and its "leadership" refused to allow most of the available evidence to be presented, much less allow a full investigation designed to uncover additional evidence.

    Parent
    What would an investigation uncover? (2.00 / 1) (#59)
    by coast on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 08:20:05 PM EST
    You have the two parties testifying under oath.  One stating that an incident occurred.  The other saying it never happened.  The other parties named by Dr Ford have submitted statements, under penalty of a felony, that they have no recollection of the party.  What additional procedures would the FBI pursue to obtain additional information of a 30 year old incident?

    I found both parties to be creditable.  But that is the whole problem with this hearing.  It was never going to be anything more than a he said / she said hearing.

    Parent

    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 08:52:30 PM EST
    facing the FBI and being under the gun makes people talk more so than tapping out a statement in the lawyer's office.

    Parent
    What would an investigation uncover ? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 09:06:23 PM EST
    I may be wrong here but I'm pretty sure that is exactly the point

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#65)
    by coast on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 09:13:21 PM EST
    I would agree with you typically, but this is a thirty year old allegation.  The penalty of a felony for lying on a submitted statement is more than anything the FBI would be able to bring in this case.

    Parent
    Those statements (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 09:48:01 PM EST
    Are submitted AND signed by the lawyer.

    This has been discussed everywhere today.  People don't generally go to jail because the lawyers lie.

    To say to statements are equal to an FBI interview is nonsense

    Parent

    Point taken. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by coast on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 10:14:41 PM EST
    Judge just submitted (none / 0) (#76)
    by coast on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 10:20:35 PM EST
    a signed statement.  So he is subject to a felony if he is not making a truthful statement.

    Parent
    We'll never know (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 10:35:21 AM EST
    ... what it would have uncovered, because Republicans don't want the FBI to investigate.  It's only "He said, she said" by design.  They're scared of uncovering information that will either corroborate her claims or impeach some of his incredible testimony.

    Parent
    Sorry, I feel you're wrong (1.00 / 2) (#60)
    by linea on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 08:22:22 PM EST
    I'm asserting that any reasonable person who weighed the evidence presented would have to conclude that the preponderance of the evidence favors Bret Kavanaugh.

    For the accuser:
    Her statement. Which is vague in time or place.

    For the accused:

    • The witnesses the accuser named have no idea what she is talking about.
    • Her good friend cited as a witness has no idea what she is talking about and states she has never met Bret Kavanaugh.
    • Contemporary friends and students have stated that this is inconsistent with his character and behavior.
    • The allegation is so old that any memories may be inaccurate or unreliable.
    • The callender-diary and the fact that he was not in the area or not available during much of the period in question.


    Parent
    Oh my, you (5.00 / 8) (#62)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 08:59:13 PM EST
    regurgitated GOP talking points.  Most of what you say is not accurate.  

    Parent
    Your Inaccuracies (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by RickyJim on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 09:25:19 PM EST
    One witness is also accused so his denial doesn't count.  The others were downstairs during the alleged assault and said that they don't remember such a party, not that it didn't happen. She also has people who vouch for her character.  The prosecutor did point out a party on the calendar while questioning Kavanaugh but unfortunately it wasn't explored fully.
    Tobin's House -- Workout / Go to Timmy's for Skis w/ Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi
     

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#71)
    by linea on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 10:01:17 PM EST
    I watched the entire hearing today.

    The others were downstairs during the alleged assault and said that they don't remember such a party, not that it didn't happen.

    No. Not one of her named witnesses will corroborate that this party happened. Not one person stated `I was downstairs.'  

    Your argument seems to be, `There might have been a party even though not one of the witnesses named by the accuser remembers the party. And if there is any possibility there might have been a party that's proof he's commited a sexual assault.'

    What you are asserting is a ridiculous standard. Isn't this a defense bog? Aren't we supposed to be learning how all this is supposed to work? Shouldn't the minimum standard to ruin a man's life with allegations of sexual assault and gang rape be at least preponderance of the evidence? There is no evidence or testimony supporting the accusation other than the accuser's statements. Not one witness named by the accuser can corroborate and her friend states she has never met Bret Kavanaugh. The onus on the accused to disprove the accusation is absurd.

    Parent

    Mark Judge (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 10:25:27 PM EST
    might corroborate if called. Hos lawyer's denial is meaningless.

    Parent
    he just submitted two letters (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 04:09:00 PM EST
    under penalty of felony denying Ford's claim (he doesn't remember being there and he never saw Kavanaugh act the say she described and Swetnick's claims. I'm doing a new post on this now.

    Parent
    "I never saw 'X'," coming from someone (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 04:39:12 PM EST
    who wrote a book admitting to having been an alcoholic in high school to the point of blackouts, is another way of saying, "I cannot remember ever seeing 'X'." Which in turn is just another way of saying, "I don't think we ever did stuff like that while sober. Otherwise, what can I tell you?"

    Parent
    I feel (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 10:23:30 PM EST
    you are just defending your prediction Kavanaugh would be the nominee.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#81)
    by linea on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 10:32:54 PM EST
    My prediction was the Trump would pick him. Because he's exactly the sort of person Trump would pick.

    My preference was that he nominate a woman. There was still some possibility of Kavanaugh withdrawing and a woman being nominated... but then Avenatti happened.

    Parent

    She passed a poligraph (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 09:00:01 PM EST
    Did he?

    Parent
    Polygraph (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 10:21:28 PM EST
    Curious polygraph exam (none / 0) (#170)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 09:44:04 AM EST
    She was not asked about Kavanagh.

    Parent
    Yes- she was (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 04:26:19 PM EST
    She gave an entire statement focused on the night in question and in which she specifically named Kavanaugh as her attacker.  Then she was asked two questions about her interview/statement:

    1.  "Is any part of your statement false?"
    Answer:  "No."

    2.  "Did you make up any part of your statement?"
    Answer:  "No."

    But you already knew that.

    But since you think the polygraph was "curious", how about Kavanaugh is asked the same questions about his testimony?

    Heh.

    Parent

    Do you have a link? (none / 0) (#175)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:07:05 AM EST
    A link to a transcript of the questions and the answers. If not you have no idea what "passed" really means.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#176)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:12:57 AM EST
    Just followed the link.

    The question the examiner made was not specific to which statement Ford made.  The examiner did not ask about Kavanagh specifically.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#177)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:13:17 AM EST
    Just followed the link.

    The question the examiner made was not specific to which statement Ford made.  The examiner did not ask about Kavanagh specifically.

    Parent

    And you find that disqualifying (none / 0) (#179)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:16:37 AM EST
    because of your own expertise?

    The whole statement was the subject of the question.  That includes the identification of Kavanaugh.

    And your arm chair, unqualified critique is meaningless.

    Parent

    Heh, heh, heh (none / 0) (#183)
    by Yman on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 06:20:39 PM EST
    Keep swinging.  Her responses dealt with the entirety of her statement, which was about her specific allegations against Kavanaugh.

    But keep trying to play Holiday-Inn-Polygrapher.

    It's fun to watch.

    Parent

    The GOP did not want the examiner to testify (none / 0) (#178)
    by MKS on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:13:31 AM EST
    But it was administered by an FBI expert.  At this point, it will be examined unless Trump and the White House block such investigations.

    Parent
    It feels like the GOP (none / 0) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 01, 2018 at 09:26:48 AM EST
    And their enablers may be starting to need a nap.

    Parent
    Not even close (none / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 09:01:01 AM EST
    The preponderance of the evidence (your arbitrary standard) is not remotely on Kavenaugh's side.  More importantly, this is just false:

    particularly after Michael Avenatti`s scurrilous and outrageous PizzaGate-level allegations

    These are not Avennati's allegations.  These are Ms. Swetnick's allegations that you are discounting as some tinfoil conspiracy theory.  If you want to do that, at least be accurate and have the courage to go after the actual person making the accusations, rather than her male lawyer.

    Parent

    Other mysteries (1.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ragebot on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 11:53:13 AM EST
    I am still wondering about Ford's flying habits and location in say the two weeks/two days/what ever before the hearing.  Not to mention Ford's claim that she was not aware of the offer for the committee to hold the hearing on the West Coast, or anywhere Ford wanted.

    Much was made by Ford's lawyers about how being in DC would be a burden for Ford because of her fear of flying and the hearing would have to be delayed.  Yet under questioning it seems she was in DC for some time before the hearing and arrived in DC on an aeroplane.

    I am not a fan of polygraph test; in great part because they are not admissible in court.  But the testimony yesterday about the one Ford took raises real questions.  A lot of details about it were not produced; with the comment by her lawyers that the reason was because the FBI guy who administered the test needed to testify.  What we do know is that Ford could not answer several questions about the test.  She did not know if it was video taped.  She did not know who paid for it; or even if it was paid for.  She did testify that she was on a tight schedule (to get on an aeroplane and fly, even with her fear of flying) and the test was the day, or day after her grandmother's funeral.  What does seem clear is that being rushed, having a death in the family, and knowing you would have to fly with a fear of flying combine to make the timing of the polygraph test not idea.

    I am reminded of the movie Sneakers and the iconic theme from it "too many secrets".  There are simply too many mysteries about Ford.

    Currently the Biggest Mystery (none / 0) (#114)
    by RickyJim on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:02:25 PM EST
    to me at least, is why the Republicans are so anxious to get Kavanaugh on the Court for the October session.  Is it because there is some big case to be discussed then for which his vote will be needed?  They know that Kavanaugh can be defrocked after he is seated, as happened to Abe Fortas during the Johnson administration.

    Parent
    I know folks (none / 0) (#121)
    by ragebot on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:16:08 PM EST
    on both sides of the aisle.  The Democrats seem to be convinced Kavanaugh being on the court will end of days.  The Republicans seem to think if Kavanaugh is not confirmed the base will lose heart and stop voting.  So it is more of a political decision to get Kavanaugh confirmed to turn out the base.

    My personal take is Kavanaugh being confirmed is a win/win for both the Republicans and Democrats in terms of base turnout.

    Not sure what you mean by defrocked.  It takes 66 votes to convict a SC Justice that is impeached and I don't see that happening unless there is a video tape of Kavanaugh killing kittens and eating them raw.

    Parent

    Thank you for that, very interesting. (none / 0) (#124)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:17:14 PM EST
    I just looked up Fortas and that led to Douglas. It seems that the politicians back then did not play well with others...

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 02:28:31 PM EST


    The Difference Between Kavanaugh and Trump (none / 0) (#4)
    by RickyJim on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 02:34:35 PM EST
    With Kavanaugh, we don't have enough solid information to know whether or not he is telling the truth about what he is testifying about.  I hope that those who think he is truthful can fill in why they think so.

    the allegations against Trump (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 04:27:01 PM EST
    are off-topic. This is about Kavanaugh.

    Parent
    "Fast Times at Ridgemont High." (1982)

    Just this AM read an article about Los Angeles by a local LA writer who, when watching Fast Times as a teen, recognized the HS in the movie her actual HS.

    Then, recently, in doing fact-checking for the article, found out the movie was actually not shot in her HS.

    She writes: "What is screen, what is real, what is memory? The three do a constant partner-shifting dance."

    'Fast Times' was filmed at Van Nuys HS ... (none / 0) (#169)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Sep 30, 2018 at 03:20:27 AM EST
    ... in the San Fernando Valley, Clark Magnet HS in La Crescenta and various other locales in and around the L.A. area. But its screenplay by Cameron Crowe, based upon his 1981 book of the same name, actually chronicles the year he spent undercover at San Diego's Clairemont High School in 1979-80.

    I'd sooner have Jeff Spicoli on SCOTUS than Brett Kavanaugh.

    Parent

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#13)
    by RickyJim on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 02:50:40 PM EST
    "If confirmed, I will be the first Supreme Court Justice in history to have only female law clerks".


    He can't even speak civilly (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 03:04:17 PM EST
    To the paid shill.

    When we get to the democratic prosecutors this is going to south quickly.

    I think this break (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    Was probably called by the handlers

    Dude, pull it back.

    Parent

    Brett needs to go home, now. (none / 0) (#21)
    by desertswine on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 03:17:33 PM EST
    That would be (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 03:19:32 PM EST
    My advise

    Parent
    I'm really glad Dolores got the hook (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 04:24:32 PM EST
    She was putting me to sleep

    Parent
    Graham and Cornyn weren't getting.. (none / 0) (#35)
    by desertswine on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 04:31:54 PM EST
    enough time to grandstand.

    Parent
    The more screeching old white men (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 04:38:07 PM EST
    The better.

    Parent
    This is over folks (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 03:41:13 PM EST


    Lindsey;s having a case of the vapors.. (none / 0) (#26)
    by desertswine on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 03:48:13 PM EST
    He's beginning to swoon, I think.

    Cornin (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 03:56:27 PM EST
    "You have EXPOSED YOURSELF to legal jeopardy!!"

    Oh man

    Parent

    "Cornyn" (none / 0) (#29)
    by Zorba on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 04:12:21 PM EST
    Just saying. ;-)

    Parent
    Sounded (none / 0) (#30)
    by FlJoe on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 04:20:27 PM EST
    like Missy Graham  had an extra mint julep during break.


    Parent
    He apologized for answering (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 04:31:22 PM EST
    a female senator who asked about his drinking with a question about her drinking acknowledging it was inappropriate, saying it is a tough process. She accepted his apology

    After a break (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 04:40:42 PM EST
    and ability to confer with handlers, etc.

    One response was spontaneous; one was not.

    Parent

    And, (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 05:29:42 PM EST
    the handlers made the "female assistant" go away.

    Parent
    Yeah. That timing (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by Towanda on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 06:36:59 PM EST
    just added to the insincerity of his "apology."

    He was unbelievably aggressive and nasty to Klobuchar.

    Parent

    Klobouchar was excellent. Perfect person (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    to question Kavanaugh: a former prosecutor, and her undergrad degree is from Yale. She knows guys like that; she endured four years in college with them, although she graduated five years before he did.

    Parent
    Kavanaugh supporters (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 05:33:00 PM EST
    do not believe that Ford's allegations are that serious, I believe.

    It would be better if they would just say it was  no big deal; it was too long go; just high school.

    Flake just gave us a preview (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 05:43:59 PM EST
    He has doubts

    Not optimistic , (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 06:03:07 PM EST
    Trump was pleased with Cavanaugh's combative presentation and probably loved the Clinton and Democratic conspiracy. And,the Republican senators will vote however Trump and McConnell tell them to
    For a SC nominee he was unacceptably partisan, without any respect for Democratic senators.


    Parent
    IMO (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 06:08:42 PM EST
    Even if they get him on the court it's not over.  These things WILL be investigated.

    Parent
    It is Hard to Know (none / 0) (#49)
    by RickyJim on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 06:23:55 PM EST
    I can imagine that several Republicans didn't care for Kavanaugh's angry, weepy performance.  However, with absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a liar/rapist, they will probably vote on whether or not they think he will vote the way they want as a Supreme Court Justice.

    Parent
    If this was any situation (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 06:40:41 PM EST
    Other than the possibility of replacing the swing vote with an angry belligerent wingnut I would say there was not a chance in hell this guy would go on the court.

    But so much is at stake.  Any norm of expected behaviour is out the window.

    That said, I can not imagine that screaming pouting sputtering mess being put on the high court.

    Parent

    Really... (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by desertswine on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 06:45:36 PM EST
    to me, he came off as an angry, privileged, arrogant yacht club aristocrat.

    Parent
    He did nothing (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 06:49:19 PM EST
    To convince any one he was not a potentially mean drunk.

    Parent
    desertswine (none / 0) (#67)
    by linea on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 09:33:28 PM EST
    First, I called it!!
    I AM THE BEST

    And Chuck0 agreed!! Thank you Chuck0!!

    My Prediction for Monday (none / 0) (#124)
    by linea on Sun Jul 08, 2018 at 07:36:28 PM EST

    ...

    Who will Trump pick?

    Of the choices offered, in my opinion, Amy Barrett Is the least objectionable because of her life experiences, the fact that she is female, and because she is compassionate enough to adopt children. But obviously it's a toss-up between Kethledge and Kavanaugh for the actual nomination. My best guess, I feel Trump already picked Kavanaugh (before the row) because Kavanaugh is male, from a wealthy family, and attended Yale Law. Trump believes people from wealthy families and those who attend expensive schools are better, because that's better. The way spraying everything in a hotel lobby with gold-coloured spray paint is better.

    Reply to This

    Yes, he's clearly a privileged, arrogant, yacht club aristocrat. But he has a right to be angry. You want to blame someone? Avenatti.


    Parent

    What an inane and (4.00 / 4) (#68)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 09:40:48 PM EST
    frivolous comment.  Do you think this is some type of game?

    You clearly lack much experience or depth.

    Parent

    I was simply (none / 0) (#104)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 10:47:17 AM EST
    acknowledging that your analysis of Bone Spurs' regard for pedigree was most likely spot on. I do believe Kavanaughs pedigree had much to do with the choice. Amy Barrett didn't go to the right schools in Bone Spurs' empty head.

    Parent
    She didn't go to right schools (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    For those who have lived in the DC suburbs either. She's not one of them.

    Parent
    I regret that I don't have (none / 0) (#131)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:30:28 PM EST
    quite the faith in Sister Amy Coney Barret that some others around here seem to.

    Talk about grasping at straws.

    Laura Ingraham has adopted children too, yet she's thrown in her lot with those who Live to cut poor kids food stamps and cut funding for public schools.

    Parent

    I don't support (none / 0) (#142)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 02:07:04 PM EST
    Barrett on the court in any way, shape or form. I was making an observation. Certainly not voicing support.

    Parent
    Thank you! (none / 0) (#149)
    by linea on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 08:36:10 PM EST
    I was simply (none / 0) (#104)
    by Chuck0
    acknowledging that your analysis of Bone Spurs' regard for pedigree was most likely spot on. I do believe Kavanaughs pedigree had much to do with the choice. Amy Barrett didn't go to the right schools in Bone Spurs' empty head.

    Yes, exactly! My prediction was that Trump would pick Kavanaugh based on his pedigree. That's what I meant. Also, I would never want to imply that you endorse Amy Barrett. I would never say that. Thank you for being nice to me.


    Parent

    Signal? (none / 0) (#43)
    by FlJoe on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 05:51:08 PM EST
    any reasonable doubt should compel a no vote.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 05:59:12 PM EST
    Exactly what he meant is being hotly debated

    I could make either argument but I kinda think he meant he has doubts about the judge.

    BUT
    I have given Flake to much credit before


    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#47)
    by FlJoe on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 06:11:17 PM EST
    also have my doubts about Flake, but this would be the ideal political hill for him to die on. His only political future is a presidential run or two. This could possibly a feather in his cap if and when the Republicans turn on tRump.

    Worst case scenario is he will hit the pundit circuit billing himself as the the last of the true centrists. But then again he is still a scorpion, I mean Republican.

    Parent

    Today was a disaster for republicans (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 06:14:04 PM EST
    Even if they push this guy into Kennedy's seat.  It was a disaster they will pay for a generation

    Parent
    No kidding. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 06:29:49 PM EST
    Every election candidates can point to Judge Rape Train.

    Parent
    Trump did say yesterday (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 10:03:41 PM EST
    That no one should have ANY doubt.  Not even a little one.  That's what he said

    Seemed a purposeful use of that word but......

    Parent

    Flake just removed any doubt (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 08:29:05 AM EST
    He will run against Trump in 20

    I think this is what this is about


    Parent

    One thing (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 27, 2018 at 09:51:01 PM EST
    If there really are no republican defections (IMO unlikely not impossible) we absolutely should not pile on red state democrats for voting to protect their seats.

    If the push this through taking both houses of congress will be the ONLY thing that matters.

    However (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    If ANY republican votes no and ANY democrat votes yes they should be burned to the ground.

    Joe, I'm looking at you.

    Parent

    Joe's a NO (none / 0) (#139)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 01:37:40 PM EST
    Look again (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 02:03:42 PM EST
    Joe Donnelly? (none / 0) (#144)
    by Steve13209 on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 03:20:12 PM EST
    https://www.donnelly.senate.gov/newsroom/press/donnelly-announces-opposition-to-kavanaugh-nomination


    Parent
    I just heard he was with Flake (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 03:36:53 PM EST
    Whatever

    Parent
    Flake will vote yes (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 08:26:29 AM EST
    Floor vote here we come

    I still cling to the hope (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 08:33:03 AM EST
    There will be a miracle on the floor.  I can't imagine they do this but failure of imagination is the defining failure of the day.

    I think it would be a serious mistake, tactical error and ill advised stragegerie

    Parent

    These (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 08:38:19 AM EST
    are the biggest fools ever if they put Kavanaugh on the court. It's not like him being on the court is going to end the investigation into him. He completely deligitimizes the supreme court. Avenatti's client is going on TV this weekend. I would guess it is going to be 60 minutes. So they put Kavanaugh on the court and then Monday are gonna deal with their stupidity.

    Parent
    I said before (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 08:48:57 AM EST
    They could care less if he is under a cloud as long as he is on the court.  

    A decision seems to have been made that any political price is worth this and that once he is there it will be over.

    It will not.  They can almost be forgiven for thinking it would because democrats have given them very little reason to expect them to do anything but roll over and pee a little.

    They are making a big mistake.  This is not 1992.

    Parent

    Even in 1992 (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:15:56 PM EST
    the GOP suffered a lot of losses and yet they don't seem to remember that either.

    Parent
    Some Dems walk out of (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 09:18:45 AM EST
    committee meeting.  Including Kamala Harris.

    I  really misjudged Harris.  When she won State AG she just eked out a win by a handful of votes.   I always thought she was a bland wallflower.  Man, did I get tat wrong.  She has moxie.  She will be in the mix in 2002.  If nothing else, then at least VP.

    I am (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:55:28 PM EST
    with you on Harris. She certainly proved she has mettle.

    Parent
    Remaining Feinstein Mystery (none / 0) (#106)
    by RickyJim on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 11:09:01 AM EST
    July 30 - Date of Ford letter to Feinstein:
    "As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak."
    ...
    "I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss."

    September 12 - Feinstein sends unredacted letter to FBI

    September 20 - Feinstein sends unredacted letter to Chairman Grassley, asking that it will still be kept in confidence.

    Link

    The mystery remains.  Did Feinstein try to talk to Ford to try to get permission to send the letter to the FBI for investigation between July 30 and September 12?  

    Testimony from (none / 0) (#107)
    by ragebot on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 11:33:28 AM EST
    Ford was stopped several times yesterday by her lawyers saying the questions would violate attorney/client privilege.  Some time between 30 July and 12 September Ford retained attorneys and even if they were only half way competent they would be involved in any discussion about releasing the letter if DiFI contacted Ford.  I suspect they would raise the same objection.

    Parent
    I can NOT believe they will do this (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 11:40:22 AM EST
    I can't believe the full Senate will confirm this guy.

    It, among other things, would be a gift of both houses of congress.  So, in a way, I hope I'm wrong.  This might be exactly what those lazy sleepy voters need.


    I can believe it (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by CST on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 11:43:08 AM EST
    I'm not even convinced it will hurt them in November.

    This is who we are.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 11:45:19 AM EST
    That's the question isn't it.

    I think, and hope, you are wrong.

    Parent

    Because P freakin S (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 11:41:59 AM EST
    This is about a lot more than s€xual assault.  It's about protecting the assaulter in chief.

    Parent
    Several analysts (none / 0) (#116)
    by ragebot on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:07:15 PM EST
    hold the opinion that it will energize the Democratic base, but it will also energize the Republican base.  The analysts also say not confirming Kavanaugh would result in a drop in voting by the Republican base.

    My take is both bases will be energized by a Kavanaugh confirmation.

    Lots of polls I have seen puts several other concerns above nominations to the SC.  Currently health care seems to lead most polls with the economy second.

    What a lot of analysis seems to ignore is that if those putting health care first were all going to vote or Democrats anyway it is not all that important.

    No one doubts there is a split along the lines of 45% Democrats, 45% Republicans, 10% undecided.  While those numbers can be argued the key point is that a huge number of voters are locked in no matter what and only a much smaller number can be convinced to change their vote.

    I would add as a disclaimer that all the polls had Hillary winning in a landslide and we all know what happened with that.

    Parent

    Why would you add ... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 02:21:30 PM EST
    ... a false disclaimer?  Your claim that all the polls predicted a "landslide" is false.  The 2016 polls were showing her winning the national vote by 3.2%.  She actually won it by 2.1%.

    Parent
    Yeah? (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:11:15 PM EST
    I suspect the right might be somewhat "lulled".  After all.  The will have what they allways wanted.

    I guess we will just have to wait till Nov 6th

    Parent

    According (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:21:13 PM EST
    to Pew the split is 39 GOP and 48 Dem. They include leaners in their analysis. The GOP's problem is not their base. Their base always turns out. Their problem is that their base is basically white evangelicals and millionaires and nothing else. When you put someone on the court who has the support of 30% of the country it's not a winning proposition for anyone other than that 30%.

    Parent
    Republican Senators have Jeff Flake (none / 0) (#118)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:14:41 PM EST
    Cornered outside the room. Something is up. Can we please have one Republican Senator with a functioning soul?

    Jeffrey Toobin on CNN... (none / 0) (#123)
    by desertswine on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:17:10 PM EST
    "If there is a weaker, more pathetic political figure in the U.S. than Jeff Flake, i'm not aware of who it is. I thought yesterday was a classic demonstration of his inability to stand for anything"

    Parent
    Republican Senators are being confronted (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:22:20 PM EST
    By women everywhere they go. They can't walk down the hall without being confronted.

    Parent
    NOT (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 12:25:22 PM EST
    1991

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 01:01:09 PM EST
    Take a deep breath, Yman.... (none / 0) (#154)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 28, 2018 at 11:28:14 PM EST
    I'll try to explain this to you, But I'm not a lawyer and my information comes from research on the issue.

    and let it go.

    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 06:32:03 AM EST
    But it's hard sometimes.

    Actually, most of the time.


    Parent
    My opinion is (none / 0) (#161)
    by jondee on Sat Sep 29, 2018 at 01:24:08 PM EST
    your opinions are as fickle as seeds in the wind.

    Now you want to confirm for life a man who compares assault rifles to a category of speech solely because Avenatti's abrasive style rubs you the wrong way.

    What happened to the "touching" tears of the families ripped apart by mass shootings?

    How soon we forget.