Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, September 20, 2018

President Trump and Senate Republicans on Wednesday took a hard line: full-speed ahead on Brett M. Kavanaugh's nomination for the Supreme Court despite an allegation of sexual assault decades ago. But privately, discussions about the political fallout gripped the party, with Republican lawmakers and strategists unnerved by the charged, gender-infused debates that have upended this campaign season.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The uncertainty in Republican ranks evoked uneasy memories of how the hearings for Clarence Thomas's Supreme Court nomination spurred what became known as the "Year of the Woman" in 1992, when a wave of Democratic women won office, and underscored widespread GOP disquiet over the fast-changing culture and the power of the #MeToo movement.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article:

One of those Republicans said several top GOP lawmakers have told colleagues that they hope Ford declines to show up for the hearing even as they issue statements urging her to do so -- helping the GOP avoid a risky televised drama and making it easier for Senate leaders to hold a vote next week.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-19 11:45 PM | Reply

- full-speed ahead on Brett M. Kavanaugh's nomination for the Supreme Court

Now that it's become apparent that Feinstein is intentionally orchestrating a delay using Ford, who can blame them.

There was never any intention for Ford to testify. This will all be cast as victimhood and outrage. #MissionAccomplished

#2 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-20 12:02 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Jesse Lehrich @JesseLehrich

the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 passed the Senate 78-22.

the 6 highest ranking Rs on @senjudiciary voted against it:
– Grassley
– Hatch
– Graham
– Cornyn
– Lee
– Cruz

www.senate.gov

#3 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 12:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Feinstein is intentionally orchestrating a delay"

The Anita Hill investigation took 3 days; this could've been done in a week. And since Grassley knew long enough in advance to get 65 women on a letter, cries of a delay fall flat, especially since the Rs plan was to keep the info away from the public if possible.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-20 12:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"There was never any intention for Ford to testify."

Which is why Rs completely upended usual legal procedures and gave Ford an impossible deadline.

Tell us: do you believe lawyers usually question before an investigation, or after an investigation?

#5 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-20 12:14 AM | Reply

If she is telling the truth, I hope Ford does testify. I know it will be a horrendous experience for her, but with the GoFundMe money at least she can pay for private security for her family and herself. It must have been extremely difficult scrambling around to move her family out of their house, fearing for their safety, wondering how to pay for it all. Now that some of that burden has been lifted, maybe she can take the time to reconsider testifying. If I was her and telling the truth, I would ask the committee on live TV to request an FBI investigation on my (her) behalf. If she is not telling the truth, she needs to admit that right now. She'll likely be prosecuted, but it will be better for her than having the FBI reveal she is making a false accusation.

#6 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 12:18 AM | Reply

"several top GOP lawmakers have told colleagues that they hope Ford declines to show up for the hearing even as they issue statements urging her to do so"

Why do they ignore her lawyers' statements?

If Kavanaugh was receiving death threats, had to move his family due to threats, and he requested a delay, does anyone doubt the Republicans would fall all over themselves to accommodate?

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-20 12:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Laurence Tribe @tribelaw

GOP game is clear: They'll go ahead & vote Wednesday with no Monday hearing, blaming Dr. Blasey for declining her chance to testify. It's disgusting but might work. Blasey must either cave and testify Monday or call their bluff and hope they'll blink. I'd reluctantly urge caving.
5:28 AM - 19 Sep 2018

#8 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 12:22 AM | Reply

I'd suggest making a Harper Valley PTA moment out of it.

Go in, list all the shortcomings of the men about to trash her, point out the fact anyone who's ever watched a single episode of Law and Order knows the investigation comes BEFORE the lawyers ask the questions, and let them know she'll be glad to testify under oath as soon as they fulfill their Constitutional duties and act like it's a REAL hearing, and not a clown show.

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-20 12:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#4 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Feinstein began licking her chops in July, and planned this all out into August.

They new they had nothing else on Kavanaugh. This is just an 11th hour appeal to #metoo using a weak 35 year old allegation.

Cosby had dozens of accusers. A predator always leaves a trail of victims, and as you pointed out, 65 women have come forward to sign a letter of support for Kavanaugh.

Show me a list of 65 women that supported Cosby, Clinton, Spacey, Weinstein, Matt Lauer. This is a scam. You're being duped by political theatre. or you know and are complicit.

#10 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-20 12:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The GOP can confirm him. Whenever they want. Executive branch nomination and control of the Senate is all that is required.

No GOP senator has the balls to stand up to donald's tweets.

#11 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-09-20 12:33 AM | Reply

Fake allegations, now fake death threats...

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-20 12:35 AM | Reply

It must have been extremely difficult scrambling around to move her family out of their house, fearing for their safety, wondering how to pay for it all.
#6 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

The victim virtue signaling has begun.

"I've received harassment and death threats!" - Kathy Griffin

Prove it.

#13 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-20 12:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Feinstein began licking her chops in July,"

Grassley began hiding this in July.

"Show me a list of 65 women that..."

...that Grassley had in his pocket for the day the accusation came out.

And now, 200 women came out in support of Ford.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-20 12:40 AM | Reply

Between his sexist writings and this, you can see why the GOP don't want this guy to testify. Otherwise they would bring him in to refute Ford's claim along with Kav:

Daily Caller genius: I don't feel bad for black people anymore because I think a black person stole my bike

Man assumes black person stole his bike, decides to write long column about it, Tucker Carlson's site runs it

April 9, 2012 9:47pm (UTC)

Mark Judge would like the world to know that he no longer has any "white guilt" because his bike got stolen and the perpetrator may have been a black person, or possibly (the culprit is still at large!) black people in general.

Who is Mark Judge? He is some guy writing an opinion column for Tucker Carlson's online magazine, "Assumption of Trayvon Martin's Guilt Illustrated." (He is also the author of some awful-sounding book about being a right-wing Catholic who likes rock 'n' roll music ...

www.salon.com

#15 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 12:41 AM | Reply

"And now, 200 women came out in support of Ford."

I saw the letter tonight, and it now has over a 1,000 names.

#16 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 12:43 AM | Reply

"65 women have come forward..."

No, 200 women have come forward, supporting Dr. Ford.

65 women were recruited by Republicans for the day the accusation came out.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-20 12:45 AM | Reply

Hey Gal, how much research are you doing on Keith Ellison? www.chicagotribune.com

Are you going to devote as many posts on him as you do Kavanaugh?

Let me rephrase that, will you post AT ALL on Ellison, and demand an FBI insvestigation, or are you a hack?

#18 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-20 12:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"This is a verified list of 1,039 alumnae of Holton-Arms."

www.standwithblaseyford.com

I clicked through to the letter from this article, so I'm assuming it's legit:

599 alumnae from Christine Blasey Ford's high school sign letter saying they support her

www.vox.com

#19 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 12:49 AM | Reply

I saw the letter tonight, and it now has over a 1,000 names.
#16 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Allow me to quote Corky: " Argumentum Ad Populumr"

#20 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-20 12:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"Let me rephrase that, will you post AT ALL on Ellison, and demand an FBI insvestigation, or are you a hack?"

I read one article about him tonight. It said his girlfriend's son recorded a video of him abusing her. My recommendation to her is that she turn the video over to LE and/or release it to the press.

#21 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 12:51 AM | Reply

Allow me to quote Corky: " Argumentum Ad Populumr"

You brought up the letter in support of Kavanaugh:

"65 women have come forward to sign a letter of support for Kavanaugh."

Danforth responded:

"No, 200 women have come forward, supporting Dr. Ford."

Then I offered an update. BTW, a number of the women on the Kav list refuse to comment now that Ford's claim has come out:

Kavanaugh May Have Lost Support From Women Who Vouched For Him

hillreporter.com

#22 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 12:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Argumentum Ad Populum"

And only 18 minutes before, you were using the same argument.

#23 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-20 01:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#21 Okay, giving the video over to the press is out, but she should still turn it over to law enforcement. I'm sure they have female officers who specialize in helping abuse victims that she can work with:

Monahan has previously said there is a video of the 2016 incident, which she told CBS News was the only instance of physical violence during their relationship. Her son has also said he has seen the video. Monahan has declined to share it publicly, and said it is traumatizing.

This week she wrote on Twitter, "I don't have to show a video that shows me in a vulnerable position. Did they even think what I may or may not have been wearing?"

#24 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 01:08 AM | Reply

www.drudge.com

Go ahead, start posting your investigation of Ellison to match the 10 pages of comments on Kavanaugh.

You're neutral and non-partisan, right?

#25 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-20 01:13 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Go ahead, start posting your investigation of Ellison "

Multiple posts? I guess all you've got is Whataboutism.

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-20 01:17 AM | Reply

Paola Mendoza @paolamendoza (Film Director)

#DearProfessorFord,

We want you to know that you are not alone. You are a survivor. Millions of us have your back.

We call on Senators to demand a full, fair and trauma-informed investigation.

Signed,
Your Sisters

Call Your Senators 202-804-8191 In Support Of #DearProfessorFord

You can watch the video here:

twitter.com

#27 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 01:18 AM | Reply

"Go ahead, start posting your investigation of Ellison to match the 10 pages of comments on Kavanaugh."

Is there a thread for the Chicago Tribune article you linked to? If not, maybe you should start one.

#28 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 01:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#28 You seem to be investigating Ellison, so why not put it to good use?

#29 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 01:25 AM | Reply

"Whataboutism" is the lamest deflection ever, and you freaks don't realize it.

#30 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-20 01:28 AM | Reply

If not, maybe you should start one.
#28 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Admit your selective outrage for violence against women.

It's political, Gal. More importantly, admit it to yourself.

#31 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-20 01:31 AM | Reply

"The victim virtue signaling has begun.
"I've received harassment and death threats!" - Kathy Griffin
Prove it."

This is what her lawyers wrote in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

In the 36 hours since her name became public, Dr. Ford has received a stunning amount of support from her community and from fellow citizens across our country. At the same time, however, her worst fears have materialized. She has been the target of vicious harassment and even death threats. As a result of these kind of threats, her family was forced to relocate out of their home. Her email has been hacked, and she has been impersonated online.

assets.documentcloud.org

I guess they could be lying. Hey, you now what would prove if they are telling the truth? An FBI investigation.

#32 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 01:32 AM | Reply

""Whataboutism" is the lamest deflection ever, and you freaks don't realize it."

Oh, I realize it, that's why I pointed it out. Ellison isn't being considered for the Supreme Court; Kavanaugh is. In a thread about the latter, bringing up Ellison is either a deflection, or Whataboutism. I'll let you choose.

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-20 01:35 AM | Reply

Which is why Rs completely upended usual legal procedures and gave Ford an impossible deadline.
Tell us: do you believe lawyers usually question before an investigation, or after an investigation?

#5 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Grassley has offered to send staff to California, or wherever she wishes, to get her testimony. That's not really a viable excuse not to testify.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-20 10:18 AM | Reply

"Ellison isn't being considered for the Supreme Court; Kavanaugh is."

I think Ellison is running for AG of MN. If an investigation shows he beat up his ex-girlfriend, then he should drop out of the race and resign from Congress and from the DNC.

#35 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 10:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Grassley has offered to send staff to California"

Because he doesn't really want a public hearing.

Again: no lawyer asks questions of witnesses under oath, until an investigation can be done. EXCEPT IN THIS CASE.

Without additional information, each side will ask its own partisan questions. It's not a good faith effort to get to the truth.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-20 10:21 AM | Reply

#18 sheeple asking somebody else if they're a hack.

LOL piss off.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-20 10:23 AM | Reply

Whataboutism" is the lamest deflection ever, and you freaks don't realize it.

#30 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTE

Is that why you couldn't stop bringing up Bill Clinton yesterday?

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-20 10:25 AM | Reply

Ellison is your DNC party leader accused of domestic violence, and there is reported video/audio. This is a recent assault, not some 35 year old charge.

The DR is SO concerned about women and violence that they don't even discuss the matter, because team.

Hypocrites & Hacks. Your political motivations have been exposed.

#39 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-20 10:31 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"The DR is SO concerned about women and violence that they don't even discuss the matter, because team."

And you're SO concerned you put up exactly ZERO threads on Ellison.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-20 10:33 AM | Reply

More on why the GOP won't call Mark Judge as a character witness for Kav:

David Cay Johnston @DavidCayJ

OMG Facebook post by classmate of Kavanaugh & buddy Mark Judge on awful morals that @SenateGOP should worry about a lot. h/t @EveHammond13

www.facebook.com ...

#41 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 10:34 AM | Reply

"The DR is SO concerned about women and violence that they don't even discuss the matter, because team."
And you're SO concerned you put up exactly ZERO threads on Ellison.

He is a Democrat and a Bernie supporter. You claim to be the latter, so why don't you start a thread?

#42 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 10:35 AM | Reply

--And you're SO concerned you put up exactly ZERO threads on Ellison.

Is that the criteria for credibility now, putting up threads? Some people aren't as invested in this as the partisan fanatics that post 4 threads a day.

#43 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-20 10:37 AM | Reply

"Is that the criteria for credibility now, putting up threads?"

Well, it's better than derailing every thread. Wouldn't you agree?

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-20 10:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#39 Ale @aliasvaughn

Oh. Trump socializing with minors, you say? Jeff Epstein Pleaded The Fifth When Asked About Trump Socializing With Minors

mavenroundtable.io

RoC and I have discussed the Epstein case (at least once RCade took down the whole thread and then re-instated it) and its possible ramifications for both Trump and Clinton. We both agreed that if there is any there there when it comes to both men, they should be prosecuted. I'm pretty sure RoC will remember these discussions and vouch for what I'm saying.

#45 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 10:44 AM | Reply

Ellison is your DNC party leader accused of domestic violence, and there is reported video/audio. This is a recent assault, not some 35 year old charge.

I think Ellison should be investigated and should step down if the allegations are credible. Can't say the same with respect to your position on Kavanaugh.

#46 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-20 10:49 AM | Reply

#45 My memory is a little vague, but I think I may have even ventured into the Nooner to make the case to RCade to reinstate that thread.

#47 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 10:56 AM | Reply

So we can add Nulli and sheeple to the list of sexual assault supporters on the DR.

Glad you guys are becoming comfortable enough to let your true selves shine through.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-20 11:28 AM | Reply

The arguments against Transgender females using the Women's restroom is some guy might pretend to be a woman and rape them. Yet we have here a woman that says she was attempted raped by Kavanaugh and they are doing their level bests to not believe her. Just goes to show me that it's really about a wedge issue and their trying to win on the culture wars front.

#49 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-09-20 11:33 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

So we can add Nulli and sheeple to the list of sexual assault supporters on the DR.
#48 | POSTED BY JPW

Sure thing, Exaggerater. You left out, Russian Nazi sexual assault supporter.

#50 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-20 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Well you've added deflecting for a Repub sexual predator to your resume.

What do you expect other than to be called out for it?

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-20 12:45 PM | Reply

Is that why you couldn't stop bringing up Bill Clinton yesterday?

#38 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-09-20 10:25 AM

No, I brought up Bubba because you and others were screaming that the FBI should investigate an alleged rape allegation no matter what, but were silent when Bubba was accused actual rape, while Gov. of Arkansas, TWICE. Guess what, no investigation, but at least he paid Paula Jones $800K and apologized to Juanita Broadderick.

#45

That is exactly correct, and I also sent an email to RCade asking that it be put back up. I won't get into the reasons he took it down, but he did apologize when he restated it.

My position has been, remains and will always be that if you are in public office and are accused of sexual assault, it must be investigated. If you admit to or are convicted of sexual assault, you must step down. I don't care if your POTUS, SCOTUS, Governor or a legislator, there should be no limitations on investigations.

In Kavanaugh's case, let the vote proceed but have the FBI investigate...if they find that he did what he is alleged to have done, he must step down if confirmed.

#52 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-20 01:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So, she deserves to be heard but now it's outrageous that the GOP is giving her a platform to be heard?

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-20 01:51 PM | Reply

This is more about politics and less about Dr. Ford, which is unfortunate.

Well you've added deflecting for a Repub sexual predator to your resume.
What do you expect other than to be called out for it?

#51 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-09-20 12:45 PM

And you have been deflecting for a Dem sexual predator for decades.
What do you expect other than to be called out for it?

#54 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-20 02:25 PM | Reply

And you have been deflecting for a Dem sexual predator for decades.

What was it you said yesterday? Something about asking Snoofy for help with assigning other people positions?

Pot. Kettle. Oh never mind, you've already met.

#55 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-20 02:31 PM | Reply

No, I brought up Bubba because you and others were screaming that the FBI should investigate an alleged rape allegation no matter what, but were silent when Bubba was accused actual rape, while Gov. of Arkansas, TWICE

The DR didn't exist then. Hell, the internet barely did.

You're not usually so dumb as to make this absurd of a statement.

#56 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-20 02:32 PM | Reply

LOL, you were incensed that I dare bring up the fact that Bubba was accused of rape TWICE. Do you think that the FBI should have investigated him? I do and think that Kavanaugh should be investigated as well.

#57 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-20 02:51 PM | Reply

Let me remind you of a few posts:

Is that why you couldn't stop bringing up Bill Clinton yesterday?

#38 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-09-20 10:25 AM

But but but he never admitted it, so Bubba gets a pass!!!?
-The DR Left

#151 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

More whataboutism = more support of sexual assault.
👍🏻👍🏻

POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-09-19 05:34 PM

If you weren't deflecting away from Clinton's rape accusations, then I apologize...but it certainly looks that way.

#58 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-20 02:57 PM | Reply

If you weren't deflecting away from Clinton's rape accusations, then I apologize...but it certainly looks that way.
#58 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-09-20 02:57 PM | FLAG:

You are the one deflecting TO President Clinton's Rape accusations in a discussion that is actually about someone else. In other words, you were and you are engaged in Whataboutism.

#59 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-20 03:13 PM | Reply

"Whataboutism" is the lamest deflection ever, and you freaks don't realize it.

#30 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-09-20 01:28 AM | FLAG:

"Pointing out someone's deflections is the REAL deflection!"

-Rightostupid

"People who fight Nazis are the REAL Nazis!"

-Also Rightostupid

"People upset by racism are the REAL racists."

-Who else but Rightostupid?

#60 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-20 03:16 PM | Reply

LOL, it looks like my plonked ankle biter is gnawing away again.

#61 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-20 03:26 PM | Reply

And no, Dirkstain, I haven't looked to see the inanity du jour...

#62 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-20 03:27 PM | Reply

LOL, it looks like my plonked ankle biter is gnawing away again.

#61 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2018-09-20 03:26 PM | FLAG:

Well, the latest permanent plonk lasted less than 24 hours. I wonder how long the NEXT one will last?

#63 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-20 03:38 PM | Reply

61/62

try to ignore that ---------.

#64 | Posted by eberly at 2018-09-20 03:42 PM | Reply

try to ignore that ---------.

#64 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2018-09-20 03:42 PM | FLAG:

Conveniently, that is also your approach to most social and political problems!

#65 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-20 03:48 PM | Reply

He's plonked, it's just funny that he constantly tries to eat the corn out of my fecal matter.

#66 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-20 03:50 PM | Reply

"He's plonked"

Permanently this time? Somehow I doubt it.

"it's just funny that he constantly tries to eat the corn out of my fecal matter."

Your scatology fetish is between you and your internet service provider... and possibly the local farming community. No need to bring it up here.

#67 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-20 03:59 PM | Reply

Your scatology fetish....

#67 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Scatology. I had to look that one up. Great word!

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-20 04:03 PM | Reply

Scatology is the study of the musical singing style of people such as Ella Fitzgerald.

#69 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-20 04:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Scatology is the study of the musical singing style of people such as Ella Fitzgerald." - #69 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-20 04:13 PM

scatology noun sca·tol·o·gy | ska-ˈtä-lə-jē

1 : interest in or treatment of obscene matters especially in literature

2 : the biologically oriented study of excrement (as for taxonomic purposes or for the determination of diet)

Nothing in there about music.

Nope.

Nothing whatsoever.

#70 | Posted by Hans at 2018-09-20 04:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

If you weren't deflecting away from Clinton's rape accusations, then I apologize...but it certainly looks that way.
#58 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

You deflected my deflection!

🤦🏼‍♂️

#71 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-20 04:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#70 | POSTED BY HANS Scissorhands

Whaddup psycho. Did you take a screen shot?

#72 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-20 04:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#72

Afraid to face your own words, coward?

#73 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-20 04:52 PM | Reply

GOP have to hire a woman because there are none on their side of the Judiciary Committee:

Frank Thorp V @frankthorp

Sources tell @kasie and me that Republicans on the Judiciary Cmte are planning to hire an outside counsel to handle questioning of Judge Kavanaugh & Dr. Ford. Female litigators are being considered, which could help the optics of 11 men making up the GOP side of the cmte.

#74 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 10:08 PM | Reply

Or as Marcy Wheeler put it:

emptywheel @emptywheel

emptywheel Retweeted Frank Thorp V
GOP is going to hire a token female for their Kavanaugh questioning because they don't actually have one themselves.

#75 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 10:10 PM | Reply

"Female litigators are being considered"

Someone, somewhere in a back room is being paid to calculate exactly how many Republican suburban female votes this will save.

#76 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-20 10:11 PM | Reply

"Outsourcing":

Arlen Parsa @arlenparsa

Replying to @emptywheel
At first it seems like a cheap trick but I can imagine every network newscast including the detail that Republicans don't have a single woman on the committee and have never had one in 200 years so they had to outsource it.

It could backfire.

#77 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 10:16 PM | Reply

Some of these tweets in response to Wheeler's are too funny:

Someone find Mitt's binders!

Judge Jeanine?

Probably just be Rudy in drag again.

twitter.com

#78 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 10:19 PM | Reply

"and have never had one in 200 years"

I hope Dr. Ford goes full Harper Valley PTA.

#79 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-20 10:59 PM | Reply

Manu Raju @mkraju

Ford's attorney told Judiciary staff that she is open to testifying next Thursday in a public hearing in Washington assuming her safety is guaranteed, Kavanaugh testify first and no outside counsels question her. She wants them to subpoena Mark Judge. GOP will now mull it over
5:27 PM - 20 Sep 2018

#80 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 11:27 PM | Reply

Terrible deal. She should go first, on Monday, as scheduled. This is a stalling tactic. And no outside counsels, just politicians? Ridiculous.

#81 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-20 11:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Are you going to devote as many posts on him as you do Kavanaugh?
Let me rephrase that, will you post AT ALL on Ellison, and demand an FBI insvestigation, or are you a hack?"

Voters have a chance to decide about Ellison every six years, Kavanaugh is up for a postion with a lifetime appointment. Apples and oranges.

"Terrible deal. She should go first, on Monday, as scheduled. This is a stalling tactic."

Republicans complaining about stalling tactics after McConnell wouldn't give Obama's pick for the SC a hearing for a year? Oh shut up! Republicans have no sense of fairness nor decency.

#82 | Posted by danni at 2018-09-21 06:24 AM | Reply

Is that the criteria for credibility now, putting up threads? Some people aren't as invested in this as the partisan fanatics that post 4 threads a day.

#43 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

That is how things get discussed.

Instead of inserting it into every thread as a means of derailing the current threads.

#83 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-21 09:33 AM | Reply

I posted this on a different Kavanaugh thread but it's just as applicable to this one:

There is nothing to investigate.
Her inability to recall key facts tied to the allegation make an investigation impossible.
Subpoena her to testify, even if it's in writing. Have a hearing where Kavanaugh is questioned.
Accusers don't dictate terms - they don't get to demand how things get done.
If she is unwilling to give her accusations under oath then she is simply not credible.
This is all a big stall tactic. Nothing more. The GOP is stupid to reward this political posturing.

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-21 10:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

fake death threats...#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-20 12:35 AM
No, the death threats to
Kavanaugh(and his family) and Dr Ford (and her family) all seem pretty real.

#85 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 10:13 AM | Reply

There is nothing to investigate.
Her inability to recall key facts tied to the allegation make an investigation impossible.

#84 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

She has specified a witness (Mark Judge). Put him under oath and ask him about whether he remembers anything and about his interactions with Kavanaugh in general (to see if the accusations against him seem reasonable given other behaviors that Judge does remember).

There were also according to the account two other people at that party that the FBI might be able to determine from the facts presented.

Without investigation you cannot discover "key facts". Which seems to be your goal from the beginning. The FBI is good at discovering the truth. Politicians are not. I see why you prefer the politicians.

#86 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2018-09-21 10:20 AM | Reply

It could backfire. - #77 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-20 10:16 PM
Would that be a good thing or are you concerned about that?

#87 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 10:24 AM | Reply

--Voters have a chance to decide about Ellison every six years,

He's the vice chair of your party. Minnesota voters don't vote on DNC leadership, the DNC does, and the DNC hypocrites are as quiet as a mouse.

#88 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-21 10:27 AM | Reply

"Would that be a good thing or are you concerned about that?"

Those weren't my words but part of the tweet I was quoting. I offered that quote as food for thought.

#89 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-21 10:30 AM | Reply

#88 As I've said repeatedly Ellison's ex should release the tape, which she claims to have misplaced:

Karen Monahan told CNN she misplaced the video allegedly showing Ellison dragging her off a bed, but that she likely wouldn't release it to the public even if she had it available because it's "embarrassing."

www.huffingtonpost.com

It turns out I was mistaken about the son making the video tape. He just found it on her computer, so who made the tape? Can that person come forward as a witness?:

In the middle of 2017, I was using my moms computer trying to download something and I clicked on a file, I found over 100 text and twitters messages and video almost 2 min long that showed Keith Ellison dragging my mama off the bed by her feet, screaming and calling her a "------- bitch" and telling her to get the ---- out of his house. The messages I found, were mixed with him consistently telling my mom he wanted her back, he missed her, he knew he ------ up and we wished he could do things different, he would victim shaming, bully her, and threaten her if she went public.

If these allegations are true and they may very well be, he will be ousted from the DNC and most likely from future political life.

#90 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-21 10:40 AM | Reply

Funny how the people that call you a misogynist for demanding equality for trans females is the same one who doesn't believe a woman when she says she was attempted raped. Something VERY wrong with this picture.

#91 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-09-21 10:40 AM | Reply

Stop responding to nulli's ellison deflections.

If he wants to discuss the matter, post a thread or STFU.

#92 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-21 10:44 AM | Reply

Those weren't my words but part of the tweet I was quoting. I offered that quote as food for thought. - #89 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-21 10:30 AM

My apologies for my mistake.

#93 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 10:44 AM | Reply

--Stop responding to nulli's ellison deflections.

If he wants to discuss the matter, post a thread or STFU.

#92 | Posted by JP Hypocrite

It's not a deflection to point out weapons-grade hypocrisy.

#94 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-21 10:49 AM | Reply

Put him under oath and ask him about whether he remembers anything and about his interactions with Kavanaugh in general (to see if the accusations against him seem reasonable given other behaviors that Judge does remember).

There were also according to the account two other people at that party that the FBI might be able to determine from the facts presented.
#86 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2018-09-21 10:20 AM

Judge was already submitted a statement to the committee which would already provide punishment if he lies H.R.3166 - False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 & 18 U.S. Code § 1001

Peter Smyth, the boy that Dr Ford placed at the party who also states that he has no knowledge of that party, has also submitted a written statement to the committee. That statement also binds him to penalty if he lied on it.

#95 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 10:51 AM | Reply

- and the DNC hypocrites are as quiet as a mouse.

As are their corporate lapdogs, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, and WaPo

...and let's not overlook Cory Booker:

In 1992, Cory Booker wrote of ‘groping' a high school friend in an essay titled, "Stealing Second Base" - www.nj.com

#96 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-21 10:52 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

If he wants to discuss the matter, post a thread or STFU.
#92 | POSTED BY JPW

Translation: "Make the truth go away"

#97 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-21 10:53 AM | Reply

More to #95:
Your line of thought is more appropriate to a criminal investigation. I recommend you push for Dr Ford to file a criminal complaint so an actual investigation can happen.

#98 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 10:57 AM | Reply

Translation: "Make the truth go away to the venue appropriate for it"

#97 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-21 10:53 AM

#99 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 10:58 AM | Reply

It's not a deflection to point out weapons-grade hypocrisy.

#94 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-09-21 10:49 AM | REPLY

Yes, by definition, it actually is. You are changing the subject to distract from one you aren't comfortable with.

#100 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-21 11:10 AM | Reply

--Yes, by definition, it actually is.

No, by definition, it actually isn't. Pointing out that the Dems have 2 different standards depending on whether the accused has an R or a D after their name is very relevant.

#101 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-21 11:14 AM | Reply

Yes, by definition, it actually is. You are changing the subject to distract from one you aren't comfortable with.

#100 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-21 11:10 AM
You're right there, except that there's no reason to assume the deflector's opinions.

#102 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 11:14 AM | Reply

You left out, Russian Nazi sexual assault supporter.

#50 | POSTED BY Comrade Sheepie

First time you've told the truth there Putin Pal.
Yes, you are all of those, it's good you finally admitted it. The truth will set you free.

#103 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-09-21 11:16 AM | Reply

The more ridiculous demands that Ford's lawyer brings - demanding that Kavanaugh testify first, which is preposterous - the more this looks like a coordinated hit job with the Democratic Party than a legitimate allegation.

#104 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-21 11:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#91 tell that to the Duke lacrosse team.

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-21 11:35 AM | Reply

--demanding that Kavanaugh testify first, which is preposterous

A total non-starter which tells me she doesn't want to testify at all, but is looking for excuses to back off.

#106 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-21 11:37 AM | Reply

91 tell that to the Duke lacrosse team.

#105 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-09-21 11:35 AM | FLAG:

Typical. One in 6 women get sexually assaulted in the US but this one false accusation gives you all the ammunition you need to default to "she's lying."

#107 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-21 11:40 AM | Reply

Putin Pal.
#103 | POSTED BY ABORTED_MONSON

If the mentally delusional on this site ever got locked up all at once, there would only be a handful of us left here.

#108 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-21 11:40 AM | Reply

#107

My point is we don't just automatically believe an allegation because a woman is making the allegation. The accused is afforded the presumption of innocence even if he's a man.

#109 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-21 11:44 AM | Reply

It's not a deflection to point out weapons-grade hypocrisy.

#94 | Posted by nullifidian

The problem with the hypocrisy argument is you yourself are a hypocrite when you use it.

I've yet to hear you say a word about the actual topic at hand, namely Kavanaugh being accused of sexual assault.

So, as I said, post a thread on Ellison or STFU.

#110 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-21 11:53 AM | Reply

Translation: "Make the truth go away"

#97 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Translation: I'm a lying toolbox -------.

Post a thread and the topic will be discussed.

Until then address the topic or STFU.

#111 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-21 11:54 AM | Reply

--I've yet to hear you say a word about the actual topic at hand, namely Kavanaugh being accused of sexual assault.

I've said plenty. Maybe you were just too sloshed to see it.

#112 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-21 11:55 AM | Reply

Pointing out that the Dems have 2 different standards depending on whether the accused has an R or a D after their name is very relevant.

#101 | Posted by nullifidian

LOL and you claim to be some sort of intellectual.

I wonder if the community college you graduated from knows you're out in the world doing this sort of thing.

#113 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-21 11:56 AM | Reply

I've said plenty. Maybe you were just too sloshed to see it.

#112 | Posted by nullifidian

Other than deflecting? I've yet to see it.

Post an example of it.

#114 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-21 11:56 AM | Reply

My point is we don't just automatically believe an allegation because a woman is making the allegation. The accused is afforded the presumption of innocence even if he's a man.

#109 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-09-21 11:44 AM | FLAG:

This is really just code for "women lie and we should assume that they are lying."

#115 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-21 11:59 AM | Reply

#115 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-21 11:59 AM
Actually, it's code for 'I don't judge people differently based on their sex, because I'm not sexist'
But I totally see how you didn't get that.

#116 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 12:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Something just occurred to me. Just speculation here...

"she's lying."
#107 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Probably not, in her mind. Kavanaugh is probably not lying either. He probably doesn't remember. While she can't forget.

It's probably happened hundreds of thousands of times at teen parties:

Young infatuated girl hooks up with cute 'older boy' at party, consents to kissing and petting, gets embarrassed when friend walks in on them,
boys laugh and smell fingers - girl humiliated, drunk boys move on to next weekend party while dumped girl has to explain to friends how she was used.

She remembers the humiliation forever while the memory grows into something much larger. Drunk boys don't remember beyond next weekend.

I can't speak for the ladies here, but how many guys hooked up through middle school, high school, and college with no intention whatsoever of a relationship
and found out later that the girl was crushed beyond repair?

Is this possible?? Again, complete speculation.

#117 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-21 12:02 PM | Reply

The accused is afforded the presumption of innocence even if he's a man.

If you're going to apply criminal law standards to a non-criminal proceeding, then you should also support an FBI investigation of these claims. You don't show up in a criminal courtroom with no police work having been done.

#118 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 12:02 PM | Reply

" a presumption of innocence"

Said no less by the very same asshats who presumed Obama was a Muslim out to destroy "Christian" America

No proof mind yoy. Just lots and lots of accusations

#119 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-09-21 12:03 PM | Reply

#117 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-21 12:02 PM
The other 2 boys that she's named that also have no knowledge of the party she describes (Judge and Smyth), are they also forgetting it?

#120 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 12:04 PM | Reply

No proof mind yoy. Just lots and lots of accusations - #119 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-09-21 12:03 PM

CTM makes an interesting point about there being the same amount of proof for Obama being a Muslim as Dr Ford being attacked. We should think on that.

#121 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 12:05 PM | Reply

then you should also support an FBI investigation of these claims. You don't show up in a criminal courtroom with no police work having been done. #118 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 12:02 PM

I support the people of the proper jurisdiction doing the investigation.
Do you?

#122 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 12:08 PM | Reply

#122 The FBI has already examined Kavanaugh's background and can reopen that investigation. The FBI investigated sexual harassment claims against Clarence Thomas. Why do you insist on pretending the FBI is not the right body to review these claims? And if you do think the Maryland states attorney or local police should do it, are you willing to wait for their results?

#123 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 12:09 PM | Reply

#120 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

I don't know, but from the ages of 14-18, 1978-1983, I remember that during the summers, pretty much every weekend was a party or concert.

I went to hundreds of them. I don't remember any of them specifically, but I know I hooked up dozens of times.

Today, I couldn't identify ANY of those girls. The entire time is a blur due to weed, beer, micro dot, shrooms, orange sunshine, purple passion.

It's all a blur actually.

#124 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-21 12:11 PM | Reply

Once again, JOE:
In a statement, a Justice Department spokeswoman said the FBI -- which has added a letter from Christine Blasey Ford to Kavanaugh's already completed background report file -- had already done all it was going to do, because "the allegation does not involve any potential federal crime."

"The FBI does not make any judgment about the credibility or significance of any allegation," the statement reads. "The purpose of a background investigation is to determine whether the nominee could pose a risk to the national security of the United States. The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime. The FBI's role in such matters is to provide information for the use of the decision makers."

If she wants a fair and impartial investigation by a law enforcement body, that would be the jurisdiction where she states the incident occurred.
I want justice for Dr Ford.
Do you?

#125 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 12:13 PM | Reply

The FBI saying they won't do something is different from me saying they should. If their boss ordered them to do it, they would. But their boss is an admitted sex offender who cares little about getting to the bottom of rape allegations.

Which brings me back to a question you've refused to answer: whoever the correct investigative body is, are you willing to wait for them to conduct it?

#126 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 12:17 PM | Reply

Joe,

Given that she can't recall key facts there is nothing to investigate. If she's unwilling to testify under oath, which is increasingly looking to be the case then she is simply not credible.

#127 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-21 12:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#121

If that's the case, then we have 8 more years to repeatedly make the claim that Kavanaugh is a creep and rapist

#128 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-09-21 12:20 PM | Reply

Given that she can't recall key facts there is nothing to investigate

How about we let someone skilled in rape investigation make determinations on what she can and cannot remember, or whether she is "credible," not a newspaper reporter or some biased rightwing blog poster?

#129 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 12:20 PM | Reply

I don't know - #124 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-21 12:11 PM

We're not talking about that kind of range. We have an area -suburban house the Club House in Montgomery County, Maryland-. We have a time -summer of '82-. We have some specifics: A party with 4 boys and 1 girl (maybe 2 girls). 2 guys were drunk, everyone else had 1 beer. (all from her
www.washingtonpost.com interview)You think you'd be able to say if you were or were not at that party, given that much detail?

#130 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 12:21 PM | Reply

Which brings me back to a question you've refused to answer: whoever the correct investigative body is, are you willing to wait for them to conduct it?

#126 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 12:17 PM
When have you posed that question for me to refuse to answer, Joe? Go ahead and link it up.
I'm going to point out a question for you right here that you seem unable or unwilling to answer:
I want justice for Dr Ford via an impartial investigation by a law enforcement body with jurisdiction.

Do you?

#131 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 12:24 PM | Reply

I can tell Avigdore wasn't at a lot of parties.

#132 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 12:25 PM | Reply

When have you posed that question for me to refuse to answer, Joe?

In #123, imbecile.

#133 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 12:26 PM | Reply

You can just answer it now.

#134 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 12:26 PM | Reply

Sorry I missed it then. 'Yes'.
Your turn.

#135 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 12:28 PM | Reply

Yes? Is it not clear from my posts that i want to see an investigation? If so please work on your reading comprehension.

#136 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 12:32 PM | Reply

Prediction: Kavanaugh gets confirmed next week by a bunch Republican men in the Senate. And the GOP gets SWAMPED in the mid-term elections by boatloads of justifiably pissed off women.

#137 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-09-21 12:35 PM | Reply

Is it not clear from my posts that i want to see an investigation? If so please work on your reading comprehension. - #136 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 12:32 PM

It seemed clear from your posts that you wanted an investigation performed by a body who says both that they are done investigating and they have no jurisdiction to investigate further.
I'm glad to hear that you now don't think that the FBI is the right tool for the task at hand.
If you truly believe as you have indicated, then I urge you to push Dr Ford to make her criminal complaint.
People trying to deflect to the FBI to do this thing are certainly not interested in justice.

#138 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 12:43 PM | Reply

#137 | POSTED BY MODER8

Isn't that the plan? #MissionAccomplished

#139 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-21 12:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--And the GOP gets SWAMPED in the mid-term elections by boatloads of justifiably pissed off women.

Exactly what Feinstein was thinking when she sat on this letter and timed its release for after the hearing.

#140 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-21 12:50 PM | Reply

We're not talking about that kind of range.
#130 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

I realize. I'm just saying that personally, for me, that range is a blur. If someone reminded me of that one party where so-and-so got ripped and ran around in their underwear, I might remember that aspect of it, but not the specifics of anything else.

In so far as "who exactly was there", it was always the same general crowd, but at each party the specific persons were different. I would never remember which specific people were/weren't there.

But again, I never experienced a life changing event at a party either, so nothing specific sticks out.

#141 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-21 12:52 PM | Reply

And the GOP gets SWAMPED in the mid-term elections by boatloads of justifiably pissed off women. - #137 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-09-21 12:35 PM |

You sound awfully concerned.

#142 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 12:53 PM | Reply

Patrick J. Smyth, a high school classmate of Kavanaugh, provided the Senate Judiciary Committee with a letter rebutting Ford's allegations against Kavanaugh.

Mark Judge a classmate, a journalist and filmmaker, has also denied that the incident took place.

Maura Fitzgerald said "I dated him in college and he was and is nothing like the person who has been described."

Maura Kane said "I've been friends with Brett Kavanaugh for over 35 years, and dated him during high school. In every situation where we were together he always respectful, kind and thoughtful."

So we have one accuser, who just conveniently happens to be politically biased and active, against Kavanaugh and everyone that knows him.

Confirm him, then do your investigation. If he is lying, then he should be impeached. If she is lying, she should go to jail.

This is a dangerous precedent to ruin a person's life based soley on an accusation.

#143 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-09-21 01:17 PM | Reply

"Mark Judge a classmate, a journalist and filmmaker, has also denied that the incident took place. "

Mark Judge also wrote volumes about how drunk he was during those years, and how blackouts were common. He also has refused to be questioned under oath.

#144 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-21 01:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Confirm him, then do your investigation.
#143 | Posted by sames1

Sure just like we should have trusted that donald trump would release his taxes after the election.

#145 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-21 01:27 PM | Reply

Mark Judge has also already made a written statement to the committee which, if it is found he lied on it, could he not be punished under H.R.3166 - False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 & 18 U.S. Code § 1001?

"I did not ask to be involved in this matter nor did anyone ask me to be involved," Judge said in a letter signed by his lawyer on Tuesday. "The only reason I am involved is because Dr. Christine Blasey Ford remembers me as the other person in the room during the alleged assault."

"In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident," he added. "Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Ford's letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."

#146 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 01:31 PM | Reply

I'm glad to hear that you now don't think that the FBI is the right tool for the task at hand.

I never said that, dumbass. I said they've reviewed similar allegations against another SCOTUS nominee and that they would review these if their sexual assailter boss told them to, but that he won't because he doesn't care about rape. And if another jurisdiction will take a look then i welcome it.

#147 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 01:32 PM | Reply

Sure just like we should have trusted that donald trump would release his taxes after the election. - #145 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-21 01:27 PM

Trump does not have any control over the state of Maryland's local law enforcement, the people who would be handling any such investigation.

#148 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 01:33 PM | Reply

"In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident"

And, according to his writing, a lot of other blackout moments in those years.

#149 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-21 01:33 PM | Reply

Given that she can't recall key facts there is nothing to investigate.

With this rationale nothing would ever be investigated.

You guys sound desperate.

#150 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-21 01:36 PM | Reply

My question: I want justice for Dr Ford via an impartial investigation by a law enforcement body with jurisdiction. Do you?
Your answer: Yes? Is it not clear from my posts that i want to see an investigation? If so please work on your reading comprehension.

So now you want it investigated by a body that doesn't have jurisdiction? What would be the point of that, exactly?
Or were you mistaken when you answered yes, you wanted a body with jurisdiction to investigate?
Just as the FBI investigated long enough to amend the file in the Thomas situation, so have they investigated long enough to amend the Kavanaugh file.

#151 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 01:38 PM | Reply

"Sure just like we should have trusted that donald trump would release his taxes after the election."

non sequitur

#152 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-09-21 01:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And, according to his writing, a lot of other blackout moments in those years. - #149 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-21 01:33 PM

"I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes"
A pretty definitive statement.

#153 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 01:40 PM | Reply

"Trust us, the FBI is the right place to investigate this matter" - Jim Comey, Peter Strzok.

#154 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-09-21 01:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The accuser has one big reason to drag her feet when it comes to appearing before the Senate. Perjury.

#155 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-09-21 01:44 PM | Reply

So now you want it investigated by a body that doesn't have jurisdiction?

Did they have jurisdiction the first time they investigated Kavanaugh's background?

Did they have jurisdiction when they investigated sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas?

What would be the point of that, exactly?

To clarify whether Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist?

#156 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 01:44 PM | Reply

Difference between us is that I want everyone in the world to examine whether Brett Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist. You want to argue about who should and should not examine that. Seems you're a bit concerned about what they might find.

#157 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 01:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 4

Trump does not have any control over the state of Maryland's local law enforcement, the people who would be handling any such investigation.

#148 | Posted by Avigdore
The state of maryland can't impeach a supreme court judge. That would be left up to the party which now sides with putin over the united states intelligence services.

#158 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-21 01:47 PM | Reply

"Trust us, the FBI is the right place to investigate this matter" - Jim Comey, Peter Strzok.

#154 | Posted by sames1

Sames1 would feel more comfortable with an investigation run by the KGB.

#159 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-21 01:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Difference between us is that I want everyone in the world to examine whether Brett Kavanaugh is an attempted rapist. You want to argue about who should and should not examine that. Seems you're a bit concerned about what they might find.

#157 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2018-09-21 01:46 PM | FLAG:

Repeated for necessity.

#160 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-09-21 01:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Did they have jurisdiction the first time they investigated Kavanaugh's background?
Did they have jurisdiction when they investigated sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas?

Just as the FBI investigated long enough to amend the file in the Thomas situation, so have they investigated long enough to amend the Kavanaugh file.

#161 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 01:53 PM | Reply

The difference between us is that I realize that you are pushing for an investigation to delay the proceedings and I'm pushing for an investigation for justice for Dr Ford.

#162 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 01:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lol.

#163 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 02:05 PM | Reply

Hey Gal, how much research are you doing on Keith Ellison? www.chicagotribune.com
Are you going to devote as many posts on him as you do Kavanaugh?
Let me rephrase that, will you post AT ALL on Ellison, and demand an FBI insvestigation, or are you a hack?

#18 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Because you are going to use this constantly... Here are the facts:

During a fight, Ellison pulled on her legs and feet while she was lying on a bed, the ex-gf Monahan said.

Monahan has previously said there is a video of the 2016 incident, which she told CBS News was the only instance of physical violence during their relationship. Monahan has declined to share it publicly, and said it is traumatizing.

This is from YOUR article. We done here?

#164 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-09-21 02:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The difference between us is that I realize that you are pushing for an investigation to delay the proceedings and I'm pushing for an investigation for justice for Dr Ford.

#162 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 01:55 PM | Reply

Who are you fooling with such absurdity??

#165 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-09-21 02:12 PM | Reply

Who are you fooling with such absurdity?? - #165 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-09-21 02:12 PM

Is it my insistence that we encourage Dr Ford to enlist the justice system to help her get justice that you find absurd, or is it when I point out that an investigation by a body that has already said that it has no jurisdiction to actually do anything further is an attempt to delay the proceedings?

#166 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 02:17 PM | Reply

The difference between us is that I realize that you are pushing for an investigation to delay the proceedings and I'm pushing for an investigation for justice for Dr Ford.
#162 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 01:55 PM | Reply
Who are you fooling with such absurdity??
#165 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

I hate being with Avigdore, but at least we agree on the investigation. In addition, I don't think the investigation should put off the confirmation vote unless hard evidence exists that it happened OR there is strong evidence of a pattern of conduct similar in nature during his career.

IF the investigation turns up later that hard evidence exists, then we can decide if removal from the Supreme Court is warranted.

#167 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-09-21 02:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I hate being with Avigdore, but
Awww shucks. =-)

#168 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 02:19 PM | Reply

"Trust us, the FBI is the right place to investigate this matter" - Jim Comey, Peter Strzok.

#154 | Posted by sames1

Both of them have more honor and integrity in their little toes than than all of the Deplorables put together.

#169 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-09-21 02:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#167

That is what I have been saying all along, have the FBI investigate but let the confirmation vote proceed. If the investigation shows that Kavanaugh is lying, he must step down.

#170 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-21 02:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

IF the investigation turns up later that hard evidence exists, then we can decide if removal from the Supreme Court is warranted.

POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2018-09-21 02:17 PM | REPLY

A whole lot harder to remove someone than it is preventing them from gaining the seat in the first place. It's difficult if not impossible to put the Genie back into the bottle once out.

#171 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-09-21 02:25 PM | Reply

We done here?
#164 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Not until I see an equal amount of threads, posts, internet detective investigations, partisan commentary, and biased psychoanalysis has been conducted.

Until then, you're just another #teamplayer hack.

#172 | Posted by sheepleschism at 2018-09-21 02:26 PM | Reply

The Senate should consider censuring Feinstein for her actions on this.

#173 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-21 02:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I would be cautious enough to hold off the vote until the investigation is complete.

Is it problematic to wait for at least a month or so?

I would hate to expect Kavanaugh to step down once confirmed by vote, regardless of what is discovered.

#174 | Posted by eberly at 2018-09-21 02:27 PM | Reply

Is it problematic to wait for at least a month or so?
#174 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I don't see a problem. The Dem's are about to experience the #NovemberMassacre

due to lack of liberal policy and fresh, exciting ideas that Americans want.

Too bad their entire plan is #ScreamBloodyMurder. #FailedLeadership

#175 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-21 02:30 PM | Reply

If the investigation shows that Kavanaugh is lying, he must step down.

#170 | Posted by Rightocenter

Based on what? His pinky-swear?

The republican's impressive record of choosing country over party?

#176 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-21 02:32 PM | Reply

--The Senate should consider censuring Feinstein for her actions on this.

That hack should resign. She's the poster grandma for term limits.

#177 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-21 02:32 PM | Reply

I don't see a problem. The Dem's are about to experience the #NovemberMassacre

due to lack of liberal policy and fresh, exciting ideas that Americans want.

Too bad their entire plan is #ScreamBloodyMurder. #FailedLeadership

#175 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Sheep's post history for 9/21/18:

Posts attacking dems: 8

Posts attacking repubs: 0

Posts proposing progressive policy solutions: 0

#178 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-21 02:33 PM | Reply

preventing them from gaining the seat in the first place.

For Laura, Joe, Tony, Gal and a vast majority of the DR Left, this is paramount and it really doesn't matter how it is accomplished.

#179 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-21 02:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh sorry. Correction:

Sheep's post history for 9/21/18:

Posts attacking dems: 9

Posts attacking repubs: 0

Posts proposing progressive policy solutions: 0

#180 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-21 02:33 PM | Reply

That hack should resign. She's the poster grandma for term limits.

#177 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-09-21 02:32 PM

I don't agree, since the alternative is that loon De Leon.

#181 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-21 02:34 PM | Reply

The Senate should consider censuring Feinstein for her actions on this. - #173 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-21 02:26 PM

I believe that Dr Ford specifically requested that her claim not be made public. Unless there is some credible proof that Sen. Feinstein leaked it, I see no plausible reason she would be censured, but I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.

#182 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 02:34 PM | Reply

For Laura, Joe, Tony, Gal and a vast majority of the DR Left, this is paramount and it really doesn't matter how it is accomplished.

#179 | Posted by Rightocenter

I'm sure you were equally enraged when repubs defied the intention of the founders and made up a rule that presidents can't appoint SC judges in an election year weren't you?

#183 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-21 02:34 PM | Reply

"Because you are going to use this constantly... Here are the facts:

During a fight, Ellison pulled on her legs and feet while she was lying on a bed, the ex-gf Monahan said.

Monahan has previously said there is a video of the 2016 incident, which she told CBS News was the only instance of physical violence during their relationship. Monahan has declined to share it publicly, and said it is traumatizing.
"
This is from YOUR article. We done here?

She also claimed it was "embarrassing" and that she "misplaced" it:

Karen Monahan told CNN she misplaced the video allegedly showing Ellison dragging her off a bed, but that she likely wouldn't release it to the public even if she had it available because it's "embarrassing."

www.huffingtonpost.com

#184 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-21 02:37 PM | Reply

The Senate should consider censuring Feinstein for her actions on this.

#173 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-09-21 02:26 PM | FLAG:

For what? She did nothing wrong.

#185 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-21 02:38 PM | Reply

For Laura, Joe, Tony, Gal and a vast majority of the DR Left, this is paramount and it really doesn't matter how it is accomplished. - #179 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-21 02:33 PM
I'll say the same thing I said over a year ago: Politics is an ugly thing. If they're playing by the rules, they're playing fairly.

#186 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 02:38 PM | Reply

Enjoy your weekend, everyone.

#187 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-21 02:39 PM | Reply

"preventing them from gaining the seat in the first place.
For Laura, Joe, Tony, Gal and a vast majority of the DR Left, this is paramount and it really doesn't matter how it is accomplished."

False. Republicans will get the seat. If it's not Kav, it will be some other Federalist sanctioned conservative.

#188 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-21 02:44 PM | Reply

--False. Republicans will get the seat

Not if Dems take the senate.

--Federalist sanctioned conservative.

Like Scalia, confirmed 98-0?.

#189 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-21 02:49 PM | Reply

#183 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Whataboutism!!

#190 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-21 02:59 PM | Reply

- Not if Dems take the senate.

Like there's much of a chance of that happening.

- some other Federalist sanctioned conservative.

some other Federalist Nulliberal sanctioned conservative.

#191 | Posted by Corky at 2018-09-21 03:00 PM | Reply

"Not if Dems take the senate."

The Dems aren't going to take the Senate. They will be lucky to take the House. I can't find the post I did on this topic the other day, but I basically said that the idea that the Dems will take the Senate falls into the category of "It will take a miracle." That's why I don't understand why the GOP is reacting the way they are. It would have been very easy for them to do the right thing, call for an FBI investigation (which might even be done by now if they had called for it on Monday), then proceed to the hearing and vote next week or at the latest the week after. If for some God forsaken reason, it took a little longer than that, they still had time before the midterms to take a vote, or after the midterms in the end of the lame duck session (if the Dems pipe dream for control of the Senate came through).

#192 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-21 03:03 PM | Reply

Gal,

Political miracles DO happen. Look at 2016. This is a stall tactic by the Democrats. The GOP would be stupid to go along with them. Ford is being given the opportunity to testify under oath and is being given reasonable accommodations to do so. Her lawyer is making absurd demands which suggests to me that not giving in to these demands is a desired outcome so she has an excuse to back out. Democrats are trying to have the accusation alone be reason enough to torpedo the nomination.

I wouldn't be surprised if Feinstein ends up being censured.

#193 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-21 03:08 PM | Reply

Instead of angering and alienating millions of women with their stubborn, hardball tactics, they could have taken the time, done this the right way and shown those same millions of women that they respect them (as well as victims rights), and still gotten Kavanaugh through. It would have done Trump a lot of good in the minds of women voters as well.

#194 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-21 03:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-The Dems aren't going to take the Senate

From your lips...

--They will be lucky to take the House

Downplaying expectations? A lot of pundits and pollsters are saying they will. If they don't it will be an utter humiliation.

#195 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-21 03:10 PM | Reply

"Look at 2016."

If there was a miracle, Jeff, it was a Russian engineered one. Putin isn't going to give any help to the Dems, in fact, he'll be working against them, which is just another reason why I say it is a pipedream to think the Dems will take the Senate. I am praying they take the House. If they somehow manage to take the House and Senate, I will conclude that God did indeed intervene and answered our prayers in full.

#196 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-21 03:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

- From your lips...

More coddling for the GOP, the only other political party of any consequence in the country.

Of course, if one has their own political party in their head and prefers to pretend it exists elsewhere, well, I guess that explains Nulliberal.

#197 | Posted by Corky at 2018-09-21 03:13 PM | Reply

"A lot of pundits and pollsters are saying they will. If they don't it will be an utter humiliation."

Overplaying expectations? I haven't heard a lot of pundits and pollsters saying that.

#198 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-21 03:15 PM | Reply

"I wouldn't be surprised if Feinstein ends up being censured."

Maybe Hatch will be too for working with that Whelan fellow to cook up that mistaken identity theory.

#199 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-21 03:18 PM | Reply

Whataboutism!!

#190 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Posts attacking dems: 11

Posts attacking repubs: 0

Posts proposing progressive policy solutions: 0

#200 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-21 03:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Democrats are trying to have the accusation alone be reason enough to torpedo the nomination.

I wouldn't be surprised if Feinstein ends up being censured.

#193 | Posted by JeffJ

At least dems provide a reason to torpedo a nomination.

Repubs torpedo a nomination because um... you can't do them in election years. Yeah that's it. That's not in the constitution or anything, but let's just pretend that it is.

#201 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-09-21 03:22 PM | Reply

#194

They are doing it the right way. Ford is being given the opportunity to testify with very reasonable accommodations. So far, she's refusing.

"We gave her ample opportunity to put her testimony on the record and she refused."

We are not going to further delay the vote over an off the record allegation of an incident that allegedly occurred roughly 36 years ago."

#202 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-09-21 03:22 PM | Reply

--If there was a miracle, Jeff, it was a Russian engineered one.

"If we lost it with Kavanaugh, we'll always have Russia."

#203 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-21 03:22 PM | Reply

- we'll always have Russia

Poster will always have Nazis and alt rightists, but I repeat myself, to coddle.

#204 | Posted by Corky at 2018-09-21 03:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We gave her ample opportunity to put her testimony on the record BEFORE WE INVESTIGATE HER NEW ACCUSATION and she refused."

At least be honest about it.

#205 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-21 03:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They are doing it the right way."

Keep telling yourself that. What ever helps you sleep at night.

#206 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-21 03:34 PM | Reply

"Enjoy your weekend, everyone."

You, too, Avigdore, and everyone.

#207 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-21 03:37 PM | Reply

have the FBI investigate but let the confirmation vote proceed. If the investigation shows that Kavanaugh is lying, he must step down.

Why rush to a vote and then be stuck trying to undo something that critical? Republicans had no problem holding a seat open for 400 days during Obama's presidency; you're telling me they can't wait a week or two for the FBI to question a few people?

#208 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-21 03:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

#208 it depends on what cases could come before SCOTUS in the near future and how important the rulings are to the donor class.

#209 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-21 04:40 PM | Reply

Jesse Lehrich @JesseLehrich
the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 passed the Senate 78-22.
the 6 highest ranking Rs on @senjudiciary voted against it:
– Grassley
– Hatch
– Graham
– Cornyn
– Lee
– Cruz

www.senate.gov
#3 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2018-09-20 12:06 AM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 2

WHAT?!

Republicans are total and absolute scum. It's mind bending how they have parasitically installed each other into the most important positions.

What is their "reasoning"? Citizens United money?

Defunding them is their greatest fear because the law protects their crimes.

Being bloodless, I'm not even convinced they require oxygen.

#210 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2018-09-21 05:48 PM | Reply

Republican math. Outrage over Kavanaugh's appointment, 5 years. Kavanaugh's usefullness to them on the SC, probably 30 years. That is exactly how they think. Justice doesn't matter to them, fairness doesn't matter to them, only power matters to them. I'll be honest, I do hate them.

#211 | Posted by danni at 2018-09-22 10:10 AM | Reply

Because there is no statue of limitations for sexual assault in the jurisdiction in which Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted Ford, Ford can ask the police in that jurisdiction to charge Kavanaugh with assault.

If Kavanaugh has already been confirmed as a justice of the SCOTUS and sexual assault charges against Kavanaugh are filed, he, Trump, the GOP and the SCOTUS will be seriously embarrassed. While I couldn't care less about the GOP, Trump or Kavanaugh being embarrassed, I would hate for the SCOTUS to be discredited.

If Kavanaugh has not been confirmed and sexual assault charges are filed, there would be no impact on the credibility of the SCOTUS. Kavanaugh, Trump and the GOP would be embarrassed but at least the reputation of the SCOTUS would not be adversely impacted.

Why would republicans risk the reputation and credibility of the SCOTUS? It is apparent that the reputation and credibility of the SCOTUS is of little consequence to republicans.

Once again, republican rhetoric fails to live up to its actions.

#212 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2018-09-22 10:11 AM | Reply

--only power matters to them.

Hahahaha. Pot meet kettle.

#213 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-22 10:13 AM | Reply

#213

GOPherfidian on the "parties are the same" bandwagon which Republicans so love.

Trolls will be trolls.

#214 | Posted by Corky at 2018-09-22 11:46 AM | Reply

There is not statute of limitations for rape or attempted rape in Maryland. McConnell assures the public that he has the votes and it does not matter what happens during any hearings. Maryland state Sen. Cheryl Kagan, a Democrat, sent a letter to her state's Republican Gov. Larry Hogan calling on him to direct the Maryland State Police to launch an investigation into Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault allegations. The Governor has refused. Wouldn't it be funny if Kavanaugh was seated and a Democrat Governor was elected in Mary;and who decided to reopen an investigation of this allegation and Kavanaugh were then charged? Then convicted and thrown off the Court?

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

#215 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-09-22 01:31 PM | Reply

--#215 | Posted by bayviking

All Mrs. Ford has to do is file a complaint. Maryland police have already said they will start an investigation if she does so.

#216 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-22 01:38 PM | Reply

This isn't about a poor woman being touched. Not at all. No one really cares about that despite the rage over it.

Corey Booker admitted to groping a girl when he was a teen. Yet he sits there all smug in judgement of Kavenaugh. No one is calling for him to step down are they? They could give a rip about that girl.

All the women Bill Clinton raped were scoffed at, told they were scum and liars. No one gave a rip about them on the Democrat side. Did you?

This is about politics. It's about running out the clock. If Kavanaugh gets confirmed, this goes away. If he is not confirmed, this goes away faster. No one will even know her name, follow up, or care. They will all be focused on finding the next Democrat that can claim they were abused by the next nominee.

If the midterms return control of the Senate, you all will get what you want and these girls can go to hell. You won't give a crap about them. Wait and see.

#217 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-09-22 03:11 PM | Reply

217 | POSTED BY SAMES1

We don't even have to wait to see since its being done right out in the open here on the DR.

#218 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-22 03:14 PM | Reply

Each side plays political games with this issue. There is hypocricy on all sides. Anyone who can't admit that is blind, stupid or playing games.

You mention Clinton but not Trump. Why is that?

You mention Booker but not Roy Moore. Why is that?

You mention Ellison but not Franken. Why is that?

I actually see a difference between Kavanaugh and the others. We are talking about a lifetime appointment to the SC. That means potentially 30 to 35 yrs for Kav, who is 53, I believe, to on the Court. I'm pretty sure if the Dems were nominating someone to the court with the same exact allegations against him, the GOP would be up in arms. If you pretend otherwise, you are blind, stupid or plaing games.

#219 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 03:38 PM | Reply

I agree with this woman wholeheartedly:

I see myself in Dr. Blasey because of our shared experiences. I don't know if Kavanaugh disrespected women in his youth. I do know that his documented values suggest he does not respect their agency now. I am clearly biased. 9/

I am biased. The Senate Judiciary Committee is also biased. That is why Blasey and Kavanaugh should be afforded a thorough, nonpartisan investigation, not a rushed political side-show. 10/
To our elected representatives:

- rape is non-partisan
- sexual assault survivors are watching you
- our children are watching you.

www.drudge.com

#220 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 03:41 PM | Reply

Since I know I am biased, I try to be consistent in saying: I don't agree with the #MeTooMovement's motto: All victims must be believed. I frankly find that dangerous and an overcompensation for the previous unspoken motto the world often operated under: All victims are lying. I believe the motto should be: All victims must be taken seriously and their accusations investigated. I think this is the best way to proceed not just with regard to politicians and judges but in our homes and schools, our workplaces and houses of worship. I worry that the "All victims must be believed" approach can lead to a rush to judgement in the same way that the "All victims must be lying approach" often led to justice delayed or denied.

#221 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 03:52 PM | Reply

Corey Booker admitted to groping a girl when he was a teen. Yet he sits there all smug in judgement of Kavenaugh.

#217 | POSTED BY SAMES1

It's called Kavenaugh being a white cuckhold wussie.

At least Booker admitted to his transgression. White male Republicans like Kavenaugh laughably lie about their ------------- groping and pedophile ways.

#222 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-09-22 03:59 PM | Reply

Oh, and since I care about how these allegations are handled, that means I care about the process that follows an allegation being made, which is why I agree with the woman I quoted above: "That is why Blasey and Kavanaugh should be afforded a thorough, nonpartisan investigation, not a rushed political side-show." A Senate Judiciary hearing is not the place for a neutral, objective investigation. It is guaranteed to be nothing but a two party political side-show.

#223 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 04:01 PM | Reply

Politics aside,

Anyone think it's probably the case that Kavanaugh didn't do it?

#224 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-22 04:04 PM | Reply

#224

Probable no, possible yes.

#225 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-09-22 04:18 PM | Reply

#224 I'm going to flip that for now because we haven't heard from her yet:

Probable yes, possible no.

#226 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 04:32 PM | Reply

"Anyone think it's probably the case that Kavanaugh didn't do it?"

Oh, no, sorry, I misread the question and actually agree Tao:

Probable no, possible yes.

IOW, I think he probably did do it, but it is possible he didn't.

#227 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 04:34 PM | Reply

"IOW, I think he probably did do it, but it is possible he didn't."

Let's pretend that after an investigation....that is where we are. just what you said there.

then what? If there is nothing else.....then what?

#228 | Posted by eberly at 2018-09-22 04:41 PM | Reply

Can't say for gal but if we still don't have a solid answer then confirm the SOB.

I wouldn't be happy but if a real investigation can't turn up more than he said she said then there aren't enough grounds to block him.

It would still bother me that a possible attempted rapist was on the SC, but as much as I would like to give the possible victim the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty is a foundational principal of our justice system and had to be good enough for our justices as well.

#229 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-09-22 04:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--then what? If there is nothing else.....then what?

First, confirm him. Then end this spectacle of televised senate confirmation hearings, which didn't exist for most of our history. It's turned into a divisive, daytime soap opera that encourages grandstanding and contributes nothing. Then we should think about expanding the SCOTUS so that no one seat takes on such importance.

#230 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-22 05:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Have any of the people creaming their pants to get Kavanaugh seated, actually posted as to why they think he'd be a good Justice for the Supreme Court?

All I see are the Dullis and Sheeples braying about the DNC being mean.

Perhaps if Kavanaugh had any redeeming qualities, other than believing the president is above the law, they'd be explaining why he's be such a good fit.

#231 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-09-22 05:06 PM | Reply

First, confirm him.
#230 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Why?

What are his qualifications?

Why aren't the republicans being transparent about Kavanaugh?

If he's qualified, why all the subterfuge?

#232 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-09-22 05:09 PM | Reply

I wouldn't be happy but if a real investigation can't turn up more than he said she said then there aren't enough grounds to block him.

Isn't rape glorious?

The burden of proof falls on the victim.

And without video proof, it's always debatable.

#233 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-09-22 05:11 PM | Reply

"Can't say for gal but if we still don't have a solid answer then confirm the SOB.
I wouldn't be happy but if a real investigation can't turn up more than he said she said then there aren't enough grounds to block him."

I don't think he should be confirmed for other reasons, but, yes, without other witnesses coming forward to corroborate her story or to say they had heard of the incident back when they were in high school and without other women coming forward to say Kav did something similar to them, this allegation alone would not justify blocking him.

I know all my sisters in the #metoomovement are going to hate me for saying that, and I don't say it lightly. I was thinking about it last night, and I don't think the 15 year old me would have told anybody if what Ford said happened to her had happened to me. I would have feared my parents getting angry and felt guilty and ashamed, like somehow it was my fault. I might have told a friend or two at that time, but I'm not sure. In junior high I was close to my female guidance counselor, so if it had happened when I was 13, I think I would have told her. Likewise in college I had one or two friends I think I would have told. I had friends in high school too, but the kinds of things we shared wasn't as deep and personal as the stuff I shared with college friends.

I know victims often repress memories of sexual abuse and/or deliberately push them out of mind and sight as a coping mechanics. Maybe one lesson we can all learn from this collective experience is that if you are a victim of abuse tell someone as soon as you can. Even if you don't tell someone immediately or go to the police, tell someone at some point as soon as you can.

#234 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 05:12 PM | Reply

"First, confirm him. Then end this spectacle of televised senate confirmation hearings, which didn't exist for most of our history. It's turned into a divisive, daytime soap opera that encourages grandstanding and contributes nothing. Then we should think about expanding the SCOTUS so that no one seat takes on such importance."

No, first have the FBI investigate. Then publish the results of the investigation. If nothing more turns up, then vote.

#235 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 05:15 PM | Reply

- they'd be explaining why he's be such a good fit.

As I've stated, I personally and politically would prefer that an uber-conservative never be seated on SCOTUS.
Unfortunately, We have a GOP POTUS and Congress who get to pick and confirm.

What I don't like is the dirty politics, hypocrisy, and double standards from either side.
If I'm ever going to support the Democratic Party ever again, as opposed to indy liberals,
Then the party will need to take the high road, and refocus on policy, the poor, and working class.

Not this nonsensical chaos, labelling, identity politics drama they're currently engaged in.

Calling people Russian nazi orange rapists will never draw a crowd. It's utterly ridiculous.

#236 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-22 05:17 PM | Reply

Isn't rape glorious?
The burden of proof falls on the victim.
And without video proof, it's always debatable.

POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2018-09-22 05:11 PM | REPLY

One of the main reasons why rape isn't reported. The woman goes on trial the moment she tells someone.

#237 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-09-22 05:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The best cure for repress memories is that the alleged perpetrator get nominated to the Supreme Court or run for President.

#238 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-09-22 05:18 PM | Reply

repressed.

#239 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-09-22 05:18 PM | Reply

Have any of the people creaming their pants to get Kavanaugh seated, actually posted as to why they think he'd be a good Justice for the Supreme Court?
#231 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2018-09-22 05:06 PM

I think that he will be a bad choice for the SC. He's picked by a terrible and divisive president, his views on filing charges on sitting presidents - I don't agree with, I'm not convinced that he really believes RvW is 'settled law', or that 'settled law' is really all that settled.

All of that being said - Trump won the vote. The Senate is doing their duty. I can dislike the outcome and Still believe in the process. I can dislike the man, but still not call him a rapist since there's no evidence of that. I know that there our country has a method for investigating claims like Dr Ford is making. If we follow the rules, in general, it's all going to work out. Hundreds of years of history concur with that.

Just as I can know that Trump is a terrible person who was a terrible choice for a leader, that doesn't make him a rapist, either.

#240 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 05:19 PM | Reply

"It's called Kavenaugh being a white cuckhold wussie.

At least Booker admitted to his transgression. White male Republicans like Kavenaugh laughably lie about their ------------- groping and pedophile ways."

Could you be any more racist? Good god. Progressive my butt.

#241 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-09-22 05:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--No, first have the FBI investigate.

No, have the Maryland police investigate when Ford files a complaint. It's the appropriate agency in the jurisdiction in which the alleged act occurred. It wasn't an alleged federal crime. If Kavanaugh is convicted, he will have to step down, and then the FBI can investigate the federal crime of perjury in senate testimony.

#242 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-22 05:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Could you be any more racist? Good god. Progressive my butt.

#241 | POSTED BY SAMES1

I'm not a liberal, Sally.

It's called integrity. Booker has it, Kavenaugh doesn't.

#243 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-09-22 05:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

What are [Kavanaugh's] qualifications?

You can't be serious.

His legal qualifications are virtually unquestionable.

It is only through partisan political glasses that his qualifications become questionable.

#244 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-22 05:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"It is only through partisan political glasses that his qualifications become questionable."

Alleged sexual assault is partisan?

"You've Come A Long Way, Baby!"

#245 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-22 05:45 PM | Reply

If nothing more shows up, I'll take it as a sign that if the assault did happen, at least Kav didn't repeat the behavior and take some comfort from that.

I have a friend who remembered in her 50s that she was raped when she was 5 by her uncle on the day of her father's funereal. True story. That doesn't mean Ford is telling the truth; it does mean we shouldn't underestimate the power of repressed memories.

#246 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 05:56 PM | Reply

--innocent until proven guilty is a foundational principal of our justice system and had to be good enough for our justices as well.

Unless the accused is a Republican. Then it's guilty until proven guilty.
--Clownshack

#247 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-22 06:00 PM | Reply

His legal qualifications are virtually unquestionable.

It is only through partisan political glasses that his qualifications become questionable.

#244 | POSTED BY ET_AL

That's like saying all physicians are the same, but they're not because reputable studies show they get their clinical decisions right only half the time. I work in healthcare and I point this out all the time.

You're a lawyer yet you never criticize the legal profession, ever.

Here's a justified legal criticism of Kavenaugh ... he's a douchebag.

#248 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-09-22 06:12 PM | Reply

My primary beef with him is I see the potential for a lot of personal freedoms to be eroded. However that is a concern with pretty much anyone Trump would nominate.

If an investigation turns out he is innocent or there is not any additional evidence that points to guilt then we might as well have him as any other candidate who would be similar.

If an investigation is blocked then that will forever taint his tenure on the court, at least in my mind. Given the opinion I have of the current court what with the blocking of garland and Thomas being on there I'm not sure it needs any more doubts to it's legitimacy. For that reason I'm really hoping (but not counting on) the senate doing the right thing.

#249 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-09-22 06:36 PM | Reply

Just to clarify, Gal and Tor, you don't think Kavanaugh did this attempted assault thing in high school?

I didn't really have enough to make a judgment call until a couple days ago.

For me the pictures from his fraternity days is what pushed the preponderance of the evidence over to "he probably did it."

#250 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-22 06:37 PM | Reply

For me the pictures from his fraternity days is what pushed the preponderance of the evidence over to "he probably did it."
#250 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Link?

Even without photos, I'm leaning towards "he probably did it." as well. He was probably drunk, and trying to "steal second base" like Cory Booker.
I doubt it was attempted rape, but she may have been scared or humiliated, and as such remember it differently.
I seriously doubt he remembers it as an event, because 1) drunk, and 2) he was probably just trying to feel her up.

#251 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-22 06:45 PM | Reply

"It's called integrity. Booker has it, Kavenaugh doesn't."

So if Kavanaugh confesses to groping you will let him go and advocate that he is confirmed? Hahaha. Right.

High Tech Lynching part II.

#252 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-09-22 06:50 PM | Reply

"It is only through partisan political glasses that his qualifications become questionable."

We aren't talking about qualifications; we are talking about character. Someone can be a sitting judge and not be "qualified" to be one. Take for example the case of Judge Kosinski, Kavanagh's mentor and current friend:

Federal Judge Alex Kozinski Retires Abruptly After Sexual Harassment Allegations

www.nytimes.com

During the confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh was asked about Kozinski and said he knew nothing of his mentor's disqualifiying behavior. I hope he is telling the truth. The Intercept did a story on potential whistleblowers who want to come forward contesting his claim. I posted a link to the story, which hasn't gotten any traction either on here or in the world at large:

Attorney Sent Letter to Grassley/Feinstein About Kavanaugh

The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee were both approached in July by an attorney claiming to have information relevant to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The attorney claimed in his letter that multiple employees of the federal judiciary would be willing to speak to investigators, but received no reply to multiple attempts to make contact, he told The Intercept. Cyrus Sanai made his first attempt to reach out to Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in a letter dated July 24. Sanai told the committee leadership that "there are persons who work for, or who have worked for, the federal judiciary who have important stories to tell about disgraced former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and his mentee, current United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh."

"I know that there are people who wish to speak out but fear retaliation because I have been contacted by more than a half-dozen such persons since Judge Kozinski resigned in disgrace."

Sanai is the California attorney who blew the whistle on Kozinski years before a series of articles in the Washington Post in December finally brought about the resignation of the former chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court over sexual harassment revelations. Sanai has long challenged the judiciary and was deemed a "vexatious litigant" by one trial court, an attempted designation that was overturned on appeal.

www.drudge.com

I think covering up for another judge's bad behavior would be a disqualification for being on the SC (or any court), but unless and until any potential whistleblowers come forward, we can't say Kavanaugh did that.

#253 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 06:51 PM | Reply

For me the pictures from his fraternity days is what pushed the preponderance of the evidence over to "he probably did it."

Looks like Snoofy needs to discuss his fear of Johnny Lawrence and the rest of the Cobra Kai with his couples therapist.

#254 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-09-22 06:53 PM | Reply

So if Kavanaugh confesses to groping you will let him go and advocate that he is confirmed? Hahaha. Right.

High Tech Lynching part II.

#252 | POSTED BY SAMES1

I'd have more respect for Kavenaugh if he admitted to being what he is, a lying douchebag.

And stop with the 1991 memes regarding 'high tech lynching' ... this is America, white people don't get lynched.

#255 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-09-22 06:56 PM | Reply

#253 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

It's a single 30 yo claim. My bet is, they're hoping it triggers more to come forward.
If not, he's going to be confirmed. If women come out of the woodwork later, it could be a problem that needs to be dealt with.
and rightly so.

#256 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-22 06:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I did not have sexual relations with that woman. - Bill Clinton

- Total integrity. Yup yup. The fervent defense of a proven sexual preditor and liar was rampant. Totally qualified to be President.

Will Trump become President? "No. No he won't. We'll stop it." - FBI Agent Peter Strzok Not biased at all and qualified to do his job, but Kavanaugh is totally biased is not qualified? I see how that goes.

#257 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-09-22 07:01 PM | Reply

"And stop with the 1991 memes regarding 'high tech lynching' ... this is America, white people don't get lynched."

Where you been? It's all about white people have "privilege" and white cops shooting blacks. Insane, but that's the fly.

#258 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-09-22 07:03 PM | Reply

We aren't talking about qualifications; ...

The person to whom I directly responded was.

Otherwise, I agree that character can be a disqualifier.

#259 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-22 07:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Where you been? It's all about white people have "privilege" and white cops shooting blacks. Insane, but that's the fly.

#258 | POSTED BY SAMES1

If you take your white minority self-victimized political musings on the road with the Redneck Comedy Tour, you could make allot of money.

#260 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-09-22 07:13 PM | Reply

#257 | POSTED BY SAMES1

Stop watching Fox News, you'll go blind.

#261 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-09-22 07:15 PM | Reply

"Just to clarify, Gal and Tor, you don't think Kavanaugh did this attempted assault thing in high school?"

As I said earlier, I think he probably did do it, but it is possible he didn't. I think he probably did do it based on the mileiu of the school he attended at the time and also based on the character of his one character witness during the assault, if Ford is to be beleived. At this time I'm also leading toward believing her, because no one has come forward with proof she is lying, while I think there is evidence that Kav has perjured himself before the committee (more than once), and if he was willing to lie already, I see no reason to think he wouldn't lie again now.

#262 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 07:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#262 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

That's a sober position. I'm probably in the same camp as you.

But unless more/other women come forward with a similar story, he'll likely be confirmed.

#263 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-22 07:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#253 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

The post you are responding to has nothing to do with Ford's claim. It is about an attorney who exposed Kav's mentor Judge Kozinski's sexual harassment, over which he resigned in disgrace. Lawyer claims he knows of whistleblowers who want to come forward to testify that Kav knew about Kozinksi's harassment and lied about it under oath.

#264 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 07:24 PM | Reply

#264 But no one has contacted the lawyer from the committee, which is weird unless they already know something that refutes his whistleblower claim.

#265 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 07:27 PM | Reply

But no one has contacted the lawyer from the committee, which is weird unless they already know something that refutes his whistleblower claim.

#265 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 07:27 PM
I've read a bit about that case, and it looks as if that Lawyer and Kozinski had an amazingly antagonistic relationship. It would make sense if the Senators were aware of animosity between the two and knew that it colored his opinion and the expected evidence he would provide.

#266 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 07:31 PM | Reply

#262

She told people about it 6 years ago and her therapist's notes corroborate the foundational facts of her story. Why would she invent something at that time not knowing what the future would hold? She's passed a polygraph test that confirms by its measure that she is telling the truth. Kavanaugh and his buddy Judge were known and proudly documented their teenage drinking, so when Blasey says they were "stumbling drunk" at the time of the alleged assault, it's consistent with what Judge himself wrote in his book entitled "Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk." Both of the men's denials are qualified, no unqualified "no's".

These are the reasons Blasey allegations hold more veracity at the moment compared to the men's denials, though as Gal said, these things do not prove them guilty. But that's not the objective at this point. To ignore the evidence that does exist is the only way to assume that Blasey is inventing a story she told years before it became relevant in a political controversy. It was a fear of hers, but it wasn't reality as a political matter. To her, it was just something that happened to her which she carried inside for 3 decades. Her story is consistent with what we know of the character of her life, as are her allegations consistent with what Kavanaugh and Judge documented of their own teenage years involving drinking, partying and blacking out from imbibing to excess in their yearbooks and Judge's tome.

That is why her story appears to be the more credible version of events.

#267 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-09-22 07:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#266 Yes, that could be. I just wrote to Senators Harris and Gillibrand, sent them the link to the article and asked them to look into it, if no one already has.

#268 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 07:48 PM | Reply

"That is why her story appears to be the more credible version of events."

No, it's simply because it has the potential to derail a nominee that you don't like. That's your hope and why you think she is credible. No one but her has recollection of the "event". The timing is really great. Just after confirmation hearings start. Why would one wait decades then bring it out when a nominee of the opposite party is on the line?

It so affected her life that she went on to get a PhD and become a professor. She is a strong supporter of the Democrat party and has every reason to bring this guy down.

But ok. You think she is telling the truth. got that.

So let him be confirmed. You can't ruin a man's life with one accusation that might be a lie as so many have in the past.

After confirmation have a full investigation. Totally. If he is lying, impeach. If she is lying, jail time. Let's see who folds.

#269 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-09-22 07:52 PM | Reply

Both of the men's denials are qualified, no unqualified "no's". #267 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-09-22 07:39 PM
Mark Judge - "I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."
Brett Kavanaugh - "This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes -- to her or to anyone,"
Those are unqualified no's

#270 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 07:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh, I forgot the 3rd guy who Dr Ford placed at the party:
Patrick J. Smyth (PJ) - "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."

#271 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 08:01 PM | Reply

After confirmation have a full investigation. Totally. If he is lying, impeach. If she is lying, jail time. Let's see who folds.

No, have an investigation before any confirmation. Someone under a cloud should not ascend to a lifetime appointment supposedly reserved for the exemplary. Anita Hill's investigation took 3 days. Blasey has asked for the FBI to investigate her, Kavanaugh and Judge as a start. She's named other witnesses to the party, but they haven't been questioned under oath. This is why her polygraph outweighs denials not given under threat of perjury. She's willing to do so. So far every other person has stated they don't want to talk to anyone further about anything. These are not statements one takes to the bank as ironclad believable denials, they're hit-and-runs. Fact-finding in the legal realm doesn't work that way.

Blasey's allegations are not politically based on when they allegedly occurred. They're only political because of their current relevance in a SCOTUS confirmation hearing. And her allegations are merely something 100 Senators should consider along with everything else about Brett Kavanuagh in making the decision whether he's worthy of sitting on the SCOTUS. She cannot deny him his seat, that has to be done by others. She's simply a negative character witness who for obvious reasons agonized whether or not to come forward with her story until a leak coerced her to completely take her story public.

#272 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-09-22 08:08 PM | Reply

"Confirm him, then do your investigation. If he is lying, then he should be impeached."

FAIL.

It takes a majority to seat, versus a 2/3rds majority to impeach.

#273 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-22 08:10 PM | Reply

This is why her polygraph outweighs denials not given under threat of perjury. - #272 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-09-22 08:08 PM
The written statements by both Judge and Smyth absolutely carry the same weight as perjury : H.R.3166 - False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 & 18 U.S. Code § 1001

#274 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 08:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"FAIL.

It takes a majority to seat, versus a 2/3rds majority to impeach."

If he is guilty I'm sure you'll get a 2/3rd majority. What are you afraid of?

#275 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-09-22 08:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They are playing games with the Senate. Let's see if she shows up. She keep demanding this and that. I want the truth as much as anyone but she is not looking good.

#276 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-09-22 08:26 PM | Reply

If he is guilty I'm sure you'll get a 2/3rd majority. What are you afraid of?

Posted by sames1 at 2018-09-22 08:21 PM | Reply

What a BS Dummkopf

#277 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-09-22 08:27 PM | Reply

"If he is guilty I'm sure you'll get a 2/3rd majority. "

Your certainty isn't worth the keystrokes to make your statement.

Sessions has already perjured himself twice, and nobody made a peep. What makes you think Republicans would start beginning to care?

#278 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-22 08:28 PM | Reply

One witness has asked for an investigation and all the other witnesses other than Kavanaugh have not only NOT ASKED for an investigation to clear their names, they've stated they do not want to be questioned or comment any further. One is not the same as the other and cannot be ignored.

You have three people who are vouching for their own credibility: One has passed a polygraph, given details and a plausible history of the events that is consistent in the details of the behavior the accused have admitted they exhibited at the time of the allegations.

The others have not added any details to their denials (granted, without further investigation proving or disproving time and location there's not much else they can say currently), nor have they offered any counter evidence that they were not sometimes "stumbling drunks" in the time-frame of the allegations. They both are on written record as either blacking out from drinking or passing out from drinking. These admissions color their denials of having no memory or recollection of events. Blind drunks don't tend to remember things with clarity, big newsflash there. You continue to act as though these facts don't exist.

At present the credibility scales are tipped in Blasey's favor as has been supported ad nauseum. No one has uncovered any evidence or reason that Dr. Blasey would have invented a 30 year old attack and talked about it 6 years ago and passed a polygraph supporting that's she's telling the truth. None of the other witnesses have, and nothing is stopping them from doing so if they wanted. But one of these people is not like the other two and that is undeniable on that fact alone.

#279 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-09-22 08:32 PM | Reply

‘Incredibly frustrated': Inside the GOP effort to save Kavanaugh amid assault allegation

Just as he did several weeks ago to prepare for his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, Brett M. Kavanaugh was back inside a room at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building -- again facing questioners readying him for a high-stakes appearance in the Senate.
This time, the questions were much different. An array of White House aides, playing the role of various senators on the Judiciary Committee, quizzed Kavanaugh last week about his sex life and other personal matters in an attempt to prepare him for a hearing that would inevitably be uncomfortable.

In his answers during the practice runs, aides said, Kavanaugh condemned sexual assault and carefully avoided seeming to discredit Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor in Northern California who has accused the nominee of pinning her to a bed, groping her and putting his hand over her mouth to stifle her screams as he tried to take off her clothes at a drunken high school party in the early 1980s.

But Kavanaugh grew frustrated when it came to questions that dug into his private life, particularly his drinking habits and his sexual proclivities, according to three people familiar with the preparations, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. He declined to answer some questions altogether, saying they were too personal, these people said.
"I'm not going to answer that," Kavanaugh said at one point according to a senior White House official, who said that the questions were designed to go over the line and that he struck the right tone.

www.washingtonpost.com

#280 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 08:34 PM | Reply

Sessions has already perjured himself twice, and nobody made a peep. -#278 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-22 08:28 PM
There was an investigation into potential perjury by Jeff Sessions. The determination was that no further action was required.
www.nytimes.com

#281 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 08:35 PM | Reply

Ya'll are keeping me pretty busy fixing your errors.
Could I convince you to do some research prior to making statements so maybe we just start off without all the mistakes?

#282 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 08:37 PM | Reply

They both are on written record as either blacking out from drinking or passing out from drinking. - #279 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-09-22 08:32 PM
This is not a true statement.
There is no written record of Brett Kavanaugh passing out from drinking.
At least not one that I've seen. Can you cite that statement?

#283 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 08:43 PM | Reply

"The determination was that no further action was required."

Color me stunned.

SESSIONS: I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians."

Perjury.

SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY: Several of the President-elect's nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?" the Vermont Democrat asked in a questionnaire.

SESSIONS: No.

Perjury (or a violation of the False Statements Act). But an investigation determined "no further action was required". Shocking!

#284 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-22 08:45 PM | Reply

Four reasons why Christine Blasey Ford's credibility keeps rising

First, fabulists don't plead for the FBI to investigate their claims. The Republicans' misrepresentations (e.g., "the FBI doesn't do this") are equally telling.

Second, we know a lot more about the culture at Georgetown Prep in North Bethesda than we did a week ago. The atmosphere and experiences of contemporaries fit Ford's recollections.

Third, a friend says that Ford once told him she needed an extra bedroom door -- a second exit -- to avoid being trapped.

Fourth, we've heard from numerous sex-crimes experts and prosecutors that it is not unusual at all for victims of sexual assault to wait decades before coming forward. (Is anyone, for example, blaming those molested by Catholic priests for waiting decades before they could speak about the crimes?) We know rape victims retain some details but not all. And we know the incidence of false accusations is low while the percent of such crimes that are not reported is very high.

#285 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-09-22 08:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"potential perjury"

Oh, FFS. He lied under oath, for the obvious purpose of misleading others. What's "potential" about that?

#286 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-22 08:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There is no written record of Brett Kavanaugh passing out from drinking.
At least not one that I've seen. Can you cite that statement?

It's been posted time and time before from Judge's book. He uses the name "Bart O'Kavanaugh" but anyone with common sense understands who he was talking about. He wrote a non-fiction book about himself and those around him while he was in high school. It stretches credulity to assume that it wasn't Brett he was quoting about. And no one has asked Judge yet whether the person he renamed was indeed Brett, yet another reason why he needs to be called in to testify. Outside of Blasey's allegations, Judge is a material witness to Kavanaugh's actions and character at the time of the assault.

#287 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-09-22 08:50 PM | Reply

Judge has made a statement to the Senate that he never saw Kavanaugh sexually attack anyone.
I accept that you believe that Bart O'Kavanaugh is Brett Kavanaugh. I will accept that Bart = Brett when I see some proof of it.
In either case, there is no written statement that Brett Kavanaugh was passing out from drinking.

#288 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 08:55 PM | Reply

Turn the equation around. Who has the motive to lie? Whose credibility has already been damaged by small but significant misstatements? (The Post reports on Kavanaugh's unbelievable testimony about Charles Pickering, and about improperly obtained documents he received from a Republican aide.)

We've yet to see either of them under oath, testifying to their recollections (or lack thereof) on this episode. But, at this stage, it is increasingly preposterous to claim Ford wasn't attacked. And, if you are reasonably convinced the incident occurred, you're left speculating that this is a case of mistaken identity. How likely is a traumatized 15-year-old to forget the face of her attacker?

www.washingtonpost.com

#289 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-09-22 08:58 PM | Reply

What's "potential" about that? - #286 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-22 08:49 PM
I'm sure you understand why I trust the federal investigators claims over yours.

#290 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 08:58 PM | Reply

Judge has made a statement to the Senate that he never saw Kavanaugh sexually attack anyone.

How exactly does Judge define "sexually attack"? Has he answered that question? So many Republicans are saying what happened was just teenagers playing while they were drunk and certainly didn't qualify as attempted rape.

But you know what Judge didn't deny? He didn't deny seeing Kavanaugh hold a girl against her will which I've read still can be charged as kidnapping. He didn't say that either of them didn't wrestle with a girl in the manner described by Blasey. They didn't deny that their memories of the events in question don't exist because of their drunkenness which could have contributed to any lack of them remembering details.

They haven't been asked numerous questions that Blasey's allegations beg answers to. Their denials lack any substance but for their characters at the time of the assault and what we know (and don't yet know because they haven't yet been asked wholly relevant questions) from Judge and Kavanaugh undermines the foundations of their very denials.

#291 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-09-22 09:08 PM | Reply

"I'm sure you understand why I trust the federal investigators claims over yours."

I'm not discussing the investigators "investigating" their boss; I'm discussing the English language.

Are those two statements false, or not?

#292 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-22 09:09 PM | Reply

They are false.

#293 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 09:11 PM | Reply

"They are false."

So two incidences of perjury, with zero consequences.

#294 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-22 09:13 PM | Reply

false statement does not equal perjury. womp womp

#295 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 09:14 PM | Reply

"Statements that entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive."
Yawn

#296 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 09:16 PM | Reply

" Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth."

I'm sure you understand why I trust the federal investigators claims over yours. -#290 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 08:58 PM

#297 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 09:18 PM | Reply

Whether you talked to someone is not a matter of interpretation.

#298 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-22 09:18 PM | Reply

"false statement does not equal perjury. womp womp"

Does not equal perjury if your party is in control of the government, and you get to amend your "truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth" not once, but twice.

But good to know you "womp-womp" false statements under oath. A real barometer on your morality.

#299 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-22 09:18 PM | Reply

--I accept that you believe that Bart O'Kavanaugh is Brett Kavanaugh. I will accept that Bart = Brett when I see some proof of it

A book like that would never be sensationalized to boost sales and a young writer's career. Nah, that's never happened. It must be gospel truth equivalent to sworn testimony!

#300 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-22 09:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#280

Dan Eggen @DanEggenWPost

Kavanaugh grew frustrated when it came to questions that dug into his private life, particularly his drinking habits and his sexual proclivities...He declined to answer some questions altogether, saying they were too personal"

Nada Bakos @nadabakos (Former CIA Analyst and targeting Officer 2000-2010.)

Nada Bakos Retweeted Dan Eggen
So a candidate for Supreme Court isn't asked the same questions as someone applying for a federal job? These are basic background questions, sometimes included in a poly. If he can't handle that...god help us if he makes it to the SC.

#301 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 09:23 PM | Reply

"Whether you talked to someone is not a matter of interpretation."

Especially if you talked with him multiple times.

#302 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-22 09:24 PM | Reply

Whether you talked to someone is not a matter of interpretation. -#298 | Posted by JOE at 2018-09-22 09:18 PM
Whether you were interpreted the question to mean : did you speak with any Russian, or did you speak with any Russian as a representative of the Trump campaign is both a matter of interpretation, and the explanation that he gave.
"[The question] though worded broadly, was actually in the narrow context of Trump campaign collusion with Russian interference. He answered the narrow question, not the broad one of whether there had been any contacts."
foreignpolicy.com

#303 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 09:31 PM | Reply

minus the word 'both'

#304 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 09:32 PM | Reply

Oh...yeah, that both is supposed to be there.

#305 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 09:32 PM | Reply

These are basic background questions, sometimes included in a poly.

Interesting perspective...should SCOTUS justices undergo a full scope lifestyle polygraph?

#306 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2018-09-22 09:38 PM | Reply

Avignore hasn't yet figured out that the defense he's using to deny that Sessions perjured himself is the same reason that legally all three witnesses denials aren't necessarily denials even if someone produces a Polaroid placing all of them at the scene where Blasey says she was assaulted.

Just like you're doing with Sessions, they've allowed themselves room to fend off perjury (or violation of the federal Act you quoted) by then stating having no recollection or memory or saying that not having seen an event doesn't mean the event didn't factually happen. It just means they can't remember and then they can list reasons why they didn't remember.

That is why their denials mean nothing without further questioning into precisely what those denials mean and don't mean on the details of the allegations.

#307 | Posted by tonyroma at 2018-09-22 09:43 PM | Reply

- "...should SCOTUS justices undergo a full scope lifestyle polygraph?"

Dem's want a poly + 1 hour televised interview each with Oprah, Dr. Phil, and Ellen - Makeover Edition.

#308 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-22 09:47 PM | Reply

Amen, brother:

Adam Blickstein @AdamBlickstein

If @ChuckGrassley can't even properly vet his own staff to prevent hiring sexual harassers like @GarrettVentry, how can we trust him to properly vet accused sexual assaulter Brett Kavanaugh for the highest court in the land?
7:37 AM - 22 Sep 2018

#309 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 09:49 PM | Reply

#309 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

If true, then you would also agree:
If Cuomo can't vet a top aide who will later be convicted of taking bribes and corruption, then...

#310 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-22 09:52 PM | Reply

If he is guilty I'm sure you'll get a 2/3rd majority. What are you afraid of?
#275 | POSTED BY SAMES1

On what planet do you live on where righties actually live up to their morals and standards they hold everyone else to?

#311 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-22 10:03 PM | Reply

#310 Cuomo couldn't know what his aid would do in the future. Grassley did know what Ventry had been accused of in the past and chose to ignore it. Big difference:

Ventry worked as a social media adviser in 2017 in the office of North Carolina House Majority Leader John Bell, who fired Ventry after several months.

"Mr. Ventry did work in my office and he's no longer there, he moved on," Bell told NBC News. He refused to discuss the precise nature of the firing.

Ventry did not answer questions about the circumstances of his departure but said, "I deny allegations of misconduct." He also forwarded a letter of resignation he said he sent to Bell, giving two weeks notice. "Thank you for the opportunity to serve on the staff of the North Carolina House Majority leader at the North Carolina General Assembly," it read.

Sources familiar with the situation said Ventry was let go from Bell's office after parts of his résumé were found to have been embellished, and because he faced an accusation of sexual harassment from a female employee of the North Carolina General Assembly's Republican staff.


www.nbcnews.com

If Grassley did want to employ this guy despite the past accusation, it shouldn't have been on this issue.

#312 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-22 10:11 PM | Reply

Third Named Witness Rejects Kavanaugh's Accuser's Allegations
Another person named by Dr Ford as being at the party has come forward:
a lawyer for Leland Ingham Keyser wrote:
Ms. Keyer, whom CNN confirms is "a lifelong friend of Ford's," is the third named witness to deny any knowledge of the allegations.
Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.

#313 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 10:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Not sure how I transposed 2 of the lines, but a third named witness has struck the allegations.

#314 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 11:00 PM | Reply

He lied under oath, for the obvious purpose of misleading others.

Sounds good when you say it fast not so much when you have to prove the offense. So get an education. Start with the Congressional Research Service. fas.org

Then move to the US Attorney's Manual. Sections 1741 through 1767 discuss prosecution of perjury. www.justice.gov

Note section 1753, "Occasionally, a witness will try to mislead the inquiry by giving answers to questions that, although literally true, are evasive or unresponsive. In Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that such conduct does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 1621, reasoning that "if a witness evades, it is the lawyer's responsibility to recognize the evasion and to bring the witness back to the mark, to flush out the whole truth with the tools of adversary examination." Id. at 358-59. Thus, the jury does not focus on whether the statement was intended to mislead or divert the examination, but rather considers whether the declarant "does not believe his answer to be true." Id. at 359. See also, United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 376 (1953)."

Bottom line, perjury is difficult to prove. Thus, the paucity of prosecutions.

#315 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-22 11:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"if a witness evades, it is the lawyer's responsibility to recognize the evasion"

Sessions wasn't evading. He wasn't even asked if he'd met with Russians, he just flat out said he didn't. Questioners had no "mark" to get him back to.

"Thus, the jury does not focus on whether the statement was intended to mislead or divert the examination, but rather considers whether the declarant "does not believe his answer to be true."

The jury is the partisan Senate. Sessions had to change his sworn answers, twice. He answered NO when Leahy asked him straight up. OF COURSE Sessions knew his answers were false.

This is why the law is an ass. Sessions purposely lies while sworn, and the response is perjury is hard to prove, so no further action is required.

#316 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-22 11:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Sounds good when you say it fast not so much when you have to prove the offense."

Did you talk with Russians?

No.

Truth is, yes.

#317 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-22 11:23 PM | Reply

#316 & 17 | Posted by Danforth

There is no f**in' way in hell you could have read all that information in 15 minutes. So, you cherry pick in order to burnish your ignorant narrative. So be it. Still doesn't make your accusation of perjury correct.

#318 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-22 11:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Still doesn't make your accusation of perjury correct."

You're right.

The Attorney General can lie on a sworn statement, and he's not found guilty of perjury. Because--get ready--he may not have known he was lying when he said he didn't talk to any Russians.

#319 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-22 11:43 PM | Reply

"you cherry pick in order to burnish your ignorant narrative."

When Sessions answered Leahy's direct questions with a one-word denial, was he telling the truth or not?

That's NOT cherry-picking; it's the heart of the matter.

#320 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-22 11:46 PM | Reply

- he may not have known he was lying when he said he didn't talk to any Russians.

Do they wear little pins on their lapels, or something?

#321 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-22 11:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Because--get ready--he may not have known he was lying when he said he didn't talk to any Russians.

#319 | Posted by Danforth

Yeah...

I enjoy et_al's posts but they leave me with the overwhelming feeling that lawyers are the epitome of missing the forest for the trees.

#322 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-22 11:51 PM | Reply

Do they wear little pins on their lapels, or something?

#321 | Posted by SheepleSchism

No. They have accents like yours.

#323 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-22 11:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'm from Virginia, so I guess you'd call it a Mid-Atlantic accent.

But we do use the term, ya'll. When in Philly, I was told I had a southern accent.

#324 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-22 11:55 PM | Reply

But ve do use zhe term, ya'll comrade. When in Philly, I vas told I had a southern accent.

#325 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-22 11:58 PM | Reply

... was he telling the truth or not?

I don't know and I'm not arguing one way or the other. I'm pointing out that your simplistic conclusion, he committed perjury, is not as simple as you present it. An untruthful answer may nevertheless not constitute perjury.

#326 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-23 12:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Do they wear little pins on their lapels, or something?

Vintage "reset" buttons.

#327 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-23 12:02 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"... was he telling the truth or not?

"I don't know"

He said he didn't talk with the Russians. He talked with the Russians. And you "don't know".

"An untruthful answer may nevertheless not constitute perjury."

You're right. The AG can lie on a sworn statement, knowingly, and not commit perjury. The law is an ass.

#328 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-23 12:06 AM | Reply

#328

Dan, I gave you the information through which perjury prosecutions are vetted and examined. That there is a "lie" is but the beginning. Yet, that's where you stop. No further inquiry needed according to you.

Sorry, don't work that way. It needs to be determined whether all of the alleged trees (elements of the offense) are in fact trees before it can be concluded there is a forest (offense).

#329 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-23 12:20 AM | Reply

You're right. The AG can lie on a sworn statement, knowingly, and not commit perjury. The law is an ass.
#328 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Just because you speak to a person, doesn't mean you know the backstory or origin of that person.

Especially if they misrepresent themselves.

#330 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-23 12:30 AM | Reply

"I gave you the information through which perjury prosecutions are vetted and examined. "

And it seems that "lying under oath" isn't enough.

"It needs to be determined whether all of the alleged trees (elements of the offense) are in fact trees "

He said no. The truth was yes. How many trees are we talking about here?

If the central determinant is whether or not Sessions knew he was lying, and the law concluded he didn't, the law is an ass.

#331 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-23 12:30 AM | Reply

"Just because you speak to a person, doesn't mean you know the backstory or origin of that person."

WTF does that mean? No and Yes might have different meanings in Sessions' backstory?!?

#332 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-23 12:32 AM | Reply

#310 "Cuomo couldn't know what his aid would do in the future. Grassley did know what Ventry had been accused of in the past and chose to ignore it. Big difference:"

Also, to make matters worse, Ventry worked for both Grassley and the same PR firm as Whelan, Scalia's former law clerk, who tweeted out the "mistaken identity" story that identified one of Kav's look-alike classmates:

Matt McDermott @mattmfm

As @demfromCT points out, the comms adviser for Senate Judiciary GOP that denied any involvement in the conspiracy most recently worked at the same PR firm that Whelan used to push the theory.

What a coincidence.

The Grassley staffer who just resigned for sexual harassment is also the staffer who works at CRC Public Relations, the same firm Whelan used to push his conspiracy theory. This entire charade is tainted.

#333 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-09-23 12:34 AM | Reply

How many trees are we talking about here?

A bunch.

It's obvious you still haven't read what I provided. You've reached a conclusion and won't even consider anything that might jar you from you're narrative. So, why should I indulge you any further?

#334 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-23 12:46 AM | Reply

"It's obvious you still haven't read what I provided"

I thought you brought up what you believed to be the most salient points: In a live interview, the questioner is supposed to know if the person is lying, and pin it down, and knowledge of deceit is required. If there is another, or more, feel free to paste.

But in the first instance, Sessions wasn't directly answering a direct question, he volunteered a lie. There was nothing to pin at that point, because it wasn't yet known to be a lie. So you can't fault the questioner for not narrowing the line of questioning.

In the second instance, answering no to a yes question on a form certainly signed under penalties of perjury, and coincidentally, about Russia. In both, suggesting Sessions didn't know truth from lie seems beyond the pale.

Again, if there are other, better issues, I'm all eyes.

#335 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-23 01:03 AM | Reply

"why should I indulge you any further?

Four last questions:

1) Did Sessions do anything against the law when he made that statement about no Russians?
2) Did Sessions do anything against the law when--on a signed statement--he answered NO to a YES question from the Senate?
3) Does it matter in law that both happened to be about contact with Russians?
4) Does #3 change if a whole lot of other people around him have admitted they've lied about contact with Russians?

#336 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-09-23 01:16 AM | Reply

It needs to be determined whether all of the alleged trees (elements of the offense) are in fact trees before it can be concluded there is a forest (offense).

#329 | Posted by et_al

Sounds like lawyers creating rationals for them to keep their jobs.

It's not like the question(s) being discussed are nuanced.

"Did you meet with Russians?"

Pretty straight forward.

"Did you meet with a Russian from the Urals who was suffering from indigestion?"

Harder to discern a legit answer.

But you seem to want to act as if the latter is warranted for every single question.

Sometimes a forest is just a forest. It doesn't matter if it's composed of trees, bushes, shrubs, saplings and stretches of grasslands.

#337 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-23 01:19 AM | Reply

Just because you speak to a person, doesn't mean you know the backstory or origin of that person.

Especially if they misrepresent themselves.

#330 | Posted by SheepleSchism

Did you mean to describe yourself and Nulli?

#338 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-23 01:20 AM | Reply

#336 | Posted by Danforth

You're overthinking it.

All that smoke was because they doused the fire with water. So really, it's just steam.

And there's no fire.

So easy peasy nothing to worry about.

-lawyers

#339 | Posted by jpw at 2018-09-23 01:24 AM | Reply

I thought you brought up what you believed to be the most salient points ...

Excellent segue. I didn't. I directly responded to your "obvious purpose of misleading others" claim. (See what happened there?)

Again, if there are other, better issues, I'm all eyes.

Don't work that way. You unequivocally claimed perjury has been committed. You now have the tools. Make your case. I'll respond as I deem appropriate. Hint, the question.

BTW, I don't give a s**t about this issue or Sessions. I give a s**t about people's misconceptions about the law. Even moreso those who spout their ignorant misconceptions as if it's some how fact.

Thirty plus years has taught me there are more ways than one to skin a cat. Absolutism ain't a good one.

#340 | Posted by et_al at 2018-09-23 02:00 AM | Reply

"What are his qualifications?"

Clownshart....is probably serious with that question.

#341 | Posted by eberly at 2018-09-23 11:23 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort