1. It's about to start. I'll update this post as we go.
2. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has taken her seat. She's nervously looking around, getting patted on the back. She's wearing a dark blue jacket over a dark blue top and has her hair done in a way that allows it to fall over her face and to need to be pushed back. Senator Grassley begins by apologizing to both Blasey and Kavanaugh for the incivility to which both have been subjected. He says he intends to preserve civility in the hearing and to make it "comfortable" for both witnesses.
3. Grassley criticizes Democrats for sitting on the allegations, allowing them to leak out belatedly, and failing to resolve matters in a bipartisan way. Democrats, he says, are to blame for the pain that "Dr. Ford" has suffered in recent days. He praises himself for doing he could to accommodate her. (I put "Dr. Ford" in quotes to indicate that's what she is being called here. I had switched to calling her "Blasey" after reading in the NYT that she preferred that name. From here on, I'll write "Dr. Ford" without quotes.)
4. Dianne Feinstein: "She wanted it confidential, and I held it confidential, up to a point..."
5. Feinstein casts an aspersion on Grassley: He didn't introduce Dr. Ford. Grassley, angered, interrupts to say that he didn't forget to introduce her. He was going to introduce her at the point when he was inviting her to begin speaking.
6. Still waiting for Feinstein to finish reading her intro statement. Dr. Ford seems to be struggling to keep her composure. After Feinstein, I presume we will hear Dr. Ford read this statement, already released to the press.
7. "I am here today not because I want to be. I am terrified...." she begins, in a creaky voice.
8. Sorry, but I got an hour and a half behind. Will resume.
9. Now, I've watched the entire opening statement by Dr. Ford. She seemed very credible to me. Though she was reading, she seemed to be reliving a real, traumatic experience. It's hard to imagine that she could be infusing her speech with that kind of emotion phonily. Even an excellent actress would have difficulty affecting that kind of emotion.
10. Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor brought in to ask questions for the Senators, receives 5 minutes of time from Senator Grassley. Mitchell's use of the time is awkward, because she begin with documents that Ford must read and comment on, and Ford takes her time and makes small corrections to the documents. Grassley interrupts to say his time is up, and shifts the proceedings forward to the next Senator, Dianne Feinstein,
11. Feinstein takes her turn and focuses on the difficulties Ford experienced as her name became known. This material bolsters Ford's credibility, especially to the extent that it seems that Ford knew how painful this exposure would be before she decided to go public. Feinstein's time runs out quickly and Mitchell gets another 5 minutes to continue where she left off.
12. Mitchell's approach enables Ford, just by being careful, to slow everything down. The time will run out. The day will end. Maybe Kavanaugh supporters wanted it to play out like that, but Ford is a credible person, and I think the Republicans chosen approach, including the use of Mitchell, will backfire on them, and Kavanaugh will not be confirmed. I'm saying this at 11:06 ET in my recording, that is, an hour before I'm writing this update.
13. At 11:13 ET, Ford speaks of the "indelible" memory of Kavanaugh and Judge laughing — "having fun at my expense." "I was underneath one of them, while the 2 laughed, 2 friends having a really good time with one another."
14. At 11:56 ET, during the questioning by Senator Whitehouse, I exclaim aloud: "The Democrats are winning by a lot here." Whitehouse is talking about the lack of an investigation.
15. Grassley gets angry and yells — about why there is no new investigation — but it feels so wrong that he's yelling in the presence of Dr. Ford. She's the allegedly traumatized victim — don't yell around her! The Republicans are either too bland — operating through Mitchell — or irksomely angry — through Grassley. Do they know how badly they are losing right now? I wonder how Brett Kavanaugh is doing.
16. I'm skipping ahead, looking to see if Kavanaugh's testimony has begun. It has not. I talk with Meade for a while about what Kavanaugh might say if he were asked if he is 100% certain that Ford is wrong when she says she's 100% certain that Brett Kavanaugh did what she remembers. Here's what I imagined Kavanaugh saying: I cannot be 100% certain. I know that I drank far too much on some occasions when I was an immature teenager, and though I've said that I don't remember ever suffering alcohol-induced amnesia, I cannot know for an absolute certainty that it never happened. Watching Dr. Ford testify has been a horrific experience for me. What if there is a blank, dark spot in my memory where drunken young Brett Kavanaugh did what Dr. Ford describes? I pray to God that's not true, but I cannot say 100% that it's not true, and if it is, I am so terribly sorry. I beg Dr. Ford's forgiveness. I hope for God's forgiveness. I hope that my life's work as a sober adult makes up for what I may have done all those years ago. I still believe I have devoted and useful service to give to my country, and I humbly submit myself to your vote, Senators. And I thank all of you for considering my case, and I want Dr. Ford to know that my heart goes out to her, and my heart goes out to every victim of sexual assault. Thank you.
17. I picture Trump watching the hearings with Ivanka. Somehow I imagine Ivanka reacting like me. I wonder what they are saying to each other. Remember that Trump said at his press conference yesterday that he would watch and judge Dr. Ford for himself, that he had an open mind about it, and he could "believe anything."
18. I've been listening to Kavanaugh for a long time without stopping to write anything. Let me quickly say that I'm finding his opening statement extremely powerful and persuasive.
19. It was a long day! Let me try to wrap up this post. I thought Kavanaugh did really well in his written statement, expressing strong outrage and real emotion. In the questioning, this demeanor sometimes felt too strong. He interrupted and shouted back and seemed to show some hate and contempt for some of the Senators. He said more than once that his family had been "destroyed," and yet his wife is his "rock." The rock is not destroyed.
20. This was the ultimate he said/she said. Both were tremendously strong and they told diametrically opposed stories. If I had to decide, I would not go by who's more likely to be telling the truth, but how everything we've heard weighs on the question whether or not to confirm. In view of everything we know about Kavanaugh, does he deserve confirmation even with the degree of doubt we have about something terrible he might have done when he was 17 (and a couple of other, much weaker allegations)? I suspect most people will end up in the same position they had on him anyway, because it's a matter of weighing. But when I think about how BK and CBF could be so far apart, I have 3 explanations: 1. BK has some alcohol blackout holes in his memory, and what CBF remembers is in one of them, 2. CBF has a false memory and really believes it (caused by some genuine trauma), 3. BK has no route but forward, and he knows he did it, but feels entitled to what he's worked all his life to attain. Since there's no way back to his old life, he must force his way through this obstacle. And he's barreling ahead to save his life and save his family. Cornered, he had to fight like hell, and that includes lying.
२७ सप्टेंबर, २०१८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१,८१३ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 1813 पैकी 601 – 800 नवीन› नवीनतम»Repeal the 19th.
Return voting rights and abortion rites to the States.
Dr. Ford’s father, Ralph Blasey IV, a Republican, is on the board of Columbia Country Club in MD. He stated through a family friend he is not publicly backing his daughter’s allegations because he believes he will lose his position with the country club.
How do you know this to be true, Pickering?
Did the father give that explanation on TV?
Why does the rest of her family not publicly back her?
Elizabeth Loftus is a hag. She's the flip side of the radical feminists. None of these people belong anywhere near a real court, which may be why they have all decided to stick to kangaroo courts.
Unfortunately, the Republicans forgot to wear their kangaroo suits today. They can't get a darn thing right.
"He stated through a family friend he is not publicly backing his daughter’s allegations because he believes he will lose his position with the country club."
-- Yeah. That's a healthy family dynamic right there.
Over on HotAir.com there’s a different take from Althouse’s:
“Now in recess for the next half-hour. The Senate has a vote scheduled, so they will return afterward to resume with Ford. Mitchell seems to be laying out a case that Ford’s memory is unreliable, even in the short term, and that her legal team has been deceptive. Again, that won’t convince Ford’s defenders, but it’s designed to appeal to a small group of undecided Republicans as well as give context to Brett Kavanaugh’s upcoming denials.” [Emphasis mine]
HotAir has also basically called Maisie Hirono a dolt.
walter: "Drago,
The repeatedly reported overtures were "unclear".
Her mind was/is tired."
Apparently, "Dr" Ford is way wayzzzzzz tarrrrrred".....
I have been wondering who is paying all these high priced lawyers.
Maybe we have a clue.
I don't believe you wonder about Brett Kavanaugh at all, Professor.
Oh well. Good for you guys, though; if you're successful at destroying Kavanaugh maybe you can get someone on the Court who agrees that the Constitution requires unrestricted abortion on demand in the name of individual bodily autonomy. That's worth stepping on a few toes, taking apart a few standards, and harming a few old white men, surely.
Credible people can typically tell what year an event occurred.
I do have questions for the pro-Kavanaugh people here who think Ford and the Democrats are "winning" this today because I am genuinely curious:
In what way do you think they have won? Is it that you are convinced Kavanaugh did this thing and is lying in his denials; is it because you think Flake and the other fence-sitters will be convinced that Kavanaugh did it and is lying about it; or is it because you think the fence sitters will vote no because you fear the public will be swayed by Ford and the Democrats' performance?
As much as it pains me, and as much as I know how this will set a precedent for Democrats going forward, don't we have to say that if we have any doubts as to whether the man is a rapist, that we can't confirm him for the Supreme Court of the United States?
How could there ever be anyone for which you would have no doubts whatsoever? That's an impossibly high standard to meet.
"Elizabeth Loftus is a hag. "
I see we have a new troll.
Profile in courage!
Francisco D: "How do you know this to be true, Pickering?"
Francisco, dude. It was in a dossier!!
Everything in a dossier is always true and right and accurate.
duh.
It’’s “dirty pool” but this is war and there are no real rules. Holding back the facts for two months while her social media history is disappeared from the internet, preventing a timely investigation then complaining about no investigation. It’s all infuriating bullshit, but it’s not “against the rules” which are, in fact, “all’s fair.”
What if it were a man accusing a female nominee? Michael Crichton's book "Disclosure" took this issue on, in a different setting. It was a fascinating read when I was in graduate school (I read it in several hours, overnight, and perhaps a few hours the next day). If a man were to "perform" as CBF has, what would Althouse say and believe?
Kavanaugh gets the benefit of being the last to speak, but it doesn't matter. Minds were made up on this a long time ago. If he gets confirmed, Dem fundraising goes through the stratosphere. If he doesn't, Reps will remember (but will they turn out for the midterms?). Either way, dude's reputation has been butchered. This is what passes for justice in the social justice world.
Sofa King: "How could there ever be anyone for which you would have no doubts whatsoever? That's an impossibly high standard to meet."
ding ding ding
I was in 6th grade and the altar boys, of which I was one, were returning from the church back to the school [it was around 1PM EST?] and Mrs Selsky, who lived across the street, came running out her house and yelled for us to tell Mother Superior, our school principal, that the president had been shot. So I ran up the school steps and did just that. When I went back to my classroom, I could see that our teacher, Miss Martino, was crying a bit.
Fords answer on the other witnesses was hilarious.
"In what way do you think they have won?"
-- Honestly, I keep seeing people say she's credible. I don't get it. If someone were trying to railroad anyone for any other accusation, the accuser's account changing as frequently it has here, with a proven shoddy memory, and with various other dings on her honesty and trust worthiness would make her not credible.
Why is Ford considered credible? Because she makes me feel bad for her? That's sympathy; I can feel sympathy for people I think are wrong at best, liars at worst, but that doesn't change that what they're saying is not beleivable.
I know how this will set a precedent for Democrats going forward, don’t we have to say that if we have any doubts as to whether the man is a rapist, that we can't confirm him
So every Rep nominee is going to be accused of rape from now in in ways that are neither provable or disprovable. That is how the game will be played. They know that Roe v Wade is not based on the constitution, if it were, then Obamacare would have been unconstitutional under the same “privacy" grounds.
"Fords answer on the other witnesses was hilarious."
-- What was it (it isn't playing here any more.)
They need to zero in on the house, on the location: if she dated the boy that brought her to the house - and the house didn't belong to the family of Judge or Kavanaugh - then who owned the house? It wasn't the boyfriend's house?
Stating the obvious: she's on incredibly weak ground with the location and the witnesses. They need to be laser focused on this issue but the format doesn't allow it. Having the prosecutor ask five minute questions then letting a Democrat jump in is just not working.
This isn't about putting two people's credibility against each other - she has no corroborating proof that her story happened. She is unable to even say WHERE it happened, and each of the four people she said was there say the party didn't happen. One of the, HER friend, says she's never met Kav or attended any party where he was present.
This is an interesting tack by Mitchell. Drawing attention to Ford's "recovered memory" nonsense and what is actually appropriate procedure.
Ford's claims represent activities that are what one should not do with regard to recovered memory.
I did not see that one coming.
Rachel has moved to putting words in Fords mouth. Did you know the best way to interview?
Well let me tell you
Efforts don't seem to be working.
He stated through a family friend he is not publicly backing his daughter’s allegations because he believes he will lose his position with the country club.
Utterly incredible. Columbia membership is mostly well off professionals earning their living off the government from with businesses who do.
This isn't about putting two people's credibility against each other - she has no corroborating proof that her story happened.
Which doesn't matter at all with the Althouses of the world. A bunch of men are being mean to a woman and Roe are all that matters. Feelz.
Althouse:
"15. Grassley gets angry and yells — about why there is no new investigation — but it feels so wrong that he's yelling in the presence of Dr. Ford. She's the allegedly traumatized victim — don't yell around her! The Republicans are either too bland — operating through Mitchell — or irksomely angry — through Grassley. Do they know how badly they are losing right now? I wonder how Brett Kavanaugh is doing."
I'm watching the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Is that what Althouse is watching? I knew that Althouse wasn't much of a Republican. But does Althouse hate Republicans? I'm still wondering if Althouse thinks that the Kavanaugh nomination is a low point for the Trump Administration. It would be interesting, because I regard it as one of the high points of the Trump Administration.
Althouse, when it is time for Democrats to cross-examine and attack Kavanaugh -- and we must expect that it will be "cross-examination and attack" at the very least, I expect that will be okay with you. It is what we all expect. And so it is what we will see, without surprise. Completely asymmetric warfare. Kid-glove treatment of Dr. Ford, and brutalizing of Judge Kavanaugh.
Matthew Sablan: ""Fords answer on the other witnesses was hilarious."
Ford tried to claim that, despite Leland's contradiction, under oath, of Ford's claims, that Ford asserted that Leland was actually fighting some health conditions (hinting that perhaps Leland wasn't "all there") and that the other 2 witnesses Ford identified, that she herself identified, WOULDN'T know about this attack or remember this party!!
LOL
To salvage this nomination the Republicans are going to have to get the other witnesses, including Judge, to testify. This is a rout for the Democrats.
Hell, I bet the Democrats will call for a vote tomorrow. If they had one, he'd lose.
Althouse thinks she is credible.
But she has never once questioned ANYTHING about this woman with 'cruel neutrality'.
So perhaps she has her 'belief' dial turned in a specific direction.
Just saying.
CBF just said that her "witnesses" don't recall the party because it was unremarkable.
Her girlfriend did not ask her why she suddenly left the party. CBF never mentioned her trauma or gave evidence of such to her girlfriend or anyone else. She said that her girlfriend doesn't recall the party because she is going through significant health issues.
The little girl voice has changed to a California girl voice when Rachel is questioning. She is gaining confidence, but it is still a tell.
LLR Chuck: " I knew that Althouse wasn't much of a Republican. But does Althouse hate Republicans?"
LOL
Probably. But in Althouses defense, not as much as McCain or some other LLR's.
Kavanaugh needs to make his opening statement a closing statement based upon the testimony. Dump what he wrote. He has to summarize, attack, use common sense and point out the inconsistencies in her testimony.
Grassley: "So let's just be nice to...uh...her.".
He could have just said that on Monday night and saved everybody a day. Jesus.
Alright, Kavanaugh is coming up. I say- hang 'em.
I hope it was the M. Bison answer: "For you, that was the day M. Bison murdered your family and destroyed your home. For me? It was Tuesday."
Steve G: "Hell, I bet the Democrats will call for a vote tomorrow. If they had one, he'd lose"
You have no idea whether or not the strategy employed was what the 4 swing republicans wanted and, if so, where they stand after getting what they wanted.
Grassley was angry? And yelling? Didn't see that. What constitutes anger?
This was always going to require Senators to vote reason over emotion. Her performance does not change the facts: it's still a dubious claim. A claim that, without evidence, was delivered late to disrupt the process and undermine the defense. It may sway those open to emotion, or those looking for an excuse, but it's not a rational response. You would think lawyers who care about due process might chyme in, but as in most things, principle takes a distant second place to politics.
This show trial must be traumatic for me.
I am agreeing more and more with Chuckles.
I predict Kavanaugh protests his innocence and then withdraws.
As much as it pains me, and as much as I know how this will set a precedent for Democrats going forward, don't we have to say that if we have any doubts as to whether the man is a rapist, that we can't confirm him for the Supreme Court of the United States?
The standard used to be reasonable doubt...but sadly far too many are willing, if not eager, to abandon reason in favor of emotion, like our hostess. If a trained lawyer, who spent decades educating other lawyers, is willing to abandon reason for emotion...what hope is there?
So her best friend and PJ and Judge all say no such party occurred.
Well, didn't she slip out of the house without saying Goodbye? Weren't Judge and Kavanaugh supposedly, drunk and "pinballing" around?
Seems pretty remarkable to me.
And I wasn't paying attention to the "Common friend" questions. Did she actually name him? Or did she forget his name too?
> In what way do you think they have won?
Public support for Ford will be much higher after this.
All the high spots I saw were Dem.
Dems should leave happy - conservation from now on favors them.
> is it because you think the fence sitters will vote no because you fear the public will be swayed by Ford and the Democrats' performance?
They can now. They want to look like "good people", so "why rush" and "have the FBI investigate". Maybe they think "we can do better".
What would McCain do now?
LLR Chuck: " Kid-glove treatment of Dr. Ford, and brutalizing of Judge Kavanaugh."
I would be hard pressed to identify a more representative example of LLR political philosophy and thinking in how to engage with democrats.
So..Keyser is just too sick to remember this? If that were the case, include it in the statement.
Kavanaugh would be fool to withdraw. Bork didnt' withdraw. NEither did Thomas.
You have no idea whether or not the strategy employed was what the 4 swing republicans wanted and, if so, where they stand after getting what they wanted.
Of course, none of us have an idea; we're all giving our views on what we think is happening.
In order to salvage this, Judge et al. will need to be subpoenaed.
You think the four swing Senators will be persuaded to vote for Kavanaugh based on what's happened so far?
Unknown: "What would McCain do now?"
McCain would be a big thumbs down on anything republican-y.
Obviously.
What slippery eel she was.
How any one can find her credible is beyond me.
Lawyers? What are lawyers?
Payment? What is payment? me know nothing of money.
"What would McCain do now?"
-- Given how he was smeared over Iseman, I think he would be furious and demanding proof before letting another good person's name be smeared with allegations of sexual impropriety.
Just a guess.
McCain would be demanding a full FBI investigation and all the delay neccessary to help the Democrats.
He'd be Jeff Flake - only x10 worse.
Thank God, he's dead.
"In order to salvage this, Judge et al. will need to be subpoenaed."
-- Why? He's made a statement under oath already. Nothing Ford said impeaches that; in fact, she agrees. He probably wouldn't remember it even if it happened. There's nothing gained by questioning him, save to impugn his character as a drunk.
From Twitter:
“Mitchell: Why did everyone you named as witness, including your best female friend Leland Keyser, say she had no memory of anything you alleged.
Ford: She has health issues and needs to take care of herself.”
What, what?!? Was that meant as some sort f threat against Leland Keyser? That’s what it looks like to me.
Surely I'm not the only woman who finds CBF not "emotionally credible"? She creeps me out, in fact.
The nice centrist people like Professor Althouse are ok with rule by the mob.
They're ok with it because the mob is in favor of things they also want--the mob has a female face!
They want unfettered access to abortion.
They want to take old white men down a peg or two.
They want to hurt people who don't agree with their views on feminism, gay rights, transgender issues, whatever.
Hey, ok. Good for them! My most sincere hope is that I get to watch when the mob comes for them. It'll take a long time, probably, but the mob will come for them too.
So. Things she doesn't remember. Who was there. Who pushed her. Whether there was laughing. When she wrote the letter. What year it happened. Where there was. When she did her polygraph.
Things she does remember: It was Kavanaugh.
Drago said...
LLR Chuck: " I knew that Althouse wasn't much of a Republican. But does Althouse hate Republicans?"
LOL
Probably. But in Althouses defense, not as much as McCain or some other LLR's.
McCain was, and Jeff Flake has been, thoroughly reliable votes for GOP judicial nominees. Susan Collins' voting record on "Yea" votes for Republican judicial nominations is 99%.
"I do have questions for the pro-Kavanaugh people here who think Ford and the Democrats are "winning" this today because I am genuinely curious:"
The question to ask is: Who is the audience? Is the the potentially Flake-y Republicans who won't vote for Kavanaugh, or the public at large? Or are they the same?
"What, what?!? Was that meant as some sort f threat against Leland Keyser? "
-- No, it is standard. Remember when Obama claimed the IG investigating his campaign was too senile to investigate, so he fired him? Claiming that people who contradict them are mentally feeble is a common tactic used by liars.
> Dems should leave happy - conservation from now on favors them.
They went from NOTHING
This is the most qualified guy
to "I heard he was a rapist"
from a "credible" witness who showed emotion while letting the prosecutor look dumb.
The conversation can now be "Why do Republicans always abuse women". They will take Kavanaugh's seat in the court of public opinion.
The Democrats are winning by a lot here."
I find it difficult to gauge how something sounds to others. What they notice, what bothers them. I prefer to wait and see.
On the other hand, Kavanaugh, himself needs to show some spunk.
I hope he is getting a quick brief on all Ford's evasive replies and corrections.
The Democrats need to look sane this afternoon and I don't think they are up to it.
"Surely I'm not the only woman who finds CBF not "emotionally credible"?"
-- I find her sympathetic. Something may have happened to her, or she may have been grossly misused by Feinstein. Either way, I feel bad for the position she is in.
I don't think I can say I believe her though
Steve G: "You think the four swing Senators will be persuaded to vote for Kavanaugh based on what's happened so far?"
Interesting. To your question, I'm listening to Cornyn and Graham right now...
Cornyn called out the inconsistencies and Graham is calling out the dems on their violation of process and is now calling out the lies but attributing those lies to dem counsel and the dem politicians.
Graham: "I feel ambushed by the minority."
"A nice lady that has come forward to tell a hard story with no corroborating evidence."
"On this "evidence" I couldn't get a search warrant"
"Ms Mitchel went methodically through the facts"
"I didn't find (Mitchell's) testimoy corroborated"
"When you have an emotional accusation and an emotional denial, you go back to the rule of law"
And he is being complimentary of Ford.
"if you really believed we needed an investigation, why didn't you tell us this in July" "this is all delay"
And all of that, in a nutshell is what the republicans wanted.
I'm hoping that is what is Corker/Flake/Collins/Murkowski wanted.
She clearly has issues and believes many things and hopefully, she was never assaulted by anyone. However, she has VERY selective memory except one - Brett Kavanaugh attempted to assault me. As for memory, there are several recent memories that were asked about: were you recorded in your polygraph? When was the polygraph-the day of or after your grandmother's funeral? She doesn't know or remember?
Two men have given sworn testimony to the Committee that they did it. Kavanaugh MUST play that card today.
Judge can't say anything more than what he said.
There was no such party.
You can't ask him details, because Ford didn't provide a date or a location.
and why would he remember when Ford saw him at Safeway in 1982, when he had NO reason to remember her?
LLR and #StrongDemDefender Chuck: "McCain was, and Jeff Flake has been, thoroughly reliable votes for GOP judicial nominees."
It was wise of you to limit your assessment to judges only.
Very very wise.
And here's hoping Flake gets his dream job on your dream network, MSNBC.
Yancy Ward said...
I think a lot of people misconstrue two different words- credible and creditable. Ms. Althouse, whether she knows it or not is describing her reaction to Ford being creditable.
Plus "The Increditable Hulk" doesn't seem to roll of the tongue too well.
And honestly, I just don't understand why people find it so difficult to imagine several "credible" alternative scenarios.
1) She really was assaulted, but Kavanaugh had nothing to do with it even though she beleive's he did for whatever reason. In which case obviously the emotional performance is very genuine.
2) She really was assaulted, Kavanaugh had nothing to do with it and she knows he didn't. In this case the emotional performance can also be genuine since she's recalling a real attack, just conveniently substituting an attacker.
3) The entire incident is a wholey generated false memory from therapy. Again, the emotional performance is genuine in this case too, since she fully believes it's real.
4) She's lying completely about everything and therefore the emotional performance is false along with everything else. In this scenario she imagines herself a great hero who is lying for the greater good of keeping Roe V Wade from being overturned, and/or may even be getting secretely paid off, and/or she may be hoping to end up with some kind book deal or whatever.
Any one of these scenarios seem at least plausible to me, and 3 of 4 of them allow for a genuine performance.
Other bloggers foolishly concentrate on details, consistency. Althouse wisely channels her feels. RHHARDIN TAKE A BOW.
A long time ago people use to come to me and tell me about bad things that had happened to them, or that they had done. I don't why people would do this. But it happened. Repeatedly.
And I would listen. In fact, I didn't know what else to do but listen and try not to inject myself and give my opinions but just to listen to what they were saying, because really that's all I felt I could give.
I learned a few things from this. I realized there's a huge gap between how life is portrayed in the movies or TV and what is really going on.
I was astonished at how strong people really are. People have this capacity to endure mistreatment that I didn't know was there. It both astonished me that so many people are carrying these incredible loads and at the same time that they can carry them.
And that reminds me. I didn't start out to say this, but it's true. No one ever came to me to talk me about something that they needed to talk about that was as trivial as this. The weakness, the weakness in this woman, that is implied by this story, that is if we assume it is true, is hard to believe. Is there really a human being that has had led such a pampered and privileged life that this is what she obsesses about for 37 years?
Anyway, another thing I learned is how to recognize when it's going to be a really bad thing or not. That is within the first minute. And it's actually pretty simple. If a person tried to persuade me that something really bad had happened to him or her, if they played it up in any way, then I knew it was not really an issue for them. They may have persuaded themselves, but it was not.
And how do I know this? Because I heard the real thing too many times. I'm sure there are variations, but what I remember, what the typical pattern is, is this flat unemotional voice, and it's as if they are talking about someone else. And whenever I heard that, I knew I was about to hear something bad. Something I really didn't want to hear and would bother me until I could manage to forget it.
Now that doesn't apply to this testimony because it is a performance, and would be regardless, but it does apply, I think, if you want to identify people that are traumatized.
"It's not over until we win" is 100% the ethos of the Left.
You have to hand it to them--they're willing to do whatever it takes to win.
"Two men have given sworn testimony to the Committee that they did it. Kavanaugh MUST play that card today."
-- Leave that to the Senators; Kavanaugh shouldn't touch that at all. Because it might explode like Whelan or whoever's Dopplenaugh theory.
Why if she was so TRAUMATIZED - would she go up to Judge in Safeway and say hello?
Wouldn't you be scared of him? He tried to Rape you!
Wouldn't you be mad at him? Wouldn't you confront him?
And if you didn't feel, that wouldn't you AVOID him?
Blogger David Begley said...
Kavanaugh needs to make his opening statement a closing statement based upon the testimony.
Yes, I hope he got a quick brief on her evasions and changes.
@HappyWarrior
sequelae = results, consequences (usually in Medical sense).
Dems are using the word "credible" on CSPAN.
Durbin said he could not understand Mitchell line of thinking. Same for public.
Dubrin knows he won, is smiling.
This is just embarrassing for us of all: the Senate, The Supreme Court, and Academia (which I must assume now includes cribs and pacifiers). A circus of politically correct cowardice and duplicity - a daytime TV shitshow. There is a reason why what is being done here is not allowed in a courtroom. It's because it is incredibly unfair and obscures more than it uncovers. It sounds like, and is designed as if they are cross examining a small child raped by a grown man, and that is not remotely what is being claimed, yet alone proven. Women should be embarrassed and angry. This makes you look incapable of being an adult citizen of a free country.
Karl Rove: (Mitchell) "She kept the republicans out of trouble" "but didn't press Ford very much until the very end"
Rove agrees with Brit Hume that the republican strategy was to present Ford as a victim of democrat shenanigans.
Of course, Rove is the genius who went full speed ahead on the failed W Bush/LLR strategy of Purposeful Non-Response to democrat attacks from 2006 to 2008.
And we saw what that got us.
To Rove's credit, he has called that decision was one of the biggest mistakes he ever made.
Unfortunately, W Bush, like other LLR's has gone all the way over to the other side.
I find Kavanaugh very credible, even an actor couldn't affect this. So Kavanaugh is telling the truth and will be confirmed.
This is Althouse's reasoning. Amazing.
You would think lawyers who care about due process might chyme in, but as in most things, principle takes a distant second place to politics.
This is why I expect the holdouts to vote for confirmation in the face of whatever the polling after this claims: I think the principles will win out for Flake and Corker for sure because the politics no longer matters as they are out at the end of the year. This leaves, in my opinion, just Collins and Murkowski, neither of which is up for reelection in November, so principle has far more room with both of them. I am left with just Sandoval in Nevada, and voting no would violate both the principle and the politics since a no vote would crater the base turning out for him in 6 weeks.
I think if the shoes were on the other feet- the Republicans defending most of the seats and the Democrats few, then the politics would matter more, but that isn't the case, and as cynical as I am in general, I think Senators do care about principles, and they are far less likely to be swayed by emotional reactions than some academic law professors might be.
In other words, I think what is being missed her by a lot of commenters in either their glee over Mitchell's performance, or their despair about it is that they aren't giving the Republican Senators nearly enough credit for honesty and principle. The latter matters, and self preservation in this case matters, too since giving in on this will not only cause its repeat with future nominees, but will be deployed this coming October in the election. If you won't stand for Kavanaugh, you can't expect people to stand up for you when it comes your time for the rack.
Unknown: "Durbin said he could not understand Mitchell line of thinking. Same for public.
Dubrin knows he won, is smiling."
The dems also thought they had "won" the Wellstone funeral as well.
"those who were accurate apparently used different behavioral clues and had different skills than those who were inaccurate."
I wonder how "reading the transcripts" rates. If there is a Republican strategy, it must be to get Ford to articulate to as many details as possible, have staff parse them overnight, and give them to Kavanaugh before his testimony.
It's not an amusing situation but I'm amused by all the Sherlockian skills on display in these comments. We, anonymous bystanders, don't know anything about the psychological state of Dr. Ford (or Judge Kavanaugh for that matter). A belief that we "know" something about the psychological state of a person we are seeing on TV is an emotion.
"don't yell around her?"
oh - the 11th hour liar deserves the red carpet and kid gloves.
Because D
Any R can be given death threats and - hey shut up big baby.
When was the polygraph-the day of or after your grandmother's funeral? She doesn't know or remember?
Would she take another? With people and equipment NOT out of a Cracker Jack box?
I find her sympathetic. Something may have happened to her, or she may have been grossly misused by Feinstein. Either way, I feel bad for the position she is in.
This is the same chivalric-holdover thinking that gets all of them, CBF, Mattress Girl, Jackie Coakley and Tawana Bradley treated with kid gloves.
I have no sympathy whatsoever for her or Feinstein. I want them destroyed, figuratively drawn and quartered and displayed publicly for their lies. I want them afraid. I want to win.
Dems have been setting this up since July
Stage managed by their best
Republicans spent a few days, thought the media would feel sorry for their negotiation loss
And picked a local prosecutor in over her head
It was Rocky vs Drago
Interesting: Rove was just on Fox (sorry LLR Chuck, I don't feel like watching your preferred networks CNN or MSNBC), and Rove sounded confident that the republicans on the committee got what they wanted and needed to keep their votes in line.
Rove is extremely well connected with Corker/Flake/Murkowski/Collins....
Hmmmmmm...
Unknown: "It was Rocky vs Drago"
LOL
Love that flick. And why not, it's how I got my callsign!
Dr. Ford has given no new or additional facts in her testimony.
Dr. Ford has said nothing that she had not already asserted.
There is no corroboration of any of Dr. Ford's allegations. To date every single witness Dr. Ford has stated could support her allegation has denied the allegation or said they have no memory of that time and therefore cannot corroborate it. Most of those people have done so on the record and under penalty of perjury.
But! As Professor Althouse says this has so far been a disaster for Kavanaugh. Isn't that terrific?! Ford makes unsupported, uncorroborated allegations again but it hurts Kavanaugh and Republicans. Why? Well she's a woman and she's so sympathetic a figure and look how emotional all of this makes her!! He's clearly guilty 'cause she's so darn torn up by having to be there in front of these mean old male Republicans.
Yup. Gooood stuff. Really says a lot about the strengths of our institutions.
People who attached "credibility" to Ford's testimony have had no experience with this kind of slander.
I have.
Without going into details, a member of my family was accused by another member of my family of sexual assault. It was an ugly situation. The event supposedly occurred years ago and the memory was recovered using therapy. I have no doubt that the accuser, a well-educated and articulate person, would seem credible to Althouse and other commentators here.
The only problem was that this person was wrong and definitive proof was established that this person was wrong. Note that I didn't say this person was lying. I think this person actually believed the accusation because when you "remember" it, you don't suddenly doubt your own memories. However, despite the definitive proof, this person still clings to the accusation to this day. And I have no doubt Althouse would be impressed by this person's sincerity.
So, no. "Credibility" has absolute NO sway with me. I've seen how tenuous that claim actually is.
Unknown: "And picked a local prosecutor in over her head"
I disagree with this.
After listening to Cornyn, Graham, Rove, Hume and others who I think are tied into the republican moderates, I think the republicans got precisely what they wanted from Mitchell.
The question is: was the strategy right or wrong? We'll know soon enough.
The emotional vote is why there is a rise in anti-nativism (e.g. refugee crises, immigration reform), diversity (i.e. color judgments including racism and sexism), political congruence ("=") or selective exclusion, warlock trials, conflation of logical domains (e.g. catastrophic anthropogenic global warming), and selective-child (i.e. abortion rites) and recycled-child for wholly innocent human lives reclassified as unPersons.
For some reason, I have this Aretha Franklin song stuck in my head:
Take me to heart and I'll always love you
And nobody can make me do wrong
Take me for granted leaving love unshown
Makes will power weak and temptation strong
A woman's only human
You should understand
She's not just a play thing
She's flesh and blood just like her man
If ya wanna do right (do right - do right)
All day (do right - do right) woman (woman)
You've gotta be a do right (do-right - do-right)
All night man (do right - do right) (man)
Aretha Franklin - Do Right Woman (1967)
#16. Kavanaugh can’t give an inch. It didn’t happen. Two guys have given sworn statements that they did it. Pin it on them.
Kavanaugh needs to make a closing statement based upon what Ford said.
Here's what I imagined [Kavanaugh] saying: I cannot be 100% certain. I know that I drank far too much on some occasions when I was an immature teenager...
The man apologizing is what makes romcoms porn for women.
Agree with Begley.
I wager he simply and emphatically declares "it didn't happen".
There are hundreds, if not thousands of men in jail, robbed of their children, fired, or bankrupted by women who know how to act this script from a very early age. It's practiced over a lifetime, and used throughout. Don't pretend to not know this.
I am so terribly sorry. I beg Dr. Ford's forgiveness.
Oh good god, have you learned nothing from the age of Trump?!
Apart from the fact that it is far too late for this approach, an apology without an admission of guilt would be the worst possible approach.
I think the republicans got precisely what they wanted from Mitchell.
I agree. Althouse wants him to confess and throw himself on the mercy of the Democrats.
Jesus ! I guess she never went to anything but a moot court,
I'm still waiting for Bill Clinton to grovel like that.
I bet Emmett Tills' accuser was credible too.
Observation #16 makes Shouting Thomas look like the wisest person on these threads.
Alan Dershowitz on Wednesday (requoted today by the Washington Examiner):
"I want to see the greatest engine of truth ever invented used effectively, namely used a cross-examination. And I'm worried that we don't have the right people. The woman who has been hired to conduct the cross-examination has probably rarely ever cross-examined anybody," he said of Arizona county sex crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alan-dershowitz-christine-blasey-ford-will-win-the-credibility-determination
Dershowitz has been proven prescient.
After Kavanaugh enters the lists in the afternoon session, he will have the opportunity to show his mettle responding to the attacks of his Dem interlocutors. He better be up to it.
Never mind
“One’s crazy as a loon”: I don’t believe either of the two other men who say they attacked Ford, says Lindsey Graham
This bullshit is acted out every day all day on TV shows, and it looks just like this with less pomp and circumstance, but pretty much the same play.
hil 3:14: "I wager he simply and emphatically declares "it didn't happen"."
Agreed.
I think we will have quite a few "spartacus" moments and Kamala moments where Harris asks questions that are weird, vague, all over the place, similar to how they flummoxed moron Jeff Sessions which then led to all the obama Coup holdovers to recommend to Sessions that he recuse himself based on faulty law in order to advance their "insurance policy".
If Kavanaugh is not confirmed, the Republicans will lose the Senate because, at that point, the jig will be completely up and everyone will understand in the end, the republicans will always move to Failure Theatre (Obamacare, the wall, immigration, SC).
Seriously? She can be 100% certain, even when contradicted by her own witnesses, but he must 'fess up?
Hard to respect Althouse after this.
I find her sympathetic. Something may have happened to her, or she may have been grossly misused by Feinstein. Either way, I feel bad for the position she is in.
And is really the main story! The story that no one seems willing to tell! How determined Judiciary Committee Staff on the Dems' side went to any means necessary, including leaking the Ford letter to the media, to shut down the Kavanaugh vote that appeared to be headed toward a 54-vote majority.
There is one and only one reason why Ford was pressed into testifying. It was because Judiciary Committee Dems would not take "No" as an answer from her about testifying. So they leaked it, and got the media to pressure her.
Again - I know a young male who was threatened with false rape accusations during teen-age arguments by his teenage gf.
The idea that all females are truthful? This 11th hour stunt reeks of leftwing activism and bullshit.
Why the R's and Grassly didn't slam the door shut after their first offer to her is beyond me. what a pathetic joke.
However, despite the definitive proof, this person still clings to the accusation to this day.
This is what I have seen in the cases I know about. Gary Ramona's daughter became a "therapist" in recovered memories after the lawsuit and the proof that it didn't happen. I doubt his wife ever returned.
I don't know who'll prove to be the biggest loser today, but I already know who is the big winner--rhhardin.
"Here's what I imagined him saying: I cannot be 100% certain. I know that I drank far too much on some occasions when I was an immature teenager, and though I've said that I don't remember ever suffering alcohol-induced amnesia, I cannot know for an absolute certainty that it never happened. Watching Dr. Ford testify has been a horrific experience for me. What if there is a blank, dark spot in my memory where drunken young Brett Kavanaugh did what Dr. Ford describes. I pray to God that's not true, but I cannot say 100% that it's not true, and if it is, I am so terribly sorry. I beg Dr. Ford's forgiveness. I hope for God's forgiveness. I hope that my life's work as a sober adult makes up for what I may have done all those years ago. I still believe I have devoted service to give to my country, and I humbly submit myself to your vote, Senators. And I thank all of you for considering my case, and I want Dr. Ford to know that my heart goes out to her, and my heart goes out to every victim of sexual assault. Thank you."
Damn, Althouse REALLY wants him to confess.
Even if he doesn't know if he did what he is confessing to; just say "alcohol-induced amnesia" for fuck's sake.
Because that will make it easier for her, rather than knowing that, on some level, she willingly played a part in letting a man be railroaded to keep abortion's penumbra untouched.
A few days of solemn explanations of why all of this was OK, really, to follow.
I am Laslo.
Althouse imagines that Kavanaugh destroys himself by saying that he can't be 100% certain he didn't rape this lying twat.
Yeah, that will go over great. The Dem's will certainly appreciate him for that.
Jesus fucking Christ, it absolutely terrifying that you are allowed vote. And disgusting that you bled the taxpayers dry at a publicly funded University.
I can only hope that Collins is not as much of an emotionally driven retard. It is a slim hope, but hope nonetheless.
Wow.
Somehow I imagine this mob here like the one at the end of Braveheart now cheers for Kavanugh to cry Mercy! And prove the king right. In the end however, if he allows himself to be tortured by this committee I suspect that Ann’s now ire will be changed just like the mobs.
I've known women who could turn on the water works and turn it off on a dime in order to manipulate others. Basing Fords "credibility"on that is nonsense.
The Democrats want this considered a 'job interview' not a 'trial' so they can destroy a person with hearsay, unsubstantiated allegations, no physical evidence, no corroborating evidence, no corroborating witnesses, and no presumption of innocence.
Kavanaugh represents ALL men and any action - from boorish, sexist comments all the way up to criminal rape.
The 'jury' in this job interview is the voter population who Demoncrats believe will have 'reasonable doubt' and will put them in power for the sin of this man.
[As I write this it was just reported that 3 Democratic fundraisers have already been scheduled using this testimony in the content.]
So, basically, the left, and left of center, want Kavanaugh to admit he's a warlock.
He's a baby! Abort him!
First, diversity/sexism. The progressives' next hunt:
Something is broken when the USA women are dominated by white girls next door
Diversity/racism. Overt diversity requires robust backing.
"Here's what I imagined him saying: I cannot be 100% certain. I know that I drank far too much on some occasions when I was an immature teenager, and though I've said that I don't remember ever suffering alcohol-induced amnesia, I cannot know for an absolute certainty that it never happened."
Good thing you aren't his attorney.
Men - please don't fall into the trap that all females are the enemy.
It's leftwing women who ARE the enemy. Be careful.
How determined Judiciary Committee Staff on the Dems' side went to any means necessary, including leaking the Ford letter to the media, to shut down the Kavanaugh vote that appeared to be headed toward a 54-vote majority.
Why not ? It's what they did to Thomas and Biden even promised him an easy hearing, probably to ensure that he was unprepared.
Thomas had a number of witnesses that were not called on.
mandrewa, good comment.
Get ready for a thundering and devasting “closing” statement by Kavanaugh. It will be nothing like he wrote beforehand. Slam dunk.
"Good thing you aren't his attorney."
500 yeses to that one. Of course, if it was a trial, he could appeal on the grounds of incompetent counsel.
Ford offered no new facts, no new evidence, no new substance to prove her allegations.
And yet she strengthened her case.
This is an example of why men - and some women - are afraid of the #METOO movement. Not because it will hold guilty men responsible but that it will sweep up innocent men as well.
Is Kavanaugh innocent? Yes, I don't think he assaulted Ford and tried to rape her. All of the evidence we have is that it didn't occur.
But that doesn't matter. And that's what is worrisome.
I've known women who could turn on the water works and turn it off on a dime in order to manipulate others. Basing Fords "credibility"on that is nonsense.
"Nothing is more foreign, more repugnant, or more hostile to woman than truth - her great art is falsehood." - Friedrich Nietzsche
It's why they all want to be actresses....
I think this performance needs to settle in people's minds before drawing conclusions as to its effectiveness.
Do professional women believe that her little girl and California girl voices are how successful professional women present themselves?
Do mental health professionals think that her alleged PTSD is real? How about her convenient memory lapses?
Do lawyers find it credible that the only important fact CBF recalls is that Brett assaulted her?
Is cruel neutrality giving way to sisterhood because many men out there have degraded women over the years (and gotten away with it)?
Men - please don't fall into the trap that all females are the enemy.
It's leftwing women who ARE the enemy. Be careful.
A member of my family is in that situation. He is left wing, too, so no excuses, but she is making his life miserable.
At the time of this comment, Professor appears to be arriving at conclusions before the Judge has testified -- after only hearing one side -- not very fair in general, particularly not fair for an attorney/law professor.
> Rove sounded confident that the republicans on the committee got what they wanted and needed to keep their votes in line.
> Rove is extremely well connected with Corker/Flake/Murkowski/Collins....
Rove was really wrong on Romney election.
Who can predict the squishes?
They want to fit in, they will be watching TV to see how the public responds.
McCain would have voted "no" because he loved reaching across the aisle as he stuck his thumb in the party's eye (how is that for a visual metaphor?)
Cornyn just said "I found no reason to find her not credible". Uh oh. Bandwagon forming.
Will Trump be willing to comment on her credibility?
Kavanaugh is toast.
If Repubs want respect of voters: when Trump sends next name, FLOOR VOTE THE NEXT DAY.
Caught 20 sec. of hearings enroute to shopping, turned off in disgust. Same on the way back.
Democrats have no moral principles. Repubs have some moral principles, but no courage. Both are disgusting.
Advice to Repubs: never argue with a liar. They just drag you to the gutter and beat you with experience. You can
..roll the dice and take a chance (that the cowardly fringe up for re-election in contended districts will put order above chaos, good of country above job retention); or
..grovel, back up, give ground to the devil, until all your supporters lose heart and your cause is lost.
Disclaimer: Crooks and Cowards. Hammond votes Libertarian. If you do not like what they do with the power, do not give them the power.
SG: "Is Kavanaugh innocent? Yes, I don't think he assaulted Ford and tried to rape her. All of the evidence we have is that it didn't occur.
But that doesn't matter. And that's what is worrisome."
Agreed.
We have reached our Marxist critical mass moment with the dems.
Ann's suggested answer for Kavanaugh is ridiculous. Of course he's 100% sure it wasn't him. And that's what he must say.
Tawana Bradley
I forgot about that disaster. But when I see Sharpton treated so well, I think about how there really is no justice. I'm sure many people then were saying, "why would she lie about this?"
Even now the Republicans will not do anything but praise Ford while lambasting the democrats.
Too cute by half?
Can they thread the needle?
So do you have a reasonable doubt? A preponderance of the evidence? or just don't care about fairness or justice here. A man's reputation, and career, and the duly powered preference of 60 million Americans is at stake over a single person's word which is counter to all other witnesses and evidence available. One person who is unclear of the details herself, and highly motivated to lie.
>>A few days of solemn explanations of why all of this was OK, really, to follow.
She's already writing here "How Kavanaugh lost me" post...
She's Credible!!! Bah, I could testify that kav attacked me and ‘sound credible’. With a few days to think about my story, and no requirement that I provide any specifics like time and place, and no point deductions for the fact that my ‘witnesses’ don’t remember anything like this happening. Sure, I could get him convicted under those terms. I'm good at looking 'credible'. Fortunately, I don't use my gift for evil.
This is like when Trump won and Democrats were all "Wha-?"
The Dems have pulled a rabbit out of a hat, so all the Right can do is shit on women, and America's sense of decency, to achieve the power grab they're due to get anyway. They need to let Kavanaugh go, because they don't need a white Clarence Thomas, but the midterms are coming and"the precious" calls and all that.
Basically, the Right is blowing the politics.
We are about to witness what vicious marxist pitbulls will do to an innocent man shortly.
We are about to witness the most aggressive Stalin show trial since the 1930's.
Bork/Thomas/Reagan October Surprise/Iran Contra were all warm ups to this.
I'm serious here - are you trolling us with this or are you serious, Althouse? I never know. He has to address her testimony and be compassionate while convincing us that he's not her attacker. She has no evidence.
If that's not worth something, I felt the world shift a bit, and not in a good way. No sympathy at all for the rich white male overachiever, whether he really did anything he's accused of or not. Anything's "fair." Prove that negative. Our girl just walked the ring of fire and killed it.
"high fives all around"
No, its all about Flake and Corker and Murkowski, who represents a state where abortion was legal before Roe v Wade, and Collins.
That makes no sense, because if Roe v Wade is overturned, that will return the power to the states, where once again abortion can and will be legal in those states.
Of course you'd never know that judging from the hysteria and scare tactics of the Democrats.
Possible "=" probable. It's over, right?
Throw the baby on the barbie, he's done.
He should also say he cannot be 100% sure it wasn’t Meade. Actually, Althouse cannot say with 100% certainty it wasn’t Meade. Nor I bet, by Althouse’s criterion, can Meade.
Her criterion looks a little bit stupid now, doesn’t it Meade?
don’t know who'll prove to be the biggest loser today, but I already know who is the big winner--rhhardin.
A wise man builds his house upon the rock of eternal truths.
Sir Crack-en: "s...o all the Right can do is shit on women,...."
LOL
Leave it to Mr Self-styled Science-Guy Crack to get it wrong....AFTER the fact!!
It doesn't get any funnier than that.
Dude, in case you want to catch up (assuming you are capable of it), we are in full blown discussion over whether or not the specific and undeniable republican strategy of NOT doing what you claim, in fact doing the opposite, is the correct strategy.
Too funny.
Dunning-Kruger rears it's head again...
Ann Althouse said...I beg Dr. Ford's forgiveness. I hope for God's forgiveness. I hope that my life's work as a sober adult makes up for what I may have done all those years ago. I still believe I have devoted and useful service to give to my country, and I humbly submit myself to your vote, Senators. And I thank all of you for considering my case, and I want Dr. Ford to know that my heart goes out to her, and my heart goes out to every victim of sexual assault. Thank you.
I'm trying to decide if that's more Orwellian or Maoist. Professor Althouse hopes Kavanaugh begs forgiveness of his accuser even though he has denied the accusation. Professor Althouse hopes he APOLOGIZES and EXPRESSES LOVE for the woman who has destroyed his life/good name/reputation/honor as a man/future.
Isn't that wonderful!? He'll probably do it, too. It's not enough to destroy him, he must THANK them for the destruction. And it won't be enough for him to just say it--he must in the end really LOVE Big Brother.
"I can't prove some shit that didn't happen didn't happen, so I beg your forgiveness for all the things I didn't do."
Look up pictures of the struggle sessions and other public tortures during the Cultural Revolution. Look at faces of the eager students; notice how many of them are women.
If this is all it takes, who is going to be good enough?
Your prescription is exactly wrong, because it assumes that a nuanced, thoughtful, compassionate statement would somehow matter. You think that any of this will sway votes one way or the other.
It won't matter.
Kavanaugh should say, "I did not do the things that Dr Blasey is asserting. I deny them categorically. I do not know why she has accused me, I do not deny that she has suffered a great deal of pain. But. Never, in my whole life, have I assaulted in woman in that manner, or in any manner. The record of my life stands as its own defense. Consider the evidence. Whether you believe me, or if you believe Dr Blasey, you must vote according to your conscience and let your own conscience decide the justice of your actions. I submit myself to your vote. I thank the committee."
Then, Grassely should call the vote and let the chips fall where they may. If he loses, he loses.
So let me get this straight. If Ford claimed that she saw bigfoot in the exact same style as she just did this claim, it would be a credible claim? Where is she on the flatness of the Earth?
"Is Kavanaugh innocent? Yes, I don't think he assaulted Ford and tried to rape her. All of the evidence we have is that it didn't occur.
But that doesn't matter. And that's what is worrisome."
And you think it is a small minority that doesn't understand the stakes here? Like I wrote above- you and others aren't giving the Senators enough respect.
Hey Crack, since you are an All-Star in After the Fact Wrongness, would you care to bet on the Patriots/Eagles Super Bowl?
I'd be willing to give you odds.
LOL
YW: "And you think it is a small minority that doesn't understand the stakes here? Like I wrote above- you and others aren't giving the Senators enough respect."
That's certainly what Cornyn/Graham/Rove were signalling.
We already saw the cover art/ propaganda line intended to blunt any response of any kind from BK. No HIMPATHY! Guilty! The Dems really do take their marching orders from on high.
If the Right can bear an enduring symbol of evil representing them, for a lifetime, they'll elect Kavanaugh just to win the midterms.
Is sacrificing the party over one election worth it when Trump gets to pick a SCJ anyway?
And after he made that statement shouldn't he kill himself, Professor Althouse?
That's what it would take, right? Say that, beg forgiveness, and then shoot himself on camera. You'd agree that would clear his name, right? That'd be enough wouldn't it?
That'd make up for the horrible things you're convinced he did (despite there being no corroborating evidence to support that conclusion), wouldn't it? that'd ease your pain, and Ford's pain, and the pain of all survivors and all women around the world, wouldn't it??
If I could stick a knife in my heart
Suicide right on stage
Would it be enough for your teenage lust
Would it help to ease the pain?
Ease your brain?
HD: "I'm trying to decide if that's more Orwellian or Maoist."
It's definitely more Maoist.
Definitely.
The only thing missing is Althouse jumping all up into Kavanaugh's "grill" and waving her little red book.
I wondered if Trump would consult Ivanka but he watched on AF1.
Can't see Kavanaugh deviating from his story. Assume he will follow Trump's direction and he belligerent. Worked for Thomas. Imagine the two of them on the Court together with 3 females.
Mark this comment.
Kavanaugh comes out swinging and tears DiF leaking and CBF’s testimony apart. It will be a closing statement for all time.
As I reflect on Ms Ford's testimony, it seems like the event was a watershed moment in her life. As a Christian it is common to think of life as "before conversion / after conversion."
She was conscious of the event a few weeks later when seeing Mark Judge at Safeway. It affected her social life in college. This suggests she did remember it, that there was a before and after. I know when and where I was converted - October, 1971 in a dorm at the University of Oregon - and not because of some huge, emotional experience but because there was a before and an after. I'm surprised she cannot nail down the time when before went to after.
I'm trying to decide if that's more Orwellian or Maoist. Professor Althouse hopes Kavanaugh begs forgiveness of his accuser even though he has denied the accusation
Maoist is what is sounds to me. The Mao government requesting that you sign your confession so you can end your suffering.
What if there is a blank, dark spot in my memory where drunken young Brett Kavanaugh did what Dr. Ford describes?
If there is, Kavanaugh has made a remarkable recovery from being a degenerate, boozy rapist teenager to graduate first in his class at Yale Law School and become one of the preeminent lawyers in this field. Maybe you are thinking of a Dr. Jeckyl-Mr. Hyde scenario.
Let's all stop talking about how the masses will take all this in. Take responsibility for your own conclusions and present your own analyses.
That makes it is interesting experience for me - learning more about how people process information.
Salem Witch Trials, redux. Read up on that event, folks. Over three hundred years have passed since that debacle and here we are once again. Young girls in the Massachusetts Bay Colony also claimed with certitude and believability that witches and warlocks were about wreaking havoc and the supposed "adults" believed them. Dr. Ford is to me clearly paranoid. And no, I'm not a psychologist or medical doctor but that doesn't matter, does it. We're all experts now in making up any old shit we want to believe or want others to believe. Facts and truth don't matter, just "feelings" and "impressions". Even our vaunted hostess is an expert in determining the credibility of a paranoid child-adult. God save the Republic.
Althouse argues for a new more efficient legal system. You'll be able to get a law degree from an acting coach. She's pulling up the ladder behind her career.
Crack Emcee: "If the Right can bear an enduring symbol of evil representing them,..."
LOL
You were doing better calling for white genocide and mass murder. Stick with your strengths. History/science/strategy, etc...not so much.
"Here's what I imagined him saying: I cannot be 100% certain"
Here's what I imagined Althouse saying: well, she comes across as credible, and Dems are winning, and I imagine him saying he can't know for sure, and the woman is vindicated.
In other words, the rationalizations of the moderate liberals that fuel the circus itself.
We are all royally Forded.
Just saw this by Althouse: Feinstein takes her turn and focuses on the difficulties Ford experienced as her name became known.
Gee, how, pray tell, did that happen? Almost the textbook definition of chutzpah.
Gotta love the objectivity, to the point of patriotism, of comments on this blog.
At least the spelling is better than you might expect.
readering: "I wondered if Trump would consult Ivanka but he watched on AF1."
Brace yourself. There are phones on AF1.
Wow. Can't believe Ann's suggestion for Ford. It that is the truth, fine. But, if that is thought to be a political strategy, it is a disaster. D's will pounce. R's will flee.
"I teach that the Constitution’s separation of powers protects individual liberty, and I remain grateful to the dean who hired me, Justice Elena Kagan..."
-Brett Kavenaugh
but I cannot say 100% that it’s not true,
She couldn’t say 100% that it was true either, but she did. People with false memories are 100% convinced. Memory is a delicate thing, she should have maybe done some research before she made such a bold claim, but she’s “just a girl” so whatevs.
Rush closed commenting on "unfairness" of hearings.
he knows we lost
He spent his entire adult life building his good name. Studied hard, worked hard, pillar of his community.
Gone. All of that gone in an instant.
Why bother? Why try--why sacrifice to be a good person if in the end it doesn't get you even a moment of protection?
Why would anyone volunteer to be a martyr in this way ever again? Martyrs at least understand their suffering is for good and will be both rewarded in heaven and noted as an example to follow by those of us still on earth. This is just a slaughter--a killing of a man's name. Oh well.
Drago said...
Crack Emcee: "If the Right can bear an enduring symbol of evil representing them,..."
Is Clarence Thomas seen as a kindly uncle yet? No. He'll always be tainted. So will Kavanaugh. It don't wash off. And the Republican Party isn't Trump. Damage the party with this and only they will take the hit.
Here comes Kavanaugh....
Blogger David Begley said...
Mark this comment.
Kavanaugh comes out swinging and tears DiF leaking and CBF’s testimony apart. It will be a closing statement for all time.
9/27/18, 2:01 PM
I hope so, and I agree. Let K show his skill, talent, power. He should, as a judge, literally all his career have been in the business of analyzing, understanding, and, dare I say, judging the arguments of witnesses, complainants, etc., and if he hasn't got the brains and gumption, he's not SCOTUS material. I hope and pray he makes it.
#MeToo #SheKnew #SheProgressed
Anyway...
Then, Grassely should call the vote and let the chips fall where they may. If he loses, he loses.
Yes. Amy Coney Barrett.
Will Democrats and female chauvinists assault Barrett as they did Palin and other out-of-compliance women?
Stalking, harassment, intimidation. Never again, and again, and again. Although, they did change their #Label.
A witch trial, perhaps. That seems like a losing proposition.
He looks bad already.
Funny how if there are blackouts involved, for males it's because they're drunk and for females, it's because they're traumatized. One is cause for castration, the other is cause for coddling. What a culture we live in.
Rush closed commenting on "unfairness" of hearings.
That’s because Rush is a very intelligent person and he knows that “fairness” has nothing to do with it. Anybody who gets into a fight should ensure that it isn’t fair, that they have some advantage, or don’t get into it.
I am going to say this again. It is something I said when this first came to light. A person who claims a horrible crime happened to her but cannot tell you where; cannot tell you when to the point that she is guessing on the year; cannot tell you how she got there; cannot tell you how she got home; cannot produce a single witness and, for that matter, is actively contradicted by the witnesses she claims will support her story; waits until 30+ years later to tell anyone; has obvious psychiatric problems, and has obvious political reasons to desire a certain conclusion... that is not a credible person.
Dr. Ford is pretty much the parody version of a non-credible person.
I agree with Ann Republicans are losing, but maybe they decided to lose. It's a no win situation.
My problem is I have a hard time figuring out if someone is lying. I've never been good at it, but I can look at facts and figure out if they fit together. I can't do anything like that here. Couple that with possible false memories, and it leaves me with the feeling that no outcome is going to be OK from a fairness perspective.
I suspect Ms. Althouse is trolling the commentariat to some extent with these comments, but it is also plausible she is not. You have to remember, Ms. Althouse would clearly rather have the left in control of the court, and that is her prerogative. It would be an interesting experiment, however, to see her reactions to the sudden, unsubstantiated allegations that will be launched at Amy Barrett during the lame duck session this November if Kavanaugh is defeated on the floor. Will she find those accusers credible? I asked her a question last week, but she may not have seen it:
What would her reaction have been today if the accused had been Meade, or one of her children, or even another man she knew quite well and thought highly of?
When Corker, Flake, Murkowski and Collins decide to confirm Kavanaugh, then a couple of the Democrats will vote likewise.
I predict that the Senate will vote 53-47 to confirm.
Who can predict the squishes? They want to fit in, they will be watching TV to see how the public responds.
You can't predict the squishes. Collins has received unprecedented pressure and threats, Political threats. Ugly threats. It could be argued all that could motivate Collins to vote for confirmation.
He looks bad already.
Crack,
I am beginning to think you struggle with premature ejaculation.
I mean speculation.
He’s doing it!
He’s closing! Yeah!
Drago said...
If Kavanaugh is not confirmed, the Republicans will lose the Senate because, at that point, the jig will be completely up and everyone will understand in the end, the republicans will always move to Failure Theatre (Obamacare, the wall, immigration, SC).
I disagree.
Push the vote. If any republican votes no on Kavanaugh publicly denounce them and throw them out of the party.
Then re nominate Kavanaugh and tell the voters to elect Republicans who are not traitors. Corker and flake are already gone.
Every red state Democrat would lose. We would replace Collins or Murkowski with 8-10 Republicans in the next session.
Then don’t allow them to run as Republicans in the next primary.
Problem solved.
Let K show his skill, talent, power. He should, as a judge
Good point. We want another Thomas who will stand his ground, not a weaker man who will meekly kneel at the back of the bus.
"Is Clarence Thomas seen as a kindly uncle yet? No. He'll always be tainted. "
I think he's seen by most as the most principled and sound of the current justices if not most of the past ones as well. He's not tainted in the minds of sane people.
I hope he's pulling out of the process because that's the only way he's selling this.
Borking. A verb...
Kav's doing the shouting like Clarence Thomas thing. Drinking game: big shot of bourbon when he first dabs his eyes in self-pity.
Crack Emcee demonstrating moment by moment the incredible acumen that has led to his own success.....
LOL
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा