October 1, 2018

The outside prosecutor Rachel Mitchell opines that the evidence would not justify bringing criminal charges and does not even meet a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

According to the 5-page memo she sent to the Judiciary Committee Republicans, which WaPo got its hands on. The basis of the opinion is what a lot of Kavanaugh proponents have observed:
In the memo, Mitchell argued that Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault, including when exactly it occurred. Mitchell also noted that Ford did not identify Kavanaugh by name as her attacker in key pieces of evidence, including notes from sessions with her therapist — records that Ford’s lawyers declined to provide to the Senate Judiciary Committee....

[I]n the memo, Mitchell also argued that Ford “has no memory of key details of the night in question — details that could help corroborate her account,” nor has Ford given a consistent account of the alleged assault. Noting that Ford did not remember in what house the incident allegedly occurred, or how she left the gathering and got back home, Mitchell said “her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.”

Mitchell also stressed that nobody who Ford has identified as having attended the gathering — including Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth and Leland (Ingham) Keyser — has been able to directly corroborate Ford’s allegations....
Mitchell notes that "There is no clear standard of proof for allegations made during the Senate’s confirmation process," but she is a prosecutor and she can only give an opinion from her point of view, from "the legal world, not the political world."

It is, of course, only her legal opinion, not The Legal Opinion in some grand sense, and she was chosen by the Republican Senators, who have their political goals and needs, even if she has none. And, really, we can't know if what she calls a legal opinion is really just that. She could be lying or unwittingly swayed by political or personal beliefs. We never know whether purported legal minds are really operating in some purely legal way (if such a thing is even possible).

The nominee, in the initial phase of the hearings, performed the usual theater of presenting himself as a judge who does nothing but decide cases according to the law. We in the audience of that theater may not really believe all that but think it's nevertheless close enough to get by, and it's only what every other nominee does, so we must suspend disbelief if we're going to have judges at all.

But when we see ourselves in this predicament, what can we do when we don't like the way the nominee leans? We could just accept the power of the President to make a nomination and demand that the Senate confirm as long as the nominee performs well in the usual theater of acting like a proper judge. The President won the election after all. That's a fact. But why defer there unless it's what you already want to do? Those who don't want a staunch conservative in the swing-vote-Kennedy seat want to resist. Trump didn't legitimately win, they might say — or: Obama didn't get deference when the Scalia seat opened up during his term.

Here's another thing that can be done when we don't like the leaning of a presidential nominee who adequately performs the Neutral Judge act in the initial political theater: Bring in something unrelated to his judicial work, something that makes him unacceptable, and allegations about something that happened in private long ago could do the trick.

But how good do these allegations need to be before they work? Rachel Mitchell can only say she has no idea. And if we are honest, shouldn't we admit that we're all drawn to the standard that gets us to the result we wanted before we ever heard about Christine Blasey Ford? I'd say no. There is one other factor: The short- and long-term interests of the 2 political parties. Republicans may fear that backing Kavanaugh now will hurt them. They might ruthlessly cut loose the damaged goods. Similarly, Democrats may see that voting Kavanaugh down will mollify their voters and energize conservatives in the midterm elections.

Maybe everyone's hoping that the FBI investigation will produce some very clear indications that Christine Blasey Ford is either lying or mistaken and the intensity of the partisan energy will dissipate. I don't think the FBI will save them. All the Senators have is one more week to worry about how to extricate themselves from this horrible trap they're caught in.

230 comments:

1 – 200 of 230   Newer›   Newest»
Lucid-ides said...

But how good do these allegations need to be before they work?

The kind of allegations that don't get brought forward 36 years after they happen when they happen to be beyond coincidentally politically expedient.

That kind.

320Busdriver said...

As soon as I laid eyes on her I suggested Aidy Bryant of snl play her. Spot on, I was.

GO BREWERS!!!!!!!!!!

AustinRoth said...

Ford could completely recant and it would not change one Democratic vote for Kavanaugh, and maybe only two of the four supposed Republicans on the fence. This is all political Kabuki theater.

Michael K said...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was quickly confirmed by Republicans in spite of her long history with abortion.

Miguel Estrada's wife committed suicide during his 28 month ordeal at the hands of Chuck Schumer. Democrats were determined that Bush could not have the first Hispanic nominee to the Court. They did the same to Janice Rogers Brown so Bush could not nominate the first black female. Then Harry Reid ended the filibuster and they had to use another method to block Republican nominees. They chose smears. If Trump nominates Amy Barrett they will attack her children,

LilyBart said...

Well, I hope next time Lindsay Graham et al are presented with a liberal judge, they vote against that person on the grounds that they don't like their political view. I hope they've learned their lesson. Sauce for the Goose and all that.

JAORE said...

" Republicans may fear that backing Kavanaugh now will hurt them. They might ruthlessly cut loose the damaged goods. "

If the Republicans fear that, they are stupider than I thought. And that is stupid, indeed.

Even if the Judge is voted down, he deserves the vote. And I want to see the weasels self identify.

For the first time in my life I intend to pull the lever for a straight Republican vote. I intend to do so until and unless a Democrat of note says something like, "My God, how could we have gotten so immoral".

On the other hand, should they dump Judge Kavanaugh, I will find something better to do in November than vote.

wrf3 said...

I re-watched "To Kill A Mockingbird" this weekend on Netflix. Nothing has changed in the almost 60 years since it was released.

CJinPA said...

Maybe everyone's hoping that the FBI investigation will produce some very clear indications that Christine Blasey Ford is either lying or mistaken and the intensity of the partisan energy will dissipate. I don't think the FBI will save them.

I was thinking this yesterday. Without a smoking gun, how many people will alter their view of this story depending on what the FBI finds? 10%? Not many.

LilyBart said...

It is, of course, only her legal opinion, not The Legal Opinion in some grand sense,

Ford's story was incomplete, inconsistent, and her own 'witnesses' had no memory of the gathering where she said the attack took place. If there was no 'political' aspect to this - reasonable people would admit this - however, since its politics, people want to deny these problems.

Bay Area Guy said...

Althouse puts on her "nice neutrality" hat on this one - nothing cruel about her fair-minded observations.

Prosecutor does her job. States the facts, makes her conclusions, doesn't hammer little Miss Blasey Ford.

Elephant in the room, though: Rhymes with "No Be Laid." Goes unmentioned.

I make the following proposition - it is not original.

1. The Dems love Roe v. Wade
2. The Dems fear BK is the 5th vote to undo Roe v. Wade
3. The Dems will use any means necessary to sink BK's nomination to protect Roe v. Wade

Anyone disagree? Is this perhaps too reductionist?

Achilles said...

Maybe everyone's hoping that the FBI investigation will produce some very clear indications that Christine Blasey Ford is either lying or mistaken and the intensity of the partisan energy will dissipate.


Pure bullshit Althouse.

Ford has been caught lying several times.

Her story was designed to avoid provably lying and they failed at that.

If you cannot deal with the results of the election and you refuse to accept the results of the process there is no room for peaceful cohabitation.

You leftists will not succeed in getting your way with your despicable little tantrums.

LilyBart said...

wrf3 said...
I re-watched "To Kill A Mockingbird" this weekend on Netflix. Nothing has changed in the almost 60 years since it was released.


Mob justice is ugly, but is a part of human nature. I thought we'd get past this - I though reasonable, thoughtful, educated minds would prevail - but no. It's sad, really.

CJinPA said...

I re-watched "To Kill A Mockingbird" this weekend on Netflix. Nothing has changed in the almost 60 years since it was released.

One thing that's changed is Hollywood would never make that movie today.

Lucid-ides said...

I re-watched "To Kill A Mockingbird" this weekend on Netflix. Nothing has changed in the almost 60 years since it was released.

It's been going on a lot longer than 60 years. A real re-examination needs to be done by men, women too, but mostly men about whether or not it's time to abandon these chivalric holdovers in Western society that allow women to play both sides of the fence (mewling, weak and vulnerable one moment and ruthlessly opportunistic the next...you know what I mean).

The Kavanaugh hearing, Emmet Till, "Kill a Mockingbird", Jackie Coakley and the Rolling Stone Debacle, etc. etc. etc. are all a direct result of this double standard. And the double standard is what allows it to happen.

The era of the white knight needs to be over and done with. Feminists have a word for it, hegemonic masculinity. They hate it. Guess what so do I.

It is time to truly level the playing field. Women aren't going to like it much.

Greg P said...

But how good do these allegations need to be before they work? Rachel Mitchell can only say she has no idea. And if we are honest, shouldn't we admit that we're all drawn to the standard that gets us to the result we wanted before we ever heard about Christine Blasey Ford? I'd say no. There is one other factor: The short- and long-term interests of the 2 political parties. Republicans may fear that backing Kavanaugh now will hurt them. They might ruthlessly cut loose the damaged goods. Similarly, Democrats may see that voting Kavanaugh down will mollify their voters and energize conservatives in the midterm elections.


No

If you are a decent human being, you support a standard of "innocent until proven guilty."

Ford can't even get to 50% "proof". Her charges are garbage

And so is anyone who tries to use them to stop Kavanaugh

CJinPA said...

The Dems fear BK is the 5th vote to undo Roe v. Wade

My gut tells me the GOP would fear undoing Roe v. Wade. They prefer it to be the MacGuffin in their narrative, gaining donors and votes in pursuit of it but never getting it.

Ray said...

The three that matter are Collins, Flake, and Murkowski.

I reject the statement the gop sees Kavanaugh as damaged goods, The rest of the gop are incensed. The thought is if they they do this to a Bushie, a moderate, super qualified, nobody is safe.

Proof is how the gop is handling this. The slap down of Sanders, referral for false statements, leaking investigation. Not actions of ones about to drop the nomination.

Achilles said...

Bay Area Guy said...

Anyone disagree? Is this perhaps too reductionist?

It is simpler than that.

Leftists believe they are right and all the people who disagree with them are not only intellectually wrong, but morally wrong.

Deep down Althouse thinks she is smarter than all of us and she is better than all of us. Her needs supersede our needs because she is better.

Ann cannot fathom a world where she has to tailor her decisions to dictates of society, but all those little pleebs out there who paid for her pampered life and retirement should just do as they are told.

Ann truly lives in an impenetrable bubble.

Mike said...

Mitchell demonstrated the Accuser has a constantly shifting story, not one that was anchored by any verifiable facts. And that further, the "facts" previously asserted, which could be countered by Kavanaugh's calendar for example, were suddenly changed (like the location of "the house" in relation to "the country club") so that the Accuser could not be so easily refuted. These changes and gaps suddenly appeared under that gentle, some said feckless, interrogatory on Thursday. The Accuser's shaky story, however firmly believed by her, is contradicted in its entirety by her named witnesses. Not one of her named witnesses corroborates her.

Kevin said...

She could be lying or unwittingly swayed by political or personal beliefs. We never know whether purported legal minds are really operating in some purely legal way (if such a thing is even possible).

FORD could be lying or unwittingly swayed by political or personal beliefs. We never know whether purported 36-YEAR OLD MEMORIES are really operating in some purely DUTIES OF A CITIZEN way (if such a thing is even possible IN THE #METOO ERA).

Oh right, Ford is the only person we're not allowed to speculate about her veracity. It would be like "raping her all over again", even though she's never asserted she was raped.

Deb said...

“Elephant in the room, though: Rhymes with "No Be Laid." Goes unmentioned.

I make the following proposition - it is not original.

1. The Dems love Roe v. Wade
2. The Dems fear BK is the 5th vote to undo Roe v. Wade
3. The Dems will use any means necessary to sink BK's nomination to protect Roe v. Wade

Anyone disagree? Is this perhaps too reductionist?”

I totally agree. I think this is exactly what this is about. It is sickening. Hatch said it is a national disgrace and I agree. Disgusting.

Greg P said...

[I]n the memo, Mitchell also argued that Ford “has no memory of key details of the night in question — details that could help corroborate her account,”

You left out the truly damning part:

For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.


Didn't take a Sudafed? She's positive she knows that, but she can't remember how she got home from a party that was MILES from her home?

She didn't have a driver's license, she didn't have a cell phone, and she didn't stop to call anyone to pick her up.

She didn't catch an Uber with her iPhone app, and cans don't cruise residential neighborhoods

Lucien said...

Suppose Ford is telling the truth: in that case, if Kavanaugh is confirmed, it will mean that the evidence she has presented: three out of four witnesses she identified must be wrong, she must be right (the other witness doesn't remember); her therapist's notes must be wrong, she must be right; she cannot say what day, week or month the alleged event occurred in, is insufficient. She then has only herself to blame for waiting 30 years (until Kavanaugh was in the news as a potential Romney SCOTUS pick) before telling her story to anyone else, and 36 years before telling it to someone sure to leak it.

Suppose Kavanaugh is telling the truth: in that case, there is nothing he could have done in the intervening time to forestall all fabricated claims from the entire universe of women he knew slightly in 53 years of life. How much stronger a case could anyone possibly have after 36 years?

Gretchen said...

The democrats want to stall, period.

The FBI should investigate the social media profile Blasy had scrubbed and take a look at her yearbooks. She is not a reliable accuser. Mark Judge's book was used to make this shit up, he admits to a drinking problem, and the left is exploiting him.

MayBee said...

Alternatively, people could read Mitchell’s report and deal with the factual problems in Dr Ford’s testimony as well as her changing story
Perhaps it will help them move on to the next phase

Michael K said...

On the other hand, should they dump Judge Kavanaugh, I will find something better to do in November than vote.

I think to weasel out now would be an electoral disaster.

Not beyond the realm of possibility know the GOP.

A real re-examination needs to be done by men, women too, but mostly men about whether or not it's time to abandon these chivalric holdovers in Western society that allow women to play both sides of the fence (mewling, weak and vulnerable one moment and ruthlessly opportunistic the next...you know what I mean).

Yes, we've had such a discussion at Chicagoboyz, and the post before that one. Quite a bit of anger.

Neoneocon has also had a post on false rape claims.

Kevin said...

The Dems have been looking for a Republican Harvey Weinstein to focus the fury of their base since #MeToo started.

Now that they cast Kavanaugh in the role, they can never let him stop playing it, facts to the contrary be damned.

Gretchen said...

What Deb said. It is 100% accurate.

If you are a democrat, you want a soviet-style state where no one is allowed to disagree, that is why they are destroying a decent man, they want everyone to know they will fabricate lies about you if you are a Republican. Someday, some democrat women will be shocked and upset their sons or husbands are expelled, fired or publicly humiliated by a false charge. I feel sorry for the men involved.

David Docetad said...

Is there some bizarre split personality thing going on with the hostess?

"But when we see ourselves in this predicament, what can we do when we don't like the way the nominee leans?"

How about just vote no instead of destroying the life of the nominee?

Achilles said...

We could just accept the power of the President to make a nomination and demand that the Senate confirm as long as the nominee performs well in the usual theater of acting like a proper judge. The President won the election after all. That's a fact. But why defer there unless it's what you already want to do?


I am going to further focus on this statement.

We are all really angry because the Supreme Court seized power it had no right to and made a blanket decision with Roe v. Wade.

It should be a state issue. Roe v. Wade is a disastrous, divisive and disgusting mistake made by autocrats pretending to be judges who made things up out of whole cloth to get what they want.

The only way out of this situation where we are all angry and at each others throats is to take the federal government out of this decision.

As long as the government monopoly on force is used to carry out the will of one group to tell another group how to live we will never be able to live together peacefully.

Fernandistein said...

It's been going on a lot longer than 60 years.

"There is hardly a case in which the dispute was not caused by a woman." - Juvenal (swipe my quote from another thread) Despite his name, Juvenal is old.

Without a smoking gun, how many people will alter their view of this story depending on what the FBI finds?

I saw some poll: 40% "believe" her, 30% "believe" him, 30% don't know.

The funny thing is that so many people - at least 70% - think they can tell who is lying, when practically nobody can do so. Specific training helps, but they're still pretty bad at it. (the training cops and judges sometimes get is bogus and doesn't help)

That's why I they (the stupid party, I guess) were stupid for allowing her to speechify because it couldn't be anything but a side-show: "I believe the pinhead!" "Well, I believe the two-headed dog!"

Howard said...

Deep down, you republicans are emotional basketcases and very insecure around contrary ideas. This is what led the oldtimer republican senators to throw Bart O'K under the bus after the draw and quartering. They played right into the dems hands and your excuse is the high minded republicans prefer standing on principle more than successful political maneuvering.

Sebastian said...

"It is, of course, only her legal opinion"

Which is more than we can say about the kind of opinions put forth in various posts on this blog.

Anyway, riddle me this: how does an assault victim who does not remember time, place, and manner of transportation, nonetheless remember that she only had one drink? Is the amount of alcohol consumption somehow part of the "recovered memory"? Is it part of the orginal report to the therapist? And if not, why would an honest victim fabricate that detail?

Yancey Ward said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yancey Ward said...

I just fucking love this part from WaPo:

"Mitchell also noted that Ford did not identify Kavanaugh by name as her attacker in key pieces of evidence, including notes from sessions with her therapist —"

The key place where Ford omits naming Kavanaugh was in the hand-written statement she was required to write by the polygraph examiner so that he could ask her if what she had written was true to the best of her knowledge. In that same written statement she literally edits herself by crossing out "early" from the phrase "early 80s". She literally went out of her way to eliminate two key details from the statement that completely invalidate the polygraph exam itself. You can't cite the polygraph exam if you didn't at any point have to answer the question, in one form or another, did "Brett Kavanaugh raped you?"

Achilles said...

Howard said...
Deep down, you republicans are emotional basketcases and very insecure around contrary ideas. This is what led the oldtimer republican senators to throw Bart O'K under the bus after the draw and quartering. They played right into the dems hands and your excuse is the high minded republicans prefer standing on principle more than successful political maneuvering.

Deep down you leftists are just amoral shitheads.

Trump rope a doped the democrats through this whole process masterfully.

Less than a month out from the midterm democrats are out raging in public using obvious lies to smear a man you disagree with politically.

Trump's greatest skill is to drive the leftists into a frothing rage where you come out and display just how disgusting your true thoughts are.

Yancey Ward said...

Margot Cleveland does an excellent job comparing Ford's different versions of this story, also pointing out why Ford is forced into different versions along the way. Cleveland's analysis is devastating.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Achilles sez:

"Deep down Althouse thinks she is smarter than all of us and she is better than all of us. Her needs supersede our needs because she is better.

Ann cannot fathom a world where she has to tailor her decisions to dictates of society, but all those little pleebs out there who paid for her pampered life and retirement should just do as they are told."

I disagree with this, brother. Althouse isn't the driving force here. She's just a really smart women with an opinion.

It is her opinion that matters, not the reasons for holding said opinion.

More specifically, the opinion is what matters. And we are free to tear up an opinion that is weak or unfounded, even if we love the person holding said nefarious opinion.

So, I say: Ann is great, but her opinion on this issue is weak, because she's got a blind spot on issues related to abortion and gay marriage.

Much more important, though, than Ann's opinion, is the claim made by Miss Blasey Ford, which, in my opinion, has been properly vetted, and now debunked. 36-year old memories of high school parties are prima facie bullshit.

But that is merely my humble opinion, which may be attacked by any and all comers.

Let the games continue!

Trumpit said...

What a horrible mouse...that Lindsey Graham is. I hope he joins his BFF John McCain.

He hated Trump; now he loves him. What a fool!

The Stylistics: Break Up to Make Up (First you love me, then you hate me; that's a game for fools.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygTV45X1yGI

Laslo Spatula said...

"And if we are honest, shouldn't we admit that we're all drawn to the standard that gets us to the result we wanted before we ever heard about Christine Blasey Ford? I'd say no"

Not sure I am following this one.

Is the 'no' in response to the immediately preceding question? Or something else in the proceeding paragraph(s)?

As far as that question: when the story first came out I had no idea of the validity of the claim. I did not know anything about her, and I wasn't a supporter of Kavanaugh, who I saw as the sort of Bush-type that I am happy to have leave the national stage. Indeed, my take on Kavanaugh -- elite preppy, mostly -- probably wasn't that far off from that of Althouse's.

However, my interest in this is not Kavanuagh, or the SC seat, but the willingness of people to accept, promote and excuse all kinds of malicious behavior to claw to the outcome they desire.

My appalled fascination is with people who I thought of as decent and reasonable piling on while pretending to impartiality, supporting the lynch mob in studied abstraction to try to keep their hands clean of the rope.

My disgust is with reading people's written thoughts which seem more concerned with a later plausible deniability than a current transparency.

Patti Smith sang "Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine".

Consider how this might apply here.

I am Laslo.

LilyBart said...

Yancey Ward said...
Margot Cleveland does an excellent job comparing Ford's different versions of this story, also pointing out why Ford is forced into different versions along the way. Cleveland's analysis is devastating.


Althouse touched on this earlier - but Cleveland really analyzes Ford's statements and compares what we know of the therapists notes against what Ford is saying now. There is a REASON she won't turn over those notes - they're a problem for her.

iowan2 said...

What manner do we use to judge and accusation?

Judge the accusation as worthless if it is more than 3 decades old. That's it. Prove me wrong.

Jim at said...

The FBI 'investigation' isn't going to change a damn thing because there is nothing to investigate.

STFU and vote.

CJinPA said...

He hated Trump; now he loves him. What a fool!

Hates Trump on immigration stuff, loves him on conservative stuff. Pretty easy to understand, though I disagree with him.

DanTheMan said...

>>Well, I hope next time Lindsay Graham et al are presented with a liberal judge, they vote against that person

Tell them to bring their high school yearbooks.
“Now judge, here on page 27 someone named Misty wrote “You DA BOMB”. Doesn’t this prove that you were a terrorist plotting to kill the local district attorney?”
“In the picture on page 30, isn’t that positioning of your hands a White Power salute?”

Henry said...

All the Senators have is one more week to worry about how to extricate themselves from this horrible trap they're caught in.

How Coyote Ugly is Kavanaugh? That is the question.

Sarah from VA said...

I'm very irritated that this is STILL GOING ON. I made myself take a break from looking at twitter for a week, hoping that this digital pseudo-war would be over by today, but it's not even close to over. Even the comments section here is turning brutal and twitter-like. Nobody's safe, nobody's neutral! Pick a side, fight and die for it!

I can hardly even imagine how it must be to be one of the involved parties. What a nightmare.

I wish I followed baseball so I could enjoy some of the baseball threads. Could we start mandating that cafes be Kavanaugh-free?

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

I think there is some benefit in this most recent delay. Mitchell's memo adds some weight to the side of believing that Blasey Ford is either lying or mistaken. Only a very few details have remained consistent through (already) many versions of the story: Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, undoing clothing (to some extent), interruption (two young men turn from her to wrestling with each other, laughing?), escape to bathroom. The next layer or circle of circumstances has shifted many times: how many people in bedroom, music on loudly or not, Blasey Ford able to hear conversation down a floor or not, finding a door to exit house without going through living room or not, being able to walk home or not, etc. A bigger or more obvious layer of circumstances has never been clarified at all: whose house (was one of the young people actually the host, at a home owned by that person's parents, who would have names), year, how Blasey Ford got to the party and home again, number of people (and gender) in house as compared to bedroom. Did any adults drive any of the kids to and from the party? Did anyone drive at all? No one has stepped forward to say so. Judge says in his book he worked at Safeway in 1982, so this helps her remember it must have been 1982, when she was only 15. There are other indications that she must have been older, which might help to exclude Kavanaugh. How old was she when she dated a young man other than Kavanaugh for a few months? Did she by any chance have her first sexual experience with that young man, and that might have gone well or badly? Even Blasey Ford's short-term memory is apparently very unreliable.
It's true the Senate can, and perhaps should, hold potential SC justices to a higher standard than they would a criminal defendant. On the other hand, there never will be a real trial, and any intelligent person can imagine the questions a lawyer would ask: what do you know about the young man's intentions, since by your admission very little actually happened?

Michael K said...

Interesting discussion about Ford's degree.

I thought it was a PhD but apparently it is an Ed D, like "Doctor Jill Biden."

The polygraph matter is also interesting. Why nobody can see the record ?

Jim at said...

Well, I hope next time Lindsay Graham et al are presented with a liberal judge, they vote against that person on the grounds that they don't like their political view.

Vote against them? Eff that.
Destroy their lives.

The only way the left is going to stop this shit is if they get it handed back to them good and hard. And not a moment before.

Bludgeon them with the same rules they seek to impose upon everybody else.

CJinPA said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave said...

So, I enjoy Ms. Ann's commentary and I am trying to learn from it. I wish to practice some cruel neutrality, and you can judge if I succeed.

From ace (ace.mu.nu on the left sidebar) there is a link here and the link text is:

"Blasey Ford lied about need for 2nd front door on house. Was not because she feared rape, it was because she wanted to add apartment and collect monthly rent from strangers."

The link goes to here:
https://i.redd.it/7xs0z09n59p11.png

So, it looks like she added an apartment to their house to give students and interns a place to live and earn some extra income from tenants.

She added a door so that tenants and guests would be able to have their own entrance to the apartment. Does that mean she lied when she said she wanted the door as protection against assault. I would say maybe not. My question would be about whether the tenants still have access to the main part of the house. If so, that would call into question whether safety was the real concern.

Still, I find it very reasonable that a woman who was assaulted a long time ago might remember that and construct a guest apartment in such a way as to be a completely separate apartment. Like Fonzi living above the Cunninghams.

When you grade me, don't forget I am a huge Trump fan and really, really want to see Kav confirmed.

CJinPA said...

Laslo Spatula said...

However, my interest in this is not Kavanuagh, or the SC seat, but the willingness of people to accept, promote and excuse all kinds of malicious behavior to claw to the outcome they desire.

This is what a multicultural, splintering society looks like. There is no "common decency" because there is no "common" anything. It's competition, today, tomorrow and forever.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

As soon as I laid eyes on her I suggested Aidy Bryant of snl play her.

I immediately thought of John Goodman.

lgv said...

There is no evidence to be found.

The Democat members should have been forced to commit to voting for Kavanaugh if the FBI "investigation" found no evidence. As Harris kept asking Kavanaugh if he would ask for an FBI investigation and why not (trap question), I would have immediately responded that if all of you commit to voting for my nomination if they find nothing, I will ask for the FBI investigation, oh, and go ahead and take 3 weeks.

Achilles said...

Bay Area Guy said...

I disagree with this, brother. Althouse isn't the driving force here. She's just a really smart women with an opinion.

It is her opinion that matters, not the reasons for holding said opinion.

More specifically, the opinion is what matters. And we are free to tear up an opinion that is weak or unfounded, even if we love the person holding said nefarious opinion.

So, I say: Ann is great, but her opinion on this issue is weak, because she's got a blind spot on issues related to abortion and gay marriage.



This is the point of contention:

Ann believes the most important thing here is abortion/gay marriage.

She is willing to overturn the foundations of the republic to get her way. So are all leftists.

Oh she is clever and wishy washy about it. But this post makes it unequivocal what she really wants.

She can see what happens in countries where the leftists overthrow societal institutions and seize power. She knows these issues are just tools to mobilize a mob and tear down the republic.

It is the foundations of the Republic that matter here.

It doesn't matter if abortion is legal/illegal or if gay people can get a piece of paper sanctioned by the state. These are utterly unimportant. They could not be more frivolous.

If the leftists take power they will kill millions of people, turn the country into a police state and force people to have abortions or not have abortions. Like they have dozens of times in other countries.

And it is always fuzzy headed leftist intellectuals like Althouse that aid this charge to the dictatorship of the proletariat and the first into the ovens.

Levi Starks said...

Somebody needs to help the Democrats with the 5 stages of grief.
They’re spending so much time in the anger stage that it will be difficult for them to work through bargaining, depression and acceptance before the end of Trumps 2nd term.

Dave Begley said...

"Mitchell argued that Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault, including when exactly it occurred."

Not argued; proved.

iowan2 said...

Why must I consider the allegations seriously, if the Democrat side of the judiciary committee, rejected them without investigation? That is a fact. Democrats on the committee rejected the accusations.

This has all shifted from whether it happened, to Kavanaugh lying under oath and drinking. It seems Dim witted dems think they can prove that slang used between Kavanaugh and 6 of his friends, is something that is provable.

Everyone knew the Dems were never going to settle. Flake is quick to the camera, where is he to explain that the one week deadline is a real thing, and slam the Dems for not negotiating in good faith. Wow, they are such low life slugs. Street people have way more honor and integrity.

Unknown said...

For me, the biggest discrepancy with the timing (happened in 1982, at 15, rather than late teens) is Ford stating the effects of the assault did not occur until 2 years after her alleged event. While one might also have problems at a later date, one would also have immediate effects. They would not begin 2 years later. If she suffered an assault at all, it was not in 1982. Brett Kavanaugh did not do this to her. Her earlier recollections said late teens. She was 17 when she started college.

Nonapod said...

Those who don't want a staunch conservative in the swing-vote-Kennedy seat want to resist.

I've never had a problem with people who aren't happy with a "staunch conservative" nominee resisting it in legitimate ways. I have no problem with verbal arguments, criticizing the nominees record, or otherwise trying to appeal to various representives and their voting bases with such arguments.

What I (and many other people, not just on the right) have a problem with is pure character assasination. The idea that an wholey unsubstantiated allegation of truly horrible behavior can be sprung in the 11th hour and be treated as if it's something fully legitimate is a bridge to far for me personally. It's dirty and depressing and it's totally in bad faith. It's yet another example of how our system has become corrupt and ruinous.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Achilles,

I don't disagree with anything you wrote above, except the following:

"She is willing to overturn the foundations of the republic to get her way. So are all leftists."

I would focus on the "So are all the leftists" part, not the predicate.

The Left (and their enablers in both parties) is the problem in this country, not Althouse. This holds even if she tends to side with them on the abortion/gay marriage issues.

That is my humble opinion, and, as always, I could be wrong.

Good chat, though.

Yancey Ward said...

"And if we are honest, shouldn't we admit that we're all drawn to the standard that gets us to the result we wanted before we ever heard about Christine Blasey Ford? I'd say no."

Like Laslo above, I am puzzled by this construction. Althouse seems to be saying that admitting one is drawn to the standard that gets ones desired outcome shouldn't be done, and I have to assume she would write this because it undermines the attaining of the goal itself- in other words, it is self-defeating. If this is right, then this is advocacy of dishonesty, in my opinion- the ends justifies the means.

I didn't want Merrick Garland confirmed by the senate, but I would never have for a single second supported stopping his nomination with a smear campaign like the one directed at Kavanaugh. That so many people think there is nothing wrong with this is disheartening to me.

Ken B said...

Notice that Ann does not challenge a single one of Mitchell’s facts or observations. Instead she repeats what Mitchell said — “just my opinion” — as if this discredits Mitchell.

Achilles said...

Laslo Spatula said...

However, my interest in this is not Kavanuagh, or the SC seat, but the willingness of people to accept, promote and excuse all kinds of malicious behavior to claw to the outcome they desire.

My appalled fascination is with people who I thought of as decent and reasonable piling on while pretending to impartiality, supporting the lynch mob in studied abstraction to try to keep their hands clean of the rope.



Exactly.

Abortion is just a lever. The people paying for this don't give two shits about abortion.

When they are in charge, like in China, they have an obviously ambiguous view of abortion's morality.

But they can sure get people like Ann to throw their morality out the window over it.

Dave said...

I'm sure they are fundraising on abortion/gay rights. Ann knows; I had to unsubscribe from all those damn things.

But yes, the sociopaths dont give a damn about any issues. Look at Europes group of sociopaths: they're willing to destroy their own countries to empower an EU where so they, the ruling elite, might rule an even larger fiefdom.

And so it goes here. I think Trump is just a blip on the radar, and when he is out, the consolidation of power will continue as before.

DC runs on the casino model. The more money passes through DC, the richer and more powerful the sociopaths become.

My impression from the blog is that Ann favors concentration of power at the federal level, but I could be wrong about that.

Ken B said...

Laslo
The no is to “should we admit “. Ann won’t admit she is arguing backwards from the conclusion she wants. If the only charge against Kavanaugh were the gang rape charges she'd be justifying them.

Kate said...

Jeff Flake, knowing he wouldn't even survive a primary in AZ, resigns his seat but stays through the rest of his term.

Jeff Flake, asking for a week's extension for the FBI investigation, admits he never would have done so if he were running for reelection.

This is the focus of my burning anger. A person whose job is to represent his constituents, whose job only exists because his constituents have voted him into it, knowingly subverts the will of his constituents.

But he's resigned, so somehow he's allowed to do this.

Sebastian said...

"this horrible trap they're caught in"

No one is "caught" in a trap. The Dems set the trap and will vote no anyway. The GOP just needs a little courage to vote yes. Bye-bye trap.

Dave said...

I think Ann would have like to have questioned Kavanaugh.

Bay Area Guy said...

I didn't want Merrick Garland confirmed by the senate, but I would never have for a single second supported stopping his nomination with a smear campaign like the one directed at Kavanaugh. That so many people think there is nothing wrong with this is disheartening to me.

If you search through legal law journals for articles on Roe, you will find tens of thousands of them. Many support the decision, many critique the decision. Many are written by lawyers, judges, professors, some by non-lawyers.

However, if Merrick Garland were to write even a mild critique of Roe, purely based on the legal reasoning, even he would be dropped like a hot potato by our friends on the Left.

You criticize Roe in print -- we oppose your nomination to the Supreme Court.

You criticize Roe in speech -- we oppose your nomination to the Supreme Court.

You go silent on Roe, but we sniff out criticism -- we oppose your nomination to the Supreme Court.

That's what dogma looks like. That's how the left operates.

You present the potential 5th vote to overturn Roe? Well, sheesh, we smear your ass to drive you to withdraw. Show us your high school yearbooks! Did you drink beverage alcohol as a minor in college?? Have you no respect for the law? What precisely does "Boof" mean?

These assholes are making sane sober folks more desirous to support the overturning of Roe.

They are not honest with their intentions.

Khesanh 0802 said...

Ann continues to have a very difficult time admitting that the woman is lying. She's creeping up on it, but being a lawyer, she is weaseling as much as she can. The woman is lying. There.

buwaya said...

I don't see that anyone is in a horrible trap.

Again, as I have always said, one needs to look at this as a series of rational maneuvers in a conflict. The proper analogy is a sort of chess game, though far more complicated and with great elements of uncertainty. One of those extra-involved paper or computer strategy games perhaps, with die rolls for everything. With an element of poker-game bluff, which is in fact also inherent in strategy games.

Both sides have done what they have done with clear-eyed purpose. All the "hysteria" is manufactured, intended to create an effect. Indeed, the immediate hysteria can be turned off as with a switch, if the instigators care to do so. They have done it before.

Michael K said...

I think abortion = funding is the key.

Democrats have given up all their traditional constituencies. Labor and blacks are expendable.

Illegal aliens are less demanding.

Abortion must now be where the money is coming from as the Democrats have cats their lot with the internet billionaires.

I remember Eric Schmidt saying that he was supporting Democrats because his wife was so pro-"choice" meaning pro-abortion.

Dave said...

Hi Kate,

I can think of two others times a significant portion of the population felt they had no representation:

1. Revolutionary War
2. Civil War

Is that wrong?

Tom said...

If the FBI investigation is favorable or inconclusive, he should be confirmed.

If the FBI investigation corroborates her story or shows Kavanaugh to have mislead the senate, he needs to withdraw.

Trump will then nominate Amy Coney Barrett and she'll be tough to deny.

I think Kavanaugh would have continued some availability of abortion with restrictions after a certain point in the term of pregnancy.

Amy Coney Barrett will likely support a total ban.

I don't vote based the abortion issue so I thinks it's ironic that Democrats might end up causing the confirmation of the judge that tips the scale for banning abortion in an attempt to spite Trump (let's not pretend Democrats care about Dr Ford)

Michael K said...

the immediate hysteria can be turned off as with a switch, if the instigators care to do so

The shift from "sexual assault" to "alcoholic" may be a sign that Ford is becoming less credible.

AndyN said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael K said...

Trump will then nominate Amy Coney Barrett and she'll be tough to deny.

They will go after her children.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

When you're being smearing by corrupt leftists, just admit it and get it over with?

This is the new standard in leftwing witch hunt America?

actual items said...

Nightmare scenario for the country is Ford is proven to be lying/wrong about the attempted rape accusation AND Kavanaugh is proven to be lying about some unimportant detail in the yearbook or something.

More likely scenario has 2 parts: 1) no further evidence is found to clear up with Ford accusation, thus Dems stick to “believe all women” position and Repubs stick to “unfair play from Dems” position, and 2) more ambiguous evidence is found regarding yearbook quotes that Dems interpret as lies and Repubs interpret as not lies.

Actually, after typing this I realize, the more likely scenario is the nightmare scenario. And what I originally referred to as the nightmare scenario could be a purge that allows nation to move on, albeit with Kavanaugh as collateral damage, but if he lied under oath—no matter how unfair it was to be asked about his HS yearbook in a senate confirmation hearing—would be a self-inflicted wound.

Kate said...

Hi, Dave.

No, sir, you are not wrong.

Achilles said...

Bay Area Guy said...
@Achilles,

I don't disagree with anything you wrote above, except the following:

"She is willing to overturn the foundations of the republic to get her way. So are all leftists."

I would focus on the "So are all the leftists" part, not the predicate.

The Left (and their enablers in both parties) is the problem in this country, not Althouse. This holds even if she tends to side with them on the abortion/gay marriage issues.

That is my humble opinion, and, as always, I could be wrong.

Good chat, though.



First principles.

What I don't see from Ann is that she realizes we all live in this system and that it should be applied fairly and evenly to everyone.

Due process is a first principle. It is foundational. It is vastly more important than abortion or gay marriage or tax rates.

I don't think Ann really cares about the due process of people she disagrees with and I don't think she realizes she would be the first to go when the leftist mobs assert control over Madison.

And it is clear that she doesn't realize Kavanaugh and his supporters would be the people to defend her from those mobs even as she supports the mob.


bagoh20 said...

"Here's another thing that can be done when we don't like the leaning of a presidential nominee who adequately performs the Neutral Judge act in the initial political theater: Bring in something unrelated to his judicial work, something that makes him unacceptable, and allegations about something that happened in private long ago could do the trick."

That is what Democrats have done over and over, but it is not the right thing to do, or even the smart thing, and certainly not the fair thing. The thing that should be done is what the Republicans do. Accept that voters chose the nominator they wanted nominating and vote your conscience for better or worse. Republicans have voted to some degree for the nominees of Democrat Presidents over and over without resorting to outrageous, virtually insane theater designed to destroy good people and divide the nation. Aim higher or you just stir up dirt that lands on everything. We don't need more dirt.

Sebastian said...

Riddle me this: how can a woman remember who much she drank at a single party 36 years ago but not whether she gave actual therapists' notes to the Washington Post a few weeks ago?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

I'll get in early:

Amy Coney Barrett raped me in the 80's. But I'm not sure what house and I promise I only had pone beer.

buwaya said...

The other thing I have always said is that the actual people set up as the principals in this thing also don't matter, and neither do the details, and neither does the "truth". All of that is deceptive.

Indeed the focus on details is like falling for a part of a rat trap, bait.

Achilles said...

Michael K said...
I think abortion = funding is the key.

Abortion is a tool. A lever.

A very strong lever and their most important tool right now.

But it is still a tool.

Ken B said...

Tom
Do you really think Amy Barrett would be hard to deny? Assuming, after this shit show she would accept a nomination, I think it is 100% certain there will Be scurrilous accusations against her. And Ann will believe what she needs to believe to oppose her. So will millions of others.

MayBee said...

I didn't want Merrick Garland confirmed by the senate, but I would never have for a single second supported stopping his nomination with a smear campaign like the one directed at Kavanaugh. That so many people think there is nothing wrong with this is disheartening to me.

I completely agree, It's one reason I supported having no vote for him, and one reason I suspect he was happy not to go through the hearing. He was not going to get the seat. Why go through being turned into an alcoholic rapist?

bagoh20 said...

Even more damning is how can she remember how much she drank at a party when she doesn't remember the year or location of it. That is simply something nobody does, ever. Has anybody here ever done that? If you did, would you trust your memory of the stuff you do remember? It seems she only remembers just what is needed to spoil Kavanaugh. Pretty uncredible.

MayBee said...

Considering Althouse said she didn't see how CBF could lie so well, I would love to hear comments about Mitchell's reports or Margot Cleveland's analysis. I suspect the people who want to believe her simply don't want to read about the problems in her testimony,

buwaya said...

"Abortion must now be where the money is coming from as the Democrats have cats their lot with the internet billionaires."

Abortion is a mcguffin even on that side. It is symbolic, a flag on a hilltop, on which the general expects his troops to stand. This is not because the general particularly needs that particular hilltop, but because he wants his troops to stand, somewhere, on something.

Unknown said...

During Ford's testimony things looked bad for Kavanaugh as AA noted). Mitchell got praise from some quarters. Do Mitchell's conclusions seem consistent with the live event? Does the transcript of Mitchell's questioning give a different impression than the live event? Do Mitchell's conclusions seem consistent with the transcript of the event?

Yancey Ward said...

"Republicans have voted to some degree for the nominees of Democrat Presidents over and over without resorting to outrageous, virtually insane theater designed to destroy good people and divide the nation."

This is, of course, all true, but for me the worrying thing is that in all of those cases, the Republicans already knew such tactics would not stir a single Democrat to oppose a nominee- in other words, you tarnish yourself with no ends to justify your means- lose/lose. One of the reasons that Democrats use these tactics is that they are effective at bending Republicans- the ends is sometimes achieved- some Republican Senators voted against Bork, Thomas, and now like at least one will vote against Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh could still lose. The only way to counter what the Democrats are doing isn't to do the same, but refuse to bend to the tactic in the first place. The audience for this malicious behavior was always Flake, Corker, Murkowski, and Collins- always- they are the enablers.

Dave said...

I can't lie; I thought what Feinstein did was a great move. It might get her reelected.

And Flake, well damn, talking about realizing leverage.

Lastly, Lindsey Graham was also able to move the macguffin down field.

There is some neutrality, and it is very cruel indeed.

Qwinn said...

Didn't like 99% of the Senate vote to confirm Kagan? This despite Republicans presumably not liking her views. Yet now everyone, including Republicans, is saying it's okay to vote against based on views. So even if we win the overall fight, the fundamental principle of advise and consent has been radically changed to one in which partisanship is allowed.

Also - Ann is dishonestly playing the "But where do you draw the line?" game. That line is fair to play in circumstances where someone is advocating something close to a reasonable line. Wherever the line should be, the place the Left is trying to draw it is very obviously nowhere near reasonable.

Michael K said...

The shift to alcohol accusations against Kavanaugh by the Dims may be an indicator that Ford's accusations are losing credibility quickly,

Somebody quoted a poll, on another blog, that puts credibility in the 20% range with both sexes.

Joshua Barker said...

So... we're supposed to believe all women... unless she's a registered Republican... in which case she may be lying... /eye_roll

Michael K said...

I thought what Feinstein did was a great move. It might get her reelected.

Uncertain. I suspect Republicans who might have voted for her as more sane, will stay home or vote for the junior nut.

He will not be a ranking member o rchair for years.

Achilles said...

buwaya said...
"Abortion must now be where the money is coming from as the Democrats have cats their lot with the internet billionaires."

Abortion is a mcguffin even on that side. It is symbolic, a flag on a hilltop, on which the general expects his troops to stand. This is not because the general particularly needs that particular hilltop, but because he wants his troops to stand, somewhere, on something.

At some point I hope that people see what this is all about.

This fight started when this country was founded.

The Aristocracy wants their serfs back.

Since the US was founded other countries around the world have followed our lead. Billions have been lifted from under the yoke of poverty.

They will not stop until like Cuba, Venezuela, Nigeria, Cambodia, Vietnam, Soviet Union, Haiti etc the people have been returned to abject poverty. And the proles are back under control.

They are working hard on South America right now.

buwaya said...

"The only way to counter what the Democrats are doing isn't to do the same, but refuse to bend to the tactic in the first place."

Actually the best counter to Democrats is not on such tactical grounds, but strategic ones.
The Democratic party is a high (very high)-low coalition. The real power in it is in the hands of a rather small number of extremely wealthy people, defending themselves in the political system, as that is the only remaining threat to their institutional dominance.

These are the only people that matter. If those few can be credibly threatened in their actual interests, their wealth, or their persons, then there is room to negotiate.

The Saudi internal purge/coup of November 2017 is that sort of strategic maneuver.

Marty said...

"Cruelly neutral" makes me laugh a bit. I tend to agree Ann has a huge blind spot in this instance. But I'm not all worked up about it. I have blind spots about myself, too, although they are fewer than they once were because I don't care what anyone thinks of me near as much as I did when I was younger (and Ann and I share our birth date). I am a bit surprised by the expressions or implications of betrayed trust, which is what I infer from some of the comments about her position. What adult trusts someone they don't even know, or know solely from reading a blog, especially when Ann obviously writes some things simply for effect from time to time (don't know if that's what she's doing here - doubt it, but I don't care)? I always read what she says with a grain of salt, especially when she talks about her approach. When I think she's too far into BS, I just skip through her post and read the comments. That's where the most interesting stuff is, anyway.

Yancey Ward said...

"During Ford's testimony things looked bad for Kavanaugh as AA noted). Mitchell got praise from some quarters. Do Mitchell's conclusions seem consistent with the live event? Does the transcript of Mitchell's questioning give a different impression than the live event? Do Mitchell's conclusions seem consistent with the transcript of the event?"

Yes, Mitchell's conclusions are completely consistent with the transcript- everything detail she discusses is in the written record of the hearing and Ford's previous versions of this story- see Cleveland's analysis I linked to above- she visually compares the versions inside that Twitter thread (you have to click into the document highlights to read them).

Yes, the impression by a lot of people on both sides was that Ford was winning the public relations part of this, but I wasn't particularly paying attention to mannerisms since such things can be faked or misinterpreted so easily based on ones biases, so I noted the various discrepancies, too. At the time, I thought maybe Mitchell was making a mistake letting Ford kill the clock by asking her questions that allowed her to bloviate, but on reading the transcript more carefully, I could see why Mitchell had her do that- so that it was more easily shown that Ford was changing her story and couldn't deny her own versions while answering. In other words, Mitchell was painting Ford into a corner with her own small lies.

DanTheMan said...

>>Ann continues to have a very difficult time admitting that the woman is lying
Cruel neutrality bullshit.

Big Mike said...

Obama didn't get deference when the Scalia seat opened up during his term

OTOH, Obama got deference when he nominated the manifestly unwise and unintelligent Sonia Sotomayor. Numerous GOP senators voted to confirm her, and not just "squishes" like Jeff Flake.

Francisco D said...

Let's make one thing clear - It is useless to talk about the preponderance of the evidence or any evidentiary standard because ...

There is no evidence!

Do I recall correctly that our hostess in an expert on trial evidence?

If so, an informed and cruelly neutral opinion would be useful, if you are capable.

Earnest Prole said...

If Ford’s story were a set-up, wouldn’t have been wise to include something that could plausibly pass as a piece of corroborating evidence?

jaydub said...

This conflict is going to have to be settled in the streets I'm afraid. If there is any justice at all, Feinstein and Schumer will be the first casualties of the war.

Qwinn said...

Earnest Prole: So the lack of evidence is to be considered evidence in favor? Talk about unfalsifiable.

mockturtle said...

I watched the press conference this morning regarding the trade agreement but of course many of the reporters only wanted to talk about Kavanaugh. At one point Trump made the point that he has seen 'some Senators', one in a very high position, in compromising situations. Of course, when a reporter asked who this individual might be, Trump cleverly responded with a smile that he would not divulge any names now but would later 'write a book, like everyone else'. :-D He's a kick! He handled the whole presser very expertly.

gilbar said...

Dr. K typo'd "Abortion must now be where the money is coming from as the Democrats have cats.."

He was saying 'cast their lot with internet billionaires'; but i think he's accidentally hit on it. The dems have forsook blacks, labor, etc. and they are Literally now the party of Women With Cats. Everything they do is now to please single white women. If the rest of the world notices this; the dems will be forced to realize what percent of the population is single white women.

n.n said...

A single, changing testimony doesn't even meet the standard of plausible, let alone probable.

JAORE said...

I completely agree, It's one reason I supported having no vote for him (Garland), and one reason I suspect he was happy not to go through the hearing. He was not going to get the seat. Why go through being turned into an alcoholic rapist?

Nonsense. The Republicans don't play that nasty, dehumanizing game, despite the crap of "When they go low, we go high". Show an example even approaching this crap fest. At worst the next Democrat President will lose half the Republican votes due to politics. So instead of 96-3 (and an abstention) you'll get 75-24 +1 or so.

Look up the votes on all the nominees since Bork. Pretty damn lopsided.

Static Ping said...

The thing about the Mitchell memo is she puts forth an argument and then supports it with evidence. You can think she is a Republican hack, but there is an argument to discuss through logical means. Defeat it with your intellect if you will.

Yes, I am hopeless naïve.

gilbar said...

Earnest Prole said...
If Ford’s story were a set-up, wouldn’t have been wise to include something that could plausibly pass as a piece of corroborating evidence?

no sir, the lack of corroborating evidence means
The lack of perjury trouble
The impossibility of denial

How do you prove you weren't at a party that took place; somewhere, sometime?
How do you prove someone was lying about a party that took place; somewhere, sometime?

Otto said...

Folks what you have here Ann posturing in case there is no evidence of CBF's claim and thus Kavanaugh is cleared and voted in. Note she changed the goal post. She is trying say the issue is that we can never get to the truth but it is all just "feeling". Typical nihilism.
If those people who CBF named as witnesses can't corroborate her story - case closed.
But Ann has pulled out the old Frankfurt School "subjectivism" playbook to hedge the the Democrat's bet.


Big Mike said...

Republicans may fear that backing Kavanaugh now will hurt them. They might ruthlessly cut loose the damaged goods.

It won't, and if they know what's good for them, they won't.

You really don't have much of a sense for the way Republicans and other real human beings thing, Professor.

mockturtle said...

Gilbar, it should be noted that a majority of white women voted for Trump. Without WOC, Hillary wouldn't have gotten many votes at all. The 'cat women' of whom you speak are a small minority of US women. Most of the single [not widowed] white women I know are economically challenged and trying to raise children on their own. I'd say they are probably in Trump's camp because he's boosting the economy and their opportunities.

n.n said...

Everything they do is now to please single white women

No, everything they do is now to please minorities. Their next target is white girls next door. They don't bother to couch their diversity, either racism or sexism. They are first and foremost politically congruent. The Twilight Amendment enables progress to that end.

Big Mike said...

Miquel Estrada's wife was a genuine casualty of the Democrats' dehumanizing process. Althouse doesn't much care because that's what a white woman gets for marrying a Hispanic.

walter said...

This will all have more credibility once we hear from the driver, Brian Williams.

Matthew Sablan said...

" I could see why Mitchell had her do that- so that it was more easily shown that Ford was changing her story and couldn't deny her own versions while answering. In other words, Mitchell was painting Ford into a corner with her own small lies."

-- I was pretty much one of the few people saying Mitchell was doing a good job, and I think this backs it up. The problem is, for the anti-Kavanaugh people, it didn't matter how well she did.

JAORE said...

Bork 42-58
Kennedy 97-0
Souter 90-9
Thomas 52-48
Ginsburg 96-3
Breyer 87-9
Roberts 78-22
Meirs Withdrawn
Alito 58-42
Sotomayor 68-31
Kagan 63-37
Garland Lapsed
Kavanaugh -------

Hagar said...

A Supreme Court Justice is not a judge, or not just a "judge."

There is that pesky U.S. Constitution.
It is conceivable that the American people will decide that the Federal Government is now so dysfunctional that from now on they will take care to elect President and Senate majorities from different parties.
We can then in time get rid of the problem of the Supreme Court entirely, since neither party will be able to get another nominee confirmed.

DanTheMan said...

Ping it’s off to the re-education camp for you... your desire for evidence shows you have not yet rejected the dead white male value system...

Trumpit said...

Does Kavanaugh rise to the intellectual level of, say, Merrick Garland? Brett's a right-wing hack, and only a right-wing hack would think so. Haha, that was a "Ginsburn."

Known Unknown said...

"that tips the scale for banning abortion"

This isn't going to happen. Even with Barrett on the court. They could send it to the States, and maybe 1 or 2 get in the ban business.

Known Unknown said...

"Does Kavanaugh rise to the intellectual level of, say, Merrick Garland? Brett's a right-wing hack, and only a right-wing hack would think so. Haha, that was a "Ginsburn."


You'd be better if you were funnier.

Known Unknown said...

"Bork 42-58
Kennedy 97-0
Souter 90-9
Thomas 52-48
Ginsburg 96-3
Breyer 87-9
Roberts 78-22
Meirs Withdrawn
Alito 58-42
Sotomayor 68-31
Kagan 63-37
Garland Lapsed
Kavanaugh -------"

This just proves the Democrats are better, nicer people.

Lance said...

And, really, we can't know if what she calls a legal opinion is really just that. She could be lying or unwittingly swayed by political or personal beliefs.

And you "could be lying or swayed by political or personal beliefs". So what?

This is FUD. If you disagree with her legal opinion, make a counter-argument. Don't try to muddle your way around it.

Gramof3 said...

Has anyone else seen this or could verify the veracity of the website.
http://themillenniumreport.com/2018/09/deep-state-agent-christine-blasey-ford-and-her-familys-deep-relationship-with-the-c-i-a/

Michael K said...

- I was pretty much one of the few people saying Mitchell was doing a good job, and I think this backs it up. The problem is, for the anti-Kavanaugh people, it didn't matter how well she did.

Oh, I think she did a good job, She never got to make her summary but this is it.

This is why alcohol is becoming the theme of the left. They must be seeing internal polls that show 25% belief in Ford's story

Bay Area Guy said...

Senate Judiciary Committee
October 8, 2018 - final hearing
9:45 a.m., Wash DC

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse: Judge Kavananugh, welcome back.
BK: It's great to be back.

SW: May I remind you that you are still under oath?
BK: Yes, Senator.

SW: Are you aware, Sir, that the FBI has found no grounds to indict you?
BK: Yes, and boy am I relieved!

SW: Not so fast. Do you recall your prior testimony about your high school yearbook at Georgetown Prep?
BK: I do, Sir.

SW: Allow me to follow-up on that line of questioning. Did you attend junior high school?
BK: (loses his grin, gets serious): Umm, Yes, Senator I did. It was Georgetown junior Prep.

SW: Did you ever perform in the school play at Georgetown junior Prep?
BK: (getting nervous, adjusts his collar): Umm, Yes I did.

SW: According to your junior high school yearbook, you played the lead in the school musical, Grease, didn't you? You played the role of one, Daniel Zucko, did you not?

BK: Yes, Danny Zucko, Senator. John Travolta made the role famous.

SW: Please confine yourself to the facts. And in that role of Danny Zucko, did you or did you not sing the song, "Greased Lightning," in the school auditorium, in front of 150 juveniles who had not reached the age of the majority?

BK: (sweating) Yes, Senator, I had the lead. I was in the 7th grade.

SW: Judge Kavanaugh, let me enter into the record the lyrics of this ....song you sung. I quote: With a four speed on the floor they'll be waiting at the door. You know that ain't no shit we'll be getting lots of tit. In Grease Lightning. Go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go

SW: Judge Kavanaugh, did I read those song lyrics correctly?

BK: Yes, I believe you did, Senator.

SW: So you were celebrating in song and dance, quote, "getting lots of tit." Isn't that a fact?

BK: Well, I, I, well, I, um, was just singing, what our drama teacher, Mr. Sharp had provided.

SW: ANSWER THE QUESTION, JUDGE KAVANAUGH. YOU SANG OR SPOKE THOSE WORDS IN AN AUDITORIUM FILLED WITH IMPRESSIONABLE MINOR FEMALES, YES OR NO!?

BK: Yes.

SW: And this clearly was inappropriate sexist language glorifying sexual battery, true or not true?!

BK: Technically, true.

SW: And, didn't you also describe the car, Greased Lightning, as a "pussy wagon."

BK: Huh?

SW: Again, I'll quote from the lyrics: We'll get some purple french tail lights and thirty inch fins. Oh yeah. A Palomino dashboard and duel muffler twins. Oh yeah. With new pistons, plugs, and shocks -- I can get off my rocks. You know that I ain't bragging she's a real pussy wagon. Grease lightning.

BK: (Visibly shaken). I guess I did sing that. I didn't realize how inappropriate the lyrics were at the time.

SW: (Sweating, with spittle coming out of his mouth) Sir, in front of 150 young impressionable juveniles, including young girls, you are singing, and gyrating, and glorifying sexual assault against women, and talking about getting lots of tit, and getting your rocks off, and driving a PUSSY WAGON, ISN'T THAT TRUE, SIR?

BK: I think I'd like to plead the 5th. I have rights too.

SW: No further questions.

MadTownGuy said...

Bay Area Guy said...

"I make the following proposition - it is not original.

1. The Dems love Roe v. Wade
2. The Dems fear BK is the 5th vote to undo Roe v. Wade
3. The Dems will use any means necessary to sink BK's nomination to protect Roe v. Wade

Anyone disagree? Is this perhaps too reductionist?
"

You omitted:
4. Because Trump!

Known Unknown said...

"And, really, we can't know if what she calls a legal opinion is really just that. She could be lying or unwittingly swayed by political or personal beliefs."

Did you even read it? It seems completely anodyne to me.

Hagar said...

No Constitution can survive if a majority of our elected representatives refuse to act in good faith.

Known Unknown said...

"2. The Dems fear BK is the 5th vote to undo Roe v. Wade"

Most likely, Brett would be a bit of an abortion squish. If he loses, they get to face Barrett, who is much more likely not to be.

Democrats not great at the long game right now, unless they take the Senate in the midterms.

Known Unknown said...

And also, to boot -- does defeating Kavanaugh in the short term feel like a big enough win for the left that they stay home in November?

Ken B said...

Hagar
Exactly. The USSR had the Stalin constitution with human rights up the yingyang.

Michael K said...

they are Literally now the party of Women With Cats.

Good point.

Plus they are ladies with cats that have Toxoplamosis gondii.

Toxoplasma gondii is known to change the host's behaviour. Studies show the capability for the parasite to make rats fearless near cats. This indicates the evolutionary need for Toxoplasma gondii to get inside felines. When a rat is eaten by a cat the parasite gets inside the primary host. There have been a few studies with humans, too. Some results indicate a strong correlation between schizophrenia and toxoplasmosis. According to some studies women with toxoplasmosis are more likely to cheat their husbands.

Or make false accusations of sexual abuse.

Matthew Sablan said...

"If Ford’s story were a set-up, wouldn’t have been wise to include something that could plausibly pass as a piece of corroborating evidence?"

-- Why? She didn't think she'd have to go on the record. Barring that, they had "Judge and Kavanaugh are too drunk to remember! Things fell apart when she added two people she thought would back her up, but didn't.

Etienne said...

Bottom line: Rachel Mitchell is the adult in the room.

gilbar said...

mockturtle said...
Gilbar, it should be noted that a majority of white women voted for Trump.
yes, but the majority of white women are married; and have dogs, like GOD intended :)

Comanche Voter said...

Well if Ford didn't work; and if alcohol didn't work; then maybe Kavanaugh put the family dog in a crate on top of station wagon when they went on vacation. That might be just enough to do Kavanaugh in.

Matthew Sablan said...

The only reason we got a chance for Kavanaugh to defend himself is because Feinstein lied to Ford, and Ford's lawyers refused to shield her privacy. But, thanks to that, Ford was forced to provide enough details, including names of witnesses who she thought should or could corroborate her.

They did not.

Whether it was a giant conspiracy, bad memory or just a confederacy of dunces, we'll probably never know.

Ken B said...

Rachel Mitchell was much criticized for ... being calm, precise, professional, polite. She was indeed the adult in the room.

Kirk Parker said...

Lucid-ides,

I get your frustration, really I do.

But seriously, no society can long survive with its men and women at virtual war with each other. Either we push the genie back in the bottle (and that very much includes the 19th) or we perish.

David Docetad,

"How about just vote no instead of destroying the life of the nominee?"

Another clueless old white male who doesn't understand that, if your vote doesn't prevail, then you've been disenfranchised. Sad!

steve uhr said...

He report says that the evidence isn't sufficient to meet a preponderance of the evidence standard. In other words, if Ford brought a civil action against the judge, and the jury found in her favor, the court would overrule the jury and throw out the case. This is incorrect I believe. Too bad she did not cite to even one legal decision in support of this legal proposition.

Francisco D said...

He report says that the evidence isn't sufficient to meet a preponderance of the evidence standard. In other words, if Ford brought a civil action against the judge, and the jury found in her favor, the court would overrule the jury and throw out the case. This is incorrect I believe. Too bad she did not cite to even one legal decision in support of this legal proposition

Steve,

The jury makes the decision about preponderance of evidence, not the judge.

As an experienced prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell is saying that it is very unlikely that a jury would find a preponderance of the evidence against Kavanaugh.

There is one other thing to consider:

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE

lb said...

For the first time in my life I went and picked up Republican yard signs. And deleted anyone on Facebook that is supporting Ford. This is unconscionable..that anyone would think this ridiculous kabuki theater would be supported by anyone with half a brain. What they have done to Kavanaugh and our nation is untenable and I fully intend to do anything in my albeit limited power to make sure another Democrat never gets elected in my state in my lifetime.

Matthew Sablan said...

"There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE."

-- Now, that's not true. We've got sworn witness testimony saying that Kavanaugh didn't do this thing. We've got some evidence (among the weakest kind, granted), but... it all supports *Kavanaugh*, not Ford.

Char Char Binks said...

Dems want it both ways.

They're accusing Kavanaugh of crimes, and when challenged, they say there's no need for proof, or any evidence at all, because this isn't a criminal trial.

Brian said...

Anybody know if anybody has asked Ford if she has ever read Mark Judge's book? Characterizations of his book? Reviews, synopsis, etc? If so, when.

A man whose laughing about your sexual assault is seared in your memory writes a book and you don't read it? Did any of her beach friends?

That would be an interesting FBI question.

Arashi said...

Yes - they keep saying 'job interview'. If so, then everyone of the Senators who asked questions of Judge Kavanaugh that are in fact illegal to ask at a job interview - due to federal law - need to be dressed down publicly and sent for re-training by HR. Then fired.

LilyBart said...


The most lack-luster defense attorney could get Kav acquitted. Her story is a mess.

Char Char Binks said...

"Interesting discussion about Ford's degree.

I thought it was a PhD but apparently it is an Ed D"

That makes it even funnier!

Trumpit said...

"The most lack-luster defense attorney could get Kav acquitted. Her story is a mess."

Okay, whatever you say, @Bart O'Kavanaugh. Haha, that was a "Ginsburn."

mockturtle said...

Gilbar retorts: yes, but the majority of white women are married; and have dogs, like GOD intended :)

That's true. ;-)

Arashi said...

So if her degree is an ed D, and she does not teach classes at all, but works as a statistician. then she is not a 'Doctor' or even a 'Professor'?

Trumpit said...

Has anyone asked him why he wants to be a Supreme Court Justice? To be protected against old rape charges, is the obvious answer. Haha, that was a "Ginsburn."

Big Mike said...

I stumbled across an interesting comment made by Matt Damon, who you may remember played an angry Brett Karanaugh on SNL. He's discussing how Hollywood actors used to deal with spurious sexual harassment claims by paying the accuser to shut up and go away. But with the advent of #MeToo:

“If you make the same claim to me today,” he said, “it would be scorched-earth. I don’t care if it would cost me $10 million in court for 10 years, you are not taking my name from me, you are not taking my name and reputation from me, I’ve worked too hard for it, I’ve earned it, you can’t just blow me up like that.”

I thought this was interesting.

mockturtle said...

That any part of this allegation should be taken seriously at all, at this time, is patently absurd. Even if Kavaneugh behaved as 'Dr.' Ford claims, it's NO BIG DEAL! We're talking about high school! What's wrong with people?? The Dems clearly have an agenda but the GOP? They're actually afraid of this witness? This is sheer insanity. Like Bay Area Guy portrays in his post about a junior high school play, where will it end? Erotic-looking finger paintings in kindergarten?

janetrae said...

Right on lb:

I received a fund-raising email from JB Pritzker on Saturday -- a D running for governor in Illinois.

I immediately went to unsubscribe, and when asked to give a reason wrote:
I will never vote for another Democrat as long as I live.

Mike Sylwester said...

Dave at 1:23 PM
I thought what Feinstein did was a great move. It might get her reelected

All the Republicans in California should vote against her, even though her opponent is much more leftist.

mockturtle said...

All the Republicans in California should vote against her, even though her opponent is much more leftist.

Yes.

Matthew Sablan said...

"All the Republicans in California should vote against her, even though her opponent is much more leftist."

-- Good luck to both of them.

Lucid-ides said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Francisco D said...

I believe that CBF has a PhD in Educational Psychology from USC.

PhD means that she is a Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Psychology. Typically PhDs have far stronger scientific research credentials than alternative degrees and they are far more likely to wind up in academia. Her career path is consistent with a PhD.

Ed.D. is a Doctor of Education. If you want to be a school superintendent or some other higher level educational bureaucracy job, that is the standard degree. It is not as rigorous as the PhD, but people can take postgrad training to improve their credentials.

Birkel said...

http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=377362

At that link, you will find this Twitter quote:
Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
BREAKING: This is HUGE (waiting for permission to h/t): One of Christine Ford Blasey's research articles in 2008 included a study in which participants were TAUGHT SELF-HYPNOSIS & noted hypnosis is used to retrieve important memories "AND CREATE ARTIFICAL SITUATIONS."


Blasey Ford seems legit.
/sarc

Lucid-ides said...

“If you make the same claim to me today,” he said, “it would be scorched-earth. I don’t care if it would cost me $10 million in court for 10 years, you are not taking my name from me, you are not taking my name and reputation from me, I’ve worked too hard for it, I’ve earned it, you can’t just blow me up like that.” - Matt Damon

Did he really say that Big Mike? Link? Please tell me you're kidding. Was that recent? When?

My faith in humanity can't get any lower. How can people possibly be this un-self aware....

Arashi said...

Lucid-ides..

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/30/kavanaugh-snl-matt-damon-accusations/

FIDO said...

If there is no clarity on 'The Legal Opinion', if there are no guidelines for 'evidence', if there is no agreed legal principles of guilt and innocence and 'reasonable doubt', what is the use of your entire profession.

There are. You refuse to apply them because you don't get your biased way.


Ergo, on this issue, you are maliciously unreliable.

buwaya said...

"because Feinstein lied to Ford, and Ford's lawyers refused to shield her privacy."

Of course no-one lied to Ford. Its absurd. This was organized and scripted ab initio, with the full cooperation of Ford.

Martin said...

I heard a snippet of a local (Chicago) political talk show last night, where they said that Donnelly (D-IN and running for re-election) is the only Senator who says that the FBI investigation may affect how he votes, and he has been on both sides of the issue and is probably just looking for cover.

Francisco D said...

Of course no-one lied to Ford. Its absurd. This was organized and scripted ab initio, with the full cooperation of Ford.

Shhhh

Republicans have cleverly placed themselves between CBF and her DNC attorneys. That way they can attack the attorneys without being seen as attacking the supposed "victim".

Kirk Parker said...

BAG,

"These assholes are making sane sober folks more desirous to support the overturning of Roe."

Good grief, no. Any sane person has already been long desirous to overturn Roe, the 2nd-most-bogus Supreme Court decision of our lifetime. What they're doing, rather, is making any sane folks just want to get the impending civil war started and done with quickly so the casualties are minimized.



Tom,

"I think Kavanaugh would have continued some availability of abortion with restrictions after a certain point in the term of pregnancy. "

Gack, that just continues the problem! No, the proper point of overturning Roe v. Wade (other than it's completely bogus from start to finish) is that the Federal Government has no authority to intervene in ordinary criminal-law matters in the first place.



walter said...

Study title begins "Meditation with yoga.."
Cue the Crack

Matthew Sablan said...

"Of course no-one lied to Ford. Its absurd."

-- Then Ford needs to *say so.* Right now, just like with her therapist notes the media claims to have received from a source, but which Ford doesn't recall giving them to the media, we have to state that stealing a traumatized woman's private medical records and leaking them is wrong.

Because, if the media won't reveal the source after Ford has said she can't recall, then the only logical assumption is *it wasn't Ford*, or the media would clarify her faulty memory.

So, the media should either burn the source who stole confidential files from the person they were supposed to help and protect, or the FBI should find out who is stealing confidential medical records.

Ford, of course, could clarify whether this is needed if her memory were better.

Lucid-ides said...

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/30/kavanaugh-snl-matt-damon-accusations/

Un. Fucking. Believable.

I'd say thanks for the link but it actually made me steam-pours-from-my-ears-cartoon-style. I want a tsunami to wipe Hollywood off the map. Maynard was right. These people need to "learn to swim", and do it the hard way.

FullMoon said...

The shift from "sexual assault" to "alcoholic" may be a sign that Ford is becoming less credible.

Still attempting to validate black out drunk lie which would support "maybe he did it and doesn't remember.
conflicted with her original timeframe.

Matthew Sablan said...

It isn't that unbelievable. Damon inherently trusts himself; he just also isn't willing to give that benefit of the doubt to others. Probably because, like most people, he doesn't realize he's in a mental trap.

Kirk Parker said...

" I want a tsunami to wipe Hollywood off the map. "

What, are we out of nukes?

buwaya said...

"Then Ford needs to *say so.*"

Why?

These things are always conspiracies, conducted through cutouts and with communication security, or a significant degree of it. Who is going to make anyone spill the beans?

The first thing one has to do is abandon any idea of sincerity.

tim in vermont said...

Of course you could just be angry that somebody who can’t even remember how they got home from the “attempted rape” is allowed to derail a guy who seems to have done everything right his whole life. Roe v Wade is less important than giving our country over to the modern day Red Guard.

The Crack Emcee said...

walter said...

"Study title begins "Meditation with yoga.."
Cue the Crack"

I'm ready when y'all are.

walter said...

"The shift from "sexual assault" to "alcoholic"
==
And the newest accusation that his behavior at the hearing shows "lack of impartiality".
The latter being put in place for Amy Coney Barrett, just in case.

narciso said...

yes, he said it:

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/matt-damon-opens-harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-confidentiality/story?id=51792548

I think team America, had him perfectly cast,

FullMoon said...

Reposting link someone else posted. Not too long and Pretty interesting :

READ THE WHOLE THING


THREAD: For those thinking Mitchell wasn't strong enough on Ford, you're wrong. Her gentle demeanor & allowing Ford to talk revealed A LOT-and it especially highlighted what FORD wanted us to NOTICE. Yesterday, I explained that her rehearsal & 5 mentions of Safeway was a tell. 1/

2/ BUT there was another huge tell: It came when Mitchell asked Ford to explain what happened. Here's what Ford said: Notice the unprompted and weird volunteering of drawing a "floor plan." She never suggested that before and had she really wanted to know whose house she

3/ Could have said these were the boys there.

Lucid-ides said...

What, are we out of nukes?

How about we divert that skull-shaped asteroid that's passing by?

Plausible Deniability. Makes it look like an act of god and lord knows it should be.

Sebastian said...

The prosecutor "opines," says Althouse, doubling down on bad faith.

I don't even need the OED for that.

tim in vermont said...

Meanwhile the Democratic Senator who has been “credibly accused” of taking advantage of underage trafficked children can’t get over 50% in the polls in deep blue New Jersey, the Garden State’s Roy Moore.

The race between U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and his Republican challenger Bob Hugin is a “statistical dead heat,” according to a Stockton University poll of likely voters released Monday. Menendez’s two-point advantage — 45 percent to Hugin’s 43 percent — is within the poll’s margin of error.

Gramof3 said...

The Dems are always good at smokescreens. They deflect from the issue by theatrics, such as the senatorial televised charade. They bring in a well educated woman, who has been photographed with Bill Clinton, who marched in the women’s march, and has written several professional articles, and make her present herself as a scared, helpless 15 year old up against the white male mob. I want to know the behind story....what does her husband do? Her parents and brother(s). Why are they missing from this picture? If this was me, my family would stand strong behind me, as Judge K’s family and friends have done. I have a family member who was forced into retirement from a compulsive “sexual harassment” victim. These are lives of real people and we need to find out the story behind the story. We need to stop looking at the shiny object forced in front of our faces and find out what and who is really running the show. The internet has been scrubbed of a lot of information but there are smart people who can find things I’m not able to find. Let’s not get lost in the bauble and at least, ask some bigger questions than “was she credible”.

Jim at said...

The most lack-luster defense attorney could get Kav acquitted.

And only the most moronic prosecutor would even bring charges.

traditionalguy said...

Mitchell is a feminist Dem favorite. But she cannot win a case like this. The man's word against the woman's word case needs some cooroboration. But Ford's little drama names a cast of 3 other known witnesses and they all deny that it happened.

The hate Trump networks now say that the FBI cannot be trusted...and anyway K is a deranged alcoholic.

Jim at said...

Maynard was right. These people need to "learn to swim", and do it the hard way.

Always appreciate a Tool reference.

tim in vermont said...

Why the FBI Should Investigate 'Boofing'
Small lies matter — especially when you’re asking to be on the Supreme Court.
. - Politico

Of course if you are Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or especially Bill Clinton, they matter not a whit. It’s amazing this inquisition into the sex lives of teenagers is happening today, led by Democrats. It’s almost as if it’s liberty for me, but not for thee. Roe v Wade is a sideshow in the stakes here.

tim in vermont said...

For decades, the hours long death of a young Democrat campaign worker trapped in a submerged car wasn’t important. That’s Kavanaugh’s fault!

GatorNavy said...

I have read as much information as I can concerning this shameful event. Personally, I don't care much one way or another about abortion and make no mistake, this outpouring of venom is exactly why this shameful event is taking place. But I do care about my son and in that light, I can only say that if these weak souled politicians (The MSM are nothing but totalitarian leftists) attacked my son with such venom, the hell I unleash would make Genghis Khan proud.

Amadeus 48 said...

Here’s how I would have voted on the last several nominees, given the chance:
Ginsberg yes
Breyer. Yes
Roberts yes
Alito yes
Sotomeyer no
Kagan yes
Gorsuch yes
Kavanaugh yes
Probably yes on Garland if the nommination were taken up
OK, team, show me how I am clawing to get to the conclusion I want.
Brett Kavanaugh is being savaged on the basis of a story, some tears, and a bunch contradictions and lies
Maybe something happened, maybe not, but there should be some corroboration or at least a story that is capable of being challenged, which this one is not because it is so vague on when, where, and who. And the people cited say they know nothing about it. Our nonflying complainant has been flying all over the world.

This smells to high heaven.



«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 230   Newer› Newest»