October 4, 2018

"White House Finds No Support in FBI Report for Claims Against Kavanaugh/Senators are set to review the FBI’s findings Thursday."

Reports the Wall Street Journal, but I don't have a subscription, so let's move on to the NYT.

The NYT headline plays it so neutral — "White House Sends F.B.I. Interviews on Kavanaugh to Senate" — that I infer the FBI report supports Kavanaugh.
“The White House has received the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s supplemental background investigation into Judge Kavanaugh, and it is being transmitted to the Senate,” Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, said in the statement, which was posted on Twitter. “This is the last addition to the most comprehensive review of a Supreme Court nominee in history, which includes extensive hearings, multiple committee interviews, over 1,200 questions for the record and over a half million pages of documents,” he added. “With this additional information, the White House is fully confident the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.”

The White House statement gave no further details about the material, but an official briefed on the F.B.I. review said the bureau contacted 10 people and interviewed nine of them. It was not clear why the 10th person was not interviewed. The White House concluded that the interviews did not corroborate sexual misconduct accusations against Judge Kavanaugh.
That last sentence meets my idea of journalism better than does the WSJ headline. We only know what the White House says, not what it really found. It could be lying. Maybe it found some support but chose to make an absolute statement.

Let's check WaPo: "In 2:30 a.m. tweets, White House says FBI report supports Kavanaugh confirmation." That's neutral, but with colorful facets — tweeting, early morning hours — that might seem to minimize the seriousness with which the White House assessed the report. A reader of headlines might picture Trump — impetuous Trump — tweeting again, but it was Raj Shah (the spokesman cited in the NYT article).

Also in WaPo  "Senate moves ahead on Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination with a procedural vote expected Friday."
The Senate Judiciary Committee announced Thursday that it has received the FBI’s completed report on Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, as partisan rancor continued to grow over the scope of the investigation into sexual assault allegations that have endangered his confirmation.

In anticipation of the report’s arrival, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday night teed up a key vote to advance Kavanaugh’s nomination for Friday. Until that vote, senators will be rushing in and out of a secure facility at the Capitol to review the sensitive FBI report that the bureau has compiled, looking into allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh.

“There will be plenty of time for members to review and be briefed on this supplemental material before a Friday cloture vote,” McConnell said Wednesday night.
Good! The vote should indeed take place on Friday (unless there's something specific and substantial in the FBI report that justifies cautious delay). If there's no corroboration, I'm glad for Kavanaugh and his supporters. I'm sorry for private citizen Christine Blasey Ford if she believes what she said and that the Senate would keep her accusations private, and I'm extremely critical of the Senators who allowed her accusation to become public. They ought to have made their own attempt at corroboration — or did they try and fail? — and we should never have been subjected to this ordeal. It was a shameful display, painful for just about everyone and the pain isn't over yet.

229 comments:

1 – 200 of 229   Newer›   Newest»
David Begley said...

“but I don't have a subscription, so let's move on to the NYT.”

That’s a problem.

By noon, the Dem Senators will be lying and leaking about the report.

gilbar said...

from the report "Democrats also said they were concerned about Judge Kavanaugh for reasons beyond the sexual-assault allegation, including his partisan attacks at last Thursday’s hearing.

i'm assuming they mean their partisan attacks at last Thursday’s hearing?

Breezy said...

They ought to have made their own attempt at corroboration — or did they try and fail?

I believe they orchestrated the public display. They did everything they could to make it public. If not public, there would be no way to delay and pander, or try to convince Rs to vote no via public confrontation.

Doug said...

Walking it back, huh Althouse? Just can't get your woman brain around the concept that Ford might be a little, not a victim?

Mr. D said...

Good! The vote should indeed take place on Friday (unless there's something specific and substantial in the FBI report that justifies cautious delay). If there's no corroboration, I'm glad for Kavanaugh and his supporters. I'm sorry for private citizen Christine Blasey Ford if she believes what she said and that the Senate would keep her accusations private, and I'm extremely critical of the Senators who allowed her accusation to become public.

Allowed? They forced the issue from the outset. Meanwhile, Ford will be relegated to the ditch in Crawford with Cindy Sheehan soon enough.

Doug said...

"little" should be"liar" ... damn autocorrect!

Bad Lieutenant said...

By noon, the Dem Senators will be lying and leaking about the report.


Publish or perish!

David Begley said...

“I'm sorry for private citizen Christine Blasey Ford if she believes what she said ....”

That’s not the test. Psychos believe their own lies. She had to present corroborated evidence of the assault and she did not. It was just an allegation and accusation. Given what we have now found out about her lies, I’m convinced it was a partisan setup. The whole thing was a lie. Mrs Two Front Doors perjured herself and a real AG would indict her. Her lawyers helped and obstructed justice.

Now the conventional wisdom is that an indictment and trial of CBF and her lawyers would only “further divide us” but that’s BS. These partisan liars must be punished or otherwise these tactics will become common practice.

In Nebraska, we jailed a woman who lied about a police chief, judge and Omaha businessmen. No lies since.

rehajm said...

...and I'm extremely critical of the Senators who allowed her accusation to become public. They ought to have made their own attempt at corroboration — or did they try and fail? — and we should never have been subjected to this ordeal.

Those of us who believe this was a decades old coordinated effort by opposition groups know exactly why they allowed her accusation to go public. Subjecting all of us to this ordeal was a necessary part of the strategy.

Unknown said...

Democrats announced their opposition as soon as Kavanaugh was nominated, this supplemental inquiry will only be read seriously by the fence sitting Senators.

Christine Blasey Ford is at best a useful idiot, exploited by the Democrats. I think it more likely she is a co-conspirator in the anti-Kavanaugh plot. I've no sympathy for her either way, she put herself in this position.

-sw

rehajm said...

Ford will be relegated to the ditch in Crawford with Cindy Sheehan soon enough

I suspect she's a hero regardless of the outcome. They still need her as a totem at the protest rallies and the version 2.0 impeachment strategy.

Ralph L said...

If she wanted it kept quiet, she could have sent her letter to Grassley instead of the Dem congresscritter and Feinstein. He would have shared it with Feinstein because Republicans are stupid that way, and it could have been investigated in private.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

Strategy for ...
Can quorum be prevented?

rhhardin said...

I'm sorry for private citizen Christine Blasey Ford if she believes what she said and that the Senate would keep her accusations private, and I'm extremely critical of the Senators who allowed her accusation to become public.

Private citizen political activist Ford. A feminist ought to stress that, idiotic though it may be.

Women need a pilot.

Rob McLean said...

The NYT headline plays it so neutral — "White House Sends F.B.I. Interviews on Kavanaugh to Senate" — that I infer the FBI report supports Kavanaugh.

Just imagine if we had a truly neutral news media in this country. Just imagine.

gilbar said...

CBF's story can be easily explained by Night Terrors, a nightmare were someone is on top of you and you can not breath.

She doesn't remember When the party was, 'cause it was in a dream(s)
She doesn't remember Where the party was,'cause it was in a dream(s)
She doesn't remember How she got upstairs, or to/from the party, 'cause it was in a dream(s)
She doesn't remember Why there was a part, 'cause it was in a dream(s)
She has no witnesses,'cause it was in a dream(s); and thankfully, dream terrors won't testify

She's probably had night terrors, Over and Over; sometimes in the early '80's, sometimes last week. The cast of attackers used to change, now it's settled onto Brett O'K

Narayanan Subramanian said...

We'll hear Ford's /true voice/ eventually in all its stridency.

rehajm said...

WSJ says...

Republicans have a narrow 51-49 edge in the Senate, so two defections would doom the nomination.

Assumes no Democrats will vote for? Seems rather bold...

mccullough said...

The FBI talked to Squi. He’s the Kavanaugh friend that Ford said “she went out with” that summer.

Squi must have been devastating to Ford.

rehajm said...

Strategy for ...
Can quorum be prevented?


How good are they at hide and seek?

Eleanor said...

I don't feel the least bit sorry for Christine. She's going home with around a million dollar gfm payout. If she can bring herself to get on planes to less exotic places than the South Pacific beaches, she'll rack up speaking fees. Maybe she'll pick up a lunch tab or two for her "beach friends" who helped her concoct this outrageous lie.

iowan2 said...

I don't don't expect our host to blog to my desired subjects, so this is an opportunity to agree with this posts conclusion.

Diane Feinstein. What she did, with the full knowledge of Democrat leadership in the Senate, is so damaging to our form of governance Unfortunately, only the Senate can seek the proper punishment. McConnell won't. Cory Booker play acts about revealing confidential documents, because it was the moral thing to do. I would hope Democrats on the Judiciary Committee would stand up and demand Feinstein step down in shame.
I challenge anyone to come up with a complaint about they way this was handled, and not have the stink land in DiFi's lap.
There is a reason she held on to the letter without action. No reasonable person could take it serious. Then someone weaponized it at the 11th hour, is such a way to give DiFi plausible deniability.

It cannot be said with enough vitriol, and cursing, how evil Feinstein is.

David Begley said...

One of the most telling things about this thing is that CBF completely and totally erased her social media history. And none of her friends ratted her out. There was one account, however, that she wore a pussy hat to a protest march. I suspect she is a full member of the Resistance.

Private citizen Ford and her lawyers planned this whole pack of lies.

Christopher said...

Apparently Ronan Farrow decided to light his reputation on fire.

So there's that.

mccullough said...

Ford’s lawyers are pissed the FBI didn’t circle back with them. They didn’t get a chance to change her story again in response to what others said.

Humperdink said...

Now that the charade is reaching it's conclusion, I'm waiting for Ballsey to make the rounds on the MSM, specifically I am interested in watching her voice change from baby talk to an adult.

Birkel said...

Well now that Democrats got their FBI investigation they can go back to their previously held position of deciding as soon as Judge Kavanaugh was nominated that he is not a Hillary Clinton nominee.

At this point, RBG is teasing us by pretending to be mostly alive. (Hat tip: Miracle Max)

Narayanan Subramanian said...

Is FBI on their bestest good behavior?!?!

FIDO said...


Much Acclaimed Legal Professor Ann Althouse said:

I'm extremely critical of the Senators who allowed her accusation to become public.


You are extremely critical of the Senators NOW that it has failed.

They ought to have made their own attempt at corroboration — or did they try and fail?


Is there a scintilla of evidence of this? This is called 'providing cover' for horrible actions. If Feinstein had made ANY attempts, she would have trotted them out as soon as the accusations of her malicious timing came out.

She didn't.


And yet you still offer without evidence the idea that they acted in good faith...STILL.


— and we should never have been subjected to this ordeal. It was a shameful display, painful for just about everyone and the pain isn't over yet.


And yet where were you for the last THREE WEEKS about calling this display 'shameful'.

You are conveniently late to the party.

While it had a chance to work, you were 'cruelly silent' without any of this current moral handwringing.

Now that it has failed and he is very likely to pass (nothing is definite), suddenly, like Skurge in Thor Ragnarök, you have a blanket over your head and trying to get on the shuttle with everyone else on the blog (leaving the zombies like Inga, PPP, Howard Uhr, et al)


(You never saw it. It was popular, easily accessible, visually stunning, funny, and light fare. Nothing for you there)

There were many shameful things happening on this blog, much less in the Senate.

Kevin said...

“It was a shameful display, painful for just about everyone and the pain isn't over yet.”

But what about the stakes? I was told the stakes dictated the standards. Surely DiFi and her pals got that message.

If it wasn’t against Senate rules, how many would cast their votes wearing pussy hats?

Pussy having replaced tinfoil for the duration of the Trump Administration.

rhhardin said...

It's Althouse being a woman, not some moral failing.

It's what women do.

rhhardin said...

Women translating what women do for men is what makes it fun.

AllenS said...

I don't have a lot of faith in the FBI. I think a lot of people feel this way. Their report will more than likely contain a lot of weasel words that will be interpreted by some (Democrats) that Kavanaugh might, or is guilty.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

Can Kavanaugh sue Ford? and CLEAN his name?

rhhardin said...

You can geet the WSJ by googling some shown words in a private window (so no cookies show up that reveal to them that you've done it before).

Professional lady said...

I for one will now always think of Diane Feinstein as Diane McCarthy Feinstein.

rhhardin said...

Though the WSJ has been pretty worthless for a few years.

mccullough said...

Ford doesn’t mind that Feinstein leaked her name. Feinstein and her friends handpicked Ford’s Lawyers, free of charge to Ford. If Ford were upset by this, she would have said something. She would have refused to testify.

Ford is satisfied with the plan. She doesn’t mind being used.

All of it is another reason her credibility is shit. She’s a Dem operative now.

One Beer Blasey



wendybar said...

The Democrats planned this, and thought, mistakenly, that Judge Kavenaugh would step down because he couldn't handle it. They were wrong. America know now what gutter snipes the Democrats really are. They should be ashamed of themselves and they owe both Kavenaugh AND Ford an apology. She deserves an apology because they used her as a pawn.

rhhardin said...

You can characterize newspapers by their mental flexibility. It's needed to get a good reading of what's going on.

Scott Adams would be the extreme example of mental flexibility.

The WSJ is pretty low on mental flexibility. The NYT adds outright dishonesty, actively seeking a bad reading instead of just being limited by their own stoginess, like C.J.Sulzberger used to be. ("Prose that reads like the ruins of Pompeii" as Jean Shepherd put it)

rhhardin said...

Pawns can become a queen. Ford may be on the seventh rank already.

FIDO said...

Well, the pain of almost destroying any attempt at bipartisanship will last for a LONG time. No Republican will trust a Democrat for at least a decade and for good reason. If the Democrats DON'T hate Republicans to their core, they should be in Hollywood, because that act is SOLID.

All for ONE SCOTUS nomination.

I have been 'cruelly neutral' on abortion. I am mildly against it from a moral position, but I can accept the idea that it should be a TRAGIC, RARE and REGRETTED procedure...like an execution, but even worse. The infant didn't deserve this. And too often, the baby is sacrificed, not to save the nation, like they did in Carthage to the God Moloch, but sacrificedd to the Goddess Convenience to 'save a career'.

Now...is there a reason to not strongly dislike pro-abortion fanatics who are willing to shred apart our institutions just to protect their vaginas from laws which essentially already correspond to how the vast majority of abortions are already performed by females displayed choices?

Is there any reason to not believe women now after this fourth shameful display of public lying about rape in the last decade, disregarding the MULTIPLE lost lawsuits due to Title XI?

Yes, the pain isn't over. And if there is a God, a large heap of karma should be falling on the Liberals and Democrats over this.

But hey, thanks for trying to tear the Senate apart for ONE vote.

Narayanan Subramanian said...

It's grave mistake to NOT remember that McCarthy did not make false accusations!

*McCarthyism* ... Term was concocted to smear anti-communists, iow conservative of those times.

mccullough said...

The GOP is fortunate. They have Trump.

W and Romney would have folded. McCain would have wilted and begged Kavanaugh to withdraw. Trump basically called Ford a bullshitter. He called out her parents in a tweet and made fun of her “one beer” story at a rally.

Dems don’t care about sexual assault. And Trump wasn’t going to let them turn it into a weapon for their use.

And all the activists who talk about sexual assaults don’t give a shit either.

This is partisanship. Trump knows how to play the game. He’s better at it than the Dems.

Ann Althouse said...

Please stop lying about me. I'm not going to take the trouble to go all Kavanaugh on you, but many of you are lying about me. I have maintained neutrality throughout this discussion. Look back at exactly what I have said, not what people have said about me. If you want to lash out on me, don't mischaracterize my previous statements. Don't paraphrase me from your imperfect memory. Go back and get quotes and links. You may be very surprised. I haven't had time to call you on your many attacks on me, but I'm telling you right now that I have been balanced and neutral on this. I'm not going to spend all my time correcting commenters, but so many of you are getting it wrong that you're undermining your own credibility in my eyes. Many of your statements about me are bad. Click on the Kavanaugh link and you can get to all my posts easily. Read carefully and not hotheadedly. Straighten up and try to correct what you've already gotten wrong. Some of you own me apologies.

Kevin said...

“the pain isn't over yet.”

Not until Jill Stein gets people to send her money to demand a Senate recount.

Chris of Rights said...

Althouse: It was a shameful display, painful for just about everyone and the pain isn't over yet.

The pain will never be over for Kavanaugh and his family. And once he's confirmed, the lefties will continue to attack him on the court. This whole thing has been disgracefully handled, and I will never forgive the left for this.

Althouse: . I haven't had time to call you on your many attacks on me, but I'm telling you right now that I have been balanced and neutral on this. ... Some of you own me apologies.

I'm not as convinced of your neutrality as you are, but I grant you that you've played it mostly to the center of the road, and that you are correct about the apologies. I doubt many will be forthcoming, however.

Bay Area Guy said...

Althouse got her mojo back.

If this were the Comey/McCabe/Strzok FBI, they woulda nailed somebody for lying to the FBI, and then leaked it to the NYT - to sow discord.

Maybe, Chris Wray is finally doing his job.

Quelling the hysteria can't be good for the Left. They feed off hysteria.

BK has now passed his 7th FBI investigation. But he got drunk in college!!!!!

It will take some time for BK to get his mojo back. The Left has issued a political/judicial fatwah against him to deter the 5th vote for overturning Roe.

But, as they used to say in the CIA, don't try to commit regicide with a rubber knife.

Doug said...

Some of you own me apologies.
Do you look good in blue?

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Christine Blasey Ford if she believes . . . that the Senate would keep her accusations private,

She had her social media professionally scrubbed. She knew she would go public.

The wanting to stay anonymous was just another lie

Mr. Majestyk said...

Does anyone know if Ford's husband ever submitted a statement to the committee stating that BK told him in 2012 that BK had attacked her? Or do we just have her testimony that he said she told him?

Doug said...

FIDO at 6:11 - say it again!

surfed said...

Coming down off a bad trip is agonizing and a relief at the same time. The madness of the trip recedes and that crispy burned out feeling takes over. You're thinking "I won't do that again". And then somebody doses your drink and the next bad trip starts anew. It's turned into a vicious never ending cycle.

AllenS said...

What kind of a man would stay married to Ford? How did he feel when Ford said she was afraid of flying? How did he feel when Ford said she needed a second front door because of Kavanaugh, knowing full well that they had that door put in so they could rent out a room? I could go on, but you get the point.

Ann Althouse said...

I've been waiting for the FBI report.

Unlike most people, I don't know who's lying and I only ever talked about who I thought was more LIKELY to be CLOSER to the truth, always only judging by the evidence that was currently available and also talking about what specific question needed to be answered and how it could be answered. When it was decided that the FBI should do the investigation, I refrained from saying how I'd resolve it because there was going to be another step and I could wait for it.

mccullough said...

The GOP is hitting the talking point that the Dems mistreated Ford. Probably effective for gearing up for the election.

But Ford is an operative. A Liar for Hire.

Doug said...

Althouse: "Hey, we're all still maintaining that 'women never lie' ... right? Aren't we ... hey!
*wets finger and sticks it up in the wind*

Six String Aficionado said...

Ann wrote, "I'm sorry for private citizen Christine Blasey Ford if she believes what she said and that the Senate would keep her accusations private, and I'm extremely critical of the Senators who allowed her accusation to become public."

Anyone who tells a member of Congress something that is politically charged and expects it to remain confidential is an damn idiot. I don't think Ford is an idiot, she's a liar but she's not an idiot, this was all carefully crafted as a political hit job to destroy Kavanaugh.

I'm not sorry for Ford one bit, she made her choices.

Ann wrote, "They ought to have made their own attempt at corroboration — or did they try and fail? — and we should never have been subjected to this ordeal."

Come on Ann, it's obvious that they didn't give a damn if it was corroborated or not.

Ann wrote, "It was a shameful display, painful for just about everyone and the pain isn't over yet."

The Democratic Party has set a terrible new precedence in Washington DC that will likely infect the entire United States and that is exactly what Progressives want - chaos.

Annie C said...

A I saw it, the attacks on Althouse about cruel neutrality were based on this comment about Ford's husband saying she was distraught.

"I've got to admit that if I had to say right now, who is more likely to be telling us what is closer to the truth — no stakes, no burden of proof, just who is more likely — I'd have to say her."

It read to many as an emotional response, rather than cruelly neutral.

rhhardin said...

Unlike most people, I don't know who's lying and I only ever talked about who I thought was more LIKELY to be CLOSER to the truth, always only judging by the evidence that was currently available and also talking about what specific question needed to be answered and how it could be answered.

52. If I am inclined to suppose that a mouse has come into being by spontaneous generation out of grey rags and dust, I shall do well to examine those rags very closely to see how a mouse may have hidden in them, how it may have got there and so on. But if I am convinced that a mouse cannot come into being from these things, then this investigation will perhaps be superfluous.

- Wittgenstein

Ralph L said...

I don't think the FBI report will be released, but some of it's bound to be leaked.

mccullough said...

No one knows who is lying. We only know whose story changes the most and when it changes. And does the story make sense. All of stories that are true don’t make sense.

It’s entirely possible that the one person Ford can’t remember at the party must have been the persons whose house it was. One in five odds.

Entirely possible that Ford’s therapist “late teens” and “four attackers” in her notes was the therapists mistake. Or also possible that Ford believes 15 going on 16 is “late teens.”

Entirely possible that the WaPo reporter made a mistake writing down “mid 80s” when first talking to Ford. Or maybe Ford believes summer of ‘82 is “mid 80s.”

It’s entirely possible that Ford’s Lawyers made up the fear of flying to buy more time for other accusers to come forward without telling Ford. So she looks like a bullshitter for something that she never said. It’s also possible that the “second front door” bullshit story she used doesn’t mean she is lying about the attack. Just as Kavanaugh’s lying about the yearbook and never blacking out. Or Ford lying about remembering specifically she had “one beer.”

The odds that all of these possibilities occurred are very low.

Given all this (plus Ford’s hiring of Dem operative Lawyers and her partisan hatred of Trump and that her parents don’t back her up on this), it’s very unlikely that Ford is telling the truth. As a university professor, she’s exactly the type of person who would do this.

mezzrow said...

I think the nexus of your problem with Althouse is that legal thinking is hard for most emotionally driven primates. Like math is for girls, y'know?

Pretend I am your football coach standing in front of the blackboard, and the word ASSUME is written in big letters on said blackboard. Finish this exercise in etymology, and ask your question before you hurl your accusation. This will keep the operating temperature of our host in a range that will not trigger the thermostat to shut the engine down.

Capiche?

Mike Petrik said...

Ann, I just want to thank you for your consistently thoughtful, and especially fair-minded, reporting and reflections on this sad American episode. While all too many "informed" Americans simply took sides and threw rocks, you consistently tried to aim for truth and fairness. Good on you.

rhhardin said...

Kavanaugh only gives women jobs as clerks, though.

David Begley said...

I agree with Ann that many here have been too harsh on her. No point in doing that.

But I do disagree with Althouse in waiting for withholding her decision until the secret FBI report was done.

Any fair minded and critical thinker would have to conclude CBF was lying. Too much evidence against her. No details to her account. No corroboration. Late reports. Two Front Doors. Fear of fling. “Never” helped anyone prepare for a polygraph. Erased social media. Brett’s Summer of ‘82 calendar.

Not deciding was a decision.

mccullough said...

The Suspension of Disbelief

Birkel said...

The post when everybody admits rhhardin was right all along.

sean said...

Wow, it's funny how the other half lives. I can't imagine not having a subscription to the WSJ. (We used to have a NYT subscription too, but with the internet, there's no point in having two newspapers.)

mccullough said...

I want to hear from Squi. If Ford is telling the truth, he’s the only person who knew Kavanaugh and her well back in the summer of 1982.

Kevin said...

The problem isn’t the search for truth. It’s the idea that women’s reproductive rights had anything to do with the truth of what happened that night. Once you include “the stakes” in the search for truth, we begin shifting the burden to the accused.

None of the truth involves his familiy’s pain. And none of the truth involves his judicial philosophy.

Now, if you throw in the rest of it: the interests in fairness (which includes the ability to get more information and the way a burden of proof concept can get to a decision) and the consequences, then it's different. I am not the decisionmaker or the one who is choosing the procedure and analyzing the consequences (the stakes). I haven't gone into all of that. But I'll just say the stakes include more than just how much he and his family and associates will emotionally suffer if he loses. Most notably, the stakes include a person getting a lifetime position of power, some of it involving women's autonomy over our bodies.

9/25/18, 6:20 AM

rehajm said...

Unlike most people, I don't know who's lying

I get that Ann's defending herself but why the backhand at 'most people'? How difficult is it to recognize 'most people' know they are speculating even when it isn't explicit in the speculation?

Eleanor said...

There are uses of the word "neutral" where neutrality can be measured precisely. Like the pH of a solution. Something with a pH of 7 is neither acid or base. Move slightly up or down on the scale, and the solution is no longer neutral. When one looks inside one's closet, the "neutrals" are the clothes that can be paired with all of the other clothes in there. While we usually think of colors like black, gray, and beige as neutrals, in my closet everything will go with red so it becomes a neutral for me. Political neutrality is more like a closet than a test tube. I'm sure in her mind Ann has been neutral about Kavanaugh, but for those of us who use a different scale to measure it, she's been partisan in her support for Ford and her criticism of Kavanaugh. It's not mean or nasty to notice it. It is what it is. I was willing to give Ford the benefit of the doubt until she got caught in a web of lies. Now I want her prosecuted for lying to the senate. Somewhere on that scale I passed through "neutral", but I have no idea where that point was.

Phil 3:14 said...

Is there an esteemed black, female originalist lawyer/judge on the Federalist list for when RBG leaves the court?

Such a nominee would lead to some real fireworks.

Unknown said...

> the Senate would keep her accusations private, and I'm extremely critical of the Senators who allowed her accusation to become public.

If the accuser intended to remain anonymous

When did the Internet get scrubbed?
Takedowns take time

Something fishy here...

If only some reporter was interested in the story

traditionalguy said...

In the end the whole Roman Coliseum circus only proved the innocence of Trump by its using that rare perfect man Kavanaugh in Trump's place for its 24/7 slander by Dems and their owned Media hacks, along with with a cast of thousands that would make Cecil B DeMille envious.

Trump is lucky in his enemies.

tds said...

My pet, completely uncorroborated, but fitting the timeline theory, as follows:

- Ford gets married,
- Ford behaves in a weird, incomprehensible way,
- Irritated husband pushes for couples therapy
- Ford makes up the story + resulting traumas to explain her behavior, and make husband sorry for her,
- She picks up the name that was in the news at that time, with probability she knew him - thus Kavanaugh
- Story was for internal, husband-management use, not to go after K
- Recently, when K's nomination hit the news, it was the husband, who started nagging Ford to do something about this horrible abuser,
- She was forced to continue to play the game to retain credibility within the marriage,
- Sent the letter, really asked to keep it private,
- The store is too delicious for Dems to keep it private, and quickly escalates

- And so, here we are now

Kevin said...

I want to hear from Squi. If Ford is telling the truth, he’s the only person who knew Kavanaugh and her well back in the summer of 1982.

Senator Schumer, is that you?

traditionalguy said...

The next nominee, for RBG's seat, should be Gordon Peterson. His hearings would last months long and be pure entertainment.

Hagar said...

As far as I can see, the purpose of this "FBI report" was only to get the statements of the individuals previously quoted in the media to be restated under oath, or at least under the threat of being prosecuted for "lying to the FBI." (I have been "interviewed" a couple of times when candidates for office have given me as a reference for their "good character," etc. and I do not remember being put under oath or warned about the possible consequences of "lying.")
Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh had both already testified under oath before the committee.

Annie C said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ralph L said...

Squi is the nickname of one of BK's friends who went out with Blasey for a while.

Garrett is his real name. His house is the one Ed Whelan deduced the alleged party was held at.

Annie C said...

I missed something. What's a Squi?

I'm not up on the latest. It's dove season here in Texas and household tradition demands that dove be eaten during Cowboys games. Dove skewers, dove-jalapeno poppers, fried dove with cream gravy. All to ensure a win.

Didn't help last year, probably won't help this year, but the tradition continues, so we have been dove hunting a lot lately.

rehajm said...

Is there an esteemed black, female originalist lawyer/judge on the Federalist list for when RBG leaves the court?.

Negative.

Annie C said...

Ah, okay, got it. Thanks Ralph!

EDH said...

Althouse said...
I'm not going to take the trouble to go all Kavanaugh on you...

Have to admit Althouse just saying that kind of turns me on, based on the belief, of course, that CBF could be telling the truth.

gilbar said...

Birkel said...
when everybody admits rhhardin was right all along.

._ _ . ._.. .. _._ . ._. .... .... ._ ._. _.. .. _.

Unknown said...

- Recently, when K's nomination hit the news, it was the husband, who started nagging Ford to do something about this horrible abuser,

She lived with never married high school FBI beach friend

Unknown said...

> watching her voice change from baby talk to an adult

Maybe she is a big fan of Mae Questel (Boop, Good Ship Lollipop, Olive Oyl)

PJ said...

Following up on Eleanor’s discussion of “neutrality,” there’s something to be said about “cruel” as well. I always thought (perhaps incorrectly) that “cruel” was for politicians and other public political actors like party apparatchiks, not for “private citizens.” There is continuing disagreement about whether CBF ought to (still) be regarded as a private citizen, and I think that disagreement may be driving some of the criticism of our fair hostess, who has signaled clearly her willingness to accord CBF “private citizen” status. Personally, I think relaxed cruelty for private citizens is a good policy, but in any case “cruel neutrality” is Ann’s thing and she gets to define the terms.

mccullough said...

Funny how her sorta boyfriend from that summer has a house whose interior matches up with Ford’s original description.

It’s as if Ford set her story in a house she knew. But then she says it wasn’t his house. And he’s Kavanaugh and her friend. Really the only connection between them.

Squi talked to the FBI. It’s why Kavanaugh came back clean and the Dems are backing down.

Unknown said...

> go all Kavanaugh on you

Feminist

Althouse is not a fan of

Learned Hand

"[o]ur procedure has been always haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted"

Mike Sylwester said...

If the FBI still were headed by "Crazy Comey the Leaker", Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and their ilk, then the FBI would have dragged this investigation out beyond the midterm elections.

Sloanasaurus said...

An investigation of who leaked her allegation definitely needs to take place. Her allegations are totally uncorroborated, and her story has been altered when evidence was provided that her previous recollection wasn't working. Moreover, her claims about having suffered from the attack are also suspicious.

Thus there is a significant risk that her allegations are false, either because she is lying outright, or that it really happened to her 30 years ago, but it was someone else, or that a false memory was implanted in her mind by a therapist. Moreover, the incentive to come up with a false allegation is extremely high for this case. Thousands of people would be willing to take a bullet to keep Kavanaugh from getting concerned.


Moreover, there is also the incentive to profit from the allegation. She has already made $1 million from a gofund me campaign. And based on the career of Anita Hill she will be a welcomed speaker and guest for years to come in liberal circles.

For those reasons the allegations cannot be taken seriously, and should be discarded. Their only affect is to slime a good person and his family.

tim in vermont said...

I would take nearly any black lady off the street over RBG.

Gender politics: “Wait a minute! You saying you got no dick but you a man?”

Privacy: “None of your business!”

Immigration: “So what you’re telling me is that a brother born here in America has to sit home with no job because some guy came here from Mexico breaking the law? When you KNOW if it was a brother breaking the law his ass would be in jail!”

2A: “Let me get this straight, I have to trust the police to protect my ass?”

I am not even kidding. The average black lady is more conservative than the average white male.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave Begley said...

Here's a real Omaha story that bears on this Kavanaugh thing and Ann's position.

Two years ago in Omaha, Creighton's star basketball player was charged with rape. His name is Maurice Watson and he is black. He was headed to the NBA and then he suffered a terrible knee injury. The night before a home game (in which he was not playing because he was injured) he attends a late night house party. He has sex in the bathroom with a woman. She goes to the ER. At the prelim hearing the ER people testify about a significant vaginal tear.

My youngest was in college at the time. She asked me about it. My exact response was, "Wait for the trial. Consent is always an issue." But it looked bad to me. The county attorney is very good and very careful.

Watson's female defense attorney does what a good attorney should. In pretrial discovery, she tore apart the woman's case on consent and based on other stuff. The county attorney dismissed the case. That rarely happens. He knew he would lose and justice would not be served by taking it to trial.

This female defense attorney saved Watson's life. He's playing pro basketball in Asia now.

My view is that Kavanaugh had his trial and he won. He was mostly his own defense attorney with an assist from Rachael Mitchell and Lindsay Graham. CBF and her lawyers are all liars. An innocent man had had a sterling reputation destroyed. The secret FBI report adds nothing. It was a delay tactic and McGuffin.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Sylwester said...

I wonder if Christine returned (or will return) to California by flying in an airplane.

After all, her emotional trauma from that incident 35 years ago still makes her afraid to fly.

glenn said...

More Dem temper tantrums in 5 .... 4 .... 3 .... 2.

mikee said...

Now the Democrats can move on from smearing a highly qualified and innocent man, in a failed attempt to stop him from ascending to a Supreme Court seat, to smearing all men in their political campaign for control of the House and Senate over the next few weeks.

The Democrats will attempt to convince women to vote for the party of the vile Clintons, the party of spouse abuser Kieth Ellison, the party of woman-murdering Ted Kennedy, the party of Creepy Uncle Joe Biden, on the basis that Republicans support mistreatment of women, as seen somehow through the example of the Democrats' abusive public humiliation of Christine Blasey Ford.

Mike Sylwester said...

Maybe Christine still might remember whether she actually gave the marriage-counseling record to the Washington Post reporter.

If she ever does recover that memory, she still could inform the Judiciary Committee and the public.

stlcdr said...

Interesting that AA notes '...going all Kavanaugh..'.

AA is close to being in Kavanaugh's shoes, having to defend herself quite emphatically. The difference, of course, is that we have documented statements by AA. What if that documentation was scrubbed or doctored, or falls by the wayside (naturally archived or deleted) relying on memories of something past? The facts have not changed but there would be little evidence one way or another. Who would we believe, AA or the accuser?

JPS said...

mccullough, 7:57:

"It’s why Kavanaugh came back clean and the Dems are backing down."

We'll see about that second point.

If the Democrats and, coincidentally, lots and lots of analysts in the media, push hard on the limited scope and artificially short timeline, they're not backing down. They'll be making the case for wrongful, even rigged, exoneration.

If they continue to press full-bore on partisanship and temperament, I'll know you're right.

Mike Sylwester said...

Maybe that's why Christine wanted the FBI to interview her.

Maybe she remembered whether she gave the marriage-counseling record to the Washington Post reporter and wanted to clarify that point to the FBI.

Unknown said...

The senators who made Dr Ford's allegations public and exploited them never truly believed Kavanaugh was a sex offender. Nor do they have any honest concerns now about his temperament although they did expect him to roll over and play dead.)

Chris of Rights said...

Althouse: I've been waiting for the FBI report. ...

If I could LIKE a comment here, I certainly would be clicking the thumbs up on this one.

MayBee said...

Her attorneys really are pieces of work. They refused to turn over therapist notes or her polygraph reports, but said they would turn them over to the FBI.
The FBI didn't question her, and the attorneys are saying they didn't question Ford or her corroborating witnesses. There are none! Insanity.

Mike Sylwester said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scientific Socialist said...

"When you see Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them that Lindsey said hello because I voted for them. I would never do to them what you've done to this guy. This is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics. And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you've done to this guy." - Sen. Lindsey Graham, 9/27/18

Mike Sylwester said...

Every Republican in California has a sacred duty to vote for Feinstein's main opponent in the midterm elections.

Feinstein can be defeated, but all of California's Republicans have to hold their noses and vote for her more leftist opponent.

Mike Sylwester said...

All this would have been avoided if Brett had killed Christine.

He almost did.

But then Mark jumped onto the bed and distracted him.

rhhardin said...

Christine Ford imitator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTa2JkqNJ94

tim in vermont said...

There big problem with his temperament is that he refused to withdraw, subjecting Democrats to this painful vote. The dog that isn’t barking is that they aren’t even trying to get Trump to withdraw his name. Trump has won that fight.

Mike Sylwester said...

If you want to lash out on me, don't mischaracterize my previous statements.

It happens all the time to Chuck on your blog.

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ray - SoCal said...

Fords Best Friend, 24 year fbi veteran agent/lawyer, and her seeemed to have cooked this up.

The letter sent to the house representative was written at her house.

Senate only later got involved...

Retired FBI Agent/DOJ Lawyer Ms. Monica McLean Attended Kavanaugh Hearing With Blasey-Ford…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/10/03/retired-fbi-agent-doj-lawyer-ms-monica-mclean-attended-kavanaugh-hearing-with-blasey-ford/

roesch/voltaire said...

Yes the fix is in as the FBI didn't interview roommates etc who wanted to make statements about about how Kavanaugh lied under oath about his year book entries and drinking at Yale.

Ray - SoCal said...

I wonder what the trap was for the fbi interview of Ford, her lawyers set.

Rick said...

Kavanaugh lied under oath about his year book entries and drinking at Yale.

Oh noes - he drank in college!

What a pack of fools.

sinz52 said...

To show you how shameless they are:

Ford's lawyers just announced that they will release evidence supporting Ford if the vote is delayed and the FBI gets to interview her. Meaning that they withheld evidence all this time.

If my lawyers had deliberately withheld evidence that would have supported my position, I would fire them on the spot.

Fabi said...

"Read carefully and not hotheadedly. Straighten up and try to correct what you've already gotten wrong. Some of you own me apologies."

Tissue?

mccullough said...

Dems should run on the promise that if elected they are going to investigate Kavanaugh for lying about his yearbook and then impeach him for those lies.

That is an issue that will drive home with voters how fucking far over the cliff the Dems have gone.

Michael K said...

I'm sorry for private citizen Christine Blasey Ford if she believes what she said and that the Senate would keep her accusations private, and I'm extremely critical of the Senators who allowed her accusation to become public.

I'm not. I originally thought this was a case of recovered memory and she believed her memory, even if wrong.

Now, I think she lied and probably made the whole thing up with the aid of her friend, the former FBI agent and classmate that she coached in polygraphs. The letter was composed at the friend's resident in Delaware. Bromwich was added to the team to complete the FBI connection.

The letter was carefully constructed to avoid details and checkable dates so the libel risk could be minimized.

The calendars were not expected. She was forced to change dates around and Rachel Mitchell caught her at it.

I think the ex-boyfriend's letter was significant in two ways. She was promiscuous and dishonest.

That's aside from the lies about flying and claustrophobia.

Like the Bush AWOL story in 2004, this was not uncovered by the media or the legal system. It was exposed by private individuals and blogs.

Fabi said...

Where does Kavanaugh go to get his reputation back?

mccullough said...

Kavanaugh’s calendars have become the Pumpkin Papers.

Ford’s lawyers now want to change her testimony again.

Michael K said...


Blogger rehajm said...
Is there an esteemed black, female originalist lawyer/judge on the Federalist list for when RBG leaves the court?.

Negative.


I would like to see Trump name Janice Rogers Brown even though she is 67, just to right the wrong done to her by Democrats who filibustered her nomination to the DC Circuit so Bush could not nominate the first black female to the Court.

Spiros Pappas said...

Weak. Would be nice for a newspaper to show some backbone and publish an inflammatory open letter like "J'Accuse…!" In his editorial, Emile Zola, to a wide audience and at great personal expense, exposed a military cover-up regarding Captain Alfred Dreyfus. That's courage. There must be something out there that would cause a genuine crisis in this country. Torture? Kidnappings? Police state? Real concentration camps somewhere. I'd even settle for aliens! Something... These law profs are not Emile Zola.

Anyways, this anti-Kavanaugh letter is total bullsh*t. I mean we get it. Kavanaugh is a pig rapist and a Brooks Brother Republican. He's a dry drunk with a short fuse. He can't take a joke for Christ's sake. And, of course, he's another open borders, imperial presidency, Republican apparatchik. Sad. I hope these people come to their senses.

mockturtle said...

I don't know who's lying and I only ever talked about who I thought was more LIKELY to be CLOSER to the truth, always only judging by the evidence that was currently available

And what 'evidence' might that be?

DavidD said...

“They ought to have made their own attempt at corroboration — or did they try and fail?”

Here’s a thought—maybe Senator Feinstein could’ve asked Judge Kavanaugh directly as soon as she got the letter.

Mike Sylwester said...

Civility-preaching Democrats liked FBI investigations a lot more when the investigations proved that Donald Trump was colluding with Vladimir Putin to buy Facebook ads to meddle in our 2016 election.

chickenlittle said...

Blogger Christopher said...”Apparently Ronan Farrow decided to light his reputation on fire.”

He did it his way.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...It was a shameful display, painful for just about everyone and the pain isn't over yet.

I agree and it's certainly a shame. The stakes were high, though, and I guess women's bodily autonomy is still at risk so that's worth keeping in mind.

I definitely don't want to owe Professor Althouse an apology and hope anyone who does gives one freely and with their whole heart.

Regarding the pain, though: are you laughing at anyone's pain today, Professor? You gave advice about a potential trap and said that there was a danger that if people didn't recognize that danger that you'd be laughing at their pain later. From what I can tell Kavanaugh avoided the trap you identified so I guess that laughter didn't happen--but are you laughing at the pain of anyone else today? If not do you anticipate laughing at the pain of anyone else after the vote on Kavanaugh occurs?

Did anyone else fail to take advice of yours--stated or implied advice--on this subject that would cause you to laugh at their pain? I think you talked about the need to focus on the big charges/not water down accusations against Kavanaugh with weaker allegations, and the Democrats certainly did that; will you laugh at the pain of Democrats upset that their tactics did not succeed?

Francisco D said...

This whole episode was a cynical attempt to manipulate women who have been sexually harassed or sexually assaulted , particularly whose aggressor was protected and never punished. That is a sizable demographic.

The Cracker Emcee Rampant said...

"They ought to have made their own attempt at corroboration — or did they try and fail?"

Oh, Althouse. You are a funny, funny lady.

Howard said...

Clearly, the FBI is intimidated by Trump which caused them to whitewash Bart O'K. This is not due process, it's a rubber stamp. An independent council should be appointed to get to the bottom of this.

walter said...

AllenS said...I don't have a lot of faith in the FBI. I think a lot of people feel this way. Their report will more than likely contain a lot of weasel words that will be interpreted by some (Democrats) that Kavanaugh might, or is guilty.
--
Now, after pleading for FBI, the new thinking will be the FBI is not in position to come to conclusions, as Biden said.
And yes..new "evidence"..of course.
What's the hurry, right?

gerry said...

She still thinks Progressives/Liberals have ethics and consistent moral definitions.

She is indeed sad.

Darrell said...

Althouse built the best blog on the internet. It's even better because it's still here.
I feel grateful every day I come here.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...
I've been waiting for the FBI report.

Unlike most people, I don't know who's lying and I only ever talked about who I thought was more LIKELY to be CLOSER to the truth, always only judging by the evidence that was currently available and also talking about what specific question needed to be answered and how it could be answered.


The FBI report, like most background investigations, is confidential, though, so were you waiting for it to be done at all or waiting for some third party's report on what the FBI report says?

I like your summary of how you handled judgement of this situation but I note that it lacks any mention of emotion. From your description your process sounds cold and machine-like but you've reminded us time and time again to take note of the role our feelings play in our cognitive processes. Would you mind addressing how your own emotions influenced your perception of who was "more LIKELY to be CLOSER to the truth" or what questions needed to be asked or what standard should be used to evaluate the available evidence?

It can't be the case that emotion played no role--certainly if we think deeply about the situation emotion must have some (likely large) influence. Will you tell us about how your emotion affected your thinking on this topic?

Roughcoat said...

I agree with Michael K @8:50 AM.

Michael K said...

The mocking of Blasey Ford is just getting started.

Scroll down to the voice video. This is not over as far as she is concerned.

Bruce Hayden said...

"I don't have a lot of faith in the FBI. I think a lot of people feel this way. Their report will more than likely contain a lot of weasel words that will be interpreted by some (Democrats) that Kavanaugh might, or is guilty."

Blogger roesch/voltaire said...
"Yes the fix is in as the FBI didn't interview roommates etc who wanted to make statements about about how Kavanaugh lied under oath about his year book entries and drinking at Yale"

Yes, I would figure that the fix really was in here. A day or two ago, we found out that Crooked Hillary's lawyers, the ones who had hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research, had met with FBI leadership in October or so, 2016, right before the election. Which, if f course, did not end up in the Carter Page FISA warrant applications. This apparently from their former top attorney in closed session with a Congressional committee. And the agency got caught redacting like crazy in response to Congressional and FOIA requests to avoid embarrassment - such as redacting that former DDir McCabe had spent $70k for a conference room table (around which the "insurance policy" was plotted). The top of the agency has been proven to have been highly crooked. The axe is falling, in trying to clean it up. The civil servants in the agency are careerists, and the last thing that they want right now is naked visibility with the Trump Administration, which would be, at this point in time, detrimental, if not fatal, to their careers. Before this entire scheme, implicating the top of the FBI, had come out, the Dems could have maybe expected some Deep State support. Not now, now that the FBI had been shown to have been plotted to swing the elections with that party's Presidential nominee.

Howard said...

Blogger AllenS said...

What kind of a man would stay married to Ford? How did he feel when Ford said she was afraid of flying? How did he feel when Ford said she needed a second front door because of Kavanaugh, knowing full well that they had that door put in so they could rent out a room? I could go on, but you get the point.


These are the same exact type of excuses my Brothers ex-wife made when she left him because of his Vietnam-caused PTS. He's always armed, he has to sit in the back corner, he's hyper vigilant, he has thrashing nightmares, etc.

The Cracker Emcee Rampant said...

Cruel neutrality cannot exist independent of an understanding of current reality. Otherwise you just end up being someone's tool.

Michael K said...


Blogger Howard said...
Clearly, the FBI is intimidated by Trump which caused them to whitewash Bart O'K.


I guess they are worried about how many of them will go to prison for the attempted coup d'etat.

McCabe and his $700,000 "donation" from Hillary's pals is only the first.

Rick said...

I'm sorry for private citizen Christine Blasey Ford if she believes what she said and that the Senate would keep her accusations private, and I'm extremely critical of the Senators who allowed her accusation to become public.

The "if" in this sentence is doing an awful lot of work considering how poorly it is supported. The expression would be more compelling if that analysis were included. While Ford claims she didn't want publicity she both contacted the WAPO and scrubbed her online presence. It's more believable this is a sympathy ploy which would also explain why DiFi leaked her name - because that was the agreed plan.

Howard said...

Trump's speech about Ford was mocking. He did it in that classic Bill Dana style. Subtle enough to give him and his devoted cultists plausible deniability. He is a savant... a literal idiot savant

Roughcoat said...

I never saw CBF as "LIKELY to be CLOSER" to the truth. From where I stand she was LIKELY to be closer to falsehood. I believe that it is also LIKELY that she was a willing participant in an orchestrated attempt to bring down Kavanagh. I believe it is LIKELY that she is a liar, deeply neurotic, perhaps slightly mad. I believe the evidence that is "currently available" supports this view.

Michael K said...

"I hope these people come to their senses."

In your case, I think it unlikely. I have wondered if you are just a bot. If you know about Dreyfus, maybe you are real.

Has it occurred to you that what the FBI has tried to do to the elected president, even if you don't like him, is similar to the Dreyfus case ?

It cost France the Second World War. The rot in the French Army lasted 50 years. I recommend the deGaulle biography I'm reading if you are interested.

Michael K said...

Trump's speech about Ford was mocking. He did it in that classic Bill Dana style.

This is only the beginning of the mocking she is going to get. Did you look at that link I posted about her little girl voice ?

Of course not.

buwaya said...

Its only going to get uglier.

becauseIdbefired said...

Ann,

Please stop lying about me. I'm not going to take the trouble to go all Kavanaugh on you, but many of you are lying about me. I have maintained neutrality throughout this discussion. Look back at exactly what I have said, not what people have said about me.

The following statement made me question your equanimity regarding Kavanaugh, the hearings, and the charges. I'm having a hard time seeing it any other way than because of K.'s supposed constitutional beliefs on Roe v. Wade, it is fair to use other means to get rid of the guy. Perhaps I'm misreading, or misunderstanding your point (it would not be the first time).

Meanwhile, I do appreciate your efforts to remain neutral on the subject (though I do not understand your defense of the, IMO, indefensible cartoon with Kavanaugh's daughter).

I am genuinely working my way toward what I want to say about Kavanaugh's predicament.

. . .

3. It's not a case of whether it would be fair to prosecute him for sexual assault after so many years and with this little evidence, but a question whether this person should be confirmed to take Justice Kennedy's seat on the Court and to have power for a lifetime to make decisions that will quite specifically determine the scope of women's rights. He has no right to the seat that's comparable to a right to remain free from criminal penalties.

I assume "It's" is "Kavanaugh's predicament is not a case of," and then go on to defend because he will have great power. Seems wrong to me. And note, these are within the frame of what you want to say. Which I translate to mean your deep seated beliefs.

If I misread this, I would greatly appreciate your correction. I work in software, and am wrong all the time.

Howard said...

Mike K : basking in victory, dreaming of failed conspiracies, peeling grapes and kicking dogs when they are down. Classic DSM paranoid personality disorder

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

but but but... Chris Coons and his boof buddy Jeff Flake have more allegations rolling in. They set up a 1-800 free hotline.

Did Kavanaugh rape you in the 1980s?

Bruce Hayden said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcocean said...

The problem was that a liberal/Left flakey woman with a bad memory was allowed to almost destroy a SCOTUS nominee with 36 y/o fraudulent accusations regarding a groping.

All this was pitched to Flake, the 3 Female Senators (Collins, Murokowski, and ND Senator) and women voters in general.

It seems you can put all the serious people in DC - concerned about our Constitution and the Country - in a thimble. These accusations - even if true - had zero impact on whether Kavanaugh was qualified for the court.

But it was a fascinating soap opera while it lasted.

Ken B said...

As a critic of yours these past few weeks I will count myself as one of those mentioned in your first “ I am perfectly neutral and don’t you forget it” comments.
No, I do not think you were neutral. You want quotes you say. Which comments did you quote? Which did you refute? Not one, not a single one, in weeks. I gave reasons in several of my comments, that is I bolstered my attack on you. Where is your evidence against me, or any of the others?
You should know that a judgment cannot be a lie. We *judge* your commentary. Sometimes we approv. I approve of this post. I do not approve of others and say so. That cannot even logically be lying.
I have pointed out many, many times that introspection is a flawed tool. You might *feel* you are being neutral, but that does not mean you are. You need to step back and look at the *evidence* not the contents of your mind. Example: Several of your printed statements made implicit assumptions, often in heated terms. That is objective evidence of a lack of neutrality.
So, no apology, no retraction.

Bruce Hayden said...

I had this thought last night. Ford made, essentially two claims against Kavenaugh. The first was that he had sexually assaulted her. My position is that the police would have laughed at that complaint, not pursuing it unless pushed by a politically well connected parent. It was the sort of teenaged necking that went on millions of times every weekend, where the boy tries to get to second base, until rebuffed by the girl. I have been there, as have most everyone else here.

But the more serious charge, we are told, is the claimed attempted murder. The problem there is that, with the facts alleged, was that attempted murder? The assertion is that Kavenaugh put his hand over her mouth to keep her quiet, and as a result, she thought that she might not be able to breath, and therefore might die as a result. Would that be attempted murder? I would suggest that it wouldn't. The problem is that that claim gets the intent requirement backwards. What Ford thought at the time is, really, irrelevant. Attempted murder requires specific intent. It requires that the defendant intentionally tried to kill the victim. Which is to say that it looks to the defendant's state of mind at the time, not the victim's. Was he knowingly trying to kill her? And here, she stated that his intent was to keep her quiet. Not to kill her, but to temporarily keep her quiet. Of course, if she had died during his (claimed) attempt to keep her quiet, then he most likely would have committed a homicide, probably either depraved heart/mind second degree murder or some level of manslaughter, but still not attempted murder.

rcocean said...

Even worse, was absurd serious pomposity that others, including Republicans, held - or pretended to hold- Ms. Ford's charges.

He put his hand over her mouth for a few seconds - and that turns into attempted Murder! A drunk 17 y/o boy, jumps on top of her, gropes her for a few minutes - and that's turned into attempted Rape!

Injuries? None. Torn clothes? None. Reports to authorities or parents? None. Discussions with Girl friends? None.

There's someone really wrong, when this level of nonsense is treated seriously in a SCOTUS Nomination.

rcocean said...

BTW, I've said a 'few minutes' just as a guess, because no one ever asked Ford how long the assault lasted!

Nor did they ask her about the bed, the lock on the doors, how she knew where the bathroom was, why she went upstairs, the color of the bedroom walls, what Kavanaugh was wearing, what clothes she wore, or why she was wearing a swimsuit.

And she remembers nothing before she went into the magic house, and nothing AFTER she left the magic house.

FIDO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ken B said...

Annie C at 7:04 is a good example of what I meant at 9:57 This is a case where bias shows through. If Ann were really neutral she would have examined the remark when people pointed it out, and copped to the fault, and made a mental correction. Instead she simply denies what every can plainly see. That shows she is not invigilating her own thinking, and that discredits her assertions of perfect neutrality.

Ken B said...

“I've been waiting for the FBI report.”

For weeks you have been waiting for the report which was only decided upon 6 days ago? And now that you haven’t read the report it is suddenly the time to expatiate?

Mike Sylwester said...

Someone in Hollywood should make a teen-comedy movie where Brett does kill Christine by covering her mouth.

And then Brett and Mark have to get rid of her dead body.

Maybe they would put the body in the trunk of the car of Brett's parents, and then the car accidentally falls into a river.

What a hilarious predicament for Brett !!!

Marcus said...

"Read carefully and not hotheadedly. Straighten up and try to correct what you've already gotten wrong. Some of you own me apologies."

Maybe you better put some ice on that.

Bruce Hayden said...

Another reason that the FBI has to tread lightly here is that Ford's BFF, the woman who accompanied her to the Senate hearing was Monica Lee McLean, a career FBI attorney, who retired in 2016 after 26 years with the agency.

Michael K said...

Blogger Howard said...
Mike K : basking in victory,


You bet your ass. The poor dim Democrats thought they had this killer plan. Except it killed them. Sort of like the Russian submarine in Hunt for Red October.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

No one is truly neutral. That much honesty we certainly should be able to muster. Also, we all were/ are only guessing as to who was/is to be believed. Now with this abbreviated FBI report we know nothing more, despite witnesses begging to be interviewed. If this man becomes a Supreme Court Justice, Democrats will win the Senate along with the House. If you think Democrats have been angry for the last year and a half, you haven’t seen anything yet.

Michael K said...

Howard need to read the NY Post about the effect of the Kavanaugh hit.

Whatever the outcome of the immediate contest, it’s increasingly clear that Democrats and the media establishment made an enormous miscalculation by waging total war against Kavanaugh and his family.

Liberals set out to cast the federal judge — amiable, well-credentialed, mildly conservative — as a demon. In the process, they have reminded GOP voters and all but the most stubborn Never Trump intellectuals that there are worse things than Donald Trump’s outbursts and the ineptitude of congressional Republicans.

Whatever disputes we have on our own side, the thinking on the right now goes, we have to set them aside and stop a politics of personal destruction, fueled by a moral panic and an uncritical mainstream media that sees itself as an adjunct of the anti-Trump resistance.


Poor Howard.

Michael K said...

I guess Inga should read that piece , too. Assuming the words are not too long.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Assuming the words are not too long.”

Michael K should be careful to not get too excited today, at his age his blood vessels might not deal well with the elevated BP.

Mike Sylwester said...

Following up my comment at 10:20

A teen-comedy movie about Brett killing Christina and then, with his drinking buddy Mark, hiding her body could be a great period piece evoking the year 1982. The movie could feature songs that were hits in that year, for example:

"Physical" by Olivia Newton-John
"Don't You Want Me?" by The Human League
"Hurts So Good" by John Cougar
"Hard to Say I'm Sorry" by Chicago
"Tainted Love" by Soft Cell
"Harden My Heart" by Quarterflash
"I Can't Go for That (No Can Do)" by Hall & Oates
"You Should Hear How She Talks About You" by Melissa Manchester
"Waiting for a Girl Like You" by Foreigner
"Don't Talk to Strangers" by Rick Springfield
"Shake It Up" by The Cars
"Let It Whip" by Dazz Band
"Sweet Dreams" by Air Supply
"Only the Lonely" by The Motels
"Let's Groove" by Earth, Wind & Fire
"Leather and Lace" by Stevie Nicks and Don Henley
"Heat of the Moment" by Asia
"Take It Easy on Me" by Little River Band
"Trouble" by Lindsey Buckingham
"Love's Been a Little Bit Hard on Me" by Juice Newton
"Freeze-Frame" by The J. Geils Band
"Caught Up In You" by.38 Special
"Wasted on the Way" by Crosby, Stills & Nash
"Our Lips Are Sealed" by The Go-Go's
"You Could Have Been with Me" by Sheena Easton
"Did It in a Minute" by Hall & Oates
"Oh No" by the Commodores
"Take It Away" by Paul McCartney
"Should I Do It?" by The Pointer Sisters
"Kids in America" by Kim Wilde
"Goin' Down" by Greg Guidry
"Edge of Seventeen" by Stevie Nicks

Ken B said...

Jibbers, I agree with Inga again. No one is truly neutral, the best you can do is try. But if you just assume and insist you are, if you refuse to consider the complaints even of people you have admired, like “ace commenter “ Laslo then it’s clear *you aren’t even trying*.

Ken B said...

Latest tweet from Donald J. Althouse:
“I am the most neutral person in the world. Nobody does neutrality like me. Nobody.”

FIDO said...

I am walking down an alley.

I see around a corner a man being beaten by a bunch of human jackals with sticks, ala A Clockwork Orange.


I remain cruelly neutral to the situation, taking neither side.


I walk down another alley. There is a woman being raped by several men.


Again, I remain cruelly neutral and silent.


Whom does my silence help? Whom does it hurt? And after the shameful act is done, what sort of person does it make me to say 'Well...that was just wrong. They shouldn't have done that.'

Now, Althouse is not going to single handedly going to write DiFi and show her the error of her ways

But don't give me the 'cruelly neutral' BS argument. In some circumstances, silence to allow a bad act to continue IS consent. If a few thousand, or even hundreds of Althouses had written their Senators, particularly in some tight race states, this farce would have stopped.

Oh look! Tammy Baldwin, Senator from Wisconsin, is in a DEAD HEAT with her rival this year.

I would love to hear (and even more, wish to believe) that Althouse wrote her Senator to decry this. I'd even take back half the bad things I've written.

Inga...Allie Oop said...

“Latest tweet from Donald J. Althouse:
“I am the most neutral person in the world. Nobody does neutrality like me. Nobody.””

Ohhhh hahahahaha, now that is funny! Thanks for the laugh, I’ll be chuckling all day.

Yancey Ward said...

The 10th person is likely to be Swetnick.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Imagine how different things would have been if the Dem Senators had constrained themselves and focused solely on Ford's accusation. They could have hammered Kav. on the nature of memory, on how we could be certain, asked about any regrets he may have about how he treated any women he dated/interacted with around that time, etc. They could have made it a true he said/she said and could have worked to make Kav either undermine his own certainty or make broad statements many would see as unsupportable.

What they did instead was open things up and include ridiculous allegations (like, you know, that he ran or participated in multiple gang rapes) and tried to take the focus off of Ford and on to something else--a history of drinking when he was young and the fact that he now has "multiple" accusations of wrongdoing.

That was a huge mistake! They couldn't have PROVEN anything w/r/t Ford (due to the gaps in her story that make corroboration nearly impossible) but they could have made her allegations look both stronger and more damaging to Kavanaugh. Instead they chose to go after something they felt they could prove--that Kavanaugh drank a lot and that he has multiple accusations now. But proving that didn't sink Kavanaugh, and won't! He admits that he drank and most reasonable people don't think "drinking as a young person in the 1980s" is disqualifying. Now-Justice Breyer got arrested for underage drinking and no one cares. The other accusations against Kavanaugh--the ones that allow the Media and Dems to say "multiple accusers!" over and over again--are pathetically weak and HARM the idea that Ford's accusation should be taken seriously. The Media ran with a story that Kav raped and possibly murdered someone one a boat--but the person who made that smear retracted the story and apologized for it hours earlier!

Including ridiculous smears served to bring the "believability" average of the whole package down and made it easier for people to dismiss Ford's accusation as just another politically-motivated hit. The way Ford's accusation was handled had already weakened it, and bundling other weaker accusations in while broadening the focus diminished the affect it could have had.

That's how I view it, anyway. I was inclined to think an unsupported accusation wasn't enough (and to get angry at the people who said that it was), but the way the Dems handled this made even that case weaker.

Not Sure said...

"I'll take 'Banalities' for $200, Alex."

No one is truly neutral. That much honesty we certainly should be able to muster.

Bzzzzt. "What are things nobody says when they're winning an argument?"

Yancey Ward said...

David Begley said...

"By noon, the Dem Senators will be lying and leaking about the report."

I understand why the Senate and the FBI want these things kept confidential- public release makes getting background interviews more difficult, and makes them less reliable in high profile cases, but I think that if the reports really do find nothing more, and I predicted they wouldn't, then I think it dangerous to lie about it because Grassley might well counter a lie with public release. I almost think the point of McConnell's statement about how it would be viewed was a honeytrap.

FIDO said...

Oops. It was an older poll. She is still within 8 or so points...and I'm guessing that the Deplorables were under represented AGAIN.

I doubt it is a COMFORTABLE race for her.

The Cracker Emcee Rampant said...


"What they did instead was open things up and include ridiculous allegations (like, you know, that he ran or participated in multiple gang rapes)"

Someday to be known as the Trump Dissonance. It'll be interesting to see if Democrats can absorb this lesson. I doubt it. White middle-class Democrats would rather emote than hold power.

Known Unknown said...

"Ann wrote, "They ought to have made their own attempt at corroboration — or did they try and fail? — and we should never have been subjected to this ordeal."

The allegation is the punishment.

Drago said...

Inga: "Now with this abbreviated FBI report we know nothing more, despite witnesses begging to be interviewed."

"abbreviated"

"witnesses"

LOL

Like the witness who finally admitted he had gotten his story second-hand but the "witness" he identified denied knowing anything about it!

Poor Inga. Hasnt she suffered enough with one obvious lefty lie collapse after another?

And on top of that the obvious finally comes out that the corrupted Comey crew worked directly with the DNC lawyers in 2016 on the hoax collusion claims.

It just keeps getting better and better.

Economy anyone?

PB said...

I'm sure the Democrats will claim the results from this latest FBI activity introduce new information that shows Kavanaugh to be unfit, but they are unwilling to state what that is and will fight any effort to release the updated FBI investigation results.

The Democrat party has managed to assemble the worst of the worst from their ranks as US Senators.

readering said...

Sounds like Flake and Collins satisfied with FBI report. Game over.

Rick said...

No one is truly neutral, the best you can do is try.

People who say no one is truly neutral are trying to erase the difference between those who both try and are reasonably successful and those who either fail or don't try.

This is similar to how Inga claims "everyone" is "guessing". Her estimates are based on party and gender allegiance while others base their estimates on evidence. An estimate of likelihood based on evidence is not a guess. The description of everything as a guess is an effort to hide the difference between basing estimates on party/gender loyalty and basing them on evidence.

Caligula said...

"I'm sorry for private citizen Christine Blasey Ford if she believes what she said ...."

It's not really clear whether this is a memory she's had continuously since circa 1982, or whether it was recovered/discovered in therapy. The matter seems relevant as, while all long-term memory is unreliable, recovered memories are particularly so.

Unfortunately, if she really didn't tell anyone about this until she was in therapy in 2012 there can be no way to know what type of memory this is. Other than whatever self-serving statements she or her lawyer may see fit to offer, of course.

Ken B said...

Caligula
Is there by any chance a horse you could appoint to the senate? Or even a front half, for Cory Booker?

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"Straighten up and try to correct what you've already gotten wrong. Some of you own me apologies."

Shut the fuck up, you don't get to walk back your role as an accomplice in the attempted rape of Judge Kavanaugh's career, family, and reputation. You claim that people are lying about you and falsely stating things about you? Maybe you feel a tiny amount of the destruction that you helped reign down on Kavanaugh. Go fucking cry about it like you are at a dinner party with a libertarian.

Sorry? I'm sorry I didn't call out your disgusting feminist rape attempt earlier.

Much like the voters are not going to forget what evil disgusting monsters the Democrats are, we aren't going to forget your role in this charade.

I look forward to laughing at your pain when you dreams of forcing people to bake your kid a cake through the threat of government violence goes bye bye this weekend.

readering said...

"Voters...forget". Pointed out by journalist friend that election is in 5 weeks and 5 weeks ago was the anonymous NYT op ed. So much happens so fast these days.

Yancey Ward said...

Well, Flake sounded that way before. Time to visit another elevator.

gahrie said...

I have maintained neutrality throughout this discussion

"Neutrality" in this case was supporting the Democrats and a woman lying to destroy a man's character.



readering said...

Ok well I know what neutral isn't

JML said...

Trump chose well: He knew Kavanaugh was up for the crucifixion. Kavanaugh is a good man.

Not Sure said...

To follow up on rhhardin's comment somewhere on Bayesian inference, I think to Althouse "neutral" means using a "diffuse" prior probability. To her critics, that seems more cruel than neutral when there is a clear empirical basis for using an informative prior.

FIDO said...

Some of the people here are passionate and some of us are partisan but many of us are not (I do not count myself in that number. But being passionate and partisan does not automatically make one WRONG. Even Inga might be correct one day)

So there was a vote on this blog. Many very smart people read every word that Althouse stated. They weighed and they measured. They cross referenced and saw how certain stances would result in certain results by Althouse.

We had a vote.

And the vast majority, while saying nice things about Althouse generally, said on THIS issue, she had given up that 'cruel neutrality'.

Now, I understand that the results of this vote might not be palatable to Ms. Althouse, but her dislike is a personal matter.

I wonder if she could use some cruel neutrality to maybe try to countenance WHY so many people think she was being passively partisan.

No one, including myself, suggest ACTIVE partisanship.

But that little dig "Did they look...and failed?" Where did that even come from? Nothing suggested it. There is no evidence. But it implies that MAYBE these people operated in good faith when NOTHING else suggests it.

Essentially, there is a mountain of evidence against, but this one lone voice suggesting 'maybe'.

It's like a stick scratching the surface of the dirt, trying to divert enough of a trickle of credibility to form a channel.

I give full props to Althouse for being clever. This is a very smart and very subtle way to try to mold public opinion with mere suggestive questions.


RBG, for all the very bad things that I say about her, did something similar recently. She stated that she'd like to say she was sober at every SOTU address. But she couldn't...because that dinner was so delicious with wine 'Wink wink'.

In one PERFECT line, she a) asserted that she hated Trump to not want to listen to him sober, b) threw out the fact that anyone who thinks that some beer drinking by a teen shows 'no judicial temperament' is a moron, and c) that she has perfect taste at matching dinner and wine: a rare and acquired talent.

So see. I can say nice things about Ginsburg.

The liver with fava beans DEMANDED nice Chianti.

n.n said...

Kavanaugh is a good man.

Legally, yes. And all of the character witnesses suggest actually, too.

Bob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 229   Newer› Newest»