Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Kavanaugh open thread: Bring on more hearings?

Kavanaugh open thread: Bring on more hearings?

New Kavanaugh statement: “This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes—to her or to anyone.”

The drama surrounding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has not gone away. In this post, we will continue to update as new developments emerge during the day.

If you come across any interesting news reports, please place them in the comments and we will consider promoting them into the post.

New Hearing on Monday?

Senate Majority Leader McConnell addresses the allegations

Facts, changing stories, and things

Two women claiming to have dated Kavanaugh in high school issue statements

Kavanaugh Denies Being at Party

From The Daily Mail:

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is denying he was at the high school party in question where Christine Blasey Ford said he attempted to rape her as a friend watched when they were both students in suburban Washington D.C. during the 1980s.

Kavanaugh spoke with Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, for about 10 minutes Monday afternoon, where Kavanaugh denied to him that he was at the high school-era party in question, a Hatch aide told NBC News.

Hatch says Kavanaugh is ‘honest’ and ‘straightforward,’ and he thinks woman who has brought accusation is ‘mixed up.’

Trump responds

Accuser Willing to Testify

Debra Katz, the lawyer representing Christine Blasey Ford, told CNN that her client is willing to testify in front of Congress.

From CNN:

Katz said on Monday that her client considers Kavanaugh’s alleged actions an attempted rape.

“She believes that but for his inebriation and his inability to take her clothes off, he would have raped her,” Katz said.

Katz said Ford originally had “a great deal of ambivalence” about coming forward and had decided to keep her allegations confidential, but “that decision was essentially taken away from her as those allegations were leaked” and members of the press began approaching her. Katz said Ford stood by her story, and that now she had come forward, they expected serious opposition.”

“She’s now going to have to live with the tremendous efforts by people to annihilate her and to try to discredit her,” Katz said. “She’s telling the truth. She took a polygraph. She mentioned this … in her therapy sessions in 2012.”

She added, “We all know what she’s going to have to withstand as a result of having come forward.”

Katz said they want the Senate to treat the allegations seriously and her client with respect.

Conway: Trump Believes Senate Should Hear From Accuser

President Donald Trump’s senior advisor Kellyanne Conway told Fox & Friends that the president supports Ford testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

From Mediaite:

“This woman should not be insulted and she should not be ignored,” Conway opened, before explaining the many options that the Judicial Committee — and ostensibly the White House — has in terms of hearing what Dr. Ford has to say. “She will be heard,” was perhaps a surprising (and refreshing) note to hear from Ms. Conway for Democrats who are overly eager to paint a Trump administration in the most unflattering manner possible.

Conway also said that the accusation should not disrupt Kavanaugh’s nomination and the confirmation schedule.

WAJ adds: This appears to be the emerging strategy, let she said/he said play out quickly in public, then declare that it is disputed and the decades of Kavanaugh’s excellent public service weigh in his favor. That said, expect deep digging into the accuser’s past.

Ford Didn’t Say Anything Before 2012

Ford’s lawyer admitted on Sunday that her client never told anyone about the alleged assault before 2012. She only brought it up when her and her husband sought out couples therapy.

Her husband said that “he remembers her naming Kavanaugh as the aggressor in 2012.” A review of the therapist’s notes revealed “a description of the alleged incident but did not name Kavanaugh.”

Report: Kavanaugh Releases New Statement, Hires Attorney

CNN has reported that Kavanaugh has hired attorney Beth Wilkinson to represent him. The report also said that “Kavanaugh is not opposed to sharing his point of view, answering more questions or providing more information about a recent allegation of physical and sexual assault, whether it be through congressional committee staff interviews or closed or open testimony, two sources close to the process have told CNN.”

Kavanaugh’s Mom Presided Over Foreclosure Case That Involved Ford’s Parents

A story circulating Twitter has come out on Mediaite since Fox News host Laura Ingraham tweeted it out. This story states that Kavanaugh’s mother Martha presided over a foreclosure case that involved Ford’s parents in the 1990s. It’s important to note that Martha came in late in the case.

Feinstein Says There’s More to Kavanaugh

Wait, what?! Now Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has rejected the plan set forth by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) because “there’s more that senators don’t know.”

See, Grassley wants “to arrange separate, follow-up calls with Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford before the vote, but just for aides to top members.”

What else does she know? It’s bad enough that she’s sat on this letter from Ford since July and never brought it up during closed door meetings with Kavanaugh or at the confirmation hearings.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


She might want to rethink her statement. It appears that the Christine Ford’s parents house was foreclosed. Guess whose mother was the judge in the case? That’s right – Kavanaugh’s. Grudge much?

    Wisewerds in reply to Granny. | September 17, 2018 at 9:34 am

    The case docket apparently does not bear this out. It shows a different judge entering an adverse order, and then Kavanaugh’s mother entering a stipulated order of dismissal after Blasey’s parents apparently paid the amounts past due.

    We ought to stick to what’s factual.

      maxtrue in reply to Wisewerds. | September 17, 2018 at 12:08 pm

      Let’s assume that Kavanaugh’s Poly Graph test is truthful. I don’t think many Republicans think it wouldn’t be. At what point did her repressed memories surface and who was he shrink? In light of Mueller’s raids on Cohen would we hear instead however that the shrink’s records are confidential because of the patient-doctor privilege? After all, isn’t that more sacred than client-attorney privileged?

      Given two truthful poly graph tests wouldn’t the reasonable and legal thing to do would be serve discovery on all information regarding the accuser’s contacts, medical records, banking records, text messages you know, all the things Deep State has done to the sitting President in the course of their investigation. The DOJ could even make sure only the relevant information was passed forward to Kavanugh’s legal team or maybe the shrink pressured by some unknown scandal by some government agency says she wasn’t the accuser’s shrink at the time of her giving the accuser treatments.

      Its an interesting way to protect the accuser who herself is a psychologist. For now perhaps a poly graph test of Kavanaugh’s own would douses Democrat’s smoldering tinder.

        MattMusson in reply to maxtrue. | September 17, 2018 at 1:50 pm

        It’s not a lie, if you believe it.

        But, repressed memories are tricky things. The literature all says they are doubtful.

        Since, she cannot recall the date, location or whose party she was at, I would dismiss this out of hand.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to MattMusson. | September 17, 2018 at 2:41 pm

          Exactly! A polygraph does not determine truth, it measures a set of variables that when put together CAN indicate that a person believes what they are saying. Which is why people have been able to train themselves to beat a polygraph.

          So just because someone believes what they are saying doesn’t make it true. I spent 10 years as a psychiatric nurse I have seen people who believe they are everything from Saints to the Second Coming and if polygraphed the polygraph would show that they absolutely believe what they are saying.

          I also have a suspicion that with her background in psychology that she may have the skills necessary to fool a polygraph.

          AmandaFitz in reply to MattMusson. | September 17, 2018 at 3:41 pm

          Three words: CRYSTAL GALE MANGUM (of Duke lacrosse fame)

          Holton Arms School is an all girls school. Georgetown Prep is an all boys school. Kavanaugh may never have even met Christine Blasey, especially since she was two years younger, much less tried to assault her. If she cannot remember WHEN the party was, WHERE the party was, WHO the host was, her story cannot be verified in any way and Kavanaugh cannot be exonerated because he was somewhere else at the time.

          MarkSmith in reply to MattMusson. | September 17, 2018 at 4:44 pm

          I am betting that the Poly was done by an es-FBI now GPS Fusion employee. Was listening to the Chris Plante show on WMAL on iHeart Radio this morning and he had someone on who went to the same school as Ford did. She told stories about how girls would sneak in to the all boys prep school through a fence hole. Sounds like Ford is making this up.

          Also I think it was on the Larry O’Connor show, a psychologist was saying that she could convince herself that something happened to her and believe it to be true, even if it was not. He said that the inconsistencies in her story makes him think it did not happen or it did not happen the way she is reporting it.

        Olinser in reply to maxtrue. | September 17, 2018 at 2:15 pm

        You don’t think many Republican’s think it wouldn’t be?

        Polygraphs are JUNK SCIENCE. There is a reason they are not admissible in an court in the US, almost all police departments and the FBI do not administer them, and even if you take one then it is evidence of nothing.

        As has been proved over and over and over again with real science, polygraphs are LESS able to accurately identify truth/lies than a trained person talking to you. And that’s before people use any of the well-known methods to manipulate them.

        There is exactly one reason you seek out and take a polygraph. Because you’re a lying piece of shit and want some cover from people that think polygraphs are like Hollywood portrays them.

      maxtrue in reply to Wisewerds. | September 17, 2018 at 12:11 pm

      If anyone can’t deal with typos, that’s not my problem. Life is too short.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Wisewerds. | September 17, 2018 at 2:42 pm

      Oops, docket printed above doesn’t agree. Her students did not give her very good reviews (and this is back in 2010-2014, long before this broke)

“Willing to testify before Congress.”
My, what a turnaround! Just a few days ago, she didn’t want her name made public! When does her tell-all book come out?

    Eddie Baby in reply to Matt_SE. | September 17, 2018 at 10:09 am

    They cut her a bigger check.

    I am with Hewitt on this, let her testify, publicly or privately this week if she wants. If she does, question her thoroughly (but respectfully). Then vote, no delay.

      Matt_SE in reply to EBL. | September 17, 2018 at 3:49 pm

      Yeah that seems like a great idea. So of course they won’t allow it. The Democrats are daring us to run them over, but our party has several noted cowards and traitors in it.

      That’s the real problem.

A few additional observations
Ford is a psychiatrist is a profession that attracts a lot of individuals with issues. It is also the profession that brought us the repressed memory syndrome.

She claimed that she “feared that he was going to inadvertantly kill me” . That description sounds like a “repressed memory syndrome” recalling events that didnt happen or huge repressed memory embellishment.

The event described – After discounting for for the huge embellishment – sounds more like the typical awkward teenager attempting to kiss a girl with some possible petting, that simply got rebuffed. Alternatively, just some horseplay.

It should be noted that behavioural tendenancies change slowly, if at all. kavanaugh’s known behaviour is very inconsistent with the allegation.

She didnt tell anyone for 20+ years. Normally, the victim would have at least told some of her friends the person was a jerk or to avoid being alone with the alledged assailant. That apparantly did not happen.

    Eddie Baby in reply to Joe-dallas. | September 17, 2018 at 10:11 am

    She might be a psychologist, but I doubt she is an MD. However psychologist is just a synonym for credentialed crazy person.

      Joe-dallas in reply to Eddie Baby. | September 17, 2018 at 10:34 am

      one of the points I was making is that psycologists & Psychatrists tend to have individuals attracted to the profession that have issues they personally deal with. similar to the drug and alcohol counselors who tend to have prior drug and alcohol problems.
      Easier to dream up issues the occurred in the past to explain issues you currently have.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Joe-dallas. | September 17, 2018 at 2:49 pm

        Also, I don’t remember anyone ever asking how much she had to drink.

          VaGentleman in reply to Gremlin1974. | September 17, 2018 at 2:57 pm

          She drank enough that she is not responsible for anything that happened and doesn’t remember where or when it happened, but not so much that she can’t remember the details ‘necessary’ to derail the nomination. That exact amount is what she drank that night – amazing.

        So True that people attracted to Psychology do so in many cases becuase they can’t figure out thier own problems and end up specializing in examining them as their “calling”.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Eddie Baby. | September 17, 2018 at 2:44 pm

      She is just a psychologist, not an MD or OD.

    Albigensian in reply to Joe-dallas. | September 17, 2018 at 11:40 am

    Anyone with any training in psychology should know just how unreliable decades-old memories really are.

    But then, anyone with any morals should understand that making an unfalsifiable accusation (her accusation can no more be proved false than a claim one went on a flying-saucer ride some night while sleeping alone, perhaps “sometime in the 1980s”) is disgraceful.

    In any case, so long as this sort of “j’accuse” produces even temporary FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) it is sure to be used and re-used, until/unless a means is found to discourage it.

Well please pardon me too. This has all the earmarks of a carefully orchestrated, well prepared plan to delay the nomination and pick off weak GOPe Senators.

After a weekend of wanting to remain anonymous suddenly there is an op-ed, a lie detector and a willingness to testify. That part does not pass the smell test.

    dystopia in reply to objection. | September 17, 2018 at 9:42 am

    I’m willing to bet this “bombshell was planned for weeks. Just when you thought the Democrats could not go any lower ….

      RITaxpayer in reply to dystopia. | September 17, 2018 at 12:04 pm

      I, for one, NEVER thought the dems couldn’t go any lower. Still don’t.

      maxtrue in reply to dystopia. | September 17, 2018 at 12:23 pm

      What makes you think that? To the elite narrative projectionists this is a nuke in NYC and there is a clock ticking. All will be forgiven later by their own jury. Wait until Mueller is ready.

      I guess the question is whether at this point the Republicans have been so compromised they will aid and abet while trying to maintain the veneer of loyalty or principle.

      For a Liberal Independent, there is mostly Trump and crossfire.

    Liberty Bell in reply to objection. | September 17, 2018 at 9:48 am

    So this case is about this woman’s perceptions of what could have happened — not what actually happened. She does not claim she was raped or seriously assaulted, only that she might have been.

    Lot’s of high school boys make passes at girls and stop when they say no.

    I for one don’t want to hear a decades old tale about drunk high school students.

      Joe-dallas in reply to Liberty Bell. | September 17, 2018 at 10:22 am

      As a former teenager – this sounds like the typical kid trying to get to first base and getting rebuffed.

      The rest seems to be Ford’s repressed memory syndrome kicking in.

        We don’t know if it is real (or involved Kavanaugh). He denies it completely. I am going with it is a lie or mistaken identity (probably a flat out lie).

          Joe-dallas in reply to EBL. | September 17, 2018 at 12:18 pm

          I concur that an incident did occur, with the possibility that it was with a different person.

          The disclosure to the therapist was in 2012. There was a discussion on another website that during the Romney / Obama campaign, that Romney made several mentions of Kavanaugh as his likely pick for a SC justice. Possible the repressed memory put Kavanaugh in the place of the other teenager.

Republicans will never learn. Trump has showed them how to push through and still these linguini spined idiots let the left turn the tables on them…

    G. de La Hoya in reply to stl. | September 17, 2018 at 9:50 am

    Absolutely. Every. Single. Time. Over and Over. 🙂

    maxtrue in reply to stl. | September 17, 2018 at 12:44 pm

    Really, the spineless are those Republicans not demanding the heads of the other Republicans working with the Democrats. Conway understands the woman issue and avoiding any reflexive to blow this away as a scam, which it most likely is. The deeper problem is that the only bipartisan effort here be some Republicans to be “fair” is a conspiracy of opposition to the populist train.

    Perhaps, Kavanaugh should speed things up and take that poly graph test and proceed with discovery. That would a whole Constitutional diversion in itself. Let him take on MeTo due process and let the Republicans appear sufficiently sensitive to women which is minimum Democrats are seeking here. Wild though, a Supreme Court nominee could be making a case that an accuser’s patient-doctor relationship cannot prevent the reasonable search for truth in the case of High Slander. He can have Mueller testify about that in his handling of client-attorney privilege.

Teenagers, 35 f’ing years ago? There’s simply no way to defend himself. Total smear campaign, repubs fall for it every time.

    Valerie in reply to stl. | September 17, 2018 at 10:07 am

    Don’t be cryptic. We have visitors today, and a well-turned summation of just how much this late hit resembles the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing, and what he had to say about it, and the outcome, would be very educational.

      Ragspierre in reply to Valerie. | September 17, 2018 at 1:12 pm

      Well, OK. There several people here who could do as well or better if they just thought a bit, but I’ll suggest this…

      As I said below, the administration has taken the right course, politically.

      The accuser HAS to be provided a hearing. This next few days. She HAS to be treated with some deference for political reasons, but not coddled.

      Judge Kavanaugh has to have time to answer. He has to tell the absolute truth (which I think he has). He has to tell it convincingly, and few people I know of are better equipped. He’ll be supported by many witnesses.

      The leadership in the Senate have to stand by their timetable. When that happens, all the cards are on the table THIS WEEK.

      Everything has been aired out. People disposed to believe any crap about Kavanaugh will do that. But they were going to anyway. But the process was open, so fair-minded people can weigh the facts as we all do every day. Politically, it will be the best way to deal with this, and that matters as we approach an election when enraging women would be very stupid.

      That’s one…

Testifying before Congress means nothing. Just like University courts pursuing rape accusations, this is so wrong. If she hasn’t filed a report with police she should be ignored. No accountability for false accusations. I am a woman, with a 14 year old daughter, but I’m sick over court being held in and by the media. I also have 2 sons, 20 & 18 and a husband. What if someone accused them like this? This is USA, we are innocent until proven guilty in a legal court. I’m so very angry over this!!!

an unverifiable accusation is disqualifying for a Supreme Court justice.
But two well documented assaults is a qualification for Minnesota attorney general.

    oldgoat36 in reply to Joe-dallas. | September 17, 2018 at 11:02 am

    Provided you are part of the National Socialist Party nicknamed Democrats, you get a pass… if you aren’t part of the NS then the standards are higher, any accusation bears weight when the left make it against someone on the right.

“This appears to be the emerging strategy, let she said/he said play out quickly in public, then declare that it is disputed and the decades of Kavanaugh’s excellent public service weigh in his favor. That said, expect deep digging into the accuser’s past.”

With all due respect to Prof. Jacobson, whom I admire tremendously, this is not going to play out quickly. Dr. Ford is in the middle of a class schedule. I predict she will not agree to testify until next week. Then Kavanaugh will testify; then almost certainly Mark Judge, and probably some of the 65 women. By the end of the day (Monday) Sen. Grassley will have postponed the Thursday vote, which will mean that Kavanaugh, if Flake, Corker and Murkowski don’t complete their betrayal, will not be on the bench by the first Monday in October. Anybody who did not know from the beginning that Ford would have to identify herself was kidding themselves.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Wing. | September 17, 2018 at 1:39 pm

    Tough. She can get a couple days off, if she wants to. Why should the majority delay because the minority sat on this witness for two months? If she isn’t happy, she should complain to her own Senator – Dianne Feinstein, who turns out to have been the one to sit on the existence of this witness.

The relevant precedent is Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill made similar uncorroborated claims against him. She alleged a single incident. There was no corroboration of the claim, such that it was never established on a more probable than not basis to be true. Most importantly, there was no allegation of a pattern or practice of wrongful conduct.

Justice Thomas was therefore quite properly confirmed. He has served with distinction for many years.

Even if the claim against Kavanaugh were shown to be true–and it is already quite clear that, since the accuser herself admits that there is absolutely no corroboration of her claim, there is no way that this claim will ever be proven on a more probable than not basis to be true–this kind of claim really is not relevant to a potential justice’s fitness for service on the Supreme Court.

You really go out of your way to be needlessly offensive, don’t you?

Should there be additional hearings? Absolutely not. To do so would be to endorse this ridiculous gamesmanship and ensure that this would be the strategy employed against every conservative candidate in the future.

More specifically for this instance, what in the [email protected] would hearings add? “Did not!” “Did too!” There is NO WAY to disprove 35 year old allegations, which is what the Democrats are going to require. The whole exercise is an exercise in futility, the only object of which is more grotesque political theater.

Now does that mean that I believe that Republicans will stand there ground? Not really. Too many of the alleged Rs in Congress have proved themselves to be spineless cowards; I have no faith in their courage to make a stand.

I feel so very sorry for Judge Kavanaugh. By all accounts, he has led an upright and honorable life. To have his character smeared this way and to have no way to defend himself is disgusting. If nothing else, the Democrats have probably made great strides in discouraging conservative men from participating in our system.

Truly, I am beyond disgusted.

Could this event long ago be part of some strategy on Ford’s part?

Connivin Caniff | September 17, 2018 at 10:06 am

If the Committee has to proceed with this transparent knavery and idiocy, let her know in advance that she will be on the barrel end of a cross examination she will never forget. There is already a lot of dirt out there about this snake. No matter what, do not treat her graciously, like the Republicans usually do, which invariably makes them look like asses, begging for brownie points from the Bolsheviks, always in vain. And don’t be gracious to the Bolsheviks on the Committee either – show open contempt for their attempts to destroy the democratic (note small “d”) process.

No. Simply, no. We must stand firm against this lunatic totalitarianism.

Testify? As to what, exactly? That Kavanaugh allegedly attempted to engage in some drunken and clumsy sexual advance? Thirty-five years ago? As a teenager? Who knows what meds this woman is on, or, what her mental health history, is. And, to top it all off, she is a longstanding Dumb-o-crat loyalist, who has now scrubbed her social media pages of any references to her Dumb-o-crat proclivities and activities, lest her motives be scrutinized and questioned.

This allegation cannot be substantiated in any way. It is impossible to do so. Which means we are dealing with nothing more than an unfounded allegation from a source of questionable credibility and motive, completely lacking in factual or evidentiary supports. Fairness demands that it be completely and utterly dismissed and disregarded, on the basis of any one of a thousand different bases, the most glaring of which is the Dumb-o-crats’ long history of using unfounded, last-minute calumnies to attempt to slander, discredit and vilify, judicial nominees, as was done to Bork and Thomas, previously.

And, even if the allegation was true — a preposterous notion on its face, but, bear with me for argument’s sake — do the Dumb-o-crats seriously contend that a single incident of silly adolescent pranking and horseplay, committed by a teen, constitutes behavior that that person can never be redeemed from, ever? No matter how virtuous and accomplished a life they lead, afterwards? This is lunacy. The Dumbs are constantly telling us that convicted violent felons deserve a “second chance;” they love to talk about “rehabilitation” in the context of criminal justice and the penal system. But, that standard apparently doesn’t apply if the alleged transgressor is a Republican.

And, yes, the sainted Ted Kennedy could engage in insanely callous and sociopath behavior that literally KILLED a twenty-something-year-old woman, and, still be held up as a Leftist saint, canonized as the alleged “Lion of the Senate.” No nauseating hypocrisy, here, right?

This is about the Left’s attempts to seize political power — PERIOD — at any cost, no matter the people who are ground up and turned into compost, along the way; their lives ruined and their reputations shattered.

All conservatives and people of good will and integrity must band together to reject this transparently jackbooted Leftist thuggery.

    Morning Sunshine in reply to guyjones. | September 17, 2018 at 1:01 pm

    “And, even if the allegation was true — a preposterous notion on its face, but, bear with me for argument’s sake — do the Dumb-o-crats seriously contend that a single incident of silly adolescent pranking and horseplay, committed by a teen, constitutes behavior that that person can never be redeemed from, ever? No matter how virtuous and accomplished a life they lead, afterwards?”

    the thing is that the socialists do not believe in repentance, in forgiveness, in redemption. Their very base beliefs exclude such a belief. They will even extend that guilt to children.

Offer her a chance to testify before the committee BEFORE Thursday. Otherwise, put it to a vote and let’s see if Flake and Corker are willing to risk being booted from the committee for signalling a no vote. If so, a new committee next week votes to send the nomination to full committee for confirmation. Corker and Flake, having been stripped of any influence peddling value, can go work as greeters at WalMart.

    McConnell can steamroll right through this Feinstein, Corker and Flake blatant and ill-considered delay ploy by arguing that they sat on this information for months neglecting to properly pursue this issue during their interview opportunities with the nominee.

    This is why these hearings and interviews are held in the first place! So they forfeited any moral and legal grounds for demanding a delay in proceedings. I don’t see this as a difficult impediment for McConnell doing the right thing. He can own them if he so chooses.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Pasadena Phil. | September 17, 2018 at 2:55 pm

    Only let her testify if it is under oath and subject to perjury.

I do not believe a word she says. Her ulterior motive is blatantly obvious. The Senate has no obligation to entertain any of her gibberish and should proceed with the confirmation, promptly.

The woman might consider her career opportunities on The Weather Channel. See how the wind doth blow.

    MajorWood in reply to NotKennedy. | September 17, 2018 at 12:37 pm

    I guess you missed the report on “Fake Weather” last week with the reporter leaning into the wind as two other people walked by with no difficulty in the background.

      The Weather Entertainment Channel has some history with dramatic interpretations of reality or possibilities of an imaginary reality.

      The vexatious trollop from California would fill in nicely, in Atlanta. FWIW, I used to refer to TWC as the fertility channel. Pregnant women symbolize most of what is good about life and TWC had plenty of them on staff!

      Mike Seidel was playing for the camera; he must have PO’d somebody or they would have saved him from himself.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to NotKennedy. | September 17, 2018 at 2:58 pm

    I can actually believe that something happened, but I also believe it would amount to typical teenage curious grab and tickle and that over the years the woman has continued to embellish the story in her own mind.

    Same thing happens in fish stories over the years that fish just gets bigger and bigger.

Bucky Barkingham | September 17, 2018 at 10:32 am

Once it’s clear that Ford’s accusation is falling apart Gloria Allred will sweep in with a couple of more accusers with “recovered repressed memories”. The RINO squishes in the Senate will fall for those also.

enough of this shit.
Rags, since trump elected you’ve lost the ball.
deal with it.
Fen, that eat a shotgun comment was well over the line.

Trump and Grassley are at the mercy of a few weak R Senators.

Flake, Corker and maybe Murkowski.

With 51 R’s they can only afford one defection.

So, if two or more say they won’t vote for Kavanaugh it there are no hearings for this fraud, then there has to be hearings.

This is why you *always* vote Conservative in the primary, then *always* vote R in the general even if it’s for a RINO squish.

You minimize the number of RINOs in primaries, and then you build a buffer on how many defections you can handle by making sure as many R’s, of all stripes, win seats.

Meanwhile judge Kavannaugh’s reputation is being dragged through the mud!

    guyjones in reply to MAB. | September 17, 2018 at 11:08 am

    Destroying Kavanaugh’s reputation and de-legitimizing him, if he ascends to the Court — that is the point. The evil end-game. It’s why this kind of calumny reeks of the Left’s totalitarian ethos and lust-for-power desperation.

    Once the allegation is out there — no matter how unfounded it is; no matter the presumption of innocence; no matter the unbelievably suspicious timing and the equally suspicious motives of the accuser and the Dumb-o-crats at-large; no matter Kavanaugh’s well-documented history as having lived a personal and professional life that is utterly beyond reproach — no matter how this plays out, with Kavanaugh either ascending to the Court, or, his returning to the D.C. Circuit, his reputation has been utterly and unfairly tarnished. By allegations proffered from nigh four decades ago; allegations that can never, ever be proven.

    That is what makes this behavior utterly and completely evil. Destroying a man with a mere accusation, totally unfounded and unsupported, dealt from the bottom of the Dumb-o-crats’ greasy and tattered card deck of dirty tricks.

      Yep. The strategy is to slander these justices. Even if Kavanaugh gets seated, just watch the Dems and SJW’s demand his recusal on any sexual case, etc. The left is losing control of the court, therefore, they trash it and the judges. They make it clear, they intend to trash any nominee. Nice life you had… circuit court judge.. honor and piety , respect even!… NO MORE!

      It’s a shameful tactic and no doubt it works. Good folks say no thanks.

    Colonel Travis in reply to MAB. | September 17, 2018 at 11:13 am

    The long-term damage to our country, however, is that this may make future nominees decide to never want to go through with this.

    The (D) party drags the entire nation down into its sewer.

      Exactly. The natural (and, understandable) reaction is to lower ourselves to the Dumb-o-crats’ level; to fight fire with fire, the next time the nomination shoe is on the other foot.

      A true Hobson’s choice. Damned if we do; damned if we don’t. If we descend into the foul depths of the sewer to get into knife-fights with the Dumb-o-crats, we conservatives compromise our ethics, our values and our integrity. If we take the high road and allow the Dumbs’ nominees to ascend to courts unscathed, we allow the Dumbs’ to successfully exploit and take full advantage of our better natures, given that they have no qualms about using scorched-earth tactics at any time of day.

      I don’t have any satisfying answers to this quandary.

        RedEchos in reply to guyjones. | September 17, 2018 at 2:11 pm

        If you are Christian you take the high road.

        If you would live in this world you sharpen your knives.

        I say dig deep. Find out everything and put it out there. No dark spaces, no hiding. Start in the Senate then work your way outward.

          FTR, if you are Christian, it’s a Sin to forsake this world for the next one.

          We don’t turn the other cheek and let Evil run rampant over everyone else just to keep our soul from being stained.

          And this is not the wisdom of a righteous man, it’s from someone learning how to dampen the evil in his own soul.

She’s. Lying.

I hope you are right.

    Rick in reply to Rick. | September 17, 2018 at 11:44 am

    I intended this to be a reply to Ragspierre’s comment, but now I cannot find his comment, which seems to have disappeared. Alternatively, I really am losing it.

      VaGentleman in reply to Rick. | September 17, 2018 at 11:57 am

      You’re not losing it. Rags has a habit of expressing his opinions in ways prof and the mods find offensive – languagge, etc. He has been warned (as have we all) that the policy is to remove all posts the mods find to be in violation. Rags pushes the boundaries with predictable results.

So, I wonder what the sitting justices of Supreme Court might have to say a out the situation and the process. Surely a wise Latina could shed a valuable insight, or maybe a former Harvard Law dean?

Hell, I’d bet that Ginsburg is even appalled at this scam.

A new version of Duke lacrosse but the people 30 40 years older.

I am pretty hard-core conservative and the initial report bothered me some, but was heavily discounted due to being a juvenile incident from 36 years ago. Now, I call BS. First, no mention of this to a single person, even a close girlfriend or teacher until 30 years had past. Then, discrepancies in the notes taken contemporaneously by the marriage counselor. Now, indications she cannot remember day, month, or maybe even the year, making it 100% impossible to disprove (or prove). Kavanagh, along with the only other person involved completely denies the incident. She claims she wanted to be anonymous, but she sent the letter to a politician and, according a one report I saw, to a newspaper. Long before her name become public, she hires an activist lawyer AND takes a user-friendly polygraph. Those are completely inconsistent with a wish to remain anonymous, but are more consistent with a pre-planned “oh, golly gee, I just had to come out publically because my name got revealed without my consent.”

    tom_swift in reply to rangerjagc. | September 17, 2018 at 12:38 pm

    I am pretty hard-core conservative and the initial report bothered me some

    Hmm. Didn’t bother me.

    1. I don’t believe Democrats. About anything. Ever.

    2. I don’t believe women without some slight shred of corroborating evidence or testimony. I learned this the hard way.

    3. I expect adults to be more mature than juveniles. Ergo, I believe that juvenile behavior by a juvenile tells me little about the behavior I can expect from the same person as an adult. Leftists have a strange concept of “original sin” which makes them reject this view.

      VaGentleman in reply to tom_swift. | September 17, 2018 at 12:56 pm

      tom_swift wrote:
      3. I expect adults to be more mature than juveniles. Ergo, I believe that juvenile behavior by a juvenile tells me little about the behavior I can expect from the same person as an adult. Leftists have a strange concept of “original sin” which makes them reject this view.

      Excellent point. Since modern liberalism is about finding ways to get the gov’t to undertake the responsibilities of adulthood, they not only don’t expect behavior to improve, they resent the implication that it should. Perpetual adolescence is their goal – freedom without responsibility.

Good luck getting the Democrats to agree with allowing the accuser to testify. Sen. Durbin is standing athwart the Senate process yelling STOP, it’s too soon for you to testify, why are you in a hurry, what’s wrong with you?

Can you really get all of the Republicans to request/ demand she testify if the Democrats force such a request to be a party-line voice, with all ten Democrats voting no?

    Tense correction: It’s too soon for the accuser to testify, why are (Senate Republicans) in a hurry, what’s wrong with (Senate Republicans). Point otherwise unchanged.

She is.

“The way it was, was right. The way it is, is wrong,” the 85-year-old justice said during a discussion at George Washington University Law School, prompting a round of applause.

Justice Ginsburg was confirmed to the bench by a U.S. Senate vote of 96-3, two months after she was nominated by then-President Bill Clinton. The liberal justice said Wednesday that the “atmosphere” back then was “truly bipartisan.”

“The vote on my confirmation was 96-3, even though I had spent about 10 years of my life litigating cases under the auspices of the ACLU,” she said.

“No senator asked me any questions — not about that,” she said.

Justice Ginsburg also noted that the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was confirmed 98-0 despite his conservative leanings.

“Think of Justice Scalia, who’s certainly a known character in, what was it? 1986,” she said. “The vote was unanimous, every Democrat and every Republican voted for him.

“That’s the way it should be, instead of what it’s become, which is a highly partisan show. The Republicans move in lockstep, and so do the Democrats. I wish I could wave a magic wand and have it go back to the way it was,” she added.


One of the nice things about really good judges is that they adhere to the principle that “reasonable minds might differ.”

    Valerie in reply to Valerie. | September 17, 2018 at 11:53 am

    Oops: this comment was meant to reply to NotKennedy’s comment that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is probably appalled by this scam.

    tom_swift in reply to Valerie. | September 17, 2018 at 12:07 pm

    The Republicans move in lockstep

    RGB is a fundamentally silly person.

      Anonamom in reply to tom_swift. | September 17, 2018 at 12:57 pm

      No, she is not. She is a fundamentally liberal person, but that does not make her silly.

        tom_swift in reply to Anonamom. | September 17, 2018 at 4:28 pm

        She is a fundamentally liberal person, but that does not make her silly.

        Well then, it’s a good thing nobody implied that causal relationship.

        RBG is an intelligent person. She is also a Leftie, skating much too close to the Mussolinian fascist line for my tastes. And she is also a foolish old woman who is at least twenty years past her “sell by” date.

        These things are all independent and, in general, only slightly correlated.

smalltownoklahoman | September 17, 2018 at 11:57 am

35 year old accusations with no possible way to prove them one way or the other since no actual police investigation was conducted at the time this woman says Kavanaugh tried to rape her. That would have provided at least some proof, evidence, one way or the other AND WOULD HAVE SHOWN UP ON THE MULTIPLE BACKGROUND CHECKS HE’S BEEN THROUGH! Sorry for shouting, I’m just a wee bit steamed that these putrid vile tactics are being used to slime another man of good character and that for the moment it seems to be working! I think I’ll end by agreeing with another poster that if something is going to be brought up it has to be brought up during the hearing and not afterwards! Republicans need to tell the dems to provide some real verifiable proof or otherwise go pound sand!

The Senate should follow the precedent set in the Thomas hearings.
Get additional testimony, but do not change any dates.
Set by none other then Joseph Biden.
Granted. The accusations came out after the Judiciary Committee voted but still.

If Flake and Corker want to abstain, fine I seem to remember when Bork was voted on the Judiciary Committee voted him down and then it went to a floor vote.

If Kavanaugh is down voted, then nominate Barret. After all this rape accusation and such it will be ridiculous to see them fighting her.

Then when RGB dies in about a year appoint Kavanaugh again. There is no rule that a candidate who was voted down cannot be named a second time.

    RodFC in reply to RodFC. | September 17, 2018 at 12:09 pm

    Sigh. So complicated a point I forgot.
    She should have to come in to testify this week. If it’s so important to her then she should have absolutely no reason not to come in this week, unless she is having major surgery.

I dcon’t see Fen’s post here, but I thought I should inform him/her/zhe
( OK my little joke 🙂 ).

It may not load because you have been shadow banned on Twitter. Hard to tell without a complete description, but they do that sometimes ban you in part without banning your whole account.

    Lol thanks. But I don’t have a Twitter account to shadowban. I can’t read the link I posted because I get “Twitter is taking too long to load. Try again?” errors.

First, Republicans now reap what they have sown. We let this tactic work against Judge Moore. How can we pick and choose which accusers to believe?

Second, if we let this accusation sink the Kavenaugh nomination then no male will ever be nominated to the SCT again. You can always find an unhappy ex willing to say just about anything. In this case not even an ex.

Third, there should not be any further hearings. Go directly to a vote and confirm him. Even holding additional hearings at this point gives the accuser and the Democrats’ tactics credibility they do not deserve. Dismiss them out of hand, because that is all the response they merit.

I think a point about Kavanaugh’s mother presiding over Fords parents foreclosure should be made.

You can argue that it may or may not provide motive, but you cannot argue that it provides awareness.

At the very lest she should have told her parents so that Kavanaguh’s mom could be recused. But certainly she knew who he was and his name.

I think the administration’s willingness to have Prof. Blasey Ford be heard is politically astute, regardless of the violation of the procedural niceties. Judge Kavanaugh does not object. This should happen quickly, before the scheduled vote. If she is not willing to testify under oath and on schedule, this should be made abundantly clear at the hearing.

Everybody who did not support Moore earned this. You crawled for the dems because you didn’t like Moore or his religion or politics. You accepted the new rules without a peep.

Welcome to the world you midwifed.

If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that this was a script for an episode of Perry Mason.

I will make two more posts:
one for the “prosecution” , one for the “defense”. Perhaps one the editors will polish it the sides to make a story.

This is as I understand the situation as of now.

The prosecution:

CB went to a party.
At that party she went up to a bedroom with Kavanaugh and another friend, ostensibly Mark Judge.
In the bedroom, Kavanaugh throws her on the bed. puts his had over her mouth and tries to rape her.
Judge jumps on top and she is able to free herself and runs away.
This part is a bit unclear to me:
In 2012 she tells a therapist in couples counseling about it. The part that is unclear is whether she “remembered” it in counseling or whether she just mentioned it to someone else for the first time in 2012.
She has had her testimony verified by lie detector.

Anyone want too polish her side up?

    Correction: she claims she went upstairs to use a bathroom and was pulled into a bedroom.

    Fun fact. I live in Montgomery County Maryland right across from an old golf course.

    AmandaFitz in reply to RodFC. | September 17, 2018 at 3:52 pm

    How do you (how did SHE) know that it was Brett Kavanaugh? He and his accuser did not go to school together. Since she “cannot remember” WHEN the party was, WHERE the party was, or WHO the host(and other guests) was, HOW can Kavanaugh possibly defend himself. He may never have even met this particular high school girl!!!


    amwick in reply to RodFC. | September 17, 2018 at 4:15 pm

    Pretty sure she said that her life was a mess after that..
    Something like she was horrifically impacted, traumatized.. get the picture?

Does anyone not believe this has been part of the Dems “long game” for awhile? They know the top 50-75 names for Supreme Court possibilities. How better to stop it than to have research done to identify committed leftists that went to school with all of these potential nominees to allege any story they want.

This is real political hardball from the Democrats. No bar is too low, no gutter too filthy. The accuser should be heard expeditiously, and the vote should not be delayed. Any delay rewards this behavior, thus making it more likely in the future.

    maxtrue in reply to jaudio. | September 17, 2018 at 2:34 pm

    I’ve been saying this repeatedly. What is different is that with Obama came a new DNC/Plutocrat effect on the Deep State providing them more data/assets and therefore better simulations of strategy. Brennan is busy.

    Mind you, they never saw Trump coming nor a lot of other things.

    Anyway, with the DNC leasing our Liberal Institutions and driving a new mindset, new progressive sensitivities to exploit such as Me To and racism, this kind of predictable gambit seeks a new due process of manipulated opinion circumventing rule and even law.

    And what makes it work, let’s be clear, is a new kind of resistance seeking to elevate Trump wickedness as a ticking nuclear bomb in DC. That requires in the direst cases of national emergency, torturing us to their victory.

    As Mueller has trumped Starr, Kavanaugh might Bork Thomas. There is a Progressive script with a hundred options. Republicans that care about countering them better be busy at work. Google is.

The committee failed by giving it any credibility at all in the first place.

Play the he who smelt it dealt it game.

Humphrey's Executor | September 17, 2018 at 1:40 pm

At best the accuser’s story is a case of confabulation.

Now for the defense:

1. These accusation have been brought up at the last minute. CB knew Kavanaugh was a judge and did not bring these charges up at any time until now. What is more, the accusation were not brought forward until just before of the committee vote, when details are hard to verify.
2. CB describes the actual attack vivdly. SAHe remember he put his hand on her mouth. She remembers she was wearing a swimsuit under her clothing. These are things she does not remember.
a) When? What day what year?
b) Where? What kind of party? Was this like a “social” or school
party where a third party hosted the party? Was this at a
parents house? Which parents house?
c) How did she get there? Did she come with someone? Who?
d) How did she get home? Did she just run home? Did she demand her
friends take her home? This is extremely damaging. You would
expect that if she were so traumatized she would have remembered
how she got away.
Let me sum up on this one point. It seems like all the details she
remembers are the details that cannot be verified. Details that she
forgets are all the details that can be verified by third party
testimony. That in itself is highly suspicious. Any such detail
would raise this above “he said/she said”.
3) CB herself was drinking. How much had she to drink? BTW another
detail she remembers. Is she sure she didn’t have more? Could
inebriation cause her to exaggerate her memories?
4) How can CB be certain the boy was BK, if she is so hazy about all
the other details?
5) The boy she claims was with Kavanaugh denies it.
6) This can change. No other accusations have come forward. Usually
sexually aggressive men are ahave patterns of being so.
7) She never mentions it till 2012. Why bring it up in couples
counseling when she never mention it again? She didn’t have any
other therapists before? I thought that was common practice for
psychiatry. It should also be noted that Kavanaugh’s name was
being bandied about as a possible Romney nominee.
8) There are several details differing in her therapists account.
Most notably four boys being present not two. She claims her
therapist wrote it incorrectly and there were four boys at the
party. What kind of party only has four boys? How many girls?
Another detail that she remembers but is unverifiable.
9) A lie detector was administered. However the lie detector was
administered by an exFBI agent not an FBI agent. Lie detectors
are also notably unreliable. Not perfect but better is sodium
penthatol, is she willing to make her statements under that drug?

I think that about does. Feel free to polish up both sides as much as possible.
The rule of the exercise are clear. Both this and the previous post present each side accurately and positively as can be done. Just as in a court of a law.

    maxtrue in reply to RodFC. | September 17, 2018 at 2:12 pm

    Have them both take a poly graph test now with her story out there. The Castanza rule works best when there are not too many facts to believe are true especially when they are already a bit inconsistent.

      maxtrue in reply to maxtrue. | September 17, 2018 at 4:22 pm

      Is it that the FBI can’t be trusted? I still think that if she had one now with professionals at the helm she could very well flop. Believing in what she now sees are inconsistencies must be difficult for even George. The only reason I see Republicans not wanting Kavanaugh to take it is my question above.

    12) it doesn’t follow that Ford was concerned Kavanaugh would be seated on the Supreme Court. Everyone on the Left had Hillary at 90% to win.

    Likely why her social media accounts were scrubbed:
    a) post election night she expressed complete shock and surprise that Hillary lost (conflicting with her new narrative) and
    b) she likely expressed an “end justifies means” sentiment, ie “it’s okay to lie under oath if it results in impeaching Trump-Hitler”

    amwick in reply to RodFC. | September 17, 2018 at 4:18 pm

    Can the defense show how she had many other relationships after this? Seems to contradict the whole traumatized claim.

    Asking for a friend.

New rumor. Mind you rumor. CBFs brother works for the law firm that represents Fusion GPS. < insert eyebrow flex >

The accuser doesn’t seem to remember the year, or even the decade. In one version of her story, Kavanaugh could have been 14.

her claims are as believable and valid as the ones made in the McMartin pre-school case years ago…

and should be given the same weight.

“See, Grassley wants “to arrange separate, follow-up calls with Kavanaugh and accuser Christine Blasey Ford before the vote, but just for aides to top members.” ”

For the “resistance”, it’s not about the truth nor allowing the process to work it’s way through normally. It’s about winning even if (or is it ESPECIALLY if?) it means they destroy the process along the way.

When you discard the Constitution and rule of law, there is nothing standing between us and the devil. That is why we have revolutions, rebellions and general violence. Take away civil options for fighting for what we believe in we are left with nothing else but violence.

The members of the house and senate who paid OUR money to shut up those women who they violated MUST be identified. Those members should not be allowed to vote.

All members are complicit in the cover-up since they voted to allow the payments and to keep the individuals names secret.

She ought to be heard. However the first thing I’d like to know is when, in 2012, did Dr. Ford remember this event and what is the date on the therapist note she’s using as proof she’d told someone? See, I’d like to know if it was before or after the March 26th, 2012 Jeffery Toobin piece for The New Yorker decrying the possibility of Kavanaugh getting nominated to the SCOTUS if a Republican won?

I’d like to see the date on the therapist note. See repressed memories are very open to suggestions (I’m not an AAL like many of you, I’m a social worker – so I have some limited insight here). Did Dr. Ford recall this only after learning that her old HS chum, a horrible conservative, could become a Jurist for the SCOTUS? Valid question, I think.

The whole thing sounds to me like a teenage girl with a vivid imagination who watched a movie and adopted an assault scene as her own memory. It would certainly explain the near complete lack of detail.

It’s interesting what IMDB has to say about that type of movie:

“Rape and revenge films (rape/revenge) are a subgenre of exploitation film that was particularly popular in the 1970s. Rape/revenge movies generally follow the same three act structure: Act I: A woman is raped/gang raped, tortured, and left for dead. Act II: The woman survives and rehabilitates herself. Act III: The woman takes revenge and kills all of her rapists. most of rape and revenge films are more controversial than any other genre. your thought about below list are most welcome.”


    MarkSmith in reply to MrE. | September 17, 2018 at 4:28 pm

    Well, I keep thinking of the Animal House Scene where he gets the the drunk girl back at his room and she passes out with an devil and an angel pop up on his shoulder.

    I recommend that maybe we ask if she ever saw Summer of 42.

    Porky’s Revenge? Come on, how many teenager movies have people getting dunk and having sex?

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | September 17, 2018 at 2:42 pm

Why are there Anita Hill, DiFi and Janet Napolitano HAIRS all OVER Christine????????

The next play is laughably obvious and already taking shape.

Grassley said that he’s willing to hear from her as long as it takes place before the vote already scheduled.

Democrats and that POS RINO Flake are demanding it be delayed for ‘investigations’, despite the fact that Feinstein has already had months to investigate the allegations.

And for the Civility crowd, Powerline has a post by Epstein with the usual Cuck Equivalence – he assumes Garland would have received the same treatment from the Right that Kavanaugh received from the Left.

Let that sink in – you took the high road and treated Ginsburg, Sotomeyer etc with courtesy and fairness and you still don’t get any credit for it. Nope, you “are just as bad” as the Left.

Some of what Epstein actually said…

And I have no doubt that if the Democrats held a majority of the seats in the Senate, they could have stonedwalled this nomination, just as the Republicans did with Merrick Garland. It is well-established constitutional law that the Senate need not call a hearing, let alone schedule a vote. In retrospect, the decision not to hold any hearings on Garland should be regarded as a wise and humane political decision, because it spared Garland and the nation a similar disgraceful exhibition of intolerance that some conservative opponents of Garland may well have launched to tarnish his confirmation chances.

But this last-ditch decision to sabotage Kavanaugh at the 11th hour is a disgusting piece of political propaganda. Christine Blasey Ford behaved wholly improperly when she decided to write a letter only to “a senior Democratic lawmaker,” in which she made the most serious allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh. At the very least, she ought to have handled matters wholly differently. If she wanted to keep matters confidential, she should have sent that letter to President Trump and to Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the judiciary committee. She also should have sent it to the FBI for investigation. And she should have done all of these things at the earliest possible moment, in time for a principled and neutral examination to take place before the Senate hearings took place. Then, she should have sat for a cross-examination.

    From your own cut n paste:

    “spared Garland and the nation a similar disgraceful exhibition of intolerance that some conservative opponents of Garland may well have launched to tarnish his confirmation chances.”

    Similar disgraceful exhibition of intolerance.

      Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | September 17, 2018 at 4:36 pm

      I’m curious about where you are getting this gross distortion, out of all context, about Powerline pieces? I bet it’s from a site where “cuck” is the franca linqua.

        Hint: 2 words, rhymes with Reading Comprehension.

        See, when a writer says that conservative opponents would have launched a similar disgraceful exhibition of intolerance, what he is really saying is that conservative opponents would have launched a similar disgraceful exhibition of intolerance.

    MarkSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | September 17, 2018 at 4:37 pm

    “examination to take place before the Senate hearings took place.”

    Yes, and if you follow the questioning, they questioned him to try and catch him in a lie knowing that this letter existed.

    This is all linked to GPS Fusion which specializes in this approach of slandering people. It is failing with Trump, worked with Moore and we will see with Kavanaugh. My guess is team Trump know this was coming. Stay Tune for the drama. It should work in favor of the 2018 midterms for Trump

    Don’t forget that she also contacted the Washington Post in July, while apparently stating that she didn’t want to “go public” or words to that effect. She didn’t want to pursue the issue, that’s why she contacted the WaPo at apparently the same time as the letter to her Congresswoman. Everybody who doesn’t want to make a big deal out of a “Me Too” type allegation against a public figure contacts the WaPo.

    That is a nice Epstein piece, but I wonder which republicans on the judiciary committee he thinks would have shown “a similar disgraceful exhibition of intolerance”? I did not watch the hearings for Kagan and Sotomayor, but I don’t recall hearing or reading about such disgraceful exhibitions. Perhaps they got a pass because of their various identity groups, which would not have protected Garland?

      Edward in reply to Rick. | September 17, 2018 at 5:24 pm

      No, there wouldn’t have been the sort of attacks we have seen with Kavanaugh, that is just the obligatory moral equivalence line thrown into the piece.

    Ratbert in reply to Ragspierre. | September 17, 2018 at 5:42 pm

    I never bother to waste my time reading Ratspierres’ posts, I just automatically downvote them.

      RedEchos in reply to Ratbert. | September 17, 2018 at 7:43 pm

      I read them and then decide. I usually only down-vote trolling posts or obscene posts.

      tom_swift in reply to Ratbert. | September 17, 2018 at 8:46 pm

      Once one has perfected the mystical ability to know exactly what he’s going to say without having to even read it . . . then one can skip anything with his name on it and save gobs of time, particularly on those pages which seem to go on forever and get nowhere worthwhile.

If this guy is a serial woman attacker then there will be a history of this kind of behaviour behind him. Much like Clinton has a history of RAPE and REAL sexual attacks on women, Harvey Weinstein has a history of predatory behaviour towards women…and every single DEMOCRAT that has been caught up with has a RECORDED history of attacking women.

Yet with Kavanaugh its just this one account…from 35 years ago and that from a complainant who can’t remember minor details such as when, where and who was hosting the party this supposedly took place at.

If Kavanaugh had a history of attacking women he wouldn’t have gotten any where near being nominated. After all, this isn’t the Democrats doing the nominating to start with.

That isn’t what he said. You are not an reliable reporter.

    It appeared Mary Chastain was posting twits, so how is she not a reliable reporter? To which “he” are you referring in the cut and paste update job Mary posted?

    Or did you get the comment cascade wrong and posted a reply to the OP instead of another comment?

      Ragspierre in reply to Edward. | September 17, 2018 at 5:30 pm

      It was in reply to Fen.

        Thank you, in the posting “cascade” it shows up as a comment on the article (icon all the way to the left of the page).

        It’s a direct quote Rags:

        “…spared Garland and the nation a similar disgraceful exhibition of intolerance that some conservative opponents of Garland may well have launched to tarnish his confirmation chances.”

        Why don’t you tell us what you think that means?

    RedEchos in reply to Ragspierre. | September 17, 2018 at 7:56 pm

    “spared Garland and the nation a similar disgraceful exhibition of intolerance that some conservative opponents of Garland may well have launched to tarnish his confirmation chances.”

    Key phrase : ‘may well have’

    False equivalence. When have Republicans Borked any judicial nominee?

      Ragspierre in reply to RedEchos. | September 18, 2018 at 8:05 am

      Are you seriously going to pretend that there is not…right HERE…a cadre of Rightists who would not use various dirty tricks to derail a nominee? That is not a “moral equivalence” to what the Senators have done to Kavanaugh.

      GOP Senators would not do what the Deemocrats have done, nor would we want them to (except for the cadre mentioned above; they would and do advocate it).

        A cadre? Really? Name them.

        And I can prove there is no cadre. Because
        1) They (and the Right) did not engage in these low tactics when Ginsburg was nominated.
        2) They did not engage in these low tactics when Sotomayor was nominated.
        3) They did not engage in these tactics when Kagan was nominated.

        I understand it’s hard for you to grasp how one’s actions effects reputation, but if someone demonstrates a pattern and history of being fair and honest then it’s wrong to presume they would behave unfairly or dishonestly.

        You get off on it though, don’t you? This Cuck fetish. You treat Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan honorably but still get shamed and humiliated by being likened to those dirty nasty liberals. When you aren’t being publicly humiliated here by Mistress Fuzzy?

        Do us a favor and keep your sick private life private.

          Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | September 18, 2018 at 8:58 am

          You’ve lost control again.

          Of course there are people here who would use dirty tricks to effect Rightist (as they see them) interests. You’ve fantasized here about killing the children of your “enemies”. Another poster advocated violating the Constitution to get somebody just the other day. There are nutters on both edges of the bell-curve.

          You took Epstein (or you adopted the bullshit of someone you read) completely out of context, and made a thoughtful and important piece about some “short quote” (that’s a despicable tactic, btw) you isolated from a piece and distorted.

          There was a lot to agree with Epstein about, and a few things to disagree with. You couldn’t see them for the crazy.

          Fen in reply to Fen. | September 18, 2018 at 11:43 am

          Then why can’t you name them?

          Your assignment was to provide examples of the Right using similar anti-Kavanaugh tactics on prior SCOTUS nominees of the Left – Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan.

          Not only have you failed to do so, you have moved the goal posts – an admission that I’m right and my point stands: there is no basis for Epstein’s false equivalence of “a similar disgraceful exhibition of intolerance that some conservative opponents of Garland may well have launched to tarnish his confirmation chances” is unfounded and not supported by fact.

          Fen in reply to Fen. | September 18, 2018 at 11:56 am

          Rags: “You took Epstein (or you adopted the bullshit of someone you read) completely out of context”

          It’s an exact quote Rags. He said that the right would have done the same thing to Garland, when all the evidence (during Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan) proves the exact opposite.

          My point that we don’t even get credit for taking the high road stands. This tactic of playing honorably has no utility other than virtue for its own sake.

          Fen in reply to Fen. | September 18, 2018 at 12:07 pm

          “There was a lot to agree with Epstein about, and a few things to disagree with. You couldn’t see them for the crazy.”

          That’s your statement, not mine. But since you bring it up, such intellectual dishonesty on Epstein’s part damages his credibility in the rest of his article.

          I don’t know the exact cause for Epstein throwing us under the bus – the Tu Quoque makes him feel objective and impartial, or he needs to curry favor with the liberal cocktail set, or his Trump derangement demands he take a cheap shot at us.
          Regardless, Epstein’s intellectual dishonesty here makes his other points suspect: are they based on sound impartial analysis or is he preening for some gig at CNN?

          I don’t expect you to understand how intellectual dishonesty in part reflects on the whole. You ARE the guy who would get 30 downvotes for posting “the sky is blue” and never understand why.

          Have a lovely day with your rage. I need to wash my hair.

    It’s a direct quote Rags:

    “…spared Garland and the nation a similar disgraceful exhibition of intolerance that some conservative opponents of Garland may well have launched to tarnish his confirmation chances.”

    Why don’t you tell us what you think that means?

      Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | September 18, 2018 at 7:11 am

      It means you like to lie. You intentionally distort a bland statement of fact (“some might”, which is facially true) into a statement of moral equivalency. There are several here in that cohort of “may” use the lowest of tactics. They aren’t hard to see.

      Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | September 18, 2018 at 7:13 am

      You intentionally distort a bland statement of fact (“some might”, which is facially true) into a statement of moral equivalency. There are several here in that cohort of “may” use the lowest of tactics. They aren’t hard to see.

        It’s not factually true, else prove it here and now.

        Also “some might” is not a quote from Epstein. You just made that up.

          Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | September 18, 2018 at 9:39 am

          “See, when a writer says that conservative opponents would have launched a similar disgraceful exhibition of intolerance…”

          That’s your intentional distortion of…
          …a similar disgraceful exhibition of intolerance that SOME conservative opponents of Garland MAY [or might] well have launched to tarnish his confirmation chances.”

          Or SOME MIGHT. See now?

          But, again, your tactic was to “short quote” an entire piece by intentionally distorting the author grossly out of context.

          Fen in reply to Fen. | September 18, 2018 at 11:26 am

          No Rags, you don’t get to include your own paraphrase inside brackets and then claim that as part of the original quote.

          We covered this in 6th grade.

I don’t care what teenaged Brett is alleged to have done 36 years ago.

The Left has made it plain that they don’t give a damn about Kavanaugh’s legal laudettes, bona fides, or opinions from 12 years on the D.C. Circuit Court.

From the vile temper tantrums by dozens of screaming Leftists on the 1st day of Senate confirmation hearings to this obscure allegation of sexual misconduct from teenaged Brett Kavanaugh 36 years ago, this entire process is simply poo fling power politics for the Left. And people are sick of the tantrums.

Twenty-five years ago, Bill Clinton(D) taught us that private sexual predilictions had nothing to do with professional performance. All that mattered was ideology and narrative for Leftists.

Today, we’re lectured from on high to #BelieveAllWomen, yet after numerous allegations of sexual assault – even a rape – adultry, and turning ‘humidor’ into a verb with the help of a White House intern young enough to be his daughter, Bill Clinton is still a fund raising, speechifying hero to the Left. All that matters is ideology and narrative for Leftists – by any means necessary.

Mitt Romney(R) is arguably the most famous, gentle, polite, virtuous man ever to walk the planet, yet during the 2012 campaign for potus the Left incessantly insulted this man and his good name. Romney was smeared as a callous, greedy, dog hating, woman hating, homophobic bigot who, as former VP Joe ‘the groper’ Biden infamously told a mostly Black audience, if Romney was elected he would ‘put ya’ll back in chains.’

But dang that Trump for being so rude and uncivil!

I’ve said for a while that I’m done with these Leftists and their deceitful ‘values voters’ game, particularly when Fenn’s Law tells us that Leftists don’t really care about the things they lecture about to the rest of us.

So, I don’t care what teenaged Brett Kavanaugh is alleged to have done 36 years ago. I just don’t care.

Why? I’m not a values voter. I’m a smaller, limited government voter, and people like Trump, Kavanaugh, Moore, Greitens, Jordan, et al suit my purpose.

Ideology and narrative, people. Ideology and narrative.

Sadly, it wasn’t meant to be this way. Back in 1787, the architects of this government designed the scotus as the weakest of the 3 branches of government. They never invisioned scotus as a supremely powerful, unelected politbureau where a majority of lawyers in black robes could turn the inner most recesses of society on its head with a single opinion.

But the fact that the scotus has evolved into a supremely powerful, unelected politbureau is precisely why Leftists salivate over the court. From the FDR administration till now, Leftists have fevered dreams of packing the scotus with their ideologues to advance their increasingly marxist agenda by a mere 5 votes.

It’s why I’m willing to bet dollars to donuts that Leftists are frantically searching for any other women they can beg, browbeat, or bribe to come forward and hurl yet another pervert accusation against Kavanaugh. Leftists want to ‘hashtag’ him because Leftists don’t have the votes in the Senate to stop the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the scotus.

And that’s something I can really care about.

    A minor quibble: “But the fact that the SCOTUS has voted itself into a supremely powerful, unelected politbureau is precisely why Leftists salivate over the court.” Not evolution, just a raw and continuing power grab camouflaged with the trappings of “law” and the Constitution.

Shower thought: if Feinstein was hosting a Chinese spy, was she the subject of a FISA warrant?

    iconotastic in reply to Petrushka. | September 17, 2018 at 7:37 pm

    She should still be the subject of such a warrant, though I think as a US Senator that might be difficult.

    John Kerry and other former Obama officials working to obstruct President Trump’s international initiatives should all be subject to FISA warrants though.

    Pet: In all probability, yes. Handled the way FISA warrants should be handled, with great care not to intrude on US citizens and kept out of the newspapers. The objective when you spot a spy is not to pounce right away, but to watch them, see who they talk to, and watch them too, looking for interesting cross-threads to the web. I.e. if Bob the Driver just happened to have a weekly poker game with Fred the Driver for Senator Fogbottom and George the Driver for Representative Rumple, those two are going to get a little extra observation too.

What is kinda funny was back in 79, one of the local high school class theme was Booze, Beer Sex and Wine, we are the class of 79.

Well, how about this – more connections to GPS with Ford’s Brother’s law firm:

Prevezon is controlled by Veselnitskaya’s Russian clients, the Katsyvs — Denis Katsyv and his father Pyotr, a powerful Russian transportation official and crony of Putin’s. In her capacity as the company’s lawyer in Moscow, Veselnitskaya had helped Prevezon retain the American counsel representing it in the forfeiture case — John Moscow. In turn, Moscow and his firm, Baker Hostetler, had hired Fusion to do research on the victims who were behind the Justice Department’s suit — Hermitage and its financial advisory firm, Hermitage Capital Management, headed by Bill Browder.

Well dollars to donuts!!!

Rachel Madcow says she has three other women that she will have on tonight to testify the the judge I had sexually abused/ harassed them !!!

Trump is surrounded by sharks:

ANOTHER TRUMP ALUM GOES DOWNTOWN: Jim Murphy, the Trump campaign’s national political director, joined the law and lobbying firm BakerHostetler as a senior adviser on its federal policy team.

Murphy succeeded Rick Wiley as the Trump campaign’s national political director in June. He stepped away in October amid the final push for what he said were personal reasons. He is an ally of former campaign chairman Paul Manafort

Polygraphs? If we’re going to go the pseudoscience route, why not go all the way and settle the whole thing by having a phrenologist examine the bumps on both parties’ heads, and determine which of them is more honest?

LOOK OUT INCOMING – BREAKING: President Trump Directs Dan Coats (DNI), Jeff Sessions (DOJ) and Christopher Wray (FBI) To Declassify Documents and Release Unredacted Text Messages…

New thread needed. I bet Feinstein get burned on this.

They could also have an astrologer cast both of their horoscopes for the date in question and determine exactly what happened between them. (Oops, the date is unknown. How convenient.)

Does anyone know how this is being discussed in law school classes or legal offices? Do they see the attack on the credibility of the system (legal and legislative) that we all see? Are they worried about losing the trust of the people?

1) “The Washington Post reported on Monday that two women who dated Judge Brett Kavanaugh — one in high school, the other in college — have now gone on record defending his character and how he treats women.”

2) ” Kavanaugh is reportedly set to speak to judiciary committee staffers at 5:30 p.m. EST about the allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford.

The Democratic members of the committee are reportedly not planning on being in attendance to participate.”


Kinda makes one wonder what was the problems in the marriage that therapy was necessary.

Could it be that one of those in the relationship is a nutcase?

If Kavanaugh was OK before this BS charge (a long, unblemished record as a judge, a long, unblemished record of public service, six FBI background checks that presumably uncovered nothing damaging, etc.), then how is the charge of what he did at age 17 relevant now?

    It doesn’t, but the narrative must be maintained at all cost.

    Even if that means destroying a good man.

      Colonel Travis in reply to Beauslx. | September 17, 2018 at 9:22 pm

      Correct. So let’s say the charge is true. There is nothing in his background as an adult that we know of that would point back to that incident, where you could say – AHA! misogynist, lecher, lopsided judge, etc. Chalk it up to a drunk teenager. In no way does this even come close to mimicking the charges against Roy Moore, for example.

      The only possible way it is relevant today is if the charge is true, because then Kavanaugh would be a liar, and he can kiss this job goodbye. But:

      1.) The charge is simply impossible to prove.
      2.) Ford’s lawyer said Ford doesn’t even need to prove it.
      3.) There is also a 65-1 ratio of women standing up for his character.

      So the leftist standard is not that you must have an unimpeachable record. It’s that if anyone questions your background with a charge that can never be proven and never even require proof in the first place!, you risk losing everything.

      But that’s not even the greater danger here. I don’t think enough people understand how damaging this is to our country, and where all these kinds of roads, ultimately, never fail to lead. We have honest-to-God tyrants trying to rule America. I can’t believe I would ever type that kind of sentence in my life.

      As things stand now, if Kavanaugh is tossed aside, this country is sunk.

        “In no way does this even come close to mimicking the charges against Roy Moore, for example.”

        Kavanaugh’s accuser is alleging attempted rape. In what way, for example, are the accusations made against Kavanaugh lesser than those made against Moore?

        “As things stand now, if Kavanaugh is tossed aside, this country is sunk.”

        It was sunk when you let prior unprovable charges go because you didn’t like the guy.

        You either insist upon innocent until proven guilty for everyone, or the country sinks.

    It isn’t. Even if the story were true it would not affect his suitability now for the court. Just as even if the Trump Collusion story were true it would be irrelevant.

I just keep in mind its us against them and act accordingly

Simon hijacks yet another thread to pimp legalization of marijuana.

The more you do this, the more hostile we grow towards your issue.

Are you being paid by some lobby? Because you are beginning to sound like a commercial.

“… Interesting discussion about Green Energy. You know what else is green?”

“… Sen Harris arrested in DUI? Blah blah prohibition failed blah war on drugs blah legalize pot!”

“… that protestors tattoo may not look like a marijuana leaf but let me segway in legalization of pot anyway!”

It’s transparent. And it’s what has destroyed the Libertarian Party – no one takes them seriously about anything because of people like you who turn everything into an advertisement for legalizing pot.

    Ragspierre in reply to Fen. | September 18, 2018 at 7:48 am

    Who is this “we”, Kemosaba?

    Not at all cuddly, btw. Kind of like Eddie Haskell as hall monitor.

    You don’t think it matters?

    Florida voted for med pot by 71% Trump got 49%. By simple math at least 41% of Trump voters voted for pot.

    Do you think even 10% of that 41% would matter?

    Will Trump need them in 2020?

      No one pays me. It would be nice if they did. I’d spend less time here trying to help Republicans win.

      Something like 60% to 70% of the voting population favors legalizing pot. Med pot runs 70% to 80%. In some places Republicans need, the percentages are enough to matter.

      It is an old story. Not the first time Republicans have made a similar error.

      The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution. — G.K. Chesterton