Patterico's Pontifications

9/19/2018

Kavanaugh Classmate: I Did Not Attend the Party Christine Ford Says I Attended

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:25 am

The story seems to be falling apart:

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, another former classmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s denies attending a party like the one described in the allegation made by Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her three decades ago when they were teenagers.

. . . .

“I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as ‘PJ’ who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post,” Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

Hmmm.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

491 Responses to “Kavanaugh Classmate: I Did Not Attend the Party Christine Ford Says I Attended”

  1. Patterico, I hope we can stay away (on this thread) from saying insulting things about the accuser, whom I suspect has psychological difficulties. Maybe she is sociopathically political, but that is looking less and less likely.

    DF used her as a bomb for a political purpose.

    No one wins here. No one.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  2. Maybe PJ was actually a giant pink rape-bunny that only Christine could see

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  3. Which party was this? Where was it? What date? What year?

    Without any of those details no one can say they weren’t at “THE party”. There may have been 500 such parties in that area in the span of three summers, or 5000. The vast majority of people went to none of them, and a small percentage of them may have been at some or even most of them–if it were shown that this classmate had attended even one of them, is his testimony impeached and the accusation strengthened simply because the accuser can’t narrow it down to one of dozens or hundreds or thousands of possible parties it may have been?

    That’s why accusations of this type, without enough detail even to be refuted, are so pernicious.

    Nemo (a46a69)

  4. The dna of rinos is too cave. The vote should go on schedule, but won’t.
    This chick of Chinese Diane is a winning move by the democrats.
    So very sad.

    mg (9e54f8)

  5. The dna of rinos is too cave. The vote should go on schedule, but won’t.
    This chick of Chinese Diane is a winning move by the democrats.
    So very sad.

    Buck up, mg, I actually think Grassley is handling this pretty well. He only delayed until Monday, and he has made it clear that if Ms. Ford isn’t willing to testify on that day then the nomination will move forward. Jeff Flake has already indicated his agreement with this idea, and I would imagine that Grassley has Collins and Murkowski on board as well. Think of where we might be two weeks from now: Kavanaugh is confirmed for the seat by the full Senate, and the Democrats are left with a legacy of having taken a likely-mentally unbalanced woman and thrust her into the public spotlight for a fruitless partisan Hail Mary attempt. It could really come back to hurt the party this fall if the rabid left thinks they are incompetent while moderates think they are sleazy.

    JVW (42615e)

  6. Y’know, comment #4 reads like something you’d find on an Atlanta Braves fan blog regarding the current coach, who is a great leader of men, but whose game generalship sometimes causes headscratching. Never mind that this deal looks very much like a late hit won’t work. Never mind that, for a change, it is hard NOT to notice the bad faith oozing from the left side of the internet. RINOs will fail. RINOs must fail. RINOs can’t do anything else. And it’s because they are weak willed, supine, untough fellows who, if they ever had a bit of old fashioned gumption, they’d do nothing but throw strikes, and, if the coach were a real all fired man, he’d get the pitcher out when he throws a walk, but by golly stop overtaxing the bullpen!

    Appalled (96665e)

  7. I agree with JVW and Appalled. McConnell had to herd 51 cats who wanted everything from NO SURRENDER to WE NEED TO GIVE THE #METOO SIDE A CHANCE. It looks like he will be able to do that. It’s no small feat.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  8. We will see.

    Simon, she’s trying to ruin Kavanaugh’s life, his career, the Republican party and the country. Why should we be polite to her?

    NJRob (7f4a32)

  9. “The story seems to be falling apart:”

    Well . . . only if one finds it extraordinary that a guy can’t remember a party from 30 years ago when that party was for him not extraordinarily memorable.

    The accuracy of people’s memories differs quite a bit (d’oh). Myself, I have a middling to poor memory – especially of things which occurred 30 years back. As a rule, folks forget an awful lot, and sometimes remember stuff that didn’t happen. This is news to the adults here?

    As an example – and this dates from about 40 years back. In a conversation several months ago with some old friends, they brought up an incident at a small get-together at their house, where a ferret suddenly appeared in the kitchen, much to the surprise and amusement of all there-gathered, and most memorably and particularly to my amusement. So I was told. I had absolutely no recollection whatsoever of any such ferret-infested party, or that I had found it so hilariously amusing. They provided a not-insubstantial amount of book-and-verse on the event, none of which served to ring any bells with me (which sometimes will happen, re: forgotten memories), and I simply had to smile and say “it’s all news to me”, and defer to their memories. None of which surprised me, and I had and have no reason to doubt the bona fides and accuracy of their account.

    Q! (86710c)

  10. . . . if they ever had a bit of old fashioned gumption, they’d do nothing but throw strikes, and, if the coach were a real all fired man, he’d get the pitcher out when he throws a walk. . .

    To extend the baseball metaphor, we’re grousing that our pitcher is getting outs via grounders and fly balls instead of striking out the side with explosive fastballs and wicked sliders.

    JVW (42615e)

  11. To extend the baseball metaphor, we’re grousing that our pitcher is getting outs via grounders and fly balls instead of striking out the side with explosive fastballs and wicked sliders.

    Although to be fair, I will grant that some of these grounders require diving stops and some of the fly balls are going all the way to the warning track.

    JVW (42615e)

  12. Good girls seldom make the news.

    nk (dbc370)

  13. I genuinely hope your correct, JVW. History shows another side of rino stupidity that is unforgivable. I could make a list, but will just point out Sessions has been a disgrace for conservatism. Again, I hope your correct, JVW.

    mg (17622f)

  14. if she goes to the hearings somebody’s gonna ask her about all the dirty facebook pages she deleted before she did this rape hoax all up in it

    but it’s still hilarious how she wants to screech all about her rape hoax but doesn’t have the balls to actually testify

    she’s a pathetic role model for her kids that’s for sure

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  15. I have to say I never imagined a world in my wildest dreams where Jeff Sessions would be a RINO.

    Appalled (96665e)

  16. 15- recusing himself was the first clue.

    mg (9e54f8)

  17. 15- his time as a.g. Is appallingly sad.

    mg (9e54f8)

  18. Sessions is a very low class person with glaring character deficiencies

    he’s basically committing fraud by collecting a paycheck for a job he steadfastly refuses to do

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  19. Well he is proscribed from investigating certain matters

    narciso (d1f714)

  20. Because of the same grade of garbage we see here,

    narciso (d1f714)

  21. With the goody ford event.

    narciso (d1f714)

  22. “Jeff Flake has already indicated his agreement with this idea,

    I was almost starting to think he was picking up where McCain left off, throwing away his principles to stick it to Trump.

    harkin (2582ce)

  23. Bet you Sessions recused himself not because of his conversations with the Russian ambassador but because he did not want to cover up for Trump’s gangster buddies.

    nk (dbc370)

  24. The woman may be wrestling with inner demons, that’s for her and her therapist to work out. I fault Feinstein and the rest of these ghouls (e.g., Coons, Blumenthal, the whole lot of them) for their desperation Hail Mary that is an obvious attempt to derail the proceedings until after the mid-term election.

    Colonel Haiku (aacf42)

  25. I think that if the (R) Legislators don’t stand against old flimsy allegations, then this will be the (D) nuclear weapon of choice. And it will be used on every male no matter their reputation.

    If Ford/Feinstein really wanted an investigation, they’d have passed this on to the WH when the WH was vetting Kavanaugh.

    This is crazy. We have claims of a passed lie detector test, but no idea what questions were answered, women who simply atended the same school over a span of 50 years asserting support for Ford with absolutely no hard evidence. Crazy

    steveg (a9dcab)

  26. LOL; Trump 101: “Deny, deny, deny.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  27. That’s another reason why Trump needs to stay out of this, DCSCA.

    DRJ (15874d)

  28. (Just Like) Romeo and Juliet (Not Like) Karen Monahan’s

    Seeing a shrink tomorrow morning,
    Got a little something I want to do.
    Gonna send a letter to Ms. Feinstein
    Something wild, with a definite far-left lean
    My tale’s gonna be written up by teh media
    Not like Karen Monahan’s

    Colonel Haiku (aacf42)

  29. Perhaps Smyth seems ‘mistaken.’ Or ‘mixed up.’

    Let’s ask Senator Hatch.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  30. @27. There’s an even better reason, DRJ; it keeps the Russia probe ‘below the fold’ and out of the chatter for a while- along w/a hurricane or two.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  31. Grassley’s letter seems to say exactly the right things.

    It emphasizes that the Senate alone, not the executive branch or its agencies, is charged with making a decision on Kavanaugh.

    Dave (445e97)

  32. F**k Grandpa Simpson-Brown…

    “Something’s got to happen to this guy [Trump]…he’s going to undermine America.”

    Colonel Haiku (aacf42)

  33. It’s not easy testifying in court, especially about sexual assault claims, but victims have to do it every day across the country. Blasey Ford’s name is public now and she is being given a new chance to confront her accused with her claim, even though limitations have run on bringing a criminal case. She can testify before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary — a second chance that few people get — and to do it in a closed session. I think she should want to come do this. She still might.

    DRJ (15874d)

  34. NJRob – because if you think it’s ok to be rude to anyone you think is trying to ruin the country, then any political disagreement becomes the basis for rudeness, and once that happens, the country will fall apart.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  35. Rude, aphrael they have tried to destroy lives reputations careers, based on flimsy excuses for evidence

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/breaking-himtoo-at-the-nyrb.php

    Narciso (629225)

  36. @1. I hope we can stay away (on this thread) from saying insulting things about the accuser, whom I suspect has psychological difficulties.

    Simon, your ‘suspicion’ mirrors almost word-for-word what was said by many associates of my friend and colleague some years ago who had their accusations on a serious life-death issue challenged. Which is why I asked my friend the question then that fits here: ‘why would anyone make this up?’

    In the end, the accusations were found to be true.

    Why would Dr. Ford turn her life upside down by making this up and put herself and her family through this hell? Personally, believe Ford is credible. And believe Kavanaugh and those associated with him from those times will deny, deny, deny or feign the standard, ‘I don’t recall’ for obvious reasons and want to distance themselves. It doesn’t do their lives and careers any good being drawn into the spotlight over this.

    It’s up to McConnell [who advised the WH this candidate would be difficult] to corral enough votes, anyway. But strip out any angst and personal politics and just make a list of how many corporate or government officeholders -high profile or low- have managed to survive and keep or secure their gigs over the past two or three years in this ‘MeToo’ era battling this kind of accusation. The latest casualty, Les Moonves, had Lynda Carter, a close friend who knew him for nearly 40 years, publicly vouch for his character, but clearly didn’t know him well enough and he still went down in flames.

    Make the list of names; you’ll likely find it is a very, very short one– but one near the top has to be Donald Trump.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  37. The first Monday in October, unfortunately, is the 1st.

    Does anyone know of a firm commitment by McConnell to immediately move to the floor debate? My understanding is that each Senator has a right to speak on the nomination. Anyone believe the Dems will not take FULL advantage? I see little chance that Kavanaugh will sit for arguments until the 8th, at the earliest.

    Does anyone know what is on the SCOTUS docket for 10/1, 10/8?

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  38. Women make false rape claims. People make false claims. There are lots of reasons but they definitely happen, even if they make no sense to you.

    DRJ (15874d)

  39. You know, I really think DCSCA has at least that one great point. What if what she’s saying is true? I’m not saying I believe her. I’m saying it’s not a bad place to start. Pause a moment before deciding that she’s lying. She now has at least a million enemies who believe she lied.

    Same for Kavanaugh. Partisan democrats need to start from the position of his innocence. What if he really has been blindsided and did absolutely none of this? He now has millions of Americans who will never stop believing he is a rapist.

    Respect isn’t just something we should give to ‘our’ side. It’s not a tactic for political appearances either. It’s a rational way to handle doubt. Unfortunately, that doubt will not go away in this particular issue, and one or both of these people have been badly victimized by this process.

    Simon can be extremely repetitive in his warning to not be nasty, and it’s because of how extremely repetitive happyfeet has been in how he communicates about women on the side opposite to him. I don’t hold that against Simon though I think it started the thread off badly.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  40. The SCOTUS argument calendar for October 1 is here. There are 6 cases scheduled.

    DRJ (15874d)

  41. She could be lying. She could be truthful. Or she could be right about the incident but mistaken about who was there.

    DRJ (15874d)

  42. Since Biden said prominent men accused of rape should be presumed guilty … I’d like to be there the next time he sees Bill Clinton.

    DRJ (15874d)

  43. Much more evidence of Joey Plugs groping women out there…

    Colonel Haiku (aacf42)

  44. @39. FWIW, DRJ, living through a real life ‘Hitchcock scenario’ where associates ridicule your credibility, suspect you’re psychologically disturbed or just seeking ‘publicity’ and ‘grandstanding’ for personal gain was a nightmare for my friend, who is still dealing with the aftermath years on. Patterico knows who the individual is referred to in #37. Which is why I firmly believe, ‘why would anybody make this up’ is reasonable and fair question to ask.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  45. DRJ, at 41:

    Madison v Alabama is interesting, as I could easily see that being a 4-4 deadlock with the currrent court.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  46. What if what she’s saying is true? I’m not saying I believe her. I’m saying it’s not a bad place to start.

    I agree, but I won’t blindly believe anyone. The thing to do is take the accusation at face value, and then look for evidence that supports or contradicts it.

    Here’s all the evidence that supports the accusation:

    Here’s all the evidence that contradicts the accusation:

    1. The date, time, and location of the alleged incident is unknown
    2. Three of the four people claimed to be there have denied it ever happened. At least one of them is willing to testify under oath to that.
    3. The person making the claim is refusing to testify.

    So, we start taking the accusation at face value, and finding it has no merits.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  47. What constitutes corroboration, in a situation like this? There are some compelling reasons for those named thus far to have “no recall” of the situation that this woman is alleging.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  48. Chuck Bartowski,

    The statement of this woman is certainly “evidence,” in your framework. If the denials are “evidence” in one column, then the allegation is “evidence” in the other.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  49. @38. Yes but ‘the first Monday in October’ really isn’t that pressing given how long the seat Gorsuch eventually filled remained open. A few more days/week or two, won’t matter. Unless the Senate flips, which seems a long shot, a conservative will get the slot; there’s 20 or 30 names on that FS list to pick from.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  50. How long before the idea is floated that all of these people refusing to confirm her story are part of a conspiracy?

    We’re already being asked to believe a vague accusation simply because it’s unreasonable to make something like that up (even though people make stuff like that up all the time) and they’ve we’ve got to respect her courage for coming forward (even though she didn’t want to come forward and now refuses to testify under oath).

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  51. #37 —

    I don’t think your question — why would anyone do this — gets us very far. For one thing, it puts a presumption of guilt on a nominee he can’t easily erase. The situation makes me wince, because nobody should have to cope with the Washington swirl, unless they make a conscious choice to do that. But then, you don’t get to fell a nominee on the basis of an anonymous charge, either. And that is what Ms. Ford really hoped to do.

    The demand for an FBI investigation sounds like a way to save face, because it is easily rejected by the GOP. I hope the angry multitudes will let Ms. Ford do that, if that is her wish.

    Appalled (96665e)

  52. “How long before the idea is floated that all of these people refusing to confirm her story are part of a conspiracy?”

    This has Russian meddling written all over it.

    Munroe (8afbf8)

  53. Mark Judge being a ribald “bro” author – a repentant Tucker Max – does not help.

    and here’s a freebie for the SNL crew: I want to buy a new car – American made – and the closest dealership is this place called Christine Blasey Ford. No F-150s, the backseats have 100 video cameras On-Star Plus Plus, and they have some homely parts department cashiers.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  54. @47 Chuck Bartowski

    You cannot seriously consider that your “analysis” is remotely fair-spirited or neutral. Can you? Cf@ 47, for example. And your #3 (“The person making the claim is refusing to testify.”). She’s merely asked for an investigation, before the hearing, and her testifying there. The FBI spent 3 days investigating prior to the Thomas/Hill hearing. (And why should a slight delay be so un-doable?) Of course Ford and Kavanaugh and Judge (for example) should be investigated, and be responsive, to the questions. Why, in heaven’s name, not?

    Perhaps at the end of the day, it will come down to a wholly murky he said/she said. Perhaps something more, or perhaps something less murky. Myself, I’d like to hear about those wild, drunken parties from the horse’s mouth (Author Judge), and if “Kavanaugh” is Kavanaugh. Inter alia.

    Q! (86710c)

  55. Whoops … should read: …. Can you? Cf@ 49, for example

    Q! (86710c)

  56. The statement of this woman is certainly “evidence,” in your framework. If the denials are “evidence” in one column, then the allegation is “evidence” in the other.

    The statement of the woman is the initial accusation. Everything else is viewed in light of the accusation: does it tend to support, or tend to contradict? There is no evidence beyond the initial accusation to support it.

    You cannot seriously consider that your “analysis” is remotely fair-spirited or neutral. Can you?

    I think it accurately states the facts that we know. Do you have anything to say otherwise?

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  57. Hit “Submit” too soon….

    She’s merely asked for an investigation, before the hearing, and her testifying there.

    As has been pointed out by others, she doesn’t need any investigating done for her to stand up and testify. This is smoke being blown.

    Of course Ford and Kavanaugh and Judge (for example) should be investigated, and be responsive, to the questions. Why, in heaven’s name, not?

    Investigated by whom? It’s not a federal matter, it’s a state matter. And we don’t have anything close to a precise date or location. So, just what should be investigated?

    Why can’t Ford testify under oath? There’s absolutely no reason why she shouldn’t.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  58. classmate christina king has just corroborated ford on msnbc. king said ford told her about kavenaugh raping her in high school.

    lany (51c491)

  59. @52. Disagree. Seems a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  60. #37 —

    I don’t think your question — why would anyone do this — gets us very far.

    I agree. A world where nobody ever does anything self-destructive or unwise would look a lot different from the one we live in.

    In a large fraction of these “why would anyone…?” scenarios, the answer turns out to be “because they thought they could get away with it.”

    Dave (b41e40)

  61. #59
    You might want to google that because King says:

    “I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions…”

    And Ford told the Post she’d never told anyone the story in detail, so how can her hearsay evidence be worth a darn

    steveg (a9dcab)

  62. king has deleted post do to right wing harassment not recant.

    lany (51c491)

  63. @61. A world where nobody ever does anything self-destructive or unwise would look a lot different from the one we live in.

    Disagree. You create a generalize axiom. ‘Why would anyone do it’ is a completely reasonable question to ask.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  64. NJRob – because if you think it’s ok to be rude to anyone you think is trying to ruin the country, then any political disagreement becomes the basis for rudeness, and once that happens, the country will fall apart.

    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/19/2018 @ 12:00 pm

    So it’s not okay to insult President Trump?

    NJRob (7f4a32)

  65. She didn’t recant her statement, she clarified she had no first hand knowledge.
    No first hand knowledge and no first hand talk with Christina Blaisely Ford means that King really only feels she knows anything

    steveg (a9dcab)

  66. #66

    You can insult Trump, just not rudely

    steveg (a9dcab)

  67. I’ll decide who is being rude if you don’t mind

    steveg (a9dcab)

  68. 1. No one wins? Really?! If the Kavanaugh vote goes the way Clarence Thomas did, then Ford will have had her moment in the sun and will be remembered for decades to come — fondly — by leftists in denial of her efforts to smear a good man. If not for her efforts to smear Clarence Thomas, no one would know who Anita Hill is either.

    Gryph (08c844)

  69. so demand justice, the outfit coordinating the hits against Cavanaugh, is run by a former Feinstein staffer, and fmr Obama official, hertwig, coincidence I’m sure,

    narciso (d1f714)

  70. @61

    I didn’t say it was unreasonable, I said it doesn’t get us very far.

    Particularly in this case, where the accuser bent over backwards to try to make her allegation anonymously until she was involuntarily outed against her wishes. It’s not clear she ever freely made the ‘self-sacrificing’ decision you attribute to her, as opposed to being left with no other choice (reporters had already started contacting her when she ‘came forward’)

    Dave (b41e40)

  71. also associated with klobuchar, what a coincidence,

    so this is the dossier with a different cover, well that one actually referenced a location,

    narciso (d1f714)

  72. I was replying to 65, sorry

    Dave (b41e40)

  73. #64

    You do know: “Ford in her therapist notes disclosed she never mentioned the incident to anyone prior to that session in 2012.”

    steveg (a9dcab)

  74. cray-cray christine lies a lot though

    she has trouble separating fantasy from reality

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  75. Why would anyone do this? (several)

    No one would start out to do this unless it was true. But there are ways that one dcould start out to do something else, then have the lie control them. An example:

    Let’s say that Dr Ford and husband are in couple’s counseling because there’s a recent loss of intimacy. Dr Ford knows why this is, but prefers not to fess up to it, so she invents a trauma, along with a reason why she won’t name names. One thing leads to another…

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  76. #64

    That didn’t take long (ref #51).

    King said initially that Ford told her and everyone knew about it at the time. Ford says she didn’t tell anyone until ’12. King says it was during the school year and Ford says over the summer. King now says she didn’t have first hand knowledge. King also said:

    deleted this [tweet] because it served its purpose

    What purpose was served? Certainly not the truth since she ends with:

    I don’t have more to say on the subject.

    King’s first statement contradicts Ford’s claims. Her second one leaves me wondering what she is actually claiming. Is she saying everyone knew but Ford didn’t tell her? How did everyone know something Ford didn’t tell anyone about.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  77. @61. I didn’t say it was unreasonable, I said it doesn’t get us very far.

    Far enough; ‘hhy would anyone make this up’ is a perfectly logical thing ask; challenging the ‘question’ suggests a concern over finding an answer[s].

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  78. The game is to delay the appointment by any means necessary. Period. End stop.

    NJRob (7f4a32)

  79. That’s begging the question DSCSA.

    NJRob (7f4a32)

  80. @61. Dave, postscript- see #45. It dovetails w/#37.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  81. How did everyone know something Ford didn’t tell anyone about.

    Obviously young Kavanaugh was boasting, Trump-style, about his ill-gotten nookie:

    “… and when you’re Georgetown Prep, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

    Dave (b41e40)

  82. Being the same age as Kavanaugh and Judge, and also going to lots of parties that at least seem like the ones Judge describes in his book, the fact that she can’t remember the exact date 36 years later isn’t that strange to me.

    The most jarring thing in her statement, to me at least, was when she said her and her friends “only had one beer”. In my experience, in high school at least (and in Ohio the age for beer was 19, and in the 80’s everyone knew the place to go that didn’t ID, but I digress), the only way you only had one beer was if there was no more beer, you just continued until X=beer and X=0. There were teetotalers and designated drivers, but that tended to mean no drinking. Of course, there was also a large amount of weed too, so I suppose its possible.

    So, if she was shading her story to make herself look better, and him look worse, “I only had one beer” would sound better than “He was completely wasted, and I was tipsy (or hammered)”. That wouldn’t make the allegation less valid but would explain some of the fuzziness. But if everyone else was drunk, and that was very common, and no one can specifically, contemporaneously, verify some of the story, it is just that, a story. If she didn’t absolutely know that there was some corroboration, then it was going to be exactly as bad for her as it has been, and it wouldn’t actually affect him getting on the court.

    And…I still don’t get the big deal with the FBI reevaluating the background check, it’s literally their job. I’ve had the FBI come back after an SSBI before, specifically when my AMEX was stolen and used to buy plane tickets and hotel rooms in Lebanon and Turkey. It would take them a couple of days max, people either remember or they don’t.

    Colonel Klink (5adc99)

  83. I’m curious how the pro-FBI investigation crowd actually expects that to play out?

    What is the underlying federal crime they are investigating?

    When they go to interview all of the alleged witnesses who have already said they don’t recall is there some hope that the FBI agents will explain that lying to them is itself a crime, give them that steely eyed serious look that is only taught at Quantico, and get the truth?

    Will Ford have to make her allegations under oath or will the FBI be working off what’s been reported in the news? Do you think Ford will agree to statements under oath to the FBI? What happens if her story changes after she talks to the FBI?

    What does anyone expect the FBI to find? Some information that helps Ford but that she doesn’t remember?

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  84. @77. Kevin, you’ve simply invented a fiction and injected a scenario into the discussion. It’s no more productive than DeGenova going on Carlson’s show last night and calling Ford ‘a loon’ on national television.

    ‘Why would anyone make this up’ remains a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Take off your political and ideological cloak; it’s just common sense to ask it given the times we live in. Why would anybody intentionally disrupt their lives and put themselves and their family, friends and associates through this hell? A fictional scenario isn’t an answer.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  85. right wing harassment

    read: people claiming that she’s a liar and a poor one at that.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  86. ‘Why would anyone make this up’ remains a perfectly reasonable question to ask

    And I gave a possible answer. We see it ALL the time, where someone claims a noose was put on their dormroom door. And you just have to wonder why they did it, when it NEARLY ALWAYS turns out that they did it themse3lves. But I expect you’d be part of the “Why would they do it?” brigade each and every time.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  87. It would be a crime to lie to the FBI about anything of substance in this case even if not under oath, I believe.

    I suspect if the FBI investigates, the next stall tactic would be trying to draw out negotiations on the terms, length allowable subjects of the interview, etc

    Dave (b41e40)

  88. I’m curious how the pro-FBI investigation crowd actually expects that to play out?

    They’l waste a couple weeks, then we’ll have 27 witnesses and it will be just as inconclusive as it is now, but in the meantime Judge Kavanaugh is further slandered and people start saying things like “Hmmm … where there’s smoke there’s fire” and pretty soon it’s January 7th and the nomination is voted down 51-49 along party liens.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  89. It would be a crime to lie to the FBI about anything of substance in this case even if not under oath, I believe.

    Name the last Democrat who went to jail on that one. And then consider a DC jury.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  90. this story, is really on minute 14:30:

    Sounds like a 4-4 vote for a stay.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  91. “There are some compelling reasons for those named thus far to have “no recall” of the situation that this woman is alleging.”

    Also compelling historical reasons – and comparison to normal, rational human behaviors – for those who think Ford’s allegations are all part of her rock n’ roll fantasies.

    Colonel Haiku (aacf42)

  92. @86. They do ‘b.i.’s’ – ‘background investigations.’ Went through one for a neighbor up for a DoD gig some years back. So if directed to, they’d likely get the HS years books, pound shoe leather and more specified interviews for those involved. Certainly both the Ford and Kavanaugh people want to avoid any discovery of any ‘lies.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  93. #84

    I guess this is the problem with vague twitter statements. Does

    The incident was spoken about for days afterwords (sic) in school

    mean at the girls school? Both schools? Who spoke about it? The potential witness pool seems to be large.

    There are several ways to read the tweet that would allow for the claim that Ford didn’t tell her to be true. There doesn’t seem to be any way to reconcile Ford’s claim the she didn’t tell anyone (the implication being that it was a secret known only to the people involved) and King’s statement that it was spoken about generally.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  94. Two weeks from now, when Ford admits she has no idea who attacked her, there will be no apologies from any Democrat.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  95. “Hello, FBI? We need you to investigate a sexual assault allegation? Oh, that’s a police matter? Still. When was it? Roughly 36 years ago? The actual date? No idea. The location? Not sure. What do we know? There were either 2 or 4 people in the room. Hello, hello? Did you hang up?”

    —- John Hawkins

    Colonel Haiku (aacf42)

  96. Why would anybody intentionally disrupt their lives and put themselves and their family, friends and associates through this hell?

    There is abundant evidence that Ford never made any such decision.

    She spent six weeks trying to hide behind anonymity, even as the confirmation process neared its conclusion. If word of the letter Feinstein clearly had doubts about hadn’t leaked, and Feinstein’s colleagues demanded she forward it, Ford might’ve remained safely anonymous and undisturbed as she had intended all along.

    Feinstein strongly emphasized Ford’s insistance on anonymity right until the end. The leak to The Intercept rather than any conscious decision of Ford’s, is what landed her in “hell”.

    Dave (b41e40)

  97. @86. Postscript; Recall it lasted about 45 minutes… they asked what seemed fairly benign questions like does this person go to work and come at regular hours; do they seem generally happy; has this person every borrowed money from you; have you ever seen them agitated, inebriated or disorderly; have you ever seen them abuse a pet or animal… that sort of thing. What do you say… friendly neighbor, nice person, good to their pets.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  98. @99. Contacting public officials- the congresscritter and the senator- and through that their staff as well, certainly indicates a decision to broaden the circle of the knowledge base.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  99. Name the last Democrat who went to jail on that one.

    Rod Blagojevich?
    Martha Stewart?

    Dave (b41e40)

  100. That’s some solidarity, that is . . . StandwithBlaseyFord. And what an outrageous, unAmerican, demand.

    Q! (86710c)

  101. #100

    He’s been through several bi’s already over a pretty large span of years. So, there’s no need to recheck on how he treats his pets.

    The request from Ford is for the FBI to investigate her claims. The request is for the FBI to directly question people named by Ford about her claims. She demands that those people be put in a legal position that she has so far not been willing to put herself in.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  102. @104. You appear to have already reached a conclusion.

    From the text of the letter from her attorney, this is what she ‘requests’… don’t see any ‘demand’ written in here:

    “As the Judiciary Committee has recognized and done before, an FBI investigation of the incident should be the first step in addressing her allegations. A full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner, and that the Committee is fully informed before conducting any hearing or making any decisions.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  103. For all these people who think anything will be learned from an FBI investigation, imagine if it were you being interviewed.

    FBI investigator: Mr. JVW, did you go to high school with a Jane Smith?
    Me: Yes, she was two years behind me in school.
    FBI investigator: Do you recall a party in the summer of 1982 — it may have been in 1981 or 1983 as well — at somebody’s house in which Ms. Smith and you were both present?
    Me: Are you fucking kidding me?
    FBI investigator: Mr. JVW, please try answer the question.
    Me: I have no specific recollection. Could you please provide some more detail?
    FBI investigator: Well, it was in [insert neighborhood here].
    Me: There are like 500 houses in that neighborhood.
    FBI investigator: We think that Joe Jones and Bob Edwards might have also been there.
    Me: OK.
    FBI investigator: Are they friends of yours?
    Me: Yeah, I went to school with them.
    FBI investigator: Perhaps it was a house with a swimming pool.
    Me: That’s not helping too much. I knew a bunch of people who had pools at their homes and lived in that neighborhood.
    FBI investigator: Do you perhaps remember a party in which Ms. Smith might have been wearing a swimsuit, and where she ended up in a bedroom with Mr. Jones and Mr. Edwards?
    Me: So this is an unidentified house?
    FBI investigator: Yes.
    Me: On an unknown summer day that could have been any one of three years.
    FBI investigator: Right.
    Me: Somewhere around 36 years ago.
    FBI investigator: Yes.
    Me: And you want to know if I remember if some gal was in a bedroom with two of my friends?
    FBI investigator: Precisely, Mr. JVW.
    Me: I think I’ll show you to the door now.

    JVW (42615e)

  104. Exactly, some one would have seem her there, and not seen her afterward, and wonder what happened,

    Narciso (952aff)

  105. Are we to assume that your exchange with the investigator says anything about your credibility, JVW?

    Leviticus (efada1)

  106. Because for some people, you not remembering the kind of details you’re discussing means you lack credibility.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  107. It says I am an old man who can’t remember vaguely-specified events that did not involve me three-and-one-half decades ago.

    JVW (42615e)

  108. @106. That’s cute, JVW. But I’ve been though just one of those -a real one- [see #100] years ago. And of course they talked to more neighbors and associates than just our household to piece together a profile. But the neighbor must have been cleared by them for the DoD gig, as a few months later she packed up her Miata and moved to Seattle.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  109. But let me give you a different scenario, Leviticus. Let’s say the FBI investigator asked me if I remembered a party at Joe Jones’s house that took place on a weekday afternoon sometime in the first two or three weeks of June 1982 at which Jane Smith was present in a swimsuit and Bob Edwards was there too. And if I were asked if I remember Jones and Edwards being drunk and if I thought they might have been alone in a bedroom with Jane Smith at some point, I still might not remember the party, but I could help the investigator by saying something like “No, I was away at dentistry camp that week” or “You can check to see if the parks and recreation department still has their logbook of my working hours of my summer job oiling lawnmower blades for the city.” I would be able to move the ball down the line a little more than I would with the very vague details which Ms. Ford’s recollection provides.

    JVW (42615e)

  110. And of course they talked to more neighbors and associates than just our household to piece together a profile.

    Great. And which neighbors are they going to talk to in this case, given that Ms. Ford can’t remember where the house was?

    JVW (42615e)

  111. A full investigation by law enforcement officials will ensure that the crucial facts and witnesses in this matter are assessed in a non-partisan manner

    But this is just BS. The FBI does not conduct any “assessment” in these background investigations. It reports, without interpretation or analysis, whatever the people it interviews tell it.

    The White House then assesses the information to decide whether or not to proceed with the nomination, and individual senators assess the information to inform their decision on whether to approve.

    Dave (445e97)

  112. @113. They’re a resourceful bunch; likely they’d start w/t school yearbooks. It’s real ‘gumshoe work’ as our old neighbor in NJ often said; he was an FBI guy out of the Philly office back in the day. But I will say, they called ahead to schedule some time- ‘an hour at most’… showed up on time -suit and ties- showed proper ID, took a few written notes and were incredibly polite. It was actually very reassuring.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  113. NJRob: I don’t think it’s good behavior to insult President Trump, and I don’t think it’s good for the country to have people running around and insulting their political opponents, so I’d say, no, it isn’t ok to insult President Trump.

    It’s one thing to say that he’s repeatedly been caught out in stupid lies, or he has repeatedly and publically engaged in mean-spirited character assassination, but those are not the same as insulting him or calling him names.

    I’m the camp that says that it’s not ok to call people names, even if they themselves are calling other people names.

    I don’t know how you could expect me to say anything different.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  114. DCSCA, I’m not looking to cast aspersions on the FBI. I’m sure the agents are top-notch. My point is that Ms. Ford is giving them pretty much nothing to go on. And from the point of the view of the Democrats, that’s the point. Send the FBI on a long drawn-out fishing expedition, to try to delay the nomination well past election day. Do you see why we are casting such a cynical eye on Feinstein, Coons, Harris, Booker, and crew?

    JVW (42615e)

  115. Leviticus, at 109: anyone who claims that your inability to remember specific details from something that happened in 1982 which wasn’t a matter of great personal importance to you indicates that you aren’t credible is … not being reasonable.

    Of course you can’t remember those kind of details.

    This is one of the reasons we have statutes of limitations.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  116. The lack of any substance on which to base an “investigation” may be the best argument for calling the Democrats’ bluff though.

    Assuming Ford and her attorney cooperate in good faith (which based on their actions so far can hardly be taken for granted), it’s hard to see how such an investigation could take more than a day or two, or turn up anything damaging to Kavanaugh.

    The only real danger I can see is if another bimbo erupts, but if the investigation could be completed by next Monday, it doesn’t really add any exposure.

    It seems likely the Dems would try to continue to shift the goalposts after each concession, though, and Grassley, et al, may figure there is nothing to be gained by playing along.

    Dave (445e97)

  117. “That’s some solidarity, that is . . . StandwithBlaseyFord. And what an outrageous, unAmerican, demand.

    Wow – they don’t even say if they know her or have any knowledge at all of what happened, just that they believe her.

    These people are lunatics.

    harkin (2582ce)

  118. “The only real danger I can see is if another bimbo erupts”

    If it does happen I predict it will be within 48hrs of a vote, there will be multiple accusers and there will be no written record of the accusations before this month.

    Just a hunch.

    Some folks really do believe this seat on the SCOTUS is worth selling your soul over.

    If they really derail this thing it sets the smear playbook for the rest of our lifetimes, and it will never end.

    harkin (2582ce)

  119. “Simon, she’s trying to ruin Kavanaugh’s life, his career, the Republican party and the country. Why should we be polite to her?”

    Because we can move the confirmation ahead without being rude. Answer anyone demanding “Why won’t you allow the woman to testify”with a pitying sneer and move on.

    Save the rude for when it will add something.

    C. S. P. Schofield (30690a)

  120. “Fortunately, we’ve had a good saying that we’ve held firm to to this day, as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is ‘What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep.’ That’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.” (Said Kavanaugh in 2015)

    A smoking gun as to the underlying allegation? Of course not. Instructive on the question of the reliability or credibility of denials of involvement or knowledge, or on the ethos of the place? Maybe, could be . . . And, of course, what may have “been a good thing for all [those boys]”, might not have been so much of a good thing for all those involved . . .

    A little investigation and delay hurts no one in any significant way. You’d think the GOP would be smart enough to go the extra mile, and proudly display its open-mindedness and fair-spiritedness. After all, delaying somewhat, and investigating, they should be able to vote this out of Committee with a yea or a nay (or a tie) in time to have the Senate vote on the nomination before the elections. And five’ll get you sixteen or twenty (I reckon), the nomination goes through regardless. Stupid, feckless, scared, old-white men.

    Q! (86710c)

  121. I agree Dave, based on the info we know, which is obviously limited, the FBI could review for an updated background check in about 45 minutes. There is either more information that corroborates it, which contacting the people she remembers being there will either confirm or deny, or there isn’t. If they call 10 people, and zero say I remember that, then its over, if some of them do, well, then that’s a whole different thing. You don’t have to send a single agent around the country to do this serially, writing the thing up would take more time than the actual research.

    At this point, making a big deal of the FBI following up on the background check is just silly, unless you know there’s at least a possibility of a there being there.

    Colonel Klink (e47e35)

  122. @117. But that’s what they’re good at; ‘working from pretty much nothing.’ I’m not going to get into the politics of it as my position on that is known by regulars; voted for pragmatist Trump to neuter the modern ideological conservative and the trade off was slots of the court. That’s been done to my personal satisfaction so far and I have no beef w/whichever conservative gets the SCOTUS slot off that FS list. Personally, believe once these folks get a lifetime gig, free of job worries and obligations to those that got them there, the good ones, for the most part, will want to pursue what they chose to do in life: law.

    So honestly, my interest is really on simply searching out the credibility- truth and falsehoods- of the allegations over this particular candidate. Hence my ‘why would anybody make this up’ question. And if that takes some ‘gumshoe work’ by the FBI guys for a week or two, it seems reasonable to me, as a person and a citizen. As I’ve said, if Kavanaugh was up for the job as your daughter’s high school gym teacher and this lurker was out there, you’d likely want it run to ground. But it doesn’t do anybody or any ‘side’ any good to make this more of a circus than it already is.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  123. Hence my ‘why would anybody make this up’ question.

    To prevent a Neanderthal from getting on the Supreme Court where he would take away women’s right to vote, own property, go out in public without a male relative, and make them wear burkas with Frederick’s of Hollywood lingerie underneath.

    nk (dbc370)

  124. voted for pragmatist Trump to neuter the modern ideological conservative

    You [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] … what kind of [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] do you need to be to [REDACTED] [REDACTED] a [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] like Donald Trump?

    Go [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] yourself!

    P.S. And the horse you rode in on!

    (This comment has been edited to comply with all applicable patterico.com rules and guidelines)

    Dave (445e97)

  125. ’m the camp that says that it’s not ok to call people names, even if they themselves are calling other people names.

    I don’t know how you could expect me to say anything different.

    aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/19/2018 @ 4:01 pm

    I appreciate and respect the answer. Thank you for taking the time to post your response.

    NJRob (7f4a32)

  126. @127. LOL [REDACTED]. Giddyup!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  127. I am not speaking for DCSCA but he has said that many times before. I think he is what I call a Rockefeller Republican and he thinks conservatives are a (problem/threat/dangerous/______). He can fill in the blank.

    DRJ (15874d)

  128. You’d think the GOP would be smart enough to go the extra mile, and proudly display its open-mindedness and fair-spiritedness.

    And just so, Grassley has delayed the committee vote, scheduled a hearing for Monday, and invited both sides to attend. Stop with the obfuscation: this isn’t about letting the FBI conduct an “investigation” or showing deference to the alleged victim; this is simply the Democrats way to try to derail the train. If the GOP were to suddenly say the FBI will be given two weeks of additional investigation time, the Dems would demand six. If the GOP said that we would call forward ten additional witnesses who knew Ford and Kavanaugh in high school to testify to the committee, the Dems would demand twenty. I don’t know if you are serious or just a concern troll, but given their immediate knee-jerk reactions from the moment Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to the Court, there is zero — absolutely zero — reason to believe the Dems will act in good faith here. So all you are doing by elongating this process is allowing them to use it for fund-raising and increasing the chances that they engineer some other desperate Hail Mary play to stop the vote from happening.

    JVW (42615e)

  129. He can fill in the blank.

    But Donald Trump … a pragmatist?

    *gigglesnort*

    Dave (445e97)

  130. @130. No, DRJ; “he believes ideologues, left, center and right are [REDACTED.]’ You can fill in the blank. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  131. dil·a·to·ry
    ˈdiləˌtôrē/
    adjective
    slow to act.
    “he had been dilatory in appointing a solicitor”
    synonyms: slow, tardy, unhurried, sluggish, sluggardly, snaillike, lazy
    “he had been dilatory in appointing an executor”

    intended to cause delay.
    “they resorted to dilatory procedural tactics, forcing a postponement of peace talks”
    synonyms: delaying, stalling, temporizing, procrastinating, time-wasting, filibustering
    “dilatory procedural tactics”

    nk (dbc370)

  132. @132. If the House flips and the Senate slips he’ll fire staff, change course and go w/t prevailing winds. He did that back in NY and he’ll do it in the WH. All that matters are wins.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  133. That is what you have said in the past, but I have problems remembering. You seem to think being a pragmatist is not ideological but IMO everyone has an ideology/core beliefs they won’t sacrifice.

    DRJ (15874d)

  134. Even Trump has a core belief he won’t sacrifice: What is best for Donald Trump?

    DRJ (15874d)

  135. @135

    Eminent “pragmatist” illustrates Donald Trump’s presidential leadership

    Dave (445e97)

  136. Selfish, self-indulgent, weak, whiny, dishonest, mean-girl is not really the same as pragmatist.

    nk (dbc370)

  137. @133

    No, DRJ; “he believes ideologues, left, center and right are [REDACTED.]’ You can fill in the blank.

    Yes, that’s it!

    Before Donald Trump, our political leaders were too principled!

    Gotta hand it to ya – you definitely found the solution for that problem…

    (Disclaimer: This comment is intended as humor and may not necessarily be an accurate characterization of DCSCA’s ridiculous position…)

    Dave (445e97)

  138. I’ve contributed to derailing the thread, which it does not deserve, and will now desist.

    Dave (445e97)

  139. If a slice of buttered toast always lands butter side down, and a cat always lands on its feet, what happens when you drop a cat with a slice of buttered toast strapped to its back?

    nk (dbc370)

  140. If we always stuck to the topic, these threads would be as entertaining as a meeting of the Latvian Politburo discussing the projections for this year’s potato crop.

    nk (dbc370)

  141. Is joke. There is no potato crop this year. All potato farmers in gulag for making jokes about Politburo. Very sad.

    nk (dbc370)

  142. If a slice of buttered toast always lands butter side down, and a cat always lands on its feet, what happens when you drop a cat with a slice of buttered toast strapped to its back?

    Science, as always, has the answer.

    Dave (445e97)

  143. My hat is off to you. That video is much funnier than my comment.

    nk (dbc370)

  144. @145. SPACE FORCE! Stand proud!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  145. Where do I sign up to drop cats from heights, all in the name of science?

    JVW (42615e)

  146. And regarding the awesome video Dave linked — if you wrote up a proposal for monorail powered by jellied cats running along white carpets and submitted it to the California Legislature and packaged it as a green initiative, you could probably get it passed provided it was at least a $20 billion public outlay. And the voters would be an even shot to ratify the idea in a referendum as long as you scheduled the vote for a Presidential election year with a ballot that was already crowded.

    JVW (42615e)

  147. Meh.

    PETA would wage a decades-long urban terror campaign over the long-term psychological and emotional effects on the cats…

    Dave (445e97)

  148. Best threadjack ever.

    DRJ (15874d)

  149. There are a lot of people saying this must be true, because why would she put this out there and subject herself to lots of scrutiny. Why did the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse make her accusations? They proved to be untrue and yet lots of people believed them and were ready to prosecute and imprison people based on her story.

    I regularly defend male students at a University who are accused of all sorts of things, sometimes by women they know, and sometimes by women they don’t know. I’ve heard all sorts of stories, told before University officials, that have proven to be untrue. The women have all sorts of reasons why they tell these stories, ranging from obvious psychological issues, to revenge, to an obvious need for attention. Sometimes accusations are true, and sometimes they are not.

    Based on my experience, you cannot judge whether someone is truthful based solely on what they have to lose–there are many motivations for people that we either don’t know about or can’t imagine. That’s why it’s so important to either hear her testimony, under oath, or make the decision without it, based on what Judge Kavanaugh has to say, under oath.

    Rochf (877dba)

  150. People on the Left can have an onanistic experience with themselves and consummate a relationship with the offspring of the union of a jack and a mare they rode in on.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  151. That video is funny stuff!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  152. Well what do you know:

    CULT OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT: WHY CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOKS WERE SCRUBBED: Faculty Approved Racism, Binge Drinking and Promiscuity
    https://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html?m=1

    Narciso (cb1711)

  153. So it’s was much cruel intentions than the facts of life.

    Narciso (cb1711)

  154. In case you weren’t sure that they were biased:

    ABC, PBS use Facebook to beg other Kavanaugh accusers to talk, ‘Truth will emerge’

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/media-abc-pbs-use-facebook-to-beg-other-kavanaugh-accusers-to-talk-truth-will-emerge

    harkin (2582ce)

  155. “Guess who’s perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It’s the men in this country. I just want to say to the men in this country, just shut up! And step up. Do the right thing for a change.”

    —- Senator Mazie Hirono

    “There are hallowed American cemeteries around the globe filled with men who did the right thing, you sexist witch. Go f**k yourself.”

    —- James Woods

    Colonel Haiku (aacf42)

  156. She replace Inouye right, the veteran of the 442nd infantry division

    Narciso (cb1711)

  157. So do they have MS13 chola themed parties or are their too many embeds to rat them out?

    urbanleftbehind (4868ec)

  158. James Woods, patriot.

    That c!!t from Hawaii, traitor.

    Clarity beats ambiguity.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  159. I predict Democrats will get a second lunatic nevertrump activist to make up more claims by Monday.

    Bank it.

    There is a reservoir of evil in the Left.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  160. One,of the angelic scholars from that yearbook perhaps

    Narciso (cb1711)

  161. Jordio_Consuelo
    @Jordio_consuelo
    Lousy Constitution gets in the way of everything the left wants to do!

    harkin (2582ce)

  162. The new strategy that the left appears to be trying out (according to the cesspool that is Twitter) is that Kavanaugh knew about Alex Kozinski’s sexual harassment, I guess maybe while Kavanaugh was working in the Bush Administration, but kept quiet about it. And thus, when he claimed he did not know during his hearings he perjured himself. Or something. Look for that to reemerge as the dominant theme among Democrats now that Ford’s allegations are petering off.

    JVW (42615e)

  163. The new strategy that the left appears to be trying out (according to the cesspool that is Twitter) is that Kavanaugh knew about Alex Kozinski’s sexual harassment, I guess maybe while Kavanaugh was working in the Bush Administration, but kept quiet about it. And thus, when he claimed he did not know during his hearings he perjured himself. Or something. Look for that to reemerge as the dominant theme among Democrats now that Ford’s allegations are petering off.
    JVW (42615e) — 9/19/2018 @ 8:30 pm

    That’s not new, that’s been an ongoing thing for months. He’s been asked during the one on ones, as well as in the hearings.

    Colonel Klink (6e7a1c)

  164. Let the rino cave job begin. Be nice, play fair and lose, losers.
    Team rino will bring a bow tie and sweaters with leather patches on the elbows to a gun fight.
    Sickeningly republican

    mg (9e54f8)

  165. That’s not new, that’s been an ongoing thing for months. He’s been asked during the one on ones, as well as in the hearings.

    Right, but they’re going to wheel back to it. According to Twitter, some law clerks have told the Senate that they will provide testimony if certain “protections” are provided. Being from Twitter, it may be outright BS, but don’t be surprised if they find some lefty advocate who is a former court clerk to get up there and spew some nonsense.

    JVW (42615e)

  166. Even if the accusations were true, I still would not be convinced that that would be a valid reason to reject his nomination to the SCOTUS.

    DejectedHead (775d48)

  167. You may all think I’m nuts, but I did pick justice Roberts to side with the former president with Kenyan ties. No one else here did.

    mg (2aa6f1)

  168. Why would someone make up a story like this; or more exactly, why would someone take a story and make it about Brett Kavanaugh if it isn’t really about him (allowing for the possibility that Ford was attacked in high school, but has made up that BK was the one who did it)?

    Women lie. They also tell the truth. But they lie. Just like every other human being. Why do they lie? Who knows, in any particular case. We can know sometimes that they lied, but assigning motives is a game of mind-reading. I can suggest reasons why. In 2012, she was telling a story to a therapist with her husband during marital counseling, presumably because of some problem with her marriage. At the same time, she’s an activist, and probably is worried that Romney will win, and may have just read the article that says Romney will appoint BK, and he will destroy the lives of women forever.

    And she KNEW the guy, and he was in high school with her, and she was told about the book from MJ about parties; so she says “i’ll make something good out of this evil that happened to me, I’ll save all womankind from this Hitler of the Bench”.

    On the substance. First, there are the facts on the ground. Ford made 3 statements of “fact” that could be corroberated. 1: there was a party attended by BK, MJ, a guy named “PJ”, and her and her “friends”, ands. 2: At this party, BK pushed her into a room and assaulted her. 3: MJ was in the room, and stopped BK by jumping on them, allowing her to escape.

    Now, what current “evidence” do we have? Remember, the allegations are not evidence; the allegations are the hypothesis, and now you need to find evidence to strengthen or weaken it.

    On 1: BK, MJ, and PJ all deny there was ever a party with her where anything like what she described could have happened; she can’t name the “friends” she was with, or remember if one of them drove her, or drove her home, or if she walked, or if any friends would have been surprised she just disappeared.

    On 2: BK denies doing anything to the woman.

    On 3: MJ denies being in a room where any of this happened.

    Now, we have a tweet from a woman who claimed Ford told her about it. Except Ford’s statement was that she never told anybody until 2012, and so the woman has now said she wasn’t really told. THis woman also claimed everybody at school was talking about it — but if that was true, Ford certainly would have heard the talk, and with being traumatized, that would be a memory that would stick with her — and yet she said NOBODY KNEW, which means it is highly unlikely she would have heard these people talking. And Ford said the party was in the summer, while this woman claimed they talked about it at school after the party, when nobody was at school. The woman now says she has no personal knowledge, but is sure Ford is telling the truth.

    So, what about the “Friends” who went with her to the party, and drank “1 beer”? How does she remember that her friends drank 1 beer, but not the names of the friends? How does she remember the names of 3 guys at a party, but not the names of her own friends? What friends would completely ignore that she disappeared from the party? If I had friends in high school that I went to parties with, I’m pretty sure I’d remember their names, and I’m pretty sure I’d have been concerned if when I left the party, one of them was missing.

    Charles (a8dfa3)

  169. Her friends were unlikely to remember the day much less the location where the party was held, except in a very hazy way.

    Narciso (cb1711)

  170. Now one of Ford’s classmates goes on Acosta and says such behavior from the boys was rampant but she tells Acosta no! about it being Kavanaugh.
    Ouch

    steveg (a9dcab)

  171. @138/145. LOL as I’ve often said: Americans don’t want to be governed; they wish to be entertained.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  172. If women can do anything a man can do.

    And men lie.

    Then can women only tell the truth?

    Hmmmmm….

    DejectedHead (775d48)

  173. #I’mBlaséAboutBlasey

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  174. #Rockn’RollFantasy

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  175. Why is Grassley offering this Dr. Ford more options to testify than a normal citizen. Absolutely preposterous this Dr. gets these options offered. We are a sh!thole country. Thanks for nothing Grassely.

    mg (9e54f8)

  176. Grassley’s new letter to the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee is a pretty thorough and entertaining smack-down.

    He opens with (emphasis added):

    I understand how difficult it might be for Dr. Ford to publicly testify on this subject. I have therefore offered her many options. We’ve offered her a public hearing, a private hearing, a public staff interview, or a private staff interview. The staff is even willing to fly to California, or anywhere else, to meet her.

    An open session would be a matter of public record, while a closed session will remain confidential. I certainly can understand that Dr. Ford might be distrustful of the Committee’s ability to keep matters confidential based on the Democratic members’ recent conduct, but I sincerely hope that, if she chooses to testify in a closed session, that my colleagues can see their way to plugging the leaks which have plagued this nomination and gain her trust.

    He explains clearly why an FBI investigation was done in the Anita Hill case (the allegations were not yet public) and not Ford’s. He also explains (again) that the FBI does not attempt to determine whether what people tell them in a background check is true or not; those judgments are up to the decision-makers in the White House (in regard to whether to make the nomination) and Senate (as to approving it).

    He continues to bludgeon the Democrats generally, and Feinstein in particular, before closing:

    I’m also concerned what the recent events mean for whistleblowers, especially victims of sexual assault. Dr. Ford expressed the desire that her allegations remain non-public. I can’t emphasize how important it is to respect whistleblowers’ and victims’ desire for confidentiality. But notwithstanding her wishes for confidentiality, her allegations became public. I fear that the leaks of confidential information will discourage whistleblowers and victims from coming forward in the future.

    This is but the latest-and most serious–of your side’s abuse of this confirmation process. There has been delay and obstruction of this process at every tum and with every argument available. Therefore, I will view any additional complaints about the process very skeptically.

    Dave (445e97)

  177. 2 sets of laws
    The ones i adhere to are rigged by the doj, fbi and the Uni-party.

    mg (9e54f8)

  178. @182. LOL Very entertaining! Staffers make for great joke writers. But Grassley himself seems ‘mistaken’ or ‘mixed up’ on the TeeVee. Let’s ask Senator Hatch.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  179. Dave,

    I read that whole letter. It’s a pretty thorough FYATHYRIO without once being impolite.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  180. In the old days, it would end with “Your faithful servant” or some such.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  181. Why would anyone do this?

    Hard to say, but so far we have ONE person in a nation of 300 million. Yeah, maybe the “rest” are all scared of his power, but President Clinton had rather more before he crushed them.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  182. I read that whole letter. It’s a pretty thorough FYATHYRIO without once being impolite.

    It also has the remarkable property that every word of it is true.

    Dave (445e97)

  183. gary orr the reason mark judge can’t testify and be cross examined by democrats. google mark judge / gary orr.

    lany (d9b787)

  184. CNN Jake Tapper fake news dropped the anonymous memo like a hot rock

    guess that wasn’t working for sleazy Jake huh

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  185. meanwhile it looks for all the whirl like the only person who got a rape in on Christine was Diane moo goo gai pan Feinstein

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  186. Californication.

    nk (dbc370)

  187. Charles 172:

    Now, what current “evidence” do we have? Remember, the allegations are not evidence; the allegations are the hypothesis, and now you need to find evidence to strengthen or weaken it.

    Blasey’s testimony would be evidence, just as testimony from Kavanaugh and the rest would be. It would be up to a jury to decide whose testimony was more credible if this were in court. It will be up to the Senators and the viewing public to decide how credible everyone is if there are Senate hearings.

    DRJ (15874d)

  188. Christine’s trying so hard to get this behind her and move on but she can’t because she’s an emotionally damaged loser

    she should have a reality show about her struggles with mental illness

    but like a travel show where she goes on a quest for the perfect guacamole

    at least that way she wouldn’t be exposing students to her peculiarly unbalanced brand of cray-cray

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  189. lany 187,

    I Googled Judge and Orr, and this is what I found. It sounds like Judge loved his school but was a critic of Orr and how the Church permitted sexual abuse.

    DRJ (15874d)

  190. #189 My guess is KH outed Ford. DF is currently backing away but KH doubles down each day.

    My favorite new one is we can’t bully her into testifying (because due process is all about the patriarchy). And second runner up is we can’t be in a rush (but delaying the vote is totally not the plan).

    frosty48 (452827)

  191. A lot of people become psychologists because they have psychological problems themselves and they become psychologists and not psychiatrists because they are not bright enough or hard-working enough to go to medical school and become psychiatrists who are still nuttier than fruitcakes but nonetheless real doctors licensed to practice medicine in all its branches.

    nk (dbc370)

  192. I feel sorry for her if it is true she was outed and did not ultimately volunteer to publicly come forward. But I can’t imagine how she thought this would play out. Did she honestly believe she could derail Kavanaugh’s career or change Trump’s choice by writing a letter? She did in a sense, but in the long run this may come to nothing.

    DRJ (15874d)

  193. that’s my sense too

    they’re weird and they just steep in other people’s weirdness

    and their whole lives they produce nothing of value

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  194. No, its a claim, if its corroborated, but the point was the accusation, to get pepper to drop kavanaugh like a hot potato, how many times do we need to see.

    narciso (d1f714)

  195. I don’t think this would make me trust her judgment but it might in Palo Alto.

    DRJ (15874d)

  196. It would be evidence if given under oath. There is no requirement it be corroborated. A jury can believe or refuse to believe uncorroborated evidence or any evidence.

    DRJ (15874d)

  197. yes yes Mr. narciso this was another op orchestrated by the Washington Post that used their successful rape hoax on Roy Moore as a template

    at some point rape claims from crazy loser chicks will be so cheapened as to be risible

    but they’re gonna milk this cow til it’s dry

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  198. This wasnt supposed to be a courtroom it was a university star chamber ala Columbia amherst Eva.

    narciso (d1f714)

  199. Ph.D. or not, I have no reason to believe that she is any different from this person protesting the Kavanaugh hearing.

    nk (dbc370)

  200. Of course, that person in the pink full-body condom is not really there because “What reason would he have to do that?”

    nk (dbc370)

  201. #196

    This applies double to King. I haven’t checked the latest there but I think she still thinks she’s supporting Ford with her story. She is going turtle because she didn’t expect this response. Even though she can see what’s going on with Ford she steps into that and then immediately changes her mind.

    King gives us one of the many answers to the “why would someone do this to themselves” question. King herself says she didn’t expect the response she got and now she wants to turtle. Ford started with anonymity and, as far as we can tell, she didn’t out herself. Ford making testifying under oath contingent on an FBI investigation after the FBI says it won’t investigate is basically the same tactic.

    frosty48 (452827)


  202. Why is Grassley offering this Dr. Ford more options to testify than a normal citizen. Absolutely preposterous this Dr. gets these options offered. We are a sh!thole country. Thanks for nothing Grassely.

    mg (9e54f8) — 9/19/2018 @ 10:41 pm

    Think about it for a second, mg. Grassley is closing off any escape route Ford has save for one: not appearing. He’s doing his damndest to get her under oath. If she doesn’t testify, it’s all over for the Dems. That’s why the Dems are vapor locking. Ford offered to testify, and Grassley called her- and Feinstein’s- bluff. His offer to basically depose Ford any time/any where, public or private was a way to gauge her seriousness and force the Dems out into the open.

    None of this would have happened if Feinstein had conferred with Grassley in July.

    Bill H (383c5d)

  203. You keep expecting logic and fair play from these people, didn’t events ten twenty years ago, disabuse of this?

    Narciso (0074d4)

  204. 10 yrs ago with p alin, 20 years ago with everything Clinton including Linda Tripp and Lucianne goldberg

    Narciso (0074d4)

  205. You keep expecting logic and fair play from these people, didn’t events ten twenty years ago, disabuse of this?

    There are only two alternatives: political engagement or violence.

    Dave (445e97)

  206. How about just ignore, the pigpen routine is getting a little tired, so about that misbegotten court decision?

    Narciso (0074d4)

  207. As insane as this is I have to wonder what replacing RBG will be like if that comes up under DJT. My guess is Barrett is on deck for that to at least satisfy the requirement that it be a she.

    I almost wish he would have picked Barrett for this spot and BK for RBG’s spot just for the heads exploding extravaganza.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  208. Oh it will be like the end in kingman, scanners is too narrow a reference.

    Narciso (0074d4)

  209. This is why felicity Jones is playing ginsberg.

    Narciso (0074d4)

  210. 208-
    Grassley is giving the accuser more rights than I received when the feds set me up. It’s total hypocrisy by this stooge Grassley. 2 sets of laws in this sh!thole country. Republicans are gross.

    mg (2aa6f1)

  211. Grassley is giving the accuser more rights than I received when the feds set me up.

    Ford is not charged with any crime.

    Dave (445e97)

  212. *Ford is not charged with or under investigation for any crime.

    Dave (445e97)

  213. Grassley has no problem shoving entitled bull crap down the taxpayers throat. Republicans have no balls or intent to follow the law.

    mg (2aa6f1)

  214. mg:

    What would you have Grassley do?

    Appalled (96665e)

  215. Sen Dianne Feinstein
    @SenFeinstein
    President Trump, Dr. Blasey Ford did not want her story of sexual assault to be public. She requested confidentiality and I honored that. It wasn’t until the media outed her that she decided to come forward. You may not respect women and the wishes of victims, but I do.
    __ _

    Scott Jennings
    @ScottJenningsKY

    Who was in possession of Ford’s letter?

    Dr. Ford
    Feinstein +staff
    Eshoo +staff

    Boy it sure is a mystery how it leaked.

    harkin (2582ce)

  216. No, Grassley is doing good. He is staying within the expertise of his people; with a little bit of picking the target, freezing it and polarizing it; the target being the Democrats on the Committee and DiFei in particular.

    But what screwed up/misbegotten court decision are you talking about narciso? Roe v. Wade?

    nk (dbc370)

  217. What would you have Grassley do?
    Appalled (96665e) — 9/20/2018 @ 7:35 am

    Wrong question. Here’s the right question:

    What would you expect Democrats to do, now and henceforth, when you cave and accommodate their 13th hour shenanigans?

    Munroe (b1fc19)

  218. The appalling Grassley should have had the vote by now. The fix was in and Republicans will cower.

    mg (2aa6f1)

  219. The crew enabling and squatting one.

    narciso (d1f714)

  220. What would you expect Democrats to do, now and henceforth, when you cave and accommodate their 13th hour shenanigans?

    They will continue to do whatever they think gives them political advantage, just like Republicans will.

    Dave (445e97)

  221. Inside baseball
    Democrats play hardball while republicans play tee ball.

    mg (2aa6f1)

  222. Grassley just scheduled a meeting to vote on nominations for next Wednesday.

    Dave (445e97)

  223. The lesson partisan Democrats will take from this is that Kavanaugh probably committed sexual assault as a teen, and the GOP doesn’t care.

    The lesson partisan Republicans will take from this is that Blasey Ford lied to advance the Democrat’s agenda, and Democrats are fine with that.

    The lessons everyone else will take from this is that the Republicans acted like adults by offering Blasey Ford a hearing for her claims, while the Democrats outed her identity. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, the GOP should focus on showing Blasey Ford’s name was leaked by the Democrats.

    DRJ (15874d)

  224. Does the truth matter anymore?

    Narciso (0074d4)

  225. At this point, we don’t know the truth. We have opinions but there have been no hearings or trials, and none of us were there or even know the people involved.

    DRJ (15874d)

  226. Does the truth matter anymore?

    To some.

    Dave (445e97)

  227. There is one position that is echoed a million fold and occasional dissent.

    Narciso (0074d4)

  228. The truth does matter. That is why the questions should not end, whether or not Kavanaugh is confirmed.

    DRJ (15874d)

  229. “The lesson partisan Democrats will take from this is that Kavanaugh probably committed sexual assault as a teen, and the GOP doesn’t care.”

    Here’s hoping none of those partisan democrats ever serves on a jury.

    harkin (2582ce)

  230. Lmao @ the downfall of the Republican Party. They fight like 8 year old girls, an embarassing slap fest.

    mg (9e54f8)

  231. the truth is that republicans magically all become rapists right before confirmations or elections

    (they enjoy raping young girls)

    it’s rape-a-palooza with these guys!

    they rape all the girls!

    and Ana Navarro says ooh child them pubbies raped them girls!

    and CNN Jake Tapper says ooh child them pubbies raped them girls!

    rape rape rape goes the trolley

    rape rape rape goes the bell!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  232. “A former classmate of Christine Blasey Ford tells NPR that she does not know if an alleged sexual assault by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh took place as she first suggested on social media.

    “That it happened or not, I have no idea,” Cristina King Miranda told NPR’s Nina Totenberg. “I can’t say that it did or didn’t.”

    That’s different from what Miranda wrote Wednesday in a now-deleted Facebook post that stated definitively, “The incident DID happen, many of us heard about it in school.”

    Miranda’s new comments are a significant development in what remains a largely “she said, he said” account of events between Ford and Kavanaugh.

    “In my [Facebook] post, I was empowered and I was sure it probably did [happen],” Miranda told NPR. “I had no idea that I would now have to go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over MSNBC news and Twitter.”

    https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/649787076/kavanaugh-accuser-classmate-that-it-happened-or-not-i-have-no-idea?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180920

    Incredible. Empowered to smear.
    _

    harkin (2582ce)

  233. Plus lol

    Michael J. Cox
    @MichaelJCox24
    Replying to
    @NPR
    The alleged incident occurred in summer yet they were all in school talking about it

    harkin (2582ce)

  234. So if he is still confirmed, I’ll wait till I see That, then the case it’s over, well tell Abramson and Mayer that.

    Narciso (0074d4)

  235. It’s like the sound of drums from that Dr. Who episode.

    Narciso (0074d4)

  236. We would have no information to discredit her story if it hadn’t been leaked. Instead, now there are several reasons to doubt her story, but how many wanted a vote without any information?

    DRJ (15874d)

  237. Information/transparency is not our enemy.

    DRJ (15874d)

  238. Jeffy Flake has a keen nose for rape and he says this stinks to high heaven of rape stench

    except it’s just notional rape

    meaning it’s all in the crazy chick’s head

    but Jeffy says if you walk a mile in rape moccasins you should be really careful to hydrate

    unless you’re really well acclimated

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  239. There is one position that is echoed a million fold and occasional dissent.

    Narciso (0074d4) — 9/20/2018 @ 8:53 am

    I think that depends on which part of the internet and which media sources you read and listen to.

    DRJ (15874d)

  240. Which was the whole point of the exercise going back to Anita hill, or jeri Ryan if you will.

    Narciso (0074d4)

  241. There have been GOP dirty tricks, too, but they are often aimed at other Republicans. Cf, Bridget McCain.

    DRJ (15874d)

  242. the mccains are all over fake rape like a chicken on a cheeto though

    they lick this sort of thing up remember roy moore

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  243. Salt and spices are not good for chickens, according to one of my neighbors who had chickens. But they probably will eat them.

    DRJ (15874d)

  244. The lessons everyone else will take […], while the Democrats outed her identity. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, the GOP should focus on showing Blasey Ford’s name was leaked by the Democrats.

    You would think this would discourage these reindeer games. But we’ve got a lot of time before the vote.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  245. that’s good to know

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  246. he wasn’t accused of anything unethical or illegal, say with crew (there they pop up again) and Christine O’Donnell working with the irs, the republican party of Delaware and the irs,

    narciso (d1f714)

  247. if you read the local paper, listen to abc cbs nbc news, or avowedly non political channels like music or most any other entertainment, you get one message, you must believe, and why did he dare nominate himself, anyways

    narciso (d1f714)

  248. You keep expecting logic and fair play from these people, didn’t events ten twenty years ago, disabuse of this?

    This.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  249. It’s really hard to get your hands around such an amorphous story.

    Am I correct in saying that it is now the case that the only person who hasn’t given any form of under-oath statement (yes, letters to the Judiciary Committee count) is the accuser?

    We don’t even know the simple who, what, where, when, why … before we can get to believability.
    Maybe when there is a bit more “there” there.

    And don’t get me going about how a Senate Committee isn’t a court of law.

    Neo (d1c681)

  250. anyways the court seem to have resurrected the same practices, that helped scuttle prop 8 in California, that’s what a 4-4 court enables,

    narciso (d1f714)

  251. Aides quietly stunned by Trump’s respectful handling of Kavanaugh accuser

    This is, indeed, the most surprising and unexpected angle of the story. Positive reinforcement, as always, appears to be the key:

    In recent days, Trump has bragged about the positive coverage he’s received for his response, according to multiple sources. That response has contributed to him continuing to say Christine Blasey Ford should come forward with her story, they said.

    As of Thursday, officials felt confident Kavanaugh was back on track toward confirmation.

    Trump is really the only political asset the Democrats have. But they’ve apparently gotten complacent and (with some justification) expect him to just automatically shoot himself in the foot every time.

    But sometimes, they may need to help him help them. If they were smart, they would have gone out of their way to provoke a Twitter melt-down this week.

    Dave (445e97)

  252. back to the last kangaroo court, with extra pouch:

    https://twitter.com/SaraCarterDC/status/1042811702251741185

    narciso (d1f714)

  253. #257

    The one type of post I have not seen in these precincts is one arguing the Democrats will play fair if the Republicans will just meet them halfway. (Maybe DCSCA did one while I wasn’t looking.)

    But the idea that the Republicans should have gone out of their way to ignore this, once it became public, seems at best impolitic, and at worst, very wrong. The idea that a judicial candidate might have had a drunken prep school period that had an episode like this in it is far from impossible. It’s best to let this play out some, see if people start coming out of the woodwork — and let the Dems in the meantime do the full bad faith thing.

    Appalled (96665e)

  254. I’m not convinced the twitter meltdowns aren’t theater. At least some of them. The Woodward claim still seems odd. In a story that is supposed to detail how dangerous and unhinged DJT is with Twitter we see him reviewing a potential tweet with several people.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  255. if one of these psychos like the one I chose not to click on, attack Cavanaugh or his family, because of this ginned up insanity, ask congressman peters, what then appalled?

    narciso (d1f714)

  256. Kavanaugh should have been confirmed by now, but Republicans have an empty sack.

    mg (9e54f8)

  257. In a story that is supposed to detail how dangerous and unhinged DJT is with Twitter we see him reviewing a potential tweet with several people.

    We see him blithely suggest sending a tweet that might well start a nuclear war, and being unanimously advised that it would be insane.

    Dave (445e97)

  258. like Reagan’s ‘we begin bombing in five minutes’ mind you at the time, they were actually launching missiles at us, or our allies,

    narciso (d1f714)

  259. #265

    You think an instant vote shuts the crazies down? Puhleez.

    If it were left to me, I would not have given her the option to testify with cameras rolling. But the woman really did need to be heard, once she stopped being an “Anonymous”

    Appalled (96665e)

  260. Kavanaugh should have been confirmed by now, but Republicans have an empty sack.

    Even had the Ford letter never appeared, Kavanaugh would not have been confirmed by now.

    Dave (445e97)

  261. how do you verify it, this is the way the rule of law, used to work.

    narciso (d1f714)

  262. “It’s best to let this play out some, see if people start coming out of the woodwork”

    Someone DID come out of the woodwork and stated that it absolutely did happen.

    See post 241

    “The incident DID happen, many of us heard about it in school.”

    After the media and Dems pounced however and declared this ‘evidence’, she had this to say:

    “In my [Facebook] post, I was empowered and I was sure it probably did [happen],” Miranda told NPR. “I had no idea that I would now have to go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over MSNBC news and Twitter.”

    Much like the alleged victim, smearing a man is easy if you can do it anonymously or from afar.

    And this actually should be food for thought for those who keep saying making the accusation ‘could not have been easy’.

    It turns out to be much easier than if you have to actually back up your claims.

    harkin (2582ce)

  263. #267 do we? That seems like a matter of perspective. We’re really only given the facts Woodward wants us to have and the “facts” he has also went through the filter of the person leaking to him. And since we really don’t know the source of the leak it’s possible this went through several birds on the wire.

    How do we know several different versions weren’t floated and discarded for a variety of reasons? If we think we know that because Woodward didn’t tell us that or his source didn’t tell him that we’re taking a lot for granted. Plausible? Possible? I don’t know.

    Taking the claim at it’s face value we’re still left with a story that Trump, presumably, asked for and accepted input and didn’t tweet something.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  264. 233. Does the truth matter anymore?

    Nope; a Canadian says America went to the moon for all mankind.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  265. Odd how,this act of brinksmaship seems to have succeeded,

    Narciso (394326)

  266. More dripping, adds to the pimp daddy/”cool” Ted Cruz mystique:
    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/20/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-yale-amy-chua

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  267. @263. See my #125.
    _______

    They appear to be trading letters; negotiating terms for Dr. Ford to testify next week and to assure her safety given the ‘death threats’ against her and her family. eally sad there’s so much of that in our discourse these days.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  268. Yes the daily caller clarified That, meanwhile the times admits that alcohol may to have been consumes at Manchester prep, but not that it was the blotto campus

    Narciso (394326)

  269. Is Smyth the third boy? Who is the fourth?

    Of course the story is falling apart. She’s not testifying.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  270. The Democrats are wrong in what they doing, but the Republicans are rushing this just a little bit too fast.

    It’s probable that McConnell is afraid of losing any Republicans.

    Right now he’s got the votes, but if he waits one or more of them could waver. It’s that kind of calculation.

    It could also be the idea of not dirupting other Senate work, (like preventing agovernment shutdown – and they can’t risk Trum changing his mind) but the schedule can be worked around.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  271. crazy rape fantasist will never be more credible than she was yesterday morning

    i hope she took a picture

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  272. Smyth is the 3rd of 4.

    The 4th has not been named, but Grassley’s office says they have been contacted.

    Ford’s attorney now saying she’s willing to testify next week, but that Monday is “impossible”.

    This is just transparent nonsense.

    Dave (445e97)

  273. Ford’s attorney also saying her testimony is contingent on her safety being assured.

    Spanky should invite her and her family to spend the weekend at the White House, under Secret Service protection… #winning

    Dave (445e97)

  274. 3. Nemo (a46a69) — 9/19/2018 @ 9:20 am

    3.Which party was this? Where was it? What date? What year?

    I have a suspicion she has changed details since July, and many in the the media are maybe aware of this, but they are going very very lightly on this.

    Remember the original Washington Post story? I overlooked this at first. Nobody else seems to have noticed this either even though Dana quoted the lines.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

    Notes from an individual therapy session the following year, [2013 – she had special treatment for that a year after she first revealed this in couples therapy in 2012 – SF] when she was being treated for what she says have been long-term effects of the incident, show Ford described a “rape attempt” in her late teens.

    “Late teens” does NOT equal age 15. And probably puts it past the time when Brett Kavanaugh was in the washington D.C. area in high school. He went to Yale (both as aundergrdauate and for law School)

    Now of course she can say the therapist got things wrong.

    There may have been 500 such parties in that area in the span of three summers, or 5000.

    One of the issues is whether she knew him well enough to know his name. She claims she did. If that is true, the number of people who could have leveled this allegation is around 150, not 5,000.

    Brett Kavanaugh was reported in the New York Times to have told associates (true or false?) that he vaguely recalled her. The New York Times also found a woman who claimed she was at a party (which, however, couldn’t be the one in question) where both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Bailey were present.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  275. Dave (445e97) — 9/20/2018 @ 12:20 pm

    Ford’s attorney now saying she’s willing to testify next week, but that Monday is “impossible”.

    This is just transparent nonsense.

    This is because they think the Senate Committee will not agree.

    But I want it to be Wednesday. I’ll be able to watch or listen to it live, then.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  276. Ford’s attorney also saying her testimony is contingent on her safety being assured.

    That is why it’s important to find out where the leak came from, otherwise the Democrats will claim it came from the Republicans and that is why she could not testify.

    Spanky should invite her and her family to spend the weekend at the White House, under Secret Service protection… #winning

    Dave (445e97) — 9/20/2018 @ 12:25 pm

    Actually, that’s a good idea.

    Incidents like this are why people lose faith in Democrats and why Republican Presidents get elected. An invitation like that looks bipartisan and thoughtful, and reinforces the idea that Republicans are the adults.

    DRJ (15874d)

  277. Here is a Biblical quote about witnesses:

    טו לֹא-יָקוּם עֵד אֶחָד בְּאִישׁ, לְכָל-עָוֺן וּלְכָל-חַטָּאת, בְּכָל-חֵטְא, אֲשֶׁר יֶחֱטָא: עַל-פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים, אוֹ עַל-פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה-עֵדִים–יָקוּם דָּבָר. 15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.

    Fairness demands not relying on one witness in any case (with a few exceptions) Not relying on a single witness means reversion to the mean = presumption of innocence.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  278. Question for Brett Kavanaugh: Did all of the boys and girls at the swimming pool know each other’s names? Can you place a number on it?

    Question for Christine Blasey: Is this the only incident of this nature that ever happened to you?

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  279. she’s waited six years to tell this story, but we’re the ones rushing this, Shirley they can’t be serious.

    which location, whose house, who hosted the event sammeh,

    narciso (d1f714)

  280. when, who are the witnesses, did they make any contemporaneous comments to anyone,

    narciso (d1f714)

  281. maybe she forgot to wash her neti pot and an amoeba got in her brain

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  282. Most of a letter emailed to the New York Times:

    Subject: Your op-ed piece on Blasey Ford disproves your editorial

    You published an Op ed piece today by Richard A. Freed entitled “Memories Of Assault Will Stick” in which he writes:

    “As a psychiatrist I know something about how memory works. Neuroscience research tells us that memories formed under the influence of intense emotion — such as the feelings that accompany a
    sexual assault — are indelible in the way that memories of a routine day are not.”

    I agree.

    But your editorial, entitled in the paper “We Deserve Better Than This Spectacle”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/opinion/kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-investigation.html

    says, in part: “….. there are discrepancies in the accounts of how Dr. Blasey has described the alleged events. It’s possible that she is misremembering events or even making them up, ..”

    And that means that what she says is not the truth. Because, to quote Richard Friedman :

    “memories formed under the influence of intense emotion — such as the feelings that accompany a sexual assault — are indelible”

    And this “vivid recollection” does not mean when somebody says something after a lot of thinking and fact checking and correcting the record, and with the help of a lawyer or speechwriter It means all the time, right away.

    YOU LOSE

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  283. he’s being accused of statutory rape, that’s the import of it, but she needs protection, heck there are dyson spheres less impenetrable than palo alto, you think this ends it, no this star chamber will go on, because demand justice will find accusers, this is the point of this exercise,

    narciso (d1f714)

  284. Once we open this kangaroo court, time to get extra boxing gloves,

    narciso (d1f714)

  285. To take things at face value, her therapist convinced her that she should take it m,uch ore seriously than she had (I thought therapists were supposed to help people get over things, not feel worse)

    Buried in the middle of the aricle is this:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-politics.html

    Dr. Blasey has said that it was only years later, while in therapy, that she fully understood the attack as attempted rape, and she still struggled for months over making the allegations public, knowing that women who make such allegations open themselves up to shaming and doubt.

    the second part of this sentence may really be a kind of lie.

    She was contacting other people in her life, but not saying who or what thiis involved.

    She asked her college roomate for one year (in off campus housing) if she had ever mentioned had taht she had been sexually assaulted in high school? She was told no.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/us/politics/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-allegations.html

    The text message from Christine Blasey Ford this summer worried her college best friend, Catherine Piwowarski.

    Over their years of friendship — as roommates, bridesmaids and parents on opposite coasts — Dr. Blasey wanted to know, had she ever confided that she had been sexually assaulted in high school?

    No, Ms. Piwowarski said she texted back, she would have remembered that, and was everything O.K.? Dr. Blasey didn’t want to speak in detail quite yet, her friend recalled her responding. “I don’t know why she was asking that or what it ultimately meant or didn’t mean,” Ms. Piwowarski said in an interview, but she remembers thinking that the question betrayed deep turmoil.

    That doesn’t mean she actually thought or hoped she had. her lawyer might have insisted on that. It also might be it happened later.

    She told some other person in August without saying who it was:

    Dr. DeVarney said Dr. Blasey called her in August to say that she had sent a letter to Senator Feinstein about having been sexually assaulted in high school, “something that had haunted her for her entire adult life.” Dr. Blasey did not name the alleged attacker.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  286. mark judge can’t testify democrats will ask him why he defended child molester gary orr and attacked orr’s victims.

    lany (3a81f9)

  287. Over their years of friendship — as roommates, bridesmaids and parents on opposite coasts — Dr. Blasey wanted to know, had she ever confided that she had been sexually assaulted in high school?

    she’s hilarious

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  288. Btw Cavanaugh wife has received death threats, can’t imagine I’m surprised miss bash didnt.

    Narciso (8dbc80)

  289. @287. Sammy, the committee likely will have to hire some outside lawyers to do the questioning in this if it comes together; a bunch of aging octogenarian senators stumbling through questions about youthful indiscretions in this era is going to appear horrible on the TeeVee and a ready-made SNL skit to surpass their 1991 classic. Lord, they want to steer around tripping into any questions about menstrual cycles, alcoholic blackouts or stuff like this: So tell us, [insert Judge Kavanaugh & Dr. Ford’s name here], when drinking beer, wine or hard spirits at 17, were you aware you were under age and breaking the legal drinking laws in the state of Maryland in 1982? Do you find you prefer one piece bathing suits or is a bikini more appealing?… and so on and so on. SNL is going to have a field day with this; really feel bad for the kids of both these individuals as they may learn in a very public way what ‘wild childs’ their parents were.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  290. Yes ignore good ole camp blotto, now you see why you cannot accommodate them in any way shape or form.

    Narciso (8dbc80)

  291. Sammy, the committee likely will have to hire some outside lawyers to do the questioning in this if it comes together; a bunch of aging octogenarian senators stumbling through questions about youthful indiscretions in this era is going to appear horrible on the TeeVee and a ready-made SNL skit to surpass their 1991 classic.

    Think the Dems will hire Anita Hill to ask their questions?

    Dave (445e97)

  292. lany 295,

    I responded to you earlier. Perhaps you missed it; See my comment 194. Are you interested in discussing the topic or not?

    DRJ (46c88f)

  293. @301. No, but NBC’s Lorne Michaels could for the SNL sketch which would be hilarious.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  294. the hot and horny men and women of the corrupt and dirty fbi?

    FBI Had “Two Sets Of Records” On Trump Investigation; Comey, McCabe Implicated

    they can’t be trusted to investigate

    they’re unprofessional and sleazy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  295. the hot and slathered-up men and women of the corrupt and dirty fbi?

    FBI Had “Two Sets Of Records” On Trump Investigation; Comey, McCabe Implicated

    they can’t be trusted to investigate

    they’re unprofessional and sleazy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  296. speaking of liars are we really supposed to believe Cory Booker groped a girl?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  297. A fraud Anita hill interviewing another fantasist, well that’s about where this Possom body lies.

    Narciso (8dbc80)

  298. Off-topic: Our Army is now truly invincible…

    Worried about morale, the Army set out on a long-term effort to upgrade the menu with items that the troops might actually like. And its food scientists have finally hit on what many say is the holy grail of field rations: the M.R.E. pizza.

    Now being shipped to military bases around the world, the newest of 24 current M.R.E. options is a humble three-by-five-inch Sicilian-style slice, scattered with melt-proof shreds of mozzarella and pebbles of mild pepperoni, sealed in a dun-colored laminate pouch.

    It isn’t much to look at, even by free-pizza standards. But this is no ordinary slice. To qualify for M.R.E. duty, a food item has to be able to survive years of storage in a dank ship’s hold or a sun-baked shipping container, withstand Arctic freezes and tropical monsoons, stave off assaults by insects, and remain intact through a parachute airdrop or even a free fall from 100 feet.

    Forget 30-minute delivery — Army regulations say it has to stay fresh for 36 months. And after all that, the pizza still has to be tasty enough to eat.

    (sounds yum, doesn’t it footsies?)

    Dave (445e97)

  299. No, but NBC’s Lorne Michaels could for the SNL sketch which would be hilarious.

    I doubt Hill considers it a laughing matter.

    Dave (445e97)

  300. back in the nam i used to enjoy Stouffer’s French Bread Pizza at least once a week or so but i always did it in the oven never the microwave

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  301. Hill considered it a lying matter.

    “One of those witnesses went out of her way to point out that the image that Anita Hill projected on television bore no resemblance to the behavior and attitudes of either Anita Hill or Clarence Thomas that she had seen with her own eyes.

    On the other side, one witness backed up Anita Hill’s story by saying that she had been told the same things by Anita Hill when they both lived in Washington.

    But then the fact came out that this star witness had left Washington before Anita Hill went to work for Clarence Thomas, so there was no way that her corroboration could be true.

    There were ways in which different versions of events by Hill and Thomas were quite capable of being checked — but were not checked.

    That failure to check the facts was very strange in a situation where so much depended on the credibility of the two people. Here are the two versions.

    According to Clarence Thomas, he hired Anita Hill at the urging of a friend because an official of the law firm at which she worked had advised her to leave.

    According to Ms. Hill — both then and now — she was not “asked to leave” the law firm but was “in good standing” at the time.

    This too was not just a question of “he said” and “she said.” An affidavit sworn by a former partner in that law firm supported Clarence Thomas’ version. That was ignored by most of the media.

    Since the Senate has the power of subpoena, it was suggested that they issue a subpoena to get the law firm’s records, since that could provide a clue as to the credibility of the two people.

    Senators opposed to the nomination of Judge Thomas voted down that request for the issuance of a subpoena.

    After Anita Hill’s accusations, a group of female members of Congress staged a melodramatic march up the Capitol steps, with the TV cameras rolling, demanding that the Senate “get to the bottom of this.”

    But “getting to the bottom of this” apparently did not include issuing a subpoena that could have shown conclusively who was truthful and who was not.

    In another instance, there was already hard evidence but it too was ignored. Clarence Thomas said that Anita Hill had initiated a number of phone calls to him, over the years, after she had left the agency where they both worked. She said otherwise. But a phone log from the agency showed that he was right.

    The really fatal fact about Anita Hill’s accusations was that they were first made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in confidence, and she asked that her name not be mentioned when the accusations were presented to Judge Thomas by those trying to pressure him to withdraw his nomination to the Supreme Court.

    Think about it: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only two people were present.

    If the accusations were true, Clarence Thomas would automatically know who originated them. Anita Hill’s request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false. Thomas Sowell

    harkin (2582ce)

  302. Obviously, Dr Christine Blasey Ford, the Schrödinger’s cat of SCOTUS accusers, may or may not exist somewhere on an amorphous space-time continuum, so Monday in DC may or may not exist for her.

    Neo (d1c681)

  303. Whitehouse: Dems will investigate Kavanaugh

    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) says that if Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed and “as soon as Democrats get gavels,” they will “get to the bottom” of the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh.

    Well, that’s a relief!

    Dave (445e97)

  304. Paul Krugman
    @paulkrugman
    A trivial personal thought: I don’t spend a lot of time with wealthy and/or powerful people, but it does happen occasionally given my line of work. And from now on I’ll always wonder how many of the well-spoken men around the table are monsters in their personal lives
    __ _

    Jonathan Swan
    @jonathanvswan
    By any normal measure, Paul Krugman is a wealthy and powerful person.

    harkin (2582ce)

  305. @312 In this vein, fwiw, The Case for Impeaching Kavanaugh

    Compromise or hardball, player’s choice. It’ll be “amusing” to see how this pans out.

    Q! (86710c)

  306. She may travel the quantum realm like captain marvel, (brie seems peeved all the time)

    narciso (d1f714)

  307. Dave, what else he got to shoot for…a presidential campaign would be awkward to convey on buttons and yard signs…or be seen as too clever by half.

    urbanleftbehind (dd425f)

  308. Funny you should mention Brie Larson…she does resemble a certain subject at the age midpoint of a 36 year span of events.

    urbanleftbehind (dd425f)

  309. Ed whelan has a hypothesis, that brings another into the web.

    narciso (d1f714)

  310. @308. Ask Sarah Palin. And NBC’s check cleared.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  311. Who does Larson look like (give me a hint)

    Narciso (8dbc80)

  312. Wow, if that’s what Whelan was premising his “Feinstein will be apologizing to Kavanaugh in a week” clickbait on, he’s delusional.

    Dave (445e97)

  313. Yeah, people forget it was the SNL 40 show, not the Trump Tower escalator presser a month later, that heralded the arrival of Trump (Jerry Seinfeld had a key assist via his razzing of actual Sarah Palin “What..you gonna run again with Trump?).

    urbanleftbehind (dd425f)

  314. Just any generic upper middle class dark blond chick…I suppose Laura Linney could be plan B. Felicity Jones is a bar-raise for biopics of blah-looking women.

    urbanleftbehind (dd425f)

  315. Here is Ed Whelan’s “theory” of the infamous party.

    Is it possible? Yes. Will it change anyone’s mind? No.

    Dave (445e97)

  316. This is going to be so sadly entertaining it’ll be a comedy gold mine…

    Senator Grassley: “Dr. Ford, when you were a 15 year old high school student in 1982, did you prefer drinking Budweiser or Michelob from bottles or cans when braking the legal age for drinking laws in Maryland? And did you recycle?”

    Senator Hatch: “Judge Kavanaugh, are you the same ‘O’Kavanaugh’ referred to in your high school friend, Mr. Judge’s book on drunkeness, and was it your car, your parents car, a friends car or a strangers car you threw up in into?”

    Senator Leahy: “Judge Kavanaugh, can you recall how many teenagers were caught and prosecuted for under age drinking in Maryland in 1982?”

    Senator Booker: “Dr. Ford. Have you ever seen ‘Spartacus?’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  317. This whole thing is a joke. A he said, she said about a groping (not rape) 30 years ago by someone who never mentioned it for years ever, never filed a police report, never complained, nothing. Who is also a Democratic partisan. I can’t believe the thing even gets play.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  318. This is going to be so sadly entertaining it’ll be a comedy gold mine…

    Senator Cruz: “Christine, you ignorant slut …”

    Dave (445e97)

  319. @327 ROFLMAO- although it’s a little dated.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  320. @327. Dave, this is the one they’ll try to top:

    https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/cold-opening/n10108

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  321. @324 Dave. How very interesting! Thanks much.

    Q! (86710c)

  322. although it’s a little dated

    Indeed, I guess I should have provided a link just in case any of the kids aren’t in on the joke…

    Dave (445e97)

  323. This Chris Garret thing is blowing my mind but I have no idea if it’s true or a first-rate troll job.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1042893987747713024

    harkin (2582ce)

  324. I haven’t been here for a few months. But did something change? I asked where shippie was and why no Trump talk. Did the blog focus change?

    Also, I have a problem with my post being edited. If I am having a brain fart and never typed the question, let me know. But I have a big problem with my post being edited AND not noted as edited.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  325. Does anyone think anything Cavanaugh or Ford – if she can find it in herself – has to say will change the mind of a single Democrat?

    Get real.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  326. Shipwrecked was a little too direct with our host, assuming that Mueller would behave any more scrupulously than he has from Boston to aipac.

    narciso (d1f714)

  327. @335. “Would you believe a married Democrat?”

    Get Smart.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  328. Shippie was smart as Shiite. And way more composed than I am. If he got banned, that would be bad news.

    Link to the drama? Want to see if he deserved to be banned or not.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  329. Much ado about “what’s SNL gonna do!?!?”

    Seriously… who gives a flip. That show hasn’t been funny for nearly two decades.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  330. I have a big problem with my posts being edited (326) with no note that words under my name were changed (even by deletion). Again, if I brain farted and didn’t type it, no big deal. But if my words were changed without a note to show it, bad, bad news.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  331. 336: Mueller is a public person. I thought in the detailed legalistic rules that Pat put up to control conversations that we WERE allowed to savage public persons? [still like a link to the drama. havent read her for months.[

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  332. So Anita Hill says Kavanaugh must prove his innocence. Wow, there’s a clear-thinker.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  333. I would love it if Kavanaugh insisted on his right to confront his accuser. “I think it’s in the Constitution someplace.”

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  334. The drama culminated around the time Cohen and Manafort punched their tickets for the Big House, but I think it originated well before that in comments that Patrick found disrespectful and that swc would not recant.

    Dave (b41e40)

  335. I have never seen anyone complain about their posts being reworded. If your post appeared immediately after submission, it could not have been moderated.

    Dave (b41e40)

  336. 344. Pat can get very dictatorial with the “you have to back this up” stick. That sort of stick can be very misused. And I’m sure a search would find times he has called an opponent in a debate (an honest opponent) a liar or dishonest.

    I left because I was bored. But maybe it is for the best if that’s hiw things go down.

    Still request a link.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  337. “So Anita Hill says Kavanaugh must prove his innocence. Wow, there’s a clear-thinker.”

    Good thing she’s not an attorney or law professor.

    harkin (2582ce)

  338. 345:

    I could be brainfarting. I had that caveat. 😉

    I though some of the text was cut out (not “reworded”, but still changing what is my comment without a note that a redaction was made). But again, maybe just my mistake.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  339. 345. Maybe my router too. Think I had to rest it a few minutes ago. So maybe some techncial thingie.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  340. You can use the search box or google “shipwreckedcrew” as easily as any of us…

    Dave (b41e40)

  341. This is what the search bar gives: http://patterico.com/index.php?s=shipwreckedcrew&submit=Search

    Just shows posts where he is in the headpost, not comments.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  342. And I’m sure a search would find times he has called an opponent in a debate (an honest opponent) a liar or dishonest.

    A search would also find that it’s his blog, paid for out of his pocket, and that that makes his opinion about what happens here the only one that ultimately matters…

    Dave (b41e40)

  343. Dave 324: Thanks for the link. I think that’s what they call Reasonable Doubt.

    Narciso:

    Shipwrecked was a little too direct with our host,

    No.

    Anonymous: Comments aren’t edited here. Also, please note the New Commenting Rules.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  344. 352/3: I think the “burden of proof” stick that Pat likes to wield can be misused. For instance calling someone a liar because they won’t endure endless rebuttals or create staff papers to back up assertions (even caveated ones). I get Pat’s point about wanting to stop sophistry. But the stick can still be used unfairly.

    Still like a link to see where shippie got banned. He was super smart and didn’t curse like a WESTPAC sailor.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  345. I hope the new cabin boy is making at least $15 an hour.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  346. Btw two remains were confirmed to be of us servicemen, in korea, there are over 7,000 unaccounted for.

    narciso (d1f714)

  347. I think this thread contains the exchanges that culminated in swc being banned.

    http://patterico.com/2018/08/23/did-trump-know-about-the-cohen-payoffs-in-advance-of-course-he-did/#comments

    It’s a very long thread and refers to several earlier ones.

    Dave (b41e40)

  348. Still haven’t seen the evidence for why shippie got banned. So I don’t know the justification. I thought he was a great commenter and Patterico has a tendancy to be too sensitive and to demand people retract things or justify them (controlling the conversation, putting burden of proof, endless debate when he feels he is right). Even if shippie made something that was actionable, I would still think he is such a good commeneter it does not make sense to ban. But I would like to see the brouhaha.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  349. Mattress girls BFF, tells you no good can come of this whole chimp circus.

    narciso (d1f714)

  350. Patterico has a tendancy to be too sensitive and to demand people retract things or justify them (controlling the conversation, putting burden of proof, endless debate when he feels he is right).

    No, but it is his blog and not yours.

    DRJ (15874d)

  351. Real events, not the figments of at best sadly mistaken persons, at worst a malicious

    narciso (d1f714)

  352. 303 molested child accuser of gary orr who mike judge defended say mike judge attached him for accusing gary orr of child molestation.

    lany (7e6da8)

  353. And I’m sure a search would find times he has called an opponent in a debate (an honest opponent) a liar or dishonest.

    I don’t think so. Please find an example or I think you owe him an apology.

    DRJ (15874d)

  354. 364: Link?

    DRJ (15874d)

  355. I just read it: comments 395, 401 and 4012 are the relevant ones. Very disappointing.

    Sure it is his blog. But it is a worse blog if he abuses his moderator powers in argument. But if its “his blog” he can do that. (Unfairness is consistent with “his blog”, but not with…fairness.)

    Real bummer as ship was a very sharp guy with a lot of content. I also don’t like the lawyerly jumping on one item within an overall argument “you NEVER”.

    395 was shippies response. It is wrong for Pat to be so controlling. Also, ship had previously been totally upfront with a small error within same thread. So I don’t think he is someone incapable of honesty or a sophist.

    Big bummer. Oh well. Sounds like avoiding this little slap fight for a few months was good use of my time.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  356. 365:

    I KNEW this would happen! HA! The burden of proof tick (even on a caveated statement). I didn’t say HAD done a search already.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  357. I KNEW this would happen! HA! The burden of proof tick (even on a caveated statement). I didn’t say HAD done a search already.

    You said you were sure. Saying one is sure of something is the same as asserting it as fact.

    That is bad faith argumentation, plain and simple. If you can’t back up your charge against someone’s integrity, don’t make the charge.

    Dave (b41e40)

  358. 366 google eric ruyak. gary orr raped him when child. mark judge defended gary orr attacked eric ruyak. democrats would bring this up so judge can’t be questioned.

    lany (7e6da8)

  359. I’m not “sure”. I think it is likely.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  360. @324 Dave. “Ford dismissed Whelan’s theory [@324 Dave] in a statement late Thursday: “I knew them both, and socialized with” them, Ford said, adding that she had once visited the other classmate in the hospital. “There is zero chance that I would confuse them.”” wapo. So. There’s that.

    Q! (86710c)

  361. Yeah, if that’s all Whelan has, his assurances were wildly oversold.

    Dave (b41e40)

  362. I don’t like the Patterico demands for apologies when he finds a small error in someone’s assertions (and saying “no carping” with it). Patterico waxes on himself in the same post (with “carping” I guess you would call it) while admitting an error of his own.

    To me, this is normal debate. Shippie is NOT (dreaded caps) a sophist. And he has lots of analysis and content and good points.

    I also didn’t like Patterico having to have the last word. Especially when he had banned his debate opponent.

    http://patterico.com/2018/08/23/did-trump-know-about-the-cohen-payoffs-in-advance-of-course-he-did/#comment-2145703

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  363. Ok, which one of you guys asked Anonymous what he liked?

    nk (9651fb)

  364. @373 Anon Might I suggest you put all your complaints and grumblings about P and S into one long post, and be done with it? Stumbling over this dreck time and time again is simply annoying.

    Q! (86710c)

  365. 374:

    You are a good man!

    I should definitely concentrate on positive things instead of this:

    http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  366. 375:

    I’m about done. I hadn’t been here for months, so it really hasn’t been that incessant.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  367. if he was the one nominated for the court seat he woulda been the one that raped her

    this is not complicated

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  368. Heeeeee’s baaaaaaaacck!

    Spanky, at a rally in Nevada, just wondered out loud why Ford didn’t call the FBI when she was 15…

    Dave (445e97)

  369. Bye Anonymous, you’ve come just in time for a permaban.

    Colonel Klink (41d48d)

  370. @379 Dave tootootoo funny.

    Q! (86710c)

  371. 379: If she thought it was a serious assault, yes. [Well, not the FBI. Law enforcement.] That she didn’t implies that she did not think there was a serious assault (if there even was any contact). It’s just of interest to bring this up when she can go after a political opponent.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  372. 371… lucidity returns. Maybe we can hear some specifics now.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  373. Being reported that Ford’s attorney made a long list of demands, among them:

    1) Postpone hearing until Thursday,
    2) Kavanaugh cannot ever be in the same room with her,
    3) No outside counsel,

    and get a load of this:

    4) Kavanaugh to testify before Ford

    Yes, that’s right – Kavanaugh is supposed to respond to the charges before they are made.

    Dave (445e97)

  374. 384:

    I think this is similar to the failure to give specific information. Doesn’t want to get caught up in something that can be disproven.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  375. I’m surprised they didn’t considering how long it took for truth to emerge

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-workers-discussed-tweaking-search-function-to-counter-travel-ban-1537488472

    Narciso (af134e)

  376. It was explained pretty well by this guy on Twitter (although I’m sure our attorney friends need no explanation):

    As per usual with Ford’s attorney, they are going for the Impossible Ask, a request no reasonable side could ever agree to. In this case, the poison pill is her going second and him going first. That inverts every principle in the book (no chance to rebut accusations).

    The reason you make impossible demands (in any context, legal or otherwise) is because you are secretly unwilling to perform, but you don’t want the onus of demurring to fall on you. You make it about other party’s “unwillingness to compromise.” Textbook stuff.

    Pretty much.

    Dave (445e97)

  377. She had until Friday to agree to a Monday hearing. If you do Cali time, that means she has another hour and a half. Grassley and the Repukes should just stick to this. I don’t like all this bargaining.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  378. She is a liar.

    Vote.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  379. Once there’s any hint of a vote being scheduled she’ll probably agree to testify with no restrictions the day after. The press will report that as Ford agreeing to testify with no restrictions.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  380. He is soft and he needs his job. Doesn’t have the heart to shut it down. So you censor.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  381. Maybe BK can work his own SNL spoof. Get a bunch of his prep school buddies in the hearing behind him and during his opening they can stand up one after the other and say they went to a party with Ford in high school.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  382. Damn you Kavanaugh!
    Woman on vacation reportedly finds dead tortoise in her vagina. “She apparently had no idea how the reptile ended up where it did.”
    https://nypost.com/2018/09/20/woman-on-vacation-reportedly-finds-dead-tortoise-in-her-vagina/?utm_source=NYPFacebook&utm_medium=Native&utm_campaign=NYPFacebook

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  383. Do NeverTrumpers understand their mendacity and weakness helps gives rise to these slanderous attacks on decent people of the Right?

    Much like Reagan’s weakness later years gave rise to Borking?

    …. gotta kill it at birth. Bi-Partisanship is worth aborting.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  384. No, one might argue that O’Connor was a poor first choice, but Scalia was solid, and they had already tried to prebork Rehnquist the previous year

    Narciso (af134e)

  385. @384. What “charges?”

    Nothing happened, right?! 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  386. #393 I think the payback argument is the most common explanation for the attacks. Somehow, even though the right didn’t take down bill clinton there’s a lot of payback there. And BK is payback for franken, or Garland. It’s hard for the left to pick which of the numerous tits match up to whichever tat they’re currently working on. And don’t forget hillary. Between bill and hillary the debt the right owes really is immeasurable.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  387. @371. It doesn’t help for partisans to start spinning yarns like that Whelan fertilizer- the ‘oh yeah, it happened- well, maybe happened- and/or/but she just confused him with a look alike.’ Ford backed over that cat anyway– even visited one in hospital. The smartest thing everyone on every side of this- especially talking heads, spin pundits and particularly United States senators on the committee- is to shut-up, let Grassley and Ford’s people negotiate an agreement on particulars for time and day and get on with it some day next week.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  388. 392, that’s some Dead Poets Society ish…but if the Cleveland Browns can break their skid (!), anything is possible.

    urbanleftbehind (dd425f)

  389. Do NeverTrumpers understand their mendacity and weakness helps gives rise to these slanderous attacks on decent people of the Right?

    How are NeverTrumpers mendacious? Your guy is the one who can’t open his mouth without telling a whopper.

    Donald Trump is such a terrible excuse for a human being, there’s no need to color outside the lines. In fact it would be difficult to invent something worse than the truth.

    Dave (445e97)

  390. Takes one to know one

    mg (9e54f8)

  391. I expect grassley to concede on her demands, its what cucpublicans do.

    mg (9e54f8)

  392. wait for democrat plan b. its coming. you will know when ford flys to maryland.

    lany (7e6da8)

  393. It’s Friday, what will this day bring?

    Bagels and cream cheese? A call for a vote?

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  394. Hm, my twitter feed is full of Ed “Perry Mason” Whelan pulling the old “they all look alike” defense and pointing his finger at some poor guy teaching middle school, and how lousy that is, and how this makes Kavanaugh look worse.

    Here? Patterico is mean to old posters, and nevertwump are bunch o’ bullies, except when they wimp out.

    By the way — I think the record on swc is being misstated. Our host hates it when somebody misstates his position, and swc seemed to do that a lot on his way to his various conclusions. His blog, his rules.

    Appalled (1a17de)

  395. I thought it was very irresponsible appalled, specially if he ever considered Garrett a friend, no the standard should be you give us verifiable evidence and we’ll review, apparently miss ford spent the last six weeks deleting her and her schools media profile.

    Narciso (4b4dce)

  396. 407 … I hope thats at a private or well funded public middle school with a coaching gig attached, I’d be (as a son of Georgetown Prep) as embarrassed by that as I would that I got fresh with some chick at a party.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  397. I think the point of Whelan’s tweets is to show the allegations are so vague that they point to other people. Legally that means reasonable doubt. Practically that means it could be anyone and/or it’s hard to tell if it happened.

    As for Anonymous’ comments about swc, Anonymous made it clear that his mind was made up for swc before he even looked at the comment history — which is lengthy, complex, and spans weeks yet at most Anonymous spent 20 minutes reading it (6:13-6:33 PM).

    DRJ (15874d)

  398. Isn’t this you, Anonymous, immediately after making a gratuitous reference to P’s job?

    I did tweak you with the job comment. Usually don’t but I slipped into a venal sin [I would blame it on Beldar rubbing off on me, but this is actually GOOD behavior coming from my normal level of trolling.] It’s irrelevant to argument. Also, it’s not like you try to lord over us…never heard you say “trust me, IAL or IAP”. You act like a civilian.

    Anonymous (d41cee) — 5/29/2018 @ 12:33 am

    DRJ (15874d)

  399. 411:

    DRJ, you say: “Anonymous made it clear that his mind was made up for swc before he even looked at the comment history”

    What I said was:

    “Shippie was smart as Shiite. And way more composed than I am. If he got banned, that would be bad news.

    Link to the drama? Want to see if he deserved to be banned or not.”

    AND

    “Still haven’t seen the evidence for why shippie got banned. So I don’t know the justification. I thought he was a great commenter and Patterico has a tendancy to be too sensitive and to demand people retract things or justify them (controlling the conversation, putting burden of proof, endless debate when he feels he is right). Even if shippie made something that was actionable, I would still think he is such a good commeneter it does not make sense to ban. But I would like to see the brouhaha.”

    ————

    You have mischaracterized me. Having an initial hypothesis, but wanting to check it is not “mind made up”. Micharacterizing an opponent requires an apology per the Patterico rules.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  400. 412: I’m the same poster, yes.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  401. Do NeverTrumpers understand their mendacity and weakness helps gives rise to these slanderous attacks on decent people of the Right?

    I disagree. I think people who do not reject these tactics at the ballot box are giving rise to their domination of our political process. Indeed this is why I was so hostile towards Trump’s tactic of “Lyin’ Ted”, his lies about Cruz’s eligibility for office, and his slanderous attacks on Cruz’s father supposedly murdering JFK. Yes, in all cases Trump also was a weasel about whether he was attacking “Lyin Ted” over and over and over and over. There is no merit to the GOP’s demands for decency when it nominates such a man as its leader. It’s strictly partisan bickering at this point.

    Unfortunately it’s hard to see a way back. The GOP should have led as a moral, responsible, sober party that showed an example of what our justice system should be like. That, contrasted against the democrat’s efforts to make this process as unfair as possible would have said it all. Kavanaugh not being permitted to confront his accuser, or the other many ways the democrats have framed this late, strange accusation, should be a powerful warning against what a corrupt justice system is like. Instead, it’s two evil parties slandering eachother all day long. Perhaps Trump’s supporters should consider what they considered strength when Trump does it.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  402. You’re fine with Ford destroying Cavanaugh life, that is the point, of this besotted witch’s delirium driven scheme,

    Narciso (4b4dce)

  403. cowardly John McCain lied lied lied about border security and obamacare

    he did his dirty tortured lies all up in it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  404. While I’m generally sympathetic to the stance that Professor Ford and her attorneys have taken, for the life of me, I cannot understand the “demand” that Ford testify only after Kavanaugh does. Wholly backwards, as far as any normal process.

    Though I can see her wanting to do so, inter alia to “have the last word”, but sounds like a complete non-starter and very possibly a deal-killer in itself. The only thing I can imagine is that it’s a negotiating tactic to attempt to secure a “Motion-Response-Reply Scenario”, for their testimony – wherein she’s the movant and the replicant. We shall see how this whole negotiating effort works, out, but it looks like (given both normal practice and all the old-white men involved) she’s sailing damn close to the wind.

    Q! (86710c)

  405. You’re fine with Ford destroying Cavanaugh life, that is the point, of this besotted witch’s delirium driven scheme,

    Narciso (4b4dce) — 9/21/2018 @ 7:28 am

    No, that’s not what I said at all. No surprise, though, that my point was deflected 100%. It is not possible to have a conversation about Trump’s impact on our political system without being accused of nonsense.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  406. “old-white men”

    Hmm…

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  407. Anonymous,

    You started by complaining that your comments had been edited in 336.

    In 356, you complained about Patterico’s unfairness toward swc, despite the fact that you were still asking for a link to the comment thread that resulted in swc leaving.

    Dave provided a link to you and noted it involved many comments over several days. You were back in 20 minutes at 367 proclaiming this was a “slap fight” and Patterico was wrong.

    At 365-366, I quoted your statement about Patterico that: “And I’m sure a search would find times he has called an opponent in a debate (an honest opponent) a liar or dishonest.” and requested a link, to which you replied:

    365:

    I KNEW this would happen! HA! The burden of proof tick (even on a caveated statement). I didn’t say HAD done a search already.

    Anonymous (d41cee) — 9/20/2018 @ 6:35 pm

    When Dave pointed out at 369 that you said you were “sure” this happened, you retreated at 371:

    I’m not “sure”. I think it is likely.

    Anonymous (d41cee) — 9/20/2018 @ 6:57 pm

    So, Yes, I think your mind was made up, and my opinion is not a mischaracterization.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  408. 415:

    Trump uses both imprecise wording (which I personally feel is sort of nit-picking lawyerly to criticize for, like the “lie” about WH briefer) and exaggeration and loose swing for the fences remarks. I think the latter are more worthy of criticism. And Patterico had a point about if you do that too much it can become lying. I personally don’t take the guy seriously so it never seems like a lie to me. [Certainly not calculated lies!] More like shoot the breeze at the pub remarks.

    I don’t know about the Cruz thing since I was tuned out from politics for several years. It gets me too wound up and I can’t do anything about it (what John Nash realized).

    In terms of eligibility for office (if you mean birthplace), I don’t think an argument is the same as a “lie”. And there is a pretty good argument to be made that if you are born outside the US, you can’t be President.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  409. Further, you have now admitted that you are the same person who described their comment style as having a “normal level of trolling.” Seems like you are mischaracterizing your intentions.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  410. There are also your contemporaneous comments 99-102 at the New Commenting Rules thread.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  411. 421:

    0. I guess I am not getting an apology. (I think the apology demands are silly regardless, but I am just noting the one way nature of that little gotcha game.)

    1. I made comments asking for the information. I ADMITTED an initial suspicion but asked for confirmation. This is the opposite of mind made up. And it is candor. But bias or initial hypothesis is NOT the same as “mind made up”. Especially when I SPECIFICALLY asked to test my hypothesis. You mischaracterized me. My quotes show you in the wrong.

    2. Yes, my remarks were based on a 20 minute reading (probably much less than that). However, I don’t feel the need to do a staff paper or staff process (or play the burden of proof game and demand one be produced for me). Furthermore, my skimming was not that bad…since I did get to the most relevant posts and named the numbered posts and made a simple analysis of them. Furthermore, it is easy to skim a long comment thread like that if you use “find on page” for “shipw” and if you look for the Patterico yellow. There were not that many remarks of the two.

    3. Yes, I did retreat from “sure”. So what’s the point? That’s a separate topic. (If I wanted to be a lawyer back to the lawyers, I could have said the sure was meant to be similar to “sure the Browns won’t win the Super Bowl”, not Euclidean proof. But I just amended my remarks. You could do the same with “mind made up”.)

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  412. i love making contemporaneous comments about stuff

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  413. 423: yes, I admitted that now and then. Does it rock your world to see someone admit their flaws? It shouldn’t.

    424: So? I stand by the remarks. I made them on purpose to express my thoughts. Is this some sort of inquisition? Is it doublepusungood to make critical remarks? Is only one opinion allowed? FredZ kind of nailed you in the thread comments with the “or else” comment and with you setting yourself up as some little moderation warning police.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  414. Unfortunately it’s hard to see a way back.

    The way back is obvious: A primary challenge to Trump in 2020 from a unified establishment candidate. I expect this to be Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney or Ted Cruz.

    The fly in the ointment will be Governor Kasich, who is as unacceptable as Trump to most conservatives, but whose ego is so large that it eclipses reality.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  415. mg,

    You attack grassley and the GOP, but the truth of the matter is that a Senate panel that had your support would be one that had taken the Democrats out and shot them about 3 weeks ago.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  416. Mitt can’t do it cause he’s too pedo and Paul Ryan has no credibility on fiscal issues

    and there’s no such thing as “the Kasich factor” cause he’s too snotty and he looks like a burn victim

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  417. Do you think you need a moderation warning?

    DRJ (15874d)

  418. Yes the fellow who expanded Medicaid to the point of ahias brink of bankruptcy tell me another one.

    Narciso (2a7640)

  419. 421: And I don’t think “mind made up” and “retreated” support each other. If anything the willingness to change is the opposite of a mind made up. Maybe you should retreat from “mind made up” to “had strong suspicions/belief/day-one-hypothesis”.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  420. 431:

    Not right now, no. But I have often in the past on the Internet.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  421. Romney would bark and then suddenly find himself silent ‘re Harris or Booker,

    Narciso (2a7640)

  422. Have you ever seen Kasich in the same room with Jar-Jar Binks? NO! And there’s a reason for that!

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  423. I don’t see Romney coming to Cavanaugh defense, which was more relevant than anything he had to say about moore.

    Narciso (2a7640)

  424. So, narciso, given a choice between Romney or Trump, you opt for Trump?

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  425. So whats the best out come for Ted Cruz this November if he does want to carry that mantle (again):

    1. Big Victory (55+) over Beto, much direct Trump support.
    2. Big Victory, little to no Trump support.
    3. Narrow Victory (<55), much direct Trump.
    4. Narrow Victory, little to no Trump support.

    I would think its 2, combined with a House flip nationally, a bad beat in Midwest governorships and one of the 2 black gubernatorials pulling an upset in FL/GA.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  426. I don’t see Romney coming to Cavanaugh defense

    Why not? I not only see him doing it, but doing it lucidly. Lucid is NOT Donald Trump’s middle name.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  427. Mitt Romney believes in sliming people without evidence

    he’s a very amoral person

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  428. Kasich should just pull a reverse Bloomberg, but then youd have the Bernies and broke girls pissing a fit and sitting out again.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  429. I would rather have Cruz do it, but I don’t expect him to. Challenging a sitting President of your party is like the Game of Thrones. You win, or you die. Romney has nothing to lose, and Ryan doesn’t either. Cruz does — he wants to be President, but can wait until 2024 to run against Trump’s successor. If he challenges Trump in 2020 and loses, he’s on everyone’s sh1tlist.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  430. Mitt Romney believes in sliming people without evidence

    This from a guy who supports the “Your dad killed JFK” thing.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  431. President Trump never said Ted’s dad killed JFK that’s a complete fake news misnomer

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  432. But that’s not really the issue. The question is “How does the GOP come back [from Trump]?” and the answer is to primary him and run a different candidate.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  433. They will never let Cruz get the prize, singer will probably try against pence, but hes better situated, depending on how things go Haley in 2024

    Narciso (0faea5)

  434. That may actually be true. Romney may very well believe that the accusation is all that is needed to shift the burden to the accused to prove his innocence. He practiced it in his own case with Harry Reid’s accusation that he did not pay taxes.

    He may also have been trained to never contradict a woman. Witness his cave to Candy Crowley in the debate with Obama.

    All in all, I’m not very sorry that he did not win in 2012 and, now, I wish he would stay in Utah and iron his womenfolks’ petticoat (and maybe starch his own) instead of looking to go to the U.S. Senate to vote on things that affect all of us.

    nk (dbc370)

  435. Seeing how Kennedy beat him like a red he’s dead stepchild in 94, he hasn’t learned his lesson

    Narciso (0faea5)

  436. I really haven’t liked a Republican candidate since Reagan.

    Trump is a buffoon but somehow there is something fresh about having a non politician and non lawyer in Washington.

    I think in general it is hard to stand for something and be an elected Republican. Maybe being a politician and being in government is just more compatible with the left.

    I like Ron and Rand Paul. But they will never get elected.

    I was going to vote for McCain especially after Palin was named. But when McCain went for the bank bailout, he was dead to me. Voted Libertarian.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  437. He was like Michigan j frog in the debates. Singer probably funded that piece of garbage, why do I think that because Robert Blakey responded in the piece.

    Narciso (0faea5)

  438. 429- Kevin M. I doubt those hacks in congress could put a shell in a shotgun.

    mg (9e54f8)

  439. Mittens helped the democrats when he was govna of all the massholes.

    mg (9e54f8)

  440. I would think the mentally handicapped establishment elitist rinos will nominate the current govna of the land of massholes, Charlie Baker a true sh!thole of a coward.

    mg (9e54f8)

  441. Cue the Michael Savage show bumper music!

    And yes, Baker or Hogan would have been ‘da guy trotted out against an apparatus-attached HRC.

    urbanleftbehind (dd425f)

  442. Solution: a parliamentarian system. I read it here.

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  443. All hope is lost. Take teh moral high ground! Plant your head… er, flag!

    I sure hope I’m wrong!

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  444. An uncivil war: teh Dregs vs. teh Smegs…

    Truth: “If the FBI were to find strong evidence implicating Kavanaugh in a crime, Democrats would oppose him. If there were a muddled mix of accusations and memories, Democrats would oppose him. If Kavanaugh were completely vindicated, Democrats would oppose him.”

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  445. We know where the republicans heads are at.

    mg (9e54f8)

  446. Burma Shave…

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  447. I like the Swiss system. Look up the whole thing if you want, but one part is that the legislature appoints the seven co-equal department heads who do the executive power and they in turn choose one of themselves every so often to gavel them into order while still running his own department. The President. Who most Swiss don’t know who he is.

    nk (dbc370)

  448. Maybe you should retreat from “mind made up” to “had strong suspicions/belief/day-one-hypothesis”.

    I can live with that.

    DRJ (15874d)

  449. ulb 439,

    I say 1 because he will need money to make another run, and most of that money will come from Texas. He already has lost a lot of conservative donors so he needs Trump supporters to believe he will continue Trump’s agenda. However, I don’t think Cruz will challenge Trump. I think he would definitely challenge Pence in 2024.

    DRJ (15874d)

  450. ted won’t be able to raise money anymore for national races cause his last one was such a fiasco but he has negative charisma and his wife’s a humorless sucky sicky sacky

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  451. I like the Swiss system. Look up the whole thing if you want, but one part is that the legislature appoints the seven co-equal department heads who do the executive power and they in turn choose one of themselves every so often to gavel them into order while still running his own department. The President. Who most Swiss don’t know who he is.

    And when something goes wrong, well, it was a committee decision; no one to blame.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  452. re john Solomon, strzok seemed to have some doubts re the estimates calculus about what russias purpose was in this election,

    narciso (d1f714)

  453. However, I don’t think Cruz will challenge Trump. I think he would definitely challenge Pence in 2024.

    Someone will challenge Trump. I agree it won’t be Cruz because Cruz has a path to 2024 or 2028 (2028 if Trump wins two terms, since Trump will leave a shambles). It will have to be someone with national name recognition if they have a chance (sorry, Sasse). I’d bet on Ryan, the oh-so-reluctant draftee.

    Kasich will eagerly run since he’s an egotistical opportunist and may split the anti-Trump vote like he did in 2016. But he’s really what the Democrats should aspire to (vain, mealy-mouthed and cowardly) as it would be a great improvement for them.

    Kevin M (e9a4b1)

  454. And there is a pretty good argument to be made that if you are born outside the US, you can’t be President.

    I haven’t heard this “pretty good argument”, and it wasn’t the founders’ intent to make such an exclusion. Ted Cruz exited the birth canal of an American citizen who happened to be one country over when the blessed event happened. He’s in.

    Paul Montagu (1f900e)

  455. it was the intent, that the citizen not have allegiances to another country:

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/rahm_emanuel_suddenly_concerned_trump_may__invade_venezuela.html

    narciso (d1f714)

  456. All this well-informed talk about the alternative to Trump in 2020! Kinda surprising that no one’s tipped to the obvious challenger, and the only one who has a chance in hell of winning against the Dems. Nikki Haley. (Assuming she can get out unscarred beforehand; she’s pretty savvy, though, and plenty smart, tough, & ambitious, and last I looked she’s got a womb to boot; altogether pretty much the anti-Trump on all important axes.)

    Q! (86710c)

  457. it was the intent, that the citizen not have allegiances to another country:

    I think the founders’ intent was more than clear, which is why the Constitution says “natural born” and not “born in America”, and I don’t understand the connection between your comment and your link about Rahm worrying that Trump will invade Venezuela.

    Paul Montagu (1f900e)

  458. This seems like an important story. The question to me is whether it’s actually true or whether Trump loyalists set this up in order to give Trump reason to sack Rosy.

    Paul Montagu (1f900e)

  459. 468:

    Here is a good link: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/26/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president-update/

    Please note: I’m not redebating the issue. “A good argument can be made” is intended to mean exactly that. That the concept is in play. Not an assertion of what is right answer.

    “Most legal scholars maintain that Cruz is in the clear despite his Canadian birthplace. But is the issue 100 percent settled? Not exactly.”

    Also, “”It’s a hurdle. Somebody could certainly look at it very seriously,” Trump told a New York news outlet Monday. “He was born in Canada. If you know and when we all studied our history lessons, you are supposed to be born in this country, so I just don’t know how the courts will rule on this.”

    Note that the last sentence is just saying that it is an important issue and we don’t know the answer as it has never been ruled on. (Courts declined to rule on the McCain lawsuits for instance.) Caveat: I’m sure someone find wild tweets or other statements where Trump was more definitive.

    But in any case, I don’t see how making an argument or even taunting an opponent is a “lie”. You wander down a dangerous path when you start to conflate a position in an argument with blatant dishonesty. Am I a “liar” for saying Patterico treated shippie unfairly and in a biased manner? I might be wrong (I don’t think so, but obviously others disagree). But I’m not a “liar”. Is DRJ a “liar” for saying I had my mind made up? I don’t think so. Just wrong. Wrong =/= liar. (Duh.)

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  460. I thought I’d seen something some time back re: a rule or an ethos about keeping on topic, but I must have been mistaken. So, for something completely different than the topic and the sallies away-therefrom. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein once suggested recording Trump, removing him via 25th Amendment

    Q! (86710c)

  461. “All this well-informed talk about the alternative to Trump in 2020! Kinda surprising that no one’s tipped to the obvious challenger, and the only one who has a chance in hell of winning against the Dems. Nikki Haley. (Assuming she can get out unscarred beforehand; she’s pretty savvy, though, and plenty smart, tough, & ambitious, and last I looked she’s got a womb to boot; altogether pretty much the anti-Trump on all important axes.)”

    Q! (86710c)

    Meh… the Dems will find a black, Pacific Islander tranny who will dredge up memories of a bad, triggering hopscotch incident from the 3rd grade to attack Haley.

    Or something…

    Colonel Haiku (6c3d91)

  462. Anonymous:

    And I’m sure a search would find times he has called an opponent in a debate (an honest opponent) a liar or dishonest.

    You may not be the best judge of liars.

    DRJ (15874d)

  463. DRJ, I have often found that people see in others what they dislike in themselves.

    Simon Jester (975309)

  464. 475:

    A. One liner flip comment without any detailed analysis and ignoring the later remarks even after that quote.

    B. You have made several comments which imply that you think finding a single flaw in someone’s comments (or a person being upfront and admitting one) somehow removes them from the debate. This is a very silly Internet debating posture. It’s part of (but not the only reason) why some people in debates won’t admit even minor errors. (As for example “mind made up”.)

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  465. “A good argument can be made” is intended to mean exactly that. That the concept is in play. Not an assertion of what is right answer.

    You said “there is a pretty good argument to be made”, and I still haven’t heard what that “good argument” is. Your Politifact link didn’t make the argument; they basically punted by saying that the question hasn’t been tested in court, and citing Trump as a legal authority on the subject is nothing short of lame.
    I’ll take your last paragraph as you talking to someone else, not me.

    Paul Montagu (1f900e)

  466. In this thread:

    Trump fans bashing Cruz’s wife.
    Trump fans pretending Cruz isn’t eligible for president with birther nonsense.
    Trump fans upset about democrats spreading unfair accusations and personal attacks.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  467. Nikki Haley

    Hey I hope she runs. But what we really need is a run-off system. Kevin is correct that Kasich or someone like him can easily split the vote and screw up the party, for the same of their ego. We saw too well in 2016 that the majority of the party didn’t want Trump, but too many people made it about them, not their country, and split the vote. A run-off system would be expensive, but it’s necessary when the nation has a critical mass of nuts.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  468. Unfortunately it’s hard to see a way back.

    Trump’s own fecklessness may be our salvation.

    Suppose the midterms go as currently projected, or a little worse – fairly solid Dem House, effectively tied Senate. Where does Spanky come up with “wins” to gratify his ego in that scenario? He doesn’t.

    While it might be possible for a popular and engaged president to work together with moderates to pass some worthwhile reforms with a divided congress, Obama couldn’t do it, and Trump sure as hell won’t be able to do it. He is not a leader, he’s a “I’ll sign anything you put on my desk if it’ll make me look good – why isn’t it there yet?” type of guy.

    With the political winds blowing in his orange face for the foreseeable future, and he *might* run for re-election merely so he can spend a year and a half flying around to rallies and soaking up adoration from his cultists. On the other hand, he might decide not that there is no more ego-gratification in the offing from being president, and that it’s better to declare victory and let somebody else deal with his mess while he goes back to playing golf and cheating on his wife.

    Also, you have to realistically assess the probable trajectory of the economy. If it lasts until next June, the current economic recovery will become the longest in US history. It’s unlikely that the economic cycle has been abolished – there is a very real chance of a downturn in the next two years. It may or may not have anything to do with Trump’s economic policies, but that’s irrelevant politically. Trump’s unpopularity is at near record lows during a time of economic giddiness and prosperity; throw a recession into the mix and you would be looking at a 2008 (best case) or 1932 (worst case) wave election in 2020. No way in hell Trump runs for re-election if he has to answer for an economy that cratered on his watch instead of taking credit for a booming one that continued to expand. There won’t be any more tax cuts with Pelosi running the House, his “deregulation” is a joke in terms of its impact on the economy (this year, according to Trump’s own numbers, deregulation saved $1.3B – that’s less than 1% of 1% of GDP, or a whopping $4 per person…), and to the extent his moronic trade policies destabilize the economy and kill jobs, he will again be helping himself to the door.

    Dave (445e97)

  469. 478:

    Yeah, the lie part refers to the way before discussion when people said Trump “lied”. You never said that.

    Ok…well maybe you are right that you never heard the good argument! Doesn’t change that one could be made. 😉

    I’m actually not just fencing. If the issue is not frivolous, it means it can be argued:

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-natural/

    “In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory … it is certainly not a frivolous issue.””

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  470. Anonymous,

    One of your first comments on this thread accused moderators here of editing your comment without noting that it had been done.

    That never happened.

    You subsequently suggested that you might have made a mistake in making this accusation. But you neither apologized not fully retracted your false claim.

    That is insufficient.

    I am now moderating you and the next comment you leave on my Web site *that appears* will be a full retraction of, and apology to me for, your false accusation. The comment will not include equivocation, complaints, other accusations, or other extraneous material. Just a simple and genuine apology.

    I am owed that, for such an irresponsibly false accusation.

    If your next comment does not meet these criteria, it will not appear. Until you leave a comment that meets those criteria, no comment from you will ever appear on my site again.

    Also, I will not tolerate any more second-guessing from you of my decision to demand a retraction and apology from shipwreckedcrew for three false claims he made in a single thread (which you have falsely termed a “banning”). I have already explained at length how many chances I gave him and how patient I was with him over the course of several months. Even if you apologize for your false accusation mentioned earlier, you will remain in moderation for a week to ensure that you comply with this additional rule regarding shipwreckedcrew. I am finished with that issue, I have said everything I need to say, and I am not re-opening a debate about it, with you or anyone else. That is final.

    Finally, you and all commenters must comply with the new rule on personal attacks. Public figures may be attacked. Other commenters (including me) may not. You may attack arguments but not the people making them. I freely admit that I have almost certainly violated these rules in the past, by calling others dishonest. So be it. I am trying to do something different now. If you can’t manage that, find another blog.

    You probably think these rules are dictatorial. I don’t care, and I won’t publish a comment from you saying so. I personally think the comments section has gotten much better since I imposed these rules, and a little autocracy in their enforcement makes for better dialogue. In my opinion. And since it’s my blog, that’s the opinion that matters.

    Thanks in advance for your anticipated compliance with my reasonable requests.

    Patterico (f653bf)

  471. In keeping with the new rules, I am sorry for saying Anonymous is not a good judge of liars. My comment was directed at his earlier argument portraying Patterico as calling others a liar, one that he clarified but did not retract, but it could be construed as a personal attack and for that I apologize.

    DRJ (15874d)

  472. @485. What about melons, DRJ? I have to go grocery shopping Saturday. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  473. I admit since I can’t worldly abuse individuals anymore I don’t read them.

    mg (b4e76a)

  474. Just kidding, Dave.

    mg (b4e76a)

  475. Anonymous might be a great judge of melons. If not, avoid bruised or cracked melons and smell where the vine was attached: It should smell fresh and almost sweet. Also, when buying smooth-skinned melons, buy dull melons because shiny melons may be under-ripe.

    DRJ (15874d)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0278 secs.