Patterico's Pontifications

9/24/2018

Brett Kavanaugh: I’m Not Going Anywhere

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:28 pm



[guest by Dana]

Just one day after a second accusation was made against him, Brett Kavanaugh sat down for an interview with Martha MacCallum of Fox News. His wife Ashley joined him . He reiterated his denial of the allegations. Here are a few highlights:

On whether he has ever sexually assaulted anyone, he said:

“The truth is I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone, in high school or otherwise. I am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford at some point in her life was sexually assaulted by someone at some place, but what I know is I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone.”

Asked whether he was in attendance at the party referenced by Blasey Ford, he said:

“I was never at any such party. The other people who alleged to be present have said they do not remember any such party. A woman who was present, another woman who was present who was Dr. Ford’s lifelong friend has said she doesn’t know me and never remembers being at a party with me at any time in her life.”

About drinking to the point of memory loss, there was this exchange:

MacCallum: Sir, you are going to be pressed on something that you just said about people do things in high school, and you were all drinking, were there times when perhaps you drank so much – was there ever a time that you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened the night before?

B. Kavanaugh: No, that never happened.

MacCallum: You never said to anyone, “I don’t remember anything about last night.”

B. Kavanaugh: No, that did not happen.

He also expressed his determination to stay in the ring and fight back against the accusations made against him:

“I want a fair process where I can defend my integrity and I know I’m telling the truth I know my lifelong record and I’m not going to let false accusations drive me out of this process. I have faith in God and I have faith in the fairness of the American people.”

This exchange was rather interesting since there seems to be a pretty wide range of debate about it:

MacCallum: Right. Let me ask you this. Separately from these allegations, is it fair to judge someone on something they did before they were 18 years old? When they were 17 years old, should anything they did then follow them later in life or should it enter into any decisions made about them later in life?

B. Kavanaugh: What I’m here to do is tell you the truth, and this allegation from 36 years ago is not –

MacCallum: But separately from what you’re being accused of just as a judge, if you were looking at this case as a part of what you’re going through and someone said, “This person did that at 17 years old,” is it fair to judge them on something that when they’re in their 50s, 60s year old?

B. Kavanaugh: I think everyone is judged on their whole life. I’m a good person. I’ve led a good life. I’ve tried to a lot of good for a lot of people. I am not perfect, I know that. None of us is perfect. I’m not perfect, but I’ve never, never done anything like this.

David French believes that Kavanaugh took a bold move in going specific with his denials:

In tonight’s interview with Martha MacCallum, it would have been easy for Brett Kavanaugh to play the legal equivalent of a prevent defense. He’s a smart enough lawyer to understand the state of the evidence. None of his accusers have been able to come forward with a single witness who can offer first-hand corroboration of their stories. Indeed, they can’t even come forward with a single witness placing him at the scene of either alleged crime. In circumstances like that, the safest course is to simply repeat a blanket denial and repeat all the different ways the accusers’ cases are deficient — to vary some version of “Martha, I didn’t do this, not a single witness can put me at any of these parties, and even Dr. Ford’s friend says she doesn’t know me” throughout the interview.

Like I said, that’s safe. It doesn’t put a single additional fact in the record, and — done correctly — it can imprint in the viewer’s brain that there is zero corroborating evidence substantiating the accusers’ claims.

But, instead, with his opponent facing the evidentiary equivalent of 4th and 20, he blitzed. He extended his denials into three very specific areas that were specifically designed to counter the elitist party-bro narrative that’s dominating the left side of Twitter. Each of these specific denials is subject to fact-checking (though it could get quite personal), and if any of these denials fails that fact check, he may face real issues with wavering Republicans.

It’s to Kavanaugh’s credit that he’s not just trying to run out the clock. It’s obvious that he’s aggressively trying to clear his name — at least with anyone who still has an open mind. The next few days will be critical. Kavanaugh is a smart man. He’s smart enough to know that he’s created three immense targets for investigative reporters and hostile witnesses. But he’s also smart enough to know that when juries, judges, senators, and the public are determining a witness’s credibility, they don’t just look to demeanor and apparent sincerity, they also look for specifics. And Kavanaugh is getting very specific indeed.

–Dana

203 Responses to “Brett Kavanaugh: I’m Not Going Anywhere”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (023079)

  2. He should be a little more ticked off and less semi-dazed and on the verge of shedding a few tears than he was with McCallum. He’s dealing with demonstrably vile people on the other side of the aisle and these sleazemeisters will stop at nothing.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  3. Any truth to the rumor of Blasey-Ford being spotted re-fueling her Chrysler Pacifica at a Rotten Robbie gas station in Elko, Nevada off Interstate 80?

    Teh Midnight Runis on!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  4. Disagree. “Bold move”? Ridiculous. Very much a softball interview. But, hey, it’s FOX, whaddya expect? If there were preconditions on the questions that could be asked, they should have been disclosed. If there weren’t, well, this was not much like journalism, imo. See, here1, as corrected here2, as expanded here3 (no, just kidding, I’ll spare y’all here3, save to say the “drinking questions” (and answers) such as they were, were pretty damn weak tea. But, hey, it’s FOX, whaddya expect?)

    Q! (86710c)

  5. A pro-active defense of absolute innocence is the only possible defense once the predicate of the smear is granted – which is what Grassley did.

    I’d still like to know how this republic is supposed to stand when a majority believe Ford and only 5% of the plurality (40+%) of the USA (Dhimmicrats) believe Ellison’s accuser.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  6. The women are liars.

    This is all that needs repeating.

    Vile, filthy liars.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  7. I don’t think Kavanagh has it in him to visibly demonstrate steely resolve. He is squeaky clean looking and has a quiet demeanor, this doesn’t evoke a fighter in spite of his claims. I wonder if those optics will hurt him? Hopefully though, they are just optics. Perhaps though they are deceptive and the dams will think they can easily bury him.

    Dana (023079)

  8. Ed, first ask how many people know who Ellison is, and then ask how many know of the charges against him.

    On the main topic, there is already this

    https://mobile.twitter.com/WayneFreedman/status/1044326794017464320

    I had several roommates in college and law school. Only one was an actual friend and remained one until he passed away last year. The rest were assigned by campus housing. Most were polite and amicable but no friends. I don’t even remember their names now. And one was a total jerk who hated me as much as I hated him. So being a roommate does not mean hevwas ever friends with BK.

    I have discovered that most of the Twitterverse, right or left, think Avenatti is a limelight hogging dipstick*.

    *euphemism to avoid the Filter.

    kishnevi (f0a3aa)

  9. He is squeaky clean looking and has a quiet demeanor, this doesn’t evoke a fighter in spite of his claims.

    And that’s the irony of it- he’s got a party animal inside rarin’ to get out. If he’d stop trying to hide it he’d sail through. Don’t be surprised if Denny’s has a Kavanaugh Brunch Special available by next week: French Toast, side order of toast, fried potatoes, cooked Canadian bacon, two fried eggs, and choice of tomato juice or orange juice– w/vodka.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  10. 9, that’s the danger of this witch hunt…if the Dems are successful at getting him dropped or to resign for the audacity to have been young, dumb and full of crumb*, you will complete the loss of nearly the entire white males demographic (even the public sector and “by osmosis” types) and lose the he-men of the minorities.

    urbanleftbehind (c8c554)

  11. Obama looked coked up, half the time he spoke, how could he even afford that stuff in the early 80s, Biden’s daughter was caught marketing Bolivia’s finest and his other son washed out of the navy on the board of a Russian controlled uranium energy company.

    Narciso (5cca0c)

  12. I understand trolling, but does DCSCA not see the utter hypocrisy of his response to all this, given his literally year s long series of bizarre posts in which he appears tall and shining, a Zelig like hero?

    Oh, good Lord. I know that much missed JD assembled a list of contradictory and bizarre claims over the years. But…we don’t know the truth, and there is no way to demonstrate that those stories are true, or ridiculous blatherings of a fabulist.

    See how that works?

    I don’t care what happened to DCSCA’s pal, which in this case gets his engine of bizarreness revving. The fact is we know MUCH more about Kavanaugh than his accusers. And for someone Commander McBragg like to opine how Kavanaugh—given his successes in service—-ought to act is beyond parody.

    Oh, wait! That is all personal. The problem is, no one really cares around here about that; various trolls write whatever they like, impugning others. This is no different.

    Simon Jester (211866)

  13. Commodore munchausen, with his rubber ducky, he’s got that right track tape jammed in 1974.

    Narciso (5cca0c)

  14. @10. Yearbook pages, HS and college stories are starting to pour out now. Google the statement from his Yale University roommate from the Fall of 1983, James Roche, that is out tonight. Now a CEO of a San Francisco software company.

    In the statement supporting Ramirez, he states, ‘I concluded that although Brett was normally reserved he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk. I did not observe the specific incident in question, but I do remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk.’

    This whole circus could have been avoided if it had all just been turned over to the FBI- the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a week or two ago, instead of having tens of thousands of armchair Columbos following so many crumb trails. W/their resources, this could have been pretty much done or close to done by now.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  15. @12. Patterico, per the new commenting rules, please ask Simon Jester to refrain from personal attacks. Thank you.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  16. The same bureau who never scrutinized mateen to any degree whole they spent a million dollars of defense department funds wining and dining third level trump staffers.

    Narciso (5cca0c)

  17. One of this days these stunts will get put of hand, like with bolsanaro in brazil
    https://mobile.twitter.com/davereaboi/status/1044419766658768896

    Narciso (5cca0c)

  18. Now a CEO of a San Francisco software company.

    The last person in the world with an ax to grind when Donald Trump appoints a conservative to the Supreme Court.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. I’ve never understood being so drunk you forgot things. Does that really happen? I’ve wantrd to forget things but I’ve always suspected that is code for not wanting to be held accountable.

    I’m willing to rate that as a true response. Not that he didn’t drink, or drink a lot. Just that he never had any trouble remembering things.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  20. 12. The fact is we know MUCH more about Kavanaugh than his accusers.

    The ‘facts’ are you only know what has been packaged and marketed to you to make the sale.

    OTOH, a ‘Bart O’Kavanaugh’ sounds like a lot more fun to party and pal around with than a ‘Dudley Do-Right.’

    Let’s ask Mark Judge.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  21. Escalating demands for evidence from the accused; utter failure of corroboration for the accusers ignored.

    @DCSCA:This whole circus could have been avoided if it had all just been turned over to the FBI- the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a week or two ago

    You mean in July, right, when it was first reported to Senator Feinstien, not to mention it could have been included in the thousands of questions Kavanaugh answered already from her and the other Senators. DCSCA, you know the timeline and so it is hard to take your suggestion as indicative of good faith.

    Delay is the thing that is wanted–the timing and vagueness of the accusations could not have been chosen more artfully to produce that delay.

    Nemo (a46a69)

  22. @DCSCA:Let’s ask Mark Judge.

    Yes, let’s ask him, “Where were you and Kavanauagh on the night of…”

    Oh wait, Ford cannot even give the year. Neither does Ramirez mention a date.

    The only person who has given any evidence of where he was on a specific night at any time is Kavanaugh. And yet for some reason he has to prove more and more.

    How much more does he need to prove, DCSCA, before you’d grant he might not have done it?

    Nemo (a46a69)

  23. @21. Nonsense; the WH could have avoided all this angst for everybody and al lsides involved, including We The People, by directing the FBI to open a fresh and focused investigation on this and w/their resources they likely could have run it to ground by now- or close to it and this matter would have been put to bed. Instead, you’ve got tens of thousands of armchair Columbos playing detective.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  24. @DCSCA:the WH could have avoided all this angst for everybody and al lsides involved,

    So could Senator Feinstein. What share of accountability do you assign to her, DCSCA?

    Nemo (a46a69)

  25. @DCSCA:Instead, you’ve got tens of thousands of armchair Columbos playing detective.

    No named witness has corroborated anything. Colombo would have nothing to do, and neither would the FBI. Purely a delaying tactic–and if the FBI could have found out anything, Feinstein could have had them on the case in July.

    I’d like you to honestly acknowledge this because it is very hard to give you credit for good faith here.

    You know the time line.

    You also know that only Kavanaugh has given any specific account of his activities on any given date.

    So please in good faith answer my question–what does Kavanaugh have to show in order for you to think he probably didn’t do it?

    Nemo (a46a69)

  26. Hey, a Renault I didn’t read in high school!
    The Theseus novels were required reading in my 8th or 9th grade English class.
    If she put a gay subtext in them, I missed it completely.
    I remember them as interesting. Have not read them since, so I don’t know how dated they may seem now.

    kishnevi (f0a3aa)

  27. @22. You don’t get it; don’t hold it against him. He was a party animal back in the day. So what– what doesn’t cut it is the spin on trying to hide it and marketing him as a 99% pure box of Ivory Snow soap flakes and not a keg of Miller high Life.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  28. @DCSCA:He was a party animal back in the day. So what– what doesn’t cut it is the spin on trying to hide it and marketing him as a 99% pure box of Ivory Snow soap flakes and not a keg of Miller high Life.

    I was pretty sure you would not answer my question. Let’s try again.

    Please in good faith answer my question–what does Kavanaugh have to show in order for you to think he probably didn’t do it?

    Nemo (a46a69)

  29. @26. See #28. Don’t care if he did it or not. Do care if he is hiding who he truly was– or is.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  30. Smearing a good man all for political power. Now you see why men like Trump run instead of good men.

    NJRob (006128)

  31. You don’t get it. This is a job interview, not a criminal proceeding, Nemo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  32. @DCSCA:Don’t care if he did it or not

    Got it.

    Do care if he is hiding who he truly was– or is.

    Please in good faith answer this question–what does Kavanaugh have to show in order for you to think he’s not lying about who he is or was?

    Nemo (a46a69)

  33. @29. Have. See #30. Scroll back and read.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  34. DCSCA:This is a job interview

    Please don’t dodge. I want to know what your standard of evidence is. You keep not answering.

    You think he’s not what he presents himself as. What is your standard of evidence?
    Please answer me in good faith.

    Nemo (a46a69)

  35. #33. I keep answering you. And now given the new commenting rules, will just disengage. Have a good night.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  36. @DCSCA:See #30. Scroll back and read.

    I did, and so can every one else. I asked you to name the evidence you’d accept. You continue to refuse. This is not good faith, sir.

    Nemo (a46a69)

  37. I’ve never understood being so drunk you forgot things. Does that really happen?

    Yes, it really happens.

    Dave (445e97)

  38. @35. No point in repeating 1+1=2 if you keep insisting that it doesn’t add up. Have a good evening.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  39. And one can reference Scalia’s last year and pin fortyn about 15 years ago in the netherlands.

    Narciso (5cca0c)

  40. Nemo, his answer is “nothing he’s a republican nominee so I will not be “for him” under any circumstance, ascribe no ill intent to hiding any of this by Dianne Feinstein, gladly pull the lever for her tactics, and join in any smear of a SC nominee even if they can’t even provide a freaking year or place that it happened at.

    Hi (74dfe2)

  41. I don’t have a problem with repressed memories as much as I have a problem with the extraction.
    I’d go as far to say that most fair minded people would not believe Michael Avenatti to be the best and most honest “extractor”.

    Everyone deals with adversity a differently and some people deal with it in 180 degree different ways. I can see someone who truly was violated wanting revenge upon finding that their abuser is being named to a high position, or the person may not want revenge but may be sounding a warning, others just disolve in a puddle of tears.
    I can even see forging Roy Moore into a yearbook… it’d negate and offset evidence, but I could see someone panicking and doing that.

    So what do these ladies have so far besides smoke grenades? Not much.
    Approximately same age as Kavanaugh, shared regional location, maybe knew people in common…
    35 years ago… unless Kavanaughs mom shows up and reads aloud from her diary about her sons many sins this should go no where

    steveg (a9dcab)

  42. @38 I’ve never understood being so drunk you forgot things. Does that really happen?

    Yes, yes, yes! Once woke up after a long night and totally forgot where I’d parked the car.

    But WC Fields demonstrates it best:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d8V7vMPHLc

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  43. Brett Kavanaugh: I’m Not Going Anywhere

    That statement of his could end up being more ironic than he realizes.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  44. 38 – Concur. Used to get blackout drunk fairly often from 19 to 24, but junior myoclonic epilepsy and the resulting prescription med plus a strict abstinence from alcohol for 3 years put an end to those days. I was declared to be free of the JYE after that 3 years, but am a very light drinker as a result.

    urbanleftbehind (c8c554)

  45. @frosty48:I’ve never understood being so drunk you forgot things. Does that really happen? I’ve wantrd to forget things but I’ve always suspected that is code for not wanting to be held accountable.

    A blackout drunk appears to have no short term memory. They can do stuff, they can talk to you, but it’s all gone after a few seconds. Typically they remember only short episodes of things that happened.

    It is not “normal” drunkenness. I don’t know if it only happens to certain people, or if it’s something anyone can experience.

    Alcohol dependence is not prerequisite to blackouts (either en bloc or fragmentary). Students in one study who reported blackouts were demographically similar to other drinking students. Importantly, however, students reporting blackouts drank more, and had other symptoms of alcoholic drinking, even though they did not fall into the alcoholic range on the Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST). Half of the students reported having had a blackout during their drinking careers, which closely followed other research findings.

    In another study 25% of healthy college students reported being familiar with alcoholic blackouts. 51% of the students reported that they had had at least one blackout. Blackouts were reported during activities such as spending money (27%), sexual conduct (24%), fighting (16%), vandalism (16%), unprotected intercourse (6%), and driving a car (3%). So a significant number of students were engaged in a range of possibly hazardous activities during blackouts.

    Of 545 individuals in another study, 161 (29.5%) reported driving drunk, 139 (25.5%) reported a regretted sexual situation, 67 (12.3%) reported unprotected sex, 60 (11%) reported having damaged property, 55 (10.1%) reported getting into a physical fight, and 29 (5.3%) reported injuring someone while under the influence of alcohol in the past 6 months.

    Nemo (a46a69)

  46. @45. See #43. Meh. Hear you. That morning waking up and unable to find the car was it for me.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  47. all i kind say is people at my work who never cared for Trump or voted for him, they are definitely against the tactics and circus of For, her lawyers and the DNC. They may never vote for Trump but they are all sympathetic to Kavanaugh. I dont know of any of them that believe Ford or any of these other women. and the people at my job have had their own daughters, grand daughters, sisters or nieces sexually harassed and even sodomized by piece of sh*t men (I had a mother and sister sexually harassed and groped but i am a Trump supporter. My mom and sister believe Kavanaugh. In fact my om was in tears listening to Kavanaugh try to defend himself) ) . these are not just brothers, fathers, grandfathers but also sisters, mothers, and grandmothers, who DO NOT tolerate these kinds of crimes: they ARE NOT sympathetic to Ford and her lawyers. They see thru Ford and her lawyers that they are using the crimes actually committed against their loved ones as a political tactic. it is astonishing that the marxist liberals think this is a winning strategy based on “truth”. Everyone knows its a smear campaign based on lies to destroy a good and competent judge. they ESPECIALLY do not like what is going on to convict someone of a crime without any proof and without any trial and without the presumption of innocence, as stated in the laws and codes of the US civil, criminal & trial codes.

    Where Eagles Dare (8f562c)

  48. “Don’t care if he did it or not. Do care if he is hiding who he truly was– or is.”

    THE BRETT KAVANAUGH WHO MARRIED, FATHERED SEVERAL CHILDREN, AND BECAME A COACH IN HIS SPARE TIME IS *NOT* THE BRETT KAVANAUGH I HAD IN MY MIND AND NOW DEMAND TO SEE!

    DCSCA, in between your time spent working the ref, monitoring the hall, lawyering the rules, and in general doing anything but engaging with the conversation in a straightforward and productive fashion (much like most Democrats in office, to be fair…)

    …have you considered that maybe Kavanaugh drank a lot because he just liked drinking (for a virgin workaholic loner on the BIGLAW track who was also Irish, really not all that far-fetched) and not because he was some memetic party animal like you seem to be implying?

    Rogue DMV Agent (8fd6c0)

  49. PS the left is charging Kavanaugh with rape. and if they are not charging him with rape they have pushed the goal posts right up to it. They re insulting & implying it strongly. But Avenatti has charged Kavanaugh and Judge with gang rape while attending Yale. Yet somehow gang rape was going on at Yale and the authorities never heard of it from anyone? you can’t amen this up. the left is/are delusional.

    Where Eagles Dare (8f562c)

  50. Mazie “Cuckoo for Coconuts” Hirono to Kavanaugh on 9/5 (probably asked in between paid nitwit leftist protestor outbursts):

    Q: “…I ask each nominee two questions…
    Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?”
    A: “No”

    A lie, she never asked Gorsuch that question. She’s in on the strategy, the dullard tip of the spear, as it were…

    https://twitter.com/phillyrich1/status/1044246068349874178

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  51. It is not “normal” drunkenness. I don’t know if it only happens to certain people, or if it’s something anyone can experience.

    I think it is just extreme drunkenness.

    I used to go out and binge drink with friends a couple nights a week for most of my adult life, and it has only happened to me like half a dozen times in my life, so it is not a “type” of drunk – it’s a condition that can kick in for anyone at very high levels of intoxication.

    (I quit drinking socially about ten years ago, and am now content with a glass or two of wine when I have a nice dinner…)

    Dave (445e97)

  52. @51. Bet you all ’round feel better, too.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  53. Youthful indiscretion and drinking or use of drugs is an unfortunate part of growing up in contemporary America and elsewhere in the western world. The secret of a truly happy life – at least in my opinion – is to realize that sobriety is wonderful… life without looking thru a haze… waking up (and not coming to) to another beautiful, productive day. Life is enough of a trip, no need for chemicals. Experience it in the way a loving Creator meant for it to be experienced.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  54. https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/24/ted-cruz-protested-dc-restaurant/

    The left is all their fascist glory. They don’t want debate. They want to rule.

    NJRob (1d7532)

  55. AZ Bob,

    you beat me to it. My apologies.

    NJRob (1d7532)

  56. No problem, NJRob. I do the same only hours behind the first post because I don’t take he time to read all the posts.

    AZ Bob (885937)

  57. They don’t want debate. They want to rule.

    In that, they are indistinguishable from their counterparts in TrumpWorld.

    We see similar views (this is war, the left can’t be negotiated with, they must simply be conquered, etc) expressed here constantly.

    I’m not defending the Cruz protestors, I’m saying the Left’s monopoly on lunacy is under siege.

    Dave (445e97)

  58. Sobriety rocks, Col.

    mg (9e54f8)

  59. @50 Col. A lie, she never asked Gorsuch that question

    No. Not a lie, “Colonel”. Wrong. Wrong once again. (Or if it’s “a lie” or “an inaccurate statement”, then that falsehood -slash- inaccuracy remains very much to be proven.)

    That is, My Dearest Dearest Colonel, in the very twitter feed you link to (Rich Weinstein’s) as proof Hirono’s base deceit, the feed’s owner himself points out that Hirono’s practice of asking the two questions dated from January 2018, and the confirmation hearing for Judge Kurt Engelhardt. Complete with video (presumably (?) provided by the twitter user who corrected Weinstein’s earlier erroneous remarks).

    Can you guess why this is chronology is important? Here’s a hint: the devil is almost always in the details. Still stumped, Oh “Colonel” Mine? Well, then, maybe google when it was that the Gorsuch confirmation hearings were held. There’s a good lad, then – off you go.

    Details. Nature’s bounty (and so much more nutritious and tasty than gross, unsupported, bile-induced, ignorant generalizations! and similar nonsense!)

    Q! (86710c)

  60. drat! …as proof Hirono’s base deceit… should read (of course) …as proof of Hirono’s base deceit… My apologies. Again.

    Q! (86710c)

  61. Cue the tears

    mg (9e54f8)

  62. Thursday hearing: Hi I am brett kavenaugh and I am the 40 year old virgin they made the movie about!

    lany (d37533)

  63. @64. Trust Shine and crew drilled him not to show up and start with, “Hi. My name is Brett. And I’m an alcoholic.”

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  64. ^@63.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  65. What is wrong with these people? Please watch this video of Democrats ruining the restaurant plans of Ted Cruz and his wife.

    I cannot possibly imagine why people would want to take time from their busy and productive lives and disregard their personal responsibilities in order to harass a conservative Republican at dinner. Just can’t imagine it. What do they have to gain? Why would they put themselves through it? Risk public scrutiny, harassment, embarrassment, loss of their privacy and disruption of their lives?

    That was sarcasm.

    nk (dbc370)

  66. sleazy journoslut Bradford Betz at fox news doesn’t even name the restaurant

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  67. Fiola

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  68. it’s ugly to watch but the dirty congressfilth and their dirty goldy sicky-sack wives are reaping what they’ve sown

    they had a good long ride where they could ass-jack failmerica with impunity

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  69. #66

    I see what you did there. Nicely done.

    Ford saw the handmaidens and told her husband to hold her glass of Chardonnay.

    Ramirez sees that, sets down her Cabernet Sauvignon, and says “hey girls, watch this”.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  70. @Q!:Details. Nature’s bounty

    Which Kavanugh’s accusers have completely failed to provide. And which Kavanaugh has provided. And yet for some reason you think Kavanaugh should have to provide even more than he has.

    Nemo (a46a69)

  71. #58

    I think this is several steps to far. The DJT crowd seem more interested in not being ruled(*) than in ruling. And not so much refusing to debate as recognizing that as another round of Lucy with the football.

    Is there evidence that the left can negotiate in good faith? It seems scarce.

    * I know this is incendiary language. I mean it only in the less regulation, small government, etc. sense.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  72. “Hirono’s practice of asking the two questions dated from January 2018, and the confirmation hearing for Judge Kurt Engelhardt.“

    Hirono didn’t provide any qualifiers, e.g., “I now ask…”, she stated “as part of my responsibilities, I ask every judicial nominee…”

    Words are important.

    Colonel Haiku (d82f96)

  73. “I cannot possibly imagine why people would want to take time from their busy and productive lives and disregard their personal responsibilities in order to harass a conservative Republican at dinner. Just can’t imagine it. What do they have to gain? Why would they put themselves through it? Risk public scrutiny, harassment, embarrassment, loss of their privacy and disruption of their lives?”

    Lesson 101 of Stopping the Left:

    Quickest way to remedy this would be for some fine Security Guard to take out a gun and shoot a few of them. And let it happen 3-4 times. Within seconds this would stop. Restaurants, with their cheesy employees, would not allow them in. The protestors would refrain from their violent behavior cuz the few shekels they get would not be worth it.

    Consequences, they matter.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  74. “The DJT crowd seem more interested in not being ruled(*) than in ruling.”

    That would make us patriots true to the intent of the Constitution.

    So yes. It is a just and righteous position unlike NeverTrump and their fake principles.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  75. #69 Happy,

    My only solace in this vile effort by the Left is that it is happening to a Yale Elitist Twat who likely pulls his horn to pictures of the Bush Family.

    So, when awful descends on these elite and they taste that which they wrought — it is a good thing. I just hope the Leftie Elite gets their medicine 10x.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  76. #69 Happy,

    My only solace in this vile effort by the Left is that it is happening to a Yale Elitist Twhaat who likely pulls his horn to pictures of the Bush Family.

    So, when awful descends on these elite and they taste that which they wrought — it is a good thing. I just hope the Leftie Elite gets their medicine 10x.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  77. i agree 100% Mr. Builder

    you nailed it aptly and succinctly right there

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  78. It was the worst of times,…

    https://www.city-journal.org/kirsten-gillibrand-16191.html

    narciso (d1f714)

  79. What is even more interesting to me of this fight is the Trumpians are actually fighting hard to save an elitist Ivy Cocktail Party Republican of the NeverTrump variety because we know full well the consequences of not.

    NeverTrump in their degenerate state is incapable to making same choice between “flawed” versus “evil”

    So NeverTrump chooses evil lest their “principles” be “compromised” by selecting “flawed.”

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  80. Never forget that the Left’s goal really isn’t the protection of women, it’s the destruction of justice.

    Colonel Haiku (d82f96)

  81. #82. So long as they are in charge and get to make up the rules as they see fit, the Left is miserably content.

    That is how you explain Nicholas Maduro and Ortega or the Pope.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  82. The restaurants can stop this with some criminal trespass charges. They won’t until someone gets hurt and they get sued.

    The irony is there’s a better than even chance that it’s a protester that gets hurt. I can just see the tort now; you encouraged us protest when your employee told us a nazi was there but you were negligent in providing a safe protest environment by a) failing to have fireproof carpeting and furniture b) failing to have adequate entry and exit capacity for an antifa protest involving more than twenty (20) people c) placing sharp utensils within reach of protesters, d) failing to properly secure furniture to the floor, etc.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  83. 79, it’s a bad reflection on the former Michael Weiner that he savaged your girl Sarah Palin and was relatively giddy with Gillebrands appointment.

    urbanleftbehind (c8c554)

  84. Of all the restaurant harassment episodes against conservative people, Cruz’s incident is the most likely to be staged, given his not-Abbott sized margin against Beto.

    urbanleftbehind (c8c554)

  85. #86 By definition all protests are staged.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  86. They are all staged. Rounded up, bused in, and paid. Most times by those Antifa clowns that worked for Hillary whose names narciso know but I don’t. Sometimes by CNN.

    nk (dbc370)

  87. Yes it was jailbird creamer, and that other guy okeefe got on film

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/new-york-times-hid-multiple-key-facts-in-kavanaugh-yearbook-hit/

    Narciso (010b96)

  88. In light of the way they minimized the Holton arms yearbook, but it’s sadly not surprising the one who alleged ethical improprieties against the hundreds was a used car dealer (as the head of the chamber of commerce he now pushes fo

    Narciso (010b96)

  89. For Obamacare) another nazgul was of the type who was in the last predator film, another’s lies was rewarded with the pipeline project

    Narciso (010b96)

  90. I meant staged as in Cruz or the Cruz campaign hiring actors to play as dangerous lefty zealots.

    urbanleftbehind (c8c554)

  91. At this point, with now three people making allegations (including Avenatti’s mystery guest), getting the FBI in to do a quick investigation to confirm or deny them would be a fairly easy fix. We’d probably have our answers by the end of the week, and I’m reasonably confident that they’ll find no evidence that Kavanaugh did any of this, especially the charges by Ms. Ramirez, which don’t pass the laugh test. The FBI would make her a laughingstock which, to me, is a good deterrent for liberals thinking about making baseless sexual assault assertions.

    Paul Montagu (0e687b)

  92. 84… Weiner Nation??? 🤔

    Colonel Haiku (d82f96)

  93. There are still no details, paul, ramiriz (sic) offered a location but not a time. Aren’t Rick kids on vacation, in the Hampton or europe?

    Narciso (010b96)

  94. Yup, Colonel, you got it …he missed out on that Oscar Mayer sponsorship, as if they would be that brave.

    urbanleftbehind (c8c554)

  95. Yes Debbie schlussel, also had that reaction to the huntress

    Narciso (010b96)

  96. What if titty-tshirt shows up and capes for Ramirez? Or is she a come mierda kind of Rican?

    urbanleftbehind (c8c554)

  97. By definition all protests are staged.

    Bob the Builder (564d53) — 9/25/2018 @ 6:46 am

    Iwo Jima.

    https://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/16/18/1462471207-iwo-jima.jpg

    Ir was staged. The first flag was too small.

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  98. At this point getting all of the accusers to make a statement under oath might be an easy fix.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  99. 100% agreement, frosty48. If this is being treated like a crime—derailing careers, etc—then let’s treat it like a crime, with rules of evidence.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  100. *”It”

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  101. We don’t need to treat it like a crime. But we are in a situation suggesting due process. And it’s telling that the voices wanting to get the FBI involved don’t seem that concerned about having an actual allegation to investigate.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  102. Or maybe they improvised, like when Fifteen Commandments became the Ten Commandments.

    urbanleftbehind (c8c554)

  103. Another one of those films you can’t do anymore, it’s like the sterile utopia in sleeper.

    Narciso (010b96)

  104. There already was one demand to the FBI to investigate. The allegation made by Professor Doctor Christine Margaret Blasey Ford, B.A, M.A., Ph.D.. The FBI said there was nothing to investigate. The FBI is not an arm of the Senate. Its jurisdiction and its duties are delineated by its charter.

    And you know what else. (That’s not a question, you do know.) If there were an FBI investigation that cleared Kavanaugh, the same smear machine that’s calling for the FBI investigation would then start demanding an “independent investigation”.

    nk (dbc370)

  105. https://spectator.org/337085-2/

    We need a General Patton.

    NJRob (1d7532)

  106. The ignorance of Latin by the NYTimes is shameful.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html

    Neo (d1c681)

  107. I remain confused…if there were 4 other individuals at “the party”….including Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, PJ Smyth, and Leland Keyser….whose house were they all in? If it wasn’t one of their four homes, are we to believe that someone else gave them access to binge drink in their house? It shouldn’t take much time to rule-in or rule-out the Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth, or “Keyser” homes. Certainly Blasey Ford could have forgotten other party participants…including ostensibly the host…but Keyser’s claim that she never knew Kavanaugh….despite being at such a small intimate gathering, really calls into question the accuracy and usefulness of Ford’s memories. Not knowing how she got there…or remembering how she left…and where she subsequently went…and why she wouldn’t have told any of her friends, just adds to my skepticism. Ford’s closest friends circa 1982-1984 have nothing to offer? Whether she would go alone to parties with people she didn’t know very well at homes she wasn’t especially familiar with? It just smells funny.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  108. 108… Patton? Good Lord, man, we need an extinction event…

    Colonel Haiku (d82f96)

  109. Blasey Ford was just spotted at Little America in SLC. She sure is taking her sweet time getting to teh hearings…

    Colonel Haiku (d82f96)

  110. The FBI is not an arm of the Senate. Its jurisdiction and its duties are delineated by its charter.

    The president has the power to order the FBI to conduct a quick investigation. As usual, Trump was talking out of his ass.

    Only the White House can order the FBI to look into the claim as part of Kavanaugh’s background investigation because Ford is not accusing Kavanaugh of a federal crime.

    Paul Montagu (0e687b)

  111. @112 Col. Blasey Ford was just spotted at Little America in SLC. She sure is taking her sweet time getting to teh hearings…

    How very very stalky-creepy. And that you should be on top of it! Who’d’a thunk?

    Q! (86710c)

  112. Some sweat-hoggie mama with a face like a gent
    Charged her Prius car and on teh road she went
    Well we got good news, teh Prius blew a tire
    And teh battery-packs are prone to catch on fire

    Colonel Haiku (d82f96)

  113. Just for you, sweet cheeks…

    Colonel Haiku (d82f96)

  114. To quote your cuckoo for coconuts hero, “just shut up”.

    Colonel Haiku (d82f96)

  115. Q!,

    That’s a personal attack.

    NJRob (84ad68)

  116. That’s all she’s got, Rob. She gets upset rather easily.

    Colonel Haiku (d82f96)

  117. Like the sighting was real… LOL!

    Colonel Haiku (d82f96)

  118. I’m just disgusted by the behavior of the lawyers–Avanetti making claims about some kind of sex ring; Ford’s attorneys making demands as if they run the Senate; Senator Blumenthal, a former attorney general, claiming it’s up to Kavenaugh to prove his innocence. What in the heck is going on among the lawyers? They should all be reported for such unethical, unprincipled behavior.

    Rochf (877dba)

  119. It was as real as Professor Doctor Christine Margaret Blasey Ford, B.A, M.A., Ph.D.‘s dredged up allegations.

    Colonel Haiku (d82f96)

  120. Republicans are getting revenge in the yelp reviews. Yelp has flagged it for review.

    DRJ (15874d)

  121. You must hate Kavanaugh, Rochf.

    DRJ (15874d)

  122. Since he is a lawyer.

    DRJ (15874d)

  123. no, those are ambulance chasers, bag men, and slimy pole cats,

    narciso (d1f714)

  124. and they have been this way since 1979:

    https://twitter.com/CBSEveningNews/status/1044600598547566599

    narciso (d1f714)

  125. What is even more interesting to me of this fight is the Trumpians are actually fighting hard to save an elitist Ivy Cocktail Party Republican of the NeverTrump variety because we know full well the consequences of not.

    NeverTrump in their degenerate state is incapable to making same choice between “flawed” versus “evil”.

    So NeverTrump chooses evil lest their “principles” be “compromised” by selecting “flawed.”

    Are you saying Kavanaugh is flawed? Regardless, your analogy bears no relation to reality.

    In the 2016 primaries, when Donald Trump convinced “NeverTrump” people to oppose him, the choice was indeed between “evil” (Trump) and “flawed” (the rest of field could be considered “flawed” – i.e. less than perfect – in one way or another, but none of them was shamelessly dishonest, corrupt and unprincipled in the same way as Trump). NeverTrumpers chose “flawed”. TrumpWorld chose “evil”.

    In the 2016 general election, the choice was between “evil” and “evil”. Speaking for myself, I rejected both the evil choices and went for “flawed” again (McMullin).

    Currently, the choice is again between “evil” (Trump) and “flawed” (Pence). TrumpWorld still embraces “evil”, while the rest of us would be delighted with “flawed”.

    None of this maps well to the Kavanaugh confirmation. If Kavanaugh is “flawed”, he has revealed much less evidence of it than most of the powerful people in Washington. He has an outstanding professional reputation and people who have known or worked within him during his adult life speak of him in glowing terms.

    Most principled people would say it is appropriate to hear-out Ford’s charges, despite the fact that she is clearly (at best) a troubled and confused woman being exploited by our political opponents, and at worst, knowingly attempting to traduce a good man. That doesn’t mean we believe her accusations should be accepted without more evidence than simply her vague and uncertain word.

    Dave (445e97)

  126. Pet peeve/rant: I really wish people would stop intoning about how “it’s impossible to prove a negative”. For instance Ed at HotAir wrote today:

    That presents Kavanaugh with an impossible burden: proving a negative.

    There is nothing about negative propositions (e.g., “X never happened”) that makes them intrinsically unprovable.

    For instance, I can certainly prove that I have never piloted a spaceship to Alpha Centauri, that I did not assassinate President Lincoln.

    There are countless ways – in principle – that Kavanaugh could disprove Ford’s charges (“prove a negative”). For instance, he could show that he had lived in Australia for his entire life and never been to Maryland, or that he hadn’t been born yet during the alleged time-frame of the attack, etc.

    Of course, these particular defenses do not apply to Kavanaugh, but that is not the point. Ford’s charges are not unfalsifiable because they require “proving a negative” but because they are too remote and too vague.

    The testimony of everyone else alleged to be present contradicts Ford, but remoteness in time makes that arguably less conclusive than if the attack were supposed to have happened a month, or even a year ago. And because Ford cannot give a specific date or even year, no alibi is possible even though Kavanaugh has detailed contemporaneous calendars showing where he traveled during his summers in high school.

    These weaknesses in Ford’s charges are what make them – in practice – unfalsifiable, not any “impossible burden” of proving a negative.

    Dave (445e97)

  127. I met Kavanaugh back in the nam so there’s no way he was in high school in the 80s and he never raped anyone he just liked to hold hands

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  128. there must be some unsolved murders in the Irvine area, dan, can you prove where you have been at all times,

    there is no evidence, just an accusation, that should not have been published in the first place,

    narciso (d1f714)

  129. For instance, he could show that he had lived in Australia for his entire life and never been to Maryland

    Using a negative to prove a negative? How can he prove he has never been to Maryland? How can he prove that he lived in Australia his entire life? We can prove that he has been to Australia and we can prove that he was an Australian citizen. But that doesn’t “prove” anything more than that. We can only prove that you did not assassinate President Lincoln only because we can prove, via the positive proof of your birth certificate, that you were not yet born. We only approach proving negatives by eliminating all other possibilities via proving positives. It is impossible to prove that BK was not in a given room at a given time only in the context of being able to positively prove that he was somewhere else in that timeframe.

    They should have taught you this in school. Or you could have figured it out for yourself. It’s not really hard like Wittgenstein or something.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  130. OT – Cosby gets a minimum of 3 years in prison, possible max of 10.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  131. 131, oh crap, you may have “release the Kracken”-like called someone else on this blog with inconsisties on their Vietnam service.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  132. that was so wrong

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  133. @134 ulb .. OT – Cosby gets a minimum of 3 years in prison, possible max of 10.

    Excellent. Actually, I think the sentence is 3-10, but precisely what that means under PA law, I know not. Hopfully the denial of bail on appeal will stick, and also the designation as a dangerous sex predator. Don’t know anything about the law on the bail issue, and I suspect there might be a decent chance of error on the designation question (but I confess it’s a rather markedly uninformed suspicion-opinion, there.)

    Short comment: Yay!

    Q! (86710c)

  134. if you’re joseph ellis, you can get four books after the revelation, that not only did he not serve, but he wasn’t an aide to general Westmoreland,

    narciso (d1f714)

  135. How can he prove he has never been to Maryland? How can he prove that he lived in Australia his entire life? We can prove that he has been to Australia and we can prove that he was an Australian citizen. But that doesn’t “prove” anything more than that.

    International travel generates a paper trail. A passport is required to travel between Australia and the United States, and he might not have ever applied for one. If he had lived in Australia his entire life, presumably countless people who knew him could attest to the fact that he had never traveled overseas. Certain facts (BK did not swim from Australia to the United States) can be inferred from the unreasonableness/impossibility of the alternative.

    We only approach proving negatives by eliminating all other possibilities via proving positives.

    Nonsense. Proving “X” is the same as proving “not (not X)”. There is no distinction between positive and negative propositions in logic, because they are interchangeable. If “Y” is the proposition “not X”, then “X” is the proposition “not Y”. Neither “X” nor “Y” is more fundamental or more “provable”, as far as logic is concerned.

    They should have taught you this in school. Or you could have figured it out for yourself. It’s not really hard like Wittgenstein or something.

    There are many ways to prove that BK was not in a given room at a given time. One is indeed to establish that he was in a specific other place at the same time.

    Another way, if the room were under continuous video surveillance, would be to show that the room was not occupied – in that case, we would need to know nothing about BK’s actual whereabouts.

    Even if the quality of the video was too poor to establish the identity of anyone who might have been present (i.e. if it could not, even in principle, prove the positive proposition “BK was in the room”), we could still use negative evidence (“not (there were people in the room)”) to reach a negative conclusion (“not (BK was in the room)”), which follows because BK is a person.

    Since there is no logical distinction between positive and negative propositions, we could equally well describe this as positive evidence (“the room was empty”) leading to a positive conclusion (“BK was elsewhere”).

    Dave (445e97)

  136. @137. He’ll be doin’ the Pennsylvania Pokie by dusk; on the menu tonight for ‘America’s Dad': orange jump suit and orange j-e-l-l-o.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  137. Nonsense. Proving “X” is the same as proving “not (not X)”. There is no distinction between positive and negative propositions in logic, because they are interchangeable. If “Y” is the proposition “not X”, then “X” is the proposition “not Y”. Neither “X” nor “Y” is more fundamental or more “provable”, as far as logic is concerned.

    Sure it does. On pieces of paper, which are predicated on defined domains and such. Out here in the real world such logic falls apart because you assume you understand the full domain. Let us take for example your postulate that:

    International travel generates a paper trail. A passport is required to travel between Australia and the United States, and he might not have ever applied for one. If he had lived in Australia his entire life, presumably countless people who knew him could attest to the fact that he had never traveled overseas. Certain facts (BK did not swim from Australia to the United States) can be inferred from the unreasonableness/impossibility of the alternative.

    True within the domain of legal travel and assuming no bureaucratic hiccups or malfeasance. People cross the US border all of the time without any such documentation. Thus we prove an given Australian has never been here without falsely “proving” that there are no illegal aliens present in the US.

    There are many ways to prove that BK was not in a given room at a given time. One is indeed to establish that he was in a specific other place at the same time.
    Which I stated was only proof of a negative by proving certain positives that eliminate the possibility, within the domain of currently understood science and reason, of the negative being true.

    Look we can play semantic games if you like, but the fact remains that even your examples are fraught with holes.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  138. Cheers that “America’s Dad” gets prison… shameful.

    On the other hand, my BIL’s late father was the “pro” at a golf course in SFV back in the mid 70s thru mid 80s. The man never had a bad word to say about anyone… except for Bill Cosby… “a very unpleasant man…”

    Colonel Haiku (d82f96)

  139. @142. “a very unpleasant man…”

    There’s a revealing two or three second videoclip around from an old Carson show, decades ago, that made it to air just as the network went to commercial which inadvertently caught Cosby instantly changing his jocular persona, turning angrily to Ed McMahon and dressing him down for ‘interrupting’ as an astonished Carson looked on.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  140. Look we can play semantic games if you like, but the fact remains that even your examples are fraught with holes.

    The fact remains that there is nothing logically impossible about “proving a negative”, as people who don’t understand logic like to assert.

    To the contrary, for every provable positive claim “X”, there is a logically equivalent provable negative claim “not Y”, where “Y” is the proposition “not X”.

    This axiom (“the excluded middle“) is arguably the most basic principle of logic.

    Dave (445e97)

  141. To the contrary, for every provable positive claim “X”, there is a logically equivalent provable negative claim “not Y”, where “Y” is the proposition “not X”.

    And yet I proved your international travel example wrong. How’d I do that? By proving a positive that was outside of your (erroneous) domain of reference.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  142. 143… I watched one TS where Cosby was subbing and he was so rude to guests Steve Martin and Claire Bloom that they were obviously perplexed at what had caused his behavior right out of the chute.

    Colonel Haiku (d82f96)

  143. And yet I proved your international travel example wrong.

    No you didn’t. I just forgot to mention that the reason he’s lived in Australia his entire life is that he was born with a rare heart defect and has been on life support – in an Australian hospital, with continuous monitoring of his vital signs – since birth.

    You shouldn’t get hung up on any specific example. The point is that there is nothing inherently unprovable about a negative propositions.

    Dave (445e97)

  144. The point is that there is nothing inherently unprovable about a negative propositions.

    True, so long as you acknowledge that they are only provable via a series of positive facts that effectively eliminate all other positive facts leaving just the negative. But in order to prove a negative you must ensure/acknowledge the scope of the positively provable. Without a legal and 100% enforceable requirement that people be required to document exactly where they were at each and every point in their lives, you cannot require someone to “prove” that they were not at a party at a given date, time, and location. And that goes double for being required to prove that they were not at a party for which time, date, and location are not provided. Triple even. Infinity even. You do understand that this logic underlies the principle of presumption of innocence, yes?

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  145. The point is that there is nothing inherently unprovable about a negative proposition.

    True, so long as you acknowledge that they are only provable via a series of positive facts that effectively eliminate all other positive facts leaving just the negative.

    Nonsense; there are counter-examples so obvious that I can’t believe you would really try to argue something so silly:

    The negative proposition “not X” proves the negative proposition “not X” without reference to any “positive fact”.

    The negative proposition “(not X) and (not Y)”, or equivalently “not (X or Y)”, proves *both* the negative propositions “not X” and “not Y” without reference to any “positive fact”.

    Etc., etc., etc.

    The rest of your reply is an attempt to change the subject and argue the fairness of the charges against Kavanaugh, which has nothing to do with my original comment.

    Dave (445e97)

  146. The only people who like Avenatti are those who want to purchase his type of political wet work.
    His family crest is of a bloody knife sticking out of an innocent mans back.
    He makes Trump look like the model of decorum

    steveg (a9dcab)

  147. He makes Trump look like the model of decorum

    Avenatti is a scumbag, but he hasn’t been caught bragging about sexual assault, peeping at naked little girls or fantasizing about dating his daughter, has he?

    Dave (445e97)

  148. The rest of your reply is an attempt to change the subject and argue the fairness of the charges against Kavanaugh, which has nothing to do with my original comment.

    Look, I refrained from calling you out on your silly “I just forgot to mention that the reason he’s lived in Australia his entire life is that he was born with a rare heart defect and has been on life support – in an Australian hospital, with continuous monitoring of his vital signs – since birth.” I did however state that out here in the real world, the domain under which you are attempting to do a “proof” is much messier. You want to argue in an abstract Flatland of paper and logic. Fair enough. But the subject at hand is Kavanaugh and it is you who is wishing to change it. You have given me several real-world examples and I shot each of them down. I’m out of time for this but as I said before, you’re playing semantics.

    Skorcher (5b282a)

  149. 124–why would you think I hate Kavanaugh? He’s the only one who has behaved appropriately during this entire circus. I hate what the senate has done, and in particular, Feinstein, and I really hate what Ford’s attorneys are doing by continually renegotiating her testimony, and I have no words to describe has despicable Avenetti is, but Kavanaugh? I think after a fair confirmation hearing, he will be continue to be a good judge.

    Rochf (877dba)

  150. You have given me several real-world examples and I shot each of them down.

    LOL. No you didn’t. I gave simple examples of how a negative proposition can be proven. Since I didn’t anticipate someone trying to argue against something so obvious (if it were known that BK had never set foot in Maryland, it would prove he was not at the party in question), I initially made the example (“BK lived in Australia his entire life”) short and simple.

    Apparently not understanding that whether or not it can be proven with absolute certainty (rather than, say, beyond a reasonable doubt) was not essential to my point, you then tried to quibble over irrelevant details.

    So I made a more air-tight example (the hospital), to which you offered no refutation at all.

    You continue to pretend there is some fundamental difference between a positive assertion and a negative one. This distinction is unknown in logic, and exists entirely in your own mind, as I’ve explained clearly.

    You haven’t offered even a single valid argument against the substance of my original point: claiming that “proving a negative” is some kind of logical impossibility is simply wrong.

    Dave (445e97)

  151. I hope Kavanaugh gets approved and becomes a bit angry vindictive SOB who seeks to destroy the Left.

    Here is to HOPE!

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  152. How many angels on the head of a needle???????

    WTH is this silly discussion. Proving something did not happen …. that did not happen …. after the fact is not a discussion for smart folks.

    Possible thru video or some type of contemporaneous data but not likely.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  153. The aging, all-male Republicans on Senate Judiciary Committee balked on their job responsibilities and have sub-contracted the dirty work and hired a female attorney to question Ford on Thursday.

    Absolutely no balls at all.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  154. Never go outside the expertise of your people.
    Whenever possible go outside the expertise of the enemy.

    nk (dbc370)

  155. The aging, all-male Republicans on Senate Judiciary Committee balked on their job responsibilities

    Why do you have a problem with their age or gender? Is that reasonable? Also, what’s so bad about getting a specialist for this particular accusation. These accusations are of terrible crimes. It’s technical, complicated, and important to handle professionally. Calling in someone who has done this well in the past is in the interest of truth, isn’t it?

    Absolutely no balls at all.

    Who cares? This is a pretty serious matter. I don’t want to see some Senator wing it because he has the balls to pretend he’s Perry Mason.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  156. @159. =yawn= In fact, by their own action, they do.

    No balls.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  157. I don’t even understand what your response means, DCSCA. I understand this is entertainment to you. You’ve explained that so many times.

    I don’t mind if an impartial process makes you yawn. Maybe that’s a good thing. I just want a fair process that does its best to get to the truth. I can watch Judge Judy if I want to see entertainment.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  158. Accuser #2 refuses to testify under oath. Accuser #1 keeps playing games and it is doubtful she will show up to testify under oath. Can we end this charade and have the committee and full vote on Thursday?

    Accuser #3 appears to have successfully trolled Stormy’s lawyer into making a false claim.

    NJRob (84ad68)

  159. Ia-Ia-go! A lot of it, maybe all of it, is provocation. To provoke Kavanaugh and the Republicans to respond repulsively (like we have seen in a lot of comments from ostensible Trump supporters here). There are 25 Democrat Senators up for re-election, twelve of them toss-ups, and their numero uno priority is not Kavanaugh, it’s keeping their phony-baloney jobs.

    nk (dbc370)

  160. Its a good thing the gifted premieres tonight, yes its eerily plausible unlike the news

    narciso (d1f714)

  161. When our own supposed senators are useless, why do we need enemies.

    narciso (d1f714)

  162. Do you want to discuss with or yawn at other commenters, DCSCA?

    DRJ (15874d)

  163. I don’t know if this has already been posted, but I must say I appreciated Grassley’s letter to Feinstein, the employer of Chinese spies… https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/1044690043808501760

    Colonel Haiku (d82f96)

  164. When think regress gets on their high horse:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1044655288417222656?p=v

    So cosbu was guilty, now will the da in Philadelphia focus on all the other rapes and murders in his fair city? How about the da in Minneapolis, rhetorical.

    narciso (d1f714)

  165. @168. The issue seems self-evident, DRJ. But you and Dustin can follow this POV I’m making…

    The decision isn’t based on a ‘fair hearing’ but on television optics- as the SNL skit posted above clearly demonstrates.

    As Americans we should all be angry at these senators for not doing the job they were hired to do because this facet of it is uncomfortable for them and the optics may or may not look good. If the situation was reversed and Dems did this we should all be equally outraged as well. I would.

    It’s the job they were hired to do and they’re not doing it- they’re subcontracting it out.

    Forget the specifics of the topic at hand- for example- and this honestly isn’t meant as a personal slam on Cruz at all– he’s just the first name that comes to mind, but he sits on the space committee and questions witnesses at hearings about space ops– but knows little about actual spaceflight operations; but NASA/JSC is in Houston and SpaceX have faciities in Texas– and they’re constituents. But he still questions the witnesses– he doesn’t subcontract out his questioning to a former astronaut, astrophysicist or electrical engineer or somebody from Boeing. He does his job- the one he was elected to do. And the members of the SJC should do theirs– and in this case, they’re not, for optics. Because of the TeeVee… because it’s ‘entertainment.’ That’s where we are today. And it’s just sad.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  166. Senators call expert witnesses to learn about complex topics for which they have oversight like NASA. The point is they need to learn and asking questions is a good way to learn. The expert witnesses typically want to help them learn the truth.

    The Senators also have a duty to advise and consent and for that purpose they need fact witnesses who may be adverse, e.g., Kavanaugh’s nomination. I think it is smart to bring in a special counsel if they feel they need assistance to question a fact witness who may not want to be helpful.

    DRJ (15874d)

  167. The point is they need to learn and asking questions is a good way to learn. The expert witnesses typically want to help them learn the truth.

    Which is precisely why they should be asking questions of the witnesses. But when it comes to this particular witness the GOP side of SJC is not. Because of the uncomfortable topic and the optics; because of the TeeVee.

    They want to avoid this:

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

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  168. There was a astronaut senator from new mexico for a time,

    narciso (d1f714)

  169. There was a second paragraph to my comment, DCSCA.

    DRJ (15874d)

  170. Harrison Svhmitt.

    DRJ (15874d)

  171. Schmitt.

    DRJ (15874d)

  172. @DRJ. So? Schmitt severed from New Mexico, Ohio’s Glenn was an astronaut- Utah’s Jake Garn was a mission specialist who flew as was Florida’s Bill Nelson,, who is still serving.

    The difference is the attorney the GOP SJC senators hired to do the questioning, not sit and be questioned as a witness. Have the De. senators on the SJC hired a female attorney to do their questioning for them yet? But then, it’s only Tuesday. This is about optics and optics only.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  173. Trump just might get his wish about changing the law on defamation, if Thomas and Kavanaugh can get Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch on board. Limiting New York Times v. Sullivan might be too much to hope for, but striking down the safe harbor provision of the CDA on Tenth Amendment grounds is definitely doable. I also think the federal government trying to limit state law on defamation beyond the scope of Supreme Court First Amendment rulings is unconstitutional.

    nk (dbc370)

  174. The “tee-vee” thing is very precious.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  175. I never said optics don’t matter. You seem to be the one who thinks nothing matters but optics.

    DRJ (15874d)

  176. Hey, the ol’GOP Senators on the Senate Judicial Committee get credit for trying to practice safe sex: they hired a prophylactic. But sharing it among themselves is kinda icky.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  177. Well that could be like the proverbial doomsday device. Couldn’t we find a middle ground

    narciso (d1f714)

  178. Optics are all about how things look and this rape fantasy lady isn’t very convincing looking she’s smiling in all her pictures like she just won a free 32-ounce smoothie from Jamba Juice

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  179. You seem to be the one who thinks nothing matters but optics.

    It clearly does to the committee and to McConnell- as it did to the late Senator Goldwater, who so aptly noted it during the CIA hearings back in the ’70s.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  180. It seems to me that DCSCA is disappointed that the White Old Republican Men will not be giving him the optics he wants: Beclowing themselves like in the SNL skit, or like John McCain the last time he tried to question a witness.

    nk (dbc370)

  181. @186. Not fair, nk; the late Senator McCain had a legitimate excuse for that sad episode– he was ill and didn’t know it yet.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  182. Is it Ayotte? That was a rumor yesterday.

    urbanleftbehind (c8c554)

  183. The stunt with the dart gun, the company’s track record (trujillo, diem, lumumba) really only succeeded when they sub contracted to locals, Schneider and prats similarly.

    narciso (d1f714)

  184. What’s worse, happy, is that Christine Blasey Ford/Subaru will probably land one of those grody “discrete Depends” commercials (the ones where a 50ish cougar is getting ready for daye night) if that hearing lasts longer than expected.

    urbanleftbehind (c8c554)

  185. And all that “men are monsters” BS to the contrary, the fact is (and I have Horace Rumpole’s word on it, too) that nobody can be as nasty to a woman as another woman.

    nk (dbc370)

  186. Hey! The letter “B” and the letter “S” together now trigger the filter?

    nk (dbc370)

  187. The hearing is on Thursday; the future is now:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xJz9dLyRI8 

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  188. Look get a dartboard pick a house on the map, pick a time on the calendar and let’s just do this.

    Narciso (7578d7)

  189. Google #FakeNews says vote scheduled for Friday.

    nk (dbc370)

  190. WaPo reported Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell selected by GOP senators as ‘shield’ to question Ford and Kavanaugh on Thursday.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  191. The filter has been happyfeeted.

    DRJ (15874d)

  192. That was supposed to be a pic with Katz, standing behind red queen, in her oven mitt suit.

    Narciso (7578d7)

  193. Would it be inappropriate for the sitting justices to weigh in on the “prove his innocence” factor here?

    Rich (de9149)

  194. So now Creepy P0rn Lawyer has firmly established his position and sinecure as teh preeminent Creepy P0rn Lawyer?

    Can we agree on that?

    Colonel Haiku (501bf0)

  195. Christine Blasey was right not be specific as to date.

    This was well before facebook and cellphones and any kind of credit card records, but I was thinking Brett Kavanaugh could have an alibi.

    I thought maybe he could have been srudying for an exam of known date and had witnesses on, any particular night she picked, or had football or basketball or maybe choir practice who knows what – or been off on a trip, or attended a wedding, or had a regular job, or maybe somebody kept a diary.

    I figured there was a 10% chance at least his activity of any particular night could be verified.

    Well, it turns out he kept a calendar.

    http://www.northwestgeorgianews.com/news/national/kavanaugh-shares-pages-from-his-calendar/video_5b3c892a-c8b7-5883-a2f0-d373bfa16cf3.html.

    It’s got notes like: Suzanne; Dad’s birthday; Game 5:30 Lost 48-39 11 pts; Go to MAtt;s baxeball game, pick up pictures.

    Now this of course is largely what he intended to, not necessarily what he did, but he wrote some things after the fact, like the score of that basketball game.

    For more images go to https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=878&ei=qN-rW7KmEoK35gKDhpWYCA&q=kavanaugh+calendar+1982&oq=kavanaugh+calendar+1982&gs_l=img.3…3095.7617..7789…0.0..0.260.4402.0j9j13……3….1..gws-wiz-img…..0..0j0i5i30j0i8i30j0i24.okGjLNEU6uI#imgrc=2gOQvT3-NvZAtM:&spf=1537990577161

    The results there can change. the newspaper reference should be more permanent.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  196. The newest allegation has about the level of credibility of Pizzagate. But it’s not being treated like Pizzagate.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5541 secs.