Patterico's Pontifications

10/1/2018

Rachel Mitchell’s Memo Cites Ford’s Inconsistencies, Would Not Bring Case Against Kavanaugh Based On Evidence Presented

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:04 am



[guest post by Dana]

Last night, the Washington Post published a memo written by Rachel Mitchell, the outside prosecutor hired by the GOP to question Dr. Christine Blasey Ford about her allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. The memo outlines why Mitchell would not bring criminal charges against the nominee:

“A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that,” Mitchell writes in the memo, sent Sunday night to all Senate Republicans. “Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them.”

Mitchell continued: “For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the [Senate Judiciary] Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

Mitchell notes problems she had with Ford’s testimony:

Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault, including when exactly it occurred. Mitchell also noted that Ford did not identify Kavanaugh by name as her attacker in key pieces of evidence, including notes from sessions with her therapist — records that Ford’s lawyers declined to provide to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Ford testified before the panel Thursday that she is “100 percent” sure Kavanaugh was her attacker.

“I believed he was going to rape me,” she told the panel. “I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most.”

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

Mitchell also stressed that nobody who Ford has identified as having attended the gathering — including Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth and Leland (Ingham) Keyser — has been able to directly corroborate Ford’s allegations. Keyser, however, has told the Judiciary Committee that she believes Ford’s account.

Mitchell also makes a distinction between law and politics, and clarifies her role in the assessment of Ford’s testimony:

No clear standard of proof for allegations made during the Senate’s confirmation process,” Mitchell wrote in the memo. “But the world in which I work is the legal world, not the political world. Thus, I can only provide my assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations in that legal context.”

Democrats, as expected, are discounting Mitchell’s report:

Untitled2

To those dismissing the report for whatever reason (Mitchell was hired by Republicans, she’s a prosecutor and Ford wasn’t on trial, the memo doesn’t address Kavanaugh, she obviously wants Kavanaugh confirmed, etc, this is a sensible reminder :

1) She gave her opinion on a preponderance evidence standard, too. 2) She isn’t giving an opinion on whether he should be on the court, but whether this particular allegation against him is credible. 3) Prosecutor understands burden is on the accuser, not the accused.

Oh, as a reminder, some prominent Democrats were indeed fully on board with Mitchell’s line of inquiry. A line of inquiry which produced answers, and which, in turn, informed her memo:

Untitled

The full memo can be found here.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

168 Responses to “Rachel Mitchell’s Memo Cites Ford’s Inconsistencies, Would Not Bring Case Against Kavanaugh Based On Evidence Presented”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (023079)

  2. And yet NeverTrump will continue demanding another hurdle be met all because principles or something.

    With respect to Democrats, wrote them off in 2000 with the chads.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  3. One of the things that drives me batty is how so many famous folks demand, and get, the benefit of all doubt unless and until there is a criminal conviction. This goes for athletes, entertainment, and most especially pols. Ellison is the latest greatest example.

    But Kavanaugh? Oh noooooooooooo. The presumption lies with the accuser and we must condemn him and remove him from the public sphere.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  4. if this were a criminal case Mitchell might have a point but like rape hoax aficionado Mitt Romney’s so fond of saying

    “Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions”

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  5. I’m working on the theory that Ford had a dream and believes it really happened. It explains why she doesn’t know where it was, how she got there, or how she got home. It’s possible to evaluate this if only someone would ask the correct questions: Did you often wear your bathing suit under your clothes, either before or after swimming?

    Joe Miller (64cdc0)

  6. Oh about the chads you know they called Florida for gore, before the precincts were closed.

    Narciso (54490f)

  7. Yes, it’s also common for people to remember scenes from television shows that they were invested in as their own. Just substituting in personal emotional details. She might have seen a LifeTime movie with that particular assault and hallways set-up, and is now re-remembering it as an assault from the hated Kavanaugh.

    Ingot9455 (afdf95)

  8. Did you often wear your bathing suit under your clothes, either before or after swimming?

    I did, when we would go swimming at another place and then go do other things. But I agree it is a good idea for her to be questioned about that and all the details. That’s how the process works.

    DRJ (15874d)

  9. a swimming suit can be a valuable layer of rape protection, but too often these protective garments are only worn during summer months

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  10. Re: Geidner’s tweet:

    Alicia Smith
    @Alicia_Smith19
    Missing in this reply: Any acknowledgement that there are many holes,gaps, and inconsistencies in Ford’s account of what happened. Also missing any factual refutation of the facts laid out by Mitchell. We’ve now added Mitchell to the character assassination pool.”

    harkin (a4b010)

  11. Teh JuiceBox Mafia was down with Mitchell?

    As stated, the burden of proof is on the accuser… [the mousy, by turns scared little girl, jovial caffeine craver…].

    Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5)

  12. The point is not justice, the point is delay. If Feinstein wanted justice for Ms Ford there would have been no secret hold on the accusation.

    Pouncer (df6448)

  13. yes yes you can tell Flake was mostly concerned with engineering a delay

    senators don’t give a crap about justice that’s *never* what motivates their decisions and stratagems

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  14. Having issued (“charged defendants”) in thousand of cases over my career, I would slightly disagree with Mitchell on one point. When issuing a case, my standard (which was, of course, the office standard) was whether we believed the evidence we had at time of issuing was sufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. There was no point in issuing a case we did not believe we could prove at a trial; if a case needed more evidence to be issued, it was sent back to the police agency for the follow-up investigation needed to fill in the missing evidence.

    As to this case, it would be rejected by every prosecutor I know. Without corroboration, with multiple inconsistencies and missing important details in the telling of the alleged crime as outlined by the memo, there is no prosecutor who would file a charge.

    Pete (a65bac)

  15. Now it can be told… one of the women who had Jeffy Flake averting his eyes, looking down at the elevator floor as if he’d been caught with his hand in the cookie jar I s a director of a Soros-funded group and the other is an activist for that group…

    Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5)

  16. Pete,
    Would you, if you believe the accuser, actually chose to not bring a case on this evidence immediately…or would you ask your investigators to maybe go ask some other people a question or two before then deciding to proceed?

    Colonel Klink (c65392)

  17. You mean remake betty, as Jacobsen points out, flake went along and probably coordinated with them beforehand.

    Narciso (54490f)

  18. 15. We’ll know on Friday whether the whole elevator event was staged by Flake, or by the Democrats with his knowledge and cooperation, to give him cover for his t**twaffling. There is no question that it was staged — it definitely was with a camera crew and everything — only a question of by whom.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. It is undeniably true that the Democrats are pulling out all stops to delay this until after the mid-terms. They are willing to ruin the reputation of a good man and put the man’s wife and children through a living Hell in that effort. To quote Chuckie Schumer, they “will do whatever it takes” to accomplish their objective.

    Shameful.

    Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5)

  20. I think Blumethal is a drunk along with Durbin.

    mg (9e54f8)

  21. Rip Charles aznavour

    Narciso (54490f)

  22. I can’t get by the irony of the Democrats insisting that the law has no place in a judicial appointment.

    Dejectedhead (787359)

  23. @16 I would send the case back to the police agency to see if they could develop more evidence that could allow charges to be issued. Whether or not I subjectively believed a victim is irrelevant. As the old saw goes, criminal cases are only about the admissible evidence–there are plenty of times where evidence that can help prove guilt are not admitted into evidence for any number of reasons (more prejudicial than probative, privilege, etc)

    Pete (a65bac)

  24. Excellent contributions to the discussion, Pete. Not everybody is familiar with the felony review process that goes on in a prosecutor’s office.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. Sort of irrelevant. Mitchell stated early in the questioning of Dr. Ford that the 5-minute Q&A format established by the committee wasn’t really the proper way to conduct vetting of this and the best way to do it was alone and let the ‘victim’ talk and produce a narrative. And, of course, Mitchell’s questioning of Judge Kavanaugh in this same hopscotch format was incomplete; derailed when the GOP senators who hired her reclaimed their ‘talk time.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  26. @ Pete (#14 & 23): Thanks for your perceptive & well-constructed comments. You may have explained this in other comments that I haven’t seen, and I’m not trying to put you on record or dox you or cause you to cross any privacy boundaries that you prefer to maintain. But since you mention having been involved in charging thousands of criminal defendants over your career (presumably as a prosecutor), I’m naturally curious (as a civil trial lawyer from Texas) where you practiced as a prosecutor. When I read comments from nk, for instance, I do so with a genuine appreciation for his career in criminal defense work in Chicago; likewise, DRJ’s comments reflect her legal experience as a civil lawyer in west Texas; our host’s comments reflect his legal experience as a felony prosecutor in Los Angeles. So I suppose — since I agree entirely, from my slightly different perspective, with the opinions you’ve expressed — I’m inviting you to bolster those opinions slightly if you can favor us with a few more details about yourself. But if you’d rather not, I’ll take no offense, and I hope I’m giving none by asking.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  27. Dr. Ford’s testimony refers to her one-piece bathing suit as possibly inhibiting or slowing her attacker’s attempts to remove her clothing while on top of her.

    She’s likewise testified that during that summer, she swam daily at her country club; this suggests to me that she may have had a regular practice & habit of leaving the club in street clothes with her swimsuit beneath, in which case she may be relying on her memory of that practice to either bolster — or, perhaps, substitute in the place of — a clear present memory of being in a swimsuit covered by street clothes when she was assaulted.

    But those details — what she was wearing, in what layers, and why she has reason to be sure of that now, three-plus decades later — surely haven’t been (pun unavoidable) fleshed out in her public statements.

    If her own lawyers are remotely competent, they’ve asked all that, and know what her answers would be. In assessing her testimony, I want to know whether she knows whether she was, for instance, wearing a wet t-shirt over her wet bathing suit, or a button-front shirt, or a sweatshirt, or a dress (unlikely), or something else entirely. That’s relevant not only to the details of the assault, but to the entirely unaddressed-in-public question of whether she’d given express or implied consent to a make-out attempt earlier in the party before she went upstairs to use the bathroom.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  28. I suppose, at some level, it is appropriate that we conflate the standards by which we assess our politicians and our criminals.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  29. Another yooge consideration for any prosecutor is the degree, or even ability, of an accuser to testify. This snowflake would be an exceedingly poor candidate with which to go to trial.

    Now, add in the fact that at the time, the facts amounted to a misdemeanor in Maryland? Of course, we can go ex post facto now because it’s an eeeeeeeevil white privileged male on the “docket.”

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  30. @ Leviticus (#28): Yes, but Judge Kavanaugh has never been a politician in the sense of running for or holding elected office himself, and he stopped being even a staffer for politicians when he left his job as the Bush-43 Administration’s staff secretary upon his confirmation to the D.C. Circuit in 2006. Beyond any dispute, he’s also not a convicted criminal, nor a person indicted for a serious crime. I don’t believe there is any realistic possibility of him ever being indicted for something that happened somewhere in the vicinity of the D.C. metropolitan area on some unspecified date some time in or about the summer of 1992.

    He’s a judge, and in that capacity he’s certainly no more political than, say, Merrick Garland, beside whom he (literally and metaphorically) sits whenever the D.C. Circuit is in en banc session. If we start conflating our judges with criminals, that’s a different thing than everyday politics. But that’s precisely the conflating that the left now wants the Senate to fall into.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  31. ^^^Which of the two appears confuzzled and which one looks resolute, purposeful and brimming with confidence???^^^

    Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5)

  32. @ Ed (#29): Your comment about ex post facto is just right. But in the interest of fairness, we should note that — as per this post by Prof. Volohk — the word “misdemeanor” has had a bizarre and unexpected meaning as it has historically been used in Maryland. It includes offenses for which the maximum punishment was more than a year in prison (as opposed to a year or less, typically in jail rather than in prison, which is the rule-of-thumb demarcation in most places).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  33. Meh. And to think Doug Ginsburg’s nomination was yanked chiefly for doin’ doobies in and after law school. How times have changed. He’s still available; 72, tanned, rested and ready; no worse for wear for rollin’ his own.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  34. @33 Beldar .. Very much obliged for the link to and comments re: the Volohk post. How very unexpected, and special, is Maryland law on this. So much so that one almost wonders if the Rule Against Perpetuities (Maryland version) also causes complications for criminal law practitioners there, and for LEOs as well.

    Q! (86710c)

  35. Correct, in Maryland, in 1982 the Sexual Offense of Attempted Rape could be up to life in prison, depending on circumstances, like violence, drugs, the age of the victim, etc. In this case, if true and charged then, would most likely be up to 10 years in prison.

    When reported, subsequently, to the NCIC as an Interstate Identification Index entry, it would be as a felony.

    Colonel Klink (766556)

  36. Maryland has subsequently codified most of their criminal code with statutory definitions, they were just later than most, by a hundred years of so.

    Colonel Klink (766556)

  37. “Yes, but Judge Kavanaugh has never been a politician in the sense of running for or holding elected office himself, and he stopped being even a staffer for politicians when he left his job as the Bush-43 Administration’s staff secretary upon his confirmation to the D.C. Circuit in 2006.

    – Beldar

    In my book, Beldar, anyone who goes straight from being a staff secretary to being a DC Circuit judge is a politician first and foremost.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  38. #38

    And Kavenaugh’s performance on Thursday was a political one, meant to rally the troops, rather than one you’d expect (or even really want) from a judge.

    Appalled (96665e)

  39. Agreed.

    Leviticus (efada1)

  40. @26 I was worked as a prosecutor in the San Diego County DA’s office for more than 25 years (2nd largest DA’s office in California, 6th largest in the nation). Number of different assignments over the years, including general felony caseload, specialized units that focused on prosecuting specific crimes, and case issuing.

    Pete (a65bac)

  41. @38/39/40. Yes, that didn’t help.

    It’s perplexing why this fella wasn’t up front about who he was in his ‘wild child’ times. The marketing strategy wasn’t thought through well and may be reflective of closed ‘the DC bubble’ they’re all operating in. If right at the start of this whole process he’d come out and said something akin to ‘yeah, I was a party animal in my younger years; worked hard, played hard and did some really stupid things, as most do in their teen years, but grew up and out of them into a responsible adult’ little of the subsequent spitballing at him would have resonated as much. And he’s hae sailed through. Most everyone could relate to those times of ‘youthful indiscretions.’ The Wellspring Committee, funding the Judicial Crisis Network which is selling this man in the media in multimillion dollar ad buys, really shouldn’t have tried to package and market him as some sort of a ‘boy scout’ or ‘choirboy.’ No human being is that squeaky clean. But they’re committed now.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  42. lying about rape is a great way to destroy your own reputation

    you get the effluvium of “rape” all over your name (a name which you may share with kids or a spouse) plus everyone knows you’re a liar

    this is why I always counsel people NOT to lie about being raped

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  43. Sounds very much on point, thanks, Pete!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  44. I don’t see defending oneself from a charge of sexual assault to be a political act. And Kavanaugh will likely get, and be glad to get, enough votes to confirm him regardless of the political party of the senators who cast them.

    He wasn’t outraged on behalf of Donald J. Trump or the Republican Party. He was outraged on behalf of himself and his wife and his daughters, and I was similarly outraged on their behalves, and the suggestion that he expressed that outrage out of politics is a very, very silly one in my opinion.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  45. Well, Senor Beldar, one must have honor, to recognize honor.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  46. Let me put it this way, Appalled & Leviticus:

    One of the objections to LBJ’s nomination of then-Associate Justice Abe Fortas to fill the Chief Justice vacancy left by Earl Warren’s sudden retirement in June 1968 — a retirement expressly intended by him to let LBJ, rather than Nixon, fill that position — was that even after being confirmed to the SCOTUS, Fortas continued to think and act as Lyndon Johnson’s personal adviser and long-time fixer, frequently speaking with LBJ by phone, and even meeting with him, to advise on political and other matters: “[E]ven as [an] Associate Justice [Fortas] continued to advise the president on matters ranging from Vietnam to the relationship between Johnson’s daughter and the actor George Hamilton.”

    When you or anyone produce a scintilla of evidence that Judge Kavanaugh has done that, or anything remotely like that, since his confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, I’ll begin to consider taking seriously your argument that Kavanaugh’s a politician. Right now, it’s just more smear.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  47. (Sorry, omitted a link for that quote, which is from the indispensible SCOTUSblog.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  48. Beldar:

    The way he chose to package his outrage struck me as political — not just Jimmy Stewart on the floor of the Senate in a Capra movie. I mean, blaming the Clintons? Comments like that are targeted at a demographic — not just an honest “How dare you”. And remember how much our President and his many fans prefer a good scrap with the Libs over, well, practically anything else.

    Appalled (96665e)

  49. @43. You can’t lie about doing something if you don’t remember doing it, Mr. Feet; witness the great W.C. Fields:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrqn5RRbTvg

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  50. @49. Yes, he sort of ‘smeared himself’ with some political jam doing that. Chances are if he’s shown that speech to someone ahead of time that passage might have been deleted but it was likely in there for another man-child in the White House watching it; the audience of one.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  51. Ford needed to be deposed…same goes for Kavanaugh, Judge, Kyser, Smyth, and Garrett. Lock down relevant details as much as possible for a 36-year-old claim. The actual mechanics of the alleged assault also need to be carefully examined to see what Kavanaugh was supposed to have done rather than just the generic “tear my clothes off”. So, did she have a top over her bathing suit? Did the top get ripped? Did he pull down the top of the one-piece bathing suit? Was he continuously holding her arm or mouth while he was doing this assault with his other arm? Was he trying to kiss her or saying anything while all this was going on? How long was it before Judge knocked Kavanaugh off? These are tough questions for the silly format of the hearing environment…and may not provide any inconsistencies…but you don’t know until you ask and see what is actually being claimed.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  52. @52. Right- and Mitchell more or less copped to that flaw in the 5-minute Q&A format early in the proceedings. She was only there for optics.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  53. Historical trivia, not completely off-topic:

    Some of the few people to seriously mourn the withdrawal of the Fortas-for-CJ nomination (in the face of a threatened filibuster that never actually came about) were the students at Texas Law School: Fortas’ replacement as an Associate Justice was to be Judge Homer Thornberry of Austin, who sat upon the Fifth Circuit. Then and throughout his career, Judge Thornberry was well known to hire his law clerks almost exclusively from Texas Law School, and had he been seated on the SCOTUS, most folks expected him to continue that practice, creating an Austin-to-Washington pipeline.

    Alas for us UT grads, when Fortas’ nomination was withdrawn, so too was Judge Thornberry’s. But he continued hiring only UT grads for the rest of his long tenure on the Fifth; two of my 1980 classmates snapped up both of the clerkships that were available (he was senior status by then and only hired two), and it was considered a plum not because of any SCOTUS-clerking prospects it might offer, but because he was a sweet, warm boss whose clerks got to take most afternoons off (e.g., to go water-skiing on Town Lake).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  54. When even the Juicebox Mafia hacks start second-guessing Democrats, they’re not doing well.

    M Scott Eiland (b16b32)

  55. Sort of irrelevant. Mitchell stated early in the questioning of Dr. Ford that the 5-minute Q&A format established by the committee wasn’t really the proper way to conduct vetting of this and the best way to do it was alone and let the ‘victim’ talk and produce a narrative. And, of course, Mitchell’s questioning of Judge Kavanaugh in this same hopscotch format was incomplete; derailed when the GOP senators who hired her reclaimed their ‘talk time.’

    Would you like more cheese with your endless whine?

    M Scott Eiland (b16b32)

  56. #53 She was there for optics avoidance, actually.

    Appalled (96665e)

  57. Appalled, I simply don’t agree with your presumption that Judge Kavanaugh’s outrage was in any way or sense “packaged.” And there are indeed a ton of Dems on Capitol Hill who still have a hard-on (if I can use that crude sexual term in this context) for Ken Starr and everyone who worked with him; I’ll bet you Kavanaugh could have named and shamed them.

    If you compare his demeanor in that testimony to his statements in the Fox News Martha Maccallum interview, he clearly no longer was sticking to a script that limited him to the same few phrases about process. That would have been an inappropriate time and place to vent his outrage. But the hearing was the right time and place to respond fully, without inhibition.

    To accuse him of “packaging” that is, I respectfully submit, a projection of some viewers rather than something based on objective facts.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  58. She was there for optics avoidance, actually.

    Yes, I feel just awful that the DNC was denied their “old white male Republicans being mean to the poor victim” video.

    Oh wait–I’m really not.

    #poundsandconcerntrolls

    M Scott Eiland (b16b32)

  59. @52 AJ_Liberty

    Indeed, there are scores and scores and scores of unasked questions – potentially revelatory ones – of each of the principals (not to mention the perhaps dozens of others who might reasonably be questioned). For example, as to Ford: (1. Did you ever maintain a journal or diary in your teens or later?; (2. If so, do you still have it? (3. If so and you don’t know, did you never attempt to retrieve it in connection with your trying to settle your recollections re: this assault? Blah blah blah … Not rocket science.

    Q! (86710c)

  60. Whether Kavanaugh’s testimony was “packaged,” or whether he’s political, the fact remains that Ford still has no corroborating witnesses.

    Dana (023079)

  61. Kavanaugh’s mentioning of the Clintons may also have been a reference back to the fact that Senate Dems blocked and stalled his 2004 nomination as part of their across-the-board opposition to all of Dubya’s judicial nominees. He wasn’t mentioned by name in the Gang of 14 Deal — for which I still blame Lindsey Graham, dammit! that was a “compromise” that forever ensured and practically legitimized the politicization of every federal court nominee forever after — but that deal did clear the way for his second confirmation hearing in 2006 and, in due course, his confirmation to the D.C. Circuit.

    Now he watches those same self-righteous partisans throw off all limits of decency in this charade. As he bitterly complained of, they’re mocking him. It’s not unreasonable for him to observe this historical pattern of disingenuous and hyperpartisan payback from particular Dem senators and staffers.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  62. Christine fair, shows much of that expected civility,

    narciso (d1f714)

  63. Dana (#61): Yes, indeed! And I’d add that on its face — regardless of what Judge Kavanaugh or any potentially corroborating or refuting witnesses have said or could say — there are elements of Ford’s testimony that raise doubts about the weight that should be assigned to her testimony. Since I don’t think she’s laid a basic predicate for how she was able to identify her assailant, I assign zero weight to her testimony that it was Brett Kavanaugh who was assaulted.

    I don’t think those elements (with the possible exception of the “one beer” claim) point in the direction of deliberate lying, but I think they’re entirely consistent, and indeed more consistent, with her having worked herself up into a belief that she was assaulted (which she might have been) and that Brett Kavanaugh was her assailant (which he almost assuredly couldn’t have been and wasn’t).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  64. Blech. “… that it was Brett Kavanaugh who was her assaulter,” I meant to type in #64.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  65. #58 —

    In this case, securing the objective facts would involve the reading of Kavanaugh’s mind. And that’s something us neither of us can do. All I can say is that the way BK handled his opening statement, and conveyed apparent contempt for certain Senators was something that a political consultant would want in this situation. It was the visible contempt of the Democrats that bugs me.

    I would probably vote for BK, because I am old and think the President should get his choice, unless the candidate is manifestly unfit. But I was troubled, while the rest of the world was going hurrah and yippee.

    Appalled (96665e)

  66. Fair enough, Appalled, and civilly expressed.

    He had a Hobson’s Choice, of course: If he showed emotion, he’d be accused of demonstrating his lack of judicial temperament. (And now certainly has been, gleefully.) If he repressed it, he’d have been as wooden and ineffective in defending himself as he was in the Martha Maccallum interview (in which it was frankly Mrs. Kavanaugh who starred), and risked looking as if he didn’t actually believe or care about how outrageously he’s been treated by Democrats for purely partisan purposes having nothing to do with him but everything to do with the timing of the midterms.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  67. if she lied about the attempted rape part what else is Christine Ford lying about?

    her whole entire credibility is in tatters anymore!

    now everyone just rolls their eyes when she says anything

    This is why if somebody asks me hey did that person rape you happyfeet I always tell the truth.

    I look them straight in the eye and I say no they did not!

    There’s no ambiguity, and it doesn’t matter if they’re talking about a contemporary incident or one that’s shrouded in the fog of history: you have to let the truth be your lantern.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  68. @57. Meh. That, too. SNL still found a way to give her skit time.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  69. The senators voting against Kavanaugh’s D.C. Circuit confirmation in 2006 of course included “Clinton (D-NY), Nay.” Thus: The Clintons, plural (two for one, yada yada).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  70. @#60, Yeah the problem is that some basic background would clarify a lot. Like, it’s likely that someone gave Blasey Ford a ride from the country club pool over to the residence in question. This would certainly explain why she was still wearing a swim suit, how a 15yr old got to the gathering, and how she could have gotten turned around and wouldn’t have known exactly where she was at. It still leaves unresolved who, how she then left the house….and why the trauma of being ~6miles from her home, in an uncertain neighborhood, would not have been similarly memorable.

    I also want to know when Ford saw Keyser again (or Garrett for that matter)….and why such a traumatic encounter with Kavanaugh would not have been discussed….or why Keyser wouldn’t have asked why Ford had left so suddenly. Ford also claims that her college work suffered because of the assault…how about the 2 or 3 years that she had remaining of high school. Did her school work drop off there? Did she continue to date or go to parties the rest of high school or was there an abrupt change of behavior that others might be able to point to? What “boofed” and “devil’s triangle” meant to 17yr-old Kavanaugh get us no closer to knowing what actually happened…

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  71. @61. Well, Dr. Ford did testify Mark Judge witnessed it, but large parts of his young life and memory may be a blur or a daisy chain of boozy blackouts.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  72. margot Cleveland, remember her, dredged up a 2008 paper, ford wrote on self hypnosis, and altering memories, quelle surprise,

    narciso (d1f714)

  73. hopefully, this trek through psycho drama, will end shortly,

    narciso (d1f714)

  74. Also @ Appalled: I do entirely agree with you that Trump encouraged, and then enjoyed, and now will make political use of, Judge Kavanaugh’s outrage, and that Trump likes to fight this kind of fight, rushing right to the depth of whatever gutter it may already be taking place in.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  75. Indeed, there are scores and scores and scores of unasked questions – potentially revelatory ones – of each of the principals (not to mention the perhaps dozens of others who might reasonably be questioned). For example, as to Ford: (1. Did you ever maintain a journal or diary in your teens or later?; (2. If so, do you still have it? (3. If so and you don’t know, did you never attempt to retrieve it in connection with your trying to settle your recollections re: this assault? Blah blah blah … Not rocket science.

    Gosh, it’s almost as if there is no end to the fishing expeditions upon which we could embark if we were, say, trying to stall this vote.

    JVW (42615e)

  76. I think it’s a normal response to such an outrageous charge, only after his statement, did lindsey graham, really get off the fence, there are parallels with Clarence Thomas, but also oliver north, who had been pegged as a bad guy

    narciso (d1f714)

  77. ‘Course it’s only Monday, but once can sense this is beginning to drifting away from the specifics of the aledged assault[s] toward a more general assessment by the senators of the judge’s overall candor in his testimony. But it’s only Monday evening…

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  78. @ JVW (#76): Every one of the questions AJ_Liberty suggested certainly has already been asked by the Dem activist lawyers who’ve been handling Ford. If we credit them with the most basic lawyering ability, they’ve asked all those questions in hope of finding any bit of flotsam or jetsam that could corroborate anything that Ford claims. My working presumption, unchanged since the date her letter to Feinstein was first summarized in the press, has been that they produced every single corroborating detail (e.g., the name of her high school) that they could find. As to the unanswered questions, the most charitable assumption is that Ford claims no memory at all; repeating that over and over has the perfectly appropriate effect of casting her story into further doubt, though, so even if that’s what they found, they still have no interest in her having to answer.

    And it’s also possible — I’d say, highly, highly probable — that such additional details which they were able to gather from her responses to such questions all weigh against her, and are being actively suppressed.

    I therefore expect that Ford’s cooperation with the FBI will actually turn out to be less complete than her handlers currently contend. And they’ve gotten completely away with that so far, and there’s no subpoena to override them, so why would they? If she answers at all, it will be with a Clintonesque set of parameters: time limits, subject-matter limits, lawyer present, frequent breaks, no follow-up document requests, etc.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  79. Course it’s only Monday

    *next* Monday is Canada Thanksgiving

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  80. 89. Will Tedtoo be getting the bird, the stuffing or eating crow that day, Mr. Feet?

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  81. ^80. Typo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  82. I think it’s fair to presume that if Ford had, say, a blue dress with Kavanaugh’s DNA on it, we’d have heard about that by now.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  83. McConnel says they’ll hold the vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation this week.

    Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5)

  84. Prediction: Democrats’ scurrilous attacks on Kavanaugh will cost them dearly in November

    Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5)

  85. @76 JVW Gosh, it’s almost as if there is no end to the fishing expeditions upon which we could embark if we were, say, trying to stall this vote.

    lol. Not really. Well, maybe there might be an issue, if you’re wedded to only employing FBI agents who are charter members of the Slow Talkers of America, and if you only put a handful of them on the case.

    Q! (86710c)

  86. In other news today — quelle surprise! — Donald Trump has proved that yes, it is possible to renegotiate NAFTA with the left-leaning pro-labor governments of Canada and Mexico to raise wages and improve conditions for Mexican and Canadian auto union members through taxing American auto buyers! Huzzah! More crony capitalism, although a new set of cronies! More government thumbs on the scales! More of politicians choosing winners and losers in the market!

    #TrumpIsTheSwamp

    Beldar (fa637a)

  87. She’s likewise testified that during that summer, she swam daily at her country club; this suggests to me that she may have had a regular practice & habit of leaving the club in street clothes with her swimsuit beneath,

    First, her father, IRC, was actually President of the country club and she swam there everyday. So why didn’t she have a locker? Second, why would anyone put clothes on top of a wet one-piece bathing suit? Evidently, the swim suit was dry when she went to the party, so how did that happen?

    One annoying thing about the Mitchell cross-exam, was her failure to get Ford to provide details. For example, specifically what clothes did she have on over her swim suit? How big was the bed? What kind of lock did the bathroom and bedroom have? why would she go upstairs to the bathroom, wasn’t there one downstairs? What color was the bedroom? etc.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  88. As someone else stated, its weird how her memory begins in the Magic house, and ends the second she leaves the magic house.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  89. The party could only at been at one of the attendees houses. It wasn’t at Ford’s house. And Mitchell never asked Ford, if she’d had ever been in that house before.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  90. Personally, i would vote for Kavanaugh even if Ford’s story were true. If you could show a pattern of sexual harrassment/assault as an adult that would be different.

    But a 17 y/o boy gets drunk and gropes a young girl, 36 years ago? And then lives an exemplary life?

    Seems OK to me.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  91. 58 Beldar .. Appalled, I simply don’t agree with your presumption that Judge Kavanaugh’s outrage was in any way or sense “packaged.” *** ¶ If you compare his demeanor in that testimony to his statements in the Fox News Martha Maccallum interview *** ¶ To accuse him of “packaging” that is, I respectfully submit, a projection of some viewers rather than something based on objective facts.

    Okie-doke, Counselor. “We” project some fantasy, and “You” know objective fact. Guess that settles it then.

    In point of fact, however, there are quite a few folks who see it different from you. Reasonable folks, outwardly at least. You saw no “packaging”. I saw plenty. I saw a man testifying, who I found both compelling at the outset, while at the same time disturbing – in his o’erblown “anger” (having watched the Fox interview, and considering the setting, and harkening back to Clarence Thomas’ performance). The authenticity I felt, resolved itself to a conclusion by the end (and somewhat before that, to be candid) that this was a man who I did not believe. In the end, I believe he was “genuinely” enraged and verging-on-being-out-of-control, mainly because he worked himself into it – he packaged himself into it (with the aid of Dame Lindsey Graham et alia). Same, regarding his tearfulness. The whole very ‘roid-ful (rage-y / weep-y) performance seemed unauthentic overall.

    Packaging? (See, above, and . . . e.g., . . ) Maybe you don’t recall the moment, when Dame Graham (so over-acting, as is his wont)

    GRAHAM: * * * Do you consider this a job interview?

    KAVANAUGH: If (ph) the advice and consent role is like a job interview.

    GRAHAM: Do you consider that you’ve been through a job interview?

    KAVANAUGH: I’ve been through a process of advice and consent under the Constitution, which…

    GRAHAM: Would you say you’ve been through hell?

    KAVANAUGH: I — I’ve been through hell and then some.

    GRAHAM: This is not a job interview.

    KAVANAUGH: Yes.

    GRAHAM: This is hell.

    KAVANAUGH: This — this…

    GRAHAM: This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap. Your high school yearbook — you have interacted with professional women all your life, not one accusation. * * *

    [wapo transcript]

    First-off (and not crucially), I think the transcript may have gotten it slightly wrong where K is saying If (ph) the advice and consent role is like a job interview. I think K started to say “Yes”, cut himself off and went on to say The advice and consent role is like a job interview.

    Dame Lindsey did not like that answer. Maybe they’d practiced or semi-scripted it and maybe they hadn’t. But K was being slow on the uptake as to what Graham had in mind. So Lindsey (ever obliging) interrupted him & put the words (almost (?)) into K’s mouth, that were the “correct” answer (I can almost hear the Senator saying to himself that “good g#dd*mn but these Georgetown Prep boys can be thick as locust posts sometimes!”) This is not a job interview … This is hell

    Now, maybe it’s “just my projection” that K looked kind of like a puppy dog looking up to his Master, kind of confusedly beseeching him to help him be a good boy (“I am a good boy, Senator [wag -wag], what do you want”). You may not share my perception of how that interchange went, in general or in its particulars. e.g., cbc video, at 6h41m40s ss . But strangely enough (and mirabile dictu!), I’m not inclined to adopt your perceptions in lieu of mine.

    Q! (86710c)

  92. NBC News reports text messages show Kavanaugh communicated w/friends to refute Ramirez claim, apparently before New Yorker story broke. Jeez.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  93. when Mr. K gets confirmed it’ll be like Christine’s trapped in that rape room her whole life with no escape

    i’m twapped she’ll cry i can’t get out!

    and i’ll say well Christine that’s what you get for lying isn’t it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  94. @92. Q- ‘Packaging.’ He’s been marketed and sold like a product from the get-go. Just review the ad buys by the Judicial Crisis Network, which is financed by the Wellspring Committee which also floats ‘mystery bucks’ to the Federalist Society. It’s ‘Dark Money;’ – nobody knows who or where the source of the originating financing is coming from. The Koch brothers? The Catholic church? Anheiser-Busch? The Saudis? Israelis? Russian oligarchs? Putin? It’s a strange brew.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  95. Jurors that have heard the same evidence can also disagree, Q. I saw the hearing live and I disagree with your interpretation, especially that Graham was correcting Kavanaugh. To me, Graham was saying this was supposed to be a job interview but it turned into hell because of what seem like endless unsupported accusations. And if it had been scripted, I don’t think Kavanaugh would have looked like he was searching for the right words to convey what he thought and how he felt.

    But you disagree and that’s fine, of course. It’s probably a waste of time for me to write this and for you to read it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  96. 93 – so now you think he shouldn’t defend himself? That seems a bit harsh.

    DRJ (15874d)

  97. “Now, maybe it’s “just my projection” that K looked kind of like a puppy dog looking up to his Master, kind of confusedly beseeching him to help him be a good boy (“I am a good boy, Senator [wag -wag], what do you want”).”

    You are absolutely correct. That is your projection. No maybes about it.

    Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5)

  98. @93. The point of their reporting was the timing; when it was done- before the NYer piece went public and if it was before he acknowledged knowing about it. A classmate just read a statement standing in his driveway live on CNN and Swetnick has now don a one-on-one w/NBC. Good chance the only person sipping a martini and looking forward to a good night’s sleep tonight is Iowa’s Grassley. 😉

    @96. Saw it live, too; a little over ripe for a dinner theater audition; might get him the AG gig once Sessions is jettisoned, though. Can’t get to the World Series soon enough.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  99. @96 DRJ Jurors that have heard the same evidence can also disagree, Q. *** But you disagree and that’s fine, of course. It’s probably a waste of time for me to write this and for you to read it.

    Of course folks can disagree, that have considered the same evidence. And by my lights it wasn’t a waste of your time to write your post, nor of mine to read it. Beldar, on the other hand, was a good bit more … “dismissive”, let us say. See, supra. And of course, anyone can judge to what extent if any they may agree with my take on that interchange, or allow that “no . . . but I might could see how . . .” by reviewing the linked-to exchange, and maybe cogitating a bit. The Interwebs is wholly wonderful. Eh?

    Q! (86710c)

  100. Very interesting, narciso! Blasey Ford sure wants to keep much of her past hidden from interested parties. Good luck with that.

    Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5)

  101. Mike
    @Fu*tupinmind
    Lindsey Graham has been amazing lately.

    Here’s him telling CNN, “If you don’t like me working with President Trump to make the world a better place, I don’t give a sh**.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/15/lindsey-graham-work-with-trump-649077

    harkin (a4b010)

  102. Cause and effect; never heard of it

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3692601/posts

    Narciso (54490f)

  103. Apparently there is a correct and incorrect way for an individual with an excellent reputation – both personal and professional – to respond when accused of being a gang rapist, or rapist, or attempted rapist, or being accused of sexual misconduct. Who knew.

    And if the individual veers off the course of the only acceptable narrow response – that of a quiet, staid and submissive tone – and instead he reacts with a passionate and righteous indignation and incredulity to a very serious accusation that he vehemently denies, on top of having seen his children and wife hurt in untold measure as a result, while his family’s name is destroyed by the ugly tone and tenor of a particular side of the political aisle with every reason to seek to see him a man undone and his nomination squelched, then he is damned. Who made the Democrats god? Who said their decision of what is an acceptable reaction is the only reaction? If, and when they and their beloved family members are drowning in a sea of disbelief and sadness and hatred – for that is what it is – then let’s see them react accordingly. Until then, a measure of grace and a measure of understanding of what it is like to simply be human, to be a spouse, to be a father outside of the nasty, amoral world of politics, is in order. To me, that they are so hell-bent on destruction, even if it takes two innocent little girls down in the process, demonstrates the moral sinkhole these bottom feeders habitually dwell.

    It’s not dissimilar to the outcry that 11 male senators would be questioning an alleged female victim. If they did their job and made the inquiries themselves, they would be damned. Even if they handled the situation with kid gloves, and treated Ford with the utmost deference and respect, it still wouldn’t have been good enough. It would have been nothing less than a bullying attack. So going for the option of having a female prosecutor question her, seemed reasonable in this no-win setup. But as we’ve seen, that wasn’t good enough either because all it did was demonstrated that the GOP shirked its duty, didn’t show Ford the respect she deserved, etc., etc.

    Life is not an either-or option. Life is in the middle, in the gray area, where often we just fumble around and muddle our way through as best we can, trying not to tear anyone apart, and not hurt those we love the most.

    Dana (023079)

  104. @103 harkin Lindsey Graham has been amazing lately.

    No doubt. Amazing. Ever since his Daddy/Big Brother was bound for the grave (and surely since he’s gone into the ground, now), Li’l Lindsey’s hiked up them big boy pants, and gone off to continue his Sancho-Panza-ing — but this time w/ DJT. Hellbentferleather. I expect DCSCA’s right, and he’s auditioning for good ol’ Jeff’s job (which I reckon’s coming free pretty quick, now). Yee. Haw.

    Q! (86710c)

  105. Yes, yes, yes:

    No responsible lawyer would bring even a civil case on the facts described above, and civil cases must meet only the lowest burden of proof. Believe women? Believe men? No. Believe evidence. It’s possible that the FBI investigation will uncover additional material facts. It’s also possible that the investigation will leave us back where we started — with entirely insufficient evidence to prove even one of the terrible claims against a person who was once one of the most-respected public servants in America.

    No matter which side of the aisle, if you are hoping to discover truth (I use the term loosely as I can’t think of a better one…), and as best as it can be determined in this sort of situation, this cuts across all political lines. It should be what we are all hanging our hats on, if indeed furthering our politics isn’t the goal.

    Dana (023079)

  106. Here’s one more example of why people believe much of the Left – especially academia- is 6 fries short of a Happy Meal… https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/01/georgetown-professor-white-republicans-castrated/

    Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5)

  107. She’s the one who can curse in Urdu and pashto

    Narciso (54490f)

  108. @97. See #100.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  109. R.I.P. Charles Aznavour

    Icy (47f724)

  110. Q!, I think you just stopped short of saying nk is also right (clue: Roy Cohn).

    urbanleftbehind (61ee40)

  111. Babylon 5 is,premiering on comet.

    Narciso (54490f)

  112. @112 urban You may be right. But I just Ctl-F’d “nk” and have no, absolutely no, idea what you’re referring to. 😉

    Q! (86710c)

  113. tacky-ass Meghan McCain who made such an ungodly spectacle out of her daddy’s funeral comes back to the view next monday

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  114. Ot theres another lovecraft meets le carre pastiche the war in the dark, similar to tregallis series, but with more of a,Prince of darkness feel.

    Narciso (54490f)

  115. it looks fun but kinda pricey for what it is

    i bookmarkered it

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  116. Well I came across in the library,

    Narciso (54490f)

  117. “A very strange thing happened over the weekend: If you follow Twitter closely, you’ll notice that the debate over Brett Kavanaugh moved significantly from the central question of last Thursday’s hearing — did he commit sexual assault? — to a raging debate over whether he lied about high-school slang, college drinking, and inside jokes, and whether he was just too “angry” to be a Supreme Court judge.

    This torrent of commentary (most of it silly, including competing, furious arguments about how people described anal sex in 1982) obscures an important development: The sexual-assault claims against Kavanaugh are in a state of collapse.”

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-case-against-nominee-collapsing/?utm_content=buffer702b4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=Nancy+French+Public

    It’s not about the accusations, it’s about stopping the nomination, always has been.

    harkin (a4b010)

  118. Yes, harkin, I saw that too in a conversation with a #NeverRepublican, and called it out as “the new party line”.

    nk (dbc370)

  119. 106 – what’s that mean in big boy English?

    harkin (a4b010)

  120. It’s about long term grievances. Flake and his sidekicks will be dead to the entire Republican party if they give any weight to Democratic tantrums over the true meaning of “boofing.”

    M Scott Eiland (b16b32)

  121. 122) klaatu Barada nikto

    Narciso (54490f)

  122. I just read the text message story. Seems like they should mention that Kavanaugh was quoted in the New Yorker article. Of course he knew about it before it was published! And they say Grassley knew about the texts
    Good grief our press is moronic.

    Susanita (8bc977)

  123. To continue this stupefyingly idiotic chapter in our history, gang-rape aficionado…

    “Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of drugging women and participating in gang rapes in the 1980s, spoke out at length about her allegations in an interview that aired on MSNBC Monday.

    NBC News started off by noting it could not independently verify her claims. Swetnick spoke to NBC News correspondent Kate Snow about her allegations, made in a statement released last week, that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge attended a party where she was drugged and gang raped. While she did not accuse Kavanaugh of assaulting her, she claimed she witnessed him participate in gang rapes. Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations and denied even knowing Swetnick.

    Swetnick, a current government employee being represented by lawyer Michael Avenatti, told Snow that at parties Kavanaugh was “very aggressive, very sloppy drunk, very mean drunk.”

    “I saw him go up to girls and paw on them… touching them in private parts, try and shift clothing,” she claimed. “I saw him push girls against walls. He would pretend to stumble and stumble into them, push them into a wall. He would grope them.”

    NBC News noted there were differences in Swetnick’s initial statement and her comments to the outlet, notably her assertion that Kavanaugh spiked punch at the parties so that groups of boys could rape girls.

    Swetnick did not confirm that she saw Kavanaugh spike punch, but simply said she “saw him around the punch containers.”

    “I don’t know what he did,” she told NBC.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  124. We live in a wonderfully stupid time, the aliens know not to bother.

    Narciso (54490f)

  125. speaking of not knowing any better

    somebody should tell uber-white disney gigolo Chris Evans he really needs take the anti-black racism down a notch or two

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  126. oopers needs *to* take the anti-black racism down a notch or two

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  127. Truly stupid, but wonderful? Not so much, narciso. The Democrats are attempting to lower the nation’s collective IQ every day. Fairness doesn’t matter… collateral damage to the nation’s institutions doesn’t matter… all that matters is power.

    Democrats are setting precedents that will haunt America.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  128. Egregiously stupid then, now miss soutnik even embarrasses Kate snow and that ain’t easy

    Narciso (54490f)

  129. I have not seen the interview, but this written account is so preposterous that even NBC has a hard time keeping a straight face:

    Among the most serious claims from the affidavit [sic — actually an unsworn deposition under penalty of perjury, but effectively the same thing] was that Swetnick had seen Kavanaugh, Judge and others “cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys.”

    Swetnick said in the written statement that “I have a firm recollection of seeing boys” — including Kavanaugh and Judge — “lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room.”

    ….

    In the interview, Swetnick said that boys at these parties were not “lined up” but “huddled by the doors.”

    She said that she only came to recognize the purpose of these groups when she herself became the victim of an alleged gang rape.

    “My body was violated,” Swetnick said. “My soul was broken.”

    Thus does she attempt to solve the “Why’d you keep coming back if you didn’t like the punch?” line of questions.

    Thus does she embrace the role of a clueless, inaccurate, and untrustworthy witness.

    Thus does she prove beyond doubt that she has no personal knowledge of anyone else being raped by Brett Kavanaugh. And nowhere does she claim to be an eyewitness to Kavanaugh assaulting herself or anyone else, ever.

    As to the drug and grain alcohol allegation, note well:

    Asked in the interview if she specifically saw Kavanaugh or his friend Mark Judge spike drinks, she said she saw Kavanaugh “around the punch containers” and had seen him “giving red cups to quite a few girls during that time frame.”

    But, Swetnick added, “I don’t know what he did. But I saw him by them, yes.”

    The distance between seeing Kavanaugh “around the punch containers,” or “giving red cups” to girls, on the one hand, and personally observing “efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to ‘spike’ the ‘punch’ at house parties I attended with drugs and/or grain alcohol,” on the other hand, is roughly the distance between a seat on the Supreme Court and Folsom Prison.

    Oh, but look closely: She actually only ever claimed in her declaration to have “become aware of efforts” by these people to do that. Which meant the whole claim was a vague, incomplete, and irrelevant bit of gossip repetition to begin with, and never competent testimony. That careful dodge might save her a perjury prosecution, however.

    She “doesn’t know what he did.” But she’ll gladly cooperate with anyone who wants to smear him as a rapist!

    What a sad, vicious, diseased parade of ridiculous, toxic clowns!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  130. (Yes, I know Folsom Prison isn’t in Maryland. I just couldn’t resist the “I heard that train a’comin'” parallelism, amIright?)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  131. Any reference to The Man in Black is estimable.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  132. women lie a LOT about rape in America

    that’s pretty much been the takeaway from the last week or two of watching CNN Jake Tapper fake news

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  133. The most important part of the NBC interview With Swetnick:

    NBC News, for the record, has not been able to independently verify her claims.

    Shame on NBC or airing this without having verified any of it. This is not journalism. This is let’s just take a random claim throw it out there and see if it sticks. Doesn’t matter whether an individual is smeared as a result. No one in the media cares about truth, corroboration, or witness statements. It’s just the more salacious, the more clicks.

    Dana (023079)

  134. Getting drunk and blacking out embarrassing for kavenaugh. Telling his friends what to say before congress staffers and fbi about 1985 bar fight (there is police report naming kavenaugh) felony for kavenaugh. What is conservative position on jury tampering?

    lany (cc77d1)

  135. sorry witness tampering not jury.

    lany (cc77d1)

  136. Well, good on Jce. Breyer; thus we can look forward to the SNL skit where Kavanauh is “initiated” by his fellow raunchy and hard drinking Justices.

    urbanleftbehind (61ee40)

  137. He threw a cup of ice, even will hunting wouldn’t do anything that lame.

    Narciso (54490f)

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

    Matt Damon on today’s #metoo movement. The same Matt Damon who portrayed Brett Kavanaugh on SNL.

    https://youtu.be/gnPWJOJYVKc

    harkin (a4b010)

  139. no anwser to what is the conservative position on witness tampering?

    lany (cc77d1)

  140. You have to spell it Daamon, as in team America, he was a college drop out, like Chuck Todd or any of the eminenses gris

    Narciso (54490f)

  141. no anwser to what is the conservative position on witness tampering?

    Are we back to “it’s a trial” or still on “it’s a job interview”? Asking for a friend

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  142. Matt Damon is one of the good boys of Hollywood. But, nonetheless, it his job is to be an organ grinder’s monkey. It’s how he earns his daily bread. A writer writes a script for him, a director tells him how to deliver his lines. He has no choice, anymore than a city bus driver has the choice of driving down a street other than his assigned route.

    nk (dbc370)

  143. Or is Clint Eastwood a verpy foopter yob because he made “Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil” or a Fifth Columnist for “Letters From Iwo Jima”?

    nk (dbc370)

  144. There was a touch of sociopath going back to Ripley, then again who in that crew was sane, jude law?

    Narciso (54490f)

  145. Err, you do know that John Wayne did not really backshoot Lee Marvin with a rifle from a dark alley while Marvin was shooting it out with James Stewart, right?

    nk (dbc370)

  146. BTW, I did not watch any of the last SNL, only read about it on the internet. It was up against “Bride Of The Gorilla” on Comcast.

    nk (dbc370)

  147. @150. BTW, I did not watch any of the last SNL, only read about it on the internet. It was up against “Bride Of The Gorilla” on Comcast.

    Watch it here: laugh and the world laughs with you; enjoy:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRJecfRxbr8

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  148. Matt Damon’s rich enough that he could retire. I’d suggest he move to Gough Island, where he could at last find the audience he deserves. He should not return until he grows a sense of irony or shame.

    Regarding the job interview metaphor: He’d been selected from amongst thousands of potential candidates. He’s been told so, and so has the rest of America. He’s undergone all the normal requirements of this job’s equivalent of an HR department, and indeed, he’s done it three times (in 2004, 2006, and 2018), patiently producing documents, answering questions, and keeping his cool. Now, when HR had already concluded its examination of him and was expected to give its thumbs up or thumbs down, comes a maliciously timed and ridiculously implausible allegation that he committed a sexual assault more than three decades ago.

    At that point this process stopped being a normal job interview, right? Now there’s real one issue left, and it’s not even whether he’s guilty of the charges. It’s whether the Dems can pry loose two GOP senators or, failing that, stall until after the midterms and the lame-duck session.

    To those non-senators who actually care about the nominee’s guilt or innocence, however — which includes me, despite my cynicism about the Senate and the biggest of pictures here — this is now indeed a criminal examination, in which justice, logic, and due process all demand that the accuser persuade us through credible evidence that he’s guilty.

    So word game this all you please. You’re fooling no one with this “job interview” stuff, and it’s gotten very tired already — a sanctimonious metaphor yanked out of its normal usage to confuse the simple-minded.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  149. ‘What’s his name? Who’s to blame?’

    Sing it, Bing!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjFyX2sSTGs 

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  150. Rape charges against 4 California dentists dismissed after video contradicts woman’s story

    ladies this is just getting silly

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  151. Soon to be a major motion picture – produced by Guillermo del Toro and directed by J.A. Bayona

    i wonder if this is interesting and relevant

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  152. yanked out of its normal usage to confuse the simple-minded.

    The simple-minded seem to have the majority now.

    Kevin M (d6cbf1)

  153. dismissed after video contradicts woman’s story

    And if you don’t think your dentist is recording…..

    Kevin M (d6cbf1)

  154. I did not watch any of the last decade of SNL

    Kevin M (d6cbf1)

  155. I guess after Pacific rim uprising he has to go somewhere,

    Narciso (54490f)

  156. I watch snatches on YouTube. Maybe I’ll watch this one after Kavanaugh’s confirmation. “He who laughs last, laughs best.”

    nk (dbc370)

  157. I guess the Conan line would be inappropriate in this context,

    Narciso (54490f)

  158. @161 nk I watch snatches on YouTube. Maybe I’ll watch this one after Kavanaugh’s confirmation. “He who laughs last, laughs best.”

    lol. Probably an excellent choice. I suspect you wouldn’t find it much funny, absent realization of the future context you project. (Which (imo) is quite likely to result.) The years have taught me that there are times when it is exceedingly profitable to procrastinate, as well as times when it is disastrous to do so.

    Q! (86710c)

  159. Beldar,

    thank you for your deliberative and succinct remarks. I have to believe they are extremely persuasive to anyone keeping an open mind.

    NJRob (1d7532)

  160. “I did not watch any of the last decade of SNL”

    You are a better person for it.

    Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5)

  161. That show hasn’t been funny for nearly two decades.

    Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5)

  162. @163. ‘I watched snatches on YouTube.’

    … “It’s a drinking game…” 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  163. I don’t like the “job interview” argument either. Especially when it’s used to justify why due process, logic, etc don’t apply. The BS gets deeper when the same crew using the metaphor then start clutching the pearls about “witness tampering”.

    Clown nose on, clown nose off.

    frosty48 (6226c1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1265 secs.