The Ever-So-Objective New York Times Has Emily “I Hate Judicial Conservatives” Bazelon as a … “Reporter” on a “News Article” About Kavanaugh (UPDATE ADDED)
Oh Dear Lord. Here we go:
As an undergraduate student at Yale, Brett M. Kavanaugh was involved in an altercation at a local bar during which he was accused of throwing ice on another patron, according to a police report.
The incident, which occurred in September 1985 during Mr. Kavanaugh’s junior year, resulted in Mr. Kavanaugh and four other men being questioned by the New Haven Police Department. Mr. Kavanaugh was not arrested, but the police report stated that a 21-year-old man accused Mr. Kavanaugh of throwing ice on him “for some unknown reason.”
They then quote a supposed eyewitness who says … Kavanaugh threw his “beer” at the guy:
Mr. Ludington said that he had been in touch with the F.B.I.
He said that the altercation happened after a UB40 concert on Sept. 25, when he and a group of people went to Demery’s and were drinking pints. At one point, they were sitting near a man who, they thought, resembled Ali Campbell, the lead singer of UB40.
“We’re trying to figure out if it’s him,” he said.
When the man noticed Mr. Ludington, Mr. Kavanaugh and the others looking at him, he objected and told them to stop it, adding an expletive, Mr. Ludington said.
Mr. Kavanaugh cursed, he said, and then “threw his beer at the guy.”
I have now flipped on Kavanaugh and oppose him. I mean, if the guy put ice in his beer …
In all seriousness (not really): They got him! You see, I am reliably told by countless lefty blue checkmarks on Twitter that Kavanaugh denied drinking too much. And indeed, if you look at his testimony, which I have right here, we have … we have, um … hang on … ah, there it is: “Sometimes I had too many beers!” SEE? HE WAS LYING! Oh wait, that’s an admission he sometimes drank too much. Um. Well.
Interesting little factoid about this NYT piece: check out who the “reporters” are.
Emily Bazelon? The ultra-leftist woman always screeching about judicial conservatives on Slate? Often in a dishonest fashion? That Emily Bazelon? Gee, I wonder if she has any preconceptions about Brett Kavanaugh!
If you were wondering, wonder no longer. Because as many people have observed on Twitter, Emily Bazelon is … not exactly an unbiased reporter:
As a @YaleLawSch grad & lecturer, I strongly disassociate myself from tonight’s praise of Brett Kavanaugh. With respect, he’s a 5th vote for a hard-right turn on voting rights and so much more that will harm the democratic process & prevent a more equal society. 1/2
— Emily Bazelon (@emilybazelon) July 10, 2018
Also, here is my Totally Objective News Article about him!!!
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]
UPDATE by Dana: The New York Times has responded to the criticism of Bazelon’s involvement in writing the piece cited in this post.
A spokesperson for The Times said in a statement Tuesday afternoon that the story Bazelon contributed to was “straightforward, fact-based and we fully stand behind it.” The spokesperson, however, said the reporting should have been assigned to another person.
“Emily Bazelon is a writer for The New York Times Magazine who occasionally writes op-eds for the opinion section. She is not a newsroom reporter,” the spokesperson for The Times said. “Her role in this story was to help colleagues in the newsroom gather public documents in New Haven, where Emily is based. In retrospect, editors should have used a newsroom reporter for that assignment.”
Remember, it was just two weeks ago that the New York Times did the smear job on Nikki Haley. After facing criticism for the intentional misleading of readers, the paper subsequently corrected its headline and article.
Ding.
Patterico (115b1f) — 10/1/2018 @ 9:58 pmI kinda like him even more now.
Patricia (3363ec) — 10/1/2018 @ 9:59 pmWell Ludington is a wine expert at chapel hill, so.
Narciso (54490f) — 10/1/2018 @ 10:00 pmWhen there’s no corroboration for the other more serious charges, it’s no surprise that partisans would resort to “he was in a bar fight when he was in college!” They want to take him down, no matter what it takes, and Bezelon is just one of them.
Paul Montagu (0e687b) — 10/1/2018 @ 10:02 pmThe roommate of a guy who worked at the cafeteria in his dorm told my friend that Kavanaugh once snuck two desserts out into the dining room on his tray.
Dave (445e97) — 10/1/2018 @ 10:09 pmok sure the inept and cowardly FBI has no idea why that guy at Mandalay Bay killed 58 people a year ago
but an (allegedly) brutal ice-throwing incident 35 years ago?
some people might say hey this is a cold case (cause of the ice)
but not our FBI no sir
they’re gonna wrestle this stuff to the ground!
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/1/2018 @ 10:12 pmthe altercation happened after a UB40 concert
well there you go
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/1/2018 @ 10:14 pmVery telling, Dave. Two desserts. Just like you know who.
Patricia (3363ec) — 10/1/2018 @ 10:20 pmI listen to the Slate Political Gabfesf (it’s my guilty pleasure). I find Emily to be generally insightful, despite her strong ideological pull. However, on the Kavanaugh issue she stated from the beginning that she’s against Kavanaugh and further that she thinks Ford is a hero. It’s ludicrous that she’s involved in SCOTUS reporting, and the ombudsman should address it.
Joe (e5ca5a) — 10/2/2018 @ 3:55 amIs two desserts some kind of pop culture reference?
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 5:37 amDid BK go to the UB40 concert? Sounds like it and if so that’s got to count against him. But getting in a fight with a guy he thought might be in UB40 has got to count in his favor.
Penalties offset, replay the down.
frosty48 (6226c1) — 10/2/2018 @ 5:58 amIn a world that’s dumbing down
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:27 amYou make the best of what’s still around
Good point, Joe, except the NYT eliminated their ombudsman position in June 2017. Seemed that the powers-that-be at the Times didn’t like seeing their dirty laundry aired in public… or anywhere else, for that matter.
B.A. DuBois (80f588) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:28 amRed, red wine…
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:32 amIs two desserts some kind of pop culture reference?
it’s cause of how our president, President Donald Trump, is said to have enjoyed two scoops of ice cream at a dinner one time
ice cream is made out of cream whereas gelato, gelato is derived of whole milk
i love President Trump
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:37 amYou don’t say:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/janice-dickinson-admits-fabricating-part-cosby-drug-rape-allegation-memoir-095945856.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=tw
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:37 amNo if he Fed the koi well then all bets are off. Now it wasnt keyed to any particular sing
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:39 amA friend of a friend of a friend has a cousin who was a Yale Law classmate of Kavanaugh says that Kavanaugh had once placed a boofie cushion under the pad on the associate professor’s chair and…
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:41 amHer grandfather was the famously liberal Judge Bazelon of the DC Circuit. I may have mentioned before that one time we tried to get the Illinois Appellate Court to adopt his position on the state of mind required to be proven in burglary. Instead, it went with the position of the less famous but conservative Justice Woodward, the father of Bob Woodward.
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:43 amAs for Lexington, his grandfather founded the lead air transport company in the 20s, now he’s a wine expert at ncstate.
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:45 amit’s cause of how our president, President Donald Trump, is said to have enjoyed two scoops of ice cream at a dinner one time
Thank you, happyfeet. And that’s ridiculous. A good host will make sure that there’s enough of everything there for every guest to eat as much as he wants, with leftovers to take home.
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:50 amAlthough the ice cream would probably melt on the way.
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:51 amIn other news
https://freebeacon.com/politics/cisneros-campaign-manager-resigns-day-fellow-dem-withdraws-harassment-complaint/
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:57 amNarciso: In my best Ed McMahon, “you are correct, sir”: http://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fired-fox-news-contributor-calls-005715032.html
urbanleftbehind (61ee40) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:02 amWell I would use more tactful language, but the kernel of it is right, who thought Salem would be back in session.
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:05 amWords fail:
legalinsurrection.com
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:22 amhttps://www.google.com/amp/s/legalinsurrection.com/2018/10/democrat-sen-sheldon-whitehouse-man-who-falsely-accused-kavanaugh-of-1985-assault-being-treated-unfairly/amp/
Caleb SkHull
@CalebJHull
I’m pretty sure this story of Kavanaugh allegedly throwing ice at someone in a college bar 35 years ago is getting more coverage than Beto O’Rourke drunk driving, fleeing, and denying what’s on the police report.
That tells you everything you need to know.
harkin (a4b010) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:35 am_
Kavanaugh claimed he never got belligerent or black out drunk that yeah maybe he had a few now and again but he wasn’t some kind of drunken monster. Here’s one more data point saying he lied about this too.
If he did get belligerent when drinking (which is established) and he lied about it, and he does get belligerent towards women in particular (which we know for a fact from his unhinged testimony Thursday) and he lied about that too, then it’s really not a stretch to imagine this drunken thug attacking Ford.
Tlaloc (d38a6f) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:21 amThis is corroboration, you just aren’t paying attention. Kavanaugh lied about his drinking habits as has been made clear by several associates of his. Most recently a friend of his at Yale wrote a NYT op ed about how much Kavanaugh drank and how he became aggressive when he did. The op ed mentioned a bar assault investigated by police. Conservative immediately screamed “where’s the police record!!1!”
Well here you go. I’m sure we’re all waiting with baited breath for the next excuse why this likely attempted rapist and misogynist is the single best person to give a huge lifetime promotion to.
Tlaloc (d38a6f) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:25 amwhatever happens sotomayor will still be the dumbest judge on the court by far
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:33 amTlaloc:
So, why the frenzy about college drinking? I mean, what about the this guy’s teen years?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-drug-use-debated/
People do turn themselves around, and usually without fully acknowledging what they were.
Appalled (96665e) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:40 amThe new party line: “Ok, ok, so we lied about the sexual assaults. But this is a partisan, mean drunk who will bring down the credibility of the Supreme Court. Why won’t you believe us? Look at us when we’re talking to you!”
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:44 amAnother roommate said Kavanaugh drank but he never saw Kavanaugh black out or act in an aggressive or belligerent manner.
It’s fine to believe one roommate and not the other but the facts aren’t “established,” Tlaloc.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:57 amA couple reasons.
1) Perjury, Kavanaugh made claims under oath that are starkly not true. About a wide variety of topics. He’s shown a willingness to lie under oath a lot. That doesn’t speak well to his capacity to be a judge.
2) His defense against ford is based entirely on his statement. If he was a belligerent sloppy drunk as all the third party claims indicate, and he was drunk at the time of the claimed attack, as Ford has said, then his statement isn’t worth much. Now he has no defense. She says it happens, there’s indications it could have happened, and he can’t say it didn’t.
Tlaloc (d38a6f) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:30 amHer claim becomes VERY compelling in that case.
So if I drive with you and you get in an accident and someone else drives with you and you don’t, that means the accident never happened?
Just because one person didn’t see something doesn’t mean that another person couldn’t have. This is very basic logic, please tell me you aren’t supporting Kavanaugh based on your fallacy above.
Tlaloc (d38a6f) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:33 amWe’re supporting Kavanaugh because Democrats are liars with perverse sexual practices that involve small animals and duct tape.
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:35 ami love Brett Kavanaugh he’s got so much jurisprudence and he’s good with kids
not just a good dad but a good role model
he’s got that special x factor so many nominees lack
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:39 am@ Tlaloc: Throwing ice doesn’t show (1) drunkenness, (2) black-out drunkenness, or (3) lying.
However, pretending that throwing ice proves lying does demonstrate lying by the pretender.
Show me the transcript where Kavanaugh was asked if he’d ever thrown ice in a bar, and denied it, and then we can begin to talk about contradictions. What you’ve done is smear concepts and facts into a liberal paste of hate and misinformation. As an advocate for your side’s point of view, I give your performance zero stars out of five.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:39 amThe question I have is are you paying attention, because you’re only hearing his detractors (link).
Paul Montagu (0e687b) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:41 amif you shape the ice into a sphere you can do snowball fights all up in it!
oh my goodness diane moo goo gai pan feinstein would pee herself
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:41 amTlaloc:
In this #me too era, the best indication that we got another one of “those guys” is that, suddenly, the women start coming out of the woodwork with the same kind of stories. See Harvey Weinstein, Bill O Reilly, Al Franken, Roy Moore.
That hasn’t happened with Kavenaugh. We have one story from Ford. The Yale story isn’t the same kind of thing at all — it’s a drunken fraternity expose self thing that’s eeeewwww yuck, and the witness isn’t really sure whose thingy she was looking at. The Avanetti thing looks like a big ol’ lie.
The one thing pretty clear is that Kavenaugh seems to have been one of those kids who spent a lot of high school weekends and college weekends drunk. You are trying to bootstrap angry drinking into credibility for Ms. Ford, and I question that.
Appalled (96665e) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:56 amHe’s a Warlock, appalled, let him drown so he can prove his innocence, it’s only fair.
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 11:22 amThe Times acknowledges its error:
Dave (445e97) — 10/2/2018 @ 11:49 amhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcjpags7JT8
Oooooo Bart, darlin’…’Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies…’
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/2/2018 @ 12:05 pmJeff Flake is a flaky sonuva b*tch https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/jeff-flake-criticizes-supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh/571915/
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 12:23 pm@ Tlaloc: Explain to us, please, how this alleged, and allegedly super-traumatic, event managed to wipe all of Ford’s memory of all surrounding details — when, where, how she got there and left there, what else besides the assault was said or done — while leaving intact her firm, unshakeable recollection that she only had “one beer.”
That particular claim — that she has a clear, present recollection of only having one beer — is something the polygraph operator ought to have probed in detail. It’s been entirely glossed over by all Ford’s supporters. You even go to the extreme of insisting that Kavanaugh, on the basis of an ice-throwing incident at a bar, has no ability to even remember committing a sexual assault, but you don’t even question whether her perception, memory, and overall credibility could be affected.
She was fifteen. How much drinking experience did she have then? What did she weigh? What had she eaten, and when? When did she drink her “one beer,” and how fast? What size was the beer? And where does this fit in the context of her lifetime experiences with drinking or other use of intoxicating/impairing substances?
These are all basic, nonjudgmental, fundamental questions that must be asked and answered before anyone can draw inferences about whether, and how much, she was herself impaired on that night, whenever it was in the summer of 1982, if indeed it was 1982.
If there were helpful answers to these questions, though, we can reasonably infer that her counsel would have “pre-butted” them, as they attempted to do with the recent fabrication question by volunteering information about her 2012 therapy. (They just didn’t think through the follow-up complications from that.)
Ultimately the “one beer” claim makes her story much, much, much less credible than it would be if she simply claimed a total absence of recollection of the details. You know, like she’s have if she were the blackout drunk.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 12:46 pm*she’d have
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 12:47 pmI’m waiting for a truthful correction from the NYT: “We’re partisan scum, but you’re stupid enough to keep subscribing anyway.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 12:47 pm@#34: “His defense against ford is based entirely on his statement. If he was a belligerent sloppy drunk as all the third party claims indicate, and he was drunk at the time of the claimed attack, as Ford has said, then his statement isn’t worth much. Now he has no defense. She says it happens, there’s indications it could have happened, and he can’t say it didn’t.
Her claim becomes VERY compelling in that case.”
The defense is that all contemporaneous witnesses cannot confirm that Kavanaugh was at a party/gathering with Blasey Ford AND Blasey Ford’s memory has selectively filtered critical information like the month-day of the gathering, the location, how she got to the location, how she got home, who invited her there, and why she chose to not tell her life-long friend Keyser about the assault then or afterwards. Add to that Beldar’s observation about the self-serving memory of only consuming one beer…and her convenient memory of seeing Judge 4-6 weeks later at Safeway…and there is cause to be a bit suspicious of Ford’s claims. Again, even getting Kavanaugh and Ford at the same gathering does not prove assault…but it is at least a prerequisite that has not yet been corroborated. Maybe the Kavanaugh friend Garrett that she dated can make that connection….he hasn’t yet.
AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:24 pm@46 Beldar .. Beldar makes an almost fair point about the question of how Ford could honestly state that she’d had just one beer that fateful evening. “Almost fair” because, as he characterizes it, Ford had a “firm, unshakeable recollection that she only had “one beer.”” That is an unfair characterization.
She was asked one question on the “beer issue”, and gave her answer. Attorney Mitchell did not follow up (e.g., inquiring as to how Ford possibly could state that she had one beer), and that was that. No one tried to “shake” her “unshakeable recollection”.
While Beldar’s characterization leaves alot to be desired, fairness-wise, certainly inquiry into this question is legitimate, and one hopes that the FBI will do so. I would scarcely credit their investigation as being competent or professional if they did not do so, just as I would scarcely credit their interviewing of His Honor (and of perhaps a dozen or so others who potentially have valuable information), as being competent or professional if they did not pursue obvious lines of inquiry.
Likewise, when Beldar growls that If there were helpful answers to these questions, though, we can reasonably infer that her counsel . . . as some sort of evidence which tends to give the lie to the “one beer story”, apparently he forgets the nature of proceeding that we all watched. (Or which some of us watched. Dunno, frankly if Beldar did or not.)
But. Other than that. Fair point. Lots and lots of fair questions did not get asked. (Correct me if I’m wrong … but …) I don’t recall that His Honor got asked for how many years he drank underage in Maryland; or whether he had fake i.d.; or whether he bought beer or liquor illegally as well as consuming it illegally; whether his attorney-mom countenanced that or whether he deceived his parents; whether he drove after drinking (whatever “the chart” might have shown) . . . And lots more, for both “principals” and for other folks as well.
Q! (86710c) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:31 pmIs there actually a police report or these outlets just reporting the recollections of people such as this Ludington character? Because if there is a report, why don’t we have the date of this alleged altercation? It just seems to be sometime in September 1985.
One thing that makes me doubt there’s an actual report is what officer at the end of his shift wants to write up a report about a non-event in which no one was arrested? Cops hate paperwork. There may be, but I need to see it.
And even if there is a report since no one was arrested, that would tend to bolster Kavanaugh’s contention that he’s not a black-out drunk or an out-of-control belligerent drunk. Those types tend to get arrested.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:38 pmHe’s a so called wine expert, and historian at nc state,
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:43 pm@51 steve .. Google is your friend. “police report ludington” On my machine, 3d return or so is https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/kavanaugh-bar-fight.html
Q! (86710c) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:48 pmUPDATE by Dana: The New York Times has responded to the criticism of Bazelon’s involvement in writing the piece cited in this post.
A spokesperson for The Times said in a statement Tuesday afternoon that the story Bazelon contributed to was “straightforward, fact-based and we fully stand behind it.” The spokesperson, however, said the reporting should have been assigned to another person.
“Emily Bazelon is a writer for The New York Times Magazine who occasionally writes op-eds for the opinion section. She is not a newsroom reporter,” the spokesperson for The Times said. “Her role in this story was to help colleagues in the newsroom gather public documents in New Haven, where Emily is based. In retrospect, editors should have used a newsroom reporter for that assignment.”
Remember, it was just two weeks ago that the New York Times did the smear job on Nikki Haley and her curtains. After facing criticism for the intentional misleading of readers, the paper subsequently corrected its headline and article.
Dana (023079) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:55 pm53… the morality po-pos and their shock troops are running amok. Most of it Soros-funded.
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:08 pmWell, given the NYT’s hosting a get-out-the-vote event with Bernie Sanders, I suppose the facade of impartiality is swept away like so many dead flies…
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:17 pmEff ‘em in their cakeholes.
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:18 pmBeldar, did you notice this part of Ford’s testimony?
We’re not talking thirty six years ago. We’re talking August of this year. And she pretends not to know if she hired her attorneys the week in question? What lawyer interviews a client in a car in a driveway or a Walmart parking lot.
And, here’s the clincher. Feinstein has already told the committee that she referred Blasey=Ford to attorneys. I can’t prove that it’s these attorneys, but Debra Katz is an extremely well known attorney and left-wing activist. She was supposed to host a fund raiser for a Democratic Congresswoman from Michigan yesterday but cancelled when word got out.
And her attorneys had arranged for her to take a polygraph on August 7th. And one of the attorneys from Katz’s firm, Lisa Banks, was present to help Blasey-Ford prepare her statement and otherwise assist her client.
I don’t believe for a second she was interviewing lawyers in her car that week. This had to be well coordinated well in advance. Arranging for a polygraph (which her attorneys admit they paid for) isn’t like ordering a pizza. There in thirty minutes or its free! Then of course according to Blasey-Ford’s testimony they did the polygraph exam in a conference room at the Hilton at the Baltimore airport. You have to book those rooms in advance.
There’s no way in h3ll this just came together at the last minute. This all had to be arranged, including her legal representation, before she left Kali for the east coast. In fact, she or Eshoo on her behalf must have been coordinating with Feinstein since her first meeting with Eschoo.
How much do you want to bet that if you were to ask her to name some of the “beach friends” who were supposedly advising her she couldn’t name one? Or if she could name some of her surfing buddies, they couldn’t corroborate her story that she was asking them for advice about dealing with Congress and hiring lawyers?
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:29 pmThanks Q! After I posted that comment I got dragged off trying to dig up the hearing transcript.
Which by the way is here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:31 pm@ steve57, who wrote (#51):
That’s absolutely true. And of course, belligerent or not, they also tend to leave a record of (1) car crashes, (2) traffic tickets, (3) falls down stairs, (4) other accidents due to impaired reactions & abilities, and (5) ejections from public places and events — all tending to result in (6) witnesses to same.
If, God forbid, the hearings reopen and devolve further into a general examination of Kavanaugh’s sobriety, I want the Committee to subpoena and compel the attendance of Judge Merrick Garland and Justice Elena Kagan, to testify, as adverse witnesses, whether they’ve ever seen Kavanaugh exhibit any hints of impairment during their years of frequent association, professional and personal.
And unlike Ford, they actually would be able to lay a predicate for their testimony that they’ve actually met Kavanaugh.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:35 pm@ AJ_Liberty: You’ve posted some really perceptive comments on this and other recent threads about Kavanaugh. My compliments to the
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:37 pmchefscribe behind the screenname and keyboard.Democrats in July: We’re going to take this guy down on his jurisprudence.
Democrats in August: We’re going to take this guy down on his paper trail from the Bush Administration.
Democrats in September: We’re going to take this guy down on sexual assault charges from 36 years ago.
Democrats in October: We’re going to take this guy down on not fully detailing his drinking from ages 16-22.
Sorry for the bad pun here, but can you see how this just gets progressively more stupid?
JVW (42615e) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:42 pm@ Steve57, re your questions in #58:
I don’t fault her for it, given the time and other limitations under which she had to conduct her examination, but Mitchell didn’t ask whether Ford has signed a representation agreement with one or more of her lawyers.
I’m guessing she hasn’t. I’m guessing that those lawyers would rather not have written documentation regarding their “retention.” After all, they’re not expecting to try to enforce a contingent fee, nor do they assess themselves at any risk of malpractice (meaning they don’t anticipate needing any of the disclaimers/limitations that commonly are included in lawyers’ rep agreements).
I’m not sure whether she’s even sure if she “hired” them, or if she’s just acquiesced in them. I suspect that is the reason for the vagueness of her response.
I would make a very large waiver that her lawyers did not disclose to her, in writing, the manifold and potentially disabling conflicts of interest created by their representation of other clients. Without such disclosures, she can’t have validly waived those conflicts, but — as with the airplane-phobia exaggeration they peddled on her behalf, not to bolster her credibility (because it does the opposite) but to delay the hearing for their political purposes — those conflicts have indeed affected their representation of her.
Her choice of counsel was profoundly unwise, but I think her more a victim than a wrong-doer in connection with that choice.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:49 pmThis is a turning point… innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our justice system and, as of today, Kavanaugh is only guilty being fond of beer as a young man. But that won’t stop the shrieking harpies, SJWs, Media or the Democrats in Congress of doing all they can to disrupt lives, the peoples’ business, or delay, delay, delay this confirmation.
They must not be allowed to get away with this behavior or the problem will only worsen
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:49 pmNext: IN 1981, he told [name redacted] that he would indeed call her after they spent the night together. But he didn’t, so she decided it was really rape.
Kevin M (d6cbf1) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:50 pmI think that’s a pretty good double-entendre, JVW! I’m going to use it in the future — “progressively more stupid!” — even when the double meaning isn’t obvious to my audience (as it wouldn’t be among progressives, I suspect).
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:51 pmSomeone (Peter Theil?) ought to put up a million dollars for information regarding extreme drinking or sexual misbehavior, at any time, by Democrat members of the Committee.
Kevin M (d6cbf1) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:53 pmwomen lie a lot about getting raped number one because they get a kick out of it but also for strategic purposes as well
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:57 pm65… all bets are off, Kevin. And when societal norms are disregarded by large numbers of people having no restraint…no limits to the lengths they believe they can go to, the actions will prime reactions.
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:58 pmOk, I saw what looked like a police report. An illegible police report. Did Prof. Blasey-Ford write it? Because the hand writing is about as lousy as the chicken scratch she used to write her polygraph statement.
Getting back to my earlier point, Ford testified that neither Eshoo or Feinstein advised Ford to get a lawyer.
But toward the end of the questioning Rachel Mitchell asked Ford which of her attorneys did Feinstein advise her to retain.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/2/2018 @ 3:05 pmBeldar, you make some excellent points. It’s clear that Blasey-Ford really isn’t their client. Which of course makes me wonder who really is.
But I have to be blunt. I am convinced that she isn’t being vague because she doesn’t know the details of her relationship to her attorneys. I am convinced that she is being vague in order to avoid getting caught in a demonstrable lie. Did you read her 7 Aug polygraph statement? It’s been scrubbed of much of the detail she put in her earlier 30 Jul letter to Feinstein. She told Feinstein that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her in the early 80s. Yet she crossed out “early” and “Kava…” before even completing the full name. She changed other details as well, but just sticking to those two she passed a with a friendly, accommodating examiner who knew who was buttering his bread. So he asked only two non-specific relevant questions. They were, “Is any part of your statement false” and ,”Did you make up any part of your statement?”
I find it interesting that Ford kept going on about how long the exam took and how it was almost as terrifying as getting on an airplane. How long could it have possibly taken, unless the self-described anxious Ford couldn’t pass unless she eliminated details that she knew weren’t true from the only thing she was asked about. In any case the only thing attested truthfully to (if you believe the junk science behind polygraphs is any more effective at detecting liars than Tarot cards or Ouija boards) is that sometime during the decade some guy with no last name assaulted her. It seems she may have inadvertantly told the truth to the WaPo when she told them she was “assaulted” in the mid-80s, whatever she means by assaulted. It fits better with the rest of the story. If whatever happened happened in ’84 then she would have driven herself to and from whatever “gathering” she’s really thinking of when she’s tailoring her story to blow-up Kavanaugh’s nomination. She said the “assault” messed her up for her first two years in college. If it happened in ’82, wouldn’t it have messed her up for her last two years in high school?
Frankly I don’t see her as an entirely innocent victim. But who better than a psychologist to know how to be manipulative? Which is what she is doing when she slips into vulnerable little girl mode when she decides to be vague on any detail no matter how recent as her convenient memory conveniently slips out of gear.
I’ve seen this movie too many times to believe the act.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/2/2018 @ 3:52 pm@62. Meh. ‘Oh-what-a-tangled-web-we weave-when-first-we-practice-to-deceive.’
“… it’s a drinking game.”
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/2/2018 @ 3:59 pmI know lots of manipulative people who are unaware of their own manipulations. They’d pass any polygraph, even a well-administered one. (This one was a bad cartoon.)
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 4:15 pm(And yes, a well-administered polygraph exam is sort of like a well-administered effort to find water with a dowsing rod, or a well-administered Ouija Board session.)
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 4:18 pmThe CIA uses them all the time on their employees, to enforce policy (e.g. “Have you ever taken a gift worth more than $5 from a CIA contractor?” or “Have you ever knowingly passed classified information to a foreign agent?”)
Kevin M (d6cbf1) — 10/2/2018 @ 5:13 pmYes Aldrich Ames, he will talk then up.
Narciso (e03e6b) — 10/2/2018 @ 5:23 pm@75 Kevin .. Indeed. Judge Kavanaugh himself authored a published Opinion a couple of years back, which recognized that polygraphs are “important law enforcement tool”. Presumably because they hold somewhat greater utility (at least) than “a well-administered Ouija Board session” as Beldar (@ 74) writes.
Q! (86710c) — 10/2/2018 @ 5:27 pm@77. Q!- Play it safe; keep calendars.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/2/2018 @ 5:31 pmThe radical left values of the nation’s campuses have now found a home in our Congress, specifically to the Democrats in Congress. I trust the common sense of my fellow Americans, as I hope there will soon be a reckoning.
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 5:52 pmSpecifically with
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 5:53 pmIn a FOIA case in which the DoD relied upon an exception for documents compiled “for law enforcement purposes,” here’s what Judge Kavanaugh actually wrote, from which some are trying to wrench one phrase out of context to turn it into a personal endorsement or recognition of polygraphs by him:
Sack v. U.S. Department of Defense, 823 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2016)(Kavenaugh, J.).
So yes, the government uses them. And yes, Brett Kavanaugh has recognized that the government recognizes them for purposes which can generally be categorized as “law enforcement,” and that they could therefore qualify for a particular FOIA exemption.
But no, Brett Kavanaugh hasn’t endorsed or vouched for the accuracy of polygraph examinations, and neither has the D.C. Circuit. Neither have the federal and state courts generally: They’re not admissible evidence in court to prove the truth of the person being examined, because they don’t meet the threshold standards for reliability of evidence.
Attempts to mislead people to the contrary are mistaken, perhaps pernicious, and surely motivated by partisanship rather than a desire to inform.
And of course, Kavanaugh wasn’t writing in 2016 about Ford’s two-question polygraph test, which, as I noted above, doesn’t even conform to such standards as this highly dubious “science” claims to require.
Note for future reference: When an anti-Kavenaugh commenter here leaves a quote without a link, that should trigger your BS sensor.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 5:58 pmCrime think is not permitted:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/10/shut-down-the-sun.php?utm_campaign=Roost&utm_source=Roost&utm_medium=push
Narciso (e03e6b) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:24 pmQ! @ 10/2/2018 @ 5:27 pm, I never said that polygraphs can’t serve law enforcement functions. They can sweat someone into confessing if thee suspect believes the polygraph works. “Dude, the machine says you’re lying. If there’s something you need to tell me tell me now, or else I can’t help you later.”
The fact is there is zero evidence that the psychophysiological responses the polygraph measures (heart rate, blood pressure, skin conductivity or sweat, and respiratory rate) indicates an individual is being “deceptive.” In some people it may, in other examinees the exact same results may not. And polygraph examiners can manipulate the results. In the late nineties FBI candidates failed the pre-employment screening polygraph at about twenty percent. Post 9/11 the failure rate shot up to fifty percent. The FBI simply decided that that with the flood of applicants they could be more selective so they told their examiners to adjust their scoring methods to screen out more people. What had been a non-deceptive answer on the first of September had become a deceptive answer by the first of November 2001. This goes on all the time. There are only a few professions were employers are allowed to use polygraphs for pre-employment screening. The examiners are paid to find liars and they know it. They’ll find enough liars to keep their jobs, guaranteed. The scoring is entirely subjective.
Going back to police polygraph examiners, if they’re convinced a suspect is guilty that conviction will be reinforced if by their methods the polygraph shows deception. On the other hand, if you don’t show deception, that will change their minds, right? Wrong. You’re still guilty you’re just a guilty man who knows how to beat the machine. That’s how much faith they have in the polygraph; not even they believe the results.
And while the polygraph may serve a limited police function it is a waste of time as a national security measure. Narciso mentioned Aldrich Ames. He had zero counterpolygraph training. He was a turncoat who started spying for the Soviets in 1985. A year later he was told he was scheduled to take a polygraph. He had already done a huge amount of damage, fingering and disappearing a large number of American human intelligence assets in Eastern Europe. He went to see his KGB handler in an absolute panic. His handler told him, “Just relax.” He did and he passed just fine. Five years later he passed a second one. He was never caught because of the polygraph but because he eventually collected four and a half million dollars from the Soviets and he couldn’t resist living like a rock star. Other CIA personnel noticed.
You’ll never catch a real spy with a polygraph. They are trained in counterpolygraph techniques and our examiners can’t detect them despite what they say. One, a Cuban intelligence officer named Nicolas Sirgardo somehow was provided with sufficient cover to join the CIA in the mid sixties and he spied for Cuba before ten years before returning to Havana. The only reason is that he retired and wrote publicly about being a Cuban spy inside the CIA. He didn’t think much of the polygraph, considering it only a tool to degrade and humiliate employees. The CIA liked then and apparently still likes what we called the “lifestyle” polygraph exam with goes into the most intimate details of the examinees life. He passed three polygraph tests during his ten years.
Retired CIA agent Robert Ames, no relation to Aldrich, observed that real Cuban double agents never get caught by the polygraph, and that resulted in the loss of more than one of his colleagues. Neither do the double agents from other hostile powers.
The only advantage the polygraph has over palm reading is that almost everybody knows palm reading is garbage. But for some reason all the evidence that has piled up over the years in the form of spies consistently beating the polygraph for some reason the general public and the press continue to trust it. They think it has some basis in “science.” So do senior intelligence and national security officials who definitely should know better but I don’t need to wonder about the reason. It’s because it’s cheaper than actual personnel security and counterintelligence.
A CIA officer of my acquaintance put it this way. When it comes to HUMINT and security we’re like a bunch of eighth graders in a town full of PhD.s.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:05 pmI meant to say that generally we don’t know the identities of successful double agents because by definition they maintained their cover. We know who Sirgardo was because he didn’t try to maintain his cover upon retiring.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:12 pmThanks Steve, I believe it was Florentine acqoitia who revealed the company’s entire network in cuba was doubled, one eonders,of one fellow who was flagged manucher,ghorbanifar
Narciso (e03e6b) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:14 pmAfter reading Kavanaugh’s 1983 letter (NYT article here), my big takeaways are a wave of nostalgia (I graduated high school in 1979, and it was all the more special after the Sonics won the NBA championship) and a "job well done" for organizing a week at a beach condo with seven other friends. I had some hard-drinking and some hard-smoking friends in high school and I look on those times with fondness (except for the puking and a few other bad decisions), but it was about hanging out with the guys and trying to figure out how to relate with the opposite sex.
Paul Montagu (0e687b) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:33 pmThink back on comments from some earlier this year that centered on political parties not mattering, all politicians are the same, virtually no difference in them, etc,.
Now back to the here and now… do any of you feel that’s the case? Or do you realize what’s at stake? Think long and hard about this… consider voting for your state, county, city’s candidates, warts and all. There is something fundamentally American that we are on the cusp of losing, and once gone, we may not be able to get it back.
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:51 pm87. Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:51 pm
That was not me, that is I don’t think all politicians are the same. I always want the parties not to be too strong. I think that’s bad. There’s too much central control, especially with the Democrats. Our camopaign finance system contributes to that very much.
Now let me say: If one party is hopelessly partisoan, it will tend to make the other party partisan as well – and maybe had better, at least with regard to Party A.
With regard to Donald Trump: He is truly really still an apprentice at lying. There are some otehr issues, though. I mostly vote in such away so as to create a political opening.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 10/5/2018 @ 12:57 pmsome notes on Kavanaugh’s 1983 letter:
1) He shows competence. Maybe too much.
2) Cash because the alternative was checks, not credit cards.
3) They seem to be interested in girls. For what, is unclear.
“any girls we can beg to stay there are welcomes with open… (elipses in original)
“this week has big potential (interpret as wish) ”
4) He signs off using FFFFF.
That would fit with the idea it was an abbreviation. It could have been both an abbreviation and someone used it.
Kavanaugh had said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript
That’s been explained an an abbreviaton.
Brett Kavanaugh calls himself Bart, so that was his nickname. Mark Judge;s reference to “Bart” in the yearbook then clearly is to Brett Kavanaugh.
He does not tell the neighbors to go 30 miles away – he says the others shoudl Clearly not meaning it seriously.
.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 10/5/2018 @ 1:16 pm