Hmmmmmm: Dr. Blasey Ford Edition
This letter does not put Our Heroine Dr. Ford in a very good light. If you believe this ex-boyfriend, she coached a friend about polygraphs (despite denying at the hearing having ever so advised anyone), flew with no problem and never expressed a fear of tight spaces or few exits, having lived in a small apartment with one door (despite how she couldn’t fly to D.C. because of PTSD and despite her testimony about how she hates having just one exit in a residence), and she charged a bunch of stuff on a card he had taken her off of, and initially lied about it.
BREAKING: Fox’s @johnrobertsFox obtains letter from Ford ex-boyfriend alleging: dated for 6 yrs, never told of sex assault, Ford coached friend on taking polygraph, flew frequently w/o expressing any fear of flying/tight spaces/limited exits. Doesn’t want to b/c “involved”. pic.twitter.com/jVeW0qaJD0
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) October 3, 2018
Well, he’s an ex. Still:
Hmm.
Meanwhile, this letter from Chuck Grassley to her lawyers suggests that they are hiding her therapists’ notes, audio or video of her polygraph, and the entirety of her electronic communications with reporters:
Interesting letter from Chuck Grassley to Dr. Ford's lawyers—especially the highlighted part. I wonder what that's about. pic.twitter.com/0mfiZmJQD3
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) October 3, 2018
Hmmmm.
[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]
So if this is true, she either lied under oath or has memory problems. (I don’t think its unreasonable to think one wouldn’t forget coaching someone on how to take a polygraph, and this happened between 1992 and 1998 when the author was dating Dr Ford.)
Either the lying or the memory problems would raise questions about the allegation.
Mike P. (dddb3b) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:19 pmPatterico, do you have a preliminary impression regarding whether this is sufficiently material to support a false statement or perjury charge? Or is this impeachment on a collateral topic that eventually trails off into the irrelevant?
My hunch: The polygraph stuff is strong, maybe enough to begin looking into further details about it. The airplane stuff is pretty meh (since that was an obvious exaggeration being pimped by her handlers). The doorway/remodeling is collateral, IMHO, a rabbit trail that would be pursued only by the obsessive.
That she never mentioned Kavanaugh or the assault to her exclusive romantic partner of six years is consistent with what she’s said — she says she first mentioned an assault, in general terms and without details or names, to her now-husband in 2002 shortly before their marriage, IIRC. But it’s another one of those “hmmmm” data points, and certainly not one that helps her overall credibility.
If I”m her lawyer — her lawyer, with her individual best interests at heart, and not the destruction of Brett Kavanaugh at all costs — I’m re-thinking that whole offer to cooperate with the FBI right now. I’m thinking it’s time to become very fond of the Fifth Amendment.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:23 pmDelay, delay, delay.
That seems to be the play. The one and only play.
Patricia (3363ec) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:23 pmAaaand I’m in moderation again, with no idea why.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:24 pmBan commenters, not words.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:25 pmI approved you. We’ve been happyfeeting up the filter but it’s gotten a little too aggressive and I have removed some of the words as I see them nuking your comments. Your two recent long comments would now get through. I hesitate to identify the words because I don’t want happyfeet to know what has been again whitelisted.
Patterico (115b1f) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:29 pmCreepy poem lawyer
Narciso (e03e6b) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:31 pmIt’s hard to imagine law enforcement going after her absent a true smoking gun. The screaming that would ensue is not anything law enforcement would welcome. That should not be part of the equation but it probably would be. Absent that issue…meh. I’d still be unimpressed. It generally takes clear cases to charge such crimes.
Patterico (115b1f) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:32 pmFour corner offense can only be beat with a quick and powerful defense.
mg (9e54f8) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:34 pm“The screaming that would ensue is not anything law enforcement would welcome.”
Yep, one of the things the crazies depend on.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:38 pmWhere in that polygraph test are the “control questions”?
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:39 pmI am loving the delicious irony of Kavanaugh’s representation at first putting out the word that she would meet with the FBI under certain conditions, not unlike their approach with Grassley.
Now, they are screaming like stuck pigs that the FBI simply MUST interview her. Of supreme interest…the Leftist jackals are not barking and howling about this seeming hole in the post-hearing background check.
Ed from SFV (6d42fa) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:41 pmBeldar beat me to it. Yes, she should now think twice about “her” request to be interviewed by the FBI in the new investigation, because for sure they will ask her about this letter from the boyfriend.
As for her fibs about the polygraph, the door, claustrophobia, and fear of flying, even if they do rise to the level of punishable false statements to the Judiciary Committee or perjury, they do call into question her overall credibility.
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:41 pmUGGGHHHH – Ford’s representation – NOT Kavanaugh’s.
Ed from SFV (6d42fa) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:42 pmSorry, omitted the link about the polygraph test results. To pierce the jargon attempting to justify asking only two questions, I’d need assistance from a “real” (cough) polygraph examiner, but there’s no way on earth that two questions — “Is any part of your [written-with-your-lawyer] statement false?” and “Did you make up any part of your statement?” — is passes anyone’s smell test. I was born at night, but not last night.
If I couldn’t tear that polygraph examiner at least one new orifice on cross (damn, did I just teach hatefulfeet something else that might pass the filter?), I’d eat my Boy Scout cap.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:44 pmBesides being an alibi witness for #metoo defendants going back 20 years what exactly commended Katz firm
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/10/01/he-has-no-knowledge-of-the-gathering-new-statements-in-support-of-brett-kavenaugh-released/
Narciso (e03e6b) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:45 pmTwo thoughts come to mind…
1) “that beeeyitch set me up” .. Marion Barry.
2) no PhD speaks the way she did. They’d never give her the degree.
Balsey Liar is who she is.
And yes, she should be investigated and prosecuted (unless you want this happening again and again)
Bob the Builder (564d53) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:46 pmSo three
Bob the Builder (564d53) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:47 pmThe weed of crime bears bitter fruit.
But Flake might just go ahead and vote against Kavanaugh anyway despite all the new evidence that he was suckered.
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:55 pmIf she were not the proponent of the polygraph exam — and if she were not using it as a central pillar of her attempt to establish the credibility of her testimony — it would be easy to conclude that it’s not sufficiently material to the Senate’s overall inquiry (which is supposed to be about Kavanaugh’s current fitness for the SCOTUS). If she’d flunked the test and the GOP tried to introduce evidence of that, I’d readily agree it ought to be excluded.
(Although that whole “without objection, every document the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii just mentioned, whatever it is that they say, will be admitted into the record” routine in the Senate has turned into a genuine threat to truth-gathering. Some things ought to be objected to, and ought not be part of the record!)
Little-known fact: Most criminal defense lawyers, in most states, are practically immune from malpractice claims. In Texas, for example, under Peeler v. Hughes & Luce, 909 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. 1995), a convicted defendant may not sue her attorney for malpractice “without first establishing that she has been exonerated by direct appeal, post-conviction relief, or otherwise.”
So say you’re a hot-shot Dem-connected lawyer. The angel on one shoulder is telling you, “I probably ought to warn her that she’s materially increasing her potential jeopardy now by talking at all to anyone from the FBI, and advise her to refuse all interviews and, if subpoenaed, to plead the Fifth.”
But the devil on your other shoulder is saying, “Eeeeeeh, a perjury or false statement investigation would be unpopular, it’s probably a small risk, and the risk of a conviction is even lower — and what’s she going to do if I’m wrong, sue me?” And the devil laughs, and we all know what that does to your hippocampus.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:56 pmBob, I’ve met Ph.D.’s who couldn’t figure out how to pour pee out of a boot with instructions printed on the heel. Ditto MDs, CPAs, engineers, and more lawyers than Carter has little liver pills.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:57 pmMust be very bad news for the Dems… https://twitter.com/ElizLanders/status/1047171789787467776
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:58 pmshe lied about everything and I bet she’s inspired lots of other women in america to lie about rape too
i mean check out that gofundme money and the fawning press her rape hoax has received
this is no good
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:01 pmWasnt there another document recently they werent going to release, oh yes the unredacted fisa records.
narciso (d1f714) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:02 pmBeldar,
Saying the way she spoke that day.
They’d never let her in the Club.
Her brains, eh, she is a Psychologist.
They are all crazy.
Bob the Builder (564d53) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:02 pmIt’s Tuesday still in Houston, but the lawyers for Ford et al. are already laying their groundwork to refuse to what they’ll characterize tomorrow as a “last-minute and therefore impossible request” for an interview on Thursday morning.
“This is an obvious attempt to intimidate Dr. Ford by a bunch of bullying white men on the Senate Judiciary Committee by seeking to question Dr. Ford on a Thursday, which would be disrespectful to Thor, the Norse God of surf-chasers.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:03 pmYou lied to us, the first time, there Isnt revise and extend remarks.
narciso (d1f714) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:07 pmIt’s not like it was hard to find out that two doors is really one door and a door for a sublet space, the date problem with the door and the therapy sessions, or the flying thing. A lie at this level really should hang together better.
frosty48 (6226c1) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:11 pmShamelessly off-topic — as shameless and magnificent as 28 trombonists collaborating on an instrumental cover of Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody,” which I recommend watching on a big flatscreen with the sound turned way up.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:14 pmCorrect link to Beldar’s 28 trombonists.
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:27 pmOh! Mea culpa, and thank you nk!
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:30 pmIt’s a true friend who finds the link you meant to post but messed up.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:32 pmThank you, Beldar! That joke “Not everybody can be first violin, someone has to push wind through the trombone” will never be the same again for me.
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:33 pmThe fellow Holton arms grad’84 she helped Monica McLean who was in that open letter,
Narciso (e03e6b) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:40 pmServed 24 years,with the justice department, seems to match boyfriends claim almost perfectly.
Is this why Jeff Flake started moving the goalposts like the Democrats did and focus on drinking and temperament instead of these accusations as reasons for disqualifying Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court?
NJRob (1d7532) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:45 pmFurther on the subject of her medical records, Prof. David Bernstein’s take over at the Volokh Conspiracy generally parallels what I (and I think others) have said in comments on this blog within the last couple of days: Is Ford’s Credibility Undermined by Her Refusal to Produce Her Therapy Records? But he really doesn’t address the waiver problem (which turns on whether she can use her selective, cherry-picked semi-disclosures, to the Committee and to the press, simultaneously as a sword to smite Kavanaugh, while hiding the rest of the records behind the shield of the privilege).
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:46 pm“CONGRATULATE ME! I was finally blocked by a privileged old white male Ivy League lawyer whose firm smeared Monica Lewinsky and Kathleen Willey beyond the scope of decency, are big DNC donors, and of course pump out shit-tons of anti-Kavanaugh posts, but more than happy to take $6.75 million defending sex traffickers of underaged women!
You gotta love the law racket!!
#MeTooUntilItAffectsMyIncome”
Charles Glasser
harkin (a4b010) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:47 pmBeldar, nk, DRJ… I look at this mess and I think, how on Earth could this take place? It’s so unutterably stupid…and even if Team D wins, it hurts everything in Washington.
I think that it might be older than this, but I am reminded of Harry Reid accusing Mitt Romney of not paying his taxes, thereby cementing the “rich guy” schema that needed to be in the heads of voters. If I recall correctly, he did this on the floor of the Senate.
There was no evidence. Just Reid flapping his gums, lying to gain political advantage.
Then, when asked about it later, he actually said “It worked, didn’t it?”
I so want to believe that Reid had his “accident” in the following way afterward, with Romney playing the Travolta role.
https://youtu.be/7uRTJ1uNma0
But I think that, like the frog in the hot water, people become more accustomed to lying for political advantage, in a more and more baldfaced fashion.
And nothing happens to the liars.
Until there is some kind of consequence for this kind of thing, it will continue, and intensify.
Now we have morons trying to send ricin through the mail. Why? Don’t people hear constantly how DANGEROUS Trump is? How DANGEROUS Kavanaugh is? And it’s all weirdo narcissism; these folks think that they are wise and well informed…so people who oppose them must be stupid and ignorant.
And increasingly, evil.
Thus, the “Two Minute Hates” we have throughout each day.
I wish that folks who lie about others in this kind of situation were held responsible. But I bet they get book deals, instead.
Ugh.
Simon Jester (93ec11) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:49 pmCould keep her off the tennis court. Tick-tock, tick-tock, what’s with this faulty nose gear light… and Eastern Flight 401 continues to descend…
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:53 pmIf she’s lying, she fooled ol’ Stumpy:
Tillman (61f3c8) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:56 pmWho said that Trump said that?
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:58 pmPolitico says that, nk.
Tillman (61f3c8) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:00 pmhttps://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/28/trump-kavanaugh-senate-republicans-852139
Okay.
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:04 pmBoy she sure did, Tillman. So you’ll always have that.
OT… this “Condor” series is damn good!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:11 pm[whoops – forgot to pepper up a bad word, trying again]
“CONGRATULATE ME! I was finally blocked by a privileged old white male Ivy League lawyer whose firm smeared Monica Lewinsky and Kathleen Willey beyond the scope of decency, are big DNC donors, and of course pump out sh**-tons of anti-Kavanaugh posts, but more than happy to take $6.75 million defending sex traffickers of underaged women!
You gotta love the law racket!!
#MeTooUntilItAffectsMyIncome”
Charles Glasser
harkin (a4b010) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:22 pmPresident Donald Trump on Friday said he found the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford a day earlier “very credible”…
You know, our first President was a really huge fan of the theater too.
Oh God, I just compared Donald Trump and the Father of Our Country. Forgive me, General! I know not what I have done.
JVW (23cbc2) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:26 pmDid you miss the story about the “second front door” in her house actually being a remodel done 4 years before her therapy sessions? The point of remodel and door was to create a 1 bedroom space to be rented out to college students or tech industry interns.
Real Clear Investigations story
Xmas (e63a38) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:26 pmMeh. Interesting there’s no ‘header’ on the letter as pictured noting who it was originally addressed to yet the last line, just above the 10/2/2018 8:01 PM PDT time stamp, next to the redacted author’s name, reads, “I do not want to become involved in this process or current investigation but wanted to be truthful.” Yet somehow the letter does get involved– in little more than an hour assuming Bream’s tweet time stamp is PDT… via Fox. Hmmmm.
The ‘FFFFF, Bart’ letter published in the NYT is a lot cooler to read, kids.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:37 pmMy two cents. As long as hf is derogating public figures and not commenters on this thread, he’s staying within the rules. It’s his credibility if he wants to smear, without basis, one public figure over another. Personally, my eyes glaze over when I see a comment with his name attached to it. I’d rather see enforcement when a person attacks a commenter personally instead of criticizing what the commenter says, i.e., attack the comment, not the commenter.
Paul Montagu (0e687b) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:46 pmKavanaugh’s 1983 Letter Offers Inside Look at High School Clique
The letter is signed ‘FFFFF, Bart.’ The article concludes with: ‘Through his lawyers, Judge Kavanaugh declined to comment for this article, other than to say of his letter: “This is a note I wrote to organize ‘Beach Week’ in the summer of 1983.”’
Hold the ketchup; the Bart from back then could be upsetting Brett’s stomach now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/brett-kavanaugh-georgetown-prep.html
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:51 pmFWIW, and not meant to violate the commenting parameters, but sorta wish hf would let McCain rest in peace– for a few months anyway.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:55 pmHeh! I was telling my daughter the other day how Clark Gable’s last word to Vivian Leigh in Gone With The Wind shocked the movie-going public — it was the first time it had been said in a mainstream American movie.
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:56 pm@45. Oh God, I just compared Donald Trump and the Father of Our Country. Forgive me, General! I know not what I have done.
ROFLMAO – literally. Best laugh in days, JVW. Thanks.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/2/2018 @ 11:03 pmI’d like to think that Reid got his after he slimed Romney and after went with his stupid, short-sighted nuclear option. He lost his Majority Leader job in January 2015, and the writing was on the wall about his future prospects, so he retired. And now, every judicial appointment Trump makes, we can thank Douchebag Reid for paving the way. I call that justice. I wished it’d had happened quicker, but it’s still justice.
Paul Montagu (0e687b) — 10/2/2018 @ 11:14 pmDo I hear this correctly, that Politico is taking a Trump statement and using it in the debate? It seems … selective.
Kevin M (d6cbf1) — 10/2/2018 @ 11:25 pmDr. Christine Blah Blah Fraud.
A good man, a truly good man has had his life forever altered by those who believe killing unborn babies is an inalienable right.
This is how babykillers roll.
Matador (39e0cd) — 10/2/2018 @ 11:41 pmWhat I’d rather have seen was a full-throated refutation of his smears but, regrettably, not many showed up and actually did so.
Paul Montagu (0e687b) — 10/2/2018 @ 11:45 pmThe commenting police put a smile on my face.
mg (9e54f8) — 10/2/2018 @ 11:51 pmIt doesn’t matter what you think it only matters what flake collins and murkowski think.
lany (3dd01a) — 10/3/2018 @ 12:41 am@45: not so far-fetched, and keep in mind the strong likelihood that Washington and especially Lincoln would have been YUGE Wrestlemania fans(the theater was always a trap, as Lincoln and Pence found out.)
Pencil-Necked Pundit (cd73ff) — 10/3/2018 @ 12:56 amI’m seeing multiple reports that the FBI isn’t going to interview Ford or reinterview Kavanaugh.
That is going to be hard for the Bureau to explain. I’m not sure of the basis for such a decision, or who it would please. I think it will secretly please the Dems in the Senate, both because it will prevent the absolute beyond-all-doubt collapse of Ford’s badly strained credibility and it will give them a great talking point in which Trump and Grassley will be blamed, which the FBI may refute only weakly or not at all.
Maybe Murk and Flake and Collins have all given Mitch the private thumbs-up already, he’s got his votes, and they’re ready to ignore the screams and shut this farce down with a vote. The screams will be there regardless, and would be even if they let this run for another three weeks.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 1:21 amIt’s not like it was hard to find out that two doors is really one door and a door for a sublet space, the date problem with the door and the therapy sessions, or the flying thing. A lie at this level really should hang together better.
frosty48 (6226c1) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:11 pm
Do you know the difference between doors and lying psychologists?
They hang doors.
Pinandpuller (ebc59f) — 10/3/2018 @ 1:22 amit was the first time it had been said in a mainstream American movie.
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:56 pm
My mom didn’t know I cussed until my truck failed to start one morning and she read my lips from her kitchen window.
Pinandpuller (ebc59f) — 10/3/2018 @ 1:30 amRubio and Cruz should make Feinstein pledge to accept the results of the FBI investigation.
Pinandpuller (ebc59f) — 10/3/2018 @ 1:32 amThe commenting police put a smile on my face.
mg (9e54f8) — 10/2/2018 @ 11:51 pm
I better not see you commenting around here after midnight PST.
Pinandpuller (ebc59f) — 10/3/2018 @ 1:35 amI disagree with you about the fear-of-flying flying business. Someone made false material statements to the Senate committee in order to interfere with official business. To monkey with the schedule of the hearings. I see that as at least as serious a crime as Ford lying about her polygraph knowledge. Maybe I’m obsessive, but I’d also go into the two front doors business as well. That goes to whether or not Brett Kavanaugh so traumatized her that she has claustrophobia and is afraid of being in a confined space with him, and needs two exits so she can escape Brett Kavanaugh. That is as Inderstand why she’s supposedly afraid to fly; she may board a flight and it’s full of Brett Kavanaugh clones and she needs at least two doors to choose from to escape the Brett Kavanaugh clone army. Or at least that is along the lines of what one of her friends told the press.
Primarily I’m thinking of making a case against her two sleazebag lawyers. Blasey-Ford says she turned over therapist’s notes to her attorneys. If she did, and if for some bizarre reason she brought up the second front door I’d drop it. But if she didn’t and it was a story they cooked up together then I’d charge the attorneys Katz, Bromwich, and Ford herself with suborning perjury and perjury, respectively. The attorneys would have known from the notes that Ford did not mention the need for a second door as a result of her Trauma at the hands of Kavaugh during couples therapy but they allowed (encouraged) her lie to the committee anyway.
In another comment you mentioned you’d need a truly professional polygraph examiner to take the Katz law firm’s pet polygrapher apart. If you were a DoJ attorney you’d be in good shape. The FBI Polygraph Unit routinely assists US attorneys with these matters.
Speaking of which, if you can read the former boyfriend’s letter she was assisting a friend named Monical McClean to prepare for a polygraph in the course of applying to become an FBI agent or US attorney. Since no one has enough information to accuse either woman of intending to beat the test, which under federal law is obstruction, Ms. McClean is in the clear. But imagine how powerful a corroborating witness she’d be for the prosecution if it turns out she succeeded in getting hired in either position.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/3/2018 @ 1:38 amSteve57
How does she use an airplane bathroom? It’s like Thunderdome!
Pinandpuller (ebc59f) — 10/3/2018 @ 1:41 amIt’s not a matter of pleasing anybody. The committed already has hours of testimony from Ford and Kavanaugh. There is no more information the FBI could provide no matter how many times they go over plowed ground. It’s not hard to explain at all.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/3/2018 @ 1:46 amPindandpuller, I’d rather not think about it. I believe it involves ritual human sacrifice.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/3/2018 @ 1:49 amHey Steve, you gonna do any deer hunting this year? I’m hoping to take something with a bow. If not we bought a quarter of a grass fed steer so we should be fine.
Pinandpuller (ebc59f) — 10/3/2018 @ 2:44 am@60 Beldar .. I’m seeing multiple reports that the FBI isn’t going to interview Ford or reinterview Kavanaugh.[¶] That is going to be hard for the Bureau to explain. I’m not sure of the basis for such a decision [Emph. added]
“Hard [] to explain”, for sure. As I said (at least once) in one of these threads several days ago, it looked like “someone” was arranging things so that the investigation not be minimally professional, competent, man-powered, thorough (when it easily could have been, even in the somewhat arbitrary time-limited-frame imposed).
Time will tell, I suppose. Or not. Transparency on this issue has been rather “lacking”, to say the least. All of which raises the question of cui bono – and it’s not the essentially powerless Dems who seem to be the obvious agents. Quaere – If the Dems get some subpoena power via the mid-terms, will more answers/transparency be sought? You know, after Dame Graham’s (perhaps (?)) been appointed Attorney General, and all? Now, there’d be a fine how-d-ya-doo! Recusal-wise and otherwise.
Q! (86710c) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:44 amSo, there is an interesting connection to fords friend she was bhaaras spokespersin
https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1047307113389678593
narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:29 amnobody puts any stock in what the dirty corrupt fbi says unless it’s useful to their agenda anway
everyone knows the slimy Chris Wray fbi’s a joke
lol look at how those feeble fbi clowns floundered in Vegas when they had a *real* crime to investigate
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:34 amSo it was bhaaras. former spokesperson who arranged the Katz hire and the subsequent strategery
narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:48 amrapes don’t just hoax themselves Mr. narciso
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:59 amYes the folks who put d’souza in his place,
narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 6:13 amThis was the story you had to pick up with the long stick:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/10/dear-sen-coons-youve-got-to-be-kidding.php?utm_campaign=Roost&utm_source=Roost&utm_medium=push
Narciso (8e08fa) — 10/3/2018 @ 6:24 amikes i think the long stick got left behind in Georgia when Mitt Romney et al did the Roy Moore rape hoax
we can maybe find one on amazon though
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:02 amOP (Patterico) .. Interesting developments. Surely they should be followed up on, including by FBI in its investigation.
Q! (86710c) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:02 amoopers i mean Alabama this is like the six time i done that
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:02 amThe FBI has five years (that’s the statute of limitations) within which to investigate federal felonies, such as lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee, extortion, bribery, conspiracy to intimidate federal officials, terrorism, ….
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:17 amNo, because I read Dana’s post about it. Did you miss that?
Patterico (115b1f) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:45 amMcCain was willing to screw over Americans with Obamacare so he could poke Trump in the eye.
Flake now is showing himself to be intellectually disabled and willing to screw Kavanaugh and the country over because Flake doesn’t like what Trump is saying.
Only a horrible person would facilitate the crucifixion an innocent man due to an intense dislike of the President. Flake is showing himself to be of the same fake ilk as the overly sanctimonious Comey.
steveg (a9dcab) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:00 amPrincipled my ass
jeff flake like john mccain is a deeply amoral and unprincipled person Mr. g
but their cheerleaders are too, and sleazy jeff flake’s amoral hijinks have beguiled a lot of them into self-identifying
this is kind of a useful service really, especially as it becomes clear that flake pissed away his last shred of honor in service to a dirty rape hoax
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:05 amR.I.P. Geoff Emerick, recording engineer — most famously on Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
Icy (f8596a) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:07 amLegal Insurrection
@LegInsurrection
“in each circumstance Ford altered her story only after Kavanaugh and Senate investigators had obtained evidence to disprove her original tale”
__ _
Jim Treacher
harkin (7f4688) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:08 am@jtLOL
This is why they wanted him to testify first.
__
So, the NYT might need some new editors to be sure their stories are accurate. But at least they also do good work such as exposing Trump for the fraud he is. Why are we keeping this corrupt clown in office?
Tillman (61f3c8) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:08 amhttps://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/politics/donald-trump-taxes-fred-trump/index.html
A splendid time is guaranteed for all!
harkin (7f4688) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:10 amPerhaps Blasé Ford meant fear of flying in teh Erica Jong sense…
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:12 amhrm a young jewish guy was shot in the head for absolutely no reason this week by a masked person who just walked up and killed him
even in Rahm’s hyper-violent Chicago this seems like news
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:12 amFake News CNN!
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:12 amSpanky: Born with a silver foot in his mouth.
Tillman (61f3c8) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:18 amThe New York Times can always be counted on to provide a squirrel when the Democrat Smear Machine’s fraudulent smears and perjury are exposed.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:28 amDo Like Boobs A Lot? Do You Like To Boof A Lot???do you like to boof a lot?
(yes, i like to boof a lot.)
boof a lot, boof a lot.
(you gotta like to boof a lot.)
really like to boof a lot.
(you gotta like to boof a lot.)
boof a lot, boof a lot.
(you gotta like to boof a lot.)
down in the locker room,
just we boys,
beatin’ down the locker room
with all that noise,
singin’ do you like to boof a lot?
(you gotta like to boof a lot.)
boof a lot, boof a lot.
(you gotta like to boof a lot.)
do you like beer a lot?
(yes, I like teh beer a lot.)
got to like beer a lot.
(got to like teh beer a lot.)
Beer a lot, beer a lot.
(you gotta like teh beer a lot.)
got to like beer a lot.
(you gotta like teh beer a lot.)
’cause, down at teh parties,
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:34 amTeen parties
Teh boys will have teh girls
On their knees
Singin’ Do you like to boof a lot
“Why are we keeping this corrupt clown in office?”
Because he beat the other corrupt clown.
harkin (7f4688) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:49 amNext…
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:51 amOMG, Hillary had a private email server! How dare her. That’s all you got really.
Tillman (61f3c8) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:56 am@patterico
I did miss that. Sorry.
Xmas (e63a38) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:56 am97… L.O.L.
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:18 amHillarys got some weed and a bottle of booze and all she can do is smoke, drink and pass out.
mg (9e54f8) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:27 amMore from the tolerant Left:
“A large group of students became enraged Tuesday afternoon by a pro-Brett Kavanaugh tabling effort at the University of Texas at Austin put together by its Young Conservatives of Texas chapter. A crowd of furious students encircled the group and yelled at its members while chanting obscenities and destroying their signs.“
I guess that’s all they got.
harkin (7f4688) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:29 amI guess that’s all they got.
All? Seems like enough. They made the Young Conservatives of Texas (Texas no less!) quit.
So who won? Who got shut down and who got their ya-ya’s out?
Skorcher (5b282a) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:36 am“So who won?”
The anti-1st Amendment group.
“Who got shut down”
The pro-1st Amendment group.
harkin (7f4688) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:42 amMore from the intolerant Left:
John Salisbury
@5Strat
Well the Democrat Socialists have done it. Kavanaugh & his family are in hiding, their kids have been pulled out of school and about 50,000$ of damage has been done to their Georgetown residence & the Police refuse to protect the property. This is America 2018
__ _
https://mobile.twitter.com/frojas2303/status/1047098804166643714/photo/1
harkin (7f4688) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:45 amMr. harkin this is the kind of violence Susan Collins has been encouraging by her enthusiastic support of this sick rape hoax
it needs to stop Susan
you need to find some small inner core of decency before you get people hurt
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:50 amHarkin, that story may be fake news…though factcheck and other similar ones are themselves suspect.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/10/false-tale-of-vandalism-at-kavanaugh-home/
Skorcher (5b282a) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:51 amThat would qualify as domestic terrorism, as defined by the Patriot Act. A President who had not lost his moral authority by sticking a Manafort in his campaign and his “smaller than average” wee-wee in a erohw, would be able to certify them for detention, enhanced interrogation and trial by military tribunal.
The people who trashed the Kavanaugh home, I mean.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:53 amAloha Pindandpuller
mg (9e54f8) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:56 amthis long drawn-out rape hoax Jeff Flake is doing on Brett Kavanaugh
oh how i weary of it
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:09 amHarkin, that story may be fake news…though factcheck and other similar ones are themselves suspect.
Thanks for the heads up, I should have checked further.
Definitely don’t want to pull a Dan Rather.
harkin (7f4688) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:13 amYou don’t think that these past four days helped Kavanaugh and hurt the Smear Machine?
Even Trump flipped from “very credible” to specifically pointing out the holes in Tweety’s testimony at a rally.
Which the media have labeled as mocking her but in fact is what any lawyer would do in closing argument to a jury.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:30 amRocket surgery being practiced here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/AlyaaGad/status/1047491151924740096
narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:38 am106… note what factcheck deems a priority. The specious allegations, lies gone viral, etc., not so much…
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:42 amMonica McLean, an ex-FBI SSA claimed not to have been coached by Dr Ford
Neo (d1c681) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:43 amnote what factcheck deems a priority. The specious allegations, lies gone viral, etc., not so much
Well, exactly.
Skorcher (5b282a) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:49 amThey never did get to the bottom of who burned down the huntresses church in Christmas of 2008, because she spoke out against gay marriage.
narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:53 amThe committee already has her testimony…
Wouldn’t it be malpractice by her attorneys to have her testify again to the FBI, under the penalty of felony?? Seems that would open her up to even more inconsistencies to her statements…
whembly (b9d411) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:58 amOK, happyfeet/nk – if you could confirm Kavanaugh or acquit Jason Van Dyke, but not do both, which one would you choose?
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:10 amOne caveat here. I think it was her lawyers (or someone clse to her to a newspaper) who claimed she couldn’t fly to DC – it was an obvious lie.
I actually didn’t like it when racehl Mitchell stated that it wsas fear of flying – it was more like claustrophobia that was being stated. Apparently, the story was changed slightly (after it was pointed out that she didn’t avoid other enclosed spaces)
Here is the exchange:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript
[Christine Blasey att first ducks the question, then she says her fear of flying is only modest and maybe applies only when she flies east, not west, which Mitchell misses and chanegs to non-vacation but proves doesn’t apply either]
{Here, Mitchell swuing and missed. They had it wrong. She says, and might be abe to prove, she never went to Australia.]
Mitchell concedes some honesty to her, attributing the reluctance to go to Austraklia to the distance]
Ford brings up again the idea of flying west, rather than east, and also the vacation idea which Mitchell supplied.
At another point Xhristine Blasey Ford says:
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:19 amSorry, urbanleftbehind! I was just about to answer you when I got a text labeled Presidential Alert, so I think I better not.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:21 amWe *have* to confirm Mr. Kavanaugh or we validate Jeff Flake’s dirty rape hoax tactics Mr. urban.
We have to do this for the children.
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:25 amWell van dyke has to take one for the team, I think he I
narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:28 amWas still. Within his rights
Yes I knew that about the therapists noets, which are very sgnificant – super suignificant according to Senator Klobuchar, * but I didn’t quite understand about the polygraph – it seems like her attorneys provided the committee with the answers to on;y two questions – and she’s not saying what she told to reporters (which not only contradict her story but undermine the whole claim that her memory is clear and consistent and should be believed because it is clear and consistent
Except that it’s not.
Senator Klobuchar said “statements made to medical professionals are considered to be more reliable. There’s a federal rule of evidence about this.”
Well, she said, or her therapist wrote, that she was attacked by four boys, and that it was in her late teens.
There was a whole exchange about the botes. Blasey Ford couldn’t rmemeber exactly what she showed the reporter this year.
Later, in her next 5-minute increment:
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:38 amThe presidential alert was scheduled for 2:18 – I heard about this on the radio – it was a test of the emergency text messaging system.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:39 am120. They have to destroy the credibility of the claim or otherwise the slander will remain. It’s already cost Judge Kavanaugh his teaching gig at Harvard (a 3-week course on the Supreme Court)
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:41 amApparently, Justice Breyer was arrested for underage drink while at Stanford.
Neo (d1c681) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:45 amhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1994/06/26/judge-breyers-life-fashioned-like-his-courthouse/ed3cc454-180c-43fc-a4be-e16e166213a0/
I don’t expect much more talk about the drinking, lest we impeach Justice Breyer.
If Ms. Ford showed the WaPo the therapist’s notes, does that mean they are no longer privileged?
Appalled (96665e) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:53 amImmediately aftwr the exchange qith RM about who, if anyone, let the reporter see the therapists notes, which Christine Blasey Ford can’t remember, she gets questioned about PTSD, and the meaning of the word “contributed.”
She falls back on technical jargon, and on the idea there could be biological predispositions to it.
In so doing she actually answers another question of mine I would have liked her to be asked.
She says there was no other incident like it.
(Which means, could we establish that there was, it has to be that that she was talking about in 2012 and 2013 and the Brett Kavanaugh incident could not have happened.
But it’s more likely – I’d rate the probability as about 70% – that she made up the incident out of whole cloth. And if she didn’t, she could be intentionally incoporating elements of other things that happened to her into a false claim of an incident with BK & MJ,
She actually wanted to be asked that question and says so. “That’s a great question.”
One more thing. Rachel Mitxchell continues:
She’s flatly denying she could have confused two separate incidents.
She’s going all out on Brett Kavanaugh and trying to remove the defense of her being confused. She wants it so that to defend him you have to say she’s a liar.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:54 amNeo (d1c681) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:45 am
No, we’ll get it, especially since Judge Kavanaugh seems to have shaded the truth about the amount of his drinking.
The Leahy rule that being drunk means you sexually assaulted a woman is exclusively reserved for Brett Kavanaugh.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:57 amIt hurts that he’s not O’VanDyke, McVanDyke or VanDykeley, if one catches my drift.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/3/2018 @ 12:11 pmMy hunch was right it was Brian merrick, who was that letter,
Narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 12:16 pmReinterveiw of ford would be perjury trap.
lany (b1c6ec) — 10/3/2018 @ 1:21 pmAppalled asked (#126):
In connection with a judicial proceeding, in which one side would be seeking the notes and the other resisting their production, then probably the answer to your question would be yes.
But that would require a judge to hear evidence & arguments on whether the notes were originally privileged in the first place (they were); whether Kavanaugh has made them sufficiently relevant to justify their production (because they would either tend to confirm or deny his claim of recent fabrication by Ford), despite the initial privilege (I think he has); whether Ford has waived her objections to producing those notes by showing them to a third party like the WaPo reporter(s) (again, I think she clearly has); and whether that disclosure, along with her claim that she’d never discussed the assault with anyone before revealing it in general terms (without identifying her attacker) to her husband just before their marriage in 2002, amounts to a broad “subject matter” waiver that could put her entire mental health history in dispute (again, I think it has).
In the Senate Judiciary Committee, where there’s no presiding judge, only a Chair and Ranking Member, and where there’s been no subpoena served on Ford, there is almost never a searching, intelligent inquiry and discussion about privilege and waiver, nor any readily available means to promptly enforce compliance even if the Chair did make a “ruling” and the Committee subpoenaed Ford or her health care providers. Plus, if they did, since Congress must rely upon the DoJ to seek remedies in court for noncompliance with Congressional subpoenas, Ford would get a second bite at the apple, and the Chair’s ruling might not be considered binding upon the court.
TL/DR: Yes, she’s probably waived all privilege, but there’s no practical way to get or enforce a ruling on that issue or compel production of the notes.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 1:51 pmWhile we’re waiting to see if the FBI has indeed concluded its supplemental investigation and is about to put a bunch of raw Form 302s, or a summary thereof, into the hands of the Judiciary Committee, I’ve got a more general grievance to air.
I understand, and accept, and in a proper case would be prepared to argue forcefully in favor of, the proposition that victims (male or female) who delay reporting crimes (including but by no means limited to sexual assault) ought to be free to offer excuses for that delay, and that in some circumstances those excuses ought to be given great weight. But we’ve almost lost sight completely of the original underlying dynamic:
The law creates no such excuse. To the contrary, effective law enforcement, not just for that victim but for every other potential victim and ultimately the entire society, depends on witnesses with knowledge of crimes coming forward to reveal them on a timely basis.
I hate the modern trend of abolishing statutes of limitations for sex crimes. It’s a ridiculous assault on the civil liberties of everyone ever accused of such a crime. And there’s nothing unique to these crimes that justifies them getting extra-special rules relaxed in favor of the complaining witness in a way that demonstrably encourages untimely reporting. (This is similar to my comprehensive revulsion at the idea of special penalties for “hate crimes.”) Sexual assaults are just a species of assault.
When a witness delays reporting a crime, that should cast into doubt the witness’ motivations and credibility. How much depends on the circumstances.
Let’s compare the allegations against Harvey Weinstein and Brett Kavanaugh, particularly with respect to the relative validity of the excuse offered to justify the witnesses’ deliberate decision not to report the assaults. Weinstein, by every account, enforced his victims’ long-term silence through the vast power he personally wielded in the entertainment industry: When he said to a young actress, “You’ll never work in this town again if you don’t blow me,” that was a credible threat.
Where’s the comparable threat from Brett Kavanaugh, teenaged student at a Catholic boys school? What continuing power did he have over Ford — whether on the day after the alleged assault, or any day during the following thirty-six years? I see none. Indeed, if she’d come forward in a timely fashion, as was her civic duty and in her own practical interests if she wanted to assist in an investigation and possible prosecution to bring her alleged attacker to justice, on the day after the assault, then her alleged assaulter wouldn’t have been literally cloaked in the robes of a federal judge, with a multi-decade career of professional credibility established by conspicuous public service.
I’m very concerned that today’s victims are being led to believe that they’re excused — across the board and regardless of continuing threats from or vulnerability to retaliation from their attackers or others — from timely reporting.
That’s absolutely, positively contrary to the long-term interests of our society, most especially to the segments of society (like young, vulnerable, inexperienced, and often foolish teens and young adults) who are at risk of sexual assaults.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 2:05 pmnobody was all worried about timely reporting when it was Roy Moore getting rape hoaxed
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 2:08 pmI suspect, based on his recent interchange with our host on the topic of late-reporting victims, that my respected friend aphrael may have a contrary view, in whole or part, to the one I expressed in #133 above. I invite him or others to comment upon, and if you think appropriate, to challenge what I’ve asserted. I think this is a bigger problem that goes beyond the Kavanaugh nomination.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 2:11 pm@ BELDAR @ 132.
It was actually Christine Blasey Ford, or her lawyers, (She seems to have no memory or knowledge of who, if anybody, showed the Washington Post notes) who first brought up the therapists notes, and they are insisting upon them as proof, although in fact, from what we know of them, they do not support her testimony, especially when you claim that her memory is accurate because it is consistent.
A note from 2012 says four boys attacked her; she says the therapist got it wrong, and there were four boys in the house, not in the bedroom; and she also stated in her testimony before the Senate committee on Thursday that “therapists don’t typically write down content as much as they write down process. They usually are tracking your symptoms and not your story and the facts.”
And the second note, from 2013 says, according to the Washington Post, that the attack happened during her “late teens” which is not consistent with the summer of 1982 as she was 15 going on 16. Her birthday was that November.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html
In her testimony CBF said there was only one traymatic incident.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 10/3/2018 @ 2:12 pmActually, hatefulfeet, I was concerned about that, and I agreed with Moore’s defenders that, in general, their failure to come forward on a timely fashion did undercut their credibility.
I will note that he was the local prosecutor, in a position of power in his community comparable to Weinstein’s in his industry, and that his accusers have a vastly better justification for their fears about retaliation than Ford has.
But I was frankly never deeply interested in the allegations of sexual misconduct by Roy Moore. His absolute, unequivocal unfitness to be a public servant of any kind and at any level was twice demonstrated by his contemptuous disregard of the Rule of Law while on the Alabama Supreme Court. The needle on my “Roy Moore Fitness” gauge has been pegged at “UNFIT!!!” since current Eleventh Circuit Judge (then Alabama AG) William Pryor, Jr. persuaded in having Moore removed from that bench.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 2:16 pm(I’d like to see Judge Bill Pryor nominated for the next SCOTUS vacancy, FWIW, and he’s one of the two names whom Trump mentioned during the GOP primary debates, and he is still on the WH’s updated list of potential nominees.)
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 2:19 pmgood for you Mr. Beldar i was concerned too
cause every time you lower the bar someone comes along to lower it even more
and this is how norms erode and a once serious allegation like rape becomes trivialized and scoff-worthy
it’s like a slope but with a lubricious substance poured atop to where your feet have trouble finding purchase
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 2:20 pmBeldar @133.
I don’t know why they got everyone, and even Judge Kavanaugh on a Sunday interview program to agree, there is no statute of limitations in Maryland,
Brett Kavanaugh ought to have researched this some more, or had a lawyer who did, but I don’t know what purpose it serves for the accusers to say there is no statute of limitations for this kind of thing in Maryland.
I read that – for the crime alleged, which was not rape – , there was a statute of limitations at that time of I think one year and one year maybe her 18th birthday to sue. At most there might not have been one for outright rape. And if it is not rape, it can’t be statutory rape either. Maybe attempted rape, or, better yet, assault with attempt to rape. They are trying.
https://twitter.com/thiru4baltimore/status/1045825656481861633
Note: Brett Kavanaugh was born on February 12, 1965. Christine Margaret Blasey Ford was born sometime in November, 1966. I don’t know how their respective ages would affect what charges could, or could have been, brought at various times.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 10/3/2018 @ 2:29 pm134. happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 2:08 pm
Beveryly Young Nelson made abig point of saying she had been scared of, in part, by Roy Moore saying that he was the District Attorney of Etowah County. Except he was NEVER the District Attorney of Etowah County something she could not have avoided finding out about 8 years later when he ran for that spot.
She never indicated in her statement that this was not true, (you know. that she’d discovered that or anything like that) but wanted everybody to believe (in 2017) that Roy Moore (in 1977or the very start of 1978) was the all powerful District Attorney of Etowah County.
By the way, Gloria Allred’s printed version of BYN’s statement had two separate, different, spelling mistakes (!) of Etowah County (no doubt so that reporters could not quickly fact check that claim.)
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 10/3/2018 @ 2:39 pmBeverly was proof-of-concept that even a super-dumb person could be used to perpetrate an effective rape hoax
speaking of hoaxers
let’s just savor how coincidentally coincidental it is that our newest rape hoaxing freak Christine Ford’s best friend for life just happens to be…
a retired agent from the sleazy corrupt FBI
kooky huh
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 2:42 pmMoore worked for the District Attorney’s office as Asst District Attorney and was the county’s first full-time prosecutor.
The claim was he was a District Attorney, true, and the prosecutor, also true.
Colonel Klink (d37ec7) — 10/3/2018 @ 2:58 pmIn #137 above, I ought to have written: “… their [Moore’s late-reporting alleged victims’] failure to come forward in a timely fashion tended to undercut their credibility.”
Delay always cuts in that direction; the question is, does it impeach credibility to the point that the allegation becomes less probable than not (civil standard) or to raise a reasonable doubt (criminal standard).
That comment also ought to have ended: ” … since current Eleventh Circuit Judge (then Alabama AG) William Pryor, Jr. persuaded Alabama’s judicial oversight body to remove Moore from that bench in November 2003.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 3:04 pm“But I was frankly never deeply interested in the allegations of sexual misconduct by Roy Moore.”
Judge Roy Moore’s replacement on the court was appointed by a Republican governor.
Senatorial candidate Roy Moore was replaced by no one, and a Democrat became senator. A judge is different from a senator, and unless one believes Doug Jones is more fit, the only reason to oppose Moore was the sexual misconduct allegations.
purple haze (836de7) — 10/3/2018 @ 3:17 pmBeldar – You’re point about failure to accuse/report crime is a favorite of mine and has been for decades.
I have studied, observed, thought long and hard, and prayed about this. I am as sure as I can be that it is a manifestation of growing evil. The paradox is blindingly clear: We do not want victims to have to suffer again. This is an intrinsic GOOD. The greater truth? We allow predators to continue their predation. One of these GOODS must be honored. We are more and more choosing the wrong one.
This also feeds the longstanding and core philosophy of the Progressive movement. Wipe out all standards across the board. There are not truths. Not really. The self must always be honored above others. Reasonable limitations, of any type? Fuhgeddaboudit. It is a complete and total rejection of human nature, itself. Hence, neuroses are raging as never before. We act against contrary to our emotional DNA and then suffer when our actions blow up in our faces. Then???? BLAME!!!!! Enter Brett Kavanaugh.
Ed from SFV (6d42fa) — 10/3/2018 @ 3:20 pmUGH. Your…and against and contrary. I needs an editerr.
Ed from SFV (6d42fa) — 10/3/2018 @ 3:24 pmTypically, there aren’t limitations for murder. Is that because it is such a serious crime or because it can be investigated years later (e.g., by autopsy or DNA analysis at the time of death or later if the body isn’t discovered for years)? Rape is serious but harder to investigate years after the fact unless there is contemporaneous evidence.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/3/2018 @ 3:26 pmBecause it’s a serious crime. Time doesn’t heal all wounds.
frosty48 (cc42f7) — 10/3/2018 @ 3:39 pmI suspect it’s due to a religious concept that there can be neither redemption from nor absolution for murder, DRJ, but time, repentance, and an otherwise blameless life can redeem a person from lesser crimes.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 3:40 pmIn the Old Testament, all crimes against a person could be bought off with monetary compensation except homicide. Also, for whatever difference it makes, for a statute of limitations to run, the person must remain within the jurisdiction, available for arrest and prosecution. Flight tolls the statute.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 3:45 pmSohrab Ahmari
@SohrabAhmari
Sen Judiciary staffer writes me on background:
“This is a desperate effort to bluff the press into thinking there is something sensational behind the curtain. There’s no there there, but they know that confidentiality rules prevent us from dispelling the notion fully.”
Imagine that.
harkin (f2bc98) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:03 pmHas the interview time period been extended? Been working here.
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:06 pmSenator Hatch Office
@senorrinhatch
So Democrats are back to innuendo and cloak and dagger attacks with information they’ve had access to for months.
Kudos to Senators Coons and Klobuchar for not signing on to this pathetic last-ditch effort to scrape the very bottom of the barrel.
harkin (f2bc98) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:10 pm@ purple haze: Every senator takes an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. When he was seated on the Alabama Supreme Court, he took that same oath, along with an oath to do his duties under state law. As a sitting judge on the Alabama Supreme Court, he twice deliberately and publicly violated that oath.
He’s unfit to be a public servant of any sort at any level at any time. He’s demonstrated it twice, publicly, which is why he was kicked out of office twice, publicly.
That he won the GOP primary in Alabama is an indictment of the intelligence and wisdom and, in particular, the fidelity to the Rule of Law, of every Alabama voter who voted for him. I have no respect for those votes, none whatsoever, and never will. As for the voters who cast them, I hope they’ll grow smarter, wiser, and better-educated about the basics of our judicial system.
I hope that about you, too, purple haze.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:13 pmHow about Doug Jones poor judgement that let Eric Rudolph vet away for some six years,
why did Rosie odonnell support him as with Connor lamb, this is why were doing to bickering with antelope whisperer flake.
narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:25 pm@ DRJ, who wrote (#148):
I think only the former, i.e., because of the seriousness of the crime.
I can see perfectly good policy arguments against even that exception for murder being made: The policies that underlie statutes of limitations generally, both civil and criminal, apply to pretty much all crimes, jaywalking to serial murder.
But it’s a legislative value judgment to the effect that murder is qualitatively worse and that society must therefore suffer the consequences from having no time limit to bring murder charges, almost alone of all crimes.
Reasonable minds can certainly differ, but I emphatically disagree with the legislative value judgment which treats sexual assaults differently from other assaults. Ultimately, I think it’s sexist, based on the notion that our poor, fragile, addled-brained women can’t be expected to be good citizens and must be protected by special rules — and I think that’s a pernicious and false presumption. (It wasn’t for concern about the sensibilities of male sexual assault victims, who are comparatively rare, that has driven the abolition or expansion of limitations periods for sexual assaults.)
Indeed, an argument could be made — although not by me — that because sexual assault cases so very, very often turn on subjective determinations of consent and lack thereof, evidence in those cases is particularly fragile and time-sensitive, so that the limitations period for bringing those charges ought to be shorter than for regular assault cases. (Consent is rarely an issue when the assault is a punch in the nose or a brick to the back of the head.)
I place a very high value on the society’s need to have crimes reported promptly, so that they may be more justly evaluated on their merits while the evidence is still fresh, the witnesses are still alive and available, and the physical (and these days, digital and DNA) evidence undisturbed.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:29 pmThat portion of the transcript in which Mitchell questions Ford about her knowledge of polygraphs has hit a nerve. Can someone tell me why Mitchell made an issue of it on 27 Sep when it didn’t become a “thing” until basically now?
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:41 pmThe impetus for statutes of limitations for sexual assault or abuse being extended or abolished were the Catholic priest scandals. First the civil statutes, then the criminal ones, and I believe California was the first state to do it.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:41 pmAnd the victims were mostly boys.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:43 pm@ nk (#160 & #161): A very fair point, well- and succinctly stated. I stand corrected, as to the original motivations of those who’ve promoted the abolition of limitations for sexual assaults, and I thank you sincerely for it, nk.
I still don’t support abolishing limitations for sexual assaults, though. Most sexual assault victims are female, but both sexes ought be valued identically by the legislatures in weighing public policy.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:50 pmChristine Ford’s friend denies being helped on polygraph, fires back at new claims – Fox News
“…Tuesday evening, in a written declaration, Ford’s ex-boyfriend, whose name was redacted, claimed he saw Ford helping a woman he believed was her “life-long best friend” prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office.
On Wednesday, McLean put out a brief statement denying the claim.
“I have NEVER had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime,” McLean said.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-fords-friend-denies-being-helped-on-polygraph-fires-back-at-new-claims
Tick-tock, tick-tock, and so it goes… as Eastern Flight 401 continues to descend….
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:55 pmAre there different SOLs for sexual abuse of minors (at the time the act was allegedly committed)? Perhaps that’s where the lengthened SOL is appropriate, but not for adults.
ColoComment (58aadb) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:56 pm*abuse and/or assaults*
ColoComment (58aadb) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:57 pmNext SCOTUS nominated should be Roy Moore.
Bob the Builder (9af831) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:58 pm@92. His Family Jewels be Zircons, eh, Tillman.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:00 pmPreet bhaaras spokesperson who had her profile almost entirely from the net, yes she seems trustworthy.
narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:05 pmThank you for being used to my terseness and not construing it as rudeness, Beldar.
Illinois has abolished the statute of limitations for sex crimes only for certain named offenses committed when the victim was under eighteen; and by naming the offenses has effectively limited prosecutions to offenses committed after the Criminal Code was revised with the new names, elements and penalties.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:08 pm163… I would think it more likely that a person who interviewed for jobs – government employment in particular – would deny that allegation than not.
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:11 pmSheila Jackson Lee staffer arrested for doxxing R senators…
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:14 pm@133 Beldar .. Well, what I’m about to say may very well cause Beldar to re-evaluate his position on the topic (because it is me saying it 😉 ), but regardless, I readily join in that choir which holds that the “modern trend” of abolishing or radically extending statutes of limitations for sex offenses is both unfortunate and unmotivated. Both as regards civil liability and criminal.
I say this operating within a system (Anglo-American law) which as a rule has long relied on statutes of limitation and the consequent limitation of actions, for divers very sound reasons. While other systems (England’s, as the-most-prominent-example), do not have criminal statutes of limitation at all (e.g., wiki; no crim. SOL in its higher courts), that is an oddity (and likely (?) a fairly unique oddity) in “modern legal systems”.
Of course, time tends to degrade (or eliminate) evidence, eliminate witnesses (or make them harder to locate), and generally make it more difficult to present an effective defense to the action — civil or criminal. All other things being equal (for example), you might well have been in Philadelphia (poor you!) at the time the accusation has you in New Orleans! Yet proving that (or even recalling that!) 15 years after the fact might not be all that easy. Especially in a he-said-s/he-said which was bereft (entirely or substantially) of independent corroborative evidence.
That said, it is unclear to me how much effect this has had, generally, in the criminal justice system (for example). Of course, if it has adversely affected you or your uncle or sister, it has had all the effect in the world. Just getting criminally charged (whether you’re guilty or innocent) is (as a general rule) a major burden psychologically, financially, socially. And of course, it is generally that much the worse, the poorer or the browner that you are. But as to how many additional prosecutions such a change has (likely) resulted in, well, I certainly have no idea, and possibly there is no reliable data on that question.
For example, Maryland apparently eliminated its SoL for attempted rape in 1996 — 22 years ago, now. wapo . And that same (Oct. 3) wapo article purportedly corrects an earlier version of the same story (Sept. 28), reporting that in the early 1980s there was another attempted rape (-like) statute (“assault with intent to rape”, a felony with a 15-year maximum sentence) which “had no statute of limitations” (even way back then; as opposed, e.g., to the “misdemeanor” attempted rape statute from that era, which had a 1 year SoL.) [fn 1]
So, I agree that the sort of blanket elimination of SoLs in sex-related cases (both criminal and civil) is wrong-headed -slash- bone-headed, and imo as likely (or likelier) to cause unwarranted mischief and injustice, as the other way around. I, for one, would be much happier if efforts to reform the criminal justice system concentrated on addressing serious deficiencies and systemic flaws in the system (of which there are many), rather than crafting over-broad extraordinary “solutions” to what are essentially non-problems. It is hard, at least for me, to understand why (absent exceptional circumstances) a state’s “normal-ranged” SoL (like 4 or 5 years or 10 (?), criminal; 2-4 years (?), tort) should not be sufficient in cases involving crimes or torts of a sexual nature (subject to ordinary rules of discovery and tolling and the like).
…
[fn 1: I don’t vouch for wapo’s reporting on the details of these laws, but rather simply assume they got it right. And I have absolutely no idea if the reported lack of a SoL on “assault with intent to rape” was an innovation in Maryland law of the 1970s or 80s, or some quirky feature that had been around for ages. fwiw, another mediasource reports the same as the Oct. 3 wapo story, re: felony assault w/ intent to rape: citylab .. e.g., “In a tweet thread posted on Friday night, Vignarajah [former Md.AttyGen] added: “For those looking at Md statute of limitations (SOL), the closest thing to what we today call attempted first-degree rape was, in 1982, assault with intent to rape, which is a felony to which no SOL applies. (Not to be confused with the misdemeanor of attempt to rape.)”]
Q! (86710c) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:16 pm@ steve57 (#158), who asked:
I speculate and infer that Mitchell was under overriding instructions not to challenge Ford on any particulars of her identification of Kavanaugh or the alleged assault. But that left her free to ask questions, the answers to which might turn out to impeach her veracity (that is, her general truth-telling propensity). I further speculate and infer that she was given the most latitude to do that on topics which would also reflect badly on the Dem senators and staffers who are the proponents of Ford’s allegations about Kavanaugh. Given how much of the potential landscape for questioning was preempted by the instruction to leave untouched the identification and the assault, there wasn’t a lot obviously available.
Moreover, this was essentially a “trial examination,” rather than a “discovery deposition,” and she was under ridiculous time constraints with guaranteed interruptions at least every five minutes. Both of those factors cut in favor of asking questions that she was already reasonably sure she could predict Ford’s answers to.
Her questions about Ford’s flying, for example, weren’t confrontational, and didn’t need to be, because as a self-proclaimed surf-chaser whose carbon footprint rivals anyone’s except, perhaps, Leonardo DiCaprio’s, Mitchell could be expected to backpedal without being pushed very hard or obviously. And she did.
Ford’s handlers actually should have seen, and I think likely did, anticipate the possibility that Ford would be questioned about the relevance, if any, of her psychology training and indeed her research experience had to the polygraph test. They clearly anticipated its relevancy to the general topic of her memory, and exploited it: America today understands as never before the impact of laughter on the hippocampus. But they might, and ought, to have prepared her for an attempt to get her to admit that as a psychology Ph.D., she was more capable of fooling the test. I think they thought her technical expertise and jargon would let her, at a minimum, filibuster convincingly until Mitchell’s (or anyone else’s) time limits forced them to move on.
But I don’t think anyone on the Ford side thought to ask the “have you ever coached” line of questions. That would have taken a pretty thoughtful questioner to figure out, but for the volunteered report by the ex-boyfriend!
So it’s obvious that at a minimum, Mitchell had been told by someone what the ex-boyfriend was prepared to say. The fact that the ex-boyfriend’s letter is carefully dated, with even the time of day noted, likewise suggests to me a deliberately timed committal of evidence to writing on his part. When and if someone says, “Mr. Goathorns, when was the first time you ever reported this in writing?” he’ll be able to answer, truthfully, “on October 2, 2018, at 8:01 a.m. PDT.”
Thus do the GOP senators and staff avoid hoisting themselves on what might be called “The Dianne Feinstein Petard,” consisting of, “Why’d you hide this written statement for ___ days/weeks?” They can say, truthfully, that they didn’t have anything in writing to turn over, and that they were still investigating; and the witness can likewise say that he didn’t appreciate the full import of his personal recollections until he heard Ford’s testimony (including the denial of coaching) on TV, and that in fairness to her, he didn’t want to commit his recollection to writing until he’d had the benefit of hearing what she’d said.
^^^ All speculation on my part, but I think these are reasonable inferences.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:16 pmI don’t think there should be unlimited statutes of limitations for sexual assault or any felony except murder. I also agree that hate crimes are not helpful. But I don’t think sexual assault is simply a “genderized” version of assault. IMO it should be a different kind of crime than assault, whether the victim is a man or a woman.
DRJ (46c88f) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:17 pmYour habitual concision is a virtue I admire but lack, nk.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:17 pm@ DRJ (#174): I’m intrigued. Why?
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:18 pmMedia elite are much more Gotti than literati…
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:18 pm(Not why am I intrigued, but why do you think sexual assaults should be treated differently from other assaults?)
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:18 pmChad Pergram
harkin (f2bc98) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:25 pm@ChadPergram
Fox has learned that Jackson Cosko, charged by USCP w/allegedly doxing senator(s), had worked w/Dem TX Rep Sheila Jackson Lee, fmr Dem CA Sen Barbara Boxer & current Dem NH Sen Maggie Hassan.
Rape was, until recently, treated as a capital offense in many states, and might still be, but for intervening law from the SCOTUS declaring that to be an Eighth Amendment violation. (I disagree with that, by the way, as a matter of constitutional interpretation; the Eighth Amendment was another part of the constitution that changed daily depending on which side of the bed Justice Kennedy exited, and I hope a new conservative majority can abolish this whole “changing conscience of the community” notion, which is more “making s[tuff] up and pretending it’s in the Constitution because we think it’s a really good idea”-jurisprudence.)
But were I a state legislator or governor, I’d oppose the death penalty for rape as misguided policy. And — to go all the way out on my limb — I’d actually eliminate the separate category of sexual assault and rape from the statute books. Except for our neuroses about tingly bits, I don’t see a principled difference for why our laws should be different when they’re involved.
I’m genuinely willing to be educated, though, on what I may be failing to consider!
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:27 pm“The doxxing suspect was identified as Jackson A. Cosko, age 27, of Washington D.C. He was initially charged with making public restricted personal information; witness tampering; threats in interstate communications; unauthorized access of a government computer; identity theft; second-degree burglary and unlawful entry.”
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:31 pmIt’s so important to protect people from rape. But it’s also so important to protect people from being deliberately and willfully falsely accused of rape.”
—- Alan Dershowitz
Remember that when you vote in the mid-terms.
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:37 pmIt’s so important to protect people from rape.
lying slurp-flooze christine not only left her best friend alone with violent teen rapers she let those rapers pursue decades-long rape careers
but this is what Jeff Flake calls “virtuous Godly rape”
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:41 pm@ColoComment, who asked (#164):
On the civil side, in most states, the limitations clock doesn’t even start ticking on money-damages claims for personal injury torts, including assaults, until the victim reaches his/her majority (typically 18).
I can’t speak to the criminal side; I certainly know limitations are tolled by the defendant’s flight, as nk pointed out above, but I’m not sure whether they’re affected by the victim’s minority.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:44 pmDoes this extend to removing the special penalties associated with sex crimes, e.g. restrictions on where sex offenders can live and work, requirements to give notice to neighbors, etc?
At one level I feel like there is a difference that I’m unable to articulate. But generally I agree. A person goes on a sex offenders list for exposure but not for beating their wife or a fight in a bar.
frosty48 (6226c1) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:45 pm1. Jackson Cosko Was Accused of Everything From Witness Tampering to Identity Theft
2. Jackson Cosko Says He Worked for the United States Senate Through May 2018 & a Letter Indicates He Was on Jackson Lee’s Staff in September 2018
3. Jackson Cosko Worked as a Field Organizer for a PAC & as a Restaurant Server
4. Cosko Was an Intern for the U.S. House of Representatives
5. Cosko Studied Engineering & Cybersecurity
https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/jackson-cosko/
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:46 pm@Beldar 180.
I’m of a similar mind, you have multiple misdemeanor classes plus multiple felony classes for Attempted SA, SA, Attempted Rape, Rape, GSI, etc which the descriptions are plainly very, very similar. I know there’s a tendency to overcharge to ensure we get something, but that seems like a bad way to run a railroad or legal system. The MPC exists which streamlined things, the statutes probably need a similarly right sizing.
I’m not really sure that we need that fine of a point, debating what level of penetration happened, where, by who, etc. If you have a sentence of 2-10 or 5-life, that’s where you can have sentencing recommendations and guidelines depending on circumstances.
Colonel Klink (766556) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:55 pm@180 Beldar .. Except for our neuroses about tingly bits, I don’t see a principled difference for why our laws should be different when they’re involved. [Emph. added]
lol. About 70-80%, I figure, of our popular culture (neuroses or otherwise) has to do with the tingly bits! Isn’t that reason enough?
Q! (86710c) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:55 pmoh my goodness the Mueller Comey Wray hot tub of dirty fbi sleaze is starting to slosh over to where everyone’s like oh wow check out how disgusting and shameful the dirty dirty men and women of the fbi are
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:58 pmI’m arguing with myself (anticipating DRJ’s and/or others’) about whether sexual assaults should be treated differently.
I should stipulate that I very much support laws that match crime and penalty to severity of harm. An assault that involves bodily penetration — of a vagina or mouth with a penis or beer bottle, for instance, or of a pancreas with a switchblade — is certainly going to qualify as an aggravated assault, and those ought have, and do have, stiffer penalties.
But suppose the law creates a different class of crime, with higher penalties, when the assaulter is motivated by sexual gratification. Current Maryland law, for example, appears to have a separate subchapter entitled, “Sexual crimes,” and in its definitional section for the term “sexual act” (which is common to the following list of sexual crimes), it makes clear that it doesn’t matter “whether semen is omitted,” and that the term includes any act “that can reasonably be construed to be for sexual arousal or gratification, or for the abuse of either party.”
Let’s say the victim in Maryland tells the police: “My assailant, whom I never saw, ran into me forcefully and knocked me on the ground, and remained on top of me until the bouncer and bartender pulled him off me.”
If this guy’s kink was holding women down because that sexually arouses and gratifies him, does that mean he should spend more time in prison than, say, the male homosexual assailant who feels no sexual arousal and seeks no sexual gratification, but was acting instead purely out of drunken rage and hatred for all humanity? Should the exact same intentional physical act, with exactly the same physical consequences to its victim, become more criminal and subject to harsher penalties because it made the attackers tingly bits tingle?
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 5:59 pmsexual assaults should be treated differently
of course they’re treated differently
it depends on if you’re a republican or a democrat
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 6:00 pmErr, that’s a consequential typo. In #190, the statute refers to the emission (not omission) of semen. I blush.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 6:01 pmIf rape is the same as assault, how would charges vary in these situations?
1. Someone who punched a victim twice.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/3/2018 @ 6:05 pm2. Someone who punched and then raped a victim.
I can’t speak to the criminal side; I certainly know limitations are tolled by the defendant’s flight, as nk pointed out above, but I’m not sure whether they’re affected by the victim’s minority.
In Illinois, they vary depending on the offense. Off the top of my head, age of majority plus 1 but in no event less than 3; age of majority plus 3; age of majority plus 10 provided that it was reported by the victim within 3 years; no limitations at all for some.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 6:28 pmBeldar, that’s an interesting question. I have been following the story (and hoped to do an in-depth post about it) of the Native American woman in Alaska, who accepted a ride from a stranger who ended up kidnapping her, choking her until she blacked out, threatened to kill her, and then masturbated on her face.
He was facing kidnapping charges – no sexual assault charges against him because in Alaska, unwanted contact with semen is not sexual assault, but after pleading to one count of felony assault, he was sentenced to two years in prison with one year suspended as he already spent a year in confinement. No kidnapping charge either because she voluntarily accepted the ride. So, no jail time.
Because of the outrage of the crime, and the punishment not fitting said crime, there is a recall effort being made for the judge, and the governor of Alaska is presenting legislation to close up the “loophole” regarding unwanted contact with semen:
I think that the law here did not match crime and penalty to severity of harm. Also, to this, yes:
In this case, it’s hard to argue anything but sexual arousal and gratification, and yet there is not even a law in place that connects his masturbating in the victim’s face to sexual assault. This seems very wrong.
Dana (023079) — 10/3/2018 @ 6:34 pm@ DRJ (#193): I’m going to have to ponder that a bit. The answer I started to write isn’t quite right. And I’m also hoping some of the lawyers who post or comment here who have more criminal experience will weigh in.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 6:35 pmA lot of laws are based on sentiment and what is sex if not sentiment? I do not find it the least bit odd that crimes that have the procreative urge as their root are treated differently from crimes that have anger as their root.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 6:41 pmsex crimes have to be treated like the worst thing ever because these are the crimes about which people are most keen to virtue signal their disapproval
for the same reason, the incidence rate of these crimes must be hyper-inflated at every opportunity, and the burden of proof for these crimes must be set laughably low
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 6:49 pmI’m frankly not sure why we have a list for sex offenders, but not one for stabbing offenders, Dana. I don’t deny at all that people are very sensitive about tingly bits and their, err, emissions. Your Alaska story’s an interesting one, and I’m not surprised that there’s a popular (populist?) counter-reaction and a call to pass new laws expanding the list of sex crimes to include it. But I’m not sure our moral/legal sensitivities about (as distinct from our tactile sensitivities from) our tingly bits are altogether rational.
I think I’ve seen other criminal cases, though, on the topic of whether assaults involving the throwing or other transmission of semen, urine, saliva, and/or blood — when infected with a disease transmittable thereby — qualifies for treatment as an “aggravated assault” (with higher penalties) because it involves brandishing or using a “deadly weapon.” I think I’m okay with that, provided that the disease is known to the attacker and he intended to submit his victim to that extra harm or risk of harm.
But is ordinary spit a deadly weapon? Or ordinary semen? I think not, and but for our squeamishness, I’m not sure why an (exterior, non-penetrative) assault with semen should be treated differently than, say, an assault with ice.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 6:52 pmWas it brownmiller who dubbed it primarily a crime of violence, outside of murder, or robbery, it’s a transgression of the highest order, it’s not accidental that it was one of the most horrible acts included in the first death wish. This is why accusations like this cannot be issued lightly.
Narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 6:56 pmSharia Ellison is leading for A.G. In Mn.
mg (9e54f8) — 10/3/2018 @ 6:56 pmLeft wing loons.
Where as in France tariq Ramadan is rightly getting the 3rd degree.
Narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:01 pm@ nk (#197): I instantly agree that it’s not odd — that is, it’s not at all uncommon, but rather the opposite — for crimes with the procreative [or tingly bit, since offspring aren’t usually the goal] urge as their root to be treated differently from crimes that have anger as their root. See above, re rape being a capital crime, as was (in many jurisdictions and under the UCMJ) “sodomy” when defined to include oral sex.
And intent is key to a great many criminal laws, and its presence can turn an unprosecuted accidental killing into a manslaughter or murder trial.
And I repeat: I’m not suggesting at all that states are obliged by the federal Constitution to abandon their different treatments of sex crimes and “ordinary” crimes. There’s ample “rational basis” here for making such discriminations to meet constitutional muster.
I’m just pondering this as a question of policy.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:02 pmDidn’t actually intend to high-jack the post, either. I’ve just run out of stuff to say about Kavanaugh — only for the moment, though! 😉
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:02 pmBeldar, moments after McConnell filed cloture for Kavanaugh nomination (final vote expected on Saturday), invokes self-cloture!
Ed from SFV (6d42fa) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:04 pmnot only is rape hoaxer Christine Fords super best friends with an FBI poochie
dirty FBI prostitute Benjamin Wittes seems super-keen to bolster her rape hoax as well
this makes the think the dirty corrupt FBI may not be very trustworthy in this matter
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:05 pmoops *Ford* i mean
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:05 pm@182. Meh. I’ll remember a certain ‘Rory Story’ instead; mainly because to this day, he doesn’t. 😉
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:08 pmOh! Did that (#205) just happen, Ed from SFV? Thanks for the head’s up, I see you’re right! McConnell sets key Kavanaugh [cloture] vote for Friday.
Cool beans. I yield my time.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:13 pmBeldar,
Assaults involving the throwing or other transmission of urine, saliva, and/or blood are assaults, and that seems apparent. But Semen in a woman’s face requires a Mail to have an erection, to have some sort of dip millet to bring him to ejaculation, how would that not be considered a sexual assault? To me, by default, it seems on a different level than the blood, urine, saliva matter.
Dana (023079) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:17 pmWhy do you have to be a postman?
Colonel Klink (6e7a1c) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:18 pmhttps://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/mattisricin-600×400.jpg
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:18 pmYikes, so much for for dictation. This:
Should be:
Dana (023079) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:19 pmFor many reasons, I don’t like carving out special treatment for hate crimes and I can see a similar reason for not wanting special treatment for sex-based crimes. Conversely, I understand saying if you are going to treat sex-based crimes different then you should do the same for hate crimes since both are targeting people for who they are.
I understand these arguments but sex crimes seem more heinous to me and deserve special treatment (just as terrorist murders seem worse than murder). Is it because I’m a woman or because Americans have a special fear/concern about sex? I don’t know but I know I feel this way whether the victim is a man or a woman, so I don’t think it is a gender issue.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:22 pmI know castor oil used in paints tests positive for ricin. Does edible castor oil?
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:23 pmIt was only castor seeds that were mailed. Ricin can be extracted from them, but they are a long way from being the poison ricin.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:30 pmI don’t think so:
Narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:30 pmhttps://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/everything-you-need-know-about-ricin-poison-sent-us-senator
I agree, DRJ. To me, it’s because the violation is so complete. There is nothing left that is yours and only yours. It is the most intimate of violations. Someone has gone to that secret place known only to you and to whomever you give permission. Whether like the Indian woman or rape or attempted rape; the violation is all-consuming of one’s outer and inner person.
Dana (023079) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:37 pmbeing a victim of career-destroying lies like how Christine Ford and Jeff Flake have done on Mr. Kavanaugh and his family seems equally all-consuming
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:40 pmI wish I could have expressed that better.
Dana (023079) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:46 pmIt seems to me like you expressed it well.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:50 pmwow. cowardly Ben Sasse is a genuinely sleazy dude
Sasse: I encouraged Trump to pick someone instead of Kavanaugh
first of all why would President Trump listen to a cowardly piece of dirty harvardfluff like Ben Sasse
secondly dude
grow the eff up
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:51 pmI understood you, Dana.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 7:53 pmWell that unhelpful on sasses part, but not as much as ignoring the slain in venezuela.
Narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:00 pmAmid all the gross noise, I want to thank Beldar, DRJ, Dana, and nk for showing the value of Patterico’s commenters.
Simon Jester (93ec11) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:03 pmBut the more heinous the crime, the more I want there to be evidence showing that it happened and who did it. The victim and the accused deserve it.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:10 pmDana, I know what you’re saying, but I’d still really, really, rather have ice thrown at me. It might be even less sanitary, but ick.
Colonel Klink (766556) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:15 pmApropos of nothing:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-is-now-a-kavanaugh-accuser-bashing-trump-troll?via=twitter_page
Narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:22 pmnk- my 100 lbs dog ate a few castor beans and nearly died. Castor Bean plants are prolific seed producers and they are a tough plant to eradicate for that exact reason. Not sure what they’d do to a 180lbs male, but if the convulsions my dog went through were any indicator, it’d be a painful battle
steveg (a9dcab) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:37 pmBeldar – Does it make any difference if the recidivism rate for sex assaulters is higher than other felonies?
Ed from SFV (6d42fa) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:37 pmsteveg, I believe you. I have read that the first aerial bombardments from airplanes in WWI were from pilots having uncontrollable bowel movements simply from inhaling the fumes from the castor oil that they used for engine lubricant in that period.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:48 pm@ Dana (#211 & #214): Oh, if the state has a separate category for sexual assaults, as distinct from other assaults, I don’t doubt at all that throwing semen on someone should be in that category. I’m sorry if I was unclear. And yes, it’s hard to imagine better circumstantial evidence than the act of ejaculation to demonstrate something was done with the intent to satisfy a desire for sexual gratification.
I’m unclear, though, why there’s a different default for semen than for blood, urine, or saliva. I don’t dispute that most people feel strongly, intuitively, that there is, and again, as the fact that rape was a capital crime demonstrates, societies have long treated crimes involving sex and tingly bits differently. Some of the possible reasons seem to me to be rooted mostly in long- and widely held beliefs to which I definitely do not subscribe, e.g., that a woman is intended to be the property of a man, especially when it comes to making her an instrument of his sexual gratification, such that wars were fought over it. Or that sex is dirty and shameful.
That said, I agree with DRJ that this, from you (#219), is well said, and that’s probably inadequate praise for your clarity:
If our privacy is layered like an onion, certainly these matters, especially in the context of a meaningful, emotional relationship between the participants, feel very strongly to us as if they’re situated along the inner-most layer. In terms of triggering a strong emotional reaction from me, it’s one thing for FB to harvest & sell my adult daughters’ metadata, but altogether another thing for someone to touch their flesh without their consent — and just how much of “another thing” it is varies depending on where, when, how long, and through how many layers of clothing, I suppose, it is. My head also tells me that I ought to be as outraged, though, if it were one of my sons being so touched, but that’s something I don’t feel that I could as confidently predict. And I guess I’m also hyper-skeptical on the general subject of attempts by the state to regulate sexually related behaviors because it has, historically, been used to criminalize private behavior between consenting adults. And I suppose that’s a slightly different manifestation of a value judgment like the one you were describing when you described a sexual assault as “the most intimate of violations.”
I’m grateful to you both for your comments, DRJ & Dana, and I think I’ve about exhausted my thinking on this for now. But it’s not the first time I’ve pondered it, and when I do again, I will certainly try to remember and include your comments as part of the mix.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:01 pmDefinitely don’t want to pull a Dan Rather.
harkin (7f4688) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:13 am
Dan Rather threw an old IBM typewriter through the Kavenaugh’s LR window. The Powder Room is back…and to the left.
Pinandpuller (34cc3b) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:02 pm@ Ed from SFV (#232), re recidivism rates: I haven’t pondered that angle at all, but I intend to. In general, though, and specifically in my feelings about capital punishment, I’m a retributionist, though — more concerned with “just” punishment than with whether it deters. (Which is probably why the angle your question takes hadn’t occurred to me! Thanks!)
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:05 pm“Congressional investigators have confirmed that a top FBI official met with Democratic Party lawyers to talk about allegations of Donald Trump-Russia collusion weeks before the 2016 election, and before the bureau secured a search warrant targeting Trump’s campaign.
Former FBI general counsel James Baker met during the 2016 season with at least one attorney from Perkins Coie, the Democratic National Committee’s private law firm.
That’s the firm used by the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign to secretly pay research firm Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence operative, to compile a dossier of uncorroborated raw intelligence alleging Trump and Moscow were colluding to hijack the presidential election.”
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/409817-russia-collusion-bombshell-dnc-lawyers-met-with-fbi-on-dossier-before
Well well well….
harkin (f2bc98) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:15 pmAlso, for whatever difference it makes, for a statute of limitations to run, the person must remain within the jurisdiction, available for arrest and prosecution. Flight tolls the statute.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 3:45 pm
Since Chrissy B doesn’t like to fly do they still have to tell her not to leave town?
Pinandpuller (34cc3b) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:21 pmWSJ :
Dana (023079) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:22 pmHas the interview time period been extended? Been working here.
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 10/3/2018 @ 4:06 pm
All day, and all of the night?
Pinandpuller (34cc3b) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:22 pmjeff flake will decide the fate of the last stand of the white aristocracy. along with susan collins and lisa murkowski.
lany (b26b7f) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:33 pmI’m not sure why an (exterior, non-penetrative) assault with semen should be treated differently than, say, an assault with ice.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 6:52 pm
The Bikram Yoga guy’s ice isn’t worth a million dollars a drop:
In a wild and inadvertently revealing interview, yoga guru Bikram Choudhury responded to the rape and sexual abuse allegations that have been made against him by calling his accusers “trash” and claiming people have killed themselves in despair when he wouldn’t have sex with them. He also told journalist Andrea Kremer of HBO’s Real Sports that people want to pay $1 million for “a drop” of his semen.
Jezebel
Pinandpuller (34cc3b) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:48 pmDana, I know what you’re saying, but I’d still really, really, rather have ice thrown at me. It might be even less sanitary, but ick.
Colonel Klink (766556) — 10/3/2018 @ 8:15 pm
You need to watch a show called Bar Rescue before you give your final answer.
Pinandpuller (34cc3b) — 10/3/2018 @ 9:55 pmThis seems important:
Which should mean that the FBI didn't find the corroboration that liberals were desperately hoping for, which means:
McConnell wouldn't call that vote for no reason, so by cocktail hour Friday, Kavanaugh will be a confirmed Supreme Court justice.
Paul Montagu (c7580b) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:02 pmHey mr nk, I’m surprised you didn’t mention Castor and Pollux:
Castor and Pollux (or in Greek, Polydeuces) were half-twin brothers in Greek and Roman mythology, known together as the Dioscuri.
Their mother was Leda, but they had different fathers; Castor was the mortal son of Tyndareus, the king of Sparta, while Pollux was the divine son of Zeus, who seduced Leda in the guise of a swan. Though accounts of their birth are varied, they are sometimes said to have been born from an egg, along with their twin sisters Helen of Troy and Clytemnestra.
In Latin the twins are also known as the Gemini[ (literally “twins”) or Castores, as well as the Tyndaridae or Tyndarids. When Castor was killed, Pollux asked Zeus to let him share his own immortality with his twin to keep them together, and they were transformed into the constellation Gemini. The pair were regarded as the patrons of sailors, to whom they appeared as St. Elmo’s fire. They were also associated with horsemanship, due to the idea that they rode the ‘white horses’ of foam that were formed by curling ocean waves.
Pinandpuller (34cc3b) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:02 pmNot to mention, the two terrorist brothers in face off, who who swapped faces with John travolta
Narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:06 pmNo the other one was played by Alexander nivola.
Narciso (d1f714) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:12 pmI want all these GOP senators to sit down together for a few minutes after they confirm Kavanaugh, to talk about the future of the United States Senate.
I could be wildly wrong, and I’m relying on my gut rather than anyone’s polling (although I’ve seen some to support it), but I believe the fight over this nomination will save the Senate for the GOP in the midterms.
Especially if the GOP holds the House, but even if it only loses it by a close margin which might be flippable on an issue-by-issue basis, the GOP senators ought to consider whether the filibuster rule makes any sense at all to maintain in the next Congress, even for legislation.
Obviously if the GOP loses the Senate, the choice is out of its hands. And the Dems won’t detonate the legislative nuke until they regain control of the WH: If they take both chambers of Congress, Trump will still veto almost everything they pass through both chambers, so making it easier to get stuff through the Senate won’t be worth the loss of the possibility that they might be out of the WH for a while.
But let’s stop pretending that the Senate is anything more than a majority-rules chamber now. Let’s stop pretending that voluntarily self-restraint, or respect for a tradition of unlimited debate, will somehow be allowed by the Dems to impede their most raw and partisan goals. Let’s stop handcuffing ourselves in the hopes — stupid, vain, foolish hopes — that the Dems will exercise self-restraint the next time they get the magical alignment of the WH and both chambers of Congress. When that happens, they absolutely, positively will finish the wrecking job that Harry Reid started.
In the longer term:
Let’s start thinking through the ramifications of the new political reality, which is that hereafter, even when it’s not the hyper- and very deliberately polarizing Donald J. Trump in the WH, no POTUS is going to be able to get Senate confirmation of any nominees, regardless of their merit. Whenever one party controls the WH but not the Senate, the Executive Branch is going to be run, to the extent it can be run, by a combination of recess appointees and acting Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and on down through all Senate-confirmed positions. And there won’t be any judicial nominees at either the trial or appellate level confirmed at all until the same party again holds WH and Senate.
Senators used to claim that the United States Senate was the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” but henceforward it’s going to be mostly (95% of the time) about rubberstamping based strictly along party lines based on who’s got the majority.
I come not to praise bipartisanship, but to lamentfully bury it, because it is well and truly dead.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:34 pmDo you think Kanye West can get the 17th Amendment overturned, Mr Beldar?
Pinandpuller (34cc3b) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:43 pmTo accomplish such a challenging task, Pin, Kanye would need lots of help. He’d need, I think, the loving and continuous support of a good woman, someone who loved him as much as he loves himself.
And that is impossible, so no.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:56 pmThere won’t be a dime’s worth of difference between the House and Senate when the legislative filibuster is eventually nuked, and that’s not a good thing. But we can thank Douchebag Reid for starting this. IMO, the nuclear option should never have happened, but it’s over. It’s a new world.
Paul Montagu (c7580b) — 10/3/2018 @ 10:58 pmYou’re looking at the big picture, Beldar. All those Senators, there, what they’re looking at is their $500 a day plus expenses, how to keep their jobs, like Ben Sasse said.
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:10 pm@ Paul Montagu: Yes, it’s a terrible thing, more for our side than theirs. The tradition of unlimited debate is an inherently conservative one. Of course, when what was being “conserved” was Plessy v. Ferguson and Jim Crow, that was a terribly wicked use of it, but those weren’t Republican-led filibusters, but Democrat ones.
But worse is pretending that the Dems will still honor it when it doesn’t suit them. That’s just head-in-the-sand stupidity, Lucy & the football writ in the largest possible terms.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:20 pmNone of this ladies narratives are credible.
mg (9e54f8) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:27 pmIf the universe is constantly expanding, where is it expanding into?
nk (dbc370) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:43 pmDear Sens. Flake, Murk & Collins:
I hope you’re well on board now and that I’m preaching to the choir. But in case Mitch has misred you, and you’re still waffling regarding investigations and their adequacy:
First: He who’s hidden the need for the investigation since July is now in no position to make any arguments whatsoever about the adequacy of investigation once the allegations were made public. In law we call this “estoppel,” and it’s one of the most fundamental doctrines of equity.
Second: The private investigators whom the Dems could have hired — and I would make a large wager, did hire, may in many respects be more resourceful, better resourced, more highly motivated, and unconstrained by procedures and policies in gathering evidence (including but not limited to witness interviews) than an FBI investigator who lacks subpoena power. The Dems are the proponents of Ford’s testimony, and that of all these accusers. As proponents, it is their burden to gather evidence that was not only equally available to them, but on which they had a multi-week head start. If there were anything more to be found, then they could and should have found it by now. And the fact that they had motivation, time, and opportunity to do so, but haven’t, tends inferentially to support the conclusion that there’s nothing more to find.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:44 pmWe the electorate need to make term limits a priority in 2020, now is the time after watching this 2 week train wreck.
mg (9e54f8) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:44 pmThird: This has gripped the nation for weeks now. Regardless of the Dems’ efforts at investigation or lack thereof, their blatant manipulation of the timing, and their enlistment of the entire national news media, this is all they’ve come up with. Anything that hasn’t been pulled, or crawled on its own, out of the woodwork by now is definitely a cockroach, not a credible witness to anything.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:48 pmI think this improbable but:
Even if Murk, Collins & Flake have told Mitch they’re definitely voting “no,” this vote must be taken for purposes of political accountability.
And even if it’s a losing vote, we’re at the same point when Jon Snow had to shoot the King Beyond the Wall in the heart with an arrow, to end his suffering on the pyre.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:52 pmSpeaker Nunez has a nice sound to it. This is a great man, I feel so sorry for what his family has to go through because of the radical democrats.
mg (9e54f8) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:52 pm@ mg: How would term limits have helped avoid this situation?
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:56 pm@ mg: Do you mean Devin Nunes, who’s been in Congress since 2003 (and would surely be term-limited out by now)?
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:58 pmDon’t know Beldar, but the episode by these hacks needs consequences.
mg (9e54f8) — 10/4/2018 @ 12:21 amSince no term limits exist Speaker Nunes sounds good to me.
Fair enough, I understand your take, mg.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 12:23 amPraying the judge is confirmed. I would never trust flake and the other two.
mg (0a8fd4) — 10/4/2018 @ 12:41 am240, there’s something to be said for not validating the 2nd and 6th most remote gains of manifest destiny with statehood or having gone through with the Missouri compromise.
urbanleftbehind (61ee40) — 10/4/2018 @ 4:04 am#247 The opposite should happen to the filibuster. If the R’s keep the senate they should reinstate the original filibuster that requires someone to hold the floor. The nuke option was just the inevitable consequence of allowing a senator to simply announce a filibuster.
frosty48 (6226c1) — 10/4/2018 @ 4:04 amStrawberries Captain, sir!!! https://static.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Screen-Shot-2018-10-04-at-8.29.08-AM-600×440.png
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 10/4/2018 @ 5:53 amdo you think sleazy harvardtwerp and eminent constitution-raper john roberts realizes what was done on Mr. Kavanaugh could just have easily happened to him?
my money says he’s blissfully unaware
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2018 @ 5:54 ampeople don’t understand how corrupt and dirty Lisa Murkowski is
she’ll butt-rape the statue of liberty if it means she can extort five more dollars for her nasty corrupt trailer-park welfare-state constituents
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2018 @ 5:58 amTrack Palin lol
breeding will out as they say
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2018 @ 5:58 amAh yes, Ben Shapiro, the guy who tries to have it both ways and who under normal circumstances would be caping for Debby Ramirez.
urbanleftbehind (61ee40) — 10/4/2018 @ 6:22 amBeldar, I hadn’t before through your second point here, but good one. Democrats did have the time–weeks–to get corroboration and came up with bupkis.
Paul Montagu (c7580b) — 10/4/2018 @ 6:54 amEr, thought through…
Paul Montagu (c7580b) — 10/4/2018 @ 6:57 amSo, Patterico, I’m guessing that “harvardtrash” is now on the forbidden list, which is why we hear “harvardtwerp” instead. At least we still have “buttrape.”
Seriously.
At least we have excellent discussions from many people like Beldar, nk, DRJ, Dana, and mg that have made me think.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/4/2018 @ 7:02 amI agree with Stephens. It took a bully like Trump to stand up against Democrat bullying, hypocrisy and dirty tricks.
Paul Montagu (c7580b) — 10/4/2018 @ 7:05 amAnd once again, like with Douchebag Reid and the nuclear option, Democrats seem unaware of the repercussions of their acts. When Republicans go after a liberal for something that he/she did in high school or as a minor, they can henceforward cite the Kavanaugh Precedent. It’s as if they don’t understand the concept of blowback, or feel that somehow they’re immune to same.
Trump announced the appointment of Kavanaugh on July 9, 2018. Does anybody really think the Democrat Smear Machine did not immediately go into gear? Did not look under every rock for “credible” crawly worms with questionable morals and even more questionable sexual practices to smear Kavanaugh with? And the best it came up with was a letter from Tweety that they sat on, because even they didn’t believe it, until they were going down for the third time and it was the only straw they could grasp?
nk (dbc370) — 10/4/2018 @ 7:08 amBTW, I looked up the derivation of “Tweety” and it dates back centuries as a cutesie form of “sweetie”.
nk (dbc370) — 10/4/2018 @ 7:21 amnk, this is “by any means necessary.” So if Team D has to damage someone who is messed up (as I consider Dr. Ford to be), so be it.
As with Reid, I suspect there is ample evidence that her testimony has nothing to do with Judge Kavanaugh.
The Left doesn’t care, so long as they keep Kavanaugh out.
But the real challenge is different: if folks on the Right don’t like this approach, why, they shouldn’t consider doing it.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/4/2018 @ 7:25 amTerm limits would have saved us from the Kennedys, Feinstein, and a lot of Democrats. Maybe the same type of people would have replaced them but I think longetivy enables corruption.
DRJ (46c88f) — 10/4/2018 @ 7:25 amDRJ, one of the saddest experiences of my life.
In high school, I was able to visit DC and meet with many politicians.
I had lunch twice with Barry Goldwater. He was NOTHING like I had been told. Ditto Bob Dole. Goldwater was crude and funny and direct.
He told me he believed in term limitations for the reasons we both share.
Imagine how I felt when he kept on running for Senate.
Power is a drug. Even silly power.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/4/2018 @ 7:28 amBarry was crushed by a daisy. Unfortunately.
mg (0a8fd4) — 10/4/2018 @ 8:25 amDoes anybody really think the Democrat Smear Machine did not immediately go into gear?
the machine kicked into gear when they realized with their Roy Moore rape hoax that not only were fake rape charges super easy but that rape-hoaxing filth like Jeff Flake and Lisa Murkowski were willing and even eager to cooperate
eager like a beaver
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2018 @ 8:33 am@ frosty48, who wrote (#):
I don’t think you understand how this works. Per Article I, section 5 of the Constitution, with the seating of each new Congress, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” It’s a bare-majority vote, so in each chamber, the majority party controls the process, and continues to do so throughout the following two years.
If the GOP rewrote the cloture rule to bolster or strengthen the filibuster — for example, to expressly reapply it to nominees, undoing Reid’s nuke — nothing but the Democrats’ goodwill, and the supposed special relationship of tolerance and comity historically maintained by the Senate, in its tradition of unlimited debate, would oblige the Dems to honor that change in January 2019 if they win the Senate in November 2019. And of course, they wouldn’t, because there is no more self-restraint in the Senate. Our side can’t write a rule now that would still bind the Senate the next time the Dems control it.
Reinstating the filibuster to its former glory, then, would be handing the Dems an easy veto of every Trump appointee for the remainder of this Congress. Why would you want to do that, frosty48? Do you have any basis at all to believe that the next time the Dems control the Senate, they’ll be any less vicious and partisan than they were under Reid? If so, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying, a really nice one that connects Brooklyn and Manhattan.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 9:16 am@ DRJ: I don’t think anyone can disagree that longevity in Congress enables corruption. But it also permits the retention of experienced legislators in a system in which seniority still counts (albeit to a lesser degree than historically, when by virtue of its tendency to reelect incumbents anyway, the South controlled virtually all the important chairmanships in both chambers). The question with term limits has always been whether the good they’d do outweighs the bad they’d do. To institute them we’d need to amend the Constitution, so it’s not a step that should, or can, be taken lightly, nor one that could easily be amended or reversed.
Voters scrutinizing incumbents more closely could accomplish the same good, without re-jiggering our current constitutional framework. All that’s needed is a more intelligent and diligent electorate. Aye, and there’s the rub, eh?
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 9:23 amhatefulfeet, I’m very, very sure Judge Kavanaugh would find utterly repulsive — as bad as almost anything the Dems have hurled at him — your association of him with Roy Moore. I certainly do.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 9:24 amEducating the electorate with our Department of education is impossible. Unfortunately.
mg (9e54f8) — 10/4/2018 @ 9:26 am@ frosty48: Please note that in my #283, responding to your #266, I fully understood what you’re proposing, which was a return to the requirement that senators actually take and hold the floor continuously in debate, rather than merely signaling their intention to do so. But that just means that they need to have their caucus follow a tag-team schedule. It’s been done in the past, it can be done again, and in fact because the Dems have, in general, better party discipline and pander even more obviously to their base, it’s easier for them to achieve the fairly minimal level of organization and planning and devotion this requires. They’d gladly stand in alphabetical order on their heads through the end of this Congress if that’s what it took to block Kavenaugh, for instance.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 9:35 amLet me be really clear: As Satan is to Christianity, Roy Moore is to the Rule of Law. That’s an absolutely fair comparison, and I can give you the dates and times when Roy Moore has proved his part, while Satan’s presence generally must be inferred.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 9:37 amI read and appreciate comments from nearly everyone here. Even those I vehemently disagree with. There may be eye-rolling involved, but – IMHO – even those can be viewed as serving to highlight a different perspective, pretzel logic, the path less trod, tether-cutting, residence in a galaxy far far away, etc.
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 10/4/2018 @ 9:37 amJust endeavor to maintain your sense of humor and it will all be okay… that is my hope.
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 10/4/2018 @ 9:40 amAmen, Colonel.
mg (9e54f8) — 10/4/2018 @ 9:43 amAs we await the imminent confirmation of Kavanaugh, this is a very big story… https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 10/4/2018 @ 9:46 amThat could be true, and I agreed with terms limits when Gingrich came out with the Contract With America, but as I gotten valuable experience in my field by sticking with it and learning on the job, I can’t see how that wouldn’t apply to any other job, including elected representative. Even with gerrymandering and whatnot, I’ve come around to the idea that the best way to term-limit a politician is to vote him out of office.
Paul Montagu (c7580b) — 10/4/2018 @ 9:49 amSo Christine Blasey Ford walks into a bar with a parrot on her shoulder and the bartender says: “That’s so cool! Where’d you get it?” And the parrot says: “In Palo Alto. They’re all over the place.”
nk (dbc370) — 10/4/2018 @ 9:51 amHeh! Again, nk, you’ve given me the very valuable gift of a good belly laugh. Thank you, sir.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 9:56 amyour association of him with Roy Moore
Roy Moore and Brett Kavanaugh are forever intertwined as part of the history of rape hoax in America.
The Roy Moore rape hoax showed how easy it was to persuade people (even people ostensibly opposed to abortion like Mitt Romney) to enthusiastically embrace a rape hoax for political advantage, even if they elected a fetus-killing butcher like Doug Jones as a consequence.
What we learned with twerpy Brett Kavanaugh is you could still persuade enthusiastic rape hoaxers like Jeff Flake and Lisa Murkowski to participate… PLUS…
we discovered that overwhelming majorities of Yale students and faculty would gleefully participate in a rape hoax targeting one of their own!
The limits of this technique have yet to be discovered, so there will be another name added to those of Moore and Kavanaugh soonly soonly…
But let’s not overlook the true rape hoax innovation that the Kavanaugh rape hoax has given us:
The sleazy corrupt nazi-like Chris Wray FBI’s now the final arbiter of these rape hoaxes.
That’s HUGE.
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2018 @ 9:56 amSo is murder next?
Narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2018 @ 10:07 amhttps://dailycaller.com/2018/10/04/cnn-jim-sciutto-gang-rape-politics/
I left out of my comments at #255 & #257 above one additional advantage, from the Dems’ perspective, to relying on their own investigators rather than the FBI: Their own investigators are not only free, but surely instructed, to comprehensively ignore, and to deep-six whenever possible, all witnesses and evidence that cut against their sexual assault upon Jean d’Arc narrative. An FBI agent has at least the theoretical possibility of eventual future embarrassment and even unemployment when he does that. Ask Peter Strzok.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 10:07 amhttps://www.conservativereview.com/news/malkin-investigate-the-senate-democrat-wrecking-machine/
Mrs. Malkin asks some good questions. We need the answers.
NJRob (1d7532) — 10/4/2018 @ 10:09 amUm, no they’re not. Kavanaugh made a categorical denial, Moore didn’t (until he later flip-flopped). The allegations against Kavanaugh remain uncorroborated. The allegations that a 30-something guy pursued minor-aged girls are beyond question.
Paul Montagu (c7580b) — 10/4/2018 @ 10:13 amBTW, since the report on Kavanaugh was made by the “dirty corrupt fbi”, I’ll assume for the sake of intellectual consistency that you dismiss the findings in their report, whatever those findings may be, and therefore must reject Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice.
And for that matter, while I’m waxing indignant in my estoppel argument:
Dems have vowed to block any Trump SCOTUS nominees since at least the day after Trump won. They’ve had the incalculable benefit of knowing far, far in advance — along with the members of the public who voted for Trump based on his SCOTUS promises & list — the exact names of a limited number of people, so they could confine their long-range oppo research to just those people. When Kavanaugh was first nominated by Dubya in 2004, it was as part of a large group of circuit court nominees, including Miguel Estrada (imagine the crucifixion he’d be enduring today!), who were explicitly intended to be the “farm team” for future GOP presidents to choose SCOTUS nominees above. And he’s been on Trump’s list since November 2017.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 10:17 amIt’s not enough even to go back to his initial DC Circuit nomination in 2004. The Dems have had motive and means to dig for dirt on Kavanaugh since he joined the Bush-43 Administration, and the Clintons in particular likewise would have loved to have been able to produce Christine Blasey Ford as one of their broadsides against the Starr investigation.
This is obvious of course to Kavanaugh, who’s lived it.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 10:21 am(Ask Rob Porter if an unpopular White House staff secretary is in the Dems’ sights for destruction.)
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 10:39 am*unpopular President’s WH staff secretary, I meant to write in #303
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 10:40 amAllegedly he was one of Woodward sources, now they believe him.
Narciso (4f990b) — 10/4/2018 @ 10:49 amPorter was fired because he couldn’t get a security clearance. He wasn’t the only one that week.
Colonel Klink (8cf599) — 10/4/2018 @ 10:50 amI’m sure you’re correct wrt the D’s future action on an old school filibuster if they returned to the majority and their ability to stand on their heads in the minority. I’m not confused on that issue. I also don’t really have a problem with either of those outcomes. I think historically the abuse of the filibuster increased as it became easier to use.
Maybe, this is simply a situation were I have an irrational bias in favor of the filibuster for legislation (not so much for appointments). If there is going to be a filibuster at all then it should be the sort that requires a commitment.
frosty48 (6226c1) — 10/4/2018 @ 10:51 amBreaking- Heitkamp tells media she will vote ‘no’ on Kavanaugh.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/4/2018 @ 11:20 amhot to trot Bev Nelson was never in any more danger of being raped than Christine Ford was
women lie about rape a LOT in America
and then they giggle mischievously
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2018 @ 11:24 amA Democratic woman Senator will vote no on Kavanaugh? Who expected it?
nk (dbc370) — 10/4/2018 @ 11:27 amDC, She’s done whether or not she votes yea/nay, so why not she figured.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/4/2018 @ 11:30 am#308 — If she had a shot at winning, I bet her vote would be different. But she does need to look out for her employment prospects after November.
Appalled (96665e) — 10/4/2018 @ 11:31 am@312. Her public statement on the matter says otherwise- pointing to politics and temperament, etc.- and she did vote for Gorsuch.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/4/2018 @ 11:35 amMr. Gorsuch was a pre-Roy Moore rape hoax confirmation
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2018 @ 11:41 am#313 — Good thing she wasn’t testifying before Congress for anything, because she talks around the issues like nobody’s business, and I would hate for her to face twitter accusations of perjury.
Appalled (96665e) — 10/4/2018 @ 11:47 amBreaking – Lindsay Graham puts objections to Kavanaugh in context:
Benny
@bennyjohnson
BASED LINDSEY GRAHAM:
Protester yells at him about Kavanaugh taking a polygraph.
Graham: “Why don’t we dunk him in the water and see if he floats?”
Im crying.
harkin (f2bc98) — 10/4/2018 @ 11:48 am@311. See #313.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/4/2018 @ 12:04 pm@316. Meh. There’s been a thespian screaming to come out of Lindsey for years.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/4/2018 @ 12:05 pmLet’s save DCSCA some time. Here’s the statement:
Appalled (96665e) — 10/4/2018 @ 12:07 pm@319. As referenced. Although she has a TeeVee soundbite response for her local news culled down to the media friendly 15 seconds or so.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/4/2018 @ 12:18 pm298. Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 10:07 am
Maybe tghey were hoping for something like that (after all, a friend of Blasey Ford, whom, according to aformer domestic partner, she had given some advice to about a polygraph test beack in the early 1990s, worked there – at least until she retired in 2016, and maybe still had some connections.
I don’t know what, if any, further tricks they may have had up their sleeve about that FBI investigation they wanted (besides saying it is never finished) but it wasn’t their FBI which did the followup interviews.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/kavanaughs-foes-politicize-the-fbi-1538433332
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 10/4/2018 @ 12:21 pm@310. She did vote for Gorsuch, nk. Appalled has posted her full statement from twitter. It is what it is.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/4/2018 @ 12:26 pmYeah, the contrast alone between 2 graduates of the same HIGH SCHOOL, not just the H-P-Y Ivies, please make me choose between Fritz Kaegi and R. Kelly (thats what I have to hang my hat on, generational alumni wise)
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/4/2018 @ 12:29 pm257. Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 11:48 pm
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer disingenuously said today – the Democrats couldn’t do anything – they don’t control the Senate.
Of course it’s the posisbility of swaying a few Republican votes – and general politics – that does that.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 10/4/2018 @ 12:34 pm200. Beldar (fa637a) — 10/3/2018 @ 6:52 pm
Sec crimes (by men) are not deterrable in the usual way, but there are far too many cases in which this does not really apply.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 10/4/2018 @ 12:40 pmIs that this weeks version of “I’ve got black friends”?
frosty48 (98671b) — 10/4/2018 @ 12:43 pm@ frosty48 (#307): Fair enough, and more civil than my #158 probably deserved as a response. Re this:
I agree with every word of that. I just think we’re past the point where there’s going to be a filibuster left at all, for anything. And if we could have sunk Yamamoto’s fleet on December 6th, we shouldn’t have had to wait until December 8th, which is what keeping the legislative filibuster in hopes they will too is roughly analogous to. Again, thanks for the polite tone, and I apologize for unfairly questioning your understanding of how the process works.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 12:58 pmAs a political party, the Dems are already all in against Kavanaugh, of course; but there are side-pots in these individual Senate races, and now Heitkamp is all in too.
From Rollcall.com on September 5, 2018: The 10 Most Vulnerable Senators in 2018: Heidi Heitkamp Moves to Top Spot.
The RCP average of polls, as of today: Cramer +8.7. So definitely flippable, even before this announcement.
If you’re inclined to make a donation to an out-of-state candidate, your dollar goes a long way in North Dakota’s tiny media markets: Cramer for U.S. Senate website.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 1:15 pmthat’s what you get for doing a rape hoax on people Heidi (joke rape)
guess what you have BAD MORALS
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2018 @ 1:20 pmThe RCP average currently has Cruz at +4.5. I don’t think Cruz will match his 56.6%/40.5% performance against a nobody in 2012. But I think that +4.5 is low, and these hearings will add 3 points to Cruz’ winning margin, I’d estimate, which I think will end up being about 9 points.
For fun, I’ve been asking my Democrat friends here in Texas who’re drunk on Beto O’Rourke fumes: “You obviously are looking forward to voting for Beto. But tell me, who’re you going to vote for in the governor’s race, Abbott or, err, what’s-her-name?”
Not one of them has yet prompted me, “Lupe Valdez.” They smile weakly and nod, without certainty, when I prompt them (suspecting a trick, perhaps) with her name. Greg Abbott will win by at least 20 points, maybe 25, and he might carry hispanic females this time, to go along with the hispanic males majority he received four years ago against Wendy Davis.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 1:24 pmYou may put those predictions by me in a hermetically sealed mayonnaise jar for later review and ridicule, if you please.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 1:26 pmHow bad can Abbott be -he’s a version of Haiku and steveg, its Dan Patrick I’d be going to the Mattresses against, perhaps in 4 years, perhaps not.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/4/2018 @ 1:33 pmI reeeeeeeeeeeeally want Collins, Flake, and Murkowski to defer their votes on the floor for final approval until after all other Senators have voted.
Force Manchin, Donnelly, and any other “moderate” Dem to cast their vote when it actually counts for something. The vote would be 48-49 against if they hold serve, and then the troika can put him over the top, and the Dems are boxed in.
Ed from SFV (6d42fa) — 10/4/2018 @ 1:44 pm333. Well, Flake is Flaking, so that option may not be available. They need Murkowski as well as Collins.
Appalled (96665e) — 10/4/2018 @ 1:50 pm@ urban (#332): I’m actually acquainted with Dan Patrick’s opponent, Mike Collier, because he’s a regular at the Longhorn Alumni Band weekend and, like me, he plays the trumpet. Although I don’t comment on politics on FB, I just “liked” a short video of him playing a solo version (with excellent style, panache, and musicality) of “The Star Spangled Banner” at a party he was hosting at his home for a relative-by-marriage who’d just become a naturalized American citizen. I’ll split my ticket this year to vote for him, not because he has a chance, but because I don’t much like Dan Patrick, and because I believe Mike is actually a fiscal conservative. (He was an auditor for PriceWaterhouse, and his prior run for statewide office was for Texas Comptroller in 2014, when he lost to Generic DownBallot Republican, 58.4% to 37.7%.
Patrick’s numbers will trail Abbott’s by a sizeable margin, but he’s in no danger. I confess to only one past interaction with Patrick: He’d read something on my blog some years ago when he was a talk radio jock, and he’d tracked down my phone number and left me a voicemail asking me to call him back to be on his show. I frankly didn’t know who the hell he was, so it was the next day before I got back to him. He was obviously offended that I hadn’t called back on the same day and that I didn’t know who he was, so he decided he didn’t really want to interview me anyway.
See, I can lay a predicate to show my personal interaction with Dan Patrick and Mike Collier. I can likewise lay one which puts me only two degrees away from Dubya, Obama, and Kevin Bacon. It’s not hard for most of us, most of the time. But we’re supposed to excuse Ford from all requirements to do that, because she’s a woman claiming sexual assault.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/4/2018 @ 1:51 pmUnfortunately, no. I’ve been in declining health for a couple of years now. Mobility issues. I thought it was because I was sitting too much and not getting enough exercise. Wrong! A year ago when I was using one crutch I made my first emergency room visit. Then a few months later another when I went to two crutches. In July I finally saw a specialist. I need a double hip replacement and I can’t afford. Now that I need a walker I’m focused on emptying my house and selling it to raise the cash.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/4/2018 @ 2:02 pmHang in there Steve, hope you’re back to tracking soon.
FWIW – Idaho, Unit 47.
harkin (f2bc98) — 10/4/2018 @ 2:14 pmSimilar with Scott, after he and Pam bondi part in the travesty in Sanford, the space cadet is like Lawton chokes without the charisma.
Narciso (05ee47) — 10/4/2018 @ 2:35 pmthese rape hoaxes are unacceptable
i just wanna be on the record as saying that
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/4/2018 @ 2:38 pmLetter’s updated (used to be 650+, then 1000+, then 1700+, at the moment 2400+) .. not that it’ll make the least bit of difference .. kinda like angels on the head of a pin, eh? If they get to 17,000 . . . well . . . that’ll be just as outcome-determinative, I suppose, but … could there really be that many law profs out there? . . . with the emeriti, I suppose … no matter, confirmation’s a shoe-in (ya’ll should really be thanking Sen. Flake, not slagging him (took fire and gave cover!) … some folks really have no clue about which side of their bread is buttered). no matter & no surprise, since there was no even moderately serious/competent fbi investigation undertaken (not even the principals!?! that’s chutzpah! Yee. Haw.).
Q! (86710c) — 10/4/2018 @ 2:51 pmYou know the Dems are despicable because rape hoaxes damage actual rape victims almost as much as the falsely accused.
People would believe more women if less women smeared innocent men.
It’s why evidence in each individual case is what matters and not what happened to someone else or because a claim that not only can’t be substantiated but also can’t be remembered by any of the claimed witnesses all of a sudden ‘rings true’ because politics.
I actually heard a person on CNN say Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because the accusation sounded ‘plausible’.
Only Dems throw away evidence and presumption of innocence when it comes to SCOTUS nominees and then claim confirming him would ‘destroy’ the court.
harkin (f2bc98) — 10/4/2018 @ 2:53 pmRetired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has told a Boca Raton, FL gathering that Brett Kavanaugh’s performance at the recent Senate hearing should disqualified him from the U.S. Supreme Court bench. Stevens, a Republican, was appointed by President Ford in 1975 and retired in 2010.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/4/2018 @ 2:56 pmInteresting discussion (starting with law professors who signed a letter climming BK lacks +about judicial temperaament because hhe didn’t treat the charge and inquiry as honestly motivated))
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-intemperance-of-law-professors.html
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 10/4/2018 @ 3:00 pmGraham: “Why don’t we dunk him in water and see if he floats?”
Meh.
Lindsey, Lindsey, Lindsey… better still: “Why don’t we dunk him in Heineken and see if he drinks?”
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/4/2018 @ 4:15 pmJust boof in sails, DCSCA…
Colonel Haiku (3ad005) — 10/4/2018 @ 4:17 pmCalling Stevens a republican… hahahaha, too funny. Do another joke.
NJRob (1d7532) — 10/4/2018 @ 4:23 pmHe also has regrets over admiral yamamto.
narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2018 @ 4:32 pmFeinstein sez it’s too soon to confirm Kavinaugh. An anonymous tipster has confirmed to the Dems on the SJC that in a drunken stupor Mark Judge, “Squi,” and Brett Kavanaugh, and a boy who Blasey-Ford can’t name, killed Jimmy Hoffa. And then laughing maniacally gang-banged his widow.
The FBI must investigate!!!
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/4/2018 @ 4:34 pmThey used trumps time machine to do it, well it was teslas
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/04/fbi-dnc-lawyer-russia-2016-election/
narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2018 @ 4:36 pmSussman gave the tip to Scott beauchamp re alpha bank. Which freak foer foolishly vouched for.
narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2018 @ 4:43 pmPolitic was relying on the urban dictionary as authority, lol
narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2018 @ 4:47 pm@345. Meh. “Boof-In-Sails”…
‘… it’s a drinking game.’
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/4/2018 @ 4:50 pmWhat’s the press excuse, for behaving this way, they drink like fish.
narciso (d1f714) — 10/4/2018 @ 4:54 pmI enjoyed reading this
steveg (a9dcab) — 10/4/2018 @ 5:33 pmhttps://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-hearings-fight-recalls-jokers-two-boats/
No it’s not. The “Devil’s Triangle” according to Sen. Sheldon “High School Yearbook Code” Whitehouse is not a drinking game. Sure, it makes sense from a certain POV that drinking games are about drinking. And if you’re playing quarters if you group three red Solo keg cups (deadly red Solo cups, if we listen to Avennati’s client, although the blue Solo cups are fine) together in a triangle that increases the odds the quarter will land in a cup full of beer that you can then drink.
But I digress. DCSCA is is wrong. It’s no game. It’s early eighties mid-Atlantic teen-age slang for pulling a train on the ghost of Ceasar’s wife. And that, my friends, is not funny. Ghost rape is never funny.
The FBI must investigate this credible allegation.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/4/2018 @ 5:39 pm