Note: Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (from top left): Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Ben Sasse, Thom Tillis, Ted Cruz, John Cornyn; (from bottom left) Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, John Kennedy, Mike Crapo and Mike Lee. (Photos: U.S. Senate). Source: Yahoo.
Chuck Grassley and Orin Hatch are the two Republicans who were also at the Anita Hill hearing. Some things never change.
Hey, is that Lindsey Graham with the arrow in his gut? 🙂
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9pprkQ-Q37I
“Classy” bunch there in those B&W photos. I was so afraid orin hatch was going to “resign from the committee” also. Well, it was a shock to the entire world when dramatist and master thespian orin hatch decided to stay on the very powerful committee, even though orin’s great code of “ethics” and “morality” told him otherwise:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrXof3E04k8
But you know orin hatch really really “did not want to be on it’—the committee that is. I guess they talked poor “outraged” orin hatch “off the ledge”. Maybe they distracted him with phantom reading glasses er something.
Holy Dooley they are just the GOP members. how big is the committee?
Not Trampis, 21. The ruling (majority) party has the majority participation and chair.
This latest episode in Democrat comedy is proving how far they have over reached. And still they don’t understand why the lose elections, when one of the latest leading presidential candidates, Biden, already has had his “deplorables” moment. So, the 2020 Presidential elections will be interesting.
The upcoming midterms will depend on the party turnout, that’s why we see some of the silly claims and shallowly transparent dog whistle concerns, weak attempted rape claims, being used. Why weak? The claimant can’t pinpoint the date, location, any other attendees or even her assailant, but the only person she claimed was a witness categorically denies the event. If taken to the local authorities, the pertinent investigation agency, immediately after the event they couldn’t and probably wouldn’t investigate. Who, what and where are important to investigate, but investigating 35+ years after the alleged event without these is nearly impossible. So, what we see is another political ploy to excite the party regulars and keep them excited until the midterm elections. Its happening on both sides.
Surprisingly, there has been a supplemental FBI investigation since the letter was received/or released, even though the claimant still insists on an FBI investigation.
CoRev: Wow. Thanks for verifying everything I thought you would be.
Menzie, ditto! Responding especially to this dog whistle issue as you did and then trying to chastise me is so politically naive, But i already knew that.
CoRev: It’s not chastising if I merely state that your espoused views confirm my prior view of you. That neither condemns you, or lauds you. I.e., I think you are very touchy.
it truly is amazing how an ideologue can bend his worldview in such a way that attempted rape is nothing more than a political gambit. no corev, it does not happen on both sides. i am not a defender of those who attempt to commit rape. and i do not victim shame.
Baffled, read again. What I wrote was political ploys were happening on both sides. Your comment relates to nothing I said.
corev, you are arguing that attempted rape is being used as a political gambit. i disagree with you on that assessment.
Baffled, yes, Dems are using a an alleged crime as a political ploy.
CoRev It’s a tough case, but there is some evidence to support her claim. For example, a woman who was in Kavanaugh’s class remembers hearing about the story at the time, although she says she heard it second hand. And Mark Judge wrote a book about his high school daze and included a drunk character called “Bart O’Kavanaugh” who vomited in the back of a car. Coincidence? Now it is true that Mark Judge denies the incident, but he refuses to deny it under oath. And then there’s the fact that Christine Blasey Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI polygraph expert and she was found to be truthful. And here again, Mark Judge and Kavanaugh refuse to take polygraph tests. Why won’t Kavanaugh agree to a polygraph test? Those tests are not 100% accurate, but they’re accurate enough that the government requires people to take them if they hold certain high level positions. And just a few days ago Trump was demanding that his Cabinet members take one because of leakgate. Are all these things absolute proof that Kavanaugh did in fact assault her 36 years ago? No. But altogether they do constitute some evidence to support her case. And the evidence is strong enough that it merits further FBI investigation and putting people under oath.
And if it turns out that the accuser’s story holds up, then Kavanaugh committed a crime not just 36 years ago when he was a drunk teenager, but just a few days ago when he was a sober 53 year old judge who perjured himself in front of Congress. That would be an impeachable offense. So it’s important that the Senate resolve this in a deliberate way rather than racing the clock. The Senate got this wrong with the Clarence Thomas case….yes Anita Hill passed a polygraph test and yes sometime later reporters were able to verify the movie rentals that Justice Thomas denied having watched. So Thomas lied, but Grassley and Bore’n Orrin believed him. Neither one of them are very good judges of character. Some of Grassley’s staffers have a bad integrity reputation and Hatch once praised one of his staffers for her upright morality…a few months later she quit and went into soft porn. So don’t put too much stock in their evaluations of moral character.
Anita Hill passed a polygraph test too. Of course they believed Clarence Thomas even though he never took a polygraph test. Recall “a little nutty and a little slutty”?
The republicans have admitted that the attempted rape occurred, but a Doppelganger did it. When the doppelganger testifies and blows that theory out of the water, it will condemn Kavanaugh.
Dig into her polygraph test and you’ll find her “truthfulness” was based on 2 Q. And neither included the name Kavanaugh or even specifics of her claim.
I’m not strongly claiming disbelief- my concern is a lack of relevancy.
How does a possible, alleged, contested drunken high school event relate to a SCOTUS case interpreting the constitutionality of a private property rights – or incarceration ruling etc 10 or 15 years from now.
It’s not about believing one or the other – it’s the self awareness that an error in ones youth may not automatically make you an evil person unable to preform your trade for the rest of your life.
Neil: Is lying under oath last week disqualifying?
“This latest episode in Democrat comedy is proving how far they have over reached.”
It does seem the lads at Georgetown Prep think raping girls is comedy.
“there has been a supplemental FBI investigation since the letter was received/or released, even though the claimant still insists on an FBI investigation.”
I wonder if CoRev gets that repeating a lie from Trump is endorsing the lie. There has been NO FBI investigation of this charge of attempted rape. But Trump kept talking about how the FBI did investigations. He knows full well that his statements were brazen dishonesty. I do have to wonder if CoRev is really stooopid enough to think his latest is nothing less.
She’s not going to testify.
Given that the Dems had the letter for two months and asked nothing about it on Kavanaugh’s 17,000 page questionnaire and failed to ask about it during 30 hours of testimony, they did not think this was a strong card.
With two month’s of prep time, they should have easily been able to identify the location and the date within a couple of weeks. Probably to the day. Ford says there were only four boys at the get-together. So a 15 year old (rising sophmore?) was drinking alone with four male upper classmen? Or were there other girls? How did she get there? Who invited her to this seemingly small get-together?
And finally, who leaked her identity? She didn’t write to Republicans, only Democrats. Is this, as Senator Coons said of Cory Booker: “I agree with Senator Booker,” Coons said at the Sept. 6 hearing. “This confirmation is too important for us to conceal documents that may reveal the nominee’s views, and I think we shouldn’t be proceeding under these grounds.” This would lead us to believe that the Democratic members of the committee leaked her identity. The Republicans certainly had no incentive to do so.
Is this a discussion the Democrats on the committee want to have while the Republicans cross examine her for critical, but long forgotten, details? While she breaks down in tears, even as she and the rest of the country will know that one or more of the Democrats sitting there on that committee sold her out?
She’s not going to testify.
Ah Steven – check the news. She will testify.
We’ll see.
“This would lead us to believe that the Democratic members of the committee leaked her identity.”
Or like one of hundreds of staffers or friends of staffers or friends of friends or the therapist, or the person (or one of their staffers) who forwarded the info to Feinstein. I mean you rconclusion defies logic and basic common sense.
“With two month’s of prep time, they should have easily been able to identify the location and the date within a couple of weeks. Probably to the day. Ford says there were only four boys at the get-together. So a 15 year old (rising sophmore?) was drinking alone with four male upper classmen? ”
Way to string together a bunch of nonsense. If she doesn’t remember the date and location, how exactly do you propose (in the days before e-mail) to figure it out to the day? Also, there has been no indication she was drinking at all. Not saying she wasn’t, just that I am capable of recognizing knowns for unknowns and you clearly are not.
If you gave me a week, I could find the when and where.
If you asked me where I was in the summer of 1983, I could more or less track down where I was and, more importantly, with whom. Schools like Hulton and Georgetown Prep are intimate sorts of places. Everybody knows everything about everyone.
If the event happened — and I would guess that something probably did — then it was probably known, most likely from Judge. Thus, the guys at Georgetown Prep knew about it, and that would have filtered back to Hulton, hence the Christina King post. If there were four boys, it was almost certainly at one of their houses.
It should be possible to track down the whos and wheres.
“Surprisingly, there has been a supplemental FBI investigation since the letter was received/or released, even though the claimant still insists on an FBI investigation.”
What are you on about? You imply a supplemental FBI investigation of the attempted rape (and perjury regarding attempted rape). Or are you just a liar?
There are two woman GOP Senators – Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. If they insisted a real investigation had to occur else they would vote no, we would have a real investigation. But of course they will not do the right thing either.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/a38eda/dont-count-on-lisa-murkowski-and-susan-collins-to-save-us-from-kavanaugh
GUILTY
Narrowly recondite dogma. Only misogynists disagree with democrats’ ‘truth’. Kavanaugh is, like all deplorables, definitively guilty, no evidence, nor due process required.
“no evidence, nor due process required”
Huh? Progressives would LOVE some due process. Let’s get some investigation. Let’s get Brett and Mike Judge to talk under oath about how this “Bart O’Kavanaugh” guy is someone else. Let’s explore, under oath, these mysterious debts (over baseball tickets) that just as mysteriously disappeared.
This reminds me of a board game that my sisters had when we were kids: Mystery Date. Except this looks like a no win situation. They’re all duds.
Aren’t most of these white duds married men? Of course being married never stopped Trump from dating other women.
I think, most people see through the last minute Kavanaugh circus initiated by Democrats.
PeakTrader Would those be the same people who believe Trump might reform Putin and Kim and turn them into choirboys?
There’s a simple way to resolve this. She took a polygraph test and passed. Ask Kavanaugh and Judge to take polygraphs.
Attempted rape is a circus? BTW – the person who likely tried to rape a girl in high school is not a Democrat. First get your facts right. Then work on your moral center (assuming you have one).
if a supreme court nominee attempted a sexual assault 35 years ago, should that disqualify him from holding the position of a lifetime appointment to the supreme court? what if he lied about it under oath? very simple and straight forward question.
Allegedly sexual assault: Depends on the nature of the allegation and the strength of corroborating evidence. The nature of the allegation is, well, something, but it’s clearly not rape. No nudity, no sex, a lot of drunkenness all around.
Corroborating evidence: Close to zero.
For lying about it: Most likely disqualifies. That’s why Kavanaugh’s categorical denial matters. As an accomplished lawyer, he is well aware of this. He would have hedged if it were questionable: “Don’t recall. Not what was alleged”, etc. He said he wasn’t there and didn’t do it. So he’s firmly on the hook.
Steven Kopits I would agree. The alleged sexual assault by itself is probably not enough to disqualify him, even if true. It doesn’t paint a very flattering image, but if it was a one-off stumbling drunk stupid teenager incident and he otherwise had no history of doing something like that again, then I’d give him a pass if he admitted it, expressed remorse and apologized. For me the issue is whether he lied under oath in denying the incident. That would be disqualifying and felonious.
Imagine what would happen if he gets appointed to the Court and a few months later some eager beaver reporters start finding all kinds of evidence that corroborates the accuser’s story. The Democrats would have strong case for impeachment. At a minimum his fellow justices would have to shun him. Or worse yet, imagine if someone had proof and used that proof to blackmail Kavanaugh. That’s actually the main reason high ranking government officials have to undergo polygraph tests; it’s the risk of being blackmailed that justifies lie detector tests.
Steven Kopits is beginning to remind me of Mark Judge.
“No nudity, no sex, a lot of drunkenness all around”
so does underage drunkeness excuse poor behavior. would this still apply if she had been raped. or killed? just curious, at what level of felony do you quit using “drunkenness all around” as a defense or excuse?
further, if he was the teenage drunk that has been written about, it is quite possible he (and his friends) have no recollection of the incident. that does not mean it did not happen. if he cannot recall, then he gets a pass? this in itself should justify why an fbi investigation may be needed.
“No nudity, no sex, a lot of drunkenness all around”
steven, would you take this same position if your son reported a similar incident to you regarding a drunk priest who assaulted him? just some harmless play that should be avoided?
I look at the test in reverse: If you are 17 years old and had a bad encounter with a girl, should you assume that your ambitions to hold a position like a senior judgeship are effectively over?
‘“No nudity, no sex, a lot of drunkenness all around”
so does underage drunkeness excuse poor behavior. would this still apply if she had been raped. or killed? ‘
Of course not. You know that. However, when both parties are drunk, intent and culpability become murky. Memory becomes more questionable.
“steven, would you take this same position if your son reported a similar incident to you regarding a drunk priest who assaulted him? just some harmless play that should be avoided?”
You mean if my drunken 15 year old son was assaulted by a drunken priest? This is bad on so many levels. But in answer to your question, if this became known in the private Catholic school community — to which we belonged — it would be a very big deal. To wit, at my daughter’s school, it came to light that a 65 year old groundskeeper had had some sort of incident with a girl 40 years earlier. He was fired on the spot. I thought that was unjustifiably draconian, brutally unfair and cruel. But that’s how sensitive these schools are, certainly nowadays. It’s frankly ridiculous, and that’s sort of the point I am making with Kavanaugh. That’s not to exonerate him, but when seventeen year olds already have to understand that government service at a high level is closed to them, I am not convinced that is either fair or in the interests of society.
Steven Kopits: I don’t think it’s a matter of what positions are closed off if one does something. Forgive me for being old fashioned, but it’s a matter of right and wrong.
Establishing right and wrong comes down to evidence. How good is the evidence? Right now, it’s pretty weak.
Steven Kopits: What’s the null hypothesis? This is not a judicial proceeding in the literal sense; we do not need to exceed the “beyond a shadow of a doubt” threshold.
You mean that any allegation, however vague, against a male nominee for confirmation in the Senate should be grounds for disqualification? Disagree.
You mean that any adverse encounter in one’s teen years should automatically disqualify for Senate confirmation? Disagree.
Steven Kopits: Not any; but one buttressed by a polygraph, and when there is a witness (who the committee leadership refuses to subpoena), one could investigate. Don’t we want the truth?
I think the first step in that is to get the testimony of the accuser. Let’s see what she has to say.
The Washington Post has been investigating this story for six weeks. The Democrats have had the letter for two months. You’re suggesting that the Post and Democrats were so incompetent that they didn’t follow up on the story? That they couldn’t run to ground an allegation made about people right there in Washington, people readily available locally?
Steven Kopits: No, I’m suggesting if you can spend a year on Merrick Garland, you can spend a few more days on Brett Kavanaugh.
I am not opposed to hearings next Thursday, rather than Monday.
I agree that Ford, with her counsel, should be deposed by Republican counsel, for a couple of reasons. First, I think doing discovery by committee will be long, slow and painful–and quite possibly traumatic for Ford. Second, it may give us a bit-and-pieces narrative, rather than a coherent story. Third, I think Kavanaugh deserves a clear account to the alleged event to which he can respond. It’s hard to respond to, “Mr. Kavanaugh, were you at an unspecified location on an unspecified date with a woman you don’t know?” Fourth, if the allegations stand up, then Kavanaugh can simply withdraw. So, sure, give her the time to testify. But I think it’s sensible for all parties to do a debrief and discovery first.
“If you are 17 years old and had a bad encounter with a girl,”
i guess you and i differ on what constitutes a bad encounter. i would feel better after an unbiased investigation by the fbi, to answer the question: was this a bad encounter or attempted rape? your commentary sends a poor message to current youth about their personal responsibility. would you be so flippant if this had been your daughter? your approach is how a sleaze ball like trump can get into office after his repeated assaults on women through the years. not held accountable, because boys will be boys.
on another level, if kavanaugh did commit these actions, how do you feel about him sitting in judgement on future supreme court cases that involve sexual assault?
So you’re saying, Baffs, that Kavanaugh is either a repressed serial rapist or, just once in his life, really wanted to rape a specific girl. The former would lead to multiple allegations — which there haven’t been so far — and the latter really requires an explanation.
“The former would lead to multiple allegations ”
and then they begin to come out of the woodwork. care to change your position steven? the reason why conservatives want to rush this case is exactly because there very well could be more cases. lo and behold, they have appeared. and why haven’t those victims come forward prior to now? look at how you, and other conservatives, immediately come to the aid of the accused, while challenging the veracity of the victims. how does that not have a negative impact on women coming forward with these types of crimes? look at how anita hill was crucified decades ago. you think it was proper? and do you think those proceedings did not inhibit others from coming forward with similar types of crimes (in general, not specific to thomas.). steven, your response to this episode is an example of why women, to this day, still are mistreated in the workplace and at home. and you don’t even realize this, which is the sad part.
“really wanted to rape a specific girl…. really requires an explanation.”
explanation: i think he was drunk, immature, spoiled, and poor judgement. you need to explain how he has overcome these personality traits that would make him a good lifetime appointment to the supreme court. this act was not good natured fun, it was a felony, by the way. if people had followed your approach, steven, bill cosby would never have been convicted either.
“The former would lead to multiple allegations — which there haven’t been so far — and the latter really requires an explanation.”
steven, i would really like your response. we now have multiple allegations and witnesses against kavanaugh. these would never appear if we simply rush through this nomination. how would you feel if you placed a sexual predator on the supreme court?
This is not a typical he said, she said. There were three people in the room and the Republicans on the Judicial Committee are refusing to bring the third person in to testify. The third person, Mark Judge, is an accomplice in the crime. Why wouldn’t they want him to testify? Perhaps because he can’t reliably support Kavanaugh’s denial.
@ Menzie
One thing you “forgot” to mention is, how the very self-righteous and all-virtuous Senator Jeff Flake has been waving the naughty finger at everyone, while Flake then goes on 5 minutes later to vote for whatever horrendous bill Orange Excrement and frog neck McConnell have put up the flag pole.
https://www.axios.com/flake-voted-with-trump-92-of-the-time-1513306423-7f195bd2-4e01-4da5-b6ed-98204d98e480.html
If Adolf Hitler had had “opponents” or “alternative voices” like Jeff Blake to “fight” against his authoritarian seizure of power in Germany, instead of taking 2 years for Hitler to become leader it only would have taken about 2 weeks.
Gentlemen and unfortunately that is all there is,
let us get fair dinkum.
NO candidate for the Supreme Court ever lets on how they shall make their decision.
If the committee ( way too large IMHO) was equally fair dinkum) could bot possibly vote for any candidate of the Supreme court.
Downunder the PM ( before they are sacked at regular intervals) is the only person who decides.
At least we have a really stupid black letter High Court but not so overtly political one as you people have.
@ Maybe He’s Krampus
Well, if you have one person deciding, that sure takes the “the politics” out of it. Stay away from the PeakIgnorance dum-dum pills or we’re going to have to adopt you as an “honorary” southern redneck American. That entails many things we don’t want to have to do to you, such as remove all literary materials from your home.
Mate,
Stay away from ad hominen thank you.
I was not advocating you adopt what we do merely making the observation your Supreme court is very political whilst ours is not.
I also said NO senator could vote for any candidates for the Supreme court as they will not even answer the most basic questions.
“The alleged sexual assault by itself is probably not enough to disqualify him, even if true. It doesn’t paint a very flattering image, but if it was a one-off stumbling drunk stupid teenager incident and he otherwise had no history of doing something like that again, then I’d give him a pass.”
I would like to see the Venn diagram of people who say rich white prep school 17-year-olds should get a second chance and those who say 17-year-old Trayvon Martin got what he deserved.
Recall that Donald Trump took out a full page ad in the New York Times demanding that the Central Park 5 — whose sentences were overturned by DNA evidence and the confession of the real perpetrator — who were 14, 14, 15, 15, and 16 should be executed. No second chances there.
What is it about privileged white boys that demands they be given a second chance?
Attempted rape is not just drunken horseplay or teenage hijinks. It is a serious crime that only a moral deviant would carry out, drunk or not. And note that he clamped his hand over her face to keep her from screaming such that she could not breathe and though he mind kill her, intentionally or not.
Burn Kavanaugh to the ground. He does not deserve to be on the Supreme Court. He is morally unfit. Seriously, is there no Republican judge they could nominate who doesn’t have a little teenage rape in his background?
joseph Trump is an idiot, so we shouldn’t pay any attention to his garbage on the Central Park Five. Even if guilty, no minor should ever be executed.
The problem with privileged rich white teenage boys isn’t that they get second chances; it’s that they get third, fourth, fifth, fiftieth chances. If it turns out that Kavanaugh was a repeat offender and never showed any remorse (and here I’m assuming for the sake of argument that the accuser’s story is true), then there’s no question that he should be disqualified. But most of us recognize mitigating circumstances. Being “stumbling drunk” certainly diminishes responsibility, especially if Kavanaugh was not used to drinking (and we don’t know about that one way or the other). And while today we probably would call it attempted rape, I suspect that two generations ago most people would have called it drunken horseplay. We need to be careful about applying today’s standards of conduct to previous generations. A professor dating a student is a big Bozo “no no” in today’s world, but quite common 40 years ago. Watch any 1950s TV show and people are half crocked with a drink in their hand all the time….often while driving. Should an 80 year old Democratic senator be disqualified for office if he spanked his kids 50 years ago? Should a 75 year old liberal Democratic woman be disqualified if she smoked around her children in the 1960s? If they did those things today, then we’d be horrified, but no one would have been horrified back then. A hundred years ago 25 year old men married 14 year old girls. And that works two ways; many things that we consider acceptable today were considered morally reprehensible 40 years ago; e.g., interracial marriage and homosexuality. Most of the folks I know who don’t recognize that standards of acceptable behavior tend to evolve also call themselves conservatives. Color me a liberal moral relativist. For me the main issue is whether Kavanaugh’s inner moral compass has also evolved along with social mores. If Kavanaugh is guilty of the things Blasey Ford accused him of, then Kavanaugh should feel a sense of remorse and want to apologize to her. That would be evidence that he is not stuck in the morals of a spoiled teenager in 1982. So I don’t think he gets a pass just because he was a stumbling drunk teenager. If he’s guilty, then he also needs to show remorse and demonstrate that this was just a one-off mistake. OTOH, I have no sympathy for a 53 year old judge who would perjure himself in order to avoid embarrassment in order to move up the career ladder.
Joseph,
“Burn Kavanaugh to the ground. He does not deserve to be on the Supreme Court. He is morally unfit.”
Kavanaugh is accused of forcibly groping a girl when he was 17. Bill Clinton was much more credibly accused of ACTUAL RA{PE when he was Gvr of Arkansas. No FBI investigation. He later received oral sex from a young intern in the Oval Office while he was President. And committed perjury about it. It seems like Clinton’s offenses are 10X worse. Why the different standard?
sammy: Isn’t this “whataboutism”? And Clinton was impeached, so at a minimum shouldn’t we investigate Mr. Kavanaugh?
Sammy claims no one investigated Bill Clinton? Sammy – ever heard of Ken Starr?
I say ram this fetid, sinking nomination through post haste. Leave this hack with an asterisk after his name every time he writes a court decision in favor of the well connected and powerful. Any of 100 judges can toe the Federalist Society line. But this guy. He will lay down a stench with every decision.
Watching Trump’s live soap box on CNN. I feel so nauseated. Some idiot lady in the background, white shirt with red lettering “Chinese Americans Love Trump”. There’s a jaded/morbid joke I wanna tell here, but I’m afraid no one would get it. Oh well. Something like “I been looking for a legit reason to hate ‘a certain group of people’ outside of just my ex-GF’s mom, and I finally found it.” See, I told you I was the only one who would get it.
Describing sexual assault as just “horseplay” is incredibly tone deaf. Curiously, “horseplay” was exactly they way Jerry Sandusky described his sexual assault of children.
To equate sexual assault as similar to smoking around children or spanking children is just horrifyingly dense. Sexual assault has always, forever, without ambiguity been recognized as a crime, at least by women — even in those prehistoric days of the 1980s. What it hasn’t been is always recognized as worthy of punishment by certain men.
I would definitely say that anyone guilty of sexual assault is not eligible for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
joseph I think you’re guilty of revisionist moral history. Definitions of sexual assault have evolved over time. Patting a woman on the butt would be sexual assault today and land you in jail. Patting a woman on the butt 40 years ago would get you a slap in the face. An 18 year old senior dating a 17 year old senior is a crime in many areas today, but no one would have considered it a crime in 1982. I’m pretty sure that spanking a misbehaving child in public today will get you more jail time today than doing what Kavanaugh is alleged to have done in 1982. My point is that there are gradations of virtually every crime and those gradations evolve over time. Looking at things from today’s moral lens and being repelled by what Kavanaugh is alleged to have done is a sign of our moral progress, but we shouldn’t forget that standards of conduct change. Now if Kavanaugh doesn’t feel a retrospective sense of shame (assuming he’s guilty), then that should make him ineligible.
Describing sexual assault as just “horseplay” is incredibly tone deaf.
As I said before, the definition of “sexual assault” has changed. What Kavanaugh and Judge allegedly did would have been considered horseplay back then. If you had called it a sexual assault back then the police probably would have laughed all the way back to the squad car. We might find that abhorrent today, but that’s because we live under a different moral regime than we did back in 1982. And remember, according to the accuser she escaped because Judge jumped on top of the two of them, which makes it sound a helluva lot like drunken horseplay.
Curiously, “horseplay” was exactly they way Jerry Sandusky described his sexual assault of children.
What Sandusky did would never have been considered horseplay even in 1982. Maybe ancient Greece, but not in living memory.
I would definitely say that anyone guilty of sexual assault is not eligible for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
I think we would all agree that advocating a pro-slavery agenda and owning slaves ought to disqualify someone from being President. Does that mean George Washington should be stricken from the list of those eligible to be on the list of greatest Presidents?
I’m a big history buff in general (it was one of my first undergrad degrees) and World War I has always been of special interest. Next week marks the 100th anniversary of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, which was the largest US military campaign in history. To mark the occasion I’ve been reading “To Conquer Hell: The Meuse-Argonne, 1918”. The book includes excerpts from soldiers’ diaries from each of the regiments describing each day’s fighting. One of the shocking things is how frequently and callously American soldiers admit to murdering not just German POWs but young kids. Taking them back behind the lines and mowing them down with machine guns. These are monstrous war crimes that would land you at The Hague in today’s world. But yet something this monstrous was considered okay at the time. And this was only 100 years ago. My grandfather fought in that war and was wounded at Chateaux-Thierry and horribly wounded at Blanc Mont Ridge. So this was recent enough that I knew people in that war. This isn’t just remote ancient history. A hundred years ago people wanted to try the Kaiser for war crimes, but no one thought it appropriate to try soldiers for the mass murder of POWs. And even less than 50 years ago Lt. Calley had plenty of sympathizers despite his role in the My Lai Massacre and despite it having occurred a generation after Nuremburg. Actions that shock us today did not always shock previous generations. And actions that shocked previous generations do not always shock us today. People who don’t recognize that moral standards are continually evolving end up becoming conservatives. That’s why moral arguments are continually evolving; we didn’t just end all moral discussion 3,000 years ago with the Ten Commandments.
One of the best posts you’ve written.
Here’s the worst case legal scenario I can see for Kavanaugh. Pres. Trump withdraws his nomination, and he loses his appeals court position making him a private citizen. As a citizen he then sues Ford for defamation both either slander and/or libel until the cases are settled. With the paucity of evidence shown to date he has a chance of winning either.
A mid-range scenario, is he is confirmed and the Dems finally win the House and impeach him. Once confirmed he immediately recuses himself from any related Ford case coming before the SC signalling his intentions to sue. With the paucity of evidence shown to date he has a chance of winning either the impeachment and or the Senate trial. As a sitting Judge he then sues Ford for defamation both either slander and/or libel until the cases are settled. With the paucity of evidence and no evident loss shown to date he has less chance of winning either of the defamation cases.
In a worst case for Dems, if confirmed with these actions the Dems have created a mortal enemy on the Supreme Court, and as a sitting Judge he torpedoes any Dem sponsored case coming before him. Some Dems already think that was the probability, but the majority of rational voters though he is/was objective. Goring a powerful person has its consequences.
Sometimes rationality is not in the Dem psyche.
MMMMM???? With a couple of women on the jury there is a good chance they will find for the defendant.
dd, I think you forgot the worse case for Dems example. Also remember who the complainant is in my examples. You seem confused what finding for the defendant means?
CoRev, it was not a mistake to “forget” your incredibly misguided “worse case for Dems [sic] example.” Dilbert was trying to be polite by ignoring the utter stupidity of your “example.” And yet you bring it up. You truly have no clue.
CoRev Careful. Under some circumstances polygraph tests are admissible in court, particularly under the Ninth Circuit, which is where the accuser lives. Also the Fifth Circuit allows them under some conditions.
2slugs, it is unlikely a defamation case would originate in any Federal Court, let alone the Ninth Circuit. I dunno about state level courts and submission of polygraph evidence, but if even submitted it is a stretch for ti to show more than Blasey-Ford believed her own memories, not the validity of those memories. Its a weak piece of evidence.
“As a citizen he then sues Ford for defamation both either slander and/or libel until the cases are settled.”
I hope he does sue her. Her attorney get to depose him as well as Mark Judge. This way – we might get to the truth. Which very well may prove her allegations right. So no defamation.
You know if your side really thinks Ford is lying – you would be for an investigation. That your side wants to avoid an investigation at all cost is telling.
CoRev is clearly out of his element here. There is no scenario in which Kavanaugh sues Ford over her statements-to-date. Such a suit opens up discovery and counterclaims. Ford has way more damages at this point given the death threats and her having to hire security and move out of her own home.
Dave more wishful dreaming. “Such a suit opens up discovery and counterclaims.” Discovery of what? Discovery is usually used to compel an adverse party to disclose material facts (often names of witnesses) and documents. To date there are no known records and most possible Kavanaugh witnesses are already known. It appears Blasey-Ford might be more in jeopardy than Kavanaugh.
Your example of counterclaims: “Ford has way more damages at this point given the death threats and her having to hire security and move out of her own home.” would not fall on Kavanaugh, but more rightly on those who released the information, and that appears mostly to be Dems. That in the end opens up Blasey-Ford to even more discovery, court costs and the possibility of losing.
Or you really this stupid or what? If he sues her then they are adverse parties and we would be talking about material facts. Please stop using BIG words which you have no clue what they mean.
Pgl, again if you are going to complain about a comment please copy or cite the specific phrase to which you take offense. Continuing this random word complaining style of commenting adds no value and makes you look clueless. Deposing parties is part of discovery, and I was responding to your “I hope he does sue her. Her attorney get to depose him as well as Mark Judge. “
CoRev. You clearly do not understand the words you have typed. Your copy and paste of the definition of discovery does not make the point you are trying to make. To date there are no known records, is not relevant to the issue of whether records could be compelled in discovery. Regarding damages, you are just wrong and are so clueless, you clearly have no idea why you are wrong.
“you are just wrong and are so clueless, you clearly have no idea why you are wrong.”
CoRev’s usual state. Notice where he want us to specifically cite the claims he is making that we are objecting to. Like the man has no clue what even he has written!
Dave, you are prone to unsupported assertions and reading comprehension. Your assertions are meant to be demeaning, but fail without support.
Your reading comprehension is evident. You assert: “CoRev. You clearly do not understand the words you have typed. Your copy and paste of the definition of discovery does not make the point you are trying to make. To date there are no known records, is not relevant to the issue of whether records could be compelled in discovery.”
You obviously do not understand discovery. What would you ask for in discovery when To date there are no known records,? Fishing expeditions are not allowed. We already know three of the five attendees. Discovery could be used to see if they have IDed the other two. In the end, what more c/would be listed under discovery?
I’ll quote you: ” you are just wrong and are so clueless, you clearly have no idea why you are wrong.” See how making an assertion an supporting it works?
Strategically I think the Democrats are making a mistake in the way they’re handling the Kavanaugh situation. No one knows whether Kavanaugh is guilty or innocent of the charge against him. Based on the fact that the accuser passed a polygraph test while Kavanaugh and Mark Judge refuse to take a polygraph test and some other bits of supporting evidence I’m inclined to believe the accuser. But it’s still pretty murky and there’s plenty of room for doubt. I’m probably 60/40 that she’s telling the truth. If Kavanaugh is telling the truth, then there’s no reason he shouldn’t be confirmed, so hanging your hat on Kavanaugh-qua-sexual-predator is a dead end…as it should be if he’s innocent. But if he’s guilty, then you have two choices. One choice is to focus on his unfitness because of his behavior as a teenager. That’s the approach that the Democrats seem to be taking. That means you’ve got to convince a lot of old white conservatives that stumbling drunk teenager crap disqualifies him from being on the SCOTUS. Good luck with that. The other choice is to emphasize the perjury aspect, which isn’t as hot blooded as the sexual assault approach, but it would also be a lot harder for 11 old white guys to defend. People are far more likely to excuse a drunk 17 year old than they are a 53 year old sober judge of lying. So strategically it seems that the better approach is to focus on the perjury aspect because this always opens the case for impeachment and removal even if Kavanaugh is approved.
2slugbaits: I agree, perjury is sufficient. Although if Kavanaugh feels he is untainted, why not FBI investigation, and why no polygraph?
Menzie et al, “Although if Kavanaugh feels he is untainted, why not FBI investigation, and why no polygraph”, because it will show little. I have little doubt he could pass, just as I have little doubt a trained psychologist would know how to pass. One thing does bother me about her training. In many programs, as part of the training they undergo therapy/counseling, so that the potential counselors have reduced repressed thoughts, experiences, and emotions.
Why wasn’t her unsuppressed memories of the event and the ensuing emotions and conditions were treated at that time? Why did it take decades for these memories to be treated? She admitted in her WaPo article:
“…“I think it derailed me substantially for four or five years,” she said. She struggled academically and socially, she said, and was unable to have healthy relationships with men. “I was very ill-equipped to forge those kinds of relationships.”
She also said that in the longer term, it contributed to anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms with which she has struggled.
She married her husband in 2002. Early in their relationship, she told him she had been a victim of physical abuse, he said. A decade later, he learned the details of that alleged abuse when the therapist asked her to tell the story, he said….” 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?utm_term=.c5fbdd3b3507
Another question is when did she mention the name of her assailant, if ever? Also from the WaPo article:
“Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.
Notes from an individual therapy session the following year, when she was being treated for what she says have been long-term effects of the incident, show Ford described a “rape attempt” in her late teens.
In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming.He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.”
Is he lying or are the therapist’s notes incomplete?
CoRev: Just a little logical inconsistency here; if it will show little, and you are confident he would pass (hmm, aren’t you presupposing things here?), then there should be little hesitation on his part to undergo (i) a polygraph, and (ii) an FBI investigation.
But please continue to forward your random arguments.
Manzie, you either misread or misconstrued my meaning. Passing a polygraph does not prove much, other than the testee believes their own answers or the testee has training/experience in controlling their involuntary body functions. What is it you are ASSuming I am presupposing?
I am presupposing that this is is another Dem political circus which will come back to haunt them. The only random arguments I am seeing are from those that have already convicted, sentenced and hung Kavanaugh.
If undergoing (i) a polygraph, and (ii) or having FBI investigation are important why is it not even more important to file a criminal complaint with the local police, the jurisdiction with the actual responsibility to investigate? We BOTH already know why. There is nothing to investigate. No what, where, when nor complainants to investigate that take it past what is already known.
What is known? Two of the three possible persons involved deny anything happened. Finding the other two non-participants in the event will show only that a party happened confirming they all were there. Or just as possibly NOT!
But please continue to counter my arguments or to continue not printing them.
CoRev: I am going to bookmark this comment of yours: “There is nothing to investigate”. And we will see in the future if that is verified. Of course, I’m sure, given the tenor of your comments, that you believe Anita Hill was not a credible witness.
Anyway, exact quote of you:
Given your ambiguous wording, I think I can defend myself against intention misconstruing. Try to be more explicit sin your writing and we will not have room for your squiggling in the future. So, why no FBI investigation, I ask again…
Just remember, there is no statute of limitations in Maryland for these types of alleged crimes.
CoRev If undergoing (i) a polygraph, and (ii) or having FBI investigation are important why is it not even more important to file a criminal complaint with the local police, the jurisdiction with the actual responsibility to investigate?
Well, one reason is because back in 1982 it’s quite likely that the local police would not have done anything other than report her to her parents. That’s because the prevailing view at the time was that such drunken teenage behavior was basically just horseplay, although that’s not a story my friend joseph seems willing to accept. But I believe that’s just the way it was back then.
No one is saying that polygraph tests are 100% accurate, but in general they’re fairly accurate even with people who have been trained to try and evade them. That’s why the FBI and CIA use them. She took the test and passed. Now suppose both Kavanaugh and Judge take the test and fail. Would you still be inclined to disbelieve her story over theirs? It doesn’t absolutely prove that she’s telling the truth, but it surely puts a heavy finger on the scale. And that doubt about Kavanaugh’s truthfulness should be enough to disqualify him from the Court. The more interesting case is what happens if all three of them pass polygraph tests. That would support the view that she truthfully believes what she is saying, but she might be misidentifying people. I don’t think that’s especially likely, but it becomes much more plausible if all three of them pass a polygraph. The only reason I can think of as to why Kavanaugh and Judge won’t take a polygraph test is because they believe the tests are accurate. And flunking a polygraph test would not only cost him a position on the Court, it would also expose him to a perjury charge.
Menzie asks: ” So, why no FBI investigation, I ask again…”
What would an FBI investigation provide? If it could determine the who the other two attendees were could the confirm Blasey-Ford’s story? No. Could they confirm that the party occurred? Maybe. Could they confirm that all players in Blasey-Ford’s story attended? Maybe. Could they confirm Blasey-Ford’s story of the upststairs event? No!
After the FBI investigation are we any closer to the truth of Blasey-Ford’s claims? No. Would it prove Kavanaugh perjured himself? Not from the quotes of his I have seen. In the end we have learned almost nothing changing the current level of knowledge.
You also noted: “Just remember, there is no statute of limitations in Maryland for these types of alleged crimes.”
Exactly why I asked there is no complaint currently filed or being file at the local police. They are the jurisdiction where an investigation should occur for a criminal case. The fact she is not filing such a claim puts her story in question. Plus with the available information, or even with the information I identified is possible with an investigation, would very likely result in the prosecutor determining to drop a case because of insufficient evidenceghts what sare yours
Those are my thoughts what are yours?
“Why wasn’t her unsuppressed memories of the event and the ensuing emotions and conditions were treated at that time?”
It did not take CoRev long to go the “a little nutty and a little slutty” route. I can tell that no one you ever care about has had to endure rape.
Pgl, how do you come up with so much BS? Only you came up with this: ““a little nutty and a little slutty” route. ” I was talking about one of the steps in the FORMAL TRAINING programs many psychologists must go through before graduating. What were you talking about?
“Is he lying or are the therapist’s notes incomplete?”
What are you on about here? Again, your comment defy logic and common sense. Therapists are not trained stenographers sitting at a specialized typograph. They are jotting down notes on a pen while someone talks. The name of the assailant is likely irrelevant to the therapist. Why would you expect the therapist’s notes to have the name? Answer: you would not.
“Why wasn’t her unsuppressed memories of the event and the ensuing emotions and conditions were treated at that time? Why did it take decades for these memories to be treated?”
Again CoRev, you seem ill-equipped to engage in critical thought. You suggest that a therapy session in 2012 somehow means that nothing was “treated at that time”?? Putting aside the point that you seem to be conflating decades of adolescent, young adult, and later years in your use of the phrase “at that time”, traumatic events can be treated, and treated, and treated, and treated again. It’s not like a cold, where you get better and it never comes back (the next cold is an entirely different virus). Treatment of mental trauma is a lifelong journey.
Dave, do you realize you explained why the therapist’s notes were incomplete?
Again Dave, you seem ill-equipped to engage in critical thought or reading comprehension. I said this: ” In many programs, as part of the training they undergo therapy/counseling, so that the potential counselors have reduced repressed thoughts, experiences, and emotions.” That is before finishing their TRAINING (another word is education). And you translated that to means well after her training/education had ended. “You suggest that a therapy session in 2012 somehow means that nothing was “treated at that time”?? ” No, I did not suggest anything of the sort.
Read better with logic and objectivity instead of emoting!
2slugbaits: “What Kavanaugh and Judge allegedly did would have been considered horseplay back then.”
Seriously? Grabbing a 15-year-old girl, dragging her into a bedroom, throwing her on a bed, jumping on top of her, trying to rip her clothes off, attempting to rape her, and when she tries to scream for help, putting a hand over her face so she can’t breathe and fears she might die. Just horseplay? Because I don’t think the girl found it very funny. That has unambiguously been considered sexual assault forever.
Dude, you need to get yourself into some therapy because you’ve got some seriously f*****d up stuff running around in your head if you think that is just horseplay, now or ever.
I am done with [edited MDC] 2slugbaits.
We have a new winner for the dumbest comment ever:
“Steven Kopits
September 21, 2018 at 6:34 am
I look at the test in reverse: If you are 17 years old and had a bad encounter with a girl, should you assume that your ambitions to hold a position like a senior judgeship are effectively over?”
Why would it be over since at least back when this occurred – most women never reported it out of fear that they would be effectively raped a second time. And it seem Steven Kopits has no problem attacking the character of this woman even today.
OKAY PRINCETON KOPITS. I’ll bite. You tell me **exactly** where you were and who you were with during the afternoon hours of September 4, 1983. Your statement is going to be poured over by every single person in the country. You lie or turn out to be in any way mistaken, you risk going to jail or being sued for defamation or slander. Heck, even if you are perfectly accurate, there is a chance that someone is going to come up with incorrect “proof” that you are wrong due to either mistake or mal-intent.
It looks like we are getting the Anita Hill treat round II. And Kopits is today’s David Brock. Maybe he wants to sell a book like this one:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/190530.Real_Anita_Hill
I was at my parents house in Baltimore.
Where yes but what were you doing? If we had a real lawyer here, the next question would be:
“And how many beers had you had when you went after that young lady who knocked on the front door?”
OK some lawyers are pathetic but this is the kind of garbage the Republican hit woman will go after the accuser. And I bet you will defend this garbage!
“I was at my parents [sic] house in Baltimore.”
I say, you weren’t. Okay “Princeton” Kopits. Prove that you are right and I am wrong. You can’t
“I was at my parents house in Baltimore.”
That afternoon? Between what hours? When did you arrive? When did you leave? Were both your parents there? Who else was in the house? Remember, all we have to do is find one scrap of evidence that might suggest your answers are incomplete, misleading, or vague. Also, I do not know your age for certain, but I kind of already doubt the veracity of your answer “Princeton” Kopits.
Ed Whelan is the president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center and a close friend to Kavanaugh.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/whelan-apologizes-for-insinuating-that-kavanaugh-classmate-attacked-blase y-ford
His latest admits that Dr. Ford was sexually attacked but Whelan tried to pin the blame on some other Georgetown Prep dude. Ford shot down this Hail Mary. OK – so the White House talking points have evolved to “yea she was attacked but by someone else”. Interesting!
The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington, according to the Republican senator, which means she may need to drive across the country to make the hearing. Ford has reportedly told friends she is uncomfortable in confined spaces, indicating a physical difficulty in making the trip by plane.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/21/trump-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-charges-834664
What you get from this story is some Republican playing travel agent??? Try these Stevie Boy:
‘GOP members of the Judiciary Committee held a conference call on Friday morning to discuss how to respond to the requests from Ford’s lawyers. But several elements of their offer appear to be nonstarters with Democrats and Ford’s camp, which had made clear that she could not be in the capital to testify before Thursday, according to a senior aide to the minority. “They’re making this disingenuous counteroffer knowing she won’t be here,” the Democratic aide said.’
The Republican Senators are terrified of her testifying so they are putting up all sorts of barriers. Of course they can count on the modern day David Brock – which is what you are doing here – of smearing her at every turn.
First of all, lie detectors don’t work, as many people mistakenly assume:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/lie-detectors-dont-work-advertised-and-they-never-did-180961956/
We all know what it looks like when a lie detector is used: the machine provides polygraph readouts of a person’s physical responses to the questions that are asked. It usually measures heart rate/blood pressure, breathing and skin conductivity, writes the APA.
The questioner—in fiction, usually a cop—asks the person hooked up—in fiction, usually a suspect—a series of questions, beginning with simple questions designed to establish a baseline of what readouts are “normal” for the person in the chair. “What is your name,” is a common one. In real life, the APA writes, the most common method of questioning uses broader-based questions about “misdeeds that are similar to those being investigated, but refer to the subject’s past and are usually broad in scope.” An example: “Have you ever betrayed anyone who trusted you?”
The two biggest problems, writes the APA, are these: there’s no way to know if the symptoms of “bodily arousal” (like an elevated pulse) that the machine measures are caused by lies, and there’s no way to know if someone’s results are affected by the fact that they believe in the polygraph machine. If this second view is correct, they write, “the lie detector might be better called a fear detector.”
Why thank you for the education on lie detectors! Snicker. Of course Kavanaugh is ducking not only a lie detector but a real investigation. Oh no – better have Whelan concuct some utter BS on some other dude allegedly attacking her. What a man!
Second of all, if she is telling the truth and wants to testify she just come in and tell the truth. All these preconditions make it seem like she is making excuses not to testify. Fear of small spaces? Anyone have data on her travel records? She’s a psychologist. Physician heal thyself.
The validity of lie detector tests.
”
The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests)
Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.
…
Significance & Practical Application
Polygraph testing has generated considerable scientific and public controversy. Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.’s Saxe’s research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability. Nevertheless, polygraph testing continues to be used in non-judicial settings, often to screen personnel, but sometimes to try to assess the veracity of suspects and witnesses, and to monitor criminal offenders on probation. Polygraph tests are also sometimes used by individuals seeking to convince others of their innocence and, in a narrow range of circumstances, by private agencies and corporations….”
To convince others of her truthfulness Blasey-Ford’s lawyer suggested she take a lie detector test? Or was it her suggestions as a professional psychologist? Dunno, but having one is not admissible in many, many courts including the SC.
Yet many here think it will tell the truth of the complaint/complainant. Not in real world cases.
The most useful part of polygraphs is to elicit confessions. “Look, we know you are lying. Why don’t you tell us the real story, and maybe I can get the prosecutor to go easy on you.”
CoRev wrote ” Dave, do you realize you explained why the therapist’s notes were incomplete?
Again Dave, you seem ill-equipped to engage in critical thought or reading comprehension. I said this: ” In many programs, as part of the training they undergo therapy/counseling, so that the potential counselors have reduced repressed thoughts, experiences, and emotions.” That is before finishing their TRAINING (another word is education). And you translated that to means well after her training/education had ended. “You suggest that a therapy session in 2012 somehow means that nothing was “treated at that time”?? ” No, I did not suggest anything of the sort.
Read better with logic and objectivity instead of emoting!”
In other words, your words have no point. The therapists notes were incomplete. Does anyone dispute this? CoRev seems to think this is a big point. What is this point?
And now CoRev admits that the fact that Ford likely had some therapy during her education, has no bearing on whether she might have some leftover trauma years later. So again, CoRev is merely throwing dust in the air. One wonders, why does he even bother with the blathering.
Dave, another assertion: ““You suggest that a therapy session in 2012 somehow means that nothing was “treated at that time”?? ” No, I did not suggest anything of the sort.” you then went on with an example of how psychological trauma can require years of repeated treatment. And yet, no reference to any treatment until 2012 couples therapy for such a trauma that affected her relations for 4-5 years thereafter (her description). She was a psychologist and should have recognized and had her trauma treated throughout, as you suggested. Apparently she did not. Is she a bad psychologist? Was the event less traumatic than presented? Or is she a ploy of Democratic destroy Kavanaugh at any cost strategy? Or is she just wrong?
The incomplete therapist notes do not confirm that Kavanaugh was part of her complaint. No corroboration, there. Her husband is a biased witness. Weak corroboration there.
My comments were made to get those objective commenters to think. Think instead of emoting.
“CoRev is merely throwing dust in the air.”
This is ALWAYS CoRev’s MO. Get used to it. I think Team Trump pays him by the word – regardless of how absurd those words usually are.
Princeton Steve told us Dr. Ford would not testify. Lord knows the Republican strategy would be to put up as many road blocks as possible as they are scared of letting her testify. Princeton Steve joined these Republicans in his failed attempts to so defame her that she would run and hide. Good news for sanity – she will testify. Princeton Steve not only failed in his attempts – his vaunted little forecast turns out to be wrong!
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/22/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford-agrees-testify-senate-committee/1393891002/
How is it possible to have an investigation if the Republicans are unwilling to subpoena Mark Judge, the accomplice in the crime and have him testify under oath? He is a direct witness.
I can understand Ms. Ford’s reluctance to testify if this is nothing but a charade of an investigation and the outcome is already determined by the majority Republicans. Why should she risk her life – she has already had death threats and had to move out of her home – for a meaningless show trial.
Joseph states: “How is it possible to have an investigation if the Republicans are unwilling to subpoena Mark Judge, the accomplice in the crime and have him testify under oath? He is a direct witness.” Only according to Blasey-Ford and not him! Another unconfirmed “he said – she said” claim.
At this point every potential witness, I think the count is now 4 or 5, Blasey-Ford has proposed has denied knowledge of her story. Maybe that’s why a Clinical Psychologist failed to have her psychological trauma treated caused by her memory of the event for decades?
Except in her own memories there is NO EVIDENCE the event ever happened! Yet nearly every liberal on this blog and elsewhere has convicted, and is willing to destroy this man and his family.
We now see the walls of the “fundamental transformation of America” you wish. Fundamentals such as the electoral system, move to socialism, basic tenets of US law, accusers testify first, etc. Have you ever considered the fundamental problems lie within the liberal community and not outside it? Many voters outside the liberal community have!
CoRev, no one has denied the assault happen except for Kavanaugh. Everyone else has said they have no memory of it, which is not unexpected since they were not witnesses to the event. Why would they remember anything at all about that occasion?
The two men who were alleged to be witnesses were Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. Both must testify or the investigation is a complete farce.
And let’s not be coy here. We all know you and all the rest of the Republicans are terrified of having Mark Judge testify. He has a lot more to talk about than just whether or not he remembered any particular detail from that day and it goes way beyond just Ms. Ford.
Joseph, not true! “no one has denied the assault happen (sic) except for Kavanaugh. Everyone else has said they have no memory of it, which is not unexpected since they were not witnesses to the event. ” The “it” to which you refer is the actual party. No party no event could have happened between these two or three. Although, I do agree that this hearing (not investigation) is a complete farce. Every proposed witness Blasey-Ford has presented has denied any knowledge.
Why would anyone be terrified of judge testifying? You are misrepresenting the circumstance. The only thing that matters is: “…whether or not he remembered any particular detail from that day”. Whether his life’s experiences and achievements: “… goes way beyond just Ms. Ford. ” has no bearing on Blasey-Ford’s claim. Do the Repubs or the Dems want Judge, another witness, saying FORCEFULLY that the party never happened? You’re beyond just over reach into wishful thinking territory.
After a blatant request by Dem leaders for others to come forward, there has been a 2nd accuser to come forward and her claim is supported at a lesser level than Blasey-Ford’s.
CoRev, saying they have no memory of a party is quite different from denying the assault. They are saying they don’t remember. No one is saying it didn’t happen except Kavanaugh. For persons who did not witness the assault, it is not unexpected they would not remember an event which had no particular significance to them. I repeat, no one has denied the assault except Kavanaugh.
Mark Judge has not said that the party didn’t happen. He has said he doesn’t remember. He also has not said anything under oath, in public. As an alleged participant and witness of Kavanaugh’s assault, he needs to testify before the committee under oath. There also other things that he can testify to, such as Kavanaugh’s propensity for heavy drinking even to unconsciousness and his behavior on other occasions that would lend credibility to the allegation.
Republicans do not want Mark Judge to testify because he has written a biographical book documenting the routine drunkenness and debauchery of himself and his friends, and specifically Kavanaugh, while at Georgetown Prep. That routine behavior supports Ms. Ford’s claims. This wasn’t just a one-time occurrence.
Note that Kavanaugh, in his yearbook, identified himself as treasurer of the “100 Kegs or Bust Club” which was a pledge by Kavanaugh and his partying buddies to consume at least 100 kegs of beer before graduation. Mark Judge in his book confirms that they got through at least 80 kegs by the middle of their senior year. More reason for him to testify.
if you don’t remember a sexual assault you committed because you were too drunk to remember, does that mean the sexual assault never occurred? according to some members of this community, this is what they would have you believe. if you are guilty of a felony sexual assault, but not convicted in a court of law, should this disqualify you from holding the position of supreme court justice? interestingly, past drug and alcohol abuse, even if not found guilty in court, can exempt one from obtaining a security clearance. perhaps we should have loftier criteria for our supreme court justices, than a security clearance?
Joseph, again you are over reaching the interpretations of what was said. “I have no memory of this alleged incident,” Mr. Judge said in a statement his lawyer provided to the Judiciary Committee. “Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school, but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/18/mark-judge-other-man-room-wont-testify-about-chris/
No one has testified under oath to date. And this is another over reach interpretation: ” and specifically Kavanaugh, ” in his biographical book.
Mark Judge is not under investigation. If he testifies it will be an interesting side show, but not pertinent to the Blase-Ford claim.
How can Mark Judge be a side show when he allegedly was a participant in the main event?
If Mark Judge can’t remember the party, then how can he deny the assault? As he confesses in his own book, he was a blackout drunk and didn’t remember a lot of things. And Kavanaugh was one of his drinking buddies.
Joseph, your own comment confirms what I said about Judge’s testimony being a side show: “If Mark Judge can’t remember the party, then how can he deny the assault? As he confesses in his own book, he was a blackout drunk and didn’t remember a lot of things. And Kavanaugh was one of his drinking buddies.” None of that mattered to confirm nor corroborate her story.
so if a sexual assault occurred, but the perpetrator and witness were too drunk to remember, then the sexual assault is not relevant in the discussion of a supreme court justice nominee. get too drunk to remember anything and you can be absolved of all your youthful transgressions, since boys will be boys at any rate. what a crock.
CoRev, Mark Judge has not testified under oath, so his denials are irrelevant at this point. He needs to testify under oath as an accomplice in the crime. And even if he denies the ability to remember this particular incident, under oath, then he can testify as to Kavanaugh’s propensity to drink to unconsciousness on other occasions. That would certainly lend credibility to the claims of Ms. Ford.
What kind of investigation refuses to even take the testimony of one of the alleged perpetrators of the crime? We know the answer to that — a sham investigation.
Joseph, you’re wrong again: “…Mark Judge has not testified under oath, so his denials are irrelevant at this point.” He has been deposed or at least provided a statement under oath to the committee. They chose to limit witnesses because they have statements from all parties listed except Kavanaugh and Blasey-Ford.
If she shows they both will be questioned by a female trial prosecutor experienced in sexual assault cases.
CoRev, pardon me, but you are nuts. Is there no limit to the lies you will tell to defend Kavanaugh?
Mark Judge has not testified under oath. You can see with your own eyes the little letter prepared by his lawyer addressed to “Dear Chairman” and signed “Sincerely, Mark Judge.”
https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1042146479073374209/photo/1
These isn’t a deposition. This isn’t even a “statement”. It is just a letter from personal attorneys politely signed “Sincerely.” They are not even answers to questions anyone asked. They are only answers to questions that they thought convenient answer.
If you want the truth, you need testimony, in person, under oath and with direct questioning.
I can see it now, in CoRev’s world: “Dear Your Honor, as you can see in the attached letter I say that I did not rob the bank. It is not necessary to call me to the trial as I know nothing. Sincerely, the Accused”
Joseph, there you go over reaching again. I used the terms deposition or statement and not testify. His statement was in the form of a letter and it is considered “under oath” as it was an official response/statement.
“Under oath” is sort of nebulous and calls up images of swearing on a Bible, etc. This letter from Judge is an under oath statement. If he lied in it, he’s just as vulnerable to perjury charges as if he were present before a Senate panel. So Mark Judge’s story is locked in.
https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/09/20/right-now-exactly-one-person-refusing-testify-oath-isnt-brett-kavanaugh/
All other witnesses have made similar styled statements. The only witness to NOT DO SO is Blasey-Ford. That’s why it is important she be interviewed under oath. Perhaps Thursday? Her legal team is still hedging. If not it appears the vote will go forward.
The other big point has been to have the FBI investigate. This is what Biden said about them in 1991.
https://ntknetwork.com/biden-in-1991-the-fbi-do-not-reach-conclusions-when-investigating-sexual-misconduct/
“The last thing I will point out, the next person who refers to an FBI report as being worth anything, obviously doesn’t understand anything. FBI explicitly does not, in this or any other case, reach a conclusion, period. Period,” Biden said. “The reason why we cannot rely on the FBI report [is] you would not like it if we did because it is inconclusive. They say, ‘He said, she said, and they said. Period.”
The 3rd point the Lib cohort has been calling for is for Judge and Kavanaugh to undergo a polygraph. Polygraphs are NOT ACCEPTED as in most courts of this land. While researching them I found this statement: “Polygraph tests are also sometimes used by individuals seeking to convince others of their innocence and, in a narrow range of circumstances, by private agencies and corporations.”
http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
Did Blasey-Ford take the polygraph to reinforce her statement to folks whoo know nothing about them? Possibly! The above reference also says this about them: “For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph.”
This hearing is not about finding facts. The votes are already well known. Dems wish only to delay the vote and smear Kavanaugh, without any evidence and with weak, weak arguments. As is yours re: Judge must testify. He is not being investigated nor will he confirm Blasey-Ford’s story.
first, the letter is from judge’s lawyer, and simply conveying his commentary. a sworn statement would need to be signed and conveyed directly by judge himself. finding him in perjury due to that letter would probably be difficult. let him make the official statement himself.
second, biden was referring to a specific investigation and report conducted by the fbi nearly three decades ago. your comments have absolutely nothing to do with a possible fbi investigation and report which could/should be issued on the case today.
third, we are not conducting a criminal trial-yet. a polygraph is acceptable in order to approve/deny a security clearance. one would think a supreme court justice should at least be able to pass a security clearance and polygraph-and all that entails.
“This hearing is not about finding facts. The votes are already well known.” i would agree. republicans are not interested in the facts. of course, if a man denies his involvement in an uncomfortable situation, we should accept that denial as truth. right? after all, no criminal has ever plead innocent in court. donald trump denied sleeping with stormy daniels-and critters such as corev believed him and defended him. now we all know that trump slept with stormy, but in corev’s world, that still did not happen because the man denied it. what makes you think kavanaugh is not following the example set by his dear leader? corev, your arguments are amateurish at best. but mostly simply ignorant.
CoRev, these are your exact words: “He has been deposed or at least provided a statement under oath to the committee.” And you used this false statement to justify not having Mark Judge testify, under oath, to the committee.
You statement is categorically false. Mark Judge simply wrote a polite little letter. It was not a deposition, which requires a sworn oath.
Then you make the ridiculous statement that “under oath is sort of nebulous”. No it isn’t. Under oath is a specific legal term. It is not nebulous.
Then you say that the letter is an “under oath statement” whatever that means. No it isn’t. He swore no oath as to the truth of the statement.
Then you say “he’s just as vulnerable to perjury charges as if he were present before a Senate panel.” No, he isn’t. Perjury is a specific legal term. This is not perjury. It’s a little letter. You know at the bottom of your tax return where you sign it says “Under penalty of perjury, I declare … to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct and complete.” That’s an oath. There is no statement like that on the little letter. There is no jeopardy of perjury.
Cripes, stop digging when you get so deep in the hole you can’t see daylight. You just make yourself sound stupid.
And then we get down to the real meat of it. You believe that “This hearing is not about finding facts. The votes are already well known.” I agree with you that the Republicans are not interested in finding facts. That is why they are not permitting any witnesses except Ford. But I disagree that the votes are known. We will know when they vote.
And, CoRev, you can see here what an actual declaration under oath looks like. It is from Ms. Swetnick who accuses Kavanaugh of participating many instances of drunkenness and sexual misconduct.
As you can see it is signed with “I declare, under penalty of perjury and the laws of the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct.”
The little letter that Mark Judge sent the committee is not a declaration under oath, nor is it subject to penalty of perjury. That is why Mark Judge needs to testify under oath as a participant in the alleged crime. He has not done so, thus far.
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044960428730843136/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1044960428730843136&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdigbysblog.blogspot.com%2F