Did the Senate Judiciary Committee know about the allegations all along? Were they buried in the reports Democrats continued to ask for? Will this be 3 more mulligans?
Did anyone read what FFFFFourth of July means?
Should Trump select someone else or forge ahead?
Brett Kavanaugh’s Yale Fraternity Hoisted A Flag Made Of Women’s Underwear In 1985 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ka … 5f8f9b7ba9
If not true, can people be sued for libel?
Truth and Courage Secret Society Also Referred to as ‘Tit & Clit https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/truth-co … -tit-clit/
Why select anyone else? People like you will deny any good in anyone Trump suggests, simply because he suggests it.
You say that based on? I had no problem with Gorsuch. I challenge you to find any neative comment I made on him here or anywhere.
Who are people like me?
There is a photo of some from Brett's fraternity holding a flag of bra's. Should this reflect on him? He was not in the photo?
Obviously it should - it aids in denigrating a Trump nominee and that is sufficient to say anything at all. True or not, if it aids in harming our President it will be done.
Did you see thee one about the Tit and Clit club.
I think we should wait and hear both parties on Thursday. It's hard o know who is being truthful, this includes the media. The timing is suspect, and I wish Feinstein would have taken the allegation to the FBI when they were still investigating this man. This should never have been used for a political club. One of these people is not being truthful, and the other is going to be crucified. Just not right. The Dems should have been fair, but they weren't. They seem to never to never realize there dirty politicking is no longer accepted by many. This is one of the reasons Trump won.
I believe that is why the Dems wanted to delay the process until they could have gone through the mountain of documents they were given the night before the process was supposed to begin, some body must have known something that the Reps didn't want out before the confirmation was over.
When anyone in congress know something and ignore it, like how Congressboys molested teenage PageBoys during the 1960s and 70s I know of, they are in violation of their oath of office. That is probably why some person, I've forgotten his name, used to threaten many Reps in the early 2000s.
You know Diane, it rubs me the wrong way to hold something against a man for something done as a teenage minor. I would not want to be judged today for something that I did, not a capital crime, when I was 16.
But, as I see a pattern of behavior for Mr. Kavenaugh that is consistent and has continued into his adulthood, I have reason to be concerned about a mirror image of Roy Moore of Alabama.
That does not bode well for his confirmation.....
What have I missed Cred? What patterns of behavior have continued in adulthood?
I was in error, GA, I should have said IF it is revealed that Mr. Kavanaugh have had sexually inappropriate behavior as an adult, he should be held accountable.
Do you mean if the revelation is proven true in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt? Because it is already revealed...if one takes the word of the alleged victim as truth.
Or do you mean if the revelation is believed by the mob?
Let's not be bitter, Wilderness. The "mob" does not have the power to derail the confirmation, you better look at your own GOP buddies in Congress to do that.
LOL Of course the mob can derail the confirmation. Ruin a man's life, too.
But you didn't answer the question: is word against word good enough for you? It IS, after all, a Trump nominee - does that mean legal proof is not necessary to assign guilt?
How do you mean word against word? If the lady's testimony in of itself is without credible evidence to corroborate her story or there is not evidence supporting a pattern of behavior that has occurred more often than once, than word against word would not be enough to make the lady's case
As I said,I am not keen on Trump, but if I bring him or his nominees down, it will be according the legal system and rules of acceptable evidence, not partisan tricks. I got many reasons to oppose Cavenaugh for his conservative judicial perspective, but I won't railroad the man just for that.
There are three women now. The R tactic is to make them look "nutty and slutty." This was the tactic they used on Anita Hill all those years ago. And I thought slut shaming was so over.
I think these women need credible proof, as much as I dislike Kavanaugh. But there needs to be time for a court investigation then, and Trump can't ram this nomination through by Friday, the day after the first woman is heard. And I don't know if Congress is the right place for her to be questioned.
From what I've read so far, the first woman seems like she doesn't recall a lot of detail. If something really bad happens to you, don't you remember it in such detail you wish you COULD forget it? I don't like seeing all these men railroaded. It's going to ruin male and female relationships for a long time.
Are you sure there are three women Jean? All I could find indicated there were two women, and a lawyer's claim of more to come.
You speak of Republican tactics, which makes me wonder if you see no Democrat "tactics" in the way these revelations are playing out. Do you not have any concerns about the timeline of these revelations?
Wouldn't you consider a nomination-delaying investigation exactly what the Democrats want? Consider Blasy's account. Without any inference to her or her story's validity, can you really imagine - with the extreme vagueness of her details; no other partiers identified, no date identified, no location identified, that an investigation could be justified? How would you begin such an investigation?
As for the details of the Ramirez claim, what is the crime? Uncouth behavior, (if the charges are true)? What about Ramirez's credibility, do you view it as credible Blasey's account?
If you were a skeptic, instead of being predisposed to believe anything bad about Republicans, do you see enough circumstantial credibility to believe Kavanaugh guilty of the claimed abuses?
I heard three earlier, but can't find confirmation of that now. I had the TV on while writing and was only half listening. My bad.
Of course I see Democratic tactics here. Blasy told Diane Feinstein months ago, but asked her to stay quiet. I don't know why, and the timing now is very suspicious. I said in my post that when a person is traumatized, they can't forget details no matter how much they want to. She also never mentioned this attack to her husband until two or three years ago, which I find odd.
But the R's did steal a Court seat under Obama. And Ivanka and Jared were the ones who "suggested" that Judge Kennedy step down, that's why he did. I read about it in an issue of Time about a month ago. I'd love to hear more about that deal from two people who are breaking nepotism laws by being in the White House.
But I am also disgusted with the "Me Too" movement and feel too many men who had brilliant careers were judged in the court of public opinion. While nobody should get a pass for abusing another person, nobody should lose a job over it either, not until he or she has their day in court. And going back to HS records is a bit much.
So I am of two minds here. It's clear the R's want to overturn Roe v Wade, which means more women will die of back alley abortions.They are cutting aid to Planned Parenthood, which performs mammograms, and doesn't do abortions. They do advise young people about birth control. And R's don't want birth control to be paid for in any health plan, although Viagra and all "those" medications are.
Kavanaugh went on record as saying birth control pills are an abortion inducing drug. Do we really want to turn the clock back so many years?
I don't think a decision should be made about this justice until after the investigation of Trump is over. They can't rush it, they investigated Hillary for 3 1/2 years on Benghazi and didn't find anything.
So I can't decide. Both parties are trying to move either to the far right or far left, and aren't listening to the people, who they are supposed to serve. I can't stand any of them right now.
The 3rd is the one that Avenatti is representing that supposedly has other witnesses. Yesterday he said he would reveal in 48 hours. So tomorrow should be the day. The 4th is somebody in Montgomery County (?).
Avenatti! Thanks Diane. I knew I heard it in the background when I was doing something else in the house, and also thought I heard there were 3 allegations now.
I don't like the first story. He pushed the girl into the room, closed the windows, locked the doors, and turned the music on loud. His friend was in the room. Then the friend jumped on top of them. It could be he wanted to stop it. He's holed away on a beach hiding somewhere, apparently not wanting to testify for Kavanaugh. The alleged victim got away and locked herself in the bathroom until they left the room.
His actions show intent, so that's serious. Now there's a 4th? Wow. I don't want to see him on the Supreme Ct., he's proven he is way too conservative, the kind who wants to turn back the hands of time. Plus if he's getting more women piling on, he will lose his job as a Federal Judge.
It looks like we agree on most things about the allegations Jean. Although I do disagree about the need for an investigation.
I certainly agree that there was obstruction of Pres. Obama;s nominee. But ... that's just what our politics have evolved to these days. I believe the Dems would have done the same thing if they had the votes. That they did something similar in the passage of the ACA reinforces that belief for me.
It was discussed in another thread with PrettyPanther, but Judge Kavanaugh did not say, (as his perspective), that "... birth control pills are an abortion inducing drug," he was paraphrasing the argument of a church group's law suit against the ACA's demand that they provide insurance coverage of birth control options.
As for the fears that more conservative Supreme Court justices would lead to overturning Roe v Wade, my layman's opinion is that isn't really a consideration. Even a dyed-in-the-wool conservative judge like Scalia indicated he would not rule to overturn it. Nothing I have heard of Kavanaugh's character, positions, or bench decisions leads me to think he would rule to overturn it either. I think that is just a Democrat orchestrated fear tactic.
I am not undecided. Discounting the claims of both the Far Right, and the Far Left, I think Kavanaugh is qualified to be a Supreme Court judge.
ps. Ivanka and Jarad in White House positions ... yeah, that was a joke. Unfortunately not a funny one.
Imagine if they weren't pounding away at the scare tactics... the Republicans are anti-women, they are racist, they are rapists, they want to overthrow Roe vs. Wade.
Really, would you be so supportive of the Democrats and their tactics and other politics without such fears constantly being harped on?
Their tactics are brilliant really, even if they fail to stop Kavanaugh from reaching the Supreme Court, they have painted the Republicans as rapist supporters, in addition to the whole old-white-men, and racist labels they have stuck on them.
The only issue I have with Planned Parenthood is they donate tens of millions to Democrat politicians during their campaigns. So yes, I have a problem with tax dollars being sent to PP and PP giving those tax dollars to political campaigns, of any sort.
Besides the Supreme Court cannot weigh in on any issue unless a case is brought in front of them. They can't just change a law.
No they did not steal anything, they just did not vote to confirm a candidate.
They didn't attempt to destroy his reputation, his character, or his life... they just didn't vote or bring up the opportunity to confirm.
And when they DIDN'T have the majority in Congress, they allowed Obama's nominees to be confirmed, without doing everything possible at the last minute to destroy the character, reputation, or life of the Judge presented to be confirmed.
If these allegations were made months ago, they should have been brought forth months ago, to bring them up now is deplorable, but I give the Democrats credit, they get to spend weeks leading up to the elections in November convincing those who are easily swayed, that Republicans support rapists and are the enemies of women...exactly as, I am sure, they planned it.
Yesterday made things very clear for people. You can be a decent person, or you can be a democrat.
Kavanaugh has his calendar for the year 1982 to prove he wasn't there!
"There are three women now. The R tactic is to make them look "nutty and slutty." This was the tactic they used on Anita Hill all those years ago. And I thought slut shaming was so over. "
Please give an example where the Republicans have made any one of these women look nutty and slutty. The Republicans have bent over backward to accommodate Ford. In regards to these women, none have offered any evidence to substantiate their claims.
"But there needs to be time for a court investigation then"
What could possibly be investigated when those that make the claim have nothing to offer but a handful of people that they claim could back the claims, and these people have no recollection of even being at the said incidents? An accuser needs to at best be able to in some respect prove their claim or anyone is open to being accused without evidence. I would think if Ford mentioned this attack to her therapist in 2012 and named the judge, this would offer good evidence. However, I am sure if this comes up in the hearing Thursday we will discover if she mentioned the judge by name. In regards to Trump raming Kavanaugh through, he in no way has done anything to interfere with the way Congress is handling the process.
"And I don't know if Congress is the right place for her to be questioned".
Mrs. Ford was offered several options in regards to testifying. Congress offered close door, coming to her in California to question her privately. Not sure why she chose an open hearing? But my own opinion is this was what was planned from the get-go. This very much appears to be a well a poorly plan 11th hour attack on Kavanaugh. My better common sense tells me this is once again dirty politicking.
"From what I've read so far, the first woman seems like she doesn't recall a lot of detail. If something really bad happens to you, don't you remember it in such detail you wish you COULD forget it? I don't like seeing all these men railroaded. It's going to ruin male and female relationships for a long time."
I very much agree with your sentiment. I have a son and grandsons. I would hate to have a judicial system that makes a man guilty before he is even heard due to being a male. This kind of blind bias justice cannot be tolerated.
Avenatti's client will be revealed in 48 hours. Her accusation is about behavior over years. She is evidently a government employee who has been vetted by the FBI for multiple positions.
Yes, initially, I assumed it was a teen thing where friends got together. It's interesting that it was called a party with 6 or 7 people there. When I had parties, they were SRO. In college, we drank cheap wine and played BS. I never got drunk nor was I taken advantage of.
Ladies seem to be coming out of the woodwork now.
Just what behavior? This man has led an exemplary life. 65 women that he has worked with over many tears at different intervals supporting his good character. He has been a good family man and husband to one woman, he is well known in his community for being a charitable Christian. I find your comment Why do you feel it necessary to make such a statement. My God this man has denied this allegation. There is not one bit of proof that he did anything to this woman. Yet you feel emboldened to openly attack his character. Please provide an insolent to back your comment in regards to the Kavanaugh's behavior as an adult where he accosted any women. Just this evening Ford as well as the other woman that accused him have said they will not attend the hearing.
The "Yale Fraternity" was NOT his teenage years, he was a young adult and should have known better by then. He was old enough to enter the military had he want to so he was supposed to be responsible by that time.
I was refering to more about the charges against him while he was in high school as a minor.
It is probable the Reps will override the Dems and want to install him anyway. Absolutely no one with that kind of blemish in their life should be in any governing role, especially as a tribunal.
When the Son of Man takes the presidential seat I am sure he will know some means of eliminating him from his Justice position if he does get the confirmation. Per Daniel 4's prophecy now that Trump, the 43rd president sense Adams served two different terms and Harrison only 31 days without doing any service, is working on "putting military in space" and colonizing Mars he has declared it is now time for the world to come to an end. That is all we are waiting for other than the "Son of Man's" suddenly entering the White House (Malachi 3:1).
Why can't Judge just volunteer to testify or take a lie detector test? Get it over with!
1. HOLED UP
Kavanaugh Ally Mark Judge Found Holed Up at Delaware Beach
Mark Judge—the man who’s been named as the only witness to an alleged high-school sexual assault by Brett Kavanaugh—has been tracked down to a Delaware beach house. Judge went into hiding as the Kavanaugh scandal deepened last week, but The Washington Post found him holed up in the house of a longtime friend in Bethany Beach. Republicans have so far resisted calls from Democratic lawmakers and accuser Christine Blasey Ford to summon him before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge refused to talk about the Kavanaugh case, simply asking the reporter: “How’d you find me?” Barbara VanGelder, Judge’s lawyer, said she instructed her client to leave the D.C. area last week because the “unbelievable stress” of the situation. Ford claims Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed at a high-school party and groped her as Judge looked on.
Dianne Feinstein was given the letter in July. You ask the question "Did the Senate Judiciary Committee know about the allegations all along? " Well, it is possible they knew since July. Feinstein had a private meeting with Brett Kavanugh. It would seem she could have brought it up with him at that time or the following days after. It seems as if she was concerned about the allegation and felt it needed investigation by the FBI as she claims now, she could have given the information to the FBI. This would have been the prudent way of handling such a serious claim. As it appears now, this was held an the 11th-hour cheap ploy and has very little to really do with the serious or Fords charge. It will be very interesting to hear both sides of the story on Thursday. I don't think the other two charges will even be considered. Neither have any evidence to prove their allegations, as did Ford...
Kavanaugh supporter did commercial for him. Then found out she was in the yearbook!
New York Times: Woman who signed letter supporting Kavanaugh calls yearbook revelation 'hurtful'
Anchor Muted Background
By Kate Sullivan, CNN
Updated 1:37 PM ET, Tue September 25, 2018
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics … index.html
I found the article vague? I did not actually say who added this derogatory statements about Renate? It did say a photo in the yearbook of the football team had the statement. I m not comfortable blaming this on Kavanaugh. After all, this woman did a commercial vouching for the judge, was she being dishonest? It appears once again the NYT published a story out of context. It's very misleading.
I forgot that not everyone is watching Twitter and other sources I look at. A group of the guys wrote, as part of their own vita, about their conquests. The statements were part of the typeset because the guys wrote what they wanted to go next to their pictures.
Brett Kavanaugh and Friends Boasted About Their Alleged Conquests in Georgetown Prep Yearbook
https://splinternews.com/brett-kavanaug … 1829285898
The third woman's name just came out. It's a much more serious allegation.
It's he said versus she said when there is only one witness claiming something.
When three people make the claim and put their names and faces into the public for the kind of abuse they are getting, it's getter harder to imagine that Kavanaugh is telling the truth.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/michael … tnick.html
I think each case should be looked at individually. Very odd none can bring forth evidence? This new claim should be able to bring forth witnesses to her claims. She may well have some proof. I must say, and this may sound odd, I hope she can prove her claims. Otherwise, this does not bode well for Dems. It is stacking up to look like a well-planned scam. Not sure who to believe at this point. Facts are not there as of yet to condemn this man. My common sense tells me, Kavanaugh, should not be confirmed until this new allegation is well investigated. Rape is such a serious crime. Yet Kavanaugh should have the right to defend himself. But, it should be done before they take a vote to confirm him.
Sharlee01, why do you keep repeating the same falsehood that there is no evidence and where is Brett's polygraph results to compare with the first alleged victims results which indicates she's telling the truth?
Yeah, we might get Brett's polygraph about the same time we get Bozo Trump's tax returns right? NEVER, but it really doesn't matter now because 'beattie eyes' Brett is GONE:
Jake just because this man has not taken a lie detector test makes him guilty nor does the fact that he has not taken such a test count as evidence. As of yet, Ford will not produce the results of her test to Congress, so her just saying she took a test does not add any weight to her claim. You need to perhaps stop and think with logic. There is as of yet any evidence of any form of crime. There may be evidence presented tomorrow, but as of yet it's all just reports from media.
Do you know anyone who was ever gang raped? I do. The horrendous trauma is enough to destroy them for life.
For any gang rape victims to go public in front of the entire nation with their names and experiences takes enormous effort and a terrible personal toll.
It is beyond belief that three women (so far) would do such a thing as part of a scam, possibly ruin their reputations and cause tremendous stress for their loved ones.
Witnesses? Gang rapers don't act in front of witnesses for obvious reasons. When three women say the same thing, it's corroboration.
Democrats? They are getting the benefit once again of women who are tired of Republicans dismissing rape and sexual assault.
T republicans have not dismissed these claims, on the contrary, they are taking it very seriously. Although, no one should be called quilty before an allegation is proven. This is something the Dems have been doing all week. Yes, I have come to know rape victims in my career. I am a Registered Nurse and spent many years in an ER. I am not willing in any respect to take sides and crucify anyone before we hear from both sides. I will not read into the situation other than say so far I have seen no evidence of any form that can be substantiated by anyone of the accusers. I would assume the latest must-have others that will back her story? I must ask also why did this woman attend 10 parties where she felt gang rape was occurring? She also does not place the judge as her rapists.
I agree someone is innocent until proven guilty. I also agree we should hear from both sides, although we already have heard quite a bit.
My point remains that three witnesses willing to testify in front of Congress and the entire nation is a much stronger case against Kavanaugh than just one.
I don't see how you can make a rape victim substantiate a rape from decades ago other than with witnesses, which we now are hearing from.
I don't read anywhere that the latest woman knew gang rapes were taking place until after she attended a party where one occurred.
"I don't see how you can make a rape victim substantiate a rape from decades ago other than with witnesses, which we now are hearing from."
"I don't read anywhere that the latest woman knew gang rapes were taking place until after she attended a party where one occurred."
One could say how one can accuse a man of rape, and the burden of proof should be on him? In either case, the burden of proof is evidence. I do not even consider due to 3 coming forth means anything if none of them can come up with proof. There may be more, hopefully, if there are one will have proof.
The statement she signed tells of her attending 10 parties where this sort of rape was occurring. She also said at one of these such party she was raped.
CNN - "Swetnick, who attended Gaithersburg High School in Maryland, says she attended "well over ten" parties where Kavanaugh was present.". Please see link below with Ms. Swetnick's legal declaration. She clearly submits that she attended 10 parties where these rapes occurred. (note statement # 7)
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/ … ugh-sexual
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics … index.html
I would like you to address my point about why these three women would:
1. Have their names and photos plastered nationwide.
2. Get subjected to enormous verbal abuse (including getting called drunken liars by the nation's President).
3. Probably get threatened with violence.
4. Possibly damage their reputations.
5. Offer to testify before Congress and get drilled by prosecutors on national TV who are trying to prove them wrong in front of the entire country.
All for the sake of lying about Kavanaugh?
I also would like you to explain as a nurse how a rape victim can prove a rape weeks, months or years after the fact.
She did not say in #7 that gang rapes took place at 10 parties she attended. She said she saw "overly aggressive" behavior and "fondling".
"I also would like you to explain as a nurse how a rape victim can prove a rape weeks, months or years after the fact."
They can't... The only way they can verify the rape if they don't speak up when it occurs is to try to prove it happened with memories. Like the place it happened, the day it happened or year it happened. Perhaps a person that could verify they were also at the location with them when the sexual abuse occurred. Produce a person that she shared her story with. Can she remember something about the rapist's appearance, a tattoo, a scar, If there is no evidence such as I listed, there would be no way to really prove the rape. Do I think a man's life should be ruined without some form of proof? NO, I don't. It very much seems to me that one of these now four women should have some form of evidence. One thing they have all claimed the sexual misconduct happened in public with many others present. Someone should be able to verify at least one of these women's claims. I was more persuaded by Fords claim. However, now with more women stepping up with the same kind of story and no evidence. This seems like a scam. You ask why a woman would put herself through all of this? That is yet to be determined. Once again we are talking about a grand scandal, and once again there is nothing to back up this grand scandal...
"Offer to testify before Congress and get drilled by prosecutors on national TV who are trying to prove them wrong in front of the entire country." Ford had the choice of being questioned in her home or any location of her choice. She chose an open setting. And in regards to all the rest of your questions. These women will not be ruined, they will be revered by their liberal counterparts. Kavenough and his wife have also received death threats.
Yes, there has to be more substantial proof of these allegations. Depending on the year of college, usually freshman and sophomores aren't encouraged to have cars on campus. So it's plausible that when somebody else is driving, the others in the vehicle don't pay attention to the specific route.
I recall college parties where I don't remember exactly who drove or whose dorm room we were in. Back then I traveled in a group with several friends, or friends of friends. But I never was abused by anyone either, so can't judge.
It's a hard issue to prove, and probably is going to be a "he said, she said" type of thing. As you say, in the Me Too times we are in, Kavanaughs ruined anyway. He'll be lucky to get hired anywhere in this culture.
I think that no matter how hard it is for a girl or woman to come forward with accusations of this nature, we need to look at a much shorter statute of limitations. Maybe one year. It's sad for a woman who will carry this emotional burden for years if that's really what happened. But it's worse for a person's career to be over based on a lie too. Especially 40 years after whatever happened or didn't.
I don't want Kavanaugh on the Court, but all of the others on the short list are ultra conservative too. Don't they usually need 60 votes, but the Rs changed it to 50 to their advantage? They always play so dirty.The woman is against women's rights and abortion rights, citing her Catholic religion. It's a secular country and religion shouldn't supersede Civil Rights laws or overturn long time existing ones. I saw a paper where Kavanaugh wrote an opinion that Roe v Wade was not considered settled law in his eyes. The Democrats need a wartime consigliere.
"Don't they usually need 60 votes, but the Rs changed it to 50 to their advantage? They always play so dirty."
LOL Yes, it was dirty pool...by the Democrats. It wasn't R's that changed the rules; it was Democrats and now it is biting them. Comical!
What the legal basis for Kavanaugh's opinion that RvsW is not considered "settled law"? And did he ever indicate he would prefer to see it set aside, or was it a general question and answered as such?
I saw the position paper he wrote about in a legal chain of questions that he prepared for the committee, so he wasn't trying to hide he already had a closed mind on this issue. He wants to legislate from the bench. His goal is to overturn it. I probably saw the paperwork on Rachel Maddow's show, she gets deeply into investigative issues. I try to watch a little of all the news shows and read various magazines, websites. But his words indicated that he didn't consider Roe v Wade "settled law" and I recall the quotes. It was a set precedent for 45 years.
The Rs do play dirty. They are already planning to say these women are just making up stories to block the nomination, but everyone on the short list is conservative. Trump is packing the Supreme Court with all conservatives, and also appointing all conservative Judges behind the scenes, as many as he can. Rs stole Merritt Garland's seat. And they pull that numbers garbage all the time, or McConnell won't let anything come up for a vote.
You saw the position paper: what was his legal position and why do you disagree with it? Has any other high ranking judge disagreed with the legalities he pointed out? Who? Details, Jean - details! Simply sitting back and saying he wants to legislate from the bench because you like abortion, and he has commented that the law may not have closed the question, doesn't make it.
Yes, I get that you want a court full of liberals - liberals that WILL legislate from the bench. I get that you don't want to see judges that make decisions based on law. I understand you want liberal agendas freely flowing from all our courts. You can't have it. Honest people want judges ruling from the law not from an ideology that matches yours. Or mine or anyone else's.
I disagree with Kavanaugh because he already has his mind made up. He has decided Roe v Wade is not established law, when it has been since 1974. I saw it in a position paper of his, it was an email chain between Kavanaugh and shared with other judges, and it came to the Senate floor. This is called a fact, written in his own hand. It was digital communication that I saw on Rachel Maddow's show. She deals in facts, although you won't ever be anywhere near MSNBC. Whether the public should be privy to someone's personal emails is another issue. He is supposed to approach the highest court in the land and the issues it decides with an open mind, and this fact shows he has decided the conservative position, and wants to overturn established law.
I don't want all liberal judges, but there are too many conservatives on the bench now. You know damn well Trump is stacking the courts as fast as he can. RBG is staying until she's 90, may she live to serve..There should be a more even group, although sometimes that happens naturally when someone is appointed and starts trying cases. The chemistry of the group changes when a new person comes in.
And saying I "like" abortion is so insulting you don't even deserve an answer. It's the most heart wrenching decision a woman ever has to make.
Here are the facts that were leaked to the NY Times regarding a woman's right to choose. Maybe you should spend a day with an 18 yr. old girl who is just out of HS, pregnant, and has a BF who suddenly has doubts about the relationship, and didn't "like" birth control. She may have used it, but many of the methods are not 100% effective. Or worse, his parents pay her off with cash for an abortion, plus a little more cash to "'go away". Why should their little precious boy have responsibility? These are the poor girls who get counseled at Planned Parenthood, who doesn't provide abortions. I still don't forgive you for the "liking" abortions remark. That was cold.
I saw a document on Rachel Maddow's show, as she investigates facts and is a journalist and Rhodes Scholar. Some of what she showed on air was redacted. This is not the document she showed that night (about a week ago), but is fact based.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/us/p … =Homepage.
Hi Jean, it was the Democrats that changed the majority votes needed from 60 down to 50. Back when it happened it was referred to as the "nuclear option," and now it has proven to be so. The Republicans are only playing by the rules the Democrats put in place.
I think your "They always play so dirty." is misapplied. Unless of course you meant the "They" to include both parties.
"They" applies to both parties. I expressed disgust of both in an earlier post.
Good! I agree. Except, in this case I think the Dems have scored a new and repulsive low. Heaven help us when the Repubs try to one-up them.
I watched the spectacle a little while ago. I thought the Rs acted in a disgusting manner. It's unclear if the prosecutor was through asking questions before Lindsey Grahmn threw his tantrum. But I don't know why Feinstein held the info she had for so long. It would be great if both sides would stop playing games.
Yet there seems to be a desire to avoid an FBI investigation at all costs. What's up with that? And Mark Judge should receive a subpoena. Anxious people and recovering alcoholics testify all the time. Kavanaugh acted emotionally unstable. I heard he was upset, and thought anyone would be. But I saw hatred as well as anger on his face, and then it was a bit much to be blaming the Clintons of all people. All out of Trump's playbook. This guy isn't fit to be a Supreme Court justice.
We disagree about Kavanaugh Jean, but I think it is obvious that the fight against an FBI investigation - at this point, is a fight against a democrat delaying tactic. They want to delay confirmation until after the mid-terms - in expectation of winning a majority in the Senate.
Considering that had they played this fairly there would have been time for an investigation that would not have delayed a confirmation vote. What other reason would you accept as reasonable for Feinstein holding onto the information?
Regarding Kavanaugh refusing to say the words the Dems wanted him to, wouldn't you accept his repeated agreements to do whatever the committee demanded of him as including accepting an FBI investigation?
"Regarding Kavanaugh refusing to say the words the Dems wanted him to, wouldn't you accept his repeated agreements to do whatever the committee demanded of him as including accepting an FBI investigation?"+
You know that he knows that the Republicans on the committee would never want an FBI investigation. What kind of argument is this?
"Considering that had they played this fairly "
I think playing fairly is over for both parties and has been for some time now.
"You know that he knows that the Republicans on the committee would never want an FBI investigation. What kind of argument is this?"
An argument that says "I will not play your despicable, destructive political games with my life! You want a delay in my confirmation, get it yourself!"? After what was heard yesterday is there any other possibility (outside of perhaps "I hate you and everything you've tried to do to me; I won't help you do anything at all.")?
Well, that's a different argument altogether than the one GA was trying to make, and one that makes sense. He wasn't truly stating he would voluntarily submit to an FBI investigation. He was trying to save himself like most people would.
After watching, I believe Kavanaugh likely did the despicable things to Ford, but what I believe means nothing. I do agree that games are being played.
Find a recording, find his offer to cooperate with whatever the committee wants, listen carefully to it a dozen times and THAN come back, quote his words and explain that cooperation with an FBI investigation does not mean cooperating with an FBI investigation.
You admitted he didn't want an FBI investigation so he could avoid delaying the vote. I watched him not say he would volunteer for an FBI investigation...that's not cooperating. You know it. You said it. Saying he would do what the committee wants, when he knows it doesn't want an investigation is NOT cooperating.
You are either playing the same game as the politicians here or you don't understand. I think it's the first. I'm not falling for it and I'll call you on it. I saw the "offer", lol.
Somehow you're trying to turn "cooperation" into "forcing an action the committee does not wish to take in order that my confirmation will be delayed or denied".
What is there about the committee doing what it wants do you not understand? What is there about Kavanaugh is not the committee and should not force it's actions do you not understand? What is there that makes you think Kavanaugh should force the committee to do something against it's will? Because the Democrats are playing games means Kavanaugh has an ethical responsibility to join them in those games, join them in refusing their sworn duties, join them in harming Kavanaugh and his family for their political gain? Can you possibly believe that Kavanaugh has a ethical duty to do those things?
But, good - you know, understand and acknowledge Kavanaugh will cooperate with what the committee wants, including a seventh FBI investigation into his past. Now quit trying to insinuate that because he doesn't force the committee to have an investigation against their will means he won't cooperate!
Hi hard sun, yes, I do know that he believes the committee would not ask for an FBI investigation at this late date. But I do not believe the Dems could not have forced one earlier, or, initiated an investigation of their own.
Plus, it seems impossible to determine who to believe regarding the Dems lack of participation in the committees's investigations. What's the story there?
I also believe the Dems have played, and are playing this purely as a delay tactic. They have high hopes of winning a nomination-stopping majority in the mid-terms.
I agree that - generally speaking, "fair" departed our politics a long time ago, but my opinion of how the Democrats have played this one would make slimy look like a step up from where they are.
Dems are slimy...but I think this step shows they are willing to do what it takes to counter the Trumpians...the supreme slime. Democrats were really unwilling to go this low before and it did them no good. They're playing the Repugnants game and the R's are crying.
The story should have a chance to unfold. Investigations uncover things all the time...let the FBI do its job. Mark Judge says he will cooperate with law enforcement investigation. This could indeed go somewhere.
If the Dem tactic works it's all justified. That's the way the Republicans have handled things for years now...see Merrick Garland, supporting Trump despite knowing he's making a mockery of our nation because you want these Supreme Court seats and are scared of losing an election. His own party knows he's a turd.
Had the D's produced their evidence when they got it I'm pretty positive the FBI would have been called in.
They didn't, instead playing a political game to try and produce delay until after the mid-terms. The game didn't work, people were badly hurt solely as a result of your disgusting game - don't cry about it.
The game delayed if for a week. They learned from the best. Sorry if it hurt your feelings. I just call it how I see it.
Kavanaugh is the only one I saw crying. He's not qualified but, you know, neither is Trump...such is life in Murica, I still get my kicks.
Couldn't have said it better myself. We used to try to go high when they went low, but then they sink to new lows. It's like the playground bully. He won't leave you alone until you kick his you know what, then he behaves.
Yup, exactly. Now they cry fowl when the Dems take their gloves off and swing away. It's too late for those who are paying attention and are honest with themselves.
I always got in the middle of the playground bully drama no matter his size or skills in fisticuffs. I couldn't help myself. The bullies didn't mess with me cause they knew they'd have a fight...win or lose. I stuck up for others. That's the way you gotta play the game in politics these days.
A never ending cycle, it is.
The circus is what it is...it would be better if it didn't have to be this way so, no I don't support the circus. But it is now a reality of politics. Participate in the circus or be beat come election time. Indeed, the passive aggressive cycle never ends.
"But I do not believe the Dems could not have forced one earlier, or, initiated an investigation of their own."
Really? I don't think there would have been a choice 6 weeks ago. There would have been an investigation. Perhaps not the open ended, long term one the D's wanted, but an investigation. I hear they're now calling for a 1 week investigation - that could have been handled quite well when Feinstein first got the information.
Yes, slimy is far up the ladder from what D's have done in this case. Too many people have been hurt, and hurt badly, to think there was any possible excuse for it. Not even putting a constitutionalist on SCOTUS, that will judge by law rather than Democratic ideology, qualifies.
*edit* Or did I read your comment on forcing an investigation wrong? Second reading says I did...
How do minority Democrats on the Judiciary Committee force Republicans who control that committee to launch an investigation?
I've been away for a couple of hours. It looks like Jeff Flake has asked for an investigation after several survivors got in his face.. What' the scoop?
Flake and another Republican backed an FBI investigation. I would be surprised if two everyday people forced Flake to change his mind.
This may force Trump to reconsider or Kavanaugh to throw in the towel to avoid further inquiry. Maybe they can delay a nominee until after November. After all, the American people deserve a say in this...according to Mitch McConnell. Oh, that doesn't apply now? lol...I think R's are digging themselves a November grave.
I am so glad Flake had backbone.. He and Coons are working across the aisle.. They all should do that. I'm sick of right/left wing!
yeah you did bud, I was saying the same thing you did.
I tried to remember places I went for parties. The only one I remember is my house!
You know the answer as well as anyone else in the country. Without doing those things there will be no negative feelings towards Kavanaugh, and through him, Trump. Without those things, Trump may well assign a SCOTUS judge. Without those things, the Republican party will get their choice onto the bench.
Without those things Democrats don't stand a chance of preventing Kavanaugh from sitting on the Supreme Court. And that's all the reason they need.
The culture of having all boys and all girls schools encourages this kind of behavior. All week long these young people don't interact with each other, so they don't know each other in an intellectual or social way. But they have parties or mixers or whatever you call them together, and this sort of thing happens. Kavanaugh may simply not remember a victim because she was being held down in a dark room with loud music playing, and never looked at her face. It's the only social life available, unless you want to sit in your dorm room alone. These parties are encouraged by the administrations of the colleges.
Also, people keep saying we can't keep blaming these sexual incidences on "it was the 70s" or "it was the 80s". But I maintain we can. The culture of shame was high then for any girl or woman who came forward.
Remember the movie Animal House? That wouldn't even be released now..
Jean, it would have been best for the President to have kept his mouth shut during these proceedings. He referred to at least one of the women as totally inebriated and "out of control". Also, he had lamented from his position last week of being willing to hear Ford out to one where he now would have preferred that Kavenaugh's confirmation were "rammed through" without all of the nicety of listening to the women's testimony first.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-k … 28091.html
Yes, I knew Trump already said disparaging things about the first woman without knowing any facts. Of course, he is a known sexual predator himself. He doesn't see anything wrong with misogynist behavior, nor do the people he has surrounding him.
A fourth woman has stepped up this evening and claimed in 1996 she dated him an he got sexual aggression on a date pushing her up against a wall. It certainly appears he may very well have a past of being sexually aggressive at best. I will stick with my prior opinion the judge should not be voted on until all these allegations are investigated. He should have a chance to defend himself, but one way or the other this man's career has been ruined. And yes in the 70's as well as 80's and beyond women were more likely to be shamed by men and women as well if they came forward with sexual abuse claims. Just think of what the women that accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct. Jean, we live and learn, and a woman should always have the benefit of being heard, and treated with kindness and respect when they come forward with any complaint of sexual misconduct.
Sadly, I find it highly probable that 3, or 4, or more women would come forward with such claims if they believed firmly enough in the politics of the matter. And unfortunately, precedent has already been set where more than one woman have come forth in previous political races and made sexual misconduct (not always rape) claims, that later have been proven false, fabricated, or unsubstantiated.
In this particular matter, whether these allegations are true, or not... what I have a major issue with, is the Democrat politicians held onto these charges/accusations until the very last minute.
Only at the last minute, and only when it could be politicized to their best advantage, did they come forward with these allegations, and then, as in past efforts made in previous political races... it is a drip, drip, drip, one, then another... couldn't be more perfectly planned for ultimate political advantage and future voting capital.
We have seen one person, and heard claims of many more, that pretended to be honest, loyal and helpful to the President while doing everything they could to wreck his plans...because it was the "right" thing to do for the country.
Is there so much difference between that and a woman lying about sexual assault...because it is the "right" thing to do for the country?
As a survivor of attempted murder by a man who abused me in every way, I can understand the reasoning for how some victims of violence hold off telling anyone for years either because of fear or embarrassment. It took me twelve years to fight back and see through the prosecution of a spouse who received 24 years to life. My father once told me during that horrible time I was married to a narcissistic psychopath that one day I would have to make a decision to save my life, and I did.
Dr. Ford is brave for coming forward, and if she feels the need to make sure that it is known that Kavanaugh may not be fit to serve the bench where he himself will preside over the most important rule of the law in this great land, then I commend her to the core. However, I believe in a fair justice. Judge Kavanaugh should be assumed innocent until proven guilty. His life by mere suggestion has been ruined. Even though he is not on trial. If he is voted for confirmation by the panel, he will still deal with this for rest of his life. The way this has played out seems very unfair and should have been dealt with in a more discreet matter. It's a damned circus and truthfully, as a victim who has been in the court system for two years dealing with provocative and embarrassing testimonies - this should not have been nationally televised due to the sensitive topic. We all could have easily read about their testimonies in the paper ... it's all sensationalism nowadays and nothing is sacred anymore. I feel sorry for both of these people given I do not know the truth, nor do any of us at this time. We should hold our judgments until then.
As you say, "innocent until proven guilty". But it's not about guilt - we heard over and over that "This is not a courtroom". It's about political expediency, it's about how much mud can be thrown, it's about retaining political at the cost of innocent lives.
Kavanaugh is paying the price, for as was pointed out several times there was plenty of time to bring this information forward (it was given to Feinstein weeks before this hearing) AND conduct an FBI investigation into it. There was zero reason to destroy Kavanaugh's reputation outside of a Democratic desire to delay his confirmation as long as possible. Disgusting, despicable and indicative of what politics has become in our country.
But I disagree it should not have televised; I have never witnessed nor hear of as powerful a speech in the workings of Congress. We the people need to understand what is going on behind those doors - we need to see just how our government works. We saw and it wasn't pretty.
Wisely said, and I couldn't agree more. It's unfortunate that your wisdom about these matters had to come the hard way.
Or are they perhaps just the recall of drunken memory phases where in an alcoholic or chemical addled haze the human mind conjures up it's own memories of falling down teen -age drunks or frat parties rife with drugs and binge drinking, beer- bong games , AS is fully admitted by one of this woman Deborah Ramires ?
I'll say one thing ,Women across America are not only beginning to lose the serious interest in #Metoo from males and our news media but even the real women that I talk to about these allegations just roll there eyes , shake their heads and comment at the outright phoniness .
So much for the seriousness of womens tights , the media and our societal belief in how important these rights are [were }.
The only person who looks 'drunk' in this appalling situation in which an alleged sexual assaulter sitting in our oval office actually had the insane notion of nominating an alleged rapist to OUR supreme court is have baked republican disgrace Lindsey Graham:
Allegations are meaningless- where is the evidence?
Next you’ll expect me to believe a boy is a girl just because he put on a dress.....
That's why we typically conduct investigations and adjudication of these egregious alleged violent crimes:
"Investigate" all you want...on your dime. Don't waste my time and money on a 30 year old claim without any substantiating evidence. It's a common reaction of DA's when claims that cannot be proven are submitted to them; a return to J Edgar Hoover's FBI, when anyone he didn't like was "investigated" until their life was ruined is not something we wish to see.
lol, 'don't waste my time and money', now that's a hillbilly hoot if I've ever heard one:
Just FYI: Bozo Trump and complicit republicans just wasted trillions of our dollars on a massive socialist corporate welfare tax cut scheme which only made the rich richer and poor poorer: Your concern for our dollars is nothing less than precious:
Can you define what a "welfare tax cut scheme" is? Do you mean when you allow people to keep what they earned instead of confiscating it for your own use, as if it belong to you? The tax cut that left a large majority of people, rich, poor and in between, with more of their pay check? That "welfare" scheme?
In a democracy where a gigantic country such as the United States must be maintained, 'confiscation' of funds via taxes is an absolute necessity: The only question is who do you tax at a higher rate to pay for said maintenance, corporations who already hoard trillions of our money in foreign lands, or Americans who can't afford it? I think the answer is clear:
'Corporate Welfare' is really the only way to define a massive unnecessary tax cut to Wall Street which Bozo Trump and his republican accomplices did just months ago: It was gross and obscene, so now CEOS can box up MORE of our cash and ship it offshore to foreing countries which don't have our best interests in mind"
No, the only real question(s) are how much do we need, how much do we take and who do we take it from.
We need half what we take
We take twice what we need
we take it from people we dislike because they are more successful or politically weaker than we are.
You do not own what others have built. No matter how much you think you DO own the entire wealth of the country, you do not.
Your first sentence is absolutely correct:
We don't take money in the form of taxes because we dislike them, we take more in taxes because they can afford it:
Actually, we do own what others have built because the worker built it: Yes we as Americans do own the collective wealth:
A good socialist response: I own whatever your have built. You go right on with that, but for me, I believe in ownership outside the wonderful mob of dictators and other political VIP's. I own what I have produced, not you - to pretend otherwise is about as immoral act as can be done, second only to physical harm and likely doing more damage to a society (as opposed to an individual) than any other unethical or immoral behavior.
Things are simple for me. If Democrats are saying a thing, I know that thing is a lie.
"President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days"
Yeah, and this clown is the epitome of honesty and integrity:
"President Trump has made 4,229 false or misleading claims in 558 days"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fac … c7f7d74117
The state of America today... if the Democrats say someone is a rapist or a racist, this is considered fact by their 'collective' media and leadership (and hence by most who identify as Dem).
Whether it is a former Judge in Alabama running for the Senate seat, or a Supreme Court nominee, the current trend is someone coming out of the woodworks from 30, 40 years ago to accuse them of sexual misconduct of some sort...
Unprovable of course, without evidence that would stand any scrutiny, but the accusations are enough to sway the election or the confirmation.
Welcome to America in the 21st century, where a man will be found guilty in the court of public opinion, and no evidence be necessary to derail a career or reputation.
It is absolutely repulsive.
On the up side of the democrats down, we may very well get to see that party die. I mean die. Dead and gone.
Of course political parties have died in the USA before, and I can't think of anything the Democrats deserve more than to see their political party become another corpse party in the history of our nation.
That would be real progress. I'm progressive!
Well Wesman, in the real world the republican party is rapidly shrinking due to death of elderly, under educated white guys and or course abandonment by those who are younger and still have a few brains and morals left and of course the rapidly expanding Dems are winning special elections in very red districts so that's not good news for the GOP which is at war with our healthcare system, and desperately tying to put an alleged attempted rapist on our supreme court:
Always remember regardless of what the immoral party of the devil conservatives say, they will always fight for the filthy rich leaving the rest of the country behind:
I agree that these alleged sexual abuse cases should not be fought in the court of public opinion. Too many mean are having their careers ruined by women coming forward 35 yrs. after the fact.
But the reality is Trump wants Kavanaugh on the court because he wants to overturn Roe V Wade, and has publicly stated he believes Trump can pardon himself when he is found guilty. Do you really believe this unbalanced POTUS is above the law?
The "story " becomes more and more embellished the more time that it spends here in hubpage forums . As it seems liberals here especially are so liberal that they can beg ,borrow and steal more detail to make the allegations stand out in the story , you know , might as well create a dialog to your liking ? These charges are 35 -40 years old and IF they are anywhere near the truth ; Who really believes that Prof. Ford is just now growing a conscience , JUST NOW deciding that she HAS to do something to stop a mad serial rapist ?
If this were true , she should have protected her fellow female classmates and the rest of women in humanity 40 years ago !
LIke I said , IF this were true .
If there was no political agenda, why did Ford (and the others) take her complaint to politicians instead of law enforcement...35 years later...right before mid-term elections?
New Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick details parties where girls were drugged and raped
“I witnessed Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh drink excessively and engage in highly inappropriate conduct, including being overly aggressive with girls and not taking ‘No’ for an answer. This conduct included the fondling and grabbing of girls without their consent,” Swetnick writes.
“I also witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys ... These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh ... In approximately 1982, I became the victim of one of these ‘gang’ or ‘train’ rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present,” she added.
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/sta … 8730843136
"Julie Swetnick details parties where girls were drugged and raped"
Ms. Swetnick most definitely should be heard. If she is willing to go under oath, this certainly will stand as evidence of sexual abuse. This story has just broken. It will be very interesting to see how Congress handles it. I have no respect for Avenatti, but her claim should be investigated. It is vile and needs a good long look.
While Ms. Ford was given opportunities to testify, they were all in the same week, during which she is not even living in her home because of death threats from right wing activists. She is testifying tomorrow, I believe.
I was speaking of Anita Hill and the dismissive attitudes of women's allegations during the time of Clarence Thomas' nomination. Although times have slowly changed, women are still afraid to come forward about sexual abuse allegations. But I have a brother, son and nephews too, and realize how easily a lie about something this serious could hurt them.
We aren't so far apart here, I'm still on the fence.
Now someone else has been called in to question Ms. Ford so it doesn't get even more bipartisan. That's a good thing. And I don't know what Michael Avenatti is running for, he gets involved in everything lately.
But now today things have changed. Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh admit to drinking too much at parties (not a crime, of course), but there are allegations they spiked punch with quaalude and gang raped women in college. So he's older in these stories, (and they could still be stories).
I don't like the way he characterized himself as a virginal choirboy last week, and is now apologizing for binge drinking in college, omitting details about these college aged girls. His friend is in hiding. So it is looking worse.
I felt nobody's HS years should be held against them. But we're in college years now. A person's character is formed by age 3. The Trump administration is very poor at vetting people, or doesn't vet them at all. It's run like the mob, all about loyalty to him.
The first woman took a lie detector test and passed it. But they aren't admissible in court. Brett is obviously not the choirboy he's pretending to be, and the fact Mark Judge is hiding is rather damning.
Everyone should be investigated before this nomination goes forward.
Intelligent people know lie detector tests have no scientific value.
"Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.
Lie detector tests have become a popular cultural icon — from crime dramas to comedies to advertisements — the picture of a polygraph pen wildly gyrating on a moving chart is readily recognized symbol. But, as psychologist Leonard Saxe, PhD, (1991) has argued, the idea that we can detect a person's veracity by monitoring psychophysiological changes is more myth than reality. Even the term "lie detector," used to refer to polygraph testing, is a misnomer. So-called "lie detection" involves inferring deception through analysis of physiological responses to a structured, but unstandardized, series of questions.
The instrument typically used to conduct polygraph tests consists of a physiological recorder that assesses three indicators of autonomic arousal: heart rate/blood pressure, respiration, and skin conductivity. Most examiners today use computerized recording systems. Rate and depth of respiration are measured by pneumographs wrapped around a subject's chest. Cardiovascular activity is assessed by a blood pressure cuff. Skin conductivity (called the galvanic skin or electrodermal response) is measured through electrodes attached to a subject's fingertips.
The recording instrument and questioning techniques are only used during a part of the polygraph examination. A typical examination includes a pretest phase during which the technique is explained and each test question reviewed. The pretest interview is designed to ensure that subjects understand the questions and to induce a subject's concern about being deceptive. Polygraph examinations often include a procedure called a "stimulation test," which is a demonstration of the instrument's accuracy in detecting deception.
Several questioning techniques are commonly used in polygraph tests. The most widely used test format for subjects in criminal incident investigations is the Control Question Test (CQT). The CQT compares responses to "relevant" questions (e.g., "Did you shoot your wife?"), with those of "control" questions. The control questions are designed to control for the effect of the generally threatening nature of relevant questions. Control questions concern misdeeds that are similar to those being investigated, but refer to the subject's past and are usually broad in scope; for example, "Have you ever betrayed anyone who trusted you?"
A person who is telling the truth is assumed to fear control questions more than relevant questions. This is because control questions are designed to arouse a subject's concern about their past truthfulness, while relevant questions ask about a crime they know they did not commit. A pattern of greater physiological response to relevant questions than to control questions leads to a diagnosis of "deception." Greater response to control questions leads to a judgment of nondeception. If no difference is found between relevant and control questions, the test result is considered "inconclusive."
An alternative polygraph procedure is called the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT). A GKT involves developing a multiple-choice test with items concerning knowledge that only a guilty subject could have. A test of a theft suspect might, for example, involve questions such as "Was $500, $1,000, or $5,000 stolen?" If only a guilty suspect knows the correct answer, a larger physiological reaction to a correct choice would indicate deception. With a sufficient number of items, a psychometrically sound evaluation could be developed. GKTs are not widely employed, but there is great interest in doing so. One limitation of the GKT is that it can be used only when investigators have information that only a guilty subject would know. The interpretation of "no deception" is also a potential limitation, since it may indicate lack of knowledge rather than innocence.
The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.
A particular problem is that polygraph research has not separated placebo-like effects (the subject's belief in the efficacy of the procedure) from the actual relationship between deception and their physiological responses. One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie detector might be better called a fear detector.
Some confusion about polygraph test accuracy arises because they are used for different purposes, and for each context somewhat different theory and research is applicable. Thus, for example, virtually no research assesses the type of test and procedure used to screen individuals for jobs and security clearances. Most research has focused on specific incident testing. The cumulative research evidence suggests that CQTs detect deception better than chance, but with significant error rates, both of misclassifying innocent subjects (false positives) and failing to detect guilty individuals (false negatives).
Research on the processes involved in CQT polygraph examinations suggests that several examiner, examinee, and situational factors influence test validity, as may the technique used to score polygraph charts. There is little research on the effects of subjects' differences in such factors as education, intelligence, or level of autonomic arousal.
Evidence indicates that strategies used to "beat" polygraph examinations, so-called countermeasures, may be effective. Countermeasures include simple physical movements, psychological interventions (e.g., manipulating subjects' beliefs about the test), and the use of pharmacological agents that alter arousal patterns.
Despite the lack of good research validating polygraph tests, efforts are on-going to develop and assess new approaches. Some work involves use of additional autonomic physiologic indicators, such as cardiac output and skin temperature. Such measures, however, are more specific to deception than polygraph tests. Other researchers, such as Frank Andrew Kozel, MD, have examined functional brain imaging as a measure of deception. Dr. Kozel's research team found that for lying, compared with telling the truth, there is more activation in five brain regions (Kozel et al., 2004). However, the results do not currently support the use of fMRI to detect deception in real world individual cases.
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.
The development of currently used "lie detection" technologies has been based on ideas about physiological functioning but has, for the most part, been independent of systematic psychological research. Early theorists believed that deception required effort and, thus, could be assessed by monitoring physiological changes. But such propositions have not been proven and basic research remains limited on the nature of deceptiveness. Efforts to develop actual tests have always outpaced theory-based basic research. Without a better theoretical understanding of the mechanisms by which deception functions, however, development of a lie detection technology seems highly problematic.
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."
Yeah right Wesman: Then why did the white house consider using polygraph tests to find the 'deep staters'?
"Trump advisers discussed using lie-detector tests to find anonymous op-ed author: report"
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … -anonymous
According to you Trump is mentally defective and an idiot; would you expect such a person to hire advisers that are not? Assuming, of course, that we believe yet another accuser that refuses to identify themselves...
No wilderness, you are simply wrong again about everything because according to me, Bozo Trump is in much worse psychological condition than 'mentally defective' he's a dangerous basket case who should have been removed from our white house long ago and by the way, all the accusers so far including the woman who made the shocking allegations this morning about MORE criminal activity in which Brett and his friend who is now in hiding, were involved in, have all identified themselves:
"New Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick details parties where she says girls were drugged and raped"
The lawyer Michael Avenatti on Wednesday identified another accuser of Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh, Washington resident Julie Swetnick.
Swetnick, in an affidavit posted online by Avenatti, claims that Kavanaugh, as a high school student in the early 1980s, with others spiked the drinks of girls at house parties with grain alcohol and/or drugs to "cause girls to lose inhibitions and their ability to say 'No.' "
Swetnick said these efforts by Kavanaugh and his buddy Mark Judge were done so the girls "could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/michael … tnick.html
Actually, according to reasonable and observant people, he is an idiot and mentally defective.
All irrefutable facts ;
Dan Rather " We have unvaried proof of a five legged giraffe that was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh in a 1978 frat party ,
Meghan Kelly Msnbc , " In 1984 Brett Kavanaugh assaulted a pet Monkey on the stairway of the Fox News cafeteria room with Roger Ailes help ".
Joey Baer , The View ,"In 1982 Kavanaugh assaulted my little puppy in the veterinarian's office while we waited for an teeth cleaning appointment ."
Wolf Blitzer CNN " Fact ,My pet Rhino was assaulted by Kavanaugh right before my eye's in the field behind our house , I think it was in 1985 "
Michael Avinarte , " Kavanaugh assaulted Stormy Daniels too as I watched from the break room closet on Celebrity Apprentice in 1986 , "
Mario Cuomo , " In 1980 Brett Kavanaugh Touched my pet monkey inappropriately while we were watching Disney movies in my chambers at the State House movie theatre "
Vladimir Putin , " in 1981 Brett Kavanaugh assaulted me while I was installing electronic bugs in the DNC bathroom closets"
Anyone with half a brain will see a obvious pattern by Brett Kavanaugh , He likes to hang out with news media circus acts , and the media itself likes to bring the circus to town every year just about this time !
The entire issue here And Democrats know this very well , is timing and location of these- time sensitive allegations . Democrats also know this is entirely a trial by televised popular opinion , they know extremely well that with all the legal ramifications aside , this is entirely political , Including Prof. Ford ........It's not difficult to ascertain motive .
A Circus Act .
Simple way to resolve it. A thorough and objective investigation.
Agreed. By the FBI.
Interesting that Kavanaugh and the Republicans aren't insisting on it.
Exactly. If I were accused of something I did not do. I'd be the one insisting on a thorough and objective investigation by the FBI.
Only if the Clintons were in power and on my side, or if I had other powerful Democrats "guiding" the investigation.
But question: how long should we go without that last justice? A year? 5 years? 10? Liberal "investigations" seem to go on for however long it takes to kill the problem.
I have no idea how long such an investigation would take, neither do you. I don't think that's a sensible reason not to conduct an investigation though.
Given that the total purpose of such an investigation is to keep Kavanaugh out of office any such investigation will go on as long as Trump's opponents can push it.
Just as the "investigation" into "Russian collusion" has. Now, you can deny that's what is happening, but the evidence (very obvious evidence) is not on your side.
And, of course, the FBI has become a political weapon, currently being wielded by Democrats: that is sufficient reason not to subject myself to it as I pay no obeisance to the party.
Fox News fantasy. It's absurd to think the conservative FBI is a tool that kisses the rear end of the Democrats.
And for the 10th time, the Russia investigation is not only about collusion.
As we saw with Hillary's crime that the FBI advised not to prosecute. Of course we heard yesterday (over and over) that the FBI does NOT advise, just collect data. How does that work again?
And for the 20th time it was started as about collusion. It has expanded at Democratic insistence to include every possible crime and every possible person.
The purpose of such an investigation is to gather evidence in an effort to establish as many facts as possible and report those facts to the Committee.
If you have evidence that proves the FBI is entirely incapable of investigating this matter objectively, present it. If not, you're just speculating.
you keep believing as if anyone Trump brings forth must be as pure as wind driven snow. Because of your belief, we are all to just defer to the word of Trump or Kavanaugh without any investigation into the charges?
I say lets do the appropriate investigation and let the chips fall where they may.
I can see quickly that you subscribe to all the silly conspiracy theories just because the GOP and Trump do not get what they want?
"I say lets do the appropriate investigation and let the chips fall where they may."
Too bad the democrats didn't feel the same way when they got this information.
Come on Cred, tell me how you justify Feinstein's actions of withholding this information when there was time for an investigation - before her 11th hour disclosure.
We all know that I am not friends with the GOP, the rightwingers or conservatives generally. I certainly am not keen on Trump filling the court with his brontosauruses.
But, I am dismayed by this entire line of investigation and inquiry.
1. I still don't like the idea of grown men or women being held accountable for something that they did in high school. How far do we go back with that? There were no juvenile records of recorded law violations, and I think that they disappear after a period of time after adulthood.
2. Why is Ms. Ford coming out with all of this 36 years after it happened? It is hard not to see this as a partisan move. I could have gotten into trouble for dipping Sarah Jane's locks into the inkwell. How long do we acknowledge an injury after it occurs. I am sure the women could better explain how and why these last minute confessions have and do occur? With this line of inquiry, how could any of us stand?
3. While we were all moved and teary eyed as part of great television drama, who is corroborating the story and account for either side? Maybe the investigation by the FBI is needed to acquire corroboration of these conflicting accounts. Otherwise, it is just he said/she said and that does not get us closer to the truth.
I think of Clearance Thomas and the circus surrounding his confirmation in 1991. The difference was that Anita Hill stated that Thomas was responsible for sexual bullying during the period of time that he was a supervisor and she, an subordinate. Both were adults at the time and if Hill's story were properly corroborated with credible witnesses, that would have been a notch against Thomas as far as I was concerned.
For me, there has to be more than a couple of credible people that accuse Kavanaugh, and their stories need to be supported with reliable evidence. The offenses need to have occurred while he was in the age of the majority. It may not need to rise to the level of preponderance of evidence that got Bill Cosby behind bars, but we need to approach that standard much more closely before I can assign any credibility to this process.
We are on the same page Cred. However, in the eyes of the #metoo cultural shift, we are part of the problem - discounting a claim, or demanding proof that very frequently is unavailable in real and legitimate cases. And not in the least part, holding that a drunken juvenile act such as this is different from a purposeful adult driven sexual assault or rape.
Using Ken's pendulum analogy from another topic, I think the metoo pendulum has swung too far also. I certainly agree our past cultural outlook on this problem - the acceptance of the old 'boys will be boys' or boy's club' mentalities had to and must change. But the point we have reached, exemplified by this current issue is wrong.
I am very glad for this short-term FBI investigation. I did not think Kavanaugh should have been confirmed as the process was rolling. Not because I felt he was guilty, but because I thought the perception created by the Dem's manipulations would have tainted the Court.
I think Kavanaugh will be a good Supreme Court justice - if the public doubt is removed by this new investigation. I am certain partisan doubt will never be satisfied, but I think it is the public doubt that is important.
I have calmed down quite a bit today. I was so pissed with Feinstein and her accomplices yesterday, I went a bit off the rails.
I know politics has always been a dirty business, and has reached new levels in recent years, but this democrat action, such a public and obvious manipulation is a low I never expected. Private acts, just as low and nasty, sure, but such a public display ...
I've disagreed with GA before. And maybe there's something in the annuls of HubPages where Credence and I didn't see eye to eye. Don't think I've ever disagreed with both of you at the same time though. First time for everything.
It's probably because I consider you both so sensible that I'm more dismayed by what you have written on this subject, than anything written by the Trump cheer-leading squad, which I usually take with a pinch of salt. I take it more seriously when you are both saying the same thing.
I'm responding directly to you credence but this is also applicable to GA, as you are both on the "same page". I am not only on a different page, but in a completely different book.
1. 17 years old does not constitute being a "child". While we must show sensitivity in cases where minors commit serious crimes, it wouldn't make sense to not hold someone accountable for committing a serious crime (attempted rape) at the age of 17, just because they are now an adult, or just because a lot of time has passed.
2. Delayed reporting of sexual assault is no reason to discredit an accuser. If the case of Bill Cosby shows anything, it shows there is nothing unusual about a survivor of rape or sexual assault, reporting years after the fact. There are many valid and understandable reasons people don't report at the time.
There is no evidence Ford acted out of anything other than civic duty. There is evidence to suggest she spoke to people about the incident before 2018.
Sexual assault and attempted rape are not equivalent to juvenile pranks. It's wrong to imply they are. And I reject the idea that holding someone accountable for attempted rape committed at the age of 17, means everyone has something to worry about. I'm more concerned about the fact that rape and sexual assaults continue to be under reported because, among other things, survivors (rightly in most cases) do not think they will be believed and will be actively abused, especially where the accused is a celebrity.
3. Regardless of how you think the politicians have handled the situation, the process is probably the least relevant part.
The point has been made repeatedly that the hearing is not a trial. It is a job interview. So the question is not, did Kavanaugh do what he is accused of (there are now allegations by three separate women). The question is should Kavanaugh be given the job of Supreme Court Justice? The difference is subtle but significant.
That question does not rely solely on whether or not those allegations can be directly proven. It also relies on Kavanaugh's conduct and truthfulness in relation to other matters. As Senator Blumenthal (a former prosecutor) reminded Kavanaugh during the hearing: falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus ("false in one thing, false in everything") is a permissible inference. In other words, if someone is not truthful about one aspect of their testimony, they can be deemed not truthful in other aspects.
If Kavanaugh has been untruthful about the allegations against him, then obviously that should disqualify him. But equally, if he has been untruthful about any aspect of the situation, e.g. his description of what "devil's triangle" means (when I was at school it meant a threesome between two men and a woman) then he should not be elevated to the Supreme Court. Not because he engaged in innuendo as a teenager, but because he lied about it under oath to a Senate Committee as an adult.
I think it's likely he will be elevated (if there are no significant developments between now and the vote) but I believe to do so will cast a shadow over his judgeship, the Supreme Court and the Senate Judiciary Committee.
1. At 17 years old, the reasoning portion of the brain is not developed and will not be for quite a few years. What else besides "child" can we term a human being that has not matured physically, mentally or emotionally into adulthood? I agree it is misleading and would prefer "young adult" or some other specific term indicating late teen/early 20 something, but "child" is what we have. He certainly was not an "adult", not at 17.
2. Ford's reasoning for her timing was reasonable. Not smart, perhaps, but reasonable. She made a major mistake, however, when she turned to Feinstein to handle the matter. Perhaps she thought politics were a better chance at vengeance (I don't swallow the "civic duty" stuff), but the result was to immediately turn Ford and her tale into a political weapon, blunting it almost beyond belief and costing Ford a great deal of credibility.
3. It's interesting that in the hearing the concept of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus was brought up...as being something reasonable for a judge to use in a courtroom procedure. But it is a job interview, not a courtroom. You can't have it both ways.
As long as we're talking teen age morals, I have to ask - does your knowledge of the meaning of "devil's triangle" as a menage a trois indicate you are morally and ethically unfit to post on these hallowed pages (I would have thought of satanists while in college)? Does your knowledge of a different time, different location, different school and different social setting give you license to define Kavanaugh's time, location, school and student body usage of the slang term? Does it give you license and probable cause to call him a liar?
There is a shadow, all right. The Judiciary Committee has, is and will make it extremely plain that politics (as dirty as necessary) are the basis for the SCOTUS rather than law. There will be zero doubt left and the stench will be permanent.
Don, imagine that what follows is two or three paragraphs explaining why your response, and exchanges like this are a big part of why I enjoy these forums. I have benefited immensely, over the years, from having my views challenged to the point that I have to examine them to decide whether to hold on, or change.
This is a tough one for me, I am not really comfortable with the wider implications of my position, (and for me, Kavanaugh's testimony following his initial statement makes it more so), so let me define the parameters of my thoughts. I may still be very wrong, but at least there will be no ambiguity concerning what I am wrong about.
Regarding my comment to Credence2, (and others);
I am speaking to the Blasey/Ford accusations only. Nothing to do with Rameriz(sp?), or Swetnick accusations.
I am speaking to a one-time instance - not a pattern as the other accusers present.
I am speaking to a type of effort - the things Blasey/Ford recounted - as being so easily aborted by the action of a fellow drinker 'jumping on the pile'. and then the incident is over, and two drunk teenagers laugh and bounce off the walls as they move on.
I understand how that appears to be callously dismissive of what the female may have viewed as a very serious thing, but my point in that explanation is that I think it is possible to view it as a very stupid drunk teenager thing - not a sexual attack by a purposeful sexual predator - whether adult or juvenile.
Teenagers do stupid things. Good teenagers don't continue to do the same stupid things. My perspective, in agreement with Cred's comment, was in that context. If it was a one-time thing, the premise of my position when responding to Cred, and my other comments on this matter, then my perspective chalks it up to a stupid thing, not a dehumanizing act of a degenerate.
That is the context of my earlier comments.
I am very uncomfortable with his testimony after his opening statement. I had no idea what "boofing" or "Devil's Triangle"; meant, I took him at his word. Now it appears I must pick a side. It seems "boofing" may mean something other than the innocent flatulence he said, and the carnal anal sex others have said. Regardless, I question his testimony.
But anyway, I will stand by my agreement with Credence2, if it is only relative to the Blasy/Ford story. Beyond that - it is a different thing.
I can't pull any punches on this GA. The idea that sexual assault can be dismissed as teen hi-jinks, is toxic, and we need to stop teaching it to young men.
Mechanisms already exist within the law to take into account circumstances that mitigate (reduce guilt or the severity of an offense) and circumstances that aggravate (increase guilt or severity). So the difference between motivations (a foolish act vs a sexual predator) can be considered. Those are the appropriate mechanisms by which the full context of an incident can be taken into consideration.
But I think we need to be crystal clear. Being (voluntarily) drunk or otherwise intoxicated should not be a legal defense for committing sexual assault.
If people are suggesting it's difficult for a 17 year old to get drunk and not commit sexual assault, then we are in a worse place than I thought.
I have no idea if Kavanaugh did what he is accused of. But his testimony convinced me he has lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Lying under oath alone should disqualify him from being elevated to the Supreme Court.
This is not the issue. This has nothing to do with what is occurring.
What is happening, is someone is being accused of wrongdoing that happened more than 35 years ago. For political gain and purpose.
Now, had this been brought up weeks prior, long before they were set to vote on his confirmation it wouldn't be about politics (not nearly so much) because there would have been time to investigate, and conclude the matter long ago.
We have seen the Democrats use this tactic repeatedly in recent years, and yes, out of the 320+ million Americans there are some who would make false accusations and be supported in doing so for political gain.
No worries about "pulling your punches" Don. If I am in for a penny, I am in for a pound. I would equate my rationalizations regarding a stupid teenage thing as being similar to those mechanisms of law you spoke of.
Regarding the Blasey/Ford accusation, until I hear more, (or different), I will stand with my original thought.
Think of it like Comey's announced judgement on Hillary's unsecured email thing, (that is not a partisan jab at Hillary, just an illustration of my point). Something like no prosecutor would choose to charge or pursue.
However, I am still working on the testimony thing. I think the anger and rhetoric of his opening statement were a needed and welcome change from the expected PC behavior of a statesman. But, I also think the "statesman" should have returned after that opening statement. And then ... there is the 'apparent' lying or misleading answers.
Thinking back, I seem to recall that the FBI DID draw the conclusion that Clinton should not be prosecuted and DID advise that same thing.
Now we're told the FBI never does those things - that they are a fact-finding organization ONLY and never make conclusions or offer advice?
Well, Don, this is one of those rare solar eclipse sorts of events. The stars are all in alignment.
I think that there is a distinction in law that is quite clear, as to the level or responsibility and privileges given to those among the age of majority and those who are not. A 17 year old may not enter into a binding contract, cannot be subject to capital punishment for commission of a capital crime, may not possess or (publically)consume alcoholic beverages. And if the crime had been reported after it had occurred, I could agree with you regarding accountability. In every aspect of law, a 17 year old is not considered responsible. I have to respect that boundary and cannot in good conscience make Kavanaugh an exception, to expect him to behave like an adult and be aware of consequences of his actions, etc. What if Kavanaugh were 15 rather than 17, would we really have the same attitude? When can one be truly too young to be held accountable?
On point 2, I agree, there are many reasons that women may not report the abuse at the time; employment related issues is just one of those. The problem I am having is that without physical evidence, people can come out of the woodwork and say anything. It does not matter if there is a Dr. In front of their name; I always have a problem just taking anyone’s word for an event. There have been witch hunts, McCarthy type persecutions and kangaroo courts where the innocent is convicted based solely on the word of someone who may well have an agenda that would well preclude him or her from telling the truth. If I were sitting on any committee, I would want her account corroborated with more than just her saying so. She may have been following Kavanaugh’s career path, why not mention any of these things when he was being considered for the bench in the lower courts?
Correct, sexual assault and attempted rape are serious crimes, which is why there needs to be proof. If he is the sexual predator that he is accused of being, what happened when he was a teenager was certainly not the last time he behaved in such a fashion and others need to come forward. There was another incident at a college frat house? As with Cosby, there were multiple accounts from many people with others willing to corroborate the circumstances surrounding the accusations.
Where we do agree is that if Kavanaugh has lied about facts that he knew or should have known, regardless of whether he is guilty of the assault, this should be weighed against him. I would not want to hire a liar for my job vacancy. If you ask me, Anita Hill had a stronger case against Clearance Thomas, but he was confirmed anyway.
Credence, you have got to stop this - you're going to give me a stroke.
I agree with everything you've said here, right up to the desirability of conducting an investigation, But I also have to agree with GA that a good part of my reticence there is due to the actions of the Democratic committee leader, Feinstein, who took the information from Ford and turned it into a political weapon without regard to right or wrong, good or evil, and without any ethical concerns at all. That move so irritated (such an innocuous word for the reality) me that, coupled with the impossibility of finding any physical evidence, I would now deny any investigation. Any testimony that might be gathered now is so tainted with politics as to be nearly worthless and "witch hunt" truly does describe what will be done.
For every honest description of events I would expect to see 100 or more outright lies, all based on political concerns. Any character recommendations is going to be the same; for every honest one there will 100 that stem right out of politics and that hearing. It's that bad in my mind and the other half of why I disagree with any investigation.
Oh damn Wilderness, it looks like I found a choir room door open.
I think your point about the politicization of anything, and everything, that comes in after this hearing fiasco being now suspect is a good one.
Please, don’t have a coronary incident on my account, Wilderness.
Nobody likes “dirty tricks”, but I regard the obstruction of the GOP Senate delaying tactic to deprive Obama’s right to nominate a justice to replace the late Antonin Scalia as rising up to the same level and I am still POed about this. So, excuse me if I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the Republicans when they cry “foul”.
There are serious charges being levied against Kavanaugh, I think that there needs to be an investigation if for nothing else to put people’s minds to rest concerning the truth about charges. There is too much light on this now, so to return to business as usual as the GOP wants to just confirm and move on may not be a viable approach, particularly with Mid Terms coming up fast. Now, that won’t be so easy. I trust the FBI to do an impartial investigation and evaluation of Kavanaugh and his accusers to either support or discount the accounts of either side.
What we have are three very different, very major issues going on with regards to Kavanaugh, and it is a shame more people aren't aware of what they are.
The first I have discussed, the weaponization of sexual misconduct charges for political gain. This is now the normal 'SOP' for the Democrats, they tried it against Trump, bringing the accusers out every other day leading up to the election. They did it in the Alabama Senate special election a year back, accusations that were later proven false. And they did it here.
This has nothing to do with the charges being true or not. This is about holding onto such allegations and then using them at a pivotal moment in an election, or in this case a nomination.
Second is how far back do we go, when someone is 16? 17? I think we have all done stupid things, especially under the influence of alcohol or drugs when we were young.
This is the sad new reality of our nation, we should have seen it coming, how many of us have gone to get our licenses renewed, only to find out we had a ticket from 25 years ago in a state we never lived in that wasn't paid... but they have now put records from decades ago into their computer database(s),nothing is sealed, nothing is forgotten, and you will pay for every misdeed no matter how far back, with interest.
Third we live in a 'victim' society today, and of course, the offenders are men...straight men, white men, black men... depends on the victim and the offense. The next twenty or thirty years are going to be brutal for men to live in, until the pendulum swings the other way... and it will, perhaps devastatingly.
There was once a time when I thought the idea of 'Western Civilization' falling to religious extremism was laughable, but as more and more men are made to be disposable and powerless in our society they will gravitate to that which gives them meaning and purpose, and the seeds of Islam have been planted and will take root, and in twenty years Sharia law, and the stripping of women's rights from society might be the norm.
That is the type of opposite reaction you get to what we see going on in our society today, where no man, no matter how wholesome and proper he may be living his life, is safe from these accusations, and this hysteria.
You predict a downward spiral "... as more and more men are made to be disposable and powerless in our society ..."
1. Men will try to find "that which gives them meaning and purpose."
A. The Ideals of Islam will become attractive.
1. Islam will take root.
a. In twenty years, Sharia Law will reign.
b. Women will loose their rights.
How can we reverse this spiral, in your mind?
The opportunity to derail this eventual outcome was right here, right now, with the Trump presidency and the ongoing Republican (new blood, not the Rinos like McCain and Flake) control of Congress.
As I see it, the most extreme voices, views, and tactics are taking control of the Democratic Party. The forces of Feminism, anti-Christianity, anti-Americanism, and anti-capitalism (the combined socialisms) have coalesced into the Democratic Party. And they have partnered with CAIR and other Muslim advocacy groups and politicians.
Also Islam has taken hold in the rejected, impoverished parts of our nation, people forget Louis Farrakahn's "million man march" was over 20 years ago. During the previous Administration refugee programs were set up to bring in hundreds of thousands of 'refugees' from the middle east at taxpayer expense, full social welfare benefits. The 'official' counts of these immigrants are skewed by how they were classified.
Saudi Arabia's Royal Family has invested trillions into America, and hundreds of millions into our 'elite higher education' IE- Harvard has received tens of millions from them.
The previous Administration regulated that all public schools that receive any Federal funding/support teach about Islam, the five pillars of faith, the one true god, etc. no exception allowed.
So with the deconstruction of American society and cultural norms, with the destruction of the 'Patriarchy' and the near absolute ability of women to attack men through the courts, with little more than an accusation, and in the public arena, as we see with Kavanaugh, where truth is all but irrelevant, his reputation and ability to live safely in public has been destroyed now and forever.
This will be compounded by technological advances that make it harder and harder for men to find true work, compounded by the fact that 'higher education' has become a place that is not welcoming to men, and where straight American men in particular are considered the root cause of all the world's evils... give it twenty years, the majority of men will be idle, without purpose, without a cause... today those men are committing suicide at rates never before heard of... tomorrow they will be grasping tightly to the most extreme aspects of Islam, and this Nation, and equal-rights, will be rewritten.
I can see it coming down the pipeline just as clearly as I can see Trump's Impeachment coming if the Democrats have control of Congress after 2018. Its not so much IF, but when, how long does it take for the dominoes to fall.
And an economic downturn, combined with Democratic control of the government will hasten this to reality.
How are you, Ken, thanks for weighing in.....
I think the “weaponizing” went back to Bill Clinton and how his personal sexual forays rose to the level of impeachment, so the GOP are not exactly innocent. The GOP said the issue was perjury, but I don’t believe that Clinton’s personal affairs was anyone’s business and did not rise to the level of high crimes or misdemeanors. I did not hear that Roy Moore was found innocent of the accusations leveled at him, yet this was not a criminal trial but a campaign and the perception that was out there that he was not able to refute put enough doubt for enough Alabama voters to make his defeat possible.
The responsibility for Kavanaugh’s behavior and Ms. Ford’s assault could be shared with his/her parents or legal guardians for failing to provide proper supervision of their charges. Underage drinking? At whose house was the party hosted and which responsible adult allowed irresponsible behavior to take place under his or her roof?
I have a problem with backdating offenses; it means that none of us are really safe, that every mistake can be held against you no matter how young you were. It is a no-win situation, how many people would want to be evaluated for a coveted position as adults for negative things that they did as kids? Under those conditions, EVERYONE has a skeleton in their closets. It is not partisan; it is just the principle of the thing. But, at least with the speeding ticket there was some documentation supporting the charge that it remain unpaid, we are not entering the realm of memories, words and differing accounts that are much more subjective and thus more difficult to prove.
To say that men and masculinity are under assault; I don’t know that I would go that far, Ken. Women have valid complaints about sexual assault and intimidation within the dominant male culture that allows so much of this to be swept under the rug. My problems with the types of inquiry we have witnessed in Washington go to a matter of fairness, gender neutral and applicable to anyone.
As a guy, I don’t get the impression of being disposable and powerless. Power is relative, everyone wants a modicum of control over their lives and that preference extends beyond the desires of just men. It is a new day and the ideals of equality as we progress are to be made more and more evident within our changing world. There is no indication that Islamic law with ever take a foothold here. In the pluralistic society in which we live, none of us will tolerate it.
And, Ken, while Mr. Kavenaugh is qualified for the bench, it is like any employer. Your qualifications may be impeccable but at so lofty a post, qualifications are not enough, character matters. This is one block that has to be checked in the affirmative. You would not hire anyone whom you could not trust to tell the truth, regardless of his or her qualifications, would you?
Unfortunately, many to not care about character or the truth! They are considered nonessential. What matters is "what's important to me, regardless of the impact on others.."
I think you're right. And what's important is that Kavanaugh will kill people, will ban all abortion, and now I hear will pardon Trump if he's impeached.
Utter and complete nonsense, in other words, from people that want an activist judge on the bench that will create, not interpret, law...the way they want him to.
I don't know about killing people. Based on my beliefs, abortion is killing a human being that has life and needs nourishment to grow. I haven't heard about pardoning him if he is impeached. I think I understood that he could somehow stop the investigation.
I suppose Roe v. Wade is already law. I didn't have a problem with him until the interviews started and it appears that he lied. He had copies of Democrat emails that were stolen. Then the rant Friday about the Clintons, George Soros, etc., sounded like Donald Trump wrote his speech.
... don't forget he is fighting against the dirty attacks of the deep state LEFT.
Maybe he could admit what he did as a youth, but WHO would say ... its part of adolescence and he has (long) since matured into a fine, fair and Constitutionally based judge.
unfortunately not one person .. well, except for me,
but who listens to the likes of ...
"You would not hire anyone whom you could not trust to tell the truth, regardless of his or her qualifications, would you?"
Now change "hire" to "believe" and consider Fords tremendous fear of flying...while she jets all across the world multiple times per year, often for mere entertainment purposes. While she gets word of the committee coming to her because of that fear...but didn't understand the offer.
Does the necessity of telling the truth work both ways or only one?
There is a substantial difference between a President who entered the White House under the dark cloud of Rape charges, and being caught lying about getting a BJ in the Oval Office.
And bringing up an accusation from an alleged event 35 years ago that no-one corroborates and the accuser can't even give firm who, what, when, why answers to... an accuser that has ties to Joe Biden's former campaigns, as well as close relations to individuals in the CIA, to say Ford is a bit of an activist and political believer is not a reach.
What was done to Clinton was as much his own making as it was political shenanigans. Where Bill was guilty of some, if not all of the predatory sexual misconduct he was accused of, we can't even confirm that this incident Ford is alleging happened, or that it involved Kavanaugh.
If the Democrats had brought this forward weeks ago, rather than saving it for a purely political stunt to stall the vote, I guess we would have had the facts in time to know that her accusation couldn't be confirmed or that the witnesses she mentions won't confirm it.
And yes, I do fully believe we live in a time when certain people will come forth will false charges for political purposes, and that some of these people are quite capable of convincing themselves that what they claim is true, at least in their own minds.
This is a reality many only learn the hard way, I learned it through seeing tragedy befall many fellow soldiers, as wives knew how to abuse the system to get what they wanted... alimony, is easy to get in many states, simply say your husband assaulted you, and the courts will consider it fact, unless indisputable proof shows otherwise.
I've even seen recently if Florida, a girlfriend call police and say her boyfriend is suicidal and threatening violence... and the police arrived and 'baker act' him, guilty until proven innocent, with a simple call. Try getting ahead in life after being tagged as a 'baker act'.
And as we see here with Kavanaugh, in the eyes of many, he is guilty.
No proof needed, just the accusation. That is called living in a society where you have no power to control your life, and are disposable. And his not being confirmed will set in stone going forward, that all men are helpless against any such charge, no matter how powerful they are, no matter how clean their track record, or how upstanding their life may be.
Actually there is, Islam has overtaken more than one town in America as the predominant way of life, but that is not something I have an issue with. Such cycles occur throughout history, great civilizations fall to excess, decadence and immorality only to be transformed or replaced by something new.
Considering you brought Clinton into this discussion, I guess it all depends on what your standards are, and what you expect.
Kavanaugh comes across as far more trustworthy than anyone in Congress who has been grilling him with one idiotic accusation after another, compared to the idiocy we have seen in D.C. over the last two years, this guy is grade A, top class material.
But I don't know much about him, and probably never will, and I sure as heck won't allow our 'news media' to educate me on whether he is qualified or not, our media is more polarized and political than these lunatic politicians we have running the country.
I think Senator Graham said it very well... from minute 6 forward on this video:
I'd be just as scared by fundamentalist Christian law having free reign. I think that's part of what the left is fighting.
"compared to the idiocy we have seen in D.C. over the last two years, this guy is grade A, top class material."
I respectfully think the exact opposite.
"In every aspect of law, a 17 year old is not considered responsible."
That is absolutely not the case.
For federal crimes the age of criminal responsibility (the age at which someone is deemed able to understand what they are doing is wrong) is 11. For other crimes it varies by state.
33 states have no minimum age of criminal responsibility (which I don't think is morally right). Other states have ages that range from 7 (also too young in my view) to 11. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended a minimum age of 12 for criminal responsibility.
A 17 year who commits sexual assault has criminal responsibility in all states. And I think it would be hard to reasonably argue that a 17 year old does not typically understand that forcibly trying to remove a girls clothes while covering her mouth to stop her screaming, is wrong.
And we need to do better at educating young men about sexual violence. Minimizing it, offering excuses for it, having an attitude that suggests it's ok under certain circumstances, is toxic and we mustn't do it.
In terms of evidence. The very nature of them means there are rarely witnesses. I understand the concern about corroborative evidence etc, but that is all the more reason allegations of this nature should be thoroughly and objectively investigated.
As for why she didn't come forward. I don't know. But if we can't assume Kavanaugh did what he is accused of without sufficient proof, then neither can we assume Ford has dishonorable intentions without sufficient proof. We know there are many valid reasons rape and sexual assault survivors do not come forward. Unless there is reason to believe none of those apply to Ford, then fairness dictates we assume she is acting in good faith.
The outcome of the Cosby case tells us that the length of time it takes someone to come forward is irrelevant to the truthfulness (or not) of their allegation. All the women who came forward in the Cosby case did so after a number of years. All of them received the same criticism Ford is currently receiving. But the fact remains Cosby was convicted, and likely did do the things he was accused of.
So I think it's time to put that old criticism to bed. Unless there is clear evidence someone is not acting in good faith, we need to stop questioning why survivors of rape and sexual assault did not come forward sooner.
I'm glad we can salvage some area of agreement, and it's an important one. There is strong reason to believe Kavanaugh has lied to the Judiciary Committee while under oath. That alone is disqualifying in my book, regardless of the allegations. I'm not convinced that will stop the GOP confirming him though, but if they do I think they will suffer for it in the mid-terms. This is a subject that is very emotive, particularly for people who have had experiences like those Ford describes. It's possible the issue could transcend party lines. I've seen lots of Republicans (particularly women) voicing their upset at the idea of Kavanaugh being confirmed.
Six times he's been investigated by the FBI. Six times through the wringer. But we suddenly need a 7th, on the eve of the vote, when the information has been available for weeks and weeks.
Is there any reason at all to think it won't happen for an 8th, a 9th...an unlimited series of delays to keep him out of the courtroom? After hearing how Feinstein carefully kept the information hidden until it would be most useful in maintaining a delaying tactic, I don't. Do you?
Done deal. Feinstein asked him why he wouldn't support a thorough investigation by the FBI to clear his name. He evaded the question and started yelling about other stuff.
Clearly, he doesn't want an investigation.
Clearly he is sick and tired of Democratic delaying tactics; sick and tired of Democratic games with his life and his family. He DID say he would cooperate with an investigation; to expect him to continue Democratic political games is not the brightest tactic they could have used.
Democrats want to delay the hearing; let them try and do so. Don't expect Kavanaugh to do it FOR them.
how long was it did the Republicans plan to delay confirming a new justice to replace Scalia during the Obama Administration? I guess we can wait at least that long?
That's what's driving me nuts. Why doesn't Kavanaugh want FBI to investigate and get it over with.
Umm...he DID say he would cooperate. Why do the Democrats wish to delay confirmation (it was very plain that is the goal, not an investigation)? Why would anyone in the world think Kavanaugh has anything to gain from and investigation; when he comes out lily white he will still be guilty in the mob's mind and still be delayed further if possible. No gain, then.
He said it comfortably because he knew the majority GOP committee would not let it happen.
Perhaps. Either way, given the testimony yesterday, what possible reason would he have to follow the Democrat's plan to delay and derail his confirmation? It isn't about finding truth, for we already have all the truth that can come out of a party with no physical evidence and only 7 witnesses, so what reason could he have for going along with their plan and causing his family additional damage.
Exactly right. He knew they would cover for him.
You have ALL seen how the FBI , DOJ has hammered Trump from the beginning with charges that we either agree with OR feel are thus baseless in defence of Trump , right ?
Don't you all agree then that if Kavanaugh had a history of sexual abuses or even something as slight as a history of workplace sexual innuendos with female workers that the general FBI background check would have picked up on and exploited by the usual "Trump resisters within the FBI ?
No...and this guy is whimpering..I mean come on.
He has gone from whimpering to yelling a lot. Maybe it's a strategy, but it's backfiring.
I realize he is under tremendous pressure. But it's hardly the composure we might expect from a Supreme Court justice.
This is what we get when we put someone with Trump's demeanor in charge. Trump is the world laughing stock and he may succeed in making our entire country the same. If this is Supreme Court material, than it's no longer supreme.
Couldn't agree more. Oh, but they aren't laughing "at" him, they are laughing "with" him--as at the UN meeting. .
Ha ha...yeah...that episode is a kind of summary of Trump. After that, anyone who still thinks he's making America respected again is part of the joke. What's so crazy to me is how insecure Donny really is....a reflection of many of his supporters?
... so why don't you run for president?
I'm not qualified and I don't want the job. I vote for those who I think are more qualified than me. Irrelevant question at any rate. Besides, I wouldn't be a reflection of his supporters...proudly...lol.
Probably anyone who isn't such a narcissist and has the capacity to learn.
Almost anyone..I could..but I'd still suck at it. Just not as bad as Trump...that's not saying much. He's a joke.
No other court nominee has been subjected to such absolute circustry , is that a word ?
That means absolutely Nothing pointing towards guilt .
This guy shouldn't be on the Supreme Court even if he didn't do anything wrong. Crying and yelling...wow...what a wimp.
For someone who is "open to anything" he seems remarkably reluctant for there to be an FBI investigation.
I agree, believe it or not. I believe he did it. I believe he had a drinking problem (stemming from psychological issues caused by his high social standing and position.) I believe Ford is relaying the truth.
Ultimately, Brett is guilty of being in denial of his dark side. Then and perhaps even now. It was certainly suppressed then. He was trying to impress his parents and teachers. He acted out when drunk and did things he would never do when sober. Like Jekyll and Hyde.
For his own psychological reasons.
The fact is, he is a beer drinker. The question is, does he do things on beer that he would not do off beer?
The conclusion could be, if he doesn't, he has changed and
People can change.
Because he didn't fold to Democratic delaying tactics? Is there any possible reason to do so? His guilt is pre-determined from being nominated by Trump in the minds of Trump haters, and delays from the Democrats will not end with an investigation. Why do their job for them, then?
I know middle schoolers that could handle themselves WAY better than this joke.
Wow. That FBI question is getting on his nerves. Not a pretty picture.
Cause he knows he's hit if the FBI gets involved. He's almost assuredly guilty.
It annoys me that he keeps saying, "Whatever the committee wants to do!" He already knows GOP does NOT want to do investigation..
They are asking him to do the job of the committee because they can't get it done. Is that Kavanaugh's role in this farce? To aid in delaying his confirmation?
"Umm...he DID say he would cooperate. " Then "They are asking him to do the job of the committee because they can't get it done. Is that Kavanaugh's role in this farce? To aid in delaying his confirmation?"
So, which is it? Did he really say he would cooperate or is he not cooperating because it's not his role? It can't be both ways. If he really wanted to cooperate he would say bring on an investigation not hide behind the Republicans protecting him.
I believe the later because he doesn't want the confirmation delayed AND he doesn't want the FBI to help find the truth.
Just like GA, you know that Kavanuagh understands the committee would not ask for an FBI investigation yet you still say Kavanuagh agreed to an FBI investigation. It clearly makes no sense.
Cooperation by Kavanaugh does NOT include intentionally delaying the task of the Justice committee for no more reason than an effort to deny his confirmation as long as possible.
What makes no sense? That he will cooperate with an investigation if it happens or that he refuses to play games with his life and call for the useless 7th investigation Democrats want but cannot push through the committee?
wilderness, please tell me you didn't forget the fact that rotting 'Granny' McConnell unlawfully and corruptly held a supreme court position OPEN for about 1 year during president Obama's tenure for the sole corrupt purpose of STEALING the seat, which is exactly what filthy phony republicans including Flake and presumably Collins and Murkowski are trying to do right now:
Your point? That the democratic party can do far worse to people than the Republicans can? Is that what you're pointing out?
No wilderness, my point is we have another atrocious republican cover-up to suppress the truth about this alleged attempted rapist and why the neglectful refusal to investigate the serious criminal charges against him?
Why the big rush all of a sudden to throw an unhinged, delusional 'Clinton Conspiracy' theory believer who has several un-investigated alleged criminal charges pending, on to our highest court in the land after 'Granny' McConnell held a supreme court seat hostage for 1 year during President Obama's tenure?
The height of hypocrisy and criminality, let's pray for truth and justice:
Cooperation would be wanting to be proven innocent. It makes sense that he is avoiding an FBI investigation..it doesn't make sense to say he is cooperating but is avoiding an FBI investigation to save his but.
As Kavanaugh pointed out and every thinking person recognizes, he cannot be "proven innocent". Not now, not in the minds of gullible people falling for Democratic political games.
Doesn't leave much, does it, as a reason to help them delay his confirmation?
Same story, it just doesn't agree with the false picture you're trying to paint.
K still offered to cooperate with whatever the committee wants and still has no reason to join Democrats in delaying his confirmation. No change anywhere.
I agreed from the beginning that he has no reason to cooperate.
You created the false narrative by stating he has no reason to cooperate and isn't cooperating, while at the same time, stating he is cooperating.
You are still making both arguments. It still can't be both ways.
"I agreed from the beginning that he has no reason to cooperate. "
While I've not mentioned reasons for cooperation...and you've insisted I did.
"You created the false narrative by stating he has no reason to cooperate and isn't cooperating, while at the same time, stating he is cooperating. "
False - if you think it's true then cut and paste. What I SAID is that he has no reason to try and force the committee into something they don't want. Which you are trying to take as "cooperation", but cooperation with only a minority rather than the full committee.
That does seem to the big difference; your insistence that "cooperation" means following the Democratic party wishes rather than what the committee wishes. It doesn't, and it certainly doesn't mean ignoring the job of the committee to pick a SCOTUS judge in a reasonable amount of time.
Spin it like a pro: "your insistence that "cooperation" means following the Democratic party wishes rather than what the committee wishes. It doesn't, and it certainly doesn't mean ignoring the job of the committee to pick a SCOTUS judge in a reasonable amount of time."+
One: Cooperation means inviting an FBi investigation to clear his name and that is exactly what you were implying by stating that he said he was willing to cooperate. I don't copy and paste by order, I don't need to, we both know what's going on.
Two: Really? Merrick Garland...set a precedent there.
And the Republicans are so innocent? McConnell held that seat open for a year when it was Obama's choice to put Merritt Garland in it. These old guys are masters at games.
I thought Dr. Ford's testimony was compelling and I believed her. And Mark Judge was in the room as this happened, possibly participated, and disappears to a beach house because of anxiety and alcoholism recovery? He's the key to the whole story, and doesn't want to implicate his friend, surely even you can understand that?
I'm sure he would be offered terms where someone would go to him and interview him, with a psychiatrist there if necessary, to protect his fragile mental health.
Today there was a call for an FBI investigation of limited scope (not too much time). I saw that a few hours ago, but it could have changed, things are moving fast. Kavanaugh should take it like a man and withdraw his name. Maybe he can hold onto his old job, another lifetime appointment.
Again, they had control of Congress, all they did was choose not to vote.
They did not attempt to destroy Obama's nominees when they did not have the vote, they did not throw a fit as the Dems rammed through ACA, it is the American people with their votes, that voted in waves of Republicans to counter what was occurring.
The Republicans never weaponized sexual misconduct allegations for purposes of trying to stop a nomination or change the outcome of an election.
The problem is there is no one who corroborates her accusation, there is no proof that this occurred, no one she names supports her claims.
As far as I know, this goes with the other supposed accusers as well.
Ms. Ford is knee deep into the politics of this. If I understand correctly she has worked for Democratic campaigns in the past, has ties to the firm which helped create the 'dossier', and has ties to the CIA as well... John Brennan's agency which he helped restructure to suit his interests and politics.
Just remember, that's one major difference between the evil of republicans who just gave trillions to the filthy rich and President Obama who championed the ACA which gave millions more Americans critically important health insurance:
And by the way, under Bozo Trump who continues to sabotage our healthcare system because he's obviously a psychopath who could care less about you, me or anything else but himself, my premiums have already increased by about 10% and are expected to increase even more:
Thanks Bozo Trump and republicans, keep giving even more of our money to corrupt Wall Street greed mongers, sticking alleged attempted rapists on our supreme court while you drive our health insurance premiums to the moon:
They are doing anything they can to destroy Obama's legacy. Many people are grateful for the ACA, as the Rs wanted to drop it and leave millions of people with no health insurance. We can take money from the over bloated military budget, and have a single payer system so we are all covered. We spend more money on healthcare than any other country in the world, and have the most uncovered people.
Do you honestly believe Dr. Ford would want to relive this awful experience and her family has also been threatened and living away from home, being more inconvenienced than BK. He was belligerent and rude yesterday, showing that he has anger management issues, and as a person who is familiar with alcoholism, I believe he still has a drinking problem. He's sweating out toxins all day and is as white as a sheet. That's recovery from a hangover from hell the night before.
maybe the Easter Bunny should run and Santa's elves should be in his cabinet
I'm busy with my local Democratic Club and never considered President as a career. I see how dirty politics is at a local level. It's not for me. My interest is local and regards environmental issues, the saving of historical buildings, overdevelopment and the flooding it causes, and water safety.
Sounds good. Did you ever drink to excess in your youth? and regret it?
You don't have to answer. I'm just wondering.
I don't have regrets about my life, I own what I do or did.
That addresses the latter part of the question. How about the former ...
A yes or no would have been sufficient. And you didn't have to reveal anything at all.
Why did I ask?
Because you are a fine upstanding citizen who might have done something in your youth which was not so upstanding. I did one stupid thing as a seventeen year old ... However, I feel that I too am an upstanding citizen even though it happened.
Could it have been used against me as sexual assault?
Well, it did not involve groping, but it did involve throwing myself onto a guy and telling him that I loved him, (practically a stranger) at a Griffith Park free concert in the 70's. He did not take advantage of me in my severely drunken state. In fact, he probably ran for his life!!!
How do I even remember this? I wrote it in my journal. The truth is I remember nothing of my ridiculous behavior. My friends told me what I had done under the influence of wine which was being passed around by the gallons.
Kathryn, we all make mistakes when we are young. I made a mistake or two that I'm not proud of. But I learned from them, and they didn't have to do with drinking, or didn't happen as a result of drinking. I grew up in an alcoholic family. My son is 30 and never drank a drop, not even a toast at a wedding. Please don't beat yourself up so much. Its part of growing up.
As far as Kavanaugh, the hate and rude way he addressed members of Congress just showed he has anger management and likely still drinking problems. I was shocked by his nasty outbursts. He didn't change or grow.
Don't compare your life to his. I'm sure you are upstanding.
He has been plagued with opposition from the Left throughout his career as court judge. His anger comes from his frustration at the continuation of their ruthless attacks.
... as I now believe.
The hate and rude way he addressed the Democratic portion of the committee just showed he understands just what they have done and why they did it. He understands that he, his children and wife have suffered at the hands of those people, and for no more reason than political games and a desire to NOT do their appointed job. He understand that they have intentionally and with malice destroyed his reputation...because they MIGHT gain political points for their party.
Nor can I believe you were "shocked" - the comment that he has "likely still drinking problems" without a single shred of evidence of drinking problems either now or at the age of 17 says it all.
Wilderness, stay out of what was a conversation between Kathryn and me, and had nothing to do with you. None of those remarks were addressed to you, and I told you I don't want to talk to a misogynist like you when you made the remark that I "like" abortion. For shame.
Now it's BK's years at Yale and continued drinking and sexual abuse we are talking about. He participated in gang rapes. Try to keep up. He's really material we want in the highest court in the land.
Wilderness was only commenting on an open forum. For me, any conversation I carry on with one is open for others. Why do you take such a stand? ... just because you have developed a dislike for Mr. wilderness's opinions?
I do not concur with your comments here:
"He participated in gang rapes. (No proof) Try to keep up. (Rude) He's really material we want in the highest court in the land. (Snarky)"
... yet I am still happy to discuss matters with you.
PS He is for abortion. Why would he accuse you of "liking" it?
Good question. I have not known him to be a strong advocate for women's issues. He made the comment to me much earlier in this thread, and I was very offended by it. Go back quite a few pages and you will find it. I believe I deserve an apology.
Other classmates are coming forward online and saying BK or MJ were getting a girl in a room alone, and lined up outside the room to get a "go" with her. Read yesterday on Huffington Post. That was a low level of snarky, though I agree. Still open to discussion with you but need to get some work done on an article I am writing. Sweet dreams.
Does "Jean is Pro-Choice" make you feel better? That was the meaning, as I'm sure you knew - sorry you chose to take offense at the wording. I'm not very PC.
But if you want a private conversation I might suggest you not use an open, public forum to have it in.
"Good question. I have not known him to be a strong advocate for women's issues."
Good point. I have always been a strong supporter and advocate for equality (as much as physical differences allow) in all matters. Women, color, race, origin, religious belief - in ALL matters. If, however, "women's issues" involve being superior then not so much.
She was admitting something personal, and I thought it was rude of you to jump in, although she did write it on an open forum. Some people are more sensitive than that, or perhaps it was my own work with people that makes me more so.
I also care about civil rights for everyone. But we were discussing BK's wish to not accept Roe v Wade as established law. I realize this thread has been going for days. I sent you a link to show a position paper he wrote. The link is on Page 7 of this thread, and he doesn't want to accept RvW as established law, after 44 yrs.
People don't "choose" to take offense, I know better. Your words still hit me the wrong way. It's OK.
Kathryn has been here a long time - she fully understands what an open, public forum is, does and allows.
I missed the link, and will check it out.
People very often "choose" to take offense - so much so there is a term for it. It's called having a "Chip on the shoulder" or in some cases "searching for offense".
If you refer to https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/us/p … =Homepage.
(found on your post on page 7 of this thread, but I assume that browser/video settings can change that)
it does indeed reference an email wherein Kavanaugh was "considering a draft opinion piece that supporters of one of Mr. Bush’s conservative appeals court nominees hoped they could persuade anti-abortion women to submit under their names."
That draft opinion piece stated that “it is widely accepted by legal scholars across the board that Roe v. Wade and its progeny are the settled law of the land.” but there is no indication in the email that Kavanaugh wrote it, agreed with it or proposed it. Only that he "considered" it as was his task at the time. He DID propose changing one line, again as his task and job at the time. There is no indication of his personal belief.
According to this link, again, "Still, his email stops short of saying whether he personally believed that the abortion rights precedent should be considered a settled legal issue."
Bottom line: if this is the link you refer to as Kavanaugh's
position paper it is a complete, 100% failure. It is not a "position paper" at all and never was; rather, it is an email about a position paper. It does not indicate Kavanaugh's personal position on abortion OR on whether RvsW is set into stone. It merely says that some lawyers believe it is not.
Jean, this is so typical of what we're seeing today: a gross mis-interpretation of some event, followed by other people that don't read it and simply take the headline at face value. You need to watch that.
As far as RvsW, Kavanaugh may have said it is not necessarily set in stone (I don't know) - his professional opinion on the legal and constitutional basis for changing a court decision. You are not qualified to enter that discussion (neither am I) and all your want and desire that it BE stone is without any value at all considering your (and my) total lack of training and experience in the field of SCOTUS law. It is not reasonable to take Kavanaugh to task for a legal opinion that you do not have the knowledge or ability to refute. Should you quote people that DO have the knowledge and ability, make sure to include quotes from both sides of the aisle, for there are very few people that, like Kavanaugh, will discuss law rather than ideology disguised as law.
Even in this spectacle of a "trial" the presentation of "evidence " was in Kavanaugh's favor , his calendars , the hundreds of letters in support from co-workers , the FBI background checks , the actual cross examining far worse than Prof. Fords emotion infused unquestioned testimony . Ford offered no facts , dates , details of before or after the alleged incident . Kavanaugh's testimony was far more believable .
One important aspect of a witness statement is corroboration. Nobody corroborated Christine Ford's claim. Too many things she can't remember. Interesting how she came forward 36 years later when Kavanaugh is in the confirmation process for the Supreme Court. How can anyone find her credible? Because she put on a good performance using here psychology training? I do wonder what liberal men would do if they were falsely accused of such a horrible thing by someone who can't remember the day or time and has friends who say it didn't happen. Put yourself if Brett Kavanaugh's position.
“All of Ford's named witnesses of the party, both male and female, have now denied any recollection of attending such a party.”
https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mcc … -kavanaugh
“One week ago, Dr. Christine Ford claimed she was assaulted at a house party attended by four others. Since then, all four of these individuals have provided statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee denying any knowledge of the incident or even having attended such a party,
https://www.newsweek.com/kavanaugh-accu … es-1134728
“I do not remember all of the details of how that gathering came together. I truly wish I could provide detailed answers to all of the questions. I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t remember as much as I would like to.” Dr. Christine Ford.
https://www.lifenews.com/2018/09/27/chr … confirmed/
Ford said she could not recall all the details of the polygraph or how former FBI agent Jeremiah Hanafin was chosen to administer the test. She added that the test took place on either the same day or near the date of her grandmother’s funeral.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09 … -test.html
It all just points to the ONE known fact that WE can know today , these hearings are political and not based on the legalities of the accusation or there would have been some evidentiary value in her testimony besides her memory , a friend , a witness , a police report , something , anything at all . If all we have to rely on is our individual believability today then I say Kavanaugh's testimony was more believable . Considering that Prof. Ford is a trained psychologist bothers me as to her testimony .
I'm sure there were people who could back up your claims. I'm sure you spoke to it about other people. I would bet there is plenty of evidence to prove your claim. I'm sure your allegations are credible. What would anyone do if going for a position and a person says decades earlier they molested a child. Nobody who was there at the time that can remember it. The person making the allegations can't remember all the details, but is certain you molested a child. You have proof you were not at the place where it happened and many people support your claim. Yet, the media has labeled you as a child molester. What an innocent person do in this situation?
I have known at least two women who when attending counselling for mental health issues had shrinks who actually tried to convince them of past sexual abuses that needed to be "brought out " through , for one , hypnosis . My point, there are many agenda's out there of the manipulation of politically hot issues like these , Either gender , sexual ,psychologically or however related , it's still a" public lynching "when these issues become politicized .
Lynne Brookes, a classmate of Brett Kavanaugh's at Yale, disappointed in blatant lying
American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations
You can be a good person, or you can be a democrat. You can't be both.
This https://mobile.twitter.com/JustinTinsle … 76/video/1
Ok. Keep going.
Another Yale classmate breaks silence: Kavanaugh lied
Liz Swisher, former Yale classmate of Brett Kavanaugh
He's a lying punk. Sorry I don't have anything more earth shattering to bring to the conversation..but that's how I see it.
White House limits FBI's Kavanaugh inquiry to 2 of 3 accusers: report
The White House has instructed the FBI to question two women who have alleged sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
But the parameters of the new and limited FBI probe don’t include interviewing Julie Swetnick, a third accuser who alleged this week that he was at a party decades ago where she was gang-raped, according to a report on Saturday in The Wall Street Journal.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09 … eport.html
I think that could be a serious mistake. Ms. Swetnick might choose to take her story to the public, if the FBI is forbidden to investigate.
I disagree PrettyPanther. Regarding the purpose of the hearings and this new investigation, I think the limitations more than fulfill the need.
If there is enough smoke from the two accuser's charges being investigated, then the fire of Swetnick's allegations will be superfluous to the purpose of the hearing. Not to the issue of chargeable offenses, but to the purposes of the committee. Does it matter the degree to which he is unqualified - if he is deemed unqualified?
Or 1 (accuser) or even none. The terminology used was along the lines of "current" and "credible" accusations. Swetnick's pile of feces was not credible at all; it is up to the FBI to determine if the center one or even Ford is.
Will men even be able to look at women? No, they will look away. They will not talk to them and they will protect themselves from those vile and confusing creatures. Meanwhile the women will dress as provocatively as they so choose.
It doesn't make sense and it is definitely not fair.
Make up your minds, women.
Actually, recently, if you thumb through women magazines, women have been down-playing their curves and attractiveness in dress and clothing styles.
We will suffer without balance, respect and kindness toward one another.
Why is this suddenly so difficult to do?
In India, if you watch their music videos, it seems the guys love their women and their women are sweet and alluring in an innocent playful way. I suppose that will all disappear as they become more westernized.
Which FBI ?
The biggest Irony of all in the Kavanaugh / Ford investigation , the Senate is happy to have us all believe that we can all rest easy in that The FBI has arrived on the scene ............again . The FBI that is infused with partisanship at the highest levels of it's offices , perhaps Feinstein can assure us that Lisa Paige will investigate Kavanaugh ?
Setting it up already for a no lose situation.
"“Every FBI agent, and Pete [Strzok] is no different, knows how to investigate and follow the facts,” a former senior official told The Hill. “It’s astonishing. There’s a lack of understanding of how we operate as an organization—one, to think that we could not have political views and conduct impartial investigations, and two, to assume with a complex investigation like this that one person could change the outcome.”"
https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-biased-dem … ion-745389
Then it seems maybe the investigation should be allowed to be complicated so the effects of any bias will be eliminated. Great argument for a longer investigation.
Democrats already infiltrated and exploited the FBI for political purposes , If the FBI knocked on every American door , half of America would laugh in their faces .So this isn't about the integrity of an investigation , democrats on the senate committee are simply "running down the clock ". Painfully obvious .
After the 2016 elections fiasco , The reputation of the FBI is on trial and they're not the only ones , leftists under Obama have succeeded in compromising the neutrality of most gov. institutions . That's what happens when bias is infused in the halls of Justice , democrats be proud .
DOJ , FBI , ATF , IRS .? They have all been played.
They are under trial by anti-law enforcement, Pro-Trump Fox propaganda watchers. I don't think they represent the majority. But we'll see. Nothing surprises me anymore.
Ford /Kavanaugh ? Tell us all this just isn't one more Trump resistance , phase # 62 .
You have learned much Grasshopper .
I read through all the comments, by men, on this alleged incident. It's laughable. Ford has no corroborating evidence, a murky memory (at best).
I know women. I grew up in a prep school environment. I can easily imagine the scenario. I'm sick of society giving women a free ride no matter the ridiculousness of the allegation, their rearranging events to somehow be able to claim themselves as victims, of this 'she said it so he must be a monster' mentality, with absolutely no ability for the man to defend his actions.
She didn't name him when telling her husband. And didn't name him when discussing with a therapist. She has changed key parts of the story several times. But, now, the final version, we are to accept without reservation.
Give me a break.
But call Kavanaugh a punk and you get the wrath, lol. I think we don't need to over correct on the male dominance thing..but I also think MANY men are scared of a future where women are treated equally.
That's what I am seeing too. When Ms. Cortez won in Jamaica, Queens, and the older, white man, who only had an address there, and didn't even bother to campaign, lost, people were upset. An older guy in my son's martial arts school called her a "nitwit." My son said, "Just because you have political disagreements with her doesn't make her a nitwit." A lot of these guys are getting lazy and out of touch.
The only way they can come to grips with women, people of color, or those of different sexual orientation is to denigrate them. But I believe you are from NJ too and we are used to diversity. Many of people in other parts of the country aren't. They just think they are, because it's an idea, they don't interact with these people everyday.
I think people don't change. Anyone who is a drunken woman molester at 17 still is. In NJ, if a black person at 17 did what BK did, he'd be judged as an adult, and would spend a minimum of 25 yrs. in prison (I never said the law here was fair). What kinds of decisions will he make for women whose cases get as far as the Supreme Ct? It's too big a gamble to take.
I agree with most of your assessment. I remember, even in college, seeing professors, give entirely different reactions to a male stating the same thing a a female.
I'm actually from the Midwest, and grew up in a small town with very little diversity. However, I always tried to keep my mind open and had many experiences in the interim. Too many men are still offended by a strong woman. I married a strong woman and have a highly intelligent, high-achieving daughter who's likely to exceed the career aspirations of any of the men in my immediate family, so that probably helps me see and understand a bit more than I would have otherwise.
I had a husband who always was respectful and always listened to me, and we made all our decisions together. Our son often says he learned everything about life from both of us. Many of his friends think he's still single because people always seemed to idealize our marriage, and think he feels he can't live up to that. Nonsense, every couple has problems. But I was lucky to be loved by a man who was not threatened by me, who truly liked women, and have a son very much like him. I don't think men have to panic because instead of a world run by the "old boy's club" we now have older, wise woman who can help younger woman climb career ladders too. Great job on the daughter!
That's great! And thanks. You shouldn't have to be "lucky" to find a man who truly sees marriage as an equal partnership.
I try to always listen to my wife, and I know if I don't, I'll hear about it, lol. I think the main thing is to take her input seriously. I see couples where the man always dismisses the wife's input as though she were a child. I think this has a little to do with where we live. Honestly, If my wife would have allowed it when we were younger, our relationship may not be so equal either. We certainly but heads, much more so when we were younger. But, her strong-will was part of what I admired about her so I respected her and grew to understand things like what are now known as "mansplaining." I could never get away with such a patronizing tone or pretending I know more about something that she clearly has more knowledge than me on. Hell, she could change the oil in our car faster than I could.
America's missed out on a lot of innovation due to the good old boys club exclusion of women, and well, guys who just weren't too big a part of the club. I look forward to seeing what so many daughters can accomplish in the future. I look forward to the days when people like Mike Pence have no shot of being in leadership positions.
It all falls under the five or six usual anti -conservative labels .
- ................[ add your own here ]
And another one! This time is not a woman.
Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s who said he often drank with him, issued a statement on Sunday saying the Supreme Court nominee was not truthful about his drinking in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week..
In recent days I have become deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale. When I watched Brett and his wife being interviewed on Fox News on Monday, and when I watched Brett deliver his testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, I cringed. For the fact is, at Yale, and I can speak to no other times, Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. I know, because, especially in our first two years of college, I often drank with him. On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.
I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18- or even 21-year-old should condemn a person for the rest of his life. I would be a hypocrite to think so. However, I have direct and repeated knowledge about his drinking and his disposition while drunk. And I do believe that Brett’s actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter. If he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences. It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges.
I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth.
I felt it was my civic duty to tell of my experience while drinking with Brett, and I offer this statement to the press. I have no desire to speak further publicly, and nothing more to say to the press at this time. I will, however, take my information to the F.B.I.
Charles (Chad) Ludington
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/p … naugh.html
Kavanaugh is a lying punk. That wasn't hard to see. If he would have been even a little honest..like, said, yeah, maybe I blacked out once or twice, then I'd give him a little credit. We don't need someone on the Supreme Court who lies to the Senate on national TV.
I thought this was as clear as day also. If I pulled something like this in front of a judge...they would let me out of jail Wednesday.....Wednesday decided to, which would be as long as possible. His lying performance isn't something that takes long philosophical discussions to see.
Grade A boofer
Just a thought IslandBites. Reiterating a thought I just related to hard sun.
In an interview, a CNN commentator asked; (paraphrasing), "If we are to believe this one "friend," Chad Ludington, don't we also have to believe the two friends that counter his claims?"
C'mon kid, you are sounding a bit biased in this thread.
I was checking my posts in this thread... Funny that I'm sounding biased when I've only posted news/links about allegations... In a thread about how can Kavanaugh defend himself against (what?!) allegations. Ha.
Btw, it's a valid question (in Fake News CNN?! ) Did I said I believe him? Or that you (any) should? I must've forgotten.
(That "kid" made my day! )
Well, relative to me, you are a "kid," so enjoy.
Isn't your choice of what you post indicative of a perspective?
Well, the thread is about allegations against BK and how will BK defend himself. Don't know of news about any other allegations that could indicate (to you) another perspective.
But, since you're so interested...
My opinion about it is almost the same as yours, even if you resist it. I have no idea if he assaulted Ford. But I believe he lied at the hearing. And you know you too.
I know I didn't like his yelling and arrogance (and that doesn't make him guilty of Ford's accusation). Like I said, it didn't painted a pretty picture (I believe my only opinion in this thread). Also, how partisan he is.
But, I could care less about democrats and what they did or not did. There were allegations and an investigation was needed.
I also believe he'll likely be confirmed anyway.
Finally, I hope he doesn't.
("You're a kid" was enough! )
Geesh! Just like a man isn't it. We never know when to leave 'well enough' alone. (re - "kid," of course)
I no longer think Kavanaugh should be confirmed. Also, I am no longer certain that the Republicans can confirm him.
His post-Ford testimony is a problem for me, and, I think the uncertainty of his guilt or innocence will negatively impact the integrity of the Court itself.
I am still simmering over, and blaming the democrats for their political character assassination of Kavanaugh, and callous use of Ford.
The whole thing stinks. Going back to high school years and using allegations that can't be proven, (or realistically disproved) - when the entirety of an admirable adult life can be, is a step I think we will live to regret. I think the #metoo folks will especially regret this one.
But, relative to what I think, Kavanaugh did the job for them with his final testimony. I doubt that many of us men would have done differently, and I bet most of us were applauding him for it at the time - but we aren't candidates for the Supreme Court, and I think that makes a difference.
On top of all that, based on what I found looking around at his judicial history, I think he would have made a good Justice.
Damn dirty politics, and the Dems own it. And don't give me that "Garland" baloney. He was politically obstructed, not purposely ruined.
Hi GA...Do you think this entire fiasco reflects upon Trump's judgement? Everyone knew, considering what this appointment will do to the make up of the court, Merrick Garland, etc. that this would be highly challenged by the Dems.
Isn't there someone that didn't have a checkered past like this, including his days at Yale, friends like Mark Judge, etc. This could have went much differently if Trump had not been at the helm IMO.
This is why I think liberals, and those that value liberty, are better off with Trump than Pence. Mike Pence is a little craftier at circumventing the Constitution in the name of religious freedom.
No hard sun, I don't think this reflects poorly on Pres. Trump. And I am not sure I would say Kavanaugh has a "checkered past."
We are all welcome to form our opinions by whatever measures we want, but the measures we choose will affect the validity of our opinions. I won't base mine on allegations.
Hard, I agree that it is judgment. DJT is self serving in all of his dealings. He did not properly vet Kavanaugh - no surprise.. He didn't vet most of his loyalists.. Not only that, the loyalists have less than or comparable dealings to DJTs..
After all of the Stormy is lying bit, now we see that he had taken out a restraining order against her.
After consoling the Warmbiers, he and Rocket Man are not in love with each other. What advantage is that for the US.
He preferred Putin to our allies. This was self-serving because I believe Putin has something over him. I would not be surprised to find that an investigation was done on Lindsey Graham so they could manipulate him..
I once thought Pence would be a better president.. Quite honestly, he scares me. He adoringly looks at DJT and offers soft expressions of admiration and adulation.
Make Paul Ryan should become president..
Nice synopsis. It's difficult for me to see how any thinking individual can truly believe that Trump has good judgment and hires "only the best" people.
I genuinely thought that GA would agree that Trump has at least a small judgement problem. It hurts credibility to not see Trump's flaws but see Feinsteins, Hillary's, etc. I see mind boggling blind spots that I think are built more on ideology than actual reason.
Pence was our governor here. His ideology is extreme. His anti LBGT stances hurt our reputation. He even tried to start a state-run newspaper. I think that was shot down by the state court system.
This contains a bit of duplication hard sun, mostly for Dianne's understanding.
To your point about insisting Pres. Trump's Kavanaugh problem is a result of poor vetting...
What do you think Diane? If the above is true, then to blame Pres. Trump for poor vetting would have to imply that the FBI background check found these alleged character problems, and Pres. Trump decided they were unimportant. Also, I wonder who else saw the background check. Anybody on the Judiciary Committee? (I can see that possibility, if so do you think the Dems would have ignored them?) Do you think that is the case?
Or, the FBI found these alleged character issues and failed to include them in the report submitted to the president. What do you think the odds of that are? With that same culprit would be the possibility that the FBI didn't find these alleged character issues, and if they are proven, wouldn't the fault be the FBI's?
My point being, the FBI background check is supposed to be thorough. Shouldn't a president, (and whoever else that is involved in the process and sees the report), be able to trust them?
So, the real vetting the President might be responsible for would be in the form of reviewing the resume' submitted to him by the recommending agency, (in this case I think it was The Federalist Society), and talking with his advisers about it. As I recall hearing, Judge Kavanaugh had a stellar career resume', even by bi-partisan standards. He also had stellar evaluations by supporting groups - should the ABA be deemed non-consequential?
So where is my "blind spot" or my opinion built on ideology?
Until the Ford allegations came to light Kavanaugh was cruising. Yet, now, with that allegation, and new information coming to light - information that nobody knew about, a refusal to blame the president, or take a stand based on unproven allegations is a failure of the president, and an ideological blind spot for folks, (like me), that see your point as one solely supported by allegations. I think that would be a real credibility issue hard sun.
[ADDED] I just heard a contributor talking on NPR, relative to an initial questionnaire submitted for background check applicants, I didn't catch the speakers credentials, but relative to the questions asked - yes, euphemistically speaking, the questions do include stuff in the 'sex, drugs, and rock n' roll' category. But... the most pertinent comment was that the questions ask for a history back to age 18.
True, FBI didn't see any info on the beer and rowdy behavior. I was listening to explanation about how they could miss it. When the investigation is done, FBI starts out with a list of references you provide. Maybe he just gave references from church, school professors and family..
When I was in 12th grade, I applied for a job with FBI as a secretary..
I had to provide names of friends.. A friend of mine was furious with me.
THey couldn't reach her so somehow they called her grandmother and said it was the FBI. Her grandmother almost had a heart attack..
So it looks like they do go beyond the list that you provide.
I don't know if it is done consistenly by all agents..............................
Hi Diane, I just added something to the post you responded to:
[ADDED] I just heard a contributor talking on NPR, relative to an initial questionnaire submitted for background check applicants, I didn't catch the speakers credentials, but relative to the questions asked - yes, euphemistically speaking, the questions do include stuff in the 'sex, drugs, and rock n' roll' category. But... the most pertinent comment was that the questions ask for a history back to age 18.
Yeah, I've been hearing that also. However, in this case, if his alleged behavior went into college years, it should have been caught. I briefly heard something about him getting drunk in a bar in the 90s.. Supposedly he manhandled a lady he was with outside the bar; however, I only heard it about twice. Anyway, this stuff is too much stress for me. I've got to stop cable news and twitter before I have a stroke or heart attack.
No Diane, you don't have to stop listening, (or reading), until you just get tired of hearing it. Not because it stresses you out. To fix that all you have to do is remember that everyone is telling you what they want you to hear - for their own reasons. Then it is no longer stressful, but just a matter of figuring out why they are saying what they are saying, and deciding for yourself what to absorb. Try it. You will be stress-free.
I have greatly reduced my political listening, (and reading) - except for what is needed for these forum discussions, not because it stresses me, or angers me, but just because it got boring. Same game, same predictable presentation, over and over and over ...
Are you familiar with the declaration that, (even in this day and time), there is nothing new under the sun, just different variations of the same old stuff. I agree with that statement - especially regarding politics. The game is the same, just different teams and different times.
I think he was at Yale past the age of 18...I think Trump flubbed it up as usual..he likes to go on his gut feelings..his gut was wrong...not complicated
So, after all that explanation, you are sticking with it's Trump's fault.
You are right, it's not complicated - facts indicate one thing, your opinion indicates another. I got nothing else. Stick with your opinion. Don't let facts get in your way.
Thought you might have missed this hard sun. So, as I see you are still referring to folks that don't think the President holds any responsibility for his SCOTUS picks, (which I didn't say) - this is just a *bump* to get it back in the line-up.
It starts at the top. That was the standard line whenever anything went "wrong" when Obama was in charge. It does start at the top no matter the degree of rationalizing.
GA, 45 doesn't like to read as you know. The daily briefings bore him. I understand that Kavanaugh was McGahn's baby and buddy. So should 45 have found out more for himself. McConnell told him that it would be hard to get a yes on Kavanaugh. Duh! That's the time to ask "WHY?"! (punctuation may not be right)
Anywho, I'm wondering why supposed corroborating witnesses were not interviewed.
That's all I've got to say ... right now.
At this stage, I think this would be a gift to the Republicans come November. This particular case has many left-of-center women sitting up and taking notice.
Those Moms with boys, those Brothers with loving Sisters who are close, etc. etc. this type of attack and the way it has dominated for weeks now, has alarmed many of them.
Democrats probably think all women will be cheering over this, I don't think so, and I think those who would have been inclined to fall in line more with the #metoo movement will be leaning more towards the #toofar movement (and if there isn't such a movement there may be very soon), in large part because of this event, this close to elections.
They do, they own it, and if Kavanaugh is not confirmed it will go a long way to turning out the vote in November for the Republicans, and should the Republicans retain control, then Kavanaugh won't matter, because the next person Trump nominates will be a certainty.
This whole event may very well be catalyst to the Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory come this November.
Blue wave..see, I'm learning. After reading the nonsense from Trump supporters here, I'm all in partisan in November. #toofar may be true but it's better than #willtakeyourfreedommakelovetokimjongunanddrinkorangekoolaid There is no meeting in the middle from Trump supporters..they go low, we go low is the new motto until the new generations get their chance, lol. You all call Jake crazy. If so, I see who made him that way. Twilight Zone, passive aggressive nonsense.
Ken, I do agree that this may well turn out to be harmful to the Democrats, rather than the Republicans - as they, (the Dems), planned.,
I think your idea of a #toofar movement is a possibility.
Anything else would just be a rehash. Except that I disagree that Kavanaugh should be confirmed.
I think we are in agreement here actually GA, perhaps for different reasons, but still, I believe neither you nor I want to see Kavanaugh confirmed.
I want him to be the poster-boy for what happens when accusations, even those that can't be substantiated, and that come from over 35 years ago when a person was a teenager, come forth to destroy a man, his career, his reputation, his life.
The poster-boy for what the Democratic Party represents today.
I don't think the Republicans in Congress can see the political value this will have come November... but I do, nothing could be better for them now than for Kavanaugh not to be confirmed and for that denial to still be lingering in November.
Do we have a catch-22 situation? Confirm him and the integrity of the court is impacted; fail to confirm based on unsubstantiated claims and the integrity of the entire selection process is not only impacted but lost. Along with any other selection process in govt., from elections to appointments to hiring janitors.
(Not sure that is an exaggeration, either, as I can easily see this tactic being used in the future from complainants that KNOW their claim is false.)
I hear investigation may be over tonight????
I don't think your comment was an exaggeration at all Wilderness. That is where we are now. But, as much as I wanted Kavanaugh to be confirmed, I think his post-Ford testimony has disqualified him. Damn shame to be human isn't it?
I really liked his opening speech. I think many people did (because I did, I suppose, but I still think that). I recognize that there is little hope that politicians would like it, though, any more than they like Trump's total lack of "political civility".
So you may be right - the people aren't qualifying him, politicians are, and they won't like his demeanor, speech or the attitude that he is as good and as important as they are.
Consider the bigger picture.
The anger has been on the side of the Democrats, they have been nasty beyond all reason the past two years... and for the most part those in the middle and the right have been content to let them wail in their misery.
Kavanaugh not being confirmed, raises alarms, will wake people up, will get people in the middle and the right to the voting booth come November, motivating them in ways they probably wouldn't have been.
If this can be done to Kavanaugh, on this stage, in this way, it confirms just about every fear a person who is not already pre-disposed to believe in the Democratic Party may have about them, their tactics, and what they stand for today.
This is much different than the FBI scandals and the Trump, Hillary dirty politics and storylines.
This is a not-well-known-until-now Judge that stood up there with his wife and kids, who has devoted his life to serving his country and community, getting eviscerated by the Democrats.
Ken, you seem to think it will be only Democrats that, in the future, repeat this kind of attack with baseless accusations.
I disagree. As soon as one party finds a new tool to get their way it is copied by the other. Republicans found a way to deny Democrats the opportunity to seat a new judge: Democrats are now copying the action.
It will not end until we the people end it for them. At this point that very likely means removing every legislator on the hill and replacing them - something people will not do because they like the shenanigans and "free money" their own rascal brings to them.
I believe this to be inaccurate Wilderness, perhaps you have been reading too many revisionist posts here.
When the Republicans did not have the vote, they did not stand in the way of Obama's nominations, they did not try to destroy through phony accusations and decades old mishaps those he presented.
When they finally had the vote/majority, they simply didn't bother to have hearings or vote to confirm.
This was not dirty politics, if Hillary had won, she would have been able to present someone else, and they would be confirmed, sooner or later.
This is purely the tactics of the Democrats, they did this with Bork in 87, Thomas in 91, this type of character assassination and last minute grand-standing has become the purview of the Democrats.
This is true, and this is why Kavanaugh NOT being confirmed is now important, it drives home the point to Americans that just because they voted in Trump, the threat to America, its jobs, its economy, its future is still very real.
Democrats on every federal level still need to be voted out, or these types of attacks (as on Kavanaugh) will become the accepted norm, and the 'leadership' we have seen from the Democrats the past two years will continue with zeal, until all of America is like California politics (taxes and unaffordability included).
"When the Republicans did not have the vote, they did not stand in the way of Obama's nominations"
"After the death of Scalia, Republican Senate leaders announced that they planned to hold no vote on any potential nomination during the president's last year in office. Senate Democrats responded that there was sufficient time to vote on a nominee before the election. Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress. The nomination remained before the Senate for 293 days, the longest nomination process in the history of Supreme Court nominations. With the failure of Garland's nomination, President Donald Trump, a Republican, successfully nominated Neil Gorsuch in 2017." Wikipedia
Republicans absolutely DID stand in the way of Garland; they refused to hold a vot for 293 days, making no bones about their refusal to carry out their task of filling a vacant spot. And yes, it was dirty politics (my definition); any time congress refuses to do their job for nearly a year simply to gain SCOTUS power it is dirty politics. IMO.
"Democrats on every federal level still need to be voted out, or these types of attacks (as on Kavanaugh) will become the accepted norm..."
We disagree only in that thinking the Republicans will not repeat the process themselves. I find it not only probably but inevitable; you think that R in the name produces ethical standards so it won't happen.
I wasn't arguing that, I said they did that, they didn't vote on him.
That is the benefit of having the majority. The Republicans have the majority because despite what most 'news' sources may say, the American people were POed with the direction the country was going.
They didn't like what NAFTA brought them, they didn't like the war in Iraq, and then Libya, Syria, etc. they damned sure didn't like the mortgage crisis and how the banks were bailed out but they lost their houses and savings...
Americans are good people, it is easy to understand how they believed in and wanted Obama to succeed, wanted the lies told about the ACA to be true, and accepted to a large degree when they were told all their problems were Bush/Republicans fault.
But while lies and character assassination can get you into power... once there you have to produce.
Rather than rehash recent history, I'll just say... I imagine if the majority of Americans liked what had been produced, there would still be a majority of Democrats in Congress.
Point is, on this matter, there is a huge difference between being in the majority and just not having the vote, and being the minority and trying to destroy a person, and paint the opposition as rapists, sexists, and the root of all evil.
When the Reps did not have control, and were the minority, they did not do such despicable things, despite what was done to Thomas, Bork and others by the Democrats.
There IS a big difference between the two, it seems, at least so far as decency when confirming SCOTUS nominees anyways.
Just as there is a big difference between Obama and his "those jobs are gone" mentality, and Trump's 4+ million new jobs, and arm twisting tactics forcing major corporations to keep jobs in America rather than ship them elsewhere.
"That is the benefit of having the majority. The Republicans have the majority because despite what most 'news' sources may say, the American people were POed with the direction the country was going"
Well, Ken that could very well change in at least one chamber of Congress, giving the Democrats a "check" on Trump prerogatives. The American people this November will with their ballots tell us of their level of satisfaction with current course. With having to work with Democrats, this will be the test of Trump's vaunted negotiation skills? But, if on the other hand, the GOP manage to retain majority in both houses, I will have to concede to your viewpoint regarding the upcoming elections and the electorate, we will see.
You will be satisfied, of course, with what the "people" decide is best?
From our point of view, sitting on Obama's right to fill a judicial vacancy was a dirty trick and is not forgotten. I see skullduggery from both parties, but I certainly am not going trust Republicans to run it all without any opposition.
Trump may have to learn to compromise if he wants to accomplish anything during his term.
I believe the saving grace of our system is the 'pendulum effect' of our political system.
This has served the nation well for a couple hundred years now, and while it has veered close to the edge at times, it has within it, the ability to self correct.
As you know, I see Trump as a result of this self-correcting action in effect. Trump is not so much Republican or Democrat, as he is Outsider, as I have stated for years now.
This was the key to his winning the Republican primaries despite the RNC and its primary backers working to thwart him, and then his defeating the "undefeatable" Clinton as well.
There had been too little course change, when you look at the totality of the efforts, from Clinton to Bush to Obama... NAFTA which began under Clinton, was never again addressed, despite the devastation it had on our industry base.
The Chinese trade imbalance was never addressed, despite the obviousness of the growing damage it was doing to our own manufacturing base and ability to compete locally, let alone globally.
The constant destabilization and destruction of Middle Eastern nations progressively worsened from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama (although the Clinton era saw a pause in most foreign hostilities after they got burned in Somalia). This is something Obama promised during his campaign to end, yet it expanded more under his watch than any previous president.
People were tired of the faces changing, and the party changing, but nothing really changing for the better. Things like the Mortgage Crisis, and ACA did not improve things for most Americans.... but those things did help the mega-corporations and Wall St. tycoons get richer.
So we have Trump, and he is actually attempting to do the things he ran on, so I hope for our sakes he gets a couple more years to see these trade negotiations through and continue to tone down the war efforts (I'd rather have a President talk tough, but not destroy nations, than talk peace and be given the Noble Peace Prize, but topple and destabilize half of the Middle East).
Then the pendulum can swing the other way in 2020, and that should be fine, but where the Democrats are now, they just aren't putting forward things I can support.
Open borders, making guns illegal, trusting the government with a national healthcare system (which would take 50% of our earnings/income to fund I am certain, sadly it seems many don't grasp that, WE will pay for 'free' healthcare) … I've lived in the real world too long to buy into what they are peddling, or believe in the likes of who I see running that Party.
Now we know at least one person was telling the truth.
Police questioned Kavanaugh after bar fight in 1985
In the New Haven, Connecticut, police department report, a man named Dom Cozzolino said Kavanaugh had thrown ice on him and Kavanaugh's friend Chris Dudley had thrown a glass that hit him in the ear.
"The argument between the two started when Mr. Cozzolino stated that Brett Kavanaugh threw ice at him for some unknown reason and he then got hit in the ear with a glass," the report says.
Dudley denied the allegations, according to the report, "and Mr. Kavanaugh didn't (want) to say if he threw the ice or not. "
Cozzolino "was bleeding from the right ear," according to the report, and he was later treated at a local hospital. The incident reportedly occurred at a bar called Demery's.
Ludington told CNN's "Cuomo Prime Time" anchor Chris Cuomo that the altercation happened after a UB40 concert, when he and a group of friends were drinking at Demery's.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/01/poli … index.html
Since we're here...
Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public
A former classmate of the Supreme Court nominee has reached out to the FBI but hasn't received a response.
WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.
The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.
The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem … ce-n915566
Not a good picture being painted here, especially for a SC nominee. As you seem to agree, IslandBites, it matches his behavior at the Senate hearing IMO. This could turn out to be bombshell.
No, this doesn't prove anything, but he's definitely looking a little like the proverbial duck. Of course, this particular story would need to be verified by other news sources, perhaps the FBI...that would be something...for it to be taken as hard truth. But, since it involves texts, this is something that can be proven or disproved.
I'd like to see the texts.
" Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI." If true, this is disturbing.
George Hartmann, a spokesman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said that “the texts from Ms. Berchem do not appear relevant or contradictory to Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony."
"This appears to be another last-ditch effort to derail the nomination with baseless innuendo by Democrats who have already decided to vote no," Hartmann said.
Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.
Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of Ramirez’s allegation was in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.
Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, when he first heard of Ramirez’s allegations. Kavanaugh answered: “In the New Yorker story.”
Well, it seems the texts are definitely relevant if there was an "anticipatory narrative." Besides the lying under oath to the Senate thing, We need to see the texts in time context, hear from Bercham and the others involved.
People say this isn't a trial, and that the people should not be trying this in the media. But, I think a trial in the media is exactly what was invited here. What is this, if not a public opinion battle, to fight for votes in November? If Republicans were not concerned about public opinion, they would have rammed Kavanaugh through with no hearing.
At this point even if he never touched these women, his unstable demeanor and abusive comments to the Senators show that he doesn't have the temperament to serve on the Supreme Ct.
Also, why was he already checking out his friend's recollections of his former behavior in the summer? Diane Feinstein is being trashed on this thread for holding info on Dr. Ford (and I don't know why she did, but think from what I read that Dr. Ford had doubts about going forward and the Senator honored them until Ford was sure), but BK has been texting friends since the summer to try to diffuse what they say. Double standard?
I believe the FBI will do a minimal investigation, so far today it appears they haven't reached out to anyone. I suspect that's how the week will go, no effort will be made, and he will be confirmed.
Yeah, the timing of Feinstein's release is questionable, but she did state why from the beginning and it did concern the wishes of Dr. Ford. Whether you believe this or not is another story. I'm not sure how you believe everything Kavanaugh said, who was entirely unbelievable IMO, but completely dismiss Feinstein's claim. I don't think there's any proof to the contrary.
Lets hope the FBI can do its job but it's likely rigged just like Trump said the election was.
"I don't know why she did <hold information back>"
That's odd - everyone else in the country knows. She held it back until the last moment so that no investigation could be made and no vote be taken until after the mid term elections. So that when Democrats DID cry out for an investigation it would delay the proceedings as long as possible.
Are you really the last person in the country not to know that?
Do you have proof? Do you have evidence that meets your own standard of proof as repeatedly and stridently outlined in multiple threads on these forums?
I hate dirty politics as much as anyone, but whether or not Feinstein carefully timed the release of the allegations has no bearing on whether or not they are true.
With every person named verifying absolutely no recollection to match hers, I think we have proof the allegations are not true.
No it doesn't. It IS, however, circumstantial evidence that there was an agenda beyond Kavanaugh's fitness for the position.
Much like all the other evidence we've seen to date, it is another small chink in the allegation. So far we've seen nothing whatsoever - zero - that it is true and quite a bit that it is not.
I don't see why you have to always be so insulting. It says a lot about your own character.
From what I heard on various news shows and several websites and magazine articles, Dr. Ford asked Diane Feinstein to hold her evidence. Yes, it sounds fishy, but I don't know the truth of the reasoning behind it, nor do you, except to speculate.
BK was chosen from a list by the Federalist Society. This is right wing conservative organization. Kavanaugh has been known (according to what I've read and heard on news) to have the opinion that a sitting President can pardon himself. This is the only reason Trump wants him, because then Trump will be above the law. And nobody should be above the law. The last time I checked, this is a Democratic Republic, not an authoritarian regime like Trump wants it to be.
I believe BK's abusive and disgusting display before the Judiciary Committee should be enough to disqualify him from a Supreme Court lifetime appointment. Anyone would be angry if accused, but he had a sense of such entitlement, he was rude to Senator Klobachar and acted like a fool. Do we need someone who can't control his temper in this position? No.
Now information is coming out about his excessive drinking and abusive behavior towards others continued when he was at Yale. So this pattern of bad behavior continues. Did you see the look on his wife's face as she watched him testify? She was alternately sad and disgusted.
You seem to think you are the moderator of these forums. Earlier when I typed a link to show BK wanted to overturn Roe v Wade, you told me I had to present position papers on both sides. Hogwash.
Then because I disagreed with you, you told me, "I had a chip on my shoulder." If you continue to insult me, not allowed on these forums, I will report you. I don't agree with you on many topics, but I never insulted you or called you a name. You are a bully Dan, so watch what you say.
First, I must apologize for I wasn't referring to Ford holding back information, but Feinstein and her cronies. And yes, she absolutely did hold it back as long as possible in order to delay the hearing. It should have been presented to at least the chairman, and really the whole committee, immediately if Feinstein wanted in looked into. It was a nasty delaying tactic to hold it back until just before voting, nothing more.
"Kavanaugh has been known (according to what I've read and heard on news) to have the opinion that a sitting President can pardon himself."
Perhaps he does. I don't know. But I DO think that if he does then that's what the law says - would you prefer a judge that will make law according to his own standards and wishes? I wouldn't; if he truly believes that then I have to believe him - he has a wee bit more experience and knowledge of the law than I do.
I believe BK's abusive and disgusting display before the Judiciary Committee should be enough to disqualify him from a Supreme Court lifetime appointment."
I didn't find it disgusting: I found it wonderful. A bold, truthful, honest evaluation of what had been done to him. No beating around the bush, no PC tiptoeing. No punches pulled - I find that refreshing and wonderful and I think our congress would be a lot better if they all took a hint from his speech.
"Now information is coming out about his excessive drinking and abusive behavior towards others continued when he was at Yale."
You're right. One (or is it two?) people have claimed so. Has to be true, yes? Especially if they were enemies at the time. (I see headlines that claim BK often passed out from alcohol, but reading the comments they did not. Typical, isn't it?)
"you told me I had to present position papers on both sides."
I did no such thing. I insinuated (and will again) that if you want to be believed you will have to provide quotes from Kavanaugh that he wishes to overturn RvsW. I have never seen such a statement and do not believe he made it; you claim he did, so prove it. You DID present a link, supposedly his position paper, that turned out to be nothing more than an email from an employee to an employer stating that in his considered opinion on the law RvsW was not "set in stone". That is a far, far cry from wanting to overturn it. Again, do you wish judges that legislate from the bench or ones that accept they are NOT legislators and simply apply the law?
"Then because I disagreed with you, you told me, "I had a chip on my shoulder."
Can't reply because after searching this entire thread I can't find it. I do recall making a statement about some people being offended because they carry a chip on their shoulder, but do not recall saying you had one (might have said you might have one if you take offense when none is offered, though). Can you copy/paste that?
"If you continue to insult me, not allowed on these forums, I will report you. I don't agree with you on many topics, but I never insulted you or called you a name. You are a bully Dan, so watch what you say."
Are you sure you want to threaten reporting...immediately before declaring you never call names and then insult by calling me a bully?
(I'd really like to see where I called you names or insulted you. I probably HAVE said things indicating poor reasoning, but that's about it. And you DO exhibit poor reasoning occasionally , as in "This is the only reason Trump wants him, because then Trump will be above the law." and saying BK wants to reverse RvsW. Both without a shred of evidence at all; you might at least indicate it is your opinion only and that you cannot support either one with any evidence.)
The first time you insulted me is below..We are having a bad storm, computer is kicking me off, everything electrical is flickering, can't copy and paste, have to make this fast.. The second was implying I was unintelligent, when neither of us will ever know what was truly said between Ms. Ford and Diane Feinstein. You think it's a big conspiracy, I said I found the time frame "fishy."
This is you: "Kathryn has been here a long time - she fully understands what an open, public forum is, does and allows.
.I missed the link, and will check it out.
People very often "choose" to take offense - so much so there is a term for it. It's called having a "Chip on the shoulder" or in some cases "searching for offense". End.
I think this is bullying. I express opinions here based on what I read and hear, just like you do. I don't see proof of any of the statements you wrote above. BK has been known for months to be picked for this position because he will pardon Trump, if it comes to that. The article I posted shows that BK doesn't consider Roe v Wade "settled law" whether you agree with it or not. I have read and heard both ideas for months now. You say I don't provide evidence, but you don't either. Why am I being held to a higher standard?
I have never spoken with you in person, but often the way you write comes across as bullying and rude. Maybe you don't realize it. Just trying to make you aware. I would never report you without discussing why first. Why do you get to jump in with unsubstantiated claims? I write about an issue based on news, websites, and magazines, but I "cannot support either one with any evidence." I guess only "right wing" conspiracies count as evidence? It's best if we don't engage in these forums.
Jean, I love the way you are so open and honest in the forums. I want to be more like you. :-)
Thanks Pretty Panther,
You are most kind. That's pretty much me. Also opinionated. But I am only expressing what I decide after much reading and watching news on all sides Fox is particularly hard for me, I must have chocolate or ice cream while viewing, and only in small doses (viewing, not chocolate or ice cream).
Good job Jean. We are talking about the type of people who cheer when Trump mocks a woman who makes sexual assault allegations. Wilderness also insulted me, was proven wrong, and doesn't even acknowledge it. I've come to understand I'm a better person than that, and I don't need to converse with these types. I'm certainly not learning anything new.
Hello Hard Sun,
I am also a better person than that. If I don't agree with someone, I don't have a need to insult or hurt them. Plus the person in question never provides sources or references on any of his positions. Yet he insists we must all write up to his rigorous (not) standards. For the most part, these political forums are an "old boy's club" except for a few women. I say what I know based on not living under a rock all these months, and by staying informed.
Did you ever read 1984 by George Orwell? It's usually on the HS reading list, which to my dismay, never seems to change. It is about a dystopian society where free thought is punishable by vaporization.The citizens celebrate "hate week." It's just like what's happening now. I couldn't find my old copy to read after the 2016 election, and it was flying off Amazon's shelves, so I wasn't the only one who immediately thought of it based on things Trump said and his behaviors during campaigning.
Trump's behavior allows people to behave on all their basest instincts, the hatred, misogyny, fear of anyone or any idea that deviates from their accepted and warped norm. Many reporters, Katy Tur among them, describes that when she covered rallies, women in fur coats wearing diamonds were spitting at her. Trump wants to discourage a free press. It's like "hate week" all the time, and in an era where truth is said to be fake, we don't know if we are fighting with Eurasia or East Asia. That society just made stuff up too.
"Trump's behavior allows people to behave on all their basest instincts, the hatred, misogyny, fear of anyone or any idea that deviates from their accepted and warped norm."
Then the people who support him so often state the President's behavior doesn't matter. On what planet would this be true?
I also read 1984 in high school and recently watched a movie version. Our country has been hijacked by immoral, elitist, criminal, old money interests and it's being cheered on by some in the lower and middle classes. They can't see it, but history will shed light on the misdirection.
I just can't take speaking with people who ignore facts and only real skill is passive aggressive name-calling, much like their leader. The particular person can't acknowledge clear mistakes just like Trump. This is how societies devolve.
No amount of facts will change the brain-washed minds. Trump can do NO wrong. He bears no responsibility for his own SC nominee, etc, etc. Yet,when Obama was President, "Well, it starts at the top" was the mantra when anything was perceived to go wrong.
"He bears no responsibility for his own SC nominee,"
What "responsibility" would you like him to take? Should he have known about Ford after 6 negative FBI investigations to the contrary? Perhaps you should have popped into his time machine and followed BK through his life?
Now the chorus is that BK should have had a "time machine" to possibly know anything about allegations from this woman. He was THERE at the time, drugging punch with grain alcohol and Quaalude. He got lucky that he didn't kill anybody. He knows what he did. The FBI did a 2 day, cursory investigation, and didn't interview over 20 people who came forward.
Plus other Judges have said he should not be confirmed for his belligerent behavior in front of the Judiciary Committee. Apologies for no footnotes, lol.
No doubt the powers that be made no effort to find the truth.
So, when Pres. Trump was attacking the FBI, you were for them. Now that they have not returned a report you wanted, they are controlled by the "powers that be?"
Numerous media, (democrat), claims that the investigation was practically castrated by White House restrictions on its mandate have failed to provide any support for the claim - must be the machinations of the "powers that be." Right?
I didn't say it was the FBI's fault. You follow your FBI statement with statements that tell me you know I don't think it's the FBI's fault. It makes no sense.Of course, the FBI is bound by laws...is the President? A few day investigation was not a real effort IMO, but I'm not broken up about it.
So Democrats , I've noticed your" resistance " attention span is swinging away from the Kavanaugh issue and towards perhaps the next available resistance movement . Much like lemmings , when you lose the fire in the individual issue the cause becomes dampened by disinterest .
Obstructionists are SOoo predictable . Let's see..........How about that Bull Market ...... anything there ......the death of NAFTA .........Kanye again .........Melania's shoes ?
All political , no substance.
-Timing of Feinstein release
-The fact that she did release letter *
-Inconsistencies in Fords entire path to testimony
-Senate Prosecutor's report
-Best of #Metoo witness'?
-Political maneuvering by Feinstein , Flake , Harris ,....
-Seven FBI backgrounds
-Impeccable Kavanaugh legal record
* Who wrote this , a first grader.
Can liberals say "The Honorable Scotus Kavanaugh ".
NEWSFLASH ************************OMG Kavanaugh threw ice on someone in a bar , where is there a good rope when we need one !!!!!!!!!!!
Really ? Sounds extremely serious to us all ....................
Sure it does .
Trump Resisters, Get ready for it , practice ................
"Yes, your honorable Judge Kavanaugh "
No. those points cannot be denied as reasonable grounds for forming an initial opinion hard sun.
But they are also not your original points that I responded to; Pres. Trump failed to vet, and a checkered past. Are you saying those are also supported by what you saw?
Considering that the background check was done by the FBI, and in the same way as done when requested by any other president, and that the nominee had passed at least one other background check for his Federal judgeship, (I don't know what the other four FBI checks were for) - even if any of these allegations prove out, I don't see how Pres. Trump could be blamed for failing to vet his nominee.
As for his checkered past - aren't those just allegations at this point?
What?? How is that an investigation?
Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys on Tuesday implored the FBI to interview her and act on investigative leads they have provided for its inquiry into sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
"It is inconceivable that the FBI could conduct a thorough investigation of Dr. Ford’s allegations without interviewing her, Judge Kavanaugh, or the witnesses we have identified in our letters to you," attorneys Debra Katz and Michael Bromwich wrote to top FBI officials.
Uh, another sworn declaration of a supposedly witness that confirms Swetnick's allegations.
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/sta … 6831059970
Or maybe your cause for being so offended is that some people never had , have or ever will possess the ability to tell the difference between the testimonies of Dr.Ford and Dr. Edsel ? Most notice that even the voices of the reasonable today are being questioned . Maybe ,Wilderness is just too fair and balanced for your personal and party bias .
Yea , that's it isn't it .
Hello from the UK. May I point out the man's name is Kavanaugh. I remember the days when the test was "beyond a reasonable doubt" not trial by social media. I have reservations he has committed a crime, and worry greatly regarding the seemingly desperate measures to which oppositions now stoop to drag out 30 year old potential "he said she said" allegations to destroy somebody's charter for political aims. Even if it is true, and we have NO PROOF AT ALL YET, show me a person on the planet that has not made mistakes 30 years ago. And why the silence for 30 years? Out of interest, if we dig into your life are you blameless? The point is this, this whole thing is all very nasty and will only end up bringing more nastiness on nastiness. Live by the sword you die by the sword. Clearly I disagree with you, but I respect your right to say it and wish you well. x
by Sharlee 14 months ago
I noted a thread here on HP political forum that addresses the question. ‘Why do liberals think Trump supporters are stupid?" I hope to even the "playing field".Why do those that can't support Biden think those that do support him are stupid or better put illogical? I will not...
by Denise 2 years ago
Does anyone else find this whole defense of creepy Joe by the activists weird as heck?I mean, seriously. He's being accused of groping women. We have video footage, we have eye witness testimony, we have a pattern of behavior, we have a fumbling progression of attempts by Biden to respond. But...
by Greensleeves Hubs 4 years ago
So it's the final day. Let's be clear about the choice;Hillary Clinton is deeply unpopular. She may not be a nice person. There are so many negative reports about her, it is difficult to believe there is 'no smoke without fire.' However, some allegations are disproven, and most others are unproven...
by Brad 3 years ago
Who is paying these alleged sex victims to come out two or three decades later?Certainly, there was much incentive and opportunity for these alleged victims to come out during this century and especially during the last presidential election campaign. So, it appears that we are missing something...
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
The U.S. economy added 250,000 jobs in October and the unemployment rate held steady at 3.7 percent, according to Labor Department figures released Friday. Once again the numbers are stronger than estimates; Economists had predicted the economy would add 190,000 jobs and the unemployment rate...
by Thom Carnes 2 years ago
I was talking to a couple of nice friendly neighborhood Jehovah's Witnesses yesterday (there's a Kingdom Hall just around the corner from where I live so I tend to get them quite frequently) and we eventually got on to the subject of the existence of Jesus Christ.They seemed somewhat taken aback...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|