"We would be wise to consider the possibility that the facts about the accusations [against Kavanaugh] may not line up with our political and jurisprudential commitments as nicely as we might prefer." https://t.co/0TNOGh7YXl
By the end of the Trump Era, I think many Never Trumpers will have become Libertarians. I know it is true that historically many “large L” Libertarians have been kooks. However, our old party is now led by a dishonest moron and largely populated by his cult, so we don’t have a lot of decent options. However, let’s wait and see what Sasse does.
“In case you’ve lost track, Christine Blasey Ford was the first to accuse SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, and she’s allegedly set to testify Thursday morning; Julie Swetnick is the third accuser and is being represented by celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti.
Rebecca Baulhaus of the Wall Street Journal has found an interesting link the two women share, in the form of lawyer Debra Katz.”
New: A decade ago, Julie Swetnick made a sexual harassment complaint against her former employer, New York Life Insurance. Representing her was the firm run by Debra Katz, who now reps Christine Blasey Ford. She was ultimately paid a financial settlement. https://t.co/goobX4fivLpic.twitter.com/UJ1LFRRc6M
“Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and a friend of attending house parties where women — including herself — were sexually assaulted, had a restraining order filed against her years later in Miami by her former boyfriend.
A Miami-Dade County court docket shows a petition for injunction against Swetnick was filed March 1, 2001, by her former boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, who told POLITICO Wednesday the two had dated for four years before they broke up.
Thirteen days later, the case was dismissed, not long after an affidavit of non-ability to advance fees was filed.
According to Vinneccy, Swetnick threatened him after they broke up and even after he got married to his current wife and had a child.
“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. “I know a lot about her.”
“She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”
Ford's attorneys have now turned over polygraph results. But are refusing to give the committee her therapist notes. This matters, since those notes would show what she actually said in that 2012 session, and if it corresponds with what she says now.
“Dozens of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s classmates from Georgetown Prep high school signed a letter rebutting decades-old allegations of sexual assault by a woman represented by Democratic lawyer Michael Avenatti.
“We never witnessed any behavior that even approaches what is described in this allegation. It is reprehensible,” his classmates wrote, adding, “In the extensive amount of time we collectively spent with Brett, we do not recall having ever met someone named Julie Swetnick. Nor did we ever observe Brett engaging in any conduct resembling that described in Ms. Swetnick’s declaration.”
Julie Swetnick surfaced her claims via her lawyer’s Twitter feed Wednesday.”
“Ford is scheduled to testify before the committee tomorrow morning at 10 AM ET.
The late-night document release has Democrats and their media mouthpieces furious”
The Senate Judiciary Committee just sent out a timeline describing how they responded to the allegations against #SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh. It appears to indicate they've been in touch with two men who believe they had the "encounter" with Christine Blasey Ford pic.twitter.com/4cHn4j1DXw
Another anonymous accuser recanted, but that doesn’t stop the MSM from pretending it’s a credible allegation.
One of the unfortunate results of the media frenzy Senate Democrats have created by taking allegations straight to media instead of through the process — major outlets are still reporting on this accusation even though the accuser has recanted. https://t.co/nLQnEsaVVZ
Here's how The Hill covered the sexual assault accusation some random guy in Rhode Island made against Kavanaugh and then retracted once it got traced back to him https://t.co/OLYQSaTnHnpic.twitter.com/FEQ4EyXTsi
“Dr. Christine Blasey has 21 articles listed in PubMed, the best database for medical research. They cover a variety of topics including rate studies, gender, childhood trauma, depression, therapies like acupuncture and meditation, and chromosomal correlates.
Six of them are on mifepristone, the abortion pill. For two of them, Blasey Ford was first author.”
Here is the list of Dr. Blasey’s mifepristone studies, 2006-2011.”
Watching this presser on a live stream means friends who are watching on TV are texting me things that were said about 30 seconds before I hear them. I keep thinking they are spoofing me. "Mr. Kurd" was actually said.
Kudos to Mike Wallace and his fair-minded remarks before this hearing this morning. I haven’t watched Fox (or much of any cable news) since the last national election, but I was reminded this morning of why I’ve always liked Wallace as a newsman.
It’s like a bad accident on the freeway . . . you know you should turn away and go about your business, but there’s all this traffic and well, why not look?
I’m listening to clips for now. If I didn’t know she was a politically biased professor, her dumb blond sounding answers might be more credible. As it is, I think we are an incredibly naive audience.
Debra
I missed parts of it, but she made a pretty strong impression, I’d say.
We’ll see how Kavanaugh does.
The truth may never be known. Politically, the question will be whether enough damage has been done to the point where a Republican or two or more may turn out of caution.
Remember, too, most people aren’t following this all that closely, they’ll see sound bites and short clips.
Setting aside what may or may not have happened, which none of us will probably ever really ‘know,’ is the political damage to Kavanaugh too much to overcome? Maybe, maybe not. Much will ride on how he does during his testimony.
Kevin beat me to it. I was gonna ask if Mike Wallace had returned from the dead. 🙂
As for the rest of it, I commented on a friend’s Facebook post that I’ll read something that seems credible. . . then read a rebuttal of it that also seems credible. . . then read a rebuttal of the rebuttal that seems credible, too.
She says this could "absolutely not" be a case of mistaken identity because of brain function. Worth noting she can't remember date, location, or how she got there.
Despite Dr. Ford's reported fear of flying (which was her excuse for not being able to testify in a timely manner before the Senate Judiciary) she admits she traveled to DC in a plane. pic.twitter.com/suaLy4yguD
“Mid-Hearing Assessment: Christine Blasey Ford believes an untruth
All four people allegedly at the party deny it, but Ford has convinced herself it happened based on her professional understanding of how the brain saves traumatic events.”
——–
“Here are some quick takes (in no particular order):
1. Republicans hiring THIS prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, to question Ford was a mistake. Hiring an outside attorney to do the questioning was fine, and hiring a women to do that was politically expedient. But Mitchell was meandering, as if she had several hours to question the witness when she had only about an hour, broken up into 5-minute segments. Mitchell elicited important information, some of which poked substantial holes in Ford’s story. For example, Ford over the last three months has given different accounts as to the year or time frame, how many people were present, and so on.”
————
“2. Ford believes what she is saying, and that has a lot to do with her profession of being a clinical psychologist. She volunteered a number of times that her memory is certain as to the trauma because — in her clinical assessment — such traumas are preserved by the way the brain works. That was a convenient explanation for why she remembers the minutes of the alleged assault, but very little in the time before and after the alleged assault.
I think Ford has convinced herself she experienced what she experienced, but the need to inject psychological terminology makes me conclude that it is a memory that, while believed, is not necessarily the way the rest of us remember things.
3. Ford has many anxieties that contributed to her claimed PTSD and fears, but those are off limits because she won’t share the therapist notes she showed to WaPo. She admitted there were other “contributing” factors, but fell back on her clinical psychological analysis to dismiss the other factors.
4. Every person Ford identified as being at the party has signed sworn statements that it didn’t happen, including Ford’s female friend who supposedly was there that night. Those are facts that are not dependent on what Ford subjectively believes. She happens to believe something that is not true, which is why she might avoid a polygraph result reflecting deception.
5. Ford’s lawyers and Democrats repeatedly lied to Republicans on the committee. Ford’s lawyers said she wasn’t available to testify earlier because she is afraid of flying. But the testimony was that she flew to D.C. earlier in the summer and regularly flies on airplanes, including long flights overseas. Republicans offered to travel to interview her in California, which offer was rejected, but she didn’t even know it had been offered. Just more cases of Republicans on the committee being played for fools.
6. Ford going public was much more planned than we were led to believe. She hired lawyers and took a polygraph during late July and early August. Why do that if not expecting to go public? That really wasn’t pursued.”
—————
Way to trash your own “witness” who says she didn’t really witness anything.
Question: Why did everyone you named as witness come out against you? Including your best friend who says she never met Kavanaugh & the party did not happen?
Dr. Ford (literally): "Leland has significant health challenges, and I am happy that she is focusing on herself"
Watched bits and pieces of Kavanaugh’s testimony…….not sure about it. I believe he did commit some form of sexual assault but I also believe it shouldnt be held against him as he was a juvenile or at least a teen.
My problem in this issue, beyond other issues, has been the Republican and his reaction. They knew something was coming and were prepared with counter witnesses. His TV interview made no sense…..he’s not a politician and doesn’t need to win popular approval. Only win the approval of the cmttee. The only reason was to help the Republican party. He’s been far too adamant. His claim he never blacked out is hard to believe. The claim to virginity is unnecessary…he’s accused of sexual assault not rape.
I admittedly have a bias against entitled trust fund frat boys, but his sense of entitlement grated against my blue collar roots. He yelled, he complained, he snivelled, was arrogant, and repetitive. He rarely answered directly and repeated his accomplishments over and over again. He interrupted and yelled at the Senators. Compare him to Clinton’s appearance at the Benghazi hearings.
The comment I busted my butt which he said several times made me laugh. He has no idea what that phrase means.
His refusal to ask for an FBI investigation when Durbin asked is puzzling. If you’re innocent delay the hearing till the investigation is over.
His arrogance is such that when he said these hearings were hurting the very fabric of the nation, he did see the obvious solution. He should take one for the country and withdraw his nomination but he clearly feels entitled to the seat no matter the damage.
On the lighter side;
A judge pointed out the obvious; you can’t claim slander and damages based on a Trump tweet. Nobody takes it seriously. And to underline the point, the UN laighed at him.
Kavenaugh referred to something in the yearbook that he and his pals were ashamed of. . .was it just that one girl was listed as alumni (or something like that) that was interpreted by some as a label for one who had a sexual relationship or was that embarrassment about something else? I am naive about such wording.
“Somebody working from a House of Representatives office is editing the Wikipedia pages of Republican senators to post what looks like their home addresses.
Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and both Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch of Utah all had their home addresses posted online. It is called doxxing, and it is despicable.”
—-
“The current Supreme Court skirmish has become particularly nasty. The Left has taken as fact that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a serial sexual predator without corroborating evidence. The Left has tried to blackmail Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. And now someone on the Left is going after the families because of the politics of Republican senators.”
Wallace has changed his tune somewhat, now that he’s heard Kavanaugh speak. Just saw him on Fox on Martha MacCullum, now he says Kavanaugh was believable and poked holes in the accusers testimony.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is still planning to vote on Kavanaugh on Friday.
… Even before the testimony, the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a vote on Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation on Friday morning — something Grassley has not indicated that he plans to reschedule. Barring some change in events, like Kavanaugh withdrawing from the process or lawmakers pushing a last-minute delay, Grassley is expected to carry through with the vote.
It’s worth noting that regardless of how the committee vote goes, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is able to bring Kavanaugh’s nomination to a floor vote, which could begin on the Senate floor as early as Saturday. Thanks to procedural rules, Kavanaugh is not expected to actually get a vote from the full Senate until next Monday or Tuesday.
Theoretically, it would be possible for Kavanaugh to get voted on by the full Senate on Saturday — but that would require what’s known as “unanimous consent” by all 100 lawmakers. Democrats have made it clear they object to his confirmation, so that is unlikely to happen.
In the coming days, all eyes turn to a handful of pivotal swing seat Senators, who could make or break Kavanaugh’s nomination. These include moderate Republicans: Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Jeff Flake (AZ), all of whom have expressed concerns about the sexual misconduct allegations that Kavanaugh has faced and have yet to announce their position on the nomination.
It’s not yet clear whether Thursday’s testimony has affected where they stand. …
________________________________________
I was working and only heard the end of the testimony. Like HRW, my son and I have a mild bias against elite private school/frat boys, though in their own way they can be quite humorous. It seems like it was a rerun of Thomas/Hill. I predict Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
If so, the Dems will be further fired up in November and I should get my candy. If Collins and Murkowski and/or Flake flake off and the nomination is pulled, Debra and her Rs have a chance in November. This has brought conservatives and Trumpkins together like nothing ever has.
Cruz did do well. He is quite impressive when he is not sucking up to Trump.
Or the Dems pushed to far and will now pay the price at midterms. They exposed their ugly side for all to see today. Republican voters will remember, at least the loyal ones. We’ll now see whether Flake, Collins, and Murki get on board.
I think Dems seriously overplayed their hand here. Corker’s a yes, and so much so that even Mancin may be a yes now according to someone at the Atlantic.
“Following the intensely emotional testimonies from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh over 35-year-old allegations of sexual assault before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) announced that he plans to vote “Yes” on President Trump’s nominee to United States Supreme Court should it come to the Senate floor.
In a respectful statement, Corker, long considered a swing vote on Kavanaugh, said that after taking Dr. Ford’s allegations seriously and weighing them against the facts, he has ultimately concluded that Kavanaugh deserves “the presumption of innocence.””
“Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) used his time with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to ask about a number of things in Kavanaugh’s yearbook from over 35 years ago — including remarks about him farting.
“Have you, I don’t know if it’s ‘buffed’ or ‘boofed,’ how do you pronounce that?” Whitehouse asked Kavanaugh.
“That refers to flatulence,” Kavanaugh responded. “We were 16.”
“Okay,” Whitehouse responded. “And so when your friend Mark Judge put the same thing in his yearbook page back to you, he had the same meaning? It was flatulence?”
“I don’t know what he did but that’s my recollection,” Kavanaugh responded. “We want to talk about flatulence at age 16 on a yearbook page, I’m game.”
Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse asks about Judge Brett Kavanaugh about farting remarks he made from over 35 years ago. pic.twitter.com/sIC25Dtcxm
Confirmation will motivate Democrats to vote. And if they take control of Congress, I expect impeachment is on the table but it will be Kavanugh not Trump. The Democrats will request every record from the Bush white house, they will call Mark Judge, they will call the other women.
Of course this could’ve been avoided…..if McConnell had followed due process and gave Garland his hearing. For all Kavanugh’s whining at least he got a hearing…..more than Garland and Garland conducted himself with decency, no TV appearance, no partisan yelling.
Finally, if Kavanugh is willing to throw a temper tantrum in a public hearing, imagine him after a six pack when a girl says no.
Very interesting. The libertarian @ 5:23 a.m. was correct for the most part. It is very hard for any of us to believe a fact to be true that works against our political interest. It becomes obvious here where it is a he said/she said case and almost all people somehow wind up believing the fact pattern put forth by the person on their political side.
It is really the same issue when it comes to approval of Trump himself. People who read widely and have followed current events for years know that Obama probably didn’t put ”tapps” on Trump’s phone, that Hillary didn’t kill Seth Rich who didn’t give Democrat emails to Wikileaks. They have enough experience, knowledge and judgment to trust Bob Mueller and Chris Wray over Donald Trump and Devin Nunes. But the average Republican or Trumpkin wants to believe Trump. After all, warts and all he is the leader of their tribe.
I’m imagining him on the Supreme Court, and all the good he could do there. He has shown he has a backbone, so I doubt he is going to be susceptible to much foolishness when he sits on the bench. ;–)
Wandering Views 
A libertarian perspective on the Kavanaugh case:
LikeLike
More about the author of the piece:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Somin
By the end of the Trump Era, I think many Never Trumpers will have become Libertarians. I know it is true that historically many “large L” Libertarians have been kooks. However, our old party is now led by a dishonest moron and largely populated by his cult, so we don’t have a lot of decent options. However, let’s wait and see what Sasse does.
LikeLike
As my son likes to say, “He is a weird guy.”
LikeLike
A weird guy, indeed.
LikeLike
A very weird guy.
LikeLike
The more we know, the shadier it looks.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/09/26/report-kavanaugh-accusers-julie-swetnick-and-christine-blasey-ford-have-an-interesting-connection/
“In case you’ve lost track, Christine Blasey Ford was the first to accuse SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, and she’s allegedly set to testify Thursday morning; Julie Swetnick is the third accuser and is being represented by celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti.
Rebecca Baulhaus of the Wall Street Journal has found an interesting link the two women share, in the form of lawyer Debra Katz.”
LikeLike
Looks like the creepy porn lawyer has another creepy client.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348
“Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and a friend of attending house parties where women — including herself — were sexually assaulted, had a restraining order filed against her years later in Miami by her former boyfriend.
A Miami-Dade County court docket shows a petition for injunction against Swetnick was filed March 1, 2001, by her former boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, who told POLITICO Wednesday the two had dated for four years before they broke up.
Thirteen days later, the case was dismissed, not long after an affidavit of non-ability to advance fees was filed.
According to Vinneccy, Swetnick threatened him after they broke up and even after he got married to his current wife and had a child.
“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. “I know a lot about her.”
“She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”
LikeLike
The first accusers’ story continues to collapse.
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/09/26/this-is-bad-looks-like-christine-blasey-fords-lawyers-just-torpedoed-her-case-by-releasing-polygraph-results-pics/
—————————
https://twitter.com/esaagar/status/1045025134040551424
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
And how did the woman we’ve been told won’t fly get to Maryland for the polygraph from Cali.?
LikeLike
Kavanaugh’s classmates are getting tired of being slandered as well and are defending him as well.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/26/kavanaugh-classmates-avenatti-accuser/
“Dozens of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s classmates from Georgetown Prep high school signed a letter rebutting decades-old allegations of sexual assault by a woman represented by Democratic lawyer Michael Avenatti.
“We never witnessed any behavior that even approaches what is described in this allegation. It is reprehensible,” his classmates wrote, adding, “In the extensive amount of time we collectively spent with Brett, we do not recall having ever met someone named Julie Swetnick. Nor did we ever observe Brett engaging in any conduct resembling that described in Ms. Swetnick’s declaration.”
Julie Swetnick surfaced her claims via her lawyer’s Twitter feed Wednesday.”
LikeLike
Oh my….
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/false-flag-judiciary-committee-held-multiple-interviews-with-man-claiming-he-not-kavanaugh-had-the-incident-with-ford/
“Ford is scheduled to testify before the committee tomorrow morning at 10 AM ET.
The late-night document release has Democrats and their media mouthpieces furious”
LikeLike
Another anonymous accuser recanted, but that doesn’t stop the MSM from pretending it’s a credible allegation.
————–
LikeLike
More holes than Swiss cheese.
https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/1045027784790298624
LikeLike
Hold on. Maybe Michelle’s link from yesterday wasn’t so far off.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/blasey_fords_published_medical_research_includes_6_articles_on_mifepristone_aka_ru486.html
“Dr. Christine Blasey has 21 articles listed in PubMed, the best database for medical research. They cover a variety of topics including rate studies, gender, childhood trauma, depression, therapies like acupuncture and meditation, and chromosomal correlates.
Six of them are on mifepristone, the abortion pill. For two of them, Blasey Ford was first author.”
Here is the list of Dr. Blasey’s mifepristone studies, 2006-2011.”
LikeLike
Today should be interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. It was all real.
LikeLike
Kudos to Mike Wallace and his fair-minded remarks before this hearing this morning. I haven’t watched Fox (or much of any cable news) since the last national election, but I was reminded this morning of why I’ve always liked Wallace as a newsman.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s like a bad accident on the freeway . . . you know you should turn away and go about your business, but there’s all this traffic and well, why not look?
LikeLike
She seems to be a very credible witness.
LikeLike
“Extremely raw, extremely credible” — Wallace.
I would agree.
LikeLike
I’m listening to clips for now. If I didn’t know she was a politically biased professor, her dumb blond sounding answers might be more credible. As it is, I think we are an incredibly naive audience.
Debra
LikeLiked by 1 person
I missed parts of it, but she made a pretty strong impression, I’d say.
We’ll see how Kavanaugh does.
The truth may never be known. Politically, the question will be whether enough damage has been done to the point where a Republican or two or more may turn out of caution.
LikeLike
Mike Wallace is back?
LikeLiked by 4 people
We still have hope. Spartacus Booker is now asking her questions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good catch, Kevin.
Chris, of course. See? I haven’t watched cable news in so long I’m having memory gaps. Yes, they happen. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Remember, too, most people aren’t following this all that closely, they’ll see sound bites and short clips.
Setting aside what may or may not have happened, which none of us will probably ever really ‘know,’ is the political damage to Kavanaugh too much to overcome? Maybe, maybe not. Much will ride on how he does during his testimony.
LikeLike
Kevin beat me to it. I was gonna ask if Mike Wallace had returned from the dead. 🙂
As for the rest of it, I commented on a friend’s Facebook post that I’ll read something that seems credible. . . then read a rebuttal of it that also seems credible. . . then read a rebuttal of the rebuttal that seems credible, too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In my defense, I’ve been living in the State of Denial where cable news gets no reception. I’m having to re-adjust today.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Credible isn’t the right word. Too many story changes and inconsistencies to call her credible.
Kavanaugh’s story hasn’t changed, and he should be angry. This is a travesty.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As I said….
———–
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLike
And I just can’t get past this…..
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/mid-hearing-assessment-christine-blasey-ford-believes-an-untruth/#more-261066
“Mid-Hearing Assessment: Christine Blasey Ford believes an untruth
All four people allegedly at the party deny it, but Ford has convinced herself it happened based on her professional understanding of how the brain saves traumatic events.”
——–
“Here are some quick takes (in no particular order):
1. Republicans hiring THIS prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, to question Ford was a mistake. Hiring an outside attorney to do the questioning was fine, and hiring a women to do that was politically expedient. But Mitchell was meandering, as if she had several hours to question the witness when she had only about an hour, broken up into 5-minute segments. Mitchell elicited important information, some of which poked substantial holes in Ford’s story. For example, Ford over the last three months has given different accounts as to the year or time frame, how many people were present, and so on.”
————
“2. Ford believes what she is saying, and that has a lot to do with her profession of being a clinical psychologist. She volunteered a number of times that her memory is certain as to the trauma because — in her clinical assessment — such traumas are preserved by the way the brain works. That was a convenient explanation for why she remembers the minutes of the alleged assault, but very little in the time before and after the alleged assault.
I think Ford has convinced herself she experienced what she experienced, but the need to inject psychological terminology makes me conclude that it is a memory that, while believed, is not necessarily the way the rest of us remember things.
3. Ford has many anxieties that contributed to her claimed PTSD and fears, but those are off limits because she won’t share the therapist notes she showed to WaPo. She admitted there were other “contributing” factors, but fell back on her clinical psychological analysis to dismiss the other factors.
4. Every person Ford identified as being at the party has signed sworn statements that it didn’t happen, including Ford’s female friend who supposedly was there that night. Those are facts that are not dependent on what Ford subjectively believes. She happens to believe something that is not true, which is why she might avoid a polygraph result reflecting deception.
5. Ford’s lawyers and Democrats repeatedly lied to Republicans on the committee. Ford’s lawyers said she wasn’t available to testify earlier because she is afraid of flying. But the testimony was that she flew to D.C. earlier in the summer and regularly flies on airplanes, including long flights overseas. Republicans offered to travel to interview her in California, which offer was rejected, but she didn’t even know it had been offered. Just more cases of Republicans on the committee being played for fools.
6. Ford going public was much more planned than we were led to believe. She hired lawyers and took a polygraph during late July and early August. Why do that if not expecting to go public? That really wasn’t pursued.”
—————
How is this a “credible” witness?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Feinstein deserved a public rebuke and I’m glad she got it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
🙂
Take a minute and laugh.
LikeLike
Ouch.
Way to trash your own “witness” who says she didn’t really witness anything.
——
Sure looks that way.
LikeLike
The accuser is not a credible witness.
https://twitter.com/HashtagGriswold/status/1045375725493264384
———————–
https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/1045375568655601664
LikeLike
Kavanaugh was articulate and credible; he should make a good justice.
LikeLiked by 3 people
AJ – What I referred to as “credible” were the reports and explanations in various articles. And all those came before the hearings today.
LikeLike
Watched bits and pieces of Kavanaugh’s testimony…….not sure about it. I believe he did commit some form of sexual assault but I also believe it shouldnt be held against him as he was a juvenile or at least a teen.
My problem in this issue, beyond other issues, has been the Republican and his reaction. They knew something was coming and were prepared with counter witnesses. His TV interview made no sense…..he’s not a politician and doesn’t need to win popular approval. Only win the approval of the cmttee. The only reason was to help the Republican party. He’s been far too adamant. His claim he never blacked out is hard to believe. The claim to virginity is unnecessary…he’s accused of sexual assault not rape.
I admittedly have a bias against entitled trust fund frat boys, but his sense of entitlement grated against my blue collar roots. He yelled, he complained, he snivelled, was arrogant, and repetitive. He rarely answered directly and repeated his accomplishments over and over again. He interrupted and yelled at the Senators. Compare him to Clinton’s appearance at the Benghazi hearings.
The comment I busted my butt which he said several times made me laugh. He has no idea what that phrase means.
His refusal to ask for an FBI investigation when Durbin asked is puzzling. If you’re innocent delay the hearing till the investigation is over.
His arrogance is such that when he said these hearings were hurting the very fabric of the nation, he did see the obvious solution. He should take one for the country and withdraw his nomination but he clearly feels entitled to the seat no matter the damage.
LikeLike
On the lighter side;
A judge pointed out the obvious; you can’t claim slander and damages based on a Trump tweet. Nobody takes it seriously. And to underline the point, the UN laighed at him.
LikeLike
Ted Cruz made very good statements too. I’m impressed. Hope he’s re-elected.
LikeLiked by 3 people
LikeLiked by 1 person
Above referred to this:
https://twitter.com/andrewtwalk/status/1045432152807084033
LikeLike
Kavenaugh referred to something in the yearbook that he and his pals were ashamed of. . .was it just that one girl was listed as alumni (or something like that) that was interpreted by some as a label for one who had a sexual relationship or was that embarrassment about something else? I am naive about such wording.
LikeLike
I’ve rarely had cause to applaud Senator Lindsey Graham.
Today, I give him a standing ovation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Looks like someone in The Resistance was unhappy with Graham and other R’s.
Speaking the truth brings out the worst from the left.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/someone-on-capitol-hill-just-doxxed-republican-sens-mike-lee-orrin-hatch-and-lindsey-graham
“Somebody working from a House of Representatives office is editing the Wikipedia pages of Republican senators to post what looks like their home addresses.
Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and both Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch of Utah all had their home addresses posted online. It is called doxxing, and it is despicable.”
—-
“The current Supreme Court skirmish has become particularly nasty. The Left has taken as fact that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a serial sexual predator without corroborating evidence. The Left has tried to blackmail Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. And now someone on the Left is going after the families because of the politics of Republican senators.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wallace has changed his tune somewhat, now that he’s heard Kavanaugh speak. Just saw him on Fox on Martha MacCullum, now he says Kavanaugh was believable and poked holes in the accusers testimony.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Coming up:
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/27/17909780/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-committee-vote
__________________________________________
What comes next in the Kavanaugh confirmation
The Senate Judiciary Committee is still planning to vote on Kavanaugh on Friday.
… Even before the testimony, the Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a vote on Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation on Friday morning — something Grassley has not indicated that he plans to reschedule. Barring some change in events, like Kavanaugh withdrawing from the process or lawmakers pushing a last-minute delay, Grassley is expected to carry through with the vote.
It’s worth noting that regardless of how the committee vote goes, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is able to bring Kavanaugh’s nomination to a floor vote, which could begin on the Senate floor as early as Saturday. Thanks to procedural rules, Kavanaugh is not expected to actually get a vote from the full Senate until next Monday or Tuesday.
Theoretically, it would be possible for Kavanaugh to get voted on by the full Senate on Saturday — but that would require what’s known as “unanimous consent” by all 100 lawmakers. Democrats have made it clear they object to his confirmation, so that is unlikely to happen.
In the coming days, all eyes turn to a handful of pivotal swing seat Senators, who could make or break Kavanaugh’s nomination. These include moderate Republicans: Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), and Jeff Flake (AZ), all of whom have expressed concerns about the sexual misconduct allegations that Kavanaugh has faced and have yet to announce their position on the nomination.
It’s not yet clear whether Thursday’s testimony has affected where they stand. …
________________________________________
LikeLike
Public opinion may shift some, but it was pretty hardened on one side or the other going into this. And so it will probably remain.
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
I was working and only heard the end of the testimony. Like HRW, my son and I have a mild bias against elite private school/frat boys, though in their own way they can be quite humorous. It seems like it was a rerun of Thomas/Hill. I predict Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
If so, the Dems will be further fired up in November and I should get my candy. If Collins and Murkowski and/or Flake flake off and the nomination is pulled, Debra and her Rs have a chance in November. This has brought conservatives and Trumpkins together like nothing ever has.
Cruz did do well. He is quite impressive when he is not sucking up to Trump.
LikeLike
Political junkies think alike.
LikeLike
Exhibit B:
LikeLike
Janice – Can you remember his wording?
LikeLike
Or the Dems pushed to far and will now pay the price at midterms. They exposed their ugly side for all to see today. Republican voters will remember, at least the loyal ones. We’ll now see whether Flake, Collins, and Murki get on board.
I think Dems seriously overplayed their hand here. Corker’s a yes, and so much so that even Mancin may be a yes now according to someone at the Atlantic.
Here’s the Corker one.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36432/breaking-kavanaugh-swing-vote-bob-corker-says-he-paul-bois
“Following the intensely emotional testimonies from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh over 35-year-old allegations of sexual assault before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) announced that he plans to vote “Yes” on President Trump’s nominee to United States Supreme Court should it come to the Senate floor.
In a respectful statement, Corker, long considered a swing vote on Kavanaugh, said that after taking Dr. Ford’s allegations seriously and weighing them against the facts, he has ultimately concluded that Kavanaugh deserves “the presumption of innocence.””
LikeLike
Janice,
This?
It appears they were embarrassed about fart jokes. It wasn’t a sexual reference.
It’s sad that the Senate wasted even a second on such nonsense.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36431/watch-democratic-senator-presses-kavanaugh-farting-ryan-saavedra
“Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) used his time with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to ask about a number of things in Kavanaugh’s yearbook from over 35 years ago — including remarks about him farting.
“Have you, I don’t know if it’s ‘buffed’ or ‘boofed,’ how do you pronounce that?” Whitehouse asked Kavanaugh.
“That refers to flatulence,” Kavanaugh responded. “We were 16.”
“Okay,” Whitehouse responded. “And so when your friend Mark Judge put the same thing in his yearbook page back to you, he had the same meaning? It was flatulence?”
“I don’t know what he did but that’s my recollection,” Kavanaugh responded. “We want to talk about flatulence at age 16 on a yearbook page, I’m game.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wallace probably got a call from his boss to be more critical.
The Jesuits have washed their hands.
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/09/27/editors-it-time-kavanaugh-nomination-be-withdrawn
Confirmation will motivate Democrats to vote. And if they take control of Congress, I expect impeachment is on the table but it will be Kavanugh not Trump. The Democrats will request every record from the Bush white house, they will call Mark Judge, they will call the other women.
Of course this could’ve been avoided…..if McConnell had followed due process and gave Garland his hearing. For all Kavanugh’s whining at least he got a hearing…..more than Garland and Garland conducted himself with decency, no TV appearance, no partisan yelling.
Finally, if Kavanugh is willing to throw a temper tantrum in a public hearing, imagine him after a six pack when a girl says no.
LikeLike
Very interesting. The libertarian @ 5:23 a.m. was correct for the most part. It is very hard for any of us to believe a fact to be true that works against our political interest. It becomes obvious here where it is a he said/she said case and almost all people somehow wind up believing the fact pattern put forth by the person on their political side.
It is really the same issue when it comes to approval of Trump himself. People who read widely and have followed current events for years know that Obama probably didn’t put ”tapps” on Trump’s phone, that Hillary didn’t kill Seth Rich who didn’t give Democrat emails to Wikileaks. They have enough experience, knowledge and judgment to trust Bob Mueller and Chris Wray over Donald Trump and Devin Nunes. But the average Republican or Trumpkin wants to believe Trump. After all, warts and all he is the leader of their tribe.
LikeLike
I’m imagining him on the Supreme Court, and all the good he could do there. He has shown he has a backbone, so I doubt he is going to be susceptible to much foolishness when he sits on the bench. ;–)
LikeLiked by 2 people