Friday, September 28, 2018

Dear FBI: Check July 1 At Timmy's House

Yesterday's hearings were remarkable. The Republicans want a conservative on the court, they want to get him (and it will be a "him") appointed while they have the majority to do it, and they don't care if he is a low-life criminal pig.

A woman claimed she had been sexually assaulted by their alcoholic nominee. Oddly, I mean, bizarrely -- there is not a word that expresses how weird and out-of-normal this was -- Republican Senators decided not to question the assault victim themselves, but brought in Rachel Mitchell, a prosecutor from Arizona who specializes in sex crimes. The questioning of the assault victim went in five-minute turns; a Republican represented by the prosecutor, then a Democrat speaking for himself or herself, and so on.

A prosecutor's job is to convict the bad guy. They want the criminal to confess on the stand, or they want to box him in logically until it is obvious to judge and jury that he did it. It is not the prosecutor's job to show that the victim is lying or otherwise make the defendant look innocent, which is what the Republicans wanted in this case. And, actually, the prosecutor's questioning did not cast any doubt on the victim Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's story. Ford was an extremely believable witness, in fact, nobody could listen to her testimony and decide she was lying. She is not a political person, she is a meek professor who has carried a terrible secret around for thirty-six years. She is very sure Kavanaugh is the assailant, and you knew, listening to her, watching her, that she is telling the truth. He did it.

This happened.

The prosecutor was not so flattering with Kavanaugh. He had brought some calendars he kept from his high school days, hoping to show that he was too busy with wholesome things to have assaulted a girl at a party. But, you know, that's not how prosecutors work.

Dr. Ford had said that she had been at a small party with Kavanaugh, his friend Mark Judge, someone named "PJ," and another boy, plus her friend Leland. There may have been others, but it was a small gathering, more of a get-together than a party.

From The Post:
Rachel Mitchell, hired by the Republican majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee to navigate the questioning of Kavanaugh and Ford, pointed to one particular calendar entry that got some attention after the calendars came out. It read:

Tobin’s House — Workout / Go to Timmy’s for Skis w/ Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi

The reference to “skis” is apparently to “brewskis,” or beers. The entry was July 1, a Thursday. Mitchell asked him about it.
MITCHELL: The entry says, and I quote, go to ‘Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, P.J. Bernie and ... Squi?’

KAVANAUGH: Squi. It’s a nickname.

MITCHELL: To what does this refer, and to whom?

KAVANAUGH: [after explaining the “Tobin’s House” part] It looks like we went over to Timmy’s. You want to know their last names, too? I’m happy to do it.

MITCHELL: If you could just identify: Is ‘Judge’ Mark Judge?

KAVANAUGH: It is. It’s Tim Gaudette, Mark Judge, Tom Kaine, P.J. Smyth, Bernie McCarthy, Chris Garrett.
Notice two things here. First, that “Squi” was in attendance at the party — someone who, we learned thanks to Mitchell’s questioning of Ford, was going out with Ford over the course of that summer. Second, notice those two other attendees, one of whom Mitchell highlighted: Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth.

Mitchell’s questioning continued.
MITCHELL: Did you in your calendar routinely document social gatherings like house parties or gatherings of friends in your calendar?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, it certainly appears that way, that’s what I was doing in the summer of 1982. You can see that reflected on several of the-- several of the entries.

MITCHELL: If a gathering like Dr. Ford has described had occurred, would you have documented that?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, because I documented everything, those kinds of events, even small get-togethers. August 7 is another good example where I documented a small get-together that summer. So yes.
During her testimony, Ford made clear that the event at which she says she was assaulted was a casual get-together before the others (who were older than her and had a later curfew) went to other, bigger parties. Kavanaugh says that the gathering at Timmy’s on July 1 was essentially that.
Immediately after that exchange, the Republican committee chair called a break, and the prosecutor was fired. She sat in her chair but did not ask any more questions.

Like many people in the country, I followed along on Twitter as I watched the hearings, getting reactions, seeing what people noticed that I might have missed. When the committee came back and the Republicans began handling their own interrogations, a lawyer who uses the handle "@emptywheel" tweeted: "I conclude from the GOP firing the sex crimes prosecutor that on July 1 Ford was sexually assaulted." I will note that I follow @emptywheel because she is usually right.

One question that came up during Ford's testimony regarded the timing of the incident. She thought it was the summer of 1982, because she did not drive yet, but she did not have a way to be sure. The one thing she remembered was that she saw Mark Judge working at the Potomac Safeway six to eight eight weeks later. So, as she noted, if we could find out when Judge worked there, we could identify the approximate date of the attack. IRS records and employment records were suggested.

Again, from another article in The Post:
There’s a better source, as it turns out: Judge’s book, “Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk,” published in 1997.

In one passage, beginning on Page 92, Judge describes his time working at a grocery store in the context of his drinking problem. Emphasis added.
It was the summer before senior year, and by now, even though I wasn’t drinking every day, I was completely hooked. Going a week without getting drunk was unthinkable. I was spending between four and seven nights with the gang, either at a party or at O’Rourke’s.
Elsewhere in the book, Judge describes one of his acquaintances at the time, someone named “Bart O’Kavanaugh,” who vomited in a car after a party.

Judge continues. Emphasis again added.
Of course, alcoholics also get into all kinds of trouble because of their drinking. When they supersede their own tolerance, they suffer catastrophic hangovers. These can make getting through the day an Olympic event. This was never more evident to me than when, to raise money for football camp, I spent a few weeks working as a bag boy at the local supermarket.

My job was simple. People would leave their grocery baskets against a rail in front of the store, then pull their cars around. I would then sling their groceries in the car, sometimes get a small tip, and then wait for the next car...
Judge graduated in 1983, so this would be the summer of 1982. The Post shows Kavanaugh's August 1982 calendar with "FOOTBALL CAMP" running from August 22nd into September. Judge was working at the grocery store six to eight weeks after July 1, consistent with Ford's testimony and Kavanaugh's own calendar.

So a person trying to figure out what happened would easily form a hypothesis that Bret Kavanaugh sexually attacked Christine Blasey Ford at Timmy Gaudette's house on July 1, 1982. People present who could be interviewed about the crime include "PJ," "Squi," and Mark Judge, plus others mentioned on the calendar who seemed to stay in the background. Ford's friend Leland says she does not remember that particular party, but she believes Ford. There seem to be other issues with Leland, health issues. She has not said the assault didn't happen, or that the charges are false, as Kavanaugh repeatedly stated in the hearing. She just doesn't remember that one night when nothing unusual happened to her.

Since there was no commotion except in one upstairs bedroom, it is likely that nobody who was at that party remembers anything about it, especially those who were blackout drunk. But you can ask. Maybe somebody remembers something. It seems possible that Kavanaugh and Mark Judge remember something and will lie about it. Hopefully FBI interrogators have ways to deal with that. But as drunk as they were it is possible the boys didn't even remember the incident an hour later. This is an old case but sometimes good investigating solves those, along with good luck.

The prosecutor followed her nose to that July 1 date, and then Kavanaugh tried to lead her to an August date -- he read off all the names, all girls it sounded like -- and then there was a break. And then the Republicans decided not to use her any more. There was no explanation, no discussion about it, they just let the prosecutor sit there while they asked their own questions. This was a bizarre change of strategy but they pulled it off without attracting much comment, making sure that their preferred nominee was not literally prosecuted on the stand by the literal prosecutor they themselves had literally chosen to handle the questioning. Good ol' boy back-slapping was the order of the day.

Let's make it clear. Kavanaugh is a drunk, and has been since he was a teenager. He drinks too much and if he says he never forgets anything that happened he is either deluded or is lying. That doesn't make him an unusually bad guy but it is not what we want on the Supreme Court.

The most generous interpretation of the facts as we have them now is that Kavanaugh and Judge were drunk beyond the point of having good judgment, and perhaps beyond the point of remembering later. They dragged Ford into the bedroom and assaulted her, perhaps thinking it was a "game" or that it was funny, and when she got away they forgot what had happened, they rejoined the party, she quietly said she had to leave, and nobody paid any attention. From her point of view, she was nearly raped and nearly killed -- she felt that that was a possibility when Kavanaugh covered her mouth and nose. To the drunk boys it was just a prank, they were just having fun, but the girl was terrorized. They forgot about it, but it was a turning point for her that had consequences through her whole life.

I will not pontificate about white privilege, sexism, sexual violence, or even alcohol, here. You will see plenty of that. Kavanaugh is a pig. He is everything men in our society should not be, I don't need to explain that.

To me, the really shocking thing is the complicity of the Republican Senators. One by one they went around the dais sympathizing with this poor guy and complaining about the Democrats. Did you see Lindsey Graham's emotional outbreak? Wow. Not one of them doubted the assault victim's testimony, oh they complained about the timing of it and some gaps in her memory but there was no real question about it -- she was telling the truth. And if she was telling the truth, then he was lying. Maybe he doesn't remember, but that doesn't make him innocent. I do not think the "I was too drunk to remember" defense is really what we want in a Supreme Court justice, is it? Kavanaugh is a pig. You know it and I know it. But he's their man and they will stand behind him, no matter what. And you know what that makes them.

The Republicans want a win here. They denied Obama's nominee a hearing, because they want to stack the Court with conservatives. A guy Kavanaugh's age could serve for thirty or forty years if his liver holds out. And to get the win they would let this criminal go without an investigation, they would protect him in order to see that their so-called values are over-represented on the Court -- and this hearing gives you a very good idea what those values are.

And don't forget, other women have stories to tell. Julie Swetnick's is especially horrifying.

Will they get away with this? Probably. Looks now like the FBI will have a week to look into the accusation. You can't be optimistic about finding new facts thirty-six years later, but it's better than nothing.

It is hard to post on this topic because the news is breaking every few minutes. The Judiciary Committee has made a decision but as I post this the President has not yet given the FBI their assignment. No details are very clear about how this will proceed but I think the post as written above will continue to prove accurate even if things change.

307 Comments:

Anonymous ime, time, what's become of me? said...

I don't think Trump presents a problem, Jim:

President Donald Trump called Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, a "very credible witness," and said he will allow the Senate to exercise discretion on further proceedings.

"I thought her testimony was very compelling. She looks like a very fine woman to me," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday alongside Chilean President Sebastián Piñera.

"It was an incredible moment I think in the history of our country. But certainly she was a very credible witness. She was very good in many respects," he added.

His comments came after the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to favorably recommend Kavanaugh's confirmation to the full Senate. GOP Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, however, upended the process by announcing he would vote favorably, but only with the understanding that the FBI would conduct a week-long investigation into the allegations first.

When asked if the White House counsel would formally request a continued FBI investigation into the allegations, he answered he would rely on the guidance of Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley.

"That's a decision that they'll make and I expect them to make a decision soon," he said. "To take a vote or whatever else they want to do. I'll be reliant on what Senator Grassley and the group decides to do."

The Judiciary Committee vote came one day after both Ford and Kavanaugh delivered a combined eight hours of historic, emotional testimony before the senators on the committee. Ford accused Kavanaugh of groping and attempting to rape her at a suburban Maryland house party in 1982 when he was 17 and she 15.

September 28, 2018 4:34 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

What stands out for me from the hearing of Christine Blasey Ford's allegations against Judge Kavanaugh is Lindsay Graham furiously screaming to Judge Kananaugh "You've got nothing to apologize for!" Graham and the vast majority of Republican Senators have been excusing their vote to confirm Kavanaugh by hanging their hats on there being insufficient evidence to convict Kavanaugh of sexual assault in a court of law. And yet, absurdly, arrogantly, Lindsay Graham is claiming certainty that Kavanaugh isn't guilty, something he obviously cannot know.

Graham and all but a few of the Republicans express faux outrage at the idea that there is even the slightest bit of doubt that Kavanaugh might not be innocent despite Kavanaugh's innocence being very seriously in doubt. Graham and the angry Republicans are a disgrace to good judgment.

This isn't a trial, its a job interview and Kavanaugh has no right to a position on the Supreme Court no matter how entitled he believes himself to be (and his shameful display in yesterday's hearing shows he has a titanic sense of entitlement). A Supreme Court Justice should be held to a higher standard given that they are going to be making rulings that have great impacts on people's lives. Kavanaugh can be refused that job for any reason, there is no supreme high bar that must be reached to deny him a promotion. A Supreme Court Justice should be above suspicion. While there may or may not be enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh in a court of law and send him to jail, there certainly is a great deal of very serious doubt about his alleged innocence. Far, far, too much doubt to ignore and seat him on the Supreme Court.

September 29, 2018 2:16 AM  
Anonymous october is coming said...

don't agree with everything said by Priya, but it was a remarkably restrained response

you could almost say reasonable, and even reasoned to some extent

don't know that I'd say that about Jimbo's post

well, I'll try to dissect their errant thinking later

the sun is actually shining today

like Maria in the Sound of Music, I just have to be a part of it!

September 29, 2018 9:54 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous posted "I don't think Tяump presents a problem, Jim:

President Donald Tяump called Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, a "very credible witness," and said he will allow the Senate to exercise discretion on further proceedings."

Yes, that sounded good but the problem is that immediately after making those comments Tяump slipped up and revealed what he really thinks: A reporter asked him if he would consider withdrawing Kavanaugh's nomination and Tяump snapped "Not a chance!"

Several observers familiar with Tяump say he was clearly coached to make the other comments as he can't be restrained and balanced like that on his own.

Tяump had repeatedly and adamantly said no way would he allow further FBI investigation on Kavanaugh. He only relented on re-opening the FBI background check because he knew the only other choice was to see the full Senate vote to confirm him fail.

September 29, 2018 1:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bill Shine is the Fox executive fired for covering up sex abuse at Fox. He now works for Tяump in the White House. He has been meeting with Brett Kavanaugh to help him with his defence against Christine Ford's attempted rape allegations.

September 29, 2018 1:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Vanita Gupta "I will never forget sitting in that hearing room yesterday. What I saw wasn't a Supreme Court justice testifying. It was the performance of a belligerant political operative. The theatrics of a privileged, life-long partisan wh thinks he's *owed* this seat. It was horrifying."

I was watching a prosecutor commenting on Kavanaugh's performance. He noted all the anger and fury and said in his experience the people who express the greatest anger when denying a wrondoing are the guilty ones. They don't have anything of substance with which to defend themselves so they display rage to try to compensate for that.

Kavanaugh made this kooky and bizarre claim that somehow these women coming forward and accusing him of sexual misconduct was the doing of Democratic politicians angry over Hillary not being president - real tin-foil hat stuff. Then he angrily and ominously said "What goes around comes around.", a thinly veiled threat that he would take revenge on Democrat politicians he imagines have wronged him when and if he's put on the Supreme Court. In that moment Kavanaugh revealed the extreme partisanship that is at the heart of who he is.

A Supreme court justice needs to be unbiased and Kavanaugh just made it clear he is entirely incapable of being unbiased. Clearly if he were on the Supreme Court and was ruling on legislation created by a Democratic government he would not rule fairly.

September 29, 2018 1:20 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Further to my comment above:


Although Trump was coached to sound reasonable, when he was asked if he would consider withdrawing Kavanaugh's nomination and snapped "Not a chance!" he showed his mind is firmly closed about the allegations of sexual misconduct - no way is he going to even remotely entertain the idea that Kavanaugh is guilty.

September 29, 2018 1:38 PM  
Anonymous Every time Ford and Kavanaugh dodged a question, in one chart -- There was a striking difference in style — and substance. said...

"There were several noticeable differences between the Senate testimony of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and the woman accusing him of sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford.

The most obvious was the tone each took. Ford was polite and quiet in recounting her accusation against Kavanaugh; he was angry and loud in his denials of the allegations against him.

Beyond the style of their testimonies, there was a striking difference in the content of their words. Both Ford and Kavanaugh fielded questions from senators and the prosecutor hired by Republicans, Rachel Mitchell.

But only Ford made an effort to answer every single question.

Kavanaugh actively dodged questions. He often repeated the same non-answer over and over. Other times, he insisted on answering a question with “context” — which inevitably was a long story about his childhood — but never actually answered the question.

We went through the transcript of the hearing and noted every single time a question was asked of Ford and Kavanaugh. (We didn’t include the times a questioner didn’t ask an explicit question.) Then we noted every instance in which answered the question or said they didn’t know the answer — and we also noted every time they either refused to answer or gave an answer that didn’t address the question. Here are the results:"

Click on any part of the transcript to expand

Blue = Answers question
Magenta = Does not answer question

Click this link and scroll down to see the chart.

Or cut and paste the URL in your browser and then scroll down to see the chart:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart

September 29, 2018 3:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That was sure something at the hearing on Thursday. Brett Kavanaugh came out swinging...like his penis at a college party.

September 29, 2018 4:18 PM  
Anonymous october is coming said...

"Although Trump was coached to sound reasonable, when he was asked if he would consider withdrawing Kavanaugh's nomination and snapped "Not a chance!" he showed his mind is firmly closed about the allegations of sexual misconduct - no way is he going to even remotely entertain the idea that Kavanaugh is guilty."

in America, you're innocent until proven guilty

so, Trump is right to assume even as he holds that Ford's story should be investigated because she sounds reasonable

I can assure, if any evidence is found, Trump will dump Kavanaugh

Trump's not that loyal

btw, Kavanaugh is in no legal jeopardy

Montgomery County police said today that the crime Ford describes, attempted rape, was a misdemeanor in 1982

misdemeanors have a one-year statute of limitations

the second accuser: exposing his penis is also a misdemeanor

the third accuser is so unbelievable that, if that were investigated, we'd also need to investigate Hillary and Comet Ping-Pong

September 29, 2018 11:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know too many of us who could survive the "crying while talking about how much you love beer" portion of the interview and still get the job.

September 30, 2018 12:32 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

It was well known that the Senate Judiciary hearing on Thursday into Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh was designed to give the appearance of fairness without being at all fair.

Now the same is turning out to be true for the re-opening of the investigation into Kavanaugh's background by the FBI.

Tяump has shackled the investigation to keep it from turning up anything incriminating or corroborative of the allegations against Kavanaugh. He has prevented the FBI from questioning Julie Swetnick about Kavanaugh and Mark Judge spiking punch at parties with drugs and alcohol to lower the inhibitions of girls and then having a "train" of boys take turns having sex with the non-consenting girls.

Further, Christine Blasey Ford says that on the night Kavanaugh tried to rape her while Mark Judge watched Judge went to work the next day at Safeway. Tяump has refused to allow the FBI to subpoena the employment records of the Safeway Judge worked at to find a date when the attempted rape occurred.

These are just a few of the limitations Tяump has put on the investigation into the allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. Once again, the whole thing is a sham intended to only provide a facade of investigation while preventing the FBI from actually revealing anything that would further demonstrate Kavanaugh's guilt.

September 30, 2018 2:12 AM  
Blogger Redneck Texan said...

As me and my wife were listening to Ford's testimony, she asked what was so traumatic about all that. She said the only reasons she went to parties back when she was seventeen was she was hoping things like this would happen.

I think I was also at that party that Julie Swetnick describes .... that was what we called a good party..... wasn't it Jackknife?

I dont believe anyone from my generation could pass the me too test. If they could I wouldn't trust them pass judgement on normal people.

September 30, 2018 5:43 AM  
Anonymous homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't marriage said...

"I don't know too many of us who could survive the "crying while talking about how much you love beer" portion of the interview and still get the job."

it would probably would depend on the job

most government work, it would be fine

btw, this isn't a job interview

it's confirmation of an appointment of a calling to service

if BK wanted a job, he could make more at a law firm

as I recall, he was choking up when discussing the impact of this slander on his daughters and recalling the influence of his father, not when asked about drinking beer

"It was well known that the Senate Judiciary hearing on Thursday into Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Kavanaugh was designed to give the appearance of fairness without being at all fair"

that's true

it was heavily skewed in favor of Ford

"Now the same is turning out to be true for the re-opening of the investigation into Kavanaugh's background by the FBI.

Tяump has shackled the investigation to keep it from turning up anything incriminating or corroborative of the allegations against Kavanaugh. He has prevented the FBI from questioning Julie Swetnick about Kavanaugh and Mark Judge spiking punch at parties with drugs and alcohol to lower the inhibitions of girls and then having a "train" of boys take turns having sex with the non-consenting girls."

Trump specified that the investigation be limited to the first two accusations

the third is so preposterous, it needs some kind of substantiation to even be considered

"Further, Christine Blasey Ford says that on the night Kavanaugh tried to rape her while Mark Judge watched Judge went to work the next day at Safeway. Tяump has refused to allow the FBI to subpoena the employment records of the Safeway Judge worked at to find a date when the attempted rape occurred."

everyone agrees he worked at the Safeway at River and Falls

there is no dispute

and I don't think Trump has forbidden this anyway

"These are just a few of the limitations Tяump has put on the investigation into the allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh."

as far as I know, the limitation to the two accusations is the only restriction

"Once again, the whole thing is a sham intended to only provide a facade of investigation while preventing the FBI from actually revealing anything that would further demonstrate Kavanaugh's guilt."

it's not a criminal investigation and not a with hunt

they're investigating the claims the Dems called for, as an accomodation to their demands

September 30, 2018 7:47 AM  
Anonymous Yes, Kavanaugh was that obnoxious said...

Matt Damon nailed Kavanaugh on SNL last night.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/09/30/matt-damon-plays-a-fiery-brett-kavanaugh-in-the-snl-premieres-cold-open/

September 30, 2018 10:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Judge Kavanaugh, last week you told us that these hearings were a partisan ambush, a deliberate withholding of material until the eleventh hour. You knew that was a lie. You knew that Dr. Blasey Ford agonized for several weeks over whether to come forward, and your bullying performance was evidence of why she was right to be wary.

You also dissembled, to put it charitably, about several aspects of your prior life and behavior. We now have several credible sources, who told the FBI under oath of your dishonesty.

Several of your answers were carefully crafted to avoid admitting you were ever drunk enough at social events in high school to black out, which would in turn admit that if something like what Dr. Blasey Ford described occurred, you just might be the one with the faulty memory. This dissembling was calculated to allow you to deny that the assault happened, while barely skirting the risk of perjury.

One of you lied to this committee and to America. To put it bluntly, the accumulating evidence suggests that the liar is you. All the bullying in the world will not convince us otherwise. And the more you try to bully, the more you display the character and temperament consistent with the attack that Dr. Blasey Ford described ― and inconsistent with a Supreme Court justice.

Judge Kavanaugh, you feign outrage that your confirmation was delayed a couple weeks so that we could find out the truth. You sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit with Judge Merrick Garland. When he was nominated to the Supreme Court, Judge Garland had no charges of misconduct against him. He was not only delayed eight months, he was not granted a hearing at all. So kindly spare us the self-righteous indignation.

September 30, 2018 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Stretch the truth to fit your circumstances said...

Fending off the accusation that he drunkenly assaulted a 15-year-old when he was a teen, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday that it was legal to drink alcohol at age 18 for “most of the time” he was in high school.

Technically, that statement is true ― but it certainly wasn’t legal for Kavanaugh, who lived in Maryland. In the summer of 1982, seven months before he turned 18, the state raised the legal drinking age for beer and wine from 18 to 21. (It was already 21 for hard liquor.)

Those who were 18 or older at the time were “grandfathered” in, so they could continue to drink legally. That, however, did not apply to Kavanaugh: He didn’t turn 18 until the following February.

September 30, 2018 1:26 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Apart from his alcoholism, that he almost certainly is not innocent of all allegations, and the hyperpartisanship he displayed at the hearing on Thursday Kavanaugh also displayed at the hearing that he does not have the temperament to be a judge.

Further, Kavanaugh has spent a great deal of time at the White House working out a strategy to get confirmed, practicing his testimony, revealing his weaknesses that might be a problem and so on.

The founding fathers were adamant that the judiciary be independent of the president that appoints them and in no way indebted to him/her.

Kavanaugh, if he gets confirmed, will be deeply indebted to Tяump and who knows what he has revealed to the Tяump administration's closest advisors that could be used against him to keep him inline with Republican desires in his rulings?

Kavanaugh is unsuitable as a Supreme Court judge on several levels.

His repeated lying under oath about big things like his having received documents stolen from the Democrats while he was working for Bush to the small things like stupidly claiming being "president of the ralph club" was due to his stomach being upset by spicy food combined with all the other issues with his nomination mean he is woefully unqualified to be a judge, let alone a Supreme Court Judge.

September 30, 2018 1:30 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Los Angeles Times Column: Questions about Kavanaugh's high school drinking seemed to spark in him a combination of belligerence, sarcasm and defensiveness.

The spectacle was uncomfortably familiar to those of us who have dealt with people who drink to excess.
-----------------------------------

"If I were accused of sexual misconduct, the last person I'd want to be defending me is a person accused of sexual misconducty by 19 women, which is hte president of the United States, Donald Tяump." - Liz Plank

David Axlerod - "Whatever happens from here, Kavanaugh has handled the last week horribly. By painting himself as a choir boy [in his Fox interview], he looks like a liar in the face of mounting evidence that, at a minimum, he was quite a drinker back in the day. And if you lie about one thing, how credible are you about the rest?"

September 30, 2018 1:33 PM  
Anonymous Two guys with big missiles and tiny hands need to get a room said...

President Donald Trump told supporters at a rally in Wheeling, West Virginia, on Saturday that he and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un have fallen in love.

Yes, really. The former foes, who once hurled such insults as “Rocketman” and “Dotard” at each other, are now good buddies, according to Trump.

Referring to the pair’s highly choreographed summit in Singapore earlier this year, Trump said that both were “tough” and spent time going “back and forth.”

“And then we fell in love, okay” he said. “No really. He wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters. We fell in love.”

“I like him, he likes me. I guess that’s okay. Am I allowed to say that?” the president said.

Trump has insisted the due to his relationship with Kim, North Korea has been moving toward denuclearization.

But before Trump’s Saturday remarks, North Korea’s foreign minister said that there was “no way we will denuclearize” without concessions being made by the U.S. that the diplomat said have not been forthcoming.

And Reuters reported that earlier last week, three senior U.S. officials said that no discernible progress had been made toward serious talks on eliminating Kim’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

September 30, 2018 1:37 PM  
Anonymous We won't be silent anymore said...

"I dont believe anyone from my generation could pass the me too test."

That's sad admission, Mr. Cowboy and exactly what #metoo will change.

September 30, 2018 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Jackknife said...

RT, are you saying your wife wanted to be knocked down by some drunk rich assholes and smothered while they tried to pull her clothes off her so they could rape her?

I do not know your wife, but I expect this is not something she wished for.

September 30, 2018 3:49 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

ROMANIA: Top Court Backs Rights For Gay Couples
Radio Free Europe reports:

Romania’s top court has ruled that gay couples should have the same family rights as heterosexuals, a judgment that comes ahead of a national referendum seeking to ban same-sex marriage.

The Constitutional Court ruled that same-sex couples had the same rights to a private and family life as heterosexuals and should “benefit from…. legal and juridical recognition of their rights and obligations.”

The ruling on September 27 comes ahead of an October 6-7 referendum that is seeking to limit the constitutional definition of family to heterosexual, married couples.

The anti-gay referendum was scheduled after a concerted push by US-based hate groups including the Alliance "Defending" Freedom and the "Liberty" Counsel. How the result of the referendum might conflict with this week’s ruling remains to be seen.

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous are always complaining about me as a Canadian expressing opinions about what's best for the people of the United States, but you never see them expressing opposition to American hate groups promoting the oppression of gays in other countries. Hypocrites.

September 30, 2018 5:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Vanita Gupta "I will never forget sitting in that hearing room yesterday. What I saw wasn't a Supreme Court justice testifying. It was the performance of a belligerant political operative. The theatrics of a privileged, life-long partisan who thinks he's *owed* this seat. It was horrifying."

I was watching a prosecutor commenting on Kavanaugh's performance. He noted all the anger and fury and said in his experience the people who express the greatest anger when denying a wrondoing are the guilty ones. They don't have anything of substance with which to defend themselves so they display rage to try to compensate for that.

Kavanaugh made this kooky and bizarre claim that somehow these women coming forward and accusing him of sexual misconduct was the doing of Democratic politicians angry over Hillary not being president - real tin-foil hat stuff. Then he angrily and ominously said "What goes around comes around.", a thinly veiled threat that he would take revenge on Democrat politicians he imagines have wronged him when and if he's put on the Supreme Court. In that moment Kavanaugh revealed the extreme partisanship that is at the heart of who he is.

A Supreme court justice needs to be unbiased and Kavanaugh just made it clear he is entirely incapable of being unbiased. Clearly if he were on the Supreme Court and was ruling on legislation created by a Democratic government he would not rule fairly.

September 30, 2018 5:23 PM  
Anonymous october is coming said...

"Vanita Gupta "I will never forget sitting in that hearing room yesterday. What I saw wasn't a Supreme Court justice testifying. It was the performance of a belligerant political operative. The theatrics of a privileged, life-long partisan who thinks he's *owed* this seat."

I think what he was belligerent about was the abandonment of his right to be considered innocent until proven guilty

so Vanita, if we found a high school classmate of yours that made up vile lies about you and almost half of the country's Senator believed because they thought the classmate sounded sincere, how would you react?

"It was horrifying."

probably was if you're a Democrat

you saw a strong defense by someone who will end the gay agenda

"I was watching a prosecutor commenting on Kavanaugh's performance. He noted all the anger and fury and said in his experience the people who express the greatest anger when denying a wrondoing are the guilty ones."

generally, people falsely accused and denied their rights who wife and children receive death threats as a result become pretty agitated

"They don't have anything of substance with which to defend themselves so they display rage to try to compensate for that."

you can't really have anything of substance with which to defend yourself if no accusation of substance has been made

Kavanaugh is being asked to prove a negative

pretty hard to do until you get some details to dispute

"Kavanaugh made this kooky and bizarre claim that somehow these women coming forward and accusing him of sexual misconduct was the doing of Democratic politicians angry over Hillary not being president - real tin-foil hat stuff"

Priya seems to have a fetish for tin foil

must be a Canadian thing

fact: Feinstein had this accusation since July and did not ask for an investigation, or even ask Kavanaugh about it when she met one-on-one with him

fact: Ford wanted to be anonymous and Feinstein promised to honor that; Feinstein forced Ford to come out by leaking it to the press

"Then he angrily and ominously said "What goes around comes around.", a thinly veiled threat that he would take revenge on Democrat politicians he imagines have wronged him when and if he's put on the Supreme Court"

no, it was to point when the Dems are in power, Repubs can do the same thing now that Dems have blazed the trail

"In that moment Kavanaugh revealed the extreme partisanship that is at the heart of who he is.

A Supreme court justice needs to be unbiased and Kavanaugh just made it clear he is entirely incapable of being unbiased. Clearly if he were on the Supreme Court and was ruling on legislation created by a Democratic government he would not rule fairly."

everyone knows the political leanings of the current SCOTUS

it's not a problem



September 30, 2018 10:57 PM  
Anonymous homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't marriage said...

"Kavanaugh made this kooky and bizarre claim that somehow these women coming forward and accusing him of sexual misconduct was the doing of Democratic politicians angry over Hillary not being president - real tin-foil hat stuff."

you notice when Ford was asked who paid for the lie detector test, Ford's lawyer said "she doesn't have to answer that

what kind of victim hires a lawyer to report the crime?

answer: one who's legal expenses are being paid by a political party

September 30, 2018 11:07 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Republicans Can Dump Kavanaugh Now, Or Risk A Nightmare Scenario

The longer Brett Kavanaugh twists in the wind, the more likely it is that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Donald Tяump will consider the risks ― and decide to pull the plug.

With every passing day, more and more witnesses are coming out of the woodwork to contradict this or that aspect of Kavanaugh’s story. There are now multiple people who knew him well who say he was a much more reckless drinker than he claimed.

There is one date on his calendar, July 1, that increasingly looks as if it could be the date of the infamous party that Christine Blasey Ford described. The FBI will explore all of this, and more.

As McConnell and the Republicans get a clearer sense of just whom the FBI will be talking to and what will come out, the following is their nightmare scenario:

More and more credible sources will make a liar out of Kavanaugh. When the FBI reports back in a week, there will be allegations that the Senate Judiciary Committee will have to pursue, burning more time.

Kavanaugh will have to be called back to testify, both about the new allegations and his previous evasions. For the committee to do less would be to risk losing the votes of Republican Sens. Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins. But the FBI findings, once reported, could also cost Kavanaugh their votes on the merits ― and his confirmation.

At that point, another two weeks will have gone by, Kavanaugh could be utterly humiliated and possibly vulnerable to a charge of perjury. It will be that much harder to get another nominee vetted and confirmed two weeks closer to the election. So Tяump and McConnell could lose not only Kavanaugh personally, but the court seat.

Tяump and McConnell are nothing if not opportunists. They have no personal loyalty to Kavanaugh. Tяump is famous for firing people when they outlive their usefulness. McConnell takes situational ethics to a new low.

So Tяump and McConnell will surely consider the risks and benefits of standing by Kavanaugh, and the odds of his prevailing. Those odds are worsening.

There is a fair chance that early this week, Kavanaugh will be asked to fall on his sword. You know the routine. “I have decided to spare my family and our country further ordeal and embarrassment, and blah, blah, blah.”

October 01, 2018 12:21 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

That way the FBI investigation is short-circuited and the subject is changed. The spectacle of Republican men defending a likely sexual assaulter against a highly credible woman goes away.

Tяump and McConnell get to fast-track another nomination, preferably female, such as the ultraconservative Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed last year to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The court seat is saved, the optics on women shift, while the ferocious white male base is furious at Kavanaugh’s treatment and turns out to vote in November.

As McConnell and Tяump take a close look at the risks and alternatives, dumping Kavanaugh has to be very tempting. As for Kavanaugh himself, even withdrawing may not spare him further trouble in the investigation of what actually occurred at that fateful party. He could be the subject of further inquiry by the House or Senate, or by Maryland prosecutors.

One more item. At Thursday afternoon’s hearing, Kavanaugh’s ferocity caught the committee Democrats off guard. In playing the outraged, innocent alpha male, he intimidated the decorous Democrats in fine Tяumpian fashion. But if the Democrats get another shot at him, they will be better armed and better prepared. Expect an opening statement something like this:

Judge Kavanaugh, last week you told us that these hearings were a partisan ambush, a deliberate withholding of material until the eleventh hour. You knew that was a lie. You knew that Dr. Blasey Ford agonized for several weeks over whether to come forward, and your bullying performance was evidence of why she was right to be wary.

You also dissembled, to put it charitably, about several aspects of your prior life and behavior. We now have several credible sources, who told the FBI under oath of your dishonesty.

Several of your answers were carefully crafted to avoid admitting you were ever drunk enough at social events in high school to black out, which would in turn admit that if something like what Dr. Blasey Ford described occurred, you just might be the one with the faulty memory. This dissembling was calculated to allow you to deny that the assault happened, while barely skirting the risk of perjury.

One of you lied to this committee and to America. To put it bluntly, the accumulating evidence suggests that the liar is you. All the bullying in the world will not convince us otherwise. And the more you try to bully, the more you display the character and temperament consistent with the attack that Dr. Blasey Ford described ― and inconsistent with a Supreme Court justice.

Judge Kavanaugh, you feign outrage that your confirmation was delayed a couple weeks so that we could find out the truth. You sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit with Judge Merrick Garland. When he was nominated to the Supreme Court, Judge Garland had no charges of misconduct against him. He was not only delayed eight months, he was not granted a hearing at all. So kindly spare us the self-righteous indignation.

I yield back the balance of my time.


There is no honor among thieves. Contemplating the potential damage of letting this show continue, Tяump and McConnell have to be weighing whether to throw Kavanaugh overboard.

October 01, 2018 12:21 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And in a positive trend:

Texas governor says 'bathroom bill' no longer on his agenda

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - Texas' Republican governor said on Friday that legislation limiting transgender people's access to bathrooms in public schools and government buildings is no longer a priority, signaling a slight change in his stance on a measure seen by critics as discriminatory.

Governor Greg Abbott, who is running for re-election, made a "bathroom bill" one of his priority items in a legislative special session last year. But the measure died in the session after business leaders and civil rights groups fought back, saying it advanced bigotry, would tarnish the state's image and damage its economy.

"It’s not on my agenda," Abbott said in a debate with Lupe Valdez, the former sheriff of Dallas County who is the Democratic candidate for governor. Abbott did not say if he would sign a bill if one landed on his desk.

Valdez, the first openly gay or lesbian major party candidate for governor in the history of Texas, has fought against bathroom bills, saying the legislation addresses a non-existent problem and stirs discrimination against transgender people.

"There is a continual fear-mongering, and I don’t believe in laws that start out in fear," she said in the debate, which is the only debate between the two in a state with an economy bigger than Russia's.

Abbott has a commanding lead in the polls and a campaign war chest that the Dallas Morning News said was about $50 million larger than what Valdez has.

The Republican-majority Texas legislature meets once every two years, and the next session is set for 2019.

Adoption of a bathroom bill by Texas, the most populous Republican-dominated state, could have fed momentum in other socially conservative states on the issue, a flashpoint in the U.S. culture wars.

Texas could have lost about $5.6 billion through 2026 if it had enacted such a measure, according to the Texas Association of Business, the state's leading employer grouping.

The measure that advanced the farthest in the 2017 session would have required people to use restrooms, showers and locker rooms in public schools and other state and local government facilities that match the sex on their birth certificate, as opposed to their gender identity.

Momentum for bathroom bills stalled last year nationally when North Carolina partially repealed a similar law in March 2017. The original law prompted boycotts by athletic bodies and businesses that are estimated to have cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.

October 01, 2018 12:22 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Demonizing transwomen isn't the vote getter in red states that it used to be.

Hee hee hee!

October 01, 2018 12:23 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

A Canadian political cartoon about the Kavanaugh nomination to the American Supreme Court goes viral

October 01, 2018 1:30 AM  
Anonymous life should be preferenced, homosexuality prevents life said...

Americans believe Christine Blasey Ford. And most also believe Brett Kavanaugh. Given this state of affairs, it’s the FBI investigation that has the most promise to settle the debate on whether Kavanaugh should be confirmed after what most voters see as a process that has degenerated into a national disgrace.

If the FBI finds no corroboration of the charges, 60 percent believe that Kavanaugh should then be confirmed, according to a weekend Harvard CAPS/Harris poll of 1,330 registered voters. Sen. Jeff Flake has the support of the country in insisting upon a brief and limited FBI investigation before the final vote. Sixty-six percent of Americans support that decision.

The testimony of Ford and Kavanaugh had a powerful but not decisive effect on the public. Huge numbers in the weekend poll reported seeing parts of it or reading about it, and 67 percent thought she was credible, and 50 percent thought just Kavanaugh was.

But the credibility of their testimony does not appear to be the decisive factor. Rather, the question comes down to corroboration as the standard for tipping public opinion on whether Kavanaugh should ascend to the high court. In terms of the overall needle, once the voters are told that the named witnesses deny any knowledge of the allegation, 57 percent favor confirmation — and that goes up to 60 percent, if the FBI agrees there is no corroboration. Remember, because there is no specific “where” or “when” in Ford’s allegation, Kavanaugh cannot establish an alibi — and that’s why corroboration of other facts is so critical.

69 percent agree with Kavanaugh’s pronouncement and Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-S.C.) statement that the proceedings have been a “national disgrace.” Sen. Feinstein definitely is in the crosshairs, with 75 percent believing she should have turned over Ford’s letter months earlier so that this debacle might have been avoided. Graham has raised some serious questions about the actions of Ford’s lawyers and Feinstein’s legal referral, too.

No one, clearly, is winning the partisan battle today — if anything, both parties are losing. Men, by 62 percent, say Democrats are to blame while women, by 57 percent, say Republicans are to blame for the partisanship they are seeing. And, without doubt, this fight is likely to energize turnout in the midterms, with 45 percent saying they are more likely to vote as a result of the confirmation battle.

Despite the close national numbers on which party is to blame for this morass, the strong partisanship that’s been brought to the fore means that Democratic senators in red states may have some tough sledding if they oppose this nomination; the numbers in states like West Virginia or Indiana are likely to highly favor the Republican position on Kavanaugh.

Of course, if Democrats are unhappy with the FBI’s results, they will simply call it inadequate and seek to muddy the waters. The attorneys for Ford already have taken that position, and it is likely to be echoed by Democrats. This will put Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Flake in a difficult position, because their compromise was to order a weeklong investigation — and that’s what the majority of the public backed in the poll. The issue for Coons is whether he will back the results or his bipartisanship will be short-lived.

Ultimately the public expects that the FBI will come back with little that’s new and 63 percent expect that the nomination will be approved.

October 01, 2018 6:08 AM  
Anonymous Welcome to Trumplandia said...

"what kind of victim hires a lawyer to report the crime?

answer: one who's legal expenses are being paid by a political party"

Wrong.

From the transcript:

"MITCHELL: OK. Besides — you mentioned some GoFundMe accounts — besides those, are there any other efforts outside of your own personal finances to pay for your legal fees or any of the costs occurred — incurred?

FORD: It’s my understanding that some of my team is working on a pro bono basis, but I don’t know the exact details. And there are members of the community in Palo Alto that have the means to contribute to help me with the security detail, et cetera.

MITCHELL: Have you been provided…

(CORRECTED COPY – CORRECTS SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION)

BROMWICH: I — I can help you with that. Both her co-counsel (ph) are doing this pro bono. We are not being paid and we have no expectation of being paid.

MITCHELL: … Thank you, counsel...."

I don't know who Kavanaugh is paying for his own legal advise, but if they advised him to go belligerent and come off like a spoiled rich boy angry that his coronation is delayed to evaluate credible testimony that he has had a drinking problem, he got bad advice.

October 01, 2018 7:50 AM  
Anonymous Beto O’Rourke, Willie Nelson Perform ‘On The Road Again’ At Massive Austin Rally said...

Country music legend Willie Nelson unveiled his new election-themed song “Vote ’Em Out” on Saturday at a massive rally for Democratic Senate hopeful Beto O’Rourke in Austin, Texas.

Nelson performed his musical call to action at Austin’s Auditorium Shores after singing several of his hits, including “On The Road Again” with O’Rourke, who seeks to unseat Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in the November midterm elections.

Nelson, who announced his endorsement of O’Rourke earlier this month, belted out the lyrics to “Vote ’Em Out,” which stresses the importance of Americans’ right to vote.

“The biggest gun we’ve got is called the ballot box/ If you don’t like who’s in there, vote ’em out,” the song says.

The rally was attended by roughly 55,000 people, Auditorium Shores told the Austin American-Statesman.

It wasn’t the first time O’Rourke has performed with Nelson. He joined the music legend on stage a couple months ago at the singer’s annual Fourth of July Picnic in Austin.

Cruz, an unwavering conservative who failed in his bid for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, had been heavily favored to win a second Senate term at the start of this year’s campaign. But O’Rourke, a House member from El Paso, has generated widespread enthusiasm for his candidacy and pulled close to Cruz in several polls.

Nelson has taken heat from some of his conservative fans over his support for O’Rourke. His link on his Facebook page to a news article announcing his plans to headline O’Rourke’s rally on Saturday prompted some angry responses.

One fan griped on Nelson’s page that “If thats true [then] I’m done after 45 years with the Red Headed Stranger.”

“By Willie, that smoke has finally got you!” the fan added. apparently referring to Nelson’s longtime use of marijuana.

Nelson has shrugged off the naysayers.

“I don’t care,” Nelson said earlier this month on ABC’s “The View. “You know, they’re entitled to their opinions and I’m entitled to mine. ... Everybody has a right to an opinion.”

October 01, 2018 7:56 AM  
Anonymous inconvenient truth said...

""what kind of victim hires a lawyer to report the crime?

answer: one who's legal expenses are being paid by a political party"

Wrong."

well, i you don't believe that the lawyers are doing this pro bono because o all the business they get rom the party, and that the party didn't arrane it, what's the answer?

what kind of victim hires a lawyer to report the crime?

No reasonable prosecutor would bring sexual assault charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh based on the public evidence, the prosecutor whom Republicans hired to ask the questions during last week's Senate hearing said in a memo to senators.

In the memo, which was sent to all Republican senators, Rachel Mitchell, the deputy county attorney in charge of the Special Victims Division in Maricopa County, Arizona, said her "bottom line" was that "a 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove."

"But this case is even weaker than that," Mitchell wrote. "Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them."

"I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the committee," she wrote.

Mitchell led the questioning on Thursday of Christine Blasey Ford, who said in her Senate testimony that she was "100 percent" certain that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school.

Kavanaugh, a U.S. appeals court judge in Washington, D.C., has strongly denied allegations against him from Ford.

The FBI is conducting a one-week supplementary investigation after the Judiciary Committee cleared Kavanaugh's nomination last week.

Mitchell acknowledged that the standard of proof in a nomination hearing is less daunting than in a criminal trial. But she said the allegations against Kavanaugh didn't even rise to a lesser "preponderance-of-the-evidence" standard.

October 01, 2018 8:18 AM  
Anonymous sayanora, gay agenda said...

Key witnesses have renewed their definitive statements that they did not see any of the sexual misconduct that a few women have said they suffered at the hands of Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, bolstering his case as the FBI gets into the heart of its investigation.

October 01, 2018 8:21 AM  
Anonymous here's some milk said...

75 of Americans percent believe Democrats should have turned over Ford’s letter months earlier so that this debacle might have been avoided.

President Trump over the weekend urged voters to cast Republican ballots in key Senate races this year to protest the “angry and mean and nasty and untruthful” approach Democrats have taken toward the nomination.

Canada caved and agreed to a deal to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement shortly before a midnight deadline.

The 24-year-old NAFTA, which President Donald Trump railed against as a disaster, will be replaced by the USMCA — the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Trump tweeted his approval Monday morning for what he called a "wonderful" trilateral agreement.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland conceded that Trump was right and the agreement "will strengthen the middle class, and create good, well-paying jobs and new opportunities for the nearly half billion people who call North America home."

Canadian officials agreed to more market access to U.S. dairy farmers, as well as Canada accepting an arrangement effectively capping automobile exports to the United States.

A senior Trump administration official said the deal will "re-balance our trade relationship with Mexico and Canada," highlighting new rules on the origin of autos, and market access to Canada's dairy sector.

A U.S. official also pointed to the prospect of enforcing the agreement on Canada, calling it "one of the most enforceable trade agreements we've ever had."

"This is going to be real, and it's going to change people's lives, and it's going to make the U.S. economy stronger and better," the official said.

The trade pact will come up for review every six years, which will give the U.S. a "significant new form of leverage" to make sure the arrangement is to its liking.

"It's a good day for Canada," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said reluctantly.

October 01, 2018 8:33 AM  
Anonymous We believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford over the drunk GOPers want to install on SCOTUS said...

"what kind of victim hires a lawyer to report the crime?"

As we learned from her testimony, Dr. Ford did not hire any lawyer before reporting the crime to her congressional representative and the Washington Post.

Once again, from the transcript rather than your partisan bullshit attempted spin:

"...MITCHELL: In your statement, you said that on July 6th, you had a, quote, “sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president.” Did you contact either the Senate or the president on or before July 6th?

FORD: No, I did not. I did not know how to do that.

MITCHELL: OK. Prior to July 6th, had you spoken to any member of Congress? And when I say Congress, I mean the Senate or the House of Representatives or any congressional staff members about your allegations?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: Why did you contact the Washington Post, then, on July 6th?

FORD: So, I was panicking because I knew the timeline was short for the decision and people were giving me advice on the beach. People who don’t know about the processes, but they were giving me advice.

And many people told me, “You need to hire a lawyer,” and I didn’t do that. I didn’t understand why I would need a lawyer. Somebody said, “Call the New York Times, call the Washington Post, put in an anonymous tip, go to your congressperson.”

And when I weighed those options, I felt like the best option was to try to do the civic route which is to go to my congressperson, who happens to be Anna Eshoo. So I called her office and I also put in the anonymous tip to The Washington Post. And neither — unfortunately, neither got back to me in — before the selection of the nominee.

MITCHELL: You testified that Congresswoman Eshoo’s office contacted you on July 9th, is that right?

FORD: They contacted me the date that the nominee was announced, so that seems likely what…

MITCHELL: Had you talked to — about your allegations with anyone in her office before the date of July 9th?

FORD: I told the receptionist on the phone.

MITCHELL: OK. On July 10th, you texted The Washington Post again, which was really the third time, is that right? Second date, third time.

FORD: Let’s see.

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE) One moment.

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: And you texted — been advised to contact senators or New York Times, haven’t heard back from Washington Post. Who…

FORD: Yes.

MITCHELL: … advised you to contact senators or The New York Times?

FORD: Beach friends…

MITCHELL: OK..."

October 01, 2018 9:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the committee," she wrote."

A good prosecutor would search for all evidence that could be brought to bear on the case, not just what "he" and "she" said about it.



October 01, 2018 9:31 AM  
Anonymous October is looking good with Brett judging the gay agenda said...

still don't understand why Ford needs a lawyer

apparently, you don't either

"A good prosecutor would search for all evidence that could be brought to bear on the case, not just what "he" and "she" said about it."

if this somehow made it's way to a prosecutor, they would conduct interviews and then decide how to proceed

in this case, the only definite facts given by the accuser, that the prosecutor could pursue, are witnesses, all of whom have provided statements, under penalty of perjury, that they cannot confirm the accuser's story

they've now been interviewed by the FBI as well, but nothing's changed

face it, this an allegation that someone committed a misdemeanor 36 years ago when they were a minor and witnesses cited by the accuser don't back it up

further, there is no accusation of this behavior in the 36 ensuing years

Ford seemed sincere

that's not enough to take further action

if it wasn't for politics, this never would have seen the light of day

October 01, 2018 10:08 AM  
Anonymous Congress voted themselves more money for tRump's disastrous trade policies said...

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) supported President Donald Trump’s $12 billion bailout for U.S. farmers to mitigate the damaging effects of the trade war. Now the senator is applying for those same bailout funds for his own 750-acre Iowa farm, The Washington Post reports.

In the spring, Grassley issued a statement saying that the Trump administration had a “responsibility to help” farmers hurt by retaliatory tariffs set by China after Trump enacted tariffs against Chinese imports.

Bailout money isn’t being provided to other industries impacted by the trade war. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has already cut some 7,800 checks worth a total of $25 million for farmers, many in the swing states of the Midwest that voted for Trump in 2016.

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), the ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, argued against using a bailout program to mitigate a problem created by the administration, saying it would set a bad precedent by politicizing farm payments. Farmers “want their markets left intact and not screwed up by some policy,” he said earlier this year.

It’s not yet known how much federal subsidy money either Grassley or Tester will receive.

“Sen. Grassley participates in farm programs for which he is legally eligible, including this program, like every other farmer,” his spokesman Michael Zona told the Post. The typical farmer, however, does not impact Trump administration policies the way senators can.

Tester’s spokesman told the Post in an email that he, “like most Montana farmers, is feeling the impacts of the escalating trade war,” and is calling for an end to the tariffs.

Several other members of Congress are eligible to apply, but it’s not known if they have or will, according to the Post.

While the bailout program has been pitched as aid to struggling farmers, Grassley’s net worth was listed in 2015 as $3.3 million, and Tester’s was $3.9 million that year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Despite the extraordinary costs of the tariff bailout program, many farmers complain that it won’t begin to cover their trade war losses, and will not protect them from potentially losing business permanently from their Chinese customers.

“It’s pretty obvious that the rural agriculture communities helped elect this administration ... [but] if these issues haven’t been resolved, there could be a change in the way farmers vote,” Kevin Skunes, a corn and soybean grower in North Dakota, told the Associated Press.

Grassley has received nearly $390,000 in farm subsidies in 21 years through 2016, according to records tracked by EWG. Tester has collected $217,000 in farm subsidies during that time, according to the organization.

October 01, 2018 11:38 AM  
Anonymous life should be preferenced, homosexuality doesn't bring life said...

"Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) supported President Donald Trump’s $12 billion bailout for U.S. farmers to mitigate the damaging effects of the trade war"

sounds good, we need to protect our citizens from the war

when it's over, so will the subsidies be

Judge Brett Kavanaugh was already a nominee disliked by many before accusations of sexual misconduct threw his confirmation process into a mire and made Kavanaugh a target of death threats and national hatred.

Amid discussion of his teenage social life, calendar, and drinking habits, what doesn’t seem to matter is that there is little to no evidence that Kavanaugh is guilty of the crimes of which he is accused. In the world of #MeToo, we are facing a culture where evidence is not mandatory for a perpetrator's conviction. Instead, we have cultivated an atmosphere of “guilty until proven innocent”, which is leading our culture down a slippery slope of sexism and injustice. But where does that leave innocent men?

There are, of course, horrific crimes that are unacceptable, despicable, and have no place in our society. As a result, accusations like these must be taken seriously. It is also true that every potential victim, including the Kavanaugh accusers, has a right to be heard.

The difference, however, is that they do not have a right to be believed.

This sentiment is not shared by the supporters of the #BelieveSurvivors and #BelieveWomen campaign. Spearheaded by Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., the campaign advocates for a “believe first, confirm second” approach to reports of sexual violence. Unfortunately, this approach is in complete opposition to our current legislative system. No matter how horrific the accusation, our justice system requires a burden of proof. Consider the alternative: failing to require proof in the form of genuine evidence would be to hand women a dangerous tool — the ability to accuse any man of these crimes and ruin his life on a dime.

The #MeToo movement has encouraged a rush to judgment, resulting in the premature and irreversible ostracization of many innocent men. In fact, false claims of rape are five times more likely than false claims of other crimes. In a world where women can accuse a man and be automatically believed, how can any man safely offer or deny a woman a promotion, a ride home, or even a cup of coffee without feeling extraordinarily on edge? Arguably, these are all positives for women. And, in the end, this power imbalance produces a set of perverse incentives that do a disservice to everyone involved.

October 01, 2018 1:10 PM  
Anonymous life should be preferenced, homosexuality doesn't bring life said...

False accusations of rape and assault are nothing new. A prominent example is the 2006 Duke lacrosse case, in which three members of the Duke University lacrosse team were falsely accused of rape. The accusation resulted in the suspension of the entire team, the cancellation of the Duke lacrosse season, and the resignation of the head coach. But all the boys were later exonerated due to lack of evidence. While the prosecutor was subsequently disbarred, their accuser was not charged with any crime.

In another more recent example, two men were released in March after serving 26 years in prison for a crime that the accuser, who won’t face charges herself, now admits never happened. While these crimes took place before the spread of the #MeToo mentality, they exemplify the growing lack of accountability for accusers. They also demonstrate the increasingly common idea that society is embracing a new standard for justice that allows for the destruction of someone’s reputation and career — without corroboration.

The validation of accusations without requiring evidence does a massive disservice to those who have suffered from genuine attacks. The publicity and the ease with which accusers are considered credible allows for an influx of accusations rooted in other incentives and makes it harder for actual victims to get the help and support they deserve. In cases like Kavanaugh's, it also gives accusers the powerful opportunity to discredit someone without an inkling of discernible proof and without fear of legal retribution. While the #MeToo movement claims that its mission is to “support survivors and end sexual violence,” it cannot succeed in this unless it is supporting actual survivors. As the system becomes more diluted, it becomes harder to distinguish true perpetrators and put them in jail.

Instead of blanket support for all accusers, we should instead help educate victims on how to get help and support, how to report, and how to ensure that their attackers are punished swiftly and accordingly.

October 01, 2018 1:10 PM  
Anonymous elitist whites on SNL shutdown por-Trump performance by a black man said...

Following his performance of “Ghost Town” during the 44th season premiere of Saturday Night Live, Kanye West, sporting a red Make America Great Again hat in support of President Donald Trump, performed a pro-Trump rap.

The lecture occurred off-air, after his performance, where he was joined by Kid Cudi and 070 Shake, and was cut for "time" —but comedian Chris Rock, who was in the audience at Studio 8H in New York City, was able to capture part of it on his Instagram.

In the clips, West, with the entire cast of SNL standing behind him onstage — many of them rolling their eyes — delivered a talk that began with him singing, “I wanna cry right now, black man in America, supposed to keep what you’re feelin’ inside right now…”

“The blacks want always Democrats… you know it’s like the plan they did, to take the fathers out the home and put them on welfare… does anybody know about that? That’s a Democratic plan,” he continued. “There’s so many times I talk to, like, a white person about this and they say, ‘How could you like Trump? He’s racist.’ Well, uh, if I was concerned about racism I would’ve moved out of America a long time ago.”

In the background of the video, Rock can be heard uttering the words “oh my God,” while others in the crowd audibly booed and yelled.

West, an ardent Trump supporter, was a last-minute SNL replacement for Ariana Grande. Earlier in the evening, he performed his track “I Love It” alongside Lil Pump dressed in a decidedly more kid-friendly costume: a Perrier bottle.

October 01, 2018 1:23 PM  
Anonymous 75 %?!?!?!?!?! said...

Kanye West is an egomaniac. Who isn’t these days? He’s also very brave.

It takes courage to wear a Trump hat to sing on Saturday Night Live. Kanye — or ‘Ye’, as he wants to be called — said he was ‘bullied’ backstage by people telling him he should take it off, and you can imagine that is true enough. The Saturday Night Live audience booed Kanye on stage, but he remained undaunted.

‘We need a dialogue not a diatribe,’ he said, not unreasonably. The SNL brigades clearly did not agree. Their idea of dialogue is just anti-Trump diatribe.

Good for West; he makes the world more interesting. And for him to stand by what he thinks as the rich, elite world he belong to harangues him takes guts.

Kanye also wore a sweatshirt with Colin Kaepernick written across it, in homage to the NFL star who has become famous for protesting about racial injustice during the national anthem. This was a bit of political cross-dressing, which is also quite daring in these days of tribal partisanship.

On social media, West’s performance elicited predictable howls of indignation and sneery WTFing. But his little speech about Trump and bias in the liberal media, which typically enough got cut off while airing, was entertaining. It was more fun and interesting than almost all the celebrity-endorsed jokes against Judge Kavanaugh that took up the rest of the show.

Yes, Kanye’s Trumpery is an attention-grabbing stunt. So was the black-power salute by Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Olympics. That doesn’t stop it being radical and even, at some level, sincere.

‘There are a good many forward-thinking chieftains of the Trump movement — though the left and the Never-Trumpers would have you believe such people don’t exist — who see tremendous gains in bringing Trump’s themes of economic nationalism and America First to black voters. For decades, Bush-style Republicans dreamed of winning over blacks with social-conservative values, and such efforts mostly came to nothing. Hip-hop nationalism may fail, too. But it hasn’t been tried, and Kanye West could give it a serious test.’

Ye he Kan! West may be incoherent. But his politics are considerably smarter, original and more open-minded than most of the tribal monotonous blather that comes out of the entertainment world. Hip-hop nationalism, your time has come.

October 01, 2018 1:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Take off your tin-foil hats and put down the meth pipe, Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous.

October 01, 2018 1:52 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Jim wrote "So a person trying to figure out what happened would easily form a hypothesis that Bret Kavanaugh sexually attacked Christine Blasey Ford at Timmy Gaudette's house on July 1, 1982.".

Kavanaugh's own calendar corroborates Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against him.

That was an outstanding job of summarizing the situation Jim.

October 01, 2018 2:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Stephanopoulos said, “It appears that the FBI will not be questioning those college witnesses who contradict Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony about his drinking. Isn’t that relevant?” Graham said, “No, I think you’re trying to portray him as a stumbling, bumbling drunk, gang rapist".

Lindsey is so pathetic, trying to refute very credible allegations with bare anger, as though if he displays enough rage that will somehow negate all the evidence that Kavanaugh is guilty. As a prosecutor observing the case said, the people who express the greatest anger when denying a wrongdoing are the guilty ones as they have nothing of substance with which to defend themselves.

By all accounts Kavanaugh WAS a stumbling bumbling drunk, a very heavy drinker even by the standards of the day. A man often so drunk he was incoherent, a mean drunk who was overflowing with belligerence and anger. And you saw him display those core features of his personality at the hearing on Thursday. Clearly a man who lacks the temperament to be a judge.

For the FBI to be prevented from questioning people about how much he drank is an obvious attempt to constrain the investigation so it can't reveal any corroborating evidence of Kavanaugh's guilt.

Kavanaugh's claims that he never assaulted Christine Blasey Ford, or the other two women aren't credible given that he was obviously such a heavy drinker there were without a doubt many episodes where he didn't remember what he had done the night before.

You can tell from all the gin blossoms on Kavanaugh's face he has been a life long heavy drinker. That he would lie about his drinking to excess goes directly to the credibility of his denials and it is a miscarriage of justice to prevent evidence of his drinking problem from being considered.

October 01, 2018 2:17 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Kavanaugh's high school year book corroborates that he was a pass out drunk. "Who won that game, anyway?" "President of the 100 keg club", "King ralph", and so on.

And let's not forget when in 2015 he said "What happens at Georgetown prep stays at Georgetown prep. That's been good for all of us."

That's not the sort of thing you say when you've been a good christian boy doing nothing but service projects and going to church, that's the sort of thing you say when you've done a lot of bad things.

Devoid of credibility Kavanaugh says "it never happened." Far, far more likely is that it happened, repeatedly, and he doesn't remember because he was too drunk to remember.

October 01, 2018 2:26 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

In an interview with Kanye West, Jimmy Kimmel asked "I mean, you’ve so famously and so powerfully said George [W.] Bush doesn’t care about black people. It makes me wonder what makes you think that Donald Trump does — or any people at all?"

Then a camera focused on West, whose gaze, aimed high, became still, and whose arms were folded. No words emerged for a beat or two, and there was nervous laughter from the studio audience. Kimmel rescued the interview by saying, "Why don’t we take a break.

October 01, 2018 2:58 PM  
Anonymous time's almost up: you until Friday to make up some ,more crap said...

"Take off your tin-foil hats and put down the meth pipe"

this is Priya's special way of saying "I have no response to make to anon because he's right"

""Jim wrote "So a person trying to figure out what happened would easily form a hypothesis that Bret Kavanaugh sexually attacked Christine Blasey Ford at Timmy Gaudette's house on July 1, 1982.".

Kavanaugh's own calendar corroborates Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against him.

That was an outstanding job of summarizing the situation Jim."

you know, Priya's right

Jim has neatly summed up the Dems' position here

it's this:

Ford says that sometime in the early 80s, Brett and Robert were so drunk that they tried to rape her

on July 1, 1982, Brett, Robert, PJ, and Squi went to Timmy's house to have a few brewskis

ipso facto, Brett tried to rape Ford

oh yeah, what really seals the case is that Ford knew Robert worked at the Safeway at Falls & River

how could she possibly know that unless Brett tried to rape her?

I think North Korea is hiring prosecutors to enhance their justice system

a chance for Jim to see the world and use his skills

"Lindsey is so pathetic, trying to refute very credible allegations with bare anger, as though if he displays enough rage that will somehow negate all the evidence that Kavanaugh is guilty. As a prosecutor observing the case said, the people who express the greatest anger when denying a wrongdoing are the guilty ones as they have nothing of substance with which to defend themselves."

actually, Graham's not accused of or guilty of anything so your theory doesn't hold

a prosecutor this morning released a report sayig that here is no evidence Brett is guilty, for criminal purposes or any other purposes

why does Priya only listen to some prosecutors?

hmmmmmm.....

October 01, 2018 3:40 PM  
Anonymous time's almost up: you have until Friday to make up some ,more crap said...

"By all accounts Kavanaugh WAS a stumbling bumbling drunk, a very heavy drinker even by the standards of the day. A man often so drunk he was incoherent, a mean drunk who was overflowing with belligerence and anger."

no, not by all accounts

hard to believe someone could be top of class at Prep, captain the football team, go to Yale, become a brilliant judge who has written over 300 opinions, found time to raise two great kids and even coach their softball team if he was a stumbling bumbling drunk in high school

did he go to AA?

"And you saw him display those core features of his personality at the hearing on Thursday. Clearly a man who lacks the temperament to be a judge."

actually, anger at injustice and attacks on basic legal principles is one of the qualities I like to see in judges

"For the FBI to be prevented from questioning people about how much he drank is an obvious attempt to constrain the investigation so it can't reveal any corroborating evidence of Kavanaugh's guilt."

it's an irrelevant time waster

he's acknowledged he drank beer in high school

there is no need for the FBI to come to a conclusion about how much

Ford was drinking at a younger age

"Kavanaugh's claims that he never assaulted Christine Blasey Ford, or the other two women aren't credible given that he was obviously such a heavy drinker there were without a doubt many episodes where he didn't remember what he had done the night before."

actually, there are plenty of doubts about whether he had episodes where he didn't remember what he had done the night before

"You can tell from all the gin blossoms on Kavanaugh's face he has been a life long heavy drinker. That he would lie about his drinking to excess goes directly to the credibility of his denials and it is a miscarriage of justice to prevent evidence of his drinking problem from being considered."

well, if Dems hadn't suppressed this evidence, ou go down these kind of rabbit holes

75 PERCENT OF AMERICANS THINK DEMS IMPROPERLY CONCEALED THIS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES !!!!!!!

75 PERCENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

aloha, blue wave!!!!

"Kavanaugh's high school year book corroborates that he was a pass out drunk. "Who won that game, anyway?" "President of the 100 keg club", "King ralph", and so on."

none of that corroborates anything

"And let's not forget when in 2015 he said "What happens at Georgetown prep stays at Georgetown prep. That's been good for all of us.""

it's a saying that's nearly ubiquitous

to cite as evidence of anything is a joke

"That's not the sort of thing you say when you've been a good christian boy doing nothing but service projects and going to church,"

you'd be amazed how many Catholic male teens, who do service projects and go to Mass, would say something like this

"that's the sort of thing you say when you've done a lot of bad things."

or kidding around

"Devoid of credibility Kavanaugh says "it never happened." Far, far more likely is that it happened, repeatedly, and he doesn't remember because he was too drunk to remember."

more likely is that it isn't true

that's why he's been so much more successful than Judge

October 01, 2018 3:40 PM  
Anonymous it's morning in America's Supreme Court said...

"In an interview with Kanye West, Jimmy Kimmel asked "I mean, you’ve so famously and so powerfully said George [W.] Bush doesn’t care about black people. It makes me wonder what makes you think that Donald Trump does — or any people at all?""

Kanye West doesn't say Trump cares about black people

he says Trump treats them as equal partners in the quest to restore America

Dems treat blacks as dependents

they don't want equality because they would lose at ballot box

October 01, 2018 3:48 PM  
Anonymous sayanora, gay agenda said...

The sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford about her allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has released a memo detailing inconsistencies in Ford’s testimony.

“I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee,” Rachel Mitchell wrote in a five-page-long memo. “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.”

Throughout the blistering memo, Mitchell, who questioned Ford on behalf of Senate Republicans during a public hearing last Thursday, outlines 12 big problems with Ford’s testimony.

1. Witnesses Corroborate Not Ford, But Kavanaugh’s Stance

Ford named a friend, Leland Ingham Keyser, as at the drunken high school party where Ford says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Keyser has repeatedly said that she does not remember any such event and has refused to corroborate Ford’s story.

Ford also named two others — Mark Judge and Patrick “PJ” Smyth — as being at the party or in the room when the attack allegedly occurred. Both of these men have also said, under penalty of legal action, they have no recollection of any such attack taking place.

“Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them,” Mitchell wrote.

2. Ford Keeps Changing Her Story On When The Alleged Attack Occurred

Initially, Ford kept altering the timeline about when the alleged attack took place, then suddenly narrowed it down to the summer of 1982 just before her testimony without explaining how she was able to do that.

Here are the different versions of the story she’s told reporters, lawmakers, and her therapist, from Mitchell’s memo.

• In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”

• In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”

• Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school
summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not
explain.

• A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the
“summer of 1982.”

• Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.

• While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain
how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular
year.

3. Ford Didn’t Name Kavanaugh As The Attacker Until Now

Leading up to the hearing, Ford told The Post she had therapy notes from a marriage counseling session in 2012 in which she outlined the alleged assault. Post reporter Emma Brown noted that Ford did not name Kavanaugh as the assailant in these notes. The only time Ford has named Kavanaugh as the assailant on the record was after he was nominated as a Supreme Court justice.

Mitchell outlines this in the timeline below.

• No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
• No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
• Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in
2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a
potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.
• In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.

October 01, 2018 4:06 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Jeff Flake says if Kavanaugh lied to the Judiciary Committee "its over".

Its well documented that Kavanaugh lied to the Judiciary Committee about big things and about small things, so what's Flake waiting for?

Every morally upstanding member of the Senate is obligated to oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

October 01, 2018 4:08 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Why We Know Kavanaugh is Lying

This analysis by Nathan Robinson, a fellow Yale Law School graduate with Brett Kavanaugh, of his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee is an absolute must-read. Line by line, detail by detail, he makes an irrefutable argument for why we can be certain that Kavanaugh was lying and obfuscating throughout his testimony. Just one example of how he showed his own defense to be dishonest:

Let’s begin with Kavanaugh’s denial.

Here is what he says: “I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.”

And here is the gathering as Ford describes it:

"After a day of diving at the club, I attended a small gathering at a house in the Bethesda area. There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I also remember my friend Leland attending. I do not remember all of the details of how that gathering came together, but like many that summer, it was almost surely a spur-of-the-moment gathering… People were drinking beer in a small living room/family room-type area on the first floor of the house."

Kavanaugh says that he never attended any event like this. Like what, though? He never attended a small gathering in Bethesda where people were drinking beer? Kavanaugh submitted his own calendars from the summer of 1982 into evidence for the Senate. As he said himself, “the calendars show a few weekday gatherings at friends’ houses after a workout or just to meet up and have some beers.” He says that he never attended a gathering like this, but that’s obviously false, because the type of gathering he says he did attend is exactly the kind she describes.

Coverage of Ford’s allegations has often implied that the “party” at which she alleges she was assaulted was a kind of large Bacchanalian house party. This is a crucial part of Kavanaugh’s “calendar” defense: if there had been a big party, lots of people would have been there, it would probably have been on his summer calendar under “PAR-TAY!” It would have been notable, and since nobody seems to remember it and he even wrote far less significant events on his calendar, Ford must be misremembering.

But Ford has been clear: she is not talking about a big event. She is talking about a few friends and acquaintances hanging around drinking some beer in a living room:

October 01, 2018 4:09 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

It was not really a party like the news has made it sound. It was not. It was just a gathering that I assumed was going to lead to a party later on that those boys would attend, because they tended to have parties later at night than I was allowed to stay out. So it was kind of a pre-gathering.

It’s impossible to believe Kavanaugh when he says he never attended any event “like the one Dr. Ford describes.” It was a very typical low-key high school event, and it would have been shocking if Kavanaugh never attended such a thing. Indeed, he admits it himself.

Okay, so this was weird lie to tell, because everyone goes to these sorts of events and he had them on his own calendar. But okay, maybe you think that he wasn’t trying to subtly reinforce the impression that Ford was alleging some kind of noteworthy event. Maybe you think he just meant “I never went to this kind of small gathering with the people Ford says.” Indeed, Kavanaugh says:

"[N]one of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified. And as my calendars show, I was very precise about listing who was there; very precise."

Well it’s hard to misinterpret that. He was very precise. Who, then, is the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified? From her testimony:

There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I also remember my friend Leland attending.

So presumably, if we looked at what Kavanaugh’s calendars show, we wouldn’t find an event with Mark Judge, PJ, some other boy, and Leland. Instead, he gives examples of the kinds of gatherings he did attend:

"I [was] in D.C. on Saturday night, August 7th. But I was at a small gathering at Becky’s house in Rockville with Matt, Denise, Laurie and Jenny. Their names are all listed on my calendar. I won’t use their last names here. And then on the weekend of August 20 to 22nd, I was staying at the Garrets’ (ph) with Pat (ph) and Chris (ph) as we did final preparations for football training camp."

None of these names are the names Ford cites. Clearly she knows nothing about his summer. But wait: let’s look at the entry for July 1st, one Kavanaugh did not cite in his list of “parties with people who are not the people Ford cited.” On July 1st, Kavanaugh planned to go “to Timmy’s for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.” There’s Mark Judge! There’s P.J.! So he gathered for [brew]skis with 2 of the 3 people Ford says she remembers being there. Small gathering? Beer? Judge, Brett, and PJ? Check, check, and check. So when Kavanaugh says none of the gatherings on the calendar include the people Ford says, and implies that Ford was just conjuring names of people he would never gather with, that’s false. In fact, she cited a small gathering with PJ and Judge before he released his calendar confirming it.

That’s just a single example and there are many, many more. It’s a long article, but read the whole thing. The analysis is so devastating as to be undeniable. Every single bit of behavior he has exhibited is consistent with someone who is lying, while her testimony was entirely consistent with someone telling the truth about a traumatic event.

October 01, 2018 4:09 PM  
Anonymous sayanora, gay agenda said...

4. Ford Has Changed The Description Of The Trauma She Allegedly Suffered

“When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become
less specific,” Mitchell notes. “Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a ‘sexual assault’ before they were married. But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of ‘physical abuse’ at the beginning of their marriage. She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.”

5. Ford Can’t Recall Key Details That Could Corroborate Her Story

Mitchell noted that Ford doesn’t remember who invited her to the party nor does she remember how she heard about it. She doesn’t remember how she got to and from the party where she says the attack took place — which before cell phones is odd.

“She stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter,” the sex prosecutor noted.

6. Ford Has Changed Her Story About The Alleged Attack

“According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault,” Mitchell states. “But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.”

7. The Number Of People She Says Were Present At The Party Keeps Changing

As The Federalist reported last week, Ford’s testimony has been inconsistent in the number of people she says were at the party. She told Post there were four boys at the party, but in her polygraph statement, she said there were “four people boys and a couple of girls.”

8. Ford’s Recent Memory Is Full Of Gaps

Mitchell notes that Ford was unable to remember key details of events that have unfolded over the past couple of months. She couldn’t remember whether she showed the Post reporter her therapy notes or if she merely summarized them for her. When asked if she had a copy of the notes in her possession when she reached out to the newspaper’s tipline via WhatsApp on July 6, Ford couldn’t remember if she had a copy of her notes in her possession or if she reviewed them in her therapist’s office.

Ford has yet to provide a copy of these aforementioned notes to the Senate Judiciary Committee — the only piece of hard evidence she has acknowledged exists.

At the same time that Ford says she can’t remember very recent events, she is claiming very clear knowledge of a traumatizing event that allegedly occurred some thirty years ago, although research and experience shows trauma very frequently clouds memories rather than crystallizing them.

October 01, 2018 4:10 PM  
Anonymous sayanora, gay agenda said...

9. Stated Reasons For Coming Forward Are Not Consistent

When Ford’s letter was passed along to Sen. Dianne Feinstein in late July, Ford requested anonymity, but her stated desire to conceal her identity doesn’t match her actions. Mitchell notes: “the person operating the tipline at the Washington Post was the first person other than her therapist or husband to whom she disclosed the identity of her alleged attacker.”

“She testified that she had a ‘sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president,” Mitchell wrote. “She did not contact the Senate, however, because she claims she ‘did not know how to do that.’ She does not explain why she knew how to contact her Congresswoman (Rep. Anna Eshoo) but not her Senator.”

10. Ford’s Polygraph Is Suspect

Ford was unable to recall if she took the polygraph on the day of or the day following her grandmother’s funeral in early August — a memory lapse Mitchell notes is troubling, adding that “It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.”

Polygraphs are so notoriously unreliable that they are inadmissable as evidence in federal courts.

11. The Claimed Psychological Effects Of The Trauma Keep Changing

Ford told the Senate Judiciary Committee she needed the hearing to be delayed because she was afraid of flying due to trauma associated with the alleged attack. When pressed on her travel habits, however, Ford conceded that she does in fact fly frequently, including to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica.

12. Ford’s Lawyers Probably Affected Ford’s Story

When asked if Ford had considered taking up Senate Republicans on their offer to fly out to California, she said that was “unclear,” which could mean that her attorneys failed to communicate a key component of the negotiations.

In a detailed outline of events, Mitchell explained that Ford’s attorney’s behavior throughout the whole ordeal likely significantly affected Ford’s version of events.

October 01, 2018 4:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ford seemed sincere

that's not enough to take further action"

Hence the need for the FBI to investigate.

October 01, 2018 5:23 PM  
Anonymous October is looking good with Brett judging the gay agenda said...

no, as the prosecutor noted, there are too many inconsistencies in Ford's story to make it worth pursuing

there would only be that need if a majority of Senators on the panel thought that committing a misdemeanor while you were a minor would disqualify you from confirmation

no Republicans believe that

if this were Stephen Breyer, no Democrat would either

want proof?

Bill CLinton had more credible, recent rape charges from his adulthood and Democrats idolize him

October 01, 2018 6:09 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Alberta - Canada's Texas:

Its no coincidence that mental illness often features religious delusions

Three people charged with kidnapping their neighbours while naked were Jehovah’s Witnesses who were convinced the end of the world was imminent, it has emerged.

According to court document obtained by the Canadian Press, two women and one man pleaded guilty to unlawful confinement after taking three people hostage in Leduc, Alberta. One of the women involved also admitted dangerous driving.

The bizarre case first made headlines in November 2017 after the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were called to the scene of a car crash in an industrial park in Nisku, south of Edmonton. On arrival, officers said the group were chanting "Jehovah" and refused to exit the vehicle.

Officers added that the people in the SUV “displayed extreme strength”, were unaffected by pepper spray and did not relent when shot with Tasers.

October 01, 2018 6:55 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

US And Canada Reach Last Minute NAFTA Deal

"My orginal prediction on Tяump/NAFTA was that we would end up making some minor changes to the agreement, Tяump would declare victory, and we'd move on. That's what seems to have happened" said economist Paul Krugman of the New York Times.

CNN reports:

Just hours before a midnight deadline, the US and Canadian governments agreed to a deal that would allow US farmers access to 3.6% of Canada’s dairy market and address concerns about potential US auto tariffs, officials from both countries said.

Some experts questioned whether the changes to NAFTA were worth the strain put on relations with Canada by Tяump’s threats and brinkmanship during the negotiations. “We have really hurt relationships with our major ally … for the sake of a few gallons of milk, ” Jeffrey Rosensweig, a business professor at Emory University, said on CNN.

October 01, 2018 7:08 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

We told Tяump from the beginning there was three things we wouldn't give up, 1) The Chapter 19 independent dispute resolution mechanism, 2) protections for Canadian culture, 3) our supply management system protecting our dairy industry. Its been take it or leave it from the beginning and as one Tяump final deadline after another passed he finally realized he was beat and gave in. Tяump the blowhard ranted over and over that all three had to be scrapped but the so called "deal-maker" was no match for Canada's negotiator Christia Freeland who Tяump pointedly said he "disliked" just before the deal was signed. To allow Tяump to feel like he "won" we agreed to limiting Candian export of cars to the U.S. to 3 million units. Canada only exports 1.8 million units to the U.S. as it is so for practical purposes this is no limit at all.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

October 01, 2018 7:08 PM  
Anonymous Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, winning every argument against RBG: get used to it said...

"Rachel Mitchell did exactly what she was paid to do by the GOPers and found what they wanted her to find."

you don't understand our system of justice

the burden of proof is on the accuser

if Ford is not credible and gives no details that can be verified, Kavanaugh is innocent

an the key Senators have already said if there is no evidence, Brett Kavanaugh is our next Supreme Court justice

October 01, 2018 7:09 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Research shows only 2% to 6% of sexual misconduct allegations are false. Dr. Ford passed a lie detector test, Kavanaugh refused to take one.

All three accusers have been getting death threats, Christine Ford and her family have been forced out of their house and into hiding. Her life has been turned upside down as she knew it would if she came forward. She obviously didn't make up her story knowing she'd go through this.

Julie Swetnek signed an affadavit attesting to the accusations she's made against Kavanaugh. If is shown to have lied she loses her security clearances, her job, and goes to jail. She is obviously not going to risk all that to lie about Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh has every incentive to lie, these women have tremendous disincentive to lie.

All these women all telling the truth.

October 01, 2018 7:11 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Apart from Kavanaugh's serious drinking problem, hyper partisan bias, unacceptable temperament, and that he is almost certainly not innocent of all the accusations of sexual assault against him there remains the matter of his repeated lies to the Judiciary Committee under oath.

Feinstein accuses Kavanaugh of misleading Senate
By Brett Samuels - 09/26/18 08:50 AM EDT
743
8,630
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to Google+


Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) alleged on Wednesday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was not truthful with senators earlier this month when he said he never violated grand jury secrecy laws during his time working for independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Politico that she obtained a memo from the National Archives that showed Kavanaugh instructing a colleague in the Starr investigation two decades ago to call reporter Chris Ruddy about matters before the grand jury.

Such an action would violate laws that prevent disclosure of grand jury information. Feinstein claimed to Politico that the memo also conflicts with Kavanaugh's testimony earlier this month that he never broke those rules.

Politico reported that Kavanaugh's request to call Ruddy related to questioning of grand jury witness Patrick Knowlton.

Knowlton claimed to have seen someone in Fort Marcy Park shortly before White House lawyer Vince Foster was found dead there in an apparent suicide, which was reviewed as part of Starr's investigation.

Democrats have attempted to argue in recent weeks that Kavanaugh was not entirely forthcoming in some of his answers about his time in the George W. Bush administration during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.

However, those claims have been overshadowed in recent days by sexual misconduct allegations from two women against Kavanaugh.

Christine Blasey Ford alleged earlier this month that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and groped her during a high school party in the 1980s.

A week later, Deborah Ramirez went public with an allegation that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a college party in the 1980s and after that Julie Swetnick signed a sworn affadavit that Kavanaugh often spiked the punch at parties with alcohol or drugs to allow trains of boys to rape girls.

On level after level after level Kavanaugh is unfit for the Supreme Court.

October 01, 2018 7:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Christine Blasey Ford about her allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has released a memo detailing inconsistencies in Ford’s testimony."

Rachel Mitchell did exactly what she was paid to do by the GOPers and found what they wanted her to find.

The GOPers even stopped the sex crimes prosecutor from speaking for them any more once she called attention to Kavanaugh's 1982 calendar which clearly showed on July 1, 1982 the group that met for "skis at Timmy's" was a group that pretty much aligns with Dr. Ford's memories of the little party where she suffered that traumatic event of two drunk boys trying to Devil's Triangle her while laughing uproariously at her.

Had Ms. Mitchell been permitted to continue questioning Kavanaugh, she would have been able to identify his "inconsistencies" -- actually FLAT OUT LIES-- including but not limited to:

1. there was no party like the kind or with the people Dr. Ford remembered and described to be found on his calendar.

There is one shown on July 1, 1982

2. any drinking parties he attended were on summer weekend nights only.

July 1, 1982's drinking party was on weeknight, Thursday

3. "The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink"

Kavanaugh was never of legal drinking age in high school. The law changed to 21 years of age shortly before he turned 18.

4. Devil's Triangle was a drinking game.

< eye roll >

5. boofing is flatulence.

< eye roll >

6. "Renate Alumnius" in his yearbook was meant to show affection for Renate.

Kavanaugh's Georgetown Prep classmate Sean Hagan countered his claim of treating women in a respectful manner. "They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate."

7. "Passed out would be - no, but I've gone to sleep, but - but I've never blacked out."

...that he can remember.

8. claiming Dr. Ford's allegation is refuted by Leland Ingham Keyser

Leland Ingham Keyser released a statement through her lawyer reiterating that she "does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account."

October 01, 2018 7:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And of course the crooked sleazy Republicans while all this has been going on have Quietly Sent a Bill To Gut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid By $2 Trillion

Lying Donnie promised over and over during the 2016 campaign he wouldn't make cuts to these programs but as usual, Republicans make great sounding promises and then viciously attack the poor and middle class people who voted for them.

Seniors in particular will be affected.

October 01, 2018 7:23 PM  
Anonymous homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't marriage said...

"Research shows only 2% to 6% of sexual misconduct allegations are false"

that's a wide range to be considered reliable so it probably isn't

but the fact is that accusations of sexual crimes are FIVE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE FALSE THAN ACCUSATIONS OF OTHER CRIMES

"Dr. Ford passed a lie detector test,"

the lie detector test is highly suspect; the process was controlled by Ford's lawyers; according to what was released by Ford's lawyers, it consisted of two questions and, yet, before the Judiciary Committee, Ford said it was a long process and she was very nervous, which may skew results; additionally, it may have happened right after she found out her grandmother died (she can't remember) so she may have been so upset that the results were skewed

"Kavanaugh refused to take one"

Priya keeps saying this but I've heard it nowhere else

"All three accusers have been getting death threats,"

so has Kavanaugh and his family

"Christine Ford and her family have been forced out of their house and into hiding. Her life has been turned upside down as she knew it would if she came forward. She obviously didn't make up her story knowing she'd go through this"

Ford came forward very reluctantly. She tried to be anonymous but the venal and heinous Diane Feinstein betrayed her and released her name to the press after it looked like there was no other way to stop Kavanaugh.

"Julie Swetnek signed an affadavit attesting to the accusations she's made against Kavanaugh."

yeah, Lucy had a signed affidavit saying she would hold the football for Charlie Brown

"If is shown to have lied she loses her security clearances, her job, and goes to jail. She is obviously not going to risk all that to lie about Kavanaugh"

what planet are you from? you need to observe life on Earth a little more closely before saying stupid things. women are never held accountable when they make false accusations of rape. look up the Duke lacrosse case. the woman who falsely accused them is living happy and free

"Kavanaugh has every incentive to lie,"

so does everyone ever accused of a crime

yet, accused people are found innocent all the time

"these women have tremendous disincentive to lie."

in our modern society, many people have considered the chance to be famous worth any price

"All these women all telling the truth"

Priya has a powerful incentive to lie

October 02, 2018 6:06 AM  
Anonymous life should be preferenced, homosexuality prevents life said...

"Apart from Kavanaugh's serious drinking problem,"

drinking is only a problem if it interferes with the ability to lead a productive life

just the fact that one has accomplished enough to be considered for the SCOTUS is proof you have no drinking problem

"hyper partisan bias,"

please, we've had former Presidents serve on the SCOTUS

we would't want someone on the court that is so nonchalant about the issues of our time as to have no opinion

"unacceptable temperament,"

his temperament is completely appropriate for a man whose family has been put through hell by the slander of hyper partisan liberal Democrats trying to obstruct the government

"and that he is almost certainly not innocent of all the accusations of sexual assault"

he's an American

we're innocent until proven guilty

there is not even a precise accusation against him, much less proof

"there remains the matter of his repeated lies to the Judiciary Committee under oath."

he didn't lie about anything

"Feinstein accuses Kavanaugh of misleading Senate"

75% of Americans say Feinstein has acted inappropriately

she needs to resign

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) alleged on Wednesday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was not truthful with senators earlier this month when he said he never violated grand jury secrecy laws during his time working for independent counsel Kenneth Starr."

this is rich from someone who has just ruined a women's life by leaking her name to the press when the woman wanted to remain anonymous

she needs to resign

October 02, 2018 6:06 AM  
Anonymous sayanora, gay agenda said...

At this point, Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if he were only marginally qualified, to avoid making the Dems behavior a precedent that will be repeated if successful.

Similarly, all Democrats on the Judiciary Committee should leave the Senate.

The FBI will conclude its “supplemental” background check into Judge Kavanaugh (it’s 7th), limiting its time and scope to focus on purely the claims of sexual misconduct earlier than the Democrats hoped.

Those Democrats will resort to additional dirty tactics. Speeches from all of the Democrats will occur on the floor of the Senate—most opposing Kavanaugh. They will throw seismic fits, and spittle-flying rants, condemning Kavanaugh, republicans and even the very FBI they begged to investigate all in an attempt to destroy and demoralize Judge Kavanaugh.

Majority Leader McConnell will whip the vote and Judge Kavanaugh will fill the spot of the ninth justice on the Supreme Court

It will conclude one of the ugliest periods of American politics. Sadly about fifty percent of the American people will be too uninformed to explain why it was so ugly. The average American will mistakenly think (thanks to the horrifically awful media) that Judge Kavanaugh did something that no one ever proved he did.

Not one scintilla of evidence revealed, and all witnesses involved clearing him of any involvement, attendance, or even having met.

Justice Kavanaugh’s life will never be the same. Nor will his accuser’s. But sadly some of the Senate Democrats who decided to ruin these lives will sleep like babies and never take so much as a moment to ponder the damage they did. They will never question the unethical use of violating the trust of a constituent who confided in them and desired an anonymous process. They will never regret their attempt to slander an honorable father in the eyes of his own daughters. They will only move to plot their next step in attempting to regain power.

October 02, 2018 6:19 AM  
Anonymous sayanora, gay agenda said...

Here are some basic reasons the FBI investigation will conclude the matter.

1. In a supplemental background check the witnesses involved will be interviewed. All have agreed to cooperate fully. They will answer the questions asked, and in all likelihood give the same answers they’ve already given under oath and under penalty of felony perjury if their answers differ from what they previously said.

2. The FBI (will for the second time) along with Maryland authorities, as well as every prosecutor that has looked at this evidence admit there is no felony/federal jurisdiction here.

3. After the Democratic Party attempted to have Kavanaugh arrested on Saturday, Maryland officials reiterated their findings that by their standards, the worst charges possible, would carry with them a one year statute of limitations.

4. Additional prosecutors are on the record citing the evidence as insufficient to even merit a basis for a search warrant—much less an arrest.

5. What all of the law enforcement bodies continue to point to is lack of a time and place. And while the accuser is 100% sure that something happened. The accused and 3 witnesses are 100% sure they were not witness to any event resembling its description.

6. The FBI will also highlight greater amounts of exculpatory evidence against Dr. Ford. Her “fear” of flying, her “misremembering” her 100% clear account at the mysterious Safeway “second door” (it only had one,) her complete inability to figure out how she got to or from the “incident,” and the continued refutation by her best friend that such a gathering occurred with her present is likely the tip of the iceberg.

7. Therapy notes will likely be required to be turned over. Why they were not turned over to the Senate Judiciary is inexplicable especially since she uses that as “corroboration” of her first “telling” of the mysterious incident.

8. Dr. Ford’s own family—not a one—was capable of coming to her support for this dreadful season. Why weren’t they? The FBI may need to ask given that she was living with her parents at the time.

9. The FBI may also need to probe possible motives for Dr. Ford. Her work on RU-486 (the abortion pill) would certainly be in jeopardy if he is named to the court. Her five go-fund-me accounts with alleged links to Soros and a now blossoming $1 million dollar surplus were established why? To pay her pro-bono lawyers? (Remember it was her lawyers that testified they were pro-bono — if it turns out a Democratic staffer is paying them then they committed perjury.) Are the go-fund-me crowdsourcing efforts really a way to pay off a witness for coming before a Senate committee (in itself a felony crime?)

10. The FBI may very well uncover a coordinated effort between the Senate staffer who leaked Dr Ford’s name (against her wishes,) the law firm recommended by the ranking member, and the links to others making accusations.

By Saturday midday, Judiciary Democrats, with the investigation having not even been underway for a full twenty-four hours were already attempting to undermine the validity and reliability of its efforts.

Simultaneously Mitch McConnell tweeted a short clip of his floor speech from late Friday. In it he made crystal clear that “all fifty-one” republicans were in agreement in moving forward with the scheduled vote. “All fifty-one,” he reiterated.

I think he may know more than he’s let on. I believe the FBI may actually be nearing completion of its “supplemental background investigation.”

And thankfully I believe that this nightmare for Judge Kavanaugh is almost finished.
For the sake and innocence of his daughters, bride, family and all who have supported and been grateful for his public service of over 30 years—It’s past time!

October 02, 2018 6:21 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

BREAKING: NBC reports that Kavanaugh sent text messages to a number of his college classmates pressuring them to refute Deborah Ramirez's allegations that while drunk he thrust his penis in her face. Many of these text messages were sent prior to Ramirez's story coming out in the New Yorker and a number of them were sent afterwards.

This is witness tampering - by a judge!

And Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday that the first he heard of Miss Ramirez's allegations was when the New Yorker story came out - he lied under oath again!

These classmates have attempted to contact the FBI to provide this information for their investigation but have been getting the run around, told to call a tip line and when they do they're told no one knows anything about their being a re-opened background investigation into Kavanaugh.

A woman who dated Mark Judge in college says he ashamedly told her about being drunk back in college and having sex with an inebriated girl that he and several of his friends were "taking turns" with. This corroborates Julie Swetnick's sworn affadavit about Kavanaugh and Judge engaging in this sort of gang-rape. Judge's former girlfriend has said that she too has repeatedly contacted the FBI to try and give the investigation this information and has been unable to do so as the FBI is also giving her the runaround.

Several of Kavanaugh's former classmates have told similar stories about being unable to get the FBI to interview them about the excessive, often black-out drinking they witnessed him engage in.

It does not bode well for the legitimacy of the FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh that they have not assigned employees to contact these witnesses and get their stories. It looks very much like the FBI in coordination with Mitch McConnel are doing their very best to limit the corroborating information that gets to the Senate about Kavanaugh.

October 02, 2018 9:06 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

As we should have expected, the re-opening of the FBI investigation into Kavanaugh's background is a facade to give cover to Republican Senators to vote yes on a drunken, lying, ultra-partisan sexual predator.

Tяump directed the FBI to restrict its investigation to only interviewing four people, Christine Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and two of the people Dr. Ford said were at the party where she was sexually assaulted. There are several people who can corroborate Ramirez's accusations but none of them can be interviewed. There are several people that Dr. Ford told about the sexual assault long before she knew Kavanaugh was on the short list to be nominated to the Supreme Court but none of them can be interviewed either.

Tяump was criticized for this and later tweeted that the FBI should investigate whatever the feel is relevant. When it was noted that he had not directed the FBI to expand its investigation he held a press conference and said the FBI was free to interview anyone it wants. The trouble is that the FBI doesn't take its direction from tweets or press conferences, it needs a written directive through regular channels before it can change anything about the investigation that it was originally directed to do and as of today Tяump has not provided that.

So Tяump is dishonestly claiming he's letting the FBI investigate whatever is relevant when in fact he has restricted it from investigating basically anything beyond what has already come before the Judicial committee. That's why you see all the people I commented on above contacting the FBI and the FBI giving them the runaround and not getting back to them - Tяump has prevented them from doing so.

Yet again, Tяump and the Republicans are creating a sham process that's merely to create the appearance of a thorough investigation when it is no such thing.

October 02, 2018 9:07 AM  
Anonymous Fake news outlet, Washington Times, retracts and apologizes for spreading FAKE NEWS said...

The Washington Times issued a retraction and an apology after publishing an op-ed about Seth Rich, the Democratic National Committee staffer who was killed in 2016, and his brother Aaron.

“The Column included statements about Aaron Rich, the brother of former Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, that we now believe to be false,” the news outlet said Sunday in its retraction.

The opinion piece, published in March and written by James A. Lyons, a retired United States Navy admiral, floated conspiracy theories linking the Rich brothers to WikiLeaks.

“The Washington Times now does not have any basis to believe any part of that statement to be true,” it said, adding after an apology that all online copies of the column have been deleted, as have references to the column elsewhere on the internet.

Rich sued The Washington Times and individual activists in March, accusing them of politicizing his brother’s death. After Seth was fatally shot in 2016, conservative outlets spread the conspiracy theory that the incident was linked to the leaked DNC emails. Sunday’s retraction, according to Rich’s attorney Michael Gottlieb, is part of the settlement.

“The last two years have brought unimaginable pain and grief to my family and me,” Aaron Rich said in a statement. “I lost my only brother to a murder that to this date has not been solved, only to then have politically motivated conspiracy theorists falsely accuse me of grotesque criminal acts. I accept the Washington Times’ retraction and apology, and I am grateful that the Washington Times has acknowledged the indisputable truth that these allegations are, and always have been, false. As to the remaining defendants, I look forward to my day in court.”

Fox News retracted its own story connecting Rich to the DNC emails last year, though it took the network a while to come around even after Washington, D.C. police and the FBI disputed some of the claims.

Rich’s parents subsequently filed suit against the network in March, accusing it of “intentionally exploiting” their son’s death.

October 02, 2018 9:13 AM  
Anonymous October is looking good with Brett judging the gay agenda said...

"BREAKING: NBC reports that Kavanaugh sent text messages to a number of his college classmates pressuring them to refute Deborah Ramirez's allegations that while drunk he thrust his penis in her face. Many of these text messages were sent prior to Ramirez's story coming out in the New Yorker and a number of them were sent afterwards.

This is witness tampering - by a judge!"

it's not a criminal trial, he can seek witnesses to back his story

"A woman who dated Mark Judge in college says he ashamedly told her about being drunk back in college and having sex with an inebriated girl that he and several of his friends were "taking turns" with. This corroborates Julie Swetnick's sworn affadavit about Kavanaugh and Judge engaging in this sort of gang-rape."

this story has been around a couple of weeks, Judge said Kav wasn't involved

"Judge's former girlfriend has said that she too has repeatedly contacted the FBI to try and give the investigation this information and has been unable to do so as the FBI is also giving her the runaround.

Several of Kavanaugh's former classmates have told similar stories about being unable to get the FBI to interview them about the excessive, often black-out drinking they witnessed him engage in."

when anyone complains about FBI behavior in connection with the Russian hoax, that's an "attack on the rule of law"

now the same people are complaining about FBI behavior

"It does not bode well for the legitimacy of the FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh that they have not assigned employees to contact these witnesses and get their stories. It looks very much like the FBI in coordination with Mitch McConnel are doing their very best to limit the corroborating information that gets to the Senate about Kavanaugh"

the FBI wasn't called in to investigate how drunk Kavanaugh has ever gotten

it was called in to look into Ford's claim

remember. the bait-and=switch Dems, who wasted most of their questions last week asking Kavanaugh if he supported an FBI investigation

they kept saying it would take only 3 days

"As we should have expected, the re-opening of the FBI investigation into Kavanaugh's background is a facade to give cover to Republican Senators to vote yes"

so the GOP was right, the Senate should have investigated the claim, not the FBI

"on a drunken, lying, ultra-partisan sexual predator"

remember last week when I said Kav wasn't a Christian and Priya was howling how judgmental I was?

"Yet again, Tяump and the Republicans are creating a sham process that's merely to create the appearance of a thorough investigation when it is no such thing."

kind o like the Dems in last week's hearing trying to create the impression that they were trying to get to the truth when they wanted no such thing

October 02, 2018 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Dems' idea of evidence said...

Julie Swetnick says she's a shy person who pays no attention to politics. But she says she felt she had to go public with serious allegations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

In an exclusive broadcast interview with NBC News, Swetnick claims she saw Kavanaugh behave inappropriately at parties in the early 1980s.

"He was very aggressive — very sloppy drunk, very mean drunk. I saw him — go up to girls and paw on them, try to, you know, get a little too handsy, touching them in private parts. I saw him try to shift clothing," she told Snow.

Swetnick said that it was only after Christine Blasey Ford came forward in a Washington Post article from September 16 to allege in Kavanaugh had attacked her during at a party that she realized she had a similar story to tell.

NBC News was unable to independently corroborate Swetnick's claims and has not spoken with anyone who says they saw Swetnick at parties with Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has said he does not know Swetnick and has called her claims a farce.

Swetnick provided NBC News with the names of four friends who she said went to the parties with her. One is deceased, while two others did not respond to requests for comment. A fourth told NBC News he didn't remember Swetnick and didn't think he'd socialized with her.

October 02, 2018 9:37 AM  
Anonymous Judge Kavanaugh, 2015 said...

To be a good judge and a good umpire, it’s important to have the proper demeanor. Really important, I think. To walk in the others’ shoes, whether it be the other litigants, the litigants in the case, the other judges. To understand them. To keep our emotions in check. To be calm amidst the storm. On the bench, to put it in the vernacular, don’t be a jerk. I think that’s important. To be a good umpire and a good judge, don’t be a jerk. In your opinions, to demonstrate civility—I think that’s important as well. To show, to help display, that you are trying to make the decision impartially and dispassionately based on the law and not based on your emotions. That we’re not the bigger than the game…There’s a danger of arrogance, as for umpires and referees, but also for judges. And I would say that danger grows the more time you’re on the bench. As one of my colleagues puts it, you become more like yourself—and that can be a problem.

By his own understanding, Kavanaugh is not suitable to be on SCOTUS or any court of law.

October 02, 2018 9:56 AM  
Anonymous heterosexuality should be societally preferenced because it alone brings life said...

on the contrary, Kavanaugh is one of the most qualified judges ever nominated to the SCOTUS

he has over 300 written opinions to determine how well he maintains impartiality and civility on the bench

being on the SCOTUS is a little different than lower courts anyway

but thanks for sharing

October 02, 2018 10:11 AM  
Anonymous Rachel Mitchell’s Former Colleague Slams Her Kavanaugh Memo as “Absolutely Disingenuous” said...

A former colleague of Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor hired by Senate Republicans to question Christine Blasey Ford, blasted Mitchell for writing a memo casting doubt on Ford’s allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Matthew Long, a former sex crimes prosecutor who was trained by Mitchell in the Maricopa County, Arizona, attorney’s office, told Mother Jones the memo was “disingenuous” and inconsistent with Mitchell’s own practices as a prosecutor. “I’m very disappointed in my former boss and mentor,” Long said.

On Sunday, Mitchell submitted the memo to the Republicans who had hired her, stating that Ford’s case would be too weak to bring charges in a criminal trial. “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” Mitchell wrote. “But this case is even weaker than that…I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee.”

The memo rankled Long, beginning with how Mitchell framed it. “I find her willingness to author this absolutely disingenuous. She knows better,” Long said. “She should only be applying this standard when there’s an adequate investigation.” Rather than jump to conclusions, Mitchell should have laid out the steps that needed to be taken in order to gather enough information to make a determination about the case. “Mitchell doesn’t have sufficient information to even draw these conclusions,” he said.

Mitchell’s memo emphasized Ford’s inability to recall with certainty the timeframe of Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault of her when they were both in high school. Mitchell pointed out that in some interviews, Ford said the attack happened in the “mid-1980s,” and in others, in the “early ’80s.” Long found this section of the memo insincere. “I challenge Ms. Mitchell directly on this issue, because her office often charges cases with a very expanded timeline,” he said. Victims are often unable to pinpoint the exact date of an attack, and Mitchell’s office, he said, will often bring charges for an act that can’t be narrowed down to a more specific time period than a window of several years. “I was trained explicitly by her to not consider this time thing as an inconsistency,” he said....

.

.

.

"Kavanaugh is one of the most qualified judges"

We all saw Kavanaugh cry, belly ache, and be purely partisan after Dr. Ford gave her credible testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

We all know the ABA issued a statement this year and in 2006 downgrading their rating of "well qualified" to "qualified," meaning he met the ABA’s standards to be a federal judge but was not necessarily an outstanding candidate.

SCOTUS should be comprised of the best qualified judges and not "sanctimonious" judges who are "partisan" and "dissemble" in court.

October 02, 2018 10:46 AM  
Anonymous October is looking good with Brett judging the gay agenda said...

fascinating, and thanks again for sharing

51 Senators, who we elected to make this determination. disagree

Kavanaugh will be sitting on the Supreme Court this time next week

better be nice to him

October 02, 2018 10:53 AM  
Anonymous When you don't really understand what equal means said...

"heterosexuality should be societally preferenced because it alone brings life"

Thanks for making it abundantly clear that you really don't believe in arguably the most important and famous line in the American Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

October 02, 2018 11:02 AM  
Anonymous sayanora, gay agenda said...

"Thanks for making it abundantly clear that you really don't believe in arguably the most important and famous line in the American Declaration of Independence"

thanks for sharing your twisted interpretation of the Declaration

it helps to understand how certain people's minds get so screwed up

heterosexuality is a behavior, not a subset of "all men"

there are many examples of how we encourage certain behavior and discourage other behavior

indeed, that could be a definition of the law

In a new anti-Kavanaugh ad, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) spliced video clips of former President Bill Clinton denying his sexual transgressions with comments the judge made at a hearing last Thursday

This particular ad is airing in Colorado and targets incumbent Republican Sen. Cory Gardner.

"We cannot have any doubt," is the message of the ad.

October 02, 2018 11:42 AM  
Anonymous all men created equal said...

The Trump Administration will no longer approve visas for umarried same-sex domestic partners of foreign diplomats, as well as officials and employees of the United Nations and NATO.

As of Oct. 1, visas will only be given if the same-sex couple is legally married in their country of origin. That's the current rule for heterosexual partners.

A State Department spokesperson said the decision is “to help ensure and promote equal treatment” for all visa applicants.

The policy will pose a major problem for some diplomats and employees because in most countries, same-sex marriage still isn't allowed, with less than 15 percent of countries in the world recognizing it as legal.

Unmarried couples have until Dec. 31 to submit proof of marriage. If they don't, the homosexuals will be thrown out.

October 02, 2018 12:23 PM  
Anonymous let's bring in the experts said...

when they're thrown out, they will no doubt file suit

it will go all the way to the SCOTUS, where Justice Kavanaugh will write the majority opinion

he's not going to be in a mood to cut gays any breaks

let's hope he doesn't have a hangover

October 02, 2018 12:29 PM  
Anonymous life should be preferenced, homosexuality doesn't bring life said...

TORONTO — More than a celebration, it ended with a huge sigh of relief that Donald Trump didn't demand more.

Canadians awoke on Monday to the news of a new trade deal with the United States, its largest trading partner, and more important, a reprieve from the threat of crippling auto tariffs that President Trump had been holding over the country for months.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada promised to crack open its long-protected dairy market — the target of Mr. Trump’s Twitter attacks and rally tirades for months — to American competition, a concession that drew immediate anger from politicians in Quebec, home to nearly half of the country’s 11,200 dairy farms.

At a news conference in Ottawa on Monday, Mr. Trudeau acknowledged the trade-offs to appease Trump.

“Like any important negotiation, we had to make compromises,” he said, speaking in French.

The agreement does not eliminate the steep tariffs on steel and aluminum that Mr. Trump imposed in the spring. Instead, Mr. Trudeau said his country would continue to beg trump to remove them.

“The great failure of this trade deal was not negotiating an end to the steel and aluminum tariffs,” said Philip Cross, the former chief economic analyst at Statistics Canada, a government agency, because it left the door open to Mr. Trump to use the same national protection justification to lay more tariffs in the future, regardless of any trade deal.

“He can invoke national security under this deal and slap tariffs presumably on anything he wants,” said Mr. Cross, who is now a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a research group based in Ottawa. “I’m not sure we got the guaranteed secure access to the U.S. that free trade was supposed to give us.”

Still, several economists said that although the deal will not bolster the Canadian economy, it won't hurt it too much, considering the alternative: making America mad.

October 02, 2018 12:53 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

At Times, Kavanaugh’s Defence Misleads or Veers Off Point

On Thursday, the adolescent jottings of Brett M. Kavanaugh in his high school yearbook were being scrutinized under the searing lights of a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, where he sat accused of committing a drunken sexual assault when he was 17.

The faded references to heavy drinking and sexual pursuits had taken on evidentiary significance, and he was pressed by senators to acknowledge their meaning. Judge Kavanaugh instead offered benign alternative explanations — an apparent reference to throwing up from drinking could have referred to spicy foods upsetting his stomach, he said.

So it went for hours, as Judge Kavanaugh mounted an emotional defense against allegations of sexual misconduct and excessive drinking. It was the second time he had testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the first being earlier in September when he was asked mostly about his legal career.

The New York Times fact-checked his testimony, comparing his statements against the recollections of former classmates and acquaintances from his youth, as well as records from his time working in the administration of George W. Bush.

The combative nominee was compelled to answer questions he clearly found embarrassing or offensive. What emerges is the image of a skilled lawyer who, when pressed on difficult subjects, sometimes crafted responses that were misleading, disputed or off point. When asked about his alcohol consumption in high school, he said his classmates were “legal to drink” in their senior year, even though the legality of the drinking was not the issue (and, in fact, he could not legally drink because the age was raised to 21 before he even turned 18).

It was a performance that evolved with the increasingly fraught tenor of the proceedings. At his first hearing, Judge Kavanaugh, a Yale Law School graduate, fielded questions on policy and political work in the bland, studiously noncontroversial tradition of nominees to the high court. Still, even then some answers raised flags, as when he claimed not to know or suspect that internal Democratic documents about judicial nominations, shared with him when he worked in the Bush administration, had been stolen from Democrats’ computers.

October 02, 2018 1:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly testified that three people had exonerated him of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations that he sexually assaulted her during a gathering of teenagers outside Washington in the summer of 1982. “Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a longtime friend of hers,” he said on Thursday, punctuating his statement with an extra “refuted.”

While it is true that the three people did not corroborate Dr. Blasey’s account, they did not “refute” it either. Dr. Blasey had said that two of them were in the house, and one of them was in the room at the time of the alleged assault.

All three said they did not recall the gathering, and two of them — friends of Judge Kavanaugh’s — said they had not, in general, seen him act in an aggressive manner.

Leland Keyser, a longtime friend of Dr. Blasey’s, submitted a short statement through her lawyer saying that she did not know Judge Kavanaugh and had “no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Aside from her lack of recollections, Ms. Keyser separately told The Washington Post that she believed Dr. Blasey’s account, the newspaper reported.

During the hearing, Dr. Blasey said she did not expect that Ms. Keyser would remember the gathering because it was “a very unremarkable party” for her. She also noted that Ms. Keyser “has significant health challenges,” adding that “she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes.”

Judge Kavanaugh portrayed himself in his testimony as enjoying a beer or two as a high school and college student, but not as someone who often drank to excess during those years. “I drank beer with my friends,” he said. “Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out,” he said.

This is disputed.

October 02, 2018 1:27 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

His statements are at odds with how some of his classmates remembered him. In interviews before his testimony, nearly a dozen college classmates of Judge Kavanaugh’s said they recalled him indulging in heavy drinking, some saying it went beyond normal consumption.

Reached after the hearing, Lynne Brookes, an undergraduate classmate of Judge Kavanaugh’s at Yale University, said she believed he had “grossly misrepresented and mischaracterized his drinking.”

“He frequently drank to excess,” she said. “I know because I frequently drank to excess with him.”

Ms. Brookes was roommates with Deborah Ramirez, who told The New Yorker that Judge Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a drinking game while they were students.

Another Yale classmate, Elizabeth Swisher, now a Seattle physician, said: “I drank a lot. Brett drank more.”

“I definitely saw him on multiple occasions stumbling drunk where he could not have rational control over his actions or clear recollection of them,” said Daniel Lavan, who lived in Mr. Kavanaugh’s dorm freshman year. “His depiction of himself is inaccurate.”

Judge Kavanaugh disputed such accounts, saying they did not point to specific instances. But his own recollections have offered clues about his drinking. His high school yearbook, for example, refers to him as the treasurer of the Keg City Club, noting “100 Kegs or Bust.” Multiple high school classmates, in interviews, described Judge Kavanaugh as a heavy and frequent drinker.

As an undergrad, he was affiliated with two organizations known for hard partying, including the fraternity Delta Kappa Epsilon.

He also recounted his own drinking exploits in speeches. In a 2014 address to Yale Law students, he recalled a night of “group chugs” in Boston that ended with his group “falling out of the bus onto the front steps of Yale Law School at about 4:45 a.m.”

October 02, 2018 1:28 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

A substantial portion of Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony was devoted to discussing his 1983 senior yearbook. In one entry, he described himself as a “Renate Alumnius,” referring to Renate Schroeder, now Renate Dolphin, who attended a nearby Catholic school. A number of his football teammates had similar entries. Judge Kavanagh said: “That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us. But in this circus, the media’s interpreted the term is related to sex. It was not related to sex.”

This is disputed.

Four of Judge Kavanaugh’s former schoolmates, including Sean Hagan, said the notion that the phrase was meant affectionately did not ring true. They said that Judge Kavanaugh and his friends often made disrespectful sexual comments about Ms. Dolphin, and that the understanding at the time was that the many yearbook references to her were boasts about sexual conquests.

On Monday, Judge Kavanaugh’s lawyer told The Times that the “Renate Alumnius” note referred to a school event that he and Ms. Dolphin attended, after which they “shared a brief kiss good night.” Ms. Dolphin responded that they had never kissed.

On Thursday, Judge Kavanaugh steered away from the idea that the yearbook reference had any sexual connotations. “We never had any sexual interaction,” he said.

After his testimony ended, Mr. Hagan wrote on Facebook: “So angry. So disgusted. So sad. Integrity? Character? Honesty?”

Judge Kavanaugh’s yearbook page included the entries “Judge — Have You Boofed Yet?” and “Devil’s Triangle.” On Thursday, he said that “boofed” meant “flatulence” and that “Devil’s Triangle” was a drinking game in which three glasses were arranged in a triangle.

This is disputed.

October 02, 2018 1:28 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

“Boofed” in the 1980s was a term that often referred to anal sex, and that is how Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates said they interpreted his comment. They said they had never heard it used to refer to flatulence.

Similarly, they said that they had never heard of a drinking game called Devil’s Triangle, but that the phrase was regularly used to describe sex between two men and a woman. “The explanation of Devil’s Triangle does not hold water for me,” said William Fishburne, who managed the football team during Judge Kavanaugh’s senior year.

Asked about the intersection of his and Ms. Blasey’s friend groups, Judge Kavanaugh said: “When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually with friends from nearby Catholic all-girls high schools. Dr. Blasey did not attend one of those schools. She attended an independent private school named Holton-Arms, and she was a year behind me.”

This is disputed.

Judge Kavanaugh’s implication is that students at Holton-Arms, an all-girls school, didn’t mingle much those who attended Georgetown Prep. Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s former schoolmates said on Friday that this was not true and that Holton-Arms students were routinely present at parties with Georgetown Prep boys.

October 02, 2018 1:29 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The new Republican Party:

We'll elect every playground-skulking pedophile and pussy-grabbing traitor with a pulse and make every rapist a Supreme Court Justice to cut taxes for the wealthy and make women have babies because Jesus.

October 02, 2018 1:29 PM  
Anonymous Avoiding the point doesn't make your argument better said...

"heterosexuality is a behavior, not a subset of "all men"

No one ever said it was a subset of men, moron. You can't even come up with a good deflection. You should watch Kavanaugh some more. He's not great at it, but clearly better than you are.

Heterosexuality can be applied to some men, but not all. The term can be applied to animals as well, but the Declaration of Independence clearly was referring to ALL men. They did after all, use the term "all." They said nothing about just the heterosexual subset of men.

But no one is surprised Christians ignore that in their relentless pursuit of religious and cultural dominance over the rest of the country.

October 02, 2018 2:01 PM  
Anonymous Senate Transcript Accuses Kavanaugh of Rape in the Back of a Car said...

According to a 23-page transcript of an interview with Brett Kavanaugh conducted by a staffer with the Senate Judiciary Committee, the nominee allegedly raped a woman in the back of a car. This, along with several other sexual assault allegations, had not been reported in the media until yesterday. In all there were six sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh that are discussed in the interview transcript.

“This is really disturbing. Full transcript of a Senate staffer interview with Kavanaugh details SIX total sexual assault allegations, including a drunken rape in a car that (as far as I know) hasn’t been previously reported.”

After the FBI finally received the green light to conduct an unrestricted investigation into the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, we started wondering what else might come to light this week.

Yesterday’s release of the Senate Kavanaugh interview transcript answered that question.

We’ve now learned that Trump’s Supreme Court nominee was accused of having raped a woman in the back of a car. The Senate Judiciary Committee took this accusation seriously and questioned Kavanaugh about it during private hearings that were conducted on September 26th.

The identify of the woman who alleged Kavanaugh raped her in a car is not known. However it is known that she sent a letter to California Democratic Senator Kamala Harris. In this letter she gave details of what happened. The Senate Judiciary Committee read the letter to Brett Kavanaugh, asking him to respond to it. The explicit and disturbing section of the woman’s letter (found on page thirteen of the transcript) is as follows:

“Kavanaugh and a friend offered me a ride home. I don’t know the other boy’s name. I was in his car to go home. His friend was behind me in the backseat. Kavanaugh kissed me forcefully. I told him I only wanted a ride home. Kavanaugh continued to grope me over my clothes, forcing his kisses on me and putting his hand under my sweater. ‘No,’ I yelled at him.”

“The boy in the backseat reached around, putting his hand over my mouth and holding my arm to keep me in the car. I screamed into his hand. Kavanaugh continued his forcing himself on me. He pulled up my sweater and bra exposing my breasts, and reached into my panties, inserting his fingers into my vagina. My screams were silenced by the boy in the backseat covering my mouth and groping me as well.”

“Kavanaugh slapped me and told me to be quiet and forced me to perform oral sex on him. He climaxed in my mouth. They forced me to go into the backseat and took turns raping me several times each. They dropped me off two blocks from my home. ‘No one will believe if you tell. Be a good girl,’ he told me.”


...This bombshell transcript was just released on Monday even though the interview took place a week ago. Clearly the Republicans in the Senate did not want this information made public BEFORE a vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation. This is one reason they have been trying to rush a vote...

October 02, 2018 2:10 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"he Declaration of Independence clearly was referring to ALL men."

Way to go, Good Anonymous! :)

October 02, 2018 2:10 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"According to a 23-page transcript of an interview with Brett Kavanaugh conducted by a staffer with the Senate Judiciary Committee, the nominee allegedly raped a woman in the back of a car. "

Thanks for that Good Anonymous, I was unaware of it.

If Rethuglicans do manage to force through confirmation of Kavanaugh they'll lose women voters for a generation.

October 02, 2018 2:14 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I'm shaking my head at just how much more sleazy and corrupt Rethuglicans were than I thought. You have to be utterly devoid of empathy and concern for right and wrong to try to hide this sort of thing to give a promotion to someone you know is criminally unfit for a job out of your naked lust for power.

October 02, 2018 2:16 PM  
Anonymous life should be preferenced, homosexuality doesn't bring life said...

you can tell the Dems know the end is near

the FBI as found no corroboration of Ford's charges

her inconsistencies about events from two weeks ago is just as faulty as for things 35 years ago

remember in her testimony about when she says she ran into Judge at the Potomac Village Safeway a couple of weeks after the alleged attack?

she says she went in the second door because she didn't want to be seen with her mother

and she saw judge and said "hi" and he looked very guilty

the story sounded a little ridiculous

"oh, hi, I haven't seen you since you helped your buddy rape me"

but, that Safeway doesn't have a second door

go out and see yourself

anyway, now that the Ford story hasn't held up, the new attack is all Kavanaugh's "lies"

what lies?

1. he said Ford's friend refuted her when she actually just didn't corroborate

2. he said he usually only had a few beers when some other people say he had more than a few

3. he said slang terms in his yearbook meant something different than what some other people did

seriously?

they can start fitting that robe now

October 02, 2018 2:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Pathetic whiner Lindsey Graham "You're trying to make him out to be Bill Cosby".

Obviously, it IS Bill Cosby all over again!

October 02, 2018 2:22 PM  
Anonymous 75% of Americans thinks Dems acted inappropriately in SCOTUS nom hearings said...

"Heterosexuality can be applied to some men, but not all."

so can bank robbery

that doesn't mean the law can't preference those that don't rob banks

are you insane?

the law always preferences beneficial behavior

heterosexuality is life-affirming and is rightly preferenced

October 02, 2018 2:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Text Messages Show Another Kavanaugh Lie And Witness Tampering

During his testimony last week, Brett Kavanaugh was asked about the allegation by Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez that he exposed himself to her and put his penis in her face. He said that the first he had ever heard about it was just a few days prior, when the New Yorker published an article about it. He lied.

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 potential witnesses pressuring them to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

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…

So he didn’t find out about it from the New Yorker, he was already contacting people to get them to support his side of the story before the New Yorker article was published. Just another lie on top of all the others he told during his testimony under oath.

Not only is this yet another blatant lie under oath, its witness tampering, a criminal offence!

October 02, 2018 2:35 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Rethuglicans are threatening to defeat Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski in the primaries if they vote against confirming the lying, hyperpartisan, temperamentally unfit sexual predator Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

They're going to be badly defeated if they do vote to confirm Kavanaugh so they may as well do the right thing, vote against Kavanaugh and avoid a lifetime of guilt over having behaved unforgivably immorally.

October 02, 2018 2:42 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

It's no surprise that the people who don't care about high school shootings don't care about high school rapes either.

October 02, 2018 2:50 PM  
Anonymous the can start fitting that robe now said...

So he didn’t find out about it from the New Yorker, he was already contacting people to get "them to support his side of the story before the New Yorker article was published. Just another lie on top of all the others he told during his testimony under oath"

or he found out that the New Yorker was going to publish it

they probably contacted him for comment

duh!

"its witness tampering, a criminal offence!"

seeking witnesses to back your story up is not "witness tampering"

if it were, no one would ever be able to defend themselves against false accusations

further, Kavanaugh's actions weren't criminal, just in poor taste - if they're true, which is doubtful

October 02, 2018 3:15 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "1. he said Ford's friend refuted her when she actually just didn't corroborate

2. he said he usually only had a few beers when some other people say he had more than a few

3. he said slang terms in his yearbook meant something different than what some other people did

seriously? they can start fitting that robe now"

It all goes to his lack of credibility and the cardinal sin of, a judge no less, lying under oath.

1) There's a huge difference between someone saying a sexual assault never happened and someone saying "I don't remember". Kavanaugh lied about that to try and falsely make himself look innnocent As a judge he should be absolutely unwilling to tell such a lie. That he had no problem telling such a lie shows he is unfit to be a judge.

2) He portrayed himself as a very light drinker who never failed to remember what had happened the night before. His school friends say that is a gross misrepresentation of his drinking problem - he was an extremely heavy drinker even by the standards for the time, he was often stumbling, slurring his words, belligerent and aggressive, and frequently didn't remember what he had done during drinking.

Once again, this goes to his lack of credibility, grossly misrepresenting his drinking problem to make himself look better and lying about the possibility that he may have sexually assaulted women and doesn't remember it.

3) Its not just a matter of having "different definitions for slang terms", it goes again to his lack of credibility. His year book entries showed him bragging about engaging in "the devil's triangle" and "boofing" witch refer to two men having sex with a woman, and having anal sex with a woman one has gotten drunk to the point of where she can't consent.

Kavanaugh claimed those terms meant something innocuous to try to deceive people into believing he never behaved sexually inappropriately with women and that he was a virgin until several years after college and that he respected women and that he wasn't a stumbling blackout drunk. All of those claims by Kavanaugh are proven false by his yearbook entries and he lied about them under oath to keep the Senate Judiciary Committee from having a true picture of the criminal pig he was and bragged about being in his high school year book.

These are just a tiny minority of the problems with Kavanaugh and his testimony under oath that make him absolutely unfit to be a judge.

October 02, 2018 3:49 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "or he found out that the New Yorker was going to publish it they probably contacted him for comment."

1)He said under oath that the first time he heard about Ramirez saying he shoved his penis in her face was when the the New Yorker article came out - he lied under oath which as Jeff Flake said would be the end of his nomination.

2)The writers of the New Yorker article said they never contacted him for comment before the article was published.

3)Further, some of the text messages go back to July, long before the New Yorker started working on the story.

Clearly Kavanaugh knew about Ramirez long before it was made public and pressured potential witnesses to deny the allegations - that is witness tampering and it is a serious crime.

Tяump directed the FBI to restrict their investigation to only four people, Deborah Ramirez, Mark Judge, and two others Dr. Ford says were at the party where Kavanaugh tried to rape her.

Tяump has been dishonestly proclaiming in public that the FBI is free to, and should investigate whatever it wants while knowing they are bound by the original formal directions he gave and he has not issued a formal superseding direction allowing the FBI to expand its investigation.

The FBI has not interviewed Dr. Ford as that would require them to interview Kavanaugh and open up all the dishonesty in his testimony. The FBI has not interviewed any of the people saying Kavanaugh lied about not having a very serious blackout drinking problem and have not interviewed any of the people who corroborate Deborah Ramirez's story. All these people say they have contacted the FBI to give them this crucial information and the FBI has rebuffed their attempts to give this crucial evidence to the investigation.

The FBI clearly does not want to hear or find anything that show Kavanaugh is unfit to be a judge. The FBI background "investigation" into Kavanaugh is a superficial show designed to give the appearance of honesty while sweeping everything under the rug.

October 02, 2018 4:02 PM  
Anonymous life should be preferenced, homosexuality doesn't bring life said...

"It all goes to his lack of credibility and the cardinal sin of, a judge no less, lying under oath"

no one has shown he lied

"There's a huge difference between someone saying a sexual assault never happened and someone saying "I don't remember". Kavanaugh lied about that to try and falsely make himself look innnocent"

if there is ever any proof he assaulted anyone, lying is not the problem

and there is no proof

"He portrayed himself as a very light drinker who never failed to remember what had happened the night before. His school friends say that is a gross misrepresentation of his drinking problem - he was an extremely heavy drinker"

he said he occasionally drank too much, it's all a matter of opinion

you lied when you said he lied

he didn't

"even by the standards for the time, he was often stumbling, slurring his words, belligerent and aggressive, and frequently didn't remember what he had done during drinking."

sure he did. why was he so successful at academics then?

"Its not just a matter of having "different definitions for slang terms", it goes again to his lack of credibility. His year book entries showed him bragging about engaging in "the devil's triangle" and "boofing" witch refer to two men having sex with a woman, and having anal sex with a woman one has gotten drunk to the point of where she can't consent.

Kavanaugh claimed those terms meant something innocuous to try to deceive people into believing he never behaved sexually inappropriately"

maybe he didn't know what they meant

I didn't

as he said, yearbooks are filled with parody and exaggerations

"with women and that he was a virgin until several years after college"

no one has disputed that

"and that he respected women"

there are scores of women who attest to this

"and that he wasn't a stumbling blackout drunk."

no one has said he blacked out when drinking

"These are just a tiny minority of the problems with Kavanaugh and his testimony under oath that make him absolutely unfit to be a judge."

well, if there are only "a tiny minority of the problems with Kavanaugh", why are they the only ones you ave brought up repeatedly?

"He said under oath that the first time he heard about Ramirez saying he shoved his penis in her face was when the the New Yorker article came out - he lied under oath which as Jeff Flake said would be the end of his nomination. The writers of the New Yorker article said they never contacted him for comment before the article was published."

pretty shoddy journalism if they didn't get his reaction

they obviously talked to people he knew

someone told him

that would be when they published to anyone not trying to build a case for partisan reasons

"that is witness tampering and it is a serious crime"

it's not witness tampering

he was not being investigated for a crime

you're lying and have done so repeatedly

"The FBI background "investigation" into Kavanaugh is a superficial show designed to give the appearance of honesty while sweeping everything under the rug."

the Dems are the ones that wanted an FBI investigation

it should have been done in July

75% of Americans are furious with Dems

they will pay in November

October 02, 2018 4:36 PM  
Anonymous Keep changing the subject and hope no one will notice said...

"so can bank robbery

that doesn't mean the law can't preference those that don't rob banks

are you insane?"

No one said anything at all about bank robbery. That's not even tangentially related to the topic that was being discussed. But that was your point, wasn't it? To deflect and change the topic, since you really can't refute that fact that you simply don't agree that all men are created equal?

Or are you just off your ADHD meds?

October 02, 2018 4:53 PM  
Anonymous I was sexually assaulted and thought it was my fault. It's past time for a 1980s reckoning. said...

Kirsten Powers, Opinion columnist

I believe in redemption, but I wouldn't want my attacker to be rewarded with a Supreme Court job. That's the wrong message to send teen boys and girls.

When I was 15 years old, I passed out at a party after being fed all sorts of alcoholic concoctions by older boys I knew and idolized, but who in hindsight were eager to get me drunk.

I awoke with a popular senior basketball player on top of me, and my shirt off. Dizzy and confused, I could barely remember anything about the night before. I asked what had happened and the boy told me we had just snuggled, but he couldn’t explain why my shirt was off.

A few days later, a male classmate I was close to exited the boys locker room visibly shaken. He told me this boy had bragged in the locker room that he had molested me when I was passed out. (“Molested” is my word. For his part, this boy chose to gleefully describe in salacious detail what he did to me while I was unconscious.)

My face burned with shame. I begged my friend not to tell anyone else, and as far as I know he didn’t. I feared that if more people in my small Jesuit high school found out about it, I would be viewed as a “slut” or “damaged goods.”

Sexual assault used to mean strangers in alleys

The only people I would have trusted with this information were my parents, but to tell them would involve explaining why I was at a party drinking rather than at a sleepover I had been given permission to attend. I would have been grounded for eternity.

I told no one.

I don’t know what month it was. I don’t know whose house it was. I remember one of my two best friends being there but she doesn’t remember it, and why would she? It was just some random party as far as she knew at the time.

I can hear the doubters: Why now? Why didn’t you tell anyone? Why didn’t you report him?

Liar.

The answer is simple: While I knew something terrible had happened, I didn’t think I had been sexually assaulted. In the early 1980s, we didn’t possess the vocabulary to make such declarations. I thought I had done something stupid and paid a price for it.

I thought it was my fault.

The memory of this event came flooding back last week with Christine Blasey Ford's testimony against Brett Kavanaugh. Many people have focused on the fact that she didn’t mention the event to anyone until 2012. As a former teenage girl in the early 1980s, this does not seem remarkable to me. In fact, the first time I spoke of the incident chronicled here was last week. And yet I have zero doubt of what happened and who did it to me...

Kirsten's not the only one. 'It is hard': Crisis hotline calls increase 201 percent after sexual assault testimony

And IQ45 says it's a "scary time" for young men.

It's long past time for men of all ages to be accountable for their actions.

October 02, 2018 4:57 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Deborah Ramirez says that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was drunk and shoved his penis in her face at a party in College. She has given the FBI a list of 20 people who may be able to corroborate her claim. The FBI has not interviewed a single one of them and sources say the FBI is going to prematurely end their background "investigation" into Kavanaugh tonight or tomorrow.

Clearly the so called background investigation into Kavanaugh was a charade intended solely to give cover to Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, and Lisa Murkowski to dishonestly claim the allegations were investigated and nothing to corroborate them was found and so they are voting to confirm Kavanaugh.

The Democratic Senator for North Dakota is 10 points behind in the polls, she may also vote to confirm Kavanaugh in a last ditch attempt to keep her seat. Susan Collins has often talked a good show about having principled opposition to some Republican positions but has in the end always caved in and voted with the Republicans. Today Lisa Murkowski said it was important to have a proper investigation into the allegations and the FBI "was doing its job" despite all evidence to the contrary. Sounds like she's decided she's more likely to get re-elected voting for Kavanaugh than against.

So it looks more likely than not that the corrupt, biased sexual predator will be put on the Supreme Court. This will rightfully taint Republicans and Kavanaugh for his entire time on the Supreme Court. Republicans will lose women voters for a generation. The United States is on the path to a dictatorship under the Tяump family.

October 02, 2018 5:52 PM  
Anonymous Yearbook comparison said...

Garland Merrick: Atoms 1,2; Debate 1. Varsity 2,3,4; Forensic 1,2,3, National Forensic Degree of Distinction; German Club 1,2; It's Academic 2,3.4; Guys & Dolls, 2; J.B. 2; Pygmalion 2; Pow Wow '68, '69 Casts; Firebugs 3; Children's Theatre 1,2, President 2; National Honor Society 3,4; Opus 1,2,3,4; Political Form Club 3; Science Seminar 3,4; Student Council 1,2,3,4 Vice President 3, President 4; Thespians 1,2,3,4, Best Actor '69; P.A. Committee 4; School Board Representative 4; National Merit Semi-Finalist 4; Harvard Alumni Book Award 3; Illinois State Scholarship 4; Bronze Key Silver Key; White Certificate; Homecoming 2,3; National Student Council Conference Delegate4; Spotlighters Secretary 2.

Brett Michael Kavanaugh: Varsity Football 3/4; J.V. Football 2; Freshman football 1; Varsity Basketball 3,4 (Captain); Frosh Basketball (Captain); J.V. Basketball (Captain); Varsity Spring Track 3; Little Hoya 3,4*** Landon Rocks and Bowling Alley Assault -- What Night; Georgetown vs. Louisville -- Who Won That Game Anyway>; Extinguisher; Summer of '82 -- total Spins (Rehobeth 10.9...); Orioles vs. Red Sox -- Who Won, Anyway?; Keg City Club (Treasurer) -- 100 Kegs or Bust; [blacked out] -- I Survived the FFFFFFFourth of July; Renate Alumnius; Malibu Fan Club; Ow, Neatness 2,3; Devil's Triangle; Down Geezer, Easy, Spike, How ya' doing', Errr Ah; Rehobeth Police Fan Club (with Shorty): St. Michael's . . . This is a Whack; [blacked out]Fan Club; Judge -- Have You Boofed Yet?; Beach Week Ralph Club -- Biggest Contributor; [blacked out] Beach Week 3-107th Street; Those Prep Guys are the Biggest . . ..; GONZAGA YOU'RE LUCKY.

October 02, 2018 5:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Emily Denny - "I believe Brett Kavanaugh. I believe that he truly doesn't remember sexually assaulting someone. I believe that he's forgotten all the hurt he has caused women. I believe that he didn't understand the gravity of his actions as a 17-year-old. I believe that the night he forever altered Dr. Ford's life is just another blip in the foggy haze of his teenage years. I believe his upbringing and his privilege poisoned his ability to understand right and wrong. I believe he didn't write "sexually assault someone" in his calendar. I believe he doesn't think he did it.

I believe he's frightened and upset. I believe his tears and whimpers. I believe he truly thinks that his has ruined his life. I believe that he thinks that potentially not getting a job and having some people say mean things about him on the internet has "ruined his life". I believe he thinks this is the worst case scenario. And if this isn't a blistering account of the status of wealth and privilege in this country, I don't know what is.
I believe you Dr. Ford.

October 02, 2018 7:14 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Harvard Says Kavanaugh Won’t Be Teaching His Supreme Court Class In January

Harvard Law School dean John F. Manning informed students last week that, although he couldn’t say whether Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh would still be teaching his January class, called The Supreme Court Since 2005, the school was still taking its students’ concerns seriously. But now the school has told students that Kavanaugh’s course, which he’s been teaching since 2009, would not be offered in 2019.

Harvard Law students haven’t received any other information about the cancellation yet, but one student reported “tons of speculation right now.”

Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court has been put on hold in the Senate while the FBI investigates claims of sexual misconduct from the 1980s.

October 02, 2018 9:42 PM  
Anonymous homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't ever a marriage said...

"No one said anything at all about bank robbery. That's not even tangentially related to the topic that was being discussed. But that was your point, wasn't it? To deflect and change the topic, since you really can't refute that fact that you simply don't agree that all men are created equal?"

you know, I think you understood my point completely

let's review:

I said heterosexuality should be preferenced because it alone produces life

you said that was because I don't believe all men are equal

I said heterosexuality is a behavior, not a subset of man

you said heterosexuality doesn't apply to ALL MEN

I said neither does bank robbery

the point being: just because every behavior doesn't apply to all men, doesn't mean they are unequal if some behaviors are preferenced

you have a fatal understanding of the Declaration of Independence

October 02, 2018 10:51 PM  
Anonymous Brett mat be on SCOTUS on Friday said...

Last week, Brett Kavanaugh’s third accuser, Julie Swetnick, swore under penalty of perjury that Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge had repeatedly conspired to drug and rape girls at high school parties in the early 1980s. But in an interview with NBC aired Monday, Swetnick walked back her accusations of both the drugging and the raping, saying only that she had seen Kavanaugh near punch containers she believed to be spiked.

Swetnick’s original accusations, released last Wednesday in a sworn declaration through her attorney Michael Avenatti, contained the most breathless allegations of misconduct against Kavanaugh yet. She said that Kavanaugh had made efforts to “spike the punch at house parties I attended with drugs and grain alcohol so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say ‘no’” and “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.’”

On Monday, asked by NBC’s Kate Snow whether she had ever seen Kavanaugh spike a girl’s punch, Swetnick demurred: “Well I saw—I saw him giving red solo cups to quite a few girls during that time frame, and there was grain punch at those parties. … I saw him around the punch—I won’t say bowls, the punch containers. I don’t know what he did, but I saw him by them.”

Last week, Swetnick claimed she would frequently see “trains” of boys “lined up outside rooms” at parties “waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room.’” That claim, too, contracted under the scrutiny of a face-to-face interview, with Swetnick now merely claiming she saw boys huddled by doors—but she certainly suspects they were rape trains!

“It’s just too coincidental,” she said

a little trip down memory lane:

Priya foolishly said:

"Julie Swetnek signed an affadavit attesting to the accusations she's made against Kavanaugh. If is shown to have lied she loses her security clearances, her job, and goes to jail. She is obviously not going to risk all that to lie about Kavanaugh."

October 02, 2018 11:20 PM  
Anonymous but she has no incentive to lie!!!!! said...

Real estate and other records undercut a key part of Christine Blasey Ford’s account of why she finally came forward with charges of attempted rape against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh after some 30 years.

Ford testified last week that she had never revealed the details of the alleged attack until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. She said the memories percolated up as they revisited a disagreement they’d had over her insistence on installing a “second front door" when they had remodeled their Palo Alto, Calif., home.

The need to explain a decision her husband “didn’t understand,” Ford testified, pushed her to say she wanted the door to alleviate symptoms of “claustrophobia” and “panic attacks" she still suffered from an attempted rape allegedly perpetrated by Kavanaugh in high school during the early 1980s.

"Is that the reason for the second door — front door -- is claustrophobia?” asked Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “Correct,” Ford replied.

Ford never specified when the renovation took place, leaving a possible impression that it and the therapy session happened around the same time.

But documents reveal the door was installed years before as part of an addition, and has been used by renters and even a marriage counseling business.

“The door was not an escape route but an entrance route,” said an attorney familiar with the ongoing congressional investigation. “It appears the real plan for the second front door was to rent out a separate room."

The discrepancy raises fresh doubts about Ford's candor and credibility amid other inconsistencies, congressional and other knowledgeable sources say.

October 02, 2018 11:24 PM  
Anonymous how long before the liberals take to the streets? said...

everyone has paid attention to the circus

everyone knows the current fiasco was caused by Dems withholding an accusation

75% of Americans are incensed by Dem behavior

Kavanaugh will be confirmed

after this fiasco, the GOP will hold Congress in November

October 02, 2018 11:31 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Research shows only 2% to 6% of sexual misconduct allegations are false. Dr. Ford passed a lie detector test, Kavanaugh refused to take one.

All three accusers have been getting death threats, Christine Ford and her family have been forced out of their house and into hiding. Her life has been turned upside down as she knew it would if she came forward. She obviously didn't make up her story knowing she'd go through this.

Julie Swetnek signed an affadavit attesting to the accusations she's made against Kavanaugh. If is shown to have lied she loses her security clearances, her job, and goes to jail. She is obviously not going to risk all that to lie about Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh has every incentive to lie, these women have tremendous disincentive to lie.

All these women all telling the truth.

October 03, 2018 12:03 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

A master class in who is allowed to be angry

A woman is not allowed to wear this face. She is called hysterical. A black man is not allowed to wear this face. He is called dangerous. This is what privilege looks like.

October 03, 2018 12:03 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

A year ago Republicans were claiming they were afraid their daughters would be assaulted in a public bathroom if transwomen were allowed to pee there.

This week they showed her they wouldn't believe her if she told anyone about it.
#whyididn'treport

October 03, 2018 12:04 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Here's a thought: Presidential limits on the scope of the FBI investigation, if calculated to protect Kavanaugh's possible perjury from inquiry and thus ensure his place on the Supreme Court to shield Tяump from subpoena and indictment - might be corrupt intent to obstruct justice.

Remember, although Tяump claimed on twitter and to the press that the FBI was free to investigate anything it wanted, it was not. Trump originally provided a written directive to the FBI that it was to restrict its "investigation" of Kavanaugh to interviewing Deborah Ramirez, Mike Judge and two other people Dr. Ford said were at the party where Kavanaugh tried to rape her. Despite his false statments to the contrary, Tяump never provided the FBI with an unfettered written directive superseding his original one shackling the FBI - it was all contrived to deceive the public into thinking the FBI was unable to corroborate the accusations against Kavanaugh. The FBI refused to interview Dr. Ford so they wouldn't have to interview Kavanaugh and expose his repeated lying under oath.

October 03, 2018 12:05 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Poor, poor Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous.

When you two hitch your wagon to a con man, you're going to spend most of your time trying to defend and deflect a myriad of crimes.

October 03, 2018 12:15 AM  
Anonymous life should be preferenced, homosexuality prevents life said...

"Research shows only 2% to 6% of sexual misconduct allegations are false"

it could be 2%

or it could be three times that

great research

not that Priya has documented it

truth is that accusations of sexual assault are five times more likely to be false than any other accusations

"Dr. Ford passed a lie detector test, Kavanaugh refused to take one"

Ford was asked two questions by an interviewer that was paid for by pro-Dem lawyers

Kavanaugh hasn't refused to take a lie detector test, so Priya is lying again

he has said he thinks they're unreliable but he would do anything the Committee asks

"All three accusers have been getting death threats,"

so has Kavanaugh

it happens when you're in the public eye

"Christine Ford and her family have been forced out of their house and into hiding. Her life has been turned upside down as she knew it would if she came forward. She obviously didn't make up her story knowing she'd go through this."

she didn't know she would go through this

she thought she could relay this information to her representatives in Congress and remain anonymous

Diane Feinstein assured her she could and then leaked the story to the press on the eve of Kavanaugh's approval by the Committee as a last ditch effort to stop him

hope she sues Feinstein

btw, no one said she lied

she's under therapy for mental issues and can't accurately remember things that happened two weeks ago

"Julie Swetnek signed an affadavit attesting to the accusations she's made against Kavanaugh. If is shown to have lied she loses her security clearances, her job, and goes to jail. She is obviously not going to risk all that to lie about Kavanaugh."

and, yet, she has already admitted she lied

"Kavanaugh has every incentive to lie,"

you could say the same about everyone who has ever been falsely accused

and, yet, false accusations are made all the time

accusations of sexual assault are FIVE TIMES more likely to be false than any other accusations

"these women have tremendous disincentive to lie"

there are myriad possibilities for why they might lie

"All these women all telling the truth"

Kavanaugh is telling the truth

October 03, 2018 6:58 AM  
Anonymous homosexuality never produces life, two of 'em ain't marriage said...

"A woman is not allowed to wear this face. She is called hysterical. A black man is not allowed to wear this face. He is called dangerous. This is what privilege looks like."

apparently, Kavanaugh doesn't enjoy this privilege

he displayed anger about the effects on his family of him being accused of gang rape and the media is full of stories about his lack of judicial temperament

"A year ago Republicans were claiming they were afraid their daughters would be assaulted in a public bathroom if transwomen were allowed to pee there.

This week they showed her they wouldn't believe her if she told anyone about it.
#whyididn'treport"

we know for sure that TTF advocates wouldn't believe her

"Remember, although Tяump claimed on twitter and to the press that the FBI was free to investigate anything it wanted, it was not. Trump originally provided a written directive to the FBI that it was to restrict its "investigation" of Kavanaugh to interviewing Deborah Ramirez, Mike Judge and two other people Dr. Ford said were at the party where Kavanaugh tried to rape her. Despite his false statments to the contrary, Tяump never provided the FBI with an unfettered written directive superseding his original one shackling the FBI - it was all contrived to deceive the public into thinking the FBI was unable to corroborate the accusations against Kavanaugh. The FBI refused to interview Dr. Ford so they wouldn't have to interview Kavanaugh and expose his repeated lying under oath."

after whining that the FBI has to investigate and they could do it in three days, the new gripe is that FBI didn't take long enough

it's all a ploy to delay until the election

news flash: Merrick Garland will never be on the SCOTUS and Dems have now jeopardized their chance to retake the House

the FBI is finished, Kavanaugh will be on the SCOTUS this week

October 03, 2018 6:59 AM  
Anonymous part of the 75% said...

polls show that most people consider Atticus Finch to be the greatest hero in American literature

if you believe Dems, he is a villain who didn't automatically believe a woman's accusation

October 03, 2018 7:05 AM  
Anonymous He is such a liar and GOPers want him on SCOTUS said...

From the transcript:

WHITEHOUSE: And there are, like, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven F’s in front of the Fourth of July. What does that signify, if anything?

KAVANAUGH: One of our friends, Squi, when he said the F word starting at a young age, had kind of a wind-up to the F word. Kind of a “ffff.”


Brett Kavanaugh says ‘we're loud, obnoxious drunks’ in 1983 letter

"In a 1983 letter published by The New York Times on Tuesday, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh suggests that he and his friends should warn the neighbors that they are “obnoxious drunks” prior to their “Beach Week” trip.

The Times, which reviewed a copy of the handwritten note, reported that Kavanaugh acknowledged the letter was his.

“This is a note I wrote to organize ‘Beach Week’ in the summer of 1983,” Kavanaugh told the paper through his lawyers, declining to comment further.

The letter outlines the group’s plans for a trip to Ocean City, Maryland, where Kavanaugh and his friends rented a condo to host parties. It lays out intentions to invite girls over and “beg” them to stay.

“I think we are unanimous that any girls we can beg to stay there are welcomed with open .... ,” the letter reads. “Anyway I think we’re all set.”

Kavanaugh ends the letter by signing off, “FFFFF, Bart.” "...

October 03, 2018 7:20 AM  
Anonymous FFFFF Bart the liar said...

"...LEAHY: Judge Kavanaugh, I’ve heard your — your line (ph) and you state it over and over again. And I have that well in mind. But let me ask you this. He authored a book titled, “Wasted: Tales of a Genx Drunk.” He references a Barthold (ph) Kavanaugh vomiting on someone’s car during Beach Week and then passing out. Is that you that he’s talking about?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, Mark Judge was…

LEAHY: To your knowledge, is that you that he’s talking about?

KAVANAUGH: I’ll explain it if you let me.

LEAHY: Proceed, please.

KAVANAUGH: Mark Judge was a friend of ours in high school who developed a very serious drinking problem, an addiction problem that lasted decades and was very difficult for him to escape from.

And he nearly died. And then developed — then he had leukemia as well, on top of it.

Now, as part of his therapy — or part of his coming to grips with sobriety, he wrote a book that is a fictionalized book and an account….

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I think he picked out names of friends of ours to throw them in as kind of close to what — for characters in the book. So, you know, we can sit here…

LEAHY: So you don’t know — you don’t know whether that’s you or not?

KAVANAUGH: … we can sit here and you (ph) like (ph), make — make fun of some guy who has an addiction.

LEAHY: I’m not making…

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I don’t think that really makes — is really good…

LEAHY: … Judge Kavanaugh, I’m trying to get a straight answer from you under oath. Are you Bart (ph) Kavanaugh that he’s referring to, yes or no? That’s it (ph)…

KAVANAUGH: You’d have to ask him...."

October 03, 2018 8:04 AM  
Anonymous life should be preferenced, homosexuality doesn't bring life said...

nothing above constitutes a lie

Dems know that the sexual assault charge by Ford has no substantiation and her contradictions make her not credible, that the charge by the second woman is not that serious, that the gang rape charge has been walked back by the accuser

so, they are on to plan B

plenty of guys who were drunk partiers and liked girls when they were in high school have grown up to become pillars of society

indeed, I'm sure the description fits the high school experience of many of our current Senators

unless there is proof Kavanaugh actually assaulted someone, the issue of sowing wild oats in his school days is irrelevant

the issue is what kind of adult he's become

I actually know two women who clerked with Kavanaugh, worked with him day-by-day

they adore him and say he is the perfect gentleman and they've never seen him drink too much

his accomplishments speak for themselves, drunks don't achieve what he has

meanwhile, Americans are disgusted by the antics of the Dems, who are planning to double down once Kavanaugh is confirmed

this will give voters, who have been paying close attention, a reason to vote against Dems and will end their chances of winning in November

The battle over Judge Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court is unlikely to end with his confirmation vote.

Democrats said they won't let go of the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh – or accusations he lied about them and other issues before the Senate Judiciary Committee – even if he is elevated to the high court. If they win control of one or both houses of Congress in November, they'll be in a position to continue the fight.

"If he is on the Supreme Court and the Senate hasn't investigated, then the House will have to," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "We would have to investigate any credible allegations, certainly of perjury and other things that haven't been properly looked into before."

If Democrats win the House, the New York lawmaker would be in line to chair the committee, giving him not only subpoena power but also the ability to draw up articles of impeachment.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made a similar promise: "As soon as Democrats get gavels, we're going to want to get to the bottom of this."

October 03, 2018 9:18 AM  
Anonymous today's drink special: Backlash and Bourbon said...

I am not a crier. One of my best friends teases me that Satan cries more than I do; my husband jokes about my “six-second cry” when I finally shed some tears.

But as I watched Brett Kavanaugh’s opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday, I cried—and for more than six seconds. I wept for him, for his crushed wife seated behind him, for his young daughters, and for his friends. I cried for our country. It was an emotional release of sympathy, frustration and rage.

I wasn’t alone. Several of my friends admitted they had the same reaction. The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway mirrored the feelings of millions of women when she choked up that evening during an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News: “I was sobbing when I was watching it,” Hemingway said. “I heard that a lot from people as well. It was hard just to watch those clips here.”

A bungled political assassination attempt on Brett Kavanaugh will cost the Democrats more than a seat on the Supreme Court: The party might also have killed its edge with suburban women just weeks before the pivotal midterm elections. The near-unanimous reaction to this travesty among my fellow suburban moms is unlike anything I’ve seen in the Trump era.

Until now, Democrats have been confident that women living in the suburbs would propel the much-vaunted “blue wave” this fall because President Trump remains unpopular with this traditionally Republican constituency. Polling conducted over the summer indicated suburban women had a strong preference for Democratic candidates over their Republican opponents. Several vulnerable Republican-held congressional districts are located in suburban areas.

But Democrats have overplayed their dirty hand, and women might exact their revenge in November. Republican women are outraged at Democrats and their media accomplices for what they’ve done to Brett Kavanaugh and his family. One poll taken right after Kavanaugh’s testimony showed 71 percent of Republican women believed Kavanaugh was telling the truth. In a Morning Consult poll released late Monday, 58 percent of Republican women described Dr. Christine Ford as “opportunistic.” Republican women are the only voters whose support for Kavanaugh’s nomination has increased post-hearing.

The majority of women voters in red states with vulnerable Democratic senators up for reelection next month support Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

October 03, 2018 9:28 AM  
Anonymous today's drink special: Backlash and Bourbon said...

The truth is that Republican women have been skeptical about the Kavanaugh allegations since the beginning. CNN hosted a discussion group shortly after Ford’s sexual assault claims were made public; the interviewer appeared shocked to hear several Republican women say they believed Kavanaugh’s denials and doubted his accuser. A few said that even if the accusations were true, they were irrelevant. “I would hate to think 30, 40 years later, somebody is going to destroy your life because somewhere at some party, maybe you touched somebody the way you’re not supposed to,” one woman said.

Women rallied to Kavanaugh’s defense on Capitol Hill before the hearing on September 27. The media admitted that Congressional offices were fielding as many calls from women in support of Kavanaugh as from those who opposed him.

“Female voices have echoed throughout the Senate this week demanding male senators justify their support for Kavanaugh,” wrote Associated Press reporter Meg Kinnard on Sunday. “But other women have spent hours calling Senate offices in support of Kavanaugh, condemning what they saw as an anti-Republican ploy.”

A CNN segment aired Monday featured dozens of women visiting fence-sitting senators to demand they vote against Kavanaugh; at the end of the piece, the reporter confessed that “while the opposition is loud, there is quiet support for Brett Kavanaugh among women.”

I asked several suburban moms to share their thoughts about the Democrats’ assault on Kavanaugh. Here is a sampling of their responses:

“The whole process was shameful, an obvious political maneuver. Ford clearly had ‘something’ happen to her, and the Democrats capitalized on her pain. Their disingenuous actions actually hurt the real plight women face. It was a dark day for America on Thursday.”

“What does it say about me as a woman that I don’t feel such strong affiliation with the sisterhood that I therefore automatically believe every charge leveled at a man by a woman? Is it my training as a lawyer? I don’t think so. I think it is my years of being married to an honorable man, and my parenting of two young men who ‘know’ what is and isn’t expected of them in their treatment of their female peers.”

“Knowing that this happened so long ago and they were teenagers (I believe) makes it a non-issue for me. People change over the years, they grow up, and most become mature and responsible. I think it is immature and disrespectful to bring up something from someone’s past to ‘smear’ them.”

“Democrats behavior in this process is truly disgusting and childish. I am appalled. I also watched Judge Kavanaugh’s rebuttal. I’ve read comments that ‘we don’t want a judge with that temperament on the bench!’ Really? I work in the legal system and that’s exactly the temperament I expect in a judge. I will vote in November no matter what. And there is no way I’d vote Democrat in this political climate.”

October 03, 2018 9:30 AM  
Anonymous today's drink special: Backlash and Bourbon said...

And this is from a childhood friend, one of the few women I know who did not vote for Trump, but still is a Republican: “I don’t think even if he was a douche in high school that he should be condemned. No one else has come forward to make such claims the entire time he’s been a judge. It’s ridiculous.” She also told me that Trump is a “narcissistic idiot” but she plans to vote Republican in November. She lives in Illinois’ 14th Congressional District, which the Cook Political Report rates as “leans Republican.”

The Kavanaugh debacle has been a motivator for the GOP. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said in an interview Sunday that Republican voter enthusiasm has changed “drastically” over the past several days.

“We look at absentee ballots, those who are requesting ballots prior [to Election Day] and that has increased over the last week,” McCarthy explained. “We look at volunteerism. We look at things that are happening online.”

The shared tears and collective fury are galvanizing women voters, but not in the way Democrats initially calculated. The Democrats’ insistence that due process and a presumption of innocence don’t apply to men (particularly conservative white men) is a terrifying prospect for the husbands, sons, fathers, and brothers we love. The Left still doesn’t understand that we don’t hate men like they do.

The Democrats’ shameful conduct also has quashed their most convincing argument, which is that Donald Trump is a vulgarian who does not have the temperament to lead. What Republican woman now believes that Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii)—who warned American men to “just shut up and step up for once”—or Cory Booker (D-N.J.) or Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) are more prudent or civilized than Trump? Why would any suburban mother vote to empower a lowlife, bottom-feeding hustler like Michael Avenatti? Trump’s tweets look tame compared to the bile coming from these people.

I am told we are to believe women no matter what. If what I now hear from my suburban sisters is the truth (excuse me, “our truth”) then the Democrats have plenty to worry about right now.

October 03, 2018 9:30 AM  
Anonymous part of the 75% said...

if Kavanaugh is not confirmed, these tactics will become standard operating procedure

no American ever wants to see this again

suddenly, Trump's incivility is not the main campaign issue

it's the behavior of Dems in Congress

how could the Dems have been so stupid?

October 03, 2018 9:35 AM  
Anonymous priorities and memory said...

36 years ago, this happened.

How did you get home?

I don't remember.

How'd you get there?

I don't remember.

Where is the place?

I don't remember.

How many years ago was it?

I don't know.

How many beers did you have?

One beer.

That's the only thing I remember.

October 03, 2018 9:40 AM  
Anonymous How soon they forget PTSD causes memory gaps and is quite common among rape and rape attempt survivors said...

Mitchell’s memo emphasized Ford’s inability to recall with certainty the timeframe of Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault of her when they were both in high school. Mitchell pointed out that in some interviews, Ford said the attack happened in the “mid-1980s,” and in others, in the “early ’80s.” Long found this section of the memo insincere. “I challenge Ms. Mitchell directly on this issue, because her office often charges cases with a very expanded timeline,” he said. Victims are often unable to pinpoint the exact date of an attack, and Mitchell’s office, he said, will often bring charges for an act that can’t be narrowed down to a more specific time period than a window of several years. “I was trained explicitly by her to not consider this time thing as an inconsistency,” he said.

October 03, 2018 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"How many beers did you have?

One beer.

That's the only thing I remember."

You are lying like Kavanaugh and the rest of you GOPers.

From the transcript:

"...But the details that — about that night that bring me here today are the ones I will never forget. They have been seared into my memory, and have haunted me episodically as an adult.

When I got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room/family room-type area on the first floor of the house. I drank one beer. Brett and Mark were visibly drunk.

Early in the evening, I went up a very narrow set of stairs leading from the living room to a second floor to use the restroom. When I got to the top of the stairs, I was pushed from behind into a bedroom across from the bathroom. I couldn’t see who pushed me. Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them.

There was music playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room.

I was pushed onto the bed, and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding into me. I yelled, hoping that someone downstairs might hear me, and I tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy.

Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time, because he was very inebriated, and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit underneath my clothing.

I believed he was going to rape me.

I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most, and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me.

FORD: Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They seemed to be having a very good time.

Mark seemed ambivalent, at times urging Brett on and at times telling him to stop. A couple of times, I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not.

During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. And the last time that he did this, we toppled over and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room.

Directly across from the bedroom was a small bathroom. I ran inside the bathroom and locked the door. I waited until I heard Brett and Mark leave the bedroom, laughing and loudly walk down the narrow stairway, pinballing off the walls on the way down.

I waited, and when I did not hear them come back up the stairs, I left the bathroom, went down the same stairwell through the living room, and left the house.

I remember being on the street and feeling this enormous sense of relief that I had escaped that house and that Brett and Mark were not coming outside after me...."

October 03, 2018 9:55 AM  
Anonymous priorities and memory said...

yes, my bad

anything that can't possibly be verified, she remembers in intricate detail

if it's something that can be checked, she shook the eight ball and came up with "unclear"

did I mention there's no second entrance in the Safeway at Potomac Village Center?

go see for yourself

October 03, 2018 10:02 AM  
Anonymous GOPer liars and tax cheats love their chief liar and tax cheat said...

At the heart of President Donald Trump's success story is this idea: He took a small amount of money -- in the form of a loan from his father, Fred -- and turned it into billions of dollars.

"My whole life really has been a 'no' and I fought through it," Trump told a crowd in New Hampshire way back in October 2015. "It has not been easy for me, it has not been easy for me. And you know I started off in Brooklyn, my father gave me a small loan of a million dollars."

While the idea of Trump portraying himself as some sort of rags-to-riches story was always laughable -- his father was a man of considerable means and a $1 million loan is not exactly chump change -- it convinced lots and lots of people that Trump was like them. Or, more accurately, what they aspired to be. He was -- and is -- for many, the living embodiment of the American dream.

Which is why this story published by The New York Times on Tuesday night, which details a series of tax evasions that Trump and his father used over the years is so devastating. The piece is long and hugely detailed, but its most devastating lines -- to the idea of the President as, essentially, a self-made man -- are these:

"By age 3, Mr. Trump was earning $200,000 a year in today's dollars from his father's empire. He was a millionaire by age 8. By the time he was 17, his father had given him part ownership of a 52-unit apartment building. Soon after Mr. Trump graduated from college, he was receiving the equivalent of $1 million a year from his father. The money increased with the years, to more than $5 million annually in his 40s and 50s."

And remember that $1 million loan Trump talked so much about on the campaign trail? The Times reports that the total loan by Fred Trump to his son, Donald, was actually $60.7 million or -- and brace yourself here -- $140 million in today's money. (The total amount of money Trump received from his father's holdings is estimated at more than $400 million by the Times).

The truth, as laid bare by the Times reporting, which included reviewing more than 100,000 pages of financial documents, is that Donald Trump was born into a very wealthy family and through a series of complicated tax maneuvers -- many of which, at best, skirted the law -- was propelled upward by his father's heavy behind-the-scenes financial support.

October 03, 2018 10:06 AM  
Anonymous October is looking good with Brett judging the gay agenda said...

no one has ever thought Trump grow a million into billions

we all know he inherited money and he admits he aggressively tries to take advantage of all aspects of the tax code

but he is an active participant in his businesses, not a passive Richie Rich

"it convinced lots and lots of people that Trump was like them"

no, he convinced them he empathized with them

blue collar workers found someone who addressed their concerns instead of the political neglect of Dems

that, and the Supreme Court, is why he won

October 03, 2018 10:20 AM  
Anonymous part of the 75% said...

WASHINGTON -- As we continue examining Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's high school and college life, it has been easy to forget what this was originally all about.

In a word: abortion.

Until a few weeks ago, opposition to Kavanaugh's confirmation had been driven by fear among Democrats that he, as a Catholic (ergo pro-life) swing vote on the divided Supreme Court, would single-handedly overturn Roe v. Wade. This was never a fait accompli but rather a mere presumption.

But when a credible woman materialized with a charge of high school sexual assault, who were Democrats to deny her a voice? And who are we to question — ever — the credibility of an alleged survivor? Not only is Kavanaugh an alleged predator but he has also been accused — although less credibly — of possibly being present at a party where a gang rape supposedly occurred.

And, finally, according to others, he sometimes got drunk and became belligerent.

In all my high school and college days, I never saw anyone behaving in such a fashion. You? I'm lying, of course. Many of the young-and-stupid from my youth later grew up to become high-achieving doctors, lawyers, judges, professors, athletes, presidents, CEOs, fathers, mothers — and columnists. I don't believe in the boys-will-be-boys excuse, not remotely, but neither do I automatically believe every woman's "truth."

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), said Tuesday on CNN, "That's the crux of all these allegations: His aggressive behavior when he is drunk."

I couldn't agree more — but particularly in the context of the here and now. Does Kavanaugh get staggeringly drunk nowadays? Doubt it. Does he get aggressive and belligerent now? He was certainly rather animated last week, but wouldn't you be too if your character were suddenly scrutinized for hours in a public court?

I've interviewed more than a dozen women who have known and worked with Kavanaugh in the grown-up world. Without exception, they love and admire him as a gentleman — compassionate, thoughtful and honest. Speaking of which, by what distortion of virtue does a man such as Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) who lied about serving in Vietnam, get to challenge another's honesty?

I've written this before — in a book prematurely titled "Save the Males" — but hating men, and specifically old, white men (OWM), is both trite and counterintuitive. The justification seems connected to some sort of retributive justice combined with concerns that OWM want to restore the 1950s. (I would support this only if it meant continuous reruns of "Queen for a Day.") Meanwhile, they conveniently forget that OWM created the Constitution, the three branches of government, and the ideas of due process and the rule of law.

Americans shouldn't suffer from the delusion that the attempted ruin of Kavanaugh, his career and family has solely to do with Christine Blasey Ford. And the fact that she sincerely believes what she remembers does not without evidence diminish Kavanaugh's sincere denial of wrongdoing.

As for Kavanaugh's views on abortion, it is also possible to believe in something in one's personal life but also believe in settled law. Just as President John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, said that he didn't take orders from the Vatican, Kavanaugh may feel the same. On a personal note, although I would try to dissuade a woman from aborting her baby, I strenuously oppose state involvement in an individual's corporal autonomy. A government that can force a woman to have a child can also force her to abort her fetus, as China has done.

Kavanaugh may have been a rowdy, at times unruly, youth. But barring future evidence to the contrary, this doesn't make him a sexual predator. Nor does it negate three decades of good citizenship as a husband, father, judge, coach. If we can't judge a man or woman by his or her entire life's record, then we have no business judging at all.

Email: kathleenparker@washpost.com.

October 03, 2018 10:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"did I mention there's no second entrance in the Safeway at Potomac Village Center?

go see for yourself"

Then that Safeway store is in violation of OSHA rules:

Normally, a workplace must have at least two exit routes to permit prompt evacuation of employees and other building occupants during an emergency. More than two exits are required, however, if the number of employees, size of the building, or arrangement of the workplace will not allow employees to evacuate safely. Exit routes must be located as far away as practical from each other in case one is blocked by fire or smoke.

Exception: If the number of employees, the size of the building, its occupancy, or the arrangement of the workplace allows all employees to evacuate safely during an emergency, one exit route is permitted.

What are some other design and construction requirements for exit routes?
• Exit routes must be permanent parts of the workplace.
• Exit discharges must lead directly outside or to a street, walkway, refuge area, public way, or open space with access to the outside. These exit discharge areas must be large enough to accommodate the building occupants likely to use the exit route.

October 03, 2018 10:36 AM  
Anonymous only heteros can make a life said...

"Then that Safeway store is in violation of OSHA rules"

obviously, all grocery stores have a huge exit behind the stock room that opens to the loading dock

are you saying she went in through the loading dock to avoid her mother?

October 03, 2018 11:03 AM  
Anonymous Dead Declaration Readers Department said...

"you have a fatal understanding of the Declaration of Independence"

What the heck does that even mean? That someone is going to die because of their understanding of the Declaration of Independence? How would that even happen? Would they get a heart-attack or a stroke if they didn't read it right?

Is there a typo or something in there? Or did you have too many beers lusting after Kavanaugh to make a cogent sentence?

October 03, 2018 12:00 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I don't believe there is a Safeway without two public exit doors.

October 03, 2018 12:06 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Research shows only 2% to 6% of sexual misconduct allegations are false. Dr. Ford passed a lie detector test, Kavanaugh refused to take one.

All three accusers have been getting death threats, Christine Ford and her family have been forced out of their house and into hiding. Her life has been turned upside down as she knew it would if she came forward. She obviously didn't make up her story knowing she'd go through this.

Julie Swetnek signed an affadavit attesting to the accusations she's made against Kavanaugh. If is shown to have lied she loses her security clearances, her job, and goes to jail. She is obviously not going to risk all that to lie about Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh has every incentive to lie, these women have tremendous disincentive to lie.

All these women all telling the truth.

October 03, 2018 12:07 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

New York Times: "Testifying about "Beach Week Ralph Club," Kavanaugh said ralph meant vomiting but suggested it might have been because of his weak stomach with "spice food." In this Beach Week letter he said "We're loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us."

October 03, 2018 12:08 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Yep, yep, yep...
Two former Yale classmates of Kavanaugh's who previously vouched for him just wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee to note that they are withdrawing their support because of "the nature of Judge Kavanaugh's testimony."

Three former Kavanaugh clerks who previously said that he was great just wrote to the Judiciary Committee to clarify that they are "deeply troubled" by the allegations against him.
-------------------


Mitch McConnell says that despite not having seen the FBI report on Kavanaugh they are going to confirm him no matter what. There is absolutely no crime Kavanaugh could commit that would prevent them from putting him on the Supreme Court. He could shoot someone on fifth Avenue and he wouldn't lose the support of any Rethuglicans.

October 03, 2018 12:09 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Judge Kavanaugh’s attacks on identifiable groups — Democrats, liberals, “outside left-wing opposition groups” and those angry “about President Trump and the 2016 election” or seeking “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” — render it inconceivable that he could “administer justice without respect to persons,” as a Supreme Court justice must swear to do, when groups like Planned Parenthood, the NRDC Action Fund, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Naral Pro-Choice America or the American Civil Liberties Union appear as parties or file briefs on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants.

For a Justice Kavanaugh to participate in internal court discussion or oral argument of such cases, much less vote on their resolution, would involve not just an undeniable appearance of conflict but an actual conflict, given his stated animosities and observation that “what goes around comes around.”

My decades of observing the court’s work and arguing cases there convince me that his required recusal would extend to a very broad slice of the Supreme Court’s docket during his lifetime tenure as a justice. That would leave the court evenly split in far too many cases, for years on end, if he were to recuse himself as required — or deeply damaged in the public’s trust if he were not.

October 03, 2018 12:10 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Sometimes you just have to accept that some people are shitty humans and stop trying to see the good that isn't there. I realize that's the case with Wyatt and Regina.

October 03, 2018 12:11 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Deborah Ramirez says Kavanaugh thrust his penis in her face during a college party.

Kavanaugh said under oath, the first time he heard of this story was when it was published in the New Yorker.

But text messages show months prior to the New Yorker story being published Kavanaugh was pressuring potential witnesses to deny Ramirez's story.

Kavanaugh lied under oath about this.

Several Republican senators have said "If he lied under oath, that is disqualifying."

So, what are they waiting for? Kavanaugh lied under oath, withdraw his nomination as you promised to do!

October 03, 2018 1:05 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

The excuse that some have floated that maybe the New Yorker contacted him for comment before publishing fails because some of the text messages were long before the New Yorker article on Ramirez was conceived of.

October 03, 2018 1:06 PM  
Anonymous resistance is futile said...

"What the heck does that even mean? That someone is going to die because of their understanding of the Declaration of Independence? How would that even happen? Would they get a heart-attack or a stroke if they didn't read it right?"

it means that if the notion that "all men are created equal" means all men's behavior is to be equally treated is widely accepted, then democracy has perished

you seem to have a lot of trouble with the language: metaphors, analogies, similes, et al

say, is your first language Russian?

"Is there a typo or something in there? Or did you have too many beers lusting after Kavanaugh to make a cogent sentence?"

well, the beer I had for breakfast wasn't bad so I had one more for dessert

and that's only one more than Ford had on that night as a 15 year-old... she thinks

"I don't believe there is a Safeway without two public exit doors."

actually, I just checked the street view on googlemaps and Safeway does have two doors

oops!

October 03, 2018 1:10 PM  
Anonymous part of the 75% said...

"Research shows only 2% to 6% of sexual misconduct allegations are false. Dr. Ford passed a lie detector test, Kavanaugh refused to take one.

All three accusers have been getting death threats, Christine Ford and her family have been forced out of their house and into hiding. Her life has been turned upside down as she knew it would if she came forward. She obviously didn't make up her story knowing she'd go through this.

Julie Swetnek signed an affadavit attesting to the accusations she's made against Kavanaugh. If is shown to have lied she loses her security clearances, her job, and goes to jail. She is obviously not going to risk all that to lie about Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh has every incentive to lie, these women have tremendous disincentive to lie.

All these women all telling the truth."

does anyone monitor this blog?

Priya pastes this same thing verbatim very 12 hours

OK, here's the response to the midnight post:

"Research shows only 2% to 6% of sexual misconduct allegations are false"

it could be 2%

or it could be three times that

great research

not that Priya has documented it

truth is that accusations of sexual assault are five times more likely to be false than any other accusations

"Dr. Ford passed a lie detector test, Kavanaugh refused to take one"

Ford was asked two questions by an interviewer that was paid for by pro-Dem lawyers

Kavanaugh hasn't refused to take a lie detector test, so Priya is lying again

he has said he thinks they're unreliable but he would do anything the Committee asks

"All three accusers have been getting death threats,"

so has Kavanaugh

it happens when you're in the public eye

"Christine Ford and her family have been forced out of their house and into hiding. Her life has been turned upside down as she knew it would if she came forward. She obviously didn't make up her story knowing she'd go through this."

she didn't know she would go through this

she thought she could relay this information to her representatives in Congress and remain anonymous

Diane Feinstein assured her she could and then leaked the story to the press on the eve of Kavanaugh's approval by the Committee as a last ditch effort to stop him

hope she sues Feinstein

btw, no one said she lied

she's under therapy for mental issues and can't accurately remember things that happened two weeks ago

"Julie Swetnek signed an affadavit attesting to the accusations she's made against Kavanaugh. If is shown to have lied she loses her security clearances, her job, and goes to jail. She is obviously not going to risk all that to lie about Kavanaugh."

and, yet, she has already admitted she lied

"Kavanaugh has every incentive to lie,"

you could say the same about everyone who has ever been falsely accused

and, yet, false accusations are made all the time

accusations of sexual assault are FIVE TIMES more likely to be false than any other accusations

"these women have tremendous disincentive to lie"

there are myriad possibilities for why they might lie

"All these women all telling the truth"

Kavanaugh is telling the truth

October 03, 2018 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Judge Kavanaugh may have Boofed the truth during his testimony.

October 03, 2018 1:23 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

How Tяump Really Got Rich

The New York Times has an incredibly long (13,000 words) investigative piece about how Donald Tяump really got so rich. Contrary to his oft-repeated claim to be a self-made man who only got a “tiny” $1 million loan from his dad, he actually got hundreds of millions of dollars from him, often bailing him out of his terrible decisions. Fred Tяump declared 3 year old Donald an employee of his and paid Donald $200,000 a year for his "services". By the age of 8 Donald Tяump was already a millionaire. Oh, and he committed all manner of tax fraud. I’m going to quote from the summary of that article rather than the full text.

Donald J. Tяump built a business empire and won the presidency proclaiming himself a self-made billionaire, and he has long insisted that his father, the legendary New York City builder Fred C. Tяump, provided almost no financial help. “I built what I built myself,” the president has repeatedly said.

But an investigation by The New York Times has revealed that Donald Tяump received the equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate empire. What’s more, much of this money came to Mr. Tяump through dubious tax schemes he participated in during the 1990s, including instances of outright fraud, The Times found…

But tax experts briefed on The Times’s findings said the Tяumps appeared to have done more than exploit legal loopholes. They said the conduct described here represented a pattern of deception and obfuscation that repeatedly prevented the I.R.S. from taxing large transfers of wealth to Fred Tяump’s children.

And the frequent bailouts from his dad whenever he made a bad investment:

As the 1980s ended, Donald Tяump’s big bets began to go bust — Tяump Shuttle, the Plaza Hotel, the Atlantic City casinos. But as he careened from one financial disaster to another, family partnerships and companies dramatically increased their payouts…

That was what happened at Tяump’s Castle casino, where an $18.4 million bond payment was due in December 1990. Fred Tяump dispatched a trusted bookkeeper to Atlantic City with checks to buy $3.5 million in casino chips without placing a bet. With this ruse — an illegal loan under New Jersey gaming laws, resulting in a $65,000 civil penalty — Donald Tяump narrowly avoided defaulting on his bonds.

October 03, 2018 1:35 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

By 1987, Donald Tяump’s loan debt to his father had grown to at least $11 million. Had Fred Tяump simply forgiven the debt, his son would have owed millions in income taxes. They found another solution — one that appears to constitute both an unreported multimillion-dollar gift and an illegal tax write-off.

That December, records show, Fred Tяump spent $15.5 million to buy a 7.5 percent stake in Tяump Palace, his son’s condo tower rising on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. Four years later, tax returns and financial statements show, Fred Tяump sold that stake for just $10,000. The buyer, other documents indicate, was his son.

According to tax experts, with Tяump Palace condos selling briskly, selling shares worth $15.5 million to your son for a mere sliver of that would constitute a multimillion-dollar gift under I.R.S. rules. But Fred Tяump’s tax returns show no such gift to Donald Tяump. What they do reveal is that he used the transaction to declare an enormous tax write-off. That appears to violate federal tax law that prohibits deducting any loss from the sale or exchange of property between family members.

In all, Fred Tяump dodged roughly $8 million in gift taxes and $5 million in income taxes on the transaction.

The New York Times doesn't exclude itself from criticism for decades of unquestioningly accepting Tяump's wildly exagerated claims of his wealth. In 1976 it did a story on him and took him at his word that he was "worth $200 million". In 1976 he reported on his taxes that his total income for the year was $24,000!

The biggest fraud of all was Fred Tяump setting up a shell company with Donald Tяump as the owner. The company was claimed to be purchasing everything for every one of Fred Tяump's real estate holdings from boilers to cleaning supplies. In fact the shell company never purchased a single item. Instead every time Fred Tяump made a purchase for his properties he submitted a fake invoice with grossly inflated item costs to the shell company and then transferred that amount of money into the shell company owned by Donald Tяump. Hundreds of millions of dollars was transferred to Donald Tяump this way thus fradulently avoiding the 55% tax that was applicable to such gifts.

Then in an attack on the poor people Donald Tяump now claims to be a friend of, Fred Tяump then took the highly inflated fake invoices and used them to justify raising the rent on tenants in his rent controlled buildings.

October 03, 2018 1:35 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

More Than 500 Law Professors Condemn Kavanaugh For ‘Lack Of Judicial Temperament’

October 03, 2018 1:38 PM  
Anonymous guess who will be re-elected...... said...

"New York Times: "Testifying about "Beach Week Ralph Club," Kavanaugh said ralph meant vomiting but suggested it might have been because of his weak stomach with "spice food." In this Beach Week letter he said "We're loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us.""

who cares?

maybe he was joking

maybe was referring to someone else

throwing in your high school years because you drank too much in high school does not disqualify one from service on the SCOTUS

"Two former Yale classmates of Kavanaugh's who previously vouched for him just wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee to note that they are withdrawing their support because of "the nature of Judge Kavanaugh's testimony."

Three former Kavanaugh clerks who previously said that he was great just wrote to the Judiciary Committee to clarify that they are "deeply troubled" by the allegations against him"

they changed their mind because of unproven allegations of minor crimes during someone's teens?

please

they are trying to get attention

"Mitch McConnell says that despite not having seen the FBI report on Kavanaugh they are going to confirm him no matter what."

well, he can't speak for everyone but all the people being interviewed have already given sworn statements to the Senate so it's likely they won't recant now

"There is absolutely no crime Kavanaugh could commit that would prevent them from putting him on the Supreme Court."

actually, if he attempted to, say, rape someone, they probably wouldn't approve him

"Judge Kavanaugh’s attacks on identifiable groups — Democrats, liberals, “outside left-wing opposition groups” and those angry “about President Trump and the 2016 election” or seeking “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” — render it inconceivable that he could “administer justice without respect to persons,” as a Supreme Court justice must swear to do, when groups like Planned Parenthood, the NRDC Action Fund, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Naral Pro-Choice America or the American Civil Liberties Union appear as parties or file briefs on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants."

he didn't attack anyone

he defended himself

there are no thinking people in America who don't have a opinion on the events of the last two weeks

we can't stock the SCOTUS with morons who have no opinions

"For a Justice Kavanaugh to participate in internal court discussion or oral argument of such cases, much less vote on their resolution, would involve not just an undeniable appearance of conflict but an actual conflict, given his stated animosities and observation that “what goes around comes around.”

I warned you to be nice to him

you're up the creek without a paddle now

October 03, 2018 1:45 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Tяump: Won’t Someone Think of the Poor Rapists?

Donald Tяump is very concerned about young men today who might be falsely accused of doing what he has not only admitted to doing but bragged about, sexually assaulting women. It’s a very scary time for them, Tяump told reporters before leaving for another campaign rally where he will inevitably lie through his teeth.

“My whole life, I’ve heard you’re innocent until proven guilty,” Tяump said. “But now you’re guilty until proven innocent. That is a very, very difficult standard.”

“I say that it’s a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of,” he continued. “This is a very difficult time. "

The brilliant Patton Oswalt’s response to this was so perfect that it should be hung in the Smithsonian:

"Like, you could be falsely accused of rape in Central Park, and then a racist brain-damaged businessman could take out full-page ads in the NY Times demanding your execution. Scary times, indeed."

The only time that Tяump has ever not defended those accused of rape was the Central Park Five, who were proven innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt by DNA evidence. To be fair, though, they were black and Kavanaugh is white, so that’s obviously completely different.

October 03, 2018 1:50 PM  
Anonymous life should be preferenced, homosexuality doesn't bring life said...

"Deborah Ramirez says Kavanaugh thrust his penis in her face during a college party"

oh dear

is that the first time she'd seen one?

"Kavanaugh said under oath, the first time he heard of this story was when it was published in the New Yorker."

which could mean the events surrounding the publication

"So, what are they waiting for? Kavanaugh lied under oath, withdraw his nomination as you promised to do!"

first, we have to get Bill CLinton to send in his definition of the word "is"

October 03, 2018 1:50 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Women: We live in a constant state of vibilance because men pose a constant threat to us, here are literally millions of corroborating stories.

Men: What a scary time for men this is.

October 03, 2018 1:51 PM  
Anonymous sayanora, gay agenda said...

"Donald Tяump is very concerned about young men today who might be falsely accused"

so is every mother and wife in America

as usual, Trump has the guts to mention what everyone else is thinking

that's how he won the election last time

looks like we'll have a sequel in November

October 03, 2018 1:54 PM  
Anonymous Half the country is made up of women said...

It's funny how the rape apologists think their Kavanuagh fiasco is going to help them in November.

October 03, 2018 2:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Misogynistic Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "is that the first time she'd seen one?".

Yes, in fact it was. She was a virgin at the time and had never seen a penis in real life or touched one and didn't want to touch one until she was married. Kavanaugh caused her to touch his penis when she in shock pushed him out of her face.

Nice "She was a slut so it didn't matter" excuse you tried there. You F'in pigs

I said "Kavanaugh said under oath, the first time he heard of this story was when it was published in the New Yorker."

Fatuous Wyatt/Regina said "which could mean the events surrounding the publication".

Obviously not. When asked when he first heard of it his exact words were "In the New Yorker story". Your desperation to defend an obviously guilty person speaks poorly of you (not that that's a surprise).

In any event, the text messages Kavanaugh sent began months before the New Yorker Story was conceived of so anyway you slice it Kavanaugh lied under oath.

Republican Senators who said "If he lied under oath, its over." are morally obligated to demand his nomination be withdrawn.

October 03, 2018 2:04 PM  
Anonymous Dems are so screwed... said...

"It's funny how the rape apologists think their Kavanuagh fiasco is going to help them in November."

yeah, it's a riot

but it's already clear his will happen in the Senate

the Kavanaugh fiasco has caused a tremendous shift of Republican women in battleground states back toward the party

these are the states that will tip the balance and it looks like they're gone to Dems

October 03, 2018 2:08 PM  
Anonymous Connie Chung said...

Dear Christine Blasey Ford: I, too, was sexually assaulted — and it’s seared into my memory forever

Dear Christine Blasey Ford,

I, too, was sexually assaulted — not 36 years ago but about 50 years ago. I have kept my dirty little secret to myself. Silence for five decades. The molester was our trusted family doctor. What made this monster even more reprehensible was that he was the very doctor who delivered me on Aug. 20, 1946. I’m 72 now.

It was the 1960s. I was in college. The sexual revolution was in full swing. The exact date and year are fuzzy. But details of the event are vivid — forever seared in my memory.

Am I sure who did it? Oh yes, 100 percent.

I was a cool college coed but not that cool. I was still a virgin in the ’60s. I did advance to the so-called heavy petting stage, short of intercourse. I assumed that would come next.

I went to my family doctor to ask for birth-control pills, an IUD or a diaphragm.

His office was in his home, a classic Georgetown 19th-century house, creaky wooden floors with worn velvet Victorian furniture. His office was to the left of the front door, through double doors with glass windowpanes covered with tight curtains. It was a large room divided by a curtain he could draw. Half the room was his office, the other half his examination space.

Again, I cannot remember the exact date or even year. Yet I can still describe the following in detail. He drew the curtain, asking me to remove my clothes below the waist while he sat at his desk by the bay window. When I was ready, he came to the examination area and installed stirrups on one end of the cushioned examination table.

Here I was in my 20s and I had never had a gynecological examination. I had never even seen exam stirrups before. It was extremely odd to spread my legs and dig my heels into those cold iron stirrups...

October 03, 2018 2:09 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I said "Donald Tяump is very concerned about young men today who might be falsely accused"

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous fatuously responded "so is every mother and wife in America".

It's sad how you think making obviously false statements helps your case.

Research shows only 2% to 6% of rape allegations are false. With three or more women accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct/rape he is almost certainly not innocent.

Women overwhelmingly oppose Kavanaugh being put on the Supreme Court, a percentage that has grown steadily since the first allegations came out. That's not because they are worried about their sons or husbands being falsely accused.

October 03, 2018 2:10 PM  
Anonymous priorities and memory said...

"Kavanaugh caused her to touch his penis when she in shock pushed him out of her face."

so, she touched it out of her own volition?

and that's assuming the unverified story is true

October 03, 2018 2:12 PM  
Anonymous Connie Chung, continued said...

...I don’t remember saying anything to him. I could not even look at him. I quickly dressed and drove home.

At the time, I think I may have told one of my sisters. I certainly did not tell my parents. I did not report him to authorities. It never crossed my mind to protect other women. Please understand, I was actually embarrassed about my sexual naivete. I was in my 20s and knew nothing about sex. All I wanted to do was bury the incident in my mind and protect my family.

My mother could not read or write English, let alone drive. From then on, I told her our family doctor lives too far away. We’re not going to see him anymore.

Years later, I told my husband. When did I tell him? What year? What date? I don’t remember.

When the superb reporting of the New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow and the New York Times’s Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor helped touch off this intimate discussion, my dirty little secret reared its ugly head and I told anyone who would listen.

I think the doctor died almost 30 years ago in his 80s. I’ve driven past his home/office many times but refused to look at it. Just yesterday, I found the house on Google Maps. Seeing it again, I freaked out.

Christine, I, too, am terrified as I reveal this publicly. I can’t sleep. I can’t eat. Can you? If you can’t, I understand. I am frightened, I am scared, I can’t even cry.

Will my legacy as a television journalist for 30-plus years be relegated to a footnote? Will “She Too” be etched on my tombstone instead? I don’t want to tell the truth. I must tell the truth. As a reporter, the truth has ruled my life, my thinking. It’s what I searched for on a daily working basis.

Christine, I know the truth, as you do. Years ago, my husband read a novel by Rita Mae Brown called “Six of One.” He told me, “There’s a great line in this book. ‘The advantage of telling the truth is you don’t have to remember what you said.’ ”

I wish I could forget this truthful event, but I cannot because it is the truth. I am writing to you because I know that exact dates, exact years are insignificant. We remember exactly what happened to us and who did it to us. We remember the truth forever.

Bravo, Christine, for telling the truth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dear-christine-blasey-ford-i-too-was-sexually-assaulted--and-its-seared-into-my-memory-forever/2018/10/03/2449ed3c-c68a-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html

October 03, 2018 2:14 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "the Kavanaugh fiasco has caused a tremendous shift of Republican women in battleground states back toward the party".

These are all part of the 35% of hardcore Tяump supporters who were going to vote Rethuglican anyway.

The Kavanaugh issue isn't going to gain Rethuglicans any more votes. It is greatly increasing the enthusiasm amongst Democrats, independents and soft support Tяump supporters to vote against the Rethuglicans.

If Rethuglicans force through confirmation of Kavanaugh they will lose women voters for a generation. And that's a good thing :)

October 03, 2018 2:15 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "so, she touched it out of her own volition?"

Obviously not. When someone thrusts their penis in your face against your will and you push them out of the way you are not touching it of your own volition.

It figures that misogynistic pigs like you think a woman should just passively accept a man thrusting his genitals in her face.

If she had done that you'd be saying "Oh, she didn't push him away so it obviously didn't bother or offend her so it doesn't matter."

October 03, 2018 2:19 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous make these sorts of comments all the time and then stupidly assert they aren't trolls.

Research shows trolls are sadistic. You can certainly see the sadism in Wyatt and Regina's comments.

October 03, 2018 2:21 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

There are 40 potentially corroborating witnesses to the allegations against Kavanaugh that the FBI has not contacted.

The re-opening of the background investigation into Kavanaugh is obviously a sham intended merely to give cover to Rethuglican Senators to vote to confirm him.

October 03, 2018 2:24 PM  
Anonymous God can't tell if you're boofing - The Brett Kavanaugh Story said...


God, it's me Brett. I'm boofing.

October 03, 2018 2:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""Kavanaugh caused her to touch his penis when she in shock pushed him out of her face."

so, she touched it out of her own volition?"

She most likely swatted it out of her face like most people would do if some drunk had thrust his penis in their face without consent.

Maybe the ttftroll is the type who would just let some drunk's penis be shoved in his/her face.

October 03, 2018 2:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your daughters will hear you defending Kavanaugh. And that's why they won't tell that their uncle is touching them.

October 03, 2018 2:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If they vote no on Kavanaugh, who's going to explain to him what "no" means?

October 03, 2018 2:45 PM  
Anonymous heterosexuality should be societally preferenced because it alone brings life said...

In a written declaration released Tuesday, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.

He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a "very small," 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Ford "never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," the former boyfriend wrote.

However, on Thursday, Ford testified, "I was hoping to avoid getting on an airplane. But I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends and get on the plane." She also acknowledged regularly -- and, in her words, "unfortunately" -- traveling on planes for work and hobbies.

And Ford explicitly told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday that she had a second front door installed in her home because of "anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms" that she purportedly suffered in the wake of Kavanaugh's alleged attack at a house party in the 1980s -- "more especially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."

In a pointed, no-holds-barred letter Tuesday evening that referenced the ex-boyfriend's declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded that attorneys for Ford turn over her therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday's dramatic Senate hearing.

"Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination," Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote.

Under questioning from experienced sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell last week, Ford said that she had "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process of taking her own polygraph in August was stressful and uncomfortable, although she testified she could not remember if she took the test on the same day as her grandmother's funeral, or the next day.

But in his declaration, the ex-boyfriend wrote that, "I witnessed Dr. Ford help [Monica L.] McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam" and that Ford had "explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped [her] become familiar and less nervous about the exam," using her background in psychology. (McLean's name appeared on a list of Ford's former high school classmates who signed a letter of support for Ford last month).

October 03, 2018 2:45 PM  
Anonymous homosexuality is anti-life said...

Mitchell, in a report Sunday, said Ford's case was even weaker than the typical "He said, she said" situation and pointed out numerous discrepencies in her version of events that have emerged in the past several weeks, concerning everything from how many people were at the purported party to when it occurred and how she found her way home. Mitchell also noted that none of the witnesses Ford identified as having attended the party could back up her version of events.

Some of the apparent inconsistencies, Grassley wrote, could possibly be addressed if Ford's legal team turned over all video or audio recordings produced during her own polygraph examination. Ford passed that polygraph, and in a handwritten statement she wrote prior to the test, she indicated "there were 4 boys and a couple of girls" at the gathering.

However, in Ford's letter to Feinstein in July, she gave a different tally, writing instead that the party "included me and 4 others." Under oath on Thursday, Ford for the first time mentioned that a fourth boy was at the party, but that she could not remember his name.

Grassley also demanded Ford's attorneys hand over notes from her 2012 therapy sessions in which she claimed to have discussed her alleged sexual assault decades ago. The senator said it was "not justified" any longer for Ford to cite privacy and medical privilege given that she has relied on them extensively as a kind of corroborating evidence to implicate Kavanaugh.

On Thursday, Ford claimed she could not say definitively whether she had shared those notes with The Washington Post approximately two months ago, as opposed to describing them abstractly. The Post wrote that it had reviewed a "portion" of Ford's notes.

Additionally, Grassley requested copies of communications between Ford and the media describing her allegations, saying that the legal team's failure to provide Ford's full correspondence with The Washington Post suggested a "lack of candor."

October 03, 2018 2:50 PM  
Anonymous part of the 75% said...

In a separate letter to Democratic Sen. Chris Coons, who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, Grassley wrote, "The accuser freely admits to having no evidence whatsoever that Judge Kavanaugh even attended this party. … We’ve reached a new level of absurdity with this allegation."

The scathing letters come as the FBI will wrap up its investigation into misconduct accusations against Kavanaugh as soon as late Wednesday, potentially clearing the way for a final Senate vote on his confirmation within days.

If the FBI's report is indeed delivered to the White House on Wednesday, Fox News expects a vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation could come as soon as Saturday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., must first satisfy a number of procedural and parliamentary hurdles before a vote can be held, including filing a cloture petition, which must remain pending for a full day, in order to formally end debate on Kavanaugh's nomination. McConnell has vowed to hold a vote by the end of the week.

The uncorroborated sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh have faltered in recent days, as the credibility of his three most prominent accusers -- Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick -- has come under question. Democrats increasingly have focused their arguments on Kavanaugh's temperament during Thursday's hearing, as well as whether he lied under oath about references in his high school yearbook.

Kavanaugh acknowleged sometimes having "too many" beers in high school and college, but some Democrats have suggested he lied by not going further and admitting that he had "blacked out." None of Kavanaugh's classmates has said he blacked out, although some have come forward to suggest it's likely that he did at some point.

For his part, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Monday called out what he said were transparent stall tactics in a fiery floor speech.

"If you listen carefully, Mr. President, you can practically hear the sounds of the Democrats moving the goalposts," McConnell said. He added later: "Their goalposts keep shifting. But their goal hasn't moved an inch. Not an inch."

October 03, 2018 2:50 PM  
Anonymous sayanora, gay agenda said...

Taking advantage of the pause forced by Jeff Flake’s change of heart last week, opponents of Brett Kavanaugh have shifted their focus from the original charge of sexual assault to the allegation that he repeatedly perjured himself before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It’s certainly true that Kavanaugh tried to minimize the least admirable aspects of his adolescence — understandably, given the withering fire he was under and the basic irrelevance of the matters under discussion — but there is no evidence he lied.

Much of the focus is on his drinking. There are two main lines of argument here. The first: Kavanaugh has misleadingly portrayed himself as a “squeaky clean” “choir boy,” but there is plenty of evidence that he was a heavy drinker. This begins from a false premise. Kavanaugh has said he was pious and hardworking in high school and college, but he also said in his Senate testimony that he drank excessively on occasion: “I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did.” Drinking in high school and college is obviously compatible with attending church or participating in community service.

The more relevant question is not whether Kavanaugh drank to excess, but whether he drank to the point of blacking out. Democrats want to establish that if he blacked out once, he may have blacked out at the alleged party with Ford and assaulted her while having no memory of it. This itself is a stretch and obviously a way to try to make up for the fact that there is no corroborating evidence of the assault.

The media have pointed to testimony from high-school and college classmates who say they saw him “belligerently” or “incoherently” drunk, phrases in his high-school yearbook page that appear to imply lapses in memory (“Who won that game, anyway?”), and passages from his friend Mark Judge’s memoir involving a character named “Bart O’Kavanaugh.” None of this establishes that Kavanaugh blacked out, though, only that he drank to excess, which, again, he admitted.

October 03, 2018 2:57 PM  
Anonymous sayanora, gay agenda said...

The most ridiculous tranche of perjury allegations have to do with Kavanaugh’s yearbook entry. Our own Jim Geraghty christens the people obsessed with his entry “the boof sleuths,” after one of the slang terms that appears, “boof.” Also, at issue: the terms “Devil’s Triangle” and “Renate Alumnius.” It doesn’t require stepping back very far to realize how preposterous it is that teenage tomfoolery in a high-school yearbook is now deemed relevant to the ascension of a D.C. Circuit judge to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh told the Senate that “Judge — Have You Boofed Yet?” refers to flatulence, and that “Devil’s Triangle” refers to a drinking game. His critics insist that the former means anal sex and the latter three-way sex. Since slang by its nature is informal and ever-changing, this stupid dispute is never going to be settled to anyone’s satisfaction.

As for “Renate Alumnius,” Renate Dolphin, the woman to whom it refers, has gone on record taking offense at the comment, and a plausible reading of it is that it was innuendo. Kavanaugh called the phrase a “clumsy” way to “show affection” and denied that they ever had sexual relations. But he expressed regret over the phrase and in general said he was embarrassed by his yearbook, calling it a “disaster” and noting that it was an “absurdity” meant to conjure the movies Animal House, Caddyshack, and Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

None of this comes close to rising to the level of perjury. And none of it, despite the hopes of his enemies, substitutes for the weakness of Christine Blasey Ford’s original charge.

None of the people Ford identifies as witnesses to her story say that they recall the party. (Another perjury charge against Kavanaugh is that he exaggerates how exculpatory these witnesses are, but this makes him guilty of slight error, not deceit.) As a report outlined by Judiciary Committee outside counsel Rachel Mitchell makes clear, Ford has repeatedly changed some key details of her account and cannot remember others. (If Kavanaugh had similar slip-ups, the critics would be crying “perjury” about that too.) Mitchell argues that Ford’s allegation does not meet even a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

The case against Kavanaugh is constantly changing, but one thing has stayed the same: Democrats will make any argument, no matter how implausible or over-the-top, to try to sink him.

October 03, 2018 2:58 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

When Lindsey Graham Thought Perjuring Judges Should Be Impeached

Lindsey Graham’s pledge that he would support Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court no matter what, even if he knew all the allegations against him were true, has brought attention to this old video of him when he was in the House declaring that any judge who perjured themselves should be impeached.

There can be no more reasonable doubt that, even if he didn’t try to rape anyone, he perjured himself during his testimony last week. Not that Graham cares, of course. This situation is totally different — for magic, special, lucky reasons not worth mentioning, of course.

October 03, 2018 3:21 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I Know Brett Kavanaugh, but I Wouldn’t Confirm Him

This is an article I never imagined myself writing, that I never wanted to write, that I wish I could not write.

If I were a senator, I would not vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.

I have a long relationship with Kavanaugh, and I have always liked him. I have admired his career on the D.C. Circuit. I have spoken warmly of him. I have published him. I have vouched publicly for his character—more than once—and taken a fair bit of heat for doing so.

Despite all of that, if I were a senator, I would vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation. I would do it both because of Ford’s testimony and because of Kavanaugh’s. For reasons I will describe, I find her account more believable than his. I would also do it because whatever the truth of what happened in the summer of 1982, Thursday’s hearing left Kavanaugh nonviable as a justice.

Consider the judicial function as described by Kavanaugh himself at his first hearing. That Brett Kavanaugh described a “good judge [as] an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no litigant or policy.” That Brett Kavanaugh reminded us that “the Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices on the Supreme Court do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms.”

A very different Brett Kavanaugh showed up to Thursday’s hearing. This one accused the Democratic members of the committee of a “grotesque and coordinated character assassination,” saying that they had “replaced advice and consent with search and destroy.” This Brett Kavanaugh veered off into full-throated conspiracy in a fashion that made entirely clear that he knew which room he caucused in.

As Charlie Sykes, a thoughtful conservative commentator sympathetic to Kavanaugh, put it on The Weekly Standard’s podcast Friday, “Even if you support Brett Kavanaugh … that was breathtaking as an abandonment of any pretense of having a judicial temperament.” Sykes went on: “It’s possible, I think, to have been angry, emotional, and passionate without crossing the lines that he crossed—assuming that there are any lines anymore.”

Kavanaugh blew across lines that I believe a justice still needs to hold.

October 03, 2018 3:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Further reading: “I got into Yale” isn’t a moral defense

My cognitive dissonance at Kavanaugh’s performance Thursday is not important. What is important is the dissonance between the Kavanaugh of Thursday’s hearing and the judicial function. Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable pro-choice woman would feel like her position could get a fair shake before a Justice Kavanaugh? Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable Democrat, or a reasonable liberal of any kind, would, after that performance, consider him a fair arbiter in, say, a case about partisan gerrymandering, voter identification, or anything else with a strong partisan valence? Quite apart from the merits of Ford’s allegations against him, Kavanaugh’s display on Thursday—if I were a senator voting on confirmation—would preclude my support.

But there are reasons to worry about the integrity of Kavanaugh’s testimony. A number of senators, most notably Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, suggested in the hearing’s wake that the evidence was in some kind of equipoise, that both Ford and Kavanaugh had testified credibly, and that norms of fairness thus counsel giving Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt. Before he shifted gears and sought a delay and an FBI investigation, Flake stated that he “left the hearing yesterday with as much doubt as certainty” and that “our system of justice affords a presumption of innocence to the accused.” Corker, for his part, declared that “both individuals provided compelling testimony” but that since “nothing that has been presented corroborates the allegation,” he would vote to confirm. President Trump presumably feels similarly, given that he continues to support Kavanaugh despite having declared Ford “a very credible witness.”

I fear the evidence is not, however, quite in equipoise, even if one believes that a senator should confirm a justice on the basis that the presumption of innocence should break the tie between two equally compelling testimonies. At least as I read it, though it pains me to say so, the evidence before us leans toward Ford. Let’s consider the balance sheet carefully.

On one side of the ledger, Ford is wholly credible. Yes, her story has holes. The location of the event is unclear in her memory, as is—importantly—how she got home and what happened after she left the house in question. Yet few observers seem to dispute her credibility. Not even Kavanaugh and his supporters contend that she is lying or making up the incident in question, merely that she is mistaken as to his involvement in it.

October 03, 2018 3:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Her story is certainly plausible, and certain details she offers lend it additional credibility. She correctly identifies, for example, a social circle that appears actually to have existed around Kavanaugh during the summer in question. A fabulist likely would not know, for example, of Kavanaugh’s friendship with Mark Judge and their propensity to drink beer together in the relevant period with other individuals she named. While Kavanaugh said he didn’t recall meeting Ford but that it was possible they had interacted, it seems overwhelmingly likely that her claim to have known him and his circle socially while the two were in high school is true.

While Ford can offer no contemporaneous corroboration of her story in the form of testimony from people who remember being present at the alleged event, her story is not wholly uncorroborated either. She appears to have told her therapist about the alleged event years ago, and she identified Kavanaugh as her attacker to her husband years ago, as well.

She initially raised the allegation with her congresswoman before Kavanaugh’s nomination took place. At a minimum, it seems quite clear that Ford was genuinely part of the world in which she claims the attack took place and that she genuinely believed—long before Trump’s election, let alone Kavanaugh’s nomination—that Kavanaugh attacked her.

That she believes this story sincerely is corroborated, if only weakly, by her polygraph exam. Polygraphs are not especially reliable, but the willingness to take one can be a show of strength in a witness. The polygraph is not evidence that Kavanaugh attacked Ford. It is evidence that Ford believes her story truthful and is an earnest accuser, not a conspirator.

Her story is also corroborated, imperfectly but perceptibly, by Kavanaugh’s high-school calendar. Ford describes the attack as taking place at a gathering at which at least four boys—Kavanaugh, Judge, Patrick (P.J.) Smythe, and a boy whose name Ford could not remember—and one girl, Leland Keyser, were drinking beer. Ford specifically allowed for the possibility that there might have been others present as well.

Kavanaugh’s calendar entry for the evening of July 1, 1982, contains an entry that reads, “Go to Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, P.J., Bernie and Squi.” In the hearing, Kavanaugh acknowledged that “skis” in this entry referred to “brewskis,” or beer; that P.J. was Smythe; that Judge was Mark Judge; and that “Squi” was a boy who, Ford had earlier testified, just happened to have been someone she “went out with” for a short time. The calendar entry does not include Ford or Keyser, so the corroboration is far from perfect. It also includes people not mentioned by Ford. Then again, the degree of overlap with Ford’s story is striking. In the summer in which Ford alleges that Kavanaugh attacked her at an evening get-together with a small group of boys drinking beers, his calendar identifies an evening get-together with a small group of boys drinking beers, including three of the boys named by Ford, along with one she dated. Why exactly Kavanaugh imagines his calendar entries to be powerfully exculpatory I am really not sure.

October 03, 2018 3:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Ford’s story also finds some degree of corroboration in Mark Judge’s employment history. Ford claims that she saw Judge some weeks after the alleged attack at the Safeway where he worked and that he was visibly uncomfortable seeing her. The Washington Post verified from Judge’s own memoir that he was, in fact, working at a grocery story as a bagger in the relevant period. Assuming the FBI investigation firms that up, it would offer another data point tending to corroborate her account’s consistency with verifiable facts.

On the other side of the ledger is Kavanaugh’s testimony, and here we cannot be quite so confident that the witness was being candid.

Kavanaugh’s testimony, whatever one makes of his impassioned claims of innocence on the specific charge, is not credible on the more general issue of his drinking habits. Kavanaugh’s unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious—that his yearbook described a hard-drinking culture that he was a part of and that makes Ford’s account more plausible. Kavanaugh would not concede that the phrase “Beach Week Ralph Club—Biggest Contributor” referred to drinking culture, claiming it was simply a reference to his having a weak stomach. He ascribed implausibly innocent definitions to other terms that appeared in the yearbook. He diminished the casual cruelty he and his friends showed to one girl, Renate Schroeder Dolphin, by describing themselves as “Renate Alumni.” He claimed they intended to show her respect and friendship, but that is not how she reads it three and a half decades later. She told The New York Times, “The insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way.” She is not a fool. His repeated suggestion at the hearing that he had never been so drunk as to have any possibility of memory loss flies in the face of the memories of a number of classmates from college.

My point is not that his confirmation in any sense turns on how much Kavanaugh drank or whether he and his friends made misogynistic jokes as teenagers. But his testimony doesn’t have the ring of truth either. And lack of candor in a witness in one area raises questions about the integrity of that witness’s testimony in other areas.

October 03, 2018 3:26 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

There’s another factor that weighs in Ford’s favor: the failure of the committee to meaningfully engage Mark Judge. The current FBI investigation should ameliorate this problem, and it’s possible, I suppose, that Judge could change the picture significantly in Kavanaugh’s favor—if, for example, he informs the FBI that Kavanaugh was never out-of-control drunk with him or if he denies ever working at the Safeway. The committee’s contentment with the perfunctory letter he sent, however, has the air of fear—fear of what Judge would say. This unwillingness to ask Judge obvious questions erodes Kavanaugh’s position.

By my read, we have two witnesses who both profess 100 percent certainty of their position—one whose testimony is wholly credible and marginally corroborated in a number of respects, and the other whose testimony is not credible on a number of important atmospheric points surrounding the alleged event.

It’s not a tie, and it doesn’t go to the nominee.

But my bottom line is the opposite of the one Flake expressed in his statement: Faced with credible allegations of serious misconduct against him, Kavanaugh behaved in a fashion unacceptable in a justice, it seems preponderantly likely he was not candid with the Senate Judiciary Committee on important matters, and the risk of Ford’s allegations being closer to the truth than his denial of them is simply too high to place him on the Supreme Court.

As much as I admire Kavanaugh, my conscience would not permit me to vote for him.

October 03, 2018 3:26 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Wyatt/Regina/bad anonymous said "In a written declaration released Tuesday, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination."

His letter wasn't a signed affadavit and wasn't under oath like all of Kavanaugh's accusers were.

Telling someone "here's how to not be nervous during a lie detector test" is completely different from "here's how to fool a lie detector test".

October 03, 2018 3:30 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

You're on company time, get back to work lazy Wyatt.

October 03, 2018 3:31 PM  
Anonymous life should be preferenced, homosexuality doesn't bring life said...

"His letter wasn't a signed affadavit and wasn't under oath like all of Kavanaugh's accusers were."

Lucy and Charlie Brown

October 03, 2018 3:37 PM  
Anonymous homosexuality never ever produces any life. two homosexuals just ain't a marriage said...

When Christine Blasey Ford testified last week before the Judiciary Committee, America witnessed a haunted woman recounting a devastating trauma. But putting aside Ford’s emotional performance and focusing instead on the professor’s testimony reveals numerous inconsistencies in her narrative.

As a sex-crimes prosecutor, Republican questioner Rachel Mitchell is well-positioned to “know it when she sees it.” But rather than see Ford as a victim of sexual abuse by Kavanaugh, Mitchell saw her as a witness lacking in credibility. And this conclusion comes from an expert who knows that there are many reasons victims delay reporting sexual abuse. Mitchell also recognized that victims may legitimately not remember certain details related to an attack.

But the problem for Ford is not that she doesn’t remember everything: It is that everything she remembers changes at her convenience.

First, Ford’s testimony that the assault occurred in the summer of 1982, when just 15, conflicted with both her therapist’s notes and the text message Ford sent to the Washington Post. According to reporter Emma Brown, Ford claimed she had been assaulted in the mid-1980s; and the therapist’s notes stated Ford had been the victim of an attempted rape in her late teens. But by that time, Kavanaugh was attending Yale, so Ford’s recasting of the attack to the summer of 1982 is suspect.

Ford's story changed in key ways

Ford’s retelling of the alleged sexual assault also included several conflicting accounts of the number of individuals at the gathering. The therapist’s notes stated that four boys had attempted to rape Ford. (Ford claims her therapist confused the total number of boys at the party with the number of boys who had attacked her.)

Later, in her July letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford again placed the number of individuals at the party at five, stating the gathering included her and four other individuals. But Ford then identified the four by name, and that group included three boys and one girl. And finally, during her Senate testimony, Ford unequivocally stated that “there were four boys I remember specifically being there,” in addition to her friend Leland Keyser.

Another significant change in the scenario came when Ford testified about the location of the party. She had originally told the Washington Post that the attack took place at a house not far from the country club. Yet, when Mitchell revealed a map of the relevant locations and reminded Ford that she had described the attack as having occurred near the country club, Ford backtracked: “I would describe [the house] as it's somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that’s shown in your picture.” Ford added that the country club was a 20-minute drive from her home.

October 03, 2018 3:46 PM  
Anonymous today's drink special: Backlash and Bourbon said...

Finally, Ford altered her description of the interior layout of the home and the details of the party and her escape. A “short” stairwell turned into a “narrow” one. The gathering moved from a small family room where the kids drank beer (and which Ford distinguished from the living room through which she fled the house) when she spoke to the Washington Post, to a home described in her actual testimony as having a "small living room/family room-type area.” And in an obvious tell to the change, Ford suggested that she could draw a floor plan of the house.

These four points are significant. First, because Ford had waited 30-plus years to report the purported attack, a therapist’s notes from Ford's sessions with her husband countered claims that Ford had invented the assault to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation. But the notes did not name Ford’s attacker. And the timing of the assault summarized by her therapist, whom Ford saw individually the following year, conflicted with Ford’s current claims against Kavanaugh.

The final three contradictions are even more significant because in each circumstance Ford altered her story only after Kavanaugh and Senate investigators had obtained evidence to disprove her original tale. For instance, investigators had obtained statements from Kavanaugh and the two men and one female lifelong friend of Ford’s, and they all denied any recollection of the gathering.

Investigators also spoke with former classmates of Kavanaugh, including two men who showed staffers the “party houses” near the country club during the relevant time period. And the detailed description of the home interior Ford originally provided allowed investigators to compare her story to the layout of the homes of the individuals Ford identified. But then Ford changed her description of the house’s floor plan.

Since media leaks of Ford’s charges first broke, Kavanaugh and his supporters have stressed the impossibility of proving the negative: Kavanaugh could not prove he did not attack Ford. But Kavanaugh could prove that Ford’s story could not possibly have happened by showing that none of the individuals at the supposed party lived in a house near the country club, and that none of their houses matched that described by Ford. Kavanaugh and investigators were poised to do so when Ford changed her story.

Open-minded Americans of all stripes should see that — emotions aside — Ford’s testimony is completely devoid of credibility: so much so, that Mitchell told the Senate this week that Ford’s allegations do not even meet the preponderance of evidence standard. That standard, which governs in civil litigation, asks whether it is more likely than not that an event occurred.

Yes, victims must be believed. But Ford is not a victim — at least not of Kavanaugh.

October 03, 2018 3:47 PM  
Anonymous Trump’s favorite show, “Fox & Friends,” criticizes him for mocking Christine Blasey Ford said...

Some of President Donald Trump's biggest fans in conservative media conceded Wednesday that he "chose to blow it" by breaking his apparent tactic of "laying low" to make fun of alleged sexual misconduct victim Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, as he challenged his supporters to "think of your son, think of your husband."

The president's unhinged monologue at a political rally in Southhaven, Mississippi was delivered before the Federal Bureau of Investigation had submitted the results of its probe of Ford's accusations against his nominee to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat, Brett Kavanaugh.

“The tactic of the president laying low has been lauded by all sides,” said "Fox & Friends" co-host Brian Kilmeade. His comments marked an unusual break from the unfettered praise Trump is used to receiving from the hosts of his self-proclaimed "favorite" morning show.

“Last night, he chose to blow it as the FBI is handing in the report as early as today," Kilmeade continued. "I wonder about the wisdom, as much as the crowd loved it, I wonder about the wisdom tactically of him doing that."

Kilmeade's comments about restraint are also noteworthy as they arrive on the heels of a recent meltdown the anchor had about Kavanaugh following the start of the school year for his two high school-aged children.

“I was at back-to-school night last night for my 10th and 12th grader, and little did I know, I was just trying to see if they had blown any shot at finding any success in life in 10th and 12th Grade," he said. "Because that’s what I’m getting from this whole process. When in doubt, go back to high school and college – even if you’re in your fifties!”

"I've heard of your transcript mattering in 9th Grade for college, but I didn't know your 9th and 10th Grade actions could really reflect on what happens in the Supreme Court," Kilmeade later added after his co-host Ainsley Earhardt had interrupted him to remind him of the severity of Ford's allegations.

In his message of the day posted Wednesday to his website, Kilmeade's former Fox News colleague Bill O'Reilly echoed the same line of reasoning, arguing that disparaging Ford before the facts were fully uncovered was not a wise move.

"Although many people do not believe Christine Ford’s allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, it would be wise for the president and other elected officials to avoid comment on her testimony," O'Reilly wrote....

O'Reilly's criticisms are notable given that he was fired after a New York Times expose had revealed that about $13 million in settlements had been handed out as accusations of sexual misconduct and other inappropriate behavior mounted. “Just like other prominent and controversial people, I’m vulnerable to lawsuits from individuals who want me to pay them to avoid negative publicity," O'Reilly then said...

In his takedown of Ford, Trump seemed to suggest that the psychologist had not been forthcoming about how much she had to drink on the night she alleges Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in an attempted rape.

Trump ended his comments by repeating his claim that men are the real victims of the #MeToo movement. "And a man's life is in tatters," he said of Kavanaugh. "A man's life is shattered."

And those remarks also did not sit with at least two key voting members of his own Republican Party. “The president’s comments were just plain wrong," Maine Senator Susan Collins said when asked directly about Trump.

Jeff Flake, the retiring Arizona senator who last week sided with Democrats in delaying a floor vote until an FBI investigation had taken place, called Trump's words "appalling."

"There’s no time and no place for remarks like that," Flake said Wednesday on NBC's "Today Show."
"To discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just not right."

October 03, 2018 4:22 PM  
Anonymous a little humor for hump day!! said...

A conservative political group is targeting Democrats Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp – senators running for re-election in states President Trump won by huge margins in 2016 – to back Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

The Judicial Crisis Network is spending $400,000 on a last-minute ad buy intended to pressure Manchin of West Virginia and Heitkamp of North Dakota to confirm Kavanaugh, who has been accused of sexual misconduct, Politico reported.

The two are the only undecided Democrats in the chamber the GOP controls by 51-49.

The ads show Kavanaugh at last Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee blasting Democrats on the panel as part of a “search and destroy” mission.

A narrator says voters will “never forget” whose side they take.

“Judge Kavanaugh fought back, clearing his name, defending his honor. Now Sen. Heitkamp has a choice: Stand with President Trump, Judge Kavanaugh, and all who thought this was a national disgrace. Or stand with them,” the North Dakota version of the ad says.

The group’s chief counsel, Carrie Severino, said Manchin and Heitkamp “need to decide whether they stand with Judge Kavanaugh and President Trump, or with the outrageous smear campaign unleashed by Chuck Schumer and the liberal mob.”

Polls showing voters in North Dakota support Kavanaugh by a 56-26 percent margin and by a 58-28 percent margin in West Virginia.

The group also supported Justice Neil Gorsuch, who Manchin and Heitkamp both voted for.

October 03, 2018 4:28 PM  
Anonymous a little humor for hump day!! said...

renowned high school thespian: Merrick Garland

October 03, 2018 4:29 PM  
Anonymous Reality check for today said...

The next time Trump states the facts would be the first time.

October 03, 2018 5:39 PM  
Anonymous RCP Average said...

Manchin D 45.7%
Morrisey R 36.3%

October 03, 2018 5:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

STOP TRUMP
ELECT DEMOCRATS
SAVE AMERICA

October 03, 2018 5:52 PM  
Anonymous Jennifer Rubin said...

Appearing on the “Today” show, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) reacted to President Trump’s mocking of Christine Blasey Ford at a political rally Tuesday night. “There’s no time and no place for remarks like that. But to discuss something this sensitive at a political rally is just not right … It’s kind of appalling.” This echoes the reaction of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) when Trump first attacked Ford by tweet, saying if the attack was “that bad,” the teen Ford would have gone to the police. Collins said: “I was appalled by the president’s tweet.”

There is plenty to appall: Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s baseless allegation that he was the victim of a smear stemming from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss; Kavanaugh’s obnoxious retorts to Democratic senators, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.); Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) calling for Klobuchar to apologize; Republicans’ objections to any investigation of Ford’s claims; Republicans’ repeated, false assertion that there is no corroboration for Ford’s accusation (ignoring her polygraph, her prior remarks, Kavanaugh’s calendar entry for July 1); Republicans’ decision to hide behind a female “assistant” (as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell referred to prosecutor Rachel Mitchell) and then discard her in favor of hysterical rants; apparent efforts to curtail the FBI investigation; Ed Whelan’s defamatory accusation aimed at a classmate of Kavanaugh’s; and Kavanaugh’s seeming mischaracterization of his drinking habits and high school references to sex and drinking.

Kavanaugh surely is not blameless for what the president says and what bile spews from Graham’s mouth; he surely is. He joined the angry, fact-free and partisan fight. He could have refrained from adding fuel to the partisan flames. He early on could have asked for an FBI investigation. He could have declined to refer to one of the accuser’s claims as “garbage.” He could have publicly or privately called on the White House and Republicans to cease their sleazy attacks on Ford. It’s impossible now to separate the Republicans’ disgraceful rhetoric and tactics from Kavanaugh himself. He told us whose side he is on. He made clear he was prepared to start a partisan and scorched-earth fight to get to the Supreme Court.

Collins says she doesn’t want to calculate the politics of her vote, apparently meaning that she won’t attempt to figure out what is best politically for her. She and the other Republicans who remain undecided should not, however, ignore the institutional and social ramifications of a vote to confirm Kavanaugh:

He will be tainted by the partisanship he demonstrated, his willingness to misstate facts and his baseless accusations against Democrats.
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 votes will lack political legitimacy in the eyes of many, if not most, Americans.
Democrats will initiate an investigation and possible impeachment proceedings if they win the majority in one or both houses.
The tactic of gender division will be vindicated. The public smearing of victims will be legitimized. Fewer women will then come forward. Belligerent and abusive men with increasing frequency will tell their victims, “No one is going to believe you.”
So, yes, Kavanaugh should bear the burden of all that follows. If he had maintained his judicial comportment, answered senators respectfully, admonished Republicans for their unhinged, groundless accusations and been entirely candid about his drinking, that would be one thing. Since he instead has chosen to become a partisan combatant, it is not only fair but necessary to hold him accountable — and to protect the Supreme Court and the country from the consequences of his confirmation.

October 03, 2018 5:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home