Good to see conservatives fight back (Ford v Kavanaugh)

[ukpumacat]

One thing about it. There will be more voting in future elections than ever. Each party is ruthless and puts party first in every instance
And with the full support of their base.

I hate that the nation is so divided because it will not stand long being so. Our enemies lie in wait like vultures
History taught us nothing

King, did you just watch what happened? That has to give us all some hope for the future. Even Graham's comments after.

[ukpumacat]

I think Jeff Flake just saved the Senate for the Republicans in the mid-terms.

Kavanaugh is likely to get confirmed next week. Flake is likely to vote for him (as well as Collins, etc). And now the Republicans can spin this as they did ANOTHER FBI investigation. This is good for America Imo, and it will be better for Republicans.

Unless the FBI finds something of course...haha

[Doc]

I think Jeff Flake just saved the Senate for the Republicans in the mid-terms.

Kavanaugh is likely to get confirmed next week. Flake is likely to vote for him (as well as Collins, etc). And now the Republicans can spin this as they did ANOTHER FBI investigation. This is good for America Imo, and it will be better for Republicans.

Unless the FBI finds something of course...haha

Unless the democrats manufacture something of course.....haha

[UKHistory]

Let’s see what the fbi does. Mark Judge who I have come to believe saved Dr. ford from being raped by Bret kavanBRO.

Pure speculation but I think judge jumped on top of his buddy to help Ford Escape but not betraying his friend.

Good for flake. But let’s leave Clarence as the worst harasser on the high court.

[Catfan73]

Toast. What's with the crying? There's no crying in baseball! Er, on the Supreme Court!

[kingcat]

There won’t be any investigation

[Catfan73]

So can a president be subpoenaed? And is this what Kavanaugh's nomination is actually all about, as Dan Rather and others have said?

[UKHistory]

KavanBRO will protect if he can

[CitizenBBN]

There is no doubt this is uglier...but they pulled the political card with Garland. They would point at Gorusch and say they didn’t do this then either.
But get close to an election, and this is what we will start seeing on both sides.
If you are a conservative, you justify Garland. Almost everyone I’ve met does.
But it was just as political. And I believe a bad move. Just like this (except this is uglier). Same end, different means. And both justify the means for the end.

There's a big difference between a party with the power to time votes using that power to time votes and the politics of destroying someone and his family. Garland wasn't attacked in any way, he just wasn't given a hearing at all.

Honestly had the situation been reversed it wouldn't have bothered me a bit for Democrats to do the same thing re votes. I wouldn't have liked that they COULD do it, but it's absolutely not an undermining of the Constitution nor the intent of the Founders for the Senate to decide those kinds of things. Going back to the beginning it was an accepted practice, and is part of the checks and balances of the system.


That's WAY WAY different from a senior Senator sitting on information for months (she really cared about an FBI investigation since she could have started one in July and didn't, huh?), withholding it from the Judiciary Committee And the FBI conducting his background check, funding the person with attorneys and other things, then springing it in an all out media assault at the last minute without in fact letting the FBI conduct a proper non-public investigation first.

One is a procedural use of the rules of the Senate, which are used politically by both parties every day they are in session. The other is a base attack on a human being and his family designed to do as much damage as possible in direct avoidance of the prescribe process for review and investigation and appointments.

[CitizenBBN]

Let’s see what the fbi does. Mark Judge who I have come to believe saved Dr. ford from being raped by Bret kavanBRO.

Pure speculation but I think judge jumped on top of his buddy to help Ford Escape but not betraying his friend.

Good for flake. But let’s leave Clarence as the worst harasser on the high court.

Gee History, could you share those lottery numbers with me? lol

[ukpumacat]

There's a big difference between a party with the power to time votes using that power to time votes and the politics of destroying someone and his family. Garland wasn't attacked in any way, he just wasn't given a hearing at all.

Honestly had the situation been reversed it wouldn't have bothered me a bit for Democrats to do the same thing re votes. I wouldn't have liked that they COULD do it, but it's absolutely not an undermining of the Constitution nor the intent of the Founders for the Senate to decide those kinds of things. Going back to the beginning it was an accepted practice, and is part of the checks and balances of the system.


That's WAY WAY different from a senior Senator sitting on information for months (she really cared about an FBI investigation since she could have started one in July and didn't, huh?), withholding it from the Judiciary Committee And the FBI conducting his background check, funding the person with attorneys and other things, then springing it in an all out media assault at the last minute without in fact letting the FBI conduct a proper non-public investigation first.

One is a procedural use of the rules of the Senate, which are used politically by both parties every day they are in session. The other is a base attack on a human being and his family designed to do as much damage as possible in direct avoidance of the prescribe process for review and investigation and appointments.

Again, the means were different (and in no way justified Imo for neither party). The END goal was the same: block the nomination and get the majority on the court.

[Catfan73]

Again, the means were different (and in no way justified Imo for neither party). The END goal was the same: block the nomination and get the majority on the court.

At what cost though? After this debacle they’re not only going to lose the house but now probably the senate too. To what end? It can’t just be to protect Trump can it? Why would the Senators care that much about that? It can’t be to overturn Roe v Wade; that’ll never happen after Planned Parenthood v Casey. I just don’t get it. Do they not understand that 51% of the U.S. population is female?

[KeithKSR]

Do they not understand that 51% of the U.S. population is female?

The plurality of women I know are upset over the use of Ford as a pawn by the Dems.

[Catfan73]

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/26/65164...ndecided-on-tr

[KeithKSR]

How stupid do the Dems think people are? Claiming the word "ralph" had something do with sex is absurd.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ralph

[kingcat]

And how stupid does the judge believe people are? I couldn't care less if he drank a lot, but dont lie about it.

"In Kavanaugh’s yearbook, it lists him as “Beach Week Ralph Club — Biggest Contributor.”
Beach Week was a week of partying attended by Kavanaugh and his classmates the summer of the alleged result. Kavanaugh said that “ralphing” was a euphemism for throwing up, but that it didn’t imply heavy drinking on his part, but a weak stomach and an intolerance for spicy food".

No...It implies exactly that Judge.

[badrose]

Unless I missed something, no one she said was there at that party has verified anything thing she has said. I believe she believes it but so far there's no shred of evidence.

[Doc]

Unless I missed something, no one she said was there at that party has verified anything thing she has said. I believe she believes it but so far there's no shred of evidence.

Sure there is evidence. She is a women and he is a man who drank. what else do you need?

[CitizenBBN]

Again, the means were different (and in no way justified Imo for neither party). The END goal was the same: block the nomination and get the majority on the court.

So it's the same if I convince you to spot me $20 and if I pull out a gun and and get it from you?

the means matter, a lot, and there is no equivalency between not calling a vote when a duly elected majority chooses to not call one, and political character assassination and withholding vital information in a confirmation process. None. There just isn't.

When Obamacare was rammed through, that wasn't "pulling a political card". The Democrats had the majorities and the votes. I didn't like that they had them, but they did, and that's how the system correctly works.

Likewise, the GOP had the votes and the majority to not call a vote on Garland, so they didn't call a vote. That was nothing at all out of the ordinary for the historical way the Senate operates, going back to Washington.

This handling of the information re Kavanaugh is a wholly different animal. Even if we believe every word this woman has said, all that means is that Feinstein intentionally impeded an investigation and confirmation process, and if it's as much a political scam as it is a real possible wrong or criminal act then it's even worse.

But there is no equivalency to one political party using their votes to stop something they don't want and using the tools of character assassination to stop something. None. The means matter, and as we continue to accept "any means necessary" to get what one side wants, we drift further away from our calling as a nation and more into that of a Third World cabal.

[CitizenBBN]

And how stupid does the judge believe people are? I couldn't care less if he drank a lot, but dont lie about it.

"In Kavanaugh’s yearbook, it lists him as “Beach Week Ralph Club — Biggest Contributor.”
Beach Week was a week of partying attended by Kavanaugh and his classmates the summer of the alleged result. Kavanaugh said that “ralphing” was a euphemism for throwing up, but that it didn’t imply heavy drinking on his part, but a weak stomach and an intolerance for spicy food".

No...It implies exactly that Judge.

Maybe he didn't inhale.

[kingcat]

As partying types like me can verify, its understandable they may have attended the party yet they have no recall as far as the particular party. And they likely wouldnt unless something reminded them of it or if a particular event was seared into their memory.

I vividly remember some of my wild times and partying, but most are a part of one big party which lasted quite a few years. Locations escape me even if i drove to them, and the only people I recall attending I had major interactions with both good and bad.

That's not to say that in conversation, much less investigation, I couldn't begin to recall more. And I certainly would not be trying too hard to join this soap opera with that info however.

Honestly, as a side note, I have been trying to recall a lot of those days in light of this discussion and others. It seems I remember the ones I stayed at the longest, and had either the most fun or misery, much better than the others. Some are just a blank I'm certain. I even woke up barfing out my car window parked in front of the police station just after high school.
Still dont know how I got there for sure. Spicy foods and all I'm sure.

Plus, I drank a lot of WT back in the day.

[CitizenBBN]

I'm betting if you went to a party, thought you were nearly raped, and had only had one beer, you'd remember where and when it was.

I'm not surprised other potential witnesses don't recall her events or version of them, but she seems to only remember the bare minimum events needed to accuse kavanaugh, and not any that might be used to help form a witness list or otherwise question or even confirm her story.

That's not impossible, but it is a very eyebrow raising coincidence.

[kingcat]

I'm betting if you went to a party, thought you were nearly raped, and had only had one beer, you'd remember where and when it was.

I'm not surprised other potential witnesses don't recall her events or version of them, but she seems to only remember the bare minimum events needed to accuse kavanaugh, and not any that might be used to help form a witness list or otherwise question or even confirm her story.

That's not impossible, but it is a very eyebrow raising coincidence.

It's not really, as most understand the psychology of such matters different than that. Plus, she was a 15 year old girl.
I dont get the she's lying thing at all.
It seems you are stating she very likely is and I don't believe that opinion has much in the way of support from either side. The possibility of being mistaken I understand has at least a shred of validity as well as appearing the overwhelming view from the right.

She should certainly recall who it was though. On that I would agree that, to consider her mistaken is rather eyebrow raising

And I will say again, I am not judging the man as a criminal for what she says he done. The fear that he was going to continue may have had an impact of her view of the situation. or it may completely have gone down as she felt it did.

My issue is that I believe her and don't believe him. He would certainly remember too...and I think he does.
And that if he does, lying to the American people is not befitting a Supreme Court judge. I think we all can agree on that.

[badrose]

It's not really, as most understand the psychology of such matters different than that. Plus, she was a 15 year old girl.
I dont get the she's lying thing at all.
It seems you are stating she very likely is and I don't believe that opinion has much in the way of support from either side. The possibility of being mistaken I understand has at least a shred of validity as well as appearing the overwhelming view from the right.

She should certainly recall who it was though. On that I would agree

The fact that other people whom she said was there have denied being there severely cuts into her credibility. Her overall story does not support strong credibility.

[Doc]

So it's the same if I convince you to spot me $20 and if I pull out a gun and and get it from you?

the means matter, a lot, and there is no equivalency between not calling a vote when a duly elected majority chooses to not call one, and political character assassination and withholding vital information in a confirmation process. None. There just isn't.

When Obamacare was rammed through, that wasn't "pulling a political card". The Democrats had the majorities and the votes. I didn't like that they had them, but they did, and that's how the system correctly works.

Likewise, the GOP had the votes and the majority to not call a vote on Garland, so they didn't call a vote. That was nothing at all out of the ordinary for the historical way the Senate operates, going back to Washington.

This handling of the information re Kavanaugh is a wholly different animal. Even if we believe every word this woman has said, all that means is that Feinstein intentionally impeded an investigation and confirmation process, and if it's as much a political scam as it is a real possible wrong or criminal act then it's even worse.

But there is no equivalency to one political party using their votes to stop something they don't want and using the tools of character assassination to stop something. None. The means matter, and as we continue to accept "any means necessary" to get what one side wants, we drift further away from our calling as a nation and more into that of a Third World cabal.

this

[Doc]

I think Jeff Flake just saved the Senate for the Republicans in the mid-terms.

Kavanaugh is likely to get confirmed next week. Flake is likely to vote for him (as well as Collins, etc). And now the Republicans can spin this as they did ANOTHER FBI investigation. This is good for America Imo, and it will be better for Republicans.

Unless the FBI finds something of course...haha

Disagree. Had BK been rejected because of the sleazy tactics of Feinstein, the GOP would have walked with the election. People see it for exactly what it was. If he gets confirmed it takes away the outrage. An FBI investigation changes not a single democratic vote. If the FBI finds nothing, do you envision any changing their nay vote? That is why its a hoax request. The democrats really didnt want an investigation to find "the truth". They wanted it to delay because the outcome of said investigation is 100% irrelevant in their mind. They are voting NO and have stated so multiple times. So lets at least be honest, an investigation by the FbI that find nothing will change zero votes. ZIP

[Doc]

As partying types like me can verify, its understandable they may have attended the party yet they have no recall as far as the particular party. And they likely wouldnt unless something reminded them of it or if a particular event was seared into their memory.

I vividly remember some of my wild times and partying, but most are a part of one big party which lasted quite a few years. Locations escape me even if i drove to them, and the only people I recall attending I had major interactions with both good and bad.

That's not to say that in conversation, much less investigation, I couldn't begin to recall more. And I certainly would not be trying too hard to join this soap opera with that info however.

Honestly, as a side note, I have been trying to recall a lot of those days in light of this discussion and others. It seems I remember the ones I stayed at the longest, and had either the most fun or misery, much better than the others. Some are just a blank I'm certain. I even woke up barfing out my car window parked in front of the police station just after high school.
Still dont know how I got there for sure. Spicy foods and all I'm sure.

Plus, I drank a lot of WT back in the day.

I vividly remember the first time I got laid, where it was, when it was and who it was with. I recalled how I got there and how I got home. What I dont recall is how many beers I drank...something Mrs Ford is able to recall yet cant remember when it was, where it was, how she got there and how she got home. How convenient

[Doc]

I'm betting if you went to a party, thought you were nearly raped, and had only had one beer, you'd remember where and when it was.

I'm not surprised other potential witnesses don't recall her events or version of them, but she seems to only remember the bare minimum events needed to accuse kavanaugh, and not any that might be used to help form a witness list or otherwise question or even confirm her story.

That's not impossible, but it is a very eyebrow raising coincidence.

Not having cooperation does not.mean it ddid not happen. My issue is he has extemporaneous evidence showing where he was at the possible times.

[CitizenBBN]

It's not really, as most understand the psychology of such matters different than that. Plus, she was a 15 year old girl.
I dont get the she's lying thing at all.
It seems you are stating she very likely is and I don't believe that opinion has much in the way of support from either side. The possibility of being mistaken I understand has at least a shred of validity as well as appearing the overwhelming view from the right.

She should certainly recall who it was though. On that I would agree that, to consider her mistaken is rather eyebrow raising

I've typed multiple times I think she thinks she's telling the truth. But that doesn't mean she's accurate.

I'm sorry, but you've just concluded based on no first hand knowledge that he's lying and she's telling the truth, but yet you act as if you don't get someone else concluding differently? that's showing quite a bit of hubris IMO.

Unlike these very conclusionary statements I've seen, I'm trying to stick to the facts. If I were an investigator I'd want to know when this party was, where it was, etc. so I could get potential witnesses, find ways to establish or disprove an alibi, etc.. That's standard procedure, and how such things should objectively be done.

When doing these things its key to remember that witness accounts and memories are notoriously flawed, so you try to establish facts and get more people's memories involved.


Yes, i find it very convenient she's 100% sure it was Kavanaugh 36 years ago, and states this was a deeply traumatic event in her life, and is sure 100% she only had one beer, yet with that level of recall can't say where it was, or when it was, etc.

is that her lying outright? It's possible. I've known some people who are sociopathic enough to do exactly that, and yet they are otherwise normal people in society with normal lives. it's also possible she's filled in memory gaps over the years, and it's also possible she's filled in those gaps in light of some coaxing from others.

It's also possible Kavanaugh is telling the total truth, lying through his teeth, or likewise that he's being honest but may not have an accurate memory.

But the way to handle these things is not to draw conclusions, but to step through the facts logically, objectively, and so far not one person she's said was there can corroborate any part of her story, there are definitely odd gaps in her memory, and she is coincidentally a pretty far-left professor and "resistance" member who had her social media scrubbed prior to this accusation coming forward. When combined with the actions of Feinstein in this, yes it's questionable. Not definitive, but it is far from a convincing story based on the facts to date.

[CitizenBBN]

Not having cooperation does not.mean it ddid not happen. My issue is he has extemporaneous evidence showing where he was at the possible times.

That's true. I've never said it didn't happen. I'm saying people are saying "I believe her", and that has two key weaknesses:

1) I've known some really believable people who were were serial liars, b/c they really believe their own lies, and
2) she can be telling the complete truth as she perceives it and still not be accurate.

And that's true of Kavanaugh and any witness, so what our legal process does is step back from that testimony and try to find corroboration, and establish and break alibis, with FACTS.

And, as you point out, he seems to be able to account for his whereabouts in some great detail, and she coincidentially can't help us get to a particular date or location.

if we were sitting here as jurists, that's what we should be looking at. Not the emotion behind a statement, but the facts on the paper. The emotion of a statement is empirically proven time and again to not be a reliable indicator of truth, and should not be given much weight compared with the things we can establish factually.

Of course in these cases there are usually precious few facts, but location and timing is a big one. 36 years later there are even fewer, but that means we should be MORE careful with believing emotion, not less.