ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points -- This Is Why Women Don't Report Sexual Assaults

[ Posted Friday, September 21st, 2018 – 18:35 PDT ]

Brett Kavanaugh was supposed to have been confirmed by the Senate to a seat on the Supreme Court by now. That was the original plan, at any rate. But this plan was blown out of the water last Friday when Christine Blasey Ford came forward and publicly accused him of attempting to rape her when the two were in high school. The fallout still continues, and will continue to do so for some time to come.

The overwhelming rush to confirm Kavanaugh, of course, was entirely made-up to begin with. There is absolutely nothing stopping the Senate from taking as much time as it needs to vet Kavanaugh, putting the lie to all of the Republicans' talk of it being "the 11th hour." There is no deadline. None. Republicans argue that they want to allow the Supreme Court to begin its next term (which starts at the beginning of October) with a full bench. But they were fully content to have only eight justices on the court throughout all of 2016, which completely undermines their position now.

The most ludicrous of the GOP's many shifting positions this week has been that "there is no time" for the F.B.I. to investigate Ford's claim. This is pure hogwash. First, there is no deadline, period. Second, the F.B.I. did indeed conduct an investigation into Anita Hill's claims, back in 1991, and it only took them three days to do so. Which means that, had the investigation begun immediately after Ford made her claims, it could easily have been over by now. In fact, they've still got the time to do so before Ford will testify. The Senate committee and Ford's lawyers are still haggling over what day this will take place (as of this writing nothing has been finalized), but it seems it is going to take place either next Wednesday or next Thursday. Again, this should be more than enough time for the F.B.I. to fan out and interview everyone who may have knowledge of the alleged attack. But, according to Republicans, "there's no time" to do so. Utter hogwash. There's plenty of time.

The hearing next week is a veritable minefield for Republicans on the committee, of course. Of the 11 Republicans on the committee, none are women. In addition, at least a few of them are prone to asking all sorts of cringeworthy questions in such hearings. And, of course, there is the entire debacle of the Anita Hill hearings still hanging over the committee. The Republicans are reportedly so concerned with the optics of the hearing that they're considering hiring a female lawyer to ask Ford questions instead of having the senators themselves do the questioning. This would also lead to some very bad optics, of course. It's really a lose-lose situation for them all around.

Even before the Kavanaugh nomination began, Republicans were already in trouble with women voters. One year after the Anita Hill hearings, a record number of women were elected to Congress. Of course, "a record number" has to be put in context. From a recent Washington Post article, here are the actual numbers:

That's a reference to the elections in 1992, dubbed the "Year of the Woman" after the number of women elected to the House nearly doubled, to 47, and the number of women elected to the Senate tripled, to six.

Since then, these numbers have risen much higher, but back then it was indeed downright revolutionary to even have six women senators (including the first state, California, to elect two women to represent them in the Senate). The article goes on to point out the danger Republicans currently face in November:

Even before the accusation against Kavanaugh surfaced, polls showed women preferred Democrats more than men did and were more likely to disapprove of President Trump, who faced accusations of sexual misconduct by 19 women before his 2016 election. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in late August found 58 percent of female registered voters intended to cast a ballot for a Democrat for Congress, compared with 45 percent of men.

. . .

"Before now, the argument was that the midterm politics played in Republicans' favor, based on the idea that red-state Democrats would feel pressure to support Kavanaugh because Trump is popular in their states," said Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, a group that opposes the Kavanaugh nomination. "But now, if Republicans set out to smear a sexual assault survivor to steamroll Kavanaugh through, it will only further repel suburban women voters, who are already powering the November wave."

Things have gotten so bad that GOP consultants seem to be actually hoping Kavanaugh will fail to be confirmed, because it would help them out politically:

"If [Kavanaugh] doesn't make it, it could be way more helpful as a rallying cry for our base turnout," said one Republican consultant working on the midterms, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal polling. "The Democratic base is already excited. If their base gets any more excited, they might have a stroke."

Male Republican politicians, from Donald Trump on down, have not exactly been making things easier. Trump, astoundingly, refrained from directly attacking Ford for almost an entire week before unloading on her on Twitter. In doing so, Trump suggested that if Ford wasn't lying, she would have contacted either "local Law Enforcement Authorities" or "the FBI" back when the alleged attack happened. This brought condemnation even from Republicans:

"I was appalled by the president's tweet," said Susan Collins (R-Maine). "First of all, we know that allegations of sexual assault -- I'm not saying that's what happened in this case -- but we know allegations of sexual assault are one of the most unreported crimes that exist. So I thought that the president's tweet was completely inappropriate and wrong."

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), meanwhile, called Trump’s tweet "incredibly insensitive."

Democrats were harsher in their assessments.

"These comments reflect exactly why it is so hard for survivors of sexual assault to come forward -- society has doubted, diminished, and attacked survivors," Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) wrote on Twitter. "President Trump is part of the problem, carrying out the same painful attacks, trying to shame and marginalize Dr. Ford."

. . .

Samantha Guerry, a friend and former classmate of Ford, expressed exasperation at Trump's question during an interview Friday morning with CNN.

"The idea that someone would have told the FBI 36 years ago is ludicrous," she said, noting that many women who are assaulted "are extremely unlikely to tell anyone."

"This is a deeply personal, traumatic experience that has a lot of psychological complexity to it," she said. "Anyone who looks at this thoughtfully will see that women who make these claims are often belittled, told they are mistaken, bullied and shamed."

Guerry is right -- the Republicans are answering their own question. They are providing a clear answer to: "Why wouldn't a woman report a sexual assault?" Because, obviously, she would face being shamed, being bullied, and being belittled. All of which has been on naked display since last Friday. This is precisely why women keep silent. In fact, Republicans just keep on providing more proof. Here are just a few examples, from the past week.

Exhibit A:
This one sets the stage, really, since it is the only one not actually uttered this week. From a speech Kavanaugh made a few years back: "What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep. That's been a good thing for all of us."

Exhibit B:
Representative Ralph Norman of South Carolina, cracked a joke at the start of a debate with his challenger: "Did y'all hear this latest late-breaking news on the Kavanaugh hearings? Ruth Bader Ginsburg came out saying she was groped by Abraham Lincoln."

Exhibit C:
Senate candidate in Mississippi Chris McDaniel on sexual assault accusations in general: "I'm tired of all these made-up scandals, frankly. Now, granted sometimes these accusations may be accurate. But most of the time, we know what they are. The American left makes it up. They throw it out there. They hope it sticks. You know, I don't fall for it anymore. I hope the American people aren't falling for it. These allegations, 99 percent of the time, are just absolutely fabricated."

Exhibit D:
Chuck Grassley, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee: "I'd hate to have someone ask me what I did 35 years ago." Parker Molloy, a former writer for Upworthy, dug into this question and reported back: "The answer: busy voting against MLK Day."

Exhibit E:
Mitch McConnell, speaking to a social conservative conference (proving that he's already made up his mind): "Here’s what I want to tell you. In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the U.S. Supreme Court. So, my friends, keep the faith. Don't get rattled by all this. We're going to plow right through it and do our job."

Exhibit F:
Senator Orrin Hatch thinks Ford may have been "mistaken" and that "clearly somebody's mixed up."

Exhibit G:
The Wall Street Journal editorial board opined that "mistaken identity is also possible."

Exhibit H:
Kathleen Parker wrote an entire article for the Washington Post titled: "Is There A Kavanaugh Doppelganger?"

Note those last three strike a similar theme: "Maybe it happened, but maybe it was just someone who looks like Kavanaugh!" Which brings us to the worst reaction of the week, from conservative commentator Ed Whelan. Whelan is close buddies with Kavanaugh and belongs to high-profile inner conservative circles in Washington. He apparently hyped the "it could have been someone else" storyline behind the scenes, promising a revelation. A staffer for Orrin Hatch even added to this hype, directing people to pay attention to Whelan's Twitter feed, in advance. The question of who Whelan coordinated his release with is still very much an open one, since he is friends with Kavanaugh and has reportedly been part of the process of preparing Kavanaugh for his upcoming testimony. Did Kavanaugh or the White House know what he was going to say before he said it? You can bet Democrats on the committee will be asking Kavanaugh about this matter next week, that's for sure.

Last night, Whelan tried to lay out a case that it was another student at Kavanaugh's school -- whom he actually named -- who could have assaulted Ford. He went into great conspiratorial detail, complete with maps (showing a house close to the golf course and country club), drawings of the house's layout, and photos of the interior showing a stairway. He also posted photos of both Kavanaugh and the man he was essentially accusing of attempted rape, which showed them with the same haircut.

The blowback began almost immediately, as pretty much everyone (except, of course, Fox News) immediately denounced such an unfounded conspiracy theory. People who had joined in the hype quietly deleted their tweets. Finally, Whelan himself decided to remove the whole thread from his own Twitter feed, and apologized publicly: "I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh's Georgetown Prep classmate. I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake."

So, once again, why would any woman hesitate to report a sexual assault? Because of what inevitably happens, that's why. And, please note, all of this happened in 2018, in the era of #MeToo. Just imagine what it would have been like back in the 1980s, before sexual assault was even taken very seriously.

The Republicans really have been bending over backwards to answer their own question. This is why women are still reluctant -- even in this "woke" day and age -- to come forward. Because they see what happens when someone does. Even now.

OK, this is running way long (as usual), so let's just whip through some notes from the midterm campaign trail in abbreviated fashion:

Ted Cruz is warning Texans that if Beto O'Rourke defeats him, the first thing O'Rourke will do is ban barbeque in Texas. [OK, Cruz was kidding, but still....]

Up in Wisconsin, Randy "Iron 'Stache" Bryce has the Republican Party worried about holding on to Paul Ryan's House seat. This week, a super PAC announced it would be spending a whopping $1.5 million on ads in this single district. They certainly wouldn't be spending that kind of money unless they were truly worried about their chances in November, to state the obvious.

Elsewhere in Wisconsin, an African-American woman running for a state legislative seat was going door-to-door contacting voters when someone called the cops on her. Shelia Stubbs was with her 71-year-old mother and her 8-year-old daughter, but that didn't stop a man from reporting to the police that a "suspicious vehicle" was "waiting for drugs at the local drug house." The cop actually handled the situation respectfully, but she isn't the first African-American to be reported for "campaigning while black," and, sadly, she probably won't be the last.

In other Republican minority outreach news, down in Texas a Republican ad was placed in Fort Bend County, which has a large percentage of Asian-American voters, which showed the Hindu deity Ganesha, who has the head of an elephant. The text of the ad asked, in truly insensitive terms: "Would you worship a donkey or an elephant? The choice is yours." The party was forced to apologize, but the damage had already been done.

An internal poll by Republicans shows they are in danger of being hoist by one of President Trump's petards. While sane national Republicans are worried about the possibility of a blue wave in November, Trump's been predicting to voters that there will instead be a "red wave" election. Republican voters apparently believe Trump, because few of them are worried that Democrats are going to win control of the House. This lackadaisical attitude may serve to suppress Republican turnout, because why bother voting when you know your party's going to win big?

And some good news: Minnesota has officially kicked off the midterm elections today, because early voting has now begun in the Gopher State. That's how close we are to Election Day, folks -- some people are already voting!

One final story is worth mentioning, since it will probably be a lot bigger next week -- Stormy Daniels has written a tell-all book, and it will soon be released to the public. Salacious details have already been released to the press, including graphic descriptions of Donald Trump's genitalia. So Stormy's book tour should certainly be a lot more interesting than Bob Woodward's was!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have two Honorable Mention awards to give out this week, to Hillary Clinton and Anita Hill. Both women wrote articles this week that are well worth reading.

Clinton's article dealt with the crisis our democracy is currently in, and how important it is to send a message to Trump this November at the voting booth. This comes on the heels of Barack Obama re-entering the political fray, because this election is too important to sit out.

Anita Hill's op-ed dealt with her own experience testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her message was an unequivocal warning to the committee:

In 1991, the Senate Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to demonstrate its appreciation for both the seriousness of sexual harassment claims and the need for public confidence in the character of a nominee to the Supreme Court. It failed on both counts. As that same committee, on which sit some of the same members as nearly three decades ago, now moves forward with the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings, the integrity of the court, the country's commitment to addressing sexual violence as a matter of public interest, and the lives of the two principal witnesses who will be testifying hang in the balance.

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is a pretty easy call, because one senator has stood out on the issue of Kavanaugh and the committee. Mazie Hirono of Hawai'i has not been mincing her words this week. Far from it.

Here are just a few of Hirono's statements from the past week, beginning with a tweet:

The entire array of the White House's power is behind Judge Kavanaugh. It not only places Dr. Blasey Ford at a disadvantage, it victimizes her. No survivor of sexual assault should be subjected to death threats and concern about the safety of their family.

During an interview:

I expect the men in this country and the men in this committee... to demand an F.B.I. investigation. But really, guess who's perpetuating all of these kinds of actions? It's the men in this country. I just want to say to the men in this country, just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change.

Later she repeated this line as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell walked by: "Do the right thing!"

On Wednesday, she was interviewed by ABC News, where she addressed a statement by the Republicans on the committee:

I would like us to come together and figure out what is the best way to proceed. Not this seat-of-the-pants stuff. The latest, being a letter from the chairman to the Democrats saying, "We have done everything we can to contact her." That is such bullshit, I can't hardly stand it.

On Thursday, she further elaborated on how Republicans were handling the situation:

You know what? They’ve extended a finger. That's how I look at it. I’m very graphic in what I say, because this is what’s happening. I'm very upset by this.

Brian Fallows, the leader of Demand Justice (which opposes Kavanaugh's nomination), said of Hirono: "Ninety percent of other Democrats in the caucus could learn a thing or two from how she speaks."

We agree. There's a time for decorum and polite speech. This isn't one of them. This is a time for visceral responses to (as Hirono put it) "bullshit."

During the initial Kavanaugh hearings, Hirono spent a lot of time on questions about Kavanaugh's decision in a case involving native Hawai'ians. While it went mostly unnoticed, she also included in her remarks Alaskan native groups as well. There was a reason for this, and the reason was to convince Senator Lisa Murkowski to vote no. Earlier this month, the Alaska Federation of Natives -- who represent more than 20 percent of the state's population -- announced its opposition to Kavanaugh's confirmation. This week, both the governor of Alaska and the lieutenant governor came out against the confirmation of Kavanaugh as well, further increasing the pressure on Murkowski to vote no.

Mazie Hirono has emerged during the Kavanaugh confirmation battle as one of the strongest voices and one of the best strategists against the nomination. For doing so, and for speaking so plainly, Hirono is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Well done, Senator! Keep the pressure up....

[Congratulate Senator Mazie Hirono on her Senate contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

It pains us to say it, but this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week is none other than Joe Biden. During the Anita Hill hearing, Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee. And he still hasn't really apologized for what he put her through at the time.

Biden was asked about Hill feeling she wasn't treated fairly last November, and he responded he was "so sorry if she believes that." A classic non-apology apology, in other words. He tried again: "I am so sorry that she had to go through what she went through."

Anita Hill was asked about this at the time, and responded that these remarks were "not enough" and the equivalent of: "I'm sorry if you were offended."

Now that the focus is back on Hill, Biden tried to apologize more directly, but still fell short of the mark: "I am sorry I couldn't have stopped the kind of attacks that came to you. But I never attacked her. I supported her. I believed her from the beginning, and I voted against Clarence Thomas."

Hill, in an interview with Elle magazine this week, responded again:

"People were asking [Biden], 'When are you going to apologize to her?' It’s become sort of a running joke in the household when someone rings the doorbell and we're not expecting company. 'Oh,' we say, 'is that Joe Biden coming to apologize?'" she said. "There are more important things to me now than hearing an apology from Joe Biden. I'm okay with where I am."

That's big of her, but we have to wonder, how hard is it for Biden to issue an actual apology -- one that isn't immediately followed by a "but..." statement.

C'mon, Joe. Do the right thing. Call Anita Hill up personally and apologize to her. Don't try to make yourself look better, just say you are sorry, period. For still not being able to do so, Joe Biden is, sadly, our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Joe Biden is not currently in office or running for office, and it is our standing policy not to provide contact information for such private citizens, so you'll have to look his info up on your own if you'd like to let him know what you think of his inaction.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 501 (9/21/18)

We've got one talking point this week on the Kavanaugh situation, then three pointing out the current troubles and travails of the Republican Party, and then we'll end with three talking points on the subject of the strange things that come out whenever Donald Trump opens his mouth. In other words, about par for the course, these days.

 

1
   Let's hear from the Wasted guy

The book's title should be repeated often by Democrats, for obvious reasons.

"Senate Republicans refuse to call any other witnesses to testify about Christine Blasey Ford's allegations of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh, which only goes to show that they really, really don't want the full truth to come out. Why not call the other guy that Ford placed in the room during the attack? You know, the guy who wrote a book titled Wasted: Tales Of A Gen-X Drunk. In it, he tells a story of a character named 'Bart O'Kavanaugh' -- wonder who that could be, hmm? -- who gets so drunk he passes out and throws up in a car. The author, Mark Judge, put a quote on his yearbook page at the prep school both he and Kavanaugh attended: 'Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.' What a charming guy! In his own words, he wrote about 'the wonderful beauty of uncontrollable male passion,' so perhaps he's got some expert testimony worth hearing. Democrats should demand that the Judiciary Committee hear from the author of Wasted: Tales Of A Gen-X Drunk, whether it requires a subpoena to get him to testify or not."

 

2
   Bad news for the GOP [Part 1]

Please, note, this is from their own survey.

"The Republican National Committee just paid for a survey of voters to see how their big midterm message is working. The short answer: not very well. By a stunning two-to-one margin (61 to 30 percent), voters said the big Trump tax cut benefits 'large corporations and rich Americans' over 'middle-class families.' Independent voters were even worse news for Republicans, who agreed that Wall Street and the fatcats benefitted more by a 36-point margin. The survey also found that voters worry that the tax cut will lead to slashing Social Security and Medicare, concluding that 'most voters believe that the GOP wants to cut back on these programs in order to provide tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.' Even worse, the survey found that GOP efforts to demonize Nancy Pelosi have also failed -- 50 percent of the respondents were voting for Pelosi-aligned candidates while only 45 percent favored Trump-aligned candidates. This means the two things Republicans have been running hard on -- demonizing Pelosi and talking up their tax cuts -- are absolute losers with the public."

 

3
   Bad news for the GOP [Part 2]

Trump's tariffs aren't exactly polling well, either -- even among those who they were most designed to help.

"The nation's steelworkers are now on the brink of going on strike. While steelmaking corporations have been doing quite well in the past few years -- even before Trump's tariffs were announced -- with surging profits, absolutely none of the benefits have 'trickled down' to the actual steelworkers. The United Steelworkers Union put out a statement saying: 'Top company officials have given themselves more than $50 million in pay and bonuses since 2015 while the hourly workforce has not received a wage increase over the same period.' Once again, solid proof that 'trickle-down theory' belongs in a book of fables, right next to unicorns and pixie dust. If this strike happens before the midterms, it's going to show the rank hypocrisy of the Republican tax cuts for all to see."

 

4
   Bad news for the GOP [Part 3]

Heading for the exits....

"Les Wexner used to be a big Republican donor. He's an Ohio billionaire who is the C.E.O. of both Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body Works, and he used to be a reliable donor to Republican candidates. But he just announced he's done with all of that, and now he 'won't support this nonsense in the Republican Party.' The reason for his change of attitude? He saw Barack Obama's recent speech. 'I was struck by the genuineness of the man; his candor, humility and empathy for others. I just decided I'm no longer a Republican.' Meanwhile, over in Kansas, former Republican Senator Nancy Kassebaum, the daughter of Alf Landon, has announced she is supporting Democrat Laura Kelly for governor. She joins former GOP governor Bill Graves, who is also supporting Kelly over Republican nominee Kris Kobach. Kelly explained her newfound position: 'I'm a Republican, but that doesn't mean you walk lockstep always with the party.' That's a pretty astounding turnaround for the daughter of the guy who ran on the Republican ticket against F.D.R. for president back in 1936."

 

5
   To declassify, or not to declassify

While little-noticed, Donald Trump was actually forced to reverse himself this week. Since this so rarely happens, it's worth pointing out.

"President Trump began the week announcing that he was going to declassify some documents in order to prove (in his mind, anyway) that Bob Mueller's investigation is a 'witch hunt.' Such document dumps have happened before, but none of them remotely proved his case, of course. Trump, however, was certain that this time around the tactic would work. He even bragged about it in an interview: 'I hope to be able to put this up as one of my crowning achievements' as president (along with 'tax cuts and regulation and all the things I've done'). But by week's end, the intelligence community had apparently convinced Trump that revealing confidential human sources and intelligence-gathering secrets was a bad idea. So Trump was -- thankfully -- talked out of a 'crowning achievement' of revealing spies' names to our enemies. I'm just glad there were a few adults in the room to stop him from this reckless action."

 

6
   Standing water

OK, these last two are just poking fun at Trump's idiocy, because he makes it so easy to do, on an almost-daily basis.

"Donald Trump, in a recorded video about Hurricane Florence, said a rather bizarre thing: 'This is a tough hurricane, one of the wettest we've ever seen from the standpoint of water.' Um, what? From the standpoint of water? Water has a standpoint now? And this was on a recorded video, where they could have quite easily done a second take, mind you. When touring the affected areas, Trump showed his lack of empathy once again, telling a man who had a yacht wash up in his backyard, 'Is this your boat? Or did it become your boat?' Trump later returned to the subject, saying 'at least you got a nice boat out of the deal.' When asked by a reporter, Trump explained further: 'This boat, I don't know what happened, but this boat just came here. And do you know whose boat that is? They don't know whose boat that is.' When Trump met with a local official, he asked an even more insensitive question: 'How is Lake Norman doing? I love that area. I can't tell you why, but I love that area.' Maybe because there is a Trump National Golf Club on the lake's shore? Presidents used to 'feel your pain,' but all Trump is worried about is whether he's going to personally feel any pain himself. So much for our consoler-in-chief."

 

7
   Build another wall!

Astoundingly, those weren't even the stupidest things Trump was reported saying this week.

"When talking to the foreign minister of Spain, Donald Trump suggested that they solve their immigration problems by, quote, building a wall across the Sahara Desert, unquote. The Spanish diplomats tried to explain to Trump that this would be very hard to do since the desert is so enormous, to which Trump responded: 'the Sahara border can't be bigger than our border with Mexico.' For the record, the U.S.-Mexican border is less than 2,000 miles long, while the Sahara Desert is 3,000 miles wide. Also, the Sahara extends across 11 countries in Africa, none of which are Spain. One can only imagine the eye-rolling which took place during and immediately after this meeting."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

290 Comments on “Friday Talking Points -- This Is Why Women Don't Report Sexual Assaults”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    Nice to see you give Hillary a kudos!

    Sen. Hirono is a great choice for Most Impressive Dem this week.

    Re: this Kavanaugh/Ford situation -- yep to all.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I don't know enough about the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Joe Biden.

    I have not been able to find a detailed account of how he handled those hearings much beyond reporting that is similar to what you present here.

    I would really love to hear more about this beyond Biden's so called non-apology.

    What did he do during that hearing process that was so wrong?

    What should he have done better?

    What senate constraints were on him?

    These are the kinds of substantive questions I have that I am searching for answers to.

    Hope you can help!

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    BTW,

    I would argue that Senator Dianne Feinstein should have - at the very least - received a dishonourable mention for MDDOTW award.

    She has so far failed to explain why she sat on the Ford letter for so long ...

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What are the lessons learned (or should have been learned) from Anita Hill's experience that could have been applied to the current confirmation process?

    Just to let everyone know up front, all non-sensical comments will be ignored.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Nice to see you give Hillary a kudos!

    Maybe she'll run again!!

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't remember every party I went to as a student but I do remember one in particular. Mostly because of the horrible aftermath … I call it the Cherry Whiskey Party. Ahem. Let's just say that the next morning my bathroom looked like there had been a bloody massacre.

    I don't remember how I got home that night.

    I do remember what the party room looked like, in fair detail. But, I don't remember what house it was, whose house it was or even what street it was on. I don't remember what time I left. I don't remember everything I did or even who all was there.

    It strikes me that Kavanaugh's strong denials sound a lot like 'me thinks he doth protest too much.

    It strikes me that he probably doesn't remember all of the parties he went to as a (drunken) student.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My point is that, at the very least, Kavanaugh should have a few doubts ...

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Perhaps his memory could be jogged by listening to Dr. Ford's testimony … should it ever occur.

  9. [9] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    although i don't want to prejudge the veracity of the allegation, i don't think there's much room for interpretation as to why the senator chose to wait until election season to go public with it.

    JL

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    What impact, if any, do you think the release of that letter and the timing of it has on the process going forward?

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think it's a side issue.

  12. [12] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,

    impact on the nomination process? practically none whatsoever, in all likelihood. however, if the goal was to induce republican senators to make asses of themselves and hurt their party's chances to hold the house, i'd say it was pretty effective.

    JL

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Good point.

    The way the Republicans on the judiciary committee are acting, one could presume that they believe the judge is guilty.

    They're certainly not doing him any favours.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I would like to have heard from Biden a full accounting, directed to the current senate judiciary committee, of what went wrong with the Anita Hill hearing and a detailed listing of lessons learned … as soon as he heard of the Ford allegations.

    As the former committee chairman, his words of wisdom would have meant a lot.

    It's probably too late, now.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Biden runs again in 2020 and this issue derails him, then y'all deserve another four years of Trump.

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, yes, that is called cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

    This is what it looks like. Ahem.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Second, the F.B.I. did indeed conduct an investigation into Anita Hill's claims, back in 1991, and it only took them three days to do so.

    Yes, but the issue of Anita Hill came to light MONTHS before the confirmation process started..

    It's really simple..

    Democrats had their chance to address this issue MONTHS ago...

    That they waited til AFTER the Judiciary committee finished it's work is on them..

    This one sets the stage, really, since it is the only one not actually uttered this week. From a speech Kavanaugh made a few years back: "What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep. That's been a good thing for all of us."

    An out of context quote that has already been debunked...

    When all is said and done, here are 2 inescapable FACTS..

    FACT #1
    There is not a SINGLE SOLITARY FACT to support this so-called "victim"'s claim...

    FACT #2
    Any complaints about the "rush" in the process should be directed SOLELY and COMPLETELY at the Dumbocrats who had MONTHS to address this issue, but rather choose to prep it and package it SOLELY as a Garland Payback and a monkey wrench in the process...

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    My point is that, at the very least, Kavanaugh should have a few doubts

    But he doesn't.. THAT should tell you something right there...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    It strikes me that he probably doesn't remember all of the parties he went to as a (drunken) student.

    DO you have ANY facts to support that Kavanaugh WAS a "drunken student"???

    We DO have facts to support that this so-called "victim" was a 15 yr old drunk...

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would argue that Senator Dianne Feinstein should have - at the very least - received a dishonourable mention for MDDOTW award.

    She has so far failed to explain why she sat on the Ford letter for so long ...

    VERY good point...

    But it's clear why DiFi sat on the letter so long..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe she'll run again!!

    "If only.... If only...."
    -Hades, HERCULES

    :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    When touring the affected areas, Trump showed his lack of empathy once again, telling a man who had a yacht wash up in his backyard, 'Is this your boat? Or did it become your boat?'

    Oh com'on! That's pretty funny... :D

    'Sides.. If the guy owns a yacht, he is probably a 1 percenter..

    And ya'all are on record as hating 1 percenters, so I fail to understand the beef..

    Ahhh, it's a chance to knock Trump..

    Gotcha {wink wink} :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Friday Talking Points -- This Is Why Women Don't Report Sexual Assaults

    Kathleen Wiley

    Juanita Broderick

    Paula Jones

    Monica Lewinsky

    Let's not pretend that DEMOCRATS hands are clean in this area, eh?

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ladies & Gentlemen..

    Manhunt ends for Pennsylvania man who allegedly threatened Trump
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/21/manhunt-ends-for-pennsylvania-man-who-allegedly-threatened-trump.html

    I give you your "peaceful" and "tolerant" Dumbocrats.. :^/

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    OPINION | JENNIFER C. BRACERAS

    Brett Kavanaugh and the limits of hashtag feminism

    There is no question we must take seriously any and all allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse, including this one. But that does not mean such allegations must be accepted as true simply because they are made by a woman.

    To the contrary, fairness and due process require that claims be evaluated on the basis of evidence and on the credibility of both the accuser and the accused.

    This tweet from @KailiJoy is emblematic:

    “A woman is trying to protect us from putting an attempted rapist on the Supreme Court, and she’s going to be destroyed for it, and she knows it, and she’s doing it anyway. That’s patriotism.”

    That’s one way to look at it. Here’s another: A woman is trying to sink a Supreme Court nominee whom she believes (rightly or wrongly) puts Roe v. Wade in jeopardy, and she will be hailed as a hero and a patriot, offered lucrative speaking engagements, and a named professorship at a prestigious university.

    Or how about this: A young, intoxicated woman is pushed on the bed and groped by an equally intoxicated young man. More than three decades later, during marital counseling, a middle-aged woman mentions the incident without naming the assailant. Still years later, she fills in the blanks and, inaccurately, attaches the name of Brett Kavanaugh to that memory. 5/16
    https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/09/19/brett-kavanaugh-and-limits-hashtag-feminism/sokDfHFYGxD4n9Glld5qoI/story.html

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    What is undeniable here is that, if the Party roles were reversed, ya'all would be making my exact same arguments..

    The only difference is that I would be in complete agreement with ya'all.. :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll ask once again...

    Are there **ANY** facts to support this so-called "victim"'s accusations??

    Does the SCV have hundreds of people behind her attesting to her credibility?? People who have known her for 40+ years??

    No she does not...

    The ONLY reason some people, including ya'all, believe her is because she is a Democrat and she is saying what they (and ya'all) want to hear...

    All we know about this SCV is that she was a 15 year old drunk...

    Once again, there is not a single solitary fact to support this SCV's claims..

    NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY FACT...

    And ya'all are perfectly on board with destroying a man based on the fact-less accusation..

    That's just sad...

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Are there **ANY** facts to support this so-called "victim"'s accusations??

    Are there any facts to support Judge Kavanaugh's denials?

    So, what would be the best way to uncover these facts?

    It's strange how those who are calling for the facts are the same ones who don't want the FBI to, you know, investigate.

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And ya'all are perfectly on board with destroying a man based on the fact-less accusation..

    It takes lotsa balls to assert that the credibility problem lies with the witness that's begging for FBI involvement.

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    All we know about this SCV is that she was a 15 year old drunk...

    Michale,

    Are you so afraid to tap out 'so-called victim' that you now have to use an acronym?

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even before the Kavanaugh nomination began, Republicans were already in trouble with women voters.

    Not really...

    Further, the only women who are going to pay attention to this perverse Democrat BS are women who wouldn't vote GOP anyways..

    In other words, the only minds that are going to be changed by this are those women who may have been on the fence but are pushed away from Democrats by this gross and obvious partisan character assassination of Judge Kavanaugh...

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    If Kavanaugh is so sure that he's innocent, then why wouldn't he be running around with his hair on fire calling for an FBI investigation instead of repeating over and over that he's ready to testify before the senate committee?

    It just doesn't make any sense to me ...

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you so afraid to tap out 'so-called victim' that you now have to use an acronym?

    Naw, I just got tired of typing it all out.. :D

  34. [34] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kudos, CW for giving the MIDOTW to Mazie!

    Mazie has Moxie. I like Moxie.

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think you're afraid.

  36. [36] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    the only women who are going to pay attention to this perverse Democrat BS are women who wouldn't vote GOP anyways..

    Yeah, thanks to Trump, we're swimmin' in wimmin.

    Keep it up, guys!

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    It takes lotsa balls to assert that the credibility problem lies with the witness that's begging for FBI involvement.

    First of all, no witness is begging for FBI involvement..

    But, OK... Fine.. Prove me wrong..

    Show me ONE fact that supports this so-called "victim"'s accusation..

    Just one..

    Further, as you point out, the ONLY reason that DEMOCRATS are begging for FBI involvement is as a means of delay... Garland payback..

    Isn't it funny that, AT NO TIME did this so-called "victim" *EVER* name Judge Kavanaugh as the alleged assailant...

    Only when the Democrats needed a bullshit accusation, THEN all of the sudden, Brett Kavanaugh became the "assailant"...

    35 years.. And it's only in the last few months that Judge Kavanaugh was the bad guy.. :^/

    Yea.. THAT's not a setup.. :^/

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Kavanaugh is so sure that he's innocent, then why wouldn't he be running around with his hair on fire calling for an FBI investigation instead of repeating over and over that he's ready to testify before the senate committee?

    It's simple.. Judge Kavanaugh doesn't need the FBI to validate his innocence.. The Judge KNOWS he is completely and unequivocally innocent..

    Further, the FBI has already investigated this and found nothing... Why do you believe ANOTHER investigation is going to turn up something different..

    Finally, the ONLY reason the Democrats want the FBI in there is to delay the nomination...

    There is simply NO rational or logical reason for the FBI to repeat what has already been done..

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Show me ONE fact that supports this so-called "victim"'s accusation..

    Isn't that what the FBI is for, Michale??

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, thanks to Trump, we're swimmin' in wimmin.

    Keep it up, guys!

    I always do!!! :D

    Wait...We talkin' about the same thing??? :D

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The Judge KNOWS he is completely and unequivocally innocent..

    Well, good for the judge! Heh.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Isn't that what the FBI is for, Michale??

    No..

    The FBI... ANY investigative agency only gets involved if there are FACTS to support an accusation..

    Can you imagine the chaos and anarchy if EVERY accusation, no matter HOW baseless in fact, were investigated!!??

    Even so, probably due to the political nature, the FBI *DID* investigate... And deemed the accusation baseless...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is easy to show you how it works..

    Walk into your local police station and say you want to file a criminal complaint for an assault that happened 35 years ago..

    You can't remember the date, you can't remember the location, you can't remember ANY details..

    What do you think would happen to you???

    If you weren't shown the door immediately, they MIGHT let you file the complaint, just to humor you.. But you can bet it would be IMMEDIATELY round-filed the second you leave...

    If there were ANYTHING but a Democrat/Republican thing, this so-called "victim" would be LAUGHED out of ANY LEO agency on the planet...

    There is not a SINGLE SOLITARY FACT that supports this so-called "victim"'s claim...

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Even so, probably due to the political nature, the FBI *DID* investigate... And deemed the accusation baseless...

    I don't understand why Chris let's you get away with nonsense like this.

    Please, take it upon yourself to refrain from typing out knowingly false statements.

  45. [45] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is easy to show you how it works..Walk into your local police station and say you want to file a criminal complaint for an assault that happened 35 years ago..

    Michale,

    We are not dealing with a criminal complaint.

    Until you start dealing with what this is, I am done with you on this issue.

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The MIDOTW is the most impressive because she used the word bullshit to describe bullshit and as she said she was graphic because she was upset about the bullshit.

    Biden is the MDDOTW because he issued an non-apology instead of a real apology.

    And you said "There's a time for decorum and polite speech. This isn't one of them. This is time for visceral responses to (as Hirono put it)"bullshit"".

    So when I call out your non-answers to addressing One Demand that you tried to pass off as answers and continuing to ignore One Demand as bullshit because I am upset you should be okay with that.

    Of course, you being okay with me calling out your bullshit doen't really matter all that much if the bullshit continues- does it?

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't understand why Chris let's you get away with nonsense like this.

    It's been well documented..

    When DiFi first received the letter back in July, her FIRST stop was to take it to the FBI... The FBI investigated and determined that there wasn't ANY facts to support a further deeper investigation. So the FBI simply added the info as an FYI addendum to Judge Kavanaugh's investigative packet..

    As I said.. This is well documented...

    I can understand why ya'all would want to ignore this fact..

    It TOTALLY destroy ya'all's THE FBI SHOULD INVESTIGATE!!!! argument..

    We are not dealing with a criminal complaint.

    At least we agree on this point..

    There is NOTHING criminal about this so-called "victim"'s accusation..

    On the other hand, civilly speaking, slander, libel or whatever might be a possibility to bring against the so-called "victim"....

    But you are absolutely correct.. This has NOTHING to do with criminality and EVERYTHING to do with Democrats pushing a partisan agenda..

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: That's big of her, but we have to wonder, how hard is it for Biden to issue an actual apology -- one that isn't immediately followed by a "but..." statement.

    This issue being brought up at this particular time is not going to help Joe Biden's potential run for the White House at all. If he intends to run, Joe is going to have to make that apology.

    Great FTP, CW. :)

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    When DiFi first received the letter back in July, her FIRST stop was to take it to the FBI... The FBI investigated and determined that there wasn't ANY facts to support a further deeper investigation. So the FBI simply added the info as an FYI addendum to Judge Kavanaugh's investigative packet..

    I stand corrected..

    The FBI wasn't DiFi's first stop with the letter.. She shared it with the FBI in early Sep, several weeks before this all became public.. From THAT point on, my narrative is accurate..

    The long and short of it is, the FBI has the information.. If it was worthy of investigation, it would be investigated..

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Enough fiddle-fartin' around.. Shit or get off the pot..

    Grassley agrees to give Ford more time to decide on Senate testimony

    The Senate Judiciary Committee has given Ford's attorneys a deadline of 2:30 p.m. ET Saturday to respond with their decision, a committee source confirmed to CNN.
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/politics/kavanaugh-ford-senate-judiciary-hearing/index.html

    This so-called "victim" is just jerkin' people around... :^/

    "I did NOT come down here just ta get jerked off!!"
    -Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    42

    The FBI... ANY investigative agency only gets involved if there are FACTS to support an accusation..

    Wrong. Just wrong. Setting aside the ridiculous notion that you personally know the parameters by which every investigative agency around the globe will "get involved," the fact is that the Eff-Be-I investigates whatever they are directed to investigate by various assorted committees in the House and Senate as well as the President of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States, and the Director of National Intelligence, among others. They do not concern themselves with the validity of those issues they are directed/ordered/tasked/asked to investigate by said House, Senate, POTUS, AG, AAG, DNI, and/or others. Believe it or not, "investigation" is their specialty... hence the name.

    Fun Fact: There are actually Eff-Be-I agents that do nothing except investigate issues phoned in by the public; they do not generally concern themselves in the least with the validity of the caller's claims. A typical request such as this might be a dependent requesting investigation regarding a service number in order to bury a loved one in a VA cemetery and things of this sort. It's what they do... all day long.

    Even so, probably due to the political nature, the FBI *DID* investigate... And deemed the accusation baseless...

    Their purpose in a background check is to determine if a nominee or potential employee could pose a national security risk. In the instant issue, they were unaware of Ms. Ford's claim until Diane Feinstein recently turned over the correspondence she received in July... i.e., not likely to have investigated something that they knew nothing about until recently. :)

  52. [52] 
    neilm wrote:

    I mean, it isn't like Joe doesn't know how to apologize:

    "Kinnock said Biden visited him in London after dropping out in 1988 and “apologized for failing, on that one occasion, to acknowledge the source.”"

    acknowledge the source

    Hmm.

    Neil Kinnock (British politician and now Lord, speaking as leader of the Labour Party):

    Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? [Pointing to his wife in the audience:] Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because all our predecessors were thick?

    While Biden said:

    I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? [Pointing to his wife in the audience:] Why is it that my wife who is sitting out there in the audience is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I’m the first Biden in a thousand generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest?

    It then got better:

    Biden had similarly echoed Kinnock by saying that his "ancestors … worked the coal mines of Northeast Pennsylvania [Welsh mines in the real story] and would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours."

    Miners playing football? I mean, c'mon Joe - Welsh miners played real football, not pointy football, and the national game for the masses back in mining days in PA was Baseball - a game mentioned in the second paragraph of Jane Austin's "Northanger Abbey" - the whole Doubleday nonsense was another example of America stealing stories from the Brits ;)

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Their purpose in a background check is to determine if a nominee or potential employee could pose a national security risk. In the instant issue, they were unaware of Ms. Ford's claim until Diane Feinstein recently turned over the correspondence she received in July... i.e., not likely to have investigated something that they knew nothing about until recently. :)

    And yet..

    "It's totally inappropriate for someone to demand we use law enforcement resources to investigate a 35-year-old allegation when she won't go under oath and can't remember key details including when or where it happened."
    -FBI Official

    The FBI looked into it.. That is all this so-called "victim" is going to get unless she can recall more pertinent factual details..

    It's understandable that the so-called "victim" wants to be vague.. If she got specific as to date and time and location and other witnesses, Judge Kavanaugh could easily refute the accusations..

  54. [54] 
    neilm wrote:

    Why are Republicans so scared to let the FBI investigate Kavanaugh? What else is he hiding from us?

    This is the first real public test for Kavanaugh - prior to this he was invisible on the public stage - this is the point where he prior transgressions get attention from the media - if he has nothing to hide he should be demanding that the FBI investigate.

    But, just like TOTUS, he maintains innocence until he can suppress the investigation. This is the party of the elites covering for each other.

    Time for a change.

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The promise of America deserves Joe Biden; the real America, not so much.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why are Republicans so scared to let the FBI investigate Kavanaugh? What else is he hiding from us?

    I don't know what it's like in YOUR America, Neil..

    But in MY country, we don't have federal agencies investigate citizens to PROVE their innocence..

    If you have a SPECIFIC charge with FACTS to support the charge, by all means..

    But you don't.. You don't have a SINGLE SOLITARY fact that supports this so-called "victim"'s claim..

    NOT A SINGLE FACT...

    So, until you do... You lose...

  57. [57] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While we are allowed to vent because we are upset, here is a little song parody aboot the "news" media in general (to the tune of there's no business like show business):

    There no reason to know reason there's no reason to know
    Every bit of bullshit is appealing
    (anything Big Money will allow)
    Never will there be that we're revealing
    You're getting three beans for your cow

    There's no people like news people
    They smile while the shit flows
    Talking 'bout the turkeys that is getting old
    Leaving change and reason out in the cold
    Happy that we got our little piece of gold
    Let's get on with the show!

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    true, there's a lot missing from the factual record. the specific date, time and location of the party, for starters. here's a list of a few of the currently known facts:

    1. ford first talked about the incident in 2012 in couples therapy. she believed she knew the specific identity of the boys involved at that time.
    2. ford passed a polygraph regarding the incident - not scientifically conclusive, but it doesn't hurt her credibility.
    3. mark judge wrote a book about being a drunk, with a heavily drunk character named "o'kavanaugh."
    4. kavanaugh's senior yearbook caption mentions heavy drinking multiple times.
    5. both ford and kavanaugh have legions of friends and colleagues willing to attest to their credibility.

    in my mind, it's perfectly reasonable based on the existing evidence that both principals are telling the whole truth as they remember it. if there turns out to be substantial evidence then the location actually matters a lot, since DC has a 10 year statute of limitations, while maryland and virginia have no statute of limitations on sexual assault.

    JL

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. ford first talked about the incident in 2012 in couples therapy. she believed she knew the specific identity of the boys involved at that time.

    That's the SCV's claim.. We haven't heard from the therapist.. It's also a fact that Kavanaugh's name did not come up in these sessions..

    So, there is no fact to support this claim...

    2. ford passed a polygraph regarding the incident - not scientifically conclusive, but it doesn't hurt her credibility.

    SVC's lawyer CLAIMED that SVC passed a polygraph. No facts to support it. Even if it's factually accurate, a polygraph is EASY to beat even under hostile conditions. Hell, I could teach you to pass a hostile polygraph in a couple hours, JL...

    And these conditions were anything but hostile, even if there was a polygraph..

    So, NOT a fact. A claim...

    3. mark judge wrote a book about being a drunk, with a heavily drunk character named "o'kavanaugh."

    While a fact (I'll take your word for it) it's not relevant to anything.. If being drunk makes Kavanaugh a rapist, then being drunk makes the SCV a hooker..

    Same logic..

    So, NOT a relevant fact...

    5. both ford and kavanaugh have legions of friends and colleagues willing to attest to their credibility.

    We have heard from a couple of the SCV's friends... But NONE from the time frame at issue..

    We HAVE heard from Kavanaugh friends, FROM the time frame at issue..

    So, partial fact, but in Judge Kavanaugh's favor..

    if there turns out to be substantial evidence then the location actually matters a lot, since DC has a 10 year statute of limitations,

    The date and time also matters a lot.. If the date in question was a date where Kavanaugh can PROVE he was no where near the incident's location, then there ya go...

    The details would almost assuredly be exculpatory...

    Which is why the SCV refuses to admit to the details..

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    Given that both Clarence Thomas and now Kavanaugh are both sexual predators, isn't it time the FBI had a closer look at Neil Gorsuch?

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    I mean, you can't be too careful. It took 19 investigations into Benghazi!!!! before Republicans discovered what everybody knew from day 1, so their track record on identifying criminals is severely flawed.

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Given that both Clarence Thomas and now Kavanaugh are both sexual predators,

    ANY facts that prove your claims??

    ANY facts at all??

    Oh that's right..

    All you have are buttons to push.. NO FACTS whatsoever...

  63. [63] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale,

    if you're not interested in serious discussion, i have better things to do with my time.

    JL

  64. [64] 
    neilm wrote:

    In other news, the costs of rebuilding after Florence are higher due to the moronic tariffs on steel, lumber, gypsum (needed for drywall), etc.

    But, you know, America First and all that.

    Oh, and do you know who is paying the tariffs?

    Mexico!

    No, not really, the real answer is regular Americans.

    And it isn't going to get any better. Now the Chinese have maxed out retaliatory tariffs, they are going after export restrictions on key components and materials for U.S. supply chains - this knocks the "just-in-time" model in the fork and forces expensive inventories to be built up, adding more cost to end goods for, you guessed it, regular Americans. I'm really tired of all this winning.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Little over an hour for the so-called "victim" to shit or get off the pot... :D

  66. [66] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    I don't wanna talk about Kav. Beyond the realpolitik of it, that is. Yes, it can even the score over Garland, but that's just a bonus if Kav's blown out. If he goes through, that chit stays out to be dealt with later. It's more about the Senate. The House is the House. That's gerrymandering and voter suppression against demographics and revulsion with Trump and a feckless majority. But state-votes are different, and the Kav circus is a god-send for close senate races. An outrage issue is a turnout issue, and the R-'s have no outrage dampening path out of this. The longer it goes, the worse it gets. A young Grassley Kav-messaging aide was picked off this morning on sexual misconduct in his past.

    Well, the next "deadline" is less than two hours away right now, so we'll see.**

    I think Cruz won the debate last night. That's hardly surprising, since he's one of the best debaters in politics. Beto looked angry and scared. He didn't really lay a glove on Ted, but what he has to do head to head against Cruz is play solid defense. They'll watch the tapes, he's smart, he listens to coaches, and he'll give Cruz a better run for it next debate.

    More interesting and fraught is the Rosenstein bombshell yesterday. When it came, it seemed suspicious from the get-go. Matt Apuzzo confirms that the leak didn't just appear; he's posted in Brussels now, and he was working on that story when he was still in NY. Mike Schmidt is as deep (state?) into the resistance press corp as a reporter can be. So, why now?

    And the story doesn't make sense. The story's headline was almost worthy of National Inquirer, relative to the content. Nobody who was sourced was in the room; it's based second hand hearsay at that. Who was John Kelly to anyone at that time? The 25th? Really? Does anyone really believe the DAG would wear a wire into the White House, even if there were an active coIntel investigation which would have allowed that?

    It's interesting that even Hannity came around to an Admiral Ackbar revelation by last night. It would be fascinating to have all the contemporaneous meeting memos declassified by presidential order; they're not likely to be full of source and method information, but there's probably a lot of interesting commentary in them.

    In any case, there's a really, really important election in about six weeks. So for all this stuff, for all the reporting, and all the conspiracy theories, as Gust Avrakatos's zen master would say, we'll see.**

    PS - Cute and relevant little song, there in [57], Mr. Harris.

    ** If anyone doesn't know the CIA agent's story of the zen master in Charlie Wilson's War, listen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoMLl9WYqgY

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news, the costs of rebuilding after Florence are higher due to the moronic tariffs on steel, lumber, gypsum (needed for drywall), etc.

    Any facts to support??

    No??

    Of course not...

    I'm really tired of all this winning.

    I don't see how.. You haven't been winning for 3 years..

    But I DO see that yer tired of facts.. :D

  68. [68] 
    neilm wrote:

    Perhaps the biggest impact will come from wood prices, which are up 40 percent from a year ago. The Trump administration imposed a 20 percent tariff on Canadian softwood lumber late last year, and supply shortages have also driven up prices.

    F'n asinine.

    Free trade. No tariffs. Protect the environment and intellectual property. We had that with the TPP that the f'n idiot took us out of. And it turns out that he changed his mind two days later when he discovered what the TPP was.

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, the next "deadline" is less than two hours away right now, so we'll see.**

    1 hour and 11 minutes.

    "He's doing a damn countdown!!!"
    -Navigator Bailey, STAR TREK, The Corbomite Manuever

    :D

    I think Cruz won the debate last night. That's hardly surprising, since he's one of the best debaters in politics. Beto looked angry and scared. He didn't really lay a glove on Ted, but what he has to do head to head against Cruz is play solid defense. They'll watch the tapes, he's smart, he listens to coaches, and he'll give Cruz a better run for it next debate.

    Once again, I have to marvel at how you tell it like it is.. Frak Party Uber Alles!!

    Yer my hero.. :D

    It's interesting that even Hannity came around to an Admiral Ackbar revelation by last night.

    ????

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the story doesn't make sense. The story's headline was almost worthy of National Inquirer, relative to the content. Nobody who was sourced was in the room; it's based second hand hearsay at that.

    Which is pretty much how ALL Trump claims are sourced...

    Yer just noticing this now?? :D

  71. [71] 
    neilm wrote:

    We are getting close to the point where 11 old white men tell a woman to shut up, and that she had her chance to speak.

    This is like Christmas in September for the Democrats. What are the Republicans thinking? Are they so scared of losing the Senate in November and not being able to finally get Bork 2 on the SCOTUS that they are willing to increase their chances of losing?

    Grassley should wear a Santa costume for halloween.

  72. [72] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [68] - Perhaps the biggest impact will come from wood prices, which are up 40 percent from a year ago ... and supply shortages have also driven up prices.

    Actually, not true just now in the forward market. See https://finviz.com/futures_charts.ashx?p=d1&t=LB

  73. [73] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [72] - Addendum: That contract is for about boxcars full of random length softwood 2x4's.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    We are getting close to the point where 11 old white men tell a woman to shut up, and that she had her chance to speak.

    Those 11 old white men are bending over backwards to accommodate the so-called "victim"... The FACT that she keeps moving the goal posts PROVES she is not interested in ANYTHING but delaying the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh.. She is going to lose...

    This is like Christmas in September for the Democrats.

    Yea??

    The ONLY people who are buying into all this bullshit are the ones who are easily led Democrats and wouldn't vote for GOP anyways...

    If anything, this is pushing more #WalkAway people to the GOP...

  75. [75] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [69] Admiral Ackbar revelation ... ????

    Google "Admiral Ackbar meme"

  76. [76] 
    neilm wrote:

    Wow, they are dropping like flies now - another sexual predator is resigning before an investigation can get underway. Garrett Ventry, a communications adviser to the Senate Judiciary Committee, ran away.

    Please, please force Kavanaugh on American women against their will. So far 58% of women are now intending to vote Democrat in the mid-terms. A little more help from Santa Grassley and his rapacious elves will get us over 60% by the time Professor Ford is told to sit down and shut up like a good little woman.

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is like Christmas in September for the Democrats.

    And a known and admitted wife beater is still a Democrat Senator and many Democrats on the Judiciary Committee has taken money from him..

    Check yer glass houses before you start throwing stones, Neil :D

    I noticed you also haven't condemned Keith Ellison for his girlfriend beating...

    Hypocrite...

  78. [78] 
    neilm wrote:

    Cramer [Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)] warned that it’s going to be difficult to get “good people” for judgeships and government jobs if “this is going to be the standard — if you have to have a perfect record in junior high and high school.”

    I know somebody who didn't attempt to rape anybody in high school - me!

    So, beyond wondering what Cramer got up to in high school, I propose that the vast, vast majority of men didn't attempt to rape anybody at high school.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, not true just now in the forward market.

    You mean!!!?????

    Neil spewed bullshit!!!????

    Say it ain't so!!!!! :D

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    If anyone cares..

    40 minutes.... :D

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know somebody who didn't attempt to rape anybody in high school - me!

    Josephine Blow accused you of trying to take off her clothes while you were drunk at a Party...

    She can't remember where it was or when it was, but she remembers you...

    Defend yourself against her accusation...

  82. [82] 
    neilm wrote:

    Actually, not true just now in the forward market.

    Spot prices in NC tell a very different story and the forward prices are only for 2x4 softwood.

    Local firms refuse to give more than 2 week prices right now.

  83. [83] 
    neilm wrote:

    I think it is time to start impeachment hearings against Kavanaugh right now - I mean, you can't wait around for all the facts to come out, so we may as well start getting rid of this accused criminal from the SCOTUS as soon as possible.

    If we have the first hearings now, we should be able to get 19 or so in before the 202 election.

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think it is time to start impeachment hearings against Kavanaugh right now - I mean, you can't wait around for all the facts to come out,

    Yea.. Who needs facts when you can just go with Party hatred and intolerance...

  85. [85] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [83] - I think it is time to start impeachment hearings against Kavanaugh right now

    Not over this. Next year, if the Senate were to change, and if the Republican party were to be freed from the Trump thrall, and if the documents were to show that he in fact lied in his confirmation hearings, then that, maybe.

    I'll see your troll and raise it. In terms of overturning a 5-4 conservative lock on the court, I favor expanding the Court to 11 justices a la FDR, making it 6-5 after President O'Rourke is inaugurated.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll see your troll and raise it. In terms of overturning a 5-4 conservative lock on the court, I favor expanding the Court to 11 justices a la FDR, making it 6-5 after President O'Rourke is inaugurated.

    Apparently, I am not the only one who thinks that Neil has become exactly what he accuses me of.. :D

  87. [87] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Nothin' wrong with trolling in a blog like this. It can spur legitimate debate. After all, changing the size of the Supreme Court is a logical response by a political party with sufficiently concentrated power.

    And that is itself an argument for divided power between and within Article I and II branches.

  88. [88] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Defend yourself against her accusation..

    "Well that's easy Mr. Chairman. You see, as drunk as I've ever been, I can't recall ever holding a woman down forcibly, and covering her mouth so that she wouldn't scream, even as a joke.

    Luckily, I wasn't an entitled preppy jerk jock in high school, and I've had only one blackout drunk in my life - at a cast party. They tell me I crawled around on the floor, and barfed in an unused fireplace. No attempted rape there.

    Luckily, my best friend in high school had no reason to write a book about how he and his friends were epic drunks, and blacked out all the time.

    Did I have a few awkward experiences while trying to get laid, especially in my early attempts? Absolutely. I was young and perpetually horny. Never tried to force it though, and I can state that as fact."

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Well that's easy Mr. Chairman. You see, as drunk as I've ever been, I can't recall ever holding a woman down forcibly, and covering her mouth so that she wouldn't scream, even as a joke.

    And yet, you are still being accused.

    So you MUST be guilty

    Did I have a few awkward experiences while trying to get laid, especially in my early attempts? Absolutely. I was young and perpetually horny.

    TMI

    Never tried to force it though, and I can state that as fact."

    That's not what Josephine Blow says and, as you know, ALL WOMEN ARE TO BE BELIEVED...

    So, yer fraked dood...

  90. [90] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    So she'll testify next week to her first hand knowledge of the events.

    Good thing or bad thing? The zen master would say, "we'll see."

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nothin' wrong with trolling in a blog like this.

    You would never know that by the denizens! :D

    After all, changing the size of the Supreme Court is a logical response by a political party with sufficiently concentrated power.

    So ya think the Left would have a problem with President Trump increasing the SCOTUS by 5 and nominating all Conservatives?? :D

    Ever read Tom Clancy's EXECUTIVE ORDERS???

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    So she'll testify next week to her first hand knowledge of the events.

    "Agrees in principle to testify"

    TRANSLATION: She's gonna be busy moving all the goal posts she can get her hands on...

    Her credibility is sinking by the moment...

  93. [93] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    As I presaged in earlier threads, Ford is going to testify. She's come this far. I suspect she's at the point where she's not testifying but making a statement on record. The GOP's reluctance to look under the rug is enough for most people to conclude they don't think O'Kavanaugh's heady-high school days can bear too much scrutiny.

    [66] LB... "More interesting and fraught is the Rosenstein bombshell yesterday. When it came, it seemed suspicious from the get-go."

    Q: Cui Bono?...

    A: Trump, and his naked attempts to knobble the Mueller probe. It's appalling to think that all that stands between Mueller, and Trump flattening his investigation, are two men Trump has openly eviscerated for doing what their job description seems to imply.

    Trump would be wise to let Mueller finish, at least that's an investigation he still controls, to a degree. Sure as eggs are eggs, a Democratic run house won't be so easily shut down or slagged off.

    LL&P

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I presaged in earlier threads, Ford is going to testify.

    The so-called "victim" SAYS she is going to testify..

    She has said that before and punked out...

  95. [95] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That's not what Josephine Blow says and, as you know, ALL WOMEN ARE TO BE BELIEVED...

    Well then, it's my word against hers. I think that there should be a full investigation - I'm confident that I'd come out well there. Witnesses should be called, including my best friends at the time, who could vouch for my sobriety, and frequent lack thereof. They'd tell you I was a 'happy' drunk, more inclined to try to kiss you than to hold you down.

    It DOES help that there's no 'pattern' of behavior or multiple accusations, as we find, for instance, with Weinstein, Cosby, and Trump...

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well then, it's my word against hers. I think that there should be a full investigation -

    OK.. But, since you are under investigation for rape, you'll lose your job.. Your friends will shun you and your family..

    Your life will be a living hell..

    Still want the FBI to investigate you????

    And it STILL won't matter..

    The woman is ALWAYS to be believed and no one will believe your innocence even if the FBI clears you...

    This is the world you have made.. Enjoy it..

  97. [97] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Your life will be a living hell..

    Still want the FBI to investigate you?

    Absolutely. Bring it on. Innocence is Bliss. In fact, under the circumstances you've described, ONLY an FBI investigation would lift the cloud.

    I sure wouldn't be hiding behind Chuck Grassley's petticoats. That would be unbecoming, sissy even, and make me look guilty as hell.

  98. [98] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [93] - It's appalling to think that all that stands between Mueller, and Trump flattening his investigation, are two men...

    "No one can stop the driving force of an FBI investigation. Not even the FBI."

    Mark Felt: The Man Who Brought Down the White House

    I have to go.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Absolutely. Bring it on. Innocence is Bliss. In fact, under the circumstances you've described, ONLY an FBI investigation would lift the cloud.

    NOTHING will left the cloud..

    That's the point you don't get..

    You will ALWAYS be guilty of rape..

    ALWAYS...

  100. [100] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The GOP's reluctance to look under the rug is enough for most people to conclude they don't think O'Kavanaugh's heady-high school days can bear too much scrutiny.

    Hell, they don't think that his present can bear too much scrutiny, else the full record of his White House tenure would be on the record as well.

    He can still be impeached, even once he's seated, for lying to Congress.

    The GOP should yank this partisan hack's nomination before he embarrasses them any more..

  101. [101] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [66] LB... "He (Beto) didn't really lay a glove on Ted, but what he has to do head to head against Cruz is play solid defense. They'll watch the tapes, he's smart, he listens to coaches, and he'll give Cruz a better run for it next debate."

    Have to agree, somewhat. O'Rourke did get off a couple subtle sledges (in Cricket, it's considered part of the game for the wicket keeper to quietly distract the batter with jibes... sledging.) Beto pointed out that it was totally Cruz' business to defend himself and his family's character against Trump's many lies and insults while on the 2016 hustings...Cruz' then thanked him...lol. With that one meek 'thanks' he called Trump a liar and himself a hypocrite. Most of the debate was 'stock-in-trade' Cruz debating sludge, a style that might keep most of his support in line, but won't win him any new adherents. Beto and his staff are quite shrewd, and no doubt will autopsy the first debate. The best way to get under Cruz' skin at this point is to pin him down on Trump, and either drive a wedge in or represent them as tighter than two coats of paint. Texas might just become distracted enough to see an upset, not likely, to be sure... However, in a state in which only 30%-ish of registered voters can be arsed to vote in a general election, it's not so much of a heavy lift to get democrats out, in numbers, for a midterm. The GOP realise it's touch and go, so does Cruz...question is, will Texas republicans shake off their malaise and realise it also. Should be a fun race to watch in the coming weeks.

    LL&P

  102. [102] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    NOTHING will left the cloud..

    Yeah, but what's the alternative? Funny how cases of rape and sexual imposition are the only crimes where the victim is presumed to be maybe lying under oath.

    If it were your daughter making the accusation would you want a bunch of old men saying to her, 'naw, you're lying?' I doubt it.

    But there's an obvious solution. Since most men wouldn't be accused in this manner, yank the Kavanaugh nomination and start over.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    He can still be impeached, even once he's seated, for lying to Congress.

    Exactly.. So shut up and let the process play out...

    Yeah, but what's the alternative?

    Oooohhhh I dunno...

    DEMAND FACTS from people who make hysterical Party based accusations...

    Whatta concept, eh!??

    If it were your daughter making the accusation would you want a bunch of old men saying to her, 'naw, you're lying?' I doubt it.

    If she was lying, I would hate it, but I would accept it..

    And, from all the FACTS, this so-called "victim" is lying..

    Funny how cases of rape and sexual imposition are the only crimes where the victim is presumed to be maybe lying under oath.

    Only when she has NO FACTS to back up her claims, an astonishingly detail-less accusation and a history of Party hysteria that lines up PERFECTLY with her fact-less accusation...

  104. [104] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    an astonishingly detail-less accusation

    Except that, judging by the committee's latest offer, they are the ones that want to keep 'details' out of it. No witnesses! They want to hire a lawyer (female, 'natch) to question her, but do not want her lawyer to question Kavanaugh. And of course, no FBI investigation of the facts.

    Doesn't sound like the 'detail-less' part is her fault.

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except that, judging by the committee's latest offer, they are the ones that want to keep 'details' out of it. No witnesses!

    That's because there were NO WITNESSES to the supposed assault..

    So no witnesses are required.. DUH...

    Doesn't sound like the 'detail-less' part is her fault.

    Of course, to YOU it doesn't..

    But the fact is she is not even sure of the year it happened, where it happened, how she got there, how she got home, etc etc...

    The FACTS clearly show that, when it comes to details, this so-called "victim" can't remember anything...

    What is the FBI supposed to investigate???

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's very easy to decimate ya'all's arguments..

    Would you advocate for the FBI to investigate a Dem nominee from a Dem POTUS with the possibility that such a delay would derail the nominee and Democrats would lose the opportunity to make the SCOTUS shift VERY Left for decades???

    No, ya'all would not...

    Ya'all's argument is blown out of the water.. :D

  107. [107] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Would you advocate for the FBI to investigate a Dem nominee from a Dem POTUS with the possibility that such a delay would derail the nominee and Democrats would lose the opportunity to make the SCOTUS shift VERY Left for decades?

    Would you advocate for the Senate to sit on the nomination for nearly a year to derail the nominee..

    Oh wait. The Republicans already did that.

  108. [108] 
    neilm wrote:

    So the Republican Senators are literally contemplating hiding behind the petticoats of a female lawyer rather than just act like adults and perform the job they are being paid to do.

    This just gets better and better.

    Now, Professor Ford needs to take a leaf out of TOTUS playbook and demand the questions in advance.

    I mean, they can hardly give a traitor better treatment than the victim of a vicious crime.

  109. [109] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, since the Senate admit that there is a serious crime that needs to be investigated, why are they using a lawyer instead of the FBI to determine the facts?

  110. [110] 
    neilm wrote:

    If there is a God, S/He must just be screwing with the Evangelicals - seeing how little they will sell Christianity out for to get two seats on the Supreme Court.

    First Trump, and now Kavanaugh are the price they value Jesus, Christianity, and their own God.

    What a cheap price to sell out your soul.

  111. [111] 
    neilm wrote:
  112. [112] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Douglas Adams... HGTTG;

    "The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
    "'But,' says Man, 'The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
    "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic."

    No point adding the part about Zebra crossings, just as absurd, and too English.

    LL&P

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    In written testimony sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a third named witness has rejected the allegations made by Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser. Having been asked by a Senate staffer to comment on the charges advanced against the nominee, a lawyer for Leland Ingham Keyser wrote:

    Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.

    Under 18 U.S.C § 1001, letters to the Judiciary Committee are subject to criminal penalty if false.

    Ms. Keyer, whom CNN confirms is “a lifelong friend of Ford’s,” is the third named witness to deny any knowledge of the allegations. The other two, Mark Judge and Patrick Smyth, issued written statements to that effect earlier in the week. Thus far, nobody has backed up the account advanced by Kavanaugh’s accuser, while Kavanaugh and three other named witnesses have rejected it outright.

    And another person who was at this so-called "party" says that the so-called "victim" is full of shit...

    Doesn't look good for yer girl, people.. :D

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would you advocate for the Senate to sit on the nomination for nearly a year to derail the nominee..

    Abso-fraking-loutly..

    Just like YOU and everyone else here would....

    The power to Advise & Consent is also the power NOT to Advise & Consent..

    At least, when the GOP did it, they didn't try to destroy an innocent man's integrity by character assassination...

    "Have you no decency??"

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blasey Ford's Female Classmate, Her Last Named Witness, Doesn't Recall Ever Attending Party With Kavanaugh

    Christine Blasey Ford has claimed that four other people attended a small gathering at which she was allegedly assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Three of those people, PJ Smyth, Mark Judge, and Kavanaugh, have already denied any recollection of attending such a party.

    On Saturday night, Leland Ingham Keyser, a classmate of Ford's at the all-girls school Holton-Arms and her final named witness, denied any recollection of attending a party with Brett Kavanaugh.

    "Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    CNN reports that " Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford's."
    https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/blasey-fords-female-classmate-her-last-alleged-witness-denies-ever-attending-party-with-kavanaugh

    Sooooooo Let me see if I understand this..

    The so-called "victim" makes an accusation...

    Can't remember even the most sparse and obvious of details...

    There is not a SINGLE SOLITARY FACT that supports her accusation.. NOT A SINGLE ONE...

    And EVERY PERSON that this so-called "victim" has named that was at this "party" has said, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, that the victim is full of shit..

    And, despite ALL these FACTS that nearly PROVE your girl is a LIAR and full of shit...

    Ya'all STILL believe her..

    Yea.. NO PARTY BIGOTRY there at all.. :^/

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    In short, this is NOT a 'she said-he said' situation..

    It's a she said-he, he, he, she said situation...

    Face reality people...

    This attempt by your Dumbocrats to destroy a good and innocent man, SOLELY for the purposes of pushing a Party agenda is blowing up in ya'all's faces..

    ANY chance, ANY possibility of a Blue Wave has been utterly and unequivocally destroyed by this disgusting and perverse attempt by Dumbocrats...

    Once again, the FACTS win out and the hysterical Left's ignoring of the facts leaves them with egg all over their faces and munching on Crow Waffles for weeks!! :D

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, to recap....

    FACTS THAT SUPPORT JUDGE KAVANAUGH

    Not even a whiff of a pattern of behavior

    So-called "victim" cannot remember ANY specific details as to date or time or place..

    Over 200 men and women who KNEW Kavanaugh at the time of the incident have stated for the record that this is simply not possible behavior for Judge Kavanaugh..

    So-called "victim" was a 15 yr old drunk..

    So-called "victim" never named Kavanaugh until AFTER Kavanaugh was nominated for the SCOTUS..

    So-called "victim" changed her story to limit her exposure as a liar..

    All people who the so-called "victim" claimed was at the get together in question have stated under penalty of law that they have absolutely no recollection of either attending that get together or even attending ANY get together with Kavanaugh..

    FACTS THAT SUPPORT THE SO-CALLED "VICTIM"...

    ........

    And ya'all want the FBI to investigate??

    Investigate WHAT!!?? A drunk 15 yr old who can't remember a single relevant detail on an incident that there are absolutely NO FACTS to support???

    I realize that Dumbocrats have gotten used to the FBI doing their dirty work for them..

    But it's not gonna happen this time...

    My guess is that the facts are going to continue to mount that the so-called "victim" is nothing but an opportunistic liar and that she will cancel her appearance on Thu....

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    53

    And yet..
    "It's totally inappropriate for someone to demand we use law enforcement resources to investigate a 35-year-old allegation when she won't go under oath and can't remember key details including when or where it happened."
    -FBI Official

    Here, let me help you: The above is Fox News bullshit; it was Fox News BS the first time you posted it and remained Fox News BS the multitude of other times you spammed the board with it following that... and so shall it remain ever thus.

    Having said that, it seems even the bull shitters and propagandists at Fox News had the critical thinking skills and common sense not to attribute this statement to an "FBI Official," and I suspect that is because even those fabricating morons at Fox knew that an Eff-Be-I official would never say something like that in a million years because... total bullshit.

    “It’s totally inappropriate for someone to demand we use law enforcement resources to investigate a 35-year-old allegation when she won't go under oath and can't remember key details including when or where it happened,” another source told Fox News.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/19/fbi-will-not-launch-criminal-investigation-into-kavanaugh-allegations.html

    emphasis mine

    So, just FYI, this particular "another source" doesn't know what the hell they're talking about since the Eff-Be-I employees who perform background checks look into these type allegations all day long. The investigation of 35-year-old allegations is not uncommon in a background check, and... just to state the painfully obvious... 18 United States Code Section 1001 prohibits making false statements to government officials, and therefore anyone requesting an investigation by the Eff-Be-I being subject to prosecution under the full extent of the law would effectively and for all intents and purposes already be under oath even if said oath wasn't administered to them before they gave testimony to said agent(s). Duh!

    You're welcome. It's not at all unusual for so-called "law enforcement officers," "another sources," and right-wing propaganda news idiots with an agenda to misrepresent the functions of the Eff-Be-I. :)

  119. [119] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    neilm [111]

    Thank you so much for posting that article! As a former minister who had to leave the career I loved the day that I decided to live honestly, the author described pain and loss that I recognized intimately. Again, thanks for posting this!

    -Russ

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, just FYI, this particular "another source" doesn't know what the hell they're talking about since the Eff-Be-I employees who perform background checks look into these type allegations all day long.

    And the background check for Kavanaugh has been done and this latest information has been added to it..

    Ergo, the FBI did it's job and now it's job is over..

    There is not a SINGLE SOLITARY FACT that supports this so-called "victim"'s accusation..

    So, there is nothing for the FBI to investigate..

    The FBI did it's due diligence and now their work is done..

    It's THAT simple..

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Further..

    “It’s totally inappropriate for someone to demand we use law enforcement resources to investigate a 35-year-old allegation when she won’t go under oath and can’t remember key details including when or where it happened,” another federal law enforcement official told Fox News.
    https://www.tullylegal.com/our-firm/news/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford-wants-fbi-to-investigate-assault-claim-why-the-bureau-likely-wont/

    Ya'all love "anonymous" sources when they say what you want to hear...

    Everyone that DOESN'T have a political agenda in play agrees that this is NOT a case for the FBI to investigate...

    There are NO FACTS for the FBI to look at, the so-called "victim" can't remember squat and only put Kavanaugh's name to the accusation a couple months ago....

    This is a political play by Dumbocrats and it is crashing and burning.. Spectacularly crashing and burning..

    I mean, my gods, how stoopid are Dumbocrats?? You would think that they would have TALKED to the witnesses at this get together BEFORE they started Operation Garland Payback...

    Morons...

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I can't imagine any reason that it would be a mistaken identity. Specifically working with people who have been through traumas, the details of the traumas are often etched in their minds forever."
    -So called "victim"'s sister in law

    Exactly..

    "the details of the trauma are often etched in their minds forever"

    And yet, this so-called "victim" can't remember ANY details.. How she got to the get together, how she got home, what DATE this happened...

    NOTHING... No details whatsoever...

    And the reason is obvious..

    Because details would be exculpatory for Judge Kavanaugh and allow him to PROVE that the accusation is a complete and utter lie....

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    Any predictions for the match-up today??

    Jags'll start strong like they did against the Pats and maintain that throughout the game..

    35-10 Jags take it..

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Keith Ellison says his accuser fabricated domestic violence abuse story, can't be sure others won't 'cook up' allegations
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/22/keith-ellison-says-his-accuser-fabricated-domestic-violence-abuse-story-cant-be-sure-others-wont-cook-up-allegations.html

    The woman is ALWAYS to be believed..

    UNLESS it doesn't fit the Dumbocrat Party agenda.. :^/

    The the woman is a lying tramp...

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    Neil/Balthasar

    Absolutely. Bring it on. Innocence is Bliss. In fact, under the circumstances you've described, ONLY an FBI investigation would lift the cloud.

    Or at the very least help clear said cloud, and it is a fact that the POTUS and/or Senate Judiciary Committee could easily request said investigation or at the very least require Mr. Judge to testify.

    I sure wouldn't be hiding behind Chuck Grassley's petticoats. That would be unbecoming, sissy even, and make me look guilty as hell.

    I know, right!? I heard Chuck Grassley is wearing a Mrs. Santa outfit for Halloween this year... hence the petticoats. :)

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    That would be unbecoming, sissy even, and make me look guilty as hell.

    Ya what makes one look MORE guilty as hell??

    Telling a bullshit story that has absolutely NO FACTS to support and has been REFUTED by every witness claimed by the so-called "victim"....

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    111

    Great article. :)

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    113

    And another person who was at this so-called "party" says that the so-called "victim" is full of shit...

    Actually, your so-called "facts" are wrong again, but considering your frequent fake quotes and putting words in people's mouths: surprise, not surprise.

    Although Ford’s friend Keyser said she does not remember attending a party where Kavanaugh was present, she told The Washington Post that she believed the allegation made by Ford, while Ford herself has said that she did not expect Keyser to remember the party because she had told no one about what happened until 2012.

    A lawyer for Ford said in a statement: “It’s not surprising that Ms. Keyser has no recollection of the evening as they did not discuss it.”

    https://www.newsweek.com/kavanaugh-accusers-friend-doesnt-remember-being-house-party-believes-1134728

    emphasis mine

    Perhaps wherever you pulled that quote from either didn't include the fact that Ms. Keyser stated she believed Ms. Ford's allegations or you simply omitted that part of the article and fabricated the words you put in the witness's mouth as you frequently do the posters on this board. You tell us. :)

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    120

    And the background check for Kavanaugh has been done and this latest information has been added to it..

    I can assure you that nothing "has been added" to a completed FBI report. If you're claiming "this latest information" got put into the same file, then I'm not sure what you believe you're proving with such a nonsensical statement. :)

    There is not a SINGLE SOLITARY FACT that supports this so-called "victim"'s accusation..

    That's your claim, and you seem so desperate to prove it that you're willing to fabricate words and put them in a witness's mouth and omit details in order to prove something you could never prove anyway.

    So, there is nothing for the FBI to investigate..

    If there's anything at all remaining to be investigated, then there is indeed something for a federal bureau that specializes in investigation to be investigating. Duh!

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Although Ford’s friend Keyser said she does not remember attending a party where Kavanaugh was present, she told The Washington Post that she believed the allegation made by Ford, while Ford herself has said that she did not expect Keyser to remember the party because she had told no one about what happened until 2012.

    Even if it's credible that Keyser said that, it has absolutely NO RELEVANCE whatsoever..

    The so-called "victim" claimed that Keyser was at the get together... Keyser says she wasn't..

    You tell us. :)

    I just did.. Even if Keyser said that, it has no relevance..

    I can assure you

    Your "sources" tell you that?? The same sources you claimed said that the GOP was looking to dump Kavanaugh.. :D

    If there's anything at all remaining to be investigated, then there is indeed something for a federal bureau that specializes in investigation to be investigating. Duh!

    IF there's anything at all remaining to be investigated..

    There isn't..

    NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY FACT supports the so-called "victim"'s claims...

    NOT... A.... SINGLE... FACT....

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's your claim, and you seem so desperate to prove it that you're willing to fabricate words and put them in a witness's mouth and omit details in order to prove something you could never prove anyway.

    Prove me wrong.. Give me a fact that supports this so-called "victim"'s claim..

    Many better than have you have tried and failed..

    Give it a shot. :D

    The so-called "victim"'s classmate said she never attended any get together with Kavanaugh...

    The so-called "victim" claimed the classmate did..

    ONE of the women is lying..

    Considering all the lies the so-called "victim" has told, it's a safe bet that she is the liar..

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Christine Blasey Ford said there was one [female witness]. Her name is Leland Keyser. She was Ford’s classmate. She was not an eye witness, but Ford said she had knowledge of the party and assault. I have obtained Keyser’s attorney’s letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ms. Keyser denies any knowledge of the events Christine Blasey Ford describes. So, to recap, every single person referenced by Ford denies knowing anything except Ford and she can’t tell us when or where the event happened. Even Ford’s own classmate denies having knowledge of the event.

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dear Ms. Mehler:

    Ms. Leland Keyser has engaged me in the limited capacity to address your request for information in the email below. Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.

    Ms. Keyser hopes this information is helpful to your investigation. I am avaiable for any further questions you may have.

    Sincerely,

    Howard J. Walsh III, Esq.

    There is the letter from Keyser's attorney to the committee..

    NO WHERE does Keyser claim she believes the so-called victim...

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have 5 people involved..

    4 of those people have made statements to the committee under penalty of perjury that the get together never happened

    The fifth person, the so-called victim, is the ONLY one to make a slew of claims NOT under oath or under penalty of law...

    Things that make ya go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    A thousand quatloos says that the so-called "victim" punks out of the committee hearing on Thursday...

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:
  136. [136] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    121

    Ya'all love "anonymous" sources when they say what you want to hear...

    Everyone that DOESN'T have a political agenda in play agrees that this is NOT a case for the FBI to investigate...

    There are NO FACTS for the FBI to look at, the so-called "victim" can't remember squat and only put Kavanaugh's name to the accusation a couple months ago....

    A couple clues for you:

    * Anyone who continually claims that a group of people named "ya'all" agrees on everything isn't exactly someone who's thinking things through.

    * Anyone who claims that "everyone that DOESN'T have a political agenda in play" agrees on the same thing is equally not thinking things through.

    * Anyone who keeps claiming there are "NO FACTS" for the FBI to look at yet is also continually posting what the victim can and cannot remember and posting so-called "facts" and witness's accounts is equally not thinking things through.

    I mean, my gods, how stoopid are Dumbocrats?? You would think that they would have TALKED to the witnesses at this get together BEFORE they started Operation Garland Payback...

    Said the guy who keeps claiming to know what "ya'all," "everyone," and Dr. Blasey Ford and the witnesses all think. :)

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    I respect your opinion..

    But it's an opinion borne of Party slavery and has absolutely NO BEARING on the FACTS...

    And the MAIN FACT of this entire sad and pathetic issue from the Dumbocrats is that there is not a SINGLE SOLITARY FACT to support this so-called "victim"'s claim..

    Not a single fact...

    That's the beginning and end of the story..

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just like your claim, based on some Left Wing rag, that the latest witness said she believed the so-called "victim"..

    Unsubstantiated bullshit..

    Just like "sources" claimed that the GOP was looking to dump Kavanaugh..

    Unsubstantiated bullshit..

    Just like Paula's claim that the HUNDREDS of Kavanaugh supporters have recanted and retracted their support of Kavanaugh..

    Unsubstantiated bullshit..

    Ya'all got NO FACTS.... Just unsubstantiated bullshit..

    :D

  139. [139] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    130

    The so-called "victim" claimed that Keyser was at the get together... Keyser says she wasn't..

    Stating that you "don't remember" something and saying you "weren't there" are two totally different things. I wouldn't think I would have to explain this fact to a so-called "law enforcement officer," but here we are.

    Speaking of which, Brett Kavanaugh stated he wasn't at the party, this without him even knowing which party it was. Judge Kavanaugh too would be wise to keep in mind that stating "I don't remember" is quite a different response than "I wasn't there." As I said... and didn't think I'd have to explain... these are two wholly different statements.

    Your "sources" tell you that?? The same sources you claimed said that the GOP was looking to dump Kavanaugh.. :D

    None of your business and shall remain ever thus.

    Some Republicans are beginning to discuss how to withdraw Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to SCOTUS.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/09/18/are-gop-voters-delusionally-overconfident/#comment-127475

    Your continued efforts to mischaracterize the statements of posters on this board... and any other person for that matter... aren't helping you. If you'd like to discuss something without your requisite interjected mischaracterization, let somebody know. Since you're not at all interested in serious discussion, I too have better things to do with my time. :)

  140. [140] 
    neilm wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear [119]: Sorry for your loss. Losing faith in something is not an easy process. I've not lost a ground shaking faith in my life, but I did believe Lance Armstrong and also Greg Mortenson ("Three Cups of Tea" author), and having to both admit I was wrong, and losing two former heroes in short succession was unpleasant.

    Your road was probably a lot harder then mine.

  141. [141] 
    neilm wrote:

    Kick:

    You are well named at the moment. You are kicking Michale's ass up and down the comment section here. Way to go!

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stating that you "don't remember" something and saying you "weren't there" are two totally different things.

    Yea, you can obfuscate all you want.. But it doesn't change the FACT that NO ONE backs this so-called "victim"'s claims...

    **NO ONE**

    Some Republicans are beginning to discuss how to withdraw Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to SCOTUS.

    Yea.. Like I said.. UNSUBSTANTIATED BULLSHIT... Just like Paula's claim..

    Your continued efforts to mischaracterize the statements of posters on this board... and any other person for that matter... aren't helping you.

    No mis-characterization whatsoever.. Except by you..

    Your claim that the GOP was looking at ways to dump Kavanaugh was and is UNSUBSTANTIATED BULLSHIT...

    These are the facts...

    Since you're not at all interested in serious discussion, I too have better things to do with my time. :)

    TRANSLATION: I am getting my ass kicked six ways from Sunday, so I am going to run away.. :D

    I understand.. It's tough when you have to defend an indefensible LOSING position...

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are kicking Michale's ass up and down the comment section here. Way to go!

    Yea, she is doing such a bang up job she had to run away before she started crying.. :D

    and having to both admit I was wrong, and losing two former heroes in short succession was unpleasant.

    Need a hanky, snowflake?? :D

  144. [144] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In the "what does this have to do with Now" department:

    Yale Law School professor Amy Chua strongly denied that she told students that Brett Kavanaugh, now a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, liked his female law clerks to have a certain feminine appearance, in a statement emailed to the Yale Law community on Saturday.

    Yet a woman who recently graduated from Yale Law School and received advice from Chua on interviewing for a coveted clerkship position with Kavanaugh, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, disputed the professor’s statement.

    “She’s lying,” the woman told HuffPost.

    A former Yale student previously told HuffPost that the professor specifically told her to behave and dress in an “outgoing” way. Meanwhile, Chua’s husband, Yale law professor Jed Rubenfeld, advised the woman that Kavanaugh preferred female clerks with a “certain look.”

    An unnamed Yale student also told The Guardian that Chua said it was “not an accident” Kavanaugh’s clerks “looked like models.” The comment echoes those given to HuffPost from three students who had drinks with Chua last year.

    “I personally heard her state that it’s not an accident that all his clerks look like models,” a current Yale Law student told HuffPost on Saturday. “So I personally know that for her to say the allegations are 100 percent false is a lie, because at least that one is definitely true.”

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    What does that have to do with NOW!??? :D heh

  146. [146] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    "Lovely Spam! Wonderful Spam!
    Lovely Spam! Wonderful Spam
    Spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am
    Spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am
    Spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am
    Spa-a-a-a-a-a-a-am
    Lovely Spam! (Lovely Spam!)
    Lovely Spam! (Lovely Spam!)
    Lovely Spam!
    Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam!

    Jones, Palin and Tomlinson.

    Has anyone taken the time to read any of Mr. Mark Judge's polemic drivel? It only takes a random selection to figure him out. It's little wonder the GOP want nothing to do with this guy under oath in any setting, he's an unabashed self-centered, bigoted homophobe... worse still, he's currently an ardent ultra-right-wing zealot, not that he might suddenly restructure his core beliefs between now and tea time, as he seems to have done a few times in the past.

    This specimen seems constant in only one aspect of his character, none of his woes are down to him in the final prolix of his various incarnations... He drank and rebelled because his father was an inveterate sot. He championed left-wing causes, until he realised he was being duped by 'left-wing homosexual priests'. He believed some women should be 'hit frequently, like a gong' and now is at the forefront of MeToo because all young men should be allowed to strut their stuff... This guy is a veritable ambigu of repellant self-obsession and perceived faultlessness. He might seem at home in a Trumpian scape, but he sure a shit would be a disaster for the GOP merry men of the Judiciary committee... Let's face it though, that's why the GOP namby-pamby committee members are over a barrel, they're damned either way on this one--don't have him testify, the cloud of doubt sets in--have him testify, the sky falls in. Tough choice.

    None of it matters now, of course, the Democrats played a deft card either way. The GOP could have parried this move easily, had they just dispatched the FBI a couple of weeks ago to look behind the Kav-curtain, they could have quietly talked to this Judge imbecile, talked to Ford and come back with some best obtained version of the truth. Funnily enough, the GOP thought they were hiding Kavanaugh's murky past while under Bush jr, vis legalised torture. They should have started where all digging should start where religious right-wing zealots should begin... in the closet for skeletons of the female persuasion.

    Enjoy your Eggball.

    LL&P

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Has anyone taken the time to read any of Mr. Mark Judge's polemic drivel?

    How is it relevant???

    None of it matters now, of course, the Democrats played a deft card either way. The GOP could have parried this move easily, had they just dispatched the FBI a couple of weeks ago to look behind the Kav-curtain,

    Why?? Democrats dispatched the FBI a couple weeks ago and said it was a huge NOTHING BURGER...

    What IS it about you Lefties that think that, just because someone makes an accusation and they have absolutely NO FACTS to back it up, that an investigative SWAT team should be called??

    Postulate a scenario where some lying moron accused Odumbo of attempted rape right before he would have filed for running for POTUS.. An FBI investigation COULD imperil his chances of being President..

    Would you push for an FBI investigation then??

    Of course you wouldn't...

    No SANE person would..

    in the closet for skeletons of the female persuasion.

    You don't think Dumbocrats tore apart EVERY closet they could find looking for SOMETHING to pin on Kavanaugh???

    Com'on.. I KNOW yer not THAT stoopid...

    The FACT that Dumbocrats haven't found a SINGLE thing but some lying 15 yr old drunk???

    That should tell you something right there..

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jones, Palin and Tomlinson.

    Do you need a hanky and some cheese to go with yer whine, snowflake???

    "Jeezus, what a bunch of pussies!!"
    -Tommy Lee Jones, UNDER SIEGE

    :D

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny how, when it's a DUMBOCRAT who is accused, like Keith Ellison, Dumbocrats condemn the accuser and support the accused..

    It's all about the -D/-R...

  150. [150] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @neil,

    you're not helping.

    JL

  151. [151] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [148] "Jones, Palin and Tomlinson.
    Do you need a hanky and some cheese to go with yer whine, snowflake???
    "Jeezus, what a bunch of pussies!!"
    -Tommy Lee Jones, UNDER SIEGE"

    "What an utter Nonce"
    -me, everyday at your idiotic conclusions.

    I'll employ your time-honoured use of a whataboutism…

    Duncan D. Hunter and Chris Collins are under indictment for crimes and actively running for office while Al Franken resigned due to "allegations" of sexual misconduct!

    Where's your vaunted 'good for the Goose, good for the Gander' in this scenario?

    Fucking hypocrite.

    This is why the bulk of your dross-posts are just blur for most people here.

    Unsubstantiated quotes, bald-faced lies, parroted right-wing rhetoric, re-iterated FOX propaganda and an onslaught of childish whataboutisms… to name a few of your short-comings.

    If I need a hanky, it's for the tears of laughter generated by your Neolithic awkwardness, while surrounded by intelligent people.

    So... that's one resounding NO for people who have read anything by Mark Judge. This one I was expecting, Michale doesn't read anything that might actually generate information, he prefers the neo-fascist propaganda peculiar to his own skewed narrative.

    Smh

    LL&P

  152. [152] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil wrote:

    [Kick is] well named at the moment. [She is] kicking Michale's ass up and down the comment section here. Way to go!

    Right. Because this is what make's Chris's comments sections so thought-provoking and well worth the read … for the juvenile-minded.

  153. [153] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Watch your language, JTC - or find another place to play.

  154. [154] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Watch your language, JTC - or find another place to play.

    I assure you he's only using it for emphasis, Liz, as others here are wont to do. Used infrequently thusly, it enhances rather than diminishes the conversation.

    Read The Rude Pundit for an example of using profanity as a didactic tool.

  155. [155] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That is, I'm certain that JTC could unleash far worse, if untethered to decorum, as could most men.

    See Reddit for examples. Or not. I'd understand that.

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I am just too depressed...

    The GOOD news is, ya'all won't have to deal with me til the morning.. :D

  157. [157] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [153] E.M

    "Watch your language, JTC - or find another place to play."

    Just a quick scan... "Bullshit"--"pussies"--"full of shit"--"spewed bullshit"--"I did NOT come down here just ta get jerked off!!"--not to mention the overtly bigoted "Odumbo"... All this passes your censorship without a cringe?

    We English do swear a lot, but for my part, I swear for effect. If you scan a few threads, you'll notice that singling me out for rebuke won't pass muster. (With the exception of the thread that dealt with Samantha B and her arguably ill-chosen use of C**t in reference to Ivanka Trump.)

    I look around, I see few shrinking violets here. I don't advocate for someone to kill themselves again and again, I'm fairly sure I haven't referred to anyone as a 'crack whore" either.

    So, respectfully, if you want to upbraid people for colourful language, please be consistent at least or just don't at most.

    LL&P

  158. [158] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Do you feel singled out, JTC? You shouldn't.

  159. [159] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just remember where you are when posting here, Balthasar, and type accordingly. :)

  160. [160] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JTC[151],

    Btw, the language you chose to use here was not the worst thing about your comment - just a long and rambling insult. Which, I'm sad to say, is par for the course around here, these days, and only serves to take away from the excellence of Chris's posted articles.

  161. [161] 
    neilm wrote:

    @neil,

    you're not helping.

    It is my "Wind up Michale Weekend". It'll be over soon.

  162. [162] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [160] That's a fair comment. However, you've doubled-down on the my original query. If there's to be "sauce for the goose", then apply it evenly.

    I regularly disregard Michale's posts as scrolling grist for his agenda. I get the Troll aspect and quickly pass over his bridge. If I address him, it's because he's reacted to a post of mine derisively, and sometimes I just can't be bothered. There's no pattern to it. Also, sometimes I happen to agree with him, especially about all sides of the political spectrum being held to the same standard.
    Few things get my hackles up, hypocrisy, bigotry, misogyny, misandry and a lack of courage of conviction, are just a few whistles that get my attention.

    By its very nature, a blog or opinion piece, with a list of talking points, and a comments section, invite nimble debate. Debate and discourse does sometimes go "Icarus", but such are the times in which we find ourselves.

    I'm sure if Mr. Weigant felt the need to police his gig, he would... I would happily conform to any 'restrictions' put in place... For All.

    I'm not being deliberately provocative, I agree that some comments (mine included) can go astray of topic... I'm sure you'd be the first to agree.

    LL&P

  163. [163] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That is quite a juvenile attitude you have there ...

  164. [164] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You're a lot like Michale, that way.

    Making this place better starts with each of us and we don't need to wait for anyone else or everyone to do our part.

    We also don't need our gracious host to tell us how to engage, either.

  165. [165] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [163] Juvenile, well that's in the eye of the beholder.

    I'll meet you half-way, I'll rise above the obvious trolling and hollier-than-thou snark.

    Thanks for your input.

    LL&P

  166. [166] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Going off topic is not the problem ...

  167. [167] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, THAT'S what I call a good start!

  168. [168] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    DO you have ANY facts to support that Kavanaugh WAS a "drunken student"???

    We DO have facts to support that this so-called "victim" was a 15 yr old drunk...

    I see. So, you're saying that Kavanaugh took advantage of a teenager two years his junior while she was under the influence of alcohol? :)

    Sounds vaguely familiar ...

  169. [169] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    …And now for something completely different.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-news-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-20180923-story.html

    Ok...The NY Daily wouldn't be my first or last 'et ordo idearum', but they do have style. Seems the oil is being applied to Kavanaugh's squeaky clean image. Reasonable doubt: Can it be applied equally to innocence and guilt in cases of 'he said--she said'?

    I guess we'll see.

    LL&P

  170. [170] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Now this is becoming a joke... https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/kavanaugh-to-give-senate-calendars-from-1982-to-back-up-denial/ar-AAAxiAG?ocid=spartandhp

    So, if I'm getting this straight, and I am, Kavanaugh just blew his own irrevocable witnesses out of the water. Now, sensationally, Kavanaugh not only remembers this time frame, but he has his own "calendars" to prove he was elsewhere!

    Moreover, while his "calendars" say he was going about his saintly youth, he wasn't debauching, as his close friend and mystery Mr. Judge has claimed. Now people are supposed to believe both sides of the same coin...all the while dismissing Prof. Ford's allegations?

    Sorry, but if you're stupid enough to hang your hat and hopes on any of this nonsense, you deserve your letdowns in spades.

    LL&P

  171. [171] 
    TheStig wrote:

    JTC-170

    The New Yorker broke this story. Avenatti (yes, the same one) is representing the "flash-ee" if I may coin a new word. The testimony is likely to resemble the dialog on an old Seinfeld episode, easily found on YouTube - search Seinfeld He Took It Out .

    Judge K is looking more and more costly to the Republicans. Are there no other conservative alternatives?

  172. [172] 
    neilm wrote:

    [163] Juvenile, well that's in the eye of the beholder.

    I'll meet you half-way, I'll rise above the obvious trolling and hollier-than-thou snark.

    Thanks for your input.

    Give us all a break Elizabeth, this is our "let loose" place. We have to be restrained everywhere else, can't you let us have some semi-anonymous "letting-of-steam" in our lives?

    CW has allowed us to make our own rules, and for the most part it all sorta works out. If you want to play the role of "adjudicator-in-chief" expect to be disappointed - and personally, I expect to disappoint you more in the future - not from any malice, but just being myself.

  173. [173] 
    neilm wrote:

    So now Kavanaugh is throwing his junk around at college parties. Should have seen that one coming.

    Why do the rubes love frat boys - aren't they meant to hate the elites?

  174. [174] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Re: TheStig [171]

    The Yale accusation and Avenatti's are different incidents. From Politico:

    Michael Avenatti ... said he represents "a woman with credible information" about Kavanaugh and his high school friend Mark Judge ... [and] told POLITICO he represents a group of individuals who can corroborate allegations involving Kavanaugh and his longtime friend in the 1980s.
    ...
    "She will testify," he said. "But before she does, she will likely appear on camera for an interview." He said the others were witnesses to the allegations.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/23/second-woman-assault-kavanaugh-837678

    And the House is going home by Friday. This is probably the ball game.

  175. [175] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [171] - Are there no other conservative alternatives?

    Yes, the are plenty; Heritage's first 25 (less Gorsuch) plus their bonus picks.

    The problem is that there are no alternatives with the depth of experience as a political operative of Kav.

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    By its very nature, a blog or opinion piece, with a list of talking points, and a comments section, invite nimble debate. Debate and discourse does sometimes go "Icarus", but such are the times in which we find ourselves.

    And yet, before you and your kind arrived, this was a happy and fun place...

    I'll meet you half-way, I'll rise above the obvious trolling and hollier-than-thou snark.

    With all due respect, your problem is that you define "trolling" as anything you disagree with..

    But, I'll meet you halfway as well... Cease the personal attacks and name-calling and so will I..

    If EVERYONE could promise that and stick with it, then this place would be the fun and happy place it used to be... :D

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I see. So, you're saying that Kavanaugh took advantage of a teenager two years his junior while she was under the influence of alcohol? :)

    I'll point out once again that there are NO FACTS to support that claim..

    We have **ONLY** the word of a 15 yr old drunk...

    I would be HAPPY to entertain the notion that the so-called "victim" is being factually accurate..

    But I am NOT going to do it SOLELY based on her say-so..

    She has to bring me FACTS...

    To date, she has none..

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    Give us all a break Elizabeth, this is our "let loose" place.

    It's possible to "let loose" without being a prick to other people whose sole "crime" is that they think politically different than you..

    We used to "let loose" a lot in here before you and your kind showed up and yet we still had fun....

    So it IS possible to "let loose" and NOT be a prick about it..

    I'm just sayin'....

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is my "Wind up Michale Weekend". It'll be over soon.

    Yep, it was just as I said.. You got tired of getting yer ass stomped so you went back to pushing buttons..

    Thank you for conceding that fact...

  180. [180] 
    Michale wrote:

    --not to mention the overtly bigoted "Odumbo"..

    As opposed to the hundreds of overtly bigoted names ya'all call President Trump..

    It doesn't seem to bother you when overtly bigoted names are used against President Trump on a daily, oft times HOURLY basis..

    why is that?? Ahhh yes, because you AGREE with those, so THOSE names aren't a problem for you.. :^/

    I believe you would agree with me that THAT is blatant hypocrisy, no??

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    "She will testify," he said. "But before she does, she will likely appear on camera for an interview."

    In other words, she wants to get paid to scroo Kavanaugh before she has to do it for free...

    Where do Democrats FIND these "witnesses"???

    It's interesting that ALL of them are Democrat operatives with a history of Democrat donations and activism...

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news..

    At UN, unrepentant Trump set to rattle foes, friends alike
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/un-unrepentant-trump-set-rattle-foes-friends-alike-154247018--politics.html

    Making America Great Again

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    Give us all a break Elizabeth, this is our "let loose" place. We have to be restrained everywhere else, can't you let us have some semi-anonymous "letting-of-steam" in our lives?

    Have ya noticed something, Liz??

    Those that are most responsible for the problems are the ones most opposed to your efforts to stop the problems..

    I find that VERY interesting...

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    'nuck...

    Where's your vaunted 'good for the Goose, good for the Gander' in this scenario?

    Actually, I am on record as stating that the allegations against Franken were totally ridiculous and that Dumbocrats were being utter morons for forcing Franken out..

    So, take your "hypocrite" accusation and kindly shove it.. :D

    Hay! I did say "kindly"...

  185. [185] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    And the House is going home by Friday. This is probably the ball game.

    Unless you mean the Senate, I am not sure what you are trying to say..

    As to the latest accusation...

    I have to admit to being concerned.. While it's clear it's another Democrat operative who says she was totally drunk and can't remember "details" she remembers the most important detail that it was Kavanaugh.. Everything else is a drunken blur, but Kavanaugh is crystal clear..

    Funny how that is, eh?? :^/

    But, once again.. NO FACTS to support the claim... As a matter of fact her one point in her story PROVES it wasn't Kavanaugh at all...

    For the record, when I said I was "concerned" I did not mean I am concerned that Kavanaugh did these things. This is so obviously a contrived Democrat character assassination as to be a step by step HOW TO guide..

    I am concerned that it may be enough to derail Kavanaugh's nomination...

    While I went to bed being 100% sure Kavanaugh would be confirmed, I am now only 90% sure that Kavanaugh will be confirmed...

    If Democrats are able to find more Dem operatives to lie and bullshit, it might be enough to end Kavanaugh's nomination...

    If that occurs and if Dems ever get back into power and if Dems ever have a SCOTUS nominee, you can bet that GOP will lower the DIRTY TRICKS bar..

    And, I have to sadly admit that I would be just like Balthasar..

    Approving and encouraging the lower Dirty Tricks as payback...

    Congrats, Democrats... I would not have thought it possible, but ya'all have made our politics MORE heated and MORE disgusting and MORE perverse...

    One wonders how low things can go.... :^/

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    Feinstein, other Dems largely silent on abuse claims against Keith Ellison
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/23/feinstein-other-dems-largely-silent-on-abuse-claims-against-keith-ellison.html

    I guess if the person accused has a -D after their name, DiFi doesn't really care about violence and assaults on women...

    It's all about the Party agenda.. NOTHING else matters..

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    And in other news... :D

    VERY interesting to note..

    Barack Odumbo's Approval
    24 Sep 2011
    42.9%

    President Trump's Approval
    24 Sep 2018
    42.9%

    hehehehehehehehehe

    That's just GOT ta drive the hysterical NeverTrumpers batshit crazy!!! :D

  188. [188] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    obama's index ended at 54.3

    want to lay down any quatloos that donald never sees north of fifty again?

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure...

    As long as you concede that what is predicted for future events has NO BEARING on the here and now...

    Fact #1
    The NeverTrumpers say that President Trump is a horrible incompetent President..

    Fact #2
    President Trump's RCP Approval numbers are comparable and, oft times, BETTER than those of Obama's..

    How do you reconcile these two facts??

    Either the NeverTrumpers are ruled by their emotions and hatred and are full of kaa kaa...

    OR

    The approval numbers mean nothing for President Trump **AND** Barack Obama...

    I would be willing to entertain any other possible conclusions as long as they are logical and comport with reality...

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    In short, NeverTrumpers are pushing a narrative that relies on cherry-picked metrics and a total suspension of reality...

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    UNFORGIVEN

    Those who argue that what Brett Kavanaugh allegedly did is disqualifying ?need to consider the precedent they’re setting.

    Men and women are not angels. Someday a brilliant, highly experienced, well-regarded woman may well be sitting in Kavanaugh’s seat and be accused at the zero hour and after interminable vetting of, say, stalking a former boyfriend or snorting cocaine when she was going through a bad stretch in high school. Then what??
    https://www.city-journal.org/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-16176.html

  192. [192] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Thank you for the above.. It was appreciated..

  193. [193] 
    Michale wrote:

    Some academic Ford supporters lent their scholarly credentials to the credible-is-enough argument. "The existence of credible allegations against Judge Kavanaugh should be disqualifying," wrote Cardozo Law School professor Kate Shaw in the New York Times. "If members of the Senate conclude that a credible accusation of sexual misconduct has been made against Judge Kavanaugh, that should be enough to disqualify him."

    In The Atlantic, Brookings Institution scholar Benjamin Wittes took the argument to its illogical extreme. Because of the political sensitivity of the situation, Wittes wrote, Kavanaugh "cannot...seek to discredit a woman who purports to have suffered a sexual assault at his hands."

    "Even if [Kavanaugh] believes himself innocent, even if he is innocent," Wittes concluded, "the better part of valor is to get out now." That is, to withdraw his nomination.

    So there it is: Ford's supporters believe in her because they believe in her. They think a credible allegation is enough to disqualify Kavanaugh. And even if that allegation is not, in fact, true -- even if Kavanaugh is innocent -- he is still disqualified. In the current battle, Kavanaugh's opposition is essentially faith-based, trying to create an environment in which there is no way he can win. 4/18
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-for-democrats-in-ford-kavanaugh-fight-believing-is-enough

    Get that??

    Even if this so-called victim is full of kaa kaa, even if her accusation is, in NO WAY, factually accurate.....

    Democrats believe that Kavanaugh should withdraw his nomination..

    Of course, that works both ways..

    Even if Benghazi was totally false, SecState Clinton should have IMMEDIATELY resigned..

    Even if Clintons email server was TOTALLY above board, Clinton should have withdrawn from the race...

    Even if Juanita Brodderick's accusation was TOTALLY and completely non-factual, President Clinton should have stepped down as POTUS...

    Because, for Democrats, the mere fact of the accusation = guilt...

    But, APPARENTLY, the mere fact of an accusation = guilt ONLY applies when the accused has a -R after his name... :^/

    That is the "logic" of the Dumbocrat Party.... :^/

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    OK... I am ready for it..

    Pile on.... :D

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even before President Trump’s election, hatred had begun to emerge on the American left—counterintuitively, as an assertion of guilelessness and moral superiority. At the Women’s March in Washington the weekend after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the pop star Madonna said, “I have thought an awful lot of blowing up the White House.” Here hatred was a vanity, a braggadocio meant to signal her innocence of the sort of evil that, in her mind, the White House represented. (She later said the comment was “taken wildly out of context.”)

    For many on the left a hateful anti-Americanism has become a self-congratulatory lifestyle. “America was never that great,” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently said. For radical groups like Black Lives Matter, hatred of America is a theme of identity, a display of racial pride.
    https://outline.com/TXW6L8

  196. [196] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Give us all a break Elizabeth, this is our "let loose" place.

    You need to find another one, Neil. And, start respecting what this place really is.

  197. [197] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (194)-
    Nah. To mix a poker term with an old commercial: sometimes you play like "the nuts"- sometimes you don't.

  198. [198] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Just a thought on the Kavanaugh situation:

    Is this sexual allegation all just a distraction so that those on both sides can get their bases all riled up about this so that no one will be asking why other reasons that may disqualify Kavanaugh are not discussed?

    It wouldn't be the first time the "two sides" pretended to be opposing each other while they were really working together.

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nah. To mix a poker term with an old commercial: sometimes you play like "the nuts"- sometimes you don't.

    Yer a better man than I, Gunga Din :D

    What a disappointing game.. :^/

  200. [200] 
    Michale wrote:

    It wouldn't be the first time the "two sides" pretended to be opposing each other while they were really working together.

    That would imply that Democrats want to HELP Kavanaugh..

    I just can't see that... You don't "help" a guy by totally assassinating his character...

    If Democrats really were helping Kavanaugh on the sly, there are much easier ways to "distract" from that then totally destroying the man..

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    Judge Kavanaugh’s prospects were further clouded on Sunday when The New Yorker reported on a new allegation of sexual impropriety: A woman who went to Yale with Judge Kavanaugh said that, during a drunken dormitory party their freshman year, he exposed himself to her, thrust his penis into her face and caused her to touch it without her consent.

    In a statement, Judge Kavanaugh denied the allegation from the woman, Deborah Ramirez, and called it “a smear, plain and simple.” The New Yorker did not confirm with other eyewitnesses that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party.

    The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.
    -NY GRIME

    So much for the new accusation... :^/

    If even the NY GRIME and ABC are calling bullshit, you just HAVE to know it's bullshit..

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put another way..

    Listen to me, you fuck. You did a lot of shit here. You played a lot of fucking cards. And you made a lot of fucking people do a lot of fucking things they didn't want to do. This is true. We both know this is true. You, McNulty, are a gaping asshole. We both know this. Fuck if everybody in CID doesn't know it. But fuck if I'm gonna stand here and say you did a single fucking thing to get a cop shot. You did not do this, you fucking hear me? This is not on you. No it isn't, asshole. Believe it or not, everything isn't about you. And the motherfucker saying this, he hates your guts, McNulty. So you know if it was on you, I'd be the son of a bitch to say so. Shit went bad. She took two for the company. That's the only lesson here.
    -Rawls, THE WIRE

    If Rawls is telling you, you didn't get your partner shot, you damn well know for a fact that you didn't get your partner shot..

    If the NY GRIME is saying the accusation against Kavanaugh is bullshit, then everyone with more than two brain cells to rub together knows damn well that the accusation against kavanaugh is bullshit..

    Because, if there was even the SLIGHTEST hint of a whiff of an iota that the story could MAYBE POSSIBLY pass the smell test???

    The Grimes would have ran with it....

    As an aside, apologies for the language of the quote. But it IS the quote...

  203. [203] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    to be honest, what concerns me about kavanaugh is not that he may have committed a crime - that was a different person from lifetimes ago. what worries me is the blanket denial without even considering the possibility that he may have done something improper. if someone accused me of doing something 35 years ago (for me high school was 25 years ago, but still), it's extremely likely i wouldn't remember a thing, especially if it wasn't something i considered important at the time. and that's from someone who very rarely drank. based on his own yearbook entry and based on mark judge's "bart o'kavanaugh," high school kavanaugh was a frequent and heavy drinker.

    of COURSE this incident is being exploited politically, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it's true. if i were a senator voting to confirm a supreme court nominee, i'd hope that the person before me would be a little more reflective about the person he used to be and the ways he'd grown since then.

  204. [204] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    "And yet, before you and your kind arrived, this was a happy and fun place..."

    QED … As a person of mixed race, I'll overlook blatantly racist slur.

    Once.

    You couldn't have known.

    Détente means both sides co-operate, wouldn't you say, E.M?

    LL&P

  205. [205] 
    Michale wrote:

    QED … As a person of mixed race, I'll overlook blatantly racist slur.

    Yep, you ARE a Left Winger..

    You assume racism where there is absolutely NO FACTS to support the claim. :^/

    NOTHING about my statement would make a person who is not already inclined to hide behind race think of racism..

    Détente means both sides co-operate, wouldn't you say, E.M?

    It does.. You got your words in, I get my words in..

    If you want to stop then stop...

  206. [206] 
    Michale wrote:

    of COURSE this incident is being exploited politically, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it's true.

    True.. What has bearing on whether or true or not is that A>there is not a single fact to support it and 2> the actions of the Democrats immediately prior to the exposure..

    what worries me is the blanket denial without even considering the possibility that he may have done something improper.

    Why is that worrying??

    If I accused you of murdering a classmate 35 years ago would you have to CONSIDER the possibility that you might have done it??

    Or would you just immediately issue a "blanket denial" because you know for a fact you didn't do that nor would EVER do that..

  207. [207] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Lol... ok, I'll concede that was a shameless baiting of one, you handled it as best as your type is able ;)
    One suggestion though, it's not classy to assume all people of colour or mixed race are liberals.
    As for hiding...it's the first time I've mentioned it.

    There we go, no more needs to be said.

    LL&P

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol... ok, I'll concede that was a shameless baiting of one, you handled it as best as your type is able ;)

    Thank you... I think.. :D

    One suggestion though, it's not classy.

    Hi, I'm Michale.. Nice ta meetcha. :D

    "But you just got all those people brutally slaughtered!!"
    "Hi, I'm Meg. I'm a demon. Nice ta meetcha"

    -SUPERNATURAL

    :D

    There we go, no more needs to be said.

    Fair enough..

    "Just for that, I'll let you have the last word."
    "Thank you!"
    "You're welcome"

    -M*A*S*H

    :D

  209. [209] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    JTC,

    Détente means both sides co-operate, wouldn't you say, E.M?

    Yes. But, we're not talking about détente.

    We're talking about what we as individuals (I'm talkin' to you, Michale) can do all by ourselves to make the comments sections reflect Chris's excellent pieces without all of the endless nonsense and asinine insults.

    We don't have to wait for anyone else to do our own part and, with any luck, the comments sections will eventually be a place where people with thoughtful dispositions and good will can engage in robust and civil debate and discussion.

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    We're talking about what we as individuals (I'm talkin' to you, Michale) can do all by ourselves to make the comments sections reflect Chris's excellent pieces without all of the endless nonsense and asinine insults.

    The fact that you are not *ONLY* talking to me shows everyone yer integrity and honesty...

    We don't have to wait for anyone else to do our own part and, with any luck, the comments sections will eventually be a place where people with thoughtful dispositions and good will can engage in robust and civil debate and discussion.

    Like it used to be... :D

    I'll drink to that!

  211. [211] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, Michale, let's see about that when Chris posts his Monday article.

    I know you can do it!!!

    I feel better already!

  212. [212] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    This just in... Seems Rosenstein is for the chop.

    I still think Trump should let Mueller catch all the Witches before he fires the folks overlooking the investigation.

    The optics are pretty grim.

    LL&P

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know you can do it!!!

    I feel better already!

    :D

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    This just in... Seems Rosenstein is for the chop.

    Long overdue....

  215. [215] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    150

    @neil,
    you're not helping.

    So you're taking issue with this comment, JL!? Seriously!?

    Why pile on Neil for that relatively innocuous opinion/comment versus the myriad of other comments you could have taken issue with under this commentary?

    Unreal!

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wanna lay any quatloos on the idea that Rosenstein is the anonymous author of the OpEd piece??

  217. [217] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    It wouldn't surprise me...10,000 quatloos on the newcomer/soon-to-be leaver.

    Another segment from the roving Maclean's reporter... This week, a trip through Knox County, Kentucky, a uni-dexterous Oxendine and a few laughs at the expense of Democratic nepotism in a red state..., made me smile.

    LL&P

  218. [218] 
    James T Canuck wrote:
  219. [219] 
    TheStig wrote:

    174-LB

    Thanks for clearing that up. I misinterpreted Avenatti's tweet and linked it to the alleged Yale incident. This narrative is getting sufficiently complicated that you need one of those cork boards you see on TV and in the movies, the one with pins, pictures and red ribbon linking all the pinned bits together.

    The biggest loser in this rush to confirmation is the Republican Congress (nobody expects anything of Trump anymore). What's their hurry? It's hard to explain holding a vote before you have the facts - unless of course the facts don't really matter - and the hearing is just a formality.

  220. [220] 
    Michale wrote:

    The biggest loser in this rush to confirmation is the Republican Congress (nobody expects anything of Trump anymore). What's their hurry?

    The same hurry that Democrats had to confirm Merrick Garland before the 2016 elections...

    The biggest loser in this rush to confirmation is the Republican Congress

    In YOUR opinion...

    unless of course the facts don't really matter -

    If only Democrats actually HAD any facts...

    :D

  221. [221] 
    Kick wrote:

    We also don't need our gracious host to tell us how to engage, either.

    So we have a concession that we don't need "our gracious host to tell us how to engage," but for whatever reason I cannot fathom, she still hasn't allowed herself to stop doing that.

    Just for the record, I was much more in favor of this idea:

    Why can't people just ignore what they don't want to read here by people they don't like without always making a big issue out of it.

    If you (generic you) can't do that, then you are part of the problem (general disrespect) that plagues this site.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/09/14/ftp500/#comment-127106.

  222. [222] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    172

    CW has allowed us to make our own rules, and for the most part it all sorta works out. If you want to play the role of "adjudicator-in-chief" expect to be disappointed - and personally, I expect to disappoint you more in the future - not from any malice, but just being myself.

    Very well said, sir. :)

  223. [223] 
    Paula wrote:

    Avenatti's allegations are genuinely explosive - introducing gang-rape to this already sordid saga.

    Withholding judgement until more information is released but, if true, it's pretty bad.

    Meanwhile this kerfluffle about Rosenstein today may literally be an attempt by Blotus to move the narrative away from Kavanaugh. We'll see.

  224. [224] 
    Paula wrote:

    [172] Neilm, [222] Kick: Yep!

  225. [225] 
    Michale wrote:

    Avenatti's allegations are genuinely explosive - introducing gang-rape to this already sordid saga.

    And, like everything spewing out of the Dumbocrat's mouths..

    Without ANY facts to support..

    The give-away as to how nefarious and underhanded it is, is the witness wants to give paid interviews before she testifies under oath..

  226. [226] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    … the Dumbocrats' mouths..?

    Was that really necessary?

    Oh, and watch your apostrophe placement, please. Otherwise people will think you're talking about only one Democrat with two mouths. Though, I do know those animals exist. Heh.

  227. [227] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I corrected the apostrophe for you.

    Your very welcome!

  228. [228] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    223

    Avenatti's allegations are genuinely explosive - introducing gang-rape to this already sordid saga.

    I must get caught up on this.

    Withholding judgement until more information is released but, if true, it's pretty bad.

    I seriously must get caught up on this.

    Meanwhile this kerfluffle about Rosenstein today may literally be an attempt by Blotus to move the narrative away from Kavanaugh. We'll see.

    No way is Rosenstein resigning. If Trump wants to fire Rosenstein, he's simply adding potential years to the prison sentence he will face unless he makes a deal with Mueller. No, I'm not joking. :)

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, and watch your apostrophe placement, please. Otherwise people will think you're talking about only one Democrat with two mouths. Though, I do know those animals exist. Heh.

    Yes, they do.. it allows them to easily talk out both mouths.. :D

    Was that really necessary?

    As necessary as Rethuglicans, Treasonous Trump, Orange One and all the others..

    But yer right.. We're trying to be adult about this.. I'll refrain...

  230. [230] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Meanwhile this kerfluffle about Rosenstein today may literally be an attempt by Blotus to move the narrative away from Kavanaugh.

    Maybe Trump got up this morning and said to himself, 'y'know, I haven't obstructed anything lately' and set out to remedy that.

  231. [231] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "Rethuglicans"

    That's a new one to me. Thanks, Michale.

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:
  233. [233] 
    Kick wrote:

    Otherwise people will think you're talking about only one Democrat with two mouths. Though, I do know those animals exist. Heh.

    It's true! They found one recently in a Northern Virginia garden, except it's not a Democrat. It's a Trumptrodon contortrix. :)

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/09/24/two-headed-snake-discovered-virginia-nr-vpx.cnn

  234. [234] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The ever flamboyant musical comedian Randy Rainbow has released a Kavanaugh musical number. His stuff is a lot like the some of the Mad Magazine stuff I read as a kid, but more fully realized. You have to his Rainbow's ability to make the lyrics scan as well as his crude but effective production values.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gG0-6Ntx7w

  235. [235] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula

    Okay then, I'm caught up enough regarding Avenatti's allegations, and I would wager that his new client is Mark Judge's ex-wife. It just makes sense. We'll see. :)

  236. [236] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    234

    Okay... this is just precious: Hilarious! :)

  237. [237] 
    Paula wrote:

    [234] TS: I love Randy Rainbow!

    [235] Kick: I hope we learn soon what Avenatti has.

    Meanwhile, as I posted upthread (223), it appears the Rosenstein flap was an attempt to divert attention from Kavanaugh.

  238. [238] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    One thing about DAG leaving could be the following. Say that a career official takes over day-to-day DAG duties. SolicGen takes over S-Counsel. That would recuse him in representing the US in a scotus case on the question of indictment of any sitting President, in particular this one. It could then pass to someone who can speak more authoritatively against the ability of any Special investigator (or, by extension, any prosecutor) in such an important and extensive Constituional clarification.

    I don't believe it's an embrace of conspiracy theory to think that this issue might be being driven by the same political pressure system as the Kavenaugh confirmation. Maybe this is what the start of a "constituional crisis" feels like. If so, it'll help to remember this, from Apollo 13:

    NASA Director: This could be the worst disaster NASA has ever experienced.
    Gene Kranz: With all due respect, Sir, I believe this is going to be our finest hour.

  239. [239] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB, I think you might be on to something..

    Hysterical NeverTrumpers: This could be the worst constitutional crisis this country has ever experienced!!!
    President Trump: With all due respect, I believe this is going to be our finest hour..

    :D

  240. [240] 
    Patrick wrote:

    If the third one comes out, Avenatti's client, I'm betting Kavanaugh withdraws his nomination. Only if they are as explosive as Dr.Fords.

  241. [241] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    237

    I hope we learn soon what Avenatti has.

    Me too. I suspect right about now he is gathering evidence and more witnesses 'cause Avenatti does not mess around.

    Meanwhile, as I posted upthread (223), it appears the Rosenstein flap was an attempt to divert attention from Kavanaugh.

    Yes, ma'am... looks exactly like that.

    Anyone who thinks Rosenstein being fired/resigning does anything to change the OSC/Mueller investigation hasn't been paying attention. That ship has sailed long ago. :)

  242. [242] 
    Patrick wrote:

    Per sportsbettingdime.com dated today: (I don't make these names up)

    "If it seems Kavanaugh doesn’t end up having the votes, Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley will probably try to pull the candidate rather than undergo the humiliation of a failed vote. Who knows, Kavanaugh may even withdraw if things get any worse for him."

  243. [243] 
    Michale wrote:

    Only if they are as explosive as Dr.Fords.

    If only they are as fact-less as Dr. Fords

    There.. Fixed it for you..

    Per sportsbettingdime.com dated today: (I don't make these names up)

    "If it seems Kavanaugh doesn’t end up having the votes, Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley will probably try to pull the candidate rather than undergo the humiliation of a failed vote. Who knows, Kavanaugh may even withdraw if things get any worse for him."

    Yea.. Cuz Sports Betting Dime is the GoTo place for political news.. Especially if they say what you want to hear.. :^/

  244. [244] 
    Kick wrote:

    *auctioneer's cadence* I have three. Do I hear four? Somebody wanna give me four. four. four.

    https://mont.thesentinel.com/2018/09/24/supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh-faces-more-allegations/

  245. [245] 
    Patrick wrote:

    Yea.. Cuz Sports Betting Dime is the GoTo place for political news..

    Go to "any" sports betting site and you will see Kavanaugh nomination odds. Get your head out of the sand.

  246. [246] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don't take the bait, Michale ...

  247. [247] 
    Patrick wrote:

    244 Kick

    As is the usual case, once one comes out the dam breaks. The flood may start, other than North Carolina.

  248. [248] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,

    See 161.

  249. [249] 
    Kick wrote:

    Patrick
    247

    As is the usual case, once one comes out the dam breaks. The flood may start, other than North Carolina.

    Well, it is hurricane season, and as luck would have it, the next named storm is going to be Michael... except let's give this one a last name too: Avenatti. :)

  250. [250] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't take the bait, Michale ...

    Thank you... I almost did.. :D

  251. [251] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Whew!

  252. [252] 
    Michale wrote:

    *auctioneer's cadence* I have three. Do I hear four? Somebody wanna give me four. four. four.

    Any facts to support ANY of it??

    NONE whatsoever..

    We even have a bimbo who wants to get paid before she testifies.... THAT is what passes for integrity in this case.. :^/

  253. [253] 
    neilm wrote:

    You need to find another one, Neil. And, start respecting what this place really is.

    Nope. I'm not interested in that. I don't recognize your authority to make rules. This is CWs blog and he lets it be pretty open. Roll with it.

    If you don't like a contributor just skip their posts.

  254. [254] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whew!

    yea, probably dodged a bullet. :D

  255. [255] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kavanaugh: 'I will not be intimidated into withdrawing'
    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408116-kavanaugh-i-will-not-be-intimidated-into-withdrawing

    THAT is the kind of judge we need on the SCOTUS..

    One who won't let political lies and bullshit intimidate into compromising his principles..

    Now, more than ever, it's apparent we NEED a judge like Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court...

  256. [256] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you don't like a contributor just skip their posts

    You could do the same, instead of pushing buttons, which you have ADMITTED to doing, gleefully...

  257. [257] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Avenatti… there's just something I don't quite like about that guy. He's obviously got the gift of the gab, his crystal ball was spot on with Cohen and his fate and he's done a decent job keeping his client (Stormy) somewhat relevant. I just don't like his swagger. Being an ambulance chaser is one thing, seeming like the ubiquitous over-zealous used car salesman is another.

    Apparently, he's considering a run for office, he'll certainly add some panache to what ever political arena his winds up in.

    LL&P

  258. [258] 
    Paula wrote:

    [253] neilm: If you don't like a contributor just skip their posts.

    Something Liz has told the rest of us to do re: M-troll many times.

  259. [259] 
    Michale wrote:

    JTC,

    just don't like his swagger. Being an ambulance chaser is one thing, seeming like the ubiquitous over-zealous used car salesman is another.

    It's funny.. I have said nearly the exact same thing about Ted Cruz... :D

  260. [260] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    248

    Yes, I did post my comment at 215 regarding your 150 before I read any further comments below it. At that point, I genuinely thought you were giving Neil grief for egging me on, and I was absolving him... and then I read further and figured out you and Neil are both sneakers! :)

  261. [261] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    See, Michale… we do see eye to eye on some things. I'm no fan of Cruz, he's smarmy. I wouldn't get into his cab.

    LL&P

  262. [262] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    252

    Any facts to support ANY of it??

    Read the link. I made no accusations, just posted a link regarding a possible fourth, but I believe they lost count; it's all explained in the link.

    Why don't you give that tired "any facts" BS a rest. You posting that after everyone's comments is nothing but spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam... over and over and over.

    NONE whatsoever..

    Got anything to refute it? Nope! :)

    We even have a bimbo who wants to get paid before she testifies.... THAT is what passes for integrity in this case.. :^/

    Said the guy who voted for a bimbo who sold out his country in exchange for a paycheck. So there's that.

  263. [263] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Mitch just gave an important floor speech.

    It was a full throated defense of the Republican position, and a full throated scolding of the Democrats, and committed to a Senate vote, up or down, again, "in the near future," sometime after he confirms the public hearing of Dr. Ford on Thursday.

    Another important statement is full throated defense of the Grey Lady, the paper that prints All the News That's Fit to Print (tm). Their decision not to print the new accusation was, at this time, the fair and right decision. That, of course, follows "Rosenstein acts bad," which, at this time, is clearly not fake news.

    So far, still our finest hour. It's undoubtedly on c-span dot org, and the cables and the cable clip aggregators.

  264. [264] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Neil, you're saying that you will continue with the insults toward your fellow Weigantians?

    Well, I'm very sorry to hear that. Perhaps, once a clear majority of posters here refrain from that kind of behavior and rather focus on the kind of respectful discussion and robust debate that will live up to the excellent pieces Chris posts here on a near daily basis.

    I will look forward to your future participation.

  265. [265] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    257

    Avenatti… there's just something I don't quite like about that guy.

    Before you disparage Hurricane Michale Avenatti, you should know he's doing his part to save our country, and he's winning.

    He's obviously got the gift of the gab, his crystal ball was spot on with Cohen and his fate and he's done a decent job keeping his client (Stormy) somewhat relevant.

    Cohen is Avenatti's finest achievement to date; he's got a very nice singing voice... a wonderful addition to the Mueller Snitch Hunt Choir... and -- BONUS -- Mikey knows all the songs on multiple stations. :)

    I just don't like his swagger. Being an ambulance chaser is one thing, seeming like the ubiquitous over-zealous used car salesman is another.

    He's a race car driver and not a used car salesman! :)

  266. [266] 
    neilm wrote:

    once a clear majority of posters here refrain from that kind of behavior

    Have you been reading this comment section at all Elizabeth?

    I can't see why you are singling me out (not that I care really, it just seems odd), my "tweek Michale" posts are pretty infrequent, but I clump them together when I want a rise from him (achieved based on the number of times he mentioned me this weekend).

    The real reason you are oversensitive to my comments this weekend, I suspect, is due to me dissing on Biden and upsetting you. Did you not know about the Neil Kinnock plagiarizing episode? Biden gave us all a laugh over in the U.K. since poor old Neil Kinnock kept getting his clock cleaned by Maggie - Biden would have been better in a tweed skirt and a battle handbag:

    http://gph.is/2aHpfVT

  267. [267] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Clarifications and correction, [263]:

    sometime after he confirms the public hearing

    means

    which is sometime after the now-confirmed public hearing.

    and

    "Rosenstein acts bad,"

    should be

    "Rosenstein acted bad,"

  268. [268] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil, don't take this too personally.

    You are far from the only one around here who needs to change their behavior and they have all heard from me, at one time or another.

    I you read the comments sections you will see that what I say is true so please don't feel singled out. Unfortunately, you have quite a lot of company.

  269. [269] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil, when did you 'dis' on Biden!

    I think I must have missed that. :)

  270. [270] 
    Paula wrote:

    Mitche's hissy-fit is an attempt to intimidate Dr. Ford. She sent a reply saying she is frightened but intends to testify anyway.

    Separately Avenatti says his client will be appearing on TV in the next 48 hours. If it's a conflict with Kavanaugh's appearance on FOX I suspect her appearance will beat his.

  271. [271] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I'm not sure characterising Ford as a 'bimbo' is the proper use of that term.
    -- "Ford received her undergraduate degree at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She then received a Master’s Degree in psychology at Pepperdine University, followed by a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology: Research Design at the USC. Finally, she received a Master’s in Education from Stanford."--

    All that adds up to a minimum of eight years, likely ten, of university.

    LL&P

  272. [272] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [227] Elizabeth Miller wrote: I corrected the apostrophe for you.

    I wonder if that implies she is in a position to edit [263] to reflect [267], and delete [267] and maybe this post?

  273. [273] 
    neilm wrote:

    Neil, when did you 'dis' on Biden!

    I think I must have missed that. :)

    Comment [52]: http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/09/21/friday-talking-points-this-is-why-women-dont-report-sexual-assaults/#comment-127755

    Don't take it personally, it wasn't aimed at you, just adding to the Biden discussion at the time.

    My feeling on Biden are all to do with his age - if he was 30 years younger I'd be all in for him to run in 2020 - but we need a new generation of leadership, particularly in the Democratic side of the aisle.

  274. [274] 
    neilm wrote:

    I'm not sure characterising Ford as a 'bimbo' is the proper use of that term.

    She lacks a "Y" chromosome, thus she is a "bimbo".

  275. [275] 
    neilm wrote:

    ;)

  276. [276] 
    Kick wrote:

    State the Obvious

    Elizabeth keeps singling out posters and then explaining to them she's not singling them out.

    “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” ~ George Orwell, 1984

  277. [277] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [270] - If it's a conflict with Kavanaugh's appearance on FOX ...

    If Avenatti said "within 48" hours, by [270]'s posting time, that's before 1600 ET. Avenatii wouldn't speak "roughly" on something like this.

  278. [278] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    270

    Mitche's hissy-fit is an attempt to intimidate Dr. Ford. She sent a reply saying she is frightened but intends to testify anyway.

    Poor Mitch and Judge Kavanaw; they are the biggest victims in all this. *shakes head*

    Orrin Hatch said it was all "frivolous." Interesting choice of words there, Orrin.

    Separately Avenatti says his client will be appearing on TV in the next 48 hours. If it's a conflict with Kavanaugh's appearance on FOX I suspect her appearance will beat his.

    Now I burst all those popcorns I got for Paulie's trial! ;)

  279. [279] 
    neilm wrote:

    Brett Kavanaugh “strongly opposed” giving Bill Clinton “any ‘break’” on questions regarding his sexual relationship with the White House intern Monica Lewinsky, according to a memo written by the supreme court nominee in 1998 and released to the public on Monday.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/aug/20/brett-kavanaugh-bill-clinton-questions-1998-memo-trump

    Isn't it hilarious that he is now angry at questions about his drinking and sexual habits.

    The Republicans are going to vote in one creepy dude onto the Supreme Court.

  280. [280] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Stig [234]:

    Thanks. There went my day. Too funny!

  281. [281] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    "In over 45 years of working in global affairs, I’ve observed a simple truth: America’s ability to lead the world depends not just on the example of our power, but on the power of our example." ... Joe Biden, September 2017

    Neil,

    If a candidate is in good health, then age alone should never be a disqualifier for serving as POTUS.

    The next American president is going to have to manage the mother of all resets - domestically and internationally. There is no one in the Democratic party who is more capable than Senator Biden. Full stop.

    The above quote, though recent, is something that Biden has been saying for the 30 odd years I have been following him, particularly with respect to my pet interest - foreign affairs. He understands the importance of America's global leadership role and of the promise of America.

    I can think of two older Democratic leaders who would make powerful and unrivaled candidates against the Trump administration through their unparalleled knowledge of the important issues facing America and the world and their unwavering ability to act in the furtherance of progressive change: Joe Biden and Jerry Brown.

    It would be a cryin' shame if ageism prevented either one of them from leading America out of the abyss of partisan politics and from reclaiming America's global leadership role. If either of them are still actually willing to continue their fight to realize the promise of America, then Americans should be eternally grateful.

  282. [282] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My dream ticket for the Democrats in 2020: JB/JB.

    And, the order doesn't matter as they would essentially be co-presidents.

  283. [283] 
    Paula wrote:

    [282] Brace yourself Liz - I think you're destined to be disappointed.

  284. [284] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You're right, Paula.

    In the irony of ironies, Biden has always put his faith in the American people, despite everything.

    I fear Americans are destined to be disappointed, in a very real sense.

  285. [285] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    LB [272],

    Oh, I'm sorry, that was just a little private joke between me and Michale ...

  286. [286] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz goes into GodMode now and again :D

  287. [287] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  288. [288] 
    Kick wrote:

    Uh oh... Collins :)

  289. [289] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    "GodMode" An acceptable flaw, easily overlooked. I'm sure it's not contagious.

    LL&P

  290. [290] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    God? Lonely. But funny. He's got a great sense of humor. Take sex for example. There's nothing funnier than the ridiculous faces you people make mid-coitus.

    Sex is a joke in heaven?

    The way I understand it, it's mostly a joke down here, too.

    ~dogma

Comments for this article are closed.