ChrisWeigant.com

He Said / They Said

[ Posted Monday, September 24th, 2018 – 17:53 PDT ]

Brett Kavanaugh now stands accused of sexual misconduct by two women. The minefield Republicans already had to cross to get him confirmed to the Supreme Court just got a whole lot more politically explosive, in other words. "He-said/she-said" has now become: "He said/they said." And the lawyer for Stormy Daniels has hinted that he's got a third bombshell to drop into this fray (although, to be fair, he has made promises of future revelations before with no actual followup, so perhaps he's just trying to leverage the news to his and his client's advantage in some fashion).

The picture that has emerged from the accusations so far is one of Kavanaugh being quite the party animal, in both high school and college. Stories of excessive drinking are not in and of themselves a disqualification for Kavanaugh, but the more stories of him excessively drinking while in school that pop up, the more doubt there will be that he could even have remembered what happened during the times he's been accused of sexual assault.

That increasing doubt might just torpedo his nomination, to state the obvious. Because a confirmation hearing is a political (not a legal) exercise, the calculus has always been one of political tenability or viability. Once Kavanaugh is seen as being fatally flawed (again, politically), the Senate Republicans will tell the White House to withdraw his nomination to avoid the whole mess entirely.

He has not quite reached that point, of course. But he certainly is approaching it. For anyone accused of sexual misconduct of any type, the public usually doesn't immediately make up its mind as to the believability of the accuser. Her (or his) accusation is weighed against her credibility versus the accused's credibility, and often the benefit of the doubt will swing towards the accused. But that can change when further allegations are made. When a second accuser steps forward, the first accuser gets a lot more benefit of the doubt, in other words. If a third (or fourth, or fifth...) accuser appears, then the public will almost always overwhelmingly start believing the accusations are true. Especially if their stories are similar, or describe similar behavior.

At some point, it becomes a political liability for any politician to continue to support the accused and deny that the accusers are telling the truth. Women are paying attention, and they vote. Being a chauvinist didn't use to be a disqualifier for getting elected -- and in many states and districts, sadly, it still isn't -- but it's a lot more damaging now than it used to be for politicians on either side of the aisle. Just ask Al Franken.

So far, Republicans have been paralyzed by the second accusation against Kavanaugh [Editor's note: my internet service has been having major problems today, so I'm not exactly up on breaking developments, so you should really read that as: "So far -- up until this morning, at any rate -- Republicans have..."]. Will they invite the second woman to the Thursday hearing to testify along with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford? Will they postpone the hearing, or perhaps hold a second hearing? Will they try to ignore the second accusation? They have many options, but unfortunately for them, most of them are bad. The optics of the situation were already pretty bad for them, but if they make a wrong move now the optics will get exponentially worse.

The other big question is whether Michael Avenatti will reveal a third accuser or not. If a third shoe drops, then Republican pressure on the White House to just cut their losses and try again with another nominee (preferably a female one, next time) will become overwhelming. One accuser, even if extremely credible, might be fought back against. With two or more, it becomes a lot harder to do so, and even attempting it might cause significant political backlash no matter what the outcome turns out to be.

Kavanaugh's supporters are approaching the upcoming fight as if it is a courtroom legal battle. They feel confident that the accusers' stories can be refuted by Kavanaugh himself, and by enough character witnesses that swear that he'd never, ever do the things he's been accused of. But this isn't a court of law. There's no evidentiary standard that has to be met other than what public opinion at large thinks about the accusations. This was already going to be tough for Kavanaugh to fight, because his first accuser is such a solid and upstanding citizen with a long and distinguished professional career. In the #MeToo era, she was going to be believed by a whole lot of the public, to put it another way. She might have singlehandedly shifted the benefit of the doubt from him to her in the upcoming hearing. But now she's not going to be fighting this fight alone. The Senate Judiciary Committee is going to have to hear the second accuser now, or else stand accused of an attempted coverup -- by silencing relevant testimony. That should already be seen as politically untenable by Republicans, especially given all the drama Chuck Grassley created with all his made-up "deadlines" for Ford's lawyer to agree to his terms.

Republicans are now backed into an increasingly tight corner. More and more, they will be looking for a way out of this mess, but the only real way to make it all go away is for the White House to yank Kavanaugh's nomination. That would be a big defeat for Republicans, obviously. Especially since any new nominee will not get a vote (or even, most likely, a hearing) before the midterm elections.

If the White House doesn't act on their own, there are four Republicans with the collective power to make the whole Kavanaugh problem go away. All it would take would be two of them publicly stating that they are urging the White House to withdraw the nomination -- they wouldn't even have to commit to voting against Kavanaugh, they could just fire this warning shot across Trump's bow. It would likely be just as effective as announcing they'll be voting against his confirmation, really. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski actually seem to care what their state's women voters think, so they're the most obvious Republicans to bail on Kavanaugh in such a fashion. But there's also Jeff Flake and Bob Corker, who are retiring and will thus not have to face the wrath of Republican voters in November no matter what they do.

All four of these senators have pretty good political instincts. They'll know when it is time to throw in the towel. Donald Trump is not a guy who is prone to backing down, but if everyone around him tells him it is a losing cause (emphasis on losing, because we all know how much Trump hates that concept), then at some point he's might see it more personally and decide to cut his losses.

Again, we are not quite at that point yet [at least, we weren't earlier today when I read the last update from Washington]. Kavanaugh is clinging on to hope. Trump is trying to bluster his way through it all. Republicans in general are keeping their heads down and wondering what is going to happen next. But we're certainly approaching that point, now that "he-said/she-said" has become "he-said/they-said."

My own guess is that if a third accuser appears, Kavanaugh is toast. He may also be toast if more people start coming forward with their own stories of Kavanaugh's drunken revelry in his youth. He might still have a chance of weathering this storm if the number of sexual assault accusers stays at two, but it's going to be a lot harder to deny two accusations as it was going to be to deny a single one. Oh, and one final prediction: if the hearings go forward on Thursday, the television ratings are going to be through the roof. The public is definitely watching all this play out, and they're making their own minds up about what to think. If public opinion shifts heavily against Kavanaugh, then Republicans risk facing a voter backlash in November which might just hand control of the Senate to the Democrats.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

119 Comments on “He Said / They Said”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    not so sure i agree with you CW. i think what it really would take for kavanaugh to sail through would be to own his youthful exploits and express genuine remorse for them. considering how much he was purported to be drinking at the time, it's highly unlikely he would even remember any of the alleged incidents, but as much as the public hates privileged rich white criminals, it loves stories of redemption.

    JL

  2. [2] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    she/they/them... Avenatti now claims he has another accuser to add to the list, one he claims simply can't be ignored. Kavanaugh now claims he was a vestal virgin throughout his high school years.

    OK … Fair enough, I'll bite. Surely there's a punchline? All that's missing from this saga is a bartender, a priest and a duck looking for someone to put lip gloss on his bill.

    Tipping point.

    LL&P

    (shite timing for a dodgy ISP, CW)

  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    A college roomate of Kavanaughs released a statement saying during the time they roomed together (Fall 1983) Kavanaugh was "a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk. I did not observe the specific incident in question, but I remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk."

    He was friends with Debbie Ramirez and says: Based on my time with Debbie, I believe her to be unusually honest and straightforward and I cannot imagine her making this up.

    Based on my time with Brett, I believe that he and his social circle were capable of the actions Debbie described."

    He says he's not a political person, has no agenda and doesn't want to talk to more reporters.

    https://twitter.com/PeterKauffmann/status/1044384650767020033

    I'd like the FBI to talk to him!

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    The scenario you outline would have been the appropriate course of action for Judge Kavanaugh. But, now it's too late for that.

    And, even if Kavanaugh did initially do that, assuming that his lack of memory was the truth of the matter, I don't think senators would have confirmed him. And, I can just imagine how the devolutionary media would react to the confession.

    The sad part about this is that if he had taken the route you suggest and senators voted to confirm in numbers that broke party lines, then it might have been an inflection point that led to the end of the rabid partisanship that defines US politics today - a partisanship which may have forced Kavanaugh to do precisely what he did.

    I guess what I'm saying is that the way this has unfolded may have been a lost opportunity.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    If the Kavanaugh nomination is withdrawn or voted down, wouldn't the next logical step for the Republicans be to nominate Garland Merrick?

  6. [6] 
    neilm wrote:

    This could be a prelude to a lot more interest in SCOTUS from the left than has previously been seen. Kavanaugh could well be a pyrrhic victory that redefines the meme as the "Kavanaugh victory" and gets poor old King Pyrrhus of Epirus off the hook as a complete loser.

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    The word "Renate" appears at least 14 times in Georgetown Preparatory School's 1983 yearbook, on individuals' pages and in a group photo of nine football players, including Judge Kavanaugh, who were described as the "Renate Alumni." It is a reference to Renate Schroeder, then a student at a nearby Catholic girls' school.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

    Somebody tell the GOP and their gullible ilk that it's too late to round up all the copies of that yearbook.

    Wow... "Renate Alumni." This would corroborate Mark Judge's writings and statements to others. I would wager that Michael Avenatti is speaking with them now.

    Renate Schroeder Dolphin is her name now. She signed a letter defending the judge's character. Now she's extremely pissed off. Sad. :(

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Who's Garland Merrick??

  9. [9] 
    Mezzomamma wrote:

    Yes, if he had admitted to the drinking and partying and expressed remorse, perhaps even genuinely apologised, it would look very different. And yes, it's too late now.

    So let's envision two scenarios, both involving a boy from an affluent, privileged, alcohol-drenched background behaving as his peers do. In each case, the boy survives this and goes on to an expected career, apparently cleaned up, until earlier episodes catch up with him. One boy has matured and gained a bit of wisdom, admits to his past and expresses genuine remorse because he feels genuine remorse. He might even do this before it catches up with him. He might apologise to specific people or even undertake some restitution. The other denies wrongdoing, makes excuses for himself and blames others, says 'everyone else did it', and only makes a non-excuse if forced to.

    Which one would you like to see in a position of authority? Who would make a better judge?

    (Poor and minority teens don't generally get the free pass on drunken behaviour or even credit for remorse, apology and restitution, of course.)

  10. [10] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    8

    Who's Garland Merrick??

    Pretty sure he was the "Elephant Man." No, no, wait... that was Joseph Merrick a.k.a. John Merrick. ;)

  11. [11] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    considering how much he was purported to be drinking at the time, it's highly unlikely he would even remember any of the alleged incidents,

    God, how this kind of statement bugs me! It’s as bad as saying that because the victim was drinking/drunk that she cannot accurately recall what happened that night.

    Unless a person is blackout drunk, they should still be able to recall their memories of the night’s events. Granted, their recollection might be viewed through beer goggles. While a person might not recall specifics of the mundane things we do everyday; when some new or out of the ordinary event occurs our brains code those memories as being more important to save for later. Unless Kavanaugh was assaulting women every time he got wasted, he should be able to recall at least some of it. Nothing I’ve read has mentioned that he or Ford were “blackout” drinkers.

    I think we should focus more on why Kavanaugh has been spending the last few days at the White House prepping for his testimony before the hearings? Why is the White House taking such an active role in his defense? If he telling the truth, what is he needing help with as far as how he answers the questions he will be asked?

    If confirmed by the Senate, how could Kavanaugh not be expected to recuse himself from any case related to this presidency?

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hearing in Doubt? Christine Ford’s Lawyer Rips Senate Plan to Have Prosecutor Ask Questions: Not ‘Fair and Respectful’
    https://www.mediaite.com/online/hearing-in-doubt-christine-fords-lawyer-rips-senate-plan-to-have-prosecutor-ask-questions-not-fair-and-respectful/

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this!!??

    Oh wait.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    He Said / They Said

    Hmmmmm

    So, let me get this straight..

    When it's SHE SAID / THEY SAID that doesn't matter one whit...

    But when it's HE SAID / THEY SAID all of the sudden that is very significant???

    Why not just come right out and say it??

    REP SAID / DEM SAID

    That's the standard at play here.. :^/

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    considering how much he was purported to be drinking at the time,

    Ahh... So, the so-called victim states she was falling down drink and SHE should be believed..

    But there is not a single fact to support the idea that Kavanaugh had ANYTHING to drink, but HE is not to be believed??

    Once again, why not just come out and say it?

    The Democrat is to be believed and the Republican is not...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    For the record, the NY Grime (of all outlets) has already debunked the second woman's claims as bullshit..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    The picture that has emerged from the accusations so far is one of Kavanaugh being quite the party animal, in both high school and college. Stories of excessive drinking are not in and of themselves a disqualification for Kavanaugh, but the more stories of him excessively drinking while in school that pop up, the more doubt there will be that he could even have remembered what happened during the times he's been accused of sexual assault.

    And STILL not a single solitary fact to support the claims..

    The **ONLY** reason the Left believes them is because it's a Democrat making a claim against a Republican..

    That's the ONLY reason..

    If the so-called "victims" were Republican operatives and the nominee was a Democrat by a Democrat POTUS, ya'all would be making the exact same arguments I am making..

    The only difference is we all would be in complete agreement...

    That's pretty sad when ya think about it. Democrats are willing to destroy an innocent man SOLELY on the basis of the -R after his name...

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    The other unfortunate reality for leftist resistors is Brett Kavanaugh's replacement won't be Merrick Garland, it'll be an ideologically pure originalist who happens to be the darling of conservative Christians who bit the bullet and voted for Trump hoping she'd land on the bench. Amy Coney Barrett should be a far bigger nightmare for progressives, as she's more ideologically conservative than Brett Kavanaugh and surely has fewer skeletons in her catholic closet.
    https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/the-on-deck-justice-could-be-a-bigger-dem-problem-than-kavanaugh-kennedy

    It would almost be worth losing Kavanaugh to see Judge Barrett on the high court.. She would be a BIGGER nightmare for the hysterical Left Wingery...

    It would also be worth the price of admission to see what the GOP will do to the next Dem POTUS and HIS SCOTUS nominee....

    If the Left wants a nominee war, they got one.....

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

    And President Trump's approval rating continues to climb...

    Passing 50?? A distinct possibility..

    Get yer quatloos ready, JL.. :D

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Brett Kavanaugh-Christine Blasey Ford saga: Believe the facts, not necessarily the women

    “Believe the women” is bunk, and nobody really means it anyway. We heard that mantra in two of the most famous fake-rape cases of recent years, the Duke lacrosse case and the University of Virginia/Rolling Stone case. In the former, the prosecutor who believed the woman in question wound up losing his law license; in the latter, Rolling Stone wound up facing millions in damages. In both cases, stereotypes about “privileged” athletes and fraternity brothers encouraged many people to believe stories that were rather shaky, and to shame those who expressed doubts as rape-enablers.

    Only there was no rape; it was all made up.

    We’re now hearing the same kinds of things from opponents of Judge Kavanaugh. But a story is true or not based on its facts, not on who the accuser, or the accused, happens to be. To know what happened here, we need facts, not stereotypes.
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/24/kavanaugh-ford-supreme-court-facts-not-tribalism-stereotypes-column/1404258002/

    Exactly...

    Believe the FACTS..

    And where are the FACTS that support this so-called "vitim"'s story??

    NON-EXISTENT....

    Let's look at the motivations.. The so-called "victim" is a democrat operative who has donated considerably to Democrats and who is an avowed NeverTrumper and who, very tellingly, tried to scrub her online social media presence before "reluctantly" coming forward with her story...

    She has NO FACTS to support her claims..

    The Left *ONLY* believes her because she has a -D after her name and she is trying to take down a GOP SCOTUS nominee..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then there's the case of Keith Ellison, deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He's accused by a former girlfriend of domestic violence and abuse, but only 5% of Democrats in Minnesota believe the charges, according to a poll by the Star Tribune and Minnesota Public Radio, despite evidence of a doctor's note that includes her allegation of physical abuse. Ellison, meanwhile, says the woman, Karen Monahan, is lying, and warns that there may be more false accusations to come. Believe the women? Not so much.

    Where are the cries from the Left to "believe" Karen Monahan??

    "Oh, well.. Believing THAT woman is politically inconvenient and does not support our Party agenda, so THAT woman can just go to hell.."
    -Democrats

    :^/

    So, the Democrats' Mantra is

    Believe ALL women but **ONLY** when they accuse a GOP'er and/or their accusations support our Party Agenda...

    #sad

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Smearing Of Brett Kavanaugh Is Truly Evil

    This media-enabled Democratic smear campaign simply can't be the standard by which we destroy people.

    Mollie Hemingway By Mollie Hemingway
    SEPTEMBER 24, 2018

    Maybe Brett Kavanaugh is a gang-raping attempted murderer who managed to live a public life of acclaim and honor. Maybe the devotion to his wife and two daughters, his respect for countless women and their careers, and his wisdom on the bench are parts of an elaborate plot to get away with it. Anything is possible.

    But the idea that the country should convict him and destroy his life with no evidence other than recovered and uncorroborated memories and creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti’s say-so is quite insane.
    http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/24/the-smear-campaign-against-brett-kavanaugh-is-truly-evil/

    The Democrat Party

    Purveyors of insanity... :^/

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the lawyer for Stormy Daniels has hinted that he's got a third bombshell to drop into this fray (although, to be fair, he has made promises of future revelations before with no actual followup, so perhaps he's just trying to leverage the news to his and his client's advantage in some fashion).

    That's a given..

    His client wanted to get PAID to screw Kavanaugh before she had to do it for free in a hearing.. There's a word for women like that..

    The learned author, Ernest Hemingway was at a dinner party being hounded by an incessant fan. Finally, Mr Hemingway turned to the lady and said, "Madam, would you have sex with me for a million dollars??".. The woman, all a flutter said, "Why yes!! Yes Mr Hemingway!!! Yes I would!!!"....

    Hemingway then asked, "Would you have sex with me for a dollar??" The woman cried out indignantly, "Of course not!!! What kind of woman do you think I am!!??"

    Hemingway replied, "We have already established that. Now we're just negotiating the price."

    Mr Hemingway enjoyed the rest of the dinner party in peace.

    So, it's obvious where ambulance chaser Avantii and his client are coming from..

    We can also recall the "dramatic" CD in a safe photo that Avantii pushed.. Nothing ever came of that..

    The guy is just a scum-sucking lawyer and it's indicative of how far Democrats have sunk, that they are putting their faith in such a scumbag...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unless a person is blackout drunk, they should still be able to recall their memories of the night’s events. Granted, their recollection might be viewed through beer goggles. While a person might not recall specifics of the mundane things we do everyday; when some new or out of the ordinary event occurs our brains code those memories as being more important to save for later. Unless Kavanaugh was assaulting women every time he got wasted, he should be able to recall at least some of it. Nothing I’ve read has mentioned that he or Ford were “blackout” drinkers.

    All of which assumes that Kavanaugh was even AT this "party"..

    Are there **ANY** facts to support that assumption??

    ANY FACTS AT ALL???

    Nope.. None...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    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.

    If I recall correctly, that movie (and hence that line) came out in the Clinton years.. :D

  25. [25] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    11

    I think we should focus more on why Kavanaugh has been spending the last few days at the White House prepping for his testimony before the hearings? Why is the White House taking such an active role in his defense? If he telling the truth, what is he needing help with as far as how he answers the questions he will be asked?

    I know, right!? Great point, Russ. Add to this that the supposed "impartial" judge has now appeared on Fox News Entertainment TV to proclaim his innocence and... not kidding here --> defend himself by claiming he was a virgin in high school and "many years thereafter." It doesn't appear that the GOP and "impartial" judge stopped to think this one through, but what does it say about the GOP and a SCOTUS nominee who would favor a partisan Fox News interview over an FBI investigation? If you were innocent of the charges being levelled against you, why would you choose answering softball questions from Fox News propaganda versus an investigation by the FBI? Seriously.

    If confirmed by the Senate, how could Kavanaugh not be expected to recuse himself from any case related to this presidency?

    Exactly right. Setting aside everything else, Kavanaugh's multiple days of coaching by the White House and the appearance of a nominee for the SCOTUS on Fox News -- American Pravda -- isn't exactly the look of "impartiality," now is it?

    Mitch McConnell too says they'll "plow through" and also goes onto the floor of the Senate to blame Democrats for a "smear campaign" against the poor victim... not Blasey Ford -- Kavanaugh... and I'm sure that whenever Mitch and his GOP buddies figure out how to successfully blame the Democrats for the yearbook entry written by Brett Kavanaugh about himself, they'll be able to ramrod the "poor victim" onto the SCOTUS.

    … Keg City Club (Treasurer) -- 100 Kegs or Bust; Anne Daugherty's -- I Survived the FFFFFFFourth of July; Renate Alumnius; Malibu Fan Club; Ow, Neatness 2, 3; Devil's Triangle...

    Just an excerpt written by Kavanaugh about himself, and I'll not be posting the meaning of the 7 F's Kavanaugh has chosen to memorialize in his yearbook or the "Devil's Triangle"... leave the sleaze to somebody else or look it up.

    Sure, they'll argue, he was a dumb high school jock, so what? I'm just saying his own account at the time in question helps paint a picture of a very different person than the poor victim of a smear campaign that they're portraying now and there's more than enough there in his own chosen words to make him an unreliable witness decades later... or perhaps he's just "mixed up" and "confused" now.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which one would you like to see in a position of authority? Who would make a better judge?

    That presupposes that your scenarios are accurate...

    Here's a scenario for you..

    A genuine honest and decent man. A man of integrity with a wife and children who has NEVER even HINTED of any impropriety...

    Such a man denies such a heinous accusation forthwith because it simply is not in his nature..

    The difference between your scenarios and mine is that my scenario has TONS and TONS of facts to back it up..

    Yours??

    Not a single solitary fact to back up yours...

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

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why aren't liberals fun anymore?
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/408063-why-arent-liberals-fun-anymore

    It's interesting.. It's not only in Weigantia is this in play...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michael Avenatti is trying to insert himself back into the news cycle, this time by insisting he has secret knowledge of Brett Kavanaugh gang raping women at a torture chamber he ran as a student in Washington, D.C. He's also suggested Kavanaugh made Satanic references in his senior yearbook quote. (Yes, really.)

    Today he pitched major new details coming, and quickly scored interviews on CNN and MSNBC.
    https://news.grabien.com/story-avenatti-plays-msnbc-cnn-promises-new-kavanaugh-dirt-brings

    BBBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    OHMIGODS!!! You guys are buying into that!!!????

    Torture chambers!!!??

    Satanic rites!!!???

    GANG RAPE GANGS!!!???

    OhMyGods, ys'sll will believe ANYTHING!!!! As long as it's against a GOP'er.....

    This is just SAD...

    I guess I should be grateful for the scum-sucking lawyer..

    "I brought you people here to defend me against him and the only one on my side is the scum-sucking lawyer!!"
    -John Hammond, JURASSIC PARK

    :D

    Like I said, I guess I should be grateful for the scumbag that is Avantii...

    He has totally demolished **ANY** scintilla of credibility any of the accusers might have had...

    I mean, if Democrats believe that Kavanaugh was in a satanic cult that gang raped women in a DC torture chamber???

    They prove they are too gullible to be taken seriously about anything..

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, to recap..

    Ya'all believe that Kavanaugh was part of (leader??) a satanic cult that operated a Washington DC torture chamber where they regularly gang-raped women....

    This is what ya'all believe...

    And yet, throughout his **ENTIRE** career, spanning decades, NOT a single whiff of a scintilla of an iota of ANY OF THIS became known.. It was kept secret from SIX DIFFERENT FBI INVESTIGATIONS!!

    THAT is ya'all's claim???

    "Is it me or did IQs just drop suddenly while I was away??"
    -Sigourney Weaver, ALIENS

    I mean, seriously people... You people SERIOUSLY buy into this total tabloid garbage???

    #sad

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhhhhh NOW it all makes sense...

    Judge appears likely to toss Stormy Daniels' defamation suit
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-lawyers-seek-toss-stormy-daniels-lawsuit-181622779.html

    Media whore Avantii is looking for a new cash cow, since Stormy is all used up..

    'Rode hard and put away wet' is the accepted terminology.... :^/

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last-minute character assassination will not succeed.”
    -Judge Brett Kavanaugh

    THIS is the kind of man we need on the High Court...

    I am back up to 100% certain that Kavanaugh will be confirmed...

  32. [32] 
    TheStig wrote:

    This nomination is not looking any better in the morning.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats fear Trump ‘October Surprise’ document dump

    Democrats worry that Trump and his allies are teeing up a series of document releases meant to gin up GOP voters before the midterms.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/20/russia-midterms-trump-declassified-docs-830631

    Squirm, Democrats.. SQUIRM.... :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    This nomination is not looking any better in the morning.

    It NEVER looked good to you..

    So, you hated Kavanaugh yesterday, you hate Kavanaugh today...

    In other shocking news, water is wet and the sky is blue.. :^/

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Will Democrats Regret Weaponizing the Judiciary?

    Using the court system to stymie a president has backfired before.
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/24/democrats-weaponize-judiciary-220530

    A long, but very interesting read...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    And lets visit the RCP Poll Of Polls.. :D

    Barack Obama
    25 Sep 2011
    Approval Rating 43.3%

    President Donald Trump
    25 Sep 2018
    Approval Rating 44.0%

    Oh, JL??

    Your claim that Obama left off with an approval rating of 57%????

    It took Obama 8 years to do that..

    Who knows how high President Trump's rating will be in 6 years?? No one..

    But, considering how wrong ya'all have been about President Trump to date....

    It's a safe bet it's going to be a LOT higher than ya'all think it will be... :D

    I'm just sayin... :D

  37. [37] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    It's thin ice to tread suggesting ALL democrats believe "news cycle, this time by insisting he has secret knowledge of Brett Kavanaugh gang raping women at a torture chamber he ran as a student in Washington, D.C. He's also suggested Kavanaugh made Satanic references in his senior yearbook quote. (Yes, really.)" when many republicans still believe Obama an Clinton were running a child porn/slavery ring out of a pizza parlour. Not a corner I would paint myself into.

    Avenatti has his own agenda, which seems to include political adventurism, ergo, I'm disinclined to take him at face value. That being said, I wouldn't dismiss him out of hand when he claims to have a client who is above reproach, a former vetted government employee who has her own salacious Kavanaugh account to share. I have no doubt, if all this comes to pass, that his client's accusations are for an audience of three or four GOP senators first, et al, second.

    LL&P

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's thin ice to tread suggesting ALL democrats believe "news cycle, this time by insisting he has secret knowledge of Brett Kavanaugh gang raping women at a torture chamber he ran as a student in Washington, D.C.

    I am simply going by the rule established by the Left during Chancellorsville...

    "Silence Gives Assent"

    when many republicans still believe Obama an Clinton were running a child porn/slavery ring out of a pizza parlour.

    I know that many Democrats believe that many Republicans believe that..

    Just as there are many Republicans who believe that many Democrats believe Bush had a hand in 9/11...

    There are many crazies on the Right & Left...

    I am sure you would agree with me that those crazies do not represent the Party... No??

    Avenatti has his own agenda, which seems to include political adventurism, ergo, I'm disinclined to take him at face value.

    As am I...

    That being said, I wouldn't dismiss him out of hand when he claims to have a client who is above reproach, a former vetted government employee who has her own salacious Kavanaugh account to share.

    I would have to disagree with you here...

    I cannot see how it's possible that an employee would be "above reproach" yet still claim to have proof of the completely unbelievable story of satanic cults and gang rapes in a DC torture chamber...

    The two positions seem to be diametrically opposed.

    To put it into a different context by way of explanation, it would be as if you had a former employee of Clinton who is "above reproach" yet claims to have proof that the pizza/child porn story is factually accurate...

    The latter would seem to disqualify the former..

    I have no doubt, if all this comes to pass, that his client's accusations are for an audience of three or four GOP senators first, et al, second.

    I have no doubt that, if the claims are as ludicrous as Avanetti claims they are, said 3 or 4 Senators cannot throw Avanetti et al out of their office fast enough..

  39. [39] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Another dome scratcher is, why do the GOP keep citing this Judge guy as 'having no recollection of Kavanaugh engaging in the acts as described by Mrs. Ford' on one hand, and Kavanaugh himself saying he barely drank and was virginal through all the events described in Judge's own recollections of the same era. You can't have it both ways and have them both be true. Is Judge lying about what these kids got up to, which he swears he isn't--or--is Kavanaugh lying that he was too busy being a pure and wholesome, god-fearing religious type during this timeline?

    One of these guys is lying, would it be un-murican to find out which? In any event, it's stretches credulity that Judge is believed in one denial, but wafted away in another.

    [You might wonder what skin I have in the game... simple, a reversal of Roe v Wade would see an influx of women pouring into my country looking to exercise their basic human right to have an abortion. And before it's asked or implied, I'm not a fan of abortion, never have been, my dislike of it isn't tethered to some obnoxious, arcane, faith driven drivel... that's the weakest argument. My belief is, abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control (or annulment, for the godheads). It's a fine line, I know... At the end of the day, the state can't be allowed to dictate to women how they go about their reproductive imperative. As with most things in life, the devil is in the details, the 'small print' is where the discussion should be addressed.]

    just wanted to clarify

    LL&P

  40. [40] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Michale, I think the confusion is, Avenatti claims to have a few clients, one whom he plans to unveil, with name. This is the credible witness, not the one making ridiculous claims of satanic cults... I'm lock-step with you on that one, if this person comes out with that shit, then it'll fall on my deaf ears. Conspiratorialists are maddening fools, they're hobbyists of the extreme, they collect conspiracies like normal people collect stamps or coins.

    LL&P

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    One of these guys is lying, would it be un-murican to find out which? In any event, it's stretches credulity that Judge is believed in one denial, but wafted away in another.

    It would be "un-murican" to penalize the Republican one doesn't like based on nothing but rumor and innuendo with no facts..

    Again, a simple analogy by way of explanation..

    Would it be un-murican to force Obama to drop out of his re-election race simply because someone made an accusation?? An accusation that had absolutely NO FACTS to support it??

    Even though I voted Obama in 2008, I would have voted for anyone else in 2012... But even I would not have suggested that Obama be forced out of the 2012 election simply because someone made an accusation..

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, I think the confusion is, Avenatti claims to have a few clients, one whom he plans to unveil, with name. This is the credible witness, not the one making ridiculous claims of satanic cults...

    OK I see the point of confusion.. Thanx for clearing that up...

    I'm lock-step with you on that one, if this person comes out with that shit, then it'll fall on my deaf ears.

    Good ta know.. :D

    Hopefully others feel the same.. :D

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    And yes, there were parties. And the drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there. ~ Brett Kavanaugh

    That's some neat word parsing there. Kavanaugh seems to be saying he drank legally as a senior... or is he saying he drank illegally while the seniors drank legally?

    Fun Fact: The drinking age wasn't 18 in Maryland when Kavanaugh was a senior. On Thursday, July 1, 1982, the drinking age in Maryland was raised from 18 to 21. Ergo, Brett Kavanaugh couldn't legally drink in Maryland until 2-1/2 years after he graduated from high school there.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1982/01/29/md-unit-votes-drinking-age-increase-to-21/7e0e1a40-6319-4117-a869-1dd500abd4b8/?utm_term=.65c4dff7ce44

    To be clear here: I don't believe drinking illegally in Maryland as an underage teen should be a disqualification to become a justice on the SCOTUS, but why lie/obfuscate about it now under the circumstances wherein your credibility regarding "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is being questioned? Or is Kavanaugh simply "confused" and "mixed up"? Perhaps he forgot about that... among other things.

    Kavanaugh could legally drink in Maryland 2-1/2 years after he graduated high school there and could legally drink at Yale when he turned 21 in 1986.

    The issue here is Kavanaugh's credibility now.

  44. [44] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    But even I would not have suggested that Obama be forced out of the 2012 election simply because someone made an accusation..

    And despite Republicant operatives fanning out across America in search of dirt on Obama (as there naturally would be), not a single credible accusation of impropriety was ever leveled against him.

    And actually, the same could be said for most of our current sitting Senators and Reps, most of whom never had the kind of hush money reserves (and friends at the National Enquirer) that The Donald had at his disposal.

    The problem for Kavanaugh is that he will ultimately be judged by politicians who have successfully dodged the oppo research bullet, and are unlikely to feel sorry to someone who can't.

    They also know that, far from being 'ruined' by having his name yanked from consideration, Kavanaugh will still have his lifetime appointment to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to fall back on - a 'golden parachute' that they could only dream about.

  45. [45] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-

    The primary issue isn't if he drank underage. The issue is whether he is or was an alcoholic/sexaholic. Has that impeded his judgment in the past, causing him to take actions that might make him vulnerable to being blackmailed/bought off while on the the bench?

    Think of the hearings as allowing the public to be on the priest side of the confession booth. Truth and the Possibility of Reconciliation with him being on The High Court. Is this the best we can do? If it is, it's time to fold up the Constitutional tent and go our separate ways.

  46. [46] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    To be clear here: I don't believe drinking illegally in Maryland as an underage teen should be a disqualification to become a justice on the SCOTUS, but why lie/obfuscate about it now under the circumstances wherein your credibility regarding "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" is being questioned? Or is Kavanaugh simply "confused" and "mixed up"? Perhaps he forgot about that... among other things.

    Spot on! I take issue with people who dismiss his lying about “the little things” the same way I did when Paul Ryan got caught lying when he claimed to have run and finished a marathon in what would have been record time! Countless articles I read at the time said that it wasn’t that big of a deal because he wasn’t lying “about anything of real importance”. That, to me, is precisely why it should be a big deal — if someone is going to lie to you when there is nothing to gain by the lie, why would think they will be honest when they have something to lose by telling the truth?

    The issue here is Kavanaugh's credibility now.

    Bingo! The issue is we have an entire party that no longer believes that honesty is important. Truth matters!

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    And despite Republicant operatives fanning out across America in search of dirt on Obama (as there naturally would be), not a single credible accusation of impropriety was ever leveled against him.

    And despite SIX FBI Investigations and Dumbocrat operatives fanning out across America in search of dirt on Kavanaugh, not a SINGLE credible accusation of impropriety has been leveled against Kavanaugh..

    Unless you consider a 35 year old **FACT LESS** allegation to be credible??

    You do, but ONLY if it's leveled against a Republican... :^/

  48. [48] 
    Paula wrote:

    Kavanaugh - who spent the last several days being coached by Bill Shine who was kicked out at FOX News for allowing sexual harassment to flourish for years - goes to Sexual-Harassment Central TV to claim he was pure as new snow all the way through HS and college. Another former roommate surfaces and says "hm, well I remember him telling me he WASN'T a virgin back in college..."

    It's too late for him to try the "yes I did some bad things but I learned from them..." defense.

    The guy is a liar - almost as compulsive as Blotus. He lies about things that can be checked, like the legal drinking age in Maryland at the time.

    He claims he had nothing to do with various unsavory activities but can't deny he hung out with others who were very involved in same. Defenders are removing their names from lists of support.

    I think his FOX move was a mistake.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump...

    Consumer confidence hits 138.4 in September, vs. 132 estimate

    September's index print is near the all-time high of 144.7 reached in 2000, the Conference Board said Tuesday.

    "These historically high confidence levels should continue to support healthy consumer spending, and should be welcome news for retailers as they begin gearing up for the holiday season," says Lynn Franco, director of economic indicators at the Conference Board.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/25/consumer-confidence-september.html

    Making America GREAT Again....

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Defenders are removing their names from lists of support.

    Yea, that's the second time you have made that bullshit claim..

    And it is STILL as much bullshit now as it was back then...

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    45

    Is this the best we can do?

    -----> *shakes head* <-----

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Defenders are removing their names from lists of support.

    Yea, that's the second time you have made that bullshit claim..

    I can name one off the top of my head:

    Renate Schroeder Dolphin, who discovered just the other day that she was derogatorily referenced in Brett Kavanaugh's yearbook ("Renate Alumnus"), much to her surprise and embarrassment.

  53. [53] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [45] "Think of the hearings as allowing the public to be on the priest side of the confession booth."

    Society is more akin to 'whiskey priest' No?
    ;)

    LL&P

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Renate Schroeder Dolphin, who discovered just the other day that she was derogatorily referenced in Brett Kavanaugh's yearbook ("Renate Alumnus"), much to her surprise and embarrassment.

    Yea??

    Facts that support she was a Kavanaugh supporter??

    Facts that support she is no longer a Kavanaugh supporter??

    As to derogatorily referred to??

    Is THAT the standard for Democrats when considering a Republican nominee??

    OHMIGODS!!!! KAVANAUGH REFERRED TO SOMEONE DEROGATORILY 35 YEARS AGO!!! HE CAN'T BE A JUSTICE!!!!

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

    :D

    Once again, I wish ya'all could take a step back from yerselves and see how utterly ridiculous ya'all sound.. :D

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    48

    It's too late for him to try the "yes I did some bad things but I learned from them..." defense.

    Much too late now since they've portrayed him as pure as a driven snowflake and a virgin. Too bad the Brett Kavanaugh from his yearbook bragged about "FFFFFFF" and drinking... in his own words.

    The guy is a liar - almost as compulsive as Blotus. He lies about things that can be checked, like the legal drinking age in Maryland at the time.

    I know, right?! Take this "FFFFFFF" reference from his yearbook and ask him about it under oath. He would likely claim that his yearbook entry was referring to stuttering at an Independence Day party and point his questioner to his calendar where he wrote about it. He's going to lie regardless the question, and the GOP doesn't care.

    I think his FOX move was a mistake.

    It's what the White House wanted... which brings us back to Russ's great point about him being owned by the GOP and not an impartial jurist. So there's that.

  56. [56] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [46] BINGO!

    " That, to me, is precisely why it should be a big deal — if someone is going to lie to you when there is nothing to gain by the lie, why would think they will be honest when they have something to lose by telling the truth?"

    ...and

    "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

    Guess who said these lovely words in a democratic state?

    LL&P

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

    Guess who said these lovely words in a democratic state?

    "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan."
    -Barack Obama

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    56

    "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

    Guess who said these lovely words in a democratic state?

    Hint: Wenn Sie eine Lüge erzählen, die groß genug ist und es häufig genug erzählt, wird es geglaubt. ~ HWMNBN

  59. [59] 
    Patrick wrote:

    45 Stig

    The issue is whether he is or was an alcoholic/sexaholic. Has that impeded his judgment in the past, causing him to take actions that might make him vulnerable to being blackmailed/bought off while on the the bench?

    If he is proven to be a liar when the next 2 accusers come out how should this affect his present position on the bench with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Can he be blackmailed/bought off there?

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh.. And CW's personal favorite

    "I welcome the debate on domestic surveillance"
    -Barack Obama

    WEIGANTIA'S 2013 WORST LIE OF THE YEAR

  61. [61] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Michale, you know in your core that repetitive denials don't make you guiltless, in the same way multiple accusations don't make you guilty... you've said as much many times... the deciding factor has to be an investigation into specific allegations.

    Last time I checked, that's called due process. You have to see why this rush to confirm isn't sitting well with a lot of people... the right thing to do is to at least look into the allegation. It's no longer about if he was or wasn't a pervy little shirt-lifter while in school, he's made it about TELLING THE TRUTH, even if it takes a week, wouldn't you prefer to know if a member of SCOTUS was credible or not...……..Regardless of political bent? you champion rules applied evenly, prove you have the courage of that conviction, or forever be dismissed. It's literally that simple. Kavanaugh can wait a week to clear things up, surely? So what if he misses the Oct 1 calendar deadline of SCOTUS, he'll still be confirmed?

    LL&P

  62. [62] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Facts that support she was a Kavanaugh supporter??

    Facts that support she is no longer a Kavanaugh supporter?

    Duh. Read the news. I assume that you have a computer in front of you. This is hardly a secret.

    As to derogatorily referred to?? Is THAT the standard for Democrats when considering a Republican nominee??

    That was HER standard, you bet'cha.

  63. [63] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    If Kavanaugh was going to withdraw or be withdrawn, the time for that would've been the week before last when he admitted giving untruthful answers (ie LIES) under oath (ie perjury) to the senate hearing, before these accusations came to light.

    But he didn't. Wonder why.

    Let's look at a little background. Arthur Samish was a mob boss at the top of the mob hierarchy and like all big-time mob bosses, he had his own attorney, one whose entire law firm revolved around him. Samish's attorney was Justice Anthony Kennedy's father.

    Eventually the FBI took Samish down on tax evasion and a few years later, Samish croaked as did his faithful consigliere, Kennedy. And all those Samish attorney-client privileged files, all those business relationships - the other mobsters, the corporations of the mob and all the individuals compromised by the mob - fell into the hands of... Kennedy's son, Anthony.

    Yep. This was the law practice that young Tony Kennedy took over. He was a mob lawyer.

    Everyone knows that one of the mob's foremost objectives is to get their own people in charge of the courts, particularly SCOTUS. Mob M.O. is to choose their targets early, bind them to the mob and groom them for the role.

    This is where Gorsuch and Kavanaugh come into the picture - both clerked for mob lawyer, Anthony Kennedy.

    The first of them had his SCOTUS position saved for him by Mitch McConnell who was following orders by keeping the vacancy open until republicans took over congress and the executive.

    Now the second of them has been nominated for SCOTUS (when his former mob boss stepped aside for him). It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots and realize that both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been groomed for SCOTUS.

    So who paid off Kavanaugh's $200,000 debt right before his nomination? Yeah, that had to be the mob so that their boy looked clean on paper.

    Who spent an unprecedented $52 million (so far) to get Gorsuch and Kavanaugh confirmed? Again, that would be the mob. They'll spend whatever seems necessary to get what they want.

    Who hired PR firm CRC to support Kavanaugh and provide him with excuses and props (like a blank calendar - and you can buy those on eBay by the way) in case his past came back to confront him? Again, that would be the mob - they were hoping to get confirmation jammed through before any nasty history surfaced.

    So who is preventing Kavanaugh from withdrawing or being withdrawn? Yep, the mob. They wanted him seated by October 1st, the beginning of the next SCOTUS session. So like it or not, Kavanaugh is having to stick it out, to do exactly what he is told.

    Fortunately for the sake of democracy and justice, he's not likely to be confirmed now (looks like there'll be four accusers come forward by the end of this week) and he'll probably lose his current judgeship - at least two criminal complaints have already been filed against him.

    All in all, Kavanaugh's fall will be a loss for the mob and a massive win for America.

  64. [64] 
    Patrick wrote:

    54 Michale

    OHMIGODS!!!! KAVANAUGH REFERRED TO SOMEONE DEROGATORILY 35 YEARS AGO!!! HE CAN'T BE A JUSTICE!!!!

    OHMIGODS!!!! OBAMAS BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS NOT REAL FROM 57 YEARS AGO!!! HE CAN'T BE PRESIDENT!!!!

    There...I fixed it for you.

  65. [65] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kavanaugh Was ‘Aggressive And Belligerent’ When Drunk, His Yale Roommate Says

    Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate at Yale University came forward late Monday, describing Kavanaugh as “a heavy drinker” who became “aggressive and belligerent” when drunk.

    Roche said he issued the statement to support Deborah Ramirez, who was quoted in The New Yorker this week as saying Kavanaugh thrust his exposed penis at her at a college party. Roche said he and Ramirez became close friends at Yale, and she was “unusually honest and straightforward.”

    “I cannot imagine her making this up,” he told ABC-7 News in California. “Based on my time with Brett, I believe that he and his social circle were capable of the actions that Debbie described.”

    That's what we need on the Supreme Court: a mean drunk.

    .

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    JTC,

    Michale, you know in your core that repetitive denials don't make you guiltless, in the same way multiple accusations don't make you guilty..

    Really???

    And yet, in this VERY commentary, CW says, or at the very least IMPLIES that multiple accusations MAKE KAVANAUGH guilty...

    And no one disagreed with that so.. SILENCE GIVES ASSENT... :D

    the deciding factor has to be an investigation into specific allegations.

    And even BEFORE the investigation, there have to be SOME FACTS to support the accusation...

    Here, there are none...

    Kavanaugh can wait a week to clear things up, surely?

    If the time factor was so critical to the co-called "victim", why wait 3 months??? Democrats had THREE MONTHS, which last time I checked was considerably longer than 1 week, to launch an investigation...

    Surely if such an investigation was SOOOOOO necessary, it could have been launched back then, eh??

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Patrick,

    Thank you..

    I accept your concession that claims against Kavanaugh over this fact-less accusation is as ridiculous as the claims against Odumbo his not being an American...

    I am glad we can share that common ground.. :D

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Duh. Read the news. I assume that you have a computer in front of you. This is hardly a secret.

    Duh.. It's not my job to substantiate your claims..

    You made the claim.. Now back it up...

    That was HER standard, you bet'cha.

    Yes.. That's yer claim.. Just like Paula's, it's unsubstantiated bullshit... :D

  69. [69] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [63] Jaw drop.

    I too was curious about Kennedy's departure, considering there's older Justice's. I dug up the same info you just cited, though I'm no fan of connecting dots where the mafia are concerned. I dealt and worked for them (unbeknownst to me at the time) in Toronto in the late eighties, I never ascribed intelligence or long-term interest, with that clique. Perhaps, back in the Tammany times or Hoffa era, these kinds of backroom understandings took place, where greasing palms and owning judges was an understood norm...but in today's world, I need the dots to link on their own.

    Glad someone else takes the time to have a tangential interest in the goings-on.

    LL&P

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what we need on the Supreme Court: a mean drunk.

    Any facts to support this guy's claim??

    ANY FACTS at all??

    Nope... Not a single solitary fact...

  71. [71] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    CW wrote: All it would take would be two of them publicly stating that they are urging the White House to withdraw the nomination -- they wouldn't even have to commit to voting against Kavanaugh, they could just fire this warning shot across Trump's bow. It would likely be just as effective as announcing they'll be voting against his confirmation, really.

    Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) suggested on Tuesday she would support an FBI investigation into the sexual assault allegations that have surfaced against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

    GOP Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), a critical swing vote in the Supreme Court fight, said on Monday that she believed a woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct should speak with Senate staff under oath.

    Getting tougher to keep these Republican wimmen in line. And I'm guessing that Republicants can kiss those four potential Democratic votes sayonara too, at this point. Flake and Corker will likely peel off by the end of the week.
    .

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wait....

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, the "HERO" of the Left Wingery, was a "mob lawyer"???

    SERIOUSLY!!?????

    So, now it's a MOB thing???? That the Mob controlled Justice Kennedy and now is in control of the SCOTUS!!????

    Well, I am sure glad this didn't de-volve into wild conspiracy theories!! THAT would have been bad... :^/

  73. [73] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Any facts to support this guy's claim?

    That's what investigations are for. Until then, it's witness testimony.

    Republicants are learning: refusing to hear from witnesses is not the same as making the witnesses disappear from view.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Getting tougher to keep these Republican wimmen in line. And I'm guessing that Republicants can kiss those four potential Democratic votes sayonara too, at this point. Flake and Corker will likely peel off by the end of the week.

    Wanna bet??? :D

    Once the so-called "victim" bails on the hearing, Senator Murko... Murkkwo... Senator Lisa and Senantor Collins will join the rest of the GOP and vote for Kavanaugh...

    20,000 quatloos says it's so... :D

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what investigations are for. Until then, it's witness testimony.

    Ahhhhh So, yer up for the FBI to investigate a "mean drunk" accusation...

    As long as the alleged mean drunk is a Republican. :^/

    Tell me, do you advocate removing the statute of limitations on all rape and attempted rape accusations???

  76. [76] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [66] Bill Cosby just got three to ten in state pokey. That was started by an allegation, then was followed up by an investigation, which lead to fact and is now a conviction. Correct me if I'm wrong.

    Cosby's accuser(s) took years to come forward long after the fact, why is this any different?

    Also... we do have facts in the Kavanaugh scenario, Fact 1: Ford claims this happened. Fact 2: Kavanaugh says it didn't.

    Conclusions drawn from fact: None

    Remedy: Investigation to establish the veracity of either fact 1 or 2.

    See, logic always wins.

    LL&P

  77. [77] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    TRUMP BOAST ELICITS LAUGHTER AT UN SPEECH

    ?In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country ... So true,” the president said, eliciting several muffled laughs.

    “Didn’t expect that reaction but that’s OK,” Trump responded..

  78. [78] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    77

    So you're saying the world is laughing at US? Literally!?

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fact 1: Ford claims this happened.

    And has NO FACTS to support the claim..

    Fact 2: Kavanaugh says it didn't.

    And has TONS OF FACTS to support the claim..

    Conclusions drawn from fact: None

    POLITICAL Conclusions drawn from fact: None

    There, fixed it for you. :D

    It's really simple.. If it was a GOP operative accuser and a DEM nominee and POTUS..

    You would be saying the EXACT same thing I am.. The only difference is that we would agree.. :D

    Do you support an FBI investigation Juanita Brodderick's accusation of rape against President Clinton???

  80. [80] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Ahhhhh So, yer up for the FBI to investigate a "mean drunk" accusation...

    As opposed to simply calling all of the friends and associates of Kavanaugh who have stepped forward to talk about his heavy drinking escapades liars?

    Republicans aren't doing themselves any favors by relying on character assassination while more and more Yale alumni step forward to testify against him.

    Either take the time to investigate, or continue to be buried under a pile of uncomplimentary news stories. That's their choice.

  81. [81] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Do you support an FBI investigation Juanita Brodderick's accusation of rape against President Clinton?

    There were several investigations of that claim, all of which came up with bupkis.

    Whataboutism won't get the GOP out of the swamp mud they've gotten themselves into with Kavanaugh.

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans aren't doing themselves any favors by relying on character assassination

    Yea??? And Democrats are???

    Either take the time to investigate,

    Dumbocrats had THREE MONTHS to investigate...

    If investigation was so all fired important, why didn't the do it then!??

    Because investigation is NOT that important..

    Obfuscation and delay is the priority here..

    You won't get your investigation, Balthy.. The so-called "victim" is going to bail and Avantti's "new witness" is going to spew a yarn that makes the Pizza/Porno story look downright reasonable by comparison... :D

    You'll just have to accept that reality, just as you were forced to accept the reality of President Donald J Trump.. :D

    Don't worry.. I'll be here to help ya thru it.. :D

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    There were several investigations of that claim, all of which came up with bupkis.

    There was never an FBI investigation which is what you are demanding for the DEM operative..

    But if it's a GOP'er accusing a Democrat??

    Oh we don't need an FBI Investigation....

    Thank you for proving my point..

    Whataboutism won't get the GOP out of the swamp mud they've gotten themselves into with Kavanaugh.

    It's not designed to..

    It's simply here to prove the hypocrisy and the fact that ya'all's motivations are strictly and utterly Party agenda...

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Remember how ya'all went on and on about how bad it was going to be to see 11 old white Republicans grilling a poor defenseless female so-called "victim"???

    GOP hires female attorney to question Kavanaugh accuser
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/25/white-house-lashes-out-feinstein-838942

    Too bad, sooo sad, you don't get the optics you wanted.. :D

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's even if the so-called "victim" decides to show up..

    Which I predict she won't.. She's going to bail and Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed...

  86. [86] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Trump: "Ultimately, the only long-term solution to the migration crisis is to help people build more hopeful futures in their home counties."

    Trump is apparently oblivious to the desperation that has caused millions refugees to flee conflict, slavery, oppression and genocide in the first place.

    Trump's mental deficiency is a perfect match for Putin's cynicism - he being perfectly comfortable with bombing the shit out of Syria while simultaneously supporting anti-immigrant right wing regimes in Eastern Europe.

  87. [87] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    GOP hires female attorney to question Kavanaugh accuser

    Do they really expect that the public can't see through this ploy?

    Will they then allow Ford's lawyer to question Kavanaugh? I doubt it.

    Chickenshits.

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Chickenshits.

    Yer just being pissy because you didn't get the optics you wanted to beat the GOP over the head with..

    Waaaaaaa Waaaaaaaaa :D hehehe

  89. [89] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @russ,

    memory encodes differently depending on the chemicals in your blood. When someone fears for their life and health they're a lot more likely to remember the event than someone who is just fooling around. if ford's account is accurate (and as yet there's no definitive proof either for or against), it's highly likely that she remembers it a whole lot more vividly than he does. alcohol in the bloodstream can interfere with memory encoding in both cases depending on the levels of intoxication, but neurotransmitters and adrenaline can override most of the effects of intoxication to burn an event in an individual's long term memory.

    JL

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me press you on that, though. Because that sentence really did jump out at me when I read the article. She says that after six – at first she wasn’t sure this was Kavanaugh, when you first came to her last week. And then you write, “After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorneys, she did become confident that it was him.”
    -George Stephanopolus re: Rameriz Accuser...

    Interesting.. "After talking with my attorney, I became sure it was Kavanaugh..."

    Reminds me of an old MAD MAGAZINE cartoon where a women was asked how long she had to wear her neck brace from a car accident..

    "All the doctors agree. I can take it off as soon as my case is settled in court"

    :^/

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    When someone fears for their life and health they're a lot more likely to remember the event

    AND everything associated with that event..

    The date, the time, where exactly it was, how she got there, how she got home, what clothes she was wearing...

    All of these details are non-existent in this so-called "victim"'s case....

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:
  93. [93] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Even LIBERALS are skeptical of this new accusation..

    ..or so says another right wing hack. Don't take your sycophantic press' word for it, Democrats are perfectly capable of deciding when they're skeptical.

    What they hear is another accusation that needs to be aired, assessed, and investigated. Skepticism is premature.

    .

  94. [94] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Michale, are you saying it's not a FACT that an allegation has been levied against Kavanaugh by Ford? if so, why the discussion?
    Also, are you saying it's FACT that Kavanaugh has denied the FACT there's no basis for an allegation because the allegation is FACTUALLY baseless?

    The FACT is, the ALLEGATION AND THE DENIAL, are the only facts in operation. Why is that so hard to comprehend? it's the only thing everyone can agree on.

    Like it or not, without even a half-arsed investigation of the allegation, that's where the facts stop... I don't believe her, I don't believe him, but I'll believe any corroborative testimony, under oath, of any people willing to talk for either side... let's see who volunteers to tell actual truth, under oath, on pain of conviction and jail in an open or closed setting.

    That's as fair an equal as it gets. To think otherwise is UN-AMERICAN!!!!!

    LL&P

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    ..or so says another right wing hack.

    So, are you saying that ABC et al DIDN'T say those things??

    Do you want to see it on THEIR web sites???

    What they hear is another accusation that needs to be aired, assessed, and investigated. Skepticism is premature.

    Yea, that's not what Democrats said when Juanita Brodderick, Kathleen Wiley and Paula Jones came forward.

    That is NOT what Democrats are saying now about Keith Ellison's accuser..

    Funny, eh? :D

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, are you saying it's not a FACT that an allegation has been levied against Kavanaugh by Ford?

    No, I am saying that there are no FACTS to support her allegation..

    Surely you are not saying that ALLEGATION = FACT...

    Are you???

    The FACT is, the ALLEGATION AND THE DENIAL, are the only facts in operation.

    Not at all.. There are TONS of other facts..

    For example, it's a FACT that over 200 people who have KNOWN Kavanaugh for over 40 years have said that this action is simply not possible for Kavanaugh to have done..

    Like it or not, without even a half-arsed investigation of the allegation,

    Democrats had THREE MONTHS to do that investigation.. If it's soo important as you claim, WHY WASN'T IT DONE!!???

    I'll believe any corroborative testimony, under oath, of any people willing to talk for either side...

    Actually, there has been people talking and writing under penalty of law and THEY all support Kavanaugh...

    # of people who have talked or wrote under penalty of law in support of the so-called "victim"?? ZERO

    There are TONS of facts to support Kavanaugh's denial and there are ZERO facts to support the so-called "victim"'s accusation.

    This is fact...

  97. [97] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/09/25/kavanaugh-classmate-mark-judge-spotted/1418443002/

    Mark Judge hiding out. Not inclined to rush to Kavanaugh's defense. One of the interesting things about this whole debacle is that there appears to be a whole bunch of witnesses/near-witnesses, unlike the classic he-said/she-said. The behaviors he's accused of all appear to have taken place in group settings where people told each other about events. Kavanaugh apparently hung out with people and in places that were "notorious". Dr. Ford appears to be one of many victims and they are starting to find each other. Which means they may start pointing to other attackers who were part of this gang and culture.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    For example, it's a FACT that over 200 people who have KNOWN Kavanaugh for over 40 years have said that this action is simply not possible for Kavanaugh to have done..

    "Lieutenant, I am half Vulcan. Vulcans do not speculate. I speak from pure logic. If I let go of a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know that it has in fact fallen. Human beings have characteristics just as inanimate objects do. It is impossible for Captain Kirk to act out of panic or malice. It is not his nature."
    -Commander Spock, STAR TREK, Court Martial

    Over 200 people, who KNEW Kavanaugh back then have "testified" under penalty of law, that Kavanaugh was and is simply NOT capable of doing the things he is accused of... "It is not his nature"...

    # of people who have supported the so-called victim under penalty of law??

    ZERO....

  99. [99] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [85] "That's even if the so-called "victim" decides to show up..
    Which I predict she won't.. She's going to bail and Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed.."

    More thin ice, my "truth Padawan".

    You can recant that idiotic belief anytime between now and her clearing her throat in committee.

    or suffer the obvious 'bwahahaha's'.

    :)

    LL&P

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can recant that idiotic belief anytime between now and her clearing her throat in committee.

    or suffer the obvious 'bwahahaha's'.

    OR...

    It will be like 2016 when I said over and over and over again that Trump was going to be elected POTUS..

    Then it was MY 'bwahahaha's' that were heard far and wide...

    You'll see... She's gonna make some flimsy excuse as to a ridiculous detail and she is going to bail..

    I'll (try) and refrain from the 'bwahahaha's'... But you WILL hear a lot of I TOLD YA SOs.. :D

    But hay, if I am wrong?? Your 'bwahahaha's' will be well deserved.. :D

    "If I'm wrong, nothing happens!! We go to jail.. Peaceful... Quietly... We'll enjoy it!"
    -Dr Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

  101. [101] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    'Mark Judge hiding out. Not inclined to rush to Kavanaugh's defense.'

    Or he's being 'babysat' until this blows over... Again, I implore people to read some of this toe-rags written work. He's a slow motion plane crash... he's been touted as a 'source of denial' and marginalised simultaneously by the right-wing camp. He'd be a worse witness than if a murderer had their astrologer on the stand saying it's in the cards you won't be a recidivist...

    LL&P

  102. [102] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    "It will be like 2016 when I said over and over and over again that Trump was going to be elected POTUS."

    I said the same thing, but then I did what I always do, get the background info...I knew the Russkies were in play (with or without Trump's collusion, to be fair...that remains to be seen) and I knew the religious right-wing would flock to his cause when he announced his SCOTUS short-list...

    Trump's usefulness for the religious right will evaporate once SCOTUS is secured, mark my words and mark them well. Living in a sham-democracy-theocracy sucks the big ball.

    LL&P

  103. [103] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Over 200 people, who KNEW Kavanaugh back then have "testified" under penalty of law, that Kavanaugh was and is simply NOT capable of doing the things he is accused of... "It is not his nature"...

    Unless there is an unknown medical issue that Kavanaugh suffered from that made him physically incapable of doing the things he is accused of, there is no way for any of those 200 people to claim that they know that he could not have physically assaulted Ford. They didn’t “testify” as their name being on a letter doesn’t satisfy the penalty of perjury requirement.

    Also, Kavanaugh played football around the time he was accused of the assault. How could he NOT be capable of doing those things he is accused of, but capable of playing football?

  104. [104] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [58] Kick.

    Ein offensichtliches Zitat. Vertrauen Sie dem Idioten, was er-davon hat... Lol

    ;)

    LL&P

  105. [105] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    oops, left out the 'nicht'... my German is rusty

  106. [106] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    104

    Diese Wiederholung funktioniert für die leichtgläubigen Idioten, und sie sind ignorant genug zu glauben, dass es für intelligente Menschen funktioniert. :)

  107. [107] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC

    Nicht zu rostig. :)

  108. [108] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Patrick-59

    One step at a time.

    Or

    We'll throw him off that bridge when we get there.

    Hmmm, that would make a pretty good Rocky & Bullwinkle episode title and subtitle...

  109. [109] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hmmm, that would make a pretty good Rocky & Bullwinkle episode title and subtitle...

    "Sure, but we'd need paper and a pencil"

    "What are those for, Bullwinkle?"

    "It's a draw-bridge."

  110. [110] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22 [89]

    memory encodes differently depending on the chemicals in your blood. When someone fears for their life and health they're a lot more likely to remember the event than someone who is just fooling around

    I am in total agreement with you. But if Ford’s account is true, then I believe that Kavanaugh would remember it for one reason: he covered her mouth to prevent her from screaming. He wasn’t so drunk that he wasn’t aware of what would have happened if she had screamed and people had run to her aid.

    That moment of thinking that he might get caught unless he was able to keep her quiet would be enough to make it stick in his memories. If he can do something that horrible and it not stick with him, then he definitely doesn’t belong on the Supreme Court.

  111. [111] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/09/25/look-we-all-know-he-did-it-its-whether-he-pays-a-price/

    John Cole writes about being just the kind of jerk Kavanaugh was, back in HS and college.

    The most irritating thing about the whole Kavanaugh bullshit is that I know with every fiber of my being that he did everything he is being accused of, and the reason I know this is because I was one of those special kinds of asshole drunks that he palled around with for years. I never sexually assaulted anyone, and I didn’t whip my dick out at anyone, although I have a buddy who did the EXACT same thing at a party and I have another friend who stuck his dick on the bar on top of a ten dollar bill. I would never have done anything like that because I was a drunk even back then and would never do anything to risk being banned from the only bar on campus...

    It does, on the other hand, afford me the crystal clear clarity that allows me to say with 100% confidence that after watching Kavanaugh disgracefully trot his wife out in front of the cameras and spew lie after lie in his interview and elsewhere, that he is guilty of everything he has been accused of and probably a helluva lot more. Women don’t just make this shit up. And men who pretend they do are as emotionally mature as 17 year old stoned and drunk me and should be summarily ignored.

    He’s lying. He was a fall down drunk with a bunch of rich prep school boys who were also fall down drunks. There were no rules, no consequences, and no boundaries, because they were a bunch of the untouchables. Little Geoffrey Baratheons in blue blazers having their way with the world and smirking through life as royalty...

  112. [112] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    balloon juice dot com?

    Seriously?

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    balloon juice dot com?

    Seriously?

    I know, right!!!!

    That's even more hilarious than getting political news from Sports Betting Dot Com

    These people will go to ANY ridiculous outlet, if it will say what they want to hear..

  114. [114] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    111

    Nice post.

    These people will go to ANY ridiculous outlet, if it will say what they want to hear.. ~ Michale

    Hey, Paula: What does it say about the critical thinking skills of a commenter on a political blog who would refer to a political blog as a "ridiculous outlet"? *facepalm* *shakes head*

    https://ordinary-times.com/2009/11/16/the-evolution-of-blogging-an-interview-with-john-cole/

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    112

    balloon juice dot com?

    Seriously?

    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.

    ~ Elizabeth Miller

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

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Paula,

    Still waiting for you to provide **ANY** facts to support your bullshit claim that people who supported Judge Kavanaugh have recanted and withdrew their support..

    You CAN'T because it's totally made up bullshit yer spewing..

  117. [117] 
    Paula wrote:

    [114-115] Kick: I guess Liz doesn't understand American humor OR the blogosphere. As noted in the interview you posted, John Cole was one of the early bloggers - he abandoned the GOP during Bush Jr. and became a staunch Dem. He has one of the most successful blogs out there that isn't a news outlet or the like.

    I wasn't going to bother to defend or describe John Cole since E's reaction struck me as either stupid or perhaps a misfired attempt at a joke and I didn't want to hurt her delicate feelings if the latter.

    Irregardless, now that Avenatti's accuser has come forward with her account of gang rapes and drunken-mean-Kavanaugh at parties I must congratulate myself. What Cole talks about in the post I referenced is a perfect backdrop to her allegations.

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    117

    Yes, ma'am. All of the above. :)

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wasn't going to bother to defend or describe John Cole since E's reaction struck me as either stupid or perhaps a misfired attempt at a joke and I didn't want to hurt her delicate feelings if the latter.

    Well, I'm glad you did, Paula - I'll check it out more often.

Comments for this article are closed.