Kavanaugh is toast

Even without the accusations of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh, I would of course have called for a vote against him, as he’s a far right-wing  %)((*&^@ who will tilt the Supreme Court in the wrong direction for decades to come. But after hearing the testimony of Christine Ford and much of the testimony from Kavanaugh today, my feeling is that yes, he’s guilty and lying about it, which means he committed perjury and is absolutely disqualified from the Court. I was also appalled by his demeanor, which seemed unhinged, aggressive, and rambling. That’s reason #3: he is entitled, angry, and lacks the decorum and objectivity of a Justice.

Of course he has a right to be angry if he’s innocent, although I don’t think he is.  But he could have comported himself with a bit more decorum; he did himself no favors today.

None of us know where the truth lies, of course, and an FBI investigation is unlikely to tell us more than we know now. But in fact I already knew enough before the testimony even began today. All I can say is that I hope some Republicans feel a bit like I do, and vote against the man.

That said, let us entertain no hopes that if Kavanaugh goes, as I think he will, Trump will appoint somebody less Rightish. That’s not in the cards. All he’ll do is mandate a more thorough investigation of any Roe-opposing candidate waiting in the wings.

And if Ford is telling the truth, as I think she is, then I feel bad for her and can understand why she wanted to testify against the entitled, beer-swilling git who swaggered about in prep school. Yes, the alleged crime happened several decades ago, but if he’s lying about it now, he’s a perjurer.

But of course you may feel differently. None of us know what really happened; all we can do is say how we feel about the conflicting testimony. And I am consoled by knowing that I would have voted against Kavanaugh from the very first week he was nominated.

There’s nothing to be happy about here, for another conservative loon is just offstage. Correction: I’d be a little bit pleased if some Republicans saw the light.

340 Comments

  1. varney33
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

    Above which line???? There’s a blue one below what you say, and a white one above. Neither work.JF

  2. dd
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    I offer this as a different take on what you wrote…Would love to hear reader’s comment. Please, no snark.

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/kavanaugh-comes-through/

    And then there is this:

    What Ford remembers:
    -The stairwell
    -The laughter
    -Brett Kavanaugh

    What she doesn’t remember:
    -When it happened
    -Where it happened
    -How she got there
    -How she got home
    -Who was there
    -Conversations she had even as recently as 3 months ago

    • Rita
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

      I don’t think we generally remember these kinds of details from long ago, only the most vivid parts tend to stand out . I think that is totally normal, and those who ask this question ought to sort through their own memories. I’m guessing most of us remember only the highlights.

    • Kd33
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

      Yep. Totally makes sense what she remembers and what she doesn’t. Given all that’s been written about victims of sexual assault how could you not understand that??

      • Starr
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

        It doesn’t even have anything to do with “victims of sexual assault”. Just the mention of the stairwell brought to mind a memory of mine from college: During a party, on sober crew, guarding a staircase with a girl I really liked sitting on my lap.

        That is it, that is the entirety of what I remember from that night. The only difference is I know the where, because I lived there. I was completely sober, but I don’t remember when exactly this was, what the party theme was, who else was at the party (besides general inferences of “my fraternity brothers”), etc…etc…

        The only memory that remains is that during some party, nearly 20 years ago, I was performing sober crew duties with the girl I had a crush on sitting on my lap. Memories get hazier over time, and most are lost almost immediately if the mind doesn’t tag them for long term storage.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

      When I try and remember events from that time (I’m 55) I can only recall certain details. For example I can remember climbing over the arch of a bridge, I would have been about 15 years old, I was with school friends, 3 or 4 of us, maybe more. It was definitely a sunny day, and the river was low – I can still see the shoals of minnows in the shallows by the bridge foundation stones. I know which bridge it was of course. We lit a fire and cooked a rabbit we had caught too. Wrote my name on the bridge with a piece of charcoal.
      How did I get there? No idea, probably walked, could have cycled.
      When exactly did this take place? Summer I suppose, school holidays most likely but don’t know for sure.

      So what I’m saying is that memory is selective, it’s possible to recall something from long ago and be absolutely certain about some aspects of it but have no memory of others. This is, I’m sure, even more the case where the event is a traumatic one.

    • JezGrove
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

      Things HE doesn’t remember: being so drunk he fell out of a bus and had to “piece together” his memories… and even writing about it!

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

      Everyone accepts that a highly traumatic experience gets distilled in exactly that fashion over the years. The peripheral incidental details will fade like all trivial memories do, while the traumatic part still burns like it was yesterday.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

      I agree with the others. I’m almost 55. I was sexually assaulted as a child, teenager, and in my 20s. I remember the details of the assaults, but very little else. For a couple of incidents, I couldn’t even tell you what town I was in. And I mostly didn’t drink because of medication.

      Are the same people who are attacking Ford for not remembering these details going to ask the same questions of the children and young people abused by priests.

      • JezGrove
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

        Great (but sadly necessary) cartoon.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

          I’m starting to go off on a tangent a bot here, but I feel the need to post this too.

      • Historian
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

        You make an excellent point that I had not thought of. Why is it that people are willing to accept the recollections of those who were abused by priests many decades previously, but not accept the testimony of women who were sexually assaulted decades ago? In both instances, the sexual abuse is traumatic. The vast majority of Republicans in Congress use Kavanaugh’s screaming and aggressiveness as reasons to believe that he is telling the truth.

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:27 pm | Permalink

          Both of those are highly unsafe IMO. Everybody’s memory plays tricks on them and, in the case of long-ago events, features and people get shuffled around. I’ve had that proved to me directly.

          I recall reading of one rape case where the accused was plainly not guilty by reason of the fact that he was *on live television at the time*. And that is why the rape victim remembered his face and not that of her rapist.

          This is why there should be a statute of limitation on this sort of charge and nobody should be convicted on unsupported-by-evidence testimony or allegations from the mists of time.

          (As for Kavanaugh, no loss, but he’s gone for all the wrong reasons).

          cr

          • Mark Sturtevant
            Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

            I can agree that a single accusation, without corroboration, would be not actionable. But although this was apparently off the table in todays’ testimony there have been other women coming foward to also accuse this man. This is a multipying factor that makes it certain enough to be actionable. As in: don’t consider him for this job.

          • Posted September 28, 2018 at 3:56 am | Permalink

            I agree with your general point. If we were talking about Kavanaugh being on trial for the rape, I don’t think he would get convicted. I wouldn’t convict him on the basis of what I know about the case even though I think he is probably guilty.

            However, he is not on trial. This is a job interview for one of the most important positions in the USA. There are other candidates and I think there is enough doubt about Kavanaugh’s integrity and character to move onto one of them. In fact, it mystifies me that the administration hasn’t already done so. Perhaps the other candidates have even worse secrets.

            By the way, he hasn’t gone yet. The BBC is reporting the vote will be today. I’ll bet twenty virtual dollars he gets confirmed.

            • darrelle
              Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:02 am | Permalink

              Unfortunately I think you are correct. I am also expecting Kavanaugh to be confirmed. There is nothing standing in the way of the Republicans voting to confirm him. Except their consciences. And they’ve demonstrated plenty of times that they don’t have any.

    • notsecurelyanchored
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

      It is not possible to prove a negative. I agree with you. I am an old woman who usually votes as a democrat and I agree with Prof. Ceiling Cat that Kavanaugh is not the justice we would want on the court, but today, unfortunately, Lindsey Graham spoke my thoughts.

      • gormenghastly
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 5:12 am | Permalink

        Lindsey Closeted Graham has no business accusing anyone else of engaging in a sham. He’s been one of the biggest shams in Congress ever since he arrived there.
        Nobody on the GOP side wants an FBI investigation because – irrespective of what it uncovers about Dr Ford’s specific allegation – it will definitely reveal that Judge Kavanaugh’s accounts of his alcohol and sex-driven early years are, yes, another sham. Dishonest persons should not be judges anywhere, let alone sitting on the SUpreme Court.

      • Posted September 28, 2018 at 8:39 am | Permalink

        I have a few phrases for you:

        – Merrick Garland
        – GOP changes the rules of the Senate to make simple majority rule for appointments.

        Speaking of power-grabs and disgraceful behavior?!

      • darrelle
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:13 am | Permalink

        Lindsey Graham is one of the top 3 liars, cheaters and stealers in the Republican Party. His only competition in despicability is Mitch McConnell. And, possibly, Paul Ryan.

        Graham’s performances at the hearing yesterday, and afterward, were fine examples of the art of disinformation and incitement. It was all lies. Well told, dangerous and despicable lies. The Democrats are not tearing the country apart. Graham and his ilk are the ones doing that. Intentionally, purposefully, deceitfully, despicably and for personal gain.

    • dd
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:23 pm | Permalink

      Thank You for replying.

      Now of those of you who say that the memory lapses are explainable, How many of you would have voted for Kavanaugh to be on SCOTUS had these charges not come up?

      It seems that it’s impossible to find people whose reaction to today’s testimony is not merely an extension of personal political philosophy.

      (BTW, the psychological indeterminate language used to justify those lapses memories, is so much like the psychological indeterminate language once used to pathologize gays.)

      • rickflick
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:13 pm | Permalink

        I’m not sure your observation is true – that viewers are bound by philosophy and can’t evaluate the testimony objectively. There are certainly many on both sides who’s opinion is merely political. However, I think there are many who evaluate objectively and some will right Op Eds in the days to come. Keep an eye out for good objective analysis by pundits that are not biased. Especially those who sight sound psychological research. That’s what I like to do.

      • Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:07 am | Permalink

        My college days were in the 80’s. I was never assaulted but I do have some stand out memories. I remember, for example, one day in the college cafeteria standing frozen with a tray of food watching the TV that was in there in complete disbelief at the images it was showing.

        I can’t remember whether it was lunchtime or dinner, what food I had ordered, who I was with, how I got there, what lectures I had that day or how I got home. I can tell you the date but only by Googling “Challenger disaster”.

        We don’t need to be able to explain these memory lapses. We don’t need fancy psychological language. We know they are credible because we all have them.

    • JohnE
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

      You left out some things that she remembers, like being thrown on the bed, Kavanaugh jumping on top of here, Kavanaugh trying to rip off her bathing suit, trying to scream, Kavanaugh covering her mouth so she couldn’t, and finally breaking free and running away. In other words, she remembers the the actual assault — not what she had for breakfast that morning. (OK, that may have been a bit snarky.)

      • Diane G
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 3:53 am | Permalink

        And managing to escape only when Judge (ironic surname!) jumped on the bed.

        • W.T. Effingham
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

          Judge not lest ye be abjudicationalized.

  3. Rita
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    Kavanaugh’s wife didn’t seem to impressed with his tantrum.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

      That’s probably not all.

      • Diane G
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 3:53 am | Permalink

        Lol!

  4. Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    He’s obviously guilty and lying through his teeth. I almost hope the Republicans confirm him and the soon-to-be elected Democratic House majority can start investigations that lead to the first Supreme Court justice in history being impeached.It’s small-minded, I know, but that’s where I’m at.

    • harrync
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

      Stephen – I think I am past the “almost” part; I hope is is confirmed and that Collins votes for him. If Kava is defeated, most likely another just as bad for the country will be confirmed. But Kava confirmed, the Democrats, as politically stupid as they are, will probably take everything [House, Senate, Presidency] in 2020. Then we could have an 11 member Supreme Court, 6 to 5 liberal.

    • Mark R.
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

      I think the Thomas investigation should be reopened for chrissakes. That’s even more small-minded, but that’s where I’m at.

    • mordacious1
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 7:32 am | Permalink

      Samuel Chase was impeached in 1804. It was a politically motivated impeachment, just like this one would be. He was acquitted. Abe Fortas resigned instead of being impeached.

      Hopefully, this doesn’t happen in this case, as it would be a political farce. It takes two thirds of the Senate to convict…good luck with that.

  5. Coel
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    “Beer swilling git.” You’re channelling PZ Myers now. No evaluation of the evidence presented at all, just visceral reaction. His political ideology, as much much as you might be appalled by it, has nothing to do with the truth of the accustions.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

      The evidence is conflicting, I made my judgment, as all of us must, using our gut feeling that COMES from seeing what evidence is presented, as we must in such a case case. I am glad I don’t have to judge the man’s suitability based solely on these allegations. I find him unsuitable because of his judicial record and his judicial views. And I didn’t say that his political ideology had anything to do with the truth of the accusations.

      You will apologize for comparing me to P.Z. Myers.

      • Starlightintoday
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

        There was no evidence presented, Jerry. That’s the point.

        Gut feelings lead people to lynching niggers on poles, not to responsible decisions.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

          It’s not strictly about evidence. It was not a court of law. Kavanaugh isn’t on trial. It’s a job interview for one of the most important jobs in the world that it’s almost impossible to be sacked from. Further, honesty, integrity, and character are extremely important qualifications for the job.

          Whether you’re on the left or right it should be possible to see that Kavanaugh does not make the grade. Personally, I feel that too many people are being blinded by partisan politics in this process. That’s understandable given the circumstances of course.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

          Christine Blasey Ford’s sworn testimony doesn’t constitute “evidence”? Since when?

          If you mean “corroborating evidence,” that’s solely because the Republican majority on the judiciary committee refuses to request an FBI investigation and refuses to subpoena witnesses with material information, including Kavanaugh’s prep-school bestie who was allegedly present at the time of the assault.

          • Mark R.
            Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

            Exactly.

          • Posted September 28, 2018 at 8:42 am | Permalink

            Bam! Right on Ken.

        • Scote
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:52 am | Permalink

          Testimony is evidence. In court it is called “direct evidence”.

          Ford’s testimony was sufficient to my mind that Kavenaugh should not be confirmed. But neither should Trump have been elected. So I think Jerry’s declaration that Kavenaugh is toast is like his prediction on election eve that Hillary Clinton would win, it’s based on a presumption of rationality that no longer holds in the GOP.

        • Marta
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 9:17 am | Permalink

          “lynching niggers on poles”

          Your mother must be so proud.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

      The truth of the accusations is irrelevant. His demeanor disqualifies him. His blatant refusal to give straight answers to yes/no questions disqualifies him.

      • Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:07 am | Permalink

        This much should be obvious to anyone, of any political persuasion.

        In some job interviews scenarios are offered to test the candidate’s response in pressure situations. Imagine this was an elaborate ‘what-if’ manufactured by the Democrats (which is what the Republicans appear to believe anyway) to test the candidate. Well, Kavanaugh’s blustering, mean-spirited and aggressive manner at this hearing betrays an unsuitable personality for a place on the highest court in the land; a position which demands wisdom, calmness and sober reflection.

      • Posted September 28, 2018 at 8:43 am | Permalink

        He outed himself as a rabid partisan with persecution complexes about almost any “left wing” organization. He’s going to need to be recusing himself from a lot of cases, based on his opening rant yesterday (assuming he’s confirmed).

      • Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

        A Senate that allows a nominee to repeatedly interrupt, berate, insult, an belittle its members, is a body without honor.

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

      Coel, there’s plenty of evidence that “beer-swilling git” is a fair characterization of Kavanaugh. For example, the calendar he saved from when he was 17 and presented as evidence, and his high school yearbook, both present him as a very heavy drinker who subsequently vomited copiously. It’s also the memory several of his Yale acquaintances have of him. Some of them also mention that he became “belligerent,” among other things, when drinking.

    • KD33
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

      Actually, there was a fair amount of evidence of Kava being a beer-swilling git, like his own admission of it … I know that’s not your main point, but I think PCC was making a point with that characterization.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

      A good deal of evidence exists, much of it provided by BK himself, that he has a lifelong history of behaving badly and aggressively when drunk, then not remembering it.

      • yazikus
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:35 am | Permalink

        And joking about it. That is what astounds me – the man is on record during multiple speeches making fun of his excessive drinking, and yet there he was on the stand claiming to never have had enough to have a fuzzy memory about anything. It is just so blatant.

        • Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

          He’s a pathological liar. Clearly a sociopath.

    • JohnE
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

      Ford adamantly insists Kavanaugh did it; Kavanaugh adamantly says he didn’t. If that were all we knew, consider this. While there are certainly instances where women have lied about sexual assaults in the past, I think most of us would agree that those instances are relatively rare. It’s certain NOT the case that women lie “most” of the time. On the other hand, I think most of us would agree the overwhelming majority of guilty people lie when they are accused. It certainly IS the case that guilty people lie “most” of the time (if they didn’t the courts would be a lot less clogged). Given that information and nothing more, the odds are that you’re much more likely to be supporting a liar if you support Kavanaugh than if you support Ford.

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:51 pm | Permalink

        Why is that ‘certain’? In my experience, women lie reflexively about rape or assault whenever they feel they can gain advantage by doing so. But don’t take my word for it. Ask police officers responding to domestic violence reports. Ask divorce lawyers in no-fault states. Ask ex-boyfriends of pretty much any woman.

        Women are awful; have you ever met one?

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

          Have you forgotten to indicate you are having a bit of a snarky go – flipping John E’s words & using that as your position? In other words are you being sarcastic? If so you’ve failed to clearly flag it as such.

          Or do your words represent your beliefs about women Steve?

          Either way you’re being a prat.

        • rickflick
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:40 pm | Permalink

          “In my experience, women lie reflexively…”. Hmmm…sounds like you’ve had quite a chilling life experience. Want to talk about it? *motions to leather couch* To start, tell us about your relationship with your mother.

        • Rasmo Carenna
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 3:20 am | Permalink

          Women are awful? Just like that, all of them? Some may be. But I am a man and, regarding sex behavior I can confidently say we are much more likely to be “awful”.

        • Diane G
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:01 am | Permalink

          “In my experience, women lie reflexively about rape or assault whenever they feel they can gain advantage by doing so.”

          So, you’ve had a number of experiences of such situations, eh? Ever think of the common thread?

        • Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:26 am | Permalink

          In my experience, women lie reflexively about rape or assault

          And who can blame them when you look at what often happens when they tell the truth. First of all they are already traumatised by the rape, then there’s the ordeal they have to go through as the rapist tries to convince a court he didn’t do it. Then there’s the court of public opinion…

          … oh, wait, that’s probably not what you meant.

          Women are awful; have you ever met one?

          About half the people I meet are women. In my experience, they cover the entire spectrum from awful to wonderful.

        • Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:28 am | Permalink

          I didn’t notice Mr. Vanden-Eykel’s truly misogynistic comments until now. “Women are awful; have you ever met one?”

          That kind of bigotry is a bannable offense, and Mr Vanden-Eykel won’t be posting here again. He’s left the room for a permanent time out.

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

        JAC: THIS MISOGYNIST IS GONE AND THE REST OF HIS COMMENTS DELETED ON THE GROUNDS OF EXTREME BENIGHTEDNESS

        • Diane G
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:55 am | Permalink

          Good riddance!

        • rickflick
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 8:48 am | Permalink

          That’s a relief.

        • Posted September 28, 2018 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

          There were more?

      • Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:52 am | Permalink

        Certainly the odds of Kavanaugh being the liar here should be enough to launch an FBI investigation, subpoena witnesses, etc. Or the GOP could declare in essence, “Kav, your stink is sufficient for us to look for someone better.” Of course, anyone in the GOP with sufficient balls to say that will be in Trump’s doghouse forever. Kavanaugh will be approved. Vote in November like your life depended on it.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:56 am | Permalink

          ” Vote in November like your life depended on it.” because in some instances it just might.

          If he wins his SCOTUS, which I think is very likely, I hope it invigorates people to go out and vote.

    • Posted September 28, 2018 at 3:15 am | Permalink

      Someone else with the same username as me? That’s unusual!

      • Diane G
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:04 am | Permalink

        Didn’t sound like you, and I’m glad to know it wasn’t. 😉

  6. Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    Kavanaugh is playing the Clarence Thomas card—outrage and indignation, but without the high-tech lynching claim. Worked once, so they figure it will work again.

    • Historian
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

      I think that you’re right that Kavanaugh’s strategy was outrage and indignation, just like Clarence Thomas. He was also very Trumpian – attack the Democrats on the committee, and deny, deny, deny. As has been pointed out many times, the hearing is not a trial and the “beyond a reasonable doubt standard” doesn’t apply. It is a question of who is more believable, which in my mind is Ford. As has been pointed out many times as well, what did she have to gain by subjecting herself to so much abuse?

      Despite all this, if I had to bet, I would put my money on Kavanaugh getting confirmed. Mitch McConnell will put the screws to the wavering Republicans and they will confirm him and the Republican dream of a right wing court that could last decades will come true. So, even if there is a political backlash against the Republicans in the coming election, they will have the Supreme Court, which for many of the hard right is good enough.

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

        I agree. In a she said, he said situation Kavanaugh can win with outrage. That is why the Dems must insist on a FBI investigation with polygraphs. If Kavanaugh cares so much about clearing his name of a slander, he should agree to it. If he doesn’t, it exposes his lies.

        • rickflick
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

          Senator Dick Durbin quizzed him intensively on asking for an FBI investigation. He waffled and said it was up to the committee, ie. Chuck Grassley. He argued that he, Kava, was right there in the room.”Ask me anything”. As if his version was the only one that counts. He also said the FBI only produces reports about what people say and does not draw conclusions. I guess he’s thinking reports would not be useful since he already provided all relevant information. That’s one slippery dude.

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

          Polygraphs are bullshit. Voodoo science. Only useful for intimidating witnesses.

          cr

          • Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

            Irrelevant. The polygraph is used routinely for many US government jobs. I don’t see why it can’t be used for a lifetime job of immense power and influence.

            • infiniteimprobabilit
              Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

              That doesn’t change one bit of what I said. It’s intimidating voodoo. Like witch trials.

              The National Academy of Sciences confirms that.

              cr

              • Posted September 28, 2018 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

                I agree. Mr. Kavanaugh needs to be thoroughly investigated, but not with pseudoscience.

          • GBJames
            Posted September 28, 2018 at 8:08 am | Permalink

            In this case, Infin, intimidating Senators.

        • darrelle
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:30 am | Permalink

          I don’t think it was every really a contest. Kavanaugh didn’t need to win anything. The Republicans want him confirmed and there is nothing that can prevent them from doing so. Except the unlikely prospect that a few of them will break ranks this time. That’s not much to hang your hat on.

          Is this the event that causes some Republicans to finally break ranks on something that really matters? In every similar situation so far in which it really seemed this is when it finally happens, it hasn’t. Doesn’t leave me much reason to think it likely now.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

      Jeez, listen to yourself. You might as well say ‘if he admits it, he’s guilty. If he denies it, he’s guilty.’

      Obvious witchhunt. Shame on you for ignoring that.

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:02 pm | Permalink

        If it is a witch hunt, Kavanaugh should welcome an FBI investigation.

        • Diane G
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:07 am | Permalink

          Indeed; he should be demanding one!

          • Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:38 am | Permalink

            Yes, and his refusal to say he’d be okay with one, and to be in favor of Mr. Judge testifying (if Kavanaugh is innocent, why wouldn’t he be okay with Judge testifying) is in my view evidence against Kavanaugh.

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted September 28, 2018 at 6:51 am | Permalink

              Kavanaugh and his Republican senate allies are petrified at the prospect of Mark Judge’s testifying. This raises the inference that Judge’s testimony would be materially damaging to Kavanaugh.

              Anyone who believes the pretext that they don’t want to trouble Judge in deference to his addiction issues — well, I’ve got a condo in Trump’s busted-out Baja project to sell ’em.

    • Posted September 28, 2018 at 8:48 am | Permalink

      What I thought was: He’s playing the Trump card (capitalization intended).

      And the rabid-partisan card. Might get him onto the bench; but will cripple him forever as an unbiased justice.

      Mr. Kavanaugh, meet your life-appontment asterisk!

      • rickflick
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:55 am | Permalink

        I’m not sure that crippled is the right word. He will always have his own opinion while on the court. Nothing can prevent him from having his influence – even if no one respects his opinions. Tainted might be better. Uninvited for beer after the session maybe. I’d sure hate to be up before this snarling guy if he knew my party affiliation.

  7. mikeyc
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    Kavanaugh toast? I’m not so sure. Any lingering hope that our political system will get any less nasty, petty and divisive? Most definitely toast.

    We live in interesting times*.

    *that’s a curse, btw.

    • JezGrove
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

      Yes, truth, peace, bilateralism, and hope are all toast, sadly.

  8. JezGrove
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    Kavanaugh doesn’t appear trustworthy to me. The “I swear to God” stuff was particularly nauseating.

    • Starlightintoday
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:09 pm | Permalink

      And?

      How is that relevant to whether he committed the crime in question or not?

      • Diane G
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:11 am | Permalink

        It doesn’t necessarily have to say anything about the crime–it’s enough to conclude that he’s far too emotional, obstinate, rude, and self-centered to be a SCOTUS judge.

      • Posted September 28, 2018 at 8:52 am | Permalink

        He outed himself as a rabid partisan. He’s permanently crippled himself as an unbiased justice.

  9. Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    Given the sheer difficulty any woman faces when calling out their attacker, any one such accusation, even without corroborating evidence, is still likely to be true but not enough to prove. At least that has been my opinion on these things.
    But there are now what, 3 or 4 more additional accusers? That is a compounding factor that is more than enough to decide about him. He is a liar and a nasty piece of work. He needs to go.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:57 pm | Permalink

      What about the difficulty a man faces clearing his name when a woman lies about him raping her?

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:01 pm | Permalink

      You can’t actually be taking these ‘additional accusers’ seriously. Which one do you take the most seriously? The one who didn’t remember it was Kavanaugh until six days thinking about it, because that’s exactly how memory works? Or the one who spun stories about quaaludes out of nowhere because she heard about them from the Cosby trial?

  10. Filippo
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    In the last couple of days some omniscient NYT op-ed columnist has said that the hearing is not a court of law. That is, evidence does not occupy quite as exalted a position in this hearing as compared to a court. Well, Congress is like a court to the extent that Congress has the power to subpoena and requires witnesses to swear an oath that they will tell the truth.

    Henceforth, perhaps every Congressional hearing confirming any appointment (maybe even dog catcher at the local level) should explore not only the candidate’s high school but also middle school, which from my observations has its share of vile juvenile human primate behavior. (Maybe even third grade – I’ve seen some real pieces of work at that tender age.)

  11. Starlightintoday
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    ” And if Ford is telling the truth, as I think she is ”

    Out of curiosity, I watched her testimony, and she offered zero evidence.

    Now, we are asking creationist retards to look at the evidence, evaluate, and make judgement based on not feelings and biases, but evidence.

    Where’s your evidence, Jerry? Don’t be a creationist.

    What we have here, is a he-said, she-said situation. And in cases such as this, by default, the accused is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

    And whatever Kavanaugh’s politics or character are, they don’t change the fact that there’s zero evidence for the crime in question.

    I have a world of respect towards you, but a previous commenter was right that your boat drifted onto Myers waters for a moment.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

      This is not a court of law, but a job interview. The “innocent until PROVEN GUILTY” standard doesn’t apply, at least in my mind. I won’t reprise all the factors that entered into my judgment, but there’s enough here to make me think that’s it’s more likely than not that he engaged in sexual predation.

      If this was a court of law, and that’s all the evidence that we have, then yes, I’d find him not guilty. But this is not a court of law, and I’m not obliged to satisfy your demand for me to regurgitate what entered into my judgment. That’s all I’ll say, and you’d be best advised to comment no further on this thread.

      • Starlightintoday
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:26 am | Permalink

        Oh come on, Jerry.

        I’m best advised to comment no further on this thread?

        Or else? You’ll go full PZ Myers and censor me or block me? Better, call me a rape-apologist?

        • Zetopan
          Posted October 1, 2018 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

          Perhaps you are still unaware that taunting is a childish response.

      • Eric Grobler
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:15 am | Permalink

        ” That’s all I’ll say, and you’d be best advised to comment no further on this thread.”

        You appear to have no psychological capacity to accept any criticism beyond reports of grammatical errors!

    • mikeyc
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

      You know, you’re wrong. Testimony IS evidence. but it is the kind of evidence that must be weighed based on the credibility of the witness. What you mean is that there is no physical or independent evidence. That is true. It is a he-said she-said case and must be judged on those grounds. That’s all we have to go on. Who do you believe?

      If we had adults in charge, it would never come to this. We as a country simply should not be making these kinds of decisions based on this kind of evidence. Responsible adults would have waited for evidence before going further or withdrawn the nomination.

      I feel he should have been disqualified long ago for the objective evidence we already have – his previous lies to congress.

      • eric
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

        We as a country simply should not be making these kinds of decisions based on this kind of evidence.

        I absolutely think that job promotions within the federal government (which is, essentially, this is) should consider allegations of sexual harassment. How should they not?

        And no, I don’t think a boss needs to prove an employee guilty to a criminal trial standard before denying that person a promotion. To get a promotion, the burden of proof is on the applicant (i.e., Kavanaugh) to convince his employers (the USG represented by the Senate) he deserves it. The burden of proof is manifestly NOT on his employers. Promotions are not “I get it unless you can prove in a court of law that I committed a crime.” That would be ridiculous.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

      Her testimony is evidence. Her prior statements over the years is collaborative evidence.

  12. Diana MacPherson
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

    I think Kavanaugh will be appointed. All this will make no difference to the senate.

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

      I think Kavanaugh has to be put back in his box & a new puppet must be selected in his place. If that doesn’t happen it’s because the Orange One has stopped it – him being an idiot.

      Rachel Mitchell, the sex-crimes prosecutor is there because the Repubs realise it would be a vote loser to present an all white, all male committee to the cameras. The wise heads in the GOP must realise now they need to deep six Kavanaugh & come up with an accomplished female candidate for nomination. It’s the obvious move to stem the votes they’re losing each day of this dog & pony show. Chuck Grassley has to go too – how come that incompetent, arrogant fool has a 35 year senate career behind him?

      • alexander
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

        “If that doesn’t happen it’s because the Orange One has stopped it – him being an idiot.”

        Funny… When I read this comment I first registered the sentence as containing the term “Agent orange,” and I think this is a term with even a better connotation of the presidential situation.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

      “I think Kavanaugh will be appointed.”

      I agree. I don’t believe Kavanaugh but I do believe he’ll be confirmed. What happened today will have no effect on the outcome.

  13. CAS
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

    I hope his nomination fails, but this requires some Republican support even if all Democrats vote no. The best outcome would be to have an FBI investigation using up more time, followed by a no vote leaving no time for another try before the midterms. Unfortunately, there are actually worse potential appointees.

    • max blancke
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

      It is pretty clear that this whole thing is about delaying the vote by any means necessary. Doxxing Dr. Ford was just incidental to the strategy.
      Whatever happened to Dr. Ford 36 years ago, she tried to write and speak in confidence to Pelosi in July. There has to have been a better way to deal with this. Better for Dr. Ford and Judge K, at least.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

        Dr. Ford first contacted her own congresswoman, Rep. Anna Eshoo, and then through her, her senior senator, Diane Feinstein. I don’t believe Nancy Pelosi played any material role in this whole megillah.

    • Posted September 28, 2018 at 5:01 am | Permalink

      Unfortunately, there are actually worse potential appointees.

      Isn’t that the most depressing fact. There are worse candidates than a probable rapist that committed perjury.

      • Merilee
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

        Hoping that Trump will suddenly act all woman-loving and replace Kav with Amy Barrett.

        • Merilee
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 3:08 pm | Permalink

          I did NOT mean hoping that Amy Barrett would be appointed. Worried.

  14. Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    *Sigh*. Beer swilling is a verified fact. No one seriously disputes that. Git? The preponderance of evidence, going beyond Dr. Ford to his several other accusers, is that he has been a serial attacker of women. Let’s say git=borderline rapist and call it a day.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

      Damn. Meant for Coel up there somewhere.

      • Diane G
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:17 am | Permalink

        And do note that it wasn’t our familiar commenter Coel.

  15. Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    All the evidence from BEFORE Kavanaugh became a judge says he was a privileged, sex-crazed, beer-drinking git. He can pretend that he wasn’t but it just doesn’t fly. That says to me that he is willing to lie under oath. As one of the senators in the hearing said, that means we can be skeptical of all the rest of his testimony.

    The fact that he wouldn’t call for an FBI investigation to clear his name was also telling. He fell on the excuse that the Judicial Committee are in charge of the process. Yes, they are but that shouldn’t stop him from asking for one. Someone should have pointed out that if he didn’t ask for one and the GOP couldn’t come up with the votes, he would be out in a heartbeat. On the other hand, if an FBI investigation cleared him he will undoubtedly get the votes. Kav is not interested in the truth just whining about the process.

    We all knew that Trump’s tweets that he wanted to hear Ford out were as much BS as we all knew they were. After the conclusion of today’s hearing, Trump immediately tweeted his support of Kavanaugh. What a POS we have as a President!

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

      He has lied under oath. Repeatedly.

      • mikeyc
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:28 pm | Permalink

        He did. Now why haven’t the Dems been pounding this fact? Why did we just go through this when the lies under oath alone are disqualifying? I’m tempted to state a truism – that the Democrats are simply incompetent (or craven enough to want to see this court-room charade)- but I suspect it goes beyond that.

        • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

          Here’s why: try explaining in 1 minute, to the checkout person at the supermarket, what BK did & said to perjure himself.

          • GBJames
            Posted September 28, 2018 at 8:50 am | Permalink

            Well… it isn’t that hard. You just did it. You say to the checkout person:

            “He has lied under oath. Repeatedly. It is illegal to lie under oath.”

  16. phoffman56
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

    Being aa non-USian, perhaps readers will excuse this, maybe naive, question:

    Assuming Kav the jerk is voted down as early as tomorrow morning, does the non-stop liar have the possibility of actually pushing through an alternative before the November elections?

    If not, though the other party will likely win the House, I’d give them maybe ⅓ probability of winning the Senate. But if they did, it seems like the situation is very positive for avoiding another Attila the Hun appointed for life.

    None of the above is original of course. But I tend to think that Jerry is maybe overly pessimistic.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

      Even if Kav is voted down tomorrow morning, Mitch McConnell says he will still bring his nomination to a vote by the full senate as soon as possible.

    • Historian
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

      It is very unlikely that Trump could get another nominee confirmed before the November elections. If the Republicans keep the Senate (which will probably happen due to the fact that so many more Democrats are defending their seats this cycle) then the Republicans could confirm a new nominee at their leisure. If the Democrats re-take the Senate, there is still a two month period between the election and when the new senators will take their seats in January. During this period, the Senate could still meet with the outgoing senators having the right to vote. This is called a lame duck session. The question is whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would try to ram through a Trump nominee at that time. I would not be surprised if he would try to do this, being the vile person he is, even though such an action would create a firestorm of protest. I don’t think McConnell would care

      • Diane G
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:23 am | Permalink

        Of course he would do so. Invidious bastard!

        • darrelle
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:41 am | Permalink

          Yep. No doubt about it.

  17. Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    I know from observation and personal experience that any two people (or more) attending the same event or experiencing the same occurrence will remember different elements of what happened. During said event, right after, many years later, their memories will be different. Over the years, as the internalized story is memorialized by each person, certain pieces of the memory become ever more solidified and others lessen, or drop away. Comparing the memories at any point along the way will display such differences. My “truth” vs. your “truth”.

    This happens whether or not you have a loving bond or an antipathetic relationship with the person with whom you’re comparing memories. Try this in a party game or scientific experiment (like the students playing ball, counting, and not seeing the gorilla), or at home with your spouse regarding any of the memories you “share”. You’ll see.

    As to Kavanaugh, I don’t want him on the Supreme Court. And I believe Ford and the other women. He’s a slug in my opinion.

    • mikeyc
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

      Yes. The thing is that our memories are not like tape recorders; when we recall things we are re-creating the memories, not retrieving them. This is why things change or we lose important details over time – each time we “remember” we’re really creating the memory anew. Important details are lost – or retained and frequently things that did not happen are included – and sometimes subsequently lost in later recollections. It’s why eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence. But we still think someone’s word -even though we all know how unreliable memory can be- is worth more than other kinds of evidence.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:57 pm | Permalink

      The flakiness of memory has been proved in many psychological experiments.

      I’ve had it proved to me – in my young days I went to a party at a friend’s place and he had a huge NZ flag as a bedspread and I remember him walking down the road at midnight wearing the flag. Last time I saw him. Decades later I met him again and we chatted about the incident and he invited me to his upcoming wedding; and at the after-wedding party at his house he had a wall covered in old photos from his past including one of ME wearing the flag.

      I know what my memory did – it remembered ‘party – Terry – flag’ and put the three together and I would have sworn in court that it was him wearing the flag – until I saw the photo.

      This is why I think all these ancient cases (let alone ‘recovered memory ones’) are so unsafe and prejudicial they should never be prosecuted without some documentary evidence.

      cr

      • rickflick
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

        But, if the flag had reached up your knickers and gave you a squeeze, I think you’d remembered who was wearing the flag.

        • Diane G
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:26 am | Permalink

          + 1

      • Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:00 am | Permalink

        The hearing was not a trial. The proper response by the committee would have been to acknowledge that Ford’s testimony was credible and that a proper FBI investigation warranted. Kavanaugh made a lot of questionable statements yesterday: “Renate” and several definitions of phrases from his yearbook and calendar that do not bear up after consulting the Urban Dictionary. Even after an FBI investigation, the worst that would happen to Kav immediately is a failed job interview. He would get over it.

        • Diane G
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

          In fact, he’d become a martyr for the Repubs, something to trot out every time they want to energize their base.

    • Diane G
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:26 am | Permalink

      “We met at nine, we met at eight, I was on time, no, you were late
      Ah, yes, I remember it well…”

      • darrelle
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:44 am | Permalink

        Gigi. Loved that movie as a kid. I wonder if I’d like it now?

        • Merilee
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

          Me, too. Gigiiiii, am I a fool without a mind or have I merely been too blind to realize…🎶🎶
          Haven’t thought of it in years. I, too, wonder how it would hold up.

        • Diane G
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

          Me three. Somehow I don’t think “Thank Heaven for Little Girls” would past muster these days…

          • Merilee
            Posted September 28, 2018 at 11:21 pm | Permalink

            Yeah, I did wonder about that, too. About 20 years ago I went with a friend to an opera karaoke, put on by Canadian Opera Company, outdoors by the lake. Anyone could sing. Some old guy in a bright green suit which looked as if it had been stored in a bag for years got up and sang Sank Heaven fo Leetle Girls. Kind of creepy and kind of touching.

            • Michael Fisher
              Posted September 28, 2018 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

              I got a black belt in karoke

              • Diane G
                Posted September 29, 2018 at 3:58 am | Permalink

                😀

              • Posted September 29, 2018 at 11:47 am | Permalink

                Perhaps a belt of Johnny Walker Black?

              • Michael Fisher
                Posted September 29, 2018 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

                “Mr Walker’s amber restorative” is a pleasing enough, smooth blend – if you like blends, then the Blue is better, but get some wealthy fool-for-you to gift it or perhaps arrange a mortgage. 🙂

              • Posted September 29, 2018 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

                Actually, truth be told, I am not a whiskey drinker. I can tell the good stuff from the mediocre and the bad but virtually any other kind of drink tastes better to me.

              • rickflick
                Posted September 29, 2018 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

                Wait. What?

            • Diane G
              Posted September 29, 2018 at 3:57 am | Permalink

              Yeah, just about how I think it’d go over, now.

  18. Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    He us mean drunk and mean sober.
    Send him back to Yale to teach. That is where he belongs.

  19. Posted September 27, 2018 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    I had the hearing on all day while working (which I never do, I prefer silence) and it was clear to me that this isn’t about Ford or Kavanaugh anymore, if ever it was. The Democrats used the time they were supposed to be questioning Ford to make speeches, and the Republicans did the same when they were supposed to be questioning Kavanaugh.

    The Democrats have a valid point in that the FBI investigation should be reopened. Cynically, I think they only want to do that to prolong the process and attempt to run out the clock before the midterm elections. The Republicans are rightly calling them on that, but looking like they’re afraid of digging deeper.

    A pox on both their houses.

    My prediction, contra PCC(E), is that Kavanaugh will be voted out of committee tomorrow, along straight party lines (as was going to happen anyway), and gets confirmed by the Senate 51-49. Who’ll take that bet at what odds?

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

      I agree in the likely outcome. However, I don’t agree that the process should be weighed based on Dem and GOP motivations. Would the Dems use an accuser that they know is lying to help deny Kavanaugh’s nomination? I truly think they would not. Would the GOP pretend to care about which is telling the truth, Kavanaugh or Ford? I truly think they would and continue to do so.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

      Jeff Flake may
      vote no or force a delay until more witness can be called to testify.

      Then there are senators from Maine and Alaska who may vote note.

      Odds are 50-50.

      But I don’t bet.

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

        Flake might try to work a compromise tonight behind the scenes — threaten to vote no in committee to force an extension of investigation.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

      You might have already lost. I saw a report Manchin is a yes.

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

        Manchin is between a rock and a hard place, but if he votes yes he will lose to Morrisey. Liberal Dems will be angry and Republicans won’t reward him.

      • Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:02 am | Permalink

        Corker is a yes.

    • darrelle
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 11:11 am | Permalink

      Pox on both their houses? I hear that kind of thing a lot.

      I don’t get. The Rs have demonstrated that they don’t give a shit about any of the things about Kavanaugh that should have already disqualified him before even getting to the sexual misconduct issue. Things that in the past would have caused such a candidate to have never been put up for consideration in the first place. The Rs clearly know that. It’s common knowledge that they told Trump not to nominate this git.

      Yet given all that the Rs are determined to vote him through anyway and have been busy lying and cheating shamelessly to make that happen. Including the lying petulant claim that the Ds are wrongfully holding things up. Pure bullshit. Compared to confirmation hearings of the past the length of this one so far and the behavior of the Ds is entirely within the norm, while the behavior of the Rs is very much not.

      Also, it’s funny how short memories are even hear on WEIT with so many people echoing the Rs whining refrain about the Ds intentionally delaying things when the Rs refused to even sit for hearings for Garland in order to delay things for 9 freaking months until Obama’s term ended.

      So here the Ds are trying to get a fair, by long precedent, hearing regarding Kavanaugh in hopes of getting him denied when the previous six, or more, issues that should have gotten him denied didn’t. No, the Rs and the Ds are not comparable. Not even close.

      • Saul Sorrell-Till
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

        Abso-sodding-lutely. The levels of hypocrisy emanating from the gop are astonishing.

        Someone really should have pulled graham up in particular, because his little performance was fucking nauseating.

  20. Andy
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    I mostly agree with you.
    I found the victim to be completely believable.
    I found his answers to be dishonest or misleading: why should he not want an FBI investigation? Why would his best friend not want to testify? He also seemed to have some anger management issues, particularly towards women.
    I think he’s just gone down the trump route: deny deny deny, claim it’s all a conspiracy, and truth doesn’t matter..
    My one disagreement with you is that I think he’ll be confirmed anyway. I hope you are right and I’m wrong!

    • max blancke
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:33 pm | Permalink

      The demand for an FBI investigation is not about an investigation. It is about delaying the vote.
      Lots of resources have been expended for the last six weeks at least to find some sort of contemporary evidence that this happened, and that Kavanaugh was involved. If such evidence was available, we would likely know about it, unless they are holding it back to delay the vote again.
      I think it is foolish to ascribe benevolent motives to Pelosi.
      Before this court confirmation process took over the news cycle, the primary news about Pelosi was that she was likely to lose her seat in the near future. Now she is relevant again.

      • GBJames
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:53 pm | Permalink

        Bullshit. The standard thing to do when considering appointments like this is to have the FBI investigate and provide the facts they discover. There’s only reason one reason that the Republicans have avoided this and it is obvious.

        What does Nancy Pelosi have to do with this? She’s not even in the Senate.

        • Eli
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:28 am | Permalink

          For such appointments the FBI does a background vetting which means they just collect witness statements and put them together in a report without delivering any recommendations, which, given that all the witnesses have already submitted statements to the Judiciary committee, is not going to tell us anything new. And don’t tell me the witnesses will be more afraid to shade the truth to the FBI – false statements to the Senate Judiciary committee carry the same penalty for perjury as lying to the FBI.

          The FBI can not conduct a criminal investigation in this matter because it has no relevant legal authority. The FBI can only investigate federal crimes while this allegation concerns a possible state crime.

        • max blancke
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 7:57 am | Permalink

          Big mistake. I must have been tired. I meant Dianne Feinstein.

      • Andy
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:10 pm | Permalink

        Sorry max, GBJames is exactly right.
        You are mixing up your conspiracy theories.

        They could conduct an FBI investigation in a few days. The committee could have had Judge come in and be interviewed under oath today. However they didn’t. It is really revealing that Kavanaugh doesn’t want them to actually investigate and ‘clear his name’…

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

        Nancy Pelosi has no material role in any this. She’s a congresswoman; the constitutional authority to “Advise and Consent” lies solely with the US senate.

        You’re tilting at a right-wing bogey-woman.

      • Mark R.
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

        Huh?

      • Ferris Dane
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:22 am | Permalink

        Even if what you say is true, do I really need to point out that Republicans blocked not only Obama’s SC pick (“It’s too close to the election, citizens must have their say!”), but dozens of other appointments as well?

        The did so for years.

      • darrelle
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 11:14 am | Permalink

        You’ve been listening to, and believing, the Republican propaganda. Everything the Ds have done regarding asking for the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh is long established SOP while everything the Rs have done is not.

  21. Matthew North
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:05 pm | Permalink

    If Kavanaugh isn’t confirmed, the Republicans will still try to put in a far right appointee. I don’t want that, of course, but the main thing I’m concerned about is that the appointee doesn’t have a broad sense of Presidential power, which is what Kavanaugh has. Make no mistake, Kavanaugh is totally beholden to Trump and the Republicans. If Mueller tries to subpoena Trump, we need an unbiased Justice on the court.

    Sorry about the all caps but,- TRUMP AN HIS MINIONS CONSPIRED WITH A HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER TO INTERFERE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS !!
    Not enough people are pointing this out, in my opinion. Has this been proven? No, not yet. Let Robert Mueller show his evidence.

    Mueller must be able to show his evidence to prove this. These people, including Trump, simply have to be brought to justice if our democracy is to survive as credible.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

      I agree. Kavanaugh’s has likely promised Trump that he has his back if the Mueller investigation shows his guilt. While it may be easy to replace him with another Right nominee, it might be hard to find one that is as deferential to the Office of the President.

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

        BK has opined that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Wonder how much that has to do with all this.

        • Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:02 pm | Permalink

          That is the standard opinion. It is why Nixon was named as an unindicted co conspirator.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

            That a sitting president cannot be indicted is the prevailing (but not binding, inasmuch as SCOTUS has not addressed it) opinion.

            But Kavanaugh has gone way beyond this, opining that a sitting president ought not even be bothered by a criminal or civil investigation so long as he remains in office. That’s quite the turnaround for a guy who essentially went all Inspector Javert while working on Ken Starr’s Whitewater team during the Lewinsky imbroglio.

            • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

              In short, you agree with what I posted.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:47 am | Permalink

                No, the point is that Kavanaugh is way outside the mainstream in his view that a sitting president is above the law. That’s why Trump nominated him despite having been warned by Mitch McConnell that Kavanaugh would be difficult to confirm.

              • darrelle
                Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

                Yes, Ken agrees that you misrepresented Kavanaugh’s outspoken position regarding POTUS’s immunity from law.

            • Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:11 am | Permalink

              Since Kavanaugh was part of Ken Starr’s team going after Clinton while in office, it might be surprising that he later seems to have changed his mind about whether presidents should be indicted while in office. I see two possibilities: (1) he realized that someone who would back a president to the hilt might be very attractive to a president choosing a Supreme Court justice, or (2) he’s a hypocritical partisan hack, perhaps both.

          • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

            True. Though BK could still be a firewall in these uncertain times and for a paranoid POTUS.

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

        Likely?
        You have no evidence do you? If so please provide it. That won’t stop you posing as “evidence based” though, will it?

        • GBJames
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 8:48 am | Permalink

          No evidence?

          Kavanaugh on the unanimous Court decision on Nixon being subpoenaed: It “was wrongly decided — heresy though it is to say so.

          “The decision took away the power of the president to control information in the executive branch by holding that the courts had power and jurisdiction to order the president to disclose information in response to a subpoena sought by a subordinate executive branch official.

          “That was a huge step with implications to this day that most people do not appreciate sufficiently . . . Maybe the tension of the time led to an erroneous decision.”

          Watch Kavanaugh faun over Trump (and lie) at the White House. “No President has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.”

          Kavanaugh was not on the list of judges that Trump promised to choose from repeatedly during the election. He was a last minute add.

          Now, you might not be convinced, but claiming “no evidence” is make-believe.

        • Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:03 am | Permalink

          Yes, likely. Likely is a word that implies opinion so no evidence is needed. My opinion is based on knowledge of Trump’s modus operandi and past behavior, the fact that Kavanaugh has spent many hours at the White House “preparing”, and a gut feel.

  22. KD33
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:08 pm | Permalink

    I don’t agree with “the next one would be just as bad” as many have suggested. That would very possibly happen with a democratic majority in the Senate, which would change the dynamic of who could be confirmed. For this reason much is riding on this vote.

  23. Robert Van Orden
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    There is evidence enough that old Brett was a sloppy drunk around the time of alleged incidents. I question BK’s memory of the events. Alcohol can do that. He may honestly not remember.

    Regardless, I don’t see how they can confirm him. Perhaps the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard hasn’t been reached but there is enough evidence to disqualify him from such an elite position, IMO.

    Another thing, Kavanaugh was quite partisan in his rhetoric today. That, also, would be disqualifying for me. If I had a vote.

    • Ferris Dane
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:18 am | Permalink

      There was more than enough evidence to disqualify Trump from being president. That didn’t stop Republicans from voting for him or from supporting him after the vote.

      I think they will confirm him. Republicans are long past any reason or shame.

  24. Ken Kukec
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

    Kavanaugh plainly lied today, about the “Renate alumnius [sic]” comments written in his yearbook regarding some poor women Kavanaugh and his prep-school buddies were bragging about having had some type of sexual relationship with — just as Kavanaugh lied in his initial judiciary committee hearing testimony about his time in the Bush, Jr., administration (regarding his having received stolen emails, his role in the confirmation of SCOTUS nominees, and his role in the torture memos). Engaging in phony braggadocio by high-school boys can be forgiven; lying by a SCOTUS nominee during his confirmation hearings cannot.

    How in this world can Kavanaugh be confirmed without a full investigation of the underlying facts, without an opportunity for his other accusers to testify, and without the testimony of Mark Judge, the third person present at the time of her sexual assault according to Dr. Ford? The only reason Grassley and the Republicans have refused to subpoena Mark Judge — Kavanaugh’s best prep-school buddy, and the one man whose testimony could exculpate him completely — is because they know his testimony would be damaging to Kavanaugh.

    Kavanaugh’s confirmation after the testimony today would do lasting damage to the Supreme Court as an American institution.

    • yazikus
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:43 am | Permalink

      Kavanaugh plainly lied today, about the “Renate alumnius [sic]”

      I found that part of his testimony especially galling. How stupid does he think we are? We all know what the comments meant, and for him to pretend that he was sad on behalf of Renate that they brought it up was enough to make me yell ‘bullshit!’ while driving. Liar, liar, liar.

  25. GBJames
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:20 pm | Permalink

    The Republican Party is so f*ck*ng transparent.

  26. mordacious1
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    Most people here are going to be disappointed as Justice Kavanaugh takes his seat on the bench. What I find amazing, is that Kavanaugh, as the leader of an aggressive rape gang, was able to only assault women who would eventually grow up to be Democratic activists. He was very selective, as it turns out.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

      Was that a cynical comment?

      Assuming there’s any truth in the story (and I’m as sceptical as hell about ‘memories’ from 30 years back) the Republican women are keeping their mouths shut. Obviously.

      🙂

      cr

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

      Ha!

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

      “Democratic activist”? Where’re getting that, from Sean Hannity?

      Dr. Ford may be a registered Democrat, but she’s no Party activist. And it should come as no surprise that she is, since most women are. Educated women are understandably abandoning the GOP in droves. And this farce played by the Republicans in the Kavanaugh hearings will likely increase the pace.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

      I know plenty of wives of Trump supporters who would take far worse than what Ford endured.

      If your point is that hardcore Christian women are willing to obsequiously volunteer their liberties to patriarchical choir boys then I understand why his selectivity is ostensibly biased.

      Man made religion makes slaves not only of women’s bodies but their minds.

  27. eric
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    Kavanaugh is toast

    While I hope you’re right, I’ll be a broken record and repeat that the only opinions that matter are those of about 4 GOP Senators. Not the public. Not pundits. Not even Trump’s. If they decide to vote in favor, that’s it, he’s confirmed.

    let us entertain no hopes that if Kavanaugh goes, as I think he will, Trump will appoint somebody less Rightish. That’s not in the cards.

    If his nomination fails, my bet’s on Amy Coney Barrett; Trump will hope that by picking a woman, this won’t happen again. She’s slightly less right…but only because Kavanaugh was is so far right.

    Trump picking an equivalently right-wing candidate would still be a win for Dems, though, because it buys time. Making it (a) very likely that the new justice won’t be involved in the early SCOTUS cases (they start on October 1, and incoming Justices don’t participate in cases that are heard before they are seated), and (b) possible but unlikely that the Dems get more members in the Senate.

    • mordacious1
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

      If Kavanaugh gets seated and Ginsburg croaks, she will be the next nominee. The Democrats will have to come up with something other than sexual assault. Maybe she’s a closet Nazi…

  28. chris
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:23 pm | Permalink

    Evidence is not required in this situation.
    This is not a trail
    This is a job interview.
    I have interviewed and hired many people,
    and have also not hired many more.
    If we are to choose to hire, should we
    hire someone that is not solid on all points.
    Clearly any interview team would conclude that this individual has the technical capability for the job. Unfortunately the requirements include the ability to be part of an organization as a team member.
    To make the choice even easier– he cannot be fired.
    There is only one possible conclusion

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:42 pm | Permalink

      “Evidence is not required in this situation”.

      Do you need me to draw you a frackin’ map? Every single rational human being now has no excuse to recognize what’s happening here.

  29. Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:42 pm | Permalink

    Personally, I don’t trust Kavanaugh. Wasn’t impressed with the Republicans today. I am about to ask a question, but I want to first establish that I am truly non-partisan — am cynical about both parties.

    My question is, why did Feinstein hold Dr. Ford’s letter for so long? Suddenly now the Dems want the FBI to investigate, and Mark Judge to testify, etc. Well, where have those Dems been until now???

    Feinstein’s explanation is that Ford wanted anonymity. But the spirit of democracy is that the accused has the right to know who the accuser is. An anonymous accusation is worthless. Saudi Arabia might approve it; the US shouldn’t. Dr. Ford, with all due respect, should have put up or shut up. So it seems to me.

    I can’t figure out what Feinstein was thinking. Almost all the Repub senators attacked her today. To me, that was the only decent point they made.

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

      rabbilistfield:

      Why did Feinstein hold Dr. Ford’s letter for so long? […] Feinstein’s explanation is that Ford wanted anonymity. But the spirit of democracy is that the accused has the right to know who the accuser is. An anonymous accusation is worthless. […] Dr. Ford, with all due respect, should have put up or shut up.

      It helps if we examine the time line & think about Ford’s unreasonable expectations – such as her first mistake of trusting politicians.

      [A] FORD IN HER ANONYMOUS MOUSEY PERIOD

      Early July: Ford says she ‘phones the WaPo tip line anonymously, when Kavanaugh was on President Donald Trump’s shortlist of potential nominees to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Nobody appears to have revealed what she said on the tip line – I can’t find anything.

      July 30th: Ford writes a letter to Feinstein laying out her allegations against Kavanaugh & Mark Judge. She also writes “as a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak”

      Late August: Ford decides not to come forward as she was concerned the publicity would upend her life while not affecting Kavanaugh’s confirmation. “Why suffer through the annihilation if it’s not going to matter?” so she tells the WaPo

      September 12th: SIX weeks after receiving the letter Feinstein passes the letter to the FBI – with Ford’s name redacted. The agency declines to investigate but sends it to the White House, who pass it on to all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Upon receipt of the information on the night of September 12, we included it as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard process” the FBI says.

      Feinstein gets a lot of letters like this & decides to cover her own arse by passing on the supplied info to the relevant authorities as she’s required to [she certainly should not tell Kavanaugh – that would be out of order!]. She holds to Ford’s wish for anonymity by redacting Ford’s name. I think Feinstein is open minded about Ford’s claim – doesn’t have a hunch about the veracity of Ford’s claim & also because of the large gaps in the details she realises this accusation will likely go nowhere.

      I think her MAIN reason for not forwarding the letter sooner was as above – it’s a flimsy accusation at this point. I suspect Feinstein is rushing around trying to build a killer case against Kavanaugh & thus she holds onto the letter while hoping for more info to build a bomb with. But also I think she’s pushing Ford during this period to go public & Ford is resisting.

      At this point nothing more would have happened, just a few notes added to a few files & back to sleep, but then I suppose Ford agrees to go public. Possibly Feinstein MAY have put Ford’s name out there to ‘assist’ Ford in her decision making.

      Sept 13th: Feinstein releases a statement saying she had “received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court” and that she sent the letter to the Justice Department.

      Mitch McConnell chastises her for keeping the letter secret until the last minute, and the White House calls it an orchestrated political move to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

      Sept 14th: Kavanaugh says “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.” & Chuck Grassley releases a letter signed by 65 women who said they knew Kavanaugh in high school and that “he has always treated women with decency and respect”

      [B] FORD IDENTIFIES HERSELF

      Sept 16th: In a WaPo interview, Ford identifies herself as Kavanaugh’s accuser. She said she had already been contacted by news outlets asking about Kavanaugh, making it clear her identity had leaked.

      Sept 17th: Kavanaugh issued a new statement saying he had not previously known who the accuser was and that “I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone. I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the Committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity”

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

        Michael Fisher, Thanks for taking the time to lay all this out. But it still remains unclear why Feinstein held the letter so long.
        If as you reasonably say, she “wanted to build a killer case against Kavanaugh,” why wouldn’t she investigate Ford’s story? A highly-educated professor contacts Feinstein to describe an attempted rape by a drunken Kav. Hey, Di, you might have your “killer case” right here! But no, that info sat for 6 weeks — not acted upon even in redacted form. I don’t get it. Though I appreciate the timeline, Michael.

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

          The info didn’t sit “there for six weeks”. Do you think an 85 year old woman with nearly 50 years in local & national government did nothing all that time? She’s got personal wealth of maybe $100M & her husband has many times that sum – she has contacts & political relationships going back to The Flood. I’m sure a lot of running around on her behalf occurred in that six weeks in an effort to build that bomb – it came to nothing, but she had to try.

      • Nicolaas Stempels
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 11:31 am | Permalink

        What I find weird is that the letter went public the 13th or the 12th at the earliest, and the 14th there is a letter signed by 65 women he knew in high school, testifying to his Great and Upstanding character. (a little taste of which we heard during his testimony /s)

        • Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

          One of those women was Renate.

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

          I assume Kavanaugh could see what was coming down the road weeks in advance. The anon tip to the WaPo was early July & I expect rumours woulh have reached him shortly therafter

          Also Feinstein was champing at the bit to find supporting evidence for Ford’s claims for weeks before the big reveal – she’d have to use the Ford name for some lines of inquiries.

          For example Ford spent a lot of time at the Columbia Country Club, Chevy Chase, Maryland that summer swimming & diving – Kavanaugh went to that club too that summer. The ‘party’ at a close by house was a spontaneous event when a group of teens decided to go from the club to the house – I suppose it was known the adults were away. This is the reason Ford was wearing a swimsuit under her clothes.

          How much money would Feinstein have paid some club functionary [via a detective intermediary] to get a look at the records for that summer? I imagine a lot of work went into finding dates when Kavanaugh, Judge, Ford & the other two were present at the club at the same time. Perhaps those records don’t exist, but there’s others – such as parents credit cards to cross out dates because that particular supposed party goer was away on their hols. etc etc etc

          A lot of expensive inquiries that would have required the use of names.

          The Repubs, WaPo, NYT & various other media entities were eager to identify Ford too.

    • Posted September 28, 2018 at 9:54 am | Permalink

      How do you know that Feinstein wasn’t trying very hard to get Ford to come forward and identify herself? It would be obviously in Dems interest. I don’t see how anyone can fault Feinstein for respecting Ford’s wish to remain anonymous.

      Feinstein could have told the Judicial Committee that she had been contacted by an accuser that wished to remain anonymous right away but what good would that have done? Grassley and associates would have just told her to get stuffed. No way would they have launched a proper investigation because they had the time to do so, as they are now hinting they would have done.

  30. Mark R.
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:43 pm | Permalink

    I have no idea if he will be toast or not at this point; I think the Republicans will put him on the bench. But I’m pretty sure if the Republicans vote him in, their party will be toast come November.

  31. Posted September 27, 2018 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    I disagree. It is 9:55 eastern time here. I offer you an even money bet Kavanaugh is confirmed within 14 days from now. Stakes of 10 USD. This offer stands for 15 minutes.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

      This offer has expired.

      PredictIt prediction market currently makes it 80-20 in favor of confirmation.

  32. Curt Nelson
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    Imagine his buddy, Mark Judge, holding onto the fact that the Ford allegations, among others, are true — holding onto that for years to come. What a potentially powerful position to be in.

    Can anyone tell me if Dr. Ford was there watching Kavanaugh give his sickening reply.

    • Otternaut
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

      Mark Judge should be very afraid

    • tomh
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 1:06 am | Permalink

      No, she left.

  33. Randy Bessinger
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    I do not think truth matters anymore. Trump making ANY comment about truth and women being assaulted is quite laughable if it wasn’t sad. Politics is a sad occupation these days IMO.

    • Randy Bessinger
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

      Oh, I forgot…just locker room talk.

  34. Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

    Gad Saad on what for me is the key issue.

    • rickflick
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

      Yes, I agree the veracity of Dr. Ford is an unknown as are many other factors in the case. However, I wonder if the research sited by Sad includes women being sexually assaulted remembering their own assailant? This is a quite special circumstance. I tend to believe her statement.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

        Eyewitness identification can be unreliable regarding strangers. It’s very reliable as between people previously acquainted, as Ford and Kavanaugh were.

    • Curt Nelson
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

      The idea that a victim of violent crime is only as reliable as someone who saw something (a witness) is ridiculous. These are two very different levels of experience.

  35. Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    I was amazed at the Kavanaugh that made the heart felt opening statement. Then as he answered questions he evolved into an High School boy manufacturing a story to get him off the hook. He was not acting as any kind of Judge at all. He clearly was not professional in any shape or form. I just pray we don’t end up with another Clarence Thomas vote.

  36. Randy Bessinger
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

    I am reminded of the James Brown song…It’s a Mans World. I wish we had more women posting their views here. I sure know how my wife feels. I avoided the testimony today mainly because I expect confirmation even if there was a video of the event. Call me cynical.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

      Good point. But I imagine it’s even harder for women to watch the trolls come out of the woodwork on these threads. For the most part though, good discussion from thoughtful males, which seems like progress.

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:37 pm | Permalink

        And a ‘thoughtful male’ is of course defined as someone who believes women. Yeah, this is how religions start. Sorry, I reserve my right to think for myself. AKA a ‘troll’ in your lexicon.

        • Posted October 3, 2018 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

          I am a woman, yet I do not believe Dr. Ford. I hope the judge in question is appointed (regardless of his qualities or lack thereof), or there will be far-reaching consequences. Every time when a candidate is proposed whom someone does not like, esp. if a male, we could expect some alleged victim coming out of nowhere to claim that the candidate assaulted them 60 years ago. And many would say that the victim is credible and no further evidence is needed.

          The other unintended result will be that in a decade, nobody will believe any rape victim.

          • Posted October 3, 2018 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

            The opposite point can be made with a similar lack of probity. If Kavanaugh is promoted without taking Ford’s allegations seriously then it sends a message to all young men that they can get away with such behavior without destroying their career. It is easy to claim that things must go a certain way or there will be hell to pay. Instead, the reality is less dramatic. Each case has to be pursued and let the chips fall where they may. If Kavanaugh did attempt rape then he should be dropped and his backers’ reputations will suffer. If Ford is perpetrating a hoax, she should be charged accordingly and her backers’ reputations will suffer.

            • Posted October 3, 2018 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

              Rape and attempted rape are crimes. Young men committing them, if their guilt is proven, have a hell to pay anyway. And I do not think that much prevention will be added if they see that attempted rape can disqualify them from SCOTUS 35 years later.
              Dr. Ford can never be charged. First, as far as I know, nobody considers charging her in any situation. Second, even if an iron aliby for the judge surfaces, it is impossible to prove that she had not made an honest mistake. Her backers will defend her no matter what. You see that in this thread, various commenters whom I know as thoughtful people say that she must be telling the truth because she is a woman, or because she claims to be a victim, or because she has a PhD, or because she is a psychologist, or because the judge is a jerk and so must be guilty as charged. I think that even our host here deviates from his usual stringent standards. Others have already pointed this out and, while they were uncivil and deserved their bans, I agree with the essence of their opinions.

              I also think that taking uncorroborated and vague accusations about decades-old supposed events as fact gives wonderful opportunities for blackmail, which is very serious to me.

              • Posted October 3, 2018 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

                You’re welcome to your opinion of course but I for one would not back Ford no matter what. I doubt many commenters here would either. Have fun with your strawman!

              • Merilee
                Posted October 3, 2018 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

                I think you must mean Kavansugh, Paul. ( Unless you meant Ontario’s egregious new Premier, Doug Ford.)

              • Posted October 3, 2018 at 8:09 pm | Permalink

                No, I meant Blasey-Ford, as rickflick suggests. I now see that I phrased it poorly.

              • Merilee
                Posted October 3, 2018 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

                Gotcha.

              • Merilee
                Posted October 3, 2018 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

                The hyphens made all the difference.
                Man, wasn’t Trump extraordinarily nasty in his mocking of Ford today? Though I guess this wasn’t extra-ordinary for him. This playing to the basest of his base, and their eating it up, is really disturbing. Did anyone watch the excellent Frontline on Trump on PBS last night? This FBI guy, Montoya, gives me some vague hope for a reasonable investigation.

              • Posted October 4, 2018 at 2:55 am | Permalink

                I believe you.

              • rickflick
                Posted October 3, 2018 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

                Paul probably meant he wouldn’t back “Ford-no-matter-what” scenario.

              • Posted October 4, 2018 at 2:57 am | Permalink

                I think the same, and I believe him. I am sorry if he has got from me that ALL who have the opposite opinion of mine are “Ford-no-matter what”, I meant SOME not ALL but I guess my comment sounded like “all”.

              • Posted October 4, 2018 at 9:43 am | Permalink

                I think “few” or “none” would be more accurate. Many commenters have said that Ford might be lying, implying that they wouldn’t support her if that was the case.

  37. Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:11 pm | Permalink

    You must be joking. The woman’s character was all over her statement; she’s clearly the type who builds her entire identity around the twin pillars of victimhood and self-aggrandizement. The very first paragraph, she felt the need to tell us “I’m terrified” and also that “I felt I had to do this”. That’s just weird. Not that she feels that way…that’s perfectly normal. But to include statements like that in a document for the official record? This is a document lawyers worked on. Over and over throughout her statement, those twin themes were repeated: “Feel sorry for me” and “I’m a hero”. Why on Earth would she feel the need to include them? Answer: Because she’s a narcissist and a confabulist.

    I’m sorry, there’s simply no way a reasonable, science-savvy human being can take her story at face value. She’s sure of nothing else, but she’s 100% sure the boy from 30 years ago was Kavanaugh. Because that’s exactly how human memory works, apparently. The fact that she’s a psychologist just makes it all the more damning…she bloody well knows better!

    Bottom line: she has NOTHING to corroborate her claim — not even her friends — and he denies it. That ends it. You don’t get to convict a man without evidence, not even in the court of public opinion. Anyone who disagrees, pass your skeptic card forward. Hell, pass your copy of To Kill A Mockingbird forward too — you obviously won’t be needing it anymore.

    • rickflick
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:00 am | Permalink

      “she’s a narcissist and a confabulist.” That’s certainly possible. But, I don’t think it’s something you should conclude with certainty at this point. The problem is there is a lack of information upon which to draw a firm conclusion. I tentatively believe her, not him. That’s based mainly on their characters as revealed in their testimony. If you’re looking for a boogie man, consider the GOP not wanting to investigate further. They are calling for the vote tomorrow. And that’s in spite of the fact that judge Garland had to sit out 293 days of Obama’s last term.

    • Kelly
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 8:30 am | Permalink

      I agree with Steve. I think her behaviour is odd. Three decades later she needs to build a second front door on her home? She’s appears to be an anxious person and according to Dr. Ford, the only contributing environmental factor is what she says occurred at the age of 15. She is a psychologist and as anyone in the field knows, you need to do a lot of work on your own unresolved issues to be effective at this job, but she says that she tried not to think about what happened for most of her life. She has access to lots of resources and therapy to have helped heal these issues and has lived in the comfort of affording a safe home in a safe neighbourhood. Yet still she appears to define herself by a singular victim experience. I am a survivor and have worked with survivors and I find it strange. Ultimately, I don’t think anyone will ever know the truth.

  38. Merilee
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    I watched 6 or 7 hours of the hearing live today and then went to see Ian McKellen play Lear at the National Theatre (filmed live). Best Lear I’ve ever seen including shenanigans less convoluted than those of Kav and Repugs in the Senate today.

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:30 am | Permalink

      We have seen the best of our time: machinations, hollowness, treachery, and all ruinous disorders, follow us disquietly to our graves.

      Gloucester, Scene II

      • kieran
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 5:59 am | Permalink

        Saw him at Chicster festival, it was amazing! He carries her on his back! Two shows a day! I got tickets to the second last performance and after that he was willing to spend time with fans after the last show.

        • Merilee
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

          Lucky you! We saw the Chichester production, but I believe it had been moved to a theater in London for the filming. Had no idea he did TWO shows a day. There was a short film clip at the beginning with interviews of Ian and the director. Possibly that was what you saw live?
          I am so thrilled to have the opportunity to see these NTLive films. We have pretty good live theater around Toronto (Soulpepper, Stratford, Shaw…)but great to be able to see NT, and Met Opera ( and, occasionally Covent Garden) for $20 and just 10 minutes away.

      • Merilee
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 9:57 am | Permalink

        Oh, and Kent was played by a woman: Sinéad Cusack!

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

          Great actor – putting aside her little “Irish artists’ pledge to boycott Israel” adventure twenty years ago.

  39. Dale Franzwa
    Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:15 am | Permalink

    Ah, Jerry. I agree with all your sentiments and analysis about Kavanaugh, just not your conclusion that he’s toast. Knowing the Republicans and what they feel is at stake, I think we end up with a second rapist on the Supreme Court. Woe is us.

  40. W.T. Effingham
    Posted September 28, 2018 at 3:31 am | Permalink

    Will the team with the largest pile of dark money please extinguish any live embers on the way out? Thanks.

  41. Posted September 28, 2018 at 3:34 am | Permalink

    Couldn’t someone administer truth serum or have I been watching too many stupid films?!

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 3:43 am | Permalink

      Give Kavanaugh a few beers – in vino, veritas

      • rickflick
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 8:17 am | Permalink

        At times during his testimony it looked like he’d had a few.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 9:41 am | Permalink

        😀

  42. kieran
    Posted September 28, 2018 at 6:03 am | Permalink

    Mike pence to have the casting vote. I think that Kavanagh has been shown to lie to congress before should be the disqualifying mark against him. His change of tack from Clinton to Trump on if a president can be subpoenaed should also be a mark against a life time appointment

    • Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

      Don’t know that yet. One more defection and he won’t pass — even by the simple majority that the GOP changed the Senate rules to a while back (for just such power-grabs).

      • tomh
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

        One more besides who? I don’t know of any defections yet.

  43. Ken Kukec
    Posted September 28, 2018 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    The American Bar Association has requested that the senate judiciary committee delay its vote on the Kavanaugh confirmation until an FBI investigation has been conducted.

    • rickflick
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 9:26 am | Permalink

      I don’t think that would convince the GOP to change it’s plans. But it’s welcome just the same.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 1:07 pm | Permalink

        The Republicans on the judiciary committee put a lot of credence in the “well-qualified” rating the ABA gave Kavanaugh.

        And it’s not like Republicans to engage in selective reliance.

  44. Stuart
    Posted September 28, 2018 at 7:23 am | Permalink

    Gee it really is true respect takes a lifetime to build and second to burn.

    I’ve never read such incoherent drivel in my life.

    The image you want to be true of Kavanaugh bears almost no relation to reality. He drank in high school and is angry about being accused of sexual assault so he doesn’t have the temperament to be a judge?

    It’ll take you a while, but you’ll come to be ashamed of this post. mark my words.

    The reality is nobody but her can verify her story which has changed multiple times. The line its a job interview, not a criminal case is stupid to the point of offensive.

    It’s a job interview in which the only thing that apparently matters is that he has been accused of a crime and a serious one at that. Criminal guilt is defined and has a standard it is meted out by.

    If the Democrats wanted an FBI investigation why did they sit on it? Why did they wait until it would have the maximum beneficial delay for them?

    If you can’t see that you have frankly lost your mind.

    • Posted September 28, 2018 at 7:31 am | Permalink

      Your number for the line of tuchas osculators is 14. Bye!

    • Posted September 28, 2018 at 9:00 am | Permalink

      If you can’t see that Kavanaugh outed himself as a rabid partisan (and will have a permanent asterisk next to his name), then you are as silly as I think you are.

    • Blue
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:08 am | Permalink

      Oooo, Mr Stuart, I am so “marking” your “words”
      as ones that for women who come forward thusly:
      she will commit suicide by patriarchy.

      Look up, Mr Stuart, those of my words:
      “suicide by patriarchy.”

      Blue

    • Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:44 am | Permalink

      Stuart, your words here are strangely reminiscent of those of Steve Vanden-Eykel, recently banned from this site. Coincidence?

      • Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:12 pm | Permalink

        Likely both rightwing sockpuppets paid to inundate streams with pro rapey boy comments and working off talking point scripts.

        • Paul Matthews
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

          Who pays them, I wonder.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted September 28, 2018 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

            Dunno, but the rest of us are obviously here on Soros’s dime. 🙂

          • Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

            Brett O’Keefe.

      • Blue
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

        Interestin’ly disgusting, Mr Topping:
        http://www.twitter.com/search?q=Steve%20Vanden-Eykel&src=typd

        Blue

  45. Posted September 28, 2018 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    The Republicans – and Kavanaugh – could have taken a completely different tack on this – and the outcome would have been much better for them. Instead they took the tried and failed approach they always take: deny, accuse, deflect, get angry, belittle, ……

    These people are not fit to govern if they can’t learn from the past.

  46. Matt Bowman
    Posted September 28, 2018 at 7:58 am | Permalink

    My vote = Not toast

    I think the Republicans will rush to confirm. I think the Democrats want to push this as far as they can. It’s a Hail Mary. But if the Dems lucked out and dragged this through November, and won the Senate, they could pull the same nonsense that the Republicans pulled with Merrick Garland. The Republicans and Democrats also know that with time more women will come forward, as two more women have already come forward.

  47. Posted September 28, 2018 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    The main result I heard yesterday?:

    Ms. Ford most likely truthful.

    Mr. Kavanaugh most likely lying.

    Mr. Kavanaugh will likely be confirmed.

    (Justice) Kavanaugh will have a permanent asterisk, as a rapid, self-outed partisan and holder of persecution delusions. He (will) need to be recusing himself frequently.

  48. Posted September 28, 2018 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    The depravity of the GOP knows no bounds. He will be confirmed

    • yazikus
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:58 am | Permalink

      This is really disheartening. Like, he’s a bottom of the barrel pick, we all know he’s a liar, they know he’s a liar – and yet they still want to plow through. His failing-upward is nothing but astounding.

      • rickflick
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 11:28 am | Permalink

        It’ll help them in the midterms.

        • Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

          Or not. They need independents as well. My guess is they’ve lost the great majority of them.

          • tomh
            Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

            I have to think the Republicans have made a decision that no matter what happens in the midterms, confirming this one is worth it. There’s always another election coming up but this confirmation is for life.

            • alexander
              Posted September 29, 2018 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

              Yes, this concept “for life” clearly shows that the US is not a democracy. That a group of 9 old (or crazy, as we see now) fogies can decide about the choices women can make for decades in the future, and there is no recourse, is clearly a non-democratic process.

              • Posted October 3, 2018 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

                I think you hit the nail on the head. The election for life is the problem, not that some unlikeable candidate is showered with accusations that sound credible to most, but to me sound like borrowed from Mark Twain’s “Running for Governor”.

              • Posted October 3, 2018 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

                Kavanaugh already has a good job. There are enough doubts about him now that he should lose the promotion unless it is shown that all his accusers are part of some vast Dem conspiracy. He’s lied under oath and shown himself to be a political animal which disqualifies him. He’ll survive easily despite all his whining about his life being destroyed. We don’t need a “whiny little bitch” on SCOTUS, only the best.

            • Posted October 2, 2018 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

              I think you are correct in this.

            • Posted October 2, 2018 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

              @tomh: So do I. But an impeachment can shorten a lifetime appointment. Wouldn’t that be much harmful to the Party, and particularly to the Candidate?
              .-

              • tomh
                Posted October 2, 2018 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

                Well, IMO, the chance of that happening, once he’s seated, is just about zero, more or less.

  49. Eric Grobler
    Posted September 28, 2018 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    “my feeling is that yes, he’s guilty and lying about it, which means he committed perjury and is absolutely disqualified from the Court”

    American politics now run’s on “feelings”?
    Presumption of innocence without evidence is out of favor?

    I am not an American and did not watch the hearing, but it seems to me very dangerous when accusations without any corroborating evidence (if that is the case) is taken to this level.

    It opens the door for emotive stalinist witch hunts in the modern media where the “odious” character of people are grossly exaggerated and *any* accusation will be distributed with lightning speed.

    • GBJames
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 9:31 am | Permalink

      I have to scratch my head here.

      People opine on injustice they admittedly have no knowledge about.

      • Eric Grobler
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 9:54 am | Permalink

        People like to act on rumours they want to believe.

    • eric
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

      Presumption of innocence without evidence is out of favor?

      Once again, repeat after me: this is not a trial, this is a job promotion decision.

      Your boss doesn’t have to presume you innocent. Your boss doesn’t have to give you a promotion unless he can prove you guilty of some act ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ If there are allegations of misconduct against you, the burden of proof is on you, the applicant, to convince him, the boss, that you still deserve the promotion.

      And it should be trivially easy to see that this is a job promotion interview. Just consider what happens if Kavanaugh loses. Does he go to jail? No. Is he fined? No. What happens? He returns to his current position as a judge on the D.C. Circuit court. If he doesn’t get this promotion, the only “punishment” is that he keeps his current job.

      • Eric Grobler
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

        “Once again, repeat after me”
        I do not appreciate your condescending tone.

        “the only “punishment” is that he keeps his current job.”

        You know full well that for example social media mobs have caused people to loose their jobs without a fair hearing in the public space.

        In the 50’s the testimony of a black man was worth less than that of a white women.
        I think we all believe in the principle of evaluating the evidence and try to form an objective opinion irrespective of race, gender, religious or political affiliation.

        Most people do not care if Kavanaugh is guilty or not, they just want a partisan outcome.

        The climate in the US has become so balkanized that even those who try to be calm and nonpartisan are being attacked, hence your somewhat aggressive response?

        If you did not mean any disrespect I apologize, perhaps the madness in the world makes me paranoid.

        • tomh
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

          “You know full well that for example social media mobs have caused people to loose their jobs without a fair hearing in the public space.”

          Considering that he has a lifetime appointment to his current job, I doubt that a “social media mob” will cause him to lose it. Short of being convicted of a serious crime, he’s there for life.

          • Eric Grobler
            Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

            I was not referring to Kavanaugh specifically,
            I am talking about people being tried by the media where there is no pushback against allegations that cannot be collaborated.

            • Matt
              Posted September 28, 2018 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

              Corroborated, not collaborated.

              • Eric Grobler
                Posted September 28, 2018 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

                Thanks, a bit of dyslexia and stupidity.

            • Posted October 3, 2018 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

              No pushback? The FBI is doing an investigation. She was questioned under oath. That’s not “no pushback”.

              • Diane G
                Posted October 4, 2018 at 4:44 am | Permalink

                +1

    • Posted October 3, 2018 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

      + 1

  50. rickflick
    Posted September 28, 2018 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    Andy Borowitz:

    Jeff Flake Announces Retirement from Humanity.

    Speaking to reporters at the Capitol, Flake said that the demands of being a human being had “taken their toll,” and that it was “time to move on.”

    “Having empathy and compassion for other human beings has been a thoroughly draining experience,” he said. “I for one am ready for something new.”

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

      He could keep up the desert Hamlet routine for only so long.

  51. Matt
    Posted September 28, 2018 at 11:56 am | Permalink

    This is not a trial but what is a good enough reason to justify an investigation into rape allegation against a SCOTUS nominee?

    Probable cause?
    Reasonable suspicion?
    Preponderance of evidence?
    Clear and convincing evidence?
    Beyond a reasonable doubt?

    https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/evidentiary-standards-burdens-proof/

    I find her 35 year old allegations credible enough to investigate further, esp. since she can prove she told her therapist in 2012 well before anyone could’ve known he’d be SCOTUS nominee. Anyone saying she is doing this for political reasons is drowning in orange koolaid.

  52. Diana MacPherson
    Posted September 28, 2018 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    Any second now.

    • yazikus
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

      This is not helping my blood pressure this morning. And all for what? To get this entitled douchecanoe onto the supreme court.

      • Merilee
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

        Douchecanoe…gotta remember that one🤓

  53. Matt
    Posted September 28, 2018 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    • Matt
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

      Sorry, ignore that and watch this one at 9:01.

      • Eric Grobler
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

        For those who in principle disregard the testimony of a women against a powerful “respected” individual (like Kavanaugh) this is a wonderful clip.

        Now you just need to provide a clip where we are also reminded that people can also make false accusations against powerful people, sometimes well intended.
        Perhaps some satanic ritual abuse claims from the 1980’s will come in handy?

        • Matt
          Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:59 pm | Permalink

          Why would she lie?

          • Eric Grobler
            Posted September 28, 2018 at 5:03 pm | Permalink

            Matt, who are you referring too?

            Are you familiar with the satanic ritual abuse hysteria in the 1980’s?

            You need to judge each case individually.

            • Matt
              Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

              Eric, did you seriously just compare Ph.D. Ford’s credible allegations with satanic abuse hysteria?

              Yes, judge each case on its own merits. Is someone saying otherwise?

        • Posted October 3, 2018 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

          I see no reason for this to be restricted to powerful people. Anyone could be accused frivolously. I wouldn’t want any male near and dear to me to be dragged into the mud because some female has suddenly remembered decades-old grievances. And I wouldn’t want any male student of mine to claim that he has an F because he has spurned my advances.

  54. Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    The way I see it, even if Kavanaugh’s innocent of the crimes, his attitude and demeanor disqualify him for what should be a *very* elite job.

  55. tomh
    Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    I need to apologize to our genial host for mistakenly correcting him about the Maryland statute of limitations. While it’s true that there is no statute of limitations for attempted rape now, in 1982 when the incident allegedly occurred, attempted rape was a misdemeanor with a one year statute of limitations. This was changed in 1996 when it was made a felony and the statute of limitations removed, but Kavanaugh would have to be prosecuted under the law at the time.

  56. Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    My wife was interacting with someone on FB: A Trump supporter, female (FTS).

    This FTS was ranting about how Ford’s testimony was BS, why didn’t she report it then, blah, blah, blah.

    My wife responded that, for a sexual assault survivor, like her [my wife], it’s easy to understand why she didn’t report it at the time. She wouldn’t be believed, etc. (I recommend reading Jon Krakauer’s book Missoula, this stuff is still going on, a lot.)

    Then the FTS responds that she too was a victim of sexual assault; but she didn’t report it because no one would have believed her, etc., etc.

    My wife commented that her [the FTS’s] response showed a lot of irony, when compared to her original rant.

    No response. Either she doesn’t know what irony means (and won’t look it up) or maybe, just maybe, something got through to her. (Seems unlikely; but who knows for sure?)

    • Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

      Evidently supporting your “team” takes precedence over virtually everything these days. I know I am behind Team WEIT 100%! Maybe even 110%.

    • Diane G
      Posted September 29, 2018 at 2:00 am | Permalink

      I can’t begin to imagine the extent of the cognitive dissonance the average Trump supporter has to deal with. Assuming there’s any cognition there in the first place…

      • rickflick
        Posted September 29, 2018 at 9:43 am | Permalink

        😎
        For many, not so much.

      • Blue
        Posted September 29, 2018 at 10:35 am | Permalink

        I ‘ve pondered upon that exact point myself, Ms Diane G.
        How do they do it ? the reconciling inside their brains ?

        Blue

        • rickflick
          Posted September 29, 2018 at 11:15 am | Permalink

          Trumps support among college educated women is low, while those with only a HS education is higher. That’s one bit of polling that sheds light on the cognitive aspect. There must be other reasons, such as, single issue voters – anti-abortionists for example – who must be ignoring all the negative news.

          • Zetopan
            Posted October 1, 2018 at 7:45 pm | Permalink

            And remember, Trump has clearly stated that he “loves the uneducated”.

            • Posted October 3, 2018 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

              You know that he pretends to be Christian.

  57. Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    So it looks like there will be an FBI investigation after all. Trump has even signalled he’s ok with that. I expect Kavanaugh’s head to explode shortly as I suspect he is guilty of at least being a drunken lout. The investigation will likely make that more obvious than it is now.

    Trump will be making a continuous calculation to see whether he needs to dump Kavanaugh to avoid being a “loser”. He may be ok with the FBI investigation only to buy time to line up a replacement nominee. Trump would like to be able to say that he didn’t lose but merely changed his mind.

    • Matt
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

      So true about how Trump thinks.

    • rickflick
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

      “…he didn’t lose but merely changed his mind.”

      Others would claim he didn’t change but merely lost his mind.

      • Merilee
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

        T’s mind is long-gone.

  58. ChristDisciple
    Posted September 28, 2018 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    We are in a sad place when we start making our decisions about ones fate on an accusation alone. I so much want you to be a victim of the same. Because what you are saying, is someone that might know you or of you can make an accusation about you and you will have to believe their accusation before any evidence is delivered. You ask, prove it, they say I don’t, my opinion is enough, you need to go read your own Blog. I am not for the man nor against him, but to convict a man when there is absolutely no EVIDENCE defies common sense to me. As one of the Senators said, he’s been working among professional woman his entire life, NO COMPLAINTS, unlike Bill Cosby and one complain from when he was a kid is enough to take a man and his incredible career down? I can understand you not wanting him in the Supreme Court, that’s OK, but you’ve got to be sensible about this methodology. It’s a dangerous precedent to be creating. For one day, as I alluded to earlier in this long paragraph, you may be a victim of your own advice. What then, will you call for justice or was it applied as you have?

    • Posted September 28, 2018 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

      Pucker up, sweetie–you’re number 14.

      By the way, ChristDisciple, this isn’t a “blog.”

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

      ChristDisciple on PCC[E]: “I so much want you to be a victim of the same”. You haven’t disappointed me Leland – just the sort of remark I expect from a Christian loon! I see from your writings that you’re going through a difficult time – does it make you feel better wishing ill on others? You are weak & thoroughly unpleasant.

    • Eric Grobler
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

      “I so much want you to be a victim of the same.”

      You seem to have the SAME MENTALITY as people who make false accusations?!

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted September 28, 2018 at 8:53 pm | Permalink

      “I so much want you to be a victim of the same.”

      We could say the same to you, that we want you to be the victim of the same type of attack as Christine Blasey Ford — to be pinned to a bed as a 15-year-old by someone much much bigger and stronger, to have a hand shoved over you mouth so that you can’t breathe, to have that person start pulling your clothes off so they can sodomize you — but wishing that upon someone else, even someone we disagree with vehemently, isn’t how we secular humanists roll.

      • Blue
        Posted September 28, 2018 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

        Thank you, Mr Kukec. Thanks FOR you. This.

        Blue

      • Diane G
        Posted September 29, 2018 at 1:33 am | Permalink

        Excellent rebuttal, Counselor!

  59. Ken Kukec
    Posted September 28, 2018 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

    “I so much want you to be a victim of the same.”

    We could say the same to you, that we want you to be the victim of the same type of attack as Christine Blasey Ford — to be pinned to a bed as a 15-year-old by someone much much bigger and stronger, to have a hand shoved over you mouth so that you can’t breathe, to have that person start pulling your clothes off so they can sodomize you — but wishing that upon someone else, even someone we disagree with vehemently, isn’t how we secular humanists roll.

  60. Posted September 28, 2018 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    I cannot imagine a Supreme Court Justice accusing Senators or Representatives (anyone, for that matter) of a conspiracy. And much less yelling to them, like Brett Kavanaugh did.
    It seems to me an attitude unbecoming in any judgeship – so including his present job.
    .-

    • Alexander
      Posted September 29, 2018 at 2:48 am | Permalink

      Yes, a judge who has no judgment…

    • Zetopan
      Posted October 1, 2018 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

      Kavanaugh has very clearly demonstrated that he isn’t fit to even be a current judge, let alone a member of the Supreme Court. Yet the members of the Trump cult are still entirely unable to see any problems with such an appointment.

      • Posted October 3, 2018 at 5:51 pm | Permalink

        I see problems with his non-appointment, that is, it will set an unpleasant precedent.

  61. Posted October 1, 2018 at 6:01 am | Permalink

    Please share with us what part her testimony told you HE was guilty? Especially when ZERO, NADA, ZIP people can corroborate her story? Do you think it is possible to believe both that she was assaulted and he is innocent?

    • Posted October 1, 2018 at 11:30 am | Permalink

      As I mentioned above, I don’t think it matters. People have the right to do the accusation, and if that makes the candidate “unhinged”, well, “calm under fire” should be a job requirement for a judge of any kind, never mind one on the SC.

      • Posted October 1, 2018 at 11:34 am | Permalink

        Oh please. So one person has the right to accuse, but the accused person doesn’t have the right to be pissed off at what seems to be such a false accusation? Your calm under fire liberal logic just doesn’t make sense.

        • tomh
          Posted October 1, 2018 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

          What doesn’t make sense is your claim of “false accusation.” Instead of just parroting Republican talking points, you might want to acquaint yourself with a reasoned discussion of the issue, for instance, How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying, by the editor of Current Affairs. Or the Washington Post article, “Kavanaugh is lying. His upbringing explains why.” Or the number of ex-classmates who have come forward to state that Kavanaugh is lying about his drinking and memories of that period. But, like Republican senators, it seems your only concern is that Kavanaugh is awarded a seat on the Court no matter what.

        • Posted October 1, 2018 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

          The “unhinged” part was his conspiracy theory going back to the Clintons, his false claims about his drinking, Renate Alumnius, and false definitions for “devil’s triangle”, etc. Just as Trump is the opposite of presidential, Kavanaugh’s demeanor was the opposite of what we need in a Supreme Court Justice. It is clear he’s not just conservative but a political hack that, if seated, will be thinking about revenge on those that made his nomination process much tougher than Trump and GOP had promised. In short, he’s a whiny little bitch, to use Bill Maher’s phrase.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted October 1, 2018 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

            And a Supreme Court judge is supposed to be non partisan in their rulings – they can be affiliated to a party but they are supposed to be able to put that aside to make judgements based on evidence only. He doesn’t seem able to do that.

            • Posted October 1, 2018 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

              He doesn’t even seem to want to do that, as shown by his written statement he read at his hearing.

  62. Merilee
    Posted October 4, 2018 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    I thought that this article was pretty good:

    https://melmagazine.com/when-a-man-who-gets-whatever-he-wants-is-denied-one-thing-at-last-725d130c83f6

    • Posted October 4, 2018 at 10:35 am | Permalink

      Seems about right. Perhaps the problem is Trump and GOP really like Kavanaugh’s type of whiny privileged white guy. Ditto for Trump’s supporters.


%d bloggers like this: