« Hurricane? We don't need no stinkin' .... OT | Main | It’s Not Always All About Us »

September 12, 2018

Comments

Also, who cares what the mushy middle thinks?

Just for openers, Republican Senators in purple states. Assuming they ever want to get elected again.

If Kavanaugh's god has any sense of humor, Merrick Garland will replace him on the Court.

Ahhhh, Merrick, we hardly knew ye.

Blaming Democrats, when they each had only 5 minutes, and his answers were disrespectful, dissembling filibusters, and he was playing the victim card, is ridiculous.

You can add weaselly and whiny and angry and combative and self-righteous and braggy (yes we know you were first in your class at Georgetown Prep, we heard it the first seventeen times) to the list of things he was.

When he asked (was it) Kobuchar if *she* had ever not remembered the night before I thought she should have ripped him a new one and then reminded him that he was the one applying for a job on the Supreme Court, not her. She remained calm and polite, instead. Maybe she was right to do that, I don't know.

I would never have listened to a word of this, valuing what I have left of my sanity, but I had to go to Portland to today to find out that I need a root canal, and having the radio on (and off, and on, and off, and so on) was too tempting.

It's mighty ironic that in 1960 the opponents of JFK were issuing dire warnings that if he got elected, America would be under the thumb of the pope. Now we've got the court in the process of being packed with ever more right-wing Catholics, including, I'm sad to say, almost surely this belligerent partisan POS who wouldn't recognize a judicial temperament if it sat down next to him at a bar.

And even more ironic that the same people, more or less, who were making a bogeyman of the Catholic Church in 1960 are now happily handing it over.

Did someone here post a link to an article about Leonard Leo? If not, look him up.

When he asked (was it) Kobuchar if *she* had ever not remembered the night before I thought she should have ripped him a new one and then reminded him that he was the one applying for a job on the Supreme Court, not her. She remained calm and polite, instead. Maybe she was right to do that, I don't know.

Yes. I almost jumped through my computer screen.

Sorry about the root canal news, JanieM.

Thanks, sapient. Knock on wood, if it makes this tooth settle down it will be well worth it. The only other root canal I ever had wasn't too bad. If this one is no worse, and it fixes the problem, I'll be satisfied.

I didn’t really pick up on the “blaming Democrats” part until JanieM quoted it. I’m not sure if that was aimed at me or “Let’s be fair to Judge Kavavaugh like we were to Dr. Ford” Grassley. Dr. Ford was polite, calm, and as helpful as could be to all of her questioners, in sharp contrast to Judge Kavanaugh when responding to the Democrats.

My criticism wasn’t so much blaming as puzzling-over. Nobody’s perfect, right? Not even Democrats.

I did think “I don’t have a drinking problem” was a nice jab. Not exactly subtle, but not at all overdone.

hsh, I can't speak for sapient, but my quoting that bit wasn't aimed at anyone, it was just the lead-in to what I was more focused on, which was how to describe Kavanaugh.

Like, "judicial" isn't a word I'd use.

Oh, and I liked "disrespectful, dissembling filibusters."

Apt, based on what I heard.

Somehow I can't see Merrick Garland acting like that.

How do you know someone is lying?

When a frat boy claims either (let alone both) of
- I have never drunk until I passed out,
- I have always respected women

Anyone who has ever encountered one, which means pretty much anyone with a college education (possible exception for small private colleges with no frats), knows this quite well. Emphatically including college educated women -- which may be part of why that demographic is moving the way it is.

The whole mess makes me want to puke.

A claim was made against Kavanaugh, but a credible person, about a sensitive manner. How to handle this?

Have it investigated, discretely, by people who do things like investigate stuff. The FBI for instance.

Trump would not have it. The (R) Senators would not have it. So, we have the Jerry Springer show. And, Kavanaugh and the (R) Senators are OUTRAGED that it ends up as the Jerry Springer show.

The person I have the least regard for in all of this is Lindsay Graham, about 30 seconds of whose righteous indignation I unfortunately got to hear on the ride home.

YOU DEMOCRATS JUST WANT TO HOLD THE SEAT OPEN UNTIL 2020!!!

He seems to have utterly forgotten McConnell's statement that his proudest moment in his Senate career was looking Barack Obama - a guy who actually did win the popular vote, and who actually did have a robust electoral college majority - in the eye and telling him his nominee would not be seated. Would not even get a hearing.

Kavanaugh is a crap nominee. He was a partisan hatchet man, his record as a jurist is that of an ideologue and basically a judicial hatchet man.

I don't give a shit if his yearbook is full of stupid frat boy bullshit. I don't care if got stupid drunk every weekend of his high school years. I do care if he assaulted women, but that is not something you're going to sort out in the kind of bullshit he-said-she-said crap foisted upon us today.

He's not a good candidate for the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS should not be a partisan institution. Making it one will diminish its credibility and its value.

The (R)'s don't give a shit. They want a Federalist majority, and they don't care if they destroy the court, the nomination process, and frankly the Senate, in the process of having it.

Whether Kavanaugh gets in or not, he's gonna live the rest of his life with an asterisk after his name. Whether he gets in or not, the SCOTUS has been diminished, significantly, by this clown show.

No upside.

I keep wondering how the current justices are viewing this circus.

I'm hoping that this Post article that LGM is highlighting goes somewhere in a hurry. It seems like the party might be listed on Kavanaugh's calendar after all.

I don't give a shit if his yearbook is full of stupid frat boy bullshit. I don't care if got stupid drunk every weekend of his high school years. I do care if he assaulted women, but that is not something you're going to sort out in the kind of bullshit he-said-she-said crap foisted upon us today.

I could, however unhappily, live with the stupid frat boy bull. But committing perjury about it? No.

Likewise

Lindsey Graham and the rest of 'em have a lot of goddamn gall accusing the Democrats of a "conspiracy" to keep someone off the Court. Oh Mister "I looked Obama in the eye" McConnell, what ever happened to Merrick Garland?

Headline in my local paper: "Defiant Kavanaugh denies Ford’s poignant assault accusation and calls process a ‘national disgrace’"

Here's what's a national disgrace: the treatment of Merrick Garland.

Well who, after all, would have more expertise to recognize such a conspiracy than someone who had been a party to one? ;-)

Oh I think we could agree that the process of Kavanaugh's confirmation has been a disgrace. Albeit not exactly in the way he meant it.

trying to make him look bad because he wouldn't say he wanted the FBI to investigate.


FFS. whenever the issue cam up, his own clumsy tap-dancing made him look like a fool. the Dems just put on the song.

This article seems the most sensible I have read on yesterday’s events:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-discovers-unfairness-world/571612/

Here's what's a national disgrace: the treatment of Merrick Garland.

And another: the election of an admitted sexual predator to the highest office in the land.

And another: the indifference to the damage that ignorant predatory narcissistic clown is doing, because who cares what damage he does in every direction, as long as we get our tax cuts and our extreme right Supreme Court?

Where is Merrick Garland these days?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/apos-leave-alone-apos-mike-013120713.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_08

Garland is chief justice of the DC circuit, and is probably grateful to have avoided all of this crap.

In other news, the ABA is now calling for an FBI investigation before any vote on Kavanaugh.

Keep digging that hole. You're nowhere near the bottom yet.

Cory Booker (my senator!) also asked Kavanaugh about his conspiracy theory, I've come to learn this morning. The media seem to be picking up on it pretty strongly, so maybe the minimal questioning on it during the hearing is more or less immaterial.

Not that I think he's not going to be confirmed, but I do think his confirmation should be made to bite the GOP in the ass as much as possible.

Hey, the ABA is the gold standard according to unhinged Lindsay Graham, so I guess they'll have to listen, right?

How not to win those hearts and minds.

A nice attempt, but no, still not the bottom.

Keep digging. Still a long to go to reach the bottom, but I know you got it in you to get there.

Keep on digging that hole.

From Nigel's link

The Kavanaugh allegations, though, seem to have hit particularly hard. The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (better known as RAINN) estimated an “unprecedented” 147 percent spike in requests to its hotline during Thursday’s hearing. (Hotline calls increased 33 percent after the release of the Access Hollywoodtape in October 2016.) As Ford and Kavanaugh were testifying, a stream of callers reached out to C-SPAN to share their stories of assault on air. Over the two weeks since Ford came forward by name in The Washington Post, almost every substantive conversation I have had with another woman has turned, as if by some dreadful gravitational force, toward Kavanaugh.

Not busting anyone here, but this is why the absence of women commentators here should make anyone pause before making broad assertions about what 'we' 'see'.

i can now see why Trump wanted Kavanaugh - they're both thin-skinned entitled bullies who have zero problem with telling blatant lies because they have no respect for anyone but an overabundance of respect for themselves.

So Jeff Flake, "moderate Republican", just announced he'll vote for Kavanaugh in committee this morning.

I keep telling you people: "moderate Republican" is a brand name, not a description.

--TP

And this, lj:
After the hearing I spoke with a male friend who told me that he was glad he had watched it with his female coworkers. “Almost all of them had a story like hers,” he said. “I never understood that.”...

wrs:"The (R)'s don't give a shit. They want a Federalist majority, and they don't care if they destroy the court, the nomination process, and frankly the Senate, and the USA, in the process of having it."

And it's about time that the USA returned the favor.

Kavanaugh's calendar:

'But one entry shows that he went “to Timmy’s for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.”'

Wanna see my calendar for the rest of my life?

And it's about time that the USA returned the favor.

I can't endorse that sentiment strongly enough without exploding.

So Jeff Flake, "moderate Republican", just announced he'll vote for Kavanaugh in committee this morning.

Kavanaugh's being seated was, as they say, overdetermined.

nothing was going to stop it.

russell's link at 09.17 about the Fox News contributor fired for calling Kavanaugh's accusers "lying skanks" and telling Blasey Ford to "stop opening your legs and open a book": no sexism here, no sirree.

Graham is more full of shit than a field latrine.

NPR was doing live coverage of the hearing yesterday; they were talking about Graham and one of the reporters actually said (paraphrasing) "Graham's speech was impassioned. But after seeing so many of Lindsey's outbursts over the years, I'm not that impressed."

Are you a gang rapist, cleek? If not, I there's an open seat for you on the supreme court!

sign me up!

i'll judge the shit of it.

...out of it.

christ. i've become so used to editable comments that i can't write one friggin comment here without a typo anymore.

Kavanaugh’s response is not a temperament I want in a Supreme Court Justice, entirely independent of the fact that Ford seemed very believable. Kevin Drum’s take as usual is a good one. https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/09/going-beyond-metoo-brett-kavanaughs-affected-outrage-explained/

I dont think Drums basic assumption is realistic. If Kavansugh admits that it was horseplay but it happened, he was done. So, based on my belief that the truth is somewhere between Drums horseplay and he really wasnt there, I'm willing to assume the reality is not that he should be dusqualified.

Beyond that his anger and bitterness was completely justifiable, and his treatment by the Democrats ludicrous.

Whatever the facts from one day 36 years ago,the public lynching of him by the Democrats was purposeful. And wrong. His reaction yesterday was a completely appropriate response.

We live in different worlds.

Keep digging that hole.

So far, the ABA and Alan Dershowitz have called for an FBI investigation before a vote.

And Kavanaugh has lost the endorsement of the Jesuits.

Keep digging. There is so much further to go.

Keep digging. There is so much further to go.

There's no bottom.

Ssshhh... don't tell them.

Merrick Garland was treated no better. He wasn't even given a chance to be heard.

Vile.

As for the Jesuits un-endorsing Kavanaugh, I read yesterday that they made some mealy-mouthed statement about how lots of high schools have problems with underage drinking blah blah. But I stick to my observation of a few days ago that at my own Catholic high school (not Jesuit-run), nothing remotely like what those boys posted in their yearbook would have been allowed. Where were the Jesuits then?

(BJ's Adam Silverman, who went to a different Jesuit school for part of high school, said the same. There was a "Prefect of Discipline" who sometimes vetoed even what the faculty might have allowed.)

Drum's take doesn't seem to reflect the mood here. The "animating principle" here seems to be that R's--not the D's--are literally enemies of the country. I guess those posting here are the "relatively relatively small part of the progressive movement" to which he refers, right?

My own sense is a bit different.

Grinding your body (presumably your erection) against an unwilling fellow human being, treating her as if she's a nonentity, not human but just a thing put there for your lulz, is not "horseplay."

One of the most poignant moments of Ford's testimony that I heard (replayed later) was when she tacitly declined to answer a senator's framing of the laughter as being "at" her. She said no, "they were laughing with each other."

She was nothing to them. Just ilke the rest of us are nothing to that consummate actor Kavanaugh.

And it's the Rs who are always talking about paid actors. But how many times must I remind myself: IOKIYAR.

Not busting anyone here, but this is why the absence of women commentators here should make anyone pause before making broad assertions about what 'we' 'see'.

lj, why do you keep saying this? No doubt more women commenting would be good. But it's not like this is an all male venue (which is how I would describe "absence"). And that's without counting those whose gender is not obvious.

And yet if Dr. Ford had reacted the way Kavanaugh did, which would have been more than justifiable given the response from Republicans to her accusation, she'd have been labeled hysterical, emotional, over-reactive, and manipulatory. You'd have dismiseed her allegations no matter what, and happily sided with the good old boys club.

This is why we don't report sexual assault. Men like you hold all the cards. We have no trump we can play. If there's evidence, men like you can poo-poo it away as "boys will be boys" and it's our reputations that suffer. If there is little or no evidence we can bring, well then you poo-poo it away as unjustified lies, and again it's our reputations that suffer.

Christ on a cracker, could you be more goddamn tone-deaf in your carefully-weighed-to-not-consider-the-cost-to-her responses, Marty?

Imagine for just one moment Dr. Ford isn't just some name plucked out of millions by the Washington Post, but your sister, your wife, or your daughter? Do you want the Republican good ol' boys with their outdated notions on sexuality and masculinity on your side, or do you want someone who understands 'empathy' beyond what they memorized and regurgitated and promptly forgot for their 7th grade vocabulary quiz?

My apologies for breaking the no-cursing rules, but if this is the hill I die on, then so be it. Grow a heart. This is reality for millions of us, myself included. All we want is for you to fucking listen instead of going, "tut-tut" and "there, there" and "calm down".

We are fucking calm. You don't WANT to see what we'll do once the emotional restraints are removed and that day is rapidly approaching.

The "animating principle" here seems to be that R's--not the D's--are literally enemies of the country.

I am coming to the conclusion that the (R)'s have little to no interest in small-r republican governance. No interest whatsoever in considering the interests of anyone other than their base.

Call that whatever you like.

I guess those posting here are the "relatively relatively small part of the progressive movement" to which he refers, right?

I reject the label progressive, liberal, left. My political and social views are traditional.

A self-governing people, through participation in representative democracy, in the political form of a republic.

Of the people, by the people, for the people.

Those are my political values. Full stop.

the public lynching of him by the Democrats was purposeful.


yeah, he was lynched

get the fuck over yourself.

Remember folks: Marty and bc are more sincere, rational, and informed than the average Republican.

Optimists AND pessimists can both agree on that, I think.

--TP

Hyperbole aside, I'm not even sure what Marty's getting at. Did the Democrats create the allegations against Kavanaugh? Did they have sole discretion on the conduct of the hearing? Considering the premise of the hearings, what was it that they asked Kavanaugh that was inappropriate, and how? Should they have ignored Christine Blasey Ford, or what?

What JanieM and Areala said. This is the clearest possible example of the old (R) boys' network rallying round to promote and protect their own. She was completely credible, and he was clearly both acting a part (although obviously very upset that he was being denied his just desserts) and lying, and trotting out rehearsed lines, and dancing round the question of the FBI investigation, the polygraph test, the drinking to excess etc. As for the issue of the Republicans being prepared to force this through in the face of credible accusations of sexual impropriety which, for whatever reason, have not been properly investigated, I can only hope that the women of America, like Areala, JanieM, sapient (and I, if I were American), decide for once and for all what this kind of thing means about the Republican Party's attitudes to women, and vote accordingly.

What GftNC said. Especially:

he was clearly both acting a part (although obviously very upset that he was being denied his just desserts) and lying, and trotting out rehearsed lines
I simply cannot see how anyone could listen to Kavanaugh and NOT recognize that he has lied his ass off throughout these hearings.

Imagine for just one moment Dr. Ford isn't just some name plucked out of millions by the Washington Post, but your sister, your wife, or your daughter?

I've stopped believing that they would give a flying f* even about those relatives. That's why women often don't even tell the men that are closest to them, much less report it to others. If they say they care, and they support this monster, they're lying.

OK, I'm now completely confused. Did Flake say that if up to a further week's FBI investigation isn't authorised he won't vote yes for the nomination on the floor of the Senate?

Yes.

Now let's ask Marty if he's pissed off by that.

--TP

i'm sure he'll find a way to blame the Dems for it.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/09/28/for-the-rest-of-his-life/

daaaaaaammmmmn.

that probably has something to do with Flake's move.

Not even close to the bottom yet.

Carry on!

The hyperbole is what troubles me. Here is what I saw, trying to use my "trial attorney" eyes as best I can and leaving my "R" glasses at home:

Ford was credible. I found here sincere. She seemed fragile, implying to me that something traumatic had happened to her. I noted her smiling and small laughter at breaks, and noted that her nervousness could be explained simply by the fact that she was testifying on national t.v. in this spectacle (or testifying at all for that matter). Ford also got a bit defensive when asked about where the party was. I found her "hippocampus" comment to detract from her credibility because it made me wonder if her "100%" memory has been bolstered in her own mind by her learning. There are many examples of mistaken identity by trauma survivors in spite of the effects she described of imprinting memories. But while presenting possible alternatives, I went with my first overall impression. She appears to me to believe what she says. But I wouldn't go so far as to say she was "completely credible" simply because I have seen many witnesses that believe what they say and what they say sometimes turns out to be wrong. I've dealt with false accusations (that the accuser truly believed, IMHO) in my practice.

I found her story less credible, but mainly because she was treated so respectfully (good thing) as to make it impossible to test her story and the lack of corroboration (not so good). This, IMHO, contributed to the difference in perception of her and Kavanaugh as witnesses. Any comparison is completely unfair for a multitude of reasons, but mainly because she was not cross examined or anything like unto it whereas Kavanaugh was treated as a hostile witness (although not a full cross exam either).

Mitchell was almost completely ineffective. I was left with so very many questions and I found that frustrating. I did take some calls during the testimony, so perhaps I missed some things. But here are some areas/questions I wanted to have clarified: (1) I'm still not clear on the details of the attack. What was she wearing over her suit that he was trying to remove, did he actually touch private parts, physical positioning, etc. to distinguish horseplay from attempted rape (2) She dated the "Whelan guy?" did I have that right? (3) Is she diagnosed with anything other than PTSD and if so what, when,etc.; (4) has she ever been sexually assaulted or abused before or after this attack; (5) Who are the pool of people that would likely have driven her to/from the house; (6) some reasonable proximity of the house (nearer home or country club, frex); (7) She walked right past everyone and nobody spoke to her? And others I can't think of right now.

I wanted Mitchell to simply ask: "Dr. Ford, appearing here is a brave thing no matter what. You've come this far. I want to know if you are willing to go all in. The D's on the committee are calling for an FBI investigation. If that were to happen, would you waive psychotherapist patient privilege and release all non-privileged emails and communications and documents regarding Kavanaugh?" Or something like that.

As for Kavanaugh, I also found him credible. He had to come out firing and yet he had what I thought was real emotion too. His wife looked at him in a way that told me she backs him completely. That means something to me. He has a reputation and a good one outside of these allegations. If it's false, that is an extremely hurtful thing too. It doesn't take away from the true harm to women from sexual assault to acknowledge that.

I thought he was good on his yearbook response and made Blumenthal (good grief man, are you that dense as to lecture him on veracity??!!) and Whitehouse look silly. Booker looked good for the base but not for anyone else by not letting him answer. Harris and Kobluchar were effective. Feinstein not at all.

Sure, his "conspiracy theory" and FBI tap dance and "I like beer" only hurt his cause. He should have said: "Some say this is payback for Clinton, or a coordinated effort by the D's. I don't know. But it is surreal to me." Or something like that. All he had to say to Kamala Harris was this: "Yes. Mr. President, please order an investigation, be it FBI or otherwise, that is conditioned upon equal and full participation by myself and Ms. Ford." Then he could have said the rest (been there, done that, typical investigation won't show anything, etc.). I am with Dershowitz on the investigation, but no reason why that can't happen simultaneous with his appointment and impeach him later. And how hard is it to say: "Too much? When you start to lose control, you've had too much to drink."

But that being said, you have to give anyone accused of such allegations a break testifying under these circumstances. Overly defensive? Have you ever tried doing what either of them just did? Give both sides a break here.

In the end, Ford could not win this IMHO in a non-politicized civil trial. No way. Not without corroborating evidence. It's that simple. The allegations are just too stale and vague. But that is without what discovery in a civil trial might bring (and MAYBE an investigation depending on the scope). So go ahead. Maybe if this turned out one way or another the late minute accusations would either stop or be seen differently.

I actually came away feeling more positive about both of them than I did at the start. But that is me.

In the end, Ford could not win this IMHO in a non-politicized civil trial. No way. Not without corroborating evidence. It's that simple.

But there is this little detail. The Judiciary Committee has refused to ask to reopen an investigation which might (or might not) provide such evidence. And it has declined to call the witness that Dr Ford says eas present.

somehow, Team Daughter-lusting Pussy Grabber never fails to come in below expectations.

this is my shocked face. :|

Some say this is payback for Clinton

"This is payback for Clinton" is going to be the mantra for a while now.

You know what? People like me are over the election. What we object to is the present reality.

This wasn't about Clinton. It wasn't even about Trump. The treatment of Garland was certainly a large part of it.

But mostly, it was about Kavanaugh.

Partisan hatchet man. Not a particularly good jurist. Federalist drone.

People like me don't want him on the SCOTUS. Regardless of 2016, or Clinton (either one), or Trump, or whatever else.

He's not a good choice for the SCOTUS. Nominate somebody else.

Apparently Lisa Murkowski has joined Flake in saying she won't vote yes without the FBI investigaation. So I guess it's up to Trump to request it or not....I don't know how many more days of this I can take!

OK, I'm now completely confused. Did Flake say that if up to a further week's FBI investigation isn't authorised he won't vote yes for the nomination on the floor of the Senate?

Does not really matter actually. McConnell has stated that he would put K. up for a full senate vote even if the judiciary committee votes 'no'.

My personal money (metaphorically speaking) is on a 50:50 vote with Pence breaking the tie in favor. One endangered senator will be allowed to vote 'no' and this will be presented as proof that the GOP is not enforcing lockstepping.

mostly, it was about Kavanaugh.

Partisan hatchet man. Not a particularly good jurist. Federalist drone.

While I dislike the Federalist view of the law, I could live with something like "Federalist drone." But the other two are, IMO, disqualifying.

russell: that's not what I meant. I was commenting on presentation, not what I think on that particular issue. This was about Garland if anything, as you said.

Btw, I haven't read much of his opinions, but those that have analyzed them find him Garland's conservative doppelganger of sorts. If the reports that Kennedy wanted him to replace him, he's not as conservative as advertised.

Btw, no one is yet talking about another dirty option if all else fails: recess appointing. Even if it puts K. on SCOTUS for just a few months and he keeps quiet, this could be the way to 'persuade' the wavering 'moderates' to keep him there post-election.
After that he could drop the mask.

...Garland's conservative doppelganger of sorts.

We should not forget that Hatch proposed Garland as a candidate, the GOP could live with, should Obama nominate him (until he got actually nominated. Then he went the way of Romneycare).

bc,

False memories, sincerely believed, are not confined to accusers. If you've never encountered an accused who sincerely believed his own denial of guilt, you must be an exceptional lawyer.

If you think Kavanaugh made Whitehouse "look silly", that's fine: keep thinking that.

If you care to argue that not-a-rapist is adequate qualification for a SCOTUS seat, and transparent lies are inadequate disqualification, keep thinking that too.

But don't try to peddle the notion that the Democratic Senators were "not letting him answer" to those of us who actually watched Kavanaugh filibuster and tap-dance, let alone hurl insults, in response to their questions.

--TP

Booker looked good for the base but not for anyone else by not letting him answer.

the only person not answering was Kavanaugh.

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

Kavanaugh:

On national security.
On labor law.
On executive power and consumer protection
On administrative law.

looks like vox is having image problems.

here's their chart:
https://twitter.com/brookejarvis/status/1045742902679203840/photo/1

False memories, sincerely believed, are not confined to accusers.

Agreed. Didn't meant to imply otherwise.

And only Booker didn't let him answer. He was tap dancing on some issues, mainly FBI investigation and beer. I noted that.

As for transparent lies, some of that, IMHO, is in the eye of the beholder (not meant as a slight, just sayin).

I hesitated to mention this, because I knew nothing about him (and frankly can't be bothered to research him at the moment), but I was rather impressed by Whitehouse, both by his presentation style and by the content. Anybody care to comment?

BTW, bc

In a spirit of pure partisanship, let me say that I hope McConnell "plows through" and gets Kavanaugh's ass on the bench. I'd rather have a visibly, rabidly partisan Federalist on SCOTUS than see a slicker, more polished, but equally-committed RWNJ installed there.

I'll go further and say I hope that if McConnell fulfills his promise to those "Values Voters" then RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan respond by resigning en masse. Let He, Trump and Mitch McConnell reap the full benefit of "elections have consequences". I say that because the SCOTUS has neither an army nor a tax base. Its power is wholly contingent on its appearance of legitimacy. And I can't wait to see the legitimacy of a SCOTUS packed full of He, Trump's lickspittles by seat-stealer Mitch McConnell.

--TP

Everyone’s favourite senator says Judge will take the 5th if questioned:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/ted-cruz-mark-judge-would-take-fifth.html

GftNC,

Sheldon Whitehouse is a very serious guy. He calls BS on bullshit very effectively. Not with the bombast of a Lindsey Graham, but with forceful exposition of facts. If you have not seen his presentation at this (Friday) morning's committee meeting, you owe yourself the pleasure of looking it up.

But don't tell bc where you find it. It might harsh bc's mellow to see what a Senator who "looks silly" can do to a lying liar's lies.

--TP

TonyP, thank you for confirming my impression after yesterday's marathon. When I came in today, he was in the middle of his address, and I was impressed all over again, but I might well try and watch it from the beginning now you've said this. Yup, the opposite of silly I would say.

I'm hearing now that the Senate Republican leadership has agreed to delay the vote of the full Senate for an additional week "in order to allow further FBI investigation."

Somehow, images of Chinese water torture (no ethnic slur intended) leap to mind. They just keep, extremely reluctantly, admitting that they need to dig further. And then finding stuff that they would rather not have on the record.

Do I understand this right? Kavanaugh's miraculously preserved diary shows a house party during "beach week" of exactly the sort Ford described. So can he say that he didn't attend any such party? Other than that lying is SOP.

Yes, and it was interesting to see Grassley try to dispose of that inconvenient fact. He said something like "Dr Ford said there were 4 boys there, but this list shows 6 boys plus Brett Kavanaugh, so it can't be this party." But anyone (like me) who was nutty enough to listen to the whole thing remembers that Ford said, and confirmed that there were "at least" 4 boys present. She made it clear that it wasn't a large gathering, but the "at least" was repeated and clarified a couple of times. So Grassley's bad faith is right there, out in the open.

But don't try to peddle the notion that the Democratic Senators were "not letting him answer" to those of us who actually watched Kavanaugh filibuster and tap-dance, let alone hurl insults, in response to their questions.

No kidding. As if the answer to a yes-or-no question is a fifteen-minute prestidigitative walk down memory lane, complete with name-dropped lists of high school, college, and law school pals and tales of all their little adventures and squabbles. And oh, by the way, did you know he was first in his class at Georgetown Prep, and got into Yale, and then into Yale Law School? In case you forgot, he'll be glad to remind you again later.

Btw, I haven't read much of his opinions, but those that have analyzed them find him Garland's conservative doppelganger of sorts.

Huh? Those who I've read find his decisions execrable. He pulls it out of his ass.

I could maybe respect a conservative jurist who had a coherent and learned judicial philosophy. K does not have it. He was a political attack dog working for the GOP and he will continue to be a political attack dog on the SC.

He should not be put there. End of story.

His wife looked at him in a way that told me she backs him completely.

She has no reason not to back him 100% unless she's privy to information none of the rest of us are. If somebody came out swinging against my wife, claiming she sexually assaulted someone in high school, you'd damn well better believe I'd have her back. That falls under the '...or for worse' clause of the vows, methinks.

Want to know the only circumstance under which I wouldn't have her back? If I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accusations were true. Because as much as I love my wife, and as shocked and heartbroken as I'd be at the thought of being forcibly separated from her in a criminal matter, justice prevailing is more important than my feelings.

I'm sure this took her completely by surprise. I'd be shocked if he, at any point in their relationship, sat down and said, "Sweetie, I need you to know a few things about my past that might come out of the woodwork on the off-chance I'm ever, you know, nominated to a position on the Supreme Court for example...". Shocked because there's no situation where that helps him at all. If it never happened, there's no reason for it to come up, and no reason not to back him completely. If it happened and he doesn't remember due to impairment, there's no reason for it to come up, and no reason not to back him completely. If it happened and he remembers every minute of it, and still reminisces with his old (male) classmates about "That one time at the party where we...", he's sure as hell not going to bring it up, and so there's no reason for her not to back him completely.

His wife should back him up 100%. There's no rational reason for her not to, because yeah, their lives are being torn apart and the allegations will forever haunt his entry on Wikipedia whether or not he's confirmed. Seeing that should play exactly ZERO role in determining the credibility of either him or his testimony.

To be clear: as a woman, I greatly dislike and, indeed, fear Kavanaugh's appointment to the Court due to his political stance on a variety of topics. That does not mean I want him or his life destroyed by nefarious means, I don't want his nomination obliterated through lies and deceit, and if he is a truly good, upstanding man, then I want the investigations to show just that.

I don't support Dr. Ford because I think Kavanaugh is guilty, I support Dr. Ford because victims need to be heard, and right now, this is the loudest voice any of us as the survivors of sexual assault have to plead with the good ol' boys club to please take us seriously.

Re: false memories. Eye witness testimony is notorioulsy bad except when victim was acqianted with the abuser prior to the event.

She knew Kavanaugh So either is she is lying or she is telling the truth. It is not possible that she would be mistaken.

She knew Kavanaugh. She said she is 100% certain it was Kavanaugh who did this to her. I would bet a large sum of money, or stake a body part, on the fact that she is telling the truth. It's possible that he was so drunk he doesn't remember the event, but she is telling the truth.

The delay suggests that at least a few Republican Senators don’t want to be on record voting for him, so they are hoping an investigation turns up something else that they can hang him on.

Or cynically at the very least they are worried enough to want to see some polling.

What Areala said, 5:15.
(Though for the avoidance of doubt, I’m a guy.)

You know how sometimes you can have an achy body part that's worrying you, and you think maybe you'll go get it checked out, but time goes by, and then one day you realize that it stopped aching some time ago, and you didn't even notice, because "normal" is to be without the ache, and the absence of something unusual that has been present for a while is less noticeable than the onset of something unusual that hasn't? I.e., you notice when you get an unusual ache, but you don't necessarily notice the moment when it disappears. At least, that's how it is for me.

Well, it isn't a precise analogy, but this afternoon (driving around again, doing errands, with the radio on) I realized that days and days have gone by with the Kavanaugh mess dominating the news cycle instead of Clickbait. Yes, I know, the Kavanaugh debacle is part and parcel of the more general Clickbait debacle, and both are part and parcel of the long debacular campaign funded by the Kochs, and the Mercers, and that Leo guy, and Putin, and who knows who else. (Like, long years of trying out, and refining, laws in the states....)

But still. If I'm not mistaken, Clickbait has been pretty quiet. He hasn't (yet) done something to say "me me me me me pay attention to me directly instead of my nominee," nor AFAICT has he tweeted something that would upset other people's carefully laid plans, or dictated his own mavericky decisions ditto.

So who is sitting on him, and how hard? Even if he desperately wants Kavanaugh himself (and it would surprise me if he could keep his mind on one goal long enough to make it through this mess), on everything else that has happened in the last two years he has come across as an unaccountable loose cannon.

So, wtf is going on?

Morning all, wj asked

lj, why do you keep saying this? No doubt more women commenting would be good. But it's not like this is an all male venue (which is how I would describe "absence"). And that's without counting those whose gender is not obvious.

Well, first of all, we don't know whose who and by my count, we have only 3 women who have participated at the same frequency as the men. Lack of representation leads to skewed views about what 'everyone' thinks. If we don't have a mix of people participating, the viewpoint that we get (and ultimately assume) is hopelessly occluded and it is very difficult to see that without someone saying something. That's why the push for equal representation, whether it is gender balance, racial balance or even having a Supreme Court that is not made up of graduates from two universities is so important and it is also why there is such pushback when it is pointed out. Kavanaugh apparently pointed out at least 7 times that he went to Yale and graduated first in his class.

We've seen with Black Lives Matter how pervasive an experience can be for a group of people yet the majority be totally oblivious to it. It all starts when you don't have that group represented.

Kavanaugh apparently pointed out at least 7 times that he went to Yale and graduated first in his class.

The repetition made it extra weird. Most Yalies I've known, and I've known quite a few, don't brag about it, they're too cool for that. Did he think his Yaliness would make his listeners more likely to kowtow to his wonderfulness? Is he still insecure about his accomplishments after all these years? Did he psychologically never get beyond high school, so he still has to brag about which college he got into? Because even that part is interesting: I think he kept saying "I got into Yale," not "I went to Yale" or "I graduated from Yale with a degree in X." It was the "getting in" that mattered most.

The way he kept naming his friends was weird too.

I suppose you could argue that the timing of the alleged assault puts him back there in a big way, but I still think his framing, and the repetition, have some deep psychological meaning....which I'm sure we'll never know, and which of course is none of my business anyhow, except for the effect he wants to have the right to have on my life going forward.

What my friend Dave Morris (journalist and PTSD survivor/researcher wrote on his FB page about false memory:

I just watched Elizabeth Loftus, a psych prof from UC Irvine on CNN delivering a misguided and speculative account on what might have happened to Dr Blasey-Ford’s memory after her assault in the 80s. Loftus is not a trauma researcher and has never published a word on PTSD—her work deals with eyewitness legal testimony and her ideas are not derived from first-person trauma research. Most of her research was published before PTSD was even recognized by psychiatry. A victim is not an eyewitness to a crime, they are the victim. Loftus and CNN should be ashamed. This is irrelevant research being compounded by shoddy journalism.

I have used both Morris' and Loftus' work in my own writing about violence and trauma, and Morris (along with Alice Seybold, who is his friend and colleague as well) is a UCI alum and quite familiar with Loftus' work. I'm inclined to side with Morris in this narrow case.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad