Turner Classic Movies programmer displays sense of humor. Madame Satan is playing opposite the satanic madam(s) of Washington this morning. For any who may need a break and better dialogue.
Perhaps the most important developments to come out of this Auto da fe so far are, first, the statement by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, who is on video saying that Kavanaugh should not have the “presumption of innocence,” since this is not a trial but merely an adventure in “fact-finding.”
Tell me, does anyone actually believe that Judge Kavanaugh is not, in essence, on trial here?
So now we know.
The Left and the Democrats would quite cheerfully strip away the fundamental basis for our entire system of justice, the presumption of innocence that distinguishes our judicial system from other–much less fair judicial systems around the globe.
How then should someone who is presumed to be guilty prove their innocence? Should we go back to Medieval models, where you could prove your innocence if you did not drown when thrown in a lake wrapped with chains, if you were not crushed when rocks weighing hundreds of pounds were placed on your body, or if when you put your hand in a fire, it was not burned?
If they can justify stripping away his presumption of innocence from Kavanaugh, they can do it to anyone. Let that sink in a little bit.
Then, we have the misandry i.e. man hating of Democrat Senator Mazie Haruno, who sits on the Judiciary Committee.
Says Hiruno, all women who allege that they have been attacked should be believed.
And why?
Because, of course, men are all “guilty ” by virtue of being male. Says Haruno, we men should all “step up,” admit our guilt, and then “shut up.”
And there you have it.
If I were Republicans I would feature these two videos on political ads to be run every half hour from now until November 8th, as vivid illustrations of the mind-set and ultimate objectives of the Left and Democrats. How they want to “fundamentally transform” this country. What they really want to do, and will do if voted back into power.
If you don’t want to live in an America where we no longer have a presumption of innocence, and where all men are guilty simply because they are men then, get out and vote folks.
started. she practiced the deer in the headlights look.
We’ve got the circus… where’s my bread?
Just watched a few moments before heading off to a class. I agree with Bakalva…deer in headlights. She does not look at all comfortable and confident. If there’s going to be any true cross examination as Dershowitz hoped for last night, I wonder if she’ll stand up. Advantage Kavanaugh right now just on watching body language.
Dems have been screaming about Roe v. Wade in their effort to stop Kavanaugh because that will turn out the most voters. But I said here a few days ago that I thought this was really about gun control. Michael Fizolof makes the same case in this piece.
Why can’t someone OBJECT to the HEARSAY that DiFi is positing with the other two women right now…
My ex-wife used to do the cracky weak voice on demand when on a call with somebody and trying to get sympathy. (Not when talking about me – but talking about her mean family).
So I got to listen for lengthy periods and then she would get a call from another friend and change voice in a split second.
For anyone not exposed to a narcissit this might seem very genuine.
The voice-cracking and sniffing is fantastic! It comes just at the right moments; how does she do that? Here is a woman who needs a chaperone to go to the mall.
The voice-cracking and sniffing is fantastic! It comes just at the right moments; how does she do that?
By imitating some of her clients. I wonder if the marriage counselor spotted her as a con artist.
Prosecutor Mitchell starts:
1) She started very nice and empathetic (narcissists do not understand empathy)
2) Question about her Whatsapp text with Washington Post reporter. CBF corrected the word bystander as it relates to bystander.
3) Question about letter to DiFI and the date of the letter. CBF can’t remember if she wrote the letter on 7/31. Questioned the accuracy of the letter. CBF is reading the letter.
….she should have known if it was or wasn’t accurate.
Now after 60 seconds she is making 3 corrections. a) number of people b) pushed from behind so can’t really say if it was Kavanaugh or Judge
DiFi putting forward 1,000 letters from physicians across the country.
CBF hosts Google interns in her home??? OMG. I am guessing these are women interns but she didn’t say.
Last question from DiFi on mistaken identity. CFB, “absolutely not”
DiFi:
Q: Why did you hold this in all these years?
Ford: I didn’t hold it in, shared it in therapy ….(only held it 20 -25 years) lol.
This is after having to correct her own letter to DiFi.
Off to work
How did she travel to DC?
Back to Prosecutor Mitchell:
1) A few accuracy questions….
2) Questions about who would be there. She said Leland and Mark Judge
3) What was atmosphere like at gathering? A: It wasn’t a party, more like a pre-party gathering.
4) Q: Was it loud? A: No
Patrick Leahy’s turn to drone on about FBI investigation
Finally asked a question about indelible memory. A: The laughter. Brett laughing at her expense. This is a powerful moment probably.
She has an odd way of talking about memory. “Indelible within the Hippocampus” is their laughter.
The only people laughing now are the Chinese who are watching this. So this is mighty America!
Back to Prosecutor Mitchell:
1) Question about number of boys regarding WashPo article and polygraph. A: made clarifications.
2) Question about music being turned down. A: probably because she can hear them walking down the stairs.
3) Questions on various details. Questions on conversations and map being presented.
It doesn’t seem like the prosecutor can uncover anything dramatic.
It’s pretty hard to uncover anything with this method of disjointed questioning.
Durbin question about percentage of certainty.
CBF: “100%”
Break time for 15 minutes
Well she’s certainly troubled, but as to why, well that would probably take years of therapy to discern. She’s a bit of an odd duck as well. Is very quick to launch into descriptions of brain function to explain her feelings. Who talks like that?
TommyJay on September 27, 2018 at 10:30 am at 10:30 am said:
Dems have been screaming about Roe v. Wade in their effort to stop Kavanaugh because that will turn out the most voters. But I said here a few days ago that I thought this was really about gun control. Michael Fizolof makes the same case in this piece.
* * *
Very persuasive: the Democrats are looking to future cases where their ideology and agenda is vulnerable, not to the past.
Other controversies that are not yet fully “settled science” like Roe are those involving religious conscience vs statutory discrimination (the Colorado baker was attacked by the Co. Commission for Heresy before the ink on his first SCOTUS win was dry).
Baklava mentions the “100% certainty” prior to break.
I had to laugh at Durbin repeating “100 percent!” It reminded me of the prosecutor in “My Cousin Vinny” thrusting his open palms at the jury and saying in his southern drawl “Ieye-dentical!”
The interruptions every five minutes cripples the prosecutor. When a witness prevaricates, there’s a good chance she may be lying, and that’s s when the prosecution can pounce.
The Democrats are, as expected, paint Ford as a hero. In reality, she’s a snowflake.
Capn Rusty,
I agree. If this is the “rule” then why can’t it be chaged.
Discouraging to hear a professional journalist like Chris Wallace talk about the power of the emotions in her presentation. No one could not be touched by it….. really? She’s got the affect of a 10-year-old, this country-clubbing, sophisticated DC woman and college professor, and everyone in America is buying it? Well, everyone minus this one. Yes, the consensus on the Fox broadcast team is that the “prosecutor” is doing nothing, and that much is correct. Why are the Republicans so terrified to question this flagrant stunt, a ploy from July on, if not long before.
I can’t blame the prosecutor. Every time she begins to develop a line of questioning, she is stopped cold so we can listen to 5 minutes of Dem propaganda.
Here’s another good speculation about the underlying cause of the hysteria (and I use that word deliberately — sometimes Freud was onto something):
“It’s about more than just discrediting Kavanaugh. It has the look, actually, of a concerted effort to discredit the Catholic Church, and Catholic education in particular. [I would substitute “all Christian churches and Christian education”]
I went to a Catholic college. While I knew of heavy drinking, there sure as heck was never any of that bizarre, kinky, amoral, and despicable behavior directed at women going on. I never knew any Catholic schoolboys who engaged in this kind of garbage. I knew of kids from state schools who did, but I just didn’t see it from the Catholics at Catholic schools, because it wasn’t the culture.
These creepy, weird acts sound more like something from Hollywood’s culture. These are things Harvey Weinstein could have done.
That brings us to the involvement of the left and #MeToo.
Weinstein’s takedown, which, interestingly, was the work of Ronan Farrow, who later reported the second accuser’s story, was above all an exposé of the common morality of the Hollywood left. It led to a chain reaction and extended all through the media, the arts, academia, and even politics, taking down big idols and players like dominos.
The overwhelming majority of these takedowns were of leftists, because these leftists were acting out the natural permissive amoral values of liberalism. Brett Kavanaugh’s values – e.g., virginity – were the sort of things Hollywood always scorned and considered likely hypocrisy, based on its own values and experiences.
Now we get a chain of increasingly crazy claims about Kavanaugh, which go against all the evidence of his lived life and the sworn word of hundreds who know or knew him.
It’s as if the #MeToo movement is trying to paint Kavanaugh as crazy as the Hollywood beasts, as a means of saying: All men do it. Every man does it. Right, left, they all do it.
But they don’t all do it. Leftists live these values, and a number of them were rightly taken down for it. Most conservatives don’t even have such grotesque thoughts or acts in their vocabulary, given that it’s not in their culture. Oh, you can always find some with Hollywood values. But the prevailing culture, particularly in the religious establishments, such as the Catholic schools, is simply to reject that. Such values, while they may exist, are never openly endorsed.
That leaves #MeToo mad that only leftists went down in the scandals. Thus the crazy effort to paint Kavanaugh as not at all different from Weinstein.
[Not just leftists, but this is a rhetorical piece not a documentary. Were there any conservatives affected outside of government circles? I don’t remember anyone but Roy Moore and some state legislators who I can’t name.]
Everybody does it – except that not everyone does it. The left is averse as heck to taking a good look at itself and deciding which values it wants to embrace: respecting women or doing the moral free-for-all? That’s why this spectacle is becoming such a strange maelstrom.”
Highlander on September 27, 2018 at 11:47 am at 11:47 am said:
I can’t blame the prosecutor. Every time she begins to develop a line of questioning, she is stopped cold so we can listen to 5 minutes of Dem propaganda.
* * *
Why does that tactic sound so familiar?
Because it’s the standard procedure of kangaroo courts.
Repeating a comment I put on the Predictions post first thing this morning.
AesopFan on September 27, 2018 at 11:27 am at 11:27 am said:
Before looking at any of the news today, I want to bring up another literary and historical case (a play based on events) with which most of us are familiar, because we frequently trot out the speech advising against cutting down the Law to get at the Devil — because it is so frequently relevant.
In the Kavanaugh case, the charges against the judge are not the same as the charges against Sir Thomas More (also a judge), but they are of similar character (denunciations) and substance (lies and insinuations). More is holding his own in court against the obviously biased judges, who seek to do the king’s will by any means, until Richard Rich gives his own perjured testimony (which occasions one of the best one-liners of the film, although it demeans a country which I hold most dear).
More sadly reproaches his one-time friend for selling his integrity for worldly and political gain. Could not the same be applied to Senator Feinstein and all of those complicit in the false accusations against Judge Kavanaugh?
“It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales?”
However, it is More’s closing speech, after the verdict, that is most appropriate here, as it was in the denunciation of Clarence Thomas. It is not hard to substitute current language for the words that described More’s alleged crime.
“Since the Court has determined to condemn me, God knoweth how, I will now discharge my mind … I am the king’s true subject, and I pray for him and all the realm. I do none harm. I say none harm. I think none harm. And if this be not enough to keep a man alive, then in good faith, I long not to live. Nevertheless, it is not for the Supremacy that you have sought my blood, but because I would not bend to the marriage!!”
PS to Dave: the first story you are looking for about friendship is the Greek legend of Damon and Pythias.
Mitchell better start bringing it, but 5 minute increments is tough.
She is not a snowflake, she is a con-artist. An appropriate trade for psychology professor.
Now we may be getting somewhere. Ford can’t remember if she showed her therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter who interviewed her a couple of months ago, at the most. How could she not remember that?
Prosecutor shows maps and questions about being driven home.
Questions about therapy records.
CBF – “summarized the therapy records.
CBF – “can’t recall if reporter saw the records.”
Senator Whitehouse: Questions about FBI investigations. CBF of course says it would be helpful.
Kai Akker on September 27, 2018 at 10:47 am at 10:47 am said:
The voice-cracking and sniffing is fantastic! It comes just at the right moments; how does she do that? Here is a woman who needs a chaperone to go to the mall.
* * *
For some people, it comes naturally. Emotion does affect the voice and demeanor, which is one reason polygraphs don’t actually catch lies, just physiological changes due to emotion.
For other people, it comes from good acting coaches.
You have to make up your own mind which it is, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that the Dems will go with reason 1, and the Reps with reason 2.
Phillipa Crawford on September 27, 2018 at 11:10 am at 11:10 am said:
How did she travel to DC?
* * *
I’m waiting for that one myself.
She popped up in some gum so the optics will change now.
Prosecutor Mitchell:
1) WaPo was shown therapists notes. A: CBF not sure.
2) Kavanaugh’s name is not in the notes.
3) Q: Anxiety and ptsd and this incident contributed. A: Very psychology based answer without any feeling or new information. Follow up Q and A revealed more psychology answers and no feeling or connection.
4) Q: Told husband before marriage but not Kavanaugh’s name A: correct
5) Q: about plane A: She wanted people to come to her. She flies fairly frequently. A: Yes. Been to polynesian islands by flight. CBF “easier to travel when its for vacation”
Senator Klobuchar:
Question about Polygraph and why. A: Met with attorneys and they asked her if she was willing.
Aha, finally it is explained. “Multi-factorial.” Aha.
Just in: she came in an airplane.
And has traveled thusly many times.
Lots of gumption.
She just admitted to a manipulative lie about airplane travel.
But the inept cross-examiner forgot to point out that Grassley offered to have the team question here there! I’m tearing out my hair at the timidity of the GOP approach.
Klobuchar should be sworn is as witness for the prosecution.
Very definite description of 90% of floor plans in upscale America.
Here comes the polygraph – results only or charts as well? Examiner not provided for questioning, some debate over who has what or refused what.
Which is why this is better handled in a trial with established courtroom procedures about evidence and witnesses.
mizpants – Grassley caught that dropped ball pretty well.
“Beach friends” advised her on who to contact?
Not professional colleagues?
The Democrat Senators’ interjections which preface their questions remind me of the advertisements on NPR and PBS, which they call “underwriter testimonials.”
Kavanaugh is finished.
When you can’t cross examine her, you can’t expose her lies for everyone to see, you let her story becomes the only existing narrative while putting her on TV to solidly that story through her mouth in everyone’s mind, how can anyone vote yes now?
GOP is so stupid I just can stand it anymore.
Now Kavanaugh is on trial for the statements of other people responding to Ford’s denunciation.
Am I being over- dramatic or is it possible that the GOP is deliberately throwing this because MeToo has made threats to expose various members?
She is singularly lacking in intellectual understanding – Sen. Grassley’s offer to come to her was clear to any internet reader.
will kavanaugh have his turn later?
Does she have some cognitive issues, or is she just playing dumb?
Sure would be interesting to see any bank of real trial judges say in open court, during the trial, that they believed the plaintiff without reservation.
“Tell me when he was somewhere and I’ll tell you when I saw him there.”
Yeah, right.
Yep – took the polygraph at an airport hotel.
That showed up in a comment thread as soon as the location of the polygraph was known.
Shot the “can’t ride in a plane” pretext right there.
Crowd-sourced discovery is very informative.
“Did anyone advise you on that choice?” of polygrapher.
sub voce “I don’t understand..”
Not playing dumb; it’s the real thing.
I know I sound somewhat caustic here, but I grew up watching Perry Mason on TV, and I’m a nerd at least partially on the spectrum; this is just a natural reaction.
I think Mitchell is doing a very good job with the paucity of information available, since there was never a formal discovery period.
crying a lot during the polygraph test? interesting.
30 minute recess.
Tuning into Rush. He is giving commentary live during hearing.
I wonder how this woman functions at all, in her job and daily life. To me, she projects significant anxiety and confusion. She can’t recall simple details from two months ago, so how are we to believe she is 100% sure of events from 36 years ago?
Does she have some cognitive issues, or is she just playing dumb?
No wonder people complain about white privilege. This woman is a college professor? She seems unlikely to succeed as a kindergarten teacher.
But, at 12:40 pm ET, she is on top of the world — all fear or anxiety gone. This has gone much more easily than she ever imagined! What a relief, those GOP people are completely snowed.
Washington Post commentators explain to the viewers what they are supposed to believe.
I agree that with this format, using the a single questioner was a bad decision. It’s so disjointed she doesn’t have an opportunity to follow through on a line of questioning.
Judge Kavanaugh is going to have to be his own defense attorney. He will have to prove he didn’t do it by offering an alternative to Mrs. Ford’s memory. Denying the allegations will not be enough, IMO.
I would have pressed her on not being able to answer whether or not she was video taped during the polygraph test. If she can’t remember something that happened just over a month ago, how reliable can her memory be about something that happened 35 years ago.
mizpants on September 27, 2018 at 12:24 pm at 12:24 pm said:
Am I being over- dramatic or is it possible that the GOP is deliberately throwing this because MeToo has made threats to expose various members?
* * *
Unlikely, given the list of Senators on the Committee.
I would have chosen Cruz to do all of the questioning, but that would have been bullying the witness. The Reps are still walking the narrow line set by the Dems at the beginning.
“If she can’t remember something that happened just over a month ago, how reliable can her memory be about something that happened 35 years ago.”
This and Highlander’s comment reveal exactly what Mitchell’s questions are designed to elicit. It throws into extreme doubt Ford’s assertion that she’s “100%” certain that it was K who accosted her. Note: not denying her claim, which would be a losing tactic, but rather the the certainty of her ID of the individual.
IMHO
Brian E on September 27, 2018 at 12:47 pm at 12:47 pm said:
I agree that with this format, using the a single questioner was a bad decision. It’s so disjointed she doesn’t have an opportunity to follow through on a line of questioning.
* * *
I think Mitchell is doing quite well.
Her problem is facing ten grand-standing plaintiff’s counsels masquerading as judges.
It would be much more disjointed if the Republican Senators each tried to impose their own line of questioning.
Who DID pay for all of these lawyers and polygraphers?
They don’t come cheap.
Why doesn’t Ford know who is funding her?
I think Mitchell is doing a very good job with the paucity of information available, since there was never a formal discovery period.
She’s doing a very good job of looking and sounding sympathetic. She’s doing a terrible job at exposing any of the issues in Blasey Ford’s weird story–stories, that should be; both the initial incident, if there were one, and the lifelong effects of it.
And whatever happened to that stuff about the PGA guys? : )
CBF has succeeded, using her childlike demeanor, in keeping the pace and the tone of this hearing on the simplest, least challenging (to her) level. She will be laughing with those “beach friends” later on about this one!
WaPo replaying the airplane questions and answers.
Back to “getting up gumption” to get on the plane because she couldn’t understand the clearly demonstrated offer by the committee to come to her, and leaving the impression that her coming to DC on the plane is a significant one-off event, which Mitchell demolished, but WaPo didn’t play. Also didn’t play Grassley’s reminder of the offer.
Just noticed one of their experts tried to go there, caught herself, and veered away.
Hmmm.
Now they are re-litigating Anita Hill.
And praising Ford’s gumption.
Well, it’s not as if we didn’t know which side the Post was on.
That was not “anxious” handwriting; it was standard grade-school block print, which is what most people educated after the seventies do. Any discovery would bring up other normal examples of her writing; I would like to see them.
Not saying handwriting is indicative of character, but lying about it is.
Kai, remember who Mitchell is trying to persuade: not the Dems and Reps who have already made up their minds, but the swingers on both sides of the aisle.
She has to impugn Ford’s testimony without impugning her character. For all their faults, I think Collins and Murkowski are more rational than emotional, and will see that Mitchell has undermined Ford’s basic story by demonstrating a series of small but crucial lies about her behavior and memory.
Thank God in Heaven that race is not an issue here!
“Thomas used the terrible history” of the treatment of black men “as an element of his defense.”
Maybe not exact quotes – my transcription skills are rusty — but good grief! Talk about playing the race card, even though “race is not an issue here”!!
I guess everyone else is listening to Rush.
Or having lunch.
Good choice.
I just like fisking the Post.
Speculating on the swing voters now.
Nothing outstandingly incisive or informative.
Opining that the Reps are avoiding making any comments that can be used against them in the mid-terms, which is true and wisely chosen.
Lamenting that the Dems didn’t choose to go with a single professional questioner, who could ask hard questions of Kavanaugh, but of course with a different motive than the Republicans. ????
All agree that the open questioning by the committee is a circus without much edification.
(not a direct quote)
Lauding the Dem Senators’ virtue signalling for American Women.
Replaying her testimony about the encounter in the bedroom.
(I wasn’t here that early in the hearing; did she read her letter to Feinstein, or was she using any different language?)
AesopFan wrote, “I guess everyone else is listening to Rush.”
Yep. 🙂
But reading also
Replaying Kavanaugh’s interview with that “Friendly Outlet” Fox News (direct quote).
“Making the unusual decision to go on television beforehand.”
But tipping the Post before going to the Committee is not at all unusual.
(that’s the worst they could do, because Kavanaugh was very believable, so they took what they could get, since he didn’t have any binders of women handy)
Hmmm. I’m slow. I just got why the Dems latched onto that anodyne statement of Romney’s. Think about the popularity of “Shades of Grey” and “Game of Thrones” and “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Their minds just work that way.
Now praising Hirono and Booker.
I also can’t wait to hear what they have to say.
“Ram through this vote” tomorrow morning — after delaying it nearly 2 weeks.
“Truth is of the essence…if it takes a few more weeks” means “we need more time to get credible denunciations of Kavanaugh because the ones we have so far are garbage.”
Noting the upsurge in conservative support for Kavanaugh after the New Yorker piece.
Duh.
Kai, remember who Mitchell is trying to persuade: not the Dems and Reps who have already made up their minds, but the swingers on both sides of the aisle.–AesopFan
Mitchell’s a disaster. The fence-sitters have constituents, AesopFan. This hearing so far is a near-total triumph for CBF and her sponsors. No constituents will be asking Susan Collins to defend Judge Kavanaugh from what they have seen up here from this poor pathetic woman.
I am hoping against hope that Mitchell has something more climactic up her sleeve. The only serious question mark she has elicited is that Ford flies around the world but claimed she couldn’t fly to this hearing. That doesn’t go very far, I’m afraid.
It’s going to be up to Judge Kavanaugh to get some seriousness in here. Good luck, Judge!
The other source of hope is that Collins has seemed displeased by the machinations. So she is at least starting out leaning toward a pro-K vote, it appears. Perhaps she will yet deliver a note of sanity into this process somewhere along the way.
“conservatives are concerned that this is a partisan attack”
Duh.
“Is there room in the national discourse for that opinion?”
“That opinion” is that we can respect women, decry assault, teach our sons not to behave badly, and “yet still support” Kavanaugh because the allegations against him are not credible.
Risk assessment of Ford (and all women) versus that of Kavanaugh (and all men) — didn’t catch the details, but it was in favor of women (guilty until proven innocent).
Back to Thomas alienating senators by not watching Hill’s testimony; don’t think Kavanaugh will make that mistake; suggesting what he SHOULD say (along the lines of a link I commented on yesterday), so that if he doesn’t do exactly what they think he should, he must be guilty.
Criticizing Hatch for criticizing Ford.
Hatch is not the one on trial.
Playing Ford’s testimony about how she decided to come forward.
ONLY after hearing that Kavanaugh had been nominated to the Supreme Court.
Not during any other of his confirmation hearings or public record over 30 years or so.
“Didn’t know how to proceed” — not credible to me given her bio.
More like “Couldn’t decide how to get the best effect” — I got the impression she was dissed that the Post didn’t take her tip, the CA person (what’s her name?) didn’t go to her immediately, and Ford held the letter until after the hearing.
Back to Hill and Thomas, and Senators watching the polls.
“emotional and compelling testimony” — “I am not a pawn” —
Well, it’s not like we didn’t know what side the Post was on.
I hope all the Senators are having lunch and ignoring this.
Of course, half of them already agree, and the other half don’t, and we know the swingers aren’t listening to Rushbo….
Hirono attacks Mitchell’s line of questioning and puts words in Ford’s mouth — literally, even more than the leading questions put by the previous senators.
Ford denies political motive for the letter.
“We should be made to question the character of those we put in positions of power” (slightly paraphrased)
Something we can all agree on.
Let’s start with the list of indicted and convicted Senators and Representatives of both parties.
The Dems are still litigating men-in-general and not Kavanaugh’s alleged actions.
Which was the agenda from the start.
Mitchell – back to funding the polygraph.
The lawyers have paid for the polygraph as is routine. (Yes,it’s a billed expense.)
Will Ford have that passed on to her? (Well, to whoever is paying; lawyers never eat the costs of trials if they can help it, and Katz didn’t take this job without some assurance of payment.)
Lost paperwork in moving twice.
Is there an understanding that other people are funding you?
I’m not sure how to handle that (GoFundMe).
Understanding on confidentiality of letter – Ford “understood it would remain confidential, period”
Naive.
She sure has a hard time understanding Mitchell’s lawyerese, although it’s not as opaque as it could be.
Katz to Mitchell to chair on answering questions.
Ford sub voce “..I don’t understand..”
Mitchell .. is .. now .. asking .. questions .. at .. Ford’s .. level .. of .. comprehension.
OK, that was snark.
I would never hire this woman to do any clinical psychological work.
Maybe she is better at paper research.
I have lost hope that a last minute “you can’t handle the truth” knock out punch will ever come.
ooooh Prosecutor Mitchell is going to the “who is paying for the polygraph” and CBF doesn’t know. Mitchell said the polygraph happened months ago.
CBF whispers, “I don’t understand”
Cory Booker submits lots of letters including one from “Bricklayers”
“This is not a trial.”
True, Senator Booker.
Whose choice was that?
Another campaign ad.
With leading questions.
Now it’s the effect on her children.
He wasn’t concerned when Kavanaugh’s kids had to leave the first hearing because of Democrat protesters.
More litigation of sexual assault in general.
I concede it’s a conversation we need to be having, but Ford is neither a heroic Joan of Arc or Liberty leading the French Revolution.
“an intrusive polygraph test” — 2 questions.
Wow. What an ordeal.
My patience is getting tried severely.
Now he has a letter from Mormon women (are they supposed to be more credible somehow? no one thought that when Romney was a candidate).
CBF sure doesn’t understand much. This poor, deluded woman is being badly used by her counsel.
Mitchell – who helped her get an attorney?
Trying to get at the Democrat-Clinton-Katz connection, but Ford deflected it okay (because a serious push would be bullying).
That’s what the questions on funding are going for also.
Both lawyers pro bono (okay, I can buy that; they get reimbursed in some intangible way if not in money). I don’t doubt they believe in the Cause.
Mitchel — who is the connection between you and Kavanaugh.
Ford — brings up Whelan’s speculations — it was that person.
(HMMM-did I really hear that correctly?)
She “went out with him” and “were distant friends”.
Mitchell – is he the only common link?
Ford – only one I will name, or not name, but there are others.
other interactions with Kavanaugh:
four or five parties
no sexual assault at any of those other events
…
Mitchell – let’s cut to the chase – any other inappropriate action by Kavanaugh?
No.
Mitchell asks about “other” social interactions with Kavanaugh.
Kamala Harris is up and she is acting like a normal Senator for once…. so far…
Another ad, by Harris.
Timeline is wrong: she didn’t reach out BEFORE Judge K. was named.
Reviews old news with favorable implications.
Cites her own credentials as a prosecutor of assaults, and (yes) people delay or don’t report . Not in doubt.
It’s all in the timing here.
Criticizes Kavanaugh for not calling on lawyers, witnesses, or investigators. Not really relevant, but Scott Adams would approve the tactic.
It’s Feinstein’s fault it wasn’t investigated in the last two months — Harris carefully doesn’t mention that.
Also doesn’t mention that the FBI manual of procedures applies to contemporaneously reported events.
Mitchell is asking about the other party participants statement under penalty of perjury.
CBF: Leland has significant health challenges.
Feinstein recommended the Katz firm.
Did her friend follow up with her on the night of the party?
I did not share it with her.
All three besides Kavanaugh have denied any knowledge of such a party. Do you have any motives to ascribe to Leland?
Ford: health challenges, apologized for letting lawyer handle it.
didn’t expect them (Leland & PJ) to remember this unremarkable-not one of their notorious- parties.
Mitchell – did you educate yourself on how to get to truth when interviewing victims of trauma? No study says that this method of 5-minute-increments is the best method. Stipulated by the chair.
Were you ever advised to get a forensic interview (which Mitchell had just described)? No.
Instead you were advised to get an attorney and a polygraph.
Yes.
(Ford doesn’t see where Mitchell is going, but the swing votes will.)
Grassley officially enters the sworn witness statements into the record.
Feinstein has three letters (don’t know which ones), no objection. Wants to reconsider decision not to call Mr. Judge to testify.
Blumenthal wants everybody to be questioned, and objects to entering them (Grassley’s letters) into the records.
Whitehouse has a number of letters on the importance of proper investigation by trained professionals.
Kennedy says the statements were taken by majority staff, with no minority participation because they chose not to.
Wants to duke it out with Feinstein, but Grassley thanks and commends Ford.
Time out.
More commentary from WaPo.
I think we can all fill it in.
I’m going to lunch.
This is the comment I mentioned in the previous break, about “what he should say to be believed” aka “accepted as suitably groveling” to the Virtue Police (the Democrats in the Senate and the Left in general; no slam at Ford intended).
(Once more the caveat: allegations of assaults by anyone anytime should be received sensitively, but not necessarily accepted as the last word; they are the prologue to an investigation).
AesopFan on September 27, 2018 at 1:13 am at 1:13 am said:
Well, this one talks about data points, but it’s kind of ambiguous about the conclusion (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
(Market Watch (??))
Opinion: What Brett Kavanaugh’s denials say about his moral judgment
Published: Sept 26, 2018 5:48 p.m. ET
“For some, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s initial response to claims of sexual assault color the way they are considering the fairness of the nomination process. If his response had been more neutral, balancing his own defense with his impact on others, would that change how people think about the outcome? What makes a denial ethical?
[how about: what makes a denial true or false?]
WaPo taking the poll of social media (you know, those internet vehicles that have been manipulated by the media platforms to shut out conservative voices.)
wait wait, who did she contact BEFORE he had been nominated?
they slipped in that remark that I noted above by Harris.
Or have I missed something in the last 14 days?
Nobody gets two votes on the Supreme Court.
Does not have as many cases on their docket for the fall as usual, and those are relatively non-controversial.
“Demonstrators commended her bravery while Republicans stayed conspicuously silent.”
“Not about these lawmakers at all”
Pardon me for laughing.
Complains that Mitchell asked questions about everything about the assault shows differences in how Republicans and Democrats are going about this — Mitchell’s complaint on the 5-minute-increments is all the Republican’s fault — second-guessing Mitchell’s thoughts.
What were the Republican goals in hiring her? What did they want her to do?
Gee, it looks like she’s in a courtroom, but it’s a slow paperwork build-up not translating to the American public — got more assertive after the break — yada yada.
Once more: Mitchell is not playing to the public, but to the swing vote Senators.
Ford was pretty calm, but she is in no way extraordinary.
I actually think she came across well, if somewhat slow, but Mitchell would have been insane to ask her directly about the assault recollections, for the same reason that I chided right-wing media for continually publishing the lurid details, often before they got to their rebuttals.
Here’s why (aside from a really funny story from college):
I have been getting 4 to 5 fliers in the mail everyday about a local state race, but one candidate continually prints her opponent’s picture and name and tells me to vote no, but in the booth a LIV will only remember “vote” and the name.
Don’t put your opponent’s face and name on your own campaign ads.
NOT amazing to keep a calendar all these years; I have a box full of them.
What’s amazing is that he was able to FIND it.
“Another, and final, interesting observation for this post. Just after getting a load of what Wikipedia offers if you look up Brett Kavanaugh, and reading through the Brock op-ed from a couple of weeks ago, I saw CNN reporter Joan Walsh weigh in on Twitter on the latest allegation about Kavanaugh.
“For the younger folk, 1998 was when Kavanaugh was helping Kenneth Starr ruin Bill Clinton over a consensual affair.” Walsh seems to have had that one pretty handy. She tweeted it 11 minutes after the NBC News tweet of the breaking news about the anonymous complaint. [letter to Cory Gardner]
There is more than one motive for the orchestrated attack on Kavanaugh, and I doubt simple “payback” is the chief one. But it looks like it probably is one.”
“As a practical matter Ford’s testimony has shifted the burden of persuasion to Judge Kavanaugh and the standard is high, somewhere between preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. I have thought he could do that. I hope he can, but he has a steep hill to climb.”
Applies to all the demands for subpoenas and FBI investigations.
Zerohedge: “Another question that will be on viewers minds: What will Trump think of the hearing?”
Right on cue, that was the last snippet from the Post before the hearing reconvened.
THe drama. He enters
Grassley reminds us that the witness statements he entered were taken under oath under penalty of felony (aka depositions from witnesses who won’t appear at civil trial; I don’t know about criminal depositions, but I know some statements are entered in lieu of personal appearance under some circumstances.)
Reviews the Democrat obstruction and lack of cooperation throughout.
So far, very forceful statement by Brett. He took lessons from Clarence.
Said the word borking. 🙂
He might be going a little far….
Opening statement by Judge Kavanaugh:
“replaced advise and consent with search and destroy”
“you sowed the wind; for decades to come the country will reap the whirl-wind”
the good-old-fashioned Borking didn’t work
when it was needed, this allegation was publicly released over Dr. Ford’s wishes
illegitimate children? I missed that one.
details all the agendas contributing to his opposition
this grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade people from serving
“what goes around comes around”
He is mentioning all the effects on himself, his family, and the country that WaPo carefully omitted in their hagiography of Ford’s testimony.
Hear both sides – due process a foundation of American law.
Parent’s present – mom overcame workplace sexual harassment – early woman prosecutor – inspired me to be a lawyer and a judge – practiced closing arguments on dad and me – use your common sense – what rings true, false –
Kavanaugh cries. CBF never showed any emotion like this
Hits on the 36 year gap, no corroboration, no hint of this ever before now, demonization by Dem opponents –
onslaught of last-minute allegations does not ring true
concession that Ford may have been assaulted someplace sometime, but not by him
included her family in their family prayers at the request of 10-year-old
Emotional — “we mean no ill will” to Dr. Ford.
(“I do none harm, I think none harm…” — Sir Thomas More)
(I am familiar with men tearing up at our church’s meetings, when they speak about personal events with great feeling — and can give you stories of the wisdom of children who have great faith in spiritual healing, especially in prayer. I’m persuaded.)
Highlights the lack of any hint of sexual wrong-doing in all his years of high-profile public service.
Highlights the lack of specifics of Ford’s allegation while not questioning she may have suffered some kind of assault.
Not in his social circle but they might have met sometime, but he doesn’t remember her.
Repeatedly cites Leland Kaiser’s denial, and adds those of the two men.
Composing himself again. Very compelling.
Columbia Country Club near the house; none of us live near there, nor did she. Questions whose house, travel (she could not legally drive). Nothing new.
Calendars: his dad started keeping detailed calendars in 1978, and told them stories at Christmas. Very emotional again.
(all LDS church members are encouraged to keep personal journals, beginning in high school or earlier; this is NOT unusual)
Party presumably happened on a week-end; other times unlikely.
Out of town almost every time except for these dates: one with dad (emotional again), and 2 small gatherings with named friends.
Who questioned that he didn’t have church on his calendar?
Of course you don’t have to put that on, when you go every Sunday.
Calendars not dispositive on their own, but a piece in the mix to consider.
Friendships with women, not girl friends.
Emotional again — remembering — I didn’t have that many good friends in HS, girls or boys.
Drinking age 18; I liked beer – I still like beer – but never blacked out. There is a bright line between drinking beer and violent crime.
If every beer-drinker is suddenly assumed guilty of sexual assault, we are in a bad place in this country.
Yearbook was a disaster – combination of recent movies – some of us went along to the point of absurdity (those movies were not good role models for youth IMO).
Apologizes to Renate, very movingly; it was affectionate recognition that she was one of us — not related to sex —
Sex not a topic that I ever imagined would come up in a judicial confirmation hearing.
Shy and tried to hide sexual inexperience, while inwardly proud of it. A matter of faith, respect, and caution.
Letters from 65 women who knew him in HS – knew they would be vilified if they defended me – put themselves on the line for me – those are some awesome women, and I love all of them.
Letters from women in college – thanks for their support – a liberal feminist texted “you are a good man” – another “be strong, pulling for you” – a third “holding you in the light of God”
“Cherish your friends, lift up your friends, look out for your friends, love your friends”
Letter from 84 women at Bush White House.
(Note that all of these women are named on record, which could certainly expose them to reprisals from the left)
I can’t type here because it so compelling.
law clerks – best of the law schools – important responsibility – “took notice and took action” to increase number of women clerks – has sent more women to clerk at SCOTUS than any other judge –
Contingent hire of 4 law clerks – all women – a first in history.
“That is who I am, that is who I was.”
teaching at Harvard Law School -testimony of students to committee (original hearing) – “I may never be able to teach again” because of what “this side of the committee has unleashed”
coaching girls basketball “because confidence on the court transfers to confidence in life”
(repeats his condemnation of the Democrats on the committee for trashing his reputation)
comments wife and family for support
“If the mere assertion of a refuted allegation from 36 years ago is enough to destroy a man’s life and career” we have abandoned the principles of due process etc
His closing was not quite as blistering as Sir Thomas More’s but it was very good.
Prosecutor Mitchell had to pause as Kavanaugh blew his nose.
DiFi speaks: omg. she goes on about the FBI investigation again. Kavanaugh forcefully speaks back to DiFI. DiFi acts like it has to be an outside authority. DiFi stumbles.
AesopFan:
Speaking of Sir Thomas More—as a non-Christian, I nevertheless found it very effective and moving when Kavanaugh spoke about his churchgoing. He said he didn’t write that on the calendar because he went to church every week as regularly as brushing his teeth. And he still goes to church every Sunday. He also said one of the reasons he held off on sex in his high school years was his religion. Then at the very end, he swore to his family but also to God that he was innocent. By that time, we knew how important the swearing to God part was to him.
Of course, the Catholic references can be rejected by those who are angry at the church for its own abuses, and no doubt the left will make a big deal of that. But watching him, I though he was very effective.
He came across as very very strongly emotional, which in this case was good and necessary. Probably more emotional than he’s ever been in public in his entire life.
Mitchell’s introductory remarks, and the paperwork (which WaPo is somehow surprised we don’t get to see).
Questions about his knowledge of Mark Judge, Leland Kayser, Ford.
Feinstein questions – why aren’t you asking the FBI to investigate these claims?
K: I asked for a hearing the next day — all these things came out and are printed and run in the ten days – I’m all in immediately.
F: (all smarmy because she didn’t bring up the allegation in the 2 weeks she had it on her desk)
K: the FBI doesn’t reach a conclusion – I’m here, I wanted to be here the next day, …
F: hearings are set by the majority — FBI didn’t interview.
K: you’re interviewing me, you’re doing it.
(okay Neo, I know why you don’t listen to these, I can hardly keep from spitting at my screen)
What is too many beers:
Weak – whatever the chart says
(oops – needed an answer to that one)
never passed out – gone to sleep but never blacked out
(also weak)
never work up in a different location, clothes in a different condition, never heard about something he didn’t remember –
Aesop, Baklava, Neo:
Thanks for the running comments, and the assessment. Exceptional.
Questions on the party alleged by Ford
Never at a party of that description; never alone in a room with her and Mark Judge; etc point by point
(this would have been questions on a legitimate polygraph interview, to the extent that they CAN be legitimate)
Calendars –
created by him, exclusively his handwriting, no changes since 1982, prospective plans or actual occurrences.
Both forward and backward – crossed out things that didn’t happen (I do the same thing) – lists of people probably added back-ward looking.
Why did you keep them all this time?
So did his dad.
Speaking of Sir Thomas More—as a non-Christian, I nevertheless found it very effective and moving when Kavanaugh spoke about his churchgoing. He said he didn’t write that on the calendar because he went to church every week as regularly as brushing his teeth. And he still goes to church every Sunday. He also said one of the reasons he held off on sex in his high school years was his religion. Then at the very end, he swore to his family but also to God that he was innocent. By that time, we knew how important the swearing to God part was to him.
Just to point out something: if you’re immersed in the Catholic thought-world (as most baptized Catholics were in 1963 and few are today), there are certain rubrics in the week in can induce anxiety to disregard. Missing Mass (on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation) is a mortal sin. For someone who is detail-oriented (and there’s reason to believe Kavanaugh is), Confession is undertaken with a template examination of conscience and holding off on confession also induces anxiety. Committed Catholics speak of ‘a good death’, meaning one in a state of grace. Also, certain practices are highly repetitive, such as mediation on the Rosary.
At the same time, the sort of scriptural study common among evangelicals and the precise attention to sermons characteristic of the evangelical world is not common.
That he has the calendars is indicative of a bit of OCD on his part or on Martha Kavanaugh’s part. Pretty funny. Maybe mother and son will be featured on Hoarders.
WaPo – remarks different from what we expected (the leaked ones last night?)
Question his emotional fervor – maybe he needed an editor.
Hitting on the “I like beer” -not all beer drinkers commit sexual assault – “I am just like you” on Team Beer.
Confrontational with Senator Feinstein — ya think!!
He came across as very very strongly emotional, which in this case was good and necessary. Probably more emotional than he’s ever been in public in his entire life.
Yep. That aspect, and the discussion of his sexual history between 1979 and 2004, has been disconcerting.
That is what i would expect the emotion of a man who was framed for something he didn’t do would be.
Leahy’s questions – back to the FBI and the interviewing omission.
Could they have been hoping some witness would trip up on some minor point and lie to the FBI, thus open to a process charge, as is their specialty.
Kavanaugh is trying to school Leahy, and winning.
Leahy attacks Mr. Judge and asks about references in his book – “is that you”.
K: It’s fiction. You would have to ask him
Yearbook again: “let me explain high school”
Large poster of YB entry –
K: reprise opening statement, a poor decision to exaggerate and (essentially) fictionalize – “taking us to a new level of absurdity”
Mitchell back to the calendar, July 1 1982 —
Judge and PJ in that entry – Chris Garrett is “Squee”
Routine documentation of parties, even small get-togethers.
Would have documented any event like Ford alleged.
(NOTE for plaintiff – IF it was a prospective invitation, he might not back-fill names IF he did what she alleged, but it would still be on the calendar; IF an impromptu gathering, he wouldn’t make any note at all)
He is very respectful to Ms. Mitchell, which bolsters his reputation as stated by the women he works with.
Sen. Durbin – starting sympathetically – suggests he ask to suspend hearing for an FBI investigation – you turned to the FBI when in the WH for judicial investigations –
Grassley: this committee is running this hearing, not you, not the WH, not the nominee. We are not suspending this hearing.
Durbin: (gives him another offer)
K: I welcome the truth and I’m innocent.
I called for a hearing, this was held for two weeks
D: Are you afraid?
Sub voce from the gallery: Gee whiz!
D: why do you resist the dots brought up by the press
K: I’ll do whatever the committee wants
Grassley: just ask the witness – and you can ask for an FBI report yourself if you want it.
Sen. Graham brings up Schumer’s announcement of opposition on the day K. was nominated.
When you met with Feinstein on Aug 20 did you know she had recommended a lawyer, held the allegation, etc.
K: no
G to D: you could have come to us at any time for an FBI investigation.
Yells at Durbin: I would never do to Kagan and Sotomayor what you are doing to him.
You want power, God I hope you never get it, Ford is your victim as much as Kavanaugh.
Graham is on a roll defending Kavanaugh, I hope he doesn’t overplay his hand.
Graham addresses his Republican colleagues and calls them out.
Whitehouse has a hard act to follow – asks to let things settle a little bit.
Back to the yearbook: consistent in time, your words on your page.
K: don’t know if editors changed anything, but I won’t contest it, “Have at it if you want to go through my year book”
Ketchup on spaghetti — K has always had a weak stomach with beer or spicy food or anything.
K: hard to do what he did if he was an habitual drunk
What do you like to drink, Senator?
K: …that refers to flatulence; we were 16
(W. should have been coached on pronunciation; he looks uneducated, and certainly unprepared)
K: apologizes to Renate again.
I want to give Graham a deep french kiss
Devil’s triangle drinking game explained.
Squee stuttered when saying the F word
W is trying to get him to admit some kind of blacking out, because they weren’t paying attention to a ball game that was a pretext for a party.
Cornyn finally says “Have you no decency?” to the committee.
The American people will make their decision.
This is not a job interview, this is about a crime.
If you lied, that is a crime itself.
We would have to conclude you are a serial liar if we vote against you.
A fair process means the accusers have to present evidence.
We’re not a police state, we insist that charges be proven by evidence, we are not in a court or half my colleagues would be in contempt.
There has to be corroboration. Right to be angry about delays.
Klobuchar – duty to advise and consent, needed to look at this charge, ask for an investigation.
K: you are doing the investigation!
Why are the Dems harping on this FBI thing?
Somebody might think they already have a conclusion ready to announce.
AesopFan; Dave:
I haven’t been watching the questioning of Kavanaugh. I am exhausted by this (I can only imagine how drained Kavanaugh is). But I will say this: when Graham is good, he is very very good. He’s smart. He has spent a great deal of his life in the Senate, and I think that the current state of the Senate has shocked him. He is very angry.
Graham was interviewed by MSNBC directly after Ford’s hearing, and you could tell the South Carolina Republican was none too amused by the spectacle.
Graham first issued a warning to Republicans.
“If this becomes the new standard, 35-year-old claim that’s uncertain of time, place, date no corroboration – God help us as Republicans,” said Graham.
He then turned his attention to the Democrats with a dire warning.
“If this is the new norm, you better watch out for your nominees,” he said before marching off.
Kavanaugh calls out Klobuchar out on misquotes from Judge’s book; doesn’t want to repeat private hearing material; recites some of the situation. She backs down.
She’s repeating Mitchell’s memory questions, he says he never has a case where he didn’t remember what had happened.
K: have you? I’m curious.
Klobuchar: I don’t have a drinking problem.
K: neither do I.
Grassley elucidates the position of the Committee and the FBI.
Brings up the Biden Maxim.
“They do not reach conclusions. They do not make recommendations.”
Except when they do.
Whitehouse still wants a new investigation, because they can find evidence.
Grassley: the letter was sent to the FBI, they sent it to the WH.
I feel like we are getting the color announcers at half-time telling us how the game is going and what it all means.
Graham used to strike me as a slimy kind of guy, like a Fence sitter, someone akin to Mccain.
“Will they be won over by his denials, by his tears?”
“What posture will he take with the other side?”
Angry interruptions called out (they were totally justified)
Durbin was the epitome of the calm voice, “Do you see five fingers or four”
AesopFan:
These quotes from Graham are pretty intense:
G to D: you could have come to us at any time for an FBI investigation.
Yells at Durbin: I would never do to Kagan and Sotomayor what you are doing to him.
You want power, God I hope you never get it, Ford is your victim as much as Kavanaugh.
Particularly that last one: Ford is your victim, to the Democrats. To me, that is an incredibly strong argument. She wanted (supposedly, anyway) to remain anonymous, but Democrats wouldn’t let her. They exposed her to this. And the Republicans respected her fragility by being willing to do it in California, not having men question her, not having her be cross-examined, etc..
I was originally perplexed as to why the Republicans tied their hands and kept themselves from questioning her at all, leaving her errors unchallenged. I didn’t realize that they would get to speak—and to challenge the Democrats, who deserve it—in the Kavanaugh phase of the hearings. That’s pretty smart as a tactic, actually. Had they questioned Ford it would have seemed like they were taking advantage of an emotionally distraught woman.
At least in the Durbin exchange they kept Kavanaugh’s response “you know that’s a phony question.”
(and the gallery’s boos to Durbin)
Reports that Trump is loving the show, and he may be the most important audience, plus the swing votes.
They mentioned Graham’s criticism of his Rep colleagues.
We’ve forgotten about the actual allegations and victims of sexual assault — ya think?
At least he’s honest that the discussion shifted off the individuals to group experiences.
Walking a line if he paints himself as a victim (despite the fact that he is) — amended to “the sole victim” — concedes K. sympathy toward Ford, but slid toward “I am the victim the most”
Cites accusations in opening statement that Dems ruined his life (they did),
yada yada
Who leaked Dr. Ford’s name?
” I didn’t realize that they would get to speak—and to challenge the Democrats, who deserve it—in the Kavanaugh phase of the hearings. That’s pretty smart as a tactic, actually. Had they questioned Ford it would have seemed like they were taking advantage of an emotionally distraught woman.” — Neo.
I didn’t know that rule either, I wonder if they orchestrated any of the Rep statements?
The tactic is very smart; I would suggest that Cruz and Lee had a hand in that.
Mitchell may not be an experienced cross-examiner (per Dersh), but those two are.
Rep Senators are hitting the unfairness, the lack of corroboration, the unhinged allegations. This has got to be a planned defense.
“Guilt by association is wrong. Immaturity does not equal criminality.”
Allegations are inconsistent with the entire course of his life.
His questions highlight the sand-bagging by Feinstein and the Democrats through the whole sorry process.
Sen. Coons – questions on aggression while drinking and forgetting when drunk
NO is the basic answer “unless you’re talking about something you’re going to ask about that I don’t know about.”
YEP that’s what Coons did.
Some kind of testimony from a “friend,” but K has heard about it — “the sloppy drunk” article.
Roommate’s recollections – K. refers back to the three people in the small room, redacted in the testimony, take that into consideration.
Back to the call for a pause to have an FBI investigation.
“Fair, law enforcement driven, non partisan” — has he been under a rock for the last 2 years?????????
Grassley reprises: we had 45 days we could have been investigating this, plus the time between the announcement and hearings. There was plenty of time put in on this nomination.
Puts into the record the letter from the 65 women who knew him in HS, with quotes.
My computer died at the beginning of Sen. Lee’s speech; I hope it was as good as it started out.
Blumenthal is up now. Back to the FBI.
K: all of the witnesses testified under oath under penalty of felony.
B: conflates K. opening statement about the Dems with Ford.
K: rebuts properly
B: falling out of the bus
K: organized the trip etc “You and I have discussed this before” — exhibits a very precise memory of the events —
B: implies “piece things back together” insinuates “recall what happened”
K: I know exactly what happened that night.
B: “do you believe Anita Hill?”
Sen. Crapo – asks Kavanaugh to describe an FBI examination, which he has undergone many times.
and so forth
Larry Elder is on. iHeart radio AM 1380 KTKZ THe answer.
Senator Mazie Hirano:
Q: Which one of our questions were an embarrasment.
My comment: He didn’t say a question was an embarrasment but that is what Democrats do – turn a comment into something else.
Hirono brings us back to Ford “100% certain it was you” – struggled with her decision, wanted the President to know, etc.
H: said in your opening that the Dems were an embarrassment, she lists some of her questions, asks what was embarassing.
Back to the job interview thing
(that was then, this is now)
H: There is no entitlement for you to be on the court
(she read the WashExam post I linked on the other thread?)
She asks open-ended questions then complains that he is running out her time by answering them.
H: Back to the college statements from Roommate; is he lying?
K: refers her back to the sealed redacted portion (for about the third time).
K: once again points out that he could not have done what he did at Yale if he was an aggressive sloppy drunk.
That is very unfair questioning when he can’t reveal a sealed transcript.
H: other references — but her time is up – so enters 4 letters into the record rather than reading the juicy parts out loud.
(all requesting an FBI investigation)
THe WaPo live YouTube live stream has this many viewers:
117,557 watching now
at this moment.
#2 on Trending
It is #1 on Live Trends. Second is Joe Rogan with 19K viewers.
Sen Tillis – compares this to campaign smears but worse
Reminds us that there is an investigation going on, it’s on the website, and the Dems often declined to participate and ask questions.
None of this came out when it was all fully known and lawyered up.
I think I heard Dr. Ford say she wasn’t aware that we offered to come to California — why not? — we are doing an investigation – moved heaven and earth – look at the lack of investigation by the party clamoring for an investigation — it’s documented, we’re doing our job.
(In fairness, the campaign ads are coming from the R and the D, just different substance. Very interesting.)
They have already acquired a URL for the next judge they are going to attack (displays card).
Ask your D leaders: why didn’t we do our part in the investigation?
These allegations can be pursued through the courts, but everyone knows that’s not going to happen.
Booker – you drank during the week – I just need a yes or no –
(not allowing explanation or context)
(This is really bullying the witness, Spartacus.)
B also trying to tie the complaints about the D to Ford. Cuts off K explanation, going into leading questions.
Cuts off K again, a real jerk.
“Do you wish she had never come forward?”
K is holding steady – “bear no ill will toward her” —
B: “she sat here, she told her truth”
B: goes to the 2012 etc “she did not coordinate” –
(we don’t know that)
NEVER voting for Booker for anything EVER
B: wanting to clarify Ford was not a Clinton pawn.
G: was that a question?
B: No that was a statement.
Sen. Cruz (if my computer goes out again, Google is after me)
Baklava on September 27, 2018 at 6:09 pm at 6:09 pm said:
Larry Elder is on. iHeart radio AM 1380 KTKZ THe answer.
Senator Mazie Hirano:
Q: Which one of our questions were an embarrasment.
My comment: He didn’t say a question was an embarrasment but that is what Democrats do – turn a comment into something else
* * *
Indeed.
C: even the NYT would not report on two of those allegations, but not a single Dem in this committee asked about those (Ramirez & Avenatti).
Affirms that committee treated Ford with respect, but not you.
(he’s giving a closing statement to the jury, as he is so expert at doing)
C: Ford said that only 3 people had her letter, and her attorney didn’t release it, so it had to be one of the other true.
Feinstein asks to respond. “I did not hide Dr. Ford’s allegations. I did not leak her story.”
Back to the “stalked by the press” (but I still want to know: who leaked the letter to Ronan Farrow?)
Claims majority didn’t tell her or her staff about some of the things they did (not mentioning that she was doing the same.)
Cornyn?? asks if her staff leaked it, but she has not asked anyone directly, how did it get in the hands of the press.
C: Somebody leaked it if it wasn’t you.
Cruz: does the committee have a process for confidential consideration?
G: yes we do
C: what would you have done if the allegation had been raised timely?
G: (explains rational process)
C: so it could have been investigated two months ago confidentially
Feinstein: thinks the leak came from the friends she talked to about the letter.
Cornyn (I can’t read his name plate): how did the press know?
(inconclusive- could have happened that way)
Harris: have you had a polygraph?
K: will do whatever is wanted, they aren’t admissible, they aren’t reliable.
H: (back to the FBI investigation again; are these people totally tone deaf, stupid, or giving the media a choice of sympathetic sound-bites to claim K refuses to be investigated?)
(their goal is to turn “are you willing to ask the WH to conduct such an investigation” into “He DID ask so let’s suspend the hearings)
K: I’ve had 6.
(He is too cagey to get caught in that trap, thank goodness)
H: compares his treatment to that of Gorsuch, who was not accused of sexual assault “how do you explain that”
(it’s a canny insinuation)
K: witness statements again
Turns her next question on its head, about the probability that a man can treat lots of women well and some badly.
H: did you watch Dr. Ford’s testimony (links to Thomas hearing)
K: did not; preparing mine
Flake – this is not a good process but it’s all we’ve got.
(no, it’s not, and Cruz & Grassley just said so)
Kennedy – sorry for both, it could have been avoided.
Do you believe in God?
“I’m gonna give you a last opportunity in front of God and everybody: are Dr Ford’s allegations true?”
K: not as pertaining to me
Ramirez not supported by anything, likewise Avenatti’s total nonsense.
K: zero doubt in my mind; I swear to God.
Hearing adjourned.
Not listening to WaPo’s closing; we know they will spin for Ford, but they haven’t been totally unfair to Kavanaugh.
I now have a lot more respect for the skill of the people who do simultaneous transcription or translation.
This is where the “100%” came from, at the beginning of Ford’s testimony.
Zerohedge Update III: “In response to a question from Sen. Dick Durbin, Ford said she remembers encountering Mark Judge once following the assault during a trip to the Potomac Safeway, and that he appeared extremely uncomfortable, despite the two of them being friendly before the assault. Asked by Durbin about whether she could be mistaken about Kavanaugh’s identity, she said she is “100% certain” that it was Kavanaugh who had assaulted her.”
Not accusing Mark Judge of anything, but
Why would Mark Judge appeared extremely uncomfortable seeing the woman he pretty much rescued?
uneasiness is usually a reaction displayed on someone who is guilty of something.
Dave:
Not accusing you of anything, but do you still…… Just askin, after all Dr. Ford’s memory and veracity are exemplary.
Thought I already posted this. Maybe elsewhere by mistake.
CFB has been in CA so long she’s picked up a permanent vocal fry, or has a very bad cold. In either case, it substitutes for actual emotion.
She’s a freaking PSYCHOLOGIST. We were introduced to the polygraph, theory and (mal) practice in Intro to Psych for sophomores. She cannot, cannot be telling the truth about her unfamiliarity with the process, her fear, and the stress she underwent. In addition, such stress would make the results useless. You need an unstressed baseline when you are telling the truth. The operator asks various questions about you that have no bearing on the issue, that he already knows since you’ve already told him–place of birth, school, etc–in order to compare when the questions at issue are asked. If the baseline is messed up, there is nothing to which to compare answers to the relevant questions.
Some have said that remembering nothing, or being unable to recall large chunks of the assault, is common among victims. I’ll take that as true since addressing it is not likely to be fruitful. But I’m not aware of any research in which the attack causes the victim to later name as witnesses those who either refute the assertion entirely or have no idea what she’s talking about. Which could be a refutation if the victim’s assertion is that they were at the party.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Turner Classic Movies programmer displays sense of humor. Madame Satan is playing opposite the satanic madam(s) of Washington this morning. For any who may need a break and better dialogue.
Perhaps the most important developments to come out of this Auto da fe so far are, first, the statement by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, who is on video saying that Kavanaugh should not have the “presumption of innocence,” since this is not a trial but merely an adventure in “fact-finding.”
Tell me, does anyone actually believe that Judge Kavanaugh is not, in essence, on trial here?
So now we know.
The Left and the Democrats would quite cheerfully strip away the fundamental basis for our entire system of justice, the presumption of innocence that distinguishes our judicial system from other–much less fair judicial systems around the globe.
How then should someone who is presumed to be guilty prove their innocence? Should we go back to Medieval models, where you could prove your innocence if you did not drown when thrown in a lake wrapped with chains, if you were not crushed when rocks weighing hundreds of pounds were placed on your body, or if when you put your hand in a fire, it was not burned?
If they can justify stripping away his presumption of innocence from Kavanaugh, they can do it to anyone. Let that sink in a little bit.
Then, we have the misandry i.e. man hating of Democrat Senator Mazie Haruno, who sits on the Judiciary Committee.
Says Hiruno, all women who allege that they have been attacked should be believed.
And why?
Because, of course, men are all “guilty ” by virtue of being male. Says Haruno, we men should all “step up,” admit our guilt, and then “shut up.”
And there you have it.
If I were Republicans I would feature these two videos on political ads to be run every half hour from now until November 8th, as vivid illustrations of the mind-set and ultimate objectives of the Left and Democrats. How they want to “fundamentally transform” this country. What they really want to do, and will do if voted back into power.
If you don’t want to live in an America where we no longer have a presumption of innocence, and where all men are guilty simply because they are men then, get out and vote folks.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-27/watch-live-kavanaugh-faces-accuser-first-time-marathon-hearing
started. she practiced the deer in the headlights look.
We’ve got the circus… where’s my bread?
Just watched a few moments before heading off to a class. I agree with Bakalva…deer in headlights. She does not look at all comfortable and confident. If there’s going to be any true cross examination as Dershowitz hoped for last night, I wonder if she’ll stand up. Advantage Kavanaugh right now just on watching body language.
Dems have been screaming about Roe v. Wade in their effort to stop Kavanaugh because that will turn out the most voters. But I said here a few days ago that I thought this was really about gun control. Michael Fizolof makes the same case in this piece.
Why can’t someone OBJECT to the HEARSAY that DiFi is positing with the other two women right now…
My ex-wife used to do the cracky weak voice on demand when on a call with somebody and trying to get sympathy. (Not when talking about me – but talking about her mean family).
So I got to listen for lengthy periods and then she would get a call from another friend and change voice in a split second.
For anyone not exposed to a narcissit this might seem very genuine.
The voice-cracking and sniffing is fantastic! It comes just at the right moments; how does she do that? Here is a woman who needs a chaperone to go to the mall.
The voice-cracking and sniffing is fantastic! It comes just at the right moments; how does she do that?
By imitating some of her clients. I wonder if the marriage counselor spotted her as a con artist.
Prosecutor Mitchell starts:
1) She started very nice and empathetic (narcissists do not understand empathy)
2) Question about her Whatsapp text with Washington Post reporter. CBF corrected the word bystander as it relates to bystander.
3) Question about letter to DiFI and the date of the letter. CBF can’t remember if she wrote the letter on 7/31. Questioned the accuracy of the letter. CBF is reading the letter.
….she should have known if it was or wasn’t accurate.
Now after 60 seconds she is making 3 corrections. a) number of people b) pushed from behind so can’t really say if it was Kavanaugh or Judge
DiFi putting forward 1,000 letters from physicians across the country.
CBF hosts Google interns in her home??? OMG. I am guessing these are women interns but she didn’t say.
Last question from DiFi on mistaken identity. CFB, “absolutely not”
DiFi:
Q: Why did you hold this in all these years?
Ford: I didn’t hold it in, shared it in therapy ….(only held it 20 -25 years) lol.
This is after having to correct her own letter to DiFi.
Off to work
How did she travel to DC?
Back to Prosecutor Mitchell:
1) A few accuracy questions….
2) Questions about who would be there. She said Leland and Mark Judge
3) What was atmosphere like at gathering? A: It wasn’t a party, more like a pre-party gathering.
4) Q: Was it loud? A: No
Patrick Leahy’s turn to drone on about FBI investigation
Finally asked a question about indelible memory. A: The laughter. Brett laughing at her expense. This is a powerful moment probably.
She has an odd way of talking about memory. “Indelible within the Hippocampus” is their laughter.
The only people laughing now are the Chinese who are watching this. So this is mighty America!
Back to Prosecutor Mitchell:
1) Question about number of boys regarding WashPo article and polygraph. A: made clarifications.
2) Question about music being turned down. A: probably because she can hear them walking down the stairs.
3) Questions on various details. Questions on conversations and map being presented.
It doesn’t seem like the prosecutor can uncover anything dramatic.
It’s pretty hard to uncover anything with this method of disjointed questioning.
Durbin question about percentage of certainty.
CBF: “100%”
Break time for 15 minutes
Well she’s certainly troubled, but as to why, well that would probably take years of therapy to discern. She’s a bit of an odd duck as well. Is very quick to launch into descriptions of brain function to explain her feelings. Who talks like that?
TommyJay on September 27, 2018 at 10:30 am at 10:30 am said:
Dems have been screaming about Roe v. Wade in their effort to stop Kavanaugh because that will turn out the most voters. But I said here a few days ago that I thought this was really about gun control. Michael Fizolof makes the same case in this piece.
* * *
Very persuasive: the Democrats are looking to future cases where their ideology and agenda is vulnerable, not to the past.
Other controversies that are not yet fully “settled science” like Roe are those involving religious conscience vs statutory discrimination (the Colorado baker was attacked by the Co. Commission for Heresy before the ink on his first SCOTUS win was dry).
Baklava mentions the “100% certainty” prior to break.
I had to laugh at Durbin repeating “100 percent!” It reminded me of the prosecutor in “My Cousin Vinny” thrusting his open palms at the jury and saying in his southern drawl “Ieye-dentical!”
The interruptions every five minutes cripples the prosecutor. When a witness prevaricates, there’s a good chance she may be lying, and that’s s when the prosecution can pounce.
The Democrats are, as expected, paint Ford as a hero. In reality, she’s a snowflake.
Capn Rusty,
I agree. If this is the “rule” then why can’t it be chaged.
Discouraging to hear a professional journalist like Chris Wallace talk about the power of the emotions in her presentation. No one could not be touched by it….. really? She’s got the affect of a 10-year-old, this country-clubbing, sophisticated DC woman and college professor, and everyone in America is buying it? Well, everyone minus this one. Yes, the consensus on the Fox broadcast team is that the “prosecutor” is doing nothing, and that much is correct. Why are the Republicans so terrified to question this flagrant stunt, a ploy from July on, if not long before.
I can’t blame the prosecutor. Every time she begins to develop a line of questioning, she is stopped cold so we can listen to 5 minutes of Dem propaganda.
Here’s another good speculation about the underlying cause of the hysteria (and I use that word deliberately — sometimes Freud was onto something):
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/the_other_reason_why_the_metoo_mob_is_out_to_get_kavanaugh.html
“It’s about more than just discrediting Kavanaugh. It has the look, actually, of a concerted effort to discredit the Catholic Church, and Catholic education in particular. [I would substitute “all Christian churches and Christian education”]
I went to a Catholic college. While I knew of heavy drinking, there sure as heck was never any of that bizarre, kinky, amoral, and despicable behavior directed at women going on. I never knew any Catholic schoolboys who engaged in this kind of garbage. I knew of kids from state schools who did, but I just didn’t see it from the Catholics at Catholic schools, because it wasn’t the culture.
These creepy, weird acts sound more like something from Hollywood’s culture. These are things Harvey Weinstein could have done.
That brings us to the involvement of the left and #MeToo.
Weinstein’s takedown, which, interestingly, was the work of Ronan Farrow, who later reported the second accuser’s story, was above all an exposé of the common morality of the Hollywood left. It led to a chain reaction and extended all through the media, the arts, academia, and even politics, taking down big idols and players like dominos.
The overwhelming majority of these takedowns were of leftists, because these leftists were acting out the natural permissive amoral values of liberalism. Brett Kavanaugh’s values – e.g., virginity – were the sort of things Hollywood always scorned and considered likely hypocrisy, based on its own values and experiences.
Now we get a chain of increasingly crazy claims about Kavanaugh, which go against all the evidence of his lived life and the sworn word of hundreds who know or knew him.
It’s as if the #MeToo movement is trying to paint Kavanaugh as crazy as the Hollywood beasts, as a means of saying: All men do it. Every man does it. Right, left, they all do it.
But they don’t all do it. Leftists live these values, and a number of them were rightly taken down for it. Most conservatives don’t even have such grotesque thoughts or acts in their vocabulary, given that it’s not in their culture. Oh, you can always find some with Hollywood values. But the prevailing culture, particularly in the religious establishments, such as the Catholic schools, is simply to reject that. Such values, while they may exist, are never openly endorsed.
That leaves #MeToo mad that only leftists went down in the scandals. Thus the crazy effort to paint Kavanaugh as not at all different from Weinstein.
[Not just leftists, but this is a rhetorical piece not a documentary. Were there any conservatives affected outside of government circles? I don’t remember anyone but Roy Moore and some state legislators who I can’t name.]
Everybody does it – except that not everyone does it. The left is averse as heck to taking a good look at itself and deciding which values it wants to embrace: respecting women or doing the moral free-for-all? That’s why this spectacle is becoming such a strange maelstrom.”
Highlander on September 27, 2018 at 11:47 am at 11:47 am said:
I can’t blame the prosecutor. Every time she begins to develop a line of questioning, she is stopped cold so we can listen to 5 minutes of Dem propaganda.
* * *
Why does that tactic sound so familiar?
Because it’s the standard procedure of kangaroo courts.
Repeating a comment I put on the Predictions post first thing this morning.
AesopFan on September 27, 2018 at 11:27 am at 11:27 am said:
Before looking at any of the news today, I want to bring up another literary and historical case (a play based on events) with which most of us are familiar, because we frequently trot out the speech advising against cutting down the Law to get at the Devil — because it is so frequently relevant.
In the Kavanaugh case, the charges against the judge are not the same as the charges against Sir Thomas More (also a judge), but they are of similar character (denunciations) and substance (lies and insinuations). More is holding his own in court against the obviously biased judges, who seek to do the king’s will by any means, until Richard Rich gives his own perjured testimony (which occasions one of the best one-liners of the film, although it demeans a country which I hold most dear).
More sadly reproaches his one-time friend for selling his integrity for worldly and political gain. Could not the same be applied to Senator Feinstein and all of those complicit in the false accusations against Judge Kavanaugh?
“It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales?”
However, it is More’s closing speech, after the verdict, that is most appropriate here, as it was in the denunciation of Clarence Thomas. It is not hard to substitute current language for the words that described More’s alleged crime.
“Since the Court has determined to condemn me, God knoweth how, I will now discharge my mind … I am the king’s true subject, and I pray for him and all the realm. I do none harm. I say none harm. I think none harm. And if this be not enough to keep a man alive, then in good faith, I long not to live. Nevertheless, it is not for the Supremacy that you have sought my blood, but because I would not bend to the marriage!!”
PS to Dave: the first story you are looking for about friendship is the Greek legend of Damon and Pythias.
Mitchell better start bringing it, but 5 minute increments is tough.
She is not a snowflake, she is a con-artist. An appropriate trade for psychology professor.
Now we may be getting somewhere. Ford can’t remember if she showed her therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter who interviewed her a couple of months ago, at the most. How could she not remember that?
Prosecutor shows maps and questions about being driven home.
Questions about therapy records.
CBF – “summarized the therapy records.
CBF – “can’t recall if reporter saw the records.”
Senator Whitehouse: Questions about FBI investigations. CBF of course says it would be helpful.
Kai Akker on September 27, 2018 at 10:47 am at 10:47 am said:
The voice-cracking and sniffing is fantastic! It comes just at the right moments; how does she do that? Here is a woman who needs a chaperone to go to the mall.
* * *
For some people, it comes naturally. Emotion does affect the voice and demeanor, which is one reason polygraphs don’t actually catch lies, just physiological changes due to emotion.
For other people, it comes from good acting coaches.
You have to make up your own mind which it is, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that the Dems will go with reason 1, and the Reps with reason 2.
Phillipa Crawford on September 27, 2018 at 11:10 am at 11:10 am said:
How did she travel to DC?
* * *
I’m waiting for that one myself.
She popped up in some gum so the optics will change now.
Prosecutor Mitchell:
1) WaPo was shown therapists notes. A: CBF not sure.
2) Kavanaugh’s name is not in the notes.
3) Q: Anxiety and ptsd and this incident contributed. A: Very psychology based answer without any feeling or new information. Follow up Q and A revealed more psychology answers and no feeling or connection.
4) Q: Told husband before marriage but not Kavanaugh’s name A: correct
5) Q: about plane A: She wanted people to come to her. She flies fairly frequently. A: Yes. Been to polynesian islands by flight. CBF “easier to travel when its for vacation”
Senator Klobuchar:
Question about Polygraph and why. A: Met with attorneys and they asked her if she was willing.
Aha, finally it is explained. “Multi-factorial.” Aha.
Just in: she came in an airplane.
And has traveled thusly many times.
Lots of gumption.
She just admitted to a manipulative lie about airplane travel.
But the inept cross-examiner forgot to point out that Grassley offered to have the team question here there! I’m tearing out my hair at the timidity of the GOP approach.
Klobuchar should be sworn is as witness for the prosecution.
Very definite description of 90% of floor plans in upscale America.
Here comes the polygraph – results only or charts as well? Examiner not provided for questioning, some debate over who has what or refused what.
Which is why this is better handled in a trial with established courtroom procedures about evidence and witnesses.
mizpants – Grassley caught that dropped ball pretty well.
“Beach friends” advised her on who to contact?
Not professional colleagues?
The Democrat Senators’ interjections which preface their questions remind me of the advertisements on NPR and PBS, which they call “underwriter testimonials.”
Kavanaugh is finished.
When you can’t cross examine her, you can’t expose her lies for everyone to see, you let her story becomes the only existing narrative while putting her on TV to solidly that story through her mouth in everyone’s mind, how can anyone vote yes now?
GOP is so stupid I just can stand it anymore.
Now Kavanaugh is on trial for the statements of other people responding to Ford’s denunciation.
Am I being over- dramatic or is it possible that the GOP is deliberately throwing this because MeToo has made threats to expose various members?
She is singularly lacking in intellectual understanding – Sen. Grassley’s offer to come to her was clear to any internet reader.
will kavanaugh have his turn later?
Does she have some cognitive issues, or is she just playing dumb?
Sure would be interesting to see any bank of real trial judges say in open court, during the trial, that they believed the plaintiff without reservation.
“Tell me when he was somewhere and I’ll tell you when I saw him there.”
Yeah, right.
Yep – took the polygraph at an airport hotel.
That showed up in a comment thread as soon as the location of the polygraph was known.
Shot the “can’t ride in a plane” pretext right there.
Crowd-sourced discovery is very informative.
“Did anyone advise you on that choice?” of polygrapher.
sub voce “I don’t understand..”
Not playing dumb; it’s the real thing.
I know I sound somewhat caustic here, but I grew up watching Perry Mason on TV, and I’m a nerd at least partially on the spectrum; this is just a natural reaction.
I think Mitchell is doing a very good job with the paucity of information available, since there was never a formal discovery period.
crying a lot during the polygraph test? interesting.
30 minute recess.
Tuning into Rush. He is giving commentary live during hearing.
I wonder how this woman functions at all, in her job and daily life. To me, she projects significant anxiety and confusion. She can’t recall simple details from two months ago, so how are we to believe she is 100% sure of events from 36 years ago?
Does she have some cognitive issues, or is she just playing dumb?
No wonder people complain about white privilege. This woman is a college professor? She seems unlikely to succeed as a kindergarten teacher.
But, at 12:40 pm ET, she is on top of the world — all fear or anxiety gone. This has gone much more easily than she ever imagined! What a relief, those GOP people are completely snowed.
Washington Post commentators explain to the viewers what they are supposed to believe.
I agree that with this format, using the a single questioner was a bad decision. It’s so disjointed she doesn’t have an opportunity to follow through on a line of questioning.
Judge Kavanaugh is going to have to be his own defense attorney. He will have to prove he didn’t do it by offering an alternative to Mrs. Ford’s memory. Denying the allegations will not be enough, IMO.
I would have pressed her on not being able to answer whether or not she was video taped during the polygraph test. If she can’t remember something that happened just over a month ago, how reliable can her memory be about something that happened 35 years ago.
mizpants on September 27, 2018 at 12:24 pm at 12:24 pm said:
Am I being over- dramatic or is it possible that the GOP is deliberately throwing this because MeToo has made threats to expose various members?
* * *
Unlikely, given the list of Senators on the Committee.
I would have chosen Cruz to do all of the questioning, but that would have been bullying the witness. The Reps are still walking the narrow line set by the Dems at the beginning.
“If she can’t remember something that happened just over a month ago, how reliable can her memory be about something that happened 35 years ago.”
This and Highlander’s comment reveal exactly what Mitchell’s questions are designed to elicit. It throws into extreme doubt Ford’s assertion that she’s “100%” certain that it was K who accosted her. Note: not denying her claim, which would be a losing tactic, but rather the the certainty of her ID of the individual.
IMHO
Brian E on September 27, 2018 at 12:47 pm at 12:47 pm said:
I agree that with this format, using the a single questioner was a bad decision. It’s so disjointed she doesn’t have an opportunity to follow through on a line of questioning.
* * *
I think Mitchell is doing quite well.
Her problem is facing ten grand-standing plaintiff’s counsels masquerading as judges.
It would be much more disjointed if the Republican Senators each tried to impose their own line of questioning.
Who DID pay for all of these lawyers and polygraphers?
They don’t come cheap.
Why doesn’t Ford know who is funding her?
I think Mitchell is doing a very good job with the paucity of information available, since there was never a formal discovery period.
She’s doing a very good job of looking and sounding sympathetic. She’s doing a terrible job at exposing any of the issues in Blasey Ford’s weird story–stories, that should be; both the initial incident, if there were one, and the lifelong effects of it.
And whatever happened to that stuff about the PGA guys? : )
CBF has succeeded, using her childlike demeanor, in keeping the pace and the tone of this hearing on the simplest, least challenging (to her) level. She will be laughing with those “beach friends” later on about this one!
WaPo replaying the airplane questions and answers.
Back to “getting up gumption” to get on the plane because she couldn’t understand the clearly demonstrated offer by the committee to come to her, and leaving the impression that her coming to DC on the plane is a significant one-off event, which Mitchell demolished, but WaPo didn’t play. Also didn’t play Grassley’s reminder of the offer.
Just noticed one of their experts tried to go there, caught herself, and veered away.
Hmmm.
Now they are re-litigating Anita Hill.
And praising Ford’s gumption.
Well, it’s not as if we didn’t know which side the Post was on.
That was not “anxious” handwriting; it was standard grade-school block print, which is what most people educated after the seventies do. Any discovery would bring up other normal examples of her writing; I would like to see them.
Not saying handwriting is indicative of character, but lying about it is.
Kai, remember who Mitchell is trying to persuade: not the Dems and Reps who have already made up their minds, but the swingers on both sides of the aisle.
She has to impugn Ford’s testimony without impugning her character. For all their faults, I think Collins and Murkowski are more rational than emotional, and will see that Mitchell has undermined Ford’s basic story by demonstrating a series of small but crucial lies about her behavior and memory.
Thank God in Heaven that race is not an issue here!
“Thomas used the terrible history” of the treatment of black men “as an element of his defense.”
Maybe not exact quotes – my transcription skills are rusty — but good grief! Talk about playing the race card, even though “race is not an issue here”!!
I guess everyone else is listening to Rush.
Or having lunch.
Good choice.
I just like fisking the Post.
Speculating on the swing voters now.
Nothing outstandingly incisive or informative.
Opining that the Reps are avoiding making any comments that can be used against them in the mid-terms, which is true and wisely chosen.
Lamenting that the Dems didn’t choose to go with a single professional questioner, who could ask hard questions of Kavanaugh, but of course with a different motive than the Republicans. ????
All agree that the open questioning by the committee is a circus without much edification.
(not a direct quote)
Lauding the Dem Senators’ virtue signalling for American Women.
Replaying her testimony about the encounter in the bedroom.
(I wasn’t here that early in the hearing; did she read her letter to Feinstein, or was she using any different language?)
AesopFan wrote, “I guess everyone else is listening to Rush.”
Yep. 🙂
But reading also
Replaying Kavanaugh’s interview with that “Friendly Outlet” Fox News (direct quote).
“Making the unusual decision to go on television beforehand.”
But tipping the Post before going to the Committee is not at all unusual.
(that’s the worst they could do, because Kavanaugh was very believable, so they took what they could get, since he didn’t have any binders of women handy)
Hmmm. I’m slow. I just got why the Dems latched onto that anodyne statement of Romney’s. Think about the popularity of “Shades of Grey” and “Game of Thrones” and “The Handmaid’s Tale.” Their minds just work that way.
Now praising Hirono and Booker.
I also can’t wait to hear what they have to say.
“Ram through this vote” tomorrow morning — after delaying it nearly 2 weeks.
“Truth is of the essence…if it takes a few more weeks” means “we need more time to get credible denunciations of Kavanaugh because the ones we have so far are garbage.”
Noting the upsurge in conservative support for Kavanaugh after the New Yorker piece.
Duh.
Kai, remember who Mitchell is trying to persuade: not the Dems and Reps who have already made up their minds, but the swingers on both sides of the aisle.–AesopFan
Mitchell’s a disaster. The fence-sitters have constituents, AesopFan. This hearing so far is a near-total triumph for CBF and her sponsors. No constituents will be asking Susan Collins to defend Judge Kavanaugh from what they have seen up here from this poor pathetic woman.
I am hoping against hope that Mitchell has something more climactic up her sleeve. The only serious question mark she has elicited is that Ford flies around the world but claimed she couldn’t fly to this hearing. That doesn’t go very far, I’m afraid.
It’s going to be up to Judge Kavanaugh to get some seriousness in here. Good luck, Judge!
The other source of hope is that Collins has seemed displeased by the machinations. So she is at least starting out leaning toward a pro-K vote, it appears. Perhaps she will yet deliver a note of sanity into this process somewhere along the way.
“conservatives are concerned that this is a partisan attack”
Duh.
“Is there room in the national discourse for that opinion?”
“That opinion” is that we can respect women, decry assault, teach our sons not to behave badly, and “yet still support” Kavanaugh because the allegations against him are not credible.
Risk assessment of Ford (and all women) versus that of Kavanaugh (and all men) — didn’t catch the details, but it was in favor of women (guilty until proven innocent).
Back to Thomas alienating senators by not watching Hill’s testimony; don’t think Kavanaugh will make that mistake; suggesting what he SHOULD say (along the lines of a link I commented on yesterday), so that if he doesn’t do exactly what they think he should, he must be guilty.
Criticizing Hatch for criticizing Ford.
Hatch is not the one on trial.
Playing Ford’s testimony about how she decided to come forward.
ONLY after hearing that Kavanaugh had been nominated to the Supreme Court.
Not during any other of his confirmation hearings or public record over 30 years or so.
“Didn’t know how to proceed” — not credible to me given her bio.
More like “Couldn’t decide how to get the best effect” — I got the impression she was dissed that the Post didn’t take her tip, the CA person (what’s her name?) didn’t go to her immediately, and Ford held the letter until after the hearing.
Back to Hill and Thomas, and Senators watching the polls.
“emotional and compelling testimony” — “I am not a pawn” —
Well, it’s not like we didn’t know what side the Post was on.
I hope all the Senators are having lunch and ignoring this.
Of course, half of them already agree, and the other half don’t, and we know the swingers aren’t listening to Rushbo….
Hirono attacks Mitchell’s line of questioning and puts words in Ford’s mouth — literally, even more than the leading questions put by the previous senators.
Ford denies political motive for the letter.
“We should be made to question the character of those we put in positions of power” (slightly paraphrased)
Something we can all agree on.
Let’s start with the list of indicted and convicted Senators and Representatives of both parties.
The Dems are still litigating men-in-general and not Kavanaugh’s alleged actions.
Which was the agenda from the start.
Mitchell – back to funding the polygraph.
The lawyers have paid for the polygraph as is routine. (Yes,it’s a billed expense.)
Will Ford have that passed on to her? (Well, to whoever is paying; lawyers never eat the costs of trials if they can help it, and Katz didn’t take this job without some assurance of payment.)
Lost paperwork in moving twice.
Is there an understanding that other people are funding you?
I’m not sure how to handle that (GoFundMe).
Understanding on confidentiality of letter – Ford “understood it would remain confidential, period”
Naive.
She sure has a hard time understanding Mitchell’s lawyerese, although it’s not as opaque as it could be.
Katz to Mitchell to chair on answering questions.
Ford sub voce “..I don’t understand..”
Mitchell .. is .. now .. asking .. questions .. at .. Ford’s .. level .. of .. comprehension.
OK, that was snark.
I would never hire this woman to do any clinical psychological work.
Maybe she is better at paper research.
I have lost hope that a last minute “you can’t handle the truth” knock out punch will ever come.
ooooh Prosecutor Mitchell is going to the “who is paying for the polygraph” and CBF doesn’t know. Mitchell said the polygraph happened months ago.
CBF whispers, “I don’t understand”
Cory Booker submits lots of letters including one from “Bricklayers”
“This is not a trial.”
True, Senator Booker.
Whose choice was that?
Another campaign ad.
With leading questions.
Now it’s the effect on her children.
He wasn’t concerned when Kavanaugh’s kids had to leave the first hearing because of Democrat protesters.
More litigation of sexual assault in general.
I concede it’s a conversation we need to be having, but Ford is neither a heroic Joan of Arc or Liberty leading the French Revolution.
“an intrusive polygraph test” — 2 questions.
Wow. What an ordeal.
My patience is getting tried severely.
Now he has a letter from Mormon women (are they supposed to be more credible somehow? no one thought that when Romney was a candidate).
CBF sure doesn’t understand much. This poor, deluded woman is being badly used by her counsel.
Mitchell – who helped her get an attorney?
Trying to get at the Democrat-Clinton-Katz connection, but Ford deflected it okay (because a serious push would be bullying).
That’s what the questions on funding are going for also.
Both lawyers pro bono (okay, I can buy that; they get reimbursed in some intangible way if not in money). I don’t doubt they believe in the Cause.
Mitchel — who is the connection between you and Kavanaugh.
Ford — brings up Whelan’s speculations — it was that person.
(HMMM-did I really hear that correctly?)
She “went out with him” and “were distant friends”.
Mitchell – is he the only common link?
Ford – only one I will name, or not name, but there are others.
other interactions with Kavanaugh:
four or five parties
no sexual assault at any of those other events
…
Mitchell – let’s cut to the chase – any other inappropriate action by Kavanaugh?
No.
Mitchell asks about “other” social interactions with Kavanaugh.
Kamala Harris is up and she is acting like a normal Senator for once…. so far…
Another ad, by Harris.
Timeline is wrong: she didn’t reach out BEFORE Judge K. was named.
Reviews old news with favorable implications.
Cites her own credentials as a prosecutor of assaults, and (yes) people delay or don’t report . Not in doubt.
It’s all in the timing here.
Criticizes Kavanaugh for not calling on lawyers, witnesses, or investigators. Not really relevant, but Scott Adams would approve the tactic.
It’s Feinstein’s fault it wasn’t investigated in the last two months — Harris carefully doesn’t mention that.
Also doesn’t mention that the FBI manual of procedures applies to contemporaneously reported events.
Mitchell is asking about the other party participants statement under penalty of perjury.
CBF: Leland has significant health challenges.
Feinstein recommended the Katz firm.
Did her friend follow up with her on the night of the party?
I did not share it with her.
All three besides Kavanaugh have denied any knowledge of such a party. Do you have any motives to ascribe to Leland?
Ford: health challenges, apologized for letting lawyer handle it.
didn’t expect them (Leland & PJ) to remember this unremarkable-not one of their notorious- parties.
Mitchell – did you educate yourself on how to get to truth when interviewing victims of trauma? No study says that this method of 5-minute-increments is the best method. Stipulated by the chair.
Were you ever advised to get a forensic interview (which Mitchell had just described)? No.
Instead you were advised to get an attorney and a polygraph.
Yes.
(Ford doesn’t see where Mitchell is going, but the swing votes will.)
Grassley officially enters the sworn witness statements into the record.
Feinstein has three letters (don’t know which ones), no objection. Wants to reconsider decision not to call Mr. Judge to testify.
Blumenthal wants everybody to be questioned, and objects to entering them (Grassley’s letters) into the records.
Whitehouse has a number of letters on the importance of proper investigation by trained professionals.
Kennedy says the statements were taken by majority staff, with no minority participation because they chose not to.
Wants to duke it out with Feinstein, but Grassley thanks and commends Ford.
Time out.
More commentary from WaPo.
I think we can all fill it in.
I’m going to lunch.
This is the comment I mentioned in the previous break, about “what he should say to be believed” aka “accepted as suitably groveling” to the Virtue Police (the Democrats in the Senate and the Left in general; no slam at Ford intended).
(Once more the caveat: allegations of assaults by anyone anytime should be received sensitively, but not necessarily accepted as the last word; they are the prologue to an investigation).
AesopFan on September 27, 2018 at 1:13 am at 1:13 am said:
Well, this one talks about data points, but it’s kind of ambiguous about the conclusion (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
(Market Watch (??))
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-brett-kavanaughs-denials-say-about-his-moral-reasoning-2018-09-26?link=TD_nypost_articles.7c7e0f416376f79f&utm_source=nypost_articles.7c7e0f416376f79f&utm_campaign=circular&utm_medium=MARKETWATCH
Opinion: What Brett Kavanaugh’s denials say about his moral judgment
Published: Sept 26, 2018 5:48 p.m. ET
“For some, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s initial response to claims of sexual assault color the way they are considering the fairness of the nomination process. If his response had been more neutral, balancing his own defense with his impact on others, would that change how people think about the outcome? What makes a denial ethical?
[how about: what makes a denial true or false?]
WaPo taking the poll of social media (you know, those internet vehicles that have been manipulated by the media platforms to shut out conservative voices.)
wait wait, who did she contact BEFORE he had been nominated?
they slipped in that remark that I noted above by Harris.
Or have I missed something in the last 14 days?
Nobody gets two votes on the Supreme Court.
Does not have as many cases on their docket for the fall as usual, and those are relatively non-controversial.
“Demonstrators commended her bravery while Republicans stayed conspicuously silent.”
“Not about these lawmakers at all”
Pardon me for laughing.
Complains that Mitchell asked questions about everything about the assault shows differences in how Republicans and Democrats are going about this — Mitchell’s complaint on the 5-minute-increments is all the Republican’s fault — second-guessing Mitchell’s thoughts.
What were the Republican goals in hiring her? What did they want her to do?
Gee, it looks like she’s in a courtroom, but it’s a slow paperwork build-up not translating to the American public — got more assertive after the break — yada yada.
Once more: Mitchell is not playing to the public, but to the swing vote Senators.
Ford was pretty calm, but she is in no way extraordinary.
I actually think she came across well, if somewhat slow, but Mitchell would have been insane to ask her directly about the assault recollections, for the same reason that I chided right-wing media for continually publishing the lurid details, often before they got to their rebuttals.
Here’s why (aside from a really funny story from college):
I have been getting 4 to 5 fliers in the mail everyday about a local state race, but one candidate continually prints her opponent’s picture and name and tells me to vote no, but in the booth a LIV will only remember “vote” and the name.
Don’t put your opponent’s face and name on your own campaign ads.
NOT amazing to keep a calendar all these years; I have a box full of them.
What’s amazing is that he was able to FIND it.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/09/26/new-fourth-allegation-against-kavanaugh-completely-anonymous-evokes-a-payback-motive/
“Another, and final, interesting observation for this post. Just after getting a load of what Wikipedia offers if you look up Brett Kavanaugh, and reading through the Brock op-ed from a couple of weeks ago, I saw CNN reporter Joan Walsh weigh in on Twitter on the latest allegation about Kavanaugh.
“For the younger folk, 1998 was when Kavanaugh was helping Kenneth Starr ruin Bill Clinton over a consensual affair.” Walsh seems to have had that one pretty handy. She tweeted it 11 minutes after the NBC News tweet of the breaking news about the anonymous complaint. [letter to Cory Gardner]
There is more than one motive for the orchestrated attack on Kavanaugh, and I doubt simple “payback” is the chief one. But it looks like it probably is one.”
Note that he does not say the burden of proof.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/the-burden-of-persuasion.php
“As a practical matter Ford’s testimony has shifted the burden of persuasion to Judge Kavanaugh and the standard is high, somewhere between preponderance of the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt. I have thought he could do that. I hope he can, but he has a steep hill to climb.”
Applies to all the demands for subpoenas and FBI investigations.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/avenatti-myth-versus-fact.php
Zerohedge: “Another question that will be on viewers minds: What will Trump think of the hearing?”
Right on cue, that was the last snippet from the Post before the hearing reconvened.
THe drama. He enters
Grassley reminds us that the witness statements he entered were taken under oath under penalty of felony (aka depositions from witnesses who won’t appear at civil trial; I don’t know about criminal depositions, but I know some statements are entered in lieu of personal appearance under some circumstances.)
Reviews the Democrat obstruction and lack of cooperation throughout.
So far, very forceful statement by Brett. He took lessons from Clarence.
Said the word borking. 🙂
He might be going a little far….
Opening statement by Judge Kavanaugh:
“replaced advise and consent with search and destroy”
“you sowed the wind; for decades to come the country will reap the whirl-wind”
the good-old-fashioned Borking didn’t work
when it was needed, this allegation was publicly released over Dr. Ford’s wishes
illegitimate children? I missed that one.
details all the agendas contributing to his opposition
this grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade people from serving
“what goes around comes around”
He is mentioning all the effects on himself, his family, and the country that WaPo carefully omitted in their hagiography of Ford’s testimony.
Hear both sides – due process a foundation of American law.
Parent’s present – mom overcame workplace sexual harassment – early woman prosecutor – inspired me to be a lawyer and a judge – practiced closing arguments on dad and me – use your common sense – what rings true, false –
Kavanaugh cries. CBF never showed any emotion like this
Hits on the 36 year gap, no corroboration, no hint of this ever before now, demonization by Dem opponents –
onslaught of last-minute allegations does not ring true
concession that Ford may have been assaulted someplace sometime, but not by him
included her family in their family prayers at the request of 10-year-old
Emotional — “we mean no ill will” to Dr. Ford.
(“I do none harm, I think none harm…” — Sir Thomas More)
(I am familiar with men tearing up at our church’s meetings, when they speak about personal events with great feeling — and can give you stories of the wisdom of children who have great faith in spiritual healing, especially in prayer. I’m persuaded.)
Highlights the lack of any hint of sexual wrong-doing in all his years of high-profile public service.
Highlights the lack of specifics of Ford’s allegation while not questioning she may have suffered some kind of assault.
Not in his social circle but they might have met sometime, but he doesn’t remember her.
Repeatedly cites Leland Kaiser’s denial, and adds those of the two men.
Composing himself again. Very compelling.
Columbia Country Club near the house; none of us live near there, nor did she. Questions whose house, travel (she could not legally drive). Nothing new.
Calendars: his dad started keeping detailed calendars in 1978, and told them stories at Christmas. Very emotional again.
(all LDS church members are encouraged to keep personal journals, beginning in high school or earlier; this is NOT unusual)
Party presumably happened on a week-end; other times unlikely.
Out of town almost every time except for these dates: one with dad (emotional again), and 2 small gatherings with named friends.
Who questioned that he didn’t have church on his calendar?
Of course you don’t have to put that on, when you go every Sunday.
Calendars not dispositive on their own, but a piece in the mix to consider.
Friendships with women, not girl friends.
Emotional again — remembering — I didn’t have that many good friends in HS, girls or boys.
Drinking age 18; I liked beer – I still like beer – but never blacked out. There is a bright line between drinking beer and violent crime.
If every beer-drinker is suddenly assumed guilty of sexual assault, we are in a bad place in this country.
Yearbook was a disaster – combination of recent movies – some of us went along to the point of absurdity (those movies were not good role models for youth IMO).
Apologizes to Renate, very movingly; it was affectionate recognition that she was one of us — not related to sex —
Sex not a topic that I ever imagined would come up in a judicial confirmation hearing.
Shy and tried to hide sexual inexperience, while inwardly proud of it. A matter of faith, respect, and caution.
Letters from 65 women who knew him in HS – knew they would be vilified if they defended me – put themselves on the line for me – those are some awesome women, and I love all of them.
Letters from women in college – thanks for their support – a liberal feminist texted “you are a good man” – another “be strong, pulling for you” – a third “holding you in the light of God”
“Cherish your friends, lift up your friends, look out for your friends, love your friends”
Letter from 84 women at Bush White House.
(Note that all of these women are named on record, which could certainly expose them to reprisals from the left)
I can’t type here because it so compelling.
law clerks – best of the law schools – important responsibility – “took notice and took action” to increase number of women clerks – has sent more women to clerk at SCOTUS than any other judge –
Contingent hire of 4 law clerks – all women – a first in history.
“That is who I am, that is who I was.”
teaching at Harvard Law School -testimony of students to committee (original hearing) – “I may never be able to teach again” because of what “this side of the committee has unleashed”
coaching girls basketball “because confidence on the court transfers to confidence in life”
(repeats his condemnation of the Democrats on the committee for trashing his reputation)
comments wife and family for support
“If the mere assertion of a refuted allegation from 36 years ago is enough to destroy a man’s life and career” we have abandoned the principles of due process etc
His closing was not quite as blistering as Sir Thomas More’s but it was very good.
Prosecutor Mitchell had to pause as Kavanaugh blew his nose.
DiFi speaks: omg. she goes on about the FBI investigation again. Kavanaugh forcefully speaks back to DiFI. DiFi acts like it has to be an outside authority. DiFi stumbles.
AesopFan:
Speaking of Sir Thomas More—as a non-Christian, I nevertheless found it very effective and moving when Kavanaugh spoke about his churchgoing. He said he didn’t write that on the calendar because he went to church every week as regularly as brushing his teeth. And he still goes to church every Sunday. He also said one of the reasons he held off on sex in his high school years was his religion. Then at the very end, he swore to his family but also to God that he was innocent. By that time, we knew how important the swearing to God part was to him.
Of course, the Catholic references can be rejected by those who are angry at the church for its own abuses, and no doubt the left will make a big deal of that. But watching him, I though he was very effective.
He came across as very very strongly emotional, which in this case was good and necessary. Probably more emotional than he’s ever been in public in his entire life.
Mitchell’s introductory remarks, and the paperwork (which WaPo is somehow surprised we don’t get to see).
Questions about his knowledge of Mark Judge, Leland Kayser, Ford.
Feinstein questions – why aren’t you asking the FBI to investigate these claims?
K: I asked for a hearing the next day — all these things came out and are printed and run in the ten days – I’m all in immediately.
F: (all smarmy because she didn’t bring up the allegation in the 2 weeks she had it on her desk)
K: the FBI doesn’t reach a conclusion – I’m here, I wanted to be here the next day, …
F: hearings are set by the majority — FBI didn’t interview.
K: you’re interviewing me, you’re doing it.
(okay Neo, I know why you don’t listen to these, I can hardly keep from spitting at my screen)
What is too many beers:
Weak – whatever the chart says
(oops – needed an answer to that one)
never passed out – gone to sleep but never blacked out
(also weak)
never work up in a different location, clothes in a different condition, never heard about something he didn’t remember –
Aesop, Baklava, Neo:
Thanks for the running comments, and the assessment. Exceptional.
Questions on the party alleged by Ford
Never at a party of that description; never alone in a room with her and Mark Judge; etc point by point
(this would have been questions on a legitimate polygraph interview, to the extent that they CAN be legitimate)
Calendars –
created by him, exclusively his handwriting, no changes since 1982, prospective plans or actual occurrences.
Both forward and backward – crossed out things that didn’t happen (I do the same thing) – lists of people probably added back-ward looking.
Why did you keep them all this time?
So did his dad.
Speaking of Sir Thomas More—as a non-Christian, I nevertheless found it very effective and moving when Kavanaugh spoke about his churchgoing. He said he didn’t write that on the calendar because he went to church every week as regularly as brushing his teeth. And he still goes to church every Sunday. He also said one of the reasons he held off on sex in his high school years was his religion. Then at the very end, he swore to his family but also to God that he was innocent. By that time, we knew how important the swearing to God part was to him.
Just to point out something: if you’re immersed in the Catholic thought-world (as most baptized Catholics were in 1963 and few are today), there are certain rubrics in the week in can induce anxiety to disregard. Missing Mass (on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation) is a mortal sin. For someone who is detail-oriented (and there’s reason to believe Kavanaugh is), Confession is undertaken with a template examination of conscience and holding off on confession also induces anxiety. Committed Catholics speak of ‘a good death’, meaning one in a state of grace. Also, certain practices are highly repetitive, such as mediation on the Rosary.
At the same time, the sort of scriptural study common among evangelicals and the precise attention to sermons characteristic of the evangelical world is not common.
That he has the calendars is indicative of a bit of OCD on his part or on Martha Kavanaugh’s part. Pretty funny. Maybe mother and son will be featured on Hoarders.
WaPo – remarks different from what we expected (the leaked ones last night?)
Question his emotional fervor – maybe he needed an editor.
Hitting on the “I like beer” -not all beer drinkers commit sexual assault – “I am just like you” on Team Beer.
Confrontational with Senator Feinstein — ya think!!
He came across as very very strongly emotional, which in this case was good and necessary. Probably more emotional than he’s ever been in public in his entire life.
Yep. That aspect, and the discussion of his sexual history between 1979 and 2004, has been disconcerting.
That is what i would expect the emotion of a man who was framed for something he didn’t do would be.
Leahy’s questions – back to the FBI and the interviewing omission.
Could they have been hoping some witness would trip up on some minor point and lie to the FBI, thus open to a process charge, as is their specialty.
Kavanaugh is trying to school Leahy, and winning.
Leahy attacks Mr. Judge and asks about references in his book – “is that you”.
K: It’s fiction. You would have to ask him
Yearbook again: “let me explain high school”
Large poster of YB entry –
K: reprise opening statement, a poor decision to exaggerate and (essentially) fictionalize – “taking us to a new level of absurdity”
Mitchell back to the calendar, July 1 1982 —
Judge and PJ in that entry – Chris Garrett is “Squee”
Routine documentation of parties, even small get-togethers.
Would have documented any event like Ford alleged.
(NOTE for plaintiff – IF it was a prospective invitation, he might not back-fill names IF he did what she alleged, but it would still be on the calendar; IF an impromptu gathering, he wouldn’t make any note at all)
He is very respectful to Ms. Mitchell, which bolsters his reputation as stated by the women he works with.
Sen. Durbin – starting sympathetically – suggests he ask to suspend hearing for an FBI investigation – you turned to the FBI when in the WH for judicial investigations –
Grassley: this committee is running this hearing, not you, not the WH, not the nominee. We are not suspending this hearing.
Durbin: (gives him another offer)
K: I welcome the truth and I’m innocent.
I called for a hearing, this was held for two weeks
D: Are you afraid?
Sub voce from the gallery: Gee whiz!
D: why do you resist the dots brought up by the press
K: I’ll do whatever the committee wants
Grassley: just ask the witness – and you can ask for an FBI report yourself if you want it.
Sen. Graham brings up Schumer’s announcement of opposition on the day K. was nominated.
When you met with Feinstein on Aug 20 did you know she had recommended a lawyer, held the allegation, etc.
K: no
G to D: you could have come to us at any time for an FBI investigation.
Yells at Durbin: I would never do to Kagan and Sotomayor what you are doing to him.
You want power, God I hope you never get it, Ford is your victim as much as Kavanaugh.
Graham is on a roll defending Kavanaugh, I hope he doesn’t overplay his hand.
Graham addresses his Republican colleagues and calls them out.
Whitehouse has a hard act to follow – asks to let things settle a little bit.
Back to the yearbook: consistent in time, your words on your page.
K: don’t know if editors changed anything, but I won’t contest it, “Have at it if you want to go through my year book”
Ketchup on spaghetti — K has always had a weak stomach with beer or spicy food or anything.
K: hard to do what he did if he was an habitual drunk
What do you like to drink, Senator?
K: …that refers to flatulence; we were 16
(W. should have been coached on pronunciation; he looks uneducated, and certainly unprepared)
K: apologizes to Renate again.
I want to give Graham a deep french kiss
Devil’s triangle drinking game explained.
Squee stuttered when saying the F word
W is trying to get him to admit some kind of blacking out, because they weren’t paying attention to a ball game that was a pretext for a party.
Cornyn finally says “Have you no decency?” to the committee.
The American people will make their decision.
This is not a job interview, this is about a crime.
If you lied, that is a crime itself.
We would have to conclude you are a serial liar if we vote against you.
A fair process means the accusers have to present evidence.
We’re not a police state, we insist that charges be proven by evidence, we are not in a court or half my colleagues would be in contempt.
There has to be corroboration. Right to be angry about delays.
Klobuchar – duty to advise and consent, needed to look at this charge, ask for an investigation.
K: you are doing the investigation!
Why are the Dems harping on this FBI thing?
Somebody might think they already have a conclusion ready to announce.
AesopFan; Dave:
I haven’t been watching the questioning of Kavanaugh. I am exhausted by this (I can only imagine how drained Kavanaugh is). But I will say this: when Graham is good, he is very very good. He’s smart. He has spent a great deal of his life in the Senate, and I think that the current state of the Senate has shocked him. He is very angry.
Earlier today he apparently said this:
Kavanaugh calls out Klobuchar out on misquotes from Judge’s book; doesn’t want to repeat private hearing material; recites some of the situation. She backs down.
She’s repeating Mitchell’s memory questions, he says he never has a case where he didn’t remember what had happened.
K: have you? I’m curious.
Klobuchar: I don’t have a drinking problem.
K: neither do I.
Grassley elucidates the position of the Committee and the FBI.
Brings up the Biden Maxim.
“They do not reach conclusions. They do not make recommendations.”
Except when they do.
Whitehouse still wants a new investigation, because they can find evidence.
Grassley: the letter was sent to the FBI, they sent it to the WH.
I feel like we are getting the color announcers at half-time telling us how the game is going and what it all means.
Graham used to strike me as a slimy kind of guy, like a Fence sitter, someone akin to Mccain.
“Will they be won over by his denials, by his tears?”
“What posture will he take with the other side?”
Angry interruptions called out (they were totally justified)
Durbin was the epitome of the calm voice, “Do you see five fingers or four”
AesopFan:
These quotes from Graham are pretty intense:
Particularly that last one: Ford is your victim, to the Democrats. To me, that is an incredibly strong argument. She wanted (supposedly, anyway) to remain anonymous, but Democrats wouldn’t let her. They exposed her to this. And the Republicans respected her fragility by being willing to do it in California, not having men question her, not having her be cross-examined, etc..
I was originally perplexed as to why the Republicans tied their hands and kept themselves from questioning her at all, leaving her errors unchallenged. I didn’t realize that they would get to speak—and to challenge the Democrats, who deserve it—in the Kavanaugh phase of the hearings. That’s pretty smart as a tactic, actually. Had they questioned Ford it would have seemed like they were taking advantage of an emotionally distraught woman.
At least in the Durbin exchange they kept Kavanaugh’s response “you know that’s a phony question.”
(and the gallery’s boos to Durbin)
Reports that Trump is loving the show, and he may be the most important audience, plus the swing votes.
They mentioned Graham’s criticism of his Rep colleagues.
We’ve forgotten about the actual allegations and victims of sexual assault — ya think?
At least he’s honest that the discussion shifted off the individuals to group experiences.
Walking a line if he paints himself as a victim (despite the fact that he is) — amended to “the sole victim” — concedes K. sympathy toward Ford, but slid toward “I am the victim the most”
Cites accusations in opening statement that Dems ruined his life (they did),
yada yada
Who leaked Dr. Ford’s name?
” I didn’t realize that they would get to speak—and to challenge the Democrats, who deserve it—in the Kavanaugh phase of the hearings. That’s pretty smart as a tactic, actually. Had they questioned Ford it would have seemed like they were taking advantage of an emotionally distraught woman.” — Neo.
I didn’t know that rule either, I wonder if they orchestrated any of the Rep statements?
The tactic is very smart; I would suggest that Cruz and Lee had a hand in that.
Mitchell may not be an experienced cross-examiner (per Dersh), but those two are.
Rep Senators are hitting the unfairness, the lack of corroboration, the unhinged allegations. This has got to be a planned defense.
“Guilt by association is wrong. Immaturity does not equal criminality.”
Allegations are inconsistent with the entire course of his life.
His questions highlight the sand-bagging by Feinstein and the Democrats through the whole sorry process.
Sen. Coons – questions on aggression while drinking and forgetting when drunk
NO is the basic answer “unless you’re talking about something you’re going to ask about that I don’t know about.”
YEP that’s what Coons did.
Some kind of testimony from a “friend,” but K has heard about it — “the sloppy drunk” article.
Roommate’s recollections – K. refers back to the three people in the small room, redacted in the testimony, take that into consideration.
Back to the call for a pause to have an FBI investigation.
“Fair, law enforcement driven, non partisan” — has he been under a rock for the last 2 years?????????
Grassley reprises: we had 45 days we could have been investigating this, plus the time between the announcement and hearings. There was plenty of time put in on this nomination.
Puts into the record the letter from the 65 women who knew him in HS, with quotes.
My computer died at the beginning of Sen. Lee’s speech; I hope it was as good as it started out.
Blumenthal is up now. Back to the FBI.
K: all of the witnesses testified under oath under penalty of felony.
B: conflates K. opening statement about the Dems with Ford.
K: rebuts properly
B: falling out of the bus
K: organized the trip etc “You and I have discussed this before” — exhibits a very precise memory of the events —
B: implies “piece things back together” insinuates “recall what happened”
K: I know exactly what happened that night.
B: “do you believe Anita Hill?”
Sen. Crapo – asks Kavanaugh to describe an FBI examination, which he has undergone many times.
and so forth
Larry Elder is on. iHeart radio AM 1380 KTKZ THe answer.
Senator Mazie Hirano:
Q: Which one of our questions were an embarrasment.
My comment: He didn’t say a question was an embarrasment but that is what Democrats do – turn a comment into something else.
Hirono brings us back to Ford “100% certain it was you” – struggled with her decision, wanted the President to know, etc.
H: said in your opening that the Dems were an embarrassment, she lists some of her questions, asks what was embarassing.
Back to the job interview thing
(that was then, this is now)
H: There is no entitlement for you to be on the court
(she read the WashExam post I linked on the other thread?)
She asks open-ended questions then complains that he is running out her time by answering them.
H: Back to the college statements from Roommate; is he lying?
K: refers her back to the sealed redacted portion (for about the third time).
K: once again points out that he could not have done what he did at Yale if he was an aggressive sloppy drunk.
That is very unfair questioning when he can’t reveal a sealed transcript.
H: other references — but her time is up – so enters 4 letters into the record rather than reading the juicy parts out loud.
(all requesting an FBI investigation)
THe WaPo live YouTube live stream has this many viewers:
117,557 watching now
at this moment.
#2 on Trending
It is #1 on Live Trends. Second is Joe Rogan with 19K viewers.
Sen Tillis – compares this to campaign smears but worse
Reminds us that there is an investigation going on, it’s on the website, and the Dems often declined to participate and ask questions.
None of this came out when it was all fully known and lawyered up.
I think I heard Dr. Ford say she wasn’t aware that we offered to come to California — why not? — we are doing an investigation – moved heaven and earth – look at the lack of investigation by the party clamoring for an investigation — it’s documented, we’re doing our job.
(In fairness, the campaign ads are coming from the R and the D, just different substance. Very interesting.)
They have already acquired a URL for the next judge they are going to attack (displays card).
Ask your D leaders: why didn’t we do our part in the investigation?
These allegations can be pursued through the courts, but everyone knows that’s not going to happen.
Booker – you drank during the week – I just need a yes or no –
(not allowing explanation or context)
(This is really bullying the witness, Spartacus.)
B also trying to tie the complaints about the D to Ford. Cuts off K explanation, going into leading questions.
Cuts off K again, a real jerk.
“Do you wish she had never come forward?”
K is holding steady – “bear no ill will toward her” —
B: “she sat here, she told her truth”
B: goes to the 2012 etc “she did not coordinate” –
(we don’t know that)
NEVER voting for Booker for anything EVER
B: wanting to clarify Ford was not a Clinton pawn.
G: was that a question?
B: No that was a statement.
Sen. Cruz (if my computer goes out again, Google is after me)
Baklava on September 27, 2018 at 6:09 pm at 6:09 pm said:
Larry Elder is on. iHeart radio AM 1380 KTKZ THe answer.
Senator Mazie Hirano:
Q: Which one of our questions were an embarrasment.
My comment: He didn’t say a question was an embarrasment but that is what Democrats do – turn a comment into something else
* * *
Indeed.
C: even the NYT would not report on two of those allegations, but not a single Dem in this committee asked about those (Ramirez & Avenatti).
Affirms that committee treated Ford with respect, but not you.
(he’s giving a closing statement to the jury, as he is so expert at doing)
C: Ford said that only 3 people had her letter, and her attorney didn’t release it, so it had to be one of the other true.
Feinstein asks to respond. “I did not hide Dr. Ford’s allegations. I did not leak her story.”
Back to the “stalked by the press” (but I still want to know: who leaked the letter to Ronan Farrow?)
Claims majority didn’t tell her or her staff about some of the things they did (not mentioning that she was doing the same.)
Cornyn?? asks if her staff leaked it, but she has not asked anyone directly, how did it get in the hands of the press.
C: Somebody leaked it if it wasn’t you.
Cruz: does the committee have a process for confidential consideration?
G: yes we do
C: what would you have done if the allegation had been raised timely?
G: (explains rational process)
C: so it could have been investigated two months ago confidentially
Feinstein: thinks the leak came from the friends she talked to about the letter.
Cornyn (I can’t read his name plate): how did the press know?
(inconclusive- could have happened that way)
Harris: have you had a polygraph?
K: will do whatever is wanted, they aren’t admissible, they aren’t reliable.
H: (back to the FBI investigation again; are these people totally tone deaf, stupid, or giving the media a choice of sympathetic sound-bites to claim K refuses to be investigated?)
(their goal is to turn “are you willing to ask the WH to conduct such an investigation” into “He DID ask so let’s suspend the hearings)
K: I’ve had 6.
(He is too cagey to get caught in that trap, thank goodness)
H: compares his treatment to that of Gorsuch, who was not accused of sexual assault “how do you explain that”
(it’s a canny insinuation)
K: witness statements again
Turns her next question on its head, about the probability that a man can treat lots of women well and some badly.
H: did you watch Dr. Ford’s testimony (links to Thomas hearing)
K: did not; preparing mine
Flake – this is not a good process but it’s all we’ve got.
(no, it’s not, and Cruz & Grassley just said so)
Kennedy – sorry for both, it could have been avoided.
Do you believe in God?
“I’m gonna give you a last opportunity in front of God and everybody: are Dr Ford’s allegations true?”
K: not as pertaining to me
Ramirez not supported by anything, likewise Avenatti’s total nonsense.
K: zero doubt in my mind; I swear to God.
Hearing adjourned.
Not listening to WaPo’s closing; we know they will spin for Ford, but they haven’t been totally unfair to Kavanaugh.
I now have a lot more respect for the skill of the people who do simultaneous transcription or translation.
This is where the “100%” came from, at the beginning of Ford’s testimony.
Zerohedge Update III: “In response to a question from Sen. Dick Durbin, Ford said she remembers encountering Mark Judge once following the assault during a trip to the Potomac Safeway, and that he appeared extremely uncomfortable, despite the two of them being friendly before the assault. Asked by Durbin about whether she could be mistaken about Kavanaugh’s identity, she said she is “100% certain” that it was Kavanaugh who had assaulted her.”
Not accusing Mark Judge of anything, but
Why would Mark Judge appeared extremely uncomfortable seeing the woman he pretty much rescued?
uneasiness is usually a reaction displayed on someone who is guilty of something.
Dave:
Not accusing you of anything, but do you still…… Just askin, after all Dr. Ford’s memory and veracity are exemplary.
Thought I already posted this. Maybe elsewhere by mistake.
CFB has been in CA so long she’s picked up a permanent vocal fry, or has a very bad cold. In either case, it substitutes for actual emotion.
She’s a freaking PSYCHOLOGIST. We were introduced to the polygraph, theory and (mal) practice in Intro to Psych for sophomores. She cannot, cannot be telling the truth about her unfamiliarity with the process, her fear, and the stress she underwent. In addition, such stress would make the results useless. You need an unstressed baseline when you are telling the truth. The operator asks various questions about you that have no bearing on the issue, that he already knows since you’ve already told him–place of birth, school, etc–in order to compare when the questions at issue are asked. If the baseline is messed up, there is nothing to which to compare answers to the relevant questions.
Some have said that remembering nothing, or being unable to recall large chunks of the assault, is common among victims. I’ll take that as true since addressing it is not likely to be fruitful. But I’m not aware of any research in which the attack causes the victim to later name as witnesses those who either refute the assertion entirely or have no idea what she’s talking about. Which could be a refutation if the victim’s assertion is that they were at the party.