Theatrical politics: the hearing
[UPDATES below]
NOON:
So far I have not been able to bring myself to watch, although I probably will watch some of it later.
That may surprise you, but it’s for several reasons. The first is that I always am reluctant to take information in by listening and get impatient with it; I’ve mentioned that before. The second is that I generally get angry at the puffing and posing and posturing and politicking that are rampant in such hearings before Congress—all such hearings, in my experience so far. They are generally worthless or much worse than worthless, with perhaps a nugget or two that is important amid a pile of garbage. That means I tend to alternate between angry and bored for them.
But the third reason is the most important of all, and it applies to this particular hearing in particular. I am unusually angry right now that this is even being allowed to happen, because it seems deeply and inherently unfair to me. There is zero chance of discovering any sort of truth in this format. It is pure political theater. Even more offensively to me, it is a stage for theater in the guise of truth-seeking, with histrionics and feelings as the method and the goal.
It is a mock-trial that is nothing like a real trial. There are no protections for the accused here, and protections for the accused are the very foundation of the liberty we hold (or at least should hold) dear.
How on earth can a person counter the testimony of a traumatized, emotional woman in a forum like this? I have little doubt that Ford will either act that part (probably quite convincingly) or that she actually is a traumatized, emotional woman. I don’t know what traumatized her. It may have indeed been some incident thirty-six years ago in which a boy or two boys tried to get sexually intimate with her and ultimately failed.
Why that particular incident would traumatize this one woman so terribly when it would fail to do so with many others is one of the mysteries of human life, but that’s really not the issue here. The issue is: was Brett Kavanaugh one of the boys? How can he prove that? After hearing her emotional testimony, all he can do is deny it.
What force can that possibly have? I don’t know. But I do know that in an actual court of law his denial (in the form of a “not guilty” plea) would only be the starting point for a huge amount of discovery, evidence, cross-examination, expert witnesses—the entire panoply of the justice system in which one side would attempt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what the accuser says happened actually happened and constituted a crime or crimes, and in which the defendant’s name would be cleared if that proof could not be accomplished. However, in a real court instead of this kangaroo court, Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations wouldn’t even get that far, because they are so weak and so poorly evidenced and so old that the case would never come to trial.
The system is designed to protect us all, not just the Brett Kavanaugh’s of the world. Political theater is designed to protect no one except the fame and fortune of the politicians involved. It is not a forum for truth-finding, although in the process we may occasionally stumble upon it.
I can only hope that the truth will emerge here, but I strongly doubt it, and the process itself is a dangerous one that enshrines some of the worst impulses of our political “leaders.” I am with Ben Stein on this:
To stop Donald Trump, the Democrats have tossed out the whole basis of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence — innocent until proven guilty. They’ve taken the greatest deliberative body in the world, the Senate —and made it the chapter room of a sorority at a tenth rate college. Is there no end to it? Stalin would approve. So would Goebbels. If this Democrat trick works, there simply is no meaningful legal protection in this country any longer.
It is clear to me that there is none. And that is true no matter how the hearing goes and how the Senate vote on Kavanaugh goes.
UPDATE 12:20 PM: I watched a couple of minutes and turned it off, for the aforementioned reasons. Reading about it around the blogosphere so far, it seems that her testimony is perceived as “credible” (which only means it might be true, and that plenty of people will believe it who are disposed to believe it) and the format is terrible, with the questioner only allowed 5-minute segments, and the Democrats posturing and praising Ford’s bravery. It seems so far that it’s playing quite nicely into the Democrats’ hands, which is what I expected. Do you agree?
I am also reading that there is no opportunity for the Republicans to cross-examine the witness. Is this really so? Did they really acquiesce to such a bizarre and lopsided forum for the Democrats and Ford to speak unchallenged? If so, are they stark raving mad?
UPDATE 12:33 PM I just took a look at a site that explained the hearing’s format, and it appears that the GOP will not question her. The single female questioner will do all the interrogating. I realize this was done to avoid the appearance of the GOP browbeating her, but it puts all the pressure on this one person and ties the hands of the GOP entirely, while the Democrats are free to spout off. A terrible terrible format that never should have been allowed to occur.
UPDATE 12:40 PM I am continually puzzled by the word “credible.” I’m reading that she sounds “credible” and her emotion seems real. Do people not realize that “credible” simply means that she’s not saying something like “little green men came from Mars and Brett Kavanaugh directed them to rape me”? (Although I have no doubt that some Democrats would find that credible, too.) Plenty of people are very effective at faking emotion. In her case it would be even easier, since the experience of testifying in this way is itself traumatic and emotional and could lend itself to shakiness and near-tears or even real tears. But Ford doesn’t need to feign emotion. If something really did happen to her—or even if she believes it happened—her emotion would be extremely real and she would have no need for faking.
As I’ve said before, that has no bearing on whether something of the sort she describes did happen to her, and it absolutely has no bearing on whether Brett Kavanaugh did it. That latter question—did this person do it?—is the only thing that’s relevant. And yet, how many people see it that way? I don’t think very many do. In a courtroom, the judge keeps reminding them of what they should be considering, and what the standard of proof should be. But as I’ve said before, this is no courtroom. This is a theater meant to draw on people’s emotional reactions.
UPDATE 1:05 PM One of the big problems the GOP faced from the start was that, once they decided to allow Ford to speak (a decision that IMHO was motivated by holdouts in the GOP who insisted on it) then they had problems with the optics of the GOP men questioning (“browbeating”) this poor suffering traumatized woman. In retrospect, I think it would have been far better had they gone ahead with that format anyway. The format they did choose involves a ceding of their own power, which makes them look weak and passive and allows the Democrats and Ford the floor, and depends entirely on the skill of the female interrogator. So the GOP screwed itself, essentially, by allowing the format to occur, but it was in some sense already screwed by the entire situation.
I sincerely hope I am wrong.
UPDATE 2:10 PM
Brett Kavanaugh has been a federal judge for about 15 years. But he’s also a lawyer and a graduate of Yale Law School, one of the finest in the nation in terms of reputation. To have gotten where he is professinally, he has to have tremendous legal skills. It occurs to me that he will need all those legal skills this afternoon. He is fighting for his life, not just the right to be on the Supreme Court. He is defending the entire record of his life both public and private. And there is no one to defend him except himself. He has no defense counsel and no rules of evidence here. He will have to depend on his wits.
This is profoundly unfair. The Clarence Thomas hearing was a bad situation as well, but it was fairness itself compared to today.
UPDATE 2:50 PM Having looked back recently to watch Clarence Thomas’ “high-tech lynching” moment, two things struck me in particular. The first was the clarity and eloquence of what he said. The second was his passion, his deep although controlled sense of outrage that came across loud and clear. It seemed like the outrage of an innocent man, and if he wasn’t innocent he certainly was a fine actor. although it did not come across as prepared. I think it was extemporaneous, although I’m not sure.
And it occurs to me that Kavanaugh will have to muster some of that eloquence and controlled fire. It shouldn’t be this way—these things should not be the way to determine things—but I think it is this way. I think that Kavanaugh needs to impress on his listeners that this isn’t just a threat to him, this sort of accusation winning the day is a threat to everyone, and that this is true even if Ford is convinced she’s telling the truth. Because memory is faulty and people are constantly mistaken about things, we deal with these things in the court of law and with the presumption of innocence. Once we throw that out the window we are set up for mob rule.
I don’t know whether that would save him. But I do think he needs to say that, because it is true.
UPDATE 3:21 PM
“Due process is the foundation of the American rule of law.” Kavanaugh. True, all too true.
He breaks down for a moment when saying his 10-year-old daughter said they should pray for “the woman”—i.e. Ford.
Kavanaugh does have Thomas’ outraged passion, but doesn’t have his deep voice.
UPDATE 3:35 PM
Kavanaugh keeps tearing up when he talks about his father. He is also going into detail about his calendar and what it says. I find it very effective. But I am disposed to finding it effective.
UPDATE 5:20 PM
I have not watched the questioning of Kavanaugh. Too stressful and exhausting; I can only imagine how stressful and exhausting it is for him. He’s made of sterner stuff than I.
But commenter “AesopFan” has posted some quotes from this portion of the proceedings. These quotes from Lindsay Graham are pretty intense:
Graham to Senator Durbin: 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.
I am especially impressed with that last one: Ford is your victim, said to the Democrats. To me, that is an incredibly strong argument. She had wanted (supposedly, anyway) to remain anonymous, but it was the Democrats wouldn’t let her. They exposed her to this. And it was the Republicans who respected her fragility by being willing to question her in California, and ultimately by not having men question her, not having her be cross-examined, etc..
I was originally perplexed as to why the Republicans had tied their hands and kept themselves from questioning her at all during the hearing and only letting Mitchell question her, leaving her errors stated but essentially unchallenged in any strong way. I hadn’t realized that the Republicans would get to speak—and to challenge the Democrats, who deserve it—during the Kavanaugh phase of the hearings.
That’s pretty smart as a tactic, actually. Had they questioned Ford directly at all it would have seemed like they were taking advantage of an emotionally distraught and somewhat fragile woman.
I’m actually relieved to read this, Neo. I’ve been feeling anger more than anything since it became clear that Ford is farce and is being catered to. The Senate is not a deliberative body any longer if this is the best way they could think of to deal with these sorts of accusations. Why do none of them have the spine to say something similar to Stein’s quote?
What would Patrick Henry and his ilk make of what has become of what they created?
Phillipa Crawford:
Gives me an upset stomach.
There are no coarse indicators that this woman was ever traumatized, or if there are, the media is assiduously concealing them. There are no significant academic or professional failures in her history. She’s never been through a divorce proceeding. She has a pair of married parents. If she’s been collared driving drunk, had an abortion, had a spell in rehab, had a spell in an asylum, they’ve all been concealed from us. If she’s taken psychotropics, that’s been concealed. If she’s had an eating disorder, we haven’t seen the pix. What we do know is that she’s been through marriage counseling. That’s not an indicator of trauma. That’s an indicator of suboptimal problem-solving ability.
Art Deco:
Whether she was traumatized or not is irrelevant. The question is: if so, then by who? There is no way to determine that in this format, as far as I can see.
There is an article by Adam Mill listing ten flags about sexual assault claims and Ford hits them all. (I don’t want to be a bad guest here by linking another’s work.) The Senate should not have allowed themselves to be manipulated in this way. Having allowed it, they should not be surprised if none of us take them seriously again.
the contention of the testimony was never about whether she was attacked, from what Lindsey Graham said yesterday even the GOP has accepted something happened to her. Can Kavanaugh provide something to prove that it was definitely not him? Kavanaugh’s documented fondness for beer will always be his Hercules heel, he said he never got so drunk to the point of a blackout but then how does he prove that. No one disputes that he is a gentleman when sober, how can he prove he has never blacked out? Sorry, in the court of public opinion you are guilty until proven innocent.
I have gone from outraged to enraged to incredible sadness at this farce. The fact is that nobody is safe from someone making such allegations. No man is safe. Are we truly going to see a good, decent and honest man totally destroyed by the democrats? It is terrifying and very, very dangerous.
It will be the same for the next nominee no matter who it is. Even if it is a woman.
The Senate should not have allowed themselves to be manipulated in this way. Having allowed it, they should not be surprised if none of us take them seriously again. –Phillipa Crawford
Agreed. I will be surprised if we ever have hearings again on SC nominations. Take a vote in committee and go to the floor, or not. This has been a destructive fiasco. What would the next one be like, should Trump get another vacancy?
Neo, a little will go a long way on this hearing if you watch later on. I doubt you will be surprised, unfortunately.
Supposedly two men have now come forward and said that they are the ones who were involved in the incident involving Professor Ford.
On the eve the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examining the stories of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, two men have reportedly come forward claiming that they, not Judge Kavanaugh, were the ones who had the encounter in question with Ford.
“Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have reportedly conducted two interviews.”
https://pjmedia.com/trending/bombshell-man-tells-judiciary-committee-he-did-it-not-kavanaugh/
The problem with the GOP is that they never took advantage of some obvious false allegations, beating a dead horse with it and use that to promote the idea that women may lie for whatever purposes, because they are holier than thou, the end doesn’t justify the means and they will use questionable tactics that is beneath their moral standards just to win. They have allowed the left to indoctrinated everyone with the women never lie belief without contest for so long now it has become the default mode of thinking for most people. You can throw around the presumption of innocence legal mumble jungle all you want but in the court of public opinion, the court that really matters now, no one understand and no one care. evil always win for a reason. Evil appeals to emotion, which is the defraud mode of decision making for most people, and evil is easy to understand.
Why does the idea that politics being a dirty business and mud wrestling match with pigs such a foreign idea for modern conservatives. Lincoln wouln’t have won anything if he was playing as clean as modern conservatives. you think the dramatized depictions of gentlemen respectively discussing and resolving things gentlemanly in the congress in movies truly accurate?
I think that if framed right, a number of dems running for re-election could be hammered if BK’s is postponed until after the election.
I doubt we will ever know the truth about how this travesty was allowed to be perpetrated and I guess it does not matter except to see how deep the corruption goes. Were Grassley’s decisions forced by the usual suspects in the Senate? Probably not.
Unlike you, Neo, practically every conservative pundit genuflected that “of course, we have to hear her story.” Why? As you say, this is just a stage for the Left to spew their propaganda. Why give them this stage?
That is what is so discouraging. If we cannot depend on the people conservatives elect or on people who style themselves as conservative commentators has our side lost?
All we can hope now is that McConnell keeps his word and forces a vote on the confirmation. That will at least get the weak senators on the record so the voters can react accordingly.
One of the big problems the GOP faced from the start was that, once they decided to allow Ford to speak (a decision that IMHO was motivated by holdouts in the GOP who insisted on it) …
neo: That’s the nut of it, I believe. Otherwise McConnell and Grassley would have forced the vote by now.
The prosecutor who is questioning her is getting her to admit to some inconsistencies like not flying. And she didn’t even remember whether the polygraph was done on the day of her grandmother’s funeral. Te questioning now will be very polite, but I think The inconsistencies will be hit upon pretty hard later. Also it is coming out how much her attorneys have controlled her through this whole process.
OMT: She has two sons. I’d love to hear themask her about how she teaches them about relationships with women.
Been watching – as a “survivor” myself (prefer the term veteran), have a couple questions:
First, 6-8 weeks later; SHE approaches Mark Judge and says hello? The more normal traumatized response would have been avoidance. And she is “clear” on how white and sick looking he was? That didn’t ring true to me.
Second, a small pre-party gathering with only two females, no music downstairs and two visibly intoxicated males follow one female upstairs, music is turned up and no one comes up to “checkout” what’s going on? The other female, as a good friend, never questions her friends absence, or her later abrupt departure? The two males are so drunk they lurch and bounce off walls leaving the bedroom but stop to turn off or down the music? And drunk that early in the day?
This is a very emotional presentation, almost perfectly so. So emotional that one detail is being essentially unchallenged – WHY is she 100% certain it was him?
Bob:
“We have to hear her story” is PC, and even the right has to be PC these days. I’m not important, so unlike them I don’t have to be PC.
I don’t want to hear her story except in one or both of 2 forums: a therapist’s office, or a courtroom. Those are the only 2 forums that would be appropriate, and it would never get to the latter forum because it would be thrown out of court before it ever got to court.
The #MeToo movement has enshrined the idea of listening to women and believing them all. That’s garbage, because that is not the way to determine whether a story is true and to protect the accused. But #MeToo cares not about the accused. It’s a case of avenging Furies (see this). I have never approved of the #MeToo movement for that reason. I do NOT automatically believe women, or any group of people. I believe in the rule of law. I believe in innocent till proven guilty. The mob is dangerous, and we have surrendered to the mob, all in the guise of kindness to women.
It makes me sick to my stomach. And I’m a woman.
You have to give it to the Dems, they found Kavanaugh’s only Achille’s Heel with being a drunk in HS and ran with it.
I’m 100% in agreement with your reasons for not watching the hearings, Neo. Even when I was a kid I argued with commercials on TV and found it very frustrating that I could not actually challenge their obvious dishonesty. Current political grandstanding of this sort produces (that feeling) X (several powers of ten).
While I’m at it: the way feminists turn on a dime from “We are strong! We are powerful!” to “We are fragile fainting flowers” has always irritated me. The Republicans were doomed once the Fainting Flower vs Mean Men In Suits scenario was put in place. They could immediately have either have folded and withdrawn the nomination, or said they didn’t care and plowed ahead with a vote. The PR battle was a lost cause from the beginning. I understand the political calculus, the need to placate unreliable Republicans, etc. But it was never going to change the basically impossible situation the Republicans were in.
It looks like it’s a bad, bad day. I’m not sure what Kavanaugh can say. He’s not quick-witted enough to survive this. (I don’t know who would be.)
When I heard about the “female prosecutor” I had no idea the set-up would be like this.
Mac:
Agreed.
I’m not watching this dog & pony show for the same reasons as neo. If the prosecutor doesn’t press hard and make a breakthrough, its over.
“No one disputes that he is a gentleman when sober, how can he prove he has never blacked out? Sorry, in the court of public opinion you are guilty until proven innocent.” Dave
Which is why Adams opined that, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Adams recognized that only a people whose moral standards are predicated upon the inner certainty that in the afterlife they will be held accountable for their actions on earth… will a majority exist of people who abstain from lying and bearing false witness, when swearing upon a Bible to “tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God”.
Those who, due to a political agenda make an accusation ‘proof of guilt’… thus “cutting down all the laws” make impossible the satisfactory resolution of differences and ensure the inevitability of ‘resolution’ through violence.
“Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor.” Robert A. Heinlein
That is the cliff toward which the Left is driving America. If they fail to fundamentally transform America they’ll settle for fomenting internal divisions that weaken us sufficiently for internal dissolution.
Judge Kavanaugh needs to dump his written opening statement and make a closing statement based upon what was said this AM. He needs to summarize her inconsistencies, attack her credibility and invoke common sense. He has unlimited time. Use it.
Kavanaugh also needs to attack DiFi.
Also invoke the names of the two guys who said they did it.
Geoffrey Britain:
But it’s even deeper and more complicated than that.
In this case, I don’t think that Ford is necessarily consciously lying. She may be, but that’s not how I read it. I think she has a distorted memory of an event that for her was mega-traumatic, and she has convinced herself that it is correct and that she is also correctly identifying the perp. So the warning against bearing false witness would not dissuade her.
What is needed is belief on the part of the public and our elected officials that the unsupported word of a person is not enough to convince us of its truth. That must be a deeply-held conviction on the part of the vast majority of people in this country and elected officials and judges of both parties. Emotions must not rule in these cases, and not just in the courtroom. A person’s reputation should not be able to be destroyed by an unsupported story. Period.
But we as a society have lost that conviction. It didn’t just start with #MeToo, by any means. It’s been going on for a long time. The foundations of this country depend on it, but they also depend on a very aware public, educated in the background of why those protections were put in place. We have lost that, too, as a result of many years of leftist control of education and media. It is not an accident. And it is not just the loss of religion, although that factors into it as well.
The GOP Senators are in a bind here. If they dismissed the allegations without hearing them they would have been accused of callousness at best and covering up crimes or appointing a rapist at worst. If they questioned Ford aggressively themselves they would have been portrayed as detached old men having no concern for the plight of assault survivors. Either way, forceful resistance puts them on the wrong foot in the eyes of swing voters, or so they believe.
They essentially have to get Ford to discredit herself without appearing to attack her personally or obstruct her testimony in any way, and it limits what they can effectively do. The whole point of the theatre is to try to convince their own squishes not to back down by persuading them that holding fast won’t cost them anything — nothing else.
Why are people so adamantly believed that Kavanaugh is innocent. What if it was really Kavanaugh who did it? Mark Judge not willing to testify is quite telling.
I believe her, he did it.
Thank you the Bush family and their minions in the congress for recommending this worse than Moore as*hole to Trump
We should thank Ms Ford for coming forward to prevent an azzhole from getting elected to the highest court of the country. We dodged a bullet because of her.
Cornhead:
That’s more or less what I was getting at in my 2:10 update, above.
Geoffrey Britain:
That is the cliff toward which the Left is driving America. If they fail to fundamentally transform America they’ll settle for fomenting internal divisions that weaken us sufficiently for internal dissolution.
There are abundant examples that the Left has already fundamentally transformed us. This hearing is Exhibit A. Or the behavior of the students at Kavanaugh’s alma mater Yale Law School fomented by the administration and their professors. Or Neo’s comment above.
The question is when we will dissolve or descend into Leftist tyrranny and under what circumstances. The election of President Trump is I am afraid a temporary speed bump on the Left’s march. I hate to say it but a violent end with a breakup into a Free and Left wing tyranny countries is about the best we can expect. The Chinese “social credit” system is a chilling example of the utilization of modern internet tools for control by a Left wing dictatorship.
Dave:
I see that you are either being sarcastic, or are sincere in saying you believe her, and are ruled by some emotional response to her own emotion. That’s exactly what juries are not supposed to do. But if that is what you really are saying—that you believe her–then you are serving to demonstrate the sort of emotional response I’ve been talking about.
People who lie are often very very convincing. Even more convincing, generally, are people who are sure they are correct but are wrong. That’s why her emotion is irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts, and the skimpiness of the facts and complete lack of evidence behind them has not changed.
And yet you are convinced by her. Interesting.
Not only that, but you believe that this should have been known by anyone who evaluated and nominated Kavanaugh, who heretofore was considered just about the most squeaky-clean man alive. Seriously? Are you serious?
Talk about being emotional!!
Kavanaugh is an appellate judge. I hope he can rise to the occasion and adapt. He has to make his opening a closing because there is no other place that happens. I have faith in my fellow Jesuit school alum. He will perform. Slam dunk.
Neo:
I am going back and forth to be honest. she appears to be over the top-ly clam and too relaxed in the supposedly intense situation. She was acting like a socialite socializing in a high society ballroom or something.
Cornhead:
Whatever he does, it is an outrage that he was placed in this position.
And I would say that whether he was Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. Of course, I’m more upset about it because he is conservative, but it doesn’t matter. The principle holds no matter what, and it’s the principle I care most deeply about.
That is why I have defended people from both parties when faced with unsupported or suspect accusations. However, most people have a more differential and partisan approach.
Given how Kavanaugh was ambushed it is only fair that he give an entirely different opening than what he wrote beforehand. Adapt. Attack!
Dave:
Do you understand that her affect, while of interest, is irrelevant to whether she is telling the truth? All it can tell you is whether she’s a good actress OR whether she deeply believes she’s telling the truth. It can be either, and she can therefore be emotionally convincing without actually being a truthteller. That’s the problem with this entire charade. In a court, her emotion and affect is part of it, but a much smaller part, because of the evidence and all the other witnesses and the cross-examination and all the rest of the process of a trial. People often mock that process or distrust it or point out that it can be unfair, and trials certainly don’t always end up with the right verdict IMHO, but the process is the best we can figure out and it is 1000 times better than this terrible process.
Ford seems to be under someone else’s control. There were too many things she didn’t remember or couldn’t explain. And I’ll never figure out how someone who has been surrounded by psychologists her whole like could not have brought this stupid episode to closure. She is not too smart.
Neo:
I understand what you were trying to say.
there are many possibilities.
1. She was a sexual assault victim and Kavanaugh was the perpetrator.
2. She was a sexual assault victim and the perpetrator was someone else but she is blaming Kavanaugh for whatever reasons.
3. She is a sociopath and also has the expertise to pull off a convincing lie, I get that.
She has a family and children she does sacrifices a lot to come forward, it is not like it she and the democrats have everything to gain and nothing to lose. If it is that easy why there was no conservative woman willing to take that route to save the republic by framing Obama for a rape since they saw Obama as some Chairman Mao figure.
Kavanaugh is no saint, if he was as devoted in his religion as he claimed he wouldn’t be drinking so heavily at 17, even if he was completely innocent of sexual assault he is partly to blame for the mess we are in.
> he has to have tremendous legal skills
What he needs are rhetorical skills. I have my doubts, but we will see. As to the format, I think Republicans are gun shy about being seen to attack women. It is the main avenue of attack that Democrats have pursued for decades. Trump has no such fear, which is refreshing, but such fearlessness is hard to come by and also requires one to give up all notions of chivalry.
How this will play out over the long term will be interesting, there is certainly enough in Ford’s testimony that can be used against her, but someone has got to get the word out.
Agree K has his work cut out for him, since no one else has helped him here. Should he attack her account, or should he simply deny and then attack the deviousness of the timing and strategy? One thing, he’s gotta drop the i-luv-u-women line. They hate him.
Judge, I’d go for the big picture. You are hoping to reach the Supreme Court. Invoke America, our ideals, and dish a little against this trashy-trash maneuver. Are you listening, Judge?? : )
If I could ask Mrs. Ford a question, it would be why she was wearing a bathing suit under her street clothes?
Had she been swimming earlier and went to the party directly after swimming or had she been swimming at the same house the alleged assault took place?
Was she wearing the swim suit as protection against any monkey business by the guys? Had something like what she alleges happened that day already happened to her or a friend and this was protection?
The swimming suit is really odd.
My impression of Mrs. Ford is: how in the world did we get to this point in our society that women are such “snowflakes”? Airhead comes to mind. Is this her or her being coy?
She is 50 something years old, and yet she comes across as still stuck in her teens.
The fact that she flies regularly and yet objected to testifying because of a fear of flying should make any rational person question everything about Mrs. Ford. Because that lie isn’t some small misstep, it was central to the whole spectacle last week. And when she said she misunderstood the committees offer to come to her, it brings me back to my initial point– she is a mature adult, with multiple post-graduate degrees, and she can’t follow a simple offer by the committee. That doesn’t pass the smell test. And yet she wasn’t pinned down about that dissembling– showing it to be the lie it was.
if he was as devoted in his religion as he claimed he wouldn’t be drinking so heavily at 17, e
You keep harping on this. You got issues?
There’s no indication that Kavanaugh ever had a drinking problem of note. None of the coarse indicators of it are present in his personal and professional trajectory. He makes a cameo in Mark Judge’s memoir. Strange as it may seem to you, young people who drink normally occasionally have such mishaps.
crossing my fingers that Kavanaugh has proof that he had a broken arm and was wearing braces for the whole year for a last minute Ali style come from behind knock out punch.
Essentially, his best defense line is that of Thomas More: Laws and Rules must be vigorously defended and obeyed even if it seems politically inconvenient, since they protect everybody from unspeakable horror of arbitrary rule of the despots and of the mobs.
And I’ll never figure out how someone who has been surrounded by psychologists her whole like could not have brought this stupid episode to closure. She is not too smart.
She’s plenty smart. She’s also fake. If not fake, she’s got an abnormally fragile emotional constitution. There is no coarse indicator of trauma in her life. Nothing.
Sergey:
Yes, that’s essentially what I wrote in my update at 2:50.
Kavanaugh is closing! Playing the Leland Kaiser card!
This is great!
Chuck:
Legal skills of the courtroom variety—which is what I’m talking about here—very much include rhetorical skills.
Art Deco:
I never drink, I used to drink Zima when going to parties. Kavanaugh’s liver is probably so damaged by all this heavy alcohol consumption he probably will not live long to occupy the supreme court seat for us for long anyway. may as well get a woman and someone who has lived their live healthily and has a longer life expectancy.
correction: sorry I did drink because Zima was in fact alcoholic.
Riveting. He’s got it all and everyone knows it. This will probably be one of 25 cheering comments here!
Why are people so adamantly believed that Kavanaugh is innocent.
Because not one piece of documentary or testimonial evidence has emerged that would suggest that Brett Kavanaugh or Mark Judge ever knew this woman. Just her claims. There is no set of circumstances that would make it likely they were acquainted. They weren’t enrolled at the same schools, it doesn’t appear that Ralph Blasey III was ever enrolled at Georgetown Prep, no one has contended the parents knew each other personally or professionally (Martha Kavanaugh and Ralph Blasey Jr worked in quite different segments of the legal profession and there were close to 10,000 lawyers in and around Washington at the time) and the two families did not live near each other – they lived about 8 miles apart. She says Christopher Garrett introduced them, but the Garretts didn’t live anywhere near the Blasey’s either.
It’s easy to pay the blame for this whole fiasco at the feet of Flake, Collins and Murkowski. But such is insufficient. Blame should be assigned to the Senate GOP as a whole, in particular McConnell and Grassley. So much of GOPe remains ensconced in a very tight bubble, largely divorced from reality. In this bubble our civil and political institutions have largely remained unchanged since the mid 90s, or so. The media has a liberal bias, but is mostly professional and reasonable; Democrats are, as a whole, fairly moderate and operate in good faith; the average American is fairly apolitical and open to persuasion by either side.
It is truly bewildering and disheartening that anyone could still be stuck in such a bubble. But I believe they are (some of them willfully). This is what infuriates the GOP base, this is why Trump succeeded. Yet, despite an Everest of evidence to the contrary, GOPe largely persists in its self imposed delusion.
There’s a reason it’s called the Stupid Party
Kavanaugh’s liver is probably so damaged by all this heavy alcohol consumption he probably will not live long to occupy the supreme court seat for us for long anyway.
There’s no indication he’s a heavy drinker or has ever been one in any social context. You’re just making sh!t up.
Art Deco:
Kavanaugh called himself the King of the “Beach Week Ralph Club”, he admited he was a heavy drinker, whitewashing it is not helpful.
Brett Steps Up!
Ok, I was reluctantly sympathetic with Dr. Ford, but Kavanaugh’s raw emotion is bringing me to tears.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-1982-diary-supreme-court-yearbook-satire.html
But Kavanaugh’s senior yearbook at Georgetown Prep appears to undermine some parts of his narrative. That document brands Kavanaugh as King of “the Beach Week Ralph Club,” Treasurer of the “Keg City Club — 100 Kegs or Bust,” and a “Renate Alumnus” — an apparent insinuation that Kavanaugh was one of many Georgetown Prep graduates to have sexual relations with Renate Schroeder Dolphin, then a girl at a nearby Catholic school.
Oh, come Dave, now you are just repeating the usual collection of Democrat canards. You expect us to take you seriously?
What if it was really Kavanaugh who did it? –Dave
Would you care that a 17-y-o boy and a 15-y-o girl at a beer party had some kind of encounter in which no actual physical damage of any sort occurred? As many have said, there is no other suggestion of this in his adult life. We give adolescents a break, legally, for a reason and I think that applies to this matter too. To me, it is trivial in the extreme.
Dave,
Whether Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker in high school or college is not, in itself, relevant. Underage drinking is illegal, sure. But many, many, many people binge during that period in life. It’s not something to encourage but if it alone disqualified one from public service, I doubt the Senate could reach a quorum.
Kudos to you for not succumbing to this vice. But let’s focus on what is relevant in this matter
Judge, forget the goody-goody and go back to their hearts with your dagger. First 10 minutes of this statement should be mandatory civics-curriculum materials. Esp since kids today have almost never heard the word civics.
Dave – seriously. As other posters have noted, you seem to have a hangup on this alcohol thing. I’m guessing you were not a teenager in the US in the 1980s. I was. I am almost exactly the age of Ford and I can tell you that drinking was common among and perceived as cool by teenage kids of the day. Just like all human beings, some percent of Gen Xers got into trouble with alcohol then or at some point in life, but there are millions upon millions of people my age who drank some, more than some, or even a lot, in high school and turned out just fine. (I say this as someone who actually took abuse for choosing NOT to drink in high school. All the cool kids in my time and place drank.)
If Kavanagh had an ongoing pattern of traffic violations, criminal charges and attendance/performance problems in school and work, then substance abuse might be a factor, but I suspect he was admitting to consuming alcohol as a teen rather than deny it entirely and be proven wrong.
I don’t care what Kavanaugh did at 17 if he was frank about it and gave his side of the story to debunk her misrepresentation of what truly took place. The problem is if an event similar to what her described truly happened and he remembered it, even not as serious as she depicted, but he flat out lied and denied that anything bear a resemblance to her story had ever happened, then I do have a problem about him lying to our face.
Amazing defense by Judge Kavanaugh. Very specific. Very emphatic. Very emotional– real emotion- demonstrated when he describes his daughter saying they should pray for Mrs. Ford.
He’s explaining his calender– something his dad taught him.
doesn’t matter in this court the standard is guilty until proven innocent.
If there is probable cause that it might have happened, she wins.
the burden of proof is that he has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it never happened.
Dave, you do know what a straw man argument is, no?
I believe him now, in this court anyone cries the first and more sincere wins, he has won.
I see a bullied man being framed for something he did not do.
“There’s a reason it’s called the Stupid Party”
Or…just maybe the GOP doesn’t go for the jugular because it’s the Decent Party? The party that really does care about the country? The country that really does care about consequences?
(All things being relative….)
But Trump DOES go for the jugular (in a manner similar to the scads of Democratic scoundrels who’ve hijacked the “democratic” process).
Or, at least, he talks like he does.
Or, at least, he resists and responds in kind.
And it’s been making the Democrats (and Anti-Trumper Republicans) go absolutely beserk.
Because…how dare HE do what WE do? Because…how dare HE resist US?
Because…how dare HE win?
Ergo (of course) he did not win legally. Or—HEH!!—FAIRLY!!
And so the gloves are off as far as the Democrats are concerned.
But then, the gloves were always off—which is precisely what the Mueller-Rosenstein-Comey-McCabe-Strozk-Brennan-Lynch cover-up about the Clinton cover-up about the Obama cover-up is all about.
Which is why any information about that cover-up (to the nth power) must be squelched at ALL costs.
Welcome to the party!!
F**K DEMOCRATS
Judge Kavanaugh,
Sorry for doubting you.
He just apologized to Renate about his insensitive remark in his high school yearbook. Wow.
This rings very true. Most guys are actually very inexperienced and not at all the aggressors that the popular culture imagined we should be.
The reality is boasts of sexual conquests by high school boys were more often empty boasts to bolster our fragile egos than real events.
Dave:
Well, maybe Kavanaugh is out-emotioning Ford.
I did not expect that.
Kavanaugh called himself the King of the “Beach Week Ralph Club”, he admited he was a heavy drinker, whitewashing it is not helpful.
He made no such admission. You’re losing track of your lies. You contended, in one of your random insults, that he’ll die soon from alcohol related organ failure. If you’re going to contend someone will soon be claimed by cirrhosis of the liver or an esophageal haemorrhage, pro tip: don’t pick someone who could readily pass for 10 years younger than he actually is. Pick someone with yellow eyeballs.
“The media has a liberal bias, but is mostly professional and reasonable; Democrats are, as a whole, fairly moderate and operate in good faith” Ackler
That comment is simply stunning in its, at best clueless folly and at worst, monumentally mendacious. If intended as sarcasm, an epic fail.
Di-Fi, still trying to work the device. Get Kavanaugh to ask for more delay! LOLOL!!
Kavanaugh to Feinstein:
“YOU’RE interviewing me, Senator!”
Nails it.
My impression of Mrs. Ford is: how in the world did we get to this point in our society that women are such “snowflakes”? Airhead comes to mind. Is this her or her being coy?
She is 50 something years old, and yet she comes across as still stuck in her teens.
The fact that she flies regularly and yet objected to testifying because of a fear of flying should make any rational person question everything about Mrs. Ford. BrianE
Great questions, Brian. Her little-girl demeanor slowed her half of the hearing down and brought everything to her pace and level — with an assist unfortunately from Ms. Mitchell the prosecutor. I think the answer would be “coy.” I think she knows how to manipulate and was doing so, creating a persona that would make her the least susceptible to serious challenge as she could manage to effect.
Yeah, women having it both ways can make you sick. Are they capable and independent, or are they weak and neurotic and in need of constant chaperones? No wonder men post “repeal the 19th”! The deviousness is a pain in the arse.
neo on September 27, 2018 at 2:25 pm at 2:25 pm said:
Geoffrey Britain:
But it’s even deeper and more complicated than that.
* * *
Standing ovation for Neo.
Chuck on September 27, 2018 at 3:03 pm at 3:03 pm said:
> he has to have tremendous legal skills
What he needs are rhetorical skills.
* *
Agreed.
Some of his replies were weak and unprepared.
If Mitchell were actually his attorney, not the combined prosecution-and-defense, she would have coached him on how to answer the question of “how much is too much” to drink.
Brian E on September 27, 2018 at 3:05 pm at 3:05 pm said:
If I could ask Mrs. Ford a question, it would be why she was wearing a bathing suit under her street clothes?
* *
That has intrigued me for 2 weeks.
I could imagine some scenario of “and after the party we’ll go over to the club to swim” – it certainly would not be a WET suit.
But then, whose house was it, who issued the invitation?
That’s the one detail that persuades me she is actually recounting an experience she had, just not with Kavanaugh.
Brian E “And yet she wasn’t pinned down about that dissembling– showing it to be the lie it was.”
I thought Mitchell nailed the phony flying excuse pretty well, she just didn’t point her finger and yell, “gotcha!”
Geoffrey, I was referring to what GOPe believes, ensconced in their tight little bubble, NOT what I believe.
…why do I believe him, and disbelieve her?
To kipe a famous quote “Events, dear boy, events.”
At this point, there’s finally a modicum of verifiable circumstantial evidence. Misstatements. Prevarications. Calendars. Timelines.
Thank you madam prosecutor. And your honor.
The circumstantial “evidence” now supports a conclusion of this being a facile lie. And a hastily executed one.
There are current reasons at this point to dismiss the charges as being groundless.
As of this afternoon, I’ll be damned if I’d be giving her the benefit of a doubt were I sitting on an actual jury. Let alone in the court of public opinion.
I don’t even think this is a case of Salem circa the 15th century (which was my previous contemptuous call). This is just lies, more lies, and damned lies.
…plus my wife listened to her for about 30 seconds, looked at me with a bit of confusion, and said “Lying bitch”. (Well, maybe it was more complicated than that, but the brevity I render it suffices.)
Graham is on a roll, he is some mad now.
Durbin just backed Kavanaugh into a corner, about the FBI investigation, which is what they are hoping for, especially as strong as his opening statement.
This is the hail mary, delaying until after the midterm elections, since if they don’t vote on him before Oct. 1, he won’t be seated for this SC term.
Graham is following up to destroy Durbin’s point about the need for an FBI ‘investigation.’
They are pointing out that Mrs. Ford said during her testimony that if she knew when Mark Judge was working for the grocery store then she would be able to narrow the time frame this alleged event. The problem with this is without knowing that she would base her time frame on that, what’s the likelihood they would include his employment time at a grocery store?
After Graham called out the Democrats, Whitehorse is dropping it.
Cornyn comes to the defense.
Art Deco on September 27, 2018 at 3:11 pm at 3:11 pm said:
if he was as devoted in his religion as he claimed he wouldn’t be drinking so heavily at 17, e
You keep harping on this. You got issues?
* * *
Drinking is not much of a religious issue unless you are Baptist or LDS.
The Dems strategy is now clear: try to get Kavanaugh to ask for an FBI investigation to further delay. They have nothing else if Flake et al vote yea
This is what Democrats see when someone gets impassioned and emotional about staring in the face of a totally ruined life and career.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democrat-ted-lieu-if-kavanaugh-is-this-angry-when-sober-imagine-what-hes-like-when-drunk
The talking heads are talking about how combative Kavanaugh.
Someone I have no idea is, speculated 1. This is the strategy of the White House, 2. This is really who he is. My blood pressure spiked, but then the guy said 3. he might feel he’s fighting for his life.
The talking heads are still talking about a FBI investigation. That’s all they’ve got and they’re going to beat this into submission.
Democrats also hear things that didn’t happen.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-york-times-writer-you-hear-a-lot-of-entitlement-from-brett-kavanaugh-at-hearing
I fear he will be Kafkatrapped. Where being accused is proof of guilt, the accused defending themselves is proof of guilt and the accused not defending themselves is proof of guilt.
Esther on September 27, 2018 at 5:17 pm at 5:17 pm said:
I fear he will be Kafkatrapped. Where being accused is proof of guilt, the accused defending themselves is proof of guilt and the accused not defending themselves is proof of guilt.
* * *
Divide them into three groups.
The Democrats already have the first.
The Republicans would have the third, if he had withdrawn.
I personally don’t understand the second group, so I can only assign it to the clinically insane.
Or the MSM.
Drinking is not much of a religious issue unless you are Baptist or LDS.
LDS and Methodist (on paper). Prior to 1950, Presbyterian. Baptist congretations are non-creedal and I don’t think uniform about disciplines.
This has got to be the definition of chutzpah.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/feinstein-blames-republicans-for-delayed-kavanaugh-hearing
“Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday blamed Republicans for the nearly two-week delay in scheduling the hearing to address sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, even though it was his accuser who pushed several times for a delay.”
And that delay was after Feinstein held the letter for 6 weeks.
Art Deco on September 27, 2018 at 5:21 pm at 5:21 pm said:
The Southern Baptists I grew up among were (at least on paper) teetotalers.
The Mormons don’t even get the tea.
Neo,
Yes. Due Process, and the Presumption of Innocence.
I wish more people could grasp this, and show by word and deed that they understand it.
.
And again, on Clarence Thomas:
Yes, and a thousand times yes. Quoting me elsewhere: “The gold standard for forthrightness, outrage that’s still held in check, and backbone.”
> I don’t even think this is a case of Salem circa the 15th century
More like Dreyfus, I think.
A WashExaminer article claimed that they shouldn’t have tried to mix the issues of the initial allegation with that of the committee’s failure to handle it properly, and claims they did a poor job while Ford was a witness.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-ford-kavanaugh-hearing-has-two-separate-but-crucial-issues-dont-mix-them-together
“Mitchell asked small questions that didn’t get at what senators and the public were most interested in and what is most important: what actually happened at that party.”
The public is, but the Senators, even on the left, know perfectly well by now that Kavanaugh wasn’t at that party, and so it no longer matters what actually happened.
What matters is what the Reps have brought out in the Kavanaugh half, that the Dems totally corrupted the hearing process for political partisanship, and that’s why they are pushing back against the “FBI investigation” red herring.
>>More like Dreyfus, I think.
Bingo.
“Kavanaugh is no saint, if he was as devoted in his religion as he claimed he wouldn’t be drinking so heavily at 17, even if he was completely innocent of sexual assault he is partly to blame for the mess we are in.” Dave
That makes no sense. How is he to blame? Because he is breathing? Get real.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/kavanaughs-anger-is-clear-and-righteous
“Mainstream commentators are also tsk-tsking him for it. “Not the tone of a future Supreme Court Justice,” Michael Beschloss tweeted, then deleted the tweet.
And maybe, on the “optics,” the anger is not helpful. But on the score of justice, Kavanaugh’s anger is totally fitting.
But if half the political machinery of the federal government, the leaders of one party, and about half of the media came after you with a campaign of lies — which is what this is, if Kavanaugh isn’t guilty of rape and sexual assault — you would be angry.
If you fielded death threats, were called a rapist, and attacked not just by random Internet trolls and juvenile protests, but by major politicians who are still welcomed in polite society, you would be angry.
If Brett Kavanaugh weren’t angry, that would be a reason to doubt him. I don’t know the political consequences, but the emotion he showed today was fitting and proper.
The tone police spouting off on Twitter cannot be taken seriously.”
* * *
If he had been totally calm, which he was many times, they would have claimed that proved he was guilty, because he wasn’t upset at being falsely accused.
You know that’s what they would have said.
Examiner has had some good summaries of the hearing, but they claim the Republicans “dropped” Mitchell in the second half, as if they fumbled a ball.
That was clearly the plan from the beginning; carefully timed (she asked the first few rounds of questions to set the tone and allow Kavanaugh to unequivocally deny the allegations), then took over to excoriate the Democrats on the Committee.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/someone-on-capitol-hill-just-doxxed-republican-sens-mike-lee-orrin-hatch-and-lindsey-graham
“by Philip Wegmann
| September 27, 2018 06:39 PM
Somebody working from a House of Representatives office is editing the Wikipedia pages of Republican senators to post what looks like their home addresses.
Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and both Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch of Utah all had their home addresses posted online. It is called doxxing, and it is despicable. ”
* * *
More of that careful orchestration we’ve heard so much about.
Are these people totally stupid?
Wikipedia traces edits, and knows who all the editors are.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/miss-kavanaughs-testimony-here-are-the-highlights-and-lowlights/
This includes Donald Trumps latest supportive tweet
THE INSTA-WIFE ON DR. FORD: A Psychologist Knows Nothing About a Polygraph? “As I watch Dr. Ford be interviewed by Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell about the polygraph, I notice how nervous Ford is and how little she knows about a polygraph. The woman is a psychologist and knows nothing about a polygraph? She says that a machine was placed near her with wires and acts very naive about what it does and what to expect. What PhD psychologist knows nothing about a polygraph?”
117 Posted at 4:48 pm by Glenn Reynolds
AesopFan
The doxxer doesn’t care about consequences
or can say they weren’t at the keyboard.
FROM THE PJM LIVE BLOG: “Whatever you think of Lindsay Graham’s politics, he’s known as one of the most likable and well-liked guys on Capitol Hill. Which makes it stunning to see him renounce his friendships with the Democratic members of the committee. Like Kavanaugh’s opening statement, I’ve never seen anything quite like it and it is moving.”
266 Posted at 5:02 pm by Stephen Green
BREAKING: “Lindsey Graham is what’s wrong with men today. Toxic masculinity.”
79 Posted at 5:53 pm by Stephen Green
Neo, I come to you last. Thanks for sticking with this whole pile of schtuff.
Phillipa Crawford, I admire your first name especially.
My big question is, what happens from here? I don’t claim to know how the confirmation vote will go (assuming it’s held, of course – not counting my unhatched eggs, no sir-ee!). I don’t know. There’s a lot of rage. It makes me wonder, is this really what I voted for in 2016? Maybe. For the masks to finally fall off….
First of all, Ford comes across as a deeply disturbed person. We have no evidence that this condition involves sexual assault or Kavanaugh. Seondly, Kavanaugh has been investigated at least 3 time or more over the course of his public career, starting with GWB’s first term. Now suddenly upon his SCOTUS nomination by the insane and evil Trump who colluded to deny HRC her rightful place in the Oval Office claims of BK is a serial sexual predator flourish.
Give me a break. This is a smear campaign as the dnc riles up the handmaiden and pussyhat cultists.
Chuck
‘I don’t even think this is a case of Salem circa the 15th century”
“More like Dreyfus, I think.”
Worse. This is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or Communist China. You’ve been denounced as having insufficient socialist enthusiasm. You are summoned before the Party Committee to prove your innocence.
The Dems are taking their playbook from Lavrenti Beria: “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”
So I’ve been in the dark about the hearing for most part today. All I’ve heard from a colleague, a high school counselor, who was following it during work was that Ford did marvelous for four or so hours (lemme guess what side the colleague is on), Kavanaugh cried, and that his crying was some form of evidence that he was probably an alcoholic throughout high school and college (yet he somehow managed top grades and blew the SAT/ACT/LSAT out of the water to gain admittance into Yale undergrad and law school).
There’s a lot to read here though, and I feel that it’ll give a more complete, objective, and insightful rundown on what actually happened and why.
I watched the while thing. That is rare because I don’t watch TV but I watched the CSPAN feed on Conservative Tree House. I think Kavanaugh will be confirmed tomorrow and I have a feeling that the Democrats alienated a lot of women today.
They will be women with husbands and sons, not single mothers who are the Democrats’ base.
Lindsay Graham was the hit of the show today, I think.
He was absolutely smoking with this line:
“You want power, God I hope you never get it”
Sarah Hoyt kind of expands on that here, prefaced by a history lesson about tyrannies and the importance of individual rights.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/those-who-unmake-civilization/
“But Chuck Schumer saying that people who disagree with him aren’t entitled to due process?
Does he get up in the morning and see himself looking like Louis XIV in the mirror? (And does he think we should be thanking him, like another man suffering from similar illusions?) If so he might wish to remember how that regime ended. Sure, it was a hundred years later, but it was still in fire and blood.
It always ends like that. Even if the tumbrils don’t come soon enough to stop at Schumer’s door, the road to them will lead through normal people eating zoo animals and house pets. It will lead to the destruction of the accumulated wealth of centuries and the loss of several generations to grinding, revolting poverty.
Until the principles of rights for common people are found or reinvented again.
All so that people like Schumer can have the power they wish and remake the world in their image.
It’s time to call them what they are. They are the people taking off the panels of civilization and loosening the nuts and bolts. They hate you, they hate me, they hate everyone who is more than a puppet in their hands.
And it’s time to tell them no.
Before the tumbrils come.”
Who. Who at Twitter picks the top tweets?
1.84 Million Tweets on #Brett today and look at the f*****ing tweets they picked to be at the top.
https://twitter.com/search?q=Brett&src=tren
1) Bernie Sanders tweet
2) Elizabet Warren’s tweet
4) Number 4 is this one??? https://twitter.com/tonyposnanski/status/1045399140363055104
Glad to see Candace Owens was like #7 or 8
the third reason is the most important of all, and it applies to this particular hearing in particular. I am unusually angry right now that this is even being allowed to happen, because it seems deeply and inherently unfair to me.
sadly after 30 years of this with the feminists perfecting the process of getting us to believe its usually the boyfriend/husband etc… and that you can not question a woman (cause as the quote says you may do harm to those that ARE telling the truth, so kind of just accept them all as such).
if you could do this to a supreme court justice, what the heck hope does any average guy up against an average girl who wont ever get punished or anything for deciding to trash their life
as i have said for long, chaperones and all that stuff women called oppressive were kind of self defense of sorts… digital chaperones and more are now a impossible to stop freight train
the rate of belief may have something to do with the 90/10 or worse custody wins for men who want family.. the presumption is why would men want that? they dont wnat the kid (just as the assumption is all fathers are abusive, especially to daughters).
welcome to the new world the ladies made and are now making
your gonna love it…
(whether you like it or not)
Saunders says.
You are right. This is Bolshevik morality and ideology. It reproduces the murderous “legal” theories of Krylenko, and Vyshinsky.
“We must execute not only the guilty. Execution of the innocent will impress the masses even more.” Wiki citing Richard Pipes’ quoting Krylenko.
That is today’s Democrat. That they do not even bother to hide their “socialist” mentalities and anthropology, only makes sense as it has become so completely obvious both who, and what, they are.
Artfldgr:
It’s not a new world. It’s actually been in the works for a long time. I’ve been fighting it as best I can for almost thirty years, when I first because aware of it while I was in graduate school.
LINDSEY GRAHAM will be on Sean Hannity at 6 PM Pacific Time
Dershowits on Tucker at the moment
Equal rights are not equal. Some of you didn’t know, or remember that?
Refresh your memory then, as Vyshinsky speaks the mind of both the Marxist-Leninist and the Modern Democrat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZMBsYB-C0
Fox News live stream for those without cable
WSJ says…. Confirm
https://www.wsj.com/articles/confirm-brett-kavanaugh-1538089143?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/mEPkm8SGDq
The Atlantic Reporter reporting that MANCHIN is a YES !!!
https://twitter.com/elainaplott/status/1045478279220797440
Bob Corker is a yes.
Moran is a yes
Baklava,
I suspect you realize this but in case you don’t — Twitter is full-on SJW now, and will continue denying conservative (I.e., normal) voices fair treatment.
Ask James Woods.
Leave Twitter.
I am not on Twitter…no account with. I simply visit specific people like
https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza
>twitter is full-on SJW now
For some reason I have a very satisfied feeling. Slightly similar when Trump won the nomination and the left went on a full-out, no questions asked, meltdown.
But then again it’s twitter. Even on its good, quiet day it’s SJW. Then, when the scenario calls for it, it’s really SJW.
“I think she has a distorted memory of an event that for her was mega-traumatic, ” << actually, I don't believe at all that this event was so traumatic for her.
I think she has developed the trauma, over time with life and disappointments, and has shifted blame for bad results due to bad decisions. Instead of blaming herself for what she's chosen to do in life, she blames this event.
She has now become a victim of her own delusions. It's very very sad.
Thanks for great discussion; glad I didn't watch it. Now I think 99% Kavanaugh gets confirmed. And 95% that Dems fail to win back the House; 99% Reps keep a majority in the Senate.
All Dem Senators are more vulnerable to effective ads using this, whether they vote for him or not. Those in Trump voting states who vote against Kavanaugh will almost certainly lose votes & support from their vote against.
Maybe there will be another round of folk joining the #WalkAway movement; that would be good.
Plus, I'm sure Trump will be happy to work with any prior NeverTrumpers or NotSureAboutTrump folk, Rep or Dem, who want to get some credit for supporting any of his upcoming actions.
Graham could become more an influence by continuing to criticize Trump, but also increasing his criticism of the Dem PC-bullying, which this hearing was a prize example of.
Ford has been in California long enough to pick up a permanent vocal fry. Or she has a very bad cold. Either could contribute to her supposed emotionalism.
She expressed her trauma at the polygraph. It was unfamiliar and scary.
Couple of issues. She’s a PSYCHOLOGIST. I was introduced to the polygraph in intro to psych as a sophomore. Second, if she were so upset, the results would likely have been inconclusive, as the ‘graph measures the physical differences manifested when the subject is telling the truth or not. That requires a reasonable stable baseline, and differing responses to the truth/lie response. Both would be messed up by someone with continuing stress.