Brett Kavanaugh hearings: Comedia Insana--things not present and things hidden

Dear Swampers and those who prefer dryness (as in martinis), with my dogged persistence (what a mixed analogy), as a serious student of Swampology I have, with great effort, compiled a list of impediments to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a supreme court justice.

First, let's set the scene: McTurtle is pulling out all the restraints, being more aggressive than Chuck Grassley, to get BK seated on the SC. Lots of fireworks including cherry bombs going off at the tail end of the process. Not to say I am surprised that a rape train is being put in the way. Seems that upon further examination, there were neither cars nor passengers behind the engine--an old coal-fueled locomotive.

So far, we have the San Francisco spymaster receiving a "memo" from a reluctant "victim". She, aka CBF (Christine Blasey Ford) who was first in line, asked for DiFi to keep her name out of it--fat chance! DiFi is not good at keeping secrets. Leaking unilaterally Senate intelligence Committee notes (before she was to nimbly recuse herself from said committee) plus having a "chauffeur" very skilled at delivering messages than he was at driving past Chinatown without making a few unscheduled stops. Of course, DiFi was resting her eyes in the back seat and didn't notice.

Your indefatigable reporter following evidence:

So CBF gathers up her entire two ounces of courage, and astoundingly writing a redacted note without being drunk. Old habits die hard. (Of course I am using political reasoning here which is an oxymoron). Therefore CBF is still a raging drunk. Staggering around from pillar to post, getting salacious looks from dark-haired Irishmen. Astoundingly all, these fellows evilly eyeing her uniformly looking like BK--at least she thinks these fellows kinda, sorta look like BK--or the guy who was BK's classmate.

At this point, the few of you reading this essay (if this could be so named) will note the lack of documentation. Say what? The lack of documentation of CBF's claim(s) is the example which I have decided to adopt. So if you decide to get proof, look no further. The Democraptic Dicktum
is to throw shit on the wall and see what stinks--oops, wrong metaphor. They want to see what poo sticks to the proverbial wall.

Statute of limitations for rape or sexual assault in Maryland is forever--except when both parties are juveniles. Now both the complainant and complaintee are old enough to be grandparents. The statute of limitations has long since run. CBF's adolescent boozing must have affected her long term memory for she cannot remember lots of stuff like when it happened, where it happened, how she got to the party, how she got home. She also forgot to report the odious deed to the local police, which is still the proper jurisdiction, not the FBI. But despite being in a near-blackout condition, she clearly (well sorta clearly, allowing for ethanolic visual blurring) kinda remembers a wrestling match with two of the males jumping on top of her--but--wrestling each other. This allowed her to escape. If these two malevolent teenagers from a posh boys school were trying to deflower her, they sure didn't seem very focused on their intent.

In all the greasy, odoriferous political moves, even including those of HRC, DiFi is in the running for gold medal status. By the way DiFi, how much money did your hubby make from his Chinese investments during Wei Long Huang's 20 year employment by you?

The story starts to unravel as soon as DiFi presents her case to the entire Senate Judiciary Committee. Oh, wait--she didn't do that. Instead she is jealously guarding the almost original note from CBF (except for redactions) from visual inspection by all other members of the Committee--even those of her own party. DiFi obviously takes no chances. He maternal instincts required her to sit on the letter for 7 weeks, hoping it would hatch without further intervention.

Then, along comes Jones, er, Martinez. Here she is a poor delicate flower of youth thrust into Ivy League bastion, Yale University (home of the Bushies and Skull & Bones). College freshman, shed also has a fondness for John Barleycorn (or Jane Barleycorn if you wish). She, too, likes to party hearty. In fact, she too, seeks to drink herself into oblivion, deprived of all conscious intention. Oh, poor thing! Brave she is though because she admitted her drunkeness was self-induced. But--then--those nasty man / men / folie á trois started putting things, you know things like dildoes in her face. Disgusting. "Well, I think it was BK". She does not complain but tells a close friend lacking the severe amount of inebriation,, to share the news like Paula Revere: "Brett Kavanaugh just rubbed his penis in Martinez's face. If you didn't catch the name, students, it was B-r-e-t-t K-a-v-a-n-a-u-g-h

Of course in this accusation, those who were said to have witnessed the event denied any memory of the even itself. A classmate or two kinda, sorta remember somebody, not Martinez, saying something about the ersatz male organ in someone's face. And by golly those same folks still remember the hearsay but no fact witnesses to the event can be found. So this accusation, following so closely upon the CBF claims, establishes a pattern. A pattern not of sexual deviancy but of Democratic complicity.

But wait! There's more. Michael "Stormy" Avenatti has a third female willing to claim--well, he says she'll claim something about BK violating the #Metoo code of conduct. We have yet to learn the full details of this faerie tale. I hope Mike took pictures.

The net effect of this is that BK will be confirmed in a unusually vitriolic hearing in Committee. If the Repugnants do not get BK to a full Senate vote, they will lose face faster than a Clinton lies. Lack of a full Senate vote, even if BK fails to get confirmed, could cost them the Senate. Jeff Flake indicates he will vote "present". Susan Collins is wavering. I am not sure what she'll do on this.

Things Hidden

BK's confirmation hearing yield lotsa softball questions by the Repugnants and very few piercing questions by the Demonrats. Leahy and a few others tossed in some barbs but they seemed to go nowhere. BK is a strict constitutionalist, according to Repugnants. But he loves corporations, which by the magic of Supreme Court wisdom, who were gifted by Gott, to endow life into inanimate creations, such as corporations.

BK loves Citizen's United, one is that money equals speech and all that. Man, I've had bad laryngitis for far too long.

He also thinks that forced arbitration (binding) is fair because the financial institutions where people put their money after their mattresses get lumpy, put in their boilerplate such a requirement.
Such disclosure of course, if agreed to, gives the customer no privilege to bitch or moan.

Where were the piercing questions about Corporate sovereignty? Where were the questions about equity in resource allocation, such as in the EPA or Interior Department? What about questions for the legitimacy of prolonged detentions to provide governments with cheap labor?

Of course, Roe v Wade is always a big sticking point, the tip of which BK avoided, and the issue was effectively abandoned.

There is one pre-eminent reason the Demonrats did not ask BK probing questions about Corporations--because the very same Corporations bribe them too.

In the end, we the people lose.
The tactic of the Demonrats were the lowest, slimiest since at least Eugene Debs. The offered an implausible comic opera as a feeble blockader to the nomination of BK. In my opinion, BK was a horrible choice for SCOTUS because of the above. He should not have been nominated, much less confirmed. But the Dims contain to estrange more and more people from their cause. Progressives and classical liberals aren't happy with BK. But the Dims will not only lose their chance but they insured a larger Repugnant midterm voter turnout.

Some interesting points about the Blasey family have been disclosed by George Webb. Both the father and grandfather were CIA. CBF also received some sort of CIA employment, even if not actually in the agency. The Blasey family are deep in the center of CIA plots such as drugs, arms, bribes. The Blasey subject is not something about which to become blasé. (ouch).

Share
up
13 users have voted.

Comments

snoopydawg's picture

This is why this has become the big shit show that it is. Feinstein holding on to the letter for as long as she did gives the impression that this is a last ditch effort to derail his confirmation.

The story starts to unravel as soon as DiFi presents her case to the entire Senate Judiciary Committee. Oh, wait--she didn't do that. Instead she is jealously guarding the almost original note from CBF (except for redactions) from visual inspection by all other members of the Committee--even those of her own party. DiFi obviously takes no chances. He maternal instincts required her to sit on the letter for 7 weeks, hoping it would hatch without further intervention.

After the protesters were removed from the hearing good ole DiFi offered an apology to Brett for their disruption. Poor Brett had to hear people saying why they didn't want him on the SC with the other boys that are Hell bent on destroying what's left of the country and our rights.

BTW ... See? It's okay for red state democrats to vote for people such as Gorsuch and for legislation that hurts we the little people because if they don't then they won't win reelection.

Red State Dems are in a pretty safe spot — if he fails it’s because at least two GOP’s flipped, so they’d have that cover. McCaskill already came out against Kavanaugh for non-sex assault accusation reasons. So we’re talking about Manchin, Heitkamp, Donnelly and Tester — and the first three voted to confirm Gorsuch, so they have that easy deflection to use “Hey, I’m open minded — I voted for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh was just a bad nominee”. So that leaves Tester in Montana — and he voted against Gorsuch, so I can’t see him voting for Kavanaugh. If a SCOTUS vote was going to hurt him it would be his Nay against Gorsuch.

up
7 users have voted.

Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment

snoopydawg's picture

up
5 users have voted.

Disclaimer: No Russian, living or dead, had anything to do with the posting of this proudly home-grown comment

@snoopydawg

that statement from Kavanaugh. Typical Catholic gobbly-gook.... if you don't have full intercourse, it's NOT SEX! I love the fact that he thinks outing his own sexual prowess, or lack thereof, gets him off the hook for all the incidents he has been accused of. This is suppose to be a man with a brilliant legal mind???????

up
12 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Centaurea's picture

Here's what I think:

1. The Dems believe they're going to win back the Senate in the midterm elections, hence the timing, presumably to delay the confirmation vote until after the blue wave arrives. A "September surprise", so to speak. I guess we'll find out who's going to be surprised, come November.

2. Think back a couple of weeks ago. What was starting to make news? Trump ordering the declassification of the fisa documents, which has the potential of making a lot of people very uncomfortable. The Kavanaugh goings-on have been very effective in diverting the public's attention.

3. The prep school folks involved in this drama seem like thoroughly unpleasant people. The whole lot of them: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, Christine Blasey, and their assorted classmates. A bunch of insipid, privileged brats. From what I can see, many of them probably haven't changed much. Kavanaugh's body language looks like that of a little boy who never grew up.

So to the extent that this situation casts a public spotlight on the further bad behavior of the 1% "elite", I can't complain.

4. I don't know whether Blasey Ford and the other women are telling the truth about what happened. But is it "implausible"? No. Not at all.

Why didn't she report it back then? Most any woman who was alive in 1980 can tell you why. And 100% of the women who did report in 1980 can tell you.

As to this "the witnesses don't remember it happening", can you recall every social gathering you went to 35 years ago, the names of all the people who were there, and describe what was going on in every room of the house for the entire time you were there?

Yeah, me neither.

5. In general, people are starting to question things that we previously didn't. I don't see this as a bad thing for la revolution.

up
17 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

@Centaurea There are a number of private, exclusive prep schools around where I live. This is a generalization, but many of these kids are the children of the elite, being groomed to take the reins of power and make connections. They've had every advantage and expect it as their due. They grow up way too fast, by 15 sex drugs and booze was a given. We know these people, they run for office, run the corporations we work for, make the policies and rules we live by. We, not them, they're exempt. Kavanaugh, Chelsea Clinton are perfect examples. I can see why the Russians could stomach executing the Romanovs, including the children.

up
11 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

@Centaurea What are the Democrats smoking? Maybe I am missing something here.

There are 35 Senate seats up for election this November. The current break down in the Senate is 51 seats Republican, 47 seats Democratic, and 2 seats Independent. Assuming the Independents go with the Democrats, then the Democrats must pick up two more seats to get a majority and that is also assuming all Senators vote along party lines.

So I went to Wikipedia to see which Senate seats are up for election in 2018 and I am perplexed as to where the Democrats believe they are going to pick up two seats while not losing any current seats. There is an excellent graphic in the link that summarizes the seats and predictions of how the voting will go for each seat.

First, let's summarize the break out of the current seats by party. Of those 35 seats, 24 are currently held by Democrats, two by Independents who generally vote with the Democrats, and nine by Republicans.

The two Independent seats are safe.

Of the 24 Democratic seats, 12 are rated as safe, eight are lean Democratic or likely Democratic, and four are a tossup with Heidi Heitcamp's seat a possible flip to Republican.

Of the nine Republican seats, five are safe or likely Republican, two are toosup or lean Republican and two are tossup.

Of the tossup seats in both parties, only Heitcamp's seat is marked for a possible party change. If Heitcamp's seat is lost then the Democrats must pick up three Republican seats to gain a majority in the Senate.

Maybe I am not seeing where this blue wave is going to come from and I may be wrong. The Democratic party which lost so spectacularly in 2010 and 2014 as well as the Presidential election 2016, has suddenly found a message that resonates with average people so as to be able to flip enough seats to win a majority in the Senate? I am not seeing it.

Does anyone else see this differently?

up
12 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

@gulfgal98 Remember, this is the same party which couldn't count electoral votes in the last general.

IDK if the Dims can't do math or simply believe in triumph of the will, that Our Righteousness Will Prevail.

The reasoning, if it can be called that, goes something like the EC is an unfair system put in place by Dead White Male Slaveowners during the dreamtime before my forebears arrived here, so therefore Klinton SHOULD HAVE won, so therefore Trump shouldn't be president. It would be so much more fair to have presidents chosen by the inhabitants of NYC and LA, and then we could have our vibrant multicultural paradise forever and ever (until the sea rises and washes both cities away).

up
12 users have voted.

Nastarana

Centaurea's picture

@gulfgal98
They're nuts.

I wish I were kidding.

up
5 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

@Centaurea for that gentle reminder that we don't all remember every single second of our lives or with complete and utter infallibility name dates, times, places. Not to mention just how women who DID report were treated back in the day, and in some instances still are treated, like some lying bitch merely out to hurt a "good man."

Personally, I also could do without the constant references to drunken females who "don't remember" while giving what seems to me a complete pass on the drunken frat boy mentality that surely does prevail at these institutions of the 1%. And putting "victim" in quotes, not too cool but hey, I'm just one more overly "distraught" female I guess.

While there are plenty of reasons to question motives out of our slimy ass politicians, treating all or any woman like she's merely a "drunken female who is simply mixed up" does not get us any closer to getting rid of these pukes but only serves to divide and conquer, once again.

up
13 users have voted.

@lizzyh7

up
3 users have voted.

@lizzyh7
apparently overly distraught male, I thank you.

up
2 users have voted.
The Aspie Corner's picture

And yet they'll continue to vote for them anyway. Or they'll vote Repig to 'get back at the dems". Yeah, real revolutionary.

up
3 users have voted.

Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.

gulfgal98's picture

have decided to make this confirmation process one of identity politics instead of focusing on the real problems with Kavanaugh which our Alligator Ed so well summarized.

BK loves Citizen's United, one is that money equals speech and all that. Man, I've had bad laryngitis for far too long.

To be clear, I personally find Brett Kavanaugh creepy in much the same way I found Peter Strzok creepy. There is an air of entitlement about him.

But more important to me is that we are going to be stuck with this man on the Supreme Court for decades and his view on some very important issues should be concerning. However, the Democrats have avoided those issues altogether.

Where were the piercing questions about Corporate sovereignty? Where were the questions about equity in resource allocation, such as in the EPA or Interior Department? What about questions for the legitimacy of prolonged detentions to provide governments with cheap labor?

Of course, Roe v Wade is always a big sticking point, the tip of which BK avoided, and the issue was effectively abandoned.

There is one pre-eminent reason the Demonrats did not ask BK probing questions about Corporations--because the very same Corporations bribe them too.

up
14 users have voted.

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West

"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu

Aligator.

I have been trying to figure out a way to discuss the same points.

Like any good psy-op, this one has multiple targets. One, clearly, is to hand the Rs a defeat or at least embarrassment right before the midterms.

Another is to avoid having to question Brett the smirking jerk who never saw a Big Deal Important Corporation he didn't love. I doubt the accusations because I suspect it isn't women who turn him on. I think he loves the heady atmosphere of The Almighty Market, deals and success and moving money around and being On the Inside, Where the Big Deals are made. No wonder T-rump loves him. Questioning Brett on matters on finance, banking and industrial policy might provoke the populists, who are already getting out of hand.

And, yet another is to trivialize and divert the Me Too phenomenon away from open discussion and description of the daily round of insults and humiliation which women endure in our capitalist paradise.

up
9 users have voted.

Nastarana

Not Henry Kissinger's picture

@Nastarana

And, yet another is to trivialize and divert the Me Too phenomenon away from open discussion and description of the daily round of insults and humiliation which women endure in our capitalist paradise.

to trivialize the Me Too movement than by foisting on an unsuspecting public transparently political and highly dubious claims of teen sexual harassment from over three decades ago.

All this creepy, desperate politico-character assassination crap does is piss people off, so that when a credible accuser with provable claims comes forward in the 'real world', she will be far less likely to be respected and believed. Thanks Democrats.

But then again, this whole charade really isn't about protecting real women in real danger. It's about using lurid sexual innuendo to trivialize and divert voters from the real issues facing both men and women that the Dems simply refuse to address.

up
11 users have voted.

The drama of the deep state in full factional meltdown makes Mario Puzo look like a dime store hack.

@Nastarana
It's sexual power over women incapacitated into helplessness. Have you never met such people.

up
3 users have voted.

He's not judicial, he's political, at least as political as Thomas and Alito. He shouldn't be deciding crucial issues like civil rights. I'm not sure if the GOP puppetmasters will touch Roe and kill their golden goose. That the Republicans are trying to ram him through with minimal scrutiny is terrible. Every argument that Mitch Mconnell publicly made about Merrick Garland can now be applied to this situation. The scale of hypocrisy on the GOP side is so huge there is no equivalence.

up
9 users have voted.

Beware the bullshit factories.

MsDidi's picture

@AlligatorEd

I am saddened and somewhat disgusted that you attack the women in your post. Great! Now C99 will be a forum for attacking victims in the name of political wittiness. I too am actively in the battle against the neolibs and the 1%. But I'm wondering why you don't recognize that the arrogant and entitled white men like Kavenaugh have always used that privilege to sexually assault and harass women -- and to impede their lives.
I too am a Survivor. This round of bullying by Kavanaugh and his posse on the Senate Judiciary Committee have enraged me all over again and have caused many of us to relive the horrible attacks that we also suffered.
I have participated with other women in speakouts locally where for the first time many of us have described what happened, our unwillingness to report these crimes, and the way our memories of abuse work (or get cloudy). When you see a grizzly bear coming at you (as there recently was in our busy residential area), you tend not to notice the color of the surrounding houses nor of the cars next to you. Your sole focus is on that bear coming toward you. Your fight/flight instinct (the lizard part of the brain -- the part you seem to glory in inhabiting) actually shuts down certain perceptual focii other than those aimed one-pointedly at the potential assailant. Sorry that you are ignorant of so much of the psychology of trauma. Get educated before writing about this again.

This incident -- not only of Kavanaugh's behavior and arrogance -- but of the white Republican men "plowing" his nomination through, reminds us not only of the Anita Hill tragedy (engineered by none other than Joe Biden who is now walking around acting as if it was other members of the committee who shamed her) -- but also of the entitled white men who have physically and emotionally attacked us -- as well as the utter corruption of both major parties.

The cynical position of the Republicans may be to ditch Kavenaugh and cut a deal with a less powerful female candidate to toe their line -- always the prerogative of the 1% and the centurions of male power. The cynical position of the Democrats is to fight -- but not too hard -- in defense of these women who have suffered much more than what they have not been permitted to testify about -- and to hope that the whole process drags on, angers women and increases their votes in the Mid-term.

Just because those of us on the left have come to recognize the bankruptcy of neoliberalism or the cynical use of intersectionality, that can be no excuse for ignoring the very specific ways that the combination of class and male prerogative has always -- and continues -- to cause great suffering to female prey (who are indeed, disproportionately impacted by economic inequality and by the destruction of basic democratic rights). This deadly combination has perpetuated the excesses of the disgusting and dangerous power structure so clearly on display now.

I'm outraged by the intellectual bankruptcy of your ever so snarky article -- as if women who have been raped and assaulted are mere stalkers on behalf of the Democratic party or the neolibs. I am a Survivor. I no longer belong to or support the Democratic party. But I will speak loudly against injustice as it is playing out on the national stage now -- and at how the intersection of class entitlement and male power has been at the center of the consolidation of the 1%. The deadly consequences of those combined forces actually matter much more than your ignorant display of snarky wit at the expense of the women who have dared to speak up.

If you don't get that, then you need to step back from your own sense of privilege -- from the alligator section of your brain -- and rethink why your emphases are so fatuous. You need to study the impact of sexual assault -- on memory and on one's lifelong lack of emotional security. Like Dr. Ford, the vast majority of victims (>60%) have never reported what happened. When I taught classes on women in writing in a large urban university many years back, we learned that more than half of us has been assaulted. And no -- no one would have considered reporting it. We would have been reporting assault to the same judges who had committed the assaults -- and been further victimized for doing that.

When I managed a women's health center, if we received a timely report of rape or assault, we would personally drive the victims to hospitals and police stations in the next county -- where they kept rape kits on hand and were willing to document the immediate evidence of assault. In the large county where we worked, and where many residents lived at poverty levels and with deprivation that you may never have experienced, the hospitals and police routinely dismissed such complaints, making it impossible for victims ever to mount viable legal cases. Clearly you don't get that and don't care about it.

Alternatively, If you do get any of this -- and don't give a damn -- then f*** you! (pun intended)

up
13 users have voted.

@MsDidi You put it so much better than I did.

up
7 users have voted.
zoebear's picture

@MsDidi

When I read this:

When you see a grizzly bear coming at you (as there recently was in our busy residential area), you tend not to notice the color of the surrounding houses nor of the cars next to you. Your sole focus is on that bear coming toward you. Your fight/flight instinct (the lizard part of the brain -- the part you seem to glory in inhabiting) actually shuts down certain perceptual focii other than those aimed one-pointedly at the potential assailant.

I suspect the casual conversations people who have never experienced any kind of sexual assault engage in about people who have would be a bit different.

up
11 users have voted.

Soldier: What? Ridden on a horse?
King Arthur: Yes!
Soldier: You're using coconuts!
King Arthur: What?
Soldier: You've got two empty halves of a coconut and you're bangin' 'em together.

Alligator Ed's picture

@MsDidi In my professional life, I have treated women victims of sexual assault. I did not disbelieve them. But almost all recounted details of their assault vividly and regretfully. Of course, many of these contacts were after the benighted 80's. After that, "male acknowledgement" of abusive behavior was coupled with a public position by many males that sexual behavioral was intolerable. The situation is allegedly more enlightened now.

As a matter of fact about the current situation, distractive as it is meant to be, the first two accusers against Kavanaugh admitted they were out of control drunk = near-blackout stage. No one forced those words out of their mouths. Many cases of sexual harassment or worse have been suppressed by victims. The instances here are simply unprovable. Alleged witnesses to the actual assaults have been falling like autumn leaves. They weren't there, they didn't remember, etc. And does testimony of no recollection prove or disprove anything? Digging out ulterior motives in this case is not difficult.

Democrats have no platform. So they rally around misogyny, racism, xenophobia as their issues, rather than around the truly important issues because the Dim version of any identity issue is "because we say so", the arbiters of morality in the USA. They could not fight BK on issues because the Dems don't confront issues--in public. They get their coaching from their "donors" (aka masters and puppeteers).

Whether victims (alleged) are as pure as you think, should include background information.

George Webb on some Blasey family connections.

A report from the Trump Times (assuredly unbiased, like NYT) A little bit aboutChristine's dad, Ralph Blasey Jr.

Like his daughter Dr. Christine Blasey, this report concludes, CIA black money operative Ralph G. Blasey Jr. remains secure, too—and who, today, is the Vice President of Business Development of Red Coats, Inc.—whose Admiral Security Services provides armed security for “Deep State” elites in Washington D.C.—that is overseen by Red Coats, Inc. co-founder and Vice Chairman William F. Peel III—and whose Datawatch Systems, Peel III also controls, has US government contracts extending till 23 June 2023 under the category of 246.42.1 to provide US defense and intelligence agencies with facility management systems to include accessories and repair parts, computerized systems for surveillance, monitoring, controlling, signaling and reporting multiple functions—all of which SVR intelligence analysts believe the American people have the right to know about in their evaluating the claims against Judge Kavanaugh being leveled against him by Dr. Christine Beasley—but who knows if it will ever happen?

Check George Webb for other Blakey-Related videos. CBF coming from a CIA family? Purely a coinkydink.

up
3 users have voted.
MsDidi's picture

@Alligator Ed
So have you noticed that many victims of rape and sexual assault have been first drugged or given so much alcohol that it is difficult for them to have reliable memories of the incident?
Perhaps you've followed the Cosby trial?
It is even more compelling that these women were first plied with lots of alcohol before being attacked -- that was part of a strategy that is documented in Judge's book, describing the Prep school culture that he & Kavanaugh swam in. So saying a woman can't remember all the details because she was first put into a drunken or drugged state is part of the game -- see Avenatti's claimant's version of being drugged -- and the many reports from other witnesses that the Committee refuses to allow to testify.
It took Cosby's accusers many more years than this to finally win their case. I am not surprised that CBF's family would also be part of the same Washington elite, but maybe the conspiracy mania has to let go of everything being a plot of the Deep State -- although I also agree that there is a war within the ruling class that has little to do with anyone's rights or with truth.
The culture of abuse of women at these prep schools is being clearly documented. The Republicans want to hurry the process because they know this is true and want to vote before more comes out. I agree that the Dems are not trying hard to stop Kavanaugh, and I am quite open to believing that they cut a deal on this -- or that they simply support him as much as anyone in the one-party system of the 1%.
This is a sham process and hearing - that alone should invoke at least as much protest as who CBF's father is. And I think CBF's move to Cal was an attempt to leave all of this culture -- and her connections to it -- behind. If she were a planted operative, she wouldn't be reluctant to testify.
I suppose Avenatti's client will also be under your cloud of suspicion because she worked at the State Dept. That logic would mean that women with connections to the State and the Deep State can be abused at will and have no rights -- which is just where this started with the Kavanaugh and Judge brief documented in Judge's book.
Your words are deeply misogynistic no matter who her father is -- and judging a woman by her father or husband is a root of patriarchal misogyny always.
What is very sad is that you seem to have no awareness -- and you should if you have treated victims -- that this whole episode has raised PTSD-type symptoms for many women who have been abused -- and often the worst of those memories is not the attack itself, but the enablers who protected the attackers and silenced the victims. Maybe if you review your words you will see how have contributed to this syndrome. If you don't believe the evidence holds up, that doesn't require you to attack these women as being liars or a part of a conspiracy. You sound just like the 'nut or slut' version of the Anita Hill slurs. Why does slut-shaming the women become the basis of an argument that you claim is actually about other things?
Moreover, this is not a court of law (not sure what calling up the law is good for anymore). It is a review of a candidate for a lifetime appointment -- and is subject to much lower standards than "beyond a reasonable doubt." But I don't think Kavanaugh would survive the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard if there were actually legal charges brought in this case. Oh, and there are also some reports that another woman is filing charges in a Md. court now.

up
5 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@Alligator Ed

Whether victims (alleged) are as pure as you think, should include background information.

The information about Blasey's dad being CIA ia interesting and could be relevant. But you could have worded this a lot better.

Victims of crimes do not have to be "pure" in order for a crime to be perpetrated against them. The "purity" status of the victim is not a legal element of the vast majority of crimes.

Unfortunately, women who accuse men of rape have historically had to prove their purity. They've had defense attorneys investigate their lives and smear them in open court. "She's had sex before! That proves she's a loose woman. She's not a nice girl. You can't send my client to prison for having sex with a non-virgin."

Al, I know that's not what you meant, but the way you said it was like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

up
4 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Centaurea's picture

@MsDidi

Your fight/flight instinct (the lizard part of the brain -- the part you seem to glory in inhabiting) actually shuts down certain perceptual focii 

There is a third aspect of that instinct: freeze.

Fight, flight, or freeze.

Freezing (and sometimes dissociating) when in a dangerous or traumatic situation is entirely normal. Yet it's used against women: "She must be lying. It can't have been that bad. She didn't scream or hit him."

Women themselves go through a lot of self-recrimination, adding to the sense of shame they already feel. "Why oh why did I freeze up? Why couldn't I help it? What's wrong with me?"

When, in fact, it's a normal common reaction.

up
12 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

@MsDidi
I voted in support of your eloquent statement, and I voted in support of Alligator Ed's response to you. Maybe the easiest way to express why a woman like myself would question whether Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth, or whether she is telling the truth but is being used strategically, or whether she is making a false accusation, is to say that if you believe all survivors of sexual assault should be believed, it seems to me all people acting in good faith should be believed, and that would include those here who see the potential for bad faith on the part of some of the people involved.

Just as many of us can say we believe a lot of elite prep school graduates become part of the power structure of economic and social abuse, many of us can also say we've seen both political parties engage in bad acts, lies, and the publication of false information. An article I read today by Jonathan Turley describes the hypocrisy of both the Democrats and the Republicans, comparing their positions when Bill Clinton was accused, in which their positions were reversed as to whether or not to believe accusers. So both parties are champions of victims and skeptical of accusers whenever it suits their interests.

I think it's possible Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth and that she decided to speak out now for reasons that are nobody's business but her own. I also think it's possible she's telling the truth but that she chose to do so now because of the Supreme Court crisis. The problem is that in waiting until now, although she apparently talked about it with her husband and her therapist in 2012, she lived with the reality that Kavanaugh was a powerful legal factor for the six years since 2012 and didn't speak out. And that diminishes her credibility to a certain extent. If she does indeed have any connection, family or work related, to the CIA, that also raises doubts about her credibility or her usefulness by powerful interests.

So what I'm trying to say is that believing that all accusers have a right to be heard and respected is not the same as saying all accusers should be believed without question.

up
6 users have voted.

@Linda Wood and I would like to add, I have not heard anyone say "all accusers should be believed without question". I might have missed it.

up
4 users have voted.
Alligator Ed's picture

@peachcreek Gillibrand: "She's telling the truth because I believe her".

So Gillibrand's totally reliable internal truth-o-meter is correct because she says so and if we don't believe Gillibrand's belief, then we unbelievers are mysogynistic dogs, unfit to share the company of humans.

Myself, I prefer eating dogs, but I might like pale blond Senators.

up
1 user has voted.

@Alligator Ed what do you expect? Don't look for Gillibrand to question Kavanaugh's pro-corporate views, Gillie gets her campaign money from WS.

up
5 users have voted.

Nastarana