A Few Questions the Senate Committee May Not Think to Ask

But first, in remembrance of the Humpty Dumpty magazine for children (back in the lighter years):

Can you spot the differences?

Spot the difference.jpg

Now for my questions.

IF the accusations against Kavanaugh are false:
* Why does he not call for an FBI investigation?
* Why did he do an interview on Fox (no other SCOTUS nominee has ever done an interview show)?
* Why are Republicans trying to rush the vote (they have until Nov. 6 at least to confirm a nominee)? Note: They have called for a vote this Friday.

IF the accusations against Kavanaugh are deemed true:
* Does anyone think the Republicans will not confirm him anyway?

General questions:
* If true, why exactly was Judge also in the room during the assault? Most rapes are not committed with an audience. Did Judge jump on the bed thinking K was taking too long and it was his "turn"?

* Does K's conflicting stories of his high school and early college years regarding his drinking further prove a tendency for lying?

* Why is K in so much debt? If reports are correct, he has been living well over his means for years. How does this reflect on his judgment? Do you suppose that being a corporation is a person ideologist may help him out of his financial troubles?

* There have been numerous remarks about this incident happened 36 years ago to undermine its validity, but somehow K conveniently still has a calendar of some of his activities from that same time period and no one blinks an eye (lots of winks though). Has this calendar been vetted?

* It has been shown that K lied under oath on two separate issues in his 2004, 2006 and current testimony under oath (the documents that were stolen from Sen Leahy and the issue of the judge who was sending out inappropriate emails and later fired for sexual harassment.). Yet, not a peep from Dems. Why?

* Does being a virgin somehow eliminate the possibility that a person could or would sexually assault someone? After all, Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy.

* Did anyone else notice that during the hearings that K drank excessive amounts of water when being questioned by Democrats yet very little when Republicans had the floor? Did anyone notice that K said that he is going to over turn Roe v Wade (that is what he meant by not citing the precedents that would keep it law, but instead referring to a precedent that could lead to overturning the current law)? (Not: Trump said he would appoint judges to overturn Roe.)

Other questions:

* When will Democrats grow a backbone? Kamala Harris at the original hearings said she had a reliable witness that K DID talk to someone at Trump's law firm about the Mueller investigation after having grilled K extensively on whether he had or not with him avoiding answering the questions. Then crickets.

* Why didn't the Democrats on the committee take legal actions (or find a Wikileaks-type source) to obtain the documents on K that have been hidden from them and the public? For that matter, those documents came from Bush's library which is supposed to be for the public. Why didn't one of them send someone to get a library card?

* Do Republicans think they were too tough on K when they asked him why he uses a Sharpie to write his notes?

Finally:

* Exactly what case is coming in front of the Supreme Court in October that the Republicans feel they need K in there to swing the vote?

Wrapping up: If by some miracle (and I do mean a miracle just short of the Second Coming), they don't confirm K, the Republicans have a long list of judges who would do their will in a SCOTUS position with the probable exception of not having written that a president cannot be prosecuted.

What is left then is for the American people to find a way to get Congress to do its job as Sen. Sasse (an R) pointed out during the hearings. LAWS need to be passed to stop the most egregious sins of the one percent.

Thank you for listening to me blow off steam. These questions and more have been rattling around and my head for days now and I was looking for a good place to drop them off. = )

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Centaurea's picture

When will Democrats grow a backbone?

Never.

Exactly what case is coming in front of the Supreme Court in October that the Republicans feel they need K in there to swing the vote?

Interesting question. Here's the SCOTUS docket for October 2018.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2018/

up
0 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

WindDancer13's picture

@Centaurea @Centaurea
Pretty much guessed that. *sigh*

Thank you so much for the link. Some very interesting information there. While I have not yet taken the time to thoroughly check out the cases, I see some issues that could be of interest to Republicans and T in particular. One would be Gamble v. U.S., No. 17-646 Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause. Others of interest might be a case regarding securities fraud and one regarding the First Amendment and arrests.

There's a number of death penalty issues and let's-tromp-on-Native-Americans-some-more issues. I will have to spend some more time at the site to see if the reason for the rush is in plain sight.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

WindDancer13's picture

@WindDancer13

Just found this article: Awaiting a Ninth Justice, Supreme Court Tinkers With Its Docket at
https://www.law.com/2018/09/24/awaiting-a-ninth-justice-supreme-court-ti...

Have to register at the site for five articles per month, so will paste the relevant stuff:

The uncertainty surrounding U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation may already be affecting the court’s docket for the term that begins on Oct. 1.
Last week, the court pulled several high-profile cases off the list that the justices were scheduled to consider today at the court’s so-called long conference. That is when the justices evaluate hundreds of petitions filed over the summer to decide whether grant review in the coming term.

Though the court does not explain why it reschedules or delays the consideration of pending petitions, it might be that the prospect of an eight-member court in the short or long term led the justices to shelve cases that might result in 4-4 ties. Justices traditionally try to avoid ties because they have the effect of allowing the lower court ruling to stand, without further resolution of the issue involved.

Among the cases that were scheduled to be discussed today but were recently rescheduled for a future unspecified date are:

➤➤ ConAgra Grocery Products v. California and The Sherwin-Williams Company v. California, key business cases challenging California’s use of public nuisance law to exact damages from companies with long-ago involvement in promoting the use of lead paint. They were taken off the conference list on Sept. 20.

➤➤ Apodaca v. Raemisch and Lowe v. Raemisch, testing the Eighth Amendment constitutionality of severe solitary confinement for prisoners. They were taken off the list and rescheduled on Sept. 18.

➤➤ Altitude Express v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia, asking whether the federal ban on sex discrimination in the workplace includes sexual orientation bias. They were rescheduled on Sept. 11, four days after Kavanaugh’s hearing ended.

➤➤ Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, a First Amendment dispute over a public school coach in Washington state who was fired for kneeling in prayer at a football game. The court rescheduled the case on Sept. 20.

Some of the rescheduled cases were ones that court-watchers hoped would spice up what was shaping up to be an otherwise lackluster term. Several death penalty cases also were delayed.

So where do you think K will stand on these cases? Like I do not know.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

Roy Blakeley's picture

The Republican haste is due to a fear that they will lose the Senate and Trump will be unable to get his nominees confirmed.

The Democrats like Booker and Harris were initially grandstanding for electoral purposes. This was more political theater wherein Kavanaugh would be approved but Democrats would return to their constituencies oozing righteous indignation. Booker and Harris are running for President and want to get TV time. As you point out, there is good evidence that Kavanaugh perjured himself during his confirmation hearings in 2004 and 2006. That should be a complete disqualifier for a prospective justice of the Supreme Court. However, it is not a big vote getter like sexual assault. It is possible that the Democrats had made a behind the scenes deal to let Kavanaugh through, perhaps in exchange for the Republicans not rigorously investigating the FBI spying on the Trump campaign and the fact that the Trump campaign was set up for surveillance in the meeting of DT Jr with Veselnitskaya. Perhaps there was some other deal. The leaderships of both parties are corrupt and self serving. However when the sexual assault allegations became public, all bets were off. The Dems have to at least pretend that they are pursuing this vigorously.

Concerning Kavanaugh, I did not know about the debt, but it is interesting. Concerning the sexual assault, these were drunken 17 year old assholes. Don't expect rational or logical behavior. Virgins can certainly commit sexual assault and Kavanaugh would not have lost his virginity in the assault as described.

up
0 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@Roy Blakeley

However, it is not a big vote getter like sexual assault. 

From what I'm seeing, this seems to be a possible reason for the Dems' actions. They seem to think it's true. However, is it?

Americans do have a special fascination with scandals involving sex. But in the past, how has that actually translated into votes being changed? I'm trying to think of historical precedents that fit the Kavanaugh situation.

Gary Hart and John Edwards saw their political fortunes go down the tubes when their (mis)deeds became known. But they were running in the Dem presidential primary. Kavanaugh isn't running for election by the voting public. And I don't recall Hart's and Edwards' problems turning the voters en masse away from the Dems.

up
0 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

lotlizard's picture

@Centaurea  
Sexual scandal didn’t stop Edwards at the primary stage — as I understand it, the original National Enquirer story wasn’t taken seriously and was only confirmed much later, after Kerry and Edwards’ unsuccessful 2004 run.

up
0 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@lotlizard

So I just went back to refresh my memory about the timeline of Edwards' life and career.

He ran in the Dem primary in 2004, lost, and was named as Kerry's running mate. As we know, they lost the election to Dubya and Cheney.

(That was Dubya's last hurrah, since things started going downhill for him shortly thereafter. Until his resurrection by the Dems in 2018, of course. :-P)

In early 2007, Edwards launched another run for the Dem nomination.There was also some talk about him either reprising his VP spot or being named Attorney General. His political star was rising, in other words.

Around the same time, his wife, Elizabeth Edwards (who was well-liked by the public), announced that she had late stage breast cancer.

However, unbeknownst to the public and apparently to his wife, in 2006 Edwards had begun an affair with a woman who worked in his campaign, and had a child with her. In late 2007, reports began to surface, but it was The National Inquirer. It took a good while for the MSM to catch on. When it did, Edwards lied and lied, until he couldn't lie any more.

It's unclear to what extent this affected Edwards' 2008 campaign, but he certainly stalled out afterward.

Personally, I thought it showed great disrespect to the American people. He ran to become POTUS, at a critical time in history, all the while knowing that there was a gigantic skeleton in his closet that would very likely derail his presidency. (Or maybe he was too narcissistic to think it would happen.)

up
0 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

WindDancer13's picture

@Centaurea
...of Dem narcissists that will be coming to a podium near you in 2020.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

Amanda Matthews's picture

@WindDancer13
one time.

I can see it all now. All those selfless souls willing to run for office with the primary intention of making life better for the plebs.

Yeah, right.

Dianne F. really messed this up. She thought that if all else failed and the Dims needed a last minute fail safe tactic to put the breaks on the nomination she always had the sex angle in reserve. And that it would just fly like a bird. What a wretched creature she is. Now look at this mess. Since the first accusation, another woman has come forward with memories that she suddenly remembered after 30+ years and **gag**, Michael Avenatti has got another abuse victim who 1) would have been in college, 2) was legally an adult, 3) who was partying with these high school kids, and 4) KNEW that gang rapes were being committed but didn’t report it to the police, school, anyone. Until SHE got gang raped that is. And again can’t provide eye witnesses. Who knows how much is true? The way Feinstein handled this situation it was destined to be a serious mess. And this whole mess is embarrassing. It’s become a farce.

I can’t figure out how it would be legally ‘justified’ but I’m in favor of investigating this whole mess. The FBI really doesn’t have grounds to investigate these accusations. They fall under the state’s jurisdiction. So they need to get on it. Clean this mess up and let the chips do their thing.

up
0 users have voted.

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

WindDancer13's picture

@Amanda Matthews

I see it more like Night of the Living Dead. Troves of them, arms outstretched, gargling "Brains. Brains. Brains." They cannot even get that right as what they want is integrity.

There would have been no need at all to out Ford if the Dem part of the committee had been doing their job. They DID have access to K's rulings. All they had to do is quote one or two of his most telling rulings and ask him why he had ruled that way. As in, what was his reasoning for making a 17-year-old woman who had already been granted the right to an abortion wait an extra 11 days for a sponsor that the court had already ruled she didn't need.

Ten Dem's...10 probings into previous rulings. Those could have covered a lot of ground.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

lotlizard's picture

@Centaurea  
I’d forgotten about (repressed as a traumatic experience? ::grin::) the 2007–2008 primary season.

Back at TOP, “Edwards Evening News” was a regular feature with a large and enthusiastic following.

up
0 users have voted.
WindDancer13's picture

@Centaurea
You are looking too far back re "I'm trying to think of historical precedents that fit the Kavanaugh situation."

Think Trump. No effect there including from the "religious right."

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

Centaurea's picture

@WindDancer13
I guess I was looking for a precedent where a nominee for an appointed position (not an elected official such as Trump) took down an entire political party, the way the Dems apparently hope Kavanaugh will take down the GOP.

up
0 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

WindDancer13's picture

@Centaurea

...but maybe Clarence Thomas may have been instrumental in George H. W. Bush's one term? I cannot imagine that it won him the women's vote.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

Centaurea's picture

@WindDancer13 @WindDancer13

I've wondered about Bush the Elder's single term. He and Bill Clinton have a very close relationship, like father and son. Dubya calls Bill "my brother from another mother".

One reason, I guess, was Ross Perot, but I'm not sure how women's personal feelings about Bush played into that.

up
0 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

Amanda Matthews's picture

@WindDancer13 @WindDancer13
the poster boy for white elitism and foul behavior always ignored?

Teddy’s lack of character and actions helped put Ronald Reagan in the White House.

EDIT: who’s/for

up
0 users have voted.

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Centaurea's picture

@Amanda Matthews I've been thinking the last couple of days about the Kennedys. Ted, and the various Kennedy grandchildren who had so much trouble.

up
0 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

WindDancer13's picture

@Roy Blakeley
I understand the part of wanting to get it done before the mid-terms, but those are still a ways off. There is more than enough time to do an FBI investigation (the Anita Hill investigation took three days) and have four or five week-end jaunts to nowhere before that deadline.

I really thought Harris was going to come through. I guess I am still way too trusting (but working on it). Leahy did publish his info and still not a blip on anyone's I Care screen. Corporate donors must be thrilled with their investments, probably cheaper and safer than playing the stock market.

Here is where I read about the debt issues:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-many-mysteries-of-brett...

"Don't expect rational or logical behavior" could equally apply to this government.

Thanks.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

Alligator Ed's picture

@WindDancer13 but they weren't. Why? Because too many of the crooks in Congress could not justify their real wealth as coming from their actual employment income. By showing up the unseemly upper class life of privilege which many of them enjoy, not just Kavanaugh, voters might start wondering, belatedly, about their representatives and senators.

Lying in front of Congress seems to be an okay thing--unless you are a sincere whistleblower simply telling the truth.

up
0 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

@WindDancer13 are huge red flags for me. I was unaware of this aspect of his character. But it is even more than a character issue in that high debts can be used to compromise someone who is swimming in debt. The fact that he could not manage his own finances and insisted upon living beyond his means shows me that he does not use good judgment.
I have posted here on another essay that Kavanaugh creeps me out in much the same way that Peter Strzok does. There is a smirking sense of entitlement about this man. His excuse is that he borrowed from his parents and in laws. The man is 53 years old and he is still relying on his parents to bail him out? It is almost as if he never really grew up into a full adult responsible for his own finances and heavens knows what else.

And we want this very flawed man with very flawed judicial ideas on the Supreme Court for the next several decades?

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

lotlizard's picture

@gulfgal98  
in the middle of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tim+geithner+tax+returns

They just want to keep the vulgar Trump and his appointees out of their privileged, exclusive, rarified, special little “IFILAP” — “immune from investigation, let alone prosecution” — club.

up
0 users have voted.
Amanda Matthews's picture

@lotlizard

Larry Summers Lost Harvard's Money
Risky investments cost the university $1.8 billion. Should taxpayers be worried he'll do the same in the administration?

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/11/larry-summers-lost-...

up
0 users have voted.

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

@WindDancer13 time for the dems to have investigated this since July and plenty of time for the repubs to have investigated, but they wanted to sandbag K.

They could have easily hired people who specialized in investigating these types of issues.

But they wanted to sandbag K at the last minute.

I wish people would get over their hang up over having the FBI doing an investigation. I wouldn't want the FBI investigating anything as politically charged. They are behind the coup to remove Trump from office.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

@Roy Blakeley But this is incorrect: It is possible that the Democrats had made a behind the scenes deal to let Kavanaugh through, perhaps in exchange for the Republicans not rigorously investigating the FBI spying on the Trump campaign and the fact that the Trump campaign was set up for surveillance in the meeting of DT Jr with Veselnitskaya

The repubs have in no way stopped their investigations into the attempted coup by the dems.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

lotlizard's picture

to testify at her confirmation hearings, did they?

In America, drunken teen parties are so much more disqualifying than direct personal involvement in outright torture.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@lotlizard

Biden didn't let any of the other women who could have backed up Anita testify either. We can thank him for Thomas being on the court. Kerry and Obama could have kept Roberts and Alioto off the court by not voting them out of committee. Oops. This information wasn't supposed to get out. Can we finally get people to admit that both parties are working together?

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

WindDancer13's picture

@snoopydawg
No. We currently have a one party system with a few outliers. Just like any family with overwhelming hubris (is that redundant?), they have their squabbles though. Meanwhile, the children are being eaten alive.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

@snoopydawg Yes, good ole Biden.

Fox news has been playing a tape of how he said that an FBI investigation is not dispositive of an issue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/

I love it when people who flip around are exposed (of any political party).

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

@lotlizard are mostly and conveniently dead, I think.

I would guess that the Rethugs want K confirmed before the midterms in case they lose the Senate, which I don't think they will, but a newly elected Senator O'Rourke, for example, wouldn't be likely to meekly sit down and shut up merely because Schemer told him to.

up
0 users have voted.

Mary Bennett

snoopydawg's picture

Well done.

IF the accusations against Kavanaugh are deemed true:
* Does anyone think the Republicans will not confirm him anyway?

Nope.

* Why is K in so much debt? If reports are correct, he has been living well over his means for years. How does this reflect on his judgment? Do you suppose that being a corporation is a person ideologist may help him out of his financial troubles?
Yep. He is apparently living beyond his means, but is somehow making ends meet

* It has been shown that K lied under oath on two separate issues in his 2004, 2006 and current testimony under oath (the documents that were stolen from Sen Leahy and the issue of the judge who was sending out inappropriate emails and later fired for sexual harassment.). Yet, not a peep from Dems. Why?
For the same reason Feinstein apologized to K after the protesters were removed from the room and possibly why she didn't release the letter until the hearings were over and her colleagues pushed her to do it. She wants him to be appointed. He will hammer the final nail in the coffin of what used to be America. Corporate rule and ... ?

* When will Democrats grow a backbone?
When hell freezes over

Anyone notice that no one answers questions when they testify to congress? People will be asked a yes or no question and instead of answering them with a yes or no they go on a tangent that has nothing to do with the questions. This is deliberately done. The heritage foundation has been training people to answer questions that way. This makes it so that people can't commit to anything.

* It has been shown that K lied under oath on two separate issues in his 2004, 2006 and current testimony under oath (the documents that were stolen from Sen Leahy and the issue of the judge who was sending out inappropriate emails and later fired for sexual harassment.). Yet, not a peep from Dems. Why?
I thought that someone did address the stolen emails, but he denied that he read them. The woman who wrote them said that he did.

If by some miracle (and I do mean a miracle just short of the Second Coming), they don't confirm K, the Republicans have a long list of judges who would do their will in a SCOTUS position with the probable exception of not having written that a president cannot be prosecuted.

See article below

Here's another interesting fact about Kavanaugh. He has been groomed for his positions since prep school.

Grooming Brett Kavanaugh: From prep school to the Supreme Court was a straight line — and crooked as hell

* Exactly what case is coming in front of the Supreme Court in October that the Republicans feel they need K in there to swing the vote?
Exactly! Why the rush to put this flawed candidate on the Supreme Court when there are plenty of other justices that could be appointed and won't have the same baggage that K does.
The difference in the photos are that Hillary is leaning towards Bill. Mrs. K has left space between them and she is kind of leaning away from him.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

mhagle's picture

@snoopydawg

Mrs. K Sad sad sad. Can you imagine how she feels? Doing her duty. Being the good girl. Obedient. Submissive. The teenage boy is the same guy in an old body. It's all about him. It's his game. She is just there.

up
0 users have voted.

Marilyn

"Make dirt, not war." eyo

Centaurea's picture

@mhagle

I hurt, looking at her in that photo.

up
0 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

Amanda Matthews's picture

@Centaurea @Centaurea

The flip side of that coin is in the other one.

In that one the wife looks like she wants to choke the life out of her hubby as she keeps helping him lie his ass off and helping him smear the ‘family friend’ that Hillary knew all about.

EDIT: 3 typos

up
0 users have voted.

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

WindDancer13's picture

@mhagle

you can see that it goes beyond sad. When she was directly asked a question by the interviewer, she had to look at K (as if for permission to speak) and he took over and non-answered the question.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

snoopydawg's picture

@mhagle

I see no reason why she should have had to be included in it. The interview was so Kavanaugh could have the chance to make his case to the public. Having her sit beside him was to show that she stands by her man. No one should be put in this position. IMO of course. But how will she feel if the accusations are proven to be true? Hasn't that happened after other women stood by their man?

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

WindDancer13's picture

@snoopydawg
It would not have looked good for him if she had not been there. In the future, that song will be re-titled "Stand One Step Behind Your Man."

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

Centaurea's picture

@snoopydawg

But how will she feel if the accusations are proven to be true?

She's married to the guy. Unless she's completely brainwashed or in denial, she must know the kind of man she's married to (regardless of whether or not anything is ever proven in this case.)

By the way, in contrast to Ashley Kavanaugh's subservient demeanor during their interview, Hillary is intently focused on Bill, like she's beaming into his brain the words she wants him to say.

up
0 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

gulfgal98's picture

@Centaurea The evil witch...

Hillary is intently focused on Bill, like she's beaming into his brain the words she wants him to say.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

@snoopydawg

them is helpful, if not downright necessary.

We see Clinton and Kavanaugh on this thread. Remember Vitter? His wife was beside him when he made his public statement after the diapering prostitute story broke. After Schwartzenegger was accused of groping, Maria made her "I know this man speech (which she may later have come to regret. Or not.)

The worst, in my opinion, was McGreavy. His wife, who looked weird to me when he made his public statement about alleged sexual harassment, later appeared on a talk show. When questioned as to why she had stood next to him, she said that he had not told her until a few seconds before he began speaking on camera that he was gay. Unlike the other wives mentioned in this paragraph, Ms. McGreavy said she stood there because she was in shock.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@HenryAWallace

When questioned as to why she had stood next to him, she said that he had not told her until a few seconds before he began speaking on camera that he was gay. Unlike the other wives mentioned in this paragraph, Ms. McGreavy said she stood there because she was in shock.

I'm trying to come up with something else to say about that, but I got nothing. Well nothing lady like...

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Centaurea's picture

@snoopydawg Ashley Estes Kavanaugh served as personal secretary to George W. Bush during his first term as POTUS. Prior to that, she worked for Dubya while he was governor of Texas. After she and Kavanaugh got married in 2004, she left the White House and held various positions at Dubya's presidential foundation.

Dubya appointed Brett K. to the federal bench in 2006.

I have to say, she looks a lot smarter and more mature than her hubby.

up
0 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

mhagle's picture

@Centaurea @snoopydawg @WindDancer13 @mimi

That makes it worse. It makes it look like an arranged marriage.

Short of being raised hydroponically in the basement of the Federalist Society, he could not be more carefully constructed as a nominee in waiting.

And the Federalist Society arranged it?

up
0 users have voted.

Marilyn

"Make dirt, not war." eyo

WindDancer13's picture

@snoopydawg

I only got to watch about 90% of the hearings. I seem to have missed Feinstein's apology regarding the protesters. (I am working on a cartoon regarding Cornyn's and Kennedy's remarks on them.)

He will hammer the final nail in the coffin of what used to be America. Corporate rule and ... ?

...I am going to guess American women in burquas (or at least the cultural equivalent of a burqas symbolism).

I very much noticed the lack of information coming from K. Although a few reporters did pick up on some things I would have missed through lack of knowledge of particular laws that were hidden little gems in what he did say. The most notable was his use of a precedent set by Casey v Planned Parenthood in regard to Roe v Wade being "settled law":

As abortion-rights leaders feared, Casey’s undue burden standard allowed more restrictions than Roe. Many states have enacted laws that drastically limit access to reproductive health care, particularly for poor, rural and immigrant women who cannot afford to miss work and make repeated trips to clinics hundreds of miles away.

From https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-abortion-righ...

There are currently 13 cases in circuit courts that will end up in the Supreme Court this year. Given K's handling of the Garza case, I would have to recommend that American women learn the secrets of conservative women who know how to cause a miscarriage (aka spontaneous abortion).

Leahy posted an email chain that showed that K did read the stolen documents and commented on them in return emails.

And here I thought it was the coffee table being moved to the wall instead of the center of the room!

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

snoopydawg's picture

@WindDancer13

a extreme right wing court could set back other settled policies such as gay rights and transgender issues.

These Five Court Cases Could Change the Future of LGBT Rights

The possibility of a right-wing Supreme Court Justice has LGBT campaigners rightly nervous. Trump’s appointment will also coincide with key LGBT equality cases hitting the courts.

The Supreme Court nominee President Trump is expected to announce on Monday could play as large a role in unraveling LGBT rights as retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy did in recognizing them.

As LGBT legal advocacy groups previously told The Daily Beast, virtually everything will be on the line if Kennedy is replaced with an arch-conservative: transgender rights, employment protections, religious justifications for discrimination, and even marriage equality itself.

While it’s impossible to predict the specific cases that will end up before the high court, there are major court battles currently unfolding in each of these areas that could prove monumental. Here are five such cases that demonstrate just how deeply the LGBT community will be in jeopardy.

If these cases—or cases like them—are decided against LGBT people, the next Supreme Court could systematically dismantle what few rights the embattled community was on its way to securing.

Is it really just because the religious right doesn't approve of abortion and LGBT rights that we have the big fights over them or is it something else? Hobby Lobby could afford to pay for their employee's birth control, but they took Obama and the ACA to the SC over it. This had to have cost a pretty penny. I've never understood why they are such a big deal to people. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. People bitch about having to pay for food stamps for people who have too many children, but then make it as difficult as possible for people not to have access to birth control and abortions. Just don't understand why?

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

WindDancer13's picture

@snoopydawg
It has nothing to do with religious beliefs or love of children or family values. It is pure power and control over others (and most particularly women).

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

@WindDancer13 downright sick.

So, you don't give any credence at all to the women who stood up for him?

75 people, and this simply doesn't matter at all?

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

WindDancer13's picture

@dfarrah

My comment had nothing to do with the accusations against K nor the people who support him. I was commenting on the confirmation hearings that I watched most of and was reflecting on K's avoidance of questions in that hearing and how his previous rulings reflect how he would rule on the Court.

When looking for something to attack, people often do not listen to what was actually said.

But as long as you bring it up though, a number of the women who signed that letter have since asked for their names to be removed.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

Centaurea's picture

@snoopydawg

If Roe v. Wade falls, it will take down a whole bunch of other important decisions with it.

Roe v. Wade is based on the 1964 case that decriminalized the use of birth control, Griswold v. Connecticut. In Griswold, SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution contains an implied right to privacy.

SCOTUS relied on Griswold in many subsequent decisions, including Lawrence v. Texas (which decriminalized gay sex) and Obergefell (the "gay marriage" case).

If Roe is overturned, that would jeopardize (or destroy) Griswold, along with every other decision that relied on Griswold.

up
0 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 was about abortion. Griswold was about access to birth control. Overturning RvW would not automatically overturn Griswold.

And why are people so exercised over Roe v Wade? If it is overturned, then the matter goes to the states.

Oh wait, states are already chipping away at RvW with legislation. Aborton clinics are already being closed down in red states. Chip chip chip.

Why this chipping? Because apparently the issue hasn't won at the ballot box in red states. I'm pro-choice myself, but even I can see that this issue is a loser in a lot of states, and the women apparently aren't concerned enough to vote out the chippers.

Pro choicers apparently cannot accept political reality.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

Centaurea's picture

@dfarrah @dfarrah

The exact effect would depend on the specific grounds on which SCOTUS rejected Roe v. Wade. It is certainly within the Court's power and authority to declare that Griswold is no longer good precedent. If Roe falls, there's a good chance this is how it would happen.

It would not automatically overturn Griswold in the sense that birth control would immediately become illegal again. It wouldn't. The same holds for Lawrence, Obergefell, and the other cases. Same sex marriage would not automatically disappear.

What overturning Roe would do is open the door for states to pass new laws banning gay marriage, restricting birth control, etc., and for those new laws to be upheld in court on the basis that the legal foundation forbidding such laws (Griswold) had been declared dead by SCOTUS.

up
0 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

@dfarrah @dfarrah

You said:

Roe v Wade was about abortion. Griswold was about access to birth control.

This is irrelevant. It's not how Supreme Court decisions work. In Roe, SCOTUS did not just say "OK, abortion is legal", and in Griswold, it did not just say "OK, birth control is legal." The Supreme Court does not have the power to do that.

SCOTUS decisions are always about wider issues. The Supreme cannot and does not create laws. It interprets laws based on the US Constitution. What Griswold did was recognize and establish an implied Constitutionally-protected right to privacy. Every court and every law in the US from that point on has to recognize and honor that right to privacy.

(Yes, I know that various state legislatures are thumbing their noses at Roe and SCOTUS. Due to the political climate, they've been getting away with it, which is a matter of serious concern as regards the separation of powers. Under the US Constitution as well as the individual state constitutions, state lawmakers do not have the power to overturn SCOTUS decisions.)

According to Griswold, Americans have the right to use birth control BECAUSE they have a Constitutional right to privacy. Under Roe v. Wade, abortions are legal BECAUSE under Griswold, they have a Constitutional right to privacy. Under Lawrence v. Texas, people of the same sex can engage in sexual acts together BECAUSE under Griswold they have that right to privacy.

If SCOTUS overturns Roe, they will likely do it on the basis that Griswold is no longer good law. In other words, SCOTUS would be repudiating, or at least restricting, the implied Constitutional right to privacy.

Every single case that has been based on the right to privacy would be placed in jeopardy. No future cases could be based on it. The reason is that the implied right to privacy, recognized by the Supreme Court in Griswold, would no longer exist.

It doesn't matter what specific human activity is involved. Getting married, using condoms, engaging in forms of sex other than the male-female "missionary position", cutting your toenails, or expecting the NSA not to record your every move.

up
0 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

@WindDancer13 I very much noticed the lack of information coming from K

What I saw was K Harris repeatedly trying to get K to tell us how he would rule on issues.

Demanding that of K is ridiculous. Nobody knows the facts of any case in the future. And he only has what, 15 years on the Federal bench? Go read his cases ffs if you want some idea how he will rule on cases.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

WindDancer13's picture

@dfarrah

you want to hear.

In the comment you reference, I do discuss one of his rulings along with his responses that use a precedent that has been used to further limit a women's choices.

You may wish to take your own advice as I HAVE read many of his decisions and can see many problems ahead (if he is confirmed) not only regarding Roe but many issues including privacy, corporate personhood, the powers of the executive office, and freedom of speech.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

gulfgal98's picture

@snoopydawg Re: Kavanaugh was groomed. Rhetorical question: Why is it that nearly every person in power is an Ivy League graduate, particularly either Yale or Harvard?

This is so emblematic of the neoliberal philosophy. These people see themselves as better than the rest of us peons, as the nobility of this country and the government is their exclusive little club. I wish the people of this country would wake up to see that the pool from which these people all come is very small and very exclusive.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

snoopydawg's picture

@gulfgal98

takeover of the US? Sure we have always had political parties that did the bidding of the oligarchs, but remember how pissed off the elites were when Roosevelt passed the new deal? They have been whittling away at it since he signed it.

Grooming people to do the bidding of the elite is one way to make sure that no one who thinks for themselves gets on the courts anymore. Souter and Kennedy voted the wrong way for them on some important cases and they want to nip that in the bud. Reminds me of the ex military and CIA members running for congress. Let's take out the middlemen.

Kennedy's legacy is his retiring while Trump is president so he could stack the highest court just like he's stacking the lower ones. And Schumer and the democrats have been helping him do it.

No doubt remains. This country is not a republic nor has it ever been one. The gilded ages are just around the corner. Yippee!

@snoopydawg Re: Kavanaugh was groomed. Rhetorical question: Why is it that nearly every person in power is an Ivy League graduate, particularly either Yale or Harvard?

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

gulfgal98's picture

@snoopydawg It pains me to see this happening. We the people have never really had a chance because they (the oligarchs) have been incrementally eroding anything that benefited us. Trump is not the problem. He is the logical end to this.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

@snoopydawg Presidents always pack the courts with their side.

Always.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

snoopydawg's picture

@dfarrah

Gee thanks for letting me know that. This comment thread is about how K was groomed for his positions. Not about why Trump elected a republican.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Amanda Matthews's picture

@gulfgal98

And ‘old’ money is best.

up
0 users have voted.

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

snoopydawg's picture

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

WindDancer13's picture

@snoopydawg

I especially like this sentence:

Short of being raised hydroponically in the basement of the Federalist Society, he could not be more carefully constructed as a nominee in waiting.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

mimi's picture

Bill Clinton is interviewed by a man, Kavanaugh is interviewed by a woman, both' spouses
look worried and sad at their husbands and are actually completely superfluous with regards to sitting at their spouses sides.

So, if Kavanaugh wouldn't have been interviewed by a woman, but by a man, would the kabuki theater be any different?

Do not answer me, I didn't ask for real, just for 'fun'.
Dash 1

up
0 users have voted.
Centaurea's picture

@mimi I notice another difference. The setting for the Clinton interview -- the room decor, furnishings, and even their clothing -- is bright and elegant. It looks like it might have taken place at the White House.

By contrast, the setting for the Kavanaughs looks like something from the Munsters' house. Dark, gloomy, muddy colors, and weird shadows. The only spot of color is Brett's purple tie. (A subtle hint, being the color of power and the law?)

Mimi, in case you're not aware, "The Munsters" was an iconic TV comedy show in the '60s that parodied horror films.

up
0 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

mimi's picture

@Centaurea
and am a know-nothing when it comes to movies and TV shows. The only thing I remember having watched with my son was Cosby's show and that's it. I am always lost here if folks refer to movies etc.

Thanks.

up
0 users have voted.

@Centaurea

up
0 users have voted.
WindDancer13's picture

@HenryAWallace
I watched the video of this a long time ago (back when I could stomach watching those two) and that is where it occurred. Interesting to note that the room in which the K interview was done was stripped of identifying marks of any kind. Note: The couch is the same color for both. Doesn't mean anything, just happened to notice it. = )

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

WindDancer13's picture

@Centaurea

The reason for the creepiness may come from the fact that the room appears to have been stripped (other than the thermostat) of any identifying features.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

@Centaurea a new and creative legal doctrine:

Dark room = even more evidence of guilt

If you had listened to the tape, you would have heard HRC call the accuser "wacky." And BC evaded the question about adultery - saying the subject is between spouses. But this situation isn't really analogous to an assault.

The K's did not in any way disparage the accuser. They seemed shell shocked and sincere to me.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

Centaurea's picture

@dfarrah

Scratch one-s head

up
0 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

TheOtherMaven's picture

@Centaurea

I'm beginning to think dfarrah is living in an alternate reality - maybe one where the 1950s never ended and the Republicans are still the party of Eisenhower (who, one should note, could as easily have run as a Democrat if the Republicans hadn't asked him first).

That's not the world the rest of us have to deal with.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

I see quite a few differences, but, I'll cite only a few: The Clintons look/are younger and more agressive than the Kavanaughs. Hillary is on Bill's right and has her black tights-clad legs crossed and her fingers intertwined. (Kudos on a great way to make your points about the two pics and on all your posts in this thread.)

IF the accusations against Kavanaugh are false:
* Why does he not call for an FBI investigation?

If you were up for one of the most important jobs in the nation and being challenged on the basis of something that you did when you were a drunken teen, would you demand that the FBI investigate you? (If the FBI is ordered to investigate, it would be very difficult to circumscribe the scope of their investigation. Also, time between now and election day is of the essence. Additionally, and perhaps ironically, Republicans now view the FBI as biased toward Democrats.)

* Why did he do an interview on Fox (no other SCOTUS nominee has ever done an interview show)?

I may be overlooking something obvious, but I don't see this as a significant indicium of guilt or innocence, except possibly to his advisors/handlers. It certainly gives him an opportunity to put his version before the public without exposing him to perjury charges, but lying at this juncture on matters that someone can prove or disprove is much too risky.

* Why are Republicans trying to rush the vote (they have until Nov. 6 at least to confirm a nominee)? Note: They have called for a vote this Friday.

I disagree that, as a practical matter, they have until at least November 6. At stake is something much more important to Republican Senators than seating Kavanaugh: Republicans want this settled as far ahead of midterms as possible, lest the blue wave for which Democrats long become a tsunami that drowns them.

Unlike now hoary wars in the Middle East, this story is the kind of stuff our alleged news people dive into eagerly and persistently and regurgitate to us daily, throughout the day. Republicans don't want this making headlines much longer. They want some distance from this story by election day. And, once he's been on the bench for a minute and a half, media will drop it. (I don't know if the Thomas hearings lost Republicans votes at the polls.)

IF the accusations against Kavanaugh are deemed true:
* Does anyone think the Republicans will not confirm him anyway?

Hard to say. Thomas was obviously confirmed anyway, but that was many years before #metoo, Bill Cosby's jail sentence and the election that bible-thumping Judge Moore lost in a red state. (Granted, a special election is more likely to produce anomalous results. such as a Republican's winning a Senate seat in Massachusetts and a Democrat winning one in Alabama, but politicians try not to leave too much to chance.) One could probably do a book on the differences among the cases of Kavanaugh, Thomas and Moore, but I don't have the time or inclination to do more about those differences in a message board post, other than this sentence.)

That's all for now, but like Chuckie and the Terminator, I'll be back.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@HenryAWallace

I may be overlooking something obvious, but I don't see this as a significant indicium of guilt or innocence, except possibly to his advisors/handlers. It certainly gives him an opportunity to put his version before the public without exposing him to perjury charges, but lying at this juncture on matters that someone can prove or disprove is much too risky.

I think that's why he went on Fox snooze instead of CNN or MSDNC. This and the fact that Trumps base watches Fox.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

@snoopydawg

when other nominees had given no interviews at all, not why Kavanaugh went to Fox to be interviewed, rather than to another network:

IF the accusations against Kavanaugh are false:
...
* Why did he do an interview on Fox (no other SCOTUS nominee has ever done an interview show)?

up
0 users have voted.

@HenryAWallace I would think he might have had requests from numerous outlets and he chose the one that is not bashing him non-stop.

Geez, why oh why?

Let's ask him why he had a cup of coffee this morning. Or we could ask him why he went to lunch at 11am instead of 1.30 pm the other day.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

WindDancer13's picture

@HenryAWallace

I don't see this as a significant indicium of guilt or innocence, except possibly to his advisors/handlers

Just read an interesting article about who his handlers are: Some of the Senate Judiciary committee are coaching K as well as Bill Shine.

“Bill Shine, he is the one who is coaching Kavanaugh,” Behar said. “Just let that sink in for a second. The guy oversees a culture of sexual harassment, keeps it quiet, doesn’t report it, and basically enables it, and he is now going to be coaching Kavanaugh, who is accused of sexual assault — unbelievable.”

https://www.salon.com/2018/09/21/bill-shine-is-coaching-brett-kavanaugh-...

Thomas was obviously confirmed anyway, but that was many years before #metoo,

A poll today showed that fewer people think K should be confirmed with the biggest drop from Republican women. Looks like Rs are going to be caught between losing the midterms and losing the midterms badly. (I hope, mostly because of the increase of progressives)

The downward shift in Kavanaugh’s numbers on the Politico/Morning Consult poll, however, was due in no small part to a drop in support among Republican women, the pollsters said. Republican women were 19 points less likely than Republican men in their most recent survey to favor Kavanaugh’s confirmation, although the percentages of each who opposed it were roughly similar. Republican women were more likely than Republican men to say they were unsure about the confirmation.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-poll-numbers_us_5ba...

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

mimi's picture

that 'Herr Merkel' has not to sit at the side of 'Frau Merkel'. She has a really nice husband, Angela Merkel, I mean, and you never see him anywhere in the news. Thank God.

I think everything that needed to be said has been said and I am ready for another subject area in another essay.

up
0 users have voted.
gulfgal98's picture

Thank you for highlighting the questions that should have been pursued instead of teenage sexual conduct. The Dems do not really care about sexual assault, only about trying to make points from it.

Also, I believe the Dems do not really care if Kavanaugh is seated on the Supreme Court according to this Q post of September 17.

D's Trying Negotiate Pullback of FISA Declassification
2199
Q!!mG7VJxZNCI
17 Sep 2018 - 8:33:16 PM
PANIC IN DC
D's offering to [KILL] sexual assault allegation v Judge K in exchange for immediate pullback of DECLAS.
POTUS: Judge K will be confirmed regardless…
Q

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

@gulfgal98 If this is true, the dems are terrified of being exposed.

I can't wait until all of the information comes out. I hope there is enough information to charge them with whatever crimes they committed.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

General questions:
* If true, why exactly was Judge also in the room during the assault? Most rapes are not committed with an audience. Did Judge jump on the bed thinking K was taking too long and it was his "turn"?

I think that you've answered your own question: Yes, sexual assaults by one individual of another individual are usually not committed in front of witnesses. However, if the perp sexually assaults more than one person at a time, or if the plan is for more than one person to assault the victim(s), as in gang rapes, then, sure, there will be witnesses. Whether the witnesses in such instances will speak out publicly and truthfully depends upon a number of things.

* Does K's conflicting stories of his high school and early college years regarding his drinking further prove a tendency for lying?

I may not remember to perfection (or at all) every college party at which I was drunk. However, I sure remember the times that I testified under oath and probably would remember them, even if I had been drunk when I testified. According to your OP, Kavanaugh legally perjured himself in the past, while presumably sober and not while a teen. If so, then there is evidence of his tendency to lie that is more compelling, IMO, than any inconsistencies in his stories about his drunken youth.

* Why is K in so much debt? If reports are correct, he has been living well over his means for years. How does this reflect on his judgment? Do you suppose that being a corporation is a person ideologist may help him out of his financial troubles?

I think the compelling issue as to debt is that someone in great debt may be more susceptible to bribes than one who is solvent. I am not sure this is true, but I think that is the main issue.

* There have been numerous remarks about this incident happened 36 years ago to undermine its validity, but somehow K conveniently still has a calendar of some of his activities from that same time period and no one blinks an eye (lots of winks though). Has this calendar been vetted?

I have no idea if the calendar has been vetted. The calendar may or may not be authentic. Some people don't throw anything away, or something important to him may be in that calendar. Or not. We can't tell much of anything about the calendar from here.

* It has been shown that K lied under oath on two separate issues in his 2004, 2006 and current testimony under oath (the documents that were stolen from Sen Leahy and the issue of the judge who was sending out inappropriate emails and later fired for sexual harassment.). Yet, not a peep from Dems. Why?

I don't have an answer for this, either. However, if not a single Dem has mentioned it, we can be sure that Dems have been briefed and "advised" about referencing this issue. I guess I am potentially alleging a conspiracy of silence, though I don't know the reason for it. As at least one post upthread has said, Democrats and Republicans agree on certain things,probably much more often than we will know and perhaps even more often than we imagine.

* Does being a virgin somehow eliminate the possibility that a person could or would sexually assault someone? After all, Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy.

Of course not. A friend is a social worker specializes in cases of children who sexually assault other children. That includes children who are not even approaching their teen years. I had an experience of my own (as the one being "shown") with another child (same sex) when we were both about five. I don't think the child intended me any harm, but we were both way too young to have become sexualized. (My "teacher" had likely had been someone else's victim.)

* Did anyone else notice that during the hearings that K drank excessive amounts of water when being questioned by Democrats yet very little when Republicans had the floor? Did anyone notice that K said that he is going to over turn Roe v Wade (that is what he meant by not citing the precedents that would keep it law, but instead referring to a precedent that could lead to overturning the current law)? (Not: Trump said he would appoint judges to overturn Roe.)

Sorry. Did not watch the hearings. But, I find this kind of thing useful (out of court, anyway). I would not rely heavily upon non-verbal cues if I were a juror, though. https://www.truthaboutdeception.com/lying-and-deception/detecting-decept...

Other questions:

* When will Democrats grow a backbone? Kamala Harris at the original hearings said she had a reliable witness that K DID talk to someone at Trump's law firm about the Mueller investigation after having grilled K extensively on whether he had or not with him avoiding answering the questions. Then crickets.

I don't think Democratic politicians behave as they do because they lack spine, are cowards or weak or afraid or any of that kind of reason. I think Democrats behave as they do because a divided base creates many occasions for them to feel a need to be duplicitous and because they are often complicit with Republicans to one degree or another. And again, there may well be agreements in this instance, tacit or express, as to the parameters of mutually acceptable questioning.

* Why didn't the Democrats on the committee take legal actions (or find a Wikileaks-type source) to obtain the documents on K that have been hidden from them and the public? For that matter, those documents came from Bush's library which is supposed to be for the public. Why didn't one of them send someone to get a library card?

Same answer.

* Do Republicans think they were too tough on K when they asked him why he uses a Sharpie to write his notes?

Probably. (-;

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@HenryAWallace

However, if the perp sexually assaults more than one person at a time, or if the plan is for more than one person to assault the victim(s), as in gang rapes, then, sure, there will be witnesses

She does not say that Kavanaugh took part in hers, but does say that he was there when it happened.

4 women have now come forward and say that they were sexually assaulted at the parties that he attended. 3 of them accuses him directly. I doubt that had anything to do with helicopter parents. Affluenza got one kid off from being sent to prison for robbery, drunk driving and vehicle manslaughter. Affluenza is a state of being and of entitlement.

I don't think Democratic politicians behave as they do because they lack spine, are cowards or weak or afraid or any of that kind of reason. I think Democrats behave as they do because a divided base creates many occasions for them to feel a need to be duplicitous and because they are often complicit with Republicans to one degree or another. And again, there may well be agreements in this instance, tacit or express, as to the parameters of mutually acceptable questioning.

I absolutely agree with about this. After the democrats took congress in 2006 and during the Obama administration people constantly told Reid that he needed to grow a spine and stand up to the republicans. And again they are saying that IF the democrats want people to vote for them then they have to give people a reason to do so. They aren't. They are running on "we aren't the GOP or Trump." I've seen no reason to vote for them, but even if they were running on giving us the moon I wouldn't believe them. I should have learned that lesson after Pelosi said that impeachment is off the table and then voted with the republicans for the rest of the Bush presidency. But no. I got sucked in once again and voted for Mr Hope and Change. Just once though ..

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

WindDancer13's picture

@snoopydawg

"They are running on "we aren't the GOP or Trump." Albeit, more like the GOP of Reagan, but they certainly are not the Democratic party that used to stand for "the people."

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

@snoopydawg

I agree with you often, and probably should post to let you know that more often than I do.

up
0 users have voted.

@snoopydawg the gang rape accuser said she went to at least 10 parties and observed at all of them drinking, drug use (spiked punch), and men lined up to rape women. And she continued going to these parties and was eventually gang raped herself.

She was a college student at the time, attending the high school parties. She didn't report these crimes against the women.

Just how plausible do you think her story is?

This whole K thing is making me think about mass hysteria.

up
0 users have voted.

dfarrah

WindDancer13's picture

@HenryAWallace

I guess I am potentially alleging a conspiracy of silence

Sen Leahy did post the evidence but it has been completely ignored. Someone else posted evidence regarding the sexual harassment judge also but I do not remember who or where it was at this time. Either a deal has been made (I cannot think what kind of deal would override the effect K will have on democratic issues would be other than the R's agreeing to impeach T) or there is a really big monetary payoff.

But, I find this kind of thing useful (out of court, anyway). I would not rely heavily upon non-verbal cues if I were a juror, though

It is probably a good thing in the long run that I never had to do jury duty because I do look for non-verbal as well as tonal clues to a person's veracity, and K's actions are rife with them. The video from Fox was especially interesting. The interviewer asked K's wife about how difficult things have been during this time period (also brought up death threats that they allegedly received...which I believe is an outright lie on the part of the interviewer). K allowed Ashley to answer this question for a change, but it was more interesting to watch his face during her answer. Wow!

Thanks for the link. I should clarify that the way I watch includes finding a norm to go by in the person's actions. If he acted in a certain manner when being evasive or lying, I watch for repeated signs of the same behavior. Kind of like certain people use a particular way of speaking when they are angry (example: a very measured, flat tone) is a clue that if that particular person is speaking to you in that manner, you can be pretty sure he is angry. Hope that makes sense.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

@WindDancer13

I watched Diane Sawyer's interview of Scott Peterson. Based almost solely on his blink rate, I decided he was guilty. Of course, a jury later convicted him. However, I hope no juror relied heavily on his blink rate, "heavily" being the key word. Like you, I think a juror should bring all his or knowledge to bear on the entire case when reaching a conclusion that might put someone in prison or worse. However, someone like me, who is not officially an expert in nonverbal cues, has no business weighing one non verbal cue heavily when it literally may mean life or death.

up
0 users have voted.
WindDancer13's picture

@HenryAWallace

However, someone . . . who is not officially an expert in nonverbal cues, has no business weighing one non verbal cue heavily when it literally may mean life or death.

I hope I did not imply that non-verbal actions would be more than a minor or negligible part of a decision in any case.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

edg's picture

The biggest difference between the photos is that it looks like Bill Clinton is lying -- notice the hunched shoulders, tucked-in chin, and general slump of his body, which are all subconscious signs of defensiveness and self-protection.

As far as being in debt, living in the Washington DC area is very expensive. I lived there for 14 years and breathed a huge sigh of relief when I moved to lower-cost Arizona.

up
0 users have voted.
WindDancer13's picture

@edg
I think I could live there comfortably on $220,000 a year (not counting his wife's income).

By inference, Kavanaugh doesn't look guilty? Could be that deer-caught-in-the headlights stare of his.

up
0 users have voted.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass

@edg

aggressive!

BTW, I don't think Bill or Hillary flat out lied in that interview. I've not listened to the entire interview in some time, nor will I for purposes of a thread about Kavanaugh. However, I've read things recently that suggest that his responses were to the effect that he is not perfect (as if anyone is) and she babbled about their relationship and, of course, infamously, about Tammy Wynette.

IIRC, the interview focused on the accusations of Genifer Flowers--and she had his voice on tape, leaving her a message directing or suggesting she not tell the truth about their relationship.

up
0 users have voted.
Bollox Ref's picture

Bastards!

up
0 users have voted.

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Pages