I don't believe either of them.
After watching the whole miserable spectacle yesterday, I found neither Dr. Ford's nor Judge Kavanaugh's testimony particularly credible.
As a former trial attorney, it was clear to me that Dr. Ford had been coached on her answers in coordination with the Democrats on the committee, with the tip off being Sen. Leahy stumbling through the printed setup question that elicited the canned 'laughter...uproarious laughter' answer.
Another example of coordination is found in the strong objection by her attorney to questions regarding the polygraph test, followed by her failure to recollect any details of how she came to take the test or who paid for the test. Apparently we have only her counsel's word that she passed, as they have yet to release the actual results.
Regardless of her memories of the facts surrounding the allegations, the appearance of coaching and collusion with Democratic politicians diminishes her credibility as an impartial witness and suggests political bias as a motive for her statements.
Then this happened:
I have no idea what was in that envelope (Lee claims they were only fan letters), but the mere fact that a furtive Congresswomen is passing secret documents to the witness's counsel after the hearing is further evidence of the Ford team's less than forthright political impartiality.
Kavanaugh, on the other hand, came across as a mean drunk. While I believe his tears and anger were sincere (especially when talking about his dad), I did not find them particularly dispositive of his innocence. He has obviously been put through the ringer by the drawn out hearing, and frustration and impatience at having to endure this ordeal to gain a position he clearly believes he is entitled to seemed to be more the motivation than outrage at having been falsely accused.
Once he calmed down, Kavanaugh spent much of the hearing too-expertly filibustering the Democrats (incredibly lame) questioning. He was combative at times, but again, mostly out of anger at the process rather than the allegations. He also clearly liked (and still likes) to drink, and his repeated statements about how much he loves beer left me wondering how on earth the guy was able to post such a stellar academic record with all the partying he did all through those years.
The whole thing left me shaking my head as to what really happened. Ford supplied no new factual corroboration or other witnesses to back up her testimony, and indeed, when asked under questioning about her counselor's notes on the incident stating there were four other people in the room at the time, she admitted that the notes contradicted her hearing testimony that there were only two others. Another credibility strike.
Kavanaugh too, despite his protestations, was clearly no choir boy in high school. He was a smart jock who hung out with a pretty fast crowd. I don't think he is necessarily lying about being a virgin, but as the hearing went on I started envisioning a scenario where his party buddy 'Judge' saw an opportunity to alleviate that condition by exploiting a troubled girl who was having a tough time fitting in.
So while the lawyer in me is still certain that the totality of evidence in no way rises to the threshold necessary to disqualify Kavanaugh, after watching the hearing the 'juror' in me is left with more doubts than answers about what really happened.
Comments
Thank you for subjecting
yourself to it. I tried a couple of clips but could only make it through a minute or so. I thought Feinstein, what I saw of her, did look particularly lame. The horrible truth is he's no aberration, he's normal for his class and for our "leadership." The whole thing is sickening. I am trying to not pay much attention anymore and I imagine he'll be confirmed.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
The polygraph results
were entered into the record. The objections had to do with the underlying procedure which would require the testimony of the agent who administered it, which the R side of the committee chose not to do.
All defendants in a trial are coached by their counsel. Although, we have been told this "hearing" was not a trial, having a prosecutor direct the questioning sure makes it look and sound like one.
K was also coached. Apparently, Trump thought his interview of Fox was too controlled and wooden. K spent three 8-9 hour days in the WH being prepared.
You didn't see anything suspicious in Grassley's comments before K's opening statements and statements that were almost word for word in K's tirade (that according to him he had written the night before and no one else had seen). By the way, on that, opening statements were supposed to be submitted to the committee the day before the hearing.
By the way, his father is not dead. He was sitting in the row behind K, whose crying started when discussing a calendar...NOT when discussing how hard this has been on his family or alleged threats in his wife's email.
PS: I have found incorrect items in my therapist's notes also.
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
Well how many words
are there that can be used to describe a smear job? How many different words are typically used to describe 'to destroy a man's career,' 'to destroy a man's family.'
The people on both sides have been using the same words throughout this process.
dfarrah
Couching by counsel...
is a lot different than counsel coordinating testimony with hearing members, because the coordination suggests the witness may have had political bias in bringing her charge.
Big difference.
Whether Kavanaugh coordinated with Republican Senators is basically irrelevant because the defendant is always assumed to be biased in favor of his own interests. We also already know that he is coordinating with the GOP behind the scenes. No surprise there.
The appearance of Ford coordinating with the Democrats behind the scenes is something the Dems studiously tried to avoid - just not very well.
Thanks also for the update on what finally happened with the polygraph results. Do you know if they ever figured out who paid for the test?
Update: I don't recall ever mentioning his father was dead.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
The lawyer
said they paid for the tests.
dfarrah
Who is 'they'?
Did she front it out of her own pocket?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
The lawyers said that
they, the lawyers themselves, paid for the test.
dfarrah
Of course that begs the question...
who paid the lawyers.
Perhaps Congresswoman Lee might know?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
They are working pro bono
While her lawyer interjected that they were
providing counsel pro bono, Ford herself stated that some people in Palo Alto were contributing to her expenses. She didn't specify who those people were.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Here's the link to her Go Fund Me Page--
maybe that was what she was talking about.
I've also read that her attorneys are working pro bono.
If you follow the link, you'll see that the fundraising has been suspended.
One more item to chew on--heard that Repubs (Senator Graham, for one) are opening an investigation into her attorneys.
I didn't hear any of her testimony, but, apparently, some of the Repub Senators say that her answers indicated that her attorneys never let her know about the 3 written offers that Senator Grassley made--to go to her in California, in order to take her testimony/statement, since she has a fear of flying. Supposedly, it would violate some ethical code, or law, or something.
(Sorry, didn't quite catch everything--maybe some of you attorneys know what type of violation it would be, if any, if they can substantiate that claim.)
Hey, we should be back about the time the investigation ends. I'll probably only be able to lurk in the meantime. Hope you Guys have everything sorted out by then.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Apparently she's got more than one
thus the $700K figure.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
The GoFundMe account
was set up to help her and her family with a security detail. At the hearing, she talked about how she does not know how to access those funds.
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
The funds are going to her, nonetheless
and she may use them as she sees fit.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Misunderstood then re:
You stated that he started crying when he spoke of his father, so I thought maybe you thought he was dead and K was being saddened by that.
Right-leaning people have already assumed (and cannot be persuaded otherwise) that Dr Ford was acting as the Democrat's pawn. However, she started this process back in July or before (not sure when she spoke to her own congressperson other than it was on or before July 6) before K was chosen (July 10).
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
The tears came...
when he stated that his dad was the inspiration for his personal calendars.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Yes, I mentioned that previously
Double post...getting huge lag issues. Second post is more complete.
However, he is crying over a calendar. No tears about the wife getting "violent emails" of the hell (his word) that his family has endured, though. He also cried all through the calendar testimony and his BS "explanation" of the yearbook and a couple of other places that were nonsensical in contrast to the family issues.
No tears for his claim the the Ds had taken away his ability to coach young girls any more. Considering that during the confirmation hearings, a great deal of his testimony when the Rs were questioning him was about his love for his team, one would think that this claim would deserve more tears than a calendar.
It is a priority issue.
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
Gee, he either cried too much,
or not enough.
What I saw was him tearing up, real physiological changes such as wet eyes, trembling chin, and trying hard to compose himself and keep from crying when he was talking about his family and his daughters, like when he described his 10 year old's suggestion that they pray for Ford.
What I saw with Ford was someone trying to fake tears, little physiological changes, except for raising her voice to sound tearful.
Not that either of these perceptions are dispositive.
dfarrah
Tears? What tears?
He cried. There were no tears. I ran the video back to check. His eyes never even turned red at all and he cried for about half an hour.
He is crying over a calendar. No tears about the wife getting "violent emails" or the hell (his word) that his family has endured, though. He cried all through the calendar testimony and his BS "explanation" of the yearbook and a couple of other places that were nonsensical in contrast to the family issues.
No tears for his claim the the Ds had taken away his ability to coach young girls any more. Considering that during the confirmation hearings, a great deal of his testimony when the Rs were questioning him was about his love for his team, one would think that this claim would deserve more tears than a calendar.
It is a priority issue.
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
Oh bs.
Even Ford didn't tear up as much as he did.
His chin was trembling, he kept putting his tongue to the side of his mouth, and he stopped several times to compose himself so he wouldn't cry.
dfarrah
It's called "acting",
and ever since - or maybe even before - Reagan, nobody got to the top in politics without also being a skilled actor.
Put not your trust in politicians - any politician, any party.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
And that charge
applies to Ford as well.
dfarrah
Well, if he was just acting,
then why are people calling him unhinged?
So was he acting when he expressed anger?
Or was he only acting when he expressed other emotions?
dfarrah
Heh ...
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
@snoopydawg Everyone
Everyone should agree with the right-hand panel no matter whether they think Ford is telling the truth or not. This is the same shit that happened with the Alito trial; things got a bit too hot and suddenly Mrs. Alito was crying, and that was that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yes, all it takes is a few tears
from women, and the men turn into mush, like Flake, who was played by Soros activists.
And that is why Ford had to force out her tears and speak in a hi-pitched girlish voice - because that works with men.
The bottom line is that even if Ford's accusations are true and K had admitted to them, and had action been taken at that time by authorities, the penalties to K wouldn't have been heavy - probably not more than community service, some jail time, or some probationary time.
Their career trajectories probably wouldn't be different at all.
dfarrah
Oh, oh,
look at this picture of Ford and her lawyer.
Just look at her face? Wide eyed and obviously terrified of him. Why is he invading her space like that? Does he have his hand on her knee, or worse, was he pulling up her skirt? Is he whispering "you owe me after this is over?"
What exactly is this guy trying to do? It should be obvious that he is sexually harassing her.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/leland-keysers-new-letter-tells-us...
dfarrah
hmmm...
let us assume, strictly for the sake of argument, that ford has been coached by counsel and is cooperating with the democrats on the committee.
surely ford could have motives for coordination with the democrats that differ from the democrat's motives and perhaps some that coincide. i don't feel the need to give examples, it seems manifestly obvious.
further, even if ford and the democrats were working toward one or more specific outcomes (let's say that they both would like for kavanaugh to fail in his bid for confirmation, for example) that ford has a partisan motive for it because the democrats have a partisan motive.
it would seem that in the absence of better information, that ford coordinating with the democrats does not demonstrate a partisan motive on her part.
She might...
have other motives, but we don't know what those are and that's the point.
She specifically stated that she was testifying because it was her 'civic duty'.
Yet a huge question hanging over the hearing is the extent to which this is all simply a political hit job by the Dems. The more she appears to be coordinating with them, the easier it is to question whether she also had other, more political motives for testifying.
That for me goes to the very heart of her credibility. IOW, whether she was doing this simply as a concerned citizen or as a political operative.
IMO she would have been far more credible if she had stayed away from the staged questions and distanced herself as much as possible from the Democrats during the hearing.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
heh...
i am completely prepared to believe that for the democrats, the motive is entirely political and they are callously using ford's testimony as the best hope that they feel that they have of terminating kavanaugh's confirmation bid.
i don't feel that we can do more than speculate poorly on ford's presence or lack of a partisan motive given the paltry information before us.
further, i would suggest that it is unlikely that ford has a single motive for bringing this matter forward. i do not see a reason to doubt currently that "civic duty" was a motivating factor for ford. i would be shocked if it were the only motivation that she has.
Catharsis
is important for recovery in trauma.
For what it is worth: Dr Ford has donated less that $100 to the Dems over a number of years, BUT she has been to one march (forgot what it was for).
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
[Edit] Just read that Ford's close friend, is ex-spouse of Dem
Party strategist/operative/former 'talking head' on Fox News Channel--Bob Beckel.
Sorta odd that none of the Cable News 'talking heads,' or national print media reporters have seen this tidbit as newsworthy. Which is not to say that it means that Dr Blasey Ford is a phony, or, has any evil ulterior motive(s).
Actually, I was searching to see if I could find out what ailment Ms Keyser suffers from, when I landed on a conservative news site. I did another search, in order to verify that it wasn't just right-wing propaganda. And, unless Wikipedia has become such a repository, I suppose it isn't.
Here's what Beckel's Wikipedia entry says,
Dr Ford cited Leyland Keyser's reluctance to come forward as related to her failing health. But, could it also be that Keyser is wary of this relationship becoming public knowledge--meaning, her past relationship with Bob Beckel, considering his involvement in Dem Party politics?
[Edited: Added Wikipedia link.]
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
In this political atmosphere . . .
being wary sounds like solid principle.
Do not be too sure. I read an article last night from some group (do not remember off hand who it was) that has some kind of insta-feed for new entries on Wikipedia. They said that immediately after K described Devil's Triangle to the committee, an entry went up defining the term as a drinking game played by Brett Kavanaugh and his friend's.
I had googled the term early on and know that entry was not there over a week ago. The only descriptions of Devil's Triangle were a term for a sexual engagement between two men and one woman.
I have always used the wikis with a several grains of salt, but will now a few more grains to it.
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
blech
today's political atmosphere compares unfavorably with that of Venus.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
This is nonsense.
I worked for and with legislators at the state level for decades. In a hotly disputed debate any side would work with the key person giving testimony in support of its position. If not, one party, working with his side of the committee would be prepared for, and coached on, the questions from each side he'd be likely to receive. The other would be a lamb led to slaughter. Additionally, Kavanaugh is an attorney who has had a lifetime of experience in this environment.
Blasey Ford submitted to a polygraph test. As a judge Kavanaugh saw the value in these tests and voted that employers should be allowed to use them. As a nominee he refused to take one.
Blasey Ford was eager for an expanded investigation and gave examples of how such an investigation could help her recall additional details. (Kavanaugh's calendar may already have given the date of the party.)
Kavanaugh said it was up to the committee when he knew damn well the Republican majority wanted the hearings over two weeks ago.
That Kavanaugh appears to have perjured himself in his hearing for appellate judge dropped off the radar screen. That documents marked confidential attached to an email that included the word "spy" would raise concern from the recipient is farfetched. Such emails are sent around all the time.
Women who could have given supporting testimony were silenced.
Apparently Kavanaugh only drank when he was under oath. And he never had sex until 3 months after his first child was born.
Republican committee members who said their selected prosecutor would question both people giving testimony grabbed their time back as soon as the prosecutor asked Kavanaugh a question.
Then there are questions about Roe v. Wade, the ability of a president to pardon himself, corporate law, environmental policies and religious fundamentalism. Is the gap between the greater evil and the lesser evil starting to make you sweat a bit?
Pray tell us
who these are. Because so far, Ford's witnesses have not corroborated anything.
Women who could have given supporting testimony were silenced.
The FBI needs your help.
dfarrah
Who are you, Bart Simpson?
"there's something so especially sadistic about waving the flag of a country that you're actively destroying" -- Aaron Mate
Yet another personal
attack from you instead of facts.
As I write this, Ford's story has not been corroborated. Deal with it.
But I'm sure the dems will block his nomination, so you can gloat then and celebrate the politics of personal destruction, while Ford raises (potentially) millions of dollars and gets wealthy off of book deals and media rounds.
dfarrah
And there's the rub.
Politicos suffer under the delusion that it's all just business as usual to interfere with a fact finding process to get the decision they want, but voters don't look at it that way.
Any taint of political interference automatically opens up the fact witness to charges of bias, which only serves to diminish her story's credibility.
The Dems didn't have a particularly strong case going in, but they then torpedoed their own witness by blatantly rigging her testimony. They didn't have to do it that way, but they just couldn't help themselves.
But hey what do you expect? It's not as if this crowd of Dem Senators are any geniuses at winning elections. Just another chapter in a long book of incompetence.
Would have been nice if the Dems had bothered to focus on those issues during the hearings instead of putting all their eggs in David Brock's basket.
Don't you think?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
No I don't think so.
If the Democrats had concentrated on substantive issues I have no doubt that Kavanaugh would have been confirmed 2 weeks ago. Do you think a discussion of Kavanaugh's lies about Leahy's stolen emails would have been covered by every broadcast and most cable news outlets in the country?
Politics is a partisan process in the US and every other Democracy and the voters are smarter than you think. It would have been a miscarriage of their responsibilities if they had allowed BlaseyFord to go up there unprepared.
Does it bother you at all that the Republicans, contrary to their initial statements that both parties would be treated the same, had Blasey Ford questioned by a professional prosecutor, then when Kavanaugh started to blow the first question relegated their prosecutor to the cheap seats.
It bothers me more...
that the Dems chose to let Cory Booker waste his five minutes asking Kavanaugh the searching question of whether it was OK to drink on weekdays during the summer.
Maybe they should have taken a page out of the Gooper book and had their own prosecutor question Kavanaugh?
But you really need to top blaming the Goopers for the Dems' ineptitude. If you want to bring down an elephant, you first make sure you aren't shooting blanks.
The case was very thin to begin with, and the Goopers knew that. So they let her have her say and got her off 'the stage' quickly with no fireworks. That was smart.
Then the Dems Senators took turns asking Kavanaugh ridiculous questions that either had nothing to do with the allegation, or were so trivial (High school yearbooks? Really?) as to diminish what are otherwise very serious charges. That was dumb.
They also harped on process way too much ("Please Judge Kavanaugh, tell Trump to let us sic the FBI on you."), which only lent credence to the Goopers argument that this was all just a political tactic to stall out the confirmation until after the election. It also gave Kavanaugh cover to harp on how badly the Dems fumbled the letter. That was even dumber.
So spare me the, 'what about the Republicans' stuff. The lack of self-reflection by Dem politicians on their own pathetic failings is reasons one, two and three why they lost that hearing and why they continue to lose elections.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Lost that hearing?
Most polls show that narrow majorities found Blasey Ford more believable, but their beliefs had little impact on their opinions on whether he should be confirmed. What's evidence compared with your opinion.
You had one job.
Derail the nomination by flipping one vote.
Didn't happen. In fact, all you did was create the circumstances by which none of the Gooper's would now dare vote against Kavanaugh, lest their base (which you have now riled up) take their revenge.
So now Kavanaugh gets confirmed, the right wing is energized, and independents are disgusted by the whole spectacle.
Heckuva job.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
@joe shikspack But joe, though Ford
But joe, though Ford's motivation is important, aren't the legislators' actions more important? It's wrong to bring testimony against a candidate for merely partisan reasons, but it's worse to betray the public trust, and if the legislators are coordinating with those testifying before them, rather than acting as arbiters of whether the information presented is solid or not, and analyzing how that bears on whether or not the candidate should be a Supreme Court justice, they are failing in their duty and breaking the public trust--at a time when, according to their own beliefs, providing a legal check on presidential power, correctly enacted, should be more important than it's ever been before. For God's sakes, they're not even trying to appear impartial, ethical, or public-minded. They don't even care if the public believes that they are biased. Sheila Jackson handing over fan letters? That's not even a good lie!
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yeah,
those Democrats just couldn't compare with the evenhandedness displayed by Republicans throughout the process and were obviously overwhelmed by Kavanaugh's display of judicial temperament.
The process was a rigged joke and it wasn't the Democrats who rigged it.
Why don't you apply your standards to both sides?
@FuturePassed I do.
I do.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Excellent reply, CStMS! What we're witnessing,
IMO, is how much Party 'talking points' have been internalized.
In some instances, heads are exploding simply because some folks want to dig for/produce more information for consideration--before forming their final opinion.
Frankly, that's what blows me away!
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
@Unabashed Liberal People get
People get triggered, a phrase I use without prejudice and certainly without irony, by the spectacle of others' pain, inflicted on the sufferers by unjust bastards. And when people get triggered, it's not certain, but more likely, that emotion will overwhelm analysis.
I realize that right-wingers are not our favorite people, but the politics of the last couple of years is leading me to re-evaluate their anger and hostility and dogmatism after 9/11. When 9/11 became a TV spectacle, it surely triggered them the same way that the spectacle of women suffering due to sexism and misogyny--or POC suffering due to racism--triggers those on the left.
It's not that it's wrong to have the reactions of grief, outrage, horror, righteous anger; it's that, especially under the conditions we live under, it's incredibly dangerous to forego impartial analysis. I know I grip my academic training like a drowning person clutching a buoy.
And no, I'm not saying that everybody on the other side of the discussion is being irrational. I'm saying some comments come from an irrational place.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@FuturePassed Read below this
Read below this comment. I have an exchange with Not Henry Kissinger. It shows clearly that my disgust at these proceedings is not partisan.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@Not Henry Kissinger I disagree that
I disagree that Kavanaugh coordinating with Republican legislators is different. The role of the legislators in question is supposed to be the constitutional role of oversight, and a check on Presidential power, regardless of what party they are. When they start playing this game as a team sport, they betray that constitutional trust, and when either (or both) sides coordinate with people testifying before them, they betray it even more deeply.
They are no longer a legislature, and sometimes I wish they'd stop pretending to be one.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
You're right about that...
which is part of the reason I think why the Goopers originally planned to have the prosecutor question him in the first place.
But once they got Ford off the stand and the hearing devolved into a procedural spat about the letter and FBI investigation, the whole reason for the appearance of impartiality disappeared faster than an envelope from Sheila Lee.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
@WindDancer13 Yeah, all defendants are
Yeah, all defendants are coached by their counsel. But Senator Leahy and Sheila Jackson shouldn't be any part of that. Is the Democratic caucus Ford's counsel?
Anyway, I'm getting confused about these hearings. Is Ford really a defendant? Isn't her credibility being evaluated because they need to know whether her testimony about a potential Supreme Court justice is valid?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
She said
she wanted to 'help.'
dfarrah
Who were the coaches is important . . .
due to impartiality, but it needs to be addressed on both sides. I forget all the names that were coaching K, but Sarah Sanders stands out among them and that is a direct link the the White House. I also read that several of the Senators from the committee were involves. I would find the articles that made these statements but for the last couple of week, I have been having problems with Google finding what I am searching for and getting some nonsense search results.
While this "hearing" was not supposed to be a trial and Ford not a defendant, the Rs made it one by their choice of a prosecutor to shield them from themselves. If they really needed a woman to do the questioning because they can not hide their contempt, a better choice would have been a person who deals with sexual assault trauma.
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
Use DuckDuckgo
https://duckduckgo.com
Thank you.
I had tried other search engines in the past, but they were not very good and kept coming up with dumb results like Google is doing now. I will most definitely try this one out.
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
I finally figured out
I finally figured out how to make it my landing page when I go to my phone's internet button lol. It works much better, so far than GOOG, but who knows how long that'll last.
I miss the stuff you could dig up back in the dial-up days and a little after. And it was all free!
Good ole BBSs...
I miss them also. There wasn't nearly the trash we see now.
My phone is a phone. I do not have all the fancy stuff and am quite happy with that. However, my holiday present to myself this year will be a tablet so I can read books from the library online plus all the public domain books at the Internet Archive and elsewhere. It is getting quite too much to pack and lug all my physical books around. I am guessing that I will also use some other Internet with it, so will try to use DDG for that also.
However, I am glad you got your phone to work with it!
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 As you know, I agree.
As you know, I agree that both sides are culpable here. This is not a partisan thing for me, however deeply disgusted and angry I am at the Democratic party.
As for who made it like a trial, what I'm talking about doesn't require courtroom etiquette or ethics for anybody to see why it is wrong. It would be wrong in any Congressional or Senate hearing where Congress is exercising oversight over another branch of government. They are supposed to be analyzing data and making their best recommendation, for the sake of the country, not engaging in some perverted facsimile of legal proceedings.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I know I sometimes come across as . . .
"Yay for the Dems," but that is far from what I think of them. It happens because I sometimes forget that people are not mind readers and I need to qualify my responses for better understanding.
I was deeply disappointed in the confirmation hearings (and the Dems years before that) long before the allegations surfaced. I did not expect much from the Rs. I already figured they would pamper their golden boy. Although, I was a bit taken aback by their show of hatefulness towards the left side in this setting which is supposed to be decorous and fact-finding.
Meanwhile, the Dems spent way too much time as far as I am concerned complaining about the Rs shenanigans. Like, did they not expect that? This lost them time to do a thorough review of the why and how K ruled on past cases. They certainly had access to those. Not that knowing would change any R minds as these are the type of rulings the Rs want, but it would have given the public the RIGHT information about what will happen with K on the bench. I should note, however, that a couple of Dems did deviate from the script and asked some rulings-based questions.
I do believe that some time was necessary to point out his past perjuries and questioning his relationship with T's lawyers and possible discussions of the Mueller investigation with them. To tell you the truth, I was hoping those were being brought up for a future impeachment of him. But too much time was given over to this.
The Dems could even have asked him about things that they KNEW happened during his Bush years. They did not need the hidden records for this. Where there is a will, there is a way. I guess that is what most bothers me about how the Dems handled the confirmation hearings.
The Rs refused to do an FBI investigation, hence we get a trial. With a properly-conducted, broad-based FBI investigation, the facts could have been presented without the pony show. But first, Feinstein would have had to speak to someone.
Other than the drama, the confirmation hearings only solidified what I had already knew (from reading and research) about K and his nomination. Given his stance on particular issues, I did not and do not want to see him in the same country as the SCOTUS (the stereotypical view of Russia that the US holds would suit him well).
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 Well, your
Well, your analysis inclines me to think that the point of this exercise is not to screen out horrors from the SCOTUS, but to show one more episode of D vs R: The Final Conflict.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
From my own experience, CStMS, she
would be considered the 'Plaintiff,' since she is levying the charges against K.
Or, at least, that's how it worked in my federal suit. IOW, my name was listed as 'Plaintiff' on the Court pleadings; therefore, the 'burden of proof' was on me--not the defendants.
In my case, the 'Defendants' were a Branch of Military Service with the name of the top Commander--and various individuals under his supervision, civilian and military--listed on the Court pleadings.
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
@Unabashed Liberal But...does that mean
But...does that mean that this Senate hearing is actually functioning as a lawsuit?
That kind of breaks my brain!
And yeah, if I had taken action against my rapist (fat chance), I'd have been a plaintiff, of course.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
[Edit] Technically, I'm not sure, CStMS. I think it depends
upon who (or, is it whom?) you talk to!
Seriously, as such, I suppose a confirmation hearing for a seat on the Supreme Court isn't 'formally' a civil suit. However, (IMO) the aspect of serious allegations being made against a nominee, would seem to change the dynamics, somewhat.
Bottom line, I have no idea how Thursday's hearing would be formally categorized by the administrative bureaucrats that oversee congressional 'rules' and procedures. That's a question for someone above my pay grade. All I know is that the House and Senate have Parliamentarians--my 'guess' is that they advise on such matters.
Again, from my only firsthand experience, I was the person who bore the burden of proof, since I was the one seeking redress through the civil legal system.
Personally, I reject the 'frame' that "it's only a job interview," because most of the legal experts (on Cable News) that I've heard, claim that if Kavanaugh's nomination is rejected on the basis that the allegations of sexual assault are deemed valid, K will likely lose his current judgeship [in the second highest Court in the land]. So, it's a bit of a stretch to claim that the hearing was just about a 'job promotion opportunity.'
Have a good one!
[Edited: Added CStMS' name]
Blue Onyx
"Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong."
~~W. R. Purche
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Have you considered
that he wasn't partying as much as his accusers have said?
" left me wondering how on earth the guy was able to post such a stellar academic record with all the partying he did all through those years."
I've thought about this, too. How does one maintain high grades, participate in sports, attend church if he is drunk much of the time as some have alleged? Did he show up to church, school, and sports drunk?
He supposedly spent much of his life in high school and college 'stumbling drunk.'
Just how credible are the accusations of him being a stumbling drunk? And if he was a stumbling drunk, as described, how was he strong enough to assault someone (or, conversely, why wouldn't it have been easy to topple him as he was stumbling around?)
dfarrah
I based my opinion of his drinking habits...
solely on his own statements, which were fairly bizarre for a fifty something man in a formal hearing.
He sounded more like a guy at a frat party reunion reminiscing about the good ol' days. Which is probably why he got along so well with W.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
It's bizarre to
like beer? It's bizarre to think fondly of your high school/college years?
dfarrah
It is bizaare to think it is common to get blackout drunk.
The way he asked that question of ? (can't remember the female Senator's name) was as if "who doesn't?".
Kavanugh and the GOP leadership are elitist, entitled, holier than thou pigs who would think it was fun and they were entitled to assault any damn women they pleased. They are no different than Trump. I am biased and pissed as hell at what the ruling oligarchy has done to the people of this country and globe. I can't get past that.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I guess I don't
see the reason for Kavanaugh to singularly bear the burden of all the bad things that the oligarchy did and does.
Voting is supposed to handle these problems. If we had voted the right people into office, we wouldn't even be having these discussions.
We are losing at the ballot box, on both sides, and we keep voting all the bad guys in on both sides, over and over, yet this one nomination has managed to galvanize everyone who is mad about everything.
I personally believe presidents should get their nominations approved; they won the election. Dems get their nominations approved and repubs get their nominations approved. I believe in advice and consent, not a political circus. We all live with the resulting court decisions, no matter how much we hate them (and we forget that there is legislative relief for some court decisions).
Really, I can't read comments on this site without reaching the conclusion that people just don't care about our three branches of government, the checks and balances, elections, evidence, etc, and other processes that used to guide decisions. It seems like both sides want to impose their tyranny.
So, as I've said before, I think we are headed toward civil war.
dfarrah
Please don't confuse the rulers with the ruled
The rulers do as they please, and we peons have little choice but to grin and bear it - or reach for the pitchforks and torches.
"Dansons la Carmagnole, vive le son, vive le son...."
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Other oligarchs aren't being appointed to the SC
You seem very determined to defend him. Why? There is no possibility that she is telling the truth and he was the one who assaulted her? None? Or do you think that she has made the whole thing up just to keep him off the court?
You don't remember how football players acted like they were the lords of high school? I sure remember that. Most of the ones in my school were jerks. Add in alcohol and wowzer
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
It is the process I defend.
Presidential nominations/appointments did not used to be this political. People recognized that a president would nominate his side to whatever positions might be open.
And I certainly do not believe that any uncorroborated accusation should derail an appointment or employment at any level.
I will never believe in accusations over fact-finding; regardless of the political consequences. If the accusations cannot be corroborated, then so be it.
dfarrah
.
https://www.facebook.com/scott.sandoe/posts/10216131239486444
"there's something so especially sadistic about waving the flag of a country that you're actively destroying" -- Aaron Mate
I'm sure that --
looking fondly upon your high school and college years is a quality we should look for in every Supreme Court nominee.
"there's something so especially sadistic about waving the flag of a country that you're actively destroying" -- Aaron Mate
Great strawman
there.
But if you would like to explain why feeling fondness for your school years is bizarre, go ahead and explain.
dfarrah
Oh it's not bizarre at all.
It's also not a qualification for the post of "Supreme Court justice." Did everyone here forget that this isn't a trial, but rather a job application interview?
"there's something so especially sadistic about waving the flag of a country that you're actively destroying" -- Aaron Mate
If it were a REAL job interview
instead of an exculpation hearing, K would have flunked it abysmally. He'd have gotten a dismissive "We'll let you know" and then on to the next candidate.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I guess that is
why he failed at so many job applications thus far.
dfarrah
.
https://www.facebook.com/scott.sandoe/posts/10216131239486444
"there's something so especially sadistic about waving the flag of a country that you're actively destroying" -- Aaron Mate
@Cassiodorus The
The conversation does seem to be drifting that direction. Reading these events through the frame of "courtroom drama" rather than "analysis of candidate for high office" serves the purposes of the political elite, because at that point, the Republican legislators are functioning as Kavanaugh's legal team, and the Democratic legislators are functioning as Ford's. Which is a farcical perversion of what this process ought to be.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Exceptional grades and exceptional drinking
are not as contradictory as you seem to think.
Neither is heavy drinking and sexual assault:
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh25-1/43-51.htm
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
Yes, I understand your
information.
But where is the line? What you say cites 'heavy drinking,' and not stumbling drunk? I have no doubts that drinking can release inhibitions.
My question is how functional is a stumbling drunk?
dfarrah
Functioning alcoholics
Are not necessarily stumbling drunks. You should do some research about alcoholism. Most functional alcoholics can appear "sober" even when deeply inebriated.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Most definitely...I used to date one
And on the other hand, I can stumble and run into walls completely sober.
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
Same here.
My feet seem to grab the tiniest things to stumble over.
dfarrah
People
have repeatedly referred to K as a stumbling drunk.
I recall when a friend who was 'stumbling' drunk. He lived in my basement and stumbled down the stairs. He was in no condition to be able to do any harm, except to himself.
dfarrah
You are very single minded
Aren't you? Most, if not all of the comments I've made in these threads are responses to specific generalizations people have made.
I've yet to actually comment, or take a stand, on these hearings, or the allegations either way.
So it seems, you are having an argument with yourself.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Single minded?
How awful!! Noting some possible contradictions is just horrid.
At least I am asking questions rather than flinging out ridiculous accusations (K was a drunkard, K is privileged, K is entitled, K is wooden, K was too angry at the hearing, K is unstable, k's parents neglected him; K cheated on his tests and school work; K was bullying people when he was 2 years old - okay, I made the last one up) to rationalize a conclusion that Ford is right.
So, go ahead, call me something to deflect from the issues.
You already think Ford is right, so my thoughts should matter nothing to you.
dfarrah
You're a mind reader too?
Ha!
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
There are such things
as facts, and there are such things as physiological facts.
If K (or anyone) had been so drunk as to be non-functional at a party, then that would call into questions the accusations of assaults and gang rapes, or any other physical activity that required a certain level of strength and functioning.
Comments that drunks in general can do all kinds of things (which is true) don't really answer the question of function in someone who is stumbling drunk at some point in time, now do they?
dfarrah
Pages