And as I've said a bunch of times, they can easily replace him with someone else that will do exactly what they want Kavanaugh to do. The legal profession is filled with Federalist Society robots that don't have a bunch of women accusing him of being at best a pervert. Gorsuch was another and he got confirmed without issue.

One thing this illustrates is that every GOP senator can be a king if they want to be. It's genuinely surprising to me that so few have used the power they have to control the agenda.

33% of his supporters are white men without a college degree. Is that a majority of his supporters?

"Oh look, its snowing outside"
- Snowflake the Snowman

Another over-reaching analysis of my psyche (see illegal immigration debate) but okay.

re: gathering facts, not sure where you are coming from, you obviously haven't read what I think should happen to be fair to both parties.

This is the weird part to me. It isn't Kavanaugh or nothing. It's Kavanaugh or someone who will vote just like Kavanaugh.

The GOP might be pot-committed at this point, but had they cut bait as soon as Ford's allegations seemed to have some weight, they'd be halfway toward confirming another FedSoc shortlister by now.

dola.

Like, even if they can't do it before the mid-terms, I don't see why they wouldn't do it during the lame duck.

Looks like Murkowski is joining Flake calling for a week long FBI Investigation before a full Senate vote. That's 2 Republican Senators potentially voting no if there is no investigation.

That's exactly what's confusing to me. The only distinction that I can come up with is the fact Kavanaugh is an extreme presidential-immunity guy who has been very vocal on the subject. This one is likely coming from the top, as GOP senators have been doing all kinds of illogical nonsene in the name of Trump for 2 years.

I wasn't trying to equate them as equivalent and have said that in prior posts. I brought up the flashing to point out that if you want to call Kavanaugh a "sex offender" because he showed his dick, so is flashing breasts.


The folks I saw do this were the jocks (I think they were the only ones with enough confidence to do it vs nerdy kids). They may have been the privilege class of wankers also but I remembered them as jocks.

If there hasn't been a relapse and is a good Christian/Muslim/Jewish/etc. person for the past 30 years or so, and he is qualified, I would put it to youthful indiscretions and be okay with it.


Re: choirboy, I absolutely agree.

Re: Ramirez, what if he really didn't do it?

:+1:

Technically true. There are huge double standards when it comes to the law.

For instance if a homeless man pulls out his dick on the train in front of a woman, he'll be immediately arrested. He'll likely be a sex offender and spend time in prison. Not many people here would be upset with it. But if you are a wealthy prep schooler and do it, it's "youth indiscretions".

Perhaps the person being added to the Supreme Court shouldn't be considered above the law.


Then he goes back to being a highly paid Federal judge. He can sue these women for defamation too. Not a big deal.

This is the right thing to do IMO.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...ommittee-vote/

I'm predicting a lot more pain & embarrassment for choirboy. He better hope there are no corroborating witnesses.

Yeah. It's one thing if after all the interviews and investigation, it appears that it is too difficult to say if it actually happened, so we'll vote yes. It's quite another to say, nah, we don't need an investigation when there is so much smoke, just vote him in.

Sorry, didn’t see you changed your orginal argument to “majority of trump voters were...”

And it is my issue, not yours, that I find your limited experiences myopic. I think there are a lot good posters here that I hope you gain from their frame of reference.

As some earlier said, this isn't a trial its a job interview.

But I actually agree with you. We should investigate more, lets lay out the facts, the context, corroborating witnesses etc. and have the senate/committee make an informed judgement.


Its a once in a lifetime opportunity. I can't blame him for fighting hard.

I wish the same for you.

Being on the Supreme Court isn't a birthright. There are plenty of highly qualified people who could fill the role just the same.

Nice post, well balanced. Thanks for sharing.

I got the correct # of passes but the last question did get me.

Do you think the FBI would include trauma trained investigator on the team?

I agree the Republican senators ignored her, but I don't think Kavanaugh did. He said it did not happen, I never met her, I would not have been at a party where she indicated the night in question with the people she said, based off her recollection I'm not sure how she would have gotten to or from a party where she claims either, and everyone she claims was there so far has denied it.

I don't know who to believe. Both parties seemed much more credible yesterday (at least when it came to that incident - I don't believe his yearbook rationales, or her fear of flying f.e.) than they had beforehand. I didn't like the emotion and overt partisan attacks from a future SC judge, but with respect to that incident I don't know what else you need or want Kavanaugh to do that isn't attacking her and her character.
Yeah, that's about where I ended up. She seemed very credible in reporting what the event was. The where/when part seems very suspect. Not sure what to think on the who part.

Maybe an FBI investigation will be able to dig more into that, but I'm not sure we'll get much clarification. (Though maybe they can also look into the alleged roofying and gang rapes of passed out girls, because the media seems to have forgotten about that allegation.) The only thing obvious from yesterday was that Chuck Grassley is an embarrassment and exhibit 128 why we should have term or age limits for Senators or at least not assign committee chairs based strictly on seniority.

So hypothetically even if all the allegations are proven false, but after he has his character assassinated, loses a nomination to the Supreme Court because of it, and half the country thinks he's a rapist, it's "not a big deal" because he can maybe get a little money in defamation suits?

I only saw a passing reference to it when reading stuff from The Atlantic yesterday, but apparently Republicans believe that confirming Kavanaugh is their only chance to "win" the midterms. Like most here I think that's crazy and a Kavanaugh confirmation will mobilize many more Democratic voters, but after seeing Lindsey Graham's performance yesterday and the response to it maybe "a victory" over the PC crowd really will galvanize that Trump base enough.
Animal House, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Caddyshack... maybe that's why I find it so easy to believe a high school jock acted sexually aggressive at parties and why I don't think you can judge whipping your dick out during a drinking game then as you would a homeless guy flashing people on the subway today - because that was the accepted and celebrated culture in teen comedies of the era.

So I don't have enough faith in the basic humanity of Kavanaugh supporters to think this is going to change anybody's mind but it is striking to look at.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-hearing-chart

"Who I was in that moment was influenced by the attitudes of the era, especially amongst the peers I surrounded myself with; while that doesn't excuse the behavior, that's the context. The man I am now is deeply ashamed of that behavior, has not repeated it, nor ever would."

Unless that behavior perpetuated a looooooong damn time past his high school/early collegiate years, there is no reason not to give an answer along those lines. Republicans would be quick to accept it and push ahead with his nomination, and it undercuts the strength of any future accusations.

'cept mebbe the train rape stuff that's different

Acknowledge, apologize, and move on, and his ideological contemporaries will cheerfully handwave it all away to confirm him.

Prevarication and behaving the way he did in contrast to Dr. Ford's testimony just allows the pressure to get turned up to 11 on the folks who have to cast a vote.

Will it matter? Not sure it will. But his insistence that he was an angelic virgin is making this harder for himself and Senate Republicans than it ever had to be. Democrats would have opposed him no matter what, but he could have easily given Republicans more cover to vote for him than he has.

Trump has touted getting Gorsuch confirmed as one of the major accomplishments in his presidency. Him withdrawing Kavanaugh's would be a failure. Plus being here also has multiple accusations of sexual assault and harrasment pulling the nomination for that reason would be admitting that all women who come forward with accusations aren't liars looking for money or part of a political conspiracy.

Kavanaugh's views on presidental immunity probably okay a role in it too, but I doubt it would change things even without that.

muns- That was one of the best posts I have ever read on this site, and really the best breakdown of this that I have read anywhere. Thank you so much for posting.

Flake's threat could work out well for Senate Republicans. They say no, we're voting immediately. Kavanaugh goes down with all the Dems and 3 Republicans voting no. Perfect issue to gin up turnout in November. McConnell was never thrilled about his nomination anyway. They start the process again for someone else, giving enough time to squeeze them in regardless of who controls the Senate in January.

Or the swing Republicans chicken out and vote yes, win either way.

Well, looks like Flake got an investigation. Well done, Senator.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...ernoon-n914676

That's the game he chose to play. Remember he was heavily involved in the Clinton investigation and felt taking a women's words at face value and digging as deep into sexual proclivities was relevant. Wrestle with pigs and you're going to get dirty.

As for "not a big deal", that's true. His life won't change. He'll be a Federal Judge. He'll hang out in the same wealthy circles that will support him. This isn't someone who has to hang around us commoners. He'll be just fine.

I'd add that I think it'd be nice if we could get out of the Harvard/Yale bubble and nominate someone who maybe didn't attend those schools. Who perhaps had a career that wasn't choreographed from the beginnings.

There are brilliant legal minds that did attend other schools and had different upbringings. Heck, some of our greatest Justices had unconventional backgrounds like Hugo Black and Earl Warren.

One of the problems with the court is we're just nominating these legal robots from one group or the other who can't think for themselves. The fact that people treat Kavanaugh being on it as his birthright is everything wrong with it.

That may have played on this board, but I doubt it would have played well with the general public or the anti-Kavanaugh media.

At least he admitted he liked drinking beer this time, but he did really throw down the gauntlet by claiming he was a virgin into his mid-20's... It's not mutually exclusive that someone could be sexually aggressive in front of their friends & shy behind closed doors, and it likely won't matter for confirmation, but that changed the threshold for undermining his credibility from "do you believe Ford/Swetnick/Ramirez" he said/she said to find someone who had sex with him in HS or college.
Sorry, but no I don't accept that (hypothetically) it's okay to ruin a person's reputation with false rape allegations because they have a more privileged background and their fallback life would still be better than mine. Hate him if you want, believe the allegations if you want, but that's bullshit.

Or, you know, push the investigation through knowing nothing can be found in a week.

Yeah. I don't feel like the investigation will be anything than a check in the box. It's going to come up with nothing and then Democrats will complain it didn't take long enough.

Strike two against Trump and the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. A second judge has allowed a lawsuit brought by 200 Dem members of Congress to move forward. The first was limited to Trump hotel in Wash DC, this one is much more broad:


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/28/judg...-payments.html

So if the Democrats win their case on this one, what exactly is the penalty for Trump here?

Well to be honest, not sure of the penalty, but in discovery Trump, the Trump Organization, and any individuals/companies involved would have to give the lawyers for the Dems who sued access to all records/financials, etc. Becomes a bigger issue for Trump if the Dems take control of the House/Senate as it will be used in impeachment maneuvers I'm sure.

4D Chess

I only show that video as a way to try to get people to understand investigating isn't as easy everybody thinks it is/can be. Even as investigator you have a bias. If you are looking so hard at one thing trying to prove it right or wrong, something that actually could be helping you could literally be right in your face and you miss it.

It's also a good tool to use to make the point that just because someone says they saw something or experienced something either as a witness or a victim doesn't mean its 100% accurate. It's why its makes is that much more tough when someone comes forward 30+ years afterwards.

It becomes down near impossible to tell, and when you are trying to do the right thing makes it an excruciating process. Then you multiply what you are going through as an investigator by 100 and thats what the victim is going through.

To your question, I would imagine the FBI has them. It would be shocking if they didnt, but its not hard to pick up the phone and get one to come on over to help. Still flabbergasted that not 1 dem on that panel knew enough to get a trauma trained investigar to feed them questions. Like i said, this entire situation blows my mind.

I think as long as she is willing to continue to be probed and answer questions more info should come. However, if she isnt and says thats enough of me re-living all this shit, i have done enough, or if the FBI has been told we don't want real answers here, then nothing else will come of it.

Something for all of us to consider.

I can easily believe it for "stop" vs "yield" signs (and other, smaller details) and also for an assault by a stranger (e.g. never saw the person before) but if the assault was by a HS/college acquaintance, can you mis-identify that person?

Kavanaugh hearing: Can you be 'very, very certain' -- and wrong?

Discussing it really doesn't matter anymore unless it's for educational purposes with an intent to be able to handle it better or differently the next time. As for Kav, he's getting on. There is no circumstance in my mind, where he doesn't get on.

The FBI report is going to come out similarly to what muns posted. As in, something happened, but there is no other corroborating physical evidence that it was Kav other than her word, and so much time has passed and memories are so corruptible that we can't be certain enough to remove him.

It's done. Despite that fact, as people have said, that there is a line of people, cut from the same cloth, without these skeletons who will do the exact same thing. Depending on how bad it gets before the election with Kav getting confirmed, it could boost the D's that much more before the election.

Meanwhile the world keeps turning and we miss out on things like the EPA deciding to dissolve the position of Science advisor to the EPA. As in the person who's job it is to keep the administrators up to date on the actual science, journals, and science based policy recommendations.

I'm curious to what the difference between a "trained trauma investigator" is and the background of Rachel Mitchell. Is there a certification to in order to get that title? Ms. Mitchell has 12 years of experience prosecuting sex crimes, it seems like that is a pretty good background for what this hearing involved. You obviously have a lot more experience than me in this area so I was curious if you could explain further. Thank you.

Really good question, and here is why I think it was a terrible idea to have Rachel Mitchel ask questions.

A prosecutor is going for a goal. They are looking to convict someone. Someone accused of a crime, right? What crime was Dr. Ford accused of?

A prosecutor is usually not going after the victim, a defense attorney is. I would bet my salary, that Rachel Mitchel has either never gone after a victim in her career (because she is usually on the opposite side of the fence) or if she has gone after a victim, it’s only been a few times. Her 12 years of experience isn't going after victims, they are going after defendants.

It makes no sense. It was a waste of a first-round draft pick if the goal was answers. It sounded like a good idea to most people because why wouldn't it if you aren't in the weeds in all this kind of crap.

The only way that her asking questions makes sense, is if the republicans wanted her to grill Dr.Ford which was the goal. It backfired, and they looked like idiots. Instead of getting answers, they got no answers. The questions of the who, the what, the where, and the why is what matters in court. It's what a prosecutor is trained to go after and look for. That sequential order matters and if someone can’t come up with that they are lying.

However, a trauma informed investigator knows that there is no sequential order in most rape cases as long as there is or has been rape or trauma. Study after study has proven that.

Trauma trained is more focused on how the brain has stored other info. The brains natural reaction is to protect the victim in any way possible. They could fight, they could run (flight) or they can freeze. The technical term for freeze is tonic immobility if anybody wants to look stuff up. The last category is the "new" category over the past how many years and isn't just with sexual assault victims. It’s occurs in first responders and in the military as well.

The best example I can give is if you dumped a 50-piece puzzle set on ground right in front of you. A normal brain would say ok let’s start with the edges, then look for colors to match in places, and off you go in sequential order to finishing the puzzle.

In a trauma victim, the puzzle pieces are all over the place and the victim can't put each piece in sequential order. So, you might find a piece that is an edge, and then you jump to a middle piece, because the brain skipped 15 pieces that should be in sequential order. Those 15 pieces that the brain skipped are the pieces of the sexual assault that the brain is hiding.

In order to try to figure out those pieces you don't focus on what is occurring or what has occurred. You focus on why the brain has suppressed whatever it is. So you build out your puzzle pieces from there.

So, you ask open ended questions that are based on senses and surroundings. Tell me about what you were hearing? Tell me about what you were smelling? Tell me about what you are seeing? Tell me a little bit more on your thought process as this was occurring or that was occurring?

A victim of trauma, especially if their body went the frozen route, will give you answers to those types of questions that an investigator can then go back and investigate. So, if a victim was on her back getting raped, and her brain took her into a trance to protect her, she might be able to give you the exact count of the tiles on the ceiling. That would be evidence because who the hell knows how many tiles are on a ceiling, but the brain chose to focus on that to keep the victim in another place while the rape was occurring so that the victim can function in everyday life.

A prosecutor isn't an investigator, so they aren't going to be doing that kind of stuff nor asking those kinds of questions. It’s a different world. I am sure a person with a JD or an actual lawyer on this board would know far more than I do about the subject though.


Sorry if that was a bit long winded, but I hope I answered your question and I hope that made at least a little bit of sense.

To answer your other question, yes you can be certified to be a trauma informed investigator, just like you can be certified to be a Title IX investigator. It's not a degree, so you don’t go to a college or a university for it. People specialize in it, so it does cost a bit money.

Kavanaugh earned nothing. He was a Yale Legacy admission from his grandfather.

Do you have a source for this?

Lots of pros and cons, the cons are it reduces tax revenue and lower income won't take as much advantage of it over the higher income. I like to think I'm a saver so it will benefit me when it comes to retirement. TBH, wish it allowed more to be contributed.

House Approves GOP Bill to Make New Tax Cuts Permanent | Time

The details from a Sep 19 article.

“Universal Savings Account� Proposal in New Republican Tax Bill Is Ill-Conceived | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Very good answer. Thank you very much.

Apparently the WH has put severe restrictions on the investigation, limiting who can be interviewed and what can be asked.

So my prediction was a little off, but right in spirit. What seems to be happening is the WH controls a sham investigation, vote called, Flake, Collins, Murkowski, etc. all say "good enough", Kavanaugh confirmed.

Or Flake can insist on an investigation controlled by the FBI as his statements yesterday did.

"I was really being tough and so was he. And we would go back and forth. And then we fell in love. No really. He wrote me beautiful letters. They were great letters. And then we fell in love." - Trump on Kim Jong Un

Penn State has had a couple of great plays, but overall this PSU/OSU game is yuck.

And the bro love continues. Crazy.

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...i-fell-in-love

'He wrote me beautiful letters and we fell in love': Donald Trump on Kim Jong-un - YouTube

The whole video(not this one), to me, is even more crazy. He's a terrible speaker and people can't get enough of it. Mind boggling.

Interesting thread on our current politics that I urge you to click through. In summary,

THREAD: You may be wondering why only people on the left are worked up about Kavanaugh’s obvious lies. I mean, do people on the right really believe his (changing) story about what “Renate alumnus” meant? https://t.co/yjktb1ugs0

— Ezra Zuckerman Sivan (@ewzucker) September 30, 2018

Yes:https://www.newsweek.com/kavanaugh-s...tudent-1145286

This article was linked to in that thread, and is also worth reading:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/...naugh-is-lying


"He had connections he claimed he didn't have" is not, in fairness, the same as "Yale would never have admitted him without those connections."

Holy shit. The NYT is reporting that Ford isn't on the approved interview list from the WH to the FBI.

What else can she add at this juncture?

The point was he was a legacy admissions candidate . Edward asked for a source on that fact and gave it. We can draw our on conclusions on what it means.

Something to the effect "after hearing Kavanaugh's testimony, is there anything you would like to add, contradict, suggest we talk to etc."

Also, like muns suggested, get a person specializing in trauma to talk with her.

Interviewing her more indepth may be a dual edge sword, it could help or hurt her.

I haven't seen where this was reported by the NYT (or at least not on the front page) but she should be interviewed again just as a follow-up.

Kavanaugh's not on the approved witness list either.

It's a pretend investigation, but maybe it will be good enough for Flake et al

Legacy will help you get in, and it's another indication that Kavanaugh is a liar, but HYP don't just admit students with 2.8 GPA's because a grandparent attended. He might've started on 3rd base, but he was still top 2-3 in his class at one of the most prestigious high schools in the country.

Yeah, the second fact kind of makes it "selective" already.

Yep, I used "prestigious" instead of "best" for a reason. But there are plenty of rich fuccboi's who attended these schools & have an Ivy League connection in their family tree that didn't get accepted into an Ivy League school & made it to the federal circuit court. IDK why it's so hard for some people to oppose his supreme court nomination without also saying he's a rapist or someone who hasn't worked hard for anything.

L ok ng but interesting read about Iowa, farms, and Nunes. lungs would probably be interested.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...mpression=true

Except his candidacy isn't what was claimed.

What was claimed is that he was admitted as a legacy enrollee.

Look, I'm not remotely a Kavanaugh supporter, but there's a difference between getting brownie points because Gramps was a student there, and being admitted because Gramps was a student there.

We can probably assume the former. We can't make that assumption about the latter, and so damning him as "not having earned it because" makes about as much sense as saying Trump's a self-made billionaire because he "only" got $1 million in seed capital from daddy dearest.

Apparently agreement on a revised/new NAFTA. Not a lot of details but assume its to US benefit. Just checked and futures are up 160+ so that's good.

I don't like how Trump "bullied" Mexico and Canada, and think we could have negotiated a new NAFTA without all the rhetoric.

Solid article, well presented. I had no idea Nunes' family moved to Steve King's district (lol!). I always farmed in a pretty liberal area but a lot of things rang true. Describing the employees like bringing cattle across state lines and other things of the sort are still common around here. Hypocrisy of farmers supporting Trump while employing undocumented immigrants, things like that.

Not sure I posted it here, but I did an anonymous interview about the topic last year, along with my employees at the time:
http://www.dairycarrie.com/2017/02/1...trevors-story/
http://www.dairycarrie.com/2017/02/0...e-johns-story/
http://www.dairycarrie.com/2017/02/0...uridias-story/
http://www.dairycarrie.com/2017/02/0...lesters-story/
http://www.dairycarrie.com/2017/02/0...igrants-story/

Basically, we traded some access to the Canadian dairy market for a cap on exports on autos to Canada. There's some digital IP stuff in as well.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/01/us-c...ade-talks.html

Which was already in TPP before we backed out. :lol:

Credit where it's due. The USMCA looks like a good update to NAFTA. Though I wonder what some supporters (by which I mean policy guys, not necessary voters who may not know the difference) of the President think since its far more free trade (with some labor and environment protections) than his previous rhetoric suggested. If this ardent free trader is pleased, I would imagine the Bannons of the world are not.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

TBH, if this happens, I'm not sure it means much immediately. The Mueller investigation probably has the relevant info by now anyway.

It'll come into play some for the 2nd term but if Trump continues his "wins as promised to his base", his base won't care.

But it'll definitely be fun to see what's under the cover.

Democrats planning to examine Trump’s tax returns after the midterms - POLITICO

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...new-nafta-deal

Putting his name on things built by someone else is his business model.

That and declaring largely meaningless change "historic" or "landmark" or " the best ever."

This was bizarrely effective in the New York real estate market.

Edit: I was watching this random Trump appearance on Letterman from around 1991 and Trump was going on and on about this 100-acre waterfront track of land he was able to get zoned for residential use on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. He was just building it up as the greatest piece of land in history, huge piece of land, we're going to do great things with this land, blah blah blah. It had just been sitting there. He ended up making billions off of it. He really does try to use the same approach in politics and in his campaigns.

Ah got it and yes that is a fair point.

Just watched John Oliver. He had a good time with the Kavanaugh/Ford mess.

Oliver aligns with my views for the most part and I'm surprised it hasn't been the primary narrative. Going into the hearing I had trouble disqualifying the guy based on his HS and college years. I just didn't want another "don't change ever no matter what" women hater on the supreme court, but that is what it is and it's going to be what we get, whether this guy or someone else.

Then I watched him speak. He is really just a piece of shit, everything we should not want in a personality on the supreme court. Sits there and blatantly lies(Devil's Triangle is a drinking game??), insults everyone and acts like the victim with his facial expressions mixed between irritation, exasperation and poorly acted empathy.

Taking the sexual assault out of this, did no one do a simple personality vet on this horrible human? With all the women hating old white men pining for this role, they picked the one that clearly simply does not have the mental wherewithal to do the job?

He's the most Trumpian of the candidates, and that's why Trump picked him.

Anyone remember any of the really awful Obama controversies? Like Lattegate? I mean, I only remember because of The Daily Show, but whatever it was, it was an incredible shit storm.

He did not come off well for sure and doesn't have the typical temperament of what I've publicly seen/hear of a SCOTUS. He may well be innocent of the 3 accusations and he may get in, but he won't get a lot of respect in the rest of his career.

I do think some questions were "trick questions" to just embarrass him. Why should he have to answer (to the whole public) what a Devil's Triangle or Boof is? What's the relevance to the 1-3 accusations other than it was in the yearbook?

Now on the drinking, I do think that is relevant because it was a common denominator in all 3 accusations. He definitely BS'd on that.

Because he is using his calendar as a point of defense that he wasn't at the alleged event. Simply asking questions about other items on that calendar are fair game at that point and he has clearly shown an inability to speak the truth which should disqualify one from being on the SC. There are a hundred of other ways he could have BS'd those responses like "PJ told me about this Devil's triangle one night while we were out and I took a note down because I was curious of its meaning at the time..."

He is the one who said he was a choir boy who didn't have sex until much later in life. That was his defense against the accusations. They weren't trick questions, they were questions that showed a contradiction to his own answers.

These questions are only fair game because he made it that way. He lied about his character and who he was when he was younger. If a man came in for a job interview with you and said "I don't drink and am in bed by 9pm so I can be sharp as a tack every morning". Then you pull up his Facebook page and find him doing keg stands, you'd be inclined to ask what's up.

Either way, he perjured himself repeatedly on the meaning of those yearbook quotes. Even if people think he's innocent of the accusations or that his past doesn't matter, you can't put someone on the highest court who commits perjury so effortlessly. That is in fact a disqualifying factor.

Lying about some things calls into question his truthfulness about other things. In addition, he's claimed to be too interested in school and church to be guilty of boorish behavior, and lying about his yearbook entries also calls that into question.

All he had to say from the start was that he partied in high school and college like many young people. Said the yearbook stuff was childish stuff that immature teenagers do with their friends. Simple as that. Most of the public would understand. I don't really get why you'd commit perjury over something so dumb.

Probably because he knows there won't be any consequences.

The left will hate him either way, the right will believe anything he says, might as well put out the most sympathetic version he can.

I can only imagine he's trying to preserve the longstanding lie he told his family, otherwise no clue.

Because I think the obvious slippery slope he was hoping to avoid if he admitted to partying/drinking is that it would leave open the argument that trying to have sex with multiple women is the next step, which would lend credence to the allegations. That's about all I can figure.

Is it perjury if you were so drunk you don't recall whether you blacked out 30-35 years ago?

I don't think it's that simple. There is opposing someone because of their beliefs and there is opposing someone because they are a scumbag that can't be trusted to go 3 minutes without telling the truth or trying to illogically alpha you. I'd think a lot of people on the left would grin and bear it on the first, there's really no way around that.

However at the very least can't we get the former without the latter? I'd think even the right would prefer that, unless what Oliver said really is true, they just want to give a big old fuck you to women and the left. Then again, that's how we got stuck with the guy in the White House.

Sigh.

Really? Is that why so many Dems came out against the nominee before they had any inkling there might be some other reason to oppose him besides his beliefs? Which, playing devil's advocate, might be reason enough to put forth a campaign against him that is light/loose on facts, just to make sure he's not confirmed because of his beliefs.

I'm not saying we haven't learned enough to potentially change the equation as to this particular nominee, but both parties know what is at stake - which is why Garland got railroaded and the Dems are trying to return the favor now.

I don't know if the other stuff is perjury but the lies about the yearbook quotes is. The term Devil's Triangle isn't new.

Maybe he lies to protect his ego. Maybe it's just that people from privileged backgrounds like that don't feel the rules apply to them.

It's always a con: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/02/trum...-than-tpp.html

This is some crazy investigative reporting. I know some of it was sort of known, but this seems to have brought the receipts.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...rref=undefined

Well, I've never heard the term until today (not a surprise to me, ha!). And you'd need more than a yearbook entry to prove he knew what it meant and lied about it if you're talking about a perjury charge.

I'm not talking about a perjury charge. I understand it's a difficult crime to prosecute and wealthier, influential people are typically exempt from it. But it is what he did and I doubt anyone really believes it was a "drinking game" that no one has ever heard of.

He chose to lie in his first words about the nomination when he praised Trump for having consulted more people than anyone in history. He's comfortable being a blustering bullshitter like Trump.

Sources tell @JuliaEAinsley and me that while Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team has repeatedly reached out to the FBI, the FBI does not currently have plans to interview her. A source familiar with the matter says the White House feels her public testimony was sufficient.

— Geoff Bennett (@GeoffRBennett) October 2, 2018

Even the investigation is a con.

I really wonder how different his testimony would have been in front of a democrat controlled Senate. I know there's zero chance he's ever nominated in that scenario, but he seems to be willing to push lying and misleading answers as far as he possibly can because he knows there's almost no chance there will be repercussions with the current political makeup.

Because a Devil's Triangle is what Dr. Ford was basically accusing him of trying to do on the night in question?

That and this notion of pervasive drunken sex related activity is pretty relevant to what is being alledged against him.

Well since you didn't know about it, I guess we can shut it all down! Close it up boys, Ksyrup never heard of it!

The Federalist is trying to jump a story the NYT is working on.


Two things stick out, one Bart is the name Judge uses in his book for a guy puking in a car, and two, FFFFF surely isn't a verbal tick in this context.

Let's pretend for just a second that human beings are not binary organisms and there is a spectrum of behavior. Yes of course there are people who are going to be militant to the same degree whether or not he's a low character piece of shit. On both sides of the fence(see Evangelicals and their support of a mass abortion producing serial adulterer and divorcee like Trump).

That said, what percentage would you put it at that whoever got nominated who be anti-abortion and anti-gay. Personally, I'd put it at about 100%. Thus I could confidently say I would be against them before they were named. However the second the opening was announced I knew that I may not like it, but that's the views of the person who was going to get the seat. Might as well accept it.

However if on the other hand, the person had those views and then showed themselves to be comfortable lying under oath with the character of an evil not-quite-genius villain.... Yeah, I'm thinking can't we at least get someone in that holds values I disagree with that is not a complete waste of skin?

Yeah honestly, there is 0 percent chance he didn't know what it meant. 0%. Great Kysurp, you say you haven't heard of it, so you probably don't have it in your yearbook.

On the other hand if you did, it's safe to say you'd be lying.