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.