You could join the "Part of the solution" forum club!
It doesn't come with a badge or membership card because that would be stupid.
The reward is not being marginalized by an upper-class that wishes to oppress your voice while they gind you into dirt so they may live in pleasure and comfort, supping on the misery of millions.
Renate Dolphin signed the letter along with the other women.
BUT
She was unaware of the sexual joke Bart Kavanaugh had written on his yearbook entry. Once it was pointed out that he had written that he was a Renate Alumni she has withdrawn her support of him and disavowed him. This happened a couple days ago. Did you guys miss it? Another woman also withdrew he support for Kavanaugh.
When Ms. Dolphin signed the Sept. 14 letter, she wasn’t aware of the “Renate” yearbook references on the pages of Judge Kavanaugh and his football teammates.
“I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,” Ms. Dolphin said in a statement to The New York Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.”
“They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate,” said Sean Hagan, a Georgetown Prep student at the time, referring to Judge Kavanaugh and his teammates. “I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.”
And again, having a letter signed by 65 women he didn't rape isn't proof of anything. Bill Cosby could probably come up with a list of women he didn't rape. You see the trick is to get the ones you didn't rape to sign it, genius right. The ones you raped or harassed you don't get them to sign. It seems like Kavanaugh screwed this part up with getting Renate to sign the letter. He forgot about the sexual joke on his yearbook and once she found out she has disavowed him.
I would like to restate again that I find it very odd that FIRST a spokesperson for Kavanaugh said that he apologized for kissing her. THEN Renate said that he didn't kiss her.
Well, which one is it?
It's not Schrodinger's kiss, existing in a simultaneous kissed/not-kissed state.
Renate Dolphin signed the letter along with the other women.
BUT
She was unaware of the sexual joke Bart Kavanaugh had written on his yearbook entry. Once it was pointed out that he had written that he was a Renate Alumni she has withdrawn her support of him and disavowed him. This happened a couple days ago. Did you guys miss it? Another woman also withdrew he support for Kavanaugh.
When Ms. Dolphin signed the Sept. 14 letter, she wasn’t aware of the “Renate” yearbook references on the pages of Judge Kavanaugh and his football teammates.
“I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,” Ms. Dolphin said in a statement to The New York Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.”
“They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate,” said Sean Hagan, a Georgetown Prep student at the time, referring to Judge Kavanaugh and his teammates. “I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.”
And again, having a letter signed by 65 women he didn't rape isn't proof of anything. Bill Cosby could probably come up with a list of women he didn't rape. You see the trick is to get the ones you didn't rape to sign it, genius right. The ones you raped or harassed you don't get them to sign. It seems like Kavanaugh screwed this part up with getting Renate to sign the letter. He forgot about the sexual joke on his yearbook and once she found out she has disavowed him.
I would like to restate again that I find it very odd that FIRST a spokesperson for Kavanaugh said that he apologized for kissing her. THEN Renate said that he didn't kiss her.
Well, which one is it?
It's not Schrodinger's kiss, existing in a simultaneous kissed/not-kissed state.
I'v already done #4. But both my senators are already not going to vote for Kavanaugh. (Cory Booker and Robert Melendez)
I have Ted Cruz and John Cornyn. Not a lot I can do.
Isn’t Cruz up for re-election?
“How your wife was treated during the primaries is no way how any women should be treated ever. There are a lot of other solid, conservative judges that the president can choose in place of Kavanaugh. Prove that you still have a promeniant voice in The Senate. Stand up to for your morals of equality. How you vote on this is how I and many people I know will vote come November.”
@ThacoBell@Balrog99: I like how you guys explain the greater principles behind your politics in your posts, which I otherwise might not understand as a liberal. It's one of the reasons I tend to look forward to your posts. Whether we agree or disagree, I feel like I come out with a better understanding of your point of view.
I'm done with Kavanaugh because I'm almost positive he's lying about his past. If he'd have manned up and taken ownership of his party boy days, said he used to be a moderately to heavy drinker for example, and then said something to the effect of 'that was me back then but I've learned a lot since those days' I'd be inclined to forgive him. The trouble now is that seeing as I don't believe him about his drinking, I'm even beginning to wonder about his past sexual escapades. Also the lying makes me wonder about his general character which is even worse...
The liberals here should take note however, that I still think Feinstein used Ford as a pawn. All of this should have been started two months ago. I believe the Democrats deliberately delayed things to try to push the timing until after the election. I almost don't blame the Republicans for being angry and that anger may translate into confirming a man who shouldn't probably be on the bench of the SC. If that happens you should reserve at least some of the blame to the Dems for this cynical political power play.
Yeah, it's wrong though. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if the claim is such that evidence would be expected.
My big problem is the conflation of different claims
1. Kavanaugh assaulted Ford. 2. Kavanaugh is unsuited for SC. 3. Kavanaugh lied in his testimony.
People are saying because they believe 3 or 2 are true then 1 is also true. This does not follow. The other side is doing the same thing but with a different Spin. What should be done is to evaluate each claim on its own merit.
Ah - no. Nothing you said suggests that aphorism is wrong. It's a simple logic statement that spotlights how people see the lack of presented evidence as being an argument for the evidence of absence - and therefore useful in disproving something. A lack of evidence is never dis-positive. However, since the burden of proof is upon the accuser(in a court of law, as we have said a literal hundred times, and which is not the case here), a lack of evidence doesnt advance the case in determining guilt, and isnt useful. It's a common mistake to think that because one side cannot prove an allegation, that the allegation is therefore disproved. It's not.
Yeah, it's wrong though. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence if the claim is such that evidence would be expected.
My big problem is the conflation of different claims
1. Kavanaugh assaulted Ford. 2. Kavanaugh is unsuited for SC. 3. Kavanaugh lied in his testimony.
People are saying because they believe 3 or 2 are true then 1 is also true. This does not follow. The other side is doing the same thing but with a different Spin. What should be done is to evaluate each claim on its own merit.
Ah - no. Nothing you said suggests that aphorism is wrong. It's a simple logic statement that spotlights how people see the lack of presented evidence as being an argument for the evidence of absence - and therefore useful in disproving something. A lack of evidence is never dis-positive. However, since the burden of proof is upon the accuser(in a court of law, as we have said a literal hundred times, and which is not the case here), a lack of evidence doesnt advance the case in determining guilt, and isnt useful. It's a common mistake to think that because one side cannot prove an allegation, that the allegation is therefore disproved. It's not.
Those were separate, I'm not trying to argue it applies to this case. It does apply to some cases
@ThacoBell@Balrog99: I like how you guys explain the greater principles behind your politics in your posts, which I otherwise might not understand as a liberal. It's one of the reasons I tend to look forward to your posts. Whether we agree or disagree, I feel like I come out with a better understanding of your point of view.
I'm done with Kavanaugh because I'm almost positive he's lying about his past. If he'd have manned up and taken ownership of his party boy days, said he used to be a moderately to heavy drinker for example, and then said something to the effect of 'that was me back then but I've learned a lot since those days' I'd be inclined to forgive him. The trouble now is that seeing as I don't believe him about his drinking, I'm even beginning to wonder about his past sexual escapades. Also the lying makes me wonder about his general character which is even worse...
The liberals here should take note however, that I still think Feinstein used Ford as a pawn. All of this should have been started two months ago. I believe the Democrats deliberately delayed things to try to push the timing until after the election. I almost don't blame the Republicans for being angry and that anger may translate into confirming a man who shouldn't probably be on the bench of the SC. If that happens you should reserve at least some of the blame to the Dems for this cynical political power play.
@Balrog99 There is truth to this. I totally agree with the first paragraph, the coverup in this case is at least as bad as the crime. He's clearly lying and covering up things in the past so why can we trust anything he's said about anything? He fails the job interview.
Feinstein used Ford as a pawn? I don't know about that. That's a trickier one.
Feinstein claims she didn't bring it forward because Ford didn't want to deal with this bullcrap. Feinstein claims she didn't leak the ford identity. After the hearing and Ford's testimony that rings true. My speculation is Ford is 100% genuine and maybe she expected others would come forward because the assault she suffered under Kavanaugh was not the sort of thing that happens once. So Ford would have been happy to be the 1st accuser out of 11 others that came forward. That didn't really happen for most of the time she was the only one. Eventually somehow her identity leaked and at that point she reluctantly came forward. How did her identity leak?
Feinstein is 86 or something and certainly no tactical or evil genius - I don't think she plays these type of games. She's one of those Democrats that is like Charlie Brown when Lucy takes away the football - she believes the other side is playing fairly so she plays fairly and the partisans on the other side delight on pulling the rug out again and again.
At any rate, Ford's claims against Kavanaugh clearly predate Feinstein. Ford has documentation going back to at least 2012 and several people have said they remember Ford mentioning this years and years ago. So it's not some great collusion that Diane Feinstein, tactical genius, cooked up or "Revenge of the Clintons!" or whatever. Ford's evidence goes back years.
Maybe Feinstein is some master politician and she's been fooling us for the past 20 years or whatever into complacency on her tactical genius. I kind of doubt it. If she was and that was truly the case, then how is that different than a million things the Republicans have done to rig the game to get to this point lol anyway. Guys like lyin' Ted Cruz and Donald Trump do nothing without it being something they hope they can bludgeon the libs with.
It's about time the democrats colluded to take back Democracy. I mean "fight back" to take back Democracy, amirite. But yeah she doesn't strike me as some kind of tactical genius.
Well, both of the senators here seem to be firmly in the, "Kavanaugh is perfect and how dare someone question him camp." Maybe me being a registered Republican will at least get them to read the email.
I keep hearing every single Republican talking on TV saying they believe something happened to Professor Ford and also saying they believe Judge Kavanaugh is innocent. The only possible scenario in which both of these things can be true is if someone else assaulted Ford that night. They aren't outright SAYING that it was a doppelganger, but they are coasting on the zeitgeist that was entered into the public sphere with the crazy conspiracy theory last week. They are implying and relying on it when they use this talking point. This is right-wing media 101. You release some batshit crazy theory online, on the radio, or on FOX News, and then just because it was said, it penetrates the debate when on the surface it seems nuts, moving the Overton window. The main argument being made is still that someone else assaulted Ford. So far they have claimed that 3 different men may have been the attacker instead. One by name, two anonymously. It can't be ALL of them, it can only be one. And we have heard from none of them, and we aren't even sure if the other two even EXIST. No effort has been made to speak to any of these men of call them before a Senate committee. Prior to this FBI investigation, they wouldn't even bother to subpoena the other person Ford places IN THE ROOM, Mark Judge. This is, of course, the original meaning of the term gaslighting. It is used by abusers to convince the abused that something didn't actually happen. "Oh honey, there wasn't another women in bed with me when you walked in, you are just CONFUSED, maybe you should go lay down.":
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.
Now, I doubt Republicans can make Professor Ford HERSELF become convinced someone else attacked her, but you can damn sure make a significant portion of the public believe it.
Well, both of the senators here seem to be firmly in the, "Kavanaugh is perfect and how dare someone question him camp." Maybe me being a registered Republican will at least get them to read the email.
Just mention that they are better options available and not to let this nomination taint the integrity of the Supreme Court, even if it is just a perception.
Mention that Gorsuch was grungingly accepted (even if the Democrats voted against him, they didn’t protest this hard against him) and the country at this time is better served by them.
Mention that seats maybe at stake if K gets appointed, and even if their seats are safe, you personally wouldn’t want to see the Sentate fall to the Democrats over this.
There are many ways a person can phrase it to make it sound like Kavanaugh is good, but we can do better, and strive for better.
I received my vote by mail ballot in the today. I would encourage everyone to use this method. Many workplaces may not be forgiving to your absence on Election Day even though they technically should be. I personally still have major doubts about the security of our electronic voting machines. The sure way to make sure your own vote is counted is to get it in the mail and send it in well in advance. It is my understanding these votes are usually counted first. When you see the earliest returns on election night, those are often vote by mail ballots providing the initial numbers. I don't care who you vote for (well, I do care, but that isn't really the point). There is no reason not to suspect given the complete abdication of duty of this Administration in regards to election security that some shenanigans may take place with our voting machines. They are electronic, and they ARE subject to manipulation. You can protect your own ballot individually to at least SOME degree by making your choice known and recorded well before election day ever gets here.
I just made a small donation to the National Women's Law Center. Contacting my senator won't change his vote (I've got Ted Cruz, too), but my mom makes lots of calls, and at least it slows down Cruz's aides (I don't think Cruz meets constituents in person like Bernie Sanders does). If Beto wins the next election, we should have a more responsive senator for Texas.
It's good to focus on concrete action instead of just talk, but let's not assume that talk doesn't play a role. Talk influences votes, and votes determine the makeup of our Congress. It's indirect, but words have an impact on our politics.
I just made a small donation to the National Women's Law Center. Contacting my senator won't change his vote (I've got Ted Cruz, too), but my mom makes lots of calls, and at least it slows down Cruz's aides (I don't think Cruz meets constituents in person like Bernie Sanders does). If Beto wins the next election, we should have a more responsive senator for Texas.
It's good to focus on concrete action instead of just talk, but let's not assume that talk doesn't play a role. Talk influences votes, and votes determine the makeup of our Congress. It's indirect, but words have an impact on our politics.
My charitable giving is tied up in children's cancer treatment, but I would encourage anyone who can (don't put yourself in a financial bind) to research various charities for causes that mean something to you and at least give a modest amount. For instance, I give what amounts to $300 a year to St. Jude. As you can imagine, providing FREE cancer treatment to children and also providing food and lodging for their families is a MASSIVE undertaking. They need to raise $2.4 million dollars a DAY to function at what they do. My $300 is probably the amount of one blood test for one child. But that is still one test taken care of.
I just made a small donation to the National Women's Law Center. Contacting my senator won't change his vote (I've got Ted Cruz, too), but my mom makes lots of calls, and at least it slows down Cruz's aides (I don't think Cruz meets constituents in person like Bernie Sanders does). If Beto wins the next election, we should have a more responsive senator for Texas.
It's good to focus on concrete action instead of just talk, but let's not assume that talk doesn't play a role. Talk influences votes, and votes determine the makeup of our Congress. It's indirect, but words have an impact on our politics.
My charitable giving is tied up in children's cancer treatment, but I would encourage anyone who can (don't put yourself in a financial bind) to research various charities for causes that mean something to you and at least give a modest amount. For instance, I give what amounts to $300 a year to St. Jude. As you can imagine, providing FREE cancer treatment to children and also providing food and lodging for their families is a MASSIVE undertaking. They need to raise $2.4 million dollars a DAY to function at what they do. My $300 is probably the amount of one blood test for one child. But that is still one test taken care of.
I give to the National Geographic Society. I guess they're not really a charity when you compare them with St. Jude, but I can get behind exploring our world, informing people about other cultures, religions, and conflicts, investigating the impact of human beings on the environment and animals, and reporting on new scientific and medical discoveries and what impact they may have. The magazine is great too so even if all you do is subscribe to that it's well worth it.
Renate Dolphin signed the letter along with the other women.
BUT
She was unaware of the sexual joke Bart Kavanaugh had written on his yearbook entry. Once it was pointed out that he had written that he was a Renate Alumni she has withdrawn her support of him and disavowed him. This happened a couple days ago. Did you guys miss it? Another woman also withdrew he support for Kavanaugh.
When Ms. Dolphin signed the Sept. 14 letter, she wasn’t aware of the “Renate” yearbook references on the pages of Judge Kavanaugh and his football teammates.
“I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,” Ms. Dolphin said in a statement to The New York Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.”
“They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate,” said Sean Hagan, a Georgetown Prep student at the time, referring to Judge Kavanaugh and his teammates. “I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.”
And again, having a letter signed by 65 women he didn't rape isn't proof of anything. Bill Cosby could probably come up with a list of women he didn't rape. You see the trick is to get the ones you didn't rape to sign it, genius right. The ones you raped or harassed you don't get them to sign. It seems like Kavanaugh screwed this part up with getting Renate to sign the letter. He forgot about the sexual joke on his yearbook and once she found out she has disavowed him.
I would like to restate again that I find it very odd that FIRST a spokesperson for Kavanaugh said that he apologized for kissing her. THEN Renate said that he didn't kiss her.
Well, which one is it?
It's not Schrodinger's kiss, existing in a simultaneous kissed/not-kissed state.
I'v already done #4. But both my senators are already not going to vote for Kavanaugh. (Cory Booker and Robert Melendez)
I have Ted Cruz and John Cornyn. Not a lot I can do.
Isn’t Cruz up for re-election?
“How your wife was treated during the primaries is no way how any women should be treated ever. There are a lot of other solid, conservative judges that the president can choose in place of Kavanaugh. Prove that you still have a promeniant voice in The Senate. Stand up to for your morals of equality. How you vote on this is how I and many people I know will vote come November.”
Something like that...
Oh yes, and I will be taking probably sinful amounts of pleasure at voting for Beto against Cruz in November. I'm in one of the most liberal parts of Texas (the south), so it's not lke my voice is going to carry as much weight as a liberal in a conservative area. For instance, Cruz actually came to my small hometown (in central Texas) while I was there in August, I missed him by 2 days. I didn't find out until it was put in the newspaper.
Then, I was at an internship expo for Gov+Nonprofits at my university a couple weeks ago. I couldn't believe it, but there was a station for Ted Cruz's reelection with a couple of peons standing around. I didn't actually go over and look, because I was in a hurry to be in two places at almost the same time. I was just quickly glancing through the ballroom to see who was there and none were really what I was looking for, so I didn't stop to satisfy my curiosity. It was more important for me to go to my student group meeting, with a speaker from a company I really want to work for.
Since it's Saturday and no one is paying attention, it is worth noting that the White House is placing so many restrictions and caveats on this FBI investigation that it is going to make it almost worthless. SPECIFICALLY, the White House counsels office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are "permitted" to interview From NBC News:
Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity. They characterized the White House instructions as a significant constraint on the FBI investigation and caution that such a limited scope, while not unusual in normal circumstances, may make it difficult to pursue additional leads in a case in which a Supreme Court nominee has been accused of sexual assault.
The limited scope seems to be at odds with what some members of the Senate judiciary seemed to expect when they agreed to give the FBI as much as a week to investigate allegations against Kavanaugh, a federal judge who grew up in the Washington DC area and attended an elite all-boys high school before going on to Yale.
.........
White House counsel Don McGahn, who has shepherded Kavanaugh's nomination since President Trump chose him for the high court on July 9, is taking the lead for the White House in dealing with the FBI on the investigation, those involved in the process told NBC News.
.........
Investigators plan to meet with Mark Judge, a high school classmate and friend of Kavanaugh's whom Ford named as a witness and participant to her alleged assault.
But as of now, the FBI cannot ask the supermarket that employed Judge for records verifying when he was employed there, one of the sources was told. Ford said in congressional testimony Thursday that those records would help her narrow the time frame of the alleged incident which she recalls happening some time in the summer of 1982 in Montgomery County, Maryland.
Two sources familiar with the investigation said the FBI will also not be able to examine why Kavanaugh’s account of his drinking at Yale University differs from those of some former classmates, who have said he was known as a heavy drinker. Those details may be pertinent to investigating claims from Ramirez who described an alleged incident of sexual misconduct she said occurred while Kavanaugh was inebriated. Ramirez's lawyer said Saturday that she had been contacted by the FBI and would cooperate.
The conditions under which the FBI's reopened background check are occurring appears to differ from the one envisioned by Flake, who used his leverage as a swing vote to pressure the Trump administration to order the FBI investigation.
Anyone who thought for one second this was going to be above board were fooling themselves. It's already being revealed as a total sham. If they aren't investigating these leads, then what the hell are they investigating?? What possible reason is there for limiting the scope this narrowly unless you are positive that a more BROAD scope would reveal the truth and destroy your candidate?? In particular, the question about the supermarket and Mark Judge is telling, because it is highly specific. Clearly Kavanaugh, McGahn, and Judge already know that a look into his employment records will reveal dates that destroy their concocted narrative, thus the FBI is being forbidden from trying to get them. If everything is as above board as they say it is, what possible harm is there is checking what dates Mark Judge worked at the supermarket?? It's the kind of question that could easily be conducted in a routine background check by any employer (I know because I just went through one). But the FBI can't?? This stinks to high heaven.
Again, employers frequently and freely give dates of employment out to almost anyone who asks if it is in regards to verification of employment for a new job. They will not give out much (if any) other information, but they will absolutely confirm in almost all cases that 1.) whether the person worked there or not and 2.) what the dates of employment were. So the idea that law enforcement couldn't or shouldn't be allowed to access this information is absurd. It is basically public information if you ask the question the right way to any business. Because of an error on my application for my recent job, I had to cold call every employer I had had for the last decade and retrieve this information myself. I had emails from the HR departments of 5 of them within 2 or 3 hours, and the other two I got within 3 days.
The FBI is only allowed to investigate the areas of his reputation that they know he did not commit any crimes.
They won't be able to ask about anything incriminating or possibly incriminating. I don't mean incriminating in the sense that he'd be charged with crimes just in a sense of his behavior and possible crimes that occurred long ago.
In a case that hinges on Kavanaugh’s behavior when drunk, the FBI will not be allowed to ask about his drinking. There is a fixed list of people the FBI is allowed to talk to. The limitations could make it impossible to even determine whether or when Mark Judge worked at a local grocery chain, a critical point in setting a date for the events described by Ford. It would also prevent the FBI from following up on any leads discovered.
What kind of investigative directive is "Go ahead and interview Mark Judge, but don't you dare ask whether he worked at a certain grocery store in 1982"?? Again, there is only ONE reason the White House would be giving this order to the FBI, and that is that they know that it's a door they don't want opened. It may be up to the PUBLIC to find out this information and force it to be confronted.
What I'm finding amazing just from being on social media the last few days is how many women who, for the first time, felt compelled to tell their OWN stories about sexual assault because of this controversy.
I have always despised how the alt-right co-opted the word "triggered" to make it into a pejorative meant to describe easily offended liberals. Because it was done on purpose to mock sexual assault survivors, who do, in fact, have triggers go off in their brain when these subjects come up. I know this first-hand because of my girlfriend who is also a survivor (which I have spoke about vaguely before, and will continue to do so only vaguely). But one time me simply using the word "rape" to describe a scene in a movie caused her to say "why do you have to use that word??" At which point I finally think I got some sense of understanding about how deep this goes. But frankly, I should have figured it out years ago, when another women I had dated who had also been assaulted in the past totally let me have it for not telling her there was a rape scene in "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" (I had read the book and should have known better). Clearly, I myself still have alot of work to do in this regard.
There is a danger in causing emotional distress to victims with such imagery but I think there is a far greater danger in sweeping it under the rug and allowing people to pretend it doesn't really exist.
This sort of thing should make people uncomfortable. Especially those who want to deny women their basic legal and human rights.
Well if the investigation isn't up to Flake's or other Senators standards they still have the option of voting No.
This also could have just been a smoke screen put up by Flake to get the pressure off of his vote knowing full well Trump wouldn't take it seriously. He can now shrug and say 'I still see nothing that doesn't negate his approval, the week is up, the stalling needs to end - we're appointing him," and he doesn't look like a douche that ignored a rape survivors call to action.
We'll see in a week.
~
Oh and tomorrow (Sept 30) is the second self imposed NAFTA deadline for Canada. Time for Congress to start sweating bullets as no deal has been reached and Trump saying he doesn't like Freeland negotiation tactics, which is literally just standing up to him and saying No.
A majority of voters say they won't re-elect senators if they confirm Kavanaugh
A majority of people wouldn’t vote to re-elect their senators if they vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, according to a new Change Research poll.
By the numbers: After the hearings, 51% of people said they are less likely re-elect their senators. And people found Dr. Christine Blasey Ford more believable (50%) and credible (48%) than Kavanaugh (44% for both.) 50% of people said they will view the Supreme Court as less credible if the Senate confirms Kavanaugh.
Also:
White House limits scope of Kavanaugh FBI investigation to sexual assault claims
The White House is limiting the scope of the week-long FBI investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to only the sexual assault claims made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, reports NBC News.
Why it matters: The White House has provided the bureau with a list of witnesses they can interview, and Julie Swetnick, Kavanaugh's third accuser, is not included. The restraints on the investigation may be at odds with what some on the Senate Judiciary Committee expected to be included in the investigation. Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the claims made against him from all three women.
And:
The miscalculation haunting Trump, Kavanaugh
Imagine if Brett Kavanaugh had offered his emotional, tearful, you-ruined-my-life opening speech to the Judiciary Committee — and then called for a quick FBI probe to clear his name and perhaps find the true assailant. He would have looked confident, humble, even a tad heroic, given the president who nominated him opposed the FBI probe.
The big picture: He and Republicans had an epic failure of imagination. They were forced reluctantly and publicly into what should have been a fairly easy-to-anticipate moderate compromise: agree to a vote after a quick FBI probe. Instead of looking hungry for truth, Kavanaugh heads into the week looking fearful of findings.
There's a reason for this miscalculation:
Republicans, from the earliest days of the allegations, were overly confident they could just jam this through, several people involved the process tell us. They thought he would be better defending himself — and that Dr. Ford would seem less credible. Republicans treated this like a bare-knuckles political fight. They calculated a Fox News appearance, a Trump endorsement, a headstrong Mitch McConnell, a fired-up base, a fast vote would hold the party together. In the GOP’s defense, the strategy might have worked had Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) not changed his mind at the very last minute. In an interview posted this morning, Flake tells The Atlantic's McKay Coppins that his dramatic call for further FBI review came because he felt the Senate was "coming apart at the seams":
"I’m a conservative. He’s a conservative. I plan to support him unless they turn up something — and they might."
Jeff Flake: "Our country is coming apart" on Kavanaugh
In an interview with The Atlantic's McKay Coppins, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said his decision to call for a one-week FBI investigation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was motivated by a desire to preserve the credibility of two institutions: the Supreme Court and the Senate.
The big picture: Flake is a conservative who still plans on voting for Kavanaugh if the FBI investigation doesn't turn up any new evidence. But he said that the Supreme Court is "the lone institution where most Americans still have some faith," and that confirming Kavanaugh without an investigation would risk damaging its long-term credibility.
With respect to the Senate, Flake said there is "no market for reaching across the aisle." The Kavanaugh saga has driven an already-divided country deeper into chaos, and the toxic relationship between Democrats and Republicans in Congress is only making things worse.
"Just these last couple of days—the hearing itself, the aftermath of the hearing, watching pundits talk about it on cable TV, seeing the protesters outside, encountering them in the hall. I told Chris [Coons], 'Our country’s coming apart on this—and it can’t.'" — Sen. Jeff Flake
Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassely, R-Iowa, said he wants a criminal review of the actions by the individual.
That's right. Republicans are using the DOJ to investigate a false statement about their candidate. They don't care about the false statements made by their candidate.
See this twitter thread for those at least 9 tweets with facts by Sen Bernie Sanders:
I don't recall ever hearing about any assault from 1985. The article states it went "public", but if that is the case, it must have been well hidden, because I don't think it ever came up in any discussion about this topic.
After looking into it in a cursory Google search, this was apparently the one that was making the rounds on social media for about an hour earlier in the week. Hardly anyone took it seriously and it was never given the level of credence of the other 3. So yeah, go ahead and prosecute the guy if he lied on purpose. I have no problem with that. If he lied he lied, there isn't much excuse for it, and it does nothing but hurt the other credible allegations.
But as for Kavanaugh, let's apply the EXACT same standard. And this article breaks down in GREAT detail just where, when, and how he lied in his testimony, piece by piece. It is overwhelming:
This is a LONG article, but it has to be long because Kavanaugh lied so many times about so many things that there was no way to condense it. No, he has not been convicted of perjury (like that would ever become a possibility as long as the Republicans are in charge of the committee). But we all know the guy was lying his ass off about matters big and small. We know Republicans themselves know this because staffers were literally ALTERING Wikipedia entries to make his lies seem like they had some basis in reality. Believe what you want about the sexual assault allegations, but let's not sit here and pretend that a guy who wants to sit on the highest court on the land wasn't purposefully and willfully lying about nearly every aspect of his younger days while under oath. Because he was. It takes astounding levels of mental gymnastics to claim otherwise.
Also, for a moment of levity in all this, Saturday Night Live absolutely knocked it out of the park last night in their cold-open. It's crazy they put something this spot-on together so quickly:
Comments
You could join the "Part of the solution" forum club!
It doesn't come with a badge or membership card because that would be stupid.
The reward is not being marginalized by an upper-class that wishes to oppress your voice while they gind you into dirt so they may live in pleasure and comfort, supping on the misery of millions.
...And some days we may spring for bagels.
Well, which one is it?
It's not Schrodinger's kiss, existing in a simultaneous kissed/not-kissed state. I have Ted Cruz and John Cornyn. Not a lot I can do.
“How your wife was treated during the primaries is no way how any women should be treated ever. There are a lot of other solid, conservative judges that the president can choose in place of Kavanaugh. Prove that you still have a promeniant voice in The Senate. Stand up to for your morals of equality. How you vote on this is how I and many people I know will vote come November.”
Something like that...
The liberals here should take note however, that I still think Feinstein used Ford as a pawn. All of this should have been started two months ago. I believe the Democrats deliberately delayed things to try to push the timing until after the election. I almost don't blame the Republicans for being angry and that anger may translate into confirming a man who shouldn't probably be on the bench of the SC. If that happens you should reserve at least some of the blame to the Dems for this cynical political power play.
Ah - no. Nothing you said suggests that aphorism is wrong. It's a simple logic statement that spotlights how people see the lack of presented evidence as being an argument for the evidence of absence - and therefore useful in disproving something. A lack of evidence is never dis-positive. However, since the burden of proof is upon the accuser(in a court of law, as we have said a literal hundred times, and which is not the case here), a lack of evidence doesnt advance the case in determining guilt, and isnt useful. It's a common mistake to think that because one side cannot prove an allegation, that the allegation is therefore disproved. It's not.
There is truth to this. I totally agree with the first paragraph, the coverup in this case is at least as bad as the crime. He's clearly lying and covering up things in the past so why can we trust anything he's said about anything? He fails the job interview.
Feinstein used Ford as a pawn? I don't know about that. That's a trickier one.
Feinstein claims she didn't bring it forward because Ford didn't want to deal with this bullcrap. Feinstein claims she didn't leak the ford identity. After the hearing and Ford's testimony that rings true. My speculation is Ford is 100% genuine and maybe she expected others would come forward because the assault she suffered under Kavanaugh was not the sort of thing that happens once. So Ford would have been happy to be the 1st accuser out of 11 others that came forward. That didn't really happen for most of the time she was the only one. Eventually somehow her identity leaked and at that point she reluctantly came forward. How did her identity leak?
Feinstein is 86 or something and certainly no tactical or evil genius - I don't think she plays these type of games. She's one of those Democrats that is like Charlie Brown when Lucy takes away the football - she believes the other side is playing fairly so she plays fairly and the partisans on the other side delight on pulling the rug out again and again.
At any rate, Ford's claims against Kavanaugh clearly predate Feinstein. Ford has documentation going back to at least 2012 and several people have said they remember Ford mentioning this years and years ago. So it's not some great collusion that Diane Feinstein, tactical genius, cooked up or "Revenge of the Clintons!" or whatever. Ford's evidence goes back years.
Maybe Feinstein is some master politician and she's been fooling us for the past 20 years or whatever into complacency on her tactical genius. I kind of doubt it. If she was and that was truly the case, then how is that different than a million things the Republicans have done to rig the game to get to this point lol anyway. Guys like lyin' Ted Cruz and Donald Trump do nothing without it being something they hope they can bludgeon the libs with.
It's about time the democrats colluded to take back Democracy. I mean "fight back" to take back Democracy, amirite. But yeah she doesn't strike me as some kind of tactical genius.
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.
Now, I doubt Republicans can make Professor Ford HERSELF become convinced someone else attacked her, but you can damn sure make a significant portion of the public believe it.
Mention that Gorsuch was grungingly accepted (even if the Democrats voted against him, they didn’t protest this hard against him) and the country at this time is better served by them.
Mention that seats maybe at stake if K gets appointed, and even if their seats are safe, you personally wouldn’t want to see the Sentate fall to the Democrats over this.
There are many ways a person can phrase it to make it sound like Kavanaugh is good, but we can do better, and strive for better.
It's good to focus on concrete action instead of just talk, but let's not assume that talk doesn't play a role. Talk influences votes, and votes determine the makeup of our Congress. It's indirect, but words have an impact on our politics.
Then, I was at an internship expo for Gov+Nonprofits at my university a couple weeks ago. I couldn't believe it, but there was a station for Ted Cruz's reelection with a couple of peons standing around. I didn't actually go over and look, because I was in a hurry to be in two places at almost the same time. I was just quickly glancing through the ballroom to see who was there and none were really what I was looking for, so I didn't stop to satisfy my curiosity. It was more important for me to go to my student group meeting, with a speaker from a company I really want to work for.
Way to put your time and money where you mouth is.
Very proud of each of you.
Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity. They characterized the White House instructions as a significant constraint on the FBI investigation and caution that such a limited scope, while not unusual in normal circumstances, may make it difficult to pursue additional leads in a case in which a Supreme Court nominee has been accused of sexual assault.
The limited scope seems to be at odds with what some members of the Senate judiciary seemed to expect when they agreed to give the FBI as much as a week to investigate allegations against Kavanaugh, a federal judge who grew up in the Washington DC area and attended an elite all-boys high school before going on to Yale.
.........
White House counsel Don McGahn, who has shepherded Kavanaugh's nomination since President Trump chose him for the high court on July 9, is taking the lead for the White House in dealing with the FBI on the investigation, those involved in the process told NBC News.
.........
Investigators plan to meet with Mark Judge, a high school classmate and friend of Kavanaugh's whom Ford named as a witness and participant to her alleged assault.
But as of now, the FBI cannot ask the supermarket that employed Judge for records verifying when he was employed there, one of the sources was told. Ford said in congressional testimony Thursday that those records would help her narrow the time frame of the alleged incident which she recalls happening some time in the summer of 1982 in Montgomery County, Maryland.
Two sources familiar with the investigation said the FBI will also not be able to examine why Kavanaugh’s account of his drinking at Yale University differs from those of some former classmates, who have said he was known as a heavy drinker. Those details may be pertinent to investigating claims from Ramirez who described an alleged incident of sexual misconduct she said occurred while Kavanaugh was inebriated. Ramirez's lawyer said Saturday that she had been contacted by the FBI and would cooperate.
The conditions under which the FBI's reopened background check are occurring appears to differ from the one envisioned by Flake, who used his leverage as a swing vote to pressure the Trump administration to order the FBI investigation.
Anyone who thought for one second this was going to be above board were fooling themselves. It's already being revealed as a total sham. If they aren't investigating these leads, then what the hell are they investigating?? What possible reason is there for limiting the scope this narrowly unless you are positive that a more BROAD scope would reveal the truth and destroy your candidate?? In particular, the question about the supermarket and Mark Judge is telling, because it is highly specific. Clearly Kavanaugh, McGahn, and Judge already know that a look into his employment records will reveal dates that destroy their concocted narrative, thus the FBI is being forbidden from trying to get them. If everything is as above board as they say it is, what possible harm is there is checking what dates Mark Judge worked at the supermarket?? It's the kind of question that could easily be conducted in a routine background check by any employer (I know because I just went through one). But the FBI can't?? This stinks to high heaven.
Again, employers frequently and freely give dates of employment out to almost anyone who asks if it is in regards to verification of employment for a new job. They will not give out much (if any) other information, but they will absolutely confirm in almost all cases that 1.) whether the person worked there or not and 2.) what the dates of employment were. So the idea that law enforcement couldn't or shouldn't be allowed to access this information is absurd. It is basically public information if you ask the question the right way to any business. Because of an error on my application for my recent job, I had to cold call every employer I had had for the last decade and retrieve this information myself. I had emails from the HR departments of 5 of them within 2 or 3 hours, and the other two I got within 3 days.
The FBI is only allowed to investigate the areas of his reputation that they know he did not commit any crimes.
They won't be able to ask about anything incriminating or possibly incriminating. I don't mean incriminating in the sense that he'd be charged with crimes just in a sense of his behavior and possible crimes that occurred long ago.
In a case that hinges on Kavanaugh’s behavior when drunk, the FBI will not be allowed to ask about his drinking. There is a fixed list of people the FBI is allowed to talk to. The limitations could make it impossible to even determine whether or when Mark Judge worked at a local grocery chain, a critical point in setting a date for the events described by Ford. It would also prevent the FBI from following up on any leads discovered.
by Bruce MacKinnon, the editorial cartoonist for the Halifax Chronicle-Herald.
What I'm finding amazing just from being on social media the last few days is how many women who, for the first time, felt compelled to tell their OWN stories about sexual assault because of this controversy.
I have always despised how the alt-right co-opted the word "triggered" to make it into a pejorative meant to describe easily offended liberals. Because it was done on purpose to mock sexual assault survivors, who do, in fact, have triggers go off in their brain when these subjects come up. I know this first-hand because of my girlfriend who is also a survivor (which I have spoke about vaguely before, and will continue to do so only vaguely). But one time me simply using the word "rape" to describe a scene in a movie caused her to say "why do you have to use that word??" At which point I finally think I got some sense of understanding about how deep this goes. But frankly, I should have figured it out years ago, when another women I had dated who had also been assaulted in the past totally let me have it for not telling her there was a rape scene in "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" (I had read the book and should have known better). Clearly, I myself still have alot of work to do in this regard.
This sort of thing should make people uncomfortable. Especially those who want to deny women their basic legal and human rights.
And this, from The Young Turks
How Brett Kavanaugh Lied
How Dr. Christine Blasey Ford told the truth
This also could have just been a smoke screen put up by Flake to get the pressure off of his vote knowing full well Trump wouldn't take it seriously. He can now shrug and say 'I still see nothing that doesn't negate his approval, the week is up, the stalling needs to end - we're appointing him," and he doesn't look like a douche that ignored a rape survivors call to action.
We'll see in a week.
~
Oh and tomorrow (Sept 30) is the second self imposed NAFTA deadline for Canada. Time for Congress to start sweating bullets as no deal has been reached and Trump saying he doesn't like Freeland negotiation tactics, which is literally just standing up to him and saying No.
Lets see how far the US-Mexico deal gets.
This is from Axios:
A majority of voters say they won't re-elect senators if they confirm Kavanaugh
A majority of people wouldn’t vote to re-elect their senators if they vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, according to a new Change Research poll.By the numbers: After the hearings, 51% of people said they are less likely re-elect their senators. And people found Dr. Christine Blasey Ford more believable (50%) and credible (48%) than Kavanaugh (44% for both.) 50% of people said they will view the Supreme Court as less credible if the Senate confirms Kavanaugh.
Also:
White House limits scope of Kavanaugh FBI investigation to sexual assault claims
The White House is limiting the scope of the week-long FBI investigation into Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to only the sexual assault claims made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, reports NBC News.Why it matters: The White House has provided the bureau with a list of witnesses they can interview, and Julie Swetnick, Kavanaugh's third accuser, is not included. The restraints on the investigation may be at odds with what some on the Senate Judiciary Committee expected to be included in the investigation. Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the claims made against him from all three women.
And:
The miscalculation haunting Trump, Kavanaugh
Imagine if Brett Kavanaugh had offered his emotional, tearful, you-ruined-my-life opening speech to the Judiciary Committee — and then called for a quick FBI probe to clear his name and perhaps find the true assailant. He would have looked confident, humble, even a tad heroic, given the president who nominated him opposed the FBI probe.The big picture: He and Republicans had an epic failure of imagination. They were forced reluctantly and publicly into what should have been a fairly easy-to-anticipate moderate compromise: agree to a vote after a quick FBI probe. Instead of looking hungry for truth, Kavanaugh heads into the week looking fearful of findings.
There's a reason for this miscalculation:
Republicans, from the earliest days of the allegations, were overly confident they could just jam this through, several people involved the process tell us.
They thought he would be better defending himself — and that Dr. Ford would seem less credible.
Republicans treated this like a bare-knuckles political fight. They calculated a Fox News appearance, a Trump endorsement, a headstrong Mitch McConnell, a fired-up base, a fast vote would hold the party together.
In the GOP’s defense, the strategy might have worked had Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) not changed his mind at the very last minute.
In an interview posted this morning, Flake tells The Atlantic's McKay Coppins that his dramatic call for further FBI review came because he felt the Senate was "coming apart at the seams":
"I’m a conservative. He’s a conservative. I plan to support him unless they turn up something — and they might."
Jeff Flake: "Our country is coming apart" on Kavanaugh
In an interview with The Atlantic's McKay Coppins, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said his decision to call for a one-week FBI investigation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was motivated by a desire to preserve the credibility of two institutions: the Supreme Court and the Senate.The big picture: Flake is a conservative who still plans on voting for Kavanaugh if the FBI investigation doesn't turn up any new evidence. But he said that the Supreme Court is "the lone institution where most Americans still have some faith," and that confirming Kavanaugh without an investigation would risk damaging its long-term credibility.
With respect to the Senate, Flake said there is "no market for reaching across the aisle." The Kavanaugh saga has driven an already-divided country deeper into chaos, and the toxic relationship between Democrats and Republicans in Congress is only making things worse.
"Just these last couple of days—the hearing itself, the aftermath of the hearing, watching pundits talk about it on cable TV, seeing the protesters outside, encountering them in the hall. I told Chris [Coons], 'Our country’s coming apart on this—and it can’t.'"
— Sen. Jeff Flake
https://www.axios.com/trump-approves-fbi-investigation-in-to-kavanaugh-8f0c1dc4-12fe-48d7-85e3-b7b813e73e73.html
Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassely, R-Iowa, said he wants a criminal review of the actions by the individual.
That's right. Republicans are using the DOJ to investigate a false statement about their candidate. They don't care about the false statements made by their candidate.
See this twitter thread for those at least 9 tweets with facts by Sen Bernie Sanders:
After looking into it in a cursory Google search, this was apparently the one that was making the rounds on social media for about an hour earlier in the week. Hardly anyone took it seriously and it was never given the level of credence of the other 3. So yeah, go ahead and prosecute the guy if he lied on purpose. I have no problem with that. If he lied he lied, there isn't much excuse for it, and it does nothing but hurt the other credible allegations.
But as for Kavanaugh, let's apply the EXACT same standard. And this article breaks down in GREAT detail just where, when, and how he lied in his testimony, piece by piece. It is overwhelming:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
This is a LONG article, but it has to be long because Kavanaugh lied so many times about so many things that there was no way to condense it. No, he has not been convicted of perjury (like that would ever become a possibility as long as the Republicans are in charge of the committee). But we all know the guy was lying his ass off about matters big and small. We know Republicans themselves know this because staffers were literally ALTERING Wikipedia entries to make his lies seem like they had some basis in reality. Believe what you want about the sexual assault allegations, but let's not sit here and pretend that a guy who wants to sit on the highest court on the land wasn't purposefully and willfully lying about nearly every aspect of his younger days while under oath. Because he was. It takes astounding levels of mental gymnastics to claim otherwise.