[Newfie]

Why are we all so distracted by this, why is it so hard to see the real issues?

The main problem is the retreat into tribalisim. I support the idea that we move away from extream globalism, but then we go too far and pull back past nationalism into tribalisim.

So it’s all very funny in a way that our pols are so terribly inconsistent.

It would be better for us to act like adults instead of picking sides in a street fight.

We should be writing to our senators demanding a return to 60 vote confirmation. I’d go further, put a 60 day limitation on the process then vote up or down. If after 3 try’s we still don’t have a Judge then it goes to a lottery from all sitting federal circuit judges with more than 5 years experience and under 65. The “winner” gets 10 days to accept or another lottery is drawn until we have a new judge.

The point being ...... the PROCESS has been politicized.

[jedrider]

But Clinton was a rapist, just like you.

My wife would say that's an 'improvement'.

[Newfie]

OK, time for deep breathing and 15 minutes of self reflection.

[Plantagenet]

Personally, I'm starting to like Kavanaugh. When a nutty woman makes an accusation that he made out with her in high school, he denies it. When more nutty women makes another accusation he denies those too. When the Ds turn his SCOTUS confirmation hearings into a circus based on these unfounded, scurrilous accusations he gets mad at them. He could have been cowed and intimidated, but he stood up to the Ds and told them off.

That was great. I LIKE that he did that.

And now the FBI is investigating him and so far two of the accusers have recanted, perhaps out of fear of going to jail for lying to the FBI. Since the FBI investigation began it has come out that Kavanaugh drank beer with hid buddies in College, and once was in a bar fight. Wow... Thats all good, IMHO.

I LIKE that he did that even more.

Who the heck wants a guy judging everyone else who never drank beer with his buddies in college, never got in a fight, and never made out with a girl in High School.

Kavanaugh may be a genius who writes incredible legal opinions and taught at Harvard and pushed all the buttons to be qualified for the SCOTUS, but he's also a normal guy who drinks beer.

I LIKE that.

Cheers!

[jedrider]

Why are we all so distracted by this, why is it so hard to see the real issues?

The main problem is the retreat into tribalisim. I support the idea that we move away from extream globalism, but then we go too far and pull back past nationalism into tribalisim.

So it’s all very funny in a way that our pols are so terribly inconsistent.

It would be better for us to act like adults instead of picking sides in a street fight.

We should be writing to our senators demanding a return to 60 vote confirmation. I’d go further, put a 60 day limitation on the process then vote up or down. If after 3 try’s we still don’t have a Judge then it goes to a lottery from all sitting federal circuit judges with more than 5 years experience and under 65. The “winner” gets 10 days to accept or another lottery is drawn until we have a new judge.

The point being ...... the PROCESS has been politicized.

Well, when one chooses a TRIBAL candidate for the judgeship, that is exactly what one would expect the results to be:

Kavanaugh is radically conservative. Here’s the data to prove it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/07/10/kavanaugh-is-radically-conservative-heres-the-data-to-prove-it/?utm_term=.8c67d8283641

[Plantagenet]

a TRIBAL candidate for the judgeship...

The Ds have only themselves to blame.

The Ds got rid of the rule that required a 60 vote majority in the Senate to confirm federal judges so they could put TRIBAL Ds on the federal court.

The Ds lacked the imagination to foresee that the Rs would use the same rule to put TRIBAL Rs on the federal court.

What goes around, comes around.

Cheers!

[jedrider]

History of the Nuclear Option
url]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-option-why-trumps-supreme-court-pick-needs-only-51-votes-in-the-senate/[/url]

I'll give my partisan opinion about the nuclear option: Even if the Democrats didn't start this nuclear arms race, I think the Republicans would have picked up on it all by their little selves. Just an opinion, though. J.F.Kennedy, a Democrat, is credited with jump-starting the nuclear arm's race in the 60's.

[Newfie]

Who started it matters not, short sighted partisan bickering.

How to END it is the interesting and difficult question occupying the minds of adults.

[vtsnowedin]

Who started it matters not, short sighted partisan bickering.

How to END it is the interesting and difficult question occupying the minds of adults.

The only probable solution is for one side or the other to get solid majorities in both houses and the Oval office. Then the minority won't be able to use stalling tactics and will have to content themselves with bringing forth positions that have such public support that the majority party can't ignore the issue.

[Plantagenet]

FORD just got caught in another lie.

When she testified she claimed that she had a second door installed in her house because she was terrified at being caught in her house.

But it turns out the second door was installed to connect with a self-contained living area, which the Fords rent out. Rents are EXTREMELY high in Palo Alto, and the FORDS make a mint from renting an apartment in their house.

So her story about the second door just went Ka-BOOM!

But there's more.

Even weirder, the other person living in their house in 2012 during the time when they supposedly went for marriage counseling and Ford "recovered" the memory of Kavanaugh touching her boobie is.......a couples therapist.

Sooooooo..............rather then a second door installed because of trauma and terror, the second door was installed to make an apartment for renting out.

Annnnnnddddd.......the so-called marriage counseling in 2012 may well have been the Fords chatting with their tenant, in between collecting rent checks.

Wow!

So if her claim that she was so traumatized she couldn't fly is a lie, and her claim she was so traumatized she had to have two doors is a lie, then where is the evidence of a trauma? Maybe all the lying is the evidence? I don't know but when you look into it, just about everything this woman said that can be checked out is a lie.

Weirder and weirder.

more-holes-appear-records-raise-questions-about-fords-double-door-story

Cheers!

[dunewalker]

Can anyone find evidence to refute this claim?

https://michaelsavage.com/is-dr-ford-de ... ed-to-cia/

[Cog]

Ford's testimony that she had never coached or helped anyone to pass a polygraph might turn out to be not entirely truthful, to put it mildly. Unless someone beats me to the story, I'll post the details when I can get to a pc.

[mmasters]

Dr. Ford’s decade-long boyfriend speaks under penalty of perjury

‪- Ford never mentioned sexual assault ‬
‪- Ford never mentioned Kavanaugh‬
‪- Ford not scared of confined spaces‬
‪- Ford not scared of flying‬
‪- Ford knew how to beat polygraph‬
‪- Ford cheated on him
- Ford committed fraud ‬

This could be a game changer.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbauma ... d-n2524939

[Cog]

You will notice that Grassley did not redact the name of the person whom it is alleged Ford helped with the polygrsph. On Fbi polygraphs they will ask if you have had any help with counter measures or any help at all in preparation in taking one. Nothing illegal about that but there will be a record of how she answered that question.

Grassley had the prosecutor ask those specific questions of Ford because they already knew the answers.

If Ford coached anyone at all on taking a polygraph, she lied under oath.

Grassley continued to ask of Ford's lawyers that they provide a copy of her therapy notes and videotape of her own polygraph. The lawyers continue to refuse those requests. Wonder why?

[Newfie]

Dr. Ford’s decade-long boyfriend speaks under penalty of perjury

‪- Ford never mentioned sexual assault ‬
‪- Ford never mentioned Kavanaugh‬
‪- Ford not scared of confined spaces‬
‪- Ford not scared of flying‬
‪- Ford knew how to beat polygraph‬
‪- Ford cheated on him
- Ford committed fraud ‬

This could be a game changer.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbauma ... d-n2524939

Only if he comes forward and is interviewed by the FBI and found credible.

Otherwise this is just hearsay and means nothing.

[Cog]

Actually he gave a sworn statement to the senate judiciary committe. That carries the same perjury penalty as lying to a fbi agent. As the Rhode Island boat rape accuser found out.

Oh and this gets better. Ford was questioned where she wrote the letter that ended up with Feinstein. I'm sure by pure coincidence it's the same city in Delaware that her friend lives in that she helped pass the polygraph many years ago. Her friend who would go on to be a career FBI agent. And one of Ford's lawyers is also the defense attorney of now disgraced Assistant FBI director Andrew McCabe.

[Tanada]

Dr. Ford’s decade-long boyfriend speaks under penalty of perjury

‪- Ford never mentioned sexual assault ‬
‪- Ford never mentioned Kavanaugh‬
‪- Ford not scared of confined spaces‬
‪- Ford not scared of flying‬
‪- Ford knew how to beat polygraph‬
‪- Ford cheated on him
- Ford committed fraud ‬

This could be a game changer.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbauma ... d-n2524939

Only if he comes forward and is interviewed by the FBI and found credible.

Otherwise this is just hearsay and means nothing.

If he actually gave sworn testimony (I am unclear on the details) then it is a disputed eyewitness account, not hearsay. Legally hearsay is when you repeat something you were told someone else witnessed instead of witnessing directly yourself. If his account is sworn testimony and is directly related to her credibility as a witness by disputing claims she made under oath that he observed were not true from his own recollection it becomes he said/she said. No love by me for this kind of thing, but it rather reinforces the problem with these kind of conflicting accounts by different witnesses of the same events.

Every human is the star of their own memory story and this warps our perceptions of the objective series of events that take place.

If I say something offhand to another person who is a new acquaintance and they take it as a grievous insult rather than an offhand comment made with little thought causing them to remain emotionally distant. If on the other hand the person I said it to is a friend they process the offhand comment as not sounding like what they expect me to say and they ask (or demand) clarification because in their memory story they are a good person who doesn't cast off friends lightly and they do not expect insults from friends.

This filtering process causes people in a series of categories (close family, distant family, friends, acquaintances, strangers who come from my social strata, strangers who come from other social strata) to have their words and acts strongly colored by their category in the mind of the observer. When I hear a politician say anything I place the statement into categories (I think that would be good/bad) and (I expect they will try and accomplish this vs I think they are just saying what they think I want to hear). This gives a four part matrix,

If a politician says a lot of things I believe would be bad and I think they will actually try and accomplish those things I get upset.

If a politician says a lot of things I think would be good but I think they are just bloviating to win my approval I dislike it greatly, but I don't expect much to change.

If a politician says a lot of things I think would be bad but I also think they are bloviating for the attraction of voters who support those ideas I also dislike that, but I don't expect much to change.

If a politician says a lot of things I think would be good and I think they will try and accomplish that list of things then I am very happy. This is sadly a rare occurrence when it comes to political speech.

So in one of four cases I am upset, in one of four cases I am happy, and in two of four cases I am unimpressed because it doesn't really mean anything.

In both the cases where I am strongly effected there is something in common, I believe the person making the speech is actually going to make an effort to do what they say rather than simply paying lip service.

Based on my own reactions and my observations of my fellow Americans the reason the country has such an intense reaction to President trump is most of us believe he is actually trying to accomplish what he claims are his goals. If you passionately disagree with a politicians speech but you think they are ineffective it is just a minor annoyance. On the other hand if they are effective, like say being a Billionaire businessman with both fame and fortune, and they say things you passionately disagree with you are scared on a deep emotional level and take everything they say or do through that filter in the worst possible way.

In this fashion Judge Kavenaugh, a basically boring jurist with a basically boring life record is transformed into the Ultimate Right Wing Extremist Choice To Destroy All Good Things In America.

You can then proceed to twist yourself into all sorts of bizarre pretzel logic of reasons you can morally oppose this appointment without just coming out and stating you don't want the change he will bring to the court. You do this because you know legally and constitutionally he is no worse than and likely better than many of the men and women who have held or are holding seats on the court at all levels today. So you scour and scrub and dig trying to find something, anything, to hang your opposition on. The problem with a candidate like Kavenaugh who has already had 6 FBI background checks AND is a sitting federal judge is any real opposable issues were already discovered, displayed and used earlier in his legal career.

[Newfie]

Tanada,

In this case Fox has a letter (sender redacted) from a guy who wants to remain anonymous.

Since we are hearing it from Fox I think it counts a hearsay.

On the rest I pretty much agree.

But I do whimsy we could keep our eye on the disease, not the symptom. All the catterwalling in the world will not stop this partisan nonsense.

The Senate needs to return to the 60 vote rule. And develop some decorum.

What we have now is a coliseum.

Trump’s approval ratings are widely quoted.

Anyone know what the Senate and House approval ratings are right now?

[Cog]

Thank you Tanada. A brilliant post on how we got here and where we are at.

I've never hid the fact on this board that I'm a conservative, some would say an extreme one. But from reading Kavanaugh's judicial record, his rulings put him only slightly right of Justice Kennedy who he is replacing. I would have chosen Amy Barrett.

But we are in a time where one side of the political persuasion, that which I refer to as the left, can not win at the ballot box, but want the judiciary to give them power as an alternate path.

@newfie it's not hearsay if the ex boyfriend is making a sworn statement on things he himself obseved. Look of the definition of hearsay in a legal setting. It's direct testimony on penalty of perjury no different than Ford's or Kavanaugh's testimony.

Hearsay would be if you were testifying about what someone else said not what you your self observed to happen. How many of the alleged witnesses to Ford's alleged attacks have said in sworn statements that it happened? The answer is zero.

[Newfie]

Unless there is a further development from the link above:

It is not a “sworn statement” it’s a letter to Fox.
CORRECTION: here is the quote from Fox
“In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend ”
It’s not clear to me what a “declaration” is or to whole it was directed.

At this moment he is not reporting it, Fox is. So we are not hearing it from the accused but second/third hand, from Fox, this hearsay.

If he comes forward and meets with the FBI and is seen as credible, then all things are very different.

And just like the Kavanaugh accusers, he should put up or shut up.

Just trying to hold a consistent and fair criteria for all.

BTW, how the heck does he expect to remain anonymous? Surely 10’s if folks know who he is.