Press "Enter" to skip to content

Graham Incorrectly Compares Sotomayor and Kagan to Kavanaugh

My commenters are just bursting for a Kavanaugh post. Fine.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) got all mad yesterday over the fact that a woman would dare step forward into the public spotlight to testify that Donald Trump’s second nominee for the Supreme Court committed a crime against her when they were in high school. Graham accepted Kavanaugh’s angry pushback, a partisan diatribe beneath the dignity of the Supreme Court, at face value.

Senator Graham’s angry hearing remarks included this line:

When you see [Justices] Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them that Lindsey said hello to them because I voted for them. I would never do to them what you’ve done to this guy! [Sen. Lindsey Graham, in David A. Graham, “Lindsey Graham’s Furious Defense of Brett Kavanaugh,” The Atlantic, 2018.09.27]

The obvious difference: Sofia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan never sexually assaulted anyone. Senator Graham and the nation just heard immensely credible testimony that Brett Kavanaugh did:

In my 30 years as a prosecutor and lawyer, I have never seen a more credible witness than professor Ford. It’s not simply that the key details of her account hung together and that she provided the types of rich particulars that truthful witnesses provide, such as the second front door she insisted on in her home out of residual fear from the attack. Or that her account was supported by pre-nominaton statements from third parties (such as her therapist) and her own polygraph. Or that it comports with the key documentary evidence we do have.

It was, in a word, Ford’s demeanor.

…Ford was clear-eyed and aiming to please in response to questions from all sides. She was fully human and seemingly ingenuous. She was not angry or overwrought. She was nervous — “terrified” in her words — but determined. She was moved to the point of tears, and at times beyond, when senators offered testaments to her courage. (Just that detail, the near tears, was breathtakingly genuine.) She was, more than anything, completely resolute on the key detail that her attacker was Judge Kavanaugh [Harry Litman, “Christine Blasey Ford Testimony Was Bloodbath for Brett Kavanaugh, Trump and Republicans,” USA Today, 2018.09.27].

Senator John Thune says we didn’t learn anything yesterday that we didn’t already know, and Dr. Ford’s testimony did not change his opinion of Brett Kavanaugh.

Senate Judiciary votes this morning.

304 Comments

  1. Buckobear 2018-09-28 06:37

    Senator Thune (T-SD) hasn’t learned anything in years. Why should he start now ?

  2. Donald Pay 2018-09-28 06:44

    It should be over for Kavanaugh, a real creep. Trying to turn himself into the victim is a tactic sexual predators use when the get caught. His demeanor was anything but judicial. Trump, Roy Moore, Kavanaugh: all sex deviants. Is this the Republican Party?

  3. David Newquist 2018-09-28 07:28

    A major objective of hearings on supreme court nominees is to weed out those who might apply partisan intentions to cases. The GOP refused to release the complete records of the partisan vendettas Kavanaugh undertook in his work in the White House, although on the few questions posed to him about his political motives on the basis of what records were available, he dissembled. That’s a nice word for lie. But while the press was impressed by his hysterical performance yesterday in the mode of Trumpist “fighting back,” few gave full attention to his claims about the left wing conspiracy, Clinton revenge, etc. And the hysterical tantrum showed the quality of hid judicial temperament.
    The only reporter who accurately noted the import of his performance was NPR’s Nina Totenberg. She wondered if he is appointed if he would recuse hlmself in any cases involving Democrats.

    A partisan ideological death camp is exactly what the GOP wants the Supreme Court to be, manned by little Eichmanns .

  4. mike from iowa 2018-09-28 07:29

    Marlboro Barbie is lying through his hat. Judiciary committee members stated yesterday morning they had evidence that the assault did occur and two unnamed men took credit for it. They would not release the men’s names or any other details except they had taken testimony for three days.

    It is amazing how soon wingnuts forget the shoddy treatment of Garland and Obama then to have Drumpf comment that Obama was lazy or indifferent about appointing judges is just the icing on this cluster.

  5. Dana P 2018-09-28 09:10

    Mr Graham’s performance art yesterday was ridiculous. To call things a “sham” when they blocked the Merrick Garland nomination for a year? WOW

  6. Francis Schaffer 2018-09-28 09:23

    I watched much of the testimony yesterday, too much actually. I know it also was a difficult day for myself and my friends who are also survivors of childhood sexual abuse. I do believe we learned that Judge Kavanaugh likes beer. I was not sure how that helped, but he sure said it often at one point. I thought Christine Blasey Ford was very credible and did an incredible job under unimaginable pressure. I believed her. I do not believe Judge Kavanaugh was entirely truthful. I am not sure what else to say. I know he will be seated on the Supreme Court purely along political lines. I don’t think this will help dialogue to solve other problems we face as a nation. Maybe we are no longer a nation.

  7. o 2018-09-28 09:59

    Dana, blocking Garland was only the first shot the GOP fired. Remember that GOP Senators also said they would not confirm ANY Clinton nominee (when she was the obvious frontrunner for the presidency).

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/whats-the-opposite-of-court-packing/506081/

    We need to get straight the line between partisan blocking and finding fault with a nominee. David’s point is VERY well taken that the sexual assault is not the only objection to this nominee who has lied under oath to Congress in recent and past testimony, worked in a partisan capacity for the executive branch in the past, and represents a view that the President is above the law (a view shared by President Trump himself). All of those are disqualifying regardless of party affiliation.

  8. Jenny 2018-09-28 10:01

    Very strange embarrassing performance by Senator Graham, it was painful to watch. He wants Session’s Attorney General job so bad it hurts. The whole display yesterday shows very clear things haven’t changed inWashington since Anita Hill and this is why women never want to come forward.

  9. jerry 2018-09-28 10:27

    Graham is compromised by the Russian Putin machine. Remember, he was a “Never trumper” and now, he is a prostitute for Putin/trump. So then, here we are as divided as we once were in 1860. We have not done anything to protect our vote and we all know what happened in 2000 as well as more recently when votes are disregarded.

    Where will Fort Sumter be?

  10. OldSarg 2018-09-28 10:37

    Flake just announced the will vote to confirm Kavanagh so it looks like it is all over but the crying come Monday. This is sad that the democrats put so much work into their underhanded scheme for nothing! It’s almost as if there is some sort of higher power watching over the vents thwarting all the nefarious work the democrats have done. Just unfair, I say! Unfair!

    Shall I say “WINNING”?

  11. T 2018-09-28 11:46

    Cory booker is spot on

  12. Jenny 2018-09-28 12:00

    You know, the Dakota War Toilet is where more of your Trump people would be, Snap.

  13. o 2018-09-28 12:12

    OldSarge, is that the same “higher power” that put President Obama in the White House for two terms and passed the Affordable Care Act?

  14. jerry 2018-09-28 12:22

    When we need a fair system, we get corruption at a grand scale. The good news for me is that I am not gonna see the end game that my children and their’s will see. I wish it differently, but that is death and the death of our world.

    “Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century.

    A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.” Washington Post 09/28/2018

    Instead of putting resources into saving the place, RINO’s/conservatives will be putting those resources in their greedy pockets.

    Conservatism is dead folks. Yesterday, the flatulence from the dead body was wafting from the entire swamp.

  15. Kurt Evans 2018-09-28 12:48

    Prior to yesterday’s testimony I was extremely suspicious of Judge Kavanaugh’s unequivocal blanket denials, but Ford didn’t impress me as credible at all. She seemed to be heavily medicated or suffering from some kind of early-onset dementia, or maybe both.

    Ford reminded me of Terry LaFleur, who incidentally lied about me in federal court yesterday. The fact that these people really believe their own accusations doesn’t prove any substantial overlap between those accusations and reality.

  16. leslie 2018-09-28 12:48

    Don, yes it is, but more so lying to achieve power, a goal, a “value”, a belief, an entitlement. A frailty of human spirit. Trump electors have unleashed deplorable voting power of the electorate. Clarence Thomas unleashed the power of the political deplorable vote. Militia and the KKK/Nazi/alt-right deplorable vote is next. Mitch McConnell and every Republican voter are in bed together. Corruption serves power and the GOP have seized it as a life preserver. If liberals can beat back these cronies who have for a lifetime bullied to the top perhaps there is hope. It starts with electing Billie, Randy, Tim and the Fredricksons.

  17. Darin Larson 2018-09-28 12:59

    How can Republicans say they believe both witnesses, but they believe Judge Kavanaugh is telling the truth and Dr. Ford is mistaken? That is not believing both witnesses. Republicans have once again chosen to believe a man and disbelieve a woman. This was so even though believing Dr. Ford’s version means she had one beer and we know Kavanaugh frequently drank to excess. Who is more likely to correctly remember these events, a sober woman who was attacked or a drunken man who laughs off his sexual assault with his friend as if it is no big deal? It’s no wonder he doesn’t remember it. To him, it was nothing. To her, it was everything. That is why she remembers the attack so vividly 36 years later.

    Even if Dr. Ford’s testimony in comparison to Judge Kavanaugh does not sway you to her version of events, how can anyone from a nonpartisan viewpoint conclude that these allegations deserve only a cursory investigation by a partisan Republican congressional staff? If Trump was on the other side of this thing, he would already be coining terms for the Republicans investigating their own nominee. (“The Dirty Dozen” for the 11 Republicans and their staff.) What do Republicans fear will happen if they take a week or ten day delay for the FBI to do an independent investigation? Why won’t they insist on getting Mark Judge under oath with a chance to examine him on his statements and alleged conduct with his friend, Brett Kavanaugh?

    If Republicans really believed Dr. Ford, they would not stand in the way of an independent and thorough investigation. The optics of a key witness, Mark Judge, being 2.5 hours away and not being subpoenaed to testify before the committee is terrible if the truth is your true objective. Republicans deliberately limited the scope of this investigation and made it her word against his word. Then, they chose to believe him.

    Kavanaugh showed his true colors in the hearing yesterday. He is a bitter partisan who once insisted as part of the staff of Kenneth Starr’s White Water investigation that Bill Clinton be asked in minute, intimately detail about his sex life. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, acted put out that Senators would dare question him about his yearbook entries contemporaneous with the time of the alleged sexual assault that alluded to his drinking and possible exploitation of women.

    Kavanaugh is obviously a smart man with an ability to grasp complex legal concepts, but his twisting of the facts that we did know about in limited committee investigation and from media reports was telling about his ability to throw away the truth when it suited him. For instance, he kept saying that 4 witnesses had refuted Dr. Ford’s account. But he is way too smart to make an incorrect pronouncement like that unless it was intentional. In fact, the other witnesses did not claim that the incident never happened. They claimed that they did not remember the incident. But Dr. Ford’s account clearly stated that Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were the only ones who would have known about the incident. They were the only ones in the room. The other two witnesses that Kavanaugh claims refute Dr. Ford’s account were downstairs and had no reason to know of the incident which was alleged to have taken place upstairs. The only other direct witness according to Dr. Ford’s testimony was Mark Judge who was a known heavy drinker and, at some point, alcoholic. Even though evaluating Mr. Judge’s credibility and testimony would have been key to a thorough investigation, the only evidence solicited by the Senate Republicans was a statement by Judge’s attorney with blanket statements that he was unaware of the incident. Thus, Kavanaugh’s claim that there were 4 witnesses refuting Dr. Ford’s allegations was a bald-faced lie. He knew better than this. A statement like this in his courtroom would have been stricken and it reveals that Kavanaugh is either lying or self-deluded. Why would an innocent man need to falsely bolster his own testimony?

    I really don’t understand the Republican political strategy here other than to feed red meat to their base while distancing themselves further from women voters. Even if the FBI investigation raised significant questions about Kavanaugh so that the nomination had to be withdrawn and even if the Democrats take back the Senate, Trump still has ample time to nominate and confirm another conservative justice by a lame-duck session of Congress. Lindsey Graham’s angry tirade complaining of Democratic partisanship was a case of “me thinks he doth protest too much.” The naked partisanship of trying to ram this nomination through without a proper independent investigation in the fastest way possible was on full display.

  18. OldSarg 2018-09-28 13:01

    jerry, help me out here “the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees by the end of this century” that is the quote but even if the increase was only 1 degree how would someone slow it down or stop it? Seriously, the only suggestion I keep hearing is a carbon tax.

  19. jerry 2018-09-28 13:03

    Flake just announced he wants a delay in the floor vote pending investigations. Women in America just got some relief.

  20. mike from iowa 2018-09-28 13:08

    Kavanaugh’s own calendar showed he was with the two guys Dr Ford named as being with Kavanaugh at the party.

    Wingnuts still refuse to issue a subpoena for Judge to testify. What are they afraid of, the truth?

  21. OldSarg 2018-09-28 13:10

    Darin, that is a long post. “How can Republicans say they believe both witnesses, but they believe Judge Kavanagh is telling the truth and Dr. Ford is mistaken? ” because; Ford’s story was believable, as was Kavanagh’s, but there was no evidence proving a link between Ford’s story and Kavanagh. Ford made an accusation, the senate interviewed all of her witnesses under oath and not a one of them confirmed her version of the story. Kavanagh said he did not commit such an act at all. When there is no factual evidence, just an accusation that cannot be proven how can you convict a person? Could you imagine if our courts worked like that?

    Don’t you think it is far more likely Ms Ford believes something happened to her but she is mistaken on the who? I mean she can’t remember when or even where it happened how on earth would she remember it was that specific person. Remember, she also said she couldn’t fly out because of fear of flying but it turns out she flies around surfing around the world. She said the polygraph took and extensive amount of time but the man giving the test said he only asked two questions. . .Maybe she is a little too deep in the surf culture and has been smoking the preverbal ganja.

  22. mike from iowa 2018-09-28 13:12

    The ABA wants an FBI investigation. Even Alan Dershowitz has called for the FBI.

    Jeff Flake got mobbed by women who were unhappy with his saying he would vote for another Drumpian swamp critter.

  23. Porter Lansing 2018-09-28 13:15

    Kurt Evans … Do you have any professional credibility to conclude that Dr. Ford has early onset or was medicated? I didn’t think so. I’d conclude your statement comes from your inner distaste and dislike of powerful women and the same opinion of women’s rights. There’s no reason to bring up your legal history in this regard, is there?

  24. Kurt Evans 2018-09-28 13:21

    Porter Lansing writes:

    There’s no reason to bring up your legal history in this regard, is there?

    It’s probably relevant, Porter. The young woman who falsely accused me of stalking her in 2003 also teared up on the witness stand, so I know from firsthand experience that mere emotion doesn’t prove an accusation is true.

  25. Porter Lansing 2018-09-28 13:21

    Psychologists use the term CRY-BULLY. Someone who uses the perceived righteousness of a social justice cause as a pretext to abuse others, and then plays the victim when confronted about that abuse.
    – Bullies turn into antisocial adults, and are far more likely than non aggressive kids to commit crimes, batter their wives, abuse their children—and produce another generation of bullies.
    – Old Sarge is a classic CRY-BULLY.
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/199509/big-bad-bully

  26. Kurt Evans 2018-09-28 13:23

    Porter Lansing writes:

    Psychologists use the term CRY-BULLY. Someone who uses the perceived righteousness of a social justice cause as a pretext to abuse others, and then plays the victim when confronted about that abuse.

    You’ve just described yourself, Porter.

  27. Darin Larson 2018-09-28 13:24

    OS, you say “there was no evidence proving a link between Ford’s story and Kavanagh.” So, you, like the Republicans, don’t actually believe Dr. Ford! How can you call her testimony “no evidence.” Under your rationale, if a woman is assaulted behind closed doors, her testimony is no evidence proving her alleged attack!

    Moreover, your statement that there is no evidence belies the existence of evidence that the Republican Senators refused to pursue. How can you move forward without a proper examination of the other witnesses like Mark Judge and the kids that were alleged to have been at the gathering downstairs?

  28. mike from iowa 2018-09-28 13:30

    There are 11 wingnuts and 10 superb Dems on the Sinate Judiciary Com. 11 Wingnuts voted to send Kavanaugh to the Sinate for a full vote.

    Sinator Flake made his yes vote conditional, if there is a substantial FBI investigation and it clears Drumpf 111, he will vote for him. If not, he gets a no vote from Flake.

    Even Fake Noize claimed Ford was a credible witness. I would worry about Ford’s memory had she run around claiming to have the best memory in the world and then can’t remember nothing-like Drumpf.

  29. Darin Larson 2018-09-28 13:32

    OS states: “I mean she can’t remember when or even where it happened how on earth would she remember it was that specific person.”

    OS, your ignorance in the realm of sexual assault is telling. You are a man who understands nothing about this kind of trauma and likely has never worried a moment about this happening to you. Your suggestion that the exact time and place are as important in the mind of a victim as the identity of the attacker is astounding. Your mindset is exactly why women are reluctant to come forward.

  30. mike from iowa 2018-09-28 13:35

    Imagine, Chris Wallace from Fake Noize ( I have so little use for this guy. If only he had half the cojones his Dad had) said he just recently found out his daughters were assaulted in High School and never told anyone.

  31. Porter Lansing 2018-09-28 13:36

    Kurt Evans writes … never mind. It’s foolish to reiterate something that’s written down on the same page. Were you exonerated in the trial, Mr. Evans? Where can we see the judges ruling?

  32. Porter Lansing 2018-09-28 13:38

    PS … Kurt. It was the bully Cavanaugh who started crying. Cavanaugh exudes CRY-BULLY characteristics.

  33. bearcreekbat 2018-09-28 14:10

    Lindsey Graham erroneously has stated that since Ford has not identified a specific date or specific location of the offense that Kavanaugh cannot be convicted of the offense. This is not the law in the federal system where Graham has his experience, hence Graham is dissembling or has forgotten what the law is. There may be a different rule in Maryland, but I have seen no evidence of a different rule.

    In the federal system someone may be convicted of a sexual offense so long as the proof indicates the offense was committed before the expiration of the statute of limitations and before the date of the indictment charging the offense. There is no requirement for any specific date and convictions have been upheld where an indictment alleges an unlawful sexual act occuring “on or about between some particular date (e.g. January 15, 2005) and the date of the indictment (e.g. January 15, 2018). Often the time period is narrowed to within a 4 or 5 year period, but it would be very rare for an indictment to allege a specific date for the alleged sexual offense since that might tie the hands of a prosecutor and open the door for an alibi defense.

    Likewise, there is no requirement that the prosecution allege or prove any specific location so long as it is alleged and proved the offense was committed within the geographical jurisdictional boundaries of the court. Again, it would be rare for an indictment to allege a specific location for an offense since such an allegation is unnecessary for conviction.

    In Ford’s case, the alleged sexual assault is said to have taken place within the geographical jurisdiction of Maryland courts, and within the statute of limitations. Hence Graham’s complaint about a lack of date and place defense makes little sense and is evidence of either an ulterior motive or a lack of understanding by the former prosecutor and judge.

  34. mike from iowa 2018-09-28 14:11

    Easy, Darin. OldS will start blubbering about being the victim in this whole kavanaugh debacle.

  35. Porter Lansing 2018-09-28 14:16

    My personal “Word Of The Day” comes to me from Prof. Newquist. It’s [dissembling] … and that’s no lie.

  36. bearcreekbat 2018-09-28 14:30

    One other point. It should be clear to anyone who has been paying attention that the pro-Kavanaugh republicans could care less about Kavanaugh’s reputation or whether he suffered any harm from the allegations against him. Likewise, they could care less if Ford was attacked by Kavanaugh. Their concern goes entirely to another matter.

    First, they fear that democrats will control the Senate after the mid-terms. A delay in Kavanaugh’s case could just as easily be followed by a delay in the next nominee if Kavanaugh is disqualified. The danger of these delays creates an outside possibility that they will be unable to obtain a confirmation for Kennedy’s slot before the next Senate is seated.

    They also worry that if these potential circumstances come to pass that a new Senate democratic majority might well adopt the republican Garland strategy (and threatened Clinton strategy) and refuse to confirm any right wing conservative nominated by Trump. After all, just as McConnell argued about the filibuster rule, republicans likely recognize that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    So the reality is, Senate republicans and Trump are will to put a conservative criminally culpable sex abuser on the SCOTUS for life, rather than risk a possible democratic appointment after the 2020 elections. It seems amazing what one group of politicians will do for power and how they, in their own minds, can rationalize such behavior as being good for our Country. Yet the Trump support (and other republican support) of Roy Moore even after credible child molestation allegations surfaced certainly is consistent with such a strategy.

  37. OldSarg 2018-09-28 14:32

    Guys, she couldn’t find a single person to confirm her memory she charged a man with 36 years late. She never filed a single charge or notified anyone until 2016. No republican said they did not believe something happened to her and I agree something may have happened to her but even the people she said were witnesses said they had no memory of anything like that ever happening so what other conclusion can you draw?

    Should we hang someone for having a memory of something that no one else can remember? What you are all calling for is no more than the southern white girl claiming the Black man raped her and hanging the Black man for it. No proof needed, just a tree.

    mike from iwacko~ don’t worry about our memory. We thought you were stupid the first time you posted and we think the same today. No memory loss there. . .

  38. mike from iowa 2018-09-28 14:43

    Kavanaugh’s calendars coincided with Ms Ford’s memory of the date and the two men she said were with Kavanaugh at that party. His calendar showed him to be with both people and a few others that day.

    Kavanaugh’s bigger problem with normal human beings is his perjury in his hearings before Senators, he lied over and over under oath about happenings in the Whitewater investigation and wingnuts did nothing about it, like usual.

    OldSferbrains, whatever intelligence I have is based in reality, not stoopid wingnut fever dreams like you and Drumpf.

  39. mike from iowa 2018-09-28 14:46

    Should we hang someone for having a memory of something that no one else can remember?

    Be just like stoopid wingnuts to hang the victim here. I’m the dumb one?

  40. Porter Lansing 2018-09-28 14:47

    Not getting a job isn’t a hanging. Most rapists don’t rape around witnesses that will testify.
    Here’s a risqué analysis from the Liberal Redneck. NSFO … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-tInZ8O1Q0

  41. OldSarg 2018-09-28 14:50

    bear creek “Likewise, there is no requirement that the prosecution allege or prove any specific location” Seriously???? if you don’t know when or were the crime took place how can we rely upon a memory that it even did happen especially when all the witnesses provided by they very person that can’t remember where and when all say it never happened. Why would everyone be lying except the accuser?

  42. OldSarg 2018-09-28 14:53

    Forget it fools. You are just calling for a hanging to a crime that no one can even prove took place. You are all pitchforks and torches after the world. You can’t be saved. You are not smart, insightful, intelligent or even caring. You are a lynch mob. Nothing more and I am sure the minute the rest of the mob stops backing you, you will run away like the cowards you are.

  43. bearcreekbat 2018-09-28 15:06

    OS takes an ostensibly attractive position when he asks: “Should we hang someone for having a memory of something that no one else can remember?” The problem he seems to overlook has been mentioned already by other posters and is worth repeating.

    Should we insulate people who sexually abuse children if no one besides the child remembers the abuse? Should we insulate people who sexually abuse adults if no one else sees or feels the abuse, hence no one besides the victim remembers the abuse? Is it reasonable to tell anyone desiring to rape or abuse someone else that so long as there are no witnesses who remember the act happening other than the actual victim, they needed worry about the victim’s testimony?

    I believe there is considerable dispute about a particular rule of proving rape in certain countries, including some of our allies, but it has been reported in a scholarly article that there are

    . . . troubling laws regarding rape is the burden of proof. For a rape conviction to actually be handed down, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Qatar and Mauritania laws mandate either a confession from the rapist or a witness account from four adult males.

    http://www.jurist.org/commentary/2017/05/mais-haddad-arab-world-laws-protect-the-rapist-not-the-victim/

    Given the concern expressed by OS on other threads for such treatment of women, it is hard to understand how he now rationalizes his current argument, unless, of course, partison considerations have colored his analysis.

  44. bearcreekbat 2018-09-28 15:11

    OS, just to clarify, when I report that “Likewise, there is no requirement that the prosecution allege or prove any specific location,” I am not advocating for that particular rule, rather, I am reporting what the rule is. You and I may disagree with the rule of law, but that doesn’t change that rule nor provide a rational basis not to apply it evenly. Maybe you could approach your representatives and seek a change in the rule rather that attack the messenger that tells you the truth,

  45. jerry 2018-09-28 15:27

    Russian, usually in this country (different than Russia), there is an investigation and then the results are entered as evidence. Flake wants just that. There will be no hanging, just justice as we will see how this plays out. trump says she is credible, is he not your boy?

  46. jerry 2018-09-28 15:31

    Bah zing! Mark Judge, you are in the barrel son. And just like that, Flake gets his wish. Justice for Ms. Ford and for all women!

    “Senate Republican leadership will delay a vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation for a week and ask the FBI to investigate “credible allegations” against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

    “The Senate Judiciary Committee will request that the administration instruct the FBI to conduct a supplemental FBI background investigation with respect to the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court,” Republicans on the Judiciary Committee announced in a statement. “The supplemental FBI background investigation would be limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today.”

    Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, told reporters on Capitol Hill that leadership would delay the final vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation for up to one week while the FBI conducts a supplemental background investigation.”

  47. OldSarg 2018-09-28 15:33

    bear creek, you can read all the posts above and the general consensus on this site is to simply hang him because someone who can not remember any thing about when or where the event happened, lied about fear of flying, consulted other surfers for legal advice and used four people, who she claimed were present, at something all four said never happened accused a good man of a horrible crime. What you are all doing in trying to justify your hate is actually evil. My general opinion now is that people that do not believe in God are actually evil. Y9ou all are proving it in every post. You contribute nothing positive to a civil society and you want to hang those who disagree with you. You are all in a sad state of life. And as far as how I treat women on other threads doesn’t apply as I don’t think it matters whether Ms Ford is a woman or not. She was not the accused that you and the others are wishing harm upon and I do not wish harm upon her but it is clear she has some serious mental issues and her testimony is questionable as best therefore it matters not if she were a woman or a man.

  48. jerry 2018-09-28 15:37

    Russian, you cannot stand it when you see something democratic. You don’t have that in Russia, do you? Now go cash your paytroll check and go buy something in Gettysburg. Toss them rubles around like a big shot.

  49. OldSarg 2018-09-28 15:40

    jerry, Flake just delayed the eventual confirmation.

    Kavanagh has held several positions in the government that required the highest security clearances available and if you think that now, after 36 years, something that happened 36 years ago is going to actually be proven you are mistaken. A security clearance background check like he held goes a lot deeper than an FBI interview of a named witness. The new FBI interviews will disclose no additional or useful information. Sorry for the let down. No hanging the “Black man” today for ya.

  50. bearcreekbat 2018-09-28 15:45

    OS, I am unsure where I posted anything wishing harm to Kavanaugh. I did try to clarify the law regarding allegations of sexual assault and what I believe to be the genuine motive behind the alleged concern expressed for Kavanaugh, yet I gave no opinion that I can recall,about Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocence, nor whether he should or should not be appointed to the SCOTUS. I do have opinions on these matters but I don’t recall expressing them, so it is unclear exactly what has your undies in a bunch about my comments on this thread.

  51. jerry 2018-09-28 15:47

    Russian, there will be an investigation! woo woo. Your boy Mark Judge will have to be interviewed, he was there…The other two ladies will also be interviewed. We will see in a week if the drunk abuser can stand that long.

  52. jerry 2018-09-28 15:51

    bcb, the Russian always makes things up so he can troll and get his check. Paytrolling requires you to troll and troll he must do. There is no logic, just trolling.

  53. RJ 2018-09-28 15:52

    Blindly defending a rapist=never ok.

  54. CIB vet 2018-09-28 16:03

    There are 3 people who were in the room that know what happened and the two who were drunk have no recall. One has lied about his drinking on tape to fox news and then admitted to his drinking to the committee. By my count, that’s one liar who wouldn’t even get a job at a fast food establishment for lying, let alone a lifetime position on the supreme court.

    As a judge, I wonder how many people he put away who claimed to be innocent with only hearsay or circumstantial evidence using the mindset “everybody’s guilty of something”.

    I judge him as he said about others,” what goes around, comes around.

  55. Porter Lansing 2018-09-28 16:04

    Two things that won’t happen, IMHO.
    1. Roe v Wade will never be overturned. (It would be the demise of the GOP for as long as Roe has stood. Women’s votes matter, most.)
    2. Trump will never be impeached. (Making a martyr out of an embarrassed, one term President would cause the resurgence of the GOP for at least three Presidential cycles.)
    OEssssss, you’re making a clown of yourself, again.

  56. mike from iowa 2018-09-28 16:16

    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/revealed-emails-show-gop-staffers-held-investigation-second-kavanaugh-accuser/

    While wingnuts were telling MsFord they had tried to find additional info, staffers were holding up Ms Ramirez accusations.

    Kavanaugh’s former clerk is the one vetting Kavanaugh’s personal papers and is doing it while employed as lawyer for dumbass dubya…smells like a clear conflict of interest as he also represents others in Drumpf’s Kremlin Annex. He has slow walked any serious info to the Senate committee.

  57. mike from iowa 2018-09-28 16:21

    W/O getting too far ahead of the game, if Kavanaugh gets a rush appointment and Dems win the house and maybe the Senate, impeachment of Kavanaugh could be a likely option.

    Wingnuts don’t fight fair. They don’t win elections. They cheat by kicking legal Dem voters off voting rolls. Closing down polling places in poor areas of Southern states and erecting more hurdles for POC and the poor to jump just to get to vote.

  58. OldSarg 2018-09-28 16:32

    Impeach a Supreme Court Justice brainiac? Happened once and they still refused to make him resign. Not much chance this time.

  59. mike from iowa 2018-09-28 16:37

    HeyOldSbucketmouth, why would kavanaugh need to be vetted for security clearance?

  60. mike from iowa 2018-09-28 16:48

    So Humpty Drumpfty called for a limited FBI investigation and put a 1 week timestamp on it. There are still hundreds of thousands of archived documents Dems want to peruse but won’t get a chance because of wingnut’s willingness to put party ahead of country.

  61. mike from iowa 2018-09-28 16:50

    Kavanaugh said his life is ruined. Parkland dad tweets: ‘Try having a child murdered’ Wah, freaking, wah,

  62. mike from iowa 2018-09-28 16:53

    Kavanaugh lied under oath about being able to drink legally in Maryland while in high school. What else did he lie about? Attempted rape, maybe?

  63. bearcreekbat 2018-09-28 17:43

    update – According to a story in today’s Washington Post the crime of attempted rape in Maryland was only a misdemeanor in 1982, which at the time had a one year statute of limitations. Apparently Maryland changed the law in 1996 to make attempted rape a felony with no statute of limitations. If this report is accurate then Kavanaugh could not be prosecuted under Maryland law today as such a prosecution would be barred by the ex post facto clause of the federal Constitution (and most likely the Maryland State Constitution). Hence my earlier analysis of possibilities under current Maryland law is imapplicable.

    The WaPo is a paysite, but for those who have subscriptions here is the link:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/amid-the-ford-kavanaugh-exchanges-have-the-local-police-been-asked-to-investigate/2018/09/27/7787d8c0-c297-11e8-a1f0-a4051b6ad114_story.html?utm_term=.7d998431086d

  64. Darin Larson 2018-09-28 18:05

    In OS’s mind, if a woman is assaulted in a private setting with no other witnesses, it never happened. The OS standard: Out of sight= never happened.

    Some people defending Kavanaugh seem to have an incorrect notion of the standard of proof. This is not a criminal proceeding that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt against Kavanaugh. The Senate is not trying to convict Kavanaugh of a criminal offense and put him behind bars. The Senate is evaluating the merits of appointing Kavanaugh to a lifetime of power as a Supreme Court Justice. If it is more likely than not that Kavanaugh committed the attack on Dr. Ford, he should be disqualified from serving as a Supreme Court Justice. This is the preponderance of the evidence standard and it is the fairest way to decide the question of Kavanaugh’s appointment.

  65. mike from iowa 2018-09-28 18:49

    It figures, OldSferbrains got it wrong on Kavanaugh’s phony security clearance and vettings by the FBI.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/17.46

    Be sure to read Part C, Dumber than me, that is if you can read.

  66. leslie 2018-09-28 18:51

    “beer, I like beer, I like beer, beer, I like beer,…have you black-out drank, do you drink beer?” Our next Supreme Court Justice in an ADVICE and CONSENT Senate hearing.

    Trump, our next impeached president: “His testimony was powerful, honest, and riveting. Democrats’ search and destroy strategy is disgraceful and this process has been a total sham….”

    Kavanaugh asks Sen Amy Klobuchar if SHE has ever experienced ‘black-out’ drinking IN RESPONSE TO HER QUESTION IF HE HAD.

    Old Sarge, have you?

    You said “it is all over but the crying come Monday. This is sad that the democrats put so much work into their underhanded scheme … [and]accused a good man of a horrible crime.” Were you worried about Sen. Flake?

    Did you forget about Hon. Merrick Garland?

    Then you say “new FBI interviews will disclose no additional or useful information.”

    You shouldn’t be so sure. Hear the word “sham” or “witch-hunt” and it relieves you of having to think for yourself, eh?

    Read this: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-brett-kavanaugh-drinking-beer-20180928-story,amp.html

    Kavanaugh “busted his butt… worked his tail off….” Federal judge material? No. SCOTUS? No. Go lift weights, play basketball, Brett Explain your behavior to your wife and kids. snivel. Earning a lifetime judicial post requires honesty and character.

    Good lawyers learn this their 1st year out. The ABA says INVESTIGATE THIS MESS, FBI!

  67. Jenny 2018-09-28 19:12

    You can tell this Kavanaugh has had his share of drinking with the classic reddened cheeks and nose (dilated blood vessels from alcohol).

  68. jerry 2018-09-28 19:22

    The Russian cashed his paytroll check and is in the bag.

  69. leslie 2018-09-28 19:34

    While everyone is looking at the Senate, the EPA is being taken apart
    https://www.dailykos.com/

    The Environmental Protection Agency will now go forward without the office that advises the agency on science. That office will be “dissolved,” eliminating the feedback on the scientific basis for health and environmental regulations. According to the New York Times, the office is currently occupied by Dr. Orme-Zavaleta, an expert on the effects of chemicals on human health, who has been at the EPA since 1981.

  70. Porter Lansing 2018-09-28 19:46

    An Irish alcoholic with a guaranteed lifetime job and no boss? What could go wrong?

  71. leslie 2018-09-28 19:48

    RW TWITTER
    @ReebokATL

    @SenatorCollins a Devil’s Triangle is a threesome between two men and one woman. Boof is taking in alcohol thru the rectum to get really high. Please look both up in urban dictionary.
    4:11 PM – Sep 27, 2018 · Atlanta, GA

  72. Robin Friday 2018-09-28 19:58

    I really thought Lindsey was just a little bit smarter than to make such a dumb comment. Not much, to be sure, but just a little bit. Well said, Cory, but it Sonia Sotomayor, not Sofia. (Sorry, haven’t read all the comments yet.)

  73. Robin Friday 2018-09-28 20:21

    At this point, I won’t be surprised if Kavanaugh gets confirmed next week even after the supplemental investigation. And I also won’t be shocked if Trump withdraws the nomination and they make some excuse about “judicial temperament”. It’s encouraging that Manchin, Murkowski and other undeclared approve the delay. Neither Heitkamp nor Collins can be trusted.

  74. leslie 2018-09-28 21:02

    Wow, is Sen Amy Klobuchar ever a powerhouse for Minnesota!! And we’ve got lightweight Sens Thune and Rounds. :(

  75. leslie 2018-09-28 21:04

    Maybe Democratic Sen. Heitkamp can put the nation over her job security, now.

  76. MHR 2018-09-28 21:09

    I believe Dr. Ford – Kavanaugh just a privileged power-driven red nosed brat – other than the job he seeks is a life-time position and one of the most important in the country, why would anyone want/need him – without question he should NOT be appointed – I have to believe there are hundreds, yes hundreds, of individuals who have the temperament and impeccable qualification that would pass both Democrats and Republican specifications – after all screaming Lindsay Graham said he voted for Sonia Sotomayor and Elan Keagan both Democratic picks – just throw out Brett Kavanaugh and start over – save the country the embarrassment of this TV spectacle!

  77. OldSarg 2018-09-29 06:13

    6 days left and then we have a new Conservative Supreme Court Judge and all your trashing of a good man was wasted. Heitkamp will vote for him as well. Not because she likes him but because she wants to keep her “power”.

    Honestly, it didn’t matter if it was Kavanaugh or any other judge as you minions hate anything the media tells you all to hate. Not a one of you know of any ruling he has ever made that you would understand much less disagree with. You hate and argue because you have given up free thought to the boob-tube. You are no more than chickens chasing a laser dot for a pointing media. Very sad really. Now, why don’t you all get up, get in line with Cory and go join the parade celebrating my people, of which I am their King.

  78. mike from iowa 2018-09-29 06:54

    Kavanaugh has told too many lies to be approved to the highest court in the land. If he is approved, and I can’t see many if any wingnuts put their country ahead of their power, the Scotus will certainly have the stench of something ‘high’ and long dead.

    Kavanaugh is a highly partisan, political operative who shows no impartiality whatsoever.

    OldScuzzbucket, better take an ice cold shower. You sound like you’re ready to blow a load in your britches over Kavanaugh. Are you that fond of serial sex abusers?

  79. Porter Lansing 2018-09-29 06:56

    OlAss … Grow a filter or when we take over in November we’ll make you drive a pink car shaped like a vagina. Your incessant discord is tedious to us and our planning of your future. #BootsOnNeck

  80. mike from iowa 2018-09-29 07:49

    Screwdy Rudy Guiliani claimed he voted to confirm Justices Kagan and Sotomayer to the Scotus. Really? He was never a member of the US Senate. He is deranged and disturbed. Maybe all them safe ozones at the World Trade Center’s rubble got to Rudy’s brain.

  81. Jenny 2018-09-29 07:51

    The Toilet is calling you over at the Powers place, Scuz.

  82. Jenny 2018-09-29 07:53

    The Toilet is calling you over at Pat’s Place, Scuzzy.

  83. leslie 2018-09-29 08:07

    Would Trump be all touchy/feely now while Sen. Manschin (sp?) is a needed vote on ADVICE AND CONSENT?

  84. jerry 2018-09-29 08:26

    Russian is back, with a slight hangover from the residues of his paytroll blackout drinking while making no sense whatsoever.

  85. OldSarg 2018-09-29 08:28

    You guys are missing my parade.

  86. leslie 2018-09-29 08:29

    Sarge, Google Kavanaugh’s dissents. The media revealed that old news when his name 1st came up. It would take 5 minutes for any of us Dems. Try Brennan Ctr for Justice. Keep up, as they like to say to trolls at Daily Kos. He’s there to pack SCOTUS in Trump’s eventual demise via indictment, impeachment or 25th Amend ect. He’s been GOP’s water boy his entire career. Boof. But u prolly already kno that. Rush calls us haters 24/7/365/30 yrs. You just spout his/Fox propaganda. U R A Paid Tool, right?! Annoying

  87. mike from iowa 2018-09-29 08:35

    OldSwinebarn just ignores all the lies he spews. He rushes out even moar so he doesn’t get called on them.

  88. jerry 2018-09-29 08:39

    From the Kremlin Annex (White House).

    “” President Donald Trump on Friday called Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee “compelling” and “credible,” adding that he was not sure if Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court would “continue onward.”

    Trump also said Ford, who alleges that she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh at a house when they were teenagers, was “certainly a very credible witness.”

    “I thought her testimony was very compelling and she looks like a very fine woman to me. A very fine woman,” he said”

    So there ya go, from one serial abuser’s view of another’s, getting publicity, trump does not like the story line not being on him.

  89. Porter Lansing 2018-09-29 09:05

    perfect for the Deep STATE and the Resistance rip Marty

  90. Jenny 2018-09-29 09:28

    ol’ Swinebarn really likes hanging out with us rather than the boring ol pubs at the Toilet.
    It’s really just Pat and Troy Jonesdoing all the anonymous commenting, that how pathetic it’s gotten there.
    Admit it, swiney, you kind of like all of us here.

  91. OldSarg 2018-09-29 09:33

    jenny, why so nasty on a Saturday? It’s glorious outside. Go celebrate life.

  92. Porter Lansing 2018-09-29 09:39

    “You are no more than chickens chasing a laser dot for a pointing media.”, said the old pig. ~ Animal Farm

  93. mike from iowa 2018-09-29 09:51

    I know it is hard to believe, but Drumpf has less credibility than OldScrotum and ignores people pointing out his lies almost as well as OldSoapweed.

  94. mike from iowa 2018-09-29 09:56

    OldSincerely(not)heldreligiousbeliefs and his bud in the kremlin annex are continuing their personal vendetta against women, part of stoopid freaking wingnuts overall war on the fairer sex.

  95. Porter Lansing 2018-09-29 09:58

    MFI … That’s SOP for Russian influencers. Pour out as much hate and disruption as you can and maybe someone will think you’re a real American. He’s run into a resistant group here on DFP, though. “We were raised on robbery.” ~ Joni Mitchell

  96. Rorschach 2018-09-29 10:22

    Set aside the sexual assault allegations for a moment, and consider:

    The Supreme Court has 5 Catholic justices and 3 Jewish justices. Kavanaugh would add a 6th Catholic to the court.

    The Supreme Court has 5 men and 3 women. Kavanaugh would add a 6th man to the court.

    The Supreme Court has 5 east coast justices and 3 from the rest of the country. Kavanaugh would add a 6th east coaster to the court.

    (Yes DC is east coast. It is the same distance from DC to the Atlantic Ocean as Sioux Falls is to the Pierre exit of I-90 – Vivian)

    Kavanaugh has had his career path paved in gold from the day he was born. Do we really need another east coast spoiled rich kid to add to the majority of east coast elites already on the court?

    Or should we start pulling Supreme Court justices from different backgrounds and different places in the country? Personally I think the rest of the country ought to have some representation.

  97. jerry 2018-09-29 10:24

    The FBI had already gotten the information on Ford and it was in the confidential record for all the senators to see since the beginning of the vetting of Kavanaugh. Now, the new stuff is what they will be looking into more detail on. To recap, they will revisit what they already knew with what they now have found out from the other three ladies. I think I agree with trump and say that the guy may not survive the investigation. “The real answer to why this had to come out is because the rethugs who are screaming dirty tricks forget to mention that even though it was confidential it was in the FBI background file earlier and all the Sen rethugs could see it!”

    As Porter notes, “We were raised on robbery.” True that.

  98. o 2018-09-29 11:49

    . . . and while we were all looking here, the House passed $1.5 Trillion more in tax givebacks to the wealthy. — just in time for the mid-terms.

  99. Robin Friday 2018-09-29 11:58

    And another to make them permanent.

  100. OldSarg 2018-09-29 12:37

    Yep, the new tax bill looks like we will almost all benefit again:
    Simplifying the tax process:Y You will be taxed 10% on the first $20,000, 20% on the next $20,000 and so on. . .

    Preserving the mortgage interest deduction: So all of you can keep deducting the debt you shouldn’t have taken on in the first place.

    Eliminating Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty tax: No more penalty for the people that can’t afford the Obama insurance.

    Increasing the standard deduction: For Married filing jointly it goes from $12.7K to $24K!! Pretty good!!!

    Providing more support to American families: You can now deduct even more charitable giving from your income. The estate tax level was increase saving more and more mom&pop businesses and the Farms; helping to preserve South Dakota family farms.

    SALT Deduction: It also limits your SALT deduction to $10K. We don’t pay state and local income tax in South Dakota but the does make it more air for South Dakota workers as we have been sending our Federal taxes to DC which was supporting the states with income taxes.

    Providing relief for Americans with expensive medical bills: You can deduct more of your medical expenses from your income. It was anything above 10%. It is now 7.5%. The democrats wouldn’t agree to lower it any more.

    Improving savings vehicles for education: If you have a 529 savings plan for your kid, you can use it for levels of education other than college. Freedom of choice!

    Overall: If you are a wage earner in South Dakota you will benefit from the new tax bill even if you are not rich.

    told you the jest of it and if you can’t google it yourself by now you have even bigger problems than just taxes.

  101. mike from iowa 2018-09-29 13:01

    Another 3-4 trillion in debt and deficits thanks to OldScreamcreamjeans. This bill has no chance of getting through the Sinate unscathed.

  102. mike from iowa 2018-09-29 13:13

    Yup, OldSeamlessSerpent is in rapture that virtually nobody, no matter how wealthy will pay any estate taxes. The vast majority of Americans were estate tax free when the cutoff was 675 grand.

  103. mike from iowa 2018-09-29 13:15

    told you the jest of it and if you can’t google it yourself by now you have even bigger problems than just taxes.

    Even OldSaltblock thinks it is funny and he accuses me of being dumb.

  104. OldSarg 2018-09-29 13:21

    mike, get a life.

  105. jerry 2018-09-29 13:45

    Russian, trump says your boy is toast and now says he is not. Mike Flynn, the other traitor, knows what it is like to have the full confidence of a confidence man. The fleecing of America continues and we ain’t even sheepherders, damn man. Did you get your paytroll check cashed? Did you ask for the raise from Putin?

  106. jerry 2018-09-29 13:51

    The ACLU now comes, 4th time in it’s history.

    “Only four times in a hundred years has the American Civil Liberties Union stepped away from its carefully guarded apolitical position to make a pronouncement on the confirmation of a political nominee. This is one of those times.

    “”In the wake of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s sworn testimony of sexual abuse at the hands of Brett Kavanaugh, the American Civil Liberties Union has announced its opposition to his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    As a matter of organizational policy, the ACLU does not support or oppose candidates for political or judicial office. In this instance, the national board held an extraordinary meeting, and has chosen to make an exception to that policy.””

    Gwaaad, The Jesuit’s have tossed the bum in the garbage pit. Yale Law, in with the dirty diapers, The American Bar Association (not the drinking kind Brett) has no support for the abuser. Even trump, a serial sex abuser, is now against him. The only ones that seem to support him are the crooks and liars all of the republican party in Washington, that would even include our own widdle NOem. She is up to here fake eyebrows with this.

  107. jerry 2018-09-29 13:55

    Indeed mfi, the Russian is also full of borscht when he declares you get to write of anything above 7.5% for medical expenses. First off, only in America would you ever have to even consider such a disgusting practice. In all the rest of the countries, that is unheard of, not here though. In fact, it has been 7.5% for a decade or more.

    When you are already broke, ya got nothing to loose.

  108. jerry 2018-09-29 14:05

    Russian, “In 1990, the U.S. was ranked sixth in “human capital,” based on a person’s expected productive years of work. Now it’s 27th.”

    We have a failed system of education and of healthcare. 7.5% of your gross adjusted income, what a disgrace. So if you by chance, have a $40,000.00 AGI, then anything above $3,000.00 can be deducted. Wow, what a deal. So after you have paid your $30,000.00 premium (Mom, dad, and the two teens), then you get the privilege of writing off anything above $3,000.00 for that gall bladder surgery. I am guessing you either are making payments or are already in collections.

  109. Porter Lansing 2018-09-29 14:36

    O-esssssssss … A few points you’re misdirecting the truth on. But, that’s what Red Sparrow’s and Russian influencers do, huh?
    1. No more penalty for the people that can’t afford the Obama insurance? Obamacare helped people that couldn’t afford insurance cover their premiums. You know damn well who pays for people that get sick and don’t have insurance. Medical bankruptcy was a thing of the past. It’ll be back, worse than ever. Everyone’s insurance rates will go up, (even more than they do now) because Republicans piecemealed Obamacare.
    2. South Dakota workers have been sending our Federal taxes to DC, which was supporting the states with income taxes? (WRONG!! Your SD Federal taxes pay a portion of SD’s bills for highways, your share of the military, your citizen’s Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security (not covered by payroll deductions), food stamps, WIC, Pell grants, Head Start and numerous others. South Dakota sends in less every year than you receive in Federal Aid. We states that send more than we receive reach into our paychecks every month and send you money to cover your share of America.) How about raising taxes to pay your share, for a while? Maybe just default on the new tax cut to pay your own way, moocher?
    ~ Second tax break? Just like the first tax break. Another giveaway to Trump level wealth holders.

  110. Rorschach 2018-09-29 14:37

    $220,600. That’s how much Kavanaugh will continue to earn for his lifetime appointment to the federal circuit court. The consolation prize is not so bad for him. If his nomination to the Supreme Court fails, he and Merrick Garland can have a beer together and commiserate.

  111. Jenny 2018-09-29 15:24

    Iowa MikeWhere do you come up with all these names for your little Soviet friend? Hilarious!😆

  112. jerry 2018-09-29 15:27

    Here is a great Iowa blog site with a very timely posting. See if you enjoy it as much as I did. https://blogforiowa.com/2018/09/22/older-voters-leaving-the-republican-party/

    NOem’s support was built upon a lie, imagine that! Us old folks see Kavanaugh for what he is, a liar. A liar that has the full support of the elected republican party. This is not going to go well for Thune and Rounds either as their time in the barrel will be coming shortly. Johnson has declared that he thinks NOem did a swell job, so his support may be waning with us as well. The grandma’s do think he is kind of like a banty rooster though, you know he got that from hanging around the Red Sparrow. Once you have gone Russian….

    “Historically, Democrats were seen as the party of seniors. President Franklin Roosevelt made Social Security one of the landmark accomplishments of the New Deal. Decades later another Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, would push health care coverage as an entitlement for the elderly and make Medicare one of the cornerstones of his Great Society program. In subsequent elections as social issues came to the fore, seniors have tended to split their votes more evenly or side with Republicans. But in 2010 with the rise of the Tea Party and the generational and societal change ushered in by the presidential election of Democrat Barack Obama, elderly voters turned decidedly towards the GOP. Republicans helped drive that process by asserting that president Obama’s 2010 signature health care reform legislation would defund Medicare. And that would be a GOP rallying cry throughout the Obama presidency.”

    Us old folks, know that we’ve been conned. That is why NOem has shut the hell up about healthcare and Billie should consider spurring that brumby out of the chute.

  113. OldSarg 2018-09-29 15:38

    You guys are so angry.

    Did you see the limits Trump put on the investigation? It has to be done within one week and they can’t interview anyone that wasn’t already interviewed.

    WINNING

    Oh, I forgot to mention the Global CFO Council shows the USA has the ONLY growing economy! YOU ARE ALL WINNING!!!! https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/75-percent-of-global-cfos-expect-to-get-smacked-by-us-trade-policy-cnbc-survey.html

    Trump is holding another GIANT Rally in West Virginia. You can watch it live on YouTube!!!!

  114. jerry 2018-09-29 15:44

    Russian, GNAT Rally is the correct spelling. Work on it, for your next weeks paytroll.

  115. Porter Lansing 2018-09-29 16:16

    Angry People Vote
    Selfish People Gloat
    Welcome To Loserville – D Trump – Mayor

  116. mike from iowa 2018-09-29 17:06

    Ain’t a damn thing in OldSnurfsausage’s link claims America’s economy is growing. General consensus is it is improving. As were a few others that are now stable.

    I tell you, you cannot trust a weasel word this OldSquishyfish says.

  117. Jenny 2018-09-29 17:19

    I would like to ask 0S and any other pubs that support Kavanaugh, if Ford was your sister or wife or daughter would you still not believe her?
    This is Exactly the reason why women don’t come forward in the first place!! They are Shamed and ridiculed!
    People will do very obnoxious hideous things when theyre drunk.

    One out of four women are assaulted, the statistics say.
    Oh but its always a conspiracy the republicans think. Always a conspiracy.
    😠

  118. jerry 2018-09-29 17:20

    In the meantime “SUPREME COURT NOMINEE Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual assault by three different women, one of whom said that she witnessed his efforts to inebriate girls so they could be “gang raped.” His first accuser, Christine Ford, recalled thinking that he may “inadvertently” kill her while trying to attack her and remove her clothing. Deborah Ramirez, his second accuser, says she had felt “mortified.” Despite these allegations — and Kavanaugh’s notorious record for lying under oath at past confirmation hearings — the GOP still hasn’t withdrawn its nomination of him nor have they delayed their vote. If confirmed, Kavanaugh would would be appointed to serve on the highest court for life — and he would be the second Supreme Court justice to have a sexual assault allegation against him.”

    Think of that for a minute, if you can stomach it. Brett and his companions, spiked girls drinks so they could gang rape them. Gang rape these girls. It takes a special kind of animal to drug a girl and then rape them repeatedly, according to witness reports. Ask Cosby how that all went down for him. What is the difference between Kavanaugh and Bill Cosby? One has a Fat Albert and the other a Mark Judge, that is all.

  119. jerry 2018-09-29 17:26

    trump is now involved with another cover up.

    “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 elected republican has no idea what the truth is as it will interfere with their theft and their plan to destroy this democracy.

  120. Porter Lansing 2018-09-29 17:30

    Jenny … It’s fundamentalist Christianity on display. “Even if every female in America has to get raped, we have to stop the baby killers. No price is too high.”
    And, they say Islam is a violent religion?

  121. OldSarg 2018-09-29 17:33

    Jenny “People will do very obnoxious hideous things when theyre drunk” are you drunk? You’re obnoxious and I never mentioned your looks. . .

  122. OldSarg 2018-09-29 17:34

    mike, you’ve been to jail. What does that say about your values?

  123. mike from iowa 2018-09-29 17:36

    Jerry, wingnuts know that if they let the FBI pursue the whole truth, the investigation would never end. Wingnuts still hope to force this animal onto the whole of the country by a simple majority of the Senate while they still maintain a simple majority of the Senate.

    Since wingnuts aren’t up in arms about the restrictions it shows they are complicit in this travesty about to be shoved down our throats. Polls show the majority of Americans don’t want Kavanaugh on the Scotus.

  124. Jenny 2018-09-29 17:36

    Answer my question, OS.

  125. mike from iowa 2018-09-29 17:52

    OldSnarly, why so nasty on a Saturday? It’s glorious outside. Go celebrate life. Or cry in yer beer.

  126. jerry 2018-09-29 18:17

    Buh bye Social Security, same with Medicare. It was nice will it lasted. Alpo on sale or better yet, go to the Humane Society and pick out your next meal. This is what is happening now and with Kavanaugh in the court, it will come even sooner.

    “”Within a decade, more than $900 billion in interest payments [on government debt] will be due annually, easily outpacing spending on myriad other programs. Already the fastest-growing major government expense, the cost of interest is on track to hit $390 billion next year, nearly 50 percent more than in 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”

    For you Russian, a decade is 10 years. That decade goes by pretty fast gang. Vote Democratic to bring this ship off the reefs and into sailing waters.

  127. T 2018-09-29 19:52

    “All over talking to everybody they have free reign they can do whatever they have to do whatever it is that they do they’ll be doing things we have never even heard of”
    Drumpf qote

  128. mike from iowa 2018-09-30 07:33

    Wanna bet iowa’s and Northern Mississippi’s sinators vote in lockstep to confirm Kaveman?

  129. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-09-30 07:59

    Matt Damon goes to town on Kavanaugh’s angry, partisan, and disqualifying performance:

  130. OldSarg 2018-09-30 08:24

    Cory, could you imagine how you would respond if it were you were sitting where Kavanaugh is? Seriously, what is the best way to approach this? I know I would be angry and I don’t know if I cold even keep my composure.

    Take a minute, just so we have the opinion of a political candidate, and tell us how you would respond if accused falsely of a crime such as sexual assault. What would you do in his position?

  131. Dana P 2018-09-30 09:24

    Weird OS….. Kavanaugh wasn’t angry during his staged and posed, partisan, Fox New interview on Monday night (prior to his staged angry outburst on Thursday)

    You may or may not believe that Kav attempted to rape Dr Ford —- but Mr Kavanaugh has shown that he has lied under oath – and his VERY partisan attack on Thursday, showed his lack of bi-partisanship and would not be objective. The ABA “downgraded” Kavanaugh in 2006, in reference to his lack of objectivity. Those things in and of themselves, should be disqualifying, and he should not be propelled to the highest court in the land

  132. o 2018-09-30 09:51

    OldSarge, “Cory, could you imagine how you would respond if it were you were sitting where Kavanaugh is? Seriously, what is the best way to approach this?”

    That really is a good point, and an opportunity missed by the nominee and the GOP. When all the sexual misconduct accusations started to hit, I thought the smart play would be for the Senate committee to suspend the hearings and hand it ALL over to the FBI for investigation. That way a less public and more legal process would have been followed instead of a public trial by hearing. Unfortunately, both the nominee and the GOP took a damn the torpedos – full speed ahead approach to air all laundry and accusations publicly. Ultimately the decision still would be with the committee, but maybe some of the evidence would have been sorted for a fair evaluation.

    I see now Sen. Sanders is advancing an objection based on Kavanaugh’s lying to the committee. Certainly that federal felony is disqualifying.

  133. mike from iowa 2018-09-30 09:56

    The problem with wingnuts, O, is the way they parse and withhold relevant committee information about subjects not named HRC.

    There are hundreds of thousands of pages in Kavanaugh whitewater archives that wingnuts don’t want Dems to access. This debacle should have been postponed until those docs were released and gone through without artificial deadlines.

    What are wingnuts so afraid of that they continually push to get this clown approved?

  134. o 2018-09-30 10:01

    Here is my final objection: of course President Trump will/would nominate a conservative judge; of course the Senate will confirm a conservative judge; but Kavanaugh is not a unicorn – he is not the only conservative judge. Why take the most objectionable, boys-will-be-boys, privileged, partisan nominee as the face of conservatism?

    Certainly there are judges of the character of Kagan and Sotomayor on the right?! Why were those names not advanced by President Trump? What happened to “I know the best people?”

  135. mike from iowa 2018-09-30 10:18

    Kavanaugh was groomed by the Federalist Society to be a reliable rubber stamp for extreme right wing wish list.

    His past opinions show him to be a wingnut wet dream as a justice. He is reliably anti-worker, anti union, anti-women’s rights, anti abortion, anti immigration, etc.

    He is virulently anti-impartiality and partisan. He apparently isn’t bothered with perjury, either.

  136. OldSarg 2018-09-30 10:27

    “Certainly there are judges of the character of Kagan and Sotomayor on the right?! Why were those names not advanced by President Trump? What happened to “I know the best people?””

    o~ Do you think it actually mattered who the Trump administration put forward? I think even Sister teresa would have been ripped apart by the democrats for being too religious. . . Not even a saint could be approved by the democrats.

    “groomed by the Federalist Society” it’s like the guy doesn’t have a screw loose. He’s got a whole bucket of screws rolling around in the bucket on his shoulders. . .

  137. o 2018-09-30 10:38

    OldSarge, I really do think it mattered. Just as Graham HAD to accept Kagan and Sotomayor because they were beyond reproach (even though there was real feeling they would lean liberal) their character was beyond reproach.

    Seriously, how can I not believe the conservatives/GOP/Trump supporters are a bunch of horrible people when it seems only horrible people are being elevated? I know as a group you are not all reprehensible, but look at what is rising to your top!

    You/conservatives’GOP/Trump supporters do not get to take the moral high ground that this is a Democratic obstruction unique to Democrats. President Obamas pick did not even get a hearing from your GOP. Why is the Senate Judiciary committee all white males from the GOP? That is an absolute choice your party made in who to elevate. You had to being in a woman prosecutor to ask questions of Ford just to mitigate the optics of the political decisions you made in who to elevate to power.

  138. mike from iowa 2018-09-30 10:40

    OldStumpywumpy- This is a hit piece. Something you can’t define or understand because you aren’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. Plus it comes compliments from a right wing snoozepaper you claimed once was liberal or mainstream.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/30/julie-swetnick-has-extensive-legal-history/

    The paper claims 6 but only mentions 2. One was a personal injury claim Ms Swetnick filed and the other was from a former colleague who claimed she lied on job application form. It was thrown out of court as frivolous.

    Nothing about her attempting to rape a nominee for the highest court in the land? Aw shucks!!

  139. T 2018-09-30 10:49

    Mike from Iowa
    Thanks for sharing
    I smell a rat with the false stories
    It’s Easy for the right to come up with bogus rape claims to
    Minimize ir discredit the truths.
    Just like the two men who claimed to have it been them with ms f.
    Their are paid supporters everywhere with thi so Prez why not here

  140. Rorschach 2018-09-30 11:47

    The GOP Party and Kavanaugh handled this allegation very badly from the very beginning.

    Probably everybody’s initial reaction to the allegation included this thought, “Really? Somebody is now bringing up something he allegedly did in high school 36 years ago – for the first time – at the very last minute?!”

    What Kavanaugh should have said was, “Yes, in high school I drank way too much. I drank illegally. It is possible that in a very intoxicated state that I did something that I would never do sober. I don’t remember this incident and it’s not representative of who I am. But it’s possible that I behaved badly when completely drunk, and if so, I’m sorry. Ms. Blasey Ford’s memory is not perfect, and neither is mine. I apologize to her. This has never been brought up to me before in 36 years during which I have lived an exemplary life.”

    The public would have accepted that and moved on. But that’s not what happened, is it? Instead, Kavanaugh lied. He lied that drinking was legal for 18 year olds his senior year of high school – although the drinking age was raised before his senior year and before he turned 18. Every kid would know that, “Damn, I missed being able to drink legally by just a few months!” Every kid. He lied to congress. And he also denied that he ever drank so much that he couldn’t remember what happened (blacked out). As a kid who drank a lot of beer underage, I don’t believe Kavanaugh. I think he got stumbling arse drunk, and I think he did that quite often – just like I did.

    So why didn’t Kavanaugh own up to youthful bad behavior? If this allegation was a one-off, he certainly would have. He’s a smart guy. But I believe he was fully expecting more allegations of bad behavior to come out so he knew from the first that he couldn’t pass off the Blasey Ford incident as a one-off.

    What do we know for sure? Kavanaugh lied under oath to congress that when he drank as a senior it was legal under the law. It’s not large in the scheme of lies. But if he would lie about even one thing under oath, his credibility is shot. There is a commonly used jury instruction that says if you believe that a witness is lying you are free to disregard their testimony entirely. That’s what the senate should do – disregard the demonstrated liar’s testimony entirely.

  141. bearcreekbat 2018-09-30 12:03

    This morning I heard a talking head reference a comment by the prosecutor hired by Republican Senators to question Ford. It was reported she said she did not see sufficient evidence to support an application for a search warrant. I had to laugh because she is probably correct based on the age of the allegations and the lack of any claim that there may be evidence of the crime in Kavanaugh’s possession.

    But I found it remarkable what she did not address, namely, whether there was sufficient evidence to obtain an indictment against Kavanaugh for attempted rape. Normally, the victim need not testify before a grand jury. It is sufficient for a law enforcement officer to testify about what the victim may have alleged in an unsworn interview. Normally, exculpatory evidence is not permitted in grand jury proceedings and there is no opportunity to cross examine any witness because defense counsel is not permitted inside the grand jury proceedings.

    Given these rules, there is overwhelming evidence that would have supported a criminal indictment against Kavanaugh had timely charges been brought against him. Once indicted, he would then have faced a jury trial that would have decided which witness claiming to be 100% certain to believe.

    Apparently the prosecutor’s “search warrant” comment was another disingenuous comment aimed at more dissembling rather than facing the implications of the actual evidence presented to the Seanate.

    And as an aside, I have no doubt that OS would explode in anger just as he said, given the angry outbursts attacking others that I often have read in his comments in this blog in response to little or no, and certainly much less, provocation.

  142. Rorschach 2018-09-30 12:29

    bearcreekbat, you know there is neither enough evidence for a search warrant for something that happened 36 years ago, nor is an indictment even possible because the statute of limitations expired 30+ years ago. Had these allegations been made promptly after the occurrence there would have been enough evidence for a search warrant and enough to indict that drunken privileged ham sandwich that Kavanaugh was. So if the GOP Party’s hired gun had said anything about indictment she would have said it’s too late. Way too late to even be talking about that. Even with fresh allegations prosecutors don’t typically indict something like this unless they have some sort of corroborating evidence, which wasn’t offered at the hearing, because despite the low bar to indict it takes corroborating evidence to convict.

  143. mike from iowa 2018-09-30 12:51

    The wingnut prosecutor wasn’t brought in to determine Kavanaugh’s guilt or innocent. Not sure why she would have made that statement about not indicting him.

  144. bearcreekbat 2018-09-30 12:53

    Rorshach, you make some good points. The SL has run so no indictment would issue today. Thus my comparison of then versus now was pretty weak.

    On the other hand, suppose Ford had made a complaint to law enforcement at or near the time of the alleged offense. I still am unsure how a search warrant could issue based on the testimony we have seen. To obtain such a search warrant wouldn’t law enforcement have to identify the place to be searched and establish that there may be evidence of the crime at that place? Assuming Ford could have identified the place were the assault occurred back then, what evidence of the crime could be identified based on her testimony that might have supported a search warrant, especially since theoretically the rule is that no warrant may be issued for a general fishing expedition? What evidence do you think law enforcement could claim to be looking for either at the scene, or perhaps at Kavanaugh’s (or a friend’s) residence?

    Meanwhile, I take it you do not disagree that Kavanaugh’s allegations alone, even if related second hand to a grand jury by a law enforcement officer, would have easily supported an indictment back then had a prosecutor sought one.

  145. Rorschach 2018-09-30 13:43

    You are arguing a completely moot point, bearcreekbat. Nobody came forward 36 years ago with an allegation. The old allegation only arose recently and far too late for any criminal action. So there can be no search warrant or indictment. This is a job interview.

  146. Debbo 2018-09-30 15:05

    I’ve just returned home from an emtionally draining time in the Black Hills with a wake and funeral. However, in reading today’s Star Tribune I found a compilation of brief opinion pieces on this issue. These come from major newspapers around the USA.

    https://goo.gl/ZF3SEv

    Note the 1st one about the use of the word “accuser.” Very telling.

  147. OldSarg 2018-09-30 15:07

    Ha ha ha!!! Good job Rorschach. But I have to tell you, dealing with the “what ifs” on here is a fruitless endeavor. You have a literate bear creek who hates anything not on the left, T praising anything iwacko mike posts and of course, iwacko mike chasing the UFOs around his head. . . Good luck

  148. OldSarg 2018-09-30 15:09

    Oops, I missed Debbo. Sorry for your family’s loss Debbo.

  149. bearcreekbat 2018-09-30 16:40

    Rorschach, apparently I failed to make my point very clear. The point I was trying to make the point is that it is disingenous for the Republican prosecutor to assert that there is insufficient evidence to support a search warrant application. Had she simply said the SL had expired, hence no search warrant could issue, then that would have been accurate, but not very informative. Without her mentioning the SL, however, it seemed appropriate to address the potential impact of the evidence by comparing requirements for a search warrant with those for an indictment without SL analysis.

    I guess my effort to compare the requirements for an indictment distracted from my point. I had been thinking about an indictment earlier when I saw that Maryland currently does not have a SL on these types of crimes. When I learned that in 1982 they apparently did have a SL I posted an update to clarify that the current lack of a SL didn’t apply to Kavanaugh. Since I still had the indictment analysis in mind, I made the comparison in an effort to make my point that the prosecutor’s search warrant comment was off base.

    Now that you have clarified your view that my attempted analogy was unsatisfactory, do you think I was mistaken to criticize the Republican prosecutor’s assertion regarding a search warrant, or do you think she was making a valid informative point explaining the weakness of Ford’s allegations with no mention by her of the SL expiration?

  150. mike from iowa 2018-09-30 16:55

    Where did OldSlushfund slither off to? Get back here you bloviating rascal and explain to me how the Federalist Society didn’t groom Kavernmouth and the past several Scotus nominees.

    I gave you plenty of links to read which you probably ignored because you claim to be so smart.

  151. Rorschach 2018-09-30 17:57

    Another thing I found totally appalling was the yearbook references by Kavanaugh and his friends to being “Renate Alumnius.” Kavanaugh said at the hearing, “That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us.”

    No, those yearbook references were intended to either signify that they had all had sex with her, or they were meant to show that they had all been stuck taking her somewhere as a date at the last minute because they couldn’t find a better date. Either way, there’s nothing there about showing affection toward Renate. It’s all about either congratulating themselves for a conquest or mocking each other for getting stuck with her. Then he was despicable for what he wrote. Now he’s despicable for lying about it rather than being a man and saying he’s sorry.

  152. jerry 2018-09-30 18:37

    James Comey, former FBI director, had this to say in an Op-Ed in the New York Times today.

    “We live in a world where the president routinely attacks the F.B.I. because he fears its work. He calls for his enemies to be prosecuted and his friends freed. We also live in a world where a sitting federal judge channels the president by shouting attacks at the Senate committee considering his nomination and demanding to know if a respected senator has ever passed out from drinking. We live in a world where the president is an accused serial abuser of women, who was caught on tape bragging about his ability to assault women and now likens the accusations against his nominee to the many “false” accusations against him.

    Most disturbingly, we live in a world where millions of Republicans and their representatives think nearly everything in the previous paragraph is O.K.”

    Think of this, we live in a world that is dependent upon the vigilance of the FBI and here is trump and his republican accomplices, demeaning the organization. As Charles Barkley said “Republican’s have lost their minds” . No longer are they interested in homeland security, they are only interested in job security. What a crooked bunch of mafioso.

  153. mike from iowa 2018-09-30 18:38

    OldSillyputty says Kavanaugh is a good man. Makes one wonder how wingnuts define good.

  154. leslie 2018-09-30 22:12

    In his never ending effort to distract from the calamity approaching his failed presidency, Trump attempts to profess his love for Un, like his quizzical fascination with Putin.

    Thanks to the Dems for standing up to this mad packing of the supreme court. In the Garland matter I am not aware if litigation exists. In the pending complaint regarding Kavanaugh:

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    JEFF MERKLEY
    313 Hart Senate Office Building

    Plaintiff,

    v.
    DONALD J. TRUMP
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

    1. One of the most distinctive examples of separation of powers in our system of constitutional government is the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution.
    This clause envisions a power to “nominate” that rests solely with the President and that cannot be blocked or interfered with by the Senate, and an “Advice and Consent” power that rests solely with the Senate and that cannot be blocked or interfered with by the President.***
    15. that, “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). “Even before the birth of this country, separation of powers was known to be a defense against tyranny. . . . [I]t remains a basic principle of our constitutional scheme that one branch of the Government may not intrude upon the central prerogatives of another.”
    Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748, 757 (1996) (internal citations omitted).
    If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results . . . judicial interference might well be appropriate. In such circumstances, the Senate’s action might be so far beyond the scope of its constitutional authority, and the consequent impact on the Republic so great, as to merit a judicial response despite the prudential concerns that would ordinarily counsel silence.” Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 253–54 (1993) (Souter, J., concurring). ***
    29. The doctrine of separation of powers in the Advice and Consent Clause is clear: The President alone is responsible for nominating Supreme Court Justices, and the Senate alone is responsible for advice and consent.
    30. The Advice and Consent Clause “is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme.” Edmond v. United States, 117 S. Ct. 1573, 1579 (1997) (Scalia, J.). Itis “designed to ensure public accountability for both the making of a bad appointment and the rejection of a good one.” Id.
    31. “Through the confirmation process, the public, individuals, and interested organizations alike have an opportunity to inform the decision-making process and scrutinize the President’s nominee.” Washington Legal Foundation v. Department of Justice, 691 F. Supp. 483, 492 (D.D.C. 1988). The purpose of the Senate nomination hearing is for “the public and Congress [to] have a full opportunity to evaluate the actual nominee and to probe more deeply.”

    Id. at 495.

  155. Debbo 2018-09-30 22:45

    Thanks OS.

    Pootiepublicans lost 1000s of MN votes when Kaveman attacked Our Amy. Sen. Klobuchar is beloved in MN. She’s up for reelection this year and I wouldn’t be surprised to see her near 70% of the votes. Would you agree Jenny? I have no idea who the GOP sacrificial victim is.

    This article in today’s Strib, http://goo.gl/S3djbG,
    contains very helpful information when thinking about rape and sexual assault claims. (Keep in mind, this is about a blue state. Red states are likely to be much worse.)

    “A Star Tribune review of more than 1,200 Minnesota sexual assault files found hundreds of cases in which detectives failed to do basic police work, such as collecting evidence or questioning suspects in person.”

    “Inver Grove Heights Police Chief Paul Schnell, who teaches courses on sexual assault, said that he’s struck by the number of officers in his classes who believe most rape reports are false.
    ‘If I go and ask a group of cops what percentage of sexual assault reports are false, they’re going to tell me 60-90 percent,’ Schnell said.
    Most credible studies put the figure at 5 percent or less.”

    Let those numbers sink in. While you’re at it, read the entire article to get a better, more honest assessment of what women like Dr. Ford and all the rest of us are up against.

  156. Debbo 2018-09-30 22:47

    MFI, Old Scrotum?!? OMG. You are on an extremely creative roll today.

  157. T 2018-10-02 14:21

    Threw ice on who he thought was a UB40 singer, that alone is concerning……….

  158. Jason 2018-10-02 20:08

    Bear wrote:

    One other point. It should be clear to anyone who has been paying attention that the pro-Kavanaugh republicans could care less about Kavanaugh’s reputation or whether he suffered any harm from the allegations against him.

    Where is your evidence of this?

  159. Jason 2018-10-02 20:09

    Bear wrote:
    Given these rules, there is overwhelming evidence that would have supported a criminal indictment against Kavanaugh had timely charges been brought against him.

    What evidence are you referring to?

  160. Debbo 2018-10-02 21:05

    This is perfect, a thing of beauty. It’s an editorial cartoon drawn by Marty Two Bulls, Oglala Sioux Tribe, the Pine Ridge Reservation, SD. Follow the link:

    https://www.gocomics.com/m2bulls/2018/09/30

    (*TRIGGER WARNING for RYAN! It’s about white male privilege. You’d better not look.)

  161. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-10-02 21:11

    “I’m a rich white man—why can’t I just get away with this?” cries diapered Kavanaugh in the cartoon. Well done, Marty Two Bulls, and well-chosen, Debbo.

  162. Debbo 2018-10-02 22:27

    Thanks Cory.
    Mr. Two Bulls’ cartoons tend to be very topical, Indian focused and pointy. He is good.

  163. bearcreekbat 2018-10-03 01:23

    Jason at 20:09 – Ford’s testimony.

  164. bearcreekbat 2018-10-03 01:28

    Jason at 20:08 – reasonable inference from the irrationality of supporters opposition to a full background check.

  165. Jason 2018-10-03 07:33

    He has had 6 full background checks before this week.

    Ford’s testimony is not evidence. It’s an allegation that has no corroborable evidence. Allegations with no corroborable evidence don’t usually lead to formal charges.

    I would love to discuss the holes in her testimony.

    Would you like to start with the door or that either her lawyers violated D.C. Bar rules or she lied under oath regarding the invitation to fly to California by the SJC?

  166. Jason 2018-10-03 07:34

    My post is directected to Bear.

  167. Darin Larson 2018-10-03 07:56

    Why do women not come forward with allegations of assault for 36 years or ever for that matter? Because people like Jason don’t consider their testimony evidence.

    But you are in good Republican company, Jason. Trump doesn’t consider Dr. Ford’s testimony to be evidence either, mocking her last night at a campaign rally. Trump is the poster child for the entitled, rich, white male who think other people exist to serve and pleasure him. It’s clear that Trump was lying once again when he gave lip service that Dr. Ford’s testimony should be given proper consideration.

    How do wingnuts distort testimony that a person is “afraid to fly” into “I can’t fly.” I’m afraid to go on a high-G force roller-coaster, but I still can go on the roller-coaster if I must.

  168. Jason 2018-10-03 08:05

    Darin doesn’t understand the difference between an allegation and evidence. What has happened to our school system?

  169. T 2018-10-03 08:09

    I am concerned, regardless of your party, how anyone could not see some dysfunction in the greats speech last night at the rally.
    How it is socially exceptable to go on about such a sensitive testimony, and make a rally cry out of it. This is wrong on so many levels

  170. Darin Larson 2018-10-03 08:24

    Jason, the last time I went through law school, testimony under oath by Dr. Ford would be considered evidence. Maybe you went to Trump U? I’d ask for my money back.

  171. Jason 2018-10-03 08:28

    And what did you learn about human testimony with no physical evidence in school?

  172. Jason 2018-10-03 08:31

    I assume you are saying that Kavanaugh’s testimony is also evidence then that he didn’t do it.

  173. Darin Larson 2018-10-03 08:35

    Jason, are you talking about a criminal trial of a defendant or are you talking about the advice and consent procedure of the US Senate? There is quite a difference.

  174. mike from iowa 2018-10-03 08:39

    Darin is winning this debate with the Troll. Just as BCB, Cory and many others who post here would win.

  175. Darin Larson 2018-10-03 08:39

    Of course Kavanaugh’s testimony is evidence that he didn’t do it. Although I and many others have pointed out the many false statements in his testimony that diminish the value of his denials.

  176. Jason 2018-10-03 08:52

    I am talking about the court of public opinion. America doesn’t like it when people can make allegations with no proof that could ruin your son’s, husband’s, brother’s, or father’s reputation and career.

  177. Jason 2018-10-03 09:01

    Which false statements Darin?

  178. mike from iowa 2018-10-03 09:05

    Oh Miss Lindsey, you rascal- Lindsey Graham: Trump should renominate Kavanaugh if Senate fails to confirm him.

    Troll, wingnuts have wasted 35 years and countless tens of millions of taxpayer bucks making false and misleading charges against HRC. They call her a crook and yet cannot point to a single actionable charge they can indict her for. Enough is enough- except for payback. He he he he!

  179. Darin Larson 2018-10-03 09:06

    Jason,

    So in your view, the real societal concern is not the one out of every six women in the US that experience rape or attempted rape in their lifetime? Your concern is with the tiny percentage of false allegations? That seems basackwards.

    https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

  180. mike from iowa 2018-10-03 09:13

    Kavanaugh’s latest lie, Troll- https://www.the-immoral-minority.com/text-messages-reveal-brett-kavanauhg-knew-about/

    Yer boy knew about the Ramirez complaint before the hearing and according to text messages, tried to stop it before the hearing.

    Under oath he said he knew nothing of the charge. Us civilized people believe lying under oath is not an admirable quality for any government job, especially one with a lifetime limit.

  181. Jason 2018-10-03 09:16

    My concern is both Darin. Why isn’t yours?

  182. bearcreekbat 2018-10-03 09:21

    Jason, Eyewitness testimony is classified as direct evidence (in contrast to circumstantial evidence). Testimony from both Ford and Kavanaugh about what they saw, heard and experienced constitute direct evidence either supporting or challenging the allegation that Kavanaugh committed the acts described in Ford’s testimony.

    Ford’s eyewitness testimony supports the allegation that Kavanaugh committed a crime. Kavanaugh’s contradictory testimony is called exculpatory evidence.

    Normally exculpatory evidence need not be presented to a judge or grand jury considering in an application for a search warrant or for an indictment since neither the accused nor his lawyer are permitted to participate in the probable cause determination in these proceedings. Hence a judge would have made this determination based on the direct evidence of Ford’s testimony, which could have been, and often is, presented by a law enforcement officer rather than in person.

    Mitchell’s analysis fell short when she considered and relied on exculpatory evidence for her search warrant conclusion. The discussion of what you argue are holes in Ford’s testimony would be a matter for the jury to consider at trial because a jury (or judge if a jury trial is waived), as the factfinder in a case, is the sole judge of credibility. The prosecutor is not required to present any additional physical evidence, corroborating evidence, exact dates, or exact places, since eyewitness testimony from a single witness will support a jury’s verdict of guilt. And the jury is permitted to reject any part of a witness’s testimony and accept any other part of the testimony, hence impeachment of witness credibility is a factor for the jury to consider, but is not determinative of the outcome.

    Hope that information helps you.

  183. Jason 2018-10-03 09:31

    The American public is the jury now Bear so let”s discuss the holes in her testimony.

    Her ex boyfriend said in a sworn statement she had coached others in taking a polygraph test. What was her testimony about that?

  184. bearcreekbat 2018-10-03 09:39

    Jason, please recall that this discussion started with your assertions that Mitchell’s memo provided accurate information about search warrants and probable cause, whether an indictment could issue based on Ford’s testimony, and whether that testimony constituted “evidence.”

    I won’t attempt to speak for the “American public” as I lack the education, information and knowledge that you apparently feel you have and cannot make supportable arguments about what the “American public” believes. I leave that to experts like yourself and legitimate scientific pollsters.

  185. jerry 2018-10-03 09:43

    trump’s tax fraud and why the corrupt republican party wants to put Kavanaugh on the Court to keep their fraud alive: “New York state tax department reviewing fraud allegations involving Trump in NYT article.
    New York state tax officials are investigating allegations detailed in an exhaustive New York Times investigation into Donald Trump and his family’s business dealings.
    The Times reported that Trump and his family committed “instances of outright fraud” in order to transfer millions of dollars from the real estate empire of the president’s father, Fred Trump, to his children without paying the appropriate taxes.
    “The Tax Department is reviewing the allegations in the NYT article and is vigorously pursuing all appropriate avenues of investigation,” a spokesman from the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance said in an email to CNBC.” The House of Cards will fold fast and hard.

  186. mike from iowa 2018-10-03 10:57

    The Troll’s letter from a so called ex was sent to Fake Noize for the usual reasons and Grassley got it last night.

    Since mainstream media hasn’t touched this, it is safe to assume this will go the way of the supposed 2 men who claimed they assaulted Dr Ford and the Dodo bird.

    All the usual suspects are pushing this- National Review, dead Breitbart, Fake Noize, Dailywire, Daily Caller, infowars, etc.

  187. o 2018-10-03 11:52

    Jason, I only wish the American public made the decisions, for we would have a different president if that were the case.

  188. Jason 2018-10-03 12:30

    Bear wrote:

    Jason, please recall that this discussion started with your assertions that Mitchell’s memo provided accurate information about search warrants and probable cause, whether an indictment could issue based on Ford’s testimony, and whether that testimony constituted “evidence.”

    The Arizona prosecutor made the assertion that with the testimony given to her she would be unable to get a search warrant.

    If you think you know more than her in the prosecution of sexual assaults then by all means get ahold of her and tell her.

  189. mike from iowa 2018-10-03 12:41

    Oh, Troll, just where exactly is this sworn statement from Ford’s alleged ex-boyfriend?

    All I can find is reference to a letter but no questioning under any oath whatsoever. Did you forget something?

  190. mike from iowa 2018-10-03 12:46

    Wah,wah, wah! Why did they wait this long to release theses accusations? Sniffle, gurgle, blurb. It isn’t fair and I’m damn mad I still gonna vote for Dr Ford.

  191. o 2018-10-03 12:46

    Jason, why has Kavanaugh chosen to lie so often in his confirmation? Why undermine his position and make himself look guilty?

  192. mike from iowa 2018-10-03 12:48

    Her alleged ex said she only coached one and named her. But that is unverifiable. And unimportant to the task at hand of confirming this grease ball with bad habits of Drumpf and other right wing nutters.

  193. mike from iowa 2018-10-03 12:50

    What pic was that, Jason? One of Kavanaugh’s nose growing by leaps and bounds, perhaps?

  194. Darin Larson 2018-10-03 12:58

    Jason, I feel like we ought to be charging you for the education on law and policy that you receive on this blog. You flit from one invalid assertion to the next. Each time you are wrong you simply move on to the next flawed argument, ignoring your defeat at every turn. You are the Washington Generals of political discourse.

  195. mike from iowa 2018-10-03 12:59

    Monica McLean, a retired FBI agent and friend of Ford’s issued the following statement to news outlets:

    “I have NEVER had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime.”

  196. mike from iowa 2018-10-03 13:12

    One moar question to be asked- why do Dems hire wingnuts to run their investigations and why do wingnuts hire partisan wingnuts to run their investigations, then complain about the results they get from their own choices?

  197. Darin Larson 2018-10-03 13:15

    Sarah Sanders lecturing people on standards of “process” and “decency” with regard to the Brett Kavanaugh nomination is the height of hypocrisy. As far as process, Senate Republicans did not meet with or even have hearings on the nomination of Merick Garland to the Supreme Court in violation of their constitutional duty to advise and consent on such nominations. They then chose to hide 90% of Brett Kavanaugh’s record from public view for political reasons. Then they have given short shrift to the allegations and evidence of impropriety and lack of judicial temperament by Brett Kavanaugh. This is not a process to be proud of nor hold up as some kind of gold standard.

    Lecturing on standards of decency is laughable when your boss mocks the testimony of Dr. Ford. Let us not forget the standards of decency that Trump employed when he attacked a Goldstar family, John McCain and our heroic POW’s, a disabled reporter, a federal judge based upon his race, and many others for vile and despicable reasons. Trump is the ultimate bully and character assassinator. There is no bar he can’t go lower than. There is no standard he adheres to. He is devoid of a moral compass and without compassion or empathy except for the appearance on occasion when it suits his theatrical and political purposes.

  198. Jason 2018-10-03 13:28

    He didn’t mock her. He repeated what her testimony was. He also made it clear he didn’t believe her.

    That’s called telling the truth.

  199. Darin Larson 2018-10-03 13:42

    Jason,

    Last week Trump said Ford’s testimony was compelling. This week, when Trump is off script, he mocks Ford with incredulous, mocking questions about why she can’t remember where the house was 36 years later and he makes fun of her assertion that she had only one beer. Don’t try to tell us that he wasn’t mocking her. It’s complete and utter BS!

  200. Jason 2018-10-03 13:46

    He read the info and decided as the majority of Americans have that there is more holes in her testimony than swiss cheese. I have heard the tape. He was not mocking her. He was laying out the truth.

  201. bearcreekbat 2018-10-03 13:56

    Jason, your comment telling me to get ahold of Mitchell appears to be a mere unseemly snark, since the comment doesn’t add to the merits of the debate. Moreover, Mitchell probably doesn’t need my advice at this point.

    Mitchell knows, as well as I do, that Arizona has no jurisdiction over the case since the alleged offense occurred in Maryland, not Arizona. And even if Mitchell somehow applied for and gained permission to prosecute a case in Maryland, she is likely aware that the prior Maryland statute of limitations existing in the early 1980’s has run. This means that, absent a waiver, no search warrant or indictment could issue (as Rorschah pointed out) regardless of the strength of the evidence against Kavanaugh.

    Kavanaugh certainly could choose to waive the SL in an effort to permit prosecution and thereby clear his name. Do you think Kavanaugh will waive the SL in an effort to clear his name with trial and acquittal, especially since you believe the evidence against him is so weak?

  202. T 2018-10-03 14:07

    Ok I have to pipe in here
    Doesn’t matter if he believes she was telling the truth or not
    You don’t mock certain topics
    This isn’t the golf resort locker room
    What an idiot. You don’t make a pep speech out of someone else rape, assault, autism, handicaps, color, murder or any other social
    Issues, medical issues or crimes that we endure or possess. It’s tasteless and displays the character of ones that partake. Why tune and runds cannot at least publically addess a stance for woman and those who have been
    Victims of the “white man” wrath and behaviors is unacceptable. They represent all of SD not just the atm

    There is so much wrong here in so many levels
    Even in this blog
    Until we “get” what’s going on here it remains acceptable
    For a country leader to display these mannerisms is unprofessional and classless,
    Those that applaud him and praise this should really look at themselves. You are all pawns

  203. bearcreekbat 2018-10-03 14:08

    Indeed, Jason, if Kavanaugh would come forward and declare that he waives any statute of limitations on prosecution for attempted rape, then Maryland prosecutors could decide whether the evidence supported a prosecution. Moreover, at the time of the alleged offense it was only a misdemeanor under existing Maryland law, (even though today Maryland law provides that attempted rape is a felony with a potential life in prison jail term).

    Thus Kavanaugh has very little to lose if convicted and everything to gain if acquitted. With such “weak” evidence and, if you are correct in stating most Americans are on his side, such a trial should be a cake walk for Kavanaugh’s defense attorneys, wouldn’t you agree? The question is – will he man up and face the charges to clear his name since he is so obviously innocent?

  204. Jason 2018-10-03 14:29

    He doesn’t need to do anything Bear. He will be voted in this week.

  205. bearcreekbat 2018-10-03 14:41

    Jason, you could be right about the vote – I’ll just wait and see. Maybe Kavanaugh and his supporters don’t have as much confidence in a jury discrediting Ford as you seem to have.
    Hence, he probably would never considering trying to clear his name, his reputation, and establish his innocence by allowing a prosecutor to submit his denials and Ford’s testimony, along with whatever other evidence might be admitted at trial, to an impartial jury. Indeed, he would need to do nothing in such a case, nor offer any evidence at all, since the burden of proof would be on the prosecution. What do you suppose he might be afraid of?

    Although if I was representing him I would certainly advise against such a waiver because he just might be found guilty. Maybe he is just following his lawyer’s advice and is willing to live with the public stain on his reputation?

  206. Jason 2018-10-03 15:02

    The American people are the jury. There should be a defamation court case regarding this. I would do it just to get Feinstein and all of the rest of the people involved in this under oath.

  207. mike from iowa 2018-10-03 15:32

    Troll,

    He didn’t mock her. He repeated what her testimony was. He also made it clear he didn’t believe her.

    That’s called telling the truth.

    Man you are full of caca del toro. Worse than usual.

  208. mike from iowa 2018-10-03 15:35

    The American people, unfortunately don’t get to vote on Kavanaugh until after he gets confirmed by partisanship. Jason and his wingnut buddies were never interested in the truth. You can tell by those who claim nothing will change their confirmation votes. Not even sex crimes.

  209. Darin Larson 2018-10-03 16:23

    Mike that is truly despicable for the Republican members of the committee to release that information that was designed to smear Swetnick while not even attempting to get to the bottom of her allegations about Kavanaugh. How do you complain about how Kavanaugh was treated and then drag Swetnick through the mud with tawdry allegations that had little or nothing to do with Swetnick’s allegations?

  210. mike from iowa 2018-10-03 17:34

    Darin, all i can say is wingnuts must be confident with the vote count for confirmation to play this dirty. They are truly despicable dirtbags.

  211. mike from iowa 2018-10-04 09:17

    Now that Grassley has the limited FBI probe results in hand, he says FBI is non-partisan.

    ChuckGrassley

    @ChuckGrassley

    Supplemental FBI background file for Judge Kavanaugh has been received by @senjudiciary Ranking Member Feinstein & I have agreed to alternating EQUAL access for senators to study content from additional background info gathered by non-partisan FBI agents 1/3
    3:07 AM – Oct 4, 2018

    BTW- Kavanaugh’s room mate, one the FBI didn’t interview corroborates Ramirez story about Kavanaugh shoving his Johnson in her face while she was drunk.

    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/kavanaugh-college-roommate-corroborates-debbie-ramirezs-sexual-assault-accusation-fbi-refuses-interview/

  212. OldSarg 2018-10-04 10:22

    The Republicans are more than willing to get this whole issue to a vote. They win either way. If Kavanaugh is confirmed we have a conservative constitutionalist court. If they don’t confirm Kavanaugh the cresting Red wave will become a roaring Tsunami come November. It’s a win either way.

    The best the democrats can do for themselves now is to quiet down and slink off into their corner after the show of lying, destructive, hype they have put on. On the other hand, the Republicans have learned a lot from how Trump wins so you can expect a lot more confrontation in the future. The democrats really should not have done this to such a good man.

  213. mike from iowa 2018-10-04 10:38

    OldSnivelingcoward, when Dems want yer advice they will beat it into you. When Dems need yer advice they are in serious trouble. When Dems heed yer advice the end is near.

  214. OldSarg 2018-10-04 10:50

    iwacko, it’s not advice really. I was just stating facts. Did you just see the news that neither the Judiciary or FBI could find ANY witness to corroborate any of the allegations against Kavanaugh?

    Weird huh how Trump just keeps on WINNING. Must hurt your widdle head to have to think about all your losing.

  215. bearcreekbat 2018-10-04 11:20

    OS, I asked you this once before but you may have missed that post because it was probably off topic on a different thread. I wonder what exactly you feel that Democrats did pertaining to the allegations against Kavanaugh for sexual assault and related misconduct that was improper?

    To the best of my knowledge Senate Democrats did not make a single allegation of sexual abuse against Kavanaugh nor any allegation of sexual or alcoholic misconduct on his part during the years he has been accused of such misbehavior. As best I can tell, each allegation came from private citizens who knew Kavanaugh and claimed to have experiences documenting his bad behavior.

    Democrats are a minority on both the judiciary commitee and in the Senate, hence they could not force a hearing on these allegations. The choice to have a hearing and allow testimony by Ford and Kavanaugh was a decision by the Republican leadership.

    The questions posed by Democrats at the hearing seemed to focus on whether the allegations by private citizens about Kavanaugh’s prior behavior were true or false. I don’t recall seeing a single so-called “smear” question nor even an accusation by a Senate Democrat of misconduct by Kavanaugh during questioning.

    Granted that I may have overlooked something that the Democrats did to earn such criticism, anger and angst expressed by you and Kavanaugh supporters, could you please identity the conduct you think Democrat engaged in that you deem improper?

  216. Robin Friday 2018-10-04 11:42

    Turns out the supplemental FBI investigation was severely limited in scope by the White House, just as Trump said it would not be, to the point where it’s useless.

  217. mike from iowa 2018-10-04 11:44

    Did you just see the news that neither the Judiciary or FBI could find ANY witness to corroborate any of the allegations against Kavanaugh?

    Did you just see the news that Kavernmouth’s room mate backed Ramirez story of Kavernmouth shoving his Johnson in her face and yet the FBI would not interview him?

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-
    the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates

    Remember the house phony Russia investigation where they said they didn’t look for collusion after Drumpf claimed the report cleared him? You can’t find what you don’t look for.

    And today we have the lying potus lying spokesperson claim, once again, Drumpf’s tax returns are still being audited. Can’t you wingnuts lie better than that?

  218. mike from iowa 2018-10-04 11:47

    I don’t recall seeing a single so-called “smear”

    Not from Dems, but OldSillywhack’s wingnut friends on the committee relesed a letter of salacious, unverified fumours about one of the women accusing Kavanaugh. That is standard operating procedure for this bunch of congressvarmints.

  219. OldSarg 2018-10-04 12:27

    bearback~ Do you honestly think young Dr Ford, all on her own, wrote her little letter in the house of an FBI agent who dates one of Muellers attorneys and took her own polygraph provided by another FBI agent then mailed it to her elected democrat officials asking them to keep her name out of this?

    Dr Ford claimed she asked all the people she gave the letter to not disclose her name. She said that in front of the Senate judiciary committee on September 27th.

    Just answer this question: Why would she have taken a polygraph on August 7th, well before the letter was public, if she didn’t think she would have to stand behind her statements?

    How many more lies nee to take place bearcreek? If you want to play attorney on the internet go ahead. I really don’t care. You posts have become dry and tedious.

    iwacko, you are taking up space here. I mean like on earth.

  220. Jason 2018-10-04 12:33

    You know how dumb Trump is?

    He got the MSM to report the actual testimony of Ford.

    Now everyone that only watches the MSM knows the facts.

    LOL.

  221. o 2018-10-04 12:50

    OldSarge, “The democrats really should not have done this to such a good man.”

    That is what I am missing from all this, weighed against the partisanship of Kavanaugh, the perjury of Kavanaugh, the ill-temperament of Kavanaugh, the oozing privilege of Kavanaugh, an the misconduct allegations of Kavanaugh, what was the GOP argument that he is “good?” That he will beat the sexual misconduct rap through procedural maneuvering is not an affirmative argument of decency or “goodness.”

    I also have even money that any anti-Roe judge will get his orders to not go too far in any ruling against Roe so that the GOP can keep the single-issue boogieman in their arsenal.

    All this is a reminder that it is a good time to be a wealthy white man in America. (But when has that not been the case?)

  222. bearcreekbat 2018-10-04 13:49

    OS, normally I would ignore a post of yours addressed to someone besides me, yet you did use my name in the body of your post, so I will comment.

    Apparently, your comment suggests that you have concluded that some unnamed Democrats conspired to convince Dr. Ford and other supporting persons to issue false allegations, including lying to the FBI. Now I understand your anger.

    But that leads me to another question. Has anyone else anywhere, including Alex Jones, posted a similar conspiracy theory, or is this your own personal conclusion?

    As for my posts describing what the law is that you find boring and tedious, please feel free to skip over them and read something you might find more entertaining. I am not as creative in my writing as you are, but I am just trying to share some of what I have learned over the years and correct various mistaken contrary ideas I have seen in many blog comments and public officials’ statements. If you don’t want to know or intelligently discuss the actual law, so be it.

  223. Debbo 2018-10-04 13:59

    In the many years I have read first Madville Times, and now DFP, it’s been fairly easy to conclude that Cory is one of the smartest people on the planet and an excellent thinker, with BCB close behind. That often seems to make others uncomfortable with them and/or unhappy with them.

    Cory and BCB don’t play insult games, do follow up, don’t call names, do use sound sources, don’t bluster about and do treat the rest of us with courtesy and respect. Some find that extremely frustrating. I find it a reason to hold both gentlemen in high regard.

  224. bearcreekbat 2018-10-04 14:27

    Aw Debbo, that is so kind. Thanks and right back atcha!

  225. mike from iowa 2018-10-04 14:36

    OldSferbrains, I am Sade’s Smooth Operator. He move in space with minimum waste and maximum joy.

    You just waste space and oxygen and then bloviate more methane than a feedlot full of fat cattle. Have a nice day.

  226. bearcreekbat 2018-10-04 15:19

    mfi, I wonder how OS explains the un-named Democrat conspirators’ apparent ability to get the examiner to assert fake test results for Dr. Ford? Perhaps his theory is that un-named Democrats gave Dr. Ford a crash test in how to beat a lie detector and she succeeded?

    That brings to mind Circuit Court Judge Kavanaugh’s court opinion evaluating the usefulness of polygraph tests a few years ago. In Sacks v. U.S. Department of Defense, the Court held that polygraph test procedures used by law enforcement were exempt from disclosure under the Freedon of Information Act. Kavanaugh wrote the unanimous court opinion, explaining:

    The reports at issue in this case assist law enforcement agencies in taking “proactive steps” to deter illegal activity and ensure national security. As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to “screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection roles.” . . . .

    In Morley v. CIA, we stated: “Background investigations conducted to assess an applicant’s qualification, such as . . . clearance and investigatory processes, inherently relate to law enforcement.”
    . . . .

    The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes. It has also explained how the reports assessing the efficacy of those examinations and identifying needed fixes likewise serve law enforcement purposes. Put simply, the reports help ensure that law enforcement officers optimally use an important law enforcement tool. . . .

    Sacks at p. 14. See:

    https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/14C13354330CBDF285257FB90051476D/$file/14-5039-1614275.pdf

    Given his opinion of the usefulness of polygraphs it seems surprising that Kavanaugh did not want to take one to help clear his good name. After all, as he points out, polygraphs are used to “screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement. . . .” A position as Justice on the SCOTUS seems to be a part of “critical law enforcement.”

    Maybe he discovered the un-named Democrats in OS’s conspiracy theory would be able to fix any test Kavanaugh took.

  227. OldSarg 2018-10-04 17:29

    “Given his opinion of the usefulness of polygraphs it seems surprising that Kavanaugh did not want to take one to help clear his good name.” why would he. There was no evidence against him. . . proven.

  228. mike from iowa 2018-10-04 18:28

    Dailywire has less credibility than you and OldSferbrains times a million.

  229. Jason 2018-10-04 18:29

    The question now is will Congress pursue perjury charges against Ford?

    Monica McLean’s denial was not done under penalty of perjury.

  230. Jason 2018-10-04 18:30

    Feel free to call the Capitol police Mike to verify. LOL.

  231. mike from iowa 2018-10-04 19:00

    Monica McLean’s denial was not done under penalty of perjury.

    You trying to be a comedian now What penalty does Kavernmouth get for constantly committing perjury, Jason?

    What can the capitol police tell me about you I haven’t already figured out, Jason?

  232. mike from iowa 2018-10-04 19:23

    Cory- My commenters are just bursting for a Kavanaugh post. Fine.

    Was you serious?

  233. Debbo 2018-10-04 21:46

    “OldSkunkmeatsandwich” 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

  234. jerry 2018-10-04 22:21

    Graham is just another floozy. “WASHINGTON — Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has been one of the biggest proponents of President Trump’s crackdown on China, welcoming tariffs on Chinese imports while conceding that they will raise costs for American businesses and consumers.

    “There is no way for us to address China without absorbing some pain here,” Mr. Graham said in August.

    But behind the scenes, Mr. Graham has been working to help chemical and textile companies in his home state avoid the pain of Mr. Trump’s trade war. The senator has advocated on behalf of seven South Carolina companies that import products from China, writing letters urging the Trump administration to remove materials they rely on from a list of goods subject to Mr. Trump’s tariffs.” New York Times 10/04/2018

    Gwaad, they cannot help themselves at your expense farmers. Tariffs are good if you are protected, but if you are not, you look in the mirror and see who got screwed.

  235. Jason 2018-10-04 22:38

    They put Martha Stewart in prison, why wouldn’t they put Ford there.

  236. bearcreekbat 2018-10-05 01:46

    Jason, do you agree with the conspiracy theory suggested by OS?

    OS’s theory is really remarkable since it posits that un-named Democrats got Dr. Ford to tell the story of the sexual assault (that you want to imprison her for telling) before Kavanaugh’s nomination. What an amazing ability to foresee who Trump would choose from the list of acceptable candidates prepared by the Federalist society for Trump.

    It seems odd, however, that these un-named Democrats didn’t conspire to convince Dr. Ford to make up this story before Kavanaugh was nominated for the circuit court, as it would have been more difficult for Trump people supporting Kavanaugh like yourself to attack, try to discredit and seek to imprison her at that time. I guess these un-named Democrats weren’t quite as presentient as OS might have thought in forming the conspiracy OS posits.

    Or maybe Dr. Ford is actually telling the truth, and there are no un-named Democrats involved in her revelations, which could present you with difficulty in your effort to jail her. It might be easier for you to go after AG Sessions for his lies to Congress about meeting with Russians since these days Trump seems mad at him, and it seems clear your response to Trump’s anger is to seek prison for whoever might be Trump’s twitter enemy of the day.

  237. mike from iowa 2018-10-05 07:12

    They put Martha Stewart in prison, why wouldn’t they put
    kavernmouth there? Or Drumpf, or any number of Drumpf’s crime family and cabinet and campaign staff?

  238. Jason 2018-10-05 07:21

    Bear,

    Let’s discuss the door and the polygraph test she told Mclean how to beat. You ready to do that?

  239. mike from iowa 2018-10-05 07:40

    Murkowski of Alaska and Heitkamp from North Dakota are nos for Kavernmouth while Manchin is a yes.

  240. Jason 2018-10-05 07:46

    Of course Heitkamp is a no. She knows she will be losing the election.

  241. mike from iowa 2018-10-05 07:55

    Lady knows how to get to the point- bigly

    October 04, 2018 By: Juanita Jean Herownself

    Okay, here’s the deal. Grassley has delicately announced of the FBI report, “There’s nothing in it that we didn’t already know.”

    What the hell is that?

    Look, Grassley already knew that the guy is a liar, a drunk, assaults women, and vowed revenge on Democrats. So if the FBI reports confirms all that … he knew it. Hell, I knew it. The National Council of Churches knew it. About 1,700 law professors around the county knew it.

    So, Republicans said they interviewed 9 people and none of them could corroborate Ford’s account of sexual assault. Whoopsie damn doo.

    He is unfit for a lifetime appointment. Period. And carefully worded statements don’t fix that.

  242. mike from iowa 2018-10-05 07:57

    Let’s discuss the door and the polygraph test she told Mclean how to beat

    Where is the statement under penalty of perjury you thugs keep yakking about but never provide?

  243. Jason 2018-10-05 07:59

    Mclean has not given a statement under threat of perjury Mike. She told ABC she didn’t do it but it wasn’t a sworn statement.

    It’s not that difficult Mike.

  244. mike from iowa 2018-10-05 08:08

    It’s not that difficult Mike. Apparently it is for you, Jason. I specifically asked where the sworn statement from the thug who claims to be Ford’s ex-boyfriend. I have seen the letter but there is nothing on it to say it was sworn to under the penalty of perjury. Stoopid wingnuts have not said anything about swearing the boyfriend to tell the truth, so where the hell is all this nonsense about sworn statements at?

  245. Jason 2018-10-05 08:18

    It was sent to the Senate Mike.

  246. mike from iowa 2018-10-05 08:19

    And Jason, you sure put alot of faith in penalty for perjury when it could be used against kavernmouth’s detractors and yet ignore the many times kavernmouth, Sessions, and just about every cabinet member for Drumpf has lied under oath.

  247. Jason 2018-10-05 08:23

    Prove they lied Mike.

  248. T 2018-10-05 09:19

    Any count yet ?
    Or news as to the sway votes?
    Don’t have cnn connection for some reason on iPhone

  249. OldSarg 2018-10-05 09:19

    Saturday 12:30 am West River greets their new Supreme Court Jurist to the Supreme Court of the United States. A large glass of barley will be hefted up and a rowdy cheer from around the room will build into a great Crescendo!

    iwacko, how are you folks in the Outter Lands (land not in South Dakota) going to celebrate?

  250. OldSarg 2018-10-05 09:23

    T the vote today is just to end debate. The actual vote is Saturday 10:30 EST.

  251. T 2018-10-05 09:25

    Thanks OS
    Misunderstood the radio I guess

  252. OldSarg 2018-10-05 09:33

    No, it wasn’t you. I heard it on NPR as well. I think the news is just confused as well.

  253. bearcreekbat 2018-10-05 09:48

    Jason, Rather than quarrel about the factual accuracy of Dr. Ford’s testimony (since I wasn’t present at the events she described) I would rather focus on the rationality and validity of the conspiracy theory posited by OS regarding the un-named, but obviously nefarious, Democrats. Under OS’s conspiracy theory, whatever inconsistencies in her testimony that you imagine have been discredited by individuals that you personally find more credible than Dr. Ford are a result of the un-named Democrats remarkable foresight and abilities to manipulate Dr. Ford before Kavanaugh’s nomination.

    As I asked earlier, is this a conspiracy theory you support? Your personal attacks against Dr. Ford and desire to imprison only her seem to absolve OS’s un-named Democrats of any wrongdoing – perhaps to threaten retribution against other alleged victims of sexual abuse who might consider coming forward with stories alleging similar illegal or inappropriate behavior by your favored political candidates.

    If you don’t agree with OS that this is all a conspiracy by these un-named Democrats to manipulate Dr. Ford, what are the weaknesses of OS’s conspiracy theory that make it unacceptable to you?

  254. mike from iowa 2018-10-05 09:56

    It was sent to the Senate Mike.

    I don’t care where it went. I want to see a copy of a real sworn to under penalty of perjury freaking document, you hard headed cuss! If such a document exists there has to be an available copy of it somewhere. Get that through that block of granite on yer shoulders.

  255. mike from iowa 2018-10-05 09:59

    MaClean’s statement was issued through Ford’s attorneys. I’m guessing they warned her of the chance of perjury of not telling the truth. They would be remiss not to.

  256. mike from iowa 2018-10-05 10:24

    https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/heidi-heitkamp-no-vote-bigger-than-brett-kavanaugh.html

    Interesting piece on Heitkamp’s decision to vote no. Even moar interesting is the tie in to WAVA act where Heitkamp insisted on greater protection for Native American women who are more likely to be raped and sexually assaulted by non-natives. Grassley was adamant that the non-Indians didn’t get a fair trial.

    On another note, Montana wingnut Gaines will be a Saturday vote no show. His daughter is getting married and he chose not to ruin her life in lieu of destroying America.

  257. Jason 2018-10-05 13:14

    Do we need to add witness tampering to this story?

    A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh, which she later updated to say that she believed but couldn’t corroborate Dr. Ford’s account, according to people familiar with the matter.

    Leland Keyser, who Dr. Ford has said was present at the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted in the 1980s, told investigators that Monica McLean, a retired Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a friend of Dr. Ford’s, had urged her to clarify her statement, the people said.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152

  258. mike from iowa 2018-10-06 07:57

    Every time Drumpf bloviates he commits witness/jury tampering and obstruction of justice. When will he ever be charged so we can perp walk his fat orange behind into prison?

  259. Debbo 2018-10-06 12:03

    I’ve heard that about the cruelty Mike. It just sickens me. It’s also a little bit frightening to realize there are that many sadistic Americans. That’s an extremely serious mental illness.

    Not all Bloviating Toddler voters are sadists who take pleasure in the suffering of others. (Children even!) A large percentage got much more than they bargained for when they ticked the GOP box at the top in 2016. Or much less.

    The USA’s pretty quilt coverlet has been ripped off. We’re not as special as we like to pretend.

  260. mike from iowa 2018-10-07 09:28

    Rumour has it kavernmouth used his first unfit for paycheck to buy Miss Lindsey Graham a new fainting couch and smelling salts for those times when the vapors hit unexpectedly.

  261. mike from iowa 2018-10-07 09:31

    Former 9th Circuit Raygun appointee, Alex Kozinski, criticized the court as being too liberal. For a guy forced to resign because of repeated assault allegations, he probably shouldn’t be the one yapping about the court’s makeup.

    Someone please make one comment to push the total to 300.

  262. mike from iowa 2018-10-07 11:34

    OldScuttlebutt when did you shorten yer moniker? Used to be Old Sarge back in 2004 and 2007.

  263. OldSarg 2018-10-07 13:12

    mike, did you call? You need to call.

  264. mike from iowa 2018-10-17 12:41

    Speaking of the or a Supreme Court, Florida disgraced gov tried to ensure Florida’s court would be dominated by wingnuts even if he loses the election by trying to sneak three wingnut judges on after the three Dems terms ran out. The Florida Supreme Court caught him and prevented this bit of wingnut chicanery.

    https://www.salon.com/2018/10/16/florida-supreme-court-just-thwarted-the-republican-governors-underhanded-and-desperate-plot_partner/

    OldSiphonedswampwaste- are you still Lakota?

  265. Steve Higgins 2020-04-28 09:33

    ALL women must be believed……Joe Biden? Or does the old senile fool get a pass?

  266. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2020-04-29 07:05

    Steve is just digging around for some old post to hijack and turn to his preferred, prefab, national-news topic instead of real local issues. But fine, Steve, I’m sure in your consistency, you won’t vote for any man accused of violating women.

    Sexual harassment is bad. Joe Biden will admit that and will work to reduce it. Donald Trump won’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.