Ford shot straight, Kavanaugh evaded

Spread the love

Go look at this great chart at Vox.

It represents the transcript of the Ford and Kavanaugh questioning at the US Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, showing where in the proceedings each of the two witnesses answered vs. evaded a question that they were asked.

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.

Spread the love

167 thoughts on “Ford shot straight, Kavanaugh evaded

  1. Yeah, pretty much as anyone who paid attention already knows. But I’m sure we’ll hear objections along the lines of “she can’t remember how many people were at the party so her entire story is crap” from Kavanaugh’s supporters, as though
    – anyone who went to a party that long ago would remember the number of people
    – being assaulted and almost raped at a party would tend to be the primary memory from that party
    – remembering how many people were there doesn’t matter anyway

    I don’t think his lies in his testimony or in the most recent ‘interview’ will matter: just like your three right wingers who regularly post here, the current in-power Republicans don’t give a whit about honesty, integrity, or the well-being of women. They want someone who will protect their president and set do as much damage to the country as possible while protecting the elite.

    1. “– anyone who went to a party that long ago would remember the number of people”

      Also, as though people going to a party do a nose count every half an hour to keep track of all the people coming in / going out.
      Well, I may do, but I’m slightly OCD this way.

  2. Looks like Kavanaugh, figuratively speaking, was caught red-faced, red-agendaed, and red-charted.

    Red-handed may be still to come (or not…)

  3. Four boys in the room vs four boys total vs three boys and 1 girl. Yeah it’s tough keeping a head count for these big parties.
    She forgot the story she told the therapist, which also said mid 80s and late teens and doesn’t mention Kavanaugh, and has been changing her story to try and reconcile differences.
    But she sure remembers that she and everyone else had just one drink, except for Kavanaugh and Judge. I’m sure everyone just casually keeps count of things like this at parties.
    Or perhaps she knew she needed to preemptively defend against a particular line of attack.

    As for straight shooter, she was asked about her friend who wouldn’t back her up, and her response was
    she has health problems that she’s dealing with.

    1. Irrelevant points mikeN, even if they were true. Trying to excuse sexual assault should be beneath everyone.

  4. dean:

    Kavanaugh is saying he is innocent. That means there was no sexual assault by him.

    I believe Kavanaugh – which means Ford is either mistaken or lying.

    MikeN is merely listing some of the evidence for Ford being mistaken or lying.

    Her story changed in a number of important ways, and none of the people she said were at the party can remember being at any such party (one with Kavanaugh present).

    That little fact is a huge problem for Ford’s credibility.

    1. “I believe Kavanaugh”

      I’m sure you do, as you have a history of evidence not mattering. I will note that people who work with the woman the Republicans found to interview her have said they believe her, and disagree completely with the assessment made by the Republican’s lawyer.

      “Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford’s account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford’s account,” Keyser’s attorney, Howard Walsh, wrote in the letter, which was sent to the committee overnight Friday. “However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”

      having no recollection of the incident (assault) does not contradict Ford.

      In her testimony Ford said she remembered that Keyser, a longtime friend, was present at the party, but that it is not surprising Keyser would not recall the party because Ford did not tell her about the alleged assault at the time.

      I know it’s impossible for people who dismiss sexual assault to understand, but isn’t uncommon for women (or girls) to fail to share information, whether family or authorities (because the response is so often like yours has been).

      Sorry — there is no reason to take seriously any objection from you or mikeN when you made your decisions before hearing any evidence. If your decision is made solely because you want a certain political outcome (as it is for you two) you aren’t a credible voice in this.

    2. It’s not that she didn’t tell her about it, but under Ford’s claims, she left her friend alone with a bunch of boys, two of whom she thought at the time were attempted rapists. And her friend thought nothing of having her disappear from a party and leaving her alone with boys, which should have been a memorable incident.

      I think what’s happening is Ford expected her friend to stick up for her in an opportunity to defeat Kavanaugh, but her friend decided she wouldn’t make a felony false statement to do so. She likes her friend and isn’t willing to call her a liar though.

      Also notable is that with all these relatives signing a letter in support, they are mostly from her husband’s side, and her parents and lawyers who are brothers are quiet.

  5. Another one of her straight shooting answers was not about events in 1982, but the aftermath in 2012. She told Leahy that the revelation in couples therapy about the assault was because she explained to her husband the need for a second front door. Because of Kavanaugh she needs an escape route now from the master bedroom.

    Someone tracked this down, and they had a permit for the door in 2008, four years before this revelation. The purpose of the door was so the marriage counselor they bought the house from could continue her business in the house. they added a door, room, and a bathroom.

    I think it was Sen Blumenthal that said, ‘you lie about small things, you lie about everything.’

    1. I hope the FBI is talking to squi. If they were in fact “going out” in 1982 for a couple months, it would sure make sense he gave her a ride to his house for a party, and home from his house after the party.

      I still find it totally unbelievable that she cannot remember where the party was, how she got there or how she got home. If it turns out the party was at squi’s home and he was her ride, it will be interesting to find out why she left him out of her “truth”.

    2. I still find it totally unbelievable that she cannot remember where the party was, how she got there or how she got home.

      I find it unbelievable that people consider sexual assault to be so minor that it can affect memories and behavior.

    3. But doesn’t affect her memory of how much she and everyone else was drinking. That was seared in her mind.

      Her named party attendees didn’t live near the country club which she initially said was close to where the party was. Upon realizing this and the therapist note discrepancy, she has added more attendees.
      Upon realizing the problem with the floor plan, she changed that detail too. Something else that she could remember that was seared in her mind, changed when other facts came out. Now she is in Congress offering to draw up a floor plan.

      And what’s the deal with talking about Safeway so much?

    4. No, that permit doesn’t back up her story. The door was not added to her bedroom, but they added a new room, which they are now calling a master bedroom, but was actually being rented out.

  6. Dianne Feinstein called for a one week delay for an FBI investigation. Now she says it shouldn’t happen after just one week. Surprise surprise. She also is saying the FBI report should not be made public. What does she have to hide?

  7. On the one hand we have Ford whose story is missing many details, and whose story has changed on other details, backed up by therapist notes that have not been submitted to Congress or the public, only portions to a reporter, and in testimony Ford couldn’t even say for sure she provided notes to the reporter as the article said. Also backing her up is her husband saying that she said Kavanaugh which the therapist’s notes do not say. She has other people that said she told them about it 30 years after the fact. An e-mail was mentioned from 2016 but has not been produced.

    On the other hand, none of Ford’s named witnesses say they remember such a party, and her friend said she never met Kavanaugh. Brett Kavanaugh has a calendar with details of where he was during the time in question(bet they weren’t expecting that!).
    The only witness to this party is Ford, who can’t name the place, whose house, how she got there, or how she got home.

    I think you are projecting when you say that we are reaching conclusions based on partisan concerns.

    1. Yes it is. MikeN’s (and rickA’s) dismissals aren’t based on fact and I don’t take the seriously (nobody should) because mikeN “knew” before the hearing that she was lying, and rickA doesn’t consider sexual assault to be a serious matter. The fact that both claim to be concerned with “lies” by her but not with the documented lies by Kavanaugh in the initial hearing and the second one also eliminates their opinions from the pool of those that should be taken seriously.

    2. Not very persuasive in my view. It gets better towards the end, but the opening points are way off.
      ‘Never been to a party like that’ I understood to mean he could definitely say he was not at the party described, not that he had never been at a small gathering.
      Then there is the July 1st party. Not sure if the argument is this is a lie because of the attendees, or because he didn’t include it. He didn’t include it because he went thru weekend parties. As for the attendees, Leland was not there. Then there is that fourth person, ‘Squi’. I didn’t realize this was the mystery man that Ed Whelan accused of being the real rapist. There is something strange with this guy. Ford identified him as introducing him to Kavanaugh, but he hasn’t come forward to confirm this, which would show Kavanaugh to be lying. Also, Ford wants to keep his name out of things, and refused to talk about him.

      Makes a reasonable point about ‘it didn’t happen’ vs ‘witnesses don’t remember’, but that’s not a lie. Kavanaugh even at one point said the witness ‘does not recall ever being at a party with me with or without Dr. Ford.’

      I think the author goes too far in calling this a lie/deliberate fudge.
      “I — I know of her. And it — it’s possible I, you know, saw — met her in high school at some point at some event. Yes, I know — I know of her and, again, I don’t want to rule out having crossed paths with her in high school.”

    3. Then we get to the maps. I was struck by Kavanaugh’s testimony that his group didn’t socialize with that school. Somewhat at odds with what Ford was saying, though she did say Landon was their primary.
      The two schools did not seem that far apart, especially compared to Gaithersburg High attended by another accuser. The author puts up a map of two of Kavanaugh’s named girls schools to say Ford wasn’t that far away. That doesn’t make Kavanaugh’s statement a lie. They could try and find people from her school who socialized with Brett and friends. I got curious since Brett named 5 schools, the map only put up 2. I thought I’d see where the other three were. Stone Ridge is nearby, cutting against the argument being made. I can’t tell where Immaculata and Visitation are(or were), but American University bought Immaculata and it is farther than Holton, and Visitation might be Georgetown Visitation Prep in Georgetown unlike Kavanaugh’s fake Georgetown Prep, also far away, and both crucially inside the Beltway, along with Holton. I don’t know what traffic was like in 1982, but this could explain why they didn’t socialize much with Holton and did with Holy Child.

      The map of the homes didn’t establish any lies, as Kavanaugh’s point was that Ford couldn’t explain how she got to the country club or got home. He still didn’t live nearby, as the prosecutor was prepared to show until Ford changed her story. Who does live near the country club is ‘Squi’.

      Then the author goes into a long discussion of drinking. I don’t see outright lies there, but it’s fair to say he wasn’t giving succinct answers and was instead trying to redirect away from his drinking. He also surprisingly managed to avoid admitting underage drinking.

      As for ‘Renate Alumnius’ Renate knew in high school about the poem, so I don’t think that can be used as evidence for it really means X and not Y, since she was friendly with them up until people revealed the yearbook and their interpretation of what it meant.

    4. Most decent (excludes RickA, who finds sexual assault acceptable), thinking (excludes Locus) persons will find that MikeN is playing fast and loose with the truth and trivializing manifest mendacity. There are evidential implications of Kavanaugh’s evasiveness:
      “If a man claims to be innocent, but does things—like carefully manipulate words to avoid giving clear answers, or lie about the evidence—that you probably wouldn’t do if you were innocent, then testimony alone can substantially change our confidence in who to believe.”
      (From the Current Affairs article.)
      In fact, Kavanaugh’s evasiveness went way beyond what’s stated here. He changed the subject., to avoid answering questions, he spoke about how good he was or he attacked the questioner.
      And not a word about Kavanaugh’s singular definitions of “boof” and “devil’s triangle.”
      Kavanaugh was also lying about when he learned about Ramirez’s allegations:
      To these can be added that Kavanaugh was involved in a bar fight. And aside from sexual assault(s) and lying, there’s Kavanaugh’s disqualifying demonstration of vindictive partisanship.

    5. “As for ‘Renate Alumnius’ Renate knew in high school about the poem …”

      This is what Renate Dolphin said to the NYT:
      “I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,” Ms. Dolphin said in a statement to The New York Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.”

      If MikeN isn’t able to provide documentation from a reliable source that Dolphin said she knew of the the yearbook comments while in high school, he’s lying. And if he can’t provide reliable documentation, but instead is enthralled by a partisan fantasy, this wouldn’t be the first time. As Dean pointed out, he knew that Blasey was lying before she said a word. And he was able to divine the undescribed division of labor between Farrow and Mayer.

    6. Cosmic, Renate did not know about the yearbook comments. She knew about the poem, was not happy about it; it existed before the yearbook. My point is poem cannot be used as evidence for meaning of yearbook comments because she already knew about it, was not happy about it, but was still friendly.

    7. “Renate did not know about the yearbook comments. She knew about the poem, was not happy about it; it existed before the yearbook.”

      Fine. Then you can document
      •That the verse pre-existed the yearbook,
      •That Dolphin knew of the verse, and
      •That she was offended by it before the yearbook came to her attention.

      A link to a reliable source, please.

    8. MikeN

      Thank you for providing a link, albeit from a not particularly reliable source. In any case, the information is insignificant. It in no way contradicts the callousness of the yearbook comments or undermines Dolphin’s dismay upon hearing about them. If your point is that there are other, more salient examples of Kavanaugh’s dishonesty and evasiveness, I would agree.

      In another comment I linked to an article by Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare. Wittes had been favorably inclined toward Kavanaugh, but, based on the evidence and the uncertainty that the evidence has produced, he can no longer support him. The integrity of the judicial system is too important.

    9. Thank you for providing a link, albeit from a not particularly reliable source.

      A bit of an understatement there, Cosmi. It’s rightwing lies from start to finish. I’d say it’s the worst news source in Britain, although there’s also The Sun, neck and neck in the race to the bottom.

      There’s a reason why the DM was banned from use as a source by Wikipedia:

      Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group “generally unreliable”.

      The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.

      The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.

      So you can bet that the ‘story’ MikeN is quoting is a bunch of bullshit.

      Nobody serious (ie honest) cites the DM in support of their argument.

    10. This started with the article declaring the poem was evidence that Kavanaugh was lying about the meaning, and I don’t think you can point to the poem as evidence. Beyond that, I make no claims about the yearbook.

      The meaning being attributed to Renate Alumnius is plausible. I don’t know that I would have interpreted it that way seeing just the quote without being given the meaning beforehand.

    11. I don’t think Daily Mail was my original source, just what I could find. The whole article seems like it has just been loosely copied from another source.

    12. I don’t think Daily Mail was my original source, just what I could find. The whole article seems like it has just been loosely copied from another source.

      Oh, fuck off with your nonsense.

    13. Cosmicomics,

      Just skimming over the Current Affairs article.

      1. Claims *two* other “serious sexual misconduct allegations”. Nonsense. Ramirez couldn’t seem to make an acceptable arrangement to testify. Even NBC news concedes that that they can’t find any corroboration of Swetnick’s claims.

    14. Cosmicomics,

      Current Affairs 2.

      “He says that he never attended a gathering like this, but that’s obviously false, because the type of gathering he says he did attend is exactly the kind she describes.”

      Nope. Meeting with your friends is not the same as attending a party/gathering with people you’ve never met.

    15. Cosmicomics,

      Current Affairs #3

      “So he gathered for [brew]skis with 2 of the 3 people Ford says she remembers being there. Small gathering? Beer? Judge, Brett, and P.J.? Check, check, and check. So when Kavanaugh says none of the gatherings on the calendar include the people Ford says, and implies that Ford was just conjuring names of people he would never gather with, that’s false. In fact, she cited a small gathering with P.J. and Judge before he released his calendar confirming it.”

      Robinson is really being dishonest here. Kavanaugh is describing a get-together consisting of,

      Mark Judge
      “Timmy” — I’m assuming Timmy is present at his own house.

      So seven guys and no girls. How does that match the 4 males and two females of Ford’s story?

      Robinson seems to be trying to claim that all gatherings with **beer** are somehow the “same”. As if your cousin’s Labor Day cookout where you might have a beer with your burger is equivalent to the Hell’s Angels at Laconia.

    16. Cosmicomics,

      Current Affairs #4

      “Do you notice something? THIS IS A BALD-FACED LIE. Keyser never said it “didn’t happen.” She said she didn’t remember being at a party with him and doesn’t know him.”

      Oh, Come On Now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Everyone knows what Kavanaugh was saying. He even uses the word “recall” in the first quote!

      Robinson’s case must be extraordinarily weak to be grasping at straws this weak.

    17. Cosmicomics,

      Current Affairs #5

      “Another fact about Keyser: She may not remember him, but he seems to remember her. When asked, he became extremely cagey and imprecise: ”

      Wut? We all know what’s going on here. If Kavanaugh had made a definitive statement that he never met Keyser and it later turned that they both attended the same two-hundred-kid house party, Robinson would be screaming “perjury”. That’s why Kavanaugh was being “imprecise”.

      And really. What are the chances that Kavanaugh knew Keyser, but not vice versa?

      This whole Current Affairs article is turning out to be a pile of garbage and weak garbage at that.

    18. Cosmicomics,

      Current Affairs #6

      “This may seem like hair-splitting.”

      So even Robinson realizes how weak his case is!

      ” I don’t recall such a thing” should always raise suspicions”

      Isn’t that what **Keyser** said? So is Robinson suspicious of Keyser now?

      “…though one of them believes it happened”

      Argh!! DUMB! DUMB! DUMB!

      Witnesses are called to testify on what they actually saw/experienced, not on what they “believe”!

      What would you expect a friend of Ford to say? That she doesn’t believe her?

      This Robinson guy is a major league moron.

    19. Cosmicomics,

      Current Affairs #7:

      “But he actually has precisely such an event on his calendar! The July 1st brewski-evening with P.J., Judge, et al. happened on a Thursday, according to his own record.”

      Nope. It is entirely possible that Kavanaugh could meet with some of his friends and limit his alcohol consumption. Robinson needs to provide some evidence that Kavanaugh became inebriated **every** time he drank alcohol. I haven’t seen that.

    20. Cosmicomics,

      Current Affairs #8

      “…by suggesting that Ford simply wouldn’t have encountered him because he was far away.”


      Kavanaugh’s quote is right above this drivel.

      “She says confidently that she had one beer at the party, but she does not say how she got to the house in question or how she got home or whose house it was.”

      Kavanaugh is NOT saying that Ford “simply wouldn’t have encountered him because he was far away”. He is saying that someone would have driven Ford and this is just one more alleged witness who has not come forward or even been identified.

    21. Cosmicomics,

      Current Affairs #9

      “Kavanaugh, who scoffs that he didn’t live near Ford’s country club, lived closer to it than she did!”

      Huh? I live “closer” to the North Pole than Nathan Robinson. That does not mean that I live “close” to the North Pole. We’re both far away.

      And the dumbness continues …

    22. Cosmicomics,

      Current Affairs #10

      “Kavanaugh has not only denied engaging in abuse, but has rejected the entire idea of him as having been an excessive and rowdy drinker”

      Robinson is just flat-out lying here. Kavanaugh has admitted to drinking and sometimes to excess. What he is pushing back against is that he’s a blackout drunk who wouldn’t remember assaulting Ford.

    23. Cosmicomics,

      Current Affairs #11

      With regards to Renate Dolphin.

      I don’t think it was right to mention her name in the yearbook for any reason, innocent or not.

      However, the claim that it was sexual boasting was made by a classmate who is now a Democratic politician running as a leader of the the “Resistance”. He tried to cause some buzz by kissing his husband in a campaign ad to “trigger” Trump. ( Nobody seemed to care, womp womp! ). Clearly someone with a political ax to grind.

      Seth Hagen who now claims to be so outraged was the yearbook editor. So apparently he wasn’t outraged enough at the time to strike Kavanaugh’s and other’s entries.

    24. Cosmicomics,

      Current Affairs #12

      “Here, Richard Blumenthal tries to explain to Kavanaugh why small lies to the Senate matter: ”



    25. So seven guys and no girls. How does that match the 4 males and two females of Ford’s story?

      Ford’s ability to recall only some of the people who attended the party does not imply that there were not other people there, nor does it invalidate her recall of those whom she says were there, whether documented on Kavanaugh’s calendar or not.

      Similarly, Kavanaugh’s entry on a calendar of an upcoming event does not mean that other people were not invited, nor attended without his prior knowledge. I highly doubt that Kavanaugh’s calendar lists everyone who attended every party or other event that he himself attended. He must have gone to very small parties, if so, because he only as about an inch square to write each attendance list…

      Your argument is specious. Learn some logic, and some analytical impartiality.

  8. Senator Grassley informs Ford’s lawyer that they received a sworn statement from someone who witnessed Ford coaching someone in taking a polygraph, contradicting what she testified to.

    Has anyone submitted a sworn statement that Kavanaugh is lying, other than two of his accusers?
    Well actually more than two, as one has recanted and has been referred for prosecution.

  9. So the amassed forces of the right are now trying to discredit the professor of statistics and psychology based on their insignificant understanding of the human brain. What else is new? Primacy and recency. Trump first said Ford was part of a hoax. Then he said she was believable. Now he is putting her down again. A masterful deceiver and manipulator that one is.

    Kavanaugh is a lout. He is not someone who gets into a bar fight to save the honor well or being of another. No. He is someone who gets into a bar fight because someone won’t submit to his loutishness. Recollections of his behavior in high school, in college, in front of members of congress, as an aide to Bush, and as a judge all add up to someone who does not show evidence of extraordinary wisdom or temperment, no evidence of any qualities that entitle him to be a justice of the Supreme Court. And yet the big fool (Trump) says to push on… and all the little cons soldier on.

    I’m don’t know why the cons cannot look at Kavanaugh dispassionately. Why do they take this so personally? Is it an arrogant, narcissistic belief in the perfection of their own side and everything about it? Is it that their value system depends on many interlocking parts, non of which can fail, few of which have redundancy, most of which are unproven and unprovable? Aren’t they establishing a kind of religion based on their “conservative” principles? Aren’t they trying to re-establish a monarchy?

    These days, I think of the cons as a bunch of old mastodons whose testosterone is flagging. Any defeat will hurt their hormones irreparably, so they must win, they must put it in everybody’s face, they must insult and bully, and they must act misogynistically. This is all testosterone based behavior. There is nothing wise or profound about it. And it will not end well for them.

  10. The FBI investigation is wrapping up and the vote should take place Friday or Saturday.

    It doesn’t sound like we will obtain transcripts of the questions and answers of the witnesses, which is to bad.

    I suspect that the juicy stuff will be leaked by whichever side finds it most politically helpful.

    It sounds like Ford’s credibility is taking a hit, from what I have read.

    She flys a lot. The second door was permitted in 2008 and installed by 2010 and seems to have nothing to do with fear of enclosed spaces, but has to do with renting out a converted master bedroom. She may have coached someone on how to take a polygraph test. And of course, and most problematic, none of her witnesses actually witnessed anything.

    If you are conservative you tend to believe Kavanaugh, if you are liberal you tend to believe Ford – which makes sense with just a he said, she said situation.

    I hope the democrats have learned a lesson with this debacle. Attacking someone based on 36 year old, uncorroborated allegations just doesn’t work.

    We will see, but my guess is the blue wave is going to be significantly lower than it would have been but for the tactics used to oppose Kavanaugh.

    It would serve democrats right if they didn’t take the house or the senate.

    Holding the Ford allegation until after the hearing was wrong. Some democrat on the committee leaking the redacted Ford letter placed in the Kavanaugh background file in order to get her to go public was wrong. Claiming Kavanaugh lied under oath was wrong. Helping Ford hire an attorney while concealing the allegation was wrong. Ford lying about flying in an effort to delay the vote was wrong. Digging up Ramiriz for a second attack was wrong. Avenatti and his attacker are just scum. Trying to convert the updated background check into sexual assualt allegations into a background check on drinking and whether Kavanaugh lied was wrong. Basically everything the democrats have done to delay the vote has been wrong and plainly just about delaying the vote. It is all political and everyone knows what is going on.

    I hope the vote happens on Friday or Saturday and I hope every single republican votes for Kavanaugh. It is important that this despicable tactic be shown to be ineffective or we will be faced with this crap every time a new Supreme court judge is nominated. I suspect the election in Nov. 2018 will not go as well as democrats hoped and if I am right, you can blame Feinstein for that.

    I believe Kavanaugh and I think Ford is either lying or wrong about who attacked her. I do believe she was sexually assaulted, which is wrong, but just not by Kavanaugh. I believe Rameriez is either lying or wrong about who flashed her. I do believe Rameriez was flashed, just not by Kavanaugh. The 3rd allegation is being made by a liar and has zero credibility, and I don’t believe a single word that comes out of her mouth or anything written for her to sign by her lawyer.

    All we can draw from this whole sorry episode is that some people will do anything to stop a person they are politically opposed to from getting on the supreme court. The ends justifies the means – which is pretty awful and sad.

    1. She wrote the letter at the house of the same FBI friend who she helped to take a polygraph.
      Rehoboth Beach, DE is where her friend lives, while her family is in Maryland. Why wasn’t she staying with them for the funeral?

    2. “It sounds like Ford’s credibility is taking a hit, from what I have read.”

      It is being lied about a lot, by two people here in particular.

      You are right, I’m afraid, that the vote will get him in. This was, by Republican design, never meant to obtain real information or to run a complete course. The phrase “show trial” needs to be modified to “show investigation” to describe it.

      I’ve lowered my chance of his not being put in place to about 5%: I doubt (and will, I hope, be proven massively wrong) that even in the event that the FBI was given enough leeway and time to find evidence that would usually be more than enough (more than what reasonable people already see) the Republicans view having someone on the bench who is as loving of conspiracy theories as the president and as convinced that the president is above the law as they are (“It’s not illegal if the president does it”) is more important than little things like ignoring the fact that Kavanaugh is a serial sexual abuser.

  11. Watching Justice Boofer help slide our democracy into some sort of plutocratic/monarchic/kleptocratic/feudalistic/sadistic disaster should be very interesting. The perversion of the Supreme Court into a wholly owned branch of the Executive will soon be complete. And Republicans will be able to take credit for all the resulting, endless winning. Can’t wait.

    1. A lot of those Republicans in Congress are not happy about the prospect of Roe v Wade being overturned. They can’t pretend to be pro-life when actual bills need to be passed.

    2. A lot of those Republicans in Congress are not happy about the prospect of Roe v Wade being overturned. They can’t pretend to be pro-life when actual bills need to be passed.

      Then why the fuck did they allow K to get in? (And yes, he will, as I said to you last week – the fix is in; the rest is just a circus that we have to sit through so that people like you can pretend it isn’t a circus).

      All this courting of the bible bashers is another disaster in waiting. Along with the rest, it will bring you down in the end. Women will not allow this to happen. They won’t let the wannabe theocratic patriarchy roll back the clock.


  12. If Kavanaugh were so loving of conspiracy theories, he wouldn’t have been so active in shutting down the Vince Foster grand jury. Ambrose Evans Pritchard has the details.
    A persuasive case for keeping Kavanaugh off the court, except it would mean arguing Foster was murdered.

  13. The right never learns. Climate change denial, enabling racists, constant shilling for its sponsors in big business as they pillage away for short-term gain, and now riding roughshod over women just when that has become complete electoral toxin. All those centuries – millennia – of female rage, just waiting for yet another slap in the face… before grabbing a carving knife.

    All this awful shit *will* come home to roost, and the right will simply cease to exist.

    Let’s just hope it won’t take more than another ten years or so.

    1. I have to laugh at “They can’t pretend to be pro-life when actual bills need to be passed.”

      The right does want Roe overturned, possibly not because they’re “pro-life” (which is a perfectly meaningless term), because they don’t give a whit about things like health care or protecting children.

      They want to overturn it because it is one more example of women having the right to be in charge of something, and they don’t like that.

    2. The right does want Roe overturned, possibly not because they’re “pro-life” (which is a perfectly meaningless term)

      It’s a calculatedly pernicious term. It casts anyone advocating for women’s reproductive rights as “pro death”. Another lump of rightwing rhetorical excrement.

  14. The quote is from someone who thinks highly of Kavanaugh but regretfully finds that his testimony disqualifies him from a seat on the Supreme Court.

    “To be clear, I am emphatically not saying that Kavanaugh did what Ford says he did. The evidence is not within 100 yards of adequate to convict him. But whether he did it is not the question at hand. The question at hand is how a reasonable senator should construct the evidence to guide a binary vote for or against elevation of a judge to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. By my read, we have two witnesses who both profess 100 percent certainty of their position—one whose testimony is wholly credible and marginally corroborated in a number of respects, and the other whose testimony is not credible on a number of important atmospheric points surrounding the alleged event.

    It’s not a tie, and it doesn’t go to the nominee.”

    The article explains why Blasey Ford is more credible and also looks at the partisanship Kavanaugh displayed in his opening statement.

    1. True, but the error is believing that facts, honesty, or the welfare of women matter to the leaders of the modern right. Hell, look at the comments by mikeN, rickA, and locus — facts, honesty, and women’s welfare don’t even matter to them — especially rickA, who just doubled down on his equating of sexual assault to a child’s game, then denied he did it.

  15. “The right does want Roe overturned, possibly not because they’re “pro-life” (which is a perfectly meaningless term), because they don’t give a whit about things like health care or protecting children.”

    I think it’s largely a matter of holier-than-thou affirmation (us) and condemnation (them) that also contains a good bit of misogyny and racism: Women who have unwanted pregnancies are promiscuous and should live with the consequences of their immorality.

    1. She wrote the letter at the house of the same FBI friend who she helped to take a polygraph.
      Rehoboth Beach, DE is where her friend lives, while her family is in Maryland. Why wasn’t she staying with them for the funeral?

      I think mikeN just sits around making this shit up and trolling the right wing conspiracy sites looking for stuff too imaginary even for him. Amazing how nothing he says ever matches reality.

    2. So my making stuff up comes from
      1) transcript of Ford’s testimony says Rehoboth Beach.
      2) Letter by ex-boyfriend names McLean.
      3) McLean has been reported living in Rehoboth Beach.
      4) Family is not living in Rehoboth Beach.

  16. Why would somebody be perversely interested in where somebody stayed for the funeral of her Grandmother? Reasons for not staying with family; lack of space; lack of an offer; better accomodations at a friends house. Talk about picking up on bread crumb sins.

    1. All possible, but it’s at least an hour and a half to the funeral from Rehoboth Beach, and could be 3 hours.
      The point is that this friend is the same friend who Ford’s ex said he saw was coached by Ford on giving a polygraph. Now this friend is found to be FBI, and at Ford’s hearing, while her family stayed away.

  17. It looks like Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

    Even if FBI interviews with the 9 who answered questions don’t leak, I bet they will talk to the press at some point.

    I am most interested in the interview with Chris Garrett and the follow-up with Leland Kyser. It would be very interesting to see the questions asked and the answers given.

    We “know” they con’t corroborate Ford, based on what we have heard from partisan characterizations, but I would certainly like to see more about the interviews.

    Given the interest, and the 15 minutes of fame phenomenon, I feel confident we will see more on these interviews after the confirmation.

    I am so glad this sorry chapter is almost over and I look forward to reading about Kavanaugh’s well deserved confirmation to the Supreme Court.

    1. I am so glad this sorry chapter is almost over and I look forward to reading about Kavanaugh’s well deserved confirmation to the Supreme Court.

      WTF are you on about? How can his appointment be ‘well deserved’ when he got it by being a partisan hack? Something he demonstrated to horribly vivid effect with his intemperate rant last week?

      That *alone* should have ended this sorry chapter in the attempted takeover of the SC by the right.

  18. If Kavanaugh is confirmed and Democrats take over the House, there will be hearings that could make Kavanaugh’s position on the court untenable. My hope would then be that they are strategically scheduled to prevent Trump from replacing him.

  19. cosmicomics:

    Even if the Democrats take over the house, and even if they are able to impeach Kavanaugh (Pelosi said she wasn’t interested), they would never be able to actually convict him in the Senate. There is actually a burden of proof in the Senate, and all of the various allegations against Kavanaugh are woefully inadequate.

    None of the sexual assualt allegations are corroborated.

    The claims of perjury are a joke.

    The allegations of heavy drinking in high school and college do not amount to a drinking problem.

    So the democrats have nothing and I predict they will never be able to impeach Kavanaugh.

    No Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached and Kavanaugh will not be the first.

    So I am afraid you are exhibiting wishful thinking.

    1. It has been reported that David Brock prepared material for the impeachment of Clarence Thomas around 2010.

    2. Wishful thinking, certainly. Of course it’s wishful thinking to expect that Republicans would promote some kind of legitimate due process instead of preventing it. Of course it’s wishful thinking to imagine that Republicans would respect facts that conflict with their partisan interests.

      The FBI investigation was a sham designed to avoid evidence that could corroborate assault. Many who wished to be questioned were not. There were no questions about discrepancies in Kavanaugh’s testimony, and there has been no Republican reflection on Kavanaugh’s partisanship and temperament.
      As far as assault is concerned, Republicans are looking at this as a trial, which it isn’t, and the requirement of proof doesn’t need to meet the standards of a trial. As Benjamin Wittes and others have pointed out, there’s more evidence that supports Blasey than supports Kavanaugh. There is sufficient doubt to deny his promotion to the Supreme Court. (And please, no more ignorance about how memory functions and how trauma affects memory.)

      This leads me to the following questions: If a new investigation that brings in additional witnesses and allows new evidence shows that Kavanaugh testified falsely about one or more things, i.e. that he isn’t qualified to sit on the court, would RickA and MikeN favor his removal from the court? Or do they believe that partisan advantage is more important than truth and the integrity and credibility of the American judicial system? To be clear, I am not asking if Republican Senators would support his removal, but if RickA and MikeN would.

    3. “No Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached and Kavanaugh will not be the first.”

      Don’t bet on that.

      He may well be and certainly deserves to be.

      As for the rest of your partisan assertions here, well, they’d be wishful thinking on your part and as Luke Skywalker says :

    4. cosmicomics:

      Yes – if Kavanaugh admits he lied under oath or if it is proven that he lied under oath, I would support his removal as a Supreme Court judge. Note this is not some person’s opinion he lied, but an actual admission or proof of lying.

      I don’t believe Kavanaugh did lie under oath.

      On the issue of the devil’s triangle and boofing, check out this article which discusses both terms:

      The worst case scenario would be if Kavanaugh lied about sexually assaulting Ford in 1982. Again, I don’t think Kavanaugh lied about that – but lying about it under oath would be disqualifying to me. He would actually get impeached and convicted and removed for that – because lying under oath is so serious. Of course, I don’t think he lied.

      In return, I ask you if you would support Kavanaugh as being a proper pick for the Supreme Court, assuming he did not in fact commit any of the alleged sexual assaults?

    5. Yes, I would support removal if Kavanaugh was found to have lied about committing assault.

      You speak of a trial. I don’t think there is evidence that meets even lower standards like preponderance of evidence or ‘clear and convincing’. I don’t even think the NFL would have convicted Tom Brady on this amount of evidence.
      There is no evidence beyond her statements, and others who say they heard her statements 30 years after the fact. And her statements are very incomplete.
      This is countered by being consistent with trauma. ‘consistent with’ doesn’t mean it happened.

    6. “In return, I ask you if you would support Kavanaugh as being a proper pick for the Supreme Court, assuming he did not in fact commit any of the alleged sexual assaults?”

      If sexual assault was the only problem and there was no longer a reasonable doubt about his innocence, I would not support him (I find his judicial philosophy inimical to the revolutionary values of the rebels who wrote the founding documents), but I would accept his legitimacy. The problem, as I suggested before, is that there are (still) other issues that disqualify Kavanaugh: his manifest partisanship, his Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde temperament, and the indications that he’s lied under oath. As for devil’s triangle, I find it possible that it was assigned different meanings in different situations.
      Retired Justice John Paul Stevens Says Kavanaugh Is Not Fit for Supreme Court
      See also the article by Benjamin Wittes that I linked to earlier.

  20. BBD,

    “How can his appointment be ‘well deserved’ when he got it by being a partisan hack?”

    Not according to the recommendation from the ABA.

    “Given the breadth, diversity, and strength of the
    positive feedback we received from
    judges and lawyers of all political persuasions and from so many parts of the profession, the
    Committee would have been hard-pressed to come to any conclusion other than that Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated professional competence that is exceptional.”

    In evaluating judicial temperament, the Standing Committee considers a nominee’s
    “compassion, decisiveness, open-
    mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under the law.”

    Lawyers and judges overwhelmingly praised
    Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial temperament.
    The following representative comments provide insight into Judge Kavanaugh’s demeanor as a jurist:

    “He is very straightforward
    . He stays on point.”
    * * *
    “He maintains an open mind about things.”
    * * *
    “He is affable, a nice person
    . He is easy to get along with and has a good sense of
    * * *
    “He is a really decent person, has not done anything untoward on a personal basis.”
    * * *
    “He gets the highest marks in the area of professionalism.

    * * *
    “His temperament is terrific
    . He is thoughtful, and fair-minded in his questions to
    * * *
    “He is charming and delightful; is thoughtful and careful in his works”
    * * *
    “He always approaches cases intelligently and respectful of the views of others with whom he disagreed.”

    * * *
    “[He] is a wonderful colleague and is very, very bright
    . Is very fair minded and patient.”
    * * *
    “Is even keeled, respectful of counsel and his colleagues
    . When he disagrees with
    colleagues, he is not just being stubborn.”
    * * *
    “He is susceptible to being persuaded to the opposite position from where he started.”
    * * *
    “He is unfailingly polite with advocates, with colleagues, and with everyone he deals with.”
    * * *
    “He is very
    companionable, fun and funny, and gregarious
    . He is a fine person who likes
    . He has very good people skills
    . He is always prepared, he will listen, and asks good
    questions of both sides.”
    * * *
    “He is warm, friendly, and unassuming – he is the nicest person.”
    * * *
    “He maintains an open mind about things
    . He is affable, a nice person
    . He is very easy to get along with and has a good sense of humor.

    1. He’s a rightwing hack, biased, intemperate and prone to conspiracist ideation and even he knew that he had to walk back that rant – in a self-serving column in the WSJ (natch) – but it’s way too late now.

      The contorted, hate-spewing, out of control man we saw last week demonstrated for the world to see that all the stuff you quoted is a load of old boy network bollocks.

      In fact it’s actively embarrassing to see how much tripe was originally heaped up in support of this clown. Lots of red faces now…

    2. Not according to the recommendation from the ABA.

      Too funny, Locus. It turns out the ABA is having a rethink about its support for Kavanaugh. Possibly as a result of that letter signed by over 2000 law professors stating that he is not a fit candiate for appointment to the SC.

      * * *

      Don’t use my screen name again. Or anyone else’s. That crosses the line.

    3. That letter signed by all the law professors complains he was not acting as an impartial judge. This is silly logic that you should act as an impartial judge when you are the accused. Every law professor who signed on to that should be fired.

    4. That letter signed by all the law professors complains he was not acting as an impartial judge. This is silly logic that you should act as an impartial judge when you are the accused. Every law professor who signed on to that should be fired.

      Nope. More utter bellendery from MikeN.

      What the 2000-plus law professors actually said was this (bold added to counter mendacity):

      We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

      The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.


      We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

      TL/DR they sussed him for the lying, cornered rightwing hack that he indeed is.

    1. You don’t get it. All this awful shit *will* come home to roost.

      As the climate disasters rack up, year after year, and women get pissed on some more, and non-white voters are shat on once again, and everybody sees corporates and the rich getting nice fat tax breaks…

      It will come.

  21. Cosmicomics,

    “And not a word about Kavanaugh’s singular definitions of “boof” and “devil’s triangle.”


    “Kavanaugh was also lying about when he learned about Ramirez’s allegations:”

    Also debunked.

  22. @ false BBD

    “Not according to the recommendation from the ABA.”

    Wait, hasn’t the ABA chirped in the last day that Mr K is not fit anymore?
    *google news*
    Precision: in 2006, ABA was not sure that K was fit.
    Last week, ABA was asking for an investigation into Dr Ford’s accusations.

    There must be two ABA.

    1. no the ABA has not declared Kavanaugh was not fit anymore. An individual in ABA leadership decided to use the company name to declare it so, but the official position is still the same.

    2. @ MikeN

      My apologies, I shall rephrase myself.

      1-long list from the guy who cannot type his nym’ straight of ‘ABA people approve of Kavanaugh’.
      Without names and positions of people saying this stuff, but never mind.
      (and don’t sass me about Dr Ford not providing evidence either, she certainly gave names; she was also very precise about positions)

      2-Me: I believe I read otherwise. Let me check.

      3-Oh. Apparently, in 2006, someone from ABA leaked that he is not sure Kavanaugh is fit. OK, there is always one party pooper. I’ll grant you this.

      4-Oh. And last week, someone (the same lone, unsanctioned individual?) at ABA let it know that a good old-fashioned police investigation, looking specifically at these allegations, would be something dandy. Just in case, and to try to follow the rule of law instead of making an open circus of the whole thing.
      That’s… not exactly a stellar endorsement. Neither a disapproval, granted.

      New item:
      5-Today, the ABA doubled down and published a letter stating that, while their original rating stand, they have decided to review their evaluation.
      Again, not a disapproval, but to say that ABA is unambiguously supporting Kavanaugh seems a bit disingenuous.

      (search 3/4 of way down, starting with “Letter from the American Bar Association:”)

      I guess the same individual in ABA leadership sneakily stole the ‘company’ rubber stamp again while his colleagues were out at lunch.

    3. In 2006, Kavanaugh’s history as a judge was non-existent. Their rating at that time would be based on less information that their rating now.

    1. Cosmicomics,

      Give your outrage a rest.

      I messed up. When I realized it, I admitted it.

      My gravatar looks nothing like BBD’s.

    2. Give your outrage a rest.

      I messed up. When I realized it, I admitted it.

      When? Where?

      I never saw that.

      Please link to your comment.

    3. He did admit it in some other thread. I don’t think he noticed his latest stealing.

      Link, please…

  23. I support a full FBI investigation after Grassley is confirmed. I think you have a federal crime of perjury before Congress to give them full investigative powers. I think the investigation would end up with many of the accusers in jail and would reveal a conspiracy of trying to dredge up accusers against Kavanaugh to get him to withdraw. Ford’s friend McLean was reported in WSJ to have pressured her other friend, Leland who Ford named as a witness, to change her story. FBI has text messages according to WSJ. The Dems call to release the report is a sham, because they know it’s against the rules. Their worst nightmare is if it happened.
    Grassley has sent a letter to Ford asking for all communications with Feinstein, Hirono, and other accusers. McLean’s lawyer is Laufman, and Ford’s lawyer is Bromwich who was also McCabe’s lawyer. Who’s next, Peter Strzok?

  24. If people had checked elsewhere in Kavanaugh’s yearbooks, they would have found the person claiming to have invented Devil’s Triangle. He has sent a letter to the Senate declaring Kavanaugh told the truth.

    But please go on quoting the Urban Dictionary.

  25. “I support a full FBI investigation after Grassley [sic] is confirmed.”

    Interesting way of going about things. First execute. Then have a trial.

    ” I think the investigation would end up with many of the accusers in jail and would reveal a conspiracy of trying to dredge up accusers against Kavanaugh to get him to withdraw.”

    Which explains why so many people contacted the FBI begging the agency not to question them and look into their allegations.

    More conspiracy bullshit followed by “connect the dots.” I’m wondering if MikeN was so hard up that he pawned what little brain he had left.

  26. Justice Booffffer Kavanaugh will quite likely be elevated to the Supreme Court in a day or two. The outrage over the unjust treatment of Merrick Garland’s nomination will be another day or two in the past, another day or two more distant in memory. The feud between Harry Reid and still-fighting-the-civil-war-McConnell that precipitated this mess will be that much further in the past too. The stuffing of the Supreme Court with upholders of bronze age patriarchal con values will continue. A tax evading con man of a president will continue his steam rolling of truth and justice for all, and his minions will still chant “Lock Her Up” like the mindless louts that they are. America will continue to be extremely polarized over the struggle between enlightenment and ignorance, between courage and fear of offending long dead gods. Damn. It’s 2018 . Where’s my flying car already?

    1. Sally Kohn, “If Trump is elected, Hillary supporters will be sad. If Hillary is elected, Trump supporters will be angry.”

  27. The Republican kakistocracy has shown that it has the power to block Democratic nominees, and ram through Republican ones. The power ot the president shall not be questioned, eh Steve Miller? Our colonial era patriarchy has been reaffirmed!

    The push to make sure that the ultra rich have freedom at the expense of the non-males, non-whites, and anti-authoritarians goes on.

    New Republicon values (based on recent preferences shown in recent selections):
    Sexual assault by the “star” class is OK.
    Alliance with national enemies is OK. Even if that national enemy has been responsible for two major wars killing hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in the last 70 years.
    Tax evasion by the super rich is OK.
    Adultery/cheating in marriage is OK.
    Lying by Supreme Court nominees is OK.
    Muzzled half assed FBI investigations are OK.
    Patriarchal mistreatment of women is OK.

  28. I support a full FBI investigation after Grassley is confirmed.

    Strewth you really a creature of the swamp given this outburst by Guck Chrassley:

    Grassley in bizarre attack on ‘leftwing, dark-money groups’

    The senate is now in session.

    Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, is speaking about Kavanaugh’s fitness for the job.

    Grassley says Kavanaugh had an “impeccable reputation” before being targeted by the left.

    “The conduct of leftwing, dark-money groups in this body has shamed us all,” Grassley says.

    His remarks are focused on how Democrats do not want Kavanaugh to be confirmed.“>

    Leftwing dark-money groups indeed!

    Maybe he should re-read ‘Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right’ by Jane Mayer.


    “Grassley says Kavanaugh had an “impeccable reputation” before being targeted by the left.” should be corrected with this:

    Kavanaugh had an “impeccable reputation” until his past caught up with him.

    As for undermining Christine Blasey Ford on numbers and identity of persons at a party those attempts are ridiculous, have those commentators using this line of attack on Ford never been to such parties. Did the party take place all in one room, or did some action take place in adjoining smaller rooms with a continual change of characters?

    That small, at the time, details are not recalled accurately decades later does not in anyway take away the fact that a trauma as experience by Ford would live on the memory, being brought to the for many times since by simple triggers that activate it.

    I had a likely myocardial infarction when serving in HM Forces and engaged in a lengthy post promotion ‘Leadership Course’ in 1968. One activity required to be undertaken was an assault course. This involved the running of a heavy log, blocks and tackle around a course involving running down old railway track, negotiating a few obstacles including a large body of standing water. The block and tackle was use on a tree branch to get the log and all team members across the water and then a few more obstacles of which the last was a wall to get all over. The wall top was only reached by running towards the wall and jumping off as close as possible, avoiding the dip just in front and grasping top of wall and heaving oneself over, then getting the gear over. My task was the block and tackle(the long heavy rope).

    Rounding another bend I made it over the finishing line and looked behind catching my breath, wondering where everybody else was. I ran back to find a disorganised group around the fallen log and one of the carrying numbers who had misjudged the wall jump and knocked himself out. Seeing he was be attended to I yelled come on, lifted up the front of the log and we managed to get that and ourselves over the wall and to the finishing line.

    Every course that went through had a crack at the assault course record, so from having run first time in the ‘c’ team I found myself promoted up into the challenge team.

    Another assault course type we had to negotiate was a little called the ‘Cliff & Chasm’. This involved running a course with a hand cart in bits, a barrel of wet sand, block and tackle and shear legs with the main obstacle being a chasm which had to be got across by all and everything.

    So, due to my performance on that assault course I found myself engaged in that Cliff & Chasm record challenge run but at the time, 1968, didn’t realise the cause of the pain shooting across my left chest over my shoulder and down the arm as we dragged the assembled hand cart and contents up the steep hill and across the finish line at the end. Fast forward to 2000 and after attempting a rush to a train, that could have been the last one of the night due to emergency widespread rail engineering works post Hatfield derailment, as I boarded the train I had a very powerful pain across chest and down arm which did not subside.

    I collapsed on the platform of my destination station. Fortunately there was a defibrillator at the station and staff who knew how to use it. I recall the ambulance ride, arrival in A&E and then not much else, except an out of body experience, until the following afternoon. All the time in intensive care, had another cardiac arrest whilst they were plumbing in a sampling box on my chest, I was repeatedly asked If I had a heart attack previously. My answer was repeatedly, no.

    It was many months, over a year, later that I remembered that trauma at the end of the ‘cliff & chasm run.

    Sorry for that lengthy ramble down memory lane but the principle is germain.

    So, to those who denigrated Ford for lack of precise memory I say humbug. You don’t know how this works.

    What has become clear is that Kavenaugh has not got where he is by ability, Kavenaugh has shown himself up as another man-child who has too often got his own way, can do anything to anybody without consequence. Seriously if this creature is voted in then that would be another sign that your Republic has failed and needs some strong correction. His performance testifying beggars belief. That we have some here trying to defend him shows how impoverished their own senses of right and wrong are.

    One the lawyer, clearly is in it for the win, not truth and justice.

    1. Buried in one of your usual carpet thread bombing runs.

      Pro tip: post *far* less shit.

      You’ve done this on three threads now. If it ever happens again I will be sure you are doing it on purpose and I will do my level best to have you banned.

      Got that?

    1. You aren’t paying attention to the expert commentary on how traumatic memories are formed and recalled. Or rather, you are ignoring it to push your Trumpian line that she’s lying.

      Why not rustle up a few more quotes from the Daily Mail while you are doing so well?

    2. And then those limited memories change when errors are pointed out?

      What reason is there to believe the original story to begin with?
      What limit is their to prevent anyone from being accused at any time?

    3. And then those limited memories change when errors are pointed out?

      That’s exactly the point about how traumatic memories are formed and recalled.

      What reason is there to believe the original story to begin with?

      Because she’s apparently sincere and taking a gigantic wall of rightwing shit for speaking out. Bet you wouldn’t have had the guts.

      What limit is their to prevent anyone from being accused at any time?

      Why should there be one? Does bad shit stop being bad after a certain amount of time? Like a kind of reverse sell-by date on food?

      FFS. More nonsense.

  29. At best, we have a matured or reformed reprobate about to be selected to the SC. At worst, we have a partisan hack who will do great damage to the SC and to our nation. It is in his and the Republicon party’s best interest for him to lay low for a bit until the anger has blunted somewhat. But, in the interest of enjoying their cruelty, they may put him to work immediately.

    The Republic is getting lashed back and forth in the jaws of polarization, and Putin just smiles. Our president routinely lies like a sack of shit, taunting the opposition, and siding with dictators. Our government is getting more and more corrupt, with corporations treated as unindictable people, and the buying of politicians declared free speech. The ancient, ongoing human tide of assimilation and progression is being tied up, raped, and denied by the warped philosophies of anti-science, nazi narcissists.

    What lofty fucking ideals you god damned republicons have. If you really want to ban abortions, you ought to ban your whole fucking party.

    Have a nice god damned day.

  30. What a great speech Susan Collins!

    What have we learned.

    Ford did the right thing in coming forward.

    Feinstein did the wrong thing holding the allegation back to use as a weapon after the hearing was over. That was total bullshit and it stinks. Not Ford’s fault – that was a cynical political maneuver, and the democrats will pay for it (I hope).

    Whichever democrat leaked the letter to the press (probably after the FBI put the redacted version into Kavanaugh’s background check file, which all the judiciary committee democrat senators had access to) really blew it. You pissed off all the Republicans and probably drastically lowered the blue wave, and showed the democrats to be the villains in this sorry mess. Whoever you are, I hope you are charged with a crime and tried. You deserve everything you have coming to you.

    Avenetti is total scum and he really pissed off Collins and all the Republicans. He went too far and I hope democrats bring out the knives and shred him, as he deserves. He should be disbarred for writing that declaration. Of course Julie [forgot last name] should be tried for perjury, because she shouldn’t have signed it.

    I think the lawyer that worked Ramieriez over for 6 days and got her to “remember” that Kavanaugh is the one who waved his dick at her should also be disbarred.

    I hope that sexual assault victims learned the important lesson that you need to report attacks. In order to be believed, especially years later, nothing beats corroboration. Tell you parents, tell your friends and best of all, tell the police. That is the best thing you can do to stop attacks on other girls and women, and it will also help to be believed when you want to use an attack from 36 years ago in a political fashion. Corroborate. Corroborate. Corroborate. Right away. That is the best advice, in my opinion.

    You don’t get believed without some form of contemporaneous corroboration. Not only is that reality (as this episode shows), but that is the way our system works (even for a job interview for the Supreme Court).

    I am sure that over the next few months, the press will follow-up with Judge, Garrett and Kyser (and others) and I look forward to learning what they told the FBI (if they tell). Since I do not believe Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford, I am interested to learn what light these three can shed on the events of 36 years ago.

    I still think the key is who drove her home? That person might be able to tell us what house the party was at and whether Ford said anything about what happened at the house. They could even narrow down the window on when the gathering happened. All useful stuff.

    Even if Ford doesn’t really remember who drove her home (which I really have a hard time believing) – I hope we learn how Ford did get home and see where that takes us.

    Brett Kavanaugh deserves to be on the Supreme Court and I look forward to tomorrow’s vote.

  31. “Brett Kavanaugh deserves to be on the Supreme Court and I look forward to tomorrow’s vote.”

    As I wrote, you are not in it for truth and justice only the win.

    You do your country a disservice simply by adopting the position you have which shows that evolution has passed you by.

  32. > What limit is their to prevent anyone from being accused at any time?
    >Why should there be one?

    Anyone whose politics I disagree with, I can arrange for a woman to come forward and give a story similar to Ford’s. No need to remember details, just sure that X tried to rape her. When asked about other details, the accused’s political opponents can declare this inability to remember is consistent with trauma.

    1. “… the accused’s political opponents can declare this inability to remember is consistent with trauma.”

      Well Mike, unfortunately. an inability to remember IS consistent with trauma. That’s what makes cases involving such trauma difficult to prove without witnesses. And of course witnesses of rapes and attempted rapes are usually part of the assault if they exist at all.

    2. How selflessly brave to be so concerned about the well being of poor innocent men everywhere. You are the veritable Mother Fucking Teresa of protection for poor unjustly accused men. Maybe you can ask the fucking Pope for a sainthood for yourself? It is worth the try. Definitely at least ask the Jesuits for something. You, after all, are so jesuitical in nature. They can probably relate to you.

      Oh. That poor, poor judge Kavanaugh. Poor old Booffffer. Everybody picking on him for simply wanting to rise to the Supreme Court where he can have power over the lives of hundreds of millions of American citizens. Such a saintly sort. And yet those damn liberals don’t want to let him have his way. How unfair. How unjust. After all, he went to all the right schools, worked for all the right people, belonged to all the right secret societies, and he is a conservative and a Republican partisan. Why wouldn’t you want him to be the next justice of the Supreme Court?

    3. If Trump had picked Kavanaugh as his first pick, we would have heard nothing, but his second pick Gorsuch would have faced accusations, perhaps from the same Christine Ford, as Gorsuch went to Georgetown Prep and was two years younger than Kavanaugh, making Ford’s therapy notes match with her being in her late teens when she was assaulted in the mid 1980s.

  33. Lactose is a reducing sugar….
    Common cold is caused by virus….
    Starch not cellulose: A(1,4) and B(1,4)….
    Fatty acids: Cytosol…..
    mRNA has 5 3 directionality….
    Urea unfolds….
    3 orf
    Membrane van der waal and HydroPhobicity….
    19 B carbon amino acid
    Antibiotics on viral: none of the options….
    Animal Species: Genom
    No. of Matches=3….
    Put 4 dots if you’re sure about the answer.
    Isme kuch answers he
    Enzymes please???
    Inverse protein folding problem?
    Alternative splicing . Confirmed

  34. @ MikeN

    (assuming it’s really MikeN and not the other twit mixing up names again)

    but his second pick Gorsuch would have faced accusations, perhaps from the same Christine Ford

    So, woman accuses someone, but oh, we shouldn’t believe her immediately. Let’s try to gather some corroboration. Fair enough.
    But she is just a liar and a harridan and she would have accused this other guy. And we should believe your opinion straight away.
    What’s next, accusing her of being paid by the Jews? Never mind, your idols already did it. Trump, Collins, ‘impartial’ Kavanaugh…

    You are an asshole, you know that?

  35. So Russian state TV is supposedly giddy that Kavanaugh is about to be selected. It is seen as a blow against malignant feminism. Malignant feminism.

    Would one of our Russian trolls or their Republicon allies like to tell me what malignant feminism is? Is that something that Madam Curie discovered?

  36. And then those limited memories change when errors are pointed out?

    That’s exactly the point about how traumatic memories are formed and recalled.

    Then how do we know what she is saying now is accurate? If other statements she has made about what she remembers have changed after it was pointed out it doesn’t fit reality, then why should we believe her other memories?
    She said she remembered 3 boys and a girl, then it was four boys, then maybe some more.
    She remembered a family room and a living room, then later it became a family/living room.
    She said she could here Brett and Mark talking with others. Now not so much.
    Why should we be confident in her memory that she had exactly one drink, along with the other attendees? Or that Brett and Mark were drunk? Or of the identities of the people there? Or what happened in the room?

  37. No matter how many times you explain the known scientific complexities of the human mind, or the results of trauma to said mind and their effects on memory, the assholes of the right will still go back to common sense from medieval times. We understand.

    It doesn’t matter any more for Kavanaugh’s selection whether or not Dr. Ford was molested by the new Supreme Court larva. Its a done deal. You can back off now. You won your little victory for patriarchalism, ol’boyism, alcoholism, or whatever ism you are pushing today. We understand.

    The battle for some modicum of human dignity for all humans in the face of those who seek only to enrich, empower and value themsleves and those most like them will go on. Injustice is a powerful incentive. We understand. Note to those who cry over Kavanaugh’s loss of dignity in this botched abortion of a hearing; Kaganaugh relinquished his dignity when he joined 100 Kegs, DKE, Truth and Courage, and the Republicon party.

    Meanwhile, Russia is exploiting our many weaknesses, dividing us further, killing journalists, repressing women and minorities, fostering a global mafia, fueling wars, and, in general, being a bunch of patriarchal goons. And Republicans are falling in line behind them. We understand.

  38. “..the assholes of the right will still go back to common sense from medieval times…”

    Just wait to see these poor little maligned white over privileged spoilt rotten cry-babies call out for the use of ducking stools like the sucking tools that they are.

  39. Re. MikeN and the Daily Mail. This goes back to this comment
    and BBD’s reply.

    Evidently the Mail has a little history of slandering women who make allegations against powerful, conservative men:
    “And then the Mail on Sunday obtained text messages—presumably, as even a fellow Conservative MP said, from “Green’s allies”—that were altered to create the false impression that I had been pursuing him

    “… Daily Mail ran a libelous “profile” of me…

    “The Mail eventually withdrew that piece from its website and paid me costs after my lawyers presented the newspaper with arguments for a major libel suit.”

    MikeN claimed that his not very credible statement originally came from another source, which he doesn’t document, but there’s no reason to believe that that can’t be true. In that case the other source would invariably be another branch of the right-wing make-stuff-up-media.

    1. I can’t be sure I didn’t see it in Daily Mail first, but it just isn’t something I usually read. It would seem an odd story to make up. The only detail I needed from Daily Mail was that she knew about the poem in high school, which is a minor part of the story. Almost all of it is same as any number of other articles.

  40. RickA has discounted the possibility of impeachment, and I would agree that impeachment is unlikely. However, if the Democrats win control of the House, there will be hearings and subpoenas and testimony. It’s entirely possible that women, who didn’t believe they would be fairly heard by a Republican dominated Senate committee, would come forward if they felt they could get a fair hearing. So would the witnesses who in vain sought to give their testimony to the FBI. We would probably gain greater access to Kavanaugh’s long paper trail. Moreover, we would hear more about how Republicans prevented a legitimate investigation.

    “Mr. McGahn, according to people familiar with the conversation, told the president that even though the White House was facing a storm of condemnation for limiting the F.B.I. background check into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, a wide-ranging inquiry like some Democrats were demanding — and Mr. Trump was suggesting — would be potentially disastrous for Judge Kavanaugh’s chances of confirmation to the Supreme Court.”

    “On the Senate floor late Thursday, Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made a new and tantalizing claim about what’s in the FBI documents on Brett M. Kavanaugh that all senators have now reviewed…
    ““Senators have been muzzled. So I will now say three things that committee staff has explained are permissible to say without violating committee rules. … One: This was not a full and fair investigation. It was sharply limited in scope and did not explore the relevant confirming facts. Two: The available documents do not exonerate Mr. Kavanaugh.
    And three: the available documents contradict statements Mr. Kavanaugh made under oath. I would like to back up these points with explicit statements from the FBI documents — explicit statements that should be available for the American people to see. But the Republicans have locked the documents behind closed doors.”

    “Bauer pointed out that this is only the latest in a long line of things that Republicans and the White House have done to limit the public’s ability to weigh the testimony from Ford and Kavanaugh, emailing me this:

    ““First, the Senate structured the peculiar one-day hearing which featured a sharply limited witness list and an outside counsel relieved of her responsibilities in the middle of the proceeding. Then the White House and the Senate majority set exceptional limits on the scope and timing of the subsequent FBI review. Then came this last step of rejecting calls from Republican as well as Democratic committee [members] for a public accounting of the results.

    ““The refusal of the Senate majority to provide even a summary of the review,” Bauer concluded, is only the last in a series of steps that are “undermining the credibility of the Supreme Court confirmation process.””

    While impeachment is exceedingly difficult, and therefore unlikely, there is another possible outcome. If the evidence against Kavanaugh is sufficiently solid and compelling, his position on the court could become untenable, and he might then be compelled to resign. And yes, I admit that this is wishful thinking, but I don’t think it’s entirely unrealistic. What makes this even more realistic is that Trump will become more and more embroiled in litigation involving financial fraud that will expose his corruption and undermine at least some of his support. New York is now looking into tax fraud in conjunction with the Trump family inheritance.

    1. Christine Ford is no longer pursuing this. Looks to me like she is afraid of a full FBI investigation.
      Democrats are only using claims of impeachment as a campaign device. They will not pursue it as the links between Feinstein, Hirono, Ford, and Eshoo and how much they planned things would make them look bad.

  41. Bernard J.,

    Current Affairs Error #14

    “Ford’s ability to recall only some of the people who attended the party does not imply that there were not other people there, nor does it invalidate her recall of those whom she says were there, whether documented on Kavanaugh’s calendar or not.”

    Except that Ford and her legal team apparently agree with me.

    “But a member of Ford’s team said the California-based professor — who was not interviewed by the FBI for its inquiry — “would have told them that she never considered July 1 as a possible date, because of some of the people listed on his calendar who she knew well and would have remembered.”

    Robinson at Current Affairs accused Kavanaugh of trying to deflect attention away from July 1, 1982, implying his guilt, only to have Ford concur that would not be a candidate for the date of her alleged attack.

    1. Locus, I don’t understand the statement being made by Ford in denying July 1.
      “would have told them that she never considered July 1 as a possible date, because of some of the people listed on his calendar who she knew well and would have remembered.”
      And something about it being a pre-party.
      If it’s a pre-party, then the calendar entry is only referring to the post party, and the other names that she remembers would be irrelevant.

  42. BBD,

    “If it ever happens again I will be sure you are doing it on purpose and I will do my level best to have you banned. ”

    Oh No! Oh No! Oh No!

    I’ll be banned from Greg Laden’s blog?

    What will I do? What … will … I … do?


    What the hell do I care? You have to be the world’s saddest little boy to think that being banned from a semi-defunct blog is some kind of dreaded punishment.

    I dare you to have me banned. I double dare you to have me banned!

    I’ve already had my fun.

    1. So why not fuck off and troll somewhere else then?

      Or are you lying again? That’s a rhetorical question. You can look up what it means on Google.

  43. “I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump…[It’s]time for us to move to New Zealand…[Trump is a] faker…He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego.” –Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 7/14/16

    But Kavanaugh is too partisan to be on the Supreme Court.

  44. Hi MikeN,

    “Locus, I don’t understand the statement being made by Ford in denying July 1.”

    I see what your saying.

    Kavanaugh, in his testimony though, said that he picked up the habit of recording his life on a calendar from his father. As such, the calendar is as much a diary as a planning tool. An entry for a small get-together then, would be a record of who actually attended rather than who might show up.

    It would seem that the Ford team accepts this explanation and decided there were too many persons who Ford might have known in attendance for this to be the gathering in her story.

    1. Yes, but then they throw in the confusion about it was a party before the party(be interesting to know if she first said this before or after the calendar came out). So what’s on the calendar could be the party after what Ford claims she attended.

    1. Hahahahaha

      BBD, I think you know I respect you big mobs, so don’t take it badly that I laughed at this retort. It was if I was listening to dialogue on a comedy radio play between two antagonistic characters. It just struck me as hilarious for some reason.
      Maybe because the topic subject matter is so obscure to me and I have no attachment to it. It’s just more loony yank crap from my perspective.
      If ya want separation of political and judicial, don’t have politicians decide on judicial positions you stupid fucking yank idjits. It’s like derrrrr! Which utter fuckwits came up with this as part of a seperation of powers framework?

    2. LiD

      The point is that Locus has told us that he’s done here:

      I’ve already had my fun.

      So why is he still here, stinking the place up?

      It’s… inexplicable.

  45. LiD, the broad strokes;

    It’s a system of checks and balances. You may not alway like the results, but by and large the system worked–more or less.

    However, since the traumatic end of the Viet Nam war, there has been a coordinated effort to push the country permanently to the right, hence: ALEC, The Federalist Society, Redistricting, Citizens United, dark money, the Koch brothers, Faith-Based Initiatives, a plague of propaganda radio, Fox News, etc. etc. Or to boil it all down, “drown the government in a bath tub”, said Grover Norquist when he was 13 years old, and all the supposedly adult Repubs signed the pledge…

    This effort has been fairly successful at the top. But as you would expect, if you pare back democracy to suit your agenda, things will go wrong and you will have to push harder to keep your agenda on track. Weirdness will creep in. Things will break.

    America is now broken. The questions are, how badly is it broken and can it fixed?

    1. “Drown the government in a bath tub”
      Reality is large increase in regulations, laws passed, tax code, and national debt ten times bigger, and government spending trillions of dollars a year higher.

      If that was success at the top, I wonder what failure would have looked like.

    2. It’s too easy to hear the ventriloquism of vested interest speaking through the wooden lips of its rightwing puppets.

    3. Thanks for reply. Not sure what you mean by ” now ” broken, as if the joint hasn’t always been a loony bin of human rights abuses and war and hypocrisy and exceptionalism.
      Do you agree with my point about seperation of powers and pollies choosing beaks can very well lead to a greying of sop, at a minimum.
      Just the appearance of potential conflict should be enough to change the system.

    4. LiD
      Who says crazy people can’t have a functioning system of government that does the crazy things they want? The system of checks and balances is broken. For instance broadly, the legislative branch is now pretty much inert, farming out it’s responsibilities to the executive and judicial branches. That’s broken.

      We’ve had a malignant solipsist for president for two years that the majority didn’t want. He’s *still* there, and he could very well *stay* there for another six years. There’s so much wrong with that, I don’t even know where to begin. Things are very broken, even by the low standards which you seem to ascribe to us.

      I think I maybe understood a few words of your paragraph 2. At any rate, everything is now so highly charged that it may not actually matter who chooses what. If people stop believing in their government, then it stops being able to govern… short of putting troops in the street, of course.

      For some background from a different POV, check out
      “How America Went Haywire:”
      Read it and weep.

      And oh yeah, thanks for giving us Rupert Murdock, by the way. Good Job!

  46. Yeah, let’s bring back the days when chemical companies could bury their toxic waste where ever they wanted to, and then you could buy a house built on top of it. Let’s bring back the days when most American Rivers and streams were polluted with sewage and industrial waste. Let’s bring back the days when lichens didn’t want to grow on trees any more , and lead was everywhere. Hey, we survived. That was when America used to be great. Before those damn environmental regulations.

    Note to all the grown up little rich kids who want to drown government in their Daddy’s bathtub: You have to reduce government to about the size of one person to do that. So in other words you want a monarchy? Good luck with that, Biff, and Tucker and Grover. Freaking moronic idiot twits.

  47. The driver of the limousine that crashed killing 20 people in NY did not have the proper license to drive that limousine. And that stretch limousine flunked inspection and was supposed to have been taken off the road last month. Now there are orphaned children, grieving families, and tragedy all around.

    Which brings me to the side issue of regulations. In a society where half the population never passed basic physics, and a clever person with a welder can create something quite dangerous unfettered by their lack of any knowledge of structural engineering, there is actually a great need for regulations. Alternatively, we can do away with things like mandatory inspections, air bags, and saftey belts, and got back to the days of rampant highway carnage fueled by adolescent libertarianism.

    By the way, can the libertarians out there tell me what the upside is of letting tragedies like this blossom unrestricted? Are there any regulations that you are in favor of? And if so, how would you pay for their enforcement?

    1. ” adolescent ”
      There’s an apt bloody word if there ever was one.
      Grown up people swim between the flags and have an understanding of fair play on commons, and epidemiology. Pay taxes, get drainage instead of festering pools of water and short lives spent in illness.
      Libertarians are severely fucked in the head.

    2. “…person with a welder can create something quite dangerous unfettered by their lack of any knowledge of structural engineering”
      That’s me all over.
      But I view it as a sort of sport and there’s no law against absolute idiots rock climbing. Misadventure is an interesting legal area methinks.
      And I don’t endanger others.
      I welded up a self driven slasher and got the gearing wrong and was quite worried the tips would break the speed of sound. I then added alot of protection in case of disintergration and used it isolation from others.
      Amongst other adventures…

  48. More worthless opinions from MikeN. Skepticism of her testimony based on his ignorance of how memory works or doesn’t work is meaningless, except in the dull mind of a Trump cult follower.
    There is nothing deceptive or illogical about someone remembering some things and not others and if he’d read from more informed and intelligent sources _ e.g., psychologists and other experts who study memory _ he’d know that it’s exactly how memory works. When a traumatic event occurs you remember the incident and things related to it. A lot of peripheral stuff, things not directly related, is often forgotten. Nothing unusual or suspicious about that.

  49. In regards to MikeN skepticism about Ford’s memory lapses, I don’t know what the proper name is for that logical fallacy, but it would be something like the fallacy of incredulity from ignorance…fuelled by the dishonest and fake narrative of right-wing media outlets. It’s like the climate wars, and probably the same right-wing fake news factories feeding the gullible, conspiracy ideating morons.

    But maybe MikeN skepticism and his belief of how memory works stems from experience; maybe at a party that he attended 36 years ago he was sodomized, and he enjoyed the experience so much that he remembered everything about the party _ how he got there, who was there etc. So how could anybody else not remember those things, he asks himself, incredulously?

    I wish Trump’s cult followers would use some of their skepticism on the ridiculous explanations offered by the alcoholic rapist regarding his yearbook entries. But then again, anybody dimwitted enough to think that “judge _ have you farted yet?” is a believable translation of the original entry is hardly going to offer any sort of intelligent analysis. Who knows. As I said in a previous post, maybe it’s a conservative rite of passage where they hold their farts for 17 years and then let a big one go; something of such significance, like losing one’s virginity, that curiosity compels them to enquire if their mates have released that manhood proclaiming mother of all farts.

    And then we have the Devil’s Triangle, which the alcoholic rapist said was a game where you throw quarters into three glasses of beer. That sounds really devilish; I can understand how it got it’s name. locus dismissed any incredulity of that claim because some of Kavanaugh’s friends _ sharing his same disregard for the truth that you would expect your average Trump supporter to have _ wrote a letter stating confirming that it was indeed a game where you threw quarters into beer glasses. However they didn’t know how the name originated. It’s somewhat inconvenient for that story that 10 years ago someone posted an explanation online for the term Devil’s Triangle involving 2 men and a woman, involving activities a bit more devilish than throwing quarters.

    So locus, so skeptical of the testimony of someone willing to subject themselves to testifying under oath and willing to undergo questioning by the FBI, under the glare and scrutiny of the entire nation, and half the planet, is totally unskeptical of a handful of Kavanaugh loyal friends writing this very convenient letter. Enquiring minds would ask: who else called this “devilish” game of quarters Devil’s triangle? Was it a common name for the game of quarters?

    By their notes and letters, we know that he and his frat mates were heavy drinkers (“I love beer, do you love beer?” and reference to 100 keg club and puking, disingenuously excused as sensitivity to spicy food), so why the need to make a note about something as mundane as a game with three beers and farting?

    And when you closely examine the explanations for Renate alumnus and FFFFF, which I’m too tired to do, they are just as ridiculous, with the same logical inconsistencies and contradictions from classmates who offer a much more plausible narrative. Watching his testimony, I couldn’t imagine someone less credible. For him it’s not a case of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” but “falsus in multi, falsus in omnibus.”

    1. Elsewhere in that yearbook, there is an entry where someone is listed as inventing Devil’s Triangle.
      So there goes that talking point.

      You speak of memory and this is how trauma works. The problem is there is no way to defend against such charges. Anyone can be accused at anytime.

      And my issue is that the things she did remember changed in the last two months. If these things can change, then perhaps the other things she has stated would change too.

      However, my primary objection is she was lying in attempt to prevent Kavanaugh on Supreme Court.

    2. Yep – and boof is in a book from 2004 or 2005 as an alternative name for farting, so that talking point is also gone.

      The FFFFF stuff was just made up by Avenatti, who is pond scum and lies with every word which comes out of his mouth – so that allegation never had any credibility.

      I hope we find out how Ford got home from the gathering. My guess is she got a ride home from one of the people at the gathering. Maybe Chris Garrett, who was dating her that summer? Maybe the party was at Chris Garrett’s house? Maybe Chris Garrett (squi) also drove her to the party? Maybe she got pushed into Chris Garrett’s room?

      We will see if someone decides to talk more about this in the months to come.

    3. MikeN:

      True. I am assuming the party happened and she was attacked.

      Just not by Kavanaugh.

      I find Kavanaugh much more believable in this she said, he said clash. Mostly because of Kyser and PJ (and also the denials of Kavanaugh and Judge).

      So I am assuming she either made a mistake (being charitable) or is lying (not being charitable).

      As you point out, the other possibility is she made the entire thing up. The fact that no one has come forward to say they drove her home makes the totally making it up more plausible.

      Of course, I don’t have any personal knowledge at all, so I am just speculating.

      Hopefully, Chris Garrett, or Kyser or Judge will come forward and tell us what they told the FBI. If Chris Garrett says he never had a party with Ford, Kyser, Judge and PJ present – well that will be the end of that theory (that the party was at Chris Garrett’s house and perhaps he was the ride to and from the party).

      I guess we will have to wait and see.

  50. “However, my primary objection is she was lying in attempt to prevent Kavanaugh on Supreme Court.” Which is an easy claim to make, and one that you cannot verify, and one that you will support with all your heart, and one that is consistent with your tribal belief, a claim that is not backed up by science, and, basically, a claim which you really have no business making. You might claim it as an opinion, but that is all. Also, the fact that the investigation of her allegations was truncated to the point of absurdity also might factor into your calculation. But it didn’t. I see Dr. Ford as someone who most likely, like me, values science and truth. I see Judge, now Justice, Booffffer as a smart but spoiled brat who believes he should be on the top of the heap, no matter what it takes to get there. He has been caught in so many lower level lies, that I will not trust him, ever, and he has such a history of drinking, that he might possibly have molested the girl and simply not remembered. So believe what you want to, but that doesn’t make something true. The snivelling spoiled brat tantrum was enough to make him the butt of caricature and derision for the rest of his days. Enjoy his brtief tenure on the court. The Republic will not fail but the Republicons will.

    1. SteveP:

      I hope you see your motivated reasoning.

      I certainly see mine.

      Neither of us knows if Kavanaugh is lying or mistaken or if Ford is lying or mistaken.

      So please don’t pretend Ford is more believable than Kavanaugh.

      You think Ford is more believable because of your motivated reasoning (you don’t want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court).

      I think Kavanaugh is more believable because of my motivated reasoning (I wanted Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court).

      We both have our reasons why we believe what we believe – you get that right?

      I just want to make sure you have fooled yourself – because it sure sounds like you have.

    2. ” Which is an easy claim to make, and one that you cannot verify, and one that you will support with all your heart, and one that is consistent with your tribal belief, a claim that is not backed up by science, and, basically, a claim which you really have no business making. You might claim it as an opinion, but that is all.”

      Just like the Ford’s claim and those who believe her.

  51. Justice Booffffer now has a chance to prove that he is a sincere, non-partisan justice. Will he decide impartially, not favoring corporate or non-corporate sides; not favoring union or non-union sides; not favoring religious v a-religious sides; not favoring liberal or conservative sides? Let’s hope that he proves the left wrong and acts as an impartial justice. If he doesn’t act like a real justice, it is pretty certain that he will be figuratively torn apart by the left, as best as they can do. I would prefer that he stay in the court for a while, serving as a beacon of light and a warning to those who would trust the Republican party, because I doubt that he can be impartial. He is , most likely, an installed safety device for the Republican party, a party which has no desire to do anything to support democracy, transparency, or fairness.

  52. Hi MikeN,

    “So what’s on the calendar could be the party after what Ford claims she attended.”

    I had taken Ford’s comments to mean that the small gathering might have turned into one of the “open” house parties that others have mentioned, where word-of-mouth among the country club kids would result in a large number of party-goers. But it’s hard to say since all of Ford’s comments are murky at best.

    In any event it turns out that “Timmy’s” was a townhouse eleven miles away from the country club which doesn’t fit Ford’s description.

    The Weekly Standard has been running this down.

    1. I interpreted it as the older kids were going to go to another party after this get together. I’ve never heard of this multi-party socializing, but maybe that happened at her school.

      She doesn’t remember how she got there or how she got home, but why didn’t anyone ask her what her typical routine was? How did she normally get to the country club, or home from these parties? Seems like a useful investigative step.

  53. Various specific non-believers:

    Even if Ford doesn’t really remember who drove her home (which I really have a hard time believing)

    Took me a few days, but something in the back of my head kept jumping up and down to get my attention. I have read “cannot remember how I went home” before.
    Then I got it. Blog posts by cancer patients, or other people having just learned bad news or experienced trauma.
    On one occasion, it was a doctor explaining how he didn’t get how a patient wasn’t correctly informed by its physician on some illness, until he found himself on the receiving end of bad news, and realized he just zoned out during his physician’s explanations on what to do next.
    People suffering some trauma tend to universally write something like “everything went fuzzy, and I dimly remember what happened after [triggering event]”.
    Heck, it’s so well-know this is a typical reaction to shock, it’s also a cliché in fiction.

    But somehow, a woman claiming to have had a fear-inducing event three decade ago should have had a photographic, permanent memory of everything after the event itself.

    Also, all this stuff about the fear of plane, doors, and Ford using scientific terms (pushing the scientist forward to hide the victim)? This is the behavior of someone who didn’t want to come forward, in full view.
    No wonder she doesn’t want to “pursue it”. What’s the point? It was made clear to her last week this would be an exercice in futility.

    None of this prove anything one way or another, I agree.
    But forgetting some details after the event or looking for excuses not to come forward are not the slam duck some people believe it is.

  54. We saw the real Brat Kavanaugh at the hearing. His sniveling performance was worthy of an adolescent actor feigning indignation while denying that he was taking cookies from the cookie jar. Bravo.

    This ass kissing little authoritarian snot will be a splendid addition to our Supreme Court. There are already several adults on the court, so another partisan choir boy will probably not completely sink the ship of state. Will he take a vow of silence like Clarence did for a couple of decades or so? Can’t wait for Brat’s first comment from the bench. We’ll be all over it, won’t we now! Will he consider his words, and not try to offend women, victims of assault, Democrats, liberals, atheists, scientists, non-whites, ethnic minorities or humanists? Or will he do the Kavanaugh Jesuit Rumba and just say and do whatever he wants to? Can’t wait to find out!

    I hope the lack of a happy hour at the Supreme Court hasn’t hit him too hard.

    1. SteveP:

      Justice Brett Kavanaugh already made his first comment from the bench. He participated in oral argument Tuesday and asked several questions from the bench.

      I don’t think he offended anybody with his words.

      I suspect several Supreme Court justices enjoy beer, so I am sure Kavanaugh will be fine. I wouldn’t worry about him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.