WWTBAM Bored

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Here's Rachel Mitchell's report..

What would you expect from the prosecutor who was handpicked by the Republicans to do a hatchet job on her (and then did such a poor job that they took over the questioning of Kavanaugh themselves)?

And is there any doubt that the activities of Congressional Republicans and Donald Trump affected Kavanaugh's account?

I could have written that for you.

silverscreenselect wrote:I don't have time to dig around for a citation right now, but the NYT is reporting that the FBI has been granted larger authority to investigate (presumably into some of the other allegations that have surfaced) and Jeff Flake has gone on record as saying that all credible allegations should be investigated.

Flake is showing far more backbone than all his Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee combined.

Flake has said, by the way, that there's no way he'd have insisted on additional investigation if he were running for reelection. In contrast, if credible allegations like this had surfaced concerning, say, Merrick Garland, then I'm confident Democrats would have called for an investigation. Hell, something like that is why no Democrat has had the opportunity to appoint a Chief Justice in my lifetime. When Earl Warren stepped down, LBJ nominated Abe Fortas to the post. The investigation uncovered improprieties on the part of Justice Fortas, and not only was his nomination for Chief Justice withdrawn (allowing Nixon to appoint Warren Burger), but Justice Fortas stepped down altogether from the Supreme Court. And this is all with Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress and a close presidential election rapidly approaching.

that, to my mind, is exactly what's wrong with the Republican Party nowadays. Its primaries have been taken over by people who don't care whether Dr. Blasey Ford is telling the truth. Its primaries have been taken over by people who think that a 15-year-old girl should have reported this attack back in 1982 (when her attacker's mother was a prosecutor). Its primaries have been taken over by people who actually believe that this account is an invention. And Republican politicians know it, and they're too wedded to their own careers to do what's right. It's primaries have been taken over by people who don't want an investigation, so Republican officeholders are resisting an investigation rather than doing what's right.

The only way that will change is for sane Republicans to regain control of party primaries, and I don't see that happening soon. So the only other alternative is to deprive the Republican Party of power, through the ballot box, at every possible level until and unless the party's voters regain their collective sanity. --Bob

jarnon wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:I don't have time to dig around for a citation right now, but the NYT is reporting that the FBI has been granted larger authority to investigate (presumably into some of the other allegations that have surfaced) and Jeff Flake has gone on record as saying that all credible allegations should be investigated.

Flake is showing far more backbone than all his Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee combined.

Donald J. Trump wrote:NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!

Sounds like the failing New York Times agrees with Trump's denial of the fake NBC story. In reality, I think the FBI will investigate what the undecided Senators want to know. Corroboration of Ford's testimony, or proof of Kavanaugh perjury, will sink his nomination. Otherwise, he's on the Supreme Court.

My understanding is that the FBI was originally limited to interviewing four witnesses (interviews that it has already completed), but the public blowback (or Senator Flake's position) forced Donny to allow the FBI to expand the investigation. --Bob

Here is a report of the (draft) findings of the attorney hired by the Democratic Party to investigate the allegations against Keith Ellison. She found them unsubstantiated because the complaining witness claimed to have video but wouldn't release it and cited shifting rationales for not doing so. It makes sense to me that the following exchange would hurt a complainant's credibility:

"He abused me and I have video!"

"OMG, that's awful. Show us the video so we can corroborate your allegations."

"Can't show it to you. Won't show it to you. Don't wanna show it to you."

I still wouldn't mind an independent investigation into the allegations, but that might require either the complainant filing suit or the complainant going to the police, and as far as I know, she's done neither. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

jarnon wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:I don't have time to dig around for a citation right now, but the NYT is reporting that the FBI has been granted larger authority to investigate (presumably into some of the other allegations that have surfaced) and Jeff Flake has gone on record as saying that all credible allegations should be investigated.

Flake is showing far more backbone than all his Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee combined.

Donald J. Trump wrote:NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!

Sounds like the failing New York Times agrees with Trump's denial of the fake NBC story. In reality, I think the FBI will investigate what the undecided Senators want to know. Corroboration of Ford's testimony, or proof of Kavanaugh perjury, will sink his nomination. Otherwise, he's on the Supreme Court.

My understanding is that the FBI was originally limited to interviewing four witnesses (interviews that it has already completed), but the public blowback (or Senator Flake's position) forced Donny to allow the FBI to expand the investigation. --Bob

A perfect example of our divided politics. Trump supporters say NBC made up a ridiculous story. Democrats believe the facts changed over the weekend.

As I've said all along, the FBI will investigate whatever will satisfy Senators Flake, Collins, Manchin, etc.

jarnon wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

jarnon wrote: Sounds like the failing New York Times agrees with Trump's denial of the fake NBC story. In reality, I think the FBI will investigate what the undecided Senators want to know. Corroboration of Ford's testimony, or proof of Kavanaugh perjury, will sink his nomination. Otherwise, he's on the Supreme Court.

My understanding is that the FBI was originally limited to interviewing four witnesses (interviews that it has already completed), but the public blowback (or Senator Flake's position) forced Donny to allow the FBI to expand the investigation. --Bob

A perfect example of our divided politics. Trump supporters say NBC made up a ridiculous story. Democrats believe the facts changed over the weekend.

As I've said all along, the FBI will investigate whatever will satisfy Senators Flake, Collins, Manchin, etc.

Here's the New York Times story characterizing the move as a change in the instructions received from the White House to authorize additional interviews. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Here's Rachel Mitchell's report..

What would you expect from the prosecutor who was handpicked by the Republicans to do a hatchet job on her (and then did such a poor job that they took over the questioning of Kavanaugh themselves)?

And is there any doubt that the activities of Congressional Republicans and Donald Trump affected Kavanaugh's account?

I could have written that for you.

That's far too many words. Your crayon would probably break.

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:And, while we're at it, I'd say Matt Damon was terrific as Judge Kavanaugh on SNL last night.

OMG! This was perfect!

Thanks to the Five for this:
Matt Damon:

Ten years ago, you made a claim against me and I had a big movie coming out, OK? I have $100 million or I have a movie that is personally important to me coming out, and close to the release of that film, you say, “Matt Damon grabbed my butt and stuck his tongue down my throat.” We would then go to mediation and organize a settlement. I’d go, “I don’t want this out there. Peter’s going to go out and talk to the press and run his mouth, and it’s going to be overshadowing the opening of this movie. How much money do you want?” The lawyers would get together, and they do this cost-benefit analysis, and they’d go, “Oh, this is what it’s worth.” And I look at the number and go, “OK, I’ll pay it, but you can never talk about this again. You’re f—— lying about this, but never talk about this again.

Now … with social media, these stories get — it’s like they get gasoline poured on them. So the moment a claim is made, if you make that same claim today to me, I would be scorched earth. I’d go, “I don’t care if it costs $10 million to fight this in court with you for 10 years, you are not taking my name from me.

Typical Hollywood hypocrite.

jarnon wrote: Trump supporters say NBC made up a ridiculous story. Democrats believe the facts changed over the weekend.

As I've said all along, the FBI will investigate whatever will satisfy Senators Flake, Collins, Manchin, etc.

Trump has been known to float trial balloons with his tweets and then pull back if the adverse reaction is too much.

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Chad Ludington’s Statement on Kavanaugh’s Drinking and Senate Testimony

Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s who said he often drank with him, issued a statement on Sunday saying the Supreme Court nominee was not truthful about his drinking in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

Here is the full text of the statement:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/p ... tw-nytimes

On Fox News, Kavanaugh portrayed himself as a choirboy, but as Trump reminds us, lying to the (fake) media isn't illegal. His Senate testimony made it clear that he was a heavy drinker. If the FBI catches him in a bald-face lie, they can charge him, and there goes his nomination. I doubt that shading the truth will prevent the undecided Senators from confirming him (though you can bet it'll be mentioned in hundreds of campaign ads).

It was quite interesting that during his press conference today, trump admitted Kavanaugh had had a drinking problem in the past.

Bob Juch wrote:

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Chad Ludington’s Statement on Kavanaugh’s Drinking and Senate Testimony

Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s who said he often drank with him, issued a statement on Sunday saying the Supreme Court nominee was not truthful about his drinking in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

Here is the full text of the statement:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/p ... tw-nytimes

On Fox News, Kavanaugh portrayed himself as a choirboy, but as Trump reminds us, lying to the (fake) media isn't illegal. His Senate testimony made it clear that he was a heavy drinker. If the FBI catches him in a bald-face lie, they can charge him, and there goes his nomination. I doubt that shading the truth will prevent the undecided Senators from confirming him (though you can bet it'll be mentioned in hundreds of campaign ads).

It was quite interesting that during his press conference today, trump admitted Kavanaugh had had a drinking problem in the past.

Of course, you don't include the actual quote. He said, "I was surprised at how vocal he was about the fact that he likes beer, and he's had a little bit of difficulty, I mean he talked about things that happened when he drinks -- this is not a man that said ... that he was perfect with respect to alcohol."

Since Trump said this, it was all a lie, so what's the big deal?

Estonut wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

jarnon wrote:On Fox News, Kavanaugh portrayed himself as a choirboy, but as Trump reminds us, lying to the (fake) media isn't illegal. His Senate testimony made it clear that he was a heavy drinker. If the FBI catches him in a bald-face lie, they can charge him, and there goes his nomination. I doubt that shading the truth will prevent the undecided Senators from confirming him (though you can bet it'll be mentioned in hundreds of campaign ads).

It was quite interesting that during his press conference today, trump admitted Kavanaugh had had a drinking problem in the past.

Of course, you don't include the actual quote. He said, "I was surprised at how vocal he was about the fact that he likes beer, and he's had a little bit of difficulty, I mean he talked about things that happened when he drinks -- this is not a man that said ... that he was perfect with respect to alcohol."

Since Trump said this, it was all a lie, so what's the big deal?

Don't blame BJ. To save time (they have so many idiots to call), they don't very often give actual quotes over the batphone. They just give their idiots what to say and disseminate. They give BJ the memes, since he's such a good idiot. A lot of idiots turn their nose up at memes.

Bob78164 wrote:Here is a report of the (draft) findings of the attorney hired by the Democratic Party to investigate the allegations against Keith Ellison. She found them unsubstantiated because the complaining witness claimed to have video but wouldn't release it and cited shifting rationales for not doing so. It makes sense to me that the following exchange would hurt a complainant's credibility:

"He abused me and I have video!"

"OMG, that's awful. Show us the video so we can corroborate your allegations."

"Can't show it to you. Won't show it to you. Don't wanna show it to you."

I still wouldn't mind an independent investigation into the allegations, but that might require either the complainant filing suit or the complainant going to the police, and as far as I know, she's done neither. --Bob

But, dammit bob-tel. The woman should be believed!!!!! Why aren't you revolted!!!

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Here is a report of the (draft) findings of the attorney hired by the Democratic Party to investigate the allegations against Keith Ellison. She found them unsubstantiated because the complaining witness claimed to have video but wouldn't release it and cited shifting rationales for not doing so. It makes sense to me that the following exchange would hurt a complainant's credibility:

"He abused me and I have video!"

"OMG, that's awful. Show us the video so we can corroborate your allegations."

"Can't show it to you. Won't show it to you. Don't wanna show it to you."

I still wouldn't mind an independent investigation into the allegations, but that might require either the complainant filing suit or the complainant going to the police, and as far as I know, she's done neither. --Bob

But, dammit bob-tel. The woman should be believed!!!!! Why aren't you revolted!!!

I've never taken the position that a complainant should be automatically believed. I've said that a facially credible complaint should be thoroughly investigated. I've also said that in this case (for testimony-specific reasons that I've articulated) Dr. Blasey Ford is a lot more credible than Judge Kavanaugh.

I'd prefer that this investigation be carried out by someone not hired by the Democratic Party, but it's better than no investigation at all. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

jarnon wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Chad Ludington’s Statement on Kavanaugh’s Drinking and Senate Testimony

Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s who said he often drank with him, issued a statement on Sunday saying the Supreme Court nominee was not truthful about his drinking in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

Here is the full text of the statement:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/p ... tw-nytimes

On Fox News, Kavanaugh portrayed himself as a choirboy, but as Trump reminds us, lying to the (fake) media isn't illegal. His Senate testimony made it clear that he was a heavy drinker. If the FBI catches him in a bald-face lie, they can charge him, and there goes his nomination. I doubt that shading the truth will prevent the undecided Senators from confirming him (though you can bet it'll be mentioned in hundreds of campaign ads).

So, now we've established he's a serial rapist, a proprietor of a gang rape ring and a drunk. Jeez, the FBI needs to be completely overhauled for missing all this! 6 background checks!!! And the Senate confirmed him several times! How could they let this guy get so far!!!

Well, here's one thing the six background checks missed. The incident that Prof. Luddington describes resulted in a call to the New Haven Police and Kavanaugh was right in the middle of it.

The incident, which occurred in September 1985 during Mr. Kavanaugh’s junior year, resulted in Mr. Kavanaugh and four other men being questioned by the New Haven Police Department. Mr. Kavanaugh was not arrested, but the police report stated that a 21-year-old man accused Mr. Kavanaugh of throwing ice on him “for some unknown reason.”

A witness to the fight said that Chris Dudley, a Yale basketball player who is friends with Mr. Kavanaugh, then threw a glass that hit the man in the ear, according to the police report, which was obtained by The New York Times. Mr. Dudley denied the accusation, according to the report. For his part, speaking to the officers, Mr. Kavanaugh did not want “to say if he threw the ice or not,” the police report said.

The article includes a copy of the hand-written police report.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/p ... fight.html

And, no, I don't think that a barroom scrape that didn't result in any arrests should be the basis of disqualifying Kavanaugh. But it does cast considerable doubt on his testimony in general and raises the possibility even more that he may honestly not remember the incident with Dr. Ford if he had been drinking heavily at the time. It's funny how, once people like reporters and FBI agents know what to look for, they find all sorts of additional information, even in a case that's 36 years old.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

jarnon wrote:On Fox News, Kavanaugh portrayed himself as a choirboy, but as Trump reminds us, lying to the (fake) media isn't illegal. His Senate testimony made it clear that he was a heavy drinker. If the FBI catches him in a bald-face lie, they can charge him, and there goes his nomination. I doubt that shading the truth will prevent the undecided Senators from confirming him (though you can bet it'll be mentioned in hundreds of campaign ads).

So, now we've established he's a serial rapist, a proprietor of a gang rape ring and a drunk. Jeez, the FBI needs to be completely overhauled for missing all this! 6 background checks!!! And the Senate confirmed him several times! How could they let this guy get so far!!!

Well, here's one thing the six background checks missed. The incident that Prof. Luddington describes resulted in a call to the New Haven Police and Kavanaugh was right in the middle of it.

The incident, which occurred in September 1985 during Mr. Kavanaugh’s junior year, resulted in Mr. Kavanaugh and four other men being questioned by the New Haven Police Department. Mr. Kavanaugh was not arrested, but the police report stated that a 21-year-old man accused Mr. Kavanaugh of throwing ice on him “for some unknown reason.”

A witness to the fight said that Chris Dudley, a Yale basketball player who is friends with Mr. Kavanaugh, then threw a glass that hit the man in the ear, according to the police report, which was obtained by The New York Times. Mr. Dudley denied the accusation, according to the report. For his part, speaking to the officers, Mr. Kavanaugh did not want “to say if he threw the ice or not,” the police report said.

The article includes a copy of the hand-written police report.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/p ... fight.html

And, no, I don't think that a barroom scrape that didn't result in any arrests should be the basis of disqualifying Kavanaugh. But it does cast considerable doubt on his testimony in general and raises the possibility even more that he may honestly not remember the incident with Dr. Ford if he had been drinking heavily at the time. It's funny how, once people like reporters and FBI agents know what to look for, they find all sorts of additional information, even in a case that's 36 years old.

So, now we've established he's a serial rapist, a proprietor of a gang rape ring and a drunk and an ice thrower. He should be deported.

There is a report that a friend of Kavanaugh's has text messages that indicate he asked her to defend him against the 2nd accuser. Allegedly these texts were before the story was reported in the New Yorker, and Kavanaugh said he first heard about these allegations fro the New Yorker report.

Of course, none of these stories include any of the actual texts, just interpretations of them. So that is suspicious. But if these texts actually exist, and they do actually indicate he knew about the Ramirez allegations before they were published, and they are first hand texts, this would be incontrovertible evidence that HE is the one who is lying.

Let's see if something does come of this, or if it's another uncorroborated accusation.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:There is a report that a friend of Kavanaugh's has text messages that indicate he asked her to defend him against the 2nd accuser. Allegedly these texts were before the story was reported in the New Yorker, and Kavanaugh said he first heard about these allegations fro the New Yorker report.

Of course, none of these stories include any of the actual texts, just interpretations of them. So that is suspicious. But if these texts actually exist, and they do actually indicate he knew about the Ramirez allegations before they were published, and they are first hand texts, this would be incontrovertible evidence that HE is the one who is lying.

Let's see if something does come of this, or if it's another uncorroborated accusation.

Jake Tapper wrote:Kavanaugh is quoted in the New Yorker story denying the allegation so of course he had heard about it prior to publication.

Also, I don't know why the press is so concerned with his drinking.

Judge Kavanaugh wrote:I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer.

Since he's not a teetotaler, this testimony is definitely true.

Here's his testimony from his interview with Committee staff (page 18).

Q: My last question on this subject is since you graduated from college, but before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd, have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker?

Judge Kavanaugh. No.

So if the report is true that he was trying to organize opposition to Ms. Ramirez's account before it became public, he definitely lied to the Committee, which would be perjury. --Bob

I threw a piece of ice at my sister in a bar about 25 years ago. I'd best get ready for a recall election.

tlynn78 wrote:I threw a piece of ice at my sister in a bar about 25 years ago. I'd best get ready for a recall election.

I doubt there was a police report filed on the incident.

So far Dr. Ford has no police record.

Nor ice-throwing incidents that anyone has reported.

Nor instances where she could have been blackout drunk.

I am not one of those who wants drunken frat boys who still drink as adults on the Supremes.

I believe Kavanaugh *is* a blackout drunk. He'd probably pass a lie detector test, or would have before this all opened up. He really believes he didn't do it. His Evil Twin did it.

ghostjmf wrote:So far Dr. Ford has no police record.

Nor ice-throwing incidents that anyone has reported.

Nor instances where she could have been blackout drunk.

I am not one of those who wants drunken frat boys who still drink as adults on the Supremes.

I believe Kavanaugh *is* a blackout drunk. He'd probably pass a lie detector test, or would have before this all opened up. He really believes he didn't do it. His Evil Twin did it.

I would also add that I do not know that Dr. Ford has had any FBI background checks. Kavanaugh is going through his 7th. I also doubt that the MSM has much interest in probing her background anywhere near the depth to which it is frothing at Kavanaugh's.
As Ms. Mitchell has pointed out, there are numerous holes and discrepancies in her testimony.

But you don't want to see any of this, so you won't.

Bob78164 wrote:Here's his testimony from his interview with Committee staff (page 18).

Q: My last question on this subject is since you graduated from college, but before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd, have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker?

Judge Kavanaugh. No.

So if the report is true that he was trying to organize opposition to Ms. Ramirez's account before it became public, he definitely lied to the Committee, which would be perjury. --Bob

Jake Tapper is right.

The New Yorker wrote:In a statement, Kavanaugh wrote, “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name—and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building—against these last-minute allegations.”

So it's public record that Kavanaugh commented about the allegation before Sept. 23. His testimony was trying to say that he hadn't heard about the incident before Ramirez's accusation. He didn't express himself correctly, but that's far from perjury.

tlynn78 wrote:I threw a piece of ice at my sister in a bar about 25 years ago. I'd best get ready for a recall election.

Foolish move. Now it's on record. The NYT will publish it.