Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the recent allegation of sexual assault against Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the demand for a delay in his confirmation vote. Both Kavanaugh and the other man referenced in the anonymous letter have denied the allegations from their high school days. The reported law professor who contacted Congress appears to want the allegation considered by members but has refused to come forward and said that she did not want to be drawn into the controversy. If that was her position, Democrats have now done the opposite and leaked the letter’s details and called for a full investigation. If this is a law professor, it is unclear why she is not willing to come forward with an allegation of a sexual assault. She clearly thought that the allegation should be raised with Congress but has refused to come forward to substantiate the claims. That leaves Kavanaugh in a grossly unfair position in my view. UPDATE: Kavanaugh’s accuser has now gone public.
Here is the column:
After years of polarizing and petty politics, we have finally come to this: The “world’s most deliberative body” could grind to a halt over a non-public letter from an anonymous person containing unspecified allegations against a Supreme Court nominee — about his high school years. It appears Democrats have possessed this letter since the summer, from a reported law professor who does not want to be identified. However, critics are demanding answers and a delay in the vote on nominee Brett Kavanugh.
With an expected vote on his nomination only a couple weeks away, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) issued a statement that she had forwarded a letter to the FBI detailing possible sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh in high school. The last-minute allegations instantly brought to mind the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas, who faced a last-minute allegation from a former aide, law professor Anita Hill, of inappropriate sexual comments.
The analogy to the Thomas hearing is obvious and inescapable. Democrats were frustrated in their effort to paint Thomas’s views as outside the legal mainstream — the same strategy used four years before, in 1987, to block Robert Bork. Thomas, however, was selected in part due to his lack of a record in any published articles or remarks. Worse, he refused to answer core questions. The hearing’s lowest moment came when he was asked about his views on Roe v. Wade. Thomas said he really had not thought much about Roe — a statement as unbelievable as it was unresponsive. Nevertheless, he had sufficient votes for confirmation when NPR’s Supreme Court correspondent, Nina Totenberg, received a leaked Judiciary Committee/FBI report on Hill’s allegations. It was a classic “he said, she said” scandal that played out on national television. Thomas would be confirmed, but the country remained divided on whether he or Hill or both were lying.
The Kavanaugh hearings are different in one respect from the Thomas hearing: Kavanaugh has one of the longest, most detailed records of any modern nominee. The problem is that the Republican majority implemented an unprecedented level of restrictions over material, including a virtual blackout of material from when Kavanaugh served as White House secretary under former President George W. Bush. Many other documents were slapped with “Committee Confidential” status to prevent their public use.
Democrats had a legitimate objection to the percentage of withheld documents and the restrictive process imposed by the Republican majority. However, they lost that moral high ground in a series of missteps, from Sen. Cory Booker’s (D-N.J.) self-proclaimed “Spartacus Moment” to Sen. Kamala Harris’s (D-Calif.) misrepresentation of a statement by Kavanaugh about “abortion-inducing drugs.” Moreover, Democrats seemed to engineer confrontations over secret material by not requesting its release before the hearing.
In the end, the Kavanaugh hearings hit a new low in the lack of substantive discussion. The most damaging thing to emerge was Kavanaugh’s habit of putting ketchup on spaghetti. While that should be worthy of a denial as a culinary crime, the hearing was little more than Democratic posturing met by Republican platitudes.
Kavanaugh finished the hearings without a lethal wound. In the meantime, despite his obvious hostility to the interpretive rationale underlying Roe, senators including Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) appeared willing to vote for him solely on the basis of his referring to Roe as “settled law.”
That is when we suddenly started to hear about “the letter.” Feinstein was publicly attacked over her restrained performance as the ranking Democrat on the Senate committee, and then over holding on to the letter sent to her by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) about allegations made by a law professor. Despite reportedly holding a teaching position at a law school, this professor did not want to be publicly identified. Indeed, Feinstein said the “individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision.” This leaves Democrats with a letter from someone who is reportedly recounting an incident from decades ago who presumably never made a formal charge, does not want to make a formal charge, and does not want to be identified or “press the matter further.”
If there was a serious offense by Kavanaugh, even as a high school student, we should know about it. His accuser would be entirely protected in bringing forward a credible allegation and, indeed, many would view her as obligated to do so if she is a law professor. Moreover, she is represented by Debra Katz, a leading lawyer in the “MeToo” movement. It is unclear why she would send a letter and retain an attorney, yet refuse to make an allegation on the record or to move forward after raising the issue. However, due to the leak and referral, the allegations are being discussed globally in the media.
This presents a situation far more unfair than the one faced by Justice Thomas.
Thomas was accused of improper conduct as a high-ranking federal official. He faced someone who was willing to be identified and to appear as a witness; he could and did respond to detailed allegations from someone who made her claims in public, on the record.
Kavanaugh faces an unstated allegation from high school, from an unnamed person who does not want to be identified despite reportedly giving the information to Congress.
In addition, this information reportedly was received in July — yet Democrats waited until two weeks before a Senate vote to leak its existence. If they were truly concerned about a victim or underlying sexual misconduct, why would they sit on the letter until now?
As Feinstein must have anticipated, the FBI has declined to open up a criminal allegation of an incident that allegedly occurred decades ago in high school. It simply sent the information to the White House.
I have been critical of the Kavanaugh hearing, and I do not agree with Judge Kavanaugh on various constitutional issues, including his troubling deference to executive power and privileges. However, there needs to be a modicum of decency and fairness in this process. Tossing anonymous, undetailed allegations over the transom shortly before a vote is a new low. Democrats have succeeded not just in losing the high ground but in bulldozing it flat with this attack.
The high ground in Washington always has been measured in millimeters, but it is getting harder and harder to discern, as politics chases the last residue of principle from the process.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
138 thoughts on “Losing The High Ground: Democrats Hit Kavanaugh With Anonymous Allegation Of Sexual Assault From High School”
“I have been critical of the Kavanaugh hearing, and I do not agree with Judge Kavanaugh on various constitutional issues, including his troubling deference to executive power and privileges.”
I wish the professor would explain this feeling in a bit more detail. I think for the most part he is barking up the wrong tree. The legislature through its inaction and inability to create rational law leads to both the executive branch and Judicial branch having more powers to make law than they should. I think Professor Turley should be more angry at Congress for permitting these branches of government so much control (we have a broken government). Congress controls the pocketbook and that by itself is a formidable power. Maybe one of the lawyers on the blog can add a bit more.
HIGH SCHOOL ALLEGATION COMES..
BEFORE EXPLANATION ON BASEBALL TICKETS
As Professor Turley notes, this allegation of a high school sexual assault ventures into the realm of ‘She said, he said’, without the ‘she’ to formally say what she even said. This accusation has eclipsed a more substantial matter regarding Kavanaugh’s former credit card debt. Here that odd issue is described by The Atlantic:
“The more important, and curious, question is not how Kavanaugh accrued the debts attributed to the baseball tickets, but how he paid them down. It’s strange to imagine that a man of comparatively modest means would put tens of thousands of dollars on credit cards to buy baseball tickets, but even stranger that they would have been paid off so fast. The White House says that Kavanaugh’s friends reimbursed him for the tickets, and that he no longer buys them. The fact remains that Kavanaugh suddenly cleared at least $60,000 and as much as $200,000 in mysterious debt over one year—sums large enough that senators might well want to know who the sources of the payments were.
It would be challenging, though not impossible, to accrue so much in ticket debt in such a short time. Full-season tickets—meaning all 81 Nationals home games—can run into the thousands of dollars for a single seat. (How Kavanaugh, whose current job as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is highly demanding, would manage to find time to attend many baseball games—to say nothing of a full, 81-game home schedule—is another mystery.) At the most expensive price level, that could translate to around $35,000 per annum for a single seat, though most tickets are much less expensive. A renewing season-ticket holder at the most expensive price point would pay roughly $9,000 per year.
These numbers could put a dent in Kavanaugh’s salary. His disclosures show that if confirmed, he would have the smallest net worth of any justice. Getting the gig would probably inflate his assets. As a judge on the D.C. Circuit, he makes $220,600 a year, which would bump up to $255,300 on the Supreme Court. He might benefit in other ways, too: Justice Sonia Sotomayor scored a book advance of more than $1 million after joining the Court”.
Edited from: “The Mystery Of Brett Kavanugh’s Baseball Ticket Debt”
THE ATLANTIC, 7/12/18
KEY SENTENCE ABOVE:
“A renewing season-ticket holder at the most expensive price point would pay roughly $9,000 per year”.
Is there any sh!t sandwich you won’t eat?
Spastic, ‘who’ are you talking to with regards to sandwiches??
If the most expensive season tickets are only $9,000, ‘why’ was Kavanaugh putting tens of thousands on his credit card?? Something here does not compute.
“Something here does not compute.”
We already know that Peter, but it is not Kavanaugh’s bookkeeping rather you. I or one friend often buy tickets to all sorts of things so that we make sure we get seats next to one another. Then we reimburse each other. Just going to the Met as a group of 8 can lead to a charge of $3,000 – $4,000 for one performance that is later reimbursed. Don’t trouble yourself with this type of fact. It seems to be above your paygrade.
But if the debt was piling up on Kavanugh’s credit cards, then he wasn’t being reimbursed.
Peter, show us the bookkeeping. Debts pile up. How high did they go? When I was first married and even when I had children my debt was astronomical. It kept piling up. I’m sure my debts were multiples of his and I did nothing wrong while I met my obligations.
Show us the numbers. That should be simple since you act as if you know the facts but I don’t think you know much of anything.
It’s not entirely a “he said – she said.” There was allegedly a third person in the room. Supposedly Kavanaugh was holding the girl down on the bed and trying to sexually assault her. His high school buddy was also in the room. The friend allegedly turned up the music so others wouldn’t hear her protests. When reached by the New Yorker, the friend reportedly said he has “no recollection” of the event. Which is probably the most troublesome aspect of the allegations, in my view. If someone accused me of participating in a sexual assault, I would immediately and vehemently deny it, because I know it never happened. I wouldn’t say “I don’t remember” or I “have no recollection” of it. That seems odd.
There’s nothing ‘troubling’ about Mr. Judge’s statement. He also said he never saw Brett Kavanaugh do anything like what’s been described and that it wasn’t done in their social circle to roughhouse with girls. Have you been reading tripe from the NeverTrump caucus at Hot Air?
Spaz: Mark Judge is accused in the letter of assisting Kavanaugh in the alleged sexual assault, so he’s not exactly a disinterested party. And more importantly, his denial of drinking and “roughhousing with girls” while in high school is directly contradicted by his own memoirs of those years. In his 1997 book “Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk” and his 2005 book “God and Man at Georgetown Prep” he describes a fairly debaucherous experience of alcoholism, girl chasing, gay priests, liberalism, bar hopping and drinking to the point of blackouts. His friend Kavanugh, thinly disguised as “Bart O’Kavanaugh” was remembered as passed out drunk and throwing up in someone’s car. So all in all, I don’t know whether the incident with the girl happened or not. I expect more details will come out. She claims to have been traumatized and sought counseling at the time. She could authorize her shrink to release the records if she wants to coorborate her account. But she doesn’t have to. And BTW, I don’t read news sources to reinforce my beliefs or or support my wishful thinking. I read a broad array of news sources to get information. Try it sometime.
TIN – if he drank to the point of an alcoholic blackout, he does not have a current sober memory of it and if he was doing a lot of blackout drinking, he may have many memory holes. So, he honestly does not know if he did or did not do something. In defense of “Bart” many of us have drunk to the point of either passing out and/or barfing up our guts. For example, the first time one of my younger brothers drunk, I wanted to know how much he had consumed because I wanted to know whether to put him in his bed or in the bathtub (which is easier to clean).
PCS: Been there; done that. 😉
TIN – we should have a show of hands. 😉
We can review his memoir. My wager would be that his excess drinking largely post-dated the period in question.
Honestly, though, we’re discussing things of scant consequence even if they were true. Also, you could never verify anything to anyone’s satisfaction. It was 36 years ago. There is no point in discussing this.
The woman in question has presented herself has being the meat-and-potatoes of the mental health trade ever since. She’s admitting to you that she’s loosely-wired and not trustworthy. It reminds me of the Capitol Hill mail clerk who contended her life had been blighted after Robert Packwood had made a sloppy pass at her; normal women don’t think this way.
And you’ve been a “normal woman” for how long? 😂😂😂😂😂
Do you fancy that’s something other than non sequitur?
I’ve lived around normal women and around fragile women. None of them ever contended their life had been blighted by anything as inconsequential as this.
i pinched a few bottoms in my day too. It’s a capital crime but it used to be a common way of letting a girl know you liked her. And not really considered offensive in its day.
Why have the crazies been allowed to define the acceptable limits of social consent between men and women?
The story is lurid. Likely manufactured, as targeted slander.
But it’s part of a bigger effort to move the goalposts back and make every man into a sex-criminal by nature
If American women of goodwill do not speak up for their sons and brothers and fathers then they will eventually find their own oxes gored too, as the witch hunts extend.
nd more importantly, his denial of drinking and “roughhousing with girls” while in high school is directly contradicted by his own memoirs of those years.
His memoirs describe his history with alcoholism. If you can point to a passage where he says he roughhoused with girls, ca. 1982, let’s see it.
I confess. I got drunk when i was in high school and did some stupid things. So did 90% of the other kids. Why should it disqualify anyone? Wow. The witchhunt is merging with metoo to become a national insanity against Republican men, basically. Time to go asymmetrical on this guys? Think about it.
“No recollection”, could mean, “I was drunk too”.
In other words Peter, any time you don’t remember exactly what happened at a specific time it could mean you were raping a little girl. Is that what you are trying to tell us?
Allan – I tell my wife “I have no memory of that.” and it drives her round the bend. We have a mixed marriage (conservative/liberal). 😉
Paul C……..Does it drive your wife on the sidewalk as it goes ’round the bend? because, according to a prior post, that could be trouble. 😀
Cindy Bragg – sometimes her driving is erratic. She is harassing me so much in the car she forgets where to turn and I do not tell her she is missing her turn. 😉 It is an equalizer. 🙂
PSS: You want to totally drive your wife around the bend, try saying, “Your Honor, I have no memory of that at this time.” 😇
One has to consider the habits of the press and the left. All sorts of non memorable things occur in our lives that can later be dragged up and embellished. Any comment can lead to a further development of the embellishment which is picked up by the Shill’s of the world and reported as front page news which is totally fake.
I don’t remember any question directed towards Kavanaugh that asks if he sexually assaulted that woman which permits him to provide an immediate vehement denial. I have been depositioned and unless the question is completely factual and complete onto itself I don’t provide vehement direct responses. The lawyers in this case were trying to bait Kavanaugh into providing answers to questions not asked. He didn’t fall for the bait so I don’t see Tin why you have a problem with that. You are a lawyer. Don’t you ascribe to the idea of telling your client not to offer information or answer more than the question asks unless the questions come from his own attorney?
Allan: I agree with you, but my comment wasn’t directed towards Kavanaugh’s response. Kavanaugh HAS vehemently denied the allegation. It was his friend, Mark Judge, who was also allegedly in the room and who allegedly turned-up the music to drown out the girl’s protests who said, when contacted by the press, that he doesn’t recall the incident. It just seems odd to me that instead of denying the allegation, that he merely says he doesn’t remember. But he may very well be telling the truth, because in his own memoirs, he writes that he was an alcoholic during his teen years at Georgetown Prep. and suffered frequent blackouts.
he doesn’t recall the incident. It just seems odd to me that instead of denying the allegation
Except he did deny it. You keep lying about that.
Saying “I don’t recall,” and ‘that’s not the kind of person Brett was’ does not constitute denial.
As noted elsewhere, he also denied ever seeing Kavanaugh do anything like that and denied that sort of thing was done in their social circle. You’ve misrespresented his remarks repeatedly.
in my social circles quite a few girls not only had their bottoms pinched but a few kisses planted on them. again, the goalposts of what was “acceptable” have moved a lot back and forth over the years.
old folks like me may remember the covers of novels marketed to women; that is, Fabio like muscle men ripping the bodices off unwilling yet gorgeous women in a swoon. remember those? the woman was always turning away… the implied lack of consent was obvious.
in fact, it’s part of many normal women’s fantasy lives to fantasize about rape. yet that used to be a fairly well known fact. far more women fantasize about it than men, according to those who have studied the topic, however politicall incorrect it is to say
is it fair to ask, where does fantasy become reality? what are the boundaries?
let’s explore teenage beer party conduct 35 years hence and find out!
TIN – his memory is suspect because of alcohol over consumption. He can speak to Brett’s character though. It is as close to an honest denial as he can give. For all he knows he may have shot Lincoln during a blackout. That is the problem with alcoholic blackouts, you are still operating, you just don’t remember what you did or who you did it to unless you wake up next to them. 😉
Thanks. With all the use of pronouns one cannot be sure of what is being said or being left unsaid. I listened to some of the hearings and probably heard at least a part of that and I think Kavanaugh answered the questions appropriately. I think some of the Senators have acted in an abominal fashion. I’d like to put them on RBG’s knee so she can spank them.
Allan – Judicial Watch has filed an ethics complaint against Cory Booker. Let’s see if they take it up. 😉
not odd. a common fabrication against a powerful man, a longstanding bad habit of shameless women, and those who leverage their ‘stories” to effect.
AND TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE JOB
I think it’s clear that BK is hiding more than legal positions. It also seems clear that some of his defenders are themselves, interested in securing one of those lifetime, high-paying jobs that taxpayers fund – so they can make life for the rest of us even less rewarding financially and with ever-increasing restrictions on our right to pursue liberty for all.
What type of stupidity are we facing here? If Peter believes this cr-p he should certainly have the accounting to go along with it. Peter, when you add up how much a person can afford you have to include the wife’s salary, any inheritance, any investments outside of their primary jobs. When you look at expenditures you have to realize that when people buy other people tickets those other people reimburse them for the ticket price.
What evidence have you seen that permits you to promote a silly argument? Let’s hear your facts. You have none? Typical of Peter the Shill.
not worried about that, but it’s a more legitimate inquiry than did he jump a girl’s bones when he was 17. ridiculous.
“Something like 65 women, who have continuously known him for over 35 years, wrote a character reference letter in support of Kavanaugh. ”
It’s amazing how someone could track down 65 women from over 35 years ago in just a few days. Is it possible that Kavanaugh alerted “them” to this issue and had the letter as a backup, just in case? If he did an alert, it suggests the story is true.
I remember what happened to Anita Hill. It didn’t have to be “he said – she said”. There were other women willing to testify in support of Ms. Hill because they were also targeted by Thomas. The subcommittee was too anxious to confirm a sexual harasser to the court and the women were blocked from testifying. Does a law professor have anything to lose? Watch for a law professor being dismissed from her position.
Feinstein briefed the entire committee, without staffers, so how does JT know who leaked it? How is the letter anonymous if it was signed? Everyone on the subcommittee and probably Congress knows.
It’s amazing how someone could track down 65 women from over 35 years ago in just a few days.
It’s called Facebook supplemented with e-mail and Classmates.com. Not difficult at all.
Oh come on…..they weren’t “anxious to confirm a sexual harasser to the the court.” They were anxious to confirm a black conservative. That he may have sexually harassed his employees while head of the EEOC….they just didn’t care. They knew he had baggage but that was a secondary consideration.
Britt Hume’s daughter, Virginia Hume, who knew Kavanaugh in high school, explains how the letter of support of Kavanaugh came about:
“On Friday, a group of women who knew Brett in high school sent a letter in support of him to Senators Grassley and Feinstein. I am one of those 65 women. Having seen some of the reaction to the letter, I’d like to clear up a few things:
The letter was conceived and drafted by friends of Brett’s, and it was drafted after allegations came out on Thursday. I learned about the letter from a friend and fellow signatory. Others learned about it the same way. Those surprised at the speed with which it came together should see it as yet another testament to Brett’s excellent reputation.”
1. You need a line editor. There’s a definite lack of concision in this column.
2. You’re straining to offer concessions to a claque of truly repulsive people. There is no reason to inquire into this accusation at all.
3. If the accuser actually is a law professor, that’s perfectly unsurprising. It’s not a profession which collects and retains decent people.
4. Your personal lodestar is defending the prerogatives of every aspect of the legal system, the gross misconduct of people working within it notwithstanding.
5. Geez Louise. These hearings are shot through with artifice because important elements of our jurisprudence are found on political slogans and lies. The people responsible for the lies are appellate judges, their shallow smart-assed clerks, and law professors. You want honest answers from nominees? You want to know why you get BS? Look around the room at the next faculty meeting and you’ll see who is at fault.
It is going to get ugly when the story comes out that Kavannaugh had sex with a male dog when he was in high school. The same lady making the other allegations has made this on on some website. It is one thing to have some sex with a female human. But with a male dog? Come on. But. When dogs’ rights cases come up he might be ok.
Really? The leaders of this party – Clinton/ Obama/ Schumer/ Pelosi have to look up to see the gutter. It is difficult to name a prominent democrat that has a scintilla of integrity.
It was not always this way. Nobody would question the character of McGovern or Moynihan or Nunn. Even Jimmy Carter, a truly awful President, was and is a good man. But, this crew could not find the high road.
Shouldn’t be too hard to figure out who the anonymous Stanford law professor who attended high school in Maryland and who is a contemporary of Judge Kavanaugh is. Bring her before the Senate and have her testify about her allegations. Let the Senate evaluate her credibility and vote accordingly. Both the Senate and the public has a right to know the truth about SCOTUS nominees.
I can’t imagine it would be particularly difficult to figure out who the accuser is. How many females are on the Stanford Law faculty, and of those, how many attended high school at the same time as Kavanaugh (1979 – 1983), in or around Bethesda, MD?
at the same school
goodbeavis – didn’t Kavanaugh go to an all-boys school?
PCS: Yes, Georgetown Prep is an all-boys school. She reportedly went to a “nearby high school,” but I haven’t seen it identified anywhere. There’s a very expensive and elite girls’ school a few miles down Rockville Pike from G’town, it’s called Stonehenge or something like that; I’m sure it will come out eventually. Stuff this salacious doesn’t stay buttoned-up for long.
I’ve been reviewing Romper Room videos & found something suspicious. Little boys talking about guns & one of them looks like Kavanaugh.
Good job, Jerry! however..I believe it’s inadmissible because of Romper-client privilege..Dang the luck!
I forwarded the Romper Room video to Senator Feinstein & Cory Booker, aka “Spartacus” & Senate intelligence committee
There is a stakeout on Kavanaugh’s garbage can. So far only chicken bones & uneaten pizza crust were found. This is a developing nail bitter story, so stay tuned!
Jerry….That’s hilarious that you sent this to Feinstein and Booker!
And the toddler speak is on a level they can understand. 😅
Perhaps when the trolls attempt to steamroll over a constitutional right that the vast majority of Americans are in support of, such things happen, eh? One wonders if the misogynists have contemplated the full measure of the blowback were Roe to be seriously endangered.
Marky Mark Mark – Perhaps when the trolls attempt to steamroll over a constitutional right that the vast majority of Americans are in support of, such things happen, eh? This is sooooo ironic. You are one of the trolls so surely you are in the know?
mark m without evidence falsely and maliciously accused me of “watching hannity and bagging his balls”
what does that mean Mark M? I don’t watch him or play golf with him, maybe Mark M meant something else?
“Perhaps when the trolls attempt to steamroll over a constitutional right that the vast majority of Americans are in support of, such things happen, eh? One wonders if the misogynists have contemplated the full measure of the blowback were Roe to be seriously endangered.”
If my son made an argument like this when he was 11, I would have placed him in another school. You are indeed a sad lot on this one. At least Nutacha is entertaining.
Do you retract your false and fabricated quote Mark M that I did not support the rule of law?
Do you retract your false and defamatory statement that “I watch hannity and bag his balls?”
Mark M:: just the sort of habitual liar and slanderer that makes things up about people he doesn’t know, and self righteously expects others to accept it
Deocrat’s ever had the high ground? Not in my 57 years on this planet.
Tom Foley was an honorable man. He was my representative for several years and Speaker of the House, finally.
You mean gun-grabbing, Tom! Done in by the assault weapons ban and the first Speaker to lose an election since the Civil Wsr.
He lost due to the Republicants cry for “term limits”. A lot of out-of-state $ went into the Republicant effort. Weapons had nothing to do with it.
“He lost due to the Republicants cry for “term limits”. A lot of out-of-state $ went into the Republicant effort. Weapons had nothing to do with it.”
The partisans are on their back foot today. I thought I saw Kavanaugh throw a rock at a cat in the 70s. Guess that’s good enough to serve as evidence these days.
These are indeed sad times.
I fear the times will grow sadder.
Ben Franklin, we gave you “…a (restricted-vote) republic, if you can keep it.”
“I just asked 4 freshmen…”
“Now Washington state has quite a decent public school system and WSU students come from the upper ranks of their graduating classes.”
– David B. Benson
So, Benson, you are a parasitic public worker living off of the public dole? Who’d a thunk? Help me out here. Can you pay taxes with taxes? Is it possible for workers paid with collected tax dollars to pay taxes with the tax dollars they just received? Can one pay taxes with taxes? So you don’t actually pay taxes, right?
Should a public worker who is paid by elected officials be allowed to vote for those elected officials?
Now you understand why the American Founders gave Americans a “…republic, if you can keep it,” Ben Franklin.
A republic is not one man, one vote democracy; it is representative governance “…in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote.”
The American Founders intended for criteria to be met by voters.
I doubt being on the public dole is a criterion.
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
Congress has no Honor.
This is the first I’ve heard it suggested the accuser is a law professor.
Can someone link me to any other discussion or news article suggesting she is?
I was wondering the same thing. Did Turley slip and reveal something that the public isn’t supposed to know? He has said more than once that he has top secret clearance and he certainly knows a lot of people in Washington……
Chickens**t!!! However, the FBI is not going to investigate the letter, so there is that. DiFi is still a weasel.
You would think that the FBI would be looking for opportunities to develop a reputation for political independence……just sayin.
TIN – the FBI supposedly sent it to the WH who is doing the Kavanaugh clearance.
PCS – I don’t know, it still seems that the FBI should do an independent investigation. For two reasons. First, that is what they do. They are highly trained investigators. The White House lawyers and politicians are not. The FBI could fax the letter to their San Fran office and have the local G-men drive down to Stanford and interview this woman, access her credibility, obtain any coorberative documents or witness statements that may exist, and generally compile a thorough, independent investigative report. Second, if this matter isn’t cleared up, Kavanaugh will always have a cloud over his head. Like Thomas, he will still get confirmed, but his reputation and credibility will be tarnished. If the allegations are false, he especially needs to have his name cleared.
it still seems that the FBI should do an independent investigation.
Rubbish. No federal crime is alleged. There aren’t any ‘witnesses’ other than the anonymous accuser. Nothing is alleged but a common assault by a juvenile 36 years ago. If the FBI were to ‘investigate’ this, it would be an indication the agency needed its budget and staff cut.
The accuser identified herself today in the Washington Post. Try to keep up.
Moreover, you may consider the attempted rape of a 15 y/o girl by a 17 y/o male a “common offense,” but most decent people don’t agree with you. In Maryland, where it happened, he could have been charged as an adult had she reported it.
She didn’t report it, did she?
…And when she did report it she didn’t want her name used.
…And then the letter available for a long time suddenly is produced at the eleventh hour.
Where is the proof?
I could probably find someone who you were around at one time or another who would be willing to claim you were trying to rape her at an earlier date. Suddenly decades later when the spotlight is on you she comes forward. Should we believe her? Why?
Don’t forget the Duke Lacrosse team. Is that the way society is supposed to work? Successive allegations against people destroying lives without proof?
Allan – the letter arrives at the 11 hour and 59th minute. There is no way that Kavanaugh can defend against this at this point in time. This is why we have statutes of limitations. After 35 years I would not be able to name the girls I dated a length much less the ones I pushed into a room and molested. 😉 How does she remember it was him? This is very very strange.
There is no reason to believe any ‘attempted rape’ occurred. Even her account of the incident would not indicate any such thing.
but most decent people don’t agree with you.
You’re not a decent person.
TIN – my computer automatically blocks the Washington Compost. Who is the person who has outed herself and what is her story?
Unless the individual in question files a formal complaint with substance and there is a prosecutable crime I think the FBI should drop it as too late or we will forever be chasing our tails. He has already been cleared multiple times and it is very hard to prove a negative.
“Second, if this matter isn’t cleared up, Kavanaugh will always have a cloud over his head. ”
That is the danger of such accusations and that is why they shouldn’t be taken so seriously especially at such a late date. Character assassination from the left is all too frequent. It should be stopped on both sides.
Uh……..This isn’t Leopold and Loeb. It’s Kavanaugh and Judge.
its “false informing” againt a public figure.
they should arrest the libelous accuser
do these shameless women with their never ending tawdry stories of the allegedly nonconsensual liasons, realize that a false accusation is itself an actionable crime?
just like perjury.
rarely used but it’s time to dust off old tools and bring them into effect against liars and slanderers run amuck
To make this space useful and since it is Mexico Independence Day Sep 15th let’s solve the mystery of May 5th.
Not much celebrated in Mexico it’s more a USA latino version of kwanza. Kwanza wad developed by a college professor to highlight the importance of the black American Economic community. but is now considered a day of the diaspora of the black African race . Cinco de mayo according to my friends was the day the French and Mexican Armies ame within 50 miles of each other then turned and went in opposite directions. No battle no shots fired. But it was a very hot day.
What is Cinco de Mayo, why do people celebrate it, and why is it …
https://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas
May 3, 2018 – Cinco de Mayo is a cultural phenomenon in the United States. It’s a time to celebrate Mexican culture and, for some, an opportunity to drink a lot …
Kwanzaa is a celebration held in the United States and in other nations of the African diaspora in the Americas and lasts a week. The celebration honors African heritage in African-American culture and is observed from December 26 to January 1, culminating in a feast and gift-giving.
Now your time has been wel spent since tthe leftists also did a 180 and returned one suspects to their Air Condititoners.
High ground becomes ever harder to find in Washington, DC, as the ice sheets continue to melt and the oceans expand due to increased heat content. Already the steps of the Tidal Pool are flooded during spring tides.
The Washington Post’s Slander on Hurricanes and Climate Change
The Washington Post editorial board says that President Trump is “complicit” in Hurricane Florence, because his climate policies fuel “extreme weather.” In reality, empirical data from as far back in time as it extends show that:
* global hurricane frequency, hurricane intensity, hurricane duration, and general rainfall trends have been level.
* Atlantic hurricane frequency and intensity trends have been level.
* U.S. hurricane strikes, major hurricane strikes, and flood trends have been level.
The Washington Post’s Slander on Hurricanes and Climate Change
By James D. Agresti
September 15, 2018
The Washington Post editorial board has accused President Trump of being “complicit” in Hurricane Florence, because “he plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks” of “extreme weather,” and “he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks.” Such weather, they say, is fueled by manmade global warming that creates “unusually warm ocean water” that worsens hurricanes. The board finishes by declaring that Trump and Republicans are guilty of “reality denial” on this issue. However, their editorial is the antithesis of reality.
Trump hasn’t been in office nearly long enough for his policies to alter the earth’s greenhouse gas levels. In fact, his plan to repeal Obama’s “landmark“ climate change regulation has not yet been implemented.
Furthermore, Charles McConnell, a former assistant secretary of energy under Obama and the director of Rice University’s Energy and Environment Initiative, estimated that this regulation would decrease global temperature by only 0.01 degree Celsius by 2030. Thus, to blame Trump for Hurricane Florence or any other hurricane in the past or future is absurd.*
More importantly, the Post’s narrative is at odds with the scientific facts of the matter. These show that from as far back in time as reliable data extends
* global hurricane frequency, hurricane intensity, hurricane duration, and general rainfall trends have been level.
* Atlantic hurricane frequency and intensity trends have been level.
* U.S. hurricane strikes, major hurricane strikes, and flood trends have been level.”
Meanwhiie the current mini ice age is scheduled to decrease the temperature over 300 years by one degree centigrade
So much for President bashing and global warming.
JustFacts generally takes about six months or so to verify before printing.
MA writes of irrelevancies taken from a most dubious website.
But when they offer something that supports your side of the question which is quite often to you rebuke them as dubious. Try the knee jerk reaction once more it’s quite relevant and… humorous. Never heard of weather cycles. Incas did and many others that built pyramids. Ben Franklin used them and so does the Farmer’s Almanac. Any one who goes down to the sea in ships or boats or plows a field to plant and reap. But it escapes the city folks. Did you milk does not come from a bottle?
Study “Principles of Planetary Climate” by Ray Pierrehumbert. I did.
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after fifteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – Fool, if they have not read the book, then they are ignorant, which can be overcome, if they wish. I have tons* of books in my various fields that I am sure you have not read. Does that make you a fool? No, of course not. It just makes you ignorant.
*I literally have at least 2 tons of history, art, film and theatre books in storage because I do not have space for them. I gave 1 ton of books away to get down to just 2 tons.
Foolish to take his info from a most dubious website, fool.
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after fifteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – Fool, so you have a new word de jour. Should we be quaking in our boots?
“Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” MacBeth
Speaking of fools, today is a great day to overcome your personal ignorance and go to the library and at least get the first definition from the OED and send it to me. I would hate to add another week to your sentence. Tomorrow it can be fifteen weeks and eight citations or sixteen weeks and nine citations. The onus is on you. You carry your fate in your hands and feet (assuming you are walking to the library).
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after fifteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – you depend on none citations, so what is standing to complain about someone else.
She made an allegation from over 30 years ago, offered no proof, no corroborating witnesses, won’t give her name, won’t take questions, and won’t appear before Congress? Then how are they to investigate this, exactly?
With such parameters they should ignore her complaint. She either will not or cannot substantiate it, and refuses to take part in any investigation. So what was the point of the accusation other than to smear his character? What was the point in Diane Feinstein holding on to this since June, other than as a Wild Card that won’t go anywhere, but if released at the 11th hour just may delay his confirmation until after the midterms? Perhaps her silver lining is that when the Administration obviously will not, and cannot, follow up on the accusation, then she can cry enabler, or sexual assault club.
In a case reduced to he-said-she-said, what can tip the scales towards credibility is a history of similar abuse on the part of the accused. Disappointingly, Bill Cosby’s accusers never had him arrested. Instead, they waited years, and/or got payouts. That makes it very frustrating, because obviously all physical evidence was long gone. However, there was such a history of similar accusations, going back years, that it lends credibility to each story.
In this case, Kavanaugh has built impeccable character over decades. Something like 65 women, who have continuously known him for over 35 years, wrote a character reference letter in support of Kavanaugh.
Based on this, I don’t believe the allegation. How can I with no data to go on? I have no idea what really happened, or if Kavanaugh was ever within a mile of the accuser. And neither does anyone else.
Rape and sexual assault are very serious crimes. I have no patience with people who throw the terms around indiscriminately. It is demeaning to the real victims out there trying to get their lives back.
Karen….exactly. I don’t believe It’s true, either.
then you must be feeling very impatient because these kinds of slanders are surfacing like mushrooms in a sodden lawn after a week of rain
its time for women to begin denouncing false and tardy accusations
Jesuits are famous for the expression: “Give me a boy to the age of 7 and I’ll give you the man.” In other words, character, they believe, is formed by the age of 7. If that is true, then what a person did at the age of 17 or so is clearly indicative of his character. Especially a person with a primary and secondary Jesuit education where morals and respect for others are emphasized. But to smeared by an anonymous accusation is clearly unacceptable. I would have no problem with the accusation if the accuser were willing to step forward, but otherwise it should be ignored.
If that is true, Spartans started that training at age 7.
we are so far from the agoge it’s no comparison. that’s just a quaint memory in an age of shameless weaklings… of both sexes
Unfortunately, what you read from the Jesuits about “giving us boys” was not a bromide but a solicitation. I wouldn’t put much faith in the child caring prowess of Catholic priests.
Oh ignorant one, Jesuits are not priests.
David Benson owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after fifteen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. what in all the name that is Holy makes you think Jesuits are not priests? Talk about ignorant. Fool!!!!
A teaching order. So formally priests, yes.
there are priests and there are lesser religious clergy called brothers
What high ground?
Hail Mary, and that’s all they got folks.
Comments are closed.