If There Was Doppler Radar For Hypocrisy, Washington Would Be Under A Mandatory Evacuation Order

download-8Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the unfolding controversy surrounding the allegations of attempted rape leveled against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  The Republicans have called for a Monday hearing with both Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh.  However, while saying earlier that she was prepared to testify, the Committee said that Ford had not responded to multiple invitation. She has called for an investigation before she will testify — a condition that is difficult to square with her earlier statements via her counsel. In the meantime, Democrats have objected that more witnesses have not been called, including Kavanaugh high school friend Mark Judge.  Judge however has indicated that he would refuse to testify.  In other words, this is a complete mess.

Here is the column:

 

Washington is bracing for a showdown over the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court, following the belated disclosure of a letter alleging an attempted rape when he was a high school student.  Republicans are crying “smear,” while Democrats are crying “coverup.” Neither side is particularly convincing in their outrage, given their positions on earlier scandals. The challenge is to address the serious issues raised by the allegation through the screen of feigned mutual outrage. That leaves only one real option: public hearings.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward as Kavanaugh’s accuser. She alleges that he attacked her when they were teenagers (he was 17, she was 15) in high school. Ford alleges that Kavanaugh was drunk at a small party in Maryland and forced her into a bedroom. She says he tried to tear off her clothes while holding his hand over her mouth; she further alleges that Kavanaugh’s friend, Mark Judge, witnessed the act, which stopped only when Judge jumped on the two of them. Both Kavanaugh and Judge vehemently deny the allegation.

What Ford describes is an attempted rape, which should be a serious matter for investigation regardless of when it occurred. Ford has offered little corroboration beyond her discussion of the incident in 2012 during marriage counseling (an account recorded by the therapist without reference to Kavanaugh by name). She has taken a polygraph, which her lawyer claims showed she spoke truthfully about the account.

While financial scandals have plagued past Court nominees from the earliest days of the Republic, this is the first time that a nominee has been accused of attempted rape. Clarence Thomas was accused of sexual misconduct but not actual sexual assault; ultimately, that matter was left unresolved by the differing accounts, and Thomas was confirmed by a 52-48 vote.

Before any hearing, of course, more political posturing and prevarication must occur. It is a good thing there is not a Doppler radar for hypocrisy, or Washington would be in the midst of a mandatory evacuation.

The Democrats

During the years of Clinton scandals, many of these same Democratic members and commentators refused to accept the accounts of multiple women who came forward to allege sexual assault and rape by then-President Bill Clinton. All of the members insisting this week that we must believe women such as Ford refused to believe women like Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick and others. Democratic members in the House and Senate virtually unanimously opposed both the impeachment and removal of Clinton. They remained silent as the White House and Hillary Clinton attacked these women as “bimbos” and losers. Democratic members in both houses ultimately insisted that lying under oath and in public about an affair with a White House intern was a personal, not an impeachable, matter. Even after the Clinton administration, these same people flocked to join Bill Clinton at public events.

Democrats also have not explained the timeline of this controversy. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) insists she did not release the letter after receiving it in July because Ford stated categorically that, according to Feinstein, “she did not want this information to be public.” However, Democrats proceeded to do precisely the opposite of what the alleged victim requested: They leaked the letter and forced her into a public scandal. The timing proved fortuitous. By waiting until just before the vote, Democrats likely could force a new set of hearings and, if Kavanaugh is defeated or withdraws, would make it unlikely that a new nominee could be confirmed before the midterm elections – precisely what Democrats have been striving to achieve.

The Republicans

With Dr. Ford, Republicans now question why a matter of alleged sexual assault from years earlier should be considered. These are the same members who demanded accountability for Clinton and, later, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.). Indeed, Kavanaugh himself was previously adamant that such allegations should be addressed publicly and vividly.

When he worked for independent counsel Ken Starr, Kavanaugh wrote a memo entitled “Slack for the President?” The answer was decidedly no, according to Kavanaugh, who wanted Clinton questioned about specific graphic acts that he committed during his affair with Monica Lewinsky. He insisted “our job” is not “to impose sanctions on him, but it is our job to make his pattern of revolting behavior clear — piece by painful piece.” He insisted: “The idea of going easy on him at the questioning is thus abhorrent to me.”

Kavanaugh now faces calls for public hearings to go into precisely this type of detail. While Republicans may try to force closed hearings for both Ford and Kavanaugh, it would run against the precedent set in the Clarence Thomas hearings, where both parties testified publicly before the Senate committee.

Kavanaugh’s high school friend, Judge, also is likely to face tough questioning, if he is called. He wrote a 2005 book, “God and Man at Georgetown Prep,” that describes a reckless, booze-soaked environment at the prestigious prep school. In his 1997 addiction memoir, “Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk,” Judge paints a less-than-flattering portrait of his struggle with alcohol. In these accounts, Judge describes being “completely annihilated” after parties and even waking up with no memory after blacking out. That does not make for a particularly compelling fact witness, and his personal account mirrors the conduct described by Ford.

So where does this leave us? With a tough decision that will come down to a judgment of character.

Both Ford and Kavanaugh should be closely questioned on their accounts and any conflicts that arise in that testimony. No one has a “right” to be believed. They have a right to be heard and fairly considered. Both of them.

So here is an idea: Let’s stop the manipulation and hold a public (rather than a closed) hearing; closed hearings allow testimony to be filtered through these same conflicted politicians. Ford and Kavanaugh have the right to respond to public attacks with public testimony. Otherwise, both will be savaged by leaks and spins in biased third-hand accounts. Given the absence of witnesses, it is unlikely that either account will be proven or disproven. That leaves this as a matter of credibility, a judgment that can only be made by the public if they see the actual testimony of these two individuals.

In the end, 11 Democrats felt that the allegations against Thomas were not sufficiently corroborated to justify a denial by the Senate. It took courage for those Democrats to take that stand. The same may be true with Kavanaugh – or it may not. The only thing that is clear is that we are unlikely to reach any clarity or consensus without a full public hearing.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

148 thoughts on “If There Was Doppler Radar For Hypocrisy, Washington Would Be Under A Mandatory Evacuation Order”

  1. Am I the only woman who doesn’t care what happened at a party when someone was 17 that clearly wasn’t rape 35 years ago? In this me too era I think people have lost their minds. whether it is true or not according to her recounting it, which is impossible to prove, it doesn’t seem to justify trying to ruin someone’s career 35 years later.

    1. Am I the only woman who doesn’t care what happened at a party when someone was 17 that clearly wasn’t rape 35 years ago?

      No, you’re not. You’re part of the female population which (1) has a sense of personal agency and (2) is emotionally detached enough from the controversies of the day to not take untenable positions.

      1. No she is a an intelligent woman who has common sense and is looking at the facts presented. No proof and she brings it up 35 years later I can’t believe that the prosecutor took the case except he is trying to gain his political aspirations and is a big circus for the Dems to get his nomination either withdrawn in time and said there’s not enough time to get another candidate or they wanted to look bad so people won’t vote for him. it’s a big circus that has nothing to do with being based on the Constitution of the United States he’s innocent till proven guilty and there’s no proof. FBI shouldn’t even be involved. that’s a waste of our tax dollars right there this whole circus is for nothing. I’m getting tired of all these investigations that have no proof wasting our tax dollars.

        1. We won’t even go into all the women that sit up to accuse former President Clinton but nobody would listen to them Justice wasn’t done they’re not to mention he should have been impeached for lying under oath regarding Monica Lewinsky.

          1. Yvonne Yeager — President Clinton was impeached for perjury by the House of Representatives but acquitted in the Senate.

            1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – and then all the Democrats went out on the lawn and took a selfie with him. Yep, those same people who are screaming that wamen must be believed. Those are the ones. Dr. Ford’s attorney defended Clinton against Paula Jones, basically saying she was not harmed by a little harmless oral sex talking no longer than ten minutes.
              Oh, and just to add to the fun. If Dr. Ford does appear, which seems unlikely given the demands she is making, Andy McCabe has joined her team. I am not sure if he is a specialist in sex crimes or what.

              And now it appears that Avenatti’s client was a 4chan hoax.

                  1. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/25/michael-avenatii-kavanaugh-accusations-4chan-841348

                    “An online post on Tuesday claimed that Avenatti had been scammed by the online forum 4Chan, a place where online users delight in trolling public figures, setting off a firestorm on social media and purportedly jamming up Avenatti’s Twitter account. The attorney said he temporarily shut down the account because of online threats.

                    ““This is just crazy that somebody can just tweet something out like this, or post it, and people just take it as truth,” he said. “It’s crazy.””

                    Yep People like Paul.

                    As I said earlier, we’ll see.

        2. Yvonne Yeager — Kavanaugh is not charged with a crime nor is a Senate committee hearing a court of law. There is no “presumption of innocence” in the Advice and Consent process.

          1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – written like a true electrical engineer. You have a cite for that, btw?

              1. David Benson is the King of Making Stuff Up and owes me nine citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after seventeen weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – Read Weart. Cite the specific part of the Constitution you are referencing.

    2. Kathy, we’ve all known upper middle class boys who were wild teenagers. But in many cases they went on to become fine, upstanding family men. Kavanaugh might be one of them. So your question has merit: “Why should one drunken incident, 35 years ago, derail his career?”

      But couldn’t the same question be raised with regards to girls in their teens to early 20’s? Should one, unplanned pregnancy derail their whole life?

      Kavanaugh thinks it should. By all indications he would strike down Roe vs Wade and force women into situations where their entire lives are altered by an unplanned pregnancy.

      In other words, there’s clearly a double-standard here. ‘It’s okay for upper-middle class boys to be wild teenagers as long at they become respectable men’. But there’s no second chance for women. One, unplanned pregnancy and they must pay forever.

      1. K just recently ruled to deny a 17 y/o girl an abortion. She was being held in a migrant camp at the border and had no family with her. Pregnant by an unknown rapist, and alone, in a cage, in a foreign country. And he wanted to force her to have the rapist’s child. What a swell guy. Fortunately, he was over-ruled by the appellate court and she had the procedure the next day.

        1. there’s good reasons to allow abortion to be legal. rape is one of them. but it’s a life.

          don’t criticize, pull up the decision and let’s read it. maybe Kav had his legal reasons.
          if you have an opinion about a case, support it and let us see for our ownselves

      2. well abortion is kind of like offing somebody who stands in the way in your analysis
        a little unborn life that can have its own chance
        maybe it should be legal for various reasons but dont deny it’s a life
        bad analogy
        kav didnt have to off somebody to get ahead
        men did not chose to be men. women are what nature made them.
        their procreative capacity can be a burden but it’s also a blessing
        heavy testosterone can be a blessing but if you act stupidly it sometimes seems a curse

    3. No, you’re just a cold unfeeling b!tch who doesn’t give a 💩 whether a 15 y/o girl was sexually assaulted, so long as the rapist shares your political views. Congratulations on being such a decent human being a fine upstanding Christian. Jesus is proud of you.

      1. I know you’re not talking to me Kitty….
        …. I am just a man, a white heterosexual old man and yes a Christian, a firm part of the Patriarchy. So you would not even address my remarks you are picking on Spas because she admitted to being a lady. Your type always goes for the identity angle.

        Lucky for me, I got my identity down, and out here buttressing “The Patriarchy” every day. I may start a motorcycle club and call us the “PATRIAX” how does that sound?

        Kitty, go home and cry in your cheerios peace be with you!

      2. Kitty Wampus – I am an agnostic so I do not much care what Jesus thinks, or Allah, or whomever. I care about facts and the facts point to Dr Ford being a pretend sex victim. That could change, but I do not see it happening without Dr. Ford testifying on Monday.

      3. No, you’re just a cold unfeeling b!tch who doesn’t give a 💩 whether a 15 y/o girl was sexually assaulted, so long as the rapist shares your political views.

        1. There is no reason other than her say so to believe she’s ever met Brett Kavanaugh or Mark G. Judge, much less been assaulted by them.

        2. The incident as described does not amount to anything other than a common assault.

        3. Pro-tip: if you want people to believe you, don’t wait 36 years to lodge any kind of complaint, remember when and where it happened, offer a credible set of circumstances and a coherent sequence of events, and don’t make your complaint as part of a carefully choreographed set of political and public relations dance steps.

    1. the liar politicians open their mouths and fart gas stink comes out in a toxic green cloud that might as well be a bioweapon to slaughter us all. they’re a pox, on the whole

  2. BLASEY SEEKS TO AVOID A ONE ON ONE HEARING

    Dr. Blasey’s allegations are inevitably evoking comparisons to 1991 confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas, who was accused of sexual harassment by the law professor Anita F. Hill. The sight of Professor Hill being grilled on national television by an all-white, all-male Judiciary Committee enraged women, contributing to the so-called Year of the Woman in 1992, when scores of women ran for public office.

    Republicans, clearly hoping to avoid a repeat of the Hill-Thomas scenario, were considering employing a special counsel or staff member to question Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh. Democrats accused Republicans of trying to rush through a hearing without a proper investigation of serious charges.

    “She is under no obligation to participate in the Republican efforts to sweep the whole thing under the rug, to continue this nomination on a fast track,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, who won her Senate seat in 1992. “It’s basically a railroad job. This is what they did to Anita Hill.”

    Edited from: “Christine Blasey Ford Wants FBI To Investigate Before She Testifies”

    Today’s NEW YORK TIMES

    1. REPUBLICANS HAVE NO WOMEN ON PANEL

      So they considered employing a woman “special counsel”.

      “Republicans, clearly hoping to avoid a repeat of the Hill-Thomas scenario, were considering employing a special counsel or staff member to question Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh”.

      1. If you’re convinced only a woman would be appropriate to investigate and/or question this allegation, then you can demonstrate that conviction by example.

      2. REPUBLICANS HAVE NO WOMEN ON PANEL

        Who gives a damn? The women in the Senate Republican caucus (bar one) aren’t lawyers. They have other interests and cannot be bothered with a seat on the Judiciary Committee.

        1. Spastic, they should take your advice and keep it just men. That would create an appropriate picture for TV cameras.

            1. Kurtz, I have always felt that the Anti-Choice Movement is disingenuous to the core.

              These are same people who want ‘no restrictions’ on guns. The same people who deny Climate Change. The same people who want to cut social safety nets. The same people who want stop the poor from obtaining health insurance.

              They’re only ‘pro-life’ on abortion.

          1. It will be “men” no matter what. Any “woman” they employ will be some self-hating troll like Cindy Bragg who will vote which ever way the men tell her to.

    2. railroad is what a persecutor does to a person accused of a crime who is denied due process…… as in “the prosecutor packed the jury and would not hand over exculpatory evidence… the defendant was railroaded into jail”

      thus it is not apt to say the accuser is being railroaded

      on the contrary she has been offered the chance to say her story.

      If she does not like how, she can always leave it where it is and go back to regular life.

      The Democrats have used this woman poorly. It’s very sad. They will blame it all on Repubs but they are the ones who flushed her out of the shadows and put her in the limelight. Shame on DiFi!

      1. Mr Kurtz – don’t think DiFi didn’t have a hand in it getting leaked to the Intercept. And Dr. Ford had been in talks with the WaPo for weeks. This does not pass the smell test.

  3. Every time you think the Democratic Party has finally hit bottom and cannot sink any lower, they prove you wrong. You’d like to think street-level Democrats aren’t as asinine as elected officials, media pests, and lawfare artists. Then they appear here at Turley and disabuse you of that notion.

      1. Democratic presidents have made ten nominations to the Supreme Court since 1952 of which eight were approved. The first one which was derailed was consequent to a shady effort by Earl Warren to resign from the Court contingent on the confirmation of his successor; Lyndon Johnson tried to put his crony Abe Fortas in the Chief Justice’s chair even though the man had skeletons in his closet (and eventually resigned as associate justice to avoid an impeachment proceeding). There was just enough opposition from Democrats to derail the plan. In regard to the 2d one not approved, the Republican majority simply declined to acknowledge the nomination. Both of these nominations occurred less than a year before the President in question was due to leave office. As for the other eight nominations, six encountered only inconsequential opposition from Republicans and the other two still collared the support of 30% of the Repubican Senate Caucus.

        Seven of the last nine Republican nominees to the court have been contentious exercises, with one nominee rejected, one which had to be withdrawn, and one pending. Three of them have been subject to campaigns of character assassination, something that’s not happened to any Democratic nominee in memory. Only three of the nine received the votes of more than about 20% of the Democratic caucus. (Two of the three approved by the Democrats have proved quite useful to Democratic lawfare artists).

    1. Democrats have turned the confirmation process into a circus. Childishly talking over and interrupting Chairman Grassley. Then packing the hearing room with degenerates who screamed like whiny children to disrupt the proceedings. Then Corey Booker openly fantasizing about himself as Spartacus. Then Kamala Harris sending out a doctored video lying about what Kavanaugh said about contraception.

      Someone needs to set up a GoFundMe account to raise money to buy Senate Democrats big red plastic noses and clown suits so they are properly attired on the Senate floor.

    2. Normally I would recommend they stop digging, but with each shovel-full they are less and less recognizable as a party worthy of support.

      Just keep digging.

    3. No i think a lot of street level democrats are really decent and ok.

      There is a level of “organization” by various strata of the Dem-lib coalition that busy themselves with internet chattering and so forth, at a rate which is comparatively higher than Republicans however

      Partly due to the fact a lot of them are unemployed maybe or have cushy government jobs like this fellow

      https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/okeefe-video-doj-resources-used-by-socialist-doj-employee-to-target-gop/?print=true&singlepage=true

  4. I think that Kavanaugh should play “the Catholic card.” That is the one where the person prompts himself up for being a good Catolic student from a Catolick prep school. Jesuits taught him to behave and all that. Cat Licks have nine lives.
    But. I would vote against him just because of his face which is on tv and in the media 24/7. Fruit Loop is what some folks call him.

    1. yes well he has that card in the deck and they are calling him a drunk now too. need i explain that Kavanaugh is an Irish name?

      Say the Democrats: “SUPREME COURT: DRUNKEN IRISH NEED APPLY”

      ….Except i’ll bet they have already touched that level. But who’s counting, eh? LOL

      1. I would like to see K play the race card. Clarence Thomas has his carefully crafted “This is just a high-tech lynching” moment, so let Kavanugh have his “No Irish need apply” moment.

        1. Are you really willing to sacrifice Richmond and yourself for the sake of sending a biblical deluge against The District of Columbia? No. Wait. You’ve built your own boat, already; haven’t you? Never mind.

        2. Only if you wait til the last minute to try to get out of Dodge. This might be an opportune time to take some days off and go somewhere warm and dry. If you go to Mexico, you might run into Kavanaugh’s high school buddy Mark Judge. I hear he’s hiding out to avoid a possible Congressional subpoena.

  5. If Kavanaugh is confirmed for the Supreme Court, and if SCOTUS someday hears a case involving discrimination against women by way of an employer creating or otherwise allowing a hostile work environment for women, will Kavanaugh recuse himself from hearing and deciding such a case? How many potential recusal issues would it take to disqualify a nominee for the Supreme Court?

  6. Most of you folks who want an FBI investigation would cheerfully go out re- elect Bill Clinton to a third term. Talk about hypocrisy.

  7. Testimony from Dr. Fords parents, Ralph & Paula Blasey & brother/attorney, Ralph Blasey Jr could clear up what happened 36 years ago…..Dr. Ford might be a no show come Monday.

    Found 1 five star review for Attorney Ralph Blasey:

    Ralph is an awesome attorney, helped us with a sale of a business and did an awesome job!

    1. Her brother is Ralph Blasey III. Her father is Ralph Blasey Jr. Her grandfather was Ralph Blasey Sr.. Her great-grandfather was Thomas Blasey (ne Blasi). All made their home around Washington.

      It’s a reasonable wager they knew nothing of this. Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Blasey Jr were defendants in an action brought in front of Brett Kavanaugh’s mother in 1996 and did not ask for her recusal.

      1. You’re probably correct that Christine Blasey never told her parents that, at age 15, she had attended a party with boys who had been drinking, nor any of the rest of it.

    1. From The Land Down Under:

      Strawberry Fields 2018 will hit the banks of the Murray River in NSW’s Tocumwal, from November 16-18, with Final Round tickets on sale from Tuesday, June 26.

      But hurry, because early bird tix sold out in less than an hour!

      The festival made headlines recently for being the first ever Australian festival to introduce a scheme that would allow certain low-income earners discounted tickets.

      Read more at http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/strawberry-fields-festival-drops-juicy-af-2018-lineup/#aXf25FXiYPWQQ2Rg.99

  8. Dr. Ford has requested an investigation by the F.B.I., which request should be granted, before testifying. This is a very reasonable request, given what’s at stake. Dr. Ford and her family have received death threats, her email account has been hacked, and she and her family have been forced to move from their home. This is exactly the reason she wiahed to remain anonymous, but she got outed anyway. At the end of the day, a person who is telling the truth would not likely request an F.B.I investigation.

      1. What Natacha obviosly meant to type, “At the end of the day, a person who is telling the truth would [deleted] likely request an F.B.I investigation.”

        (Deletion avoids the double negative.)

      1. The FBI absolutely has jurisdiction to conduct background investigations of judicial nominees and cabinet appointments. They have previously investigated K six times. But they didn’t investigate this incident because they didn’t know about it.

        1. There’s nothing to investigate. The only raw material is the statement she refuses to make until they ‘completed their investigation’ and the replies to that statement.

          1. yes of course taking her statement is the main part of any sex crime investigation especially one that is 35 years old so there is no other possible evidence anyways.

            so what do they investigate? he already denied it. there’s really nothing to investigate. she just is chickening out, that’s all.

            I don’t blame her, she is ill used by the Democrats who knew what hassle and trouble would come to her and put her up to it anyways. Sad

            1. I don’t blame her,

              Why not blame her? She almost certainly libeled someone for political reasons.

              1. i blame her for false and tardy accusation,
                i don’t blame her for backing down, as she appears to be doing

                it is wise to step away from a foolish quarrel that does not profit oneself

    1. Dr. Ford has requested an investigation by the F.B.I., which request should be granted, before testifying.

      You suggest that the FBI investigate a state crime 36 years after the fact when the complainant cannot remember the date or location of the supposed event. The supposed offender was a juvenile in 1982 and the crime alleged is a misdemeanor assault. You’ve also said repeatedly that you’re a lawyer. LMAO.

    2. It’s not a reasonable request. Why does she need the FBI investigation BEFORE she testifies behind closed doors and simply tells her story of what happened? She doesn’t. It’s a delay tactic.

    3. Diane Feinstein sent the letter to the FBI which sent it to the WH which left it alone. The job of the FBI is to investigate nominees. It seems reasonable to me that this falls within their job description. How did they miss this in the first place? Where was the nominee when he was 16 and subsequently. Obviously the first background check was not thorough and each following background check relied on the on previous one.

      Dr. Ford sees the setup now. Without others being called as witnesses, she will be alone in facing the bullies of the committee. If she is to sit at the same table as her accused abuser, as suggested in at least one report, it would be another attempted rape, emotional this time.

      I keep hearing that there is no criminal case to be made. I have also been hearing that there is no statute of limitations for rape or assault in Maryland. It would be fitting if an adventurous DA in Maryland were to do what the FBI didn’t do and served Kavanaugh with an indictment.

      Jumping to conclusions, am I? Not really. A 15 year old who has been through what Dr. Ford alleges remembers because she has been living with the horror of an attempted rape and the possibility of being killed every day since it happened. And there is no way she would have subjected herself to what is now happening but for the unthinkable that a sexual abuser would be sitting on the Supreme Court, possibly hearing cases of sexual abuse.

        1. PTSD – You could do us all a favor and just go away. We’re not interested in your boring irrelevant stats compiled by a washed up academic wanna be.

          1. I like her stuff. I don’t like yours, KITTY what a lame moniker.

            YOU go away, go pet your cats, change their litter boxes

          2. We’re not interested in your boring irrelevant stats compiled by a washed up academic wanna be.

            You’re ‘not interested’ because you’re too innumerate to understand them.

      1. bettykath – she has not been living with it for everyday because it was a “repressed memory” she recovered 5 years ago in couples therapy. That would make her 46 at the time. There is also a HUGE problem with repressed memories that even the APA accepts.

          1. Kitty Wampus – since high school teachers spend a lot of time trying to cram crap into the brains of hormonal twits we spend a lot of out time trying to figure out how the brain works so we can successfully get that crap in there. I have a minor in behavior psychology in the process.

            1. you would have to pay me three times as much as I make as a lawyer to get me to teach high school. which is why i dont teach high school nor college even though often it is commended to me, no way!

              teenagers annoy me, I have some experience with my own, beloved yet annoying and 15-18 are 4 nightmare years that I pray everyone can survive. i barely survived my own stupidity and an unhealthy level of testosterone that has gladly subsided, such that now I can see a grifter like Ford a mile away

    4. HA HA THEY DO NOT HAVE MUCH EXPERIENCE IN INVESTIGATION BEER PARTIES THROWN BY TEENAGERS LET ALONE ONES THAT ARE 35 YEARS STALE!

      Do you understand that the FBI is supposed to be investigate serious interstate crimes and conduct counterintelligence?

      Are you sure you want to pull the many FBI gumshoes out there looking for Russian spies behind every bush, threatening the Republic’s integrity with bots and so forth… to investigate a beer party groping 35 years ago?

      Wow!

      Go right ahead, the Russian spies will still be there when they are done dismissing the credibility of this false accusation. You can bet on that. Rehire Peter Stroke i hear he is looking for work

  9. JT writes: “In the end, 11 Democrats felt the allegations against Thomas were not sufficiently corroborated…..” No, what happened was that Thomas played the race card like a virtuoso and 11 Dems caved in.

    1. Thomas lined up a string of witnesses who testified to his conduct in the office, one of whom was his secretary. His secretary also testified to the occasions Anita Hill had voluntarily contacted Thomas over the years running from 1985 to 1991.

      Hill lined up a series of witnesses who were supposed to corroborate her account by recounting contemporaneous conversations with her. One of them was Susan Hoerchner, whose testimony undermined Hill’s account. Hoerchner had moved to California and lost contact with Hill in late 1981 before Hill ever worked for Thomas.

      Your rotten law practice must make good coin off these dubious claims.

      1. in a regular law office, if Ford was not accusing a bigwig she would not make it past the telephone operator. maybe a paper slip “call back” message that any sane lawyer would just throw in the garbage

        Except HER lawyer is a specialist in “METOO” claims against the rich and famous

        That kind of practice probably does make a good return!

    2. nah it was just dumb stuff. he said he had a pubic hair in his coke, remember? rude yes but not a threat to the Republic. Sorry, enough molemills

  10. Hypocrisy, in DC, naw. As long as one admits that it is rampant on both sides of the aisle. However, this Democrat attempt to delay the insertion of a right wing justice until after November is nothing compared to the Republicans keeping the spot open for eight months, refusing to do anything, ‘regardless of whether or not it was good for America’ if it came from Obama’s White House, etc. There is hypocrisy in both parties but no one does it better than the Republicans and even they don’t hold a candle to Trump.

    1. no, they didnt slander Gorsuch, they just ignored his nomination, which they had ever legal and constitutional power and right to do

  11. Once again Jonathan Turley has made a factual error. Mr. Judge first stated that he was unable to remember. Then heading said that he wasn’t at such a party. Finally he has gone back to stating that he didn’t remember.

    This last is believable.

    1. DBB:
      What Judge never said was that the accuser was telling the truth. Which is, of course, all that matters in this phony he said-she said debate where he was cited by the accuser as the sole independent, corroborating witness. She who asserts must prove.

    2. Judge hasn’t ‘gone back’ on anything. He’s made two statements on the matter: one that he recalls no such gathering and the other stating (1) he never saw Brett Kavanaugh do anything like that and (2) that it wasn’t done in their social circle to roughhouse with girls. This isn’t that difficult to understand for people who are not dishonest and not sliding into senile dememtia.

    3. Mark Judge is refusing to testify under oath before the Senate. He’s not willing to back his old buddy K. under oath. That says a lot.

      1. yawn any lawyer with half a brain would tell him not to go under oath especially in this day of politically motivated perjury traps in abundance

      2. It says nothing. He’s made it clear he knows nothing of this woman or her ‘experiences’. He’s not interested in unpleasant experiences or in attention for the sake of attention.

        And he hasn’t contested or defied any subpoena. He just told a reporter he did not wish to testify.

  12. Nice! And I wonder how many got the double negatives of The Wall to understand it was a plaintive cry for real education with real teachers ….

  13. The reported attempt rape “should be a serious matter for investigation regardless of when it occurred,” should it? Why? It is well past the statute of limitations, and the accuser admits that there was only one witness, who claims it did not happen. The FBI certainly has far more important things to be doing than pursuing an investigation which can not possibly result in any sort of prosecution.

    And, we are told, she has taken “a polygraph, which her lawyer claims showed she spoke truthfully.” No, it merely proves that she believes what she is saying. It proves nothing as to the truth of what she is saying.

    1. The statute of limitations doesn’t matter. This isn’t about prosecuting a crime under state law. This is about whether K has the character that qualifies him to sit on the highest court in the land. The “witness” was allegedly also a participant in the alleged crime, so his credibility is tainted. Also, he is refusing to appear before the Senate for questioning on Monday.

      1. The “witness” was allegedly also a participant in the alleged crime, so his credibility is tainted.

        That’s a matter of no interest. It’s her job to provide the evidence. She cannot remember the date, she cannot remember the location, she cannot recall how she got home. She went to a gathering alone populated with people she didn’t know, an act which would have been about as common as hen’s teeth in the suburban environment of the time. Her whole story is Swiss cheese, and any serious observer of human behavior (which should include attorneys) can see that.

    2. No, it doesn’t prove she believes what she was saying. It demonstrates that her statements did not have an inconvenient physiological sidecar. Polygraphy is rubbish.

      1. for those of us old enough to remember F Lee Bailey for his cases and book about them, “For the Defense,” rather than his stint as an OJ lawyer, that was clear ….. oh, even before Kavanaugh supposedly groped Ford in a drunken teenage stupor 35 years ago

    3. Thanks for piping up with the hannity talking points. Never mind that the nominee’s veracity is the issue; not necessarily the old claim. Kav has categorically asserted he wasn’t at the party. If he lied about that, he’s out. So, just keep pretending you don’t understand the relevant issues; on second thought, as either a gullible rube, dupe, klan-wannabee, pocket traitor or grifter on the make, you may not actually be able to identify the pertinent issues. So sorry for your loss.

      this is to “I have a ‘hannity was here’ tattoo across my lower back” billie

  14. I agree for other reasons both poitica and philosophical. Right now the GOPs largest base is not their own party members many of whom are Rinos that do the bidding of the left like dogs on a leash. Or like Democrats on a leash but same difference.

    One group are Constitutionalists and added with for want of a better name work together with the Constitutional Centrist Coalition. This group along with some other factions created the 40% who controlled 2016. and with discussions converted many to being Anti Hillary instead of pro Trump. Some of them are IDC’s or Independent Democrat Constitutionalists as well.

    Realistically speaking we cannot punish to any great degree, yet, the RINO faction without losing a lot seats and votes in Congress. That problem is slowly but steadily diminishing on it’s own and with the continued successes. However…..

    To keep it up we have to show continued successes.

    At some point there will be no more Democrats (alreadiy a near fact) and no more GOP. There will be Constitutional Republicans with the members IN Congress and Consituitional Centrists in support some of whom may well get appointed positions as that attracts others.

    The Democrats are already known mostlyh as rhe fringe extremists and actions like Feinstein serve to prove that even more than those of Ocasio. I spoke to dahy with some no longer children who wel remember Obamas wire cages and are thinking of trying again on their own as they have no skills even if that is put through. Instead we try to get some who do have ability to do the home study test in school route and fund that program from also engage in conversationa english. .

    So what we will have are Independent Constitutional Republic on one side and Socialist Autocracies on the other. Until we can outlaw them taking the oath of office. Which with the right Supreme Court should not be difficult.

  15. I am sick and tired of all the drama from the left.. They are hypocrites. Ellison has proof against him that he beat up his girlfriend.. yet the dems ignore his girlfriend……

    1. Since she’s stalling (with her attorney suggesting a federal investigation of a state offense for which there is no evidence but her account), it’s a reasonable inference she’s not anxious to be put under oath (at least until she can locate some pussyhat resident in the Bethesda / Chevy Chase zip codes in 1982 who will be willing to lie for her).

      1. send a FBI agent out to talk to her 15 minutes, one to Kavanaugh, one to the other guy, they can finish this off decisively….. not that anybody much trusts the FBI these days

        how did Comey put it? No reasonable prosecutor would EVER bring such charges.. something like that

        Sessions could make himself useful; but right now he is watching “Reefer Madness” on youtube

        1. Everyone who doesn’t wear a tinfoil hat trusts the Fibbies as much as they ever did. I understand that your leader and role model is shrieking on a daily basis about “Deep State” hoodoo in order to cover for his idol, but that doesn’t excuse your lack of discretion, judgment, ethics or morality. Thanks for playing.

          this is to “I wish I had a ‘hannity was here’ tattoo across my lower back” kurtzie

  16. It’s her phk’in Story, let her explain it & No doubt the Dem/Commie/Naxis have 19 more Nazi Soros collaborators lined up to pull the usual type train on Kav.

    Ph that krap, call their bluf, take the vote this Thursday if she wishes to hide!

    1. Sorry, Gnite another insurance co has fouled my mood & they are so stupid or what ever, we are just demanding clean tests, & I’m sure we’ll get them, just right after I burn more energy phin them up.

      Ya, idiots they are, I’ve long been ph’in them up with less less energy the angrier they make me.

Leave a Reply