Reasonable Doubt Or Per Se Defamation? Republicans Throw Chris Garrett Into The Fray [UPDATED]

IMG_0026The unfolding drama over the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford just got even more bizarre as Ed Whelan, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Center (EPPC) released the picture of a remarkably similar looking teenager who could have been the culprit in the alleged attempted rape. While Ford insists that she could not be mistaken, the release of the photo adds a new element to the hearing . . .  and could raise some interesting legal issues after suggesting Chris Garrett (right) could be responsible for the attack.  The problem is that there is not a single scintilla of evidence that has been offered to link Garrett to the alleged assault.  He has simply been drop into these boiling cauldron and the only explanation is his similar looks and home in the area (which is hardly surprising for schoolmates who attended the same school).

Update: Whelan has now issued a statement that “I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Prep classmate. I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake

On Thursday afternoon, Whelan released the pictures and suggested that the  “Maryland suburban home” might have been Garrett’s, which is also “not too far from the Columbia Country Club.” This advanced the best possible approach for the GOP in the upcoming hearing: that Ford could be telling the truth about the attack but could be mistaken about the attacker.

As shown below, Whelan is clearly implicating Garrett as a Georgetown Prep classmate, friend, and football teammate of Brett Kavanaugh’s.

That of course could be viewed by Garrett as the basis for a defamation or false light tort.  This is an allegation of criminal conduct.  Criminal conduct has long been recognized as a per se category of slander under common law torts as well as such categories as moral turpitude and unchastity or impugning professional reputation.

Garrett is not a public figure so he does not fall under the more generous standard (for accusers) of the actual malice test, requiring a showing of knowing falsity or reckless disregard of the truth.  Of course Whelan can argue that he is merely showing how easy it is to confuse things and people 36 years ago. Yet, the import seems more incriminating in the posts below.

Yet, Whelan added “To be clear, I have no idea what, if anything, did or did not happen in that bedroom at the top of the stairs, and I therefore do not state, imply or insinuate that Garrett or anyone else committed the sexual assault that Ford alleges. Further, if Ford is now mistakenly remembering Garrett to be Kavanaugh, I offer no view whether that mistaken remembrance dates from the gathering or developed at some point in the intervening years.”

That may or may not be enough for Garrett who now finds himself in the middle of a maelstrom as a suspected attempted rapist.

Indeed, Whalen later apology still leaves the many lingering questions for Garrett that could follow him in this career. Consider the response from New York Times columnist Ross Douthat tweeted: “I don’t know Brett Kavanaugh, which has made it easier for me than for conservatives closer to the man to believe he might be guilty. I do know Ed Whelan, which makes me assume there’s more reason to believe the doppelganger theory than just what he just tweeted. We’ll see.”

Ross Douthat


I don’t know Brett Kavanaugh, which has made it easier for me than for conservatives closer to the man to believe he might be guilty. I do know Ed Whelan, which makes me assume there’s more reason to believe the doppelganger theory than just what he just tweeted. We’ll see.



244 thoughts on “Reasonable Doubt Or Per Se Defamation? Republicans Throw Chris Garrett Into The Fray [UPDATED]”

  1. Now we find out that Chrissie Blasey Ford dated Chris Garrett for several months in 1982. Chris Garrett was the only one of the gang who had a single-family home near the Country Club. Garrett was the only connection to Kavanaugh. Ford would not even use Garrett’s name in her testimony, and tried to quickly dismiss questions about him. Ford wants us to believe that Kavanaugh tried to rape his best friend’s girlfriend. Not credible.

    Who drove her home? It is unfathomable that she cannot remember this, and no one has come forward who remembers either. She had to borrow someone’s landline telephone to call them to pick her up, since she could not drive and no one from the party drove her. Not credible.

    We also know that Ford lied about being so traumatized that she couldn’t fly on an airline–yet she did so routinely. As Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal says: “False in one thing; false in everything”.

  2. Society needs to put its foot down, and put a time limit on these charges of sexual harassment and groping for those over 14. Yes, I’m sorry you were abused when you were 15 or 17, but it shouldn’t take you 20 years – let alone 36 years – to get around to filing charges or bringing it up. With those over 18, the case for a time limit is even more clear. Why should it take a grown man or woman, 20 years to summon up the courage to report it? Obviously, if it was *that* traumatic, you’d have said something at the time or with 5 years of the groping or unwanted touching.

    They all have sob stories about why they were sexually harassed at 19, and couldn’t talk about ti for 15 years. But being groped isn’t any a worse then being punched or being mugged and we have statue of limitations for those crimes.

  3. After listening to the hearing and when ms ford was questioned about Garrett I found her to get edgy and not want to talk about him I found this suspicious so I started reading wow I really hope the FBI questions him under penalty of law to many coincidences

  4. uge sticking point in all this–the 2012 therapy notes and Rob Ford’s years long knowledge of the incident. Unless Ford has some super power that allows her to see well into the future or a WayBack machine, that seals the deal. Now we find out Kavanaugh was flogging Capital Hill and the WH on Monday already with the ‘mistaken ID’ ruse. The dolts thought they had a winning argument until Whelan went and fingered Garrett. Now Garrett is nowhere to be found, leading me to think that he had a head’s up and is taking one for the team of Georgetown Prep. Garrett, you’re going to have either deny knowledge or just live with the fact that millions of people will always say, “It was him who caused Kav to lose the SCOTUS gig…”

    1. ACTUALLY, back in March of 2012, Jeffrey Toobin (The New Yorker) put out a piece naming Kavanaugh as the PROBABLY nominee SHOULD Republicans ever get the chance. You can find the article without a problem.

      Just 7 WEEKS later, the couples therapy session took place. So I agree, Ford doesn’t have a WayBack machine, and NEITHER does the FBI so this “investigation” is about to prove YET AGAIN how willfully Democrats are able to believe a NARRATIVE over FACTS.

      The FBI is going to tell us EXACTLY the same thing we know TODAY.

      UNLESS, the 2 men that have been interviewed by the SJC TWICE with MORE detail than Ford has, MAY also be included in the FBI investigation. If EITHER of them can prove it was THEM and NOT Kavanaugh, his name will be cleared. Otherwise, there’s absolutely NO way to prove OR disprove this allegation which makes it not only an EFFECTIVE strategy, but one setting the worst precedent we’ve ever seen.

      1. Interesting statement. What do you think would happen if the FBI deeply investigated the case and took Ford’s computer and all her corresponces while tracking down everything on social media along with getting the complete psychiatric records from Ford’s therapist along with his deposition.

  5. Journalist Thomas Roberts on twitter

    I waited over 20 years to report my sexual abuser.
    Because I was 14.
    Because it was my hero.
    Because it was my priest.
    Because I thought I’d be expelled.
    Because I feared no one would believe me.
    Because I thought suicide was easier than telling 1 person

    Courageous statement. Do you believe him? If so, why? If not, why not? If he were a girl who was abused by a priest, would you believe her?

      1. I’m gonna bet that you know absolutely nothing about this at all. Because you always pretend to be an expert in whatever comes up on this feed.

        1. Allan’s contribution to this thread consists of canned talking points from right-wing media. He’s always seeing communists regardless of subject. Nevertheless Allan is sadly effective at making sure discussions go nowhere whatsoever.

          1. “Allan’s contribution to this thread consists of canned talking points from right-wing media.”

            Really Peter? Are the statistics involving unemployment and GDP results canned right-wing talking points? I always thought they originated from the numbers provided by government agencies. Do you have left wing numbers for unemployment and the GDP that you wish to share? Remember, I gave you the site for easy access to some of those numbers and even did the math for you.

            “Always seeing communists”

            No, but I do see a lot of stupidity and lying. You lie alot Peter and are trapped by them in debate because you don’t know what you are talking about and that has been proven multiple times. Any time you want to debate a particular item of your choice go ahead and do so. I like watching you make a fool of yourself.

            Discussions go nowhere because that is your intention. Have you listened to the video that provides data and charts in black, white and red that show a marked change in direction between Obama and Trump thus leading to a much better economy under Trump?


            Why don’t you demonstrate your knowledge by talking about the individual metrics discussed in the video. (from the council of economic advisors)

            1. When Trump was running for president he said unemployment statistics were rigged. But now they’re ‘real’..?? Funny how that goes. The Department of Labor lied for Obama but now they’re straight for Trump..??

              What about ‘Deep State’..?? If the Department of Labor ‘lied’ for Obama, they must have been part of ‘Deep State’. But Trump managed to get control of that one department..??

              Obviously none of that makes any sense. And neither does Allan.

              1. “When Trump was running for president he said unemployment statistics were rigged.”
                During Obama’s time in office, changes were made to how unemployment was measured and reported which changed the statistical results we saw.
                Trump, in his usual fashion, doesn’t state things as clearly as he might, but that is what he was referring to as rigged.
                If memory serves me (and no, I’m not going to re-research this, I’m way too busy right now), the changes involved reporting any job as equivalent to full time employment, making the employment figures look much better than they were. Of course, for those willing to research the stats, the truth could be found in U4 and U6 numbers, but most people have no idea what those are and what their significance is.

                1. Wally, no changes were made to how unemployment was calculated during Obama’s years in office. But the Financial Crisis, which occurred 10 years ago this month, was the first since 1929. Consequently we had an unusually severe recession which played havoc with unemployment numbers. There was a long, long period where a huge number of people were no longer even looking for work because of age, and, or, length of unemployment. That reality caused the labor participation rate to fall.

                  Another factor was aging Baby Boomers; a larger number of Over-50-somethings created a larger group of people falling permanently out of the labor force. That trend is still in effect since Baby Boomers are still aging-out.


                  1. Here’s your first lesson in this issue:
                    Next is this:
                    And lastly, this from the economics stack exchange – In 2010, to hide this decline in workforce participation the Obama admin made a significant change in methodology.

                    In 2000 you were dropped out of work force participation if you had not found a job in 99 weeks. In 2010, 2 yrs into the Obama admin that was increased to 260 weeks. This skewed the workforce participation rate so badly that comparing unemployment numbers in 2017 to those of 2000 and going, “YIPPEEEEE what great news!”, should be prefaced with, “Once upon a time”, to make sure you get credit for being a great story teller instead of being mistaken for a bare faced liar.

                    This fairy tale skews the number of people “no longer participating in the workforce” by totals up in the millions. In a straight line comparison we only had to figure out where the extra FIVE million jobs went. But with this change in 2010 the actual number of people not participating in the work force goes up by even MORE millions, if calculated using pre-2010 methodolgy.

                    That change in methodology in 2010 means that ANY comparison of unemployment between unemployment rates in 2017 with any year prior to 2010 is just a meaningless exercise in story telling. Furthermore with a workforce participation rate of only 62% the U-3 number is just a farce.

                    1. Wally, what is your source for the methodology change?? You’re not clear on that. According to Polifacts, there was no change in methodology.

                    2. Read what you cite more carefully. Politifact was not as specific as your argument is with Wally. The overall “methodology” may not have changed but this specific argument with Wally depends on the details which can very much alter the numbers produced. I can tell you are not much of a detail man, instead you are superficial and low level.

                      Politifact sucks when one wants to actually know what is happening. They are a spin machine carefully wording things so that stupid people don’t recognize what they are reading.

                    3. TAX CUT WILL HAVE TO BE SERVICED

                      The question is whether the expected productivity boost will outweigh the drag from the tax cut’s other consequence: a huge rise in federal debt. For what it’s worth, most forecasters are pessimistic. The extra $1 trillion or so of federal debt will have to be serviced: Today’s sugary tax cuts imply tax hikes in the future. Likewise, the corporate investment incentives are temporary: They may simply bring investment forward, depriving tomorrow’s economy of its tech caffeine jolt. Following this logic, many Wall Streeters expect a recession once the sugar high dissipates. The Tax Policy Center estimates that gross domestic product in 2027 will be the same as it would have been without the tax cut. There will be no growth to compensate for extra inequality and debt.

                      Edited from: “Is Trumonomics Working? Not Really”

                      Today’s WASHINGTON POST

                    4. Paul Krugman, leftie economist, stated we would be in a world wide recession if Trump were elected. So if I seem a bit credulous at some of the claims of these economists, you can understand why. Results count, and to this point, Trump is getting results – excellent results, despite the naysayers who have yet to be right.

                    5. Wally if you read Krugman’s textbook on economics I think written with his wife you might note that a lot of what he writes in his op-ed at the NYSlimes totally disagrees with what was written in his textbook.

                    6. I read enough economics textbook’s while I was in university, I’m not going to read some left wing academicians theories and thoughts. What he said in the New York Times is what he said, and he was exactly wrong.

                    7. The corporate tax cut paid for itself based on the original numbers by the GAO. Since then based on higher earings they upped the amount of money the corporate tax cut was costing which is a real number but fallacious when dealing at your low level of intellect. It appears even that number will be covered by higher receipts. The corporate tax reduction was a win win.

                      Yes, the debt went up thanks to the Democrats in Congress and the tax cut to individuals limited to only 10 years also thanks to the Democrats. However, I take note how Democrats didn’t give a sh-t about the debt as Obama’s debt increased massively with puny GDP results.

                      Peter Shill, you will remain a fool if all you look at are the things that agree with what your people want you to know. I don’t trust the other literature either so I look at both sides and skip all the fact checkers right and left.

                    8. Wally, let’s go with that. The obvious question would be: “Did Trump change the methodology back to where it used to be? Or is Trump too benefitting from that methodology?

                      And one should note that Department of Labor statistics are compiled by career civil servants and ‘not’ political hacks.

                    9. If Trump didn’t change the methodology then they will be comparable to Obama who Wally said benefited from the prior methodology. If Trump went back to Wally’s old methodology then he is doing even better than it seems.

                      “compiled by career civil servants and ‘not’ political hacks.”

                      It appears a lot of civil servants have turned into political weapons being proven everytime Project Veritas puts out a new video on the deep state. There are three out now showing how individuals intentionally slow things down, work for the DSA while being paid for government work, how classified information might be being released and how the union situation seems to make them feel they cannot be fired. These videos are very informative and should be viewed. Google Project Veritas.

                  2. Historically, almost everytime the greater the fall the stronger the rebound. Loads of things were done wrong that delayed the rebound and caused such a sluggish economy. That is one of the reasons to be optimistic about this boom.

                    “There was a long, long period where a huge number of people were no longer even looking for work because of age, and, or, length of unemployment. That reality caused the labor participation rate to fall.”

                    That lowered the U3 that Obama pointed to. He was doing such a lousy job people were leaving the labor market. The economy saw babyboomers both retiring and being forced back into the workplace because of all sorts of financial stresses.

                    You ought to skip politifact which is a spin machine and go directly to places that discuss real economics.

              2. “When Trump was running for president he said unemployment statistics were rigged. But now they’re ‘real’..??”

                I think Trump was referring to the U3 and that is why I prefer the U6. You are an absolute idiiot and know nothing. During the Obama administration people stopped looking for jobs and were no longer counted in the U3. but they were mostly counted in the U6. The reports we hear are of the U3.

                “What about ‘Deep State’..?? If the Department of Labor ‘lied’ for Obama, they must have been part of ‘Deep State’. But Trump managed to get control of that one department..??”

                God awful stupid. The economists didn’t lie but created a whole set of numbers to be used in measuring employment. They didn’t consider pea brains that are all ideology and absent knowledge and fact. I don’t believe anyone intentionally miscalculated the number or actually lied though they could stretch the point especially when talking in public.

                The deep state exists to the detriment of the American public. Some of them are not doing their jobs and inhibiting government’s ability to function. Some are illegally releasing information and potentially some of that information could be secret.

                Deep state unmasked videos at:

        2. whichwitchhunt – when this first started I posted the APA’s guidelines on repressed memories. I have a very good friend who got caught as the victim of a repressed memory/false memory which caused no end of problems. And I remember the problems with the McMartin Preschool repressed memory/false memory fake crime spree that really set things off.

          1. Paul, The McMartin Pre-School case was a front page story the week I moved to L.A. It then ‘remained’ a story for my first 5 years in L.A. As Raymond Bucky was tried and retried.

            The McMartin PreSchool case was indeed a travesty! But investigators were dealing with small children. What’s more, at that point in time, prosecutors had no body of research to draw from. They were literally just winging it! That ‘was’ the travesty.

            With Blasey-Ford case we have different set of dynamics. ‘Yes’, Dr Ford will still a child at 15. But she was three times older than the McMartin Preschool kids. Though since I haven’t seen her testimony I can’t make a judgement.

            But Dr Ford is an accomplished academic living an affluent life style in greater San Francisco. She doesn’t need the money or attention this uproar is causing. She’ll be stalked for months by Alex Jones’ followers and that’s no laughing matter.

            Jones appeals to paranoid schiczonphrenucs. ‘Who’ wants their attention?? Some lunatic could fly to San Francisco and rent a car to Palo Alto to stalk Dr Ford. Victims of Infowars have had their lives turned upside-down.

            So I don’t believe that Ford would place herself at ground zero of an explosive political fight unless she believed in it.

            With regards to Kavanaugh, it appears he was a wild teenager. His friends were wild teenagers. Then there’s this unsolved mystery regarding Kavanaugh’s credit cards. Or more specifically the $60,000-200,000 in baseball tickets he purchased.

            I find these baseball tickets ‘more’ compelling than Dr Ford. She is pulling focus from a very recent matter. One that would be easier to investigate.

            1. False memories and mistaken identity occur at all ages. People will account incidents that have great detail and they will discuss who said what and when. Not infrequently people err on who the person was and even make mistakes on the details.Data that never existed is filled in. Peter, as usual, you don’t know what you are talking about.

              “With regards to Kavanaugh, it appears he was a wild teenager.”

              Prove it and then prove he or anyother wild teenager had anythng to do with Ford. You haven’t met the basic elements of proof yet you spout off ignorantly making all sorts of accusations. You engage in character assassination without the slightest bit of verifiable proof.

            2. Peter Hill – I found it interesting that there may be a connection between six of Dr. Ford’s publications and her husband’s drug company.

              BTW, Dr Ford told her therapist she was in her late teens, that is not something the therapist would get wrong in the notes. Somehow she has shaved two years off her age to make it all fit since if it was late teens, Kavanaugh was in college. Also she told the therapist she was attacked by four boys, not one. This story has changed it the telling. That is the problem with created memories or false memories, you keep adding to the story. At this point she may actually believe the lie she is telling, but it is still a lie.

              1. Agreed. Her date of birth is supposedly 28 November 1966, so ‘late teens’ would be a misnomer for any summer antedating the HS graduation of Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth, and Garrett and borderline for the summer of 1983.

                1. I haven’t carefully laid out a time line but Ford has a degree in psychology and deals in statistics. That would lead me to believe that she would have a finer understanding of the difference between early, mid and late teens.

    1. Generally when abuse comes from a priest suddenly there are many accusers. They also know where the incident happened.

      What Ford needs is evidence, but her handlers have likely tainted any evidence that could have come forward because they are not interested in sexual abuse. Instead they and their Democratic partners cause more harm to her. They are interested in the character assassination of a man whose entire life has been an open book without any indiscretions noted.

      You can’t see the difference because you are stupid. You can’t even make an argument. It was a mistake for you not to finish grade school.

      1. Generally when abuse comes from a priest suddenly there are many accusers.

        No, the majority of priests have one accuser and most of the remainder just two. The priests who actually did have many accusers numbered about 150 and accounted for about 30% of all accusations between 1949 and 2003.

        1. That is interesting DSS, thank you. What is the conviction rate of those priests accused by only one person? My understanding was that this type of information was hidden in part and that when there was an accusation the priest was moved to another parish.

          The question that now arises, how many of the 70% or those where only one claim existed were innocent?

          I’d like to separate actual abuse from fictional abuse. This type of predation I believe generally doesn’t stop at one.

          1. Complaints to the chancery were typically lodged > 10 years after the fact, so criminal charges were either time-barred or too deficient in evidence to prosecute. They had one accusation against John Geoghan which was not time-barred, and even with that one case, they were relying on the defendant’s own statements and the converse of jury nullification.

            1. Yes, What you say is why I believe the statistics you provide may be far from the actual truth.

  6. It was irresponsible to post a photo of a classmate of Kavanaugh’s. The only similarity between the two are they were both Caucasian, with brown hair. They are certainly not dopplegangers, in my opinion.

    1. Another piece of evidence that Everything Trump Touches Dies [in this case, Ed Whelan].

      1. That is why Trump’s GDP is estimated for around 4.7 next quarter. Dummies don’t know about these things.

          1. You are the same dummy you were the last time no matter what alias you use.

            Your response doesn’t even follow your statement or mine. Did you ever finish high school?

  7. So if Kavanaugh makes it to the Supreme Court, some looney senator from Rhode Island wants to investigate him after he’s on the bench. Good luck.

  8. Bottom line: Joe McCarthy to Roy Cohn to Donald Trump. Trump will burn the country to the ground in order to try and save himself. If he’s going down, he wants to take us all with him.

        1. I don’t know how filling out a will has anything to do with the topic. However, when you filled out your will and signed it, did you sign it with an X? How many times did it take you to pass 3rd grade?



    Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine says she’s ‘‘appalled’’ by President Donald Trump’s tweet criticizing his Supreme Court nominee’s accuser.

    Collins also said Friday in Portland that it’s reasonable for Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote to be delayed to allow Christine Blasey Ford to testify Wednesday or Thursday. She said it’s important for the Judiciary Committee to ‘‘make it as comfortable as possible.’’

    Edited from: “Delay Vote To Let Brett Kavanaugh’s Accuser Testify, Susan Collins Says”

    Today’s BOSTON GLOBE

    1. His tweet was a challenge to her supporters to produce a police report. Collins is striking poses or Collins is an idiot.

      1. GOP smear machine is in major overdrive. And Trump is the smeariest of all. He’s not particularly bright in general, but he is brilliant at smears and insinuations. Ed Whelan is a close second today and ended up looking like a blithering, drooling idiot.

        1. And before you accuse me of smears and insinuations, familiarize yourself with Ed Whelan did.

          1. I’m familiar with what he did. It’s somewhat tasteless, and that’s all.

            Whelan is invariably intelligent in his posts. You are not.

            1. It wasn’t tasteless. It was part of a coordinated attempt to shift attention away from BK. He accused a private citizen, with no evidence, of committing a crime. If that’s the America you want, have at it. It’s called a dictatorship.

              1. It wasn’t tasteless. It was part of a coordinated attempt to shift attention away from BK.

                Co-ordinated with whom?

                BK is the nominee, so you’re not going to ‘shift attention’ away from him. There is no evidence against him bar one very dubious claim offered 36 years after the fact.

              2. Look dummy, since it doesn’t matter which alias you use, there was no attempt to shift attention rather an attempt to point out to stupid people alternative explanations that sound more creidble than the one being pushed by the smear merchants.

                Kavanaugh is innocent of the invented crime. You don’t know that. Why? Because you are stupid.

              3. WWH:
                “He accused a private citizen, with no evidence, of committing a crime. If that’s the America you want, have at it. It’s called a dictatorship.”
                Why come to a legal blog and confirm hyperbolic stupidity? It’s not a dictatorship, it’s libel if proven false, there Solon,

                1. Mespo, you are conversing with an individual so stupid that he had to change his alias. Changing the alias doesn’t make a stupid person become smart.

                  1. “you are conversing with an individual so stupid” there is some irony for anyone searching.

                    1. YNOT, you haven’t said anything consequential since I have been on this blog. Why is that? I think we know. You aren’t very bright and are unable to provide sufficient sentence structure to intelligently converse about anything.

              4. It was part of a coordinated attempt to shift attention away from BK. He accused a private citizen, with no evidence, of committing a crime. If that’s the America you want, have at it. It’s called a dictatorship.

                Hey hypocrite, She (Ford) accused a man (private or public doesn’t matter), with no evidence, of committing a crime.

                And it is a coordinated attempt to block the confirmation of a highly qualified and principled man to the Supreme Court. That apparently is the America you and your ilk want.

        2. GOP smear machine is in major overdrive.

          What we’re discussing is a women from the Bay Area offering 36 year old ‘recollections’ which have no secondary details which can be cross-checked, and seeking to injure the reputation of a federal judge and of a private citizen living in DC. In your ‘mind’ the problem is the ‘GOP smear machine’.

          1. Spastic, I think this Whelan stunt is going to be Topic # ! when Kavanaugh is questioned by the Democrats.

            They’re going to ask Kavanaugh, under oath, if he knew about Whelan’s scheme and if Whelan was correct about the house and who was there. No matter how Kavanaugh answers, it won’t look good.

            1. No matter how Kavanaugh answers, it won’t look good.

              I doubt Whelan clears his tweets or blog posts with Kavanaugh.

              You fancy it’s going to be damning when Kavanaugh answers that he hasn’t seen the inside of the Garrett home in 30-odd years and isn’t sure his memory of the innards are accurate. You also fancy it’s going to be damning when Kavanaugh answers that there was no gathering at the Garrett place or anywhere else where he met his accuser. Again, if fantasy helps you get through the day, fine. As a rule, ‘no’ is not a very large target for a prosecutor to shoot at.

            1. They’ve spent the day attempting to get Blasey to agree to a scheduled appearance, and she and her handlers keep stalling. That’s not the GOP’s fault.

              There are no other ‘witnesses’ bar those offering rebuttals.

              You might resolve to know something before you post about it.

              1. Her husband and her therapist. You might resolve to know something before you post about it.

                1. Dummy, you use the same type of syntax used in your last major alias. You were a dummy then and you are a dummy now. Change your alias again.

                  1. What was his previous alias? It isn’t bettykath. Bettykath favors drive-bys and is more verbose in her individual postings.

                2. The therapist has released notes of these sessions. They contradict her account in her letter to Eshoo on crucial details.

            2. Dummy, what witnesses can they call when the actual complaint hasn’t even been legally filed?

                1. What a dummy. How can can they call a witness that Ford hasn’t named and no one knows who he is? You get dummer by the minute.

              1. Are you really that much of a moron? Or do you just play one here? The issue is no longer merely whether the trump-stooge assaulted the Professor long ago, it now includes whether his very recent denials of ever having been to such a party or even knowing the Professor are bald-faced lies. Since you appear a fool, I will illuminate for you: lawyers and judges are held to a very high standard of veracity and truthfulness under the bar rules of every State. We patriotic Americans don’t prefer to put a liar on the United States Supreme Court for a lifetime. Obviously, the gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors and grifters on the make hate America enough to do so.

                this is to “but Papa Putin will put caviar in every pot according to hannity” allen / allan

                1. Someone dumbed the garbage over again and Mark is out.

                  You call yourself a lawyer? Why don’t you learn the law. The accused, whether a common person or a judge, has a right to face the accuser. You don’t know that? Then you aren’t a very bright lawyer Mark.

                  The Bar can deal with whether or not they feel Kavanaugh should belong. Go back to your law books and start at Law101 for idiots. If you still have trouble with this basic concept coming from the Romans push up the lid of the garbage pail and visit us again.

                  1. Excellent. By your response, I see you don’t even understand that you don’t understand what I’m talking about. So sorry for your loss, thanks for playing.

                    this is to “I usually just retype whatever hannity said” allan / allen

    1. She’s a person of no consequence in her own right. At age 65, she’s been married for a grand total of 6 years throughout her life, has no children, and has no known occupation. (She tried to build a career as an actress. Her IMDB profile lists 40 screen appearances over a period of 10 years, and nothing since 1989). I would find her of interest exactly why? And what relevance does her latest exercise in histrionic behavior have to the issue at hand.

      While we’re at it, she was estranged from her mother and father for nearly a decade and spent that time attempting to injure their reputations.

      1. Your response is even more idiotic than usual from the Trump cultists on this site.

  10. The Obama Coup D’etat in America is attempting to overthrow the duly elected government and the Constitution with the goal of fully imposing the principles of the Communist Manifesto on America. Comrade Christine Blasey Ford, extremist social justice warrior of the “Resistance,” is Obama’s “tip of the spear.” U.S. Senators must not allow Comrade Obama’s disinformation, misinformation, lies, fraud and deceit to hold dominion.

    “For all that is secret will eventually be brought into the open, and everything that is concealed will be brought to light and made known to all.”

    – Luke 8:17

    1. Which aspects of the “communist manifesto” bother you most? The idea that poor people should be able to get decent health care? The idea that black people should not be arrested or even killed for doing ordinary things? The idea that the President is not supposed to be an absolute dictator? The idea that it is not right for foreign powers to intervene in our elections? The idea that women actually own their own bodies and are not merely baby factories for men? Just curious….

      1. None of those topics were written about by Marx in the Communist Manifesto.

        That aside, there may come a time when you can think in something other than tendentious talking points. You’re not there yet.

      2. Why don’t you Commie/Nazi American Hatin Trash just leave this country?

        That free sh!t crap has always failed.

      3. “Which aspects of the “communist manifesto” bother you most?”

        I am happy to explain. I challenge you to read my position, and try to understand it. Will you contemplate opposing ideas?

        Socialism makes profit a crime, and you cannot own private property. Communism add that you cannot own personal property.

        What’s the problem?

        1. It would require a police state to force human beings not to try to better their situation in any way. Every Mom and Pop shop, babysitting for money, and even selling extra eggs, would become a crime in this country. That would criminalize selling something to someone else at an agreed upon price. Natural human instinct, like most mammals, is to try to improve our situation. If Cro Magnon Grog was good at making spears, he might trade them to Urck for bone fishooks and furs. Even bartering is a form of capitalism, because you are paying for one thing of value with another thing of value. In modern times, we use money. To render that illegal is to make everyone helpless to improve their circumstances in any way. What a nihilistic existence. Nothing you do will help you or your children. If you don’t like what the government distributes to you, like stale bread, you are helpless.

        2. It renders adults into childlike or handicapped states, requiring the government to make every decision from housing to food to clothing that everyone is allowed to have.

        3. The seizure of private property means that farmers would lose farms that had been in their family for generations. Expert farmers would lose their land. If their region was designated a garment district, then they would find themselves assigned to a factory, sewing dresses, while government officials ran their farms. Everyone would be turned out of their homes and forced to live in dismal government housing projects.

        4. When Socialism reached Communism, everyone would lose all their worldly possessions. Their great grandmother’s wedding ring, her wedding dress, great grandfather’s watch, your father’s tools…you literally would own nothing. Most of us do not want to join a monastery and donate all of our worldly goods to the Church, or in this case, the government.

        5. In Communist countries, there are two classes of people. The government officials who have access to money, goods, and houses, and the populace whom they “care for” by rendering them destitute and at their mercy. My father, who worked for the Pentagon, said they discovered the Communists had a separate telephone system. If they wanted something, all they had to do was pick up the phone and order it. They lived in mansions set off the road, screened by forests. They lived like the pigs in Animal Farm, while the Old Horse worked until he was sold to slaughter.

        6. Socialism and Communism requires the abdication of most individual rights. The government cannot seize your property, and render any business transaction illegal, unless you do not have the right to own property or engage in trade. You also give up free speech, because obviously you will want to complain about such dictatorship. Political prisoners get rounded up and either shot in mass graves, or jailed in oubliettes. Robust individual rights protect us from tyranny. The government has no power over us after a certain limit. That protection would be gone. You would be at the mercy of your government officials. Human nature being what it is, the government’s benevolence would depend upon those running it…who would hold absolute power over the people. Absolute power corrupts…absolutely.

        7. Socialst and Communist countries are the world’s worst polluters. That is because their people have no right to complain. Since the government could care less what its citizens think, and they will be jailed for complaining, they pump out as much toxic sludge as they want. What are the people going to do about it? If they complain they can be thrown in jail.

        8. Socialist and Communist countries do not help the rest of the world. Their economy inevitably plows into the ground. Amazingly, when people make the same government stipend no matter if they work, don’t work, work hard, or barely at all, there is no incentive for hard work. Government officials tend to not be very good businesspeople, so they plow a lot of industries into the ground. Just about everything that we use today, was invented under capitalism. The car, telephones, airplanes, computers, iPhones, medical technology, prescription medications…those was all the product of capitalism. Should capitalism evaporate, then our technological advances will, too. Our society will revert. Socialist and Communist government officials could still get the products of the capitalist West. If capitalism existed no where, that means no new medications, no medical advancements, no technology. We’ll be back in the stone age, likely wearing government issued uniforms in different colors that denote our station.

        9. But my main reason for opposing Communism is all the murder and death. You see, most people resist losing all their worldly possessions, and having all of their businesses declared criminal activity. And they are killed for it. Farmers in Ukraine resisted turning their farms over to the government. They had worked that land for many generations. The government decreed them rebels. They confiscated all of their crops. They removed all food from their pantries. They cut them off from the outside world. And then they starved them in a genocide now known as the Holodomor. The reason why the memorial statue in Ukraine is a child, is because the majority of victims were children. They started to death first, along with the elderly. Some would run into the fields and try chewing wheat on the stalk, but that was a crime. Millions of people have been murdered by their own Communist and Socialism governments. There were many other mass murders committed by Socialist and Communist governments, as they seized power. And then the murders continued to keep the demoralized populace in line.

        Another way that people die is that the government inevitably runs out of other people’s money. There are no longer any rich people supporting the economy. In Venezuela, everyone is starving. The average Venezuelan has lost 40 pounds. Average. That means that children are starving to death.

        The government is not good at running everyone’s lives. Look at Welfare recipients. How well does the government take care of them? What is their standard of living? What about the VA, our only example of socialized medicine? Our veterans languished and died. The most popular fix is for veterans to have access to private providers outside the VA network. Competition.

        In general, Socialism and Capitalism cannot exist without a police state and the abdication of most individual rights. This inevitably leads to government abuse and tyranny of its people.

        1. So how do you explain Scandinavia or even France? These are by most accounts socialist, or socialist-leaning. The various horrors you describe, have not happened there, not even close. I’m not even sure Soviet-era Russia was as bad as your laundry list.

          I do have a bone to pick with one of your statements: “Another way that people die is that the government inevitably runs out of other people’s money.” This is a poor rephrasing of one of Margaret Thatcher’s comments. But she was trained as a chemist, not an economist. Governments do NOT inevitably run out out of other people’s money, because government is only partly funded out of “other peoples’ money” and it is not a zero sum game. Actually, government is the creator of money, dispensing as much of it as is required to provide sufficient medium of exchange and credit. This process does not have to be inflationary, if it is managed thoughtfully. We have “printed money” for much of the last decade, without adverse consequences. The government **is under no legal obligation EVER to pay back any of the debt** unless it wants to. The only question is the carrying cost of the interest, and the government sets the interest rate and can keep it quite low. The experiences of Zimbabwe and Venezuela represent governmental ineptitude, not unavoidable disaster.

          1. That was probably the most stupid definition of money and it’s creation that I have ever read. Your understanding of economics is sub zero. A government that creates money without appropriate restrictions on such creation ends up creating more problems for the government then not. Money is a reflection of value, and the proper amount of money in an economy should reflect the value of the goods produced in that economy. Creating more money than that creates inflation, which ultimately turns into stagflation if not controlled. It destroys the value of savings, and ultimately destroy is an economy.
            During Obama’s time in office, the administration used quantitative easing to attempt to stimulate the economy. Quantitative easing is a fancy way to say ‘we’re printing way more money’. You notice how well that worked? The economy struggled, and in fact in 2016 was starting to head into the toilet again.
            Moving on, you also do not understand socialism. France and Sweden are not socialist countries, because socialism speaks to government ownership of the means of production. Need I point out that that is not happening in those two countries?

          2. “Actually, government is the creator of money,”

            Tell us how government creates money of value.

              1. David, are you illiterate. Are you talking about Jack Weatherford’s book? Don’t be an idiot. He said nothing of the kind. Government created fiat money, such as the dollar bill in your wallet which isn’t worth much of anything except for a promise that it can buy a dollars worth of goods. If government increases all the dollars by 2X and thus you suddenly had $2 instead of $1 your purchasing power would remain at the previous $1 for each dollar would now be worth 50c.

                I never read this book, but I have read others he wrote. He is not so stupid to say that “government creates money of value.”

            1. Money serves two functions. It represents a store of value, and it serves as a medium of exchange. As for HOW money is created, some wonk in the Treasury Department just hits a few keys on his computer, and there it is. When there is insufficient money in circulation to support commerce and trade, it is termed a “liquidity crisis.” This happened in the aftermath of the Stock Market Crash of 1929. See for example “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” by John Maynard Keynes.

              1. Jay, you left out one of the most important features of money. It transmits information. That is essential in understanding why certain activities can destroy economies.

                “store of value”

                I can guess what you mean but even then I fear you would be at least partially incorrect and lack substantial understanding of what you are saying.

                Those few clicks on a machine produce paper money of no real value other than a pledge, but as you see in Venezuela where a lot of clicks have been made the value of that of value or a decree of value; money falls and “millionaires” can starve because they can’t afford a loaf of bread.

                A liquidity crisis might be amelliorated with the printing of money but that has not increased the wealth of the nation. It only increases the amount of fiat money which then has less value. Again take note of Venezuela.

                Governments do not create money of value.

              2. Jay S – “As for HOW money is created, some wonk in the Treasury Department just hits a few keys on his computer, and there it is.”
                I thought your previous remarks were stupid, but this sets a new bar for stupidity. I”m going to have to program a key for further responses to you, to save typing time: F6= ‘You have no idea what you’re talking about’. F7= ‘Are you insane?’
                F8= ‘Stop wasting our time with your ludicrous comments’.
                I’m sure I’ll figure out others as we move on.

      4. “The idea that black people should not be arrested or even killed for doing ordinary things?” What “ordinary” things are black people getting arrested for? People get arrested for breaking the law, which is not ordinary behavior.

        If there is a law against a behavior that you don’t agree with, then the law can be changed.

        “The idea that the President is not supposed to be an absolute dictator?” I agree that the President should not be a dictator. That’s why I oppose Socialism and Communism, which cedes too much power to the government and its leaders. You are free to read Professor Turley’s articles about Obama’s uber presidency, and his refusal to obey by the balance of power. Obama told Republicans, “so sue me” when he bragged that he was doing what Congress couldn’t or wouldn’t do. Congress legislates, not the Executive branch.

        Trump never said he had a phone and a pen. He actually has not engaged in the same abuse of power as Obama. He Tweets mean things. He cheated on his ex-wives and probably his current wife before taking office. He has not made up laws as he went along. The complaint has been that he is actually following federal law, such as immigration law. There are people who think it’s unfair to apply the laws on the books. They don’t seem to understand that there is an entire Legislative branch whose job is to make or change laws.

        1. How about that black guy that was gunned down in his own apartment, by a white female cop? What law was he breaking?

          1. How about giving the whole story? The female police officer entered what she thought was her apartment and saw someone inside it, thinking she caught a thief. She drew her gun and fired to protect herself. This had nothing to do with racial bias by a police officer, it was a most unfortunate error. To make more of it than that shows that the biased one here is you.

            1. I suppose the female cop could just say “Oops, my bad!” and she’s off the hook. If the guy in the “wrong” apartment had been white, would she still have shot him? I doubt it.

              1. If the guy in the “wrong” apartment had been white, would she still have shot him? I doubt it.

                The lights were off.

                No clue why you fancy this freak accident is indicative of race relations in this country.

                1. DDS – there is more to it than meets her story. A neighbor heard banging on the door and someone yelling to be let in. The apartments have different mud mats in front, radically different. It appears he was trying to get away from her when he was shot. As I said, her story is starting to fall apart. New charges are likely to be filed.

                  1. You mean a police officer hunted down and killed one of her neighbors, a propos of nothing in particular? (Well, Jay fancies she didn’t like black guys in suits).

                    Most people murdered by an identified assailant are killed by family members or paramours (in re women murdered, 90% or more). Some people who are not are nevertheless killed by people in their social circle. Being killed by a virtual stranger is quite atypical, especially absent a robbery, burglary, or sexual assault. If this case is not one of vicious stupidity and mistaken identity, it’s as odd as it gets (unless, of course, the two were entwined with each other in some way).

              2. Mindless and racially tinged comments on your part do not make for a credible argument.

          2. Jay S – the story of the black guy killed in his own apt is still developing. She has been charged with manslaughter at this point, I think, but my guess is they are going to up the charges to murder. Her story isn’t holding together.

          3. Jay, you ought to take note of statistics and look at police departments run by black persons with a lot of black police officers. Do you think they are targetting black people?

            What do you think Jessie Jackson meant when (paraphrase) he was walking down the street in the dark and when he turned around he was relieved to see that it was a white person not a black one that was behind him?

            Did you ever think that your attitude is somewhat bigoted and intolerant of the facts that surround the individual cases? Ignorance of the facts often cause bigotry and intolerance. I won’t disagree that the shooting of any individual is something we want to avoid, but when it happens first look at the circumstances and not jump so fast to a racial conclusion. I note that later DSS said the lights were out and that is how you should first approach the incident.

      5. “Which aspects of the “communist manifesto” bother you most?”

        The unconstitutional central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth and social engineering.

        Legislating to obtain “economic” results, using the tax code, manipulating the currency, directing free enterprises which are private property or maintaining statistics for that purpose are all unconstitutional.

        Any and all “regulation” of free enterprises, beyond simply regulating the velocity of commerce among the states to preclude bias and/or favor is unconstitutional.

        Taxing for individual welfare is unconstitutional as Congress has merely the power to tax for “…general Welfare.”

        Private property cannot be possessed or disposed of by government with the sole exception of Eminent Domain. Affirmative action, quotas, social services, rent control, force busing, Fair Housing, Non-Discrimination, etc. are all unconstitutional social engineering.

        1. I would be interested in hearing of some foreign country where your utopia of barely-existent government, unfettered capitalism, and no social safety net actually exist……

  11. Dear Dr. Ford,

    Could you come to North Korea & join us with some target practice during a military drill?

Comments are closed.