Below is my column in USA Today on what appears now to be a clear perjury strategy against Judge Brett Kavanaugh that focuses more on his credibility than his alleged criminality. There are many who have questioned whether Kavanaugh testified truthfully on the meaning of well-known sexual terms as well as his statements on his prior drinking habits. Clearly, any false testimony would be a barrier to confirmation regardless of the subject. Yet, this confirmation could create a new term for future nominees: “boofed.” The questioning on high school lexicon and conduct is a new element in confirmations — precedent that could further degrade our process for selecting Supreme Court justices.
Here is the column:
As the FBI continues its investigation into claims that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a serial sexual assaulter, it remains doubtful that dispositive or even incriminating new evidence will be uncovered given the declarations submitted on the record by principal witnesses. But that may never have been the real strategy against Kavanaugh. This looks like a perjury trap.
While Kavanaugh believed Democrats were trying to paint him as an extremist, as they did Robert Bork in 1987, they actually were trying to trap Kavanaugh into false statements on terms and conduct from decades earlier. Indeed, Kavanaugh could achieve the immortality in the lexicon of confirmations not as a “Borked” but a “boofed” nominee.
The FBI is investigating allegations by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford with the disadvantage of limited time (one week) and a locked-in record. The key witnesses have already made their statements under penalty of felonies to Congress, where they deny any recollection of the party described by Ford or even seeing such conduct by Kavanaugh. The Democrats knew this was unlikely to change with the FBI collecting additional statements.
Democrats didn’t seriously question Kavanaugh
The FBI is also looking into an allegation from Deborah Ramirez, who says Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party while both were students at Yale. But Ramirez admitted to having problems recalling the event due to her own heavy drinking, and she said her memory was refreshed after she first declined to come forward. There have been no direct witnesses at this party who recall the disgusting act alleged by Ramirez.
What was most striking at the hearing is that Democratic senators did not seriously question Kavanaugh on the details of these allegations. Instead, they focused on his refusal to call for an FBI investigation or absurd asides, like Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal demanding to know whether Kavanaugh “believed Anita Hill” in her testimony against Clarence Thomas 27 years ago. The only substantive focus was on Kavanaugh’s drinking in high school and college, and risqué references to his high school yearbook.
While the Democrats suggested this was meant to bolster Ford’s account of Kavanaugh being almost blacked out with alcohol, it seems quite implausible given the specificity of the questions, particularly on the yearbook entries. Clearly, the Democrats were trying to establish that Kavanaugh has lied about drinking and sex in his youth.
It all came down to a single moment when Kavanaugh would be faced with admitting to alcohol abuse and embarrassing sexual terminology or deny such alleged facts under oath.
Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse provided the moment by demanding to know the meaning of “boofed,” “Devil’s Triangle” and other terms in Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook. These terms are references to anal and group sex.
Many of us were unfamiliar with them (honestly, I now realize I led a relatively monastic life), but they are apparently well-known. Kavanaugh’s description of the first as flatulence and the second as a drinking game led to a torrent of ridicule. Despite someone in Congress trying to change the Wikipedia definition of “Devil’s Triangle” to include a drinking game, Kavanaugh is believed by many to have knowingly lied about these terms as well as when he denied that he drank excessively.
It was a curious tactic for the Democrats who once argued that President Bill Clinton could not be impeached for lying under oath about sex. They now argue that Kavanaugh should be denied confirmation (or if confirmed actually impeached by a later Democratic Congress) on the basis of lies about drinking or sexual terms.
The fact is that there is no subject matter exception for perjury. A lie about anything counts as a lie. Clinton was rightfully impeached on this basis, and Kavanaugh could be rejected on that basis. (Full disclosure, I testified during the Clinton impeachment hearings that such perjury would constitute an impeachable offense).
Democrats boofed Kavanaugh
Where does that leave us? A new college friend has come forward to say Kavanaugh lied when he denied abusive drinking. Charles Ludington, a professor in North Carolina, told the FBI that Kavanaugh was a “belligerent and aggressive” drunk in college. Others have also contradicted Kavanaugh. However, Kavanaugh did not deny drinking. Indeed, as now famously mocked by Matt Damon on “Saturday Night Live,” he repeatedly (and rather painfully) said that he liked beer. He did not deny ever being drunk.
If the assault allegations are left unproven and Kavanaugh’s testimony on drinking is relatively vague, that leaves his yearbook and the sexual references often exchanged among teenage boys.
Those references in a 17-year-old’s yearbook could become the legal equivalent of the Butterfly Effect (where a butterfly flapping its wings could eventually cause a typhoon in another part of the world). They have precious little to do with any alleged assault or Kavanaugh’s undeniable qualifications as a jurist. The problem is that Kavanaugh had to answer the questions — or refuse to answer as a matter of dignity. A new political verb is born: to boof, leaving the nominee with the choice of either degrading or false testimony on collateral or marginal terms or conduct. As with Bork, boof will be available as a noun, and adjective and an adverb for future nominations.
Absent some sudden corroboration for Ford or Ramirez, it could come down to simply that. And if this is the standard for future confirmations, then we are all boofed.
Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
There’s news out. What a surprise! Turns out “boofing” is farting, and “devil’s triangle” is a drinking game. That’s what multiple former classmates have now testified under penalty of law.
The left is toast. You had to be really stupid to believe that these were sexual terms. Really dumb. No common sense whatsoever.
Ivan – you don’t suppose the left just has “dirty minds” to begin with?
Mostly I see empty minds and empty hearts.
Prof. Turley—Please stop your grandstanding and trying to strain the gnat. Give it up! Please. You are getting booooooring.
Judge Kavanaugh is extremely qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Please STOP referencing that three ring circus, that buffoonery of a hearing. Why are you taking something so serious as that degradation of a hearing. “Boofing” Please.
Mr. Turley, I have watched you on various cable or national news shows, and I’ve always been very impressed with your demeanor, your erudition, and what appeared to be your analytical abilities. Which is why I was utterly confounded to read your USA Today column this week. I’m one of many- apparently hundreds- of lawyers and professors who watched Brett Kavanaugh’s meltdown last Thursday and concluded from that- his complete inability to control himself, his wild unfounded conspiracy allegations, his lack of command of basic facts (if Dr. Ford first mentioned his name 6 years ago, it wasn’t to sabotage his 2018 Supreme Court nomination; if she tried to contact her Congressional representative on July 6th when she found out when he was on the short list, wanting the president to name another person on his list on July 9th, as she stated in her sworn testimony, it wasn’t part of a conspiracy of revenge for the 2016 election), his utter disregard for basic truths on every single term in his yearbook, the substance of any 1982 entry not necessary relevant, but the willingness to commit perjury in 2018 being relevant – all of those led me, as every other dispassionate, non-Trumpian, lawyer (and some judges I know) to conclude that he is utterly unfit for his current job, let alone a promotion to the Supreme Court. Your column was simply not relevant to the central issue- assuming a modicum of legal scholarship, is this man morally and mentally fit to serve on the Supreme Court? Does he have a judicial temperament which would cause any litigant- loser or winner- to feel he, she, or it had been treated fairly? The answer is clearly no. No rational observer would conclude after his outbursts, grossly rude treatment of every Democratic Senator, wild accusations about Democrats and the Clintons, that any case involving either political party- voting rights, gerrymandering, emoluments clause- would receive anything close to fair treatment from him. It’s not actual bias that matters here, although he clearly is- it’s the perception of bias. Why don’t you write another column after he’s confirmed and mention that you were wrong. That there was no “Borking” here. That if anyone was going to be treated unfairly, it would have been Neil Gorsuch after the shameful way Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley and 49 other Republicans treated Merrick Garland’s nomination. But Gorsuch wasn’t treated unfairly. He wasn’t Borked.
“He wasn’t Borked.”
Kavanaugh will be on the court for 30+ years so you are 100% correct! And now we can look forward to our next two picks.
(if Dr. Ford first mentioned his name 6 years ago,
Again, the counselors’ notes have no names, a different number of attackers, and a different time frame.
James Finkelstein:
“No rational observer would conclude after his outbursts, grossly rude treatment of every Democratic Senator, wild accusations about Democrats and the Clintons, that any case involving either political party- voting rights, gerrymandering, emoluments clause- would receive anything close to fair treatment from him.”
*************************
Is this you, Jimmy?:
https://openjurist.org/901/f2d/1560/in-re-james-finkelstein
mespo – that is a court that is not screwing around.
“Devil’s Triangle” is not the term we used back in the 80’s for a threesome between 2 men and 1 woman…we called it “pig on a stick.” 🙂
Ivan – I haven’t heard that phrase, either. I am uncool, apparently.
George Will finds that Kavanaugh does not have the character to be a fit Supreme Court justice. Neither does Ross Douthat.
Some conservatives are actually conservative.
George Will finds that Kavanaugh does not have the character to be a fit Supreme Court justice. Neither does Ross Douthat.
When did they say that?
Some conservatives are actually conservative.
Which is a silly and supercilious remark irrelevant to any judgments they’ve made on the matter.
And, while we’re at it, a better descriptor of Will at this late stage is ‘chronic complainer’. That of Douthat is ‘man without much of a chest’.
Tabarrok must have considerable trouble with the sound of one hand clapping.
David Benson owes me a citation too.
Dogun: “Instructions for the Zen Cook”
DSS – at this point Benson probably owes you more than one citation. 🙂 He is the King of Making Stuff Up.
David, if you ever bothered to educate yourself you would see over 300 decisions of Kavanaugh that demonstrate he is a superb justice. He can’t help it if you don’t know what the Constitution says.
Hundreds of court opinions, numerous appointments and a seat on the judiciary; but the most relevant point of consideration rests on what how a Supreme Court nominee defines a word for “fart”.
We truly have arrived at idiocracy much sooner than Mike Judge predicted.
“Many of us were unfamiliar with them (honestly, I now realize I led a relatively monastic life), but they are apparently well-known.”
Therefore there is a reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh might not have been au courant of their meaning at the time.
Do you have any idea how many words and phrases have sexual double entendres? I don’t either, but it’s a lot. A porn star might be expected to be well versed in every single one, but it is unlikely that a teenage virgin would be required to have extensive knowledge.
May I repeat my own personal anecdote. When I was in high school, one of my favorite movies was Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure. My best friend and I watched it over and over. We would gleefully ask each other, “What number am I thinking of?” “69!!!” We had no idea. No. Idea. I cringe when I think about how this looked. We giggled and did this at school, in public, wherever. I think I am safe from hubris forever.
Yes, 69 is a well known sexual act. No, that’s not what it meant to us. Congress could convene and show exhaustive evidence that “69” has a sexual meaning in the vernacular, but they would be utterly and completely wrong in the accusation that this meaning is how we used the term.
We have the right of free speech in America. If a kid makes a funny game or a joke out of a word, then that’s his prerogative.
I’ve also got to add that I had no idea what “boof” meant, until the other day, and I’m still not absolutely sure. I thought it meant “fart”, too, when I first heard it. That’s what it sounds like, a fart. (Am I really discussing this on a public blog???) I am younger than Kavanaugh, but still. If this is so well known as to be ubiquitous, then why didn’t I know what it meant?
Therefore, no, a teenager making a game out of the word “boof” is neither perjury nor grounds for dismissal from the nomination.
I loved “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and I think one of the rare cases where the sequel was better than the original was, “Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey.” I don’t doubt that you had no idea what “69” meant when you heard it, do you have any question that the actors, and writers knew what it meant when they used it? Saying Kavanaugh didn’t lie because you didn’t understand it isn’t really a defense. He understood it along with his friends.
I am happy to hear that we share a common interest in movies. Now, what did you think of The Princess Bride? Stupid humor is hard to do well. I think TPB is one of the best, right up there with Bill and Ted.
I am curious why you believe that Kavanaugh, at 17, knew that “boof” meant anal sex? How could you know what a teenager knew at the time?
I was a teenager innocently using “69” without knowing its meaning. Kavanaugh was a teenager who claimed he used the term in regards to “fart.” My anecdote proves that kids can easily be ignorant of one of the meanings of a slang word or phrase.
Here in CA, “red triangle” refers to an area where Great White Sharks are known to frequent. When I heard “Devil’s triangle” recently, I assumed it meant the same thing.
Apparently, “boof” had multiple definitions 36 years ago (none of which I knew, either). As someone who was a child in the South, and then moved to the West, I was amazed at the differences in idioms and culture.
Please note the following tweet:
“10 years later at Georgetown Prep, students talked about boofing. One meaning was definitely farting.
— Del Quentin Wilber (@DelWilber) September 27, 2018”
“Jack Crowe reached out to Mr. Wilber, who provided some interesting additional details via email:
Boofing was one way to describe farting when I was at Prep. A friend also remembered this being the case. He vividly recalled another student asking him if he had “boofed” in class. He was confused bc at his previous school boofing had been a reference to a sexual act. We shared a laugh about this.
I know from graduates of the early 1980s that they referred to farting as boofing, but a couple told me it might be vomiting (a combo of booting and barfing). Not sure what to make of that.”
Then there was another account that “boof” meant to smuggle drugs in the backside. And still another reference was to anal sex.
Apparently, kids are creative with words.
It really is absurd for Democrats to try to prevent a Judge from rising to the Supreme Court because they accused him of intending one definition of “boof” when he claimed he meant another under oath. It has now come out that “boof” did indeed refer to farting in high school. I honestly don’t know how Congressional Representatives, Senators, the media, and protestors can protest “boof” with a straight face. This is definitely one for the history books.
What did come out is that someone tried to update the Wikipedia definition for those terms, after Kavanaugh’s testimony, to provide cover. Kavanaugh’s words were used in a context where “farting” wouldn’t apply.
I confess I have seen a couple of The Princess Bride movies, probably with my daughter who also got me to watch Matida and Glitter. Don’t say anything but I kinda liked them.
enigma – The Princess Bride is an excellent film. It stands on it own. 🙂 You don’t need the excuse of your daughter to watch it. 😉
Paul – I did need a reason, I’ve seen some pretty bad films with her, “Drop Dead Fred,” “The Dumbo Drop,” “Stuart Little,” “Glitter,” and more. I don’t consider my daughter an excuse but was glad to have had that time together, We last saw, “Wonder Woman” together along with her daughter. That was actually a good movie.
enigma – I am Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
If we only had a wheelbarrow, that would be something.
Where did we put that wheelbarrow the albino had?
Over the albino, I think.
Then why didn’t you list that among our assets in the first place, hmmm?
What I wouldn’t give for a holocaust cloak.
There we cannot help you.
Will this do?
I love Princess Bride. We need more comedy in our lives. Especially now. Like. Right now.
Karen S – What you don’t know is I’m not left handed. (Then a little later)
What You don’t know is I’m not left handed.
What a great sword fight. 🙂
I am a huge fan of Gal Gadot. She taught combat training in the Israeli Army. She’s not just a pretty face, but a very capable woman. I think she had me when she trained for up to two hours a day to learn how to ride a horse. I absolutely cannot stand when actors dial it in, don’t bother to learn even the rudiments about riding, and then play cowboy, bouncing hard in the saddle and yanking on their saint of a horse’s mouth, oblivious to the eye rolling, head throwing, and clenched tail in pain. Go Gal!
https://comicbook.com/dc/2017/05/26/gal-gadot-military-training-wonder-woman/
Enigma – I reference a classmate of Kavanaugh who submitted a statement that “boof” referred to fart at Kavanaugh’s high school at the time.
The attempt to update Wikipedia was irrelevant until two people came forward with alternate meanings for the word.
All it takes is one person to corroborate Kavanaugh’s definition, and we have that.
In my example, only my best friend in high school could corroborate my story that we had no idea 69 meant anything sexual. All anyone else could say is they may have overheard us saying it. I think I’m safe from a Congressional investigation on the matter, by Democrats, and thank goodness. What a precarious position to be in, with only one person able to verify an innocent use of the term.
Matilda, of course. I never saw Glitter but I heard she was bad.
Karen S – enigma has forced me to watch The Princess Bride again. 🙂
A group of Kavanaugh’s high school classmates were trying to derail Ms. Martinez’s claims for months before her claim became public. There are classmates who said boof meant to them what everyone thought. How hard would it be for one loyal friend to agree with Kavanaugh? If you needed to, could you get one friend to corroborate your version of what a word meant to you? Of course Kavanaugh would never have texted his classmates to help him frame a story or search for possible helpful information or a photo? Oh wait… he did!
“A group of Kavanaugh’s high school classmates were trying to derail Ms. Martinez’s claims for months”
What has been reported in the media was that Ramirez did not know if it was Kavanaugh for 36 years. Then, she spent 6 days consulting with her attorneys, and said she was sure. But then, she called around their mutual (Kavanaugh’s and hers) classmates and confessed she was not really sure, hoping they could jog her memory. None could.
How could anyone “derail” her claim? They could dispute her claim, but derail it?
Now, let’s all 3 of us watch The Princess Bride this weekend, but in different states. Lord, let there still be comedy to unite the factions, because lately I’ve believed that most comics have lost their sense of humor.
Karen S – I watched The Princess Bride (the gorgeous Robin Wright) last night. I have done my part for the world. 😉
“How hard would it be for one loyal friend to agree with Kavanaugh?” Apparently too hard for Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick. They could not find a single person to substantiate their claims with first hand knowledge.
Karen – They reportedly provided names of dozens of witnesses that the FBI refused to interview, whether at the direction of the White House or Senate. I have no doubt the story will come out and Kavanaugh will be stained forever, presumed guilty because of the cover up.
Who is doing the reporting?
You think there’s someone who confirms Chrissy’s story she hasn’t mentioned thus far?
There are any number of sources, I’ll provide a story from The Hill where Jonathan Turley writes. Not only did the FBI not proactively contact witnesses, they refused to talk to people that called them and/’or went to their field offices.
https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/409616-some-kavanaugh-witnesses-say-they-have-not-been-able-to-reach-the-fbi
Enigma, where are the signed affidavits of what they are claiming and how they relate to Ford? Anyone can report anything they wish because Kavanaugh is a public figure but when they report things in an affidavit to the Senate Committee everything changes because they can be held criminally libel for intentionally lying. The press likes to spread horror stories that aren’t true or are innacurate. They hide behind a certain type of immunity and that is why signed affidavits are the way to go.
What ‘witnesses’? She named 5 people. They weren’t helpful to her.
Where are the witnesses signed declarations? People don’t like to place themselves in a position where they can be jailed for perjury.
https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/ramirez-attorney-releases-letters-to-fbi-in-response-to-kavanaugh-investigation-and-offers-witness-declarations-2018-10-04
Enigma, you delve in hearsay. Show us the report by Ramirez that contains verifiable proof and a signature. The FBI interviewed Ramirez for 2 hours and got nada.
Apparently you don’t understand what constitutes reasonable evidence or proof. Victimhood consumes your ability to think.
The FBI interviewed anyone with a first hand knowledge of the incident. Ford’s husband, for instance, only knew what she told him in 2012.
Ford could not provide anyone who could corroborate her story. No media could find anyone who could. And boy did they look.
Swetnick’s ex boyfriend discussed how she suggested group sex the first time they met, and how he was warned away by her father because of psychological issues. She has a long history of making up allegations against people.
The guy mentioned in your article did not see anything directly, but heard hearsay.
I note you didn’t mention Ramirez who provided over twenty names to the FBI who were not contacted. People walked into FBI offices with information, sent them sworn affidavits, hired lawyers to help them present information that was neither heard nor considered. Ultimately, we will find out what the FBI was directed to do by the White House, Trump saying publicly to interview everybody including Kavanaugh, privately doing something else. Any lie to get through the moment is what Trump does, knowing the only people that matter to him won’t care.
Additionaly, what is the point of conducting intervies if you decide before talking to someone whether they have any information worthy of consideration?
Karen–Just last year, I reached the age of 69. As you can well imagine, because of the sexual innuendo, I “cringed” for 365 days about how others might view this embarrassing situation!
Oh, Lord. I just know what my friend is going to do when we turn 69. We’re going to poke fun at each other all year. Glad I’ve still got a ways to go.
Even if I didn’t ride horses, I think it’s safe to say I’m quite safe from the sin of pride. 🙂
Karen S – I think it is your God given right not to turn 69, just 68 again and then 70. 😉
No no no! It’s 35 and subsequent anniversaries of turning 35!
Karen S – so, you will be on your 39th anniversary of turning 35. 😉
Mr Turley-
Where you see a ‘perjury trap’ I see a character test- one most of us have faced some time or another, tho in less rigorous circumstances. Kavanaugh could choose. He could be embarrassed, or he could lie. He chose to lie. That was perjury under oath, but it also demonstrates his unfitness for any federal judicial position. Unless of course our standards have just disappeared?
Why don’t you quote the exact question asked in context and then the reply that was a lie. Then tell us why you think it was a lie.
You can’t do it and that is why you resort to a silly comment.
When you feel like a mouse in a room full of cats you may do things for your survival that you would not do under any other circumstances. For the record I have yet to hear anyone use the terms mentioned by Mr Turley. For those of us in our sixties who grew up watching movies from the forties, even terms like make a pass or making love had completely verbal meanings and not physical ones till much later in life.
“Where you see a ‘perjury trap’ I see a character test”
“He chose to lie”
Do you care to update your declaration now that classmates of Kavanaugh have submitted statements indicating that “boof” did indeed mean “fart” to the kids at his school, at the time?
Think of it as a character test. Will you choose to apologize, and suffer momentary chagrin, or not, and leave an untruth that you wrote out there in public?
Laudyms’ actions clearly show their own failure of the character test.
Ann Coulter, a woman last time I checked, and an attorney, wrote an edgy column today on the Kavanaugh /DNC fiasco. Her quip about Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant drinking problems, and Lincoln’s desire to to send Grant’s favorite alcoholic drink to the Confederates was awesome. wicked humor on an otherwise pathos inducing affair
###
“Whatever It Takes”
Ann Coulter Follow @AnnCoulter | Thursday Oct 4, 2018 10:41 AM
http://humanevents.com/2018/10/04/whatever-it-takes/
The Democrats’ current position on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is: We cannot have someone addicted to beer on our highest court! What if a foreign power were to ply him with this nectar in a can? Talk about taking control of our government! Suppose they throw in a case of Weihenstephaner Hefeweissbier?
A bitter college roommate is going whole hog, wailing, He lied about being a beeraholic.
By the media’s account, Kavanaugh was a bounder, a brawler and a drunk. And yet he still managed to graduate at the top of his class, go to Yale, then to Yale Law and work in the highest positions in government.
I am in awe of his manliness. Hemingway has nothing on this guy! He should be our president. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln after being told Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk, let’s find out what Kavanaugh drank and send a barrel of it to every college student.
At least the Democrats seem to have moved on from the Crazy Ladies Who Must Be Believed.
Kavanaugh’s first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, doesn’t remember the time or place of the alleged high school groping, and all four witnesses she named deny any memory of such a party.
Forcing our first one-week delay, we were told that the poor lady was so traumatized by being groped in high school that she couldn’t fly. It was the worst thing that ever happened to her, compelling her to do what any reasonable person would under the circumstances: Add a second front door to her house.
She was supposedly terrified of small spaces, and an airplane, one of her friends told CNN, “was the ultimate closed space where you cannot get away.”
Then we found out that Ford regularly jets off to Hawaii, Costa Rica, the South Pacific islands and French Polynesia … to go surfing, one of the most terrifying activities around.
It sounded like a joke. I was so shattered and broken, I could only go rock climbing in the Grand Tetons. After that, I’d repair to my room and curl up in a fetal position. Then I’d go rock climbing again.
An ex-boyfriend has come forward to say that in six years of dating Ford, she never mentioned a sexual assault, had no fear of flying, lived comfortably in a tiny home with only one front door, once coached a friend on how to take a polygraph, contrary to her sworn testimony — and also lied about stealing $600 from him.
Kavanaugh’s second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, jumped in to help, dusting off a memory of the nominee pulling a Bill Clinton on her as a freshman in college — but only after she spent a week huddled with her attorney, “assessing her memories” and calling classmates to ask if they thought it was true.
And did she have corroboration? She doesn’t need any! She’s a “survivor.” Even The New York Times — the newspaper that believed the Duke lacrosse rape case until about five minutes before the prosecutor was disbarred — said Ramirez didn’t have enough evidence to meet its standards.
His third accuser, our heroine Julie Swetnik, is the woman produced by porn lawyer Michael Avenatti. She claims that she repeatedly attended gang rape parties in the 1980s — and she saw Brett Kavanaugh there!
An ex-boyfriend says Swetnik once threatened to kill him and his unborn child; she had a restraining order taken out against her; was sued by an employer for engaging in “sexually offensive conduct,” making “false and retaliatory allegations” against co-workers and also lying about her educational background and work history.
A Democrat and Emmy-winning meteorologist wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee stating that, soon after he met Swetnik in the 1990s, she proposed group sex to him. Some years later, her own father told him to stay away, citing Swetnik’s psychological problems.
She is now the Democrats’ leading contender for 2020.
Poor Kate Snow of NBC News thought she had landed the interview of a lifetime when she sat down with Swetnik. Within about three questions, it became clear that she was talking to a lunatic. At that point, most of Snow’s energy went into hoping for a building-wide power failure to shut down the cameras.
Of the four witnesses Swetnik provided to NBC, whom she claimed would confirm her story, one denied knowing any Julie Swetnik, one was dead, and two did not respond to the network, perhaps wishing they were dead too.
By the end of the interview, Snow’s purse was missing.
But the Democrats are energetic devils. They’ve been poring over Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook and exclaiming, He’s a beeraholic!
With grim passion, they say, how dare you laugh at this? If he were a teetotaler, they’d say, We can’t have someone on the court who’s so nerdy. How can this weird aesthete sympathize with murderers and insider traders?
They’ve already won a second week’s delay by having two deranged women scream at Sen. Jeff Flake in an elevator.
After wetting himself, Flake insisted on a seventh FBI investigation. For weeks, the Democrats have been demanding an investigation — of an incident without witnesses, on a date unknown at a place unknown — by saying, Oh, you big babies, the FBI investigation of Anita Hill only took three days!
The FBI wrapped up its investigation of Kavanaugh in a few days and then sat around wondering how long it had to wait before producing the report. So now the “it will only take three days” crowd are saying, Keep investigating! We don’t know how long the probe should be, but the minimum standards of decency require that it last at least until there’s a new president.
Whatever they find, they will argue in the alternative and just keep doing it and doing it. If Kavanaugh stepped on a bug, PETA activists would be screaming at Flake in an elevator.
The Democrats have a pair of twos, but they expect Republicans to fold. Why? Because that’s what Republicans always do!
Unfortunately, this time, Kavanaugh’s supporters are not accepting surrender
That was a great Coulter article. She may love to say outrageous things, but she has a sharp wit.
https://theintercept.com/2018/10/04/brett-kavanaugh-environmental-rulings/
Really? You’re going to take at their word that he ‘lied’ about the content of verbose judicial opinions on niggling regulatory matters, and you’re going to do that even though their channeling lobbies (among the the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has a terrible reputation)?
The issue of Kavanaugh’s conduct in high school is only relevant because that’s the time period when the issue involving Dr. Ford happened, and she said he was very drunk. Kavanaugh denied all of what Dr. Ford said., including the heavy drinking. He claimed he was a serious student and focused on athletics. He gratuitously threw in the line about remaining a virgin for “many many” years thereafter. This was under oath, subject to the penalties for perjury.
He could have simply denied the sexual encounter, and replied to questions about drinking by saying that while it’s true that he drank to excess in high school, he was young and used poor judgment. Now he knows better. Of course, that would lend credence to Dr. Ford’s testimony, at least as to the matter of being drunk, so he totally denied drinking to excess in high school, which everyone with any sense knows is a lie. He claimed ignorance about whether he was the “Bart” referred to in Mark Judge’s book about being a high school alcoholic. Now letters, in Kavanaugh’s own handwriting, have surfaced, and he refers to himself as “Bart”, so he either lied about that, or he may have had blackouts. The letter refers to a “Beach Week” at a rented condo, with plans for heavy drinking to the point of vomiting. What do teenagers who get very drunk do? Study, pray and practice football? Kavanaugh is lying about heavy drinking while in high school. He was lying when he dodged the question about whether he was Bart. He is a conniver.
As to the sexual matters, he could have simply claimed: “look, a lot of high school boys brag about sexual prowess and experiences. It’s all bluff. We like to throw around smarmy sexual slang that imply we are very experienced, but it’s just the fake sexual bravado of a boy morphing into manhood. Yeah, I used several references to sexual things, but, I never tried to grope or rape a girl.” He didn’t say that, either. Instead he claimed he was a virgin in high school and for “many many” years thereafter. He need not have said anything about his sexual history. He wasn’t asked when or how he lost his virginity. He denied that the references in his yearbook pertained to sex. Kavanaugh is a liar. For those who claim that he is somehow being treated unfairly about his conduct while in high school, Kavanaugh himself created this crisis by denying his drinking, denying what the sexual references meant in his yearbook page, and portraying himself as an innocent, virginal, pious student and athlete.
In the process, Dr. Ford and Debbie Ramirez have been vilified, accused, without any evidence whatsoever, of being put up to lying by Democrats. If Kavanaugh gets to the Supreme Court despite the fact that he is totally unqualified to be given a LIFETIME to affect people’s rights, their suffering from coming forward, and the crimes against them, were for nothing. Women still don’t matter in this country. Pussygrabbing Trump and Kavanaugh prove this. This will make it even harder for women to come forward to seek justice.
Senator Flake required an FBI investigation–so what was done? The FBI were handcuffed, limited as to whom they could question and what they could ask about, all to create the foregone conclusion that Kavanaugh was not lying. Over 40 witnesses contacted the FBI to offer testimony related to the credibility of Kavanaugh. The FBI ignored them and would not interview them, on orders by Trump.
Even if the sexual stuff is set aside, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. He lacks judicial temperament, which he proved a week ago. He does not respect duly-elected Senators. Worst of all, he accused Democrats of being behind Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez’s accusations against him. Where is the evidence for this? That’s why 900 law professors say he violated the Judicial Code of Ethics. That alone is enough. There are thousands of other potential candidates without this baggage.
Members of Congress have the duty to stop the rush to judgment, to require the FBI to do a full investigation, including questioning all witnesses who have relevant information. Kavanaugh opened the door to his integrity, and his denials of drinking to excess need to be vetted thoroughly. Those wanting to be heard should be heard. Any FBI reports should be made public. The reasons for the rush to shove Kavanaugh onto the SCOTUS are to prevent Americans from voting out Republicans in November’s election, and therefore to have a say as to the future of this country and the decision-makers for the next 40 or so years. Members of Congress should be shocked that someone who already has the title of “Judge” would lie to try to obtain a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. All of the pivoting to criticize Bill Clinton, JFK and other Democrats ignores the fact that an appointment to the SCOTUS is for LIFETIME. There should never, ever, be any rush to investigate someone seeking any LIFETIME appointment to a position of ultimate responsibility, especially someone who is clearly willing to lie to get it. As a practical matter, Kavanaugh is clearly vulnerable to blackmail, because I can all but guarantee there are more “Bart” letters and probably some photographs out there.
“If Kavanaugh gets to the Supreme Court despite the fact that he is totally unqualified to be given a LIFETIME to affect people’s rights, their suffering from coming forward, and the crimes against them, were for nothing.”
It wasn’t for nothing. It massively helped the Republicans. Thank you and please keep it up. The Dems must nominate Avenatti for President.
Yes, the embarrassing failure of Democrats to cause Kav to back down, is a signal warning to other women who want to trot out stale lurid tales against men.
Be forewarned against such mischief; think about what you have to lose before you open your big, lying mouth.
Men you MUST vote red republican in this election lockstep to send a message to all those future temptresses who would come out with such slanders against even, you too.
“Men you MUST vote red republican in this election”
What about the mothers with children? I’d be scared of what the Democrats have done. All their male children will be possibly subjected to character assassination by those of Democratic persuasion. What about their daughters when men become nervous around them and expect them to act as men? We see that already today where too many women with children not only work but take care of the kids while their husbands might hold a job.
You have to figure Natacha’s therapist assigned her journaling as an exercise. I bet the therapist just skims, though.
Natacha, that’s 886 words of bile, i.e. just shy of 3 double-spaced typed pages, pica font. Remember Woodrow Wilson’s instruction: “You want your memo read, put it on one page”. (And cover substantive points on things you know something about; your supervisor isn’t paid to be subjected to your emotions).
Basically, you are outraged that an innocent man did not say he had poor judgement and admit to something he didn’t do.
His virginity came up in defense of the accusation that he’s a rapist. You know, how Democrats refer to him now as a serial rapist. His claim of virginity is relevant.
Do you often find defense against slander to be gratuitous? His judicial temperament was found to be exemplary by the ABA…the very organization that governs those partisan lawyers who sent that letter.
Democrats have tried and abandoned one slanderous accusation after another against him. It’s dirty politics. And now his own self defense is considered wrong. He should have rolled over and starved to death like a good Kulak. How dare he resist!
Please direct me to the “evidence” that any Democrat recruited Dr. Ford, Ms Ramirez, Bart’s ex-roomie at Georgetown, or anyone else to say the negative things they have said about him. If you have no evidence, then admit you are repeating some slop you heard on Faux News, or from Grassley, McConnell or some other Republican.
Let’s set aside the sex stuff, because Republicans love to harp on that, and let’s focus on Kavanaugh’s temper tantrum, his false accusation that Democrats somehow orchestrated the opposition to him, his disrespect for Senators on the Judiciary Committee, and his extreme political views, which are the main reason for his nomination. Tell me, please, how Democrats got 900 and counting law professors to write to the Senate to oppose Kavanaugh’s appointment due to his lack of judicial demeanor, his partisan political attacks on Democrats without any evidence, and his extreme views of the law? How did Democrats manage to do that? What you don’t realize is that opposition to Kavanaugh isn’t a political thing–it’s a fairness and rule of law thing. Many Republicans oppose Kavanaugh because he isn’t fit for a lifetime appointment to the court of last resort in this country, he lies, and is being rushed through the process without an sufficient investigation solely to fulfill a political agenda. If he didn’t lie, then he shouldn’t fear an investigation.
Why shouldn’t the opinions of experts in the law count? These law professors have clearly stated that Kavanaugh violated the Rules of Judicial Conduct. The ABA abandoned its initial position of support after Bart’s performance a week ago, and have demanded a full investigation, not the kangaroo court crap organized by Grassley, Trump and McConnell.
If Bart’s letter about Beach Week, the authenticity of which he has admitted, isn’t about drinking to excess, then what is it about? Why did he play coy about whether he used to be called “Bart”? What other “Bart” stuff is out there? He could have avoided entirely the issue of his high school drinking and sexing by simply admitting he used poor judgment and was bragging, but instead he chose to portray himself as a virginal, pious, studious athlete, placing squarely into issue his proclivity to lie and motivation for doing so. His yearbook references, multiple people who knew him at the time, and the Bart letter belie his claim about the person he was. HE is the one who put his honesty into issue, not Dr. Ford. It apparently doesn’t bother you that someone would lie his way onto the SCOTUS, any more than it bothers you that someone who admits to assaulting women would cheat his way into the White House.
P.S. : “judgment” doesn’t have an “e”. A pet peeve of mine.
Uh, Natacha, I don’t think Eshoo and Feinstein are denying they put Blasey onto Debra Katz. The disclosure of Blasey’s name was preceded by considerable preparation – the retention of a lawyer, scrubbing her internet presence, and lining up a bogus polygraph. In the hands of someone else, Blasey’s letter would have been ignored or roundfiled, because, get this, she’s alleging a common assault 36 years after the fact. It was Eshoo and Feinstein co-operating with Katz who got this sh!t show on the road.
No, 900 signatures from our famously corrupted law faculties do not count, for reasons Mandy Rice-Davies has stated succinctly.
Eshoo is Dr. Ford’s Congressional Representative. She’s not on the Judiciary Committee, but Feinstein is, so Eshoo turned over the letter from her constituent to Feinstein. Who cares how she got referred to counsel, and what difference does that make? Where’s the conspiracy here?
BUT where’s the proof that Democrats recruited Ford, told her or anyone else to lie or that Democrats organized all of the other people who knew Kavanaugh to lie about his being a belligerent drunk in high school, or got 900+ legal experts to falsely opine that Kavanaugh violated the Code of Judicial Conduct?
Who forced Kavanaugh to portray himself as a pious, virginal scholar? He needn’t have done that, but HE himself created the narrative that he didn’t drink to excess, wasn’t belligerent, was a virgin, a scholar and focused on religion. HE brought on himself scrutiny as to his proclivity to lie, and nothing short of a complete, unfettered FBI investigation is called for because we cannot allow someone to lie his way to a LIFETIME appointment to the SCOTUS. We cannot allow the process to be rushed, because it is a LIFETIME appointment and the stakes are too high to risk getting it wrong. But, as we know, the sole agenda is to get a radical onto the SCOTUS for a LIFETIME, and to prevent American voters from stopping McConnell. If Republicans win a majority in both houses in November, then a delay to fully investigate Kavanaugh’s claims won’t hurt them. Republicans aren’t willing to risk that, and Americans should be disgusted by this.
Natacha, you can’t be helped. I’ll take the opportunity to point out that you’re asking a question of no value. They were perfectly pleased to use Blasey when her letter came in over the transom. Someone honest and prudent would not.
We know now that Feinstein is dissatisfied with the FBI report, which tells us that the people the FBI interviewed aren’t saying what Feinstein wants to hear. That includes Christopher Garrett
Christopher Garrett’s statement to the FBI memorialized yesterday was either unhelpful or discrediting. We don’t know which, because a precis of it has not been issued. So far, Garrett has said he has nothing to offer relevant to her claims while the other individuals she names have said no such gathering occurred in their memory. Leland Keyser has added that she was and is unacquainted with Brett Kavanaugh. There aren’t any known circumstances – e.g. school enrollments, jobs, propinquity – other than random chance that would have connected Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge to Christine Blasey. She was just another affluent kid in a county that had 500,000 people living in it. She claims Christopher Garrett was the conduit, and that she knew him from a country club membership (they lived 12 miles apart). If Garrett says he has no recollection of introducing her to his friends, it’s over.
Your all dancing around like ducks on a hot plate. One accusation is discredited, you have another contrivance in your breast pocket. It’s all quite transparent.
Oh, please, here’s what WE know, because people who knew Bart when he was Bart have been interviewed by media, in the open, in public. His former roommate was appalled that Bart would deny being a heavy drinker, and that’s why he offered to be interviewed by the FBI. 40+ other people also offered to be interviewed. They, too, were turned down, not because they didn’t have useful information, but because Trump placed a limit on who and what could be investigated. Trump and Grassley told the FBI that they needn’t interview either Dr. Ford or Kavanaugh, because their testimony was enough. It is not enough. The investigation is a sham, and Dianne Feinstein objects because the purpose for the FBI investigation was placate Jeff Flake to avoid a “no” vote last week and to manufacture facts to fit the pre-determined outcome: no corroborating evidence. Bart is a good guy. Full speed ahead. It’s a farce.
There’s just too much at stake to rush ahead when so many credible people have valuable information that members of Congress need to be advised of before they vote to put someone on the SCOTUS for a lifetime. What’s the rush? if Kavanaugh is the good guy he claims to be, the FBI will find that out. If Democrats orchestrated all of the opposition to Bart, the FBI can discover this, too. If he was a belligerent drunk in high school who sexually assaulted girls, that needs to be thoroughly investigated. Failure to do this demeans all women who have been sexually assaulted, and tells them that sexual assault doesn’t matter. Men in power can succeed despite disrespecting the rights and dignity of women and lying about it. The truncated “investigation” is not sufficient to fully answer the questions about Bart that he created by denying he drank to excess, denying that he was referring to sexual matters in the references in his year book, and that he was a studious, religious athlete. Republicans made sure these claims wouldn’t be thoroughly investigated. That’s just wrong.
Again, Natacha, the issue at hand is whether or not he assaulted Christine Blasey. Nothing has emerged to indicate that he did or even that he’s ever met her.
He has passed 7 background investigations over a period of 28 years. The notion that there is some treasure trove of compromising information from your fantasy witnesses beggars belief. This is the kind of cr!p Jane Mayer is trying to peddle:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ronan-farrow-disgraces-himself-brett-kavanaugh-story/
You’ve been banking on Christine Blasey’s yarn because that’s the best Eshoo and Feinstein could come up with, Then you were granted Ramirez and then Swetnick.
As for James Roche, it appears his memory might be a trifle faulty. Here’s some commentary relevant to his memory of the slang of the era.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kavanaugh-hearings-devils-triangle-drinking-game/
Ross Douthat has some references on his Twitter feed.
You never tire of teaching people that you’re a fantastic case-study of motivated reasoning (and lack of concision).
THE ISSUE is Kavanaugh’s character and fitness to a LIFETIME appointment to the highest court in this country. If he was willing to lie about his character and conduct while in high school, which no one forced him to do, he should be toast. No past investigations ever looked into any of the issues that arose recently, so please don’t bore us with those tired old arguments that TV commercials are making.
The SCOTUS is a LIFETIME appointment. The seat has been vacant for well over a year. Congress can’t let credible evidence that Kavanaugh lied to get onto the Court go by without a thorough investigation. The American people deserve a complete, unfettered investigation and that the information obtained by the FBI be made public. Trump wants Mueller’s investigation information made public, and he’s not in line for a LIFETIME government job. Congress is tasked with advise and consent. How can they do this without all of the facts?
And on this point, what about the hundreds of thousands of pages of Kavanaugh material that Republicans are hiding from the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee? What criteria were used to claim confidentiality, privilege or whatever? Why is this information being hidden?
Natacha. I’m not your mother and I’m not your therapist. I’m not paid to listen to you, so the latest repetitive emotional blurt from you simply not worth my time or anyone else’s.
Tabarrok said, “If Garrett says he has no recollection of introducing her to his friends, it’s over.”
That’s very nearly true. It would be more accurate if Garrett said flatly that he didn’t introduce Christine Blasey to Kavanaugh, Judge, PJ, Tom, Bernie or Tim Gaudette. There may be a few other potential denials from Garrett that could discredit Dr. Ford’s testimony. For instance, if Christine Blasey never visited Chris Garrett at the hospital. Or if Garrett was never hospitalized in the Summer of 1982.
Meanwhile, Tim Gaudette should have sufficient knowledge of the “skis” party on Thursday July 1st, 1982 as well as the particular details of the house in which he lived in 1982. The FBI has plenty of testimony from both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh to investigate. It’s not over till it’s over.
One doesn’t have to prove Ford a liar or anything like that. Ford has to prove her case with evidence. She had none. Case closed.
Let’s set aside the sex stuff, because Republicans love to harp on that…
Wow! That’s unbelievilarious! This entire saga began and was fueled by sex stuff because that’s the only thing the Democrats had to harp about. They also have no record whatsoever to question his judicial temperament. The temperament Brett Kavanaugh displayed last Thursday reflected a natural human response to false allegations 36 years time late. He wasn’t being asked to express how he would handle some hypothetical case as an associate justice on the Supreme Court. Last Thursday he was just a man defending himself; something that he had no moral or legal responsibility to recuse himself.
P.S. : “judgment” doesn’t have an “e”. A pet peeve of mine.
P.S. Brett doesn’t have an “a” or a 2nd “t”. A pet peeve of mine.
OLLY – it is P. P. S. for the second one. Not a pet peeve, but a heads-up. 😉
Actually, mine was a post script to my comment. It just happened to be a response to the post script cited. So not a continuation of their comment but of mine.
P.S. I really couldn’t care less. 😉
OLLY – Western Civilization will neither end nor come to a roaring halt. 😉 LOL
Not for a lack of trying.
OLLY – tru dat. 😉
IMHO, lying whores ought to be vilified.
What kind of an idiot still believes Christine Ford??? My Goodness, but you are an extremely gullible person. Or just a partisan liar.
Oh, I must be off now to put in a second front door, because some clod grabbed my tit in 7th grade. But I must drive, because I am scairt of helicopters. And Uber. Because the name sounds funny, and makes me recall the titty grab.
Believe me, too.
God, what a frigging schmuck!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“IMHO, lying whores ought to be vilified.”
Right you are Squeaky. One can’t deal with these miserable people with facts and logic. One has to show them a picture of what they look like if they ever peer into a mirror.
One has to show them a picture of what they look like if they ever peer into a mirror.
You might consider they don’t produce a reflection. 😉
Olly, I didn’t think of that. I guess that means I will have to be even more descriptive of what trash they are.
Good luck with that. They have no humility and thus no honor. Keep in mind these are the same folks that would eliminate the presumption of innocence to get what they want. If they had their way, they’d burn the whole thing down for power.
Anonymous – I heard a specialist in defamation suits say that Kavanaugh should keep the idea of suing all the women who have come out against him, as well as their attorneys, with defamation, if he is impeached or if he loses the nomination. He thinks because of the timing, etc., there may be a serious of solid cases and large awards. And remember, regardless, there will be a 5-4 SCOTUS when it there.
“Kavanaugh denied all of what Dr. Ford said”
Not true. He denied any such incident occurred where he was involved. You can’t even get the facts straight Anonymous.
here’s the story that the US media ought to be reporting. Huge hardward hack by CHICOMS
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies?srnd=premium
It is finished. Kavanaugh has the votes in the US Senate.
The question remains: to what extremes will the Left seek violence to take back power into their own hands? Cuba. Venezuela, N. Korea, Russia….. USA?
“The Arizona Republican said he agrees with fellow GOP Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) in viewing the FBI report as thorough and failing to back up Ford’s claims that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a house gathering in 1982, when both were in high school.“I think Susan Collins was quoted saying it was very thorough but no new corroborative information came out of it. That’s accurate,” Flake told reporters after reviewing the FBI report in the secure compartmented information facility in the Capitol Visitor Center. “I wanted this pause, we’ve had this pause. We’ve had the professionals, the FBI, determine — given the scope that we gave them, current credible allegations — to go and do their review which they’ve done,” Flake said. “Thus far we’ve seen no new credible corroboration, no new corroboration at all,” he said.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409903-flake-no-corroboration-for-fords-claims-in-fbi-report
Yay. It’s over. The FBI investigation is done. Kavanaugh will soon be known as “Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh.”
And, in the process of crucifying an innocent man, the Dems have destroyed their chance of regaining the Senate. Now we can focus on the replacements for Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
The left boofed…how embarrassing.
Do you really think that if McConnell and the other old, impotent farts in the Senate shove this jerk onto the Supreme Court that this will be the end of it? Did you see what happened after the Pussygrabber in Chief conned his way into the White House? Women took to the streets in record numbers. Do you think that people will ever stop protesting, marching and holding signs and placards while Kavanaugh takes away their health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental and consumer protections, curtailing civil rights, limiting their voting rights, letting wealthy crooks like Trump, et al avoid paying their fair share of taxes, and otherwise screwing people who aren’t wealthy and well-connected? The sole reason for shoving Bart Kavanaugh onto the SCOTUS is to try to stop Trump from being dragged out of the White House in handcuffs. Why not admit it?
The madness of the left will just get worse and worse. This helps Republicans. I’m glad the left are so open about their disdain for all things American. #Walkaway
“all things American”? How delusional do you have to be to think this, much less write it? The SOLE reason McConnell, Grassley, et al, are in a big rush is to prevent Americans from any say in filling the vacant SCOTUS seat, and that’s as un-democratic and un-American as it gets.
If you say that it is the perquisite of the POTUS to nominate a SCOTUS candidate, then why was Barak Obama, who was elected by a majority of Americans to carry out the duties of the POTUS, denied the right to fill Scalia’s seat by McConnell? EVERTHING Republicans do is for partisan political reasons, including fighting to put onto the Supreme Court a candidate who is so controversial, and who, himself, put his credibility and integrity into issue by lying under oath. What could be more un-American than a JUDGE who is willing to lie to obtain even more power than he already has? What does the rule of law mean in this country when a SCOTUS candidate is advanced solely for political purposes, after lying under oath? What does the rule of law mean when the main reason for rushing to put someone onto the SCOTUS is to prevent Trump from being subject to subpoena and possible criminal prosecution for cheating to win the White House? If there’s no evidence of Trump wrongdoing, then leave Mueller alone to do the job he was hired to do.
If Kavanaugh is allegedly the pious, serious high school athletic scholar he claims, then why the rush, rush rush? Why not untie the FBI’s hands and let them do their job? Why not interview the 40+ people who have contacted the FBI? Certainly not to allow all Americans the right to a say in the future of this country. That’s as un-American as it gets. The rule of law means nothing if Republicans hold the strings. The only hope going forward is that perhaps enough members of Congress put the country first and do the right thing.
to prevent Americans from any say in filling the vacant SCOTUS seat, and that’s as un-democratic and un-American as it gets.
Uh, Natacha, he’s subject to a vote of confirmation by a body of elected officials called the “U.S. Senate”. Like any other judicial nominee in the last 129 years. The provisions for that are right there in the law called ‘the Constitution of the United States’.
Your ignorance knows no bounds. The American people have their say through their vote. Those people that are voted in then have Constitutional powers and authority. In this case, the President(who was voted in by the people) nominates and the Senate(who was voted in by the people) either approves or doesn’t. Read the Constitution. It’s not long and easy to understand.
Yes, but it’s a reasonable wager Natacha won’t be getting her way. Screechy solipsism.
“The SOLE reason McConnell, Grassley, et al, are in a big rush is to prevent Americans from any say in filling the vacant SCOTUS seat, and that’s as un-democratic and un-American as it gets.”
As Liberals like to say, “Let’s unpack this.”
“The SOLE reason” – based on what? We have discussed at length the tremendous holes in Ford’s story. Swetnick has a well established history of lying and making false allegations, and her story was not deemed credible. You made a false statement.
“prevent Americans from any say”. False statement. Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President of the United State, and typically approved by the Senate. There is no general election for a SCOTUS candidate. Americans “have a say” when they vote for a President, as well as for their Congressional representatives. America wanted a conservative on the Court, which is why they voted Republican. If they wanted an ultra radical far Lefty Leftist, then they would have voted for Bernie Sanders. Well, they would have if Hillary Clinton hadn’t taken on the debt of the DNC in exchange for being their candidate prior to any primary.
“as un-democratic and un-American as it gets.” False statement. The Left is undemocratic and un-American for fighting agains the legitimate results of an election for 2 years. They didn’t win, but they are fighting tooth and nail to have the same result as if they did. Elections have consequences.
Now, historically, most of the time there is a sweep to power from the other party 2 years after they lose a Presidential election. We’ll have to see what happens, but that’s what’s expected. It really is too bad that Democrats have slashed and burned all hope of working across the aisle with Republicans.
“The only hope going forward is that perhaps enough members of Congress put the country first and do the right thing.” What is the right thing? Doing away with critical reasoning and good judgment? Are you proposing that all accusers should be believed, and acted on accordingly, in spite of either a lack of evidence, or the presence of evidence that contradicts their assertion? That is a very curious opinion to state on a legal blog. It is certainly antithetical to jurisprudence or any semblance of justice or fairness. How curious. Who gets to decide whom to believe? Only Democrats? Who has that special genetic sensory perception that can detect the “unmistakeable ring of truth” like the most accurate polygraph test in the universe? Gosh, we could really use those people in courts of law. It could be like the Spanish Inquisition. Forget the scales of justice. We need those who can hear the ring of truth to play judge and jury. That could really streamline the whole system of justice.
You’re more patient than anyone here. The nut is that Natacha’s posts are emotions-based. You can make reference to facts and logic, but that won’t move the needle one bit with her. Note also her seething hatreds – for Kellyanne Conway, to take one example.
Karen S.,
Forget about the polygraph, or techniques from the Spanish Inquisition.
I like Sen. Graham’s retort this afternoon to a protester who demanded that Kavanaugh take a polygraph:
“Why don”t we just dunk him in water and see if he floats?”😊😀😂
That’s not a technique from the Spanish Inquisition. The securely Catholic countries in Europe (Spain, the Papal States) had few witchcraft trials during the Renaissance and earl Modern period and Orthodox countries had none. It was a German phenomenon, for the most part.
Tom Nash – that’s right, if he floats, he’s guilty. It is God’s will.
Anonymous – besides being interviewed 7 times already, why don’t they talk to the 65 women who signed a letter in support of Judge Kavanaugh. They all worked for him or knew him over time. If you are going to interview one side you are obligated to interview the other. Then, I want them to interview me. I have an opinion on the matter. He has affected my life. I think the Senate should be aware of it.
Fine don your pussyhat. You’ll a few hours to make noise. Other women will be at work.
“this will be the end of it?” Well, no, since an election wasn’t the end of it, either. Fascists do not respect the rule of law or a representative government. It’s their way, or they will threaten consequences. (Shaking their fists in the air, “You haven’t seen the end of this!!!”)
Hopefully, conservatives will prevail against the violent jackboots doing their best to turn the US into Venezuela, and stop their harassment and threatening behavior towards conservatives.
If the Democrats continue this, it will make their intolerant, hateful behavior quite clear. #WalkAway is full of red pill moments.
“Do you really think that if McConnell and the other old, impotent farts in the Senate shove this jerk onto the Supreme Court that this will be the end of it? ”
You may not like Kavanaugh’s opinions but he is not a jerk. Do you wear a pussy hat as a substitute for brains?
It won’t be the end of it. He’s going to scare RBG into retirement and then Trump will get a 3rd pick. 🙂
I want Trump to have at least 2 more picks. One has to make up for Roberts and one has to consider that over time `25% of conservative justices move in the Liberal direction.
RBG? The “notorious RBG” as her adoring fans call her. Wasn’t she so hammered during the inauguration that she passed out on live TV for the world to see? That’s blackout drunk isn’t it? Gee, what else has she doen when blackout drunk? Surely she too is unqualified to sit on SCOTUS.
Why too did she never hire a person of color to do anything more for her than clean her toilets?
I believe the phrase Judicial Temperament is merely code for the Left that actually means Judicial Activism.
I partially agree with your assessment. Barring some new information, Republicans (and possibly a Democrat or two in Red States) will confirm Kavanaugh because they have enough cover to take a vote they feel will affect their reelection chances.
Instead of Democrats being seen as crucifying a guilty man, Republicans in the Senate and White House will be seen as covering up for a guilty one. A process that started even before the sex-related charges arose when they tried to keep private the emails suggesting Kavanaugh perjured himself in 2004 and 2006.
Women are not so stupid as to fail to recognize the failure to interview dozens of witnesses that could have provided corroboration. The details of the restrictions on the FBI will leak out and Republicans will be held accountable. This nominee was rammed down the throat of women in particular and you may believe they’ll simply take it and forget, I hardly think so. The mid-terms will be a fair referendum to see which of us is right?
Despite what you say Democrats tried to crucify an honest and honorable man. No matter how many slimeballs attack Kavanaugh they will hopefully have to live with him as a Justice of the Supreme Court but for sure they will have to live with themselves in their own dirty world. Proof is something slimeballs seldom have but they sure can lie without blinking an eye.
Allan – the investigation of DiFi’s office may have begun. She was pulled away from examining the FBI report so she didn’t didn’t read the whole thing. All she could do it repeat the talking points. However, she was very uncomfortable delivering her speech and was tearing up while Chuckie was delivering his talking points. She took no questions.
Allan – Democrats tried to crucify him, not questioning that. I could believe that some only did it for political expediency. How “honorable” a man Kavanaugh was in his teens and early twenties is questionable. Perhaps none of us would come out too well if our early behavior were exposed. There is enough evidence in his own letters and yearbook to suggest the possibility of guilt, something Republicans made sure wouldn’t come to light, at least right away, by refusing to allow a full investigation.
You mentioned “honesty.” Kavanaugh’s testimony under oath in 204, 2006 and both times in 2018 show his honesty is nonexistent. An open-minded person could acknowledge he often lied, even about things he didn’t need to lie about. That doesn’t help his credibility in the other matters.
Though the FBI didn’t bother to interview dozens of witnesses, you can count on the fact their stories will be told. Kavanaugh’s image will be forever be tainted, not by false innuendo but by the stories those who weren’t allowed to be heard before the Senate rushed his confirmation through. It’s not that they necessarily believed Kavanaugh. They just don’t care, for which they will be punished in future elections.
“Allan – Democrats tried to crucify him, not questioning that.”
Enigma, Nothing more need be said. They did that for political gain. The rest is all BS. There was plenty of time for people to come forward with signed affidavits and proof. They didn’t want to commit perjury so we have character assassination instead. You wish to involve yourself with that cr-p which doesn’t speak well for you. If you want to legitimately attack the man you have to have proof and the proof for around 30 years is that Kavanaugh is an honorable man and an excellent jurist. I don’t know how he behaved in his childhood. I don’t know if he wet his bed or if you wet yours. Who cares?
“You may dismiss his current perjury and partisanship as BS, I choose not to. Now you’re calling his high school and college years, “his childhood?” Old enough to go to war, smoke, drive, and commit sexual assault… some child.
What you call perjury is not grounded in fact. It is merely the way incompetent people try and get their way. If you were competent you would cite the exact proof in context using quotations.You think you can read minds. You can’t. You are only able to open your own, but that would require an extreme shift to your hateful ideology. That ideology along with your hidden violent streak is dangerous for most of society.
You prove yourself incapable of carrying on a conversation without resorting to personal attacks. #SoSad
“carrying on a conversation without resorting to personal attacks. ”
That is what you and your friends on the left do on a continuous basis. Right now the discussion is on Kavanaugh where you and the left attacked him personally without any proof what so ever. You don’t care if riotous behavior that you support can lead to someone being injured or killed. You deserve condemnation and more from every decent individual. Stop crying about personal attacks because that is exactly what you use your expertise for. I lost all thoughts of intellectual discussions on this blog because there are too many that engage in hatred instead of intellectual discussion and you are one of the worst because you should know better.
Perhaps he is being rammed down the throats of feminists, but don’t include all women. There are many women who support Kavanaugh like it or not.
Thomas – That’s true, he has many women supporters. Don’t believe they aren’t far outnumbered by those who despise him and the pretense of a search for the truth they just witnessed.
In 1983 Kavenaugh was getting ready to go to Ireland when he sent a letter to PJ about arrangements for a Ocean City beach condo. Lease was in Kavenaugh’s name but the rent had to be paid in cash. A PS “warn the neighbors that we’re loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us. Advise them to go about 30 miles…”
The letter also says “The week has great potential. (Interpret as wish.)”
The signoff was “FFFFF” Bart, the name used by his friend Judge in his fictionalized book about a vomiting, passing out drunk buddy. The F’s aren’t an idiosyncratic pronunciation by one of his buddies as he claimed under oath. it was short hand for “Find them, French them, Feel them, Finger them, Fxck them, Forget them.”
Nice guy, this judge. It, in addition to the other euphemisms, suggests to me a culture of heavy drinking and debasing women.
The letter is reproduced in the NY Times article, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/brett-kavanaugh-georgetown-prep.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
The meaning of the F’s is from someone familiar with the culture of entitled boys at the time.
boo hoo. you keep on picking on 90% of heterosexual men at the time, keep it up.
Dems don’t want a single vote from a many any more, just the nancys.
we welcome this strident harpy act. keep it up.
The strident harpies are Jill and Natacha. ‘Bettykath’ is a contemporary equivalent of ‘Parsons’ in 1984.
Sex is a two way street. You act as if only men want sex and women don’t. Don’t apply your morality and sexual appetite onto others. Sexual abuse is another story and is also a two way street.
No person honestly interested in BK’s bono fides to be on the Supreme Court would concern themselves with anything prior to the beginning of his public service. The Democrats know they lose on that standard. So what does the feelings party decide to do? Take a Taliban-like sledgehammer to one of the bedrock principles of law; presumption of innocence. That might appeal to the gruberites of the Democrat party, but it won’t sell with the majority of Americans that refuse the sword of Damocles the Democrats offer.
Awesome work, bettykath.
Maybe there are a few other entries on Kavanaugh’s calendar besides the Thursday July 1st entry that could be candidates for the sexual assault that Dr. Ford alleged.
Kavanaugh studiously avoided giving anything other than evasive answers on questions pertaining to Mark Judge. For instance, in response to a question from Patrick Leahy about whether he was the drunk described as Bart O’Kavanaugh in Judge’s book, Kavanaugh gave the following highly evasive answer:
3rd Q: Are you Bart O’Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh: [I’m] not answering.
Kavanaugh: You’d have to ask him.
[SJC didn’t call Mark Judge to testify. Judge’s sworn statement didn’t address the issue in Leahy’s question.]
Since Kavanaugh basically refused to answer the question, he can’t be charged with lying to Congress nor perjury on his use of the name “Bart” in the letter that bettykath cited. Or can he? I doubt it. Kavanaugh’s most serious risk of perjury still appears to me to be his denial of attending the party described in Dr. Ford’s testimony.
Your logic fails once again. Kavanaugh didn’t write the book. One has to ask the author who it was he was describing. Unless it is a biography, more often than not, people in the book represent a charicature of a person or group of people that is not an accurate picture of one individual.
It’s unfortunate the Judiciary did not call on Dr. Richard Thorndyke to testify regarding appropriate sex terms.
Also, it is my belief that Senators Kamala Harris and Mazie Hirono (and probably Corey!) suffer from pee -pee envy.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=High+Anxiety++mel+Brooks+speech+at+conference&view=detail&mid=E8947DEE8FFFF20DFCF1E8947DEE8FFFF20DFCF1&FORM=VIRE
🙂
Corey 🙂 🙂
The one thing Professor Turley never brings up is “The Renate Varsity Club,” probably because it’s indefensible.
They cracked jokes about a girl they knew. This is of interest now just why?
JT said, “Clearly, any false testimony would be a barrier to confirmation regardless of the subject.”
Huh??? I thought everybody lied about sex.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – do they lie about having it or not having it? Or both? 😉
Poetic Justice. 😘
“Poll: Amid Kavanaugh Confirmation Battle, Democratic Enthusiasm Edge Evaporates”
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654015874/poll-amid-kavanaugh-confirmation-battle-democratic-enthusiasm-edge-evaporates
The Deplorables will once again trounce the polls and DNC.
The Democrats decided to take the safeties off the torpedoes they were firing at Kavanaugh. This was a mis-calculated risk that deserves another 2 years of minority status.