Why the Extremists Are Winning
Fanatics to the right of us, fanatics to the left of us… and their ranks just keep growing. If we moderates have the fairest and most sensible ideas, how is it that our ranks are dwindling? How did the extremists get to be so popular? What have they got that we haven’t got? Why are we stuck in a barren no-man’s land, caught in the crossfire between two feuding tribes who reject our antiquated habit of examining both sides of an issue? Let’s see if I can explain it for you…
The rise of the angry right. It started with the boisterous bloviating of Rush Limbaugh and his right-wing minions in response to the perceived liberal bias of the mainstream media. They had a point. But the right-wing talk-show warriors weren’t satisfied with airing dissenting opinions. They were hellbent on starting a mass movement, and of course they succeeded. So now millions of Middle Americans believe that Obama was evil incarnate… that climate change is a myth… that the government wants to confiscate their beloved guns. They’ve been snookered into believing that Wall Street’s interests are their interests, and that social support programs are, well… socialist. Lately, since the coronation of Trump, much of the right has been veering ever rightward — embracing the old Confederacy and even neo-Nazi white supremacy. It ain’t Ike’s GOP anymore, or even Mitt Romney’s.
The rise of left-wing identity politics. Formerly marginalized but perpetually aggrieved, America’s nonwhite, feminist and LGBTQ factions have grown more vociferous, resentful and demanding, even as they make unprecedented strides. The grievances are built around legitimate kernels of truth, but those kernels have morphed into mountains in the minds of the aggrieved, aided by selective news reporting (see below) and militant anti-conservative rhetoric on college campuses. Each group typically blames its troubles on straight white males, past (often centuries past) and present, as if all those men are interchangeable units of oppression. Anyone who dares dispute their beliefs risks expulsion from polite society.
Cherry-picked news stories. Example: Every time a skittish cop or a white bigot commits an offense against a person of color, the story makes national headlines. One would get the impression that interracial crimes are a one-way street, a nightmare landscape of Jim Crow outrages by evil whites against innocent minorities. The fact is that cops shoot nearly three times as many whites as blacks, and that black-on-white crimes are more commonplace than the reverse. Surprised? You can blame it on selective reporting. It’s not “fake news” (because it actually happened), but it’s only part of the story — a part deliberately promoted to perpetuate a narrative that unites the in-group in shared outrage. (And yes, right-wing news sources cherry-pick their stories, too.)
Online “amen corners.” Progressives and conservatives have stopped speaking to each other except to hurl insults. Most of their time is spent among like-minded peers who share the same world-view, biases and resentments. Naturally they favor online publications that play to their prejudices. The result: extremist groupthink, emboldened and reinforced by the airtight echo chambers and their stark-mad message boards. The more outrageous the comment, the more “amens” it generates among the faithful (and the more polarized we become).
The essential simplicity of extremist opinions. Hey, what’s not to like? The complexities of life are rendered cartoonlike in crisp black-and-white for easy comprehension. No subtle shades of gray… no head-scratching over competing ideas… in short, no uncertainty. Nonthinkers love certainty; after all, to be certain is to be relieved of the need to think. “We’re right, they’re wrong. Case closed.”
The lack of a moderate ideology. You’re looking at our greatest weakness — and potentially our greatest strength. We don’t offer a laundry list of principles to memorize and internalize. Of course, we’re more than an ill-defined midpoint between right and left. But what exactly is a moderate? Are we just wishy-washy souls who lack the guts to take a stand? That’s what a lot of diehard progressives and conservatives would like us to believe. But several of our greatest revolutionaries, including Washington and Franklin, were essentially moderates who had been pushed to the limit of their tolerance. I like to think of moderates as boat-balancers: when we see the boat tipping ominously to one side, our sense of justice obliges us to tip it back. We don’t subscribe to any ideology except our insistence on fairness and free thought. (That’s enough to make the ideologues uneasy.)
Hyperpartisanship in government. A dangerous and destructive trend in our national politics: much like the public, our elected representatives have increasingly gravitated to one ideological extreme or the other, leaving a hollowed, virtually uninhabited center. What’s especially sad is that the polarization has been orchestrated by the extremists in both major parties. They pull the strings. Representatives and candidates essentially have to pass ideological purity tests if they want to win their parties’ primaries. And once elected, they’re under intense pressure to support their team. Partisanship wins, and the American people lose.
Next: What moderates can do to become a force in American politics.
THE NEW MODERATE 
Rick,
Have you thought about exploring/endorsing candidates in races around the country? Your readers obviously look to you for leadership on these matters and might be influenced by your opinion to vote/contribute/volunteer for candidates that are more moderate than their opponent.
Consider the governor of Alaska and the victory for moderates there. In 2014, Bill Walker ran for governor on a centrist platform. Democrats recognized an opportunity and merged their campaign with Walker’s on an effort win by not losing to the Republican, Sean Parnell, even though they would not control the governor’s mansion.
The result has been impressive to me. Governor Walker used ideology from both parties to best meet the needs of the state. He expanded Medicaid under the ACA but also expanded drilling for oil to help the state’s economy. He acknowledges climate change but also supports gun rights.
The point is that Bill Walker would not be governor and Alaska would have less moderation in government if somebody had not pushed for a moderate platform. When individuals consider a candidate, an outside voice can help them confirm or question what they had thought previously. You could be that outside voice if you opted to do so.
This is all just a thought if you were open to the idea. I truly enjoy your posts and remain hopeful that sanity can return someday.
Thanks,
David Mecham
Thanks, David… glad you’ve been enjoying the blog. I wish I had the time and energy to track down moderates running in races across the country, but I really don’t have an aptitude for grassroots organizing. (To be frank, I’m woefully ignorant of day-to-day politics; as a former history major, I tend to look at the larger political and cultural issues.) As I wrote somewhere on this site, I don’t have what it takes to be the George Washington of a moderate movement, but I’d love to be its Patrick Henry — to use my words to rouse the sleeping giant in the mid-region of American politics.
George Washington was not a moderate – not by the terms of his times, and not by those of today.
Patrick Henry was most definitely not a moderate.
But Washington signed a compromise document. Its called the constitution. He and other federalist did not get all they wanted. But they got most of what they wanted. Much like Ronald Reagan. You can have extremely ingrained political positions and still compromise for the good of the country. That is called moderating a position and you do not need to be a moderate to do that.
Washington frequently sided with the federalists but he did not identify as a federalist.
In fact he was opposed to parties and factions.
I do not consider the constitution to be some gigagantic compromise.
Yes, it contains a few compromises, but large parts of it were not particularly contentious,
or to the extent they were it was over minor details not the overarching themes.
If your definition of moderate is compromise on everything – that is a bad thing that no one should want to be.
I continue to assert – compromise is a tool, not a value.
There are times and places to compromise and times one should not.
Well welcome back Rick!
Could it be that a few decisions made by one party can create major divisions we see today. RR was considered Mr. Conservative and almost idolized by the right, but he also knew he was elected by the middle, A.K.A Reagan Democrats. He had a good relationship with Tip.
Bill Clinton knew he had to work with Gingrich. What began in the late 80’s continued well into the late 90’s.
It seems to me the severe division came about when Obama was elected, began his politics of indentifyand planted the seeds for the current environment. Those on the right looked at Obama for blaming them for issues they had no control. Situation like Ferguson fanned the flames of division and where people used to talk about issues, the environment became one where anything said was a personal attack.
After those situations created the division, the fire just grew until Clinton called Trump supporters deplorables and Trump just inflames the environment more with his words. One small example is his attacks on protesting NFL players.
So now we have right wing idiots like the judge in Alabama running for office, we see the Socialist Democrats taking control of the Democrat party, we see right wing dolts taking control of the Republican party giving us Trump as the nominee and then we see moderates like Burr and Corker deciding jot to run, thus further dividing the country.
i think it will take a person of RR or JFK to turn us around and I dont see that happening, especially when Pelosi and Shumer most likely will lead congress.
Glad to be back, Ron — although I never did crack my way back into the “admin” panel on my computer. I was still recognized on my iPad Mini, which I’ve known for a while — so finally I broke down and hammered out the current column using the two-finger method on that miniature keyboard. (Whew!)
I share your pessimism about the current scene. Both the right and the left seem to have lost their marbles. I liked Obama in most respects, but by reflexively siding with the distorted BLM narrative, he really blew the chance to heal the wounds and prevent the current rift. And of course Trump just seems to revel in creating discord.
So it looks like the GOP will continue to nominate ignorant blowhards, while the Democrats will be the “identity politics” party — the party of the future post-white (and maybe even post-male) America. Fasten your seat belt!
On second thought, maybe it really is the right time to launch a moderate party.
I liked Obama too. But for many reasons – including those you noted he was a failed president.
Had he done the things he needed to be a “great” president – I likely would have opposed them.
Regardless, he did not try. He governed as he said by the “pen and phone” and as a consequence most of what he did came tumbling down quickly.
More important still SOMETIMES choices that are properly hammered through our difficult legislative process end up being the best possible solutions – or atleast the best aside from doing nothing, which is what government should do most of the time.
Meaningful healthcare reform was NOT possible under Obama, thought there was more than a consensus that reform was needed, there was not even a plurality with refard to what that reform should look like.
To enact dramatic changes you need more than pluralities, you need more than concensus, you actually need supermajorities, and you need to be able to sustain them.
In areas like immigration, Prison reform, criminal justice reform, and revised drug laws – Obama had an opportunity that he completely blew.
Immigration reform is difficult – but it is actually possible It requires compromise – but “good” compromise – both sides would have had to give the other things they wanted, but neither side was going to have to give in on principle.
Immigration reform remains possible, but the pendulum has shifted to republicans.
Democrats can still get much of what they want but they will have to give repubicans much more of what they want.
Criminal justice reform was possible – and remains so. Under Obama republicans wanted only one thing in return form most of what democrats wanted in criminal justice reform.
That was a formal implicit mens rea requirement in federal law.
Basically a federal law that explicitly states that all fede4ral crimes require “intent” except those that explicity preclude intent. This is true of all other law derived from English common law. It is true of all or most states, It was true of the federal government for a long long time. But leftist legal warriors persuaded the federal courts to upend multiple centuries of legal tradition and make by judicial fiat all or nearly all federal laws strict liability. What this means is that if you kill an eagle – even unintentionally, you are guilty of the crime – mistake. accident, lack or intent are NOT allowable defenses.
The adamacy of democrats that this distortion of law remain – in the face of the fact that Clinton was being accused of a federal crime and the left’s defense was “it was not intentional” was ludicrously hypocritical – and the rule of man not law.
Everyone left/right knows that both sentencing and prison reform is necescary.
There was and still is sufficient common ground to act – Obama did nothing, Trump is trying.
You fixated on the BLM thing – but Obama gave BLM nothing but rhetoric. There were many issues where Obama providing leadership and acting either through congress or even unilaterally could have had a big effect.
Difficult but real deals were possible on a huge number of important issues – Obama did not try.
Further there was room for legitimate individual action that Obama did nothing about.
Obama could have had an impact through large scale pardons and communtaitons.
Gov. Ryan of Ohio on discovering that many on death row were likely innocent, commuted ALL death sentences. Obama had the oportunity and the means to do similar things.
He could have commuted all federal crug sentences – or all for crack, or even had his staff go through case by case and issue broad commutations – while excluding a few problematic cases.
Pres,. Obama appears to have been a decent person.
In so many many ways he was a failure as a president.
Pres. Trump is not an appealing person.
He is already a much more effective president.
I do not believe that any of us are without principles or moral foundations.
If moderate means without principles count me out.
Is there any moderate that does not think that Hitler was evil ?
Principles matter.
Life is incredibly complex, answers are not readily apparent.
It should be easy to grasp that one group of us can not easily impose their proposed answers on the rest by force.
That is what government is solving problems through force.
Is there anyone that does not agree with that ?
“It should be easy to grasp that one group of us can not easily impose their proposed answers on the rest by force.”
Is that not what the right wants to do with abortion laws and the only reason we have it legal is because of the courts? Don’t you believe that the GOP would vote tighter controls on abortion if they could get away with it? Is that not force?
Is that not what the left wants to do when they create a health care plan that requires us to have healthcare coverage or pay a fine for not having it? Is that not force?
And one could run down the playbook of the left and right and list a bunch more.
So being a moderate to me is for both sides to sit down and work out issues where a position acceptable to both sides is agreed upon. That is what RR did with many of his programs with Tip. He was not a moderate in his thinking, but he would moderate his positions to get something good for the country, even though it was not 100% of what he wanted.
“But the fountain of political anger today is the left not right.” Really? Come south for a few months and then tell me that.
“Is that not what the right wants to do with abortion laws and the only reason we have it legal is because of the courts? Don’t you believe that the GOP would vote tighter controls on abortion if they could get away with it? Is that not force?”
My post had nothing to do with left or right. I was offering a universal principle, Not suggesting only one side adheres to it.
Further I was not arguing that force can not ever be used. Only that it should not be used easily.
What the constraints on the use of force should be is a different debate.
“Is that not what the left wants to do when they create a health care plan that requires us to have healthcare coverage or pay a fine for not having it? Is that not force?”
Yes, both sides routinely violate a principle that nearly all of us agree on.
“So being a moderate to me is for both sides to sit down and work out issues where a position acceptable to both sides is agreed upon.”
So if A and be get together and agree to steal from C that is OK with you ?
I am absolutely confronting this elevation of comprise that you and Rick are offering is very WRONG.
Compromise is a tool not a principle.
Are you really challenging the principle that force can not be used easily ?
“But the fountain of political anger today is the left not right.” Really? Come south for a few months and then tell me that.
The media tilts heavily left – and tries to hide most of the violence of the left – and yet the media imperative “if it bleeds it leads” still drags them along anyway.
Are there example of right wing violence – sure.
Are there many ? Nope.
Stealing from C is much different than A and B developing programs to help A, B and C, along with D,E and F without screwing G,H or I. If A wants tax cuts of 30% and B wants no tax cuts, is a tax cut of 15% stealing from C? And leave out the issue that much of the current system steals from someone.
“Stealing from C is much different than A and B developing programs to help A, B and C, along with D,E and F without screwing G,H or I. If A wants tax cuts of 30% and B wants no tax cuts, is a tax cut of 15% stealing from C? And leave out the issue that much of the current system steals from someone.”
If you take something from C without their consent you are stealing.
It is irrelevant how many others are involved or what good purpose you might have.
Any tax beyond that necessary to support the fundamental purpose of government – securing our individual rights is theft.
When your home is burglarized, the judge does release the thief if they were stealing to help someone else.
Much of our government is engaged in theft. That is not a justification for more theft.
If private actors – individuals or others are engaged in theft – they should be prosecuted.
In reality though no much of our current system is NOT engaged in theft. In fact theft is extremely rare outside of government. Billions of voluntary exchanges take place each day. almost none involve theft.
Free Markets are not perfect – but nothing else comes close.
How many times a day does someone outside of government take something from you without your permission ?
I would bet ZERO.
I find it incredible that people can have such a bad oppinion of something that works so well, and such a high opininion of something that works so badly.
Here is what NYT thinks of the constitution.
Still think the left is sane and not incredibly angry ?
Dave, sorry if you got the impression that I thought moderates should be without principles. I just wrote that, unlike leftists and conservatives, we don’t compile a list of principles for our fellow-moderates to memorize and adhere to. In other words, I don’t want to impose my principles on others. (You should be fine with that.)
As for “fairness” — I know we’ve discussed this point before. Yes, fairness is subjective: what’s fair to a corporate CEO probably won’t be fair to a struggling single mom. My idea of fairness is to show no favoritism toward any one class of people at the expense of other classes. That means we don’t cut taxes on the rich when middle-class and working-class people go broke paying their medical bills. It also means we don’t condone racist statements by people of color while we excommunicate whites who commit inadvertent “microaggressions.” Maybe “balance” is a better word than “fairness.”
“The Rise of the Angry Right”
There is alot of anger in our politics today.
There is even anger on the right.
But the fountain of political anger today is the left not right.
The right is engaged, The right is moderately happy.
Further you have mischaracterized the claims of the right.
A few people beleive Obama was evil.
Most are focused on his ideology and his failure as a president.
You MIGHT have an argument that many on the right think Clinton is evil.
But the right merely sees Obama as a failure – which in many ways is correct.
No one beleives climate change is a myth.
But many of us regard ALL the malthusian thesis of the left over the past 50 years as bad science. And the facts bear that out. There has been no peak oil, no silent spring, no mass starvation, and human changes to climate are inconsequential.
Do you see man as basically evil, or basically good ?
I do not think any think Wall Streets interests are their interests.
Governments interests are not their interests either,
and Wall Street is better served by government.
There are always some embracing the confederacy and Neo-Nazism.
But representing those as on the rise is pretense.
Nor does the Coronation meme fit Trump.
Inarguably Obama was more regal and his administration embraced regal imagery.
Trump does not.
The rise of left-wing identity politics.
The culture wars are over – the left has won
Having acheived acceptance various agreived groups are unsatisified.
Equality is not enough. They seek revenge for the past.
Identity politics is just one of the battlefields. It is not the war.
The giant seething pool of anger today is almost entirely on the left not the right.
They are angry about everything.
The Obama presidency was supposed to be a new camalot. It was not. Someone ELSE must be to blame. That Obama’s policies failed – must be the fault of the right.
That after taking total control of government in 2009 the left rapidly lost it in an unparalled fashion – must be the fault of racist whites. That Obama’s heir apparent lost an election they beleive she should have won easily – must be the fault of the Russians.
Everything is the fault of some evil “other”.
The angry left does not grasp that they are actively alienating just about everyone else.
I totally agree with your statements about the excesses of the left. But how can you overlook the excesses of the right today? I don’t mean the respectable “National Review” right; I’m talking about less-educated, belligerently religious fanatics who would love to see the U.S. become a white Christian theocracy. They have several of their people running for Congress as we speak. There’s a lot of anger out there, and it’s not just among POC, feminists, and college students. The new right-wingers feel threatened by demographic change, and I can’t entirely blame them. But the answer isn’t to shower hatred on the other half of America.
Rick, I do think that those belligerently religious fanatics who would love to see the U.S. become a white Christian theocracy are far fewer in number than the left would have us believe. I mean, after all, the infamous “Unite the Right” white supremacy rally this year attracted somewhere between 20-30 white supremacists, and hundreds of angry, ready-to-rumble, antifa types.
Back in the day (our day, that is), remember how George Carlin did that whole bit on the words that you couldn’t say on TV? Well, you can say them ALL on TV now, and saying them doesn’t even have any shock value anymore. On the other hand, Omarosa’s barely credible, evidence-free allegation that Trump may have said the “N-word” (no one can even say the word when talking about the word! Even Carlin didn’t have to say “the F-word”…he just said “fuck”) has sent people into a tizzy of hysteria.
It’s all so sensationalized, and it’s always about racism, because race is the most effective way to divide people. And dividing people is the most effective way to get them to vote for the party that they think is on their side.
But the real extremism isn’t racial. For every latter-day Klansman, there are a million neo- socialists, most of whom want to use the full power and force of government to destroy capitalism, and create some post-modernist utopia of free stuff. Those are the extremists who worry me, because they are far more likely to get their way….
P.S. I don’t necessarily agree that Franklin was a moderate himself, but he certainly saw the wisdom and necessity of moderation in politics. Without it, extremism spins out of control and you’ve got civil war. Our problem is that our current political moderates are, for the most part (not all, but most) milquetoast types without discernible principles, who value compromise for its own sake, and will compromise on anything. As a result, everyone, on both sides, reviles them, and considers “compromise” a dirty word.
Priscilla, Excellent point. ” P.S. I don’t necessarily agree that Franklin was a moderate himself, but he certainly saw the wisdom and necessity of moderation in politics. ”
Thinking of an era much more recent, one could not call Reagan a moderate either, but he also saw the beneift of moderating positions to achieve his objectives.
Great point to use when one claims moderates do not have principles.
Franklin was wise.
He was also pretty good at knowing when and how to compromise.
But he was not a moderate.
TNM fixates on compromise as doctrine.
Franklin used compromise as a tool to acheive a goal – a new nation.
Compromise was not a value or an end for him. It was merely a means.
Dave, “TNM fixates on compromise as doctrine.”
You are the one fixated on words. I see no where that anyone thinks compromise is doctrine here. I only see where people talk about compromise in a way to achieve an outcome. I see it where they speak of compromise as a verb, not a noun. They “compromise” to achieve an “agreement”.
“You are the one fixated on words. I see no where that anyone thinks compromise is doctrine here. ”
Then why does it constantly keep coming up ?
Then why is it that regardless of the issue the demand here is for compromise.
AGAIN Compromise is a tool. NOT a value.
It is a means to an end. If compromise does nto improve your position over what it would be if you do nothing, there is no reason to compromise, and in fact compromise could be BAD.
“I only see where people talk about compromise in a way to achieve an outcome.”
Aparently you are visiting a different TNM than I am.
An “agreement” is a term with indeterminate value.
A & B agree to murder C – that is an agreement – but we would all hope that the agreement to kill C is not considered as some positive outcome of a compromise.
The objective is not to reach an agreement. Doing NOTHING is always a choice.
If compromise does not put you in a better position than if you do nothing there is zero reason to compromise.
And that is NOT a bad thing. Compromise is NOT a necescity.
It is a tool.
Sometimes you hit the nail with the hammer and make progrss building your house.
Sometimes you hit your thumb.
Excellent post.
Even in 2017 the alt-right groups (mostly NOT white supremecists) were outnumbered by Antifa atleast 2:1 and by counter protestors 10:1
Heather Hayer’s death is sad – but she died of a heart attack. She was not touched by James Field’s car. Aside from Heyer, the alt-right bore the brunt of the violence – they were forced to march through a gauntlet of AntiFA twice. They did not depart from the area they were alotted – until the governor called the event off. The were well armed and well defended – by themselves – the police did NOTHING. They were attacked not attacking.
Sorry but for Field’s carreening into a the crowd, the actual attacks were completely one sided.
The “alt-right” groups at Charlotte may not be “fine people”.
But they were not the ones out of control and violent.
“I totally agree with your statements about the excesses of the left. But how can you overlook the excesses of the right today?”
Because the threat at this MOMENT is from the left not the right.
During the McCarthy era – there were very real communists, and they were a very real threat – but the BIG threat was McCarthyism itself.
There will always be bad guys on both the left and the right.
“I’m talking about less-educated, belligerently religious fanatics who would love to see the U.S. become a white Christian theocracy. ”
All three of them ? I am exagerating and not denying their existance – but if you added up everyone in the alt-right accross the US and included groups like “patriot prayer” which are not particularly white, or alt-right, you still end up with far less than Antifa can bring out to a ralling in Boston alone.
“They have several of their people running for Congress as we speak.”
There will always be a few loons on both sides. Almost no one has heard of those on the right you are speaking of. Without looking them up can you name them – I can’t.
May one or two will even win. The republican party is embarrassed by them and trying to hide them.
The democratic party has socialists and quasi-socialists in extremely prominent positions it is debating whether to adopt socialism much more broadly as a party. We are not talking about the fringe.
No I do not think that most “right wingers” feel threatened by “demographic change”.
What should be self evident at the moment is that white male christian americans grasp that they are in or going to be in the minority.
What they are affraid of is being powerless at the same time as they CONTINUE to be viewed at the oppressors, as the powerful, to cede the power of being the majority without any of the rights that are today attendant with being a minority.
They want to be able to choose whether they can bake cakes, or whether they will pay for abortions.
They want to be sure that as the minority gains more and more power that our institutions are blind to our differences, Not some new caste system based on the particular oppression bonus points one gets.
Further the right wingers are not threatening violence, or a coup. They have been angry – atleast since Obama was elected in 2008, and they have mostly expressed that angry effectively and legitimately. They have opposed policies, not people. and they have mobilised and won elections.
The 2016 election has created the same anger in the left – but they are responding quite differently. They are resorting or threatening to resort to violence or coups.
I have zero problems impeaching Trump for misconduct. But as this mess drags our – I find nothing impeachable in Trump’s conduct – offensive, yes, impeachable no.
With Clinton there were actual provable crimes. Witness tampering, lying under oath.
With Trump we have to stretch the law beyond recognition.
Further there is a clear sense that the left does not give a damn about those who disagree.
The right wants not to be trampled on. That is all. They left is angry because they can not contineu to trample on people. The left is angry because they have been removed from power by the voice of the people – and they are unwilling to accept that they do NOT speak for the people.
I would further note – that anger and hatred are complex – there is justifiable anger.
Even justifiable hatred. No one would fault the left for anger with real nazi’s and real racists. But the left see’s people it is prepared to loath arround every corner. The left does not hate racists, it hates everyone who has not kowtowed to the left doctrine on race of the moment.
A large portion of the anger and hatred on the right – particularly outside of the fringes, is anger at being unfairly despised and labeled by the left. Call someone a racist – and you guarantee they will hate you.Call half the country racist – and you are the problem -not them. The broad anger on the right today is the justifiable response to unjustifiably broad hatred from the left. They are not the same and a sprinkling of nutbars at the extreme right that no one is paying attention to will change that.
I have no idea what the wingnuts on the right are running on. But they stand no change of even getting a public debate on their issues. We are actively discussing M4A and free college.
“Heather Hayer’s death is sad – but she died of a heart attack. She was not touched by James Field’s car. ”
Bzzzt, wrong.
“The Central District Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in Richmond, Virginia, declared definitively to Newsweek that Heyer’s cause of death was no heart attack. Spokesperson Arkuie Williams said during a brief phone interview Tuesday that after more than two months of examinations, it was determined that Heyer died of “blunt force trauma to the torso,” and that her death has been ruled a homicide.”
As well
“Heather Heyer, a 32-year-old woman, was fatally injured in the attack, and died in the University of Virginia Medical Center.[25][27] Initially, nineteen injuries were reported, as twenty patients were taken at the University of Virginia Medical Center.[22][25] In the evening, five people were in critical condition and fourteen others were being treated for lesser injuries.[24] Nine people had been discharged and ten remained hospitalized in good condition the next day.[28][29] Testimony at the preliminary hearing in December 2017 revealed that a total of 35 people were injured.[22]”
I would suggest watching “The Staircase on Netflix if you beleive Medical examiners – or come look at the work of my county coroner or I think 60 Minutes did a special on the disasterous corruption in many county coroners offices or ….
There is video – Fields struck several people – Heather Heyer was NOT one of those.
As to your 2nd source – Heyer was dead on the scene.
As to others being injured – absolutely – and your numbers are likely low.
I think it is pretty easy to tell from the videos that well over 36 of the marchers were hit by rocks, bottles, maced, …..
There were plenty of injuries on both sides.
However prior to Fields crash into the crowds the counter protestors were the clear agressors.
The marchers had a permit, Assembled where they were told, stayed inside their designated march area. The police did nothing to protect them from counter protestors.
I do not give a damn if they were F’ing rela Nazi’s.
If your idea of protesting others – even others who are arguably evil, is to throw rocks and urine, and mace at them, to seek out physical confrontation – then YOU are worse than they are.
Get a clue.
If you bother to search the web there are atleast a dozen video’s from different angles showing Fields car and Heyer.
Many others were struck Heyer was NOT.
Or do you not beleive your own eyes.
I see, so what you believe happened actually is that a healthy young woman died suddenly of a heart attack at precisely the instant that Fields plowed his car at her group.
If Fields had thrown her out a window you would be telling me that “it is sad that she died, but it was the ground that killed her.”
You will go to any length for your distorted narrative about the basic harmlessness of the right. You sound like the loony right yourself half the time, who are the only ones I find online pushing this theory that Hayer died of a heart attack.
Carry on.
Thanks for this tread. Was not paying attention. But I did look at some things. Couple of observations.
1. Even Fox News has not released anything that indicates she died from anything other than the car hitting her.
2. No creditable news saying anything but blunt force trauma.
3. All the links to twitter from non creditable news links will not work. Could be my equipment since I use twitter for little.
4.Mother watches her daughter die, they apparently used the cadio system to restart her heart and mother says she dies from heart attack. Not creditable statement due to stressful situation and she, nor the EMT is a coroner.
5. Conspiracy theorist exist in all major disasters. Same here.
I dont trust government, but why would the coroner from Charlottesville lie?
The videos on Heyer came out relatively quickly. First one, then several others.
Her mother said she died of a heart attack in atleast one interview she gave.
Fox has mostly ignored it.
Who wants to “defend” “nazis” ?
We have this kind of garbage all the time.
I have zero respect for Coroners Reports – particularly in the south.
About a decade ago 60 minutes did a story on about a dozen corners in the south.
Though the coroner in my country is no better.
Whether it is crime labs, corners, … the state of forensic science is garbage,
The National Science foundation did a thorough review about a decade ago of myraids of commonly used forensic techniques – blood spatter, bite marks, hair, fiber, finger prints, bullet matching, and found many of them completely worthless, and the few that were not, still had far less accuracy than was represented.
Briefly this caused a stir in the legal community – and then it was forgotten and we continue as usual.
If you want an idea of just how bad some of it is – watch “the staircase” on netflix.
Put simply – “Quincy” does nto exist – neither does “columbo” but that is another story.
If determination of what actually happened rests with complex forensics rather than actual witnesses (and they have problems too),
Just to be clear – I am not asking you to “disbelieve” science.
I am asking you to disregard junk science.
Disabuse yourself of the notion that “experts” can actually answer all the questions they claim to.
After EMT’s have worked on someone whose heart has stopped – they are going to have all the same indications as someone who actually died of “blunt force trauma” the the chest.
Have you ever had training on CPR ? One of the things they tell you is that you can easily break ribs and puncture lungs. BUT you should not fixate on that.
Someone whose heart stops will not recover after 6M no matter what.
Someone with broken ribs or punctured lungs can be fixed at the ER.
As I have noted there is lots of video of Fields run – including many clips that show Heyer.
Find a single one that shows her being struck by the car ?
There are plenty that show she was not.
Contra the pictures in the news Heyer was morbidly obese and I beleive a heavy smoker.
She was a heart attack waiting to happen.
I am sure that Fields run down the street was the proximate cause of her heart attack.
But there is no actual evidence he struck Heyer. Lots of others – absolutely.
Why would the coroner from charlottesville “lie” ?
Why would any coroner lie – but it happens all the time.,
Like I said go watch “the staircase” on netflix. This is a series done following a real trial in That took place in Durham NC.
If you trust our criminal justice system in difficult cases – you are an idiot.
Locally we elect the county coroner. A surgeon that I had personal and professional ties was elected.
Unfortunately he actually did his job. So the police and the DA’s and the system trumped up some garbage charges, and after fighting for several years, he gave up and quit.
Now we have what they wanted – someone who will find whatever the police and DA’s want them to find.
If you want forensics to work. You need to completely divorce the coroner and forensic labs from the police and DA’s.
The labs and Coroners need to NOT know what the Police and DA’s want them to find.
Heather Heyer was not even close to healthy – and not all that young.
Regardless. I need not have an explanation.
She was not struck by Feilds car – there are multiple videos that make that crystal clear.
Many others were struck by Fields. Heyer was not.
I do not want to get into the law, but the fact that he did not strike her does not completely absolve fields of any culpability in here death.
Though honestly, the guy is schitzophrenic, he needs to be in a hospital.
But if it make you beating on people with mential health problems – you are not alone.
We have been criminaizing mental heath issues for decades.
The FACTS are the facts. Multiple videos are out there.
No, I do not much care what you think I “sound” like when I am accurately conveying the facts.
Sometimes “the right” is right. Sometimes “the left” is right.
Overal I am more concerned about facts, than right or left ideology.
What you call “my ideology” is rooted in facts and a very few principles that underpin western civiliazation,
Principles – that we have all agreed on for hundreds of years.
Principles that you have never been willing to challenge directly.
You just pretend that you can ignore them sometimes.
If you actually want a debate over those principles – I would be happy.
I real debate – facts, logic reason.
Not feelings. not fallacies. not word games.
Rick;
Franklin was quite litterally a core member of the Scottish Enlightenment.
He was a classical liberal – in modern terms libertarian.
Yes, but 18th-century capitalism hadn’t evolved into the corporate and financial monster we see today; I doubt if Franklin would be enthusiastic about that outcome. I’d still call him a man of moderate but strongly principled instincts; he might have become a “trust-buster” like Teddy Roosevelt.
The East India company starting in the 16th century dominated the world in that we have never seen since.
We are celebrating Apple becoming the worlds first Trillion Dollar Company – proportionately or adjusted for inflating the East India company was far larger.
Franklin and our founders lived in a world were Dutch, British and other companies functioned nearly as private governments, They also lived in a world where rich aristocracy – like William Penn excercised incredible power both as business men as as formal governments in the colonies they OWNED.
Ben Franklin is the only american that is formally considered to be part of the “scottish enlightenment” – a peer of Locke, Hume, Smith and Burns.
That would be the birth of classical liberalism or modern libertarianism.
Ben Franklin is one of the early american rags to riches stories.
He would not have been a “trust buster”. Some of Franklin’s wealth remains in trust today.
There is no such thing as fair.
Every group that has embraced “fairness” as a core value has ultimately resorted to violence – whether the french revolution or the Khmer Rouge.
Life is not fair.
See my comment above.
First they came for the White supremicists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a White Supremecists.
Then they came for the Atl-Right, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not Alt-Right.
Then they came for the Black Conservative, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Black Conservative.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/08/10/democrats_have_become_what_they_say_they_despise_137769.html
James Rosen and Sharyl Atkins are among the know journalists that were spied on by the Obama administration.
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/08/27/ben-rhodes-the-world-as-it-is-book-review/
This is partly about Jordan Peterson. But it is mostly about the decline of the left and its causes.
There is much wrong with the right today, and it will change in many ways over time.
But the current left is facing an existential crisis. While I think that goes beyond identity politics, Identity politics is at its core. the identity politics of the left attempts to shut down all debate, and it does so with the pretense that debate is repugnant. As the ideology of the left become more defined, and more identities get added to the list of victims – rather than expanding the base, the result is walling more and more of the people out as evil intolerant hateful hating haters.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/why-the-left-is-so-afraid-of-jordan-peterson/567110/
Aparently if your family was a victim of left wing genocide, you are not welcome on Facebook.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/heng-gets-facebook-blocked/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=5b66af404b7385000752c148&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Recent scientific studies on “Trigger Warnings”.
They make problems WORSE.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005791618301137?via%3Dihub
Rick, I enjoyed reading your intelligent, prescient post.
I fully agree with your descriptions of the damages done to our system by extremists Left & Right argumentatively pulling apart consensus like the limbs of a plastic stretch toy doll.
I’m not at all optimistic anything positive will come out of this distorted liberal-Conservative right-Left mess for decades to come. For Moderates like us the terrain of moderation has been altered. A generation gap that has redefined the ground rules. Moderate accommodation for most Americans under the age of 40 isn’t perceived as it is by us. I don’t know if the enormous swell of technological advances in communication, or the relative ease of surviving growing up in an environment of raffluence, has produced a different mind set than the one we knew as the norm growing into adulthood, but right and wrong seem to have acquired different interpretations than those we relied on as constant.
I think it will take more time to balance the system then I have remaining of planetary orbits to observe how that new equilibrium will balance. I’ve come to believe talking about it, writing about it, is futile for me. Therefore I’ve cut back on blogging, tweeting, posting and arguing about it in general. Instead I’m concentrating on learning how to use to best advantage two new favorite cooking utensils: my Sous Vide Immersion device, and my wonderful Instant Pot multi use pressure cooker. With that in mind, I leave you with tomorrow’s desert recipe below:
Instant Pot Cheesecake-2
INGREDIENTS
Crust:
-3/4 cup graham cracker crumbs (4 whole graham crackers, crushed)
-2 tablespoons melted butter
Cheesecake:
-1 pound regular cream cheese, softened (2 8-ounce packages)
-2/3 cup sugar
-2 large eggs
-1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
-1/4 cup sour cream
Topping:
Any sweet fresh berries available
INSTRUCTIONS
1 Prep the pan: Spray the 7-inch cheesecake pan with nonstick cooking spray. Mix the graham cracker crumbs and melted butter, then spread evenly across the bottom of the pan and pack down, pushing the graham crackers up the sides a little.
2 Make the cheesecake filling: Soften the cream cheese by leaving it out at room temperature for at least 1 hour (or heat it in the microwave for 20 to 30 seconds, until it is softened). Beat the cream cheese in an electric mixer on medium speed until smooth, about 1 minute. Slowly add the sugar and beat on medium speed until the sugar is completely blended, about 3 minutes. Add the eggs one at a time, beating on low speed until just blended. Stir in the vanilla and sour cream by hand. Pour into the cheesecake pan, then tap the pan on the countertop for about 30 seconds to get rid of air bubbles. Cover the pan with aluminum foil, and crimp around the edge to seal.
3 Pressure cook the cheesecake: Put 2 cups of water in the pressure cooker pot and add the cooking rack. If your pressure cooker rack doesn’t have handles, make an aluminum foil sling by folding a 2-foot long piece of aluminum foil over a few times, until it is a long strip about 4 inches wide. Use the sling to lower the cheesecake pan into the pot and set it on the rack. Lock the pressure cooker and pressure cook on high for 35 minutes in an electric PC or 30 minutes in a stovetop PC, then let the pressure come down naturally, about 10 more minutes.
Cool the cheesecake, then serve: Lift the cheesecake out of the pressure cooker. Immediately run a knife around the rim of the cheesecake pan to loosen the cheesecake from the sides. Cool the pan at room temperature for an hour, then refrigerate for at least 4 hours, preferably overnight.
Top with berries and serve.
Why is consensus necescary ?
The only purpose for consensus is when we choose to use force – as though government and we need much more than mere consensus to use force.
We are a pluralistic society – diverse. Multi-Tribal. Yes there is SOME left right tension,
but many things divide on other axis’s and have their own extreme’s and often lack of consensus.
That is not only fine, it is often good.
If you want to eat you can go to McD’s or Burger King or ….
Or AppleBee’s or myriads of different resturaunts.
You have nearly infinite choices.
You need not do the same thing as others.
you need not do the same thing each day.
You can be as extremist as you wish.
Because you are not seeking to impose your choice on others by force.
There are a small number of things we must do together by force if necescary.
Fundimentally that is as the declaration state secure our rights.
The point is that it is irrelevant how widely disparate our views are from each other – so long as we are not seeking to impose them on each other by force.
With few exceptions the only “Extremism” problem we have is those who seek to impose their particular point of view on the rest of us by force.
Return to government that deals with the rule of law, and we are all free to beleive and do very extreme things – so long as we do not harm others.
If we keep government relatively small and simple – all the complexities of life are in our own individual lives where each of us can make our own choices as we please.
“The point is that it is irrelevant how widely disparate our views are from each other – so long as we are not seeking to impose them on each other by force.”
Dave, your fixation on force clouds your view on what is happening today. Your rose colored glasses are distorting your views on the direction the country is moving. Remember, you have said many times that once you give someone something, it is almost impossible to take it back.
Force can be propaganda. Mental manipulation. Coercive persuasion. Tell someone something long enough and often enough and they will believe. Followers of Charles Manson., Jim Jones, or followers like Patty Hearst. Was Hearst physically forced to rob a bank or mentally forced? Where all those that drank the Cool aide physically forced or mentally forced.
I see the politics of this country mentally manipulating people much like Manson or Jones, starting with educators with youngsters who spend more waking hours with kids than their parents.
Refusing to pretend that acting through government is using force is not a “fixation”.
It is the absence of willful blindness.
The “clouding” occurs when you pretend that government is not force.
Eric Garner learned that the hard way,.
“Force can be propaganda. Mental manipulation. Coercive persuasion. Tell someone something long enough and often enough and they will believe. Followers of Charles Manson., Jim Jones, or followers like Patty Hearst. Was Hearst physically forced to rob a bank or mentally forced? Where all those that drank the Cool aide physically forced or mentally forced.”
NOPE!.
All those things may well be WRONG. but they are not FORCE.
Further though many of them tend to be as you described, there is a huge difference between “tend” and force.
Most of what most people call “coerce” is just not getting the offer they wanted.
If I offer to pay you $5/hr and you want $10, and I am unwilling to budge – that is not force.
You are free to say no. If you are desparate – I did not create the causes of your desparation.
I have agreed to things I would have prefered not to.
Because they were to choices available. That is not force.
Nor is persuasion force.
I have repeated many things over and over – it does not seem to be “forcing” anyone to agree, even if I am right.
This “the Russians” nonsense is such garbage it drives me nuts.
I am not happy that the Russians engaged in persuasion in our elections.
I am not happy that Center for American Progress did.
My dislike for what someone else wishes to say does not allow me to silence them – not even the russians.
Beyond the other issues – short of FORCE (war) you can not silence a nation.
Further the Russian effort was inconsequential.
But even if it had been HUGE and even if the russians had persuaded millions of voters.
A laughable scenario – it was STILL persuasion, not FORCE.
Often a charismatic person can persuade large groups to follow them. But it is still persuasion – not force. Whether it is Hitler or Jim Jones.
We are each responsible for our choices – when we do not have the choices we would prefer – still responsible, when we do and make bad choices – still responsible, when Russians or Nazi’s ask for our support – still responsible.
There might be moral issues involving some forms of persuasion.
But there are no legal ones and no nexus for government to interfere.
If we are not free to make one non-violent choice that is not good for us or that are neighbors disapprove of – then we are not free at all.
Worse still when government says such things as you can offer and accept any job you want, but you must be paid some minimum wage, all that does is assure that those whose labor is worth less than that wage will remain unemployed, and those jobs that have a value below that minimum will not be offered or performed.
Whatever you beleive constitutes coercion – short of the use or threat of force, we are better off than if government dictates.
Well we will have to disagree in your definition and my definition of force. While you believe force is physical , either directly or indirectly, I also believe force can be mental maipulation, mind control or brain washing resulting in a desired outcome to take place.
But my comment was in response to your comment about consensus and force. I believe both the right and left are using force in many different ways. Obamacare was force. Marriage laws are force. But you can also indoctrinate individuals to act in a specific manner if you insure they only hear one side of the issue.
As for consensus, we do not need to agree on anything. But we do need political decisions that benefit society. For example, one only needs to look at California and the forest fires. Environmentalist have insured catastrophic results due to restrictions on forestry and clearing of dead wood, trees and underbrush. Compare that to forested Indian reservation land where they maintain to eco system and fires, though rare, are easily extinguished. That is because they agreed that some short term negative impact like an owl losing its nest in a dead tree one year would preclude hundreds of animals dying from a fire in future years.
Environmentalist and lumber corporations do not need to agree on their positions, but both need to moderate their positions so the country benefits from fewer forest fires. Some logging and clearing of land so fires are easier to access and control. And this goes for everything today.
But no one will budge on anything since they believe as you do that not getting 100% of what you want is a bad deal, unlike Reagan who would accept losing 20% to get 80% of what he wanted. Just look at your comment earlier about tax cuts and the impact of not getting everything that one might want.
“Well we will have to disagree in your definition and my definition of force.”
Changes NOTHING. You can not duck this by word games or semantics or even pretending to agree to disagree.
Let’s relabel what I call force as XZED, And we define XZED as the use of physical violence to accomplish something.
I presume that you can agree that XZED is not the same as mental manipulation. or any of the other things you are calling force.
That should be trivial – because we have defined XZED such that it does NOT include those things.
It is still truth that you can not use XZED without justification.
That is the core of the social contract, the foundation of government and thousands of years of human development. Humans are near universal in their recognition and acceptance that the use of XZED is generally barred and can only be used in limited circumstances.
We are also near universally agree that XZED is not the same as all the other things you are calling force.
In fiction poetry advertising, myriads of other spheres – use words as you please. define them how you wish, blur multiple meanings.
But when you talk about government and law – which is explicitly the domain of the use of XZED for the explicit purpose of protecting our rights against infringement by others using XZED against us – there is no room for confusion.
You can elide the problem by claims of semantic differences, or claims about disagreeing on the meaning of words or having differences of oppinion.
Unless you prepared that people are free to initiate violence as they please.
Or that there is no subsrtantive difference between:
“I will shoot you if you do not work for me”
and
“I will only pay you $5/hr to work for me”
Then your response regarding your meaning of “force” is at most only an issue because having FORCE mean mutliple things results in confusion.
Can government legitimately step in and use real physical force to punish someone who has initiated real physical force against another ?
Government exists for that purpose – THAT is the social contract.
We are all very nearly universally agreed on that.
shifting to YOUR broader concept of force.
Can government legitimately step in and use real physical force to punish someone who has attempted to persuade you ? Is unwilling to offer you a job you want or need at the wage you want ? ….
There is no agreement that is a legitimate purpose of government Government.
That is not part of the social contract.
I do not beleive you can even get a plurality to agree to that.
Much less the super majority necescary to use actual physical force.
.
“While you believe force is physical , either directly or indirectly,”
No that is how I – and in truth nearly all of us define it in the specific context of government – both in terms of what government is their to restrain – the use of physical force to infringe on rights, and what government may do to restrain that – use physical force.
“I also believe force can be mental maipulation, mind control or brain washing resulting in a desired outcome to take place.”
I would use a differnet word – but it is irrelevant whether we use the same of differnt word.
Claims of mental maipulation, mind control or brain washing are not sufficient to justify the use of actual physical force aka government.
To be clear – our conflict is not about the meaning of word.
It is that you are conflating two different things which you allow to share the same name,
in order to justify the use of physical force in response to something that is NOT physical force.
The purpose of having clear narrow meanings for words is specifically to avoid this type of category error.
Our difference is not over the meaning of words.
It is over whether government may use physical force as a response to things that are not the use of physical force to infringe on our rights.
“As for consensus, we do not need to agree on anything.’
To use physical force – we must agree, we must have more than even consensus, we must have supermajorities.
“But we do need political decisions that benefit society. ”
Not the standard. It is always possible to argue that any political decision benefits society.
Political decisions – meaning the decisions of govenrment must secure rights.
That is a clear identifiable relaitively objective criteria, benefit society is hyper subjective.
“For example, one only needs to look at California and the forest fires. Environmentalist have insured catastrophic results due to restrictions on forestry and clearing of dead wood, trees and underbrush.”
Or compare to privately owned forests which do not have this problem.
“Compare that to forested Indian reservation land where they maintain to eco system and fires, though rare, are easily extinguished. That is because they agreed that some short term negative impact like an owl losing its nest in a dead tree one year would preclude hundreds of animals dying from a fire in future years. That is because they agreed that some short term negative impact like an owl losing its nest in a dead tree one year would preclude hundreds of animals dying from a fire in future years.”
You are comparing two different comunal decision making processes – which produce different outcomes to judge one superior to the other. The standard of living of Indians is many times lower than non-indians. Does that inherently make our governmental decision making process superior. That is your argument. I have just changed the context.
The actual truth overwhelmingly demostrated by the data is that with very very very few exceptions, property rights and non-communal decision making produces superior results than communal decision making.
This NOT because one person is wiser than a group, but because the agregate choices of many individuals are nearly always superior to the communal choices of the same people.
One obvious part of that is that communal decisions effect EVERY individual. If the right choices is made everyone benefits, if the wrong choice is made everyone loses.
While individuals making their own decisions never results in everyone making the same decision. No matter what there tend to be winners and losers. But the possibility of EVERYONE losing is infinitely lower.
“Environmentalist and lumber corporations do not need to agree on their positions, but both need to moderate their positions so the country benefits from fewer forest fires. Some logging and clearing of land so fires are easier to access and control. And this goes for everything today.”
We are near universally discussing public land. The problems you mention do not happen on private land as a result of private land owners decisions. Mega forest fires require government. They did not even occur when the land was entirely subject only to nature.
“But no one will budge on anything since they believe as you do that not getting 100% of what you want is a bad deal”
Never said that.
Do not beleive that.
Compromise is a TOOL, not an end or a value.
Lets try a simple example.
I want to eliminate SS (lets ignore the issues like how to compensate people who have an accrued benefit). You want to expand SS by 20%.
I have sufficient votes to stop you.
You have sufficient votes to stop me.
Should I compromise with you to expand SS by 10% – no way!!!!
Should I compromise with you to not add anymore new people to SS ?
Absolutely!
“Just look at your comment earlier about tax cuts and the impact of not getting everything that one might want.”
I remember my principles, and my values. I do not remember every comment I made.
What are you saying I said and what are you saying about what I said ?
Jay;
While I see many of the same things as you in the world – including the problems with people under 40. I am much more optomistic than you.
I am not particularly pro-Trump – but I am very Pro the backlash against the left he represents.
You and others here keep trying to pretend there is somekind of balance between the current evils of the left and right. To be clear – the right is not inherently good, and many of the problems that get pointed out with the right are real. But at this moment the hate, intolerance over-reach of the left is by orders of magnitude the greatest threat.
I am not sure Trump was not elected in 2016 because we were at a tipping point – anything was better than 8 more years like we just had.
And that is what we got – anything, the Anti-Clinton (mostly).
But the election is just the tip of things.
I know that in some ways the left appears to be stronger than ever right now. But I also think it is weaker than ever – I think the modern left is on the verge of imploding.
And I do not know what follows.
THAT will be the moment we need to worry about the right. When the left has self destructed, THEN we must be prepared to step in and fill the vaccuum with something other than Trumpism or many other variants of modern conservatism.
I do not however think that the milktoast moderate that is sold by many here can or will fill the gap. It will never be dominant.
Compromise is a tool – not a value.
The answers to most of our problems are not in the middle.
Nor are they ALL with one group. But every pole, and there are more than two has something to offer, some specific truth that no other group possesses so clearly.
Thanks, Jay. I’ve also found it futile to use my moderating influence to combat extremist opinions. When I’d see one of my Facebook friends post an extremist meme in the past, I’d try to infuse some common sense into the argument. But they just keep posting the same junk, and I can’t keep straightening them out without making a nuisance of myself. I’m weary of divisive politics, even though I love to sound off.
It looks as if the millennials and their younger brethren (and sistren?) will be carrying the torch of progressivism into the middle of this century and probably beyond. We’ll probably have a President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the not-too-distant future. Nothing we can do about it except cultivate our gardens, cook, get together with friends or go birdwatching. That’s real life.
I would not bet that Millennials will be progressive. Most polls of their opinions come off uninformed and weird.
They are the most self centered, the most entitled, the most me generation ever.
Things like M4A and free college appeal to them – those are benefits for THEM.
But they are also the most opposed to the social safetynet in a long time.
They also have the highest proportion of libertarians of any cohort at their ages.
Given that all cohorts become more conservative as they age – there are strong indications that the millenials are more likely to be a right shifted bubble moving through time.
That does not mean they are right wing now. Just that they are different in a sort of conservative way from their peers in prior generations at the same time.
I would further note that the left faces other “demographic” problems.
While it is true that minorities tend to be left of center, ALL groups shift right slowly the longer they are in the US and the more affluent they get.
The Irish, Italians and Jews used to be reliable democratic voting blocks – they are pretty solidly republican now.
The majority of nearly every minority is still democratic – but with Obama’s departure each minority group is shifting slightly to the right.
Much is made of the fact that Republicans must get some rediculously high proprtion of whites to win moving into the future – but that premise has an obverse – Democrats must continue to bhold rediculously high proprtions of minorities.
A 5% shift in minority voting would turn much of the country deep red.
And I keep reading that Trump is polling 10% better with blacks and Hispanics than he did in 2016.
Jay, what happened? You have mellowed so completely, I fear that you have been invaded by a body snatcher, lol. Anyway, I’m glad to hear that you give high ratings to the Instant Pot…I just bought one for my son for his upcoming birthday. He’s quite a good cook, unlike his mother, and I’ll definitely pass along your recipe. Sounds delicious.
Not mellow – resigned.
And there are far more articulate observers out there, with wide audiences clanging warning alarms on social media platforms – the most cogent and cutting prose coming from credentialed conservative writers like Rick Wilson. Have you read his new book, “Everything Trump Touches, Dies?” You can download a two chapter sample for free on Kindle or IBooks. As funny and caustic an appraisal of debauched Trumpism as can be found condensed into prose …
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/rick-wilson/everything-trump-touches-dies/
If things today are sufficient to make you curl up in a ball of despair – how would you have survived in the past ?
There are things wrong today – you and I might even agree on some of them.
No one here is more hostile to our government as it is – whether run by democrats or republicans. But there is a world of difference between many things are broken and need fixed and we are going to hell.
There is alot bad. But there is also alot good.
Whether it is silent spring, or peak oil or climate change or Trumpism – we will survive – likely even thrive.
And in fact overall thus far we appear to be doing better than any time since Clinton was president. Great ? No, but tentatively better than Bush and better than Obama.
I can ignore the spittle contest between the president and the press with a solid economy and rising standards of living.
The greatest threat to our democracy is not intolerance; it’s IGNORANCE. Selective and intentional, or uninformed and uneducated, ignorance. Our problem is not our political system; it’s our educational system. Millions of Middle Americans don’t believe Obama is evil incarnate because of the rise of the angry right; they believe it due to their ignorance. If left wingers blame their troubles on straight white males (frankly, I’m not seeing this), it’s due to their ignorance. If audiences fall prey to cherry-picked news stories, it’s due to their ignorance. If people self-select echo chambers, rather than intentionally searching for truth, it’s due to their ignorance. I have a difficult time viewing either Washington (or ESPECIALLY Franklin!) or Franklin as “moderates.” Moderation results in in achievement of NOTHING. Even Franklin’s skills in diplomacy required a PASSION for the outcome. Washington’s tolerance does not mean he was moderate. I don’t know how anyone could read about the crossing of the Delaware, or the history of Valley Forge, and conclude that he was a moderate in ANY way. He was a PASSIONATE man with an iron will. And, finally, we do not have hyperpartisanship in government, we have GREED in government. Until we have term limits, limitations on lobbying, and overturn Citizens United, nothing will change, moderates or no. As the great RBG says, it’s a pendulum, but I would add that, at least with regard to a country’s progression, the pendulum NEVER rests at midpoint.
Rebecca, I have to agree with 95% of your thoughts. I would question the thoughts about Washington since the Bill of Rights was a compromise between the federalist and anti federalist that specifically identified rights of citizens since anti federalist feared a strong central government. If this compromise was due to Washington and other federalist moderating their federalist position, that might be difficult to determine. Given our current political environment, I dont think we could ever get anything like the current constitution passed today.
And the other issue is Citizens United. Where do we limit political speech? Remember, Michael Moore produced a film , Farhenheit 9/11, highly critical of George Bush and broadcast advertisements for that during the 2004 campaign that showed clips critical of Bush. Citizens United, a non profit organization filed a complaint that the courts dismissed that claim. They found this to not be political speech. So in response, Citizens Untited released Celsius 41.11, a film highly critical of Kerry . Here, the FEC determined this violated campaign spending laws.
So we had one individual advertising a product using critical political speech that was legal and another organization using negative political speech found illegal. SCOTUS found both entities could use funds basically for the same reason.
So where do we limit freedom of speech? Can Warren Buffett spend personal funds for political speech, but a company he owns can not? Could his energy transport company be prohibited from running anti Keystone Pipeline ads during a campaign, but he could pay for those out of his private funds? Both would be against a GOP political agenda item.
Its a can of worms either way.
The bill of rights was NOT a compromise.
Our founders near universally agreed regarding the rights in the bill of rights.
What they DISAGREED about was whether having a bill of rights would result in the presumption that those were the only rights we have.
The federalists said no, the anti-federalists yes. The federalists won and we have a bill of rights,. The ant-federalists won in the sense that our only cerrain rights are those in the bill of rights.
The constitution had many compromises. I am not going to debate that with you, but you can look it up if you want.
“The constitution had many compromises.”
Of course it did, but with the exception of the issue of slavery none of those compromises were of principles or even values.
Most were not especially contentious.
The Sherman compromise that resulted in our house and senate was a big deal.
But it is not inherently ideological. No fundimental principles were involved.
We have neither the right nor the ability to preclude the russians from speaking during our elections – why would we presume that we should be able to stop citizens united ?
The remedy for bad speach is more speach. It is not enforced silence.,
No matter how bad you think allowing limitless political free speach is, the alternative – giving government the power to chose who may speak when where about what is far worse.
Becky: “I resemble that remark!” Seriously, do you believe that moderation never achieves anything? Moderation achieved our Constitution, prevailing over the sniping partisans of special interests. And who held that nest of squabblers together? Good old moderate George Washington. Moderates can be passionate, too. (Exhibit A: The New Moderate.)
I agree with you that greed and ignorance are major obstacles to better government, and that we need to sweep the power-brokers and money-changers out of Washington. But don’t underestimate the power of the media (especially the social media) to influence and radicalize even well-educated readers. Maybe the core problem isn’t ignorance so much as gullibility.
“Moderation achieved our Constitution”
Bzzt wrong. There were few if any moderates amoung our founders.
“prevailing over the sniping partisans of special interests.”
Nope, different “extremists” compromised – mostly on only a few things.
Much of the constitution was acheived without compromise by mutual agreement.
“And who held that nest of squabblers together? Good old moderate George Washington. Moderates can be passionate, too.”
Washington Moderate ?
Washington was not Samuel Adams or Patrick Henry.
But he was not Ben Franklin either and Franklin was no moderate.
Rick/Rebecca/Ron (commenter alliteration),
Ignorance undoubtedly plays a huge role in our current partisan divide. I agree 100% with that.
“Economic illiteracy”, if you will, has been largely responsible for the rise of the Sanders faction of the Democratic Party, a faction that is clearly growing exponentially. All one needs to do to see this rise of socialist and corporatist influence is to read Senator Elizabeth Warren’s new bill, the Accountable Capitalism Act, which, in Warren’s own words, is an attempt to prevent corporations from “making the rich even richer,” by removing control of corporations from the owners and directors of those corporations, and using the power of government to force our largest corporations (over $1B) to buy “federal charters,” which would then mandate that those corporations allow employees to elect 40% of the companies’ boards of directors.
So, let’s be clear…”federal charters” would give politicians and bureaucrats control over private industries, and employee-elected directors would begin to fundamentally change the entire purpose of those corporations from a shareholder-profit driven one to a redistributive one. The political power of unions would likely increase dramatically, and the ability of corporations to reinvest profits toward, say capital improvements, would almost certainly be hindered by the objection of employee directors who might insist that those profits be reinvested into increased wages and benefits. Or into social justice projects such as…well, there are many. Boondoggles, all.
So how is this not a socialist proposal? Federal regulation of corporations, decision-making power diverted from owners to workers?
But the media has latched on to this as a brilliant proposal, and the idea that it would be big government run amok is hardly mentioned. Ron’s libertarian concerns strike me as dead on the money (“money” being the operative word, here), yet I rarely hear those concerns in our supposedly unbiased media. “The power of the media (especially the social media) to influence and radicalize even well-educated readers” is, as he says, pervasive and may, at this point, be more significant than any other single factor in creating the echo chambers that inhibit the free exchange of ideas.
Why arent the people who own something the ones who should be free to decide what is done with it ?
Businesses over $1B are owned by shareholders – mostly ordinary people through their IRA’s
Am I ecstatic with every choice Amazon makes ? NO! but am I generally happier and better off as a result of Amazon ? Absolutely. Why would I ever want government or employee groups to direct Amazon – rather than Bezos ?
I am not anti-union. Form a union if you wish. I even support closed shops – in the sense that if workers can unionize and can get a closed shop contract – that is their business, not mine. Closed shops should not be illegal, they also should not be mandated.
Mostly govenrment should have nothing to do with unions.
But all that said – the industrial unions in the US in conjunction with abysmal management (and minimum wages) are responsible for the decline of many use industries – and thensubsequent demise of those unions resulted in the subsequent rise of those industries.
Why would we want to wrap into our law the very mechanism that destroyed our indistrial dominance in the 70’s and 80’s ?
Why should we thing that something that did not work before will work better next time.
We are not a democracy.
While I agree there are problems with our education system, and those problems effect our politics, remove control of education from government and return it to parents and what happens is not really the business of government.
If parents educate their kids badly – so be it.
There is no actual correct criteria for educating kids – which is why government should be uninvolved. Deciding what is best – when there are many many choices and no obviously right one is NEVER the role of government – and yet that is always education.
If there are millions out there who beleive Obama is evil incarnate – I have yet to meet a single one. I have met very very many people – who think Obama was wrong on some issue of imortance to them – and that would include me. I have found that most of those – even when they are wrong, are FAR from ignorant. In fact I have generally found some of the smartest people to be the most ignorant. Naseem Talib labels them IYI – Intellectual yet idiot.
As a left wing nut – even a highly educated one about gun control – and you will get a raft of appeals to emotion and not a single credible argument. The left’s argument is premised on the idiocy that without guns people would not kill each other – despite the fact we have been doing that for 150,000 years. Ask a gun nut – and you will get arguments. Usually pretty good ones. You may not get all the arguments, you may not get the best ones.
But the point is that the gun nuts are better informed than the anti-gun nuts.
Ignorance of issues is not uniformly distributed – and it is not distributed based on education, and all to often not based on intelligence either.
“If audiences fall prey”
Who is the predator ?
“to cherry-picked news stories,”
If I choose to watch Fox or MSNBC – isn’t that MY choice ?
Isnt the selection of what is influencing me being done by ME ?
If I choose to listen to only “hip hop” should government step in and force me to listen to some blues and classical music ?
“it’s due to their ignorance”
“I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.”
William F. Buckley
Buckley was and remains right. Those who think they know how to run our lives for us are far far more dangerous than ordinary people.
We do not need protection from the ignorant. ‘
We need protection from those who think they are entitield to protect us from the ignorant.
“And, finally, we do not have hyperpartisanship in government, we have GREED in government.”
Absolutely though I would say a corrupt lust for power rather than greed.
Power corrupts
Lord Acton.
Whatever power you give government – it will work to corrupt those wielding it.
That is unavoidable. If you wish to reduce corruption in government you must:
Reduce the power of government
Increase the complexity in excercising that power.
“Until we have term limits,”
So change the law.
“limitations on lobbying, and overturn Citizens United,”
Again you are free to change the law. Though I would specifically note you are attacking the WRONG side of the problem.
Lobbiest – are villified, but they are NOT THE PROBLEM
Money in politics is NOT THE PROBLEM – we spend less on political campaigns each year than on snack foods – chips and pretzels.
Trump defeated Clinton with a bit more than half the campaign spending.
Money is a facilitator of speach – and that is why CU was CORRECTLY decided.
Barring third parties from spending money on political speach is about the most egregious violation of the 1st amendment conceivable.
Regardless corruption in government is a GOVERNMENT problem.
Politicians selling themselves is a problem of misconduct by politicians – not lobiests or third parties.
With respect to pendulum’s they NEVER rest.
Rick, I thought people were getting dumber , but they even exceed my expectations. How can we expect people to moderate when they keep doing idiotic things like this that support the extremist in the country.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/13/peter-strzok-gofundme/983571002/
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Are-Texas-moderates-dead-armadillos-Beto-bets-13147315.php
Who really believes Beto ORourke will be that moderate democrat that will go against Shumer once elected and indocrinated into the workings of Washington.
Texas is a good example of changing demographic in this country. Increasing hispanic population, increasing liberal vote from employees transferring jobs from high tax states like California to Texas and the idiotic movement of GOP candidates further right that disenfranchizes the right of center voters who might just buy the Ayahuasca effect of the lefts “\moderate” message in red leaning states.
Hi Rick. Good luck to you.
They are not winning, they have won. Its over. I thought the trump level of decay of our society could be rolled back. It can’t. No matter what happens in future elections we have become this sad disgusting nihilistic decaying culture and there is no going back. Rioting snowflakes and economic illiterates on one side, an entirely vile, shallow, psychologically damaged and damaging president and his brainwashed nihilistic nationalist movement on the other. Whatever side wins future elections, they will be nothing I want.
Sodium is an explosive metal. Chlorine is a poisonous green gas. Combined they make salt, which is cool to look at under magnification, tasty in food, and when dissolved provides essential ions to the body to power cellular processes. Unfortunately It does not work that way with explosive and poisonous political movements. They just poison us and explode us, nothing tasty, nothing essential.
RIP civilization as we knew it.
Yes. I agree. We’re in a downward FUBARed spiral.
Luckily, there is solace in artistic distraction. If it wasn’t for the vast resovoir of YouTube videos of film & music (and Irish Whiskeyat Costco), I’d be curled up in a ball or despair.
Here’s today life-buoy saving vid from the wonderful 1979 film “All That Jazz.”
Aside from the assertion that both sides are stupid what are you saying that is new, or catastrophic ?
We have problems ? What is new, my entire life we have had problems.
Real progress in the 21st century has been poor compared to the 20th – but the US is still outperforming the rest of the developed world.
Our debt is too high. That did not change on Nov. 9 2016. that is a big problem, I do not want to pretend we can ignore it. But we actually have alot of time – it just will be a little more painful to fix with each passing year.
Things are contentious.
Worse than during the McCarthy era ?
Worse than the violent strikes and bombings that occured in the late 19th early 20th century ?
Worse that the civil war ?
“Aside from the assertion that both sides are stupid what are you saying that is new, or catastrophic ?”
Technology. twitter et al. Mass ugliness and stupidity, hyperdivision, and a movement to further and further extremes has been an unintended by product of technology. Its here to stay. It was like giving alcohol to native americans.
I don’t disagree with you, grump. I don’t think that it had to be this way, but it is what it is, and it’s seemingly getting worse. Our new Masters of the Universe, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Cook, Pichai, Dorsey, et.al. could help, but they seemed disinclined…
“Technology. twitter et al. Mass ugliness and stupidity, hyperdivision, and a movement to further and further extremes has been an unintended by product of technology. Its here to stay. It was like giving alcohol to native americans.”
Bunk. I can not beleive you are that ignorant of the past.
I am deeply fearful of the violence of the left at the moment – and the left is far more likely – both in reality and historically to engage in violence.
But even saying that we have had far worse political violence in the past. Even during your and my lifetimes.
Obama’s Buddy and likely ghost writer, blew people up for political reasons in our lifetimes.
The were bombs and riots and arson and looting on a huge scale in the sixties.
Nor is that the worst violence in our history.
I have serious problems with the censorship on social media.
To be clear I do NOT want government to involve itself.
And I actually think it will fix itself shortly. FB’s stock tanked recently.
If 10% of the right moved from the left leaning and censoring social media tomorow.
It would take less than a week for policies to be changed.
And either they will or we are going to see social media splinter.
Either is fine by me.
At the same time, I think that Social media makes us LESS violent.
We have the oportunity to dike it out with words rather than fists or bombs or weapons.
Inarguably we are LESS violent overall today than 50, 100, 200 years ago.
Nor do I have a problem with people speaking our – even angrily. I think that is a GOOD thing, It is even a good thing when I think those speaking angrily are wrong.
As to being more divided – yes. The left has moved further left.
Regardless, our divisions are nearly all about politics – and those are easy to solve.
Disempower government.
We are fighting over using force through government against each other.
The answer is really simple – left, right, it does not matter – absent sufficient justificant, absent actual proven effect, absent supermajority support we should not use force against each other.
I am fine with angry words.
“Bunk”
If only. If only some master of denial guy on a blog saying bunk actually made something bunk. The ability to pen denials on a blog is Not actually a superpower. Just one little quantum of No in a big universe.
You are monotonously, repetitively, and fanatically fixated on your obsessions and oblivious to anything that is not one of your obsessions.
Fact and reality are independent of your opinions.
Facts are monotonously, repetitively, and fanatically fixated on reality and oblivious to your oppinions.
Another reason the extremist are winning.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/senate-gop-split-over-food-stamp-work-requirements
In the 90’s, Bill Clinton signed a “workfair” bill thatvrequired able bodied individuals to be emp!oyed, showing efforts to gain employment or be enrolled in training. During the great recession, Obama activated waiver programs that today are still being granted where recipients dont gave to work.
Today there are over 6,million job openings fron unskilled to skilled. Why one would not want to provide those on food stamps the opportunity to work and receive assistence is beyond my comprehension. Someone important once said (paraphrased) ” give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime” Also “God helps them who help themselves”
As Dave has pointed out so many times about government programs being impossible to take away after they are provided, few of us accept that a temporary program to help during hard times should expire in good times.
That then creates the extremist that want government to provide everything and those that accept no government help because we know once it is created, it never goes away. We just keep funding and promoting dependency.
Somehow I got “unfollowed” on Word Press for this site.bTrying tonget it bsck. Hope this wirks.
Hmm, if putin’s hackers go after conservatives and do damage will gop voter finally wake up? (nah, too far gone into the trump narrative is my guess).
(from the nytimes):
“The Russian military intelligence unit that sought to influence the 2016 election appears to have a new target: conservative American think tanks that have broken with President Trump and are seeking continued sanctions against Moscow, exposing oligarchs or pressing for human rights.
In a report scheduled for release on Tuesday, Microsoft Corporation said that it detected and seized websites that were created in recent weeks by hackers linked to the Russian unit formerly known as the G.R.U. The sites appeared meant to trick people into thinking they were clicking through links managed by the Hudson Institute and the International Republican Institute, but were secretly redirected to web pages created by the hackers to steal passwords and other credentials.
Microsoft also found websites imitating the United States Senate, but not specific Senate offices or political campaigns.
The shift to attacking conservative think tanks underscores the Russian intelligence agency’s goals: to disrupt any institutions challenging Moscow and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.”
From cnn:
“The Kremlin on Tuesday denied any knowledge of attempts to interfere in US elections.”Our reaction has already become traditional: we don’t know which hackers they are talking about, we don’t know what is meant about the impact on elections,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in response to a CNN question. “From the US, we hear that there was not any meddling in the elections. Whom exactly they are talking about, what is the proof, and on what grounds are they reaching such conclusions?”
He added, “We don’t understand, and there is no information, so we treat such allegations accordingly.”
In an interview with Reuters on Monday, Trump — who has openly and repeatedly questioned US intelligence findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of harming Hillary Clinton’s campaign to aid his bid — blamed special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the matter for undermining his efforts to improve relations with Moscow.
Mueller’s investigation has “played right into the Russians — if it was Russia — they played right into the Russians’ hands,” the President said.”
Well, nytimes, cnn, these are simply fake news organizations, so we can take the lead of our potus and go back to thinking about baseball or mexicans.
Correct me if I’m wrong, grump, but I believe that we have had ” continued sanctions against Moscow,” even increasing sanctions, throughout the Trump presidency? Am I wrong about that?
I wonder what the media would say if Trump, like Angela Merkel, the “true leader of the free world”, according to the NYT, pursued negotiations to allow Russia to build a pipeline through the Baltic Sea, potentially solidifying Russia’s dominant energy position in Europe, despite the objections of many of the other NATO leaders.
“President Donald Trump’s warnings against a planned pipeline to bring oil from Russia to Germany will not disrupt the venture, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed in a joint press conference over the weekend.”
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-cannot-derail-russian-pipeline-germany-merkel-putin-confirm-1081515
Hmmm, one of our “close European allies” thumbing her nose at the US president, in favor of Putin? While the US is spending billions to protect Europe from Russia?
I’m curious as to why the American media seem focused on Trump’s supposed obsequiousness to Putin, while the German Chancellor is holding joint press conferences with the Russia dictator, celebrating a joint energy agreement and announcing that US opposition to the venture will be ignored?
“Hmm, if putin’s hackers go after conservatives and do damage will gop voter finally wake up? (nah, too far gone into the trump narrative is my guess).”
What specifically are you trying to address ?
Every nation in the world engages in cyber spying. The US is #1 at that – we had to apologize to Merkel for listening in on her cell phone.
I am highly dubious of the claim that the DNC was hacked by Russia. The evidence is weak and does not nearly as strongly point to Russia as claimed.
If you have any real connections to the Black Hat/White Hat world, you would know that it is nearly impossible to determine who actually hacked someone.
Every single thing that CrowdStrike claims fingers Russia is very easy for anyone with more skill than a script kiddie to fake.
But lets say Russia hacked the DNC – are you going to war over it ?
And if the Russian’s have the RNC ? So ?
Further I would ask regardless of whether it is the RNC ro the DNC – if the brass in one party was plotting the demise of one candidate with another – isn’t that News ?
Why did it take a Russian Hacker ? Why not NYT or WaPo ?
If the DNC is behaving badly – that is news. Finding that our is call investigative journalism.
If the RNC is behaving badly – they are fair game too.
As to your “story” – Microsoft does not control or have the power to “seize” web sites.
Either the reporting is bogus or inaccurate.
Further the description is muddy.
There are some hacking techniques to intercept aomeone else’s domain – but those techniques are fairly sophisticated and require armies of actual “bots” – that term is pretty much never used propertly by the left or medai. A “bot” is a computer that some hacker has inflitrated that they can control – as an example to launch DDOS attacks on other computers. Or to mask their own identity by routing their actions through an array of “bots”.
Intercepting a domain is a very shortlived technique – typically for hours before the problem is fixed. The DNS system is reasonably robust against these kinds of attacks.
Further they typically are fairly local – you can not as an example easily pretend to be “microsoft.com” accross the entire world. But you might be able to poison parts fo the DNS system so that you can in Ypsilanti, Michigan sor a few hours.
More likely you have someone who bought related domain names – “microsoft.sex”\
and is pretending to be “microsoft.com”
And finally – AGAIN, if you think that you know that the GRU or PRC, or NK is behind some hacking. You are nearly certainly wrong.
Regardless, the whole “microsoft” angle on this is weird.
Microsoft is not the internet police. They do not control the internet – to the extent it is controlled it is controlled by Internic. Microsoft has ZERO to do with root DNS, and ZERO to do with web hosting.
The entire Microsoft angle on this is just highly suspcious.
As to CNN – whatever the Kremlin is doing (or not doing) it is going to deny it.
We can be sure that the Kremlin – like PRC, NK, IRAN, Pakistan, …. and the US are up to no good. But anyone claiming to be about to prove specific modern internet malfeasance is smoking whacky weed,.
As to Trump questioning US intelligence – ABSOLUTELY – so do I.
And not just on Russian hacking, on pretty much everything US intelligence tells us.
Why exactly does the left buy into this particular claim when they did not buy into say the Yellow Cake claim ? Or the WMD claim or ….
Why is one of the least evidenced claims credible by myriads of false claims that had more behind them were not beleived ?
I do not Trust the US IC on pretty much anything. Why would I trust them about Trump ?
And yes, NYT has a pretty bad track record, and what you are selling has so many questionable claims that ir wreaks of “fake news”.
Priscilla, In fact, you understand my point perfectly well, deflections, but whataboutism, and smoke screens aside.
putin’s KGB methods at work in the world and now even at work in America and the trump-putin relationship are incredibly serious matters and it is not going to turn out at all well in the fullness of time for trump or putin, or America(ns) or Russian(ns).
Ok, grump, but the truth is, I was genuinely asking how you could believe that Trump, who has been very tough on Russia , is a Putin puppet, and Merkel who is up Putin’s butt and stabbing Ukraine and Poland in the backs (not to mention the US) is somehow not.
It’s not “whataboutism” at all ~ it would be whataboutism if Trump were making lucrative deals with Putin and I was saying that he was no different than Merkel.
I’m saying that he is NOT like Merkel, and that he has pursued a very tough policy toward Russia, while insisting that he would be open to better diplomatic relations. Sort of the opposite of Obama, who after the initial “reset button” phase, spoke tougher diplomatically, but was willing to pursue unilateral nuclear disarmament, abandon plans to place missile defense systems in eastern Europe and refused to send arms to Ukraine.
I’m willing to accept that Obama believed that appeasement would work better than sanctions. So, that isn’t whataboutism either . It’s just my opinion that Obama’s Russian policy was far weaker than Trump’s, despite his tough talk.
There is more comedy here than in the 2 hours of “the great race” that the wife and I just watched. Seriously you are speaking in tongues no one could really be so lost. Good Grief! adn Good Night!
The comedy is that you see the world with blinders.
I read an excellent article several months ago where someone took the who Trump thing and moved it to 2020, replacing Obama/Clinton with Trump and Trump with Oprah.
If Trump tried the crap that Clinton and Obama did – we would bring back keelhauling.
Your ecstatic because Cohen plead guilty to the non-crime of coordinating with Trump to keep embarassing but not criminal things secret.
AGAIN – doesn’t that make whoever hacked the DNC into hero’s and Clinton into a criminal in an altogether new way ?
If you want to credibly “get Trump” – do so following “the rule of law”.
Laws narrowly construed, and apply the same to all, blind to who they are or what their ideology is.
If you can not do that you are openly lawless. You are the tyrant and authoritarian you accuse Trump of.
Claims of “Whataboutism” are the pretense that hypocracy is acceptable.
BTW your post was not “whataboutism” it was a refutation of the central claim that putin and trump are in league.
Calling Obama’s foreign policy “apeasement” is being generous. It presumes that there was some kind of actually coherent foreign policy.
Rather than “its Tuesday – how do we feel about Russia on Tuesdays ?”
No Grump – we do NOT understand your point.
Priscilla provided real FACTS, that we can all verify – not questionable speculation masquerading as news.
It is possible that there is some germ of meaning hidden in the stories you linked – but it is hard to tell, because whoever wrote them is clearly clueless.
Microsoft may have found something regarding Russian hacking – though I am highly dubious of ANYONE claiming to know who the source of a hack is.
You can not even tell if it appears that the hacker carelessly made a mistake that revealed their identity – that could just as easily be a different hacker deliberating pointing the blame at another.
You do not seem to understand – there are individual hackers unaffiliated with nations, that have thousands of actual bots across the world, as well as the hacking toolkits of every single major foriegn power – CIA, NSA, Russia, PRC, …. and can arrange a hack to appear to have come from anywhere.,
It is just simply not possible to trace a hack that way today.
The best you can hope for is a report from your own mole inside an organization – and even that could be disinformation.
False Flags are centuries.
One of the many reasons for not trusting the IC is specifically because they claim to be sure. Just like they were sure of WMD’s and Yellow cake and …….
I am sure Putin’s KGB works hard.
I am equally sure that neither you, not the NYT, nor the US IC nor Crowdstrike, nor anyone short of that actually doing whatever the “KGB”
BTW – the “Russian” KGB no longer exists. Russian intelligence was divided into other agencies in 1991.
Extremist on the left are going to celebrate. As ABC has stated “A federal jury in Virginia found former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort guilty on eight counts of financial crimes, marking the first major prosecution won by special counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation of Russian meddling during the 2016 election.”
The right is going to dig in and claim this proves nothing and is not a “major prosecution won by special counsel Robert Mueller in his investigation of Russian meddling during the 2016 election.”
Just like most special prosecutors, they cant find anything connected to their primary directive, so they do the work of LEO’s and the FBI to justify their existence and then claim “major” wins.
Should Manaford have been prosecuted? Yes. But this is still what I believe is Muellers effort to change the direction of politics in this country. Today this win. Within a fouple months Cohen will plead guilty. Both will be sentenced just before the election. The campaigns will not be about the direction of the couhtry, economics, trade, jobs, healthcare or anything else important, it will be thosearound Trump are criminal s. And I suspect everything anyone is convicted of will be crimes committed well before the election.
And Putin most likely is preparing bonuses for those doing A JOB WELL DONE!
“Within a fouple months Cohen will plead guilty. ”
Er, done already, couple of months early:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/michael-cohen-plea-deal-talks/index.html
Me not having anything on par with your fear of government I see nothing sinister in Meuller.
The sleaze and incompetence around trump and his own belief in his unaccountability made this inevitable. The systems is trying to work in spite of remarkable circumstances. My view is that not holding trump and his circle accountable would be a terrible blow to our fabric.
The campaign will be about everything and anything that any clever campaign manager anywhere can think up. This time around that is going to include the stink that trump has brought in many ways, its completely fair game.
“Er, done already, couple of months early:”
Not really. They have not been to court for sentencing. Mueller wants a REALLY BIG SHOW this fall when the ax falls. Big headlines when Manaford gets probably 15 years and Cohen somewhere close. Somewhere around Oct 20th to Nov 1st.
What this points out to me is the FBI is close to a useless agency since all of this has been readily available for investigators to find. Why have they not done this? Right now it appears they are impotent , or they were working so hard to cover Hillary’,s ass they did not have time to look into Manaford.
Yes, I have a very low regard for our government and those that work for the government except for the military. I have a low opinion of Trump, but no where near as bad as I view The Bitch. Comey did everything he could to cover for Clinton and when their game plan failed, Rosenstein took over in the fourth quarter and brought in a new quarterback to save their game.
This is more of this garbage crap – like the fake “money laundering”
“Cohen admitted that “in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office,” he kept information that would have harmed Trump from becoming public during the 2016 election cycle.”
If the above is a crime – then clinton and the DNC are criminals, and whoever hacked the DNC is a hero.
There is absolutely nothing illegal about buying peoples silence about things that are harmful but not criminal.
I get so tired of this “made up” law – especially when Mueller and Federal prosecutors are pushing this garbage.
grump, I think that the issue, for many of us, is equal justice under the law, or lack of same.
It’s been pretty clear, over the last couple of years that, if your last name is Clinton, or if you work for someone with the last name of Clinton, you will receive extremely preferential treatment from the federal legal system, despite pretty obvious criminal behavior….
Absolutely – what is most disturbing about this entire legal war on Trump and everyone close to him, is that we have had to stretch the law beyond recognition to do so.
But the very people doing the stretching are not applying this highly elastic scheme of criminal law to any but Trump targets.
By the very same legal interpretations that the left and these prosecutors are selling – the entire obama administration as well as Clinton and everyone she knows would be in jail for decades.
I mean really ? Conspired to keep harmful information secret ?
Isn’t that Clinton’s entire life ?
Doesn’t that make whoever hacked the DNC into hero’s ?
Do the people who cheer this kind of garbage actually consider the possibility that it will be used against them ?
“Comey did everything he could to cover for Clinton and when their game plan failed, Rosenstein took over in the fourth quarter and brought in a new quarterback to save their game.”
That is a conspiracy theory pure and simple. You surprise me.
To address both your comments and Priscilla’s: Clinton’s e-mail scandal was fair game for being exposed and it was typically arrogant and sloppy Clintonian being above the rules behavior. But what it got blown up into in conservative/gop minds was out of all proportion to the situation. Conservatives set their sights on a criminal prosecution of a major party nominee, which would have been an extraordinary event, and really destructive use of a scandal. She did a stupid and arrogant thing, she got caught, she paid the price in the campaign. Throwing her in jail or putting her on trial during the campaign is so far over the top I cannot believe that anyone other than a real zealot would have expected it. So, you guys are welcome to despise Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller, and the FBI and government itself in some cases to boot! I see that as being completely absurd.
Meanwhile, trump has undermined in his incredible words the very existence of the Russian attack on our election and work of our security agencies, which is beyond all of my belief and totally unacceptable and more than any other single thing fuels my shock at and contempt for his presidency.
Many, many conservatives, and, I guess, libertarians have lost it completely regarding the FBI and Attorney Generals office. If you all actually were to get your revolution and tear it down you would not like the destructive results when they came to fruit. I regard this whole acidic and conspiracy prone outlook as one of the truly bizarre and extreme paths that have captured the conservative mindset, in a similar way to the liberal mindset having been seduced by scandinavianism. Both sides are losing it,headed for other universes.
Neither weird grotesque crusade is going to succeed, and thank god. We are not going to go Scandinavian as the left wants and we are not going to tear down our security agencies and Attorney General’s office as the right wants. Extremists are not going to win those battles.
What they are going to do is foment a near civil war in trying. Its all delusional and unnecessary, a waste of huge energy thrown into division rather than constructive acts.
“Both sides are losing it,headed for other universes”
So true! And when one with differing opinions reads your comments, they are as delusional for a conservative reader as mine may be to a liberal reader.
If you think we are not headed for “scandinavianism” as you put it, you are as delusional as you claim I am. Chuck Shumer as Senate Majority leader, Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker and Warren/Sanders/Booker/Biden Clinton etc, etc as president will only lead to more entitlement paid for by those earning a living, open borders leading to more Molly Tibbetts, more regulations creating job loses (thus increasing entitlement needs), more sanctuary cities, falling retirement funds due to falling stock market prices, and special treatment for LGBTQ, giving them “rights” that “straights” do not receive. And that is just the top of agenda. Much more hidden in the deeply left agenda that will also become law.
You comment concerning special treatment of Clinton, etc.”That is a conspiracy theory pure and simple. You surprise me.” Really? Look at all the people charged with lying to the FBI, for much the same as Clinton. Why was she not charged? Then I have said all along as we get closer to the election, Mueller would get the trials going or get the deals on charges. Make headlines. That is now happening . “Conspiracy theory” or reality?
““Comey did everything he could to cover for Clinton and when their game plan failed, Rosenstein took over in the fourth quarter and brought in a new quarterback to save their game.”
That is a conspiracy theory pure and simple. You surprise me.”
What part is theory ?
The conspiracy part is true enough – like REAL Conspiracy.
We have Obama going on TV and announcing in the midst of the investigation that Clinton did nothing wrong.
Trump gets anywhere near that and we hear screams of “obstruction of justice”.
If it is obstruction when Trump does it, then it is when Obama does it.
Regardles, clearly the DOJ and FBI bent over backwards to tank a prosecutable case.
Yes, people have been charged, convicted and jailed for less than Clinton did.
Petreus, Deutch, Sausier, Manning, Snowden, …..
Seriously disturbing is Comey’s rewriting the stature to require intent.
Republicans have been thwarted by democrats in seeking to add a default “mens rea” requirement to Federal law – intent is required of all state criminal charges EXCEPT a very few laws where “gross negligence” – the exact language Comey sleazed arround obvioates the need for intent.
As a rule intent is NOT actually required for federal crimes. Comey knows that.
It is wrong. With very very few exceptions intent should be required.
The gross neglegence of a public servant would be one of those.
Beyond that – look at what the IG found – while I think he was being extremely generous to Comey – it still was damning.
You are left to conclude that either the DOJ/FBI are more incompetent than the keystone cops – or they were engaged in a criminal conspiracy (actually several),
The rule of law means we prosecute people for crimes – when there is sufficient evidence that they have committed a crime.
We do so whether they are poor, or rich, or a presidential candidate for a major party.
This did not get “blown out of proportion”
We prosecuted and convicted Duetch for less – and Bill Clinton pardoned him.
We prosecuted Petreaus for Less.
We now know from Strzok that more than one “hostile foreign power” though not Russia, managed to get classified information from Clinton’s recklessness.
That did not occur with Deutch, or Petreaus,
Why were they charged and prosecuted and not Clinton ?
I do not recall any exception to “the rule of law not man” that says – if you can hide your malfeasance long enough and run for president you can not be prosecuted ?
You seem to want Trump prosecuted for made up crimes while president.
How would prosecuring a political candidate who actually committed crimes be worse ?
And why are you bothering to defend Clinton.
If you loath Trump so badly – a major factor in his election – was CLINTON.
Lets forget DOJ/FBI – why didn’t democrats abandon Clinton ?
There are myriads of reasons that she was an abysmal choice for democrats.
Lost in all this fake Russia flipped our election garbage is that Clinton lost because she was Clinton.
If you think Republicans should not have selected Trump – and they should not have, they had many excellent choices,
uWhy did democrats choose Clinton
If your standards prohibit you from voting for Trump – how could you vote for Clinton ?
I did not vote for either. You had the same choice.
I find it hillarious that anyone who voted for Clinton can complaint about trump.
Someone despises Comey Rosenstein and Mueller ?
No. What I want to know is how we still do not have probable cause that a crime was committed – and yet we have marshalled massive federal resources investigating it.
Comey has done an excellent job of trashing himself. He does not need my help.
Regardless, AGAIN – “the rule of law”.
The constitution REQUIRES that a request for a Warrant must be a SWORN statement that there is probable cause that a crime had been committed and that the person being searched was involved.
The FISA Warrant was SWORN 4 times.
Today – there is STILL not probable cause. Worse we KNOW that FBI/DOJ KNEW there was not probable cause.
Yet those you names and a few others swore out a warrant and have not even been charged.
Papadoulis is likely headed to jail for – misremembering the dates of one of his conversations in a converstation not a sworn statement with the FBI.
Flynn is likely headed to jail for ???? No one is exactly sure – because even Strzok did not think he was lying – but Mueller is prosecuting.
Yet McCabe and Comey have told bigger whoppers – to agents, and under oath and no one is prosecuting.
The malfeasance of those in government is well known and not in despute and the evidence makes it bigger everyday.
But each day the left goes spitting mad over the latest speculation regarding Trump that never materializes.
I would not jail those who signed the FISA Warrant – though I am tempted.
Nor would I jail all the people that Mueller is intent on for much lessor offenses.
You can not be celebrating the prosecution of these Trump affiliates when those so close to that prosecution are guilty of much more.
What purpose does the FBI serve ? The US has no federal general police power.
The FBI has always been of dubious constitutionality.
If it must exist – reduce it to those things that are actually in the domain of the federal government – and most federal prosecutions arent.
You say I should not attack DOJ.
Does that mean you are a “drug warrior” ? that you oppose justice reform ?
Because the DOJ has been big on those.
I do not grasp why you trust the FBI and DOJ when it serves you but not when it does not ?
“I regard this whole acidic and conspiracy prone outlook as one of the truly bizarre and extreme paths that have captured the progressive mindset,”
The very people you say have not conspired have worked together for several years to investigate something that they have had evidence from the begining was not there,
Aparently it is OK in your world for CIA/DOJ/FBI to use the awesome power of govenrment to chase down conpiracy theories – but it is some kind of nutcase conspiracy for anyone to be offended by that.
“we are not going to tear down our security agencies and Attorney General’s office as the right wants”
That is what I want. That is not what the right wants. The right is a very big supporter of all of those institutions, The right is just after a few heads – heads that should have rolled long ago.
I am after as much diminishment as possible of corrupt government institutions.
Institutions that were corrupt long before they went after Trump.
Institutions that the left opposed – until the controlled them.
Please tell me what good the CIA/FBI/DOJ actually are ?
What have they gotten right ?
“Extremists are not going to win those battles.”
Because you say so ?
Regardless, the extremism is on the left.
Whatever the flaws of the right at the moment – and there are many – those flaws are neither new nor any worse – in fact they are diminished from the “extremism” of the right in the past.
The left has gone full bull moose looney.
Ron, Clinton did a stupid thing with her server. In no way was it for monetary gain. It may have violated the letter of the law. If we throw everyone in jail who did a stupid thing last year that violated the letter of the law, then there will be more people in prison that out of it. Who will pay? I will bet that more than once in your own life you have done a stupid thing that violated the letter of the law. You should be in jail, right? Your standards for the conduct of human beings in government are beyond the limits of reality. If someone uses their position in government to illegally enrich themself, then I will be very interested, like those two shits in the NY legislature Or Rod the serbian in Illinois. Life in prison for them would be fine by me. I despise the Clintons, but I am Nothing compared to you, you have an obsession, its an obsession common on the right.
I should break this down into individual shorter comments to your post but I am too lazy. So, next issue:
Rest assured we are not headed for scandinavian government. Americans are not scandinavians and do not want that level of taxation and bureaucracy as a group. Progressives will try, and they will fail. Its not in American political DNA.
By your libertarian standards it may seem like America is going scandinavian. I’ve told the story here many times of Vermont passing a law to transit to single payer, the Governor staked his career on it, the legislature was completely liberal dem dominated, the population was all in favor of it. Yet, it did not happen. When the actual costs of the real system were revealed the liberal dems in the legislature said, no. Progs were livid, but life went on. Nationally We will not get single payer. It just won’t work here, in this country with its history, demographics, political makeup etc. We won’t get free collage or a $15 minimum wage either. The actual costs when determined for a real bill in congress with a chance of passing will kill all those prog ideas.
Your outlook is libertarian and I admit I am becoming more adn more unsympathetic with any form of libertarian and not because of the stoner candidate etc and other screwballs. If only libertarianism meant being socially liberal and fiscally conservative then it would have something. Instead it means an acidic and entirely impossibly downsized view of government that you can flat out forget about because it ain’t gonna ever happen.
I completely understand you when you have realistic gripes about govt. spending. Complaining that govt. programs don’t have to pass efficiency evaluations and get modified or eliminated when they don’t pass is totally reasonable. Complaining about redundant programs, reasonable; complaining about deficit spending, reasonable; not wanting any new large entitlements, reasonable; wanting the existing entitlements put on stable ground, reasonable. Just being libertarian generally being anti government, not reasonable, not constructive, not persuasive, and not a winning strategy to change any of your gripes. Fight individual wars with the specifics of particular cost cutting ideas, that is my advice. A McCain presidency would have been like that, that is what McCain was about. I could have easily lived with that kind of presidency.
The stuff about Rosenstein, Comey, the FBI all working on some plan to affect the election is true mind shit, even if some prediction based on that mind shit comes to pass. A broken clock… Do you think they all have secret meetings, the Clintons are sending money to offshore accounts of all the co conspirators? You are out of your mind on this one, and far from alone, its a mass conservative cult of true mind shit. You may as well be telling me that W Bush orchestrated 9/11. Contrails, have you considered contrail conspiracy as an avenue of interest? I have no patience with this nonsense.
Grump. What I want is consistency. I want the laws to be followed by everyone. If Martha Stewart is convicted of lying to the FBI, then I want Clinton at least charged with the same crime and go to court to defend her position. You might say there is no evidence of her lying to the FBI when she commented on using a illegal computer in her home, that it was cleaned of info before they got hold of it and she “wiped it with a cloth”, etc etc. Had you or I have done that, we would have been in court defending ourselves. And Comey is justs as guilty as he covered up for that crap.
But the left is not going to buy into that position. She never lied, she never did anything illegal, she was just guilty of being uniformed. Sorry, ignorance of the law is not a defense.
As for the rest of the story, that will just have to play out. Yes, there are many surrounding Trump guilty of crimes that occurred years before he became president. But what the hell does that have to do with him working with Russia to capture the election? Why is Mueller investigating anything but Russia/Trump collusion? Why did Rosenstein give Mueller the “and anything that may arise” directive when investigating Russia? Why is that not being turned over to the FBI to investigate and charged if something is found outside Russia/Trump collusion?
Why is it so hard for people to question what government does and then think people are kooks that do question.
I have argued HERE repeatedly that we must minimize discretion in the enforcement of law.
I do not think that lying to a federal agent (that includes forest rangers BTW) should be a crime.
But so long as it is, everyone we are aware of who has done that should be prosecuted.
Further the standards of conduct that we hold those in government to should ALWAYS be higher than those of private parties.
Papadoulis and Van Der Zwan were private individuals who did not ask for the attention fo the FBI.
McCabe, Comey, Rosenstein are our government.
When they lie – they are lying both for and too all of us.
The fact that donations to the Clinton Foundation resulted in expedited service from the State department is FAR more serious than Trump getting a NDA from a porn star.
Some of the conduct of Clinton is not criminal. The lies of Clinton and the rest of the administration – atleast those not under oath or to government agents are NOT crimes.
But they are serious – VERY serious. Far more serious than whatever the latest Trump outrage of the say.
Clinton was not ignorant of the law.
She knew exactly what she was doing.
We have her emails stating that she was trying to prevent FOIA requests from getting her Sec State communications.
We also know that she considered all the security issues a nusance and sought to thwart them.
The claim that she is innocent by virtue of ignorance is like saying that someone tossing lit matches arround a gas station is innocent when things catch fire.
I would further note that for them most part in the current story Clinton has managed to disappear.
I do not have any LEGAL problems with Clinton’s conduct regarding the Steele Dossier – or even what I know of the efforts to feed that garbage to the FBI.
Clinton was a private party. She is free to seek dirt on Trump.
Even in Russia, and even from Russian agents,.
She is free to try to feed the DOJ/CIA/FBI to that information.
Just as Trump Jr. was free to meet with Natalia in hope of the same.
The misconduct is on the part of the CIA/FBI/DOJ
Who used the power of government to target political enemies.
There need be no conspiracy. It does nto appear that mostly this was done with great secrecy – though tremendous efforts are being made to keep it secret now.
The misconduct we know is sufficient.
Further when the police powers of the govenrment are deployed against people,
the responsibility rests with government to justify each step in the process.
Trust me,
Is not good enough.
Ron – I do not think we honestly know whether those near Trump are guilty of anything.
Manafort and Cohen are not people I would prefer to be associated with.
Both have done well and made money and worked hard not to give the government much of it.
They MAY have done so illegally, but we do not really know that.
I have little doubt that a jury of 12 ordinary people from NYC or alexandria will see anyone with more money than they efforts to reduce their taxes as illegal.
Given that Mueller has charged lots of things that are not crimes, and the SDNY USADA has managed to get Cohen to plead guilty to something that is not a crime – my faith in prosecutors is zero.
Further, the awesome power of government is not normally targetted at the Cohens and Manaforts of the world. Usually it is targeted at the unknowns.
But it is no more properly deployed.
I beleive that every single person on the national exhonerated list – that is people PROVEN to be innocent, confessed.
No One can withstand a determined federal prosecutor.
Mueller destroyed Richard Jewel.
Ruined Steven Hatfill’s life, and
And drove Brice Ivin’s to suicide.
I do not beleve that the conduct in washington is unusual.
It is still incredibly wrong.
What is unusual is that we have found out about it.
There are numerous problems with Rosensteins authorization of Mueller.
Judge Ellis did an excellent analysis in his review.
While he ruled in Mueller’s favor, he did so basically because he determined that even if Mueller exceeded his scope – Rosenstein had the authority to increase that scope.
He noted that there were serious problems – that the law was not intended for the purpose it was being used – but ultimately concluded that either congress or the supreme court had to address that.
He essentially said the entire SC investigation was WRONG, and politically disasterous, probably unconstitutional, but not illegal.
I am not sure I agree.
I think that the mixing of a counterintelligence operation and a criminal investigation is a huge constitutional rights violation – the FBI keeps a chinese wall between the two.
How was Mueller going to keep from violating rights ?
I have several other problems – the law actually requires that SC’s be appointed to investigate crimes. There is no specified crime in the SC charge.
The SC law is also to be used only to investigate people withwhom DOJ/FBI has a conflict.
Finally though the courts have recently ruled on this, they have ruled wrong.
The SC is clearly NOT an “inferior government appointment”.
As such he must be appointed by the president and approved by congress.
Fundimentally the SC law is constitutionally flawed.
The IC law had serious problems but was better.
It is CONGRESSes responsibility to investigate the executive.
We have seen that work badly two ways.
First during the Obama administration when congress found evidence of a crime, it refered that to DOJ where the referal died.
During the Trump administration, Rosenstein is accountable to no one. Not the president, not the voters, not congress.
He has absolutely no oversight – and therefore neither does Mueller.
Anything that may arrise is pretty normal.
What is not normal is how it has been handled.
Mueller found that the Cohen investigation – regardless of what it found had no nexus with Trump/Russia and handed it off to SDNY.
While that is like two wolves arguing with a chicken over what’s for dinner, still Mueller correctly dumped Cohen.
But he should have done the same with Manafort.
There is less connection between Manafort and Trump/Russia than Cohen.
“Ron, Clinton did a stupid thing with her server. In no way was it for monetary gain. It may have violated the letter of the law. If we throw everyone in jail who did a stupid thing last year that violated the letter of the law, then there will be more people in prison that out of it”
False. Clinton’s own emails demonstrate that she DELIBERATELY setup the separate E-Mail server to prevent her State department emails from being subject to FOIA requests.
Further this is not just Clinton – she directed several key staff to do the same – HRC’s account was not the only one on that server.
Even ignoring the Espionage issues – her admitted intentions are a clear violation of the law. In this instance they are not a violation of a criminal law, but she still acted illegally.
That is actually important and it is why Comey was totally completely wrong regarding intent – not merely because the 18 cfr 793(f) requires negligence NOT intent.
In the event you are not clueless it is extremely difficult to be both negligent and intentional, and even in state criminal law were intent is almost always required (it is nearly never required in federal law – another gross error of Comey’s) Negiligence is one of few exceptions. ANY law that has a negligence standard – does NOT require intent.
Your own comment says Clinton’s actions were stupid – i.e. Negligent, and “stupid” handling of classified information is criminal.
Further, There is ZERO doubt that what she did, and that it was intentional.
She did not accidentally choose to have a home brew server for her government work. She did not accidentally direct her employees to use it.
Further despite denials classified information was INTENTIONALLY transmitted over the internet.
First you do not understand classified handling.
There are TWO different issues.
The one is that Clinton is an originator and receiver of classified information – I am talking specifically about information – not documents. What she KNOWS.
As a person with a security clearance she is forbidden from conveying that information to anyone else who does not:
Have a need to know
AND
Sufficient security clearance.
Clinton Intentionally communicated classified information to Sidney Blumenthal.
That was a crime.
It does not matter whether she transimitted actual classified documents.
Blumenthal was neither a government employee or contractor.
Obama had personally forbidden Blumenthal from being hired because of his personal role in starting the Birther nonsense.
Nor did Blumenthal have a need to know.
I beleive that some of the communications with Blumenthal involved actual classified documents, but even if it was restricted to information – that alone is still a crime.
The transmission of classified documents is an independent issue.
And a much clearer one.
Classified documents are kept in a SCIF – Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility.
In the case of Sec. State part of her suite in the State department is a SCIF.
Nothing is supposed to go from inside to outside – except when being moved from one SCIF to another by an FSO – neither Clinton nor her staff were FSO’s,
There is much one the record about Clinton railing about not being able to take cell phones and blackberry’s into the State Department SCIF – so there is absolute certainty that she knew all about the SCIF and its rules.
Documents MARKED as classified do not exist outside of a SCIF (or they are not supposed to) To read them you go into the SCIF.,
Even if they are computer documents – they are on a completely independent hyper secure communications network, that has absolutely no connections to unsecured networks. One of the big deals about Snowden and Manning is determining how they managed to get Classified information off of secure computers and out of the SCIF without being detected.
Computers on the classified network do not have USB sticks, or floppy drives, or CD writers or any means of removing information from the computer.
Clinton’s emails contained actual classified documents – sometimes with markings sometimes not. Not merely classified information but actual verbatum copies of classified documents.
The only way this occurs is if those documents are removed from the SCIF.
That can not be done “casually” – it must be done deliberately – you must “smuggle” them out of the SCIF – hiding them from the FSO – the guy Clinton complained about who would gather everybodies blackberry and cell phone when they went into the SCIF.
In most facilities the SCIF is not much more than a secure closet.
But in the state department it is likely an entire floor of the building.
Clinton and her staff can go into the SCIF and do much of their work – but they can not communicate – except over secure facilities, and they can not take anything in or out with them.
There is absolutely ZERO way that verbatum classified documents ended up in emails clinton sent over the internet without KNOWINGLY removing those from the SCIF
Further it is highly unlikely that Hillary shoved classified documents into her underwear to remove them from the SCIF.
What that means – which we also know, is that Some or all of Clinton’s staff was complicit, participating and aware of this.
Had the FBI conducted a real investigation – it would have been trivial to get them to roll on each other.
Finally – if Peter Strzok is to be trusted, atleast one, and possibly more hostile powers NOT Russia, obtained classified information from Clinton.
“Ron, Clinton did a stupid thing with her server. In no way was it for monetary gain. It may have violated the letter of the law. If we throw everyone in jail who did a stupid thing last year that violated the letter of the law, then there will be more people in prison that out of it”
Numerous people have been prosecuted for the same thing as Clinton was – very few did it for “monetary gain”.
Most crimes have little or nothing to do with money.
The law is about the “letter of the law”.
That is why we have written laws, and courts,
When you violate the letter of the law – you have committed a crime.
If you do something we do not like – something that violates the spirit of the law, but not the letter – then you have not committed a crime.
Because that is how law works. That is also why the courts routinely toss laws that are broad or vague. Because our government is not allowed to circumvent the requirement that you violate the “letter of the law” by crafting the law broadly. The government it required to be clear and specific in the law – because if you violate the letter of the law – you are guilty.
“Ron, Clinton did a stupid thing with her server. In no way was it for monetary gain. It may have violated the letter of the law. If we throw everyone in jail who did a stupid thing last year that violated the letter of the law, then there will be more people in prison that out of it”
You are correct – if we properly enforced the laws we have without discretion – all of the country would be in jail.
That is one of many reasons we are “lawless” – Lawlessness is not the absence of law.
It is the absence of the ability to depend on the law. It is law that is applied one way in one place on one day and completely different by a different court or police, or prosecutor the next in a different place.
What occured with Clinton (and the Obama administration) was lawless.
What is occuring now with Trump is lawless.
It is self evident that the objective with Clinton was to let her off the hook – regardless of the offense.
It is self evident that the objective with Trump is to get him – at all costs.
With Clinton we ignored clear violations of “the letter of the law” – AKA crimes.
With Trump we are actively trying to stretch the law way beyond “the letter of the law” to claim that our personal impression of “the spirit of the law” has been violated.
Trump or Clinton or anyone else – if the letter of the law has been violated – that is a crime.
If it has not, then there is no crime.
If you do not like “the letter of the law” – change the law.
This is one of the problems with the Manafort case and apparently the Cohen one.
From what I have heard that was presented to the Jury.
Manafort loaned himself money that he had in foreign bank accounts.
By loaning himself the money he avoided paying the taxes he would otherwise have to pay if he has just transfered the money into the US.
Ignoring the fact that the US is the only country in the world that stupidly taxes foreign earned money on its entry to the US, what Manafort did does not violate “the letter of the law”.
Justice Lerhned Hand over a century ago made it absolutely crystal clear that violating the “spirit” of the tax laws was NOT a crime. That no one was ever obligated to pay a dime more than the absolutely minimum the law allowed,
If the law has loopholes – it is not a crime to exploit those.
Regardless, the point is that what we see now is the press, A corrupt FBI/DOJ and SC the media and the left trying to apply their personal idea of the spirit of the law to trump, even though the letter of the law has not been violated, while allowing Clinton, and the left to get away with violating bot the letter and spirit of the law all over the place.
I am deeply concerned because there are only two possible outcomes:
In the first we essentially become the USSR or Moa’s china, where crime is just offending those in Power.
Trump is president – but even he is powerless to stop the “deep state” from making the law up as they go.
Clinton was so powerful that not only can she ignore the law at will, but she was able to direct the deep state to target Trump and feed them crap.
Because so many like yourself do not understand how big a problem this is not only will they get away with it – but you will have lost the last degree of control of your life.
Innocence will mean – not having offending the powers that be.
Guilt is having offended them.
What constitutes offense – will change from day to day, from person to person based on who is in favor and who is not at the moment.
The alternative is that this fails, and in that case the left is collapsing in this country.
“I will bet that more than once in your own life you have done a stupid thing that violated the letter of the law. You should be in jail, right? ”
In my entire life I( have not done anything – stupid or otherwise that violated the letter of any criminal laws – so long as we are not construing them so broadly that everything is a crime.
So the answer there is a resounding NO!
Further I suspect if we eliminate summary offense – rolling through a stop sign and the like.
That none of the rest of you have committed any felonies or misdemenors – accidentally or otherwise.
In fact if we limit “crimes” to things that should be crimes – initiating violence against others, many forms of fraud, or causing harm real harm to others either deliberately or through negligence, that most people have never committed a crime.
The vast majority of laws today are outside the scope of legitimate govenrment.
Handling the secrets of the state carelessly Has always been a crime.
“I completely understand you when you have realistic gripes about govt. spending.”
At the TOP of the list is, when government spends – it is consuming what WE produce,.
If I take what you produce for myself or someone else that is theft.
There are only very limited things that government can spend on that are morally justified.
All else is theft. If you did it you would go to jail.
Yes I am concerned about people stealing from me.
If I am jealous of the rich – it is because they can afford the lawyers and accounts to reduce the predatory behavior of government.
We are obligated to give to government that which is necescary for the actual defense of the nation, and the maintanence of law and order.
All else is theft.
“Just being libertarian generally being anti government, not reasonable, not constructive, not persuasive, and not a winning strategy to change any of your gripes.”
There is something unreasonable about demanding that government no steal from the rest of us ?
Who is anti-government ? You keep lobbing that as if TNM is filled with ANCAPs.
Where ?
Why is it not reasonable to demand that government not steal ?
Why is it not constructive ?
Your argument is “I get to subjectively judge your complaint, and I find it wanting”.
That is not a valid or moral argument.
It is not my job to persuade you to stop stealing.
It is perfectly reasonable to be opposed to myriads of forms of govenrment spending,
And there are infinite arguments.
What is surprising is that there are so many excellent arguments against most govenrment spending – how does it continue ?
“The stuff about Rosenstein, Comey, the FBI all working on some plan to affect the election is true mind shit, even if some prediction based on that mind shit comes to pass. A broken clock…”
So facts are “mind shit” ?
We are not dealing with predictions.
In the real world with real facts, the behavior of those in government was criminal.
Please explain what it is that Obama, the white house, DOJ/FBI CIA did with respect to Trump that is NOT what Nixon wanted to do ?
The indisputable fact is that Obama targeted political enemies and used the awesome power of government to go after them.
Attempting to do so was one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon.
We can start with the IRS targeting political viewpoints.
Again Nixon tried (and failed) – BTW this actually went to court and the IRS ultimately settled the largest and only settlement by the IRS of this type ever.
There is no doubt that what was done was WRONG.
The only open question is how broad the involvement was.
Given that we know tax returns ended up at DOJ and from there leaked to the news,
the involvement looks pretty broad.
There are many many other instances of misconduct – some of which were criminal during the Obama administration.
Obama openly admitted that he was acting outside the law.
We have the absolutely ludicrous condition today of a program that was imposed outside the presidents authority – DACA, being directly by leftist courts to continue – because Trump’s arguments for terminating a program that was beyond Obama’s authority are not sufficient for the court, Since when is it that courts get to decide whether they like programs or not – or whether they are good or bad ideas ?
The courts sole role is to determine whether they violate the constitution or the law.
The courts get no other voice. There is no judicial policy veto.
But lets look at the Trump Russia thing.
The Obama adminstration starting looking at Trump in late 2015.
We know that from Strzok’s texts.
BEFORE Trump announced Page and Papadoulis as foreign policy advisors – the DOJ, FBI, CIA, … were having meetings related to investigating the Trump campaign – again from Strzok’s texts – this is in March 2016. Strzok notes that the whitehouse is getting updates every other day.
At this time the DNC hack has not occured, Papadoulis has not met Mifsud, Page has done pretty much nothing, and there are no Trump foreign policy advisors.
So in March 2016 – before not merely evidence of anything – but before any of the purported ACTS that the left has fixated on the Obama administration is already investigating Trump.
So WHAT were they investigating ? There is no steele dossier.
The first allegation that remotely hints at a problem Downer meets Papadoulis in May of 2016 – that is again BEFORE the DNC hack, Papadoulis told Downer that Russia had “dirt” on Clinton’s emails – this is information. Downer did nothing. He did not report this to his embassy, he did not send this through FiveRyes. Basically he say on it, until August.
Next in sometime between March and July – not knowing anything about Papadoulis’s conversation with Downer, with no real basis for anything – Halper is dispatched to “spy” on Papadoulis and Page. Halper comes up with nothing, yet still in Late July finally an official investigation is started and Strzok is dispatched to London.
At the start of the FBI investigation in late July – the FBI knows NOTHING.
They are investigating Trump – because – he is the enemy.
Again there was no Steele Dossier yet, Steele did not come into contact with the FBI until late July.
And again absolutely none of this was done “normally”.
The DOJ/FBI guidelines were not followed.
The sources of nearly everything was the Clinton campaign.
Further the Clinton campaign did NOT come to FBI/DOJ and report something.
They came through unofficial contacts through improper channels in the State department or between Nellie Ohr at Fusion GPS and her husband Bruce at the FBI.
This is all highly unusual.
Put simply this investigation did not start as the result of the discovery of any actual issue through normal channels, The directive to attempt to open an investigation came from the Whitehouse. The investigation itself started even though the DOJ/FBI had nothing.
And what they subsequently came up with came from dubious political sources.
Brennan has made his nonsensical claim about “chatter” about Russia and Trump.
Yet absolutely no documentary evidence that we have indicates any such chatter ever existed. No then. not now.
You say anyone who questions the actions of Comey/Rosenstein/….. is some nutter conspiracy theorist.
I have no idea whether there was an organized conspiracy.
But what I do know is that absolutely zero evidence has been presented to justify STARTING an investigation at the times that investigation started.
This is an extremely important question. It is the one that Nunes and Rosenstein are fighting over, and it is one in which Rosenstein and DOJ can NOT just say “trust us”.
Even today there remains insufficient basis for the FBI/DOJ to have STARTED and investigation. But there was not LESS in December 2015 – there was nothing, There was not less in March 2016 there was nothing, there was not less in July 2016 there was nothing.
Absent DOJ/FBI producing some meaningful basis for starting an investigation, deploying spies, and ultimately bringing in the resources of the FBI, and seeking and getting a FISA warrant are inarguable MISCONDUCT.
This is the US We do not investigate people because we do not like them.
Our government is not free to investigate whoever it pleases for whatever reasons it wishes.
Whether it is the local police officer or the president of the United States or the director of the FBIm in the US you can not direct the resources of the united states government to pursue someone – particularly a political enemy just because you have the power to do so. Or just because you do not like them.
All the Strzok texts revealing his own and the FBI’s hatred of Trump are NOT the issue – they are just the motive. The issue is we open investigations into credible allegations of crimes, Not into people we do not like.
The latter is immoral, and it is criminal.
It is wrong whether there was some organized conspiracy or not.
Let me ask you a different question – if the FBI went after Clinton and the Clinton campaign with half the vigor it directed at Trump, do you think that people like Sidney Blumenthal, or Both the Podesta’s or any of a long list of others would not be facing far more serious prosecutions that Trump’s surogates ?
Tony Podesta is atleast as unapealing a character as Paul Manafort – do you think he could survive a jury trial for exactly the same purported Crimes as Manafort ?
Everyone with enough income to hire an accountant strives to reduce their taxes as much as humanly possible.
The basis for Mueller’s prosecution is that successfully doing so is in and of itself a crime.
Using that basis – it would be trivial to convict half the DNC.
Van Der Zwan, Papadoulis and Flynn have plead guilty to inaccurate statements to the FBI.
McCabe has done exactly the same – multiple times, as well as under oath, yet no prosecution. Comey has made numerous under oath statments that are less truthful than those of Papadoulis and Flynn – why no prosecution ?
Apparently we are now finding that of the 600+ K emails on the Weiner laptop, the FBI only looked at 3500 and it did so in the 24hours before Comey testifed to congress that it had looked at them ALL.
Many new classified emails – that were not previously known have been found on the Weiner laptop. Regardless, the point is that Comey KNEW that nothing close to a thorough search had been done.
So we have Comey leaking all over. Publicly exhonerating Clinton – which as the IG noted was beyond his authority. Then re-opening the investigation a few weeks before the investigation – after sitting on the Weiner laptop for over a month, then closing the investigation long before it was complete.
Maybe there is no conspiracy here. But there is an enormous amount of misconduct by a large number of people.
And Yes, I have a very serious problem with Rosenstein.
He is far MORE conflicted than Sessions.
He participated with Mueller and Comey in the slow walk of the U1 investigation.
Where Carter Page was an FBI witness.
He signed several of the FISA warrants – and todate has provided absolutely no basis for being able to SWEAR that probable cause existed that a crime was committed and that Carter Page was involved. To this day probable cause does not exist.
If we are going to prosecute Van Der Zwan, Papadoulis and Flynn for lying to the FBI – why isn;t Rosenstein being prosecuted for lying UNDER OATH to the FISA Court ?
Rosenstein has been stalling responding to House subpeona’s.
He has not made a claim of actual privilidge – he can not, executive privildge applies only to direct communications with the president. Congress is entitled to demand what has been subpeoned.
Failure to comply with a subpeona is a crime.
As each tiny little bit of new information bleeds out we find more and more that what DOJ/FBI has hidden from us is NOT “methods and sources”. It always turns out to be something that is embarrasing to DOJ/FBI.
Apparently Rosenstein is asserting the priviledge that the FBI/DOJ may not be embarrased.
YOU and the left are inverting the right to privacy.
In your world – the government is allowed to dig into your life as much as it pleases – without basis. But even congress is forbidden from inquiring into the activities of the executive branch.
Whatever you wish to beleive regarding everything Trump, even if some of it were ultimately to prove to be true, what we have right now is the Whitehouse, FBI/DOJ/CIA/IRS targetting political enemies and using the criminal and national security aparatus of the US government to do so.
Absent PROOF of sufficient justification – that is “much worse than watergate.”
That is Nixon’s wet dream.
“Trust us” is not good enough.
There is sufficient evidence to prosecute many of these people.
Why isn’t that happening ?
Further absent evidence which has not been made public todate, and if it exists is the best kept secret of the US govenrment in a season where NOTHING has been kept secret, absent that mythical evidence – we have worse than watergate, and we somehow have the foxes defending the hen house.
Rosenstein signed off on the FISA warrant. He CAN NOT have the power to independently assess the legitimacy of his own actions AND preclude anyone else from oversight.
Particularly where he is overseeing an investigation that originate from warrants that to this day we have no evidence supporting their issuance.
Dave, you and I both do not like Trump for various reasons. You and I both did not vote for Trump based on these and other reasons. You and I both have a healthy distrust of government, supported by actions we have witnessed since Trump became the presumptive nominee. We agree on alot and disagree on some other things. In politics that is to be expected.
But in our world where the government is required to have probable cause to investigate a persons private records and actions, which I believe also should cover friends or business associates from undue pressure to obtain information, there are many that trust government to never do wrong and anyone is fair game for investigations regardless of reasons.
That is why I have been so dead set against the Mueller investigation. I would not have any problem with that if is were limited in its reach. But where you have pointed out many reasons why the DOJ/FBI may have not had sufficient reasons to support investigating issues that have noting to do with collusion, Mueller can investigate Trump business practices and illegal pollution, if he wanted, if there were one shred of info found in the Russian investigation about Trump pollution.
Trust in government is a scary thing to those that fear what the reach of government can become. Others believe government would never do wrong. Why do we need the ACLU if that is the case?
I have ranted here repeatedly about the 4th amendment.
But the truth is the 4th amendment is dead and has been for a very long time.
There are small hints that things might be changing, but if they are we have a long way to go.
Regardless I would make an absolute distinction between a persons private actions and their actions as part of govenrment.
I would take the 4th amendment quite literally regarding private persons and acts or even the acts of private people who are now public servants.
I have a lower opinion of Bill Clinton as a person than of Donald Trump.
Trump is a rich playboy with not very high regard for women.
Clinton is a sexual predator.
One is bad the other much worse.
At the same time I was very uncomfortable with subjecting a sitting president to civil (or criminal) prosecution for actions prior to election.
Nor am I comforatable with those parts of Starr’s investigation that had to do with actions of Bill Clinton prior to election. Though I would not absolutely bar that.
Conversly Travel Gate and the other investigations into Clintons conduct as president are open season.
You can substitute Trump or Hillary for Bill Clinton in the above and I would feel the same.
I have the independent problems with the Mueller investigation.
First it does not conform to the SC law.
That is Rosensteins mistake not Mueller’s
Next based on his past Mueller is not the hero we need. He is a thug. He wins by pummelling people. And he makes no distinction between the guilty and the innocent.
Finally the nature of an SC appointment is like big game hunting.
If Mueller does not come home with a lion he has failed.
We are not after the truth we are after a scalp.
The ACLU has itself become corrupt.
“Do you think they all have secret meetings”
I do not know – actually that is not true – we know there were meetings that we can not find out about. That is pretty much the deffinition of “secret meetings”.
But that is irrelevant. I think it is quite credible given what we know to beleive that a conspiracy existed. There are too many things that occured and were coordinated to beleive that they were the results of random uncoordinated actions.
Regardless conspiracy is irrelevant.
The DOJ/FBI/CIA started an investigation of Trump in December 2015.
We are entitled to know that at the time they did so, they had a reasonable basis.
The DOJ/FBI/CIA spied on the Trump campaign during the period from March to July 2016.
We are entitled to know that at the time they did so, they had a reasonable basis.
The DOJ/FBI sought and ultimately received multiple FISA Warrants.
Todate we have not seen a credible basis for those warrants.
We are entitled to know that at the time they did so, they had a reasonable basis.
As WaPo’s moto state “Democracy Dies in Darkness”.
That is not about the private lives of private people.
Manafort’s conduct – legal or not is no threat to the nation or rule of law.
Nor is Cohen’s, nor is the Trump Campaigns – no matter what you might belive it has done.
The only threat to democracy comes from government secrecy.
Why aren’t you demanding to know the answers ?
“the Clintons are sending money to offshore accounts of all the co conspirators?”
Do we have Trump sending Money to peoples offshore accounts ?
Do you beleive the Clinton’s do not have offshore accounts ?
Manafort received money from the Ukraine and other european govenrments.
Are you saying the clintons did not ? the Podesta’s did not ?
“You are out of your mind on this one”
On what ? I keep repeating facts. We know an incredible amount – not everything.
But enough to know there is serious misconduct.
Your answer is “trust the government what they are keeping secret explains everything”
Really ? What secret in this entire mess has been kept over the past 3 years ?
What is lunacy is those of you who truly believe not only that there was a trump/russia conspiracy that is going to be exposed – but that the Obama administration had credible evidence of it in December of 2015 when this started – evidence that NO ONE has heard.
You beleive in unicorns.
The mass hysteria is YOURS.
“I have no patience with this nonsense”
That is right YOUR nonsense.
None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
To be clear – there is no need to speculate on conspiracy.
What is known already is sufficient.
“Why is it so hard for people to question what government does and then think people are kooks that do question.”
I don’t mind you questioning, I just made a list above of all the ways that you ask questions/make complaints that I think are reasonable. The questions I noted are reasonable. But as I said, you dilute the power of your argument when you get into blatant conspiracy theories or have simply an generally acidic view of government itself.
I don’t mind when stupid people think stupid things (or I do mind but I accept it) but intelligent people getting seduced by stupid ideas is painful, especially when its a mass phenomenon. That is what is scary about the last few years, increasingly smart people are thinking like stupid people think, nutty plans and theories. You are way smarter in my opinion than to be getting snared into conspiracy thinking.
Ron, no one can control election events with precision even if they wanted to conspire to do so. There may be an effect of certain actions, but accurately predicting it is the problem. Prosecutions of the trump world may affect the election, but how? No one knows, who will it motivate more, the right, the left the center?
I do not believe in any but the most limited conspiracies. First of all, huge conspiracies are too complicated to work, and the way that people react is too complicated to predict, second they are too risky to be worth it. Third, secrecy, essential to a conspiracy, is impossible to preserve. Look at what has happened to trump’s inner circle, it all comes out in the end. If anyone does conspire, they are an idiot and are probably doomed.
If Mueller and Comey and Rosenstein have been conspiring with the FBI to influence the election that is a huge conspiracy with incredible risks and no predictable way of manipulating events. Given that most of the players are republicans there is the missing element of that ascribed partisan motivation either.
You are too smart for this crap.
grump, I realize what you are saying in how one may interpret what I said. And it does sound like I am nuts looking at it that way. So let me say it another way step by step.
1. Clinton was caught doing something she was not suppose to do and to many, it was illegal having a computer at home with classified designations.
2. At some point in time, that server got wiped clean. And it was after she was caught with it.
3. Then there were a couple comments about Clinton e-mails and the final version was changed by the FBI from her being “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”. Why, because negligence can be prosecuted and careless can not.
4. Comey then commented later “It is entirely possible that because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls. But I don’t know.”
So a this point I ask, if Clinton was negligent and you and I would be prosecuted for extreme negligence, why did he make the decision to change the wording or allow the wording to change if not for the benefit of Clinton?
So going forward, information comes forth that implicates Trump in colluding with the Russians in the election. Rosenstein , due to the Weasel recusing himself from the investigation, decides the collusion has to be investigated and he appoints Mueller. Now if you are appointed to look at Russian/Trump collusion and it is a special investigation, one would expect that to be a narrow directive. “Find out when, what and how the Russian/Trump collusion took place. So Rosentien adds “other matters” to the directive.:
1. Mueller begins investigation.
2. He finds no collusion in the endless investigation, but he does find associates of Trump guilty of other things.
3. He does not turn that over to the FBI or LEO’s to investigate (they are there for that purpose), he brings charges himself.
4. 80- days before the midterm elections he gets a guilty verdict. Sometime during the fall he will be sentenced. (And just before the midterm)
5. On Sept 17th, Manaford is scheduled for another trial, less than 60 days from the midterm. This one in Virginia on other financial issues.
6. Cohen is found to have committed tax fraud, made false statements to a bank and violated campaign finance laws tied to his work for Trump, including payments Cohen made or helped orchestrate that were designed to silence women who claimed affairs with the then-candidate.
7. Cohen will be sentenced sometime in September, less than 60 days from the midterm.’
8. Cohen has stated Trump directed him to pay hush money? Is this illegal if there were no illegal actions covered up by the hush money? Was the hush money because they knew Trump Conspired with the Russians to rig the election?
Are you seeing a pattern here?
So I ask at this time, why is Mueller still involved in this investigation of Cohen. Where the hell is the FBI who is responsible for this type of work? Has he found ANYTHING that has to do with Trump/Russian collusion? If not, why is he still employed and how many others is he going to go after. Donald Jr. His daughter?
You can say what you want that these individuals are neutral, but you can’t prove it with the information that is presented. Comey changed or allowed changes to his wording to protect Clinton and Mueller, who reports to Rosentein, is not investigating Russian collusion because he has already found there was no collusion, so he is going after anyone and everyone associated with Trump to damage him and his administration and Rosenstein is allowing that to happen. From my perspective, it is being done to the point that they will energize enough voters against Trump to flip congress and to insure impeachment begins in the spring of 2019.
Only time will tell, but I said way back in early spring Mueller was waiting for late Summer or early fall to begin the court proceedings. And that so far has come true. We will just have to see what else happens that come true.
We have further learned that from the very beginging of the Clinton investigation the FBI was just going through the motions. There was never any intention to take the case seriously. The investigation leaked like a seive – Mostly people like McCabe preening in front of the press, making false or deceptive claims about the investigation and their role in it. There was no grand jury, no subpena power, the FBI had to count on their targets cooperation to accomplish anything.
At this time I am not particilarly interested in convicting Hillary. She is gone and not coming back. While she should have been prosecuted, their likely would have been a plea deal. That deal likely would have been a slap on the wrist – and I am OK with that.
It is NOT true that others who have conducted themselves similarly have never been prosecuted and convicted – it has happened constantly – it happened more during Obama’s presidency than ever before.
But it is true that absent deliberately providing classified information to our enemies there were typically pleas and that sentences were minor.
I am not sure that is appropriate. But it is not appropriate to hit Clinton harder than Petreaus or Deutch as an example.
At the same time misconduct in government should be punished more severely than similar private misconduct betraying the public trust, and abusing power and position with government is much more serious than other crimes.
That is why I am more concerned about the problems within the DOJ/FBI/CIA.
I am also more concerned about the fact that our law is being administered and prosecuted radically different depending on the part of the country you are in.
If you are a republican and a political target in a blue region – you will be convicted.
If you are a democrat you will not.
Sen. Menedez’s conduct is far far more egregious than Manafort’s or Cohen’s.
Yet Menedez was aquitted.
I do not have converse examples from red areas – though there likely are some.
But the point is that the meaning of the same law, how something is investigated, prosecuted, tried and how the jury determines whether to convict varies radically based on the politics of the person being charged and the place they are being prosecuted and tried.
That is NOT the rule of law. That is very very dangerous. It means we can convict or acquit pretty much whoever we please just by chosing the venue.
And the problem goes well beyond criminal matters.
We saw this with Trump’s Immigration EO.
You can like or dislike the EO. But it was obviously facially constitutional and legal from the start. Obama had issued very nearly the same EO at one point, and the constitutional powers of the president with respect to security outside the country are nearly unlimited.
Yet we fought for months. Lots of courts disagreed. Worse still their fundimental disagreement was rooted in bizarre and lawless premises.
A law is not constitutional or not depending on the person who issues it.
If it is constitutional for Obama to do something on his constitutional authority as president it is both constitutional for Trump to either do the same, or to undo what Obama has done.
The role of the courts is to apply the law and the constitution – that is all. If an act of those in government is within the law and the constitution – the courts are done with it.
They do not get to decide if they like it.
We are seeing something similar recently with federal courts striking down ballot initiatives and state constitutional amendments.
That is not the role of the courts, much less the federal courts.
I have no idea whether the initiatives being struck are good or bad.
It would be my expectation that amending the constitution – even a state constitution would be very difficult. But given that the process for amending that constitution – or putting an initiative on the ballot is properly followed, it is not the role of the courts to decide whether that initiative should be allowed or not.
All the above – and much more is the rule of man not law. It is inherently dangerous. The only difference between similar lawlessness in the Soviet Union and Mao’s china is that we HOPE that the motives of those engaged in the lawlessness are less corrupt and that at this point the lawlessness is not focused – there is no formal conspiracy, so we have lawless anarchy rather than lawless totalitarianism.
Dave, you are totally correct how juries view crimes, but not.just political figures. One only needs to look at the OJ and Garcia Zarate juries. Had th ose been in NC, they sure as hell would not have walked. Well OK, if in Charlotte, maybe the same outcome due to all the nothern liberals moving in with business moving in from out of state, but in most all other areas, yes.
If it matters where a Trial is conducted – there is something seriously wrong with our legal system.
Manafort would not likely have been convicted in most “red states”,
Neither Cohen nor Flynn, Papadoulis, …. would have plead had they been facing a trial in a red state.
Though overall – red or blue, the presumption of innocence died long ago.
The Manafort Jury asked the judge what Reasonable doubt meant.
Reasonable doubt is a pretty much non-existant concept anymore.
We are shocked when someone is not convicted.
The old saw that it is better than 10 guilty go free than one innocent person is convicted is forgotten.
I think the two different OJ juries got it right.
It is more likely than not that OJ killed Nichole.
It is NOT certain beyond a reasonable doubt.
Maybe the Manafort jury heard something I did not,
But I did not hear anything that convinced me of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Was Manafort trying to avoid paying taxes – ABSOLUTELY!!!!
Is that a crime ? Only in very narrow circumstances.
The left wanted to exhonerate clinton by requiring intent where the law did not.
But the Manafort conviction required that you beleive Manafort intended to commit a crime.
Not that he intended to avoid taxes, Not that he was stretching a loophole,
Not that he was avoiding paying taxes that you think he should have had to pay,
But that he was actually reducing his taxes by doing something he KNEW he was not allowed to do.
As best as I can tell is that the prosecution proved that Manafort was very sloppy in making loans to himself.
That is a reason he might owe penalties and interest, it is not a crime.
Again based on the facts that I have heard – Had Manafort done exactly as he did – except properly tracking the loans, making relatively timely payments to himself he not only could not be prosecuted but would not have owed taxes.
You can not convict someone of a crime merely for sloppy paperwork.
But that is what was done with Dinesh D’Souza, and that is the claim that the SD NYC US ADA appears to be making regarding Cohen and Trump.
Again we are short on facts.
If Trump has a history of using Cohen (or anyone else) to get NDA’s to keep his improprieties quiet. This is dead. It can not be construed as a campaign issue.
If Trump Paid Cohen from personal funds.
It is not a campaign issue.
If Cohen received payment from others – it MIGHT be illegal – though that is dubious,
But it is ONLY a crime for Cohen. And a relatively minor one at that – failure to report.
If Trump paid for it out of the campaign using money he contributed – and he contributed over 100M to his own campaign. It is not an issue, except possibly a reporting one.
The Clinton campaign failed to report over 65M in donations that exceeded contribution limits. No one is going to jail for that.
The Obama 2008 campaign was accepting contributions by Credit Card from Overseas – from the mid-east. While it reported those, it mostly did not report the sources – because they were unknown.
Had Trump done something like that – he would already be impeached.
Obama also purportedly had far more unreported campaign donations than Clinton did.
Are we going to send people to jail for paperwork errors ?
Personally I have a major problem with our campaign finance laws.
CU was correctly decided.
But more broadly the government may not restrict the campaign donations of private parties. Nor may it require that they be disclosed.
Government can preclude people who have actually been elected from taking any kind of benefit from private parties.
I am talking about the political corruption laws we COULD legitimately have – not what we do.
Further the crime would be betraying a public trust.
Businesses (and the rest of us) pay for advantages all the time.
We pay a premium for the best seats at a concert, or to go to the head of the line at Disney World.
That is NOT corruption. It is merely a question of what is important – of values, to different people, There is nothing wrong with paying for an advantage.
But there is everything wrong with selling the public trust.
Or entire legal scheme regarding politics is upside down.
You will NEVER clean up politics until you are willing to prosecute politicians for real misconduct. Sen. Menendez should be in jail.
The left has made a big deal over the emoluments clause.
Put simply it does not mean what they claim.
That said I do not have a problem with restricting what someone in government can receive while in government service.
but if you want to do that – pass a law that actually requires that.
Dave “If it matters where a Trial is conducted – there is something seriously wrong with our legal system.”
If you are black, you are more likely to be convicted of a crime than a white in the south.
If you are a minority, you are more likely to walk in California than if triec in the midwest.
If you are rich, you are more likely to be convicted in NY or CA than in Tx or NC.
If you own a company, you are more likely to lose a liabilith case in CA than in other parts of the country.
Lady justice is not blind when it comes to race and economic standing throughout regions of the country.
all that you note is true and it is wrong.
And it has nothing to do with Trump or manafort.
As I noted before – the 4th amendment is near dead as is the presumption of innocence – and many other things.
I want those BACK!!!!!
There is a very famous colonial case I beleive it was called Zeller, in which a colonial lawyer in a court run by the british argued to the jury that they were entitled as englishmen to ignore the law, and decide that the defendant had done nothing wrong.
The British allowed a colonial lawyer to argue that before the american revolution.
BTW Zeller won the case. It is one of the land mark cases of jury nullification.
Today no lawyer can ask the jury to decide on their own what is right or wrong.
They will be disbarred and the judge will declare a mistrial if they try.
If you stand in front of a US court house and hand out pamphlets on jury nullification – even on days when there are no trials, you will be arrested and charged with jury tampering.
This is but one of many ways our government, law enforcement, and courts have chosen to deprive us of another fundimental right that even pre revolutionary colonials had.
The right to ask a jury to decide for themselves whether what we did was right or wrong, not whether it was legal or not.
I just heard a wise conservative commentator note that, the left has been telling us for decades that the police and prosecutors can use their power to get people to say whatever they want them to. I beleive every single person on the innocence projects exhonerated list confessed. Yet every one of them has been convicted and yet subsequently proven absolutely innocent. The people on the exhonerated list do not get there on legal technicalities. The innocence project will not take a case unless the defendant claims to be innocent, and they will not argue anything but actual innocence. They work for free, but they do not argue that evidence of your guilt should have been supressed.
They will only argue that you did not commit the crime you are convicted of.
Estimates are that 2.5% of people in prison are actually innocent.
I do not mean did not commit the specific crime they were convicted or plead to, but did not commit any crime.
That is 62500 innocent people in prison – that is a small city.
And I think that number is a significant under estimate.
Regardless, at this moment the left and right have flipped on or criminal justice system.
The left is defending CIA, DOJ, FBI will the right is claiming they are corrupt and out of control.
Absolutely positively both sides are drowning in hypocracy.
I do not think that every police officer or prosecutor is corrupt.
But I think our justice system as a whole has no real oversight and that inevitably results in corruption.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
―James Madison
That majority in or justice system that are not corrupt – are still culpable.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Ron.
It is my understanding that Mueller is NOT involved in the investigation of Cohen.
That he turned the case over to the US ADA SDNYC some time ago.
I do not know the reality of Cohen’s tax issues. I am dubious of claims of tax evasion,
as you can get a jury to convict anyone with more money than they have of tax evasion for legal acts that are outside their experience. At the same time Cohen does not come off as a particularly honest person.
But I have major problems with the “paying for silence” garbage.
We are again taking legal actions and converting them to crimes.
The Clinton’s paid money to many of Bill Clinton’s victims to buy their silence.
John Edwards paid a substantial about of money – from his political campaign to his paramour to keep her quite while his wife was on her death bed.
The government tried to prosecute and failed miserably.
We do not know precisely what occured with Trump and Cohen – where the money actually came from. But we do know that it does not matter, as the issue has already been decided. We can not have one standard of law for democrats and another for Trump.
We also know that no matter what the facts are – they are certainly less offensive than either the Edwards or Clinton instances.
Long ago politicians did not need to fear this – as the press would not print such stories,
Whether Harding, or Kenedy or MLK for that matter.
I think that was wrong. But it is equally wrong to criminalize the efforts of politicians to keep their private lives private.
I would also note that just as the Cohen case was handed off to the US ADA SDNYC the Manafort case should have been handed off too.
I do NOT have a problem with prosecuting unrelated matters that are uncovered as a result of a legitimate investigation.
But there must be a better nexus to the core of an SC’s charge to allow the SC to keep the case. We do not need SC’s to prosecute tax evasion. If our government can not manage that own its own we are in serious trouble.
There are separate huge problems with Mueller’s “mandate”.
Just to be clear – though I think that Muller should not be prosecuting anyone. His past history makes it clear he is unable to distinguish guilt from innocence and will hound innocent people – even to suicide – that is a personal disqualifying fault, on shared by many of his key people, still Mueller is not responsible for his appointment, nor for his charge. That falls on Rosenstein, and that was done eroneously.
Many have noted that Mueller was not give a crime to investigate.
The SC law specifies that SC’s are appointed to investigate crimes where the DOJ/FBI are conflicted. No such crime has been specified. Rosenstein further gave Mueller a counter intelligence mandate. Counter intelligence and criminal prosecutions are separated by a chinese wall. This is one of the core issues in the FISA Warrant.
The CIA/NSA/FBI and US intellegence agencies are free to wiretap, surveil spy on our foreign adversaries as they please – we want that. But as their actions change from inteligence gathering and thwarting foreign power to law enforcement the rules change.
US Citizens facing criminal prosecution are entitled to protection of their tights, to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. This also is reflected in the “unmasking” allegations. The broad power of our intelligence agencies to operate outside our constitutional civil and criminal rights is because their targets are not US citizens.
When a US person enters the scope of a counter intelligence operation – their identity is masked. US counter intelligence is not allowed to target US persons. The identity of the actual US Person is supposed to only be known to those gathering the raw data. It is not to the known to other agencies, or to people in other roles inside intelligence gathering agencies. Where intelligence gathering operations indicate that a US person MIGHT be engaged in criminal activities, the IC has a choice to make. They can ignore that. They can try to use the US person – in which case their can not be prosecuted, or they can refer that person for criminal prosecution – at which time completely different government agents and often agencies are brought in and expected to follow US criminal investigative process – including warrants.
Mueller can not both investigate Russian interferance in the election and the Trump campaign. The one is a counterintelligence investigation and can not legitimately be part of any criminal investigation, and there are no provisions in the law – and should not be, for a SC doing counter intelligence. There is inherently never a conflict between counter intelligence that would require an SC.
The appointment of an SC to do counter intelligence essentially means that Rosenstein disagrees with Trump on POLICY and is using his power in DOJ to prevail. That is improper. Mueller’s investigation should have been limited to a criminal investigation from the start.
I beleive there is also an appointments clause problem. Again not one of Mueller personally, but generally. That appointments clause problem comes from a different constitutional and practical problem with the SC and with how things are done generally.
The ability to investigate those in the executive branch is a critical part of the checks and balances in out system. Absolutely it needs to be possible. The threat is critical to proper conduct. But those charged with investigating the executive can not be within the executive. The role of investigating the executive belongs to congress – just as the role of investigating misconduct by congressmen belongs with the executive.
I am not personally a fan of so called non-partisan independent bodies.
I think the claim that appointing someone makes them somehow independent of politics is garbage and the pretense of impartiality is dangerous and deceptive.
When congress investigates the executive – we properly understand that investigation is political and we judge it accordingly. That is appropiate.
The objective is not to create the false impression of impartiality.
It is to bring the bias to the fore and let people judge it.
This is also why the courts should not mess with the creation of congressional districts.
It corrupts the courts further and serves no purpose. The process of creating congressional districts is inherently political and corrupt. Voters get the final say.
Thank you for permission to question government – your highness.
Get a clue. We should ALWAYS question government.
That is precisely what WaPo’s “democracy dies in darkness” motto means.
You should NEVER trust something just because government is doing it.
Everything government does is not evil.
But that does not mean we should be naive.
Government weilds power.
And we are way short on oversight and accountability.
Regardless, there is no list of the only legitimate ways to question government.
“I don’t mind when stupid people think stupid things (or I do mind but I accept it) but intelligent people getting seduced by stupid ideas is painful, especially when its a mass phenomenon.”
The mass phenomena effecting large numbers of purportedly intelligent people is TDS.
“I do not believe in any but the most limited conspiracies. First of all, huge conspiracies are too complicated to work, and the way that people react is too complicated to predict, second they are too risky to be worth it. Third, secrecy, essential to a conspiracy, is impossible to preserve. Look at what has happened to trump’s inner circle, it all comes out in the end. If anyone does conspire, they are an idiot and are probably doomed.”
If you do not beleive in conspiracies – then you do not beleive in Trump/Russia collusion – because that is a conspiracy with no evidence.
Regardless, what is a conspiracy ?
What we actually have is a large number of people in government engaged in misconduct.
Aside from the political aspect of it, and some unique elements that involve political campaigns and improper channels all of which makes conspiracy MORE likely,
What you have is garden variety prosecutorial misconduct. Which unfortunately happens all too much.
Those involved do not think they are “conspiring” – nor do you. Because they think of themselves as on the side of the angels.
As I keep repeating over and over it is very very dangerous to step onto a moral soapbox.
A beleif that one is acting for the greater good allows one to do bad things with little thought. Even the left’s most favorable view of Comey has him making some lawless choices. Which is EXACTLY what the IG concluded. And Comey’s own self defense is essentially a “greater good” argument. His entire higher loyalty book is a reflection of what goes wrong when you decide that you are the arbiter of right and wrong AND that you can use force to impose your personal idea of right and wrong.
Do you not grasp this as the theme that I beat constantly no matter what greater good you THINK you might acheive you may not impose it by force.
And, the Clintons have the stupid habit of being lawyerly wiseguys and pushing the boundaries of truth and it has burned them many times. Sure, they lie. Throw every lying politician and jail and we will be down to a very small number if any politicians.
In the case of private servergate hillary did not stand to benefit and she tried to put her carelessness in the best light with cagy answers. She ot caught and It made her lousy candidate and blew up on those that supported her. But… You cannot put the nominee of a presidential party, or a serious candidate on trial during the campaign for lying! If you could trump would have gone directly to jail! If that is the standard then presidential campaigns (political campaigns in general!) will be held in courtrooms in the future. Even I do not think that trump should go to jail during his term for his lies, and not after his term unless the lies enriched him or cheated the country. Otherwise every president will be put on trial and sent to prison. That is chaos.
W Bush lied about the cost of his two wars. Trillions of dollars! I’m not having him put in jail. Reagan lied about the contras. Etc. Etc.
“You cannot put the nominee of a presidential party, or a serious candidate on trial during the campaign for lying! If you could trump would have gone directly to jail! ”
But you can for “gross negligence” of classified material and that is why Comey covered up for her by changing that to “Extremely careless”.
Lying is one thing. Every politician lies to the public or they would never get elected to city council beginning their career. But committing a crime that any military personnel would be facing courts martial or civilian would be tried in a court of law should be the same for the nominee of a party. They are the commander in chief and whats good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Correct – lying is not a crime, and unfortunately a common attribute of politicians.
The remedy for the lies of politicians is the free press. Ours is doing a very poor job as they have told too many lies themselves and lack credibility.
But you absolutely can put any political candidate on trial for actual crimes – such as perjury even during a political campaign. But you must do so carefully.
Further the Clinton investigation started before the campaign – unless your presumption is that Clinton was permanently campaigning.
The investigation should have been done seriously which it was not, and quietly – which it also was not. Interestingly – until after the election the Trump investigation was conducted very quietly, so we know that can be done.
Of course Hillary intended to benefit – in two ways.
First the State department would not and could not be force by FOIA requests to turn over any communications that might damage her – because the government did not have them.
Second because she would have in her possessions all the records of her communications even after leaving government which would allow her to publishb what she wanted carefully cherrypicking to tell the story she wanted to tell.
All benefits are not money.
In fact money is never an end. The benefit – where money is involved is what money can buy, not the money itself.
Mueller is pretty much exactly what you would expect of a stupid pit bill special counsel.
Actually take a look at his own past track record.
Mueller has blown numerous prior big cases targting and hounding innocent people.
I do not think that Mueller is particularly partisan.
That is not the same as beleiving he is an impartial and objective seeker of truth.
Mueller is out for what is best for Mueller.
He never should have been appointed – but that is not his fault.
But what he has done since is.
So If Mueller is prosecuting Manafort – why not Tony Podesta – they were tied at the hip regarding the Ukraine.
I have not seen the news. I do not know much about the Manafort Jury verdict.
I do know that absent evidence I have not heard – Mueller did not make his case.
What he did was paint as illegal activities that are actually legal.
But we do not like it what it appears that people like Manafort manage to pay less in taxes, than we think they should. I expected a conviction.
Manafort is not a sympathetic person.
I want nothing to do with him.
But I do not convict people of crimes just because I do not like them.
But our system counts on exactly that.
“And it does sound like I am nuts looking at it that way”
Its a very complete workup you did of the conservative point of view. Bravo.
I don’t think you are nuts. I do still think the whole attack on Mueller, Rosenstein, Comey, and the FBI as being an unfair predetermined witch hunt from the right is nuts. But, everyone I know, and I do mean everyone, believes at least one thing that to me sounds nuts, so you are included, I would not take it to heart.
The right investigated the Clintons to death and in their perpetual and limitless inquiry managed to find something unrelated to anything they started from that sunk her presidential campaign. But its not enough, she must be put on trial, the obsession continues. The timing of the investigation into clinton coincided very awkwardly with the timing of the campaign such that the two were hopelessly interconnected.
Now trump’s affairs (no pun originally intended) are being investigated in a complete way and the right is sure that is unjust and that it means that those doing the investigation are wicked and unjust. The timing of the investigation coincides very awkwardly with the timing of the campaign such that the two are hopelessly interconnected.
The right calls this situation a conspiracy to screw trump and help clinton. They think that is what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. (By the way I am using “the right” here in the sense of the entire spectrum, from moderate to extreme, of conservatives. I don’t mean exclusively right wing nuts.)
In fact, that is exactly what is happening, trump is getting the clinton treatment. Which is because he has brought it on himself a thousand times over, As well, its because the Russian meddling, which the trump campaign clumsily got themselves entangled in, is as serious an issue as has ever been investigated. This situation requires a complete answer, Americans want it. If they did not want to know then this would have been shut down long ago.
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/403161-poll-mueller-approval-rating-jumps-by-11-points
“The poll revealed that 59 percent of registered voters approve of Mueller’s investigation, marking an 11-point jump from respondents who said the same in a July Fox News poll. Thirty-seven percent of respondents said they disapprove of Mueller’s probe.”
The obsession with getting the clintons and the certainty that the fix is in on the Mueller investigation is all inherent in the culture of the right and few on the right escape it, no matter whether they are smart and sane or a few bricks shy of a full load.
There is nothing anyone can do to stop this mess we have made of our process. The two parties and their supporters have the awesome momentum of two self contained and impervious cultures of righteousness and injustice in full gear.
In 3018, if we are still here, we will still be caught in this endless inescapable cycle of the dirty ugly destructive stupidity that flows from party politics.
““The poll revealed that 59 percent of registered voters approve of Mueller’s investigation, marking an 11-point jump from respondents who said the same in a July Fox News poll. Thirty-seven percent of respondents said they disapprove of Mueller’s probe.””
Grump, I have no problem with an investigation. If the FBI believed there is sufficient information to warrant investigations, grand juries and indictments, fine, do it! Most of those working in the FBI are professionals and handle investigations in that manner.
I can not say the same for Mueller and I do not blindly accept actions by individuals like the largest percentage of Americans. If Mueller was professional in his ethics and not political he would investigate Russian /Trump collusion, find financial crimes and say ” NY FBI office, here is what I found concerning Manaford, take it from here. That would separate the crime from politics and Trump could not support his “witch hunt” based on unrelated crimes. What does hush money have to do with Russian/Trump collusion? If illegal, turn it over to the NY FBI office.
Ron
I do have major problems with “the investigation”.
There is not now enough evidence of the core allegation to for an investigation with grand juries and subpeona’s and spies and …….
There most certainly was not at the start.
Mueller did not start this. But that does nto alter that the start was corrupt.
We do not focus the awesome power of government on political enemies just because we want to. A credulous allegation is not sufficient.
It is not only evident today that there was no Trump Russia collusion.
It i also evident that there never was a basis for a Trump/Russia collusion investigation.
If you allow govenrment to investigate anything it pleases – you can kiss what little is left of our rights goodbye.
Grump
Everything is NOT a “point of view”.
The rule of law not man is a requirement of the social contract.
Without it we are ACTUALLY lawless and government has no legitimacy.
The worse that gets the more our society tears itself apart at the seams.
That is what we have now.
“both” sides have to some extent been guilty of that.
The “war on drugs” as well as all the other fake “wars” that different political movements come up with are threats to the rule of law.
The drug war has destroyed our constitutional rights and erroded the “rule of law”.
That damage has been done – mostly by the right, and must be repaired.
There is no doubt that the war on drugs did not work. Worse just like prohibition it substantially increase violent crime as well as the corruption of law enforcement and the development of organized crime. It has further empowered criminals outside the US.
The destruction of the “rule of law” that we are seeing now by the left is equally bad.
You can pretend I am espousing a point of view, all you want.
The fact is that just as the war on drugs has damaged our society, so will the lawlessness of the left.
You bemoan that we seem to be fracturing becoming more extremist.
That is the natural consequence of the lawlessness I am decrying.
It is not a “point of view”. Lawlessness leads to either anarchy or tyranny.
It leads there whether you like it or not.
Are you saying that Clinton did NOT botch Benghazi ?
Are you saying that the big lie about Benghazi did not originate with her ?
Are you saying that congress should not investigate when a US ambassador is murdered by terrorists ?
I beleive it took 4 investigations to get to the bottom of Benghazi.
If the results had been finding little or nothing that would be damning to the right.
But the reason it took so long and so many investigations is because Clinton and the obama administration was hiding the facts.
IT was not until the Clinton emails were uncovered that the actual truth about Benghazi came out. The uncovery of the Clinton emails was the result of a Judicial Watch FOIA request of the State Department.
The State Department replied that they have no responsive material JW said that was impossible, and went to court, and the judge allowed JW to conduct discovery of the state department and that is when we found out that all of Clinton’s Sec State emails were in her private basement server.
It is those emails that revealed that Clinton knew there was a problem before the attack, that Clinton knew during the attack that it was an organized Terrorist attack – even knowing exactly which terrorist group, and that the lie that it was the results of an internet video origninated with Clinton on the night of the attack and that she knew that was a lie when she put it forward as the public explanation.
The protracted investigations are the result of all the lies and coverups.
If we are going to government by poll, the Wall will be built tomorow, all “illegals” will be deported and few immigrants will be allowed into the country.
“There is nothing anyone can do to stop this mess we have made of our process. The two parties and their supporters have the awesome momentum of two self contained and impervious cultures of righteousness and injustice in full gear.”
Quite wrong.
Perfection may not be acheivable, but significant improvement is possible.
It all starts with restoring “the rule of law”
Further if we do not, we will not be arround in 2028 much less 3018
In the event the left actually succeeds in its efforts at a coup that will likely generate a huge and dangerous backlash.
For the moment it is mostly the left that is deranged that is violent that is violent.
But the declaration of independence specifies the condictions under which revolution and violence against government is justified.
To be clear – the declaration is NOT a legal document, it is not permission – check these boxes and you can overthrow the government.
It is not a “point of view”, it is just an observation of reality.
As the declarations starts – “We hold these truths to be self evident”
People will not tolerate actual lawlessness from government forever.
Trump is the consequence of the lawlessness of the Obama administration and the left.
In the event the left succeeds in toppling Trump – the impetus that brought him to power will remain. It might be a bit weaker, or it might be much stronger, but absent a return to the rule of law by the left it will grow, Either we will devolve to anarchy or we will devolve to tyrany. Absent stepping back from the abyss one or the other will occur.
That may not occur rapidly, But it will occur inevitably.
Well, I respect your opinions, you stated and explained them clearly. We have done our best and we gave this topic a good (and civil) run. We have our differences of opinion, that is how it is. I wish you the best from my Vermont Universe to your North Caroline Universe and I hope that you and yours and me and mine all survive the upcoming civil war when the Mueller investigation finishes.
Re Comey: if one followed the national polls on a daily basis, as I did during the 2016 campaign, it became obvious that the worst thing to happen to the Clinton campaign (other than the candidate herself) was Comey’s last minute letter to Congress. To claim he was conniving on her behalf is absurd.
Rebecca, that might have been the worst thing at the time, but not the worst that could have happened and SHOULD have happened. Why is she not on this list? Johnny Martin, James Wolfe, Julio Pena, Jeffrey Skilling, Martha Stewart, Michael Flynn.
Not at all. Read the IG’s report. It is self evident that from the start the fix was in.
While it is true that the Clinton email investigation was handled badly in a way that politically harmed Clinton, you seem to equate the political damage Comey did to Clinton with exonerating her for a crime.
Had the FBI properly handled the investigation Clinton would not have been the democratic nominee, and possibly Trump would not be president.
So yes, they F’d up. That Comey harmed clinton one way while helping her another. does not preclude the obvious.
I would further note that at much the same time the FBI was also investigating Trump.
Unlike the Clinton investigation – which had evidence and an actual crime, but no will to prosecute, the Trump investigation had no crime, no evidence but a tremendous will – all of which continue to the moment.
further – Trump who nearly the entire top of the DOJ FBI loathed sought to do most anything to thwart – that investigation still managed to mostly be kept quiet – at least until after the election.
Comey’s letter to congress had less effect on the election than the Access hollywood tape.
Both had faded by the election.
Grump you are an alert guy. Thanks for telling me I have been on the wrong thread- Birth Control- for some time.
Rick, I thought you retired to Casalanca to sip exotic drinks and host the tourists looking for the movie locations.
Boy, am I pleased you wrote this great piece on the extremists.
I have been stuck on Birth Control and beating my head against the bloviating rationalist fouling this fine blog, but I am glad you flushed some of the old crowd back on this thread so we can hear some ACCURATE opinions.
Welcome back.
I have just read a couple of articles and listened to one segment of a news program where they were discussing the investigation and Mueller. In these discussions the theme became Mueller giving up on Russian collusion and now focusing on conspiracy. Supposedly, Cohen is the ley to the president and impeachment.
As I have said, other than saving face and not being the man who spent millions on a dry hole, my theory that Mueller is throwing everthing on the wall to see what sticks seems to be coming true.
BUT!!! I had a great idea to actually clean the swamp of tarnished individuals running for president. Everyone knows I want government spending cut, but sometime we do need more. I think we need an Office of Presidential Ethics. Separate from DOJ, this office would report to the highest ranking member of congress of the party opposite the president. The individual would be appointed for a 4 year term by the opposition leader for the sole purpose of investigating the president current and prior life. The budget would be set based on the amount spent by Mueller per year and then adjusted for inflation. If there was nothing to investigate, then by law that money would not be spent.
If one knows up front they were a target by an investigator up front with few restrictions, who thinks Clinton or Trump would have run in the first place? We may have had a Sanders/Rubio campaign.
trump would not have been fazed, he does not care. Today, proudly and in front of God and the world he told his AG on twitter to use the AG office for the political purpose of investigating “the other side.” Impeachable? The framers are rolling in their graves. We will never be able to put the goal posts back where they were prior to trump, first because he does these things and second, and more importantly, because his party does not care. The amount of damage one man can do to our country when he has the unconditional support of his party is beyond my previous imagination. At this point trump could strangle a puppy and a kitten during his state of the Union speech and 80% of GOP voters would say, its about time we did something about the animal problem.
Example, Newt Gingrich: “The elites in Washington get tremendously excited about things which are totally irrelevant to normal people,” Gingrich tells TIME in an interview the day after the Cohen plea and the Manafort verdict. “They’re just background noise that people pay no attention to.” He defends Kenneth Starr’s independent investigation into Clinton, but now calls Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation a “witch hunt,” a phrase Trump has often used.
In 1998, Gingrich accused Clinton of degrading the presidency through the Monica Lewinsky investigation. “This has nothing to do with vendettas or witch-hunts or partisan advantage,” Gingrich said at the time. “This is very simply about the rule of law, and the survival of the American system of justice. This is what the Constitution demands, and what Richard Nixon had to resign over.”
I am going to puke.
Well what do you expect from politicians? 99% of them are in it for themselves. Trumps business practices have always been shady and quetionable, so once Mueller was appointed, the chum was already in the water since Trump was dieing to get his businesses into Russia and there is alot to investigate with that alone.
Dont despair, impeachment is coming and then the democrats can take the reigns.
I have some problems with the Starr investigations.
But from start to finish they were investigations of CLINTON. And Clinton’s misconduct.
Further as I recall the subject matter of the Starr investigations was driven by Congress not Starr. In every instance in which Starr sought to expand his investigation into something new – he had to ask congress for approval to do so. More often Congress directed Starr to investigate new things.
Finally Starr was able to report to congress actual criminal acts of Bill Clinton.
Perjury and actual obstruction of justice ACTUALLY using Arkansas State Troopers to facilitate his secual misconduct and silence his victims.
As I said – there were things wrong with the Starr investigation. But the Mueller investigation does not compare it has so many problems.
Gingrich is not my favorite person.
But nothing you quoted troubles me.
I do not think that the Supreme court should have allowed the Paula Jones case to proceed while Clinton wa president.
But it did, and Clinton was deposed – and he knowingly lied under oath.
Further he could have avoided the Jones lawsuit.
He could have behaved – or he could have settled.
There was no need for him to be deposed, and no need for him to lie.
Once again we are making Sex into a political issue.
But this time instead of lying about sexual misconduct while president we are fixated on voluntary relationships that are at worst adultery – certainly not sexual harrassment or rape, and that happened 10 years before the election.
I have not one molecule of respect left for anyone who is still claiming that trump’s actions are not impeachable.
He is not going to be removed, but he sure as hell is impeachable.
I have never said Trump did not do anything that was impeachable. What I have said is 1) there is no Russian collusion and 2) why does it take someone other than normal investigator to find this information. Why does it take one individual with no controls on what they are doing to get to the “blow job”? Why do we not vet the candidates before they are elected? Why do we allow those like Trump with KNOWN questionable business practices or Clinton with KNOWN questionable political practices to run for that office?
The only thing I can think of is people dont care except a handful of opposition party individuals that want their hands on the position. How else did we end up with Clinton or Trump.
A credible allegation of conspiracy (there is no crime of collusion) with a foreign govenrment to effect and election is a legitimate basis for a special counsel.
But we do not and have never had a credible allegation.
To appoint an SC you require a situation where DOJ/FBI would be conflicted.
That is rare and as of yet we do not have that.
Then you should be able to clearly state which actions it is that you intend to impeach him for ?
You can impeach someone for anything or nothing – impeachment is a political act.
But it proved disasterous for republicans – when they actually had a sound basis .
Do you really beleive it is going to work well for democrats ?
Regardless – what Trump action is it that you think is impeachable.
If you can not respect those who do not share your view on impeachment you should be able to cite an actual act that we all agree is a basis for impeachment.
Yes, Trump voters are deplorables. That is a given. And now we find Weisselberg and Peaker have been granted immunity into the Cohen investigation and other unnamed issues.
After hearing this, I was saying with tongue in cheek we needed a special investigator permanently, but now I am serious.
I bet a large amount that we will never see another individual from business running for this office. Lee Iococca was a smart man back in the 80’S when one of the parties ask him to run and he refused.
I just hope with all the money Mueller is spending that it results in impeachment, resignation from office and not just another blow job like Clinton.
If a US ADA was after me – I would be seeking immunity before I cooperated, even if I had done nothing wrong.
We need oversight.
But the details are important.
The Independent Counsel law was deeply flawed.
The special counsel law is worse.
Investigations of congress should be done by the executive,
investigations of the executive by congress.
Further there is a great deal of difference between investigating misconduct as a public servant – which should be trivially easy and investigations of private acts of private individuals.
I’ll be very happy if the dems take the house by a slim margin and yes they should impeach if they do. It is far from a given that the dems will take the house.
First, I have believed in power being split between the parties practically forever in any case. Second, trump must be impeached because it is what is correct and necessary, he has clearly abused the power of the presidency. Removed? Forgetaboutit. No president will ever be removed while the two party system is in place, no matter what they do. It is all the same important to use the impeachment mechanism.
I want no party “taking the reigns,” I have no love of either. However, the flavor of my distaste is different for each. One party is naive and irritating and wants to do ridiculous things that may well lead to a civil war if they seriously try, the other party is, well, I am not even going to put the words down, you can imagine what I think of the GOP and my opinion would be even sharper and harsher. I’ll keep my exact thougths to myself here.
If there ever was as time for a middle party to come into being this would be it. But, it ain’t gonna happen.
I am of the age and life circumstances where I would be doing the traditional move towards being a moderate republican that older moderate dems often make and if the GOP had not become grotesque that might have happened. Now? Never. I do vote for a GOP governor of my state and have for years. But at the national level, No!
I do imagine that this mess will affect the ideology of people coming of age today. The country will all the same remain split pretty evenly in the foreseeable future.
“The country will all the same remain split pretty evenly in the foreseeable future.”
I can not agree with that based on the changing demographics. The bady boomers are dying out and the younger generations are much more liberal than the boomers who were The Liberals during the late 60’s and 70’s. We were anti war, free sex, free speech and anti establihment. Today the first two remain, but the left today is against free speech and very supportative of the “establihment” where in both cases establihment = government.
There are many more birds at the feeder and fewer with the seeds today than in the past and that changing demographic is continueing.
I generally favor divided government and gridlock.
Talk of impeachment is stupid and will backfire.
If you wish to assure that Democrats do not take the house – keep talking.
So how has Trump abused the power of the power o f the presidency.
I have not seen Trump do anything that every president since FDR has done – except getting into a pissing contest with the media.
We got that you do not like Trump or the GOP right now.
But actual reasons matter.
They are what distinguishes you oppinion between mindless ranting and reasoned fact.
If you can not make good arguments then it is minflrdd ranting.
“I have never said Trump did not do anything that was impeachable. ”
You are too quick to feel accused. I would have bet money that you will agree that trump has done impeachable things. I am not venting at you.
“there is no Russian collusion.”
Of course there isn’t, collusion isn’t even a thing, legally speaking, if I understand correctly. Conspiracy is though.
I do not believe that trump did anything worse than eagerly accepting offered information from Russian operatives and being utterly oblivious to the realities of Putin’s government and the appearance of being very friendly with them and antagonistic to our own agencies. The inheritors of the KGB know their business and they caught trump’s amateur hour campaign with ease in their web. They put out their bait and it was taken. I am 100% certain of that.
There are a lot of things I have very thin knowledge of, but the manner in which the Russian dirty tricks, poison, and mayhem forces operate is not one of them, I’ve followed this for decades from many angles. This is pure classic easily recognizable putin era tactics. No traditional political candidate would have been foolish enough to have taken the Russian bait, but the trump team did, most especially because of the warped character of trump himself.
putin is only just beginning this phase of his information war, there is much more to come and naivety is not called for. Americans of every party need to cut the shit and be completely on the same page about putin’s new type of information war with the west and its hazards.
“I do not believe that trump did anything worse than eagerly accepting offered information from Russian operatives and being utterly oblivious to the realities of Putin’s government and the appearance of being very friendly with them and antagonistic to our own agencies. The inheritors of the KGB know their business and they caught trump’s amateur hour campaign with ease in their web. They put out their bait and it was taken. I am 100% certain of that.”
While there is zero evidence of what you claim – it suffers from an even greater problem – if true – still not a crime.
Russian government agents also helped Hillary. In fact they helped Hillary frame Trump.
That is not a crime either – but it is much closer that what you allege.
Back to your allegations. There is alot of innuendo there. But no facts.
What is it that Trump “Eagerly accepted” from the Russians ?
You say “information”.
Natalia offered him “information” that was junk, and Trump did not accept it he rejected it.
Presuming it is correct that The Russians hacked the DNC – they provided the information to Wikileaks not Trump. Trump did not “accept it” Assange did.
Further Assange did nothing more than Washington Post did when they accepted the Pentagon papers. Still not a crime.
The fact that you are 100% certain of something with ZERO evidence is extremely disturbing.
We KNOW that the Clintons have deep ties to Russia. That they get LOTS of money from Russians, That they and cronies are invested in Russia.
Of all this we have evidence.
While there are allegations of malfeasance on the part of he Clinton’s no one claims they are Putin’s dupes – even though Putin played Clinton like a fiddle in the Ukraine.
And he is not doing so hot with Trump.
Wow! You have made Putin into a perfect Bond Villian.
Russia would be a global has been but for the worlds largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Their economy is a fraction of ours. Their entire government is tiny in comparison to ours.
The KGB whatever their intelligence services are tiny compared to ours no matter how good they are.
Yet you invest them with near omnipotence.
By implication our intelligence services must be clumsy and inept.
So in this mythical world with an all powerful putin and an incompetent CIA/NSA/FBI
Why would you beleive our IC when they say “putin did it”
You do understand that if our own much larger services are competent your story falls apart.
“putin is only just beginning this phase of his information war, there is much more to come and naivety is not called for. Americans of every party need to cut the shit and be completely on the same page about putin’s new type of information war with the west and its hazards.”
Putin has absolutely succeeded in making a tiny investment and yeilding enormous rewards. The left is appoplectic. The have magnified the Russian boogey monster beyond anything reasonable.
What is quite interesting is that Russia does not have the capability of doing what you beleive they did. No one does.
people did not vote for Trump because they were mislead by Russian bots.
If the russians had this capability for mass brainwashing over the internet they would have deployed it long ago.
Dave, “Putin has absolutely succeeded in making a tiny investment and yielding enormous rewards. The left is apoplectic. The have magnified the Russian bogey monster beyond anything reasonable.What is quite interesting is that Russia does not have the capability of doing what you believe they did. No one does.”
I agree completely. Like I said just a couple minutes ago, let Russia throw out the chum as red eat for the left press and they will run with that without the first glimpse of verification. And the 35% that will believe white is black if the left press tells them that will believe it and many of the undecideds will believe it as being dark gray.
Manipulation at its finest.
Persuading other people to do something stupid without using force – is probably immoral.
But it should NEVER be illegal.
Further we should never make laws that we can not or will not enforce.
We can not and really will not do anything consequential about russian or anyone else’s efforts to persuade voters in our elections.
It is a stupid idea.
As I have noted before – if Putin can not attempt to persuade – than why can John Oliver or the Guardian ? Or the News of the World.
Regardless as Brandeis noted, the response to speach we do not like is more speach.
That is all.
Ron, people in Montana and Idaho have kids too, technically millennials but not much like those in the big cities. That map of the red and blue counties? It ain’t gonna change much. People move slowly away from the left tendency of youth as they get on with life. Economic fantasies are self correcting, they can’t be paid for and when confronted with actual costs even the liberal liberals in Vermont had to accept it on single payer. The country will swing back between nearly evenly balanced forces right and left for a very long time. If one side starts to lose it will have to reinvent itself but right and left tendencies are both an ingrained part of human nature and neither side can eliminate the other, the pendulum will swing. All the same, the extremes that it is going to in its swings are getting worse and getting weirder at the moment. The world or twitter etc. is a destabilizing curse.
Yes grump, we do swing back and forth. But lets look back on government and life for many many years. And before we debate if these changes are good or bad, that is not my point. It is just the chages that have occurred.
1. At one time cocaine was accepted by society. That is how “Coke” got its name. Stimulant s were acceptable in many different products.
2. Sexual activity before marriage was taboo!
3. Abortion was illegal.
4. Marijuana was legal. Now it is not, but changing.
5. The average workweek was over 50 hours a week. Today fulltime is defined as 30 hours per week.
6.Entitlements did not exist. Today the movement is the ACA, where one employee is forced to buy health insurance to pay for another who cant. Further mivement left is going to happen.
7 Marriage occurred in the teen years and individuals were responsible for themselves. Today?
So many of the chages brought by a progressive agenda have been good, but the pendulum mves left and then right, but the rightward movement never reaches the previous level of right. Then it moves back left and exceeds thenprevious leftward movement.
I dont want to see life as acceptable in the 50’s, I only point out that once things change, bith socially and politically, they never return to previous settings.
Change does not occur as a result of a “progressive agenda”.
The changed you refer to are part of a continuum of changes that started a long time ago and have accelerated over the past 500 years.
We used to burn peat and shit for heat.
Biological energy was our only source of power not so long ago.
We use to live in dirty squalor.
We were lucky if during the course of our lives we got further than 5mi from where we were born.
The list is long.
The driving force to change is greater human freedom,
The increased affluence that brings allows us to afford to improve our lives.
I would strongly suggest reading about Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
That is from psychology not economics, but it is a principle that applies to everything.
If humans want something – they will eventually get it, when we have met all our more fundimental needs and have raised our standard of living to the level that we have enough free resources to afford our unmet wants.
Human desires are unlimited – that is important as it is the driver for our improvement.
Dave, “If humans want something – they will eventually get it, when we have met all our more fundamental needs and have raised our standard of living to the level that we have enough free resources to afford our unmet wants. Human desires are unlimited – that is important as it is the driver for our improvement.”
I am not so sure Grump and I were debating human desires and needs as much as we were the processes to achieve those outcomes.
How a conservative would work to achieve their desired outcome is completely different than a liberal. Just look around the world to see how a country led by what progressives believe in differs from how countries led by those with more conservative views. For instance, Japan vs a Scandinavian country.
“I am not so sure Grump and I were debating human desires and needs as much as we were the processes to achieve those outcomes.”
The process is automatic – so long as you have economic freedom.
And gets botched at significant cost if you do not.
“How a conservative would work to achieve their desired outcome is completely different than a liberal. Just look around the world to see how a country led by what progressives believe in differs from how countries led by those with more conservative views. For instance, Japan vs a Scandinavian country.”
You do not have the right to use force to acheive most goals.
Further you do not need to.
This is not a difference of opinion.
It is actually the social contract.
As our declaration of independence makes clear – the purpose of government is to use force to secure our natural rights.
It is not to manufacture new rights. It is not to accomplish whatever task some group – left or right – minority or minority wishes to achieve but can not do so through voluntary cooperation.
We constantly forget that progressive, conservative, whatever, you are always free to do whatever you want (short of using force) to accomplish your goals – whatever they are.
You are free to do so in voluntary cooperation with others.
And yet after Vermont California is now trying to impliment SP,
and democrats are selling M4A – which is SP.
The self correction of economic fantasies can be quite damaging – Social Security is running short, and soon enough benefits costs will exceed revenue by 27%.
This was purpoertedly impossible. FDR promised that SS taxes would never exceed 2%, they are near 15% now. A minimum wage worker could invest the money you put into a CD and beat SS by a long shot, and die leaving a large sum to their family.
We fail to grasp how evil SS is – it is destroying the wealth we create.
Sometimes the way economic fantasies dies is as in Venezeula.
As we watch what was the most affluent country in south america descend into poverty how can we possibly continue to advocate for any of the economic garbage of the left.
Regardless, the promises of the left must be paid for. And that payment MUST come from what we produce – there is no other source. Free is not Free. We have a choice between working ourselves for what WE want. Or working as slaves to acheive what government wants for us.
Even Jefferson accidentally discovered that slavery is horribly economically inefficient.
At Montecello Jefferson’s slaves were allowed to use their own time to produce whatever they wanted. Jeffersons expectation was they would take care of their daily needs during that time. But with that freedom his slaves produced MORE than they needed, at first that created slave commerce within montecello, but eventually slaves started selling what they produced outside of montecello. Jefferson proved that slavery is inefficient and unproductive, and that the slave labor he thought was naturally slow and untalented and creative was highly productive when given the oportunity.
Unfortuntely the success of Jeffersons slaves was noted by other slaves and more importantly other plantation owners and they demanded that he shut it down.
The country does swing between left and right endlessly.
But that process is not static, it drives change.
Over my life time there has been enormous change – both material and social changes.
Our views on race, religion, identity, sex, have changed radically within my lifetime.
Things that were considered repulsive and criminal are today widely accepted.
But all change is not good, and with good comes alot of bad and the pendulum swings back to clear out those changes that have not proved worthwhile.
I find the claims of the left that the “deplorables” the Trump voters are all hateful, hating haters laughably stupid. Alot of Richard Spensors views today were those of “the silent majority” 50 years ago. Today they are the far fringe.
But the real changes have not come as the result of government actions and programs, they have come about as a result of changes in people and prosperity.
“So many of the chages brought by a progressive agenda have been good, but the pendulum mves left and then right, but the rightward movement never reaches the previous level of right. Then it moves back left and exceeds thenprevious leftward movement.
I dont want to see life as acceptable in the 50’s, I only point out that once things change, bith socially and politically, they never return to previous settings.”
Its a very astute observation and I agree with the central point. But I have a counter offer: What it means to be far to the right is changing in a lot of ways. A lot of what trump is doing is extreme but its a mostly different extreme ideologically than what previous GOP extreme’s were, in my lifetime in any case. Trade wars, wall street rich guys as the enemy of the little guy, a Russian authoritarian leader running a not so secret covert war in eastern Europe with 10,000 casualties and playing dirty tricks in western elections being seen in a positive light as strong leader of his country by many GOP voters (and many right wingers in Europe), the anti american fanatic Assange also considered to be OK by a surprising number of GOP voters, deficit spending not a big problem. Its a new breed with a different ideology. Hmm, the left, its the same stuff as before (except for free speech you are dead on about that), only lefter than its been in quite a while economically and finding more and more far fetched victims of isms.
Most of the worst ideas are going to die of their own badness and impossibility over time, but they will have divided us to a new modern level before they do, not to mention being very inefficient way of spending our energy.
Yes agree. ” A lot of what trump is doing is extreme but its a mostly different extreme ideologically than what previous GOP extreme’s were,”
I have no idea how one can be a christian conservative and support Trump other than in their point of view what is offered by the left is much worse. But they are one dimensional (abortion), so I guess everything else is acceptable.
Ron, I so agree with your point re “christian conservatives.” And I call myself a follower of Christ.
Rebecca, I will debate almost anyone, but I have friends that are born again Christians. I keep my mouth shut around them as that is getting into a debate on religion and politics at the same time and that is like getting into a fight with someone with a double barrel shotgun when you have a 22 pistol. Friendships can be lost in times like these. What I will say is I am a Christian, but I am not religious since I am not active in any organized religion,
Ron;
I would rather debate a fundimentalist Christian than a progressive.
And I have.
They know what they believe and they are prepared to defend it.
They are willing to listen, given that they will also be given the oportunity to respond.
They are far more tolerant than progressives.
You will not get fired shunned, uninvited, or otherwise suffer negative consequences of a disagreement with a fundimentalist.
They are capable of beleiving that you are going to hell and a good person concurrently.
They are generally capable of being friendly with people they disagree with.
They routinely deal with a world where those arround them do not share their values.
Those on the left are completely unused to a world in where anyone would disagree with them about anything – even the most minor issue. ‘
They do not beleive in hell – but they will send you there for disagreeing.
The mere act of disagreeing makes you inherently an evil person – regardless of anytbhign else about you.
There is an interview of Penn Gillette that addresses tolerance and Christian Fundimentalism on Youtube.
Remove the rhetoric and Trump is pretty tame – not “extreme” at all.
We have been fighting over a “wall” since Reagan. The only “new” thing in the immigration battle is that the right has been played repeatedly over the past 40 years, and they are not getting played again.
Our current immigration conflicts will all get resolved – likely followed by new ones.
The writing is on the wall for what that resolution will look like.
There will likely be a wall, and increased security measures and greater ease for government to deport people who enter the US illegally. There will almost certainly be some kind of quota system where the number of immigrants we accept each year will be roughly set and a variety of criteria established. The total legal immigration will increase, and issues like the dreamers and family separation will be resoved mostly to the wishes of the left.
At the moment the only reason we do not have such a deal is the intransigence of the left.
The unwillingness to give even an inch to Trump.
Given that the “compromise” – somthing that those on this site seem to think is a principle, is self evident and supported by something like 80% of the country – why hasn’t it happened ? Trump is certainly not the obstacle.
“Remove the rhetoric and Trump is pretty tame – not “extreme” at all.”
Ye, remove the rhetoric and leave everything else and I would bet Trumps approval would jump close to 10%. He is his and his parties worst enemy.
“Ye, remove the rhetoric and leave everything else and I would bet Trumps approval would jump close to 10%. He is his and his parties worst enemy.”
You are right – his approval rating would jump.
But you are also wrong. He would not have gotten elected.
Atleast a portion of Trump’s vote is backlash against the identity politics of the left.
What you do and say during an election is quite different once in office for most. If he tweeted policy issues like just getting an agreement with Mexico, that would be fine. I address the negative personal comments he makes about others. I speak of his inability to let go of personal grudges like his disapproval of John McCain and either not lowering the flag to half staff because he did not like him or he was too lazy to listen to advisors who know the traditions for respected individual deaths.
I know you do not agree, but this obnoxious NY behavior is a turnoff to many in other parts of the country which might mean the difference in a handful of voters changing their votes, leading to the liberal takeove. When it happens once, no problem. When it happens multiple times a day, 365, it does.
I do not know Trump personally – few do, But I think most of what you call holding a grudge is just style.
Trump lambasted Kim Un for months.
He sat down negotiated a deal with him and came away saying how great a guy he was.
I would prefer a world were that is not an effective style. But it appears to be.
If you piss on Trump – he pisses back – by the gallon.
But my guess is he walks away from twitter without any thought to you.
I do not think he is up late at night fuming over his enemies.
I am speculating, But there is not alot of evidence that Trump actually holds grudges.
There is enormous evidence that Hillary does. Even her close friends are afraid of pissing her off.
“I know you do not agree, but this obnoxious NY behavior is a turnoff to many in other parts of the country which might mean the difference in a handful of voters changing their votes, leading to the liberal takeove. When it happens once, no problem. When it happens multiple times a day, 365, it does.”
It is not a question of agree or disagree.
It is a question of guesses at the political calculus.
There is a real absolute answer – but neither you nor I know it.
If you take those voters who Trump has offended so badly they will not vote for him – but would have had his rhetoric been tempered, and then add those who cheer him on because of that rhetoric – is the number positive or negative.
I think it is positive, and I think the fact that he won the election is strong evidence of that.
But you could be right and it could be negative.
You appear to attribute a litany of things to the extreme right, that with few exceptions have nothing to do with either Trump or the extreme right.
Presidents since atleast Reagan have worked towards free trade.
They have all had push back against that – usually from the blue collar left.
All Trump has done is managed to strip blue collar workers from the left.
We shall have to see what Trump’s actual results on Trade are, and I am very worried,
But the spoken goal is actual free trade – or atleast some versions of Ron’s purported “fair trade.
Russia has been a beligerant state for over a century. All of what you bemoan occured under Bush and Obama. Trump did not create the problems with Russia and thus far has not agrevated them. We do not have the ability to check Putin’s aspirations.
Are you clueless about Assange ?
Do you understand that much of what you know about Wall Street and the misconduct of businesses came through leaks to WikiLeaks ?
Obama granted Manning clemency.
Assange is NOT american – why should you presume american patriotism on his part.
Regardless, he is the modern day equivalent of the Washington Post and the Pentagon papers. As WaPo notes – Democracy Dies in Darkness. Today Wikileaks is the light.
Even with regard to the DNC. The entire effect of the DNC hack is BECAUSE the conduct of the DNC was offensive, anti-american.
As a result of that we learned more of Clinton and the DNC’s malfeasance.
You are among those demanding to have every private secret of those you dislike made public. We now read that Trump’s efforts to keep his past consenting sexual daliances secret is a crime. Yet the same people using the force of government to pry that information into the public eye AND criminalize the keeping of secrets are the very ones claiming that the DNC had a eight to keep its dirty laundry secret and that exposing it is criminal.
I have no problems with Trump’s NDA’s. I have no problems with Danials capitalizing on her past relationship with Trump.
The left is drowning in hypocracy.
Make up your mind.
“Most of the worst ideas are going to die of their own badness and impossibility over time”
Absolutely – whether they are from the left or the right, and whether government steps in or not. Modern history is rife with failure, but the overarching theme is progress.
We make myriads of mistakes, and learn from them and move on and do better.
Government is an impeditiment to that.
There is far more failure in the road forward than success, but it is the failures that bring success.
No government right or left needed.
Given that Thomas Jefferson directed his AG to prosecute a political enemy for Treason and personally supervised the prosecution – I do not think our framers would be “rolling their eyes”
I get tired of the crap that “this has never happened before”. It is only true in the most rigidly litteral sense. In the general sense – Trump is not unusual,
What Damage has Trump done ?
Are we in a nuclear war with North Korea ? Russia ? China ?
In what way are we substantially worse off than under Obama ?
I think some of what Trump is doing is bad, and some is good.
On NET it is still better than Obama – so how are we damaged in some significant way ?
So the key to impeaching Trump is Cohen pleading guilty to conspiring with Trump to commit a non-crime, that half the political candidates of my lifetime has done.
I do not – and none of us know the exact details of the Trump’s efforts to pay to avoid the disclosure of embarrassing stories.
But all of us know the general facts.
Daniels and atleast one other woman were paid to keep silent about their long ago relations with Donald Trump.
This is not illegal. It is not illegal if Trump did so to spare Melania public embarrassment.
It is not illegal if he did so to hide his legal private actions from the public.
It is not illegal if he paid for it himself.
It was not illegal when Clinton paid for silence from his campaign.
It was not illegal when Edwards paid off his CURRENT paramour during the campaign.
From his campaign.
The argument from the left has from the begining been anything that occured that might have contributed to Trump winning the election – must be a crime.
If Trump does not reveal his tax returns – crime.
If Trump does not reveal his past sexual history – crime.
If we do not get to know every detail of Trumps finances over decades – crime.
If someone leaked embarrassing but true information about Clinton – crime
If someone leaked embarrasing information about Trump – true or not, public service.
The standard as to whether something is a crime of not is does treating it as a crime “get Trump” ? And we can completely ignore that in the past, in the future and even in the present where the same thing does not lead to “getting trump” it is not a crime.
I would absolutely agree with you that we need to be able to conduct investigations differently than we do today.
I like your proposal better than what I floated earlier.
But it still has issues.
First, it should not be confined to the president.
I think that we need TWO public corruption divisions.
One in the executive that primarily targets congress and the judiciary.
And one within the legislative that targets the executive more broadly.
I do not think that you place it under control of the opposing party.
I think that you merely allow some specific number of congressmen – say 20 regardless of party or chamber to refer something to the congressional office of public integrity.
You have maybe 10 independent councils within that office and you have them selected by congress with membership proportionate to a parties control of congress – i.e. typically the majority party gets to select 6 and the minority party 4,
Investigations are conducted in absolute secrecy
And we get serious about criminally prosecuting people who leak information about an ongoing investigation.
I would also go one step further, I beleive that congress already has a “jail” and a “marshal”.
I do not care so much about the “jail” but congress needs the power to enforce contempt, subpeona’s etc. I think you create a small office of congressional marshall’s with the power to enforce the demands of congress, and to prosecute where necescary. ‘
During the Obama administration the House found Eric Holder in contempt for failing to turn over documents regarding fast and furious.
But the next step was to refer the citation to the Attorney Generals office for prosecution.
That part did not work so well. We are seeing the same now with the house.
The house can subpoena documents from DOJ/FBI The president can direct that DOJ cooperate, but there is no means of assuring that occurs when it does not.
Further there are weird rules issues between the house and senate.
In the house the chairman of any committee can authorize subpeona’s
In the senate it requires the approval of the ranking members of both parties.
This is why the fight between congress and Rosenstein is taking place in the house.
Because Feinstein has refused Grassley’s effort to subpeona DOJ/FBI.
I am a firm beleiver in oversite – I really do not care whose ox gets gored.
Right now democrats are furious because they want millions more pages of documents regarding Kavanaugh’s term as White House chief of staff.
While I think there may be a legitimate basis for a claim of executive priviledge.
And the Bush administration archivist has denied the requests,
I think that members from either party should be allowed to TRY to get whatever documents (from the administration) they think they need to properly do their job.
I do not think that either the house or Senate should be able to easily subpeona private parties. But the government has powers – not rights, and oversight of the executive is the role of congress. Where there is some actual dispute – the courts should sort it out. That is their job. And a sufficient minority of congress should have the power to get whatever they demand – subject to review by the courts, and when there is no compliance there should be the means to enforce including arresting and jailing people.
There is absolutely zero basis for Rosenstein to resist the document requests of congress.
There are four main reasons that The executive can legitimately refuse a request of information for congress.
National Security broadly – that is not actually a basis for refusal just a basis to limit access to those in congress with sufficient clearance.
Means and methods – again not really an actual basis. Congress should usually defer when the executive wishes to protect means and methods, and should be held accountable for the consequences – individually where appropriate.
But means and methods information should not be denied congress if that insist.
Exposing information in an ongoing investigation – again that is much like means and methods. Congress should usually defer as a matter of choice but can not be deprived of the information if it insists as a matter of law.
And finally executive priviledge. That is an absolute priviledge. But it is also a limited one.
It ONLY applies to the advice given to the president. It does not go beyond that to the rest of the executive branch. The president’s advisors should be able to discuss anything with the president – any options even ludicrous ones, without fear that their advice – particularly devil’s advocate positions and the like should subject them to public criticism.
Anyway those are the ONLY reasons that congress should be deprived information that it wants from the executive. With the courts arbitrating the disputes and congress having the power to enforce favorable outcomes.
The reason I suggested control by the opposing party was to insure those running were “clean”. If you havebthe appointments made by the oarty of the president, then you have oolitical hacks running investigations. Even if you have 10 investigators picked by congress, you coulf end upwith ten D leaning or R leaning investigators at the same time the party in power is ofbthe same letter.
It could be worked out, but I want to insure those investigating are appointed by members of the opposite party. That way if candidate A has done something illegal, that candidate will know before the election he/she will be a target.
Now Trump most.likely would have run no matter his back ground, but one has to wonder if Clinton would have wanted to put up with 4 years of email/ home servef investigations.
The devil is ALWAYS in the details.
After experience we decided the Independant Council act was a bad idea and we let it expire and then replaced it with the Special Council law.
But the SC turns out to be worse than the IC law.
It ha what I consider more serious constitutional flaws, and by its very nature – placing the SC within the Executive it either results in strong political pressure to not appoint and SC, or and SC that is inherently without oversight.
Remember you are not supposed to get an SC unless there is a conflict of interests.
That means that those who would normally oversee CANT.
But since the SC is in the executive there is no congressional oversight either.
I am not committed to some specific means of creating a Public Corruption unit.
At the same time I think we have some problems.
Once a law is passed it is very hard to get it changed – no matter how broke it is.
The next in this instance is that if we pass such a law and it does not work.
Politicians are going to declare victory and go home.
They do not want investigations – really.
Trump is being investigated because he is an outsider.
Clinton was given kid glove treatment not because she was innocent – but because she was an insider. Do not mistake political outrage for actual criminal prosecutions.
Republicans would be happy to bring Clinton before an infinite series of Benghazi committees. But there was not prosecution because regardless of rhetoric – insiders rarely go after insiders criminally, regardless of party.
Nor do I beleive there is such a thing as a non-partisan process for appointing anyone.
I have addressed this on gerrymandering before:
The process of drawing congressional districts is going to be political and corrupt.
Given that who do you want doing it ?
Do you want to involve the courts and politically corrupt them ?
It does not matter who you think should have won Franken/Coleman or Bush/Gore,
there is atleast one judge you likely think is politically corrupt.
And you may be right.
Whatever we do we need to try to match the skill of our founders who were very good at pitting interest against interest and making bad intentions work to good purposes.
“I have addressed this on gerrymandering before:
The process of drawing congressional districts is going to be political and corrupt.
Given that who do you want doing it ?
Do you want to involve the courts and politically corrupt them ?”
That is a vary easy fix. Computer algorithms can be built with a minimal number of criteria that would preclude Goofy chasing Daffy in PA, the snake in NC or the sand stripe in mid Florida coasral area. Congressional districts were built historically to include blocks of people and districts looked like chilrens puzzles aged 2-5.
Districts should be more block like, not meandering ameobas that can cover hundreds of mile in legth and a few ft in width.
“That is a vary easy fix. Computer algorithms can be built with a minimal number of criteria that would preclude Goofy chasing Daffy in PA, the snake in NC or the sand stripe in mid Florida coasral area. Congressional districts were built historically to include blocks of people and districts looked like chilrens puzzles aged 2-5.
Districts should be more block like, not meandering ameobas that can cover hundreds of mile in legth and a few ft in width.”
You are presuming that there is some objectively correct criteria.
There is not.
Every single proposal that someone makes where they assert some objectivity or neutrality, is neither objective nor neutral
All choices have political consequences and absent some clear understanding of what “objectively right” is – all choices are “gerry mandering” All favor something.
The famous compromise you noted over the makeup of the house and senate, is just a constitutionally enshrined form of gerrymandering of the country.
You say that amoebalike districts are wrong – in the past the courts have agreed. It is one of very few criteria the courts have historically supported.
I would tend to agree to – but there is still no objective basis.
The winning side in the PA case argued voter efficiency.
They were coming very very close to arguing that every district had to unifromly reflect the party makeup of the state as a whole.
You really think that is “objective”.
Those who live in cities want representatives who understand cities.
Those who live in rural areas want representatives who understand farmers.
It is likely good for our government to have both urban and rural representative
I would note that the type of gerrymandering that the left fears is incredibly dangerous.
tiny swings in the electorate throw huge numbers of seats to the opposite party.
regardless, I can put together a computer program that will do almost anything your want.
I can not come up with a way that is “objectively correct”
http://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-candidate-groused-mccain-hours-died-171805027–election.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=2_01
How in the hell does the GOP keep coming up with these idiots running for office? Can’t anyone keep their damn mouths and fingers quite. Just add this one to the long list of can’t lose seats .
I think Ward’s remarks are tactless.
For the most part this is a time to remember John McCain as a hero, and not to dwell on his faults.
John McCain was a genuine Hero.
So was Duke Cunningham and he ended up in jail.
Being a hero does not preclude all kinds of other issues.
Ward has a legitimate gripe with McCain.
McCain has actively sought to interfere with her political career.
Alot has come out about McCains political activities in the past couple of years – he walked the Steele Dossier to the FBI (though they already had it).
He also pushed the IRS to go after conservative political action committees.
He was the co-author of McCain-Feingold a well intention but deeply flawed campaign finance law.
McCain got himself caught up in the Keating 5 Scandal and it changed him.
While SORT OF for the better. He made the typical mistake of blaming others.
If I offer a politician $1M for special treatment, there is nothing criminal about my offer.
If the politician accepts, that is a betrayal of the public trust.
Political corruption is NOT attempting to influence politicians
It is the politician ACTING on inducements.
We never root out corruption in government.
But we can not even hope for improvement until we are prepared to hold government accountable.
Policemen, prosecutors, judges, Clerks, Council men, Congressmen, and presidents.
When you accept a position of public trust you are required to act to very high standards.
There is no right to be a policemen or president.
The job comes with requirements.
I am far less concerned about Trump’s abuse of mouth, and far more concerned about abuse of power. That was a larger problem in the Obama administration than the Trump administration.
“For the most part this is a time to remember John McCain as a hero, and not to dwell on his faults.”
My issue was not about McCain. It was adout Kelli Wards stupidity. I was referring to the Deleware “witch”, the MO “cant get pregnant when raped”, the judge removed from the bench in AL due to ethics violations and then the sexual assualt violations, and other close elections lost due to stupidity running as GOP candidates. And that is not political stupidity, it is indiotic stupidity.
And democrats are running multiple socialists, and Fauxchantas is a senator.
The difference between republicans and democrats, is that for the most part the republican nutcases lose. The democratic ones win.
Fortunately for the GOP, McSally won. Ward was an idiot to say what she did. Apart from sounding insensitive and self-centered, she sounded delusional.
” Apart from sounding insensitive and self-centered, she sounded delusional. ”
I had thought she was the nominee reading the article. Did not do enough research.
But a troubling number is the fact a current state elected official and female retired military individual only received 52% of the GOP primary votes, while dellusional Ward and convicted ( and Trump pardoned) Arpaio split the other 48%.
This, to me, shows how fractured the GOP is today. How 48% of the voters can overlook the faults of the candidates they voted for and the positives of the one they did not in a puzzle to me.
So now we will see if the extremist on the right can suck it up and vote for a more moderate candidates, or will they stay home and allow the left to take control.
To me there is a large difference from avoiding two totally incompetent and unacceptible extreme candidates (Trump v Clinton) as I did in 2016 and avoiding an extreme on one hand and a moderate on the other. If extreme conservatives avoid McSally and the senate flips, they deserve what they get!
Ron, the odds of the Senate flipping are very low. The dems would have to run the table with all the close races. The house flipping, perhaps, the senate, ver unlikely.
To those voters who voted for Arpaio and Ward, the things you see as faults they see as positive character traits. They did not ignore those things, they enthusiastically supported them! Nationally, I think that is where 50% of GOP voters now stand. Ward was no worse in the things she said than trump is. She was doing her best trump imitation, if there had been two establishment candidates she would have won, like trump did. Guess what, trump arpaio, and ward are the future of the GOP.
Now, the next years will see whether the progressives truly can take over the dem party like the trumpies got the GOP. If the dem candidate for potus is a progressive in 2020, then the GOP wins the presidency.
Rather that unspecific generalizations – how about specifics.
I am going to ignore Aprio – I think his pardon was one of Trump’s biggest mistakes.
But despite the political hatchet job Ward does not appear to be an actual nutcase like Arpio.
Regardless, you are saying 50% of republicans support “extremist” positions.
As I see it that is the democrats problem, not the republicans.
Sanders, Giliiam, Ocasio-Cortez, to a lesser extent Warren
Who are the similarly extreme similarly high profile republicans ?
And what is it that they are espousing that is near as horribly stupid as socialism ?
During the Obama administration we fought over what was socialism and whether Obama was socialist and the “rights” attempts to malign democrats by labeling them as “socialists”.
The left is embracing socialism right now – not running from it. These are not candidates who are offending by being called socialist.
They have willingly associated themselves with an ideology that has failed catastrophically everywhere it has been tried and nearly always results in copious bloodshed.
I disagree with many republicans on many policies.
But being pro-life is not extreme, nor is being for trade restrictions, or for immigrations restrictions, or more military spending. There are democrats supporting each of these.
The fact that a position is wrong does nto make it extreme.
Socialism is however inarguably extreme.
So what positions of republicans do you think are extreme ?
I am not asking which you agree or disagree with, but which are is obviously failed and harmful as socialism ?
Republicans are often wrong. They are not often extreme.
Too many democrats are both wrong and extreme.
The way extreme is used at TNM is maleable and pretty much meaningless.
It ends up meaning nothing more than – I do not agree,
Nor do I think extremism is inherently wrong.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Dave, it depends on ones definition of “extreme” in this context. Just like the weather, extreme can be very different to different people. Where 95 degrees with 60% humidity may be extremely hot to one, some like my wife find it “warm”.
Yes, many of the programs where everyone else pays for someones health inurance, college efucation and lifes essentials is considered extreme for those paying, it is not for those accepting those programs.
And for those that believe government should ban abortion by constitutional amendment and laws, ban alternative marriage and force christian based social beliefs by force on others, that is considered extreme by those who do not believe in government force and control, such as those with more moderate views.
Government control by force on any belief that does not harm others and is not accepted by the vast majority of people (ie, 51% v 90%) most likely is extreme.
I have no problems with voluntary collective choices – insurance, churches, unions.
I have a problem with the use of force – collectively or otherwise.
Absent necescity, effectiveness and justification
It is wrong and it fails
I have expressed my view on Abortion before – both sides are wrong.
A woman has an absolute right to control of her own body.
But a fetus is NOT her. It is out of her control.
She is entitled to demand that it be deprived of the ability to depend on her body – even if that results in its death. She is not however free to demand its death, only its removal.
Just as there is no right not to be a father – there is none not to be a mother.
Had the courts followed this – which is rooted in centuries of common law, this debate would likely be over.
I agree with Dave that McCain was a hero, and that his passing should be a time to reflect on the man that we have lost, and to remember his heroism.
And, I also agree that heroism does not confer sainthood. War heroes are flawed human beings, just as all of the rest of us…Many of the media types who have been gushing over McCain since his death, were the very same people who called him a senile old warmonger, in 2008. They reminded us of the way that McCain abandoned his first wife after she suffered catastrophic injuries in a car accident, and how he became engaged to his wealthy wife, Cindy, before his divorce was final.
The problem that we have today is the inability to disagree amiably, or at least with the understanding that both parties in a political disagreement are people of good will and reasonable state of mind.
It’s possible to believe that two things can be simultaneously true ~ that John McCain was a great man, and that his greatness was tempered by a sometimes petty spirit and a willingness to betray those who believed in him. Remember that, in his final campaign, he promised to be the man who would repeal Obamacare…yet, when the time came, he was the man who saved it. One side may see that as bi-partisan heroism, but the other side, very reasonably, may see it as cynical duplicity. Both sides can be reasonably argued.
But reasonableness is not a trait that is highly valued these days….
“I agree with Dave that McCain was a hero, and that his passing should be a time to reflect on the man that we have lost, and to remember his heroism.”
A nice idea, not much fulfilled in your post unfortunately. Instead you quickly got down to the dirt that really interests you.
“They reminded us of the way that McCain abandoned his first wife after she suffered catastrophic injuries in a car accident, and how he became engaged to his wealthy wife, Cindy, before his divorce was final.”
Well, that is the lurid distorted National Enquirer version. Bleh. Sure, lets reflect on the man we lost and remember his heroism. Right. John McCain was a deeper more consequential person than you can even comprehend and you give us the brainless heartless gossip at this moment. Sorry if I am being unamiable, but that is the effect that your posts have on me. I seem to remember that you posted your support for arpaio here last year over dave’s dissent. These are your people, arpaio and trump. McCain is my idea of character. There really cannot be amiability from me towards the slice of America you represent. There is, to be blunt, a war that I uselessly wage against people like you. You’ve won priscilla, your views have ascended. Its grotesque.
From Wiki, just to have a less lurid view:
“In April 1979,[61] McCain met Cindy Lou Hensley, a teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, whose father had founded a large beer distributorship.[66] They began dating, and he urged his wife Carol to grant him a divorce, which she did in February 1980; the uncontested divorce took effect in April 1980.[22][61] The settlement included two houses, and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments due to her 1969 car accident; they remained on good terms.[66]”
You have managed to “so what” and “who cares” all of your heroic trump’s sexual and marital indiscretions. Ah, but McCains get the Enquirer treatment before his body is in the ground. Its who you are. Its who the GOP base is.
We are so screwed.
grump, sorry for annoying you with my mere existence 😉. I was simply recalling what I read, back in 2008. I never bothered to research it, because I didn’t care if it was true or not – I voted for John McCain because I believed that he would be a good, possibly great, president. And I still think that he would have been.
” I voted for John McCain because I believed that he would be a good, possibly great, president. And I still think that he would have been.”
None of which sentiment made it into your gossip laden post that drew my reaction. Why? Why at this time does that ^%$#@ trash have to get tossed into what was supposed to be praise for the man we lost? I am SO fucking sick of this wretched garbage, from all sides.
I don’t get many heros in the arena of public life. John Glenn, the astronauts of the 60s, McCain. McCain ran for president and did a thing I do not remember another candidate for potus doing. He came to the defence of his opponent against the rank disgusting kind of lunitic attack that has now today become the standard in the GOP. trump does it, you do it, the GOP mass produces attacks on the press as the enemy of the people, much of the left is fine with physical attacks on guest speakers like occurred at Middlebury or rioting BLM protesters at Dartmouth. I am completely sick of all the unreasonable people who are out of control, spewing their poisons.
You want reasonable? Set an example. BE reasonable. That nasty gossip was a fail.
Grump, it is not that much differentntoday than when McCain ran for president. What the democrats now call a great man and wonderful colleague, Obama called him a “mad bomber” and stated “I don’t believe that Senator McCain doesn’t care what’s going on in the lives of Americans – I just think he doesn’t know.”
Another democrat operative stated “”A lot of people don’t know … that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity. Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain’s military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief?”
“Getting shot down, tortured and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience,” Aravosis wrote in the blog post, titled “Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?”
“Democratic West Virginia Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV cut a bit closer, suggesting that McCain’s days as a fighter pilot were themselves a critique of his character.
“What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground?” he asked. “He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.””
I could post more, but for every action, there is a reaction. And every reaction becomes more pronounced as it occurs. Words like those above provides the opening for others to react. Then they carry it one step further and the left reacts.
Now, policy wise, take immigration. I suggest you and I could discuss the issue and come up with an action that might help alleviate the immigration problem. But that did not happen. No reasonable action took place with Democrat controlled congress, so Obama does DACA. Right reacts and after years of seeing illegals pour into the country, Trump get nominated and elected. So the reaction on the left is to move further left. Many of the democratsrunning today are further left than earlier versions.
The reaction. The GOP is nominating more further right.
Yes the extremes are winning. Your dislike for a far right Trump is met with the same amount of dislike for far left democrats.
The losers. You, me and others that can debate, compromise and work for the country, not a movement.
grump, re-read my post, man! I wrote that many of the media types who are praising McCain today, pushed this malicious gossip when he was running for president in 2008. It’s not MY malicious gossip.
I believe that it is possible for a person to have a messy personal life and still be a great leader. I believe that we’re all very fallible, that we have all done things of which we are not proud, and that, barring acts of true evil, that makes us all pretty normal.
I mean, look at Mitt Romney. You’d be hard-pressed to find a man more admirable in his personal behavior. Yet he was slimed as a homophobe, a heartless man who caused the death of many who were laid off when Bain Capital reorganized corporations, a misogynist who wanted to keep “women in binders,” etc. Bush was called a Nazi, CBS claimed that he had gone AWOL while in the National Guard, and he was accused of having advance knowledge of the 9-11 attacks. Obama, of course, was accused of lying about the circumstances of his birth. And let’s not even compare the things that were said about Reagan when he was president, to the glowing things that were said about him after his death. Like night and day.
In general, if a politician has made personal mistakes in his/her past, but appears to have been reasonably honest and forthright in his/her public life, I would not judge that person unqualified to hold office. But, if they have betrayed the public trust, by committing immoral or illegal acts while holding office, or if they have committed serious felonies at any time of their lives, I would likely not vote for them.
I generally admired McCain, considered him a war hero, and cast my vote for him when he ran for the presidency. I do not, however, think that he was a perfect man. So, sue me.
Excellent!
I am very disturbed by many things McCain did.
He was still a hero.
I do not have to agree with him on everything, to think so.
I had no problem with McCain precluding Trump from his funeral – it is his funeral.
I did have problems with the funeral becoming a trump bashing session.
It was McCain’s funeral.
Very ugly comments. I have never doubted that there are many wingnuts and loudmouths in the dem party voters and politicians with over the top inflammatory rhetoric. That Obama made such comments is sad. I wonder what the worst things McCain said about Obama were? I guess I can google that if I want to suffer.
The GOP said a lot of bad things about Obama. I was just pointing out we forget the past and only focus on the here and now.
This moment is a time for forgetting McCain’s flaws.
Not denying they exist. He left his wife, who had stuck with him through his military career and 5 years as a POW.
I am glad that was not hostile. I am glad he found someone he could relate to.
That does not make it any less offensive.
Once again the extremist have won. Free healthcare, free education, free child care, free free, free. If its free it wins on the left. Wonder how Floridians will like a new income tax if this carries forward into the general election?
http://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/08/28/for-gwen-graham-loss-is-a-rejection-of-her-familys-centrist-politics/
OnTheIssues ranks Gillim about 80% liberal (where moderate center is 0) with no libertarian leanings By comparison, Bernie sanders is just slightly more liberal. Ron DeSantos is ranked 55% (where moderate center is 0) center right conservative with 25% libertarian leanings. As comparisons, Richard Burr is ranked 80% conservative with equal populism and libertarian leanings (0). Joe Manchin (WVA) and Mark Warner (Va) are 0’s. Both right in the middle of moderate dead center.. Just as conservative as liberal, as populist and libertarian.
i knew I like those two for a reason. but how do they stay in office?
You’re misreading the chart, Ron.
OnTheIssues a good site for compilation of a politician’s views & stances on issues. But I don’t know how you came up with the assessment DeSantis is anywhere close to moderate. To be accurate, He’s a solid Right-Conservative leaning Libertarian Trump supporter- his placement on the chart is nearly identical to the Trump’s placement (look it up at the site). Are you suggesting Trump is close to a moderate too?
On the major issues we use to determine a moderate designation, DeSantos isn’t even within the periphery of moderation.
These are some of DeSantos NON MODERATE positions:
-He’s strongly Pro Life, wants to ban abortions after 20 weeks except if mother’s life at issue.
-Opposes Same Sex Marriage
-Supports fully Repealing ObamaCare.
-Wants to privatize Social Security.
-Strongly favors school vouchers & opposes Federal grants for education.
-Opposes any further restrictions on firearm sale or possession.
-Doesn’t support path to citizenship for illegals or allowing Dreamers into the military.
-Was against Mueller’s investigation from the start and wants to suspend it.
-Strongly against raising taxes on the wealthy to reduce deficit.
If Floridians are in favor of all or most of that, they should elect him, and vote for Trump again in 2020. They will deserve each other.
If you take the corner just above the first “e” in moderate, that is center -0-. Each corner moving left and right = 20%. So Gillim is positioned 60% left. The chart shows desantos 40% right with 10% libertarian.
So lets just say Gillum and desantos gives Florida an excellent choice between the very liberal and very conservative candidates.
Jay, I don’t think that Ron is mis-reading the chart at all. But, that aside, most of DeSantis’s positions are not extreme when compared to the mainstream conservative positions throughout the country. You may disagree with them, but that doesn’t make them extreme.
A few points:
1) having an policy position or opinion is not the same (or should not be the same) as forcing that policy on everyone in the country. So, for example, a person may not believe in gay marriage, but would not do anything to keep gay people from marrying, so long as they are not forced to participate. This is exactly the issue in the Masterpiece Cake Shop case. Jack Phillips told the gay couple, who ultimately sued him, that he did not bake cakes for gay weddings, but that he would gladly bake them any other sort of cake. He had baked for them before, he knew that they were gay, and he did not force his views upon them, he simply declined to provide a specific service that conflicted with his beliefs.
2) It is generally the left that seeks to impose government control on citizens. There is a strong case to be made that since the federal government took control over public education in the 1980’s, the quality of education has gone steadily down. Charter schools, which are public schools, have attempted to provide a choice for millions of poor students who otherwise would be forced to attend crime -ridden, drug infested schools, but have been opposed by the NEA, because charter schools operate outside of the direct control of school districts, and do not have to employ union teachers. Opposing school choice is not an “extreme position,” but the left sees it that way, because it wants total control over public education.
3) You don’t have to agree with everything that a politician says, in order to support that politician. Being in lock-step with any political party is cult-like and extreme.
Priscilla, excellent.
One additional point. Richard Burr when ranked by OnTheIssues is about as conservative and non populist/Libertarian one can get. He is at 80%, but he also is very open to compromise when that is the right thing to do. DeSantos is 40% less conservative when ranked by this site.
I do not know much about either DeSantis or Gilliam beyond what little is in the press.
Nor do I particularly want to – as I have no vote in FL.
But FL has been moving very slowly right over the past could of decades (just as Virginia moved left), and my GUESS would be the Gilliam can not be elected, even if DeSantis is pretty extreme.
At the same time I would note that today “extreme right” – seems to be anyone who does not support abortion on demand, or gun confiscation, or limitless government spending.
While “extreme left” is reserved for socialists and communists that actually advocate violence. Merely being a socialist of communist does not appear to be enough to get labeled “extreme”
One of the major errors of many – including posters on TNM is the ludicrous proposition that their personal views represent the US political media.
Democrats and the media have moved further left. The Republicans and the country have not. Much of what is called “extreme” by many of the “moderates” here are positions that a plurality – if not a majority of americans hold. Some are positions in which overwhelming majorities of americans hold.
Just to be clear – I am not an advocate of democracy. I do not beleive that if 51 ro even 81% of people want something they are entitled to use force through government to get it.
But language matters and it is hard to call the plurality position of the american people “extreme”.
I am not as an example a “fan” of Fox, I do not watch any news channel, and rarely view clips from CNN. MSNBC, FOX, … on Youtube.
But I do note that FOX pretty much owns the ratings often dwarfling the rest fo the media combined. Fox has topped cable news rating for 15 years straight.
Like it or not Fox is “the political center” of the country. Which might help you understand how Trump was elected.
“Like it or not Fox is “the political center” of the country. Which might help you understand how Trump was elected.”
The political center might be Fox News. But the political parties are Maddow and Hannity.
Trump was elected because there were 8-10 ” politically center GOP” candidates splitting the center right vote, leaving the “red neck, tea party, Honey BooBoo, Duck Dynasty” voters to control 30% of the early GOP vote, thus drying up essentiwl money for viable candidacies. Had it been Trump v one or two thers, he would never have survived New Hampshire.
Even as the field thinned Trump still won within the GOP.
I would personally have prefered any of several other republicans.
At the same time I would note that Trump won the General, and he is not an “extremist”.
He is loud and speaks without chosings his words carefully.
But he is not the extremist he is painted.
He is cutting regulation – a very republican thing and he is actually doing it – a not so republican thing.
His trade policies are wrong – but they are LEFT of the GOP not to the right.
His immigration policies – as much noise as they generate are supported by something like 80% of the country. Regardless, they are not extreme.
In what way is Trump tot he right of those 8-10 candidates you think would have been better.
I find the anger at Trump here funny.
My problems with Trump are that he is TOO moderate.
He is wrong on trade – though you particularly support his position.
Yes, he is a loud mouthed brash moderate – but he is still a moderate.
He did not win by energizing the religious right. He did so by appealing to blue collar democrats in the rust belt.
Much is made by the left and the media over why are GOP christians voting for Trump ?
Because they are not voting for a democrat no matter what.
Much is made that Hillary won the popular vote – she did, because alot of those christian republicans stayed home – in states that any republican would win no matter what.
Trump appealed to an won blue collar democrats in the rust belt. That was his winning strategy. And he will win in 2020 so long as he does not lose them.
My read of the tea leaves is that in 2020 he will have an actual “landslide”.
The longer TDS continues without producing credible evidence – the stronger Trump gets.
If you do not win Iowa, New Hampshire an South Carolina, money begins to leave. If you lose Super Tuesday, you are gone. Ted Cruz was never really acceptable to the moderates and libertarian leaning voters and the others had no money after Super Tuesday.
And look at the vote totals nationally. He did not win the general, he won the electoral college, a vast difference.
Do you really believe Trump would have won if it had been Trump, Cruz and one more stronger candidate(Bush/Rubio/Kasich)? I dont, I think the results in New Hampshire would have resulted in a much stronger moderate going into super Tuesday, the coverage would have been covering strong support and not “problems” as it was and going forward Trumps support would have remained much.lower without a growth in support. And had the third one been Kasich, I suspect he could have been less impacted by hand size, “little and low energy” putdowns and handled the attacks much better.
But thats all my speculation.
“one more stronger candidate(Bush/Rubio/Kasich)?”
I do not think they were “stronger” candidates. I do not think any of them could have won the general.
the GOP tried that with Romney. People were not going to vote for Obama-lite, they are not going to vote for Clinton-Lite.
I do not think Rand Paul has the “fire in the belly” necescary to win a presidential election.
Cruz is young, and I think he will be a future GOP candidate and possibly president.
I do not think that Sanders, Warren or any of the current top tier Democrats can win a general election.
We are all different the odds against 100% agreement with any politician are near infinite.
“We are all different the odds against 100% agreement with any politician are near infinite.”
And today there is about a 100% chance that the democrats and republicans will agree on nothing, while in the 80% there was near 100% chance Reagan and O’Neill would agree on somethings leading to legislation. Many did notvagree with some things, but the outcome keading to growth is hard to question. But many try.
I will agree that congressional politics is different today than in 1982.
I am not sure that is better.
You are advocating for compromise as a value not a tool.
We got alot of very bad things are a result of compromises between D’s and R’s.
I am a proponent of gridlock – with the caveat as I have previously expressed that what was done in the past should need to maintain support forever to remain.
We have a problem today in that a program once created lives forever.
Whether it works.
Whether it has any political support.
Otherwise I am in favor of gridlock.
I think that D’s and R’s should work something out regarding immigration right now – because it is in both their interests to do so. Because there is large agreement and the areas of disagreement are not over matters of principle.
But working something out seems unlikely.
It was not happening under Obama. It does not look possible under Trump.
One of the problems in congress today is that the left took over completely in 2009 and briefly could do almost anything they wanted. They do not understand the future likelyhood of that is near zero. Between the house, Senate and presidency, Republicans are always likely to control atleast one.
The press is harping over the Senate hoping that somehow democrats can flipp a couple of seats. But the current senate election should send a message.
The long term Senate is going republican.
Based on state legislatures and governors races the Senate should have atleast 60 republicans. Even a few purple states going blue will only change that slightly
Worse still the blue states of the rust belt seem to be hinting at turning red.
Regardless, it is highly unlikely that D’s will anytime in my lifetime get to do whatever they want unhindered. And they do not seem to grasp this.
Democrats are still in “demographics is destiny” mode at a time when it is increasingly clear that even the demographics is running against them.
Yes new poor minorities tend to favor democrats, but as each group succeeds they shift right slowly.
The entire concept of rankings depends on deciding what constitutues right left or whatever axis you want to use
Is support send amendment right/left ?
Ending the war on drugs ?
Inherently BOTH are the same issue – individual liberty
Is limited government a “right” issue – or is it just “common sense” ?
Or is it pragmatism – the data demonstrates that the larger the government the slower standard of living improves.
Is “the data” political ?
One of my common rants here is on the meaning of words.
In the context of fiction or poetry – we deliberately use words flexibly and that is a good thing.
When we are discussing law and govenrment it is of critical importantance that whether we agree pholosophically – that we are atleast talking about the same thing.
If we make something illegal – our courts will parse the law tediously to distinguish what it bars from what it does not. “the letter of the law” is critical – you can not create a working system where punishment is alotted based on “the spirit of the law” – such a system results in different outcomes depending on each judge jury and where the case is tried.
It is arbitrary and capricious, and ultimatly such systems much fail. The more arbitrary and capricious govenrment is the less support govenrment has from the people
You bitch and moan that people do not trust government – as if trusting government was a good thing.
Regardless, trust in government will inherently decline the more laws there are and the more broadly those laws are applied.
That is mathematically demonstrable.
If you pass 10 laws – each of which has the support of 80% of the people, and the vigorous opposing of 10%, and each law is opposed by a different 10%, you end up with 100% opposition for government.
You can play games with the math all you want – the more laws you have that do not have 100% popular support the weaker support for govenrment will be.
From the first issue of “United States Magazine and Democratic Review”, 1837 John O’Sullivan
It is under the word government, that the subtle danger lurks. Understood as a central consolidated power, managing and directing the various general interests of the society, all government is evil, and the parent of evil.
A strong and active democratic government, in the common sense of the term, is an evil, differing only in degree and mode of operation, and not in nature, from a strong despotism. This difference is certainly vast, yet, inasmuch as these strong governmental powers must be wielded by human agents, even as the powers of the despotism, it is, after all, only a difference in degree; and the tendency to demoralization and tyranny is the same, though the development of the evil results is much more gradual and slow in the one case than in the other. Hence the demagogue — hence the faction — hence the mob — hence the violence, licentiousness, and instability — hence the ambitious struggles of parties and their leaders for power — hence the abuses of that power by majorities and their leaders — hence the indirect oppressions of the general by partial interests — hence (fearful symptom) the demoralization of the great men of the nation, and of the nation itself, proceeding, unless checked in time by the more healthy and patriotic portion of the mind of the nation rallying itself to reform the principles and sources of the evil) gradually to that point of maturity at which relief from the tumult of moral and physical confusion is to be found only under the shelter of an energetic armed despotism.
The best government is that which governs least. No human depositories can, with safety, be trusted with the power of legislation upon the general interests of society so as to operate directly or indirectly on the industry and property of the community. Such power must be perpetually liable to the most pernicious abuse, from the natural imperfection, both in wisdom of judgment and purity of purpose, of all human legislation, exposed constantly to the pressure of partial interests; interests which, at the same time that they are essentially selfish and tyrannical, are ever vigilant, persevering, and subtle in all the arts of deception and corruption.
In fact, the whole history of human society and government may be safely appealed to, in evidence that the abuse of such power a thousand fold more than overbalances its beneficial use. Legislation has been the fruitful parent of nine-tenths of all the evil, moral and physical, by which mankind has been afflicted since the creation of the world, and by which human nature has been self-degraded, fettered, and oppressed.
Government should have as little as possible to do with the general business and interests of the people. If it once undertake these functions as its rightful province of action, it is impossible to say to it ‘thus far shalt thou go, and no farther.’ It will be impossible to confine it to the public interests of the commonwealth. It will be perpetually tampering with private interests, and sending forth seeds of corruption which will result in the demoralization of the society.
Its domestic action should be confined to the administration of justice, for the protection of the natural equal rights of the citizen and the preservation of social order. In all other respects, the voluntary principle, the principle of freedom, suggested to us by the analogy of the divine government of the Creator, and already recognized by us with perfect success in the great social interest of Religion, affords the true ‘golden rule’ which is alone abundantly competent to work out the best possible general result of order and happiness from that chaos of characters, ideas, motives, and interests — human society.
Afford but the single nucleus of a system of administration of justice between man and man, and, under the sure operation of this principle, the floating atoms will distribute and combine themselves, as we see in the beautiful natural process of crystallization, into a far more perfect and harmonious result than if the government, with its ‘fostering hand,’ undertake to disturb, under the plea of directing, the process. The natural laws which will establish themselves and find their own level are the best laws. The same hand was the Author of the moral, as of the physical world; and we feel clear and strong in the assurance that we cannot err in trusting, in the former, to the same fundamental principles of spontaneous action and self-regulation which produce the beautiful order of the latter
In Florida they are both terrible choices. I hope Gillium loses and clearly. Why? To send a message to the dem base voters that progressive issues are not going to be winners in most of this country today.
As of today the dem base has moved to about 50% hopelessly naive progressives as far as I can approximately determine. Maybe its 60-40, I dunno. Conservatives will claim that its even more. I still think that about half the dems are not gonzo progressives.
About the GOP, there is no doubt. trump voters are not contaminating the party, they Are the party. Its a rout. Its going to stay like this.
I can only forlornly wish that the moderate remnants of both parties will someday form another party in the middle. About a 2% chance of that though. There are still a lot of Americans who occupy some kind of middle ground.
grump “About the GOP, there is no doubt. trump voters are not contaminating the party, they Are the party. Its a rout. Its going to stay like this.”
So are you saying that if Sanders had won and he had a liberal congress behind him and did the things he wanted to do that the moderate left of center democrats would abandon him and vote for a conservative nominee next time?
That to me is not reality. Reality is people who vote democrat will vote democrat regardless. People who vote republican will vote republican regardless. Florida democrats will vote for Gillum even if they supported Graham in the primary.
The GOP voters are tired of give away programs and see what damage “feeding the birds” can do. For many of us that do vote republican (ie my house rep) we would like someone else but we get what the majority of GOP primary voters vote for and right now it is very conservative candidates, much more conservative than Trump. Look at Trumps actions and not his words and then place him on the on the issues map. He is more in the center of conservative and not far right conservative.
“Look at Trumps actions and not his words”
No! His words are actions. Words have impact. Words can move mountains, start wars, make peace, incite violence, inspire love. Words are the tools that people use to be a society.
Dave has been repeating like a parrot that he is concerned with trump’s actions not his words.
trump’s words Are his actions. That goes for anyone.
The argument that they should be overlooked is absurd.
You are dismayed and disgusted that arpaio and ward got 50% of the vote. The reason that happened is Words!, words that have been used to convince people that these candidates offer the path to a better future. Words have been used irresponsibly to move tens of millions of people into directions, right and left that that are destructive.
You and dave and priscilla can give trump a pass on his mere words and believe they are a harmless diversion if you choose.
I will not be joining you. I will not be giving anyone, left, right, or other a pass on their words used to distort, slime, excuse evil, or incite ugly movements.
Yes, you are conservative and in agreement with many of trumps actions. I know you also see the ugly and destructive side of his character and actions, so I am not quite sure what you are even trying to say here.
No Words are not actions.
That is not to say that we do not often judge people by their words.
But we judge people by their words because of what it tells us about how they might act.
Ultimately it is still about action.
who is worse ?
A who constantly lies, but does nto cheat or steal, or use force against others.
or B who never lies, but cheats, steals and is violent.
We like it when what people say and what they do is in sync.
But actions are what matters and words are not actions.
Persuasion is not an action.
If you murder someone – that a third person persuaded you too, is not a defense, you are responsible.
Orders are actions. When you direct a person to do something, and can compel their obedience THEN your words are an actual act. Though following orders is still not a defense.
No one is “giving Trump a pass”.
Trump’s words are sometimes offensive.
And I dis agree with some of Trump’s actions.
But Trump’s actions overall have been less offensive than Obama’s
Just as his words overall have been more so.
As actions are much more important than words Obama fares worse in that comparison.
No one asked you to give Trump or anyone else a pass on their words.
But I am asking you to judge actions as much much more important than words.
I am not “conservative” – neither BTW is Trump. Nor am I ideologically the same as Trump.
You keep pretending everything is somehow binary.
The left hates Trump for many of the same reasons the right hated Bill Clinton.
Bill moved towards the center – even often towards conservative positions,
Trump moved towards the center – even often towards leftist positions.
Both won.
Both were abysmal people but thus far good presidents.
“Reality is people who vote democrat will vote democrat regardless. ”
Many, not all. If the dems nominate Elizabeth Warren or a prog, I will not be voting for them in 2020. I am not alone. The dem party as of the moment is split in two almost equal parts. the GOP belongs to trump by 80-90%. The words of the few remaining GOP moderates about character are falling on deaf ears of the GOP voters.
I hope that this will eventually have a serious cost to this group, but that is not clear at the moment.
The character, the flavor of our society still counts and when an ugly character becomes dominant it has consequences, I don’t care what the stock market or unemployment rates are, if we become a country of affluent pigs, well, do you think stocks will go up and unemployment down forever? When they reverse again we will still be pigs, just pigs with a lousy economy.
We are becoming smaller as a nation under present behaviors.
Grump, I suggest the Democrats are in their evolution to the far keft where the Republicansbwere in 2012 inbtheir evklution toward the far right.
I suggest you will see that come the 2020 democrat convention.
“I suggest the Democrats are in their evolution to the far keft where the Republicansbwere in 2012 inbtheir evklution toward the far right.
I suggest you will see that come the 2020 democrat convention.”
It may well be so, I hope not. But if it is, then I won’t vote for them and will damn them to anyone who will listen to me, as I damn the progs now. If they come up with a democratic equivalent to trump and he/she/it/they were to get elected and behave like trump I will make just as much noise as I am making now, even if I like some things that he/she/it/they does.
I can promise you, and I think you will most likely believe me, that in such a case I will not be among those abandoning my previous principles and playing the rationalizing game.
I am not going to embrace one kind of wretched crap because of the other flavor of wretched crap or pretend its not really so bad. If its all wretched destructive crap on both sides in 2020 I will go down and vote only for our GOP governor, for balance, because the VT legislature is completely owned by the democrats. Phil Scott, the GOP governor of Vt happens to actually be a good guy I can vote for. I wish the national GOP resembled him. But, not even close.
Grump, I know you will never agree with this statement, but I think Obama was about as divisive in his remarks about Henry Louis Gates, Travon Martin, Ferguson and other racial issues where his comments were anti white. Neither Trump nor Obama whould be saying or have said things like they did/do. For those of us on the right side of politics, the Obama comments were just as divisive as those that Trump is saying today and offending the left.
But how we forget. For documentation, today their is a firestorm in Florida concerning the “Monkey Up the system” comment by DeSantos. The black left wing leaders are having a field day concerning that comment. But do a search “democrats monkey statements” and see how many times Shumer and the democrat leadership used this statement to define what the opposition was doing to the congressional agenda.
By the way, all the old saying my mom used are now politically incorrect becasue someone is offended by something in the comment.
This is a political game and it is not working well anymore – which is why Trump is president.
The left seems to think that half the english language is “off limits” – but only to republicans.
It is stupid and tiring. If “monkey up the system” offends you – it is unlikely you were voting republican.
I have no way of reading that man’s mind to know if it was a dog whistle or just an unfortunate phrase. There was a habit among some racist conservatives of using pictures of photoshopped Obama/primate pictures.
https://www.theawl.com/2011/04/primate-in-chief-a-guide-to-racist-obama-monkey-photoshops/
The yahoo tennis boards were full of racist shitheads comparing the Williams sisters to guerillas. It was so prevalent yahoo gave up and removed their tennis board. Same on the WTA site, the WTA finally gave up and removed the comment ability.
Then there was this in 2011:
Washington (CNN)A Republican candidate for Kentucky’s state legislature posted racist images of President Barack Obama and his family — and defended those images by saying “Facebook’s entertaining.”
Dan Johnson, the bishop of Heart of Fire Church in Louisville, posted an edited image of the President and first lady Michelle Obama with ape-like features. He also labeled a photo of a chimpanzee a baby picture of Obama.
“It wasn’t meant to be racist. I can tell you that. My history’s good there. I can see how people would be offended in that. I wasn’t trying to offend anybody, but, I think Facebook’s entertaining,” Johnson told WDRB, the Louisville TV station that found the images and confronted him with them.
Johnson did not immediately return a request for comment. However, Johnson would not admit to WDRB that the photos crossed a line.
“I looked this up. There has been no president that hasn’t had that scrutiny. Not one,” he said. “I think it would be racist not to do the same for President Obama as we’ve done for every other president.”
Same thing happened in Orange county California with a GOP chairwoman posting these photos.
Putin was also know to exchange these photos in his circle, he found them amusing.
So, I am going to say that no, it is not ridiculous to react to this phrase and suspect its a dog whistle.
The entire concept of “dog whistles” is leftist nonsense.
If an actual political “dog whistle” existed, if you were not the target audience – you could not hear it at all.
Virtually everything that is claimed to be a “dog whistle’ works exactly the opposite.
The left hears what is claims are dog whistles from the right, yet the target audience does not. Pretty much by definution that is NOT a dog whistle.
Nor BTW do you need inside someones head to know if something is a “dog whistle”
A dog whistle is NOT about the intent of the speaker, it is essentially a coded message that only an ingroup can recognize. That has nothing to do with “intent”.
Is only one side in politics permitted to carciture the other ?
Many of us are very tired of this – racist, mysoginist, homophobe garbage.
Johnson’s images are offensive. So are many of those depicting Trump.
“Reality is people who vote democrat will vote democrat regardless. People who vote republican will vote republican regardless.”
I think that Ron is exactly right. The ideological lines that divide the two parties are clear and bright. And, even local politics are now beginning to “nationalize” issues, such as immigration, free speech and Trump( yes, the #Resistance has made Trump himself an issue. Much to Trump’s delight).
So, when politics becomes all about “turning out the base,” it becomes all about driving people into the base, that is, to the extremes, and making sure that the base believes that the other side will destroy the country.
The idea that saying “monkey it up,” “monkey with,” or “throw a monkey wrench” into a situation, is a racist dog whistle, is a good example of how the tiniest things, such as the use of a fairly well-known, but somewhat old-fashioned idiom, can be used to fire up an extremist base. The base is already primed to believe that everyone on the other side is racist, so the use of the word “monkey,” even tangentially related to the policies of a candidate who happens to be black, becomes “evidence” of the opposing candidate’s racism.
Enraging the already primed base with this type of demagoguery, turns them out to the polls and helps to win elections.
I’ve been saying for over a year that this type of politics favors candidates like Trump, and that Trump is a result, not a cause, of the divisive political culture in which we live. I think that we are lucky to have gotten Trump, not only because I believe his actual policies tend to be more moderate than many others on the right, but because nations that split into warring factions like this often end up with far, far more dangerous and authoritarian leaders than Donald Trump.
We either stop this insanity, or we’ll find out soon enough how bad it can really get, and those who say that Trump is the “worst president ever,” may rue their words….
The political correctness of the left will either destroy the left or destroy the country – there is no other choice.
Jordan Peterson has done some excellent speeches on this.
I know that everyone here seems to think that actual philosophy is disconnected from reality and unimportant. But a part of philosophy is coming up with a system that works with humans as they are.
The fundimental principle of liberty – is not determined by the physical properties of the universe, by electrons and muons. It is determined by human nature.
Each and every individual human is unique – and that has ramifications.
It means however important “the collective” is, that there are natural limits to human collective action and cooperation.
We have recently discovered that in any colonies – 30% of the ants do 70% of the work.
Where ants do not have the unique individualism of humans.
Regardless, my point is that though philosophy is an effort to use logic to derive timeless truths. it is also driven by the nature of humans. Collectivist philosophies fail – because humans are just not by nature particularly collectivist.
Further the Soviets, and Chinese tried to change that by force over almost a century and failed. It is intrinsic in human nature.
A political ideology that is philosophically unsound – that is illogical or requires humans to act outside their nature will fail.
Regardless, Jordan points out that the current leftist philosophy that creates a hierarchy of oppression – where truth is determined by how many oppression points the speaker can check off, must fail.
The left shifted in the 60’s from a marxism based on class, to one based on all attributes they could associate with oppression – race, gender, sexual orientation.
This can not work.
A vote for a congressional Republican Senator or Representative is a vote to destroy American governance..
The Arizona Republican primaries this week a good example.
19% of Arizona GOP voters voted for Arpaio, a slime-ball who actually framed an innocent person for an attempted assassination, incarcerating that man for 4 years in jail, who himself was pardoned from jail to be able to run.
Another 28% voted for Kelli Ward and her tin hat conspiracies insanity. And most of their voters did not just disagree with McCain, they hated him. That is the core Trumpanzee voter base – Hillary was kind to just call them despicables; low life cultists is more accurate. This view of them is emerging from numerous former steadfast conservatives, who have come to see them as rotten apples contaminating the Republican Party barrel. In order to rescue and redeem the party, those cult voters have to be marginalized as a future significant voter block, and to do that Republicans have to be decimated in the upcoming elections. That means Republicans have to look at it like taking distasteful medicine, hold their noses and vote Democratic no matter the qualifications of GOP candidates.
I agree. The Republican system badly needs an enema to cleanse the body politic. Flush out the Trumpanzee shit, and rebalance the system after that. That 47% of Arizona Republicans deserve nothing but ridicule and contempt and a decade of middle finger salutes.
Jay “. That means Republicans have to look at it like taking distasteful medicine, hold their noses and vote Democratic no matter the qualifications of GOP candidates.”
I doubt you will find many republicans that would vote for a current crop of democrats as there are few that are “Manchins” and many more that are “Waters”. I live in a large central to western NC district that is represented by Virginia Foxx, someone that is right up their with bull teats in usefulness. No one will challenge her because she is right of conservative. So the democrats chose Denise Adams, a black city council person from Winston Salem, the only large town. Denise Adams is very left of liberal. One of her platforms is to restrict semi-auto weapons, require ALL gun owners (including hunting rifles, shotguns, 22 rifles, pistols,etc) to be licensed and to go through santioned training regularly to maintain the license. If your not licensed, your guns a seized and you are charged with a crime.
So I ask, is this reasonable to run a candidate with these views in a mostly rural district that has voted no less than 60% GOP since the last democrat held the seat since 1992. In 1992 I could have voted for the democrat. There is no way I could vote for someone that would put thoughts in Bernie Sanders mind. If you hunt you have a license, but it does not tell government how many andvwhat type of guns you own. ( Yes, I do not trust our government with that info, especially liberals)
Like I said earlier, as the left moved left, the reaction of the right was to move further right. And now the left is moving even further left. Both sides are apoplectic when it comes to candidates from the opposition party.I once would have supported Bill Clinton. Today wherecare the moderates like him?
It is so strange. If a political party was a single person and had any sense of tactics they would move to the middle when the other party went to the extreme, there is all that profitable real estate in the center. But, a party is tens of millions of people and the parties go further left and right in response to each other, which is totally irrational. Who pushes them to do that? A relatively small number of loudmouthed opinionists, some are politicians themselves, some are media figures. I’ll bet most people who actually have tactical positions working in the parties wish they could pull their voters to the center. But no, the voters are somehow easily led further left and right by this small number of pied pipers.
Can no one stop this? Can no charismatic person lead voters to the center? Unfortunately, all the “charisma” resides in people like hannity and michael moore, the lunatics have all the energy and the moderates are seen as boring. John Glenn would have been a great president. But, he was soft spoken and moderate, which is seen as boring.
Hair on fire, radical opinions, scorched earth policy ideas, that is the way to be a “leader.”
Grump “Can no one stop this? Can no charismatic person lead voters to the center? Unfortunately, all the “charisma” resides in people like hannity and michael moore, the lunatics have all the energy and the moderates are seen as boring”
My “Debbie Downer” tells me that no, it will get worse. I dont have much disagreement with Trump policies as he has done little that is distructive to America policy wise. But personally he has done great harm to the office. And that indirectly is destructive. I truely believe the democrats will nominate a Sanders style democrat and that person will bring dignity back to the office, but their policies will be much more distructive for the long term.
My best man at my wedding and his wife are democrats. For years working together and commuting to work, we debated politics. Although on opposite ends, we could debate and we agreed on many things that both 41 and Clinton supported in 92. Today, political debates end up arguements since he has moved much more left over the years and I have moved much more right. And most people would view us as being moderate within our party thinking today.
So no, I dont think anyone will stop this. Democracies, in their original state, all die a natural death over time.
Your “move the the middle” argument has myriads of flaws and fallacies.
Romney was a “move to the middle” – he lost.
Your argument is premised that all issues are left – right and that the “middle” is actually where people are on that issue.
There are many issues where the GOP has the support of 70% of the people – why would they move to the middle ?
There are issues where Democrats have similar support on their issue – why would they “move to the middle”
You also continue to forget that every issue has myriads of attributes.
Works – doesn’t
Moral – immoral
….
and many of those attributes are binary or nearly so.
Put differently, quite often the middle is the one place we are CERTAIN to be WRONG.
Nor do I see “moderate” and “middle” is synonimous.
I (and most libertarians) share more values with the left than the right.
But the left has always and even more so today beleives the means justifies the ends.
I think it is a stupid and bad thing for a cake baker to discriminate against gay couples.
I would protest them and take my business elsewhere – even though I am not gay.
But I would fight for his right to do this stupid thing, and oppose the efforts of government to compel him too.
That is much more left than right. The right not merely wants to permit the baker to refuse services to gay couples, it sees doing so as virtuous.
My point is that right and wrong do exist, and they rarely fall at the middle.
Neither the left nor right have a monopoly on being right, but again that does nto mean the answer is in the middle.
I don’t believe that a progressive can become president in today’s America. (But I did not believe trump could win either.)
Our form of democracy is so young that I don’t think there is data about whether it has to die over time. It up to Americans to do the things to pull away from disaster.
On the humor side there is this:
It translates to: Idiots are the most powerful organization on earth. Their agents are everywhere.
grump ” It up to Americans to do the things to pull away from disaster.”
I am not so sure Americans will see the disaster coming until it happens. How can we expect the conservative voter in a rural southern district to not dig in their heals when the left calls for licensing all guns as we are now beginning to see.. And how can we not expect the left to dig in their heels when the right in a liberal district says they are tired of supporting lazy no-gooders that only want a free lunch and that they will vote against any support entitlement changes.”Every immigrant from the southern country is a criminal. Everyone that wants border security is a racist.” How do we overcome that thinking?
Remember, the same Americans you want to do things to pull away from disaster are much the same Americans that were warned days in advance of Hurricane Katrina that a major storm was coming and they ignored those warnings.
Can we really expect Americans to be so wise to identify a political disaster that is slowly creeping up on them when they ignore catastrophic disasters right on their doorsteps?
For many cumulative factors, including ideologies, race, ethnicity, religion, age – all amplified/distorted by the proliferation of social media, I believe the American democratic experience as we have known it is over.
Yes, we’ve overcome/assimilated those differences in the past, but the proportions have morphed into a toxic brew of unresolvable polarities that nothing (in my opinion) will reunify this nation short of an all out war that threatens our survival.
Sorry for the bleak pessimism, but I fear my prognosis of democratic deterioration is correct. And so, whenever I wake to a shit Sunday like this one I take solace in the kitchen, planning for the evening meal.
Tonight’s recipe to follow…
Jay try some of grandmas chicken soup. That has always been the medicine to make the bad disappear. Anything else is politically incorrect and if you let someone know what your making if not grandmas elixir, they will have something bad to say.
As for American politics, I side with you on this more than I do Grump. Maybe not all out war, but something very much like the anti war movement of the late 60’s, early 70’s, but times 10. Unlike a clock where the pendulum swings from point A to point B, our political pendulum is swinging from A to B and the A+ to B+….adding a + each time it moves from on end to the other. And the speed of the movement is accelerating.
The right had a meltdown with Obama. The left is having a meltdown with Trump. I can’t wait to see the rights “Warren” meltdown in 2020.
Have you ever made authentic NY style Chicken Soup from scratch?
It takes a lot of ingredients and attention to detail.
Here’s a recipe for example.
(Let me know how it turns out 😊)
https://whatscookingamerica.net/soup/jewish-chicken-soup.htm
Looks good. Will try this!
During the Obama administration “the right” took issue with policies and principles, and managed to do well because the lefts response that it was all racism fell short.
Today “the left’s” issue is personal. It is mostly not policy. That is very dangerous to them.
It is hard to find an attack on Trump that is not personal rather than policy.
Even in the areas where there are policy differences – immigration as an example, the left is still making the conflict personal. Trump is a racist – therefore we do not have to determine what the actual solution to any problem is.
I do not think that the GOP knows how to deal with Trump – and I am not sure that is not a very good thing. We clearly have a situation where the control of the GOP does NOT rest with Trump. At the same time the GOP is figuring our how to work with Trump to accomplish goals.
While democrats are clueless and increasingly extreme.
I keep telling you the current diviciveness is because the left has shifted further left.
The GOP is moving SLOWLY left – mostly in a good way. While Democrats have moved much further left in a bad, way.
The uniqueness of each individual – our diversity is WHY the use of force against us must be limited, why government must be limited.
We can only use force where there is near unanimity. The more diverse we are the smaller than unanimous common ground will be.
You are fixated on social media – I am not. I am bothered by social media efforts at censorship – but I think those are inherently going to self correct eventuall.
FB, Twitter etc. will reduce their censorship to things that are broadly recognized as extreme by ALL or they will fracture their platform.
Everytime Google Twitter … censors conservaitves they drive away customers that they depend on.
You fixate on polarization – as if we as a people divide cleanly on a single axis.
That is crap.
We are divided on myriads of issues, and we do not divide conveniently on right left lines on each issue.
You think out differences are a bad thing.
They are NOT, they are a good thing. They are intrinsically related to the forces that bring about progress, raising our standard of living.
Beef Stroganoff
Ingredients
1 1/2 pounds beef sirloin steak, 1/2 inch thick
8 ounces fresh mushrooms, sliced (2 1/2 cups)
2 medium onions, thinly sliced
1 garlic clove, finely chopped
1/4 cup butter or margarine
1 1/2 cups beef flavored broth
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce
1/4 cup all-purpose flour
1 1/2 cups sour cream
3 cups hot cooked egg noodles
Steps
1 Cut beef across grain into about 1 1/2×1/2-inch strips.
2 Cook mushrooms, onions and garlic in butter in 10-inch skillet over medium heat, stirring occasionally, until onions are tender; remove from skillet.
3 Cook beef in same skillet until brown. Stir in 1 cup of the broth, the salt and Worcestershire sauce. Heat to boiling; reduce heat. Cover and simmer 15 minutes.
4 Stir remaining 1/2 cup broth into flour; stir into beef mixture. Add onion mixture; heat to boiling, stirring constantly. Boil and stir 1 minute. Stir in sour cream; heat until hot (do not boil). Serve over noodles.
The right is moving slowly LEFT, not right.
I share – or would amplify your loathing of Arpio.
All I have heard is the same carcitured version of Ward’s politics that you have.
Ward’s remarks regarding McCain were inappropriate.
If we judged our politicians by single remarks – McCain and Obama would be lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists.
Ward is highly educated having a degress from Duke and advanced degrees from 4 other universities.
Ward has in the past been a strong advocate for restoring the 4th amendment.
Ward was defeated by McCain in the 2016 Senate race – but McCain only managed to get 51% of the vote, that is pretty bad for a purportedly popular incumbent against someone you claim to be a whack job conspiracy theorist.
In 2018 McSally defeated Ward in the primary – primarily because Ward and Arpio split the more conservative vote. It is likely Ward would have defeated McSally but for Arpio.
In 2017 when McCain was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer – Ward called on him to resign.
In that I agree with her. McCain has been ineffective the past year, and he deprived his family of the last year of his life.
Even factcheck.org from the “chemtrails conspiracy” attack on Ward FALSE.
While appears to be tied to a McConnell PAC.
While Steve Bannon endorsed Ward. Ward herself publicly distanced herself from Bannon.
She was seperately endorsed by Rand Paul.
I strongly suspect that with McCain’s death one way or the other you will find Ward in the Senate.
Maybe she is a crackpot. But in fact neither you not I know that. What we know is that political hatchetmen have successfully accused her of being a crackpot.
If that precluded political office – few on the democratic party could get elected.
“Ward is highly educated having a degress from Duke and advanced degrees from 4 other universities.”
Highly educated does not constitute “smart”. Just because you can regurgitate instructors words and memorize information from books does not say you have the common sense to use your knowledge in a productive manner in areas outside your book knowledge.
We do not need more mouths in Washington. People running their mouths and not acting on anything does us no good. Mark Warner and Richard Burr are conducting business in a way that provides a much greater chance of something positive happening than Shumer, Trump, Pelosi or others like Ward. There is plenty of time to disagree with policy. Dont make things personal!
Trump is an asshole that is doing nothing but further dividing a divided country with his constant attacks on insignificant people and organizations. Ward made McCain about her, just like all snowflakes do in this age and time, when she should have stayed quite. Some insignificant reporter for some B level website can say something negative about Trump, and he will spend days buring up Twitter about how bad this person is. He demeans himself and the office by lowering himself to others levels.
I am not trying to “defend” Ward – I do not know her well enough.
But I am noting that the “caricature” of her is near certainly incorrect.
I don’t think that she’s a crackpot…but she’s a very bad politician, who gave her opponents a great deal of ammunition against her, and made comments that even people who might have been inclined to support her thought were in bad taste, and showed a lack of perspective and judgment. When a man is dying of brain cancer, and you make it about yourself, you’d better expect people to be disgusted. So, Ward lost because she did not understand the politics of getting elected in Arizona, not necessarily because her policies were being rejected.
Martha McSally is a far better candidate. She is a moderate conservative, as Jeff Flake was ~ and John McCain, for that matter. Her military service has brought her great admiration and respect, and she is not considered an unconditional Trump supporter, although she has expressed her approval of Trump’s agenda. I think she’s much more likely to be able to portray the Dem candidate, who was once a member of Code Pink, as an extremist, and win the right and the center. But we’ll see.
One thing is sure…the Democrats would have preferred Arpaio or Ward to win the primary.
I would trade Flake and McCain easily for Goldwater.
I am not a big proponent of compromise.
Nor one of government “getting things done”.
McCain-Feingold was completely stupid and is typical of congress.
Until politicians grasp the problem is with THEMSELVES – not others, there is no possible fix for political corruption.
So long as it is the Koch’s or mercers, or bloombergs or sorros who are purportedly corrupting politics – there will be no fix.
The problem is with the menendez’s and all the rest of them.
Our largest political corruption problem – from top to bottom in government is ZERO oversight.
Whether it is a senator or a police officer, there is no means to compel them to follow the law, and little to nothing to do when they do not.
Nor does it matter whether they are a D or an R.
My limited understanding of AZ politics is that Ward is likely to end up with McCain’s seat.
Either she will be appointed or win a special election.
McSally is currently behind, but that is because the primary just ended.
It is my understanding that AZ is pretty republican.
I have missed you sharing your wisdom in written word, Rick. This essay is another gem. One of your best in my mind.
More people like this and the extremist would not be winning
Wisdom on Trade
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/07/30/ip_theft_is_what_once_helped_make_america_great_103367.html
Dave;
I relate the wisdom of economic open borders to your common sense amoung politicial decisions.
For me, you can comment until cows fly about how great it is for us to built cars here and try to ship them to China with a 25%+ Chinese import tariff while China produces a like model and ships it here with no tariff. Same with any other product.
If China can steal intellectual properties, produce it for less and then compete with our intellectual properties with no import tariffs, fine, go for it. But stealing the IP, producing it, competing here on equal footing, but putting a 25% tariff on the copied IP coming into China is unacceptable. They put on 25%, then we put on 25%!
Sorry I cant buy how great it is for America for other countries almost pricing our products out of the reach of their citizens and then sending inferior products here. I am once again replacing chinese crap! OTA TV antenna preamp, made in China, $79.99, lasted 7 months. Cant buy one made here other than large commercial antenna amps. So dont tell me how much I save due to this crap being sold here.
But I have not said the things you claim I have, and have no intention of arguing the straw man you have constructed for me.
I have no idea whether US producers should seek to make cars to sell in china.
Just as I have no idea whether we should make Jeans to sell to china.
Actually I have a pretty good idea, but it does not,
AGAIN standard of living rises when more value is produced with less human effort.
Should the US produce clothes or lightbulbs or cars or computers or ……. ?
The answer is that the highest standard of living for the US will be acheived with each american producing those things of the highest demand/value that they are capable of producing efficiently.
Lets assume I am a lawyer, I am a good lawyer and I am worth $300/hr as a lawyer.
I am also fairly proficient at producing my own briefs and correspondence, and I can produce those in half the time of someone I can hire for $15/hr with half as many mistakes.
Given that I have more legal work than I can perform – should I hire the paralegal ?
The answer is yes – and trivially so. If you do not understand – try the math.
The same is true with countries. I beleive Tammy tries to explain that in the video I linked.
It would be stupid and lower our standard of living if the US returned to labor intensive textile production again.
Not only did the US benefit from the migration of textile jobs to nations like China – but so did China. Further China has climbed far enough up that curve that it too is shedding textile jobs in favor of jobs that produce greater value.
This is called comparative advantage. Comparative advantage was first clearly discribed by Ricardo in the 19th century, but the concept goes atleast back to Smith’s discovery of the division of labor.
The best use of US labor and resources is to produce as much of those things that we are able to that are valued most highly by both ourselves and the world.
Anything else REDUCES our standard of living.
As to Chinese Tarrifs – Tarriffs are taxes on your own people.
If the chinese are stupid enough to raise the cost of living from their own people – that is their problem not ours.
There is no right to have someone buy what you produce – not your labor, not cars, not computer software. Chinese Tarriffs harm their own people they do not harm US manafucturers by depriving them of something that was not theirs by right in the first place.
One of the articles I linked noted that US industry quite litterally got its start stealing IP from the british.
Franklin never patented everything, noting that ideas belong to all.
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.”
Thomas Jefferson.
As a separate matter “stealing” intellectual property is a nearly impossible means of getting ahead. If you can not figure out how to create it yourself you become dependent on those who can.
There is no shortage of ideas. No shortage of better ideas.
If you produce and attempt to sell something you did not conceive of you will NEVER be on an equal footing with those who do.
If you think foreign made products are inferior – then do not buy them.
That is how such decisions are made by the market.
I am not telling you how much you are saving. Those freely making purchasing decisions are. Regardless the benefits of lower priced chinese goods to american consumers are self evident – regardless of your compaints about Chinese amps – good or bad.
All american families have thousands of dollars a year of more spendable income because they can buy a large body of common goods at much lower cost.
That is money they have to spend on other things – often things produced here.
We will always be better off – if we are producing things of high value and others are producing things of lessor value.
That is true as an individual, as a community, as a state and as a nation.
Here is Stephen Pinker saying much of what I have said here repeatedly,
but more eloquently and maybe more accessibly.
Does he sound like some extremist to you ?
Dave,
Your consistent reminder that the world is actually getting better in many, many ways is one of the best things you bring to TNM.
Steve Pinker in the video you posted is reading from my script! The manner in which the “news industry” broadcasts the “worst of the worst,” and every anomaly, keeps many of my fellow citizens in a sort of “PTSD funk”. Oh how I despise the media addictions of our era!
Thank you;
We ALL need constantly reminded that just as
‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.’
So too
‘The arc of history is long, but it bends towards an ever better life.’
Bad things happen – nature itself is quite hostile to life – and eventually kills us all,
but over time HUMAN NATURE drives us relentlessly towards better.
It is also important to note – improvement is not natural – it violates the laws of physics which predict evolution towards chaos.
The improvement of the world is a consequence of human choice and human effort.
As inexorable as it is, it also required active effort.
I did not watch any of the bloviating that took place at the Cavanuagh hearings except once when I came inside and started channel surfing. I do not always agree with Thom Tillis ever since he was in the NC state legislature.
However, I have to agree with the oart of his comments that I heard. The part where he addressed positions on issues. He took on congress, indirectly both democrats and republicans. He addressed the issue with activist judges and said it was not SCOTUS responsibility to make law, it was their responsibility to interpret law and if it was constitutional. If congressional members want certain outcomes, it is their responsibility to make/ change laws to achieve that outcome. And SCOTUS will address constitutionality once it gets to them.
Cavanaugh should giventhat answer to most questions he gets tomorrow.
I have read a number of things regarding Kavanaugh.
According to some of them and some of the people I trust he should be better than Gorsuch. According to others and other people I trust he is a serious danger.
My guess is that he is neither.
I expect he will get confirmed. Derschowitz is predicting by 53-54 votes.
The bad news is he seems to buy almost anything that is argued with national security as a justification – even things that have never had any demonstrable benefit.
The good news is that he appears to the leading the charge to use property rights as the means of recovering many of our constitutional rights.
We saw Gorsuch argue this in Carpenter and a few other cases, but apparently Kavanaugh’s lower court decisions are the source.
There is a suggestion that he would provide the 5th vote to reverse Kelo which was an absolutely reprehensible decision that Both Suter and O’Conner have subsequently backed away from. Government should not be allowed to use the power of eminent domain except for a specifically public purpose involving government.
The modern argument that you can confiscate private property, and distribute it to another private party to fight blight or for urban renewal or because you claim there will be some economic benefit is garbage.
Kavanaugh has made property rights arguments in 4th amendment cases, and in 2nd amendment cases.
Gorsuch was echoing those in a car search case.
Essentially saying that government must get a warrant whenever the property rights of the party it wishes to search are superior to strangers.
It is a move away from the “expectation of privacy” standard – which has ultiimately proven insufficient an obstacle to stop anything. To a more firmly rooted policy based on actual rights – property rights.
If you have a property right in what government wishes to search the argument is that government then needs your permission (or that of someone with a stronger property right than yours) or a warrant.
The stronger right than yours is important – because it means you do not have to OWN the property – you just have to have a property right in it – such as a rental car or an apartment.
That also means that the information third parties collect about you – will often require a warrant – so long as you retain some rights in it.
So what I get from this is he does not support the.more progressive position that the court held earlier. OConner and Kennedy were right more than they were wrong, but in this case they were both wrong. Getting this reversed will be hard to reverse now.
There has been fairly broad pushback to Kelo. Many states passed their own laws that somewhat restricted the use of eminent domain afterwards.
SCOTUS subsequently partly backtracked.
Regardless there appears to be a movement in the courts including SCOTUS towards re-emphasizing property rights.
I do not expect results that I think are right.
But I do think there is positive change coming, Kavanaugh is aparently part of that,
But SCOTUS was moving that direction already.
We really need the 4th amendment back – and that would be a big step in that direction.
We need to get past the garbage of the past 40 years of making all kinds of excuses to allow the police to do whatever they please.
This is simple – GET A WARRANT.
Exigent circumstances should ACTUALLY be exigent circumstances.
A real evidence based threat of harm to another.
We also need to very severely restrict “no knock” raids – they are very dangerous.
People get killed – usually not the police.
They are actually worse when those been raided are NOT criminals.
Most criminals who have weapons are NOT concerned about the police.
They know pulling a weapon on a police officer si a death sentence.
If they have weapons it is for protection against other crooks.
Whether crooks or innocents, bust somebodies door in without announcing and they are entitled to presume you are dangerous and to respond with force.
A part of the impetus for our revolution was the british use of general warrants and conducting searches at whim.
Part of what irrated colonists is that this DID NOT HAPPEN IN BRITIAN.
The english common law prohibition against general warrants and warrantless searches predates the revolution by over a century.
In the 17th century english jurists noted that breaking into a persons home without first announcing was likely to result in justifiable violence, and prohibited it in all but the most unusual circumstances.
Too many here think I am defending Trump when I am posting about the garbage FISA Warrant.
The FISA warrant on Carter Page never should have been requested – much less granted.
The political aspects of it are just piling on.
I do not want law enforcement of any kind seeking warrants to search anyone based on triple hearsay. And I want officers of the court who swear to the reliability of garbage like the Steel dossier to face consequences.
I am prepared to jail them – Comey, Rosenstein, Yates, ….
Not because of Trump, but because law enforcement should not be swearing falsely – it is called LYING to get a warrant – not before FISA, not before the local district magistrate.
This is FAR more serious than anything that Flynn or papadoulis did.
In fact the entire affair is far more serious than if Trump actually “colluded” with the russians.
The misconduct of private persons – even private persons running for president, is ALWAYS of less import than that of people placed in a position of public trust, with a public duty who are using the power of government for personal or political purposes.
Until you start to hold people in government personally accountable – things will get worse.
“Too many here think I am defending Trump when I am posting about the garbage FISA Warrant.”
In todays environment the formula in society is “rejection of progressive positions = support for Trump”
This can not be further from the truth. I am against as much conservative positions as I am progressive positions. I even have many disagreements with your positions,although I have many I agree with.
Seems like today one can not debate “rights” unless it becomes a debate about specific people or organizations.
Re Woodwards book: I believe Mattis’ denials about his comments. A book composed of un-named sources is weak stuff. Of course I enjoyed reading the juicy excerpts in the news, they only confirm my prejudices. But… I will give most of the book a fake news rating due to the lack of any solid sources. It may well be that a lot of it is true, but without attribution…
On the other hand all of the public trump attacks on Sessions with public tweet directions to be trump’s political fixer are completely impeachable abuses of power, we are becoming numb. So, we can believe a book like Woodwards at the level of its basic message. trump is obviously not mentally fit to be POTUS, he does not even comprehend that the Attorney General’s office is not for political use by the POTUS and I am sure he has been told that 1000 times by his handlers. So yes, he has the level of a understanding of a 5th grader, whether or not Mattis said so or not. Even a 5th grader would eventually listen to someone and stop doing some idiotic thing over and over unless the 5th grader has some other mental issue. trump is sinking his own ship with the tweets to Sessions, its extraordinary, uncharted waters, incompetence of the clearest nature.
Yes, Trump is sinking his own ship. But I dont understand the comment “On the other hand all of the public trump attacks on Sessions with public tweet directions to be trump’s political fixer are completely impeachable abuses of power,”
Sessions has done nothing since he was appointed ( and more likely nothing since getting elected years ago) to support Trump. He accepted the position knowing beforehand that he would not be able to participate in any investigation. Would you want one of your top Lt’s in your company accepting a position, only to find they could not be involved in any major decisions? I would fire them in a heartbeat!
So Trump is stuck with a do nothing incompetent weazel as his top law enforcement official who has been AWOL since he took office. He accepted the position under false pretenses. He pissed off Trump and Trump wants him gone. “Your Fired” is not an option. Legally that would be suicide.
So the only way to get him out is to make life so miserable that resignation is the end result. Problem is when one is so “out to lunch” as is Sessions, he is not impacted. I wonder if he even knows what is being said.
There are a long long list of issues regarding Sessions.
I completely disagree with Sessions on numerous issues of policy and I think he was the worst appointment of the Trump administration – purely on a policy basis.
Trump ran on turning marijuana back to the states. He ran on criminal justice reform – getting tough on violent crime, but reducing sentences for non-violent offenses.
Sessions has ALWAYS been completely at odds to those.
But worse still everyone in DOJ/FBI seems to be alergic to any investigation of the misconduct of their predecessors – even misconduct that took place AFTER Trump was elected. Further they are actively thwarting any investigation by those who are willing to look for abuse of power.
I would have supported Obama pardoning Clinton.
I would have supported Trump pardoning Clinton.
Nov, 2016 was the moment to end THAT.
I have some concerns about the incoming administration investigation the prior one.
But I have even more concerns about the outgoing administration investigating the incoming one.
The Bush/Obama transition was one of the smoothest in history.
The Obama/Trump transition was quite clearly covertly hostile.
With a few exceptions I think that investigations into the misconduct during the obama administration should be political – conducted by congress, not DOJ/FBI.
The purpose of those investigations is to determine what occured and to change the law to prevent that from ever occuring again.
Outside egregious offences or lying AFTER THE FACT to investigators, this should result in exposure and firing, not prosecution.
BUT misconduct that continued AFTER the election should be prosecuted.
I do not think that Sessions is incompetent or a weasel.
But for many reasons he is not the right person for the job.
I think he is a person of integrity – that he decision to recuse was proper – and that others in the FBI/DOJ should have followed his lead. Rosenstein Comey – most everyone involved in investigating Trump.
If Sessions appearance of bias was sufficient that he could not investigate Trump – then why isn’t Strzok, Rosenstein, McCabe, Ohr, Yates, Comey, …. all similarly precluded ?
If the appearance of bias is enough – why isn’t evidence of bias ?
The difference between Sessions and Rosenstein is that Sessions is capable of seeing his own conflicts. Rosenstein is not.
It is extremely dangerous to give people power who are certain they are right.
None are so prone to break the rules, to do evil than those who do so sure they are right.
Whether you are driven by religion or “a higher loyalty” – if you have power and can not conform closely to the “rule of law” you must let go. For you are dangerous.
I do not care if some within the administration insulted Trump.
He is a big man, he can cope.
Fake news, real news, it does not matter.
As to impeachment – you can impeach for anything you want.
It is unlikely that you will get the public support you need for this.
Many of us think that Sessions is MIA.
This is not “political”, there are obvious abuses of power by the prior administration even extending into the beginings of the Trump administration that are being swept under the rug.
McCabe clearly lied under oath as well as to investigators.
Much more egregiously than Flynn or Papadoulis.
Nothing is being done.
You wonder why I have no faith in government ?
When your idea of the rule of law – is if my political enemy does not dot their i’s and cross their T’s – they go to jail, but when those I like behave more egregiously, they get a pass, that deeply offends me, that is not the rule of law, That is tyranny.
That is exactly what you worry about and accuse Trump of, only it is real in his predecessors.
Further we hold those in power to a HIGHER standard.
Comey makes pretense to that with his book, but then subverts “the rule of law” to the “higher power” of his own gut. At this point most everyone grasps that he thouroughly botch the clinton email investigation – even if we do not entirely agree on the details.
Regardless, we do not want public servants, government making choices based on who they think will will an election. Their actions should conform to the law.
Whether DOJ/FBI investigates, charges, prosecutes should be based on the evidence – not whose ox gets gored, not the latest polls.
Further DOJ/FBI are clearly NOT cooperating with Congress. Despite the direction of the president and the requirement of the law to do so. If Sessions can not manage that – then he must go.
Jeff Sessions is NOT Obama’s “wingman”,
I am not sure what his responsibility is regarding Mueller – because Rosenstein is even more conflicted, and because there clearly is no oversite.
But he responsibility elsewhere is clear and he has abdicated it.
It is not “political” to expect DOJ/FBI to investigate crimes. Particularly those of public officials. It is not “political” to expect DOJ/FBI to cooperate with congress when directed to do so by the president.
Dave, you know few will agree. You make too much sense in this comment. But in politics today, there is an unwritten rule. Dont investigate or charge past political figures with a crime short of.murder or kidnapping since we dont want our current members charged after we leave office.
That is why Clinton would never be charged, even though she clearly broke many rules and laws. And these were not laws based on administrative policy, it was crimes of a personal making. The administration never instructed her to install her own server that I am aware of.
You state “Fake news, real news, it does not matter.”. IT SHOULD! People are making decision that are going to impact you and me. If the media, both main and social, is bombarded with fake news and Cory Booker is elected President, you and I knowing it was fake news makes no difference. Too many people bought the cool aide. Just like today, too many people hought the Trump coolaide on the right during the primaries. Had they done some checking, we might have a different GOP president.
If there is no credible chance of prosecution for misconduct, you guarantee misconduct.
I am not after Obama or Clinton – they are gone.
But I want everyone in CIA/DOJ/FBI/State/…. to know – bend the law – and you will atleast lose your job and may well be prosecuted.
I do not give a crap if you are republican or democratic.
You and I have tossed back and forth some type of office of public integrity.
In principle we are absolutely completely in agreement.
The only issues are – what is it possible to get through congress and the president,
and how to construct it such that it really goes after government misconduct and does not become a political weapon.
I do not have the answer – but I am prone to look at approaches like those of our founders – which was not to pretend that somehow good people would be elected or appointed. but to design it such that ambition is made to counter ambition.
It does not matter if if becomes a political tool.
What matters is that no matter who controls congress or the presidency – there will be someone going after them.
Separately THEY need oversight too.
I do not mind having a permanent Mueller.
But they should be incentivized to go after all corruption.
Further they need confined to GOVERNMENT corruption.
It was wrong to extend Muellers scope beyond the election.
I am not even sure the election really is legitimate for a SC.
However this Office of Public integrity is set up its TARGETS must be those acting with the power of government – Not Cohen, not Manafort,
Crimes that are not abuses of government power belong in the NORMAL system.
I WANT the president as well as every congressmen and everyone in public service to know there is a special prosecutor/police that is solely concerned with THEIR conduct.
That is going to be very hard to get approved.
And very hard to construct so that abuse is difficult.
“I am not after Obama or Clinton – they are gone.”
So there is a statue of limitations on politicians. Once they leave office they are basically pardoned?
That is horse pookey. If someone like Clinton breaks the law multiple times while She is serving, she should not have the ability to say “as long as I can keep this secret until X date then I am home free” make no sense. A politician should face the same laws and punishments as you and I.
And when I say the politicians should face the same laws, I mean the same laws. If there is indications that anyone in government has done something wrong, then the same organizations that investigate you investigates them. Not some IC, SP or whatever alphabet individual.
“So there is a statue of limitations on politicians. Once they leave office they are basically pardoned?”
As I said – Obama or Trump should have pardoned her.
“That is horse pookey. If someone like Clinton breaks the law multiple times while She is serving, she should not have the ability to say “as long as I can keep this secret until X date then I am home free” make no sense. A politician should face the same laws and punishments as you and I.”
That is why I wanted a pardon – particularly from Obama. That would have been an admission of sorts that Clinton had done wrong.
Further I am much MORE concerned with the abuse of government power to get a political enemy than for personal benefit.
While Clinton is the root of nearly everything regarding the investigation of Trump, HER actions were all from outside of government. I do not have a problem with a CANDIDATE trying to persuade government to take an interest in manufactured garbage.
This becomes abuse of power when those actually in govenrment – those with power actually act on that garbage.
The misconduct is the abuse of govenrment power by those in government.
That was not clinton.
“He is a big man, he can cope”
Did you write that before or after you saw the NYT INSIDER REVELATION!
The NYT “insider revaltion” is inconsequential.
It is typical of the NYT.
Dave, Jay… I dont know how many people think like I do about the “dope-ed”, but I suspect 35% believe it, 35% dont and 30% care less. The issue that disturbs me is the change in the media. Back years ago. Wooward and Bernstein used an anonymous source to break a bombshell of a story. In those days, anonymous sources, to me, had much more reliability. Today, how do we know some snowfkake reporter who is so anti-Trump has not written that op_ed? Who is verifing the source? Another “anybody but Trumper”?
I am more interested in Woodwards new book. I think that will have more “red meat” with documentation to back up his writings.
Even Woodward & Bernstein’s “anonymous source” had his own axe to grind.
There is good reason to seriously question the reliability of “anonymous sources”
I am not saying that they can not be used or should not be reported.
Not only is free speech a right, but anonymous speech is also a right.
But the credibility of any statement often rests on the credibility of the person making the statement. When they are anonymous – that is little credibility at all.
Anonymous sources allow those already predisposed to beleive or disbelieve based on their predisposition.
If you are anti-Trump – not only is the story certain to be true but it must be just the time of the iceberg.
If you are pro-Trump – you can discount it as made up.
There have been so many major media stories that have litterally been made up the reputation of the media is garbage. Left or right we can disbelive whatever is reported – because the media is not trustworthy
I am complaining – but this is actually how it is supposed to work.
If the media wants to be viewed credibly – they have to check their biases and check their sources.
In the end we get to judge.
Today NYT has very little credibility with me.
CNN is still backing a story that their “anonymous source” has come out into the open and stated that he was mistaken.
The purpose of the DOJ/FBI is to prosecute crimes.
We have a few clear instances of real crimes committed by public servants that are being swept under the rug.
We have many instances where probable cause exists that public servants have committed crimes.
If the DOJ/FBI are investigating these – they are doing an excellent job of keeping it secret.
Further the DOJ/FBI are subject to congressional oversite.
There are very few reasons that government can legitimately refuse to turn over records that congress demands.
IF Nixon was obligated to turn over tapes of his conversations in the oval office – where executive priviledge actually applies. then DOJ/FBI are obligated to provide the house and senate with the information they have subpeonad.
Just to be clear – of course there is a political element to this.
Nothing is completely divorced from the political.
If the Obama administration had actual credible evidence of Trump/Russia collusion – they would be obligated to investigate – regardless of the political issues.
What is increasingly evident is that no such evidence has EVER existed.
When you spy on and then investigate someone without meeting the legal justifications to do so, that is abuse of power. It is not that the motives of those involved were political that matters. It is that the evidence did not (and still does not) exist to justify the use of government power.
Trump’s “motives” are likely highly political. But as I have said before, and act is right or wrong, legal or not, regardless of your motives.
Trump is a DANGER to the nation, to our safety and future.
This is not a ‘progressive’s’ opinion, but of a senior official in the Trump Administration.
“From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.
Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.”
“Trump is a DANGER to the nation, to our safety and future.”
How so ?
Words have meaning.
Naked unsupported assertions merely prove TDS.
As to your “insider” – he is not. He is precisely the problem I keep talking about.
You are NOT free to #resist from the inside. That is lawlessness.
f you are a member of the administration and you are asked to do something that you BELEIVE is wrong – you can either do it, or quit. You are not free to engage in sabatoge.
That makes you WORSE than what you oppose. You want to #resist – that is fine, that is your right, but you do so from the outside.
You do not seem to be capable of grasping that you could well be WRONG – that your BELEIFS are just that – BELIEFS,
If what is occuring inside the administration is actually illegal or unconstitutional – there are legitimate means to oppose those FROM THE OUTSIDE.
Republicans did precisely that to Obama – they used the courts to thwart his ilegal and unconstititonal acts – and mostly they were effective. The left has tried to do the same with Trump – and they have mostly LOST – because Trump’s actions thus far have been legal and constitutional.
Trump is NOT the danger – you and those you are defending ARE the real danger.
You are the ones who do not care about the rule of law, the law or the constitution.
“This is not a ‘progressive’s’ opinion, but of a senior official in the Trump Administration.”
There are 3.5m people in “the administration” 99.99% of those are permanent government employees. A few are conservatives. The overwhelming majority are democrats, many are progressives and a few are communists, and other extremists.
“Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.”
That would be unconstitutional and illegal. All executive authority constitutionally belongs to the president – not underlings. There is no legitimately working to thwart him.
If you disagree and can not do what you are asked – LEAVE. That is the legitimate means of #resisting.
You do not have a right to a job in the administration – even if you are doing as you are asked. Certainly not if you are working to oppose the president.
That who are doing as you describe are acting unconstitutionally and possibly criminally.
“Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.”
So what ?
This does not bother me.
I could give a dam what options the president considers.
I am concerned about what he actually does.
All you are doing is further exposing the lunacy of the left.
It is your ACTIONS that you are ultimately judged on. Not your thoughts, mostly not even your words, not what you considered doing.
What you actually do.
There is no crime of wishing someone dead.
Killing someone – actually doing what you wish is the crime.
Jay, collectively they can find a nickname their group: the Edith Wilson society, after Woodrow Wilson’s wife. Not a perfect metaphor but still it has some meaning. I am actually a bit reassured by this. That childish imbecile is not actually running the country, he is just running around the country to roil up his worshippers and try to find candidates as nutty as he is. Meanwhile adults have their hands on the wheel. Its still a dangerous travesty but at least some of the damage is contained. I am sure his brainwashed fanatics either will not believe this story or will be outraged if they do, how dare the deep state interfere with the Revolution.
There is a better name – criminals.
If you are part of government and can not do as you are asked – quit.
That is the only choice you have. After you leave – you are free to speak out.
This is no different from any other employment.
There is no right to a job. If you wish to keep the job you are obligated to satisfy your employer. Personal determinations of right and wrong, or morality – are exactly that – personal. The determination of what is actually legal, and constitutional belongs to the courts – not individual members of the administration.
If you beleive Trump is acting illegally or unconstitutionally – work through the courts.
Not by engaging in sabotage.
You are looking to re-enact the Caine Mutiny – not having actually gleaned its lessons.
Lets be clear – if Trump is not actually running the executive – the country is run by congress, the president and the courts, then we have already had an unconstitutional “soft coup”.
That you would support that – makes you lawless.
Your entire morality and philosophy rests on your feelings – not law, not the constitution.
Not logic or reason.
Your arguments are the perfect explanation for why the constitution and law must be construed as written and narrowly – otherwise idiots will substitute their feelings for law and constitution.
You rant about Trump – but fail to recognize you are arguing FOR what you are accusing him of. You are arguing to substitution your emotional judgement for that of the law and constitution. You are arguing that your personal feelings regarding what is moral, legal or constitutional justify the use of force. You are arguing that your feelings are superior to the rule of law.
You and these people you are supporting are free to #resist.
But they are not free to do so anyway they please.
You can act morally respecting the law and constitution or you can act lawlessly on your feelings.
The outrage is already honking like a duck with its tail on fire:
huckabee Sanders is calling for the ‘coward’ to resign – trump is calling it TREASON (his caps not mine).
This will be interesting. A grand opportunity for the GOP to recapture thdir party. Lets see if they will do that.
1. Revise the primary procedures to something like the Democrats did with super delegates, but makingvsure they are uncommitted.
2. Insure super delegates are aligned with the party agenda.
3. Get commitments from large donors who will commit to recapturing the party from the Trumpsters.
4. Hand pick a candidate to take on Trump, knowing they will have the backing of thevsuper delegates.
5. Insure that the handpicked candidate is acceptable to middle America, while running on an agenda that is acceptable to the conservatives. And a woman, such as Nikki Haley would be nice and how could Trump demean her other than “traitor”.
6. Then hope the socialist democrats (Sanders, Warren, Booker et al) take control of the democrat nomination to help attract moderates to the GOP.
Dream on…
The GOP isn’t going to hand pick an alternate candidate.
If one comes forward on his/her own, he/she will be shunned by the party…
(The only exception I can think of they’d find acceptable is Nikki Haley)
Not only will I agree with you. But I will go farther.
Absent pictures of Trump didling little boys.
An economic collapse
An explicit contract between Putin and Trump to rig the election,
Or Trump having a stroke
Trump will be the uncontested GOP candidate in 2020 and he will win the general – better than he did in 2016 and possibly in a landslide.
“Trump will be the uncontested GOP candidate in 2020”
Well that sucks. Welcome President Booker
Absent the short list of things I noted Trump is not losing.
Not to Booker, not to Warren, not to …
It is very very rare for an incumbent president to loose a 2nd term.
LBJ chose not to run.
Carter lost in a bad economy,
Bush lost because the recovery was not fast enough and possibly because of Perott.
I would further note that I think the Dems’ current shift to the left may long term marginalize the party.
Take Trump out of consideration, do you really think that any generic Republican is not going to beat most of the leading Democrats ?
Particularly – as seems to be happening, the GOP manages to peel off blue collar labor from the democrats.
There are alot of concurrent trends – the do not all favor the same party.
So the exact future is still up for grabs.
But I seriously think the D’s are in danger.
Trump is NOT a threat to the GOP.
For SOME republicans he is an embarrassment.
At the same time he has expanded the appeal of the party.
It is highly unlikely those blue collar voters he picked up are going elsewhere in the future.
Further the jewish vote is leaving the democrats.
Trump /GOP is not going to pick up any minority – but he is going to increase the GOP share of several minorities.
Alot has been made in the past that republicans need overwhelming majorities of white voters. But the same is true of Dem’s. Small gains in black, or hispanic voters mean that Dem’s can not win a national election.
Regardless D’s have 6 years to get their act together.
Trump will win the general election in 2020.
There will be no president Booker.
Just to be clear – this is my read of the political tea leaves – NOT what I want to happen.
Though I have different choices than you. I would still prefer several other republicans.
That is unlikely before 2024.
There might be democrats I would prefer – none of those stand a chance.
The democrats have shifted left.
If they do not correct, they are in trouble,
Even now I am deeply concerned that the 2018 midterms are not going to go as expected.
Republicans currently look to pick up seats in the Senate.
Further it is barely Sept. Generally the election closes to favor republicans in the last couple of months.
Nor does that factor in A brexit/2016 error in the polling.
We know D’s are “energized” but R’s normally come out during mid terms.
My understanding is the prediction models and polling reight now are assuming D’s are more energized than R’s. Maybe that is true. But I do not think so.
I think that most anything is possible in Nov.
A blue wave – though probably only a small one, is possible.
But it is also possible for the GOP to puck up seats in the Senate and hold the house.
I also think you are going to get an even more conservative GOP in the house and senate regardless.
“The outrage is already honking like a duck with its tail on fire:
huckabee Sanders is calling for the ‘coward’ to resign – trump is calling it TREASON (his caps not mine).”
TREASON is bandied about way to easily – and not just by Trump. Brennan has used it repeatedly. It is hyperbole.
Betrayal is appropriate.
If you are unable to do as you are directed by the president – then you must resign or be fired. It is that simple. If the president is wrong – if he is acting illegally or unconstitutionally, that is a determination that is made OUTSIDE your job.
As a member of government you wield the power of the people.
Unless you are elected – that power is delegated to you, and you wield it solely at the pleasure of whoever delegated it. You may not use that power contrary to their wishes.
If they are wielding it wrong – or asking you to do so, we have a process for dealing with that. The courts, and congress. There is no individual authority of underlings to use the power of government according to their own feelings.
Sanders Response is appropriate.
If you wish to #resist – do so legitimately.
Speaking of ducks, where has dduck been? I hope he is well and merely resting.
Interesting, he has not commented over at RoseColoredThoughts for a couple weeks also. Hope he is OK
Jay, the latest being communicated by Huff Post is the leaker is Pence because a word that hardly ever used, except for Pence who uses it regularly, is part of the communication.
Nothing about that sounds like pence except for that one word that the writer obviously used to muddy his tracks. The huff post is the most pathetic bs I have seen in a widely read publication. I have not seen it in a year. They are imbeciles.
Why does anyone even care that someone inside the whitehouse is disgruntled ?
Was there EVER an administration that did not have a disgruntled leaker ?
So what ?
It would be a news story no matter what. But only wutht he current left media TDS hyperventalating would it have any legs.
Get over yourselfs. You are going to give yourself a heart attack.
“Why does anyone even care that someone inside the whitehouse is disgruntled ?”
DAVE¡!!!!!!!!!!! Stop assuming every one who votes is informed!!!!!! Voters that choose our elected officials are not as educated and informed as years past. Years ago they made decisions based on what they actually took time looking up or on family historical voting patterns. That may not have been best, but it was far better than today!
Today, uneducated, illeiterate and misinformed voters are deciding based on information on the internet. And that comes from various sources who want to manipulate thinking and not inform.
So the few who do know what the candidates stand for are overshadowed by the brainwashed.
Thats why I care!!!!
I do not assume everyone who votes is informed.
Anyone who could vote for Sanders of Ocasio-Cortez is clearly not informed.
Regardless, the people this story appeals to ALREADY are not voting for Trump.
What has been evident since the election is that the media is playing to its own base.
Which is not Trump voters.
Trump’s polling is higher than it was when he was elected.
There is lots of evidence that Trump has expanded has base – not alot, but still some.
Further nothing that has occured has erroded the confidence of those who voted for Trump.
Are Trump voters “informed” certainly not. But then neither are most voters on the left.
We all want to beleive we are informed – that the guy who voted against our candidate is the moron. All to often it is each of us that is poorly informed.
“Regardless, the people this story appeals to ALREADY are not voting for Trump.”
Well I wrongly, I guess, assume there are three groups and not two. Add to yours, 1,” this story appeals to me and is why I hate Trump, ” 2, “this story is just some more fake news about Trump and it has no impact on how I would vote ” and the n my additional, 3 ” I really dont.like either of these candidates, I have to decide who will be least damaging and this story does not give me a good feeling about how Trump is operating. I may vote for the democrat”
I dont see the voters being black and white. I see many in some shade of gray.
Ron, re your #3:
If recent polls are reliable, a slow attrition of trump favorability appears to be continuing. For certain, his strongly unfavorable numbers have solidly remained high. Unceasing stories like the NYT Anonymous piece keep those numbers strong. The negative redundancy about Trumps unfitness motivates anti-Trumpers – to vote.
Trump uses the same reasoning to hold his core supporters motivated – that’s the primary purpose for these unending rallies: not to pick up new supporters, but to keep his core angry enough to vote for him in the next election (and to promote the insinuation of the threat of them rioting if he’s arrested or impeached) no matter what horrible info surfaces about him.
Jay if the slow attrition is not happening, I would be very surprised. And since Trump is a minority president elected by a minute number of voters in three states, turning off a like number of voters would not be an advantage for Trump. If the democrats go off half cocked and nominate the polar opposite of Trump, then he may be able to withstand the issues he is creating. But if the democrats become the party of the people and not identity politics, then I think he is a one term president and I might vote Democrat. But only if they are a Warner /Manchin type.
No president has the full support of the majority of the people.
Nor is Trump uniquely a “minority” president.
The majority of people do not vote.
Trump shifted the vote in those three states he won by small numbers – by over 2M votes.
Further if you “nullify” Trump – you are disparaging 62M voters who voted for Trump.
I am continuously trying to get through to all that a majority (or political legitimacy) is just not sufficient moral justification to use force to infringe of the rights of others.
Obama was elected by a majority of voters. He used that election to impose ObamaCare which was NOT supported by a majority – that was improper, illegitmate and immoral.
Trump too does not have the power – despite being elected to use force to infringe on the rights of those who voted against him – or anyone.
For the most part he is not doing that.
Almost all of the actions Trump has taken as president reduce government – reduce the use of force against individuals, and increase individual freedom.
You do not need a mandate to do that. You do not need a majority.
Increasing liberty is nearly always moral and legitimate even when you are in a small minority.
Trump’s election does not convey on him the legitimacy necescary to increase taxes, to increase spending, to increase the power of the federal government, to decrease the freedom of the individual.
But it does convey the legitimacy necescary to decrease taxes, to decrease spending to decrease the power of the federal government and to increase individual liberty.
At its core that is what the fight over Trump is about. And that is why the left risks a very large backlash.
Because you need MORE that what Obama had to govern as Obama did, but you need LESS than what Trump has to govern as Trump has.
I do not think the left – or those posting here are angry because Trump sends out a couple of offensive tweets a week. They are angry because their efforts to impose their will on others by force have been thwarted. They are angry because 10’s of millions of people said NO that they had had enough.
If we had an election tomorow and the questions were about cutting taxes, reducing federal spending, reducing government power, increasing individual liberty – not about Trump or Clinton – do you think that the left could survive ?
I think that Trump is just the focal point for the left’s anger.
They are not angry so much because of Trump’s character and personality.
They are angry because they have been thwarted – and not be a few voters in 3 states – by tens of millions of voters.
And by those of us who even if we did not vote for Trump, will never vote for what the left wants.
“Trump shifted the vote in those three states he won by small numbers – by over 2M votes.”
But how solid is the shift and can those voters change back due to Trumps continued “snowflake” behavior of obnoxious tweets and insults. Had I voted for the ass the first time, I sure would find it hard this next time regardless of legislation proposed and passed by congress.
Could has indiocity be shifting voters against the GOP enough to flip the house ? If so, his actions will do more harm going forward than all the good he has done.
“But how solid is the shift and can those voters change back due to Trumps continued “snowflake” behavior of obnoxious tweets and insults. Had I voted for the ass the first time, I sure would find it hard this next time regardless of legislation proposed and passed by congress.
Could has indiocity be shifting voters against the GOP enough to flip the house ? If so, his actions will do more harm going forward than all the good he has done.”
I would suggest following the reported Salena Zito.
During the 2016 election she could not get the political posting she wanted, so she went freelance and went where no one else did. She visited voters in flyover country.
She was one of the first to report that Trump was appealing strongly to these voters.
She remains the go to reporter on Trump voters – the people in Michigan Ohio, PA who voted for Trump.
And she claims Trump’s support there is GROWING.
They new what they were getting. They do not care about the antics or the press.
I am reluctant to argue against someone else’s self assessment.
But I highly doubt that if you had voted for Trump in 2016 you would vote different in 2020.
Because everything that offends you now – offended you then.
Nothing has changed – except trump is now the incumbent AND he has made good on alot of promises.
I have seen nothing that negatively impacts the views of those voters who voted for Trump in 2016. I am not saying there are not plenty of negatives. But there are not really NEW negatives. And there are new positives.
Trump’s approval is 2pts below the highest it has been in 12months. an 6 points above the lowest, and rising at the moment – according to RCP
It is also within 2pts of Obama’s job approval at this point in 2010.
All that in the face of a far more hostile press than Obama had.
And democrats at this point can eat whatever they said about Republican opposition to Obama as democrats have proven far far more hateful.
So your argument is that Trump maintains his core support through rallies ?
That it has absolutely nothing to do with:
The economy
Keeping his promisies to supporters ?
That while the left runs arround not merely torching everything – but demanding that everyone else go lawless and burn the entire system down if necescary to get rid of Trump that the right is the group driven by anger ?
I will be happy to agree – the right is angry, though not nearly so much as the left.
They are angry about being called stupid dupes by cretins on the left.
They are angry because they did what it took playing by the rules to elect Trump and the left wants to destroy that ILLEGITIMATELY.
You do not seem to grasp that if you do not act lawfully and legitimately, you will provoke lawlessness and anger from your enemies.
I have seen plenty of actual rioting since Trump’s election – by the left.
Get a clue, so long as the left acts lawlessly and enraged, they have no credibility fretting about the FUTURE lawlessness of others in response to their own.
“If the democrats go off half cocked and nominate the polar opposite of Trump, then he may be able to withstand the issues he is creating. But if the democrats become the party of the people and not identity politics, then I think he is a one term president and I might vote Democrat. But only if they are a Warner /Manchin type.”
Well, that won’t happen. Even my old mother has caught bernie’s Scandinavian fever. People belonging to groups lose their minds and get caught up in insane enthusiasms. For the dem party its now the Scandinavian socialist democrat model (which is not actually socialist truth be told, but is a hyperactive welfare state/nanny state) The chances the dems will nominate anyone approaching a centrist are way out on the tail of the bell curve.
Who would win a race between a full on progressive and trump? Which bad thing would be chosen as worse? Anybodies guess. I would not bet a dime on the outcome of trump vs. a Scandinavian socialist democrat, too close to call.
Looks like Sweden is going through a transformation.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4430481/swedish-election-far-right-immigration/
One thing I find very interesting. About 3/4ths of the way into the article it says healthcare is a significant issue in the election. And they have everything paid for, free. It also says another is abortion. While we debate 24 weeks, their law is 18 weeks and they want to make it 12 weeks. I wonder just which country is more liberal?
We are completely clueless about Europe.
We forget that these countries have supported eugenics all the way through to about 1975.
I would further note that in most of these countries the native population is experiencing NEGATIVE population growth. These are countries paying white women to have babies, and they are reducing abortions – because they need more people.
The more power you give government – the more control it takes of your life.
And what is best for government is not often what is best for you.
Depends on how you define socialist.
Government control of the economy is “socialist”.
Though I would note that the nordic model for the most part is very minimal in terms of restrictions on business and the economy.
It is a high benefits model paid for by incredibly high taxes – and not mostly on the rich, because there just is not enough money there, but it is very low in economic regulation.
“I would not bet a dime on the outcome of trump vs. a Scandinavian socialist democrat, too close to call.”
I would – landslide Trump.
Absolutely the further left democrats go the more they please their “base”.
But the more they alienate the rest of the country.
A great deal of Bernie’s support in 2016 was a democratic anti-hillary vote, which should be evident by the number of Bernie voters who then voted for Trump.
If you beleive there is enough support in the US for a socialist to win – you seriously misjudged the past 10 years, you seriously misread the 2016 election, you are drinking too much media and left wing nut kool-aide.
The worst thing that could possibly happen to the left – would be to actually win an election.
The red wave that followed 2008 was the direct consequence of the success of the left.
WINNING.. Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Nicarogua. Deep State
LOSERS, Americans
Look past the personal. Look at what is happening. Russia planting fake information to weaken the government. China probably doing the same. Now a supposedly.senior member of the deep stat e washington political environment does the same.
Does anyone really believe Warren, Booker, Hildebrand or any of the socialist lined up to run on the democrat ticket w ould be the answer to bring a severely divided country due to the far.lefts actions together once in office.
The first gun regulation bill passed would blow the top off the country since the right will view this as the first major step toward true socialism.
“Does anyone really believe Warren, Booker, Hildebrand or any of the socialist lined up to run on the democrat ticket w ould be the answer to bring a severely divided country due to the far.lefts actions together once in office.”
I for one do not. I fear both the incompetence and hubris of the progressive wing and the reaction of the red counties to their incompetence and hubris.
That is why I wish that the Dems could hold congress by a not very large margin while the GOP could hold the POTUS with some reasonable honorable person who is not unfit to be POTUS. That is my idea of how the country should be run. Split power and an honorable and capable POTUS. Is that so much to ask?
You should fear the incompetence of the left.
Look at Venezuela ? Look at the USSR ?
Even look at the EU ?
Further look at Trump.
Trump is the backlash of those red counties – and much of the country for 8 years of Obama and the threat of 8 years of Clinton.
Say you manage to elect a Booker, or Warren or Sanders ?
I doubt they will be able to do much.
But I fully expect the backlash against them to be greater than that to Obama.
Do you want worse than Trump ?
Look at history – the failures of left wing governments are very often followed by authoritarian tyrants.
In general I agree with you about divided government.
“Say you manage to elect a Booker, or Warren or Sanders ?”
Me? Moi? Do that? You have the reading comprehension of a jar of grape jelly. Ron can read my posts and get my drift I am pretty sure. Ask him to explain my views on the loony left to you.
“I doubt they will be able to do much.
But I fully expect the backlash against them to be greater than that to Obama.”
Yeah, that is pretty much what I actually said.
But, on the other hand, anyone who has not been able to evaluate trump’s character and abilities and figure out that he is, at best, way out of his depth, and is venal and toxic to boot either has no brains at all or is sitting on them so strenuously that they are bound to be badly bruised. I cannot take your views on trump as anything but an exercise in twisting your brain into a piece of salt water taffy. You Still probably have never heard trump lie I will bet. Freaking hilarious! You are an entertainer of the first water, as is herr trump.
“But, on the other hand, anyone who has not been able to evaluate trump’s character and abilities and figure out that he is, at best, way out of his depth, and is venal and toxic to boot either has no brains at all or is sitting on them so strenuously that they are bound to be badly bruised. I cannot take your views on trump as anything but an exercise in twisting your brain into a piece of salt water taffy. You Still probably have never heard trump lie I will bet. Freaking hilarious! You are an entertainer of the first water, as is herr trump.”
It is remarks like this that undermine your credibility.
Like Trump – don’t – that is fine. I don’t.
But the magical thinking above just does not fly.
Trump has succeeded in MULTIPLE careers throughout his life.
Has he had some luck – certainly. Has he had connections – absolutely. Have things gone wrong occasionally – yep. Has he had oportunities the rest of us have not – sure.
But Inarguably he succeeded in atleast 5 different carreers.
That does not happen by accident. It does not happen to idiots.
It does not happen to people out of their depth.
In fact we have had very few presidents who have succeeded at so many different things.
Are all the assorted negatives you can come up with regarding Trump meaningful – sure.
But none of those support your conclusion.
Trump may be brash, beligerant, pompous and many other things.
He may be pretty much exactly what you do not want as President – and you are entitled to that view.
But he is self evidently NOT stupid or out of his depth.
The fact that you and so many others assert that, only reflects badly on you.
Politically he pulled off an election that most beleived he could not possibly win.
Further he did not do so the expected route – Nevada/New Hampshire.
As a Republican he flipped Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Possibly the only “politician” in his league in my lifetime is Bill Clinton – and even Clinton did not pull something that scale off.
Just to be clear – I am not talking about a republican or democrat winning – obviously some other presidents won bigger.
But name one that won in states they were not supposed to win ?
Alot is made of the narrow margin in PA, MI, WI.
But those making that claim forget that Obama won those states by a total of 2M votes.
Trump flipped those states pretty dramatically.
I do not think anyone expected that Trump was going to flip PA as an example.
I would have bet money that he could not.
And NO the “russians stole the election” meme does not fly.
Do you really think there are 2M rust belt voters that even saw Russian FB adds ?
Clear the cobwebs out of your brain Trump saw something that no one else did, and he made it happen.
That is not someone “out of their depth”.
I got it that you do not like Trump.
Neither do I.
That is not the question.
Trump has also succeeded as a NY Real Estate developor – and that is not something especially easy – not even if you start with 100M of Dad;s money.
Absolutely he has gone bankrupt – AND SUCCEEDED AGAIN.
He has also succeeded in markets outside NYC – both nationally and globally.
He has succeeded as a Casino operator – again a tough market.
He has succeeded as a beauty contest promoter.
He has succeeded as a reality TV star.
And he has succeeded as a politician.
Have all of these gone perfectly – no! Nothing ever does.
Can you fined things to complain about – sure.
But if you are denying that he has succeeded – rather than denying that he has succeeded in the way you would prefer – that just make YOU the idiot.
I would further note that he has antagonized nearly all the press – and he is doing better than before.
He has antagonized much of the left – and he is still doing fine.
Mueller has pretty much fizzled and he has not come close to touching Trump – or his inner circle. Get a clue there is nothing there – there never was.
And infact what is self evident to those of us not blind – is that Trump succeeded – DESPITE that fact that many in the Obama administration – as well as holdovers in his own administration were/are actively working against him.
We have listed Trump’s accomplishments as president before.
Things could still go wrong – but even with the most left tilted perspective you can come up with, he is thus far doing better than Obama, and it is likely that he will be doing MUCH better.
You want to rant about Trump – fine, you are entitled.
But if you do so stupidly, you can expect to be called on it.
You are correct there is alot of blindness going arround – yours.
Dave, a comment to your response to grump.
Yes, Trump has succeeded. Yes he has seen things others have not.
So the 10 step playbook against Trump as I see it. Will be interesting to watch how he counters.
1. Install an IC to investigate Russian election interference. Yes I still think Mueller is and always was anti-Trump from the start and was not neutral in his thinking.
2. Expand that to cover anything, short of j-walking to energize the left for mid term elections. Make sure the big trials and sentences happen late summer early fall for greatest impact on 2018 election..
3. Capture the house.
4. Stop 100% of everything Trump and the GOP wants done in 2019-20
5. Insure through threats and other negative actions that any house member voting against house leadership instructions will find themselves cleaning toilets as their best assignment.
6. Open house impeachment hearings using Muellsr information as the foundation. (Does not matter as actual impeachment is not the desired outcome)
7. Insure impeachment hearing is prolonged into early 2020 to maximize negative press until the election cycle begins.
8. Nominate a socialist leaning democrat for president.
9. Sweep the House, Senate and Presidency in 2020.
10 Change senate rules to go full nuclear. Pass all Sanders/ Warren propsed legislation in the first 100 days.
Here’s my long shot big odds Vegas payout for 2020:
If Trump is running-
Dems go with Biden for Prez & Warren for VP. Both Obamas heavily involved to keep the Black turnout high and dampen and Bernie backlash.
Trump counters with Nikki for VP. That would result in a tight race.
What casinos are accepting bets?
Jay. interesting. Just think, until RR broke the 0 year curse by a few missed heartbeats, most presidents elected in those years died in office. Biden or Trump. Wonder which old white guy will kick the bucket first? And which VP do people want as president?
Good God don’t we have anyone with 1/2 a brain that is 25% younger than these old farts. Biden will be 78 if he runs. Trump will be 74. Warren will be 71.
Why is it that most companies have a retirement age and those that would not get put in a mail delivery job at a company end up president?
Its time for term limits and an age limit for elected officials. If your over 70, its time for them to step aside. And I am in the age group, so I don’t have to be age PC with that comment.
Age is another party factor.
Though both parties have some older people.
Much of the democratic party is OLD.
Overall elected democrats are much older than republicans.
And that is a growing problem for D’s in the future.
In addition the dominance of the GOP in state elections means there are fewer and fewer places to groom up and coming D’s. Particularly “moderates” who can win a national election. The Democratic Rising Stars are pretty far left – because they are coming from rock solid Democratic states and districts. These are not the conditions that breed national candidates.
Biden is too old and his history of roving hands takes away a major weapon against Trump. He is also horribly gaffe prone.
I do not think Warren is after the VP slot and I do not think she will leave the Senate to be VP. And she can not win running for president – but she can w2in the Democratic nomination.
While I do not think Trump can be beat in 2020.
I think little would serve him better than facing Warren of someone like her.
I do not think Trump is changing VP’s. Though I think he should.
The race is not going to be tight no matter what.
Democrats have shifted left.
Trump will be running as an incumbent.
If the D’s run a Sanders/Booker/Warren they will energize the left, They will alienate the middle who will either sit out or vote for Trump and Trump will win.
I do not think that D’s will tack to the center. Frankly I think it is already too late for D’s to fix their problems.
They MAY take the house in 2018 0r 2020. The Senate MAY rest on the razor’s edge.
But neither party is going to have enough control of congress to accomplish anything – no matter who is president.
Regardless, D’s have tacked left and it is going to take several cycles for them to realize their mistake, and fix it. Worse they will have to buck the majority of their party.
The left shift of the D;s is a horrible political mistake. While it shores up an existing lock on about 1/3 of the country it severely weakens them in Pink and Purple states.
At the very moment when some parts of the south are shifting from deep read to pink,
many northern and rust belt states are shifting from purple to pink.
And at that moment D’s decide to tack left ?
I do not like Mueller – and the more I learn the less I like him.
BUT, he is not responsible for his own appointment – which was clearly outside the scope of the SC statute.
When we appoint SC’s or IC’s there is a built-in bias.
This is the biggest role most of these people will ever perform. This is how they will be remembered forever. There is enormous incentives to bring back big game.
Look at the Patrick Fitzgerald scooter libby thing.
Libby was prosecuted for lying to the FBI about something tangential to the investigation,
An investigation that at its outset was a farce – BEFORE Fitzgeral was appointed FBI/DOJ already knew Richard Armatrage had inadvertantly leeked Plame’s name to Novak, AND that CIA had long prior moved plame to a public role and she was not NOC at the time her name was leaked.
So there was no crime and nothing to investigate.
As you and I have discussed – I would like a permanent public corruption office.
While I am concerned about exactly how it is structured – my problem is NOT with investigating the crap out of people in government.
It is with the specific circumstances here – most of which have nothing to do with Mueller.
#2 raises a different issue.
The investigation of the private conduct – even as part of a political campaign of private people is far less important and must be conducted far more carefully, than the investigation of the abuse of the power of govenrment by those in government.
Whatever Cohen, Manafort, … might have done is inconsequential compared to what went on during 2016 in the Obama administration.
You will note – I am NOT that hard on Clinton regarding the election and the Steele Dossier.
Clinton is entitled to buy Dirt on Trump.
She is entitled to try to sell it to DOJ/FBI.
I beleive now we are looking at targetting Glenn Simpson purportedly for false statements to congress or the FBI.
I really do not care about Simpson, or Clinton, or Perkin’s Coi or Steele – or any of what occurred privately.
Nor do I think trying to influence government is some great sin or crime.
The criminal in public corruption – is the person in government with the power and the duty.
Not the private person trying to influence them.
I want those who abused government power either fired or in jail.
I want those in state who “backchanneled” the Steele Dossier to face consequences.
WE might have sufficient distance now from the McCain funeral to raise that.
McCain’s staff was instrumental in BOTH Lois Lehrner’s persecution of conservative groups, and in pushing the Steele Dossier on DOJ/FBI.
That was WRONG!!! That is an abuse of power and the public trust.
I get that McCain hates Trump – and for good reason. But that is not an excuse for the abuse of government power.
I do not think that “lying to a federal agent” should be a crime.
Though it should be admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution.
I do think that those in government lying during internal investigations or to grand juries or to congress are criminals. and should be prosecuted.
Of course D’s want to capture the house.
Trump is not the reason, he is just a tool.
Every party wants control of as much of government as they can.
That is to be expected – it is not a consiracy.
There is nothing wrong with it or anything they do that works – that does NOT involve the abuse of the power of government.
Most of what Trump/GOP are seeking to do is UNDO things.
That is harder to stop.
Absent losing the Senate Trump is going to continue with his changes to the Judiciary.
Even if the loses the Senate – at most they will slow down. Despite the left rants at the few unqualified people – which is to be expected given the numbers, the overwhelming majority of Trump Judicial nominees are far better than anything I would hope for even from a republican. None are perfect. I have problems with almost all of them.
But as i noted – nearly all are better than I would expect even from a republican.
The long term effect is likely to be seismic.
Alot of what Trump is doing – can only be stopped by the courts – and though there have been lots of efforts to stall and embarras. Thus far Trump is winning those fights in the Supreme Court.
There is ONE big problem if the democrats take the house.
The Nunes investigations will stop.
While Grassley is doing the same thing aggressively in the Senate – absent a rules change Grassley is less potent.
In the house any committee chair can issue a subpeona. In the senate it requires the consent of the ranking minority member and feinstein is not cooperating.
But for that I would not care whether D’s take the house.
I think House D’s will investigate the drap out of Trump if they take the house.
I really do not care about that.
But I do not think they will impeach.
The politics worked horribly for republicans in 1998.
It is unlikely to go well for Democrats today.
I think they will talk alot about impeachment.
I do not think there is a chance of impeachment if Pelosi remains speaker.
But we shall see.
I do not care if democrats wish to commit suicide.
Republicans are defending more seats in 2020 – but few are considered competitive.
Further there are R pickup oportunities – Doug Jones will be up for re-election.
If he faces a Republican who has not molested teens he will likely lose.
Chris Coons will face re-election. Maybe the GOP will not nominate a former witch.
Gary Peters in Michigan will be facing re-election.
Jeanne Shaheen will face re-election in NH
Barring miracles, Democrats are unlikely to gain seats in the Senate in 2020.
They are defending fewer seats, but they are defending more weak seats.
2018 is a bigger deal. This should be a pickup year for R’s in the senate. The D’s are defending lots of seats in red states. It will be 2024 before R’s see this oportunity again.
The Senate should given the composition of state legislatures should have 66 to 66 R seats.
What incredible narcisism!.
So you fixate on a generic “you” and take it personally.
While entirely missing the point.
It is highly unlikely that the current crop of democratic front runners can win.
In the event they do – they will fortunately get little done.
AND they will likely trigger a backlash that will bring someone you like even less than Trump to power.
One large group in this country is seeking to impose its will on the other by force.
Whatever I may think about Trump or the right – it is not them.
Currently Trump and the right are PRIMARILY UNDOING the efforts of the left to impose their will on most of the country by force. That is quite different.
That is why if you managed to get rid of Trump, you will likely end up with worse.
There is good reason to fear tyranny right now.
Not because Trump is a tyrant – he is not.
But because when you extend the power of government – on a majority at best, and you offend a growing group because you have further infringed on their freedom is doing so,
you must ultimately back down. You must do so because what will NOT happen is that overtime people will accept your infringements on liberty.
So long as the left continues to beleive they can bring back the mess that resulted in Trump, they assure that even if they succeed, the backlash will be even stronger.
The problem in the US today is with the left.
In my long list of problems with Trump, few if any are perceived by most as infringements on their actual liberty.
What does “weaken the government” mean ?
If it means what it sounds like – I am for it.
Regardless, who doesn’t expect Russia, China, … to seek advantage over the US ?
Who does not beleive we do the same ?
Who does nto beleive we do far MORE – probably than all other nations put together ?
Best response to anon leaker so far:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/open-letter-to-times-op-ed-writer-go-public-now-before-they-bust-you
Funny, gallows humor, which is what one needs at a time like this. The guy will be revealed at some point, yes.
After thinking about this for a day, I wish the guy had just kept this situation all to himself. I have no idea why people do the things they do, trying to understand another person’s mind is really impossible. But, it does not add up, if they are quietly and subtly keeping the plane from crashing, how will it help to out themselves? He did not just out himself, he outed a whole group of people, how do the others feel about that? (I wonder how much of a conscious group they are really? Do they have a leader, meetings, and plans or is it just a process of all the actual adults in the WH doing the things day to day that avoid complete chaos or disastrous decisions, which is more likely).
The 25th amendment is not going to happen, its not for this. If trump paints himself green and walks around the grounds nekkid while growling at people then the 25th amendment will be germane. People telling the guy to come out and use the 25th do not understand the 25th (or political reality). It would fail and leave trump Stronger.
To the people who think these adult guys are subverting democracy, I say crap. The people elect a president, he picks some advisors, they pick some other people, etc. No president, not even a brilliant one like Teddy Roosevelt, could be in command of all the details. Carter tried, it was a fail. The country happened to just barely elect a man who has no capacity at all for understanding the details. So, people who actually know what is going on manage the details and feed him the big picture stuff and keep his hands off the stuff he has no comprehension of. That is wise, its necessary. Anyone who thinks otherwise is out of their cotton picking mind and must just want to monkey the country up.
Anyone who reads trump’s tweets and hears his speeches who still thinks that he should be allowed to do whatever he wants in the White House because he was elected is beyond saving. Anyone who cannot see that he can’t just order Mattis to take out Assad if he has that impulse one fine morning because he got electoral votes is stupid beyond stupid and they can blather all they want but a drunken captain cannot be allowed to run the ship onto a reef just because he is the captain. I’ll put survival over blind rule following.
And, the same people who want blind rule following to let trump truly make all the choices and do exactly what he wants are the same people who have turned a blind eye to all the rule breaking trump has done. So, fuck em.
Grump “I have no idea why people do the things they do, trying to understand another person’s mind is really impossible. ”
A cancer can be the result of a specific virus. Some viruses do this by inserting their own DNA into that of the host cell. When the DNA affects the host cell’s genes, it can push the cell toward becoming cancer. So how do you destroy an organism, or any grouping of individual cells that have a code to perform a specific function?
You insert a virus within that group that infects the cells and changes the code so the cells become self destructing.
I know little about computer viruses, but I think that is how they basically work.
So the actions of this person has infected the Trump administration with a virus that can become a cancer on the administration which can destroy its effectiveness from within. Can anyone say or do anything without looking at others and wonder if that person is the leaker? Can one say something and then wonder if those words will find their way to a Times oped?
Russia plants the “cancer” in the election process. China plants a “cancer” in some other social media communications, along with Russia. Our media plants a “cancer” in their publications and print incomplete, but true information. Politicians twist words of others to infect the thinking of voters. Trump usesvwords to create a “cancerious” environment within some ethnic grouos. And now, an individual within the Trump adminstration has planted this virus to spread distrust within the team, thus creating a “cancerious” environment within the host organism.
So to make it easier to understand, you kill the organism from both the outside and the inside.
Democracy is the organism.
Can we get past the fear mongering ?
Forget what China or Russia might behave hoped for.
Do you honestly believe that some nit wit who was going to vote for Clinton was persuaded to vote for Trump because of Russian Social media ?
I have a dim view of much of the electorate, but I do not beleive that Russians can make a stupid Trump voter from a stupid Clinton one – or visa versa.
And quite honestly – if they can – more power to them.
If Clinton voters are so stupid they can be deceived into voting for Trump,
That is fine with me.
Candidates and parties do not OWN their voters.
They do not have the right to sequester them from outside influences.
You have to take your voters how they come.
And if your voters are so weak in their support that Russians (or Chinese, or The Koch’s or …) can strip them from you – that is your problem.
Well, I could give a boring molecular biology response about viruses and cancers and the defence mechanisms of the body that are directed to killing off cancer cells before they spread, but that is not really the point. You made an interesting analogy.
If we take the words of the anonymous official at face value, he is a traditional conservative trying to advance traditional conservative causes. He was hired by trump or by someone trump hired and he (and the others) have been doing the work of the WH staff at some level, high or low, we do not know.
Now, if the person is not of the values that seem to be implied in his op-ed then the person would be a sort of saboteur of conservative policies.
But I will be (you might say) naive and assume that he is just what he claims. Why then would he be trying to kill off democracy?
Occam’s razor might suggest the simplest thing, he and the others are trying to avoid chaos or catastrophe perpetrated by an ignoramus POTUS.
Now, if you were to say the trump was planted (in some very broad sense) by putin, then the idea of harming democracy makes more sense.
Here is a real parallel, I remembered Churchill’s phrase and googled it and got this:
“In April 16, 1917, a short train carrying thirty-two passengers steamed into one of St. Petersburg’s less distinguished stations, completing an eight-day journey from Zurich. These passengers were arriving late to a revolution that had started without them, earlier that year, after food riots broke out in the imperial capital. But one of them—Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov—would quickly seize control of events. By year’s end, he had launched what would become the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which replaced the empire it despised but remained largely within its geography. Reflecting on these events years later, Winston Churchill would compare Ulyanov, or Lenin, as he styled himself, to a “plague bacillus” that had been introduced into a body at precisely the moment it could do the most harm. The train injected the bacillus late at night, when it arrived and was greeted by a delirious crowd. The next day, Lenin was off and running, speaking and writing at a frantic pace, rejecting compromise, relentlessly pulling the Revolution toward his hard Bolshevik line.”
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/lenin-and-the-russian-spark
Grump “But I will be (you might say) naive and assume that he is just what he claims. ”
So if we do that, why would a conservative that has a president that is promoting mostly conservative positions (except trade ) and doing an excellent job in that regard do what this person did. Unlike Dave, I think these types of occurrences only intensifies the lefts voter base to get out and vote and also impacts those that are on the fence to vote for the leftist candidate,
What good is this doing for the conservative agenda? That is what makes no sense to me at all. Other than to promote dislike for Trump and promote a left wing candidate, nothing good comes from articles like this.
If someone has the country and democracy at heart and they disagree with the administration, most sane people would resign and go work in a job that they can support those they work for. They are not going to undermine their own political positions other than to undermine the agenda that the administration supports.And if they are worried about the president and his mental condition, are they going to undermine the conservative agenda or are they going to keep their mouth shut, protect the country from what they consider a mad man and make sure the conservatives continue with their agenda and work to insure a republican congress?
Something just does not smell right to me on this one. The swamp is filling with more cesspool runoff and the source has not been identified in this instance.
It is not possible to debate the intentions or anything else of an anonymous source.
You can not even be certain of their existance.
It would not be the first time WaPo or NYT ran an anonymous source story where the source was made up.
So someone we do not know, whom everything your claim to know about is admitted speculation – this mythical snipe is to be taken seriously – why ? Because you want to beleive.
Well, its an enigma all right. But it seems to be more of a bomb than anything else.
But, I mean it seriously, trying to understand anyone’s thought process, let alone an anonymous person’s, is impossible. I don’t think like you do, you don’t think like Dave, or Jay, etc. We can barely understand each other a lot of the time and we have been talking for years. We are going to understand this anonymous guy’s thought process?
Even after he becomes known somehow, we still won’t understand why he did it.
I have no idea who this will fire up more. I know that there are still more conservatives than liberals and far more red counties than blue ones. The middle/other has to support the liberal side for the liberal side to ever win. It may be that the trump circus will push the middle there, good economy or not.
Grump,
we do not even know for certain this person exists, or if the journalist has altered some of what they have said.
I have no problem with anonymous sources.
But it is stupid to waste alot of time on them.
Anonymous means not very credible.
I have zero problems with people speaking out about whatever they do not like.
Because they chose to speak anonymously I place minimal credance in what is beings said.
Separately no one – this person included is free to #resist from inside the administration.
That is a violation of the oath everyone in the federal government must take.
If you do not like the policies or process of an elected government, if your personal morality is in conflict – resign and publicly speak out.
If you attempt to thwart a legitimate government from the inside – that is immoral, unethical and probably illegal.
So the conspiratorial lunatic left is now claiming responsibility – through the deep state that they deny exists for anything good that Trump actually accomplishes ?
Trump has not nuked Iceland – only by the grace of some covert #resist deep state operative ?
You want to rant about birthers and you buy into this ?
No one has asked you to be “blind”
But absolutely you are obligated to FOLLOW the rules or CHANGE the rules.
There is no provision – not in the constitution, not in ethics or morality, for “doing your own thing” with the power of government.
That is far more dangerous than your perception of Trump.
I have repeatedly argued for limited government – and limited government power.
THAT is how you thwart the abuse of power by government – by Trump, by Obama, by ….
What power you do not give government it can not abuse.
What you do not get to do is to decide that not only must those in government be elected, but they must be found acceptable to some anonymous deep state star chamber to wield public power.
What you want is quite clearly LAWLESSNESS, the rule of man not law.
I do not expect you to BLINDLY follow the rules.
I expect you no to make stupid rules, and when you do to OPEN YOUR EYES and change the rules.
If you think Trump has too much power – then change the constitution or the law to limit the power of the president. Not just Trump but ALL presidents.
There is no provision in the law or constitution that Trump is not permitted the power other presidents are.
“So the conspiratorial lunatic left is now claiming responsibility – through the deep state that they deny exists for anything good that Trump actually accomplishes ?”
Um, the op-ed writer is a member of trump’s staff, a conservative, bragging about deregulation, the economy, etc. So, bzzzzzzzzzt.
The conspiratorial lunatic left, oh, the conspiratorial lunatic left, they are just Everywhere ruining Everything! If crops fail or hurricanes hit it is the conspiratorial lunatic left that caused it.
You may have an obsession, but I am not a professional.
Meanwhile the potus tweets his infantile tweets daily and screws massively with certain principles that you have long claimed to hold dear, but don’t let that distract you from the conspiratorial lunatic left.
Grump – read the ARTICLE you linked to. Not the op-ed.
I am not the one in this instance talking about the conspiratorial lunatic left.
The actual left is openly celebrating, encouraging and begging for an unconstitutional conspiracy.
You do not get to celebrate, encourage, applaud, beg for, a conspiracy – and then claim that those who fear that you have or will get what you ask for and even claim exists are lunatics – because they agree with you.
I do not need to make any claims about conspiracy – the author of the peice YOU cited has said it all for me.
Is is obsession to take a left wing journalist at their word ?
To beleive those in the left mean what they say ?
BTW – what exactly is #resist – besides and open invitation to conspiracy ?
None of us actually no whether this purported person even exists – much less for certain what they actually are.
But we do know exactly what your and the left’s response has been.
And that is what I am judging.
Whether this “insider” is real or fictitious – you want him to be. You are cheering on the lawless conduct of a possibly mythical person, and actvely seeking the CONSPRACY of others to do the same.
You want to oppose Trump – fine, do so legitimately. Within the law. Not lawlessly.
Speak out. Go to court, Persuade voters, make your case WITHIN the LAW.
When you beg others to secretly defy legitimate authorities – because you would have prefered others, you are lawless.
Further you can not hope their is a conspiracy to thwart Trump while at the same time claiming those who fear that you are right are whack-o for taking you at your word
“Meanwhile the potus tweets his infantile tweets daily”
Agreed – of course our press has been similarly infantile since long before Trump.
” and screws massively with certain principles that you have long claimed to hold dear,”
So you would have no problems listing those principle that I purportedly claim to hold dear that Trump has “screwed massively with” ?
“but don’t let that distract you from the conspiratorial lunatic left.”
I am taking you, the left and the media at your word.
Are you saying that believing you when you encourage, demand, beg for, hope for a conspiracy is somehow unreasonable ?
The article you cite is interesting.
First it acknowledges that the goal is to tear down the entire system.
I thought the objective of those on the left was to support the system not destroy it ?
Apparently it is acceptable to destroy the system when you do not like what the process has produced.
As noted many times the left is incredibly hypocritical.
When those who favor limited government seek to shrink government – we are bomb throwing anarchists.
When the left seeks to destroy what it does not like – they are patriots ?
Next the article openly cedes even celebrates the “deep state”.
Those of use arguing that the “deep state” is seeking to undo an election have been called tinfoil hat conspiracy theoriests.
Yet here the Daily Beast openly admits and encourages exactly that.
Further read the DB’s editorial.
Aparently – some dweeb in the whitehouse is allowed to thwart the president – because the lunatic left and the DB beleive Trump would launch a nuclear attack on Iceland ?
And you accuse others of lunatic conspiracy theories ?
Get a clue – Trump was elected. That election gives Trump – not some random person in government the authority to determine whan to use and not to use nuclear force.
If you think that it is proper to withold that from trump because of your fears,
It is equally legitimate for another to use the same codes and launch an attack on their own. You fail to grasp that all illegitmate and lawless action has a flip side.
When you claim personal morality as a justification for the use of public power,
you empower those with different personal morality to act accordinf to their morality – not the law. Lawlessness begets lawlessness.
So, here is a more Machiavellian proposal. The op-ed writer is a solid trump believer and wrote the piece to call attention to people he believes are undermining trump. He is not one of them, he is just looking for a way to expose the existence of others who he believes are undermining trump.
I mean this unseriously, its a sort of a conspiracy theory, and you know how I feel about conspiracy theories.
Grump…Hey, maybe Trump did this himself. Claimed to be a high official in the administration and wrote this article so he could continue to claim how bad the NY Times is, how the media promotes fake news and how the media will do anything to make him look bad. Go around the country and stoke the flames of unrest among the red neck community.
Hows that for a conspiracy theory?
We can speculate bazillions of ways. That is the inherent nature of anonymous sources.
They may not exist. They may exist but be completely different.
They may be false flags.
There is no way of knowing.
Which is why it is not reasonable to take them seriously.
grump, I saw this the other day and it made me think of you. I was thinking about maybe writing a post on my blog about the death of comedy (or maybe it’s just in a coma?), and I was searching around YouTube.
I read the last several comments here, and find that, in the matter of whether or not the Democrats will return to being a left leaning moderate party any time soon, I tend to agree with you, rather than Ron. The base of the Democratic Party has become very far left, just as the base of the Republican Party has become right-wing populist. That’s not to say that there aren’t moderate liberals like you in the party, but they aren’t setting the agenda any more. Since the new model for winning elections has become “polarizing and turning out the base,” rather than reaching out to moderates, I don’t see Ron voting Democrat in the foreseeable future.
Anyway, here is that video that I thought you might like:
I am pretty sure I posted this Cleese PC comments video myself several years back at TNM. I saw Cleese make exactly the same comments in person last year at an event that was a screening of Holy Grail and a Q&A and photo opp with Cleese. Pretty much word for word. He has certain canned remarks and he repeats them. He is no longer young. The Why do you want to be a woman Stan scene ( where is the fetus going to gestate are you going to keep it in a box?) from Life of Brian would be hard to get into a movie today, etc. which is what gets under Cleese’s skin I think. The Python song, “I like Chinese” ha, never.
Ha, surprised I even was able to find it on youtube.
I cannot say that I feel like I am part of a group as a moderate Dem, no. The energy all lies at the far left. Bernie mesmerized a lot of people, but they were ready to be mesmerized.
If it is not clear, my nature is pessimistic regarding politics, I expect the worst. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps the moderate wing of the party will surprise me by showing up and finding a winning moderate dem candidate. That would be great.
Haha, no, “I like Chinese” would never make the PC cut. Then again, PC has gotten so bad that a lot of much milder stuff would never get released today.
I often wonder how some old songs are still able to get airplay. I’ve heard the old Pat Boone song “Speedy Gonzales” on Sirius XM…and that song is flat-out racist, lol! Also, the old 60’s song “Make an Ugly Woman Your Wife” (“she may be ugly, but she sure can cook!”) And every holiday season, you hear “Baby, it’s cold outside,” which my sons used to jokingly refer to as the “date rape song.” But you never hear about protests or boycotts over them… Then again, they probably don’t get played on college campuses!
Hopefully this starts at the right time – as this is a 2hr clip and Fry’s remarks are at 59:30
Regardless, here is Stephen Fry – not some raving right wing loon by any measure arguing bitterly against political correctness.
Or George Carlin
Mel Brooks ?
Bill Mahr ?
Dennis Leary ?
Jerry Seinfeld ?
Gilbert Gottfried
Dennis Miller
Larry the Cable Guy
Chris Rock
Lisa Lampanelli
Clease is excellent.
Google can bloviate all they want about their search criteria, but when I dont read anything on CNN, NPR MSNBC or NBC and the top returns I get when I search “Hurricane Florence” are CNN, NPR and NBC, there is no way they dont favor liberal sites. Especially when most of my weather related searches are the Weather Channel and Weatherbug.com.
Looks like NC/SC are going to be hit hard next week. Guess its our turn for a cat4.
A Web page’s PageRank depends on a few factors:
“The frequency and location of keywords within the Web page: If the keyword only appears once within the body of a page, it will receive a low score for that keyword.
How long the Web page has existed: People create new Web pages every day, and not all of them stick around for long. Google places more value on pages with an established history.
The number of other Web pages that link to the page in question: Google looks at how many Web pages link to a particular site to determine its relevance.”
The last is the most important in deciding what pops up first in a search request. IOW more people are checking CNN etc than the Weather Channel for the storm info.
https://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/google1.htm
Jay, thanks for this info. What confuses me is Huff Post always show up after CNN and NY Times. Fox News on my searches are always usually down the page.
I would have thought Fox would have more hits than Huff Post, but what do I know.
A guess why less hits at Fox than Huff:
Fox viewers way less likely to want follow up info from search engines – passive to sit & listen, like Dumb Donnie, without further research effort.
If you want info from a specific site add their name at end of search words: “Hurricane Florence Weather Channel”
“A guess why less hits at Fox than Huff:
Fox viewers way less likely to want follow up info from search engines”
Or moderate America reads the etuff on liberal site and say “I dont belive this crap” and do further research, finding the truth somewhere other than one the big media sites. I spend a lot of time on fact checker and Snopes.
Jay;
Given that the results of other seach engines are quite different – as I noted to Ron, Fox shows up TWICE in the top 20 in DuckDuckGo for “Huricane Florence”,
While CNN does not show up until AFTER the 2nd Fox link and MSNBC, HuffPo, … do not show up at all.
I would suggest that your thesis about “fox viewers” is just the typical left wing nut false stereotypes.
I just “googled” “Huricane Florence” using duckduckgo.
Top 3 hits – were an Orlando radio station. WaPo and Yahoo.
Next was NOAA followed by NBC and then Fox.
No MSNBC, CNN, HuffPO in the top 20.
I got a 2nd Fox link (and a 2nd Wapo) before I got CNN.
MSNBC and Huffpo did not make the first page of links
DuckDuckGo? Never heard of it. I’ll trt it. Using Google I searched for “Winston Salem Journal” our home town paper. The first site listed “New York Times”.
How Jays explanation fits into that is beyond my very.limited tech knowledge.
DuckDuckGo has become fairly popular as people worry about Google.
It purportedly is an independent search engine – many thirdparty engines are just front ends for google.
It is famous for not collecting personal information and not tracking you.
I have been using it for a whole.
There are some google features I miss
But nothing critical.
Regardless, the point is that given that DDG produces different results than Google
Either DDG is litterally favoring Fox and conservatives of Google is censoring them
Given that DDG is NOT tracking personal information it is less likely it is engaged in favoritism.
Put differently Jay is likely wrong, there is more o googles algorithms than just neutral computer science and some guess that fox viewers do not care about huricanes
In fact if media popularaity was the driving criteriia, you would expect to have 4 fox links for every ten links from the rest of the media.
The problem with Jays explanation is the presumption that science and technology – and more important that scientists and technologists are neutral.
I am constantly providing links regarding the failures – and biases in science.
This is not because I am anti-science.
The reverse is true.
It is because science is inherently SKEPTICAL.
The standards are high – or they are supposed to be.
The reaction to new claims is ALWAYS supposed to be PROVE IT.
And the standard of proof is ALWAYS high.
That is the fundimental distinguishing characteristic between science and religion or other routes to knowledge. Science is about what is proveably true – not what is probably true.
Anyway, some time ago I linked to a Paul Romer paper – an neo-liberal economist – i.e. not in the group I place the most credibility in.
Romer’s paper applied to ALL modeling – and in fact all science where there were equatiions with multiple coefficients that had to be determined empiracly.
Romer concluded that in any set of equations with sufficient variables and coeficients, where the author of the study had some ability to tweek the coeficients,
it is ALWAYS possible to tweek the coeficients to hindcast reality while supporting whatever theory you want and to do so without altering the coefficients in a way that would look obviously biased.
Romer noted that the adjustments were so innocous and small that they could be made subconsciously.
This is what all science MUST be multiply independently reproduced.
Peer review is just not good enough.
Even with all of that there have been a number of recent incidents in particle physics where results have been multiply confirmed – and still eventually disproven.
It is very hard to get science right.
It is very easy to go astray.
That something is offered by a scientist does not inherently enhance its credibility – unless it has been multiply reproduced.
Hayek addressed this 50 years ago in his nobel valedictory on the pretense of knowledge.
It is very dangerous to try to reason from data to rules. because the data is vast complex and so much is occuring concurently. Essentially as Romer noted, you can construct a model based on data to conform to almost any reasonable and many unreasonable results.
Hayek wants you to reason from our understanding of human nature (in economics) or of the other know attributes in other fields of science and then validate your hypothesis with the data. This is better because your intentions are open. And it is easier to see when you try to force data to fit the model, when you had to come up with the model FIRST.
Since I was not clear – give me 20 minutes and googles code and II can make iit favor anything you want. give me an hour, and I can do so and you will not be able to tell.
It is falacy to presume that technology is neutral. It is not. Peoples biiases creep iin to everything they do.
Jay,
A web pages search ranking depends on whatever google decides it depends on.
The algorithms are complex and constantly tweaked.
Nor is it particularly hard to introduce bias.
Further you are pretending there is such a thing as objective.
So do not use google.
It will not take much of a shift to force Google to respond.
The big tech companies are so dominant in their spheres that very small shifts would be absolutely devastating.
FB is already in trouble with investors who just do not beleives its growth and advertising projections.
There will be a holy war among investors if 3% of conservatives went elsewhere.
Dave, thanks for the suggestion for Duckduckgo. I am getting much different responses for suggested links than with Google.
I searched’Trump 9/11’ On DuckDuckGo, Google, Safari, and Red Browser (hooks you up over Tor, slower but SAFER & often lets you sidestep blocks at pay for news sites).
The first three had only slightly different mix of site hits, different order, but overall the same main MSM sources.
TOR however had the most diverse hits, some in German, and other unexpected links. Although TOR seems to be using the Bing search engine, since it hip hops around the world to avoid detection the algorhythms May rely on different user preferences ..
None of the search engines linked to Fox, probably because Fox sucks for reliable news about Trump.
Tor is a means of routing packets over the internet.
Tor stands for “the onion router”.
It has absolutely nothing to do with search engines.
You can use any search engine over Tor.
i am sure that many searches will produce siimilar results with different search engines.
That is not the point.
So long as some searches produce significantly different results, it is self evident that your argument that search engines are inherently neutral is false.
Overall I really do not care.
If Google wants to become the goto search engine for left wing nuts – that is fine with me.
Though I suspect it is not even close to fine with their shareholders.
I use some google products – because their convenience for the moment outweighs other objections. But I am mindful of the alternatives and will likely switch when alternatives can deliver me close to the same value.
i would actually go further and note – that though I do not think there is much doubt that through its product line Google is biased against the right – it does nto matter whether that is true – all that matters is that enough people believe it is.
The fact that the results are different demonstrates the error in Jay’s argument.
It does not prove that Google discriminates.
But it does prove that software is not inherently politically neutral.
Both DuckDuckGo and Google are capable of tilting their results if the wish.
Which is remains an open question.
Maine Senator Angus King, an Independent senator, made these comments this morning in Lewiston, Maine.”9/11 was the beginning of an attack that’s continuing today. They used airplanes into towers, now people can use the click of a computer key in St. Petersburg, Russia.”
How wonderful we have people in government that thinks attacking our government with a computer is like killing 3000 people with airplanes.
I really need to have a mental evaluation as there are way too many people who think like this. I have to be the crazy one.
Given a choice – do you want our enemies through bombs at us, attempting to kiil our people, or do you want them trying to persuade voters ?
I think that is a no brainer.
I do not think we can nor should stop our enemies from speaking.
Much better than bombs.
aAgain my thoughts went astray.
My comment about Anges King was not to condem or approve of one type of attack on America over a different method.
My comment about Agnes King had everthing to do with him comparing 3000 deaths at the hands of radical rag heads compared to infecting our social media with propaganda to change a few votes and possibly get a slightly better deal from a preferred president.
Since you asked “Given a choice – do you want our enemies (to)through bombs at us, attempting to kiil our people, or do you want them trying to persuade voters ?” indicates you also believe they are comparable.
Can you explain since I cant relate 3000 deaths to a few thousand votes?
Ron;
I am pretty sure we are on much the same page, just critiquing different aspects of King’s remarks.
No I do not think bombing and speaking are comparable.
But King essentially compared them.
Answering my own question – I think one of the stupider things we are doing is whigging out over Russian internet posts during our election.
On another blog I am arguing about how stupid we are trying to prosecution Butina.
Doing so is an invitation to every mean regime in the world to arrest americans and claim they are engaged in political interference.
Not to mention the possibility that they actually arrest an american that IS engaged iin attempting to persuade voters in a corrupt regime.
The left is trying to make actions criminal that they would be actively cheering, was the US doing it to Putin. That is so incredibly stupid.
Putin has won in so many ways in this. NOT because he actually interfered. But because the left has so played into his hands they have legitimized his own corrupt actions in his own elections.
The argument that the Russians actually significantly influenced US elections is complete garbage as far as I am concerned. You have to beleive in fairytales to beleive that the pidling amount the Russians spent one abysmally bad facebook adds had a miniscule fraction of the effect of the nearly 3B that each candidate and party spent – much of that on social media. The russian effort was rounding error for the Trump campaign.
To beleive the “collusion” story, you have to buy that rather that fork over slightly more of his own money than Trump paid for Daniels silence, that Trump went to an enormous amount of effort to construct a secret back channel to Putin – that has remained undectectable to this day, in order to get Putin to spend chump change on bad social media adds that promoted Clinton as much as Trump.
Trump did not collude with Russia – because he is not that big of an idiot.
There is nothing to be gained, and an infinite amount to lose,
Trump has made mistakes, but he has never taken a lose-lose bet.
There is no upside to colluding with Russia.
Trump did the one thing that had potential value – ask Russia for Clinton’s Sec. State emails. And he did that PUBLICLY. He did not need to – nor want to receive them directly – in fact that would be the worst possible choice.
And BTW thought it is highly likely Putin has Clinton’s emails he never delivered.
Which is also why it is unlikely that the DNC emails actually came from the Russian government. If Putin wanted Clinton to lose, the most simple solution would be to make sure that some of her classified emails were made public.
Wikileaks, some hacker, it does not matter how. The appearance of a handful of Clinton’s classified sec state emails would have ended her viability as a candidate and likely assured her prosecution.
We now know that the Chinese were reading Clinton’s Sec. State emails in REAL TIME.
i.e. They are available in Beijing at the same time as the recipients received them.
We also know that the FBI knew the Chinese had access to them – though I am not sure they knew in 2016 that they had REALTIME access.
I find it completely weird that an actual criminal act, that harmed US national securiity and interests in a huge way for years, is not prosecuted at all – no indiictments, nothing, despite the fact that virtually all of Cliinton’s staff was aware and part of this.
Yet we are investigating the meaningless contact of low level Trump staffer’s with fake russians, in what increasingly appears to be an Obama sting opperation targetting Trump – not the Russians. And we are prosecuting people where the real crime to me is the abuse of power in using the FBI/DOJ/CIA against a political opponent without any credible basis.
And yes, I am very angry with Rod Rosenstein – because quite frankly I think his efforts to bury this are criminal.
One of the standard management tactics with a scandal is to stall and try to starve it of information. Even if you can not permanently preclude discovery, the longer you can delay it the more each revelation is accepted.
Had we learned in January 2017 that the Obama administration had:
Been requesting the identities of US persons in record numbers in 2015 and 2016 nearly all of which were affiliated with Obama/Clinton’s political opponents.
Initiated a CIA/FBI investigation of the Trump campaign in late 2015.
Targeted Trump staff and likely ran a CIA Sting or a coordinated operation with MI6,
Paid for political dirt on a political opponent,
Started secretly investigating incoming members of the new administration while leaving office.
Hid their actions from the incoming president.
Acted to sabatoge the incoming president and their staff.
……
These people would likely be in jail now.
Because this has all leaked out peicemeal – after our iinitial outrage we accept each misdeed and the next when revealed does not effect us as much.
I have said this before – but the actions of the members of the lame duck Obama administration are WORSE THAN WATERGATE!!!!
If we do nothing about this, we can be certain it will happen again – only worse.
If we accept what occurred, then we can expect it to occur again and again.
Putin has little abiility to actually “interfere” or “influence” our elections.
It is self evident from the past year that a sitting president and his staff sought to interfere with a political opponent, and eventually and worse a successor.
Butina…They are throwing s*&^ on the wall to see what sticks.
I have said over and over Mueller and his minions are doing whatever they can to discredit Trump and this one just fits nicely into the election cycle timeline. Keep the focus on Trump negatives, Trump election collusion, capture the house, block EVERYTHING the GOP wants and Trump wants and make 2020 a referendum on a do nothing Trump congress so they capture the senate and Presidency in 2020. Thats my conspiracy story and I am sticking to it.
(The more I hear the more I think there is something to the op-ed the NY Times published from the anonymous senior official. Nothing really true, but a hatchet job from someone high in the justice department, like Sessions, Rosenstein, etc) Sessions is a weasel!
Russian interference. How one thinks that energized the group that took Trump from the start and transformed him into a winner is beyond my comprehension. Everything I ever saw about Clinton on Facebook was the truth. Russia did not say she called Trump supporters “deplorables”, she said that herself.
The left and the press can do as it pleases.
Nor are they obligated to stick to the truth – though if they do not and they get caught they undermine their credibility.
Mueller’s investigation should not exist. But given that it does, it must stick to the facts, and the law. And it must do so consistently.
Mueller is not supposed to be out to “get Trump”, or “get the Russians” he is supposed to be out to get to the truth – wherever that takes him.
As best as I can tell Butina has nothiing to do with anything.
Assuming that she is actually a real agent of Russia – the prosecution is still STUPID.
Everything she did was in the open. That should be what we want.
Everything she did is what americans – working for the US government and often not, do all the time in other countries.
Unless we want to see US citizens arrested in foreign countries for engaging in political speach – or just being accused of engaging in political speech, this prosecution is incredibly stupid.
Isnt that what Pastor Brunson was arrested for in Turkey? Supporting a group trying to overthrow a ” ligitimate ” government? And we are having a cow over it, rightfully so!
Jay, this was linked from another article I was reading. Since it is Fox News, it is tilted right. So read this and give me your thoughts. Good or Bad ruling? Yes its 6 months old, but first I read about it. You live there, so maybe more has been said locally.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/16/calif-judge-bars-la-from-enforcing-gang-restrictions-that-authorities-credited-with-reducing-crime.html
Did California appeal or rewrite to law too address the legal concerns?
I don’t have an opinion on this story, Ron.
Seems to be reasonable arguments on both sides.
Seems to me the solution would have been to rewrite the law for the issue where someone could be included with the gang related activities without any gang relationships before it ever got to court.
Again I am being too simplistic thinking politicians can do anything right and fast. I think the joke about screwing up a wet dream must have been started with a comment about politicians.
Since I am not in CA did not know the whole story and the article I was reading was making a big deal out of California and its illegal activities supporting illegals which they tried to do with this.
So if it has not made much news there, it must not be too much of problem.
We all have s lack of information problem.
I am not entirely clear what “gang related injunction” is.
That said there are NOT arguments to be made for both sides.
We are dealing with issues involving government – the use of force.
You may justiifiably do so to protect rights.
You may not do so to infringe on rights.
Without knowing the details I can know that there is likely a right and a wrong answer.
Everything does NOT have “two sides”.
“I am not entirely clear what “gang related injunction” is.”
That was also my thoughts and why I ask Jay since my thinking the local news in LA would be covering it closer. Seems like I was wrong.
The article does not go into details – but from the little information the article provides – the ACLU and the judge appear to be correct. The injunctions are unconstitutional violations of freedom of association.
You can require that convicted criminals not associate with other convicted criminals.
In fact you can restrict the rights of association for any convicted criminal.
But you can not restrict the freedom of association of people who have not been convicted of anything – you can not even prevent them from associating with criminals.
Nor can you bar organizations that you have not successfully criminally prosecuted from associatiing with whoever they please.
Just because something is effective does nto make it constitutional.
Well some of the fanatical far right extremists seem to be acting like the far right and far left always act. Picking and choosing which part of the constitution they like and want to follow.
Both parties bear some responsibility for the destruction of constitutional rights.
Ron, I hope that you and your family (and everyone down there) make it through this hurricane safely.
Grump, thank you for the concern. Right now it looks like some wind and 5″ of rain between Friday – Monday. When the storm shifted south, it reduced our rain totals. I just feel bad for the people east as they have not fully recovered from H. Mathew coming through a couple years ago.
Glad to learn you’re relatively safe, Ron.
Stay dry …
http://www.yahoo.com/news/dianne-feinstein-acknowledges-having-secret-170246446.html
This damn crap has to stop. Women have found out they can use sexual misconduct to shit on a mans reputation and it is almost impossible for that to not stick.
I know there are going to be some that say all instances should be investigated. But at what point in ones life does this stop. Could this be true. Maybe. I doubt it. More like the damn left wing assholes that can’t stop him any other way decided to find someone to pay off that went to school with him 35+ years ago to make some anonymous accusation that he did something wrong.
And how the hell does a man prove its a filing of a false police report or a simple case of defamation of character. Whats the penalty on that?
This country is not going into the crapper, it is already there. The moral fibers of this country have long worn out and those that do have some respect for others are fast disappearing. If we accept these actions and do not demand something to make this a crime that is not worth committing, we are no better than they are.
I coached my daughters soccer team for about 5 years 28 years ago. If I was running for some public office and one of them sent a message now to a reporter and said I touched them in an inappropriate way, how the hell could I defend myself and save my reputation. People would always wonder “Did he do that?”
Of course allegations of crimes should be investigated.
Further false allegations are themselves crimes and should be prosecuted.
Quite often it will not be possible to say beyond a reasonable doubt that an allegation is true – or beyond a reasonable doubt that it is false.
In those instances there should be investigation, but no prosecution.
Finally making a false allegation against someone – even an allegation that is not a crime – is defamation, and it is a tort. If you are not a public figure and you are defamed you can sue and if you prevail you can receive damages.
I have been the target of serious false allegations – so I am sensiitive to the harm they can cause. Quite often the more serious the allegation the less proof is expected – who would accuse someone of murder if they did not have proof ?
Regardless, I am not looking to limit the ability of people to make allegations and have them be taken seriously.
What I do expect is that when they prove false our courts and justice system will not ignore that.
Dave “What I do expect is that when they prove false our courts and justice system will not ignore that.”
As you know I am not as Libertarian as you. Your comment above is what I was trying to say along with adding a much greater sentence if proven. And if proven, the I want the same sentence for the false accusation as one would receive if convicted for the crime, not some 6 month and fine crap.
I also believe politicians that do what Feinstein has done is the turd floating in the Washington D.C. cesspool. She knows fully that this mans reputation is forever damaged even if they go no where on the investigation. His daughters are going to be catching hell at school by the kids of parents that want him taken down and are talking about this now and how he needs to be stopped.
And how do you charge “anonymous” if it is false?
What is the just punishment for some misconduct, is not ideological.
As I think I have noted I have been falsely accused of murder and theft (more than once).
fortunately some parts of the system worked – far from all of it.
These allegations MOSTLY did not become public, and MOSTLY they were not taken seriously.
But I do occasionally encounter people who heard a rumour and treat me oddly.
Further “mostly” was deliberate and accurate.
Actual law enforcement – the DA’s police officers, the coroner, etc. all did their jobs as required, but they did so quietly and they never beleived the allegations. But they did their jobs. It is my understanding that in atleast one instance the DA considered a false reports prosecution but because the party was out of state and family they opted not to pursue it.
But the courts, some government agencies, private lawyers and the executor for my fathers estate were openly hostile, and made it clear that they believed the allegations were true – despite no evidence, and in some cases unusually actual proof that at least one of the allegations was completely false (our justice system does not typically try to prove innocence, they typically stop when they can not prove guilt)
Regardless, I am very sensitive to the fact that false allegations of criminal misconduct should have consequences.
But as much as I would like to lock some of those involved in my personal torment forever, it would be sufficient if the justice system did little more than officially brand those making false allegations as liars.
Dave, I can understand your position, but also believe you are much more forgiving than I am. And what you report indicates there could be some “degree” of false claim sentence.
People are accused of crimes everyday and everyday they are cleared. In most cases they are recent crimes, not something that happened 35 years ago and when it does happen, it is most likely cold cases where some info like DNA identifies the accused.
It is not some bimbo the opposition party has dug up 35 years later to accuse a man of sexual misconduct that most likely can not be proven. But the desired outcome is not to charge the person, it is to defame the individual with charges that most likely are untrue and happen for political reasons only.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed, he will be known as the second rapist judge to sit on the SC. And how long will his kids hear ” your daddy is a rapist judge”. And now, can Susan Collins support him? Why didnt this come out when he was picked for his current appointment? Why did Feinstein make it public when unsubstantiated? She can say she did not want that, but that is total bull s$%&! She released it to defame him and make it hard for senators to vote for confirmation, especially those running for reelection. Pull out all the political dirty tricks known plus make up a few more to stop his confirmatkon so the democrat senate can control that seat being empty until after the 2020 election.
I agree, this likely is a trumped up charged without merit – and I’m surprised Feinstein played it this way (unlike her to descend into dirty trick catagory likr this).
But Republicans obviously knew this charge was in the pipeline for some time and merited transparency but they avoided mentioning it at any of the hearings:
Both parties are now reptilian swamp dwellers…
“Both parties are now reptilian swamp dwellers…”
So true
Things regarding Kavanaugh disturb me.
I do not know – and we are unlikely to ever know the truth here.
We are talking about events 35 years ago – and we are talking about recollection.
It is entirely possible for BOTH “stories” to be true.
I.e. for the accuser to perceive what happened one way and Kavanaugh another.
Much of what constitutes an offense in the allegations is her perceptions of Kavanaugh’s intentions. That is unknowable.
Further we have statutes of limitations – for a reason – and this is pretty much why.
At this time no one else is coming forward and this woman will not make her allegations public.
I have a great deal of trouble changing my view of Kavanaugh based on a single 35 year old anonymous allegation that multiple people have denied.
That does not mean it is not true. But it points out that in many many instances – we may never know what is true and what is not.
No, I do not think this accuser should be hunted and prosecuted.
Nor BTW do I think that Feinstein should have refered this to the FBI.
Otherwise I actually think Feinstein handled iit correctly.
If the woman is not willing to come forward, then this should die quietly.
Obviously this is being politicized – but that is inevitable.
The fact that there are political elements is not a basis for prosecuting this woman.
There are very few circumstance in which I would support a prosecution.
Those would be if it was possible to determine that the events alleged COULD NOT have occurred – if some significant fact of the allegation was proven false – as an example if it could be established with certainty that Kavanaugh was not at the event where this allegedly took place.
I would note that thus far there are no additional allegations.
I do not think that people do these things only once.
The absence of other allegations undermines their credibility.
So I know there is nothing that can be done. I do find the timing of this interesting as well as the wording in the letter. The letter was sent in July and the words used as quoted in the rag that published the article says “”attempted to force himself on her”.
So what the hell does that mean? Attempted rape or trying to kiss her? Would a shy virgin define “force himself on her” different than losey Lucy?
One negative thing over and above the damage it is doing to himself and his family is the damage it is doing to the #metoo movement. While in todays caustic environment where personal attacks and bullying are acceptable by too many, false sexual accusations will create the Chicken Little response.
If the supporters and leadership of the #metoo movement support unsubstantiated claims like this, why should someone believe a claim that might be 4 years old and true?
As you say, its all politicalized. That is why Frankinstein waited until the last minute to try to derail the nomination and not release it in July so background checks could be done with all other reviews.
Dave, I can understand your position, but also believe you are much more forgiving than I am. And what you report indicates there could be some “degree” of false claim sentence.
People are accused of crimes everyday and everyday they are cleared. In most cases they are recent crimes, not something that happened 35 years ago and when it does happen, it is most likely cold cases where some info like DNA identifies the accusedgarty has dug up 35 years later to accuse a man of sexual misconduct that most likely can not be proven. But the desired outcome is not to charge the person, it is to defame the individual with charges that most likely are untrue and happen for political reasons only.
If Kavanaugh is confirmed, he will be known as the second rapist judge to sit on the SC. And how long will his kids hear ” your daddy is a rapist judge”. And now, can Susan Collins support him? Why didnt this come out when he was picked for his current appointment? Why did Feinstein make it public when unsubstantiated? She can say she did not want that, but that is total bull s$%&! She released it to defame him and make it hard for senators to vote for confirmation, especially those running for reelection. Pull out all the political dirty tricks known plus make up a few more to stop his confirmatkon so the democrat senate can control that seat being empty until after the 2020 election.
This accusation against Kavanaugh is obvious B.S. If it destroys the career of a decent man, along with the lives of his wife and two little girls, the Democrats will consider that mere collateral damage in the dirty game of power politics.
Until accusers like this woman have to pay a price for their false testimony, and until decent politicians, on both sides of the aisle (if there are any decent ones left) demand the end to this sort of disgusting crap, it will just keep getting worse.
The woman’s allegation is totally unprovable and dishonest, and everyone knows it. Even if Kavanaugh did this ~ and I don’t believe that he did ~ it certainly was not rape or even attempted rape. And the greater likelihood is that this woman is lying for a political cause. She will be treated as a heroine by the left.
If the sides were reversed, that is, if Kavanaugh were a Democrat appointee, this 35 year old “recovered memory” would be laughed off and would get no media coverage at all. And, while Republicans might pounce on it, and try to make something of it, most people would say “High school? Seriously?” and move on….
Christine Blasey Ford is a professor, including at Stanford Medical. She has undergone a polygraph, which she passed with regard to her accusations, which are NOT “recovered” memories. She risks her own career in coming forward. How you know that her allegations are “dishonest” is beyond me. I only hope that you, or one of your loved ones, never have to undergo a similar experience, only to be disbelieved.
Rebecca, I can understand your position. I can understand that this could be a serious issue had it been identified many years ago. I can not accept waiting 35 years to accuse someone of something and I certainly can not accept waiting until the 11th hour to pull something out of of thin air to stop a confirmation in the senate.
When would you have come forward with this issue had you been Feinstein or Ford?
Why did Ford not send this when he was being considered for a appellate position? This is also public information then. Was it not serious enough to stop an appellate position?
Why was this not given to the FBI to investigate when they were doing the other investigations? His name was known by that time.
Why was this not discussed with him in private with Feinstein when they met prior to confirmation hearings? Supposedly, she had the letter in July. He may have withdrawn his name at the time.
Why was this not part of the senate hearings and asked at that time, even though that is late in the process?
What should be the limits placed on individual behavior becoming part of a persons career, especially one that occurs in high school that does not create a criminal record? That is completely different than a man using sexual favors for career advancement and continued employment for women,
Given today’s environment, if a young man today brags about his consensual conquest of X at a party on social media, how long should that be an issue during his career? And if X later says it was not consensual in 2055 should it be an issue in 2055? If an employer gets a copy in 2055, should that be grounds for dismissal?
How does this risk her career? She was the victim if it happened? Would a uber liberal California University fire her for coming out with this information?
Just the way the issue has been handled is dishonest! It happened 35 years ago. It should have been reported 35 years ago, at least to her parents. Did that happen? Why not? The letter does not say. Did she not believe it to be serious at the time?
If he were not appointed for SCOTUS, would she have come forward? If no, why not? If it was serious enough for SCOTUS, is it not serious enough for an appellate level judge? If it were not serious enough, then what “degree” of sexual misconduct should remove him from the appellate court.? Actual rape but not attempted rape?
Had this been handled many months earlier, I would not be having the thoughts I have right now. Right now I believe this is 100% political. Being a professor indicates she is liberal. Being at Stanford adds support to this thinking. There are only a handful of Susan Rice’s in education on California today. I think she would never have sent this letter had he not been appointed for SCOTUS other than for political reasons. It was not serious enough to disqualify him for an appellate position. Feinstein held this as their ace in the hole to stop his nomination and it could still do that.
There are no winners in this and the losers are the American citizens as it has only taken our governmental processes to another low, which I did not think possible. I thought we were about a “low life” as possible in DC already.
It’s clear that Kavanaugh proponents already knew about the situation from his past, as they already had a letter lined up from 65 women who knew him – 35 years ago. I can’t imagine how long it would take me to line up 65 women who knew me in high school. Priscilla said Ford’s allegations were “obvious BS” and “false testimony.” How can anyone know that at this point? She seems more credible than porn stars who were initially memed, but turned out to be telling the truth. I believe she should at least be heard, and I wonder if Kavanaugh would be willing to take a polygraph.
I am glad things are clear to you.
This women did not speak to anyone about this until 2012.
At that time she spoke to a therapist, and did not name names.
The first tiime she identified Kavanaugh was in her letter to her democratic representative who brought the issue to Fienstein.
How is it that you think Republicans had foreknowledge ?
That is just ludicrous. NO ONE DID.
One of the weakest parts of Ford’s story is that there is no contemporaneous eviidence of any kind to sustain her claiim. She told no one anything for decades. And she did not name Kavanaugh for 35 years.
I am am prepared to say no to Kavanaugh on the strength of this.
But I am not so stupid as to pretend that this is not a weak claim, or that Republicans conspired to hide something they could not have known.
Rebecca, my issue is not if it happened or not. My issue has to do with the timing of everything that took place. Kavanaugh has gone through 9 FBI background checks.
But from my perspective, the democrats probably accomplished what they sit out to do. Instead of giving this to the FBI when background checks were being done in the summer, they waited so it was too late for that to happen. The FBI says it has taken the letter and placed it in his file, but they cant do anything before the confirmation hearings. So they probably delayed the confirmation vote and nothing close to what took place with Thomas getting confirmed will happen here. And Thomas was accused of something far greater than Kavanaugh.
The democrats suck, the republican suck, the whole damn government sucks. The example they sit for the younger generation is one that I am totally thankful for that I do not have kids I have to explain this crap to. I can remember when I was in school having assignments to look at stuff in the news and report to the class different issues. I can not imaging a teacher doing that today. Unless its in sex ed class!
I am assuming that Ms. Ford is the accuser – and that since she has a name now, that she has come forward.
Polygraphs do not measure the truth of your remarks. They measure your stress and emotions. They measure whether you beleive what you are saying.
I do not think this is a “recovered memory” situation – but if it was a polygraph could not tell.
I do not think her allegations are dishonest, But some of those using them are.
If you put me on a jury – there is not a chance I could convict Kavanaugh.
But this is not a question of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
have no problem saying there are many people on Trump’s list as qualified as Kavanaugh. Any doubt is enough to choose another.
But I do not expect that to happen. Kavanaugh is going to be confirmed.
Do you really believe Trump would get another confirmed when faced with impeachment in the house?
If Trump replace Kavanaugh now, the replacement would be confiirmed before 2019.
Current RCP Senate projections are a pick up of 1 seat by the GOP – i.e. it will be SLIGHTLY easier to confirm a Judge next year.
538 has the odds of Democrats taking the house at 80% – that s lower than their odds of Clinton beating Trump.
I think Republicans will lose seats in the house, I do not think they will lose the house.
But should they, I think we will see a massive effort in the house to investigate Trump.
To make sure that there is constant bad news about Trump – worse than now.
I think there will be lots of talk of impeachment.
There will be no action.
So yes I think Trump can get another good SCOTUS appointment confiirmed.
Further I think that it is likely that he will get one more appointment BEFORE 2020.
Dave if Kavanaugh tanks, and you think they can confirm before next session an new candidate, I think the one to put in that place is Joan Larsen from the 6th district. I would appoint her as she is the most conservative of all the possible candidates. Then lets see the democrats block that one also.
Rebecca;
My wife was abducted off the street and brutally raped for 3hrs by a stranger just a few blocks from out home a few months after we were married more than 35 years ago.
I am way too familiar with much worse than what Ms. Ford may have endured.
I am inclined to beleiive her – or atleast to belielive that a bunch of teens under the influence got together and all of them behaved somewhat badly.
Without diminishing the impact of what Ms. Ford may have experienced.
It is not on the order of Harvey Wiensteins conduct, or Bill Clinton’s, and there are many women who have experienced far worse.
I have a great deal of problem holding anyone responsible for events that occured 35+ years ago. There is a reason we have statutes of limitations.
I am prepared to fundimentally beleive Ms. Ford’s allegation AND Kavanaugh’s denial.
Or better to beleive that each FEELS that what they are saying is true.
But we do not know what did happen and it was 35 years ago.
I would further note that false accusations are rare – but not nearly as rare as Susan Brownmiller work (or other more modern feminist rape scholars) suggest.
Witnesses and alleged victims do sometimes lie – even ones wiith no reason to and everything to lose. More commonly they do not remember correctly – even when events are recent.
Pretending this is clear cut – is very dangerous. It is not even close.
I am prepared to say no to Kavanaugh. Because there is no natural, constitutional or civil rights basis to become a supreme court justice. The court wiill be just fine if one of Trump’s other prosepects is appointed.
But ultimately I would choose to beleive both Kavanaugh and Ford. That each beleives what they are saying iis true and what is actually true we will never know.
I am not where you are.
There is no right to be a supreme court justice.
I am ambivalent on Kavanaugh on the legal issues – there are alot of things he is good on. But some he is pretty bad. I do not like him as much as I liked Gorsuch, and do not expect to after he is appointed. But I do not expect perfection.
I believed – and continue to beleive Anita Hill. And I urged my Senators to vote against Clarence Thomas. But he has (Mostly) been a very good justice. His disents are excellent and tend to reflect a more libertarian perspective than any other justice (mostly).
I am not sure where I am regarding the allegations against Kavanaugh.
I am not at all sure that we can ever know the truth of what happened 35+ years ago.
I am not sure Kavanaugh really knows, and I am not sure the alleged victim really knows.
And the details matter.
I expect he will be confirmed. But if I were a Senator, I would vote against confirming.
There is not a right to be a supreme court justice. Trump’s list contains many others as qualified or more than Kavanaugh.
With respect to the allegations – I wish the woman would actually come forward.
The credibility of anonymous accusations are low.
But I am inclined to beleive her. Or atleast I am inclined to beleive that her emotional response to whateverr happened is as she describes it.
But I do not know the facts – I am not really sure she does, and I do not think Kavanaugh really recalls much of this.
Women who accuse men of sexual misconduct should be heard, not necessarily believed. It’s not a given that all women are honest.
I see no reason, at this point, to believe Ms Blasey Ford. She is alleging that a 17 year old high school boy drunkenly accosted her at a party 35 years ago. She was not raped, she was not hurt. In fact, she never mentioned the incident, ever, to friends or family. Coincidentally, this boy is now a 53 year old federal judge, nominated to the Supreme Court, who just finished testifying, under oath, before the Senate. Kind of amazing that no one brought this up, when Kavanaugh could have faced his accuser and answer her charges. I see that as a sneaky and cowardly move, an attempt to derail his nomination with innuendo and false charges.
It’s got all of the earmarks of a political hit job, and I would need to see at least some evidence, or some pattern of behavior, to make me believe that the accusation is true. Ms. Blasey Ford’s recollection of an assault, from her long-ago high school years, in a 2012 couples therapy session, may be evidence that she was assaulted long ago, but the devil is in the details. She said that 4 boys assaulted her, and did not name any of them. Only now she insists that it was only 2 boys and that one of them was definitely Brett Kavanaugh.
Just a bit too convenient. (And her occupation does not make her any more credible than any other woman)
Kavanaugh has said that the accusation is completely untrue. But he is being asked to prove a negative ~ to prove that something did NOT happen decades ago, during his adolescence. So, basically, all he can do is deny it, unless his accuser presents details. She said/He said.
Seems to me that it will come down to the testimony of the other “boy,” Mark Judge. So perhaps we should wait and see.
Priscilla;
People lie – more often that than we accept – and they are beleived.
And people tell the truth and are not beleived.
I do not know either way here.
I have no doubt that many are using this to orchestrate a political hatchet job.
They would do that whether the story is true or false.
But Kavanaugh is not irreplaceable. and there is no right to be a supreme court justice.
This is not exactly the same as Garland – but it is similar – in that I have no problem with republiicans denying Garland. I expect that Kavanaugh iis going to get confirmed.
to the extent this is political – it is more about cover for democrats who were goiing to be under alot of pressure to vote for him.
Dave, if you honestly believe this accusation, and think that Kavanaugh’s withdrawal and replacement will change things, then I think that you’re being naïve.
If Trump is forced to pull the Kavanaugh nomination, the next nominee will face as bad, or worse, opposition from the Democrats and the mainstream media. They are simply beside themselves (literally and figuratively, in this case) over the fact that Kavanaugh appears to be more of a textualist than Kennedy, and therefore, if he is confirmed, many cases will be decided, based not on social justice or empathy, but on constitutional grounds. This, in their minds, will destroy their agenda, and so they are fighting to the death ( I am being figurative in this instance, although I have my doubts about some of these people!).
The only thing that will stop them is if Trump nominates a left wing judge to the court. Otherwise, they will behave like evil clowns at the hearings, and maybe dig up some dirt from the next nominee’s grade school years…..(she secretly ate peanut butter sandwiches, and cheated on a social studies test! We have a letter from the girl who she copied off of!!)
Prisciilla – this is not black or white – further I noted that there are no rights at issue.
Absolutely the democrats are stalling and playing political games.
That is not what is relevant. What matters is Kavanaugh.
To be clear, I do not have strong feelings here.
I am actually inclined to beleive BOTH Kavanaugh and Ford.
Ii accept the possibility that Ford may actually be deliberately lying for poliitical purposes.
Possibility iis not certainty.
Given the evidence at the moment and absent a statute of limitations issue – there is not a way in the world I would convict Kavanaugh.
But their are no rights in jeophardy. Beyond a Reasonable doubt is not the standard for a supreme court justice.
Republiicans did not confirm Garland – though he was as well qualiified.
I have no problem with Republicans faiiling to confirm Garland.
I also have no problems with Democrats succeeding in tanking Kavanaugh bysuccessfully raising doubts.
And it is not like Trump’s other choices are worse.
The next nominee will face opposition. I think that is a good thing. Hopefully there are no credible allegations of sexual assault regarding the next candidate.
Regardless, I do not have a problem with intense scrutiny.
Separately – though I am close to the point where Kavanaugh should drop out.
I doubt that is happening.
I think Kavanaugh will get confirmed.
The “big deal” is not the confirmation of Kavanaugh, it is that these allegations provide politiical cover for the many democrats in close senate races that had to vote for or against Kavanaugh.
If they voted for him – they would alienate the democratiic base and lose the election.
If they voted against they would alienate voters and lose the election.
Now they can vote against and not alienate too many voters.
Trumps nomiinees will have opposition no matter what – that is how it should be.
That opposition will only prevail if their are issues.
Dave the problem in this country today is there is too much government where it does not belong and not enough where it should be. And there are too many people that think the same as you think.
i am sorry to know you accept someone waiting 36 years before accusing someone of a crime without proof. It has become a nation where one can accuse someone without proof and those accused have to prove that it did not happen. And if they cant prove it, there is no recourse.
As we move forward with this issue and the f’n democrats prevail, everyone will know you can accuse a nominee for any post without proof and derail their nomination. Only God could pass without a dark cloud over them. And since you accept this happening without recourse by the accused. those like you might want to revisit this issue when it becomes common place like all dirty tricks in Washington become when they work.
And don’t say it will not become more common place. The swamp is where all dirty tricks reside and are used regularly when they work.
Ron,
I do not have a strong position on whether this is true.
As things are I can say that I beleiive Kavanaugh and I beleive Ms. Ford.
Or atleast I beleive that both beleive their story is the truth.
As noted I could not convict Kavanaugh of a crime based on this.
But I could leave him on the DC court of appeals.
I do not see this as much differnet from Garland.
There is no right to be a supreme court justice.
It is probably politically better for Republicans if Kavanaugh is NOT confirmed before the electiion. Republicans vote over the supreme court. for the most part democrats don’t.
Is there are bit of political dirty tricks going on here – sure. But both parties do that.
Regardless, there is not an absolute right answer to this.
If Kavanaugh did this – he should not be confirmed. IF he did not, then he should.
But we do not know – and likely never will know.
Further what is most likely is that something happened. That Ford perceived what happened approximately as she described it, but Kavanaugh did not.
It is possible that Ford is lying – but I doubt that.
What is more likely is that her recollection is faulty.
Jay “Glad to learn you’re relatively safe, Ron.
Stay dry …”
If its not Hurricanes here, then its fires and earthquake out your way. Of those, I will take the Hurricanes. They give you much more warning they are on the way.
How’s the weather, Ron?
Jay,thanks for asking. We are more north west in NC, so the outer bands of rain are just comingnthrough. We have had a lite breeze, a few showers and some sun earlier. Right now its cloudy. But not to farvsouth and east, its been raining all day. Just depends how far west this moves before turning North on how much rainbwe get. The blocking high over Kentucky and Ohio doesnt seem to be moving, so who knows. The storm itself in strenght isnt even top 5 for NC, but because its blocked, its just dumping tons of rain south of here.
If the flooding intensifies can you count on Trump showing up to toss large styrofoam water sponges to survivors?
He will probably give as much rescue help as Obama gave in 2016 when Mathew came through and flooded out the same areas.
Do you think mobile phone sales will go up after this, as a result of millions of them angrily getting smashed to pieces?
Extremist winning? Yes. With the media like this, it only gets worse.
https://www.wral.com/nikki-haley-s-view-of-new-york-is-priceless-her-curtains-52-701-/17841777/
So the Obama administration buys a building, decides to put the ambassadors office in that building, signs contracts for excessively expensive ( like all government contracts) fancy ass curtains and then the media blames Haley?
Oh, and then a couple days later the Post writes a small retractions a few of the others did the same. But for many, this story will have legs.
Well I believe Kavanaugh is dead meat. The Judiciary committee will delay the vote to confirm, they will bring in Ford to testify and then Kavanaugh. They may eventually vote for confirmation, but I seriously believe the senate will confirm. I don’t think one Democrat will vote for him, I have doubts about Collins now and also Paul. That makes 50. One more and he goes down.
In today’s environment you are guilty until proven innocent. One claims you did something, you have to prove you did not. And it is near impossible to prove or disprove an unverifiable allegation. This is not a Clarence Thomas situation where he was confirmed by a narrow margin by a Democrat controlled senate. There is not a chance he gets any Democrat votes.
Paybacks are hell. Once McConnell held up Garlands nomination, it opened up a whole new ball game for SCOTUS nominations. Right now I doubt Jesus would get any democrat votes if nominated by a Republican president.
Our actual criminal justice system is highly biased against criminal defendants – that is absolutely true and we need to fix that.
But Kavanaugh is not a criminal defendent. There are no riights involved here.
He is not entitled to the benefit of the doubt – no one is tryng to send him to jail.
This is about sending him to the supreme court.
I have not heard anything new on Paul who had previiously announced support.
Or Collin. Flake is saying he is undecided.
It is probable this allegation can not be proven or disproven.
So far the absence of similar allegations is troubling.
People who do what Kavanaugh is alleged to have done – do not do it only once.
I have a fairly signiificant degree of doubt.
But the standard is NOT beyond a reasonable doubt.
We are not sending Kavanaugh to jail.
We are sending him back to the DC court court of appeals.
Yes, this is much like Thomas.
As I noted I think Thomas has been a pretty good justice.
But I would not have confirmed him.
That said, I expect Kavanaugh to be confirmed.
NYU law professor, and well-known classical liberal, Richard Epstein (not a Trump supporter):
“But this last-ditch decision to sabotage Kavanaugh at the 11th hour is a disgusting piece of political propaganda. Christine Blasey Ford behaved wholly improperly when she decided to write a letter only to “a senior Democratic lawmaker,” in which she made the most serious allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh. At the very least, she ought to have handled matters wholly differently. If she wanted to keep matters confidential, she should have sent that letter to President Trump and to Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the judiciary committee. She also should have sent it to the FBI for investigation. And she should have done all of these things at the earliest possible moment, in time for a principled and neutral examination to take place before the Senate hearings took place. Then, she should have sat for a cross-examination.”
Totally on the money. This is gutter politics, pure and simple. If Blasey Ford were telling the truth, she would have gone about tis differently, and if Democrats believed her, they would have encouraged her to pursue the allegations through the appropriate channels.
As far as Ron’s prediction, I somewhat agree, because Kavanaugh is caught between a rock and a hard place. It is impossible to prove a negative. On the other hand, I think that he’s got a 50/50 chance, if he comes off well in the public hearing, and Blasey Ford cannot present any more evidence than the faulty memory that she has described (she’s sure its Kavanaugh, but basically can’t remember anything else, like when, where, who else was there, etc.)
Flake is not going to vote yes under any circumstances. I do think that Collins and Murkowski WANT to vote yes, and will, as long as the hearing doesn’t further harm Kavanaugh. So it comes down to Bob Corker.
And there is enough time to pull the nomination and confirm another justice, if Kavanaugh can’t get the votes. I’m sure that the WH is putting together the list now.
Dave, I agree, no one has the right to be a SCOTUS justice. But, Kavanaugh is a great judge, and is a decent man. This attempt to destroy him, whether it is successful or not, will certainly energize the GOP base, and may boomerang on the Democrats.
We’ll just have to wait and see…..
Priscilla “This attempt to destroy him, whether it is successful or not, will certainly energize the GOP base, and may boomerang on the Democrats.”
My thoughts dont match up with yours. Although Dave is an outlier on most political issues, too many people believe as he does. If there is not a right for something, like a SCOTUS appointment, then it is fine for someone to do what Ford has done. She does not even provide the year, just early 90’s. She can appear before the committee and give her well prepped testimony and he has to disprove what she said happened without any other proof. Unless he can provide documented proof that he was somewhere else when she says this happened, he has no recourse. She does not need to prove anything. He does. The left will get out and vote because they accept what she did.
Dave believes this is fine. I do not! I do not believe ANYONE should be able to defame another publically without proof. I believe anyone in the Judges shoes should be able to sue for every last cent another has if they claim something happened without any proof or documention that it happened. I believe the ssme level of scrutiny should bevrequired as it is for criminal cases. I believe there should be crimes for this and severe sentencing when unsubstiantiated and unprovable claims happens.
If Ford walks into the hearing, provides eyewitness documentation or other documentation that would hold up in a court criminal case, such as aggrevated sexual assualt, then I will support Ford 100% and support the Judge withdrawing and also resigning his current position.
If she does not do that, then I would support judge K going after anything and everything he could get and support legislation to make future cases a criminal offense unlike Dave who accepts this will happen and there is no recourse.
Ron;
It is not fine to defame someone.
Establish that Ford actually falsely defamed Kavanaugh and I will be happy to hold her accountable, and to confirm Kavanaugh.
But it is highly unlikely that we will ever know enought o no one way or another whether on of them is lying.
BTW I would deal with someone being promoted in a job the same.
IF I do not and can not know the truth and I have other equally good candidates in the wings, I would pick someone else.
Priscilla – it can be true and a dirty trick.
It can also be false but Ford beleives it is true. Or something could have happened – but not quite what either Kavanaugh or Ford recall.
But for me the most important thing is that the standard si NOT beyond a reasonable doubt.
The standard is, can republicans come up with a candidate with similar views on government and law, that does not have a cloud over their head.
And of course they can.
Agreed, Dave
However, if the new standard for textualist jurists is “Did you ever do anything, as a child or adolescent, that might disqualify you for the high court?” no Republican president will ever be able to get a nominee confirmed. The Democrats will find a pretext to vote against anyone (the Jesus Christ example is all too true) and there will always be a few lily-livered Republicans who will vote against, if they think a yes vote might hurt their re-election, and impede their access to the gravy train.
Let’s assume the hypothetical that Kavanaugh, in a black-out drunken state, actually did what this woman is accusing him of . As you say, he may not have any memory of it. Since that time, when he was a junior in high school, he has led an exemplary life. Are we, as a society, going to insist that only perfect people can serve the country on the court? Are we going to say that, if you are a conservative, redemption is impossible? Keith Ellison, former DNC vice chair, is going to be the new AG of Minnesota, yet he goes into his election with credible charges of domestic abuse ~ by two women, with actual evidence, including a 911 call! Not one of the Democrats calling for an FBI investigation of Judge K, has even suggested that Ellison is not qualified for the job he seeks, or that he should withdraw. For that matter, not one has suggested that his former membership in the radical, Jew-hating Nation of Islam is a disqualifier.
Again, this is the kind of crap that got Donald Trump elected in the first place
First, I will absolutley agree that there is a double standard in play.
Though to a small extent the double standard on sexual misconduct has lifted as a result of the recent exposure of such large numbers of people on the left engaged in misconduct.
It is still quirky though – whatever someone on the riight does – even neutral acts, there is a presumption by far too many that they have evil motives for doing so. Whatever is done by those on the left – far too often there is a presumption that either they are good people who made a mistake, or that they had good intentions.
The rule of law requires that we judge ACTS, not intentions. We can not know what is in someone else’s head.
Next, as I understand Kavanaugh was 17 when this occured. That is not adolescent.
My problem is not with holding him fully accountable for his conduct,
It is that it is nearly impossible to KNOW exactly what that conduct was 35 years ago.
And in this instance details matter a great deal, and I do not beleive that Ford or Kavanaugh can accurately recall the details of something that occured 35 years ago.
I have said that I would likely drop Kavanaugh and move to the next candidate.
That is not because I “beleive” Kavanaugh is “guilty” – as I said – I highly doubt we will know.
As an example in the Clarence Thomas hearings Both Hill and Thomas testified of Thomas’s words and actions as a middle aged adult head of the EEOC.
We are dealing with events 3-4 times older, that were not perfectly clear when they happened, Ford was an adolescent. Kavanaugh was a young adult.
Ultimately I am highly inclined to give BOTH the benefiit of the doubt – they BOTH beleive there version of events. To the extent they differer we can not KNOW which is correct.
In fact if it were actually possible to prove that one of them was absolutely wrong – I still could not “convict” that person of perjury as they are still able to have beleived what they said.
But I need not beleive Ford to say – I am not putting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court.
There are other candidates all with as good a qualifications. It is OK to say that even a small doubt is sufficient to reject Kavanaugh.
I will go further – D’s do not have the votes at the moment to block Kavanaugh on ideological grounds. But I am perfectly fine with theiir doing so if they had the votes to do so.
Just as R’s blocked Garland.
I would prefer the politics be upfront and in the open, rather than in the shadows,
But I have no problem with any senator voting yes or no for an appointment based on their ideology.
Are we going to insist that only perfect people serve on the court ?
If that is what we choose, then yes.
I would prefer that neither Clinton nor Trump had been able to run for president.
I would prefer if both democrats and republicans had rejected them specifically because of their character.
But that is not what happened.
I am not opposed to senators opposing Kavanaugh solely based on ideology – even ideology that I likely agree with. Why would I be upset that they oppose because of fears regarding his character ?
It appears to be a close call. But I am expecting that Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
The real consequence of this is that it releives the preasure on D senators in close elections to vote for Kavanaugh. They now have an excuse for voting no that the electorate will not judge them negatively over.
If Judge K withdraws, then he needs to nominate Joan Larsen or another female conservative judge.
Any male has to be crazy and insane in todays environment to put himself and his family through a nomination process.
But if Trump is not having background checks being done now on possible replacements, there is no way he could get another confirmed. Holidays, election breaks and the shear time to go back and interview everyone someone knew since they were 14 years old takes too much time. That is the only way to dodge any surprises the opposition will find.
Absent some proof that I doubt exists or major error on Kavanaugh’s part, I would be shocked if he withdrawls or is asked to.
I think it will be tight – but I expect he will be confirmed.
Fudimentally the political strategy og the left is NOT to tank Kavanaugh – but to provide political cover for democrats in tought senate races.
In that this has succeded.
I don’t know why you think that 17 year olds are adults, Dave. Adolescence is generally considered to be 13-18. In boys, particularly physical development is rarely complete before 18, and often later. One of my sons grew 3 inches between graduation for HS and his sophomore year in college, when he turned 20.
Post-pubescent adolescents are still undergoing physical changes and, most importantly, their brains do not have fully developed frontal lobes. Generally, brain development is not complete until the early 20’s.
There is a reason why we consider those under 18, or 21, to be minors ~ especially boys. Is that a reason not to punish teens who commit bad acts? No, but even the law treats their bad acts differently.
In any case, I don’t believe Blasey Ford is telling the truth. I understand what you’re saying, about both parties telling their own truth. But there is an objective truth here ~ did Brett Kavanaugh attack this woman when they were both adolescents, or did he not? If he did, then he is lying now. If not, she is.
If you are 17 and you engage in a sexual activity that would get a 35 year old jailed.
You will get jailed.
My wife has had cases where 17yr olds were charged with statutory rape for consensual sex with 15 year olds.
She has also seen cases where 15 yr olds were charged with corruption of minors for sending sexual texts – essentially they were charged with corrupting their own morals..
If you wish to address the psychology – human development does not end for some time after 17. There is some evidence that violence peaks at 15 in males and is nearly disappeared by 27. There is a great deal of evidence that most (NOT ALL) youthful violent offenders who are released after 30 wiil not commit another violent crime.
There is an objective truth. But no one knows it. Kavanaugh likely does not, Ford likely doe not.
The closest we miight come is if one of them makes some remark that is testable.
As an example Kavanaugh is purportedly saying he was not at this party.
If no one comes forward and says he was, that will be very bad news for Ford and the left.
If someone does (even lying) that ill be bad for Kavanaugh.
Regardless we do not have a time machiine.
I do not have a problem with the concept of objective truth, but it is unlikely we have the means to find that.
Purportedly Kavanaugh has told some “he was not at the party”.
That does move things into an area where one must be lying.
If he and Ford were at the party and in the bed as she claims, then we are debating each’s perception of something 35 years ago.
It is entirely possible she could “feel” one thing and he could “feel” differently.
Ford as an example claims she “escaped” – that is something that easily could be a subjective judgement.
Yes, there is hardly a person in DC that lives up to the standards we expect Kavanaugh to meet.
That is a reason for holding the rest of DC to higher standards, not accepting Kavanaugh.
My position is partly different from yours.
But the big deal is that in the cosmic scheme whether Kavanaugh is a supreme court justices is NOT likely to change the world.
If Trump is not allowed to replace Kennedy – that is huge.
Currently RCP has the Republicans loosing the house but picking up one seat in the senate.
If Grassley had subpeona power (like House committee chairs) I would not care if the R’s lost the house.
It is more important to hold the senate to be able to continue to confirm the mostly federalits judges and supreme court justices that he is appointing.
The specific individuals do not matter.
But the legal principles of those he is appointing matter greatly.
Hello y’all!
Solid, reasonable post, Rick “Lazarus” Bayan, haha. Just teasing, Rick. We should all just be grateful for all your previous work here at TNM. I remember at one of my office jobs I put a clear jar of orange slices out at my desk for co-workers to help themselves. They were good juicy ones, not those stiff dollar-store orange slices. They went fast. I put another jar out the following week. People got accustomed to stopping by. And then, when I didn’t put more out, people were genuinely disappointed and started giving me grief and getting snippy and accusing me of slacking! Hey, people, you weren’t paying me for those damn orange slices! LOL we humans are a funny lot. We want things to be “normal”! Glad to read your words again though after such a hiatus! AND DON’T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN!
PatRiot. dont you know you cant be nice and not be taken advantage of. Happens in all life forms.
I put out bird seed for the cardinals. Starts with a family or two. They sit in the trees and chirp out to friends about the good food. Couple.more families of cardinals show up. More chirping. Then the other birds show up. Then the blue jays come and gorge themselves. More chirping. Squirrels hear the birds, show up and eat most of the seed. Then somehow the raccoons hear and at night they come for the seed. They even steal the bird feeder if it is not wired down.(Sounds familiar to some walks of life)
I stop feeding and every animal disappears. Wait a couple weeks and start the process over. And the same thing develops.
The only difference between the animals and humans is the humans will say bad things and accuse me of withholding food and causing starvation, while the other animals let nature take over, go find food in the wild and learn to survive without my help. (Until I want the cardinals around and foolishly start feeding them again)
Some folks up north on this thread were talking about political correctness, and now Kavanaugh’s high school behavior is in the news! Yes, we’ve lost our collective minds! Twilight Zone!
Two of my family members are public school elementary teachers. They’ve been advised via memo not to use certain nursery rhymes and songs. On the chopping block: 3 blind mice. Now it’s Three Nice Mice. No more farmer’s wife with a carving knife! I’ll attach one of the versions. WARNING: Don’t listen to the audio clip all the way through; you might get nauseated. Truth be told I don’t mind the cleaner versions for the earliest grades.
Three nice mice
Three nice mice
They’re always polite when they nibble their cheese
They never forget to say Thank You and Please
They cover their noses whenever they sneeze
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Three+Nice+Mice&&view=detail&mid=5A1ECB6B7D83975BFC0E5A1ECB6B7D83975BFC0E&&FORM=VRDGAR
Hahaha!!
Well, all I can say is, if there were some nice mice in my pantry, politely nibbling my food ( not to mention politely defecating in the pantry) I might start to feel much more empathy for the farmer’s wife with the carving knife!
Oh, what a terrible hard thing it is to be a republican or conservative. I’ve been feeling teary eyed all morning just thinking about it. Those devilish horrible low life Democrats and all their dirty tricks. And the innocence and purity honesty, integrity, high minded nobility on the right. Oh, what a wicked world!
Republicans are not as good at messaging – that is nothing new.
Their politics is not so heavily rooted in emotion as that of democrats and the left – again nothing new.
Both parties engage in “dirty tricks”. But the left is far more likely to believe the ends justify the means. After all, when democrats “rig an election” they are still getting “good people” elected. If Republicans do the same thing – they are obviously thwarting good with evil.
Give it a rest Grump.
Washington is a den of iniquity.
Not republican iniquity, not democratic inequity. Just corruption.
So when does a viable moderate party arise out of all of this? When will the American voter be done with “party before country” government? 2020? 2021?
deb57. Not in the foreseeable future. Too many people on both sides with vested interest. People in the.middle not willing to provide enough funding for a centrist to run.
Now that Christine Ford has agreed to testify at the confirmation hearing, how does everyone think this should be handled.
1. Questions from each side just asking what happened?
2. Direct examination of a charge by the prosecutor(Democrats) providing details of the accusation and cross examination by the defense (Republicans).
I think the GOP is in a no win situation. Just ask questions and not trying to show holes in her story may allow pertainent information to go unquestioned. Cross examining the charge of sexual misconduct as one would in court makes it look like a hacket job by men on a woman claiming this happened. There are no female members of the GOP on the judiciary committee that could be “Rambo” going postal on her to find problems.in her story.
How does one defend themselves under these conditions?
It’s basically impossible. That’s why our criminal justice system is based on the presumption of innocence, and places the burden on the prosecution to prove that a crime occurred.
#MeToo is all about the presumption of guilt, and the automatic guilt of white males. And Kavanaugh is it’s latest victim, courtesy of the swamp.
I think that questions should be restricted to the specific accusation, and both the accuser and the accused should be in the room at the same time. No other witnesses, such as character witnesses, etc. If Blasey Ford is telling the truth, she will be able to provide details, such as whose house this was. She’s said that only 5-6 people were at this party, and it wasn’t her house. Kavanaugh’s house, or Kavanaugh’s friend’s house, so that narrows it down to 2-3 people. It is completely unbelievable that she could so clearly remember Kavanaugh and Judge, but not one of the other few people at this very small party.
The more details she can recall, the more likely that Kavanaugh can respond with his own recollections. Otherwise, all he can do is deny.
I expect the whole think to be an utter circus.
The senate can do as they please. I doubt they will do as you ask.
You correctly note the standard for a criminal conviction is high – or atleast it is supposed to be. In the real world people get convicted on very weak cases most of the time.
But more importantly that “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applies to criminal cases.
It appliies when we are going to use force to take away another person’s freedom, or their life.
It does not typiically apply when we are taking their property – that standard is much lower – which is why OJ won his criminal case and lost his civil case.
And there is no standard regarding things that are NOT yours – such as a job.
It is “rumoured” that Kavanaugh told atleast one GOP senator that he did not attend this particular party.
If that is his testimony and someone else recalls him being at the party – he is toast.
But If D’s can not come up with someone to place him at the party – this likely dies.
There are significant inconsistencies in the History of Fords story. That does not inherently make it false. But iit makes it less likely to be taken seriously.
This is quite different from Hill – who confided in others while the alleged harrasment was occuring, and everyone testifyiing for her was consistent.
We already know Ford can not manage that.
“It is “rumoured” that Kavanaugh told atleast one GOP senator that he did not attend this particular party.”
You are right if someone says he was there. And dont put it past the left to magically find someone who “was there and saw Judge K”. I suspect Feinstein may have already lined that up for her final gotcha.
Best he continue denials as he has so far and avoid specific unless specifics are provided.
What I am reading says Ford may not appear.
That will end this.
Feinstein has herself NOT committed to Ford’s veracity.
I am not a Feinstein fan and she has mishandled this, but I do not think she is ginning up fake witnesses.
Regardless, I do not expect this hearing to answer our questions.
I do not think that is possible.
Excellent article on the FISA warrant from Andrew McCarthy.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/carter-page-fisa-redactions-uncovering/
We will find out shortly.
But McCarthy is telling us that the real story is – there is nothing else there.
That story is likely to be missed by the media.
It is hard for people to get a handle on the fact that the absence of evidence is itself damning evidence of misconduct.
Missing from McCarthy’s analysis but avaiilable from other sources is the fact that FISA warrant renewals are NOT automatic either.
The LAW requires that to renew an application the DOJ/FBI must demonstrate that:
They continue to need the warrant.
That it has been productive – i.e. it has provided them with some of what they are looking for,
OR that something has changed and now they are more likely to get the information they are looking for,
Regardless, the DOJ/FBI can not go to FISC and say – nothing has changed, we want to renew.
Further from McCarthy – a FISA warrant application requires:
FBI agents to swear to the credibiliity of the allegations made,
AND the deputy FBI director
AND the FBI director
AND the Deputy Attorney General,
as well as a number of others.
ALL warrant applications – per the 4th amendment require the government agents requesting the warrant to swear to the court that what they provide to support the warrant constitutes probable cause and is true and correct. Further because a warrant application is “ex parte” they are obligated to provide the court with all evidence of their own applications weaknesses.
There is no “opposing party” to a warrant appliication. There is no one in court to say the governments claims are garbage. That absence is why the application is Ex Parte, and why there is a burden on the government to present all sides, that would not be present in a trial.
To a large extent we have ignored the fact that warrant applications must be sworn.
Meaning we do not hold law enforcement accountable even for knowing misrepresentations.
It is time to stop.
What occured here is why.
To all but the most ideologically blind it should be self apparent that the Obama administration and the DOJ/FBI/CIA from the start were NOT after Russia. They were after Trump, and they were using the foreign intelligence process as the means of doing so.
We do not have evidence that the CIA/FBI were actively investiigating Russia. or spying on Russia in the context of the electiion. They were investigating Trump. his people, his campaign.
Our standards for investigating foreign powers are low, and that is appropriate.
Government does not need a warrant to spy on Russia and Russians.
The FISA warrant was a request for permission to spy on Americans.
Russia was an afterthought.
I keep trying to get you all to grasp this is much worse than watergate
This is exactly what Richard Nixon WANTED to do but was unable to.
What is most damning is that so many involved, were themselves the vigorous opponents of Nixon’s overreach. That so many of those involved did exactly what they berated Nixon for attempting.
I read this morning that it could take some time for the FBI and others to review these documents to make sure nothing in them can harm others. Just like everything else with the Justice department and the weasel, they will drag their feet to delay, delay, delay. How long has congress waited for subpoened documents already?
It is unlikely that the entire FISA applicatiion is going to be made public.
As McCarthy noted – much of it is irrelevant to any of the issues.
The fundimental need to declassify the Application is do demonstrate “there is no there, there”. There is nothing more.
Based on what we have – the FISA application is insufficient, and a violation of Carter Page’s rights. It is an abuse of power, and an effort to “get Trump’.
It is a “witch hunt”.
Making the application completely public iis not going to have the powerful impact that republicans hope – not that it should not, but because this has been drug our sufficiently.
There is not going to be a “smoking gun”.
The corruption is because there is no smoking gun.
There is no basis.
But the whole application will not be made public.
Much of it is irrelevant and some of it is legiitimately classified.
Those parts that have nothiing to do with Page or the Trump campaign – but do have to do with the law, Russia, FBI/DOJ processes and procedures are unlikely to be declassified.
If the entire 412 pages is not declassified – you are likely to still have the D’s claiming that there is something in what is redacted that justifies the warrant, because iit is NOT justiified based on what is not redacted. And R’s are going to claim that what is redacted proves that DOJ/FBI are still colluding.
I would finally note that these warrants really are a big deal.
Absent a credible basis for an investigation they leave only two choices:
FBI/DOJ have taken Carte Blanche to spy on americans and can do so with little or no basis.
FBI/DOJ are politiically corrupt.
Right now it appears both are true. I do not expect that if we were able to see the eniriirety of that, this will change.
A related “big deal” is that vy design FISA warrant application REQUIRE the involvement of the Deputy FBI director, the FBI Director, and the Deputy Attorney General.
Each of those is required to review the application, and certify its contents. These are NOT merely the work of some agent.
So any conclusion you reach about the crediibility of these warrants can not be excused as the actions of one or two rogue agents.
Further, there were 4 applications – and the standard for a renewal is actually HIGHER than for an initial application. The FISC essentially says – if you could not find what you need in the first 90days, The same arguments and evidence repeated are NOT going to get you a renewal. You either have to demonstrate that the first warrant was productive – i.e. you got something useful from it, and that you want more, or that some other condition has changed that strengthens the warrant applicatiion.
And again remember – the top people in DOJ/FBI had to swear to the accuracy, credibility and strength of each of these applications.
Accross 4 application, occuring iin the 2016/2017 time period, that is almost a dozen of the the most important people in DOJ/FBI would were not merely aware but involved.
This can not be shuffled off by pretending that Strzok is a loose cannon off on his own.
Watergate was such a nothingburger, compared to what the DOJ/FBI have done over the past 3 years. Hard to believe that, outside of the conservative media, we hear almost nothing about the FISA court abuse and the spying on Trump and his campaign.
Ironic how conservatives criticized Jamie Gorelick, the Deputy AG under Clinton, for creating a “wall” preventing any information gained from FISA warrants being used in criminal investigations. That wall was taken down after the 9/11 Commission blamed it for preventing the FBI and other intelligence agencies from “connecting the dots,” that led to the 9/11 attacks.
But, Gorelick was right that allowing FISA info to be used against American citizens could lead to their rights being violated. And, so they have been.
Hi all. I have been falling into extremism myself this year. Extreme office work , yesterday 15 clocked in hours, today I took it easy and only worked 11 hours. Great paychecks but I have to watch my health as I haven’t been too balanced in that regard. Anyway, it doesn’t seemed like I missed much here. Jay’s love of Trump, Dave’s love of government intervention in everything. I really do wish you all well. Mike Hatcher
Mike
“Dave’s love of government intervention in everything”
Actually Dave’s distrust of government intervention in anything.
If you are going to call me an extremist – atleast place me on the correct extreme.
He was joking, dummy.
He flip flopped my standard position too – didn’t that register in your jump to conclusion brain?
Its the iinternet – these types of jokes do not work well when you can not see the person telling them.
Back in Trump mode: can’t admit even a little mistake; which is why you’re locked into rigid denial when you’re wrong about something. If you were aboard the Titanic when it hit the iceberg you’d still be offering rationalizations about it’s seaworthiness even as salt water bubbles were pouring out of your mouth
This isnt about Trump – or “admitting” anythiing.
Why does everything have to be about “blame” for you ?
It is diffiicult to get jokes – particularly sarcastic ones over the intenent.
That should not be knews to anyone.
If iit is necescary for you to place “plame” – fine – I have difficulty grasping sarcasm over the internet.
Or is that Sarcasm ? Figure it out.
Not being wrong about things that are actual facts is relatively easy.
Do not say something you do not know is true.
You should try it some time.
But there is no merit in it.
Are we on the Tiitanic with salt water bubbling up ?
Whose ship is sinking ?
You have been telling me that Trump is absolutely the most awful horrible depraved criiminal ever to live for a almost 2 years.
Over that time the only thing that has changed is that Trump got elected President.
He is still tweets offensively all the time.
But AGAIN – he managed to get elected anyway.
He is managing to impliment much of his agenda – whether you like it, whether I like it.
You have been promising proof of horrid misdeeds from the start.
You promised crimes have for the most part never made sense,
which is why it iis unsurprising that over time they have weakend rather than strengthened.
What has been demonstrated during that time is the lengths that so many would go to, to attempt to entrap a political enemy.
Trump has succeeded in exposing those you trust as more repugant than you think he is.
What is it that you think Trump might have done that those who oppose him have not clearly done ?
You got Manafort for Tax evasion. He was with Trump for about 6 weeks. It is pretty clear that the only reason he faces Jail is that Trump hired him rather than Hillary.
Whatever crime you think he has committed – The Podesta’s have done in triplicate.
Write the law clearly – then enforce it uniformly.
We have John Kerry out conducting private diplomacy in Iran. Promising if they can just wait out Trump they can have nukes and a deal too.
I really do not care – but do not dare attempt to prosecute anyone not on the left for a “logan act” violation. It is crystal clear than you are not looking to prosecute those who violate the law, you are looking to use the law to prosecute those you do not like.
Dave ” If you are going to call me an extremist – atleast place me on the correct extreme. ”
Like much of social media, you missed his humor. Notice what he said about Jay😵
Hey, Mike! Nice to hear from you! Watch out for too much work and no play ~ your health is too important. But, stop by once in a while ~ your sense of humor is much needed here 🙂
I think it would be appropriate to have an investigation of the FBI. I don’t think it will turn up what Trump and gop voters believe it will, but at this point I think that the FBI has been in such a central position in this war, that we need to grounded in some kind of process. That won’t stop righties and lefties and other conspiracy theorists from believing whatever they are led by the nose to by their leaders. You are stuck with an increasing number of pure partisans who will believe anything about the other side and nothing at all about their own. And yes we see that here on TMN.
The interesting thing is that it seems that the House swings back and forth to oppose the party of the POTUS. Who is responsible for that?
Moderates. We moderates still have some influence on the nightmare of idiological warfare.
I feel pity for the brainwashed warriors who are controlled by their leaders and pushed around like chess pieces.
How do we create a workable government in the middle of this disgusting ideolical war? Yeah, I know, some don’t believe we need much of one, but we do.
” Moderates. We moderates still have some influence on the nightmare of idiological warfare.
I feel pity for the brainwashed warriors who are controlled by their leaders and pushed around like chess pieces.”
While the extremist on the left and right continue to attack each other and try to destroy America, moderates are working to save America. Hate on social media, personal atracks to destroy political appointments, demonstrations where bodily harm occurs compared to the thousands who have come to NC and SC to assist in the recovery efforts from the storm.
The problem? There is no story of John Q Public spending hours rescuing people and animals from flooding. There is no story of Bob spending hours in a bucket stringing new powerlines and replacing tranformers and power polls. There is no story of the hundreds that leave their jobs and family and take up positions in the national guard to assist victims.
And when it is a story, it is politicians pontificating about what the government is doing. And that leads to the right bragging about how great they did and the left saying how pitiful the effort is and documenting that by finding cases where someone was not treated fairly in their mind.
Yes! The media, all of it, is a full participant in the ideological warfare. Political parties organize our animosities (Will?), news channels and papers profit from amplifiying them. The internet era ratcheted up both the party and the media animosity machines. We are fucked unless people in general learn to drink in moderation or abstain.
I call organized political parties and movements cults. The participants lose their identities and go with the flow. They will never see that they are doing it and are sure they think for themselves. It is unbelievably creepy to observe this process getting worse by the day.
You have an incredibly dim view of the people, politicians, the media,
and yet somehow you are magically optomistic about government ?
How is it you expect government to be better than the people it is made of ?
Grump.. “I think it would be appropriate to have an investigation of the FBI.”
Grump, is this Judge K related or something else?
I, believe it or not, have almost no opinion on the Judge K situation and I am not really following it. Law is not my area of expertise. I am not a legal scholar and do not have my own interpretation of the Constitution, other than to see that it contains too few words to have a specific answer to most questions, any more than I have my own unified field theory. Let others ferment this brew, not me.
The confirmation is a swamp I do not want to soil my mind with.
My statement was in regard to the above posts about FISA warrants. I can tell you I pay no attention other than to roll my eyes at hyperbole about the illegal investigation of the trump campaign, but I am more than happy to see that allegation checked out so it can be supported or mostly or totally disproven. I certainly do not think its impossible that lines were crossed, important ones. If it happened lets find out. I have no interest in the opinions of people who already know the answer. One would have to do a long thorough investigation to determine it and the rest is all spin and hand-waving arguments from partisans and a lot of it comes from people who will believe anything dirty about Obama, so I filter those people out. The spinners and hand wavers could have something, so lets find out, my mind is open.
Grump. Thanks for clearing this up.
My real reason for starting the Judge K discussion was not in support of him or not.
My reason was to get a conversation going about the ability of anyone to say anything about another public individual and have no legal risk in doing this.
An elected official is somewhat different. They know up front that they will be accused, attacked and tied to illegal personal actions when they run.
Someone being appointed for a cabinet position is going to get scutinized, but in the past, that was connected to policy issues.
Judges, law enforcement, medical, military and other appointments were scrutinized based on background checks, competence and security clearances.
Some believe here that anyone accepting an appointment for any position in government can be identified in issues that are illegal or morally wrong, for any number of years past, with no documented proof and the accuser is not open to any legal action.
That might be how the laws are today. Many may say that is fine.Some will say you go into this with your eyes open. I do not accept any of this. I dont care if it is a movement or not that supports this. Bill Cosby was accused by multiple individuals, tried and convicted. Other accused of sexual misconduct were fired after multiple individuals came forward and provided information, time, place, etc to substantiate this action. Anita Hill told people it happened when it happened and later they substantiated her accusations.
But when an individual is accused, there should be some level of proof it happened or a pattern of behavior that indicates it true. Not just someone saying it happened without some proof. If this is our laws, heaven help us in the future. Political parties will find individuals politically motivated to provide information without proof for many appointees.
Prof. Block has a chapter in Defending the undefendable – free PDF, on defamation.
The position he takes which is interesting is that if we eliminated defamation laws people would have to judge for themselves, and would be LESS likely to take these claims credibly.
There is a fair amount of evidence that regulations often make what they aim to prevent MORE likely. Maddoff was investigated by the SEC repeatedly. He used it as a selling point, and many ciients stayed with him even though they were suspicious because the SEC cleared him only to lose everything.
There are many other interesting chapters.
And if you want a more extreme libertarain argument than I make – Prof. Block wiill giive you a very well argued near anarcho-capitalist view.
https://mises.org/system/tdf/Defending_the_Undefendable_2018.pdf?file=1&type=document
Like I have said a few times, you are much more closely aligned with the pure Libertarian philosophy than I am.
The true Libertarian position on this would work if there was not 35%+ of the people who back lies by one side or the other. That is too much support. And then add the 40% in the middle who dont care, that is 65% of the people ignoring or supporting an unsupportable position.
Times today do not support a community taking care of unsubstantiated statements.
Whatever you think about the “libertarian position”.
Frankly it is time to try it. The alternative has worked like crap.
I have a serious problem with defamation.
If Ford is lying – I think Dante has a special place reserved in Hell for her.
But as is quite common making things illegal has made things worse.
It has made us more likely to believe lies – because if they were lies, the government would step in.
“Defending the undefendable” is a fun and easy read.
It will also push your buttons and make you think seriously about things you thought you knew.
There is alot I do not agree with Prof. Block. But I was shocked that he could come up with good arguments if favor of things that “everyone knows” are wrong.
There will near certain be an FBI investigation – and probably already is.
But there is no need for the FBI to investigate, as a precondition for Ford to testify.
Neither witnesses nor victims get to dictate the circumstances under which they will provide evidence.
If Ford is unwilling to testify under oath without such preconditions, this is over, and there is no reason to consider her allegations.
If she does testify under Oath the FBI investigation is an equal risk to both Kavanaugh and Ford.
For the most part there is very little the FBI can do.
Primarily they can try to establish the actual date and party that this event occured at and try to identify others at the party to confirm or deny details of Ford’s recollections.
Watergate was about Tapping a phone in the DNC offiices.
This was about accessing the communications of Carter Page – and of anyone he talked with, and of anyone they talked with – the so called 3 hop rule. likely that would mean almost the entire Trump Campaign.
We do not know exactly what communications FBI/DOJ intercepted.
We do know they did not come up with anything – because if they did it would have been in subsequent warrant applications, and because the FBI/DOJ (as well as the house and senate) leak like a seive, this story would be out, had anyone found anythiing.
I do not know what it is that you think GOP voters are expecting to “turn up”.
Regardless, you have the standard upside down and backwards.
Absent turning up some basis for these warrants that we do not currently know,
and I do not expect that any further basis will ever turn up, then we ALREADY have serious miisconduct on the part of DOJ/FBI.
The only open question is whether it was politically motiivated.
I think that is self evident, but ultimately I do not care.
The actions were WRONG. They were not JUSTIFIED.
Those in government to did them must be held accountable.
I am prepared to see Kavanaugh lose his shot at SCOTUS because of something he MIIGHT have done 35 years ago.
Absolutely I expect ALOT of key people to lose their jobs and never work for government again, because of conduct that we KNOW occurred within the past 2 years.
The process that you want already exists – it was not followed.
We are not shy on rules for conduct in government.
We have no enforcement of those, no oversight.
Grump;
There are not too many of us here who have “sides” as you seem to define them.
You want process – I think that already exists but it is not enforced. but right or wrong we are in agreement. Government must have rules and the mechanism must exist to assure they are followed.
The rules exist. The enforcement does not. More rules will not help.
But if you want to make more rules for government – fine, just make sure they are enforceable.
I agree with alot of the negative that is said about Trump.
I want a president with integrity. wisdom, a calming influence that I can be proud of, that reflects well on the nation.
Obama was sold to us as that – it is self evident today he was not.
I want more than the appearance of integrity.
the only president in my lifetime I think might have had integrity was Reagan
It is unlikely I am going to get what I want.
HRC certainly was not what any of us wanted.
What I choose to beleive – or more accurately not to beleive, regarding Trump, is charges that do not have evidence.
He was legitimately elected according to the rules. If we do not like that – change the rules.
But I am not prepared to take on faith that because the outcome of the election was bad – it was going to be bad no matter what, that some particularly new evil was done.
.
The FBI has investigated Kavanaugh 6 times – do you think that the 7th is a charm ?
You do not think the FBI will turn up what Trump hopes for – I agree. I do not think they will turn up anything. It is a near impossible task.
So lets say we agree to a 7th investigation – how long ?
Are you prepared to commit to completing the investigation and having a vote before the election ? Immediately after ?
What if further allegations arise – I think I can guarantee that if you have prior agreement to delay based on further allegations, that you will have further allegations.
After we have had the 7th investigation, what precludes an 8th ?
Derschowitz was on last night and he was excellent. He agrees with you that the FBI should investigate. but that is all.
He directly addressed some of my questions.
This is NEITHER the same as a criminal prosecution nor just a job.
There are more rights and constraints at issue than Kavanaugh’s.
This is an action of government with government related implications.
First, the burden of proof whatever standard it is, MUST always rest with the accuser – not the accused. You can not make any system work otherwise, it will degenerate to chaos.
Next – because government is involved, because this is ultimately a decision about the use of force – as it is a decision about how the supreme law of the land is imposed, Due process is required.
There is an old adage about Justice delayed being Justice denied.
Due process requires certain process leading towards a final decision.
In a criminal case the government must assure the defendant a right to a speedy trial. They must proceed whether they are prepared or not, and the results must be final.
The prosecution does not get two bits at the apple.
This concept of due process does not formally apply outside the scope of government – though we tend to expect that private entities and employers will give us the same due process as we expect from government.
Regardless, a senate confirmation is a government action and while not the same as a criminal prosecution it should be similar.
It is now evident that the Senate had and the FBI investigated some allegations against Kavanaugh in August or earlier.
Is that not the time for democrats to have come forward ?
None of us want to put a rapist on the Supreme Court. But there is no means for ever being absolutely certain that we have not. What constitutes sufficient due diligence to end the process ?
Remembering that if something new and credible is uncovered impeachment remains an option.
Republicans are not easily going to participate in Kavanaugh’s impeachment.
But if you actually have a compelling case they will have no choice.
All that changes by confirming is the standard of proof.
The standard of proof to choose not to confirm is lower than the standard of proof to choose to impeach. Everything else is essentially the same.
Democrats have threatened to hold hearings and investigate if they take over the house.
And they should. Oversite is their job.
Simple answer…there is no Moderate Party…by their own definitions…all of the parties in the U.S. are extremists of one kind of another.
Problem with leaning too far left or right…one nudge and you tip over…
https://dailycaller.com/2013/08/11/in-college-column-cory-booker-revealed-time-he-groped-friend-and-she-resisted/
Using the current positions taken by the democrats, this should eliminate Booker from seeking the presidency.
And I wonder how he will address the judge when his time comes for questioning.for
This has nothing to do with Dem/Rep. It has everything to do with the way the democrats are addressing an accusation. When a man said he did it, that is one step further into the process of being unqualifiec due to personal conduct as defined by todays democrats.
The republicans? They have already defined their position on the presidency so this is not their issue.
Ron, I think that this has so much to do with the way that Democrats feel safe in being utter hypocrites on these matters, because they believe that they’ll be protected by the media and won’t have to pay the price for their hypocrisy. Cory Booker has a lot of skeletons in his closet, just based on some of the things that happened when he was mayor of Newark, and he’s been a useless senator. But, he’s still considered to be a leading presidential contender ~ go figure.
I think that one of the things that has helped Donald Trump overcome his own #metoo problems, is the fact that he was never a moralistic Republican-type, ever. He was a rich, famous playboy, with a reputation for sleeping around. So, basically, his past was well-known, long before he ran for office. Most politicians with his kind of past have to hide it, the way he tried to hide his night with Stormy Daniels…and she’s been able to damage him more than most, because she’s been able to prove that he lied.
I’m convinced that most people are more put off by liars than they are by people’s secret sex lives.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4793030/Woman-pay-Army-colonel-accused-rape-8-4million.html
This happened back in August. I did not see anything about this until now. There are pieces of information missing in this article since a jury giving $5M in punitive damages, especially in VA, seems high. Seems there is a story about her reasons for doing this that has not been reported and the jury not only found the information untruthful, I would not be surprised if there was not some other reasons for her claims. We will never know.
I am just glad that those that do defame another individual are held liable.As much attention that is being given to Judge K’s case should also be given to men who prove allegations of misconduct are not true. But what the hell, there is no story in that and there is no #Igotscrewedbyalie movement.
Both were cadets at West Point.
The standards a jury would likely have chosen to apply would have been extremely high.
The Cadet honor code is
I will not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do.
John McCain set a record for demerits at the Naval academy – breaking a record that I beleive was once held by Ulysses Grant.
But McCain still graduated – because none of his shenanigans violated the honor code.
As Ford does not seem to be willing to testify – this appears to be dying fast.
Prof. Turley wrote a pretty good column on this.
The request for the FBI to investigate is crap.
They would “investigate” as part of a background check – which they have done and are updating. They can “investigate” at the request of the Senate – again as part of a background check, which they have done. They can not conduct a criminal investigation – the events alleged are not a violation of federal law. In fact no one can conduct a criminal “investigation” the statute of limitations has long expired.
If there actually was a criminal “investigation” the first thing that law enforcement would do, would be to interview Ford. Her information is the start for any investigation.
I have said previously I am not inclined to “disbeleiive” Ford (nor Kavanaugh).
That said, even my willingness to reject Kavanaugh still presupposes that she will stand behind her own allegations.
Yes, that means subjecting yourself to questioning by those who are skeptical, possibly even hostile. Our adversarial system is an important part of our process for getting at the truth.
No one is entitled to offer their story and have it just be believed without critical review.
I expect (as should she) that if she testifies, at least some of those questioning her will not believe her, and will challenge her hard.
That is not a flaw, That iis a REQUIREMENT in our system.
Kavanaugh would be subject to the same adversarial questioning – though by those of opposite parties.
We discuss partisanship here and there is constantly this garbage that everyone should all just “get along” that somehow not being an “extremist” means being a milquetoast, compromisiing over everything and never even questioning anything deeply.
That is WRONG. The problem with what we see today is NOT that the parties disagree.
I WANT disagreement. I WANT proposals to be challenged vigorously by those most opposed to them. That is not a flaw – that is a feature.
We get that challenging today – possibly better than ever.
What we do not get is both parties to examine the results of difficult questioning and then consider their positions.
With respect to government – that means if the left can not convince the right – or the right can not convince the left, whatever additonal power or law being offered should fail.
Even a minority group should be able to push through reducing government infringement on our rights. It should take a super majority to expand the power of government – and that super majority must not merely exist for a moment – it must be sustained.
Dave,
I dont care where they went to school. I dont care where McCain went to school. I dont care if a person is a CEO, military officer, judge, prosecutor, salesman or a homeless man on the corner.
Hunting season on men should not be tolerated¡¡!!!!!!!!!!!!. Sexual abuse of women should not be tolerated !!!!!!!!. Sexual abuse at work should not be tolerated!!!!!. Powerful, rich men should not be able to silence repercussions when something happens with money. (Mark Cuban, NBA owner).
AND, anyone associated with abuse should face the strong arm of the law. When proof is given to convince the number of people in a trial that need to be convinced, then the max sentence should take place. Criminal or civil.
AND I dont know why it is unacceptable to you that when women defame a man, ruin his reputation, affect his family negatively and negatively impact a career that she should not face sanctions that will impact her more than she screwed over the man.
This is how the #metoo movement thinks. “If we can positively identify one man by naming 2 doing something wrong, the collateral damage is justified.” Like those today that are guilty of racism because their great great grandparents were slave owners.
“Powerful, rich men should not be able to silence repercussions when something happens with money. (Mark Cuban, NBA owner).“
Huh.???
Mark Cuban???
Mark Cuban and the Mavericks organization have both been accused of sexual misconduct. In 2011 Cuban allegedly assualted a woman in Portland, with pictures for documentation, that the Portland police deemed significant. However the district attorneybrefused charges.
Now the Mavirick organization was found to be a workplace with multiple issues. Cuban denied knowing it was happening. But he agreed to pay 10M to organizations that support women. This is a pattern, just as Trump has a pattern. The difference is the women said it was sexual abuse with Cuban his organization. But since he is a Democrat, this isnt even making a ripple in the news.
II believe there needs to be a comma before “with money”.
Separately money is not power, it is the means to rent power – government is power.
Otherwise agree with Cuban.
Though I would note that rich people are accused of things – often merely because they are rich.
In a perfect world no one would ever make a false accusation.
But we do not live in a perfect world.
We have to evaluate each accusation on its own merrits, and we have to understand that we are never going to know in many instances,
Ron;
I appreciate what you say – but this has two edges and there are not easy answers.
We have Duke LaCrosse, and possibly Kavanaugh.
But we have many instances of men – men one would not have expected preying on others – usually women.
Men do rape and sexually assault women. And Women do lie about being sexually assaulted. The later is rarer than the former unfortunately – but neither is nearly so rare as to be disregarded.
Over the past two years we have had myriads of women come forward and identify powerful men who harrassed and often assaulted them.
Most – but not all of those accusations have been true.
There is no obvious sign that an accusation is credible.
In many instances such as this it might prove completely impossible to know the truth.
The arguments that you make that this has a political motiive behind it have merrit, and they are a reason for taking particularly care. But they do not answer absolutely whether these allegations are true or not.
Ms. Ford has told similar but not completely consistent stories – but the first time she spoke was in therapy iin 2013 – still 30 years after the fact.
That does nto mean she is lying, but it is a factor to be weighed.
Thus far there are no other accusations of Kavanaugh – it is rare that someone does this once and never again – but again – it does happen.
Ford has backed away from testifying – that is disturbing, but still not dispositive.
The women who said there were stories after the event has quasi – but not completely backed down.
There are myriads of hints that this is true and that it is not.
There is nothing thus far to prove one way or the other.
And there may never be.
Sometimes we have to figure out how to live with uncertainty.
It is acceptable to believe one, the other, or both – even though that is not quite logical.
It is not right at this time to be certain and it may never be.
I do not have a problem with the #metoo movement. I think overall it is a good thing.
It is long overdue. One of the big revelations of #metoo was that there is no difference between those on the left and those on the right in their treatment of women.
That is extremely important. It likely means – there is no difference between the left an the right on their treatment of minorities.
That is a really big deal. If the people who claim to be champions of women and minorities can not be distingushed from those who purportedly are not based purely on conduct, that strongly suggests that the ideology itself is not a moral ideology (i.e. the ideology is amoral, or atleast that in practice its effects are amoral)
That is actually enormous. The only thing the left has is their claim to moral superiority.
So I am in no hurry to condemn #metoo.
That said – absolutely there are a few liars in #metoo.
I do not think the numbers are so large as to discredit what is in my view an overdue positive movement.
But it is reason to remember that an accusation does not make something true.
And we should remember that applies whether we are talking sexual assault or Russian Collusion.
Given your thinking where no proof is needed, no support from multiple individuals exist, no evidence exist and women are not subject to any legal action, I only expect accusations of sexual misconduct to increase, mens reputations and jobs lost and false claims made when something invigorate s someone to do this.
Ronl
You are significantly overgeneralizing my posiition – which is fundimentally based on reality and probability, not ideology.
Maybe video of this event will magically appear. Uf so I will revise my view.
Ms. Ford’s game playing over testifying has already diminished my position that Trump should withdraw Kavanaugh and forward another nomination.
I am trying to make many points.
One iis that the standard of proof here is low. Kavanaugh is not going to jail if he loses, he iis going to the DC court of appeals – the 2nd most prestigious court in the country.
It is highly unlikely after testimony and hearings that we will be any more sure than we are at the moment.
Dave, we are on opposite sides of an issue within an issue.
The issue. CF accuses K of sexual misconduct 35 years ago. Both of us do not know if he did or did not. That is for someone else to decide.
The issue in the issue. While you say K goes back to his day job and evertything is fine, I have heard enough stories about people being accused of something where their relationship with people changes. Will people look at him differently? How will cases coming to his court that concefn sexual cases be handled? Would parents with kids on his daughters teams he may coach ask for a different team? ( Dont know if he still does that or not). How often will people who know him hear ” oh wasnt he the judge accusec if sexual assault? ”
30+, 20+, even 10+ year old sexual misconduct cases should have some proof because a man IS GUILTY in the eyes of the public of any sexual misconduct until they provide proofbthey did not do it. In the eyes of the majority of the public, K did this unless he can PROVE he did not. Even I have questions if he did or did not.
Where we disagree isbthe recourseva man has after it happens. I like what happened in the Army officers case in VA. How aboutnyou?
Ron, I have been accused of murder and theft by my younger brother and sister.
I am a bit familiar with what you are talking about.
The biggest problems are that so much occurs near secretly.
Kavanaugh will not have that problem.
The actual facts to the extent they are known will be out in the open.
Peoples eyes glass over when you say – but the OofA was given all the financial records – as were the accusers and no one found anything(that is not strictly true, I can prove that the people who looked at the records found that the accuser was stealing, and they ignored that. And I can prove it 3 ways – from THEIR records) – even though they went back 7 years
But again peoples eyes glass over.
I have a coroners report – with the very rare conclusion that the allegations are provably false.
I have DA’s and investigators that were almost prepared to file false report charges, but decided not to because it was a family issue, and the perpitrators were from out of state, and there might be jurisdictional issues.
I am constantly bumping into people who heard whispers – but only parts of the story.
I lean towards Walter Block – get government out of it.
But I can’t say that I do not find the Army Cornel’s result appealing.
I googled the first alleged assault you mention.
Here’s a link. Read the account all the way through. At the end, you’ll be defending him against an unsubstantiated charge.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-sex-assault-allegation-2018-3
He’s not a Democrat.
He says he is an Independent who leans Republican. On Fox last year he said if he ran for office it would be as a Republican.
The 2nd assault charges were against his employees, not him.
If the NBA decided to fine the organization the max fine would be under $5 million dollars. He donated twice that amount, without being fined.
Jay;
I have not accused Cuban of anything.
I have heard lots of good things as well as bad things about Cuban.
I do not have a problem beleiving that some of the bad things may not be true.
Interesting thread on Twitter (Jay, I certainly know you’re on Twitter). I’ve been reading, since yesterday, that Christine Blasey Ford’s (CBD, we’ll say, for short) is actually true, except that Brett Kavanaugh was not the boy involved, but that CBD believed he was and it was a case of mistaken identity. Supposedly, it was another good friend of Mark Judge’s, a kid named Christopher Garrett, who looked very much like Kavanaugh, and still does resemble him today (pictures are posted on the thread.) According to this information, the party took place at this Garrett’s house, and the house matches the description of the house that CBD has described in her story.
Ed Whelan, who tweeted the thread, is a writer for National Review Online, and an attorney who runs a think tank named Ethics and Public Policy Center. He’s a legit guy, and this may be the answer to this whole thing, and especially the answer to the question of why Dianne Feinstein has refused to release the unredacted letter to the rest of the Judiciary Committee – all of the names in the letter are apparently redacted.
So, who knows…
https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1042893987747713024
He in fact named him.
With a photo.
And the floor plan of his house.
Actually named him online!
With no evidence at all!
Except a vague charge of facial resemblance?
Just to sic the media on him, away from Kavanaugh?
What kind of partisan scum sucking bottom feeder would do that?
Oh, right… Trumpster Republican
https://twitter.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1042898658180714498?s=20
He’s actually not. NR was never Trump, and he was on board with that. Of course he named him. CBD named Kavanaugh and Judge and the New Yorker and The Washington Post printed her accusations. Come on, Jay, you don’t find this even somewhat intriguing? Must you always be driven by your Trump derangement?
It’s kind of ironic that you’re fine with a US Senator leaking unproven accusations of attempted rape against a SCOTUS nominee, but horrified by an actual journalist printing details of a possible alternative theory, once the story has been covered for a week.
There ya go again, jumping to incorrect assumptions..
I don’t like the way Finesteinh handled this.
Like Ron, I have concerns about #MeToo excesses.
And the alleged incident if accurately described, that many years ago, IN MY OPINION doesn’t disqualify Kavanaugh from SCOTUS.
many other things do…
Your response did not demonstrate that you did not jump to conclusions.
Ron asked why A & B were acceptable to you, but D & E where not,
You responded that Ron had jumped to conclusions because you beleived F & G.
Fine, but that does not respond to Ron’s remarks and does not demonstrate that Ron jumped to any conclusions.
To the extent there is a difference between Ford accusing Kavanaugh and Whelan accusiing Ford, it is that Whelan’s accusation of mistaken identity is far less defamatory if wrong.
the handling of this by the left has been attrocious.
Ford had the choice of coming forward or not.
She chose not to. That should have ended this. But the allegation was leaked and ultimately she was compelled to come forward even though she did not want to.
That is immoral conduct on the part of democrats towards Ford.
Further Ford now refuses to testify.
IF she is unwilliing to testiify on Monday – then I think this should be over.
Kavanaugh should not be expected to refute under oath and allegation that no one is willing to make under oath.
I in fact offered that explanation during Twitter exchanges a few days ago as a possibility to explain how both could be telling versions of their own truthful beliefs. She mixed him up with someone else. Maybe Whalen saw those tweets and appropriated the idea (he follows some of the same people I follow). So yes, that’s a possible explanation.
And if Kavanaugh was involved, maybe he was too drunk to remember it. His own words verify he was a binge drinker through high school and college. That would also lend credence that both believe they are telling the truth.
And Kavanaugh should be asked that question if he testifies next week – did he experience drunken blackouts during those excessive drinking years (i’ll Bet he ducks answering directly, as is his habit when it affects him negatively).
He should also be asked what the hell was he doing the past three days, collaborating at the White House with Republican operatives (8 hours one day; twelve another) on his forthcoming testimony. Aren’t SCOTUS judges supposed to be non partisan? He’s the opposite: a partisan apparatchik for decades; as is his wife. That’s my major objection to his appointment to SCOTUS – he will not be a fair impartial vote on partisan issues that reach the court.
(Sorry about choppiness of the writing; WordPress keeps freezing my typing, making it annoyingly time consuming to make corrections – Rick needs to start a fresh topic; this one’s too congested)
My understanding is that he has been questioned by Judiciary Committee and WH legal staff, regarding the CBD accusations, and Democrat members’ staff were given the opportunity to question him as well. but declined. As the POTUS who nominated him, Trump would need assurance that Kavanaugh is telling the truth about this allegation, so I’m not surprised that he has been grilled non-stop.
I do agree, especially after reading Whelan’s thread, that perhaps both CBD and Kavanaugh are telling the truth, as they understand it. The difference right now is that Kavanaugh is willing to tell his version under oath, and CBD is apparently not willing to do so, which leads me to believe that she is not sure that her accusations are true. I think she may have thought she could drop this bombshell, yet somehow stay anonymous. She’s now the center of a huge political firestorm, and I feel kind of sorry for her. I also feel sorry for all of the people that she has dragged into this, thinking that they would remain anonymous as well. And I feel sorry for Kavanaugh and his family. Senator Feinstein should be extremely ashamed of the way that she has handled this.
As far as your other objections to him, I disagree that he will be a partisan, but I understand why you may think so. So, I guess we’ll have to wait and see if he’s confirmed.
Anonymous speach is a constitutiional right.
Ford was entitled to it. The Democrats violated that right.
But anonymity comes at a cost in crediibility.
We view anonymous allegations less seriously than those one will bet their reputation on.
We view allegations one iis prepared to make under oath more seriously than ones one is not.
Kavanaugh said all the right things about how he will decide as a supreme court justiice.
In fact his remarks are not much different from Kagan’s.
Lots of justiices say one thing in confiirmation hearings and do another as supreme court justices. In fact many justiices shift considerably when they join the supreme court.
There is no certain way of knowing what Kavanaugh will do as a justice.
You can beleive what he has said. Or no1.
Jay has not provided much reason for disbelieving Kavanaugh.
That said I do not think Jay will be happy with Kavanaugh – ESPECIALLY if he does as he said he would.
If Kavanaugh was NOT spending nearly all his time preparing for his testimony on Monday – that would be deriliction.
The expectation is that when you know you are going to testify, and you know what you are going to have to testiify about – that you prepare.
All misstatements under oath are not lies or perjury.
This was one of the false represenatation regarding Sessions initial testimony before congress regarding meetings with Kisylak.
If Sessions had been aware he was going to have to testify about meetings with Kislyak, then an eroneous response would be lying under oath and possibily perjury.
It would not even be acceptable to be unable to recall – given that he had time to prepare and to check records to refresh his memory.
But the question was not one that Sessions had reason to anticipate, and his original answer was truthful under the circumstances – particularly given that the encounters with Kislyak were NOT meetings.
When Sessions testified angrily later – when he laid out EXACTLY what his contact with Russians was preceding – that was prepared testimony, and whatever he said, it had damn well better be nearly perfectly accurate.
Kavanaugh knows or should know what he is going to be asked Monday.
He should be doing everything he can to prepare.
It is acceptable for him to not recall things that are not knowable.
It is not acceptable for him to not know things that are knowable.
As a hypothetical example, if he had a diary of that time period and that diiary still exists,
even though he may not currently recall anything of the time this allegedly took place,
he would be expacts as a matter of law, to have found his diary and consulted iit and to be familiar with hiis actions for several days on either side of this alleged event.
Of Course Kavanaugh is being “coached” – he should be.
You are assuming he is being coached to lie – you do not know that.
You assume that because he is a Trump appointee.
Just as you give all those associated with Clinton the benefit of every doubt.
Once again, your brain doesn’t absorb the point at issue: it’s WHERE and with WHOM he’s preparing.
How stupid are you.?
He should be preparing with his own lawyer (he hired one), and/or with judges or legal professors – not with members of the political party that nominated him. Federal judges are not supposed to be party apparatchik minions. If this doesn’t register in your mind as IMPROPER behavior, you’re fucking hopeless.
There are no problems with my Brain.
Where and Whom are not the issue – they are not even your real issue.
Your issue is that – you have presumed that Kavanaugh is going to lie, and that whatever he does to prepare iis preparation to lie.
As is typical, you presume to be able to read the minds – to know the intention of others.
Kavanaugh is free to prepare however he choses. He is the nominee of the president – it is incumbent upon the whitehouse to assure that he is as well prepared as possible.
I do not think that either of us doubt that those helping Kavanaugh prepare are going to do their very best to assure that they anticipate ever possible question and to be certain they have a good answer for all of them.
The difference between us is ONLY that you presume that preparing for every possible question means having a handy lie ready. You do not seem to grasp that it means not merely having a truthful answer, but often finding – in documents, in Kavanaugh’s recollections, in other potential witnesses what is necessary to buttress the truth.
Put simply, wise people anticipating having to testify on momentous instances – PREPARE.
You are correct that some do prepare to lie, while others prepare to tell the truth, and some are sufficiently stupid as to not prepare.
But you can not logically conclude by virtue of preparing that one is preparing to lie. Nor can you logically conclude that someone is preparing to lie because you do not like those assisting them in preparing.
Who did you expect would prepare Kavanaugh – Lawyers from NOW ?
“He should be preparing with his own lawyer (he hired one), and/or with judges or legal professors – not with members of the political party that nominated him.”
Why do you presume that ? The was nominated by the president. Who is the head of the Republican party. There is far more legitimately at stake than just the events of a few minutes 35 years ago. Those events are a proxy in a war over the supreme court.
“Federal judges are not supposed to be party apparatchik minions. If this doesn’t register in your mind as IMPROPER behavior, you’re fucking hopeless.”
Absolutely correct. Kavanaugh has testified quite extensively that his decisions as an appelate court judge, and his future decisions as a supreme court justice would be driven by the original public meaning of the constitution or the law in question, supliimented by precedent.
THAT is precisely how we should expect judges to act. So you are whigging out because you might end up with a jusitice that is NOT slave to their party or ideology and will interpret the law as it is written not as they wish it were.
You are correct that one side in this conflict will pull out all stops in order to assure that the supreme court acts ideologically rather than following the rule of law.
You are correct that one side expects political influence to govern the decisions of the courts.
You have just identified the wrong side.
I get tired of the argument made constantly here that the truth is always in the center.
Truth is RARELY to be found in the center.
Sometimes the left holds the truth, sometimes the right. Sometimes neither – regardless, it iis rarely in the center.
If you wish to offer a method of statutory and constitutional interpretation that consistently produces a single answer regarding the questions before the court, that produces the same answer that ordinary people would likely arrive at by the same process, that assures that people can know with a high degree of certainty BEFORE hand whether their actions are inside or outside the law – I am listening.
THOSE are the requirements for “the rue of law”. Anything less is lawless.
My concerns regarding Kavanaugh are whether he means what he has said.
Not whether what he has said is correct.
Dave, “Kavanaugh knows or should know what he is going to be asked Monday.”
No he does not!!!! Ford has three requirements before testifing. 1. K can not be present. 2. No attorneys can be present. 3. K needs to appear first.
From my perspective, 1 and 2 are fine. 3 is bull shit. Never does the accused have to defend themselves BEFORE the charges are presented. She testifies to something, presents evidence, K has proof that is false, he can not present that to show evidence is false. Kangeroo Court!!!!!!
If this woman is honest, she would handle this like any legal case, not like it is being handled today. If she is lying, would it not benefit her to make demands that K would not agree to and keep this in the news much longer?
I have zero interest in Ford’s “requirements”.
She can testify – or not. The process is diictated by the senate, and should conform to norms – accusers precede those they accuse. The burden of proof iis on the accuser, and they should expect skeptiical even hostile cross examiination. That is how we try to get at the truth.
BTW ALL of Fords demands are bullshit.
Of course we want attorney’s – we want the very best people we can find.
The defendant is entitled to confront their accuser – to be present.
One of the few weapons I had in my own recent debacle, was that my siblings (and others)
could not lie to my face. Unfortunately that was easy for them when they did not have to be present.
You are more inclined to beleive that Ford is operating purely from poliitics – you miight be riiight, but I do not presume that.
Absolutely she is being used – those using her only care iif what she is sayng is the truth if that backfires. They would be happy to accomplish their objectives through lies.
Bjut being used is a reason to disdain democrats – not Ford herself.
Separately I do not expect Ford to do perfectly – this is not her world.
But the accusation is hers. She must defend it or let it go.
I am not happy with Kavanaugh’s past political involvement.
I would prefer Judges that were not involved in politics.
But there is a long long list of Supreme Court Justices who were much more active politically than Kavanaugh.
It is a concern, it is not a disqualification.
Kagan was White House Council, and a policy advisor to Bill Clinton,
She was Obama’s Solicitor General.
While she is far from the most politically active Justice,
she is also not much less politically active than Kavanaugh.
Supreme Court Justices are supposed to interpret the constitution as it is written – regardless of their politics or ideology. That does not forbid them from having politics or ideology.
While both left and right tend to allow ideology to influence their judicial oppinions.
Those on the left do not even grasp that they should not.
One of the many problems with the lefts “living constiitution” theory, is that the constitution lives and breaths and evolves – by amendment, not by ideological manipulation of the justices.
Regardless, kavanaugh testified extensively in congress regarding constitutional interpretation and ideology. IF you trust what he said, then he ideology is not relevant to his actions as a judge. I do not think as a practical matter that is possible, and I think everyone knows that. But unlike those like Sotomayor – who thinks that her experience as a Wiide latina SHOULD heavily influence her judicial decisions, Kavanaugh atleast knows he is supposed to decide based on the “original public meaning” – not his own ideology.
Those on the left do not understand that.
BTW “the original public meaning” is not just about constitutional interpretation, it is about all statutory interpretation.
To the best of our ability to do so, the constitution and law should have ONE and only ONE meaning. And that meaning should NOT be the province of the elites of the legislative or judicial communitiies. We are all obliged to obey the law. That is not possible if we can not be sure what that law is. If that law means something different to one justice, one legislator, one generation than another.
When we do not like the “original public meaning” of the law or constitution, we are free to change it, then it is OUR words and intentions that are the “original public meaning”.
If your means of interpreting the constitution is influenced by your ideology, or the times aside from those of those who ratified the law or constitution you are interpretting, then there is no rule of law. There is no means for ordinary people to know what the law that they are obligated to obey is.
Jay;
I do not know how credible this mistaken identity claim is.
Part of that hinges on whether Ford knew Kavanaugh well.
We almost never misidentify people we know.
We constantly misidentify people we do not.
You are jumping on Whelan for making an accusation – how is that any different that what Ford is doing ?
Just to be clear – I am relatively neutral. I beleive that the event took place. I am not sure that the actual facts exactly match Ford’s recollections. But I do beleive that Ford is not lying – meaning that she beleives what she is saying. But that does not make it true.
You do not have to beleive someone is a politically motivated liar to beleive they are not remebering accurately.
For this accusation to be meaningful MANY facts must be EXACTLY as Ford recalls them.
The person acting must be Kavanaugh, there can be no mistaken identity,
AND that persons drunken actions must be fairly close to exactly as Ford describes them.
Kavanaugh has denied any involvement. that does not preclude mistaken identity.
But it does mean that if it was him – but his actions were less egregious than Ford claims, he has still lied to people, while at the same time still being innocent of what he is being accused of.
I do not want to get into all the details, but there are many possibilities for what the Truth might be, that do not constitute a crime,
There is too much we do not know, and likely can never know.
“Part of that hinges on whether Ford knew Kavanaugh well.”
She responded to that already: says she knew both quite well, Kavanaugh and the supposed look-alike, a friend who she visited in hospital for some health reason when he was confined during that time frame.
And Kavanaugh has apparently testified, under oath, that he knew of her, but was not friendly with her.
One is a judge, under oath…the other a woman who is trying to prevent him from being confirmed to SCOTUS, and thus far has refused to testify under oath. Be honest, if the sides were reversed, what would you say.
In everything – you presume that you can take what those who favor your view say as gospel – and disregard all else.
I am not so certaiin as you that Ford has said what you claim she has said.
Regardless, the question is NOT what Ford Says, it is what can be established iindependently of what Ford and Kavanaugh say.
Ford was two classes behind Kavanaugh.
I knew maybe two or three people well in the sophomore class when I graduated, and I graduated from a small school.
As a Sophomore I only knew a few members of the senior class well.
Regardless, it is possible that evidence exists concerning the scale of Ford’s knowledge of Kavanaugh. They were in different classes, if they were also iin different social groups, activities, clubs etc. it is reasonable to presume they did not know each other that well.
Conversely if they worked together closely in some school activity or club, that would add credibility to Ford’s ability to identify Kavanaugh.
I would separately note that Ford has not publicly or based on what is currently known identified Kavanaugh until July 2018. The first documented instance that she spoke of this at all is in counseling in 2013 – and she did not identify people, and there are several details of that account that differ from the current one.
The truth is whatever it is – and it is likely we will never know it.
We will have to draw our conclusions based on the evidence we have – which will NOT likely be definitive. Discrepancies in Ford’s account do NOT inherently mean she is lying or misremembering. But they do increase the probability that she is.
Like it or not – Ford is the accuser and the burden or proof and the fundamental question of credibility is about her.
The game playing over the FBI and timing and how she is questioned are stupid and wrong.
She MUST be questioned thoroughly and ADVERSARILY – that is how we get to the truth.
It is unlikely we will have very many actual facts to test her testimony.
While I expect Kavanaugh to be thoroughly prepared, it is NOT his testimony or questions directed at him that matter most. He has denied the event. Absent some information that has not been made public – there is little more to ask Kavanaugh.
Whelan posits the supposed look alike.
While the look alike has some meaning – the more important question is Ford’s familiarity with Kavanaugh AT THAT TIME.
Witness identification of strangers and aquaintances has an abysmal track record.
Actual rape victims mis-identiify their rapists an incredibly large porton of the time.
We are generally very good at identifying family and friends.
But the more distant the relationship and the shorter the period of observation the more likely a witness is to err.
Even more important is the timeframe between the event and the identification.
We have statues of limitations for a reason – because witness testimony of anything – even events between people who know each other well degrades with time.
Put simply much of what each of us remembers of events 35 years ago is horribly inaccurate.
My understanding of Ford’s account is that she was at a party. She was NOT with the two people who accosted her. They pushed her into a room and onto a bed, closed the door,
that Kavanaugh allegedly held his hand over her mouth and “felt her up over her cloths.
That she believes he intended to remove her cloths, and that the other party fell onto the bed disrupting Kavanaugh and giving her the opportunity to escape.
Kavanaugh has NOT claimed that his actions were not as she described.
He has claimed that he know idea whether what she claims occured, but if it did or not, he is not the person who accosted her.
If Ford establishes based on evidence from that time period – not her modern statements, that she knew Kavanaugh well,, AND that Kavanaugh was at this party – this is over and Kavanaugh iis toast.
It will not matter whether the actions of whoever accosted her were more innocent than she represents – because Kavanaugh can not survive having lied about being present.
I do not expect after both have testified that we will be any more certain than we are now.
The odds are heavily against getting determinative evidence from 35 years ago to substantiate one story or the other.
Dave “If Ford establishes based on evidence from that time period – not her modern statements, that she knew Kavanaugh well,, AND that Kavanaugh was at this party – this is over and Kavanaugh iis toast. ”
Well then all the #metoo movement and the democrats have to do is find someone willing to say they were at the party, K was at the party and he was hanging with CF. Whats so hard about that? Enough money can buy anything! All they have to do is say it once.
Yes, you could buy the entire Kavanaugh attack – but there is a problem with conspiracies – if someone talks they blow up in your face.
One of the most compelling reasons that there is no Trump Russia Collusiion – aside from the fact that it is a stupid idea – why would trump collude wiith Russia to do what he can do himself far easier,
Regardless, is because despite enormous pressure no one is talking.
II would be triiviial for Manafort, Papadoulis, Flynn, Cohen to get a sweetheart deal from Mueller – all they have to do iis implicate Trump.
There are few of us who would scream foul if any of them ratted out Trump and got away wiith murder as a result.
But there is one Caveat – they can not just make something up.
Which means if There is no colusion, there is no way to cooperate and get a sweetheart deal.
You have to have somethiing to offer.
There are lots of thiings I do not like About Mueller, he will stretch the law way out of shape.
But I do not beleiive he will use evidence he knows is a lie – even if he has no ethics, it is too dangerous.
If the left manufactures a case against Kavanaugh – all it takes is one person to recant anf the whole house of cards collapses.
What happens if someone lies about Kavanaugh and a week, a month later – they recant, or someone comes forward and disproves some critical element of their testimony ?
All hell breaks lose.
You can lie yourself – because you control things.
Paying someone else to liie for your is very dangerous – how do you ever trust someone you have paid to liie ?
Interesting – possibly true.
But I would caution everyone from presuming that there will be a satisfactory answer to this.
That does nto mean we should not look for one, or that it is impossible that we find one.
But it is unlikely and we may have to be satisfied with not knowing.
It would be helpful if everyone was capable of being able to understand there is a difference between belief and truth.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-09-20-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-exposed-for-ties-to-big-pharma-abortion-pill-maker.html
Some interesting info. Read it all. Adds some details to parties. My wife received this today. I forward, you decide.
I believe that 1) CBF will never testify under oath, because she is lying (or, more charitably, “misremembering”) and 2) that she is likely being paid off handsomely by left-wing interests. This article is very interesting.
Her latest demands include saying that she won’t testify until Kavanaugh publicly testifies. In all cases the accuser goes first, but in HER case the accused must defend himself before hearing the accuser. Nice way to tailor one’s fake accusations specifically to the defense….
Priscilla;
You may be right, but iit iiis no more useful for those on one side to presume political corruption and malfeasance that is not self-evident than for those on the other.
Ford may be being paiid off. I doubt it, but anythiing is possible.
Just as Kavanaugh may be being coached how to tell compelling lies as Jay wishes to beleive.
But we are not served well by presuming those on the other side are evil – short of actual evidence.
In most of the instances in which people actually lie about these kinds of things – the most rare instance is being paid off.
The rest of your analysis is excellent.
There iis very little beyond her personal security that Ford has any legtimate basis to demand.
It is Ford’s testimony that is most critical – she is the accuser, the burden of proof is on her.
Kavanaugh’s testimony is not critical and equally important the right to rebut belongs to the accused, not the accusor. Whether civil or criminal the accusor goes first the defendant goes last.
Further she should and we all should expect her to be questioned viigorously – adversarialy.
We should – and she should, expect those questioning her to attempt to shred her story.
THAT is how we get to the truth. The objective is the try to find every single possible flaw in the story.
Ford should not expect to be coddled. The fact that what she alleges occured is reason to be sympathetic AFTER we have established with certainty that it occured.
The accuser is not entitled to be believed merely because they have made a heinous accusation.
It is unfortnate that actual rape victims must often endure hostile cross examination, but t is often and particularly in this case the only tools we have for finding the truth.
It is my understanding that republiicans are looking to have an experienced female prosecutor question her. I think that is an excellent idea. But aparently Ford has torpedeod it.
Dave, “It is my understanding that republiicans are looking to have an experienced female prosecutor question her. I think that is an excellent idea. But aparently Ford has torpedeod it.”
Yes, no attorneys in the room, no K in the room, K goes first.
I would wonder why they cant get Collins or another female R senator (if there is one) to come in and question.
Theworst picture is her being cross examined by 10 old white guys.
It needs to be a really good professional female prosecutor.
Then CF will need to drop her no attorney demand or she wont be testifying. She most likely was told by her attorney to make this demand for the very reasons you and I have made. Yours being a prosecutor that knows how to cross examine and mine to avoid old white men attacking the poor innocent little lady.
I am not actually against a more conservative supreme Court. I was pushed into years of activism against the liberal machine in Vermont by a truly absurd Vermont supreme Court activist decision, so I have an idea what that is about.
My own impressions of this as one is not following it passionately:
I don’t believe that this alleged incident should keep K off the court even if true, but it is still a legitimate issue. Is this hardball partisan politics? Yes. Was keeping Garland off hardball? Yes. Anyone who misses that is a partisan hypocrite. Being partisan and hypocrisy are tightly linked.
Is Ford lying? No. Do allegations that she is lying disgust me and others? Yes.
Should K be prepped by GOP officials? No. He has his own resources.
Should Ford be setting so many conditions? No. She came forward, it’s too late to go back. The sleaze and attacks on her life were a given since this is hardball politics and many of the cult members on any side are wretched disturbed and lack perspective, human decency or restraint. A crusade is a crusade.
I would not confirm K because he has avoided too many issues he could have answered more directly, presidential power being first among them.
I believe that a coming generation of voters are likely to see more cause than not in metoo. And I agree with them. Not only was Fox news full of male sexual predators, practically every other network or Hollywood studios is too, and many more mundane workplaces. There is going to be a very messy war with lots of collateral damage.
Grump, I agree with you about the #metoo group. Many of those identified would never have been identified without this happening.
But I have an “extreme” negative outlook concerning individual behaviors. While the men who have lost jobs due to being in the position of power and using sex in that position with women, there has been evidence or a pattern of behavior with multiple women.
This case, Accusations: One incidence. High School. Both drunk. Never talked about until 30 years later.
If Daves position that women should not face legal action for falsely accusing someone is policy, then as these claims are made public and mens careers and reputations destroyed with no recourse, my belief that humans will use this much more in the future for many different reasons become reality.
I believe that a woman coming forward to do this is entering a permanently life changing hell and that they always know that. There may be some mentally unstable women who would do this as a lie, but outside of that I believe that no sane woman does this without belief in her accusations. The accusations could still be wrong, but the women are sincere. I am far from having some kind of blanket trust in women, women can be mean lousy people just like men. But, no sane woman does this for her own spite, the consequences of doing this are just like the consequences of a man admitting that his priest molested him. Pain, pure pain even without the organized political hit job on one’s character that is gaurenteed.
To your concern about the need to punish false accusers I understand you, but do not fear these women will be severly punished whether they are lying or telling the truth.
Instances of false claims are rare,
They are NOT nearly so rare as you posit.
Nor is this particularly about women.
People make false accusations for many reasons. those reasons do not often make sense – and yet this occurs.
I do not know that this is a case of mistaken identity as Whelan posits and Jay is fighting.
I do know that mistaken identity is quite common in stranger and acquaintance rape cases.
Overall I am leaning towards Prof. Block’s position in defending the undefendable,
defamation should NOT be inside the realm of government.
If we know there is no civil or criminal penalty for a false accusaton we are more liikely to be skeptical of allegations and more likely to iimpose private sanctions on liars.
You are correct – each instance, each accusation is different.
Most allegations are true. Some – far too many are not.
We must look at those facts we have in each instance.
This claim is incredibly weak.
that does not make it false.
But it means that it has very very few of the signifiers we use to confirm the probability of truth.
IIt iis unliikely after this is over that we wiill know the truth.
To clarify, my remarks about the living hell that faces accusers are about cases in the highly public political arena. As far as more local cases that are not in the public eye, all kinds of false accusations do occur, although I still believe they are much less numerous than sincere allegations. As well, those women making such false accusations are going to frequently get caught and it will follow them. I am not an expert but I believe they can be sued.
https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/
The relevant question is not whether those on the courts should be conservative or progressive. It is how the law should be read.
What is called originalism with respect to interpreting the constitution is the ordinary means of statutory interpretation that is taught within laws schools for hundreds of years regarding the law.
The legiislature and the people can change the law and constitution to get the result they want – IF and ONLY IF they know that the courts will apply the orgiinal public meaning of that law or amended constitution.
With respect to the allegations against Kavanaugh – if the event actually occurred – regardless of whether Ford’s specific recollection of it is accurate, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed, as he will have lied – possibly under oath and that is disqualifying.
Separately I do not have a problem with a Senator evaluating on their own their beleif in the truth of what is beiing said and voting against Kavanaugh – even iif they are just unsure.
There is no right to be a supreme court justice.
I would prefer if all D’s did not disbelief and all R’s unanimously disbelieved.
That goes to the lack of credibility fo those in both parties.
Kavanaugh is the president and parties nominee for the Supreme court.
He is own his own once he is confirmed (for life) not before.
He can be prepared by whoever the PRESIDENT wishes.
If Ford lying ? Misremembering – any absolute answer you provide merely reveals your inability to reason.
We do not know the truth, and we likely will not ever.
If you take a binary position – you are WRONG, worse you have prejudged.
Though this case is at the extreme, it is not uncommon to have to make judgements based on insufficient facts to reach conclusions with certainty.
We do not know if this happened. We do not know if Ford is lying. We do not know if Ford is misremembering, we do not know if Kavanaugh is lying.
And it is likely that we will never know, It is even possible that neither Ford not Kavanaugh know
The attacks on Ford, Kavanaugh, Trump, Fienstein, …. are all the norms of politics today.
There are few innocents.
Ford quite clearly did not want to come forward – and still really does not.
She wanted to derail Kavanaugh without having to stand herself infront of the bright lights and say “I accuse”
But that was not and never should have been a choice available to her.
Absolutely there are myriiads of risks and harms that come with making an accusation.
If you do not accept that – do not make the accusation – not even anonymously.
It is unfortunate that even telling the truth often entails risk.
It is exactly how it should be that coming forward and making false accusations entails a great deal fo risk to ones reputation.
Giiven that iit is near impossible ahead of time – and often ever to tell false accusations from true ones, lamenting that those who might be makiing true accusations are treated the same on the front as those who make false ones, is idiocy.
This is supposed to be a preasure cooker. It is part of how we attempt to establish the truth
Kavanaugh’s views are no secret.
There is plenty of documentation of his views from during the Clinton investigation and impeachment.
What is disingeuous is expect that those who with the integriity to buch their own party when it was not convenient, are going to flip and support yours and the opposite view when it serves you.
The hypocrisy of the left amazes me.
Most of the “”questions” the left wants to raise regarding “presidential power” – have been resolved – often by the left. While I think many of those resolutions are wrong. I have zero tolerance and I am deeply offended by those who not only held one position when Clinton was president and a different one now as is politically convenient – but expect others to do the same.
So lets confront this head on:
The president can not be indicted while in office.
That has been established law since at least Nixon.
I believe that is rightly determined.
The president can not obstruct justice by excercising powers he legitimately constitutionally has. Again this is decided law. In fact it goes beyond the president. NO ONE can obstruct justiice by doing what they would otherwise be leigimately entitled to do.
That too is proper.
Executive priviledge is extremely limited. Advice given directly to the president iis not subject to congressional or judicial oversight.
All other activities of the executive are subject to legislative and judicial oversite.
A president can be sued while in Office.
I beleiive that was wrongly deciided.
The president can pardon whoever he pleases for whatever reason he pleases (this applies to govenors and others with pardon power)
Regardless these are all the state of the law.
They were the law for Nixon, for Reagan, for Bush I, for Clinton, for Bush II, for Obama.
You do not get to have different law for Trump.
I completely agree with you regarding #metoo.
There are false allegations, there are messy problems because sexualiity is an intrinsiic part of human nature and we can not exclude it from life, school ot the workplace.
We should not beleive every allegation made.
Nor should the standard of beleif be the same in all circumstances.
Some claiims are credible enough to fire someone, but not enough to imprison them.
There will be diifficulty and mess distinguiishiing between legitimate workplace sexualiity and harrassment and criminal conduct, we are carpable of making those distinctions – even if not perfectly.
Some accusers will not be beleiived who should.
Some accusers will be beleived who should not.
The world is not perfect – get over it.
No, Remember that with every law you pass – that quite often it will not be possible to know exactly what the truth is.
#metoo is long overdue.
It has at times overstepped – but it was still necescary.
Further it is self evident today that the problems of sexual assault and harrasment kno no politiical or ideological boundaries. The left has no monopoly on good conduct – not with respect to treatment of women, or minoriitiies, or anyone.
Quiite often it is the mysoginists, racists and homeophobes making the accusations of racism, sexiism and homophobia.
Whoops. Hey Dems did you turn over your Clinton X2 “So What” buttons to your friends on the right? You should, although I do think a SC judge should be held to a higher level (whatever that is) standard than ANYONE else, and yes that includes popes. But how the hell can we know the truth of the matter from so long ago? Lie (?) detector test is OK with me, if that device really works on long ago incidents, fogged by alcohol and possible trauma. Too bad there is so little time, but I would try to insert a new candidate and live with the eight SC judges for a while.
Either way, the mid terms will be interesting and shrill.
dduck “Too bad there is so little time, but I would try to insert a new candidate and live with the eight SC judges for a while.”
Paybacks are hell. The GOP is learning that too well now for blocking Garland.
Knowing Trumps past, if he has to pick another, the dems will choke whike saying ” What the F did we do”?. They could end up with the IL or MI judge ( somewhere from the midwest) that is much more conservative than K.
Apparently Ford had decided to testify.
My Hat is Off to Sen Grassley who has been incredibly patient.
My hat is NOT off to FOrd’s lawyer who comes up with nonsense like:
“”The imposition of aggressive and artificial deadlines regarding the date and conditions of any hearing has created tremendous and unwarranted anxiety and stress on Dr. Ford,” Katz wrote. “Your cavalier treatment of a sexual assault survivor who has been doing her best to cooperate with the Committee is completely inappropriate.””
They have overplayed their hand, with me anyhow.
Grump. I agree.
I watch Cavuto on Fox on Saturday mornings since much of that coverage is business news. But he does have other news and interviews.
This morning. Did not catch the ladies name. Younger (30ish) lady that is a democrat strategist. Sexually assualted in college. Reported it when it happened. Her position is the fact this has become political and not criminal. She has a lot of problems with Fienstein holding this for 3 months instead of sharing with committee in July when time would have permitted for investigation. She did not like the fact that it appears CF agreed to testify until the polititians got ahold of her,probably through her attorney, and made unreasonable demands. Her main point was this should never be political when it comes to sexual abuse and she referenced K and Ellison ( whatever he was accused of).
My.point. Very refreshing to hear a democrat speak logically since most just jump on the parties talking points and begin running their mouths. Wish more like her would speak up. ON BOTH SIDES!!!
Our national life has become an undignified spectacle, like a cross between the Jerry springer show and the oj simpson trial. Nothing in our national life makes me madder than blind partisanship.
A few days back I said I did not want to soil my mind with the confirmation circus. Now look at me, it sucked me in. Help!
Ah com’ on Grump. What else are you, me , Priscilla, Jay, Dave , PatRiot, and other occasional visitors going to discuss? Maybe the 70th primetime emmys?😷
The entertainment industry awards shows are even LESS interesting than “our national life”.
“Our national life has become an undignified spectacle, ”
Of course it has – the more you expand that “national life” the broader the scope of what you make the domain of government – and anything you make the domain of government you automatically make all of us compete to control – the more amplified our differences become.
Our “national life” should be of little consequence.
We should not need to worry about violence – either from other nations or our neighbors. Beyond that our lives should be our own.
“Our national life” only matters to the extent it impacts our personal lives.
I am sorry Ron – but that position is bunk.
Of course this is political.
The only apolitical approach to this would have been for Ford to come forward in 1983.
She has come forward now – in the midst of his nomination to the supreme court.
It is political. Her motiives are political.
That does not mean what she is saying is not true. Nor that we should not look into it.
But get past the nonsense that this can or should be divorced from politics.
There is no criminal case here – the statute of limitations long ago expired.
The left keeps asking the FBI to iinvestigate – investigate what ? The FBI investigates criimes, there never was a federal crime here, and there is no longer any prosecutable crime of any kind.
It iis however perfectly legiitimate to ask if this is true and if that alters whether Kavanaugh should be confirmed.
That is a POLITICAL question, with POLITICAL consequences.
There is – nor should there be a non-political way to deal with this at this time.
Ford is attempting to torpedo KAvanaugh’s confirmation. There is zero doubt of that, and that is entirely what this is about.
If her story is true – her actions are justified – even laudable.
If not they are despicable.
And in this particular instance there are a range in between.
All the questions about who testifies how and when – are political. Nothing else.
There are good reasons to follow the process and procedures used by courts. But the Senate makes its own rules, it can do as it pleases.
Beyond the political with respect to Kavanaugh and Ford there are myriads of other political levels to this.
Democrats, republicans, individual senators, Trump all have their own political goals in this.
Ford initially attempted to do this anonymously. I fully understand why. But that failed and she had the choice of coming forward or seeing Kavanaugh near certainly confiirmed.
She chose to come forward – and should get credit for that. Aside from the inevitable death threats this has already brought, this wiill be the defining moment of her life.
Almost everyone she knows will remember her in the context of this one event.
She wiill never escape it.
II am not lookiing to create sympathy – frankly that is how it should be.
IIt should be hard to make an allegation 35 years after the fact and be believed – not impossible, but very hard.
It would have been difficult 35 years ago – but far LESS difficult than today. Further while such an allegation 35 years ago might have followed her for years it would not have defined her life.
Again this is all political. Grassley and republicans on the judiciary committee are free to do whatever they want, to conduct this however they please. And Ford is free to refuse to testify.
But there are POLITICAL consequences to the choices the republicans (and democrats, and Ford) make.
.
Dave, sometimes I give you the beneift of the doubt, but this comment based on what I said verges on you just taking a opposite position to piss another person off.
“I am sorry Ron – but that position is bunk.
Of course this is political.”
She said she was raped. She said she knownthe feeling and the aftermath. She said she does not agree that sexual misconduct should be used for political reasons. She said Feinstein did not handle this correctly. She said making this political makes this type of conduct look less serious because it divides people on their views of rape.
I agree 100% with her and happy to see a democrat strategist not regurgitating the democrat talking points.
Maybe I should have tempered my introduction.
But the point is still the same – every aspect of this is poliitical – even for Ford.
Everything that is not political with respect to this died long ago.
Whatever happened to Ford – if it should have been punished by government, that opportunity ended long ago.
Ford is seeking to hold Kavanaigh politically accountable for something that she can not hold him accountable in any other way – presuming that what she says is true.
I am OK with that – If Kavanaugh truly did this, he should not be a supreme court justice.
Regardless, this is entirely political, accepting that makes it easier to process.
“Regardless, this is entirely political, accepting that makes it easier to process.”
And that was this young ladies point. It should not be political. Her point that had Feinstein handled this differently in July, it could have been investigated, a report provided, the judge questioned in private and once that was complete, then a decision on how to make public would have happened.It would have been released and then senators fould have discussed the merits of the case. CF would not have been the villain, her attorneys would not be working with the democrat senators and much would be different.
And the ladies point is WRONG.
There is no remedy besides politics that remains to Ford.
Any judgement regarding the process at this point is “political”.
Concepts such as due process, or reasonable doubt – apply to legal remedies which long ago became impossible.
The verdict regarding Kavanaugh will be a political one. While formally being decided by the Judiciary committee ultimately it will be decided by the people, who will express their view in the coming election.
The “right” way to do this, the “fair” way to do this – is what the people find acceptable.
Ford has made alot of demands – it appears that Grassley though he has strongly said many things – really only cares about one – that Ford be given every reasonable opportunity to testify and that subsequently there is a vote on Kavanaugh. That this does nto result in indefinite delay.
Dr. Ford’s legal team is growing – with numerous high power democratic lawyers getting added. That is no accident – this is POLITICAL – from start to finish.
The most critical factor for ALL is how the politics plays out.
There is no other definiton of “correct” that applies to this at this time.
Andrew McCarthy has an excellent ediitorial on this.
While I am not a angry about this as he is – though you appear to be.
I am in full agreement – this is all political theater.
Presuming that she is telling the Truth Dr. Ford is hoping for justice that she never asked for from the legal process through the political process.
I am OK with that, but lets not pretend this is something more than political.
Understanding it is poliitical is important, because it effects judgements on all the arguments people make.
Ford wants an FBI investigation – why ? No legal prosecution is ever going to occur.
The only tribunal to here this will be the judiciary committee.
What is necessary – is what they will need.
I am not opposed to the FBI investigating, but we should not be confused about the purpose.
Ford wants to call other witnesses.
Again there is no legal prosecution going to occur, as McCarthy notes – the Judiciary committee should not even compel Dr. Ford to testify – we do not typically compel testimony under oath of ordinary people in their private lives before legislators.
I would like to see many of these people testify under oath.
But we should not compel it.
Dr. Ford’s right to due process ended when the stature of limitations passed.
The only justice she remains entitled to is political, and there are no formal standards, rules or process for that. What is riight, fair, proper, is what the committee decides and the people accept. Nothing else.
Just to be clear – you are right that this could have been done differently.
Aside from what you noted – CF could have reported this at the time.
I am having trouble establishing what we actually do know – probably because this is so old that there is almost nothing we do know for certain
The “know” facts of the allegation is this was at a party, Ford and between 2 and 4 males were present. Judge and Kavanaugh are now identified as two of the males.
The date and location of this party are NOT as best as I can tell established.
Both Kavanaugh and Judge have stated publicly that this did not happen.
It is difficult for them to deny more – because insufficient specifics are available.
There are claims of mistaken identity,
There are claims that a rumor of this incident identifying Kavanaugh existed at the time.
There are claims that neither Kavanaugh nor Judge were at the party.
But there are problems with all of the above – in that each makes assumptions about facts that are not yet in evidence.
You can not claim that Kavanaugh was not at a party that we do not know occured, and have no specifics about.
Ultimately the burden of proof is going to be on Dr. Ford.
Her testimony must have two critical elements – it must be emotionally compelling, and it must provide more than enough factual details to be falsifiable.
If Ford does not provide sufficient facts to verify substantial portions of her story she should not be believed. If those provided facts are not verifiable – she will not be believed.
If her testimony is not emotionally powerful – no one will care.
“Her testimony must have two critical elements – it must be emotionally compelling, and it must provide more than enough factual details to be falsifiable.”
No it does not! He is already guilty. More people have decided he should not be confirmed. Even Fox News polls show 50%+ do not believe he should be confirmed.
As you say, there is no right to this appointment. Meaning a woman can say anything about misconduct and block any appointment.
We are not a democracy – that is not how we work.
BTW only 46% of people believe Ford.
Most of those who believe he should not be confirmed do not believe any republican should be confirmed.
The absence of a right to be confirmed is not the same as believing any allegation anyone makes.
Presumiing that what she said happened – I am sympathetic to Ford.
But that does not make her right.
She was NOT raped. according to her own description the WORST possible criminal charge at the time would have been attempted rape. In the event she had gone to the police at the time, it is near certain there would have been NO CHARGES.
Even as Ford describes them to be attempted rape requires mens rea.
We tend to get this wrong a lot it is NOT the perception of the victim that matters – it is either that of the perpetrator or a “reasonable person” that matters.
Regardless, had she come forward 35 years ago – it is unliikely she would have gotten an outcome she wanted absent facts that we do not and can not know.
No purpose was served by coming forward NOW anonymously or not that iis not POLITICAL.
She might not like to think of her actions as politiical – but they absolutely are.
Accepting everything she says – by coming forward – even anonymously, she is quite explicitly stating – that someone she thinks would have raped her, should not be a supreme court justice. If her allegations are true – I agree. But that is STILL political.
Neither she nor even you and I get much say in how a senator acts.
There is no “correct” with respect to Sen. Feinstein’s handling of this.
But there is what accomplishes her political goals and what fails to.
AGAIN this is entirely political.
Ford can say whatever she wishes – she is looking to extract a political penalty for Kavanaugh’s alleged conduct – SHE HAS MADE THIS POLITICAL.
Just to be clear – presuming she is telling the truth II do not have a problem with her actions.
But I do have a problem with pretendiing they are not political.
Ford is using the political process to punish an alleged criminal act.
That is the only process left open to her at this time.
If she did not wish this to be political, she could have come forward at the time of the event or not come forward now.
Coming forward is a political act.
I suspect part of the problem here is that you see ideology much like you see business – as all about human misconduct.
People behave badly in all kinds of arena’s.
But free exchange is a positive good, not an evil to be constrained. Occasional mistakes maybe, but still a major positive force.
And ideology – politics comes iin both good and bad forms.
In other news:
Aparently the unaniimous Intelligence community assessment of 2016 was not even close to unanimous as Strzok texts, and other contemporaneous documents now reveal.
Actually that is not true – to those who bothered to read at the time the assessment was fast tracked and done entiirely outside of normal channels and procedures and was the work of only about 3 subordinates of the key players in all of this – not the actual intelligence community.
Though there apparently were disagreements on many aspects of Putin’s efforts to interfere with the US election the most fundimental issue which there was not even a concensus on was WHY ?
What were Putin’s intentions ?
The Purported IC report claimed that Putin intended to get Trump elected.
That was NOT the view of the USIC. There was NO clear understanding in the USIC of Putins intentions.
Agree with Grump and Ron in their last few comments..
And I guess not all political strategists are twits.
Glad you are Back Duck! I was worried…
Back to world news and potential wars: Congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard, my favorite politician, opines on a potential was against Syria: https://www.thenation.com/article/tulsi-gabbard-on-the-administrations-push-for-war-in-syria/
And yet Gabbard’s remarks run contrary to the Democratic meme that Trump is a Putin puppet.
Though I might differ on the specifics, I am inclined to agree with Gabbard that the power of the executive to get the US into foreign conflicts is to great and unrestrained.
The limits on executive war powers made sense when our standing army and navy was small, and it took month’s even years to bring forces to bear in a conflict.
Today the US can deliver more firepower than all of WWII in a few month’s.
Even if I do not agree with all the details of what Gabbard seeks, I agree in principle that that constiitutes a war (and needs congressional authorization) needs redefined.
I am far more dubious of Gabbard’s claim that Trump seeks a War in Syria.
Trump campaigned on getting us out of all the iinternicine messes in the mideast.
I am upset with Trump for buying into “the generals plan” for Afghanistan – when there were less costly alternatives. I do not care if we just leave Afghanistan.
Regardless, all the reports regarding afghanistan are that Trump was dragged kicking and screaming into essentially continuing the existing failed plan.
With specific respect to Syria – is there the slightest doubt that ISIS has been substantially reduced as a force on the ground ?
Gabbard conflates ISIS and Al Qeda – though related they are not the same and reflect a radically different approach to Islamiic Fundiimentalism.
ISIS’s immediate goal was an Islamic State. Al Qeda’s goal is driving the west from the mid-east through terror.
Both are terrorist organizations, but inherently any US policy that focuses on One empowers the other.
Trump’s successful efforts to destroy ISIS benefit Al Qeda. That does not make the destruction of ISIS a bad idea.
I would tend to aggree with Gabbard that the successful destruction of ISIS is good reason for the US to substantally diminish its role in syria.
It is irrelevant whether regime change in syria would be good or bad – it is not our job, not overtly or covertly.
Regardless. I would note that contrary to Gabbard’s assertion – leaving Syria would empower Al Qeda.
I would finally note that it is pretty disengenuous for democrats to oppose Trump over policies that are essentially their own.
The fundimental difference between Trump and Obama in Syria is that unliike Obama Trump understands that to go home you must defeat your enemy.
It is premature for Gabbard to be attacking Trump’s handling of Syria.
Trump has for the most part lived up to his promises regarding the mideast.
Divergences from those promises are for the most part driven by the permanent washington government class, not Trump. Demonstrating a willingness on Trump’s part to step back from riigid positions where appropriate.
In more recent news Rosenstein is the center of a firestorm over an NYT story that he suggested wearing a Wire to tape Trump and that he discussed invoking the 25th amendment with Sessions and Kelley.
There is a further story that Rosenstein is the author of the anonymous NYT Op Ed from within the administration criticising Trump
Rosenstein has denied all of this. However, several Rosenstein friends have claimed that the comments were made but sarcastically.
But even sarcastic references to wearing a wire against a sitting president and invoking the 25th amendment would still be in excusable conduct.
One of the issues from the time of Trump’s purported “loyalty” discussion through to the president is that the elected president of the US is the head of the executive. All executive power is vested in them. If you are part of the executive and can not in good conscience support the wishes of the president – particularly if you are in a position to “set policy”, then you must resign. There is no #resistance from within the executive – that is the role of congress, the courts and the people.
Sarcastic or sincere, Rosenstein is either unconditionally supporting the executive legitimately elected by the american people – or he can not serve in the executive branch.
You can take a stand of conscience, but you can not do so from a position of power that comes to you from the american people through their elected president.
If you wish to #resist – resign, speak out openly. run for congress, accept a sinecure for displaced clinton sycophants at the Clinton Foundation – there are myriads of options available to you.
Rosenstein’s job isn’t to be loyal to Trump his responsibility is to be loyal to the Constitution and the rules of law.
And when Trump was running for president and it was pointed out here that the lying inept unqualified LUMP OF CRAP would be a danger to the nation, didn’t you say not to worry, because the ‘system’ would provide checks to safeguard the nation against his reckleness?
Well that’s what Rosenstein and anonymous others appear to be doing. Attempting to keep the asshole in check behind the scenes. If the reports in Woodward’s book FEAR are accurate (he has a high reputation for that) a majority of people working at sensitive jobs at thevWhite House think he’s a dangerous incompetent fool. If as you suggest they all resign, there will be no checks to the stupid idiots impulsive behavior. And the nation will tip into chaos.
Jay, “Rosenstein’s job isn’t to be loyal to Trump his responsibility is to be loyal to the Constitution and the rules of law.”
Is obtaing FISA warrants under false pretense loyal to the constitution and the rules of law?
No!
Rosenstien is a slightly less saccharine version of Comey.
He is the #resist person that Jay is constantly advocating for.
He is someone who beleives their personal concept of morality take precident over the law or the rule of law.
The IG report critisim of Comey is dead on, and it fits Rosenstein equally.
Comey acted as he thought was best outside of the law and the authority he had.
Worse stiill he acted following a personal code that is rooted in feelings not reason.
The entirety of Jay’s argument is that one is free to #resist from the shadows whenever you “feel” that the constiitution is being violated – or just when you have indigestion.
The rule of law requiires you to come forward and articularly your objections.
Just as Ford must do. Because in the end it is not YOU that gets to make the decision – it is others. Congress the courts, the president.
The constitution vests the power of the executive branch in the president.
Following the constitution REQUIRES following the president.
Where you feel there is a conflict – if that conflict can not be resolved you must resign.
It is that simple.
The constitution is a structured system of government. While I think iit iiis overall weak in governmental oversight, the oversight of the president is the courts and the congress.
The oversight of the deputy AG is the president.
If you are in the executive, you serve at the pleasure of the president – that is how the constitution set it up.
This is true regardless of who the president is.
The rule of law – requires one law – the same law for all of us. Not Trump’s law, and Rosenstein’s law. Within the executive conformance to the dictates of the president – or resiignation where you beleive there is an issue is what constitutes “the rule of law”.
As noted, the courts and congress are their for oversight.
There are other things you can do – leak, provide information to wikileaks, …
But all those come with risks – and they should.
It is also why the majority of policy making positions are changed with each new administration.
I would further note – if this is not true – why bother to have elections ?
If those in the executive are not answerable to the president, then you have created a permanent unelected ruling class.
I do expect those in the government who feel they are being asked to violate the constitution, to
“When Trump was running for office ….”
True – and still he was elected, possibly because the other candidate was a worse lying peice of crap.
Regardless Trump is the constitutional president of the united states.
He has whatever power the constitution assigns to the executive.
With the courts and congress their to check that power.
As well as a new election every 4 years.
There is no “I think the president is a lying peice of shit and therefore I can ignore him” provision in the constitution.
No I have not said “not to worry” – you should worry. You should worry about Trump, about Clinton, about obama, about … and you should vote as if those you are electing might be very dangerous – because they are.
Further we should read the constitution as it is written, not looking to stretch it to create new powers out of thin air because they suit our whim,
Whatever powers you give the president you like will eventually be weilded by someone you don’t
If people worried more – we would have had completely different candidates in 2016.
But you do not get to say “oops, my power mad tyrant did not win, the other power mad tyrant did therefore the rules change”.
The constitution did not empower anonymous or the deputy AG as a check on the president.
That power belongs to congress and the courts.
If you do not like that – change the law.
You are on the wrong side of the rule of law.
The rule of law does not mean I do not like the outcome therefore I can do as I please.
If you are going to take woodward at his word there is no russian collusion and the mueller investigation is therefore illegitimate.
if you beleive someone is a dangerous asshole – you address that upfront – just as you personally have here.
Doing so as you claim is being done is both cowardly, lawless and unconstitutional.
I have no problems with #resitance.
I have great problems with taking the law and power of government into your own hands – particularly when you are doing so secretly to thwart those legitimately authorized to excercise that power.
The concept of checks and balances is not an invitation to lawlessness or anarchy.
The title of Woodward’s book says it all. what you have is FEAR of Trump.
Fear is not sufficient justification to act.
If they obey or resign as required, then if you are correct there will be few left in the administration. Trump will not be able to act or will be exposed to the rest of as as who he purportedly really is.
You do understand that your and Woodwards thesis is that Trump is WORSE that what we see. Otherwise the claim that many in the administration are buffering him is patently false.
“If the reports in Woodward’s book FEAR are accurate (he has a high reputation for that) a majority of people working at sensitive jobs at thevWhite House think he’s a dangerous incompetent fool. If as you suggest they all resign, there will be no checks to the stupid idiots impulsive behavior. And the nation will tip into chaos.”
Yep. Apparently Mattis is on thin ice too. People much much much smarter than trump have become POTUS and then appointed competent advisors and let them run their fields of competency. trump is like Carter (a hands on micromanager) crossed with Hannity. He actually thinks he has the talent, wisdom, factual command, to run everything. I am for anything that keeps as much power as possible out of his hands.
There are new rumours about Trump, the cabinet, etc. every single day.
Some of them even prove true.
I have no idea what Trump’s relationship with Mattis is.
But given that I think given that Trump did what “the generals” directed in afghanistan and Syria and has not seen near the results he was promised – it is possible that “the generals” might be in hot water.
I am glad you are so sure that Trump’s advisor’s are so much smarter than he.
Given that IQ and success have the strongest correlation that exists in the social sciences, and that I do not think there is a president ever that has succeeded in so many disparate fields I would suggest that you under estimate Trump.
BTW Carter was a pretty good president – except that he completely blew the Iran Hostage Crisis and depressed the crap out of everyone with the “malaise speech”.
He significantly cut military spending, killed off bad programs, successfully deregulated more than possibly all other presidents in US history combined, and though Reagan gets ALOT of credit for continuing Carter’s fiscal policies, Most of the “Reagan Revolution” started with Carter.
I am glad you know so well how Trump thinks.
I might suggest that he is not nearly the “micromanager” you claim.
He hires talented people, and then demands they perform to high standards, and is prepared to sack them when they do not.
Most of the cabinet seems to be running fine. You hear nothing – unless one department is not performing or getting bad press for reasons other than meeting Trump’s campaign promises.
I really know very little about Hanity – I find it amazing that you clearly know so much about him. Do you watch him every day or something ? Have you read his books ? Does he have any ? Most of these guys do. Have you watched him operate as a boss ?
Yes, Trump is doing so horribly with NK and the economy.
And clearly he botched Syria. And the entiire mideast is in flames and Russia has invaded its neighbors, and ….
Wait no that was Obama’s first couple of years.
Instead of this garbage that everything Trump touches turns to shit – why not be specific.
Maybe I could agree with you on something.
Criticising Trump is easy, finding him lacking in comparison to any president since Reagan is harder.
If we are going to have the FBI investigate ancient sex crimes.
Bill Clinton
Al Gore
Joe Biden
Al Franken
come to mind
If they’re nominated for SCOTUS or other high office, I agree.
And they should be required to release their tax and financial records too.
Jay, the FBI does not investigate sex crimes. LEO’s investigate. If it was so damn important that this be investigated, why didnt Frankenstein release that info to the FBI when THEY WERE doing background check and investigating his past? If they had, would Feinstein or the democrats released it give information like this?
https://www.ntd.tv/2018/09/23/friend-of-kavanaugh-accuser-denies-ever-being-at-a-party-with-kavanaugh-4th-person-to-rebut-claims/
CF’s story is disintegrating along with support for K.
And if it is so important to release tax records, its easy. When Pelosi gets control of the house, you start a petition in CA to demand she introduce legislation to require all federal elected and appointed officials to release tax returns for 10 years prior, both current and future. May not get through Senate this year, but when they get it ( if not 2018) then the process is started. I would wager a big amount there would be enough democrats casting negative votes to defeat it in the house. Too many skeletons.
I really do not care much about an FBI investigation.
I care more about the efforts to stall and delay and to avoid testifying.
But if we are going to pretend thiis iis crimiinal not political – then we do not only investigate the alleged crimes of SCOTUS nominees.
Junita Brodrick is prepared to testify about her rape by Clinton on Monday without pre-condiictions.
I would note that Ford provided WaPo with 4 names (aside from herself) who were at this “party” – every one of those has responded “what party ?”
Thus far one person has said the school was all abuzz about this the day after the party.
A couple of problems though – she was not at the party.
The party where the alleged attempted sexual assault occurred was during the summer – there was no “school the next day”
Anything is possible. Ford could just mis-remember some of the details – or everyone else could be mis-remembering.
That is the problem with 36 year old allegations –
II do not have problems with #metoo.
But all allegations are not equal.
The meme that all women should be believed is FALSE.
And quite obviously so.
Many factors go into considering an account credible.
The more of those an allegation has the better.
The more recent the better
The more facts the better.
The more corroboration the better
The more Independent allegations by others the better
The more confirmation by witnesses the better.
Dr. Ford falls very short on all of these and more.
All the condiitions regarding testimony – does not make her more credible.
If you want taxes and financial records – pass a law.
Though I would oppose.
My state diid that for all elected offiices – including unpaid ones, and the result was very quickly we could not get qualifiied people to fill these positions.
Few small business people or SMB executives are going to release their finances just to be a member of a planning commission that does not pay.
Those people who will – if your smart you do not want.
You keep pretending that your desire to know something makes it into a right.
Dave, they will never pass a law. They will never propose a law. 99.999% of the people on the left want this just like it is, a campaign issue.
“they will never pass a law”.
Probably not, but then I think such a law is a bad idea.
Regardless, you want to infringe on the rights of others – you need to pass a law.
You do not get to take by force whatever you want.
Dave, there is no right that would be infringed upon if they passed a law requiring making tax reports public. The right to privacy bans unreasonable search and seizure. It provides people
a right to privacy in certain places and protects them against invasion by the government.
If you run for office, the government is not being unreasonable. They are not searching anything or taking anything. They are not invading your privacy. Anyone running does so knowing this is a requirement. You are not required to run, you made the choice with full knowledge of the law.
The 4th amendment bars unreasonable search and seizure.
The right to privacy is not an enumerated right.
Nor is it based merely on the 4th amendment.
Even the left recognizes the right to privacy – griswald vs. conneticutt and of course Rowe.
Griswald and Rowe are generally considered progressive, and though they did not use that basis, you can easily support them via originalist reasoning – I would suggest reading the remarks of our founders regarding the 9th amendment as well as those of the 39th congress on the 14th amendment equal protection and priviledges and immunities clauses.
Lost in modern progressive and conservative constitutional reasoning – but not lost to libertarians and many modern natural rights federalists is that the founders REALLY meant what they said with the 9th amendment.
The reconstruction priviledges and iimmunities clause history is even more important – there is a priviledges and immunities clause in the constitution that was used by abolutionists to try to get slavery declared unconstitutional. The reconstruction priviledges and immunities clause has a ratification history that makes it crystal clear that its authors and ratifiers not only meant – all rights, including unenumerated rights, but meant many things that we do not typically consider rights – in the language of the framers and 39th congress immunities are a superset of rights – they are anything that the government can not infringe on – and again there is a history here. priviledges are what the left typically thinks of as government created rights – due process, trial by jury, ciitizenship. I would further note that while the application of the bill of rights to the states WAS ambiiguaous – the constitutions priviledges and immunities clause DID apply to the states, but according to early SCOTUS did NOT cover slavery, the 14th amendment priviledges and immuniities clause did cover slavery and appliies tot he states.
Just in case you think this is reaching Heller – the parent of modern 2nd amendment cases rests on the priviledges and immunities clause NOT the 2nd amendment (2A may/many not apply to the states) the authors of the 14th amendment made it absolutely clear than privileges and immunities meant the right of black men in the south to have guns.
One of the determining factors in heller iis the history of the 14th amendment not the 2nd.
Anyway the authors of the 14th amendment meant more than guns too.
I would further note that again going back to the framers and the 39th congress, “reasonableness” is just ONE of several criteria that government must meet before it can infringe on a right.
I have debated the “necescary and proper” clause which is in the constitution twice.
I have recently learned that I and the left have misread the N&P as compared to the ratiifiers meaning. While it did grant the govenrment the ability to do whatever was necescary and proper to impliment a power the government was granted int he constitution – ii.e. the way the courts have understood it. It also very intentionally granted govenrment ONLY what was necescary and proper to impliment a power – i.e. it was intended as a LIMIT,
The means that government chose to impliment a power had to be both “necescary and proper. ” This is similar to what the court calls strict scrutiny but only applies to the first amendment. It means that given many choices for implimenting a constitutional power the govenrment must chose that means that LEAST infringes on our rights.
Put differently our founders intended that all rights – including unenumerated rights could only be infringed on is strict scrutiny was met.
More clearly – an infringement on a right must be more than merely reasonable. It must be the least infringing means of implimenting a government power.
That is a very hard standard to meet.
Just to be clear. The framers themselves often violated the very principles they wrote into the constitution – the alien and sedition act was one of the worst infringments ever on the first amendment – while never declared unconstitutional, it was so embarrassing it only lasted a short time before being repealed, and everyone prosecuted under it released and pardoned.
But just because they did not do as they said, does not mean they were not loud and clear about what they meant.
Regardless, there is a completely different issue – the constituton specifies the requirements to be elected to any federal office. Those are the ONLY requirements. That is close to settled constitutional law. You can not add more requirements without amending the constitution.
You are not required to run for political office – but you do have the RIGHT to run for political office. You do not have a right to a job in the executive branch. You do not have a right to an appointment as a federal judge. But you have a RIGHT to run for any federal elective office for which you meet the constitutional requirements for.
Our founders would have called that a constitutional priviledge – a right created by the constitution – as opposed to an immunity – a natural right.
My prior post argued that our founders would have found financial disclosure to infringe on your rights, and a law requiring it as unconstitutional.
But even if you do not agree, the bare minimum requirement is a LAW.
I would also note that our campaign laws are much “trickier” than is typically considered.
The restrictions on candidates are to a very large extent conditioned on their accepting federal matching funds. A large portion of federal campaign legislation has no effect on a candidate that does not accept federal funding. This also factors into Citizens united.
The portions of McCain Feingold that were overruled in CU were those applying to PACs and 501C(3)’s – those are NOT candiidates or campaigns, and they do not receive federal matching funds so they can not be regulated in the same way those that do can.
Well, back to K. I would have bet money that there would be more women coming forward, just like I would have bet money that more women would come forward on Franken. I will be unsurprised if there are not more who come forward now as happened with Franken for example.
These men reflect the environments in which they lived and grew up, they are probably not particularly extreme examples, simply this is how many men (boys) in their parts of society behaved. Sounds to me like K was an affluent frat boy and behaved like one. Drinking and sexual escapades in school and college, its nothing exceptional. But its nothing fine either. Yes, he had affluenza, like our POTUS. I would not call him a monster, but I would not call him a fine man either. I find it ironic that he worked with Ken Starr as part of the Clinton investigation and played a lead role in writing the report that recommended impeaching Clinton. So, I would call him a king hypocrite. Bleh.
Find a better choice.
Grump: as I have said, I dont know if the first one happened or not, I have much more anger and distain for how the democrats hid the issue until the last minute.
As for the latest, I will base my thinking on the NY Times (heaven forbid). They refused to write the latest story because they could not verify anything the latest accuser said and everyone they talked to at this party said they knew nothing about it. When the Times wont bite, there is no meat to chew.
I suspect this will work. I suspect Corker, Flake et al will vote no now. The democrats win. America loses, not because we lose K, but in how we lost. A whole new play book is opened for both parties. And some think the Garland embargo and this is bad, the future will make this look like childs play.
And if this claim does not do it, I have little doubt Feinstein has another lined up to claim something else. Drip drip drip.
And while writing this, I was thinking. With the latest, a man waves his penis and its an issue. If Trump should nominate a female to replace K and after months of background checks, while in the end stage of confirmation, information and pictures emerge of her flashing her boobs rubbing up against the guys on a beach in Florida during spring break, would that be handled the same. (Personally, I would not want that, to guys thats not sexual misconduct, that’s a good time!!!!)
One of the problems with what is occurring is that as it becomes more obviously political – Rameirz openly admits coming forward because she fears Kavanaugh will overturn Rowe, and also openly admits her recollection is bad.
Ford allegation gets weaker with time – nothing about it has been verified.
My point is that it is possible to make unprovable allegations against anyone.
At some point you must decide what constitutes a strong enough allegation that you can rely on it. If you make that point too weak, you will not be able to confirm anyone to any position where there is political oppositition.
You have effectively given the other party a veto whenever they can come up with weak allegations.
The solution to this kind of SCOTUS nomination antagonism is to change the required confirmation approval to a two thirds agreement vote.
That would radically alter the court from its traditional Liberal-Conservative bias to a less political more MODERATE court because it would eliminate ultra liberals or conservative from being appointed, and cross party agreement on vetting would require the president to make reasonable choices for appointment.
Also we need to have term limits for SCOTUS judges, 16 to 20 years max.
Jay, I agree.
Good idea
Never happen
Had Senate majority rule
Reid Changed Rules to simple majority.
If 60 was eliminated, how can we get 67?
But I like your thinking.
Yep, that would be a fine idea. At least it should be 60. Something to dream about. By the time people get to the top in politics they are dreaming about absolutely winning, not finding a moderate solution. And their bases, likewise, they dream of an ultimate complete victory.
We can wait and see how events turn out, personally I think its likely that K will turn out to have done these things and more. It is not surprising that people don’t remember specific “parties” they went to 30 years ago. And quite a few people who were at such parties with Judge or K are probably now freaking out and wondering what they should say when someone calls to ask them what they remember, because they themselves are about to get revealed. Why should those people confess to having witnessed, at the least, these attacks? Lots of people would not to protect themselves and their reputations and their families.
Any witness who saw or remembers these things, AND their family, is going to be exposed to the hell too, the media, the loss of privacy, the possible guilt by association, and even death threats. There are many, many reasons to deny knowledge of being there if and when K took his pecker out, not even counting simply not remembering a day in life from 30 years back when drunk.
I believed Broaderick. I believed the women who outed Franken. In general, unless they are disturbed, I believe the women who out public figures, they are exposing themselves to hell, and not so they can be “left wing celebrities.” They have families, ideologically driven fanatics can be cruel and unpredictable. No, they are not just making these things up.
There are enough pieces of evidence, for example, that former girl friend of Judge’s who says he told her about his past alcohol and sex party life, to make this quite believable to me. Perhaps it all falls apart in the next few days. I bet it doesn’t. Little by little men who were molested by their priests come forward, and almost no one disbelieves them. The same should apply here.
My thoughts on further nominations. You have to be a graduate of Liberty University or BYU. May not solve all the problems, but many. I know from my kids conversations, my son (App St) and my two daughters (ECU) may never get past the democrats sliming for past college transgressions. And I know I would never accept a nomination. I went to too many parties in college I dont remember. What did I do at those?
I have never in my life done the things Kavanaugh is alleged to have done.
I have never done anything that I think would disqualify me from any job.
At the same time there is no way I can guarantee that someone will not accuse me of things I have not done. and that iif they do I will be able to disprove them.
I can not document what I did every weekend in 1983.
I have never forced myself on a women in my life. But I can not tell you every woman I was alone with for a few minutes in 1983.
I do not even remember the names of several of my college roommates – people who I lived with for 6 months. I do not remember the names of most of the people in my major class in college.
I do not consider the Rameirz allegation to be in anyway credible.
Implicating Kavanaugh requires beleiving admitted hearsay from someoen admittedly drunk off her ass. No one – including Rameirz actually places Kavanaugh at this “party” .
I would agree that if Kavanaugh did these things – more women will ultimately come forward. Eventually we will get a credible story. Thus far we have not.
Everything is 35 years ago. Everything is vague and unproveable.
If Kavanaugh is a Bill Cosby – then he did not stop in 1983.
But the converse is also true – absent the emergence of a credible allegation – and Ford and Rameirz are not credible that makes it much more likely this is a political hit job.
No it is not surprising that people do not remeber specifics about parties 30 years ago.
It is entirely possible that Ford is completely accurate and everyone else has forgotten or is lying. But that is unlikely.
And this is the reason we tend to place little credibility on 35 year old claims.
So much is forgoten it is impossible to know the truth – and we do not need people to lie to be unable to tell what the truth is.
That said the odds that everyone else completely forgot about these partiies. – that there is no evidence of Kavanaugh socializing wiith any of these people except Judge, and that the only corroboration we have for a single detail of either sotry is a few people who say they beleive ford or Rameirz.
It is far more likely that Rameirz and Ford’s recollections are in error than everyone else has forgotten or is lying.
Your argument that many of these “wiitnesses” might not wish to get involved has merit.
But it is still speculation – and dangerous speculation. These peopel could get subpeonad or questioned by the FBI. If they are caught in a misrepresentation they could be in trouble.
There is no certainty that “not recalling” will keep you out of the limelight or trouble.
Further both Rameiz and Ford have openly admitted that they came forward NOT because of what happened to them, but because of concern that Kavanaugh would overturn Rowe.
That too is a reason to color your recollections.
Anyone identified by Kavanaugh, Ford or Rameirz as a potential witness is going to get hounded by the press – regardless of what they say.
There can be no “I beleive women who out public figures” rule – just as there can not be the converse rule. Each case must be evaluated on its merits.
The women making allegations against Clinton are ultimately mostly beleivable because there is evidence, because there is a pattern over years, because witnesses did come forward. The same regarding Cosby, and Weinstein and Moore, and Franken.
An allegation is neither true nor false merely because it is made.
I will rend to agree with you that the standard of proof regarding a public figure should be low – and I have argued that already.
At the same time we can not turn any allegation against a public figure into a veto.
And that is what is occuring
Grump – something like 40% of the allegations against priests have been found to be unfounded – often provably false.
You do not hear that very much – because the argument “only 60% of accused priests are child molesters” is just not a really good argument.
There is alot of evidence that many of the claims – particularly the late claims, after it is clear there is going to be a monetary settlement, are merely attempts to get to a pay day.
It does not matter what the allegation is.
There are ALWAYS honest decent people making true allegations who are going to br brutalized for it.
And there are ALWAYS crooks and liars making false allegations who are looking for revenge, political goals or money.
I do not know whether Kavanaugh had a past alcohol problem – or how large that was. Judge has admitted to one.
I do not think a long past alcohol problem is a basis to vote against Kavanaugh – but you are free to differ
I do not know what Kavanaugh’s level of sexual activity was in the early 80’s.
Again – absent evidence of actual serious misonduct they would not disqualify him.
I do not think the Rameirz allegation is credible. And I am really reluctant to trust the details of someone who admitts they were falling down drunk at the time and did not personally know if Kavanaugh was present.
All that said, minor changes to the details result in something that I do not wish to hear about but is not diisqualifying. The same regarding Fords claim.
How much of Ford’s story would you have to change to come up with something that was not misconduct ?
What is Ford was flirting with Kavanaugh and they kissed and started fondling, and she said no, and he stopped ?
My point is these stories are 35 years old and must be perfectly correct in their details to be serious misconduct.
Oh, we have all done Something. Once upon a time this young lady and I were face sucking and grabassing and we were both pretty drunk, not because I made her drunk but we had been to some gathering. And then her roommate flew out of her room and dragged her away for the night. I was some disappointed.
A rock band I lived with and played with in the woods of NJ was quite a popular place for groupie types to hang out at and you can guess how that went.
But I did not have a long history (actually any history) of getting women drunk and jumping on them or exposing myself at parties, etc.
I think there is a difference. And, I am not trying to get on the SC, nor did I write the report recommending an impeachment over a BJ with an intern. As Dave says there is no right to be a supreme court justice. Better be a pretty boring guy (or gal) before accepting the invite.
I am not going to shed any tears for anyone of any party or ideology who gets his comeuppance for real predatory behavior that falls under criminal acts. I actually think most people would pass the test of not having committed a sex crime, but I have my doubts about whether most politicians or powerful people would.
Grump, like I said earlier, I dont know if he did or not. I have serious doubts on the second one since there were others there who remembered party, but not this happening. That was why NY Times would not publish
Why are we not debating Feinstein and her holding this until the last minute? That is total bull shit! By either party. I dont like someone like the Yale student coming forward at the last minute, but it is the responsibility of elected officials in cases like this to share it when they receive it, not 5 days before the vote. And if CF or her arrorney gave it to Feinstein with the stpulation that it could not be shared, then Feinstein should have told them up front she could not do that.
Both parties are a bunch of assholes that need to be replaced, butvAmericans are too complacent to make a change. They blindly accept this is the way its always been done and walk the plank with the other ignorant souls.
I don’t think Feinstein intentionally held releasing the letter until the last minute.
I think she released it as a last resort …
I don’t think she wanted to dive into this rabbit hole.
I think, therefore I am… usually correct. 😏
Jay “I think, therefore I am… usually correct. 😏”
Are you selling yourself short??😊😊😊😀
Seriously, if shedid nit want to go down that rabbit hole, I would think getting Grassley involved would have covered her behind and together they could have done what was required.
Something just does not add up for me. But what do I know?
I am not sure Feinstein was personally responsible.
Regardless the solution to not wanting to go down the rabbit hole is easy – DONT.
Saying you do not want to do something and then doing it, is lying.
Sure you did not want to – but you also wanted to, and ultimately you wanted to more than you did not.
You are responsible for your choices, no matter how much you wring your hands in angst.
I would agree, but that is what happens when you have no actual principles or moral center and where the ends justifies the means.
You can want to do what is right, but in the end you are unable to resist doing somethiing wrong for what you beleive is a good cause.
There is no allegation that Kavanaugh got women drunk.
Each of these allegations involves drinking – by everyone.
but no one has alleged they were forced to drink or ruffiied.
Ford’s allegation is that she was groped.
Ramierz’s allegation is weird – apparently there were a bunck of fake penis’s at this party.
But she knows that one of the penises she encountered was real.
And that penis was Kavanaughs – because someone else at the party told her it was.
I have never been to a party with fake penis’s or exposed real ones.
At this point I am far less concerned about Kavanaugh than the fact that the allegations being used could be made of anyone.
The standard has become that you can preclude a nomination by presenting vague antique allegations that can not be positively disproven.
Agree, Jay.
“Why are we not debating Feinstein and her holding this until the last minute?”
Because I knew if I stuck my nose into it I would find something inconclusive like this (and yep, I did):
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-democrats-waited-coming-forward-kavanaugh-accusations-2018-9
To republicans and their sympathizers its completely obvious that this was a dirty trick, period, the only thing it could possibly be. To me, its not so obvious. You may rule out the possibility that Feinstein did this with anything other than the worst intentions, I am not convinced on that idea, there are other possible explanations and I am not a mind reader. Feinstein is no hero of mine and I have no love of the dem party so…
OK so now we have s decent conversation going. I read this at the beginning of this whole mess.
She may, and most likely, did not do this for the worst intentions. But even worst intentions could not result in a worse outcome. Once again politicians have found something to further divide us based on the current outcome. Is this what we want? Had this been handled differently, he may have withdrawn for personal reasons and not have been drug through the mud along with CF.
But given this info, if you put the country first, there were many ways to get this investigated.
1. Once CF shared this info, it could have been investigated by the FBI. They could have hand picked one agent to investigate and if it were leaked, they would have known the source.
2. She alone could have informed K about this and discussed it in private.
3. All on the judiciary could have been informed and Grassley and Feinstein could have worked out a plan to investigate.
4. Once the investigation was complete, the bombshell could have occurred with Grassley or Feinstein opening questions to begin with starting with this topic and got it out of the way.
I know it is hard to accept the GOP position that this is all a planned black balling of K, but I can accept that position when all the timeline and possible decisions are layed out.
I dont care if K is confirmed or not. There are others, even more conservative that can get confirmed. I view K as closer to Kennedy while Amy Barrett is much closer to Scalia in beliefs. And nominating a woman would just about close the door on sexual abuse short of child molestation.
Ron: “There are others, even more conservative that can get confirmed.”
But we don’t want another conservative on the court now.
By ‘we’ I mean a majority of Americans who are NOT Republican or Conservative .
And the number who identify as conservative or Republican is shrinking.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/new-survey-young-staying-liberal-conservatives-dying-off.html
It’s WRONG to shove another life time conservative Justice onto the court now.
The court will be skewed improperly to the right when the nation will be 70% more to the left.
Wait for the midterms to provide a check and balance for approval of another more moderate member of SCOTUS.
Jay, “Wait for the midterms to provide a check and balance for approval of another more moderate member of SCOTUS.”
What good is that going to do? Are you expecting a Democrat senate? If so that just solidifies the GOP thinking about Feinsteins Hail Mary. Delay, delay, delay, then “Garland” any future Trump pick.
A friend of mine came up with a great idea. 2/3rd vote required, the president within 90 days of beginning term submits 3 names for future SCOTUS appointments, those are vetted, they are reviewed by the senate and all three confirmed or denied. If one is denied, another is placeed in the “hat”. When an opening occurs, if it does, the names are placed in a hat and one is drawn and that is the one placed on the Supreme court without any further ado. Next opening one of the remaining two is drawn. Never happen but it sounds good to me.
I do not want another conservative.
I want a justice who will return us to the rule of law.
I have been somewhat ambivalent about Kavanaugh.
But as I have learned more it seems likely that he is such a person.
I would go further – regardless of what we want.
We NEED justices who wiil restore the rule of law.
Justices who will read the law and constitutiion as they are written.
It is the role of the executive and legislature to change the law or constitution.
The courts should not and can not ethically set policy.
The courts should not be “conservative, progressive or moderate”.
They should rule as required by the constitution and the law.
Wiithout politics entering in.
That is hard and no justice does that perfectly.
But many of the “conservative” justices try.
Those on the left give us the rule of man, not law – lawlessness.
Dave, “I do not want another conservative.
I want a justice who will return us to the rule of law.”
You have a choice. Conservative or activist, make the law. Look at the ACA ruling for who did what, when.
I absolutely want a judicial activist.
The “activist” argument is a false meme of republicans.
I want a judge that will follow the constitution as written – striking down unconstitutiional laws.
Heller, Carpenter, CU, Janus are all ACTIVIST decisions.
They all restored the rule of law.
If the nation wants something diifferent from the law and constitution as it currently is – they are free to change ether the law or constitution
Changing the law or constitution is highly likely to compel a so called conservative justice to abide by that new law or constitution. It is unliikely to have any effect on those on the left.
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream – the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”
.
There are only two ways the FBI can investigate this.
As a crime – which in both of these instances are beyond the statute of limitations and outside the FBI’s jurisdiction.
As part of Kavanaugh’s background check.
Which is not what the Democrats are seeking.
Regardless, there is not much of a thing such as a “plan to investigate”.
I do not thiink this was Planned in the sense that Ford and Fienstein intended this fromt he begining.
I do think it was planned in the sense that once enough democrats knew it was going to get out and be used. I do not think Democrats wanted an investigatiion – certainly not for any purpose beyond delay.
It is pretty easy to see how an investigation of this is going to go.
Havanaguh denies it, Ford and Remeirz allege acts. There is no actual evidence,
There is no one who claims to have been present besides CF and Rameriz at either event.
There are people who regard CF and Rameirz as truthful.
That is it. That is all that is going to come out.
If this goes on long enough, we will likely get a few more people saying Kavanaugh did something some time some where.
But absent a claim that amounts to more than an allegation there is unlikely to be much more.
It is virtually impossible to prove a negative.
The left has come up with a strategy that if successful this time will ALWAYS work.
K appears to be a federalist – he is not like either Kenedy or Scalia. He is more like Gorsuch.
Except that he has been much more active politically.
I am disturbed by his oppinions on national security, but in most other areas involving individual rights he appears better than anyone on the court except Gorsuch.
Grump – the article you linked to is useless.
It is all about the THOUGHTS and FEELINGS of Democrats – not actions.
They THOUGHT about investigating for 3 months – but did not.
They wanted to protect Ford’s anonymity – but in the end did not.
It provides absolutely no reasonable explanation for the conduct of house and senate democrats.
I can make up rationalizations for anything – that is all this is.
In the end this is pretty simple. If the provided reasons for not doing anything were good enough in july and august, they were good enough in September.
If they were not good enough in september – they were not good enough in july and august.
The real argument in the article is that in July and august democrats were not desparate. In September they were.
Of course this was a “dirty trick” – just as not voting on Garland was.
That is not the question. The question is whether it is legitimate.
No one assassinated Merrit Garland’s character.
One of the big concerns about this particular tactic is that there is no defense against it.
The allegations need not be true.
All you need to stop any appointment is someone to come forward with a vauge allegation that can not be disporven.
There are two major things that I think drove democrats to this:
First fear that Rowe will be overturned.
I have zero doubt that Rowe will be modified – and frankly iit should be.
But we are not going to ban abortions.
The second is that Democratic senate candidates voting against Kavanaugh would lose votes in their states.
At some point this descended into trench warfare based on intractable malice between the parties and their supporters. When did we turn the corner? Nixon? Clinton, W? Obama? trump? Or was it FDR? Or Pierce and Buchanan? Jackson/Adams in 1824? Jefferson/Adams in 1800? At some point in my lifetime politics was not the loveless annihilation it is today I am sure of that. Or am I being nostalgic? Dave will tell me I am being nostalgic and today is no worse than other times in my life.
I think it all depends on your age if it is worse or the same or better. I think you and Dave could both be right depending on the era. So going back to Johnson, I don’t know if we actually know how good or bad the politics were back then. When it is a proven fact that he got names off grave markers to qualify for some elections and that was not made an issue, it appears things are worse today Kennedy and Marilyn and the press knew and did not report. Things now are much worse. Nixon and impeachment. Today could be better, but if not that, the same. Ronald Reagan, things are much worse. Clinton, ist part of administration, today is worse until Monica popped up. Bush, worse for him than predecessors, but much better than now. Obama, I would rate about the same in his second term, but better than now in his first. But Obama’s was when the internet really began to take hold and untruths circulated. Then came twitter and anyone could say anything and it was true. Right?
Looking at past administrations, one can say communication was the key. Did the president communicate with the congressional leadership or did the president keep arms length from congress. Two polar different administrations was Reagan and Obama. Reagan enjoyed meetings with Tip, Obama would not meet with Nancy or Harry unless absolutely necessary. Communication is key to any good relationship as long as it is positive communication, unlike Trumps.
The problem with all of this now is on one hand people are trying to teach kids to not bully others, but all the kids see from the adults is bullying, especially in politics. How can parents teach kids the value to true statements when in civics class(do they have that now), how can in all decency can the teacher asked kids to look at the political news and make reports to the class. I sure as hell would not ask them to do that other than to report why stuff like that should not be happening.
We even get personal here at TNM and we are tame when it comes to that stuff.
Political differences have lead to violence since the founding.
But they become more severe the more power government has.
Are you unable to grasp that the parties are fighting over power ?
If you want to reduce the fighting, you must reduce the power.
I would agree that politics was not what it is today when we were much younger.
I will not agree that things were better.
I do not like this. But I prefer it to the past.
Something similar to that was the rule for over 200 years.
Of course for most of that time the opposing party would not vote down a nomination on an ideological basis.
FDR was able to shift the court pretty far to the left, very quickly because he threatened to pack the court, several justices resigned and republicans were not willing to filibuster supreme court nominations.
I would note that Kavanaugh is NOT by any reasonable definition of the word “extreme”.
Most of those on the left of the court at the moment are extreme.
The left spent 50 years packing the court. The right has spent the past 40 years trying to correct that, and appears to be on the verge of succeeding.
They are not suceeding in convertying the court into some rightwing extremist domain.
No one has nominated David Duke or Richard Spensor.
They are near succeeding in restoring the rule of law.
SCOTUS SHOULD be inherently conservative – not in the political sense, but in the sense that they would embrace change SLOWLY. Many politically conservatiive changes in the court over the past 50 years have been progressive in the sense that they were brought about without thought and rapidly.
The war on drugs – which has had nearly as much support from justices on the left as the right has resulted in the destruction of the 4th amendment.
Right now it is the CONSERVATIVE justices that are moving towards restoring the 4th amendment.
SCOTUS should not be about political ideology – not “conservative” not “progressive” not “moderate”.
It should be about “the rule of law” – the constitution as written, the law as written.
The “political” belongs to the legislature and executive. They write the law, they have the power to change the constitution.
I am not a big Roberts fan – but his “balls and strikes” analogy is pretty good.
The umpire does NOT define what constitutes a ball or strike – that decision is determined by those who write the rules of the game.
The umpire does decide whether a specific pitch is a ball or strike based on those rules.
If that umpire is influenced by their own preferences regarding who should win the game – that is unacceptable.
SCOTUS (and the courts) is not there to create the rules. It is their to determine whether specific actions conform to the rules.
That is not support of the left, right or center. It is supposed to be apolitical.
The fundimental problem is NOT that we need a more moderate court.
It is that we need to quit trying to use the court to change the constitution.
If you want to change the constitution – do so.
That process is difficult – and it should be.
There are all kinds of issues with the senate rules.
The filibuster has been a long standing tradition in the senate.
For most of US history a fillibuster ended when the Senator was exhausted or got what the wanted.
A single senator could hold up the senate for as long as they could stand.
Filibusters were rare until the 20th century.
Broader use started slowly in the 30th century and built through to the 50’s when southern senators used filibuster threats to stop civil rights legislation.
By the 50’s they was no need to actually filibuster only to threaten to do so to stop legislation.
In the 60’s the senate changed their rules to permit 60 senators to vote to end debate – providing the means to end debate.
It is at that point that 60 votes became a requirement in the senate.
I think we would be wise to return to real filibusters and no means to end debate.
But then the minority power would have to think seriously about when to use that power.
After months of democrats looking – as well as most of the media – Ramierz is all you have got ?
Have you Read Farrow’s article ? Even Rameirz does not think she was credible.
She was drunk off her ass at the time, does not really know who was present,
is not sure whether there were real penis’s or fake ones, and her only evidence regarding Kavanaugh is that someone said Kavanaugh’s name as he purportedly left.
The “support” for Ramierz is several people who say she is an honest person and would not lie.
Further she as well as Ford and myriads of democrats are now openly admitting that this is about Rowe. Ramierz states that she came forward because of Rowe.
Given that the entire ideology of the left is that the ends justifies the means – how is it that you can tell when anyone on the left is telling the truth ?
I doubt that Ford and Rameirz are lying – but that does not mean that we can trust what they provide as “the truth” – as evidence.
We can not get verification of a single detail of either of these accounts.
Ford does not know the date or the place of the party, everyone purportedly at it has denied any recollection of it. Kavanaugh has produced a calendar which includes other parties he attended that summer – but not this one.
Ford is now unsure that it happened during her 15th summer – maybe it was the following year.
This is the problem with 35 year old recollections.
It is pretty much certain at this point that Ford’s recollections are poor. That should not be surprising – this was 36 years ago.
To accept Ford’s claim regarding Kavanaugh we must conclude that Ford is correct about pretty much every detaiil she has provided – and EVERYONE ELSE who allegedly was their is wrong. That is possible, but unlikely.
Is Ford correct about the year ?
Is she correct about those who attended ? – if you are not sure she is, then how are you sure that Kavanaugh attended ?
Ford claims others were drinking heavily, but she had only 1 beer.
She was a 15yr old female – that means the effects of alcohol on her are greater than older, larger men. And why are we supposed to beleive that she had only one beer and others drank more heavily ? Maybe the reverse was true ?
Why are we to beleive the details about the alleged assault ?
If you are not sure sure was at the party why are you sure exactly what happened ?
Rather than an alleged sexual assault this easily could have been two drunk teens kissing,
And the male likely was not Kavanaugh.
I beleive Rameirz – meaning I beleive that she was at a party, got drunk off her ass, and remembers penis’s which she is not cure whether they were real or not. She does nto have a personal recollection of who was at this party. Her identification of Kavanaugh iis based on her recollection that someone else said his name.
As noted before, Kavanaugh has no right to be a supreme court justice.
But frankly this circus is getting ridiculous.
I have defended #metoo – when others here have attacked.
But converting allegations such as these into high profile charges that are a litmus test of ones value of women discredits women and #metoo.
I personally beleiive the overwhelming majority of #metoo allegations are true.
But all are not.
I would not be comfortable prosecuting the majority of them.
I would be comfortable with consequences such as the alleged perpetrators losing jobs or power for most of them.
35+ year old allegations with unverifiable details are at best entitled to beleiving that something bad happened to these women. They are not a basis for something else.
Dave: “I personally beleiive the overwhelming majority of #metoo allegations are true.
But all are not.”
How do we address #metoo when they appear to accept all public claims of sexual allegations without question.
#metoo is not a homogenous entity.
It is individuals expressing a common bond because they have been abused or harassed.
I believe I have written that, about 6 months after we were married – almost the same time these allegations regarding Kavanaugh took place my wife was brutally sexually assaulted for over 3 hours.
It is extremely rare that I hear of a more vicious assault. That is not intended to diminish what others have experienced.
In the years following I read nearly everything feminists wrote even close tot he subject. I have read Susan Brownmiller, and Andrea Dworkin, and Robin Morgan and others have written. I volunteered at a rape crisis center for a while. I have heard horrific stories from many women.
I have also heard lies. Not many. There are people who deliberately seek out the attention that victims receive – this is not unique to sexual assault. In some instances I have been fooled by some of them for a long time. There are also less malignant reasons for false claims.
Often but not always those who go public with big lies are caught. When this occurs it diminishes what has really happened to actual victims.
I do not think we will ever know what actually occured with Ford.
But I do know that most people will be certain that they do know, and many of those will decide that Ford has lied, and that women making these claims should not be trusted.
There is no difference between “all women should be beleived” and “no women should be beleived”. Both demand that you will not enquire too deeply to look at the facts.
I am extremely concerned about the blowback from this.
Kavanaugh may not reach the court, Democrats may do better in November, but there is an incredible amount of anger over this. There is a growing sense of injustice.
I would remind those on the left that Trump is the backlash against one form of political correctness.
Overall, I think #metoo has been incredibly eye opening. It has been particularly effectiive because so many who were exposed were on the left – I am not suggesting the left has a bigger problem than the right. But it did bring to the fore that sexism, and sexual harrassment do not have ideological boundariies – nor do racism or other forms of misconduct and discrimination.
But every high profile failed allegation harms myriads of real allegations.
#metoo can survive a few occasional liars, But the harm from failed high profile claims is much much larger. It is not even necescary that the claim is false – all that is necescary is that enough people disbeleive it.
A part of me hopes that someone comes forward with an actually irrefutable claim against Kavanaugh – all debate over Ramierz and Ford would become iinconseqential and harmless.
Absent that no matter what there are going to be alot of very angry people no matter what outcome this has, and many of them are going to be very dismissive of future claims.
How exactly is it you plan to find a candidate that can not possibly have allegations from 35 years ago that have no verifiable details ?
I guess Trump could pick a woman and hope that no democratic man steps forward claiming to be assaulted ?
I am sure you are correct that some people behave as Kavanagh purportedly behaved.
But nearly anyone can be alleged to have behaved that way. You have essentially claimed that a white male from a priviledged background can not be a supreme court justice – given that we have also established that a black man from a poor background can not be a supreme court justice according tot he left,
How exactly is it that you expect to confirm justices ?
As I said early – this is political. What is increasingly obvious is that it is not even about Kavanaugh or events 35 years ago. It is about delaying or preventing the confirmation of a supreme court justice.
Democrats are entitled to attempt to do so.
They are not entitled to be believed.
They are not entitled to succeed.
Kavanaugh wrote the opinion in the Starr Investigation that Starr could NOT indict Clinton.
That is purportedly why Trump selected him, and why democrats oppose him.
Kavanaugh’s role in the Clinton investigation demonstrates the hypocracy of the left – not Kavanaugh.
The shit is about to hit the fan with Rosenstein…
Trump should have fired The Weazel months ago and let his replacement deal with Rosenstein.
This will not go well for Trump, but Rosenstein should go also. Not because of his leading Mueller, but because firing Rosenstein provides Mueller with a witness ofbcertain things he knows while working at DOJ.
We’ll see just how dumb Trump might be. Could be just a call to rheam another ——–!
I do not think that Trump is going to fire Rosenstein – atleast not until after the election.
Then it is near certain.
But I strongly suspect Rosenstein is recusing or resigning.
I do not think he is a weasel. I think he is a “moderate”. But he is also wrong.
What appears to be the big issue for the moment is there are numerous high ranking witnesses to the converstation that Rosenstein had with McCabe that NYT recently reported.
Rosenstein is denying making those remarks.
The witnesses are staying Rosenstien absolutely made the remarks but they were sarcasm.
Ultimately it does not matter much even if they were sarcasm.
Dave “I do not think he is a weasel. I think he is a “moderate”. But he is also wrong.”
Weasel = Sessions
Sessions is not a moderate. Nor do I think he is a weasel.
I think he has great integrity.
But I think he is wrong, and he is a very poor Attorney General.
Dave, OK is am missing something here. You said ““I do not think he is a weasel. I think he is a “moderate”. But he is also wrong.”
Now you say “Sessions is not a moderate. Nor do I think he is a weasel.”
Both times you say he is not a weasel, which I believe he is, but once you say he is a moderate and now you say he is not.
??????????
Sessions != Rosenstein.
Rosenstein – moderate. Not Weasel
Sessions – not even close to moderate. Not weasel.
Both – wrong, and the wrong person for the job.
Apparently Rosenstein and Kelley discussed Rosenstein resigning over the weekend.
And Rosenstein had a 15minute call with Trump either Sunday or monday and is meeting with Trump on Thursday.
I think Rosensteins problems go much further than the recent NYT story.
Apparently he and McCabe had some very loud forceful disagreements lasting well into 2017 and there are myriads of witnesses and McCabe made memo’s.
Ultimately it does not matter what Rosenstein did or said.
Whether he likes it or not, he is a witness and even an active participant in matters that are being investigated.
At the bare minimum he must recuse himself from the mueller investigation as well as all investigations involving the conduct of the DOJ/FBI.
Many many people have pointed out that Rosenstein has had a conflict of interest for a long long time.
I actually believe that Rosenstein is a decent person – and relatively moderate.
I think he has seen himself as a sort of white night trying to mitigate BOTH sides in this.
But he has completely missed the fact that he is involved in it all – and that requires him to recuse himself.
It has also been alleged that he is the author of the NYT #resist Op-Ed.
If that is true – he must resign. If he does not and there is evidence he must be fired.
I would further note that Rosenstein has himself gotten to the point he is actually “obstructing justice”.
Trump has directed the DOJ/FBI to comply with the record requests of the house and senate.
Rosenstein was obligated to do so after that.
There is no priviledge depriving the house and senate access to government information – even the most sensitive and classifed independent of the president.
Even sources, means and methods are not law, are not formal priviledges.
They are not something that Rosenstein can assert independently of the president.
Congress has a poor reputation for protecting “sources, means and methods” – though they are obligated, like every other government employee to do so, and subject to prosecution if they do not.
Regardless, they have a constitutional right to nearly any information within the executive.
Rosenstein has been stalling and slow walking and that is outside his authority to do.
Yeah for a new 60% rule.
And Reps, remember Garland and think how you could have behaved better.
I will support requiring 60 Senators to do anything – including confirm a Supreme Court Justice.
But it must also then be true that 41 Senators have the power and authority to legitimately undo anything that has previously been done.
It is not really all that important exactly what the threshold is,
what is important is that all increases in power are permanent – no matter how badly the fail.
The beat goes on
https://twitter.com/peterkauffmann/status/1044384650767020033?s=21
What is it with people that can not see the damage they are doing? Why cant K understand this is going to contnue? How is this impacting him and his family?
I guess those that are power hungry cant let go.K needs to call a news conference to tell everyone he accepted the nomination, but did not sign up for character assination by lies and unsustantiated attacks that have had a negative impact on him and his family, therefore he is asking that his nomination be withdrawn now so President Trump can nominate another individual to be confirmed before the end of the currect congressional session. Then Trump should nominate Barrett who went through confirmation last November and get Grassley to fast track the hearings. Updating background check for less than a year should not take long, the judiciary already talked to her and not much new could come from further discussion.
Make Feinstein and Shume dig way down in their bag of tricks andshow America just how contemptible they are.
@ Ron, 10:43. We still don’t know, if and when anyone lied. However, the nomination looks almost dead.
The Dems did a “Garland” on K, and it appears to be working.
BTW, what’s so bad about eight SCs? Oh, I know, it MAY cost Rep votes. But, then again, maybe the true supporters of Trump will take it as a rallying call and boost the vote.
Who knows, but maybe Ron’s scenario where Trump tells K to gracefully (ha) exit “for the good of the country”, might come to pass.
Anyway, one more “lying women” and it’s curtains.
I would have thought the nomination is dead too.
But from what I am reading – even the uncommitted democrats have not backed away.
And regardless of what else you might read this has made a very large number of republican voters very very angry.
Further Republicans are behaving as if they have votes to pass this, or atleast as if getting to a vote and having Kavanaugh voted down is in their political best interests.
This is not the same as Garland. Garland did not have his character assassinated.
No one think Merit Garland is a serial rapist.
There is no “May” with respect to Republican votes.
The best way to assure there will be a blue wave in November is for congressional republicans to piss off the republican base – and they are in significant danger of doing so.
Further SCOTUS is NOT a Trump issue, it is a HUGE republican base issue.
One of the most important factors in Trump’s election was his list of 25 potential SCOTUS nominees and his commitment to pick from that list.
There are many many republicans – as well as alot of libertarians who think that the single most important thing Trump has done iis flood the judiciary with federalist judges.
At the current rate Trump may appoint nearly as many judges by the end of his first term as Obama did in 8 years. McConnell and republicans have prioritized the confirmation of judges above legislation.
Apparently even after these allegations Red State Democrats remain unwilling to committ to voting against Kavanaugh. I expect in the end they will. but their unwillingness to express that thus far should speak volumes regarding their fear of voters.
DD – the rameriiz story was a brief flash – it has fizzled.
That should be self evident from the fact that no one – not democrats or republicans wants her to testify. Whatever might have actually happened to her – even SHE does not know that Kavanaugh was present much less an actor. Actually read her story.
Gutfield suggested democrats should be carefull what they wish for.
Trump could replace Kavanaugh with Barrett. Who apparently makes Kavanaugh look liberal.
If the left is worried about Rowe, a catholic female with 7 kids should terrify them.
And should Kavanaugh fail to get confiirmed Republicans have plenty of time before the next term to confirm Barrett – presuming they somehow lose the senate, which isi still expected to go +1 for republiicans.
““I went to an all-boys Catholic high school, a Jesuit high school where I was focused on academics and athletics, going to church every Sunday at Little Flower, working on my service projects and friendship,” he told Fox News host Martha MacCallum.”
Ah, I seeeee. Probably had daily phone chats with Mother Teresa during those years as well?
““I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone. I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter.”
“Through all these years that were in question, you were a virgin?” MacCallum clarified.
“That’s correct,” he said, adding that he did not have sex until “many years after” college”
Wow, really?
Now, who’s story has holes in it?
“In a 2015 speech at Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law, Kavanaugh told the audience “what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep,” adding “that’s been a good thing for all of us, I think.””
But, alas, no.
What a chameleon.
I believe the women. K is not fit to sit on the SC.
Logic clearly is not your forte.
Nothing in Kavanaugh’s remarks contradicts itself.
Do you think that “what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep,” somehow means I screwed everything that moved ?
To reach the conclusions you wish to you not only must interpret absolutely all of the ambiguity in Fords statement against Kavanaugh, but also all ambiguity in any of Kavanaugh’s remarks against kavanaugh.
The likelyhood of all ambiguity falling one way is near zero.
With respect to Ford there are several possibilities:
She is accurately describing what happened
She is accurately describing what she felt at the time.
She is accurately describing what she now thinks she felt at the time
She is lying.
If these and several other possible choices only ONE actually implicate Kavanaugh.
Ad hominem.
The holes in k’s story of being an innocent are becoming a chasm. Not seeing that requires ideologically driven blindness. One can hardly be logical if they discard all the facts that show k to be telling howling lies about his actions at school and college.
Now, the right sees this as a left wing campaign to assinate the character of a fine man. All they needed to do was find someone of actually fine character. Gorsuch passed that test, others can too. K does not.
What part is “ad hominem”.
It is NOT Kavanaugh’s obligation to prove innocence.
It is his accusers to prove the truth of their remark’s.
Your link to the tweet by Roache has little to no value – that is not ad hominem it is a fact.
Mr. Roach openly states he was Kavanaugh’s roommate for 6 month’s and had very little interaction with him during that time.
He then states other things that he could not have first hand knowledge of unless his first statement is false.
This has nothing to do with ideology. This has to do with logic and you and Mr. Roache have failed.
The standard of proof required to vote against a SCOTUS appointment is low. We do not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But reducing the standard of proof, does not mean abandoning logic and reason.
Mr. Roache is lying – it is that simple. It is likely not a big lie. The statement he has made contradicts itself. Both clauses can not be true. And that ignores the fact that Roach makes a claim about Kavanaugh’s drinking that really has no meaning – no reference – heavy compared to what ? And that ignores the fact that Whether Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker as a student iis completely independent of whether he engaged in sexual assault – and in fact likely at odds with it.
I have no idea what Kavanaugh’s drinking in college was like – nor do you.
Mr. Roache – if we accept his remarks about his relationship to Kavanaugh does not either, Regardless, he has not provided any reason to accept what he has said or any ability to gauge scale.
He has claimed to know things but not provided any basis for that knowledge.
And all that ignores the fact that if Kavanaugh actually was a heavy drinker that REDUCES the likelyhood he engaged in sexual assault. That would be more likely if he was a light drinker.
Put simply Mr. Roache adds nothing to the evidence regarding Kavanaugh.
The same is true of Rameiz.
Presuming that her description of the event is accurate – she admittedly was drunk to the point of near blackout and admits to being extremely unsure about pretty much everything.
The one thing she claims to be certain of is that SOME ELSE identified the person whose pensis she may or may not have come in contact with as Kavanaugh.
Just to be clear – this is not even hearsay – we do not even know who the person who purportedly 35 years ago said Brett Kavanaugh’s name is.
Ford has provided few facts that can still be verified. Prominent among those are the identity of the other 4 people present at this party. Every single person she has identified has denied that this party ever occured.
It is increasingly becoming likely that these 5 people did not all socialize with each other, as each of them has either denied a relationship with Kavanaugh or denied a relationship with Ford.
What is the fundimental difference between Gorsuch and Kavanaugh with regard to Character ?
Prior to being nominated as a supreme court justice neither had ever had allegations such as this made against them.
About the only difference of consequence between them is that Gorsuch replaced Scalia and therefore did not change the ideological balance of the court. While Kavanaugh replaces Kenedy who was not consistent and if Kavanaugh is the court will shift.
Further both Ford and Rameirz have made clear – they did not come forward because Kavanaugh is a sexual predator, but because of their fear that Rowe would be overturned.
Neither have come forward in past hearings. They did not care that Kavanaugh was on the most prestigious court of appeals in the US. II am not sure they even care that he is on the supreme court. They only care that he might overturn Rowe.
It is BTW highly unlikely that Kavanaugh would overturn Rowe.
Regardless, it is always possible to make egregious false claims about another persons character. The fact that other people make such claims does not make them true or mean that your are not of the highest character.
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the accuser. You seem to forget that entirely.
We do not as an example know that every detail of Paula Jones, or Jaunita Brodrick, or Kathleen Wiley’s stories are true – but we do know that everything we can check is. That many of them told others at the time of the events. and that Bill Clinton’s claim’s have been refuted. That he has been caught lying, Further we have third parties – such as Arkansas State police officers who confirm many details. Further Clinton has continued the same conduct – from the past through the present.
You are expecting us all to beleive that for 2 years between HS and College Kavanagh was a perve and that he subsequently completely stopped.
There are myriads of women who have socialized and worked with Kavanaugh over decades who have stated that Kavanaugh has treated them with respect.
This has all the hallmarks of politically motivated character assassination.
I expect that you will find that Republiicans are going to push through a vote on Kavanaugh quickly.
that if he is not confirmed, Trump will nominate a replacement near immediately.
It will likely be Amy Barrett and we will get to see how the left manages that.
In my judgement as well as many others – Kavanaugh is more federalist, and less conservative, than Barrett.
We will get to see the left try to attack the character of a devout catholic and a mother of 7.
Of course the left already went after her character. Apparently believing in god is a character flaw to the left.
If you want the rest of us to beleive the issue really is character – that is more plausible when you do not find absolutely everyone’s character deeply flawed often by the very things many of us see as signs of good character.
The ‘virgin’ story: I’m betting that’s what he told his wife, and with her at his side at the Fox interview, he’s not about to back out of that tale.
You constantly presume to know what iis in other peoples heads or things that we have absolutely no evidence of.
Kavanaugh has not to my knowledge said that the only women he has ever been with is his wife. that would be much simpler to state than what he did say.
What he has said is that he was a virgin during the period of these allegations.
That does not surprise me. A significant portion of us do not become sexualy active until College. It is particularly common for nerds.
The only women I have ever been with is my wife.
Dave, These issues, metoo and the qualifications to be on the SC, have been a rare area of at least some agreement between you and I. You have said quite a few things about this situation I actually think are sensible.
I am sure we are now all hooked into reading pretty much everything that is written about this, and I would be very surprised if you have not read all that is out there about K’s wild side. Quite a lot of that is coming from believable people under believable circumstances. K seems to be a Jekyll and Hyde character, mild when sober, but frequently not sober, at least in his formative years, and not mild and according to at least two reputable women, capable of sexual assault. It is not an easy thing to find people who were around him at that time who are going to admit what that culture really was, first they themselves may be just as bad, second they may be thrilled that their old frat buddy was nominated for the SC. Lacking those reasons, people may not wish to be suddenly thrust into the cauldron of national politics, when they could could just avoid the issue by saying they remember nothing. Nevertheless, enough of his cohort Have been found who were willing to say something to pull the plug on his PR campaign.
OK, perhaps he is trapped now, he cannot come out and disappoint his wife and others by being candid. But it seems very clear that he was exactly the rich obnoxious frat boy crossing lines at Yale and at his prep school, from a background of getting away with a lot of disgusting things without consequences. He may have a fine legal mind, but his character seems to have been molded precisely by being in the milieu he was in. The results are that he is not the man who should be on the nation’s highest court for decades. I think you have actually said very well yourself that there should be a very high standard and there is no right to sit on the SC.
Let trump find another Gorsuch, he/she will get in.
In the future people with sketchy histories may think twice about accepting a nomination, that is a Good thing. As well in the future men who have ambitions for their life may be more thoughtful about their behaviours towards women, also a Good thing.
Grump;
I think that we agree on alot. With respect to this.
I would also specifically note – some of this just plain does not have an answer – and likely never will.
S.E. Cupp made an excellent statement on CNN. Something to the effect of it is near certain that we are never going to know whether something actually happened.
Those of us that Beleive Ford completely – will be able to continue to do so – as no evidience will ever exist that will be able to falsiify our beleif. A the same time those who beleive Kavanaugh did not do this – will be able to contiinue to do so – as no evidence will ever exist to falsify that beleif.
We would all like to exist in a world where we can find an absolute answer to questions like this.
I have said – and continue to do so, that there is no right to be a supreme court justice.
I am ambivalent to leaning slightly in Kavanaugh’s favor if the issue is purely legal theory.
And I would suggest those on the left seriously think about the fact that they are not likely to do better.
If Kavanaugh is not confirmed, it is near certain that Trump will put up someone like Barrett nearly immediately, and Republicans will fast track that confirmation – particularly if they lose the Senate in Nov.
I do not think that the objective of Democrats is to completely tank Kavanaugh. It is to prevent his being confirmed by the current congress in the hope that Democrats will take the Senate in November.
I am deeply concerned that the strategy of the left is the politics by character assassination.
Given the overall conduct of the left over the past decade – this is NOT something particularly unique to Kavanaugh.
It is an incredibly dangerous and destructive political strategy.
Your argument that we should find another Gorsuch would be quite interestiing.
Its fundimental flaw is that – it would have been easy to do exactly this to Gorsuch.
Look at all the purported evidence that you have to cite about Kavanaugh’s purported Wild Side.
First we have an alleged attempted sexual assualt, where there is not a single potentially confirmable fact that has been veriified.
We do not know what home this took place in, what year it occured, what Ford or Kavanaugh’s age was.
We do know very few things – Ford says it was over summer, and she identifies 4 other people besides herself she claims were there. All 4 of the other people who were there claim not merely this purported party never happened – but that the 4 people that Ford identified did not ever socialize as a group – that each has not ever met atleast one of the others.
You can create a scenario like this about ANYONE.
If you are not required to have atleast some verifiable facts to be credible you can make any random allegation of anything you wish, and expect it to stick.
The strongest “evidence” we have regarding Ford is character witnesses who say she would not lie. Great – but that requires 4 other people several of whom have equally strong or better character references to be lying.
Next we jump to Rameirz. She ADMITTEDLY has no first hand knowledge that Kavanaugh was even present – actually read her story. She can not identify Kavanaugh as present on her own. Her identification of Kavanaugh iis based on hearsay.
It is not necescary to address the rest of her story as she can not credibly implicate Kavanaugh – but several of the other people who she claims were at this party deny that they were.
And again what we have is several people claiming that Ramierz would not lie – and again the assertion is that several other people are lying.
Then we have the Roche claim. Which essentially boils down to: We roomed together for 6 months. Had almost no real relationship, did not socialize together – but I still know all about his social life at the time – No Mr. Roach does not.
Lastly we have this Avenattii claim. The fact that it is coming from Avenatti should be enough to discard it. But examining the claim further, we have Swetnick claiming that something very bad happened to her – other people, not Kavanaugh gang raped her, but that Kavanaugh is responsible because he spiked the punch. How do we know that ?
I would further note that Swetnick’s claim on face value requires ALOT of people to know about this. Kavanaugh purportedly spiked the punch at MULTIPLE parties according to her, she seems to think he used Qualudes which suggests she has been following the Cosby Trial. Regardless, her story if true means there are MANY victims, and MANY witnesses,
None have ever come forward before. Where are they ?
I do not know what the truth is. But I know that there is not an allegation that has been made thus far that could not be made about absolutely anyone with the same amount of evidence.
I do not wish to beleive that Kavanaugh is this monster he is painted as.
Nor do I wish to beleive that so many people – many of them democrats, would lie to cover for hm.
I also do not wish to beleive that this many people would concoct lies about what happened 35 years ago.
Regardless, the standard of proof to reject an appointment is quite low.
Under some ciiricumstances it can be as simple as the credibility of the witnesses.
Despiite the fact that Clarence Thomas has been one of the more libertarianish SCOTUS Justices – I opposed his confirmation, and still beleive Anita Hill.
To a large extent that devolved to Hill’s credibility vs. Thomases.
But the events were a few years not almost 4 decades old. Hill was consistent in her story, the incidents were unfortunately entirely between them – so there were no witnesses, but she did tell a few people at the time what was happening. To beleive that Hill was lying you had to beleive that several others were lying or that she was lying several years before when she had privately told them.
With respect to Kavanaugh – you do not have to discount the testimony of the alleged victims much at all. You can mostly beleive them. Something bad happened to Ford 35 years ago, but what and with whom is unknown. It iis quite plausiible that Ms. Ford does not recall who diid this too her 35 years ago (if it even happened).
With respect to Rameirz, all that is necescary is to beleive that she mis remembers being told that Kavanaugh was present.
With respect to Stenwick all that is necescary is to beleiive she has no first hand knowledge about whether and who spiked the punch.
We have no credible evidence of Kavanaugh’s drinking from the 80’s.
What you claim is possible, but we have nothing thus far that credibly proves anything.
Mike Judge has admitted to serious drinking problems from time.
Actually establish that Kavanaugh has/had a drinking problem – credibly.
If he did at this time, there should be little problem finding LOTS of people who will come forward and say – I know nothing about these other allegations but I witnessed Kavanaugh get drunk many times.
Mr. Roche does not claim he witnessed that – he claims he just knew.
You are absolutely correct – it is not easy to find people who will remember in detail things from 35 years ago.
That is not a reason to beleive claims that are hearsay or lack any corroboration.
In criminal law we have statutes of limitation for good reason.
The more distant in time events are the less reliable recollections are.
We know today that within hours of an event peoples memories start to change.
Human memory is not video tape. Our memory of past events is significantly altered over time. That is normal. Essentially our minds do the equivalent of lossy data compression.
the compress and generalize. That is why we can not remember things from 35 years ago with perfect clarity. It is why we want people to have told others, to have written things down, to have otherwise created a contemporaneous record.
It tends to be true that we are more likely to accurately remember significant or traumatic events. But even so not perfectly.
What Dr. Ford described could very well have happened to her. It need not have been Kavanaugh. It need not have been someone who looked similar to hiim.
You are certain that Kavanaugh was a Drunk Rich Obnoxious Frat boy – what part of that are you certain of because you want that to be true and what part because you know iit to be true ?
To be clear – it could be true. But thus far nothing that constitutes reliiable evidence has appeared, and pretty much everything that has arisen requires a larger number of people to be lying or misremembering to be true than to be false or miisremembered.
If as you claim Kavanaugh is “trapped” – then this will get worse.
Eventually we will get a direct irrefutable bit of evidence that demonstrates that Kavanaugh has undeniably lied.
That is how credibility works. Disprove something of consequence that a person has stated – particularly under oath and their credibility is shot. And we know who to beleive.
Thus far only Kavanaugh has testified under oath.
That will change shortly.
At the same time Kavanaugh’s accusers are the only people who are contradicting him.
But numerous people are contradictiing them.
I would further note that those saying Ford or Rameirz would not lie – are relevant character witnesses – as are the many who say the same of Kavanaugh.
But the most critical information is from fact witnesses – the third parties who say they did or did not witness something. Thus far those are ALL for Kavanaugh.
BOTH republicans and democrats are completely wrong about due process and standard of proof in this.
As I noted – this is completely political.
There is no and likely can be no criminal investigation or prosecution for anything but possibly perjury.
All this is about is Kavanaugh confirmation as supreme court justice.
He has no right to be a supreme court justice.
You and I are each free to decide on our own – what the standard of proof should be, and what should constitute due process.
Ultimately each Senator will have the final decision to make – independent of our views.
But I would ask you to think about – what should the standard be for this ?
If your standard devolves simply to – I beleive A rather than B – then it will always be possible to raise a past credible challenge to any nominee SCOTUS or otherwise.
Franken resigned – because he was caught in lies.
Roy Moore lost because he too was caught in lies.
We do not know exactly what the truth was in either case, but we know they each lied.
Nor are we talking about judgement calls. Each demonstrably lied.
Kavanaugh may be lying. But if your standard is “II beleive he is lying”, then absolutely no one is confiirmable, because it is always possible to find allegations such as these.
The number of people who will lie about these type of things is very small.
But out of millions of people in the country – there will ALWAYS be several dozen atleast that would lie in a case like this. And that is just dealing with out and out lies.
One of the things that each fo the allegations against Kavanaugh share is that very small changes to the story – completely remove him.
What Ford described could have occured – at a different party with different people.
What Ramierz described could have occurred – at a part without Kavanaugh.
What Swetnick described could have occurred – without Kavanaugh.
Catch Kavanaugh in an actual lie – not just something you do not wish to beleive.
It is a very good thing when ambitious men are held account for provable allegations of misconduct towards women.
THAT has the actual effect you and I both want.
It is a very bad thing everytime a false allegation is made.
While those are rare, they are not even close to non-existant.
Thus far there have been very few with respect to #metoo.
But false allegations were inevitable.
There are several other posters here who have decided – BEFORE Kavanaugh, that #metoo has gotten out of hand, gone too far. I do not agree – but my credibity on that is now debatable. The less credibility Kavanaugh’s accusers have – the less credibility #metoo and anyone who defends it has.
Add poliitics and a signiificant portion of people who beleive this is a despicable manufactured dirty trick and it is not just the credibility of Ford Rameirz, … that are at issue – but all women who come forward.
there are many saying we must treat women who come forward with kids gloves – that is FALSE. Not critically questioning their stories undermines the credibility of ALL women.
Just as you are not entitled to be a supreme court justice – you are not entitled to be beleived when you make an allegation against someone else.
As well as his problems with women and alcohol, there is also his honesty and his ability to be truly neutral politically, which he himself noted the importance of. Which is the reason that I initially was not too thrilled with him, not that I was paying deep attention in those long ago days of a few weeks back.
This is on point:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-26/brett-kavanaugh-interview-choice-of-fox-news-speaks-volumes
Really ?
Your idea of proof is the media outlet he chooses to be interviewed by ?
Kavanaugh has denied these claiims with as much specificity as possible – publicly where every media outlet in the world can get the story and attempt to disprove whatever he has said.
We do not know that Kavanaugh has/had problems with either women or alcohol.
We know there have been allegations made that not only has Kavanaugh denied – but so have many other fact witnesses.
What is your defintion of “neutral” ?
I do not BTW expect that ANYONE will be neutral about allegations made about themselves.
Kavanaugh and any judge would have to recuse themselves from any case where they were a participant. Because we do not ever expect people to be neutral about themselves.
As to honesty – either about a dozen people are lying for Kavanaugh, including Kavanaugh, or about 1/3 that are lying about him. At this time we have no means to distinghish.
To charges that the opposition to K is political, of course its political! That does not mean that the objections to K are not valid. Once a SC nomination is made all high mindedness is generally abandoned and war begins.
For Garland the objections were Purely political, there was not even any valid objection made to him. McConnell simply never even gave him a hearing for reasons that are purely political.
So, You can guess how much sympathy I have for the right and their tears and complaints about the objections to K. Ironically, he turned out to be a very flawed nominee. trump is ready to launch his own metoo movement, the metoo for men who got caught.
If trump nominates Amy Barrett there will be some commotion over her views on abortion. I think the dems will take that as a fantastic tool to motivate their voters. Motivation cuts both ways and I will make no predictions of which side will come out more in force on Nov 8.
Here is an idea but its too rational to ever happen: Nominate Garland.
With respect to Garland. The constitution gives the Senate the power to confirm or not noninees.
McConnell with the support of Grassley and other republicans chose not to say yes,
That was fully inside their power – just as they can do as hey please regarding Kavanaugh.
Absolutely it was poliitical, it also was constitutional.
It also appears to have been politically cost free.
If the claims against Kavanaugh are true – he should not be a judge at all.
If they are false – this is character assassination, and quite illegitimate.
The ends do not justify the means.
Barrett is not going to answer questions on Abortion any differently than she did previously.
Any policy based attack that Dems can mount against Barrett they could have on Kavanaugh but did not.
I am not concerned about your sympathy for the right.
I am concerned at your lack of understanding that it is conduct by the left like this that brought Trump about.
You should not be sympathetic, you should be affraid.
The prior attacks on Barrett’s religion failed badly. They will not go better next time.
No Kavanaugh has not as of yet turned out to be a very flawed nominee.
He is just a nominee that has a number of weak allegations from 35 years ago.
That could be any candidate.
Do you beleive that there exists some pro-life republican women who would not testify that Garland raped her to prevent him from being confirmed ? I certainly do.
Rameirz and Ford have been clear – they came forward specifically because of their fears regarding abortion.
I would rather beleive Kavanaugh is lying than 3 women.
U would rather beleive that 3 women are lying than a dozen other people.
Drip drip drip. Death by a thousand cuts
“https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michael-avenatti-third-kavanaugh-accuser_us_5ba8838ce4b069d5f9d43c72”
And the democrats dont have another bimbo waiting in the wings? BULL SHIT!!!
I might have said before I dont know if he did or did not do what CF said he did, but I believe it less now with how the democrats are marching out their string of accusers perfectly timed when.one is weaning to keep it at the fore front of news.
Kavanuagh out! Barrett in!!!!!
“another bimbo”
WTF? Great Ron. You have no idea as of this minute what kind of character this woman has but you have your word ready for her. Time might prove you right, but you don’t need time. I remember reading all the nasty misogynistic comments about Cosby’s accusers from his defenders, Bimbo was high among them. How did that turn out? I have respected you until now.
This woman has just made a human sacrifice of herself, for her sake I hope these accusations are not flimsy. I have no idea if they are or or are not as of this minute. Perhaps they will all fall apart, it could happen, they seem incredible.
If they are not flimsy I am going to have the pleasure of watching the whole sickening pile of shit that encompasses the ethics of trump and his people, with all its conspiracy theories and primitive attitudes swept away by history. It may happen rapidly or slowly but majestically I do not know but the house will fall. If this woman is telling a more or less true story, then it will trigger a true cultural turning point.
What Grump said at 1:18.
You are absolutely correct – it is wrong for Ron to call these women bimbo’s .
It is just as wrong to call Kavanaugh a drunk or a liar or a rapist.
When we do not know, the solution is not to pick one over the other and then assassinate the character of whichever one we did not choose.
He was a binge drinker through college.
He is a fibber-fabricator-falsifier – or as I heard him described today at a fast-food takeout restaurant: ‘a sneaky fuck.’
I don’t think he was a rapist. I do think he was an obnoxious ass-grabber (and other locations north and south) when inebriated. But that doesn’t disqualify him from the bench at present.
But his refusal to be open and honest about his early buffoonery does disqualify him from SCOTUS. As does his obsequious huggy-wuggy huddling with Trump & Company over his testimony the last two weeks: there’s no way this guy will be objective/honest if cases involving the Trump presidency reaches the Supreme Court, and his refusal to state he will recuse himself if that happens should disqualify him.
And you have evidence of these things ? Something beyond unnamed sources or statements such as Roches – whiich are oppiniions not actually eviidence.
Jay, if the allegations against him are true he is what is called a “sexually violent predator”.
Aside from the Ramirez claim which could be serious or nothing or false, the rest are very seriious crimes.
If these occured today in my community K would be charged with kidnapping, attempted rape, conspiracy to commit rape. and possibly a host of other very serious crimes.
Too my knowledge there are no “ass grabbing” allegations.
Alcohol is featured in each of these claims – for all parties. Alcohol does not mitigate the alleged crimes.
If you do not think K is a rapist – then you think these women are either lying or at the very least mistaken. There is no other grey area.
If K actually did what these women claim – he should spend the rest of his life in Jail.
Except that it is fewer women over a shorter time, the claims are nearly as bad as Cosby.
You keep claiming he refuses to be open about something there is no actual evidence of.
K would be obliigated to recuse himself from cases involving President Bush – that is who he worked for.
He is no more obligated to recuse from cases involving Trump than Gorsuch.
Absolutely these women made human sacrifices of themselves.
AND they made a human sacrifice of Kavanaugh.
What they did is only brave if you absolutely KNOW they are correct in all respects.
There is no conspiracy necescary.
Each of these women has admitted they did not come forward in th past.
Each admitts that they have come forward because of their fear that Rowe will be overturned.
I am not aware of any claim that they consipired together.
You do not need a conspiracy to independently act together for a common purpose.
You keep waiting for the fall of the house of Trump – and yet it is his enemies that keep getting exposed and destroyed.
Rosenstein will likely survive the week.
He will not likely survive the election,
All those inside the administration who were selling this trump russia collusion garbage are discredited and nearly all are gone.
The imminent fall of the house of Trump is at best wishful thinking on the part of the left.
The fall of his enemies is progressing slowly.
Even if you take Rosensteins remarks in the absolute most positive light, they demonstrate that OTHERS were conspiring to bring trump down.
You do not seem to grasp that from within the executive you can not do that,
“It is just as wrong to call Kavanaugh a drunk or a liar or a rapist.”
I can agree about the rapist part and I don’t remember calling him that. There are allegations of him committing sexual assault, in fact there are are allegations of him being involved in drugging women for sexual purposes, which are pretty sensational. My guess is that his accuser does not have any evidence of that and simply reached that conclusion based on her own suspicions, which may be right but she has no hard evidence. Unless of course she does. But I doubt that anyone who actually could proe that is going to admit to it. One never knows though.
As to drunk, that is proven at this point, it least regarding the years in question, and as to liar, it seems damn clear to me that his description of the period is a thorough whitewashing, lets just say he has strayed from the truth considerably unless a whole lot of other people are making things up.
It irritates me to no end when people call the accusers liars just by immediate reflex, its a very serious accusation, but bimbo is a really nasty word, about like the n word, that robs its users of any respect. Its a word, dare I say it, whose use only makes PC more powerful. PC is certain to become more powerful as a consequence of the trump GOP takeover.
I just found this that gives a much more detailed accusation than others I have read.
If this is true, what the hell are we paying the FBI to do. How can the media track down these women, but our justice department lead by a seincometent ass
I just found this that gives a much more detailed accusation than others I have read. One said she could not say Kavanaugh was even present. This one says he was an active participant.
https://nypost.com/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-accused-of-drugging-women-who-were-then-gang-raped/
If this is true, what the hell are we paying the FBI to do. How can the media track down these women, but the FBI cant and found no clues whatever. That is their job, to investigate! Seems to me this should be a high priority investigation, doing a backgound check on a judge.
Sorry, if this is true, they are not bimbos. And I will keep what I think about Sessions and the FBI to myself also from now on. Dont want to upset anyone.
If Swetnick’s remarks are true – there are hundreds of women who should be coming forward.
I would note that one should check Swetnick’s works carefully.
This is a sworn statement. Precise langauge matters.
I became aware – has pretty much no meaning.
You eiither witnessed something or you did not. Any other means of “becoming aware” is “hearsay”, it is not evidence and is inadmissible.
The same is true of much of the rest of what she says.
What exactly is it that Swetnick beleiives happens at high school parties ?
Swetnick says K did not take “no” for an answer – is she saying he raped them ?
If she is not, then he actually did take “no” for an answer.
She claims to “know” K had sex – because she claims to have seen him in lines of boys waitiing to have sex with some drunk girl.
It is possible this occured. But Swetnick’s story has worse problems than F’s.
It is not only why didn’t S come forward before – like in 1981 when according to her dozens of girls were getting drugged and raped, but also why didn’t anyone else come forward – at that time or now. Based on here descriptiion – there is likely atleast several dozen people involved – tight now only S has come forward.
If what she is saying is even close to true – some people are going to come forward.
Finally – S names absolutely no one except K and J.
There were lots of people at these parties. She should be able to recall some names.
My guess is there are no names specifically because Avanti saw exactly what happened to the credibiility of other women – when no one backed their stories.
S can provide details that can be confirmed or denied, or there is no reason to take her credibly.
Ford’s claim is attempted sexual assault – rape.
I am honestly not sure what Ramirez’s claim would be if true – certainly gross.
What is the crime of pulling your penis out at a private party ?
Ramirez was drunk off her ass – which heightens K’s liiabiility, but it diminishes R’s credibility.
I can not tell from her claim – whether she is claiming a sexual assault or just gross but legal sexual conduct at a party. behavior
Swetnick claims to have been gang raped.
She claims that K drugged the punch facilitating her rape.
IIf true – that is accessory to rape.
There is little doubt Ford and Swetnick are alleging serious crimes.
Maybe you can pass off the R claim – if true as drunk and rowdy, but not F and S.
So lets skip the bunk – K is being accused of crimes atleast as serious as rape.
In my state – the F charge could include kidnapping – forcing F into a room.
So this is pretty simple – this is more than being a drunken kid at college.
This is a very serious claim that K is a sexually violent predator.
If True – he should be in fail for the rest of his life.
If false – others should be headed to jail.
There is not much middle ground.
When someone makes an accusation that is denied – someone is a liar.
There are no other choices.
The least confliiict outcome of this is if F. R, S are “mistaken” about some things.
I understand your desire not to call someone a liar.
But the circumstances require that alot of people are liars in this, we just do not know for sure who.
I have not called anyone a biimbo.
“What they did is only brave if you absolutely KNOW they are correct in all respects.”
The world does not revolve around me and what I know. The women are brave, in fact insanely brave, if they sincerely believe their accusations.
In fact they are brave period, while its possible that some of them are bravely lying on some points, which I find very unlikely with Ford and Ramirez. I am waiting for tomorrow’s news to find out whether Swetnick is an obvious fake or nut. I am sure she will be dissected and put in the worst light by some of the shadier corners of the conservative universe within a few hours. How much of that avalanche of dirt will be true will take some time to sort out. I feel very sorry for her cause its going to be hell.
You right the world does nto revolve arround you.
“What they did is only brave if it is absolutely true they are correct in all respects.”
Regardless, the point is that neither you nor I can KNOW whether they are brave or not.
I have no idea what tomorows news witll bring regardiing Swetnick.
As I recall – she did not provide the names of people who were at this party – therefore that can not be disproven.
The only name she provided was Kavanaugh’s. and even their she provided speculation or hearsay, not eviidence.
We do not need more on Swetnick.
Her affidavit is not a criminal lie because there is no claim in it that can be proven or diisproven.
None of these women have to be lying for the allegations against Kavanaugh to be false.
All they need is to be inaccarate in some parts of their memory. In most instances a part that would be easy to err on over 35 years. In some cases, things that there is no reason to beleive they actually know.
Dave, Grump,dduck.
Yes I called Ramirez and the latest to come forward “bimbos” I never called CF a bimbo. I have said all along that I had no idea if he did that or not. I have said I questioned Feinstein more for the way she screwed the country than why CF released he letter in July. Had this been handled properly, Feinstein would have had it investigated in some manner between July and October. But NO the liberals are loving what is taking place while further dividing the country. And I think its 50-50 another lady or two will come forward from college days accusing him of something else, probably tomorrow or Monday to delay a vote if is is scheduled.
But if you actually read the issue with Ramirez, there are holes as big as an atomic bomb would make if it exploded. Just the fact is Ramirez’s statement that because of how much alcohol she drank that night, it took her six days to clarify her own recollection of the events (Washington Post, Sept 24, 2018). Good lord, if you are that drunk, how can anyone accept what she says is true. She would not come forward until the media and an attorney talked with her and made her feel confident to come forward. In my mind, if you cant remember clearly becasue you a stumbling brain dead drunk, someone helps you remember details years later and then you testify, that is leading a witness and that is not allowed in court. So why should we allow it now? Did she REALLY remember it was Kavanaugh or was it something like ,,,,,, (attorney) “this is rumored to have happened, you know Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual misconduct occuring a couple years before this, you ran in the same group that came in contact with him at parties, could that have been him that exposed himself to you”… Ramirez “Well it could have been…Attornay and Ramirez talk some more, and then “AH Yeah, I think it was him.” What would a defense attorney do with that in a courtroom?
As for the lastest, she can not even say Kavanaugh was involved other than to say he ran with the same group.
The difference here compared with Bill Cosby was a pattern over many years with m,any different women claiming the same behaviors for a decade or two, if not more, The lastest occurring well before the period where someone could be tried ran out. And enough proof was provided to convict him and he is going to jail,
I think K needs to withdraw and Trump nominate Barrett, or find another woman with a family to nominate, Then I want to see how they handle her during the confirmation hearings. Maybe a man will come forward and say she asked for sex for a more lenient sentence.
I have no evidence that Ramirez is a bimbo.
But there are substantial reasons to treat her allegations skeptically.
You have covered those.
The Cosby thing bothers me in a different way.
Swetnick claims K spiked the punch with Qualudes on the same day Cosby who used Qualudes gets 3-10.
“As for the lastest, she can not even say Kavanaugh was involved other than to say he ran with the same group.”
Have you actually read what she stated? I think that the most tenuous part of her statement is that it was K and judge who spiked the drinks, unless she has hard evidence, which she did not indicate in her statement. Other than that bombshell, she alleges that she witnessed K committing acts that sound like sexual assaults. This corroborates what Ford alleged. It is utterly relevant and should disqualify K (from a lot of things!) if true. How will we know if its true? That will be difficult but if more and more women say come forward (which I am doubting they will do voluntarily, who wants to admit to this kind of youth on the national stage) then it begins to become Cosby like.
I have seen nothing in the statements of these women that this is about Roe vs. Wade. Can you provide a link to these statements? They may have strong feeling about Roe and be pissed about trump, many women are! but it is not a reason to dismiss their claims, much as some would like to try to use that as a pass for K.
Yes, I have read it multiple times.
Everythiing she says is tenous.
To beleive this you must beleiive that she knows things she can not know, that mass gang rapes were occuring in Gaithersburg MD in 1981 and no one was coming forward.
That women were being drugged – I am guessing only the women drank the punch ?
That requires every single male who participated to know that the punch was drugged – and not a single one to come forward ever – not then – not now
If you were at a party like she alleges – would you do nothing ?
Would you join in ?
I would hope I would leave and call the police.
I would certainly leave, and I would have no trouble telling people about it today.
Swetnick named 3 people – herself, Judge and Kavanaugh.
Out of dozens.
given the numbers involved and the purported frequency of these parties – you would think atleast one person could conjfirm something ?
What acts does she allege ? She claims that K did not take no for an answer.
That would be meaningful – from HER.
It is not somethiing she actually gets to say for others.
If you eliminate the alcohol and the rape trains, the rest of this sounds like a high school party – with maybe some dancing.
Regardless, You do not get to say no for other people.
I have no idea whether K’s actions were “unwanted”.
If they actually constituted assault – you would think there would have been some more serious result than Swetnick 35 years after the fact complaining ?
35 years alone is a very good reason to be skeptical of claims.
I would note that NO ONE is making claims more recent than 35 years.
Sexual predators do not stop.
The conduct Kavanaugh is alleged to have engaged in – REPEATEDLY – purportedly stopped after 1 or two years.
Kavanagh was nominated or appointed to numerous positions over the past 20 years. Each was an opportunity to come forward. No one diid.
“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,”
Either Ford is wrong about Keyser, or about Kavanaugh, or both.
Katz, Fords lawyer notes that it has been 35 years and they never spoke of the incident so Keyser might not recall.
EXACTLY. that is precisely why we do not credit 36 year old allegations highly.
Detaiils matter – particularly those that can be used to confirm or reject a story.
Ford is short on veriifiable details. and they few she has provided have been false.
Tomorrow there will be a hearing on Judge K. CF will testify and K will testify. After that, they will vote on Friday to recommend approvsl or not. On Monday, the whole senate will vote.
I overlook the latest two allegations as one has largely been shown to be extremely weak and the latest, the accuser herself has said she does not know if K was involved or not. Guilty by association at best.
But what is best for America.
Voting against his nomination and confirming someone later. Trump most likely has someone in mind and could have already ask for background checks already or has them going on. One thing that is not an option is waiting. Does this not empower either side to get deeper in the cesspool of dirty tricks to block any nomination? If it worked once, why not again? Who cares if you can prove it or not? Doesn’t this make Americans more numb to negative information, making true negative issues more likely to be shrugged off?
On the other hand, confirming K just confirms beliefs that elected officials do not care, its all political and women will always be liars. We will be as divided after as we are now.
Will decisions on the court be much different if K is replaced. I doubt it.
But the issue is really how far into the cesspool we are willing to sink.
I have no idea what will happen any of the next couple of days.
I would have thought there is sufficient dirt in the air that Kavanaugh can not be confirmed – but none of the democrats currently running in red states have committed to voting against Kavanaugh. Each has said they will decide after hearing Kavanaugh and Ford.
If Red State D’s are not decided yet, Republicans may still pull this off.
Further I do not think that the outcome of that needs to be as you predict.
It is near certain that inquiry will continue no matter what happens.
If Kavanaugh iis confirmed and compelling evidence comes out, he can and likely will be impeached. Frankly if he is rejected and compelling evidence comes out, he can be impeached from the 5th circuit.
Conversely if further evidence these allegations are false come out – that will be harmful to the left.
We are seeing an example of polarization – neither side is backing down.
That makes it increasingly likely that one side or the other trai wrecks.
I think that the GOP has decided that the best route for them is to expedite a vote.
There will be little difference between voting Kavanaugh down and withdrawling Kavanaugh.
Except that the republican base which is getting angry about this, will not be angry with them.
The worst thing republicans can do now is delay.
Kavanaugh getting voted down, and Trump quickly nominating Barrett would significantly boost republicans in November. It would take the issue away from Democrats, while creating a reason for republicans to vote.
The information on the upcoming election is extremely squirly.
Several republicans who should be having an easier time and in a fight.
While republicans have won or are winning districts that they should have had no chance iit.
Several purportedly safe seats for both sides are not very safe at all.
The Senate map particularly favors republicans – with the odds favoring Republicans +1.
That is wiithout factoring that Menedez is leading but in trouble in NJ, and Scott and Nelson are in a nasty war that will be very close.
Republicans have 47 seats locked.
They need 3 seats from
NJ, WI, WV – these all ean democratic but are in play.
or AZ, FL, IN, MO, MT, NV. ND, TN, TX – these are all toss ups.
The odds of Dem’s winning 10 of 12 are slim to none.
“Republicans have 47 seats locked.
They need 3 seats from
NJ, WI, WV – these all ean democratic but are in play.
or AZ, FL, IN, MO, MT, NV. ND, TN, TX – these are all toss ups.
The odds of Dem’s winning 10 of 12 are slim to none.”
I agree with all of your above post except that confirming K boosts the GOP. It will motivate the dems voters as well, and who it will motivate more is anyone’s guess. I give the dem party very little chance to take the Senate. A true tsunami would have to occur and personally I believe that both parties voters re unusually motivated to vote in this mid term and that may keep dem gains in the house to a modest level. Or on the contrary a woman/youth/antitrump vote may produce a blue tsunami.
Its all hand waving. On Nov. 9 we will know, unless there are recounts.
Confirming K will either motivate or demoralize D’s. likely the former.
I would also agree that everything regarding the electiion is speculation – until it is fact.
We have had a number of high profile instances in which polls have been very wrong recently. There also appears to be a “bradley effect” with Trump – people vote for him, but do not admit it.
I do not think the historic patterns are as iimportant as claimed.
Alot of the volatitiltiy of midterms was due to the gradual reddening of the south and bluing of new england. That created volatility.
But I could be wrong.
Based on the polls at the moment the best guess is the GOP picks up one seat in the Senate and just barely loses or keeps the house.
I expect the GOP to perform better than that – but not much.
That is my crystal ball forecast.
But anything is possible.
The most important question is how actual voters who are not locked into something one way or the other vote – and even whether they will vote.
Alot of people will be angry if K is confirmed. But of them, how many will vote differently than they were going to anyway.
Republicans are not likely to lose votes by confirming K – the people who are offended are not voting for Trump or republicans.
But Republiican voters could get very pissed and siit out the election.
K should withdraw. The claims, especially the latest, which are quite sensational and go through a very loud-mouthed flashy lawyer, should absolutely be investigated by the FBI. It would take some time, months. If this is really all just slander from the twilight zone then the first person who should want the FBI to investigate should be K himself. If Swetnick’s claims are baseless, then he would be exonerated and she would pay for lying. I am believing he is unlikely to be the nominee for much longer. If he does not immediately call for a full investigation if and when he is no longer the nominee than I am going to seriously doubt his denials of the whole shebang, provided that Swetnick’s claims do not collapse quickly.
Swetnick’s claims to me sound like something that could be shown to be generally true or generally false, because they involve a lot of other people. Many of those people are going to want to mislead or run and hide from answering questions for their own privacy, but in the end I am pretty sure the FBI could establish that the claims are a fiction or that they have some general basis in fact.
I would be completely shocked if K withdrawls.
That is NOT the best political scenario for the GOP.
You need to get outside of the left to get an understanding of the politics.
If K is confirmed – the GOP accomplishes a major promise and energizes their base.
If K is rejected – the GOP tried and that energizes their base – they need to make sure that they continue to hold the senate – and GOP voters absolutely vote over supreme court appoints, D’s do not.
Further if K is rejected – the character assassination of K by the left becomes a major campaign issue.
If K withdrawls that is a loss for the GOP and it is a betrayal of GOP voters.
I do not control thiings iin Washington – but I would be shocked if K withdrawls.
I have a separate question for you – assume that K is NOT the angry dunk sexual preditor that you presume he is. Assume that all of this character assassination is just that – false.
Why would you wiithdrawl ? That will be taken as an admission. Why would you admit to something you have not done ?
There is only one reason in the world K should or would withdrawl – and that is this is all true, and more is coming and he knows it.
That might be the case.
I suspect iif this continues long enough more is coming. But I do not expect any of it to be any more credible than what we have so far.
I expect it will all entirely be during K’s college period – because that will be the easiest claims to get people to accept and the hardest to disprove.
I expect they will be more of what we have thus far.
I would further note of the 3 women who have come forward – only 1 Ford, claims to have first hand knowledge of misconduct by K. Each of the other two purportedly had something bad happen to them. But their knowledge of K’s presence or involvement is 2nd hand.
You should look quite carefully at each of these claims.
While what purportedly happened to each of these women is horriific.
Neither of the last two have direct personal knowledge of K’s involvement.
Put simply you can beleive absolutely everything that they say EXCEPT what they were told by someone else regarding K, and they do not implicate K.
To get anywhere on the Ramirez claim – you need a third party to confirm Kavanaugh’s presence at this party. Right now no one Ramirez says was at the party confiirms that they were at the party or the party occured.
In the Avanti claim – Swetniick’s assertion that K spike the punch – his only role, is speculation or hearsay. She did not witness it. She does not place him as present when her assault takes place.
There is no “generally true” or “generally false”.
Kavanaugh has catagorically denied each of these claims.
For him the good news is that he has no obligation of any kind to provide further evidence.
There is no such thing as evidence that “this did NOT happen”.
The “bad” news is that if he is wrong about anything – he iis toast.
If you can place him at any one of these events – he is done.
If you “prove” that K spiked the drinks at some specific event – he is done.
But the converse is also true. If K’s accusers fail to find something to demonstrate K has lied in his catagorical denials – the credibility of the entire left and the democratic party is weakened.
It is unlikely (because the claims are not sufficiently specific) but it may even be possible absolutely disprove one of these – that would be extremely damaging.
We are pretty close with regard to Ford – and she is the only one alleging first hand knowledge of misconduct by K.
According to Ford the event occured over summer break on some year after she was 15 – likely the year she was 15. 4 specific people were at a house that she can not identify.
Each of those people has denied this event took place. Ford’s female democratic friend has denied ever ebing at any party with Kavanaugh.
Ford is going to testify tomorow. I would expect that the Republican attorney will try to make this look minimally antagonistic. But I also expect lots of questions that Ford can not answer, and no new information.
I would note that Kavanaugh has proviided a diary for the summer of Ford’s 15th year. This party is not listed. Other parties are. None wiith Ford, none with her friend, none with the other male. I beleive there are some with Judge.
I also expect Kavanaugh to be rigorously examined – even by the GOP prosecutor.
If he wants any chance of getting his reputation back he must be questioned HARD.
If he gets caught in anything – he is toast.
But he has the easiest posiition – he has catagorically denied everything.
The FBI investigation issue has little to do with clearing his name.
It has to do with delaying this.
You fail to grasp that the objectiive is NOT just to prevent K’s confirmation – it is to delay this until past the election.
Democrats are seeking to accompliish the character assassination version of McConnell’s Garland feat – to delay until after the election in the hope the senate changes.
Democrats are also looking to use this as a campaign issue.
It is a poor issue if K is rejected.
It is not much better if he is confirmed.
It is a large issue as long as he is pending.
I would also ask you – what is it you think the FBI is going to do ?
Everyone purportedly at the Ford and Ramirez parties has denied it.
Atleast one credible source claims that they have provided affidavits or other sworn statements.
The only people who are not at jephardy because of their answers are the accusers.
Seven people – not counting Kavanaugh have denied that the Ford and Ramirez events happened.
They could be lying – so could Ford and Ramirez.
Several people have come forward to say that Ford and Ramirez are of good character and do not lie. Dozens have done so for Kavanaugh.
I suspect by tomorow we will have lots of people denying the Swetnick claim.
How many people need to deny what you beleive before you will acept that you are liikely wrong ?
Swetnick’s claims have already collapsed – they were not on their face and actual claim against Kavanaugh. You must have diirect knowledge of what you claiim – otherwise all you know is hearsay. II beleive K spike the punch. I beleive the punch had Qualudes, is not direct eviidence.
Has the FBI made any comments regarding any investigation of any of this mess?
I would like to hear from someone at the DOJ or some other place responsible for vetting SC candidates.
Stop everything and investigate (I assume the NYT and WPO) have folks working overtime)
and listen to the people: we want “good” SC judges, as clean as possible and as fair as possible for the next 40 years or so with minimal political baggage, otherwise keep it at eight.
-Dream on DDuck, this country is f_____ed.-
If I understand the procedure correctly for new allegations like these to be investigated by the FBI the President has to order that to happen.
I believe that the Senate must request the FBI to investigate, after that Trump could refuse.
Trump could independently ask for an investigation, but he could ask for an investigation of pretty much anything. DOJ/FBI would have to refuse – if there was not sufficient cause to investigate. Which is what they should have done regarding Page/Papadoulis/the Trump Campaign in 2016.
This would also not be a criminal iinvestiigation. It would be an update to his background iinvestigation.
If the FBI is investigating and either the FBI or DOJ are commenting – they are violating the law.
But then the clinton investigations and the Trump Russia investigation are leaked constantly.
My guess is they are doing nothing.
I am not sure what they can do. Beat people with rubber hoses ?
The responsibility for vetting ALL executive appointments rests entirely with the senate.
The FBI does background checks at their request.
Please tell me how you distinguish between a candidate with a record of misconduct 35 years ago and one whose character is being assassinated ?
Oh, my. Judge’s ex girl friend said in the New Yorker article: Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated in it.
The Jodie Foster film “the accused” is from 1988, it was based on an event that occured in 1983 and prosecuted in 1984.
I beleive this is one of the earliest prosecutions in which the drinking of the victim was used to argue that consent was not possible.
Regardless, at the time of the allegations regarding Kavanaugh the state of the law was that being drunk did not preclude consent.
You can find that offensive. You can be happy the law changed. But you can not claim that having sex with a drunk woman in 1981 was rape.
Judge’s somewhat colored past is not in doubt – he has been relatively open about it.
Judge and Kavanaugh were friends. But exactly how close they were has not been established – Swetniick’s claim they were joined at the hip notwiithstanding.
Sorry. That (7:24) was from WPO: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/26/mark-judges-girlfriend-is-ready-to-talk-to-fbi-and-judiciary-committee-her-lawyer-says/?utm_term=.28405b430296
Rasor has nothing to contribute about Kavanaugh.
She is useless except to impeach Judge – and even then only if he denies having once had sex with a drunk woman.
What she is offering is hearsay, and there are only a few narrow instance in which hearsay is admissible.
iin this case iit would be admissible only if Judge appeared to lie in his testimony about the specific incendient.
Of course the rules of evidence do not apply to the senate.
They can do as they please.
I smell a rat with Swetnick. I will admit that.
Kavanaugh’s twiiliight zone assertion is excellent. ‘
What appears to be “new”.
There are two more accusations – sort of.
Transcripts of republican iinterviews of Kavanaugh – in whiich democrats participated.
Have been released.
Grassley received an anonymous letter that claimed Kavanaugh forcefully accosted a women in a bar in 1998. The letter is not be the woman, and does not identify her or the author. Kavanaugh denied the claim.
Separately Republiicans were aparently contacted by Ramirez – or a freind of hers while Kavanaugh was being vetted and they asked Kavanaugh about that at the time.
In both instances democrats were involved, asked no questions, and did not bring up the Ford accusation – this is questioning that occured in august.
That was the time to raise this.
I have also learned that Kavanaugh has had full background checks by the FBI 6 times. The prior one during the Bush administration was the most thorough type of background check the FBI does – Kavanaugh was about to get the highest security classificatiin in the US government – access to the nuclear codes.
We are now being asked to beleive that the FBI missed a rape gang operating for several years in the DC area that Kavanaugh was part of.
Aparebntly CBF’s yearbooks were removed from the internet in mid august, but cached copies exist. These describe the students at Holton (an all girls school) in pretty much exactly the way Kavanaugh is being portrayed – except that this is the students at Holton speaking about themselves – as drunken sexual predators. I am not sure whether Ford herself is specifically identified in this, but drinking to blackout, and gratutitous sex are represented as the norm at Holton, and the students of Georgetown Prep as their prey.
BTW Neil Gorsuch also attended Georgetown Prep and is the same age as CBF.
For those of you claiming that this could not have been done to Gorsuch had the left been of a mind too – think again.
While Kavanaugh has attended schools such as Yale, neither he nor his family are “affluent”.
Those attending Holton-Arms are – this is where Jackie Kennedy and LeGrande attended.
I wanted to watch the hearing. I tried!!! They failed miserably. After about an hour I had to give up. This was the most disorganized mess I have ever witnessed. It was unfair the CF, it was unfair to Americans wanting to hear their statements and it was unfair to the lady they asked to question CF for the GOP. For those that do not have the opportunity to watch these things, each member had 5 minutes to asked questions. The logical thing to do would have been to give one side their time and the other side their time all in one time period.
BUT NO. the incompetent doofus that ran the hearings gave 5 minutes rotating. So the GOP attorney gets into questioning and CF is about to continue clarifing info in her letter and Grassley interrupts and goes to Feinstein.She pontificates, asked a couple questions, back to GOP attorney, CF continues to clarify letter info, back to a Vermont senator that pontificates, asked a couple questions, back to GOP attorney who starts new line if questions and CF is interrupted to move to Democrat who pontificates, I CHANGE CHANNEL.
I suspect the media will cut and paste testimony to make it more supportive for whichever side they are on, but this was very unfair to CF to have to jump from one line of questioning to another.
This is nothing but a public trial and should be handled as such. One side asked all their questions and then the other. Whenever have we seen an accused or accuser interrupted every 5 minutes during their testimony so the ither side can ask questions.
The Senate has made a complete mess of this just to pontificate and make political points at the cost to CF and K. Those two both lose. America loses.
Derschowitz noted that chosen and outside counsel was an excellent idea, but it shou;d have been a defense attorney not a prosecutor. Prosecutors are horrible at cross examination and at dealing with victims.
I did not watch and have little interest in watching. The norm of cogressional investigations makes it extremely difficult to investigate properly. Most of the serious work of congressional investigations is NOT in hearings which are too much efforts by poliiticians to get media face time.
I am sympathetic to Ford. BUT it is still absolutely critical to confront her agressively and to get details and try to establish the truth. Her statements are insufficient.
The latest repeats he initial allegation – without additional information.
She now claims to have told others at various times – WHO ?
What she told someone else a year or 10 years after the fact is poor evidence. But it is far better than nothing.
At the same time I expect inconsistancies between different tellings of her story.
That is NOT a reason to disbeleive her. But it is a basis for determining how accyrate her details are.
The extent to which Kavanaugh and Ford know each other is relevant – both as a matter of identiification – humans suck at identifying strangers, ever aquantances, but we are good at identifying people we are arround alot.
It also matters because Kavanaugh denies knowing her. Bumping into her once or twice does nto discredit him. But she claims the two of them socialized many times in 1982.
If that is so – there should be other people who can confirm that.
To my knowledge at this time NO ONE confirms that Ford spent any time with Kavanaugh or Judge. Again that does nto preclude chance encounters. but even a casual social relationship should have some people who recall it.
Despiite all of my remarks about – the absence of support for Ford’s story does nto make it false – it is likely impossible to prove false. One of the problems with 35 year old recollections is that they suck.
I can not name every casual relationship from high school or college. I would be very hard pressed to remember in detail a single event. Even some of the worst things that have happened in my life, I can only recall a few words or bits of them.
The failure of Kavanaugh, Keyser, Judge and Smyth to recall anything about this event. The failure of Keyser to recall Kavanaugh at all. Does not mean Ford is lying.
But it does mean we should think seriously before using her recollections as the basis for important decisions.
There are reasons statutes of limitations exist – it is not because we do not wish to punish serious past misconduct. It is because time slowly destroys are ability to recall accurately.
While I am not opposed to further investigation, I would strongly caution any who think the odds of funding more one way or the other is likely. If the FBI has not found anything in the past they are not now.
The FBI can not make people remember what they do not.
Dave, I am not talking about who ask, what was asked or how itvwas answered. A defence attorney would have had the same issues as a prosecutor. Youvcan not ask someonebtestifing a question and in the middle of their answer you hear ” Ms Feinstein” And the Feinstein starts pontificating and a fouple minutes latervshe asked a question. Then back to the prosecutor and CF has to shift gears, figure out where she left off in the middle of her answer to the prosecutor and it happens again.
I think a classroom of kindergarteners could have done a better time organuzing this circus!
I was not disagreeing with you.
The senate sets its own rules – it can do as it pleases.
I have not watched – but I have seen other committee testimony – it generally is a mess.
trump said that avennati is a 3rd rate lawyer. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. By sending his client out following the most lurid build up to make accusations about K and J spiking drinks that she almost certainly does not have proof of he has a made a human sacrifice of her to promote his own career.
I did just watch a clip of Swetnick herself being briefly interviewed and she comes across very well, calm, obviously intelligent, rational, sincere, and well spoken. In fact, if Ford comes across as well as Swetnick did on the brief interview her testimony will be formidable. Swetnick has made a sworn statement and may lose her livelihood based on what her lawyer, who should be looking after her best interests instead of his own, allowed to go out as her statement.
president very very large brain ought to be ordering an FBI investigation and the confirmation process should go on hold till its completed. That is fairest to all concerned, including K, J, the accusers, and the American people. Otherwise the investigation of these events will occur in the media and on the internet with the predictable result that it will be an ugly two separate universe investigation that sheds only chaos and more division, a national jerry springer show confrontation. But I can be assured that president very very large brain will not do that, because the jerry springer show environment is his natural home and a disciplined factual process is more reminiscent to him of fact checking of his speeches.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick-i-don-t-think-he-belongs-n913671
The FBI has throroughly investigated Brett Kavanaugh 6 times.
If they have managed to do so and miss a rape gang of the scale that Swetnick claims operating in DC – then the FBI is the most incompetent investigative agency in the world.
The Press has been themselves thoroughly vetting Kavanaugh for months.
As much as I might dislike press bias and bemoan the fake that they will run “fake news”, the press is very very good at uncovering things. It there were even rumours of what Swetnick claims they would have found it.
Read Swetnick’s “affadavit”. It appears to be written specifically to avoid the problems that other Kavanaugh accusers have had.
There are dozens of people – but no one is named aside from Kavanaugh and Judge.
Much of the affadavit is a sequence of flowery claims – iit does not present evidence to support those claims. With very few exceptions Swetnick does not assert that she directly observed illegal conduct, particularly conduct of Kavanaugh.
Aparently CBF;s Holton-Arms yearbooks were removed from online in mid august.
But this is the internet iit is forever. I am not sure that the information in the yearbooks is specific to CBF, regardless, it paints the girls of Holton-Arms in exactly the way that Kavanaugh is being portrayed – except this is Holton-Arms students speaking contemporaneously about themselves.
The yearbook speaks of constant partying and heavy drinking and predatory sexual conduct with Georgetown Prep as the playground for Holton-Arms girls.
I do not think that Swetnick was specifically writing about Holton-Arms, but CBF’s yearbook is fully consistent with Swetnick’s affadavit – except on significant point – the conduct was all consensual.
There seems to be little doubt at the moment that Holton-Arms, Georgetown Prep and several other schools in the Chevy Chase-Bethesda area had a culture of constant partying, heavy drinking, and casual sex.
The extent of Kavanaugh’s participation in that is indeterminate. Neil Gorsuch attended Georgetown Prep two years behind Kavanaugh and could as easily have been the target for all of this as Kavanaugh.
It is possible that either was immersed int he culture that surrounded them. It is possible that one or both was removed from it.
But these allegations could have been made with the same credibility against Gorsuch.
There are now apparently two different men who have come forward and told the Senate that CBF is talking about them and not Kavanaugh.
I have no idea what their credibility is. Really none of us do. None of us have any idea about that of CBF.
You want the FBI to investigate – what do you expect them to be able to find ?
These events happened 35 years ago. Specifically regarding Ford’s allegation everyone who purportedly was their except Ford has publiicly denied this incident happened. Keyser – Ford’s close friend has denied ever having met Kavanaugh.
What do you want of the FBI – to take rubber hoses to these people ?
What do you expect the FBII to find ?
As I noted Kavanaugh has been background checked by the FBI 6 times – for atleast one of those the FBI was aware of the Ramiirez allegation.
Do you think that 7th time is a charm ?
These allegations are disturbing, But what is becoming increasingly evident is that Holton-Arms was the center of a larger culture of partying, drinking and casual sex at this period in time. That culture included Georgetown Prep as well as other schools.
It is certain that no one attending any of these schools could avoid atleast being on the periphery of that culture – that would include Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Ford.
Kavanaugh and Ford have both admitted to drinking. Ford has admitted to partying.
I think that Swetnick’s affadavit is likely to be accurate – except in two respects – the conduct was consensual, and she has no basis for claiming that Kavanaugh or anyone dugged the punch.
This characterization is consistent with the Holton-Arms yearbooks. It is also logically consistent. It is not reasonable to expect that large parties were occuring every week with large numbers of girls attending, being drugged, sexually harrased, and then gang raped – and yet no one reports this and no one stops coming.
What is much more plausible is that all of this was going on consensually. Further it is self evident from the holton-arms yearbooks that the students at holton-arms – including CBF were not merely aware of this but the instigators of atleast some of it.
Put Ford’s testimony into that context – and everything is different.
While it is likely inside President Trump’s power to order more investigation, it is not actually his job.
The senate conducts its own investigations. and sets its own standards. If they want help they can ask.
I would ask you what the future standard is ?
Can either party delay voting on a nominee forever merely by raising antique and unverifiable claims of misconduct ?
If you want the FBI to investigate – apparently they have already investigated atleast Ramirez, as well as another anonymous claim, and possibly Ford, when is it that you decide they have done enough – 2 months from now ? two years from now ?
You can pretty much guarantee that whatever tactic the left uses against Republicans – Republiicans will eventually deploy against the left.
You want to bemoan our political divisions – it is things like this that are at the root of those.
I am reluctant to call any women who comes forward a liar. I strongly suspect that something bad happened to Ford. But I am dubious about her reccollections particularly her identifying Kavanaugh and Judge.
Regardless, the FBI is never going to be able to prove either was present – at a place we do not know for sure 35 years ago, and it is little more likely to be able to prove he was not.
II am hard pressed to think of what it is they should investigate.
Most of the post analysis is pretty much as expected. With each side seeing what they wanted.
I still have only watched short clips of Ford – but purportedly she was compelling.
That said no one claims that she added additional evidence or support for her allegations.
We know no more than the day her letter to feinstein was made public.
But I have heard several other important issues addressed.
Feinstein was questioned about her conversations with Ford’s lawyers.
Sen. Feinstein was unable to recall conversations of significant import that occured only a few days before. If a US Senator can not recall an important conversation from a few days earlier – why do we expect better over something 36 years ago ?
Ford was questioned regarding her fear of flying. This was important as it substantially delayed the hearing. Ford ultimately testified that she flies to delaware many times a year.
More significantly Ford was asked why she turned down the committees offer in writing through her attorney to hold the hearing in California, or to send staff to question her in California. Ford testified that she would have welcomed that opportunity but did not recall that offer. That is a very serious problem. Either Ford is lying, or she has a very poor memory, or her lawyer Katz who though partisan is extremely well respected and extremely competent committed an extremely serious ethical violation. The rules of professional conduct require an attorney to communicate any offer to their client.
Credibility is just about the only test that remains for a claim this old.
Many say that they “believe” Ford.
Credibility is NOT the same as believability.
Credibility rests of facts and history, not emotional appeal.
If Ford’s recollection of recent events is poor, her recollection of the distant past is not trustworthy.
Credibility is like financial credit. Whether you get a loan and how much interest you much pay for that loan are based on your past track record repaying debt.
I have a very good friend who has borrowed thousands of dollars from me over the years.
When he asks for more, and assures me that he intends to repay me – even for what he already owes – I believe him. He is sincere. He is decent, He is honest.
But I will not lend him money. I may give him money, but I know that if I loan him anything it will never be repaid, no matter how sincere and believable he is. He is not lying. He is just not credible.
We are free to use our emotions to inform our judgement when we are making choices about ourselves. When our decisions will be imposed by force on others – pretty much every decision in government, we are not free to judge based on emotions.
Yesterday’s hearings were almost entirely emotional appeals.
I have not yet listened to Ford’s Kavanaugh’s was possibly the most powerful emotional appeal in washington since “Have you no shame” during the McCarthy hearings.
But the strength of Kavanaugh’s or Ford’s emotional appeal is irrelevant.
Dave, these hearings changed no ones mind. You can put down one sides evidence and another side irrefutable proof that the evidence is wrong and neither side is going to change their mind other than a politician who may think their career is on the line with their vote. Does Collins vote based on evidence or based on future elections. Does Manchin vote his conscience or on the 2018 election?
Even here in our small group, only you have changed. You said earlier you would not vote to confirm him while now you have said you would. Others who said he should not be voted on or the confirmation delayed still hold that position, even given the evidence K was not in town during the time this happened and with CF’s friend not supporting her claims. I supported K from the beginning and still support him. Maybe if Feinstein had handle this unpolitically and correctly,they would have had their FBI investigation they now demand and those like myself would not support him.
I fully support Lindsay Graham and his attack on the left.on the committee.
“given the evidence K was not in town during the time this happened”
No Ron. You’re wrong. On numerous counts.
For K’s weekend calendar boxes, they say ‘go to.’
None verify he WENT to those appointments.
AND the July 1st entry in his calendar may verify Ford’s account:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914174/brett-kavanaugh-calendar-christine-blasey-ford
Jay, you make my point. You are not going to change your thinking until someone gives you definitive proof that he could not have done this, with witnesses to back up his documents that prove his innocence. I am not going to change my thinking until she comes forth with witnesses who said they saw it happen and provide date and location.
So we are back to my comment a number of comments earlier. A man is GUILTY until he can prove beyond a sliver if doubt with multiple witnesses and documents to prove his innocence.
And all of this has been caused by one liberal senator from California following Shumers directions that the Democrats would do anything to block this mans confirmation. So she sits on the info, keeps it from the president, the FBI, the GOP members on the committee and everyone else that should have had the info. If the FBI had this in Aug, it could have been cleared up and he would be cleared or he would have withdrawn his name. BUT NO, it makes perfect election year politics, so they screw over him and Ford to buy a few votes.
My God, what kind of people do we entrust our government?
Stoddard also noted that the FBI will actually do a WORSE job than the senate.
The senate can subpeona people. There is no crime, alleged here that the FBI can investigate, if people decline to talk to the FBI there is nothing they can do.
Aparently you do not know the difference between proof and evidence.
Ford has the burden of proof – she is making the allegatiion, she has no evidence beyond her recollection, and no hope of proof.
Kavanaugh has no burden of proof, he denies Fords allegation that he did anything to her. He denies being at the event. His diaries are evidence. They are not irrefutable proof. As he stated in his testimony – they are not dispositive. Kavanaugh knows the difference between allegations, evidence and proof. We would hope so given that he is beiing considered for the supreme court. We would also expect the same knowledge from Senators – particularly ones that are lawyers.
Your Vox article is little more than wishful thinking.
Demonstrating that on one night that summer Kavanaugh had drinks with two or the people Ford alleges were at this “party” along with several others Ford did not name, at a place that is not consistent, without either leland or Ford, is really really reaching.
It is trying to force fit the evidence to the crime.
Equally important it is almost a concession on your part. By making the allegation you are close to accepting that the only time that MIGHT work was July 1. If July 1, is out for any other reason you have pretty much wrecked you own case.
You are also highlighting the fundamental problem with Ford’s allegation and why we very very rarely take antique claims seriously – because so little critical information is recalled that they can not be proven.
Several very good lawyers have noted that regardless of statute of limitations Ford’s allegation would not prevail in any court of law – not criminal, not even civil. In fact it likely would not make it to a court of law and would be dismissed quickly.
The Senate does nto have a formal standard of proof. Essentially each senator gets to decide that on their own.
But the it standard is that a mere allegation is sufficient – that Senator needs replaced.
There are innumerable allegations made all the time – and if you set a “Ford Standard” – you are never going to be able to confirm a nominee again.
It will always be possible to fiind someone atleast as credible as Ford to make an allegation that does not have evidence but is also not disproveable.
One of the reasons that the burden of proof is always on the accuser is that the accused rarely can prove they did not do something – and the older and vauger the allegation the harder that is. That is the opposite of what you want.
I did here an interesting panel discussion tonight AB Stoddard who is republican but pretty much a never Trumper, noted that Jeff Flake has just done the GOP a great service, and the democrats made a mistake offering and agreeing to a time and scope limited FBI investigation. Democrats are already starting to back away.
Regardless, they have publicly committed to this – everyone saw it. They hammered Kavanaugh and the GOP over the FBI investigation on Thursday – and while the demand is disengenuous – they could have had the investigation easily anytime themselves.
Still that point did resound with the public.
So Democrats and Ford have gotten what they wanted – which they are already backing away from.
The FBI is just not going to turn anything up. This is just too old. So the FBI investigation is either a hail mary, a stalling tactic, or a political stunt – or all of the above.
But they have gotten it.
As Stoddard noted – an FBI report that essentially says – we found nothing new, we interviewed people and they said the same thing they have said to the media or in affidavits, will undermine Ford – the resistance to the FBI investigation was intended to make Kavanaugh look like he was hiding something.
Anyway this pretty much commiits Flake to voting for Kavanaugh absent some new finding.
He wiill be tarred and feathered poliitically if he eats another week of campaign time for republicans and then votes against Kavanaugh, and he is already on the record reporting this favorably out of committee.
Republicans can afford to lose 2 votes, if Flake is locked, that means Murkowski and Collins do not matter. Further the pressure on some D’s like Manchin and Heitcamp will be significant and they will have political cover by the FBI.
The “downside” is going to be that:
It is near certain there wiil be more screwy allegations in the next week,
After the FBI says – we find nothing new, Democrats are near certain to demand more investigation, a broader scope claim the investigation was a white wash, or some other such nonsense.
Regardless, Stoddard noted that absent a very credible new allegation – more of this swetnick garbage or some of the rest of this crap will be meaningless,
not only iis Kavanaugh likely to be confirmed (narrowly), but this will diminish the taint as he starts with the court.
Another thing that believe Stoddard pointed out was that Graham did essentially bring the future out in the open.
There has been a bit of a political truce over several decades that republicians have been losing, Both parties have sort of being replacing liberal justices with liberal justices – and conservatives with conservatives regardless of who was in power.
Many of the “conservaitves” has proven unreliable, but that was not forced by democrats.
Just ot be clear I am not saying that republiicans appoint far left justices to replace far left justices, just that each party has LOOSELY tended to be less extreme when they are not replacing one of their own.
Kavanaugh himself was apparently Kennedy’s choice for his replacement, and among the more centrist of those on Trump’s list.
The odds are good that Trump gets to replace Ginsburg – going to excellent if he is re-elected.
You can know pretty much bet that further Trump appointments will be as conservative as republicans can get away with under the circumstances.
The other think I would note is this fight was a political mistake for democrats.
Their base is purportedly as energized as democrats get.
They have just angered alot of republiicans and given them a reason to vote.
Kavanaugh’s July 1, calandar entry poses another problem for you.
Also listed in the July 1 Calandar entry as present is the person Ed Whelan claimed is the Kavanaugh look alike.
Of course they changed no ones mind.
It is my understanding that Ford came off well, that she was emotionally appealing.
But anyone claiming that in any important way she improved her positions is full of crap.
She introduced no new evidence, she provided no basis outside of your feelings from taking her accusations more seriously, and even though the republicans and even Kavanaugh treated her with Kid Gloves – which was a disservice to justice, on some things she LOST ground. Either she or her attorneys are lying about whether she was told that the senate would meet with her in california – and even privately, if she wished.
That is an issue of credibility. She refused to answer several questions – ones she admitted that she knew answers to. That is an issue of credibility.
She added nothing to her argument – except possibly wrapping it in appealing paper and she lost a small amount of ground on credibility.
There is no such thing as a burden to disprove. Kavanaugh had done what he was obligated to – before the hearing. while he was passionate and eloquent. he added little or nothing to the facts either.
All of this was political theater and apparently we are going to continue it for another week.
Maybe I have changed – maybe not. I am not sure.
I am still battling myself over the standard.
This is not a criminal trial – there is no beyond a reasonable doubt.
There is also still no right to be a supreme court justice.
I am very angry about Kavanaugh’s defamation – which will not ever be remedied.
But that is not determinative.
I am extremely angry at the political way this was handled. I have given Feinstein a fair benefit of the doubt to this point. But I saw somethings in the hearing that deeply disturbed me. Feinstein did not remember things she had said and did a few days before, she was depending on her staff to inform her of what she had said and done.
She appears to be another senator who has stayed longer than she should and is in danger of tarnishing whatever reputation she had.
But that is not determinative.
I beleive Ford – meaning I believe that something bad happened to her long ago.
I believe her in that I do not think she is lying – in the sense that she believes what she is saying. I do not believe her recollections are accurate to a sufficient degree of certainty to reject Kavanaugh for that reason.
I am also angry because, though a part of the objective is to “get Kavanaugh”, that is not all of what is going on here. A part of this might be to delay Kavanaugh sufficiently and hope that democrats take the senate – the odds of which are less than 20%.
But I do not even believe that is the goal. I think the goal is just to slander and malign, to delay for the sake of prolonging the chaos.
Flake has essentially blackmailed Trump into a one week delay. I highly doubt it will be a quiet peaceful week. I highly doubt the FBI will tell anyone anything that changes their minds. This will continue until republicians force a vote – and they are likely to lose – which is NOT the worst outcome. The worst outcome is delay on delay on delay.
I am reminded of the story of the scorpion and the frog.
In 2012 Reid leaked lies about Romney’s tax returns to the press. After the election he was confronted on this. He responded “it worked didn’t it ?”
Republicans by their nature play by the rules. They will find every loop hole there is. They will do so creatively. But they will stay inside the rules.
Those on the left believe rules are for others.
That is what I have had beaten in more thoroughly by all of this.
“Flake has essentially blackmailed Trump into a one week delay. I highly doubt it will be a quiet peaceful week. I highly doubt the FBI will tell anyone anything that changes their minds.”
No one really knows Flakes reasoning. He may have talked with Collins , Murkowski Minchin or another senator that said if the FBI does this then I can confirm, otherwise you lose my vote.
But unlike those on the left that believe in Feinstein 100% and think she handled this perfectly, I believe she had forever changed the way senators interact, work together and try to improve America, just as Reid did when he eliminated the 60 vote rule. We would not be in this situation if 60 votes were still needed. Someone else would have been nominated that held more centrist positions on key issues.
So now we have another 7 days. During this period I would not be at least surprised to hear another person come out about excessive drinking, wild sex parties and undesired sexual contact. I would bet that a democrat senator will demand he withdraw due to “lying” to them during interviews. Then when this does not work, someone will demand the Montgomery County sheriff to conduct an investigation since there is no statue of limitation for this conduct in Maryland. If none of this works, Shumer will pull every rule off the shelf to stop the proceedings
How can we ever recover from this political fiasco given to us by Feinstein? One can only hope someone in the senate will change their rules to block senators from withholding key information from committee members in the future.
I am very angry about the conduct of the left, the democrats and the media.
That is huge and there need to be consequences. There actions have damaged everyone involved including ford, Kavanaugh, their family and friends.
Further this is not the way to get to the truth. It is one thing to know that if you give a statement you could be prosecuted iif it is beleived to be false. It is another to beleive that you could be hounded for the rest of your left and remembered constantly as the person who lied about XXX – because to everyone in this LIE means saying something different than they wish to hear.
The carnage here goes far beyond Kavanaugh.
Further iif all this were handled properly it would be far less of a media circus.
But all that is mostly independent of the fundimental questions.
The bad conduct of democrats, the left and the media – are not justified in the unlikely event they prove right,
The objective is first and foremost to confirm or reject a nominee.
The constitution offers no standard for that approval. Tradiition which is now pretty much over, is that political differences are not a basis to reject a nominee.
The allegatiions are relevant – independent of their mishandling.
My guess is that had Feiinstein let Grassley know of these allegatiions,
Either the SJC would have sent investigators to question those involved or they would have asked the FBI – QUIETLY. Likely the story still would have leaked, but it would have played differently.
I would guess that after having Ford’s statement and the statements of all the alleged witnesses denying this event, the SJC would have voted, probably on partisan lines not to hold any hearings. Why ? Because the hearings would have been a circus – as they were.
Because there is just nothing new that is going to be discovered.
To those who think the FBI should investigate – remember that is FURTHER investigate.
There has already been signifiicant investigation – by senate democrats, republicans, prior investigations by the FBI, the media, After this investigation has ended – there will still be calls for MORE investigation – or something else.
The objective is supposed to be the truth – though it should always be remembered that in many cases, the truth can not be found.
““The objective is supposed to be the truth – though it should always be remembered that in many cases, the truth can not be found.”
In many cases the truth is not the objective. Party is the objective.
We are already hearing arguments that Kavanaugh has lied about his drinking.
We are converting questions of opinion into questions of fact.
I drink very very little – a couple of sips of wine a week. I like some wines. They do not like me. I have acid reflux and even small amounts of alcohol aggravate it severely.
From my context – Kavanaugh is a “heavy drinker”
My father had two mixed drinks a week almost his entire life. That is supposed to be pretty good for your health, that is typically called social drinking.
My mother had one mixed drink almost every day of her life, and sometimes two.
After my Mother died, My father started having 4 and 5 mixed drinks a night.
Mike Judge apparently was drinking so heavily for about 20 years of his life he barely remembers it.
Kavanaugh has testiified that he as drinking one beer fairly regularly during this time and that rarely he drunk enough to be inebriated, but that he never passed out.
Now he is being accused of lying – because he had previously testified that he did not have a drinking problem, and that he was not drinking heavily.
And according to his accusers his testimony proves he lied preiously.
AND he is separately being accused sometiimes by the same people of lying – because he must have been drinking more than that – because they say so. Or because someone peripheral to his life expressed the OPINION that he drank heavily.
And of course if to people express different OPPINIONS and you beleiive one is wrong, that means the person expressing that OPPINION is a liar – even a perjurer
I would further note this is not about women, or sex or sex crimes.
If there was an allegation that 36 years ago Kavanaugh Beat a male student at a party to a pulp, the standards would be the same.
What evidence exists. can you corroborate ?
There are a few noting that corroboration is not a legal requirement.
Strictly speaking that is true.
The legal standard in a criminal cases is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thought the court will pontificate on what that means if requested – it is never clearly defined.
Every juror must ultiimately decide for themselves.
Juror’s in criminal and civil cases are free to decide cases based purely on the relative crediibility of the parties. Sometimes that is all that they have.
People have been convicted and gone to jail on weaker evidence that Ford’s testimony – though always with defendents who were not credible at all.
But even that is not common.
It isi very hard to get 12 people on a jury to convict someone when all there is, is one persons story without corroboration.
Regardless, we need to get past this nonsense that this is about women.
No one is entitled to be beleived – not even if you are telling the truth.
It is unfortunate, but that is reality.
The fact that there is only one objectiive truth does not mean that the people who must decide know or even can know it, and they must decide.
This does not change whether the allegation is rape, assualt, theft, or bad manners.
Whether the accuser is male or female and the victim is male or female.
Dave everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I can not accept your position that this is not about women. to me this is all about women. It is about the discrimination they have endured at the hands of powerful men. It is about years of sexual abuse at the hands of powerful men. It is about Trump and his actions with women. It is about women using every thread of evidence to enhance their #metoo movement and to energize the women’s vote this coming election.
Now the only thing I will compare this to is him sexually abused young boys while in HS or college, but I have little doubt this would have come to light in one of the many background checks since that does not only happen once.
Feinstein knew it was about women, made it about women when she refused to share the information so a complete investigation could be conducted during the nomination period and made it totally about the upcoming election to get women interested in an otherwise uninteresting election. And after thinking about Flake, his flip flop and the delay, he also made it about Trump. What better way to get back at Trump, one he despises, than to do what he did?
I will agree with you that alot of people think this is about women – but it is not.
If Kavanaugh beat some guy to a pulp 36 years ago that would disqualify him as a supreme court justice.
But we would have much the same problems determining credibility.
Attempted Sexual Assault is a crime that often leaves no evidence if reported immediately.
But even crimes that leave copious amounts of evidence, are near impossible to evaluate 36 years later.
It does not matter what crime Kavanaugh is accused of – 36 years later there would be very little if any evidence and we would be asking exactly the same kind of questions of the accuser.
If Kavanaugh actually did exactly what Ford says with the intentions that Ford beleiives he had. It is highly unlikely that he would not have done it again. People who do these kind of things and get away with it do not stop.
I would also note – they do not typically significantly change how they do it.
i.e. if they do not shift from the use of force, to drugging punch to exposing themselves to coeds.
Just to be clear – Kavanaugh’s calendar is not dispositive, his lack of MO is not dispositive. Ford’s poor memory of everything else is not dispositive – though her pretence at the senate hearing that her memory failure are scientific demonstrate she is a far worse scientist than she claims. SOME people – as she notes recall only a few things. Most peoples memory changes over time, becoming less accurate. Some people will never forget some meaningless detail that was simultaneous with the Trauma they experienced.
Many people remember a great deal.
My personal view – something happened to Ford. I do not know if it involved Kavanaugh, but I doubt it. What happened was wrong, but it was not nearly as traumatic as she asserts.
I think that if it was she would have much more accurate memories.
I gave you a far more detailed account of what happened to my wife 34 years ago – and I could elaborate on that. And she could elaborate even further.
I few years earlier someone tired to run my brother off the road. I got into a fight with them. I got beat up pretty badly. My recollection of that is about as poor as Ford’s.
That did not change my life, it was just a bad experience.
With respect to sexaul assault I have met people – even some men, who were assaulted – to varying degrees.
I have also met people who lied about being assaulted. It is not common, but it is also not rare.
Sunday March 11, 1984, we had just driven home from MA, where two colleges friends had gotten married at the unitarian church on the green at Lexington.
I had driven all night to get home because my wife was the organist at St. Mary’s church 3 blocks from our home, and had to play that morning. She got up at 7 and walked to church, is was a overcast day with a light rain, but she did not make it. along east vine street, 2 blocks from home, and 2 blocks from the church a man came up behind her put something to her back, claimed it was a gun, dragged her into a building that was being renovated and sexually assaulted her for 3 hours.
That was 34 years ago.
I remember being woken by a call from the police asking me to go to the emergency room at the local hospital. I drove as fast as I could, the wrong way down one way streets, and arrived at the emergency room before she did.
I remember is detail the rest fo the day, the police officers, the nurse the doctor, the detectives, the trip back to the scene.
At the same time – that is the last moment I remember with clarity for the next couple of years.
I remember much more, and My wife could tell you much more than that.
II also know that some of my memories have become less clear over the years – and frankly that is a good thing.
I want to be careful about judging Dr. Ford. One of the things I have learned in life is that there is no right way to react, there is no right way to remember.
I have spent alot of time talking to people who have been sexually assaulted, and their stories are not the same, there ability to remember is not the same.
For my wife and I one of the hard tasks was forgetting. She went through alot of therapy to stop things like a specific color of car, or a specific smell, from taking her back to that moment.
Form years my wife would play “Come to the Quiet” by John Micheal Talbot – a catholic monk to calm down whenever she was stressed. Now I hate that album, I instantly get stressed whenever I hear it.
My wife and I had little choice about talking about what happened. She was found by a police officer. The story was on the front page of the newspaper almost every day for the next week. There were enough details for all of our friends to know exactly who it was.
This type of tragedy is an entry ticket to a community, that of other victims.
There are far too many. but it also exposes you to some other dark things.
Shortly after this happened two relatives who had never said anything before came forward and claimed that something similar had happened to them.
Sometimes events like this expose you to the reality of others that have had something similar happen to them. Sometimes it brings out strange people who have this bizarre perception that you are getting positive attention that the crave and they make up stories to get their own moment in the spotlight.
Having experienced this. I can not understand that at all. I would rather what happened never happen.
Nor do I wish to say that this is the only reasons people make things up, or that those who do are more than a small portion of all the people who make accusations.
Everyone is not the same. Everyone does not have exactly the same thing happen to them. They do not respond the same, Some people tell the truth about horrific things – and are not believed. Some people lie and are believed. Some remember every detail of something that happened 35 years ago. Some work hard to forget. Some show no emotion, some can project emotion incredibly well.
Most of what you believe about sensing the difference between the truth and a lie is false.
People who tell the truth are sometimes numb and lack affect, and people who are lying, tell compelling stories. That applies equally to Kavanaugh and Ford.
We are usually better at telling when those who are close to us are telling the truth and when they are not, we know them, we also know whether they lie or not.
But we do not have that knowledge of strangers, and there are no rules for how people who are lying or people who are telling the truth act.
Nor do those who are telling the truth remember the same.
When we are assessing strangers all that we have to assess credibiliity or what we beleiive and how strongly we do are the facts.
People who tell the truth – are often unable to do as either Kavanaugh or Ford did and do so passionately. While some who are not are incredibly convincing.
Those in hollywood are paid incredibly well for selling to us the emotional truth of something they did not personally experience.
All we have that is trustworth to determine the truth is facts, evidence, and even that is often not near enough to be sure.
We have entered the zone where you, Dave, are going to view all further events through your usual lens, the most important issue in your mind that trumps all others is how scared you are of the left. You have said some interesting and even rational things about the accusations and the accusers, but when you tell us above that K was not affluent, well, your full denial mode of every molecule of the arguments others make has now been engaged and I am not going to waste my time reading your denial and ranting about the left routine. You always revert to that mode when others take you up and debate with you. Its not a mode that is a good use of my time to engage with, I can predict everything you will say from here on in without needing to read it.
I did enjoy some of your comments above before you entered the denial of everything and ranting about the left mode.
The video I linked was from Fareed zakaria of CNN – not some right wing loon.
My view of the dangers of the left is supported by numerous others – ON THE LEFT, as well as people like JS Mill from 200 years ago, and most importantly by history.
The destruction of free speech, the shoutiing down opponents, the character assassination are patterns we have seen over and over in history. We know where they lead. they are no unique to the left, but they are in recent centuries signature behavior of the left EVERYWHERE.
Go read Alynskies rules for radicals – and remember the president you think is so much more reasonable than Trump was an Alynsky acolyte
With respect to Kavanaugh’s affluence – his mother was a state court judge and his father was a lawyer for an industry group. He was by no means poor.
His family was able to afford Georgetown Prep. At the same time he was not in the same league as most of those he was in school with. Certainly not those from Holton-Arms.
If you are unwilling to even listen to information that contradicts your presumptions – how to you expect to make good judgements.
This was all 35 years ago – it is going to be hard to impossible to get the facts we want. The best we can do is to try to get the facts we can.
We can not KNOW what happened to Ford. We can not KNOW if the specifics of Swetnick’s affidavit are correct. We can not KNOW Kavanaugh’s exact relationship to the culture of that time.
But we can get a good sense of the culture at Holton-Arms and Georgetown Prep at the time.
And the evidence strongly suggests that Swetnick’s picture is moderately accurate – particularly with respect to Holton-arms EXCEPT that the conduct of the women was more than consensual. They were active participants, setting up drinking and sex parties.
I would have no problem with an assertion that it is near certain that in that culture at some point some women was near certain to get raped.
But that has little or nothing to do with Kavanaugh. Further it makes Ford’s story less credible – with respect to Kavanaugh.
This does not make Kavanaugh a good guy – it just means we have no reasonable basis for beleiving his is a rapist or that he has significantly lied.
I just watched the opening of the hearing. Sen Grassley started out with a nice statement calling for civility from participants and then launched into an entirely partisan monologue that that attacked the democrats and the lawyers for Ford and implicitly Ford herself. Ford appeared to be trying not to cry, I doubt she expected what she got from Sen. Grassley.
A lesson in how to be a complete jerk while being “civil”.
Grassley was one of the GOP good guys, or so I had thought. I thought that he had conducted himself with dignity and patience up to this point. I turned it off, I’ll read about it later and watch news clips. I expect that to many women watching what they saw was on old white guy roughing up a woman before she had seen said a word. We will see what the consequences are politically.
I am out of here, our national life is absurd and grotesque. See you guys Nov 9.
I have been avoiding the hearing.
Can you provide more detail regarding what Grassley said that offended you ?
Republicans have a right to be very angry, but Ford is not the appropriate target.
I have minor problems with the conduct of Ford’s attorney’s – as they do not appear to have been insync with their client.
I have major problems with the behavior or democrats. They knew of these allegations months ago – that was the time to raise them.
I think Grassley has a right to be angry about all the attempts to manipulate the committee. and the Senate. At the same time those are part of politics.
Regardless, what did Grassley say that you thought was inappropriately partisan ?
One of the more important remarks Derschowitz made was that the burden of proof rests with the accuser – Ford, and she must be cross examined HARD – respectfully, but still hard.
That is the means by which we get at the truth.
Ford has repeatedly commented about her fear of coming forward and her fear of the circus that brings.
That is how it is. It is unfortunate but we do not have a magic truth detector.
When you make an accusation such as attempted rape, unfortunately the burden of proof is yours. You should expect it to be tough. It is the difficulty and the standards of proof that prevent everything from degenerating to chaos and accusations are used as weapons to grind everything to a halt.
Grump, please read my comment made just a couple minutes ago, around 11:50 to Dave concerning hearings. I watched a little more than you. She actually was not about to cry. after her statement Grassley asked if she needed a break and she said no, she got some coffee and that helped what ever problem she was having speaking in her opening statement. It was what happened after that which was totally screwed up.
Gut it might be I was viewing from a different political view point than you, so I may have seen something totally different than you.
This is not easy – anyone there who thinks it is, who was enjoying it, should not be there.
I do not care if Grassley or someone else made Ford cry.
Or more accurately – I care, but asking tough questions is required anyway.
I did not see or hear her crying. She was having problems speaking, either due to a dry throat or something causing her a breathing issue. Once she stopped talking, Grassley asked her if she needed a break and she smiled and said, no, someone got her a cup of coffee and that took care of whatever was bothering her.
Like I also said, I was viewing this from a different political view point than Grump so I could be mistaken if she was crying or not.
I have not watched much of this – just Kavanaugh’s opening statement, and some of the questions of him.
I really really do not like Lindsey Graham. In the 2016 election he was the only candidate who was more of a hawk than HRC. But Graham’s exploding on Durbin was absolutely fantastic.
I was further generally anyoned by the questioning of democrats – who seemed to be fixated on getting another delay and even more FBI investigations.
Obviously we all want to know whatever can be known. Kavanaugh for the most part testified that choices involving the FBI were up to the committee.
I am unclear on the details because there is some divergence between what Democrats said and what Sen. Cruz said on the matter. The Democratic Senators claimed ot have been shut out of the process regarding Kavanaugh’s nomination. While Cruz, noted that both the Sen. Rules, the general rules of the committee and the rules Grassley provided at the state of Kavanaugh’s nomination would have allowed democrats to bring forth any witness they wanted to be interviewed on or off the record, and that any member of the Senate – not just a member of the Judiciary committee can request that the FBI investigate anything they want.
Grassley pointed out that the Democrats on the committee were invited to participate in committee and staff interviews regarding several of these allegations – including ones involving Ramirez, the two witnesses who think they were mistaken for Kavanaugh, and an anonymous allegation that was only made public yesterday – several of these were conducted privately prior to Ford being outed publicly.
Democrats chose to participate in two interviews but chose not to in all others.
So we have Feinstein claiming that Democrats were boxed out and had no control of anything, and you have republicans saying that they were always independently free to go to the FBI, and were free to privately interview people who wished to have their privacy protected.
Kavanaugh came out swinging at the democrats and activists on the left.
He took particular aim at Senators who either immediately before his nomination, or shortly after were publicly saying things such as that he was evil, that women would die because of him.
Purportedly Ford came off well – but did not add anything knew to what we already have heard.
Kavanaugh’s opening was pretty long, but it was extremely strong, emotional, just generally good, He noted that not merely himself, not just his family, but many others – including women who have stood up for him, including even some liberal democrats who have stood up for him have been defamed and damaged by this process. He was extremely respectful of Ford, refusing repeatedly to be baited into attacking her. He said that he beleived it was likely that something horrific happened to her, but that unequivocally he did not sexually assault her, and that neither he nor any of the people Ford said were present were at this party. He pointed out a many factual problems with her story – including the fact that the vaguely placed location of this assault was far from any of the alleged particpants and they all would have had to drive and that Ford did not have a license and had been drinking = so someone had to drive her too and from this party which she purportedly fled from on foot.
I have generally been impressed by Grassley. I was not of the few remarks I heard from him.
He mostly did not seem in control and mostly seemed to be not completely there.
A former life long Republican (pre Trump) speaks:
MeToo, Steve.
Are you interested in the truth – or will any allegation that fits your ideology do ?
I get very annoyed at this crap.
Most of us here disagree on a variety of things.
Some of us are entirely predictable solely by some checklist of leftist ideology.
Many of us have actual opinions of our own.
And when the GOP does not self immolate ?
We have been hearing this garbage since Trump first threw his hat in the ring.
I personally thought he was toast after he attacked McCain.
Many such as you, do not seem to understand that most of us do not divide purely right left, or pro-trump, anti-trump or pro-obama anti-obama.
It is possible to note that Trump has been a better president than Obama, without being a Trumpanzee.
With the exception of the fact that the investigation of the conduct of the FBI and DOJ ad the rest of the government regarding the Trump campaign and Trump himself after the election needs to continue to be investigated – I really do not care if the democrats take over the house. Divided government is generally a good thing.
Aside from the fact that I think Trump’s judical slate has been remarkable in a way I did not think was possible – not perfect mind you, but there is just no possibility he is going to appoint the people Ii would prefer – aside from that I would not care if Republicans lost the senate – which is pretty unlikely.
Dismantling the extra legal and constitutional millstones that Obama and the left have hung arround the nations neck over the prior 8 years (not that Bush was worth writing home about), does not require congress. Further I am highly suspicious that Trump would get much more of what he wants from a democratic congress. Actually having power means you have to govern.
My preference for divided government – does not however mean I have to support some of the assholes that either party has nominated. Particularly disturbing is the number towards the top of the democratic party.
Further – I have no doubt we are watching a slow motion Train Wreck – but I am not so sure as you which train is about to be wrecked.
The portion of those polled saying they are voting democrat in Nov. is just equal to its prior peak. The Generic ballot is at D+7 right now. But Democrats are likely close to their max, and Republican support is also rising – it too is at the highest level it has been – and rising.
D+4 or less likely means zero change in the makeup of the house or senate.
There are lots of Clues that indicate Democrats are going to do very well in November.
But there are a fair number of contradictory facts. Republiicans have won several races recently that they should have lost and are projected to win deep blue seats – yes they are also going to lose some deep red ones.
My point is that just like Brexit and 2016 – I do not think that we really know what is happening, and will not until the election is over.
Hearing over. I believe them both. So, I’m afraid K can’t get a lifetime appointment with the doubts about his character.
Yes. I agree.
“Hearing over. I believe them both. So, I’m afraid K can’t get a lifetime appointment with the doubts about his character.”
I can respect that.
But I still have several questions:
Are you going to reject anyone where someone comes forward and makes an allegation that can not be proven or disproven ? Understanding that is always possible.
You can beleiive that the story Ford told was true in all respects except for the specific participants and still beleive Kavanaugh. Why do you choose to beleive the one part of Ford’s allegation that is by far the lest credible. Every other person SHE claims was at this party claims they were not. Keyser – Ford’s close freind claiims that Keyser has never in her life met Kavanaugh.
Why do you beleive that Ford more accurately than anyone else recalls a few specific things of an event 36 years ago, but is inaccurate or sketchy on most any detail that could confirm it ?
there are reasons we have statues of limitations – this is one of those reasons.
I mostly believe both of them too. At this time I would likely confirm Kavanaugh.
Not merely because I do not believe he assaulted Ford, but because I have found him to be a quite different person than I was told he was.
Don’t know if this outfit has any credibility, but: https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/09/27/blasey_ford_yearbooks.html
I do not beleive that either of them are the innocents that they have claimed to be.
With respect to that Kavanaugh was the most honest. Whiile he asserted that he never “blacked out” from drinking, he addmitted to regular under age drinking beer, and occasionally being inebriated.
Kavanaugh’s yearbook did get into the hearing. He provided a defense that I had not thought of that likely applies to Holton-Arms too.
Kavanaugh listed several movies – the only ones I recall being animal house, and fast times at ridgemont high, that had come out at the time, and noted that the editors and staff of the yearbook had deliberately choose to paint that kind of picture in the yearbook.
I will separately note – that if this were to come down to character witnesses, Ford is cooked.
Kavanaugh has already produced not merely hundreds of character witnesses, but hundreds of women from through his life.
That is actually one part of Kavanaugh’s story that bothers me. The man has had more close female friends who remain lifelong friends than I or most people I know have had total friends in their entire life time. And absolutely none of these relationships were sexual.
I am wondering if Kavanaugh is not deeply in the closet. Straight men just do not have that many close relationships with women sexual or not.
“I am wondering if Kavanaugh is not deeply in the closet. Straight men just do not have that many close relationships with women sexual or not.”
You have not been around much lately, especially the Ivy League types. Many professional men and women have lasting friendships developed during HS and college that are not sexual.
I believe this happened. I believe CF and K. CF provided information that indicates this happened and K provided information he was not in town when it was suppose to happen.
The one thing I would hope this fiasco is used for is educating kids. They need to see most of this, but especially the questioning concerning the year book. If yearbook entires where kids have always written things that are made up crap, what the heck is it going to be like when Facebook and Twitter stuff is uncovered in 30 years that kids post today?
I did love it when the “D” senator was asking about the “f” “f” “f” notes. He looked like he wanted to crawl under the chair when the desription was given and K kept commenting and the senator was kept trying to change the subject, that was enjoyable to watch.
There are many ways in which I was able to identify with Kavanaugh at his hearing.
But there were ways in which I did not identify with him – or Ford for that matter either.
I graduated from HS in 1976 – I am only a handful of years older than this.
Classmates drank and had sex, but it was extremely uncommon – nothing like what either Kavanaugh or Ford’s yearbooks portend. Ford purportedly only had one beer that night. I doubt there is a female in my graduating class that drank – particularly not beer.
These students were talking about sex parties all over. While I am sure that some of my graduating class had sex, there were lots of rumours, and many people would hint, but no one actually said they did.
Even in college – almost exactly the period this was happening, my roommates and dorm mates where just not drinking like fish and going at it like bunnies. Yes, there was some sex and some drinking – but it was not common.
Maybe this is because I went to engineering schools. Maybe it was because pretty much all of us were geeks and nerds – that is who goes to engineering schools.
My kids tell me about their friends – and though the world has changed greatly from when I was their age, and I am very happy that I have raised children who make pretty good choices on their own. Not because I have threatened them or scared them, but because they have good values.
Regardless, even their world is not what was portrayed in these yearbooks or by all these accusers.
I would note that Kavanaugh’s accusers are doing more than pointing a finger at him, they are accusing most of the high school and college population of the DC area at this time.
One of the more telling parts of this for me, was when Kavanaugh fairly quickly went right for several democratic senators.
We get to hear – constantly – in the media, from the left – and from posters here, that the nation is divided and iit is all Trump and republicans fault.
Kavanaugh specifically cited democratic senators from calling him “evil” before he was even nominated, for telling the press that tens of thousands of women would die if he was confirmed – these were comments from members of the judiciary committee.
There is alot of pushing and shoving in politics. Politics is not bean bag.
But if there are no rules for politics – we should not expect to be able to govern ourselves.
There has been alot of game playing back and forth – Republicans and democrats.
But if it is not obvious to you that the playing field is heavily skewed – that one side is far more likely than the other to do whatever it takes.
We fought here for weeks over Alt-Right nutjobs at Charlotsville.
We can fight more. But there is no way in the world that you can make the miniscule number of purportedly violent alt-righters a tiny fraction of the political violence of the left today.
The left has to work hard to find someway of trying to attribute every depraved act of violence on someone from the right – and thy nearly always fail. But all the efforts at political assassination in the past decade have been from the left. There were more counter protesters in charlottesville than alt-right in the entire country. More specifically Antifa in Boston a few days later than alt-right in the entire country.
No one on the right is trying to silence people. They might criticise what is said. But they are not trying to prevent speaking.
Senators on the judiciary committee are publicly telling us that there is no place for the presumption of innocence, that accusers must be believed and that the accused and those in doubt should just shut up. These are not antifa these are not reckless leftist kids, these are senators elected by millions of voters.
Obama was elected in 2008 – and as he said – elections have consequences.
The republican minority tried to use the rules in the senate that favor minorities to moderate Obama – to stop this – democrats changed the rules. Voters responded by giving republicans control of the house. Democrats changed the political calculus again. According to the constitution if either chamber of congress or the president opposes something – that can not happen. Our government was heavily designed to make it difficult for the majority to expand the power of government. Yet somehow the left flipped the rules. Where before control of a single part of government allowed one party to reign in the excesses of the other, now that was not sufficient, so voters gave republicans control of the senate. Again that was not sufficient – Obama and democrats “changed the rules” again – the president could do as he pleased without regard to congress, So voters gave republicans control of the whitehouse – and still the rules change. Now it requires a supermajority to undo the mistakes of prior democrats. Further having lost the election to Trump – something that should not have been possible, the left the media, the #resistance went about changing the rules again. Now it is OK to stage a coup in america. To remove those legitimately elected just because you do not like them.
I do not support trump, I do not like him. But I do support the rule of law, Further I do support SOME of what he is doing, and even where I think he is wrong – there are legitimate ways to oppose, and illegitimate ones.
Worse still far too much ot the left’s opposition to Trump – is purely to Trump.
If Obama was trying to get a peace deal with Kim Un the left would be draping laurels.
Obama was bombing the shit out of the mideast – and the left cheered. Obama and Clinton were kissing Putin’s ass – and the left cheered. Obama was raising Tarrif’s on China – the left cheered. In fact Trump’s entire trade policy was cribbed from 50+ years of democrats. Yet today Trump is evil for doing what the left desires.
I do not support Trump in all these things. But I have not changed my position on anything because the party in control has changed.
My views regarding Putin, syria, afghanistan, endless war, Tarrifs, …. have not changed because the wrong person won an election. Because my political enemy is trying to do what my party advocated for years.
You can not run a family, a church, much less a government if an accusation is all that is necessary to accomplish your goals.
We are the least racist, homophobic, mysoginist we have been in our countries history.
But we can survive being ten times as racist, homophobic, mysoginist as we are today.
Not so long ago much of the country owned slaves and women might as well have been slaves they had no rights. that was despicable – but we survived, thrive and slowly corrected those injustices. We can survive bad laws. We can not survive lawlessness. We can not survive making it up as we go along. We can not survive governing ourselves by our emotions, our guts, by what we beleive without regard for facts, logic reason.
Just as we know from history that we can survive racism, homophobia, mysogyny, we also no from history that no nation survives long when one group can silence another. no nation can survive long when we substitute what we want to be, for what actually is, what feels right for what is right, what we beleive, for what is.
For all its many faults – it is not the right that is threatening to burn everything down if they do not get their way. It is not the right that seeks to substitute feelings for reason, logic, facts.
The more I think about it Sen. Graham’s rant yesterday was wrong, it was even evil.
Sen. Graham looked at his fellow democrats accross the aisle and said – behave yourself, or in the future I and other republicans are going to behave as badly as you do.
That is wrong. The evil conduct of others does not ever justify doing evil yourself.
But as wrong as it was, it was also the strongest condemnation that he could have made.
It was the dark side of the golden rule – “do not do to others, what you do not want done to you”.
I do not have a problem with Senators voting not to confirm anyone for ideological reasons.
I have a great deal of problem with character assassination as the political justification for ideological acts.
What the #metoo movement has shown us in the brief time over the past 2 years that some portion of women’s rights was not iin complete thrall to the left, was that with regard to sexism and mysogyny the left is no better than the right – at anything but rhetoric.
“The only position for women in SNCC is prone.” ~ Stokely Carmichael
We have spent the past decade fomenting back anger at republicans over the purported systemic racism in police forces and cities that have almost universally run by democrats – often black ones for half a century.
We may have a race problem – it is not the racism of republicans. It is not even the alt-right, skin heads or neo nazi’s.
I have lots of gay friends. Purportedly less than 3% of the population is gay. In may world I am not sure than more than 1/3 of the population is straight.
I have been advocating for gay rights for decades.
I am disappointed and angry that the oppressed gay people I stood up for are rapidly becoming the oppressors.
If some fundimentalist religious baker does not want to serve gay people, F’ him Boycott him, protest. But do not use force to destroy him.
You have not converted someone because you have silenced them.
Persuade Master Cakes to choose differently. Win the argument – with words, not force or by taking away peoples freedom – even the freedom to be stupid.
If you do not see that we have a massive problem of intolerance of epic proportions – from the left today. If you do not see that the responsibility of the right for the toxic political environment today is a tiny fraction of that of the left. if you do not see that this does not end well, then you are blind.
Watching clips from K’s testimony just now, one thing is apparent – he LIED when he said he drank beer, but never to excess.
He was rude, obnoxious, sometimes overly aggressive when drunk.
Numerous corroborated stories from his contemporaries are out there – including descriptions from his drinking buddy, Judge.
Another corroboration surfaces
Jay, are you OK?? You just shared a link from the times that said all this should not keep him from not being confirmed. And followed up with two that ssid he should not.
Is that being “The New Moderate” taking both sides?😂😂😂😂😂
Coroborates nothing.
Please actually replay Kavanaugh’s testimony.
What is it you think he lied about ?
He admitted drinking beer.
He admitted on occasion getting inebriated.
He denied ever blacking out.
He said that like most other americans he likes beer – even today.
Swisher does not contradict Kavanaugh’s testimony.
Nor does she corroborate Ramirez.
I would further note there are three independent issues here.
1). Did Kavanaugh lie about his drinking.
Short of proving he blacked out, you would be trying to criminalize differences of oppinion.
2). Does Kavanaugh’s drinking – and Ii think that would mostly be current drinking bar him from the supreme court. I do not think any of us would bar someone who had a drinking problem in the past, but not now, who had not lied about it, and did not commit any crimes.
3). Does this have anything to do with sexual assaults ?
No. Actually proving that Kavanaugh lied under oath would disqualify him for the supreme court, it would not establish much of anything regarding the allegations of Ramirez or Ford.
I would further note that Ramirez makes no claims regarding Kavanaugh’s drinking. Only that she was very drunk at the incident.
She doe not even make a direct claim about Kavanaugh. Her claim is that while Drunk and confronted with a bunch of plastic penises, that some person that she can not identify pulled down their pants and she came in contact with their penis. And that an unidentified 3rd party named this person as Kavanaugh as they were leaving.
How credible is the hearsay evidence of someone admittedly drunk.
“Watching clips from K’s testimony just now, one thing is apparent – he LIED when he said he drank beer, but never to excess.”
Because you have proof of something no one else does ?
“He was rude, obnoxious, sometimes overly aggressive when drunk.
Numerous corroborated stories from his contemporaries are out there – including descriptions from his drinking buddy, Judge.”
Everyone – including Judge absolutely concedes that what you are saying is true of Judge.
After that your claim fails.
In general I agree with this Bret:
Why????
I agree with his evaluation, not with his conclusion. I’m one who believes the assault allegations are not conclusive enough to disqualify him; but other reasons I’ve noted before more than suffice to cancel his nomination, among them this:
“A stronger argument against Kavanaugh’s nomination is that we should not elevate to the Supreme Court a nominee over whom there will always be this dark pall of suspicion.
I’m sympathetic to this argument, too. If Kavanaugh were to step aside in exchange for a deal in which Donald Trump nominates conservative federal judge Amy Coney Barrett and Democrats agree to vote on her nomination before the midterms, the country might find a chance for compromise, closure, and even a moment of grace.”
If I was a judge with strong respect for the history of the Supreme Court and realized my presence there would diminish its reputation, I’d put aside my own personal ambition for that office and step aside for a judgewho wasn’t held in such poor regard by half (or more) of the nation.
And if I was a president who wanted to reunify the nation, and not further pry it apart, i’d Nominate a moderate judge in replacement, not one who will be a straightforward political hand puppet of my own ideological agenda.
If you were really a moderate you’d do the same..
I have zero problems with your opposing Kavanaugh on purely ideological grounds.
Though that has not been the tradition in the Senate particularly for republican Senators, as Graham pointed out.
But iit is going to be in the future.
Kagan aparently did not have sufficient ideological problems with Kavanaugh to preclude hiring him to teach when she was dean at yale.
Do you honestly think that Democrats are going to make a deal to allow a vote on Barrett under any circumstances ?
If Kavanaugh iis not confirmed and Barrett is nominated expect even more instanity.
My guess is that the attack will be on Barrett’s religious convictions as that is what they tried before.
Regardless, Kavanaugh, Barrett, it really does not matter who,
One of the other things that I heard today was – Graham’s remarks were a signal that whatever you thought before, Republiicans now grasp they are at war.
Democrats have unified Republicans arround Trump in a way that Trump could not manage.
Just to be clear – the democrats are not lookiing to heal the country. They are looking to agrevate conflict. They beleive that serves them politically, regardless, that is what you get when the ends justify the means.
Yes, the supreme court is going to be severely diminished by adding one of Kennedy’s former clerks, a harvard law professor hired by Kagan and a georgetown prep classmate of Gorsuch’s from the 2nd most presitgious court in the country.
If Democrats wanted to unite the nation, they would not have been calling Kavanaugh evil and a murder or thousands of women BEFORE he was nominated.
Get over that idea Jay.
The left has amplified national division by increasing their deviation from the rule of law, and by politics by character assassination for decades.
Democrats not only personally attack republican candidates – they attack republican voters.
You are not going to “heal the nation” so long as the left is calling everyone else raciist mysoginist homophobes and demanding that they shut up.
You find a moderate who beleives in the rule of law.
Has an approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation that produces a knowable result all the time – without reference to the status of the participants, and that leaves writing the laws, and changing the constitution to the legislature and the people where it belongs.
II know of know candidate on the left or “center” who meets those criteria.
Kavanaugh is likely to be more moderate than Gorsuch – by your measure,
and certainly more than Barrett.
There is no concensus here as to what a “moderate” is.
I certainly do not think you are.
I know what I am – libertarian. I am neither left nor right nor center.
I am more interested in what is correct, true, than left or right.
“You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream – the maximum of individual freedom consistent with law and order – or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.”
Reagan
Jay “A stronger argument against Kavanaugh’s nomination is that we should not elevate to the Supreme Court a nominee over whom there will always be this dark pall of suspicion.”
I summons your common sense ( even though some here do not believe in common sense, I do). After seeing the fiasco we are witnessing, do you really believe future senators will not find someway to cast a “dark pall of suspicion” on any nominees that the party does not like if this works?
If you believe they would not, did you believe they would have done it this time? Would you have believed Feinstein would have kept it secret for 60+ days until the last minute? Do you believe she was doing that for the good of the country?
I think if this works, you will have to be female or god to get confirmed to SCOTUS in the future. And god wouldbhave a much harder time due to religious beliefs.
It is near certain that if Kavanaugh is not confirmed the next nominee will be Barrett.
I doubt that the attack on her will be that she drunkenly raped someone 35 years ago.
We all ready know how she will be attacked – as a religious nutcase.
But lets not pretend that she is not going to be attacked.
Jay, given that Feinstein has had to move much further left from her previous positions to insure she did not lose the far left vote to De Leon., do you really believe she would not try to block Barrett if nominated?
one of the things that was evident in these hearings is that it is time for Feinstein to retire.
@Jay: I also read the BS op-ed, and like you agreed ’til the end. He can be a sneaky writer, although I do agree with more than 50% of his stuff.. I liked Gail Collins on the other side of the page better.
Dave, “one of the things that was evident in these hearings is that it is time for Feinstein to retire.”
She is not doing that. She is running, and well ahead of her opponent a much more farther left politician that she is. I suspect part of her actions was to secure that lead with california women.
I do not care who her opponent was. My guess is that the next few years are going to be deeply embarrassing for her and her constitutuents. My guess is that her staff is actually running the show.
dhlii: Regardless of this circus, the terrible experience your wife and you as her supporter experienced is far more serious (as far as we know) and in light of that experience, your not being totally anti K, may be remarkable. Usually victims are not so “fair” in judging similar experiences by others.
dd;
This is not about being pro or anti-K.
It is not about “beleiving women”.
When a women makes an allegation it should be taken seriously – it is very likely true.
But very likely is not always.
I have also known (well) several women who have made allegations I beleive were absolutely false. I do not think that is common, but I know alot of women who have been assaulted and that means likely more who merely claim to have been.
Ford does not actually match those either.
II do not want to get into Ford much, I am content to beleive that something serious happened to her, and that she beleives that her testimony is accurate.
i.e. I do not think she is lying. But I do think she is likely wrong.
And further I would say that I do not really think this PARTICULAR event is a “women’s issue”.
Of Kavanaugh beat another guy to a pulp while inebriated – he would be disqualified.
And I would use exactly the same standard for determining the truth.
I would further say there is what shoudl the senate do/beleive and what should someone else.
My daughter experiences something similar to what Ford claims. Some guy she trusted who was drinking tried to use force to have sex with her. She is a Martial arts blackbelt and was as Ford was, able to escape. She was older than Ford, but still told her parents within hours.
But she chose not to report it and choose not to tell others. The event is disturbing for her – as is this circus in washington. But it is not a trauma that has substantially altered her life.
If as is highly unlikely 35 years from now this kid is headed for the supreme court – she could be Ford.
Regardless, I beleiive my daughter. I would expect anyone would. I also expect that Ford’s freind and family absolutely beleieve her, Just as I expect that Kavanaugh’s would absolutely beleive him.
The question is what the Senate should beleive.
If a 36 year old uncoroboratable allegation is sufficient to derail Kavanaugh,
no one is confirmable.
If you wish to oppose Kavanaugh on purely ideological grounds – that is fine – but then you must expect that others who oppose your ideology will do the same.
Generallizing about “victims” is a mistake.
Each of us is different. I noted that my recollection of a more traumatic event from 34 years ago was far far more detailed than Fords to refute the specific claim Ford – who should know better made on the stand. Not as proof she is lying.
Everyone is different – that is a big part of why I am libertarian. We are not each the same, we are not equal in anything but our rights. We do not experience the world exactly the same. We do not react to bad event exactly the same.
I am actually offended by the hearing, and the fixation on who “sold” their story better.
Either ford or Kavanaugh could have come into the hearing with little or no affect.
That would have heavily effected how most people weighed their story.
But it would not alter in the slightest what the actual truth is.
Rainy days in mid march are still very very bad for my wife and I.
In the list of aniversaries that I remember each year – there is the date of our first date, our wedding day, her birthday, but at the top of the list never to be forgotten is March 11, 1984.
But the rest of the time we mostly do not think about this. Given that for years that was all we could think of sometimes that seems strange.
Regardless, neither she nor I are “victims” and have not been for a long time.
We own our own lifes. No matter what someone else has done to us, only we can bring about our own happiness.
In the mid 90’s my wife decided to go back to school. Law School.
She was offered a free ride at Dickenson. I persuaded her to apply to the University of Pennsylvania. She did not beleive it was worth applying. But I persuaded her to, and they accepted her.
Two months before she was to start she was diagnosed with stage III Cervical carcinoma in Situ – the consequence of an STD that she picked up from the assault.
We still scheduled the surgery, before classes started and she was somehow ready.
The first day, of her very first class in an ivy league law schools the very first case that they covered in Torts was our lawsuit against the owners of the building in which she was assaulted in. She left the class, and saw the professor immediately afterwords and said – “I can not do this case, I am in it”, The professor said – I undertand this reminds you of something that happened to you. My wife said NO! This case IS ME!
My wife becomes friends with the professor (and many others) She graduated from University of Pennsylvania in the top 10%, with highest honors, as an editor of the UofP law review, and with the order of the Coif – basically she did better at UofP that Obama or Cruz did at Harvard. She very nearly got a clerkshiip wiith a federal feeder judge, that is a judge whose clerks go on to clerk for justices on the supreme court.
She did clerk for a federal judge and then a year for a local judge.
After that she became a public defender. For the past decade she has done entirely criminal appeals and is one of the best appelate attorney’s in the state.
Almost all the cases she handles are heinous. A substantial portion of them are sex crimes.
She is now trying to go back to school again while working towards returement.
She is looking to get into “restorative justiice” This iis about trying to bring offenders and victims together for healing and for the benefit of all of us.
Almost everyone we send to prison will get out someday. Whatever else you may think it is in OUR best interests to try to make them better people before they do.
Our story is NOT everyone’s story. Bad things happen to some people – and they never get past them. that is not their “Fault”, We are not all the same.
Anyway, I thank you for your kindness.
We do not agree on a lot, but it is important that we move away from calling those we disagree with evil.
There are a few truly evil people in the world. Most are not. All of us are wrong sometimes.
I like the idea of “restorative justice, “Dave. Punishment and deterrence are important for dealing with offenders, but forgiveness is something that can help victims in ways that are incalculable. Your wife sounds like an awesome woman.
My wife is awesome! We celebrated our 35th wedding anniversary Sunday.
Well this might indicate one reason why Flake did what he did.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/408529-jeff-flake-to-visit-new-hampshire-amid-2020-speculation
I am annoyed at the mechanism of the decision. I am not happy with Flake.
I expect to have another week of nonsense.
I think that finality needs to be reached quickly – even if Kavanaugh loses.
But I have listened to a number of people – and I think that whether he intended to or not, Flake has likely guaranteed Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
While democrats are already backing away from this “deal” – that only makes them look bad.
The GOP and Kavanaugh did not do a good job of explaining to people why an FBII investigation did not accompliish anything.
Democrats scored big political points on that issue – even if as a matter of reality it means almost nothing.
The FBI will do about a dozen interviews, create about a dozen 302’s
They will not conclude anything – because that is not their role.
They will forward these to the senate.
The 302’s will say we interviewed Judge or Keyser or …
and they said the same thing they have been saying all along – this event did not happen.
Flake will be pretty much committed to vote for Kavanaugh, and that means Republicans can lose Collins and Murkowski – though the likely will not.
And it puts red state democrats like Heitkamp and Manchin back on the Hot seat regarding their vote and restores SOME of the political threat that previoulsy existed if they voted against Kavanaugh.
Republicans look like they are serious and reasonable – and democrats look less serious and reasonable.
Ii am waiiting to see some polls but purportedly the Kavanaugh fiiasco has actually worked politically for Republicans – not because there are not lots of people on the left that are angry, but because democratiic support is as high as it has been since the election.
Basically democrats have probably peaked the number of votes they can get at current poll levels. Republican lag 7pts on the generic ballot, but their support is RISING,
Republicans are pretty far from maxing out their support.
Lots of people are angry over this But it is the people who were not going to vote before and are angry enough to vote now that matter – and those are republicans.
I could be entirely wrong, but my guts are telling me that we are off on the coming election.
Salena Zito – one of the first mainstream journalists to see Trump winning – and she is pretty much a lefty, but in 2016 she went on the road and actually visited flyover country and LISTENED and started writing that something was going on and it was different from what the media was generally reporting.
Well she is still out there and still looking at Trump voters and still saying we are significantly underestimating them.
Democrats have some victoriies that suggest that they wiill do well in Nov.
But there are still alot of results that are very inconsistent with that projection.
Anyway in 6 weeks we shall see.
Two comments.
1. You are correct. Unless the FBI uncovers a bombshell, which appears unlikely, nothing will change.
Those against K will say he should not be confirmed. I think we see the left already developing talking points to offset what the FBI most likely will find. “K is not fit to sit on SCOTUS due to his temperment and making this political in his statement”. They forget Gingsburg brought politics into SCOTUS when she said in July 2016 “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that .Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.” They will say that there is enough evidence that a DA would decide to charge K if time limits permitted.
Those on the right will say nothing changes, nothing present would allow for any charges to be filed as propsed by the left.
We will see that play out right here.
2.Ekection. watch NC 9th and 13th districts. Split between lower income liberal and higher income and rural conservative voters. Turnout counts in these districts and could be 2 of the house seats democrat control hinges on.
Senate Democrats were the big losers Thursday – that appears to be more than my opinion.
Purportedly Democrats are increasingly doing better in the house, and worse in the Senate.
Tactically agreeing tot he FBI investigation was a mistake. And I think that Flake got played.
That said – though senate democrats came off very badly in the hearings, The FBI investiigation theme worked for them.
Most people do not understand that the FBI really can not do as much as the Senate can – The FBI can not compell people to cooperate or be interviewed.
It is not only immoral, but it is bad policy to make “lying ” to the FBI a crime, especiially where lying has been understood so broadly more recently. The prosecutions of Flynn, Vad Der Zann, and Papadoulis for remarks most people can not find a lie in, makes it HARDER to get people to cooperate when they do not have to. Would you agree to an FBII interview today if you did not have to ? I certainly would not.
While people did not understand why the Republicans did not agree to an FBI investigation, Nor why one is not needed, the did pretty well get that democrats are stalling and not playing honestly.
Sen. Markey noted how happy he was that the FBI was investiigating – it was so important to really know the truth, and within a few seconds of saying that essentially also said – “hell no, I ain’t voting for Kavanaugh, he is the most dangerous judge in america”.
When you have already entiirely made up you mind claims you need an investigation are disengenuous.
Most people beleive that an FBI investigation will set their minds at ease.
But thy do not think it will change the behavior of democrats.
Maryland has no statute of limitations on Sexual Assault.
I am not sure which of these allegations occured in MD and which in DC, but many if not all of Swetnick’s are in MD.
Maryland is free to investiigate this and prosecute it.
Yes, now we are being told that Kavanaugh must recuse from everything Trump related and everything democrat related.
As you noted – how does that not go for Ginsberg ?
Recusals by supreme court justices are rare, and usually on very clear and narrow grounds.
Phony restrictions imposed on FBI investigation by White House to PROTECT Kavanaugh.
A week to organize, conduct an investigation and evaluate the evidence collected? Bullshit. Three days already gone. THIS is a false insencere ploy by the GOP
And guess who will decide if any new info uncovered is relevant or not – President Pussy Groper:
“The White House has asked that the F.B.I. share its findings after investigators complete those interviews, and at that point, Mr. Trump and his advisers would decide whether to have the accusations investigated further, the people said.“
(From tiday’s NYT)
Comey thinks some ‘truth’ may yet emerge from a limited investigation:
Are you still holding to the pretense that Comey is credible ? Moral ?
Not Clueless ?
If Trump thinks anything the FBI comes up with will stay confidential, he is more senial than anyone had claimed. Rosenstein will make sure this gets in the press.
I still think K needs withdraw just for the good of his family. Let Trump nominate Barrett and get this to confirmation before Christmas break!
Kavanaugh is not withdrawing – absent something much more credible that we have.
Losing is better for Kavanaugh and Republicans that withdrawing.
The republicans need to end the delays.
Bzzt, wrong. Next thursday the FBI will deliver a pile of 302’s – written records of each of the interviews they have conducted to the senate and the white house.
There is unlikely to be anything conclusionary in any of them, just questions and answers.
We will almost certainly start hearing from an assortment of senators from both parties immediately after explaining how this 302 or that 302 sbsolutely confirms whatever it is they already beleive. but it is highly unlikely any will tell us anything of consequence we do not already know.
Trump has the power to limit the investigation – but he would have to clearly and precisely direct the FBII what not to do. He has not done so.
While Trump liikely meant – do not investigat more of whatever gets thrown over the wall between now and Thursday, he has not clearly constrained the FBI and they are going to do what they want.
The FBI has faired badly in the press lately and it is highly likely they are going to do as thorough a job as possible.
They are going to do so because this is very low risk for them – it is just unlikely they wiil turn something up from 36 years ago. They have an opportunity to look competent, look good to the president, republicans and the nation. In this particular instance they do not really care about democrats.
They are not going to hide anything if they should actually find something, it is just not likely.
The very last line of your post “friday’s NYT” says is all.
More indication of the bullshit behind the limited FBI followup investigation:
How is it a conflict ?
McGahn is the whitehouse counsel. Not Donald Trump’s counsel.
He represents the office of the president.
Regardless, the legiitimacy of the president’s actions regarding an investigation has been addressed repeatedly.
He may do whatever the constitution permits. The remedy if you do not like his choices is impeachment.
Further the entire argument is a stupid left wing nut ruse.
Just another effort to delay.
There is no investigation that would be sufficient to please you.
Nor is there any need to.
The FBI investigation has only two targets.
Creating an environment where Sen. Collins or Murkowski can vote yes, and binding Sen. Flake to his implicit commitment to vote yes if the investigation reveals nothing.
Satisfying voters that are not already rabidly anti-trump that there has been sufficient due process and not a rush to judgement.
You are neither of those audeinces. Most NYT readers are not in either of those audiences.
But there is a third audience – the republican base, who wants Kavanaugh confirmed or atleast voted on soon, and no matter what you or others on the left argue republicans chances in November are non-existant if they piss off those voters.
As you are perfectly able to make up fake conflicts. I fully expect democrats to be able to make up fake basis for investigation.
Except for the harm it will do to the ongoing investigation into the political misconduct of the FBI and DOJ – I mostly do not care if democrats win the house in November.
I am a big fan of divided government. It pretty much guarantees little gets done.
If Democrats want to spend the next 2 years chasing more wishful thinking in the house – that is fine with me.
They will control the house, not the senate or the whitehouse.
Though DOJ.FBI are for the moment loose cannons, they are not iikely to remain so long.
I am guess that after next Thursday – Rosenstein remains, but he at a minimum recuses himself from all investigations into the DOJ/FBI, and any investigations of Donald Trump.
That means the Mueller probe will be overseen by the sollicitor General who will confine Mueller to Russia, election collusion.
This nonsensiical claim has already been refuted.
Trump denies any limit besides time.
A former SAC was on CNN and said that one week might be tight, but at most by a day or so.
That Field offices all over the country were given this as their highest priority the moment it was authorized. That armies of agents were likely already on the move by the end of the day Thursday. That if the FBI is unable to complete the investigation they will have egg o their face, that if they are not and asked for another day or two there is no possibility they will get turned down. That if Trump put restrictions on who they could interview – they would near certainly ignore them.
I do not think this investigation is necescary, We already know exactly what the key players will say in unsworn statements to the FBI – as we have sworn statements from all of them.
First off, as I have said before, we can’t take the risk of giving a lifetime appointment to a person that has this much of a whiff of lying and guilt about him.
He could (?) be as innocent as all hell, but prudence says has to go.
But, I would like to know if it is entirely inconsistent for an innocent person accused of acting the way he has been, to, frankly go bat shit in a forum like the Senate committee room or in court, or wherever.
All speculation aside, we don’t know for sure what, when, and if he committed the acts attributed to him or even if he was drunk and has no recollection, leading to self denial. My point is not in favor in favor of him or Ford, she could be mistaken.
At this point they are distractions and Pandora’s box is open and the wraiths seem to be surrounding BK.
To vote for his confirmation would be foolhardy.
DDuck: here’s an article you will find interesting.. it’s long and you have to give it time to build, but it’s a devastating appraisal of Kavanaugh’s testimony, and unravels the flimsy nature of the web of lies he told.
This is not a morally honest man … he’s surely not SCOTUS worthy.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
“But there is also a risk to a “never believe an uncorroborated charge” approach—it means that you can attack someone if you’re alone with them, and as long as you leave no marks, you’ll get away with it forever.”
Bzzt, wrong.
First the ancient standard of justice used to be better than 10 guilty go free than on innocent is convicted, but more importantly, it is nont trivial, in fact extremely difficult to “leave no evidence” A standard of forensics is that any encounter between two people leads to each taking from that encounter something from the other.
What is true is that 36 years later it is highly unlikely that you will be able to corroborate a charge.
The fact is that though we want crimes reported, we particularly want them reported As soon as possible – specifically because the odds of corroborating decrease with time.
BTW we are NOT dealing with a merely uncorrobated charge – we are actually dealing with one that has significant evidence against it.
The author dismissed the denials of other participants. That was error.
The author CORRECTLY noted that it is POSSIBLE to have the accusation be true an not have anyone else recall.
Kavanaugh noted that his diaries were no dispositive – they did not absolutely prove, he could not have done this. But they ARE evidence, they decrease the probabiity that Ford’s story is correct. The denials of the other participants are likewise NOT dispositive, but they mean MORE than that the story is not corroborated, they means that its truth is DENIED.
What you have is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that Ford’s story is NOT accurate.
Further it challenges the accuracy of the most critical assertion – that Kavanaugh assaulted her. Everything else Ford says could be true – without conflict with the existing evidence.
But the accusationt that Kavanaugh assaulted her is in conflict with several other peices of evidence. You are free to beleive that Judge, Smyth, and Kavanaugh are lying and that Keyser’s recollation is faulty – in fact you are REQUIRED to beleive that to find Ford’s testimony credible on the key point.
Belief and credibility are not the same thing. We are not making choices about a religion nor are we any more free to decide based on out “guts”, than on divination from the entrails of birds.
Did you actually read this article ?
According to the author Kavanaugh is lying because the authors own beleifs may be in error.
Kavanaugh’s diary covers every weekend of the summer. It covers big parties, it covers little ones, It covers going to a friends to exercise.
It is not dispositive because as Kavanaugh himself textified it is both a planner and a record.
On occasuion the event calandared did not happen. And on occasion something that did happen is not recorded. It does not make Ford’s claim impossible, it merely reduces the likelyhood.
Further the author is seriously confused.
The “big party”, “little party” thesis is irrelevant. Kavanagagh could not have attended a party of any size with F on weekends that he was elsewhere. That is nearly all weekends.
One of the reason that F’s poor memory reduces her credibilty – is that if you actually follow her testimony – she does not rule out that this happened a completely different year.
An extremely broad allegation is not credible BECAUSE it is broad and therefore can not be examined critically.
Modify F’s accusation to “sometime during my lifetime Brett Kavanaugh did something illegal to me”
Is that credible ?
The more detail that Ford adds the more plausible the accusation becomes – because it is possible to attempt to refute specific allegations.
The point which you and the left entirely miss is that the burden of proof in any allegation ALWAYS rests with the accuser – because the more ambiguos the allegation is the harder it is for the accused to refute.
The author is claiming Kavanaugh is lying for lack of precision in refuting something that is so ambiguous that it can not be refuted.
I would note that many people are doing the same thing to Ford’s testimony with worse results.
I do not particularly want to beat on Ford. I would prefer to beleive that something bad happened to her and that she is just wrong about alot of the “details”.
That is what happens after 36 years.
You are going to have to define some standard.
If an allegation with as little corroboration as Ford’s is sufficient to bar Kavanaugh, then the same high bar applies to all nominees and you will never see anyone confirmed again.
Did you actually listen to his testimony ?
If someone who is purportedly going to impartially vote on your confirmation calls you evil – before you are nominated, before any allegations, do you think that is not a justification for venting some anger in their direction ?
Regardless, Senate democrats have a much lower approval rating than Trump.
Kavanaugh was not merely justified in getting angry – most reasonable people understand.
Absolutely innoncent people often get angry when they are lied about.
Though beyond Kavanaugh, I would reject your premise entirely – there is no fixed patter of emotional response of innocent people to false accusations.
Nor was there any response Kavanaugh could have made that would not have been criticised by you.
“He has no recollection” – FALSE!!!!!
He has explicitly denied. It is Ford (and sometimes others) who are short on recollection.
We do not know for sure whether the sun will rise tomorow.
What standard are you proposing for sumpreme court justice confirmation – remembering that whatever standard you propose all future democrats must meet.
“At this point they are distractions and Pandora’s box is open and the wraiths seem to be surrounding BK.”
Nope!.
You do not seem to grasp that it is not what people (or the media) who long ago made up their mind that matter.
To those outside your echo chamber though Ford did well, so did Kavanaugh, and democrats lost.
“To vote for his confirmation would be foolhardy.”
Committ to some standard that you are going to apply to all SCOTUS nominees.
Dave ” then the same high bar applies to all nominees and you will never see anyone confirmed again.”
WHOA…WAIT..The same party that ignored Juanita Broaddrick can flip flop just as quickly and decide that witnesses and exact information concering illegal activities is not sufficient to keep their choices from getting a positive outcome.
Broaddrick’s accusations were just a few months old compared to Fords. She had witnesses. She told friends. People saw the results. They could testify.
Fords is 35 years old. She can not give any details that come close to Broaddricks and the dems believe her, but not Broaddricks.
Each of us is unique. We do not remember things the same. Some of us are better at communicating emotions. We do not respond the same to Trauma, whe do not respond the same at 2 days, 2 years, 2 decades. We are all different in myriads of ways.
We want to pretend that the credibility of a witness is based on how well they emote.
That is crap. Is someone who is guilty innocent because they can evective communicate the emotions that you personal equate with the correct response ? Are they guilty because they can not ?
Much of what occured Thursday matters – POLITCALLY. But it added little or nothing to the actual credibility of either.
Contrary to what has been stated – Ford inconsistent memory is NOT the norm. At the same time it is NOT proof that she is lying. It is proof that the human memory is tricky and unreliable.
I choose to believe both. At the same time I believe that Ford’s recollections are not sufficiently accurate or verifiable to be sufficiently certain that Kavanaugh did this to vote against him.
I think this micro-analyzing their remarks in the hopes of catching one or the other in a “Lie” is dangerous and stupid. I think the Thursday hearings were dangerous and stupid.
We WANT women to come forward. We can not publicly flog them for doing so. We must be careful to subject them to criminal sanctions only when we really have egregious conduct.
Ford’s allegation should have been handled as she requested in committee.
I do not think they would have been sufficient to torpedo Kavanaugh.
But they should have been heard regardless.
The circus that has occured and is occuring is an absolute disaster,
Ford is not responsible for that (as best as we know), but someone is. Near certainly someone in Ford’s Lawyer, Feinstein’s staff or Rep. Achoo’s staff.
If Ford was responsible – I am angry with her, but there should be no consequences.
But any attorney or congressiojnal stafffer that leaked this should be in deep shit.
If Kavanaugh has told a significant knowing lie – he should not be confirmed.
Differences in oppinions over the level of his drinking 35 years ago do not constitute lies.
Regardless, your standard of credibility regarding each of them should apply to the other.
Dave You did not address my issue concering your statement ” then the same high bar applies to all nominees and you will never see anyone confirmed again.” There is no way the bar will be higher no matter how high you make this one. As I said, the dems ignored Broaddrick who had much greater substantial claims against Clinton than Ford has now. If they get their chance and another Broaddrick show up, they will once again ignore the claims to achieve their goals.
The comparison to Clinton is interesting.
Several current Judiciary committee democrats voted against the impeachment of President Clinton.
How is that different ?
Clinton absolutely lied under oath. That is not disputable.
While there is a difference between a government appointment and a job, regardless the standard is not the same as a criminal conviction.
What is the difference between removing a president for one proven and many much better supported actual prosecutable crimes, and failing to confirm an appointment on far weaker substance ?
Whatever the standard is – it must be the same regardless of party.
What we have seen for a long long time, is that democrats impose standards on others they would not dream of holding their own too.
Sometimes we just need to chill out and laugh.
Can you look any woman, your wife, your sister, your daughter, your mother, and say 100% that BK is of good character and deserves to be on the SC FOR LIFE.
Can you guarantee them that some day, maybe later rather than sooner that the preponderance of, not evidence, but descriptions of his behavior, if it is negative, would not corrupt the SC. (You know that even if he gets on the SC, there will be numerous articles, books and TV specials on this affair.
Can you guarantee that making the SC a circus is worth the risk of a LIFETIME appointment?
In politics, as on war, sometimes there are what are known as “collateral casualties”.
Well, I say, BK should be one if he was as innocent, chaste, and sober as he claims, or if he is in fact “bent”, then a deserved casualty: this is not about one person, it is about the integrity of the country.
“Can you look any woman, your wife, your sister, your daughter, your mother, and say 100% that BK is of good character and deserves to be on the SC FOR LIFE.”
I for one sure can do that. Can’t do it with my mother, she passed in 2001. Will not do it with my cousin (73 years old and a California ultra liberal,) would just start a political war between us. But my wife and daughters support K. As for the women I know, all are strong christian southern women and from what I can tell from Facebook postings, all support K.
So I have no problem doing that. I know this will rub anyone the wrong way that wants another Ginsberg, Sotomayor or kagan on SCOTUS,
But I would like K to withdraw and let Trump nominate Barrett. I prefer her over K anyway since she is more closely aligned with Scalia than K is anyway.
My daughter is unlikely to be dating him.
Frankly he has been around LOTS of women for decades – most of his clerks have been women, he has coached girls basketball for decades.
There is no one from all of those who is making any allegations, and more than 100 who are strongly supporting him – including many democrats and feminists.
Regardless, you are citining the wrong standard.
You, I anyone else – is free to do as we please in our own lives.
We are talking about an action of government here.
I you are going to disqualify Kavanaugh, you are going to have to disqualify anyone else with an ancient allegation that can not be disproven.
McCarthy has an excellent article about Beto O’Rourke’s myriads of drinking, and drunk driving issues – including one high speed accident while drunk that fortunately did not kill anyone that a witness claims he tried to flee the scene.
Further that was 20 years ago – not 36. There are also ethics violations against O’Rourke for using non-public inside information to profit on stock sales
The point is what is your standard ?
I have no idea how hard Kavanaugh drank 36 years ago. However that was – he did not get arrested then and has not had even credibly hints in 30+ years.
You are free to feel different – but then do not tell my that actual drunk driving multiple times 20 years ago is not also disqualifying.
Finally – ye need to decide what your standard for SCOTUS appointments is.
If you decide that allegations such as Fords are sufficient – then you can pretty much guarantee that you are going to see them constantly in the future.
Whether Ford’s recollection is accurate or not, You can pretty much guarantee that if it works you will see the same tactiic again and again.
I am not all that concerned about whether BK is “collateral damage”.
What I would like from you is recognition that whatever standard you decide, you can guarantee that further appointments will face allegations that meet that standard if you make that standard low enough.
There are numerous significant problems with Ford’s testimony – and that NOT Kavanaugh’s is what is most important. I do not want to dwell on the probems – because I do not wish to attack Ford – and I do beleive that something bad happened to her. But there are few details that she is sure of – primarily that this was BK. If you follow her statements and testimony – she is NOT actually sure of the year – she crossed out “early” before 80’s in the statement on her polygraph. At various times she has placed this at various years and ages, But summer 1982 is almost the only time that works well regarding BK.
My point is NOT to attack Ford, but to point out that with 330M people in the US it is near certain that one will come forward with some similar allegation against any appointment in the future.
I have noted that a super majority of allegations by women are true. But you are stupid if you say all. Worse you are actually inviting exactly the type of person who seeks this kind of attention. Ford may not be that person – but plenty exist – and they are incredibly good – probably better than Ford at playing the victim and playing on your empathy.
That is a justification for requiring some corroborating evidence for any government action, as otherwise you will open all government action up to easy manipulation.
I would further note, this need not be restricted to men/women issues.
Beto O’Rourke is credibly alleged to have tried to rob his former school when he was in his mid 20’s – and that has corroboration.
If you are going to allow mere allegations of those who can play on your empathy – you will attract them like flies.
Government itself is not war.
Whenever anyone makes comparisons to war, you can be pretty sure that they are preparing to violate the rights of another. War is one of few instances in which there is board consensus supporting broad infringement on liberty for “the greater good”.
That we declared war on drugs, war on poverty, war on .. is no accident.
What we call some government action a war it justifies even greater infringement on rights.
If this was actually about the integrity of the country – you would be rushing to implement this broadly. Beto O’Rourke and Menendez would be unelectable – along with a long list of others.
Regardless the “integrity of the country” has survived perjurers and rapists in the white house, as well as slave owners, misogynists, and philanderers.
It is pretty late to be making bold pronouncements about the integrity of the country.
We elected Trump – and democrats have no moral soap box to stand on, they ran against him with One Clinton and managed to sell us another.
You can argue that Clinton was a good president, but not that he was/is a good person, or that those who elected him gave a damn about the integrity of the country.
Some here have pointed out the irony of Kavanagh complaining about the questions asked of him given those he put forward for Clinton. But we know Clinton is a serial sexual assaulter and rapist, the best you can do is speculate regarding Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh’s complaints are only ironic if he is. If not, this is not about irony it is about the immorality of those opposing him.
Example: Stuff like this will keep coming out. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/politics/chad-ludington-statement-brett-kavanaugh.html
Although, I would like it to be a sworn statement BY CL, not his lawyer.
Just like I said a couple time before, the democrats will keep finding stuff like this and leaking it or sending it out drip, drip drip. What the FUCK has this guy been doing the past two damn weeks? He could have said something when this came out. This is TOTAL BS.
Sorry dduck, I can’t buy this crap anymore. Shumer said to paraphrase,”we will do anything we have to to keep him off the bench” and that was before anything came out.
Go ahead, stop him and then you get Barrett. Attack her religion like the attacks on Kavanaugh. See where that goes.
I would prefer Barrett anyway, She is much closer to Scalia than Kavanaugh anyway.
Presuming that Kavanaugh is not a rapist.
I would prefer him. He is actually just about the most centrist of Trump’s list.
He is an originalist in the form of Barnett and modern federalists such as Gorsuch, NOT in the sense of Scalia, or Bork.
From the link, appropriate summation of my own feeling about Blackout Bart:
“I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18- or even 21-year-old should condemn a person for the rest of his life. I would be a hypocrite to think so. However, I have direct and repeated knowledge about his drinking and his disposition while drunk. And I do believe that Brett’s actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter. If he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences. It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges.”
If he lied under oath, the FBI will find it. I can not see them not “Muellering” K when they find he did something like that. Then the Senate will have to vote up or down based on that info, They have thousands they can put on this and find whatever they need to find in a week if the have to.
If we do not trust the FBI to investigate Trump/Russia collusion, then why do we trust them to investigate Kavanaugh ?
Given that at the moment DOJ/FBI are hostile to Trump, and to republicans and to congressional committees – why do we trust them to investigate Kavanaugh ?
If an FBI investigation of Clinton was unwarrented – and not credible, then why is an investigation of Kavanaugh warranted and credible.
Regardless the left has already started the process of discrediting the FBI should they produce the wrong results.
If you are going to claim that Kavanagh has lied – you are going to have to use the same extremely broad definition of lie with regard to Ford.
I have repeatedly argued here that you must read and apply the law narrowly – otherwise you make felons of us all.
Ford says Kavanaugh attempted to rape her at a small party.
Everyone she claims was there denies this party happened.
If statements to the press by several people regarding Kavanaugh’s drinking 35 years ago that conflict with Kavanaugh’s testimony only in spin – what constitutes blacking out, what constitutes heavy drinking are perjury, then under oath statements of several people about events 36 yeas ago that completely contradict Ford more strongly convict her of Perjury.
Get a clue – Ford did not perjure herself – though she is near certain to be wrong about many aspects of her story.
By the same standard – neither did Kavanaugh.
When you can make an argument that you are prepared to apply consistently – to Ford as Well as Kavanaugh, to democrats as well as republicans, then you have far more credibility.
“Hypocrisy is the unpardonable sin”
If you apply whatever standards you hold consistently – to left and right, man and women, democrat and republican – then whether we agree or not you are credible, and you have integrity.
Integrity: Firm adherence to moral and ethical principles.
Principles that do not vary based on who you are applying them to.
Be honest – if Kavanaugh had said what you believe to be the truth about his drinking, you would have been prepared to jail him for attempted rape.
You are not looking for the truth, you are looking to believe what you need to to preclude Kavanaugh from being confirmed.
That has been a common problem – both here and in washington.
It is pretty much self evident at this point that Trump was wiretapped, spied on, and that the CIA/DOJ/FBI and the rest of the USIC used (gleefully) to try to prevent Trump’s election and subsequently to interfere with it.
It is self evident that not only is there no Trump/Russia collusion, that those investigating it have never had any meaningful evidence of that from the start.
That you like they have confused what you want to beleive with what is true.
If you want to argue that the people made a mistake electing Trump, that Trump is not a “fine” person – I am with you. But they did elect him, and almost 2 years of beleif in the absurd does not alter the fact that you are on a witch hunt. That you are not capable of facing truth – not about Trump not about Kavanaugh.
I have disturbing unanswered questions about Kavanaugh.
I do not confuse what is not impossible for what is true
You are increasingly confusing what is atleast highly improbable if not what is impossible for truth.
Partly hidden behind the Kavanaugh circus, is the Rosenstein revelations.
The absolutely most favorable interpretation for Rosenstein is that he refused to go along with the acting director of the FBI in effort to stage a coup.
Even that interpretation means he must recuse himself from investigations of Trump.
He is at the very least a witness, and possibly a co-conspirator.
And none of this is about events 36 years ago, there are multiple sources, and likely written memos by McCabe
If you wish to credibly allege someone is lying – you need more than a difference of opinion.
Kavanaugh testified that he drank, and that on occasion he got inebriated, but that he had never blacked out.
I do not know if Mr. Ludington’s observations are true – I am particularly bothered that He Claims to have witnessed BK start a fight that landed someone else in jail.
The police are imperfect, but the decisions of the officers 35 years ago trump’s the opinion of CL today about events 35 years ago. We must presume that if the police chose to arrest someone other than Kavanaugh, that the made the correct choice at the time,.
And if we are going to make this about serious past drinking problems, Democrats should withdraw Beto O’Rouke from the TX senate rate. Thus far no one has Kavanaugh arrested for violence or drinking. O’Rouke had multiple arrests only 2 decades ago and was involved in high speed drunken accidents in which others were hurt and was credibly accused of attempting to flee the scene.
The very least you can do it not try to sell a double standard.
When you tell me that O’Rourke should withdraw over his drinking and violence, I will be more interested in your oppinion on Kavanaugh.
I might even agree with it.
OK Ron. We know that even if BK may have lied about his drinking to Congress, that you still support him, regardless of the risk that he did lie. The candidate you prefer has nothing to do with that at this point.
A lifetime!
More possible lying under oath from K, who twice said in his testimony he didn’t hear about the Ramirez ‘penis in the face’ charge until it appeared in the press in a New Yorker article – but messages between Kavanaugh friends indicate he was talking to them about it well in advance of the article release date.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566
You do understand that text messages between Ramirez’s friends speculating about what Kavanaugh’s friends are doing, is not evidence against Kavanaugh.
Sen. Grassley is correct – the texts are not relevant.
There is further nothing in this story that actually contradicts Kavanaugh’s testimony.
Nor does Kavanaugh’s testimony match what you claim.
The most favorable to the left explanation of this is that they have “caught” Kavanaugh trying to get people to come forward and refute Ramirez.
Are you arguing that once one is accused of something heinous, you are not entitled to try to find witnesses to contradict that allegation ?
Regardless, it is already know that Sen. Grassley had the Ramirez allegation in August, that the republicans on the committee investigated it – including contacting witnesses, and that the invited democrats to participate – but they refused.
I would be shocked if Kavanaugh was not asked about the allegation at that time.
It would therefore be completely unsurprising that Kavanaugh contacted people he knew to try to refute the allegation.
But even that perfectly legitimate actions is still mere speculation – you have texts between others NOT Kavanaugh. That is called hearsay and it is not typically admissable.
Though outside of the democratic circus world it is also not damaging whether true or not.
dduck “We know that even if BK may have lied about his drinking to Congress, that you still support him, regardless of the risk that he did lie. ”
I dont remember saying that, I do remember saying the FBI will investigate this and if there is something to find they will find it. What I meant is they will investigate this and then that will lead to something else they will investigate…. This morning a former FBI assistant director said the FBI has plenty of manpower across the country to investigate anything that comes up, write a report and have it ready for congress on their deadline. I also said that the democrats will release additional information on a drip, drip, drip basis. So far I have been right. And keeping with that, I suspect there will be additional information released about K that will continue to cast doubt on his character by the democrats and left wing media. Probably tomorrow or Wednesday.
I also said that Feinstein has done a disservice to the country, to the senate and to K and F. She has followed Shumer into the cesspool of obnoxious, underhanded, dirty tricks in order to stop his nomination one way or the other. So the one way to block his nomination by addressing his court rulings has not worked, so he is using “the other”.
I could care less if K is confirmed or not. If he is not, then Trump will nominate someone else and the democrats can dig down deep into their septic tank and pull out some other rancid trick to block the next nominee. I’m not sure how they might use religion against Barrett if she is the one, but the party that supported Kennedy against unwarranted religious attacks might just find a way, the same way they have found a way to attack K while they ignored Broaddrick.
But if they really think blocking this appointment will change anything in the senate, I suspect they are in for a rude awakening. It may also cost them house seats. As I see it, many on the right that would have sat out this election will once again see SCOTUS as the key issue in the election, thus energizing those on the right that were not interested before. That could make the 9th and 13th districts in NC to remain in R hands instead of a good possibility that they would go D this election. And this could play out in other districts nationally as well.
What I do believe is this appointment will go the a conservative judge. Those thinking they can cause this to remain open until 2021 are smoking something you can buy in California.
“I also said that Feinstein has done a disservice to the country, to the senate and to K and F. She has followed Shumer into the cesspool of obnoxious, underhanded, dirty tricks in order to stop his nomination one way or the other.”
Very true, Ron. And “disservice” is putting it mildly. (I’d like to use this comment on my site, if you don’t mind)
Using slander and mob justice to achieve political goals will backfire on the Democrats ~ and, really, all of us ~ in the same way that getting rid of the filibuster did. They’ve deliberately chosen to ignore all the fundamentals of our legal system: the presumption of innocence, the right to due process, the need for evidence, even circumstantial, etc. They’ve made it clear that they do not give a rat’s ass about Kavanaugh as a human being, or as a dedicated public servant ~ they don’t care that his life and career could be destroyed by the character assassination that they’ve committed, in the name of partisanship. If it means that they get power, the ends justify the means, always. Of course, they never realize that, by declaring war on the opposition party, that means that the new “rules” will apply to them, too.
Going forward, Republicans will also play this game, and the system that we’ve created to insure fairness and civility will be ignored by all sides. We saw it this week with former moderate Lindsey Graham’s speech at the hearing ~ he’s finished being the “hands across the aisle” guy, because he now believes that moderates are treated like suckers. And he’s right.
Dave, you can use whatever I say on your site, now and going forward.No need to ask any further.
By the way, whats your site?
It was me who asked that, Ron. You know my site 😉
Priscilla, So sorry! This thread is so long and so many emails each day hard to follow .
You also can use whatever I say, now and in the future.
Priscilla was asking, not me, but I would not miind a link to her site.
I have a site – http://thebrokenwindow.net – but I do not have anything up there yet.
Those on the left believe those on the right are evil – just listen to the rhetoric about Trump, Kavanaugh, Republicans,
That believe justifies defeating whatever the right does – by any means necessary.
That approach has a fundamental flaw.
It can only succeed if the initial premise is false.
If republicans are evil – even even a very small portion of republicans are evil, the use of “any means necessary” will inherently be followed by retaliation in kind – amplified.
There are only two means in the framework that democrats create in which they survive:
Either republicans are not evil at all, or
democrats are substantially more evil that republicans.
Neither of those should make democrats feel good about themselves.
You are both correct and have proved prescient – though given the circus that is not difficult.
But there is one other factor. Thus far what has come out might be embarrassing to Kavanaugh – if credible (though some has been beneficial), but the spin that is put on it – that it somehow demonstrates Kavanaugh has lied under oath is a misrepresentation.
Can we please use a definition of perjury or lie that does not make felons of us all – particularly Ford ?
Dave “Can we please use a definition of perjury or lie that does not make felons of us all – particularly Ford ?”
I will take a few minutes to review Hillary’s congressional email testimony to define a lie in a few words 😀
When you start an argument with a false premis – the remainder of the argument is meaningless. That is BTW a principle of logic – any argument that contains a contradiction is fallacious – it has no determinate truth value.
You asserted that Kavanaugh lied about his drinking.
Ignoring the fact that none of the stories we have on K’s drinking are sworn, the only contradiction is in opinion or spin.
Thanks for the additional remarks, Ron.
At various times I have posted about some of the legal nonsense and accusations I have been subject to regarding caring for my father before he died, and dealing with his estate afterwords.
I recently tripped over a story by Sharyl Attkisson on Full Measure that was occurring roughly concurrently in the same court with the same judge and similarly disastrous outcome.
http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/my-parents-keeper
Though this woman is still alive there are numerous elements of the story that are the same;
There is an elderly person with a reasonable amount of money, there is dysfunction in the family where local children are being accused by distant relatives of misconduct.
The court and office of aging step it. The judge finds the person incompetent, terminates all those that person had chosen to assist her such as gardian’s and powers of attorney,
and the court allows a third party in using the dysfunction of the family as a justification, and that third party charges exorbitant fees and like locusts consumes everything.
Permutations of this were so common in my county that my father was aware of them and as he grew older became increasingly afraid this would happen to him (which it did), and was assured by his lawyer (actually a decent person, who the court removed) that this could not happen to him.
Worse still – this is all outside of what the state law allows the court to do.
The laws on competence resemble the 25th amendment.
The local office of aging after investigating, goes ex parte to the court – ex parte means any opposing parties are not part of the hearing, ex parte legal processes are only rarely allowed and have very strict legal and ethical rules, one of which is that the party seeking the order must present anything that would be exculpatory – because the other party is not present to do so.
Presuming things are done properly – which they never are, the court issues a temporary order, the court is then obligated to schedule a full hearing with all parties present within 4 days. The burden of proof at that hearing rests with the party making the allegation.
That is the law.
Reality is that exclupatory evidence that the OoA is aware of is never presented.
Immediately after the Temporary order is issued – suspending all pre-existing appointments – lawyers, powers of attorney, medical powers of attorney, ….
The newly court appointed lawyer moves to reschedule the hearing for much much later – in my case my father died before the hearing.
The hearing aide trick noted in the video is quite common.
I would further note that though my case involved the office of aging – and that is extremely common in my county, through out the country this occurs with third party guardians, and estate executors and other court appointed fiduciaries.
There is quite liitterally a racket going on where “professional guardians” go arround seeking “clients” who they get declared incompentent, take over their assets and bleed them dry.
This is so common and so badly done that I have looked at cases in my country where some family member actually was “stealing” from a parent or relative, and the destruction that followed after the state stepped in was far worse.
I would also note – this happens in estates. In the country next to mine an executor and attorney had their fees slashed to about 1/4 what they had asked as well as being surcharged for losses. This estate was approximately 20 times larger than my fathers,
The executor and attornies fees that court eventually approved – which were HIGHER than the state guidelines, were LESS than the fees the executor and attorney for my fathers estate charged and were awarded by the judge featured in the video above.
When my father died, there was just under 300K in his IRA and bank accounts.
He owned a property on the bay at the atlantic city island that was worth 1.3M and had an outstanding mortgage of 350K, he owned a house locally that was valued by the executor at 460K and had no mortgage (it was eventually sold for 350K after the executor spent 70K fighting the valuation, and another 50K preparing the place for sale). There was finally a settlement this august – primarily because everyone was exhausted. There was a little over 100K to split between myself and my 3 siblings, there was nothing else left. The executor and counsel had paid themselves or destroyed all the rest. There were no provisions of the will that the executor or counsel ever followed or even tried.
In October 2016 – my siblings and I came together and agreed to a settlement of the estate.
The court subsequently implimented some parts of that settlement, and then pretended that the settlement did not exist – so this mess went on almost another 2 years with further destruction.
And honestly I have barely covered this. Through this I have been falsely accused of theft from my father while he was alive (there were detailed financial records that disporved that as well as everything I did was supervised by an accountant and an attorney, and I set things up deliberately so that I had no access to my father’s money while I was his POA everything had to go through a bookkeeper – as well as murder, which amazingly the corner said was false. After my father died I was investigated again by the executor – who demanded the resignation of one of my siblings as co-executor, and then fired my fathers life long attorney and hiired just about the least competent attorney I have ever dealt with in my life.
Then later the executor filed a false report that I was stealing, and then denied in court that he had done so – even after the court was presented with the report.
During a subsequent hearing which I was not permitted to participate in because of the settlement which the court subsequently ignored, the estate attorney perjured himself in an extremely obvious way, taking credit for a docketed motion that I had filed, and the judge actually cited that motion favorably and attributed it to the estate attorney in his opinion while further defaming me. All anyone had to do to grasp this perjury was read the court docket.
As an aside since we are talking alot about it – as with McCabe, Comey, Kavanaugh, Ford,
There are a whole lot of crimes of false swearing, actual perjury is the most serious of these, and by far the most difficult to commit. False swearing is quite hard to actually committ, and almost never charged.
The purported false statements of Flynn, Van Der Zwann, and Papadoulis, would never have been prosecuted or resulted in a conviction in any normal proceding.
Lying to the FBI (the charge is lying to a federal agent, and that means ANY federal government person with investigative power, that includes part rangers, OSHA inspectors, ..) requires not merely a knowingly false statement, but also that the agents are actually mislead. This requirement is supposed to preclude exactly what happened which is typically called entrappment. Where a federal agent sets someone up to commit a crime. The FBI can not charge you with a crime for lying to them about something they already know to be true.
This prevents them from setting you up.
So pretty much all crimes of falsification require a knowingly false statement.
There are a few rare instances where failure to recall is prosecutable – HRC’s “I do not recall) something like 160 times would likely qualify. Prosecuting someone for failure to recall something that happened 36 years ago is just never flying. Put simplly it is nearly impossiible to commit a crime of false swearing over matters 35 years ago. You MUST know what you are saying is a lie, and not being able to recall things from 35 years ago is not going to be prosecutable as a knowing lie.
The statement must be about a matter of importance.
In the extant situation refuting some of Kavanaugh’s possibly overly broad statements about his drinking are neither perjury nor even false statements.
Actual lies about his drinking on the night of the “party” would be prosecutable.
Misrepresenting his historical drinking would not
But actual perjury requires more.
You must have the opportunity to correct.
If you make a false statement under oath, and you notify the tribunal of your error before any decision is made – there is no perjury (or lying under oath)
The false statement must be about something that you could reasonably expect you would have to answer and therefore would be required to prepare for.
If as an example you are a bookkeeper and you are called on to testify about the accounts of your client XYZ corp. you would be required to refamilurize yourself with those records prior to testimony. You can not testify that you “do not recall” something that you could recall with the assistance of records that you would reasonably be expected to review before the hearing.
Finally to be perjury the court or tribunal must rely on the specific false statement you made in their decision.
I have seen alot of lying under oath of matters large and small, nothing that either Ford or Kavanaugh did comes close.
Can we summons Rick to write another article? Maybe just a one liner for a new thread. I am starting to have problems loading this one and commenting.
RICK< RICK< RICK< Come in !!!!
I’m having same problem … takes two minutes for me to paste a link, plus frequent keyboard freezes for backspacing
According to Gallup in 2017 conservatives made up 36% of Americans.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx
Why exactly then must the next member of the SC be a conservative? I was willing for that to be the case a week ago, now I have reflected and changed my opinion. The next appointee by rights ought to be a moderate, a Garland, reflecting the center of gravity of American politics. The idea that Kavanaugh or any of members of the trump SC shortlist are anything less than quite conservative does not pass the laugh test.
Oh, what a stinking repulsive mess. Not an institution left that commands respect, the POTUS, congress, the SC, the FBI, the press, the parties.
Where did the decline of bipartisanship and some level of trust in our institutions and civility begin that brought us to this era of all out bitterness and all out war? What are the roots of this situation?
I say they lie in the election of bill clinton, the rise of newt gingrich, and the impeachment of bill clinton.
I wish more than anything in retrospect that Bush 41 had beaten clinton in 92, but norquist Rhinoed him and we got bill instead. Had it been otherwise, another term of Bush 41, we might not have slid down into this crevice of partisanship. Who knows?
In retrospect the impeachment of bill clinton was a disaster. The partisan leaders, including gingrich and graham, who were SO incensed over clinton’s lies are now oblivious to lying by their own side and have become enablers to the historic level of lies from the gop side starting from trump. Bleh. They are a big part of the septic tank.
W winning while losing the popular vote was another step in the direction of bitterness and partisanship.
The Iraq war was the next step down, it produced a historic level of vitriol and anger, and it further destabilized the region and helped bring in ISIS.
The sweeping election of both Obama and the dem majorities that produced hubris and Obamacare was the next step down. Obama’s statement that he would simply go it alone against congress was yet another disastrous mistake of partisanship. Denying Garland a vote may have seemed like a cool payback, where did that payback take us? Yet another institution made dubious.
trump took all the downward trends in civility, honesty, integrity, and partisanship and blew them sky high with his own words and actions. On top of that, he lost the popular vote but governs as if he had a huge mandate to make sweeping changes.
The battle to the death of the day on the SC appointment reflects the dirty pool McConnell (and his colleagues, including graham) played on Garland. As an analogy, the Dem party did not truly have the support of Americans that the 2008 election seemed to give them and they overplayed their hand, hubris, Obamacare, leading to the tea party correction midterm, with all of ITS attendant bitterness. Today, the gop certainly DOES NOT HAVE the level of support of Americans needed to push through to a conservative SC perhaps for generations but they are going there anyhow since they govern for their 36% of Americans conservative base, and the result is another bitter partisan shit fest.
I’d love to simply say, I loathe them all with a very few exceptions and fuck em all, but unfortunately there are issues that we have to face that matter, budgets, deficits, international situations, trade, Russia, NK, China, etc. If adults cannot take the wheel back (and it all starts with the bases and their propagandists) then our future habits are going to be even worse and at some point our democracy truly will fail.
Again, conservatives make up more or less a third of us, why should we not expect a war in response to the creation of a SC that will be conservative, quite possibly for decades, while the electorate appears to be going in a different direction?
There is a very, very slim chance that dems can delay and then win the Senate back and have some actual say in the nature of the next appointee to the SC , but if that were to happen, can we imagine the howls of rage from the right? They are already howling about it.
So few leaders, politicians, opinion makers, primary voters etc. in this political era have any sense of when they are not in the absolute right.
Ah, now we will see a lengthy attempt to blot out my thoughts and contradict every molecule by a fellow who Still has has never yet heard trump lie. Alas, 10,000 words from a person living in his own personal universe have less weight than a pithy sentence or paragraph or two from someone who is at least somewhat objective and therefore believable.
Oh well, it should keep him out of trouble for a while.
No one can blot out your words, much less your thoughts.
If you do not wish to have your words bit you in the ass – actually think about them before you write.
One persons speech can only diminish that of another by exposing the flaws of the other.
“who Still has has never yet heard trump lie. ”
Of course I have heard Trump lie – can you name a politician that does not CONSTANTLY.
Absolutely I am bothered by Trump’s lies and even by things he says that are true.
I did not vote for him. But I did not vote for Clinton for all the same reasons I did not vote for Trump and then some.
I would be perfectly happy to make a covenant with you and all voters – we will only vote for people of good character.
I am already keeping that covenant. If you voted for Hillary – inarguably you are not.
What I am not interested in is “Trump lies” arguments from someone who will not hold others to the same standards.
Do not tell me how bad Trump is if you voted for Clinton (either one) or if you were defending Obama. If the only time you can see problems is when they are in republicans or Trump – YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
If you are unwilling to hold your own to the same standards you hold others to – you are a hypocrit and you have no credibility.
The ideology of the next justice is irrelevant. The method of constitutional and statutory review is the critical issue.
The rule of law requires that regardless of our ideologies regardless of our wishes, there is one law, one constitution, and that law and constitution is known by and applies equally to all of us.
There are myriads of diifferent arguments – practical, philosophical, but they all lead to the same result. You can not make any kind of government work when what constitues the law and constiitution is ambiguous.
There is a wise addage that ignorance of the law is no excuse – that is absolutely true, but that princiiple itself imposes brudens on both those who make the law and those who interpret and enforce it. It requires that law must be limited – conforming to the law can not require hours of study to avoid getting tripped up by details, or by laws that are too numerous to know. It requires that the law must not only be a reflection of our own internal truths – i.e. the law can not deviate from the common understanding of “right and wrong” – because otherwise we must be expected to actually know the written law.
I beleive that the old testiment says that god has written the law on the hearts of man.
That is more than a religious statement – it is immoral, unethical and impracticle to expect people to abide by law they do not “know” – what we “know” is our sense of right and wrong, not what was written by legislators.
That BTW also means it is immoral to use the law to “nudge” people into better behavior, the law can not be a tool of social manipulation. The law must FOLLOW our norms, our sense of right and wrong – not lead it. That means if you wish to change the law, you must change the hearts and minds of people first – neary all people.
That also means the more diverse we are the more limited law must be. Law can not be based on the majority understanding of right and wrong, it must be on that subset of right and wrong that is near unanimous.
All of the above and much more is NOT a matter of ideology. Nor philosophy – though it is reflected in many ideologies and philosophies.
It is a matter of practicality, of fact, as well as of fundamental morality.
I am continuously blaming the current level of conflict on the left.
That is inherently true. Ignoring all other factors, it si the left that seeks to grow government, the law.
Expanding government and the law – deviating from those fundamental principles of law and constitution I have listed above ALWAYS means increased conflict.
The more laws you have the larger the portion of the people will either accidentally or deliberately be in violation of some law. The more people violate whatever the law is – the more anger and conflict there will be, the more illegitimate government will be.
That neither republicans nor democrats actually understand this – does not alter the fact that it is true.
Any judge or supreme court justice – regardless of ideology that interprets the law or constitution that expands it beyond the core concept of right and wrong, and of law that is near universally shared by all of us will increase the degree of conflict between us, and decrease the legitimacy of that law.
“Why exactly then must the next member of the SC be a conservative?”
No particular reason, other than:
1) Trump ran for president, promising that he would appoint originalist/textualist judges to the high Court. He provided a list of names from which he would choose.
2) The Article 2 powers of the president include nominating SCOTUS justices and chief justices.
3.Trump won the election. He’s the guy who gets to nominate.
Hitler came to power with only 35% of the vote.
(Godwin’s Law is inescapable in Trump World).
Soon after being appointed Chancellor, Adolph began usurping and undermining all German institutions, including the judiciary.
He created the ‘National Socialist League for the Maintenance of the Law,’ a group subscribing to ‘conservative’ principles and the undermining of the liberal political order of German law at the time, replacing it with Nazi (read conservative) judges sympathetic to the authoritative, totalitarian regime. Hitler and the Nazis tried to force all judges to join the group, and to remove any they found undesirable. That’s what you Donnie-worshipers want to see happen to the Federal Courts as well. Stuff it with ideological conservative clones (read clowns 🤡).
No more Righties.
No more Lefties.
Centrist SCOTUS judges!
The Trump comparisons to Hitler should scare the crap out of you.
Not because of Trump, but because of what was going on OUTSIDE.
Hitler did not come to power primarily because of his own accomplishemnts, but the failures of others.
The Post war german government was in chaos, driven by the expansion of the left, it was economically incompetent
Hilter took power in circumstances not much different from those in Venezuela right now.
It is not difficult to imagine an authoritarian tyrant steping in in Venezuela right now.
In fact such a despot would be an improvement.
We got Pinochet because of the failures of the left.
Trump gaiined power – because the left failed – maybe not on the scale of Venezuela – but US expectations are higher than Venezeulans.
Hitlers power – and his popular support grew because the left continued to fail, and he did not. In the US myriads of progessives fawned over Hitler (and Mousolini)
Trump is not Hitler, is is working to disempower government mostly. Something Hitler would never do. But the left is and has been making many of the same mistakes that lead to hitler.
In 1938 Hitler won 80+% of the vote.
I posted an enormous number of goebbells and Hitler and strasser quotes as well as the Nazi Platform – but they got eaten
The Nazis and Fascists were Nationalists – Like Trump, ABSOLUTLELY.
They were also SOCIALISTS ABSOLUTLEY.
1/3 of the Nazi platform could have been written by Trump,.
The remender could have been written by Castro or Lenin, or Chavez.
The Nazi’s were ANSOLUTELY anticapitalist.
Alberecht Speer took over – nationalized large segments of the german exonomy.
The Nazi’s were extremely weak on private property – not quite communist, but more socialist than most modern socialists.
While german national healthcare predates even Hitler, it was greately expanded under Hitler.
In the nazi ideology the individual – rich, poor, … is SUBORDNATE to the state.
Frankly – other major socialist movements – the USSR, the PRC, were very nearly as nationalist as Hitler.
Socialism in much of the world is Often quite nationaliistic.
The anglo left gets deluded into beleiving that the nazi’s were not on the left and not socialists, because angle socialism has rarely had prominent nationalist features.
The modern left frequently makes lunatic assumptions that the current ideology of the left iis the same as that of the left 50, 100, 200 years ago.
19th century liberalism is modern libertarianiism and more strongly in the right than the left.
Many many attributes the left pretends are fixtures of the right, were firm positions of progressives over a century ago.
Authoritarianism, totalitarianism are near uniformly LEFT.
They are premised on the LEFT assumptiont that government should control all or most of life.
Actually read the Nazi’s – look at their platform, look at their actions.
They are extremely progressive, they are not conservative. they are nationalist.
Actually support your assertion that Trump is authoritariian ?
Absolutely he is a nationalist. He is even an economic nationalist – that he shares with Hilter and Nazi’s
But authoritarian means something, and you can demonstrate it through actions.
Trump has MOSTLY worked agreessively to REDUCE the power of government – that is ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN.
The most vituperative opposition to him is because he is single handedly dismembering the authoritaritarianism of the left.
When you misrepresent someone else – whether a friend or enemy you distort your own thinking.
Interesting, Jay. Is it that you don’t believe in the Constitution yourself, or merely that you don’t understand the constitutional process for appointing Supreme Court justices?
Grump “Why exactly then must the next member of the SC be a conservative?”
Well that is a good question. So I will asked it another way. “Why did Obama appoint two extremely liberal judges while the country is over 4-% moderate?”
And why did 5-6 Republicans vote for approval of these two appointments?
I think the answer to your question lies in my question. No longer are there Kennedy’s, O’Conners and others that have been considered more moderate justices. So to offset liberal justices that are going to favor unions having control over non union members, EPA controlling what private land owners can do with farm land that collects water during a rain, women allowed to abort almost full term babies, states allowed to place controls on gun ownership and use, etc, the Republican presidents appoint justices that are more likely to do away with any rules for unions, allow rules for environmental protection to be severely restricted, vote to control what women can do with a baby and allow any ownership of any weapon without controls.
Yes there is a middle ground on all of this. That is what moderate mostly believe. And if the democrat presidents would appoint more moderates instead of the gzinsberg’s, Stotomayor’s and Kagan’s, then maybe the republicans might not be so fast to not appoint those like Garland.
And I think Garland would have got in the high 60’s positive vote had that come to pass, but mcConnell was afraid that would happen and he was going to “stop Obama one way or the other”, just like Shumer.
I also agree with much of your analysis on current politics and the cause. You forgot one piece, the growth of social media. Much easier to disseminate false information leading to a much greater divided country.
Trust me, I never forget the pernicious influence of social media. Simply, I have so often given my opinion on that so that I take it as a given and have no further need to belabor it. You all know what I think about it. But yes, it certainly belonged in my little essay about how we got here.
Of the three oldest Justices two are liberals and one a moderate. The court has a definite chance to change quite far to the right and for a good long time in the near future. Here is a piece with a graph of the ideological placement of the SC justices:
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/02/01/donald-trump-nominates-conservative-neil-gorsuch-for-the-supreme-court
You can see that according to this particular scheme the SC has been right of center most of the time since 1945 with the exception of most of the 60s and the last bit of Obama.
I was surprised by where they put Garland, liberal but not as liberal as Obama’s two other picks, who both replaced justices considered liberal. I am not one who follows the SC closely.
I will grant that the dems were nearly unanimously opposed to Gorsuch, based on ideology in comparison to the gop senators many of whom were willing to confirm Obama’s picks. graham got that part right. Personally I had (have) a good feeling about Gorsuch, I do not believe he is a creature of party ideology. I cannot say the same about K, who I do consider to clearly be willing to lie (granted under circumstances where anyone would be sorely tempted to be less than candid) and to have both partisan politics and a nasty side as well as in my mind there being a very real possibility that when drunk he did what the Ford and Ramirez have alleged.
As a tangent, I can actually agree with trump jr about one thing. The SNL skit about K Was bullying (I only saw a little of it from a news sites) and was clueless as to the dignity of the man and the occasion. No matter what one’s suspicions about him may be that is crude and demeaning. That kind of behavior is also disgusting and playing with political fire. I can believe Ford and Ramirez without making K the target of bullying himself. Some liberals are enjoying that kind of thing to the hilt, that is also repulsive to me. Stupidity and tastelessness, even mindless cruelty are everywhere.
I see much to loathe on both sides.
I like the chart, but how does.one call Garland a moderate when he plots Garland left of Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan and not much different than Sotomayor. Thats like calling the iceberg that sunk the Titanic a small chuck of ice.
Yes, the court has been slightly right of center. But putting Roberts right of center after his monumental liberal ruling concerning the ACA that impacted millions more than most SCOTUS rulings makes me wonder what the author used as a measurement. Were all rulings weighted the same or were rulings in the rhelm of those like Roe v Wade and the ACA ruling weigyted heavier?
A conservative ruling supporting some bakers right to not decorate a cake based on some.mistake the state made in their case is much different than a Roe v Wade or an ACA case.
However, since Reid screwed up the rules the senate used to confirm judges, SCOTUS is more likely to see significant swings, much like that chart show in the 40,s when Roosevelt had years to pick justices. Had Reid left the rules like they were, in a 52-49 or 51-49 court, I doubt K would ever have been picked, nor would most of the ones on Trumps list.
Left/right is the wrong axis for measuring the supreme court.
The most fundimental issue of importance regarding justices is how do they determine the meaning of law and constitution.
If idelogy enters that at all – they do not belong on the court.
We should be careful abouf characterizing the rules of the senate and applying past rules to the present.
at the time of the Thomas hearings, The rules permitted the democrats to filibuster thomas.
Thomas was confirmed 52-48 by a democratic senate – with 11 democrats voting form him, in a democratically controlled senate.
Had democrats filibustered he could not have been confirmed.
Saying that things would be different if Reid had not tanked the filibuster, presumes that we would have the same rules as the past but used in the modern hyprerpartisan fashion.
I find the ranting about social media hillarious.
Absolutely the Right has found ways to effectively use social media.
But the left OWNS social media.
Nor do I find the attacks on social media any more persuasive than tipper gore attacking the lyrics of rap music.
Greater excercise of free speech, even when much of that speech is false, makes us BETTER off not worse.
For all its problems much of social media is no more incredulous than ordinary media.
Regardless, your attacks on social media are attacks on the free speech of others.
If someone else wants to say something stupid – why iis that your busuness ?
I did not see the SNL skit, SNL has not been funny in a long time.
Regardless the job of comedy is to poke fun at everytbing particularly public figures.
SNL can be as mean to Kavanagh as they wish.
But they had better be funny, and the rest of us should not confuse funny with truth.
I have more issues with the straiight media.
The reporter who released one of the Kavanaugh is lying about his drinking stories – which were lydiicrously stupid and mostly oppinion peices not the straight news they were sold as, was on twitter spewing political venom at Kavanaugh.
Opinion peices belong on the op ed pages.
Reporters need to report the story streight withought the editorial comments.
Or better put they are free to do as they please.
But I do not care about their oppinion – I am capable of formiing my own.
I want facts without embelishment.
Rather than fixating on who you do not like I sould suggest focusing on what.
The who will answer itself then.
Case in point:
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article219376490.html
This deranged idiot of a woman thinks she is somehow helping. How do people who are so oblivious and so warped get jobs in academia or anywhere? If I were a Georgetown student I would find her and give her a giant loud piece of my mind. Now her friends are complaining that she somehow got death threats. It make me just want to give up, teh most mindless clueless idiots can take over any debate. She is right up there with the trump supporter who wrote that he was going to kill Flake and his family for interupting trump, right up there with ted nugent.
At UVM I knew the radical professors, not one of them approached the rhetoric of this nut job.
There are far too many like her.
I looked up Christine Fair on Wiki. I expected to find that she is some kind of wingnut women’s studies professor. Instead she is a so-called expert on terrorism and has a whole hard line defence of drone strikes that has been roundly criticized as very poor science. She sounds like a right wing nut within the scope of her actual work.
“Fair’s journalistic sources have been questioned for their credibility[16] and she has been accused of having a conflict of interest due to her past work with U.S. government think tanks, as well as the CIA.[10] In 2011 and 2012, she received funding from the U.S. embassy in Islamabad to conduct a survey on public opinion concerning militancy. However, Fair states most of the grants went to a survey firm and that it had no influence on her research.[10] Pakistani media analysts have dismissed Fair’s views as hawkish rhetoric, riddled with factual inaccuracies, lack of objectivity, and being selectively biased.[16][17][18][19] She has also been rebuked for comments on social media perceived as provocative, such as suggesting burning down Pakistan’s embassy in Afghanistan or asking India to “squash Pakistan militarily, diplomatically, politically and economically.” She has been accused of double standards, partisanship towards India, and has been criticized for her contacts with dissident leaders from Balochistan, a link which they claim “raises serious questions if her interest in Pakistan is merely academic.”[18]”
This is our age, the social media age, the loons first age. The age of rhetorical incontinence.
Grump. Thanks. Would be nice to see how she weighed the judges only because those three have been labeled as liberal and she had Garland p!otted right where they were and said they were moderate. I would expect more of the decisions where they would not all be aligned in their decisions. Being moderate would seem to be where they would have some differences. That hardly ever happens.
Kennedy and SDO were moderates in my estimation and always a swing vote. You had to wonder how they would rule.
GWU is the feeder to the state department.
Not a big fan of McConnell.
Absolutely he worked hard to oppose Obama.
That said he did so legitimately – inside the rules.
Democrats are free to change the rules.
McConnell was very very good at using the rules.
Schumer and most democrats do not give a damn about the rules.
They are preparred to use “any means necescary” republicans and McConnell have restricted themselves to legitimate means.
Based on qualifications to sit on the high court, I think that 8 of the current justices, plus Garland and Kavanaugh, very clearly meet the standard. The one that I think does not make the cut is Sotomayor, who was chosen for her gender and ethnicity, as well as her ideology.
Sotomayor’s decisions, even as an appeals court judge were decided very politically, and her idea that a justice’s personal experiences should play a major role in his/her decisions is a bad idea. Even RBG, who is far left, is brilliant, and has generally been able to write her opinions and dissents from a judicial, not a personal point of view. Can you imagine if Kavanaugh had said that he was a “wise white guy?” Or if Elena Kagan had claimed to be a “wise Jewish lady?”
But the idea that SCOTUS justices should all be moderate or centrist doesn’t fit in with the idea of an independent judiciary, at least not in my opinion.
Based on my standard of the qualifications to sit on the supreme court:
Gorsuch probably meets those.
Thomas would be next – but I do not think he actually does.
None of the rest of them do – though some are farther than others.
Roberts makes iit up as he goes – that probably makes him the worst.
Using the same standards it appears that Kavanagh is likely not as good as Gorsuch but better than Thomas and certainly all the rest.
I could be wrong – some of his oppinions trouble me.
He is very weak when national security iis raised.
But he is otherwise better on “rule of law” than nearly all the rest.
I have some concerns about him.
I also have very deep concerns about what happens to the process if we decide that antiique uncorroborated allegations are sufficient to deraiil any nomination,.
Or alternately than accusers who know how to make powerful emotional appeals should always prevail. I do not think as an example that F is a sociopath. But I will guarantee you that any good sociopath could pull off her testimony.
1 in 30 people in this country are sociopaths. that is 10M sociiopaths in the country.
IIf 1/3 are D’s and 1/3 are R’s and 1 in 100K would be willing to trash a political noninee using antiique and unrefutabel allegations – we will get multiiple allegations from sociopaths for every appointment.
And sociopaths are really good at beleivable.
There is absolutely no ideological requirement for SC.
There is a requirement that whatever the ideology of a justice that should not effect their decisions
All justices are required to be conservative – with respect to their decisions regarding the law.
Not their politics. the entire concept of Stare decisis – which the left has all of a sudden discovered – because it is an imperdiment to rolling back Rowe. , is highly conservative.
Nor is there a requirement of ideological, ethnic, racial, religious or sexual balance.
It is not important whether the court is made of all christian old white men or all transexual budhist zers.
What is important is that the law they allow government to impose is narrow and confirms to the constitution as written, and more broadly to the least common denominator of shared moral values of all of us.
There is little or no cost to SCOTUS finding that a negative right belongs to the people and can not be infringed. There is little of no cost to finding that some power is outside the legitimate domain of government. Even in the event that SCOTUS is wrong, erring on the siide of individual rights and against that of government powers has little or no consequences.
If you wish to build “bipartisanship”, trust iin iinstitutions – that is pretty easy to attain.
Have government do LESS.
Every conflict is about whether to expand government power.
Most often the left wants more government power, and the right does not.
But sometimes that reverses. Regardless all conflict is about expanding government power.
If you want less conflict – quii seeking to expand the power of government.
It is really that simple.
If you want everyone to get along – quit trying to legislate morality.
Quit trying to use government as a tool to change people to suit your whim.
You can dislike what McConnell did – but it was within the rules of the Senate.
I dislike much of what Reid did – but he did actually play by the rules.
Obama did not play by the rules, he made up new rules to suit himself and quite often the court slapped him down.
The current attacks by the left on Kavanaugh are outside the rules.
Feinstein had an allegation – she was free to raise it or not.
Democrats are free to legitimately delay – it they can muster the political power to do so.
They can do exactly what McConnell did – if they are able.
Hurray!!! Finally a good compilation of why we are in this s—-house. Grump, you are the man (whoops) the person. Thanks.
Democrats are free to legitimately do whatever is in their power to do.
I do not beleive this further FBI investigation was nevescary or has accomplished anything.
But republiicans did not successfully make the argument against it and were essentially politically compelled to allow the investigate or risk a voter backlash.
As things have thus far played out – all of this have worked politically in favor of republicans so far.
Democrats are at near peak engagement. It is unlikely they can get their vorers any more energinzed. But repubicans are not, but they are slowly becoming so
A brilliantly written and thoughtfully expressed evaluation of Kavanaugh’s testimony from a credentialed observer – I recommend you read it…
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/
@Jay5:33. You beat me to it. A writer with some legal smarts and I don’t care if he is a Dem.
Wittes is an idiot. Possibly as Taleeb would say and IYI – intellectual yet idiot.
Almost every day since Trump was elected Wittes posts on twitter some “fact” that purportedly proves Trump is toast, and it is all over.
When you have been wrong 700+ times in a row – you are not credible.
Wittes has bought and argued virtually ever left wing nut aluminum foil conspiracy theory regarding Trump.
I have not even bothered to read what he has posted in a long time.
He iis just not credible.
Written by James Comey’s bff. Sweet.
Guess you didn’t give the article a thorough reading: for years he was a bff to Kavanaugh also.
What Annon. said.
I gave it a thorough reading. Based on the piece, their long relationship was one based on Kavanaugh’s long tenure on the D.C. Circuit Court and Witte’s admiration and “warm” feelings regarding him. Not that they were ever personal friends or political allies, as he is with Comey.
I think that Wittes tries to make the case that a judge who is smeared as a rapist, without any evidence, should not angrily and forcefully respond, or call out his false accusers. False accusers with a highly political agenda, who are trying to destroy him with mob justice, because they couldn’t defeat him through a constitutional process.
And, I think that Wittes’ case is full of crap.
Wittes did provide some luke warm defenses of Kavanaugh prior to the Ford allegations.
He has also argued that construing his testimony as lying is ludicrous – though I do not know that he still sticks to that.
But he has been so idiotic wiith regard to Trump, the Mueller probe, and all his best buds over at FBI/DOJ
Wittes is NOT a lawyer.
Wittes was wiidely quoted refering to Trump’s immigration EO as “malevolence tempered by incompetence”
That would be the EO that scotus upheld – 7-2 I beleive.
Benjammin Wittes ? Really ?
You might as well fawn at Alex Jones.
I follow Wittes on Twitter – he is a left wingnut with lunatic left legal pretensions who has thoroughly embarrassed himself over the past two years.
Following Wiittes “legal analysis” Mueller has clearly had absolute proof of Trump colluding with the russiians and treason charges have been iminent since before the 2016 election.
I gave you the legal standards for perjury – or other forms of false statements.
Only loons would pretend they are appliicable.
Nothing Kavanaugh testified to comes even close.
And you can NEVER convert value judgements or differences of oppinion into crimes of False testimony.
Frankly even if you actually proved K blacked out from drinking in 1983 – that would not be perjury, and it would not lead to a prosecution for false statements.
Though it would likely prevent his confirmation.
Just as proving that many of Fords statements are false – and many are, would not lead to prosecuting her.
Further though I think K’s testimony was quite emotionally compelling – as aparently was F’s.
That is NOT the issue.
Fundimentally NONE of this is about K’s credibiilty.
K had to testify – as a political factor.
With respect to the issues – aside from his denial’s and iintroduciing his diary into eviidence, his testimony is mostly tangential.
Outside of the political issues regardiing K’s judicial views, the only question was did K attempt to rape F in 1982. The eviidence of that was purely F’s testimony.
Mitchell’s memo does an excellent job of demonstrating why F does not come close to meeting the standard of proof necescary to prosecute.
But Mitchell err’s beause that is not the standard.
Regardless, her analysis is right on.
But even ignoring Mitchell. F just did not bring corroboration to an allegation 36 years old.
We can not know the truth. We often can not know the truth of things that happened yesterday. We will never know the truth regarding F.
All the problems with F’s testimony – which as the accuser has the burden of establishing her claim – no matter what standard of proof you use, all those problem are explaiinable.
Though I will note that much of what is claimed regarding memory of trauma’s is complete bunk. I can tell you the weather, the exact location, the precise day and time of day, the cloths my wife was weariing, what happened the day before and all that day that my wife was sexually assaulted.
That does not mean F is lying. But it does mean that the probability of her being accurate is reduced with each issue with her testimony.
F’s testimony is likely true in some way.
The probability of it being true in the most critical way – as an allegation regarding Kavanaugh is very small. And that is the only thing from the Thursday testimony that matters.
Regardless, ii you are going to continue to play this stupid game of trying to interpret the law ridiculously broadly then you are demanding that the same be done to F and her testimony will not hold up to the same kind of scrutiny that you are giving K.
LOCK HIM UP!
“New York state tax department reviewing fraud allegations involving Trump in NYT article
New York state tax officials are investigating allegations detailed in an exhaustive New York Times investigation into Donald Trump and his family’s business dealings.
The Times reported that Trump and his family committed “instances of outright fraud” in order to transfer millions of dollars from the real estate empire of the president’s father, Fred Trump, to his children without paying the appropriate taxes.
“The Tax Department is reviewing the allegations in the NYT article and is vigorously pursuing all appropriate avenues of investigation,” a spokesman from the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance said in an email to CNBC.”
THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR NY STATE TAX FRAUD!
Fred Trump died almost 20 years ago.
It is likely that most of the records related to this claim no longer exist.
The statute of limitations for criminal tax evasion is typically 7 years.
This is just stupid nonsense.
The problem here is that the democratically controlled government of NY is using its power in a political fashion to address modern allegations of misconduct from decades ago.
This is politics and a really good reason to remove those in NY attempting it.
This may appear twice:
What? Trump a tax cheat? Will the fake news from the Dems and their lackey media pals never end.
Lets investigate Clinton and every other democrats taxes back 20 years.
We could easily clean house in congress.
We absolutely have Beto driving drunk at high speed, causing an accident and likely trying to flee the scene – that is multiple criminal offenses at approximately the same time.
Should we go back to the Thomas hearings and decide which of Hill or Thomas we are going to prosecute for Perjury ?
I have zero problems with the politiical aspect of all of these things – if you want to dig into the decades old past of just about any public figure, be my guest.
But when you start trying to bring in law enforcement and the courts over antique events that no one can accurately recall – you are behaving criminally in the present.
@dhlli, 9:26.
Laughable, you forgot Boss Tweed and Caligula.
That Trump/Trump overbilled for supplies and equipment is proved in the documents the NYT published today. And that plus the fact that they used the greater outlays to amp up their tenants’ rents, should be able to be proved.
Any one familiar with RE, can tell you that this is not an isolated ploy by RE people.
And, you will find plenty of people, including me, that have hollered about the Clinton’s exploits in financial matters including their foundation.
It, Trump’s and others are crooked.
All this does not exonerate Trump from the charge that he is an out crook.
The only thing that you claim is “proof” proves, is that Trump and Company worked to pay the least possible taxes.
Guess what – that is LEGAL.
Statists have been trying for centuries to make the desire to minimize one’s taxes into a crime. It is not and you can not make it work that way.
With taxes as with all law – the burden rests with the government.
We saw this mess with Manafort – fundimentally he was convicted because the jury did not like him – he is not likeable, and they beleived something that was true, but not a crime, that he tried to pay the least taxes possible.
It appears that he did so badly. Had he created the proper loan documents and made a few payments against those loans, Mueller would have gotten no where.
Frankly the charges never should have made the court room. They were too old, and there STILL remains no actual evidence.
You are actually allowed to loan yourself money, and those loans are NOT taxable.
The fact that you can sometimes structure that to reduce your taxes does nto make it a crime.
If you want to argue that we should radically simplify our tax code – I am absolutely with you.
But there iis no tax code that you will ever be able to write that will not have provisions that someone can paint as a loophole.
Further no matter what tax laws you write all of us will work to pay the least taxes we possibly can.
I was personally responsible for the end of the year decisions that controlled the tax liability of a 3.5M/year business for about a decade.
It was pretty trivial to structure our receipts and outlays to assure that we paid no taxes every year.
There was nothing criminal about this, and it was almost overtly done.
Our process was not all that different from what got MCI WorldCom in trouble about 20 years ago.
What distinguished what MCI did from what we did is that you can do alot of things between one year and the next. You can not continue the process ALWAYS in the same direction for a decade.
You can say I am going to shift income or expenses from one year to another to avoid taxes TODAY, but the process only works if you are not shifting the same way year after year.
You make a big deal that Real Estate is purportedly corrupt.
What you call corrupt is the norms of business and there is nothing at all corrupt about iit.
If my year ends in June and I am showing profits – and I know I am going to have to replace the furnace in a building next year and doing that 6 months ahead will reduce my taxes.
Is that a crime in your view ? If you think it is, you are nuts, and every business in the US is criminal.
This gets even more difficult with small business – because there is far greater “dual use” oppoertunities.
I am a landlord, I am also an embedded software consultant and a architect.
I get income from each of these every year.
I absolutely have to have a phone – so that clients and tenants can reach me.
I also have a phone so that my wife and children and friends can reach me.
Further I am firends with many of my clients. They call and talk business, and sometimes we talk about things that are not business.
Can I pay for my cell phone as a business expense ?
Must I prorate deducting it based on how many calls I make that are personal and how many are business ?
Must I split the cost of calls to business clients – if I also ask about their kids, their vacation ?
At the end of a year – if my tenants are late on the rent, or if a check is delayed in the mail, or if I just do not get to the bank to deposit it for a few days – that will reduce the taxes I pay that year (though it may increase the taxes next year)
If a tennat is late paying the rent – have I committed a crime ?
If I do not get to the bank between xmas and new years – have I committed a crime ?
That is precisely the type of arguments you are making.
The majority of tax payers are employees. As such they have absolutely no control over things that can alter their taxes. But absolutely everyone who works for themselves or controls a business has enormous ability to control their own taxes.
I am not even slightly interested in these kind of stupid tax evasion claims.
The statute of limitations on non-criminal federal tax errors is 3 years.
The stature of limitations on criminal federal tax evasion is 7 years.
I am not interested in your opinion, or the NYT’s opinion or the NY AG’s opinion
about tax fillings that are more than 7 years old.
Any such fixatiion is SELF-EVIDENTLY political.
The State of NY had two decades to examine Trump’s taxes.
In his case with absolute certainty – both an army of his lawyers and accountants and an army of government lawyers and accountants did – many times over and found nothing.
You want me to beleive that 20 years later that those who reviewed his taxes at the time missed an elephant ?
You are entitled to whatever oppinion you choose.
But opponions are not facts – until you prove them.
You have an enormous uphill battle with my proving Trump is a crook based on these assertions about 20 year old taxes that multiple armies of lawyers and accountants – including those from the state heavily scrutinized years ago.
And you are absolutely never going to convince me with stupid claims that Trump deliberately tried to pay the least possible taxes.
Of Course he did!!!!
That is not a crime. A century ago one of this countries greatest jurists – Lerhned Hand who did not end up on the supreme court because he was too progressive.
wrote that intentionally paying the least possible taxes is not a crime, it is a civic duty.
Nothing has changed.
Intersting, wonder which story she told the FBI.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/01/kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnicks-account-raises-new-questions.html
Ron, the stories are essentially the same, and we won’t know what she tells the FBI, since she is probably not on the “approved’ list.
“The only thing that you claim is “proof” proves, is that Trump and Company worked to pay the least possible taxes.
Guess what – that is LEGAL. ”
“Methinks you doth protest too much”.
Document copies showing two sets of figures for boiler purchase: fraud
Asking for rent increases based on the higher cost in the document: fraud.
Accepting false valuations for properties: fraud
Not paying taxes on forgiven loans: fraud
And dozens of other irregular transactions, some bending laws others outright fraud.
Too minimize taxes? you are just a little pimple of a RE guy, but you sound like you may be in the Trump vein of manipulating, not minimizing, taxes. He is a big crook, I assume many of you smaller RE guys “are good people”.
Anyone from a city such as NYC knows about slum lords and sleazy RE guys, and like me have experienced their perverse tactics.
So please, spare us the defense of this out and out crook, it reflects badly on you.
Reread the article.
Yes, Dubious Dave believes there’s a statute of limitations on tax fraud: a crime isn’t a crime unless you’re immediately prosecuted and convicted.
This thread is too saturated for my iPad, I’m moving future posts to Rick’s new post
I erred. The statute of limitations in some instances is 3 years, but in most it is 6m not 7.
https://www.justice.gov/tax/criminal-tax-manual-700-statute-limitations
Most states, as well as the federal government have statutes of limitations on most crimes.
There are many reasons for this – one is to prevent the circus we are currently experiencing.
Recollections are distorted by time – we know this as a fact. In fact the distortion begins quite quickly, and can be manipulated – the police are extremely effective in taking ambiguous recollections and getting witnesses to commit to greater accuracy than they actually have.
Once a person has made a statement, that is nearly always what they will recall – regardless of what happened.
Evidence also degrades or disappears.
Business records typically only have to be retained for a few years – and many businesses have policies of destroying records as soon as they are legally permitted to.
Do you still have your tax return from 1998 ?
I actually do. Most people do not.
But I do not have the records to be able to prove the information on my tax return anymore, and I no longer can get it from others.
No statute of limitations on FRAUD tax filings in New York State.
“In New York, the statute of limitations that is currently in place for an issue of tax evasion remains the same as any statute of limitation for a non-capital federal offense. At this time, the statute of limitations for non-capital federal offenses stands at five years, meaning that if any information regarding tax evasion matters is entered within the New York courts after five years has passed, it will not be regarded as a way to prosecute an individual, bring them to trial, or indeed punish them for the offense that has been “
Go to a car dealership – just about everyone I know is claiming to sell you a car at “below invoice”.
I have been invoiced multiple times for the same thing at different prices.
As an architect I have handled “change orders” and “applications for payment”.
There are often several submissions before there is an approval.
I told you about the ‘estate mess” I have been dealing with.
After my mother died, my father sold her business.
He got several offers. He finally struck a deal with a freind of one of my sisters.
They worked out the deal, papers were drawn up and signed, everything was pretty much compete, and then after the buyer had already taken over but before everything was irrevocably final, they put together a new deal structured much differently.
Both of these deals looked “fishy”, The deals looked on paper like the buyer was getting things that he should not. I was aware of this and participated at the time.
I could have stopped it. but even if the “questionable” elements of the deal failed, both of these deals were 50% higher than the next closest offer.
Several years later my father died – in court my brother had managed to get ahold of the documents for the original proposed deal, and tried to present them as what had actually happened. While as I said – that has “sort of” happened, the deal was actually changed and structured differently at the last minute. As a result the documents my brother was hawking were meaningless.
Conflicting documents are quite common. They do not mean Fraud.
I will further note that for good reasons – some of those I have listed above, as well as many others, you can not just go to court and have documents admitted as evidence.
Business records must be admitted by the official keeper of the records. That is specifically because you must have someone confirm that the document being offered is the ACTUAL document, invoice, …. Just because something says it is an invoice does not mean that is what it is, or that it is the invoice that was paid, or that it was not adjusted for some reason later.
I would further note that the type of fraud you are alleging is typically done by employees on their expense reports.
Probably because it is near impossible with a double entry bookkeeping system.
To engage in the type of fraud you are alleging as a business, you have to have two sets of books, and you have to have a very good and very unethical bookkeeper or accountant.
And that still only works with small businesses.
A larger business is going to have multiple bookkeepers and accountants.
You just can not have two sets of books, too many people will have to know, you are guaranteed to get caught.
Further Trump is almost certainly audited every year.
The type of fraud you are alleging iis trivial to catch. Your tax return will not match your books, OR your books will not match your assets and liabilities – i.e, your bank accounts or loans will not have the amount of money in them your books claim.
Finally there are far easier ways to lower your taxes that are not fraudulent – unless your name is Paul Manafort and you do not keep good enough records.
The simplest thing that the Trump organization could do, is to own companies and divisions across the world and assure that all profits were reported in those companies in low tax foreign countries. I believe we have laws to try to make that difficult – but you will absolutely never be able to actually stop it without basically prohibiting US companies and people from owning foreign entities.
Anyway the Trumps could easily do that, liikely reduce their taxes to near zero, and they would have no conflicts with their army of accounts and lawyers – because it is legal – and they would be absolutely sure to find the way to do it that is legal.
Not the stupid “slum lord” garbage.
I wish I could remember the name, but a non-fiction author recently looked into housing in I think it was Wisconsion – Milwaukee.
He specifically went in looking for evil slum lords. He specifically went to a place were they were purportedly commonplace.
He gathered information on the landlords, and the tenants,
and in the end found that the mythical “slumlord” does not exist.
Most owners of low income housing are not particularly rich. There is not alot of money in it.
If you want to make money in the housing market – rent to the rich or the middle class.
While I personally mostly rent to the top of the bottom quintile, downscale from that is dangerous and involves dealing with people worse than my tenants – which have included prostitutes and drug addicts. Once I managed to get a drug dealer in one of my units and that was a very expensive mess to fix.
Almost none of my tenants have good credit. If they fail to pay – I have no leverage.
If you fail to pay your rent or mortgage, your creditors will destroy your credit, you will suffer, you will lose your credit cards or have to pay high interest rates, you may lose your home or your car.
My tenants have nothing. When one of my tenants fails to pay the only thing I can do is evict, and that is expensive and time consuming. Ultimately I will get a judgement against them – but it will never be paid.
At the same time the law requires me to maintain the apartment even if the tenant is not paying. And tenants who ware behind on their rent and fearing eviction seem to think that damaging things and calling the city is a good way to stall eviction – it is not. The city will force me to fix whatever is broken, and the district magistrate will evict them and give me a judgement no matter how often they call me a slumlord or what they say about the maintanence of the property.
Further need I remind you that every rental property is OWNED by someone – its being in good shape means it has MORE value. I and nearly every landlord I know are constantly trying to improve our properties. We do not want them to go to hell.
You refer to NYC – a city with Rent Controls. Please go look up the economics of rent control. It might as well be called F’the poor laws.
“Anyone from a city such as NYC knows about slum lords and sleazy RE guys, and like me have experienced their perverse tactics.”
I own two rental properties.
I would suggest that you invest in some rental units yourself, you might learn something.
I would also suggest you might consider that ALL the stories in the media are as one sided and crappy as those on politics.
Every single industry has a small percentage of crooks.
Those do NOT stick arround very long.
Business is not kind to people who do not keep commitments.
The most infamous “slum lord” in the past decade was the jewish guy in NYC who was shot – I beleive by an activist.
After he died the city came in and closed down his horrible properties – and they were pretty bad. He was renting to drug adicts for abotu 100/month – and they got very little for that.
After the city closed him down, his tennants ended up on the streets and some even died.
A crappy $100/month shithole of an apartment is better than being homeless.
If you are actually looking to reduce your taxes by $40M – there are legal ways to do that.
There are also illegal ways to do that that for businesses the scale of the Trump’s that you will never get caught.
Just about the stupidest way to avoid taxes is to try to deduct actually phony expenses – partiicularly those of real goods that must be paid for.
You will reduce your taxes very little – basically your marginal rate * the price difference.
Further it is damn near impossiible to avoid getting caught – if you bought something – then you actually paid for that thing somewhere at some time – that means there is a record of a financial transfer of the correct price for the thing you bought that will prove that you paid a different price than you deducted.
Worse still you wiill Guarenteed end up wiith an “unbalanced” set of books. Unbalanced books are a gigantic red flag that something is going on. Outside of government, individual finances – most people do not keep personal books, and some small businesses, you will NEVER encounter unbalanced books.
It is possible to get arround the impediments I nore above – but it is extremely difficult.
Further in organizations such as the Trump’s – there will be army’s of lawyers and accountants. A significant portion of those will not only have to KNOW what you are doing, they will have to participate.
It is pretty easy to get lawyers and accounts to paericipate in tax evasion – if it is legal.
Take Manafort as an example. All he needed was bookkeepers accountants, and lawyers sufficiently capable to make sure that when he “borrowed” money from his offshore accounts, he properly recorded it as a loan, drew up the appropriate paperwork and made the payments against that loan.
The clam that Manafort engaged iin tax evasion is based PURELY in lack of documentation, NOT based on actually doing something that is illegal.
The governments case was that because Manafort did not properly document his “loans” they were not loans and therefor were taxable.
We have subsequently eliminated taxes on foreign income – because it iis a stupid idea and ends up wiith iidiotiic situation where the way you do your paperwork determines whether something is taxable.
I have little doubt that Trump did EXACTLY what Manafort did – meaning loaned himself money from foreign income. The difference is he had an army of lawyers and accountants to make sure he dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s.
I would further offer that Apple, Microsoft, and probably every international company of consequence does exactly the same thing.
Corporate tax revenues in the US have been declining for a long time.
There are two reasons for this.
First corporate taxes are incredibly stupid. They are the taxes with the largest negative economic effect – it is likely that most corporate taxes are net negative – meaning the economic harm iis so great that they produce LESS tax revenue.
The next major reason is that corporate taxes are completely avoidable.
There are infinite numbers of legal things a corporation can do to reduce even eliminate taxes.
They can increase expenses, they can defer revenues, and they can pay shareholder dividends. Any corporation – including Trump’s business that pays significant taxes is mismanaged.
The overwhelming majority of taxes in the US are paid by individuals – and mostly by wealthy individuals. The fundimental reason for this – and the distinction between individual taxes and corporate taxes is that the individual can not easily benefit from their income without paying taxes on it.
There is one big “loophole” to that – which Trump, Clinton and most wealthy people use, and that is to structure your life such that something else pays for it.
The Clinton’s jet all over the world, they attend conferences, all of this – including their private jets, their best in the world meals and accomidations are paid for by something else as an expense. In the case of the Clinton’s by the Clinton Foundation
I have sero doubt Trump did exactly the same.
There are rules for this – but they are generally simple to get arround.
Leona Helmsley got in trouble over this – primarily because she was stupid about it – much like Manaforte. First she pushed the limits too far, she left a trail that suggested the busines justification for the expenses was a sham.
You tell me – are the Clinton’s 5K/night hotel rooms, and similarly priced meals “a sham” or are they legitimate expenses to their charity ?
It does not matter, the fundamental distinction between Helmsley and the Clintons is that a jury wanted to believe Helmsley was a crook, and she said things to encourage that belef.
One of the big deals for Helmsley was that her business paid for a pool at her home.
Well the primary use of that pool was entertainment of prominent people which was inherently beneficial to her business.
As I said before – a great deal of untaxed business expenses is dual use.
There are differences in how this works for small and large businesses.
but it is completely unavoidable.
Every business as an example – large or small provides things like cell phones to many people as a business expense. Those are vital to the business.
As Strzok and page demonstrated – policies or not – they get used personally.
Should we prosecute Strzok and Page for tax evasion ?
My Cell phone and internet service is paid before taxes by my businesses.
They are instrumental to those bussinesses. But absolutely they are used for personal purposes.
Worse stiill sometimes things are completely blurred. when I call or email a friend with whom I also do business – is that a personal call or email or a business one ?
If I take them out to dinner is that personal or business ?
If Bill Clinton takes PM May out to dinner is that personal or business ?
https://nypost.com/2018/10/01/today-atticus-finch-would-be-a-villain/
Several of Ford’s statements – such as her2nd door story – like the fear of flying story are not holding up under scrutiny.
@ron 10:41.
Ron I was recently seated on a three-hour flight, next to a lady that said she was afraid of flying. And boy was she, her boyfriend tried to calm her, as did I, but she was very jumpy, cringey and miserable. Yet she was flying.
And, a second door, wow that shows you are desperate to make her look looney tunes (as HClinton would say).
Scrutiny- please. Apply that to BK’s veracity with Congress.
Even without Ford, the case for a possibly deficient character, or possible liar (just check the Urban Dictionary, is emerging.
DD
None of the “attacks” on Ford are “dispositive”.
They do not prove she is lying.
But they do weaken her credibility. And the weaker her credibility gets the more she will be attacked.
The fear of flying claim was made by Ford – or her attorney’s.
No one is saying that Ford does not have a fear of flying.
What they are saying is that it has not been an impediment to doing things she WANTS to do. Just as the women you set next to.
Ford raised the 2nd door. It is therefore a means of weighing her credibility.
Once again it is clear that something Ford has said was important to her clearly is not as important as she says.
There were multiple ways to avoid all these attacks on Ford’s credibilty – do not make this a public circus. Do not attach importance to things that are not important.
Republicans are going to try to paint all of this as politically motivated – because that makes it all less credible AND because that will fire up their base.
Just as the left is going to make this all about women – as that is what will fire up their base.
Democrats have a much better emotional appeal – but it iis very hard to sustain emotions.
The republican counter attack has a weaker start – but may have a stronger finish.
There is zero doubt that democrats handling of this has been deeply politicaly motivated.
There is pretty much no one arguing that the handling of Ford’s allegation by democrats was not cravenly political – and even destructive to Ford personally.
Republicans are seeking to spread that political taint to Kavanaugh’s accusers.
They will atleast in part succeed – because the ends justifies the means ideology of the left makes it ALWAYS plausible to claim that any act that could be political is also wrong, because those on the left are more willing to lie to achieve their ends.
Absolutely those on the tight at times do everything those on the left do.
But not as frequently and more importantly – the ends justifies the means is NOT part of their ideology.
I would be happy to see the same standards applied to BK as F.
Though I would note that is NOT appropriate in this instance.
Ford is the accuser – however high or low it is the burden of proof is on Ford, not Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh need not have testified at all. The only reason for doing so was political.
The left and the media have spent several days combing Kavanaugh’s testimony.
Absolutely a real lie in his testimony would disqualify him.
Not because it means Ford is telling the truth.
Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Kavanaugh had occasional drinking blackouts, would not increase the credibility of Ford’s testimony.
It would not place Kavanaugh in a home we can not find on a day we do not know, with 4 other people who deny the event.
But it would disqualify him as a supreme court justice.
We would not appoint a supreme court justice who lied under oath – even if they were provably innocent of the charges.
This is painted as “he said, she said”.
That is almost never hat these are.
She made an accusation – we must look at everything we can and weigh credibility.
Fords remarks about her door, about flying, about any detail she provides are relevant.
Kavanaugh’s denials are also relevant, but the burden of proof is not on him.
In fact you can find him completely unbeleivable, – and still not accept her story.
It is not “she said, he said” – it is She said – and everythign we can find to bolster or diiminish her credibility.
I beleive we have a story by a college roommate who says that Ford was struggling – likely because something happened to her, and that she got her life back together.
That is evidence that bolsters ford. Unfortunately that person does not say Ford told her anything about what had happened to her.
dduck, that was not me, that was Dave at 10:41.
Yes, the left has made this into a farce where the precise meaning in 1982 of “boofing” matters.
I misspelled a word in the note I wrote in my wife’s yearbook in 1976 and she has never let me forget it.
The text in both of their yearbooks is disturbing. It is proof of a lack of maturity on the part of both K and F – 36 years ago. Beyond that it is NOT dispositive.
It is a good reason NOT to have been a friend to either K or F in 1982.
That is all.
Even the Washington post has found that Google searches during the 2016 election were notably skewed to favor Clinton over Trump.
Google is now taking serious hits for political bias. There is lots of internal emails demonstrating open political hostility to Sen Candidate Blackburn.
And evidence that she has been seriously censored on social media.
I do not personally care if Google is poliitiically biased – the solution is to leave google if that matters to you – and I have reduced my use of Google. Though not eliminated it.
That said they hypocracy of the left here is enormous.
Studies done BEFORE the 2016 election found that small skewing by google in searches regarding political candidates could shift undecided voting by 20%.
I want government completely out of almost everything related to political funding.
But if you decide that the Russians can not run face book adds, then why is it OK for google or twitter to attempt and likely succeed in “iinfluenciing” the election.
Today Social media weilds power dwarfing that of all political donors – Koch, Sorros, etc. combined.
If you beleive that Russian influence is wrong, if you beleive the influence of the Koch’s is wrong – how do you defend google ?
If you accept google’s conduct – then it is hypocracy to speak about that of others.
Unless your entire concept of truth and morality is based on your feelings of the moment.
Dave many people don’t choose their search engine, they just use whatever is on their device or they use what is tied to their e-mail.
It takes about 10sec to change your default search engine. Further for specific searches you can with little effort use any search engine.
If Google or FB or Twitter has 1% decline in their projected use – there will be a large drop in their stock price and people throughout the company will be fired and polices will change.
And all of this will happen very quickly IF people are sufficiently concerned.
And none of it will happen if they are not.
I have alternatives for nearly everything. I do not use most them. But I am in a position to do so quickly if I want.
If some group I support – stages a boycott of some giant tech company – I am prepared.
This is not a conservative tool – or a progressive tool.
I am completely opposed to laws barring Master Cake from openly discriminating against gays. I will fully support totally completely boycotting master cake – including contributing to those boycotting them.
I have zero problems running you out of business for publicly expressing views I do not like.
But we do that by excercising the power that is actually ours – the right to chose where and from whom to buy what.
I am 100% opposed to government involving itself in that process in any way.
I do not have much fear of social media censorship.
I think that Blackburns threats to retailiate in the Senate are stupiid and hypocritical, she claiims to be a limited government conservative.
But if she and other republicans announced they were all moving to Gab to protext twitter and Facebook censorship – I would join them. And social media would capitulate very quickly.
This is why we use evidence. Why we need to be careful about trusting our feelings, our guts – particularly when our choices will have serious consequences for others.
You can rely on whatever you want when you are the one who will pay for your choices.
When your choices effect others. We use standards – facts, logic, reason, anything less would be immoral.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-controversy-liars/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=5bb31f2f04d30157abd7c19a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
This is for everyone, but especially Jay since he is our master retweeter of negative Trump/Kavanaugh/GOP information.
https://nypost.com/2018/10/03/ex-boyfriends-letter-prompts-grassley-to-question-fords-truthfulness/
So as the right claims much of the information about K is made up, while the dems say K lied during his testimony, information comes forth that F lied during her testimony.
So now we have a he said she said he lied she lied along with I said this but now I meant that (Switnrck) NBC interview.
Only our government can turn parliamentary process into a third rate circus!
The letter is interesting. But it is not testimony or an affidavit. It doesn’t have the same weight unless sworn.
Regardless, this is one of the problems with handling all of this this way.
We have incentivized efforts to destroy Ford and Kavanaugh.
The left makes a big deal that the FBI needs to investigate this – I am not so sure that is true as the Senate has more power to compel testimony than the FBI can without a grand jury.
Regardless, there did need to be an investigation – quietly, months ago.
The ex-boy friends recollections are from 20+ years ago. His recall could be faulty, or Ford could have forgotten. Further we do not now how big a deal this is. Calming a friends anxiety is not the same as expertise in beating polygraphs.
I am an avid John Grisham reader. In one of his novels the protagonist goes to a great deal of effort to learn how to “fool” a polygraph. Are we going to discount the testimony of anyone who has ever read Grisham ?
There is only one aspect of the entiire Polygraph scenario that is very signifiicant to me.
The process of conducting Ford’s polygraph had Ford constructing a statement and then being asked whether it was true in two different ways.
That makes that particular statement very important.
Ford constructed it – knowing that she would be polygraphed.
She consciously considered each word.
I would look very carefully at the polygraph for statements that suggest or imply something but do not actually say it – it is near certain that those implications are FALSE. Otherwise Ford would have said those things directly.
The other thing that would be of great significances would be changes ford made to her statement. Initially she wrote “Early eighties”m then she cross out “early”,
That is significant. It means that she is not sufficiently sure of the time frame.
It may even mean she knows it was NOT the early eighties.
I beleive that something happened to Ford.
While in College Ford was failing. That is likely a response to whatever happened to her.
I beleive that her story is a permutation of something that happened later – eiither in college or later in HS.
II do not think she was 15, I think she was 17 or 18.
But all of that is just my “guess”.
The big problem is that we can not and should not rely on recollections from 36 years ago that have no corrobration.
They can be litterally true.
They can be reflections of something that is true
or they can be false.
And there is no way of knowiing.
Jay, here is another one
https://eagleactionreport.com/articles/former-friend-details-kavanaugh-accuser-s-wild-and-kinky-side
Yes, conservative site, but not any different than liberal tweeter tweets.
Mud mud and more mud.
Could my bimbo comment be coming true?
Swetnick has never been credible. Her claims are self contradictory or incredibly improbable.
In recent interviews she has walked back most of them
Democrats are purportedly upset because her accusations are not being investigated.
I do not know that is true, but I would not be upset if it were not.
Regardless, one of the consequences of bringing this public – before the media, is that efforts will be made to destroy everyone in this.
There are people who are going to believe that Ford is a vile politically motivated perjurer for the rest of her life – because her beach house does not have two doors, or because the 2nd door on her home is because she is renting part of it out.
Dave the left is never going to be happy. They will say the FBI is not thoroughly investigating. They will say that they need to investigate the possibility of lying under oath, They will say his disposition does not lend itself to being on SCOTUS. They will say he has a history of erratic behavior.
They will never be happy with anything except his nomination being pulled. They will never be happy with anyone until they have a democrat in office to fill that seat.
Shumer said it something like “one way or the other”.
So now my question is becoming, do they confirm K or do they not and then we get to go through this joke all over again. I suspect the next candidate will be much more prepared for vicious attacks and have a slug hammer ready when they came at him/her, unlike K who was blind sided.
Expanding on your remarks – the fight over Kavanaugh is not about Kavanaugh.
And that actually poses a problem for the left.
The more obviously political it becomes the more harmful to democrats it becomes.
Republicans gambled not withdrawing Kavanaugh – it had to be crystal clear that merely holding the hearing at which Ford testifiied guaranteed every subsequent allegation against Kavanaugh, that anyone who thinks they ever saw Kavanaugh drink would come out to the woodwork.
The conventional wisdom would have been withdraw K and nominate Barratt or someone like her quickly.
But the politics here are incredibly weird.
Manchin’s polling in WV shift’s 20pts if he votes against Kavanaugh.
It goes from a low single digit squieeker of a maybe win to an easy election win.
Missouri does not swing as far – but it goes from a 2pt D win, to a 2pt D loss.
Several here have noted that public support for K is less than public opposition.
But from the same polls if the FBI finds nothing on K his support rises to near 60%.
This fight has energized the democratic based – but it has also energized the republican base.
And democrats were already energized.
The republican political calculus is quite different from that of democrats and the country as a whole.
The worst scenario for Repubicans is protracted capiitulation – i.e. delay followed by withdraw. They lose the fight AND they loose their voters.
Republicans have nothing to lose by pissing off the left, or feminists. They are not voting republican no matter what.
Republican target audiences are:
Their base
Men – particularly white men.
Married women.
In each of these groups there support of K and the fight over K is BENEFITTING them.
I was surprised – but right now though women overall oppose K heavily – 57% of married women support confirming him. The polling gap between married women and single women is almost as large as between men and women.
The republican impact of all this is lagging in the polls, but appears to be net positive.
The generic ballot is not shifting, and Republicans if anything look worse off in the house.
But there has been a significant shift in polling on senate seats.
We could actually see the Democrats take over the house and Republicans pick up 3-4 seats in the Senate. That is not likely – but what is clear is democrats are going to have to work much harder and spend much more money to hold several Senate seats than was the case two weeks ago. Absent dick pics of K in the next couple of days – however the red state D’s vote on K there will be negative political consequences for most.
Re: 10:41, sorry Ron.
I don’t know if this link has been prominently posted: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html
It is a must read.
NY, wake up. You and the IRS have been asleep at the switch for decades, while the Trumps have “minimized”, on a grand scale, their taxes by many, many millions.
This is a more condensed version of the Trump story: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-wealth-fred-trump.html
Ducky old friend, the times they are a changing. There is a new Rick post. Time to migrate.
Yup, this was all just an election year ploy!
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/yuma-sector-apprehends-more-650-illegal-aliens-last-two-days
A human tragedy in progress and all you can do is make a stupid ass gotcha comment. And one that is as faux as Trump’s daily bs tweets. Or are you really this stupid?
“U.S. Border Patrol agents in Yuma Sector apprehended 654 illegal aliens most being family units or unaccompanied juveniles from Guatemala, who surrendered themselves to agents on Monday and Tuesday. ”
The military had nothing to do with the apprehensions, you Dingbat. What part of ‘family members and unaccompanied juveniles’ doesn’t register in your soggy brain?
https://apnews.com/a065ad4900ea42509660c0ffa6be8df4
What part of illegal do you not understand.
If you are concerned about these people, how about opening up your home to a few and give them food and housing. You do live in California where illegal is not illegal.
I am prepared to allow into the US immediately anyone who has a sponsor who will take fully responsibility for that immigrant for the next 20 years.
Who will provide them with a place to live, and food, and guarantee that they will not become a burden on the rest of us.
Individuals, churches, non-profits, can sponsor anyone they want.
But if you want to tell the rest of us that we must allow others in and without chosing to do so, that we will end up through our government becoming responsible for many of them – then you are immoral.
I provided you a link to a border patrol web site.
Are you saying that the Border Patrol is a trump tweet ? Or Faux news ?
You can characterize what is occuring however you please.
But 650 people crossed the border at one location with poor security in one day.
Those people are our problem now and for sometime into the future.
Is this a human tragedy ?
These people CHOSE to do this.
They were not driven from their homes by people with guns. They did not have their homes burned down.
They left their own countries and walked over a thousand miles to knock on our door.
Hoping that we will let them in.
They came looking for a better life.
They took a risk.
We now have our own choice to make
You can argue that we should allow them to stay.
But it is an argument not a right.
Any tragedy is of their own making.
BTW there are more “caravans” forming,
and there is violence associated with those caravans
but that is not getting reported.
And actually the military has alot to do with this.
But I guess you can not read.
CBP has been training the guard and miltary in support jobs – like monitoring surveilance equipment, so that border patrol agents can handle the border crossers.
The military is precluded from direct engagement within the US
So when you see more border patrol agents doing their job on the border,
that is because the military is doing other cbp jobs.
as to my comment – it would have no teeth EXCEPT that you had previously claimed this was all an election stunt. As if Trump conspired with those in the caravans to create an election issue.
“I provided you a link to a border patrol web site.”
You used that to justify Trump sending 5000 troops to the border.
YOUR link indicated the apprehensions had nothing to do with the troops.
Duh 🙄!
Still can not read.
AGAIN!! The guard and the military were sent to do CBP jobs that do NOT involve direct interactions with these border crossers.
You will not see soldiers interacting with immigrants at the border – at least not short of a crisis in which the rule of law goes out the window.
The US military can not be used for law enforcement inside the US boarders.
But they can be used to perform myriads of support tasks for law enforcement.
Which is what they are doing.
xWhen I hear that the bleeding heart liberals are opening their homes to these people, feeding them, giving them housing and driving them to job interviews for a 36 month period, then I will start listening to their arguements.
Until that happens, lock them up, when you have a plane full, get them on the pkane and fly them back to Guatemala.
Liberals talk big because they are spending other peoples money. When they have to spend their own, their message changes!
a Stunt would be Sen. Kamala Harris comparing ICE to the KKK.
The last time we had large numbers of unaccompanied juveniles there were approx. 4000 MS-13 gang members among those unaccompanied juveniles.
The article you linked noted that many of these people found the journey hard are turned back.
That suggests they are NOT seeking asylum but are economic immigrants.
My position on immigration is not the same as Trump’s or most americans.
But I am really tired of idiots who are unwilling to confront reality.
If you are for open borders – admit that and lets discuss what needs to be done to make that policy work.
If you are not – admit that and then lets have the conversation about how you are going to limit immigration and who you are going to say no to.
It is anything else that is “fake”.
You bemoan a “human tragedy”.
Guess what, so long and you shed crocadile tears over “a human tregedy” both those trying to get in and the media will make sure that what you see is the human tragedy that you want to see.
There are numerous indications of lots of problems regarding the broward and palm beach election handling. There is lots of finger pointing and it is not easy to sort our who might be responsible. Except for one thing. 65 other counties managed to comply with the law.
In my view the judge was wrong to extend deadlines for broward and palm beach.
The only way these problems will ever get fixed is if there are consequences.
If voters in Broward and Palm beach beleive that incompetence on the part of their elected authorities cost them their vote and might have altered the outcome of the election then maybe they will demand competence and that problems are fixed.
Lots of things are not clear. What is clear is that this problem is local to broward and palm beach.
But I am prepared to go further. I think it is possible that all this is “made up”. Not that the problems were not real, but that they were not unusual and that they function as a smoke screen. Fraud can masquerade as incompetence.
How many people think that more and more votes would have been “found” had Scott not gone to court ?
We need to get past this leftist garbage of “good intentions”.
Intentions do not cut it.
No. Try not. Do… or do not. There is no try.
Yoda
If there are no cconsequences for failure you will get lots of failure. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/11/17/palm_beach_went_for_coloring_books_ipads_over_vote-machine_upgrades.html