A wager

[Bob Juch]

One other point I just learned. It's (apparently) true that sexual assault has no statute of limitations in Maryland. But that wasn't true in 1982, when Dr. Blasey Ford was attacked. Back then, the incident she described was legally a misdemeanor with a one-year statute of limitations. So even if she were to report it to the police, there'd be nothing the police could do. --Bob

[Estonut]

But the half-assed investigation that Donny is authorizing, with the FBI hamstrung both in time and in scope, certainly won't satisfy me that this is a full and fair investigation. --Bob

Another Yale classmate of Kavanaugh's disputes his claims about his drinking behavior. Chad Ludington, a professor at North Carolina State University has sent a statement to the FBI:

I have been contacted by numerous reporters about Brett Kavanaugh and have not wanted to say anything because I had nothing to contribute about what kind of justice he would be. I knew Brett at Yale because I was a classmate and a varsity basketball player and Brett enjoyed socializing with athletes. Indeed, athletes formed the core of Brett’s social circle.

In recent days I have become deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale. When I watched Brett and his wife being interviewed on Fox News on Monday, and when I watched Brett deliver his testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, I cringed. For the fact is, at Yale, and I can speak to no other times, Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. I know, because, especially in our first two years of college, I often drank with him. On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.

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.

I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth.

I felt it was my civic duty to tell of my experience while drinking with Brett, and I offer this statement to the press. I have no desire to speak further publicly, and nothing more to say to the press at this time. I will, however, take my information to the F.B.I.

Now, Flock will probably say that if Kavanaugh fibbed about his drinking, that doesn't mean he assaulted Dr. Ford. It does however make her story more likely to be true since the behavior described by Dr. Ludington corresponds to what Dr. Ford says Kavanaugh did. And there is also a general legal axiom that some judges instruct juries on it in evaluating witness testimony and credibility. That is falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, or false in everything. At one time, judges could completely strike a witness' testimony if it were demonstrated they lied in one material matter. If Kavanaugh lied about his at-times violent binge drinking, what else did he lie about?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/p ... naugh.html

Your side keeps insisting this is non-partisan, yet each "witness" (actually "non-witness," for the most part) is a Democrat. Didn't Kavanaugh go to school with any conservatives?

Dr. Ford's story has changed a few times. Doesn't falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to her statements, too?

[Estonut]

He put her hand over her mouth to prevent her from crying out and he used his body to trap her in place as he tried to remove her clothes. Minimizing that conduct as Attempted Cop-a-Feel is revolting to me. --Bob

I don't think there are many people who really care what is revolting to you, bob-tel. You are a closed minded super partisan, as evidenced by your conviction of Kavanaugh without proof.

He put her hand over her mouth to prevent her from crying out and he used his body to trap her in place as he tried to remove her clothes.

She says he did. He says he didn't. There are no corroborating witnesses for either. There are likely never to be any, unless Mark Judge confesses to something. So why do you assume he did it? And why do you just ignore the counter arguments?

Among other things, because she's the one who wants a full investigation, not a fig leaf to provide some political cover. For another, I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh lied or dissembled under oath about a bunch of other stuff. For a third, because he had a lot of trouble giving direct answers to questions. For a fourth, because he acted exactly how I've seen bullies react when confronted.

Yes, I think he did it. But the real point is that there's enough evidence that he did it that there needs to be a full and fair investigation. And if the Senate insists on confirming him without one, then I expect the House to begin one on January 3. The nation needs to know one way or another with as much confidence as possible, whether an attempted rapist is sitting on the Court.

And theer's a pretty good chance that a full and fair investigation will come up with a lot. I'd be interested to know, for instance, whether Kavanaugh's classmates and contemporaries (including Justice Gorsuch) agree that his definitions of "boof" and "devil's triangle" are truthful. I'd be interested to know whether any classmates have additional information about the party. There's lots of potential corroboration out there, if anyone bothers to look for it. And if they look hard and don't find corroboration, that's got probative value as well.

But the half-assed investigation that Donny is authorizing, with the FBI hamstrung both in time and in scope, certainly won't satisfy me that this is a full and fair investigation.

If the penalty for attempted forcible rape were death, would you be OK sending Kavanaugh to the electric chair based on Dr. Ford's "highly credible allegation?"

[Bob78164]

I don't think there are many people who really care what is revolting to you, bob-tel. You are a closed minded super partisan, as evidenced by your conviction of Kavanaugh without proof.

She says he did. He says he didn't. There are no corroborating witnesses for either. There are likely never to be any, unless Mark Judge confesses to something. So why do you assume he did it? And why do you just ignore the counter arguments?

Among other things, because she's the one who wants a full investigation, not a fig leaf to provide some political cover. For another, I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh lied or dissembled under oath about a bunch of other stuff. For a third, because he had a lot of trouble giving direct answers to questions. For a fourth, because he acted exactly how I've seen bullies react when confronted.

Yes, I think he did it. But the real point is that there's enough evidence that he did it that there needs to be a full and fair investigation. And if the Senate insists on confirming him without one, then I expect the House to begin one on January 3. The nation needs to know one way or another with as much confidence as possible, whether an attempted rapist is sitting on the Court.

And theer's a pretty good chance that a full and fair investigation will come up with a lot. I'd be interested to know, for instance, whether Kavanaugh's classmates and contemporaries (including Justice Gorsuch) agree that his definitions of "boof" and "devil's triangle" are truthful. I'd be interested to know whether any classmates have additional information about the party. There's lots of potential corroboration out there, if anyone bothers to look for it. And if they look hard and don't find corroboration, that's got probative value as well.

But the half-assed investigation that Donny is authorizing, with the FBI hamstrung both in time and in scope, certainly won't satisfy me that this is a full and fair investigation.

If the penalty for attempted forcible rape were death, would you be OK sending Kavanaugh to the electric chair based on Dr. Ford's "highly credible allegation?"

I don't think I'd vote for a criminal conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt) based on the evidence as it currently stands. But if I were a cop and had her as a complaining witness, I'd sure as hell authorize a full-fledged investigation to see whether there's corroborating evidence. And (again based on the evidence as it currently stands) I'd vote for her in a civil trial (preponderance of the evidence) in a heartbeat. Way too much of his testimony was obvious bullshit.

This is none of the above. It's a job interview. And for that, the mere fact that he wasn't willing to call for a full investigation of the facts should be disqualifying. --Bob

[tlynn78]

Among other things, because she's the one who wants a full investigation, not a fig leaf to provide some political cover. For another, I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh lied or dissembled under oath about a bunch of other stuff. For a third, because he had a lot of trouble giving direct answers to questions. For a fourth, because he acted exactly how I've seen bullies react when confronted.

Yes, I think he did it. But the real point is that there's enough evidence that he did it that there needs to be a full and fair investigation. And if the Senate insists on confirming him without one, then I expect the House to begin one on January 3. The nation needs to know one way or another with as much confidence as possible, whether an attempted rapist is sitting on the Court.

And theer's a pretty good chance that a full and fair investigation will come up with a lot. I'd be interested to know, for instance, whether Kavanaugh's classmates and contemporaries (including Justice Gorsuch) agree that his definitions of "boof" and "devil's triangle" are truthful. I'd be interested to know whether any classmates have additional information about the party. There's lots of potential corroboration out there, if anyone bothers to look for it. And if they look hard and don't find corroboration, that's got probative value as well.

But the half-assed investigation that Donny is authorizing, with the FBI hamstrung both in time and in scope, certainly won't satisfy me that this is a full and fair investigation.

If the penalty for attempted forcible rape were death, would you be OK sending Kavanaugh to the electric chair based on Dr. Ford's "highly credible allegation?"

I don't think I'd vote for a criminal conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt) based on the evidence as it currently stands. But if I were a cop and had her as a complaining witness, I'd sure as hell authorize a full-fledged investigation to see whether there's corroborating evidence. And (again based on the evidence as it currently stands) I'd vote for her in a civil trial (preponderance of the evidence) in a heartbeat. Way too much of his testimony was obvious bullshit.

This is none of the above. It's a job interview. And for that, the mere fact that he wasn't willing to call for a full investigation of the facts should be disqualifying. --Bob

LOL - 'cops' don't make that determination. I'm guessing criminal law is not your strong suit.

[flockofseagulls104]

As of today, there is an agreement in place to delay Kavanaugh's vote for a week while an investigation into the current situation between Blasey-Ford and Kavanaugh. According to the agreement announced by Flake, it is to be at the most one week.
Before the week is over:
More than one democrat will complain that it is too short a time period and DEMAND it be extended.
OR
A new 'accuser' will be found or some other kind of charge will be levied against Kavanaugh, and more than one democrat will DEMAND these charges be investigated.

I think I was right. No one took my bet, because they knew the dems wouldn't stick to any deal.

[tlynn78]

As of today, there is an agreement in place to delay Kavanaugh's vote for a week while an investigation into the current situation between Blasey-Ford and Kavanaugh. According to the agreement announced by Flake, it is to be at the most one week.
Before the week is over:
More than one democrat will complain that it is too short a time period and DEMAND it be extended.
OR
A new 'accuser' will be found or some other kind of charge will be levied against Kavanaugh, and more than one democrat will DEMAND these charges be investigated.

I think I was right. No one took my bet, because they knew the dems wouldn't stick to any deal.

LOL - ya think?

[Bob78164]

As of today, there is an agreement in place to delay Kavanaugh's vote for a week while an investigation into the current situation between Blasey-Ford and Kavanaugh. According to the agreement announced by Flake, it is to be at the most one week.
Before the week is over:
More than one democrat will complain that it is too short a time period and DEMAND it be extended.
OR
A new 'accuser' will be found or some other kind of charge will be levied against Kavanaugh, and more than one democrat will DEMAND these charges be investigated.

I think I was right. No one took my bet, because they knew the dems wouldn't stick to any deal.

As Senator Klobachar said in Committee when Senator Flake announced his decision, there was no deal. There was Senator Flake, joined by three other uncommitted votes, saying they wouldn't vote to confirm unless the credible charges were investigated. Mitch didn't put off the vote because he had a sudden attack of bipartisanship. He put off the vote because he didn't have the votes to confirm. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

As of today, there is an agreement in place to delay Kavanaugh's vote for a week while an investigation into the current situation between Blasey-Ford and Kavanaugh. According to the agreement announced by Flake, it is to be at the most one week.
Before the week is over:
More than one democrat will complain that it is too short a time period and DEMAND it be extended.
OR
A new 'accuser' will be found or some other kind of charge will be levied against Kavanaugh, and more than one democrat will DEMAND these charges be investigated.

I think I was right. No one took my bet, because they knew the dems wouldn't stick to any deal.

As Senator Klobachar said in Committee when Senator Flake announced his decision, there was no deal. There was Senator Flake, joined by three other uncommitted votes, saying they wouldn't vote to confirm unless the credible charges were investigated. Mitch didn't put off the vote because he had a sudden attack of bipartisanship. He put off the vote because he didn't have the votes to confirm. --Bob

I watched it, bob-tel. Flake said he and Coombs agreed there should be an investigation, limited in scope and limited to no more than a week. McConnell then agreed to an investigation, limited in scope and for a week. The unbiased media then said trump was micromanaging the investigation, which was fake news. And now every frickin democrat has their own seperate whine about it. And more unsubstantiated charges are coming out like the one I posted about above. If that one gets substantiated, that would be incontrovertible, but they need to release the texts, which they haven't done so far.
I would say the dems have achieved their goal, and it would be an option to withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination, except for the fact it would allow the dems to get away with personal destruction and the presumption of guilt as a strategy. And since the only contemporary accusation is the one I have posted, if that is bogus, then he should be confirmed. If he isn't confirmed and the dems win the Senate, then we will have 8 justices until 2020. If we get to 2020 as a country.
And may God help us in the meantime.

[Bob78164]

I think I was right. No one took my bet, because they knew the dems wouldn't stick to any deal.

As Senator Klobachar said in Committee when Senator Flake announced his decision, there was no deal. There was Senator Flake, joined by three other uncommitted votes, saying they wouldn't vote to confirm unless the credible charges were investigated. Mitch didn't put off the vote because he had a sudden attack of bipartisanship. He put off the vote because he didn't have the votes to confirm. --Bob

I watched it, bob-tel. Flake said he and Coombs agreed there should be an investigation, limited in scope and limited to no more than a week. McConnell then agreed to an investigation, limited in scope and for a week. The unbiased media then said trump was micromanaging the investigation, which was fake news. And now every frickin democrat has their own seperate whine about it. And more unsubstantiated charges are coming out like the one I posted about above. If that one gets substantiated, that would be incontrovertible, but they need to release the texts, which they haven't done so far.
I would say the dems have achieved their goal, and it would be an option to withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination, except for the fact it would allow the dems to get away with personal destruction and the presumption of guilt as a strategy. And since the only contemporary accusation is the one I have posted, if that is bogus, then he should be confirmed. If he isn't confirmed and the dems win the Senate, then we will have 8 justices until 2020. If we get to 2020 as a country.
And may God help us in the meantime.

A deal would mean that the Democrats agreed to do something they wouldn't otherwise have done. That's not what happened. This was Senator Flake withholding his vote to confirm (backed by two or three other Senators) until he was satisfied that an appropriate investigation had been performed. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

except for the fact it would allow the dems to get away with personal destruction and the presumption of guilt as a strategy. And since the only contemporary accusation is the one I have posted, if that is bogus, then he should be confirmed. If he isn't confirmed and the dems win the Senate, then we will have 8 justices until 2020. If we get to 2020 as a country.
And may God help us in the meantime.

Well, if this is a strategy, it's one they waited a heck of a long time to try. Prior to Kavanaugh, the only Trump appointee against whom similar charges were levied was Rob Porter, and the two women who complained to the police about him were his ex-wives. Not Gorsuch. Not Bolton. Not Sessions. Not any of the people the Democrats opposed for policy reasons. Just Kavanaugh.

And, leaving aside your apparent willingness to give Mitch McConnell a free pass for not even giving Merrick Garland a hearing, I think a Democratic majority in the Senate would approve a Trump appointee along the lines of Anthony Kennedy, a more middle-of-the-road candidate. If Trump wants to keep trotting out one hard-liner after another, then you can expect similar results. But guess what; that's how the Constitution is supposed to work. Supreme Court Justices should be acceptable to both the Executive and Legislative (through the Senate) branches. If you don't like that, complain to your buddy James Madison.

[flockofseagulls104]

As Senator Klobachar said in Committee when Senator Flake announced his decision, there was no deal. There was Senator Flake, joined by three other uncommitted votes, saying they wouldn't vote to confirm unless the credible charges were investigated. Mitch didn't put off the vote because he had a sudden attack of bipartisanship. He put off the vote because he didn't have the votes to confirm. --Bob

I watched it, bob-tel. Flake said he and Coombs agreed there should be an investigation, limited in scope and limited to no more than a week. McConnell then agreed to an investigation, limited in scope and for a week. The unbiased media then said trump was micromanaging the investigation, which was fake news. And now every frickin democrat has their own seperate whine about it. And more unsubstantiated charges are coming out like the one I posted about above. If that one gets substantiated, that would be incontrovertible, but they need to release the texts, which they haven't done so far.
I would say the dems have achieved their goal, and it would be an option to withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination, except for the fact it would allow the dems to get away with personal destruction and the presumption of guilt as a strategy. And since the only contemporary accusation is the one I have posted, if that is bogus, then he should be confirmed. If he isn't confirmed and the dems win the Senate, then we will have 8 justices until 2020. If we get to 2020 as a country.
And may God help us in the meantime.

A deal would mean that the Democrats agreed to do something they wouldn't otherwise have done. That's not what happened. This was Senator Flake withholding his vote to confirm (backed by two or three other Senators) until he was satisfied that an appropriate investigation had been performed. --Bob

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... ot-vpx.cnn

At about 2:05 Flake says and Feinstein confirms that Chris Combs and the other Democrats agreed to the terms Flake spelled out. Flake was a fool to believe they would stick to their word, but that's beside the point and a given as far as I am concerned.

You gonna believe your eyes and ears, bob-tel, or your batphone?

[flockofseagulls104]

And, leaving aside your apparent willingness to give Mitch McConnell a free pass for not even giving Merrick Garland a hearing,

February 2nd again.
Can we move on?

[tlynn78]

And, leaving aside your apparent willingness to give Mitch McConnell a free pass for not even giving Merrick Garland a hearing,

February 2nd again.
Can we move on?

WHATABOUTISM! I know, I'm not a dem, so I'm not allowed that term, but I'm a rebel.

[Bob78164]

I watched it, bob-tel. Flake said he and Coombs agreed there should be an investigation, limited in scope and limited to no more than a week. McConnell then agreed to an investigation, limited in scope and for a week. The unbiased media then said trump was micromanaging the investigation, which was fake news. And now every frickin democrat has their own seperate whine about it. And more unsubstantiated charges are coming out like the one I posted about above. If that one gets substantiated, that would be incontrovertible, but they need to release the texts, which they haven't done so far.
I would say the dems have achieved their goal, and it would be an option to withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination, except for the fact it would allow the dems to get away with personal destruction and the presumption of guilt as a strategy. And since the only contemporary accusation is the one I have posted, if that is bogus, then he should be confirmed. If he isn't confirmed and the dems win the Senate, then we will have 8 justices until 2020. If we get to 2020 as a country.
And may God help us in the meantime.

A deal would mean that the Democrats agreed to do something they wouldn't otherwise have done. That's not what happened. This was Senator Flake withholding his vote to confirm (backed by two or three other Senators) until he was satisfied that an appropriate investigation had been performed. --Bob

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... ot-vpx.cnn

At about 2:05 Flake says and Feinstein confirms that Chris Combs and the other Democrats agreed to the terms Flake spelled out. Flake was a fool to believe they would stick to their word, but that's beside the point and a given as far as I am concerned.

You gonna believe your eyes and ears, bob-tel, or your batphone?

You weren't listening carefully enough. That was a discussion concerning what the Committee was voting on. Senator Grassley thought that they were just voting to advance the nomination to the floor. Senator Feinstein thought that Senator Flake's one-week delay was baked into the Committee motion. Senator Flake said that the delay was baked into the motion and that's what Senator Feinstein agreed to. And that's when Senator Klobachar spoke up, without objection, to specifically anticipate and reject the argument you're making now -- that Democrats agreed to do anything at all in exchange for Senator Flake's one-week delay. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

A deal would mean that the Democrats agreed to do something they wouldn't otherwise have done. That's not what happened. This was Senator Flake withholding his vote to confirm (backed by two or three other Senators) until he was satisfied that an appropriate investigation had been performed. --Bob

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/201 ... ot-vpx.cnn

At about 2:05 Flake says and Feinstein confirms that Chris Combs and the other Democrats agreed to the terms Flake spelled out. Flake was a fool to believe they would stick to their word, but that's beside the point and a given as far as I am concerned.

You gonna believe your eyes and ears, bob-tel, or your batphone?

You weren't listening carefully enough. That was a discussion concerning what the Committee was voting on. Senator Grassley thought that they were just voting to advance the nomination to the floor. Senator Feinstein thought that Senator Flake's one-week delay was baked into the Committee motion. Senator Flake said that the delay was baked into the motion and that's what Senator Feinstein agreed to. And that's when Senator Klobachar spoke up, without objection, to specifically anticipate and reject the argument you're making now -- that Democrats agreed to do anything at all in exchange for Senator Flake's one-week delay. --Bob

bob-tel, in the same discussion, it was pointed out that the committee could only recommend the nomination to a floor vote, and from that time on, it was controlled by floor rules, and the committee could not put any stipulations on it. Flake said he was voting yes to sending the vote to the Senate floor, but he would not vote yes on the senate floor unless there were the specified investigation. The dems knew this when they made the deal with Flake. Feinstein confirmed they had a verbal agreement about a limited scope limited time frame investigation. You heard it. You saw it.

[silverscreenselect]

Feinstein confirmed they had a verbal agreement about a limited scope limited time frame investigation. You heard it. You saw it.

Whatever "deal" may have been in place (which couldn't have been in any way binding since the only power Feinstein and Flake has would be whether to vote yes or no on various measures), at this point Flake seems to be calling the shots as to just what the investigation should or should not cover. And since he apparently has sway over Collins' and Murkowski's votes, that puts him in a very good position. And he does not seem to be mollified by the information that is coming out so far.

[Bob Juch]

Feinstein confirmed they had a verbal agreement about a limited scope limited time frame investigation. You heard it. You saw it.

Whatever "deal" may have been in place (which couldn't have been in any way binding since the only power Feinstein and Flake has would be whether to vote yes or no on various measures), at this point Flake seems to be calling the shots as to just what the investigation should or should not cover. And since he apparently has sway over Collins' and Murkowski's votes, that puts him in a very good position. And he does not seem to be mollified by the information that is coming out so far.

I'm very proud of my Senator.

[SportsFan68]

Thanks for that article, Jarnon. I know your purpose wasn't to clear up a decades old puzzle for me, but it did anyway. Although he appeared lucid, my uncle showed up to a softball game in a blackout and couldn't remember anything about it the next day, including being there. I'm just glad he got home that night without injuring himself or others.