Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[carpedm9587]

And we all know how trustworthy opinion polls are...

Well, first of all, he spits out the latest liberal talking point: "The fact that the FBI did not interview either Christine or Judge Kavanaugh, by itself, renders absurd any assertion that the investigation was ‘thorough.'"

What's absurd is that liberals think this is a valid argument. Ford and Kavanaugh were grilled and cross examined for hours -- under oath -- and Ford herself concluded her testimony saying she had nothing else to add. What did liberals expect them to tell the FBI that wasn't already a matter of public record?

Senators questioning a witness is largely an opportunity for political grandstanding. The FBI doing this questioning is a different thing. If you cannot see the difference...

Secondly, he tries to shame people with an ad hominem fallacy: "If you saw her testimony and you didn’t find her credible, you know nothing about sexual assault." And... he just leaves it at that I guess he has his reasons for believing this, but he doesn't bother to share them.

I agree with this.

And then there's his "smoking gun": an email dated June 29, 2018 that supposedly identifies Brett Kavanaugh as Ford's attacker. In other words, he's not a contemporary witness and can say nothing about what happened (or more likely didn't happen) 30-years ago. This, he thinks, is sufficient to corroborate Ford's contradictory narrative and Swiss cheese memory and overturn the testimony of witnesses who Ford identified as supposedly being in the house at the time of the assault. Not to mention the provable lies that Ford told, such as when and why she added a second door to her house.

He doesn't claim to be a "contemporary witness." He explicitly notes that there are seldom any contemporary witnesses to sexual assault. What he IS a witness to is that Ford identified her attacker BEFORE he was ever named as a nominee for SCOTUS. Four other witnesses so attest. Why would she identify Kavanaugh BEFORE he was ever a nominee for the court?

Finally, he claims that Ford has always had a fear of flying, but this little factoid is directly contradicted by Ford herself who admitted in her testimony that she happily flies all over the world for work and pleasure.

You're insertion of "happily" is the flaw in this statement. Ford noted that she DOES fly all over the world for her work. She does not testify that she does so happily. Indeed, she was fairly clear that her phobia is a constant challenge. People who fear to fly sometimes still fly. My mother and my son both do - if the need is urgent enough. And both are terrified of flying. A combination of drugs and a good flying companion gets them through it.

So, you're right, I do doubt his letter, and I think for good reason.

I'm sure you do. After all - it fits your narrative. I have no reason to have such doubts.

[carpedm9587]

Somehow I really find that incredibly hard to believe.

You'll have to wait for 2022, then! I was cheering for Reps in 2010, because both chambers and the Executive were in Dem hands. I just wasn't on Tweb at the time. I suspect you'll doubt that. But that is not my concern. NOw I am cheering for Dems because the government is badly unbalanced. If it unbalances back to the left, I'll be looking for a swing to the right.

Despite your doubt, I actually AM a moderate. But people to the right think I am a liberal and people to the left think I am a conservative. It's the fate of a moderate.

[carpedm9587]

I really don't think you can fire up the left any more. In fact, I would think that if anything the loss could cause them to deflate a bit.

Maybe. We'll see.

In any case, it really is difficult to maintain a high level of intensity for a prolonged period of time. Ask any military man what happens when you remain on high alert for an extended period. Or ask any athlete how a big win can actually keep momentum going whereas a big loss can more than likely take the steam right out of you.

In any case we'll know in about a month from now

Indeed...

[seer]

Kavanaugh confirmed!

[Mountain Man]

And it's done: 50-48

Murkowski voted "present".

Congratulations to Justice Brett Kavanaugh for persevering through one of the hardest fought confirmation battles in US history.

[DesertBerean]

And it's done: 50-48

Murkowski voted "present".

Congratulations to Justice Brett Kavanaugh for persevering through one of the hardest fought confirmation battles in US history.

I'm seeing two sets of numbers but either way he got the majority by two points. Wow.

[carpedm9587]

Kavanaugh confirmed!

I join you in your happiness...possibly for a different reason! :)

The court just skewed right...but I'm pretty sure it guaranteed that Congress will skew left!

[DesertBerean]

I dunno. Here in California the Democrats have really ticked off a lot of people on a lot of issues.

[RumTumTugger]

I dunno. Here in California the Democrats have really ticked off a lot of people on a lot of issues.

To bad because of the stupid Top 2 candidates rule DiFi is going against a fellow Democrat. but there is hope to pick up some seats in the House.

[seer]

I join you in your happiness...possibly for a different reason! :)

The court just skewed right...but I'm pretty sure it guaranteed that Congress will skew left!

Well we see, congress changes hands often, but the court can have a much more profound and long term effect.

[DesertBerean]

To bad because of the stupid Top 2 candidates rule DiFi is going against a fellow Democrat. but there is hope to pick up some seats in the House.

Yup!

[rogue06]

And it's done: 50-48

Murkowski voted "present".

Congratulations to Justice Brett Kavanaugh for persevering through one of the hardest fought confirmation battles in US history.

Murkowski said she would be voting present although she said she opposed Kavanaugh, since Daines, who would have voted yes, could go to his daughter's wedding.

Source: MURKOWSKI EXTENDS COURTESY TO STEVE DAINES SO HE CAN ATTEND DAUGHTER’S WEDDING DURING KAVANAUGH VOTE

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska announced late Friday that she will be voting “present” on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court so Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana can skip the vote to attend his daughter’s wedding.

Murkowski revealed earlier in the day while speaking on the Senate floor that she will not be supporting the confirmation.

“I believe that Judge Kavanaugh is a good man. He’s a good man,” Murkowski said. “He’s clearly a learned judge. But in my conscience, because that’s how I have to vote — end of the day, is with my conscience — I could not conclude that he is the right person for the court at this time.”

Daines, a supporter of Kavanaugh, is scheduled to be walking his daughter down the aisle during the time of the vote tally. The Senate is expected to vote to confirm Kavanaugh with a slim margin, so each Republican “yea” vote is needed to advance the confirmation.

Daines reported that fellow Montana Rep. Greg Gianforte is offering his personal plane on standby in case he is promptly needed in Washington, D.C., to cast his vote. However, in an act of civility, Murkowski agreed to “pair” with Daines and vote “present” rather than “nay.”

Pairing is an informal and voluntary agreement between two lawmakers in which one member involved in the pair agrees to nullify the outcome of the other’s absence by essentially refraining from casting his or her own opposing vote.

“I do this because a friend, a colleague of ours is in Montana this evening and … he’s going to be walking his daughter down the aisle and he won’t be present to vote,” Murkowski said, according to The Hill. “I have extended this as a courtesy to my friend. It will not change the outcome of the vote.”

This will be the first pair done in the Senate in 15 years, according to Washington insider Jamie Dupree. The last live pair occurred in October 2003 between former Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

It was kind of a classy thing to do in a body that has witnessed a real dearth of class for the most part recently.

[oxmixmudd]

Some interesting numbers. In short, a president, who was not wanted by the majority of voters, has nominated a man who is not wanted by most of the electorate, and is being confirmed by Senators who represent less than half of the electorate. That combination has never happened before in the history of our country.

Don't get me wrong - I am hoping Kavanaugh is confirmed today. Anything else is a disaster for Democrats. If Kavanaugh is rejected, Democrats and liberals will celebrate and the right will rally - muting the coming "blue wave." And all that will result is that a new conservative candidate will be nominated and confirmed before midterms take effect in January. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, the right will be satisfied and likely return to its electoral indifference for midterms. Meanwhile, the left will be re-energized, magnifying the "blue wave" and likely ensuring that the house flips, and perhaps even making it possible to flip the senate (much less likely). At least one of the two Congressional chambers needs to flip in 2018 (preferably both). Our nation needs a bit more balance than it currently has. No one party should have so much power.

Meanwhile, I found this letter to the Senate interesting. I can find no reason to doubt this person - but I suspect they will be widely doubted here...

Wow, that letter certainly puts a spotlight on all the trash talk here and elsewhere concerning Ford's fear of flying. A close friend that can validate her fear of flying (And if there is one close friend, there are others, not to mention her family, and I would imagine a check of purchases of certain medications might correlate with flying as well).

Why yes Martha, people with a real fear of flying fly anyway because it's just not practical to drive and the fear is not so completely overwhelming it is possible IF they take the medications necessary to get through it. So I guess all that PhD level (NOT!) 'reasoning' that 'she flies therefore she is not afraid of flying' pretty much goes out the window.

I wonder how many other 'absolutely debunked' elements of Ford's testimony/claims will turn out not to be so 'debunked'?

Given the 'debunking' is based on presumptive speculation in many cases, I would guess there will be more.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

I'm pretty sure it guaranteed that Congress will skew left!

We'll see. This whole process has exposed just how rotten the Democrat party really is and has given conservative voters added motivation to keep them out of power, especially after they announced that if they win either house, they will make Kavanaugh's life a living hell with endless investigations. I've also seen a couple polls suggesting that suburban women have abandoned the Democrat party in significant numbers (but you know how it is with polls).

[Mountain Man]

Murkowski said she would be voting present although she said she opposed Kavanaugh, since Daines, who would have voted yes, could go to his daughter's wedding.

Source: MURKOWSKI EXTENDS COURTESY TO STEVE DAINES SO HE CAN ATTEND DAUGHTER’S WEDDING DURING KAVANAUGH VOTE

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska announced late Friday that she will be voting “present” on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court so Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana can skip the vote to attend his daughter’s wedding.

Murkowski revealed earlier in the day while speaking on the Senate floor that she will not be supporting the confirmation.

“I believe that Judge Kavanaugh is a good man. He’s a good man,” Murkowski said. “He’s clearly a learned judge. But in my conscience, because that’s how I have to vote — end of the day, is with my conscience — I could not conclude that he is the right person for the court at this time.”

Daines, a supporter of Kavanaugh, is scheduled to be walking his daughter down the aisle during the time of the vote tally. The Senate is expected to vote to confirm Kavanaugh with a slim margin, so each Republican “yea” vote is needed to advance the confirmation.

Daines reported that fellow Montana Rep. Greg Gianforte is offering his personal plane on standby in case he is promptly needed in Washington, D.C., to cast his vote. However, in an act of civility, Murkowski agreed to “pair” with Daines and vote “present” rather than “nay.”

Pairing is an informal and voluntary agreement between two lawmakers in which one member involved in the pair agrees to nullify the outcome of the other’s absence by essentially refraining from casting his or her own opposing vote.

“I do this because a friend, a colleague of ours is in Montana this evening and … he’s going to be walking his daughter down the aisle and he won’t be present to vote,” Murkowski said, according to The Hill. “I have extended this as a courtesy to my friend. It will not change the outcome of the vote.”

This will be the first pair done in the Senate in 15 years, according to Washington insider Jamie Dupree. The last live pair occurred in October 2003 between former Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

It was kind of a classy thing to do in a body that has witnessed a real dearth of class for the most part recently.

Actually, that was a classy move. I'm impressed.