quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
There are some very good people in the field of psychology, but there are also a lot of flakes. They become psychologists/psychiatrists because they are trying to figure out why they are so screwed up. Ford strikes me as one such. A mental/emotional wreck who is also a progressive activist (no surprise there). It makes her the perfect puppet for shameless ideologues. A special kind of useful idiot.

Agree! Especially how she would use her psychology background and scientific terms to explain her own testimony and memory lapses.

And she had no idea what "exculpatory evidence" means. I was a little shocked to hear her say that, a college professor, and it immediately gave me some insight into her level of intelligence.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
There are some very good people in the field of psychology, but there are also a lot of flakes. They become psychologists/psychiatrists because they are trying to figure out why they are so screwed up. Ford strikes me as one such. A mental/emotional wreck who is also a progressive activist (no surprise there). It makes her the perfect puppet for shameless ideologues. A special kind of useful idiot.

(BTW he won't be confirmed tomorrow. The committee will just vote in his favor and advance his name to the whole Senate. That vote will probably come mid-week next week.)

I dated a PhD candidate in physch. The crazy ones are a special kind if crazy.

There was another gofundme that raised $209,000 to pay for her security.

https://www.gofundme.com/to-co...fords-security-costs

Reports are that Manchin may be leaning towards a yes.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Comin' for ya, Ruthie!!



Room Temperature Ginsburg

The collective heads of the commies:

screenshot app

And even if she didn't know what exculpatory meant, what college professor would admit that?

I couldn't care less how much money she gets. All that matters is the confirmation.

In her recent interview Ginsburg voiced her displeasure with how politicized the nomination process has become. I wonder what she thinks now? Advanced age can make people think and do things differently,contradictory to the way they thought and acted in their younger years.

Maybe Ruthie has got a surprise left in her. Maybe a retirement party? Can you imagine?!?!

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
I wonder what she thinks now?

She's wondering if her housemaid ate the last of her prune pudding, and if Lawrence Welk episodes are available on Netflix.

So, I wonder. Suppose you’re BK and you’ve been trashed and scorched by Democrats in this process. What does pay back look like once your confirmed and various cases come before you over the next 25 years that were originated and were part of the Democrat agenda we’ve suffered through? I hope payback is a bitch.

Very good point.



The Kavanaugh fight isn't about abortion. It's about guns.

By Michael Filozof

Conventional wisdom says the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to derail Judge Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court because he'll provide the fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

As much as I hate to admit it, I don't think Roe will be overturned, and the Democrats know it, too. Of course, they certainly want their gullible voter base to believe that Kavanaugh will overturn Roe to energize that base for the midterm elections. But it's not going to happen.


That's not to say that Roe shouldn't be overturned. Roe is a disgrace, breathtaking for its lack of legal reasoning. As the late Judge Robert Bork pointed out in The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law, the Roe court didn't even bother to decide whether the supposed "right of privacy" – transmuted into a "right to abortion" – was to be found in the Ninth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority merely asserted that it was "broad enough" to include abortion and left it at that.

Despite four decades of Republican presidents pledging to appoint "strict constructionists" who would presumably overturn Roe, the case has been on the books for 45 years now. It was thirteen years ago that Chief Justice John Roberts, a Republican appointee, stated before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Roe is "settled law." In his book A Matter of Interpretation, even the great Antonin Scalia strongly implied that strict constructionists should let sleeping dogs lie when confronted with old cases of liberal judicial activism.

The Kavanaugh confirmation is about the future, not refighting the cultural battles of the 1970s. And next up on the Democratic agenda is sweeping, national gun control – and possibly even confiscation. In the 2016 campaign, candidate Hillary Clinton stated that the U.S. needed to consider the Australian model of a national semi-automatic gun ban. California congressman Eric Swalwell went even farther, explicitly endorsing an Australian-style mandatory gun "buyback" and "going after resisters" here in the U.S. Prior to the passage of the infamous "SAFE" Act in 2013, New York's Gov. Cuomo publicly stated that "confiscation could be an option." H.R. 5087, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, has nearly 200 Democratic sponsors. It includes a total ban on AR-15-style rifles and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, plus a national ban on private transfers.

These policies – and more – are already the law in the liberal bastions of New York, Massachusetts, and California. All have been upheld by the federal Circuit Courts.

That's where Kavanaugh enters the picture. Sitting on a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court, Kavanaugh dissented when the panel upheld the District of Columbia's "assault weapons" ban, explicitly stating that semi-automatic firearms are protected by the Second Amendment. Presumably, his published dissent indicates how he would rule in similar cases on the Supreme Court.

That's what the Democrats are afraid of. Look at who leads the opposition to Kavanaugh: Dianne Feinstein, who stated on national television that if she could force Americans to turn in their guns, she would do it, and lifelong New York City gun-control freak Chuck Schumer, author of the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" – which was positively tame compared to what is coming next.

With the exceptions of perhaps Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, and Heidi Heitkamp, pro-gun Blue Dog Democrats are all but extinct. The party is irrevocably committed to national gun control, and the next time its members win a congressional majority, they will enact it. The gays, the feminists, and the Antifa types in New York, San Francisco, Berkeley, and Austin are salivating over the prospect of disarming the "deplorables" in Texas, Idaho, and Appalachia.

Forever.

Kavanaugh stands in their way.



Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...s.html#ixzz5SMFIkZFh

quote:

The gays, the feminists, and the Antifa types in New York, San Francisco, Berkeley, and Austin are salivating over the prospect of disarming the "deplorables" in Texas, Idaho, and Appalachia.

Good Luck.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
Can they bring any Congressional charges against Feinstein for withholding evidence?

I think she should ask the FBI to investigate whether she withheld evidence. And again whether she leaked the Ford letter.

quote:

Originally posted by sigspecops:
And even if she didn't know what exculpatory meant, what college professor would admit that?

I think it was all part of her act to come across as this poor helpless little girl.

I see that Prof. Dershowitz thinks Ms. Mitchell was a disaster, but I don’t and here is someone else who thinks so, too.

quote:

Choosing the prosecutor to run the Republican part of Christine Blasey Ford's questioning was the smartest thing the Senate has done in months.

Weekly Standard
Rachael Larrimore


It was a crucial moment in Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. After her emotional opening statement, Ford was, while under questioning, carefully reviewing a document to verify whether an account she had provided of her alleged attack by Brett Kavanaugh was accurate.

And then—in a day full of jarring moments—came a bizarre interruption:

“I don’t know whether this [is] fair for me to interrupt, but I want to keep people within five minutes. Is this a major problem in the middle of a question?”

Committee chairman Chuck Grassley had broken into a conversation between Ford and prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who was doing the questioning. The decision by Senate Republicans to bring in Mitchell, who has spent her career prosecuting sex crimes, had been met by derision and skepticism from Democrats. But Grassley’s clumsy interjection was one moment (among many) that showed why bringing in Mitchell was the exact right decision: Because if Thursday’s hearing was to be a genuine fact-finding mission, then she was the perfect choice. Her conversations with Ford were coolheaded, clinical, and respectful. She maintained a professional curiosity, and came across with a great deal of empathy and warmth.

Mitchell asked Ford the kind of questions you would expect a detective or investigator to ask a complainant (or, if you prefer, a victim) during the course of an investigation. She asked about the party at which the alleged assault occurred, about the neighborhood where it might have taken place and its relationship to Ford’s own home. She asked about potentially conflicting information between the various reports.

Yes, some of the questions were difficult, and perhaps unpleasant for Ford. Mitchell is not a detective, and this is not a criminal investigation. But this is exactly what sex-crime detectives have to do in the process of getting to the truth. (And toward the end of Ford’s testimony, Mitchell spoke openly with Ford about how the hearing and its series of five-minute increments are not the ideal situation for discussing her allegations.) Complainants are asked to repeat themselves, even when it’s difficult, for the sake of veracity. It’s necessary to establish the credibility of the witness.

And isn’t that what the Democrats said they wanted in the first place, the opportunity for Ford to tell her story so that the public could judge her credibility?


By contrast, the senators themselves—from both parties—couldn’t resist falling into their usual patterns of grandstanding. While calling for a 15-minute break, Grassley went on a rant about how the Democrats should have gone through proper channels when they first received the letter and how doing so would have protected Ford’s identity. (Grassley is certainly correct on this point; but that procedural complaint was entirely irrelevant this morning. We are where we are.) And at one point during Amy Klobuchar’s floor time, a spat broke out about admitting documentation related to Ford’s testimony. Senators like Sheldon Whitehouse and Mazie Hirono used their time to listen to themselves blathering. Meanwhile, Ford and Mitchell looked like real people trying to get at the truth in honest ways. The senators—all of them—simply looked like politicians.

The Republicans might have been merely looking to avoid the optics of having 11 male senators grilling a female witness on a sensitive subject. The Democrats might be genuinely upset that the Republicans abdicated their “responsibility” to question Ford themselves. But in a confirmation process marked by theatrics, drama, and partisan bickering, Mitchell’s presence and her professional conduct was the closest the Senate has come to decency and normalcy in months.

Link

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Reports are that Manchin may be leaning towards a yes.

I have to think Kavanaugh is a shoo-in. Given that, the Democrats likely have mentally moved on and focused on mid-terms. I would not be surprised to see a couple of vulnerable (D) Senators be "allowed" to go off the reservation and vote for Kavanaugh.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Reports are that Manchin may be leaning towards a yes.

I have to think Kavanaugh is a shoo-in. Given that, the Democrats likely have mentally moved on and focused on mid-terms. I would not be surprised to see a couple of vulnerable (D) Senators be "allowed" to go off the reservation and vote for Kavanaugh.

I’m still waiting for the priest and barnyard animal molestation charges.

quote:

Originally posted by 2PAK:
So, I wonder. Suppose you’re BK and you’ve been trashed and scorched by Democrats in this process. What does pay back look like once your confirmed and various cases come before you over the next 25 years that were originated and were part of the Democrat agenda we’ve suffered through? I hope payback is a bitch.

I would pray Kavanaugh would not be that type of Judge.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Dtech:

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
There are some very good people in the field of psychology, but there are also a lot of flakes. They become psychologists/psychiatrists because they are trying to figure out why they are so screwed up. Ford strikes me as one such. A mental/emotional wreck who is also a progressive activist (no surprise there). It makes her the perfect puppet for shameless ideologues. A special kind of useful idiot.

Agree! Especially how she would use her psychology background and scientific terms to explain her own testimony and memory lapses.

And she had no idea what "exculpatory evidence" means. I was a little shocked to hear her say that, a college professor, and it immediately gave me some insight into her level of intelligence.

My jaw almost hit the floor. I am a dumb electrician and I know what exculpatory means.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
I wonder what she thinks now?

She's wondering if her housemaid ate the last of her prune pudding, and if Lawrence Welk episodes are available on Netflix.

Not quite. She’s wondering why Lawrence Welk hasn’t stopped by for coffee recently.