quote:

Originally posted by Doc H.:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Kavanaugh aside - the notion that countless smart, accomplished, accredited, wise, and good people aren't or haven't been drinkers, drug users, or otherwise, is absurdly naive.

Teetotalers are the minority, not the other way around.

I give you Winston Churchill as Exhibit A....

Donald Trump exhibit B

Some figures on the left exhibit major flaws, yet are still beloved by Democrats

National Review
Andrew McCarthy


In executing their Delay, Delay, Delay strategy against President Trump’s nomination of the eminently qualified Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the most risible and blatantly political claim posited by Democrats is their objection to his purported lack of judicial temperament. The idea is that, because Judge Kavanaugh reacted with indignation to slanders that he is a gang-rapist, and because he observed that the unabashed left-wing smears against him were, well, left-wing smears, he is unfit to be an objective jurist — as opposed to a normal human being, and a perceptive one at that.

Of course, the best measure we have of how someone will perform in a government office is how that person has already performed when in that office, or in a very similar one. And the best measure we have of the seriousness and good faith of a critic’s claim against a nominee is whether the critic consistently levels similar charges in analogous situations.

On that score, I note the following:

Brett Kavanaugh has been a judge for a dozen years on one of the most important judicial tribunals in the country, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In that office, not only has he issued over 300 opinions, which have been broadly admired for their craftsmanship and heavily relied on by the Supreme Court and other federal courts; he has also been widely praised for his judicial temperament by litigants, colleagues, and bar associations. The diverse group of clerks he has mentored has been in high demand for Supreme Court clerkships and other distinguished positions in the legal profession.

His judicial temperament could not be more apparent.

By contrast, here is Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaking about Donald Trump, then a presidential candidate, two years ago:

He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. . . . How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?

Guy Benson reminds us of some similarly injudicious remarks by Justice Ginsburg:

In a New York Times interview, Ginsburg doesn’t hold a thing back when it comes to the 2016 election. “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.” Ginsburg also recalled something her late husband said about such matters: “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

If they practiced consistency, Kavanaugh’s critics would be calling for Ginsburg to step down, or at the very least to recuse herself from any case in which a component of the Trump administration is a party before the Court. But, of course, she continues to participate fully, and Kavanaugh’s critics are glad of it — they despise Trump as much as she does. Their sky-is-falling attack on Kavanaugh’s character is a reflection of Ginsburg’s sky-is-falling forecast of the Trump presidency and its portents for the Court.

That is, it’s all political.


Then there is Eric Holder. Before becoming President Obama’s attorney general, Holder was President Clinton’s deputy attorney general and effectively ran the Justice Department because of Attorney General Janet Reno’s deteriorating health. Naturally, when Holder was nominated by Obama, the most relevant track record was his performance in virtually the same job under Clinton.

So what temperament and judgment did Holder demonstrate? Well, among the most corrupt episodes of the Clinton presidency was the last-minute pardon of fugitive Marc Rich, who’d been featured on the FBI’s Most Wanted List and stood accused of racketeering, defrauding the Treasury out of tens of millions of dollars, and trading with our nation’s enemies — including Iran, which Rich supplied with desperately needed funds while Khomeini’s embargoed regime held American hostages. Deputy Attorney General Holder orchestrated the Rich pardon for Clinton; concealed its consideration from the Justice Department’s pardon attorney and the prosecutors responsible for Rich’s case; did these things under circumstances in which Rich was represented by Vice President Gore’s confidant Jack Quinn (the former Clinton White House counsel) and Holder had prospects of being named attorney general in a Gore administration; and gave highly suspect testimony to Congress about the controversy.

Yet, when it came time to consider Holder’s nomination by Obama, he was confirmed in a 75–21 landslide, with all 54 Democrats (as well as 19 Republicans and 2 independents) voting in favor. Simply stated, in the politics of the moment, there was nary a care about Holder’s fitness for the job based on his past performance. Holder went on to become the first attorney general in American history to be held in contempt of Congress for misleading and stonewalling lawmakers trying to investigate the Fast and Furious “gun-walking” scandal.

The suggestion that Judge Kavanaugh lacks the temperament and judgment we expect in a Supreme Court justice is specious on the merits. It could not, moreover, be more transparently political. If Kavanaugh were a Democrat and a “living Constitution” progressive, he would already be one of the nine justices beginning the Supreme Court’s term today, even if he actually had been a serial rapist during his spare time away from the drunk tank.

Link

quote:

If Kavanaugh were a Democrat and a “living Constitution” progressive, he would already be one of the nine justices beginning the Supreme Court’s term today, even if he actually had been a serial rapist during his spare time away from the drunk tank.

^^^ Andrew McCarthy makes it crystal clear....
That is, it’s all political.

Furthermore, Christine Blasey Ford ought to be pissed... both at her lawyers and at the Democrats, in general:

"I think Christine Blasey Ford is a fake and a phony, and here's why: she should've been even more outraged than Kavanaugh at what the Democrats did to her. Ford supposedly sent a letter to the Democrat congresswoman detailing her allegations about Kavanaugh with the understanding that her name would be kept confidential. Now we can discuss whether that's a reasonable expectation given the nature of her accusations (hint: it isn't), but she was either promised confidentiality, or was led to expect it. But whatever the case, her name was immediately leaked to the media and the reporters came knocking on her door. So, in other words, she was lied to. Deliberately lied to, and she complained about getting death threats because of the leak.

But where's her outrage? It's clearly some Democrat who leaked her name, but Ford's reaction was strangely muted. She was like, yeah, I got death threats, but now let's talk about the horrible things Brett Kavanaugh did to me. If that had happened to me, if I was some innocent, random apolitical citizen of the sort the Democrats are presenting Ford as, who entrusted my confidentiality to a politician who then turned around and broadcast my personal information to score political points, and turned my life into a circus, I'd be screaming bloody murder. I'd be tearing arms and legs off. Whoever did this to me, I'd be strangling with their own entrails, and no jury would ever convict me. That's how a normal person would react to such a calculated betrayal. And that's how we know that Ford is not some random citizen, but rather a well-coached, well-financed political operative. How she got hooked up with the scum Democrats is irrelevant at this point.

'Oh, but her story is so credible and believable' say all the commentators. Yeah, well, look, I got this counterfeit $100 bill here and guess what, it looks very credible and believable, too. That's the way it was designed to look. To fool people into thinking it's the real thing. Of course, we're never going to get the real story here, because our media is packed full of partisan hack journalists who refuse to ask any questions which answers might disrupt the narrative they prefer to believe in. It's like the Democrats have told them 'here is an innocent waif who was brutally manhandled by Brett Kavanaugh 36 years ago. Don't ask any background questions about who she is, where she came from, or why her internet presence has recently been scrubbed.' And the media replies 'yes boss, anything you say, boss. Shaking the tree for you here, boss.' It's enough to make me want to puke."

http://ace.mu.nu/

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
I respect Dershowitz, but I have two problems with his comment.

- Prosecutors have to be able to cross-examine too, so I truly do not understand his point.

- Can you imagine the propaganda field-day the Left would have if the Senate had engaged a criminal defense attorney to handle the questioning of Ford? It would have been non-stop.

I think he probably meant that a defense attorney would probably be better in cross examining a supposed victim in this case than a prosecutor.

Blasey Ford is nothing more than a paid useful idiot

yes, she's a fake and a fraud - and hopefully the FBI will begin to investigate her as well as the chain of custody with DiFi and she will get dragged through the mud

it would be great to see the FBI lay some charges, but I think having DiFi under investigation will be a good thing for the country (and hopes is a bad thing for her)

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
I respect Dershowitz, but I have two problems with his comment.

- Prosecutors have to be able to cross-examine too, so I truly do not understand his point.

- Can you imagine the propaganda field-day the Left would have if the Senate had engaged a criminal defense attorney to handle the questioning of Ford? It would have been non-stop.

I think he probably meant that a defense attorney would probably be better in cross examining a supposed victim in this case than a prosecutor.

Dershowitz seemed to be suggesting some F. Lee Bailey type to browbeat this woman into confessing that she made the whole thing up.

Those things can work spectacularly, but only when you have the facts, can “play the tape.”

That is not the only way, and in this case probably the worst way, to deal with this situation.

Successfully avoiding or minimizing damage is better than attempting to destroy the witness and failing.

I doubt that a frequent, heavy drinker would graduate cum laude.

I know quite a few honors graduates from the Ivy League who easily met the criteria for Alcoholism. Of course you have to be really bright.

Ford's story is full of holes,but I think that the three points of greatest vulnerability are: She supposedly could not testify because of her fear of flying, but she has in fact done a lot of flying, including internationally. Either she was lying, or her lawyers were lying. Also, Republicans offered to fly out to CA to question her. She said -- under oath-- that she never heard that. Either she is lying, or her lawyers violated their legal obligations to inform her. Bad either way. And, finally-- and this might turn out to be her undoing-- her family has been completely silent and absent in this whole circus. That is very strange, and FBI questioning might turn up some damning reasons.

Anybody looked to see if there are any cases that would be upheld by lower courts if the SC ruling was a tie? Slimeballs may have influenced some cases by keeping a conservative tie breaker off this session.

There is a bigger tragedy for this country beyond whether the nominee is confirmed or not.

From the second the accusation became public, there were only two choices. You supported her, or you supported him, no middle ground is allowed. It seems that for many their mind was made up before testimony began. If it was watched, it was viewed through those colored glasses, and even if irrefutable evidence was provided from either side, it would be ignored as fabricated, not credible, or just plain inconsequential.

The court of public opinion is not only in full swing, but being manipulated by both sides. In this case it does matter as those making the decisions are elected officials and with mid terms in view they'll certainly protect their chances for re-election

Right/Wrong, fairness, justice, basic logic, and what is right for the majority seems to have departed this country. All that matters is Left or Right, and who has more numbers to force their agenda.


Very sad.....

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
From the second the accusation became public, there were only two choices. You supported her, or you supported him, no middle ground is allowed. It seems that for many their mind was made up before testimony began. If it was watched, it was viewed through those colored glasses, and even if irrefutable evidence was provided from either side, it would be ignored as fabricated, not credible, or just plain inconsequential.

So very true.

The thing about Christine Ford that bugs me the most side from the lying about her alleged fear of flying due to this "assault" by Kavanaugh is the polygraph.

I was watching this streaming and noted that her two lawyers FREAKED OUT when she was asked "Who paid for the polygraph?", they could not grab that mike fast enough to keep her from speaking. Then after a while they both said something like "We paid for it, OK? Just shut up already about it!"

The polygraph results were released which shows just TWO questions were asked of her, but during her questioning she stated and I remember this very clearly, something like: "It look a long time and there were a lot of questions." What? That does not jibe with the results!

The part where she sort of tripped herself up about WHEN the polygraph was, also stood out to me. She replied that she was in some kind of hurry and stopped off after her grandmother's funeral to have it done. What? That's complete bullshit. You don't just pop into a polygraph on the way from something like that, when your emotions are high and you are possibly stressed. No freaking way, this is from experience. I can't really go into any details here, but I have had two and seen them done.

If you ask me she's psycho.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
I doubt that a frequent, heavy drinker would graduate cum laude.

I know quite a few honors graduates from the Ivy League who easily met the criteria for Alcoholism. Of course you have to be really bright.

Yes, and millions of college students before and after him fall into the category of "heavy drinker". In fact, I believe that it is considered a Minor at many institutions.

quote:

If you ask me she's psycho.

And nobody knows that better than her family.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:

quote:

If you ask me she's psycho.

And nobody knows that better than her family.

Who conveniently aren't talking at all, are they? Kinda makes ya wonder why.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
From the second the accusation became public, there were only two choices. You supported her, or you supported him, no middle ground is allowed. It seems that for many their mind was made up before testimony began. If it was watched, it was viewed through those colored glasses, and even if irrefutable evidence was provided from either side, it would be ignored as fabricated, not credible, or just plain inconsequential.

I disagree. I think you are correct about those people who prematurely decided Balsy-Ford was telling the truth. But, when I watched the circus the day she testified, while I was skeptical, if she had presented a credible case, I would have been ready to re-assess my view. The thing is, she made no case for her accusation whatsoever. The few tangible things that actually could be investigated WERE investigated, and they were all refuted by testimony and other evidence.

I see people who refuse to even entertain the idea that the Democrat Party is actually a gang of con men and crooks as being completely closed-minded, while those people who are predisposed to vote Republican are more open minded and on the look out for inconsistency. In other words, Republicans are more cognizant of the fact that we might be being sold a pack of lies, while Democrat voters don't even consider that possibility.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Yes, and millions of college students before and after him fall into the category of "heavy drinker". In fact, I believe that it is considered a Minor at many institutions.

Hell, it's a major at some colleges, and apparently was at her high school.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:

quote:

If you ask me she's psycho.

And nobody knows that better than her family.

That is very strange to me, that neither her mother or father or any siblings have made any statements about her. The only "family" she's getting support from is from her husband and friends.

Why is that? Both parents are alive and she does have at least one sibling from my understanding.

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli would be proud...

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
From the second the accusation became public, there were only two choices. You supported her, or you supported him, no middle ground is allowed.

I really believe this is only true for the Left.
Admittedly, I want Kavanaugh confirmed, but if there had been credible evidence of some real crime I would have just thought, OK, switch nominees.
But instead there is nothing. Absolutely nothing except one woman's word. Sorry, but that is simply not credible evidence.