The House has been a goner for quite some times. Especially when one looks at it district by district, the number of at risk districts for each party, the number of incumbents of each party not seeking reelection and money raised. I think if the election was held today, the Democrats gain between 35-40 seats and possibly more. FYI, I updated my spread sheet on the house last week, I show 58 Republicans seats at risk vs.7 for the Democrats. I also show 42 current House Republicans choosing not to seek reelection, a record for the GOP. Money from individual donors, not pacs or anything else shows the Democrats have a 100 million dollar lead in money raised. Roughly 279 million to 176 million. A lot of those at risk seats for Republicans are in the lean Democratic column. Part of my cynicism with Kavanaugh thing is the Democrats have five senators for deep red states, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana, Missouri, West Virginia, all tight races, tossups. A no vote for confirm prior to Ford probably would have doomed their reelection chances. Delaying the vote as happened, perhaps until after the election saves those seats. I don't think the Democrats, read Schumer and the leadership give a dang whether Kavanaugh is confirmed or not. He and they care about keeping those senate seats in Democratic hands which would give the Democrats an outside chance of flipping the senate. That in my opinion is the motive and reason behind all of this. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think that is an astute take on the political aspects. A separate - albeit inextricably related - concern is the desirability to ascertain the truth to the extent that is possible. An accuser has made a serious charge against a Supreme Court nominee, decades old, that he now denies. She has named a witness to the alleged drunken sexual attack, a friend of Kavanaugh's who had recalled their dissipated ways at Georgetown Prep at the time in a memoir, Wasted, describing a classmate he calls "Brent O'Kavanaugh" as drinking to the point he passed out. Another student has stated that she had heard about the attack at the time. The accuser is now, reportedly, being subjected to death threats, had her email hacked, and has had to leave her home. Political expediency aside, I would say that the minimum moral responsibility of those determining Kavanaugh's future is to order a non-partisan investigation of the matter, and interview the named, alleged witness. Many Americans are convinced that one Justice has served since 1991 as a consequence of his lying under oath concerning his sexual behavior of comparatively far less seriousness, attaining a seat on the highest court in the land by committing a crime. The American people, Kavanaugh, and Dr. Ford deserve a serious effort to uncover the truth, even it that is not commensurate with someone's partisan agenda.
TWO distinct groups. The right wingers want to treat her as an ACCOMPLICE is DEM politics, as if she is a pundit.
IT IS NOT. IT is orchestrated as a he said she said, due to Republicans THINKING they can create the impression that she is a conniving liar. They REFUSE to subpoena the EYEWITNESS. When murderer friends witness a murder, do they simply allow them to say I SAW NOTHING?
We both know, I'm sure, that the famous court case, "New York Times v. Sullivan" (1964), has made it possible to criticize "public officials", which would include Brett Kavanaugh. That said, it does not (NOT) protect an accuser from legal action subsequently undertaken when an accuser is believed to have engaged in both LIBEL and SLANDER. If this story turns out to be unproven, unsupported by evidence, and part of a conniving conspiracy to destroy Kavanaugh and keep him from taking his seat on the SCOTUS, both Blasey AND Feinstein could very definitely be sued for what they have done.... Don't you see? Kavanaugh doesn't have to prove anything! He isn't the one making any accusations! Blasey Ford is the one who has to prove the truth of her accusations -- and Dianne Feinstein would be complicit in the whole thing! Simply put, if he wanted to, Kavanaugh could have Blasey Ford 'spitted and roasted' in a court of law if she can't (or won't) prove her charges. . Bay Area barbeque .
NOT TRUE. We have an unwilling eyewitness. Sure he didn't give a ****, and we will have to rip the truth from his apathy. But he is supposed to have vassilated between encouraging, then stopping a RAPE.
Just no. Burden of proof in these cases lies with the plaintiff, not the defendant. Kavanaugh would have to prove she lied. And as he would have to directly testify to make that case, he would he open to discovery. https://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander Also, I'm not sure she could be sued for both given the facts of the case. He probably has to pick one. Maybe libel since the original source is a wrotten letter to Congress. Anything she says verbally after that as a direct result of her letter doesn't become a slander. Otherwise anyone committing libel will by default be guilty of slander when defending themselves of the charges. That doesn't make sense.
Oh ff's sake... She's not "unwilling". She reached out because she believed that her identify wouldn't be an issue, because those around her promised her they could simply put the assertion out there, and it would be sufficient to get Kav taken off the nomination. Of course, wrong. So, the lie leads back to the originator of the lie. And now, we're here. She knows she won't survive an actual deposition and remain credible. She knows this. Everyone knows this. And even if she actually believes this, she still cannot provide any checkable facts about the incident. None. Now, I'd suggest that instead of just asking ms Ford to appear she be subpoenaed to appear, and justify her little lie to the nation, in front of cameras, in front of the press, et al. And then, we should invest the FBI into determining just how broad this little conspiracy that has now transcended state lines, as well as involved the threats against the federal court, to find out how many liberal operatives were involved, and hold them accountable for their illegal actions.
I agree that a case for libel would be stronger, and would carry the likelihood of greater penalties and repercussions. But I disagree that Kavanaugh would have to prove that she lied. SHE is the one making these accusations, and if she cannot prove the truth of them, then SHE is the one who is completely vulnerable. My example: let's say that I go to a national news outlet and cause a story to be printed saying that YOU committed sex crimes against me -- but I can't prove it. You retaliate by suing me for libel (and probably a host of other things). How can you lose? In this example, you did nothing wrong at all -- on the contrary, I am the one who falsely accused you because I can't prove a single thing! You can justly charge that I harmed you in your "trade, calling, and profession" by splattering the world with this story I cooked up. Remember, "truth is a defense", BUT, if there's no "truth" or proof offered, then look out! You'd walk out of that hypothetical courtroom with a big smile after cleaning out my bank account to the last penny and garnish a huge percentage of income I might make for many years -- and you'd be justified and right to do exactly that! Will Kavanaugh do that? Oh, probably not. But if he's somehow kept off the Supreme Court because of what turns out to be lies and fraud, I hope he goes after Blasey Ford and Feinstein like an avenging angel....
EVEN when they rape in packs, the right wing STILL calls it a he said she said. Gang rape hesheing. And what is worse, the accomplice is called two or MOAR against one.
I'm sure that guy in NC (Difong or whatever his name was) likely thought the same thing, when he was prosecuting the Duke case. You seem to not be able to learn from history. But hey, you tried, right? Now, riddle me this... Are you like the hysterical lawyer on NPR this morning, who even NPR pointed out was a political hack because her motives were caused by her hate of Trump? I suggest.. yes.
Bullseye, Drluggit! You're 100% right on target! This liberal Democrat, Bay Area college teacher thought she could torpedo Kavanaugh unseen, like a submarine attacking an ocean freighter -- BUT, once Dianne Feinstein had Blasey Ford on the HOOK, with Ford's little 'hit-piece letter' it was too late. Like many hyperliberal posters right here on this forum, Blasey Ford thought she could just snipe-and-run, without being detected, like a cockroach on a kitchen floor in the dark of night. But, Dianne Feinstein 'turned the lights on'. Yes, Democrat California Senator, Dianne Feinstein, desperate to do anything conceivable to stop the appointment of Kavanaugh, threw Blasey Ford's story out there -- with Blasey Ford's name on it! Thus, her own political party has "thrown her to the wolves" and now she must testify or be shown to be a hateful, back-stabbing creature who's been outed for character-assassination, slander, libel, and probably other very real, very provable crimes, too. "O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to DECEIVE!" -- Sir Walter Scott, "Marmion"
the ones that have four people in the room and which don't mention Kavanaugh-who by then was well known judge on the second most important court in the USA
What possibly could the therapist provide? No detail? Wrong number of participants?? I mean, as exculpatory evidence, this is awesome for Kav, but not for ms Ford.. I listened to this, we need to investigate the whole world approach by some former legal puppet on NPR this morning. Same question asked to her, who said, well, it sets the mark for the story. Well, it sure does, by golly. The lie started as a disclosure to the therapist, who wrote down notes of the conversation, now disputed by ms Ford, and now begging both the probative and credibility of the evidence. The doctor has nothing more to add than, I wrote these notes my client mumbled out.... And that's it. The therapist wasn't there at the invented original event. They have to additional evidence of WHEN, or WHERE the event happened. It's just the inception point for the lie. We know it's a lie, already, so what additional value is there here?
Good luck on a non-partisan or an apolitical investigation. Both sides have already made up their minds. Here's some interesting stats. 25% of all Americans haven't even hear of Kavanaugh, 31% have heard a little. In other words enough to know he was nominated to the SCOTUS. But basically nothing else. This includes 61% of independents which heard nothing or just a little 32% of all Americans view Kavanaugh favorable, 36% unfavorable with 32% don't know or undecided, not sure which includes 40% of independents in the not sure category. 38% say Kavanaugh is qualified, 27% not qualified with 34% not sure. Of course Republicans lead the charge for qualified, Democrats the charge for unqualified. Should or shouldn't be confirmed, that's split right down the middle 35-34 should be confirmed by all Americans with 31% not sure. Again it is the GOP in the should be confirmed column, the Democrats in the not confirm with independents split pretty much evenly 30-29 with a whopping 40% not sure or even haven't heard about this. Questions 34-37 https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/9th9okzc75/econTabReport.pdf There is quite a lot of information about other things in that poll. As an aside, I think independents will be voting for Democratic Party congressional candidates somewhere between 55-45 to 58-42. But this vote doesn't mean they like the Democratic congressional party or its congressional members. Democrats in congress are viewed 20% favorable by independents vs 51% unfavorable. Republicans in congress, 19% favorable, 52% unfavorable. Questions 70A and 70B. That close enough to say both major party's congressional members are detested equally by independents. Independents in my opinion aren't voting for the Democratic congressional candidates because they like the Democratic Party or their candidates. Not because they want the Democrats to take over the house, no way. They're voting for them because they can't stand Trump's obnoxious, uncouth, detestable behavior as president.
Roy Moore lost because Republicans didn't vote for him, so yes, Republicans believed the accusers. O'Reilly and Ailes don't have jobs, so we believed their accusers too.
Politics and popularity contests aside, the pursuit of truth requires seeking facts and the government has experts in uncovering them. An eye witness is identified and not requested to testify under oath amidst the obvious political urgency to rush through a confirmation for life? It seems to me that such a significant decision demands as much scrutiny as possible, not less. Whoever is telling the truth deserves to have serious doubts concerning his/her veracity supported by whatever evidence can be established. Given the consequences, it's worth doing.
Trump's friend that defended him publicly should defend him under oath, lying in public is not a crime.... lying under oath is
with all the sexual abuse happening in the Church, think the right would not want to elect Christian republicans accused of sexual abuse, but then many voted for people like Trump and Moore too
