1698

Being identified with unreasonable demands doesn't help her credibility

Says the doppelganger believer.

"Tommyknockers" blows.
You are grievously wrong & will be dealt with severely as soon as I'm not busy here at work.

No, it really does blow. And I think King is an all-timer.

Concur.

I think King is a marvelously inventive storyteller - and occasionally (Dolores Claiborne being a prominent example), I think he even gets around to fleshing out his characters that can make some of his stuff worthy of being fine literature.

But Tommyknockers? What an awful, terrible book.

Such unreasonable demands. Next she'll be demanding Czechoslovakia.

Only the Sudetenland!!

I stayed at a Days Inn at Broadway and 80-something West a few weeks ago. That seemed like a perfectly cromulent hotel for $200 or so.

I also stayed at a place at the base of the Williamsburg Bridge in Brooklyn for under $100. But that might not be what you're looking for.

Top 10 Stephen King novels :
1. The Stand
2. The Dead Zone (timely)
3....

Man I don't think I've read any in 30 years.

I think King is a marvelously inventive storyteller - and occasionally (Dolores Claiborne being a prominent example), I think he even gets around to fleshing out his characters that can make some of his stuff worthy of being fine literature.

But Tommyknockers? What an awful, terrible book.

I'll have to reread it at some point to try to determine what people (King included, I see) object to so strenuously.* That was, after all, nearly 31 years ago. Only thing of his I've ever reread (as I've probably noted more than once, I basically never reread anyone except Philip K. Dick, & even then I haven't done so in probably 15 years, after averaging at least 4 or 5 annually for 15 years) is 'Salem's Lot, about 4 years ago. It help up very well.


*Biasing me in its favor, I have no doubt, is a deep fondness for not only '50s sf flicks but also alien-possession scenarios in general.

You said that 2 days ago, and 10 AM has come and gone.

So? Is Kavanaugh testifying first? Is Ford getting to pick her questioners? I never said the Committee couldn't give Ford's attorneys a bit more time to come to their senses, just that their requests were so obviously unreasonable they wouldn't be granted. Why do you think Ford is making such silly demands if she really wants to testify? Dumb, easily-mockable "bargaining chips" don't have any real value. If Ford refuses to testify because she had to go first, she loses all credibility.

Top 10 Stephen King novels :
1. The Stand

I'd go with either that, the aforementioned Dolores Claiborne -- or what I think was far and away the best of the Dark Tower books, Wizard and Glass.

Eyes of the Dragon is, I think, also underappreciated.

Zonk to Yankee Clapper, #1687:

Yes, yes... if only we all were as just interested in the truth as you.

You ought to at least consider sending such thoughts to someone else - even SBB or Ray would have more credibility - to post for you.

If Clapper wises up, he'll claim that a doppelgänger seized control of his BTF log-in last Friday.

If Ford refuses to testify because she had to go first, she loses all credibility.

I think this is fair, as long as Kavanaugh doesn't get time to prepare for his testimony using what she said. He should go right after her.

Meanwhile...

The Cook Report has moved the Ted Cruz-Beto O'Rourke Texas Senate race to "Toss Up."

Joe Manchin-Patrick Morrissey (WV) is being moved out of Toss Up, to Lean Democratic.

And Montana's race gets a bump from Likely Democratic to Lean Democratic.


Cook on the closest Senate races:

Florida -- "Even Republicans, who remain very optimistic about their chances here, acknowledge that Scott could run a perfect campaign, and come up a point or two short."

Indiana -- "Braun does have a path to victory as he hasn’t fully consolidated the GOP base, but Democrats feel good about where Donnelly is today."

Missouri -- "McCaskill is walking a fine line between the Democratic base in St. Louis and Kansas City and their suburbs and traditionally GOP voters in rural areas who have supported her in the past."

North Dakota -- "The race that Democrats are most nervous about. .....Republican U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer isn’t running as strong a campaign as Heitkamp, but it appears he doesn’t need to."

Montana -- "While Trump is a big asset to Rosendale, the presence of a Libertarian candidate on the ballot may well prevent him from overtaking Tester; Libertarian candidates often cost Republicans elections here."

West Virginia -- "At the start of the cycle, West Virginia’s Democratic U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin bore the unwanted label of the most vulnerable incumbent of the cycle, making his move out of the Toss Up column noteworthy."

Arizona -- "They are evenly matched; both are strong fundraisers, both are strong personal narratives, and both have solid resumes. McSally had to deal with a primary that occupied her attention through August, while Sinema had a clear path to the Democratic nomination and months to define herself as a moderate. Now that the general election is engaged, Sinema’s advantage has eroded. ......Trump isn’t terribly popular among general election voters. This may end up being the closest Senate race in the country."

Nevada -- "The conventional wisdom is that Rosen is a few points ahead, though Democrats acknowledge that they haven’t put this away. Of the four GOP seats in Toss Up, this seems the most vulnerable."

Tennessee -- "Republican strategists are surprised that the open-seat in Tennessee is still in play, with one bemoaning that it seems destined to be a tough slog until the end. .......U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, the GOP nominee, struggles with an image problem and hasn’t consolidated the base yet."

Texas -- "A Toss Up rating makes both parties nervous: Republicans for obvious reasons and Democrats because it creates an expectation that they will start spending money on the race. For that matter, Republicans aren’t anxious to spend money in such an expensive state either. ....Getting the last couple of points to overtake Cruz and win the seat will be difficult though not utterly impossible."


Cook's most likely scenarios, ranked in order of likelihood: (1) 51-49 Republicans; (2) 50-50; (3) 51-49 Democrats. Unprecedented 2018 Senate map, R.I.P.?


This Yahoo article about the three-way Mississippi Senate race explains the jockeying and fighting among Republicans, worried about holding onto their seat. For context, the Democrats' most recent Senate victory in Mississippi came four weeks before the release of Michael Jackson's "Thriller" album.

Is Ford getting to pick her questiiners

My understanding is the she wants the Senators on the committee to do the questioning. You're making it sound like this is HR derby and she wants her little league coach to do the questioning. The Republican stance seems to be that Republican members of the Judiciary Committee are not the best people to ask questions when people come before the committee? Of course, you yourself proposed the issue be vetted with a short background investigation so that everyone is on the same page going into the testimony. They could always do that.

McCoy, is the bed bug problem really that bad in the industry on the east coast? I'm unfortunately all too well familiar with them (had a nasty infestation at one of our Brooklyn apartments) and so whenever I'm at an AirBnB or hotel the first thing I do is check the corners of the mattress for their tell tale signs -- haven't seen it out here yet.

And how does it help Ford's claim that her attorneys are pushing the looney idea that Kavanaugh be required to testify first? Or that they get to pick who questions Ford? Being identified with unreasonable demands doesn't help her credibility, and it still looks like Ford is seeking a pretext to avoid testifying. Fine if she eventually abandons that stance, but it's insane to even have proposed it. I doubt there's much negotiation beyond the Committee saying we'll follow normal Senate procedures and would like to have your client's testimony at an open or closed hearing or committee investigator interview.

Your position is way too strong here.

Lay people have no idea whether it's typical for the accuser or accused to testify first, or whether it's typical for lawyers to question witnesses as opposed to senators.

These things are up for grabs, and probably some concessions/compromises will be made.

So?

So you prognostication powers of what she has to give in are a bit suspect. You insisted she has to adhere to Grassley's timeline. Now it appears to not be the case. I agree, and have agreed that she should testify first, but for someone with a poor track record on this might be a little less forceful in their predictions about what must happen.

If the FBI wants something more to investigate, they might want to find out the story behind those Whelan tweets. Were they really just spontaneous?

Andy, like the Senate Democrats, is desperate to play Look-A-Squirrel. On what planet would it ever be the FBI's business to "find out the story behind" some guy's tweets?

And how did Whelan manage to get a hold of such detailed floor plans of that doppelganger's house?

There's this thing that Al Gore invented called the Internet.

And is it possible that the doppelganger himself might have been in on it? That seems pretty far-fetched, but if he wasn't, then wouldn't he then be in a pretty good position to hit Whelan with a big fat lawsuit?

In theory. In practice, it makes no sense to file such a suit; right now the vast majority of people don't know the name of the person Whelan accused. A suit, though legally justified, would not serve his interests.

Texas -- "A Toss Up rating makes both parties nervous: Republicans for obvious reasons and Democrats because it creates an expectation that they will start spending money on the race. For that matter, Republicans aren’t anxious to spend money in such an expensive state either. ....Getting the last couple of points to overtake Cruz and win the seat will be difficult though not utterly impossible."

I keep saying it - but I don't see any need for Democrats (meaning the DNC or DSCC) to spend in Texas.

Beto has a mint's worth of CoH - and what's more, he's eschewed TV advertising until very recently... and rumor has it, his last round of fundraising numbers might very well be double the already eye-popping numbers he'd raked in previously.

The only reason for any "national" Democratic money to get involved would be if Beto wants to outsource the attack ads... but then, I think his most effective attack ads are the sort that don't need to come from outside: I.e., the best Cruz attack ad is "What a #####! Trump smears Ted's dad and his wife - and now Ted is begging Trump for help? If Ted Cruz cannot stand up for his own father and wife, how in the world can he stand up for you?!?!?"

"I'm not thrilled, but after the election, they're all telling me were getting our wall the way we want it, so let's see what happens. Let's see what happens. Let's see if they produce."

Is this crap really still playing to the base? Wasn't the wall one of his Day One promises? He's had two years with a GOP stranglehold. It's the Dems' fault, though. And Mexico.

"The new platform of the Democrat Party is radical socialism and open borders."

Citation needed.

I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh's Georgetown Prep classmate. I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake.

I understand coming up with this seemingly-brilliant flash of insight and following all the clues and coming up with the theory. What I don't understand is how he didn't run it past anyone who could tell him how bad an idea this was.

Maybe it's because the people he ran it by are as dumb and reckless as he is, and possibly a little desperate at this point.

And just where would he have come up with all those floor plans? It's hard not to wonder just who else was in on this little Keystone Kops escapade. This whole nomination just gets curiouser and curiouser.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there were evidence implicating Kavanaugh in a crime, Democrats would oppose him. If there were an inconclusive mix of accusations and memories, Democrats would oppose him. If Kavanaugh were totally vindicated, Democrats would oppose him. Especially the last one. Folks suggesting credibility be determined by gender, and that the accused should testify first, aren't really interested in the evidence.

Oh, look, a Clapper sighting!

Whelan managed to apologize (though probably AT GUNPOINT) for that tweetstorm of his that you so gleefully passed on for the BTF world to see. Any chance that you're going to issue a similar apology?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Being identified with unreasonable demands doesn't help her credibility

Says the doppelganger believer.

Doppelganger believer? Or doppelganger whisperer?

Were they really just spontaneous?

Seems unlikely that they were, given that a member of Orrin Hatch's staff made a Tweet promoting a big story from Whelan shortly before Whelan posted the whole thing.

Whelan had been promising a huge scoop all week. Because Whelan is not a crazy person, and because he was so certain, lots of people assumed he had something.

[oops, double]

1720. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 21, 2018 at 01:22 PM (#5748950)
Were they really just spontaneous?

Seems unlikely that they were, given that a member of Orrin Hatch's staff made a Tweet promoting a big story from Whelan shortly before Whelan posted the whole thing.
Whelan had been promising a huge scoop all week. Because Whelan is not a crazy person, and because he was so certain, lots of people assumed he had something.

   1721. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 21, 2018 at 01:22 PM (#5748951)
Were they really just spontaneous?

Seems unlikely that they were, given that a member of Orrin Hatch's staff made a Tweet promoting a big story from Whelan shortly before Whelan posted the whole thing.
Whelan had been promising a huge scoop all week. Because Whelan is not a crazy person, and because he was so certain, lots of people assumed he had something.

Is 1721 David's doppelgänger? The world wonders.

edit:

[oops, double]

Too late! : )

David N, #1721:

[oops, double]

Don't you mean doppel?

Whelan had been promising a huge scoop all week. Because Whelan is not a crazy person, and because he was so certain, lots of people assumed he had something.

Was not a crazy person, you mean.

As I proposed - "Everything Trump Touches that is Then Touched by Someone Else Dies"

"Misery" is inner circle. And I remember really liking "The Long Walk". King doesn't *need* all the supernatural stuff... those got pretty repetitive after awhile ("Regulators", etc.)

I liked the first... half? Three-quarters? of "Under the Dome" but seem to recall it fizzling out badly. Not going to go back to find out why.

"Misery" is inner circle.

Oops - yeah, forgot that one... in the running, too.

And I remember really liking "The Long Walk".

I recall being reminded, favorably, of one of Heinlein's better juveniles. That was '85ish, so I recall no details.

If Kavanaugh were totally vindicated,

I know would oppose him because he lied about receiving Democratic strategy materials while White House counsel. But I understand that is no longer a concern for many.

I liked the first... half? Three-quarters? of "Under the Dome" but seem to recall it fizzling out badly. Not going to go back to find out why.

The ending was almost Shyamalanian.

Or that they get to pick who questions Ford?

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s chief counsel for nominations tweeted a couple of days ago that "Unfazed and determined. We will confirm Judge Kavanaugh."

Is it your position that it is unreasonable for Ford to not want him or someone associated with him to ask questions in an "investigation"?

Your position is way too strong here. Lay people have no idea whether it's typical for the accuser or accused to testify first, or whether it's typical for lawyers to question witnesses as opposed to senators. These things are up for grabs, and probably some concessions/compromises will be made

Zonk is confusing "lay people" with those Amazon tribes untouched by civilization, and he's probably wrong about them, too. Anyone who has seen a single episode of Law & Order (or hundreds of other legal dramas - heck even the comedies) knows that the defense puts it case on after the prosecution, and that in civil cases its plaintiff first, then defendant. It's never the accused putting on a defense and then the accuser revealing what the accusation is. And even if "lay people" were as clueless as Zonk seems to think, how is it any better for Ford to be proposing an idiotic scheme that every lawyer and 1st year law student knows is silly? She's tipping her hand, but some don't want to see it.

If the FBI wants something more to investigate, they might want to find out the story behind those Whelan tweets. Were they really just spontaneous?

Andy, like the Senate Democrats, is desperate to play Look-A-Squirrel. On what planet would it ever be the FBI's business to "find out the story behind" some guy's tweets?

Fine, let's just assign Mark Judge to look into it. Or maybe Chuck Grassley can ask him about it, if it wouldn't be too inconvenient for a man with Whelan's busy schedule.

And how did Whelan manage to get a hold of such detailed floor plans of that doppelganger's house?

There's this thing that Al Gore invented called the Internet.

Okay, here's what I found online:

How Do I Get Floor Plans of an Existing House?

1. Contact your local permit agency or records office. Often these agencies store copies of building plans for decades after the structure has been built. Ask what information you need to supply in order to obtain copies of existing blueprints. Provide the required forms and information, and pick up a copy of your plans. Visit permitplace.com for a list of permit agencies in your state (see Resources).

2. Visit the local planning or zoning office if it operates separately from the permits agency in your areas. Ask for a copy of your property's plat, which shows your entire property, including the footprint of your home.

3.Call your builder or the architect who designed your home. If you can't find this information, look through your mortgage paperwork. Builders, particularly large contracting companies, often keep copies of plans on file.

4. Check with your real estate agent. He may have copies of the building plans, particularly if your house is new construction; if he doesn't have them, be may be able to track down a set of blueprints for you.

5. Talk with your neighbors. In areas where many homes were built by the same builder, the houses may feature the same or very similar floor plans. If one of your neighbors still has copies of the plans, ask if you can have a copy made for yourself.

Tips

If you are not the owner of the property you're seeking plans for, the agency may require you to provide a signed affidavit from the property owner.

Now admittedly that link was for San Francisco, not Chevy Chase, but generally speaking you're not likely to find floor plans on Zillow or Redfin. It ain't that easy.

And is it possible that the doppelganger himself might have been in on it? That seems pretty far-fetched, but if he wasn't, then wouldn't he then be in a pretty good position to hit Whelan with a big fat lawsuit?

In theory. In practice, it makes no sense to file such a suit; right now the vast majority of people don't know the name of the person Whelan accused. A suit, though legally justified, would not serve his interests.

Funny, but I'd think that the possibility of a large cash award might be an inducement to file a suit, not to mention it'd make him a public hero in the eyes of many.

Of course if he's a Kavanaugh fan, I can see why he'd want to spare a key Kavanaugh ally any more embarrassment.

Literally every Steven King book I've ever tried to read was garbage. Someone suggested the Dark Tower series because I'm not a big horror fan, and it was one of the worst books I've ever forced myself to read.

Flat, boring characters with flat, boring writing doing flat boring things.

McCoy, is the bed bug problem really that bad in the industry on the east coast? I'm unfortunately all too well familiar with them (had a nasty infestation at one of our Brooklyn apartments) and so whenever I'm at an AirBnB or hotel the first thing I do is check the corners of the mattress for their tell tale signs -- haven't seen it out here yet.

Bed bugs aren't like rats that they come in from the neighborhood because you have openings in your building and aren't keeping your building clean. Bed bugs come in because travelers bring them in. So every single hotel out there has had bed bugs and has had them on numerous occasions over the last 15 odd years. Your hotels that belong to large companies and large scale hotels in general have setup procedures for dealing with the problem once an infestation gets reported. It is anyone's guess what some small rinky-dink mom & pop operation does when they have a problem.

Nowadays a good chunk of reported bed bug infestations are in fact not bed bug infestations or not connected to the room. People nowadays are so aware of bed bugs and so frightened of them that virtually any bug or any bite on their body gets chalked up to bed bugs and of course people won't think that they might have brought them in. We'll get people calling down saying that they were bitten multiple times over night by bed bugs. The hotel will quarantine off the room, send in outside specialists to look over the room, which often times involves specially trained bed bug sniffing dogs and come up empty for bed bugs.

That isn't to say there are no bed bugs. Like I said all hotels have had multiple legitimate cases and have multiple cases every year for bed bugs.

Zonk is confusing "lay people" with those Amazon tribes untouched by civilization, and he's probably wrong about them, too. Anyone who has seen a single episode of Law & Order (or hundreds of other legal dramas - heck even the comedies) knows that the defense puts it case on after the prosecution, and that in civil cases its plaintiff first, then defendant. It's never the accused putting on a defense and then the accuser revealing what the accusation is. And even if "lay people" were as clueless as Zonk seems to think, how is it any better for Ford to be proposing an idiotic scheme that every lawyer and 1st year law student knows is silly? She's tipping her hand, but some don't want to see it.

1. I am not Zonk.
2. This is not a court room, it's a senate hearing.
3. All this stuff is up for grabs and negotiable. She probably gives on some stuff, and gets some concessions.

And even if "lay people" were as clueless as Zonk seems to think,

Perhaps he was only thinking of Tump supporters?

Btw, this is like the 10th or 12th time that YC has confused who the poster is that he's replying to.

Maybe he doesn't have as much on the fastball as that 77 year old first time congress candidate he keeps posting about.

And I remember really liking "The Long Walk".

I recall being reminded, favorably, of one of Heinlein's better juveniles. That was '85ish, so I recall no details.

Yeah - I liked that one, too... Never understood why nobody ever made a movie out of it.

You know, it's odd - but now that I think about it... Misery, Dolores Claiborne - his non-horror/supernatural stuff and the Stand/Dragon/Dark Tower... fantasy/sci-fi stuff is my favorite from him.

It always blew my mind that people drove into the city when they could take a train

In the 60s-80s it was not that big a deal.

I have no idea what the City is like now. The last time I visited was 95, for my father's funeral, and did not stay long.

tshipman, I like King, and I hated "The Gunslinger", and it will be awhile before I try the next one, if ever. If that was your intro I sympathize.

"Misery" is the opposite of flat and boring. Or "Dead Zone". Try either, you won't be disappointed.

Your position is way too strong here. Lay people have no idea whether it's typical for the accuser or accused to testify first, or whether it's typical for lawyers to question witnesses as opposed to senators. These things are up for grabs, and probably some concessions/compromises will be made


Zonk is confusing "lay people" with those Amazon tribes untouched by civilization, and he's probably wrong about them, too. Anyone who has seen a single episode of Law & Order (or hundreds of other legal dramas - heck even the comedies) knows that the defense puts it case on after the prosecution, and that in civil cases its plaintiff first, then defendant. It's never the accused putting on a defense and then the accuser revealing what the accusation is. And even if "lay people" were as clueless as Zonk seems to think, how is it any better for Ford to be proposing an idiotic scheme that every lawyer and 1st year law student knows is silly? She's tipping her hand, but some don't want to see it.

Clapper should tell Zonk (and tshipman) more about his theories on "confusion".... and cluelessness.

Still, I thank Clapper for acknowledging that I've gotten inside his head. It's a tacit acknowledgment that he knows I'm right about him, his cult, and his Dear Leader -- and a natural defense mechanism to let it all meld like this.

I am the doppelzonker.

Eric Erickson

Several people have told me I should turn down my heat in defense of Brett Kavanaugh. Y'all, I'm sorry, but I have little patience for a group of people willing to destroy an innocent man so they can keep killing kids. And that's exactly what this is about.

And I remember really liking "The Long Walk".

This was a brilliant story. I'm a massive King fan, even if I probably haven't read anything from the last 15-20 years.

Clapper thinks that the Kavanaugh assault/attempted rape allegation, and the Republican Senate's reactions to it, will have no negative effects on Republicans in midterm races. As President Bush said, bring 'em on!

Clapper also thinks that the American electorate will be highly disgruntled about which day of the week Dr. Ford testifies on, and about her lawyer insanely asking that Ford testify second. He'll take his analysis, thank you very much.

And this is when his side's winning! Again, the only clean exit here is for Clapper to blame his Doppelcläpper for these posts.

This is not a court room, it's a senate hearing.

Why does that matter? How is it proper to require the accused to put on a defense and then the accuser to reveal the accusation?

Apologies for earlier misidentification to whoever was the most offended.

I'm hankering for a dopplebock now.

On what planet would it ever be the FBI's business to "find out the story behind" some guy's tweets?

Even absent the other context, it’s a public accusation of attempted rape, connected to specific individuals. Probably worth at least a few phone calls, to see whether there might be some smoke behind the fire. The FBI isn’t usually involved in rape investigations in cases that don’t involve the Mann Act, but like vampires, they can come in on anything where they’re invited by local LEO, right?

1746. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 21, 2018 at 01:52 PM (#5748995)
.


Hmmmm, was that Clapper's retracted apology for yesterday's Whelan whispering?

For those wondering what the . stands for in 1746, I've got it right here:

1746. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 21, 2018 at 01:52 PM (#5748995)

tshipman is confusing "lay people" with those Amazon tribes untouched by civilization, and he's probably wrong about them, too. Anyone who has seen a single episode of Law & Order (or hundreds of other legal dramas - heck even the comedies) knows that the defense puts it case on after the prosecution, and that in civil cases its plaintiff first, then defendant. It's never the accused putting on a defense and then the accuser revealing what the accusation is. And even if "lay people" were as clueless as tshipman seems to think, how is it any better for Ford to be proposing an idiotic scheme that every lawyer and 1st year law student knows is silly? She's tipping her hand, but some don't want to see it.

EDIT: Misidentification corrected

edit: boy, he's an editing fiend. Now he disappeared the period.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s chief counsel for nominations tweeted a couple of days ago that "Unfazed and determined. We will confirm Judge Kavanaugh."

Is it your position that it is unreasonable for Ford to not want him or someone associated with him to ask questions in an "investigation"?

There are two things wrong with your argument. The first is that, yes, it's unreasonable for Ford to not want him or someone associated with him to ask questions. The second is that your implication is that his biases are what has led Ford to reject him as a questioner -- but what Ford has said she wants is for the senators themselves to do the questioning, and they're surely not less biased.

#1750:

For those wondering what the . stands for in 1746, I've got it right here:

edit: boy, he's an editing fiend. Now he disappeared the period.

Somebody call Theoretical Detective Ed Whelan to crack this case!

edit: boy, he's an editing fiend. Now he disappeared the period.

But give him credit: He ain't turning on his boy Whelan. In for a bird dropping, in for a cow pie.

I like King, and I hated "The Gunslinger"

My man!

I think his short stories (e.g. “The Reach”) are his best work.

but what Ford has said she wants is for the senators themselves to do the questioning, and they're surely not less biased.

I smells like politics at play here. The scuttlebutt is, the R's want a female lawyer to do the bulk, or all the questioning for their side because the specter of a bunch of aged white men interrogating an alleged assault victim won't play well. And they're probably correct. So the other side is trying to take that option away from them.

The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 20, 2018 at 07:53 PM (#5748429)
Some interesting speculation in this Twitter thread about a Kavanaugh doppelgänger classmate who lived in a house similar to the one described by Ford. Of course, if Ford had gone through the normal witness process, we'd already know (or the Committee would) if she knew Kavanaugh's name before the alleged incident, or she only attached Kavanaugh to the incident after the fact.

@peterwaldotoo:

As I understand it, Ford is a lying, slandering Dem operative whose version of events can be relied upon completely to construct an alternative attacker theory.

So the other side is trying to take that option away from them.

Senators decide on the division of labor between majority party committee members and staff counsel, or even outside counsel. Same for the minority party. Witnesses don't tell the Senate who may question them. That said, my own preference would be for the GOP to just designate one of the better lawyers among the Senators, possibly Mike Lee, to do the bulk of Ford's cross-examination. It shouldn't be too difficult, the goal is merely to have Ford confirm the various gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions that she has already acknowledged in her public statements. There's plenty out there, although the committee members probably have more material by now.

I smells like politics at play here. The scuttlebutt is, the R's want a female lawyer to do the bulk, or all the questioning for their side because the specter of a bunch of aged white men interrogating an alleged assault victim won't play well. And they're probably correct. So the other side is trying to take that option away from them.

Of course. But that doesn't make Ford's position reasonable, and indeed it shows that she's more interested in how it plays politically than in fact-finding.

Of course. But that doesn't make Ford's position reasonable, and indeed it shows that she's more interested in how it plays politically than in fact-finding.

Yes, I'm sure acceding to a bald political ploy for the sake of of honor and good faith would be your play too, David.

1754

I think his short stories (e.g. “The Reach”) are his best work.

Nightmares & Dreamscapes is a favorite collection.

Of course. But that doesn't make Ford's position reasonable, and indeed it shows that she's more interested in how it plays politically than in fact-finding.

The refusal of the majority to do any sort of pre-hearing investigation shows fact finding isn't uppermost in their mind either. Both sides are playing politics here, which is unsurprising.

The scuttlebutt is, the R's want a female lawyer to do the bulk, or all the questioning for their side because the specter of a bunch of aged white men interrogating an alleged assault victim won't play well. And they're probably correct. So the other side is trying to take that option away from them.

Thats was happened in the Anita Hill testimony. On both sides, they looked ridiculous. I think Ted Kennedy was noticeably quiet. This was widely mocked on SNL.

The first is that, yes, it's unreasonable for Ford to not want him or someone associated with him to ask questions.

Even granting this as true, YC seems to believe that only Trumpers can fairly investigate the President regarding Russia and collusion, calling into question the motives of anyone that does not believe as he does. I was curious whether YC would give others that standard. Not that I expect him to ever answer it.

The second is that your implication is that his biases are what has led Ford to reject him as a questioner -- but what Ford has said she wants is for the senators themselves to do the questioning, and they're surely not less biased.

Thanks. I had not heard that was one of her condition. I agree with Misirlou that this smells of politics. Not a good look.

So how long before Rosenstein is fired by tweet?

Not a good look, much I hate to say it.

Rosenstein Suggested Secretly Recording Trump and Discussed 25th Amendment

WASHINGTON — The deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, suggested last year that he secretly record President Trump in the White House to expose the chaos consuming the administration, and he discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office for being unfit.

Hoo boy... and this is the Times, yet... Oy.

I think Rosenstein is SO fired for this. And justifiably so. Just terrible.

EDIT: Coke to TraderDave

The Mueller appointment was never necessary and never on the up and up, and now it’s confirmed.

Brett Kavenaugh's Doppelganger

Even if granting it as true, YC seems to believe that only Trumpers can fairly investigate the President regarding Russia and collusion, calling into question the motives of anyone that does not believe as he does. I was curious whether YC would give others that standard. Not that I expect him to ever answer it.

This is a response to criticism of Ford trying to limit who can question her before the Judiciary Committee? And that has never been my position, you're just making up stuff.

I probably read King's the Night Shift a dozen times when I was a kid. Creepy, not like 21st Century Republican creepy.

Hoo boy... and this is the Times, yet... Oy.

I think Rosenstein is SO fired for this. And justifiably so. Just terrible.

The Failing New York Times is always lying, Fake News!

You gotta hand it to Trump and his cronies. They somehow made the GOPe, the FBI and the CIA look good.

Rod J. Rosenstein, suggested last year that he secretly record President Trump in the White House

Peer pressure will do that. You don't want to be the only person not secretly recording the president, do you? You'll look like a fool!

1766

The Mueller appointment was never necessary and never on the up and up, and now it’s confirmed.

Aaaand there it is. Who had 4 minutes in the pool?

Hoo boy... and this is the Times, yet... Oy.

It's an interesting story that opens with several paragraphs flatly stating Rosenstein has said and done various things, with no indication of its sourcing, then followed by several rather vague paragraphs on the sourcing that only mention Andy McCabe by name, before getting to Rosenstein's denial in the 7th paragraph:

“The New York Times’s story is inaccurate and factually incorrect,” he said in a statement. “I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda. But let me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.”

That's followed by several paragraphs that finally make it fairly clear that the sourcing is McCabe and those he talked to, which would seem to make the story depend entirely on McCabe's credibility, and there are certainly differing opinions on that.

I think his short stories (e.g. “The Reach”) are his best work.

I'd go with the novellas -- The Mist, Shawshank Redemption, The Body, etc. etc.

The Shining, hands down. There's good reason for all King's beer-soaked visits to Kubrick's grave.

Here's the context of what Rosenstein did:

WASHINGTON — The deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, suggested last year that he secretly record President Trump in the White House to expose the chaos consuming the administration, and he discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Mr. Trump from office for being unfit.

Mr. Rosenstein made these suggestions in the spring of 2017 when Mr. Trump’s firing of James B. Comey as F.B.I. director plunged the White House into turmoil. Over the ensuing days, the president divulged classified intelligence to Russians in the Oval Office, and revelations emerged that Mr. Trump had asked Mr. Comey to pledge loyalty and end an investigation into a senior aide.

Mr. Rosenstein was just two weeks into his job. He had begun overseeing the Russia investigation and played a key role in the president’s dismissal of Mr. Comey by writing a memo critical of his handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. But Mr. Rosenstein was caught off guard when Mr. Trump cited the memo in the firing, and he began telling people that he feared he had been used.

Mr. Rosenstein made the remarks about secretly recording Mr. Trump and about the 25th Amendment in meetings and conversations with other Justice Department and F.B.I. officials. Several people described the episodes, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that documented Mr. Rosenstein’s actions and comments.

Here's what came of it:

None of Mr. Rosenstein’s proposals apparently came to fruition. It is not clear how determined he was about seeing them through, though he did tell Mr. McCabe that he might be able to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions and John F. Kelly, then the secretary of homeland security and now the White House chief of staff, to mount an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment.

The extreme suggestions show Mr. Rosenstein’s state of mind in the disorienting days that followed Mr. Comey’s dismissal. Sitting in on Mr. Trump’s interviews with prospective F.B.I. directors and facing attacks for his own role in Mr. Comey’s firing, Mr. Rosenstein had an up-close view of the tumult. Mr. Rosenstein appeared conflicted, regretful and emotional, according to people who spoke with him at the time.

Rosenstein denies the account, other sources back it. Classic he said/she said.

But assuming the story is largely accurate, what's the subtext here? That Trump should just be allowed to run wild, trashing anyone and everything in sight, and responsible people in the government are just supposed to sit there and take it? And that Rosenstein's initial instinct, not followed up on, is justifiable cause for replacing him with a party hack loyalist who would fire Mueller in a blink? Does this Unreality Show host in the White House really have that much power to intimidate everyone into submission?

Looks like Trump is backing away from his de-classification gambit.

I guess viciously attacking Ford today has satisfied his stupid quota for the rest of the day.

The 25th Amendment can't be invoked without being discussed first, right?

Mr. Rosenstein made the remarks about secretly recording Mr. Trump and about the 25th Amendment in meetings and conversations with other Justice Department and F.B.I. officials. Several people described the episodes, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that documented Mr. Rosenstein’s actions and comments.

If you go to kill the king, you better not miss.

Rod missed.

RIP Rod.

I probably read King's the Night Shift a dozen times when I was a kid. Creepy, not like 21st Century Republican creepy.

My intro to him, via the (IIRC) Doubleday Book Club in the summer of '79. A few months later, in anticipation of the CBS two-part adaptation, I read 'Salem's Lot (which I'd owned for awhile after seeing a favorable reference in a fanzine from, I believe, Robert Bloch). Haven't looked back since, really, though as noted (& clearly I'm not the only one here) when it comes to the Gunslinger stuff I don't look at all.

1777

But assuming the story is largely accurate, what's the subtext here? That Trump should just be allowed to run wild, trashing anyone and everything in sight, and responsible people in the government are just supposed to sit there and take it? And that Rosenstein's initial instinct, not followed up on, is justifiable cause for replacing him with a party hack loyalist who would fire Mueller in a blink? Does this Unreality Show host in the White House really have that much power to intimidate everyone into submission?

At best, it's fuel for the GOPers in the legislature who want the Mueller thing to just go away -- to say nothing of the red meat this is for his base and the Clappers, Sugar Bears, Jasons and to a lesser extent Rays of the world.

EDIT: and what Srul said

The 25th Amendment can't be invoked without being discussed first, right?

Why do you want to thwart the will of the voters by deposing a manifestly unfit excuse for a human being, you horrible freedom-hater?

And how did Whelan manage to get a hold of such detailed floor plans of that doppelganger's house?

How do you not understand these ####### are connected up the wazoo? Though likely where Whelan pulled them from.

If you go to kill the king, you better not miss.

Rod missed.

RIP Rod.

And if Trump fires Rosenstein, I'm sure it'll take Mitch McConnell about 3 days to try to rush through a "personally loyal"** replacement through the Senate. Yet another chance for those "moderate" Republicans to show some backbone, ho ho.

** i.e. loyal to Trump, not anything else. See Comey's account of his meeting with Trump.

@nycsouthpaw:

In other words, NYT doesn’t have a firsthand source for any of this. The reporters are hearing it from people who heard it from someone else or heard about a memo written about it.

It’s fairly clearly an effort by admin sources who want Rosenstein ousted and don’t have direct knowledge of the facts, and I’d suggest we weigh the credibility of the story on the basis of all we know about those folks.

Would a Deputy Attorney General just a few weeks into the job really talk freely about plotting to invoke the 25th amendment with other non-cabinet officers like the Deputy FBI Director, who then writes a memo about it? I mean, I’d want a bit more evidence.

How could NYT’s sources (who, again, only heard about Rosenstein’s remarks second or third hand according to the story) possibly “confirm[] that that he was serious,” rather than sarcastic, in contradiction of someone who was *actually present*?

ABC seems to be dealing with the same or a similar set of people without firsthand knowledge — “sources familiar with memos.”

1785

And if Trump fires Rosenstein, I'm sure it'll take Mitch McConnell about 3 days to try to rush through a "personally loyal"** replacement through the Senate. Yet another chance for those "moderate" Republicans to show some backbone, ho ho.

Hence, my lament.

But assuming the story is largely accurate, what's the subtext here? That Trump should just be allowed to run wild, trashing anyone and everything in sight, and responsible people in the government are just supposed to sit there and take it? And that Rosenstein's initial instinct, not followed up on, is justifiable cause for replacing him with a party hack loyalist who would fire Mueller in a blink? Does this Unreality Show host in the White House really have that much power to intimidate everyone into submission?

At best, it's fuel for the GOPers in the legislature who want the Mueller thing to just go away -- to say nothing of the red meat this is for his base and the Clappers, Sugar Bears, Jasons and to a lesser extent Rays of the world.

And I'll repeat my question: Is the rest of the country so browbeaten that they'll let that sorry collection of human beings just work their will without resistance? What do Collins, Murkowski, Flake and Corker have to say? What about the voters 46 days from now?

WaPo is reporting that Page's memo (she was at the meetings mentioned) mentions nothing talked about in the NYT's story.

Hey guys. Have the Democrats laid a finger on Kavanaugh yet?

But assuming the story is largely accurate

I'm assuming the story is largely hyperbole. Kind of like "deplorables"...

The Mueller appointment was never necessary and never on the up and up, and now it’s confirmed.

This has been repeated so many times - what does it even mean? Does it *matter* if the appointment was "necessary"? Does its necessity (or lack thereof) obviate the actual crimes it has prosecuted?

The Mueller appointment was never necessary and never on the up and up, and now it’s confirmed.

This has been repeated so many times - what does it even mean? Does it *matter* if the appointment was "necessary"? Does its necessity (or lack thereof) obviate the actual crimes it has prosecuted?

I think the bolded portion is Sugar Bear's key phrase here, PepTech.

Looks like a McCabe hit job, with some assistance, possibly from Comey. Big question is why now? One obvious candidate is revenge served cold; the other is getting out ahead of bad stuff in the unredacted FISA/Russia intel documents.

Hey guys. Have the Democrats laid a finger on Kavanaugh yet?

In his case, I believe it works the other way around.

The NYT is behind a paywall for me, so I haven't read the article, which as I mentioned I take with a grain of salt anyway - particularly since Rosenstein has disavowed it so strongly.

never on the up and up

Sorry, maybe I've had one too many hits from the snake - I still don't get the "up and up" part. Is the theory now that the Mueller appointment was only done *to make Trump crazy*, which they'd catch on tape? Or some similar conspiracy theory?

Does anyone even remember any more that Comey, Rosenstein, and Mueller are all Republicans?

1788

And I'll repeat my question: Is the rest of the country so browbeaten that they'll let that sorry collection of human beings just work their will without resistance? What do Collins, Murkowski, Flake and Corker have to say? What about the voters 46 days from now?

For me, this falls in a similar category to impeachment. I've been saying over and over that any impeachment/removal case had better be airtight and pristine...like there'd better be TWO smoking guns pristine.

This revelation about Rosenstein pretty much cripples any case to be made for invoking the 25th anytime, short of Trump leaving the Oval Office in a straitjacket or video of him handing the keys to Putin.

It's an interesting story that opens with several paragraphs flatly stating Rosenstein has said and done various things, with no indication of its sourcing, then followed by several rather vague paragraphs on the sourcing that only mention Andy McCabe by name, before getting to Rosenstein's denial in the 7th paragraph:

I have to admit.

I am deeply amused by all the Cult45ists who keep pretending all the many references to 25th Amendment problems and discussions, Trump is crazy this and that, yada yada - keep pretending it's always the first time we've heard such a thing.

I guess that Obama Microwave that got bolted to the wall of the WH break room and gained sentience just keeps pumping that same lie to the all the different #FAKENEWS! and #FAKEBOOK! authors, right?

Chelsea Hotel (Hotel Chelsea?).

Legendary in literary and rock 'n' roll circles. It's where Sid killed Nancy...

Leonard Cohen also lived at the Chelsea Hotel, and there is a plaque on the front commemorating that fact. When he died a few years ago, there was a makeshift memorial there.

The hotel closed in 2011 for renovations and is supposed to reopen this year, although permanent residents were allowed to stay through the renovations. The upper levels facade looks very nice from the outside, although the lower levels are still obscured by scaffolding.

Does it have a sort of diner-esque restaurant that is never open, vaguely western-themed (or named or something)?

There's a restaurant on the ground floor called El Quijote which also closed last year for renovations. There's also a great donut place called the Doughnut Plant which has remained open.

Rosenstein is probably also “Anonymous.” If not him, then someone else in the meetings in which the 25th was (preposterously) discussed.

Flip.