Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, September 17, 2018

OTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt

Kavanaugh described the baseball tickets as part of a group purchase divided amongst friends and avid Washington Nationals fans. Kavanaugh estimated he has attended “a couple hundred games” over the period of 2005 through 2017, when he purchased four season tickets, and also playoff ticket packages for the four years the Nationals reached the National League playoffs.

“I have attended all 11 Nationals home playoff games in their history,” Kavanaugh noted in his answers. “(We are 3-8 in those games.)”
His rationale for the tickets: “I am a huge sports fan.”

Beyond his baseball fandom, Kavanaugh noted in response to questions that has “not had gambling debts or participated in ‘fantasy’ leagues.”

 

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 17, 2018 at 09:05 AM | 2479 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nationals, off topic, politics, washington

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 22 of 25 pages ‹ First  < 20 21 22 23 24 >  Last ›
   2101. TVerik. Old Java Rodney. Posted: September 23, 2018 at 01:37 AM (#5749828)
He would never say this, but my eyes are on Mitchy to start making movements that indicate that Kavs should withdraw.

We know that he will quickly dispose of stuff he believes in if it gains a tactical advantage. And while he may indeed believe that Kavs didn't do it, I think the incentives are pretty clear that Kavanaugh should go.

The R's - particularly in the Senate - would be given a rather significant electoral boost in November if there is an open Court seat on election day for the voters to focus on. The base is dispirited and un-energized, but SC seats have gotten them out to vote before.

The alternative is that the old white men on Judiciary give a woman a rough time on TV. It's very hard to imagine even suburban white Republican women going out to vote on Election Day and pulling the lever for the bullies of Anita Hill 2.0. Any investigation will either prove it or will not, but I think it's very unlikely to exonerate him completely. If he is granted a lifetime appointment, this is going to hang over his head and there will be questions of his legitimacy forever.

Due to the accusation alone - and I have no idea whether it's true - his position is rather untenable and is more likely to become worse than better.
   2102. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 02:19 AM (#5749829)
He would never say this, but my eyes are on Mitchy to start making movements that indicate that Kavs should withdraw.
. . .
The alternative is that the old white men on Judiciary give a woman a rough time on TV. It's very hard to imagine even suburban white Republican women going out to vote on Election Day and pulling the lever for the bullies of Anita Hill 2.0.

I think that is spectacularly wrong. McConnell has the votes, he's not interested in the nomination being withdrawn. I also don't think the GOP has much to fear from Ford's testimony. Those projecting a backlash from cross-examining Ford are either wishcasting or don't understand how cross-examination works in a case like this. It's not like some overly dramatic TV show - no one will be yelling at Ford. The goal will be to simply have her acknowledge all the gaps, inconsistencies, and contradictions in her story. There is a ton of material already public, and I'd bet the Majority Party Staff has developed considerably more useful information. The cross-examination is likely to be extremely polite, and very effective. As for Kavanaugh, his performance at the earlier hearing suggests he'll do fine in this round. Over-the-top questioning by the Democratic Senators risks a backlash, too, and I'm not sure those folks will be able to restrain themselves when their base thinks blood is in the air and presidential aspirants are auditioning for the frenzied mob. Ford hasn't named a single corrobative witness, and I wouldn't be surprised if she comes up with a last-minute excuse to avoid testifying.
   2103. TVerik. Old Java Rodney. Posted: September 23, 2018 at 02:31 AM (#5749830)
No one yelled at Hill. But watching those hearings today, there is no question in my mind they could and should have been much less of a circus.

Joe Biden: "So much has changed about how the public understands the pressure on women. And I've learned a lot, as well too," he said. "She should not have to go through what Anita Hill went through and some of the questions that she got asked and the way the right went after her on national television and questioned her integrity and questioned her, not just her honesty, questioned her behavior."
   2104. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:06 AM (#5749833)
At the time of the Thomas-Hill hearing, more people believed Thomas. Hill didn't have a single corrobative co-worker, and changed her story repeatedly. Many of the memorable incidents in Hill's hearing testimony were not even mentioned in her affidavit. Hill tried to to finesse that by claiming the FBI Agents interviewing her told her she didn't have to mention anything that was "too embarrassing", but both FBI Agents who interviewed Hill firmly denied that. In contrast, numerous EEOC employees supported Thomas' version of events. Biden is just trying to cover his ass, since he wasn't able to keep Hill from looking bad. A Democratic Senate confirmed Thomas. Public perception may have changed a bit, since the anti-Thomas folks have continued to attack him, while he's remainied mostly silent due to the nature of his position, but if the hearing were re-run today, the result would be the same. Again, for all the reasons listed in #2102, the threat of a backlash is being vastly overstated. If Ford & the Dems thought she was able to win the battle for public opinion, she wouldn't have been so reluctant to testify.
   2105. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:33 AM (#5749834)
that's largely her fault.

DMN's feelings about Ford summed up in one snippet.
   2106. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 08:51 AM (#5749841)
There is a ton of material already public, and I'd bet the Majority Party Staff has developed considerably more useful information.

Yes, I'm sure they've got at least half a dozen more doppelgangers just waiting in the wings. Crazy Eddie Whelan is on the case!

Public perception may have changed a bit, since the anti-Thomas folks have continued to attack him, while he's remainied mostly silent due to the nature of his position,

Maybe Thomas should drop a few hints to that junkyard dog wife of his about leaving well enough alone.
WASHINGTON — Nearly 20 years after Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Justice Thomas’s wife has called Ms. Hill, seeking an apology.

In a voice mail message left at 7:31 a.m. on Oct. 9, a Saturday, Virginia Thomas asked her husband’s former aide-turned-adversary to make amends. Ms. Hill played the recording, from her voice mail at Brandeis University, for The New York Times.

“Good morning Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas,” it said. “I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.”

Ms. Thomas went on: “So give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day.”

Ms. Hill, in an interview, said she had kept the message for nearly a week trying to decide whether the caller really was Ms. Thomas or a prankster. Unsure, she said, she decided to turn it over to the Brandeis campus police with a request to convey it the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

“I thought it was certainly inappropriate,” Ms. Hill said. “It came in at 7:30 a.m. on my office phone from somebody I didn’t know, and she is asking for an apology. It was not invited. There was no background for it.”

In a statement conveyed through a publicist, Ms. Thomas confirmed leaving the message, which she portrayed as a peacemaking gesture. She did not explain its timing.

“I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get past what happened so long ago,” she said. “That offer still stands. I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended.”...

Oh, of course not!

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

that's largely her fault.

DMN's every Republican's feelings about Ford summed up in one snippet.

FIFY
   2107. BDC Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:41 AM (#5749845)
At the time of the Thomas-Hill hearing, more people believed Thomas


At the time of the Thomas-Hill hearing, way more people believed that office banter of the sort Hill reported was all in a day's fun, and that women should toughen up and be good broads about it.
   2108. dlf Posted: September 23, 2018 at 09:59 AM (#5749847)
I think that anyone *credibly* claimed to have committed attempted rape should serve as a Supreme Court Justice even if it wasn't enough for either criminal conviction or adverse civil finding.

Wouldn't that require a constitutional amendment to expand the size of the Supreme Court?


Ahh, damn.

That's a very very low standard. Virtually any accusation that doesn't violate the laws of physics would be sufficient to constitute probable cause. I know you say that you're not speaking of Ford specifically, but there's nothing about her claim that's incredible.

I understand the argument that we're talking about a near-irrevocable decision to put someone on the court, but preponderance still seems low to me.


Thanks for the reply David, but unless I've missed it in the 100+ posts after this one, you don't answer the question of what standard you think should apply. If preponderance "seems low" does that mean you think it too low? Again, what standard do you apply?

And yes, I know that the probable cause standard I propose is very low. That is intentional. We aren't taking away someone's liberty via criminal trial and not taking away their property via a civil trial but deciding whether the person is ethically fit to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, something that should demand the absolute best of all of us.

The one thing that I would additionally point out is that I think you are thinking of probable cause as if only one side is presenting is case-in-chief such as the issuance of a warrant. In that and parallel situations, we do get the proverbial indictment of ham sandwiches. But in this type of situation, both pro and con would be presented.

...

And since I'm the only one continually beating the dead horse of the CFPB, the Bureau, together with the Fed, FDIC, NCUA, and Comptroller of Currency just formally announced that supervisory guidance is not one and the same as properly promulgated regulations. PDF. It was a sad chapter indeed when the government sanctioned behavior without making the rules known to the participants. Cordray's view of the CFPB was that of a third-world despot.

Oh, and one other thing that I found interesting about the joint statement from those regulatory agencies: despite DJT's histrionics about Bezos, the release from these executive agencies was promulgated via Amazon Web Services.
   2109. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:09 AM (#5749849)
This photo is now over a month old, but it's still worth posting for its unintentional humor.

WOMEN FOR KAVANAUGH
   2110. Howie Menckel Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:22 AM (#5749850)
I understand why Rs want legal counsel to ask the accuser questions, and I understand why Ds want to make the old white male R Senators ask the questions.

but why does the accuser want the latter? wouldn't it be less stressful for her to hear questions from counsel, maybe especially if it is a woman?
   2111. , Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:39 AM (#5749852)
At the time of the Thomas-Hill hearing, way more people believed that office banter of the sort Hill reported was all in a day's fun, and that women should toughen up and be good broads about it.

This is my perception as well. People believed Hill. They just didn't think it represented any kind of problem.
   2112. perros Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:53 AM (#5749855)
Kavenaugh's Old Boys Club

Taking down this white male privilege is far more important than disqualifying an oldboy judge.
   2113. perros Posted: September 23, 2018 at 10:55 AM (#5749857)
but why does the accuser want the latter? wouldn't it be less stressful for her to hear questions from counsel, maybe especially if it is a woman?


Your being disingenuous, or you're an idiot.
   2114. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:44 AM (#5749867)
@heidiprzbyla:
Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser won’t change his mind, no matter what she says.
“What am I supposed to do? Go ahead and ruin this guy’s life based on an accusation?"
   2115. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:52 AM (#5749869)
@KT_So_It_Goes:
my take on the kavanaugh debacle remains unchanged: I don’t know what happened, none of the known facts can corroborate *or* contradict, none of the witnesses can corroborate *or* contradict, a public hearing will be an epic disaster for the GOP, and the GOP knows it
frankly I hope they go through with it just for the sheer spectacle of forcing their nominee to answer questions about ed whelan’s zillow game theory and boozing blackouts to own the libs
   2116. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 23, 2018 at 12:06 PM (#5749875)
Red Team:: If Ford really was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh when they were teenagers, but she had no way of proving it, what should she have done? Reached out to Kavanaugh directly to talk about it? Kept it to herself? Option C?

Blue Team: If Ford testifies that Kavanaugh attacked her at a house party in the 80s, and Kavanaugh can’t prove that he is innocent, should that disqualify him from the Supreme Court?
   2117. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 23, 2018 at 12:43 PM (#5749882)
Blue Team: If Ford testifies that Kavanaugh attacked her at a house party in the 80s, and Kavanaugh can’t prove that he is innocent, should that disqualify him from the Supreme Court?


People seem to love the word "disqualify" as if it had some magical objective value to it. In this context it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

If enough Senators vote for K he becomes a Supreme Court Justice. Obvious, banal even, but still words like "disqualify" purposefully minimize the banal reality. There is no qualify or disqualify, there is vote for or vote against (and the non-Senator corollary support Senators voting for and against).

And voting for or against is the accumulation of many factors, those factors form a continuum, with different people choosing different points for the yes/no demarcation.

And pretty much all the Democratic Senators have already said they are voting against and likewise the Republican Senators are voting for. It doesn't matter what the liberals think qualifies or not, the GOP has the votes. They matter here, what they want to do, their political calculation, what they believe.
   2118. tshipman Posted: September 23, 2018 at 12:44 PM (#5749883)
And since I'm the only one continually beating the dead horse of the CFPB, the Bureau, together with the Fed, FDIC, NCUA, and Comptroller of Currency just formally announced that supervisory guidance is not one and the same as properly promulgated regulations. PDF. It was a sad chapter indeed when the government sanctioned behavior without making the rules known to the participants. Cordray's view of the CFPB was that of a third-world despot.

Oh, and one other thing that I found interesting about the joint statement from those regulatory agencies: despite DJT's histrionics about Bezos, the release from these executive agencies was promulgated via Amazon Web Services.


Industry source supports regulations in theory, just not this regulation.

Somehow that perfect regulation is out there, but we never attain it. Strange how capture works ...
   2119. bobm Posted: September 23, 2018 at 12:55 PM (#5749884)
If Ford really was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh when they were teenagers, but she had no way of proving it, what should she have done? Reached out to Kavanaugh directly to talk about it? Kept it to herself? Option C?

Definitely not Option J. (Don't kill me for the joke.)

Seriously, if it's true, what choice did she have now? It seems like coming forward looking for anonymity and hoping for Kavanaugh simply to withdraw was optimistic in this day and age.
   2120. bobm Posted: September 23, 2018 at 12:58 PM (#5749886)
And pretty much all the Democratic Senators have already said they are voting against and likewise the Republican Senators are voting for. It doesn't matter what the liberals think qualifies or not, the GOP has the votes. They matter here, what they want to do, their political calculation, what they believe.

If not Kavanaugh, they likely get Amy Barrett.
   2121. perros Posted: September 23, 2018 at 01:11 PM (#5749889)
Welles' The Stranger playing on TCM. His Nazi imposter, Charles Rankin, is teaching rich kids in Connecticut and engaged to the daughter of a Supreme Court justice.
   2122. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 01:14 PM (#5749890)
Chris Lu:
Poll conducted for RNC finds that Pelosi is more popular than Trump - and she beats Trump when the midterms are framed as a contest between the two.
Bloomberg:
The internal poll, conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and obtained by Bloomberg Businessweek, asks registered voters who they support “when the November election is framed by Trump and Pelosi.” Overall, respondents prefer Pelosi-aligned candidates over Trump-aligned candidates by 5 points, 50 percent to 45 percent. Among independents only, Pelosi still prevails by a 4-point margin.

........What makes the internal poll results so tantalizing — and embarrassing for Trump — is that Republicans have spent years gleefully caricaturing Pelosi as the embodiment of effete, out-of-touch coastal liberalism.

...........Facing the likelihood of Democratic advances in November, Republican strategists are eager to frame the midterm elections in a way that will minimize the damage. So they may stick with the tried-and-true approach of attacking Pelosi — even though their own party’s poll shows her outperforming Trump. The alternatives are worse. The RNC survey finds that on a generic congressional ballot, voters favor the Democratic candidate by 9 points over the Republican.

................A spokesperson for the RNC declined to comment.
Seems like 78 is the new 72.
   2123. BrianBrianson Posted: September 23, 2018 at 01:21 PM (#5749895)
Taking down this white male privilege is far more important than disqualifying an oldboy judge.


I keep forgetting I'm the only white guy who didn't go to private school with other children of millionaires.
   2124. perros Posted: September 23, 2018 at 01:22 PM (#5749897)
A group of his students intercept Rankin on campus, pausing to wolf whistle at a passing girl.

   2125. perros Posted: September 23, 2018 at 01:24 PM (#5749899)
It's not white guys, it's white guy rule.
   2126. Swoboda is freedom Posted: September 23, 2018 at 01:24 PM (#5749900)
If Ford really was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh when they were teenagers, but she had no way of proving it, what should she have done? Reached out to Kavanaugh directly to talk about it? Kept it to herself? Option C?

I think she was hoping that if she came out with the story, maybe some other women would also reveal similar stories (a la Harvey Weinstein) and she could stay partially anonymous.
   2127. perros Posted: September 23, 2018 at 01:27 PM (#5749902)
Beyond Kane, Welles is genetally too over the top for me. I like Lady from Shanghai and Touch of Evil for what they are, but they're hard to re-watch. Likewise The Trial. I like thatbhe was on a leash for The Stranger.
   2128. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 01:37 PM (#5749909)
Nike's value has gone up $6 billion in the two and a half weeks since they unveiled the Colin Kaepernick ad. For once, an economic victory legitimately caused by Donald Trump.
"Nike is getting absolutely killed with anger and boycotts. I wonder if they had any idea that it would be this way?"
   2129. Traderdave Posted: September 23, 2018 at 01:57 PM (#5749917)
   2130. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 01:59 PM (#5749918)

I understand why Rs want legal counsel to ask the accuser questions, and I understand why Ds want to make the old white male R Senators ask the questions.

but why does the accuser want the latter? wouldn't it be less stressful for her to hear questions from counsel, maybe especially if it is a woman?
The answer is obvious: this isn't about investigating what Kavanaugh supposedly did; it's about keeping him off the court. Thus, she doesn't want to be effectively questioned. She thinks that forcing the senators to do it will either require them to handle her gently or alternatively make them look bad and lead to an anti-Kavanaugh backlash.
   2131. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 23, 2018 at 02:20 PM (#5749924)
 2129. Traderdave Posted: September 23, 2018 at 01:57 PM (#5749917)

Somehow Clapper forgot to cut and paste the part where Keyser believes Ford


bad link
   2132. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 02:23 PM (#5749925)
Nate Silver:
The fact that the GOP doesn't want Judge to testify is a pretty big tell that they're worried about inquiries into Kavanaugh's drinking/partying habits. Whether they're worried about the substance of those inquires or merely their "optics", I don't know.

It's also possible that it becomes clear after Thursday's testimony that Judge will need to testify, in which case by not subpoenaing him now you're just going to add more delays to the process.
   2133. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 02:25 PM (#5749926)
2129. Traderdave Posted: September 23, 2018 at 01:57 PM (#5749917)
Somehow Clapper forgot to cut and paste the part where Keyser believes Ford

That link goes nowhere, so I have no idea what point Traderdave is trying to make, but whatever it is, it's awfully weak. In #2089, and again in #2096, I quoted the entire statement from the attorney for Leland Ingham Keyser. Here, I'll do it again:
"Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," said Howard Walsh, who said he has been "engaged in the limited capacity" of corresponding with the committee on behalf of Keyser.

I've seen nothing retracting or contradicting that statement in any manner. Every person Ford has named disputes her account, and they have all done so under penalty of perjury, while Ford has so far steadfastly refused to give her story under oath. At every turn, the so-called evidence Ford offers to corroborate her story contradicts it.
   2134. dlf Posted: September 23, 2018 at 02:33 PM (#5749928)
Industry source supports regulations in theory, just not this regulation.

Somehow that perfect regulation is out there, but we never attain it. Strange how capture works ...


The problem with the CFPB is not that they had imperfect regulations, but that they had almost none. Instead of promulgating regulations, they just allowed their enforcement to become regulation by leading investigations that lasted years with infinitely deep pockets without ever having to assert what was being investigated. "You did something wrong, but I'm not going to tell you what and you have the burden of proving your innocence" was the Cordray approach to governing. There were deep and long lasting problems in the lending, securitization and servicing industries leading up to the 2007 housing melt-down. Instead of regulating it in a way that effects change with implementation of clear statutory and regulatory language, they just wanted to get a few high profile large dollar "consent orders" that didn't change the underlying behavior. And by doing it this way, Cordray's tenure has been overturned with the mere stroke of a pen once a new administration was in place.

And despite this, to the *very* limited degree that they promulgated any regulation, it was exactly what you complain of. Without going too deep into the weeds, if you were buying a house pre-CFPB, you used to receive a HUD-1 which listed each of the various real estate closing costs on two pages and showed whether it was included in the finance cost, part of the up-front payment or was coming out of the seller's gross. Then, after the CFPB came into existence, they got rid of the HUD-1 and replaced it with the Truth in Lending Act Real Estate Settlement Protection Act Integrated Disclosure - TRID - which resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of reprogramming and compliance costs across the mortgage industry and, at the end, we still have a short (2-4 pages) document which again lists the various closing costs. Dealing with TRID wasn't a big deal to the mega-lenders, whether bank or non-bank, but caused incredible havoc for the small lenders for NO BENEFIT TO THE CONSUMER.
   2135. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 02:41 PM (#5749931)
Somehow Clapper forgot to cut and paste the part where Keyser believes Ford
Well, that's not really the relevant part. A random person's personal belief without knowledge has no value. Keyser might be able to serve as a character witness for Ford, but that's a different issue from whether she believes her.

The point is, Ford claimed this happened with five people present. Four of them have now denied it or denied any knowledge of it. The only person who claims this 36-year old event happened, and in the way she says it happened, is Ford herself -- the only one who has yet to make a formal statement. Moreover, Keyser's denial is not merely about whether the assault happened. Keyser's statement is much broader: she denies knowing Kavanaugh or ever having been at a party with him. Obviously the fact that she and Ford were friends does not mean that they knew all of the same people. But if she never knew Kavanaugh at all and she was Ford's friend, it's less likely that Ford knew Kavanaugh well enough that she can be certain of her ID.

Moreover, Ford has tried to rebut Keyser's denial by saying, in essence, "Well, Ford didn't tell her about it at the time, so there's no reason why Keyser would remember the party." Perhaps, in the abstract. But Ford's testimony is that she was at a party with her friend and then this assault happened and she ran out of the party and went home. One would think that Keyser indeed might remember her friend doing that. One might think that the next day she'd have seen or called her friend and said, "Hey, what happened? Why did you ditch me?" But Keyser doesn't remember any such party at all.
   2136. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 02:45 PM (#5749932)
Industry source supports regulations in theory, just not this regulation.

Somehow that perfect regulation is out there, but we never attain it. Strange how capture works ...
Your response makes no sense, either in general or in particular.

In general, you have the dynamic backwards: industry sources oppose regulations in theory, but support actual regulations because of regulatory capture. It enables them to craft regulations to protect their own industry positions and limit competition.

In particular, I have no idea what you mean by "this regulation." The post wasn't about a specific regulation; the post was about the regulatory process, in which the Obama administration would issue things that they claimed had the legal force of regulations, but without going through the appropriate notice-and-comment process.

EDIT: Or, as YC and DLF say, just implement their pseudo-regulations through the enforcement process.
   2137. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 02:45 PM (#5749933)
Instead of promulgating regulations, they just allowed their enforcement to become regulation by leading investigations that lasted years with infinitely deep pockets without ever having to assert what was being investigated.

Federal agencies avoiding the on-the-record rulemaking process for promulgateing regulations should be a major scandal. Time after time agencies opt for various forms of "policy guidance" that are administratively easier than rulemaking, and avoid all that messy public input (except for those the agency wants to listen to) and accountability. Or, as noted in #2134, they just go directly to litigation without ever providing any guidance. The government should have higher standards.
   2138. BrianBrianson Posted: September 23, 2018 at 02:46 PM (#5749934)
It's not white guys, it's white guy rule.


And yet when people who aren't white guys are in ruling positions, they don't act any differently. It's almost like the actual issue is the unaccountability of those with power.
   2139. perros Posted: September 23, 2018 at 02:51 PM (#5749938)
Every person Ford has named disputes her account


Nobody attempted to rape them.
   2140. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 02:52 PM (#5749940)
Dave Wasserman offers a handicapping tip for these next six weeks:
I can only think of a handful of House incumbents who consistently trailed in late polls and won. Two that come to mind are John Tierney (D) and Jim Matheson (D), both in 2012.

Hypothetically skipping past 2018 to 2020, those were also the last elections either Tierney and Matheson won. In 2012, Tierney survived by 4,300 votes before being handily defeated in 2014; Matheson held on by 768 votes and sensibly developed a yen for family time-spending in 2014. So for any such surprise survivors this year, there's an old saying in Tennessee: "Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me, you can't get fooled again."
   2141. perros Posted: September 23, 2018 at 02:56 PM (#5749943)

And yet when people who aren't white guys are in ruling positions, they don't act any differently. It's almost like the actual issue is the unaccountability of those with power.


We're talking the historical specificity of a White Supremicist United States. There's excellent evidence on why a handful of minority individuals can't challenge the prevailing system. Create an equitable, diverse system and you work to curb the excesses when any one group is in power. In this instance, a group which has acted with impunity in committing high crimes and misdemeanors.
   2142. dlf Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:01 PM (#5749945)
I'd say one more thing about the "policy guidance" that TYC mentions in 2137 and was addressed in the link I provided in 2108 ... the policy statements issued by Cordray were used offensively by the Bureau but could not be used defensively by those regulated. That is, the Bureau would assert in litigation that the failure to follow guidance was worthy of significant fine, but if a lender claimed to have acted in accordance with the guidance, the Bureau asserted that it was not controlling on itself. This is basically the same as something which more of the readers here are probably familiar with: the long-standing problem that a call to the IRS help line can result in an incorrect piece of advice which, if you follow it, can turn into significant down-stream costs when you are audited.
   2143. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:02 PM (#5749948)
If Ford really was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh when they were teenagers, but she had no way of proving it, what should she have done? Reached out to Kavanaugh directly to talk about it? Kept it to herself? Option C?

Definitely not Option J. (Don't kill me for the joke.)

Seriously, if it's true, what choice did she have now? It seems like coming forward looking for anonymity and hoping for Kavanaugh simply to withdraw was optimistic in this day and age.
She had multiple choices. She could get over it. She could come forward publicly. She could reach out to her friends from that era and try to find someone to corroborate her claims (either as direct witnesses to the events or as people who could say that they also saw Kavanaugh behaving badly.) She could call the FBI and tell them that she had information about Kavanaugh. She could reach out to Kavanaugh (I don't mean personally -- I mean via people working on the nomination) and warn him that if he doesn't withdraw she's going to come forward.

I think her actual choice was pretty much the only illegitimate one: to come forward anonymously without being willing to come forward publicly.
   2144. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:04 PM (#5749949)
Speaking of untrustworthy posters, here's what MS-13 posted:
2114. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:44 AM (#5749867)
@heidiprzbyla:
Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser won’t change his mind, no matter what she says.
“What am I supposed to do? Go ahead and ruin this guy’s life based on an accusation?"

And here's what Graham actually said
“What am I supposed to do, go and ruin this guy’s life based on an accusation?” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said on “Fox News Sunday.” “I don’t know when it happened, I don’t know where it happened, and everybody named in regard to being there said it didn’t happen. I’m just being honest: Unless there’s something more, no, I’m not going to ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life over this.” [emphasis added]

Graham clearly indicated that an uncorroborated accusation, that's actually contradicted by the available evidence, wouldn't be sufficient reason to vote against Kavanaugh. He also indicated that it might be different if there's "something more". Seems pretty fair, far more so than those insisting evidence doesn't matter. Which explains why #2114 truncated Graham's comment to distort its meaning. Never trust a MS-13 admirer.
   2145. perros Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:10 PM (#5749952)
I’m not going to ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life over this


Yeah, he'll be ruined if he's not confirmed for one of the nine cushiest jobs in America.

   2146. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:11 PM (#5749953)
Never trust a MS-13 admirer.


You just made Steve Massengill cry.
   2147. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:12 PM (#5749954)
Johnny Perez:
To all the men feeling attacked right now... maybe you should try smiling.
   2148. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:13 PM (#5749955)
She had multiple choices. She could get over it. She could come forward publicly. She could reach out to her friends from that era and try to find someone to corroborate her claims (either as direct witnesses to the events or as people who could say that they also saw Kavanaugh behaving badly.) She could call the FBI and tell them that she had information about Kavanaugh. She could reach out to Kavanaugh (I don't mean personally -- I mean via people working on the nomination) and warn him that if he doesn't withdraw she's going to come forward.

I think her actual choice was pretty much the only illegitimate one: to come forward anonymously without being willing to come forward publicly.

Shorter DMN: that's largely her fault.
   2149. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:15 PM (#5749957)
I guess the better question for Team Blue would be:

Suppose the week before Sotomayor’s confirmation vote, a former high school classmate claimed Sotomayor had tried to rape her at a house party in the 80s. The classmate testifies before the Senate, and Sotomayor is unable to prove her innocence (due to the lack of specifics in the claim). Would you still support her nomination, or would this new evidence make you believe her nomination should be withdrawn (or that the Senate should now vote against her)?
   2150. Morty Causa Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:17 PM (#5749959)
Did Ford tell her mother or father what had happened to her, either at the time or later?
   2151. Avoid Running At All Times- S. Paige Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:19 PM (#5749962)
2149-probably would think she shouldn’t be confirmed unless the accuser was easily discredited as a loon.
   2152. Avoid Running At All Times- S. Paige Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:23 PM (#5749965)
2150- if she didn’t, there are obvious reasons for her keeping it a secret. For example, the shame she might have felt or something as practical as not wanting her parents to know she was at a late night party where alcohol was being drunk.
   2153. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:24 PM (#5749966)
Thanks for the reply David, but unless I've missed it in the 100+ posts after this one, you don't answer the question of what standard you think should apply. If preponderance "seems low" does that mean you think it too low? Again, what standard do you apply?
I guess upon reflection I would go with preponderance. It does still seem low to me -- but for a SCOTUS nomination, clear & convincing seems far too high.
And yes, I know that the probable cause standard I propose is very low. That is intentional. We aren't taking away someone's liberty via criminal trial and not taking away their property via a civil trial but deciding whether the person is ethically fit to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, something that should demand the absolute best of all of us.
I'm not convinced by that argument, the same one we hear in Title IX cases: "We're not talking about criminal consequences. We're only talking about whether the person can continue to go to school." No, we're not talking about criminal consequences, but branding someone a rapist and kicking them out of school or firing them is not afterschool detention. You're going to say that it's about promoting him to SCOTUS, but if we believe he's an attempted rapist, how can he serve as an appellate judge either? It would be one thing if this had happened privately early in the process and he was given the option to withdraw his name from consideration (or the WH was given the option to pick someone else). But at this point, a rejection is a de facto finding that he's guilty.
The one thing that I would additionally point out is that I think you are thinking of probable cause as if only one side is presenting is case-in-chief such as the issuance of a warrant. In that and parallel situations, we do get the proverbial indictment of ham sandwiches. But in this type of situation, both pro and con would be presented.
I'm not sure what you're describing, but that's not really probable cause, then. One does not negate probable cause merely by coming forth with contrary evidence that outweighs it. You would actually have to prove that the evidence that has been used to support probable cause is false to negate the existence of PC. So, for instance, in the instant case, her accusation by itself would be sufficient to support PC; you'd essentially have to prove she was lying -- not merely cast doubt on her story -- to negate PC.
   2154. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:26 PM (#5749968)
Shorter DMN: that's largely her fault.
Well, it's certainly not my fault that she did not tell a friend, parent, doctor, relative, counselor, or cop. Whatever happened to BM's favorite personal responsibility?
   2155. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:28 PM (#5749971)

I should supplement my 2143: ideally if her goal were to keep Kavanaugh off the court without having to expose herself, she should've come forward privately before he was nominated. If she had made a credible accusation to the FBI then, she (and we) could have avoided this entire spectacle.
   2156. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:31 PM (#5749975)
Ford is now scheduled to appear before the Committee at 10:00 Thursday morning. So much for those predictions that she was trying to back out. We'll see if those big brave Republican Senators will show similar courage, and not hide behind a lawyer wearing a skirt.
"We committed to moving forward with an open hearing on Thursday Sept. 27 at 10 a.m.,” Ford’s attorneys said in a statement, noting that their client had agreed to appear despite the committee’s refusal to let her speak after Kavanaugh’s testimony or to interview other people she said were present at the party where she alleges Kavanaugh assaulted her during the early 1980s.

Ford’s attorneys said they had not been informed whether Republican staffers or senators would be asking questions of her, though it is customary during public hearings for the members to put questions to the witnesses.
   2157. perros Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:31 PM (#5749976)
I'm taking personal responsibility for ignoring Nieporent from now on. Unless I need to vomit.
   2158. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:50 PM (#5749990)
So much for those predictions that she was trying to back out. We'll see if those big brave Republican Senators will show similar courage, and not hide behind a lawyer wearing a skirt.

Ford hasn't testified yet. Given all the evidence contradicting her account, I still wouldn't be surprised if she backed out, although that would destroy any remaining credibility she had. Frankly, I don't see how Ford survives cross-examination, either. Her options are quite limited, which seems to explain why we already have all these posts complaining that Ford may actually be asked questions that are difficult for her to answer. Or that those questions might come from a staff attorney rather than a Senator. Or <gasp> that attorney might be a female. Such moaning & groaning about who asks the questions doesn't display much confidence in Ford, although it does demonstrate Andy's sexism.
   2159. Morty Causa Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:50 PM (#5749992)
Every day, every hour, someone feels that he or she has been wronged in some way--from the trivial to the maliciously severe. From a mere social solecism to a grievous legal injury. And they don't report it or seek recourse in some way. And they may have--it is to be presumed--perfectly plausible, perfectly understandable, reasons for not following through. Nevertheless, with all that in mind, do we really want to foster a system that says that doesn't matter? That he or she's bona fides are not to be tested or questioned but are to be taken at face value? Please think about that. Think about the abuse of such deference that is bound to eventuate if we decided to operate like that (and all too often we do).
   2160. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:55 PM (#5749997)
Whatever happened to BM's favorite personal responsibility?


You are being dumb on purpose, which is not a good look.

What post have I written on this subject which leads you to believe I don't accept personal responsibility? Seriously you are being ridiculous.

If Ford was attacked as she says then her not telling people at the time doesn't mean she wasn't attacked you idiot. It doesn't exonerate her attacker in the slightest.

Her account is of course stronger if she did tell other people at the time, but her telling or not doesn't change what actually happened in the slightest.
   2161. tshipman Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:01 PM (#5750003)
Suppose the week before Sotomayor’s confirmation vote, a former high school classmate claimed Sotomayor had tried to rape her at a house party in the 80s. The classmate testifies before the Senate, and Sotomayor is unable to prove her innocence (due to the lack of specifics in the claim). Would you still support her nomination, or would this new evidence make you believe her nomination should be withdrawn (or that the Senate should now vote against her)?


1. This is not apples/apples due to how and how often men/women commit and report sexual assault. It's incredibly uncommon for a woman to attempt to forcibly undress a man.
2. If those accusations met certain basic low thresholds (did the victim know hypo D justice, did the victim have a history of making false claims), then yeah, I'd support withdrawing the nomination.
3. In the real world, we have actual examples, like Al Franken where Ds *actually did* force a sitting senator to resign, with the Ds on this board supporting that decision.
   2162. Morty Causa Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:03 PM (#5750005)
2161

It doesn't change what happened. And the same thing could be said from his point of view. The question is, does it change the degree of credibility? Absolutes, one way or the other, are irrelevant to this issue, for that is not how we decide such things.
   2163. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:08 PM (#5750009)
Hilarious to see the person who celebrated the "twin Kavanaughs" lunacy during its mayfly existence thinking he has valuable insight into someone's lack of credibility.
   2164. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:09 PM (#5750012)
If Ford was attacked as she says then her not telling people at the time


...puts her among the vast majority of cases. According to the DOJ, 65% of rapes go unreported. Now this allegation wasn't rape, but attempted rape. I'm going to take a wild guess that attempted rape is reported even less often. The 65% number is from 2014. I'm going to make another wild guess that numbers from the 80's are even lower, and the numbers among teenagers lower still. The numbers may exist but I'm not going to try to look for them, but I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers for teens in the 80's reporting attempted rape are less than 1 in 10.
   2165. tshipman Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:09 PM (#5750013)
It doesn't change what happened. And the same thing could be said from his point of view. The question is, does it change the degree of credibility? Absolutes, one way or the other, are irrelevant to this issue, for that is not how we decide such things.


Of course it does. We're all (save Clapper) engaging in Bayesian reasoning here.

When evaluating a claim, we think to ourselves, how likely is this claim, and we evaluate that off what we know of the world, both from our experience, and from what we've learned from others.

When evaluating a claim that some high school kid in the 80's got drunk and tried to grope + possibly rape someone while his buddy was cheering him on, I evaluate how likely I think that is to occur. One factor is that I know it's something that happened with some relative frequency.

If someone claimed that a high school kid in the 80's abducted someone with the help of aliens, and tried to grope/rape someone, I'd evaluate that claim differently.

A woman trying to forcibly sexually assault a man isn't *quite* into alien abduction territory, but it's getting close.
   2166. BrianBrianson Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:15 PM (#5750016)
We're talking the historical specificity of a White Supremicist United States.


And assigning responsibility to that specificity, even though the actual behaviour is in no sense remarkable, and is incredibly common in the vast majority of societies.
   2167. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:17 PM (#5750017)
When evaluating a claim, we think to ourselves, how likely is this claim, and we evaluate that off what we know of the world, both from our experience, and from what we've learned from others.


In addition to that, in this case I look at the consequences for all involved if she is deliberately lying. It would be horrible for her, horrible for Kavanaugh, and horrible for all women who suffered actual attacks in the past and future. She would have to be a monster to risk all that for a political victory or whatever her motivation might be. Since I don't assume people are monsters without evidence, I'm inclined to believe her.

That said, if it's nothing more than her story, his denial, and no other evidence in her favor, if I had been inclined to vote yes for confirmation before any of this, I would probably still vote yes.
   2168. Swoboda is freedom Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:20 PM (#5750018)
If Ford was attacked as she says then her not telling people at the time


I can totally see Ford not telling anyone. She was 15, at a party, and was drinking (only one beer she claims). Telling her parents would be out of the question, and she might have not told her friends as it might be embarrassing. She did tell a therapist, but that was 30 years after.

I go back and forth on Kavanaugh. People who do this sort of thing, usually do it more than once. There is a chance that Ford either misremembers. I do not think she is making it up for political gain. We are not convicting him of a crime however, the Senate is deciding if he gets a top job.
   2169. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:23 PM (#5750020)
In the real world, we have actual examples, like Al Franken where Ds *actually did* force a sitting senator to resign, with the Ds on this board supporting that decision.

In Franken's case, there were multiple accusers, contemporaneous corroboration, photographic evidence, and less than definitive denials ("That harassment was a joke."). In Ford's case, all those are lacking with respect to Kavanaugh, just Ford's unsworn, untimely, uncorroborated, and unproven accusation. Most tellingly, all the "evidence" Ford has offered to corroborate her claim actually contradicts it in significant ways.
   2170. Morty Causa Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:26 PM (#5750023)
2164:

That applies to just about all crimes and transgressions. If for no other reason, then the system winnowing likely true from likely false creates hassle, and many people just don't want to get involved in all that hassle. But making it more hassle-free has its negative side. Making it easier to prove something, to bring charges, will lead to more abuse. I'm not sure this is not a choose your poison type thing. Some places at some times have put the onus on the accused to prove his innocence. That is a chilling thought.
   2171. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:27 PM (#5750025)
In Franken's case, there were multiple accusers, contemporaneous corroboration, photographic evidence, and less than definitive denials ("That harassment was a joke."). In Ford's case, all those are lacking with respect to Kavanaugh, just Ford's unsworn, untimely, uncorroborated, and unproven accusation. Most tellingly, all the "evidence" Ford has offered to corroborate her claim actually contradicts it in significant ways.


Do you think she is lying, as in this never happened to her, or something like this did happen to her an she knows it wasn't Kavanaugh but is blaming him anyway?
   2172. perros Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:29 PM (#5750026)

And assigning responsibility to that specificity, even though the actual behaviour is in no sense remarkable, and is incredibly common in the vast majority of societies.


This goes to your whole "all of human evolution led to me and mine, so I'm good to go" attitude. Or more simply whataboutism.
   2173. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:30 PM (#5750027)
What post have I written on this subject which leads you to believe I don't accept personal responsibility? Seriously you are being ridiculous.
The part where you're utterly silent about it when convenient.
If Ford was attacked as she says then her not telling people at the time doesn't mean she wasn't attacked you idiot. It doesn't exonerate her attacker in the slightest.
Tautologically, if she was attacked then by definition nothing exonerates her attacker. So thanks for an empty argument. The issue is whether she was attacked, and if so, by whom. And the lack of evidence in support of her claim has been raised. And for some reason, people object to noting that the lack of evidence is the result of her failing to report it for decades. So I would have thought you would have spoken up and agreed that she bears responsibility for her choice not to report it.
   2174. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:32 PM (#5750030)
Hilarious to see the person who celebrated the "twin Kavanaughs" lunacy during its mayfly existence thinking he has valuable insight into someone's lack of credibility.
There is nothing the least bit loony about the possibility of mistaken identity and/or faulty memory.
   2175. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:34 PM (#5750032)

...puts her among the vast majority of cases. According to the DOJ, 65% of rapes go unreported. Now this allegation wasn't rape, but attempted rape. I'm going to take a wild guess that attempted rape is reported even less often. The 65% number is from 2014. I'm going to make another wild guess that numbers from the 80's are even lower, and the numbers among teenagers lower still. The numbers may exist but I'm not going to try to look for them, but I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers for teens in the 80's reporting attempted rape are less than 1 in 10.
This is wrong. Your data (which I will assume for the sake of argument is accurate without checking) is about reports to law enforcement, not about reports in general. Obviously at least some people who don't report to police do report to someone.
   2176. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:36 PM (#5750033)
So much for those predictions that she was trying to back out. We'll see if those big brave Republican Senators will show similar courage, and not hide behind a lawyer wearing a skirt.

Ford hasn't testified yet. Given all the evidence contradicting her account, I still wouldn't be surprised if she backed out,


Right, even though her lawyer's already agreed to the Thursday schedule.** Keep hope alive!

Oh, and care to put forward any er, material evidence that you actually believe this? Like a small cash wager?

although that would destroy any remaining credibility she had.

Sure, and if Crazy Eddie Whelan can come up with a photo of Ford checking into the HideAway Motel with Joe Manchin, that'd also put Kavanaugh safely over the top.

Frankly, I don't see how Ford survives cross-examination, either. Her options are quite limited, which seems to explain why we already have all these posts complaining that Ford may actually be asked questions that are difficult for her to answer.

Claps, the more you bluster, the skeerder you come off. Other members of your party aren't quite as sanguine about all this as you pretend you are.

Or that those questions might come from a staff attorney rather than a Senator. Or <gasp> that attorney might be a female. Such moaning & groaning about who asks the questions doesn't display much confidence in Ford, although it does demonstrate Andy's sexism.

Right, I'm sure that the reason for those GOP Senators hiding behind a skirt has nothing to do with the optics of 11 old white guys grilling a woman with a story about their hero that's going to ring true to the great majority of women.

** EDIT: Once again, from the Times story:
“Despite actual threats to her safety and her life, Dr. Ford believes it is important for senators to hear directly from her about the sexual assault committed against her,” her lawyers, Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks and Michael R. Bromwich, said in a statement Sunday morning, adding that while some logistical and other details were not yet settled, “they will not impede the hearing taking place.
   2177. perros Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:36 PM (#5750034)

I go back and forth on Kavanaugh.


I had him pinned as a shithead before Ford's accusation came to light, his whole life history points to it, the propaganda "friend to women" points to it. Whalen's "my theory* is more believable than her experience"**points to it.

* allegedly assisted by a PR firm and known in GOP circles ahead of time.

** the common experience of girls in that place and time
   2178. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:41 PM (#5750038)
In the real world, we have actual examples, like Al Franken where Ds *actually did* force a sitting senator to resign, with the Ds on this board supporting that decision.

In Franken's case, there were multiple accusers, contemporaneous corroboration, photographic evidence, and less than definitive denials ("That harassment was a joke.").
It was also right when Roy Moore was running, so Dems had to appear consistent. Now that that's no longer the case, there's been conspicuous silence about Keith Ellison.
   2179. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:43 PM (#5750039)
Hilarious to see the person who celebrated the "twin Kavanaughs" lunacy during its mayfly existence thinking he has valuable insight into someone's lack of credibility.

There is nothing the least bit loony about the possibility of mistaken identity and/or faulty memory.

Ford was acquainted with both Kavanaugh and Doppelganger man, and it was about as horrific an incident that a young woman could possibly suffer through. It's not as if she'd had her purse snatched on a dark street by a stranger who took off immediately and was never seen again.
   2180. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:49 PM (#5750041)
Ford was acquainted with both Kavanaugh and Doppelganger man
Even if that's true, and there's no corroborating evidence for it -- note that her own friend, who was also supposedly at the party, says that she never met Kavanaugh, then or any other time -- so what? Having met someone does not mean that you would recognize them later. (As I've noted, I am very very bad at this.¹) And I haven't looked at the yearbook, but I'm going to bet that there are at least two or three other people in the class who also looked similar.



¹Tell me a client's name from ten years ago, and I can tell you everything about his or her case. Name of judge, opposing counsel, facts of case, outcome of case. But have a client from two months ago walk into my office, and if I'm lucky I will realize that I have seen the person before (but not know the name); if I'm not lucky I will have no idea that I've met the person before. I'm one of those people who has to have my wife stand next to me at social gatherings to whisper in my ear who people are. It's not just that I don't remember their names; it's that I don't even remember whether I've met the person before and am supposed to remember the person's name, or whether I'm meeting them for the first time.
   2181. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:55 PM (#5750043)
Do you think she is lying, as in this never happened to her, or something like this did happen to her an she knows it wasn't Kavanaugh but is blaming him anyway?

I don't know what Ford's motivation or state of mind might be, just that her story doesn't appear to be true. She might have a political motivation. Despite the bizarre denials here, Ford is an activist Democrat - particpating in political marches, promoting "protest apparel", donating to Democratic candidates & liberal causes, and apparently making numerous political comments in her now-deleted social media posts. She could have an "ends justifies the means" ideological belief that Kavanaugh should be opposed at all costs. Or she could be mistaken somehow, although I frankly don't see how one could innocently get so many things wrong. But it's not up to the Kavanaugh side to provide an explanation for Ford's actions, it's sufficient to show that the preponderance of the evidence doesn't show her accusation to be true.
   2182. Morty Causa Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:55 PM (#5750044)
How soon the UVa rape case is forgotten, the Duke lacrosse case, the cases the Innocence Project has handled, the instances male students were railroaded by college administrative quasi-criminal procedures (remember that Emily Yoffe article in Slate--of all places?). When these are noted, though, you can almost see that old VHS tape in some people's brain self-erase as it rewinds hell-bent. For, of course, in these people's minds, girls and women can never lie, never have their own interests, and can never be motivated to dissemble, so let's reject that right out of the box.
   2183. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: September 23, 2018 at 04:57 PM (#5750048)
Tautologically, if she was attacked then by definition nothing exonerates her attacker. [...] So I would have thought you would have [...] agreed that she bears responsibility [...].

Shorter DMN: that's largely her fault.
   2184. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:07 PM (#5750055)
Your liberal media at work:

CNN broadcast a focus group segment with five Republican women in Florida, to get their responses to the Kavanaugh allegations. To a woman, they supported the judge.
"How can we believe the word of a woman, something that happened 36 years ago, when this guy has an impeccable reputation? ...This guy's an altar boy, a scout. Because one woman made an allegation, sorry, I don't buy it."

"In the grand scheme of things, my goodness. There was no intercourse. There was maybe a touch. Can we, really? 36 years later, she's still stuck on that?"

"I'm a woman, I respect. But we're talking about a 17-year-old boy, in high school, testosterone running high. Tell me what boy hasn't done this in high school. Please, I would like to know."

"Why didn't she come out when he was going to the Bush White House? Why didn't she come out when-- he's been a federal judge for over a decade!"

"And who brought the alcohol for these kids?"

"I have no sympathy. Perhaps maybe she had that moment she liked him. And maybe he didn't pay attention to her afterwards, and he went out with another girl, and she got bitter, whatever the situation is. They're kids."

"We all made mistakes at 17. I believe in a second chance."

"If the person made a mistake, and they have moved on, and they have been a good human being, you know, who are we to judge?"

Four of the five women were named by CNN, identically identified as "Republican Voter." The CNN.com transcript identified the fifth as "Unidentified Female."

So who were these five average Republican voters, who provided a ordinary "person on the street" snapshot of the electorate by giving their unfiltered responses?

Lourdes Castillo de la Peña, in the white sweater, is a Republican operative who served on the Republican National Senatorial Committee and personally worked on Ted Cruz's presidential campaign. Last year, she hosted a $1000-per-plate luncheon as a Cruz fundraiser.

Irina Villarino, sitting in the middle, is a Trump supporter who sat immediately to Trump's left at an April roundtable he held about the tax cuts with small business owners in Florida. She previously appeared on a CNN panel in February in which she

Gina Sosa, second from the right, was the treasurer for the Log Cabin Republicans, and a failed Republican candidate to win Iliana Ros-Lehtinen's open House seat in Florida's 27th, coming in 9th of nine.

Angie Vazquez, in the gray jacket, is a Miami-Dade County community council member and a GOP fundraiser, and was the former President of the Women's Republican Club of Miami, Federated. In 2017, she brought Roger Stone to a Women's Republican Club event, promoting his appearance to the media.

The fifth woman has been identified, though not by CNN. She's Rhonda Rebman-Lopez, who ran unsuccessfully for the Florida House in District 115 this year. The district is majority Hispanic, and she added the "-Lopez" to her surname for the ballot.

Four of the five-- Vazquez, Kaye, Villarino and Peña-- also appeared on a February 2018 CNN panel in which they defended Donald Trump and Rob Porter. Viallarino said people were "victimizing" Trump by scrutinizing his tweets about Porter. None of the four women were identified as political operatives by CNN then, either.
   2185. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:07 PM (#5750056)

Shorter DMN: that's largely her fault.
Nope. It's entirely her fault that she has no evidence. Either she's lying, or she's telling the truth but waited decades to do so.
   2186. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:08 PM (#5750057)
Who is more trustworthy? The extreme partisan that truncates beloved BBTF poster Hot Wheeling American's username to reference only the latter's hilarious parenthetical (Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast to...MS-13)? Or the fair-minded BBTF-appointed 'cool dude' who correctly quoted the words of a Republican Senator?

2114. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: September 23, 2018 at 11:44 AM (#5749867)
@heidiprzbyla:
Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser won’t change his mind, no matter what she says.
“What am I supposed to do? Go ahead and ruin this guy’s life based on an accusation?"


The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 03:04 PM (#5749949)
And here's what Graham actually said
“What am I supposed to do, go and ruin this guy’s life based on an accusation?” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said on “Fox News Sunday.”
   2187. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:09 PM (#5750058)
Ford was acquainted with both Kavanaugh and Doppelganger man, and it was about as horrific an incident that a young woman could possibly suffer through. It's not as if she'd had her purse snatched on a dark street by a stranger who took off immediately and was never seen again.

Even if that's true, and there's no corroborating evidence for it -- note that her own friend, who was also supposedly at the party, says that she never met Kavanaugh, then or any other time -- so what? Having met someone does not mean that you would recognize them later. (As I've noted, I am very very bad at this.¹) And I haven't looked at the yearbook, but I'm going to bet that there are at least two or three other people in the class who also looked similar.


I notice that you chose to respond only to the first 9 words of my reply. Smart lawyering as always.

¹Tell me a client's name from ten years ago, and I can tell you everything about his or her case. Name of judge, opposing counsel, facts of case, outcome of case. But have a client from two months ago walk into my office, and if I'm lucky I will realize that I have seen the person before (but not know the name); if I'm not lucky I will have no idea that I've met the person before. I'm one of those people who has to have my wife stand next to me at social gatherings to whisper in my ear who people are. It's not just that I don't remember their names; it's that I don't even remember whether I've met the person before and am supposed to remember the person's name, or whether I'm meeting them for the first time.

All very interesting, but I'm not sure that most women would find an attempted rape as forgettable as a cocktail party. But maybe that's just me.

   2188. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:10 PM (#5750060)
. . . and it was about as horrific an incident that a young woman could possibly suffer through.

So a "horrific incident" occurred, with Ford running out of the house, yet her female friend didn't later ask her what happened? Neither ever spoke of it during their lifelong friendship? And the girlfriend (also a Democrat) denies ever knowing Kavanaugh or being present at such a party? While Ford describes the incident differently in her various unsworn accounts? How does that add up? By all the traditional measures we use for evaluating credibility, Ford doesn't have it.
   2189. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:11 PM (#5750062)

All very interesting, but I'm not sure that most women would find an attempted rape as forgettable as a cocktail party. But maybe that's just me.
It is just you. That's not how memory works. And I said nothing about cocktail parties (though to be sure, she had been drinking).
   2190. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:11 PM (#5750063)
Shorter DMN: that's largely her fault.

Nope. It's entirely her fault that she has no evidence.

Dammit, I know she should've asked her attacker for his business card! How stupid could she have been?
   2191. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:15 PM (#5750067)
. . . and it was about as horrific an incident that a young woman could possibly suffer through.

So a "horrific incident" occurred, with Ford running out of the house, yet her female friend didn't later ask her what happened? Neither ever spoke of it during their lifelong friendship? And the girlfriend (also a Democrat) denies ever knowing Kavanaugh or being present at such a party? While Ford describes the incident differently in her various unsworn accounts? How does that add up? By all the traditional measures we use for evaluating credibility, Ford doesn't have it.


Sounds like just the sort of person who should be called upon to testify at Thursday's hearing, along with Mark Judge and Ford's therapist. Why don't you get the word out to Grassley?
   2192. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:18 PM (#5750071)
All very interesting, but I'm not sure that most women would find an attempted rape as forgettable as a cocktail party. But maybe that's just me.

It is just you. That's not how memory works.


Says the male lawyer with tons of experience in such matters.

And I said nothing about cocktail parties (though to be sure, she had been drinking).

Fine, David. Let's use your preferred choice of social gathering, though I assure you I wasn't trying to make any negative implications about cocktail parties.
   2193. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:19 PM (#5750072)
re: 2186

In an amazing display of dishonesty, MS-13 attempts to rebut the showing that he truncated a Lindsey Graham quote in an attempt to put him in a false light, by then blatantly misquoting what I said. Compare my #2144 to what MS-13 posted in #2186. He must think people here can't read. What an a-hole.
   2194. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:23 PM (#5750074)
Nope. It's entirely her fault that she has no evidence.
Yes, she should have had the foresight to collect a semen sample.
   2195. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:25 PM (#5750077)
He would never say this, but my eyes are on Mitchy to start making movements that indicate that Kavs should withdraw.
. . .
The alternative is that the old white men on Judiciary give a woman a rough time on TV. It's very hard to imagine even suburban white Republican women going out to vote on Election Day and pulling the lever for the bullies of Anita Hill 2.0.

I think that is spectacularly wrong. McConnell has the votes, he's not interested in the nomination being withdrawn.
Shorter Clapper, and indeed all the Clapper you'll need, ever: "I don't care about anything but getting a conservative confirmed to SCOTUS."
   2196. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:28 PM (#5750078)

Sounds like just the sort of person who should be called upon to testify at Thursday's hearing, along with Mark Judge and Ford's therapist. Why don't you get the word out to Grassley?
You think the committee ought to stack things against Ford even more by calling lots of people who discredit her? Seems mean to her; are you sure you're a Democrat?

Ford's therapist, on the other hand, is a witness to nothing, so why would she be called?
   2197. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:28 PM (#5750079)
One sentence in the last paragraph of #2184 was misstated. Three, not four of the women (Vazquez, Villarino and Peña) were also guests on the February panel. Which, like this week's Republican woman focus group, was also conducted by CNN's Randi Kaye (but that doesn't make her #4).
   2198. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:29 PM (#5750080)

Says the male lawyer with tons of experience in such matters.
As an attorney, I do in fact of tons of experience with the reliability of memory, yes. (I'm not sure how XY chromosomes play into it, though. I know people like to joke about men not understanding how women think, but really their brains work the same.)
   2199. BDC Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:35 PM (#5750084)
So a "horrific incident" occurred, with Ford running out of the house, yet her female friend didn't later ask her what happened? Neither ever spoke of it during their lifelong friendship?


In lots of real-world situations, the more horrific, the less likely to be discussed.

Anything still might be true, because it was 1982 and none of us were there; nobody knows for sure. But inferences of this kind are basically meaningless.
   2200. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 23, 2018 at 05:38 PM (#5750086)
One sentence in the last paragraph of #2184 was misstated. Three, not four of the women (Vazquez, Villarino and Peña) were also guests on the February panel. Which, like this week's Republican woman focus group, was also conducted by CNN's Randi Kaye (but that doesn't make her #4).


Those were the deplorable women I was talking about several pages back.

"In the grand scheme of things, my goodness. There was no intercourse. There was maybe a touch. Can we, really? 36 years later, she's still stuck on that?"


Yeah, that was the second most deplorable statement, behind the one insinuating that every male in this country over the age of 16 is a would be rapist. As she was saying "there was maybe a touch", she gently squeezed the are of the woman next to her, indicating what she was reducing Ford's story to. What a ####### ####. (the bleeped 4 letter word begins with a c.)
Page 22 of 25 pages ‹ First  < 20 21 22 23 24 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
phredbird
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThibs' Hall of Fame Tracker
(424 - 11:31pm, Dec 11)
Last: bbmck

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (The Berhalter Thread?)
(141 - 11:07pm, Dec 11)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogAnalytics' rise a leading topic at Winter Meetings
(14 - 11:04pm, Dec 11)
Last: donlock

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-11-2018
(18 - 10:55pm, Dec 11)
Last: Der-K: at 10% emotional investment

NewsblogBlue Jays cut ties with Tulowitzki
(4 - 10:41pm, Dec 11)
Last: The Run Fairy

NewsblogPhillies To Sign Andrew McCutchen
(15 - 10:33pm, Dec 11)
Last: donlock

NewsblogMets, Yankees, Marlins In Talks On Three-Team Deal - MLB Trade Rumors
(54 - 10:31pm, Dec 11)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogBradford: Dustin Pedroia and his biggest battle | WEEI
(1 - 10:31pm, Dec 11)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogJayson Stark wins Baseball Hall of Fame's Spink Award
(46 - 9:49pm, Dec 11)
Last: Jose Canusee

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(312 - 9:45pm, Dec 11)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(3542 - 9:31pm, Dec 11)
Last: Booey

NewsblogSmith, Baines elected to Baseball Hall of Fame
(528 - 9:24pm, Dec 11)
Last: DanG

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (December 2018)
(466 - 9:09pm, Dec 11)
Last: Davo and his Moose Tacos

Hall of MeritMock 2019 Hall of Fame Election Results
(6 - 8:21pm, Dec 11)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

Gonfalon CubsNow what?
(338 - 8:17pm, Dec 11)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

Page rendered in 0.8228 seconds
46 querie(s) executed