|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, September 17, 2018
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.)
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to Darren for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread, v.2019 (216 - 2:48pm, Feb 19)Last:  AuntBea calls himself Sky PantherNewsblog: BREAKING: Free agent star Manny Machado has agreed to a deal with the San Diego Padres, league sources tell ESPN. (63 - 2:45pm, Feb 19)Last: The Yankee ClapperNewsblog: OT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (February 2019) (199 - 2:39pm, Feb 19)Last:  Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt!Newsblog: OT - 2018-19 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to Twelfth of Never edition) (58 - 2:30pm, Feb 19)Last: JL72Newsblog: Trevor Bauer Is More Concerned With Being Right Than Being Liked (47 - 2:30pm, Feb 19)Last: Powderhorn™, arrogant local sailing championNewsblog: Moreno says Angels have had internal talks on new Trout deal (4 - 2:17pm, Feb 19)Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)Newsblog: Rob Manfred blames Bryce Harper for going unsigned (57 - 2:12pm, Feb 19)Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)Gonfalon Cubs: Spring Training (29 - 1:56pm, Feb 19)Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?Newsblog: The clock is ticking for pitchers, and there are concerns (14 - 1:55pm, Feb 19)Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)Newsblog: DenverPost/Saunders: Rockies' Ian Desmond facing big challeng playing center field at Coors Field (25 - 1:55pm, Feb 19)Last: Hysterical & UselessNewsblog: J.D. Martinez: ‘For a DH to win MVP, they’re going to have to walk on water’ (31 - 1:32pm, Feb 19)Last: Hysterical & UselessNewsblog: Albert Pujols predicts he'll be everyday player at age 39 (34 - 1:11pm, Feb 19)Last: Hysterical & UselessNewsblog: Royals looking to build on strong finish to 2018 (3 - 12:25pm, Feb 19)Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurantNewsblog: How the Mariners are using data, biomechanics and technique to build a better catcher – The Athletic (3 - 11:54am, Feb 19)Last: JJ1986Newsblog: Bradford: Did Red Sox learn their lesson after Jon Lester mess-up? | WEEI (1 - 10:46am, Feb 19)Last: Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer
|
|
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.
1) Kavanaugh attempted to rape Dr Ford at a house party in the 80s, or
2) Dr Ford is lying.
Team Blue certainly doesn’t want to accuse Dr Ford of #2 without evidence so they dig in their heels on #1.
But let’s assume there’s a third possibility. Something like
3) Dr Ford WAS raped at a house party in the 80s but by someone who LOOKED just like Bret Kavanaugh and so she’s mistakenly assumed it was him all these years. (I acknowledge this is extraordinarily unlikely, of course; it is just a mind hack).
Ok. So, Team Blue: pretend #3 is in fact the truth. What should happen next?
* If Ford speaks to the Senate, she will repeat her account of the attempted rape, and no one will be able to disprove any of it.
* Kavanaugh cannot possibly disprove the claim (because there aren’t enough details).
* .....Therefore....what?
*And what if the real rapist is the FBI agent sent to investigate her account? And what if Dr. Ford is not the victim, but the victim's twin? And what if she made up the story, and then requested an FBI probe, just so she could get close enough to murder him and avenge her sister? And what if Brett Kavanaugh falls in love with "Dr. Ford" and takes her case to save her from the gas chamber?
Ha! Great stuff. I must have slept through the part where Dr. Ford has been subpoenaed.
Your response is inane. Which is a common thing.
Why does Mr. Clapper make crap up? Ms. Ford has expressed agreement to testify, while setting one easily met Mr. Condition. A condition that will only damage her standing, according to Clapper's "I suspect lack of credibility" ESP.
What a mess this is.
Kavanaugh wins when the Republican Party says so. It's that simple. Orrin Hatch told reporters he'd support Kavanaugh even if the attempted rape is true. What he buys and doesn't buy is long since bought.
Open session is Diane Feinstein's choice. She shut down Grassley's hopes of closed session testimony, staff-only phone calls, and the like.
"Ford's phony excuse for not testifying" includes an offer to testify. How phony can you get?
I'm not convinced cancelling the hearing will hurt the GOP, either. At least I wasn't, until Clapper made his pronouncement that it definitely won't. His stellar prognostication record now makes that GOP damage inevitable.
Seriously, guess who disagrees with Clapper's assessment of ludicrousness? Republican candidates, Republican strategists and Republican pollsters. It's not "Gonfalon's suggestion," in Clapper's tired, standard formulation. It's literally the strategic game theory the GOP's been frenetically calculating since the scandal broke, and the wobblier Senators started wobbling.
I wouldn't want to bet an election on the American people knowing in their bones that Ford's testimony MUST occur on Monday, September 24. (Free tip: anyone who appoints themselves as spokesman for what "the American people" think is always, always full of shit. Happens 50 times a day on cable news, yet the American people still haven't fallen into line.)
Happily, none of it is my problem. I'm not a Republican candidate, strategist or pollster. Suburban women voters aren't something that scare me.
And ultimately, just like the impossibility of losing on this 2018 Senate map, it would be beyond crazy if Republicans didn't confirm Brett Kavanaugh. They control every lever. So why is everybody so shaken up?
Clapper, #895:
Ah, these fatuous leaps that Clapper loves to take. They make Edwin Moses look like Tammy Duckworth.
Well none of us know the truth and we are all viewing things through our own biases, but you are thinking about this from a 2019 perspective and not from a year zero perspective. At best, Jesus was a fringe religious figure with a tiny cult following at the time of his death and even later when the first gospel stories were being written. The gospels were written to try to explain things to its few adherents and to attract new followers, not about how it would sound when Christianity is one of the major religions of the world.
871 did a good job of explaining why the John the Baptist story might be myth. Claiming religious legitimacy through John the Baptist, a better known religious figure of the time, offers some advantages to a small cult. Could it be true, of course. However as 871 says, its also a common device used in myth making.
I strongly disagree with you that the crucifixion story is a negative that makes the religion look bad. Without the cross motif and the "pain and suffering the lord endured to save mankind", there isn't a lot of emotional impact to Jesus's life. Dry theological arguments about proper Jewish customs doesn't turn a small cult into a major religion. Without the crucifixion, that's all Jesus was preaching about. What is the emotional hook to get followers if Jesus died in bed of old age? What replaces the cross as the central symbol and worship point of the religion?
Anyone want to bet that she won't testify?
Meanwhile, it's nice to see that so far nobody's objected to today's landmark Supreme Court non-decision decision.
Talk about special snowflakes....
Her condition isn't going to be met, so why won't she testify anyway?
Why is Mark Judge afraid to testify under oath?
Good News >>>>>>>>>>> Good Looks
Not seeing the Democratic Texas breakthrough some keep predicting, always for "the next election".
It was a special election for a State Senate seat previously held by the Democrats. For 139 years even. When was this "gerrymandering" supposed to have happened?
EDIT: More from the link in #913:
He can't "lose the job" because he doesn't have the job. It's a recruitment process, not a disciplinary process. Any corporation in the world looking to appoint to a board-level position would stop and think very carefully if it turned out that their preferred candidate was the subject of a rape accusation. This isn't a "beyond all reasonable doubt" situation and yes, it's unfortunate for him that this recruitment process is happening in public, but them's the breaks.
Earlier reports indicated there were 2 indiduals besides Kavanaugh and Mark Judge named by Ford as being at the party, so there may be one more shoe to drop. Not looking good for Ford.
Again, anyone want to bet that she won't appear?
Simon Amstell thinks the Crucifixion showed off Jesus' good looks.
A clone? An alien replicant? An android from the future? Kavanaugh, but from another quantum reality that later collapsed?
You're like Donald Trump, you prefer your gods uncrucified.
Or maybe it's just the Earl Weaver influence, you don't like sacrifices :)
The idea that you could apply such simple logic to the doings of ancient desert mystics is flagrantly ridiculous. We can't even get inside the heads of Syrians RIGHT NOW, even though they have Twitter and ####.
It's like Clapper was there that night, almost.
David goes for messiahs who don't get captured.
EDIT: coke to BDC
So it's noteworthy that someone who didn't have a traumatic experience that night doesn't recall this particular party 36 years later?
Since the accusation is so light on specifics as you like to point out, how can others beside Kavanaugh even deny it strongly at this point? Is this friend saying he was never at a house party in that neighborhood with Kavanaugh and girls in 1982? Or he was, but Kavanaugh was never out of his sight with a girl, and/or he can't recall any girls leaving early?
Obviously these things don't help Ford's case, but I think you might be over-rating how much they hurt it.
And of course, "what happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep" was possibly a joke with a kernel of truth that could apply in situations like these too.
He's right. I remember this from the show, Scully and Mulder would just show up and weird #### would happen.
*sigh*
(I know this is very confusing to DNC loyalists, so I’ll go slow: This DOESNT mean he’s worse than the racist Trumpster GOPer running against him. Really!)
Yes. She doesn't want to be part of a farce. It's clear that all Trump and the Republicans are willing to do is lest her say her piece, get gently grilled by a bunch of old white men, and then vote Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court as if nothing happened. There is absolutely zero chance that anyone on their side is interested in getting to the truth. I wouldn't want to be part of that either. A hearing with no investigation is a joke.
Yeah, stick it to those Fake Hippies! Stay pure man. Never trust anybody over 30.
Are you kidding? GOP President Trump would have already tried and convicted them in his "mind" and be leading chants to "Lock Him Up!".
#### you Davos
Trump has already called for several of these types investigations on twitter.
That is OK, neither does he.
Citation needed David.
Why shouldn't the FBI investigate?
See, you DO have something in common with Davo!
Edit: get your own damn Coke, Mouse
At least we know YC would approach such a scenario with the same, unbiased skepticism that he's exercising with the Ford-Kavanaugh situation.
I know. My understanding is that he has left-leaning views, but he's so 'concerned' that he's effectively his own concern troll.
Stay pure maan. Stein/Ventura 2020, make those capitalist swine in the DNC earn your vote!
Nah, yours is funnier. And funny beats first in my mind.
What a weirdo. Everyone I know thinks people should be dying in the streets and stacked like cordwood. I certainly wouldn't want any of my hard-earned money to go towards treating people with the finest healing crystals and homeopathic tinctures. Maaaaan.
Do you really think that ALL THE LIBERALS here are so simple-minded as to not understand that a radical Christian anarcho-socialist (or whatever) advocating for even more progressive policies is not pro-Republican?
Does the FBI typically investigate alleged crimes for which the statute has run? Particularly alleged juvenile crimes?
I'm sure they would if the DOJ asked them to. I believe the DOJ would need a referral from Congress.
Does the DOJ typically have the FBI investigate alleged crimes for which the statute has run? I suppose they would in this case.
Yes. She doesn't want to be part of a farce. It's clear that all Trump and the Republicans are willing to do is lest her say her piece, get gently grilled by a bunch of old white men, and then vote Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court as if nothing happened. There is absolutely zero chance that anyone on their side is interested in getting to the truth. I wouldn't want to be part of that either. A hearing with no investigation is a joke.
Repeat: Her lawyer's letter did NOT say that she won't testify.
I have never seen anyone here state anything remotely like this, prior to the above post.
Maybe if we had denounced Obama for some of his positions, possibly around drone usage. Darn it, missed opportunity.
I have never in my life seen or heard anyone stating that casting a ballot (aka voting) is not politics. I am genuinely not sure how to respond to that. I mean if actually voting is not politics then what exactly is politics? Posting semi-anonymously on an obscure website perhaps?
At a bare minimum, they could interview Ford, Kavanaugh, Judge, and anyone else she names. Follow up on any additional information gained from those interviews. You know, things the FBI does a thousand times daily. If they turn up something, that's valuable information. If they turn up nothing, that's valuable too.
100% bullshit
I read somewhere this morning that there is no such statute of limitations on those crimes in the state in question. No clue if it is true and honestly I just skimmed the article, so don't put much stock in it (I don't).
I just want to give a shout out to this formulation. Well done.
Didn't say that she would, as I recall. I'm not sure what your point is. People who are willing to testify typically say, "I'm willing to testify." As Kavanaugh has. You seem to be trying to equate her on this score with Kavanaugh which is not proper.
Heckuva hiphop compilation.
They do for background checks, all the time.
edit: That must be Ray. never mind.. He's doing that thing where he pretends to not understand what's going on. The rest of us understand the difference between a criminal investigation, and vetting a nominee for the Supreme Court.
Why must you make everything about *ahem* race?
Kavanaugh is well aware that his "testimony" will be soft-handling from friendly political allies looking to smooth everything over. Just as Ford knows her testimony will be treated as a hostile witness who must be destroyed, a la Anita Hill.
What is the custom in Congress and/or the Senate for hearings? Is it typical that it is set and the witness has to show up with no input on timing, or is there typically some negotiation as to when the testimony will occur. Not being snarky - I just don't know what is normal procedure.
Because while David's point about the judge deciding it is correct, my experience is that there is usually some give and take to make sure all can attend the hearing.
Perhaps Adams's theory is right: Ford may be confusing Kavanaugh for Judge, since Kavanaugh is a judge.
Sounds ridiculous on its face but there's a kernel of logic to it.
This is a good point. I would guess they don't.
The counter-argument is that the FBI does run the background checks, so I am not sure that this prevents the FBI from looking into it.
Interestingly I've spent a little time going down the Clarence Thomas rabbit hole; the dustup was before my time and I never did much research on it or formed an opinion on it.
I come away believing Hill very strongly.
Do folks here think she was lying?
“This is a tough hurricane, one of the wettest we’ve ever seen from the standpoint of water. Rarely have we had an experience like it and it certainly is not good.”
— President Trump, quoted by the HuffPost, on Hurricane Florence.
I don't know why, but that phrase just cracks me up.
Water is wet. Finally, a BBTF meme hits the big time!
Seems more likely that Judge will have testimony of drunken antics about Kavanaugh from that time-frame. Even if not about this specific event, it would under-cut Kavanaugh's clean image and do more harm than good.
Or it could be that Judge has some skeletons from then that did not involve Kavanaugh. So he has nothing about this alleged incident but is afraid other crap comes out.
Nope. She was very likely telling the truth. The situation was shameful, and I am not singling out the GOP, both parties acted in a shameful manner.
Republicans don't get to silence the Democrats, do they?
1. She made up lies about Thomas, wrote them in her diary at the time, and told close friends at the time.
2. Then she told no one publicly for eight years.
3. She waited for Thomas to be nominated to the Supreme Court -- a million to one shot eight years earlier -- and then waited for the FBI to come interviewing her as they were doing a background check on Thomas. She told her lies to the FBI under penalty of false statements.
4. Once subpoenaed to the hearing, she told her story publicly, perjuring herself. For what gain is not particularly clear.
5. She then went back to private life and has maintained her story the entire time.
It's certainly harder to believe that -- or to believe that Hill is insane -- than it is to believe her story.
Which means that I think Thomas perjured himself to Congress.
A lawyer unfamiliar with a continuance? Maybe it takes a fake lawyer to know one.
Speaking of, nobody can blame Ford for hiring a good lawyer to look after her best interests, politics be damned.
My son's bed is ruined and the plaster off that room's ceiling, but otherwise a-ok. A piece of metal ripped looose on the roof and did aome water damage in the building. Not bad considering. No real flooding here. Lots of big broken trees and akilter stoplights.
Dragging the wet mattresses down five flights didn't do my back any good.
You're around Wilmington, correct?
The FBI runs background checks on people seeking security clearances all the time, so yes. One of my friends has a clearance, and I've personally spoken to an FBI agent about our time together in college, even though he doesn't have anything more embarrassing in his past than a slightly excessive level of interest in Claire Danes.
That's really tricky in a post Hurricane situation. People need food, water, fuel, other supplies, etc...but the workers at those places also have to take care of their homes and people too, and don't need to be at work. A friend of mine is an Islamorada cop, and I saw him patrolling my neighborhood a few days after we returned from Irma. He looked like death. Said he was working 16 hour days, his house had no power, had a hole in his roof, and had to climb over fallen trees to get into his house. He obviously had no time to deal with any of that. We organized a work party of several adults and many out of school teenagers and cleaned up his whole yard and patched his roof in one day.
Completely unrelated, but she's the ugliest crier in the history of television.
Otherwise, I fully understand his problem.
Didn't say that she would, as I recall. I'm not sure what your point is. People who are willing to testify typically say, "I'm willing to testify." As Kavanaugh has. You seem to be trying to equate her on this score with Kavanaugh which is not proper.
I wasn't addressing my comment to you in particular, but here's what we know so far:
1. Ford has said that she will testify.
2. Ford wants the FBI first to conduct a thorough investigation of her charges.
3. The letter from Ford's lawyer that stated point #2 did NOT say that she was retracting her offer to testify.
4. The proposed hearing is scheduled for Monday.
5. That date is not set in stone, but even then there are still five days before it. A lot can happen in five days.
6. With all due respect to Chairman Grassley, among the issues that have yet to be determined are: Who besides Ford and Kavanaugh will testify; and who will conduct the questioning.
7. At this point Grassley seems to have unilaterally ruled that there will be no other witnessed to be called, but we'll see if that changes between now and the eventual hearing.
The broader point is that this is an extremely fluid situation, or as Trump might put it, one of the fluidest ever from the standpoint of fluidity.
It certainly could. And as I explained last night, if she doesn't testify there could well be good reasons for that even if she's telling the truth. But it also doesn't help me in the Kavanaugh nomination process and therefore I would support Kavanaugh's nomination.
I get that but if you are a Hill believer and you do think Thomas ultimately purjured himself wouldn’t you want the process to have changed somewhat from the last time something like this happened? And isn’t her proposed stipulation an attempt at that? Why can’t you get behind that this time? What’s the rush to get Kavanaugh through, especially if there’s a possibility he has or will perjure himself?
I really can't argue about this subject anymore, particularly not with this all-male congregation. Like with abortion, if men were routinely subject to sexual assault, things would be different.
Who exactly are you arguing with?
Also since you are male (I think) it is particularly precious you are calling out the other men for being ... well male.
The Pro-Life Movement’s Kavanaugh Dilemma: Repealing Roe won’t matter if the anti-abortion cause is hitched to a party that’s seen as anti-woman.
The insufficiently woke. As is always the case.
States right to choose if they allow abortion? I've heard that floated around, and boy wouldn't that be fun for American women to have to make "abortion travel plans"...
It's a very narrow range of opinion. The Claptrap gets old.
I can't imagine that happening, but if it is thrown back to the states, some of the redder ones would certainly ban abortion. Others may still have bans on the books that would become constitutional if Roe were overturned (Texas, the original venue, is I think in this category: they never bothered to write a new comprehensive law to replace the pre-Roe law). Other red states would severely restrict abortion (with the impact being that you'd need a lot of money and even perhaps legal advice to obtain an abortion). OTOH New York and California, etc., would probably keep or liberalize their current laws, and some left-libertarian state would become the Nevada of abortion, as RTG suggests.
IOW buckle your seat belts.
Well, then, I have news that is extremely negative in almost every context, but I suppose not this one ...
They already do in many parts of the country, especially if they live in the vertical belt from west Texas to western North Dakota, where on average they have to travel more than 180 miles.
If the GOP holds House and Senate in 2018 and Roe is overturned I can totally see them passing a national ban and having the legal fight switch to the other foot. I'm not sure why that's so hard to imagine. Banning abortion is the raison d'etre for most of these pols for the last 40 years. They may not succeed, but they'll certainly try.
I'm sure there are lawyerly types who just think Roe is bad law (I wouldn't know) but if you think the base just wants to clean up the law books, you're delusional. They want a full, total and national ban on abortion. That's the goal. And, as I said, with all three branches in their hands, they can achieve it.
No. Worst case, I think, is that a number of red states ban it -- or severely restrict it. At which point all hell will break loose (as it will break loose if Roe/Casey are overturned).
In the banned states we'd be more likely to see prosecutors go after doctors rather than patients -- if they enforce the law at all, which I seriously doubt.
We would likely see private industry step up to the plate. Such as airlines offering complimentary "abortion flights" -- though not specifically calling them that. Or buses/etc. Which would lead to unscrupulous prosecutors trying to see if there's a legal avenue there to pursue.
It would be complete and utter chaos. And I still can't see it happening. I do think the groundswell of social media and twitter has a way of forcing policy that we've never seen before.
But first you need a case to overturn Roe/Casey. And I think Roberts, judging from his refusal to turn back Obamacare, would simply not want that on his balance sheet.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main