BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: OTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt

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 10 of 25 pages ‹ First < 8 9 10 11 12 > Last ›

901. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 18, 2018 at 11:21 PM (#5747118)

A complicating issue with the Kavanaugh rape allegations are that both sides are treating it as though there are just two possibilities:

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?

902. perros Posted: September 18, 2018 at 11:26 PM (#5747120)

Whatever you want to add about Xianity, it's powerful myth, and one that fundamentally subverts social hierarchy. See Girard, Rene re: mimesis.

903. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 18, 2018 at 11:28 PM (#5747121)

Re: #901--
*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?

904. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 18, 2018 at 11:29 PM (#5747122)

David N, #889:

Dr. Ford is not refusing to testify to the Senate. She has declined to testify on Grassley's impromptu calendar

I tried that with a judge once. "Your Honor, I am not refusing to appear for a hearing; I'm just declining to come when you scheduled the hearing. I'll come when I feel like it." Didn't go so well.

Ha! Great stuff. I must have slept through the part where Dr. Ford has been subpoenaed.

905. perros Posted: September 18, 2018 at 11:30 PM (#5747123)

Brian DePalma meets David Lynch.

906. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 18, 2018 at 11:33 PM (#5747124)

Yankee Clapper, #882:

Is that a common thing, people asking the FBI "Please investigate my lies"?

When they know there's nothing to investigate, and delay is part of their political strategy? Sure.

Your response is inane. Which is a common thing.

Why is Ms. Ford afraid to testify under oath?

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.

If she won't testify when provided the opportunity - open or closed session, her choice - Kavanaugh wins. There's not a single Republican Senator that would buy Ford's phony excuse for not testifying. Neither will the American people. Gonfalon's suggestion that confirming Kavanaugh after Ford refuses to testify would somehow hurt the GOP in the midterm election is ludicrous.

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:

The GOP would love to run in a midterm environment where Ms. Ford's refusal to testify is the major issue. Democrats would be foolish to make that happen, but we can always hope they take their cues from Gonfalon.

Ah, these fatuous leaps that Clapper loves to take. They make Edwin Moses look like Tammy Duckworth.

907. Cleveland (need new name) fan Posted: September 18, 2018 at 11:33 PM (#5747126)

Our God had to be blessed by some guy - not a good look.

Our God got killed by a couple of schmucks - not a good look.

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?

908. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: September 18, 2018 at 11:39 PM (#5747127)

Democrats cannot force Ford to testify.

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.

Advocacy groups pouring money into independent campaigns to impact this fall’s midterm races must disclose many of their political donors beginning this week after the Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in a long-running case.

The high court did not grant an emergency request to stay a ruling by a federal judge in Washington who had thrown out a decades-old Federal Election Commission regulation allowing nonprofit groups to keep their donors secret unless they had earmarked their money for certain purposes.

With less than 50 days before this fall’s congressional elections, the ruling has far-reaching consequences that could curtail the ability of major political players to raise money and force the disclosure of some of the country’s wealthiest donors.

In an interview, FEC Chairwoman Caroline Hunter said that the names of certain contributors who give money to nonprofit groups to use in political campaigns beginning Wednesday will have to be publicly reported.

Hunter and other conservatives warned that the decision could have a chilling effect just as the fall midterms are heating up.

“It’s unfortunate that citizens and groups who wish to advocate [anonymously] for their candidate will now have to deal with a lot of uncertainty less than two months before the election,” Hunter said.

Talk about special snowflakes....

909. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 18, 2018 at 11:39 PM (#5747128)

903- Again, it’s just a mind hack to recenter the focus. Should Kavanaugh lose the job due to a mistaken accusation that’s impossible to disprove? Is that just?

910. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 18, 2018 at 11:47 PM (#5747132)

Ms. Ford has expressed agreement to testify, while setting one easily met Mr. Condition.

Her condition isn't going to be met, so why won't she testify anyway?

911. Mike A Posted: September 18, 2018 at 11:49 PM (#5747134)

Why is Ms. Ford afraid to testify under oath?

Why is Mark Judge afraid to testify under oath?

912. perros Posted: September 18, 2018 at 11:55 PM (#5747136)

Our God had to be blessed by some guy - not a good look.

Our God got killed by a couple of schmucks - not a good look.

Good News >>>>>>>>>>> Good Looks

913. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 19, 2018 at 12:01 AM (#5747139)

There was an actual election today, in Texas even. I'm sure BDC would have reported on it if it involved an expenditure of public funds for his climate controlled comfort, but it's just a State Senate special election:

Voters elected political newcomer Pete Flores to the Texas Senate on Tuesday, flipping a Democratic district red for the first time in 139 years and bolstering Republicans’ supermajority in the chamber ahead of the November elections. A retired game warden, Flores defeated former state and U.S. Rep. Pete Gallego for the Senate District 19 seat after receiving backing from some of the state’s most prominent politicians, including Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, and U.S. Sens John Cornyn and Ted Cruz.
. . .
According the Secretary of State’s website, Flores won with 53 percent of the vote to Gallego’s 47 percent with 44,487 ballots cast.

Not seeing the Democratic Texas breakthrough some keep predicting, always for "the next election".

914. perros Posted: September 19, 2018 at 12:10 AM (#5747143)

I'm sure gerrymandering had nothing to do with it.

915. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 19, 2018 at 12:17 AM (#5747145)

I'm sure gerrymandering had nothing to do with it.

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:

Christian Archer, Gallego’s campaign strategist, said he was shocked by the results, adding that they weren’t able to generate as much excitement as the Republicans.“I don’t have any regrets, but I have a lot of disappointment,” Archer said.

Flores’ win marked an incredible upset in a district that political observers said shouldn’t have been competitive for Republicans. Low turnout in special elections and high-level GOP interests in preserving a Senate supermajority helped push Flores across the line, they said.

916. manchestermets Posted: September 19, 2018 at 04:41 AM (#5747162)

903- Again, it’s just a mind hack to recenter the focus. Should Kavanaugh lose the job due to a mistaken accusation that’s impossible to disprove? Is that just?

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.

917. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 19, 2018 at 06:53 AM (#5747163)

It's becoming clear why Ms. Ford doesn't want to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee - Kavanaugh Classmate Identified By Ford Denies Being At Party:

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, another former classmate of Brett Kavanaugh's denies attending a party like the one described in the allegation made by Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her three decades ago when they were teenagers. Patrick J. Smyth attended Georgetown Prep -- an all-boys school in North Bethesda, Maryland -- alongside Kavanaugh. Both men graduated in 1983.
. . .
"I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."

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.

918. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 07:26 AM (#5747164)

It's becoming clear why Ms. Ford doesn't want to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee

Again, anyone want to bet that she won't appear?

919. Greg K Posted: September 19, 2018 at 07:33 AM (#5747165)

Our God had to be blessed by some guy - not a good look.

Our God got killed by a couple of schmucks - not a good look.

Good News >>>>>>>>>>> Good Looks

Simon Amstell thinks the Crucifixion showed off Jesus' good looks.

920. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 19, 2018 at 07:55 AM (#5747166)

Our God had to be blessed by some guy - not a good look.

Our God got killed by a couple of schmucks - not a good look.

Well, I must confess that I never understood the appeal of a religion based around a failed messiah in the first place. “Yes, he totally didn’t do what he was supposed to do - but trust us, next time when he comes back he actually will help out.”

921. BDC

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 07:55 AM (#5747167)

The "celebrity birthday" column in my newspaper just told me that Chuck Grassley is 85 years old … I guess he and Orrin Hatch are the youthful face of the Republican Party these days, as opposed to those Democratic dinosaurs :)

922. BrianBrianson Posted: September 19, 2018 at 07:56 AM (#5747168)

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).

A clone? An alien replicant? An android from the future? Kavanaugh, but from another quantum reality that later collapsed?

923. BDC

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 07:58 AM (#5747169)

Well, I must confess that I never understood the appeal of a religion based around a failed messiah in the first place. “Yes, he totally didn’t do what he was supposed to do - but trust us, next time when he comes back he actually will help out.”

You're like Donald Trump, you prefer your gods uncrucified.

Or maybe it's just the Earl Weaver influence, you don't like sacrifices :)

924. PreservedFish Posted: September 19, 2018 at 08:12 AM (#5747170)

As far as Jesus, my understanding is that the consensus is that there was a historical Jesus, and that at least the baptism by John the Baptist and Crucifixation are thought to be real events, since you wouldn't make that #### up if you were inventing a religion. Him being from Galilee is probably true, too, since they so obviously lie about things to try to push his birth to Bethlehem, and if he was fictional, you'd just say he was born there because his family was from there.

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 ####.

925. Lassus Posted: September 19, 2018 at 08:16 AM (#5747171)

Not looking good for Ford.

It's like Clapper was there that night, almost.

926. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 08:28 AM (#5747174)

Well, I must confess that I never understood the appeal of a religion based around a failed messiah in the first place.

David goes for messiahs who don't get captured.

EDIT: coke to BDC

927. spycake Posted: September 19, 2018 at 09:07 AM (#5747186)

"I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."

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.

928. PreservedFish Posted: September 19, 2018 at 09:20 AM (#5747189)

It is kind of fun watching YC get all riled up. Don't worry YC, even if Kav gets sunk by a fake rape story, there'll be another Federalist to take his place.

929. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 09:38 AM (#5747193)

Trump just now: "The FBI doesn't investigate things."

930. BDC

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 09:41 AM (#5747194)

Trump just now: "The FBI doesn't investigate things."

He's right. I remember this from the show, Scully and Mulder would just show up and weird #### would happen.

931. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 09:42 AM (#5747195)

I guarantee you that if someone made allegations like this against a key D Senator, Trump would be the first to call for an FBI investigation.

932. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 19, 2018 at 09:55 AM (#5747202)

@AndrewGillum
Affordable healthcare should be a right, not a privilege.

*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!)

933. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 09:55 AM (#5747203)

It's becoming clear why Ms. Ford doesn't want to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee

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.

934. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 19, 2018 at 09:57 AM (#5747204)

(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!)

Yeah, stick it to those Fake Hippies! Stay pure man. Never trust anybody over 30.

935. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 09:58 AM (#5747205)

I guarantee you that if someone made allegations like this against a key D Senator, Trump would be the first to call for an FBI investigation.

Are you kidding? GOP President Trump would have already tried and convicted them in his "mind" and be leading chants to "Lock Him Up!".

936. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 09:58 AM (#5747206)

(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!)

#### you Davos

937. DavidFoss Posted: September 19, 2018 at 09:59 AM (#5747207)

Trump would be the first to call for an FBI investigation.

Trump has already called for several of these types investigations on twitter.

938. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:02 AM (#5747209)

Did I say loyalists? I meant “cultists.”

939. PreservedFish Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:05 AM (#5747211)

I don't even know what Davo is talking about

940. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:06 AM (#5747214)

I don't even know what Davo is talking about

That is OK, neither does he.

941. strong silence Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:06 AM (#5747215)

She provided nothing that could be investigated,

Citation needed David.

Why shouldn't the FBI investigate?

942. Traderdave

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:07 AM (#5747216)

I don't even know what Davo is talking about

See, you DO have something in common with Davo!

Edit: get your own damn Coke, Mouse

943. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:07 AM (#5747218)

I guarantee you that if someone made allegations like this against a key D Senator, Trump would be the first to call for an FBI investigation.

At least we know YC would approach such a scenario with the same, unbiased skepticism that he's exercising with the Ford-Kavanaugh situation.

944. Zonk is One Individual Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:08 AM (#5747219)

932 confuses me - I am not sure who Davo is upset with... I'm guessing Gillum because he didn't say "...provided in state-run hospitals powered by generators running on the blood of oligarchs and robber barons" but I'm not certain.

945. DavidFoss Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:09 AM (#5747220)

I don't even know what Davo is talking about

I know. My understanding is that he has left-leaning views, but he's so 'concerned' that he's effectively his own concern troll.

946. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:11 AM (#5747222)

The liberals on OTP believe that any criticism of a Democrat is a de facto endorsement of their Republican opponent; therefore, we are never to criticize Democrats for being insufficiently progressive (or for campaigning as progressives in the Primary and then abandoning those views and bolting towards the center). Once the nominees are named, politics is over, all that’s left to do is cast your ballot

947. PreservedFish Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:13 AM (#5747225)

Thanks for the clarification, Davo. You're wrong about everything, as is typical, but at least I understand now.

948. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:14 AM (#5747226)

The liberals on OTP believe that any criticism of a Democrat is a de facto endorsement of their Republican opponent; therefore, we are never to criticize Democrats for being insufficiently progressive (or for campaigning as progressives in the Primary and then abandoning those views and bolting towards the center). Once the nominees are named, politics is over, all that’s left to do is cast your ballot

Stay pure maan. Stein/Ventura 2020, make those capitalist swine in the DNC earn your vote!

949. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:16 AM (#5747228)

“Look at this hippie—he doesn’t think poor people should die in the streets!”

950. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:17 AM (#5747229)

See, you DO have something in common with Davo!

Edit: get your own damn Coke, Mouse

Nah, yours is funnier. And funny beats first in my mind.

951. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:19 AM (#5747232)

“Look at this hippie—he doesn’t think sick people should die in the streets!”

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.

952. PreservedFish Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:20 AM (#5747233)

The liberals on OTP believe that any criticism of a Democrat is a de facto endorsement of their Republican opponent

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?

953. Ray (CTL)

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:20 AM (#5747234)

Why shouldn't the FBI investigate?

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.

954. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5747235)

It's becoming clear why Ms. Ford doesn't want to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee

955. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:22 AM (#5747238)

The liberals on OTP believe that any criticism of a Democrat is a de facto endorsement of their Republican opponent

I have never seen anyone here state anything remotely like this, prior to the above post.

therefore, we are never to criticize Democrats for being insufficiently progressive

Maybe if we had denounced Obama for some of his positions, possibly around drone usage. Darn it, missed opportunity.

Once the nominees are named, politics is over, all that’s left to do is cast your ballot

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?

956. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:22 AM (#5747239)

She provided nothing that could be investigated,

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.

957. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:24 AM (#5747242)

The liberals on OTP believe that any criticism of a Democrat is a de facto endorsement of their Republican opponent

100% bullshit

958. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:25 AM (#5747244)

Does the DOJ typically have the FBI investigate alleged crimes for which the statute has run? I suppose they would in this case.

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).

959. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:25 AM (#5747245)

They make Edwin Moses look like Tammy Duckworth.

I just want to give a shout out to this formulation. Well done.

960. Ray (CTL)

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:25 AM (#5747246)

Repeat: Her lawyer's letter did NOT say that she won't testify.

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.

961. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:26 AM (#5747247)

funny beats first

Heckuva hiphop compilation.

962. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:27 AM (#5747248)

Does the DOJ typically have the FBI investigate alleged crimes for which the statute has run?

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.

963. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:27 AM (#5747249)

They make Edwin Moses look like Tammy Duckworth.

Why must you make everything about *ahem* race?

964. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:31 AM (#5747251)

People who are willing to testify typically say, "I'm willing to testify." As Kavanaugh has.

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.

965. JL72 Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:31 AM (#5747252)

Dr. Ford is not refusing to testify to the Senate. She has declined to testify on Grassley's impromptu calendar.

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.

966. Ray (CTL)

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:31 AM (#5747253)

Why is Mark Judge afraid to testify under oath?

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.

967. JL72 Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:33 AM (#5747255)

Does the FBI typically investigate alleged crimes for which the statute has run? Particularly alleged juvenile crimes?

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.

968. Ray (CTL)

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:34 AM (#5747258)

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.

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?

969. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:35 AM (#5747259)

Moron alert!

“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.

one of the wettest we’ve ever seen from the standpoint of water

I don't know why, but that phrase just cracks me up.

970. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:36 AM (#5747261)

I don't know why, but that phrase just cracks me up.

Water is wet. Finally, a BBTF meme hits the big time!

971. JL72 Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:37 AM (#5747262)

Sounds ridiculous on its face but there's a kernel of logic to it.

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.

972. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:37 AM (#5747263)

I come away believing Hill very strongly.

Do folks here think she was lying?

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.

973. PreservedFish Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:37 AM (#5747264)

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.

Republicans don't get to silence the Democrats, do they?

974. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:39 AM (#5747266)

If the Republicans truly cared whether or not their nominee was a potential rapist, they would investigate. But apparently they don't, and are just playing to public opining. They all say the right things "Dr Ford should be heard", but the subtext is clear "We won't do anything about it, and we won't lift a finger to find out if there is anything to it." Why should she be a party to such farce?

975. Ray (CTL)

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:41 AM (#5747268)

To believe Hill was lying don't you have to believe:

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.

976. perros Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:46 AM (#5747270)

Because while David's point about the judge deciding it is correct

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.

977. perros Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:51 AM (#5747276)

one of the wettest we’ve ever seen from the standpoint of water

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.

978. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: September 19, 2018 at 10:54 AM (#5747281)

perros - glad to hear you got off relatively light, compared to some of what we've seen. I imagine the flooding varies pretty widely by neighborhood; are the downed trees and such pretty much everywhere? Are stores and gas stations and such back up and operating?

You're around Wilmington, correct?

979. Avoid Running At All Times- S. Paige Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:00 AM (#5747286)

Ray, I think you’re right about Hill. That said, you do understand the whole experience of coming forward, testifying, etc., was, to use understatement, an unpleasant one for her. Could the Hill example be one of the reasons why Ford isn’t exactly champing at the bit to testify herself on the conditions so far offered by the senate? Just thinking out loud here.

980. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:02 AM (#5747289)

Does the FBI typically investigate alleged crimes for which the statute has run? Particularly alleged juvenile crimes?

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.

981. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:07 AM (#5747294)

Are stores and gas stations and such back up and operating?

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.

982. Random Transaction Generator Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:08 AM (#5747296)

a slightly excessive level of interest in Claire Danes

Completely unrelated, but she's the ugliest crier in the history of television.
Otherwise, I fully understand his problem.

983. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:08 AM (#5747297)

Repeat: Her lawyer's letter did NOT say that she won't testify.

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.

984. Ray (CTL)

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:09 AM (#5747300)

Ray, I think you’re right about Hill. That said, you do understand the whole experience of coming forward, testifying, etc., was, to use understatement, an unpleasant one for her. Could the Hill example be one of the reasons why Ford isn’t exactly champing at the bit to testify herself on the conditions so far offered by the senate? Just thinking out loud here.

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.

985. Avoid Running At All Times- S. Paige Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:18 AM (#5747308)

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?

986. .

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:22 AM (#5747310)

There’s nothing inherent in the cosmos that says the forum for every witness has to be a public appearance with the questioning to be done by (typically grandstanding) senators.

987. perros Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:22 AM (#5747311)

I have't driven around, but there are grocery stores and gas stations open. Storm debris all over. Lots of big ol' oak trees in this town. But no major structural damage and minimal water damage. Funny thing is Wrightsville Beach where the eye came in got off the easiest. You are likely better off the closer you are to shore now.

988. perros Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:28 AM (#5747313)

I believe her

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.

989. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:33 AM (#5747318)

I really can't argue about this subject anymore, particularly not with this all-male congregation

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.

990. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:33 AM (#5747319)

Ross Douthat:

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.

A Trumpified conservatism, though, will necessarily struggle to acknowledge any of this, because of what it would suggest about Trump’s own fitness for his office. And such a conservatism — much-more-heavily male than the Reagan or Bush G.O.P., organized around the fears and grievances of prominent men, and seemingly indifferent to the legitimacy of certain kinds of female anger — will end up defining all its constituent parts, all its causes and concerns, as subordinate to the defense of male impunity.

This includes the pro-life movement. Even if it wins its long-desired victory at the high court and more anti-abortion legislation becomes possible, a pro-life cause joined to a party that can’t win female votes and seems to have no time for women will never be able to achieve those legislative goals, or at least never outside a very few, very conservative states. And having that long-awaited victory accomplished by a male judicial appointee confirmed under a cloud of #MeToo suspicion seems like a good way to cement a perception that’s fatal to the pro-life movement’s larger purposes — the perception that you can’t be pro-woman and pro-life.

991. PreservedFish Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:37 AM (#5747320)

Can someone explain to me what would happen if the court gets its 5 anti-Roe justices? Do people expect that it's possible to totally overturn abortion law and outlaw the practice nationally? Or something less than that? Would the process take many years?

992. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:38 AM (#5747323)

I really can't argue about this subject anymore, particularly not with this all-male congregation

Who exactly are you arguing with?

The insufficiently woke. As is always the case.

993. Random Transaction Generator Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:39 AM (#5747324)

Or something less than that?

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"...

994. perros Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:40 AM (#5747325)

Also since you are male (I think) it is particularly precious you are calling out the other men for being ... well male.

It's a very narrow range of opinion. The Claptrap gets old.

995. BDC

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:43 AM (#5747329)

Do people expect that it's possible to totally overturn abortion law and outlaw the practice nationally?

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.

996. BrianBrianson Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:46 AM (#5747332)

Like with abortion, if men were routinely subject to sexual assault, things would be different.

Well, then, I have news that is extremely negative in almost every context, but I suppose not this one ...

997. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:49 AM (#5747335)

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"...

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.

998. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:50 AM (#5747336)

I can't imagine that happening

"President Trump"

999. , Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:51 AM (#5747337)

Do people expect that it's possible to totally overturn abortion law and outlaw the practice nationally? Or something less than that? Would the process take many years?

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.

1000. Ray (CTL)

Posted: September 19, 2018 at 11:52 AM (#5747340)

Do people expect that it's possible to totally overturn abortion law and outlaw the practice nationally?

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.

Page 10 of 25 pages ‹ First < 8 9 10 11 12 > Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Monday, September 17, 2018

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

Reader Comments and Retorts

News

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics