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 24, 2018

OTP 2018 September 24: Baseball and the presidency

He tells us that Theodore Roosevelt, for all his heroics and man of action persona, detested baseball. For TR, the game was too slow, too staid, too devoid of the rough and tumble he loved – even though as a good pol he sang its praises as it grew in popularity.

His daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth: “Father and all of us regard[ed] baseball as a mollycoddle game. Tennis, football, lacrosse, boxing, polo, yes. They are violent, which appealed to us. But baseball? Father wouldn’t watch it, not even at Harvard!”

(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 24, 2018 at 08:48 AM | 3291 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, politics

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 33 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 >  Last ›
   901. Count Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:55 PM (#5751982)
895- don’t forget Judge, the other person accused by Ford and the only other witness who could testify to her accusation! Weird he’s not being subpoenaed.
   902. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:58 PM (#5751983)
Hard to believe, but Ford Has More Demands:
Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers have asked senators to limit the press who will be allowed in the room to cover Thursday’s hearing with her and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and sought to dictate at least some of the outlets. Coverage is one of a number of issues Ms. Blasey Ford’s lawyers are negotiating with Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Michael Bromwich said in emails sent Tuesday afternoon that he was requesting access for three “robocams,” three specific wire services, photographers from the Associated Press, Reuters and one unspecified service, and a pool reporter for newspapers and magazines. In a follow-up email he specified that the robocams should be operated by “the CSPAN TV pool,” and said he also wanted space for a radio reporter.

It appears that Ford not only wants to decide who questions her, but also who gets to cover her testimony. I'll have to check with Gonfalon, did Frank Costello have any demands like that?
   903. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 25, 2018 at 08:58 PM (#5751984)
As everyone knew would happen, those 11 Republican Senators will hide behind a skirt to question Ford on Thursday.

Rachel Mitchell, an Arizona county sex crimes prosecutor, emerges as top GOP choice to question Kavanaugh accuser before committee
All 11 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are men. That left the GOP with only men questioning Christine Blasey Ford about her allegation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh when they were teenagers. Mitchell, the sex crimes bureau chief for the Maricopa County Attorney’s office in Phoenix, is the likely candidate, according to two people familiar with the decision.

Kavanaugh has denied the allegation. He and Ford are scheduled to testify on Thursday before the committee.

Republicans declined to disclose Mitchell’s name. A committee spokesman declined to comment Tuesday night. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday, “We have hired a female assistant to go on staff and to ask these questions in a respectful and professional way.”

The only question is why those Republican Senators are even bothering to show up, since it would take a tearful confession by Kavanaugh to get them even to listen to Ford.
   904. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:01 PM (#5751987)

The New Yorker politics content is subpar, but Jane Meyer is an outstanding reporter from all accounts.
Jane Mayer is a terrible reporter from all accounts. At least two of the three books she wrote -- Strange Justice and Dark Money -- were hackishly awful, and of course her current piece on Kavanaugh was terrible.
   905. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:06 PM (#5751990)
Jane Mayer is a terrible reporter from all accounts. At least two of the three books she wrote -- Strange Justice and Dark Money -- were hackishly awful, and of course her current piece on Kavanaugh was terrible.

If there's one thing we can always count on around here, it's Mr. "Taxes at Gunpoint Are Stealing My Life"'s hard baked objectivity.

From Jane Mayer's wiki page:
Mayer was awarded the 2008 John Chancellor Award for Excellence in Journalism for her investigative report leading to her book The Dark Side. The Award, presented annually by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, is given to reporters for "distinguished cumulative accomplishments." In presenting the award, Nicholas Lemann, dean of the journalism school and one of the nine members of the award committee, noted that Mayer and her fellow winner, Andrew C. Revkin (science reporter for The New York Times) "set the gold standard for journalists, and we have benefited tremendously from their dedication and hard work."[60] She also has won the Ridenhour Book Prize[61] and the New York Public Library's Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism.[62]

Mayer was a finalist in the National Magazine Awards for 2007 for her nonfiction piece in The New Yorker entitled The Black Sites,[63] which was subsequently collected in The Best American Magazine Writing 2008, published by Columbia University Press, and edited by Jacob Weisberg.[64]

In 2008, Mayer was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in connection with her work on her third book, The Dark Side.[65][66] In 2009 Mayer was awarded the Hillman Prize, the Shorenstein Center's Goldsmith Book Prize for trade book of the year, and the J. Anthony Lukas Book Prize for The Dark Side.[67][68][69]

She received the Edward Weinthal Award from Georgetown University, in 2009, and the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism in 2010.

Mayer was awarded the George Polk Award for Magazine Reporting in 2011 for her investigative reporting on the relentless United States Department of Justice prosecution of NSA whistleblower Thomas Andrews Drake. Mayer's article in The New Yorker[70] told the story of how Drake faced up to 35 years in federal prison for communicating non-classified information about an NSA surveillance program known as "Trailblazer" to Baltimore Sun reporter Siobahn Gorman, who wrote a prize-winning article about it.[71] Drake had been arrested after an investigation meant to identify the source for the Pulitzer Prize-winning 2005 New York Times report on warrantless wiretapping,[72] Neither Drake nor any other NSA employee had actually been the story's source.[73] After Mayer's story was published, the prosecution dismissed all 10 felony charges against Drake.[74] He pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of violating rules regarding the retention of classified materials.[75]

In 2012, Mayer received the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting for her coverage of North Carolina state politics.
   906. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:07 PM (#5751991)
895- don’t forget Judge, the other person accused by Ford and the only other witness who could testify to her accusation! Weird he’s not being subpoenaed.

Patrick Smyth and Leland Keyser aren't being called either. There's really no need, they all agree that there was no such party Kavanaugh was at, and did so under penalty of perjury. Ford hasn't even testified under oath. You don't start dragging others before a Congressional Committee when they prefer not to testify until there's a demonstrated need. My guess is that if Ford ever testifies, no one will be saying we need to hear from Mark Judge when it's over.
   907. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:09 PM (#5751992)
I already explained it to you: Republicans, unlike Democrats, care whether the accusations are true.


This is untrue. The sad part is you know it. Everyone knows it. The lack of a vote has nothing to do with the GOP caring about the truth.
   908. Morty Causa Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:12 PM (#5751994)
I started to say I loved Mayer's long essay in defense of Salinger. Especially against those intellectuals (like Updike, Kazin, and others) who slammed him for the late Glass stories. But that was Janet Malcolm. Always get those two confused, even if Malcolm is 20 years older.
   909. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:14 PM (#5751996)
Yankee Clapper, #901:
It appears that Ford not only wants to decide who questions her, but also who gets to cover her testimony. I'll have to check with Gonfalon, did Frank Costello have any demands like that?


Still crying about that?

You're the one who boasted about your "experience in government, and knowledge of Congressional Hearings, as well as knowing others with even more extensive experience," and even with all those advantages you still got your ass handed to you.

Maybe one of those others with even more extensive experience would be willing to entertain your wounded nonsense.
   910. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:14 PM (#5751997)
895:
For almost 240 years witnesses have testified under oath at confirmation hearings and numerous other Congressional inquiries. Everybody does it routinely - except the Kavanaugh accusers.


How many times in this unbroken 240-year tradition did the majority party hire a female prosecutor to ask their questions for them?
   911. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:16 PM (#5751998)
While there's fairly thick case law regarding spectators presence, as it relates to defendant's rights, during a criminal trial, I admit I have no idea what the protocol is for such hearings before the Senate. My guess is, the Judiciary Committee determines this w/o regard to any federal case law precedent, since this is not a criminal or civil proceeding within the federal courts.
   912. Howie Menckel Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:29 PM (#5752003)
I realize I am coming at this from a different angle, but I ask again:

If someone not only respects Dr. Ford and her allegations, but also appreciates that she has been through much trauma (I do and I do) - then wouldn't you prefer to have her take questions from a younger female professional sex crimes attorney than from some octogenarian R Senators who will all make our skin crawl due to their tone deafness?

how does SHE benefit from demanding that these 11 kind of angry white men badgering her instead?

as I say, placing Dr. Ford's needs and benefits at the forefront is ignoring the game on both sides, but shouldn't her situation be relevant? I am viewing not as a pawn here, which I hope is an accepted viewpoint.
   913. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:32 PM (#5752005)
@CNN
US slaps sanctions on wife of Venezuelan President Maduro

@AndrewGillum (Governor candidate, FL)
Dictators, and those who associate with them, must be held accountable for their intolerable and brutal actions. These sanctions are a positive step forward, but more must be done.

A) Why does the guy running for Governor of Florida feel the need to chime in on this issue?
B) Why’s my man gotta have such shitty takes?
   914. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:32 PM (#5752007)
* and that's why expert testimony is crucial, if one were interested in trying to find out the truth as best we can. Absent that, the questions write themselves: "Dr Ford, you have given compelling detailed testimony about the alleged incident, but you can't tell us exactly when or where this took place. Since your memory is so hazy on those details, why should we believe the other details?"

Because that is entirely consistent with how the brain and memory deal with these things, that's why.


Actually, as Adams will tell you, the brain does not operate like a camera, snapping photos and taking video as one goes through life. Memory is a series of recreations.
   915. Srul Itza Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:33 PM (#5752010)
Republicans, unlike Democrats, care whether the accusations are true.


No, they don't, any more than you do. If they knew for an absolute fact they were true, they would still push him on the Court, as would you, since you don't see anything wrong with anything he allegedly did -- certainly, not wrong enough to keep you from putting another vote in your favor on the Court.
   916. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:34 PM (#5752011)
912 I’m with you 100% Howie. I say defer to Miss Ford’s preferences all the way—gotta imagine having a female attorney and like 2 cameras would be less stressful than these GOP monsters and a thousand cameras.
   917. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:34 PM (#5752012)

The Latest: Lawyer for 2nd accuser offers sworn statement
Well, based on the quoted excerpt, that headline is false. If they wanted to offer a sworn statement, the way to do that would be to... swear to a statement and then submit it. A more accurate headline would be "Lawyer for 2nd accuser claims that she wants to offer a sworn statement but just hasn't managed to find the time to actually do it."

The excerpt makes even less sense because the Senate Judiciary Committee, as the name implies, is part of the legislative branch. The FBI, on the other hand, is part of the executive branch. So it is not clear why the lawyer would be calling the senate if Ramirez wanted to submit something to FBI. ("I've been calling the DMV repeatedly, but they won't tell me how to get my GED.") If Ramirez wanted to submit something to the FBI, why wouldn't her lawyer call, you know, the FBI?

In any case, it's certainly understandable why Ramirez would prefer to avoid being cross-examined.
   918. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:35 PM (#5752013)
“Our counsel repeatedly tried to reach him,” Kennedy said of Ramirez's lawyer. “They finally did reach him, and he said we are not issuing a statement. He said if you want our statement, read the New Yorker.”

That would be the New Yorker article in which everyone Ramirez named disputed her account, and neither the authors nor any other media working the story could find even one witness to corroborate her accusation.


Maybe Ronan Farrow can testify as to why he lowered his journalistic reputation to write the Ramirez article.
   919. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:35 PM (#5752014)
re: 912,
You're correct Howie, but the Ford team is hoping that if the Senators do the questioning, one might arguably overreach, or say something awkward, and then they could do the tshipman fainting sofa faux outrage bit, distracting yet again from the content, or lack thereof, of her testimony. There's also the matter of most of the Senator (of both parties) not being that good on cross-examination techniques.
   920. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:37 PM (#5752015)
If someone not only respects Dr. Ford and her allegations, but also appreciates that she has been through much trauma ( I do and I do) - then wouldn't you prefer to have her take questions from a younger female professional sex crimes attorney than from some octogenarian R Senators who will all make our skin crawl due to their tone deafness?

how does SHE benefit from demanding that these 11 kind of angry white men badgering her instead?


because a skilled prosecutor can slice and dice her in a way in which:

a) octogenarian R Senators can't, or
b) wouldn't want to be seen doing.
   921. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:39 PM (#5752017)
I realize I am coming at this from a different angle, but I ask again:

If someone not only respects Dr. Ford and her allegations, but also appreciates that she has been through much trauma (I do and I do) - then wouldn't you prefer to have her take questions from a younger female professional sex crimes attorney than from some octogenarian R Senators who will all make our skin crawl due to their tone deafness?

how does SHE benefit from demanding that these 11 kind of angry white men badgering her instead?

as I say, placing Dr. Ford's needs and benefits at the forefront is ignoring the game on both sides, but shouldn't her situation be relevant? I am viewing not as a pawn here, which I hope is an accepted viewpoint.


I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that, though as a Republican hired by other Republicans it's questionable whether she or her employers will actually be formulating the questions. That's why I said they're hiding behind a skirt.

And again, while I agree it might be better to have a woman doing the questioning, it's also obvious that this had nothing whatever to do with the Republicans' motivations to turn the job over to Miz Mitchell. Given the previous comments of many of these Senators, they know damn well how the optics of 11 white men who are dead set on confirming Kavanaugh questioning his accuser would look.
   922. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:40 PM (#5752018)
As everyone knew would happen, those 11 Republican Senators will hide behind a skirt to question Ford on Thursday.

Rachel Mitchell, an Arizona county sex crimes prosecutor, emerges as top GOP choice to question Kavanaugh accuser before committee


I'm at a loss to see what the problem now is. Wasn't the original complaint that only "old white men" would be questioning her?
   923. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:46 PM (#5752024)
I realize I am coming at this from a different angle, but I ask again:

If someone not only respects Dr. Ford and her allegations, but also appreciates that she has been through much trauma (I do and I do) - then wouldn't you prefer to have her take questions from a younger female professional sex crimes attorney than from some octogenarian R Senators who will all make our skin crawl due to their tone deafness?

how does SHE benefit from demanding that these 11 kind of angry white men badgering her instead?

as I say, placing Dr. Ford's needs and benefits at the forefront is ignoring the game on both sides, but shouldn't her situation be relevant? I am viewing not as a pawn here, which I hope is an accepted viewpoint.

This was answered to you in #2219 of the previous thread. And you even acknowledged the response.

You are not asking in good faith, you are just doing your typical Howie Both Sides bit, where you always seem to come down on criticising the left and excusing the right.

Edit: wrong post number, it's late
   924. Howie Menckel Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:46 PM (#5752025)
Given the previous comments of many of these Senators, they know damn well how the optics of 11 white men who are dead set on confirming Kavanaugh questioning his accuser would look.

oh, I get the politics. but whatever happened to do what might be less stressful to a traumatized accuser? I kind of get Misirlou's point, but even that one seems pretty political.

if either party attempts to use this credible woman as a prop for their craven political interests, then shame on them.

wow, I AM naive
:(

and Fancy Crazy has a longer memory than I do, clearly. not sure where I have excused the right here. I am trying to focus on what might be the best situation that is most respectful to the accuser. I don't care who might gain or lose political points from that.
   925. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:50 PM (#5752029)
and Fancy Crazy has a longer memory than I do, clearly.

Clearly not since I messed up the post number in the 2 minutes it took me to look it up, and write a response.

The main point is that there is no reason to believe being asked by a cut-throat lawyer, who does not have to worry about the optics of harassing her, is going to lead to less stressful or traumatising outcomes, just because she has a vagina. The trauma of having to relieve such a situation would not change.
   926. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:53 PM (#5752032)
Given the previous comments of many of these Senators, they know damn well how the optics of 11 white men who are dead set on confirming Kavanaugh questioning his accuser would look.

oh, I get the politics. but whatever happened to do what might be less stressful to a traumatized accuser? I kind of get Misirlou's point, but even that one seems pretty political.


So why not split the difference and let her be questioned by a female non-Republican sex crimes prosecutor? Or maybe by Patti Davis Reagan, who's had first hand experience with sexual assault?

That's not necessarily a knock on Miz Mitchell, but given the way the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have acted up to now, it's hard not to be a bit cynical about their choice of outside expert.
   927. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:54 PM (#5752034)
if either party attempts to use this credible woman as a prop for their craven political interests, then shame on them.


Thankfully, that will not happen to this singularly brave victim who deserves to have her story-- that she's a lying Dem operative who never reported the horseplay because it didn't happen-- heard.
   928. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 09:57 PM (#5752036)
Dave Wasserman @Redistrict
The most bonkers thing about this half-completed NYT/Siena poll: Rep. Tom MacArthur (R) is supposedly ahead 3% among men and he’s still trailing by 19% overall. [NJ-3]


There are consequences.
   929. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 25, 2018 at 10:00 PM (#5752038)
I am trying to focus on what might be the best situation that is most respectful to the accuser. I don't care who might gain or lose political points from that.


Meh. I have zero problem with all sides engaging in negotiations and then it all falls out like it does.

I think anyone suggesting it hurts her credibility to be negotiating her appearance is full of crap. I also think she is a grownup and gets to make decide in the final result if she testifies or not.

This is not about making either Ford or BK happy and feeling safe. It is about confirming a Supreme Court Justice and of course the associated politics on both sides.
   930. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 10:02 PM (#5752040)
So why not split the difference and let her be questioned by a female non-Republican sex crimes prosecutor?


Why not admit that you keep moving the goalposts.
   931. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 25, 2018 at 10:05 PM (#5752042)

But it is, IMO, incontrovertible that Kavanaugh was a notoriously aggressive and inappropriate drunk from high school through, at minimum, law school.

818. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 05:38 PM (#5751831)
There's virtually no evidence that is true. That was a time period in which Kavanaugh finished 1st in his class at an elite high school while playing two varsity sports, graduated cum laude from Yale while playing junior varsity basketball and writing for the Yale Daily News, and excelled at arguably the highest rated law school in the country (Yale again) sufficiently to be Notes Editor on the Law Journal, and snag a string of Federal Court Clerkships, culminating with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Those are difficult things to do under any circumstances, much less as a "notoriously aggressive and inappropriate drunk". If Kavanaugh had such a serious long-term drinking problem, shouldn't there be at least one incident with solid evidence? Multiple accusers, actual corroborating witnesses, or a night in the drunk tank? Not a hint of any that.

Not that it matters (since the conservatives here are just play-acting) but

One woman remembers Judge Kavanaugh's wearing a leather football helmet while drinking and approaching her on campus the night he was tapped for DKE. She described his grabbing his crotch, hopping on one leg and chanting: "I'm a geek, I'm a geek, I'm a power tool. When I sing this song, I look like a fool."

Nearly a dozen people who knew him well or socialized with him said Judge Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker in college. Dr. Swisher said she saw him "very drunk" a number of times. Mr. Roche, his former freshmen year roommate, described his stumbling in at all hours of the night.
   932. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 25, 2018 at 10:14 PM (#5752046)
Republicans, unlike Democrats, care whether the accusations are true.

No, they don't, any more than you do. If they knew for an absolute fact they were true, they would still push him on the Court,
We know empirically that you are wrong: they haven't confirmed Kavanaugh, because of these allegations.
   933. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 25, 2018 at 10:15 PM (#5752047)
Politico:
Trump’s trade wars start biting GOP ahead of midterms

As fresh U.S. tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports take effect Monday, surveys show consumers growing increasingly worried about higher prices this fall. Giant retailers such as Walmart are warning of price increases for manufactured goods. And smaller businesses in swing states and districts from Washington state, to Iowa, to Tennessee are complaining bitterly about big hits to their exports.

The economic fallout from Trump’s skirmishes with China, Canada, Mexico and the European Union risk making an already tough cycle for Republicans even more brutal, giving Democrats a chance to peel away voters linked to influential industries — like Washington state cherry farmers and Tennessee whiskey makers — who have long supported business-friendly Republicans.

“Where you have real-world effects of the trade war, you see people’s opinions sour dramatically,” said Scott Lincicome, a trade lawyer and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute who is studying the links between public opinion and trade. “You look at places like Washington state where people are dependent on exporting cherries and apples, or Rust Belt states that border Canada, or Tennessee with auto and bourbon makers, and you are going to see close races where this is actually a decisive issue.”

............Consumer sentiment measured by the University of Michigan dropped last month to its lowest point in nearly a year, with the decline centered in lower-income households most sensitive to higher prices. The sentiment index ticked up again in preliminary results for September. But nearly a third of those surveyed cited concern over tariffs when assessing the economy. A survey of chief financial officers unveiled last week by Deloitte found that 42 percent said business conditions would improve next year, the lowest in two years, with executives “overwhelmingly worried” about trade policy and tariffs.

................Democrats are seizing on the trade issue in close House and Senate races across the country, such as in Tennessee for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Republican Bob Corker. Democratic nominee Phil Bredesen, that state's former governor, is locked in a tight race with GOP Rep. Marsha Blackburn in what otherwise might be a safe seat for the party. Bredesen has hammered away at Trump’s tariffs, which are hitting the state’s large automotive, hog farming and bourbon industries.

Blackburn, a strong Trump supporter, has been critical of the president’s trade policies but stopped short of demanding that Congress take away Trump’s tariff authority. A newly formed pro-trade effort called Tariffs Hurt the Heartland held a town hall in Nashville last week to highlight what that campaign says is the negative impact of Trump’s policies on Tennessee businesses.

Democratic incumbent Sen. Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota recently ran an ad with soybean farmers talking about the “hundreds of millions” of dollars in lost sales to China. Democrats are also pressing the trade issue especially hard in competitive Senate races in Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana and even Nebraska, generally viewed as a safe GOP seat, according to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The same holds true in House races in competitive districts that rely heavily on exports. In Washington state’s 8th District, which crosses the Cascade mountains, Democratic nominee Dr. Kim Schrier is ripping the tariff impact on the state’s apple and cherry farmers in the race to replace retiring GOP Rep. Dave Reichert. Democrats have never won the seat. ..............The GOP nominee in the district, Dino Rossi, has walked a middle ground typical of pro-trade Republicans across the country, criticizing some specific Trump policies on trade but stopping short of strong rebukes that could alienate the president’s fervent supporters. In a statement this summer, Rossi said he has been “very open about my disagreements” with Trump on trade.

Beyond Washington state, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee cited competitive House races in California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas and Kentucky where the party is making Trump’s trade policies a central issue. A spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, which promotes GOP House candidates, did not respond to a request for comment on the impact of the trade issue.

.................Trump’s trade policies also are making it difficult for big business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Retail Federation that generally support pro-business Republicans. The Chamber, for example, is still spending money on ads supportive of GOP candidates like Rossi in Washington state, while strongly opposing Trump’s trade policy and issuing charts listing the states most heavily impacted by retaliatory tariffs on American exports.

The Chamber’s latest list of states impacted the most include Alabama, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin, where the state’s GOP Gov. Scott Walker trails Democratic nominee Tony Evers in recent polling. Retaliatory tariffs threaten a range of products exported from Wisconsin including cheese, whey and paper products, according to the Chamber. .............“This is going to be like death by a thousand cuts hitting every consumer product once you broaden the tariffs out,” said Matthew Shay, president of the National Retail Federation.


Polling snapshot of the Washington district cited in the article:

The Republican won the last three elections for the WA-08 seat by margins of 20%, 27% and 20%. Democrats have never won this 36-year-old district, and have only come within 5% three times in eighteen elections.

Cook Report and Inside Elections both rate the 2018 race as a Toss Up. Sabato's Crystal Ball says "Leans Democratic."
   934. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: September 25, 2018 at 10:18 PM (#5752051)
And the two accusers aren't just random classmates, both have been reported to be very active politically in opposition to the current administration.

What are these reports?
   935. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 10:23 PM (#5752053)
Grassley to Feinstein: No More Delays:
I write regarding your request that I postpone the hearing scheduled for Thursday, September 27, during which we will hear Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony regarding her allegations of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's conduct in high school. I respectfully decline your request. I am not going to silence Dr. Ford after I promised and assured her that I would provide her a safe, comfortable, and dignified opportunity to testify.

Both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have, over the last week, requested the opportunity to testify to Congress regarding Dr. Ford's allegations. After protracted negotiations with Dr. Ford's attorneys, during which we postponed the hearing we had originally scheduled, Dr. Ford's attorneys agreed to a hearing this Thursday. There is no reason to delay the hearing any further.

Besides being unfair to Dr. Ford, whose attorneys asked for a public hearing one week ago, delaying the hearing further would be unfair to Judge Kavanaugh and his family. He has asked the Committee repeatedly for the chance to testify as soon as possible. He has categorically denied the allegations that have been made public. He did this in a transcribed interview with several Senate investigators, under penalty of up to five years' imprisonment for lying. We can no longer stand in the way ofhim presenting his testimony before the Committee.

It is unforgivable that Dr. Ford and her family have been subjected to threats and intimidation. But Judge Kavanaugh and his family, including his two young daughters, have also faced threats and intimidation. We must take his family's safety, and the trauma this is causing to his young daughters, into account no less than we must account for the threats and intimidation suffered by Dr. Ford and her family.

You suggest that Dr. Ford's testimony should be further delayed because of allegations made in the New Yorker by Deborah Ramirez. I am unclear why Ms. Ramirez's claims should have any bearing on Dr. Ford's testimony. In fact, the obvious connection between the two claims is that Senate Democrats hid both allegations of misconduct from the Committee and the public. Indeed, it was reportedly Senate Democratic staff who conveyed the allegations to the media rather than alert Republican staffto conduct a bipartisan investigation.

Finally, you ask that the FBI investigate Ms. Ramirez's claims. As you know, Judge Kavanaugh has gone through six FBI background investigations over the past 25 years. The FBI's investigations covered his time at Yale and uncovered nothing remotely similar to the misconduct alleged by Ms. Ramirez. Additionally, as the New Yorker story itself states, the publication could "not confirm[] with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party." And the New York Times spoke to several dozen people to corroborate Ms. Ramirez's allegations but "could find no one with firsthand knowledge." Indeed, the Times reports that Ms. Ramirez herself said she could not be sure Judge Kavanaugh did what she alleged in the New Yorker article. It's not clear how the FBI could further illuminate what transpired at a dormitory party 35 years ago. Even the liberal New York Times did not find these allegations "fit to print."

As of now, the only allegations of which the Committee is aware with respect to Ms. Ramirez are the allegations described in the New Yorker . As you know, false statements made to the press are not subject to criminal penalty, but false statements to Congress are. If Ms. Ramirez submits testimony and evidence to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Committee investigators have requested, we can decide how to proceed. But, at this time, Democratic staff has not shared any such evidence it has with Republican staff. And, because Ms. Ramirez's allegations are unrelated to Dr. Ford's, there is no reason at all to delay the hearing on Thursday in light of these new allegations.

We'll see if Ford shows up. Link goes to the Majority Press section of the Senate Judiciary Committee website, where the document is the 1st item in the Letters category. Linking directly to PDFs doesn't seem to work well, but it's there.
   936. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 25, 2018 at 10:57 PM (#5752063)
And the two accusers aren't just random classmates, both have been reported to be very active politically in opposition to the current administration.

What are these reports?

Another clown that doesn't know how to use a search engine? We've already discussed Ford's background, with links in the prior posts. She has a long record of contributing to Democratic candidates & liberal causes, was in the news for participating in two anti-Trump protest marches, designed anti-Trump protest apparel, and participated in litigation challenging Trump's immigration policy. There's nothing wrong with engaging in such activities, but they are well beyond what the average citizen does. By any fair reading, that makes her a political activist, despite the resistance of some here to the term. She may have done more, that's just what's in the news recently. She deleted her social media accounts, and there was at least one article quoting someone as indicating it had considerable political content. Perhaps that will be addressed further at the hearing, if Ford actually testifies.

There's less information about Deborah Ramirez. She's a registered Democrat residing in Boulder, Colorado. There's probably a joke about that being sufficient, but she's also a Board Member and volunteer at the Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence, an organization that helps victims of domestic violence. Combatting domestic violence isn't necessarily political, but the "Progressive Alliance" terminology suggests there is a liberal overlay to the group. Their Code of Ethics seems to contain every social justice warrior buzz word and repeatedly terms such items "Non-Negotiables". I'm pretty sure Ms. Ramirez wouldn't be offended by being described as a liberal activist. If she'd come forward in a timely manner, and been iterviewed by the Committee, we'd probably know more.
   937. PreservedFish Posted: September 25, 2018 at 11:02 PM (#5752069)
So the part about Ramirez being "very active politically in opposition to the current administration," was that just a bald-faced lie? Or did you just harmlessly inflate her political activity in your brain, no doubt due to your ironclad conviction that the Kav rumors are politically motivated? I'm willing to believe either.
   938. baravelli Posted: September 25, 2018 at 11:16 PM (#5752079)
Republicans, unlike Democrats, care whether the accusations are true.

No, they don't, any more than you do. If they knew for an absolute fact they were true, they would still push him on the Court,

We know empirically that you are wrong: they haven't confirmed Kavanaugh, because of these allegations.

Couldn't it just as easily be because of concern over how voters might view their handling of the allegations, as opposed to concern over whether the allegations are true?
   939. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 25, 2018 at 11:26 PM (#5752082)
So why not split the difference and let her be questioned by a female non-Republican sex crimes prosecutor?

Why not admit that you keep moving the goalposts.


I'm not sure what goalposts I set up to begin with, since the person who first stated the case for a female questioner was Howie.

But why does this questioner have to be a Republican hired by Republicans?
   940. Zonk is One Individual Posted: September 25, 2018 at 11:28 PM (#5752084)
There's less information about Deborah Ramirez. She's a registered Democrat residing in Boulder, Colorado. There's probably a joke about that being sufficient, but she's also a Board Member and volunteer at the Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence, an organization that helps victims of domestic violence. Combatting domestic violence isn't necessarily political, but the "Progressive Alliance" terminology suggests there is a liberal overlay to the group. Their Code of Ethics seems to contain every social justice warrior buzz word and repeatedly terms such items "Non-Negotiables". I'm pretty sure Ms. Ramirez wouldn't be offended by being described as a liberal activist. If she'd come forward in a timely manner, and been iterviewed by the Committee, we'd probably know more.


Well, to naive rubes living in a pre-Rob Porter mindset - I would say "combatting domestic violence ISN'T political. period"

But, you know -- such thinking predates what I can only imagine was some secret conference where the majority of the nation's Republicans decided to meet and formulate their "How can we REALLY become a cult of loathesome shitgibbons" agenda.

I might ordered flip-flopped the creeper Moore specificity with the general Trump shitgoblinanny, but it's hard to argue with what works, I guess.
   941. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 26, 2018 at 12:04 AM (#5752095)
We'll soon see who is best at counting votes - GOP Confidence Grows On Kavanaugh:
Senate Republicans say that Brett Kavanaugh’s chances of confirmation have improved because of new doubts over allegations of sexual misconduct against the embattled Supreme Court nominee. That growing confidence was reflected Tuesday by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who told reporters after a meeting of the Senate GOP conference that he will have enough votes to confirm Kavanaugh.
. . .
McConnell seized on the doubts raised by the Times in a floor speech Monday. “This claim is so dubious that The New York Times passed on the story entirely after it looked into it,” he said of Ramirez’s accusation. “Here’s why The New York Times declined to publish. It — quote — ‘interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story and could find no one with firsthand knowledge.’ Not one person ‘with firsthand knowledge’ to support the allegation — but rather multiple, on-the-record denials,” he said.

Pretty sure McConnell keeps in touch with the GOP Senators who some here keep suggesting are in doubt. It's also notable that despite the most recent flap, the remaining Red State Democrats have refused to come out against Kavanaugh.
   942. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 26, 2018 at 12:26 AM (#5752097)
Clapper, #936:
Another clown that doesn't know how to use a search engine?


Says the guy whose woody sprung to life 2 days ago and pointed to true magnetic north when he saw Yashar Ali Tweet 4 of 5, and he immediately knew that was all he ever wanted to know.



Clapper, #941:
We'll soon see who is best at counting votes - GOP Confidence Grows On Kavanaugh


Ooh, look who's lurched from "crackpot" mode to "cheerleader" mode, after just one headline. (And heaven knows that one headline is NOT "There's a suburban tsunami driving 2018.")

Of course he's going to be confirmed, you twit. And just like you repeatedly crowed, Democrats never laid a glove on him.
   943. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 26, 2018 at 12:42 AM (#5752098)
Gonfalon seems to be awfully testy lately. It's like his 4-hour Sunday night orgasm over the New Yorker article left him unsatisfied. Reading is fundamental.
   944. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 26, 2018 at 12:47 AM (#5752099)
Now here's how to swing a Toss Up election:
GOP Rep. Cramer questions whether accusation against Kavanaugh should disqualify him, even if true

Kevin Cramer, the Republican candidate trying to flip Heidi Heitkamp's North Dakota Senate seat, speaking about the Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations:
"Nothing evidently happened. There was no type of intercourse or anything like that. That was my point, that nothing happened in terms of a sexual, um, event, beyond, obviously, the attack. ........These people were teenagers when this supposed alleged incident took place. ........Nothing evidently happened in it all, even by her own accusation. Again, it was supposedly an attempt or something that never went anywhere. ........ It’s tragic, it’s unfortunate, it’s terrible. [But] even if it’s all true, does it disqualify him? It certainly means that he did something really bad 36 years ago, but does it disqualify him from the Supreme Court?"
   945. perros Posted: September 26, 2018 at 12:47 AM (#5752100)
a younger female professional sex crimes attorney


Prosecutor. So will she be grilling the accused as well?
   946. Howie Menckel Posted: September 26, 2018 at 12:49 AM (#5752101)
can't speak to the veracity, but it appears to be a Twitter war (of surrogates)


Jennifer Rubin
‏Verified account @JRubinBlogger

Only this crowd of clueless old white guys wold pick someone from Sheriff Joe's operation. I was saying no self-respecting lawyer would take the job of giving cover to GOP cowards. I was right.

................


Senator Hatch Office
‏Verified account @senorrinhatch
1h1 hour ago

Senator Hatch Office Retweeted Jennifer Rubin

2,900 tweets and counting for a tweet maligning someone with patently false information.

Mitchell works for the Maricopa County Attorney, not Maricopa County Sheriff.

..................

(Rubin has 208K followers. I don't know if she screwed the pooch here, but that would be a bad beat against the dinosaurs running the auto Hatch account. and wow, earlier Rubin tweets tonight have her in a frenzy against this nomination. interesting)

   947. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: September 26, 2018 at 01:27 AM (#5752103)
Clapper, #943--
It's like his 4-hour Sunday night orgasm over the New Yorker article left him unsatisfied.


Yankee Clapper had only barely finished squeegeeing away the evidence of his gooey excitement from falling for (sorry, "merely noting") the insanity that a duplicate Brett Kavanaugh had been running around molesting teens and giving future nominees alibis. Just then, a subterranean rumbling in his gray, pendulous nutsack falsely alerted him that the news source that the respects most, the New York Times, had rejected and thus invalidated the New Yorker's dick-in-the-face story. And yet even at this eruptive moment of victory and vindication, OTP's foremost premature adjudicator still found the refractory time to express concern about my sensual release. What a man. What a mensch.
   948. perros Posted: September 26, 2018 at 01:40 AM (#5752107)
Rubin's a GOP neocon hack.
   949. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 26, 2018 at 01:42 AM (#5752108)
Hypothesis in #943 appears confirmed, but just for the record, long before the NYT devastated the New Yorker article:
2282. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 23, 2018 at 08:57 PM (#5750191)
Seems pretty thin, a vague drunken memory that Kavanaugh pulled a Bill Clinton 35-years ago, with denials by many. It's not even clear that the Democrats are going to stand behind this. Hirono seems to be taking the lead, I wouldn't think the least effective Democrat on the Committee would have a prominent role if the Dems thought it was going to hold up. Lots of guilt by association, too, attempting to hold Kavanaugh responsible for others behavior. There's even a quote from someone who went to high school "in the same county".

Compare that to the Gonfalon - Tshipman "He's Toast!" party. Again, reading is fundamental.
   950. bookbook Posted: September 26, 2018 at 05:09 AM (#5752117)
I’m fairly convinced Kavanaugh will be confirmed because the GOP thinks the votes he costs them weren’t theirs to compete for anyway.. The most interesting question left is can a Supreme Court Justice do his job while in Jail? There has to be at least a one in four chance that this is where the Kavanaugh Kareenathon is taking us.

Ironic, given that the primary motivation for choosing this particular party loyalist lawyer-judge-basketball coach is to keep Donald Trump out of jail.
   951. Morty Causa Posted: September 26, 2018 at 05:45 AM (#5752118)
"Old white men" seems to be an okay rubric more and more. I notice not only Rubin using it, but its rife in mainstream media organs, like The Guardian. It's here, too, on these boards. Why is that not condemned as racist and ageist? Would "fat black women" be likewise all right? How about "black wannabe pimps"? Asking for a friend.
   952. PreservedFish Posted: September 26, 2018 at 06:56 AM (#5752121)
Take a guess, Mortimer.
   953. manchestermets Posted: September 26, 2018 at 07:02 AM (#5752122)
We know empirically that you are wrong: they haven't confirmed Kavanaugh, because of these allegations.


We can't empirically know any such thing; the process on which any such observations would be based has not yet completed.
   954. Morty Causa Posted: September 26, 2018 at 07:19 AM (#5752123)
952

My guess is that the right sort of wholesale disparagement on a particular class of people is oojah-cum-spiff.
   955. perros Posted: September 26, 2018 at 07:33 AM (#5752124)
Mitch McConnell, who has already declared Kavanaugh will be confirmed, referring to the Maricopa County sex crimes prosector: "We have hired a fee-male"

Yeah, nothing political there, Howie.
   956. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 26, 2018 at 07:37 AM (#5752125)
Only the most honest people!

Kavanaugh’s ‘choir boy’ image on Fox interview rankles former Yale classmates
On Monday night, Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh said in a nationally televised interview that in his younger years, he was focused on sports, academics and “service projects.” But it was his comments about drinking that rankled some Yale University classmates, prompting them to speak out for the first time.

Liz Swisher, who described herself as a friend of Kavanaugh in college, said she was shocked that — in an interview focused largely on his high school years and allegations of sexual misconduct — he strongly denied drinking to the point of blacking out.

“Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him. I watched him drink more than a lot of people. He’d end up slurring his words, stumbling,” said Swisher, a Democrat and chief of the gynecologic oncology division at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “There’s no medical way I can say that he was blacked out. . . . But it’s not credible for him to say that he has had no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to excess.”

Lynne Brookes, who like Swisher was a college roommate of one of the two women now accusing Kavanaugh of misconduct, said the nominee’s comments on Fox did not match the classmate she remembered.

“He’s trying to paint himself as some kind of choir boy,” said Brookes, a Republican and former pharmaceutical executive who recalled an encounter with a drunken Kavanaugh at a fraternity event. “You can’t lie your way onto the Supreme Court, and with that statement out, he’s gone too far. It’s about the integrity of that institution.” ...

The Post contacted Brookes and Swisher last week because they lived with Ramirez at different points during their undergraduate years. Neither returned calls or emails until Tuesday. Ramirez previously told neither of them about her allegation — she accuses him of exposing himself to her while both were drunk at a party — but Brookes and Swisher said they believe her account.

Years before his Supreme Court nomination, Kavanaugh acknowledged heavy drinking in a 2014 speech to the Yale Federalist Society. He recalled organizing a boozy trip for 30 of his Yale Law classmates to Boston for a baseball game and a night of barhopping, complete with “group chugs from a keg” and a return to campus by “falling out of the bus onto the steps of Yale Law School at about 4:45 a.m.”

According to his scripted remarks, he said: “Fortunately for all of us, we had a motto. What happens on the bus stays on the bus.”

Another former classmate who has publicly supported Ramirez, James Roche, said Kavanaugh frequently drank to the point of incoherence. “He hung out with the football players and soccer players, and they drank a lot and were bros,” Roche, who briefly shared a room with Kavanaugh during their freshman year, said in an interview this month. In a statement Monday night, after the Fox interview, Roche described Kavanaugh as a “notably heavy drinker” who “became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk.”

Meanwhile, three Yale classmates who along with others endorsed Kavanaugh last month in a letter to the Judiciary Committee called Tuesday for an investigation into the sexual assault claims.

“The confirmation process should be conducted in a way that fosters trust in the process and the Supreme Court, and that seriously considers allegations of sexual violence,” Kent Sinclair, a political independent who practices law in Beverly, Mass., and Douglas Rutzen, a lawyer in Washington and registered Democrat, said in a joint statement.

Mark Osler, a former federal prosecutor and a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in St. Paul, Minn., said in an interview that “the focus can’t just be on the accusers and trying to bring their veracity into question. The circumstances need to be probed.”

Amar, the professor, wrote Monday in the Yale Daily News that a probe would be the “best way forward.”

“If the investigation’s facts and findings support him, then he will join the Court in the sunshine and not under a cloud,” he wrote.

Kavanaugh hinted at his drinking in his 1983 Georgetown Prep yearbook entry. He identified himself as the “biggest contributor” to the Beach Week Ralph Club, an apparent reference to vomiting, and treasurer of the Keg City Club. “100 Kegs or Bust,” his entry says, referring to a campaign by his friends to empty 100 kegs of beer during their senior year.

The entry also made several references to women, including identifying Kavanaugh as a “Renate Alumnius.” The New York Times reported Monday that the phrase, also contained in other boys’ yearbook entries, was a reference to boasts of their alleged conquests involving a female student named Renate Schroeder from another high school.

“They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate,” Georgetown Prep graduate Sean Hagan told The Times. “I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.”

Walsh, Kavanaugh’s lawyer, told the Times that the nominee was friends with the woman, now Renate Dolphin, “admired her very much then, and he admires her to this day.” Walsh said the yearbook entry referred to a kiss they had shared after a high school event.

Dolphin did not respond to requests for comment. She told the Times she had never kissed Kavanaugh.

“I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago,” Dolphin told the Times. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way.”
   957. Morty Causa Posted: September 26, 2018 at 07:57 AM (#5752127)
   958. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 26, 2018 at 07:57 AM (#5752128)
Here's the first profile of Rachel Mitchell I've seen since her appointment yesterday. She's a Republican who's donated to the campaign of the Republican Attorney-General, but as Hatch says and Howie also noted, she's not connected with Joe Arpaio's office.** One question is whether she'll be allowed to question Kavanaugh as well as Ford, and if so, what sort of questions she'll put to him.

Who is Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona prosecutor chosen to question Kavanaugh and his accuser?
On Oct. 25, 2005, the Rev. Paul LeBrun appeared in court in Maricopa County, Ariz. The former Catholic priest had been accused of molesting six boys between the ages of 11 and 13 during the late 1980s and early 1990s, after he was transferred to Arizona from a parish in Indiana. But he insisted that he was innocent.

The prosecutor assigned to the case was a woman named Rachel Mitchell. Decades later, she would find herself tasked with handling an even more contentious case — this time involving a potential Supreme Court justice and the woman who has accused him of sexual misconduct.

Calling his client the victim of a “witch hunt,” LeBrun’s attorney, Kenneth Huls, did his best to discredit the accusations, the Arizona Republic reported. First, he pointed out that the allegations were more than a decade old. He also noted that three of the victims had felony convictions, while two others were seeking millions from civil lawsuits. The case, he said, was all about false accusations and greed.

For prosecutors, the stakes were high. Two years earlier, an investigation by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office had found enough evidence to bring criminal charges against six priests in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix. But many had opted to take plea deals, allowing them to avoid the public spectacle of a potentially messy trial. Two other priests had fled the country. And former Bishop Thomas O’Brien had received immunity from prosecution by admitting that the Phoenix Diocese had known that multiple priests within the diocese had been accused of sexually abusing children, and had quietly transferred them to other parts of the country and the state.

LeBrun was the first priest to go before a jury and fight the charges, the Arizona Republic reported.

In January 2005, 10 months before the trial, Mitchell had been chosen to replace her former boss, Cindi Nannetti, as the head of the sex-crimes unit at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. The shake-up had stunned observers, who questioned why newly elected county attorney Andrew Thomas had chosen to demote Nannetti, a well-liked veteran prosecutor with a reputation for being a strong advocate for victims of sex crimes, just a week after he took office.

The trial offered Mitchell an opportunity to prove that she deserved the top job, as well as a chance to finally get a jury to send an abusive priest to prison. She fought to persuade the judge to hear the testimony of two men from Indiana, who said that LeBrun had molested them while he was a priest there. The statute of limitations meant that LeBrun couldn’t be criminally charged in Indiana, but Mitchell argued that the men’s stories would prove that LeBrun had shown a continued propensity to abuse young boys.

The judge ruled in her favor, and the men were allowed to testify. Two weeks later, the jury returned its verdict: LeBrun was guilty on three counts of sexual conduct with a minor and three counts of child molestation. In what amounted to a major victory for Mitchell, he was sentenced to 111 years in prison. ...

** That was also my first thought when I read "Maricopa County", but it didn't take more than 10 seconds to discover that the Attorney's Office and the Sheriff Department weren't connected. Rubin should've used those 10 seconds herself.
   959. PreservedFish Posted: September 26, 2018 at 08:11 AM (#5752131)
On Oct. 25, 2005, the Rev. Paul LeBrun appeared in court in Maricopa County, Ariz...

The prosecutor assigned to the case was a woman named Rachel Mitchell. Decades later, she would find herself tasked with handling an even more contentious case...


Has it really been "decades" since 2005?
   960. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 26, 2018 at 08:14 AM (#5752132)
We know empirically that you are wrong: they haven't confirmed Kavanaugh, because of these allegations.


I said the GOP has the power to put BK in the Supreme Court. They absolutely do. Honest. Do you want me to explain how the voting for such things work and how many Republicans have votes?

For those who don't remember or don't want to look back here is what I wrote that David Empirically claims is not true:

2) he likely has the votes



Then why not just vote already? The GOP can vote whenever they want.


Once more, because David is being especially slow on this subject. The Democrats have no power to stop the Republicans from doing what they want. They could put SBB on the Supreme Court if they really truly wanted to do so, and if Trump nominated him and they voted in lock step there is zero the Democrats could do to stop it.

Yes the accusations have slowed the process down, but not because the accusations are influencing Democratic votes, but because they are giving Republicans second thoughts. Which is why I responded to Clapper's obnoxious statements about how this is all a nothing burger with asking him if it is so much nothing then why is this not over?

What Clapper and David keep failing to acknowledge is if there were truly nothing here, if it was all completely empty partisan grandstanding then the GOP would never have even paused before the vote. They really want BK on the SC, but they are afraid, afraid the other show will drop. They realize there might be more to this and so are going slower than they want.

But of course David and Clapper can't acknowledge there might be something to these accusations, that it might not just be an empty partisan stunt, so they have to pretend the delays and such are all mysteriously the Democrats fault (somehow, magic I guess).
   961. SteveF Posted: September 26, 2018 at 08:15 AM (#5752134)
“There’s no medical way I can say that he was blacked out. . . . But it’s not credible for him to say that he has had no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to excess.”

Some people don't get blackout drunk. We don't really know why. You can see the differences between the two groups of people on brain scans, but we don't know what causes the differences.
   962. TDF, trained monkey Posted: September 26, 2018 at 08:18 AM (#5752136)
"Old white men" seems to be an okay rubric more and more. I notice not only Rubin using it, but its rife in mainstream media organs, like The Guardian. It's here, too, on these boards. Why is that not condemned as racist and ageist? Would "fat black women" be likewise all right? How about "black wannabe pimps"? Asking for a friend.
Um, maybe because the GOP goes out of its way to make it so?
Ford will face questions from the 11 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, all of them men, with an average age of 62. (The chairman, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the second-oldest sitting senator, is 85.) In the committee’s 202-year history, it has not had a single Republican woman.
   963. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 26, 2018 at 08:25 AM (#5752139)
Yes the accusations have slowed the process down, but not because the accusations are influencing Democratic votes, but because they are giving Republicans second thoughts. Which is why I responded to Clapper's obnoxious statements about how this is all a nothing burger with asking him if it is so much nothing then why is this not over?

Neither you nor Gonfalon nor most anyone else on either side will agree with me here, but I don't think that Kavanaugh's confirmation is a foregone conclusion, once it gets past the friendly confines of the Grassley caucus in the Judiciary Committee and onto the floor of the Senate. I wouldn't necessarily assume that Murkowski and Collins or one of those lame duck anti-Trump GOP Senators will automatically just fall in line like good little soldiers. A lot of non-crazy Republican activists in the field are feeling the heat from women, and a few of them may not have thrown away their hearing aids. Just look at how thoroughly their candidates have shut up about repealing Obamacare if you think that public opinion can't ever come into play.
   964. Morty Causa Posted: September 26, 2018 at 08:29 AM (#5752143)
962

You are really scrambling to find daylight there. Does that same view apply when in other instances particular groups are over-represented, like say in the area of crime? Or IQ? Or the NBA? Or...any area. Is it okay to point out the racial/sex/age component then?
   965. McCoy Posted: September 26, 2018 at 08:35 AM (#5752145)
Oh poor people of power, they're getting picked on. Someone get them a mint julep to help fight the vapors.

What's next? You can't attack the KKK or neo Nazis?
   966. Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head Posted: September 26, 2018 at 08:37 AM (#5752146)
Clapper, ignore this.

You lying #### bag.
   967. PreservedFish Posted: September 26, 2018 at 08:44 AM (#5752149)
Morty, please stop doing that "play dumb" argumentative tactic.
   968. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 26, 2018 at 08:45 AM (#5752150)
Neither you nor Gonfalon nor most anyone else on either side will agree with me here, but I don't think that Kavanaugh's confirmation is a foregone conclusion


I don't think I have ever said what I think is likely to happen, and if I did I retract that guess. I have no idea, because I don't have all the evidence. We have yet to hear all the testimony and see the results of any investigations. Plus there are too many individuals who have too much influence. All it takes are 2 GOP Senators, BK, or Trump (or arguably Mitch) to pull the plug. Predicting what individuals will do is a poor outcome bet.

What I have said, and what David mysteriously thinks is wrong, is that the GOP has the power to put BK on the court should they choose to do so. Just like they had the power to kill ACA.
   969. , Posted: September 26, 2018 at 08:50 AM (#5752151)
I’m fairly convinced Kavanaugh will be confirmed because the GOP thinks the votes he costs them weren’t theirs to compete for anyway.. The most interesting question left is can a Supreme Court Justice do his job while in Jail? There has to be at least a one in four chance that this is where the Kavanaugh Kareenathon is taking us.

I have a better chance of being confirmed to the SC than Kavanaugh does of going to jail.

I was going to say, "going to jail for these accusations" but I mean it generally. He could be convicted of first degree rape and get two months probation.
   970. Zonk is One Individual Posted: September 26, 2018 at 08:50 AM (#5752153)
Three more Kavanaugh "Character references" drop their support - "Wait... were WE part of a 'alumnius' too!!!?!?"
   971. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 26, 2018 at 09:05 AM (#5752161)
Actually, as Adams will tell you, the brain does not operate like a camera, snapping photos and taking video as one goes through life. Memory is a series of recreations.


Everything Dilbert knows about neuroscience could be airbrushed on the head of a pin.

Having said that, knowing about how memories are altered in recollection is a surefire way to get dismissed from a jury pool. I have a 100% success rate.
   972. Morty Causa Posted: September 26, 2018 at 09:07 AM (#5752162)
If that is even plausible, that should fill you with fear and outrage. Someone convicted on a naked assertion without corroboration or supporting evidence, the assertion being I'm sure he tried to rape me somehow somewhere at some time. Yep, it would be a "your tears say more than real evidence ever could" gambit. It's at least as credible at this point that Ford and Ramirez should be prosecuted for making false charges.
   973. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 26, 2018 at 09:12 AM (#5752163)
Morty, please stop doing that "play dumb" argumentative tactic.


I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that the reason people around here say dumb things is because they're legitimately dumb.
   974. JJ1986 Posted: September 26, 2018 at 09:18 AM (#5752166)
It's amazing that The Yankee Clapper associates being anti-domestic violence with being anti-Trump administration.
   975. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 26, 2018 at 09:19 AM (#5752167)
It's at least as credible at this point that Ford and Ramirez should be prosecuted for making false charges.


Morty will lead the "lock them up" chants.
   976. BrianBrianson Posted: September 26, 2018 at 09:24 AM (#5752169)
It's amazing that The Yankee Clapper associates being anti-domestic violence with being anti-Trump administration.


Is it though?
   977. Morty Causa Posted: September 26, 2018 at 09:30 AM (#5752170)
Acclaimed authors pen letter in protest at 'forced resignation' of Ian Buruma

The signatories to the joint letter said they found it “very troubling that the public reaction to a single article – repellent though some of us may have found this article – should have been the occasion for Ian Buruma’s forced resignation”.

   978. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 26, 2018 at 09:37 AM (#5752173)
I said the GOP has the power to put BK in the Supreme Court. They absolutely do. Honest. Do you want me to explain how the voting for such things work and how many Republicans have votes?
Do you want me to explain how your characteristically banal observation is non responsive?
Once more, because David is being especially slow on this subject. The Democrats have no power to stop the Republicans from doing what they want. They could put SBB on the Supreme Court if they really truly wanted to do so, and if Trump nominated him and they voted in lock step there is zero the Democrats could do to stop it.
Once more: this has literally 100% zero to do with anything I said.

Yes the accusations have slowed the process down, but not because the accusations are influencing Democratic votes, but because they are giving Republicans second thoughts.
Uh, that's exactly what I said. Democrats don't care whether the accusations are true. Republicans do.
   979. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 26, 2018 at 09:40 AM (#5752174)

Clapper, ignore this.

You lying #### bag.
Shorter Bivens: "I don't understand the concept of evidence any more than Andy does."

(Okay, that was actually longer Bivens. But clearer.)
   980. TDF, trained monkey Posted: September 26, 2018 at 09:41 AM (#5752175)
You are really scrambling to find daylight there. Does that same view apply when in other instances particular groups are over-represented, like say in the area of crime? Or IQ? Or the NBA? Or...any area. Is it okay to point out the racial/sex/age component then?
If the GOP on the Senate Judiciary Committee looked like this, then calling them "black wannabe pimps" would be entirely justifiable; as it is, they look like this, so "old white guys" is apt.

EDIT: And they're not "over represented"; the GOP has never placed a single woman on the SJC.
   981. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 26, 2018 at 09:44 AM (#5752179)
What I have said, and what David mysteriously thinks is wrong, is that the GOP has the power to put BK on the court should they choose to do so. Just like they had the power to kill ACA.
The problem is that you're so wrapped up in issuing banalities that have no real relevance to anything beyond fortune cookies that you don't bother to pay attention to discussions. I don't think that's wrong. I never said it was wrong. Clapper never said it was wrong. Neither one of us have ever said anything to suggest that we think it's wrong. It's just ####### irrelevant to anything actually being discussed.


EDIT: I guess I do have to quibble, though, with the underlying premise of treating "the GOP" as an entity. It's not. "The GOP" doesn't exist and can't do anything. Republicans in the Senate can outvote Democrats. That's all you're saying, and yet you keep saying it even though it's trivial and doesn't respond to anything being said.
   982. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 26, 2018 at 09:47 AM (#5752181)
Yes the accusations have slowed the process down, but not because the accusations are influencing Democratic votes, but because they are giving Republicans second thoughts.

Uh, that's exactly what I said. Democrats don't care whether the accusations are true. Republicans do.

A more accurate way of putting it would be to say that a handful of Republicans, whose votes are needed for confirmation, may be having second thoughts, while the overwhelmingly majority of Republicans are simply going through the motions of listening for PR reasons, as comments by McConnell and others have made perfectly clear.
   983. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 26, 2018 at 09:50 AM (#5752183)
If the GOP on the Senate Judiciary Committee looked like this, then calling them "black wannabe pimps" would be entirely justifiable


Those ain't wannabes, square.
   984. JJ1986 Posted: September 26, 2018 at 09:52 AM (#5752184)
'Old white man' is a state of mind.
   985. Morty Causa Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:04 AM (#5752190)
Whose state of mind?
   986. Morty Causa Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:08 AM (#5752194)
   987. Zonk is One Individual Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:13 AM (#5752196)
In the biggest SHOCKING! ever -

Perhaps Grassley's statements on Rameriz testifying aren't entirely accurate...

“We’ve had a number of e-mail communications with the committee so far, but the difficulty is he every time we try to set up a phone call, the majority party either changes the rules of the phone call or they want additional information as a condition of even having a phone call with us,” Clune told CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

He added that when a phone call was finally scheduled, only the Democrats from the committee showed up.

Clune’s statements are in direct contradiction with those of Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who said in a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “If Ms. Ramirez submits testimony and evidence to the Senate Judiciary Committee which committee investigators have requested we can decide how to proceed.”


And

“She would be willing to testify, but we can’t even talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee about what that would look like, and they certainly haven’t invited her,” Clune told NBC’s Savannah Guthrie. “So at this point, it’s a moot question.”
   988. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:16 AM (#5752198)
Some people don't get blackout drunk. We don't really know why. You can see the differences between the two groups of people on brain scans, but we don't know what causes the differences.


Haven't been able to drink the last 15 years or so because of Crohn's, as I whine periodically, but before that I was definitely never blackout drunk*. Only ever suffered one hangover, back in 1/85, courtesy of too many rum & cokes using Ron Rico 151 proof. (Another highlight of that experience was having to drive about 4 miles back home from my future 2nd wife's trailer in heavy [for deep SW Arkansas] snow before dawn.) Once was more than enough.

Short version: I stand ready to be nominated for the Supreme Court. I never went to law school, but I played a lawyer in my newsroom for several years.




*though if I was, I suppose by definition I, uh, wouldn't remember it, right?
   989. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:22 AM (#5752202)
Some people don't get blackout drunk. We don't really know why. You can see the differences between the two groups of people on brain scans, but we don't know what causes the differences.


There's high variability in the amount of endogenous acetylaldehyde dehydrogenase among subpopulations that probably contributes to the effect, if not outright explains it.

But I guess I should wait until Dilbert weighs in.
   990. DavidFoss Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:35 AM (#5752212)
The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture

Whose culture?

You don't even have to click the link. Its right there in the headline.
   991. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:37 AM (#5752216)
travis_view:
Tik Tok of the spread of the false claim about a 2016 photograph:

2:22 AM: QAnon believer on 8chan posts the photo with the caption "the plot thickens"
10:30 AM: @Trump45awesome posts it, gets > 3000 retweets
3:02 PM: One QAnon account debunks it
8:17 PM: @EWErickson promotes it


Sorry if I'm stealing Howie's thunder here by sharing evidence that a respected conservative thinker* promoted a conspiracy.

*well, in the affirmative action way most Republican intellectuals are considered
   992. Jack Keefe Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:38 AM (#5752217)
Blackout drunk is a Mitt Al I can not remember ever being blackout drunk.
   993. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:38 AM (#5752218)
Hey, stupid gullible people deserve representation too.
   994. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:39 AM (#5752220)
I forget, and don't have an up-to-date scorecard. Is USA Today considered #FakeNews? Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford offers Senate four people who corroborate her assault claims
In another declaration, Keith Koegler said Ford revealed the alleged assault to him in 2016, when the two parents were watching their children play in a public place and discussing the “light” sentencing of Stanford University student Brock Turner.

“Christine expressed anger at Mr. Turner’s lenient sentence, stating that she was particularly bothered by it because she was assaulted in high school by a man who was now a federal judge in Washington, D.C.,” Koegler said.

“Christine did not mention the assault to me again until June 29, 2018, two days after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his resignation from the Supreme Court of the United States,” he said.

On that day, Koegler said Ford revealed to him in an email that the person who had assaulted her in high school was President Donald Trump’s “favorite for SCOTUS.”

In his response email, Koegler wrote, “I remember you telling me about him, but I don’t remember his name. Do you mind telling me so I can read about him?”

Ford’s emailed response: “Brett Kavanaugh.”
If Ford is lying, she laid the groundwork for it before Trump was elected. Insurance policy!!!

Or, of course, this guy is lying. And the other two friends, and the husband. Should be pretty easy to bust them all on cross, right?
   995. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:43 AM (#5752224)
There are going to be a lot of people prosecuted for making and supporting false accusations. Even Harvey Birdman won't be able to defend such malefactors.
   996. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:43 AM (#5752225)
If Ford is lying, she laid the groundwork for it before Trump was elected. Insurance policy!!!

Or, of course, this guy is lying. And the other two friends, and the husband. Should be pretty easy to bust them all on cross, right?
If Ford is mistaken about the identity of the person who attacked her, then none of these people have any useful information at all. (And note that not one of them was told more contemporaneously than 30 years after the alleged event.)
   997. JL72 Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:44 AM (#5752227)
A) Why does the guy running for Governor of Florida feel the need to chime in on this issue?
B) Why’s my man gotta have such shitty takes?


No idea about B) but is there a Venezuelan community in Florida to pander to?
   998. BDC Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:47 AM (#5752228)
The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture

Chaucer, Shakespeare and Milton? Oppressive. American history? Tyranny. Professors correcting grammar and spelling, or employers hiring by merit? Racist and sexist. Students emerge into the working world believing that human beings are defined by their skin color, gender, and sexual preference, and that oppression based on these characteristics is the American experience. Speech that challenges these campus orthodoxies is silenced with brute force.


I would hate to work at a university like that. Wait, I don't work at a university like that. Neither does anybody I know. Oh, this is the University of the Fevered Imagination, you say? No, I don't know anybody who teaches there.
   999. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:50 AM (#5752231)
Uh, that's exactly what I said. Democrats don't care whether the accusations are true. Republicans do.


That is NOT what I was saying. At this point you have to be deliberately misunderstanding. Let me try just one more time.

It doesn't matter if Democratic Senators care or not. They can really care (and likely do), but they have no power in the situation. That is why you are wrong when you call my correct observations about the power dynamic banal. Understanding the power dynamic - GOP has all the power - is critical to understanding the situation.

Republicans in aggregate have the power (even you agree, so success I guess), so what matters is what the GOP Senators care about. Most of them either don't care about the truth or have already decided what the truth is (or perhaps more precisely what they want to believe the truth is), but enough might care about either the truth or the political backlash from being seen not caring about the truth to be willing to go through the motions before they vote on BK.

But your ridiculous assertion that Democrats don't care about the truth of the matter is just that - ridiculous. The reality is Democrats don't have the power to do anything about it, but they do care.
   1000. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 26, 2018 at 10:51 AM (#5752233)
Flip
Page 10 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 12 >  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

Page rendered in 0.8563 seconds
46 querie(s) executed