On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 20:54:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/29/2018 8:14 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 19:34:35 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/29/2018 7:23 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/29/18 5:10 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2018 4:24 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 14:01:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/29/18 12:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 08:08:01 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/29/18 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

During Ford's testimony she said something that I thought was odd
but I wasn't smart enough to understand what it meant.

It was when Ford was being asked about her fear of flying and
she acknowledged it, blaming it on "claustrophobia" as a result
of her experience 36 years ago.Â* She then went on to acknowledge
however that she has regularly flown often in spite of this.

But that's not the odd part.

She was asked why she didn't accept Grassley's offer to conduct
the testimony in California.Â* He said the committee would fly to
her instead of her having to fly to WashDC. The offer was made
in consideration of her claimed fear of flying and the delay
it imposed on the whole process.

In her testimony Ford expressed surprise that Grassley had made that
offer. She said she was "unaware" of it and thanked Sen. Grassley.

That's strange.

A lawyer I heard last night addressed this.Â* He said that
Grassley had sent three letters to Ford's attorneys regarding
the offer to have the committee come to her rather than she
come to WashDC.Â*Â* He said that if her attorneys had withheld
those letters from FordÂ* they were in violation of some codes of
conduct
governing their responsibilities. As her attorneys they could be
subject
to being disbarred for unethical behavior.

Interestingly, at least one of the attorneys ... the woman ... is a
known political activist and participates in the Trump "resist"
movement.

According to the lawyer, she was recommended to Ford by Dianne
Feinstein
after Ford sent Feinstein the "confidential" letter regarding her
claimed sexual abuse by Kavanaugh.

I am telling ya.Â* You just can't make this stuff up.


Whatever. Hopefully, Dr. Ford's public testimony in front of the
Senate
Judiciary Committee works out for the best.

It didn't occur to me until after Kavanaugh's testimony, but the
political screed he offered during it should be something that
completely disqualifies him from the federal bench...in any
judgeship.
He blamed his delay in confirmation on the Democrats, on women, on
the
Clintons, on politics. He sounded like Trump. A federal judge isn't
supposed to be political and isn't supposed to behave that way. He's
really Trump's boy. He should be subjected to a writ of scire
facias or
impeached for expressing those partisan thoughts.

As a wise man said "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are
not out to get you". (alternatively credited to Joseph Heller and
Henry Kissinger)
I saw a man who was surprised and frustrated by a partisan attack on
him that seems to have no provable basis in fact.
If this nomination does go down, I would not mind seeing him drag Ford
and Feinstein into civil court and let them prove this was not just a
politically motivated assault on his character.


You might not mind it, but absent malice, Kavanaugh, a public figure,
would get nowhere with a civil suit alleging libel or slander. It would
be close to impossible for Kavanaugh to prove malice.

Kavanaugh's tempermental outburst should be enough to do him in...hell,
he doesn't have the temperment to serve as a judge in any court.

I doubt he would do it but you can sue anyone for anything even if the
objective is nothing but to get them under oath answering questions
and proving their allegations. You may not have "malice" in the case
of Ford, assuming she can demonstrate this was not just a political
move but Feinstein was certainly malicious in the way she handled
this. I also understand congress people are expected to be malicious
political hacks so she has the perfect defense.

I really think the democrats may be shooting themselves in the foot
here tho. Kananaugh may be the least objectionable of the 3 on your
core issues. You will have a hard time "Borking" 2 candidates in a
row.



That's not the objective.Â* They've got the delaying process down pat.
They want to block Kavanaugh and then delay any replacement long enough
for the mid terms plus 2 months.Â* Technically there may be time to
rush another nominee through the process but unlikely because all the
jerks in WashDC want to get home and get into heavy campaign mode.



There's no doubt there are strong efforts to block Kavanaugh, and for
good reason. I suppose if Kavanaugh is withdrawn, the Repubs could try
to fast-track a replacement before the election and if not, certainly
after the election.


I have no problem with the Dems trying to block Kavanaugh ... for the
right reasons like simple political differences ... but not for the
ridiculous and disgusting reasons they have demonstrated over the past week.


It is interesting that nobody has admitted that this is really just
about Roe to them, at least not since they had the Ford thing to wave
around.
I do think this is the first time ever that I have seen a politician
or a potential justice being crucified for what they might have done
as a teenager. We were not even allowed to criticize what democrat
sitting senators and governors did while they were in office.



It really is bizarre. And I also don't think this is as much about Roe
vs. Wade as some Dems would like you to think. The chances of a 40
something year old decision being overturned even with some strong
conservatives on the bench are slim. It probably wouldn't even be
accepted to be considered if a challenge ever made it up through the
lower courts. Those Dems talking about it are just trying to scare
their pro-choice base to turn out the vote in November.

I don't know what to think regarding Ford's allegations. If the
"meetoo" crowd wasn't as vocal and stories of Crosby and others weren't
in the news everyday I wonder if her story would be more reflective of a
goofy, HS party with some drinking going on and teenagers acting like
teenagers. There was no rape. She claims "attempted rape". I find it
hard to believe (as does my wife) that a normal, well adjusted and
mentally stable person would remain "traumatized" over this, 36 years
later. But that's just an opinion.

Plus, the more one thinks about it, the more her whole story doesn't
make sense, not from a standpoint of what she believes happened and
who was involved but more related to how it has affected her. Lots of
holes in it. She claims she doesn't like to fly due to claustrophobia
caused by the "attack". Yet she flies regularly all over the place both
for business and for pleasure.

She says her academic studies suffered due to it.
The "assult" occurred in 1982 (she thinks) when she was a HS sophomore.
Yet, in 1988, four years after HS she earned an undergraduate degree in
experimental psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill. Then a Master's degree in clinical psychology from Pepperdine
University in 1991, followed by a PhD in educational psychology from the
University of Southern California. She also earned another Master's in
epidemiology from Stanford University School of Medicine in 2009.

Hard to imagine what she would have accomplished had her academic
studies not "suffered" due to this on going trauma. Heck, her
multiple degrees makes Harry look like a dunce.

I saw a time line the other day and she seemed to have totally
forgotten it until there was a hazy reference in 2012. I would ask,
what else happened in 2012?
I do agree the story is shaky at best. She got a ride to the party but
we never heard what happened to the driver. Did someone really just
turn her loose at a drinking party and drive away? Maybe I missed it
but how did she get home? If it was a "20 minute drive" it had to be
hours walking and there were no cell phones so she didn't call a cab.
My bet is this whole thing blows over and we never hear from her
again.