MixtyMotions

It came from a deposition in the Shaggy litigation. (the short explanation)

Oh they didn't know the specifics. But they were ready to bet the house that there would be allegations. I'm sure the operatives have collected thousands of allegations. Thousands. Some might even be true. (e.g. Kavanaugh probably did throw ice in a guy's face.) But they KNEW there would be an "October surprise " political hit. And there will be for all the nominees for the next twenty years. The days of Ginsberg getting confirmed 96-3 are gone. The new era will be all ugly unfounded attacks. This will be true no matter the President, the nominee or the party in control of the Senate.

Have you asked them in a context where they would believe you are sincere? (That means privately.)

I am thoroughly knowledgeable about why they are angry. If you want to understand it do not look at it through the prism of sexual harassment or any gender issue. Their thinking would be the same as if he were accused of embezzlement, bank fraud, pedophilia, or murder. The outrage is that people with allegations were sheperded by Dems to law firms specializing in orchestrating political hits. These allegations were hidden away to be unfolded at the precise moment and with the carefully crafted pr campaign to try to tank the nomination - a nomination they support. It is viewed as a cultural war with soldiers willing to go to jail for their cause. It has almost nothing to do, in their mind, with sexual harassment. That just happens to be the emotional issue chosen. Dems could just have easily chosen race. (i.e. "Here is a witness who was called an ethnic slur by Kavanaugh.") (I'm sure they had such witnesses ready to go but decided not to play that particular card. The attack could be anything to enrage the public. The Dem machine chose sexual assault.

There is a lot of data on when Whites vote for a minority candidate over a White, and when minorities vote for a White candidate over a minority.

Would you support an agreement to aggressively criticize anybody who talks about things in terms of gender or race, such as: - "more than any White male" - "first Black President" - "first female President"

Yeah, but the day before Ash Wednesday is! 😁

They aren't lined up around the block. They are in the Rolodexes of the Dem K Street firms. 😁

The title of the thread gives you a HUGE hint. I'll add a bit more. The left-wing academics in the video recount a project they did to expose the academic corruption of the grievance journals. They submitted fraudulent papers with ridiculous findings (e.g. what dog humping shows about white privilege, or something like that). They had numerous papers accepted. They just had to have the "right" conclusion.

What do you think Coons gave up in the deal? I see what Flake conceded but not what Coons conceded.

An article for those on either side interested in something other than poo flinging: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/02/why_a_loss_on_kavanaugh_could_mean_a_win_on_nov_6_138230.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqovG99Q9GA

CNN has a big interview with Hillary on this. I thoroughly approve. Hillary epitomizes so much. She's the perfect representative of the anti-Kavanaugh forces. Nothing she says is about the facts of what really happened. My only complaint is that the CNN interviewer can't seem to understand the importance of getting her to explain her theories as they apply to Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Leslie Milwee and Paula Jones.

I doubt that I'm back. I will guess my presence will be only for a few issues for which I want to get the pulse of the Left" on. I've grown tired of the usual thread. My two plus month hiatus was broken by this issue, not a longing for sophomoric crap. But we'll see. Maybe I'm a social drinker who drinks only at big parties. Maybe I'm an addict and I can't stay sober, and the two month hiatus was not the norm.

Heitkamp might walk the plank at zero but not at minus ten. Damn right it's breathtaking!

The poster formerly known as TahoeHorn left Lake Tahoe 19 years ago. A username was poorly chosen over twenty years ago.

The issue I raise is not one about the elections. While admittedly unstated, the point I'm making is that Red state Democrats like Heitkamp may vote for confirmation. Or pay the price. There was a poll a month or so ago which had Manchin up 29 if he voted for confirmation and up 2 if her didn't. It may not be all about Flake, Collins and Murkowski. Some Dems may not be willing to walk the plank.

Yes. The poll that was conducted during the pre-hearing media frenzy.

A poll just came out in North Dakota. Cramer is ahead of Heitkamp by TEN! I'm sure this megamove is related to the SCOTUS situation. I meet weekly on a committee that coordinates county campaign activity. The committee gets reports and makes decisions on how to spend money and use manpower. We have seen a noticeable difference in the stats (e.g. percentage of houses taking signs from door knockers). The GOP is noticeably more angry. I wouldn't be surprised if Dems are too. I think this is dicey for candidates in purple states and ominous for Dems in Red states or Pubs in Blue states.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/01/mcconnell-kavanaugh-strategy-confirmation-856437

And the report for the public will only address issues pertaining to assault. "We interviewed Chad but he didn't see Kavanaugh expose himself." They won't report on Chad's view that Kavanaugh got smashed on night and cussed at somebody.

It's not a mechanical question. It's a political one. The anti-Kavanaugh and pro-Kavanaugh machines have each spent millions on this. They KNOW what these people will say. The Dems don't have any serious ammunition, and the GOP will not allow the process to be used to air some weak ass shit in some manner to give it credibility. The process will be used to look at the serious allegations. Any witness of a sexual assault will be heard. Alleged attendees to the two "parties" (potential witnesses to sexual assault) will be heard. People with other info won't. Bank on it.

Dream on: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-oct-18 Here's the list of people Senate Judiciary Democrats want interviewed From CNN's Sunlen Serfaty Nine of the 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent White House counsel Don McGahn and FBI Director Christopher Wray a letter today. (Sen. Chris Coons did not sign it.) The letter provides a list of individuals they believe should be interviewed at a minimum as part of the FBI investigation into the Brett Kavanaugh allegations. The letter reads: And here's the list of people they want interviewed: Christine Blasey Ford, Kavanaugh's first accuser Lynne Brookes, Kavanaugh’s friend from Yale Russell Ford, Ford’s husband. Christopher Garrett Timothy Gaudette, Kavanagh’s friend and Georgetown Prep classmate Adela Gildo-Mazzon, Ford's friend Sean Hagan, Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Prep classmate. Jeremiah P. Hanafin, D.C.-area polygraph examiner who conduced Ford's Mark Judge, Kavanaugh’s friend and Georgetown Prep classmate Thomas Kane Brett Kavanaugh Leland Keyser, Ford’s high school friend Keith Koegler, friend of Ford Mark Krasberg Bernie McCarthy Richard Oh, Kavanaugh’s classmate at Yale College. Potomac Village Safeway, to examine the employment records for this store to verify Ford’s claims and to determine the relevant time period Deborah Ramirez, Kavanaugh's second accuser Elizabeth Rasor, Ex-girlfriend and college classmate of Judge James Roche, Kavanaugh’s freshman roommate at Yale Patrick J. Smyth, Kavanaugh’s friend and Georgetown Prep classmate. Julie Swetnick, Kavanaugh's third accuser Elizabeth Swisher, Kavanaugh’s friend from Yale Rebecca White, Ford's friend

I guess times change. I had a friend and roommate who was Iranian. He studiously avoided the use of Iranian and said Persian.

I think the issue gets referred to the White House. They'd decide whether to conduct the interview, hold the vote without it, or pull the nomination. My guess is, for that, they'd pull the nomination.