Unfinished Business

Democrats overplayed their hand and will pay for it in November

I agree...the level to which they stooped has turned off so many people.

"Author and conservative writer Victor Davis Hanson appeared on Laura Ingraham's FOX News show on Wednesday to weigh in on the Kavanaugh saga and explain how the story of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexual assault, is falling apart.

"Are you for due process or are you for revolutionary fervor? Are you for reason or are you for emotion? Are you for this street antics that Antifa brought into the Senate or are you for custom and practice of the U.S. Congress?" he asked.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Coming into where we are today, she wasn't able to locate the supposed assault or the time or the date and she had the early 80s, the mid-80s, the late 80s, she was a young teenager, a little bit older. But I think there was a lot of doubt. Then we've had the collapse of the 5th accuser, 6th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd -- [Julie] Swetnick, [Deborah] Ramirez - that didn't help. And now we have the boyfriend coming forward and her own testimonies where she admitted that she flies regularly, that's corroborated by the boyfriend. 

The two-door thing. People in Palo Alto have two doors for one purpose, not because they are claustrophobic because they want to get extra income and renter come in and that seems to be true for her.

I think the tragedy though, Laura, I don't think she'd ever think she'd have to come forward at all. She would write this anonymous writ and then that would sort of float out and cast doubt and that might just panic the Republicans and Kavanaugh would withdraw. 

It's sad because she gave one too many narratives. She gave a narrative to the therapist. She gave a narrative to Dianne Feinstein. She gave a narrative to 'The Washington Post.' She gave a narrative through her testimony. She butted up against a pretty seasoned prosecutor. And those narratives cannot be reconciled, they are mutually exclusive. They contradict each other. Whether it's on the lie detector or the circumstances about flying or particular names that are supposed to corroborate. Here we are, it's collapsed."


realclearpolitics

Ford, Feinstein and Schumer must be immediately arrested.  The democrat party must be designated a subversive anti-American organization, disbanded and imprisoned.

Donald J. Trump was elected by the largest majority in the history of this nation.  This president has a mandate to clear out all terrorists--foreign and domestic.  The GOP Congress, the FBI, the NSC and now, The Supreme Court must act immediately and with an iron fist.

The will of President Trump, McConnell and Speaker Ryan must not be denied.

MAGA

May the voters of this country prevent progressives, who don't believe in due process, from ever controlling any branch of government again.

But you would be fine with progressives who do believe in due process?

So you believe one party rule is better for all of us? conservative way or no way?

One of these days the house of cards the republicans have built up will come crashing down. 

Probably when their blind supporters finally get bit in the ass by the same policies they supported.

This might be a sweeping generalization, but that's what I'm hearing Vic say. That's what I hear most cons on here say.

And I say fuck that. I won't live under totalitarian rule

May the voters of this country prevent progressives, who don't believe in due process,

It wasn't progressives that were opposed to even having an investigation...which would come before due process.  [deleted]

I would say the sweeping generalizations is what we get from most conservatives. It is always their way or no way. 

I am waiting for the gullible mob (their new word) to finally wake up and realize they have been lied to.

And yes, a lot of them seem to support one party, totalitarian rule.

But you would be fine with progressives who due believe in due process?

I would call traditional liberals, who used to believe in Civil Liberties, worthy opponents.

So you believe one party rule is better for all of us?

No, I believe in two or more parties being ideal - just not the modern progressives. I don't want them in power in government, nor in the various institutions they have ruthlessly controlled.

I won't live under totalitarian rule

That IS what you advocate

It wasn't progressives that were opposed to even having an investigation..

Oh yes it was. Feinstein could have had a lengthy investigation. She preferred to run out the clock.


removed for context

I would say the sweeping generalizations is what we get from most conservatives.

I would say "sweeping generalizations" is an ill conceived trip wire coming from the Coc. It has been so misused.

And yes, a lot of them seem to support one party, totalitarian rule.

Progressive projection. 

just not the modern progressives. I don't want them in power in government

So only modern day conservatives? No matter how it is twisted, it is what you just advocated and most conservatives want.

So only modern day conservatives?

Is that how you interpret what I said?   Let me repeat: 

 "I believe in two or more parties being ideal - just not the modern progressives."

That leaves a lot of options dosen't it?  How about Libertarians? or a new Independent party?  In other words, I consider the authoritarian nature of the modern progressive to be unfit for a major political party. We know what authoritarian means right?  It is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms, in which Individual freedoms are subordinate to the state and there is no constitutional accountability. Dosen't that sound like modern progressive dogma to you? 

So conservatives are not modern?

Modern = today. Saying no progressives of today = zero in government. One party rule.

It is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms, in which Individual freedoms are subordinate to the state and there is no constitutional accountability

Sounds like conservatives today. No abortion allowed, gay marriage should be outlawed, corporations are people, etc.

It wasn't progressives that were opposed to even having an investigation...which would come before due process.  [deleted]

But it was mainly progressives that attempted to do away with the premise of innocent until proven guilty , even if this was just a 'job interview" and attempted to  replace it with as one so eloquently parsed it  on this site as "reasonable suspicion" and was again turned into by  the senator from maine as a situation that had to be approached as  something like was it likely or not to have happened .

for me the additional investigation revealed nothing that wasn't already known prior to both parties testifying , and the only chance the accusor had to provide further evidence was actually at that testimonial hearing , she failed .

An accusation is NOT , and never has been nor ever will be evidence  except in the political world of the court of public opinion. and for that I am thankful the attempt to replace innocent until proven guilty was defeated , otherwise  the entire nation would be in a shitpot full of hurt. If it HAD worked it could very well have been used against those advocating for that position and their families as it is against anyone else .

Dosen't that sound like modern progressive dogma to you? 

ya nailed it.

todays progressives like to hang on to and hide behind the coattails and accomplishments of old school democrats but they are being exposed for what they are more and more every day.

• the democrat party used to support secure borders, the working man and innocent until proven guilty.

now?

• the democrat party supports open borders, illegals, and guilty until proven innocent.

these are not the democrats of days gone by

in short, they have gone so far left the only thing left is the edge.

in the end the right will absorb the rest of the moderate dems into the gop leaving the liberal/progressives all by themselves flopping around like fish out of water.

I say let the lunatic left have the democrat brand.   (the party of crime)

something tells me this is going to work for us

If it was just a job application, would you hire someone accused of sexual assault? Would you want that hanging over your business?

These days an employer can look at facebook posts, internet history, pictures, memes to decide on an employee.

So you would hire a person that was accused of sexual assault even when the whole town/city knows?

I think that would be a great way to put you business out of business.

and what is the difference between ACCUSED and CONVICTED ? 

If a prospective employer bases their choice on an accusation and it is later found to be unfounded or false , they open themselves up to a discrimination suit but then again most employers would not mention that's what they looked at as a reason for denial of hiring . where as a conviction shows an actual trial took place and the accused was found guilty . 

the only conviction of guilt the justice was found to have was in the court of POLITICALLY motivated public opinion , one that carries no weight and rightly shouldn't.

A business can hire whoever they want. Public opinion is just that. If a person was accused of child molestation, even if proven innocent, that will always hang over that person.

If you hired this person, that public opinion will most definitely follow them and likely lead to you losing business.

here is a simple question ender , 

say it is YOU accused of a sex crime, who would you want deciding your guilt or innocence? one that is ready to convict on a mere accusation with no proof , or one that needs to see some modicum of proof that leads to the choice to convict?

Not hard to answer if YOU are the one placed in jeopardy .

Do you think people are in the habit of running around making false accusations? Seems to be the consensus here. That Ford and the others are full of shit.

How does one prove it unless they report it immediately? Even if it was it could be twisted and turned.  In years past, women have had themselves denigrated, accused of being sluts, had their concerns dismissed.

Women have fought for decades to be treated as equals and not second class citizens. I don't think women in general are in the habit of making allegations just because. Hell, it still goes on today with sororities getting girls drunk and or drugged to sleep with them. So in thirty years these guys should just have all of that erased just because they are supposedly good people now?

Even so, would you want to hire someone with a lot of excess baggage that will be brought into your business? 

This will forever be in the history books. A cloud will follow him.

Do you think people are in the habit of running around making false accusations?

progressives and liberals??   without a doubt.

that does not answer that simple question I parsed though.

Nor did you answer any of mine.

So now she is mentally ill and tells lies?

fair enough , I take it you ask IF I had a business I owned or operated  still , would I hire someone accused of a sex crime,  first off its not exactly a question on an employment app though some do ask about any past convictions dependant on the position to be filled so the answer would be I can see it happening  even if unknowingly.

like I said an accusation does not make a conviction.

The question was more along the lines of hiring a person that everyone in town knew of the accusations. But I accept your answer and I can do the same. I would never put myself in a position where an accusation could hold any merit.

The progressive liberals idea of a job interview of Judge Kavanaugh turned out more like a inquisition!

Not nearly as big a cloud that will follow the progressive liberal Democrats that instigated this whole carefully orchestrated mess!

And what McConnell did was plain obstruction. 

We will find out in November.

That we will.

Prove it.

Tell me, Vic, exactly what is it that I advocate? Do you live inside my head? Do you have a crystal ball?

I believe in liberty and equal rights for ALL people. Read that again. ALL PEOPLE.

Point out where I have ever advocated for a totalitarian regime or do not believe in equal rights for all people.

The question was more along the lines of hiring a person that everyone in town knew of the accusations. But I accept your answer and I can do the same. I would never put myself in a position where an accusation could hold any merit.

Ok I can accept that answer . mainly because many do try to do that , but it doesn't stop someone from making an accusation .

Though in order for everyone in town to know of the accusation , it would have to be a small enough population to matter  and I have lived most of my life in small enough towns that people did actually tend to think they knew everyone elses business  true or not.

 by merit , do you mean even circumstancial evidence that the accusation could possably be true or untrue? and that further investigation COULD either convict or exonerate? or even be considered as being neither provable or not provable?

In any case , there has to be some level that will need to be met , even a simple level wasn't met in my simple view to support the accusation in the ford case.

My grandpaws always told me , the devil is always in the details .

The detail of my question was who would you want deciding guilt or innocence , one that would simply use the accusation as evidence enough for a conviction , or someone that would need the accusation proven? not that you wouldn't put yourself into the situation could hold merit .

What is there to prove? McConnell refused to hold a single hearing on Garland. That is fact. People can use any justification they want, it is what it is. Even if they went by their supposed no appointments after summer during election years, there was a four or five month window, which McConnell refused to do anything. Pure delay tactics, which is obstruction.

“There is no rule and all they have to do is follow precedent,” Leahy said of the current Republican majority. “Both with [President Ronald] Reagan when Democrats took over and with Bush when Democrats took over. We kept right way into the fall with judges.”

In 2015, the Republican Senate majority ushered through confirmations for 11 circuit and district court judges. So far in 2016, nine have been confirmed. That’s 20 confirmed this Congress — the lowest number since the 82nd Congress in 1951-52, which confirmed just 18 judges, according to the Congressional Research Service. Harry S. Truman was president at the time. The CRS retains data on judicial confirmations dating to 1945.

Link

Cardin used an imprecise term, "filibuster," to describe a precise Senate parliamentary procedure, "cloture." As far as cloture data kept by the Congressional Research Service, Cardin would be on safer ground if he avoided focusing on "judicial" nominees. By our count, cloture was filed on 36 judicial nominations during the first five years of Obama's presidency, the same total as the previous 40 years combined.

As part of that fact-check we noted that "By our calculation, there were actually 68 individual nominees blocked prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147."

Link

Sen. Majority Leader  Mitch McConnell  (R-Ky.) impeded and delayed Obama-era judicial nominees to historic levels. Because of McConnell’s systematic blocking of judicial nominees while  Barack Obama  was President,  Donald Trump  entered the presidency in 2017 with nearly double the judicial vacancies that Barack Obama entered with in 2009 .

As the media now chooses to retell the history of judicial nominations over the last decade, the narrative has been shaped as laying equal blame on Democrats and Republicans. While tempting and easy, that’s simply untrue. Sure there is incremental brinksmanship in Congress, particularly the Senate, that both sides have contributed to and it’s appropriate to note.  But in this current war over the judiciary, Republicans have been the aggressors using extreme tactics in both the minority and the majority to weaponize our system of judicial nominations. To lay equal blame at the feet of Sen. Harry Reid for responding to a battle over the court system that was brought to him by the hostile actions of Senate Republicans is a farce.

Link

I am still under the impression that most people do not accuse without reason. Does it happen on occasion? I remember an article about a man that was accused of abuse by his wife while they were going through a divorce. Opinion shifted to him being innocent and her being bitter.

Still rare.

As far as proof, on a lot of these cases there never will be concrete evidence. Trying to say there should be is a slap in the face to many victims.

Most of these cases are about he said, she said. To dismiss an accusation over partisan political gain just shows party loyalty over any actual (perceived or otherwise) mistreatment.

Can one prove Kevin Spacey did not harass young boys? Is there concrete evidence that Bill Cosby drugged women?

For people to dismiss Ford, call her mentally ill, say she is nothing but a liar, a democrat operative, etc. is sickening and does nothing but try to put out the narrative that women should not be taken seriously unless there is video evidence.

Then let's make it clear. Is a 36 year old, unproven allegation all that is needed to defeat a Judicial nomination or, for that matter, get a student expelled from a university?

I am still under the impression that most people do not accuse without reason. Does it happen on occasion?

It happens in politics!  Ideology is the most powerful incentive. You don't think a radical leftist would LIE to take down the 5th Conservative Judge on the Supreme Court?  Really?

Did she lie about training someone to take a polygraph test?
Did she lie about the need to drive from CA to Washington DC?
Did she lie about who was at the "party" or how she got there or how she got home?

Did anyone or WILL anyone question her motivation?

Her motivation has been questioned repeatedly. 

By whom exactly?

McConnell refused to hold a single hearing on Garland.

and not an unpresidented action either , type I unseated USSC nominees in your search bar, and what will come up is some unseated nominees were , denied , they did not get confirmation votes , some were withdrawn or removed themselves from consideration , now here is what I mean garlands situation did have president , there are 15 other nominees that the senate let the clock run out on without a hearing , if the senate does not hold a hearing before the end of the term , the nomination is effectively DEAD , that is basically what happened to obamas nominee for whatever reasons given , AND it has happened at least 15 other times since the founding of the USSC.

your impressions and fact are 2 different things , you posit a bitter wife in a divorce action , I have witnessed it attempted between couples that were not even married , just so one side could screw with the other side ,usually at increased costs for the one being accused , usually what happens is the accusation is dropped with prejudice , basically the court tells the accusor to make sure to have documentation and in most cases at least a verifiable police report given at the time it happened in case they wish to revisit the charge.

 so is it rare? not as rare as you seem to think , if someone thinks they can gain an edge , they most likely will use what they can , IF they can get away with it. hell I even saw a property dispute on a property line evolve into one side alluding to the other being a child molester.

personally my dismissal of ford? based on what she said and the supposed witnesses SHE named, none of which even came close to backing up her claim, so who do I believe? the one , or the 3 others that deny anything like described even happened?  Ford in My humble opion , made 2 major mistakes , she trusted a politician with confidentiality , and the second  more important mistake was trusting a Democrat with no proof of her accusation.

 And before you label me a gop goon , im am an independent , I lean right on some issues , and left on others , when it comes to burden of proof and innocent until proven guilty , I am definitely hard right , conservative.

Now with that said , who do you want to decide guilt or innocence ? someone that needs even the lowest level of proof of the accusation? or someone like some on this site that will convict simply on the accusation alone ?

I will assume you would want someone that will need some sort of proof other than the accusors word  to convict. meaning you would want someone that will need some level of proof to be met and one that works in your favor.

So you would hire a person that was accused of sexual assault even when the whole town/city knows?

Do you not see the problem with this? If someone doesn't like someone else's political position all they have to do to destroy them is to make an accusation. Then, the way things work today, no one will hire them. Do you really think that is the kind of society you want to live in? One where you are forced to say and behave a certain way or else they will ruin your life? I don't know why that wouldn't scare the crap out of any thinking individual, unless that individual is the one forcing others to bend to their ideology. 

R'Amen

Bless you.  For you understand the 'crux' of the 'crux.'

Mouthing the heart of the Gorka, Bannon, Miller and the rest of the 'faux GOP' elitist supporting autocrats.

Listened to Mark Levin lately?

Listened to Mark Levin lately?

He comes after I go to bed so no

I believe Ford was being completely honest, and remembers exactly who it was who terrorized her.  She admitted everything she did not remember and told us honestly what she did remember.  She never wanted to go public at all, just ended up having no choice.  She doesn't want this; she is doing this because it's the right thing to do.  This is the simplest and most obvious conclusion.

True.  And for reasons I cannot understand, ever since the Trump slid down that elevator with his ( wife ) front and center, everything has been in protection mode for the man that has proved nothing except he is a liar, cheat and a fraud.

I agree, that's for stating it so simply and IMO: nutrally.  

I'll add: I drank heavily myself at that age, many times I did not really remember where I had been, what all I had done or who I was even with the evening before. IF Kavanagh did drink heavily he actually honestly may not remember if and that he did this. 

At this point none of this matters anyway, it's a done deal.

PS: Thankfully I stopped drinking long ago.  

I drank heavily in my late teens and early twenties, blacked out a few times too, yet I am still 100% certain that I never tried to rape a girl, it's just not in me to behave that way.  I've always found that alcohol is pretty good truth serum.  If you are an angry, or hateful person inside, it will come out when you drink as your inhibitions are greatly diminished.  If you are a caring loving person, this will come out and alcohol will make you be super nice to everyone.  If you're a misogynist who doesn't respect women, this will also come out. 

I've always found that alcohol is pretty good truth serum.

Yes alcohol lowers a person's inhibition, they will sometimes be more truthful.

For myself alcohol didn't always bring out the best in me. I consider myself to be a good caring logical responsible person, alcohol lessened all of those qualities in me, I could become much more unpredictable, mean, nasty and uncaring. I'm not alone I've dropped friends who could not control themselves when drunk as well. 

Alcohol like many other drugs affect people differently and even differently in the same person from time to time sometimes even.

Alcohol clouds reality and judgment and can change your behaviour.

BTW: For alcoholics alcohol steals their happiness, then their health, then it kills them prematurely. I know, I was one and my entire immediate family are all dead from alcohol related deaths. 

Thankfully I haven't drank in many years. 

Have a nice day

She never wanted to go public at all, just ended up having no choice.

A person who doesn't want to go public does not contact the media. She went to the Washington Post. Granted, it was 'anonymously'...but still, a person wishing to remain anonymous and determined to keep themselves out of the public light doesn't contact the media. That person also would not permit legal representatives to appear on the media circuits. No, there are too many signs against the claim that she 'never wanted to go public'. Now, she may have been advised that anonymous tips and legal representatives appearances will force Kavanaugh to decline the nomination or slither away. If so, we all know that Kavanaugh refused to go away.

She doesn't want this; she is doing this because it's the right thing to do. 

I believe she should have made her revelations to the FBI or Representatives back in 2012. When she began revealing the assault details to family and friends. That would have been the 'right thing to do' since she stated she was positive then that Kavanaugh was her attacker. He was a Federal Judge at the time. I read somewhere that she and her husband realized that it's possible he could be nominated to the Supreme Court someday - in 2012. There was no reason to wait six years.

A person who doesn't want to go public does not contact the media. She went to the Washington Post. Granted, it was 'anonymously'

She contacted the media initially so the politician couldn't bury the story.

But IMO: you are correct with a story this big, at a time this volatile I see NO WAY anyone was going to bring a story like this forward Anonymously. period  It wasn't reasonable or reasonable from the get go to even try. IMO:

Well seems Ms. Ford captured someone's attention.......................

From my perspective, both parties should hang their heads in shame. Neither group emerged from this most recent debacle unscathed, the often touted Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.