39 thoughts on “Can the GOP sink any lower?

      1. You mean, NYT lied, but the scandal was something else?

        In any case, your link makes a perjury claim. Under the circumstances, the claim is unsupportable.

        Like

        1. That Kavanaugh had not committed perjury in his confirmation hearings requires an Alice in Wonderland level of ability to believe in impossible things.

          The NYT did not lie and I stand by my opinion that using the FBI to cover up Kavanaugh’s obvious perjury instead of actually seeking the truth IS a major scandal. That and the denial of a seat to Merrick Garland has turned SCOTUS into a partisan joke.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. RE: “That Kavanaugh had not committed perjury in his confirmation hearings requires an Alice in Wonderland level of ability to believe in impossible things.”

          OK then. What’s your proof that he committed perjury?

          Like

          1. What’s the proof?

            The sworn testimony of Miss Ford, the failure of the GOP to properly charge the FBI and the many “clarifications” and admissions that K had to make when the evidence began to surface that he was a drunken sybarite and not the Eagle Scout he portrayed in his opening statement.

            Liked by 1 person

  1. The NYT piece is a report on a book written by NYT reporters(thus bypassing their own journalistic standards) based on what someone who wasn’t at the party told them someone else told them, which the woman in question has no memory of it ever happening.

    Yep, that’s proof positive of guilt.

    If you are that desperate to believe Kavenaugh is guilty no one will convince you otherwise, but people outside your bubble are laughing.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. “The NYT piece is a report on a book written by NYT reporters(thus bypassing their own journalistic standards)“

      True, and at least you know enough to not label it as “fake news” (unlike some other knuckleheads).

      I’d need to read the book itself to comment, but the evidence out thus far is troubling on both sides. I don’t know if there’s fire, but the smoke is increasing.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. “the woman in question”

      Actually the book focuses on the corroborated incident between Ramirez and Kavanaugh.

      I am in no “bubble” nor am I desperate to believe him guilty, but it is not simply “hearsay” or a laughing matter.

      Liked by 3 people

    3. I am simply applying the same standards that you have been applying to charges against Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for many years.

      The people in the bubble are those unwilling to believe MULTIPLE accounts, witnesses and his own testimony that have made it clear that Justice Kavanaugh epitomizes the worst of the over-privileged, drunken misogynistic frat boy and has displayed character not worthy of the position he holds. Perjury about his sex life was enough to get Bill Clinton impeached. Why should Kavanaugh not be held to that same standard?

      By the way, WHO actually paid off his profligate credit card debt? If the FBI had been used to investigate rather than cover up, we might know.

      https://www.gq.com/story/scotus-kavanaugh-credit-card-debt

      Liked by 1 person

    4. This is an excerpt from an interview the Times did with its own deputy editorial page editor on the story. It includes the full question and answer:

      Some readers have argued that the latest accusation against Mr. Kavanaugh was too weak to appear in The Times. Given that the woman who was said to be involved in the incident refused to be interviewed, and her friends have said she doesn’t remember what happened, why did you include that accusation in the essay?

      DAO: The essay included a previously unreported claim that friends pushed Mr. Kavanaugh’s penis into the hand of a female Yale student during a dorm party with drunken classmates. During the authors’ investigation, they learned that a classmate, Max Stier, witnessed the event and later reported it to senators and to the F.B.I. The authors corroborated his story with two government officials, who said they found it credible. Based on that corroboration, we felt mentioning the claim as one part of a broader essay was warranted.

      This will not change anyone’s mind about the book, the essay, or the reporting, but it does tell how the Times decided to include it.

      And no one should be laughing about potential sexual assault by any one. No one is laughing about Fairfax’s accusers.

      Like

    5. “The NYT piece is a report on a book written by NYT reporters(thus bypassing their own journalistic standards)”

      Another excerpt from the interview that explains that there was no bypass of Times journalistic standards.

      “Many readers are asking about the placement of the essay. Why did a newsy book adaptation appear in Sunday Review, which is part of The Times’s Opinion desk? And why did it carry the label “news analysis?”

      DAO: The Sunday Review is the Opinion section’s platform for longer essays as well as excerpts or adaptations from books. Sometimes those books are by Times writers, whose submissions go through the same review process as outside writers. In recent months, the Review has published essays adapted from books by Times news writers like Carl Hulse and Jason DeParle, and opinion writers like Bari Weiss and Binyamin Appelbaum.

      It is also not unusual for essays in the Review to break news. This was the case, for example, when our columnist Maureen Dowd wrote a long piece based on an exclusive interview with Uma Thurman about her experiences with Harvey Weinstein.

      For someone such as yourself who doesn’t read NYT because of a paywall, it is unfair of you to say they bypassed their own standards.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “For someone such as yourself who doesn’t read NYT because of a paywall, it is unfair of you to say they bypassed their own standards.”

        You may be confusing Dr. Tabor with me, Mr. Green, since I happened to mention being unable to view a linked NYT piece the other day.

        In this case, however, the standards the NYT violated are basic journalistic standards. The writers withheld relevant information about the allegation which they had in their possession. Specifically, they presented a salacious allegation against Kavanaugh without informing readers that they knew the truth of it to be questionable.

        In effect, they lied.

        Like

        1. Dr. Tabor has made the same paywall comment to me on numerous occasions.

          …”it is unfair of you to say they bypassed their own standards.” This is referring directly to Doc’s comment.

          And your hypocrisy concerning the truth is showing. You call out the Times for allegedly lying about Kavanaugh, yet you constantly defend Mr. Trump for the thousands of PROVABLE lies and falsehoods he has told from Day One.

          And while the essay may have presented a salacious allegation without informing readers, there was a news piece outside of the Sunday Review written that said just that.

          Like

        2. RE: “And your hypocrisy concerning the truth is showing.”

          You have called me a hypocrite for this before, but you have yet to accept the challenge I offered in response: Show me a lie you think Trump has told; I’ll show you how it is not a lie.

          As for the Sunday Review, NYT had to correct the error it made on Saturday. The original article blew up in their face almost immediately.

          Like

          1. RE: “Show me a Trump lie…”

            Go ahead and pick one. I’ve posted about that very list many times in the past. Every so-called lie on it that I have researched turned out to be a matter of intepretation, not a question of fact.

            Like

          2. I stand corrected. I thought the article containing the book excerpt appeared on Saturday, with the correction to the article on Sunday. But you’re right, the article appeared on Sunday, with the NYT issuing the correction later that same day.

            Like

          3. Trump lies . . .

            The reasons that the very, very long list of Trump statements being rated FALSE are included in the articles. You – try as you might – cannot spin them away by saying that FACTS presented in evidence are ALL matters of interpretation. But if you want just one – try Beto’s crowd size or the strongest dollar ever.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. stand in front of a chair, drop trou, and have a friend(s) stand behind you and push, while another pushes the chair’s occupant’s hand toward your crotch. THEN, when question by the cops, blame your friends.

      Two girls at a XXX movie…
      “Oh my god. The man next to me is playing with himself.”
      “Just ignore him.”
      “I can’t. He’s using my hand.”

      Liked by 2 people

        1. Assuming it wasn’t detached…

          If her hand is held static, then the act merely involves pushing the hips and torso toward the hand, the penis will lead the way.

          Funny, ain’t it. No one would ever doubt if a person reported they were robbed, or carjacked, but sexually assaulted?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. To be clear: I’m not saying an assault did or did not take place. I’m just questioning how the latest accusation has been reported. It doesn’t make physical sense to me how someone could push a person’s penis into someone else’s hand.

            Like

  2. The NYT piece is not going to get Kavenaugh removed from the bench, but it will remind him why it is important not to give power to the liberal elite, a lesson that will be on his mind in every decision he makes in the remainder of his service on the bench.

    Keep it up.

    Like

    1. Liberal elite?

      Go ahead. Pretend this guy is not a scumbag.

      Funny how the “liberal elite” did not spread such “fake news” about John Roberts or Neil Gorsuch. Maybe that is because, unlike Kavanaugh, they managed to have very conservative views AND keep their zippers closed at the same time?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I have seen no evidence that any of the claims made against Kavenaugh are true.

        Considering that Democratic members of Congress falsely accuse conservatives of crimes on a daily basis, I see no reason to believe any claim not backed by solid proof. Their lack of good faith leaves them with no credibility in my view.

        100 false accusations against Kavenugh do not make even one true.

        Like

        1. Falsely accused conservatives? What a laugh. There has not been so much corruption in an administration and the leadership of a major party since, probably, the Harding Administration.

          As for no evidence, there is plenty. And it is credible. You just choose to discount it completely.

          What is particularly funny about these protestations on behalf of those poor unfairly accused “conservatives” is that they are coming from someone who has repeatedly parroted just about every outrageous lie, accusation and slander against Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama as if they were Holy Writ.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Because you say so?

            The Trump administration has been under a microscope since before he was inaugurated. Where is the corruption of which you speak? If there was any evidence of corruption we would know it by now.

            What is your credible evidence against Kavenaugh? You say there is plenty but you cite none.

            As for the Clintons and Obama, consider that President Trump has lost millions in net worth in office but they all became multimillionaires while in public office, so you might want to temper that corruption stuff.

            Like

          2. Are you trying to match a Roberts level of goofy counterfactual obtuseness?

            Where is the corruption? Here is a partial list . . .

            https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/trump-administration-conflicts/

            And Trump himself . . .

            https://www.salon.com/2019/09/09/were-starting-to-see-the-scale-of-trumps-personal-corruption-and-its-massive/

            Kavanaugh evidence?
            Sworn testimony by victims mixed with K’s own changing stories about his youth. That, and the deliberate sabotaging of the FBI investigation by the DOJ.

            As for getting rich, you are deliberately basing your claim on things you do not know – that Trump is losing net worth and a lie – Clinton and Obama grew wealthy AFTER they left office and the sources of that wealth are in the public record – unlike Trump’s criminal skulduggery.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. …”a lesson that will be on his mind in every decision he makes in the remainder of his service on the bench.”…

      That statement alone is reason to consider impeachment. If he is supposed to interpret the law, there should be no “lessons” because of so-called “elites” that think he is unfit to serve.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Every justice is influenced by experience and many decisions bear on whether those in power can be trusted.

        For example, in Hudson v Michigan, SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that evidence gathered when police failed to give proper knock-and-announce during a search was not barred by the exclusionary rule. In his concurrence, Kennedy warned that the majority was trusting that the police would not abuse that latitude and that if it were abused, he would rule differently if it came before him again.

        The result has been catastrophic, with pre-dawn raids using a battering ram being standard practice even for white collar crime and thousands of family pets shot by police every year.

        Unfortunately, Kennedy left the court before a second chance came before him. But he was explicit that he could change his position if experience proved their trust was misplaced.

        Kavenaugh is learning right now about placing his trust in the progressive left.

        (FWIW, Kennedy should have known better)

        Like

        1. “Every justice is influenced by experience and many decisions bear on whether those in power can be trusted.”

          I don’t see where interpretation comes into play in your scenario. That is the basic duty of SCOTUS. Period.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s