Comments

Can the Ford v. Kavanaugh story get any more bizarre? — 68 Comments

1. One of the frequent charges by Democrats is that, if Kavanaugh gets on the Supreme Court, his vote will enable Roe v. Wade to be overturned, and abortions will be outlawed.

   Well, according to a story out today**, Kavanaugh’s accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, was not only a professor at Stanford, she also worked for Corcept Therapeutics, a billion dollar company whose sole product is the very effective drug Mifepristone–aka RU-486, trade names Mifegyne, Mifeprex and others–the so called “abortion pill,” that is, says the linked article below, 95% effective in bringing about an abortion in the first 50 days of a pregnancy.

   Says the article, Dr. Ford was also a participant in eight studies about RU-486 and it’s uses for that same company.

   But, I am sure her employment by and involvement with a major manufacturer of such an abortion pill has nothing whatsoever to do with her accusations against Kavanaugh.

   Right?

   **See https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-published-eight-studies-about-abortion-pill-and-worked-for-company-that-produces-it/

2. From Ed Whelan’s Crackpot Theory:

   It is inconceivable that this Whelan defense will help Kavanaugh in any way. In fact, it’s so nasty and desperate-seeming that it taints Kavanaugh, despite that fact that he might have had nothing to do with it.

   This is what our politics have come down to. Many Democrats will say and do anything, however unjust, to bring Kavanaugh down. And now it’s clear that a top GOP activist and close Kavanaugh friend will risk destroying the life of a private citizen — about whom there is not a shred of evidence that he did anything wrong — for the sake of getting Kavanaugh on the Court.

   How on earth did Whelan convince himself that it was okay to put that man’s name and face out there under these circumstances? Whelan is not a hack. He’s a former Supreme Court clerk and a very smart man.

3. “I feel like I’m wading knee-deep not merely in high school gossip, but in junior high or middle school gossip.”n — Neo

   https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/20/ladies-we-dont-need-to-be-part-of-your-group-therapy/

   “Here’s the deal: Christine Blasey Ford is one year older than I am. We came of age in the hard-partying 1980s when binge drinking among Americans teens was at an all-time high. A huge cultural shift was happening: Moms were entering the workforce and divorce rates were surging. Teenagers had extra latitude to do naughty things while our parents were busy working or finding new relationships post-divorce.

   Plenty of GenX women have at least one story somewhat similar to the one Ford now says happened to her in the early 1980s: Attending a “house party” with a small group of drunk teens at a home where no parent was present; getting so blitzed you can’t later recall important details—like the exact date it happened or how you got home. Having inebriated boys take advantage of the situation—getting sloppy and aggressive, maybe even trying to force themselves on you. While the behavior was not excusable or acceptable, nor was it criminal. Especially if it ended after a firm “no.” (And, before any of you morons say it, NO I AM NOT DEFENDING RAPE.)
   …
   If Ford were interested in healing—or even seeking justice after all these decades—there are plenty of other paths she could have pursued. Disclosing it to a politician rather than a law enforcement official seems to be a sure way to make it worse, not better.
   …
   Professional women given the constitutional duty of vetting a Supreme Court justice here sound more like spurned sorority sisters than like thoughtful adults.
   …
   No matter whose political agenda it serves, we are under no obligation to help Christine Blasey Ford or any grown woman work through whatever issues they might have. And turning American politics into a late-night dorm chat while trying to destroy the professional and personal life of a man these women don’t want on the Supreme Court is a spectacle we can all live without.”

4. Ann, it is unlikely in the extreme that Whelan is doing this on a lark. I think it is all but certain that Whelan’s source for this theory is Garrett himself.

5. Let me put this way for you, Ann- if you had a friend who was facing a libelous charge that you were pretty certain were fabrications or errors, but the charges were non-criminal and/or well outside any prosecution tries, wouldn’t you consider taking the bullet for that person? By all accounts, Garrett and Kavanaugh are long term friends. I think if Whelan is spinning this story, he is doing at Garrett’s bidding.

6. Garrett should just tell the truth, perhaps in his mind Ford was the aggressor, she turned into predator after a few drinks, She tried to seduce him, forced her way on him, tried to pull his trunks off and he was saved by Judge bumming into the room. lets have the precious Christine prove the negative by proving this is not what happened this time around.

7. Garrett: No Christine, get off me, we can’t do this, you are only 15!!!

   Christine: No, I can’t wait 3 more years, I can’t resist any longer, i need you now!!!

   Garrett: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! [Garrett helplessly wishing a miracle while vehemently clinching onto his trunks, the last piece of clothing still clinging on his body, preventing her vicious desire to steal the thing he holds the dearest, his virginity. He is losing strength, she is about to get her wishes]

   Judge (walks into the room): what the he** is going on here, get off my friend you crazy drunken Vixen, he is still a virgin and he saving it for the love of his life, get out of here, you are not welcome here anymore.

8. “Can the Ford v. Kavanaugh story get any more bizarre?” Don’t ask questions you don’t want to know the answer to.

9. When I was a teenager I stood up a girl because I was too drunk to take her out. On the rare occasions I remember this, I feel a tinge of remorse. I do hope she is not still in therapy over this, but since she was an American she might be.

   Or perhaps she has become a conservative and is a regular reader here. In which case, I’m really sorry Amy. Especially if you are now a gun-owner.

10. this strikes me as a result of the same sort of compulsion that people have following a tragedy to insert themselves into in the most tenuous ways. “I was thinking about flying on 9/11. I could have died!”
    Everything about her comment screams “look at me!”

11. Dave,
    Another alternative: She was going up the stairs and passed out. Someone picked her up and put her on the bed in the room next door. As she came to, she started screaming. The guys kicked her out of the house, where she wasn’t invited to begin with. Maybe they even called someone to drive her home. She certainly couldn’t have walked and was too young to drive, much less have a car. She was embarrassed, so she immediately began creating alternative memories about what happened. As she aged, the memories that put her in the best and most innocent light became set in her mind.

12. Whelan’s piece is simply doing what a good defense attorney does – take the facts as presented by the accuser and fit them into an alternate theory of what happened. I’m also under the impression that Whelan has at least been in contact with Garrett, who is probably more likely to be directly exhonerating Judge with whom he is still friends. I doubt Garrett faces any particular jeopardy, given the statue of limitations and difficulty of investigation of a 30 plus year old incident. Several other people, including Jonah Goldberg and Kathleen Parker, have raised this possibility so there appears to be some coordinated effort to defend Kavanaugh. It has the benefit of allowing that some incident like the one described by CBF did happen rather than claiming she’s making it up entirely.

13. Who gets the movie rights?

14. Remember the farce that was the Kavanaugh hearing? Never think these people can’t top their last embarrassment.

    I read that school wasn’t in session when The Incident took place so it couldn’t have been talked about in school for days.

    I *really* don’t want these people opposing Kavanaugh making any decisions on my behalf.

15. An important point that I think you haven’t drawn out is this: feminists have imposed on us the politics of teenage girl gossip gangs. Truth doesn’t matter. What matters is what social and reputational damage you can do by making salacious false accusations built around some nugget of truth, accusations that are exciting to pass on. Girls learn to coordinate their stories around such false accusations, supporting the attack with vague lies that can’t be pinned down as falsehoods. This training in how to get others to do your dirty work stays with women who have found success by this means and who enjoy the power it gives them to destroy people’s lives.

    Feminists use their teenage training in gossip gangs to pursue their political goals and that is what Ford is doing to Kavanagh. Most women had some experience with a boy when they were teenagers that was uncomfortable and that they could choose to elaborate and exaggerate by vague insinuation 30 years later in order to destroy the man. Indeed, it could be used to destroy any man at all who as a boy was in their vicinity at the time. Ford started just such a move and her friend joined in just as she had been trained as a teenager. This is what is going on and it has no legitimacy at all. The very fact that she has made this accusation in order to achieve a political end is evidence that it is a false accusation.

    Dishonorable men who get others to do their dirty work for them by lying are condemned by other men and by society as cowards. Women are allowed to get away with it. We should end this double standard. It is time that dishonorable women are condemned by other women and by society.

16. She uses “dialogue” as a verb. Obviously, that is trivial beyond belief but is representative of an increasingly annoying speaking/writing style.

17. This disgusting episode convinces me that worse is to come. Can anyone imagine the uproar when Trump nominates the replacement for RBG ? I assume it is likely to be Amy Barrett who Feinstein abused with questions about her religion.

    Feinstein issued this highly unnecessary and evidently anti-Catholic comment in spite of the fact that Barrett said earlier in the hearing, “It is never appropriate for a judge to apply their personal convictions whether it derives from faith or personal conviction.”

    Other Democratic senators took issue with Barrett over her faith as well. Senate minority whip Dick Durbin criticized Barrett’s use of the term “orthodox Catholic,” insisting that it unfairly maligns Catholics who do not hold certain positions about abortion or the death penalty. (Durbin himself is a Catholic who abandoned his previous pro-life position.) “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?” he later asked Barrett point blank.

    That will be a worse circus. It has convinced me that Roe v Wade must be reversed so that abortion politics is returned to the states and the politicians where it belongs. The Roe decision involved the Court in the most divisive issue of our time. It was the Dredd Scott Decision of the 20th century

18. Isn’t it amazing that one woman can bring one of the highest processes of our government to an absolute standstill? It speaks well of us, frustrating and damaging as this particular farce is in other ways. The nation and its Supreme Court are waiting for one woman to speak her mind — and doing so even though she appears of dubious worth in this matter. In how many other countries could this occur?

    So I look forward to her speaking her mind and then we can get on about the business at hand.

19. Until 1986, 18 year-olds could buy wine and beer in Washington DC. Montgomery County MD (where the alleged attack took place) shares a common border with DC.

    As a teenager growing up in DC in the 1960s, I went to many high school parties where liquor was present and parents were absent.

20. I’ve got one other thought on this issue: Sexual assault is a far too broad term. There is a huge difference between teens who are trying to decipher signals and older people who are in positions of power. A male teacher who touches a female student’s breasts is different from a classmate trying to figure out how far he can go. A boss with the power not to promote you or to fire you is different from one who considers you an equal and may share a dirty joke.Even though there is no intercourse involved, some powerful guy who makes you watch him masturbate is a dirty pig. And all of this is very different from some guy you have never seen before who grabs you on the street, pulls you behind a bush, takes off your clothes and rapes you. We have to update our dictionaries.
    And women who foolishly put themselves into a bad situation should learn from it and pass this on to younger women.

21. How long before a Kavanaugh classmate comes forward to say, “no, that wasn’t Brett — that was me. But she can’t remember because of all the beer she had.”

    This has all become too much of a circus. And all because progressive women politicians learned long ago that invoking fear of overturning Roe is a good way to turn out the base and raise money. Having now let this story gain traction, they’re riding it for all the money and support they can get.

    Kamala Harris will work the new hearing for all it’s worth: “so you have no memory of having molested this young woman, Judge Harris? Is that because you had passed out from too much beer?”

    The public will be titillated, but we will accomplish nothing except delaying Kavanaugh’s joining the Supremes. And perhaps raising another million dollars in political contributions. Ugh.

22. I’m Irish heritage, Catholic who attended a private all girls Catholic school in a very good neighborhood in the late 60s. My father was an attorney. My parents were strict and kept me busy with education, sports, charitable work, etc during the school year as well as during vacations. I didn’t want to do anything that would have resulted in a cross-examination by my father.

    I’m sure that there were plenty of parties and risky activities going on with my classmates, but I didn’t see it or even hear about it. So for all those people who say that it was happening with other people so he must have done it, I can say that there were teens who didn’t act that way.

23. So I look forward to her speaking her mind and then we can get on about the business at hand.

    I would say the odds of her actually testifying are 75 25 against. She is a leftist activist who is being managed by two leftist activists and they will milk this for all they can, which probably does not include testifying where her account can be challenged. Eventually, once the committee insists on testimony, she will discover that it is “unsafe” and decline.

24. Yes, Mike K, you are probably right. I would like her to “testify,” however, for a couple of reasons — one being that it will probably show more clearly than any other outcome how junky her accusation is.

    I don’t think Kavanaugh will be tarnished by this, in the long run, painful though it must be for his family. They can see how the game is being played, and even though it has gone into extra innings, each delay and device only sets him off in a better light, IMO. So far, at any rate! Not tired of winning.

25. one being that it will probably show more clearly than any other outcome how junky her accusation is.

    She knows that too, or at least her lawyers/handlers do.

    That’s why she will decline, probably by letting the time expire to respond.

26. Her story is so weak she’d be crazy to ‘take the stand.’

    But look how far she’s taken this trip already.

27. Reply to “Snow on Pine on”

    Ford was never a professor at Stanford University. She is a professor at Palo Alto University which provides education relating to Clinical Psychology and Counseling.

    Google it to get more detailed info.

28. “Kai Acker on September 21, 2018 at 8:54 am at 8:54 am said:
    Isn’t it amazing that one woman can bring one of the highest processes of our government to an absolute standstill? ” [Kai Acker @ 8:54 am]

    Unfortunately we are in an age where one person can bring anything to an absolute standstill. The founding fathers were so concerned with the tyranny of the majority that they never considered tyranny of the minority.

29. Neo,

    I’m still trying to make sense of Ed Whelan’s game. First, my reaction to his disclosure yesterday:

    It seems to be a case of overpromising and under delivering. I am not an attorney, but reading his Twitter stream I found that it wasn’t as dispositive as he had advertised. If I were on a jury it would have raised certain reasonable doubt in my mind, but it is hardly a proof that would have Sen, Feinstein apologizing to Judge Kavanaugh. Then Whelan apologizes and deletes said argument.

    Now this is a Harvard trained lawyer. I’m certain that he realized the nature of his proof was not as iron-clad as he suspected; so why did he advertise it that way? Secondly, why did he publish it and then withdraw it at the first sign of blowback? Again, I would expect a more thorough plan of action from a Harvard trained lawyer, that is unless that was his intent from the start and he’s playing a different game here.

    Any insights? Any insights from any litigator commenters here? I’d be interested to read some informed opinions as opposed to my speculation.

30. T,

    It was information that provided a bathroom across a hallway, with a family room away from the staircase and a PLACE that may be possible that she can be ASKED about because CBF can’t event give us an address.

    And T, if you read everything you see that there were only four guys and if the one guy was there then Kavanaugh was not because that would make five guys.

    The one guy would’ve been the boy of the parents of the house. Add one subtract one T. In a world where no details are provided, these details would exonerate a good man.

    Did you see the women testify in Kavanaugh’s honor today? That is why Ed did what he did. They see a good man being brought through the mud.

31. “Sexual assault is a far too broad term.: [expat @ 9:30 am]

    Unfortunately “sexual assault” has come to mean whatever offends a women in any circumstance. An off-color joke, a compliment about looks, “elevator eyes” — the list goes on. Whatever happens to offend any female, even those “thin-skinned” women who take offense at anything, or those who see an opportunity for self-advancement in even the most innocent situation is considered and amplified as sexual harassment in the public discourse.

    Please note, I’ not saying that this applies to all women; it certainly does not. There are, however, such Planck-length thin-skinned women and opportunistic women out there, and given that this is how students are often indoctrinated on college campuses, I suspect we will be seeing more of them, rather than less, in the near future.

    The unanswered question is “does Blasey-Ford fit into either of these categories?”

32. ” . . . these details would exonerate a good man.” [baklava @ 12:14]

    Thanks for the response. To clarify my position, I never doubted that such information would exonerate a person. I repeat, if I were on a jury this would certainly create reasonable doubt in my mind at the very least, thus acquittal.

    In case I wasn’t quite clear, my question is what is Ed Whelan’s game here? For a highly educated attorney, it seems like he is stumbling through a Kavanaugh defense. I ask the question again: Given the apparent sloppy nature of this post-then-delete defense, is there another game afoot? Is you response to say that the “other game” is simply to provide the Judiciary Committee with information on which to base questioning of the accuser?

33. This attack from the left highlights the need to be more female conservatives in the congress so they can be deployed in tricky situations exactly this when questioning women is necessary to foil wickedly political schemes planned by the democrats. If there were more female GOP senators they could go on offense to the extent of flat out calling her a liar without much repercussion. Males are hand tied in situations like this, it is very difficult defending kavanaugh while having to tip toe around so they don’t unintentionally say the wrong thing to have the democrats used to make a case that GOP is sexist. just like when female police officers being called to a scene to strip search a female suspect, those are not jobs suitable for men to do.

34. “If there were more female GOP senators they could go on offense . . . .” [Dave @ 12:32 pm]

    Murkowski? Collins? Don’t make the mistake that the left consistently makes by dropping all women (in this case conservative women) into a same-thinking identity class.

35. Let’s suppose just for a moment, that Ford remembers the place and date of the party: allowing Kavanaugh to definitively prove that he was never there at that date, and that he had never even encountered her. (This later would be more difficult of course, as no one can remember every insignificant person who passed by within 50 yards of you during your school days)

    But let’s suppose that it can be proved she is lying.

    What’s the just punishment?

    If this were between men, one would expect violence, or at least see it as morally justifiable.

    Kavanaugh, if he (a teen boy at the time) is innocent (of this non-crime) has not only been inconvenienced, but morally affronted, his honor challenged, his time wasted. What his his right or redress?

    The fact that we can hardly answer that question, shows what a pointless shit-pile most civil associations have become in the current polity.

36. I do feel like we’ve all been dragged into a high school or middle school girls’ cat fight. And Feinstein did this on purpose, to her own source, evidently thinking Grassley and Trump would just fold. First lesson: Never trust a Democrat.

    There is NO WAY, no matter how much more gossip emerges, that these charges can be proved. It was too long ago, and there is no contemporaneous supporting evidence for Blasey’s story. No man, of any political persuasion, should lose his career and his reputation over an unverifiable accusation like this.

37. T asked when I already answered, “what is Ed Whelan’s game here?”

    It isn’t a game – to repeat, “testify in Kavanaugh’s honor today? That is why Ed did what he did. They see a good man being brought through the mud.”

38. “‘. . . testify in Kavanaugh’s honor today? That is why Ed did what he did.'” [baklava @1:03 pm]

    Then why did Ed apologize and withdraw his “testimony” within 24 hrs? That is the point.

39. Usually people apologize when they are either:
    1) Threatened – Very possible given the high stakes here and the FBI files on everybody and the absolute control ‘game’ that Democrats play.
    2) Truly feels sorry because somebody else involved was threatened that he cares about.

    You are asking us to theorize so I just did. I for one do not think the information should be entirely discounted given the pictures of the two men. Do you?

40. T:

    I’m completely puzzled by Whelan’s behavior and can’t explain it. It was a weak move, and basically a bad one in a host of ways, IMHO.

41. “I for one do not think the information should be entirely discounted given the pictures of the two men. Do you?” [baklava @ 1:17 pm]

    No, i don’t, but with all do respect you continue to miss my point entirely. I never called the validity of Whelan’s information into question. As to your point at 12:14 pm above I, too, can count heads. I said the following @ 12:08 PM: “If I were on a jury it would have raised certain reasonable doubt in my mind . . . .”

    I will repeat my original point one final time here: “Again, I would expect a more thorough plan of action from a Harvard trained lawyer, that is unless that was his intent from the start and he’s playing a different game here.”

42. “It was a weak move, and basically a bad one in a host of ways, IMHO.” [Neo @ 1:23 pm]

    or so it appears to be. That’s what puzzles me, too.

43. Emotion leads us to do strange things.

    Juanita changed her claim due to emotion.
    Ed changed due to emotion.
    I’ve changed due to emotion.

    I judge less and sift through information. As a less judgmental kind of person, Juanita’s NBC interview and swath of details are more credible than CBF’s and Ed’s swath of information including the doppelganger photos should be delved into deeper since there is NO HOME that CBF remembers…. Present her home pictures for goodness sake. Get to the bottom of her memory.

44. Jordan Peterson talks about how we would react or act in different circumstances. Even very intelligent or trained or elite individuals did NOTHING to stand in the way of the National Socialists in Germany. The power of the state can compel one with emotions to do anything including recant information that is useful.

    Your life and family are much more important than the someone elses and that is why our empathy only goes so far.

45. It appears that Whelan did act alone in this theory. That brings dishonor on him- I had given him the benefit of the doubt that he had to have been doing with at least Garrett’s approval. To have named Garrett this way is shameful if Garrett had nothing to do with the theory itself.

46. Yancey,
    Kavanaugh is named.

    Kavanaugh is a good man.

    Garret was named and his reputation was not the same sterling reputation as Kavanaugh’s. This entire proceeding stinks.

47. “The power of the state can compel one with emotions to do anything including recant information that is useful.” [Baklava @ 1:34 pm]

    No question about that; I agree wholeheartedly, and perhaps that is the simple explanation.

    Still, I expect more from a highly educated, high-power attorney. He knew he was jumping into the fray; he must have known that both Kavanaugh (and family) as well as Blasey-Ford were receiving death threats. He didn’t expect that? He didn’t expect to be castigated by the left? He didn’t expect a woman from a small private girls school (and the judge from a small private boys school) to say ” I knew them both and there can be no chance of mistaken identity”? He couldn’t foresee that he would be criticized for involving an otherwise innocent (perhaps) and totally unrelated person? He was not prepared for any of that? If the answer to those questions is “No, he didn’t foresee any of that,” then for all of his education he must be a piss-poor attorney (first year law: Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to). This does not comport with his reputation in D.C.

    I’m not saying he is a poor attorney, I’m saying that the pieces here just don’t seem to fit together, thus my initial question: Just what is going on?

48. T wrote, “Still, I expect more from a highly educated, high-power attorney.”

    Because you think you are better than people. You would’ve been the “ONE”, the savior, the good, the Jesus Christ, the adversary to the National Socialists.

    You don’t understand much about people T. Not that I do – but to not understand that people change their not guilty pleas to guilty pleas over the years and take a jail sentence when they are innocent is to not understand the power of emotion and the power of the state.

49. The friend is important because under our wonderful new legal system corroborating hearsay from women is considered evidentury

    long ago, in a court far away, to insure men could not have their kids in a rate that is kind of 90% forged-a-bout it… and no matter how extreme the ladies behavior, as it was either inadmissable under not disparaging the victim, or it was caused by the other person and never would occur if not oppressed… a legal form of heads i win tails you lose…

    its the kind of thing i have tried to bring to peoples attention
    but until someone gets run over and its in plain site – no way
    heck, if you cant show an obvious line to a future conflict, what can you show?

    And i am not even a freaking lawyer
    heck, i work in a professionak degree field without one at the top companies

    so, why not one explaining the crack made long ago

    Rule 807. Residual Exception

    and

    Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay

    by the way, even showing people LAW BOOKS dont convince them
    or newspaper articles, or anything… until its waaaayyyyy too late

    The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:

    (1) Present Sense Impression. A statement describing or explaining an event or condition, made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it.

    if your going to lie about the event, to establish its true, you just have to tell your girlfriend or someone immediately after… got it? didnt you ever wonder why all the articles try to point out or others on the view do, or so on.. THEY know this, why dont YOU?

    [snip]

    (3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. A statement of the declarant’s then-existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the validity or terms of the declarant’s will.

    they “felt” it can help corroborate in a kind of odd circular logic… i will leave it to you to have fun working out how to apply it with other things

    (4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that:
    (A) is made for — and is reasonably pertinent to — medical diagnosis or treatment; and
    (B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause.

    ah-ha! so hearsay becomes testimonial evidence if you tell your doctor…
    [this is almost canned if you read articles where women advise women to take notes, tell their friends, make sure to mention to their doctor, etc… and voila, hearsay and uncorroborated evidence, especially in family court to get 90% custody rate, is a cinch!!!!!!!!!]

    (5) Recorded Recollection. A record that:
    (A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately;
    (B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and
    (C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.
    If admitted, the record may be read into evidence but may be received as an exhibit only if offered by an adverse party.

    if A is at play, how does C work? i guess we just assume veracity in a circle
    oh, so if you make a letter, and you send it to someone, and THEY release it, the letter is seen as being evidence as it was never “intended” to be made public… kind of like the old and current dying confession.

    [snip]
    (7) Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity.
    Evidence that a matter is not included in a record described in paragraph (6) if:
    (A) the evidence is admitted to prove that the matter did not occur or exist;
    (B) a record was regularly kept for a matter of that kind; and
    (C) neither the opponent does not show that the possible source of the information nor or other circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

    Who keeps records of drunken bachanalian hobbies by yutes practicing criminal acts including moral terpitude?
    heh
    and you have to love what “neither the opponent does not show” does to the idea of presumption

    then lets put nails in coffins while we are at it?

    Rule 807. Residual Exception
    (a) In General. Under the following circumstances, a hearsay statement is not excluded by the rule against hearsay even if the statement is not specifically covered by a hearsay exception in Rule 803 or 804:

    (1) the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness;

    (2) it is offered as evidence of a material fact;

    (3) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and

    (4) admitting it will best serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.

    (b) Notice. The statement is admissible only if, before the trial or hearing, the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable notice of the intent to offer the statement and its particulars, including the declarant’s name and address, so that the party has a fair opportunity to meet it.

    so it kind of says in 803, if its hearsay of these special kinds or appears so, its now ok
    and if that wasnt good enough as everything cant be enumerated
    any hearsay not covered, but offered up as material fact, is in fact evidential

    cool… no?

    and to be clear
    The contents of Rule 803(24) and Rule 804(b)(5) have been combined and transferred to a new Rule 807. This was done to facilitate additions to Rules 803 and 804.

    and my favorite!!
    The language of Rule 807 has been amended as part of the restyling of the Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on evidence admissibility.

    who insured that style dont count as substantial in law?
    hey… not that i could ever get this discussed… it doesnt exist.

    note in family law, the above favors a womans natural proclivity to gab about things even in secret
    and it also favors the natural proclivity of negative women who often do things in a passive agressive way
    like ruin reputations by gabbing about things that didnt happen, even in secret and all are told to always believe

    whether valid or not, the law favors that
    the law does not favor stoic men, men who have doubt, honest men, etc..
    but thats another subject..

    oh, wait… its not.. its just that its applied so much in family court, that now, it may be used someplace else
    good thing no one pulled those weeds as you certainly had to not care about the men to allow it or parity, etc.

    why not read:
    Family Law Quarterly
    Vol. 21, No. 2, SPECIAL ISSUE ON EVIDENCE IN MATRIMONIAL CASES (Summer 1987), pp. 169-187
    [a bit late though?]

    by the way it works the same as the forfeiture laws. we dont want govt taking stuff… right?
    no one wants to allow it… but why not take the drug dealers stuff and start a precident ?
    ok. we dont like them, everyone agrees they are always monsters, and that it would be ok to make an exception
    but monsters rent, and innocents own… soooo, they confiscated the property of innocents renting
    or people with huge property and weeds growing or that kids or “monsters” planted

    but as we normalized it was ok for the state to take, as those were monsters
    we expanded the idea of monsters… to drunk drivers… etc.

    well, fathers are monsters, all fathers are abusive, and that belief is reflected in media and aplified in court
    so… it was ok to tweak the law in such a way as to change the outcomes they saw on the statistical tables
    ie. control society under the idea that lowering a number in column 8 was progress

    The Subversion of the Hearsay Rule: The Residual Hearsay Exceptions, Circumstantial Guarantees of Trustworthiness, and Grand Jury Testimony
    https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2458&context=caselrev

    i read lots of stuff like the above for fun
    among lots of other domains..

    by the way, i nearly went to prison for murdering a woman who 30+ years later, is still alive
    you see… one of the clauses in the above law, allowed the family to say
    “i know my darling, she would never do that” even if that is exactly what they did
    so if something could show exhoneration or something else, it can be made into manipulation of evidence in stead by such claims being taken in veracity before the other… a kind of time value to the order of arguments, in which whom ever goes first, kind of wins if set up right

    gone girl is not fiction to some people

    oh, and none of this helps get to any kind of veracity

50. “Because you think you are better than people.” [Baklava @ 1:50 pm]

    Just where did this come from?

51. In case this story seems hard to decipher, let me help out.

    only a woman or a male scholar of such material could reveal in such concise and correct manner the twisted way an average woman thinks, and how that is inflated and changed in course, outcome and choices to act by a movement that validates this kind of completely broken logic and also makes it legal evidence..

    thanks…

    you should try some of the feminist logic and feminist chemistry and feminist math stuff… right now they are working on fixing computers by removing the male dominated patriarchal forms of programming langauges and math..

    probably will have the same effect on progress and computers and robots it had on the family, fecundity, and social togetherness..
    [MGTOW much better… wife enjoys it.. so do other often 2nd ladies who, through their loove of someone, are forced to experience what others dont even believe happens, let alone its normal and not a damn thing you can do… ]

52. from your statements

53. Baklava,

    You take reasonable questions and, with no basis, turn them into a personal attack. This is a complete lack of continuity of thought; something I expect from a leftist.
    Time for me to move on in this discussion.

54. Is this really the sort of information a SCOTUS confirmation is supposed to rest on?

    no, but that and the paragraph about the fact a 50 year old woman has been taugth to hold on to the defining victim status events in her life… which are what she uses to look at most men, even the ones she loves but not fully, or draws closer and retaliates for the past.

    guys can tell you legendary stories
    but since all of the actions of a lady are ok, including destroying property, ruining reputations and more… and even have others who will blindly stand behind and a legal system that will often do too..

    this behavior has snoballed till your more abnormal if you dont exhibit it and its harder to get along with everyone cause of it..

    oh. if you dont want to date such people, they get nasty… they team up and say your a loner, cant get any, wont take responsibility, want to stay a child, etc.

    but the majority are raised feral by one mother homes who dont have the time to teach manners, conflict resolution, acting out being bad is now justified… end justifies the means, uneven justice is justice.

    if that makes me a pariah so be it
    but among my asian family i am a very well respected man with solid values of family and fidelity… without mgtow i might still be stuck with “gone girl”

55. T:

    Let me step in here for a moment.

    I certainly didn’t see anything indicating a sense of superiority in your comments. I saw you as puzzled about Whelan’s actions—a puzzlement I share, by the way.

    One thing I will say is that it’s not usually baklava’s style to launch personal attacks. So maybe there’s a benign explanation and/or maybe it’s some sort of misunderstanding.

56. Neo,

    I don’t take these things personally which is why I included my statement to move on. If I have inadvertently hit some sort of hot button, I apologize. As to not usually being baklava’s style, I agree; I have been reading his/her comments on this blog for quite some time. I appreciate the mediation.

57. Sorry.

58. I stand by my reference to Jordan Peterson’s what would you do if threatened by the state though. His information should be used to help CBF jog her memory.

59. Baklava,

    Thanks. No harm, no foul. I look forward to engaging with you in future discussions.

    (BTW I am a big Jordan Peterson fan, too.)

60. But dearest Cristina, just because there was a ton of drinking during your high school years, it does not mean that Person A committed Act X on Person B. – NEO

    are you telling me that women should not be believed?
    just because there was a ton of drinking during high school doesnt mean that it didnt happen either.
    “It’s not consent if you make me afraid to say no.” – unknown.
    “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.” –Madeleine Albright

    how can you say her voice without evidence doesnt matter?
    We need to encourage girls that their voice matters.” –Malala Yousafzai

    you must hate feinstein for beliving this woman more than you.
    “I will fight for those who cannot fight for themselves.” –Wonder Woman

    why do you want to undermine all women who come forwards?
    “In order to escape accountability for his crimes, the perpetrator does everything in his power to promote forgetting. If secrecy fails, the perpetrator attacks the credibility of his victim. If he cannot silence her absolutely, he tries to make sure no one listens.”
    ? Judith Lewis Herman, Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence – From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror
    [funny, but that is what you have to do to discover veracity, unless your of the mind women never lie!]

    why do you want to make them scared to say things cause they wont be believed?
    “Feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women.” –Emma Watson

    what grade did you get in your requird feminist studies course that allowed you to secure your career or was yours created before that? (joking) you shold have paid more attention to those quotes people think mean nothing, have excuses for, are told are out of context and all by leaders who MEAN IT!!!!!!!

    Definition of Affirmative Consent
    http://www.system.suny.edu/sexual-violence-prevention-workgroup/policies/affirmative-consent/

    example of the language that fits neos translation of womens logic!!
    Consent to any sexual act or prior consensual sexual activity between or with any party does not necessarily constitute consent to any other sexual act.

    ah, so consenting isnt consenting..
    and of course consent can be recinded AFTER the event if she changes her mind too..
    among other famous classics…

    Pursuant to the new policy, SUNY students wishing to avoid sexual assault charges must make sure to obtain “clear, unambiguous, knowing, informed, and voluntary agreement” prior to any sexual act. “Seeking and having consent accepted is the responsibility of the person(s) initiating each specific sexual act regardless of whether the person initiating the act is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol,” the SUNY policy states. “Consent to any sexual act or prior consensual sexual activity between or with any party does not constitute consent to any other sexual act….Consent may be initially given but withdrawn at any time….Consent cannot be given when a person is incapacitated (which) includes impairment due to drugs or alcohol (whether such use is voluntary or involuntary), the lack of consciousness or being asleep, being involuntarily restrained if any of the parties are under the age of 17, or if an individual cannot otherwise consent.”

    https://reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/wendy-murphy-vs-suny-affirmative-consent
    [years ago, a lady offered me a contract… it was 12 pages long that was a spreadsheet of what she liked what i would like what she would allow, waht she wouldnt allow, what she was willing to do, etc… all with one column that went for the full 12 pages of all hte kinds of things people do or think they could do to one or the other!!! i still hve the contract… nice person, infantalist husband, but not my thing… ]

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Why Don’t Victims of Sexual Harassment Come Forward Sooner?
    These are eight reasons why victims of sexual harassment don’t come forward.
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201711/why-dont-victims-sexual-harassment-come-forward-sooner
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    This magazine tells women how to think, and still believe theya re independent!!!! [despite doing what they are told by someone, if not the patriarchy, or their family or boy friend or husband… its these magazines telling them not to listen to these others, but if you listen to us, your liberated..cause liberated women do what we tell them! (or else!)

    Do Women Lie About Rape? [of course NOT, not ever.. they also dont shoot up the office (yesterday) are serial killers (for insurance was not uncommon), or even hurt the kids (they hurt them more), etc]
    http://msmagazine.com/blog/2011/04/07/do-women-lie-about-rape/
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

61. “he goes against everything sacred to me” – straightforward evidence the Constitution isn’t included.

62. Icepilot,

    Shazam! Excellent observation!

63. And the Dems can’t understand why we don’t trust them!

64. Sam L,

    They preach that we should trust them but I don’t think that care one whit if we really do.

65. blert on September 21, 2018 at 7:27 am at 7:27 am said:
    Who gets the movie rights?
    * * *
    Bottom line for Ford, I think.
    Worked out ok for Dan Rather and Mary Mapes.

    This report has an interesting twist: it doesn’t slam the movie for the reason most of us did, especially at PowerLine.

    https://variety.com/2015/film/news/truth-movie-dan-rather-mary-mapes-1201617239/

    “President George Bush was fighting in a close race for reelection 11 years ago when he got an unexpected gift from an unlikely quarter: CBS News and anchorman Dan Rather dropped a story that was supposed to show that Bush shirked his duties as a young officer in the Air National Guard.

    Trouble was, CBS used sloppy reporting to back up a good story. The ensuing furor cost Rather, star producer Mary Mapes and three CBS executives their jobs. And it created a diversion whenever Bush or his handlers were pressed by other news outlets about the president’s less-than-heroic military record.

    Now the movie “Truth,” set for release Oct. 16., arrives with the promise of shedding new light on one of the modern news business’s most epic unravelings. The Sony Pictures Classic film has received acclaim, particularly for performances by Cate Blanchett and Robert Redford. But what it doesn’t reveal is how many other news outlets were finding gaps in Bush’s military records that would be all but forgotten because of CBS’s epic plotz.

66. Liz on September 21, 2018 at 9:41 am at 9:41 am said:
    …
    I’m sure that there were plenty of parties and risky activities going on with my classmates, but I didn’t see it or even hear about it. So for all those people who say that it was happening with other people so he must have done it, I can say that there were teens who didn’t act that way.
    * * *
    I never knew anything that was going on in HS, and I wasn’t even LDS at the time.

67. Where is the part that Ford kept all this quiet till 2012 when she told her shrink.

68. This is all bull crap Democrat trash! It never happened. They made this up as the only way to stall the confirmation hearings left and these jerk off liberals have no problem lying their tongues off to fit their agenda. Think about it America..do you really want trash like these representing you where their agenda is to keep cheating you out of your tax dollars for their own pockets! Lying liberals and Hollywood actors faking that they are true Voters…give us a break!

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>