Kavanaugh, the virgin rapist
Too much information, Brett!
But perhaps helpful and necessary information. The left picked quite a target for their sexual misconduct charges:
Or course, the left will mock him for this. They will also say that’s why he had to rape people when in his cups—he was so terribly repressed and out of the mainstream.
And no doubt this gives them the opportunity to drag forth a stream of Yale coeds (is that still the term?) who were there at the right time to swear that they slept with Brett Kavanaugh, that Casanova. Soon there will be a line of them as long as the members of my tiresome generation who claim to have been at Woodstock.
For the record, I wasn’t at Woodstock, and Brett Kavanaugh never raped me or even had sex with me.
ADDENDUM: Comment found at Althouse’s:
they’ve tried witch hunts, and that didnt work out.
Now they’re going to sacrifice a virgin
This is absolute BS…the Ds should be drawn & quartered for instigating this sideshow & freak circus.
His handlers are nuts for allowing him to do this & the Rs who have not stood their ground and demanded a vote today need a good hanging…traitorous coward SOBs.
‘Brett Kavanaugh never raped me or even had sex with me’
Prove it. That’s how this works now right?
Griffin is right. The Democrats are both mendacious and unhinged. I was caught by surprise with this absurd, nefarious imbroglio. I should not have been. Fool me once…
I honestly can envision various lefty mouthpieces going through lists of women in Kavanaugh’s high school, college and law school classes and randomly dropping hints that he raped, assaulted, propositioned, harassed X, Y, Z. When X, Y and Z deny it (if they do…who on earth wants to get in the middle of this insanity right now?), some leftist blogger, talking head, or Z list celebrity/comedian will shriek “Prove it! Prove he didn’t!!!”
Proving a universal negative. Leftist logic…
“And no doubt this gives them the opportunity to drag forth a stream of Yale coeds (is that still the term?) who were there at the right time to swear that they slept with Brett Kavanaugh, that Casanova. ”
David French says Kavanaugh pretty much invited people to investigate three very specific assertions about his HS years: no sex, no drunken memory gaps, and no parties in that part of town.
Or, invited them to make it up, as the Dems seem to have no problem with that.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-fox-news-interview-aggressive-specific-defense/
Another French article:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/through-the-looking-glass/
“But let’s take a step back and take a look at the state of the evidence against Kavanaugh. There is not a single third-party witness to any claim that can corroborate any accuser or even conclusively place Kavanaugh at the location of any alleged crime. Ordinarily, the existence of multiple claims raises additional suspicions, but in this case not one of the claimants can present any substantiating evidence.
The available evidence simply doesn’t meet any conceivable burden of proof. It’s difficult — especially given the extraordinary passage of time and the admitted memory gaps — to argue even that the claims meet a threshold of “credibility.” Indeed, most of the “I believe her” arguments we see across the length and breadth of the Internet are based either on terrible personal experiences that aren’t remotely relevant to the claims against Kavanaugh or on junk statistics claiming that only a small fraction of rape claims is false.
In other words, for these activists and journalists the claim is “credible” simply because it exists. That’s not how evidence works.
…
It’s important to reiterate the substantial differences between the claims against Kavanaugh and the claims against virtually any other politician or celebrity brought low in this Me Too moment. Whether you’re looking at Roy Moore, Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, or Al Franken, you’ll find substantial evidence beyond the word of the accusers, including contemporaneous corroboration and on occasion even physical evidence. None of those factors is present in the case against Kavanaugh. In fact, the contrast with the careful reporting and fact-checking in those stories could not be more profound.
Instead, in the absence of evidence, activists and even some journalists are filling in the gaps with partisan wishes and personal experiences. That is not the way to resolve allegations that could alter the course of history and destroy reputations. If accusers aren’t willing to cooperate with a constitutional process — and if they cannot bear even the lowest burden of proof — then the Senate should vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh and vote without delay. Any other approach looks more like character assassination than a good-faith search for truth.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-accusations-christine-blasey-ford-must-be-questioned/
“But the maddening thing now is that the Republicans, in their fearfulness, find themselves playing along in this charade. Both sides, they proclaim — Kavanaugh and Ford — should be invited in to tell their sides of the story. But in that way, the Republicans treat the two as standing on the same moral plane. No distinction between the long record of a life led in full and an assertion passionately made by a woman feeling aggrieved, but with no evidence to support her claim. And no background check to support her veracity or stability. None of that would establish that she speaks falsely. But it marks differences that must put these two claims on strikingly different moral planes when it comes to the bare obligation, at the threshold, to presume them to be true.
But can this really be lost on the Republicans? Do they earnestly fear that women voters in the suburbs would not recognize these differences; that a large mass of women would think Professor Ford assaulted and denigrated if her unproven charges were not respected? Can the Republicans not see that they are projecting now, onto women throughout the country, the moral sensibility that the Left on the campuses has worked for years to paint as the state of mind that reflects the real Woman, as they would have her? Does that really reflect the state of mind of women who voted for Donald Trump in 2016? Why would Republicans demean their own voters in this way by reducing them to having the moral reflexes trumpeted by the people who have made “gender studies” their vocation?”
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/24/democrats-go-full-authoritarian-against-brett-kavanaugh/
“…we still have a moral responsibility to be respectful to the accusers. But we do not have a responsibility to give them special deference. As of this writing (and we should all be open to hearing credible evidence if it emerges), the only purported witnesses who have gone on the record and faced any penalty for perjury are the ones who deny any of these event took place.
When Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told the media that he was “not going to ruin” a life over an accusation, there was an outcry about his predetermined position. The fact is we shouldn’t ruin lives over a mere accusation. That’s all we have right now. What’s more, there was no outcry from any of the usual suspects over the fact that at least four Democrats on the judiciary committee, as well as dozens of other elected Democrats, have stated that they already believe Christine Blasey Ford.
Democrats, who made a mockery out of the hearings from the start—ignoring rules and attempting to filibuster the proceedings—have had their political victory, no matter what happens. They either stop the Kavanaugh nomination, or possibly any swing vote on the court, or they move forward in delegitimizing a Supreme Court that values the Constitution, and thus undermines the Democrats’ agenda.
All of this is unfair to both accused and the accusers, for that matter. But as we’re treated to a character assassination, we’re told that it’s no big deal, because all Kavanaugh risks losing is a job. Merrick Garland lost out on a job, did he not? When you can’t tell the difference between a person losing out on a position and a person losing out on a position when facing accusations of sexual assault, maybe your moral compass is broken beyond repair.
…Republicans were under no constitutional obligation to confirm Garland. They decided not to give him a vote. For this they faced (or not) electoral repercussions. That is the prescribed process. When Dems are in the majority, they won’t have any obligation to confirm Trump’s judges, either. The difference is that one group of senators acted like a bunch of normal politicians, while the other is acting like a bunch McCarthyists.”
David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist.
It was a clumsy defense. He could have done everything he has been accused of and remained a virgin, groping doesn’t involve insertion but is still sexual assault.
I believe him. Count me among the sinners.
“It was a clumsy defense. He could have done everything he has been accused of and remained a virgin, groping doesn’t involve insertion but is still sexual assault.”
Well it involved sex. But I woke up and she was standing there naked. Crying. And I felt like shit.
In front of God and everyone.
College.
It really can’t be said enough how disheartening and disturbing this entire saga is.
I was an alter boy and Kavanaugh gang raped me by himself.
The NYT tries to scoop the New Yorker — another odd mix of innuendo, mind-reading, insinuation, and very little else.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html
[in the Business section? really??]
Then he met a pretty cat without a hat, and they have two lovely kittens together. Totally worth it.
Democrats, or is it the left, have jumped the Ass.
I am a Catholic and around the same age as Kavanaugh. I think his statement about being a virgin is true and works to his advantage. The 1980’s with Reagan was a bit more chaste. The hookup generation came later.
I don’t know if this went on-line before the Fox interview tonight, but if it did, Steyn is truly inspired.
https://www.steynonline.com/8830/it-here-it-there-it-everywhere
“So, as Leah the Boss Tweets, the left’s position is that, if you’re in a middle-school girls’ bathroom and li’l Jimmy is transitioning in there and you happen to be exposed to her penis, what’s the big deal? Everyone knows penises are nothing to do with blokes anymore and, if you suggest otherwise, you’ll be kicked out of every position you hold. But, if you graduate middle school and make it to Yale and you’re exposed to Brett Kavanaugh’s penis, or a doppelgänger for Brett Kavanaugh’s penis …whoa! That particular penis or doppelpenis will traumatize you for the next thirty years.
…
One day in the very near future a Republican who has taken the precaution of never having any sexual contact with anyone ever will nevertheless find that’s no obstacle to being America’s most notorious serial rapist.
…
The best justification for ordering the FBI to go chasing Brett Kavanaugh’s penis through Eighties frat parties is that it would give the Deep State marginally less time to continue subverting the 2016 election.”
Too Much Information.
It’s not relevant and if he says it under oath, it could make him vulnerable…especially if a Senator decides to treat him the way he treated Bill Clinton.
“Renate Alumni” is going to be hard to explain away.
Manju smoking the ganja again.
You have the world backwords
I kind of hate that everyone’s so giggly about the virgin thing, like we were all such great Casanovas in high school. Life really is like high school! (And most people weren’t the cool kids and the cool kids from high school didn’t always turn into grea tsuccesses outside school.). The truth is that different people were at different developmental places in high school and the Kavanagh approach of focusing on study has obvious merits. Unless you’re a conservative running for high office. Still, I wish he hasn’t handed them this issue. It wasn’t necessary although it is consistent with a profile of a non-attempted-raper. He really really wants this post.
There was nothing chaste about the 80s. Hook up culture started in the 70s and blazed right on through. Alcohol, pot, cocaine, sex was everywhere. God, I miss it.
But what’s weird here, even for the time, is someone with those kind of yearbook quotes. Just gross douchebaggery. Nothing like that in my yearbook. Think Neil Gorsuch had yearbook comments like that? Ginsburg, O’Connor? I don’t even think Thomas would have been that openly purile.
So then Kavanaugh goes to Yale, and proclaims he was a virgin until he was a junior, senior, maybe even postgrad. Sure, in a sea of cocaine and sex that was 1984 Yale. Was he studying for the priesthood? Holding out for marriage (haha, said no guy ever in the 80s)? Or is he just a brash liar? Or worse, actually a serious freak? The only guy I know (also of that time) who went on to become an actual rapist also lost his virginity at a late age of 21.
Republicans in the Senate need to grow up, grow a pair, and succinctly put an end to this shameful partisan smear. If they do it with the same confidence and conviction that Dems assume when they will gain votes. Stop cowering from the children flinging poo and be the grown ups in the room!
The early 80s was definitely the last gasp for the sex, drugs & rock n roll era. AIDS fear changed all that, starting from the gay community and moving through the rest of society from there. It doesn’t mean that everyone, or even most people in some quarters of society, lived up to the ideals of the dominant culture.
He’s evidently a committed Catholic Christian. He may be among those who actually try to follow the faith they profess. There are some, strange as it may seem to the press.
“Republicans in the Senate need to grow up, grow a pair, and succinctly put an end to this shameful partisan smear. If they do it with the same confidence and conviction that Dems assume when they will gain votes. Stop cowering from the children flinging poo and be the grown ups in the room!”
I totally agree. However, as Neo has pointed out, it’s the squishes such as Flake who are probably holding up the entire process. The RINOs suddenly have a lot of power and are deciding to use it, unfortunately. If the ratio in the senate was 60-40, I think this charade would have been over a week ago.
Ford may be backing out of her appearance on Thursday, according to news reports. Feinstein has requested that the hearing be postponed because of this new allegation. All Grassley has to do is gavel the meeting into session, note the absence of the witness, and call for a vote. Send it to the floor.
Dave, up above, is correct in that a person can be ‘a virgin’ and still commit sexual assault.
The left’s logic breaks down, though, when they imply that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted someone BECAUSE he was a virgin.
As a Christian I do understand the intellectual association between being a virgin and being sexually pure.
Of course the Socialist Left is unable to grope … uh … grasp that reasoning.
I just saw a story claiming there may be a shortfall in the votes for Kavanaugh. It would explain why the bread and circus continues instead of holding the vote immediately.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it considered rape now if there’s not a dozen roses delivered within 24 hours? (I am not a florist)
lying about being a virgin is not as easy as you think, all it needs is a proven former girlfriend of his or any creditable female acquaintance to claim they had sex. Ford is not a creditable female acquaintance, not a third party had come forward who can corroborate that they have met.
The logic behind the virgin defense is that having self control and restrain to remain a virgin for that long, out of choice not inability, implies that he probably had the self control to keep his hands from some stranger girl he just met in a party.
Of course Kavanaugh could be a complete monster after a few drinks, but his Chastity implies that its more likely than not that he has the restrain not to get too wasted and commit a crime.
Liberals opinions of whether someone is guilty or not depend entirely on where the person stands in the political spectrum and they longer hide it. If believing the women unconditionally is their motto then why don’t they believe Ellison’s accusers? They can’t answer it, so they keep their mouths shut and they know their allies in the media would never pressure them into giving an answer. then they have special ability to spin it around by calling out conservatives for believing Ellison’s accusers but not Kavanaugh’s. First, believe the women is the left’s motto, not the right’s. Second, we are questioning the left’s hypocrisy on believing the women, not passing judgement on Ellison. questioning the left’s hypocrisy of faithfully believing Kavanaugh’s accuser without any evidence but not Ellison’s accusers with plenty of evidence is completely valid when the left’s motto is believing the women and doesn’t imply that we believe Ellison’s accusers or not, let the men had their days in court is what we demand. We don’t believe, we know very well we are faulted creatures and our beliefs are biased, so let the system decides.
If Trump gets another SC nomination, it had better be a woman to avoid the Dems favorite weapon –sex.
“It really can’t be said enough how disheartening and disturbing this entire saga is.”
Yes, indeed. I watched the interview last night and came away with the understanding that there are at least two victims in this obscenity: Judge Kavanaugh and his wife. Listen to what she has had to endure, what she has had to do with and say to their children. Obscene and disgusting are not strong enough to describe what the Democrats have done to this family.
Kirsten Gillibrand has the definitive explanation.
“I believe Dr. Blasey Ford,” she announced during a press conference last week, “because she’s telling the truth.”
There you have it. Badges ? We don’t need no stinkin badges !”
“If Trump gets another SC nomination, it had better be a woman to avoid the Dems favorite weapon –sex.”
The Dems’ll ride whatever horse is available. Sexism, racism, homo/transphobia, religious nuts. This particular metoo circus is not “protecting women” from sex predators.
Kate on September 25, 2018 at 7:58 am at 7:58 am said:
He’s evidently a committed Catholic Christian. He may be among those who actually try to follow the faith they profess. There are some, strange as it may seem to the press.
* * *
Seems strange to almost everyone who doesn’t socialize in circles that value chastity and fidelity. Sounds normal to those of us who do.
Two stories, sort of pro and con the assertion, from very old memories of news clippings – possibly as far back as the sixties or seventies.
(1) A school district was proposing to introduce sex education, but the principal of one of the high schools objected, on the basis that “those kids knew too much about sex already.”
(2) A study of drug use among students concluded that a very large majority had partaken (par-token?) of the illicit substances. Another researcher pointed out that their conclusions did not match their data, as the responses to “frequency of use” included a number of “none” that would significantly decrease the majority cited. The study authors explained that they had thrown out those answers, as everyone knew that students claiming they hadn’t used drugs were simply lying.
No, I am not making this up.
That’s why I still remember them after 30 plus years.
Mr. Frank on September 25, 2018 at 10:57 am at 10:57 am said:
If Trump gets another SC nomination, it had better be a woman to avoid the Dems favorite weapon –sex.
* *
The Dems have had absolutely no problem trash-talking the many highly competent and intelligent women working in the Trump administration.
Haley-Sanders in 2024.
I didn’t watch the interview, but while he denies sexually assaulting anyone. I assume he knew Christine Blasey in high school, since it would have been better had he said he didn’t sexually assault Christine and didn’t even know her.
Think back to Bill Clinton pointing his finger at the camera and categorically stating ‘he didn’t have sexual relations with that woman.’ It was a very powerful moment.
I do think the Republicans should get in front of the next round of accusations to be presented by Michael Avenatti on Wednesday where he will present someone who claims Judge Kavanaugh and friends targeted girls to get them drunk and then gang rape them.
In addition Kavanaugh’s yearbook entry references FFFFFFFFourth of July and Devil’s Triangle which Avenatti asserts are code for some very vulgar sexual practices.
News reports are that the Democrats are uneasy about the attacks
Avenatti is planning, but I think this is their hail mary if it appears Senator Collins is still planning to support the nominee and Flake doesn’t vote no.
I think the Republicans should shout from the rooftops now about this next round of attacks and present every lurid detail of these ‘credible’ charges– according to Avenatti. It’s interesting he claims to have a ‘credible’ witness. Apparently if it’s a woman and she’s making an accusation, it’s ‘credible’– no matter how incredible the accusations may be.
‘How low will the Democrats go?’ should be the question attached to these charges. I think by connecting these over the top accusations, it discredits the other accusers, rather than bolster their claims. I spent some time on daily kos, and even there the reactions to these charges were mixed.
I think this could backfire on the Democrats, but the Republicans should go on the offense, ridiculing these accusations– proof that none of these charges are real– just the Democrats evil attempt to subvert the democratic process and destroy lives, both those of the Kavanaugh family and these fragile women who think they are serving a noble cause for the left.
Judge Kavanaugh’s response to this Inquisition brings to mind Tom Petty “I won’t back down.”
I Won’t Back Down
Tom Petty
Well I won’t back down, no I won’t back down
You can stand me up at the gates of Hell
But I won’t back down
No I’ll stand my ground, won’t be turned around
And I’ll keep this world from draggin’ me down
Gonna stand my ground and I won’t back down
(I won’t back)
Hey baby, there ain’t no easy way out
(I won’t back down)
Hey I will stand my ground
And I won’t back down
Well I know what’s right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin’ me around
But I’ll stand my ground and I won’t back down
(I won’t back down)
Hey baby there ain’t no easy way out
(I won’t back down)
Hey I will stand my ground
(I won’t back down)
And I won’t back down
(I won’t back down)
Hey baby there ain’t no easy way out
(I wont back down)
Hey I won’t back down
(I won’t back down)
Hey baby there ain’t no easy way out
(I won’t back down)
Hey I will stand my ground
(I won’t back down)
And I won’t back down
(I won’t back down)
No, I won’t back down
Songwriters: JEFF LYNNE,TOM PETTY
When we have descended to the level of reading high school yearbook inscriptions, we should run for the elevator and go back up into the sunlight.
Brian E hilariously wrote, ” it would have been better had he said he didn’t sexually assault Christine and didn’t even know her”
Brian, he did categorically deny and say this already. If you don’t know facts then do what Senator Hirano says and learn them first.
Brian E continues with hillarity writing, “Think back to Bill Clinton pointing his finger at the camera and categorically stating ‘he didn’t have sexual relations with that woman.’ It was a very powerful moment.”
Brian, we saw how false that was. Bill was disbarred and fined.
When the accuser refuses to testify under oath:
explanation 1: She doesn’t want to incriminate herself by lying under oath.
explanation 2: we have a 2nd accuser now therefore his guilt has been established. accuser 1’s testimony is no longer necessary and should be postponed to spare Accuser of reliving such horrible experience again.
which makes more sense seriously?
Dave:
You can polish turds (the accusations) but it doesn’t change the reality of what they are. Motives of the accusers and their backers are not much better than their products (turds).
I assume he knew Christine Blasey in high school, since it would have been better had he said he didn’t sexually assault Christine and didn’t even know her.
Why would you assume that? I believe about 90,000 people live in the Bethesda / Chevy Chase zip codes, they did not attend school together, no one has yet emerged who is willing to attest that one ever met the other, and the one person who has identified herself as an acquaintance of both (and a friend of Kavanaugh) has said Christine Blasey did not spend time with BK’s circle of friends.
Kavanaugh’s “confession” reminds me of a tiny sixties scandal in which a French pop singer, France Gall (the best of the Yé-yé girls IMO), sang a song about lollipops and afterward was horrified to discover the song was really, obviously about fellatio.
Gall was 18 at the time. She claimed she had no idea. She felt betrayed and humiliated. She ceased working with her famous director, Serge Gainsborough, a rascal who did indeed understand the song.
I’ve informally polled my friends. About half believe Gall could have been that innocent at 18 in 1966. The other half say, no way.
What do you think? The video is bizarre and hilarious. Should we believe the woman?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yWALE1IFbM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_sucettes
AMartel:
Absolutely.
JC:
Actually, it’s also considered rape if a dozen roses are delivered within 24 hours.
Or 48 hours. Or 48 years.
I didn’t watch the interview, but while he denies sexually assaulting anyone. I assume he knew Christine Blasey in high school, since it would have been better had he said he didn’t sexually assault Christine and didn’t even know her.
Brian, who does she identify as an assailant? Mark Judge. Mark Judge is the one person enrolled at Georgetown Prep between 1977 and 1985 who has written a memoir about his early life. He’s the one person in that nexus of people she might know something about without ever having met him. A coincidence, or a tell?
Kavanaugh’s “confession” reminds me of a tiny sixties scandal in which a French pop singer, France Gall (the best of the Yé-yé girls IMO), sang a song about lollipops and afterward was horrified to discover the song was really, obviously about fellatio.
No, the song was about lollipops. If you have a certain sort of imagination, you can pretend those were double entendres.
No, the song was about lollipops. If you have a certain sort of imagination, you can pretend those were double entendres.
Art Deco: Did you watch the video and absorb the lyrics?
If you have a certain sort of honesty, you can see why the song was obviously about oral sex and most adults would get the joke. Gainsborough made a career pushing the envelope of saucy songs.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2011/feb/28/serge-gainsbourg-20-scandalous-moments
Whether France Gall understood at 18 is the only question on the table.
If you have a certain sort of honesty, you can see why the song was obviously about oral sex and most adults would get the joke. Gainsborough made a career pushing the envelope of saucy songs.
No, if you have a certain sort of imagination, you can see it that way. That is a meaning you impose on it. And, no, your use of the term ‘obviously’ is not honest.
PowerLine has a post up that links to the history of another victim of Jane Mayer’s “journalism.” It is worth reading in full to see how far back the subversion and polarization of our government LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies extends, and how much it parallels the current events. (So nice of PL to function as a Way-Back Machine, as I didn’t remember any of this part of the Clinton saga.)
https://www.weeklystandard.com/jay-nordlinger/linda-tripps-vindication
November 17, 2003 at 12:00 AM
“LINDA TRIPP–remember her?–is back in the news, with a bit of vindication. The Defense Department will pay her $595,000. It will also give her a retroactive promotion and retroactive pay. Why? Because the Clinton Pentagon played a nasty trick on her, and violated the Privacy Act in so doing. Tripp sued, and has won this settlement. What happened, back then? It is a tale with many twists and turns, but I’ll provide the briefest of summaries.
…
The Pentagon’s inspector general, Eleanor Hill, launched an investigation, and in about two seconds determined that, of course, Bacon and his deputy Clifford Bernath had violated the Privacy Act. She referred the matter to Janet Reno’s Justice Department, which sat on it for two years, then refused to prosecute. So Tripp had to lodge suit herself.
While covering this story, I made a couple of points, repeatedly.
[Charles Colson went to jail for leaking Ellsberg’s FBI file during the Pentagon Papers affair; Bush officials rooting through Clinton family passport files; in both cases, there were great poobahs announcing that these things would never happen again, nope, nosirree bob, not gonna happen.]
…
In the Lewinsky era, liberals* forgot a number of things. They forgot their feminist lessons, and they forgot their Watergate lessons. Tripp was ridiculed, even vilified, for her looks, which were sub-Hollywood. Even today, these comments make for painful reading. Tripp herself said that she had been ridiculed “in a manner so mean and so cruel that I pray none of you is ever subjected to it.” She later had dramatic cosmetic surgery, paid for by sympathizers.
As for the Watergate lessons, you’re not supposed to, like, play dirty tricks, with confidential files, etc. You know?
…
Throughout those Monica days, she was basically the only one who told the sorry truth, who never spun, and who never, ever, changed her story. Betty Currie, Vernon Jordan, Blumenthal, and the rest of the crew–including the president himself–“adjusted” with the daily circumstances. Not Tripp.
…
Years ago, one of her lawyers said, poignantly, “Despite Linda Tripp’s unpopularity, the law should protect her.”
Yes.”
* * *
Back in the halcyon days of the past, we weren’t yet labeling the Dems as what they are: authoritarian leftists (yes, I know, “what about…” – but the conservatives or others on the right who overstep boundaries of law and civility aren’t wearing the label “liberal” as a protective super-hero-cape.)
And they didn’t forget the lessons: they learned from them, and refined the smearing and dirty tricks procedures for better efficacy.
Baklava: “Brian E hilariously wrote, ” it would have been better had he said he didn’t sexually assault Christine and didn’t even know her”
Brian, he did categorically deny and say this already. ”
Kavanaugh has vigorously denied ever assaulting Ford or anyone else. I haven’t seen anywhere that he has denied ever having met Ford. It is Ford’s “lifelong friend” who has denied ever meeting Kavanaugh.
No, if you have a certain sort of imagination, you can see it that way. That is a meaning you impose on it. And, no, your use of the term ‘obviously’ is not honest.
Art Deco: Are you serious? Or is this some postmodern-troll-persona you enjoy deploying?
Everyone knew and agreed the song was about oral sex, including France Gall eventually.
“Brian E hilariously wrote, ” it would have been better had he said he didn’t sexually assault Christine and didn’t even know her”
Brian, he did categorically deny and say this already. If you don’t know facts then do what Senator Hirano says and learn them first.”- Baklava
I think you misunderstood my point Baklava.
Martha McCallum described the charges Mrs. Ford had made and asked the question “You have categorically denied that this happened. Did anything happen?”. IMO, It would have been better if his response had been specific to the question– that he had no contact with Christine Blasey. Instead he replied with his stock defense– “I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone, not in high school, not ever…”
My point was McCallum asked a specific question about a specific event. He would have been better served had his response been specifically about the charges made by Mrs. Ford. He then could have generalized his response to include “ever”. IMO, Kavanaugh would have been better served to have looked directly at the camera and said something to the effect that “I never had any physical contact with Miss Blasey, never sexually assaulted her, in fact, I have never sexually assaulted any women, ever.”
When asked later if he knew her he said “I may have met her. We did not travel in the same social circles, she was not a friend, not someone I knew…”
As to my point about Bill Clinton’s pointing moment, I’m aware that it wasn’t true in the general sense, but it was a powerful denial. I suppose you can argue that serial liars are the most convincing that they are NOT lying.
McCallum goes on to question Kavanaugh about the other accusations, by Rameriz and Avenatti.
My larger point is I believe the Democrats went too far with their smear, and the Republicans should push back now as the charges being made by Avenatti are so outrageous and incredible they will not be believed by the average voter. By ridiculing these charges of a high school club of gang bangers led by or participated by Judge Kavanaugh, it diminishes the other accusations. Guilt by association, so to speak.
Here’s the transcript of the interview.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/09/24/brett-kavanaugh-transcript-interview-fox-news-martha-maccullum/1415548002/
Everyone knew and agreed the song was about oral sex, including France Gall eventually.
You’re a pest. Buzz off.
Laurie,
I don’t think that actual incidence of sexual activity changes over the years. What changes is how open we are about it.
For the record, I wasn’t at Woodstock, and Brett Kavanaugh never raped me or even had sex with me.
But are you really positive? Really, truly positive? And can you be entirely sure in light of your positive resistance to your alternatives?
Perhaps you were near, or nearly near, or even adjacent to a nearby near, a Known or Purported BrettK Location at some point in the past?
Perhaps you’ve suffered a temporary memory loss at some point in the past that you can’t recall, but vaguely suspect may be based on …something?
Perhaps you have repressed that past (but who can honestly say you’re ever past this tragedy) awful brutality from your Brutal De-humanizing Incident Near a Known or Purported BrettK Location?
If you find these or similar questions “troubling”, and would like to probe your feelings about their ultimate veracity? As a check on your unexplained vague symptoms of having been menaced during a sojourn Near a Known or Purported BrettK Location? Please call the DNC for a cost-free appointment with a pre-approved “politically neutral” therapist.
The DNC serves you. We will help you to remember, and get you through your still-troubling nightmare of Insouciant Memory Loss Near a Known or Purported BrettK Location. We’re non-partisan-ly here for you. For the Children (TM).
Please.
Do it for the children.
You’re a pest. Buzz off.
Art Deco: You responded to me, not visa-versa.
If you can’t support your claims or you are playing a troll game, I suggest you ignore my comments. Otherwise, I will push back.
You have done this multiple times. I can’t tell if you are a fool or a knave — I’m leaning towards knave; you don’t seem stupid — but I’m not here to have silly fights with people on neo’s turf.
For the record I believe France Gall didn’t realize the song about lollipops was about fellatio when she first performed it.
But believing people about sex is such a tricky business, as neo has been at pains to explain and argue.
Art Deco on September 25, 2018 at 1:15 pm at 1:15 pm said:
…
Brian, who does she identify as an assailant? Mark Judge. Mark Judge is the one person enrolled at Georgetown Prep between 1977 and 1985 who has written a memoir about his early life. He’s the one person in that nexus of people she might know something about without ever having met him. A coincidence, or a tell?
* * *
A tell.
I think I said something last week that Judge was an obvious choice for a corroborating witness to her fiction because he wrote about being frequently black-out-drunk in high school, so she could have anticipated that he would waffle and mumble some “maybe-if-you-say-so,” instead of giving the emphatic denial that he did.
Speaking of tells:
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/10-red-flags-sexual-assault-claims-employment-lawyer/
“When the complaint is “he said/she said,” we should not helplessly acquiesce to coin-flip justice that picks winners and losers based upon the identity politics profile of the accused and accuser. Experience with a career’s worth of complaints in hearings, depositions, and negotiations has taught me some tells, red flags that warn that an innocent person stands accused.”
* * *
Guess who hits ten out of ten?
Brian E on September 25, 2018 at 1:57 pm at 1:57 pm said:
My larger point is I believe the Democrats went too far with their smear, and the Republicans should push back now as the charges being made by Avenatti are so outrageous and incredible they will not be believed by the average voter. By ridiculing these charges of a high school club of gang bangers led by or participated by Judge Kavanaugh, it diminishes the other accusations. Guilt by association, so to speak.
Here’s the transcript of the interview.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/09/24/brett-kavanaugh-transcript-interview-fox-news-martha-maccullum/1415548002/
* * *
Thanks for the link.
Here’s one in trade.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/25/michael-avenatti-brett-kavanaugh/
LIBERALS FEAR AVENATTI IS DERAILING THEIR PLANS TO STOP KAVANAUGH. AVENATTI SAYS THEY ‘HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT’
1:50 PM 09/25/2018
Leftist projection-they cannot believe anyone might have strong sexual morals and self control because they don’t…and they surround themselves with like minded people and intimidate those who live by a code of waiting till marriage by mocking them as “virgins”, as if that is something bad.
jon – Virgins don’t have abortions, so Planned Parenthood supporters believe they are engaged in illegal restraint of trade.
neo: You might check out the Ye-ye’s, at least France Gall. I hear her influence in American music from Lou Reed to Billy Joel.
She died this year and I can’t quite believe she was 70.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_Gall