The left and the double bind: setting a new standard for chutzpah
Yiddish is a language that has a lot of words that express personality qualities and types, particularly loser types or mean types or conniving types. These words often combine humor with rueful sarcasm and cynical realism about the vagaries of the human condition.
One of those words is “chutzpah.” You’re probably familiar with it, because it passed into the American vernacular some time ago. It is usually translated as something like “audacity,” and it most often contains an element of outrageous gall [my emphasis]:
Leo Rosten in The Joys of Yiddish defines chutzpah as “gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, incredible ‘guts’, presumption plus arrogance such as no other word and no other language can do justice to”. In this sense, chutzpah expresses both strong disapproval and condemnation. In the same work, Rosten also defines the term as “that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan”. Chutzpah amounts to a total denial of personal responsibility, which renders others speechless and incredulous…
The left’s attack on Kavanaugh involves the following, which I think sets a new standard for chutzpah: take a man with a sterling public record during his entire life, mount an attack on his integrity that involves an unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, impossible-to-defend-against charge of sexual attack (up to and including gang rape), and do it at the pinnacle of his career, unleashing a social media war against him of the most vicious kind, including death threats towards him and his family. Do that publicly while cloaking yourself in self-aggrandizing sanctity, and make him sit there and listen.
But that’s not the “chutzpah” part, although that does take some chutzpah. The real chutzpah part is this: if he acts at all angry in his response to being defamed in that way, say that his anger shows that he doesn’t have the temperament to be a justice, despite the fact that it is well-documented that he has shown an exemplary judicial temperament for his entire previous career as a judge.
And one more thing: if he hadn’t shown anger in response to these extreme charges against him and their public airing in the United States Senate, accuse him of lacking the appropriate outrage that would have been the sure mark of an innocent man. Does any fair-minded person doubt that would have been the outcome, had Kavanaugh not been angry?
“Chutzpah” is too light a word to describe that kind of ploy.
But still another word for what the left has done to Kavanaugh—a more technical and academic one—is that they placed him in a “double bind,” which is:
…a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation…
Thus, the essence of a double bind is two conflicting demands, each on a different logical level, neither of which can be ignored or escaped. This leaves the subject torn both ways, so that whichever demand they try to meet, the other demand cannot be met.
So Kavanaugh’s anger elicited intense criticism, and lack of anger would have done the same. I doubt that Judge Kavanaugh anticipated the nature of the bind he was in, unless he’s unusually psychologically astute. But even if he had foreseen it and tried to prepare for it, it’s nearly impossible to find a way out of a double bind and its contradictory demands.
Some of you may recall my previous discussion of the importance of understanding the difference between process arguments and content arguments (please see this post for more detail). If you are caught in a double bind—such as the dilemma Kavanaugh faced—it is best to “go process” and address the underlying double bind itself rather than just the content of the argument at hand. To “go process” takes an unusual amount of psychological and communicative savvy, and an understanding of the content-process distinction.
Most people don’t have that knowledge. But I think it might have helped had Kavanaugh said something like this:
You may think I may sound outraged and angry, and no doubt some people will criticize me for that. But I believe that any person who knows that he or she is innocent and yet is accused of the kind of offenses I’ve been accused of here today would feel and express the same very controlled anger. What’s more, if I showed no such emotion when faced with these charges, charges that violate everything I hold dear, you would criticize me just as strongly for not showing the appropriate emotion, and you would blame me for that. It’s a classic double bind, where no reaction is okay and all reactions are fodder for the criticism mill.
When I say that sort of statement might have helped Kavanaugh, I don’t mean it would have prevented the criticism. He would have been criticized for saying what I’ve suggested, too. But still, I have noticed that “going process” and revealing the underlying game being played by the opposition is usually a good tactic, because there may be some listeners who will then understand what’s happening. The tactic of going process offers the only chance of breaking the Gordian knot of the double-bind.
It’s also a tactic that often surprises the opposition; they rarely expect it. But to be successful, the person making the statement has to have either anticipated the double bind and the form it will take, or at least must be able to recognize the double bind while it’s in progress, which is also very difficult to do. One of the many goals of placing someone in a double bind is to confuse the person in real time so that, unless he/she is quite sophisticated about human communication patterns, that person will fail to recognize what’s going on.
Another aspect of the criticism of Kavanaugh’s anger is that it delegitimizes what is felt to be a typically masculine response. Even controlled and highly appropriate verbal anger, when exhibited by a man (a white man in particular), will now be labeled inappropriate and frightening and disqualifying as an example of toxic masculinity—if the man is on the non-leftist side of the political fence, that is.
[ADDENDUM: It is also true that you could look at his dilemma as a triple or even a quadruple bind. Probably even more than that.
“Double bind” is the technical term, though, for this general type of dilemma.
And it is absolutely true that Kavanaugh was also criticized for crying—thereby indicating that there was no response of his that wouldn’t have been criticized. In my suggested speech for him, I think he could even have added that tearing up and/or crying would be criticized, too.
Oh, and had he actually added that, he would have been criticized for being a whiny complainer.
The basic point is that all responses are forbidden and there are no choices left except to point out the game.]
if he hadn’t shown anger in response to these extreme charges against him and their public airing in the United States Senate, accuse him of lacking the appropriate outrage that would have been the sure mark of an innocent man.
Remember the “rape and murder of his wife” question asked of Dukakis in the debate?
True enough what you say about dealing with a double bind (which is the same approach you need to take when asked to respond to a loaded question, one along the lines of “when did you stop beating your wife?” – to which you need to recognize and refute the premise behind the question.)
The problem is that Kavanaugh was actually caught in a triple bind, so to speak, in that an effort on his part to “go to process” would also have been criticized as evasion and proof of his guilt, etc.
So in that light, I think Kavanaugh’s response was the most genuine and human, and thus over time will prove to have been the best one.
Especially as I believe that his response and the way the Democrats treated him was the crucial ingredient in stirring up Sen. Graham to issue his historic philippic that turned the entire hearing on its head and kept Kavanaugh’s nomination alive.
It’s interesting that you focused on the anger as a traditional male response. I would say he faced a “triple” bind, in that he was also criticized for having a hard time holding back tears. That is, he swung from righteous anger to vulnerability. And he took flak for that when people said “women aren’t taken seriously when they break down emotionally, but he got away with it”. Along those lines, I read a sharp observation that she seemed to be trying to force out tears, while he seemed to be trying to hold them back.
Neo are you going to write an article about Rachel Mitchell’s written assessment of the case and Ford’s testimony. It is quite interesting to say the least, but nothing will ever change the minds of liberals, their minds had made up long ago.
All Kavanaugh needed to do to get quickly confirmed would have been to declare that he was gay. Or even better, transgender.
Yes, Civil Truth! What a smart analysis. Kavanaugh’s emotional reaction was the only one open to him. I think it was absolutely genuine and authentic, but that it went very much against the grain of his personality. I got the sense that it cost him terribly, and that he won’t soon recover from this experience. Talk about a trauma! I read that he is now “shell shocked,” and I believe it.
Indeed, you could look at Kavanaugh’s dilemma as a triple or even a quadruple bind. Probably even more than that.
“Double bind” is the technical term, though, for that type of dilemma.
And it is absolutely true that he was also criticized for crying—thereby demonstrating that there was no response of his that wouldn’t have been criticized. In my suggested speech for him, I think he could even have added that tearing up and/or crying would be criticized, too.
Oh, and had he actually added that, he would have been criticized for being a whiny complainer.
The basic point is that all responses are forbidden and there are no choices left except to point out the game.
neo: Interesting distinction on going process instead of content in face of double-bind.
I once ran a sorta-blog back based on the old bulletin board days. During Rathergate I had beaten progressives like gongs in the politics area. Offstage they organized to sabotage my area with a bunch of dada nonsense and did so.
I maintained a sense of humor but went process at every stage with each person. I called their game and their efforts dried up.
However, I was eventually hounded and shunned until I left.
Double Bind theory is fascinating stuff. It goes back to Gregory Bateson, a seminal thinker of the mid-20th century, who hoped to explain schizophrenia as a response to double binds. The radical psychiatrist, R.D. Laing, took that ball and ran a good ways with it. That’s a long story.
Laing wrote a short intense book of what might be called prose poems on double-bindish situations. The first bears on Kavanaugh’s predicament:
____________________________________________________________
They are playing a game. They are playing at not
playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I
shall break the rules and they will punish me.
I must play their game of not seeing I see the game.
–R.D. Laing, “Knots”
His anger re-energized his supporters and was necessary, regardless of the fallout, IMO. Those that are criticizing his aggression weren’t and aren’t like to be swayed, but some on the fence may have been swayed by his passion. The facts, as we know them at this point, were already on his side.
The noticeable shift in narrative from the rape allegations to lying about being “blackout drunk”, which seems to only way to preserve any semblance of assault, has become the new standard.
If the left succeeds in turning his ‘sometimes drank too much’ as not sufficient acknowledgement of him being characterized as a ‘sloppy, incoherent drunk’, he still has a problem for those merely looking for an excuse to vote against him. Some have already said if the investigation proves he was lying about his drinking they will vote against him.
Whether it was a double or triple bind, I think his response was necessary. His attempt to nuance his drinking may still be a problem.
While we know that Kavanaugh is really upset at what his daughters are going through, I wonder about Ford’s sons. She married in 2002, so I guess they are teenagers. Do you think they will be scared of ever holding hands with or trying to kiss a girl? Maybe Ford will provide them with a book of permission slips for the girls to sign. I hope this narcissist has lots of nightmares about this.
The radical fems don’t give a damn about kids. They are disgusting. Maybe we need a new group called Strong Women who will come out for their male friends and family members and their husbands and kids. Kavanaugh can’t fight this battle alone.
BK just needs the votes of the two Republican women who are playing it coyly.
Roasting his Democrat inquisitors should be enough to do that giving them process cover necessary. Even one RedState Democrat’s vote would be like an “insurance run” in the top of the ninth.
This calls to mind the famous Kobayashi Maru exercise in Star Trek. It is a no win situation with dire consequences presented to the crew to see how they respond. The only real solution is not to play the game at all, or even better cheat or change the rules.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru
Had I been in Kavanaugh’s shoes I would have gone after each Senator for hypocrisy. Prevent them from questioning me and instead questioning them. Booker: how’s T bone? Have you resolved that case against you for violent assault? Blumenthal: is your time in combat in Viet Nam seared into your memory, or was that Xmas in Cambodia, or was it landing under sniper fire in Bosnia? I’d have a whole lot of questions lined up for
Feinstein starting with her hiding Ford’s testimony that she had three days before interviewing me in her office.
It’s the sort of thing that Trump could pull off because of his decades dealing with the gangsters of NY politics but I think that Kavanaugh has lived most of his life where everyone is civilized and it was not in his experience or imagination that politicians could be such thugs.
Neo, the term is kafkatrap.
Things like the Kavanaugh ‘lynching’ make me even more convinced we have to primary every GOP squish. To my great surprise, my admiration of what Trump has unmasked for those with eyes to see increases everyday. Brash,crude, and sly master of unmasking. A very unconventional POTUS to be sure. But it was just what we needed, and just in the nick of time. As a Cruz supporter I would like to see him as POTUS, but perhaps he would best serve on the SCOTUS.
Brian E,
Anything that threatens the ‘progressive nwo’ will always create a problem for a conservative. The beauty of djt is that he does his bull in a china shop routine and sucks all of the air out of the room.
I recall Whittaker Chambers saying he was now joining the losing side by repudiating communism. I still have faith he was wrong. But I do not think he would be surprised at the gains that have been made by the Marxists.
Pingback:The left and the double bind: setting a new standard for chutzpah – Doug Santo
“”Chutzpah” is too light a word for that kind of ploy”
The appropriate word is “evil”, the left’s ploy is a particularly egregious example of a mortal sin, bearing false witness and one that places the offender’s soul in mortal peril.
The appropriate response to a purposefully created double bind, whose intent is to destroy the recipient is to declare “no quarter given” war. Which is what Lindsey Graham promised his former ‘colleagues’.
The fanatical Left has “called the tune” and is willfully blind to what they shall have to “pay the piper”.
If he had said what you suggest, the Left would have accused him of revealing paranoia, since what he was accusing them of was not yet in evidence. And he would be declared disqualified on that basis.
I don’t really see it your way at all. I don’t think Kavanaugh was in a “double bind”. I just think his performance was terrible. My opinion changed on Thursday from “he should probably be confirmed because Dr. Ford’s accusation is unprovable” to “I don’t want this self-righteous abusive jerk to be a Supreme Court judge.”
Look, I understand he’s angry. But that’s just too bad. He wants to be a Supreme Court judge. A swing judge has left the court. Emotions are high. He needs to understand that and rise to the moment.
But he didn’t. I understand the Democrats are playing politics. The Republicans do too. I don’t care. The fact is that Dr. Ford came forward *herself* to make these accusations. The accusations themselves are not a Democratic plot, or at least I’ve seen no credible evidence that they are. They are accusations from a source who apparently believes them and Kavanaugh should sympathize with the fact that Senate members have to take them seriously. Instead, for Kavanaugh, it’s all about him and his family, and his righteous anger, and of course politics.
The way he talked to Democratic senators, particularly the females, was not acceptable. The smart-ass response to Kloubuchar was particularly disrespectful, and inappropriate as well. It is entirely reasonable for senators to question him about his drinking and about blacking out. He is being accused of sexually assaulting someone while drunk. He has categorically denied that he has ever forgotten things while drinking, and it is entirely reasonable to be skeptical about this. “Biggest contributor” to the “Beach Week Ralph Club” are *his* words. You can parse them, but I’m his age and I know what that means. People who drink until they “ralph” often don’t remember things. At least two people he knew at Yale have directly contradicted his representation of himself as someone who would never drink so much that he might forget things. He was apparently a heavy drinker, at least occasionally. It is understandable for the Senate to wonder how heavy a drinker he really was, given his soft-pedaling of the issue. It’s quite relevant, both to the accusation and to the honesty of his self-portrayal.
To me, his representations of himself and others give the impression of someone who is comfortable playing fast and loose with the truth. In his statement, he said more than once that Dr. Ford’s friend (Keyser) had refuted her story. That’s not accurate. Keyser only has stated that she doesn’t recall the party. That’s not the same thing as a refutation. I’ve seen how he represented the various dubious yearbook entries: the “Devil’s Triangle”, “Renata Alumnius”, the “ralph” entry. His explanations don’t sound credible to me.
But that’s not the key point. My point here is that we have a serious accusation from a person who gives the impression of believing her story, and Kavanaugh should treat the story and the committee’s responsibilities with respect. Instead, he rants and behaves rather peevishly. Is that how he is going to interact with his fellow justices? He had a night to calm down and come up with a thoughtful statement in front of the committee. Instead we get this aggressive 45 minute appeal to the base.
Well, I’m not the base. I’m not a Republican nor a Democrat. I was unimpressed by Dr. Ford’s whimpering, but I was even more unimpressed by a Supreme Court candidate who, with a day of preparation, shows no ability to control himself and understand that the moment required a thoughtful, measured response. Such a response might not have impressed the people who hate him anyway, but it would have impressed people like me who don’t have an axe to grind. From my point of view, he disqualified himself. I hope they don’t confirm him.
David: Good for you, sweetheart.
So you went for the easy grift of feelz. You feel this way and you feel that way. How nice for you.
I doubt there is anything Kavanaugh could have said which would have met with your feelz criteria.
I don’t claim to know what happened or didn’t happen over thirty years ago. However authentic Ford’s statement of feelz seemed to you, the fact remain she can’t remember anything substantial which anyone she cited would corroborate.
And there are numerous questions about her feelz — like her claim she couldn’t fly to a hearing in spite of her numerous air trips which involved pleasure or work.
So what are we supposed to do? If any Republican nominee to the Supreme Court candidate is accused of sexual assault, they should be rejected because of your feelz?
A person would be too calculating and cool to a fault to be trusted to be a judge in the highest court of the land if he is a truly innocent man being destroyed in a political setup bought on by an unsubstantiated allegation and still willing to put on a fake calm persona just to earn the trust of the ignorant mass who can’t tell that a woman who couldn’t even make up her mind when the attack took place 1 month ago or recall how she came or left the party an obvious liar. He has shown the right emotion for a man who was falsely accused of something didn’t do for political gain.
You must be a robot or a calculating wolf if you can still put on a smile and be friendly with those who set you up and destroyed you entire life for political purposes.
She said she was afraid of flying due to an anxiety disorder caused by the attack and requested an one week delay, then flew in for the testimony and shown to fly regularly. If u still find her to be credible after this lie, you have made up your mind and nothing the judge said or do would change that.
David:
You’re troubled by what you call “smart-ass” responses, amidst the calumny the Democrats are heaping on this man’s head? That’s absurd. They deserve a tongue-lashing; I thought he showed remarkable restraint actually.
You obviously care not a whit about such things as evidence. Nor do you have a clue what forces helped Christine Ford craft her story, nor do I or anyone except Christine Ford. But she has already shown herself to be a liar about the flying, which was a political ploy.
Democrats and Republicans play politics. But this isn’t politics. It’s not business as usual at all. It’s the trashing of liberty and the whipping up of a kind of hatred I have never seen before in the US, and I’m pretty old.
The next complaint of the Democrats will be that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because he will have to recuse himself from any case involving a woman: even if he didn’t hate women before, he certainly does now.
I personally think Judge Kavanaugh is better than that, but sand-bagging is not something elite judges usually have much experience with.
Paul in Boston on October 1, 2018 at 5:48 pm at 5:48 pm said:
“It’s the sort of thing that Trump could pull off because of his decades dealing with the gangsters of NY politics but I think that Kavanaugh has lived most of his life where everyone is civilized and it was not in his experience or imagination that politicians could be such thugs.”
Not being a big drinker it never takes much drinking for me to ralph. Anything over 4 beers and its hello porcelain throne.
We saw a man who was being personally attacked responding in a natural manner.
I think most reasonable people can separate out what they do personally versus professionally.
So, Kavenaugh was calm and collected when he was being interrogated about his professional career, and emotional when being attacked in his personal life.
Steven Hayward has some experience with facing down the Lions of the Left in their own dens (which he does with grace and humor), but he may be similar to the Old prophets in other ways.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/10/attention-yale-alums-last-chance-to-help-jamie-kirchick.php
“I predict, by the way, that in the aftermath of the Kavanaugh nomination fight, the left at law schools around the country is going to try actively to suppress student chapters of the Federalist Society. (I already know of one law school that limits the Federalist Society to only one event per semester.) And I’ll bet it starts at Yale.”
I predict that the rest of the list of judges that the Society gave Mr. Trump will soon lawyer up and start scouring their calendars and yearbooks.
Which, as Hinderaker said, is the point.
Just discovered by accident on a Wikipedia search with a misspelling of the judge’s name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanah
“Kavanah, kavvanah or kavana …, literally means “intention” or “sincere feeling, direction of the heart”.[1][2] It is the mindset often described as necessary for Jewish rituals (mitzvot) and prayers.[3][4] Kavanah is a theological concept in Judaism about a worshiper’s state of mind and heart, his or her sincerity, devotion and emotional absorption during prayers.”
This is more likely, of course, but I’m going with the Hebrew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanagh_(surname)
“Kavanagh” and “Kavanaugh” are anglicised variations of the Irish Gaelic surname Caomhánach … The surname was first assumed by Domhnall Caomhánach (the eldest son of the 12th century King of Leinster, Diarmait Mac Murchada) in Ireland.[2]
David French spotted the first wall of the double-bind going up in the beginning.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-good-character-is-used-against-him/
“Kavanaugh has unequivocally and unambiguously denied the claim, and there’s so far zero evidence supporting the accusation. So, how do you continue to smear the man? Easy. Turn even his good character against him. Now it’s somehow suspicious that he was able to quickly amass the signatures of dozens of women to vouch for his character.”
https://amgreatness.com/2018/10/01/jeff-flakes-spineless-betrayal/
“The Democrats decided to use the same disgraceful plot against Brett Kavanaugh that they tried against Clarence Thomas with the hopes that the reboot would end differently. Unbelievably, the lesson the GOP appears to have learned from Thomas’s ordeal is that successfully stopping the slanderous lies against him from depriving him a place on the Supreme Court wasn’t worth being called mean by the Democrats and their media allies. As a result, they allowed the reputation of an honorable man to be dragged through the mud and it remains to be seen whether Feinstein will manage to make up for the Democrats’ failure to destroy Clarence Thomas. In doing so, the Republican committee members not only betrayed Kavanaugh, they betrayed their voters, their country, and their president.
The Democrats may be unprincipled cretins, but you have to respect them for not lacking courage. Something, sadly, that can’t be said for many of their colleagues from the other side of the aisle.”
RTWT for his argument, but it certainly applies to Flake.
One take-away from Super-Graham’s scolding of the Dems was his reminder that he voted for their two SCOTUS picks, knowing that both women would generally rule against most of his policy preferences, and that of his party (not all of them, though; he was the Senator-formerly-known-as-Grahamesty for a reason.)
In fine, he reminded them that the GOP did not Bork their candidates, did not Thomas-Hill their candidates, and certainly did not Kavanaugh their candidates (“Garlanding” Obama’s nominee was perfectly within their institutional prerogatives – it doesn’t even sound mean.)
If the Dems think any Republican outside of the Flakes will ever extend that kind of collegial courtesy again, they have snowflakes in their empty heads.
The spin in this Politico article is about what should be expected, but the hypocrisy in the final grafs is outstanding. As to whether having different interpretations of teen slang amounts to lying, I guess it depends on what your definition of “is” is.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/01/kavanaugh-boofing-fbi-investigation-220808
“Senators weighing Kavanaugh’s fate should apply the same standard. To date, many of them have tried to dismiss Ford’s allegations as a case of “he said, she said.” But any proof that Kavanaugh lied under oath should cause senators to err on the side of believing her over him.
[on the other hand, there is no suggestion that Ford lying under oath is anything to be concerned about]
Furthermore, anyone prone to such casual lying is not fit to serve a lifetime appointment on the nation’s highest court. [no mention of serving as the nation’s highest executive]
After all, if Kavanaugh can’t be trusted to tell the truth about even the minor stuff, why should we trust him on anything else?”
* * *
And if we can’t trust the Senate Judiciary Dems to tell the truth about some pretty serious major stuff, why should we trust them on anything else?
South Carolinan gives an unusually fair treatment of Graham and his tirade, besides which it made me laugh.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/01/what-really-got-lindsey-graham-so-steamed-220809
“In this case, I suspect he feels not only has he been personally betrayed by his Democratic colleagues, but more significantly, that they are betraying the example he believes he demonstrated—institutional deference to the party in power on judicial nominees. And to make matters worse, he believes they are doing it a particularly shameful and salacious way.
Combine what Graham sees as a breach of institutional norms with a personal betrayal and for him it’s explosive—the political equivalent of mixing sodium with water (or worse, putting mayonnaise on barbeque). It may have other political benefits, but based on my over 20 years listening to and following Lindsey Graham, it is fundamentally a compromise of honor both personally and institutionally that, as he says, really pissed him off. In this case, “bless your heart” was not going to cut it.“
Everyone with brains predicted this one.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/10/report-jeff-flake-now-wants-more-thorough-investigation/
“Jeff Flake says he wants the FBI to do a “real investigation” on Kavanaugh: “It does no good to have an investigation that just gives us more cover, for example. We actually need to find out what we can find out.” (via ABC)”
And LI says further:
“Flake had this planned all along, as we covered Sunday:
Report: Flake wasn’t pressured, he masterminded the Kavanaugh delay”
[LI is fisking a Politico report, which some of you may have seen; it’s an interesting display, because Politico doesn’t usually hand out hugs to Republicans, so it’s glowing (but subtly derogatory) picture of Flake is already suspect, and LI takes the bone in its teeth and shakes it hard.]
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/report-flake-wasnt-pressured-he-masterminded-the-kavanaugh-delay/
“According to a report published by Politico, Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) chose to appear pressured when, in fact, he masterminded the latest Kavanaugh delay. His subsequent media statements about his motivations and his media appearances in light of this report suggest Flake’s true motivations are far less pure than he would have us believe.
Flake’s focus on optics, on his raw ambition (for 2020?), and on the kind of “swamp creature” political maneuvering surrounding this planned reversal paints for the American people a hideous and disturbing portrait of the Arizona senator.”
* * *
A good example of why it is almost impossible to get at any verifiable facts or truthful interpretations of them, from both sides.
Not that I’m standing up for Flake here, you understand.
Bless his heart.
Canadian liberals have been doing this for years.
Come up with stupid and oppressive legislation then point at the angry men opposing it as justification for it.
Their gun control legislation was a case in point.
It’s okay to punch bad people in the mouth.
And angry people are bad.
The fact that you get angry after I punch you in the mouth is justification for punching you in the mouth.
Geoffrey Britain said:“”Chutzpah” is too light a word for that kind of ploy”
The appropriate word is “evil”, the left’s ploy is a particularly egregious example of a mortal sin, bearing false witness and one that places the offender’s soul in mortal peril.”
I agree: The “evil” is the sick destruction of a good man’s honor and the perversion of all judicial principle for political gain. The “chutzpah” is crowing about your upcoming Democrat majority in Congress.
We would do well to remember that evil always masquerade’s as good and the diabolical loves to reverse good and evil. Case in point: Pontius Pilate showed Judicial temperament perfectly as he assisted in crucifying Christ, while Christ showed shear anger and violence as he picked up that whip and drove the money changers out of God’s temple. Who of those two would we choose as a fair judge ? Hint; it’s already been decided.
Yep, it’s definitely a conundrum
A blatant and very public lie from the Christine Ford camp. Someone should be thrown under the bus. Who will it be?
That lie is the fear of flying lie. It may not have been under oath but it was sent to the Judiciary Committee and they responded with the offer to fly to Christine Ford. So it was a lie to the Committee. It was a lie for what Ford’s camp perceived as an advantage, delaying her testimony. It was a lie that undermines the credibility of someone or everyone in Ford’s camp. And since it was used to deceive the committee, it could well be a lie that is actionable. Let’s look at the possibilities.
1. Only the Lawyers lied, they made it up out of whole cloth. They should have known it was a lie because she flew to Washington for her grandmother’s funeral and took the polygraph test. But for this to be true, it means they never checked with her. This weighs heavily against their ethics and competence as lawyers as they would open up their client to charges of lying.
2. Christine Ford lied to her lawyers and they unwittingly passed it on. When it came to sworn testimony, she couldn’t maintain that lie without obviously perjuring herself so she had to drop it. But this could cast doubt on the rest of her story. She knew the risk of perjury here, so she crafted other “facts” – only one drink, 100% sure it was Kavanaugh – that could not possibly be confirmed one way or the other. She avoided facts, – where, when, how she got home – that could be used to show perjury. In any case, from item 1, the lawyers should have known it was a lie and stopped her from passing it on.
3. Christine Ford and her lawyers conspired to tell this lie. Both knew it was a lie but told the committee anyway. They didn’t expect the committee’s response of “we’ll fly to you” so they were stuck with it. They were doing it to get delays so they could “practice” her testimony. They were doing it to adapt her testimony to facts and responses to her allegation that would come out in response. At least one “new” fact came out when it was revealed that Kavanaugh had detailed schedule books. Ford responded that the party was an ad hoc event, not a scheduled event. Another aspect of this lie was that it was in conjunction with all the Democrat calls for delay. Her lawyers may have been more interested in helping the Senate Democrats than their client. After all, they are Democrat activist lawyers.
This brings us to the second aspect of the “fear of flying” lie. The testimony that she never knew about the Judiciary Committee’s offer to fly out and take her testimony, in private, to spare her the flight and the exposure that she claimed she didn’t want. We can look at the same three possibilities for that issue.
1. The Lawyers didn’t tell her. This one is simple. The lawyers were behaving unethically on behalf of the democrats rather than their client.
2. Christine Ford lied in her testimony. This one is interesting. By saying she never heard about the offer, she avoided any questioning about why she refused. She has portrayed herself as a reluctant witness who did not want to come out publicly. The judiciary made an offer to maximize her privacy. She would have a hard time explaining why she refused this offer, so she reactively threw her lawyers under the bus.
3. Christine Ford and her lawyers conspired to ignore the offer. Delays were what the democrats wanted and what she wanted. Delays allowed MSM pile on; delays allowed the other accusations to come out to build momentum. The grand plan all along was to pressure Kavanaugh to withdraw or the republicans to bail on him. If that didn’t work, we were going to see the almost weepy testimony that we saw on Thursday. She and her lawyers didn’t have sense enough to prepare a good answer to why she refused the offer, so she panicked when asked.
So who gets thrown under the bus?
I’m trying to look at this logically, not emotionally. The fear of flying lie, while not under oath, was made directly in her dealings with the committee, was made very publicly, and has been shown to be a blatant lie. It was made to deceive the committee. It was made to get the self perceived advantage of delaying her testimony. It should undercut credibility of a witness when they lie about something publicly and then recant that lie under oath knowing that they cannot sustain it. When I combine both issues, the logical answer is number 3.
By the way, if I look at this emotionally, someone tried to feed me a lie. I don’t care if it was under oath or not. I don’t know when and where they stopped lying.
(Posted on other blogs but belongs here too)
IMO, Kavanaugh’s outrage was directed as much toward what the judicial confirmation process had become as to the damage to his own reputation. He was right, then, to express disdain when questioned about his yearbook or even his behavior in high school.
I was surprised at how unaware he was of the Democrats’ efforts to reframe the hearing as a “job interview” in which the presumption of innocence and other protections of the 6th Amendment don’t apply. When asked, he said he was participating in a job interview of sorts under the important Senate “advice and consent” rule. Sen. Cornyn had to make it clear through his questioning that since Kavanaugh had been accused of criminal activity, the hearing was no longer a job interview.
Kavanaugh still seemed a bit naive and idealistic despite his well-placed anger.
The argument of “I have a fear for flying and I fly all the time” is the most ubiquitous defense for Ford I see among liberals. However, Ford clearly cited aerophobia caused by the ordeal 35 years ago as the reason for the request to delay her testimony, not just some trivial inconvenient general fear for flying.
“its a scary time for young men in America” – President Trump
He went there, and there were no truer words have ever spoken describing a contemporaneous crisis affecting many innocent lives.
we are witnessing a false flag operation at work
Dirk Gently is clearly a democrat pretending to be conservative making horrible comments with the clear intention to make conservatives look bad
conservatives categorically and unequivocally condemn and denounce any violence against anyone.
Dave:
Thanks for the heads-up. I made “Gently’s” comment go gentle into that good night.
Neo: a great analysis, as always.
Let’s not forget, though, that a great many Democrats announced, in advance, that they would oppose President Trump’s nominee, as hard as they could — before it was announced who that nominee would be.
It was therefore a foregone conclusion that they would fight hard, and fight dirty. The only surprise here is just how far they’re willing to go, pulling down the temple around them for this momentary advantage.
For it IS a momentary advantage. Many of us have been saying, in response to Democrat misbehavior: “Do you want more Trump? Because this is how you get more Trump.” In similar fashion, if they hate Brett Kavanaugh this hard, and are somehow successful in bringing him down, they’re really not going to like his replacement.
This is a battle of words. They are throwing words at Kavanaugh, any words they can think of that might hurt… because words are all they have. They don’t have evidence. They don’t have corroborating witnesses. They don’t have proof of anything. All they have are accusations… and when those accusations don’t stick, they will make up others.
Soon enough, we will see Kavanaugh accused of failing to kiss his grandmother… of running with scissors… of returning videotapes without rewinding them. (In fact, I’ve heard a dark rumor that Kavanaugh used to return DVDs without rewinding them. Doesn’t that just clinch the whole matter for you???)
“Dirk Gently” is a clear case of cultural appropriation and a micro-aggression against innocent fictional characters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Gently
“He is portrayed as a pudgy man who normally wears a heavy old light brown suit, red checked shirt with a green striped tie, long leather coat, red hat and thick metal-rimmed spectacles. “Dirk Gently” is not the character’s real name. It is noted early on in the first book that it is a pseudonym for “Svlad Cjelli”. Dirk himself states that the name has a “Scottish dagger feel” to it.
…
Gently is psychic, though he refuses to believe in such things, insisting that he merely has a “depressingly accurate knack for making wild assumptions”. The depressing part is that he is seemingly unable to use this knack to win money on horses. As a student at Cambridge University (St. Cedd’s College) he attempted to acquire money by selling exam papers for the upcoming tests. His fellow undergraduates were convinced that he was psychic and had produced the papers under hypnosis, while he claimed he had simply studied previous papers and determined potential patterns in questions. However, when his papers turned out to be exactly the same as the real ones, to the very comma, he was arrested and sent to prison.”