JHB
JHB's Journal
The Cornfield Resistance: Ep 465 SPECIAL Pre-Election Episode: Both Sides Don't!
with Driftglass and Blue Gal (as seen (well, read) on Crooks and Liars). http://ProLeftPod.com
"How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying" by Nathan J. Robinson
Lengthy, and most of what it talks about has been the subject of multiple threads here on DU, but it neatly puts in one place why Kavinaugh's own testimony exposes him as lying his ass off.
Quoted text is from farther down in the article, not from its opening paragraphs.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying
This man should not serve another day as any kind of judge…
by Nathan J. Robinson
Not quite. The existence of a “he said, she said” does not mean it’s impossible to figure out the truth. It means we have to examine what he said, and what she said, as closely as possible. If both parties speak with passion and clarity, but one of them says many inconsistent, evasive, irrational, and false things, while the other does not, then we actually have a very good indicator of which party is telling the truth. If a man claims to be innocent, but does things—like carefully manipulate words to avoid giving clear answers, or lie about the evidence—that you probably wouldn’t do if you were innocent, then testimony alone can substantially change our confidence in who to believe.
In this case, when we examine the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford honestly, impartially, and carefully, it is impossible to escape the following conclusions:
1. Brett Kavanaugh is lying.
2. There is no good reason to believe that Christine Blasey Ford is lying. This does not mean that she is definitely telling the truth, but that there is nothing in what Kavanaugh said that in any way discredits her account.
I want to show you, clearly and definitively, how Brett Kavanaugh has lied to you and lied to the Senate. I cannot prove that he committed sexual assault when he was 17, and I hesitate to draw conclusions about what happened for a few minutes in a house in Maryland in the summer of 1982. But I can prove quite easily that Kavanaugh’s teary-eyed “good, innocent man indignant at being wrongfully accused” schtick was a facade. What may have looked like a strong defense was in fact a very, very weak and implausible one.
***
But while the FBI investigation may turn up additional useful information, at this point there is absolutely no need for it unless Christine Blasey Ford wants it. It’s completely unnecessary in determining whether Brett Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court; even the very limited questions already asked of Kavanaugh have yielded disqualifying answers. Kavanaugh is lying, it’s provable, and that’s all there is to it. Unless you think it’s acceptable to have someone on the federal bench who treats duly sworn oaths as meaningless, the guy shouldn’t be holding any office.
crossposted in GD
Article: How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying
Lengthy, and most of what it talks about has been the subject of multiple threads here on DU, but it neatly puts in one place why Kavinaugh's own testimony exposes him as lying his ass off.
Quoted text is from farther down in the article, not from its opening paragraphs.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying
How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying
This man should not serve another day as any kind of judge…
by Nathan J. Robinson
Not quite. The existence of a “he said, she said” does not mean it’s impossible to figure out the truth. It means we have to examine what he said, and what she said, as closely as possible. If both parties speak with passion and clarity, but one of them says many inconsistent, evasive, irrational, and false things, while the other does not, then we actually have a very good indicator of which party is telling the truth. If a man claims to be innocent, but does things—like carefully manipulate words to avoid giving clear answers, or lie about the evidence—that you probably wouldn’t do if you were innocent, then testimony alone can substantially change our confidence in who to believe.
In this case, when we examine the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford honestly, impartially, and carefully, it is impossible to escape the following conclusions:
1. Brett Kavanaugh is lying.
2. There is no good reason to believe that Christine Blasey Ford is lying. This does not mean that she is definitely telling the truth, but that there is nothing in what Kavanaugh said that in any way discredits her account.
I want to show you, clearly and definitively, how Brett Kavanaugh has lied to you and lied to the Senate. I cannot prove that he committed sexual assault when he was 17, and I hesitate to draw conclusions about what happened for a few minutes in a house in Maryland in the summer of 1982. But I can prove quite easily that Kavanaugh’s teary-eyed “good, innocent man indignant at being wrongfully accused” schtick was a facade. What may have looked like a strong defense was in fact a very, very weak and implausible one.
***
But while the FBI investigation may turn up additional useful information, at this point there is absolutely no need for it unless Christine Blasey Ford wants it. It’s completely unnecessary in determining whether Brett Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court; even the very limited questions already asked of Kavanaugh have yielded disqualifying answers. Kavanaugh is lying, it’s provable, and that’s all there is to it. Unless you think it’s acceptable to have someone on the federal bench who treats duly sworn oaths as meaningless, the guy shouldn’t be holding any office.
Reminder: Kavakaugh lied under oath
It sort of dropped off the radar in the MSM because the Republicans were completely OK with it, but it's quite relevant as he and they spin a gold-plated dish over his head and try to call it a halo.
By Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
September 13
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/brett-kavanaugh-misled-the-senate-under-oath-i-cannot-support-his-nomination/2018/09/13/ea75c740-b77d-11e8-b79f-f6e31e555258_story.html
Kavanaugh was asked more than 100 times about this scandal in 2004 and 2006. He testified repeatedly that he knew nothing about the source of the information; that he received nothing that even appeared to be prepared by Democratic staff; and that he never suspected anything unusual, or “untoward.”
But emails I released last week show that then-Republican Senate Judiciary Committee counsel Manuel Miranda regularly shared obviously ill-gotten, inside information with Kavanaugh, which Miranda often asked be kept secret. That includes eight pages from a Democratic memo, taken verbatim from me, on a controversial nominee that Kavanaugh was asked to not forward. Emails also show that Miranda told Kavanaugh about a sensitive, private letter that I received on a nominee’s position on abortion — a letter Miranda described as “confidential,” requesting that “no action be taken.” They also show Miranda asked to meet privately at his home to give Kavanaugh “paper” on Democratic senators’ thinking.
Other emails describe meetings we were holding, materials staff were sharing internally, leads we were pursuing, what staffers were advising their senators with the notation “highly confidential,” a private letter I had sent to another senator, and even one from an associate of Miranda with the subject line “spying” with information from a Democratic “mole.” Last week, when confronted with these emails, Kavanaugh testified that this was normal information shared with “friends across the aisle.” As I told Kavanaugh then, I was born at night, but not last night.
No. The one word is "conservatives"
Trump is a result, not the cause.
It is conservatives who rejected any compromise or cooperation with "the enemy", and punished transgressors.
In the 70s and 80s they targeted Rockefeller Republicans to unseat them and drive them out of any position of power, all because the R Rs stood in the way of their complete-deregulation and "damn the deficits, full tax cuts ahead" priorities. They sought out what hot buttons to push to get people single-issue voting, the better to beak up Democratic voting blocs.
In the 90s they faced their worst nightmare: a charismatic "pro-business" Democrat from a southern state, one who was ok with the death penalty and cutting back on welfare. All the usual Republican campaign rhetoric against Democrats were wet noodles against a guy like that. A guy like that could peel off enough support that all the conservatives' pet projects would be stymied for years or completely undone. A guy who wouldn't be giving conservative partisans lifetime judicial appointments.
So they went full hot button: What's your nightmare? Look! Bill and Hillary Clinton are IT! What's your pet peeve? Bill and Hillary Clinton do it! What have you spent years grinding an ax about? Bill and Hillary Clinton are its living embodiment! They ran against Draft-Dodgin' Dope-Smokin' Jazz-Playin' Slick-Talkin' Citizenship-Renouncin' Hippy Bill and Manhatin' Harpy From Hell Hillary. Newt Gingrich enshrined that tactic, and changed the House rules to further discourage "fraternizing" with Enemy colleagues.
In the end Newt stepped down as Speaker because the Salome Caucus he'd built was going to boot him for failing to deliver the head of Bill the Clinton to them on a silver platter.
2008 rolls around, and they take that playbook they built up in the 90s and use it as a starting point, with extra racism on top. Total Opposition. Screw economic recovery, we have to make sure this Chicago guy is a one-term president. No cooperation.
They voted against their own bills when Obama said "Ok, if that's what it takes to get it done, we'll do it your way" because they could not be seen shaking hands and cooperating with the new boogeyman. Anything less would have the Salome Caucus putting them on the silver platter list.
Conservatives treated all internal opposition as slackers, apostates, and fifth columnists. And they've done so for decades. They turned the Party of Lincoln into the Party of Ahab, and anyone who gets in the way of the hunt for the White Whale...
They built that.
Just remember he'll turn that against us the moment it suits his purpose
...just as he did before Trump.
Yes, he's witty and funny and (for now) he directs his scorching at Trump.
But, as a Republican strategist, he spent his entire career doing the very things that built Trump's base. He scare-mongered and scandal-mongered and played to all the bigotries and pet peeves, and called it "playing hardball". His job was to get Republicans elected, and there was no part of that job that involved "dialing it back." He was one of the people who painted Democrats as supervillains: utterly-corrupt, moral degenerates out to destroy the nation and all that's good and holy to get their voters all hot-blooded and into the voting booth.
But the drawback is: When you paint the story that way, it's supposed to end with you bringing the bad guys to justice. They rot in jail, or better yet get hanged or fried. Blow up the Death Star. Drop the Ring into the fires of Mount Doom. The Enemy surrenders unconditionally and their symbols get blown up.
Your audience wants this:
But they never get it.
When you tell that story for decades, continually amping it up despite its blatant falsehood, you create an expectation that you can never really deliver on. You can justify decades of investigations and re-investigations and re-re-re-re-re-re-re-investigations, but that's not going to hold up in court. So you put yourself into the position of portraying the other side as unbearably evil and an active threat, and then don't do anything about it. The base still has their hot buttons pushed, still believes every word of it, they just start thinking you're ineffectual at best, or more likely are part of the problem.
That's what Rick Spent his career building, and lo and behold, the Republican voters went for a guy who told them what they wanted to hear. Even the ones who voted for Johnson or stayed home are thanks to Rick and his colleagues, because they would "never vote for THAT woman!!!"
That's part of why he's so entertaining when he speaks: because he'll go right for the hot buttons.
So enjoy the performance, but never think he's a friend. In his eyes he's done nothing wrong. This isn't a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation, it's more like "the temporarily uncomfortable creator of my enemy is the guy who will knife me in the kidneys the moment I've wrangled his hellbeast back into its pen."
HRC on JM
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1033537315417800704Hillary Clinton
?Verified account @HillaryClinton
.@SenJohnMcCain lived a life of service to his country, from his heroism in the Navy to 35 years in Congress. He was a tough politician, a trusted colleague, and there will simply never be another like him. My thoughts and prayers are with Cindy and his entire family.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayCurrent location: Somewhere in the NYC metropolitan statistical area
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 37,158
