Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

How? Because it wasn’t 100% clear from the reporting and because of the circumstances around how she brought it up. I don’t think it’s that hard to see how someone can make that leap.

All that said I don’t think psychology even agrees if repressed memories even truly exist. We have so much that drives us below the level of consciousness.

 

He denied it outright. He'll have to keep going with that line of defense if he wants his reputation intact.

ps. What is a "spokesman/activist"? Bobbythegreat should be considered "spokesman/activist", but that shouldn't make him eligible to go on tv...

 

And that helps how?

if that is the spin they are going with Kavanaugh is a dead man walking, that's almost admitting something happened.

what happened to be was never at the party?

 

What?

the only report is that it came up in therapy session with her husband, the fact that it was couples therapy does not fit that repressed memory theory.

also the fact that nobody else but Bobby and you are running with this.

 

I fear using "repressed memory" is an attempt by some to throw shade at her credibility. Plenty of assault victims don't talk about it. That's very different (and more common) than literally forgetting it happened and then remembering it later.

But whatever.

 

Yeah I agree now. I honestly just threw the term repressed memory out since I had heard it used and the circumstances around it seemed to relate to that type of memory. Then I realized I didn’t even know what a repressed memory even was or if it truly existed.

I’ve been doing a human behavioral biology course for the past couple months and I did a personality development course from a clinical psychologist before this one. I’ve been putting a fair amount of work into this stuff. I was thinking it’s kind of silly to throw that repressed memory term around considering I don’t know anything about that process and since I haven’t even heard about that process so far. Repressed memories in traditional pop sci version of them don’t really seem to exist from what I can tell.

 

I’m not running with anything. I can’t update clutchfans every time my mind changes about things. I’ve just been sitting here at Starbucks for an hour pondering and researching this topic of memory, repression and such. Memory and the underpinnings of it are interesting things.

My memory keeps going back to last year when I was hanging out with one of my old friends and talking about bs growing up and he told the story of when we made a tennis ball matchead bomb lol and it accidentally got knocked into the living room of my moms house after we set it off. We were probably 15 when this happened and you’d think this would be something etched into my head but I had completely forgotten about it until he brought it up and even after my recollection of it is vague. It kind of blew me away that I had completely forgotten it. Anyhow that led me down the path of all the repressed/forgotten/unexplored old memories etc blah blah.

 

[Premium Post]
The Democrats really have no depth to which they won't stoop to in order to advance their political objectives. Two years of knowingly lying about Russian collusion proves that point quite nicely. Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and now Brett Kavanaugh -- the dishonest liberal playbook remains the same. The timing is obviously suspicious, and coincides exactly with when the Democrats intervened in the Clarence Thomas confirmation -- after the hearings were finished and the vote was upcoming. Christine Blasey Ford is an ugly woman who no self-respecting man would ever jump on. So just on this basis alone, her argument fails on the merits. She's the hardest of hard core lunatic fringe liberals (California professor who wears the pink hats and probably doesn't shave her armpits) -- and she allegedly had NO PLANS whatsoever to bring this up or identify herself, nevermind the polygraph test she took in August or the fact that she lawyered up in August. She's a dishonest charlatan who is trying to be a liberal hero by blocking a conservative judge. This is the opposite of a credible accusation, as she can literally remember none of the pertinent details -- even failing to remember how many people were involved. She can't provide the date, time, location, owner of the house, or even season of the year when this occurred. All we know is that it was 35+ years ago and that it was never reported to law enforcement and there are no contemporaneous accounts of anything. Only when Romney mentioned Kavanaugh as a potential Supreme Court candidate in 2012 did she cook up this story.

This should be the last time the Democrats can derail a candidate with their fake charges -- they tried with Trump, they tried and succeeded with Roy Moore, and now here they go again with my boy Kavs. Once Kavanaugh is confirmed, he's going to be extremely hostile to the libs' interests -- exactly like Clarence Thomas. These false allegations will backfire spectacularly.

GOOD DAY

 

WAT?!?

 

I can not remember what I had for lunch on March 7, 1981. It must be a repressed memory.

Maybe I should ask The Troll, since he is so smart and appears to know all possible facts effortlessly.

 

The media makes it sound like this was a fully grown adult man in bed with a 15 year old girl. SMH.

 

We need to judge Brett Kavanaugh, not just by what he may or may not have done, but how he treats a woman’s pain. And that is something I’m going to be paying attention to on Monday. How does he respond to what’s happening. Whether or not he agrees that this happened with her, does he take her pain seriously? Do the people interrogating her pain take her pain seriously? Now, I’ll give you a spoiler alert, I don’t think Brett Kavanaugh takes women’s pain very seriously, and I know that because of the decisions he’s made as a judge.

 

Attorney sent letter to Chuck Grassley and Dianne Feinstein claiming federal court employees willing to speak about Brett Kavanaugh.

The top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee were both approached in July by an attorney claiming to have information relevant to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. The attorney claimed in his letter that multiple employees of the federal judiciary would be willing to speak to investigators, but received no reply to multiple attempts to make contact, he told The Intercept.

Cyrus Sanai made his first attempt to reach out to Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in a letter dated July 24.

Sanai told the committee leadership that “there are persons who work for, or who have worked for, the federal judiciary who have important stories to tell about disgraced former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and his mentee, current United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I know that there are people who wish to speak out but fear retaliation because I have been contacted by more than a half-dozen such persons since Judge Kozinski resigned in disgrace.”

Sanai is the California attorney who blew the whistle on Kozinski years before a series of articles in the Washington Post in December finally brought about the resignation of the former chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court over sexual harassment revelations. Sanai has long challenged the judiciary and was deemed a “vexatious litigant” by one trial court, an attempted designation that was overturned on appeal.

Since Kozinski’s resignation, questions have been raised about what Kavanaugh knew or did about such behavior, given the close relationship between the two. Kavanaugh clerked for Kozinski in the 1990s, a post that led directly to his clerkship with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who recommended Kavanaugh to President Donald Trump as his replacement. Kozinski and Kavanaugh remained close and both vetted prospective clerks for Kennedy.

Kozinski’s son recently clerked for Kavanaugh.

The Sanai letter was overnighted and emailed to Grassley’s office on July 25, and Sanai provided a copy of the receipt. He dropped the letter off by hand to Feinstein’s office in West Los Angeles, he said, after being told over the phone that was the most efficient route to delivery.

Neither Grassley nor Feinstein provided comment by the time of publication.

During his confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh told the Judiciary Committee that he had no knowledge whatsoever of Kozinski’s behavior and was stunned to learn of the misconduct allegations. “When they became public, the first thought I had: No one should be subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace ever, including in the judiciary, especially in the judiciary,” Kavanaugh said under oath during his confirmation hearing, responding to a question from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “When I heard, it was a gut punch. It was a gut punch for me. It was a gut punch for the judiciary. I was shocked, and disappointed, angry, swirl of emotions.”

In a follow up question, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, asked him to search his records and in a written response, he backed off his certainty, saying only, “I do not remember receiving inappropriate emails of a sexual nature from Judge Kozinski.”

Sanai told The Intercept that at least two federal employees had information to provide the committee about Kavanaugh, including one who spoke directly with Kavanaugh about it. Sanai said that he did not hold Kavanaugh responsible for Kozinski’s behavior, but rather that his claim of ignorance was not credible and could be contradicted by witnesses. Kavanaugh’s credibility has become a central issue in his confirmation, as he has “unequivocally” denied allegations that he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford when both were in high school.

Apart from interviewing witnesses, Sanai also suggested that the Judiciary Committee “subpoena all intra Court emails and messages between Kavanaugh and Kozinski and all emails to and from Kozinski with links to his website.”

The fact that Kozinski hosted p*rnography on his website and forced some clerks to view it was one of the exposed behaviors that led to his resignation.

“The only way these important stories can be told is if Congress moves the spotlight from abstract procedures and statements of intent to the judges who made the judiciary safe for Judge Kozinski to satisfy his deviant needs. If this Committee, or the Judiciary Committee, does so, I have assurances that more people will step forward,” Sanai wrote.

He also mailed copies of the letter to Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Reps. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Ted Lieu, D-Calif., he said, but can’t be sure that they received them.

Feinstein and Grassley, he said, were the only two he made sure received the letter. “I spent quite a bit of time trying to get Feinstein to address it,” he said.

Feinstein was also contacted in July by Ford, a California professor who said that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her while both were in high school.

“I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court. As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak. Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980’s,” Ford wrote to Feinstein on July 30. “I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative” — Anna Eshoo — “to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information. It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything. I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss.”

The New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer later reported that after her dealings with Feinstein’s and Eshoo’s offices, Ford stepped back. Feinstein, Farrow reported, “acted out of a sense that Democrats would be better off focussing on legal, rather than personal, issues in their questioning of Kavanaugh.”

Ford’s attorney Debra Katz has since said that Feinstein handled the situation as well as she could have. “We do think that Feinstein did well by her, and we do think that people took this decision away from her, and that’s wrong,” Katz said. “If the #MeToo era teaches us anything, it’s that a person gets to choose when, where and how, and now this person is going to be injected into a life-altering blood bath.”

Kavanaugh’s credibility has also been called into question by his denial that he ever exploited information stolen from Senate Democrats during previous confirmation fights. Emails subsequently revealed that he did.

Sanai himself, in his letter, offered to testify. Given his history of combative exchanges, it would likely be a fiery affair. The appeals court that overruled the “vexatious litigant” designation added that the litigants in the case lacked “civility and courtesy.”

“In reversing the trial court’s order, we do not intend to signal our approval of the manner in which this litigation has been conducted. It has gone on far too long,” the court wrote. “It has consumed far too much of the judicial system’s limited resources. Gamesmanship appears too often to take precedence over reasonable efforts to resolve procedural disputes and to address the merits of the remaining controversy. Civility and courtesy are absent.”

The “vexatious litigant” designation relied, in significant part, on the complaints Sanai had been filing against Kozinski — complaints that were ultimately borne out.

 

I think

I get it. You both make good points. But while I recognize that injustices are often met with over-corrections, the loss of due process and presumption of innocence doesn't seem like a good move even in an over-correction.

But I'm spouting off more about metoo than BK. I get why he needs to be asked and would be unfit if true. But the timing still bugs me.

 

for Me, it boils down to the incentive.

For Prof Ford, she has no incentive to come forward w the accusation.​

But B K has all the incentives to cover it up​

 

could it be possible that they are both telling the truth? she was assaulted by someone at a party, didnt know who it was and after describing her attacker to someone was told "oh that sounds like brett kavanaugh".

 

[Premium Post]
Prof Ford is a hard core liberal activist. A staunchly conservative court for the rest of her lifetime is an outcome that she will be highly upset with. She has the chance at fame and fortune by thwarting this outcome -- all it takes is for her to sacrifice her morals and lie her face off in hopes of either being perceived as credible, or inflicting enough political damage to help the cause for the liberals. If she wins, she's a liberal hero and she can name her price on a book/tv/movie deal. She'll never have to buy another soy latte again in her life in California.

That's plenty of incentive, young man. Your naivete is on full display, and your intellect is less than half of mine. It's 33% maximum.

GOOD DAY