Justice Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing *DISCUSSION AND LIVE COMMENTARY*

[Beet]

Fords attorneys refuse to provide video or charts for her polygraph.

Judiciary committee is reportedly talking to a man who claims he assaulted Ford and described the event in "some detail"!!

The anti-Kavanaugh campaign could be over soon.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Fords attorneys refuse to provide video or charts for her polygraph.

Judiciary committee is reportedly talking to a man who claims he assaulted Ford and described the event in "some detail"!!

The anti-Kavanaugh campaign could be over soon.

Dream on.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/eschor/status/1045096168370393090

[ProudModerate2]

Fords attorneys refuse to provide video or charts for her polygraph.

Judiciary committee is reportedly talking to a man who claims he assaulted Ford and described the event in "some detail"!!

The anti-Kavanaugh campaign could be over soon.

Can you please post your source (link) to this information ..... mod.

[Beet]

Fords attorneys refuse to provide video or charts for her polygraph.

Judiciary committee is reportedly talking to a man who claims he assaulted Ford and described the event in "some detail"!!

The anti-Kavanaugh campaign could be over soon.

Can you please post your source (link) to this information ..... mod.

dmartosko on Twitter

[Pyro]

Fords attorneys refuse to provide video or charts for her polygraph.

Judiciary committee is reportedly talking to a man who claims he assaulted Ford and described the event in "some detail"!!

The anti-Kavanaugh campaign could be over soon.

"Ford attorneys Lisa Banks and Debra Katz responded Wednesday night in a letter that notes they were given about an hour to furnish the items at issue and saying they “are not in a position to produce these materials this evening.” Link

They're requesting things the night before the testimony is scheduled, and this even after they were provided with the polygraph report itself. Give me a break.

[DrScholl]

Fords attorneys refuse to provide video or charts for her polygraph.

Judiciary committee is reportedly talking to a man who claims he assaulted Ford and described the event in "some detail"!!

The anti-Kavanaugh campaign could be over soon.

It sounds like some random person is trying to throw himself under the bus to protect Kavanaugh or was put up to do this. With that said this probably isn't even true considering you have no link or source other than something on Twitter. Your stories aren't going to save Kavanaugh.

[Yank2133]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is something mentally wrong with these people.

[Sestak]

Worth noting - these two individuals seem unaffiliated. It’s not, like, a Kavanaugh-and-Judge doppelgänger thing.

This is ridiculous.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Going to put this out while I'm sane. Trust me, you guys would rather hear this from my fully awake self now then hear it from my half-awake, partially insane self early tomorrow morning just before an exam:

In my jurisdiction and position as the OP, I note for all that the behavior of some users on this thread (I will not name names) has not been appreciative. I have reported a significant number of posts since the thread began, and there are others that I considered reporting but ultimately let slide. Tonight has not been an exception, with the sidetracking and the not so subtle attacks very plain. I am also not proud of the fact that a great portion of this thread has been basically a big argument between Badger and certain more conservative republicans.

I understand that tomorrow's discussions will be split between this thread and Torie's. These are simply a few principles to follow on either thread:

Innocent until proven guilty - For better or for worse, the Judiciary Committee is functionally a Fordgate courtroom at this point. Users should watch and discuss the hearing with an open mind regarding the validity or lack thereof of Fordgate, putting aside their previous guesses, and not reach a firm conclusion until the end of the hearing.

Actually watch the hearing, don't just read comments. - There is no better substitute to watching the hearing. If you cannot watch it live, that's why the Judiciary Committee's stream allows one to go back to any earlier point in the hearing. I would recommend not even reading comments that were written during a part of the hearing you have not watched, until you have watched that portion. Discussions tend to be less explosive and lead to less misunderstandings when all participants fully understand the source material, which requires having heard it through your own ears, rather than the spin of an Atlas poster or Journalist.

If you are feeling tense, angry, overwhelmed, or otherwise not fit to be civil, take a break from responding to the threads and pause the hearing if necessary, until you calm down.

Be respectful. There is no excuse for a personal attack, subtle or otherwise.

Given the previous record of this thread, and given the extremely tense atmosphere we will have tomorrow, I expect to have to resort to locking the thread for the sake of everyone on Atlas. Hopefully you'll prove me wrong.

The above text has been copied to the OP in full.

[IndustrialJustice]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is something mentally wrong with these people.

Copping to a sexual assault I didn't commit to own the libs.

[Gass3268]

Having the threshold of innocent until proven guilty is really stupid in this situation. Kavanaugh is trying to get a job promotion, not keep himself out of jail. So instead I will be using the threshold of a civil case, which is the preponderance of the evidence, and as of now it's not looking so good for Kavanaugh.

[RI]

So instead I will be using the threshold of a civil case, which is the preponderance of the evidence, and as of now it's not looking so good for Kavanaugh.

Literally zero contemporaneous evidence other than the initial claims for any of the allegations.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So instead I will be using the threshold of a civil case, which is the preponderance of the evidence, and as of now it's not looking so good for Kavanaugh.

Literally zero contemporaneous evidence other than the initial claims for any of the allegations.

This would be enough to win a civil case.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/25/san-mateo-ceo-and-former-kavanaugh-roommate-at-yale-supports-second-accuser/

[emailking]

So instead I will be using the threshold of a civil case, which is the preponderance of the evidence, and as of now it's not looking so good for Kavanaugh.

Literally zero contemporaneous evidence other than the initial claims for any of the allegations.

3 separate accusations that he has committed sexual assault is enough for me to conclude that it is more likely than not that he has committed sexual assault.

[SCNCmod]

Fords attorneys refuse to provide video or charts for her polygraph.

Judiciary committee is reportedly talking to a man who claims he assaulted Ford and described the event in "some detail"!!

The anti-Kavanaugh campaign could be over soon.

It sounds like some random person is trying to throw himself under the bus to protect Kavanaugh or was put up to do this. With that said this probably isn't even true considering you have no link or source other than something on Twitter. Your stories aren't going to save Kavanaugh.

I said even before Whelan's attempt that I could see Kavanaugh's team trying to get a fall guy to claim they were the one who did this.  (granted a completely transparent strategy).  They would need to find a way to say Kavanaugh was innocent & Dr. Ford was not lying (b/c among other things that make her story credible... The type of statement verification polygraph the FBI agent did- is one of the most reliable (& results apparently backed up by 2 different software algorithms). (it not coincident that the initial strategies have all been to accept that "Dr Ford really believes this happened." ... it not being sensitive to Me Too.. but rather knowing how convincing such an FBI polygraph & telling ppl prior to nomination, etc can be at a hearing... especially to the few swing vote Senators & their staffs).

Senator Grassley found out about this claim on Monday... which makes more sense out of why the Republicans chose a Sex Crimes prosecutor to ask question- so the "mistakenly identity by Sex Crime victim" narrative could take shape.

.......too bad the strategy was sand bagged by additional allegations. Also likely sandbagged by the Ed Whelan attempt to independently pull of this strategy... but without a participating fall guy (and against a guy that Dr. Ford happened to have visited in the Hospital, etc).  My guess is there is a good chance the Kavanaugh Team setting up this late breaking fall guy strategy wanted to pull their hair out when they saw the Whelan Tweet storm which actually named someone (and someone who was not their lined up fall guy!).

[eric82oslo]

Susan Collins apparently indicated tonight that she's 'unnerved' by the Swetnick affidavit and wants to subpoena Mark Judge.

Could just be nothing, but any sign of wavering is better than none.

This together with Jeff Flake's incredibly strong Senate speech today where he was basically lambasting Republican hardliners and know-nothings left and right give me a great sense of hope. This is by no means a settled cause, perhaps even decency will win in the end.

[SCNCmod]

Susan Collins apparently indicated tonight that she's 'unnerved' by the Swetnick affidavit and wants to subpoena Mark Judge.

Could just be nothing, but any sign of wavering is better than none.

This together with Jeff Flake's incredibly strong Senate speech today where he was basically lambasting Republican hardliners and know-nothings left and right give me a great sense of hope. This is by no means a settled cause, perhaps even decency will win in the end.

It looks like Kav & Co. are staking their chances on whether or not Flake, Collins, Murkowski, believe the "mistaken identity" scheme.   I have a hard time thinking this is something they go for (even if they have a "fall guy" come forward).

[SCNCmod]

One of the last sentences in Kavanaugh's opening statement is:
"The record of my life, from my days in grade school through the present day, shows that I have always promoted the equality and dignity of women."

.....I wonder how smart it was to include this- considering his yearbook alone seems to contradict this statement.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This is...not convincing, to say the least:


https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1045088208239906818

To be fair, Avenatti's assumption of what it meant wasn't based in any facts related to the group of friends who referenced it, nor was it very convincing.

The senators are a bunch of old geezers and that's why they don't know what the 7 f's means.

I’ve never heard of this concept in my life.

[Very Legal & Very Cool]

This is...not convincing, to say the least:


https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1045088208239906818

To be fair, Avenatti's assumption of what it meant wasn't based in any facts related to the group of friends who referenced it, nor was it very convincing.

It's actually a common phrase among these drunken fratboy types. If I've seen it California there's no doubt it exists on the east coast.

[Torie]

I am locking this thread. Use the thread I started for today's hearing. Any post that negatively refers to another poster other than with respect to the specific content of a post  will be deleted. Posts should be on topic with respect to the content of the hearing. I will delete any posts that veer off into the irrelevant (e.g., the off topic discussion here about what would/should be considered sexual assault, which predictably led to something of a flame war, often involving the same cast of characters). I may in fact after reviewing the reports, delete all of such posts here come to think of it.

After today, a decision will be made as to whether to reopen this thread (after it has been vetted), or start another one. Either way, the rules of decorum in such a thread will be tighter than perhaps is usually the case.

Addendum:  I waded through this and deleted about 30 posts perhaps. Many were just off topic and then slipped towards flame wars, or consumed post after post discussing something wholly extraneous (a burden this thread really cannot bear). Most of those I reported but did not infract. Others were deleted because the context was lost due to other deletions. Those I just deleted without a report. I did levy a couple of infractions were the flame war led to a post that was a clear personal attack that under the new rule could not be justified as based on prior conduct, but rather was rank speculation, etc.