T1B

Sudden Sam wrote: Well there goes my self-worth.

Screw_Michigan wrote:This has been far from a smear job. Kavanaugh has been digging his own grave from the beginning with his incessant lying, in addition to his incredibly inappropriate behavior toward women in his youth.

Screw_Michigan wrote:He should never have been nominated in the first place due to his belief that the president is above the law and his political assassin position during the Ken Starr Clinton prosecution. But that's exactly Trump nominated him in the first place.

Again, Killitard-----fuck you.

Chris Cillizza wrote: If you know anything about the Senate -- and the men and women who populate it -- it's that they like to talk. To debate, to question, to soliloquize. After all, the Senate isn't known as the world's greatest deliberative body for nothing.

Which is what makes the announcement Tuesday night by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, all the more stunning. Grassley confirmed what had been rumored for days -- that Rachel Mitchell, a deputy county attorney in Maricopa (Arizona) County, was coming on as outside counsel and would handle the bulk of questioning of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were both teenagers.

"I promised Dr. Ford that I would do everything in my power to avoid a repeat of the 'circus' atmosphere in the hearing room that we saw the week of September 4," Grassley said in announcing Mitchell's hire. "I've taken this additional step to have questions asked by expert staff counsel to establish the most fair and respectful treatment of the witnesses possible."

So, the expectation is that Mitchell will handle the questioning of both Kavanaugh and Ford for all 11 Republicans on the Judiciary committee. (Any of the GOP senators on the panel could decide to do their own questioning; it's not clear that any will.) On the Democratic side, the 10 members of the panel will do their own questioning of the witnesses.

What could lead nearly a dozen Republican senators (including noted talkers like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee) to give up a privilege -- asking questions of witnesses in a VERY high profile setting -- they clearly cherish? Fear, mostly.

The 11 Republicans on the Judiciary committee are all men. Since it became clear that Ford, who alleges that Kavanaugh laid on top of her and tried to pull off her bathing suit in high school, would come to Washington to testify, Republican elected officials and party strategists have been apoplectic about the appearance of a group of men asking hard and personal questions of her.

The specter of Anita Hill loomed large. Her testimony in 1991 regarding accusations she made about inappropriate sexual advances made by Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas has become a master class in mansplaining and shaming. Inappropriate comments and questions by the likes of late Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) and Howell Heflin (D-Alabama) have become legend in the political world -- living, breathing examples of what to never, ever do in similar circumstances. So lasting has the damage from the treatment of Hill been that Joe Biden, who served as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Thomas hearings, has repeatedly apologized of late for not reining in some of the over-the-top questions asked by his colleagues.

(Biden is looking at running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 and knows that with the #MeToo movement in the culture, he could not simply ignore the role he played in the Hill hearings.)

Every one of the 11 Republican senators on the current Judiciary Committee are deathly afraid of becoming the next Specter or Heflin -- a man who looks either condescending, clueless or both when talking to a woman about her own story of experiencing sexual misconduct. The party, writ large, has massive concerns that even a single moment in which one of their senators looks to be out of touch or bullying could trigger even larger problems for Republicans at the ballot box in 41 days time. Less than 3 in 10 women said they approved of the job President Donald Trump was doing in the latest CNN-SSRS poll, and the party is looking at a major gender gap on the generic congressional ballot.

"Somebody will do something that you guys will run 24/7," Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker (R), who is not on the Judiciary committee, acknowledged to reporters on Tuesday.

And, judging from some of the comments made by, in particular, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), over the past 48 hours, that seems like a very legitimate concern for Republicans. "Well it's amazing to me that these allegations come out of nowhere at the last minute and that they weren't brought up earlier in this process," Hatch said earlier this week. "And it's not untypical for our friends on the other side to pull that kind of crap." Uh....

The truth is that Republicans on the judiciary committee were in a lose-lose situation here. Let their members ask questions of Ford and run the very real risk that some one of them might, well, step in it badly. Take the route they did by bringing in a woman to ask questions of Ford and Kavanaugh and look like they are so worried about screwing up that they are ceding their senatorial privilege of asking questions of a person who is on the verge of a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

The calculation made by Grassley and the other GOP members of the judiciary committee is that allowing Mitchell to ask the bulk (or maybe all) of the questions is the lesser of the two evils. Sure, Democrats will criticize them for abdicating their responsibilities at such a critical juncture. But, that's nothing when compared to the political fallout from even a single one of the 11 saying something to Ford that is deemed to be offensive, bullying or inappropriate. None of those 11 Republican senators wanted to take a risk like that, and so they brought on Mitchell.

That decision speaks to the incredibly fraught moment in which Republicans find themselves. A hugely high profile hearing on Thursday centered on a sexual assault allegation against Trump's pick for the Supreme Court. Amid the massive cultural shifts occasioned by the #MeToo movement. And with a midterm election, which has at least the potential to be a total disaster for congressional Republicans, looming just more than a month away.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. And that's exactly what this move by Grassley is.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Nobody is reading you minging novellas, you incontinent weirdo.

Papa Willie wrote:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Nobody is reading you minging novellas, you incontinent weirdo.

Pretty sure they're all from CuntNewsNetwork - so that makes them all left-biased. He's doesn't post links just to piss me off!!! He makes me so angry!!!!!!

Sudden Sam wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Sudden Sam wrote: Well there goes my self-worth.

I sort of take that back, but why the hell are you even giving 4chan posts even one shred of credibility?

Not familiar with 4chan. That was sent to me. Thought it was an interesting theory.

Avanetti is such a sleazebag, incompetent, shyster attorney...I can't believe any network or paper gives him a second or an inch of coverage.

Killitard wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but in the latest sworn statement, the accuser stated that gang rapes happened at these parties before they happened to her. Wouldn't there be potential legal blow back for he by not reporting these events?

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Killitard wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but in the latest sworn statement, the accuser stated that gang rapes happened at these parties before they happened to her. Wouldn't there be potential legal blow back for he by not reporting these events?

You're not very bright, but not like we needed confirmation.

Killian wrote: Kicking the shit out of the GOP right now? You have a very low bar.

Screw_Michigan wrote: Please provide us the legal justification for someone who witnessed a rape of any sort to be required to tell the police. Take your time, we'll wait.

Left Seater wrote:If by kicking the shit out of means doubling down on her unsubstantiated claims, then yeah, I guess she is.

The sad thing here is this will make it harder for those actually abused to come forward in the future. Sadly Nancy and the other liberal females don’t seem to care. Screw those who suffered/are suffering actual abuse if it means we can keep a conservative off of the Supreme Court.

Left Seater wrote:Why not bring this up when he was being confirmed as a Federal Judge?

Killian wrote:I had to tap out, any new info brought forth, or are we still at her accusation, the 4 eyewitnesses she named, and the denial of this party by all 4 witnesses?

Papa Willie wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:FWIW, I haven't watched, but I met up with someone over lunch who was watching. This person is very apolitical and didn't even know some of the details. I asked if Dr. Ford seemed credible? Yes, very much so.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Why not bring this up when he was being confirmed as a Federal Judge?

Who are you to make that call? Ask your wife that at dinner.

The White House says President Trump is watching Christine Blasey Ford's testimony. If he is watching on his favorite network, Fox News, he may not like what he's hearing.

Rather than defending Brett Kavanaugh at all costs, like the network's prime time hosts have been doing, Fox's daytime journalists and commentators highlighted Ford's credibility and humanity on display at Thursday's hearing.

"I think Dr. Ford is exceptionally credible," Fox's top legal analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, said.

"A lot of folks" are "viewing her as a very credible witness," Supreme Court correspondent and 11 p.m. anchor Shannon Bream said.

After the first break at Thursday's hearing, "Fox News Sunday" moderator Chris Wallace said "this is a disaster for the Republicans."

Wallace expressed criticism of the GOP's outside counsel Rachel Mitchell for "treating this like a deposition, like a court hearing."

Ford, on the other hand, had been "extremely emotional. Extremely raw. And extremely credible. Nobody could listen to her deliver those words and talk about the assault" and not have your heart "go out to her," he said.

The assessments on Fox echoed what was being said up and down the TV channel lineup. The NBC, ABC and CBS broadcast networks are all carrying the Senate hearing wall-to-wall, preempting hours of daytime programming. All the cable news networks are also live.

Given Trump's tight relationship with Fox, there's been a lot of curiosity about how the network is framing Thursday's hearing.

"The president cannot be happy with this," Napolitano said during one of the breaks in the testimony.

All three of the network's prime time hosts -- Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham -- have cast doubt on the claims against Kavanaugh and expressed support for his nomination in many different ways.

"What you are witnessing is one of the ugliest smear campaigns in history," Hannity said Wednesday night.

It remains to be seen what those hosts will say after the hearing.

But Fox's daytime coverage was led by Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, the network's two top political anchors. Kavanaugh sat down with MacCallum for an interview earlier this week -- in what was an unprecedented defensive step by a Supreme Court nominee.

During the lunchtime break on Capitol Hill, some conservative Fox commentators, like Brit Hume, emphasized that Ford's allegations are "uncorroborated." But there was also ample conversation about the #MeToo context and the cultural implications of the hearing.

"We are in a different place today than we were with Clarence Thomas," liberal commentator Marie Harf said.

Fox News, of course, was rocked by a sexual misconduct scandal within its walls two years ago. Fox News boss Roger Ailes was forced out after numerous allegations of harassment and assault were lodged against him.

Killian wrote:She's very believable when she speaks. The problem is that 1) the four witnesses who refute her claim and 2) the tactic the Republicans took when she showed up to testify today. Republicans are awful at politics and like to step on their own dicks, time and time again. Oh well, Pubs gonna Pub.

Screw_Michigan wrote:He's CRRRYYYYYING! You gotta be kidding me!

Papa Willie wrote:I watched a little of both.

1. She seemed to be a complete fucking lying freak. A total loon.

Killian wrote:She seems believable, he seems believable. So where does that leave us? I would say her 4 eyewitnesses stating that they have no recollection of the party in question would be the tie breaker.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Killian wrote:She's very believable when she speaks. The problem is that 1) the four witnesses who refute her claim and 2) the tactic the Republicans took when she showed up to testify today. Republicans are awful at politics and like to step on their own dicks, time and time again. Oh well, Pubs gonna Pub.

Rich, isn't it?

Papa Willie wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Papa Willie wrote:I watched a little of both.

1. She seemed to be a complete fucking lying freak. A total loon.

Fox News seems not to see it that way. I'll bet you were crying too. As always.

I wasn't watching Fox, McKnigger. Why were you?