Me Too For Some; Others Not Invited
This week’s Courier Herald column:
It is wise to be wary of “national conversations” that we have right before elections. For the past couple of weeks, the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh had many national and local media outlets invoking the recent Me Too movement as part of the process.
Directly and indirectly, the point was made that if you believed women face sexual assault regularly that too often goes unreported, then Kavanaugh’s nomination must be rejected.
Some even went so far as to say that there is no presumption of innocence, as it was “just a job interview”. The expression of “believe women” has even been added to the conversation as a battering ram to imply that accused men are guilty before a defense can even be included.
It is possible to understand that the problem of sexual assault is real and widespread (it is), and not want to ruin someone’s life without proof of a transgression. These concepts are, and must remain, mutually exclusive.
Under our legal system, every individual has the presumption of innocence. There was a time when progressives were the ones that would argue it better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent one be found guilty.
As this was not a criminal trial, the rules that the jury of public opinion applies can be more subjective. As such, this was as much an exercise conducted under the rules of politics and media rather than law. It has revealed a lot about the current state of partisanship, and also the agenda driven cheerleading nature of our media.
Justice Kavanaugh has been sworn in, but this conversation needs to have at least one name added to it to begin a post script retrospective. That name is Karen Monahan.
Brett Kavanaugh was given a trial by the media. We know the name of his principal accuser, Christine Blasey Ford – despite her request to not be a public figure. A combination of Democratic staffers and willing media outlets made the decision that she would be a public figure for her. These facts are not in dispute. She was used for the political purposes of Democrats.
And yet, media outlets were not only willing to take away presumption of Kavanaugh’s innocence, they were willing to sacrifice their own journalistic ethics to pile on. Almost every one used the same phrase – “credibly accused”.
Weeks of stories based on rumor and hearsay ultimately ended with no one actually claiming to have seen the acts as described breathlessly by outlets that were willing to fan smoke until the fire arrived. NBC News went so far as to claim an exclusive with a five-person byline to report an anonymous letter received with no names, no addresses, and no contact information – Just more scandalous yet baseless claims that went straight to “news”.
Why do I bring up the media’s role? Because of Karen Monahan.
Karen Monahan has “credibly accused” Representative Keith Ellison of domestic violence. She didn’t actually come forward first – her son made the initial accusation. By the media’s “credibly accused” standard, Monahan has more evidence than Ford. She has text messages about her abuse and names of those with which she has shared her story contemporaneously, in real time.
Ellison isn’t just a sitting Democratic Congressman. He’s also the Co-Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. As such, he’s got a direct interest in many of the campaigns across the country as the Democrats try to roll back gains made by Republicans over the past decade.
You may have noticed a steady diet from national and local media on the role of female candidates the DNC has recruited as part of their strategy. There’s a stated goal – with media buy-in to push the narrative that women offended by Donald Trump will elect Democrats in protest.
As the Kavenaugh hearings came to a final vote, Karen Monahan has continued to tweet her story. She’s challenged Nancy Pelosi and the DNC’s quotes about believing all women. Ellison, despite the charges, remains the Democratic Nominee to be Minnesota’s Attorney General – their top law enforcement officer.
It is the media that needs the most scrutiny here. We can expect the DNC to serve its partisan purposes and pretend Monahan doesn’t exist. It’s the members of the media that rushed to report every unsubstantiated rumor on Kavenaugh but continue to ignore Monahan in the context of his role as a Democratic leader that needs the questions.
A clear double standard is at play here. Too many media outlets have harvested Resistance click-bait over charges from Brent Kavenaugh but have virtually disappeared Karen Monahan. This is a failure of unbiased journalism and cheapens the value of the Me Too movement.
About Author
Charlie
Founder of GeorgiaPol.com; Now weekly columnist Very interested in Georgia and Georginas. Interest in politics is waning daily.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Ellison is NOT co chair of the DNC. He is assistant DNC chair. He is being thoroughly investigated unlike Kavanaugh was allowed to be. Also Ellison can easily be gotten rid of where Kavanaugh cannot. Al Franken stepped down over a lot less than Kavanaugh and he did not have a lifetime appointment. Kavanaugh has a lot of problems. Just yesterday the WSJ came out with the fact that Kavanaugh destroyed property at Yale. Kavanaugh’s problems are that he has a lot more to come out, there are 12 corroborating witnesses to Ms. Ramirez that need to be questioned regarding Kavanaugh assaulting her. It would seem anyone would want Kavanaugh to have a thorough investigation but the white house basically admitted that he’s guilty and would not pass one. So here we are.
Ellison in fact called for a thorough investigation, yes?
I agree with media annoyances of “copy and paste” ad nauseum until we are sick of the (non)story. Report it once correctly, shut up until there is new information. Stop making a new headline out of previously reported news. The decades old sexual assault allegations were such a convenient excuse to ignore the major issues of perjury and other well documented lies Kavanaugh made over the years. I am not discounting the severity of the assault allegations, just pointing out this allowed the Senate to go thru the motions of this distraction, knowing full well they would ignore it in the final vote. The predictable media frenzy caused any thorough investigation of perjury to magically disappear. The media ran, and ran and ran with it while real issues with Kavanaugh were sent to the op ed pages.
The 20 or 30 instances of Kavanaugh lying under oath appear to be what is going to destroy his career not the accusations by Ford.
Just when I think buttercup here can not prove to be even dumber.Yea, JUSTICE Kavanaugh’s legal career is gonna be destroyed. Why, I bet his career never advances one more iota up the legal ladder .
The ABA is investigating. Roberts has judicial complaints to review and at some point there is going to be emails released that he lied about not that silly hacks like you are going to care anyway. You’ll find more apologia to come up with by then I’m sure.
Snore….
The court of public opinion is still open for another month.
If anything new is found that substantiates any of the]allegations, the Repubs will look pretty bad.
And I’m pretty certain that a few new things will be found.
Even if no one tries, or nothing is found, the ads are still pretty much written already.
But new evidence that makes it look like the Repubs crammed a sexual assaulter on the Court because they knew investigations would make his assaults known? Not a good look.
“thorough investigation of perjury”
Yeah. Sure. Right. You go ahead and believe that. Dude could have shot someone on 5th Ave and it wouldn’t have been investigated. And there would have been 65 witnesses to say he wasn’t even there.
Yep. That was ignored from the start. DOA.
When you look at the disparate media attention, the first thing you have to factor in is the scope of the political arena. One is a Sup.Ct. vacancy (highest seat, national in scope) and the other is a AG race in – what state again? Of course the national story is going to get better ratings.
But when you look at concepts of guilt and innocence, evidence, etc., saying there is a “credible accusation” is not a conviction- it means an allegation has made it past an initial stage of “this is not frivolous”. That does in fact shift the burden. Not the entirety of guilt or innocence, but when there is credible evidence, it must be rebutted if you are to show you’re the one that deserves to “win”.
There was never a presumption of guilt, because then Kav would have had to defend himself without any allegation at all having been made. Guilty man walking.
No, there was an allegation that was good evidence. That shifts the burden, not the presumption.
The whole idea that the presumption of innocence was decimated is so frustrating because it takes a complex procedure and spins it for political gain, taking advantage of those without legal specialties.
That’s an elitist take, so it’s readily discounted..
Thanks, Dave.
In a way, this was a learning opportunity for many Americans to learn about legal standards and due process.
But I wouldn’t expect the man who loves the poorly educated to do that when he could instead just easily just sell them a Juris Dumbass from Trump Univ.
I got my law degree from Costco!
They make one of these for every profession, but I’ve used this before:
https://www.amazon.com/Please-Confuse-Google-Search-Ceramic/dp/B01AX4B3U8/ref=pd_lpo_vtph_79_lp_t_3?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=KRG2P0K9VQD2AW37161E
Balance, you are a smart guy and going to be the next Supreme Court nominee…I could claim you raped a goat at a local petting zoo. Its a credible allegation…according to you in the Kavanaugh hearings… Now you have to prove you didn’t do it. How fair is that?
Half the country is wacko enough to believe you did it, could it be because you were appointed by Trump to be on the Supreme Court and the charges were lobbed right at the last minute of your hearing to derail your nomination?
Some others come out and say you and your sick buddies were drugging the sheep and we saw other guys doing it with you. You guys had 10 of these goat parties…. Prove to me you didn’t do it.
Presumption of innocence be damned. You did it. PETA is going to haunt you until your dying days. That is how it works. Lets just make life miserable for the folks we disagree with. It is utter chaos, nonsense, unfair and gosh knows what else.
Sorry , but your example falls short on its own terms. If the presumption of innocence did not exist, Kav would have been deemed “guilty” exactly because all he could do is deny. A presumption of guilt,,coupled with only a testimonial denial –up against only a testimonial allegation– would lead to a “guilty” “verdict”.
Only a presumption of innocence requires corroborating evidence.
Y’all are just wrong on the law.
No amount of political spin changes that.
It just galvanizes the voters who like that flavor of Kool-Aid.
So, you would have been ok with Kav not being seated even if the professor offered no corroborating evidence of any kind? And she, in fact, provided none. Just her saying it happened was disqualifying? I just want to be clear. And with your being an attorney.
Well, if there was a thorough investigation, there may have very easily been corroborating evidence that was found. There was certainly corroborating circumstantial evidence.
But if you knew nothing else besides just hearing her testimony and his denial, and were a judge or jury, it is up to you on how to decide credibility and who to believe. In criminal actions, we know the standard of beyond the reasonable doubt. Others went to the civil standard of “more likely than not”. But those are legal standards, not job position standards. I would have gone with a job position standard along the lines of “Does this guy bring more value to our institution than the alternative?” And based upon that standard I would have said No, an alternative would be better. But I don’t begrudge anybody their standards or choices either, even though it’s clear that thinking he was the best option- given the allegation(s)- should have troubled anyone who voted for him. There were certainly alternatives without that baggage, and voting for the alternative would have also shown that assault is taken seriously.
What was the circumstantial evidence?
Geez, man. Do I gotta recap everything for you?
The circumstantial evidence is each and every other allegation, every yearbook entry or letter or arrest record that indicated that the dude liked to drink heavily or party or got violent or treated women in any way that wasn’t 100% wholesome. And the most damning piece of circumstantial evidence was Kav’s own calendar- with that entry with all the people, in the right time frame, for the party where the alleged incident occurred.
All that indicated the possibility of the assault having happened while Kav was all drunk and aggressive.
All together, there was enough circumstantial evidence for it easily to be “more likely than not” in the minds of jurors, and Kav would have civil liability. If I was the Plaintiff lawyer’s against Kav in a civil suit, I would have won that case hands down.
With proper prosecution, even just a little more, it could have been pushed further toward criminal liability.
But both of those standards were well beyond the job interview standards.
You would have been laughed out of both civil or criminal court. Nary a person interviewed remembered Kav and the Prof even being there. Bogus on all fronts. It was a Clarence Thomas-like hit job. Better luck next time. I wonder what type of trash they’ll bring against Barrett? That she’s a staunch Catholic? To quote Joseph Conrad in “Heart of Darkness”, “the horror..the horror…”
Noway,
Ain’t no way I would have been laughed out of court. Lionel Hutz could have won a civil suit.
And y’all complaining like assault allegations have been brought up out of nowhere against every nominee. Just a year and half ago, 99% the same Congress, and Gorusch gets confirmed with nary a sexual assault allegation against him.
Those allegations are almost never made frivolously.
Again, believe what you want, but at least take stock of the seriousness of the problem behind the allegations.
Leland Keyser’s testimony PROVED Ford’s claims were bs. Flat out PROVED. Trump was correct. Kav was proved innocent.No matter how much more investigating you do There is no way you clowns can get past Keyser’s testimony. Her testimony was game, set, match.
So all knowing wise Alpha Male, if a women in your life is attacked/assaulted ect… and has ZERO proof, just her word against everyone else’s (which the majority of attacks, harassment and assaults are) how does she get justice. I mean if their is no proof and the males of the world refuse to even admit it could be possible let alone true, what does she do.? With NO PROOF what convinces you the women is telling the truth?
Keyser= I don’t remember that party.
That’s nothing for or against.
“Proved”?
Believe what you want.
Just don’t think that what you believe is always true.
Ellynn,
Even worse, if you immediately report the case to the police, there is a notorious sidelining and/or backlog of investigation for such cases.
So, you can’t even get authorities to help gather evidence.
Sounds familiar…
Twenty years after she was raped in a garage at the age of 16, one Georgia woman will finally see her alleged attacker face charges in court.
It could be among the first sexual assault cold cases to be solved using DNA evidence from thousands of previously unsubmitted rape kits in the state.
“Our body is a crime scene,” she said, describing the invasive two-hour forensic medical exam. “You go in for evidence collection and you have to recount all the horrific details to a complete stranger … and to have those rape kits sit and languish, it’s so unjust.”
…the backlog of unsubmitted kits—more than 100,000 nationally,…
“Some of these survivors, they may not have even told anybody that this happened, especially the ones from the nineties to the early 2000s,” Nerbonne said. “We’ve got to be really careful in how we approach it and how we make contact with people.”
Every 98 seconds, another American is sexually assaulted.
For every 1000 rapists, 994 will walk free.
https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt–politics/rape-kit-backlog-yields-new-leads-cold-cases/qV7jtL7A8ipy3aYD59C7SJ/
https://www.rainn.org/
Ellen, it is NOT the no proof. It is her outright falsehoods.
This is not a gray area. Ford states she was attacked at a party with only 6 folks present. One of whom was her longtime friend, who actually turned out to be a democratic operative named Leland Keyser. Many folks including apparently you, are only focusing on Keyser “ not remembering “ any such party. While important, that is imo the least important thing Keyser said. What is much more important, and in fact totally exculpatory imo, is what else she said.
I have NEVER ATTENDED a party with Brett Kavenaugh.
I have NEVER MET Brett Kavanaugh.
As Sen. Blumenthal quoted in the hearings: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Imo Christine Ford did more damage to “ believe women” than any 100 misogynistic men.
Now, I have a question for you and Pope. What do you think should happen, if it comes out that someone attempted to get Leland Keyser to “ alter” her testimony for the subsequent fbi investigation.
If this was an actual legal crime investigation, they would have grounds for witnessing tempering.
Good deflection on my questions. I didn’t say a thing about Ford. I asked what it would take for a woman with no proof to get justice. And I also asked you directly “With NO PROOF what convinces you the women is telling the truth?”
No alpha, what you are saying is the lie. Here is the statement:
“simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”
Keyser also said that she believes Dr. Ford’s account.
So, just stop. You are wrong. If you continue with this line then you are continuing to lie.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christine-blasey-ford-kavanaugh-responds-to-senate-judiciary-committee-request-about-sexual-harassment-allegations-today-2018-09-22/
And “altering” her testimony isn’t necessarily wrong, especially since, as you have proven, right wing sites are STILL misrepresenting what she said. So clarifying her statement would be how you stay focused on the truth, which is important to some people.
Quick obs: I don’t know where alpha is pulling those statements from, but if true:
If she never met Kav, then she would hardly know if she was at a party with him.
In fact, unless Kav had such a rep that he was known and recognized without anyone ever meeting him, the two statements relayed by alpha are wholly inconsistent.
Speaking of which, alpha, you got a link?
Yeah, so I did the research that alpha did not.
There was no affidavit and there was no testimony.
There was a brief letter from her attorney and a follow-up interview with the FBI. Both of which said the same thing:
“Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”
So, alpha, your understanding is just wrong. Not only was there no affidavit or testimony, but it wasn’t about MEETING Kav. She says she just never knew him. Which of course means that she wouldn’t be able to identify him at a party either.
Ford states she didn’t tell Keyser about the incident either so there was no reason for her to remember the part generally.
That means- Keyser’s statements are absolutely without any evidentiary value. But her statement does have optics- as if it means something that she doesn’t remember anything.
And those optics– well, that’s perfect fodder for the political spin machine. And the lemmings that gobble it up.
I will agree with one thing is that there were a few allegations against Kav that were reported, where I think one was reneged, etc. Despite the immediacy of the confirmation hearing, the media outlets should have done some quick investigation for corroboration before publishing the allegations. But they may have thought-we only have 24 hours for this story to have any impact!
And for that kind of timeline, Mitch McConnell and Co. can share in the blame.
Any person who cared about sexual assault more than one nominee would have immediately hit the brakes in order to do thorough investigations. But avoiding that was the reason for the rushed timeline to begin with, so…
What the media missed in the frenzy to focus on allegations and not Kav’s lying, was that Trump received $400M+, courteous of dubious if not illegal tax accounting, from a Daddy concerned Trump would pee it away on bad real estate deals.
Benevollus you are dead ass wrong. It only matters what Keyser swore to in her affidavit. Under oath.That’s what counts. For obvious reasons
Quit lying
What affidavit under oath is that? I am not aware of it. Got a link or something?
You have to be kidding me. What affidavit? I am now convinced you are a clown show.
Just link to it if you got it a-hole.
I googled “leland keyser affidavit’ and all I get is a letter her lawyer sent to the committee. And that is what I quoted from. If you have something else to back up your quote, bring it on.
There was no affidavit.
See above.
And Benev’s avatar is clearly not a clown- it’s a muppet!
But alpha can keep on hurling what he thinks are insults, but are actually just projections of his own ignorance.
Man, elevate your game!
(This means do the research, know the actual facts, post the links, etc.)
Rich Lowry must have read my post yesterday. He states today in National Review what I stated yesterday. That Leland Keyser was the hero of this sordid witch-hunt by blowing Ford’s story out of the water.
Lmao! How freaking weak can you get Ellen, obviously you were referring to Ford. That’s what the discussion was about. And it was not I who just deflected. Hint- look in the freaking mirror.
Are you stating that it is not witness tampering or subornation of perjury if it involves a congressional hearing rather than a criminal case?
As to your generic question of belief of a woman without proof. I would look at the character and history of the principles involved. And I would consider if their were any obvious inconsistencies in either’s story. And applying these standards in the Kavanagh situation lands overwhelmingly in Brett’s favor. On all above standards.
What would YOUR standard be? Should we automatically just believe the woman regardless?
Would you like to answer my question regarding what should happen if it turns out “ someone” attempted to get Keyser to “ alter” her testimony?
Or do you just take a pass on that big guy?
I don’t know who this Ellen chick is, but Ellynn asked a few open hypothetical questions about attacked women and ‘proof’. Nothing more. I truly was not applying anything directly to Ford.
You assume a lot in your reply and in what I think about Keyser. I have yet to give an opinion on what I think about her FBI testimony. Have yet to read it.
Not being a lawyer, I can’t say if there is any crime committed for tampering with a character witnesses to a background check. I do know there is for criminal investigations. I gave you an answer and you conclude I was saying there was no crime no foul. If Ford is proven to have lied with intent under oath in a senate hearing the senate will…hold her in contempt? Folks lie to congress all the time. What has really happened to any one of them? Which is why I was surprised the WH didn’t request Ford be questioned directly by the FBI. Lying to them is a felony.
Thank you for answering the question on Women with no proof. I have asked this a few times in the last month and you are the first person to answer it. Do I think we should automatically just believe the women regardless? Such a black and white question for a multi-color problem.
Character is an iffy thing in life. (What establishes having the ‘right’ character anyway?) History and memory is iffy mainly because it based on perception. As I stated before Ford even testified, I have experiences in my own attack over 27 years ago with selective memory. I got the man fired the day after it occurred. But that only happened because I left bruises on his body. If he did something to others today, and I came forward, that proof no longer exists. The records are gone, and the only other two people who know why he was fired are dead. My word, my character against his. First thing his lawyer will do is destroy my character to save his client. He will question everything I ever did in my life. No part of my life will be ignored. Currently, we – as a society – need to destroy sexually harassed and assaulted survivors to prove they are actually of good character, so we can decide if they have been assaulted or harassed. The system is already set to protect the accused (and I agree that is how it should be in general). The assaulter will always get the benefit of the doubt. To even question their character is looked at as a personal insult. Sexual assaults are some of the few crimes were the victim is prosecuted to prove they are innocent enough to be believable and the accused treated like a victim because they are accused. Even more so if a male assaulter is an upstanding man with a wife and kids from the best families and attended the best schools.
It should also be noted, lack of proof does not mean the accused is innocent. It only means they don’t have enough to prove guilt.
It takes a lot for a woman to stand up in front of a police officer, a parent, a best friend or her own husband and say ” I was assaulted”. Saying it out loud takes away what little power you thought you had. It is admitting that you can be violated, that a man can over power you and make you helpless, angry, guilty and feeling dirty for no reason beyond being his victim – all at the same time. I can tell you talking to my boss about being attacked is one of the most difficult, and painful things I ever done in my whole life. I can’t tell you why I didn’t say a word to anyone for almost a decade. Women don’t tell because either they are not believed, or they know their life and career will be destroyed by doing so. I can’t imagine starting out my career in a male dominated field in my twenties and it became common knowledge I got a male coworker fired. What if some men conclude I lied about it for my own gain or might be afraid I would lie about them. You can’t give a women like that promotions or positions of power, because they can destroy you or your friends.
Again, it takes a lot for a woman to come forward. She knows her life will be destroyed to even tell some one to investigate. Historically police default to ‘all women lie about assault’. The rare few of the male population who commit assault count on women not being believed. “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion”. So must a woman who has been assaulted. Women know this, which is why women don’t say anything until they have the courage to do so. That courage is rare and needs to be respected. If a women is willing to sacrifice her whole world to tell you she was attacked, harassed, assaulted, ect., there is weight to those words.
Until men start believing more women (we can’t all be liars) without destroying them to establish they have the good character to be believed of being violated in ways the majority of men never even understand (the emotional damage is almost always more painful then the physical), women will not have equity. They will not have respect. In the majority of cases of assault that have no proof, being believed, being heard and just being acknowledged that it happened, is the only justice they will ever see.
Listening to liberals defend Keith Ellison and the rest of this guilty in till proven innocent nonsense is hysterical. I’ve never seen Gumby be able to contort ad much as you folks are on these topics.
Your fact free hackery should be embarassing yourself but since it seems hackery is all conservatives have these days I’m sure it doesn’t bother you.
I believe Ellison’s accuser, although she has refused to release an alleged video, and a Restraining Order was granted against HER.
But let’s point out one main difference: Assuming the allegations are true, it will turn out these two got into a break-up fight, during which he grabbed her feet and pulled her feet and yelled at her. In a previous allegation, he grabbed and pushed a woman to the side, a woman with whom he was allegedly breaking up with.
I know there’s a lot of controversy over whether we can distinguish between kinds of abuse and assault, and between levels of abuse and assault. But I don’t think we have a choice– that we must.
Yelling is not physical abuse. It can be verbal abuse, but there would have to be more than ocassional yelling to be abuse- there would have to be threats of violence, or regular ongoing yelling, to rise to something abusive. Is verbal abuse more or less punishable than physical abuse? I think context and circumstances mean a lot here.
And as between acts of physical assault– it’s difficult to say how context matters, or how the nature of the assault matters, but how can they not matter? Grabbing someone by the shoulders seems less egregious than grabbing someone by the genitals. A violent squeeze seems less egregious than a violent strike.
All may arguably disqualify you from public service, but apparently not in the present day and age. I think one clear lesson from all this is that victims should report instances of assault and abuse right away, even if that is the last thing desired.
This piece seems fairly thorough:
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/13/17684222/keith-ellison-karen-monahan-minnesota-attorney-general-race
In a world of unsubstantiated “he said, she said” its tough to come up with credible evidence. You’d have to almost have the person on tape, talking to Billy Bush, bragging about grabbing women by the genitals to have ANY chance at nailing one of these “Me Too” pervs.
If only….
I admit I hadn’t even noticed the Ellison thing but beyond Kavanaugh I’ve been reading other tidbits like a President’s twiddledee response to previous tax frauds as “old news,” China being accused of election interference while Russians we have the goods on are dismissed out of hand in the “Witch Hunt”, Saudis not playing nice even though this administration has sided with them over Iran… yanno, piddly stuff. It seems like a stretch to compare the two to get to a whatabout comparison and we could play this game all day. Whatabout the founder of the modern Republican Party Roger Ailes? Whatabout “just grab ’em by the pussy” President Trump. C’mon Charlie Supreme Court Justice and a state AG position just doesn’t compare. We’ve just proven a state can chug along OK with an incompetent AG. A relatively young guy named as SC Justice is a whole nuther ball of wax.
It may be because I was young and now old but my childhood and teen years had some near godhood national leaders in the manner of how they held my respect and esteem, now the bar has been lowered below the respect claimed by Rodney Dangerfield. Certainly this applies to the current President but now as well to this new Justice. With his testimony he demonstrated himself as a complete partisan hack. Any future opinion written by him is up to question if it in any way involves partisan politics. It is just another notch lowered in the respect for the rule of law and the Constitution being shown by the leaders of the Republican party. For the life of me I still can’t figure the mindset of party over country.
I’ve been wondering if that whole scenario would push Roberts slightly to the left on some issues. Sure he’s conservative, but if the four really conservative guys try to bite off a little more than he’s willing to chew, he just might feel he has to apply some balance.
edit: Well, I just saw a story on cnn about this:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/politics/supreme-court-conservative-majority-john-roberts-brett-kavanaugh/index.html
Supposedly Roberts is big on court legitimacy. However putting faith in a conservative to do the right thing has proven to be a fool’s errand. Maybe Roberts will prove me wrong.
It was plausible or even more than that before, but congratulations on the scoop that that Democratic staffers leaked Ford’s identity to the media.
At Feinsteins urging…
Except that the words “Feinsteins” or “urging” isn’t in the column, but a statement of fact that it was Democratic staffers is. Your adding to the scoop is appreciated.
The column is moot now and a bust. Trump has declared that Kav was “proven innocent”.
.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-apologizes-on-behalf-of-the-nation-to-kavanaugh-says-he-was-proven-innocent/ar-BBO7QXd?ocid=spartanntp
Sounds about right. Since he didn’t do anything to begin with.
Hey, Noway, looks like you waded into lib crazy town today and saved Charlie from being being left to the long knives for daring to speak the truth. I just couldn’t stomach it today, after watching their not just anarchists, but terrorists descend on the US Senate and our nation’s Supreme Court on Saturday, trying to shut down our government.
It has reached a violent level that cannot be described as mere “protest” any longer. They are terrorists who practice fear, make normal people afraid to be in public spaces. If leader Linda Sarsour wore a Klan hat instead of an Islamic hijab, there would be hell to pay, but she and her well-financed gang of thugs keep getting away with madness. And why hasn’t the media pointed out the fact that the women who trapped/confronted Senator Flake in the elevator are illegal aliens? Citizens of other countries attacking US government officials is an act of international aggression, as were all the illegal aliens and foreign nationals who were part of the mobbing in the streets, in the Capitol building, and the Supreme Court building.
Thank you, Charlie, for this thoughtful article that points up one current area of the libs’ hypocrisy #notmetoo.. I remember the old days on the blog, and know how painful you must find some of the leftist drivel. Hang in there – there are still a few sane posters on GaPol.
“Someone told me that this was all really about illegals, and that I should be calling everybody mobs and thugs and terrorists. Who needs evidence or a moral standard? Rush says, I do.”
ACP you are full of crap! There you go again, making up things I didn’t say and did not even imply. I do not care about anyone’s religion or ethnicity. What I care about are the tings people do, whether good or bad, no matter who they are.
Sarsour is a self-proclaimed jihadist against America, and wants Sharia law — which among other unthinkable things, suppresses women and girls. Yet she has the nerve to say she is creating chaos to help women?? She is using airheads to further her own wishes for making the US like a 3rd world country. Read and watch, wake up to what’s going on:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/07/06/linda_sarsour_asks_muslims_to_form_jihad_against_trump_not_to_assimilate.html
If you can’t see reality, you are hopeless.
Purposefully lying about your character under oath isn’t anything to the GOP, as people now comprehend.
Let put to rest the allegation Ellison is co-chair of the DNC. He is not. There is no “Co-Chair” position within the DNC Rules.
Being that as it may when did rules mean anything to the DNC. That said, DNC Chairman Thomas Perez just after being elected to the post moved that Keith Ellison be named “Deputy Chair” for the DNC.
I guess that is a ceremonial position but just to reiterate there is no “Deputy Chair” position in the DCN either. It does not exist. Plausible deniability?
This history lesson brings us to this tid-bit where Rep. Ellison said he’s thinking about stepping down from the non-position of Deputy Chair in the DNC. Why step down from something that doesn’t exist? Well that’s the DNC for you.
Here is the article, you decide.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amid-abuse-allegations-rep-keith-ellison-says-he-may-step-down-as-dnc-deputy-chair/2018/10/03/87876290-c75b-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.85a2f3c8dd8f
All else aside to focus on your concern over whether the position exists. One- what does it even matter? He’s engaged at an executive level. Done. Second, did you review the By-Laws or can you cite an analysis of someone who did? Because in my experience, organizations make up positions all the time, and executives are often empowered to do just that? I.e. What are Ivanka’s and Jared’s positions? Doesn’t matter, because executives often have flexibility to you know, manage things.
So, I don’t know why any of that matters. Except that you can say Dems are breaking their own rules. But until there is proof presented, it’s just made up.
First, I’m not concerned, I don’t care. Others on this board made the assertion that Ellison did not hold any position in the DNC. Did I review the by-laws? I do my research you do yours if you think I am wrong. As far as “Proof” There are several sources that state the DNC rules does not have those positions. If you want to make something up fine. But if its a made up position then why does he feel it necessary to resign from something that is meaningless? Hey it’s not like this is a super delegate issue…. and the DNC can always change the rules as they did for Bernie.
If you don’t care, why even write a post?
Because someone else said Co-Chair instead of Deputy Chair?
You did research? Prove it.
There are sources? Link them.
Otherwise, don’t bother, especially if you don’t care.
But if what you actually care abt is Ellison resigning, fine.
Just focus on that.
He’s resigning because it looks bad (or it’s a distraction) if he’s involved at all while allegations are unresolved. It’s actually the right thing to do.
It’s obviously a position where there is some sort of work involved.
So, not meaningless.
But not exploding with impact either.
Jeeze, what are you a troll? You don’t believe me so what, do your own research and prove me wrong. I don’t care if Ellison resigns or runs for president that is his choice. The allegation is Ellison is NOT co chair of the DNC and the claim was he is assistant DNC chair. Well he wasn’t named that either he was named Deputy Chair. No such thing in the DNC rules. And I’ll damn well write what I want now go play in the street.
Oh, you’re free to write you want- even if it’s without basis in fact. And I’ll call you out if it is without basis.
Like, if you said you read or are well-versed in the DNC rules. I know you’re not, and no one from Bretibart is either. I know this because they’re so boring that no one knows them unless they have to. And if someone did read them there is probably significant room for interpretation, making it a matter of opinion not fact. But you made a statement without passing on firsthand knowledge obtained through research or linking to an analysis or opinion piece, or otherwise giving any shred of anything more than that is was a whiff of random opinion based on– nothing.
Which is what is truly meaningless.
Fyi, trolls prod to enjoy the negative response to the prodding.
I’m calling BS, which is something with actual meaning.
Why?
Because we can make this site better, we can elevate discussions, we can better educate each other- if we read, pass on our well-informed opinion, or research, or link to others who did the same.
Raising the bar.
Guitars all over the place:
Andrew the problem is not Charlie. It is YOU and the democrats that don’t care a whit about honesty or justice. They proved and thanks for revving up the base to keep the domestic terrorists from winning a single seat.
“It is unjust to investigate. It is dishonest to expect honesty.
Don’t let terrorists win with free speech.”
It’s the last line which concerns me most, because governments in the past have called protests acts of terrorism before, in order to suppress them, jail political opponents indefinitely, etc.
I mean, you’re just a baby step away from that.
Say Heil to your puppeteer for me.
“Ain’t no way I would have been laughed out of court…”
After 35 years….with no corroboration….with no evidence…with no nothin? Sure you would have!
Nope.
Wouldn’t happen.
Assuming I could get into civil court after 35 years.
Which seems most unlikely.
But just upon facts and evidence?
Me for the W.
Good Lord! Yall just do not stop. You couldn’t get a search or an arrest warrant with the (35 year old) info that the prof presented. Seriously, Balance…there were no “facts” or “evidence” presented. Of any kind. There was only her testimony. Nothing else. Nothing.
I’m just responding to your non-stop-ness.
Is the age of the case your biggest concern?
I agree it is- especially for a civil matter.
But without any statute of limitations, or concerns of time, an accuser with that allegation could get an arrest warrant today.
Maybe the biggest thing about the age of the case is that the evidence- most notably memory- has been lost.
But if your whole argument is that it happened too long ago, that’s just weak.
Not a reason not to listen and appreciate the allegations with sincerity.
If it is as easy as you say, why hasn’t the Prof marched in and gotten an arrest warrant? Seriously? No snark. That would be The Left’s great Eff You revenge for this whole thing!
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!! “Not every victim is burning with righteous indignation.” Yet, she was apparently indignant enough to come forward in the first place…
If your side (Shumer, Feinstein…) thought there was any “there” there in pursuing that avenue, (an actual criminal arrest warrant and subsequent frog-marched arrest) they’d have been on this Saturday night.
I didn’t see one ounce of indignation in her testimony.
It may have been cathartic for her to tell her story, and she may have been compelled to testify if not.
See above: most victims are happy to not re-live the trauma, so letting it go is arguably her healthiest option at this point.
And while a prosecutor could proceed without her permission, it wouldn’t be a good case without her active involvement.
So some people are not vindictive. They speak their minds, and are at peace by letting it go.
Stop projecting all your emotions onto other people.
Maybe even learn from others.
Well having the FBI do a serious investigation of the allegation would have been a good start.
Is there anything you don’t see as a left/right issue?
While I’ve never been comfortable with blanket assumptions of allegations, I think circumstances do matter. In this case, it’s a simple risk matrix. If you can’t know whether the claims are true then you compare the risk of elevating someone to a lifetime position of power if they have done this sort of thing (and not owned up to it/shown they’ve grown to understand why it’s abhorrent) with the risk of denying an innocent man said lifetime position of power. To me, that’s an easy choice. Repeatedly I saw Republicans frame this in terms of what was fair to Kavanaugh when all along it should have been framed in terms of what is fair for the country. A person fit for the bench would have withdrawn to avoid staining the high court. A person fit for the bench would have told the truth about being an asshole in high school and college. If the people who were shouting about due process and innocent until proven guilty hadn’t actively called for locking up political opponents charged with no crime, it might ring less hollow.
The comparison with Keith Ellison is partisan trickery. Why not choose Al Franken for this piece?